Gay Patriot Header Image

The Self-Righteous (Religious) Zeal of the “Outers”

Posted by GayPatriotWest at 12:36 am - September 7, 2007.
Filed under: Outing Witchhunt

Welcome Instapundit Readers!!

Many of those who advocate the “outing” of closeted gay Republican staffers and elected officials justify their practice as exposing political hypocrisy. Yet, their definition of hypocrisy, depends, in large measure, on how they believe men who have sex with (or solicit sex from) other men should vote on “gay” issues. As if one must favor state recognition of gay marriage merely because he is attracted to other men. Or must favor non-discrimination laws protecting gay employees from being fired because of their sexuality.

There are compelling religious/cultural reasons to oppose gay marriage and compelling libertarian reasons to oppose non-discrimination laws, reasons not based on animus against gays. I’m not saying these view are right. I do understand the former arguments and agree with the latter. I’m just saying there are a number of reasons to oppose such legislation.

Yet, the “outers,” those who would expose the sexuality of public figures (or those who work for such public figures), gay Republicans (or Republicans who solicit sex with other men) must toe a certain line lest the “outers” make public their private lives, including the most embarrassing details.

While I have criticized soon-to-be-former Idaho Senator Larry Craig, I have not joined the chorus of left-wing bloggers (and at least one sensible centrist) in faulting him for his hypocrisy. First of all, the man seems to experience dissociation between what he does when he goes to relieve himself in a public restroom and what he says when he speaks out (and votes) in public fora. Moreover, he doesn’t need to vote a certain way just because he’s (apparently) attracted to other men.

I may discount the hypocrisy argument, but critics of the GOP seem to celebrate it. As Robbie, now of The Malcontent observed two years ago, “The hypocrisy argument is a tactic used by thought fascists who believe an immutable personal characteristic must dictate – without exception – the ideological and political state of a person’s mind.

The “outers” define the meaning of hypocrisy to suit their purposes. Or maybe they’re just trying to put a highfalutin gloss to their own prurient passions, a strange fascination with the sexual behavior of a handful of their ideological adversaries and a perverse glee in making that public.

In yesterday’s Washington Post Marc Fisher wrote that such “work requires” the “outers” to “play God” (Via Michael Silence via Instapundit). As if they know better than the rest of us. An attitude not too different from that of religious zealots. Indeed, the very title of the column, focusing on the actions of blogger Michael Rogers, Who Among Us Would Cast the First Stone? This Guy suggests that Rogers has the same certainty of belief as do those judgmental voices on the religious right whom his allies on the left are ever eager to criticize.

Fisher is right to ask, “who elected him moral arbiter?” A question not too different than that many ask of social conservatives eager to label gay people sinners.

Like me, Fisher questions if these outings “liberate anyone” or if they “just add another bolt and chain to the closet door.”

I agree that these outings don’t accomplish much, but wonder at the religious zeal with which the outers attempt to make their case. For they seem to know how all gay people should vote on certain issues. Just as certain social conservatives seem to know how all people should express their sexuailty.

Both groups act as if they know better than the rest of us. And neither seems to understand the complicated lives, the perplexing passions and personal struggles of those whose political beliefs or sexual orientation makes them so uncomfortable.

Share

96 Comments

  1. All I can add to this thread is that I am pleased to see that we are debating the actual issue here, without resorting to the name-calling and vitriol that are the hallmarks of our leftist counterparts at Kos and DU. This type of discussion would never have lasted two seconds on those blogs.

    Bruce & Dan, thank you for doing what you do.

    You all make me very proud to be a reader/contributor on this board.

    Regards,
    Peter H.

    Comment by Peter Hughes — September 7, 2007 @ 5:11 pm - September 7, 2007

  2. […] Silence is proud to have inspired this post by Gay Patriot that takes on a blogger who has made it his business to out closeted gay Republicans: There are […]

    Pingback by Volunteer Voters » Outing The Outers — September 7, 2007 @ 5:43 pm - September 7, 2007

  3. If he is closeted and he works to harm gay people then he needs to be outed. Their closets will no longer be protected. He has a choice he can abstain from voting on legislation that harms gay people but when he works to pass legislation then he needs to outed.

    Comment by Matthew — September 7, 2007 @ 8:09 pm - September 7, 2007

  4. I agree. This is not an issue of hypocrisy. “Outing” is about exposing deception.

    I have no problem with someone who is gay being a Republican. Gay Republicans are entitled to vote against their own self-interest. Indeed, we see it time and again, many do.

    However, our elected officials are not entitled to the mass deception that living in the closet requires. Honesty is a character issue and if an elected official is gay, they should be forthright with the voters.

    Larry Craig lives a life predicated on a lie. That is a relevant character issue when electing a public official.

    Comment by Chase — September 7, 2007 @ 9:44 pm - September 7, 2007

  5. #53

    To what end?

    Also, are you telling us that a Senator should vote for what they want and not what their voters want? Is that what the liberals do?

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — September 7, 2007 @ 10:02 pm - September 7, 2007

  6. And if it’s all about punishment for “harming gays”, then when the hell are liberals going to pay the price, Matthew?

    Lord bj gave us DOMA and DADT and the left still have their lips clamped to his sack. Same with the Texas sodomy law. Liberals never paid the price for that one. Nobody ever punished Anne Richards either.

    In reality, the liberals have done more to “harm gays” than Repulicans and they get rewarded for it. They get millions of dollars in cash and the enduring “no matter what” love and adoration of gay lemmings.

    The gay left is very comparable to battered spouses who won’t do anything about it because “he loves me!”. I always have hopes that people are better than that, but some people are just hopelessly dumb and there ain’t a whole hell of a lot you can do for them.

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — September 7, 2007 @ 10:12 pm - September 7, 2007

  7. For the left, if you have standards and principles you have to be perfect, so they have none. I’d rather have principles and betray them and still try to live up to them.

    Peg C, I agree with that 1000%. I simply must pause to disagree, however, with some of the language with which you surrounded it:

    …having standards and principles and betraying them… is human… we are all weak.

    We are weak due to the parts of our nature which are *not* strikingly human. I.e., the parts of our nature we have in common with animals. To *keep* one’s standards and principles, is distinctively human.

    Take Larry Craig as an illustration. If “having standards and principles and betraying them is human”, then we, like the Left, should secretly admire him for being such a “human” in his betrayal of his own standards and principles. We do not. Instead, we (or at least I) feel a certain contempt and sadness for the way he discarded or disrespected his own humanity, and the humanity of those around him.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — September 8, 2007 @ 12:24 am - September 8, 2007

  8. I have been commenting on this piece of human excrement, Rodgers, since the Craig drama unfolded. Outing people is one of the most immoral things anyone can do. Everyone, and that includes gays and lesbians, in and out, has their own story and why they chose to either be in or out. Also, it may surprise excrement like Rodgers that some gay and lesbian people, for what ever reason, do NOT support same sex marriage. The last time I checked our Declaration of Independence and constitution, there is nothing in either document that calls for group-think. But, who in the hell gives this piece of human, no inhuman garbage the right to “out” people? NOTHING! This creep needs to grow up and stop being a part of the left-wing gay/lesbian agenda. And, way to go # 56! I will never understand, these people will bash the right and President Bush, yet who is leading the fight against the Islamofacists that if, God forbid, took over would round up the gays and lesbians first and kill them? It is not the left that “feels” for them. Why doesn’t Mike Rodgers sign up in one of the service branches and fight the real terrorists in the Middle East and leave people alone?

    Comment by Mark J. Goluskin — September 8, 2007 @ 1:35 am - September 8, 2007

  9. I have been commenting on this piece of human excrement, Rodgers, since the Craig drama unfolded. Outing people is one of the most immoral things anyone can do.

    You’re too kind. This ass hat would be the first to squeal like Ned Beatty about the governement being in his bedroom, but apparently has no qualms inserting himself in others.

    WTF is the point of a national coming out day (which is supposed to encourage people to come out ON THEIR OWN), when you have sick bastards like this doing it for them?

    Bruce had it right many moons ago when he added the wanted poster to the blog. Too damn bad he got spanked for being honest. He “crossed” a liberal team killing fcuktard and had his castanetts busted. Go figure that one.

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — September 8, 2007 @ 3:38 am - September 8, 2007

  10. I thought I read somewhere that this Mike Rogers may be in trouble with the law for extortion.

    Did I see what I think I saw? Anyone?

    Comment by Will (American Elephant) — September 8, 2007 @ 4:15 am - September 8, 2007

  11. If he is closeted and he works to harm gay people then he needs to be outed. Their closets will no longer be protected. He has a choice he can abstain from voting on legislation that harms gay people but when he works to pass legislation then he needs to outed.

    Translation: You think you have a right to harm people who disagree with you. Whats next? Gonna gay-bash him? Perhaps have him poisoned? Disappeared?

    Some other people who felt they had a right to harm people who disagreed with them: Stalin, Hitler, Saddam Hussein, Mao, Castro, Che, Pol Pot…

    Comment by Will (American Elephant) — September 8, 2007 @ 4:39 am - September 8, 2007

  12. ILC, I can’t disagree with you but that’s a bit of a distinction without a difference for me. Humans, as opposed to animals, have or should have standards and principles by which to live. Failing to live by them I guess one can say reverts us back to our animal nature — agreed. We are animals first and foremost but we have the unique human ability to perceive, understand, change and discipline our behavior. We cannot change our nature (something the left does not understand) but we can change our behavior.

    I was a psych major back when behavior modification was the big deal. It seemed shallow and fake to me then, but I’ve come to realize that treating the underlying psychosis that causes aberrant or antisocial or abusive behaviors is a much dicier prospect and I have lost a lot of respect for the profession. Not to mention, it’s been completely hijacked by the pomo-transi-multiculti p.c. crowd. So has any sensible discussion of homosexuality.

    What I am saying is it is perfectly possible to be a married, closeted gay or bi person (someone like Craig) and NOT act on such urges in a public restroom. My guess is he WOULD have benefitted from psychoanalysis way back when had he even been able to admit to a problem — which seems pretty evident he was not. I also guess he has lived in fear of being outted for many years, if indeed he is what we now believe he is. He is a pathetic, weak person of terrible judgment and totally lacking in impulse control and self-discipline. For those reasons he should leave office. Republican or Democrat makes no difference in this regard.

    I’m avoiding discussion of the religious aspects — and religion is uniquely human, and definitely seen as weakness and an Achilles Heel by many on the left. Actually the left would prefer to reduce us to our animal nature completely. Generally speaking it is the right that believes for religious or other reasons that we can and must rise above our animalistic natures. Furthermore, these are moral choices, and a moral choice cannot be made unless freely made. Free choice is not an option for animals. We are not simply animals or we wouldn’t be having these discussions.

    On another note, there is a reason gay Republican officials tend to be closeted, but it has as much to do with the homophobic left’s bigoted views of the social conservative base as or more than it does the conservative base. Further, ask Republicans if they would vote for an openly gay politician. I would, if it were a GayPatriot or Eric Scheie type. I don’t vote for Dems anymore, gay or straight. They are all hypocrites. (I know a lot of Dems who whisper nasties about their gay co-workers.)

    Comment by Peg C. — September 8, 2007 @ 7:45 am - September 8, 2007

  13. 41, Roberto, I live in the same county as the Reverend Steele (but not in the same legislative district). He was also an undersheriff in my county. He has resigned that post, but he has not resigned his assembly post as yet. I read the account in the Newark Star Ledger (a fairly liberal newspaper), and they listed the political affiliation of six of the individuals (5 Democrats and 1 Republican), so I don’t see the attempt to hide the political affiliation. Five of the other six were public officials, but I believe were in officially nonpartisan posts, such as boards of education. I lean Democrat and I deplore the actions of these scum, and hope that the U.S. Attorney in NJ and others continue to root out the corruption here.

    I am against outing anyone for any reason. Although I understand those who want to out those who are clearly anti-gay in their votes and rhetoric, Dan and others raise good reasons why outing in these extreme cases is still wrong.

    As for Craig, I don’t know if he is a hypocrite or not. But he insisted he is not gay, as if that would be his worst problem. Yes, I understand he could be bisexual (although I personally believe his orientation is gay, or perhaps bisexual with a strong leaning on the gay side), but he clearly was not willing to admit that. For those that argue that it’s not any of our business, that’s fine. But he made it his business to tell us what orientation he supposedly isn’t, instead of simply saying his orientation is no one else’s business.

    If his moral standards are that homosexuality is a sin, and no one should engage in it, then I disagree with it, and frankly I question his character as someone who, in his position, should know better. Heartless, you’ve made some good and respectful points. But with all due respect, I believe homosexuality is a sin as much as I believe eating pork and shellfish, or going to an altar with glasses is a sin. But that’s my opinion. My understanding is that Craig’s votes and rhetoric is that his public beliefs of homosexuality should be codified into law, and that no one should engage in homosexuality.

    So there are two possibilities. 1. He actually believes it. 2. He doesn’t.

    In the first case, then being weak would be the best characterization of Craig. But that’s not the stance (no pun intended, at least when I first wrote it) that he is taking. Again, he could have taken the stand of not disclosing what sexual orientation he allegedly isn’t, and simply say for legal reasons, he is withdrawing his guilty plea. But he didn’t. So I would characterize him as a liar along with being weak in that case.

    In the second case, one can argue hypocrisy. Then he is saying that no one, except him, should be allowed to engage in homosexual sex. Since this would contradict his public stance, obviously he would have to use some discretion. And apparently he found that bathroom sex was the best way for him to accomplish that. And if he gets caught, pull out the “I am a U.S. Senator card.” So I would add the characterizations of above the law and disdain if that was the case.

    Dan, I’m not sure there is the dissociation that you suggest regarding Craig. I believe he knows what he did and what he is (whatever that is). But publicly, he has no qualms lying about it. And he may also be doing this, because perhaps his wife doesn’t know, or has to have the appearance that she doesn’t know. Privately, at most, I think he may be using semantics to say he isn’t gay, because he is married and apparently has had sex with his wife on occasion.

    Will, I agree with you that outing harms people. Another reason that I’m against outing. But it is frustrating when people like Craig, Helms, Santorum, Byrd, and many others also do their best to harm gay persons. So I don’t think these people are any better or worse than people who out others, and are as deserving with the name connections you’ve made.

    Peg, I disagree with your reasons that gay Republicans are closeted. True, many on the left are bigoted towards social conservatives. But for gay Reupublicans to use that as an excuse, I don’t buy it. If they come out and the hypocrisy and other names come out, it should be easy to counter, just like many have done on this post. It’s not like they are going to lose votes from the left who wouldn’t vote for them anyway whether they were straight or gay. On the other hand, who do you think will change from being a supporter to an opponent? Of course, not all, but enough that they may not be reelected the next time.

    Comment by Pat — September 8, 2007 @ 9:08 am - September 8, 2007

  14. it is frustrating when people like Craig, Helms, Santorum, Byrd, and many others also do their best to harm gay persons.

    I am unaware that any of those individuals have done anything to harm gay people. Except for maybe Byrd’s Klan buddies, they’ve done nothing except hurt the feelers of gay people by opposing some aspects of their political agenda.

    Comment by V the K — September 8, 2007 @ 9:24 am - September 8, 2007

  15. V the K, I am not talking about those who maybe don’t support gay marriage, or maybe don’t want hate crime bills (for any class of people), or a couple of other issues where there are valid philosophical differences. I am talking about the virulently anti-gay folks who always vote anti-gay all the time, want to eradicate rights from gay persons, and back it up with hate rhetoric. Look at Craig. He made the issue more about his not being gay, as opposed to seeking sex in a bathroom, as if being gay was worse. I would say that harms gay people, especially those who live in Idaho and other places still rather anti-gay. If that’s overdramatizing what these said politicians do, then I wouldn’t oppose outing, because it would only hurt the “feelers” of these individuals who are called gay publicly. But I don’t. I believe that these anti-gay politicians are contemptible, but outing the closeted ones doesn’t help, and I found some of the actions of the outers to be contemptible.

    Comment by Pat — September 8, 2007 @ 11:19 am - September 8, 2007

  16. Pat, my comment about not revealing party affilation was based on my reading The Philadelphia Inquirer. As I stated, it was not mentioned, I made no judgment as to intention. However, thank you for your information and also your take on the situation but are Democrats in either the county or state expressing outrage? Are party official speaking out or are they supportive or just plain mute?

    Republicans seem to take the higher road. Nixon resigned when Senator Baker told him there is a cancer on the predsidency. To me
    Watergate was no more serious than a defensive team football player surreptitiously joining in the offensive team´s huddle and listening to the play plan. What is it worth a 15 yard penalty? During the Clinton sex scandals I remember only Senator Joe Lieberman expressing concern as to goings on in the White house while everybody else was saying whats the big deal with the only other exception that I heard about second hand; was after Senator Biden explained to his daughter what hullabaloo was about her comment was, ¨Oh he´s a scum bag.¨

    Outing is such an invasion of privacy and we have so little left. When has a Republican outed a Democrat?

    Comment by Roberto — September 8, 2007 @ 12:40 pm - September 8, 2007

  17. Pat, do you have any examples of any of the individuals you named specifically introducing legislation that would inflict substantive harm to gay people? I mean, some people may think it’s “harmful” that they can’t get a piece of paper from the government that calls their relationship a “marriage,” but on the scale of all the ill that can befall one, that ranks well below many others.

    Many policies pursued by the left on the other hand… increased confiscation of earned income, bureaucratized health care that denies the individual the right to choose his own doctor and course of care, and disarming law abiding citizens … those policies would appear to result in more material harm to gay people than denial of a marriage license.

    As for “hate rhetoric,” first of all, lately “hateful rhetoric” means nothing more than expressing an opinion that leftists disagree with. But even if you could come up with examples of any of those individuals stating that they hated gay people, much less inciting others to cause harm to gay people, most of us learned by, oh say, kindergarten, a little rhyme that began “sticks and stones…”

    Comment by V the K — September 8, 2007 @ 12:44 pm - September 8, 2007

  18. On the other hand, the fear of being accused of “hateful rhetoric” can result in real, substantial, measurable harm.

    Comment by V the K — September 8, 2007 @ 12:49 pm - September 8, 2007

  19. I thought Roll Call “outed” Craig. Sure, Rogers had been around talking about Craig, but virtually nobody was listening.

    But I think some of y’all are missing the point. I think the “outing” phenomenon is less about policy and more about psychology. There ARE Republicans (and a very few Dems) that cultivate the support of people who not only oppose LGBT civil rights, but oppose LGBT people. If an official votes for public policy initiatives that give succor to those groups, then their own personal behavior can be called into question.

    Does that mean that I believe that every official that votes against the mainstream Gay community on any initiative should be outed. Not necessarily. However, that closeted official should make certain that the anti-Gay groups and the public knows that he/she does not support them. Its the pandering that justifies the outing in my opinion.

    If someone seeks to gain office by supporting groups that think that Gay people are disgusting and should be denied liberties, rights, and obligations simply because they are Gay, then accusations of their own homosexuality is a valid question.

    Comment by Tom in Houston — September 8, 2007 @ 1:15 pm - September 8, 2007

  20. But, of course, no one ever faults the Democrats for pandering to far left groups like the DailyKos crowd who respond to the murder of Americans in Iraq with “Screw ’em,” or aligning themselves with radical socialists like George Soros or International ANSWER. Even when such pandering encourages our terrorist enemies to continue fighting and killing American soldiers.

    Comment by V the K — September 8, 2007 @ 1:40 pm - September 8, 2007

  21. 70..I thought this was about outing. Exactly how are Daily Kos, Soros, and terrorism relate to this?

    Comment by Tom in Houston — September 8, 2007 @ 2:08 pm - September 8, 2007

  22. Well, what if it were a woman politician and she was opposed to abortion and continuously espoused how bad it was. And then she is getting abortions on the side. This very case has actually happened in the past and I didn’t hear so much fuss about “outing” her and her hypocrisy. I view it much in the same light. That’s fine if you politicians want to say these aren’t my personal views, but I am voting the way my constituents want. That one thing, but lying about it a totally other subject. I am all for honestly and not for hypocrisy so yes, I do favor outing such politicians. We absolutely have a right to know.

    Comment by Paul — September 8, 2007 @ 2:15 pm - September 8, 2007

  23. “Pat, do you have any examples of any of the individuals you named specifically introducing legislation that would inflict substantive harm to gay people? I mean, some people may think it’s “harmful” that they can’t get a piece of paper from the government that calls their relationship a “marriage,” but on the scale of all the ill that can befall one, that ranks well below many others.”

    Are you kidding me? My sister is gay. Thankfully I live in Massachusetts and we are both treated equally. I think it’s ridiculous that you would say civil marriage rights isn’t a big deal. There are over 1000 civil liberties that come with marriage. That’s a lot. I know I would never give up my right to a marriage or want a lesser version known as civil unions. It’s just plain logical.

    Comment by Paul — September 8, 2007 @ 2:18 pm - September 8, 2007

  24. Tom, Senator Craig, roundly denies being gay. He is a pervert and should be viewed as such. Former Governor Mc Greevy of New Jersey was involved in a gay romance that went sour while having a wife. which lead to his downfall.

    Comment by Roberto — September 8, 2007 @ 3:06 pm - September 8, 2007

  25. Roberto,

    Point made. I’d like to also make a point about McGreevey. I think he played the Gay card so that the story was ‘he resigned because he was Gay’ instead of ‘he resigned ahead of a corruption probe’. As a mainstream Gay Democrat (what some on here call the ‘radical Gay left’), I was not happy with him either.

    Larry Craig is most likely homosexual/bisexual. I don’t consider him to be Gay. To be Gay (open, or at least honest with oneself) provides better options than a public park or an airport toilet.

    BTW, I think that there may be Gay (not homosexual – but Gay) GOP officials that are closeted. I’m thinking of one Governor, one Senator, and one Congressman. The rumors swirl, but nothing ever comes of them because just about everyone important at least suspects it and they generally avoid the ‘all Gays are disgusting’ crowd. There’s a difference between those three and a second GOP Congressman that is rumored to be homosexual (rather than Gay) from a southern state whom I would love to out.

    If the first Congressman, the Governor, or the Senator were outed in the MSM, it would be news, but not a scandal. Hell, they may even be able to hold onto their seats. Even in GOP primaries. If the southern Congressman were outed, it would be a scandal and he would most likely lose his seat. If I saw the first three in a Gay bar, I’d probably keep quiet (even though I’d NEVER vote for two of them). If I saw the fourth, I can’t say I’d be so nice. So for me, being a Republican matters, but not as much as HOW someone is a Republican.

    Comment by Tom in Houston — September 8, 2007 @ 3:50 pm - September 8, 2007

  26. While I’m not Christian, one thing I can point out about the hypocrisy/self-hatred argument is, that marriage is considered a scared institution. So, Christians would consider gay marriage to be an attack on their personal right to free religion. I think that’s why polls have shown a majority against gay marriage, but also a majority for civil unions. If you took the religious word out of government, where it doesn’t belong anyway, you could come much closer to equal rights for both gays without an amount of the opposition.

    Comment by Karen — September 8, 2007 @ 4:52 pm - September 8, 2007

  27. #62, Peg C:

    Humans, as opposed to animals, have or should have standards and principles by which to live… We are animals… but we have the unique human ability to perceive, understand, change and discipline our behavior. We cannot change our nature (something the left does not understand) but we can change our behavior.

    Agreed.

    What I am saying is it is perfectly possible to be a married, closeted gay or bi person (someone like Craig) and NOT act on such urges in a public restroom… He is a… person of terrible judgment and totally lacking in impulse control… For those reasons he should leave office. Republican or Democrat makes no difference…

    Agreed.

    …the left would prefer to reduce us to our animal nature completely. Generally speaking it is the right that believes for religious or other reasons that we can and must rise above our animalistic natures… Free choice is not an option for animals. We are not simply animals or we wouldn’t be having these discussions.

    Agreed.

    With so much agreement between us, what was my point, then? You saw it as “a bit of a distinction without a difference”.

    My point was/is simply this. I like precise concepts. As you have described, we have two large tendencies to our nature: an animal heritage, and the qualities that make us distinctively human – be they Reason, free will, morality, a divine spark, or however you look at it. The committed Left wants to make people forget it and drag everyone to the lowest common denominator; at which point they can be the top people, or “most equal” as Orwell would put it. One of their little tricks, that they have gotten a remarkable number of people to go along with, is that they look at error and weakness and degradation – in other words, at anything to do with giving in to one’s animal impulses – and call that “human”. And people like them who will call degradation “human”, are called people of remarkable “humanity”. I do not go along with that program.

    P.S. Thanks for the understanding and fairness of your reply, Peg. On other occasions when I’ve dared to suggest that reason, morality, etc. are our true and actual “human” nature, I’ve seen some real dunderheads on this blog flip out. And unfortunately, not all of them were (or understood themselves to be) leftists 😉

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — September 8, 2007 @ 5:03 pm - September 8, 2007

  28. Look at Craig. He made the issue more about his not being gay, as opposed to seeking sex in a bathroom, as if being gay was worse

    Um, isnt this entire thread about “outing” because in reaction to being caught Senator Craig was widely accused of being a hypocrite not because he was caught in a bathroom, but because being caught in a bathroom seemingly proves that HES GAY and voting against the gay agenda?

    Yes, I understand he could be bisexual (although I personally believe his orientation is gay, or perhaps bisexual with a strong leaning on the gay side)

    How on Earth could you possibly form that opinion? Yes, it appears he has a sexual attraction to other men, but how could you possibly think you have enough information to determine his precise orientation? Do you know something the rest of the world doesnt? Do you have a special gateway into his mind? Are you perhaps psychic?

    Comment by Will (American Elephant) — September 8, 2007 @ 6:34 pm - September 8, 2007

  29. Do you know something the rest of the world doesnt? Do you have a special gateway into his mind? Are you perhaps psychic?

    No, Will, he’s just a liberal. They always know what’s best for everyone.

    Comment by V the K — September 8, 2007 @ 6:47 pm - September 8, 2007

  30. So since you believe that Senator Craig is not a hypocrite, then answer me this. Why didn’t they demand the resignation of Vitter, who admitted he had sex with a prostitute. Isn’t that immoral and Republicans are God’s children so everything they do is moral and God’s will? Didn’t your best friend Pat Robertson pray for the death of Supreme Court judges so President GW can put in more Christian conservative people in there? Which leads to the question: the well known political creed is that if a Republican (who are Godlier than the Godless Democrats) is caught with a dead girl or a live boy, their political career is finished. Does that mean that if there’s a dead boy, the member of Congress gets automatically re-elected? And why is it that a dead girl’s life is worth so much more than a live boy?

    Comment by jaded and cynical — September 8, 2007 @ 11:10 pm - September 8, 2007

  31. 66 Pat, my comment about not revealing party affilation was based on my reading The Philadelphia Inquirer. As I stated, it was not mentioned, I made no judgment as to intention. However, thank you for your information and also your take on the situation but are Democrats in either the county or state expressing outrage? Are party official speaking out or are they supportive or just plain mute?

    As far as I know, only my partner and I have expressed outrage at the corruption. Actually, I haven’t read much since I saw the article in the Star Ledger, but did a quickie google search and saw that there is “outrage.” It looks more like political posturing to me. Yes, the Republicans are the ones that are calling for the resignations, while the Democrats have not, only expressing disappointment and waiting for due process, etc.. I would like to think that the Republicans would also try to get rid of their corrupt members. But I personally know of one Republican who had been jailed and only ousted after being caught, now working his way back into party leadership. I applaud Christie for his work, and hope he continues catching these scumbags. Maybe catching about 12 of these crooks a year will help politicians take corruption seriously and stop engaging in it. On a side note, I just cannot believe how stupid and arrogant these persons who are making 6 digit salaries with their posts feel the need to take a $5000 bribe.

    78, Um, isnt this entire thread about “outing” because in reaction to being caught Senator Craig was widely accused of being a hypocrite not because he was caught in a bathroom, but because being caught in a bathroom seemingly proves that HES GAY and voting against the gay agenda?

    Will, I’m sure Craig’s opponents (old and new) have their own motives. But I was speaking about Craig’s.

    How on Earth could you possibly form that opinion? Yes, it appears he has a sexual attraction to other men, but how could you possibly think you have enough information to determine his precise orientation? Do you know something the rest of the world doesnt? Do you have a special gateway into his mind? Are you perhaps psychic?

    Take a deep breath there. Okay. Now reread the part you quoted. I think it’s clear that I’m giving an opinion (I “believe”) and not making a definitive determination of Craig’s orientation. But since you asked how I came by my opinion, here goes. Craig got caught in a men’s room apparently seeking sex from a male. Before this event, there have been several rumors and allegations that Craig has done this several times before. My understanding is that Craig grew up in an environment in which homosexuality was frowned upon, so he did not have a viable option of living openly as a gay man. Craig continued publicly to be opposed to homosexuality and gay rights. Craig apparently sought sexual outlets other than his wife. In all these cases, despite his public stance, the sex of the person was always a male to my knowledge. Putting the pieces together, I came to my opinion. Others could come with a different opinion and obviously, I could be wrong. Dan stated an opinion in his post that there is dissociation on Craig’s part. Maybe I missed it, but I didn’t see the same concern for Dan’s opinion that you had of mine.

    67, V the K, again, I am not talking about just the issue of gay marriage. Certainly, we can both cite examples of politicians who were outed and the harm it caused. I cannot cite specific examples of what you ask. So for that, I concede defeat. It is still my opinion that the virulently hateful and anti-gay rhetoric of some politicians have been hurtful to young gay people growing up in the constituencies of these politicians. No, that’s not the only factor. Many of these individuals also grow up hearing this crap from their families, peers, and their local institutions. But these politicians, who should know better, reinforce the hate these young gay people hear. Ironically, I do believe that Craig himself is an example of one who has been harmed by the type of rhetoric he spewed, by other politicians before him. No, this does not mean that Craig is not responsible for his actions. Just because I am not ignoring the other factors that contributed to his actions does not mean I firmly believe he is responsible, and he should pay the consequences no matter what led him to the point to seek bathroom sex.

    But even if you could come up with examples of any of those individuals stating that they hated gay people, much less inciting others to cause harm to gay people, most of us learned by, oh say, kindergarten, a little rhyme that began “sticks and stones…”

    The same could be said for the politicians that were outed and their families then. Politicians know that hypocrisy, weakness, etc., will always be pointed out by opponents, like it or not. So when it happens, why don’t they just shrug it off? We can certainly debate which is worse…a wife being told in public that her husband cheated on her, or a young gay person being essentially told he is a worthless piece of garbage if he tries to seek the same happiness as his straight counterparts. They both seem pretty bad to me, and I condemn both actions.

    No, Will, he’s just a liberal. They always know what’s best for everyone.

    Careful, if Will is fair, he will ask you if you know what the rest of the world doesn’t know about me? Do you have a special gateway into my mind? Are you perhaps psychic? 😉

    Funny though, I sometimes feel the same way about conservatives knowing what’s best for everybody. In any case, I’m not sure why my opinion on Craig’s sexual orientation means that as a liberal, I apparently know what’s best for everybody. Others here, liberals, conservatives have also provided their best guess as to Craig’s orientation.

    Comment by Pat — September 9, 2007 @ 1:48 am - September 9, 2007

  32. If you took the religious word out of government, where it doesn’t belong anyway, you could come much closer to equal rights for both gays without an amount of the opposition.

    Strike that! Reverse it. The federal government should be taken out. They don’t belong there anyway. As it is not their job constitutionally, it should be left to the states to decide.

    But then the liberals have trained everyone to believe that state’s rights = racism, sexism, bigotry and homophobia.

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — September 9, 2007 @ 3:55 am - September 9, 2007

  33. Such a winding thread through this debate though I agree with an earlier comment that profanity and name-calling has been well restrained.
    Number one on the Democrats who have been outed list is Bill Clinton. What he went through for getting a blow job is no different than Senator Craig. The primary difference was his choice of partner gender and job status. Certainly, he played a long semantics game to avoid airing his personal life. Was he hypocritical about it? Never. Was one of his primary adversaries of the time, Newt, a hypocrite? Absolutely. Though Newt has of late played his own semantics game to make himself a viable candidate, the argument of the day was not did Bill lie but did Bill have sex.

    Comment by just john — September 9, 2007 @ 5:31 am - September 9, 2007

  34. ‘But then the liberals have trained everyone to believe that state’s rights = racism, sexism, bigotry and homophobia.’

    No – the people doing the association of state rights with your list can be summed up more accurately like this – ‘The States’ Rights Democratic Party was a segregationist, populist, socially conservative splinter-party of the Democratic Party in the mid-20th century who were determined to protect what they saw as the Southern “way of life” against an oppressive federal government.’ ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dixiecrat )

    If it makes you feel better, they were ‘Democrats’ – unfortunately, they left the ‘liberal’ Democrats a long time ago, having been successfully wooed by Nixon’s ‘Southern Strategy.’

    A bit more text –
    ‘Although the phrase Southern strategy is often attributed to Nixon strategist Kevin Phillips, he did not originate it[1], but merely popularized it[2]. In an interview included in a 1970 New York Times article, he touched on its essence:

    From now on, the Republicans are never going to get more than 10 to 20 percent of the Negro vote and they don’t need any more than that… but Republicans would be shortsighted if they weakened enforcement of the Voting Rights Act. The more Negroes who register as Democrats in the South, the sooner the Negrophobe whites will quit the Democrats and become Republicans. That’s where the votes are. Without that prodding from the blacks, the whites will backslide into their old comfortable arrangement with the local Democrats.”[3] ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_Strategy )

    Strange how when Republicans successfully pursue an electoral strategy stretching over my entire life (to give an idea of my age, when I was born, it was illegal for a white and a black to marry in Virginia), ‘liberals’ are blamed. Intriguingly, in the quote above from Nixon strategist Kevin Phillips, he was counting on the liberals to make this strategy succeed, to wit – ‘Negrophobe whites will quit the Democrats and become Republicans.’

    I think drawing the parallel to homophobes shouldn’t be that hard for a gay conservative to see in practice in American electoral politics over the last couple of decades.

    Rewriting history to fit a script seems to be an increasingly frightening American obsession. At least for Southerners, black and white, the meaning of ‘state’s rights’ has always been abundantly clear, though more subtle than a burning cross.

    Comment by uh_uh — September 9, 2007 @ 6:14 am - September 9, 2007

  35. The southern strategy? What was that, 40 years ago? I realize most democrats and most of the dinosaurs who run the MSM are still stuck in 1968, but a lot of the rest of the country has moved into the 21st century. Except as a rhetorical cudgel used by leftists to accuse Republicans of racism, that old has no relevance to contemporary political debate. Except to the extent people still believe it.

    Ironically, the only person in high government office who ever burned a cross on anyone’s front yard is the senior Democrat senator from West Virginia.

    Comment by V the K — September 9, 2007 @ 9:18 am - September 9, 2007

  36. V the K –
    you might actually want to read the linked information, especially the following –

    ‘Its success began at the presidential level, gradually trickling down to statewide offices, the Senate and House, as legacy segregationist Democrats retired or switched to the GOP. The strategy suffered a brief apparent reversal following Watergate, with broad support for the racially progressive Southern Democrat, Jimmy Carter in 1976. But with Ronald Reagan kicking off his 1980 presidential campaign proclaiming support for “states’ rights” in Philadelphia, Mississippi, the site of the murder of three civil rights workers in 1964’s Freedom Summer, the Southern Strategy was back to stay. Although another Southern Democrat, Bill Clinton, would twice be elected President, winning a handful of Southern states, he did better outside the South, and would have won without carrying any Southern State.’

    Strangely, I have yet to hear Republicans denigrate Reagan as someone from 1968, or Democrats claim Clinton was so last century.

    And to continue –
    ‘Recently, the term has been used in a more general sense, in which cultural themes are used in an election — primarily but not exclusively in the American South. In the past, phrases such as “busing” or “law and order” or “states’ rights” were used as code words. Today, appeals largely focus on cultural issues such as gay marriage, abortion, and religion. Yet, the use of the term, and its meaning and implication, are still hotly disputed.’

    Such a dispute being seen here, it seems. And yet, strangely, those from the South seem completely clear on the concept. Must be another one of those things which you either get or don’t – and as you pointed out, a lot of old sourthern Democrats were very comfortable in their clannish surroundings, which is why most of those illiberal Democrats seem to changed party affiliation over a generation.

    And to get back to the point about outing – a lot of those ‘reformed’ former Democrats claimed they aren’t any more racist than Craig admits he is gay. To a certain extent, homophobia is what has replaced racism, even as the rhetoric remains strikingly similar – read the Loving v. Virginia state court opinion, which includes ‘Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, Malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix.’ to get a feeling for how such rhetoric can be easily adapted. ‘Adam and Steve’ anyone?

    I will admit, along with Andrew Sullivan, watching supporters of state rights attempt to pass a constitutional amendment preventing states from exercising their rights is a wonderful public display of the sort of hypocrisy which does actually lend credence to the idea that outing is a necessary weapon in a political battle where the opponents seems to change their beliefs without any regard to anything but the consistency of retaining power.

    Nothing new of course, it is a fact of political life which has always transcended any political party or philosophy. And it is always amusing to see people who identify with one perspective argue that only their opponents sink to such depths.

    Comment by uh_uh — September 9, 2007 @ 10:29 am - September 9, 2007

  37. It’s not liberals who defined states rights as racism. It was the segregationists who defined it that way. And that’s how it’s almost always used. Where are states’ rights when it comes to medicinal marijuana or assisted suicide. (NOT btw making a case either way just point out that the party that supposedly believes in states’ rights takes the opposite position when states do things they don’t like.)

    Comment by HT — September 9, 2007 @ 11:19 am - September 9, 2007

  38. Roberto, my last post is still in moderation, and probably will be labeled post #80 when it gets added. But to add what I posted there, Gov. Corzine did ask for the two assemblymen involved to resign, and they apparently will tomorrow.

    Comment by Pat — September 9, 2007 @ 11:38 am - September 9, 2007

  39. Thnak you, Pat.

    uh_uh, Nixon was not a racist. He may well have acceeded to the southern strategy to win. Look at the times, the Kennedy assassination was still fresh in peoples´minds. In 1964 Goldwater never had a chance, The Dems could´ve won with an oragutan on top of the ticket. So there was some logic to the southern strategy. Nixon campaigned on black capitalism. He stated ¨Blacks do not want a hand out, they want a hand up¨It is through his efforts that the SBA helped many balck entreprenuers get started and they are the backbone of Black Republican clubs throughout the USA, such as the Frederck Douglas East Side West Side Repubican Club, in Los Angeles. Racism is not an appropriate label for Republicans, Edmund Brooke a Republican Senator long before Carol Mosely Brown. Then there is Alan Keyes in 2000 the first serious candidate for President , an African American man before Obama. The Secretary of Education during the first term of George W. and has anybody noticed our Secretaries of State since 2001, Colin Powell and Condi Rice both qualified to be President. Shelby Steele , Lt Gov of Maryland and on and on. Also, George W. appointed several openly gay men (nost from Log Cabin clubs to posts as well. He might
    have said some things that the gay7 Dems may not like but our President is no homophobe.

    Comment by Roberto — September 9, 2007 @ 4:26 pm - September 9, 2007

  40. Nixon may or may not have been a racist, but he knowingly exploited racism for politican gain. That’s not a distinction that is terribly comforting. It’s like the people who tell me that the modern GOP isn’t REALLY anti-gay, just willing to exploit homophobia to win elections. Gee I feel LOADS better hearing that.

    Comment by HT — September 9, 2007 @ 6:35 pm - September 9, 2007

  41. Nixon may or may not have been a racist, but he knowingly exploited racism for politican gain.

    How about telling people that if they vote for Bush, they support black churches being burned or dragging black ment to their deaths? Seems to me that the purveyor’s of those lies believed that black people are too damn stupid to know any better and think for themselves.

    Then there’s integration, bussing and Affirmative Action. All of that assumes that blacks are incapable of doing for themselves. Nevermind that many didn’t want it because the liberals knew what was best for them. Nevermind that there’s been no evidence to suggest that integration has been a positive as far as education goes. Don’t look at the results of liberal actions, only look at their intentions.

    Seems racist to me for white liberals to assume that blacks, Hispanics, Asians etc. are too stupid to figure out life on their own. And of course the liberals would say that I’m a racist for knowing that they are.

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — September 9, 2007 @ 7:25 pm - September 9, 2007

  42. Wow, how confusing. Did I misunderstand or didn’t Larry Craig out himself by engaging in a well known ritual of sex solicitation and then plead guilty to a negotiated charge of disorderly conduct? I think the law under which he was arrested is completely stupid, since the ritual’s function is to filter out the disinterested, but he broke the law. Why are you blaming Mike Rogers? The arrest and plea were reported by Roll Call.

    Also: Hypocrisy per se is not the issue. The issue is that people like Craig advocate legally mandated policies that punish gay people for their sex lives. They take a position that they cannot even uphold themselves and, instead of asking whether the position might not need to be changed, they simply deny their own inability to live the policy, obey the law, themselves.

    Yes, of course, they have a right to advocate laws that they can’t even follow themselves, but at some point, it might be wiser to ask exactly what function is served by a law that its most rabid supporters can’t follow.

    This, continuing to support laws that are insupportable by their own loudest advocates, is the issue — not hypocrisy itself, which is just an annoying byproduct of the failure to uphold their own philosophy.

    Comment by caligrafic — September 9, 2007 @ 11:58 pm - September 9, 2007

  43. ThatGayConservative-
    Let’s rewrite your comment’s conclusion –

    ‘Seems liberal to me for black conservatives to assume that whites, men, the rich, etc. are too smart to figure out life on their own. And of course the racists would say that I’m a liberal for knowing that they are.’

    Seems to make about the same amount of sense, actually. Binary thinking is really one of America’s greatest weaknesses, in a world full of color and confusion, not black and white.

    ‘All of that assumes that blacks are incapable of doing for themselves.’ You of course are familar with separate but equal in education, right? The fact that blacks were forbidden from attending whites only schools? That at least in Virginia, in the time of Massive Resistance, public schools were actually closed instead of allowing racial mixing? Of course, if it makes you feel better when confronting the facts of American history, the racists of that time proudly themselves called Democrats, then please, feel comforted. As long as you recognize how ugly the racists were, regardless of the political party they claimed to be in. Read about Massive Resistance first – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massive_Resistance You might be surprised that not a single black person seems to have been involved in it, except in the role of the ones being resisted against.

    Comment by uh_uh — September 10, 2007 @ 12:38 am - September 10, 2007

  44. None of you will ever understand how the Republican Party has become the last refuge of Southern racists and bigots until you live in the heart of it. I will never forget the day I was standing in the driveway of a classic car mechanic friend in Columbia, SC. Another “gentleman” visitor was on the subject of his car and the original owner, “a jag dealer who bought it for his faggot boyfriend.” This was followed up with “I’m a conservative and that means I hate fags.”
    While I continue to be a gun owner and advocate of minimal interference of government into private lives, there is not a sitting South-Eastern Republican who will ever be able to move beyond that statement and earn my vote.

    Comment by just john — September 10, 2007 @ 1:49 pm - September 10, 2007

  45. So, one bigoted “gentleman” of uncertain political affiliation makes a statement and you decide to use that as a basis of hate and prejudice against all southern Republicans.

    But I’m sure you don’t consider yourself a close-minded bigot.

    Comment by V the K — September 10, 2007 @ 4:02 pm - September 10, 2007

  46. Good grief. Stop this Vitter vs. Craig nonsense. The only reason Craig and Vitter were treated differently is due to the party affiliations of their respective constituents. Craig is from a Republican state, so he’s expendable. Enough already.

    Comment by HardHobbit — September 13, 2007 @ 8:36 pm - September 13, 2007

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.