The Self-Righteous (Religious) Zeal of the “Outers”
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.
“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.’
Thanks for stating this so clearly. For Larry Craig, a lie detetor test response to “I’m not gay. I have never been gay” would register as truth. He might as well as been accused of being a lawn chair.
Comment by Tom — September 7, 2007 @ 12:47 am - September 7, 2007
And thank you, Tom, for noticing that line. I agree with you about Larry Craig and the lie detector test.
Comment by GayPatriotWest — September 7, 2007 @ 12:57 am - September 7, 2007
It is interesting how similar the extremes are. They have so much more in common with one another than people who are somewhere in the middle.
Extremists have no concept of nuance or of understanding the complexity that is the normal state for most human experience.
They also tend to share the misguided belief that exposing the “evil” is a good unto itself. Regardless of the real outcome of their actions.
It was Charlie Brown of “The Peanuts” who said it best: “I love mankind, it’s people I can’t stand”. That pretty much defines all extremists, they love their personal ideal, and have no regard for living breathing people who cannot possibly live up to those ideals.
Comment by Leah — September 7, 2007 @ 12:59 am - September 7, 2007
As Ann Coulter wrote yesterday:
Liberals don’t even know what they mean by “hypocrite” anymore. It’s just a word they throw out in a moment of womanly pique, like “extremist” — or, come to think of it, “gay.” How is Craig a “hypocrite,” much less a “blatant hypocrite”?
Nevermind that the liberals were more hypocritical than Craig could ever hope to be if he were so inclined.
Comment by ThatGayConservative — September 7, 2007 @ 1:46 am - September 7, 2007
When Larry Craig said that he wasn’t gay, many people(especially gays) accused him of being a hypocrite. If he had been arrested for being a Streight, he could have said that he was not, because it is obviously that he is not. What so many people do not realize is that there is another gender(?). Its bi-sexual. If you are bi-sexual, you had better stay out of politics because you have the ‘outers’ and people from the other party watching you at all times. If you are Gay, you can be a Democrate. How sad.
Comment by John W — September 7, 2007 @ 2:42 am - September 7, 2007
I still think Craig should just switch parties–hed go from being a hypocrite to being a victim faster than you can tap your toe.
Comment by Will (American Elephant) — September 7, 2007 @ 3:07 am - September 7, 2007
It was Charlie Brown of “The Peanuts” who said it best: “I love mankind, it’s people I can’t stand”.
Just for the record, that was Linus Van Pelt.
Comment by Rand Simberg — September 7, 2007 @ 7:46 am - September 7, 2007
[...] * Posted by Lost My Cookies @ 11:39 am | Trackback Share This [...]
Pingback by Yer out! — September 7, 2007 @ 8:09 am - September 7, 2007
Your sex life is your own personal affair and nobody else, least of all the government’s, business.
Unless you are gay.
Comment by B Moe — September 7, 2007 @ 8:22 am - September 7, 2007
I don’t support outing people, but I have sympathy with the hypocrisy argument to this extent: The hypocrisy doesn’t lie in one’s stance on particular political issues. It is in the tacit agreement, by silence, with the fundamentalist view of homosexuality. By remaining in the closet and voting with the religious conservatives, Craig gave his assent to the belief that homosexuality is an abomination. Therein lies the hypocrisy. It doesn’t matter whether he defines himself as bisexual, because even part-time homosexuality is a sin, according to the fundamentalists. There is no inherent hypocrisy in being Republican and homosexual, but there is a hypocrisy in being homosexual, or bisexual, and standing on the side of the religious conservatives.
That doesn’t mean that we can’t have sympathy for people who lack the courage to be open about their sexuality, especially those who were born before, say, 1970. Their hypocrisy was forced on them by society. The “outers” have allowed their political passions to sink their human compassion, and, as you point out, they have become what they claim to hate: moralizing haters. If they are looking for hypocrisy, they should start with their own mirrors.
Comment by Ardsgaine — September 7, 2007 @ 8:48 am - September 7, 2007
Point of fact: Lucy said this, not Charlie Brown.
Comment by W.C. Green — September 7, 2007 @ 8:50 am - September 7, 2007
Is this really about showing these people are hypocrites, or a belief that right wing voters will disdain a gay politician, and thus, by showing a republican is gay (and claiming you do it to show the “hypocrisy of his position” as a cover), you hope to hurt his chances of being elected by this “bigotted” voters.
Comment by Vadeot — September 7, 2007 @ 8:54 am - September 7, 2007
Is a man having an affair with a married woman, even though he knows it’s wrong, a hypocrite, or is he simply weak?
Also, you draw an unjust moral equivalence between social conservatives who disagree with your position with decency, and liberal outers who aim for personal destruction.
Comment by Tennwriter — September 7, 2007 @ 9:08 am - September 7, 2007
Just Who Are The Hypocrites Here?…
The issue is whether Senator Craig is a hypocrite because he may be gay (or perhaps bi-sexual) and is “anti-gay marriage.”
…
Trackback by GM's Corner — September 7, 2007 @ 9:10 am - September 7, 2007
An evangelical Christian female caller told Rush Thursday that she is appalled at what happened to Craig - that he is not a hypocrite and that evangelicals do not immediately forsake such a person, as Dem and media tactics indicate should be the result.
I was raised Methodist but am not a practicing Christian. However, I do know that true Christianity requires true forgiveness. Just the idea that Dems and the Drive Bys use this to separate supposed “hypocritical” Republicans from their religious base is loathsome and preposterous. In my understanding, a true Christian would be understanding and forgiving. Some Christians are gay; others have gay children and friends. This hypocrisy thing really makes the liberals look like fools to those of us who can think these things and their implications through.
Comment by Peg C. — September 7, 2007 @ 9:17 am - September 7, 2007
Ardsgaine: “By remaining in the closet and voting with the religious conservatives, Craig gave his assent to the belief that homosexuality is an abomination. Therein lies the hypocrisy.”
Nonsense. It’s not hypocrisy to think something is an abomination and yet be compelled to engage in it. I know quite a few smokers, addicts, and even fat people who recognize that their behaviors are self destructive and will BEG you not to do them, yet they just can’t control themselves. I understand that people who beat their spouses or children often feel remorse.
Call them “morally weak,” “corrupt,” or “human,” but they are not hypocrites any more than a boxer who loses a fight is a hypocrite.
Comment by Bristlecone — September 7, 2007 @ 9:24 am - September 7, 2007
I am a religious conservative. It is my firm belief that the Bible clearly states that homosexuality is a sin. It is also my belief that you can’t pick and chose what parts of the Bible you agree with and still claim to hold those positions because of your religion.
Yet that is what happens again and again. Some religious conservatives act as if homosexuality is a sin in league with murder and rape. Yet in cases of murder and rape there is clearly a victim whereas in the case of homosexuality there is not. Those same religious conservatives who want to oppose homosexuality and treat homosexuals as if they are subhuman have no problem with people who are vain, gluttons, slothful, or covetous to name a few human traits. So which is it are people who stray from the ideals of the Bible subhuman scum who don’t deserve respect or are they fellow sinners who have weaknesses just like the rest of us?
At the other extreme there are people who do not respect the right of others to have a difference in opinion. It is their belief that it is not possible for someone to disapprove of homosexuality but to love homosexuals as brothers. As the other of the original post notes, there are some of us who do not like special rights based on group status but who oppose discrimination by the government as matter of principle. At the same time, nongovernmental organizations such as my church or the Boy Scouts should be free to discriminate because they have the right to have different beliefs.
Everyone sins. If you are slothful and/or vain we can still be friends. If you want to go out for a beer and talk football I am there. But don’t ask me to approve of your slothful, vain behavior. At the same time, I won’t mention the splinter in your eye if you don’t bring up my weight. Frankly, I don’t care if someone is gay, fat, lazy, arrogant or whatever. I can like people for the totality of who they are without having to approve of every single aspect of their lifestyle.
There are a lot of times when it seems like peopel believe that tolerance means that you should not have any opinion that disagrees with theirs instead of tolerance meaning that you want to live your life according to your beliefs but that others should be free to live their life according to their beliefs.
Comment by Heartless — September 7, 2007 @ 9:32 am - September 7, 2007
On re-reading, let me clarify that I’m not making an equivalence between homosexuality and drug or spouse abuse…but enough people do to explain why many do not regard Craig’s behaviour as “hypocrisy.”
Comment by Bristlecone — September 7, 2007 @ 9:35 am - September 7, 2007
Peg C.,
You are leaving out a lot of what needs to happen for forgiveness to take place. Senator Craig has not admitted to any wrong doing. If he is innocent then no forgiveness is needed because he has done nothing wrong. If he is guilty, then he can’t be forgiven as long as he continues to live in his sin by denying it. To use a more extreme example, you can’t get caught cheating on your spouse, deny that you were cheating, likely continue to cheat, and then expect to be forgiven.
Perosnally, I don’t think that Craig should be forced to resign if I understand what he plead guilty to doing. His guilty plea was to disorderly conduct, not to inappropriate sexual behavior (and any sexual behavior in a public bathroom is inappropriate, gay or straight). I would question his judgement and would not likely vote for him if I lived in his state but that is a different issue. If he did what he is accused of the honorable thing to do would be to admit it, apoligize, and resign. At that point forgiveness can begin.
Regards
Comment by Heartless — September 7, 2007 @ 9:40 am - September 7, 2007
dissassociation/hypocrisy
I fail to see the difference. Okay slightly different meaning but we are describing the same thing. Basically that many of the people who make the rules in our society think they are above having to follow them. But Craig and his ilk take it to another level. They rail against those who do in public what they do in private. If that’s not a hypocrite, I don’t know what is.
I’m still astonished to find gay republicans defending Craig. He’s against everything you want to accomplish. He’s your enemy; not your friend. In fact, if you could get rid of the social conservatives like Craig in favor of people who were conservative on economic issues and more moderate on social ones, you might actually be able to get the kind of party you keep telling me the GOP really is. Honestly , Craig’s departure might be the best thing for Log Cabin Republicans. The fewer of his ilk in your party the better.
Comment by Houndentenor — September 7, 2007 @ 9:40 am - September 7, 2007
I would like to speak in defense of those “certain social conservatives” referenced in the quote above.
Our moral code is under constant pressure for change and it is mostly in the direction of making it a less restrictive code. “Certain social conservatives” not only want to hold the line, but they would like to see the moral code become more strict. However, I can not recall any instance in past 60 years of the social conservatives imposing a more strict moral code on the society in general. On the other hand, I can not begin to list the instances of accepting more “openness” in the name of diversity.
A gay social conservative might well cringe at the idea of a gay teacher of sex education. A gay conservative might well oppose a gay bishop in his church. Is this acting “as if they know better than the rest of us”? Perhaps. But in the sense of “know thyself” the gay conservative may have a very clear picture of “the perplexing passions and personal struggles” and have every reason to be “uncomfortable” with certain moral shifts.
Admittedly, I subscribe to the philosophy of living one’s life in a quiet and societally responsible manner. I abhor gay-bashing of all sorts and that includes the “outing” of gays. I also dislike the habit of “flaunting” one’s sexual preferences and I find that those who “out” others are more than a little twisted in who they are in their own skin.
The hetero social conservative is a different animal. He may well “out” a gay for no other reason than to “warn” his community that they “need to know” that a certain person is gay. But there again, I have not encountered the hetero social conservative who goes about looking for gays to out.
I could care less about Larry Craig’s sexual life. He is a doofus in how he handles politics. For that he should resign and melt into the foothills of oblivion. If there has been any hypocrisy in this mess it has been from the social liberals who did not rush to protect a gay “victim” who was being “targeted” by a “sexist” police force. (Not my thoughts, but certainly the talking points if it had been Barney Frank who was nabbed.)
Comment by Heliotrope — September 7, 2007 @ 9:53 am - September 7, 2007
Ardsgaine, could there be a more succinct statement of the assininity of progressive gender/class/race politics than the one you just provided?
First, hypocrisy is an act of commission, not a belief. Furthermore, acting against your deeply held beliefs is not generally hypocrisy but weakness–taking a puff on a cigarette out of craving while certain that such is bad for your health or being lured by the prospect of a sexual encounter when you believe that to be immoral would be good examples.
Second, only in the minds of progressives must certain attitudes necessarily be follow from “identity”. According to you, if you have any same-sex inclinitions whatsoever, you must immediated proceed to be “open” about it all. Presumably, that means you need to jump to a gay-identity lifestyle with a heavy dose of advocacy politics.
That is keep-them-on-the-plantation logic, pure and simple. The reality is that there is no inconsistancy inherent in being conservative and homosexual, libertarian and homosexual, Catholic and homosexual, and so on (but I’m sure they appreciate your “sympathy”). Finally, there is no inconsistancy with being conflicted about all that is entailed in one’s sex life and sexual urges. Almost all of us are at times in our life… even progressives.
Would you like a good example of true hypocrisy? How about rallying to the defense of one colleague who, driving drunk, causes a wreck and then claims to be on his way t a 2 AM House vote but then condemning another colleague for simply making gestures generally understood to mean he would like to discuss a sexual encounter?
Boiled down to its essence, here is what your piece says… Either you share my politics, or you deserve my contempt or sympathy.
Comment by Charlie — September 7, 2007 @ 10:04 am - September 7, 2007
I just don’t understand the supposed power of the hypocracy argument. We all fall short of living up to the ideals we aspire to. We are all sinners. Does an inability to live up to our ideals mean we can’t advocate for them?
The entire point of Christianity is that we are imperfect but nevertheless are so loved that we may be forgiven.
I suppose by certain definitions that makes all christians hypocrites. But no more so than every other person who falls short of their ideals, ie everyone.
Comment by MSD — September 7, 2007 @ 10:06 am - September 7, 2007
houndentenor, do you also fail to see a difference between Clintonian ‘compartmentalization’ and hypocrisy? By either Clinton? Do you need a few examples to help?
Hypocrisy charges from the left are no different than charges of racism. They’re intended to be unanswerable and are without definition other than “You don’t think/act like I believe you should.”
Comment by JorgXMcKie — September 7, 2007 @ 10:14 am - September 7, 2007
How many politicians vote against their party or against the wishes of their constituents? not many. People like to say the politicians should vote the way the people want when the popular opinion is what they want, and the exact same people say politicians should vote for “what’s right” and ignore the populace when they want something that’s not popular.
People like to see hypocrisy when it’s someone they disagree with, and the explain away actions of those who they support.
The whole outing phenomenon and the viciousness of people is very scary, IMO, and reminds me indeed of thought police, and police states where neighbors and friends inform on each other. How can we say it’s horrible when people we like are affected, but ok if someone we don’t like is affected?
Comment by plutosdad — September 7, 2007 @ 10:22 am - September 7, 2007
Maybe he just wanted a “Blow Job” and was too far away from his office. Come on, what’s an Alpha Male to do? - Or an “Over Achiever” of any gender for that matter?
Comment by Pixelkiller — September 7, 2007 @ 10:27 am - September 7, 2007
Is invading the privacy of people trying to use a mens room with graphic sex a ‘right’?
No…
I wasn’t any more pleased when I was camping a few years ago and the showers were monopolized by a couple doing some bumping/grinding in a stall.
It isn’t a gay-straight thing… it’s a bully thing.
There was an ongoing problem with the use of this restroom being abused or the police wouldn’t have assigned a team to ‘clean it up’.
So if we all agreed that stealing the use of an entire restroom from the public, for a purpose it wasn’t intended, is a ‘bad thing’, then we can all agree to talk about the real issue.
If… Craig is a restroom thief… it’s petty.
If… Craig is gay… who cares.
But… If Craig lies about his petty crime… well… his last name isn’t followed by a (D), who have demonstrated they will vote for felons, so he is no longer a viable (R) candidate and to remain in office over the objections of his constituency is the reflection of a man who would lie about something petty.
Comment by DANEgerus — September 7, 2007 @ 10:30 am - September 7, 2007
Helio, I agree with you. I would say I am much more in agreement with and sympathetic to social conservatives than not, especially having been until 9 years ago a far lefty radical feminist Dem. I know too well the intolerances on that side.
It has been pointed out by Taranto and others what hypocrisy is NOT: having standards and principles and betraying them. That is not hypocritical; it is human. 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. To me, feeling that abortion is wrong but voting in favor of it is true hypocrisy. Voting against school vouchers for the poor while your children are in private schools is hypocrisy. Human weakness is different. We are all weak.
The social conservatives live by certain standards and principles, and sometimes fall short (divorce being used as a stick against them). To say that we have to be perfect if we have standards is ludicrous. One should strive for perfection while always knowing it is impossible to attain. It is in the striving that we better ourselves and our species.
Liberals fundamentally do not understand this concept, and rush to judgment far faster than do the conservatives. Paradoxically (not really), we throw our bums out and they keep and elevate theirs. On the left, lack of character, moral bankruptcy and corruption are features, not bugs.
Also, I want to see Craig gone because he’s too stupid to stay, not because he’s bi, or morally or sexually confused, or even a “hypocrite.” Too many of our political leaders on both sides are just plain dumb and need to be gone.
Comment by Peg C. — September 7, 2007 @ 10:34 am - September 7, 2007
I don’t believe it is right to out staffers because I don’t consider staffers to be public servants. But it is legitimate to out public officials because of the deception that living in the closet requires. That sort of deception is relevant to one’s character and should be disclosed to voters.
Comment by Chase — September 7, 2007 @ 10:39 am - September 7, 2007
err, change “public officials” to “elected officials” in my previous statement. I believe the deception required to live in the closet is relevant to one’s character and thus, legitimate to disclose to voters. However, political staffers are not public officials and deserve a greater degree of privacy.
Comment by Chase — September 7, 2007 @ 10:50 am - September 7, 2007
But for the Right, if you disagree with someone in the military, it is perfectly OK to “out” them, email his superior officers, data mine his life, diagnose his psyche and crucify him by claiming speculation as “fact” and “case closed”
Comment by gil — September 7, 2007 @ 11:19 am - September 7, 2007
This seems to be a key point in your argument, but I don’t think it carries the day. There’s nothing wrong with a person seeing what they see and knowing what they know. They can be mistaken, but they have a right to be.
What’s bad about the outers (and the ‘certain social conservatives’) is not their mistake in thinking they know best, but their bad behavior in trying to destroy people’s lives. Let them think they know best. Let them dictate morality to others as much as they want to. Just let them also keep it in the marketplace of ideas, where it belongs.
I do think you’re right to link the two groups. Outing is an anti-gay, homophobic tactic, as it targets gays for special condemnation. People like Rogers are, in fact, doing the work of those they claim to oppose and loathe on the far Christian Right. Displaced shame and self-hatred is at work, I suspect.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — September 7, 2007 @ 11:27 am - September 7, 2007
Oh? And the first ten items on the list are…………….
Comment by Heliotrope — September 7, 2007 @ 11:32 am - September 7, 2007
After seeing the Dems reaction to hypocrisy when it relates to the environment (Kennedy’s nimby argument), and to two Americas (Edwards) and to public gayness, I am convinced that all things being equal what really upsets Dems are public diplays of homosexuality
Comment by Heywood — September 7, 2007 @ 11:44 am - September 7, 2007
The Democrats will use any reason to try and undermine any Republican. They will use the term hypocrite loosely, but in Craig’s case their point is that he voted against gay interests while he himself may have been practicing gay behavior. But this does not mean he is a hypocrite and the argument is not logical. This is because he represents others in the public forum he is elected to serve. He is supposed to represent his constituency, and Idaho is not a state known for promoting gay agendas. So he has an obligation to Idaho voters to align his votes with what they think and want, not with what he might do in his private life. It is right to keep the two separate.
The other point I want to make is that liberal democrats make many assumptions about Republicans. I am a registered R in Montana, so I must be associated with narrow minded red necks, incapable of independent thought or intelligent discernment. That is a broad brush. And an unfair assessment. It is odd how unliberalized liberals are. They project on me a mind set that they express themselves. Projection, right?
Dennis Davis
Comment by DDavis — September 7, 2007 @ 11:56 am - September 7, 2007
Bristelcone: “Nonsense. It’s not hypocrisy to think something is an abomination and yet be compelled to engage in it. I know quite a few smokers, addicts, and even fat people who recognize that their behaviors are self destructive and will BEG you not to do them, yet they just can’t control themselves. ”
I agree that a person who confesses to having a problem, and urges you, without condemnation, to do better is not being a hypocrite. I haven’t yet heard Craig say, “I have these homosexual urges that I am unable to control, even though I find them morally repugnant.” Falling short of a moral principle doesn’t have to be hypocrisy, but falling short while pretending innocence and condemning others is.
Let’s also note the nature of the condemnation. It’s not just: “Hey, what you are doing is self-destructive, and you would live better if you stopped.” It’s: “What you are doing is a mortal sin, and God is going to burn you in Hell for all eternity if you don’t stop and seek his forgiveness.” We also sometimes see: “God is going to punish the rest of us for tolerating your sin.” Such an ethical position is anti-reason (it’s bad just because God said it is), vindictive (eternal torments), and seeks to impose itself on others by making them morally responsible for what happens to us all.
Comment by Ardsgaine — September 7, 2007 @ 12:00 pm - September 7, 2007
He’s against everything you want to accomplish. He’s your enemy; not your friend.
Compared to what, Houndentenor?
Gay Democrats and the politicians who support them who wish conservative gays’ children would die of SIDS?
Gay Democrats and the politicians who support them who call up gay conservatives’ workplaces, harass their bosses and coworkers, and try to get them fired?
Gay Democrats and the politicians who support them who call gay conservatives and Republicans “self-loathing”, “Jewish Nazis”, “kapos”, and numerous other charming names?
Gay Democrats who, at the bidding of their party leadership, trash other Democrat staffers and try to get them fired because said staffers’ partners wrote memos critical of Howard Dean’s attitude toward gays?
And most of all……Democrat politicians who support the FMA and state constitutional amendments and brag about holding the “same position” as the Republicans gay Democrats call “homophobic”…..and the gay Democrats and HRC leadership that endorse and pump money to them?
I think we know very well who our enemy is, and it isn’t Larry Craig. It’s lying, manipulative gay Democrats who insist that our sexual orientation should determine our political beliefs and ideology and who mercilessly attack and punish those who don’t obey — while supporting homophobia themselves.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — September 7, 2007 @ 12:12 pm - September 7, 2007
For those of you who are so righteous in your belief that outing gay Republicans is such a good thing for the gay community. Go read what Robbie at the Malcontent has to say: http://www.malcontent.biz/blog/?p=2520. It is not surprising at all how these high and lofty ideals have a way of backfiring.
Comment by Leah — September 7, 2007 @ 12:51 pm - September 7, 2007
Red herring alert, folks. If there are any “gay republicans defending Craig”, they aren’t on this blog. Nor on any other gay conservative-ish blog I’m aware of.
Indeed, from what I’ve seen, conservatives and Republicans (I’m not one) on this blog condemn Craig’s contemptible choice of means to express his sexuality, self-estrangement and poor judgment.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — September 7, 2007 @ 1:15 pm - September 7, 2007
He’s against everything you want to accomplish. He’s your enemy; not your friend
I still wonder what Houndentenor assumes I want to accomplish. Does he know me? I think not.
Comment by Ben F — September 7, 2007 @ 1:28 pm - September 7, 2007
Why is it when a Republican legislator is accused of an act that seems to run contrary to his voting record, he is a hypocrite? An assemblyman in New Jersey, a Democrat and Baptist minister was one of 11 arrested in a corruption sting. While the remaining local officials listed in the news no mention was made of their party affiliation, by their districts I would bet they too are Democrats. I am sure that if there were any Republicans among them the media would be sure to note it. Where is the outrage from the left? Who are the real hypocrites?
Comment by Roberto — September 7, 2007 @ 1:29 pm - September 7, 2007
P.S. Houndentenor, you are welcome to contradict me, if you can, with a citations from this blog of Republicans defending Craig.
Note in advance that people who have said “Craig’s problem is his awful judgment, not hypocrisy per se” are not defending Craig. Also, people who say “Look how homophobic and genuinely hypocritical the Democrats and outers are”, are not defending Craig. Neither of those positions denies Craig is a sleazeball who should be gone.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — September 7, 2007 @ 1:30 pm - September 7, 2007
So, leftists think that terrorists plotting mass murder have a right to privacy but politically incorrect gays don’t.
Comment by V the K — September 7, 2007 @ 1:50 pm - September 7, 2007
Throwing in a pair of shiny new pennies …
I am conservative. Republican. Church-going. Gay. Closeted. I ran for political office a few years back. (I know I know … a combo that’s grounds for commitment, if we still did such things in our culture.)
I am against gay marriage. I just don’t think as gay people we’ve thought thrrough the implications of government-controlled dissolution of our same-sex relationships. Maybe there’ll be a net positive, but I’m concerned we’ve never even thought of the huge mega-negatives.
I am against adding homosexuality as a protected class in employment discrimination laws. If the laws we’re enforced as written — that discrimination against gays and lesbians was illegal — I’d be OK with that. I don’t support affirmative action and quotas for gays and lesbians, given that our sex lives are (and should remain) private — and I mean everyone’s sex life: gay, str8 and all points in between.
I am against hate crimes legislation. Period. Would that Matthew Shepard case have been any less horrific if robbery were the motive?
I am totally against DADT and I believe gays should be allowed to serve in the military and engage in private gay sex in their off times, off base. I strongly believe this.
So this makes me a 75% hyprocrite, then, doesn’t it? Do I get a right to privacy since I’m not a 100% homo-hypocrite? Or since I passed the 50% threshold, is my life an open book (or open tabloid, as the case may be)?
Comment by anonymous for obvious reasons — September 7, 2007 @ 2:18 pm - September 7, 2007
hypocrite:
1 : a person who puts on a false appearance of virtue or religion
2 : a person who acts in contradiction to his or her stated beliefs or feelings
Can anyone really argue the Craig isn’t a hypocrite? Just look at what he had to say during the Clinton impeachment with his holier than thou commentary.
Comment by Tiparillo — September 7, 2007 @ 2:27 pm - September 7, 2007
That’s moronic. What “right to privacy” does Craig have? He was arrested and pled guilty. That’s public record. He outed himself.
Comment by KRYSToff — September 7, 2007 @ 3:21 pm - September 7, 2007
That’s pretty much it, V the K.
Our government is allowed to do less to investigate terrorists trying to kill us than are these outers in trying to “prove” that someone is gay or harass them.
Mike Rogers, for instance, is allowed to call up people and misrepresent himself by claiming he’s acting on behalf of the police, then demand they answer his questions, while recording the entire conversation, and nothing happens.
Does the Democrat Party condemn this behavior? No; they pay Rogers to do it.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — September 7, 2007 @ 3:32 pm - September 7, 2007
I wish thes “folks” would focus their attention on the real threat islamic jihad extreemists, as they do “outing” gays. It is easier to “out” someone than face up to the reality that gays around the muslim world live in fear, tortured, and are killed everyday. that these same extreemist want you dead.
Comment by Pamela — September 7, 2007 @ 3:52 pm - September 7, 2007
#10
Nonsense! Please show me the legislation that states “homosexuality is an abomination”.
As you well know, there is none. Neither does the religious right vote for the “protection of marriage” or any other policy out of animus for the gay community, but instead out of concern for institutions, such as marriage, they believe, as do I, are fundamentally important to society.
One doesnt even have to think there is anything wrong with homosexuality at all to believe that heterosexual marriage should be afforded an elevated status in society with benefits and encouragements not given to other relationships.
That is precisely the problem with the gay left, actually the left in general. They are so obsessed with how they feel about issues, that they are completely unable to think about, and in turn understand them.
Comment by Will (American Elephant) — September 7, 2007 @ 4:23 pm - September 7, 2007
“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.”
Relieve himself…sexually? Were it any other variant, this thread would not exist.
Insisting that ‘gay conservative’ is akin to ‘jumbo shrimp’ oxymoronically misses the point. Insisting that ‘gay conservative’ need not involve hypocrisy misses the point (and is just a wee bit self-serving, imho).
Comment by HardHobbit — September 7, 2007 @ 5:03 pm - September 7, 2007
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
[...] 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
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
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
#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
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
Peg C, I agree with that 1000%. I simply must pause to disagree, however, with some of the language with which you surrounded it:
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
“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
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
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
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
#62, Peg C:
Agreed.
Agreed.