Another Day, Another Gay Republican Homophobe is Outed

As many of you know, I read a number of right-wing pubs on a daily basis. While this is a hot topic in other news forums, there is a distinct lack of topic coverage on the right-winger reading. However, The New Republic ran an interesting piece. Here are some excerpts:

http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?i=20061023&s=crowley102306
Gay GOP misery.
by Michael Crowley

In the bars and clubs frequented by Washington's gay men, a new character has recently cropped up: the hammered gay Republican. Until recently, says one gay Republican lobbyist, his counterparts on the Hill "had reached a point where you come to your work, you do a good job, you don't cause problems for your boss, and you go home." But then along came the Mark Foley scandal, with its rightwing anti-gay moralizing, liberal snickers about closeted hypocrisy, and a merciless wave of Internet gossip and "outings." The lobbyist says he assumes every gay Republican staffer is "terrified right now." And that has been enough to drive some of them to the bottle. One gay Washingtonian recalls running into an aide to a senior House Republican at a gay bar soon after FoleyGate broke: "He went out to get shitfaced, because he was so stressed out."

On the left, meanwhile, are gay liberals furious over the Bush-era GOP's gay-baiting and increasingly willing to "out" the Republican regime's closeted enablers--with the help of their tell-all blogs. (Gay political circles have recently been abuzz with talk about "The List," a roster of allegedly gay GOP staffers that has circulated among political journalists and activists.) "These people feel under siege in their own party and also under siege in the gay community,"

Not that gay Republicans have ever had it easy, of course. For decades, they tended to be closeted entirely--some in the tragically warped model of Joseph McCarthy's henchman, Roy Cohn, who bashed deviants by day and slept with them at night. Or Terry Dolan, co-founder of the vituperative National Conservative Political Action Committee, who, like Cohn, died of aids

Instead, "outing" became the pastime of a gay left furious over the aids epidemic. One early victim was the closeted Wisconsin Republican Representative Steve Gunderson, whose voting record drew the aids activists' ire. At a bar one night in 1991, Gunderson was confronted by the activist Michael Petrelis, who furiously demanded, "When are you going to come out?" Petrelis then dumped a Coke on Gunderson before being dragged away. Under relentless pressure from other gay activists (and a few pile-ons from Republicans like Bob Dornan), Gunderson eventually outed himself. Likewise, Jim Kolbe, a gay representative from Arizona who is retiring this year, outed himself in 1996 to preempt the gay newsmagazine Advocate from doing it for him. And, when Arthur Finkelstein--a GOP consultant who produced savage ads for anti-gay candidates like Jesse Helms--was outed the same year, the deed was done by Boston magazine, hardly a right-wing outlet.

...gay Republicans had been ostracized in Washington's mostly liberal gay community. "After the marriage amendment, that changed everything," a liberal gay activist explains. He recounts a recent night when a stranger began chatting up his friend in a bar. The ensuing conversation went something like this:

"Where do you work?" "In the government." "Where in the government?" "In the Senate." "Oh. Who do you work for?" The answer came: a highly conservative senator who had championed the 2004 Federal Marriage Amendment. "You gotta be kidding me!" the activist snapped in disgust, breaking off the encounter.

But gay Republicans are hardly off the hook. In the private sphere, their lives are more perilous than ever. For pure vitriol, it would be hard to top an episode that occurred late last month at a Washington dinner party. The gathering included both well-connected Bush administration and congressional GOP staffers and several Democrats--all gay. Inevitably, politics came up. One Democrat in attendance, a former Clinton White House aide, couldn't contain his revulsion at the gay men working in the service of the enemy. "I ripped into this one guy" who works for the Bush administration, the Democrat says. "I said, 'What you do for a living is hurting me, and my family, and my daughter I have with two lesbians. I personally view Bush as the most corrupt, vile politician in the world, and if you're working for him, to me you're one and the same.' People were horrified." But, he adds, "I refuse to be cordial or friendly or polite to these people. I think they are our mortal enemy. They ask the gay community to indulge them when they want a social life, but when they punch the clock they are trying to tear apart our families. They want it both ways." Even a few weeks later, says another gay Washingtonian who was not present at the dinner, the former Clinton aide's "little screed is legendary."

MJ here: Remember most people don't care about gay or not, but when you build your platform on ridicule, divisiveness and hate, then indulge in hypocritical behavior you WILL get nailed. I, personally, don't feel good about 'outing', in general, but outing hypocrites should become a national past time. Someone in a post above doesn't like the way I make generalizations about republicans. However, like junior stated so eloquently, 'you're either with us or against us'. If you are 'with' a party platform you either support it or become quiet when you don't. Quiet puts you in their eyes as not opposed so you must be a supporter. If you are opposed to a platform issue, but support the majority of the platform, then you actively oppose that segment of the platform which you don't approve, like the democrats did with clinton's NAFTA or the WTO. What you don't do is remain quiet and expect to be shielded by those in direct line of the fallout. I don't like 'outing' and don't like hypocrites. I do like outing hypocrites of all stripes.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Darwood @ Aug 28 2007, 12:34 PM) [snapback]503360[/snapback]</div>

There are only two major parties to choose from in the U.S. Some of us affiliate ourselves with minor parties in the hopes that these may become larger with time, or out of total disgust with the two big parties. But most of the 50% of Americans who feel that voting is not a fraud or an exercise in futility pick one or the other of the two big parties, feeling that their vote is "wasted" otherwise. A voter with this mindset is unlikely to find agreement across the board with either party. This voter must decide which issues are most important. So, some gays will likely feel that their economic interests mean more to them than their personal rights. If they happen to believe (wrongly, in my opinion) that the Republican Party will strengthen the nation's economy, then their voting Republican is understandable.

Or they may believe in the (ludicrous, in my opinion) arguments about security and terrorism. Or they may sincerely despise their own sexual orientation.

In any case, we should not expect all gays to base their voting entirely on which party respects them as human beings.

And the Democrats have a pretty dismal record on human rights for gay people as well.

As for the Senator in question here, I have to agree with Mark, that propositioning someone in a bathroom is not and should not be a crime, providing that the propositioner accepts a negative response and desists. In this case, the cop was giving positive response, so I'd say the Senator did nothing wrong in the bathroom.

If he's been molesting interns, that's another matter, and should be dealt with harshly. And it's always good when public hypocrisy is exposed. Any civil servant who practices in private activities which he denounces in public deserves to be exposed, so the voters can decide if they want such a person in public office.

 

Humble apologies, I didn't get the links in to the best articles on the Craig issue last night. If anyone still wants to see them, please see my post on Page 1. They're in there now.

(And quit your flaming!) <_<

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(MarinJohn @ Aug 29 2007, 01:31 PM) [snapback]503870[/snapback]</div>

Very well said!

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(MarinJohn @ Aug 29 2007, 02:31 PM) [snapback]503870[/snapback]</div>

I believe what Bush actually said in a speech on September 26, 2001, was, "You're either with us, or you're with the terrorists".

With that said, although it's not quite the same thing, it did seem to set the intolerant, divisive tone the Bush administration has had for his entire tenure regarding virtually all of the 'hot button' issues Rove was so good at bringing to the forefront (such as gay rights and abortion) in order to get out the RRW vote.

 

He should go to jail. Then he could indulge in all the free gay sex he wants.

 

I'm surprised he didn't just say he stuck his hand under the partition because he was hoping for a campaign contribution.

 

Mark: I agree with your observations about the "criminality" of the bathroom Senator's actions and our societal hang-up about sex. We are truly shackled by the Puritanism of our past. Canada, so like us in may respects, shows much more more common sense and way less Biblical propaganda than we do.

For me, the issue isn't whether the Senator is guilty of a legal crime; it's his blatant hypocrisy and abuse of his office that gets me. He showed his senate badge to the cop as if being a high ranking mucky-muck somehow places him above the rest of us.....all the while avidly supporting legislation to diminish my civil rights. If his were a solitary offense, I wouldn't care, but there have been far too many Republican ministers, priests and politicians caught in bathrooms and whore houses, and too many of them nailed for various corruption scandals for me not to conclude that there is something sick in the Republican party. Twelve years of Democratic rule might produce a lot of the same, but the Democrats, mercifully, don't get on their Terry Schiavo/No Stem Cell Research/Prayer in Schools, etc, bandwagons and preach to the rest of us about superficial fake moral issues while tolerating and abetting the grievous immorality being wreaked on middle class America and the environment by the corporate state.

 

I think many people are also peeved that he did not disclose his arrest until he plead guilty. Additionally he tried to pull rank and that in a state he doesn't even have jurisdiction (if that can be said of a senator).

Having publicly condemned homosexual rights and bevaviour and the getting arrested for soliciting the same makes him a hypocrite but not worth an arrest.

His conviction should reflect his trying to influence the police and not disclosing to his constituents that he was arrested.

I guess one could argue that he was caught with his pants down (okay almost down .. wait they were down cause he said he was there doing the normal bathroom business.

I think what is an even bigger concern is how many guys don't wash their hands after doing their (normal) business and then stand in front of the mirror, fixing their hair and then open the door..... eeeeeeee That is a national crisis!

 

<..>

 

...sounds like CNN has obtained the arresting officers audio from the arrest. I have not heard it yet, but they are teasing the story as, "still to come"...here the audio blah blah blah.

 

It is here:

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/08/30/craig.arrest/

 

...and sadly pathetic. What's new???

 

So, um, could anyone explain what sort of sexual activity this guy could hope to accomplish by putting his hand under the stall wall? I'm having trouble envisioning exactly what the plan was unless he really had a thing for ankles.

Or on second thought, I probably don't want to know.

I did think it was interesting how vehemently the Sen. denied doing "those kinds of things". So, if he doesn't do those kinds of things, how would he know what kinds of things he could be doing that he's not?

 

"could anyone explain what sort of sexual activity this guy could hope to accomplish"
The gay version of "what's your sign?"
What he was caught doing were common gay signals to inquire about the possibility of anonomous sex. There are all sorts of gay "signs". Why not just go to the bar like everyone else, and wear a pink triangle lapel pin? The whole bathroom signal thing just creeps people out and scares the crap out of moms with young boys. Then again, so do BS tales of rainbow BJ parties, so it doesn't take too much.

But in this case, I'm glad to see the press make a mountain out of a molehill, due to the hypocrisy.

 

I have a theory of why there seem to be so many conservative homophobes that later turn out to be gay themselves.

I have always been curious about the fundamentalist mind. From the denial of facts about the natural world to this weird obsession with legislating who you should have sex with, how, and how to deal with unexpected consequences.

For example, homosexualism. Why would a heterosexual male care about what a homosexual man does in the privacy of his home? Why the hostility? I am heterosexual and homosexualism has no effect on me, just someone else's preference. However, I can see how if you are homosexual but in denial, homosexual behavior would be a temptation! Powerful religious and social taboos would result in a public life that condemns homosexualism and simultaneously a hidden life of trying to fulfill what you desire. In fact, these people would be drawn to a party that condemns homosexualism in hope of more effectively avoiding temptation.

In contrast a liberal might tend to just accept who they are, either hetero or homosexual. Either way there would be no tension from denial, no temptation to avoid.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Darwood @ Aug 31 2007, 12:38 PM) [snapback]505010[/snapback]</div>

I feel really sorry for his wife. In each instance (I think there was a previous something) she is right there by his side. She must feel publicly humiliated to have to stand there, supporting her husband as he lies, when she knows the cat's out and she is basically making herself a hypocrite along with her husband.

I'm not sure I would do it. I do know that off camera they had better soundproof the room.

 

You'd think the Mrs. would have a clue since the Idaho Statesman has been looking into this for 8 mos. She's had plenty of time to put on the mask.

27 years down the ...er... toilet, and he'll be remembered as the butt (oops) of jokes forever. Even Garrison Keillor got a few off at Craig's expense this week on Prairie Home Companion. Some of the cleverest humor was on YouTube, "If Craig Were Gay"