First published in Bay Windows, September 13, 2007
Mike Rogers of blogActive.com is riding high these days. The scourge of anti-gay politicians who engage in gay sex themselves has been proved right in his charges last October that Idaho Senator Larry Craig was seeking gay sex in public restrooms. In the last few weeks, Rogers has been profiled by the Washington Post, interviewed by cable TV hosts Sean Hannity and Chris Matthews, and called the most feared man on Capitol Hill. The blogosphere has breached the wall of the mainstream media (MSM) that once would have ignored his efforts as unseemly.
I have mixed feelings on the question of outing anti-gay politicians. On the one hand, I agree with Congressman Barney Frank's dictum that "People have a right to privacy, but not to hypocrisy." I am as sick as anyone of being demonized by ruthless political operatives to turn out socially conservative voters. On the other hand, I am troubled by outing as a tactic because it capitalizes on people's homophobia, and it too seems ruthless. Rogers and outing pioneer Michelangelo Signorile reject the term "outing" in favor of "reporting," but the latter is less precise.
I encountered Rogers at a reception Sept. 6 at the Smithsonian Institution honoring 82-year-old gay pioneer Frank Kameny, whose picket signs from the first gay protest outside the White House in 1965 are included in a new exhibit titled "Treasures of American History." The classy affair had a lot of gay movers and shakers and good food and drink. I chatted with Rogers, who is quite affable personally, and he mentioned his next target, another Republican senator. He was praised by several guests, including a disillusioned gay Republican. Rogers acknowledged some awkwardness, as a Republican staffer whom he outed last year stood a few yards away.
As I told Rogers, I am especially opposed to his outing of GOP staffers. Over the years, gay rights activists have obtained a good deal of useful intelligence from Capitol Hill's informal gay network. Often it was staffers for right-wing Republicans who provided the best information at off-the-record meetings. Apparently, I am not the only one: On Monday, via Washington Post "Sleuth" reporter Mary Ann Akers, Rogers announced a change in strategy: he will stop outing staffers. He explained to the Post, "Enough readers expressed concerns that I have decided to now focus on elected officials, those running for office and to high level political appointees in the administration."
Rogers told me that he hates what he does, but he considers it necessary. He thinks it will significantly neutralize the far-right's anti-gay wedge politics. Assuming that is true, I still find it ethically troubling. Vindictiveness hardly seems conducive to expanding support for gay equality, and Rogers's actions smack of vindictiveness even if that is not his intent. You cannot justify playing God by citing the quality of your research.
Looking at Rogers, you might never suspect that he traffics in anyone's sordid secrets. He brings a professional polish to his media appearances. On television he appears relaxed and confident, crisply relays his talking points, and does not stumble or ramble. These skills smoothed his story's transition from the Web to the MSM. Someone who came across as creepy or eccentric would be easier to dismiss.
In January 2006, Rogers sent his then-targeted senator a letter warning him that a vote either for the Federal Marriage Amendment or for the confirmation of Samuel Alito as a Supreme Court justice would lead to the senator's homosexual activities being reported on blogActive.com. Some have suggested that this amounts to criminally punishable blackmail. Legal opinion appears divided on that question, but legality aside, it sure looks like blackmail to me. And how does Rogers avoid arbitrariness in choosing which votes justify outing someone? There was no consensus that Alito was anti-gay when he was nominated, and some evidence to the contrary.
Last week, Rogers wrote, "People are finally getting that gay Americans have had enough … Craig's arrest when coupled with the hypocrisy of his seeking sexual encounters from the very men he actively legislates against, becomes merely the catalyst to expose the dishonesty and secrecy of anti-gay politicians who expect a community to harbor its own."
Our movement has seen radical tactics before. In Washington in 1971, gay activists charged into the Shoreham Hotel's Regency Ballroom to zap the convocation of the annual convention of the American Psychiatric Association (APA), whose definition of homosexuality as a pathology in its Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders was used to justify anti-gay discrimination. During the confusion, Frank Kameny seized the microphone. He denounced the psychiatrists and insisted that homosexuality was an orientation on par with heterosexuality. The electrifying moment was a declaration of war, a war the gay activists won in 1973 when APA declassified homosexuality as an illness.
Are we at a comparable moment, when a violation of protocol is needed to "get things moving," as Kameny has put it? Or does the use of outing go too far? We need a thoughtful and civil discussion about what effect the use of an inherently negative tactic might have on those who employ it and those on whose behalf it is employed.
It may be that before many socially conservative Americans will reconsider their anti-gay stance, they must become disillusioned with their leaders. Yet they might just as readily react to the shock of outings by hardening their hearts further against gay people. That is something Mike Rogers might want to investigate.
Corvino, John
{ 83 comments }
← Previous Comments
Whatever the topic, one can count on finding ND30′s “all gays are liberal Democrats who abuse poor conservative, Christian homosexuals” mantra or James’ “all gays (except me) are promiscuous fem-bots who march in gastly, embarrassing pride parades” tune. And that is tedious, boring and uninteresting.
Well, that’s interesting, given that this whole thread is based on Richard’s premise that liberal Democrats like Mike Rogers ARE being abusive towards conservative homosexuals and that his doing so is particularly counterproductive.
Plus the fact that it would be very difficult for James to be making said statements on this topic, inasmuch as he hasn’t said anything yet.
Furthermore, the “negative energy” here comes from the fact that people are not given a free ride, as they are at other sites, based on their sexual orientation. I document the fact, for instance, that these same organizations and people who promote and push outing as a means of punishing those who support homophobic politicians themselves support and endorse homophobic politicians with tens of millions of dollars raised from gay people. I point out the fact, , with links, that those who scream the loudest about “hate speech” and not judging other people unfairly are themselves the first to resort to it — and to justify it based on their hatred of those with whom others are friends.
What you don’t realize, thom, is that these are the same people who outed you out of spite when you first started posting here because you disagreed with them. You do yourself no favors by pretending they aren’t there, and you especially do yourself no favors by attacking me for pointing it out.
?So the whole debate about the “ethics of outing” will be as dead as Harvey Milk in a couple of years. People who aren’t out will either come out, slip out, or step out of the glare of public life.?
Brian, I love ya, but sometimes I wonder what planet you?re living on . . . When we continue to have incidents like this
http://www.13wham.com/news/local/story.aspx?content_id=3504260a-a851-4e7f-938f-8f0319a531b1
and this:
http://miamiherald.typepad.com/gaysouthflorida/2007/09/miami-top-chef-.html
and this:
http://www.towleroad.com/2007/09/man-assaulted-d.html
and when we continue to have to deal with things like this:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/18/AR2007091802177.html
we?re far from this Utopia you feel is right around the corner. And, it really has very little to do with whether or not someone is closeted, although obviously, the more people come out, the better.
Here?s a more realistic assessment of where things stand:
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0907/5659.html
Sorry to bring you back to Earth.
Thom, unfortunately, Internet discussion forums are frequently ruined by people like ND30 who hide behind pseudonyms while trying to prove their cleverness and manhood by shooting off the most insults in the shortest time while blaming others for it. Because this problem is so ubiquitous, I am of the view that such forums should be moderated. But in the case of IGF, the paucity of volunteers would mean the elimination of the forum altogether. We ought to just ignore people like that, but it’s difficult to ignore such obnoxiousness.
The exposure of deceit and hypocrisy by those advancing their political career by demonizing gay and lesbian americans is never wrong. We have a right to defend ourselves and should not be expected to provide cover for our enemies.
The exposure of deceit and hypocrisy by those advancing their political career by demonizing gay and lesbian americans is never wrong. We have a right to defend ourselves and should not be expected to provide cover for our enemies.
Again, John, lots of meaningless, empty words.
Because it’s pretty damn obvious from all of those that gays don’t care about advancing one’s political career at the expense of gays and lesbians and that they are willing to provide tens of millions of dollars of “cover” in endorsements and support for people who do — when they’re Democrats.
Thom, unfortunately, Internet discussion forums are frequently ruined by people like ND30 who hide behind pseudonyms while trying to prove their cleverness and manhood by shooting off the most insults in the shortest time while blaming others for it.
Mhm.
That is why when I state something about you, I bring hyperlinks to prove it — and why when you state something about me, it’s insults about my “manhood”.
Word of advice, Richard; people who are used to constant bombardments of “Uncle Tom”, “kapo”, and the like from Democrats are not going to be affected by you questioning their manhood. But the fact that you do so says volumes about your own attitudes.
ND30, you know perfectly well that I did not question your manhood. Suggesting that someone’s obnoxiousness is an attempt to prove his own manhood is a suggestion about the person’s insecurity. If you are smart enough to engage in all these diversions, you are smart enough to know that. So this is just further evidence of your determination to knock every discussion off track and make yourself the center of attention. The sad thing is that you and I both agree that John’s facile declaration, yet you are so obsessed with having to “win” by insulting and discrediting others that you can’t even pause to be momentarily gracious on your way to making more groundless insults and mischaracterizations.
Another thing, ND30: My record (not your characterization of it, but my actual record as an activist) contains a great deal of criticism of Democrats, an example of which I already cited. Democratic party hacks, which you persistently falsely portray me as being based on no evidence, WOULD NOT do that. And more pseudo-clever words and insults from you cannot and do not change the actual record. That is what you don’t get: your postings are not magical incantations that somehow change reality to suit you. It would be refreshing for us all to be able to hold spirited discussions on the issues, but you persist in trying to discredit individuals with what everyone can plainly see are groundless personal attacks. Please tell us what you think this accomplishes.
ND30 – What does any of those links have to do with republican closet cases expected the gay community to protect their privacy while they work against us? Are you saying that HRC, Harold Ford, John Kerry and Howard Dean are all secretly gay or secretly republican and that’s why they can’t bring themselves to jump on the gay marriage bandwagon? You make little sense.
What does any of those links have to do with republican closet cases expected the gay community to protect their privacy while they work against us?
There’s nothing funnier than watching Republicans demand an unlimited right to secretly wiretap our phones, intercept our e-mails, read our mail, and conduct secret searches of our home — and then screech about “privacy violations” when one of their overzealous statist pukes is caught with a cock in his mouth.
“Hypocrisy” doesn’t begin to describe it.
ND30 – What does any of those links have to do with republican closet cases expected the gay community to protect their privacy while they work against us?
Because, as I demonstrated, gay Democrats support and endorse the FMA, state constitutional amendments, pandering to the religious right, and firing gays who complain about homophobic bosses, giving them tens of millions of dollars in support from their organizations and freely working for them as staffers and fundraisers.
What they show, John, is that your definition of “working against us” is “not being a Democrat”.
Brian Miller writes: “‘Hypocrisy’ doesn’t begin to describe it.”
This statement in an article about the dear GayLeft leader Mike Rogers –who, next to Richard Rosendall is the biggest Demorcat apologist and enabler going– using another person’s gayness as a political tool to intimidate GOPers… and then, if that isn’t enough, Brian Miller tries to compare warranted, proper govt surveillance of terrorists and their possible supporters with vicious outings by Mike “OJ” Rogers??
It’s not “hypocrisy” you should be noting Brian… it’s WTF. Another jewel from the dysfunctional Looney-tarian Party defender.
Gosh, maybe there’s wisdom in the notion that American voters keep the Looney-tarians to 0.34% of the popular vote for Prez in ’04. Yeah, that and comfort.
warranted, proper govt surveillance of terrorists
I know you Republicans are liars (I had to deal with a bunch of you today in California, where you all turned yellow and refused to lobby the governor in public on the gay marriage bill). So I’ll simply point out that Bush’s bill is known as the WARRANTLESS WIRETAP bill for a reason.
As for all the whiny Republicans on this forum, at least one of them claims to live in San Francisco — but I haven’t seen a SINGLE ONE of you participating in cross-partisan efforts to lobby the governor to sign AB43, the marriage equality bill.
Not a SINGLE one of you in the entire Bay Area.
In San Diego, there were apparently more straight Libertarians than gay Republicans lobbying the mayor for his change of heart on gay marriage (which managed to work — he decided to endorse asking the city attorney to file a friend of the court brief in favor of marriage equality).
A Republican “moderate” governor is the ONLY THING standing between California’s gay and lesbian couples and full equality under the law. The bill has been passed by a majority of California’s legislature — TWICE — and now sits on his desk.
A majority of California’s elected representatives have signed it — just as Log Cabinettes have been demanding for a decade (while whining about how horrible marriage lawsuits are), and now during their chance to shine and show their new inclusive GOP and how its moderate leaders like Arnie embrace gay people, they’ve turned tail and FLED.
Here in the Bay Area, Libertarians, Democrats, Greens and Independents have all been ignored by LCR apologists for Arnold and the GOP Velvet Mafia, ordinarily stuffed with self-righteousness, has gone into hiding.
ND-30 and his ilk have been super loud in condemning and attacking everyone who disagrees with them, but when they get a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to lead, they’ve gone missing.
That only proves that their opinions on gay issues should be completely ignored. They have made themselves irrelevant with their thick layers of doublespeak. When marriage equality happens, it will happen in spite of their reticence, not because of their leadership.
The rest of the gay community has busted its ass and spent thousands of hours coming to this point, despite the ridiculous criticisms of the Republican gay groups. Our momentum is there, and we’ll prevail in the near future. And a decade from now, when ND-30 and his ilk are still trolling the message boards, I’ll happily remind them that they have done nothing to advance equal treatment under the law, and that it was the heavy lifting of every other political party — working together despite our differences — that made things happen.
That’s all.
Umm, Brian… that was “warranted” as in needed, prudent, ought to be done, done with good cause, et cetera. Wow, I guess pointing out that the Looney-tarians are, at best, only 0.34% of the voting population steamed you a bit, eh?
While I can’t and won’t comment on what you’re experiencing in the Bay area, I can tell you that I appreciate your frustration. In Michigan we tried to stave off a FMA type ballot initiative and had trouble even getting FarLeft Democrats –leave off the mainstream Democrats who ran for cover– to engage in meaningful opposition to the ballot proposal. It passed 61-39% and the biggest contribution from the FarLeft was to have the Democrat-controlled Elections Canvas Board add language that would specifically cover domestic partner benefits in the ballot language because the idiot Democrats thought it’d bring a more diverse opposition to the proposal… it’s like the Loons were loaning their tinfoil hats to the Dems and crafting political strategies to lose.
On the 5+ month campaign trail and speaking engagements, I ran into only 1 Democrat and 0 (zero) Looney-tarians working for the ballot proposal’s defeat.
Your image of the Looneys and Dems working together despite differences isn’t one that has credibility or integrity here in Michigan… unless it’s sharing those tinfoil hats from Area 51.
And Brian, why is it that you seem to hijack these threads and try to turn them into recruitment efforts for the Loons? And you accuse others of trolling? LOL. I thought this thread was about the vile, immoral outing practices of sleazebag Mike OJ Rogers?
“What they show, John, is that your definition of “working against us” is “not being a Democrat”.”
Uh, not sure where you got that. Can’t see anywhere in my post where I say I support democrats or the gay groups that give them money. But, as usual, in your eyes anyone that disagrees with you has to be a supporter of them Dems or lieberals or whatever this weeks bogeyman is.
Is HRC asking for us to protect her secret gay life while she pays lip-service to support for CU’s over full marriage? Are any of the otehrs you linked? No? Then what the heck was your point again? Did you even have one other than the same tired ‘any excuse to bash the dems’ routine?
MM, I’m more than happy to debate you on real issues.
But when you try to redefine “warrant,” and engage in off-topic personal attacks, you don’t really contribute much.
Get back to me when you’ve got something of interest or substance to say, or when you and your Republican Party is willing to follow our Constitution. Thanks!
Uh, not sure where you got that.
From the fact that you’re not having screaming hissy fits about “providing cover” and “advancing their political career through demonizing gays and lesbians” when it’s Democrats.
Given your alleged disdain of homophobic politicians and their gay supporters, it seems incomprehensible that you and yours aren’t off frothing after them. Like I said, call out Hilary Rosen, Joe Solmonese, Andrew Tobias, Ellen Malcolm, Steve Elmendorf, and whatnot. Set out to destroy and ruin their lives the same way that you have gay Republicans. Call up their workplaces and harass their bosses, trying to get them fired. Call their friends and business associates, pretending to be working on behalf of the police, and threaten them with arrest if they don’t cooperate.
Brian, I can understand you can’t help yourself when you’ve made a mistake in comprehension… you’ve got that stereotypical Looney-tarian’s “I’ll debate you till you die” approach to greater and lesser side issues… and it’s not endearing, bud. “No surrender; take no prisoners; truth is a monopoly.” You guys wrote the book on smugness.
It must be comforting when you’ve pressed all from the field of discussion and are sitting alone, intellectually bankrupt at 3AM and confident you’ve gained the upper hand. No wonder the Loons have problems reaching beyond 0.34% of the vote… you guys drive reason away with both abandon and glee.
Clueless. Utterly clueless.
ND-30 and his ilk have been super loud in condemning and attacking everyone who disagrees with them, but when they get a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to lead, they’ve gone missing.
Mhm.
You expect us to support a bill that a) contradicts Proposition 22 and b) even with your twisted explanation that Prop 22 only bans out-of-state marriages, reinforces that discrimination?
Like I’ve said elsewhere, call us back when you start working on a repeal to Proposition 22. But that will never happen, because it would force the hand of your Democrat masters — and you can’t do that.
ND30 – you are still makingsense. HRC hasn’t built her career demonizing the gay community while secretly being a part of it. If HRC doesn’t want to go all the way for gay marriage and is honest and upfront about it who cares? That doesn’t make her a hypocrite – unless she secretly went to Mass. and married her secret girlfriend and wanted the gay community to keep it secret whle she actively works to promote a federal amendment. How can you not see the illogic you are spouting? Where on earth am I providing political cover for HRC (or anyone else) while she demonizes me? It’s obvious you haven’t read anything I wrote, but do you even read the stuff you post?
“Given your alleged disdain of homophobic politicians and their gay supporters…”
Uh, my disdain is saved for homophobic politicians who are secretly gay and have supporters telling us we have to keep quiet about is so they can continue to advance their career by demonizing my people.
It’s funny that you’d try and use “relevance” and “sanity” as bases of attack, when I’m working with lots of people on these issues — lobbying in person.
There’s not a single Log Cabin Republican, or gay Republican, to be found in these efforts. So I wonder why you’re assigning yourself a position of relevance.
As to “debating to death,” I’m not doing that. After all, you have nothing rational to debate — just a load of ad hominems and fallacious statements strung together with insults.
Meanwhile, you remain anonymous and missing in action. The only reason there’s no place at the table for gay Republicans in significant issues of gay legislation is because gay Republicans haven’t shown up at the table. Until you show up — as opposed to post under anonymous names on message boards — you’ll continue to earn the contempt you have rightfully received from everyone — “CommieLibs,” “GayLefties” and “Looneytarians” alike.
What is not making sense, John, is your obsession with Hillary Rodham Clinton, who is NOWHERE mentioned in my posts.
And finally, don’t make me laugh with the “demonizing my people” rant. If you cared about “demonizing my people”, you wouldn’t be witch-hunting; you’d be going after the gays who openly endorse and support FMA and state constitutional amendment supporters with millions of dollars from gay organizations, like I already demonstrated.
Uh, you linked to a bunch of the dems, including Hil, not me. You implied they were all the same as Craig (i.e. closeted gays actively building careers by demonizing gay people while demanding gay people keep their dirty little secret). I’ve yet to see you make reference to openly gay people who support and work for closeted pols pushing the passage of an FMA. I’ve yet to see you reference anything that made sense at all.
I have no problem with people of whatever party hating gays or working against us or not supporting all our goals 110% – People are entitled to their opinion. I do have a problem with being told that I have to protect the secret lives of closeted politicians who get busy behind closed stall doors while making a career off demonizing Americans who happen to be gay and lesbian. You can support that kind of hypocrisy if you choose. I choose not to. And I’m perfectly happy there are others out there exposing those hypocrites. You’re problem is you are too tied up with demonizing anyone that doesn’t follow your groupthink and assign them as supporting whatever it is you see as the ‘enemy’. I’m not a registered Democrat. Hillary is not my choice for prez. No party commands my allegiance. yet every single post you’ve made in response to me has me pegged as an operative of GLAAD or something as well a staffer for some closeted dem politico who is making bank off hating teh gays.
As I asked before – do you even read what you are writing or is it all just blather designed to get a response? My guess is you don’t believe anything you post – you just get some cheap thrill off causing strife.
do you even read what you are writing or is it all just blather designed to get a response
Probably both.
I have to side with Richard Rosendall here when he points out the anonymity of these guys. They make controversial assertions without any proof (or accountability), and don’t participate in a single gay-related political event as who they are. Their sole role seems to be trolling on internet gay boards — and gay people of all parties should ignore them.
They make controversial assertions without any proof (or accountability), and don’t participate in a single gay-related political event as who they are.
I love it.
You rant about my anonymity — which means you don’t know who I am, what I look like, or anything of the sort — but you insist that I have never participated in a single gay-related political event.
But since you don’t know any of those things, how would you know whether I was there or not?
I have no problem with people of whatever party hating gays or working against us or not supporting all our goals 110% – People are entitled to their opinion.
Then there’s no need for outing; indeed, it would seem hypocritical for you to support it.
But of course you support outing; what you say in public completely contradicts your actions. Sort of like Mark Leno, who rails against “antigay” politicians who oppose gay marriage and support constitutional amendments, but was a thousand-dollar lapdog and apologist for John Kerry and his support of state constitutional amendments and opposition to gay marriage.
Brian, you simply HAVE to admit that you’re all wet on this silly notion of slamming commentators here as being “anonymous” or “MIA” on gay issues when, one hand, you claim no knowledge about a writer while on the other hand having enough intimate knowledge about them to know their level of political activism doesn’t measure up to your ego-centric inflated sense of activist endeavor.
For instance, ND30 is a widely known blogwriting entity –his background and views easily accessible by even someone as opinion-challenged and lazy as you.
I think the REAL issues for you are the ones that usually hamstring Looney-tarians… namely, 1) you are adamant you have a monopoly on the truth and 2) you’ll debate your version of reality until the field is vanquished.
Now, I don’t know about others here, but for me those are 2 killer traits sure to lose us ground in the battle to win political support for gay civil rights.
Maybe trying to stay on topic –because this was about the immoral conduct of Mike OJ Rogers in outing GOPers for the benefit of his Democrat Masters– would be a good beginning for you.
But then again, you are the self-appointed steward of real truth so what do the rest of even know, eh?
Brian writes (again without a safety net properly strung below him): “It’s funny that you’d try and use “relevance” and “sanity” as bases of attack, when I’m working with lots of people on these issues — lobbying in person. There’s not a single Log Cabin Republican, or gay Republican, to be found in these efforts. So I wonder why you’re assigning yourself a position of relevance.”
Relevance, is it? Standing in a small room with familiar people wearing “Free the Aliens from Area 51″ and “Make Hemp Legal” t-shirts isn’t exactly lobbying, Brian –it’s a LoonFest. And if you’d get beyond your Looney-tarian echo chamber of GOP hatred, you’d gather a broader, more enlightened perspective I think.
Do you honestly believe you can comprehend, let alone fathom, the scope of lobbying engaged by others on any issue? Or is it that you’re as clueless as you appear that you think if a rgoup wasn’t at the event(s) you were at then it means those groups aren’t active on the issue? WTF is that, Brian? How cluelessly ego-centric can YOU get??
If the gay community is going to ever approach concensus with the political majority on gay civil rights, it won’t be with your scortched Earth attitude toward other gay groups.
Lighten up Brian. We’re supposed to marching toward progress together… not purging the landscape of the unbelievers. Gheez.
“But of course you support outing; what you say in public completely contradicts your actions.”
I thoughe I made that pretty clear when I stated I did support the outing of closeted gay politicos actively building careers by demonizing gay folks.
And now John Kerry is a closet homo? Where do you get this stuff? How does Kerry’s support for a FMA translate into that? Here’s the deal – Kerry did not build his career demonizing gay folks while sleeping with us. He is not a hypocrite because he is not saying one thing while doing another. He is not expecting the community to hide him while he works against us. He is open and honest about where his support is and where it stops. If someone wants to support him anyway that’s their choice. Craig is a hypocrite. And you are here telling us we have no right to expose his hypocrisy. Indeed you seem to be saying we have an obligation to assist him in hiding his secret gay life even as he continues to raise funds and build his career by demonizing gay folks. And as I said, if you want to support these folks and assist them in hiding you are free to.
As to ‘my actions’ – what actions are you refering to? I’ve not outed anyone. Just expressed my support for those that do. Again with the illogic and nonsense.
Here’s what I have learned from you so far: gays and lesbians should support and assist closeted politicos who profit from hating and demonizing us while showing nothing but disdain for those who support us but at less than the required 110%. Is that your point?
Here’s what I have learned from you so far: gays and lesbians should support and assist closeted politicos who profit from hating and demonizing us while showing nothing but disdain for those who support us but at less than the required 110%.
I merely repeat what you have said above, John:
I have no problem with people of whatever party hating gays or working against us or not supporting all our goals 110% – People are entitled to their opinion.
That is a very mature way of looking at it.
But were you actually applying that, you wouldn’t care whether a person was closeted or not.
Your post is an amusing exercise in double standards. For instance, John Kerry, who proudly proclaimed that his position was “the same” as President Bush’s, who repeatedly stressed his opposition to gay marriage and support of constitutional amendments banning it, and who did so at fundraisers as a means of raising cash and at public appearances as a means of building his political career — is praised for doing it as “honest and open”.
Meanwhile, you claim Craig’s similar actions to be “demonization” and “hate”, and you justify attacks on him based on that — which a) is totally contradictory to your stated belief above that everyone is entitled to their own opinion and b) a 180-degree reverse from your insistence that Kerry’s behavior is neither “hate” or “demonization”.
In short, you’re bashing Craig for behavior you don’t bash Democrats for doing — and you’re using his opinions as a reason to do it when you claim not to care about other people’s opinions.
Those of you who believe outing is justified apparently have never been faced with any real challenges in your own lives i.e. your sexual orientation. Richard, you are silly and frankly, a pointless person. YOUR hypocrisy is what must be exposed.
So what is your opinion now that Larry Craig voted NAY on the Senate’s Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Amendment?
It is so interesting how many republican centers seem to fall out of the closet. It makes me giggle.
← Previous Comments
Comments on this entry are closed.