The tragic opera of former congressman Mark Foley is the revenge of don't ask, don't tell.
Foley, a Republican from Florida, resigned Friday after e-mails and instant messages between him and several teenage congressional pages surfaced. The Republican leadership knew that at least one page had gotten e-mails where Foley admired the body of one of the page's friends, and asked the page for a picture of himself, e-mails the page naturally found sick and a bit creepy.
Republican leaders responded to the potential political problem by telling Foley to knock it off. With respect to the larger issue, though, there was no asking or telling. The boy's own revulsion at the obviously inappropriate attention was ignored, not only by Foley's partisan fellows, but by some news outlets that also had seen the e-mails.
If this has a familiar ring, look in the Catholic Church for the bell. Republican leadership was acting like the Catholic hierarchy, which played shell games with men accused of sexually abusing children. And there's a good reason for the similarity. The inability to deal straightforwardly with gay people leads to other kinds of truth-avoidance when things go south. But that's what comes from not wanting to know something, and going out of your way to remain ignorant.
We've come a long way since homosexuals had two basic options: the closet or jail. But a good portion of the electorate, most of them Republican, still seems to long for the good old days when we didn't have to think about ``those people." Both Libertarians and, generally, the Democratic Party have withdrawn their official support for the closet over time. States, too, are seeing what a losing battle this is, and allowing homosexuals to live their lives in conformity with, rather than opposition to, the law.
But that leaves Republicans and the religious right trying to live a 1950s lie in the new millennium. As Foley prepared in 2003 to run for the Senate, newspapers in Florida and elsewhere published stories about his homosexuality. But you'd never hear any of his colleagues saying such a thing. And Foley himself refused to discuss the issue, until his lawyer acknowledged Wednesday that the former congressman is indeed gay.
Being in the closet is hard to pull off without help, and for years Foley was eagerly abetted by his Republican brethren, whose willful blindness is at the heart of the current tragedy. Speaker J. Dennis Hastert, majority leader John Boehner, and others in the House leadership are still under the impression that the closet, like Tinkerbell, will continue to live as long as we all believe. And believe, they do -- against all the evidence.
But the number of people who believe in the closet is declining day by day and generation by generation. Hastert and the rest of his cronies are their own victims. The political turmoil they caused for themselves is only just.
But their failure to acknowledge the obvious reality has other victims as well: the boys whom Foley apparently pursued. Some of the messages show some tolerance of Foley's advances, but not much more. This was no one's ``Summer of '42." The healthy disgust in one boy's use of the word ``sick" repeated 13 times seems about right.
But what can one expect from denying grown men -- and women -- a normal, adult sex life? Whether the denial of adult intimacy comes from religious conviction or the ordinary urge toward conformity, people who run away from their sexuality nearly always have to answer to nature somehow. For people who fear abiding and mutual love, the trust and confusion of the young is a godsend. Add to that the perquisites of power, and a degenerate is born.
Fortunately for the arc of justice, the closet ultimately works against itself. Foley's case and the Catholic Church's sex abuse scandal are the last screams of the dinosaurs. It took the dinosaurs a long time to finally die off, or evolve into creatures that could continue to survive, and the same will be true of the closet's final supporters. But they will look more and more ridiculous each time that they take pride in holding up the ruins of this particular antiquity while tending to the wounded when the building again collapses.
Like the Catholic Church, the Republican Party in Washington guarantees its own future calamities in its enduring and steadfast habit of pretending that, unlike heterosexuality, homosexuality can be either denied or suppressed.
17 Comments for “Foley’s Folly: The GOP’s Gay Problem”
posted by Northeast Libertarian on
The article seems to be suggesting that closetedness is only endemic in the Republican party, which is laughable. The most outspoken gay Democrats in Congress were also closeted until being outed, and I’d hardly call the Democratic party a gay-affirming entity itself, given its zeal for DOMA. The Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell reference is also particularly ironic, given that this loathesome policy was the responsibility of a Democratic president and had the strong support of openly gay liberal Democrat Barney Frank.
I think the real issue isn’t that the closet is convenient for a particular sect of the old parties, but rather, that both parties thrive on manufacturing and campaigning on lies.
Foley claimed to be a family values conservative who wants to protect the young from sexual predation — but here he is, exposed as a sexual predator of the young.
Bill Clinton claimed to want to be an agent of gay liberation, but he signed a law which banned recognition of civil unions and gay marriages, and created a policy which has led to the mass discharge of thousands of gay military personnel.
Then, in another change of pace, Clinton campaigned as a family values president in Southern states in 1996, citing his DOMA vote — before then seducing a 21-year-old intern and having sex regularly with her.
Gay politicians don’t get much better in the old parties. Barney Frank was closeted and outed through his own sexual activity — in fact, if he wasn’t caught, it’s altogether likely that he’d still be closeted today. He’s also proven to be a capable point person for “educating” the gay population on why their family life priorities, and concerns about individual liberties, must be subsumed to the Democratic Party platform of the moment.
Not an altogether ringing endorsement of the corrupt Washington insider’s club or the Republicrat Party’s approach towards gays, really.
posted by BJ on
Foley is a flirt and a pursuer, not a predator. Don’t turn these teens into helpless victims. They could have pressed delete at any time.
posted by Northeast Libertarian on
“The bitch was just askin’ for it!”
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
This, to be quite honest, is the most pathetic article I’ve ever seen posted on Independent Gay Forum.
Republican leaders responded to the potential political problem by telling Foley to knock it off. With respect to the larger issue, though, there was no asking or telling. The boy’s own revulsion at the obviously inappropriate attention was ignored, not only by Foley’s partisan fellows, but by some news outlets that also had seen the e-mails.
Mr. Link, I will assume you wrote this before the family’s statement came out yesterday, but based on that information, a correction seems in order.
I quote:
In the fall of 2005, as soon as Congressman Alexander became aware of the e-mails received by our son, he called us. He explained that his office had been made aware of these e-mails by our son and that while he thought the e-mails were overly friendly, he did not think, nor did we think, that they were offensive enough to warrant an investigation.
Rather, we asked him to see that Congressman Foley stop e-mailing or contacting our son and to otherwise drop the matter in order to avoid a media frenzy. He did so. If we had any other knowledge or evidence of potential impropriety, we would have asked for the matter to be treated differently. For instance, we were not aware of the instant messages that have come to light in the past few days.
In short, the young man’s concerns were both noted and acted upon.
This does not change the root of your argument, however; namely, that Republican leadership and Catholic bishops should have been more willing to suspect people of being pedophiles because they knew they were gay.
I myself will continue to argue that one’s sexual orientation has nothing to do with pedophilia, and that the Republican leadership’s alleged knowledge of Foley’s orientation should have had no bearing on their suspicions of whether or not he was a pedophile.
Furthermore, I find this statement utterly foolish:
But what can one expect from denying grown men — and women — a normal, adult sex life? Whether the denial of adult intimacy comes from religious conviction or the ordinary urge toward conformity, people who run away from their sexuality nearly always have to answer to nature somehow.
Unfortunately, as the Amish school shooter shows us, the tendency to molest children occurs even in the presence of sex and available intimate adult relationships. Your argument that celibacy or choosing not to reveal one’s sexual orientation publicly turns one into a pedophile is neither scientifically valid or intelligent.
What you have demonstrated, Mr. Link, is a willingness to, as a gay person, repeat numerous untrue and invalid antigay canards in an attempt to bash Republicans and Catholics.
I have just one question: Why?
posted by randy on
Because there is some truth in it?
I thought Mr. Link’s article was actually pretty good — one of the saner analysis of the situation than any others. I would disagree over some minor points — the catholic church STILL doesn’t know how to deal with gays, since now it just wants to ban all gay priests. But only the new ones, of course, the current ones can stay.
Sure, there are dinosaurs everywhere — even in the Dem party. But the Repubs have made it their party’s platform that they are against gay rights in any form, and they have participated in religious rallies that demonize gays, so they have a difficult time protecting someone who is closeted, gay and Republican. The Dem no doubt do that too, but then they don’t dance with the religious right, and so it makes it a bit easier to deal with gays openly.
posted by Northeast Libertarian on
Again — why all the tears over closeted gay men who put their own personal power above self-respect and honesty, knowing what the potential costs would be? They made their pact with the devil and are now seeking to be painted as victims — when they themselves created the situations within which they now lie.
Nobody forced any of them to engage in behavior which would cause a media firestorm, nor did anyone hold a gun to the various closeted Republicans’ heads and demand that they move up to senior positions within the Republican party to actively support an anti-gay agenda, all while denying their own sexual orientation.
These are power-hungry former power brokers who are seeking to trade on the legitimate life experiences of everyday Americans who suffered for YEARS under the predation of their own parties’ policies. The politicos reaped great rewards from that suffering and are now trying to reap further rewards by revising their life story into the victimhood dialectic.
Hopefully, they will be ignored by gay people who take honest gay life seriously.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Because there is some truth in it?
Funny, Randy, there’s “some truth” in statements that gays molest children, use drugs, and try to give each other HIV, but I don’t see you defending when the fundamentalists try THAT.
In that case, you would rightly condemn it as being based on stereotyping and speculation. Try practicing it with people you don’t like as well as those you do — it’s called “fairness”.
The Dem no doubt do that too, but then they don’t dance with the religious right, and so it makes it a bit easier to deal with gays openly.
Actually, what makes it easier is that gays like yourself decide whether an action is pro-gay or anti-gay based on the party affiliation of the person performing it — such as these examples of “pro-gay” and “gay-supportive” actions.
In short, the Dems can do whatever they like with the religious right; you just shut your eyes and blame Republicans.
Again — why all the tears over closeted gay men who put their own personal power above self-respect and honesty, knowing what the potential costs would be? They made their pact with the devil and are now seeking to be painted as victims — when they themselves created the situations within which they now lie.
The day you post a real email address and your true identity, NL, is when you can criticize those who choose not to reveal their sexual orientation to everyone.
Personally, I don’t care if you do or not; it’s your business. Everyone has their reasons for choosing to keep portions of their lives secret, and frankly, it’s not my place to judge why — just to respect it.
However, when you criticize others for supposedly not showing “self-respect” and “being honest”, but refuse to reveal your own identity, that IS hypocrisy.
posted by Northeast Libertarian on
The day you post a real email address and your true identity, NL, is when you can criticize those who choose not to reveal their sexual orientation to everyone.
OK, ND30.
My name is Brian Miller, and I am a blogger for Outright Libertarians. You can write to me on hightechfella@yahoo.com, or directly through the Outright web page.
Your turn.
I don’t care if you do or not; it’s your business
If that was true, you wouldn’t have posted your challenge, would you?
The reality is that you’ve just had your ass kicked, my dear man.
when you criticize others for supposedly not showing “self-respect” and “being honest”, but refuse to reveal your own identity, that IS hypocrisy
I’m rather amused, considering your own anonymity (and defense of same to Mr. Rosendall) that you’d take this tack, but you just painted a bright red target on yourself.
Incidentally, I don’t live in the corridors of power, nor do I have any policy-level position on gay issues. I’m out at work, and a bit of a public figure due to my blogging activities. That’s still a lower test than being an elected or policy-level person on gay rights issues, but still.
Now, who is North Dallas Thirty? What qualifies him to issue such challenges while dodging them himself? 😉
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Ah, NL…..hopefully you didn’t miss this portion of my statement:
Personally, I don’t care if you do or not; it’s your business. Everyone has their reasons for choosing to keep portions of their lives secret, and frankly, it’s not my place to judge why — just to respect it.
By “outing” yourself, to some degree, you’ve removed the enormous amount of hypocrisy that came out of your criticism of other peoples’ decisions to not make their sexual orientation public. However, your doing so does not change my fundamental position, nor will it ever; simply put, the fact that you are out is your decision, and the fact that someone else chooses not to be is theirs.
posted by arthur on
As a midwestern Republican, who visits Florida often, I discovered two things were common knowledge. Foley is gay and Katherine Harris should not have been elected to a higher office than prom queen.
As long as you keep getting elected the party will support you, protect you, and enable you.
posted by CPT_Doom on
I myself will continue to argue that one’s sexual orientation has nothing to do with pedophilia, and that the Republican leadership’s alleged knowledge of Foley’s orientation should have had no bearing on their suspicions of whether or not he was a pedophile.
First off, he was not a pedophile. What we have here is good old sexual harassment, which is still pretty abysmal. And while it is true that no one should consider it likely that any gay person is a molester or a predator, or a harasser, the fact remains there was copious evidence about this individual and one of the hallmarks of the GLBT civil rights movement is that society and the government should treat us all as individuals, with no prejudgement based on arbitrary characteristics. The GOP leadership did not act even though they knew this individual was causing problems/concerns with the pages, and that is a big issue.
Why did they not act, well I think this article scratches the surface, but it does not explore the larger GOP closet – one that most of the party is in. When you see people like Rick Santorum and George Allen simultaneously spout the “gays are destroying marriage/society/children” official party lines and at the exact same time employ openly gay staffers, there is a huge disconnect. When you have a national party platform (which is actually more reasonable than some of the state platforms) promoting the “protection” of marriage by ensuring the nasty fags and dykes don’t ever get it, while openly gay people run the Vice Presidential arm of the 2004 campaign (that would be Mary Cheney’s old job), and the finances of the RNC and even supervise the distribution of gay-bashing campaign literature, there is a huge disconnect.
The basic problem here is that so many Republicans, happy with the $$ and the votes and the volunteers supplied by the “pro-family”/”Christian” conservative movement, have covered up their own basically pro-gay feelings (certainly these people don’t buy the propaganda of the anti-gay hate movement) for party unity. They continue to employ, to be friends with, to treat with respect gay and lesbian people they know and love, while trashing the larger GLBT civil rights movement. This is the hypocrisy, the larger GOP closet that I believe Hastert, et. al., were trying to protect. Had they launched a probe of Foley, and the truth were revealed, the problem is not that they would be seen as gay-bashing by moderates (although props to that serial adulterer Newt Gringrich for that creative spin), but that their fierce anti-gay base would see them as too pro-gay. I mean, can you imagine how “social conservatives” would feel if they knew how tolerated and even accepted GLBT Washingtonians are by so many of the alleged “leaders” of that brand of conservatism? To find out that a key campaigner for the GOP, one of the architects of its power in the last 12 years, was not only gay, but brought his partner the doctor to social events, brazenly living the “gay lifestyle” and was abetted in hiding this from the public by that same leadership? Well, you can see the results in the current fears of evangelicals not voting at all this year.
Quite frankly, I for one have never believed the GOP was as anti-gay as it makes out to be; I simply have met too many Republicans here in DC who have no issue with gays (including senior leadership at my company). But the GOP did make a devil’s deal with the anti-gay hate movement, and now is paying the price as their basic hypocrisy is being exposed.
posted by Northeast Libertarian on
By “outing” yourself, to some degree, you’ve removed the enormous amount of hypocrisy that came out of your criticism of other peoples’ decisions to not make their sexual orientation public
No, I simply pointed out that I’m more than willing to be known as who I am and don’t “need the protection of the closet.”
Neither does anyone else — unless they understand their Republican masters view them as subhuman if they knew what they really were. And in that case, who cares about their closets? I don’t, neither should anyone else.
the fact that you are out is your decision, and the fact that someone else chooses not to be is theirs
No, it’s not “your decision” if you lie to the world in order to get power for yourself. Going in to get tremendous power as a “straight man” — knowingly lying to your hateful party in order to get into its inner circle — is riding a tiger for personal power. These folks sell out themselves and others, undermining everyday gay people who don’t have their power — yet demand the protection and aid of the gay political establishment when their own positions of privilege and power are threatened by simple knowledge of the truth of their gayness.
It’s Republicans such as yourself who have pathologized gayness by arguing that “being out is a personal and often negative choice.” I find such arguments to be safely esconced in the 1950s values which epitomize most of the Republican Party’s obsolete big-government policies.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
LOL…..NL, you make this entirely too easy.
No, it’s not “your decision” if you lie to the world in order to get power for yourself. Going in to get tremendous power as a “straight man” — knowingly lying to your hateful party in order to get into its inner circle — is riding a tiger for personal power. These folks sell out themselves and others, undermining everyday gay people who don’t have their power — yet demand the protection and aid of the gay political establishment when their own positions of privilege and power are threatened by simple knowledge of the truth of their gayness.
That, my dear, is the most jealousy-filled statement I have ever read — and it explains a lot.
You’ve created a mythology that you are powerless because you’re not closeted, and that other people have power because they are.
posted by Northeast Libertarian on
I haven’t talked about me or my power at all. I’m not jealous of power, because I seek no power other than power over my own life.
I simply have no time for you and your control-freak party applying standards to micromanage my own life which you don’t practice yourselves.
I’m sorry you find objections to your hypocrisy to be so amusing.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
I haven’t talked about me or my power at all.
Have you forgotten this already?
Incidentally, I don’t live in the corridors of power, nor do I have any policy-level position on gay issues. I’m out at work, and a bit of a public figure due to my blogging activities. That’s still a lower test than being an elected or policy-level person on gay rights issues, but still.
So you spend time whining about how powerless and insubstantial you are, but claim you’ve never said anything about your power. Got it.
I’m not jealous of power, because I seek no power other than power over my own life.
Mhm. And that’s why you support outing — which just happens to give you the “power” you obviously want to try to hurt others who are more successful than you are.
Of course, you rationalize this by saying that these people are closeted and you’re not, so that gives you the right to make their lives miserable.
posted by Northeast Libertarian on
ND30 — your attacks are pretty funny, but you’re “proving” nothing.
Further, since you’ve run from your own “you have no right to comment because you’re anonymous” attack with your tail firmly tucked between your (anonymous) legs, I’m going to view your posting as rhetorical diarrhea.
Anybody can beat up a straw man. It’s not difficult, nor is it enlightening.
I’m a Libertarian — the claim that I seek political power for myself is rather hilarious, since the entire *basis* of Libertarianism is to eliminate government power over other people’s lives. It’s you and your hateful party which seeks to build and grow power over the lives of others.
And like it or not, it is indeed hypocritical for closeted homosexuals in the Republican Party — including you — to lie and claim they’re heterosexuals and attack other gay people in order to get power for their own.
Why, exactly, are we supposed to cry over those people again?
(I don’t actually expect you to answer the question — after all, you are one of the closeted individuals trying to protect his power base — but I figure an honest question is more than adequate a response to your rhetorical dishonesty). 🙂
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
And again, your preoccupation with power, NL…..trying to trumpet how you’ve sent me “running away”, etc.
That’s why I think you’re less a libertarian than you are a contrarian opportunist.
Given the chance to prove yourself by putting libertarian principles into practice, such as forswearing judgment of other peoples’ private lives, or disavowing the notion that a person’s private life is grounds for harassing them in public life , you choose to do neither.
What you make clear is that you are against judging others — unless you’re the one doing the judging. You merely cloak your attempts to duplicate the Democrats under a guise of “libertarianism”.