DebateGate
General Category => 3DHS => Topic started by: Knutey on September 02, 2007, 07:11:59 PM
-
http://www.salon.com/opinion/conason/2007/08/31/gay_republicans/print.html
To print this page, select "Print" from the File menu of your browser
The GOP's crowded closet
The party's culture of concealment has led to embarrassment and personal destruction. Isn't it about time for the right to cure its homophobia?
By Joe Conason
Aug. 31, 2007 | "Is everybody gay?"
That was the cry of the lovelorn schoolteacher in the classic 1997 film "In and Out," after her diffident fianc? reveals his true orientation (and dumps her for Tom Selleck). Ten years later, more than a few discombobulated Republicans must be muttering the same question, despite the fervent denial of Sen. Larry "Wide Stance" Craig that he is, indeed, gay. As one embarrassing episode follows another, with almost predictable regularity, perhaps it is time for Republicans and conservatives to ask themselves an obvious question: What makes the Republican Party -- and the conservative movement more generally -- so attractive to closeted homosexual men?
Somewhere in the textbooks of psychosexual pathology there may be a straightforward answer, so to speak. Does the party draw closeted men because they can hide behind Republican homophobia? Or does the party promote homophobia as a political ruse while closeted men run the show? Whatever the answer, the result is routine humiliation and personal destruction. Even worse, the party's culture of concealment encourages right-wing gay-bashing, such as Tucker Carlson's grotesque boast that he and another adolescent thug beat up a gay man who "bothered" him in a bathroom years ago.
Telling such manly tales may relieve the insecurities of Republicans who must contemplate the ever-mounting archive of homosexual history in their party's ample closet. But only Republicans who are truly in denial can ignore the long parade now led by the reluctant Craig -- a conga line of right-leaning queens that dates all the way back to the late Roy Cohn, Joe McCarthy's infamous henchman and an intimate friend of the Reagans'. Perhaps, like Cohn, today's closeted Republicans believe that they aren't really gay at all, except for a few minutes in bed (or in the men's room).
No matter how Cohn deluded himself about his sexuality, however, he was among the founders of modern conservatism, along with late fundraiser and activist Marvin Liebman, who finally came out and denounced the homophobia of the right several years before his death. Both of them lived to witness the conservative resurgence of the Reagan era, led by the likes of Terry Dolan, who operated the National Conservative Political Action Committee from deep within his lifelong closet, attacking "the growing homosexual movement" until not long before he died of AIDS, and Arthur Finkelstein, the renowned Republican political consultant who worked for the NCPAC and dozens of Republican senators, often emphasizing their opposition to gay rights and in particular to gay marriage -- at least until three years ago, when Finkelstein married his male partner in their home state of Massachusetts.
Hypocritical as Finkelstein may be in his mercenary way, at least he is no longer living a lie, having been outed more than a decade ago in the pages of Boston Magazine. Over the past few years, the frequency of outing on the Republican side of the aisle has intensified.
On the first day of the party's New York convention in 2004, the closet doors were flung open again when Rep. Ed Schrock, a Republican from Pat Robertson's home district in Virginia, was forced to drop his bid for reelection. The outing Web site BlogActive.com exposed the secret homosexual life of the 63-year-old retired career Navy officer, Vietnam veteran and member of the House Armed Services Committee.
Hiding in the next Republican closet to be aired out was Jim West, then mayor of Spokane, Wash., an important politician in the Northwest with a strong reputation for opposing gay rights and advocating the removal of gay teachers from schools and daycare centers. In 2005, the Spokane Spokesman-Review revealed that West had been leading a double life, trolling for male sexual partners on the Internet and allegedly abusing two teenage boys who came under his care as a Boy Scout leader. These gamy stories led to West's ouster as mayor by the end of the year. (He died of cancer several months later.)
Then in 2006 came the stunning Mark Foley scandal, which featured the curious "Don't ask, don't tell" behavior of the Republican congressional leadership when confronted with evidence that the Florida representative was pursuing teenage male pages. The Republicans seemed to hope that they could conceal Foley's creepy behavior toward the boys in their care until after the midterm elections. Thanks to Lane Hudson, the gay rights activist who disclosed Foley's misconduct to the media, that scheme backfired badly. The reverberations amplified perceptions of the Republican Congress as decadent and self-serving, leading to the midterm debacle that returned control of Capitol Hill to the Democrats.
The November 2006 election results had scarcely been confirmed when a former male prostitute named Mike Jones convincingly accused right-wing evangelical preacher Ted Haggard of joining him in narcotics-fueled sex romps. Following the familiar cycle of denial and confession, Haggard stepped down as the head of his Colorado Springs, Colo., church and as president of the National Association of Evangelicals, a position he had not hesitated to use on behalf of Republican candidates, notably including George W. Bush. Until his downfall, Haggard had participated in a weekly telephone conference with Bush and other evangelical leaders. The White House and his former comrades on the religious right sought to downplay Haggard's influence after his confession to "sexual immorality."
Around that same time, Michael Rogers of BlogActive.com -- the gay blogger who outed Schrock in 2004 -- posted the first allegations concerning Larry Craig's misbehavior in men's rooms around the country. Having learned about Craig many months earlier from men who reported their encounters with him, Rogers had been warning as early as January 2006 that he was planning to out a senator. His initial reports on Craig attracted the attention of the Idaho media, which nevertheless held back the story until the senator's arrest in a Minnesota men's room and misdemeanor plea became public.
The Craig scandal overshadowed still another embarrassing saga from the closets of the red states. During the first week of August, Glenn Murphy, a Republican county chairman from Indiana, mysteriously stepped down as president of the Young Republican National Federation. In a letter to the nation's Young Republican leaders, he claimed that he was obliged to resign because of a pending major business opportunity. That explanation seemed unlikely in light of news concerning an investigation of Murphy for sexually molesting another man after a party. That young gentleman, a guest in a house where Murphy was staying, awoke the next morning to find the chairman's mouth on his genitalia.
Murphy's star may no longer rise, but his tale is a portent for the future. So long as Republicans promote homophobia, the party's closets will be crowded.
-- By Joe Conason
-
Alll the more reason for any GOP politico to come out of the closet forthwith
Then Rogers can go after ambigious dems who voted for DoMA
-
Alll the more reason for any GOP politico to come out of the closet forthwith
Then Rogers can go after ambigious dems who voted for DoMA
"ambigious" is hardly the same as deeply perverted as you guys are. It used to be that I was the only one that seemed to notice that when you scratch the surface of pious , hypocritical Gross Old Pervs there is abiding debauchery underneath. Now everyone seems see and notice it except the pervs themselves.
-
Does it matter if these dems are only latent homosexuals if they voted for DoMA? Seems that is just as hypocritcal as anything CRaig did.
Rogers should be all over them, to be consistent and non hypocritical.
-
Does it matter if these dems are only latent homosexuals if they voted for DoMA? Seems that is just as hypocritcal as anything CRaig did.
Rogers should be all over them, to be consistent and non hypocritical.
You are one sloooow Mofo. Voting or not for one bill does not qualify one for the pervert status that most if not all you RW sick fucks have reached,
-
You are one sloooow Mofo. Voting or not for one bill does not qualify one for the pervert status that most if not all you RW sick fucks have reached,
So it isn't the hypocrisy as you claimed.
It is the sexual orientation.
Why are dems such homophobes?
-
You are one sloooow Mofo. Voting or not for one bill does not qualify one for the pervert status that most if not all you RW sick fucks have reached,
So it isn't the hypocrisy as you claimed.
It is the sexual orientation.
Why are dems such homophobes?
What the fuck. Your hypocracy is everywhere and everyone with a brain can see it now. Only you are left grasping straws of your self created unreality. When you are found a fascist it is always a good ruse to accuse others , isnt it , asshole?
-
<<Why are dems such homophobes?>>
LMFAO. This is great. When did anyone ever expect to see Republicans trying to paste the homophobe label on their opponents? "ME a homophobe?? YOU'RE the homophobe!! We Republicans LOVE gay people. No homophobia HERE!"
I'm just waiting for the next batch of Republican pervs to be yanked out of the closet, kicking and screaming. And from the looks of things, it won't be long now. At that point, the Republicans will have to move past "Why are YOU so homophobic?" to "Homosexuality? What's wrong with THAT? Why SHOULDN'T gay people get married?"
And when the batch after THAT get outted, it'll be, "Family Values? Gay marriage IS family values!!"
Who knows? Maybe the closet gayness of the Republican Party will bring a new liberalism into America's public sexual morality dramas.
-
<<Why are dems such homophobes?>>
LMFAO. This is great. When did anyone ever expect to see Republicans trying to paste the homophobe label on their opponents? "ME a homophobe?? YOU'RE the homophobe!! We Republicans LOVE gay people. No homophobia HERE!"
I'm just waiting for the next batch of Republican pervs to be yanked out of the closet, kicking and screaming. And from the looks of things, it won't be long now. At that point, the Republicans will have to move past "Why are YOU so homophobic?" to "Homosexuality? What's wrong with THAT? Why SHOULDN'T gay people get married?"
And when the batch after THAT get outted, it'll be, "Family Values? Gay marriage IS family values!!"
Who knows? Maybe the closet gayness of the Republican Party will bring a new liberalism into America's public sexual morality dramas.
Michael- I think our fearfilled leader is trying to be cute. He has no answer to the fact that his ilk are the real pervs so he is dragging every stinking red herring ( 1st DOMA and now WE are the homophobes because we hate the hypocritical perverted Repub ones probly) he can think of to throw the conversation of the track which is what these RW creeps always do when they are losing so badly.
-
Knutey,
You are going after the likes as Craig as hard as Christian is going after them. At least he is honest and admits he is disgusted by their sexual orientation.
Politics makes strange bedfellows, eh?
-
Knutey,
You are going after the likes as Craig as hard as Christian is going after them. At least he is honest and admits he is disgusted by their sexual orientation.
Politics makes strange bedfellows, eh?
Xtian is disgusted because of his orientation probly because he also is a faggot and also in the closet. I am not one and am disgusted not by his orientation but by his sanctimonious psalm singing hypocracy and actual bathroom perversions. I repeat: Gays are not perverts. You guys are.
(Xtian would never be my bedfellow. I wouldnt even fuck him with your dick)
-
Boy knute, this sexual fixation you have is getting pretty prominent. You sure there's nothing you're ready to let the rest of the saloon in on?
-
Boy knute, this sexual fixation you have is getting pretty prominent. You sure there's nothing you're ready to let the rest of the saloon in on?
Yes- I am ready to let them know that you are a fucking idiot. But I am sure that everyone already knew that. Prominent is a good word for you to use. That is probly what happens to your peewees when you & Ami get together.
-
Heavy rounds, incoming, Knute. Us "homophobes" gotta dig in deeper before the Republican Gay Liberation Front gets our range. The Party of Constitutional Amendments to Save Family Values is suddenly reconnecting to its gay roots.
-
Heavy rounds, incoming, Knute. Us "homophobes" gotta dig in deeper before the Republican Gay Liberation Front gets our range. The Party of Constitutional Amendments to Save Family Values is suddenly reconnecting to its gay roots.
Mikey,
You have to admit Knutey is heavy on the disgusting pervert characterizations, but it only seems to apply to GOP members. Seems he would have to be equally disgusted with democrats who lean that way,to be consistent at least. Especially those who voted in favor of DoMA. In fact the dems don't even have to be gay to be considered hypocrits because they as a party are on record as being all for gay rights. He claims it is about the hypocrisy but i don't buy it.
I think he just thinks his has cover to unleash his prejudices and hatred for gays.
Perhaps it goes back to a rejection at the barracks door. You notice he hates marines as much as he hates gays.
Maybe he needs to come out of the closet himself. Self loathing can't be healthy.
Craig has been married as long as he has. So being married doesn't seem to be a proof.
-
BT, I'm sure that Knute can speak for himself, but I gotta tell ya, the hypocrisy factor is the single most outstanding feature of this debate. The Constitutional Amendment and the Family Values and the Christianity bullshit are overwhelmingly coming from the Republican side as are the homophobia and the fire-and-brimstone, as are the gays coming voluntarily and not-so-voluntarily out of the closet.
Of course there are exceptions to every rule and you are going to find the odd Democrat who takes an anti-gay position. But it's not in the party platform.
I don't see how it's possible to view this whole issue than anything OTHER than Republican hypocrisy and see no reason whatsoever not to take Knute at his word when he says the same. And I'll tell you also from my own experience, the only homophobes that I know are very conservative in their world-view. I don't know any left-wing homophobes, although the Castro regime has certainly been characterized as such in the past.
-
BT, I'm sure that Knute can speak for himself, but I gotta tell ya, the hypocrisy factor is the single most outstanding feature of this debate.
See? for some people it's just unheard of that people can be something, while advocating ideas that run counter to the "group think", daring to actually think for themselves....<GASP>. Such as African Americans that don't believe in reparations, or dare vote GOP. Overweight doctors who dare advocate that you stay trim & healthy. Frellin amazing. And the left complains that it's the right that votes and thinks lock step. ::)
-
<<Such as African Americans that don't believe in reparations, or dare vote GOP.>>
Well, when I said the GOP was a magnet for self-hating closet gays, I didn't mean it was ONLY for them. Of course, it would attract other similar kinds of scum, Uncle Toms being the most obvious. Why is this a problem for you?
-
BT, I'm sure that Knute can speak for himself, but I gotta tell ya, the hypocrisy factor is the single most outstanding feature of this debate. The Constitutional Amendment and the Family Values and the Christianity bullshit are overwhelmingly coming from the Republican side as are the homophobia and the fire-and-brimstone, as are the gays coming voluntarily and not-so-voluntarily out of the closet.
Of course there are exceptions to every rule and you are going to find the odd Democrat who takes an anti-gay position. But it's not in the party platform.
I don't see how it's possible to view this whole issue than anything OTHER than Republican hypocrisy and see no reason whatsoever not to take Knute at his word when he says the same. And I'll tell you also from my own experience, the only homophobes that I know are very conservative in their world-view. I don't know any left-wing homophobes, although the Castro regime has certainly been characterized as such in the past.
Far as i am concerned selective condemnation is hypocritical to it's core.
With the mindset that Knute requires any Dem who voted for DoMA should be run out of the party on a rail.
One must ask, why aren't they.
-
I'm talking about the hypocrisy of an entire party and its platform, you're talking about a handful of schmucks going against what their party stands for on one issue. Republicans RUN on homophobic platforms, nobody runs on DoMA.
-
I'm talking about the hypocrisy of an entire party and its platform, you're talking about a handful of schmucks going against what their party stands for on one issue. Republicans RUN on homophobic platforms, nobody runs on DoMA.
First of all DoMA is not homophobic. Secondly Clinton himself signed it gleefully and many prominent dems were 100% behind it. Yet that is given as an example of GOP distain for the gay lifestyle. Go figure.
-
First of all DoMA is not homophobic. Secondly Clinton himself signed it gleefully and many prominent dems were 100% behind it. Yet that is given as an example of GOP distain for the gay lifestyle. Go figure.
PRECISELY
-
How does DOMA actually DEFEND marriages? In what way is Bob and Carol's marriage threatened by Adam and Steve's having a marriage license?
I can't see how this defends marriages at all. Why don't some of your homophobes Republicans explain this?
It matters not what Clinton favored. DOMA is clearly anti-gay, and is intended to be so.
-
Heavy rounds, incoming, Knute. Us "homophobes" gotta dig in deeper before the Republican Gay Liberation Front gets our range. The Party of Constitutional Amendments to Save Family Values is suddenly reconnecting to its gay roots.
Mikey,
You have to admit Knutey is heavy on the disgusting pervert characterizations, but it only seems to apply to GOP members. Seems he would have to be equally disgusted with democrats who lean that way,to be consistent at least. Especially those who voted in favor of DoMA. In fact the dems don't even have to be gay to be considered hypocrits because they as a party are on record as being all for gay rights. He claims it is about the hypocrisy but i don't buy it.
I think he just thinks his has cover to unleash his prejudices and hatred for gays.
Perhaps it goes back to a rejection at the barracks door. You notice he hates marines as much as he hates gays.
Maybe he needs to come out of the closet himself. Self loathing can't be healthy.
Craig has been married as long as he has. So being married doesn't seem to be a proof.
Are you just too stupid to understand that I do not consider Gays disgusting pervs after I must have said it 5 times. If I were gay I would never have been in the closet because I would not be ashamed of it. You and your closeted ilk can never admit so you turn to the disgusting and sordid part of gayness to express yourselves.
I somehow dont think Michael will be too upset with me for hating jarheads.
BTW- Your imbecilic PeWee Herman retort is getting waaay overused.
-
That's oK Knutey. We won't think any less of you when you come out of the closet.
Actually I don't think it possible to think any less of you, period.
-
I can't see how this defends marriages at all. Why don't some of your homophobes Republicans explain this?
All DoMA did was define maririage from a federal viewpoint and though it allowed the states to have their own definitions it disallowed those definitions from being forced upon the other states.
-
That's oK Knutey. We won't think any less of you when you come out of the closet. Actually I don't think it possible to think any less of you, period.
D'OH :D
-
That's oK Knutey. We won't think any less of you when you come out of the closet.
Actually I don't think it possible to think any less of you, period.
You can be sure that the feeling is mutual, sweetheart. :-*
-
Just for the record, I don't think DoMA was either Clinton's or his party's best moment; it was anti-gay in intent, its entire reason for being was the progress that gays were making towards marriage. Nevertheless, the Democrats seem to define themselves a lot less by their anti-gay strategy than the Republicans do by theirs. I think of the partisan hounding of Clinton for example - - the guy almost driven from office by a fucking blow-job. Sure, SOME of the critics were Democrats - - the egregious Lieberman comes instantly to mind - - but most of the fake-puritanical outrage seemed to be coming only from one side of the aisle. I think of the way the Republicans took control of the "family values" label and made it a part of their brand. And of course I think of the Constitutional Amendment campaign, a disgrace to democratic values and principles.
For all of the foregoing reasons, I think that a Republican caught by scandal is a perfect example of hypocrisy unmasked, whereas a Democrat in the same circumstances is usually just political road-kill - - unless it's a guy like Lieberman, who made a point of parading his sanctimony for all the world to see.
-
Nevertheless, the Democrats seem to define themselves a lot less by their anti-gay strategy than the Republicans do by theirs.
Rubbish1. If DoMA is by definition anti gay then democrats who as a party define themselves as pro gay are the bigger hypocrites.
So lets just stop this nonsense.
-
<<Rubbish1. If DoMA is by definition anti gay . . . >>
What do you mean, IF DoMA is anti-gay? If I understand your position correctly, DoMA has to be anti-gay, otherwise the Democrats who claim the Republicans are sexual hypocrites are themselves sexual hypocrites for having supported DoMA and/or Clinton (who backed DoMA.) You seem to be talking out of both sides of your mouth at the same time - - DoMA is anti-gay (therefore Democrats are hypocrites) and DoMA is not anti-gay, because if it is anti-gay, then the (Republican) Constitutional Amendment is also anti-gay.
So maybe you had better start by talking out of one side of your mouth only - - is DoMA anti-gay or not?
<<then democrats who as a party define themselves as pro gay are the bigger hypocrites.>>
I'll agree with you as far as this: a Democratic legislator who voted for DoMA or a Democratic activist who campaigned for DoMA has no right to call the Republicans hypocrites, except in the sense that a pot can still call the kettle black as a matter of fact (both of them being hypocrites, or one of them being the bigger hypocrite.)
But I think it's being overly simplistic to assume that there can be no degrees of anti-gay activity, that a party which has supported DoMA is necessarily just as anti-gay as a party which not only (a) supported DoMA, (b) proposed and fought for a Constitutional Amendment to define marriage as implicitly heterosexual, (c) impugned the "family values" and "moral laxity" of the opposite party. IMHO, we have one party which succumbed to a terrible lapse and enacted a non-binding Federal law having little effect on the ultimate right of a gay person to marry and on the other hand a party which made anti-gay legislation a cornerstone of its platform, including a constitutional amendment which would have directly impinged on the civil rights of the gay community.
To pretend that both parties are equally guilty is ludicrous. It's like pretending that Joe Blow, who once complained that the fucking Jews owned all the banks, is as guilty of anti-Semitism as Adolf Hitler, and is equally complicit with him in the Holocaust. You are unable to distinguish between a party which pandered to a prevailing anti-gay mood by enacting a token law, and a party which made anti-gay legislation a cornerstone of its policy.
So lets just stop this nonsense.
-
So lets just stop this nonsense.
Right
Gay witchhunts falsely masked as hypocrite hunts is total nonsense.
Let's just call it what it is.
Gay bashing
And Knutey and Rogers should be ashamed.
If they are capable of such an emotion.
-
<<Gay witchhunts falsely masked as hypocrite hunts is total nonsense.
<<Let's just call it what it is.
<<Gay bashing>>
************************************
That's outrageous. It is the Republican party which made a career and a platform out of gay-bashing. It's one of the strongest planks in their platform. And when the hypocritical bastards are exposed again and again and again for the frauds and hypocrites that they are, it is fraud-bashing and it is hypocrite-bashing but it is NOT gay-bashing.
Labelling the exposure of Republican fraud and hypocrisy "gay-bashing" is a pathetic defensive manoeuvre that fools nobody.
And the condemnation of Republican hypocrisy and fraud is not going to stop. There is no good reason for it to stop.
-
<<Gay witchhunts falsely masked as hypocrite hunts is total nonsense.
<<Let's just call it what it is.
<<Gay bashing>>
************************************
That's outrageous. It is the Republican party which made a career and a platform out of gay-bashing. It's one of the strongest planks in their platform. And when the hypocritical bastards are exposed again and again and again for the frauds and hypocrites that they are, it is fraud-bashing and it is hypocrite-bashing but it is NOT gay-bashing.
And some examples of this official platformed party position of "gay bashing" would be..................?
-
That's outrageous. It is the Republican party which made a career and a platform out of gay-bashing. It's one of the strongest planks in their platform.
Actually it isn't.
Let's look at earlier examples of outings as smears.
Candace Gingrich, step sister of Newt, was used as a political wedge, not because of some stance by Newt but because some folks thought her gayness would damage Newt in the hinterlands. Pre DoMA, pre MArriage Amendment, her homosexuality was the issue, not any action on Newts part.
And then there is Mary Cheney. Dick Cheney himself is in favor of civil unions, but that wasn't enough to stop people including John Edwards, who famously said "he doesn't get those people" from placing her sexual preferences front and center.
The only conclusion i can come to is that the gayness must be the problem. That being gay is somehow bad.
And for that to come from the side that "champions gay rights" that seems odd.
-
McCarthyism' By Liberal Gay Bloggers?
That's the accusation leveled by Republican strategist Mike Murphy yesterday on "Meet The Press" in reaction to the resignation of Sen. Larry Craig, R-Idaho, because of a scandal involving alleged solicitation of another man in a public restroom.
Raw Story called attention to Murphy's comments. Here are quotes from the segment:
I think Craig is an unsympathetic figure. But there has been this case of bloggers on the far left trying to expose closeted politicians if they don't fall completely into lockstep with a certain liberal gay agenda. And I think that's unfair. It?s a form of McCarthyism, really. ...
[T]here is a tendency to apply an identity politics test now, which, which has a real chilling effect on politics, that somebody?s private life has -- or their, their race or their gender or their orientation -- has to dictate where they stand politically. If you're a woman, you have to be a pro-choice Democrat. I mean, that calculation cheapens politics, and it's unfair to people in public life who do have private lives.
A day after Murphy's appearance, liberal gay blogger John Aravosis asked this question in an inflammatory post at Americablog: "Is Senator Lindsey Graham Violating Don't Ask, Don't Tell?"
The entry resurrected what Aravosis admitted is "longtime unconfirmed speculation" about Graham's sexual preferences and said Graham "sounds like a flaming gay" who should be investigated by the Air Force before being allowed to serve as part of the reserve in Iraq.
http://beltwayblogroll.nationaljournal.com/archives/2007/09/mccarthyism_by.php
-
Arrianna Agrees:
In the Age of Terror, Isn't Busting Toe-Tappers an Insane Use of Our Law Enforcement Resources?
Posted September 3, 2007 | 05:18 PM (EST)
Read More: Breaking Politics News, Larry Craig, Arianna Huffington, U.S. Senate, Mark Steyn
In the consensus judgment of America's 16 intelligence agencies, the terrorist threat to our homeland is "persistent and evolving," placing our country in "a heightened threat environment."
Given that chilling assessment, isn't it the height of madness to use America's finite law enforcement resources to seek out and arrest people for tapping the foot of a cute undercover officer in a restroom?
Don't get me wrong, I'm not wild about walking into a public restroom and seeing a couple using the a stall for something other than, as Sgt. Dave Karsnia, the arresting officer in the Craig case put it, "its intended use."
But that is not what Larry Craig did. If he had, someone in the restroom could have done what most people do when they see a law being broken: go get a cop.
And as it happens, since Craig was arrested in an airport, presumably there were plenty of law enforcement officers nearby looking for, you know, real threats -- like explosives or folks on a Watch List. Assuming, that is, they weren't all hunkered down in other bathrooms across the airport, protecting the public against people who might be thinking about having sex.
Let me be clear: I'm no fan of Larry Craig. Indeed, I disagree with almost everything he stands for. And I'd much rather he not be in the United States Senate. But I'd also rather have had his exit be the result of his constituents voting on his ideas and policies, instead of a ridiculous sting operation in an airport bathroom.
At least it's nice to see that, while the cable networks have been giving the incident their usual nuanced treatment, bloggers across the political spectrum have taken a step back to look at the real issues here.
Garance Franke-Ruta of The American Prospect asks: "Was there anything criminal about Sen. Larry Craig's gestures if they suggested a desire for consensual lewd behavior of some kind with the man in the adjacent restroom stall?" Her answer: no.
Conservative University of Minnesota law professor Dale Carpenter, blogging at the Volokh Conspiracy, agrees with her:
"Disorderly conduct is a notoriously nebulous crime, allowing police wide discretion in making arrests and charges for conduct or speech that is little more than bothersome to police or to others."
As Carpenter and Franke-Ruta both point out, soliciting someone to have sex with you is not a crime in Minnesota. If Craig had solicited someone, which then led to a round of bathroom sex, then yes, arrest them. But that's not what happened.
It's unsettling that more people here in the land of the free aren't at all discomfited at leaving it up to the prognostication skills of Sgt. Karsnia and his crack team of B-men to determine what crimes people might have committed if not for the mind-reading and daring-do of Minneapolis' Special Forces Bathroom Unit.
Conservative pundit Mark Steyn thinks that Craig was up to no good, but says, "Karsnia sounds just as weird and creepy: a guy who's paid to sit in a bathroom stall for hours on end observing adjoining ankles. I'd rather hand out traffic tickets."
But beyond them being weird and creepy, these kinds of stings also have a huge opportunity cost to them. There clearly are very serious potential threats to our safety to be found in airports -- outside of bathroom stalls. Is sending Sgt. Karsnia into the men's room to spend all day trying to get other men to look at him and tap his foot really the best way to use our limited law enforcement resources?
And just how much money is Minneapolis/St. Paul spending on sting operations like this one? Just since May, 40 men have been arrested on allegations of illegal sexual activity at the same airport. And how much taxpayer money in total is being allocated across the country by local police to protect us from people whom the Sgt. Karsnias of the world think might, at some point, commit a crime?
We at HuffPost are working to pull these numbers together by calling local police departments all across America, since the numbers don't seem to be readily available. We'd love your help on this; please send us any figures or worthwhile information you can find (post them in the comments section below or email max@huffingtonpost.com).
Here's another question to ask: does the Minneapolis police force look around its members for officers they think might be attractive to gay men? Or do they specifically search out recruits who would make good undercover "twinks," "bears," and "silver foxes"?
And, yes, I know, Sen. Craig pleaded guilty. But given the inevitable humiliation that would have ensued had he challenged this arrest, it's not hard to imagine that he felt he had no other choice. The same goes for the thousands of other men who have been snared in these wasteful sting operations.
But those of us who prefer that our public servants go after actual lawbreakers rather than use our resources to humiliate gay people do have a choice. And we should make it clear that we want our police going after terrorists -- not toe-tappers.
Since the news about Craig broke, the media focus has been on his sexual perversions -- it's time to turn the spotlight on the perverted priorities of America's law enforcement community.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/arianna-huffington/in-the-age-of-terror-isn_b_62928.html?view=print
-
<<And some examples of this official platformed party position of "gay bashing" would be..................?>>
The Constitutional Amendment would be the only answer necessary. For a little icing on the cake, try the Republican position on family values, which they all seem to emphasize in their campaign materials. And see which way Focus on the Family and other right-wing homophobic organizations lean in their endorsements.
-
So, in other words, Tee has no "examples" of official party "Gay-bashing" positions, simply sophistry and applied hyperbole. Kinda what I thought
-
<<So, in other words, Tee has no "examples" of official party "Gay-bashing" positions, simply sophistry and applied hyperbole. Kinda what I thought>>
Some people think that when a Party's position (on, say, the Constitutional Amendment) becomes a plank in the Party Platform, that makes it "official," but I forgot for a moment that I was dealing with the loony Republican right wing, where words take on their own meaning as circumstances dictate, and apparently, planks in the party platform are no longer "official" party positions.
sirs, I salute you again. I can never win against an opponent like you. (Unless first I invent my own language.)
-
Some people think that when a Party's position (on, say, the Constitutional Amendment) becomes a plank in the Party Platform, that makes it "official,"
Only if you consider the DoMA to be gay-bashing. Many do not.
-
I consider both DoMA and the failed Constitutional Amendment to be outrageous examples of gay-bashing. The ONLY purpose of either one of them is to deny gay people a Constitutional equality right.
And I think it's hilarious to see the Republican Party doubling over to bite its own ass, now complaining not only of "homophobia" but also "McCarthyism." LMFAO. Whoever woulda thunk? This whole symbiotic relationship of Republicans and closet gays may well usher in a new era of tolerance and respect. Truth certainly is stranger than fiction.
-
I consider both DoMA and the failed Constitutional Amendment to be outrageous examples of gay-bashing. The ONLY purpose of either one of them is to deny gay people a Constitutional equality right.
And you're allowed to have to have your own opinion. Doesn't mean it's automatically "the truth."
-
I consider both DoMA and the failed Constitutional Amendment to be outrageous examples of gay-bashing. The ONLY purpose of either one of them is to deny gay people a Constitutional equality right.
And you're allowed to have to have your own opinion. Doesn't mean it's automatically "the truth."
And boy, ain't that the truth
-
Perhaps one of you geniuses could 'splain to us why DOMA is not anti-gay?
Its intent and effect is to deny the various public and private perks of marriage to gays. It does not grant special rights to heterosexuals. It does not change any rights of heterosexuals at all. It only denies equal rights.
You could explain why this is not so, but I doubt that either of you is capable of this.
Try anyway.
-
Perhaps one of you geniuses could 'splain to us why DOMA is not anti-gay?
BT already did.
-
No, he didn't.
-
http://debategate.com/new3dhs/index.php?topic=3794.msg34239#msg34239
-
This, apparently, was BT's explanation of why DoMA was not anti-gay. Quoting verbatim:
<<All DoMA did was define maririage from a federal viewpoint and though it allowed the states to have their own definitions it disallowed those definitions from being forced upon the other states.>>
ANY definition of marriage, DoMA's included, that excludes gay marriage, is by definition anti-gay.
The whole point of creating a statute to define marriage in an exclusionary way is to deprive gays of full married status in contravention of their Constitutional rights.
BT wants to have it both ways. DoMA is not anti-gay because exclusionary definitions of marriage are not anti-gay (in his warped logic, anyway.) However, Democrats who condemn outted Republicans are hypocrites because they condemn the failed Constitutional Amendment as anti-gay, but do not equally condemn the "anti-gay" DoMA.
Quite a dilemma you got yourself into, BT!
-
The crucial part you gloss over is that the states are free to define marriage anyway they please. The law simply states that the fed is not bound by the definitions of the state neither are the other 49.
-
<<The crucial part you gloss over is that the states are free to define marriage anyway they please. The law simply states that the fed is not bound by the definitions of the state neither are the other 49.>>
That's not the crucial part. The crucial part is that it attempted to define marriage and in an exclusionary way.
What do you think was the purpose of the law? How was it explained when first presented to the legislature?
-
The Law
104th CONGRESS 2D SESSION
H.R. 3396
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Mr. BARR of Georgia (for himself, Mr. LARGENT, Mr. SENSENBRENNER, Ms.
MYRICK, Mr. VOLKMER, Mr. SKELTON, Mr. BRYANT, and Mr. EMERSON)
introduced the following bill, which was referred to the Committee
on_____________
A BILL
To define and protect the institution of marriage.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United
States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the "Defense of Marriage Act".
SEC. 2. POWERS RESERVED TO THE STATES.
(a) IN GENERAL. -- Chapter 115 of title 28, United States Code, is
amended by adding after section 1738B the following:
Section 1738C. Certain acts, records, and proceedings and the effect
thereof
"No State, territory, or possession of the United States, or Indian
tribe, shall be required to give effect to any public act, record, or
judicial proceeding of any other State, territory, possession, or tribe
respecting a relationship between persons of the same sex that is
treated as a marriage under the laws of such other State, territory,
possession, or tribe, or a right or claim arising from such
relationship."
(b) CLERICAL AMENDMENT. -- The table of sections at the beginning of
chapter 115 of title 28, United States Code, is amended by inserting
after the item relating to section 1738B the following new item: "1738C.
Certain acts, records, and proceedings and the effect thereof."
SEC. 3. DEFINITION OF MARRIAGE.
(a) IN GENERAL. -- Chapter 1 of title 1, United States Code, is amended
by adding at the end the following:
"Section 7. Definition of 'marriage' and 'spouse'
"In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling,
regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and
agencies of the United States, the word 'marriage' means only a legal
union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word
'spouse' refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or
a wife."
(b) CLERICAL AMENDMENT. -- The table of sections at the beginning of
chapter 1 of title 1, United States Code, is amended by inserting after
the item relating to section 6 the following new item:
"7. Definition of 'marriage' and 'spouse'."
http://www.lectlaw.com/files/leg23.htm
-
The Senate Vote:
Alphabetical by Senator Name
Abraham (R-MI), Yea
Akaka (D-HI), Nay
Ashcroft (R-MO), Yea
Baucus (D-MT), Yea
Bennett (R-UT), Yea
Biden (D-DE), Yea
Bingaman (D-NM), Yea
Bond (R-MO), Yea
Boxer (D-CA), Nay
Bradley (D-NJ), Yea
Breaux (D-LA), Yea
Brown (R-CO), Yea
Bryan (D-NV), Yea
Bumpers (D-AR), Yea
Burns (R-MT), Yea
Byrd (D-WV), Yea
Campbell (R-CO), Yea
Chafee (R-RI), Yea
Coats (R-IN), Yea
Cochran (R-MS), Yea
Cohen (R-ME), Yea
Conrad (D-ND), Yea
Coverdell (R-GA), Yea
Craig (R-ID), Yea
D'Amato (R-NY), Yea
Daschle (D-SD), Yea
DeWine (R-OH), Yea
Dodd (D-CT), Yea
Domenici (R-NM), Yea
Dorgan (D-ND), Yea
Exon (D-NE), Yea
Faircloth (R-NC), Yea
Feingold (D-WI), Nay
Feinstein (D-CA), Nay
Ford (D-KY), Yea
Frahm (R-KS), Yea
Frist (R-TN), Yea
Glenn (D-OH), Yea
Gorton (R-WA), Yea
Graham (D-FL), Yea
Gramm (R-TX), Yea
Grams (R-MN), Yea
Grassley (R-IA), Yea
Gregg (R-NH), Yea
Harkin (D-IA), Yea
Hatch (R-UT), Yea
Hatfield (R-OR), Yea
Heflin (D-AL), Yea
Helms (R-NC), Yea
Hollings (D-SC), Yea
Hutchison (R-TX), Yea
Inhofe (R-OK), Yea
Inouye (D-HI), Nay
Jeffords (R-VT), Yea
Johnston (D-LA), Yea
Kassebaum (R-KS), Yea
Kempthorne (R-ID), Yea
Kennedy (D-MA), Nay
Kerrey (D-NE), Nay
Kerry (D-MA), Nay
Kohl (D-WI), Yea
Kyl (R-AZ), Yea
Lautenberg (D-NJ), Yea
Leahy (D-VT), Yea
Levin (D-MI), Yea
Lieberman (D-CT), Yea
Lott (R-MS), Yea
Lugar (R-IN), Yea
Mack (R-FL), Yea
McCain (R-AZ), Yea
McConnell (R-KY), Yea
Mikulski (D-MD), Yea
Moseley-Braun (D-IL), Nay
Moynihan (D-NY), Nay
Murkowski (R-AK), Yea
Murray (D-WA), Yea
Nickles (R-OK), Yea
Nunn (D-GA), Yea
Pell (D-RI), Nay
Pressler (R-SD), Yea
Pryor (D-AR), Not Voting
Reid (D-NV), Yea
Robb (D-VA), Nay
Rockefeller (D-WV), Yea
Roth (R-DE), Yea
Santorum (R-PA), Yea
Sarbanes (D-MD), Yea
Shelby (R-AL), Yea
Simon (D-IL), Nay
Simpson (R-WY), Yea
Smith (R-NH), Yea
Snowe (R-ME), Yea
Specter (R-PA), Yea
Stevens (R-AK), Yea
Thomas (R-WY), Yea
Thompson (R-TN), Yea
Thurmond (R-SC), Yea
Warner (R-VA), Yea
Wellstone (D-MN), Yea
Wyden (D-OR), Nay
-
How is this any different from defending an anti-miscegenation law that various states could pass or not as they chose?
People in this country should have the same rights, be they gay, straight, white, black, etc.
No "states' rights" will do.
-
BT did not answer the question. That's OK, it was mainly rhetorical. I'll answer it for him. The purpose of DoMA was to head off any judicial interpretation of "marriage" that would allow marriages between Adam and Steve or their female counterparts, i.e. to deny Constitutional equality to gays.
BT's refusal to answer IMHO shows that he knows God-damn well what the purpose of the legislation was, and that it IS homophobic.
-
No "states' rights" will do.
DoMA is not about states rights.