The “outing” of closeted homosexuals
ALa, the Philadelphia blogger who writes Blonde Sagacity, has a short piece about The Gay-Outing Left. There is purported to be a list, or “The List,” of all of the homosexuals in the Republican Party in Congress, both as members of Congress and staffers.
This comes to the fore, of course, due to the Mark Foley scandal. Some people wish to attach the problem to Mr Foley being homosexual, while others want to link it (wrongly) to pedophilia.¹ Some of my friends on the left wanted to make sure that we understood that homosexuality does not equal pedophilia.
But I think the real problem was defined, though obliquely, by Andrew Sullivan. Mr Sullivan wrote:
While gays were fighting for thir basic equality, Foley voted for the “Defense of Marriage Act”.
Same-sex “marriage” is Mr Sullivan’s biggest issue, but perhaps that points out the entire problem. Mr Sullivan is a publicly “out” homosexual. While he certainly writes on topics other than issues asssociated with homosexuality, on the whole he reminds me of the change in Ellen Degeneres’ comedy television show Ellen. Before Miss Degeneres came out as a lesbian, her show was reasonably funny; I don’t like all of her humor (it got too slapstick-silly at times), but at times she was just outrageously funny. Once she came out on her show, it seemed like the whole tenor of the show changed: it went from being a comedy to a sort-of lesbian-affirmation show. Since her audience was generated on her humor, the changed really flopped.
The same is true with Mr Sullivan. It has become somewhat difficult to see him as a (mostly) conservative political commentator who happens to be homosexual, rather than a homosexual who happens to write on political issues; it’s a matter of emphasis.
And his criticism of Mr Foley’s vote on the Defense of Marriage Act was one of indignation, of “how dare a homosexual vote for DoMA?” It’s kind of like the notion of a conservative black amongst our Democratic friends; it’s seen as some sort of group treason.
If Mr Foley is homosexual (he is) and he voted for the DoMA (he did), is it not possible that he was both voting as his constituents would have liked and that, even though homosexual, he doesn’t support the notion of expanding the definition of marriage to include homosexual couples? Such a thought does not seem to occur to Mr Sullivan, who sees only some sort of closet-induced mental illness:
What I do know is that the closet corrupts. The lies it requires and the compartmentalization it demands can lead people to places they never truly wanted to go, and for which they have to take ultimate responsibility. From what I’ve read, Foley is another example of this destructive and self-destructive pattern for which the only cure is courage and honesty.
Well, “the List” is just another attempt by those with a particular (liberal) agenda to try to impose discipline on those Republicans who might be homosexual, but for whom the agenda of the homosexual activists simply isn’t important or with which they necessarily agree.
I have come to the conclusion that a homosexual candidate for public office needs to be open and honest about that; if that means some people won’t vote for him, so be it, but starting from honesty is far better than basing candidacy on a lie. To me, the idea that a homosexual candidate would pretend to be heterosexual to gain more votes is putting the candidacy and the desire for office far ahead of the desire for public service.
But a congressional staffer? They are mostly unknown, they do not present themselves to the voters, and such disclosures if they wish to keep the matter private are scummy. While I’d think any staffer who has to be cleared would need to be honest to the FBI about it, there is no particular need to make a mostly anonymous staffer’s private life public.
I find it interesting that our friends on the left, the ones who are so concerned about “diversity,” are so determined to deny any diversity of opinion among members of particular interest groups. Blacks may not be Republicans, homosexuals must not be Republicans, and women may not be pro-life, because to be such is to show treason to the group. To me, that is the ultimate insult: that because of one’s sexuality or the color of one’s skin or the configuartion of one’s genitals, some people believe independent thought and individual conclusions are precluded.
_________________
¹- Pedophilia means a sexual interest in prepubescent children. Mr Foley’s sexual fantasies were apparently about older teenagers.
BJTex:
There you have it. The reason why political discourse in this country has gone into the crapper and left the majority of Americans frustrated or, worse, apathetic with the whole shebang.
My first thought is: how is knowing a person’s sexual orientation going to help me decide whether or not they will be an effective legislator/leader who will promote my view on issues? Yes, I said issues! My boss is a liberal Democrat and yet he was mad as heck about the judicial hearings because “it seems to be all about abortion.” We are now the society of sound bites and snark quotes, vibrated by a some fragment of snipe that is designed to get a reaction rather than inform.
I’m not stupid enough to lay this completely at the Demo’s feet. Some groups like Christian Coalition hot buzzed pro-life and family values on a shish kabob level. However there is nothing in the Republican house that is even close to the smear and bile that is attached to the tacit intolerance of leftist “political correctness.” Whether you are black, hispanic, a woman or gay, you are commanded to support the party of perpetual victimhood or be branded “aunt jemima,” “uncle tom,” “fascist,”, “racist,” “sexist,” “closet crazy, ” ad nauseum.
Each day that passes, the party of “tolerance” looks less and less tolerent of the very groups that they claim to protect.
Oh, well, it’s just politics after all…
10 October 2006, 9:08 amCommon Sense Political Thought » Blog Archives » Another closeted homosexual outed?:
[...] While Mr Rogers’ “outing†of Senator Craig (whether true or false) is repugnant, I have taken the position that all politicians must be truthful and specific about this. [...]
18 October 2006, 12:08 pmAnother one out of the closet? | Redstate:
[...] While Mr Rogers’ “outing†of Senator Craig (whether true or false) is repugnant, I have taken the position that all politicians must be truthful and specific about this. [...]
18 October 2006, 3:13 pmPatterico’s Pontifications » Lefty Blogger Outs Senator As Gay:
[...] While Mr Rogers’ “outing” of Senator Craig (whether true or false) is repugnant, I have taken the position that all politicians must be truthful and specific about this. [...]
18 October 2006, 6:16 pmstan sloane:
I believe the most powerful (closeted) gay man in Wash. is Sen. [Deleted]. I have had (no) success finding a blog that has outed him.
22 October 2006, 7:38 pmCommon Sense Political Thought » Blog Archives » I’m very thankful that . . .:
[...] Recent comments stan sloane on The “outing” of closeted homosexuals [...]
22 October 2006, 9:02 pmCommon Sense Political Thought » Archives » Ugh!:
[...] I have written previously that political candidates need to be completely forthright and honest about parts of their lives that, for most people, are private matters. I had also said that congressional staffers ought not to be included in such a requirement. I hadn’t extended that to rather public figures in private endeavors, but I see that I should have. [...]
5 November 2006, 6:20 amCommon Sense Political Thought » Archives » When you lie about stuff like this, odds are that you are going to get caught:
[...] I had also noted the exposure of Representative Mark Foley (R-FL) as a closeted homosexual, writing: If Mr Foley is homosexual (he is) and he voted for the DoMA (he did), is it not possible that he was both voting as his constituents would have liked and that, even though homosexual, he doesn’t support the notion of expanding the definition of marriage to include homosexual couples? [...]
28 August 2007, 9:55 am