Anti-Gay Politician Arrested for DUI After Leaving Gay Bar

[+ Lucky]

merlin,. I see you and the fallen senator as peas in a pod, so anything you have to say in your friend's defense is going to fall on empty ears.

[Guest Merlin]

It is question of logic "empty ears" to the contrary notwithstanding. I should add that if he publicaly opposes gay sex on moral or religious grounds while paracticing it, that would be hypocritcal. Being in a gay bar without more would not.

[+ Charlie]

A hypocrite is someone who pretends to believe one thing while actually believing something else, and who publicly criticizes someone else for doing what he himself does secretly. Ashburn has proven to fit the second part of the definition by his actions, and the first part by his own convoluted admission that he is only doing what his constituents want, although he got elected by telling them that was what he believed in, too. Merlin's defense would be less laughable if Ashburn had honestly run as a married homosexual opposed to gay rights, but then, of course, no one would be crazy enough to vote for him. He probably should also have told his constituents that he was opposed to laws against drunk driving.

[Guest Merlin]

Has he criticized gays for being gay or having gay sex? The article at the head does not say so, and notice that I said that if he publicly opposes gay sex while practicing it, that would be hypocritical. Did he run for office saying that he favored gay marriage, but then voted against it? Again the article does not say that and it would at least be dishonest.

BUT it is not inconsistent to be gay and practice gay sex while opposing the gay political agenda.

[NYTomcat]

NONSENSE. It is not hypocrisy to be gay and yet oppose the gay agenda. If items in the gay agenda are socially or economically undesireable it is not inconsistent for a gay person to oppose them. If so, would it not be hypocritical for a white person to oppose rights and privileges for blacks and others? Would it not be hypocritical for a rich person to favor laws helping the poor? An employer to favor laws benefical to workers? Would it be hypocritical for a pedophile to oppose laws prohibiting child abuse, ors is he somehow obligated to favor whatever his "group" wants. NO, I am not saying being gay is like pedophilia, so don't screetch at me. The point is that it is not hypocritical to favor legal and social positions which you believe to be best for society, even though they may not be considered beneficial to your own identity group.

If he chose to be gay and chose to oppose the gay agenda, you would be closer to showing hypocrisy. But we can assume he did not choose to be gay.

Where your examples fall short is your hypothetical are more in line with the straight politician who supports gay marriage. Lets look at the real comparison. The black politician opposed to equal rights. The poor starving man who can't feed his own but would rather see his children starve than accept charity. I do not disagree that you can be gay and not support the gay agenda. But I would hope you have an alternative not just that the act is morally wrong and therefore should not be condoned. That is just the definition of self loathing

 

How would we view a black politician who said civil rights was a mistake and that people if color should not be allowed to vote or marry. Especially when he is elected passing himself off as a white man.

[Guest Merlin]

I of course have never said that gay sex is immoral. And no one has suggested that gays should not be allowed to vote. We have endlessly debated whether gay marriage serves any social or governmental purpose, and whether it will be detrimental to traditional marriage and the family. The only point at issue here would be whether it is hypocritical to be gay and/or engage in gay sex on the one hand, and oppose gay marriage and other items of the gay agenda on the other. The logical answer is that it is not inconsistent and not hypocritical.

[instudiocity]

Merlin2

 

I understand what you're saying and frankly I agree.

 

I also support gay marriage because the country needs the additional revenue from the income tax marriage penalty that would fall on these upwardly mobile, statistically higher wage-earners with fewer dependents.

 

All that other legal crap about visiting hospital rooms and making final decisions can easily be pencil-whipped with a visit to Legal Zoom and $39.

[instudiocity]

TO NYTomcat

 

I would rather think as you do but unavoidably assume he acted to get elected not do the will of his people.

 

Then you may appreciate this tongue-in-cheek observation,

 

"It's an amazing thing what an ego will do!"

 

Anybody who gets married, has 4 daughters, seeks the public light of politics only to be arrested for drunk-driving as he is departing a gay bar, with an openly gay man believes he can GET AWAY WITH ANYTHING (Bill Clinton?) or he's just BEGGING TO GET CAUGHT.

[NYTomcat]

Maybe a little of both. A God complex that he thinks he can fool anyone and a desperate desire not to live the lie anymore. Why the hell wouldn't he be drunk.

[N.N.]

NONSENSE. It is not hypocrisy to be gay and yet oppose the gay agenda.

Read his own announcement about the rally he hosted with Lou Sheldon, especially this part:

 

"We need to preserve traditional values for the future of our children," Ashburn stated. "Children must be raised with morals and principles. As a society, we must provide them with a secured and loving environment that allows them to flourish."

http://cssrc.us/web/18/news.aspx?id=1870

 

I grant that gay people may disagree about how to approach the marriage issue. But how many sane gay people do you know who organize rallies with the likes of Lou Sheldon, talking about how important it is to raise children "with morals and principles"? We know what kind of morals and principles "Rev." Sheldon has in mind, and they're not in the least gay-positive.

 

Roy Ashburn went beyond just not buying into the "gay agenda".

 

I should add that if he publicaly opposes gay sex on moral or religious grounds while paracticing it, that would be hypocritcal. Being in a gay bar without more would not.

Ashburn admitted he's gay on KERN radio this morning. (Google News will find online reports thereof if you need them.)

[Guest TBinCHI]

Where your examples fall short is your hypothetical are more in line with the straight politician who supports gay marriage. Lets look at the real comparison. The black politician opposed to equal rights. The poor starving man who can't feed his own but would rather see his children starve than accept charity. I do not disagree that you can be gay and not support the gay agenda. But I would hope you have an alternative not just that the act is morally wrong and therefore should not be condoned. That is just the definition of self loathing

 

How would we view a black politician who said civil rights was a mistake and that people if color should not be allowed to vote or marry. Especially when he is elected passing himself off as a white man.

 

Right on Tomcat! Right on!

[Lookin]

It is not hypocrisy to be gay and yet oppose the gay agenda.

 

I know I had a gay agenda laying around here somewhere, but I can't seem to put my hands on it.

 

Could somebody please post a copy?

[MsGuy]

Gay Agenda:

1) Destroy traditional marriage.

2) Subvert traditional family.

3) Recruit young straights.

4) Undermine military.

5) Currupt public morals.

6) Special rights for Gays.

 

What am I forgetting? I really should attend more cell meetings but I've been too busy with disgusting public displays of affection. Are we for or against mass immigration by illegal aliens? I never could keep that straight. I remember we used to be for repealing the sodomy laws but that kinda seems a done deal now.

[uwsman2]

So now he says....

 

...that he voted against gay rights on every occasion because it's what his constituents expected.

 

I guess this makes sense on one level. He ran for office as a straight, right-wing homophobe, so presumably the majority in his district who elected him expected him to vote anti-gay at every opportunity. If you believe in representative democracy, I guess you can't knock it.

 

On the other hand, if you believe that representatives are elected to study every issue that comes before them and try to do "the right thing," you can knock it. Politicians whose every vote is dictated by the polling in their district may be "representatives" in the sense that they are merely placeholders or automatons or puppets for their constituents, but if that's the case, why bother with hearings, committee reports, floor debates, and "legislative deliberation"? Under this guy's definition of the job of an elected representative, none of that is relevant. The legislature is just a town meeting writ small.

 

But working with Lou Sheldon to actively promote homophobia when you are secretly gay is unacceptable.

[Guest Merlin]

Lookin, you scoff at the term "gay agenda" yet gays commonly talk about "gay rights'. Is there a difference? The problem with the term gay rights is that is embodies the logical fallacy of "begging the question", i.e. it assumes the very point being argued for. It assumes they are legal rights even though, at this time, they are merely a wish list.

[+ glutes]

Read his own announcement about the rally he hosted with Lou Sheldon, especially this part:

 

"We need to preserve traditional values for the future of our children," Ashburn stated. "Children must be raised with morals and principles. As a society, we must provide them with a secured and loving environment that allows them to flourish."

http://cssrc.us/web/18/news.aspx?id=1870

 

 

Ashburn admitted he's gay on KERN radio this morning. (Google News will find online reports thereof if you need them.)

 

What Would Reverent Sheldon Do?

 

http://dayeight.files.wordpress.com/2009/01/god-hates-fags.jpg

[justaguy]

MsGuy--r.e. mass immigration

 

The gay agenda does not oppose the mass immigration of illegal aliens as long as the persons involved are very good looking and/or are well above average in terms of the relative mass of a certain body part. (refer to Article 69, section 8, subparagraph 11)

[MsGuy]

Lookin, you scoff at the term "gay agenda" yet gays commonly talk about "gay rights'. Is there a difference? The problem with the term gay rights is that is embodies the logical fallacy of "begging the question", i.e. it assumes the very point being argued for. It assumes they are legal rights even though, at this time, they are merely a wish list.

 

Merlin, "gay rights" is American political shorthand for the same rights and priviledges that straights enjoy as American citizens. No more, no less, no exceptions that pander to traditional straight cultural and religious prejudices. The phrase carries the notion that Gays should stand on an equal legal footing with their straight fellow citizens. What is there about that that creeps you out?

 

I can see where a certain type of small government conservative might might have principaled objections to some of the methods by which many (not all) gays seek to dismantle the disabilities imposed on them by our society. One could make a Goldwater stye objection to antidiscrimination laws generally, for instance, as applied to non-governmental sectors of society. Or a conservative motivated by free speech concerns might object to hate crimes legislation.

 

But usually those aren't the kinds of things I see you raising a fuss about in your posts. You argue against gay marriage, you argue against gays serving openly in the military, you argue against the same type of court intervention that struck down the sodomy laws and squashed targeted antigay laws, you argue against most anything that tends to get cultural/religious homophobes riled up or denies them the power to impose their prejudices on gay people. Why?

 

The explanation that you have alluded to here is that the U.S. has problems a lot more important than equality for gay citizens. You find the political allies to address these problems on the right so you subordinate gay issues to the greater cause. Well and good, if those are your priorities, but is it really necessary to persuade yourself that your political friends's animus against homosexuality is for that reason somehow harmless, that you must sympathize with their desire to force gays back into the shadows?

[MsGuy]

MsGuy--r.e. mass immigration

 

The gay agenda does not oppose the mass immigration of illegal aliens as long as the persons involved are very good looking and/or are well above average in terms of the relative mass of a certain body part. (refer to Article 69, section 8, subparagraph 11)

 

Thanks for the reference, justaguy. I knew I'd seen something on immigration somewhere in the manual.

 

http://pacejmiller.files.wordpress.com/2009/03/thick-book2.jpg

[Lookin]

Lookin, you scoff at the term "gay agenda" yet gays commonly talk about "gay rights'.

 

You won't hear it from me, Merlin. I resist any of these catch-all terms that try to shove tens of millions of people into one basket. We're more nuanced than that.

 

Is there a difference?

 

You shifted from "agenda" to "rights", but they're your phrases so I'll defer to you as to what they mean. My take is that an agenda would include something I want, and a right would be something I have.

 

The problem with the term gay rights is that is embodies the logical fallacy of "begging the question", i.e. it assumes the very point being argued for. It assumes they are legal rights even though, at this time, they are merely a wish list.

 

I think that throughout recorded history just about every legal right that we enjoy today started out on somebody's wish list. A series of steps over the years moves us from wishes to rights. That process seems like a pretty straightforward one to me. We've got a number of those processes going on now, at various stages, and there will be more to come. We are not frozen in time.

 

I've been blessed in my life to have had many of my wishes come true, and I'd like to see others have their wishes come true too. As long as we all support one another's pursuit of happiness without causing undue harm to others, where's the beef?

 

http://luckybogey.files.wordpress.com/2009/05/nobeef2.jpg

[MsGuy]

Full disclosure time.

 

Part of me empathizes with closeted gay politicians. It ain't an easy life they have, especially in conservative areas of the country. I know, I know, it's no excuse etc., but they often live in a particularly nasty and isolated corner of the psychological hell closeted gays can get caught in. Think of Roy Cohn. Who would have wanted to be trapped in his skin?

----

What brought this on was Googling around looking for outed gay conservative pols. I ran across this on Jon Hinson, a (very) casual acquiantance I lost track of after he left MS. I hope he finally found some peace in his life after being busted, outed and driven from office by his conservative friends.

 

Jon Hinson

 

 

 

This Mississippi Republican ran far to the right to win election to the House in 1978, but was forced to admit in the summer of 1980 that he'd been arrested several years earlier for committing an "obscene act" near the Iwo Jima Memorial. Then 38, Hinson vehemently denied he was gay, declared himself a happily married Christian man, and won reelection -- barely. But months into his next term, he was arrested in a public restroom in the Longworth House Office Building for committing oral sodomy -- then a crime -- with a male employee of the Library of Congress. Hinson resigned his seat, divorced his wife, and never returned to Mississippi, living out his life (and quietly advocating gay rights) in the D.C. suburbs until his death from AIDS in 1995.

[Guest Merlin]

Lookin, you say you want only equal rights. So let's talk about anti-discrimination laws, a key feature of gay "rights" agitation or agenda. Originally, at the common law, and in most states today, employment was "at will",i.e., either the employer or employee may refuse to enter the relation or may terminate it for a good reason, a bad reason, or no reason at all. The employee and employer, gays and straights, have equal rights.

 

But gays say: we want to keep our right to refuse employment or to terminate at will.

BUT, we want the law to prohibit employers from refusing to employ or to promote and from terminating and employee because he is gay.

 

Gays refuse to see that in so seeking, they are seeking rights superior to the employer and to straight employees. I would like to focus on that question only, without getting side tracked into the question of whether such superior laws are desirable, and whether gays should be able to ride the coat tails of other protected minorities.

[NYTomcat]

No Merlin. Under employment at will an employer cannot terminate on protected class grounds. I don't ask that he can fire individual for being str8 just that he can't consider sexual orientation as a reason for termination like race and religion.

 

If you are trying to say that we had a choice. Fine while I debate that as well. We are not demanding anyone str8 to be gay we are just saying you can be what you choose and not have fundamental life requirements and benefits denied you

[N.N.]

Gays refuse to see that in so seeking, they are seeking rights superior to the employer and to straight employees.

How would the laws give gay people rights superior to those of straight employees? The anti-discrimination laws I've seen make it equally illegal for a manager (e.g., a gay one) to fire straight employees based on orientation.

[Lookin]

Merlin, thanks for the offer to shift the discussion to employment discrimination laws, but I'll respectfully decline to jump in. First, NYTomcat and N.N. said it much better than I can and, second, the federal, state, and local protections we enjoy today are good enough for me. I can only add that they were hard won, and those who fought for them have my gratitude and respect.

 

MsGuy, thanks for sharing your connection with Jon Hinson. I agree with you that at various times in our history and in certain parts of the country the oppression gay men endured could be unbearable. One of the things I appreciate most about this Message Forum is the opportunity we all have to learn firsthand that the freedoms we take for granted today didn't exist a generation or two ago, and that there are still those who wouldn't mind seeing them disappear again.

 

Of course, the environment we grew up in shaped the person we were and who we are today. But I think the other important part of who we are is the way we each responded to that environment. Some found it impossible and took their own lives. Others, like Jon Hinson and Roy Ashburn, bought into it on the surface, and ran from it whenever they got the chance. Some of us tried to work around and through it, and others fought it tooth and nail. I think there were as many reactions to the closet as there were people living in it or leaping out of it.

 

And then there was Roy Cohn. I try my best to have compassion for all my brothers and sisters, but that was a guy who strains my capacity for empathy. I'd love to hear from anyone who knew him and considered him other than a nasty piece of work.

 

http://t0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:U05olx2LbYNK0M:http://www.analisisfotografia.uji.es/root/analisis/imagejem/0303.jpg