Another Toe-Tappin' Republican

[Redleg]

So another Republican politician is showing his hypocritical rear-end, this is news of what measure I wonder?

(Actually I don't)

Politicians of all makes are hypocritical - some are just better at not getting thrown out of the closet about their hypocrisy.

[Lemur]

There are certain kinds of people who are irresistibly drawn to show tunes and a capella groups. We call those people Senators.

[Lemur]

You'll have to point out where they wanted to prosecute homosexuals or ban homosexual sex.

Sorry I missed this earlier. So your threshold for tolerance is active prosecution of people or laws banning their sexual activities? Bit of a strawman, frankly. Also note that on the state level, several laws have been in existence until recently that banned "sodomy," under various definitions. The most vigorous supporters are always Republicans. Examples galore.

I think it's a bit of a stretch to paint the Republicans as pro-homosexual, or even neutral-homosexual. Anyone who has been following American politics for the last ten years will boggle at the assertion. I hesitate to post any articles on the subject, since they will be subjected to either a Bias! fatwa courtesy of Xiahou or an angry dissection from other right-wing Orgahs, but I guess I have no option, since you and others are seriously asserting that the Republcian party has not traded in homophobia. Here's a summation from '03:

The decision to scapegoat gay and lesbian Americans was poll-driven by an antigay backlash that gathered steam in the wake of the Supreme Court's June 26 decision, in Lawrence v. Texas, striking down laws making gay sex between consenting adults illegal--the so-called sodomy laws. The backlash first surfaced in a July 25-27 Gallup poll. It showed that support for legalizing gay sex had plummeted a dramatic twelve points, to only 48 percent, down from a comfortable 60 percent in favor of legalization in Gallup's May survey. Those saying "homosexuality should be considered an acceptable lifestyle" also slalomed down from 54 to 46 percent; and support for same-sex civil unions dropped from 49 to 40 percent. Two weeks later, a Washington Post poll showed that support for gay civil unions had dropped three points lower than in Gallup's. Since then, five other national polls have confirmed the antigay trend.

Just two days after Gallup released its poll showing the backlash, Bush unexpectedly used a Rose Garden press conference to announce that he'd assigned lawyers to come up with a plan to stop gay marriage. Bush and the Republicans had been under enormous pressure from the Christian right and social conservatives--including National Review and The Weekly Standard--to support a Federal Marriage Amendment to the Constitution, which would ban recognition of any form of marriage between two persons of the same gender. (The FMA would also forbid giving same-sex couples the "legal incidents" of marriage, thus vitiating the civil-union law in Vermont and any other state that followed suit.)

A woman by the name of Sheri Drew gave DevDave a run for his money on the hyperbole front at the 2004 Republican National Convention by declaring: "Those who support gay and lesbian families are no different from those who supported Adolph Hitler."

But let's assume that no number of examples will suffice to demonstrate the crass use of anti-gay hysteria by the right wing. Allow me to put the burden back on you: Do you believe that the Republican party supports gay people in any meaningful way? Can you demonstrate that with sources?

Finally, the Houston Chronicle sums up the Republicans v. Gays conundrum rather well:

By preoccupying the party with homosexuality…Republican strategists have helped force out or into hiding numerous lawmakers who served the party well. Instead of disclosing their orientation and getting on with their work, gay or bisexual Republicans typically have felt compelled to choose between personal integrity and political survival.

Yet heterosexuality is hardly a bedrock Lincolnesque value. [Sen. Larry] Craig’s own constituents happily re-elected him for years — despite rumors about his orientation — before he began opining on others’ sexuality.

An even better example of this dynamic is the successful career of former U.S. Rep. Steve Gunderson, a Wisconsin Republican who told voters he was gay while still in office. Then he continued working diligently for the causes they cared about most.

…Gunderson backed the balanced budget amendment. He supported President Ronald Reagan’s tax cuts, approved the first Gulf War and promoted the dairy industry. Rural, conservative voters re-elected him eight times in a row for his conservative values before he chose not to run again in 1996…Gunderson never betrayed voters or himself.

In contrast, since 1980 the Republican Party has lost at least three once-closeted House members to scandals…But the scandals were at least partly fueled by each congressman’s need to deny his sexuality. Craig, now frantically trying to deny his guilty plea, may be the latest on the list.

…a party that harps on sexual orientation, as the Republicans now do, forces many of its own into furtive, destructive behaviors.

[Lemur]

More gay men going on record to describe their sexual encounters with Daniel Craig. The kicker? One of them was also hired by Ted Haggard. Small world for the closeted anti-gay men, eh?

David Phillips is a 42-year-old information technology consultant in Washington, D.C., who says Craig picked him up at a gay club in 1986 and that they subsequently had sex.

Mike Jones is a former prostitute who told the world he had sex with the Rev. Ted Haggard last year. The former Colorado Springs evangelist at first denied it but eventually confessed. Jones says Craig paid him for sex in late 2004 or early 2005.

Greg Ruth was a 24-year-old college Republican in 1981 when he says he was hit on by Craig at a Republican meeting in Coeur d'Alene.

Tom Russell, now 48, is a former Nampa resident who lives in Utah. Russell said his encounter with Craig occurred at Bogus Basin in the early 1980s.

A fifth gay man, who is from Boise but who declined to be named for fear of retaliation, offered a recent and telling account: He was in a men's restroom at Denver International Airport in September 2006 when the man in the next stall moved his hand slowly, palm up, under the divider. Alarmed, the man said he waited outside the restroom and then identified the man in the adjoining stall as Craig, whom he had met in Idaho.

[Crazed Rabbit]

Sorry I missed this earlier. So your threshold for tolerance is active prosecution of people or laws banning their sexual activities? Bit of a strawman, frankly. Also note that on the state level, several laws have been in existence until recently that banned "sodomy," under various definitions. The most vigorous supporters are always Republicans. Examples galore.

Sigh. So no evidence that the individual people you've been posting here recently, supported that. Again, you're mixing the party and the individuals to accuse everyone of hypocrisy.

Have fun.

CR

[Lemur]

So no evidence that the individual people you've been posting here recently, supported that. Again, you're mixing the party and the individuals to accuse everyone of hypocrisy.

Yeah, I've got a great idea—let's get into a long, tedious debate about where to draw the lines between party stance and individual responsibility. And then let's draw down sources about whether or not each individual politician supported each individual piece of legislation, and whether or not each piece of legislation really qualifies as "anti-gay." And then let's go into a five-page dispute about whether or not the sources are biased, since that's a game everyone can play. That sounds like a good time for all.

Sorry if I don't play. I don't need to prove the Republican party's use of gay-baiting and anti-gay sentiment any more than I need to prove the direction of "up" or the wet qualities water. Anyone with eyes to see and ears to hear is aware of it.

You and Xiahou can spin this until you're generating electricity, and it really doesn't matter in the slightest. I'm gonna keep on posting gay Republican news for as long as I find it amusing.

[Big_John]

Too easy.

this thread is comedy GOLD!

[Ronin]

Sigh. So no evidence that the individual people you've been posting here recently, supported that. Again, you're mixing the party and the individuals to accuse everyone of hypocrisy.

Have fun.

CR

so you´re saying that the individual has no responsibility in the party´s position even when he joined the party of his own free will?

this is not like saying 'well...I´m a part of the party but I don´t agree with this tiny bit of their position on car tax'...we´re talking about political positions about legislating individual sex practices of consenting adults...that´s a BIG part of the political identity of the republican party.....

if you´re saying that this isn´t necessarily the position of these individual members then I ask you how can you join a party that you (supposedly) disagree with on such a basic premise?

[Lemur]

This time it's a guy who was aide to the Republican Chair of Orange County, CA and worked for Republican Rep. Dana Roherbacher. He is described in all articles as a "conservative activist." I'll say. AP has a version up, as does the Orange County Weekly, as does Wonkette.

In 2003, Jeffrey Ray Nielsen here was arrested in California for having sex with a 14 year-old boy he met online when he was 33. Of course, he met him online when he was employed at a prominent law firm that agreed to hire him as a favor to the current head of the Orange County Republican Party, Scott Baugh. Yes, that’s right, it’s time for another Republican child sex scandal!

In the 4 years it took the case to come to trial (and after the mistrial earlier this year), it turns out that not only did Nielsen [have sex with] a 14 year-old in California while under the big, protective wing of Scott Baugh, he [had sex with] a 13 year-old back here in NoVa when he was working for nutjob right-wing Congressman Dana Rohrabacher. Jeffrey Ray obviously has a type (and it’s far too young and very, very creepy)! Only, while the sex with the 14 year-old in California was consensual (according to the boy), the sexual contact with the 13 year-old (from whose parents Jeffrey Ray rented a basement apartment) was, well, sorta not.

Yesterday, Jeffrey Ray pleaded guilty in California to two felony sex charges (a nice reduction from the 16 felony counts he had originally faced). He received 3 years in the clink, but will spend the first 12 weeks of that in a sex offender facility. Oh, and his momma cried in court. That would almost make me feel bad, except for the whole part where he molested (at least) two other women’s sons, at which point I sorta don’t care.

[AntiochusIII]

Great stuff, Lemur.

[Lemur]

Obviously, Fox News is going to have to spin things:

[TB666]

That gotta be photoshopped.

[Lemur]

I kinda doubt it. Fox News has a history of printing outrageous things in the subtitle and the crawl.

[PanzerJaeger]

Those are military advisors I believe...

[Ronin]

Those are military advisors I believe...

giving their opinion on the value of sex with underage boys as a boost for military morale?

[Papewaio]

300

[PanzerJaeger]

giving their opinion on the value of sex with underage boys as a boost for military morale?

Its fake of course..

[Ronin]

Its fake of course..

of course....

no one would take spin THAT far...

I mean...I know it´s Fox and they´ve come pretty close in the past...but no one would go that far

[TB666]

of course....

no one would take spin THAT far...

I mean...I know it´s Fox and they´ve come pretty close in the past...but no one would go that far

Well maybe they lost it or simply gave up trying to be serious and go for the cheap laughs.

[Don Corleone]

So, if I understand this thread correctly, it's all about people who've lived closted lives, dropping the pretense and coming out?

The question is, which is the bigger revelation...

A) That despite belonging to the 'family values' party, there are in fact gay Republicans?

B) Or that Lemur, despite claiming for years to be neutral on political matters is in fact a Democratic shill?

I say A. While A is fairly obvious and has been strongly suspected for some time, it hasn't been quite the open secret that B has been for some time now.

By the way, Lemur, your characterization of the Republican party as categorically anti-gay seems a bit of an overstatement. Would you mind telling me where in the Republican party platform (which is what actually defines what it means to be a Republican) you or your pals from the DailyKos found patently anti-gay sentiments?

As for individual members within the Republican party, and what they may have said that you find anti-homosexual.... well, I'll own up to statements by the religious right and try to offer mititgating statements on their positions the same day you start playing apologist for Dennis Kucinich

[Lemur]

So, if I understand this thread correctly, it's all about people who've lived closted lives, dropping the pretense and coming out?

If by "dropping the pretense and coming out" you mean making plea-bargain deals and going to prison, then yes.

[Don Corleone]

By the way, Lemur, your characterization of the Republican party as categorically anti-gay seems a bit of an overstatement. Would you mind telling me where in the Republican party platform (which is what actually defines what it means to be a Republican) you or your pals from the DailyKos found patently anti-gay sentiments?

[Lemur]

By the way, Lemur, your characterization of the Republican party as categorically anti-gay seems a bit of an overstatement. Would you mind telling me where in the Republican party platform (which is what actually defines what it means to be a Republican) you or your pals from the DailyKos found patently anti-gay sentiments?

Touchy, touchy, touchy. I already addressed this strawman several times when I was going rounds with Crazed Rabbit and Xiahou. If I didn't address it to your satisfaction, tough.

I love how both you and DevDave can't respond to this thread without trying to paint me as an extreme lefty who reads Mao and writes for DailyKos. Not only are Republicans not anti-homosexual, they're not addicted to character assassination either, eh?

I think it's a bit of a stretch to paint the Republicans as pro-homosexual, or even neutral-homosexual. Anyone who has been following American politics for the last ten years will boggle at the assertion.

I don't need to prove the Republican party's use of gay-baiting and anti-gay sentiment any more than I need to prove the direction of "up" or the wet qualities water. Anyone with eyes to see and ears to hear is aware of it.

[Don Corleone]

I'm not touchy, and I'm not upset. I'm just surprised by how low your tactics have gotten. Declaring all Republicans to be homophobes, and answering with

I don't need to prove the Republican party's use of gay-baiting and anti-gay sentiment any more than I need to prove the direction of "up" or the wet qualities water. Anyone with eyes to see and ears to hear is aware of it.

essentially "it is thus because I say thus", is frankly, beneath you. I've seen you make intelligent arguments defending positions and ideas you support that have been quite moving, even when I entered the discussion with a diametrically opposed viewpoint. This is not your best work. Not by a long shot. But if you feel better, patting yourself on the back while you merrily laugh at all those that disagree with you on tax policy or social security reform as a bunch of neanderthal bigots who live to gay-bash, then by all means, keep your little experiment here going.

I will be looking forward to when you return to some of your better discussions.

[ICantSpellDawg]

I'm not touchy, and I'm not upset. I'm just surprised by how low your tactics have gotten. Declaring all Republicans to be homophobes, and answering with



essentially "it is thus because I say thus", is frankly, beneath you. I've seen you make intelligent arguments defending positions and ideas you support that have been quite moving, even when I entered the discussion with a diametrically opposed viewpoint. This is not your best work. Not by a long shot. But if you feel better, patting yourself on the back while you merrily laugh at all those that disagree with you on tax policy or social security reform as a bunch of neanderthal bigots who live to gay-bash, then by all means, keep your little experiment here going.

I will be looking forward to when you return to some of your better discussions.

I am what some call a "homophobe". I tend to vote Republican.

BUT I am a registered conservative and am not "afraid" of gay people anymore than I am "afraid" of onions... so "Republican homophobia" doesn't really apply.

Plus, there are quite a few gay republicans. I don't view the Republican party as gay bashing as a characterization.

[Big_John]

I'm not touchy, and I'm not upset. I'm just surprised by how low your tactics have gotten. Declaring all Republicans to be homophobes, and answering with



essentially "it is thus because I say thus", is frankly, beneath you. I've seen you make intelligent arguments defending positions and ideas you support that have been quite moving, even when I entered the discussion with a diametrically opposed viewpoint. This is not your best work. Not by a long shot. But if you feel better, patting yourself on the back while you merrily laugh at all those that disagree with you on tax policy or social security reform as a bunch of neanderthal bigots who live to gay-bash, then by all means, keep your little experiment here going.

I will be looking forward to when you return to some of your better discussions.

you're getting carried away with yourself here, don. this is a humor thread. it hardly castigates all republicans as homophobic homosexuals. it just points out a funny observation, stop taking it so hard.

the 'conservative christian' vein runs through the republican party in places. and we often see conservative christian pundits and politicians trumpeting 'family values', which often includes a stance against acceptance of homosexuality as healthy/worthy/moral.

that sometimes these same men turn out to be closeted homosexuals themselves, is ironically humorous to some of us. lemur can hardly be accused of partisanship here, since conservative christians tend to not be democrats.

how many democrats are closet cases that get unwillingly exposed after breaking some vice law or doing something embarrassing? i'm sure there are some, i just don't follow politics that much. however, even if there are as many examples of liberal closet cases doing something stupid as conservative ones, the liberal ethos doesn't have the conservative christian tradition running through it to make for all the lulz.

you don't need to get on a high horse and play up this persecution angle, claiming that lemur is painting all conservatives as cavemen or neanderthals or brutish troglodytes or .....

don, it's a humor thread.

simply put:
a)conservative christian politicians and pundits tend to be republicans.
b)some of them rally against the sin of homosexuality.
c)some of those same men turn out to be 'secret' homosexuals.
d)?????
e)profit!

[Lemur]

To follow on Big John's post, here's an example of a publicly anti-gay fella getting busted for having sex with boys. And I don't even know if he's a Republican or not!

Anti-gay boy scout leader arrested for sex with kids.

Scout Leader in California Accused of Abuse

By CAROLYN MARSHALL
Published: December 7, 2007

SAN FRANCISCO, Dec. 6 — A scout leader who once sued the City of Berkeley for challenging a national Boy Scout ban on members who are gay or atheist has been arrested on felony charges that for at least five years he sexually abused young males in the troops he led.

Sgt. Mary Kusmiss of the Berkeley police said the scout leader, Eugene A. Evans, 64, a retired high school teacher and for 35 years leader of the Berkeley Sea Scouts, was arrested at his home in nearby Kensington on Tuesday after investigators identified four youths, ages 13 to 17, who said they had been sexually abused by him.

Sergeant Kusmiss said the police began an investigation after a boy and his mother came to them with accusations on Nov. 14.

Mr. Evans is scheduled to appear in Alameda County Superior Court on Friday to enter a plea on 19 felony counts of sexual assault.

Mr. Evans’s lawyer, Philip Schnayerson, said Thursday that “hundreds” of former scouts and friends had called to voice support.

“There have been no complaints of improper or criminal behavior in any of the communities he has lived in,” Mr. Schnayerson said of his client.

Mr. Evans sued the city in his role as a leader of the Sea Scouts, an affiliate program of the Boy Scouts. The city, after providing free berthing for a Sea Scouts boat for 60 years, said in 1998 that a Boy Scout policy barring gay scouts and atheists violated Berkeley’s rules against discrimination. The city said the Scouts would have to leave the berth or pay $500 a month rent.

Mr. Evans sued for discrimination and for violating the Scouts’ First Amendment rights. The California Supreme Court ruled in favor of Berkeley.

-edit-

As usual, Wonkette has all of the details and her usual saucy take on pedophiles. Example:

New law: If you enter a lawsuit against teh gayz, you’ve done some nasty, nasty in your life:

The charges [against Evans] include oral copulation with a minor, engaging in substantial sexual acts with a minor, penetration with a foreign object, and showing or distributing lewd material to a minor. Evans is accused of having sexual relations with boys aboard the SSS Farallon, the 85-foot ship used for the Sea Scouts program. Investigators recovered pornography from the boat and from his Kensington home, Brown and police said.

[ICantSpellDawg]

To follow on Big John's post, here's an example of a publicly anti-gay fella getting busted for having sex with boys. And I don't even know if he's a Republican or not!

You know the old adage: "He whom so valiantly smelt it is one in thy same with he who Dealt it"... or something like that.

BTW nobody is "neutral". Lemur is pretty fair minded. Political positioning is relative, so everyone standing towards the middle is too far left or right for some.

[Big_John]

BTW nobody is "neutral". Lemur is pretty fair minded. Political positioning is relative, so everyone standing towards the middle is too far left or right for some.

i try to stand on top of everyone else.

[Lemur]

What evil person would suggest that Republican trade on anti-gay hysteria? Just because they're, you know, introducing a state constitutional amendment in Florida to prohibit gay people from marrying, even though gay marriage is already illegal in Florida. And the Federal Defense of Marriage Act already allows them to ignore any perverts from Massachusetts who want to live the rest of their lives with a single partner.

What Florida needs is a constitutional amendment. Right now. Why? According to Jesse Phillips of MetroLife Church:

My friend John Stemberger's efforts to save marriage is closing in on an important milestone. They are only 13,000 ballots away from the required 611,000+ needed to put a marriage ammendment (sic) on the ballot for the 2008 elections.

The amendment would change Florida's constitution to define marriage as a union between one man and one woman, so that marriage cannot be defined in ways that the Bible forbids, and so that marriages and families can be protected by state law.

If you are a Florida resident and have not signed a ballot, please go to www.Florida4Marriage.org and find out what you can do to help these last minute efforts to get the ballot past.

As the linked article states so aptly, "Anti-gay amendments are the Happy Meal toy of Republican politics."