Anti-Gay Gay Politicians Make Me Sick
We are in the midst of the political season so of course the issue of gay marriage is brought up as a wedge issue, mostly by Republicans against more open minded Democrats. What is interesting is how often the anti-gay politician turns out to be gay himself.
I’ve been out of the closet now for 25 years so I’ve seen quite a few of these guys fall from grace. In the last few years it seems to have accelerated.
Prominent on the list is Senator Larry Craig, who has said he is not gay but was arrested in an airport bathroom for allegedly tapping his foot for something. Of course we have US Rep. Mark Foley sending emails & IM’s to underage male pages. Being gay is fine but targeting minor kids is not. Doing such while speaking out against child predators is the ultimate in hypocrisy. Of course it is not just elected officials caught in a conflict between their words and their actions. Ted Haggard, an evangelical leader that gave spiritual advice to President Bush & top advisors. There are many more and each week the list seems to add new names.
These men have a strong level of self hatred that drives them to speak out against gay rights so strongly in public yet in private live a very different life. Many people are opposed to the concept of gay marriage so while I disagree I must respect their viewpoint. But when that person has built a career opposing gay rights only to turn out to be gay themselves then they’ll get no respect from me. Be in the closet and keep your trap shut.
Personally I think the government needs to be out of the marriage business altogether. If it is this sacred religious institution then let the various religions manage how that is administered. For those that want to simplify issues of property rights, next of kin status and so on they can all have civil unions. Leave “marriage” for church.
Just do me a favor and get the self loathing right-wing windbags to a therapist to deal with their internal issues so they stop spreading their hate to folks that otherswise might be more open minded.
As you might expect this has also impacted more liberal Democrats as well. A few years ago the then New Jersey Governor Jim McGreevy disclosed that he was gay. In his own words:
I’ve never been much for self-revelation. In two decades of public life, I always approached the limelight with extreme caution. Not that I kept my personal life off-limits; rather, the personal life I put on display was a blend of fact and ï¬ction. I invented overlapping narratives about who I was, and contrived backstories that played better not just in the ballot box but in my own mind. And then, to the best of my ability, I tried to be the man in those stories.
In this way I’m not at all unique. Inauthenticity is endemic in American politics today. The political backrooms where I spent much of my career were just as benighted as my personal life, equally crowded with shadowy strangers and compromises, truths I hoped to deny. I lived not in one closet but in many. (source)
At least he wasn’t out there saying one thing and doing another.
For a good take on this topic I turn to openly gay US Rep Barney Frank in an appearance on Bill Maher’s program:
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NlyJmhwa1c0[/youtube]
Steve,
I got a huge kick out of this video the other day – exposing the Chicken Little approach to gay marriage – “oh no, the gays are getting married, my marriage isn’t sacred anymore” etc etc.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rixkck8QnjY
What consenting adults do in the privacy of their bedrooms should be of no business of the government. And as one pundit put it, why should gays be spared the ramifications of divorce?!
> Personally I think the government needs to be out of the marriage business altogether.
> If it is this sacred religious institution then let the various religions manage how that
> is administered. For those that want to simplify issues of property rights, next of kin
> status and so on they can all have civil unions. Leave “marriage†for church.
.
This is almost verbatim what I’ve been saying for years – as a libertarian conservative. And personally, I would take it a step further: I see no compelling public interest in prohibiting civil unions that include more than two people. Makes no sense to me that a man can cohabit with and have children by as many women as he wants, but making any sort of a legal commitment to them is strictly verboten.
.
Now, given the way courts beat up on a guy when a marriage is dissolved, I think any guy who wanted to be married to two women is nuts. But why should the state care?
Steve, Larry Craig had a wide stance. He wasn’t tapping for anything. I, for one, also have a wide stance and understand how there could be some confusion.
Now your talking Doug. Way to be a patriot, and not a “nasty, naughty boy”.
“Personally I think the government needs to be out of the marriage business altogether. If it is this sacred religious institution then let the various religions manage how that is administered.”
I’m not a conservative libertarian, but I’m right there with Nick and with you. My Catholic wedding, my sacrament of marriage, is not hurt a single whit by someone in another denomination (or even if Catholics woke up and smelled the coffee, which they never will, of course) blessing a marriage between two lesbians or gay men. You have a library card, I have a library card; you have a license, I have a license. It doesn’t cheapen my right to drive or read books just because someone different from myself does.
I also agree (which makes me wonder about myself) about civil unions, actually. I think you should be able to use it in cases where you’re not having sex with the other person, too–two friends who are roommates, or siblings, or groups of neighbors who want to strengthen some kind of commitment (like those in cohousing situations). It should be a legal status to indicate next of kin, property rights, hospital visitation, and so on.
I see marriage as a legal contract between two people in which the state–for reasons of public health, among many others–has a compelling interest. It’s the church whose influence, in this and other civil matters, should be restricted or, if I had my druthers, eliminated.
Representative John Lewis:
It is time to say forthrightly that the government’s exclusion of our gay and lesbian brothers and sisters from civil marriage officially degrades them and their families. It denies them the basic human right to marry the person they love. It denies them numerous legal protections for their families.
This discrimination is wrong. We cannot keep turning our backs on gay and lesbian Americans. I have fought too hard and too long against discrimination based on race and color not to stand up against discrimination based on sexual orientation. I’ve heard the reasons for opposing civil marriage for same-sex couples. Cut through the distractions, and they stink of the same fear, hatred, and intolerance I have known in racism and in bigotry.
Some say let’s choose another route and give gay folks some legal rights but call it something other than marriage. We have been down that road before in this country. Separate is not equal. The rights to liberty and happiness belong to each of us and on the same terms, without regard to either skin color or sexual orientation.
Some say they are uncomfortable with the thought of gays and lesbians marrying. But our rights as Americans do not depend on the approval of others. Our rights depend on us being Americans.
http://tinyurl.com/sck3
It’s always seemed rather strange to me, given separation of church and state, that clergy are de facto deputized by the state to conduct marriages. There’s a definite difference between civil marriage and the religious sacrament. So much hinges on the legal status–not least of all, access to health insurance for many people–that it’s unfair in the extreme to exclude gays from it. Let’s join the Europeans and make it two different things, maybe even call it different things.
and Doug … keep your legs together. Girls are taught early that’s a good way to avoid trouble.
Great post- you speak my mind better than I ever could.
Enough with this foolishness and politics….
and you’re right, there is NOTHING worse than hypocrisy.
xoox
The Larry Craig toe-tapping “Bobblefoot” giveaway at a recent St. Paul Saints game might be the best minor league baseball promotion ever:
http://saintsbaseball.com/news/saintsnews/index.html?article_id=731
http://www.startribune.com/politics/state/19160729.html
Caught up on your posts after returning to town last night. Steve, your headline says it all. I can’t even bring myself to listen to people who trash gay people for their orientation. It’s either posturing or meanness or both because there is no honest reason for being anti-gay whatsoever. Anti-gay politicians make me sick, too.
“It’s always seemed rather strange to me, given separation of church and state, that clergy are de facto deputized by the state to conduct marriages.”
a good friend is an Episcoplaian priest and has always felt uncomfortable with the legal aspects of that power (not the religious of course).
“What consenting adults do in the privacy of their bedrooms should be of no business of the government.”
Jim, that’s an argument you hear a lot. Yet, they are not keeping it in the bedrooms themselves. They have to beat it over everyone’s head repeatedly and shove it in their face. The so-called “pride” parades in San Francisco are downright gross and offensive. The costumes they wear out in public during this parade, which has tons of kids around no doubt, are completely inappropriate and go against the entire argument of “behind closed bedrooms doors”
Never been to Mardi Gras, eh Max? Or even certain St. Patricks Day parades… Or a Halloween party?
but oh yeah, the kids! Oh my god, those poor innocent children! Um, how about the PARENTS not taking their kids out to such things, if it’s so horrible?
There’s a big difference between a “custume” and full-on bedroom sex acts in public Max. Take a pill.
I’m with Stadtroller. Enough of this tired ass, puritanical braying about “public decency”. As it is, St. Louis is home to the most G-rated Mardi Gras ever, but there are still morons who squawk like the John Holmes retrospective is being screened in local kindergartens. When I attended the parade years ago, the worst behavior I saw was from cops “keeping the peace”!
The question I have about the Pride Parade is its purpose these days: is it simply to “celebrate gayness”? Or is it to raise awareness of gay people’s marginalization by larger society and offset it with a flamboyant public display?
Judging from the local crowd, the parade has become so “mainstream” that it has more an air of frenzied frolic than revolutionary winning of hearts and minds. In any case, for hardcore homophobes hostile to any rational discussion about gay people, a glittering float of mustachio’d, middle-aged men in leather jockstraps and chaps is not likely to change their minds.
Everyone should see this film: http://www.outragethemovie.com/
Doesn’t look like it will be hitting STL, though it will Kansas City and soon enough available on dvd. A must see on the hypocrisies of many anti-gay politicians.