Spokane Mayor, Another Republican Foe of Gay Rights is Outed

[host]

When will closeted Republican politicians stop their hypocrisy?
They continue their attack on gays and gay rights, and the press continues to out them. Is it dysfunction, self loathing, or denial that makes these guys tick?

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/n...ck=1&cset=true
Mayor says he didn't abuse boys years ago

By Nicholas K. Geranios
Associated Press
Published May 6, 2005

SPOKANE, Wash. -- Mayor James West, a Republican foe of gay rights, was accused in a newspaper story Thursday of molesting two boys decades ago and was caught by the paper using the trappings of his office to try to court a young man on a gay Web site.

West on Thursday denied the molestation allegations but acknowledged he "had relations with adult men."

He admitted offering autographed sports memorabilia and a possible City Hall internship to what he thought was an 18-year-old man on the Web site Gay.com. The man was a private computer expert hired by The Spokesman-Review as part of a journalism sting operation.

West, 54, a former Boy Scout leader and Army paratrooper who was married briefly in the 1990s, denied that the online offers constituted abuse of his office, and he said he would serve the more than three years remaining in his term.

"I am a law-abiding citizen," West said during a brief news conference. He took no questions.

The Spokesman-Review ran interviews Thursday with two men who allege West molested them decades ago when they were Boy Scouts and the mayor was a troop leader and sheriff's deputy. Both men have criminal records because of drug problems.

"I categorically deny allegations about incidents that supposedly occurred 24 years ago as alleged by two convicted felons and about which I have no knowledge," West said.

No criminal investigations are under way, according to sheriff and police departments, which said the statute of limitation for any charges has run out.

West, a conservative with an abrasive style and a fierce temper, rose to become majority leader of the state Senate during a two-decade legislative career. He consistently opposed efforts to expand civil rights protections for gays and voted for the Defense of Marriage Act, a ban on gay marriage, in 1998.

West said he would not characterize himself as gay. As for his visits to the Gay.com Web site, he told the newspaper: "I can't tell you why I go there ... curiosity, confused, whatever, I don't know."

In 1990, he married. The marriage lasted five years.

The newspaper said its investigation of West arose out of tips received in 2002 during its investigations of sexual abuse of children by priests.

[kutulu]

What is it with gay or bi people who are against gay rights? I just don't get it. IMO, I'd respect someone's right to keep their gayness a secret unless they are openly speaking against gay issues. In that case they need to be exposed for the hypocrite they are.

[alansmithee]

Originally Posted by host

When will closeted Republican politicians stop their hypocrisy?
They continue their attack on gays and gay rights, and the press continues to out them. Is it dysfunction, self loathing, or denial that makes these guys tick?

So the only gays free to speek about gay issues are the ones that agree with the democratic party line?

And you left out a choice about what makes these guys tick: they know what they're talking about, and are able to think in the best intrest of the country and not themselves.

[FoolThemAll]

Originally Posted by kutulu

What is it with gay or bi people who are against gay rights? I just don't get it. IMO, I'd respect someone's right to keep their gayness a secret unless they are openly speaking against gay issues. In that case they need to be exposed for the hypocrite they are.

No. Unless they're doing something illegal that needs to come to the attention of the authorities, it's still despicable to out them against their will.

[alansmithee]

Originally Posted by kutulu

What is it with gay or bi people who are against gay rights? I just don't get it. IMO, I'd respect someone's right to keep their gayness a secret unless they are openly speaking against gay issues. In that case they need to be exposed for the hypocrite they are.

Why would that make them a hypocrite? Maybe they are just looking past their self-intrest and looking at the good of the country (which is what public officials are supposed to do). Alot of Democrats call for higher taxes on the rich, despite the fact that they are rich. Are these people also hypocrites?

[kutulu]

Originally Posted by alansmithee

Why would that make them a hypocrite? Maybe they are just looking past their self-intrest and looking at the good of the country (which is what public officials are supposed to do). Alot of Democrats call for higher taxes on the rich, despite the fact that they are rich. Are these people also hypocrites?

lol, good of the country. Look, if someone firmly believes that being gay is immoral and wrong but they are also gay, then it obivously makes them immoral and wrong. How can a person be looking out for the 'best interests of the country' if they know that they are immoral and wrong.

Or maybe they are just power hungry people willing to stab their own people in the back to get to the next level? It's similar to a black man calling for the re-instatement of Jim Crowe laws.

Originally Posted by FoolThemAll

No. Unless they're doing something illegal that needs to come to the attention of the authorities, it's still despicable to out them against their will.

What is despicable is for them to act all high and mighty criticizing other gays while secretly getting pounded in the ass. They lost that right to be private about it when they chose to attack the rights of other gays.

Originally Posted by alansmithee

So the only gays free to speek about gay issues are the ones that agree with the democratic party line?

Whatever. Being a Rep or Dem doesn't mean you have to take the traditional party line on every issue (for reasonable people, at least). A simple "I usually support my party but they are wrong on this issue" would suffice. I guess it's too much to ask that people have a spine.

[FoolThemAll]

Originally Posted by kutulu

What is despicable is for them to act all high and mighty criticizing other gays while secretly getting pounded in the ass. They lost that right to be private about it when they chose to attack the rights of other gays.

No, they didn't. People have every right to hold whatever political positions they want without it negating their right to privacy. They have every right to be filthy stinking evil hypocrites without the sensitive areas of their public lives being displayed for all to see.

But hey, feel free to drag yourself down to their level.

[kutulu]

Originally Posted by FoolThemAll

They have every right to be filthy stinking evil hypocrites without the sensitive areas of their public lives being displayed for all to see.

Sure, just like the Republicans treated Clinton regarding Monica?

[FoolThemAll]

Originally Posted by kutulu

Sure, just like the Republicans treated Clinton regarding Monica?

Depending on the nuances of the cases we're comparing, that may be a good point.

But which side were you taking, then? Do you think that it was right to bring Clinton's indiscretions to light? If so, why? If not, then why would it be okay to make public revelations in this case?

[host]

IMO, some of the responses here are illogical and reflexive. This is an example of long historyof persecution and harrassment driven by hypocrisy or dysfunction.

http://www.spokesmanreview.com/jimwe..._west_politics
............................In a wide-ranging interview Wednesday night, West acknowledged he’d recently begun to seek out young men on the Internet and said he couldn’t explain why. “I don’t want to go into the whole issue, but I wouldn’t characterize me as ‘gay,’.” West said.

While acting pragmatically with moderates and conservatives as a Republican Party leader, West aligned himself with party conservatives on a range of hot-button social issues since 1983, when he first went to Olympia as a newly elected House member.

In 1986, he supported a bill allowing criminal background checks for jobs involving children. The measure was necessary because child abusers “often try to gain a position of trust and authority,” West said in a Spokesman-Review interview at the time.

West and 14 other Republicans reacted strongly to Gov. Booth Gardner’s Christmas Eve 1985 executive order banning discrimination in state hiring based on sexual orientation.

Their 1986 bill, which failed, would have barred gay men and lesbians from working in schools, day-care centers and some state agencies. It called for screening prospective employees for sexual orientation and firing employees whose homosexuality became known.

The bill prompted a Spokesman-Review op-ed column by Jeannette Loehr, spokeswoman for the Spokane Gay Leadership Coalition.

West’s bill is “police-state” legislation that stirs up “the fears of the ignorant and the hatred of the bigoted,” Loehr wrote.

In 1986, West voted to bar the state from distributing pamphlets telling people how to protect themselves from AIDS during sex. He said such instruction “is something people go buy at dirty bookstores.”

West became chairman of the Senate Health and Long Term Care Committee in 1990, a key post for legislation involving medicine and public health issues. That year, the Washington State Medical Association named him legislator of the year.

During a 1990 hearing on AIDS education, West proposed that teen sex be criminalized.

The bill, written by the abstinence group Teen Aid, would have made sexual contact – not just sexual intercourse – a misdemeanor for unmarried teenagers 18 or younger. It defined sexual contact as “any touching of the sexual or other intimate parts of a person.”

The bill was ridiculed and got West a lot of negative press, including a National Lampoon Magazine spoof. “Get a Life, Sen. West!” a Seattle newspaper editorialized. But West said he was serious and would push it as far as he could.

“You know, there are a lot of kids out there that want a reason to say no,” he said. The bill died in the Senate on Feb. 1, 1990.

West’s bill was “stupid,” said James Duree, a former Pacific County prosecutor and Democrat who recently retired from private practice. Duree said he wrote to West in 1990, suggesting facetiously that the Legislature pass a law making it a crime for legislators to have sex with one another. “I thought they should stop doing sex in Olympia,” Duree said.

Politicians who take extreme positions on sex are not always what they seem, said Duree, 87.

“I saw people like West when I was a prosecuting attorney,” said Duree. “These people who were so goosy towards sex.….. They’re the ones you’ve got to watch,” he added.

During the Gay.com chat on New Year’s Eve, when West had been Spokane’s mayor for a year, the 18-year-old man who’d had a sexual encounter with West on a date in June 2004 said “you wouldn’t be in the position you are in today if the right-winged supporters knew you like to mess around with guys.”

West replied: “Two consenting adults must have the ability to protect their privacy or else the damn sex Nazis will be telling everyone what to do.”

Phil Talmadge, a former Democratic legislator and Washington Supreme Court justice, served as chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee when West was in the Senate. He’s now in private practice in Tukwila, Wash.

Talmadge said he’d heard the rumors about West’s sexual orientation when he was in the Senate but didn’t know whether they were accurate.

“The rumors were there, but none of us knew and it didn’t really make any difference to us,” Talmadge said.

The Seattle liberal said he clashed with West on gay rights and other issues, but developed a “grudging respect” for West’s legislative skills.

“I knew the positions he took publicly, and I think he was pretty aggressive about those positions. I didn’t share his views. I felt a stronger sense of tolerance than he exhibited in his public attitudes about gay people. It was a different viewpoint,” Talmadge said.

On the Judiciary Committee, “people wanted to make criminal virtually everything. It was my job as the chairman to screen the use of the criminal sanction,” Talmadge said. West didn’t serve on that committee, but it served as the gatekeeper for many of the bills regulating sexual conduct that West favored.

Senate Republicans had some aggressive staff members who tried to push the envelope on criminalizing sex, Talmadge said. “We described them as having a prurient interest in prurient interest,” he said with a laugh.

The Judiciary Committee made efforts starting in the mid-1980s to toughen child pornography law and sanctions for sexual offenses against children. But it didn’t go as far as West and some other Republicans would have wanted – including the bill to criminalize teen sex – Talmadge said.

“In the real world, you have two 16-year-olds who engaged in sexual activity and you want to put them both in jail? I think that’s going overboard,” he said. “What we did do is (make it) a crime for someone who’s an adult to have sexual relations with kids,” he said.

In 1995, when allegations of sexual harassment involving Democratic Gov. Mike Lowry and a female aide were published in an independent counsel’s report, West called on the House to launch impeachment proceedings against Lowry.

“The governor should not be held to any lower standard than anyone else in our society. Governors cannot and should not flout the law,” West said. He was dressed down by his own caucus for making the proposal without consulting other Republican leaders.

As a Senate leader, West consistently opposed efforts to expand civil rights protections for gays in jobs and housing. In an interview Wednesday, he said he’s philosophically opposed to legislation that creates “special classes” of rights for minorities, including gays. “I don’t think you should discriminate against anybody. I have never been outspoken against gays, and I’ve never discriminated against gays,” West said, adding that he felt the gay rights bills were unnecessary.

In February 1998, West voted for the Defense of Marriage Act, a ban on gay marriage. Gov. Lowry vetoed the measure, but the veto was overridden and Washington became the 27th state to enact such a ban.

Also in 1998, West got into legal trouble after leaving a threatening voice mail on the telephone recording machine of building industry lobbyist Tom McCabe. “You son of a bitch, you better get me, ’cause if you don’t you’re dead,” a screaming West said on the tape.

West spent $20,000 in legal fees on the ensuing criminal misdemeanor charge. He paid $500 to an Olympia charity and apologized to McCabe in an agreement with the prosecutor’s office in Olympia. He also apologized in a letter to the Spokane community for his outburst.

West’s temper tantrum against McCabe was symptomatic of a conflicted man, said Sinderman, the Democratic political consultant. “West is tortured. He screams his way into power. I have a combination of empathy and distaste for him,” he said.

Sen. Jeanne Kohl-Welles, a Seattle Democrat and University of Washington sociology instructor, saw West’s temper and his fervent opposition to gay rights up close in March 2003. He was Senate majority leader and she was introducing a resolution in favor of International Women’s Day.

“The first part had to do with honoring women of all races and sexual preferences. It was the same language we’d used in past years, and it never had been a problem,” Kohl-Welles recalled.

When the clerk read the resolution, West approached her on the Senate floor.

“He demanded that I pull it right then. I said, what’s wrong? He said it’s this phrase, you can’t do this. The phrase was ‘sexual orientation.’.”

“I was shaken up,” Kohl-Welles said. “The Democrats were in the minority. He said if you don’t (pull it), you’ll never be able to introduce anything else.” West told her the Republican caucus was upset over the language.

Kohl-Welles withdrew the resolution and checked its legislative history – discovering that many Republicans had voted for similar language in previous resolutions that had passed.

West apologized and the resolution passed the next day, Kohl-Welles said.

“He’s quick to react, but then he processes it in his own mind and apologizes,” she added...................................

[filtherton]

I'm not gay, i just enjoy having sex with men.

He is probably extremely ashamed of himself for being gay, over compensates by publicly taking a hardline antigay stance. Just like any confused homophobic teenage boy.

As far as privacy goes, i thought part of entering politics was giving up most of your privacy. The public eye is the public eye.

[alansmithee]

Originally Posted by kutulu

lol, good of the country. Look, if someone firmly believes that being gay is immoral and wrong but they are also gay, then it obivously makes them immoral and wrong. How can a person be looking out for the 'best interests of the country' if they know that they are immoral and wrong.

Or maybe they are just power hungry people willing to stab their own people in the back to get to the next level? It's similar to a black man calling for the re-instatement of Jim Crowe laws.

I dispute comparison to blacks. Race isn't a choice. But that's another arguement entirely. When I see "foe of gay rights" I tend to take that to mean they are in favor of keeping marrige how it should be, i.e. one man one woman. I read that as liberal spin. If he was really advocating that gays should lose the right to vote, or be lynched, or not be able to drink at hetero water fountains, or go to hetero schools, then that would be different. If however, he has just stated his support for marriage to remain how it is, he's not really against gay rights.

And a great deal of people do things that they know/believe to be moral and wrong, but still work for the country's best interest. The democratic messiah Bill Clinton would be a great example of this.

Whatever. Being a Rep or Dem doesn't mean you have to take the traditional party line on every issue (for reasonable people, at least). A simple "I usually support my party but they are wrong on this issue" would suffice. I guess it's too much to ask that people have a spine.

But you had a problem with a gay Republican stating his views, which happen to be Republican views. Why should he diverge on that issue if he believes what he's saying? What if he doesn't feel his party is wrong? The spineless thing would to be to give in to the gay mafia and go against what he believes.

[FoolThemAll]

Originally Posted by filtherton

As far as privacy goes, i thought part of entering politics was giving up most of your privacy. The public eye is the public eye.

Oh, yes, it's to be expected.

But if the guy hasn't actually committed any legal wrongs, then I'd tend to view those people who expose his sexuality as scumbags, and not a whole lot better than him.

[guy44]

SEXUAL PREFERENCE IS NOT A FUCKING CHOICE.

Goddam. How many times does that have to be made clear?

[alansmithee]

Originally Posted by guy44

SEXUAL PREFERENCE IS NOT A FUCKING CHOICE.

Goddam. How many times does that have to be made clear?

Once would do. And by made clear, I mean proven with science, not propaganda and political correctness.

[filtherton]

Originally Posted by FoolThemAll

Oh, yes, it's to be expected.

But if the guy hasn't actually committed any legal wrongs, then I'd tend to view those people who expose his sexuality as scumbags, and not a whole lot better than him.

You call them scumbags, i call them politicians. Who did it and why isn't really that important. The guy had to have expected to be outed at some point. Furthermore, he completely misled his constituency by not being forthright with them. Do you think the people who would elect someone with his stance on homosexuality would knowingly elect a homosexual? Sounds like someone was jesseing his helms.

Originally Posted by alansmithee

Once would do. And by made clear, I mean proven with science, not propaganda and political correctness.

How about you ask yourself when you chose to be straight. Then ask yourself if you currently have a choice in who you are attracted. I don't need a weatherman to tell me that its raining outside, and it would be foolish to refuse to admit that its raining until the weatherman says so.

[StanT]

Originally Posted by FoolThemAll

Oh, yes, it's to be expected.

But if the guy hasn't actually committed any legal wrongs, then I'd tend to view those people who expose his sexuality as scumbags, and not a whole lot better than him.

Why does this bring an ex-president, a blue dress, and a blow job to mind?

[alansmithee]

Originally Posted by filtherton

How about you ask yourself when you chose to be straight. Then ask yourself if you currently have a choice in who you are attracted. I don't need a weatherman to tell me that its raining outside, and it would be foolish to refuse to admit that its raining until the weatherman says so.

Thinking like that is why people thought the earth was flat for 100's of years, "Hey, it looks flat, good enough for me". True, you might not need a weatherman to tell you it's raining, but you might need a meteorologist to tell you WHY it's raining. Just like you don't need scientists to tell you if you're gay, but you might need them to tell you why you are gay.

[j8ear]

Anyone else notice a theme of the left gleefully outing in an attempt to SHAME and HUMILIATE a homosexual from the right.

The left is comprised primarily of thugs employing hypocracy and double standards to further their assault on decency, responsiblity and accountablity.

Lets examine this issue briefly. Here we have a politician who opposes special privledges based on deviant sexual behaviours. Yet when he is discovered to be deviant himself, the deviants, who prefer to be lauded as benign and normal "out" this individual for his deviance, in an effort to stigmatize him. How would that be possible if the behaviour is not deviant. I really pity the left, they are just pathetic.

This is why they are becoming more and more irrelevant in our society and thankfully will continue to have less and less say in the directions of our progress.

Keep it up folks. Your efforts are noted and appreciated.

-bear

[filtherton]

Originally Posted by alansmithee

Thinking like that is why people thought the earth was flat for 100's of years, "Hey, it looks flat, good enough for me". True, you might not need a weatherman to tell you it's raining, but you might need a meteorologist to tell you WHY it's raining. Just like you don't need scientists to tell you if you're gay, but you might need them to tell you why you are gay.

So then you could choose to be attracted to men? If you could answer that question then we could maybe get somewhere.

Your analogy doesn't apply. The shape of the earth isn't defined internally by every human individually.

[kutulu]

Originally Posted by j8ear

Lets examine this issue briefly. Here we have a politician who opposes special privledges based on deviant sexual behaviours. Yet when he is discovered to be deviant himself, the deviants, who prefer to be lauded as benign and normal "out" this individual for his deviance, in an effort to stigmatize him. How would that be possible if the behaviour is not deviant. I really pity the left, they are just pathetic.

What special privledges are you referring to? The special priviledge of protection from being fired because of your sexual orientation or the special privledge of being given the same rights that straight couples enjoy? The Rush take is bogus crap.

The only double standard is from the man who tried to pass laws that would allow people to fire gays for no other reason than they are gay but he secretly engages in the same activities. Hypocrite?

The funniest thing is that when the gay person is a Republican, they rush to his support. Where are they when gay couples demand equal treatment?

I hope this continues. Republiqueers who beat their chests about morality and sancitiy of marriage (in a legal, not spiritual sense) but secretly bone men need to be exposed for the cowardly traitors they are.

I don't expect every gay person to be a gay rights activist. Go ahead and align yourself with the party of homophobic thugs if you wish and keep your real self in the closet. However, if you are going to support bills that seek to limit gay rights you need to be exposed.

[alansmithee]

Originally Posted by filtherton

So then you could choose to be attracted to men? If you could answer that question then we could maybe get somewhere.

Your analogy doesn't apply. The shape of the earth isn't defined internally by every human individually.

I currently am not attracted to men. I am also not attracted to watersports, feet, crossdressing, or S&M. Would you also say that these fetishes are inborn as well?

My analogy is apt, it has to do with not looking at causes and instead basing all knowledge on what you simply observe. Your logic would also invalidate the majority of psychology, because many people who have severe mental disorders don't feel that they are suffering any such disorder, even when biological evidence is present.

[alansmithee]

Originally Posted by kutulu

What special privledges are you referring to? The special priviledge of protection from being fired because of your sexual orientation or the special privledge of being given the same rights that straight couples enjoy? The Rush take is bogus crap.

What rights do straight couples have that gays don't?

The only double standard is from the man who tried to pass laws that would allow people to fire gays for no other reason than they are gay but he secretly engages in the same activities. Hypocrite?

Not at all. If he thinks that homosexuality is something that employers should be able to fire someone over, that's his opinion. Just because it isn't in his best interest doesn't inherently make him hypocritical.

The funniest thing is that when the gay person is a Republican, they rush to his support. Where are they when gay couples demand equal treatment?

Again, I fail to see where gays aren't equally treated. Many people disapprove of their actions, but that is their right. Maybe the gay mafia should quit trying to force their morality on the rest of the public.

I hope this continues. Republiqueers who beat their chests about morality and sancitiy of marriage (in a legal, not spiritual sense) but secretly bone men need to be exposed for the cowardly traitors they are.

What if they simply see marriage for what it is-a legal binding between a man and a woman, and don't think the government and businesses should support deviance.

And by your logic of labelling these people traitors, anyone who is American and comments negitively on America's practices is also a traitor.

I don't expect every gay person to be a gay rights activist. Go ahead and align yourself with the party of homophobic thugs if you wish and keep your real self in the closet. However, if you are going to support bills that seek to limit gay rights you need to be exposed.

If you are a dem/liberal (which I am assuming) your hypocracy is staggering. Essentially, you are saying that someone's private life has a bearing on how they do their job. And you are also saying that gays should be forcefully exposed if they don't follow the democratic line, or if they try to think for themselves. I'm glad you aligned yourself with a party of hypocritic, amoral, deviants.

[j8ear]

Originally Posted by kutulu

The special priviledge of protection from being fired because of your sexual orientation or the special privledge of being given the same rights that straight couples enjoy?

...The Rush take is bogus crap...

...Republiqueers....

Being able to work regardless of your sexual orientation is a special privledge as far as im concerned.

I realize this will chill your left wing ass to the bone...but I believe one can be FIRE for what ever fucking reason someone can invent.

I am conflicted on the marriage, inheritance, probate, hospital visits, etc...mostly because these are government defined "privledges" which AFAIC are nothing the government should be involved with. Here I favor removing governement administration of these 'privledges' all to together. Not further exacerbating the problem by broadening, redefining, or even broadening their definition.

Oh and your pretty little metaphors and quaint little play on words are appreciated...as I already pointed out in my previous post.

Keep up the good work, young fella ;-)

Irrelevant....

-bear

[guy44]

You know, as dirty as it makes me feel, I actually agree with alansmithee on the subject of outing gay politicians who have made anti-gay statements/actions.

On some level, I feel that they are getting their just desserts. On the other hand, I can't really condone outing anyone, no matter what. Just because the politicians may be hypocrites of the worst kind doesn't mean anyone else has the right to out them to the public. Just as I get really pissed when I read about teachers who out a kid to their parents, I get pissed when I read about anti-gay, closeted gay politicians being outed.

However, I can't really see myself taking seriously the arguments put forth by anyone who suggests that gays are deviants or that their sexual preference is a choice. Those beliefs are simply below contempt.

EDIT - Wow. Someone is actually suggesting that it is alright to fire someone for any reason, whether it be sexual orientation, race, or religion. Jimmy Crow lives!

[maximusveritas]

The ignorance in this thread is astonishing.
I suspect that some of the same people denying the genetic component of homsexuality are the same people who deride evolution as "just a theory".

This whole thing reminds me of the Clayton Bigsby sketch from Chappelle's Show.
Instead of being physically blind, however, the mayor is simply in extreme denial. He knows deep inside that he is gay, but can't admit it because he hates the very idea of homosexuality. He hates it so much that he lashes out at fellow homosexuals as a way of attacking the homosexual in himself.

[kutulu]

Originally Posted by j8ear

Being able to work regardless of your sexual orientation is a special privledge as far as im concerned.

So we should then apply that to race as well? Let's see how that goes.

I am conflicted on the marriage, inheritance, probate, hospital visits, etc...mostly because these are government defined "privledges" which AFAIC are nothing the government should be involved with. Here I favor removing governement administration of these 'privledges' all to together. Not further exacerbating the problem by broadening, redefining, or even broadening their definition.

The govt isn't about to start taking those privledges away, therefore they need to be equally applied.

alantreesmith:

You know damn well what rights and privledges have been denied to gay people. Don't play dumb. It isn't enough that they won't allow marriage to gays, bigotted right wingers have been sucessfull at barring civil unions that give similar rights under a different name. It is hatefull and unecessary.

It may be hard for you to understand but it is the right wing that is trying to impose morals. Calling them deviant is passing a moral judgement and banning gay marriage and civil union is forcing YOUR morals on society. Gay activists are simply saying it is not the govt's place to define morality and therefore people need to be treated equally.

My use of 'traitor' is not meant as a nationalistic level, he is a traitor to other gay people, not the govt. Sorry for the confusion.

[host]

Originally Posted by guy44

You know, as dirty as it makes me feel, I actually agree with alansmithee on the subject of outing gay politicians who have made anti-gay statements/actions.

On some level, I feel that they are getting their just desserts. On the other hand, I can't really condone outing anyone, no matter what. Just because the politicians may be hypocrites of the worst kind doesn't mean anyone else has the right to out them to the public. Just as I get really pissed when I read about teachers who out a kid to their parents, I get pissed when I read about anti-gay, closeted gay politicians being outed.

However, I can't really see myself taking seriously the arguments put forth by anyone who suggests that gays are deviants or that their sexual preference is a choice. Those beliefs are simply below contempt.

EDIT - Wow. Someone is actually suggesting that it is alright to fire someone for any reason, whether it be sexual orientation, race, or religion. Jimmy Crow lives!

guy44, even Mike Rogers, the gay activist who has been so active in outing gay Republican political hypocrits, has mixed emotions about what he is doing. We see the evidence right here on this board concerning misguided attitudes about what it is to be gay in America.

When closeted gays use their political influence to attempt to make public policy that is anti gay, voting for legislation that mandates firing those discovered to be homosexual, from their jobs, is a strong example, I support outing as a means to diminish their political influence and hypocrisy.

http://www.prometheus6.org/node/5493
I love the smell of hypocrisy in the morning
by Prometheus 6
July 15, 2004 - 10:14pm.
on Race and Identity

Not to mention more proof that Log Cabin Republicans is a synonym for stupid.

The Log Cabin Republicans have condemned the outing campaign. "The fact that there were members of our community who instead of working to defeat the constitutional amendment were instead working to destroy the personal lives of individual congressional staffers played right into the hands of the evangelical right," said Chris Barron, Log Cabin's political director. "Jerry Falwell and company couldn't have asked for a better gift than a community divided against itself in the weeks leading up to the critical vote."

You don't want a community divided against itself?

STOP SUPPORTING PEOPLE WHO OBJECT YOU YOUR VERY EXISTANCE.

Trust me, that will go a LONG way toward uniting your crew.

http://rawstory.com/exclusives/byrne...es_out_414.htm
BACKSTORY
How a Republican state legislator decided to come out

By John Byrne | RAW STORY Editor

On Mar. 31, blogACTIVE.com’s Mike Rogers placed a call to Minnesota state senator Paul Koering.

“He called my office and told my assistant that he was a reporter from Washington and wanted to talk to me about my video voyeurism bill,” Koering says.

The voyeurism bill the senator authored sought to increase fines for those videotaped or recorded without their consent. The bill had caught Rogers’ eye after he received photographs of Koering at a gay bar earlier that week.

“I thought, a lot of people are sending me information on this guy, maybe I ought to take a look,” Rogers says. Rogers is editor of RawStoryQ, an editorially independent franchise site of Raw Story Media, and runs blogACTIVE.com, a site which reports on what he believes is hypocrisy of political figures.

“When I saw that it was a person from Washington I was very excited,” Koering recalls. “I immediately thought: national news on this bill.”

“I started to explain to him about the bill, what the intent was,” he continues. “He proceeded to tell me, under your bill, if I said I had some pictures of you at Bang, a gay bar… would that be illegal?”

Koering says he was speechless.

“Somebody was sitting here in my office, and I was trying not to say something stupid,” he notes. “Finally I had to ask this person to step out.”

Koering and Rogers continued their banter until at one point Rogers asked, “Are you gay?”

The senator said he didn’t think it was any of Rogers’ business. Rogers said he was recording the call.

“I thought about hanging up,” the Minnesotan says. “And so I put him on hold because I didn’t know what to do, and so I went over to our chief of staff’s office a couple of doors down from me, and he was not there. It gave me a minute and a half to cool off, so I got back on my phone, and I said, ‘Mike, yeah, I’m gay, ask me whatever you want to ask me. If that’s what you want to do, it’s fine with me.’”

After admitting he was gay, the senator says he and Rogers had an amicable conversation.

“We actually had at that point I think a very civil conversation,” Koering recalls. “I actually could see that once I opened up my heart like I normally do I could see that I felt that he thought” similar things.

Koering told Rogers of an internal party discussion around the time was freshly elected. He said that he had stood up to another member of the Republican caucus who wanted to try to abolish the 1993 revision of the state’s Human Rights Act that included protection from discrimination based on sexual orientation.

“He said to me, I don’t really know if there’s a story here,” the senator says. “That’s kind of where we left it.”

“He did what far too few people do in our country,” Rogers says. “He took the hard road and did the hard decision to do what he think was right.”

Rogers reflected on the call on blogACTIVE on Apr. 4 without mentioning Koering by name or even the state in which he was elected to serve.

“As the legislator and I talked it became more and more clear the [sic] me that this individual was one of the many examples of a gay member of the GOP who should not be reported on,” the Washington blogger wrote. “Like every other story, I review the totality of the matter and decide with my advisors if the story is worth reporting. In this case, like so many others, the file is closed and no story is written.”

“Why?” he added. “Because blogACTIVE.com does not report on every closeted politician from one party or the other.”

Koering says he read Rogers’ post and was “pleasantly surprised.”

“I’ve got to say that I was pleasantly surprised by that, and I think it—honestly it made me think some more about who I am as a person and how much does this job mean to me,” he told RAW STORY. “Does it mean that much to me that I’m going to deny who I am?”

Several days later, on Apr. 7, Minnesota Republican state Sen. Michele Bachman moved to bring a measure allowing a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage to go to the Senate floor. The move was made despite the fact that measure had not been approved by the appropriate committees. Outside the Capitol, gay and lesbian activists were marching outside the capitol for equal rights.

Koering voted no—the lone Republican to do so—and along with opposition from 34 Democrats, the measure failed. The senator said he cried all the way home.

“I left the Capitol and I immediately started for home—it’s a two and half hour drive,” he recalls. “I literally cried all the way.”

That night, the senator called Rogers.

“I said hey, I voted against the marriage amendment and we talked about that and we talked several more times over the weekend,” Koering says. “I’ve got a lot of gay friends but they’re not really interested in politics like I am so it was kind of refreshing to talk to Mike.”

“So I got back to the Capitol on Monday,” he continues, “and the Associated Press reporter kind of said, if you ever want to talk about your orientation… and then the word was here that we were going to be taking another vote on the marriage amendment this week.”

“At that point I just thought, I’ve gone as far as I can go, I’ve just got to tell my constituents, you know what, I’m gay, let’s just put it out there and be done with it, and hopefully I can put it behind me and get on to work that I want to get done here.”

Koering isn’t as cheerful about those who were circulating pictures of him taken at a Minneapolis gay bar. In the Minneapolis Star Tribune Thursday, he said of pressure from those who had pressed the photographs on reporters, “They can do, and I’m sure they will continue to do, whatever they want, which I think is a sad state of affairs.”

Of Rogers, the Minnesotan is kinder.

“I guess people can be critical of Mike, and say that he’s doing something that shouldn’t be done, but in my case, he didn’t out me,” he says. “Did I like the way he confronted me? Not necessarily, but was it true. So why would a politician be running from the truth?”

He cautions Rogers, however, not to lob questions unnecessarily.

“I still think that Mike has a job to not just go out and willy-nilly ruin people’s lives or careers,” he asserts. “I think he has to realize as blogs become more and more important or are more relevant to the political process that he’s got to be careful that he doesn’t just go and ruin somebody who is a good person. He’s got to be judicious on how he goes about this and do his homework very well and have his ducks in a row before he confronts somebody.”

Yet Koering, unlike many in his party—and those at gay and lesbian rights lobby groups in Washington—told RAW STORY he supports Rogers’ efforts to report on gay politicians who use their positions of power to thwart gay rights.

“I do believe it is appropriate when you have a politician who is a hypocrite,” the senator says. “Somebody who is possibly in the closet and uses their bully pulpit or their position to bash gay people or to make gay people’s lives difficult in their position and are in essence leading a double life—people like that need to be exposed for the hypocrite that they are.

“Those people need to be exposed for who they are because they are a very poor excuse for a public official, as far as I’m concerned,” he adds. “We don’t need hypocrites in government. Government is too screwed up as it is.”

Koering declines to criticize Republican National Committee chairman Ken Mehlman and Rep. David Dreier (R-CA), two prominent members of his party who have been outed and are accused of working against gay rights.

“I don’t know those people and I haven’t followed those people, so I can’t speak with intelligence on what they do,” he says, “but it’s just my opinion that if politicians engage in what I call hypocritical behavior… and then are going out and engaging in the same behavior that they’re railing against, those people need to be exposed for who they are. That’s just not right.

“I sometimes find that the people that you find who are hollering the loudest, and who are putting people down the most, are the ones that have the most to hide,” he continues. “And they’re so uncomfortable in their own skin that they have to tear everybody else down to make themselves feel good.”

But as for “people who are gay and are just in office to do the work of their constituents and they’re not bashing gay people,” he says, “I don’t think anybody has the right to out people like that.”

Asked whether Rogers’ initial call prompted him to come out, Koering says no. He notes that the day of the amendment vote was the second anniversary of his mother’s death, and that it was “gay and lesbian day” at the Capitol, with activists lobbying outside.

“I don’t think Mike’s call made me make the decision to come out,” he states. “It was starting with Mike, it was the vote that I took on the marriage amendment, being that it all coincided—it was just almost like—it was almost like it was all meant to be.”

Did he feel torn after voting against the rest of his party?

“I actually feel relieved that I voted the way I did,” he says. “I feel like I made the right vote, and I wouldn’t change it, and I feel like I did do the right thing. And if in doing the right thing I get unelected, I guess that’s fine with me; I can live with that.”

Both Rogers and Koering praise each other, saying that though they are a world apart on some issues, they find common ground on issues surrounding gay civil rights.

Koering, a stalwart conservative, sponsored bills attempting to make English Minnesota’s official language and attempted to name a state building after President Ronald Reagan, according to the Star Tribune. He’s also a deer hunter.

Rogers, meanwhile, has been active in groups such as People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals and ACT UP, a gay rights group many see as radical.

But this doesn’t seem to deter the two from seeing eye-to-eye.

“Even though Mike and I politically don’t agree,” Koering says, “being that we’re both gay I feel kind of—I don’t know if kinship is the right word—that we have something in common. We’re both gay and we can’t change that, and all we want to do is live our lives. And in talking with Mike, I feel like I’m a good judge of character, I think that the guy is a compassionate person.”

“Paul Koering is my brother and on behalf of the millions of out lesbian sisters and gay brothers, I welcome Paul into our family,” Rogers says. “Are there disagreements? Are there family discussions we need to have? Without a doubt. And those discussions on the issues that are important to America will come.”

“But for the moment,” he continues, “the only appropriate focus on this story is the heroic steps taken by Senator Paul Koering in his journey to bring the truth about gay and lesbian Americans to the most important people in Paul’s job: the constituents of his district. He has served them well. He should be proud.”

Rogers saves his vitriol for the leadership of the Republican gay rights lobby Log Cabin Republicans. Koering told RAW STORY that he has had good conversations with members of the group. But he added that when the group’s president—a former state legislator himself—called him and then allegedly would not return his calls, he got frustrated.

“If I was the executive director of the Log Cabin Republicans and you’re trying to promote gay Republicans and some legislator calls and says 'I’m gay,' I guess I would have kept calling every three minutes order to talk to that person,” he said.

Chris Barron, political director for the Log Cabin group, cheers Koering’s decision to come out, though he disputes his version of events.

In a statement to the blog BoiFromTroy (and verified with Barron), the Log Cabin Republican praises the senator “for his courageous decision to come out and for his courageous opposition to the marriage amendment.”

“When I spoke to the senator earlier this year I made it clear that we at Log Cabin appreciated his voice and his courage as an elected gay official,” he says. “After that conversation, we traded emails and he made it clear in those emails, and conversation, that he appreciated me taking the time to talk to him.”

“I also put him in touch with our president, Patrick Guerriero,” he continues. “Patrick spoke to the senator, after a series of back and forth voicemails, and actually offered to go meet with him in Minnesota this year. We wish him well, are willing to work with him in building an inclusive GOP, and again thank him for his courage.”

Rogers says the senator’s story is an endorsement of his work. He believes that if the Log Cabin Republicans had been more engaged (the group opposes outing), they would have likely told Koering to keep away from him. On blogACTIVE, Rogers has called on the group’s director to resign.

“Paul Koering is the first to publicly state without my prompting the unquestionable contributions my work has made to our community, and this endorsement by the senator is in the shadow of the abject failure of the Log Cabin Republicans to appropriately address the most basic tenets of their mission,” he quips.

Barron strongly disagrees, and says he believes Rogers unfairly targets those he doesn’t like.

“We oppose outing period,” Barron told RAW STORY Wednesday. “So far this outing campaign has not changed one vote. Every moment spent calling an office to find out whether or not someone is gay is a call not spent encouraging a legislator to support pro-gay legislation or encouraging a legislator not to vote for anti-gay legislation…We need to be calling people to support our families. We don’t need to be calling to engage in some sort of personal battle.”

Log Cabin Republicans are not the only gay rights lobby to oppose outing. Human Rights Campaign, the largest U.S. gay rights group, says publicly that they are against outing, though their new president recently declined to criticize outing campaigns. The National Gay and Lesbian Task Force (where Rogers previously worked as a fundraiser) does not publicly oppose outing of politicians who work against gay rights.

For Barron, Rogers work is personal.

“I’ve gotten calls from friends of mine who are lowly staffers in tears from the things Mike Rogers has done,” he adds. “It’s clear that he is not simply targeting folks who have authority, who have the ability to actually set policy; he’s targeting anybody he doesn’t like.”

Chris Crain, editor of the Washington D.C. gay newspaper, The Blade, criticized Rogers in a RAW STORY interview earlier this year. While Crain says that he supports reporting on gay politicians who publicly thwart gay rights, he calls Rogers’ phone calls “badgering” and “harassment.”

“I don’t think Mike is the media,” he said. “I think he’s an activist, and using the cover of journalism to do what he does—and that’s his right, he can do what he wants—but I think it sullies the name of journalism when he does it.”

Rogers dismisses such criticism, calling it “slanderous.” He says he knows his style is aggressive, but he sees his involvement in Koering’s coming out as a vindication of his work and proof that his detractors are derelict in their responsibilities to advance gay rights.

“Senator Paul Koering’s voluntary coming out story is an indictment of every senior staff member of the Log Cabin’s national office and the leadership of the Minnesota Log Cabin Republican chapter,” he says.

“Paul Koering credited the thousands of activists outside the Minnesota state house in motivating him and his personal reflections prior to casting his vote,” he adds. “If there is one lesson that every lesbian and gay American can take from this entire story, is that the next time you’re sitting at home and wondering, should I go on that lobby day, should I call my legislator, should I get involved in my community, let the story of the courage of Sen. Paul Koering speak for itself. These rallies and the participation of gay and lesbian Americans is not an option, it’s an absolute must if our community is to move forward.”

Koering is more reserved.

“I don’t think that society is ready for saying that two men can be together as a marriage,” he says. “I don’t think that society is ready for that.”

Asked how he would vote if Minnesota’s Defense of Marriage Act (which prohibits the state from recognizing gay marriages) came up for a vote today, he said he couldn’t be sure.

“I don’t know,” he says. “I think that I would have to hear from both sides and I would have to hear why …I certainly would want to hear the debate on this and talk about it and see if society is ready for this.”

“I think some of the gay activists will be upset with me for this, but sometimes I think an agenda is pushed so far and so fast that people have no alternative but to push back,” he adds. “And I think that sometimes you have to move slowly.”

But Koering says Rogers’ call—which at first put him on his guard—was a blessing in disguise.

“I think in Mike calling me what turned out to be chunk of coal kind of turned into a diamond,” he quips. “Because I think it started out very awkward and I was on the defense, but it really turned out to be something good.”.........

Article originally published Apr. 14, 2005.

[Manx]

I don't agree that outing anti-gay people is in anyway unconscionable. The only way to view it as unconscionable is to view homosexuality as somehow inferior or wrong. Outing a gay person who is publicly anti-gay is the best method of demonstrating to them that there is nothing inferior or wrong with being gay - something that person has yet to learn.

There is only one reason a gay person ever feels the need to keep their sexuality private: fear of ostracization. That ostracization is very specifically created by people who are anti-gay - especially public personalities who are anti-gay. Heterosexuals are not in any way closted because their sexuality is deemed "normal". Homosexual people should be out, just as heterosexuals are out. If an anti-gay politician feels discomfort at being outed for their homosexuality - they have brought that entirely upon themselves.

[uncle_el]

Originally Posted by maximusveritas

The ignorance in this thread is astonishing.
I suspect that some of the same people denying the genetic component of homsexuality are the same people who deride evolution as "just a theory".

This whole thing reminds me of the Clayton Bigsby sketch from Chappelle's Show.
Instead of being physically blind, however, the mayor is simply in extreme denial. He knows deep inside that he is gay, but can't admit it because he hates the very idea of homosexuality. He hates it so much that he lashes out at fellow homosexuals as a way of attacking the homosexual in himself.

it's what some psychiatrists would call a classic "projection" : a defense mechanism, placing unacceptable impulses in yourself onto someone else

it's believed that anxiety is an underlying cause, in the sense that the thought/reality of being gay causes anxiety, and the mind's way of dealing with the issue causes the person to project.

something i looked up really quickly:

Psychoanalytic theory has long held that homophobia was the result of repressed homosexual desires. In a recent experiment, a group of homophobic heterosexual men showed more signs of sexual arousal from being shown images of homosexual sex than a control group of non-homophobic heterosexual men; however, anxiety in the former group may explain part of the difference. Similarly, so-called ex-gays, who claim to have "walked away from homosexuality", have often used strong language to condemn the practice (and some have later returned to it). Presently in western countries the group most likely to manifest homophobia is pre-pubescent males and older men

the issue always interests me because, as someone said, republicans always seem to come out in support of an outed gay politician, yet in all other facets of life, they seem to deride the very thought of gay rights.

[martinguerre]

sick, all the way. sick that closeting can still make homophobes out of queers. sick that people are willing to use their own sexual idenity as a weapon against those homophobic queers. and sick that we're still having the same heterocentrist conversation over and over again.

because i don't get to say this enough...alan s, your comments are despicable and willfully ignorant.

[uncle_el]

Originally Posted by Manx

I don't agree that outing anti-gay people is in anyway unconscionable. The only way to view it as unconscionable is to view homosexuality as somehow inferior or wrong. Outing a gay person who is publicly anti-gay is the best method of demonstrating to them that there is nothing inferior or wrong with being gay - something that person has yet to learn.

There is only one reason a gay person ever feels the need to keep their sexuality private: fear of ostracization. That ostracization is very specifically created by people who are anti-gay - especially public personalities who are anti-gay. Heterosexuals are not in any way closted because their sexuality is deemed "normal". Homosexual people should be out, just as heterosexuals are out. If an anti-gay politician feels discomfort at being outed for their homosexuality - they have brought that entirely upon themselves.

that was particularly well said.

Originally Posted by martinguerre

alan s, your comments are despicable and willfully ignorant.

agreed.

[j8ear]

So far we have the following defenses for the blantantly bigotted hate filled hypocracy of the left:

Originally Posted by martinguerre

alan s, your comments are despicable and willfully ignorant.

Originally Posted by kutulu

You know damn well what rights and privledges have been denied to gay people. Don't play dumb. It isn't enough that they won't allow marriage to gays, bigotted right wingers have been sucessfull at barring civil unions that give similar rights under a different name. It is hatefull and unecessary.

Originally Posted by maximusveritas

The ignorance in this thread is astonishing.
I suspect that some of the same people denying the genetic component of homsexuality are the same people who deride evolution as "just a theory".

It was actually argued that the theory of evolution is just a theory. Amazing. Someone actually TYPED those words out, and appeared serious about it. How can you possibly maintain credibility when you ACCUSE SOMEONE maliciously of claiming a theory is a theory. Not to mention the red hering, post hoc, hasty generalization, appeal to authortity, style over substance, attacking the person fallacies demonstrated and clearly required of the lefts debating tactic.

It's all they got...wait except for

platitudes, slogans, namecalling, slight of hand and outright deception.

Keep it up fellas...

as I've said: irrelevant

Manx, I will concede that your presentation was particularly well argued, reasonable, and persuasive. I've got some thinking to do on the subject.

-bear

[guy44]

host, I know lots of people have mixed feelings on the subject. It is one of those topics that I've given a whole lot of thought to and have yet to decide fully upon. On the one hand, I don't think people should feel ashamed about being gay. And these hypocritical politicians opened the door when they took sides - if they can't handle it, they shouldn't dish it out.

However, while those points are valid, I just feel too squeemish to condone outing people. Yes, nobody should be ashamed of being gay, and yes, these people brought it upon themselves, but there are still damn good reasons not to out people. Many people remain in the closet for their own personal reasons. Many are afraid of losing family or friends, or may be married or have a family. Even these bastard politicians most likely risk losing their jobs, friends, and family by coming out of the closet. And while they disgust me for their homophobic rhetoric, well, I just can't see where I've got any kind of a right to out them.

[alansmithee]

Originally Posted by martinguerre

sick, all the way. sick that closeting can still make homophobes out of queers. sick that people are willing to use their own sexual idenity as a weapon against those homophobic queers. and sick that we're still having the same heterocentrist conversation over and over again.

because i don't get to say this enough...alan s, your comments are despicable and willfully ignorant.

Why? Because I'd actually like some reason why deviant behavior should be accepted besides "uh...because"? Because I've repeatedly asked for anything showing that homosexuality isn't a choice and have yet to have anyone respond with anything other than insults?

If you find my comments despicable, it's only because of your own amorality and accetpance of deviance. It's a defense mecanism to avoid actually having to confront these issues. You cannot debate on logical terms, so resort to closing your ears and slinging insults. Because I don't get to say that enough.

[Hardknock]

This and that church in the south where the minister is kicking people out for being dems just shows the hypocrisy and the true colors of the republican party. This is what you voted for righities. Is this what your party condones?

[FoolThemAll]

Originally Posted by guy44

However, while those points are valid, I just feel too squeemish to condone outing people. Yes, nobody should be ashamed of being gay, and yes, these people brought it upon themselves, but there are still damn good reasons not to out people. Many people remain in the closet for their own personal reasons. Many are afraid of losing family or friends, or may be married or have a family. Even these bastard politicians most likely risk losing their jobs, friends, and family by coming out of the closet. And while they disgust me for their homophobic rhetoric, well, I just can't see where I've got any kind of a right to out them.

Exactly.

I just don't find much value or respectability in responding with malice to malicious people.

It tends to increase the overall ugliness, rather than decrease.

[Kadath]

Originally Posted by j8ear

So far we have the following defenses for the blantantly bigotted hate filled hypocracy of the left:

You know, once upon a time you burst onto the scene and it took me about a week to set you to ignore. Then I gave you another shot and you were so good for such a long time...and now you're back to your original, stupid-ass ways. Shut up.

Man, am I ever going to get tagged by the mods for this one.

[uncle_el]

Originally Posted by alansmithee

Why? Because I'd actually like some reason why deviant behavior should be accepted besides "uh...because"? Because I've repeatedly asked for anything showing that homosexuality isn't a choice and have yet to have anyone respond with anything other than insults?

it seems difficult to say that heterosexuality is a choice. i'm a heterosexual, and i don't remember choosing to like women, it just happened. i'm not sure why the same can't be considered for homosexuality. add to that, homosexuality is not limited to humans, as it's seen in gorillas and grizzly bears amongst other animals. i think we would all agree that animals rely on instinct rather than choices.

as filtherton already asked:

Originally Posted by filtherton

How about you ask yourself when you chose to be straight. Then ask yourself if you currently have a choice in who you are attracted

personally, i didn't choose to be straight, i just am. so, i don't see how i can tell someone that their homosexuality is a choice.

but, say i were to believe/think that homosexuality was indeed a choice... then what would that truly say about this spokane mayor?!?! he is a "foe of gay rights" according to the article and the quotes of him seem to support that assertion. for him to deviate from a heterosexual lifestyle and choose to be a homosexual/have homosexual encounters would be even more perplexing. add to that, if this guy is choosing to be gay, then it would seem that he really deserves to be outed, as he chose to do it, rather than him just following what is natural.

[flstf]

Originally Posted by host

When will closeted Republican politicians stop their hypocrisy?
They continue their attack on gays and gay rights, and the press continues to out them. Is it dysfunction, self loathing, or denial that makes these guys tick?

I agree that this polititian is certainly a hypocrite but he has a lot of company. IMHO a large number of our polititians are hypocrites and say whatever it takes to get elected while conducting their private lives differently.

A few examples:

- The polititian who advovates higher taxes for the rich while hiring the best tax attorneys money can buy to pay as little as possible of their income and wealth in taxes.

- The polititian who advocates against tuition tax credits for the middle class and extolling the virtues of public education while at the same time sending their own kids to the best private schools.

- The polititian who advocates women's rights while taking advantage of their position and treating the less powerful women in their lives like tramps.

- The polititian who advocates a military draft while making sure their own kids will be exempt.

- and on and on....

I don't think it has anything to do with dysfunction, self loathing, or denial. The fact that he may be gay does not stop him from being ambitious. What this guy is doing seems just normal for a polititian who wants to keep getting elected.