Mike Rogers was ahead of the curve on the Larry Craig story. Back in 2006 he located a gentleman who had been cruised by the Idaho senator in DC’s Union Station.
Anti-gay closeted pols have provided Mike with fertile ground — witness the exposure of former Virginia U.S. Rep. Ed Schrock (you can hear recordings of Schrock’s calls to a male sex pickup phone line) and California U.S. Rep. David Dreier.
Mike says this about Craig at Proud of Who We Are:
“Larry Craig should stand up and be honest with the citizens of Idaho about who he is,” said Rogers, the country’s top gay activist blogger. “Tonight is a historic opportunity for Senator Craig to run for re-election as a proud gay American. What a great turning point for one of the most conservative states in the country to be represented by an openly gay Senator.”I’ve discussed the subject of outing and the pathology of the closet many times. More after the jump.“Senator Craig’s situation is exacerbated by the fact that he has a voting record that is counter to the interest of lesbian and gay Americans. All too often, closeted men like Senator Craig use their voting record to hide their truth from the American people. With this news now out in the open, I call upon Senator Craig to reevaluate his votes on issues like the Federal Marriage Amendment, Don’t Ask Don’t Tell, and the Defense of Marriage Act.
“The Minnesota arrest is not a one-time occurrence,” Rogers added. “Last October, I reported on three other encounters that Senator Craig had with men — including one in a bathroom in Washington’s Union Station. What’s troubling about this is Larry Craig’s hypocrisy: he repeatedly votes against the gay community during his day job, while engaging in same-sex encounters as extra curricular activity. Now is a good time for Larry Craig to join millions of other Americans and be proud of who he is.
When a pol gets booted from the closet, some then are not closeted in their social circles mind you; their friends, staffers and colleagues know of the person’s orientation. It’s clear the rumors were swirling about Craig, but it doesn’t appear at this point that he was socially out.
The ones who are socially out, simply are just not politically/professionally out, they choose to lie by omission because it suits their day jobs sucking up to the likes of the Christian Coalition. We’re not only talking about elected officials. This closet is full of campaign managers, fundraisers and legislators in the corridors of power, ready to elect homophobic officials with homo-hating tactics, and pass anti-gay measures, even as they enjoy homosexual activities themselves under the cover of anonymity.
These folks are addicted to access and power, and know that publicly kicking the closet door open will jeopardize that power in the gay-hating, gay-baiting wing of the GOP that currently rules the roost.
However, there is a subset of these hypocrites that are truly self-loathing homosexuals — the Schrocks [and Craigs] of the world — cruising for homo-sex in the shadows, hating themselves the next day and atoning for their “sin” by casting votes against taxpaying citizens that choose to live their lives honestly and openly. As long as their anti-gay boss treats them well personally, it doesn’t matter that they work together to deny civil rights to LGBT citizens.
As I’ve said before, they all need to be exposed because some of them are clearly unfit to lead, particularly those that fall in the latter category; I think those folks will never see the light.
80 Responses to “Mike Rogers on Larry Craig, and the pathology of the closet”
Leave a comment
Line and paragraph breaks automatic, e-mail address never displayed, HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>
The closet is not a right. The closet is not mere privacy. The closet is an oppressive social institution that distorts and deforms the humanity of those caught up in it.
Unfortunately, we have to keep repeating these things over and over and over again.
I was just in a public restroom in that very same airport last weekend. It was the womens’ rather than the mens’, but I got a good look at the sort of environment in there.
For reasons of economy, families fly at some pretty odd hours. There are families — including little kids — in those restrooms at all hours of the day and night. Diapers are being changed, moms are wiping the fruit juice off of their tots’ faces, wide-eyed young kids are anticipating their first flights.
Craig is a real sleazeball. That’s just sick. Republicans, and conservatives in general, have told themselves for so long that “homos” are all sick and perverted that, if they happen to be gay, they have a totally poisoned view of themselves.
This is why we hear so much about conservatives and Republicans getting caught in these situations. All their “moral” posturing aside, they are sick, perverted sleazeballs with warped views of sex and of humanity in general.
When it comes to outing, I cling to the delusionally antiquated notion that exposure of a public official’s private life should be related in some way to his performance of his public duties.
That excludes a lot of cases (don’t give me any bushwa about “character,” either), but not Craig’s. Someone who scored political points with gay-baiting gets no sympathy from me when he himself is exposed as gay.
I’d go even further than Bitter Scribe … any file-worker, any campaign-worker, any clerk, any fundraisers, etc, etc that would work to elect and further the agenda of an anti-gay politician or party is fair game.
The closet is not a right. It’s the oppressive prison that these politicians would have us be in, it’s what they would impose on is. Breaking closets then becomes fair game for those that would support those that would force us into them.
That politicians like Craig are fair game is a given; but you work for someone like him? For a group with his goals? Welcome to being out.
Our sexualities will be private, when the bigots stop making them public. Until then, they reap what they sow.
In general, I find it laughable when people are discussing the indiscretions of elected officials. Clinton’s affair was the most laughable to me. It’s nobody’s business but theirs.
This one, however, is something that should be made public as it is rank hypocracy. He has acted against the LGBT community while being closeted himself. At best his self-loathing is going to affect his judgement.
Mr Craig’s voting record, as sited by our hostess here:
* Voted YES on constitutional ban of same-sex marriage. (Jun 2006)
* Voted NO on adding sexual orientation to definition of hate crimes. (Jun 2002)
* Voted NO on expanding hate crimes to include sexual orientation. (Jun 2000)
* Voted YES on prohibiting same-sex marriage. (Sep 1996)
* Voted NO on prohibiting job discrimination by sexual orientation. (Sep 1996)
I have to ask: why is it that if a politician is homosexual, my friends on the left assume that he simply must vote the opposite way on the issues above? Does Mr Craig represent homosexuals, because he apparently is himself, or does he represent Idahoans, whom he was elected to represent?
There was a referendum on same-sex marriage on the ballot in Idaho in November of 2006, and Idaho voters approved a state constitutional amendment to restrict legal marriage to one man and one woman, by 63% to 37%. I do not know what Mr Craig himself thinks about same-sex marriage (he may not approve of the idea, personally, even though he’s apparently at least bisexual), but his votes are coincident with how the great majority of his constituents have voted.
Dana, we’re not you’re friends. Period.
While I blanche at the criminilization of courtship behavior in public as a means of criminilizing homosexuality, I can’t help but encourage all sorts of outing of the Sen. Craigs of the world.
Why? Because they made and supported - or at least maintained - the very laws that tripped them up. If they hadn’t been so insistent that the state use its authority to constrain the private consensual activities of the citizenry, they would not have found themselves caught out in those very same activities.
Who made or maintained these laws? Larry Craig. Who insisted that they be enforced and differentially enforced against gays? Larry Craig. Who can Larry Craig therefore blame for his predicament? Larry Craig.
thanks MAJeff, this is the most concise, exact definition I have been looking for.
To Dana: Yes, and the Southern politicians who supported Jim Crow and fought civil rights were also following the overwhelming wishes of their constituents. That didn’t make them right, either.
And if such a politican had turned out to have an African-American ancestor (to have “black blood,” in the ugly phrase of the day), exposure of that fact would have been quite well justified.
I have to ask: why is it that if a politician is homosexual, my friends on the left assume that he simply must vote the opposite way on the issues above? Does Mr Craig represent homosexuals, because he apparently is himself, or does he represent Idahoans, whom he was elected to represent?
Self-loathing hypocrites who bleat on about traditional family values while cruising local men’s rooms for anonymous gay sex may not be the best guardians of the public interest. That should be obvious, Dana – even to you.
dana,
craig should represent human decency no matter what side of the fence he is on personally or politically. I think his voting record does not stand on the side of human dignity. Oppression, even if sanctioned by democratic majority is still oppression. As he is a gay man we simply hope he would see it that way. By outing him, we hope to change some of the minds of that oppressive majority.
I don’t see what Craig did as a “homosexual” act at all- I see it as a lewd public act. IMO, it is an insult to every very decent gay and lesbian person I know, including some I have met here, that he is now being considered “outed”. Because I can’t think of a single gay who would consider having sex potentially in front of kids or at the risk of arrest.
Maybe he’s gay- maybe he isn’t- I don’t care. He’s definitely a sick fuck.
While Dana may have a point on the voting record of the senator in question, as a public official it is not only his function to vote as the populous chooses, it is his duty to help to inform the population issues of importance.
More than just his voting record I’d like to see his campaign distributions/commercials and his public speaking record. Has he spoken about inclusiveness or divisiveness (and am I making up words here.. heh)? Has he distorted the debate and divided his constituents when he was in a position where he should have known better than to make hateful and harmful statements, did he still do so to score political points? That’s what I’d like to see… there’s a greater trust put in our public officials than to just go with the majority. I vote for officials who are willing to inform the population and change their minds when they are in the wrong about something.
“Does Mr Craig represent homosexuals, because he apparently is himself, or does he represent Idahoans, whom he was elected to represent?”
Oh THAT’S right- because it’s not possible to be an Idahoan AND gay at the same time??
louise,
I’m not nearly as disgusted as you are, but maybe that’s because I’ve known folks who like tea-room sex. Now, from what I understand, most are far more subtle than Craig was, and wouldn’t be doing stuff if others were in the room. However, I think you’re going a bit overboard in your disgust.
Most tea-room or public sex happens with absolutely no one other than the participants knowing.
Dana:
So basically, you’re saying that it’s better for Craig to be a self-hating pathological hypocrite and a slave to the theo-fascist Right than it is to be an openly gay man.
You’re right; I tend to flare up sometimes. Will tone it down a tad.
we all flare up…just let dana really get started and I won’t just flare I’ll flame…in every sense of the word.
sorry for the last pun…i’m getting punchy. Several days of packing the apt and eating one meal per day will do that. Right now, I’m just taking a break and comforting a very freaked out cat.
I have right-wing family members because I can’t get rid of them. I would never have right-wing friends unless I didn’t know they were right-wing (which is unlikely) or unless they got me weed in college.
Just sayin.
How many times must we continue to explain to people like Dana that voting against your own interests, your own well-being and the livelihood of people you care about is batshit crazy and becomes hypocritical when you then seek to engage in the behavior you’ve voted to restrict?
Wingnuts favorite game: Blame the media for your problems. I just listened to Sen. Craig news conference with total disgust. He said that he is “not gay”. I am disgusted with the entire GOP. Now you can see why I left the wingnut movement in Feb. 2003.
I’ve always loved the phrase “at least bisexual.” ‘Cause maybe Senator Craig likes to have sex with men, women — and ficus trees? Pot holders? Goldfish? Anyways, thanks for enabling my imagination, Mr. Santoru…I mean Dana.
Does Mr Craig represent homosexuals, because he apparently is himself, or does he represent Idahoans, whom he was elected to represent?
Well, there is the whole lying issue:
That statement was made less than a month before his arrest.
But “lying about sex” or “cheating on your wife” are OK if you’re a Republican, even more so if you consider family and moral values “first and foremost” among the characteristics of the guy you support for president.
From the Idaho Statesman newspaper we learn…
Craig voted for the failed measure July 14, 2004. He also has opposed allowing gays or lesbians in the military and voted against extending civil rights protections to homosexuals in the workplace.
Craig told the Statesman in May that he doesn’t care about a person’s sexual orientation. He said he had a homosexual staffer. “I hire people based on their talent and their ability to produce,” he said.
Marriage should be between and man and a woman, Craig said. But he said he supports unions between same-sex couples. “You can have a civil union, but you can’t commandeer the institution of marriage. That’s very special, religious, culturally, and you can’t go there.”
Last fall, however, after Rogers’ report, Craig issued a statement saying he would vote for an amendment to the Idaho Constitution on the November ballot that bans both gay marriage and civil unions.
I think it’s damning because he’s basically been caught trying to please everyone and succeeding in disappointing everyone. His politically correct ‘love the sinner’ type act won’t cut it for anyone who really supports the freedom to marry and equal rights under the law. His actions speak louder than his words. If you’re homosexual you can count on Larry Craig to vote against your constitutional rights.
He is talking about marriage being a religious contract between a man and a woman. But churches get the authority to conduct legally binding marriage ceremonies from the State. That is why you have to register church weddings with the city. That is why justices of the peace and ship captains can conduct weddings. There is nothing about modern State sanctioned marriage that requires religion. If you want the rights and obligations of marriage provided by the State, you must be recognized by the State. Nothing about those grants of power to churches require a man and a woman.
But what about marriage as an ideal? I would say it is the realization of love through a lifelong public commitment. The ideal marriage is enduring, joyous, flourishing, a home with children. It’s a roller coaster like the standard catholic vow says,”To have and to hold, from this day forward, for better, for worse, for richer, for poorer, in sickness or in health, to love and to cherish ’till death do us part.” What part of that requires a man and a woman? None of it. Where is the sanctity in defining marriage being only between a man and a woman?
And it is the sanctity of his own marriage that Idaho Republican Senator Larry Craig has damaged most and should have most concern for. He has plead guilty to a charge for anonymous gay sex behavior. I don’t care if he is gay or just bicurious. His behavior is inconsiderate of the sanctity of their marriage and he shows reckless disregard for the risks of anonymous sex in the era of AIDS.
In agreement with most of the comments here, esp. MAJeff, but just wanted to add, jTuba, that “at least bisexual” probably means “he could be gay, he could be bi, he could be *whatever.*” All we know from this incident is that he likes sex with other men; it doesn’t mean that he doesn’t like sex with other people too. Susie Bright had an interesting podcast about Ted Haggart, how the media assumed that he was gay and how that’s another way sexuality is white washed in the media.
I’m through with pity and remorse and understanding for hypocrites like Craig. Let him reap what he’s sown.
Burn him!
Dana: have to ask: why is it that if a politician is homosexual, my friends on the left assume that he simply must vote the opposite way on the issues above?
Obviously he didn’t have to vote “the opposite way”. Did you ever think that its the forbidden-ness that gets freaks like Craig so hot, and what he’s doing by sponsoring all those statutes legally abusing homosexuals is simply turning up the thermostat? I really don’t see a guy who propositions strangers in an airport bathroom being satisfied at all with a staid old conventional gay relationship, much less a gay marriage. Craig doesn’t want love or affection, boring stuff like that; he craves the dirty thrill of life-on-the-edge danger.
As far as him selflessly abjuring his inner desires to more perfectly represent the conservative viewpoint of the potato farmers who sent him to D.C… aw come on Dana, you had to be laughing out loud when you typed that. You don’t believe that; I don’t believe that; no one reading this would believe that, not for a God damn second. Maybe you could sell that tall tale to Phillipe from Achewood, you cynical old Lie-Bot you.
Deep6 wrote:
But he didn’t. He neither sought to enter a same sex marriage, nor to have someone prosecuted for a hate crime against himself (or anyone else) nor filed for sexual orientation discrimination protection. Those were the things he voted against, not his apparent desire to take a walk on the Wilde side. To the best of my knowledge, Congress has simply not voted on sodomy statutes; such were never considered to be the proper realm for federal law, other than in the UCMJ.
Now, if you want to claim that he was a lying scumbag for attempting to deceive the voters of Idaho into thinking he is exclusively heterosexual, I’d absolutely agree with you.
Dana,
How about this: He’s an asshole, as are you and the people of Idaho, for actively working to make the lives of queer people less safe, stable and secure.
Got it now?
W Kiernan wrote:
If Mr Craig had no particular desires to enter a same-sex marriage, he wouldn’t have been “selflessly abjuring his inner desires” to vote as his constituents would like. As I said, I have absolutely no idea how he feels about same-sex marriage personally, but I do know that his votes reflect the way his constituents would have had him vote.
Dan wrote:
Actually, I think Mr Craig had an obligation to be open about his private life in this regard with the voters of Idaho, and to have done so when he was running for election. He did not do that, and that was wrong of him; he clearly put his real personal interests — getting elected — ahead of both honesty and public service.
But the duty of a representative is to represent his constituents — and a solid majority of his constituents voted just the way he did on the issue of same-sex marriage.
Jeff wrote:
Oh, I certainly knew that you didn’t like me very much, as is your right.
But to depersonalize it somewhat, I’ll ask the question in a more general sense: is every person who disagrees with you on the issue of same-sex marriage a slang term for the human rectum? Is it possible for someone to have supported precisely the issues in Mr Craig’s voting record, as specified above, and still be a decent person, in your opinion?
Dana,
No. When someone votes in every instance to avoid making life better for queer folks, when they are part of a party that actively attempts to make our lives WORSE, they are not a decent person. And that also describes you.
And no, you can’t depersonalize it, because we’re talking about people and their lives. It’s personal to all of us when people are ACTIVELY working to make our lives worth. And that is what YOUR party, YOUR religio-political movement are doing.
It’s not some abstract issue, like you always want to make it. It’s real people’s lives, which you obviously don’t give a shit about.
The people who vote for these amendments, the people who campaign for them, these are not decent human beings. Nor are you.
worth=worse
Re: the mention of Clinton… I dunno. I think it was stupid to impeach him for lying about his affair with Lewinsky seeing as how it wasn’t technically perjury, as far as I know (the lie has to materially affect the outcome of the case, they were trying to establish that he had a habit of imposing nonconsensual sex on employees, blah blah blah)… however, on the other hand, we may assume he was lying to his wife. And I don’t buy the idea that a guy who would lie to his own wife would not also lie in situations having to do with his job. Character seems to be fairly consistent across the board.
It’s one thing to fib once in a while when someone asks you whether their ass looks fat in their new jeans. Quite another to lie about an issue that has to do with other people’s ongoing trust in you.
Not to mention that Clinton saw nothing wrong in not only lying to his wife but also dehumanizing Lewinsky as “that woman”, denying he’d ever had anything to do with her, after (according to her account) behaving as though he cared about her and wanted her in his life. Additionally you have to take into account how politically problematic it was that he seemed to feel entitled to sexual attention from young women in a socially inferior relationship to him even though Lewinsky obviously felt she was consenting to the whole thing.
I don’t understand why people on the Left–and I’m one of them–still feel the need to defend this guy when what he did was indefensible for reasons having nothing to do with the GOP’s railroading of him. I read an issue of On The Issues, a now-defunct feminist magazine, in which they published an editorial denouncing Clinton for his behavior. I do believe that was the one print source I could find on the Left that said anything in that vein. That’s pretty pathetic.
Enterik said:
“But churches get the authority to conduct legally binding marriage ceremonies from the State. That is why you have to register church weddings with the city.”
Actually, in Idaho, it is with the county clerk. Or it was when I got married in Gem County (County Seat, Emmett) 24 years ago.
MA Jeff said:
“How about this: He’s an asshole, as are you and the people of Idaho, for actively working to make the lives of queer people less safe, stable and secure.”
Not all of my in-laws are amoral, idiot assholes. Not even all the ones in Idaho. Please stop slandering the entire State of Idaho. I found most people living in Idaho who are from there (which would not have included me when I lived there as I relocated my senior year of high school) are much more of the “mind your own F*cking business and keep out of mine” frame of mind.
Well, they sure didn’t stick to that when they stuck it to the queers.
Technically, “asshole” is a slang term for the human sphincter, not the human rectum.
As far as the Clinton thing goes, it doesn’t compare to Craig (the other Craig; I don’t go all third-person about myself). Now, if Clinton had been caught cheating after consistently and aggressively pursuing anti-adultery laws and denouncing adulterers from the comfort of the Oval Office, it might compare to Senator Craig’s situation. As it stands, the Lewinsky affair was the Republican party’s desperate attempt to rid themselves of something no one had seen in years: a charismatic, popular Democratic President.
MAJeff? Marry me. Oh, wait. We CAN’T, thanks to fine people such as Senator Craig. : P
Right. Craig is a representative, not a proxy. I don’t know the legal term, but most political thinkers believe our elected officials are supposed to lead the way for their constituents–that is, to vote the way they believe will be most beneficial for the people they represent, not necessarily to vote exactly the way those people would. (It’s ambiguous within the Constitution.)
And to vote against gay marriage is to explicitly vote against the idea that the only difference between a straight relationship and a gay one is the genders of the people involved–or, in other words, to say that because the relationship has two people of the same gender rather than one person of each, that relationship is (less stable/less desirable/a sexual perversion, not a social interaction/so offensive to other people that the couple in question should be denied the legal benefits of civil marriage/other halfassed excuse). When someone votes against gay marriage, they are explicitly calling queer people worse than straight people.
My impression:
1. Ted Haggard is a closeted homo.
2. Craig is MSM (men who have sex with men). Basically he’s a hetero guy that fags around perhaps for some forbidden thrill. I know a few hetero guys that if you give a couple beers the slide right up the kinsey scale. That doesn’t make em gay IMO.
And Dana, as usual, justifies wingnut hate by any means he can scrabble up.
Because conservatives have more class.
Jeff, actually, you were too kind.
Because someone who “disagrees with me on the subject of same-sex marriage” is, in the vast majority of cases, someone who is saying that they are in favor of denying a large group of people a set of privileges that they hold as important (often central) in their own lives, even though granting those rights and privileges would in no way significantly impact their lives, simply because they disapprove of them. And in the process are clearly, consciously and deliberately hurting gay people and their families, just so they can feel smug and superior.
Which does, in fact, make them assholes.
Craig, I live in MA, We can. But I’d still insist on separate apartments.
Well, that’s easy; Yes.
We’re sick and tired of people claiming it’s merely their opinion when it comes to denying us equal citizenship and equal rights under the law. That’s not just an opinion, that’s supporting oppression.
We’re calling bigots, bigots. Don’t want to be called bigots? Don’t hold a bigoted position.
Next?
But to admit that they’re causing harm, Sarah, they’d have to take personal responsibility for their actions. That’s something other people have to do, not conservatives.
I think that’s really what scares people like Dana and Craig and why they don’t like it when we name them bigots for their bigotry. Because naming them such brings into stark relief the reality of the harm they personally are contributing to.
And they don’t like that.
And you know what? Tough.
Oh, btw, when I said “Craig” above, I wasn’t talking about the Craig the commenter in this post, but rather Larry Craig
Because running with the herd absolves you of all responsibility, right? And if current public opinion shifts to put your view at risk, you can always align yourself with centuries of dead people who aren’t there to provide context or ever risk changing their minds. And if even that doesn’t work, you just make shit up and SAY it’s tradition.
I think everyone who cites thousands of years of tradition as a trump card should be forced to live their lives without refrigeration, antibiotics, or indoor plumbing. If the past is so great, go for it.
The part that just continually amazes me is that it is so much easier to worry about my own stuff than to try to police the world and everyone else’s moral choices. Where do these assholes get the energy?
Maybe the plank in their eye hurts so much?
He did. It’s not excused or any less hypocritical because he’s in the closet, Dana. He’s choosing to hide his sexual orientation so he can continue to have the freedoms and rights assumed by straight men, when if he were out about his sexuality, he *would* be harming himself by voting for these bills. By doing so he’s legally reinforcing his own and others’ decisions to remain in the closet. That he hasn’t looked to bring suit in court about hate crimes or try to get married to another man is irrelevant.
And it’s always hypocritical to vote against the interests of children of gay people by refusing their parents equal treatment under the law and then campaign on a family values platform - unless conservatives believe family values entails making it harder for parents to take care of their children…. Oh, wait….
I realize it’s a high dudgeon and all, but “the people of Idaho”?! Some of us are decent, law-abiding, and really, lovely and tolerant persons who do support equal rights irrespective of gender and sexual orientation.
This is not directed specifically on the subject at hand. However, I see an assumption made repeatedly that I’d like to address…
What I want to know is why any sexual orientation, marriage or civil union, color of skin, or gender should confer any special rights. As a heterosexual, single, white male, do I somehow have fewer rights than a “married/civilly-unioned,” black lesbian?
All persons, regardless of color or gender or sexual orientation, have rights–individual rights. These are the rights to their lives and their property which they’ve gained through honest means. The government should do all that it can to protect these rights.
No person–straight or gay or bisexual, black or brown or white, male or female, married or single–should be robbed, molested, raped, or killed. To assign additional “rights”–such as a right to a job or medical care–is not merely telling people to respect others’ rights by not harming them; it’s placing unchosen obligations, thus denying them the right to deal with whomever they choose for their own reasons.
So, maybe, just maybe, some persons (though they’d be very few) in Congress and the Senate don’t vote for gay rights or women’s rights–whatever kind of “rights”–because they’re freedom-oriented enough to realize that individual rights are the only rights that should be instituted in a free country.
Though this is not directed specifically on the subject at hand, I see an assumption made repeatedly that I’d like to address…
What I want to know is why any sexual orientation, marriage or civil union, color of skin, or gender should confer any special rights. As a heterosexual, single, white male, do I somehow have fewer rights than a “married/civilly-unioned,” black lesbian?
All persons, regardless of color or gender or sexual orientation, have rights–individual rights. These are the rights to their lives and their property which they’ve gained through honest means. The government should do all that it can to protect these rights.
No person–straight or gay or bisexual, black or brown or white, male or female, married or single–should be robbed, molested, raped, or killed. To assign additional “rights”–such as a right to a job or medical care–is not merely telling people to respect others’ rights by not harming them; it’s placing unchosen obligations, thus denying them the right to deal with whomever they choose for their own reasons.
So, maybe, just maybe, some persons (though they’d be very few) in Congress and the Senate don’t vote for gay rights or women’s rights–whatever kind of “rights”–because they’re freedom-oriented enough to realize that individual rights are the only rights that should be instituted in a free country.
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!
*Reads again*
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!
You MORON! Anti-discrimination legislation aren’t special rights, they’re put in place to ENSURE that individual rights are upheld.
As white, you’re protected by anti-discrimination laws based on race. As male, you’re protected by anti-discrimination laws based on gender. As straight, you’re protected by anti-discrimination laws based on sexual orientation.
If the rights based solely on the individual actually worked, then we wouldn’t need these provisions … since they don’t, they’re there!
Unless you’re advocating that people actually be allowed to fire based on things like gender, race, sexuality, etc … then you’re a bigot as well as a moron.
Equal rights are not special rights.
Night Efficacy,
that was one of the dumbest things I’ve ever read. I am actually stupider for having read it.
Sarah,
More like they’re put in place so that an employer–when he or she decides not to hire one of the persons in a “special rights group” because the interviewee isn’t qualified–can wonder whether it might come back on him or her in “special rights” lawsuit.
And what’s with adults calling each other names. Can’t you just disagree? No wonder I haven’t blogged before (thus the accidental re-blog).
Have a nice life.
Please stop, I can’t afford to get dumber!!
Ah yes, that’s EXACTLY why all these laws are in place, to stick it to the naturally more qualified white, male, straight job candidates. It’s this huge big conspiracy by those that aren’t white, male or straight. We’re totally out to get you, and you personally caught us at it.
Good thing you’re on the ball.
Oh, and that’s not an insult, it’s a descriptor. When you display so many attributes of a particular descriptor, it stops being an insult, and starts being an accurate description. And you, sir, are displaying those in spades.
And this isn’t merely a matter of disagreeing … you’re advocating giving people the right to fire me based on nothing more than my sexuality. That’s not “disagreeing”, that’s you advocating oppression for me and others like me. So please excuse me if I am a tad not polite in response.
First (God, forgive me for revisiting this), I can be called every name in the book. Doesn’t bother me, per se. What is somewhat annoying to me is that adults (I think) resort to it so easily. (So, MAJeff, have your fun. By the way, your little statement about what you can’t afford, I agree, but, of course, not for your reasons.)
Second, I am advocating one’s right to deal with whomever he or she wishes. That, in my opinion, has a great deal to do with whether or not one is truly free.
Night, what you are advocating is the continuation of white supremacist, patriarchal, homophobia. You have more freedom as a straight man than i do. You don’t want to admit that. You’re being intellectually dishonest.
begone bigot.
Ah, the ability to impose your bigotry on others, yes, I can see the founders so had that in mind when they created their nation of ‘freedom’.
*rolls eyes*
You can deal with anyone you want, ON AN EQUAL FOOTING.
Careful, you’re dribbling some more stupid there …
MAJeff,
I am not advocating that at all. I like gay people. I think most black people are so cool that I sometimes wish I were black. I have a sexual preference for Hispanic women. Beyond that, I have told you too much. I simply think that freedom includes not being told with whom you must deal–whether you’re an employer, a banker, or a street sweeper.
I said you could call me any name, so you took me up on the invitation. However, in each case you were simply wrong.
actuallly, you are advocating that. I suppose you’d probably have no problem with a return to Jim Crow…just letting people hang out only with those they want to….
Again, intellectually dishonest.
Sarah,
You have misconstrued everything I’ve written. I consider it an honor to be thought stupid by you.
I will make you happy, though. I am now bored, and you are free of me.
Ooooo, classic troll behaviour, in compressed form!
1. Make stupid bigoted argument
2. Claim that it’s those that don’t tolerate intolerance that are the really intolerant ones.
3. Claim those here are SO rude!
4. Deny ever having said what they said.
5. Make a flouncy announcement of exiting.
Wow, we ought to frame this.
Ah, the whiff of trollz in da evening breeze. Or did the cat yak?
Take heart everyone! Americans are now beginning to see the GOP and the Christian Right for what they really are … human (straight and gay), and self righteous hypocrites. Not to be complacent, but it is the exposure of the Larry Craigs of the world for what they are that will begin to snowball. Public opinion and policy will swing on that great political pendulum to favor fairness and equality. We will prevail in the end, we will be free and equal, we shall overcome.
Tom von Alten said:
“I realize it’s a high dudgeon and all, but “the people of Idaho”?! Some of us are decent, law-abiding, and really, lovely and tolerant persons who do support equal rights irrespective of gender and sexual orientation.”
MAJeff wont listen to you on this any more than he did to me. His response to my protest of this extreme overgeneralization was:
“Well, they sure didn’t stick to that when they stuck it to the queers.”
Like he was in the voting booth with my in-laws. Talk about someone being an asshole.
Well, I am a right voter - and an evang. Christian so I suppose that makes me the devil in this forum. But let me say this, GOOD RIDDANCE…
Personally, I find the homosexual lifestyle to be a rather distorted version of our purpose on this planet - but I back those views with my lifestyle. No one likes a hypocrite… The sooner we vet these bums out of the GOP the better I say.
Cheers.
Well, I am a right voter - and an evang. Christian so I suppose that makes me the devil in this forum. But let me say this, GOOD RIDDANCE…
Personally, I find the homosexual lifestyle to be a rather distorted version of our purpose on this planet - but I back those views with my lifestyle. No one likes a hypocrite… The sooner we vet these bums out of the GOP the better I say.
Cheers.
Well, I am a right voter - and an evang. Christian so I suppose that makes me the devil in this forum. But let me say this, GOOD RIDDANCE…
Personally, I find the homosexual lifestyle to be a rather distorted version of our purpose on this planet - but I back those views with my lifestyle. No one likes a hypocrite… The sooner we vet these bums out of the GOP the better I say.
Cheers.
Well, I am a right voter - and an evang. Christian so I suppose that makes me the devil in this forum. But let me say this, GOOD RIDDANCE…
Personally, I find the homosexual lifestyle to be a rather distorted version of our purpose on this planet - but I back those views with my lifestyle. No one likes a hypocrite… The sooner we vet these bums out of the GOP the better I say.
Cheers.
Well, you’ve goaded me back. So you can call me a liar now. But men too have the prerogative to change their minds. (Crap! It will be a small miracle if that doesn’t provoke a charge of sexism.)
Now, to answer five ridiculous assertions.
1. Where? Did I say that people of a certain color, sexual persuasion or gender were in any way inferior to white, straight males? No! And I never would! I don’t believe that! I hate racism and homophobia; I find them irrational and stupid. And when it comes to women, I may be biased in their favor. From what I’ve observed, they can do most jobs better than men, being quite able to multi-task where men, most of time, cannot. (I’ll get hell for that, but it just seems to be what I’ve observed.)
AGAIN, I’m just making a statement that it’s not the government’s place to force people to deal with persons they do not wish to deal with. As stupid and as irrational as they are, it is such persons’ right to be racist, homophobic or sexist. However, it is NOT their right to bring harm to those whom they hate. (Although American citizens have a right to their views, they do not have a right to government positions, and the government should be proactive in securing non-racist/non-sexist/non-homophobic agents such as judges and the police. )
2. We could go round and round on this one. The answer to number one makes my view clear (or should).
3. No, I don’t think that’s what I said. Though I could make the argument that you are. I simply stated a preference for discussing the issues without calling people names.
4. I don’t think I’ve denied anything I’ve said. I have tried to clarify even though, I think, what I said shouldn’t need clarification. I think that trying to make it racist, homophobic, etc., was either entirely dishonest or showing a complete lack of comprehension of what of was written.
5. I’m sorry. I explained myself until I was blue in the face, and I still got ridiculous accusations hurled at me. It became exasperating and boring at the same time. Only curiosity regarding that which was said in my absence brought me back. And knowing that at least the first four of the five “troll” assertions were inaccurate, I felt compelled to reply.
Frame it if you like. I merely expressed my opinion. And my opinion was not racist, sexist or homophobic–no matter what you say.
Aaaaaand … *drum roll please* …
6. Comes back anyway, despite claiming that he was leaving.
I love it, I was just SO waiting for that
Sarah, you’re just being intolerant of Night’s intolerance. His bigotry must be accepted and embraced, or you are the REAL bigot.
It says so right here in my Reichwing talking/arguing points manual, from the Karl Rove “I Know You Are, But What Am I?” Institute of Advanced Wingnut Studies…
Jeebus, touchy Idahoans…if you can’t tell from the rest of my comments I was referring to the people who voted to take away rights. If you or your inlaws are in that group, yeah, you’re assholes. If you aren’t I wasn’t talking about you.
Well if all that means you’re one of the people voting to make our lives worse, then yeah, you might want to claim that devil title for yourself.
Wow! You totally disregard what I wrote, coming up with some lame sarcasm implying that I’m a bigot. And you lump me in with conservatives, when as a libertarian, I have as much disagreement with conservatives as I do with liberals.
I find it really odd that I’ve gotten this treatment here. In dealing with those of different gender, sexual preference, and race, I’ve never treated–or even been tempted to treat–anybody differently. I’ve always wondered how people could grow up to be adults so hateful of others simply because they have more melanin or like boys instead of girls. But I come here and have an opinion that differs, and I am the recipient of what seems to be something at least approximating hate.
For that reason, I will leave, this time without changing my mind. I am sure my words will be twisted when I leave. But that’s all right. It’s time for a “flouncy” terminus.
“Wow! You totally disregard what I wrote, coming up with some lame sarcasm implying that I’m a bigot.”
Dude, have you actually read and understood what you wrote? Or do you really feel that saying “I hate racism and homophobia; I find them irrational and stupid.” (which is a good cut-and-dried statement we can all support) IS NOT undone when you say “I’m just making a statement that it’s not the government’s place to force people to deal with persons they do not wish to deal with.”…?
You don’t see the incoherence of those two statements? That you personally feel you’re not a bigot (Rah! Rah!), but The Government shouldn’t get involved if people want to be bigots and harm people through the exercise of their bigotry? Wha?
“And you lump me in with conservatives, when as a libertarian, I have as much disagreement with conservatives as I do with liberals.”
You may be one of the three exceptions, but it’s been my experience (and many others here too) that calling yourself a “libertarian” usually means you called yourself a “conservative” until the stench of the Cheney/Bush administration became too intense to ignore. It’s almost always a dodge, unless you’re a high school student, in which case you haven’t matured enough to see the childish lunacy of “libertarianism” for what it really is…
Is it possible for someone to have supported precisely the issues in Mr Craig’s voting record, as specified above, and still be a decent person, in your opinion?
i know that the question was for Jeff, but I want to second (or third or whatever) Jeff’s ‘no.’ if you
are trying to strip people of their right to be equal under the law because you don’t like who they love (or for any other reason), you cannot be a decent person.
If you had been paying attention at all over the last year plus, MAJeff (from MN, right?), you would know I am usually on your side on this type of thread, now live in MA and would vote for gay marriage if the idiot bigots get it on the ballot there. You would also have noticed I said Idahoans from Idaho would not include me as I relocated as an almost adult. If you look at the population graphs over the last few decades, you can see that a large portion of Idaho residents are clearly, by the numbers, not born Idahoans.