Outing gay Republicans: Fair game or invasion of privacy?
posted at 12:55 pm on April 24, 2009 by Ed Morrissey
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
Rick Moran erupts in outrage over, well, Outrage — a documentary which promises to “out” a number of prominent Republicans as gay. These politicians have cast what the filmmakers consider “anti-gay” votes, and so believes that their personal lives have direct bearing on their political stands. Rick cries foul:
Imagine being a homosexual who, for whatever reason – family, business, or personal – chooses not to publicly divulge their sexuality?
For some, it is a question of politics. And after 8 years of hearing the left say that a person’s sexual life is not the business of the public and what someone does when they are not doing the people’s business should be their own affair, it takes a lot of sand to suddenly become interested in such matters when they involve a member of the opposite party.
There exists a small homosexual clique that has taken it upon themselves to “out” gay Republicans. These vicious slime merchants inhabit “alternative” media including websites, newspapers, and now, Hollywood. Their stated goal; to expose “hypocrisy” by outing conservative politicians, and even more incredibly, those who work as aides for the lawmaker.
I’m more of a live-and-let-live conservative, myself, which gives me a bit of a libertarian bent. If Republican officeholders are gay, that’s their own business. I’m more concerned about policy stands than who sleeps with whom in Washington, and in the end, it’s the policy that matters.
However, sometimes policy gets affected by the personal. Conservatives have no problem reminding people that Barney Frank hired a former male prostitute whom he had patronized at least once, and then lived with another man who was an exec at Fannie Mae. Frank himself has argued that personal life should be fair game for political criticism, at least in relationship to Republicans like Sarah Palin.
Is outing gay Republicans sleazy? Sure. Is it outrageous? I guess that depends on the nature of the “anti-gay” votes they’re going to discuss. If they’re votes against gay marriage and hate crime legislation, I’d call that rather weak tea. There are legitimate policy reasons to oppose both; I’m much more opposed to the latter and ambivalent at worst to the former, but I’d hardly call opposition to gay marriage “anti-gay”. Unless they’re participating in rallies that demand the criminalization of homosexual sex or something along those lines, their sexual preference should remain their private business until they themselves choose to make it otherwise.
For a group of people who profess to also adhere to live-and-let-live policies, the filmmakers seem pretty intolerant of gays who wander off the political reservation — but that’s hardly surprising from the extremes on both sides of the political spectrum.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3
Is there a problem with wordpress?
platypus on April 24, 2009 at 6:56 PM
FIFY.
The truth is that intercourse is defined as:
Coitus is defined as:
So the real truth is that sexual intercourse is limited to normal people. Normal people get married in the only way possible – to a member of the opposite gender.
Sodomites CANNOT get married because they cannot have intercourse; i.e., they are incapable of consummating their union. Call it what you wish but it will NEVER be marriage.
Oh yeah, I almost forgot. If anybody gets incurable TB, you can thank the sodomites and their excessive use of antibiotics to combat all the diseases they transmit by performing their defining behavior.
There is more but that’s enough for now.
platypus on April 24, 2009 at 6:56 PM
Go ahead! Who cares? The only people who think that conservatives will become apoplectic over name dropping are those who still like to think conservatives are all racist too.
I couldn’t care less about what people do in their bedrooms and I’m astounded at the lengths some gay people will go to drag us all into their bedrooms. If the person in office is providing tax cuts, respecting the contributions that ALL citizens make to the country, respects life and enables business to flourish, I don’t give a rats arse what they do after they close their front door.
Can someone explain to me why on earth radical gay activists want only to be recognized for what they do in their beds? Are they so totally inept that nothing they do during regular waking hours qualifies as a viable characteristic to be proud of? Is it all just about sex for them? They really aren’t a proud people are they?
caygeon on April 24, 2009 at 7:06 PM
Arrogant elitists is how I see them.
platypus on April 24, 2009 at 7:19 PM
The point stands, despite your assurances to the contrary. You made no attempt to reason, to engage; you came in swinging and using the most derogative terms you could think of. Your intent was to belittle, to injure, to rant. Fine, maybe that’s your thing. But I will tell you this; it hurts the cause, because it allows others to point to it as an example of who they think we are, and perhaps more importantly, to you if not to me, do you really consider this Christian behavior?
Really?
CaptFlood on April 24, 2009 at 7:27 PM
Righteous Left: Have you now or have you ever been a member of the Republican party?
Suspected Gay: Have you no decency, Sir?
RL: We have video tape of you attending a ‘Tea Baggin’ party!
SG: Um, can you be a bit more specific, sir?
RL: We have video proof of you participating in one of those ‘Tea Baggin’ parties.
SG: Still not sure if that is a good thing or a bad thing, sir.
RL: Since it is understood and well known that, for the good of the cause, gay men are not allowed to have an independent thought or opinion we are left wondering what to do with the likes of you. Our tactics are harsh but necessary.
Outing is a must, clearly you can’t be trusted to live your life as you choose! Your values will be stripped and you will not be allowed to work.
If you or any suspected gay does not go along with the cause they you are nothing.
So, how are they going to verify that those outed are actually gay?
This guy did an expose on the MPAA and rating system (This Film Is Not Yet Rated). It was fine, if not liberal tripe, until he outed those who actually participated in the viewing and rating of films.
Ages, number and ages of kids — he hired a private investigator to dig into their secret identities. Of course they are secret for a reason — remember the Union rallies at AIG employees homes!
Only out gays who agree with liberal causes are acceptable to some on the left (ouch, Barney Frank was in the closet when he was first elected — he didn’t qualify! He has tried to make up for that sin ever since!)
Live and let live only applies to liberal causes — destruction of a person, their families, their careers, and their lives is the only acceptable alternative. This rule applies universally, not just to gays.
The radical gays know what is best for all gays — and they will force all to participate — consequences be damned.
David
LifeTrek on April 24, 2009 at 7:56 PM
Can you prove it hurts the cause (assuming the cause is the future superior position of the conservative electorate)?
Since conservatives have been relatively quiet for about thirty years while the sodomites invaded the policy-making bodies of various governmental and corporate structures, I’d say this roaring (such as it is) is both long overdue and very welcome music to the ears of millions.
And what difference does Christian make to you? I thought you identified as agnostic. So it seems silly for you to care what Christians do to their own self-image.
platypus on April 24, 2009 at 8:00 PM
Let me add that the left runs on a completely flawed idea of the right’s religion and concept of personal responsibility.
They assume anyone who is not perfect is a hypocrite, but the key tenant of every Christian I know is that we are all sinners. That doesn’t mean you can’t strive to be a better person.
That is actually the opposite of hypocrisy and more honest a position then the left’s.
David
LifeTrek on April 24, 2009 at 8:00 PM
It is also a position and a policy that could not exist (and did not exist) until the Messiah was nailed to that tree. It was His sacrifice that provided us with the capability of admitting what we truly are.
Except for the sodomites.
platypus on April 24, 2009 at 8:07 PM
This is sad. I liked the director’s last film, “This Film Is Not Yet Rated.”
ScoopPC11 on April 24, 2009 at 8:18 PM
The “esp.” does not preclude or disqualify the first half of the definition.
You could also try Websters:
David
LifeTrek on April 24, 2009 at 8:36 PM
This roaring is long overdue? Platypus, please. I’m old enough to remember Anita Bryant, Fallwell, Et Al. Were they successful? Perhaps not, but strident and always, always there with us? Without question.
As to my ‘Christian behavior’ comment, as ‘LifeTrek’ was only too kind to point out, Christians accept that they are all sinners. I’d just like to see a little of that ’striving to be a better person’ aspect he or she alluded to right here on ‘Hot Air.’ And as for all this being ‘welcome music to the ears of millions,’ you may have to clarify which ‘millions’ you’re referring to. Is it millions of Evangelicals, or Catholics, or Mormons, ’cause the last time I checked, there seemed to be a fair amount of animosity between those competing theologies.
CaptFlood on April 24, 2009 at 8:54 PM
I’m pretty sure leetpriest and platypus are the same person i mean how many people outside of the westboro church still use the term sodomite. Of course the sex talk is just to titillate, as is the over use of the term heterosexual.
@caygeon i agree in a perfect world (or even in europe) sex is considered private and a personal issue. here the strident moralist over use it to try and claim the mantle of moral authority. as if the church is some how immune from the normal vices of human sexuality. A politician should be judged on their actions.
pure balderdash i suppose gay christians don’t exist to you either? I’m not a christian and it was my struggle to be a more honest friend and child that led me out of the closet and made me publicly accept that i was gay and needed to get on with my life. I suppose the billions of humans that aren’t christian are all sitting around waiting for the local missionary to explain redemption so before they can become human in your eyes?
christian mobs are roaming africa killing and lynching gays right now thanks to your religion and you want to restart that here? All because i bond with males? do you want to kill all the gay animals too? If gays aren’t natural how come they exist in every country, in every family, in every tribe and in ever time period? hmm yeah has to be a coincidence.
Zekecorlain on April 24, 2009 at 9:13 PM
If you mean christians to be those who follow the Scriptures, then there can be no “gay” christians because God has said that homosexuality is an abomination to Him.
I am pretty sure that a child cannot be gay although a child could be convinced that he/she was capable of making adult decisions.
Not become human – become saved.
Do you have any links that show this to be true?
Lots of males bond with males – having sex with each other is not part of bonding.
No such thing, in my view because animals cannot reason.
Rebelliousness (or sin, if you prefer) are universal. Plus, it doesn’t matter if homosexuality is common or not. It does not benefit society – that’s enough to deny special rights to those who practice sodomy.
You cannot show me anything bad that society does to you that has anything to do with your sexual practices unless you started telling people what you do.
I used to do some pretty wild things in my youth. I kept them private because I really did want to be left alone to do my own thing. Sodomites do not want to be left alone – they want to be approved.
Let me put it this way – Inside of every sodomite is a Liberace yearning to be exposed.
platypus on April 24, 2009 at 10:02 PM
I have not even tried to Google “rumored gay republicans” to see who might show up. I am gay and a Republican. Heck, I even think that Miss California gave the only answer that she could have given ………….. and, has shown a lot more class than the jerk who will go nameless that can not keep his @#$! mouth shut.
SC.Charlie on April 24, 2009 at 10:08 PM
……………Platypus, you really can’t understand, can you?
SC.Charlie on April 24, 2009 at 10:15 PM
I can understand today what I refused to understand before. For example, when I was an alcoholic, I really believed that I could stop whenever I wanted and that I didn’t really have a drinking problem.
Today, I cannot see how it was possible for me to be so deluded (the memory feels like I was stupid). Your situation is not much different. You can change from what you claim is fixed and permanent but not until someone other than yourself is allowed to convince you it’s true.
You have to give yourself permission to admit you’re wrong.
platypus on April 25, 2009 at 2:25 AM
Do they actually say this somewhere? Or are you putting words in their mouths?
The vast majority of gays are liberals, and as liberals they have no intention of letting you live your life as you see fit. They want you, and intend to make you, live your life as THEY see fit.
Gay conservatives are the ones who have a live and let live attitude.
American Elephant on April 25, 2009 at 6:25 AM
I I find the discussion on this board stunning! I am trruly thankful that you are not involved with with my eternal soul. I am not gay but the discussion of other people’s ills shows your true selfiish nature and the same need for our Saviour of those you hate so much…you actually hate you!
sabbott on April 25, 2009 at 9:19 AM
I couldn’t agree with you more. I am a libertarian for the single reason that I think the Republican party is too concerned about what people do often in the privacy of their own homes, that affects no one but themselves “victimless crimes”.
Pols that usually shout loudest about morality tend to be republicans who end up getting caught in some sex scandal, similar to pols who say we need to raise taxes tend to be Dems who either get busted for not paying them, or busted in payola scams where they receive monies that are never taxed.
In that sense I think it is ridiculous to legislate morality. You run the risk of placing yourself on a moral pedestal that makes you all too easy a political target when you do eventually make a mistake because human error and entropy are 2 things that are inevitable.
I mean who remembers the sodomy laws? Who hasn’t broken them? (note: they apply to what heterosexuals in healthy relationships do same as they do homosexuals). That was one of the most ridiculous discriminatory pieces of legislation ever written and it is still on the books in many states.
And let’s not forget when Meese got the Braille institute to stop publishing Playboy, thereby taking Playboy away Literally from the 1 group of people who could honestly claim “they just read it for the articles”.
When the Republicans tone down the moral high horse stuff and concentrate more on fiscal policy and national security, they will get my vote more consistently.
@ntif@n on April 25, 2009 at 9:42 AM
I thought that AA and the professionals say, once an alcoholic always an alcoholic.
SC.Charlie on April 25, 2009 at 12:29 PM
We in AA have recovered…read the Big Book!
sabbott on April 25, 2009 at 12:53 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3