Politics: Another anti-gay gay representative to be 'outed'
It looks like David Dreier, a 12-term California Republican congressman, who has a long, consistent anti-gay voting, will follow his fellow pro-hate Congressman Ed Schrock last week in being outed by blogACTIVE sometime in the next few days. Schrock, from Virginia, resigned, seeing as being gay pretty much sank his entire hypocritical career. I haven't read enough from Dreier, and he's from a blue state. So we'll see what happens w/ this jerk.
4 comments:
I do not support the invasion of these politicians' privacy. It is unlikely to alter the political situation at the grassroots level that leads to anti-gay Congressmen being elected in the first place.
Most likely, these politicians will be replaced by other anti-gay officials. Should the closeted politicians are re-elected, do you honestly think they will bend to this form of coersion in future votes?
The only effect is to drag these Congressmen through the anguish of being forced out of the closet. Somehow, we're supposed to enjoy this needless suffering -- a suffering without any benefit -- and revel in its splended irony.
I find this demented and cruel. Add this to the list of reasons I don't find liberals to be more "compassionate."
Demented and cruel? Here's what's demented and cruel: discriminating against human beings based on the fact that they like to stick their genitals into a member of the same sex rather than the opposite sex, which is something Schrock and Dreier have apparently practiced in their congressional careers. By being pro-hate towards homosexuals (you may say they are pro-family, I say they are pro-ignorance), these congressmen stick their noses into the lives of others who are innocent of such hypocrisy. I am not taking any pleasure in a homosexual being placed in a horrible position of being "forced" out. I am taking pleasure in the exposure of a hypocrite. I am taking pleasure in the downfall of one who has made a political career (a portion of that career, at least) about preventing the advancement of a group that has been historically and disgustingly suppressed.
This isn't like a black person who votes against affirmative action. That's fine. That's based on logic which I may or may not agree with, but logic. Being anti-homosexual is alogical, or based on a logic of ignorance or hatred. And with two gay kids sitting five feet behind me in the student lounge, I'm not going to feel one bit bad savoring the downfall of someone who supports ignorance or hatred.
Btw, Erin Boyd says hello! She came out sometime last year, and was one of the two gay kids I referred to.
I agree that anti-gay positions are also demented and cruel. I am not advocating any of those positions.
I see that you have written that you are "taking pleasure in the exposure of a hypocrite."
Help me understand: Why should I take pleasure in that?
The exposure is not likely to change their district's votes in Congress.
The Congressmen will not allow themselves to be blackmailed (should the be re-elected).
The best you can say is this: Future gay candidates from socially conservative areas will probably not run for office, fearing exposure. Why is that a good thing?
Maybe I'm missing some other benefit. Feel free to chime in.
Also: Erin Boyd is gay, huh? Well no wonder I always thought she was so hot! ;)
I'm not so sure that it's fair to say that the attitudes of their constituents is absolutely relevant. Without looking up anything about their districts, I'll say there's a great possibility that these people vote for the Republican party much for the same reasons you do, for their approach to spending, taxation, national security, etc. The sort of issues that its perfectly acceptable for educated people such as you or I to disagree about. You've never given me any reason at all to believe that you are anything but progressive w/ respect to gay rights, but you're still supporting a candidate who is clearly against gay rights (unfortunately, my candidate isn't much better). In a two-choice system, that's the way it goes, and you're not anti-gay because of it.
You might be absolutely correct to assume that the disturbed universe will return to equilibrium, but no disturbance at all offers zero hope whatsoever.
I can definitely appreciate the poignant spin you put upon the situation. But I see this as nowhere-to-go-but-up. I was also happy when Trent Lott hit the road (fairly or unfairly is another topic), because there was one less person w/ ignorant, hateful attitudes in our Congress (again, you might disagree here, but following my own logic). I'm not sure the GOP or the nation is any better off w/ Bill Frist at the helm of that wing of the party, but still, nowhere-to-go-but-up.
In this hypocrisy, I think there's a lesson for those who might listen: that people are gay because they're gay, not because they want to be or choose to be. Dreier, Schrock, etc. are not responsible for objects of their intimacies, but they are responsible for their voting records which demonstrate an insidious self-loathing. If you're gay, and you hate gays, you hate yourself. And no one chooses to hate themselves.
I'm not dancing in the streets happy about this. But I think a potential step forward (through a potential elimination of hard-line anti-gay votes) for a suppressed community is worth the sacrifice of a few who choose to suppress though they know better.
To make an absurdist analogy, if someone had assassinated Hitler in '39, I wouldn't be happy because somebody died, but because concentration camps would be shut down. Dilute that situation a few hundred times, and I think the point applies here as well.
As for the left being more compassionate, the left isn't the one w/ the anti-gay voting record. And in this case, I think that's the trump card.
Post a Comment