Sure Shot
Is Charlie Crist gay? I don't know. Does it matter? Yes.
More than a few gay people keep their homosexuality a secret. Perhaps they're afraid of alienating friends and family or justifiably concerned about losing a job. I'm sure several poor queer souls hate themselves and decide to deny, deny, deny.
Whatever the reason, I feel for them. I can't imagine how exhausting living a lie must be - emotionally, physically, and psychologically.
When such a person is in public service, however, his or her sexual orientation is not personal or private information. Constituents deserve the truth about who their reps are and a certain amount of privacy is forfeited the moment one runs for elected office.
The liberal in me wishes all gay people would feel comfortable enough to live an honest life. For their sake more than anything. And when such peeps are gay Republicans - even more so should they come out proudly. When closed-minded right-wing Christian whack jobs are confronted with the fact that gay people are everywhere - only then will they realize we are all connected and part of the same human family. Either they learn to accept that which they don't understand or Repubs should banish such haters to the outskirts of the political process in much the same way communists and white separatists are banished as well.
Gay Republicans who consistently vote anti-gay cannot be tolerated. Gay Republicans who pander to their party's worst elements and reject the notion that same-sex couples should be given the same benefits and rights as straight couples should be voted out of office. Gay Republicans who deny gay couples the right to adopt unwanted children and offer them a loving home should be thrown out on their humpin'-and-bumpin' asses. Either come out and serve the public honestly or stay home and run back into that closet.
This sh*t is ridiculous. And I'd like some answers.
posted by kate @ 4:34 AM
12 comments
12 Comments:
I've seen more money shots than a CitiBank training video. Plus, man on man sex gets Rich HOT. Admit it Rich, you love the cock you big caveman you.
So funny. Liberals, all they have left is personal attacks and profanity, and of course, the gay card. You have nothing left, you know Crist is leading comfortably, so you just have to start bringing back the 20 year old rumors that Crist is gay, everyone should know, and vote for Davis.
That is just so sad, it actually makes me that much more excited to gloat and troll all over these far left republican hating sites after Crist wins the election.
But what about many republicans who are members of the Christian "right" who condemn gays and their lifestyle? Is he not coming out because he is a hypocrite? Is he a hater of his own kind? Self loathing or whatever? Hey, it's a possiblity, right?...Hmmm...
7:04
I would say 33% of the republican party is like that, and they voted for Gallagher in the primary. I am far from one of those.
Boy is your wife a lucky woman...
Outing is a difficult issue. I can certainly understand and agree with the anger over the hypocrisy, but something about it feels dangerous.
It seems to me that very few politicians anymore actually believe in the line they're pushing. Their stances on issues rarely, if ever, mirror their own personal beliefs because the stances are specifically constructed to appeal to voting demographics. Sometimes these stances are just brain-twistingly convoluted in order to appeal to multiple voting populations that may hold different views. Politicians become little more than broadcasting systems for political message memes.
This hypocrisy has become so prevalent that it feels somehow disingenuous to call only a single politician out on a single issue, one that is visible and hot-buttony. Many good reasons to disagree with Crist exist without having to tread into this moral gray area and possibly spark a backlash against gay and lesbian politicians.
Still, if a politician was receiving inappropriate campaign contributions while running a campaign featuring fundraising reform, then that would be fair game. The parallel is obvious, although it should be mentioned that perhaps Crist is technically correct in saying he isn't gay, even if he is having sex with men. It's possible he's bisexual and, once again, it's all really just a proxy semantic war.
I guess I take a kind of wimpy attitude about it. I don't support outing because of the Golden rule, but when it happens to someone who richly deserves it, I find it hard to summon any pity that their lies are being exposed.
8:33
Once again all you liberals have are personal attacks. Im sure not suprised since you have nothing left and know that Davis will lose.
Kate,
Not that I really want to get into this debate, because it almost sounds like the Davis crowd got handed the Gallagher playbook and with a little tailoring and a heavy dose of rationalization are spitting their last drops of venom against the walls of the pyramid as they convulse in the throws of death.
However I feel compelled because I find the desperation quite fascinating. As far as I can recollect, the question has been asked and answered and 14 years of archaelogical digs by individuals with the means and money to find out the alternative have amounted to vitriolic innuendo presented as fact (read the Buzz) and the feigned nicety of "I'm just asking the question" speculation on blogs. The truth is that, just as with the Gallagher folks, the answer by the subject of their inquisition doesn't fit the needs of the Davis campaign and so we see the exercise continued, no doubt up until election day.
However, I was curious as to which of my public servants am I to put through this personal autopsy? The local city commission candidate, the woman running to sit on the local planning board and am I just to badger the Republicans or are Democrats fair game as well?
If a Republican or a Democrat is friendly to the gay community, but choses to leave their personal life off the table, am I to pay that no mind and draw and quarter them, pull out their innards and perhaps discover for myself, "Oh, they were/weren't gay, 'I was just asking the question.'"
Sorry, you can't have it both ways and agree with Bill Clinton when he correctly stated during his impeachment that peoples' personal lives should be personal and not political fodder and then conveniently abdicate that principle when it suits your candidate.
Further, there was a lot of anger by the Davis people about the Smith's pointing to Davis' failed vote on supporting Pitts and Lee. Some even accused Smith of "race-baiting." They were wrong on that because "baiting" is not playing off someone's anger for being oppressed, which is what Smith did, it is playing to incite and encourage an individual's prejudice. Just as the Southern Democrats would do in the 1950's and 60's when they would tell voters that an opponent would integrate the public schools in order to rally the racists.
This exercise by the Davis folks is "baiting". They are hoping for and encouraging hatred for homosexuals by evangelicals and others who may have been on the road to acceptance in order to help their candidate.
It will have no effect, but it is a rather sad thing to see otherwise good people engage in this wilding at the behest and direction of the Davis Campaign.
If Bill Clinton advocated laws that punished adulterers - part of the argument against that would be to bring up his lifestyle. Anti-gay legislation, that Charlie supports, is wrong and we are well within our rights to point out that it also might be hypocritical.
When human beings deny who they are - problems naturally arise. And when those problems occur with policymakers and people in power - innocent victims pay the price. Haven't we seen that with priests? Foley? There are many examples. If Charlie supported the rights of *all* people, this wouldn't be much of an issue, you're right. However, when he attempts to deny others the right to be who they are, openly, we have a right to fight back.
Kate,
I have to agree with you, in part. However, two issues come to light.
First, the question has been asked and answered so many times that it is to the point that that fact is irrelevant and it has become an almost, "Have you stopped beating your wife?" type of old school campaign smear akin to the Smathers/Pepper race of 1952.
Secondly, Davis is against gay marriage. Was that missed on anyone? Perhaps because Crist signed a pledge to support the Anti-gay marriage amendment you see it differently, however I don't. Davis didn't support the amendment because he said it wasn't necessary because state law "already den(ies) others the right to be who they are", that is, to get married to whom they choose. Crist chose to support to reinforce what Davis feels is already in statute. Is that somehow better?
Further, Davis has gone one step further than Crist in that, as a member of Congress, he actually voted for legislation to deny federal funds to assist in gay adoptions in 1998, stating, "I just don't think that is the proper environment in which to raise a child."
Perhaps Davis has had an election year epiphany, as he has had on many other social issues, but that doesn't make it right to bait or throw out red herrings in the guise that it is for the furtherance of some groups rights when, in fact, your candidate's record and platform is eerily similar to the candidate you are targeting.
Again, the question has been asked and answered. However, the "it's justified in this instance" is the same argument used by those who would choose to violate individual's privacy rights or other freedoms because they think that theirs is a compelling enough reason. I mean, there are those who would have us pose that question to teachers and professors, I'm certain you are not one of them. However if, in this 1984 model, the school district or University still had its suspicions following a denial do we fire up the Johns Committee in order to have a witch hunt?
Look, for the record, I don't care about anybody's sex life. (Well, that's not true. But you know what I mean.) I'd just like to see less hypocrisy in our policy makers and have seen the destruction "living a lie" has done to too many people.
I trust Jim Davis to do a better job when faced with anti-gay legislation. Perhaps that's because he has nothing to hide. Perhaps it's because he's more tolerant, thoughtful, and open-minded.
One or all of the above.
I can't say that Democrats are any better on gay rights issues than most Republicans. How many Democrats are pushing to extend the right to marry to all gay and lesbian couples? For those of us who actually live as the second class citizens in this country, a separate union (whether they call it civil unions or domestic partnerships) is not equal. In my opinion, Jim Davis is no more progressive on this issue than Charlie Crist and I doubt that he would do much more to forward the civil and political positions of gays and lesbians in this country. This is a sad realization for me since I have always considered myself a devoted Democrat. But quite frankly, I’m getting sick and tired of supporting a party that is not supporting me.
Post a Comment
<< Home