And another one:
Robert Mecklenborg (R-Ohio) caught with stripper and Viagra
It’s always the “family values” Republicans. Isn’t that right, Sen. Vitter?
Strippers have families too.
Ba da da da dum another one bites the dust…
http://www.groundreport.com/Politics/Anti-Gay-Alabama-AG-Troy-King-Caught-in-Gay-Affair/2864848
[quote=“Toe Save”]Ba da da da dum another one bites the dust…
http://www.groundreport.com/Politics/Anti-Gay-Alabama-AG-Troy-King-Caught-in-Gay-Affair/2864848[/quote]
That’s a three year old article, of rumors which were never substantiated.
[quote=“Gao Bohan”][quote=“Toe Save”]Ba da da da dum another one bites the dust…
http://www.groundreport.com/Politics/Anti-Gay-Alabama-AG-Troy-King-Caught-in-Gay-Affair/2864848[/quote]
That’s a three year old article, of rumors which were never substantiated.[/quote]
Stupid Joe Rogan. I scooped it from his Twit. 
And another one:
Anti-gay, “family values” Republican State Rep. Phillip Hinkle of Indiana turns out to be… you guessed it… secretly gay.
As Cenk Uygur would say: “Of cooooooooooooourse!”
[quote][quote=“Chris”]And another one:
Anti-gay, “family values” Republican State Rep. Phillip Hinkle of Indiana turns out to be… you guessed it… secretly gay.
As Cenk Uygur would say: “Of cooooooooooooourse!”
[/quote][/quote]
You know, the really, really creepy thing here is that you keep adding to this thread, Chris. You and I both know that there are lots of gay Dems out there, but it’s the hypocrisy of it all, right? That’s why you keep posting the unfortunate outings of gay politicians. I mean, SOMEONE has to hold the fort. 
Given your passion for digging it out, the truth that is, I would suggest otherwise, but that would be in bad form. :ohreally:
Yeah, it’s the hypocrisy. It’s also the fact that these characters have real power which they yield against (other) gay citizens. I don’t think it’s creepy at all that Chris updates the thread every now and then. Gays still do not fully equal rights in all states, so this is relevant.
Right, because growing up and having to hide your gay lifestyle for whatever reason, then getting into politics and having to bury it even further due to the offcenter sensibilities of your constituents whom you represent, to then have it suddenly exposed and mocked and demeaned. It’s just a pro-gay thing really. I can see that now. 
Oh and Hey. How ya been? 
Sorry if I misunderstand your point. Sarcasm, right?
Are you trying to suggest politicians who not only hide their homosexuality, but actively speak out against it and not only vote for but actively write and sponsor anti-gay legislation are somehow deserving of sympathy from the gay community? In the 21st century?
(Edited to correct typo so Toe Save can stop hyperventilating)
Sorry if I misunderstand your point. Sarchasm, right?
Are you trying to suggest politicians who not only hide their homosexuality, but actively speak out against it and not only vote for but actively write and sponsor anti-gay legislation are somehow deserving of sympathy from the gay community? In the 21st century?[/quote]
I love a happy typo. Sarchasm…the gap between sarcasm and the internet.
Sorry if I misunderstand your point. Sarchasm, right?
Are you trying to suggest politicians who not only hide their homosexuality, but actively speak out against it and not only vote for but actively write and sponsor anti-gay legislation are somehow deserving of sympathy from the gay community? In the 21st century?[/quote]
Sure. Why not? The thing is, even very conservative people have very little hard feelings toward the “gay community.” It’s not something that even registers on their internal GPS. They don’t set around watching NASCAR cursing fags. But when low hanging fruit picking politicians need a stupid for their more ignorant conservative constituents to get behind, it’s right there, gay marriage, gay adoption, next to flag burning and evolution. It’s a winner. It gets them elected. That’s their job.
Imagine being judged solely on your stupid issue. :s
And then when you do something reckless and get caught with your pants down or in the cookie jar, thousands of twits are there jumping up and down on your balls.
I would think that approaching them reasonably saying, hey, the cat is out of the bag, will you continue to vote this way and push this legislation or will you alter it to accurately reflect your own beliefs? Would that be sympathy, or just maturity? 
[quote=“jdsmith”]Sure. Why not? The thing is, even very conservative people have very little hard feelings toward the “gay community.” It’s not something that even registers on their internal GPS. They don’t set around watching NASCAR cursing fags. But when low hanging fruit picking politicians need a stupid for their more ignorant conservative constituents to get behind, it’s right there, gay marriage, gay adoption, next to flag burning and evolution. It’s a winner. It gets them elected. That’s their job.
Imagine being judged solely on your stupid issue. :s
And then when you do something reckless and get caught with your pants down or in the cookie jar, thousands of twits are there jumping up and down on your balls.
I would think that approaching them reasonably saying, hey, the cat is out of the bag, will you continue to vote this way and push this legislation or will you alter it to accurately reflect your own beliefs? Would that be sympathy, or just maturity? [/quote]
Excuse me? You have got to be kidding.
It’s not about judging someone solely on a stupid issue. It is about calling someone out for actively speaking against, and promoting legislation that hurts a group of people, then only to find out they are also a member of that group. LUNACY! The absolute definition of hypocrisy. “Gay is bad, evil, trying to recruit your innocent children, going straight to hell, aren’t deserving of the same protection of the law as non-gay”, and then BAM, the person doing all that harm against the gay community is discovered to be gay themselves. And this is OK?
You can be reckless, get caught and pay the price, but that is a bit different than the hypocrisy of actively doing harm to a group of people, holding yourself above them, yet be one of them. Now THAT is fucked up.
Lighten up, Francis.
I never said it was OK.
You keep using the term the “gay community.” Additionally, you seem to be suggesting that all those in the GC think the same way. Is it not possible that some gays feels that homosexuals do not need special legislation or protection beyond what is already provided in existing Law?
Is it not also possible that some gays do not fully support every single gay issue that you do?
Maybe some gay people could care less about gay marriage, and maybe some oppose it. You’re casting a very wide net here Craig, yet you expect to catch the same kind of fish. There’s a lot of fish in the sea and they don’t all look alike.
You get upset at the idea of someone saying “Homosexuality is evil and immoral?” Is it? I don’t think so. So should I also go jump on someone’s balls for being gay and campaigning against gay issues? No. Why? Because it ain’t the end of the world, that’s why. No one is hunting down gays. No one is denying gays rights or legal recourse to rectify perceived wrongs.
You also are mad at closet gay politicians making the world unfair in their favor. I really do not think that they are alone in doing this; actually it seems to be par for the course.
[quote=“jdsmith”]Lighten up, Francis.
I never said it was OK.
You keep using the term the “gay community.” Additionally, you seem to be suggesting that all those in the GC think the same way. Is it not possible that some gays feels that homosexuals do not need special legislation or protection beyond what is already provided in existing Law?
Is it not also possible that some gays do not fully support every single gay issue that you do?
Maybe some gay people could care less about gay marriage, and maybe some oppose it. You’re casting a very wide net here Craig, yet you expect to catch the same kind of fish. There’s a lot of fish in the sea and they don’t all look alike.
You get upset at the idea of someone saying “Homosexuality is evil and immoral?” Is it? I don’t think so. So should I also go jump on someone’s balls for being gay and campaigning against gay issues? No. Why? Because it ain’t the end of the world, that’s why. No one is hunting down gays. No one is denying gays rights or legal recourse to rectify perceived wrongs.
You also are mad at closet gay politicians making the world unfair in their favor. I really do not think that they are alone in doing this; actually it seems to be par for the course.[/quote]
Listen, Marge.
By suggesting that gays shouldn’t be upset about gay politicians legislating against gay interests, is in fact, saying that it’s OK.
I am absolutely not upset at the idea of someone saying homosexuality is evil and immoral, but 1) as a US citizen, I have the right to equal protection under the law and 2) for a gay to legislate against gay marriage is absurd and self loathing. People are entitled to their views and opinions until it infringes on the rights of others.
Gays can certainly be indifferent to same-sex marriage, but I can’t fathom a gay being actively opposed to it.
You are very cavalier in saying it ain’t the end of the world, but I suspect you are not living in exile from your home country solely because it’s the only way you can stay with your significant-other, spouse, life-partner or whatever you want to call it. Yes, I am being denied my right to equal protection under the law, at least in part due to the efforts of hypocritical, closeted politicians legislating against it.
[quote=“CraigTPE”]
Listen, Marge.
By suggesting that gays shouldn’t be upset about gay politicians legislating against gay interests, is in fact, saying that it’s OK.[/quote]
Why? Why should you expect a gay politician to always agree with gay interests?
[quote]
I am absolutely not upset at the idea of someone saying homosexuality is evil and immoral, but 1) as a US citizen, I have the right to equal protection under the law and[/quote]
Yes, and you also have legal recourse, as we all do, regardless of our sexual identity.
[quote]
2) for a gay to legislate against gay marriage is absurd and self loathing.[/quote]
Why? Why must a gay politician support gay marriage?? What if he or she just doesn’t think it’s a good idea for whatever reason? Why is gay marriage beneficial to ALL gays?
Laws by definition infringe of the “rights” of someone or we wouldn’t need them in the first place. I think a law against gay marriage is stupid. I think a law against flag burning is stupid. I don’t understand the necessity for a law for gay marriage if there are other legal ways to achieve the same outcome.
Listen Copernicus, just because YOU can’t fathom it doesn’t mean it’s snot possible. That’s all I’m saying. When you or anyone else paints all people with one brush, even when they do it in support of their own position, I get the heeby jeebies.
[quote]
You are very cavalier in saying it ain’t the end of the world, but I suspect you are not living in exile from your home country solely because it’s the only way you can stay with your significant-other, spouse, life-partner or whatever you want to call it. Yes, I am being denied my right to equal protection under the law, at least in part due to the efforts of hypocritical, closeted politicians legislating against it.[/quote]
I always wondered about this. Aren’t there domestic partners legal rights in many States? And cannot one draw up legal documents that essentially provide for anything that the law doesn’t in its present form now cover? I mean if Leona Helmsley can leave a zillion dollars to her dog legally, can’t you and your man legally make one another mutual beneficiaries or your stuff, finances, inheritances,power of attorney over medical emergencies? It certainly wouldn’t be the only legal procedure that is a pain in the ass these days.
I mean the legal recourse is there, isn’t it? Why is the prize “gay marriage?” Even if you get it in the US, will it hold up when travel abroad and something happens and the authorities need proof of relationship?
And so as to not be totally OT, I still this thread is a train wreck. 
:raspberry:
[quote=“jdsmith”]You know, the really, really creepy thing here is that you keep adding to this thread, Chris. You and I both know that there are lots of cocksmoking Dems out there, but it’s the hypocrisy of it all, right?[/quote].
I have yet to see any “family values” Democrats who have used their position of power to vote against or vilify gays.
[quote=“jdsmith”]Why? Why should you expect a gay politician to always agree with gay interests?
[/quote]
I would expect any politician who is a member of an oppressed group to be sympathetic with the problems experienced by that group by virtue of having experienced the problems involved with being a member of that group.
A gay politician voting against gay rights would be like a Jewish politician voting against Israel. You think the Jews wouldn’t be pissed? If a politician votes against the right to own a gun, you think the NRA is not gonna be pissed? The politician rants about how evil and dangerous guns are, people shouldn’t have them and if they do, they are going straight to hell. Down the road, the politician is caught with a gun. You don’t think all hell isn’t gonna break loose? Of course not all gays agree on all political issues, nor will gay politicians, but basic rights, protections under the law and core identity are not debatable.
No, gays do not have the same legal protections as non-gays. In most of the US, it is still perfectly legal to discriminate against someone who is gay. For example, it would be perfectly legal to fire someone from their job just because they are gay, or refuse to rent an apartment to them. No legal recourse in most of the country. In Vermont, recently, a resort refused to rent facilities to a lesbian couple for their wedding because the owners of the resort don’t like gays. This is OK?
Domestic partnerships provide many of the same privileges and responsibilities as marriage, but not all. And it isn’t equal protection under the law to require gays to draw up a whole catalog of legal documents when straight couples just do one, which STILL doesn’t give gays the same treatment by the tax code, Social Security, INS or any other Federal agency. My California domestic partnership doesn’t mean jack shit in Michigan. I can’t sponsor my registered domestic partner for US residence. You still wanna argue we have equal protection under the law?
No need to hit your ignore button because you are already doing a pretty good job of ignoring the facts.
I agree with you here. While I don’t find the outrage justified I have some sympathy for these guys. You say core identity is not debatable and your right but core identity is about more than a single issue. It’s tragic that a gay man can’t have conservative views on matters of finance or government in any other aspect and pursue those views politically simply because of one aspect of their personality. While I shake by head whenever I see the news out one of these politicians being outed I usually don’t worry too much about what they’ve said publically. Anyone who takes the mere words of any politician at face value is a fool. Where I share your contempt for them is if they have a track record of voting against gay friendly initiatives.
Sorry, but I don’t think anyone should be forced into any type of business or personal relationship with someone they don’t want to do business with. I don’t feel it’s a crime to not like gays and even if I did, I’d recognize the futility and immorality of trying to legislate to impose a set of values on someone. The resort owner is within their rights to refuse to do business with who ever they wish to exclude. If it was a public company, then I would agree that this policy should be illegal. Same with hiring. A private business owner should be free to do business with whomever they wish and not do business with those whom the don’t wish to do so. In the case of a public company, then of course there should be laws against discrimination. Sorry Craig, but the fact is that there are some people who don’t like gays for a variety of reasons and whether you or I think their stupid reasons, we don’t have the right to tell them how they should feel.
[quote] Domestic partnerships provide many of the same privileges and responsibilities as marriage, but not all. And it isn’t equal protection under the law to require gays to draw up a whole catalog of legal documents when straight couples just do one, which STILL doesn’t give gays the same treatment by the tax code, Social Security, INS or any other Federal agency. My California domestic partnership doesn’t mean jack shit in Michigan. I can’t sponsor my registered domestic partner for US residence. You still wanna argue we have equal protection under the law?
No need to hit your ignore button because you are already doing a pretty good job of ignoring the facts.[/quote]
Anybody who wants to argue that there is currently equal protection under the law for gay couples is delusional. The government shouldn’t be involved in marriage in any way shape or form. Any laws involving the treatment of married people should be scrapped. Of course now there’s so much built up regulation in the system that doing so isn’t practical, so the only fair recourse is to make all domestic partnerships equal to marriage in legal terms at least federally.