So i'm sure you've all heard by now the story of Senator Larry Craig (Idaho-R). Yet another prime example of a politician's hypocrisy. Yet another tale of a homobigot's hypocrisy. A politician who has been an adamant supporter of anti-gay measures in Congress has been having sex in bathrooms with men. And now he is denying that he is gay. Girl, you gots bigger fish to fry than whether or not you are gay. And I would bet that one of them is explaining to your wife why you were cheating on her with men.
Craig is being attacked my nearly everyone from every camp. His Republican party, the Log-Cabin Republicans, as well as the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force.
This dude is wack. In 1982, a male page reported having sex with 3 congressmen, and Craig immediately issued a statement denying any wrongdoing. The page hadn't even named him as one of the 3 congressmen.
Regardless of political party, because i'm sure the Dems are just as naughty behind closed doors, this story is sad in that this man is in major trouble because he was too scared to come out of the closet. So scared, in fact, that he married a woman. That he has built an entire life built around homobigotry, "support of institution of marriages," and conservatism. So scared, that he supports anti-gay measures.
I don't know if his actions are more of an insult to Republicans or gay people.
As Matt Foreman, director of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force says, "For most people living in the closet, and particularly for people in power, they dig themselves in so deeply they can't see a way out," he said. "When they are found out, their life does come crashing down around them — not because they were gay, because of the way they covered it up."
True that. Maybe if more people in positions of power came out of the closet in the first place, those who are so afraid of homosexuals would see that we are normal. But this man was so terrified of that "gay" label, he is now in major trouble because of it.
Or maybe he isn't gay. Men who have sex with other men don't always identify as gay. Yet the hypocrisy stands. He was having sexual desires for other men, yet he relegates male-on-male sex to airport bathrooms. As if that is the only type of sex that two men can have.
Any many more men really are gay, but will never, ever admit it. Kinda like the football star at my high-school who is now married, but used to (and probably still does) enjoy extra-curricular activities with my gay guy friend. So I'm guessing Mr. Craig is in this category. And he's going to continue his homophobic ways. Continue to deny his sexual orientation. And continue to have those urges and cheat on his wife.
Sad. He could've had a happy life had he just come out sooner. Even if he would just come out now.
Wednesday, August 29, 2007
Craig: "The Anti-Gay Gay Senator"
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
13 comments:
Why is it so hard to believe Senator Craig is not gay? A gay person is not simply “one who has at any time engaged in homosexual activity”, or “who under certain conditions will engage in homosexual activity.” A gay person is one who in his attraction to the same gender will find a more fulfilled life and will than give better of himself to others. That’s not Craig.
The unfortunate myth that no heterosexuals ever engage in same-sex sexual activity, and so everyone who does must be gay, is being used by bigots to denigrate gay people. This myth is most advanced by liberals, but conservatives (bigots) are making full use of it to denigrate gay people.
(i wrote these same words in another blog; i hope that doesn't break blog rules)
i don't think any of us know for sure whether or not he is really gay... only Craig knows that.
and yes, dating back to Kinsey's reports on sexuality, homosexual acts are MUCH more common than actual homosexuality. not sure of the exact percentages off-hand.
anyway, i guess my points are (a) if he is gay, it is sad that he feels coming out of the closet is a worse alternative than living in an unhappy heterosexual marriage and (b) if he isn't gay, he is giving gays a bad name, and spreading the popular misconception that most gay men resort to anonymous sex in public bathrooms.
Dang. First y'all tell me that I'm not allowed to wear pink shirts 'cause I'm straight. Now I'm not allowed to tap my right foot? This is like gang colors and signs.
But seriously, I can't believe I'm agreeing with Arturo on something. This little glee-fest against Craig has the potential to degenerate into an anti-gay pogrom.
At the risk of revealing my age, I grew up in a time when even the teachers in high school called dodgeball "smear the q__r," and when you got called "f__" or maricón, it meant that someone wanted to beat you up. I'll never be comfortable with people using those words in casual conversation because I still associate them with the treat of violence, like the sound of cocking a gun. Please please please let's not turn back the clock on Lawrence and other hard-fought battles, just for the sake of a little I-told-you-so political opportunism. People's lives are at stake here. Yes, Matthew Shepard's death resulted in some really needed legislation, but let's not look to duplicate that incident. Let's not go cheering this puerile crucifixion with all its accomanying lurid factoids about the strange hand and foot signs associated with "homosexual activity," just the sort of garbage that gets stupid people to hurt vulnerable people.
The press may think that stiring the pot and getting people beat up or killed may help increase the ratings in the News -- remember these are the same folks that gave us the Rodney King beating 24/7, then focused on the Reginald Denny beating from a safe overhead chopper, but turned the cameras off when the six black kids came to save Denny's life. The news isn't liberal or conservative, it's the universal exploiter of human sadism and fear. Switch it off and go dancing.
-c
yeah, whether he's gay or not, he makes all gay people look bad.
" First y'all tell me that I'm not allowed to wear pink shirts 'cause I'm straight"
i think a man in a pink shirt looks classy, actually.
"i think a man in a pink shirt looks classy, actually."
My wife agrees with you, and she's the shopping genius of the family. :) And I was raised in Mexico, where pink is a perfectly manly color. At this time about 20% of my dress shirts are some shade of pink; it's a really good color on me. But I've caught some flack for it, even in law school, where you'd think people would have grown out of that sort of preconception. And guys keep hitting on me in the bookstore.
I've responded civilly to all of them except for the loser who had seen me come in holding hands with my wife. Not that heteros are any better in that regard! Lately it seems that women only hit on me when they know I'm married. I'm not polite to women who do things like that, either. A stranger who sees me come into Target with my wife, and then tries to make a crass move on me when I've got my 5 year old kid in the cart. WTF? Last night we went dancing for a couple hours (Wednesday is our dance night) and two women kept trying to dance with me when I was up there with my wife. I'm not hot; I could stand to lose at least 20 pounds, and from my single days I remember that they wouldn't be wanting to dance with me if I was there alone. I think it's a female competition thing -- it has nothing to do with me. Sex, self-worth, and power are all mixed up for some people.
We visited a new club that we won't go back to. I dislike the whole gogo dancer thing that's been creeping into the clubs, but this one took it even farther. Two girls in bikinis, pretending to make out. That's grotesque; I haven't seen anything like that since France. I don't understand why you focus so much on marriage defense folks. Why don't you say anything about this nihilistic culture that protrays your relationships as something designed for entertainment? You think they'd put a man and woman in a gilded cage like that, and have them make out for entertainment of others? Everyone would recognize that was degrading. I know that the whole gilded cage thing bothers at least some lesbians. Why do you tolerate that sort of popular culture degradation, and say nothing?
"I've responded civilly to all of them except for the loser who had seen me come in holding hands with my wife. Not that heteros are any better in that regard! Lately it seems that women only hit on me when they know I'm married."
I agree. it's true about people wanting you more when you are already taken. or, as the saying goes, "when it rains, it pours."
I appreciate you taking the time to distinguish that heteros are not any better in that regard. it wasn't really necessary. trust me, i'm the first to admit that homos and heteros alike often don't care at all whose relationship they seek to ruin.
as for the rest of your comment (cultural degradation of lesbians), you bring up a very valid point. it's something that also bothers me.
i've been very focused the past couple days on the gay marriage issue because of all the responses i've been getting.
perhaps it's something i'll address in the near future.
Whoops. Note to self: do not tell Jane what topics she should address on her own blog.
I also should avoid talking to "you," Jane, as if you could speak for everyone in your group (bloggers who support ssm). I've been bitching about people doing the exact same thing to me, and you handled my blunder with more dignity than I've handled it. Kudos.
-c
While exploitational, two college girls making out in a "girls gone wild" video is not as offensive to me as those who would deny me equal rights.
That's why I don't devote much time to that. Even though I do find it offensive.
I agree with you about the rights; I'm comparing the horror of what I saw to what Rachel sees as the importance of changing the meaning the word "marriage," as well as securing the underlying rights.
What I saw wasn't the equivalent of "girls gone wild video," Fannie. I'm talking literally in a *CAGE*, held out as live entertainment, at a large dance club open to the public. Like the Europeans used to present Native Americans or "Hotentots" or other exotic human "races" in cages, as if they were animals.
No, it's not a violation of rights. But in an argument about symbols (like the word "marriage"), I think that what I saw should present the greater concern to gay rights advocates.
I respect that you're not concerned about symbols, and that you probably think that my preoccupation with them is unreasonable. Let's agree to disagree there. What I'd like you to consider, is that if the ssm movement were to separate the symbolic war from the substantive civil rights issues, YOU WOULD HAVE WON ALREADY! Even Bush-43 has said that he supports ssus. You'd have split the moderates and progressives (like Paul Wellstone, a huge gay rights advocate who nonetheless voted for DOMA) from the homophobes.
I support a national amendment that would require recognition of SSUs, with full substantive rights, AND protect word "marriage" as the union of man and woman for life. I believe that if the Democrats got behind such an amendment, that 2008 would be ours.
What do you think?
-christian
"I support a national amendment that would require recognition of SSUs, with full substantive rights, AND protect word "marriage" as the union of man and woman for life. I believe that if the Democrats got behind such an amendment, that 2008 would be ours.
What do you think?"
Perhaps ;-)
I'll give a "perhaps ;)" too.
Rachel, you and Fannie just answered your own question of why I'm on Opine.
To me, protecting the word "marriage" as the union of man and woman for life is the most important political issue that I've seen in my lifetime. I don't expect to convince you that this is true, but I do hope to convince you that a substantial number of voters share this opinion with me -- enough to swing an election one way, or the other, over something that to most same-sex couples and their children is nothing more than a semantic issue.
"Perhaps" or "Maybe later I'll think about" is too equivocal to hang my hat on. :( Or my vote. And Senators Clinton and Obama's statements that they "just can't vote for ssm" because of their respective [i]religions[/i] is even more equivocal in this context, because it lets them appoint Supreme Court Justices that will "interpret" the 14th Amendment to neuter marriage.
If there were a federal amendment in place, then I (and others like me) would be free to vote for Clinton or Obama, since their appointees *could not* fuck with the word marriage.
That's probably why most Republicans are only pretending to try to pass the FMA, and while some are actively opposing it. Lack of constitutional protection for the word marriage will keep people voting in Republican presidents.
You don't think it can happen again?
How many Republican presidencies would it take for you to acknowledge that I'm right, and that a mere word isn't worth the fight for you?
Meanwhile same-sex couples are raising their kids across the USA, most without any legal protection, and and those that have protection have almost no portability.
I've told you why the word is so important to me. Is it really *that* important to you?
Post a Comment