Rogers alludes to evidence he has that the married senator has engaged in oral sex with other men in the men's restroom at Washington's Union Station. In an unaddressed letter to the unnamed senator posted on his blogsite, Rogers writes:
Mr. Senator:
Tomorrow you will be faced with a vote that may have the longest aftereffects of any other you have cast in your Senate career.
Tomorrow you will decide if your political position is worth more than doing what is right for others like you. For others like you, Mr. Senator, who engage in oral sex with other men. (Although, Mr. Senator, most of us don't do it in the bathrooms of Union Station!) Your fake marriage, by the way, will NOT protect you from the truth being told on this blog.
How does this blog decide who to report on? It's simple. We report on hypocrites. In this case, hypocrites who vote against the gay and lesbian community while engaging in gay sex themselves. When you cast that vote, Mr. Senator, represent your own...it's the least you could do.
Michael Rogers
blogACTIVE.com
Rogers did not give a specific time for outing the senator; only that it would be as soon as tomorrow or at a time when it will most impact his re-election effort. Rogers has previously outed other closeted politicians he felt hypocritically voted against the interests of the gay community including Rep. David Dreier (R-CA), Rep. Mark Foley (R-FL) and Sen. Barbara Mikulski (D-MD) among others.
6 comments:
Good. I used to think it was a bad idea to out politicians, but not anymore. Magically, they seem to come on board once their outed... so I say OUT AWAY!
Actually I think it's a bad idea, no matter whether or not the guy is conducting himself in a hypocritical manner or not, for several reasons.
For those who arguing for government to fully recognize the rights and privileges to which gays are entitled, all it does is turn off those who are casually supportive of your position. After all, everyone has a right to privacy, even politicians. Besides left-leaners interpret who interpret that supporting the confirmation of Samuel Alito to the High Court -- which is merely saying, if one looks at the Constitution, that you are willing to let the President nominate a credible jurist so long as that person stands in good behavior (which is all what the Constitution requires of judges) -- is rather meaningless.
What does outing someone prove? If you're looking to blackmail people into supporting your ideas or positions, then it proves to others that your position isn't principled and therefore, not worth backing. And it can backfire: Like the Israelis who decided to assassinate the Black September gang after the Munich massacre, all such nastiness will do is up the ante on both sides.
Remember this: The reality is that for most of us, the record of our lives and careers would not withstand the scrutiny of a criminal trial. There are married women out there who, back in their single days, cheated on boyfriends, engaged in threesomes and one-night stands and slept with a famous football player or two. There are gay men out there who at one time, back when they were struggling with their own sexuality, were engaged in full-blown relationships with women and didn't inform them of their own confusion. One can bet that Rogers probably has a few skeletons in his closet that he would rather not reveal.
At some point, gay rights activists should either choose a principled position and pursue it, or head into the gutter with their rivals on the anti-gay side. You can't do both. In the long run, prinicpled defense and advocacy beats nasty gossip games and exposes 10-to-one.
out'em, the sharks need the meat.
I say out the hypocrites. No more pussy-footin around.
Straight politicians who have affairs outside of marriage get called to the carpet, so why shouldn't the closet cases?
"Straight politicians who have affairs outside of marriage get called to the carpet, so why shouldn't the closet cases?"
And it's just as wrong for it to be done in the case of straight politicians as it is with closet cases.
One thing people don't consider here is that marriage is often a series of deals made between couples often for reasons that have little to do with love than with other things such as economic gain. A husband may allow his wife to sleep around with other men because the cost of divorce would be too costly both in terms of economics (even if she's in the wrong, she will still get spousal and child support, the latter because she will most likely get custody of the kids) or social status. Wives may allow their husbands to have long-term affairs because they want to preserve a lifestyle to which they have become accustomed; they may gain financial support in any case, but the loss of a circle of friends because of the issues surrounding a breakup may not be what she wants.
These deals aren't necessarily spelled out; sometimes they are implicit to the matters in which spouses may turn a blind eye. Think Bill and Hillary, Franklin and Eleanor, even John and Jackie.
The reality is that we don't know what goes on in these marriages nor should we be privvy to it. A politician's conduct as a politician is far more important than the imperfect private life he or she conducts.
And that goes for the rest of us. At any point, we could all be considered public figures either because we speak at rallies or publish blogs or what-have-you. Last I checked, no one reading this is of perfect mind, body or conduct. The act of outing is merely an act of pretending such perfection by those who should know much better.
Pussyfootin around, indeed… Why stop with politicians? If you are over the age of consent and stay in the closet, I say out em!!! Coworkers, family, neighbors, military personnel… anyone staying in the closet is doing so to gain advantage for themselves. The benefits closet queers reap are most definitely plucked off the backs of out-and-proud queers.
Post a Comment