Mark Kirk (R-IL) Outs Himself

[MarieDelta]

http://blog.blogactive.com/2010/06/truth-or-consequences.html


Why report on Mark Kirk (R-IL)? Why now?

Until now, Mark Kirk elected not to play the typical Washington game. Instead of supporting his party's dismal record on gay rights, Kirk received Human Rights Campaign ratings of 67% in 2002, 88% in 2004, 76% in 2006 and 85% in 2008. That's more impressive than a lot of Democrats. I even let Kirk slide by when he didn't co-sponsor earlier legislation relating to the repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell. My thoughts then were that he wasn't THAT bad on gay stuff and that the bill was going nowhere anyway.

Times have changed. Now, for the first time in his congressional career, Mark Kirk really had the chance to stand up and do what is right with the power of a vote. When I heard that five GOPers voted to lift the Don't Ask Don't Tell ban I instinctively thought Kirk would be one of them. What a disappointment when he wasn't. The five were: Judy Biggert (R-IL), Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL), Ron Paul (R-TX), Joseph Cao (R-LA), and Charles Djou, (R-HI).

"Where was Mark Kirk?" I wondered. I left a messages at both the campaign and DC offices of the Representative who wants to be Senator. No one responded. Shocker.

In an effort to move the base in the Illinois Senate race, Kirk decided to tack right and that means throwing the gays (like him) under the bus. And once he voted that way, the phone began to ring. Not one or two, or three but 5 separate individuals contacted me about the now divorced Mr. Kirk. (Mr. and Mrs. Kirk were married from 2001 to 2009, the marriage produced no children.)

Within hours of the DADT repeal vote I was contacted by two people who knew Kirk from his college days.

"In law school in DC everyone knew Mark was gay," the first source told me. I explained that the information was intriguing, it would not be enough to go on. He continued, "But I had sex with him a number of times." Well, now we're onto something I thought. "Could someone verify for me that you knew Kirk and went to school with him?" I asked. "Yes" was the swift reply. "Could you recall personal details about Kirk that others may not know?" "Yes," he said.

And he did

.....


And in DC, Kirk wasn't all THAT closeted. You see Mark Kirk told me he was gay. Before I had BlogActive, I had a life in Washington. As a fundraiser I raised major gifts from $5,000 to over $1,000,000... You don't do that kind of work at a keyboard, you do it at events attended by people with money. The movers and shakers and their friends.

It was early 2004 when I was at a social gathering on Capitol Hill. I'm guessing there were 35-40 people present, including the guy who brought me as his guest. While the party was no means a "gay" party, I'd guess that of the men at least 75% were overtly gay. The others present were either straight men or their women friends.

It was at that party that I met Mark Kirk. I was introduced to him by the person I came with and at the time did not realize he was a member of the House. As my friend walked away, Kirk asked me if the man who introduced us was "single or attached." When I said that he had a partner, Kirk replied disappointingly, "oh, well." At the end of that interaction I walked away and didn't think much of it at the time.

Then Kirk became a hypocrite. Kirk voted against repealing Don't Ask Don't Tell, despite his being a closeted gay man in the military. As a Commander in the Navy Reserves Kirk has voted to keep a policy that if he were investigated under he would be tossed.
...

[TaylorMade]

One fuck up and they punish him.

The Mafia is more fair than this.

Outing should NEVER be a political weapon. It's a hypocritical move that does not solve the hypocrite that you rail against. It makes us look like petty high school students indulging in a whisper and shadenfraude game.

I know I'm probably a lone voice, but outing will always be a respect diminishing action that divorces me from the politics of sexuality.

And - - -that's all I (hope) to say about that. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WJ_yQ02xwsM)

*Taylor*

[Pasadenacpl2]

You aren't the lone voice on that. Outing is disgraceful.

I've said it before, and I'll probably be saying it until I die. The queer community (and I use that term loosely) is it's own worst enemy.

Pasa

[MarieDelta]

I disagree , totally.

It's hypocritical to play both sides of the fence. It is totally fair to call someone out when they act like this. His vote will affect thousands of people and they wont get a second chance, all they get is one fuck up.

He wont lose his retirement or his job. Unlike those in the service who, if found out, will be removed from the service under a cloud of disgrace.

[Pasadenacpl2]

So...him possibly being gay means he has to always vote for gay issues? Is it possible that he doesn't feel this should be repealed for reasons that don't have to do with his sexuality? Is that possible?

Litmus tests are nasty, nasty things. It leads down that path of asking if someone is 'gay enough.' And that is a dark, dark path.

And as long as the gay "community" attempts to out people as a political smear tactic you will have people trying to hide who they are. You (general you) of the gay community are just as much to blame for people being in the closet as the straights are. You have created a climate of fear every bit as real, and far more invasive and destructive as any the hetero community has to offer.

There are consequences for actions. And you haven't just outed this man. You have ensured that other gay closeted politicians will bury themselves further in the closet. The consequences are far more wide reaching than this single man.

Pasa

[MarieDelta]

Yes, there are consequences for actions. A blackmailers weapon is only dangerous if the person is afraid of the truth. Certain people create a climate of fear and distrust and then expect safety and shelter in our community, what right have they to claim that safety and shelter that they have helped make less tenable?

Its not the queer community that makes being glbt a bad thing, its those who deomonize the queer community.Like this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KfbTHIu0LbM...

Again no one has removed him from office. He will still get his retirement at the end of his term in office. This wont hurt him as much as what he has done to people in the service.

As far as gay men burying themseves deep in the closet because they want to act like hypocrites? This isnt unusual. Its been the standard for a long, long time. Hypocrissy, after all, drives politics.

There are two choices if you are queer. A) Be out, be yourself and have no one to fear. B) Be in the closet and fear that you will be eventualy exposed as a fraud.

If you choose B because you want to act like bigot, then you will be exposed.

This isnt a new rule, its been the rule for the last 20 years, at least.

[Pasadenacpl2]

There are three choices: C: be in the closet because you feel that it's no one's god damned business but your own and because you value your rights to privacy.

This man had one of the highest queer friendly ratings, not just of Republicans, but of Democrats too. He hadn't been acting like a bigot. He voted against one piece of legislation counter to what the gay "community" wanted. One.

There are plenty of reasons (ones I disagree with, but valid none the less) to vote against that bill. If he truly holds that view, then I would expect him to vote 'no' no matter what his sexual orientation.

I'll put it plainly: Your sexual orientation should not matter on how you vote as a politician. You should vote yea or nea based upon the facts and your political stances. Those might be informed by your sexuality, but your sexuality should not dictate, either. Just because one is gay does not mean that you have to support every piece of legislation that gays like. You are not beholden to other gays. You serve the people who elected you. That's it.

You put it best. It's blackmail. And, in this nation, that's a crime. A federal crime, no less. But even more pathetic, this is just simple, petty revenge. He did something gays didn't like and he got smeared. It's pathetic, and disgusting, and no amount of moral equivalency justifies it.

If you think this man's sexuality is your business, then you must think all of our sexuality is the public's business. One does not lose their right to privacy just because they do things you don't approve of. And as much as you support the rights of others, I would think you'd understand that.

Him being a hypocrite(alleged, his track record indicates that we should at least give him the benefit of listening to him) should not in any way justify members of the gay community trampling on his right to sexual privacy. You have no more business being involved in his nocturnal activities than he does in yours.

I asked before, and I'll ask again, because it's incredibly important. Is it possible that he voted no on this legislation for reasons he feels are valid and that outweighed his sexuality? Is it possible? Is it possible that his being in the military might color his viewpoint on this? Is it possible that he just didn't like the methodology proposed in the legislation? Is it possible that he voted no for a reason other than being a bigot?

Pasa

[TwylaTwobits]

I'm sitting here reading that excerpt and thinking you couldn't have picked a worse title for the thread, Marie. He didn't out himself, he is being outed cause some little prick didn't like the way he voted.

It's yellow journalism and disgusting.

[pasco_lol_cpl]

Count me in as one of those who thinks this is reprehensible.

[sammie19]

As one who was herself outed, I know the agony which it causes to both the outed and those closest to them. It provides an outlet for outrage and also mirth among gossip and scandal mongers who are little other than vindictive hypocrites.

[Pasadenacpl2]

I'd never heard of Kirk until tonight. Very interesting. He's inflated his military record which makes me angry, but he didn't claim he was in-theater when he wasn't, either...so I can forgive it.

He voted against DOMA, and has worked actively against it. He is also a co-sponsor of ENDA. In fact, it appears that he's been pretty strong on gay rights issues.

Not that any of that is relevant. Well, except that now we'll probably lose that support in Congress. Seems rather like a Pyrrhic victory, if it is one at all. Sad.

Pasa

[TaylorMade]

I'd never heard of Kirk until tonight. Very interesting. He's inflated his military record which makes me angry, but he didn't claim he was in-theater when he wasn't, either...so I can forgive it.

He voted against DOMA, and has worked actively against it. He is also a co-sponsor of ENDA. In fact, it appears that he's been pretty strong on gay rights issues.

Not that any of that is relevant. Well, except that now we'll probably lose that support in Congress. Seems rather like a Pyrrhic victory, it is one at all. Sad.

Pasa

And that's the biggest thing that pisses me off. How do you think this will help gay people in the long run? All it does is give a chilling effect. This is the very essence of cutting off your nose to spite your face.

ONE fuck up. One wrong vote. It's bullshit.

*Taylor*
(Was a C on that whole "closet" issue)

[NotLostJustWandering]

Forcing people to be out adds to the pain society as a whole feels about queer sexuality. Shadenfraude is pain is disguise. People take pleasure in other people's pain only because they haven't acknowledged their inner pain and their addiction to it. If the queer movement is about creating a positive atmosphere for people to be themselves, than there is no place in it for outing.

What we are seeing here is herd mentality, par for the course for all politics, queer and otherwise. I'm ag'in it.

[Toad82]

Has he said why he voted "No"? The bill is flawed. It could just be he wanted something better.


Personally I think we will be stuck with this if it passes as is and there is a chance it could be much worse.

[Long Duck Dong]

I am a lil confused here... it appears that you are not allowed freedom of choice if you are lgbt.... it appears that if you are lgbt, automatically you must act in support of the lgbt on everything...

now unless I am mistaken, kirk was not elected by the lgbt to stand for the lgbt rights... and he has not publicily stated that he is lgbt himself, tho he is lgbt friendly..... so personally, in my eyes, hes doing nothing wrong..... but once again, we are showing the selfish nature of the pro lgbt movement,.... if you are lgbt, you must speak, act and be seen to do everything in a pro lgbt way, regardless of your personal feelings.....

I already know how that works..... I got labelled anti lgbt cos I am pro human rights, not lgbt rights exclusive.....

[darkeyes]

I am a lil confused here... it appears that you are not allowed freedom of choice if you are lgbt.... it appears that if you are lgbt, automatically you must act in support of the lgbt on everything...

now unless I am mistaken, kirk was not elected by the lgbt to stand for the lgbt rights... and he has not publicily stated that he is lgbt himself, tho he is lgbt friendly..... so personally, in my eyes, hes doing nothing wrong..... but once again, we are showing the selfish nature of the pro lgbt movement,.... if you are lgbt, you must speak, act and be seen to do everything in a pro lgbt way, regardless of your personal feelings.....

I already know how that works..... I got labelled anti lgbt cos I am pro human rights, not lgbt rights exclusive.....

I agree Duckie... he is allowed the same freedom of choice as anyone else.. whether or not to be a politician and a man of integrity and fight for his beliefs or whether to be a hypocrite and screw his own kind.. he obviously isnt quite as lgbt friendly as people thought he was... but thats ok too.. freedom of choice means exactly that.. he had the chance and the choice to make a difference to milions and he bottled out.. people voted for him presumably knowing what he was and presumably still is, knowing how he was most likely to vote on this issue.. his choice to cop out.. his choice to follow the official party line and not his conscience.. his choice to be an arsehole.. but then he is a politician.. what more do we expect?

[Long Duck Dong]

and you just proved what I was saying...... that lgbt people ( assuming kirk is ) are not allowed to do anything that is not pro lgbt....

where does it say that lgbt people must always act in a pro lgbt manner ???? cos that is like saying that all people of a race or culture, should support the actions of their race or culture.....

now I fully expect people to say that this is about DADT and how wrong kirk is for not supporting it...... and my reaction is prove that kirk is LGBT first..... otherwise kirk is being labelled lgbt by a blogger with no facts at all, then being judged by the lgbt for not supporting the lgbt and being a traitor to his own * sexuality *.....

at the end of the day, kirk never promised anything, so he has not failed to deliver ..... he just didn't do what others want him to do so they have get the * warm fuzzies *

[darkeyes]

and you just proved what I was saying...... that lgbt people ( assuming kirk is ) are not allowed to do anything that is not pro lgbt....


Not true Duckie.. that is not what I said.. he can do as he likes when it comes to his choice.. accept that without reservation.. but to do what is patently a wrong and you would think against his conscience? That is what is so mystifying and hypocritical. Even whipped he should have had the courage of his convictions and done right by gay and bisexual people...do American legislators have no freedom of action? Of course they do. If and when he explains himself then maybe I may have some sympathy.. until then he is an arsehole in my mind... so don't put words in my mouth in future if you don't mind..

[TaylorMade]

Not true Duckie.. that is not what I said.. he can do as he likes when it comes to his choice.. accept that without reservation.. but to do what is patently a wrong and you would think against his conscience? That is what is so mystifying and hypocritical. Even whipped he should have had the courage of his convictions and done right by gay and bisexual people...do American legislators have no freedom of action? Of course they do. If and when he explains himself then maybe I may have some sympathy.. until then he is an arsehole in my mind... so don't put words in my mouth in future if you don't mind..

ONE piece of legislation makes him an asshole?

ONE.

This guy has gone against party numerous times and UP UNTIL THIS POINT, has a good record on gay issues. . .what kind of petty tyranny turns someone out on ONE VOTE?

Last I heard, Stalin was still in his crypt.

Guess I'm mistaken.

If this is gay rights, I want nan part of it. It's just tyranny and intolerance from another angle.

*Taylor*

[darkeyes]

ONE piece of legislation makes him an asshole?

ONE.

This guy has gone against party numerous times and UP UNTIL THIS POINT, has a good record on gay issues. . .what kind of petty tyranny turns someone out on ONE VOTE?

Last I heard, Stalin was still in his crypt.

Guess I'm mistaken.

If this is gay rights, I want nan part of it. It's just tyranny and intolerance from another angle.

*Taylor*

Thats as may be Taylor.. but on one important piece of legislation you expect him to get a pat on the back? When someone hurts you we are supposed to say well done? No Taylor. One who hurts you gets the condemnation he deserves..

..and yes Stalin is in his crypt still you will be glad to hear.. and if you are comparing me to Stalin then you have never taken in one word I have ever written.. as with any legislator I will defend his right to act and vote as he sees fit.. they mostly do anyway and bugger their constituents.. but when they do..it doesnt matter how they vote and act..someone wont like it.. and that someone has the right to condemn every bit as much as that legislator has to do what he does for whatever reason.. that is anything but tyranny and intolerance.. that is called democratic right and freedom of speech..

We are not fighting for the opening of a playschool or for the right to scratch our arse in public.. we are fighting for, or are supposed to be fighting for the rights of all human beings to be put on an equal footing regarding their sexuality.. one bad vote is one bad vote too many.. and he should be made aware of just how strongly the LGBT community AND their supporters in America feels.. that I am not American isnt important.. that we from abroad stand shoulder to shoulder with and show support for our fellow Lesbians, Gays, Bisexuals and Transpeople is... thats what people who care do...

[TwylaTwobits]

Very interesting. I have yet to see one thing from Kirk proclaiming he is or isn't gay. Til then how about just shut the fuck up about his personal life and not let this internet terrorist waste anymore of our time. Thanks have a good day.

[tenni]

Very interesting. I have yet to see one thing from Kirk proclaiming he is or isn't gay. Til then how about just shut the fuck up about his personal life and not let this internet terrorist waste anymore of our time. Thanks have a good day.

I agree with Twyla completely.

I think that there are a couple of issues that although are linked in this scenario are different.

Should a person's sexual orientation prevent them from having equal rights in a workplace?

Should a person have the right to privacy (ie.-as far as their sexual orientation is concerned or whether they are a public figure or private citizen)?

Many bisexuals are inclined not to publicly promote their sexual orientation. The question as to whether a person should be open about their sexual orientation is sometimes seen differently by some bisexuals compared to some gay and transgendered people. I believe that a person should have both rights. A person who publicly does not wish to disclose their sexual orientation regardless of their job should not be forced to disclose their sexual orientation. It doesn't matter what their job is. Criticize the person for their behaviour or in this incident their vote without disclosing their sexual orientation. It is not your right to do so.

I believe that it is shameful to publish this man's sexual orientation on this website without his permission. It is no one's business but himself and his sexual partners regardless of his job. As long as someone accusing someone else of not being a hetero may damage a person, no GLBT person should use another person's sexual orientation as a weapon to punish or ridicule. Wrong is wrong. I think that several threads that have speculated about whether some famous person is bisexual or not should probably be removed from this website as well.(now that I reflect upon those threads). If a person decides to publicize their sexual orientation then it is fine to write that. Otherwise stfu with all of your speculations about anyone's sexual orientation. It is none of our business.

[SophiaBee]

I think its funny how people act like this guy was just killed or something. Being outed is hard, but it doesnt end your life. He made his bed. He is a public figure. It was his decison to go into politics( as a republican, no less what a crock!) He now must live with his actions. Can you even be a republican and be pro glbt? It's doubtful, in my opinion, he eventually will have to toady up t his masters, the right wing, conservative x-tians anyway, doubly so if he chooses to continue to be gay/ closeted. It's doubtful that the (mainstream) press will even pick this up.

[TaylorMade]

Thats as may be Taylor.. but on one important piece of legislation you expect him to get a pat on the back? When someone hurts you we are supposed to say well done? No Taylor. One who hurts you gets the condemnation he deserves..

..and yes Stalin is in his crypt still you will be glad to hear.. and if you are comparing me to Stalin then you have never taken in one word I have ever written.. as with any legislator I will defend his right to act and vote as he sees fit.. they mostly do anyway and bugger their constituents.. but when they do..it doesnt matter how they vote and act..someone wont like it.. and that someone has the right to condemn every bit as much as that legislator has to do what he does for whatever reason.. that is anything but tyranny and intolerance.. that is called democratic right and freedom of speech..

We are not fighting for the opening of a playschool or for the right to scratch our arse in public.. we are fighting for, or are supposed to be fighting for the rights of all human beings to be put on an equal footing regarding their sexuality.. one bad vote is one bad vote too many.. and he should be made aware of just how strongly the LGBT community AND their supporters in America feels.. that I am not American isnt important.. that we from abroad stand shoulder to shoulder with and show support for our fellow Lesbians, Gays, Bisexuals and Transpeople is... thats what people who care do...

All legislation is important. . .and the final allowance for open service is a VERY important one. . .and can't be given willy-nilly. And being that you have a known history of not even being a big fan of the military to begin with, why should it matter to you? Or because it has the tag of "Gay rights" to it, IT MUST BE PASSED! There are many factors that go into a bill like this: there may be some dumb assed riders that add to government waste, the methodology may not square with what he knows in his experience as a former Naval Officer, or anything else. Before turning him out, his history should buy him a grace of "why".

I am comparing you to Stalin in the absolutist position you are taking. This guy has crossed party lines for LGBT up until this SINGLE PIECE OF LEGISLATION . . . and we pronounce him persona non grata? Denounce him and turn him out? Yes, that is Stalinistic.

Collectivist much? If we can not allow for disagreement, then we are a monolith. . . and monoliths do not change, they merely erode over time. It looks imposing, but it can stand in the way. If we should be anything, we should be as reeds - - bend but don't break, hold in the storm and let the wind work, but still hold our ground.

*Taylor*

[TaylorMade]

I think its funny how people act like this guy was just killed or something. Being outed is hard, but it doesnt end your life. He made his bed. He is a public figure. It was his decison to go into politics( as a republican, no less what a crock!) He now must live with his actions. Can you even be a republican and be pro glbt? It's doubtful, in my opinion, he eventually will have to toady up t his masters, the right wing, conservative x-tians anyway, doubly so if he chooses to continue to be gay/ closeted. It's doubtful that the (mainstream) press will even pick this up.

Over ONE piece of legislation. Up until then, he has crossed party lines and flouted his supposed "masters". If we treat him like this, we may as well see Jerry Falwell when we look in the mirror.

*Taylor*

[SophiaBee]

Over ONE piece of legislation. Up until then, he has crossed party lines and flouted his supposed "masters". If we treat him like this, we may as well see Jerry Falwell when we look in the mirror.

*Taylor*

Or if, we let him continue, we get to see John McCain all over again. What a crock! Can you say 'Sell Out!', 'Do andthing to keep my place, and F@$k the rest of you'? Screw him, and his downlow.

[tenni]

Screw him, and his downlow.

wtf
There is nothing wrong with not wanting your sexual orientation being public. Stop imposing your values on others.

[SophiaBee]

wtf
There is nothing wrong with not wanting your sexual orientation being public. Stop imposing your values on others.

His actions were public.Everything he did was in the public eye. Its just being made more public. Truth will out, you know?

[TaylorMade]

Or if, we let him continue, we get to see John McCain all over again. What a crock! Can you say 'Sell Out!', 'Do andthing to keep my place, and F@$k the rest of you'? Screw him, and his downlow.

One piece of legislation vs. a whole career? ONE PIECE. This guy has crossed party lines REPEATEDLY for LBGT, and the "thank you" he gets is . . . you didn't do this ONE thing, therefore you are no longer one of us?

NO! He has a long way to go before he's anything like John McCain.

The loss of perspective here is stupefying.

*Taylor*

[allbimyself]

Thats as may be Taylor.. but on one important piece of legislation you expect him to get a pat on the back? When someone hurts you we are supposed to say well done? No Taylor. One who hurts you gets the condemnation he deserves..

I guess I'm an asshole then, fran? You and I agree on many things but disagree on many as well. Since we disagree on some issues, as you disagree with this man you call an "asshole" for one vote, then I must be a massive asshole in your eyes.

I don't expect you to give him a "pat on the back" but his record clearly indicates that he is more of a friend than an enemy to the GLBT community regardless of his sexual orientation. Your attack on him and the attempt at outing him show more hypocrisy than he does. You do not know his reasons for voting against the legislation. The "outer' didn't even attempt to find out, he just reacted.

I remember a state senator who once voted against a law requiring insurance companies to cover mammograms. His reason for voting against? It exempted policies held by government employees. He wasn't against requiring the coverage, he wanted it to cover everyone! But come next election, his opponent smeared him for voting against the bill... and the incumbent lost... a popular and long standing senator.

Because the accusation was made first, and loudly, few heard his explanation (or cared), or if they did, most considered it "an excuse."

Perhaps Mr Kirk wanted an even more liberal response to DADT? Do you know why he voted against? No. Nor do I. Nor does the reactionary that attempted to out him. Until then, you might be wise to refrain from name calling.

[darkeyes]

I have already said that if he can justiify what he did then I may have some sympathy.. you and I Allbi have argued often and we have disgreed on many occasions.. like me you are but one person among millions..a voter in your country with very many opinions with which I can disagree as well as increasingly agreeing.. but you argue your point and that I can accept and have always appreciated.. you, like me are not in an extremely influential position of power and whose vote is one of relatively few, not one of millions as we are in our countries, and whose choice has potentially very immediate and important effects on the people of our countries. Mr Kirk does not have that excuse.. and thats the fundamental difference between you and he.. no I you are not an arsehole.. I will admit that once, a long time ago, in a galaxy far away I did wonder, but I hope my explanation helps you understand why I see differences between you and he..

I will always listen to an explanation Allbi.. I may or may not understand it, and accord him sympathy or the benefit of the doubt.. that is up to him..

[darkeyes]

All legislation is important. . .and the final allowance for open service is a VERY important one. . .and can't be given willy-nilly. And being that you have a known history of not even being a big fan of the military to begin with, why should it matter to you? Or because it has the tag of "Gay rights" to it, IT MUST BE PASSED! There are many factors that go into a bill like this: there may be some dumb assed riders that add to government waste, the methodology may not square with what he knows in his experience as a former Naval Officer, or anything else. Before turning him out, his history should buy him a grace of "why".

I am comparing you to Stalin in the absolutist position you are taking. This guy has crossed party lines for LGBT up until this SINGLE PIECE OF LEGISLATION . . . and we pronounce him persona non grata? Denounce him and turn him out? Yes, that is Stalinistic.

Collectivist much? If we can not allow for disagreement, then we are a monolith. . . and monoliths do not change, they merely erode over time. It looks imposing, but it can stand in the way. If we should be anything, we should be as reeds - - bend but don't break, hold in the storm and let the wind work, but still hold our ground.

*Taylor*

If you believe me to be Stalinist say so.. Stalin would have Kirk up against a wall pdq if he disgreed with the great man.. if he voted against Stalin at a CP Congress his survival rating would be through the floor.. so dont ever equate me with Uncle Jo.. I may be somewhat dogmatic and emotional at times but when you believe in things and they are important to you you just don't roll over and die.. however much some people wish it.. and bending with the wind? Sometimes the wind is so powerful the reeds are riipped out by the roots... so more careful with next time...

..and why do I care about why the military personnel should be afforded the same rights as other people in their employment? You are right.. I loathe the military with a passion.. Ive written enough not to have to explain why in detail..suffice to say I abhor war, violence and so am a pacifist.. about that yes I am absolute.. but not all gay and bisexual people feel as me.. most in fact do not and think I'm a bit daft.. that's ok I can live with it.. as long as our countries have a military people such as us should have exactly the same rights as every other employee..no one should be discriminated against in any way in their employment or debarred from employment based on their sexuality.. the military is well known, in both our countries for having many in their number who hate people such as us.. honesty for all and an acceptance by the military potentially will have a huge spin off for the lgbt community at large as more military personnel who are gay are able to admit to it, and by being in the military help their straight comrades become less anti our kind by proving their worth.. in time it will happen..

[allbimyself]

That still does not excuse your reaction, fran. You say you are willing to listen to his reasons but you still condemn him first. Condemnation should not come until after the fact, especially considering how often this man has voted AGAINST his party and FOR GLBT issues.

I don't care if he's an elected official or not, throwing a friend under the bus for one thing you disagree with is not the behavior of reasonable people.

Furthermore, many GLBT did not agree that the DADT legislation went far enough in protecting the rights of GLBT in the military. However, I suppose since the unelected, self-appointed GLBT "leadership" (really, those that yell the loudest) decided for us that this was a great thing and anyone that doesn't support it is an enemy of GLBT people everywhere, they should just STFU since dissent is A Bad Thing. As taylor has aptly pointed out, that type of stand is not only tyrannical, but counterproductive to the goal we are all striving for. It's akin to GW Bush claiming anyone that dissented his foreign policy wasn't a true, or patriotic, or whatever, American.

On a broader, political scope, you and I both want the same things, a better world for future generations. Free from poverty, war, hunger and disease. Where they are free to pursue their dreams that do not infringe upon the rights of others. Where they can live free of persecution. However, we disagree mightily on the way to achieve that world. Were I an elected official, I would still NOT be an "asshole" regardless if I didn't vote with you every time. The goal is what is important, not the path to get there.

I would reserve the term "asshole" for someone that didn't share our goals, not those that disagreed with how to get there. And I certainly wouldn't throw it around before I, self admittedly as you have, knew all the facts.

[darkeyes]

That still does not excuse your reaction, fran. You say you are willing to listen to his reasons but you still condemn him first. Condemnation should not come until after the fact, especially considering how often this man has voted AGAINST his party and FOR GLBT issues.

I don't care if he's an elected official or not, throwing a friend under the bus for one thing you disagree with is not the behavior of reasonable people.

Furthermore, many GLBT did not agree that the DADT legislation went far enough in protecting the rights of GLBT in the military. However, I suppose since the unelected, self-appointed GLBT "leadership" (really, those that yell the loudest) decided for us that this was a great thing and anyone that doesn't support it is an enemy of GLBT people everywhere, they should just STFU since dissent is A Bad Thing. As taylor has aptly pointed out, that type of stand is not only tyrannical, but counterproductive to the goal we are all striving for. It's akin to GW Bush claiming anyone that dissented his foreign policy wasn't a true, or patriotic, or whatever, American.

On a broader, political scope, you and I both want the same things, a better world for future generations. Free from poverty, war, hunger and disease. Where they are free to pursue their dreams that do not infringe upon the rights of others. Where they can live free of persecution. However, we disagree mightily on the way to achieve that world. Were I an elected official, I would still NOT be an "asshole" regardless if I didn't vote with you every time. The goal is what is important, not the path to get there.

I would reserve the term "asshole" for someone that didn't share our goals, not those that disagreed with how to get there. And I certainly wouldn't throw it around before I, self admittedly as you have, knew all the facts.

I do take your point, but I still remain incensed. We are fighting a war against oppression of people like us. When I see people who have always been considered friendly do something which seems to me insane I react sometimes quite badly..

I have been let down badly personally in my own active political, trade union and activist life more than once by people I thought I knew, called friend, believed in, had affinity to, and trusted to do the right thing.. when such people betray your belief in them and what you believed they stood for without warning makes you just a little angry and less trusting. It often makes you, as I said in another thread only today, shoot from the hip.. am I too harsh? Maybe. I feel things and get enraged when people apparently fuck up what I believe and what I thought they believed when it is just not expected.. so for now I will withdraw "arsehole" and substitute "potential arsehole". Best I can do.. I'm sorry.. I look forward to his explanation and justification..

[csrakate]

I haven't seen where it's even been proven that the man is gay....He may very well be, but are we going to judge a man based on the testimony of a few "tell all" bed partners and a bit of casual cocktail party talk? God help me if I have been judged on some things I've said and done at parties in the past...(that one 20 year high school reunion.....gasp!!!!) Seriously....this blogger has assumed things about Kirk that may or may not be true...a true journalist knows better than to draw conclusions based on such shaky evidence.

[tenni]

"I'm sick and tired of these Conservative Republican down low closet cases voting against things that effect everyone and GLBT people included. Conservative GLBT Republicans are hypocrites and deserve none of our support or sympathy at all."


hot_fun_summertime
Isn't your profile rather on the DL for someone who is posting such condemnations of others who are on the DL?

[darkeyes]

I haven't seen where it's even been proven that the man is gay....He may very well be, but are we going to judge a man based on the testimony of a few "tell all" bed partners and a bit of casual cocktail party talk? God help me if I have been judged on some things I've said and done at parties in the past...(that one 20 year high school reunion.....gasp!!!!) Seriously....this blogger has assumed things about Kirk that may or may not be true...a true journalist knows better than to draw conclusions based on such shaky evidence.

Outing people whether they are gay, bisexual or not is a shitty, evil thiing to do. It can be bad enough to be outed when gay or bi.. God knows how it must feel if not. Lives have been ruined and even lost because of slanderous claims...I know several who have been outed including Sam.. I have seen what it can do to people and the mental scars it causes.. it is heartless and viscious and absolutely without merit..

[Pasadenacpl2]

Outing people whether they are gay, bisexual or not is a shitty, evil thiing to do. It can be bad enough to be outed when gay or bi.. God knows how it must feel if not. Lives have been ruined and even lost because of slanderous claims...I know several who have been outed including Sam.. I have seen what it can do to people and the mental scars it causes.. it is heartless and viscious and absolutely without merit..

Yes, it is.

Which is why the tactic of outing politicians who do not bow to the whim of the LGBT community is, as you put it, heartless, viscous, and absolutely without merit.

A good saying here: The ends do not justify the means. Outing as a political tool is unjustifiable. Some may see it as an attempt to unmask hypocrisy. But, it is not. It only furthers to hurt the community, both within the members of the GLBT community, and without. Magazines like "Out" who take pride in investigating and outing gay men against their will only serve to reinforce to the straight community that being gay is something to be ashamed of. Even we have made faggot into a slur.

I'm not so concerned with Kirk, as I am the entire culture that surrounds outing, the affect it has on queers, and the stunting affect it has on gay rights. I dare say we'd be a lot further along had we not had an extra 30 years of drive by outings to terrorize the countryside with.

And Fran, someone who fought against DOMA, and is a sponsor of ENDA deserves to have your consideration first, and not your assumption of assholishness. Compared to even his liberal colleagues, he's certainly earned it.

Pasa

[darkeyes]

Yes, it is.

Which is why the tactic of outing politicians who do not bow to the whim of the LGBT community is, as you put it, heartless, viscous, and absolutely without merit.

A good saying here: The ends do not justify the means. Outing as a political tool is unjustifiable. Some may see it as an attempt to unmask hypocrisy. But, it is not. It only furthers to hurt the community, both within the members of the GLBT community, and without. Magazines like "Out" who take pride in investigating and outing gay men against their will only serve to reinforce to the straight community that being gay is something to be ashamed of. Even we have made faggot into a slur.

I'm not so concerned with Kirk, as I am the entire culture that surrounds outing, the affect it has on queers, and the stunting affect it has on gay rights. I dare say we'd be a lot further along had we not had an extra 30 years of drive by outings to terrorize the countryside with.

And Fran, someone who fought against DOMA, and is a sponsor of ENDA deserves to have your consideration first, and not your assumption of assholishness. Compared to even his liberal colleagues, he's certainly earned it.

Pasa

Watch it Pasa.. I have gone through this before with Allbi..starting to agree.. it may be catching... ;)

Not bowing to the will of the lgbt movement and finding yourself outed.. its awful.. but every movement has its shitebags.. but there is no justification for outing a human being..ever..whatever the reason except that there is an argument to be made that an individual was such a hypocrite, gay or bi themselves, that by not outing him or her would do such serious harm and threaten our very existence.. but such outings would be rare if they occurred at all.. I think of some of the Nazi leaders who although gay themselves and very actively so, helped send thousands of gay and bisexual people to their deaths.. I have come to no conclusion on this and I did say only there is an argument to be made.. not that it should be done..

..and Pasa.. whatever you may think of me on this I said my piece to Allbi and while I understand what you say I wait and see what, if anything he has to say...:)

[SophiaBee]

The world might have been a better place if someone had outed J.Edgar Hoover (http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/2423/was-j-edgar-hoover-a-cross-dresser)and Roy Cohn (http://joemygod.blogspot.com/2008/05/barbara-walters-why-i-was-roy-cohns.html), think about it...

[tenni]

The world might have been a better place if someone had outed J.Edgar Hoover (http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/2423/was-j-edgar-hoover-a-cross-dresser)and Roy Cohn (http://joemygod.blogspot.com/2008/05/barbara-walters-why-i-was-roy-cohns.html), think about it...

I thought about it and I think that you have a strange, nasty, vindictive perspective.

[SophiaBee]

I dont honestly think he would have a seconds worth of hesitation if the shoes were reversed. J Edgar Hoover had not a seconds worth of hesitation in punishing other homosexuals, neither did Roy Cohn. These two were possibly some of the most evil and hateful that america ever produced. Along with Joe McCarthy, they damaged quite a few people in their day.People, who, by te way werent public figures, but average citizens. People who's jobs were in the state department as clerks. People who were in the military, in any capacity. Blaming the gay media for outing folks is quite like blaming te victim of a rape for the rape. Gay folks dont think being gay is a bad thing, and if more folks wereout it wouldnt be such a big hairy deal. It wasnt until folks started coming out in the late 60's and early 70's thatbeing gay started to gain acceptance. This guy was a public figure and slowly turning against te rest of us.

[Pasadenacpl2]

Why are you making up excuses for closeted Conservative Republicans who are against GLBT rights?

Let's see, just hitting the two major highlights, having actually fought on capital hill against DOMA (successfully), and having fought to push ENDA, having helped to sponsor it into legislation, I'm betting that this man has done more for GLBT rights than you have.

I welcome you to prove me wrong.


Out magazine does not tell Heteros that being gay, lesbian, bisexual, or even trans is something to be ashamed of.

The message OUT sends to the hetero community is "don't let us find out you're in the closet...or we'll get you." It is a nasty, filthy, and vile rag, who exposes people's sexual privacy against their will. It is a form of rape. And I hope one day that it is taken down.


The only reason politicians are outed is because they are usually more often than not closeted Conservative Republicans and are hypocrites when it comes to GLBT rights because they are Conservative, Republican, and against GLBT rights. Would you rather they stay closeted and then get busted with male whores or prostitutes, or trying to solicit sex in public airport bathrooms?

There is no reason that makes it ok. The ends do not justify the means.


If outing had not happened we would not be nearly as far along as we are with GLBT rights.

I would ask that you provide some empirical evidence for this. Could you point to, oh...four things that have happened that wouldn't have happened without someone's sexual privacy being invaded and their Constitutional rights to privacy violated?

Now, here's the REAL question: Are you prepared to have what's good for the goose be good for the gander? Are you prepared to have your personal privacy invaded? Are you prepared to give up all pretenses of privacy? I expect you to be willing to give up what you are willing to take from others. So, it's a fair question.

Pasa

[Pasadenacpl2]

I dont honestly think he would have a seconds worth of hesitation if the shoes were reversed. J Edgar Hoover had not a seconds worth of hesitation in punishing other homosexuals, neither did Roy Cohn. These two were possibly some of the most evil and hateful that america ever produced. Along with Joe McCarthy, they damaged quite a few people in their day.People, who, by te way werent public figures, but average citizens. People who's jobs were in the state department as clerks. People who were in the military, in any capacity. Blaming the gay media for outing folks is quite like blaming te victim of a rape for the rape. Gay folks dont think being gay is a bad thing, and if more folks wereout it wouldnt be such a big hairy deal. It wasnt until folks started coming out in the late 60's and early 70's thatbeing gay started to gain acceptance. This guy was a public figure and slowly turning against te rest of us.


If more folks were out BY THEIR OWN CHOICE, it wouldn't be a big deal. But who are you to choose for someone else? Who the hell are you, or any of us, to make that choice for anyone else?

Prove he was slowly 'turning against the rest of us.' Show me where you see that? I see one vote, vs. a lifetime of positive service. Lines like that 'turning against the rest of us' sounds just creepy weird. Like we're a cult and he wanted out or something. It's Jim Jones level creepy.

I'm sorry I'm getting upset about this. But, I keep watching the gay community fuck itself up the ass with stupid decisions and petty, vindictive behavior.

People like this douchebag blogger don't actually want freedom for all. They just want gays to win, no matter the cost, and no matter the methods used to make it happen. No matter who they have to hurt, no matter who they have to turn the rabid horde on next.

Those are two different concepts. One is a concept I fought for. The other is one I'll fight till my dying day.

Pasa

[tenni]

I dont honestly think he would have a seconds worth of hesitation if the shoes were reversed. J Edgar Hoover had not a seconds worth of hesitation in punishing other homosexuals, neither did Roy Cohn. These two were possibly some of the most evil and hateful that america ever produced. Along with Joe McCarthy, they damaged quite a few people in their day.People, who, by te way werent public figures, but average citizens. People who's jobs were in the state department as clerks. People who were in the military, in any capacity. Blaming the gay media for outing folks is quite like blaming te victim of a rape for the rape. Gay folks dont think being gay is a bad thing, and if more folks wereout it wouldnt be such a big hairy deal. It wasnt until folks started coming out in the late 60's and early 70's thatbeing gay started to gain acceptance. This guy was a public figure and slowly turning against te rest of us.

What you write is probably true. As I understand it, these people did not specifically go after only GLBT people though. In the days of Hover, the world was a very different place than in the 80's or 90's let alone today. It doesn't take too much analysis though to see what happened to anyone who disagreed with mainstream politics after 9/11 to see that those who did not conform were attacked in the US. Just ask the Dixie Chicks.

[Long Duck Dong]

I can not help but think that if the guy is gay... and outing him will cost him his career then a ally is lost to the lgbt people......
I am refering to not getting re-elected...

what good is that to the lgbt ?????

and how many of the pro outing people would be fine with the same thing happening to them in their own lives ?????

[SophiaBee]

Let's see, just hitting the two major highlights, having actually fought on capital hill against DOMA (successfully), and having fought to push ENDA, having helped to sponsor it into legislation, I'm betting that this man has done more for GLBT rights than you have.

I welcome you to prove me wrong.



The message OUT sends to the hetero community is "don't let us find out you're in the closet...or we'll get you." It is a nasty, filthy, and vile rag, who exposes people's sexual privacy against their will. It is a form of rape. And I hope one day that it is taken down.



There is no reason that makes it ok. The ends do not justify the means.



I would ask that you provide some empirical evidence for this. Could you point to, oh...four things that have happened that wouldn't have happened without someone's sexual privacy being invaded and their Constitutional rights to privacy violated?

Now, here's the REAL question: Are you prepared to have what's good for the goose be good for the gander? Are you prepared to have your personal privacy invaded? Are you prepared to give up all pretenses of privacy? I expect you to be willing to give up what you are willing to take from others. So, it's a fair question.

Pasa

Easy! go for it, snooze-fest-o-rama! LOL! YOu & I arent public figures making decisions like these either. No one cares about your sex life, except those in it. Heck with all the spiro & antidepresants I'm on, dont have much of a sex drive at the mo anyhow. By the way I hear theres a move on t start a DADT investigation of this guy.

[Pasadenacpl2]

So, your position is that once you become elected, you have no right to have any privacy? That your Constitutional rights disappear?

Do your rights to own a weapon disappear too? How about your right to free speech? Are there any other rights you lose? And, where does it say that in the Constitution?

It doesn't matter that the world doesn't care about your sex life. What matters is that it is YOURS. Isn't that what we are fighting for? For people to let us have our sexuality freely, without recrimination, and without invasion?

Is this how you wish to gain that? By sacrificing the very thing you want?

Pasa

[tenni]

Sophiebee
You raise an important point. Do public figures such as politician (or actors etc.) have a right to privacy that differs from the average citizen?
I believe that they do deserve such a privacy that all of us are accustomed to. I think that the media and scandal lusting people are wrong to think that they have the right to invade such people's privacy. I heard the other day where one television personality spoke about having someone think that it was acceptable to go ring their doorbell to give them a "recording" of their music. Others being hassled while they were in a restaurant toilet cubicle...really now...lol

[TaylorMade]

I dont honestly think he would have a seconds worth of hesitation if the shoes were reversed. J Edgar Hoover had not a seconds worth of hesitation in punishing other homosexuals, neither did Roy Cohn. These two were possibly some of the most evil and hateful that america ever produced. Along with Joe McCarthy, they damaged quite a few people in their day.People, who, by te way werent public figures, but average citizens. People who's jobs were in the state department as clerks. People who were in the military, in any capacity. Blaming the gay media for outing folks is quite like blaming te victim of a rape for the rape. Gay folks dont think being gay is a bad thing, and if more folks wereout it wouldnt be such a big hairy deal. It wasnt until folks started coming out in the late 60's and early 70's thatbeing gay started to gain acceptance. This guy was a public figure and slowly turning against te rest of us.

Comparing those two to a mostly exemplary record, DEFYING HIS PARTY IN THE NAME OF GAY RIGHTS . . .up until this vote.

The loss of perspective here is . . . epic. just. fuckin' . epic.

*Taylor*

[SophiaBee]

I believe in freedom of speech. I believe in the right tocall someone out asa liar, when they are hypocrites. Do you honestly believe you have any privacy? Especially when you g around at parties outing yourself? I mean a twelve year old could construct a better closet, c'mon. The only privacy any of us have is that we are too unimportant for anyone t care. The NSA knows all your secrets already, they just dont have time to dig through them. Tht courtsey of GWB's patriot act.

[SophiaBee]

Comparing those two to a mostly exemplary record, DEFYING HIS PARTY IN THE NAME OF GAY RIGHTS . . .up until this vote.

The loss of perspective here is . . . epic. just. fuckin' . epic.

*Taylor*

Did you read that this was a response, before you sent it? Cause I dont think you did.

[SophiaBee]

I can not help but think that if the guy is gay... and outing him will cost him his career then a ally is lost to the lgbt people......
I am refering to not getting re-elected...

what good is that to the lgbt ?????

and how many of the pro outing people would be fine with the same thing happening to them in their own lives ?????

He isnt an ally, not if he chooses the path he's on. Not only tht hes a fripping republican Probably not even a member of the gheto tht is "the log cabin republicans either. This guy'd just as soon sell his own mother, if it gt him votes, he's a politician. Look at theway he lies about other things, his record for instance. He's only you friend for as long as it takes him to get the knife into your back.

[TaylorMade]

Did you read that this was a response, before you sent it? Cause I dont think you did.

It's a response to your response. :)

*Taylor*

[Pasadenacpl2]

I've had about all I'm gonna take with this bashing of Conservatives, Republicans, or people in the closet.

His party doesn't matter. His voting record does.

His Sexuality doesn't matter. His voting record does.

His status in the closet doesn't matter. His voting record does.

You think you know this person? All you seem to know is that how he voted in one matter. Do you know anything else about him? What do you know besides what this blogger posted?

And how does your record hold up to his? Hrm??? I'm betting your service to this nation, as well as to GLBT progress doesn't hold a candle. What have you done to be effective in stopping DOMA? What have you done to end discrimination in the work place? What have you done to serve your nation? Before you start labeling people as a hypocrit, you'd better be ready for the light of truth to be shone in your own face.

I told y'all in the first place that this whole thing leads down a very dark path. And if you think you are gay enough to meet the minimum criteria to ride, think again. As queer as you think you are, you aren't queer enough for some. And those some will be the ones putting you up against the wall one day when they're done with the obvious targets. You might be the next one accused of "turning against the rest of us."

Pasa

[Pasadenacpl2]

Not one person has answered the most important question to be asked in this thread:

Is it possible that there is a reason to vote against the bill to repeal DADT that has validity (even if you don't happen to agree with it)?

Still waiting to get an answer. I know, I know. Some of you would rather turn on this guy and cast "us vs. them" hysteria about with careless abandon. I'll admit, that sounds like fun, but ultimately it's masturbatory and is the part that has been written for you by douchebags who don't actually care about GLBT rights, or anyone's rights. I'm hoping that at least one of you princesses has the balls to answer the question honestly. But, I'm betting that you will, instead, play the part written for you with all the passion of a Broadway diva.

Pasa

[SophiaBee]

Wow, you need to chill out. Republicans have a habit o turning on us. And yes, by being closeted he is showing the world that being gay is something to be ashamed of. I'm not worried about being "put up against a wall" by queers? Are you seriouly comparing this to an execution now? Seriously? 'Cause last i heard this dude was still collecting his substantial congressional pay. He isnt dead, not even fired. Not like the service people he feels it will be okay to have dishonorably discharged. FWIW I served my country, in the US Army tyvm, infantry, one time in the sandbox.

[Pasadenacpl2]

Wow, you need to chill out. Republicans have a habit o turning on us. And yes, by being closeted he is showing the world that being gay is something to be ashamed of. I'm not worried about being "put up against a wall" by queers? Are you seriouly comparing this to an execution now? Seriously? 'Cause last i heard this dude was still collecting his substantial congressional pay. He isnt dead, not even fired. Not like the service people he feels it will be okay to have dishonorably discharged. FWIW I served my country, in the US Army tyvm, infantry, one time in the sandbox.

Thanks for your service. Great to hear. Happy belated Memorial Day.


You don't know how he feels about those servicemen. You are making an assumption based upon facts not in evidence. You don't know the first thing about how this PERSON feels.

Now, I asked a question about this vote. C'mon. Answer the question. I know one of you can do it.

Pasa

[tenni]

"And yes, by being closeted he is showing the world that being gay is something to be ashamed of. I'm not worried about being "put up against a wall" by queers? "

I didn't think that the above words read like they were written by a bisexual person. I checked your profile. I understand your position better now.

[SophiaBee]

You don't know how he feels about those servicemen. You are making an assumption based upon facts not in evidence. You don't know the first thing about how this PERSON feels.



He voted against repealing DADT, isnt that evidence enough? That alone will push more people out of the service, denying them their retirement, unlike this dude. At the same time he is reaping the benefits of service, that isnt just a tad hypocritical, I mean c'mon.


Kirk is a moderate, however, and he was for some reason very worried about losing the right wing base in his state. Rather than count on Bill Brady bringing them to the polls anyway this fall, he instead threw his LGBT constituency under the bus to make a play for the wingnuts. Rather than vote the right way on Don't Ask, Don't Tell, or even simply missing the vote, Kirk made the vote and released the cowardly non-committal statement:


"Congressman Kirk is proud to serve our country in uniform. He supports and abides by the Don't Ask Don't Tell policy."


Protecting the closet is a sickness. We argue "Oh, it's their personal life, it's nobody's business" or "You shouldn't tear families apart." However, the deception and lies from the perpetrator is what disintegrates that family, not the honesty. And what about our families? Our personal lives? If these hypocrites truly believed that this was "nobody's business," why did they cast these anti-gay votes?

When these outings happen, and the mainstream media picks them up, the fallout is immense for the disgraced lawmaker. They generally go into spin mode at first, and warily wait for the bottom to drop out and more and more secrets to come spewing forth. The positive stories, however, end with reform. Lawmakers who recognize their hypocrisy, apologize and work to correct those errors by working for equality in the future. Then you have those who refuse to admit the obvious and shrink away from the lime-light. While these dweebs generally don't work for equality, they certainly stop working against it, choosing to avoid the attention all together.

http://www.bilerico.com/2010/06/will_mark_kirks_outing_stick.php

[SophiaBee]

I would ask that you provide some empirical evidence for this. Could you point to, oh...four things that have happened that wouldn't have happened without someone's sexual privacy being invaded and their Constitutional rights to privacy violated?




One of Rogers' most famous gets was Larry Craig, who to this day still denies the rumors, even though he plead guilty after he was arrested in a bathroom soliciting sex from men. However, Rogers also caught Dan Gurley, who was once the RNC's anti-gay field director and is now an LGBT activist with Equality North Carolina. Rogers' work has some very positive outcomes.

Most positive is the slow implosion of that hypocritical closet in DC and other capitals around the nation. Yet another example of the positive effect of outings are recent statements by Roy Ashburn, the vehemently anti-gay Republican California Assembly member caught drunk driving a trick home from a gay bar:


My practice in my entire political career when it came to gay issues was to prevent any kind of spotlight from being shined my way, because I was in hiding. So casting any kind of vote might, could in some way, lead to my secret being revealed.... That was terrifying to me. It was paralyzing. So I cast some votes that have denied gay people of their basic, equal treatment under the law, and I'm not proud of it. I'm not going to do that again.




Hmm, there are three positive outcomes...now to find one more..

Aha!


Any way it's sliced, these outings are a determent for the closeted to flaunt their anti-gay credentials and be present for those anti-gay votes.

[Pasadenacpl2]

Of course his sexuality matters, the fact that he's a closeted Republican matters, and so does the history of the political party that he belongs to.

To think that these aspects somehow do not matter at all is idiotic. Then again you did compare outing some closet case Republican with rape. :rolleyes:

No. I compared the practice of outing people with rape. That he is Republican shouldn't matter. His status in any other way holds no bearing on it. He is a person. And his sexuality is none of your business.



Have you checked the voting records for Conservative Republican politicians who are closeted gay men and then wind up voting against bills and laws that would help GLBT people? They wind up getting outed but there are even liberal politicians who were once closeted who have been outed. That is what happens in politics and I'm sure they secretly love it or don't care since it gives them some publicity.

I don't care if a person is gay or not. That is the difference between us. To you, sexuality dictates what you do. To me, it matters not. I want to be left in peace, and I defend the rights of everyone else to be left in peace too.


Kirk is a Republican and clearly not for GLBT rights. Conservative Republicans living in the closet like Mark Kirk do have a habit of claiming that they are for GLBT rights yet when push comes to shove they really are not at all.

Really? And how do you explain his cosponsoring ENDA? Or his being part of defeating DOMA? How do you explain that?


Even Obama and Biden are this way when it really comes down to GLBT rights.

Really? Obama is the one pushing for the end of DADT.


As for his voting record if you claim that he's all for GLBT rights and that only his voting record matters then why did he vote against Don't ask don't tell?

That's a great question. I've been asking it all night. Glad to see you've finally joined the party. I can come up with at least three non-nefarious reasons a congressman might not vote for the repeal. One I could agree with, the other two I wouldn't, but all three are valid and don't mean he's anti-GLBT.


Mark Kirk supports GLBT people being kicked out of the military and he is not for GLBT rights at all. Why are you claiming that this Kirk is a saint and should be worshipped when he's against GLBT rights and just why are you falsely claming that he's actually done a lot for GLBT rights when he has not?

This is a fallacy. Voting against this measure is not equal to being for DADT. There are a variety of things that it could mean.

I never claimed he was saint, nor that he should be worshiped, or any other such thing. I said he shouldn't be villified. And I certainly said he shouldn't have been targetted for being outed.

I've listed two major things he's done in favor of GLBT rights. Even the blogger listed that he had an ever increasing rating for GLBT and human rights issues. The blogger even made a point of saying that, as a Republican, his rating was higher than many democrats. Seems that until this one vote, he was considered one of the good guys. The evidence suggests he's done quite a bit. I'm betting he's done more than you have to help gays other than to be gay and spout off on a forum.


No there is not a good reason to vote against the bill to repeal DADT.

Lesse, possible reasons to vote against this particular measure to repeal DADT:
1. Wanted to wait for the agreed upon study by the military, as the JCOS had originally agreed with Congress and the administration to do. As he's in the military, I'd make a bet on this option, but here are two more...
2. Didn't agree with the methodology presented.
3. Someone attached a rider that negatively affected his constituents, placing him in a damned if he does/doesn't scenario.


That's just possibilities off the top of my head. Pretty standard stuff. OFTEN congressmen vote against bills that seem, on the surface, to be good ideas, but contain language they can't agree with, or spending they can't agree with, or parasite riders they can't vote for. That's standard operating procedure for Congress.

You didn't even stop to ask why before burning this guy in effigy.


You'd have to be an idiot or a closet case Conservative Republican like Mark Kirk to think that there is.

Or, and I'm just spitballing here, you could just understand how things actually work and understand that things are not always black and white. You could want to actually hear from the man before being willing to throw him to the wolves.

Pasa

[Pasadenacpl2]

He voted against repealing DADT, isnt that evidence enough? That alone will push more people out of the service, denying them their retirement, unlike this dude. At the same time he is reaping the benefits of service, that isnt just a tad hypocritical, I mean c'mon.

No. It isn't evidence enough. That's been my point. You never stopped to ask why. And you never once considered that maybe, just maybe, he had a good reason that you hadn't thought of.

Litmus tests hurt those who use them far more than those they use them on. This is as true for conservatives as it is for liberals, straights as it does for gays.

I seem to recall people being irate when Bush said 'you're either for us, or against us.' And yet, you say the exact same thing. I facepalmed then, because it was an incredibly stupid thing to say, and I knew that that only leads to losing allies, not gaining them. Yay GLBT for knowing how to follow in Bush's footsteps! *facepalm*

Yeah, I've had my fill of hypocrisy.

Pasa

[SophiaBee]

No. I compared the practice of outing people with rape. That he is Republican shouldn't matter. His status in any other way holds no bearing on it. He is a person. And his sexuality is none of your business.




I don't care if a person is gay or not. That is the difference between us. To you, sexuality dictates what you do. To me, it matters not. I want to be left in peace, and I defend the rights of everyone else to be left in peace too.



Really? And how do you explain his cosponsoring ENDA? Or his being part of defeating DOMA? How do you explain that?



Really? Obama is the one pushing for the end of DADT.



That's a great question. I've been asking it all night. Glad to see you've finally joined the party. I can come up with at least three non-nefarious reasons a congressman might not vote for the repeal. One I could agree with, the other two I wouldn't, but all three are valid and don't mean he's anti-GLBT.



This is a fallacy. Voting against this measure is not equal to being for DADT. There are a variety of things that it could mean.

I never claimed he was saint, nor that he should be worshiped, or any other such thing. I said he shouldn't be villified. And I certainly said he shouldn't have been targetted for being outed.

I've listed two major things he's done in favor of GLBT rights. Even the blogger listed that he had an ever increasing rating for GLBT and human rights issues. The blogger even made a point of saying that, as a Republican, his rating was higher than many democrats. Seems that until this one vote, he was considered one of the good guys. The evidence suggests he's done quite a bit. I'm betting he's done more than you have to help gays other than to be gay and spout off on a forum.



Lesse, possible reasons to vote against this particular measure to repeal DADT:
1. Wanted to wait for the agreed upon study by the military, as the JCOS had originally agreed with Congress and the administration to do. As he's in the military, I'd make a bet on this option, but here are two more...
2. Didn't agree with the methodology presented.
3. Someone attached a rider that negatively affected his constituents, placing him in a damned if he does/doesn't scenario.


That's just possibilities off the top of my head. Pretty standard stuff. OFTEN congressmen vote against bills that seem, on the surface, to be good ideas, but contain language they can't agree with, or spending they can't agree with, or parasite riders they can't vote for. That's standard operating procedure for Congress.

You didn't even stop to ask why before burning this guy in effigy.



Or, and I'm just spitballing here, you could just understand how things actually work and understand that things are not always black and white. You could want to actually hear from the man before being willing to throw him to the wolves.

Pasa

Or option four:"Congressman Kirk is proud to serve our country in uniform. He supports and abides by the Don't Ask Don't Tell policy." as he himself said.The current repeal requires the President and joint cheifs to wait for the report.

[Pasadenacpl2]

Hmm, there are three positive outcomes...now to find one more..

Aha!

Ya know what? I'm glad you presented those. Thank you.

When someone goes out of their way to persecute you for being gay, and you find out they are gay too, then have at it. THAT is hypocrisy. THAT is fighting fire with fire, and I can get behind it.

Kirk does not fit the rabid anti-gay mold of any of these men. Nor do most who are forcibly outed. Context. It's everything.

Pasa

[Pasadenacpl2]

Hrm...you sound like someone I've seen posting before.

Pasa

[JP1986UM]

One thing hasn't been said about Mark Kirk


He's really HOT;):bigrin:

[TwylaTwobits]

WTF? Mark Kirk is not hot or sexy at all. He's not even handsome.

This just shows you have a bad taste in men JP1986UM.

He looks like a monkey like GWB II does. See photo below.

http://www.phuckpolitics.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/06/Mark_Kirk_George_Bush.jpg

I think you have no right to tell anyone they have bad taste in men. Personally I don't think Mark Kirk is sexy, but he's not ugly either. He's normal. Even George Herbert Walker Bush is not that bad a looker, too bad the brain in the head didn't work.

[darkeyes]

One of the biggest obstacles to GLBT rights in this country are those self loathing closet cases.



..far be it for me to suggest anything here but who was the names of the half a dozen guy that used to go on about closet cases?:rolleyes:

[SophiaBee]

The guy running against kirk, he's even more pro queer than kirk.