Last week, California State Senator Roy Ashburn was "arrested for allegedly driving drunk after leaving Faces, a gay nightclub in midtown Sacramento, early Wednesday morning."
The CBS article stated about Ashburn: "Ashburn, a father of four, is a Republican Senator representing parts of Kern, Tulare and San Bernardino Counties, with a history of opposing gay rights."
It continues by examining his "anti-gay" record in depth:
"Ashburn served six years as a state Assemblyman before being elected to the State Senate. According to Project Vote Smart, Ashburn's voting record shows he has voted against every gay rights measure in the State Senate since taking office including Recognizing Out-Of-State Same-Sex Marriages", Harvey Milk Day and Expanding Anti-Discrimination Laws."
My goodness. Liberals had a hay-day with that incident, and not because he was arrested for a DUI. No, it was because he was apparently a "hypocrite". John Danz Jr, writing for News Blaze, wrote:
"Politicians of both sides of the spectrum carry the stigma of being self-serving liars - but how is being gay and voting against gay rights self-serving? I think it's just stunningly moronic."
It appears, according to one article, that Ashburn "came out" on a radio program and admitted he was gay--a fact that did not provoke any sympathy from the Liberals. No, instead they were infuriated.
Ashburn explained his vote against gay issues this way: ""My votes reflect the wishes of the people in my district, and I have always felt that my faith and allegiance was to the people there in the district, my constituents."
In response, Danze writes: "It should ...should be evident to anyone with half a brain and even a modicum of political knowledge that leaders and representatives are elected to make decisions on their own volition and not always at the whim of the people. If you're just making decisions based on the volition of the people, you may as well not even be there."
Really? Is that what Liberals believed when Clinton stuck his finger in the air to judge the political climate and formed policy that coincided with public opinion? It was brilliant when he did it.
But even then, why should we think that every gay man must also be a supporter of all the pro-gay legislation that Liberals are attempting to pass. The second assumption they are making is that he must secretly agree with gay marriage, but had voted against it to stay "in the closet".
Is it not feasible that there are some gay men who do not believe in gay marriage? Or of declaring a "Harvey Milk" day?
But before their outrage could even go stale, we were privileged to witness the personal woes of Democrat Representative Eric Massa.
In this story, we have the delicious tale of a Liberal, pro-Obama Democrat who was a former Navy man and, as we find out, had a long history of inappropriate sexual advances on his male staff, and perhaps even on Naval men years ago. Massa, who is also married with children, was also "in the closet" and it seems tries to pretend he is not gay, even though he had very gay tickle-fests with his staffers, not all of whom appreciated that, and even made an extremely provocative sexual advance on another.
In response to these revelations...
No, to the contrary, the only outrage they are expressing is that Massa is being beat up by the conservatives.
In fact, they actually are voicing compassion for the poor little bastard. In the Huffington Post, author Charles Karel Bouley writes a piece called "Stop The Gayhunt on Massa and Listen to Kennedy":
"Rep. Patrick Kennedy got all fired up on the floor of the Congress Thursday, March 11, 2010, veins bulging, spittle flying....why? He was angry that while the Congress debates Afghanistan and the $3 Billion dollar a year escalation there are two members of the press corps there; he contends because the rest are too busy talking 24/7 about former Rep. Eric Massa's personal woes."
He continues with an empathetic exploration of poor Massa's situation.
"His family must be in such an uproar, and his life is unraveling. The one thing this man has probably never dealt with, the fact that he obviously wants to explore men sexually on some level, has been ground in to grist for the media mill and he is literally falling apart under the glare of the spotlight. He is unstable, in huge denial, struggling internally to hold on the "self" he thought he had and the "self" that everyone now sees. He can't reconcile the two and he's come unglued in some areas. I'm no psychologist, I've just been gay my entire life and have seen this over and over again."
That was almost enough to make me cry for poor Massa. I might even shed a tear or two for Ashburn while I'm at it!
But isn't it rich that life affords us the opportunity to see in such stark contrast the difference in how Liberals will treat a supposed conservative gay and a liberal one?
Meanwhile, about Ashburn, John Danz Jr declares: "Roy Ashburn, Gay Hypocrite, Must Be Forced Out of Office"
Hey, as a conservative, I have no problem with that. Kick him out and let the conservative people of his district elect another conservative to his place.
What do you think the odds are that they would elect someone who would suddenly vote for Harvey Milk day?
1 comment:
If every hypocrite were forced out of office, the Republicans would all have to resign. Oh, and the Dems. Let's just call them all CorpoCrats, since there is no red and blue any more, only green. I do not say pity Massa, I say he did you no harm and resigned and is having a breakdown and we don't exploit the mentally ill. We made one President for eight years, a mentally ill individual, but perhaps have learned our lesson. Ashburn voted the way he did because he hates his own sexuality. It's sad. But I didn't call for him to resign. Get help, and if you get reelected, so be it. Same with Massa. ...
Post a Comment