When "Judgment" = "Hate"
Apparently, yesterday's story wasn't enough. The LA Times is still concerned that you might not get the point -- hence, today's story: "Path is Risky for GOP Politicians."
Sadly (from its perspective), the Times can't come up with any examples of actual tar-and-feathering. It notes that there is one gay GOP congressman -- Jim Kolbe -- and two gay Democratic congressmen. It's not clear that the former has been mistreated in ways that the latter has not, but the Times' agenda is clear:
But in the GOP ranks, homosexuality is still politically risky.
One reason for the secrecy, gay Republicans say, is that their party has grown more hostile to gays in recent years.
Again, the "hostility" has nothing to do with any abuse. Rather, it consists of the party holding policy positions -- i.e. opposing gay marriage -- that are in conflict with the agenda of the gay rights movement.
The article makes much of the fact that gays are, supposedly, more "uncomfortable" in the Republican than the Democrat party (although, if gays were so much more "comfortable" with the Democrats, one would think there would be more than two openly gay "congresspeople"). Well, that's not because Republicans are just mean homophobes who can't wait to cast the first stone at anyone gay. As the article itself notes, Foley went lots of places in Florida with a gay companion, and rose to a "junior leadership position" in the party, despite (we're told) the fact that his sexuality was an open secret in Washington.
The point that the Times conveniently overlooks is that, in contrast to the Democrats, the Republicans are the party of sexual standards in general, and they are willing to apply those standards (even to their own political detriment) whether the conduct at issue is gay or straight. Everyone knows that if Clinton had been a Republican, he would have had to resign. Republican Mark Foley was forced to resign simply for sending disgusting instant messages to a page (who wasn't even underage at the time of receiving the most explicit ones), whereas Democrat Gerry Studds had an actual sexual affair with an underage page, and then remain in the House until he chose to retire in 1996.
Ultimately, if there's anything that the LA Times objects to even more than the Republicans' supposed "homophobia," it is the fact that there are still Americans who are willing to exercise judgment when it comes to the sexual behavior of others. They did it to Bill Clinton, yes -- but they also did it to Jack Ryan and Mark Foley.
And in the cramped moral world view of those at the Times, exercising "judgment" is synonymous with "hate" -- at least when it comes to sex.
Sadly (from its perspective), the Times can't come up with any examples of actual tar-and-feathering. It notes that there is one gay GOP congressman -- Jim Kolbe -- and two gay Democratic congressmen. It's not clear that the former has been mistreated in ways that the latter has not, but the Times' agenda is clear:
But in the GOP ranks, homosexuality is still politically risky.
One reason for the secrecy, gay Republicans say, is that their party has grown more hostile to gays in recent years.
Again, the "hostility" has nothing to do with any abuse. Rather, it consists of the party holding policy positions -- i.e. opposing gay marriage -- that are in conflict with the agenda of the gay rights movement.
The article makes much of the fact that gays are, supposedly, more "uncomfortable" in the Republican than the Democrat party (although, if gays were so much more "comfortable" with the Democrats, one would think there would be more than two openly gay "congresspeople"). Well, that's not because Republicans are just mean homophobes who can't wait to cast the first stone at anyone gay. As the article itself notes, Foley went lots of places in Florida with a gay companion, and rose to a "junior leadership position" in the party, despite (we're told) the fact that his sexuality was an open secret in Washington.
The point that the Times conveniently overlooks is that, in contrast to the Democrats, the Republicans are the party of sexual standards in general, and they are willing to apply those standards (even to their own political detriment) whether the conduct at issue is gay or straight. Everyone knows that if Clinton had been a Republican, he would have had to resign. Republican Mark Foley was forced to resign simply for sending disgusting instant messages to a page (who wasn't even underage at the time of receiving the most explicit ones), whereas Democrat Gerry Studds had an actual sexual affair with an underage page, and then remain in the House until he chose to retire in 1996.
Ultimately, if there's anything that the LA Times objects to even more than the Republicans' supposed "homophobia," it is the fact that there are still Americans who are willing to exercise judgment when it comes to the sexual behavior of others. They did it to Bill Clinton, yes -- but they also did it to Jack Ryan and Mark Foley.
And in the cramped moral world view of those at the Times, exercising "judgment" is synonymous with "hate" -- at least when it comes to sex.
posted by LadybugUSA at 3:59 PM
1 Comments:
And in Ryan's case, it was an implied circumstance to which I'm not sure he admitted. He was tight-lipped about what was supposed to be sealed divorce papers in an effort to spare his kid the burden of having such publicized.
Post a Comment
<< Home