Arizona Republican Sheriff Caught With Gay Pants Down

The story is here.

Blurb from article:

"A nationally known sheriff resigned from presidential hopeful Mitt Romney’s Arizona committee and acknowledged he was gay amid allegations of misconduct made by a man with whom he previously had a relationship.

But Pinal County Sheriff Paul Babeu vowed Saturday to continue his bid for the GOP nomination in Arizona’s rural 4th Congressional District race.

He denied claims he tried to threaten the man, a Mexican immigrant and a former campaign volunteer, with deportation if their past relationship was made public. The man’s allegations were first published Friday in the Phoenix New Times, an alternative weekly magazine.

Babeu, a first-term sheriff who has gained widespread attention with his strong opposition to illegal immigration and smuggling, said the accusations were an attempt to hurt his political career.

He said he had called presidential candidate Mitt Romney’s staff to say he would step down from his post as state campaign co-chair…

…The New Times posted a photo provided by the man of the two embracing. It also posted a cellphone self-portrait of a smiling Babeu in his underwear and another of what appears to be the shirtless sheriff in a bathroom, posted on a gay dating website. The man provided the magazine with photos of himself and Babeu and text messages between the two. Babeu didn’t deny their authenticity."

He’s hot. I’d do him.

Am I the only one who opened the thread hoping that this was about Joe Arpaio?

I had the same thought. Disappointment ensued.

I, for one, welcome our new gay Republican overlords.

Isn’t the hypocrisy about immigration the bigger issue than him being gay? I never heard of this guy before the other day, but to me it doesn’t matter if a generic Republican comes out as much as if they are known for being extremely anti-gay before, like Haggard.

With them in power, maybe that Lincoln movie will finally get made.

What’s the hypocrisy on immigration? Did he hold anti- gay views?

We need more openly gay Republicans.

I may not agree with Mr. Babeu’s politics but I certainly agree that it is not fair his sexuality is being made a point against him in his political work and career. I resent the implication that being gay and being a Republican are incompatible. It’s just as illogical as saying being straight and being a Democrat is incompatible.

Babeu may have abused his office and violated someone’s human (or civil) rights by threatening to have him deported, but until an investigation has been completed, he’s innocent until proven guilty. As for the other charges and allegations: Is Babeu married to a woman and been caught cheating on his wife? Does his wife care if he dates outside the marriage? Is the “Mexican immigrant” in this country legally or illegally? If legally, then what does Babeu’s position on illegal immigration have to do with his choice of sexual or romantic partners? (I really get annoyed with both sides on the immigration debate when they conflate legal and illegal immigration.) Is having a relationship (gay or straight) with a “Mexican immigrant” against the law? Is voluntarily posting non-nude photos on a dating website proscribed in his oath of office as sheriff?

What do any of these issues have to do with the allegations of abuse of power/office? The article doesn’t address any of the questions, which, had any been true–or even just rumored–I’m sure would have been included, since few reporters will pass up an opportunity to spice up a report with scandal.

Why does he have to quit working for Romney’s campaign? Do all their offices have a sign at the entrance declaring “no fags or Mexicans”? Pffft!

ISTM there would only be hypocrisy about immigration if (a) it were true that he made threats of deportation and (b) he were on the record as vigorously espousing the policy that “we have no problem with legal immigration, law-abiding immigrants who come to work have nothing to fear from the Law in Arizona”, as it would suggest he was trying to extract subservience by threatening an immigrant’s legal status (and as for abuse of power and office and civil rights violations, if the (a) threat was indeed made contingent upon silence about the relationship then it is irrelevant if the person is undocumented or not, that IS abuse of office.)

He was certainly pleased to stand with people who do while it was to his benefit.

Those two situations are about as parallel as a 4-way stop. The Republican party as a whole actively campaigns against gay rights. It’s a prominent portion of their platform. To the extent that gays are in the GOP, it’s generally either they’re deep in denial or that their support for other aspects of the platform leads them to support the party in spite of the anti-gay thing.

On the other hand, I should be quite interested if you could think of a single Democratic Party policy which is to the detriment of straights.

Nope

<sighs and trudges away disappointed>

Yet more evidence why the Republican party should excise anti-gay rhetoric from its platform. There’s obviously no shortage of people who are hunky-dory with most Republican principles—free-market idolatry, Mammonism, xenophobia, etc.—and who’d be more than happy to help swell the ranks, except they also enjoy sucking the odd cock in their free time. From a practical perspective, it just makes sense.

Did he ever claim to be straight? If he was posting on a gay dating site, it doesn’t seems like was trying to keep it under wraps. It’s not like he’s required to announce his sexual orientation before running for public office. Just because people assumed he was straight doesn’t mean he was “caught” we they learned otherwise.

I also saw a headline earlier that said he “admitted” to being gay. Rather than just stated it.

There is only one section in the GOP’s 2012 platform which could be construed as anti-gay in its entirety: Preserving Traditional Marriage. (It’s too long to copy and paste here.)

In the section titled, Safeguarding Religious Liberties, there is one sentence about private, not governmental, agencies’ right to bar adoptions to same-sex couples: We support the First Amendment right of freedom of association of the Boy Scouts of America and other service organizations whose values are under assault, and we call upon the Commonwealth of Massachusetts to reverse its policy of blacklisting religious groups which decline to arrange adoptions by same-sex couples.

Excerpts from: whitehouse12.com

I agree with you that denying gays the fundamental right to marry is anti-gay-rights, but, except for the two samples I mentioned–which are directed at same-sex couples and not individual gay people–the GOP’s 2012 platform contains no language calling for denying gays the right to co-habitate, engage in romantic or sexual relationships, adopt a child (as a single parent), vote, run for office, or equal consideration for housing, loans, education, employment*, medical treatment, legal standing in a court of law, and other basic civil and human rights.
(*excepting, I assume, faith-based employers who so discriminate)

So, I could see that one could be a Republican (gay or straight) who supported all but one (well, one-and-a-half) of the points in the 2012 platform, and who hoped that by working from within, the anti-same-sex-couple provisions would eventually be dropped.

Since you singled out my statement for comment, I thought about it, and would agree it is not globally accurate; take it as hyperbole, exaggerating to make a point. If one wants to take anything away from my first post, I would hope it is that I am disgusted that Mr. Babeu’s sexuality is being made out to be the most egregious of his sins (if he has committed any) and that it would well behoove the Republican party to have a long think about the rabidly anti-gay stance of many of its members.

I apologize for the hijack.

From his own website:

I can see why he’s tough on immigration.

Also:

That’s interesting.

What are “Gay Pants”? Wranglers?

This from the “states’ rights” party.

You don’t understand the concept of “states rights.”

“We call upon Massachusetts” to change a policy is directly in line with states rights policy.

“We call upon the federal government to override Massachusetts’ policy” or “We call upon the federal courts to rule Massachusetts out of line” would be examples of things NOT in line with the concept of states rights.

Does it, really? I think Fred Karger might disagree.