As quoted in the OP:
Schrock holds a 92% approval rating from the Christian Coalition and a 0% rating from the Human Rights Campaign
Is he going to score less than 0?
I sure do. The lesson the GOP should take from this incident is pretty straightforward: “If we don’t want our guy to be marginalized as a homosexual, then we should quit marginalizing homosexuals.” Full stop.
Of course, they won’t. But whose fault is that?
Interesting discussion.
I assume this cuts both ways - that the anti-gay marriage folks also have the right to dig up embarassing revelations about those with whom they disagree and use that to drive their opponents out of public life.
Regards,
Shodan
Yes, of course, they have that “right” in the legal sense. But what sorts of “embarassing revelations” would they be looking for? Most gay-marriage activists are openly gay.
This is precisely my position. I’ve no doubt that Bill Clinton’s political adversaries found his shenanigans hypocritical in one way or another, and hence worthy of exposure. They also knew they could use sexual scandal to smear him.
In the wake of the Zippergate imbroglio, I’ve become far less sanguine about anyone using sexual transgressions for political gain under any circumstances. Embarassing and scandalizing hypocrite, however deserving, is not nearly as valuable an act as changing the minds of those who support hateful legislation.
All the Monica Lewinsky scandal did was drive a wedge of acrimony between the Left and the Right. I can see no reason to believe anything more will come of this.
If someone’s being hypocritical, I have no problem with them being ‘outed’ for it, pro or anti gay.
Depends. If someone is preaching that gays will burn in hell and that homosexual acts are ruining our civilization, perhaps. If someone campaigns against gay marriage, but otherwise does not condemn gays, I say it’s a meanspirited, unethical act to “out” him. Better to err on the side of caution, when in doubt, rather than just pissing all over your fellow citizens.
Many would consider campaigning against gay marriage “pissing all over your fellow citizens”.
Well, only half of the aisle thought it sucked. He pretty much voted the party line his whole time in the House: The Voter's Self Defense System
Speaking as one of his constituents, most of us are unhappy about this, Dems and Republicans alike. There is a lot of ink devoted to this story in the papers the last couple of days, but few and far between are calling for the man’s head. Congressman Schrock did a lot to keep this area’s military support industry busy, which is probably the biggest reason he was elected, and why it was thought he would pretty much cruise (half-intended pun) to another re-election. He was sent to Washington to be a voice for a community that depends greatly on the military from an economic aspect because he had the experience.
And I don’t like this whole business of outing. UDS has got it right, by my thinking. In the Congressman’s case, he wasn’t making hypocritical statements about homosexuality when voting against marriage, he was speaking for the institution of marriage as traditionally defined. Roger’s didn’t need to go medieval on his ass for that.
And many minorities consider anything negative said to them as a sign of prejudice, but they’re wrong too. Sensible people can differentiate when they are being personally attacked as oppossed to being disagreed with.
The legislation he voted on is anti-gay legislation. Period. I’ve already explained why this is so, earlier in the post, and have yet to hear a satisfactory counterpoint to that. “Marriage as traditionally defined” is double-speak; the law says “marriage is not available to homosexuals.”
Also, Rogers didn’t “go medieval on his ass.” He revealed the man to have homosexual tendencies.
I’d like to see what Shodan has in mind, even as a hypothetical construct, before I start arguing for or against his comment.
How, exactly, are they going to make certain that their next representative isn’t gay? I suspect that if you had asked Mr. Schrock the question, “Are you gay?” before he was first elected, he would have scoffed and said, “What? Are you crazy?”
So to speak.
Obviously this could be another debate, but if someone was working to make it so I couldn’t marry the person I love, I would consider it closer to an attack than a disagreement. Likely many gay folks feel the same way.
Yup. I’d say arguing that equal rights should be denied me by law to be a pretty direct form of personal attack.
Prejudice? Yeah, okay, whatever. If someone wants to point at me and scream “faggot,” I’ll just shrug it off. If someone wants to look at me kissing my boyfriend and laugh and say, “Look at the funny homos,” I’ll ignore it.
If someone wants to assume that his interpretation of his own religion has any bearing whatsoever on my own interpretation and my relationship with God, that’s when I have a problem. When someone wants to vote to prevent me from being able to marry, becuase he feels that my love is “wrong,” then that’s not a “disagreement.” That’s infringing on my rights. And that is simply unacceptable. Period.
Why shouldn’t we target those who seek to destroy us? Why shouldn’t we discredit and destroy our enemies? They seek to render us sub-human, they seek to crush us.
There are those who would attempt to obfuscate the issue by claiming that there are other factors invovled, or that it’s a two-sided issue more complex than a simple case of discrimination against homosexuals. (Unfortunately, Cecil Adams seems to be one of them).
[/quote]
Wow, this is shocking. I didn’t know Cecil was a gay-basher. That’s very disappointing to learn.
This comment pretty well summarizes what increasingly appears to be a majority opinion. My question is “why is a persons sexual orientation so important” that it must become an issue in a political contest !
This is smear, hateful and self defeating for the gay agenda.