Gay republicans

[Cmass]

Will this have a major impact on the religious right? Do you care that gay republicans are hiding themselves? What does this say about democrats when their political gays do not feel the wrath of their consituency and thus do not feel the need to hide?

NPR.org, October 10, 2006 · It now appears there have been three Mark Foley landmines waiting to explode beneath the feet of congressional Republicans.

The first was the aggressive behavior of the six-term veteran Foley, who resigned from Congress Sept. 29 when the raw nature of his interest in congressional pages became public. Foley actually shocked Washington, and that's not easy to do in our time.

Bad as it was, that was just the first explosion.

The second came when people realized how much had been known about Foley's attention to pages and pursuit of former pages. It seems that at a minimum, several members of Congress and its staff were aware of the problem.

This second explosion was more damaging than the first. It created the impression that the Republican leaders in the House were more concerned with political damage than with protecting the pages. Polls show most Americans now believe this.

As for the third landmine, it's still lying un-detonated, just below the surface on Capitol Hill. And it has the potential to cause the most far-reaching damage of all.

This untouched landmine is the fact that quite a few of the people who are essential to running the House are gay, and many of them are keeping it a secret. This includes some members and many staff. And it most definitely includes Republicans.

In fact, because Hill gays who are Democrats are more likely to be out -- having less to fear in terms of reprisal -- the closeted gays are more likely as a rule to be Republican.

All this is ho-hum to many denizens of Washington. The presence of gays among the congressional members and staff is old news, if rarely discussed in public. In practical terms, most on the Hill have gotten over it, including many of the most conservative Republicans in both chambers.

But can the same be said for some of the Republican Party's most ardent supporters? Spokesmen for several organizations of social conservatives, frequently lumped together as "the Christian right," have been in the media since the Foley story broke, expressing their dismay. Stunned by the idea of men preying on pages, they seem disquieted, too, by the stories identifying various key staff figures as openly gay.

This is not a good report if you're an activist leader who regularly tells your constituency the Republicans are the good guys, the defenders of biblical morality and the knights of straight sexual traditions. Could it be the GOP opposes gay marriage and domestic partner legislation but looks the other way when it comes to the behavior of its own?

That question was implicit in what was said by Tony Perkins, the head of the Family Research Council, who wondered whether the Foley affair was not the byproduct of "too much tolerance and diversity."

The Republican Party has striven to have it both ways. They want to champion traditional mores and oppose the normalization of gay life, the mainstreaming of domestic partners and "Will and Grace." Yet they regularly elevate gays to key positions in their campaigns and in all three branches of the government, with the tacit understanding that these individuals will keep their private lives to themselves.

There are also occasions when the same party that presses for a ban on gay marriage by constitutional amendment appoints acknowledged gays to important jobs in the executive branch. Witness this week's installation of a new ambassador for HIV-AIDS policy, a gay man whose male partner attended the ceremony along with First Lady Laura Bush and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice.

This may all be politics as usual for the more urbane Republicans, but surely it is not a casual matter to all.

Perkins and some of his confreres have formed a coalition called the Arlington Group. It has made known its unhappiness with the current Republican leadership over l'affair Foley and over other issues as well. How much, they are asking, has this Congress, elected with the help of our ground troops, really done for traditional morality?

As the Foley investigation goes forward, we will hear some say the Republican apparatus harbors a kind of gay mafia, a network of both open and secretive gays who use their power to protect one other -- and perhaps to thwart the traditional values agenda.

Some conservatives who think this way may find themselves making common cause with liberal gays (strange bedfellows, anyone?). The latter sub-group is always threatening to expose the hypocrisy of conservative gays -- especially those who keep their orientation private while serving members given to gay bashing. It is rumored that lists are already circulating which name the names of those whose presence in high places displeases.

The implication of such lists is: Prepare for a housecleaning. Any such purge would be dispiriting and destructive for the institution of Congress, a throwback to the loyalty oaths and other excesses of the McCarthy period. But there may be other, still more portentous consequences.

Some activists in the GOP see Foley as their opportunity to discredit the "big tent" philosophy cited by GOP leaders -- and a chance to read gays out of the party once and for all. But if they do, they may initiate an even larger schism in the party between traditionalists and libertarians, between those who prioritize "moral values" and those who prefer to talk about the economy and defense.

Hardliners on either side of that divide may want such a clash to come. But big splits have meant big defeats for the GOP in the past, most recently in 1992. It would be disastrous timing to have a similar schism in 2006 -- or in 2008.

Ron Elving co-hosts It's All Politics, a weekly podcast, with NPR Political Editor Ken Rudin.

Related NPR Stories

*
Oct. 10, 2006
Kolbe: GOP Knew About Foley as Early as 2000
*
Oct. 10, 2006
The Mark Foley Scandal
*
Oct. 4, 2006
Conservative Groups Call for Accountability on Foley
*
Oct. 4, 2006
'Washington Times' Calls for Hastert to Resign
*
Oct. 4, 2006
Christian Conservatives React to Foley Scandal

[Jose]

Yes, it does look like gay marriage bans were passed. With luck, though, you're right--the decreasing fervor with which they were passed may indicate that people are beginning to see that bashing others for fun and profit isn't as much fun or as profitable as it once seemed.

I seem to recall Stephen Colbert recently noting that the percentage of married people in the US is now below 50%. He argued that the best way to save the Institution of Marriage, and make married couples a majority again, is to support gay marriage.

Who knows...maybe if gays were allowed to marry, they wouldn't feel compelled to pretend they're anti-gay, while going after Pages on the sly.

[micatala]

Who knows...maybe if gays were allowed to marry, they wouldn't feel compelled to pretend they're anti-gay, while going after Pages on the sly.

With tongue only slightly in cheek, I think you are absolutely right.

If the Apostles can decide not to place the burden of circumcision and not eating pork, etc., on the Gentiles, it seems to me entirely reasonable to allow gays to be married, even from a Christian perspective. With respect to the larger society, there is really no reason not to allow it.

[Jose]

Well said.

There seems to be this idea, though, that gayness is somehow contagious--that, somehow, if I touch a gay guy, I might "catch gay." Or maybe, if my kids come near gays, they'll decide to become gay, too. It doesn't seem to work that way.

As with most culture clashes, the best way to understand "what the other folks are like" is to mix everyone up so they can get to know each other. But if we put all the gays in San Francisco, and all the fundamentalists in Kansas, then they're free to think up all kinds of inaccurate things, with nothing to rein in their imaginations. Nothing interferes with wild imagination quite so nicely as finding out that reality is different--kinda like Borat the other day discovering that Jon Stewart actually doesn't have horns even though he's Jewish.

[micatala]

Did anyone happen to see Larry King live last night?

Bill Mahrer was on and brought up this very topic, indicating that not only are there some Republican congresspersons who are gay, but also a lot of the staffers, party officials, etc.

Mahrer said he would 'name names' on his Friday show, and Larry actually cajoled him into putting Ken Mehlman's name out there as one who is gay. Mahrer claimed this has been made pubic before (otherwise he wouldn't have said it for fear of being sued).

If it is true that the chairman of the RNC is gay, all I can say is this is very interesting. I can't wait to see what Pat Robertson and James Dobson will say.


IN the long run, of course, this is exactly what we do need. As Jose says, the more people get to know people who are actually gay, the less they will be afraid of them.

I think the same thing might prove true with the dreaded liberals as well. If Nancy Pelosi proves to be a stateswoman-like speaker of the house, then it will be a lot harder to paint liberals as wackos we should be afraid of.

[Jose]

Oddly, I did see Larry King and heard Bill Mahrer's comments. It seemed unlikely that there would be great numbers of gays in the Republican leadership, but I guess there's no law that prevents your sexual orientation and your politics from, shall we say, going both ways.

I would like to see your suggestion about Nancy Pelosi turn out to be right. I suspect that she's smart enough to play the game in a statesman-like manner, and that she knows she and the Dems have much more go gain by doing so than they would by being vindictive. She also has the added burden--which she has acknowledged--of being the first woman Speaker. This, too, calls for statesman-like behavior, to help other women realize that they, too, can be successful in politics. She has become, in many respects, a role model for women nationally, not just in politics but in general.

We'll see how things go...

[melikio]

LOL!!

Gay Democrats, gay Republicans... It's just amazing to me how neurotic this society seems to be, that people can't fathom or accept the reality "gay" people are everywhere. I guess it bothers some, because they have believed the HYPE, that ALL homosexuals are either perverted freaks or sexual-criminals. (So sad.)

In fact, some of the most "straight" people I know, are gay.
(Perhaps humorous, but not completely a joke.)

-Mel-

[Lainey]

In fact, some of the most "straight" people I know, are gay.
(Perhaps humorous, but not completely a joke.)

Heh? Please explain that one. It's late and I can be thick.

[melikio]

In fact, some of the most "straight" people I know, are gay.
(Perhaps humorous, but not completely a joke.)

Heh? Please explain that one. It's late and I can be thick.

Lainey,

I didn't mean anything too deep by that (so I thought); it was "late" for me too.

The general gist of what I meant, was that I've known and known of people who PLAY the "straight" role, to be accepted by society. I have also done that in varying degrees, over time.

So, when people talk about "gay Republicans", I'm not amazed, shocked or any such thing. I realize that MANY men/women (males/females) play roles, to be accepted. That is, they are gay, but go through many/most of the "straight" motions to be accepted. Closeted (defensively postured; not ashamed) homosexuals are all over the place; even within the Republican Party.

The term "gay Christian" is another one that raises many eyebrows (socially). I know of other stories, but I can personally relate to KNOWING that I was a "Christian", well before realizing that I was a homosexual. That was many rivers of tears and many years ago; I just felt "sad" that God really didn't "fix" me (though I truly wanted AND directly sought such a change).

The point is, after going through something like that (where you find out you're gay, and there really isn't a cure), hearing people talk about gay this/that, just seems kind of humorous (even amongst the seriousness of it all). It still kind of amazes me that we (American society) pretend that there are NOT scores of closeted homosexuals all around us, doing every job, holding practically any position (politically, economically, and spiritually too). I have some amount of functioning rudimentary "gay-dar" in me, and the truth is, even I am sometimes surprized about who is/isn't homosexual. I know it's because our society has taught us that things are black and white when it comes to human sexuality; the idea that "gay" looks like THIS, and "straight" looks like THAT... misleads a lot of people from actual reality.

"Gay Republicans"??!! (No duh!)

They're there, they're queer.... but it had better not be "revealed"... God forbid.

Again, I'm not advocating that people not see homosexuality as a sin (or whatever they think it is), but I am advocating for the people who suffer as a result of being homosexual. I've never been in a "pride" parade, but I do see WHY many people make a statement by doing so. I'm not about hedonism or victimizing people sexually (I'd deserve to be in jail), but I am about "homosexual" people being as free to reasonably express THEIR human sexuality, as any heterosexual certainly is. That we must discuss "gay Republicans" as if it's some rare phenomenon (an illusion), indicates that our society is still fairly "neurotic", as it relates to dealing sensibly with homosexuality. And without a doubt, that neurosis has done more damage, than any two guys (gals) rubbing some skin together.

This anti-gay thing is way too extreme at this point. People know we're here, and are also productive law-bidding citizens; yet we (as a society) abide the dark/evil notion that these people are something less than whole or fully human. So, the bottom line for me, is that I'm not advocating that every homosexual must flaunt their sexual-orientation, but that we (as a society) must cease the rather dysfunctional view of what homosexuality is and who homosexuals are.

I mean, we can't ignore it (the massive number of gay human beings which surely exist) forever and not have it blow up on us (in some devastating way), and we can't seem to "cure" homosexuality (even if such a cure were truly "moral" to administer); so we must decide what is real and reasonable to consider or do as it relates to this. Sure, there are millions who don't care for homosexuality (or homosexuals), but there are also millions of people who ARE HOMOSEXUALS (even hidden/nested within the "Republican" party). Personally, I hope to God, that people learn to see that homosexual people are just "human"; much as alcoholics tend to be (even though I don't see where homosexuality is a disorder at all).

-Mel-

[micatala]

This anti-gay thing is way too extreme at this point. People know we're here, and are also productive law-bidding citizens; yet we (as a society) abide the dark/evil notion that these people are something less than whole or fully human. So, the bottom line for me, is that I'm not advocating that every homosexual must flaunt their sexual-orientation, but that we (as a society) must cease the rather dysfunctional view of what homosexuality is and who homosexuals are.

A very reasonable view. I do think that, just as with heterosexuals, a certain degree of respect for others' 'modesty' is appropriate. On the other hand, this does not mean being ashamed of who one is or what one's relationships are.

If we could even get over the 'dysfunction' of basing opinions about homosexuality and homosexuals on untruths or on speculative opinions presented as unquestionable fact, that would be going a long way from where we are now, at least in some circles.

[melikio]

If we could even get over the 'dysfunction' of basing opinions about homosexuality and homosexuals on untruths or on speculative opinions presented as unquestionable fact, that would be going a long way from where we are now, at least in some circles.

micatala,

You also nailed it, with the above. The idea that "anything" someone says about homosexuals is credible just because it speaks against them, should not be promoted.

And in that way, we have to progress toward that point socially; at least. After all, the mixing of Africans/Whites in "marriage" was once considered a "moral" issue (and still is by some people); but it ultimately became the reality that if two people of different ethnicity became joined, that the world would not "end".

And it's much the same with homosexuality; there's nothing new about it, and we cannot keep claiming "morals" as THE primary reason for denying those (homosexual) full status as human beings. Not that I would force my points UPON anyone (as some who are adamant tend to), but that we are upon a juncture (in this civilization) where most "homosexual" people will not just step aside, while the rest of humanity progresses pass them (or over them). And it's reasonable to at least consider, why homosexual people will NOT passively allow that to happen. If someone thinks that they MUST oppose anything and everything "homosexual", then they also MUST understand that they are dealing with human beings (not "demons"); that reasonable compromises are closer to the real answer/s, than sweeping religious dictates mandated or manifested for the purpose of CONTROLLING homosexual people.

Sometimes, I cheer inside, when I hear that another "unlikely" person turns out to be "gay". And no, I do not rejoice that any person's sexual actions have caused anyone (whether child or adult) to become a victim. But included with my overall amusement that ANYONE would not fathom a "Republican" as a "gay" person, I am happy that people are learning (afresh and anew), that despite a person's LABEL, they are still HUMAN (above likely all other things). Not that a person should not strive to be more "excellent", but that there are (or should be) strict limits to what (liberties or freedoms) could/should be denied other human beings.

Gay Republican? Sure there are, now I hope and pray that they can help shape that party into something even more humane overall (than it has been of late).

-Mel-