Sunday, September 30, 2007

The line at the bathroom stall is long...here's a solution!



So, yeah, I've been a little absent from submitting new posts for my blog. Since my last post so many things have taken place that it almost makes me want to procrastinate further.

A while back, a story broke which reported that Idaho Senator Larry Craig (a man with two first names...suspicious already) had been arrested on June 11 in a sting operation designed to curtail homosexual sex acts in a public bathroom in the Minneapolis Hubert Humphrey Airport. The charge was a misdemeanor to which Craig immediately pleaded guilty in hopes that the whole episode would vanish as quickly as Dick Cheney's e-mails. Well, it didn't. Just because a tree falls in the forest...and...you get the picture.

Now, as always the case when "straight" married men get busted for homosexual sex, Craig's first response was that of giving his track record of 60 plus years of continuous heterosexuality, the physical presence of a wife and children (proof of at least two heterosexual sexual acts, possibly three) and for the mere fact that he is a Republican, and therefore, straight. After all, homosexuality is a choice (remember when you, reader, chose your sexuality...it was a Wednesday, wasn't it?) and a sinful one at that. A Christian Republican would never willingly commit sodomy (Ted Haggard, Mark Foley...cough cough).

The Republican party finally hung Craig out to dry and made him walk the plank. Namely because at the center of the controversy was a homosexual act and also because Idaho has a Republican governor, who would undoubtedly replace Craig with another Republican senator, therefore keeping the seat. The GOP probably thought that Craig had caught some contagious viral disease, gaykemia, and wanted nothing to do with that.

Democrats have been claiming hypocrisy and Republicans have been citing Bill Clinton and Monica Lewinsky.

So...where's Frodo and who has the ring?

Hypocrisy. Google tells me that it's the " The practice of professing beliefs, feelings, or virtues that one does not hold or possess; falseness." Saying one thing and doing another. Republicans such as Craig have run on the platform of ferocious opposition to gays and to gay rights. This would then beg the question: are they opposing gay rights because they don't like gay people and what they represent (i.e. parades, better dance club music, great taste in fashion and home decorating) or is it because they are opposed to homosexuality? I suppose you could be gay AND be asexual. But you could also be married with children and be homosexual...come to think of it, you can be just about anything nowadays. Therefore, Craig and his posse must be against the parades and all its gayness, right? Because it would appear that they are not so much against the gay sex part (at least Craig isn't).

The hypocrisy hangs over this situation like Rudy Giuliani's new hairpiece, even better. You see, the Republicans came out swinging in 1994 with slogan "We are the party of family values." While that may have been true for former Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert, who, let's face it, will never be voluntarily involved in any sex scandal...ever, it has certainly proven to be an unreachable ideal for many other prominent Republicans who have professed, and continue to profess, to be morally superior.

Ted Haggard. No explanation needed. C'mon, look at the guy. There's nothing about him that screams straight other than his teeth. Here's a preacher who spoke directly with the White House nearly once a week and fought against gay rights. Proof that the harder you fight the urge for something, the more you go overboard with it when you get it. Remember that uptight dude from the movie "Chocolat"? When he finally got his hands on some chocolate, he got it all over...his...I'll stop there.

Mark Foley. A former congressman from Florida who advocated stiffer (sorry) punishment for pedophiles in his home state of Florida. Meanwhile, he's texting 15 year old male pages (young lads that do summer work at the Capitol to gain experience...hmmm...maybe this is where it starts) telling them that he's got an erection and asking when he can "help slip their shorts off." Someone call Chris Hansen from Dateline NBC, we gotta live one.

Brian J. Doyle. Former number 5 in charge in Department of Homeland Security was busted for soliciting an officer posing as a 14 yr old girl in a child internet sex sting. He even told the officer who he was, that he worked for Homeland Security and he even gave out his government issued cell number. He even sent hard-core pornographic movie clips to the undercover officer. Feel safe yet? (link to story)

Senator David Vitter. Current Senator from Louisiana who was on a Washington madam's call list (really expensive hookers with no diseases). Vitter was virtually congratulated by his colleagues for this heroic heterosexual act. Vitter claimed that he had a deep conversation with "his God" and that "his God" forgave him, so everything is cool now. Seems like many Republicans have conversations with God, none of which are ever recorded or witnessed by anyone, and they seem to be the only conduits to Heaven. Never mind that prostitution is still illegal (God is all powerful but He has had difficulty overturning that law in Washington D.C.) and that Vitter is married. No worries. The GOP had to keep Vitter, because Louisiana has a Democrat for a governor and the people of Louisiana are not exactly doing cartwheels for the current White House administration.

This list goes on ad nauseum. John McCain's Florida campaign adviser was busted in a park bathroom for soliciting gay sex. Another Homeland Security person was busted in a child internet sex sting last week.

Bottom line, as far as hypocrisy goes, is that the Democrats don't run on the platform of being morally superior because THEY KNOW THEY'RE NOT. They don't run on the platform of judging others, of what's acceptable social behavior and what's not, of who is good and who is bad, of speaking for a God from whom they could not be further away. There was a candidate years ago, that ran on a platform of not wanting to judge or condemn others, of not wanting to call others names and insults, who believed that everyone was equal and should have the same opportunities as others. What was his name...??? Oh yeah, Jesus of Nazareth. Crazy socialist liberal.

Bill Clinton was impeached because he lied to a grand jury. He said he DIDN'T DO SOMETHING THAT HE ACTUALLY DID. That's called lying. That's against the law when you're in court. He did not, however, say during any of his campaigns that he was a "man of family values" and that he was going to restore "good faith, morals and values to the White House." Fortunately for Bill, cheating on your wife by having sex with an intern in the Oval Office, while a very poor decision, is not against the law. I don't think you're going to see Bill Clinton do any type of marriage counseling or hold any fidelity workshops in this lifetime. Again, poor decision but no hypocrisy.

The sad part for Republicans is that for millions of men in this country, homosexuality seems to be working out quite nicely. I rarely hear any complaints from any of my gay friends about their choice. If I ask, "How's it going Brad?", rarely do I hear, "It's going okay, things could be better if I weren't so freakin' gay." They generally seem happy, joyous and free with their lifestyle. They love themselves and love others unconditionally. A lesson few have learned.

The tragic part for the Republicans is that the GOP drove a good man and great public servant like Larry Craig into a dirty, filthy public bathroom to engage in what it deems sinful, despicable and unmentionable. His chance of contracting HIV or any other STD, or passing one on, increases exponentially every time the stall door closes. Who knows how many men he has been in contact with and how many they have subsequently been with? He is confined to a bathroom stall because outside of this urine and fecal receptacle area lies a whole world so incredibly judgmental and so full of hate and misunderstanding, that instead of being a punchline at a Washington party and the recipient of a thousand condescending stares, he chooses to have the most intimate sexual act in a place you can't get out of fast enough. You neo-con Republicans fail to realize that this is not a choice. You act as if one day Craig woke up, poured a cup of soy milk and said to himself, "I think today is a good day to start having anonymous gay sex in public bathrooms across the country."

Stop treating homosexuality like it's contagious. Don't worry: if you don't have it by now you're not going to get it. You're safe. Quit touching feet in Minneapolis, open the stall and let the others out of the bathroom so they can be safe, too.

7 comments:

ReBranding said...

Alexander Hamilton was a gay federalist... but if a man can't decide if he is gay or straight, should he be chastised for his perpetual indecisiveness or that he doesn't have an oriface preference?

The Federalist said...

You are implying once again that the decision is a conscious one. Your argument could be strengthened by simply stating that man involuntarily chooses his sexual preference by embracing that which seems more comfortable to him, that which provides more pleasure in the moment and even more in its absence.
To play Devil's advocate, that is to say, to furnish the neoconservative Christian perspective, those who remain indecisive do not even reach the gates of Hell: they remain in Hell's lobby, tortured for never having made a decision. For if being homosexual is a sin, and a sin is a strike against God, then those who were neither for nor against God have perhaps committed the greatest sin of all.

ReBranding said...

Uh? Neo-conservative Christian? Any beliefs contrary to them is a "strike against God". I am implying that it is a conscious decision to embrace not what seems comfortable, but what is convenient.
Hanging out in the lobby seems better than the alternative, might be able to get a good cup of coffee and the NY Times, that is if you can find a seat among the crowd of aforementioned Republican switch hitters.

The Federalist said...

You are addressing what I'm not saying instead of what I have said. I never said that any beliefs contrary to neo-conservative Christian beliefs are a "strike against God". I was referring exclusively to homosexuality. Based on the neoconservative interpretation of Christian ideology, homosexuality is a sin and therefore, a strike against God.

ReBranding said...

Of course I am addressing what your not saying, because you haven't said anything that hasn't been written or spoken about before. I am trying to figure out how a Federalist can "furnish neoconservative Christian perspective", since neo is new, and their perspective and translations are like "windsocks", changing with the latest trends, ultimately driven by only political motives, whereas Federalists believe in only the elite should govern, and like the Cubs, never have won anything.

The Federalist said...

How did you arrive at your definition of "federalist"? Elitism shares nothing in common with the term "federalist", other than the fact that both words belong to the English language.

My screen name is simply an abbreviation of the title of the blog: the federalist (the federalist papers 2007)

I would argue that the federalist principles are in direct conflict with those of the current neofascist...errr...neoconservative principles.

A Federalist is a staunch supporter of the United States Constitution, a document which the Neoconservative fiercely opposes.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7934590059446095681&q=14+points+of+fascism&total=18&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0

TMH256 said...

Ugh. The convoluted argument of rebranding is making my head hurt. The key point here is hyposcrisy and the obvious shunning of sexuality due to outside pressure, i.e. being involved in politics. When will our society learn that what you resist persists? Thank you, Federalist, for making some fantastic points regarding this issue. However, I hesitate to make it partisan, since I am smack-dab in the center. Neither party is better than the other, rather they have different approaches. Either party could be affected by this far-reaching issue, which has been in existence since Roman times and earlier. The fact that more Republicans have been sexual predators is probably due to their conservative roots and the psychological shunning of their own impulses.