“Something is really f*cked up out there in Sacramento.”

I’ve lived here six years.  This is the most concise yet correct description of the city that I’ve seen or heard.  Every time I get a rejection letter from a grad school, it hurts not because I didn’t get in, but because it increases the chances I’ll still be here come August.

Is this a game that a paper could win? Stay quiet, and they get access.  Spill it, and they would get it from all quarters - including the Gay community.

I do think that the 100% rating from anti-gay ashhatery makes a difference.  The newspaper didn’t consider it to be news or feared a massive back lash.

Ms. Kate hit it on the head for what I was going to say.  The political gay community probably doesn’t want to out fellow gays because of the political backlash it will cause them.  No matter how rotten he is, using his sexuality as a way to hurt his career just doesn’t sit right with most upstanding folks.  I admit he probably should have been exposed for the hypocrisy but there is a certain element to exposing him that will feed into these attitudes. 

The issue of outing him is more so one for the candidates themselves.  If a paper outed a candidate for having black ancestry and that caused them to lose the next election is it really fair?  Course I do understand if that person has consistently voted against civil rights they probably shouldn’t be in office regardless.  It is truly a convoluted issue.

In my view, any politician, straight or gay,  who promotes family values and votes against gay issues needs to be exposed for their hypocrisy when they are found to be in violation of the values they espouse.  The damage they do to others is so profound, that they deserve not one jot of consideration.  The media should be calling them out on it and it is just tough if it ruins their precious careers.  I do have sympathy for their families, but that is their responsibility not ours.

“Outing” someone was the most frightening tool in the anti-gay toolbox for so many years that I can understand why gay men who knew about Ashburn’s sexuality would feel anguish about outing even someone as despicable as he.  It was a very effective way of destroying someone’s life during the time when one could not be openly gay in public, so I get why, even now, gay men would refuse to out someone, even though times have changed somewhat.

What I don’t understand is why anyone partied with him, had sex with him, or even spoke to him once they realized who he was.  That, to me, is the act of self-hatred in this story.

Straight women have sex (and party) with woman-hating douchbros all the time, and I’ve never understood that either, but I guess you can’t underestimate the amount some people will be willing to delude themselves about a sexual partner or even a friendly acquaintance. (Of course, straight women don’t usually have to become a cog in some secret conspiracy/coverup either, which seems like it takes a little more commitment ... these particular gay men were really going the extra mile for this guy, and that’s definitely the weird part.)

So what was this guy’s name again?  Was it Roy Cohn?  It’s so hard to keep all these closeted conservative straight…

It’s also (duh) rich white guy privilege. Do you think some random working stiff who made a name for himself as part of the homophobic bigot crowd would get a similar permanent pass?

And yeah, this is beyond what straight women are typically expected to do. It’s like hooking up with someone from the Repent Amarillo crowd, or like a black woman going out with a klansman.

WTF is wrong with these self-loathing gays?

The question kind of answers itself, doesn’t it?

I’m thinking they were into the exciting, deviant, and angry sex.  Straight men and women do self-destructive and often bizarre things attempting to get sex, so why should gay men be any different?

How would that outing go down?? Is it news?  I suppose it is of sorts, but it seems almost like gossip.

I’d be content if, forever on, he is referenced in the media as “closeted gay State Representative…”.

Straight women have sex (and party) with woman-hating douchbros all the time, and I’ve never understood that either, but I guess you can’t underestimate the amount some people will be willing to delude themselves about a sexual partner or even a friendly acquaintance.

There are plenty of reasons, and the biggest one is that the most giant douches tend to also be the best at manipulating people.  While they may be obvious douches to you, they’re often very talented at hiding this fact from others.

Also, women are told from birth that they must have a man around, no matter what.  Couple that with constant messages that we’re never good enough, and plenty of women think that they can’t do any better, but they need to accept the douche so they’re not alone.

And on top of that, we’re not allowed to be “shallow”, unless it is toward ourselves or other women.  We must care constantly how pleasing we are to men, but we’re not allowed to have any standards because it’s just mean and it might hurt the poor men’s feelings if we don’t stroke their egos constantly.

The problem with outing this guy is that instead of saying, “Look these family values are so shame-inducing and false that we need to abandon them, for everyone, and come up with something that doesn’t destroy people,” what we often end up with in the media is “This gay guy is ruining family values! Just like all gay people do. He’s _really_ gay. If we get a real conservative in there, things will be a-okay.” It ends up reinforcing the sanctity of the family and the trope of gay deviants who can’t control their penises or desires. Then we have homos rushing to outfamily everybody, leaving behind all the other outcasts at the door, including our own poor, people of color, and disabled. The message isn’t that NOBODY IS NORMAL or that sexual identities aren’t really good fits for most people or that sexual desire can work in a lot of different ways (men who have sex with women, for example, can also like having sex with other men, i.e., they may not identify as gay), or that being ashamed of sex and your desires is mentally debilitating and dangerous to your health and that of your partners, or that people need to start communicating with sexual partners about desires and practices.

We need another narrative for this.

Dan Savage has suggested that reporters who cover any of these virulent anti-gay legislators/pastors/etc should begin any interview with “Are you gay? Do you have sex with men?” because it seems to be just that tautological (i.e. If A, then A.). Sure, access may be sacrificed, but it might be useful to remember that the pols will need the press way more than the press need the pols in the long run.

Some gay men like having their wives and friends thinking they’re straight.  Some are living the double life because they want to.  Some have been found out, but their partners are okay with or at least willing to play along with the double life.  Some are manipulative fuckwits for this.  And others are just enjoying the naughtiness of their secret life.  The closet still exists while the horrid stigma of homosexuality has at least somewhat diminished simply because some people get off on the stigma.

It doesn’t take a dead preacher with a dildo and two wetsuits to prove that some people overdo their own need to be “perverse”, but it certainly helps.  Telling some people it’s okay to want to blow another man or even just masturbate or think lustful thoughts really harshes their mellow.  They need to be dirty or they can’t get it up, apparently.  The lure of sin isn’t that it’s so alluring, but that it’s sin itself.

I don’t get it either, but that’s what it is.

So you are for special treatment for gays!  This jackass should of been hung out to dry YEARS ago and the sacremento gays decided this douchebags privacy was worth more than the rights of every other gay person in the state.

Fuck you gays, you won’t fight for yourself, why should the rest of us fight for you?

I think 3letterjon and others are rightly suggesting, collectively, that this guy’s problem is far more complex than Self-Loathing Gay Man. I would imagine many strands, including SLGM, feed into these types’ profiles, like the simple desire of a politician to stay in power: come out, lose votes. Harsh on gays? W!!!!111111NNNNN! I imagine there’s a perfectly pragmatic component to all of this, as well as a psychosexual one (or several psychosexual ones). IOW asshole needs work in a lot o’ areas…

It’s not just that Mr. Family Values was getting blow jobs. 

He was also driving drunk, in a state vehicle, and using said state vehicle for his extra-marital affairs.  Regardless of whether those affairs were with men or women, fuck that guy. 

The gay community owes this jack off nothing.

He was also driving drunk, in a state vehicle,

I think we should all be much more concerned with this.  Driving is already so dangerous, we don’t need people adding alcohol to the mix.  Drunk driving and unsafe driving in general is one thing that our society doesn’t take seriously enough.  It has gotten better over the past few decades, but we still have a long way to go.

No matter how rotten he is, using his sexuality as a way to hurt his career just doesn’t sit right with most upstanding folks.

But THIS is a career that SHOULD be hurt.  It’s a career of hate and persecution.  “Upstanding folks” should not be comfortable with bolstering such a career.

Homophobia for thee, but not for me. Just like clinic activists who get abortions. I think they all should be outed. They think the rules somehow shouldn’t apply to them. Sofa king annoying.

But THIS is a career that SHOULD be hurt.  It’s a career of hate and persecution.  “Upstanding folks” should not be comfortable with bolstering such a career.

See #13.  Again though, so you out him?  What does it do?  You replace him with another conservative who isn’t gay and still doesn’t vote up the LGBT rights. It’s not as if he won in some moderate district that voted in an openly gay republican.  Knocking him out of office doesn’t do anything and it further stigmatizes homosexuality in the eyes of the conservatives.

it further stigmatizes homosexuality in the eyes of the conservatives.
Xeranar

“They’ll not support <insert group> even more!”  isn’t really an argument.
Any of the gay community that allowed this to happen is doing the evil of banality.

Yeah, I have to side with Cynickal here.  It’s not like they can vote “No” more than this guy did.

Was it my argument?  My argument was knocking him off doesn’t do anything, it just kicks him out of office over something that shouldn’t be an issue.  I’m more of a make it a non-issue issue kind of person.  You’re asking to make homosexuality the central voting issue and not his voting record.  It is the equivalent of pointing out a disability to get disapproval.  It won’t win the day anymore than it won with Ashburn.  The electorate isn’t suddenly going to become more liberal and the guy who replaces him will stick with 100% anti-LGBT voting record.  Outing him as a way of removing him from office just stigmatizes it further. 

The gay community like any minority has a stigma complex.

Be that as it may, Xeranar, there’s such a thing as Justice…and there’s such a thing as payback, too.

This worthless peice of filth has been doing his level best to ruin the lives of other gays for years now. He deserves whatever he gets.

Xeranar,

Maybe we’re trying to stigmatize false “morality” and hypocrisy?  Like, if you’re a two-faced asshole who sells out to be The Man, you deserve everything you get. 

And hey, maybe once he can give up the charade, maybe his life will get better and he can quit self-hating and maybe make something of who he was in service of the gay community…?

Probably not, but one can hope.

Did he even give his real name and job at gay bars?

Okay, the mayor of West Sac knew… but I’d like to give the benefit of the doubt to the men who went out to dance, drink and hook up, and knew no more about politics than the average Californian. It doesn’t seem fair to blame all gays in the city for not outing a guy many of them barely knew existed, much less could pin the face to the voting record.