General: September 2004 Archives

BOSTON - The reins of leadership in the Massachusetts House will change this week from a conservative opponent of same-sex marriage to a socially liberal gay rights champion, just months before the next round in the state's gay marriage debate begins.

Rep. Salvatore DiMasi, the Boston Democrat who is expected to be sworn in Wednesday, was a leading advocate for the state's 1989 gay rights bill, which barred discrimination based on sexual orientation, and a strong supporter of the state high court decision legalizing gay marriage this year.

Outgoing House Speaker Thomas Finneran, D-Boston, who resigned the speaker's job after eight years to lead a biotechnology trade organization, is an outspoken opponent of gay marriage who sponsored a constitutional ban earlier this year. (source)

The following from the South End Newspaper:

Constitutional ban on gay marriage is a desecration to democracy

Sep/27/2004
By Sarah Ryley

The Bush administration says a ban on gay marriage is necessary to prevent “activist judges,” a term used with obvious annoyance and disgust, from redefining our marriage laws on a state-by-state basis.

The Bush administration knows that rulings made by judges, especially state Supreme Courts, hold precedent in subsequent rulings. As each judge makes the decision to declare marriage a constitutional right for everyone, the universal right for gays to marry becomes a closer reality.

“Activist judges” have changed America throughout our history; they’ve been there for individuals when every other facet of society seemed against the person.

Judges across the country stood up for black people during a time of intense segregation and oppression, even if the majority of the citizens didn’t think black people deserved rights.

“Activist judges” desegregated our schools, strengthened our freedom of speech, gave women the right to choose — there are countless examples of court rulings in our history that have changed the face of America.

The Bush administration and far-right Republicans realize that the judicial branch actually has the ability to overpower their agenda and so they seek to destroy it.

Would someone explain something to me? I don't understand how someone could work for the Republican National Convention, be gay, and be ok with what is going on.

It turns out that Daniel Gurley, the National Field Director and deputy political director for the Republican National Committee is gay. He says, “I have no comment to make about anything. I have no comment about my work, or what I do. I, like anyone else, have policy disagreements with any number of elected officials. I don’t expect to agree with everything that everybody says.”

That's just not going to cut it Mr. Gurley. Today, in the United States of America, people are still losing their jobs for being gay. In 36 states it is still within the law to fire someone from their job because they are gay. Think about that. Your Republican Party is against ending this kind of discrimination all the way.

The gay and lesbian community is still not protected against hate crimes in this country. Your Republican Party is against passing laws that will make it a crime to target people for a crime specifically because of their sexual orientation.

I won't start on gay marriage. The Republican Party has little real interested in preserving marriage. Marriage has become a country club of who gets in and who doesn't, or, more precisely, who will gain the massive umbrella of benefits that come from civil marriage.

The platform includes a bolded section titled, “Ensuring Equal Opportunities.” The section leads with the sentence, “Our nation is a land of opportunity for all, and our communities must represent the idea of equality for every citizen.”

This doesn’t, apparently, include gay Americans.

“We believe that neither federal nor state judges nor bureaucrats should force states to recognize other living arrangements as equivalent to marriage.”

“After more than two centuries of American jurisprudence , and millenia of human experience, a few judges and local authorities are presuming to change the most fundamental institution of civilization, the union of a man and a woman in marriage.” (source)

A nice story about a 17 year old gay boy growing up in Oklahoma. Thanks Jon for sharing it with me. It's well worth the read.

You will have to register with the Washington Post to read the story, but it's free and fairly painless.

Part 1
Part 2

We respect the rights of all but we do not believe that marriage for gays is right for gays, right for America or right in the eyes of God.

We are conservative, family-oriented and proud same-gender-loving young black Republicans. Our issues are economic development, improving our community infrastructure and reversing the ongoing descent into poverty and hopelessness that we see all around us that is a direct result of 40 years of liberal Democratic social experiments that have created chronic dependency, despair, and the devaluation of our lives as opposed to the freedom, opportunities and resources that we know can make us better -- where does marriage for gays fit into this? - Anthony Falls, Spokesman for Abe Lincoln Black Republican Caucus

Source

"...as opposed to the freedom, opportunities and resources that we know can make us better -- where does marriage for gays fit into this?"

Freedom, opportunities, and resources have everything to do with marriage and the stability of gay relationships. Listed below are some of the major benefits of marriage that have everything to do with enhancing our lives. It's hard for me to believe that I actually have to spell this out to a gay group.

Social Security retirement and survivor benefits. A husband or wife is entitled to one-half of the spouse’s Social Security benefits and to additional benefits in the event of death.

Workplace health and pension benefits coverage. While some companies offer health coverage to domestic partners, this benefit is considered taxable income. When married spouses are covered, the benefit is tax-free.

Automatic inheritance rights. Die without a will, and a heterosexual spouse gets the stuff. In many states, the surviving spouse has a legal right to at least one-third to one-half of the estate.

Preferential estate tax treatment. The $1 million estate tax limitation doesn’t apply to married people: a heterosexual married person can leave an unlimited amount to a spouse without owing one penny of estate tax. In certain states, this benefit is multiplied by special capital-gains tax treatment for homes and other assets held by married couples as community property.

Lower insurance rates. Married people usually get a discount on auto insurance and may pay less for other types of insurance. Some enlightened companies - the Hartford was among the first – offer family discounts to gay and lesbian couples, but it is not yet an industry standard.

The other benefits given by marriage:
Insurance benefits through a spouses employer
Insurance discounts offered to married couples and related persons living in same household
Veterans/military benefits offered to spouses (education, medical care, housing loans)
Income tax deductions, credits and exemptions
Tax relief for natural disaster losses
Immigration of foreign partners
Witness and court testimony rights
Continuation of lease rights (renewal of lease)
Community property rights
Payment of wages for deceased partners and workers compensation benefits
Right to enter into pre-marital agreement
Consent to post-mortem examination
Right to make burial arrangements
Bereavement leave for partner, child, or partner's close relative
Family leave to care for partner or child during illness
Right to make decisions in medical emergencies ("next of kin")
Visitation rights for partner or child in hospital or other public institutions
Custodial rights for a seriously injured partner
Right to file a wrongful death suit
Tuition discounts/use of facilities
Company benefits/perks offered to spouses
Commercial discounts/incentives offered only to married couples or families
Joint child custody, adoption and foster care rights
Equitable divison of property, child custody, visitation rights and support in the case of divorce
The right to obtain domestic violence protection orders

Burlington, Iowa, will face no legal problems under a rule to make public the names of people and businesses that allegedly discriminate against gays and lesbians, the city attorney said. "I don't believe they could sue the city for slander because a third party files a complaint with the city," Scott Power said Wednesday. "I've never seen that happen.... Legally, I don't believe you could sue a city over a complaint that's filed." The city's Human Rights Commission voted unanimously to approve a new procedure to address sexual orientation discrimination. (source)

The constitutional amendment approved Saturday in Louisiana to ban same-sex marriage will wipe out New Orleans's benefits for partners of city workers who sign onto a domestic-partner registry, say attorneys challenging the amendment. "The only immediate direct effect of this amendment is to abolish the New Orleans domestic-partner registry ordinance. That is exactly what the people behind this amendment wanted," attorney John Rawls said. "They sued to abolish it and lost in court. So they stuck it in a craftily worded amendment." City attorneys have said they don't think the amendment will affect the city ordinance. Mayoral spokeswoman Tanzie Jones reiterated that Wednesday but said she did not know the legal basis for the contention and that city attorneys were busy with another matter.

Michael Johnson, a Shreveport attorney who has argued in favor of the amendment, said it adds a new argument to his challenge of New Orleans's domestic-partnership ordinance. "I think and would argue that a domestic partnership is, quote-unquote, substantially similar to marriage," said Johnson, who is affiliated with the Arizona-based Alliance Defense Fund, a conservative Christian group. That suit was thrown out on grounds that the ADF plaintiffs had sued as taxpayers, but the policy did not cost taxpayers additional money. Johnson has appealed that decision. (source)

Lambda Legal is suing Foot Locker for allegedly firing and harassing an employee because he is gay. The case is being levied in South Carolina where the incidents occurred. But on Thursday, Sept. 16, protesters brought the issue to New York City.

About 15 Lambda Legal staff members and volunteers gathered outside of Radio City Music Hall, where New York Liberty was playing a home game. It was the last of six home games the Liberty played at Radio City Music Hall this season. (Liberty moved to the theater when the Republican National Convention occupied Madison Square Garden, their regular home.) [...]

The case against Foot Locker involves Kevin Dunbar, a young man who was an employee at a Foot Locker store in South Carolina. Dunbar alleges that he was harassed by coworkers and customers because he is gay. He alleges that he was ultimately fired because he complained about the harassment. That harassment is against the nondiscrimination policy in the Foot Locker Employee Handbook.

"Once I became a target," Dunbar has said in a statement, "every morning when I woke up and I was scheduled for work, I knew that my supervisors and coworkers would verbally insult and degrade me, probably in front of customers." (source)

My first post on this
My response to Foot Locker

I don't know if it will do anything, but I do intend to participate to every extent possible in the boycott. Here's the information in the October 8th boycott.

Organizers of the Boycott For Equality are expanding their nationwide walkout to include a coordinated cash withdrawal from the economy on October 8.

To demonstrate the need for equality in marriage and the workplace, straight and gay supporters will each take out $80 from their local ATM.

Boycott For Equality expects the action will exhaust the cash in many ATMs, leaving a reminder of gay economic power to all who try to use them throughout the long bank weekend.

To further drive home the lessons taught during the Boycott, participants should refer to the Boycott when communicating with their elected representatives, particularly when candidates ask for money to fund their campaigns.

"Let them know you participated in the Boycott," explained Boycott For Equality Co-Founder Dale Duncan. "Just take your ATM receipt, cross out your account number, circle your balance, write GAY MONEY on it and mail it to campaign headquarters in the postage paid envelope they provide. They'll get the message that nobody in America can be taken for granted." [...]

For that day, LGBT Americans and their straight allies are encouraged to withdraw from the economy in five specific areas:

1) Stay home from work. Do not generate payroll taxes, income taxes or
add to the economy. If you run a business, let your customers know by
closing for the day.

2) Withdraw $80 from your bank account at an ATM.

3) Don't shop. Do not generate sales tax or business revenue.

4) Hang up your cell phone. Your silence will affect your whole
communications network.

Source

09/24/2004 Update: Bid Dropped To Remove Protections For Gay Workers

Social Security Administration officials are trying to remove language protecting employees from discrimination based on sexual orientation from the agency's labor contract, union leaders claim.

During negotiations on renewing the contract, SSA officials proposed eliminating a clause that allows gay, lesbian and bisexual workers to file discrimination grievances, said Witold Skwierczynski, president of the American Federation of Government Employees Council 220. [...]

SSA "does not and will not discriminate against employees for any reason," said Mark Lassiter, a spokesman. He declined to comment on the ongoing negotiations.

But union officials see the agency's attempt to revoke the protections as a move to reverse a longstanding antidiscrimination policy. "This administration is now attempting to permit discrimination against lesbians, gays and bisexuals by removing protections from union contracts," said Andrea Brooks, AFGE's national vice president for women's and fair practices. (source)

I know there's been talk about re-examining don't ask, don't tell to see if it still works as flawlessly as it always has (sarcasm).

It's a tough dilemma. How can you serve honorably and continue to tell a big lie about yourself? Don't ask, don't tell I suppose works fine from commander to subordinate, but what about all the small talk that goes on between service members, such as that mentioned in this article?

I can see why gay people in the military just give up. It's not worth what it does to you. I did the same thing in my early life with my family and friends, lying all the time about being interested in girls when I had no interest. I can tell you, not only is it exhausting to have to watch every single thing that you say and do, but it also takes a real toll on your personal well being.

NEW HAVEN, Conn. -- Brian Hughes served four years with an Army Ranger unit, including assignments in Afghanistan and Iraq, while keeping his homosexuality -- a potentially career-ending sexual orientation -- secret.

Hughes, 26, left the Army last month in part because of his frustration with the military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy, which allows homosexuals to serve so long as they do not disclose their sexual orientation and do not engage in homosexual acts.

Now enrolled at Yale University, Hughes said the policy forced him to lie to other members of his unit, who frequently bragged about their sexual exploits. Hughes said he found himself substituting "she" for "he" in stories so he could join in conversations.

"It hurt. I was lying to those people," he said. "I eventually withdrew and became quite anti-social because I didn't want to deal with it anymore." (source)

A sad story, but it is Idaho, a very conservative state where sexual orientation is concerned. By all accounts, this man is a good father to his children and has been part of their lives. Now, in this ruling from the Idaho Supreme Court, Mr. McGriff will be denied visitation to his children as long as he is with his partner. So unfair.

09/23/2004 - Gay Father Reacts To Custody Decision

(Boise, Idaho) The Idaho Supreme Court today upheld a lower court ruling that said Theron McGriff could not have visitation rights with his children while he lived with a male partner.

Theron McGriff and his wife, Shawn McGriff, divorced six years ago when he came out. Under the divorce agreement Theron McGriff got custody of the two children.

But, when he met another man, fell in love and the two bought a home together, Shawn McGriff went back to court claiming a gay relationship wasn't in the best interest of their two daughters.
Bonneville County Magistrate L. Mark Riddoch removed the girls from Theron McGriff's custody and gave them to his ex-wife. Riddoch further ordered that the children not visit Theron McGriff as long as he lived with his partner. (story)

McGriff appealed to the state Supreme Court.

In its ruling today the court said that sexual orientation cannot be the basis for awarding or removing custody, unless the parent's sexual orientation is shown to cause harm to the child.

But, it upheld the lower court prohibition on McGriff's visitation rights saying that his "living arrangements", and the children's exposure to it, had been shown to be detrimental and posed a valid danger of alienating the children's affection toward their mother.

The court also agreed with the lower court that the children's mother was best suited for custody of the children.

"The Idaho Supreme Court has articulated a wonderful principle which, going forward, will protect gay and lesbian parents," said Shannon Minter, an attorney with the National Center for Lesbian Rights, who represented Theron McGriff. "But they turned a blind eye to the record in this case."

Minter said McGriff is devastated by the ruling. (source)

Registered domestic partners in Santa Cruz County have more than 400 new legal protections to look forward to when The California Registered Domestic Partner Rights and Responsibilities Act of 2003 goes into effect Jan. 1.

The law was signed by former Gov. Gray Davis last year but delayed to give the state’s more than 28,0000 registered domestic partners time to understand the sweeping effects of the new law, according to Bob Correa, executive director of The Diversity Center in Santa Cruz.

Federal law affords married couples nearly 1,000 various rights and responsibilities, including the ability to file joint taxes, share custody of children and own property together. In comparison, the state’s current law provides domestic partners only 16 rights, he said.

Correa heralded the new legislation, claiming, "It's a major change, a huge victory. Discrimination is not an option anymore." (source)

The new law will grant domestic partners the following rights and responsibilities:

Requires domestic partners to financially support each other.

Domestic partners legally liable for each other’s bills.

Both partners will be responsible for debts incurred during the domestic partnership and for property acquired during the partnership.

Both partners will be considered legal parents for children born into the union, without the need for legal adoption.

Domestic partners will be able to inherit their partner’s property and assets upon the other’s death.

Partners now may represent each other in legal proceedings and are protected from testifying against the other.

Gives partners the right to sue for wrongful death, the loss of consortium and to take other legal actions upon behalf of their domestic partner.

Domestic partners will now need to go to court to resolve child custody, spousal support and property division issues in the event they break up.

Will have to file a separate motion to dissolve their legal partnership, just like filing for a divorce.

Since domestic partners are considered jointly responsible for one another, the household income can influence critical factors such as public support, financial aid, health-care benefits and other income-driven benefits.

(Houston, Texas) A man fighting to keep the home he shared with his late partner is looking for a new place to live after a Harris County court ruled that same-sex partners have no rights.

William Ross says he and John Green, who died in January 2003, were partners for 71/2 years. (source)

I'm trying to find the correct name for it ... this utter absolute, asinine, idiotic stupidity of men marrying men. ... I've never seen a man in my life I wanted to marry. And I'm gonna be blunt and plain; if one ever looks at me like that, I'm gonna kill him and tell God he died. - Evangelist Jimmy Swaggert

Source
Full Story

NORWALK, Conn. -- City officials are considering denying a permit for the Boy Scouts to use a beach for a recruitment drive based on the parent organization's policy of barring homosexual members.

Mayor Alex Knopp has asked the law department to determine whether there is legal precedent to deny a Boy Scouts troop use of Shady Beach. Knopp's request came after members of the Common Council's parks committee told Scoutmaster Greta DeAngelis last week they would vote against issuing her a permit for a three-hour campfire and recruitment program Oct. 24. [...]

Emanuel Margolis of Stamford, legal adviser to the Connecticut Civil Liberties Union, said he believes Norwalk would be denying the Boy Scouts their constitutional rights.

"I think it's a fairly simple question of First Amendment rights and principles," Margolis said. (source)

Yes but, isn't Shady Beach a public beach? If I remember correctly, the State of Connecticut has an anti-discrimination law that includes sexual orientation.

The Boy Scouts of America has argued this point all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court, and they won the case. They won because the court saw them as a private organization and therefore, had a right to discriminate against any group they did not want in their organization.

Fair enough. But when public lands and public buildings are being used as in this case (things that I, along with other gay people help to fund by our tax dollars), state law should dictate that the Boy Scouts should not be able to use such land or resources.

They chose to discriminate and won their case. Now, they are trying to make the claim that they are being discriminated against because they can't use public land. You can't have it both ways.

The national organization chose to continue with their discriminatory policy. They should be willing to pay the price for that policy. The gay scouts and gay scout leaders that the Boy Scouts kicked out of their organization paid the price for it.

Write to Mayor Knopp and let him know what you think of this.

This from the bluelemur.com:

Congressman David Dreier, a Republican congressman from California who has repeatedly voted against gay rights measures is said to be gay himself, and at least three MediaNews Group newspapers are said to have instructed its reporters not to ask questions about the congressman’s sexuality or how it relates to public policy. [...]

Hustler also released a letter sent to the editor of a newspaper in Dreier’s district which suggests that the paper deliberately worked to keep Dreier’s sexuality and his positions on gay issues off the front page. [...]

Hustler also says the media has played along in a charade to preserve the Dreier’s heterosexual facade. They released a copy of a letter written by Hustler Features Editor Mark Cromer and mailed to Phil Drake, city editor of the MediaNews-owned San Gabriel Valley Tribune, which inquires about editorial guidelines governing the coverage of Rep. Dreier.

When questioned by phone Tuesday, Hustler named two other MediaNews papers which had been sent similar letters: the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin and the Pasadena Star News.

MediaNews Group is run by conservative media mogul Dean Singleton, who, in 1996, donated $500 to Colorado Senator Wayne Allard [R]. Allard was a cosponsor of the Senate version of the Federal Marriage Amendment, an amendment which would have constitutionally banned gay marriage. [...]

The 52-year-old single congressman voted for the Marriage Protection Act in July, a measure that would have stripped federal courts of jurisdiction over challenges to the Defense of Marriage Act, which bans the federal government from recognizing gay partnerships. Dreier did not vote on the latest amendment to constitutionally ban gay marriage, and said he was against it.

Dreier, a Christian Scientist, also voted for the original Defense of Marriage Act in 1996 and a measure that banned gays from adopting in Washington, D.C. He has a 92 percent favorability rating from the Christian Coalition, and was elected with Ronald Reagan in 1980.

Not really a surprise here, but I thought I would post the bad news anyway. It just seems alarming to me that in a country that we say is free that voters can actually vote to take the possibility of greater rights away from a group.

I'm no lawyer or judge, but common sense would tell you that the concept of that flies in the face of what freedom means.

It also raises the question, do we even need the Constitution anymore? I mean, if the voters are going to vote on who has rights and privileges and who doesn't, why do we need to burden ourselves with worrying about what is constitutional and what is not? We can just have a vote on everything from gun control, to energy issues, civil rights, and all the rest.

I'm actually serious. If you can have a vote on what to put into your constitution thereby defining what is unconstitutional, why have a constitution? It no longer serves a purpose. A constitution is a guide on what is permissible and what is not, legally. If you are deciding that in general elections, everything is up for grab.

NEW ORLEANS -- Louisiana voters overwhelmingly approved a state constitutional amendment Saturday banning same-sex marriages and civil unions, one of up to 12 such measures on the ballot around the country this year.

With 99 percent of precincts reporting, the amendment was winning approval with 78 percent of the vote, and support for it was evident statewide. Only in New Orleans, home to a politically strong gay community, was the race relatively close, and even there the amendment was winning passage. Turnout statewide appeared to be about 27 percent of Louisiana's 2.8 million voters, somewhat low for a state election. [...]

John Rawls, a lawyer for Forum for Equality, reiterated the group's contention that the amendment does far more than stop gay marriage and that it could affect many private contracts between unmarried couples, gay or straight -- a claim its supporters dispute.

"I am disappointed that so many Louisianians either did not read the amendment or are so afraid of gays that they voted for this amendment anyway," Rawls said. [...]

Similar amendments to ban same-sex marriage are on ballots in Arkansas, Georgia, Kentucky, Michigan, Mississippi, Montana, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Oregon and Utah. Petitions in Ohio are still being verified. (source)

(Santa Barbara, California) A study of gays in the military released Wednesday concludes that gays and lesbians are serving openly in the Middle East without undermining unit cohesion or the missions in Iraq and Afghanistan.

When gays are out, they report says "greater success in bonding, morale, professional advancement, levels of commitment & retention and access to essential support services."

The study, prepared for the Center for the Study of Sexual Minorities in the Military at the University of California, Santa Barbara, also found that "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" has a negative effect not just on gays, but on those around them, by creating an atmosphere of dishonesty and distrust as well as disrespect for the law and the principles of integrity that are essential to military service.

The study, by Dr. Nathaniel Frank, is titled "Gays and Lesbians at War: Military Service in Iraq and Afghanistan Under 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell.'"

It says that the official ban on open gays in the military impairs the capacity of gay troops to develop bonds of trust, minimize stress, prepare for deployment, focus on their mission, advance professionally and access support services, including medical & psychological consultations. (source)

Shocking, isn't it? It's common sense really. I could be wrong, but I think that most people in the military really don't have a problem with gays in the military, as long as you do your job.

I think the people who really have the problem with gays in the military are the Representatives, Senators, and the President, who seem to want to keep this policy in place.

In a lawsuit that has had more lives than a cat, the American Civil Liberties Union has asked the Kansas Supreme Court to undo a prison sentence that will keep a young man behind bars for 17 years as punishment for consensual oral sex with a male peer.

Matthew Limon and a fellow student at a live-in school for developmentally disabled youth were caught having oral sex in February of 2000. Limon, who had been in trouble for sexual antics in the past, was charged with an adult felony. Had he or his friend been female, however, the heterosexual teens would have been given a slap on the wrist under a statute, called the "Romeo and Juliet" law, that forgives consensual sex between heterosexual teens in the same age range. Instead, Kansas judges threw the book at Limon, then 18, sentencing him to jail until his mid-thirties. (source)

The ad (required broadband) from the Log Cabin Republicans that CNN wouldn't air because it was "too controversial".

Personally, I just don't get the Log Cabin Republicans. They are gay Republicans and still support the Republican Party, even after the party's platform formally supports a constitutional amendment against gay marriage. I'm a Democrat, but I'm also a reasonable guy. I just don't get it.

I suppose you can say, I don't vote for President based on one issue, and I don't. I think the Bush Administration sucks on just about every other issue as well. It's just that when my President says that my family sucks and is second rate, it's kind of hard not to take that personally.

Log Cabin Republicans, think about it. Do you really want to support this platform?

Follow up Story (09/02/2004): Home Depot Announces Gay Partner Benefits After Pet Fury

WASHINGTON, Sept. 1 /PRNewswire/ -- The Human Rights Campaign today condemned Home Depot, Sprint, Ecolab and Waste Management -- all Fortune 500 companies -- for offering their employees pet insurance but not domestic partner health insurance. (source)

I don't happen to do business with Sprint, Ecolab or Waste Management, but I have done business with Home Depot. But no more. This just goes to show how stupid some corporate policies are. I could get pet insurance for my cat but I couldn't get it for my partner? Come on! That's damn insulting.

We need to support our community and if you still put your hard earned money into these companies, what does that say about you? More importantly, who will help you when it happens to you?

We should all let them know what we think of policies like this when we are made aware of them, if not through direct letters to the company, then by taking our business somewhere else.

It's amazing to me how some of these stories come to life. I can understand that someone is bigoted and against gay people. Recently, the State of Virginia passed a law that forbids not only gay marriage, but gay unions in that state. The law became effective on July 1, 2004.

Representative Edward Schrock (Republican) was one of the representatives to vote for that measure (HB 751), along with numerous other anti-gay legislations. He has also supported the Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy that is responsible for thousands of discharges from the military of gay personnel. Representative Schrock has decided not to seek re-election. Some believe that it is because of allegations made on a web log posted August 19, that Schrock is gay.

Gordy said he was upset that a Web site forced his boss to leave public office. He questioned whether the accusations from BlogActive.com - run by Michael Rogers, a Washington-based gay activist - would help the gay-rights movement.

"I don't get their point, and how it actually helps them in the long run," said Gordy. "I think it's a bad way to try to influence decision makers. It will only in the long term hurt their own agenda."

Gordy said politicians are going to be afraid to associate with gay people for fear that they will be accused of being gay.

"When you accuse people of being homosexual because of people you hang out with, people you talk to on the phone, out on the street," said Gordy, "even if, let's say, a straight person goes to a gay bar to hang out with a gay friend and they're a member of Congress - basically what they've done is they are putting a wedge between straight people and gay people." (source)

No, the point isn't that we make it uncomfortable for politicians to "hang out" with gay people. The point is that if in fact Rep. Schrock is gay, he has been practicing blatant hypocrisy, and he should have been exposed. It's interesting to me that he has decided not to fight the allegations. It's almost as though the allegations might be true. If they are true, the rulings that the representative have made in the past are truly unfortunate. Or, as one writer put it:

But Schrock’s case does have disheartening aspects: If he is gay or bisexual, it means that he’s been practicing a hypocrisy that’s off the normal political charts, arguing relentlessly against gay rights, opposing “don’t ask, don’t tell,” disparaging gays in the military, cozying up with the moralists of the party’s hard-right.

Whether we’ll ever know for certain might depend on whether Schrock decides to answer the allegations more openly. It’s pretty much his prerogative now that he’s walked away from the fray. He doesn’t have to say another word if he so chooses.

But we do have a right to wonder if we’d been misled by what Schrock has said through the years as opposed to what he did, or whether he has allowed the electoral process to be suborned by an activist with a chip on his shoulder by deciding not to fight back. (source)