Just because they're Gay, doesn't mean they have to be in favour of Gay marriage.

I've seen this discussed on three message boards today. The Republicans tend to claim there's an inconsistency in ignoring it when a Democrat does it, but making an issue out of it when a Republican does it.

Aside from the fact that Weiner was compelled to resign while Vitter, who broke the law, was not, there's the obvious delectable hypocrisy in setting oneself up as the "pro-family values guy" (which is PC for "homophobe") and cruising Craigslist for twinks.

"Just because they're Gay, doesn't mean they have to be in favour of Gay marriage."
That's uh... Just slightly illogical in this context... I hope you're using your cheek as a tongue receptacle on this.

It's not illogical - they are for keeping equal rights for everyone, against special priviledges for any group, as a responcible politician is supposed to be.

There it is again: Amy can't believe this could be about about anything more than snarky jokes about hillbillies... It's just an irresistible opportunity to pretend to be a sexual sophisticate in front of rubes.

To quote Freddy Mercury:

And another one's gone,
Another's gone down,
Another one bites the dust.

Me, please. Valiant was pointing to this particular context. We have a Representative who is so firmly in the closet that decided to camouflage himself in a marriage and the puritanical stance of saying no to gay marriage.

The idea that he could be adopting the "gay against gay marriage" stance is laughable.

Patrick, Vitter came clean to his wife BEFORE it came out in the press. That's the difference and it is a HUGE difference.

By the way, my take is that this is more crass than a closeted gay camouflaging himself; this is simply a politician pandering to his electorate and saying whatever they want to hear to get elected.

It hardly seems a mark of sophistication of any kind to take notice of those standing up against gay marriage while bending some rent boy over a chair. : Amy Alkon Author Profile Page at August 13, 2011 11:18 AM

Give him a little credit -- it sounds like he planned to do the rent boy in a bed. The rest of us just get bent over and have to grab our ankles.

The word is that Rick Perry, the Texas governor and Presidential candidate is a closet homo. The ties he wears assure me he is a queen to the max. Kinda looks like Rock Hudson.

Is Perry a gay John Edwards? I predict an Edwardian end to, but not for, Perry.

When they say Perry is mounting a campaign, they mean it.

"We have a Representative who is so firmly in the closet that decided to camouflage himself in a marriage and the puritanical stance of saying no to gay marriage."
Exactly. Thank you.
"It's not illogical - they are for keeping equal rights for everyone, against special priviledges for any group, as a responcible politician is supposed to be."
How exactly is preventing an extension of rights to a group that has been denied those rights "keeping equal rights for everyone"? How is legislating against gay marriage "against special priviledges for any group", as marriage is already a "privilege" afforded to heterosexuals and therefore would not be a "special privilege" to homosexuals only? ...and, how is soliciting a teenage boy for sex, attempting to restrain him from leaving the rendevous, and bribing him to keep the whole thing secret the behavior of a "responsible politician"?
"By the way, my take is that this is more crass than a closeted gay camouflaging himself; this is simply a politician pandering to his electorate and saying whatever they want to hear to get elected."
Agreed, Joe. Closeteds have their reasons for remaining such. Not all of them cheat on their spouses and push for detriment to the gay community out of self-loathing or simple desire for self-gain.
"Give him a little credit -- it sounds like he planned to do the rent boy in a bed. The rest of us just get bent over and have to grab our ankles."
Hee hee hee... Pretty good, Jim P.

It's not illogical - they are for keeping equal rights for everyone, against special priviledges for any group, as a responcible politician is supposed to be.

I've heard this argument before about "special privileges," usually followed by the statement that gays and lesbians can already get married; they just can't do it to people of the same gender...

...which means legalizing same-sex marriage actually wouldn't be special privilege, as heterosexuals would then be free to marry people of the same gender themselves.

How other people arrange their lives and marital affairs is of no consequence or interest to me, as long as both parties are consenting and of age. It does seem to have been of some significant interest to Rep. Hinkle -- which is why the spectacle of a publicly pious old man trying to boff a barely legal teenage prostitute is so ludicrous and, yes, hypocritical.

Alfonso Rachel must be a traitor to his race because he doesn't support "The Black Agenda".

Michella Malkin must be a traitor to her gender because she doesn't support "The Feminist Agenda".

Therefore, gay Republicans must be a traitor to their orientation because they don't support "The Gay Agenda".

How dare anyone think for themselves, right?

Gay or straight, who supports the Adulterers Who Cheat With Whores Agenda?

*applause*

Look nobody would care if this was a fag against gay marriage. It's just you know-he was MARRIED, pretending to be straight (I've never seen Alfonso pretending to be white, or Malkin pretending to be a man) and he was fucking around with young boys. I would be just as annoyed if it was a republican saying to save yourself until marriage and was caught fucking young girls for cash.

Gog-

I support men or women who choose to visit a sex worker. It seems like a perfectly valid choice to me, and sometimes better than divorce.

But even more than that, I think it is none of my business as a voter. We are snooping too deep into private lives.

Perhaps the closet homos who bash gays is a story of public interest. I have mixed feelings, and prefer to judge candidates on their public record, Still, a guy who rent boys and bashes gay rights is probably unstable, and that may be in the public interest.

Why Americans are so uptight about sex and nudity is beyond me.

"a guy who rent boys and bashes gay rights is probably unstable, and that may be in the public interest."

My thoughts exactly. Along with "hypocrite" and "potential blackmail target in an important public office."

Patrick, Vitter came clean to his wife BEFORE it came out in the press. That's the difference and it is a HUGE difference.- Joe

Honey? Before you read the paper we need to talk

That about cover it Joe?

1. Bisexuals outnumber gays by a factor of 5 or 10, so why always this false dichotomy of either straight or gay? Really, can we please move from the late 19th century to at least the 1990s? I'm the only one to bring up bisexuality in all these posts. BTW, it's a spectrum, or a very flat bell curve. I've known gays that liked hetero once in a long while or so, and some straights the other.

2. Gay marriage is a category jump (just think, people, no emotions, and no shifting definitions, or polygamy arguments) so I agree with that homophobe Elton John, let the straights have "marriage" let the gays have civil unions, or whatever other term they wish, so long as both are equal under the law, as well no private organization can ignore their union (I've been advocating this since around 1972 so good luck with the epithets, I started with the argument binding legal contracts where hospitals couldn't ignore that significant other, a semi-libertarian approach for the times).

No lujlp, he actually had told his wife before the story became at all public. Even then, remember that Weiner kept lying for days. Had he fessed up immediately, he probably could have weathered the whole thing.

As almost always, the coverup was more damaging than the crime.

The big difference between Weiner and Vitter? Weiner didn't break the law.

I'd hazzard a guess that some prosecutor could find a law that Weiner broke. Which is why I am a fiscal conservative.

I will guarantee that the majority of Republican elected officials could not care less about gay marriage or abortion and are certainly not vehemently opposed to either. Yet these continue to be enormous issues because they're hot-button topics that an uneducated constituency can easily understand. I would love to have these two issues off the table for elected officials everywhere-then people could vote in a way that more accurately reflects their economic, financial, foreign policy beliefs. It's just so ridiculous that we expect people's personal views on gay marriage to have anything to do with their views on, say, the debt ceiling.

Promote gay marriage, fine, but it is not hypocrisy to be gay and not support it. Debate the ideas, not the person.

Actually, lujlp, Vitter came clean about it to his wife some three years before the papers caught up. So much for that "investigative journalism."

Speaking of which, why do gays remain in the closet these days? People like Mark Foley must have been miserable keeping it under wraps. Maybe Larry Craig is miserable. If some bashers go after you for being gay, shoot them. There's even a pro-gun gay group called Pink Pistols.

Who says they're uneducated. You can find plenty of knowledgeable, educated people who are AGAINST gay marriage.

But if you all want to think of gay marriage opponents as all having three teeth and with shotguns across their laps in double-wides, with their fat, underage cousin/wives dishing up the home-cooking, go right ahead. Certainly, they all drink moonshine, too, right?

Actually, lujlp, Vitter came clean about it to his wife some three years before the papers caught up.

So what you are saying is that for three years his wife stayed in a sham marrige and helped decive the public as to the nature of his personality in order to get him re elected?

Your argument doesnt suggest Vitter is a stand up guy, it suggests his wife is just as unethical as he is

"Why Americans are so uptight about sex and nudity is beyond me."

Uh, now it's probably because of you!

J/k aside, it's easy: it's an artifact of the very same thing that set up the USA to succeed - the influence of English Protestants. Do your duty to others and to the nation, keep your word, especially to your wife, and eschew activities that don't have anything to do with nation or family. IN other words, don't screw around.

Then we all got comfortable, and now it's supposedly just dandy to have sex with whoever you can get to agree with you in some way, and all manner of things that do nothing for society but provide instant gratification are approved - just not by everyone.