Hey, what about me?
Posted on 07/07/2004 11:39:03 AM PDT by carlo3b
IT’S OUTING SEASON! (Has Sen. Barbara Mikulski, just been outed?)Ready for the federal marriage amendment?
By Michelangelo Signorile
As the July 12 date nears for a vote on the federal marriage amendment, an outing panic has gripped Washington's political and media circles. Some gay activists have vowed to expose those closeted members of Congress who are supporting the amendment, as well as the closeted gay staffers of any member backing it. And it's not only right-wing Republicans who should be on notice. After initially indicating that she would vote against the constitutional amendment that would make gays and lesbians into second-class citizens, Sen. Barbara Mikulski's opposition to the amendment appears to have gone into the closet: Now that a vote is near, the Maryland Democrat—who is up for reelection in November—is suddenly not returning reporters' phone calls seeking her intentions on the vote, nor is she issuing any statements on the matter.
Mikulski's position on same-sex marriage isn't the only thing in her closet: The sexual orientation of the forever-unmarried 67-year-old has been an open secret for many years. But Mikulski has apparently always worried about what her working-class Democratic base in Maryland might think of her sexual orientation, making her irrationally petrified of ever discussing it (except to make heterosexual allusions).
These fears have made Mikulski less than a champion of gay rights, perhaps lest anyone think she might be gay herself. Back in the 80s, when Mikulski was first running for the Senate, the Republicans brought in as her opponent none other than the nasty anti-feminist Linda Chavez—the columnist and pundit who years later would drop out as George W. Bush's Labor Secretary nominee amid a scandal over her having paid her housekeeper off the books. During the Senate campaign, Chavez engaged in her own bit of gay-baiting, accusing Mikulski of being a "San Francisco-style Democrat" who should come "out of the closet." She also attacked Mikulski for hiring an Australian feminist academic, Teresa Mary Brennan, as a congressional aide in 1981, and went after Mikulski for supporting the Equal Rights Amendment, charging that the ERA would "open up the whole question of homosexual marriage."
It had been widely reported that Brennan, at the time of her employment, was living with Mikulski at her Fells Point home for two months. Chavez's campaign manager told reporters that in the final two weeks of the campaign, tv commercials would focus on Mikulski's relationship with Brennan. Mikulski's response was to go gaga over a hunky guy at a campaign event.
"Are you single?" the short, squat Mikulski asked a body shop owner in the crowd. "Give me a call after the election. I won't be so busy then."
(As far as I'm concerned, Mikulski opened up her private life that day, implying that she certainly had a sexual orientation, though trying to make us believe it was of the heterosexual variety.)
Mikulski won the election by a wide margin, but she learned that she'd always be gay-baited, so it was perhaps best to vote against gays. This strategy seemed to culminate in 1996 when Mikulski voted in favor of the wretched Defense of Marriage Act, incurring the wrath of gay activists. At a Barnes & Noble in Chelsea that year—promoting a mystery novel she'd co-written, called Capitol Offense—Mikulski was confronted by several gay activists and journalists, including me.
(Excerpt) Read more at nypress.com ...
You are absolutely right. My humble apologies.
Is this the same guy that outed Donna Shalala too?
I think anybody even slightly politically aware in this state has known Babs was a flaming lesbian for years.
But that's not my main concern with her - it's one thing to be a lesbian; it's another thing to be a brain-dead lesbian. When she last visited our county (on the conservative Eastern Shore, so naturally she doesn't bother very often) she came in to a meeting with the county commissioners and her aides all sat in the front row.
She answered a few questions from the Commissioners. By leaning forward I could see her staffers were using hand signals to tell her how to respond. Even then it was easy to tell she was utterly clueless. It wouldn't surprise me if she had early-stage Alzheimer's.
Did anyone stop to consider that this woman man not be a lesbian? How cruel to assume that just because she has never been married, she must be a lesbian.
>>>>>>I believe this desicable action qualifies as extortion and blackmail under most criminal laws. Where is John Ashcroft when we need him.<<<<<<<<<
I agree. This is wrong.
Hey, what about me?
What did we do to deserve these hideous pictures........good grief......please spare us......
So what is the bad news!?
With a face like that there is a perfectly good reason she should stay in the closet. Don't want to scare the children.
Mine is simply a moron.
That must be a mighty big closet!
I feel certain that there are Republican lesbians, yet they do not seem to place themselves into an activist mode. I mean, look at the former president's wife?
Live your life, but don't force your views on the public if they are contrary to over 95% of the citizens in this country.
OH NO, you don't think they are going to out the closet Morons as well do you??? Sheeesh
anyone notice the stupidity of this line ?
"After initially indicating that she would vote against the constitutional amendment that would make gays and lesbians into second-class citizens..."
Since when did a Constitutional ammendment make anyone a second class citizen?
I think the laws against bestiality apply in this case....
Those broads don't bar .... they grill.
by that logic.
The FMA is discriminates against polygamists who loooooove each other. It is outlawing loooooove.
The FMA does not "ban", it defines.
additionally by that logic, the constitution also prohibits indentured servitude contracts.
It also discriminates against voters because it will only allow a president to serve two terms.
It also discriminates because 12 year olds are not allowed to vote. (but they have the maturity to secretly have an abortion without parental consent/notification)
These senators should all just adopt the talking point of:"this is important and we need to have out state legislatures decide."
IOW pass the buck.
I don't agree with them doing this. To me, it's nobody's business as long as they are doing their job.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.