Posted on 09/05/2007 11:49:47 AM PDT by Jose Pen
Can you not be sinful and still support family values with how you vote?
Homosexuality is a sin and as such, shouldn’t be put on a pedestal as a positive trait which is why these closeted guys are closeted. Shame is why they are closeted if these 30 are indeed gay.
And the number of dimocrats?
Pages?
Win at all costs no matter who you lie about. That plan might work. But then there is a coming judgment day. It won’t work forever.
Arguably, Mike Rogers extorted Larry Craig by threatening to "out" him if he did not vote against the confirmation of Samuel Alito to the Supreme Court. For this, he deserves the condemnation of all morally responsible citizens of this country and, at least, an investigation by the federal government to look for possible criminal wrongdoing.
--RedState
Extortion?
And yet, Rogers cannot point to a single piece of legislation Craig supported that would have made what Craig is accused of doing illegal.
So in other words, Craig was not pushing for legislation that he hypocritically violated.
This would be like calling a smoking lawmaker a hypocrite for pushing for public smoking bans.
Which is something many lawmakers, democrat and republican, do. Also drinkers who push for restrictions on drinking. Or christian and yet mistakenly supporting keeping religion out of schools.
You can be gay, and still not believe that the state should allow same-sex marriage, or grant special protection to gay people in hiring and firing decisions. You could be gay and not think that others should be forced to rent rooms to gay couples.
This is NOT hypocrisy. If a gay lawmaker is saying that homosexuality is a sin and should be banned, then YES, that is hypocrisy, and they should be outed. But if all they are doing is imposing reasonable restrictions on what the government does, their sexual preferences shouldn’t matter.
On the other hand, NO lawmaker should hide from the public something that, if revealed, would be considered harmful to them. That just opens them up to bribery.
Like Rogers, who has promised to keep this stuff secret IF the lawmakers vote the RIGHT way on gay matters.
It seems that such threats should be prosecuted as blackmail, and I don’t know what someone doesn’t take that tact.
If you specifically state that you are going to release harmful information about a politician unless they vote a certain way, that is blackmail.
And when we're done with Graham Cracker, we can set our sights on Arlen Sphincter.
according to this faggot it is OK to be an elected official in the closet if only you are willing to NOT vote in the affirmative on special rights for fags, AGAINST the wishes of your constituents!
So another way of looking at this is as blackmail.....in which the payoff is to obstruct “democracy” or “representative” government. Come to think of it, it SHOULD be worthy of an obstruction of justice charge.......
I thought this too. Are they saying gays are unfit for office? Or that they aren't allowed to be republicans? What they are of course really doing is exposing them, hoping that the neanderthals in the GOP will get rid of them simply for being gay.
List starts with Hillary — that would be good.
Has anybody collected Larry Flynt’s $1 million for sleaze on Republicans?
Joe McCarthy had a list.
Is this cuckoo puffs writer bragging, crying, or covering HRC’s derrier?
If we’re going to be the party of values, then our elected leaders must live them. Exposure is painful and can lead to short-term political loss. But I believe that it will lead to long-term gain for the country. I’m not sure what it would do to the party, but I don’t believe that the party can be successful saying one thing and tolerating another.
That would be bad for Mike...
Rogers is a slime.
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.