Join 3,439 readers in helping fund MetaFilter (Hide)


Schrenking? why no, i've never tried it.
August 30, 2004 4:59 PM   Subscribe

The Power of a Blog: take one conservative Republican Representative from Virginia (a co-sponsor of the Federal Anti-Gay Marriage Amendment and representing a district that includes Pat Robertson's homebase), mix with gay sex phone lines, and you have it: his resignation, over "allegations."
posted by amberglow (83 comments total)

 
you can even listen to his message on the phone line here (mp3, nsfw maybe)
posted by amberglow at 5:02 PM on August 30, 2004


Another angry homo-phobe Republican getting outed? How many is that this year?

I can think of three off hand. Anyone else?

You'd think they'd get behind a same-sex marriage bill right quick.

And I seem to remember something about Reps and bent over pages?
posted by fenriq at 5:06 PM on August 30, 2004


This is indeed sad and shocking.
posted by loquax at 5:10 PM on August 30, 2004


loquax, could you elaborate on why exactly you consider it to be sad and shocking? I'm curious as to the source of your dismay.
posted by zoogleplex at 5:15 PM on August 30, 2004


sad: that he was a cosponsor of a proposed Amendment to the US Constitution that would have denied rights to himself unless he stayed buried in his closet? that he was living a lie? that he was such a gigantic hypocrite?
shocking: that he wasn't found out earlier?

how's that, loquax?

(and this guy makes for an interesting comparison to McGreevey, i think.)
posted by amberglow at 5:22 PM on August 30, 2004


More proof that this week's convention is really just one big self-help group for repressed homosexuals.

(And Dog-farkers in the case of Santorum)
posted by EmoChild at 5:26 PM on August 30, 2004


Wow, I feel dirty. Time for some wholesome goodness. Let's reflect on the words of Sheri Dew (a nom de pr0n, surely?) as she delivers a rousing, Republican shout out to family values. Sheri also gave the opening invocation at the GOP convention.

Hey Sheri... Godwin!
posted by stonerose at 5:44 PM on August 30, 2004


Can you imagine how conflicted you'd feel if you were a gay Republican? Not only does your (probable) religion believe that you are a sinner, but your party wants to deny you basic civil rights. Assuming you believe in everything else that members of your religion/party are supposed to, you'd have a major identity crisis and cognitive dissonance on your hands.

People like him should be pitied, not mocked and denounced as hypocrites.
posted by reklaw at 5:46 PM on August 30, 2004


reklaw, as someone who didn't really come out of the closet until I was in my 20's, I sympathize with the plight of closeted gay folks living in conservative environments. Lots of them die young, whether through suicide, or unsafe activities which feed on guilt, shame, and ignorance.

And do you know why?

Because of hideously twisted, morally bankrupt, selfish individuals like Edward L. Schrock. Pity him? Fuck that. I want to make him pray to his 'god' in front of the fence where Matthew Shepard was murdered.
posted by stonerose at 5:53 PM on August 30, 2004


People like him should be pitied, not mocked and denounced as hypocrites.

Gay Republican voters should be pitied.

Nobody should be mocked.

Closeted self-hating Republican Congressmen with a 100% rating from the Christian Coalition and a 0% rating from the Human Rights Campaign should be denounced as hypocrites.
posted by Armitage Shanks at 5:55 PM on August 30, 2004


Well, gosh, Reklaw, hypocrite is as hypocrite does, and this old hypocrite was trying to blow a guy he willing sell out for a few cheap votes.

I would pray that the Kristian Koalition show him more compassion that than they do other homosexuals, but I welcome the opportunity for them to show their true colors.
posted by gesamtkunstwerk at 5:55 PM on August 30, 2004


Gay Republican voters should be converted to Democrats.
posted by dash_slot- at 6:07 PM on August 30, 2004


"If these allegations are true and are the reason why Schrock resigned, isn't it hypocritical for the same people who hailed McGreevey as a hero to attack Schrock and accuse him of hypocrisy?"

I think this is the spin you'll be hearing from the right on this issue. It's an amazing contrast to the McGreevey case, however.
posted by jca at 6:12 PM on August 30, 2004


Of course he's gay, he was in the Navy.
posted by mr_crash_davis at 6:18 PM on August 30, 2004


From the The Virginian-Pilot story:

The site did not offer any proof of its allegation that Schrock was gay.

And:

Still, no one offered proof of the allegations.

But no comment on this MP3 that BlogACTIVE offers? Pro or con, I think a good reporter would at least have mentioned it, even with a tag of "it might be faked...."

McGreevey, by the way, did everything just right, from a PR/damage control standpoint.
posted by mmahaffie at 6:19 PM on August 30, 2004


And not sure how it is playing outside of NJ, but here it's clear that McGreevey didn't IN ANY WAY resign becaue he was gay. He resigned because he put an unqualified poet without the ability to get the proper security clearance in a highly paid, highly important, highly sensitive position.

The fact that that man was his lover is beside the point. This is absolutely different from sleazebag mchypocrite here.
posted by John Kenneth Fisher at 6:29 PM on August 30, 2004


that Sheri Dew too--never married, yet talking about family all the time? and comparing supporters of gay marriage to Hitler supporters? Something smells there too.

And don't forget that Ed Koch, another self-hating closeted gay man, spoke today at the RNC.
posted by amberglow at 6:37 PM on August 30, 2004


and there's more to come: Before we move on to the next member of Congress and highly placed officials in the Bush Administration... (i've heard Dreier's next.)
posted by amberglow at 8:28 PM on August 30, 2004


yo, 'glow, what else do you know? ;->
posted by stonerose at 8:31 PM on August 30, 2004


I wouldn't touch any of them with a _________
; >
posted by amberglow at 8:34 PM on August 30, 2004


Wow. That's pretty intense. When I read the FPP, before clicking, I assumed it was gonna be this blog.

Oh hey, look, Cipel decided not to sue McGreevey for sexual harassment after all. Huh.
posted by soyjoy at 8:40 PM on August 30, 2004


"You're in the showers with them, you're in the bunk room with them, you're in staterooms with them," Schrock told the Virginian-Pilot. "You just hope no harm would come by folks who are of that persuasion. It's a discipline thing." (the WaPo story)

And he was in the Navy how many years? unbelievable.
posted by amberglow at 9:04 PM on August 30, 2004


Wow, this is nuts. So how on earth did they find this and link him to this?
posted by mathowie at 9:06 PM on August 30, 2004


I hear most of these guys are really open secrets--people in DC know and don't talk about it, like with McGreevey, and like it was in the past, with Hoover, Roy Cohn, Liberace, etc... (or he's really hated in his district, and someone put 2 and 2 together.)

And that's why more are coming. The Amendment thing was the key that's opening the closet door, whether they like it or not.
posted by amberglow at 9:13 PM on August 30, 2004


I'm Schrocked - Schrocked!
posted by soyjoy at 9:28 PM on August 30, 2004


Sounds like he's the victim of the oldest gotcha in the book: payback
posted by jca at 9:56 PM on August 30, 2004


this is great stuff: Virginia News Source was given numerous tape recordings about 3 years ago by a woman from one of the area's most prominent, wealthiest families of a voice purported to be Schrock's soliciting gay sex over a gay telephone hookup service called Mega Phone.  
Attempts to get assistance through a private detective and the Larry Flynnt Enterprises were unsuccessful.  Flynnt, at the time was involved in trying to nail members of Congress who were cheating on their wives with other women.   Flynnt was offering  a reward for information during the period when House Speaker Newt Gingrich was forced to resign. Disclosures of an affair by Speaker-elect Rep. Bob Livingstone forced him to resign.   Rep. Dennis Hastert was then elected to head the house. 
Flynnt's people said they were too busy to deal with a gay investigation at that time, but might consider it later.
Sources in the gay community originally became upset with Schrock after he reportedly met with them in Ghent and promised, that if elected (during his first campaign), he would support the gay agenda, VNS was told.  About 2 weeks after that purported meeting, Schrock, in an interview with the Virginian-Pilot editorial board, said he supported the anti-gay Defense Department policy of 'don't ask, don't tell.'
It was after that incident that the tapes and information started being passed to VNS, The Virginian-Pilot and other media sources in Tidewater.
Similar tapes were recently given to BlogActive.com by the same woman, according to Michael Rogers, who operates the website.  BlogActive.com will post the audio tapes on its website shortly.  "People can listen to the tapes and make up their own minds," said Rogers.
Various media outlets had access to the tape recordings over the years and investigations to prove or disprove them were on and off.  Rogers said he had turned up people who knew Schrock.  He said if Schrock claimed the charges were untrue, he could sue Rogers and BlogActive.com.  In fact, he said he'd welcome a suit because he could then subpoena telephone and travel records during the discovery process.

posted by amberglow at 10:00 PM on August 30, 2004


What is it about those Schrocks and naked boys?

(via Atrios comments)
posted by soyjoy at 10:33 PM on August 30, 2004


I have a problem with the implication that a gay man cannot be against the Federal Anti-Gay Marriage Amendment. It may be an offensive and nonsensical piece of legislation, but also offensive and nonsensical is the idea that what someone is must dictate what someone thinks, and if it doesn't, that they are in some way a hypocrite.
posted by nthdegx at 2:13 AM on August 31, 2004


Lemme get this straight (hah!). An accusation of being gay is enough to force a right wing politician to cancel his campaign for re-election? I have a job for some of our NY mefites this week...
posted by grateful at 5:03 AM on August 31, 2004


Amberglow:

You know, you're in the 10001, any chance of you "taking one for the team" in Bush's limo?

Pictures, naturally.
posted by Ynoxas at 6:55 AM on August 31, 2004


offensive and nonsensical is the idea that what someone is must dictate what someone thinks, and if it doesn't, that they are in some way a hypocrite.

Hypocrite: A person who professes beliefs and opinions that he does not hold

Uh, backing the Republican anti-gay agenda (which holds that homosexuality is evil, immoral, filthy and unnatural) and then calling some other guy up and soliciting oral sex makes a person a hypocrite. It's not what he *is* that's at issue, it's what he *does.* To actively denounce homosexuality by day, and then practice homosexuality by night, is the very definition of hypocricy.
posted by junkbox at 8:48 AM on August 31, 2004


Ynoxas, if it would get rid of that whole crowd i would, but they'd probably kill me afterward so i couldn't talk (and why sleep with an out person when there are plenty of closet cases in the GOP?)

nth: it's not dictating anything, it's stopping someone from actively harming the community he himself belongs to.
posted by amberglow at 9:03 AM on August 31, 2004


Well, I haven't heard what he has to say about homosexuality or homosexuals - if he does indeed denounce homosexuality on the one hand and then take part in homosexual acts on the other, then perhaps he does have a few issues of his own to sort out; but people are talking about his backing an amendment which I'm afraid is quite a different matter, and doesn't even come close to hypocrisy.

Amberglow - he's essentially been made to resign from office over his personal life; and the only thing that makes it OK with us is that none of us like his politics. This thread is pretty uncool, in my opinion.
posted by nthdegx at 9:24 AM on August 31, 2004


This thread is pretty damn amazing, in my opinion.

Bring it on. Seriously. After living in D.C. for a number of years and seeing all of these closeted and pathetic men, I'm extremely delighted that someone is damaging their lives as much as they are trying to damage mine.

Vengeful god? Please.

There is nothing as fearful as a vengeful queen.
posted by hummus at 9:40 AM on August 31, 2004


nthdegx: I think you're missing the point.

Ordinarily, I would agree with your condemnation of someone's personal life interfering with their professional life.

What I think you're missing is that this is a person who "professionally" backs oppressing homosexuals, denouncing their presence in the military, and craves the opportunity to deny them equal rights (i.e. marriage).

Then, on his "personal" time, he solicits gay sex.

What perhaps needs to be said very plainly is this:

He is not a hypocrite for being gay. He is a hypocrite for being secretly gay and actively working to condemn and marginalize homosexuals. That makes him, quite clearly, a hypocrite.

For instance, a physician who performs abortions is not necessarily a hypocrite. A physician who pickets an abortion clinic and works towards outlawing abortion, but then performs secret back-ally abortions would be a hypocrite.

It's quite easy to identify when you look closely at their behavior.
posted by Ynoxas at 9:53 AM on August 31, 2004


Amberglow: I was actually talking about Bush himself. Surely a few pictures of him engaged in gay sex would shock and dismay his virtual flock?

Just like the pictures of Ahbu Gahrib shocked and dismayed conservatives everywhere...

Oh, wait.
posted by Ynoxas at 9:58 AM on August 31, 2004


I don't know what I find disturbing most: that I can never vote for a particular political party member because I find their social/moral positions repugnant (never mind irrelevant); that a political convention need somehow be "blessed" by invocations to a mythic diety at its commencement; or that, yet again, we find ourselves embroiled by one person's choice as a free human somehow conflicting, with no resolution, with their vocation of choice. (See the first item.)
posted by Dick Paris at 10:03 AM on August 31, 2004


Oh, and: Go Ynoxas!
posted by Dick Paris at 10:05 AM on August 31, 2004


nthdegx: If you read some of the links and learn more about the story, you'll see that Schrock wasn't some "moderate Republican" who just supported the anti-gay Federal Marriage Protection Amendment.

One site alleges that he met with a local VA gay group to gain support to get elected, pledging support for their gay agenda. After the election, he went the other way, going to the trouble of being an outspoken critic of gay issues. (Hence his anti-gay remarks about the military's "don't ask don't tell" policy, and so on.) The "self-hating gay" label seems to stick in this case.
posted by jca at 10:13 AM on August 31, 2004


Not all delegates were disappointed. “I’m a conservative Christian, and the gay lifestyle is the wrong lifestyle,” said Fred Gerald, a delegate from southern Virginia. “It does not set a very good example for our young people, and it lowers the values in America having gay people in government.” from The Hill, on the Schrock thing

idiot.
posted by amberglow at 10:13 AM on August 31, 2004


"What I think you're missing is that this is a person who "professionally" backs oppressing homosexuals, denouncing their presence in the military, and craves the opportunity to deny them equal rights (i.e. marriage)."

What I think you and others are missing is that I don't see this as hypocrisy (apart from the backing of oppressing homosexuals - however I don't believe for a moment he came out and said "I back the oppression of homosexuals"). What bothers me is that everyone seems to find it impossible for him to a) be homosexual and b) have those opinions on the above policies. Those polices are as abhorrent to me as they are to you guys, and I admit that it seems unlikely in the extreme, even to the point of irony, that a gay man would harbour such opinions, it is by no means impossible and by no means does it make him a hypocrite.

This thread is liberalism at it's ugliest. We can't win the argument through persuasion, through reason, or through decency; so we rejoice in humiliation. We gloat. A link to the phone message? Pleeeeeeaaase.

This guy was elected, don't forget. The guy is free to have whatever views he has on any sexuality, including his own, and may vote accordingly. If you want to be disgusted with someone, take issue with the people that voted him in.

Also - not to sure about the pigeon-holing of sexuality that's going on here, either...
posted by nthdegx at 10:36 AM on August 31, 2004


It's not what he *is* that's at issue, it's what he *does.*

This sounds dangerously close to the religious right's argument that being a homosexual isn't sinful; engaging in homosexual activity is sinful.
posted by DevilsAdvocate at 10:49 AM on August 31, 2004


This thread is liberalism at it's ugliest. We can't win the argument through persuasion, through reason, or through decency; so we rejoice in humiliation. We gloat. A link to the phone message? Pleeeeeeaaase.
This guy was elected, don't forget. The guy is free to have whatever views he has on any sexuality, including his own, and may vote accordingly. If you want to be disgusted with someone, take issue with the people that voted him in.


nth, he's actively trying to hurt me and other gay and lesbian Americans--of course i'll speak out, and i applaud others for doing the same. How dare he cosponsor an Amendment to the Constitution denying me rights? How dare he benefit politically by speaking out and legislating against me, when he's doing the same thing in secret? Don't tell me that we're humiliating him.

Too bad you don't care about the lasting damage he's doing to us.
posted by amberglow at 11:22 AM on August 31, 2004


by no means does it make him a hypocrite.

Well, if engaging privately in activities which he publicly denounces doesn't make him a hypocrite, what would?

everyone seems to find it impossible for him to a) be homosexual and b) have those opinions on the above policies.

No one thinks it's impossible; everyone just thinks it's ridiculous and pathetic. And no one's forced Schrock to resign his seat, either. He can run "on his record" if he chooses. He's chosen not to.
posted by octobersurprise at 11:24 AM on August 31, 2004


nthdegx, it's not at all impossible that he is both gay and hates gays. It's called self-hate, born from generations of people instilling in our culture the idea that gay is shameful and dirty. I don't know a single gay person who at some point in his/her life hasn't had to deal with the shame society has put on him/her for being gay ond overcoming the self-hate. This guy obviously never got over it. And it absoultely makes him a hypocrite, to denounce what he himself practices in secret. What exactly are you using as the definition of hypocrite here?

I agree with hummus. I have no pity or empathy for people in this situation. You helped create the world that is now turning against you? You poor, poor thing. Whether they meant to or not, Bush and his cronies kicked this cultural war into high gear. So go ahead America and pass your amendment. Then you'll see the real war start. I, for one, am finding it more and more difficult to find the strength to be tolerant in a nation of bigots.
posted by archimago at 11:28 AM on August 31, 2004


and by no means does it make him a hypocrite.
posted by nthdegx at 12:36 PM CST on August 31


I don't think that word means what you think it means.

/princessbride
posted by Ynoxas at 12:15 PM on August 31, 2004


In a way, he's bearing his own cross. He was elected with a presumed mandate from voters who want him to denounce homosexuality - I assume that was part of his platform, no matter how repugnant.

Regardless of his own personal beliefs and practices, he was delivering on the promises he made in his election campaign.

OK, so it's a stretch, but could that be the silver lining?
posted by grateful at 2:04 PM on August 31, 2004


Ynoxas, I know exactly what it means, thanks. It only appears hypocritical to people desperate to pigeon-hole this guy.

Pluralism. Nuance. Know what those words mean?
posted by nthdegx at 2:27 PM on August 31, 2004


What pluralism and nuance would that be, nth? The pluralism he showed when he spoke out against gay people showering with straights in the Army? The nuance he showed in co-sponsoring the FMA? Get real.
posted by amberglow at 2:42 PM on August 31, 2004


Certainly not anyone in this thread, amberglow.

He's entitled to his views, regardless of his own preferences. People are entitled not to vote for him. You're blaming the wrong idiots. I'd rather he lost an election to someone that out debated him on these issues and turned his constituents around, rather than him being forced to resign over a private matter of sexual preference.

This isn't a victory for anyone who claims to represent any sort of free society.
posted by nthdegx at 3:21 PM on August 31, 2004


He made my sexual orientation (it's not a preference) a political, legal, and Constitutional matter, as well as a campaign issue. His is too. I don't know why you don't get that. He made homosexuality an issue. He cosponsored a proposed Amendment restricting some Americans from having the same rights and benefits solely because of their sexual orientation.

As long as legal and constitutional means are proposed to restrict others based on their sexuality, it's not a free society.
posted by amberglow at 3:29 PM on August 31, 2004


He's entitled to his views, regardless of his own preferences. People are entitled not to vote for him. You're blaming the wrong idiots. I'd rather he lost an election to someone that out debated him on these issues and turned his constituents around, rather than him being forced to resign over a private matter of sexual preference.

All of that is true, but it's also irrelevant. He resigned of his own volition. He wasn't forced to resign. He could have continued his campaign. He had many options - he could've denied he was gay, or admitted he was gay but kept his anti-gay positions, or admitted he was gay and changed his positions. In the latter two cases, he probably wouldn't have been reelected, but that's irrelevant too.

This isn't a victory for anyone who claims to represent any sort of free society.

I don't represent anything but my own interests. It's definitely good news to me, though. It's good news to people who are tired of being treated as second-class citizens because they're not willing to live in the closet. "Freedom" doesn't mean freedom to lie.
posted by me & my monkey at 3:37 PM on August 31, 2004


This isn't a victory for anyone who claims to represent any sort of free society.

Gay americans aren't living in a free society - where have you been all this time?

I definitely do not get what you are saying. He's not a hypocrite? Gays made him resign? Gays made him oppress them? Wtf?

How about ...
"Congressman votes against the Miscegenation Act, and later is exposed for having a secret wife and child from Hong Kong " - this the electorate should not know? Then, when the pol resigns, the chinese voters are to blame? This is not hypocrisy?

No wonder voters are usually so easily hoodwinked. This is how the Major government managed to stumble on & on through scandal after scandal, wailing on about 'Back to Basics' family values nonsense whilst their ministers and MPs were stupping every combination of boys, girls and gimps.

I fucking despair sometimes. I really do.
posted by dash_slot- at 4:31 PM on August 31, 2004


He made my sexual orientation (it's not a preference)...

This statement annoys me already. I'm not talking about you. I'm talking about him. You don't know that in his case it's an orientation and not a preference. There's so many guesses and assumptions flying around about what this guy is and what he isn't...

...a political, legal, and Constitutional matter, as well as a campaign issue. His is too. I don't know why you don't get that. He made homosexuality an issue. He cosponsored a proposed Amendment restricting some Americans from having the same rights and benefits solely because of their sexual orientation.

This is it, really, and I'm glad we're getting to the bones of it rather than making accusations of hypocrisy with gleeful satisfaction. He made homosexuality an issue in certain ways. A ban on gay marriage is not a ban on homosexuality. That's not to condone the viewpoint, but let's tell it like it is and not go from there to an unfounded generalisation about him. I understand that the ban on marriage has knock on effect on benefits, but he is entitled to that view, and as someone elected by the people he is also entitled to legislate upon it. Once more: blame the voters.

The only counter argument anyone has is to try and convince me how much of a scumbag he is. I know that already, and that has never been my point. *Regardless* of his views, and *regardless* of his hypocrisy (which I'm still not necessarily buying), it's pretty shocking that in a so-called free society this man feels so compelled as to resign simply because a sexual act has come to light. How on the one hand can you be calling for equality and on the other be pleased that a man exposed for committing a homosexual act has felt the need to resign as a result? Like I said: it's because we don't like his politics that we're prepared to turn a blind eye to essentially a failure in a so-called free society.

I think some of you are naive, too, if you think he wasn't given some fairly strong advice from members of his party on the issue of his resignation. I'm betting he really didn't have the choice some of you seem to think he did.
posted by nthdegx at 4:31 PM on August 31, 2004


This statement annoys me already. I'm not talking about you. I'm talking about him. You don't know that in his case it's an orientation and not a preference. There's so many guesses and assumptions flying around about what this guy is and what he isn't...

I'm talking about him too, and his effect on my life and the rights he's trying to ensure i don't get. You admit he made homosexuality an issue but still blame us? Hysterical. Naive goes both ways. Why is he worth the benefit of the doubt, but not us? Why is Schrock's situation worthy of your concern, apparently more worthy than the harm he's doing to others? We know for a fact he trolls sex lines looking for guys. That's enough, especially given his record of being anti-gay. It doesn't matter if he's bi or gay or what.
posted by amberglow at 4:58 PM on August 31, 2004


*Regardless* of his views, and *regardless* of his hypocrisy (which I'm still not necessarily buying), it's pretty shocking that in a so-called free society this man feels so compelled as to resign simply because a sexual act has come to light.

Why is it shocking? He is compelled by his own actions, not by the "free society". You can't say "regardless [of his] views [and] hypocrisy," because those are the two things that are forcing him to resign. He's not resigning simply because he's gay - there have been a few outed politicians who are still in office, after all.
posted by me & my monkey at 6:15 PM on August 31, 2004


loquax, could you elaborate on why exactly you consider it to be sad and shocking? I'm curious as to the source of your dismay.

See nthdegx's comments. It's not the circumstances or the politics, it's the glee with the scandal, so reminiscent of the SS Monkey Business and soiled blue dresses. Score another one for mature political discourse in America.
posted by loquax at 6:27 PM on August 31, 2004


It's not the circumstances or the politics, it's the glee with the scandal, so reminiscent of the SS Monkey Business and soiled blue dresses. Score another one for mature political discourse in America.

I don't give a rat's ass about the scandal itself - it's only a scandal to the degree that Mr Schrenk makes it one. I'm jubilant that he's hoist on his own petard, though. The Clinton analogy doesn't work, because Clinton wasn't spending every day trying to get blowjobs outlawed, or treating blowjob recipients like second-class citizens. Can you see the difference?
posted by me & my monkey at 6:39 PM on August 31, 2004


they can't, or don't want to. they think it's more important this guy is free to do whatever he wants, whether it hurts us or not, than be outed as the hypocrite he is. Even tho what he wants to do is deny us our freedoms and rights.
posted by amberglow at 6:45 PM on August 31, 2004


How on the one hand can you be calling for equality and on the other be pleased that a man exposed for committing a homosexual act has felt the need to resign as a result? Like I said: it's because we don't like his politics that we're prepared to turn a blind eye to essentially a failure in a so-called free society.

This is a man who spent a good deal of his energy ensuring that gay people are treated as inferior. He helped make this hateful environment which is now consuming him. I'm sorry, but I would be a happy man if this happened to every last one of these anti-gay nutjobs.

I think some of you are naive, too, if you think he wasn't given some fairly strong advice from members of his party on the issue of his resignation. I'm betting he really didn't have the choice some of you seem to think he did.

Perhaps he should have exercised his choice not to oppress openly gay people while he was in office? Then, I'd have sympathy for him. Otherwise, my only advice for him would be not to let his ass hit the door.
posted by me & my monkey at 6:46 PM on August 31, 2004


Sure, I can see the difference, but can you see the similarities? Was this guy more of an opportunist and hypocrite than Clinton and Hart and McGreevey and any number of philandering pols? Maybe. Does it make it OK to take pleasure in his disgrace like Newt took pleasure at Bill's?


I can understand that specifically his sponsoring of the marriage protection act makes the irony and the comeuppance that much more satisfying, but is it worth being on the same side as numbskulls like that Fred Gerald? Why not turn the other cheek and not sink to the level of a Pat Robertson or Jerry Falwell? Why not attack him for his politics and his voting record, not his preferred gender of phone sex companion, or whatever. It shouldn't make a difference if he's gay or straight or bi or black or white or a hypocrite or a model citizen - we should be discussing the decisions and politics that impact us, not the man and his fundamentally private business. The Defense of Marriage Act was a joke irrespective of this clown, why isn't that enough?
posted by loquax at 7:03 PM on August 31, 2004


It is because of his decisions and politics that we take such glee and schadenfreude in this--His decisions and politics were directly having an impact on our lives. No one here is attacking him for being gay or bi or whatever. Most of us responding to you and nth are gay, and we think it's just fabulous.
posted by amberglow at 7:31 PM on August 31, 2004


and the DMA isn't a joke to us--not until it's declared unconstitutional, and even then we won't joke about it. You're not impacted by it, but hopefully you can see it's no joke.
posted by amberglow at 7:33 PM on August 31, 2004


Was this guy more of an opportunist and hypocrite than Clinton and Hart and McGreevey and any number of philandering pols? Maybe. Yeah, duh, as has been pointed out and explained in detail already upthread.

This thread is liberalism at it's ugliest.

You got that right. Instead of forthright candor and unvarnished outrage, it's bogged down and diluted with whiny attempts to "see the other side," and bring "Pluralism" and "Nuance" to an already crystal clear instance of blatant hypocrisy. Instead of fortifying ourselves to fight the obvious enemy, we have to be distracted by knee-jerk bickering and red herrings.

nthdegx, just curious: In a situation like this, what would constitute hypocrisy? What would this guy need to do to be a hypocrite in your book? Because he certainly is in my book, which is otherwise known as the dictionary.
posted by soyjoy at 8:39 PM on August 31, 2004


nthdegx, I'm gonna have to agree that outing this particular guy is morally defensible in the name of exposing hypocrisy, especially since this guy is in a position to adversely affect other people's lives.

If this was Joe Random Closted Gay Guy, then outing him would be reprehensible, but that's not the case here. This is like catching the head of the temperance movement bellying up to the bar.
posted by jonmc at 9:04 PM on August 31, 2004


Schrock may or may not be a hypocrite.

If he believes same-sex sex is bad, but can't overcome his urges to take part in it, if he's mulled joining an "ex-gay" church group, he's not a hypocrite. Sadly deluded, but not a hypocrite.

The right -- likes to draw analogies to acts like murder: if you're compelled to murder, if you simply can't help it, it's still wrong. It's a ridiculous comparison, of course, but only because murder harms people and gay sex doesn't.

Schrock likely considers aforementioned argument correct. In his eyes, he's like a murderer struggling to do the right thing.

I like metafilter, but threads like this frustrate me -- there seems to be no understanding of the opposing (and yes, stupid) view.
posted by Tlogmer at 9:25 PM on August 31, 2004


The right -- likes --> The right likes
posted by Tlogmer at 9:26 PM on August 31, 2004


Let them understand it's a big country, and that they can't turn their moral views into laws. Let them stop saying gay marriage is the biggest threat the country faces, worse than terrorism, etc...

We actually understand them all too well, and recognize them for the threat that they are.
posted by amberglow at 9:37 PM on August 31, 2004


I think they're a threat as much as you do; that doesn't make them hypocrites.

Maybe I'm harping too much on semantics, but the whole hypocrisy subthread shows people don't understand the religious right. (Of course, they sure as hell don't understand us.) For the record, I'm not against Schrock having been outed.
posted by Tlogmer at 11:01 PM on August 31, 2004


Again, I ask anyone who says this is not hypocrisy - how do you define hypocrisy such that it excludes this? What, then, would qualify for you as hypocrisy?

It's clear to most of us how these acts (again, what someone does, not who they are) fit the definition of the word; if you say otherwise, the burden of proof is on you to explain why not.
posted by soyjoy at 7:17 AM on September 1, 2004


What soyjoy said.

hypocrite:
1. a person who pretends to have virtues, moral or religious beliefs, principles, etc., that he or she does not actually possess, esp. a person whose actions belie stated beliefs.
2. a person who feigns some desirable or publicly approved attitude, esp. one whose private life, opinions, or statements belie his or her public statements.--from WEBSTER'S NEW UNIVERSAL UNABRIDGED DICTIONARY

This guy is a walking dictionary definition.
posted by amberglow at 7:31 AM on September 1, 2004


Schrock may or may not be a hypocrite.

If he believes same-sex sex is bad, but can't overcome his urges to take part in it, if he's mulled joining an "ex-gay" church group, he's not a hypocrite. Sadly deluded, but not a hypocrite.


You are making this much more complicated than it really is. He is a hypocrite. If he had admitted he was attracted to the same sex, but stated that this attraction was wrong, he wouldn't be a hypocrite. That's not what he did. He was happy to use the word "they" when he should've used the word "we." In the same sense that any Christian who denies he's a sinner would be a hypocrite, Schrock is a hypocrite for denying the truth. He can believe whatever he wants - it's his actions that make him a hypocrite.
posted by me & my monkey at 9:27 AM on September 1, 2004


David Drier's next.
posted by amberglow at 10:35 AM on September 1, 2004


oops--Dreier. He voted yes on FMA when he had earlier said he wasn't in favor of it, among many other things.

and the LATimes weighs in: But he said Bush's endorsement of the Federal Marriage Act in February "changed everything. They dropped the legislative equivalent of a nuclear bomb."

posted by amberglow at 10:43 AM on September 1, 2004


Fair enough, me & my monkey.
posted by Tlogmer at 12:53 PM on September 1, 2004


nthdegx you don't know what you're talking about, take me for example,
I'd like all of you to know that I agree with everything Al Sharpton and Cynthia McKinney (oh and Alan Keyes too) because they're black and I'm black so obviously we all have exactly the same opinions.
posted by Octaviuz at 4:42 PM on September 1, 2004


I like metafilter, but threads like this frustrate me -- there seems to be no understanding of the opposing (and yes, stupid) view.

Oh don't worry, we understand all right. To build on what you said, if he responded to the revelations by admitting that he is gay, that it is something that he has struggled to overcome his whole life, and that he thinks it's morally wrong, I would be opposed to him being ousted from office.

I'd think he was sad, deluded and filled with self-loathing, but I'd at least give him points for consistency. Had he said so in the way I described above, it is very likely that he would get a lot of support from his christian right constituents - hell, they'd probably support him more strongly than ever.

However, in the face of being outed, he did nothing. He didn't own up to any of it. That may not make him a hypocrite, but it certainly makes him a coward.
posted by echolalia67 at 8:50 PM on September 1, 2004


In threads like this, I always wonder if people truly believe the nonsense they spout, like outright denying the common definition and textbook example of a word, or if they just get so caught up in the rhetoric and the "debate" that they can't allow even a tiny concession.

In the first case, they are idiots. In the second, they are assholes.

So in general, noone I care much to try to further illuminate.

49%'ers in action.

Basically the blustering above can be reduced to "Just because someone says one thing and does something contradictory, that doesn't make them a hypocrite".

Yeah, it does. It actually does. Yep. Truly, it does. That really is what makes one a hypocrite. Really. I'm serious. That is actually, really, truly, honestly, definitively, what makes someone a hypocrite.

And any of us who have a 4th grade vocabulary and access to a dictionary know it does. It is, in fact, the definition of a hypocrite.

Octavious: wow. If this were baseball, you would have ended up in the bleachers trying to steal 2nd. You are so far offbase I can only ask you to actually read the thread then comment.
posted by Ynoxas at 6:53 AM on September 2, 2004


Octavious: wow. If this were baseball, you would have ended up in the bleachers trying to steal 2nd. You are so far offbase I can only ask you to actually read the thread then comment.

I have sworn off sarcasm on the web in the past but, given that it's an essential weapon in my rhetorical arsenal, I keep coming back to it.
So for those who didn't quite get it, here's my point.
I was supporting nthdegx by restating the criticism of the majority of commentators in a reductio ad adbsurdum that made the ludicrousness of their viewpoint obvious. My race doesn't necessarily determine my politics and neither does the Congressman's sexuality.

(Ynoxas, was that clear enough or do I need to use fewer words?)
posted by Octaviuz at 1:06 AM on September 5, 2004


I was supporting nthdegx by restating the criticism of the majority of commentators in a reductio ad adbsurdum that made the ludicrousness of their viewpoint obvious. My race doesn't necessarily determine my politics and neither does the Congressman's sexuality.

So it would be ok for an African-American Congressman to vote yes on a return to slavery, or for a reinstatement of all the Jim Crow laws? That wouldn't be a problem?
posted by amberglow at 8:03 AM on September 5, 2004


Closeted Homosexual Republican Congressmen for Bush 2004--a meetup group --from here ; >
posted by amberglow at 3:39 PM on September 6, 2004


Octaviuz: I didn't miss the sarcasm the first time. It just didn't work, because your point is nonsensical.

A blue eyed man working tirelessly to have all blue eyed men denied medical coverage would be a little nonsensical, no? You're saying that's perfectly reasonable because, for example, you don't agree with all other brown eyed men? Wha?

49%'er in action.

Read the thread. Ask a friend to read the thread to you if necessary.
posted by Ynoxas at 5:29 PM on September 6, 2004


« Older And the training wheels would go where, exactly, o...  |  Old school ginuwine gin-joint ... Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments