you're reading...
Christianity

Another Anti-Gay Gay is Out.

Senator Roy Ashburn in his booking photo (Sacramento County Sheriff)

Yep.  I know… Surprise, surprise.  Another anti-gay legislator turns out to be gay.  Crazy, huh?

A conservative US state senator who has voted against gay rights measures during his 14 years in office has announced he is gay.

Republican Roy Ashburn came out during a radio interview in California, where he sits on the state legislature. LINK

At what point do we start talking about the joke, “methinks he doth protest too much,” and acknowledging that it’s more truth than humor?  It’s getting difficult to find anti-gay activists who don’t set off our collective “GAYDAR.”

Interestingly, Mr. Ashburn defended his politics by saying he was “voting with his constituency.”  That’s pretty astonishing to me.  I wonder what could cause a man to adopt a political position opposed to his own best interest.  What could make him ally with a party whose platform centers around winning elections by advocating discrimination against people like him?

I wonder if it has anything to do with a hateful religion that permeates our society and tells gays that there’s something wrong with them…

Advertisements

Discussion

5 thoughts on “Another Anti-Gay Gay is Out.

  1. Perhaps I speak out against over sexualized media due to repressed lesbianism

    But in all seriousness, I’m curious as to just the percentage of anti-gays who are…. well…..gay and see if there’s an actual correlation.

    Posted by cptpineapple | March 7, 2011, 8:31 pm
  2. I highly recommend the documentary Outrage. There are a lot of these guys out there.

    Posted by colbie | March 9, 2011, 9:33 am
  3. Perhaps I don’t care because I’m not gay. Or perhaps I don’t care because I really don’t care about anyones sexual preferences, except my own and those I have relationships with.
    Whether my banker, attourney, doctor, political rep, professor, etc are gay or not affects me in no possible way. Why anyone with an IQ above 100 would allow other peoples sex preferences affect their personal choices is beyond me.

    Posted by phoodphorthought | March 9, 2011, 1:04 pm
  4. Hey Hamby! Long time no blog with (Remember me back in RRS days?)

    You said “I wonder what could cause a man to adopt a political position opposed to his own best interest.”

    I suspect that he was not voting opposed to his own best interests at all. I suspect he was simply deciding that his interests were best met by clinging (in a cowardly fashion) to the norms of his in-group, and that this was a strategy for getting his needs met that only cost him his integrity.

    In short, it cost him nothing that he valued.

    Posted by Paul Susac | March 9, 2011, 1:35 pm
  5. I suspect that he was not voting opposed to his own best interests at all. I suspect he was simply deciding that his interests were best met by clinging (in a cowardly fashion) to the norms of his in-group, and that this was a strategy for getting his needs met that only cost him his integrity.

    In short, it cost him nothing that he valued.

    Yes, of course I remember you! It’s great to see you here, and I hope you’ll jump into more discussion 🙂

    You’ve hit on something I harp on in discussions of human nature. It’s a mantra, almost. People always choose what they believe is best. That’s a tricky thing to wrap one’s brain around, though. Sometimes the “best” thing to do is something that’s detrimental to oneself, but it’s the least harmful of several bad options. So if I get you right, you’re saying that for this guy, sacrificing the open practice of his sexuality (and sacrificing his integrity in the process) was better than living as a pariah and losing his entire peer group.

    I think that’s a great way of looking at it. And I would add that without the religious stigma against gays, the choice wouldn’t have even existed. I disagree that he didn’t value his integrity, though. I’d suggest that he valued his integrity less than he valued his group’s approval. Maybe it’s quibbling over semantics, but I don’t think there’s any rule mandating that integrity is the highest of personal values.

    Consider someone who objects to fast food on moral principles, but can only get a job at a fast food place. They value income over integrity in this case, but if they don’t have income, what good is their integrity?

    Posted by hambydammit | March 9, 2011, 3:35 pm

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow Me On Twitter!

%d bloggers like this: