Queerty is better as a member

Log in | Register
  coming out

CA Sen. Roy Ashburn: “I’m Gay” – And Stand By My Anti-Gay Votes

Speaking of well-known people coming out, Roy Ashburn, the California state senator pulled over last week on DUI charges after leaving a gay bar, sets the record gay: he’s family.

During an interview this morning with Bakersfield’s KERN radio, Ashburn acknowledged he is gay, saying the public deserved to know what happened that fateful Tuesday night when the California Highway Patrol pulled him over.

“I have been arrested for driving and drinking and I hope that I do pay the consequence for that in the same manner that anyone would,” he says. “It’s wrong, it’s very dangerous behavior.”

But one thing he’s not flinching on: his voting record. While voting to affirm Prop 8 and refuse to recognize gay marriages from outside the state, Ashburn says he was only voting the will of his constituents. Which is the most reasonable excuse he has — but it’s still not a rationalization. Because voting for discrimination (or against its removal) is never okay, no matter what you think voters believe.

This is, however, a very curious situation. Other anti-gay lawmakers exposed as gay have continued to deny they are anything but straight (see: Larry Craig), which allows them to, hilariously, stand by their anti-gay voting record. But here we have a state senator saying very clearly that he’s one of us, and yet he voted against his own people.

And now the other shoe drops: He’s married divorced(?) and the father of four children. Is this family destined for the Ted Haggard scenario, or Jim McGreevey?

(NB: Ashburn cannot run again for re-election because of term limits.)

ON HIDING HIS SEXUALITY
I’ve always believed I could keep my personal life personal, and my public life public. But through my own actions I have made my personal life public. And I owe explanation to my constituents and to the ppl who have been so kind to me through the years.

COMING OUT
I am gay. Those are the words that have been so difficult for me for so long. But I am gay, but it is something that is personal and I don’t believe — I felt with my heart being gay … did not effect, would not effect how I do my job. What happened through my own actions the other night changed all that.

ON HIS VOTING RECORD
My votes reflect the wishes of the people in my district. And I have always felt tha tmy faith and allegiance was to the people there in the district, my constituents. So as each of these individual measure came before the legislature, I cast “no” votes. … I cherish the fact that we have a remarkable system of government, and that system of government provides for representatives elected by the people to go to the legislative bodies, whether it be Washington D.C. or Sacramento, and cast votes on behalf of the people, not my own point of view, not my own internal conflict, certainly to use my best judgment, but to vote as my constituents would have me vote. There’s never been a doubt in my mind on the position of the vast majority of the people in my district, the 18th senatorial district, on these different issues. I voted as I felt I should on behalf of the people who elected me.

ON WHETHER CRITICISM FROM THE GAYS SAYING HE’S A HYPOCRITE WILL CHANGE THE WAY HE VOTES
I believe firmly that my responsibility is to my constituents. On each measure that may come before me, I will take a careful look at it, and apply that standard: How would my constituents vote on this?

WHY DID HE FEEL THE NEED TO COME OUT?
Because my own actions the other night, resulting in a DUI arrest, point to, Where was I?, What was the behavior I was engaged in?, those aspects that I thoughtwas my person life, obviously that changes the circumstance, so I felt it best to just let people know.

NOW WHAT?
I would ask people to pray for me.

WILL HE LIVE AS AN OPENlY GAY MAN?
I pray to God that I can find peace, and I want to go back to work in the Senate.

WAS ALL THIS PART OF THE REASON HE DECIDED NOT TO RUN FOR CONGRESS?
Yes.

TO HIS CONSTITUENTS
I appreciate you. I believe that it’s an amazing responsibility and privilege to represent you in Sacramento. Now you know everything about me. I will do the very best job that I can to represent you as faithfully and with as much dignity and honor as I can.

 

UPDATE: Here’s the audio with host Inga Barks, who is just terrible.

 

EARLIER: The 7 Worst Things About Sen. Roy Ashburn’s DUI Arrest
EARLIER: Meet The Man Who Outed CA Sen. Roy Ashburn to the Media (That Refused to Report the Story)
EARLIER: If Everyone Knew CA Sen. Roy Ashburn Is Gay And Voted Anti-Gay, Should They Have Reported It?

By:           editor editor
On:           Mar 8, 2010
Tagged: , , , , , , ,

  • 88 Comments
    • The Artist
      The Artist

      Shocking! Pul-eze! PEACELUVNBWILD!

      Mar 8, 2010 at 1:41 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • SugNight
      SugNight

      Hey AssBurn, we don’t want ya….go back in the closet and lock the door!

      Mar 8, 2010 at 1:42 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Cam
      Cam

      Gee, where is Jason who always comes into these posts screaming about how these guys are Bisexual not gay because they have slept with women. Well Jason, let me be clear, this guy is now claiming to be gay…but you can HAVE him if it makes you feel better!

      Mar 8, 2010 at 1:49 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • terrwill
      terrwill

      With friends like these……………..

      Mar 8, 2010 at 1:53 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • DewSumResearch
      DewSumResearch

      Hey, Queerty — you’re known more for shocking headlines more than for doing any research, but you keep saying Ashburn is married. He’s not. “Ashburn is the divorced father of four daughters,” according to Wikipedia. Now was that so difficult?

      Mar 8, 2010 at 2:04 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • B
      B

      QUEERTY: “And now the other shoe drops: He’s married and the father of four children.” Not exactly true. He’s divorced. At least that’s what’s claimed in a bio of him:

      http://merced.www.ucforcalifornia.org/bio/id/1938

      BTW, he’s also Catholic (at least officially).

      Mar 8, 2010 at 2:07 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Timothy
      Timothy

      Hey Queerty, he’s been divorced since 2003.

      Mar 8, 2010 at 2:44 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Mike in Asheville, nee "in Brooklyn"
      Mike in Asheville, nee "in Brooklyn"

      Self-loathing sack of shit.

      Go get converted, AssBurn, cause we don’t want you, fucktard.

      You so willingly take actions making the rest of us dig out the crap you and your wingnut ilk dump on the gay community. Well we are “created equal” and endowed by our Creator inalienable rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. But thanks to shitheads like you, we have to fight every hour of every day just to get partial rights. It wouldn’t be so difficult for others to come out if Assholes like Assburn didn’t go around telling gay kids that they are evil sinners.

      Mar 8, 2010 at 2:47 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • axos
      axos

      If politicians are supposed to just do what the majority wants, they could be replaced by voting buttons directly triggering political decisions. Because if Sen. Ashburn thinks he’s no more than a button, he may face having to vote for race separation or gays not being allowed in schools next time. He has a little more responsibility than that.

      Mar 8, 2010 at 3:00 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • TaylorS
      TaylorS

      No. 9 · axos

      Shocking and disgusting that he ADMITS he just votes the way people want him to vote; no using his own logic and reason, never filtering a developing matter through his own life experience, education and sense of right and wrong, just flat out, whatever his district wants they get.

      What a useless, limp DICK of a man – and a glaring example of why the system is so broken.

      Mar 8, 2010 at 3:22 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • ben
      ben

      Don’t worry guys. It’s just one bad apple.

      Mar 8, 2010 at 3:51 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Leon
      Leon

      I predicted this exact thing would happen. Ashburn has now become a GOP hero and is the perfect foil for accusations that they are homophobic. Republican gays have been getting more and more extreme along these lines. Remember both Andrew Sullivan and GOProud have called hate crimes legislation “boutique legislation” and a fraud. It’s not much farther for them to now oppose gay marriage, employment non-discrimination, etc. Ashburn will now say he opposes the immoral homosexual agenda of degenerate liberal leftists as he simultaneously cruises for young Latino immigrant boys in the middle of the night.

      Mar 8, 2010 at 4:07 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • billfromny
      billfromny

      Now let’s hear it from that jerk in Virginia!

      Mar 8, 2010 at 4:11 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Muriel Crabcock
      Muriel Crabcock

      This, like everything lately, comes down to two things (order reversible as required)… Ego and Greed.

      Mar 8, 2010 at 4:16 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • M. Bergeron
      M. Bergeron

      Eww. Who is having sex with this man? Whoever you are please stop it. Gross!

      Mar 8, 2010 at 4:20 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • B
      B

      No. 10 · TaylorS wrote, “Shocking and disgusting that he ADMITS he just votes the way people want him to vote; no using his own logic and reason, never filtering a developing matter through his own life experience, education and sense of right and wrong, just flat out, whatever his district wants they get.”

      His own “logic and reason” is in this case, “If 60 to 75 percent of the public (i.e., homophobic constituents) wants it and no lobbyists who would give me large campaign contributions oppose it, then I better vote for it if I want to be reelected.”

      To be elected to state-wide office in his district given current conditions, you have to be a Republican. If you are a Republican, you have to make it through the primary, and Republican primaries in California are controlled by the most conservative Republicans – the most reactionary of them all.

      At least (from what I’ve read) he didn’t introduce any anti-gay legislation. His 2009 voting record is the same as all the other Republicans in the State Senate with two exceptions: State Senator Abel Maldonado who scored 43% and State Senator Dave Cox scored 0% (as Ashburn did) but didn’t miss a single anti-LGBT vote. Citation: http://www.eqca.org/atf/cf/%7B34f258b3-8482-4943-91cb-08c4b0246a88%7D/EQCA_LEG_SCORECARD_2009.PDF .

      Mar 8, 2010 at 4:23 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Ankhorite
      Ankhorite

      ASHBURN: “…representatives elected by the people to go to the legislative bodies, whether it be Washington D.C. or Sacramento, and cast votes on behalf of the people, not my own point of view, not my own internal conflict, certainly to use my best judgment, but to vote as my constituents would have me vote. There’s never been a doubt in my mind on the position of the vast majority of the people in my district, the 18th senatorial district, on these different issues. I voted as I felt I should on behalf of the people who elected me.”

      TRANSLATION: “I wanted to be a state senator so badly that I was willing to defraud and deceive the voters into thinking I am something I am not; and I was willing to betray the gay community; and I was willing to vote the homophobic position time after time on behalf of the homophobes I tricked into voting for me; and my own best judgment was that being their state senator was worth selling my soul, betraying my nature, and denying my identity.”

      Wow. If that’s his BEST judgment, I’d hate to catch him on a BAD day!

      Mar 8, 2010 at 4:26 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Cam
      Cam

      Hi B,

      I get what your saying, but without starting the whole (Is it like Race thing) it would still be like, a person with black parents, who passes as white, voting on all of this anti-minority legislation years ago, then getting outted as being black and saying “Well gee, thats what I had to do to keep my job”. There are other jobs he could have gotten. And I think that excusing this is not something any other group would do.

      Mar 8, 2010 at 4:28 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • terrwill
      terrwill

      @ben: It looks like the whole damm repugnatican party is a very bad apple orchard……. : p

      Mar 8, 2010 at 4:44 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Hoov
      Hoov

      Geez Dude, If you’d lie about your private life, how could you possibly be honest about your political life?
      Great Republican move, dumb ass.

      Mar 8, 2010 at 4:53 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Rodney Borkwiffle
      Rodney Borkwiffle

      Haha a gay man who fights much of his life to weaken gay peoples civil rights, now thats what you call a FAGGOT.

      Mar 8, 2010 at 4:54 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • fiftysomething
      fiftysomething

      It’s not his sexuality that makes him a terrible leader, it’s his hypocrisy. So called christians find it impossible to live in the same world as gays, yet gays are “live and let live”. Shouldn’t true christians be a little more tolerant or is their preaching of tolerance just so many empty words.

      Mar 8, 2010 at 4:59 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Devon
      Devon

      What a worthless piece of shit.

      Mar 8, 2010 at 5:01 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • AlwaysGay
      AlwaysGay

      He did what heterosexuals expected of everyone and that is to be heterosexual and deny anyone else anything. We must break heterosexual oppression. The only gay people can be free is when heterosexuals’ opinions and votes do NOT matter at all.

      Mar 8, 2010 at 5:05 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Republican
      Republican

      @terrwill:

      Hey, careful now, Terrwill. ;)

      Mar 8, 2010 at 5:12 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Bill Perdue
      Bill Perdue

      In spite of the opinions of apologists for homohating politicians like ‘B’ there are no excuses for the mindless homophobia of the vast majority of Republican legislators and the majority of Democrat legislators in most states and on the federal level.

      The need to get elected is the justification for most of the official and legal bigotry in American politics just as the need to squeeze money from illiterate lumpen (1) strata in the US is the reason for cult homohating.

      There’s only one thing worse than being a sniveling homosexual anti-LGBT bigot, and that’s making excuses for them. The kind of reasoning that says “I was just trying to get elected” in no way differs from Adolf Eichmann’s defense “I was just following orders…” http://www.auschwitz.dk/eichmann.htm

      (1) Concerning dispossessed, often displaced people cut off from the class with which they would ordinarily be identified. German and Austrian shop owners and middle class small farmers, dispossessed and displaced by World War One and the rearrangement of borders by the Treaty of Versailles, formed a large lumpen layer that was effectively exploited by Hitler.

      Mar 8, 2010 at 5:18 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Republican
      Republican

      As for Ashburn, what a pathetic piece of shit. It sounds like he isn’t about to repent and start supporting pro-gay causes either. I’d have far more respect for these asswipes if they’d say, “Yes, I’m a hypocritical coward who voted against equality. There is nothing that I can do to take back what I’ve done, but I can do plenty about the future, and so, from this day forward, I am going to do everything I can to support the cause of gay rights.” Say something like that (and back it up with action), and most gays would be glad to forgive you for being a closet case who voted like a homophobe. But if you do anything less than that, then most of us will be hoping that karma bites you in the ass.

      Mar 8, 2010 at 5:27 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Solis
      Solis

      Hey Assburn,you make your “family” proud … no … NOT the gay community … but your four daughters, your ex-wife, your constituents, your neighbors, Bakersfield, your Catholic Church, etc. I would love to be in the Senate Hall when you return to work … I’m sure you’ll be getting a lot of pats on the back and maybe a wink or two ;-)

      Mar 8, 2010 at 5:34 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Laredo
      Laredo

      I love that this guy wants us to pray for him. He must’ve not realized that once you go gay, god goes away. I hope this mofo goes to church and gets a nice dose of the side-eye from his god fearing friend-folk… No matter how much money he is putting in the collection plate, God has flipped his ‘be back in 20 minutes’ sign for this guy.

      Mar 8, 2010 at 5:37 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • terrwill
      terrwill

      To the Gay bar goers in California. I would ask that you greet our newly minted Gay when you run into him at a bar. And offer him a shot…………of bleach…………….

      Mar 8, 2010 at 5:46 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Chandler in Las Vegas
      Chandler in Las Vegas

      Now he will find out the fate of ALL sonderkommandos…

      Mar 8, 2010 at 5:56 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • stevenelliot
      stevenelliot

      who the fuck would sleep with him? I guess Bakersfield and sacramento are full of meth heads looking for a daddy.

      Mar 8, 2010 at 5:59 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • B
      B

      No. 18 · Cam wrote, “Hi B, I get what your saying, but without starting the whole (Is it like Race thing) it would still be like, a person with black parents, who passes as white, voting on all of this anti-minority legislation years ago, then getting outted as being black and saying “Well gee, thats what I had to do to keep my job”. There are other jobs he could have gotten. And I think that excusing this is not something any other group would do.”

      That’s not really a good analogy because Ashburn was elected by his constituents to vote a particular way. Would you want your representative to say he’d vote one way and then see him do the opposite? When asked if he was gay, he said basically that it was not relevant to his job – i.e., he didn’t confirm or deny the suggestion that he might be, but said it shouldn’t matter. It’s not like he proclaimed, “I am not gay” while trolling for sex in a bathroom. In your racial analogy, that would be like your hypothetical person saying that having black parents was not relevant to whether he should be elected by racist constituents.

      But what about Judge Walker? Now, he has yet to rule on Proposition Eight, did not ask for the case, and will have to follow the law. If (as nearly all of us would prefer) he rules against Proposition Eight, he’ll be praised by QUEERTY and various gay activists as a “wise jurist” or something, and condemned by Maggie Gallagher as an activist judge. If he rules the other way, he’ll be praised by Maggie Gallagher and condemned by some gay groups. Meanwhile, when practicing law as an attorney, he represented the Olympics (U.S. committee?) in a trademark infringement suit about the use of Gay Olympics for what is now the Gay Games. He also tried to collect legal fees to cover his client’s costs. Would you call him a hypocrite for representing a client in a trademark infringement suit because the other party was a gay organization?

      Mar 8, 2010 at 6:06 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • B
      B

      No. 17 · Ankhorite wrote, “TRANSLATION: ‘I wanted to be a state senator so badly that I was willing to defraud and deceive the voters into thinking I am something I am not; and I was willing to betray the gay community; and I was willing to vote the homophobic position time after time on behalf of the homophobes I tricked into voting for me’”

      … he didn’t defraud and deceive voters, though. He voted the way he said he would and when asked if he was gay, instead of denying it, he said the question was not relevant to his position as a member of the state senate.

      He didn’t vote the way either of us would like, obviously. I’m not sure how that qualifies as a betrayal – he didn’t promise to do otherwise and so far I’ve seen no claim that he was supporting gay rights while talking to people at FACES and doing the opposite at work. Apparently he didn’t introduce any anti-gay bills either. I’m not sure if there were any anti-gay bills for him to vote on – any Republican proposed ones probably died before the full legislature got to vote on them, so he could most likely only vote against pro-gay bills.

      Mar 8, 2010 at 6:21 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • B
      B

      No. 26 · Bill Perdue lied again by writing, “In spite of the opinions of apologists for homohating politicians like ‘B’”

      Perdue is worse that Roy Ashburn. Ashburn at least did not lie through his teeth (apparently he didn’t even deny being gay, just saying the question was not relevant to his job). Perdue’s idea
      of an “apologist” is someone who states the facts.

      Comparing Roy Ashburn attempt to represent his constituency to Adolf Eichmann’s defense “I was just following orders,” as Perdue did in No 68, is idiotic. Eichmann was tried and convicted for his participation in a genocide. Ashburn merely voted against some gay-friendly legislation and supported Prop 22 (my vote on that one carried the same weight as his, but of course almost certainly in the opposite direction). His votes in the state senate were no different than nearly every other Republican state senator in California on LGBT issues.

      Mar 8, 2010 at 6:45 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Steve
      Steve

      It might be interesting to see where Mr. Ashburn ends up, a year or two from now. The bigots whom he represented will not hire him, now that they know he is gay. No honest people will hire him, now that they know he lied to them for (how many years?). The gay people will not hire him, of course.

      He might be able to find a job as a lobbyist, except that now none of the Republicans will listen to him because he’s gay, and none of the Democrats will listen to him because he’s both gay and Republican.

      His wife will surely keep the house and the kids, and anything else they owned together.

      I wonder which bridge he will be living under.

      Mar 8, 2010 at 7:15 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • ewe
      ewe

      @Republican: He is a RepuglyKunt for sure. He will no doubt shrivel away in a room by himself until he expires.

      Mar 8, 2010 at 7:19 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Raul
      Raul

      Seriously!!!!! who in the world will sleep with this guy???

      Mar 8, 2010 at 7:40 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Solis
      Solis

      @Raul: Larry Craig, perhaps?

      Mar 8, 2010 at 7:44 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • B
      B

      No. 38 · Raul : “Seriously!!!!! who in the world will sleep with this guy???” … the guy he had in his car with him well after midnight may have been seriously thinking about it!

      Mar 8, 2010 at 8:14 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Bill Perdue
      Bill Perdue

      @B:

      Give it up ‘B’. I didn’t lie.

      I don’t think it’s really possible to exaggerate how befuddled and rightwing you are. In your case truth is stranger than any fiction I could make up. You ‘stated the (bogus) facts’ to excuse him but forgot to describe Ashburn as a scumbag, self-loathing bigot No one else forgot. Just you.

      You got busted – again You did apologize and excuse a homosexual male’s self loathing bigotry. You do it all the time whenever we get angry with bigots. No matter their partisan affiliation the functional definition of a bigot is someone who opposes our fight for equality.

      Adolf Eichmann’s home base was the SS HQ at Auschwitz, one of dozens of camps where gays and transfolk were exterminated because ‘homosexual males’ like Ashburn, who only did it to get elected, as you admit, supported Hitler’s culture war. Your abysmal lack of knowledge keeps you from seeing the direct connection between Quislings like Ashburn and the murder of innocent LGBT youth like. Quisling is an apt description of Ashburn and other ‘homosexual gentlemen’ in both parties.

      It applies to Larry C. Quisling and to Spokane Mayor Jim W. Quisling, who championed an anti-gay agenda during his tenure as one of the most powerful Republicans in the Washington State Legislature.

      And it most certainly describes the Democrat who demeaned transfolk and push them away from our common struggle, who opposes the fight for same sex marriage and who successfully gutted ENDA in 2007.

      That would be Barney F. Quisling.

      Mar 8, 2010 at 8:42 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Bill Perdue
      Bill Perdue

      http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=380052532672&ref=search&sid=1269483231.304500720..1&v=info

      is the link to “1,000,000 Gay Men and Allies Against Roy Ashburn Having Sex Ever Again.”

      Mar 8, 2010 at 8:48 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • DFromATL
      DFromATL

      Apparently Senator Ashburn didn’t bother paying attention to the difference between a democracy and a republic in his civics class in high school, and doesn’t really understand what his job is. All flag-waving about “democracy” by politicians aside, the US is a republic, in a republic, you elect leaders who you empower to make decisions, especially difficult decisions, on your behalf. The whole reason the founding fathers deliberately setup a republican system of government was to make sure we weren’t ruled by the tyranny of the mob, but instead were ruled by wise leaders who did what they thought was right even when their decisions were unpopular and disagreed with the whim of the crowd. In a republic, elected officials who are doing their job are supposed to lead us and vote with their conscience, not by polling their constituents and voting exactly how they want you to on each issue. If Sen. Ashburn actually believed that fellow gays should be treated as 2nd class citizens, he’d be self-loathing but at least he’d be voting his conscience. If, on the other hand, he acts as a monkey pulling a lever for his homophobic constituents, then he should re-read the Federalist Papers and/or find another job.

      Mar 8, 2010 at 9:00 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • cinnie
      cinnie

      @Taylor Siluwé:

      Um, that’s how our government is SUPPOSED to work– we vote for them in hopes they’ll go to represent our wishes. That’s why they’re called REPRESENTATIVES. We tell them how we want things, and they go to Washington and stand as a proxy for us during votes.

      It’s when they vote for what THEY want instead of what WE want that the system fails. Our system of government is NOT a democracy. It’s actually a representative republic.

      Learn more about our country before shooting off your ignorant mouth, ya dumbfuck.

      Mar 8, 2010 at 9:00 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Live near Bakersfield
      Live near Bakersfield

      Perdue, you are way over the top. You need to give more respect to what actually happened to the Jews in Europe. This is hardly the same thing. Not even close.

      Mar 8, 2010 at 9:09 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Schteve
      Schteve

      He’s not exactly a hypocrite. I mean, he’s not denying being gay or anything. He campaigned on being against things like same-sex marriage, so of course he’s going to vote that way. It would actually be hypocritical of him to not uphold that promise.

      Attack him for just doing what his constituents want if you like, but that just boils down to him thinking this is a matter that can be deferred to public opinion, and so that’s precisely what he does. Obviously most of us simply disagree that this is something public opinion should have any sway on,

      Mar 8, 2010 at 9:12 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • B
      B

      No. 41 · Bill Perdue lied again by saying, “@B:Give it up ‘B’. I didn’t lie.” And then he lied some more by saying, “You got busted – again You did apologize and excuse a homosexual male’s self loathing bigotry.” Nope – I merely pointed out the facts:

      1. He voted against gay-rights legislation which is pretty much what his “conservative” constituents wanted him to do (and I gave hard numbers based on the Proposition 8 and Proposition 22) that showed 60 to 75 percent (depending on the county) in his district voted in favor of Proposition 8. When I checked Equality California’s 2009 legislative scorecard, his ‘score’ was the median value for Republican state senators – dead zero. Only one Republican state senator had a non-zero score (43% of the time in favor of gay-rights legislation). Ashburn’s not public enemy number one, merely an undistinguished crowd follower.

      2. Any one who might have replaced him would no doubt have voted the same way. It’s a Republican district, set that way by gerrymandering. The median vote for Republican state senators is a pretty good indication of what a replacement would have been like.

      3. He didn’t seem to go out of his way to introduce anti-gay legislation, but was involved in some “family values” events in his district. I couldn’t find a transcript of what he said. He supposedly helped sponsor this/these event(s), but what sort of active role he played beyond an appearance wasn’t stated in any article I found.

      4. He didn’t lie about his sexual orientation either – he just refused to answer questions, saying it was not relevant to being a state senator.

      I provided a number of links documenting everything that was not obvious.

      “You do it all the time whenever we get angry with bigots.” Rather, you lie all the time when you get angry with people you think are bigots. The main thing you know about Ashburn is that he voted unfavorably, but in accord with what his district wanted. That by itself doesn’t make him a bigot – it just makes him yet another politician throwing bones to his constituents. If he’s a real bigot, you should have no trouble finding some pretty damning quotes (I looked but came up empty handed – you have the ax to grind, so why don’t you do a longer search than I did).

      “No matter their partisan affiliation the functional definition of a bigot is someone who opposes our fight for equality.” … another factually challenged statement. Some people. for example, believe that hate-crime laws should not be passed because a crime is a crime. That doesn’t make them bigots
      (nor do I agree with them). They might be trapped in a libertarian political philosophy or they might simply not have thought about the issue enough to understand it.

      Then you wrote, “Adolf Eichmann’s home base was the SS HQ at Auschwitz, one of dozens of camps where gays and transfolk were exterminated because ‘homosexual males’ like Ashburn, who only did it to get elected, as you admit, supported Hitler’s culture war.” You pretty much failed history on that one. Hitler took control of Germany primarily because the other political parties were more interested in fighting among themselves, and by the time “Hitler’s culture war” was obvious, it was too late – Germany was no longer a democracy. Eichmann’s “home base” was not “SS HQ at Auschwitz” – otherwise http://www.historyplace.com/worldwar2/biographies/eichmann.htm would not have stated that “Eichmann took a keen interest in Auschwitz from its founding and visited there on numerous occasions.” You don’t “visit” someplace “on numerous occasions” when it is your “home base”. Furthermore, it would be a strange place for Eichmann to put his official office given that one of his main responsibilities was managing the transportation system used to get victims to the death camps. He did stay in (or near) Auschwitz for a short while, starting in mid May 1944, for the expressed purpose “to personally oversee and speed up the extermination process.”
      For a sizable portion of that time (up to the end of the war), he was in Hungary.

      Mar 8, 2010 at 10:07 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • TheProfessor
      TheProfessor

      Gays are our own worst enemy.

      Mar 8, 2010 at 10:25 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • brie987
      brie987

      @ben: HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA…..AHAHA..aaahhhh,that was funny :)

      Mar 8, 2010 at 10:55 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Tinkerbell
      Tinkerbell

      This clown may be homosexual, but he is anything but gay. Someone who has so often and consistently struck out against our gay culture and sense of community and the vibrant way we look at the world and has such loathing of us cannot be called gay…he simply has sex with men. This man will never be “family” to me…people like this never have and never will be my brother.

      Mar 8, 2010 at 10:58 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • brie987
      brie987

      @TheProfessor: “CLOSETTED” Gays are our own worst enemy.

      Mar 8, 2010 at 10:59 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Brian NYC
      Brian NYC

      This is more proof that lobbying doesn’t work. We can’t even get a gay politician to defy their constituents. Our only hope is to change the constituents.

      Mar 8, 2010 at 11:00 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Lukas P.
      Lukas P.

      Is there a pill he can take so he’s not gay any more?
      I don’t want him on my team. Sorry. I’m just a “homophobaphobe” which means i detest and fear the gay men whose internal homophobia translates into fighting systematically against the Gayz.

      He’s in a pickle now. And prob has a pickle in him too:
      * he’s lost all credibility in politics
      * the Repubs think he deserves to be skewered for hiding his homo-ness
      * the gays revile him
      * his kids probably hate him
      * he’s going to have to have plastic surgery and switch states to avoid being recognized as a bile-spewing hypocrite by the gays and f@gb@ashed by the str8s.

      Can you say “game over, Dorothy?”
      I knew ya could!

      Mar 8, 2010 at 11:20 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • B
      B

      No. 53 · Lukas P. wrote, “Is there a pill he can take so he’s not gay any more?” … actually there is. Before taking it, however, one should decide whether to be buried or cremated.

      Mar 8, 2010 at 11:35 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Ankhorite
      Ankhorite

      @B: “… he didn’t defraud and deceive voters, though. He voted the way he said he would and when asked if he was gay, instead of denying it, he said the question was not relevant to his position as a member of the state senate. He didn’t vote the way either of us would like, obviously. I’m not sure how that qualifies as a betrayal – he didn’t promise to do otherwise and so far I’ve seen no claim that he was supporting gay rights while talking to people at FACES and doing the opposite at work. Apparently he didn’t introduce any anti-gay bills either. I’m not sure if there were any anti-gay bills for him to vote on – any Republican proposed ones probably died before the full legislature got to vote on them, so he could most likely only vote against pro-gay bills.”

      Well, perhaps we’re splitting semantic hairs here, but… I don’t mind that he was “passing” for straight (except with the poor woman who married him; for her sake, I mind.)

      Ashburn knows his district would not have voted for him if he were out, no matter what he guaranteed them in terms of his own support of anti-gay legislation, so he deceived the voters by passing for straight as a divorced man, and evading the question when asked.

      “Passing” is defrauding the homophobic voters, but it’s not betraying his gay community (and yes, he has a gay community, the one he goes drinking and being intimate with. He may treat that community like dirt, but his cruising made him part of it.)

      No, the betrayal of his own community — the gay community, the community he came to for his socializing — was when he *delivered* on his promises to the general public in his district by using his Senatorial vote to oppress gay Californians.

      When you look back at the history of women’s rights, you can find female legislators who ran on anti-woman platforms. They too promised to oppress their own, but at least they were honest about the fact that they indeed DID belong to the disfavored group. We’ve seen the same thing in racial politics, with Clarence Thomas.

      But Ashburn didn’t want to reveal his own second-class status to the people who were counting on him to vote anti-gay. His anti-gay platform and votes were part of his deception, part of his passing, and — to me at least — part of his betrayal of both the homophobic AND homosexual communities in his district, and of his family, and of his own natural orientation.

      Mar 8, 2010 at 11:44 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Bill Perdue
      Bill Perdue

      @B: ‘B’, you’re an apologist (1) for vermin like Ashburn. You and only you offered an implausible Eichmann like defense for this scumbag and you and only you refuse to condemn him as a bigot.

      He’s a bigot because he votes against equality. There are no excuses for voting against our equality agenda or you own lame efforts to shield bigots – whether it comes from Democrats or Republicans, Obama or Ashburn.

      As many of us have said before, referring to your invariable wheedling attempts to excuse bigots, the only thing worse that a bigot is a self-appointed defense lawyer for bigots.

      You’re not exactly Clarence Darrow. You’re not defending us, you defense of bigots remind me of then antics a desperate trial lawyer for polluters.

      (1) Apologist
      A) Someone who engages in apologetics is called an apologist. Apologists are often characterized as being deceptive, or “white washing” their cause.
      B) ‘B’

      Mar 9, 2010 at 12:22 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Lukas P.
      Lukas P.

      @B: Oh, I hear you! I was half-afraid that someone would miss my sarcam. Thanks.

      Part of the role of any politician is being a “thought leader,” a lovely buzzword that means that the politician also has a role in explaining her/himself when s/he takes a stand that may seem to be unexpected. There’s information to be disseminated whenever incumbents/candidates change their minds.

      If that politico does the hard work of gathering facts and providing some rationale, then the electorate has to figure out whether that info matters or not.

      To choose an example: if the man/woman I voted for changes sides on funding school vouchers or on state/national taxes, then I have to see if these new facts are worth changing my own views on the topic.

      Ashburn never had the courage to explain why he might change his views on, say, Prop 8, anti-discrimnation clauses, or the state budget woes, or charter schools, etc. because he took the COWARDLY route of just toeing the party line and not leading his consituency on how/why they should reconsider the issue.

      He took the easy path to re-/election.
      A failure to lead is the sure mark of a bad politician and a hot mess of a public servant.

      Mar 9, 2010 at 12:23 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • B
      B

      In No. 56, Perdue lied again by saying ‘B’, you’re an apologist (1) for vermin like Ashburn. You and only you offered an implausible Eichmann like defense for this scumbag” Defense? I pointed out what the facts are. What makes you worse than Ashburn is that you go into attack mode whenever you see a fact that you don’t like. At least Roy Ashburn seems to have merely acted like the Right Honorable Sir Joseph Porter K.C.B. (First Lord of the Admiralty) in H.M.S. Pinafore:
      I grew so rich that I was sent
      By a pocket borough into Parliament.
      I always voted at my party’s call,
      And I never thought of thinking for myself at all.
      I thought so little, they rewarded me
      By making me the Ruler of the Queen’s Navee!

      Sir Joseph Porter, in turn, was a caricature of a politician named W. H. Smith, who had more or less done precisely that, showing that things have basically not changed. It’s a good match: Roy Ashburn’s vote on LGBT rights fits the Republican median for the state senate perfectly in 2009 – just what you’d expect from someone who “always voted at my party’s call, and I never thought of thinking for myself at all.”

      Then you made a fool of yourself by saying, “He’s a bigot because he votes against equality. There are no excuses for voting against our equality agenda or you own lame efforts to shield bigots – whether it comes from Democrats or Republicans, Obama or Ashburn.” Calling Obama a “bigot” simply makes you look like what you are – a fool, all the more so because Obama has not vetoed even one LGBT-friendly bill that has crossed his desk. As to Ashburn, while he voted against specific bills, he knew damn well that those bills would pass (some were vetoed by Schwarzenegger but I don’t see you complaining about the governor). If you go through it, what you have are

      SB 54 – it says in part that people married outside of California have all “the rights, protections, and responsibilities of spouses under California law.” It’s an end-run around Proposition Eight. Someone could vote against it on the grounds that it is an attempt to bypass what the public voted for. You may not like it, but voting against this one is not proof of bigotry.

      SB 572 (Harvey Milk Day). Schwarzenegger vetoed previous versions of the bill until Milk was posthumously awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom. You can thank Obama for that, but you called him a “bigot” so I guess you won’t. In any case, it simply boils down to a judgment call as to whether Harvey Milk deserves statewide versus local recognition. Since Obama gave Milk the highest civilian award that the U.S. government hands out, that pretty much kills the “local recognition” argument – unless you think Obama made the wrong decision.

      AB 1003 (Domestic Violence) It expands a domestic violence fund to provide grants to LGBT organizations. It’s a good idea in general, but you could also argue that it is more efficient to have the funded organizations be more broadly based (fewer organizations generally means higher efficiency) as long as everyone is covered.

      AB 382 (LGBT Prisoner Safety Act) Republicans don’t seem to care about prisoners regardless of their sexual orientation. Anyhow, the gov. vetoed it. Why don’t you also blame Schwarzenegger? It’s simply not clear that a vote against this one is motivated by any dislike of LGBT people given how little regard Republican seem to have for anyone in our prisons.

      AB 1185 (Equal ID Act) – allows transgendered people born in California to obtain a court order reflecting their correct gender and any accompanying name change. Vetoed. Blame the governor. I’m a little fuzzy on whythis bill is worded to
      only help people born in California, but apparently no one else. Vetoed by the governor, so blame him too. No idea what Ashburn was thinking – was it the “transgendered” part or the “born in California” part?

      There were also several resolutions. These don’t change existing laws. You can find the list at http://www.eqca.org/atf/cf/%7B34f258b3-8482-4943-91cb-08c4b0246a88%7D/EQCA_LEG_SCORECARD_2009.PDF

      Mar 9, 2010 at 1:34 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Gorbeh
      Gorbeh

      Family can be disowned!!!

      And what is greater? His few constituents or an entire class of people? Bastard!

      Mar 9, 2010 at 1:38 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Doug
      Doug

      Fucking PIG!!!

      Mar 9, 2010 at 1:41 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • B
      B

      No. 55 · Ankhorite wrote, “Ashburn knows his district would not have voted for him if he were out, no matter what he guaranteed them in terms of his own support of anti-gay legislation, so he deceived the voters by passing for straight as a divorced man, and evading the question when asked.” .. but there wouldn’t have been a question to evade if people didn’t strongly suspect, and the voters could have taken an evasion as a “yes” as a default assumption.

      “No, the betrayal of his own community — the gay community, the community he came to for his socializing — was when he *delivered* on his promises to the general public in his district by using his Senatorial vote to oppress gay Californians.” … how is that a “betrayal” when he made it quite clear how he was going to vote before he showed up in the portion of the gay community where he did his socializing? The term “betrayal” normally implies some deceit or breach of trust by changing the rules post facto.

      “When you look back at the history of women’s rights, you can find female legislators who ran on anti-woman platforms. They too promised to oppress their own, but at least they were honest about the fact that they indeed DID belong to the disfavored group.” That’s simply not a convincing argument – the ones in question where most likely not making a big deal about being women, just as Ashburn did not make a big deal (no “deal” in fact) about being gay. They were running for office based on what they were going to do if elected.

      “But Ashburn didn’t want to reveal his own second-class status to the people who were counting on him to vote anti-gay.” … in which case he would have loudly proclaimed, “I am not gay” as a certain U.S. senator did a few years ago. I’m not buying it – he never mentioned it, but maybe his constituents don’t care if someone is gay as long as they stay completely closeted. You have to rule out such possibilities to have a convincing argument. A little mind reading might help too.

      Mar 9, 2010 at 1:50 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • strumpetwindsock
      strumpetwindsock

      Sometimes it’s not even a matter of wanting to please the constituents or your party.

      King James I’s bisexuality and his relationships with men were common knowledge in court. He was king at a time when monarchs still had a great deal of power.

      Despite this he toughened England’s sodomy laws and gave judges mandatory sentencing guidelines.

      …not that you have to go back 400 years to find politicians and leaders who do not feel allegiance to their own people.

      Mar 9, 2010 at 1:57 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Bill Perdue
      Bill Perdue

      @B: ‘B’ defends political and cult bigots and always will.

      ‘B’s not bright enough to see the direct connection between bigots and the violence of the thugs. The idea of taking a principled stand against the repulsive bigotry of cultists and politicians who pander to them is beyond the pale for ‘B’. The idea of actually opposing bigots and drawing a line in the sand – of polarizing society until the GLBT community gets what it wants terrifies ‘B’. He prefers accommodation and enjoys defending bigots.

      ‘B’ gives us light opera in a pathetic attempt to divert us from the clear and direct connection between the bigotry of self-loathing scum like Ashburn. ‘B’ should be showing a little spine. We’ve seen enough from ‘B’ to k now that’ll never happen. ‘B’s a right wing ostrich with his head firmly buried in the sand. Or his ass, depending.

      He wouldn’t be able to make heads or tails of what Oscar Wilde meant when he said ” … I have no doubt that we shall win, but the road is long, and red with monstrous martyrdoms. …” if his life depended on it.

      Bigots like Ashburn create martyrs.

      Mar 9, 2010 at 2:14 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • tim
      tim

      He drove drunk. i don’t care if he’s gay or an asshole – he needs to be nixed from politics yesterday!

      Mar 9, 2010 at 2:18 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • yy
      yy

      Ugh, totally the kind of BB’ing tina smoker we don’t need. Go back to hating yourself and all the escort boys you scared during all your years of voting on the side of christian snakes.

      Fucking cali douchnozzle

      Mar 9, 2010 at 2:20 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • B
      B

      No. 63 · Bill Perdue lies some more by saying, “@B: ‘B’ defends political and cult bigots and always will.” Perdue, you are simply a bald-faced liar without any ounce of integrity. It’s hardly “defending political and cult bigots” when someone simply points out the facts, none of which you can deal with.

      Then Perdue continues his trash talk with “‘B’s not bright enough to see the direct connection between bigots and the violence of the thugs.” The reality is that Roy Ashburn may be a highly confused and conflicted individual, but he’s no George Wallace. Pretending otherwise is just plain silly.

      ‘Then Perdue pouts, “B’ gives us light opera in a pathetic attempt to divert us from the clear and direct connection between the bigotry of self-loathing scum like Ashburn. ‘B’ should be showing a little spine.” Perdue means that he wants everyone to be as much of an ass as he is. As to giving us “light opera”, H.M.S. Pinafore may not have seemed so light to the real-life politician that Sir Joseph Porter was a caricature of – W. H. Smith. The press got wind of it, realized that the First Lord of the Admiralty really had risen through the ranks by figuratively kissing butts, and nicknamed him “Pinafore Smith”. Queen Victoria was not amused. Smith wasn’t either. Suggesting such an analogy is hardly complimentary towards Roy Ashburn, but Perdue is really too dense to realize that.

      Then Perdue lies by saying “B’s a right wing ostrich.” Meanwhile the right-wing people I have interacted with think I’m practically a communist, just as they think Obama is a socialist instead of what he really is – a “middle of the road” Democrat, which you pretty much have to be to get elected.

      Then, “He wouldn’t be able to make heads or tails of what Oscar Wilde meant” LOL – Perdue has probably not seen an Oscar Wilde play in any form. He should start with Salome – he’s as crazy as Wilde’s version of John the Baptist, so he’d feel right at home.

      Then there’s what Perdue ignored – his complete lack of criticism for Schwarzenegger even though Schwarzenegger’s veto of some LBGT bills had far more of an effect than Ashburn’s ‘no” vote. Why is Perdue silent about that?

      Mar 9, 2010 at 2:50 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • B
      B

      No. 63 · Bill Perdue – Bill Perdue is simply lying some more because he has no point and knows it. (Had a more detailed response but QUEERTY’s server seemed to drop it). What’s particularly telling is what Perdue ignored – the fact that he has zero criticism of Schwarzenegger, in spite of Schwarzenegger vetoing LGBT-friendly bills that the legislature passed (Ashburn’s “no” vote couldn’t stop those, but Schwarzenegger’s veto did). So, rather than blame the guy who really caused the problem, Perdue decides to blame me for not actingly like some obscure state senator is anything but a sideshow. Perfue needs some professional help. He can start with an anger-management class.

      Mar 9, 2010 at 2:58 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • benlayvey
      benlayvey

      @ben: One bad apple? Because of this man’s crusade against homosexuality a gay teenager has taken his life somewhere. Yes, it does’t matter how many rotten apples there is. It only takes one to push suicidal teens over the edge. I say off with his head, the guillotine awaits.

      Mar 9, 2010 at 4:53 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Mike in Asheville, nee "in Brooklyn"
      Mike in Asheville, nee "in Brooklyn"

      @Ankhorite: Well done.

      Mar 9, 2010 at 8:19 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Robert, NYC
      Robert, NYC

      What a moron! He says he wants to serve his constituents with honor? Where is the honor in shafting your own people? I bet he’ll join the Log Cabiners who will welcome him with open arms as their new hero for inequality. Sick people for sure.

      Mar 9, 2010 at 8:43 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Angelo
      Angelo

      What a despicable excuse for a man.

      Mar 9, 2010 at 9:09 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Synnerman
      Synnerman

      Mmm Sociopathy on display. I’m sure his friends will still love him. Evil loves company.

      Mar 9, 2010 at 10:11 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Shade
      Shade

      Clearly the only reasonable thing for us to do about this is put his head on a spike.

      He voted the way his constituents wanted and then slept with the people hurt by those votes? How does he sleep at night? Ah yes, we know the answer to that one – he gets hammered (before or after getting nailed).

      Mar 9, 2010 at 10:37 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Solis
      Solis

      @brie987: EXACTLY!

      Mar 9, 2010 at 11:24 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • benlayvey
      benlayvey

      @benlayvey: *are*

      Mar 9, 2010 at 11:26 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • dfrw
      dfrw

      @shade: I know the answer. He’s a Republican.

      Mar 9, 2010 at 11:35 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Cam
      Cam

      No. 33 · B said…

      That’s not really a good analogy because Ashburn was elected by his constituents to vote a particular way.
      __________________-

      Two things
      1. No, he was elected to represent them. Gay issues may have never come up during his campaign. If all legislatures wwere supposed to do was reflect the exact numbers of the voters, then Congress could be replaced by voting buttons on our TV remote controls.

      2. There are other jobs out there. Nobody forced him into this. Nobody told him to lie to a woman and trick her into marrying him etc… So this guy can cry me a river. But if he thinks that by “Standing by” his anti-gay votes the homophobic friends of his will stand by him, he has another thing coming.

      Mar 9, 2010 at 11:49 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Montana
      Montana

      “Family Values” California state senator representing Kern County, Republican Roy Ashburn (guess how he votes on gay issues?), goes to a gay bar near the Capital, picks up a scantily clad buddy, gets drunk, drives and receives a DUI. In my opinion the Republican Party has been taken over small portions of the republican party of “birthers, baggers and blowhards” (people who love to push their beliefs on others while trying to take away rights of those they just hate) and that’s who they need to extract from their party if they real want to win. Good Luck, because as they said in WACO, “We Ain’t Coming Out”. They are good at “Follow the Leader”. They listen to their dullard leaders Beck, Hedgecock, Hannity, O’Reilly, Rush and Savage and the rest of the Blowhards. The world is complicated and most republicans (Hamiliton, Lincoln, Roosevelt) believe that we should use government a little to increase social mobility, now its about dancing around the claim that government is the problem. The sainted Reagan passed the biggest tax increase in American history and as a result federal employment increased, but facts are lost when mired in mysticism and superstition. Although most republicans are trying to distant themselves from this fringe they have a long way to go. I guess Ashburn is the first on the list “2010 Republican Summer of Love”. Remember last year list of “2009 Republican Summer of Love”: state assemblyman, Michael D. Duvall (CA), Senator John Ensign (NV), Senator Paul Stanley (TN), Governor Mark Stanford (SC), SC Board of Ed Chair, Kristin Maguire (AKA Bridget Keeney). Do I hear Tammy Wynette, “Stand By Your Man” playing in the background? I remember not so long ago that other Orange County song favorite, “Stand By Your Tan” (for Tan Nguyen). But that’s another Orange County fool.

      Mar 9, 2010 at 12:22 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • sal(the original)
      sal(the original)

      “My votes reflect the wishes of the people in my district”sooo i guess he’s sayin they are homophobes…hmm now i get why he stayed in the closet cause THEY WOULDN’T VOTE HIS GAY ASS IN.another lying politician ,NEXT

      Mar 9, 2010 at 12:25 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • sal(the original)
      sal(the original)

      ..sell ya soul for a job…sounds like a man id want to lead me

      Mar 9, 2010 at 12:28 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • David Ehrenstein
      David Ehrenstein

      Good grief but this “B” character is One Sick Sack of Shit!

      Mar 9, 2010 at 12:45 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • mark
      mark

      Transforms himself from douche fag to Auntie Tom….babysteps

      Mar 9, 2010 at 12:57 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • strumpetwindsock
      strumpetwindsock

      @David Ehrenstein:

      And @ Bill

      You’re talking like B is the one who lied, cheated and deceived. Haven’t read any of his earlier posts, but from what I see here he is just casting a bit of light on the man’s warped rationale. He’s not saying he would do the same thing if he were in his shoes.

      Don’t shoot the messenger, boys.

      Mar 9, 2010 at 1:11 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • B
      B

      o. 76 · Cam wrote, “Two things
      1. No, he was elected to represent them. Gay issues may have never come up during his campaign. If all legislatures wwere supposed to do was reflect the exact numbers of the voters, then Congress could be replaced by voting buttons on our TV remote controls.”

      Cam, that is an oversimplification. First, he claimed his responsibility was to represent his constituents and vote as they would (if you listen to the radio broadcast, there was a phrase that indicated he meant, “how his constituents would vote if they studied the bills he was voting on,” so he would have to use some judgment. How his constituents would vote would be pretty clear to him from constituent meetings and hard data (like the county-by-county vote on Propositions 8 and 22). We elect representatives because most of us don’t have time to read the bills and understand the details.

      Regarding “2. There are other jobs out there. Nobody forced him into this. Nobody told him to lie to a woman and trick her into marrying him etc.” Did he trick her? Some people, due to their upbringing, don’t realize they are gay until after they get married. If that social pressure to conform wasn’t there, there would have been fewer unhappy marriages. He’s not the only one in that situation. Ask Episcopal bishop Gene Robinson (or just read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gene_Robinson#Early_career_and_children ). Did Ashburn want to be a state senator to vote on gay-rights or was he primarily interested in economic issues or some other area? He apparently didn’t really push any anti-gay legislation (if you know of any, please post that – I didn’t have any luck finding an example). He was involved with some “family values” group in his district. Whether his involvement was nominal or substantial would seem to be relevant as to how much criticism he deserved for that, but I didn’t find any useful information.

      So, before saying he shouldn’t have run for office, let’s see what the full picture is. And while he voted against gay rights bills, think about how bad an alternative from that area might have been. You may not like Ashburn’s LGBT votes (I don’t either) but it’s far worse to actively introduce homophobic legislation like Pete Knight did (one of the sponsors of Proposition 22). The score Equity California gave Ashburn was the median for Republican state senators – a zero, and only one Republican state senator had a better score in 2009. Ashburn is no worse than any of the other Republicans. In fact in some ways he’s better – check out http://www.campaignsthatmatter.com/legislators/3-roy-ashburn to see what his legislative interests are.

      And don’t miss http://articles.sfgate.com/2009-02-21/bay-area/17189776_1_budget-deal-california-senate-fairs for him being one of three Republican state senators who voted for a state budget, which requires a 2/3 majority. The other Republicans must have been really mad at that vote.

      Mar 9, 2010 at 5:19 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • B
      B

      No. 80 · David Ehrenstein wrote, “Good grief but this “B” character is One Sick Sack of Shit!” … proving that Ehrenstein is a real idiot.

      Mar 9, 2010 at 5:23 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Marcel
      Marcel

      “I felt with my heart being gay … did not effect, would not effect how I do my job.” Um, it’s “affect”, and yes, being gay did not affect the way he did his job, unfortunately.

      Mar 9, 2010 at 11:25 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Dan Collier
      Dan Collier

      Where is Jonathon Swift when we need him …

      Mar 27, 2010 at 8:40 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Ankhorite
      Ankhorite

      @B:

      You’re right, he voted the way he thought his homophobic constituents wanted him to vote, and the way he said he would vote.

      But the fraud is that he deceived his electorate by pretending to be a heterosexual homophobe, the only kind they would trust.

      And that was a lie, and a fraud. Also, telling them he’d vote against gay activity, which they urgently wish to suppress, and then himself engaging in that activity despite his constituents’ wishes (which he had committed to obey and promote) that he not do so is a further fraud.

      Forgive me if I’ve messed up the quoting and the bold; this is my first reply to an existing post.

      May 26, 2010 at 1:27 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·

    Add your Comment

    Queerty now requires you to log in to comment

    Please log in to add your comment.

    Need an account? Register It's free and easy.

  • POPULAR ON QUEERTY

    FOLLOW US
     



    GET QUEERTY'S DAILY NEWSLETTER


    FROM AROUND THE WEB

    Copyright 2014 Queerty, Inc.
    Follow Queerty at Queerty.com, twitter.com/queerty and facebook.com/queerty.