Queerty is better as a member

Log in | Register
  in plain sight

If Everyone Knew CA Sen. Roy Ashburn Is Gay And Voted Anti-Gay, Should They Have Reported It?

Was California State Sen. Roy Ashburn actually at a gay bar prior to his DUI arrest? Some are questioning the original report!

That the anti-gay state lawmaker was cruising dudes at a gay bar, and appears to have picked one up, made our list of the 7 Worst Things about Ashburn’s arrest. But the manager of Faces, the Sacramento gay bar, says he never saw Ashburn that night. Which doesn’t mean he wasn’t there; just that he wasn’t seen by the manager in a packed club of 400 patrons.

Moreover, Ashburn’s camp won’t comment on any part of his arrest, including his whereabouts before he was pulled over by California Highway Patrol, so for now it’s just CBS 13 claiming he was there.

But in some David Mixner/Outrage!-style twist, it appears the local media knew about Ashburn’s sexuality. Or at least the rampant rumors he’s less than straight. Lois Henry, a columnist at the Bakersfield Californian, Ashburn’s hometown paper, asked the lawmaker straight out, “Are you gay?” Ashburn refused to give a straight(!) answer, responding only, “Why would that be anyone’s business? Including The Californian’s? I think there are certain subjects that are simply not relevant and this is one of them. It has no bearing on the job I do.” Back in 2004, another reporter had asked Ashburn that same question, to similar results.

To some, it’s curious that Henry and the paper wouldn’t report their suspicions about an anti-gay lawmaker to its readers, but we can understand how that went unreported. When the information gets back to editors, their concern is accuracy, and having substantiated information. Rumors are just that: rumors. And while this website and many readers might support public outings of anti-gay politics, print media hasn’t necessarily caught up with that manifesto.

Meanwhile, to others it might be curious that Ashburn, rather than issue outright denials about being gay, responded with vague answers about his sexuality. Keep in mind: He’s a married father of four. Without a firm denial, he gets to say (somewhere down the road, like right this moment) that he never lied about his sexuality; it also gives folks like us enough room to speculate and assume the obvious. Instead, Ashburn would just say his voting record reflects the wants of his constituents, and not (necessarily) his personal beliefs.

Then again, this is the guy who told supporters, in a 2005 press release, “We need to preserve traditional values for the future of our children. Children must be raised with morals and principles. As a society, we must provide them with a secured and loving environment that allows them to flourish.”

UPDATE: West Sacramento Mayor Christopher Cabaldon, who is gay, says he’s seen Ashburn regularly at gay bars. And while he respects Ashburn’s right to privacy, Cabaldon says he can’t stand the hypocrisy. So, uh, why didn’t Cabaldon expose the anti-gay state senator before?

[flv:http://cbstv.vo.llnwd.net/e2/0063/flash/20100304165800_48068_000622p3000841p0.flv http://www.queerty.com/wp/docs/2010/03/mayorchristopherbug.jpg 650 400]

UPDATE 2: This man claims he tried, after seeing Ashburn at gay bars, outing him in the media, but reporters wouldn’t take the story.

By:           editor editor
On:           Mar 5, 2010
Tagged: , , , , , , , ,

  • 65 Comments
    • alan brickman
      alan brickman

      Yes!!!! Outing a 100 actors doesn’t equal outing one closet case politician who constantly votes against equal rights for gays…think of the young gays who may have taken their lives due to his actions…

      Mar 5, 2010 at 10:08 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • terrwill
      terrwill

      YES!!! this scumbags actions have a negative effects on the lives of every Gay person. He deserves no quarter nor protections………

      Mar 5, 2010 at 10:21 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Bob R
      Bob R

      Yes, absolutely. Liars and hypocrites in positions of power or leadership need to be exposed for exactly what they are.

      Mar 5, 2010 at 10:51 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Tommy
      Tommy

      He’s a divorced father of four.

      Mar 5, 2010 at 10:56 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • emb
      emb

      Yes, absolutely. And Tommy, while the accuracy of his marital status is important (the truths around him being damning enough without coloring them), it doesn’t really matter a whit whether he’s married or divorced; he actively crusades against gay rights and in favor of oppression and discrimination, and if he’s doing that while diddling boys, he’s a hypocrite at best and deserves everything that can be heaped on him.

      Mar 5, 2010 at 11:04 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Linda
      Linda

      I just found your article by a Google search. For a gay news outlet your article is remarkably naive. The GOP seems to be full of closeted or gay men who are in denial and who are the most anti-gay politicians in the world. I think Freud would have something to say about this. In fact it seems to be a pattern. Really anti-gay, look inthe closet. Somewhat neutral or just a religious conservative, not as likely. (Note, I wrote “men”. I haven’t heard about this being a problem with women politicians with some prominant GOP women being out Lesbians)

      By the way Ashburn is divorced and there are a variety of rumors in the Bakersfield community about that. Point your web browsers at Roy Ashburn, also point them at Lords of Bakersfield.

      I have heard rumors about Asburn’s sexuality for years. With the wider acceptance of homosexuality even in conservative communities, wouldn’t it be better if these men came out rather than be subject to rumor and even possible blackmail?

      Mar 5, 2010 at 11:10 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Matthew Rettenmund
      Matthew Rettenmund

      The media colludes with gay public figures to keep them in the closet. It’s wrong, unethical and, even if they don’t believe themselves to be this way, anti-gay at its core.

      Mar 5, 2010 at 11:25 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • 4 Douche BFs from my 20s (I am smarter now)
      4 Douche BFs from my 20s (I am smarter now)

      Why did no one report his activities?

      The gay community set up gay as protected information from public disclosure unless the person who is gay says he or she is gay or chooses his or her own label. This provides a ready excuse for the press to avoid the issue although the reason why gays are saying they want privacy is not the same as why the press chooses to reinforce the closet. It is a perverse outcome, but it is one that is not without its own logic. That logic being the logic of the closet, and, how society chooses to ignore this minority group. It is like how the closet works in recording history like say Tom Brokaw’s book on the 60s or the greatest generation. Each time we give some closet case justification to stay in the closet by excusing their actions we set up the dynamic that allows the press to do the same.

      Mar 5, 2010 at 11:28 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • 4 Douche BFs from my 20s (I am smarter now)
      4 Douche BFs from my 20s (I am smarter now)

      @Matthew Rettenmund: However, as I just wrote, the media colludes with closeted gays who are bigots because we give them implicit permission to collude through out own behavior. Who were all these queens hanging out with him knowing full well who he was? How many people excused the behavior? How many people excuse other queens in the closet for whatever reason? At the end of the day, it is all part of the same process of reinforcing the closet that society wants to keep us in. We are just willing accomplices at this point in that process.

      Mar 5, 2010 at 11:31 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Rick
      Rick

      TRANNY!

      Mar 5, 2010 at 11:33 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Cam
      Cam

      This is the pathetic agreement that all the press seems to have. They still consider being gay shameful so will sit their while some waste of a life closet case sits up there passing anti-gay legislation to help hide his reality from others yet they won’t say a word because “Oh, we don’t want to damage him”. Well idiots in the press, how about all the damage he is doing to gay people. These people need to be outed, and the press needs to end this bullshit of covering for them.

      Mar 5, 2010 at 11:41 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • 4 Douche BFs from my 20s (I am smarter now)
      4 Douche BFs from my 20s (I am smarter now)

      @Cam: But then you have a lot of gay people telling the press that the closet is okay because it is up to individual and it is their right to privacy that is being violated. Thus, they place their argument for the closet in a moralistic way that says anyone who questions the closet, even here, is acting in an immoral way. So, once again, it is not just the press, but the message being sent out by parts of the gay community that validates this kind of politician. Think of the documentary, Outrage, in which GLAAD refused to nominate the film.

      Mar 5, 2010 at 12:12 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • emb
      emb

      Out the bastards! Their right to have anyone respect their privacy ends with their hypocrisy.

      Mar 5, 2010 at 12:47 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Cam
      Cam

      No. 12 · 4 Douche BFs from my 20s (I am smarter now) said…
      @Cam: But then you have a lot of gay people telling the press that the closet is okay because it is up to individual and it is their right to privacy that is being violated. Think of the documentary, Outrage, in which GLAAD refused to nominate the film.
      __________________________

      So true, those pursed lipped old guarders who still find it shameful to be gay disgust me when they try to say that people like this guy have to come out in their own time. If Barney Frank hand’t had that scandal, he would still be closeted also. Getting tired of their moral equivilency excuses.

      Mar 5, 2010 at 1:08 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • 4 Douche BFs from my 20s (I am smarter now)
      4 Douche BFs from my 20s (I am smarter now)

      @Cam: We live in an age of moral equivalency. Form for a long time has trumped substance. You can see this in every aspect of American life. It is not a surprise to see that same dynamic in the gay community since we often reflect the greater society.

      Mar 5, 2010 at 1:31 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • CHIP1218
      CHIP1218

      The Mainstream Media wants a story? Send your most attractive, young male reporter/anchor to his office, flirt with him, show some compassion, and he’ll probably talk – it might be pillow talk, but it will be the closest thing to getting that scoop they all want!

      Mar 5, 2010 at 1:57 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • ewe
      ewe

      BE CAREFUL FOLKS: Notice the outing of this gay man is only news when it is attached to an arrest for DWI. Crime and homosexuality does NOT go together and we had better straighten out that subliminal hate message being fed to the general public.

      Mar 5, 2010 at 2:12 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Cam
      Cam

      No. 17 · ewe said…
      BE CAREFUL FOLKS: Notice the outing of this gay man is only news when it is attached to an arrest for DWI. Crime and homosexuality does NOT go together and we had better straighten out that subliminal hate message being fed to the general public.
      ____________________

      Yes, and the way to fix that is to out these people when the press knows about them instead of helping them hide in the closet unless they are caught committing a crime while coming out of a gay bar. If the press had outted this guy the first time he voted against gay rights, this situation wouldn’t be linked to the crime of DUI.

      Mar 5, 2010 at 2:47 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Cam
      Cam

      These people need to be outed. People in DC knew or suspected for years about Mark Foley and Senator Craig. There have been rumors for years saying that the following two people are “ALLEGEDLY” gay, the same kind of rumors that abounded about Foley and Craig. So may I introduce to you the “Possibly Gay”

      Senator Herb Kohl
      http://racinenews.org/files/2009/03/herb-kohl.jpg

      and

      Senator Barbara Mikulski.
      http://blog.pappastax.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/11/senatormikulski2.jpg

      Mar 5, 2010 at 3:15 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • B
      B

      QUEERTY: “West Sacramento Mayor Christopher Cabaldon, who is gay, says he’s seen Ashburn regularly at gay bars. And while he respects Ashburn’s right to privacy, Cabaldon says he can’t stand the hypocrisy. So, uh, why didn’t Cabaldon expose the anti-gay state senator before?”

      The reason is “professional courtesy”, plus other politicians most likely won’t have anything to do with you if they think you will expose what they do or say in private. If you went off for some after-work drinks and made a wisecrack that was not politically correct, would you want to read your alcohol-enabled joke in the newspapers the next day? Would you trust the guy who told the press?

      Mar 5, 2010 at 4:43 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Cam
      Cam

      No. 20 · B said…

      The reason is “professional courtesy”, plus other politicians most likely won’t have anything to do with you if they think you will expose what they do or say in private. If you went off for some after-work drinks and made a wisecrack that was not politically correct, would you want to read your alcohol-enabled joke in the newspapers the next day?
      ___________________________

      Yes, but you’re comparing being gay and working against gay rights to being a drunk telling jokes. Lets compare it to this….would a black legislature out somebody who had a black parent, but who passed for white and voted against civil rights bills for minorities? I think they would. Whats more, nobody in the black community would be yelling at them for “Invading his privacy”. When you are attacking people, you have no right to demand their assistance in maintaining your own hypocricy. If they do that then they are a part of any damage you do to their community. Until the old guard in the gay community stop thinking of being gay as an inconvienience or as a shameful secret for some people, then some will continue to sheild dangerous hypocrites like this person.

      Mar 5, 2010 at 4:57 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Lucas
      Lucas

      If mainstream media won’t take your story, go to the blogs. Americablog, Towleroad, Pam’s House Blend; they’ll all blow it up to the point where MSM will start to take notice.

      Mar 5, 2010 at 5:49 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • B
      B

      “Yes, but you’re comparing being gay and working against gay rights to being a drunk telling jokes.” No, I’m pointing
      out that “you scratch my back, I’ll scratch yours” is the
      rule in politics. If there’s an implicit “don’t tell”
      agreement, you better not violate it or you won’t be part of
      the club.

      That constraint doesn’t apply to non-politicians at that
      club, but a lot of them probably didn’t recognize the guy
      as a member of the state senate either.

      BTW, the area he represents is at least partly in California’s
      Bible Belt. It’s no surprise as to how he’s voted – he’d
      pretty much have to vote that way to keep his job. He represents parts of Kern, Tulare, and San Bernadino counties, and all of Inyo county. The votes in those counties in favor of Proposition Eight were

      Kern 75%
      Tulare 75%
      Inyo 60%
      San Bernadino 67%

      ( http://www.latimes.com/news/local/politics/cal/la-2008election-prop8prop22,0,6153805.htmlstory has an interactive map of how the vote went)

      Mar 5, 2010 at 5:58 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • jason
      jason

      Why are you assuming that Ashburn is gay? How do you know he isn’t bisexual? At least half the men in gay bars are bisexual in their orientation. Furthermore, some straight guys are known to go to gay bars just as some gay guys are known to go to straight bars.

      We shouldn’t be making stupid prejudicial comments about Ashburn’s sexual orientation based on whether he visits gay bars. If we do, we are just as guilty of homophobes in terms of our own prejudices.

      What we should be pointing out is his hypocrisy. Stick to the hypocrisy aspect rather than the stupid and dumb “he’s gay” notion.

      Mar 5, 2010 at 6:06 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Cam
      Cam

      No. 24 · jason
      Why are you assuming that Ashburn is gay? How do you know he isn’t bisexual? At least half the men in gay bars are bisexual in their orientation. Furthermore, some straight guys are known to go to gay bars just as some gay guys are known to go to straight bars.
      _____________________

      Jason, seriously, get over it. The issues being discussed here are important politically and yet here you come again with your standard form letter about bisexuality. If you spent half as much time BEING bisexual as you do trying to convince everybody about bisexuality you would probably be much more happy.

      Mar 5, 2010 at 6:23 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • B
      B

      No. 25 · Cam wrote, “Jason, seriously, get over it. The issues being discussed here are important politically and yet here you come again with your standard form letter about bisexuality.”

      … the issues being discussed aren’t really important politically, except to one particular state senator and a few other politicians in similar situations.

      If Ashburn had thought a bit more, he could have used the obvious excuse – he went to “Faces” because he heard there was a Latina contest (or whatever it was) and he wanted to watch the pretty Latinas. Then when he left after finding out the Latinos there were not interested in the Latinas, and gave someone who made the same “mistake” a ride.

      Transparent excuse? Any port in a storm! Unfortunately for him, he waited too long before using it, so now it will sound like an excuse – it would have sounded a bit more plausible if he brought up “Faces” before someone else did.

      Mar 5, 2010 at 6:43 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Cam
      Cam

      No. 26 · B
      No. 25 · Cam wrote, “Jason, seriously, get over it. The issues being discussed here are important politically and yet here you come again with your standard form letter about bisexuality.”

      … the issues being discussed aren’t really important politically, except to one particular state senator and a few other politicians in similar situations.
      _____________________

      No, this is an example of the hypocricy of the closet and the fact that the press and other politicos will allow these dangerous hypocrities to continue to attack and damage our community all while they cower under the cover provided to them by the press and their fellow politicians.

      Mar 5, 2010 at 6:54 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Leon
      Leon

      Jason, why do you stupidly assume that if Ashburn is bisexual that he must legislate your exact agenda or else be labelled a “homophobe”. Ever heard of GOProud, Log Cabin, Republican Unity Coalition, or the Austin 12? There are tons of Republican gay men who strongly oppose the gay agenda and believe that heterosexuals make better parents. Even liberal Andrew Sullivan opposes hate crimes legislation and questions whether Matthew Shepard was gay bashed or just mugged. There is no rule that if you like gay sex, you have to support the whole liberal agenda. Another good example is Marine Lt Matthew Sanchez. He is very strongly Republican and has appeared on FoxNews tons of times. He even acted in gay porn and said he enjoyed gay sex. But he in no way supports the liberal agenda.

      Mar 5, 2010 at 7:00 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Jasun
      Jasun

      @jason:

      So… being bisexual is a “get out of accountability free” card?

      I guess since most bi guys marry women in public and screw men in private… that’s how most bisexuals kinda view that, eh?

      Mar 5, 2010 at 7:08 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • ewe
      ewe

      @jason: Jason: This bisexuality is not vogue anymore. Can it. You are either bi straight or bi gay.

      Mar 5, 2010 at 7:18 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • jason
      jason

      I get sick and tired of gay cultists throwing the gay label around as if there is no tomorrow. You truly have become a cult. If you stopped and thought about what you’re saying, you’d see how stupid you really are.

      My view is that Ashburn may be bisexual in his orientation. We definitely know he has a heterosexual component to his orientation – after all, he’s got 4 kids. He’s been seen in a gay bar – OK, it’s possible he has a sexual interest in men but that is not confirmed. Being in a gay bar does not automatically mean you are there to find a sex partner.

      We need to hold Ashburn to account for his homophobic stances, I agree. But we should do this without saying “he’s really gay”.

      Mar 5, 2010 at 7:39 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • jason
      jason

      Ewe,

      Bisexual orientations exist regardless of what’s vogue or not.

      Vogue has no place in biology. It might have a place in the la de da set who read silly magazines and get all their information from self-appointed culture gurus, but it doesn’t have a place in biology.

      Mar 5, 2010 at 7:42 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • ewe
      ewe

      @jason: His hetero component you speak of is “cover”. Florida governor does it too. Everyone knows that poof was barhopping in the 80s. No big deal unless you hide yourself and lash out at those that refuse to. Stop defending these cretons. They are not troubled. They are immature cowardly victims of a society that makes it harder for those of us who stand true to our own essence. If you can’t fucking be your gay self by the time you are fifty…. then stay the hell away from me. It’s just too twisted.

      Mar 5, 2010 at 10:33 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • ewe
      ewe

      @jason: i agree and my whole point is that you are the one acting as if bisexuality is vogue. It is you giving this hypocrite an easy out. There are too many gay men hiding behind bisexuality. It’s bullshit. It’s safe. It makes harder for the rest of gay men who take the shit for them.

      Mar 5, 2010 at 10:35 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • B
      B

      In No 27, Cam wrote, “No, this is an example of the hypocricy of the closet and the fact that the press and other politicos will allow these dangerous hypocrities to continue to attack and damage our community all while they cower under the cover provided to them by the press and their fellow politicians.”

      Nope – given the statistics I found on Prop 8, *any* state senator representing that district would have to have an anti-gay voting record to get elected. (See Comment No. 23 for the numbers). So, his case is irrelevant politically – if he had given any indication of voting favorably on gay rights, he wouldn’t have been elected and we’d have ended up with a most likely straight guy equally as bad. It’s irrelevant simply because the end result would be the same if he had been honest about his sexual orientation or voted more moderately in the past.

      I don’t think either of us particularly likes this situation, but I think it is better to acknowledge what it actually is – tactically and strategically you do better if you assess the enemy realistically.

      Of course, that doesn’t mean we can’t have fun ridiculing the situation he ended up putting himself into. We should simply acknowledge that the “fun” is not politically significant.

      Mar 6, 2010 at 12:17 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • ewe
      ewe

      @B: Wait just one minute there sonny. Not politically significant???? They are telling the public that this politician is gay in the same breath they tell them he is criminally charged. That is devious, deceptive and caters to feeding the ignorant false impressions.

      Mar 6, 2010 at 12:43 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • B
      B

      No. 36 · ewe wrote, “@B: Wait just one minute there sonny. Not politically significant???? They are telling the public that this politician is gay in the same breath they tell them he is criminally charged. That is devious, deceptive and caters to feeding the ignorant false impressions.”

      They are saying he was arrested for DUI (with it seems physical evidence to back it up and which has nothing to do per se with him being gay). The police didn’t say he was gay – that came out independently (the anonymous companion he had may have had something to do with it) but it has nothing to do with any political issue of any substance. It is simply theater. If he’s
      replaced, his replacement will be equally homophobic, but probably straight given the demographics.

      Mar 6, 2010 at 1:42 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • jason
      jason

      Ewe,

      On the contrary, I think there are too many “straight” men who are hiding their bisexual orientation.

      Here you have in Ashburn a man who identifies as straight but who is possibly sexualizing with men. Therein lies an important issue that is applicable to many straight-identifying men.

      Basically, what I’m saying is that the social stigma surrounding the male-male interaction forces many men to identify as straight even though they are bisexual in their orientation. It is this atmosphere of self-loathing which causes the Ashburns of this world. It’s my view that most homophobes are bisexually oriented men who passionately loathe their same-sex component.

      I’m not letting Ashburn off the hook at all. If he’s sexualizing with men, he’s obviously a massive hypocrite given his anti-gay stances.

      Mar 6, 2010 at 2:48 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • 4 Douche BFs from my 20s (I am smarter now)
      4 Douche BFs from my 20s (I am smarter now)

      Whether he likes to lick pussy or suck dick, he’s only hiding the suckin’ dick. No one gives a flyin’ fuck if he likes to lick pussy cause he’s bi, they only care that he likes to suck dick cause he’s bi. Gays have a problem with him hiding the suckin’ dick part. We don’t give a shit about licking pussy. I just came in from hanging with a combo of straight and gay guys. Guess what- we talke dabout sex. Straight and gay and bi sex. No one cared. The only people who dare the phobes. And those are people like shit sack Jason. Only an idiot like Jason would not get this. But given his attempts to derail every conversation with the same jacked up trollish shit. That’s about as surprising as a dead boy in the bed of a Republican during the GOP convention. And trust me, that’s not surprising at all.

      Mar 6, 2010 at 3:05 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • 4 Douche BFs from my 20s (I am smarter now)
      4 Douche BFs from my 20s (I am smarter now)

      Don’t care if you don’t publish me. This site is crap.

      Mar 6, 2010 at 3:06 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • ewe
      ewe

      @jason: i know. You are probably correct.

      Mar 6, 2010 at 3:18 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • ewe
      ewe

      @B: I disagree with you. Nobody is talking about heterosexuality when they report straight politicians that get busted.

      Mar 6, 2010 at 3:19 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • ewe
      ewe

      @4 Douche BFs from my 20s (I am smarter now): You’re so negative. What’s your problem? A bad day or just a rotten life in general? With a username like douche, you may want to avoid the word crap.

      Mar 6, 2010 at 3:20 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Steve
      Steve

      The thing that needs to be “outed” is when a politician is hypocrite who harms people, not so much that he is gay.

      Here’s one way to pursue that goal.
      1. Identify politicians who vote against bills that would benefit gay people, or for bills that would harm gay people.
      2. Make “wanted” posters with their pictures and names, offering a reward for information that they are gay.

      Mar 6, 2010 at 7:08 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Steve
      Steve

      (My previous note posted before it was ready. I don’t know how.)

      3. Put those posters up in gay venues, or publish them online. The key is to put the reward offers where gay people would see them.
      4. Evidence would be needed. Testimony of sex-partner would be best. Witnesses to ‘cruising’ and/or frequent attendance at a gay bar would work.
      5. Publish the reports. Newspapers of record would be best, but gossip rags and web blogs would work. (I have noticed that articles from queerty get picked up by news.google.com, now.)

      Remember — the key is not just to ‘out’ gay politicians. It is to identify and expose the hypocrites.

      In the past, the most hateful and venomous politicians have been the ones who turned out to be the hypocrites. If we can identify and expose a few of those before they gather power to do the worst and most hateful things, it might make a difference. Think of stopping a hypocritical city councilman before he becomes a state Senator or a Governor.

      Mar 6, 2010 at 7:20 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Robert, NYC
      Robert, NYC

      My take on it is, any gay man could have sex with a woman if he really had to, its not impossible though many of us wouldn’t even consider it. It doesn’t necessarily make one bi either. I’ve known a couple of males who were married at one time and had children, yet ended up living a full gay life and settling down with a male. They don’t consider their orientation to be bisexual just because they happened to have married women. There were reasons why they did, they’re much older than I am and lived in a time when being caught inflagrante delicto would land you in jail. I’ve had sex with a woman in my youth, but I never considered myself bisexual one bit. I did it more out of curiosity. I’m happily married to a wonderful guy and have absolutely no sexual attraction towards women.

      Mar 6, 2010 at 8:37 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Robert, NYC
      Robert, NYC

      I wonder if Mike Rogers of Blogactive knew about this? Either way I’m all for outing closeted politicans who continuously vote against us. Now lets wait until the dirt emerges on Carl Kruger in NYS, a conservadem who voted against marriage equality.

      Mar 6, 2010 at 8:39 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Live near Bakersfield
      Live near Bakersfield

      My area shares the same US Congressman as Bakersfield. They are a bunch of rednecks. Prop 8 won by a large majority. Ashburn would have to remain in the closet to stay elected.

      Remember, politicians have to do what their constituents want or they get thrown out of office.

      I.E. All of Bakersfield is anti gay.

      While I want to out every gay politician as well, most of them would lose office immediately when that is done.

      Mar 6, 2010 at 9:35 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Robert, NYC
      Robert, NYC

      The fact that a politician who happens to be a closet case deliberately chooses to vote against us to reflect the majority view of his constituents is nothing more than cowardice and dishonesty. What they do is to promote that lying is ok. Its disgusting. People like him don’t deserve to run for office let alone expect to be elected. Obviously they have NO shame or sense of decency. He deserves what he gets. His lying has now brought him to where he is, disgraced and a bad example of who we are. Ditto Mark Foley, Larry Craig and others. In my book, lying is not ok, ever, no matter how painful the consequences. People like this have no integrity or character. At least Barney Frank, like him or not, had the guts to come out and be honest about it, warts and all.

      Mar 6, 2010 at 10:11 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Live near Bakersfield
      Live near Bakersfield

      Foley and Craig are more to my point. All elected by conservative districts, Idaho being the worst. If you are gay and want to be a politican in those areas, you must be a closet case. Sad.

      You need to direct your anger at the people of Bakersfield and all the other idiots that want us to go back in the closet.

      Mar 6, 2010 at 10:40 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Tartuffe
      Tartuffe

      “Tartuffe, who knows his dupe and means to use him,
      Has countless saintly poses to bemuse him,
      Receives good sums, thanks to his pious mask,
      And has the nerve to take us all to task..”

      -Molière

      Mar 6, 2010 at 11:36 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • 4 Douche BFs from my 20s (I am smarter now)
      4 Douche BFs from my 20s (I am smarter now)

      @ewe: There is nothing negative about what I said.

      Mar 6, 2010 at 1:34 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • ewe
      ewe

      @4 Douche BFs from my 20s (I am smarter now): That’s your opinion. Sounds negative to me fragmented though it is.

      Mar 6, 2010 at 2:07 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • B
      B

      No. 48 · Robert, NYC wrote, “The fact that a politician who happens to be a closet case deliberately chooses to vote against us to reflect the majority view of his constituents is nothing more than cowardice and dishonesty.” … as a general comment, it is not really “cowardice and dishonesty” to refrain from a political suicide that would not change anything.

      What Ashburn should have done is to state that he was reluctantly voting against gay-rights legislation because his constituents demanded it, but refrain from making any anti-gay statements whatsoever. He could also talk to people in his district (e.g., religious leaders pushing anti-gay agendas) and say, “Look, I can’t repeat what you are saying because the best available scientific evidence shows that it is not factually correct, and the other legislators will simply assume I’m a fool if I repeat it and that will impact my ability to get legislation passed that will benefit our district. If you want me to make anti-gay statements, give me something that could be accepted in an academically respectable publication.” It’s not ideal, but it would have some positive influence – as the “religious leaders” try to find the material and come up empty handed, just maybe something will start to register in their ideologically hardened brains.

      In reality, Ashburn seems to have gone way off in the wrong direction, appearing at events in his district where he touted homophobic beliefs and contributed to making the situation worse. He could have avoided that, at most simply stating that he was going to vote the way his constituents wanted him to vote. Unfortunately, he didn’t.

      Mar 6, 2010 at 6:45 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • 4 Douche BFs from my 20s (I am smarter now)
      4 Douche BFs from my 20s (I am smarter now)

      @ewe: You are an idiot.

      Mar 6, 2010 at 9:33 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • 4 Douche BFs from my 20s (I am smarter now)
      4 Douche BFs from my 20s (I am smarter now)

      @B: How do we know this is what his consitency wanted? ONe of the mistakes people make is to conclude that just because someoen votes for a candiate, that means that they voted for him over their stances on a particular issue. Is that the case here?

      Mar 6, 2010 at 9:34 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Daniel
      Daniel

      He’s as bad as the Texas governor.

      Mar 6, 2010 at 10:03 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • B
      B

      No. 55 · 4 Douche BFs from my 20s (I am smarter now) wrote, “@B: How do we know this is what his consitency wanted?”

      Because they voted 60 to 75 percent in favor of Proposition Eight, depending on the county (his district is in four), plus anyone winning a state senate seat has to win a Republican primary (this district votes Republican consistently) and the primary is dominated by the most conservative faction of the Republican Party.

      It was even worse if you look at the Proposition 22 numbers from 2000.

      See http://www.latimes.com/news/local/politics/cal/la-2008election-prop8prop22,0,6153805.htmlstory for an interactive map showing information for each county. Ashburn’s district includes parts of (and in one case all of) Tulare County, Inyo County, Kern County, and San Bernadino County.

      Also, check out http://people.bakersfield.com/home/Blog/wlwedd (but keep in mind that they are trying to put a positive spin on a bad situation). Also http://www.metroweekly.com/news/last_word/2009/07/bakersfield-tv-exposes-gay-sex.html for one complaint about anti-gay bias in the local media.

      Mar 6, 2010 at 10:03 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Eesh Hayoter Gay
      Eesh Hayoter Gay

      What do you mean “rampant rumors he’s less than straight?” THe rumors are that he’ gay, which means he would be “MORE than straight!”

      Mar 6, 2010 at 11:09 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • 4 Douche BFs from my 20s (I am smarter now)
      4 Douche BFs from my 20s (I am smarter now)

      @B: Thanks for the info. It sounds like you are on good grounds regarding the gay marriage issue in his area. That being said, I don’t think any thing justifies another gay person deliberately harming another gay person. That’s like a Jewish person supporting the Nazis or an someone who is black who supports the KKK. It is just morally wrong.

      Mar 6, 2010 at 11:14 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • romeo
      romeo

      Ashburn made his choice. He was arrogant and hypocritical. If he wanted to be part of an anti-gay agenda, which obviously he did, then he needed to disclose his own proclivities. He assumed he could just jerk everybody around. As we all know, there are a lot of gay guys that think they’re better than their brothers, and their own desires are somehow “different” than just being gay. Big laugh. He deserves no sympathy. He’s a liar that got elected under false pretenses. His political career is over, but this should haunt him everywhere he goes. I wonder if he’s going back to the Inland Empire after this? LOL

      Mar 7, 2010 at 12:43 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Cam
      Cam

      No. 57 · B said…
      No. 55 · 4 Douche BFs from my 20s (I am smarter now) wrote, “@B: How do we know this is what his consitency wanted?”

      Because they voted 60 to 75 percent in favor of Proposition Eight, depending on the county (his district is in four), plus anyone winning a state senate seat has to win a Republican primary (this district votes Republican consistently) and the primary is dominated by the most conservative faction of the Republican Party.
      _______________________

      And perhaps if they elected somebody who came out of the closet and did a good job it would help put a real face on something like Prop 8, but to be gay and actively work against gay rights, that is a special kind of evil.

      Mar 8, 2010 at 10:08 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Ankhorite
      Ankhorite

      From the article: “Or at least the rampant rumors he’s less than straight.”

      Oh, man. Don’t do this. Don’t internalize oppression. Try on “the rampant rumors that he’s OTHER than straight.”

      Not “less than.” Never not “less than.”

      Mar 8, 2010 at 1:54 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Ankhorite
      Ankhorite

      @Live near Bakersfield:

      You say the area is so anti-gay, any anti-gay politician who outs himself would lose office.

      Good. He should. He’s perpetrating a fraud on the voting public, and a betrayal of the gay community — not to mention betrayal of his own inner self and, heaven help him, a wife and kids if he has them.

      Mar 8, 2010 at 1:58 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • GreenmanTN
      GreenmanTN

      YES! Yes yes yes. I don’t support “outing” people for the hell of it but when someone is an enemy to gay rights like Ashburn, using their political power to promote and codify homophobia into law when they are gay themselves, outing them is actually a moral imperative. They should be called upon to justify their actions to their constituents, gay and straight, with all the facts laid out on the table. If they defend their actions as Ashburn seems to be doing, then at the very least we gain insight into the motivations of people like this.

      If a female politician votes against the interests of women it’s obvious. The same is true of minority politicians. Gays are a slightly different (but not “lesser”) kind of minority because we come from all other groups and our status isn’t immediately apparent. That doesn’t mean that, for politicians at least, the same transparency isn’t called for. The newspapers that decided Ashburn’s sexuality wasn’t relevant were wrong.

      Mar 9, 2010 at 4:11 pm · @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.