DUI arrests tend to bring out the worst in people — or at least the truth. It seems California State Senator Roy Ashburn is gay. The only reason this is news is because Ashburn’s Republican — and has voted against gay rights measures for the past 14 years. Geoff Kors, executive editor of Equality California, says he hopes Ashburn’s revelation will cause him to change his voting patterns. “I hope his own self-awareness will result in him no longer voting to deny people the most basic rights.”
This is the basic assumption regarding gay rights (or any rights) by people on the left: that if you are gay, you must be in favor of gay rights.
In one of my articles for Newsreal, I point out just the opposite. “It may surprise Hollywood to know that many gay people do not need defending. Not all gay people want to be married, and not all gay people think gay marriage should be legal. What does this make them? A traitor to their cause?”
I don’t think so. I don’t know what Mr. Ashburn will do now that the skeleton’s out of the closet, but I do know there’s been nothing of a hypocritical nature with respect to who he is and how he votes. (Now his wife might think he’s a hypocrite, but that’s another subject.) You can absolutely be gay and not support gay rights.
To a lefty, this sounds odd. But that’s only because lefties are ruled by their emotions rather than their intellect.
March 9th, 2010 at 6:20 am
Is it hypocritical for a Black person to say that they don’t deserve equal rights? How is this any different?
March 9th, 2010 at 6:53 am
You are so right.
Gay people don’t want to have equal access to employment, fair treatment in housing and education, don’t want equal access to health care, the legal system, freedom from assault, and all the rest. They’re fine just the way they are.
In their own way, they WANT to be treated like third-class citizens, abused and mistreated.
Just ask the gays. They’ll tell you. I read it on the Internet, so I know it’s true.
March 9th, 2010 at 6:56 am
Wow, this seems like scrambling for a quick response in light of the Senator’s outing. I can agree that not all gays may care as much about gay marriage as we’re led to believe, but Senator Ashburn also voted against recognizing crimes against gays as hate crimes, and has stated that he was only voting how he thought his constituency wanted him to vote. I’d think that his constituency elected him believing that he shared their values (do we believe he’d have been elected as an openly gay Republican with the same stances?) – that’s generally how elections work – so I don’t think it’s at all a stretch to call him a hypocrite. Simply put, he won votes based on people’s perceptions that he was one way, when in his real life he was an entirely different person.
I also find the last line of your article hilariously ironic, in that I may never have read a less “intellectual” point made. It’s completely irrelevant to any argument, and is just another cheapshot dragging down political discourse in this country. It is, in itself, an emotional response, devoid of intellect. A small part of me is actually glad you included it, just so I could have a decent chuckle this morning.
All the best,
Emotional, Lefty, Lib, etc. – whatever name best suits your world view.
March 9th, 2010 at 7:01 am
Sure, Ms. Wanker, it’s so *intellectual* to conclude that gay people really don’t want equality. That has to be the sickest, most irrational appeal to anti-gay discrimination I’ve ever heard. STFU
March 9th, 2010 at 7:05 am
“To a lefty, this sounds odd. But that’s only because lefties are ruled by their emotions rather than their intellect.”
As a conservative Republican who supports equal rights for everyone, my concern is tha Sen. Assburn has not been voting based on intellect, but out of irrational shame and fear-based self-loathing. Now to a conservative Neanderthal lik Miss Venker, that might sound like ‘intellect’, but to the rest of us, it sounds like pathology-riddled insanity.
March 9th, 2010 at 7:18 am
All kinds of people hate themselves and deny themselves happiness and self acceptance, for all kinds of different reasons. Because he dislikes himself to the point of having to make negative public policy targeting people he feels are like him, it doesn’t make it OK. Our country is full of people that attempt to hurt themselves, even committing suicide because they don’t like themselves, and we stop them. Many people eat,drink,smoke,do drugs,etc because they don’t like themselves, to the point of needing intervention. Any self respecting person knows something is wrong when someone hates themselves that much. Ashburn does not have the right to take me down with him. He at least needs to be suspended from participating in further policy making that effects us all until he resolves his own personal issues.
As far as liberals being ruled by emotion, I’m sure some are, to make a generalization as you have indicates perhaps you aren’t using your intelligence in that statement. We were made with emotions, almost all of us have them. Does your god make mistakes? I don’t think mine does.(Or a million years of evolution, whichever you believe.) I believe we were given intelligence AND emotions to make fare and balanced choices and decisions.
I don’t have a problem with the fact that you have a different opinion than me, I have a problem with someone that refuses to open their minds long enough to even CONSIDER an opinion not their own. I read your site in an attempt to understand the other people I live with in this country, but I have yet to understand why so many people on the right refuse to do the same. I also don’t understand when I am within the law, how my personal pursuit of happiness assured by the Constitution has any baring on your life? I happen to be one of those homosexuals that doesn’t feel the need to be married to a man, but if I did, how does that effect your life?
Please respond, I’m interested in what you have to say.
March 9th, 2010 at 7:22 am
As a woman fighting to end women’s suffrage, I agree with Miss Venker. I hope she will support my cause too! Thank you for the insightful post!
March 9th, 2010 at 7:22 am
So he’s gay. Big deal. If the only thing that defines this guy is his “gayness” and that’s the only reason people like or dislike him, then those people are idiots.
It has come to the point where a person’s “gayness” is considered to be some kind of moralistic trait instead of simply being a choice of sexual partner.
Fah. So he’s a homosexual. As a rightist, I could care less. People shouldn’t be elected on such matters. We need leaders, not moral compasses.
March 9th, 2010 at 7:29 am
I guess I better mention I’m not the same James that has a reputation on this site. The above was my first post ever on this site.
March 9th, 2010 at 7:52 am
I think he is trying to establish a point that is why he came out or maybe he only want to be controversial and all. But come to think of it, there might be provisions that is, on a gay’s perspective, needs more modification.
March 9th, 2010 at 7:55 am
There was nothing hypocritical about being a free black man who didn’t support freedom for the slaves. Appalling and hypocritical are not synonyms.
What you completely neglect to consider about this story is the obvious element that is all to familiar to people with a shred of insight into human behavior. The shame and fear of social ostracism for being a homosexual has a long, painful history of driving men to overcompensate with outward hostility toward gay rights and even, in some cases, overt hostility toward gay men. The thinking of such persons is that the best way to not be ‘discovered’ is to avoid anything that might appear to be supportive of homosexuals. And, strange as this may seem to someone who doesn’t actually talk to men like this, being a homosexual who opposes equality for gays makes some homosexuals feel like they aren’t ‘really’ gay.
As a psychologist who has, over the years, seen at least a dozen such men in my practice, I can attest to the robustness of this phenomena among conservative men, and Christian conservative men, in particular. I am a straight, Christian, moderate conservative and I work for the church, but this is one area where I cannot ignore the wreckage of lives caused variously by naivete, dishonesty or indifference among many fellow Christians and conservatives.
Your point about Ashburn not being hypocritical is a legalistic argument, but as is often the case with legalistic arguments, it is offered either in bad faith or from a position of serious psychological naivete.
And, I believe, the real purpose here is to ever so obliquely and subtly plant in the minds of readers, the notion that a tiny percentage of mostly closeted homosexuals who oppose equal rights for gays somehow negates the claim of equal right among the 98 or 99% of gays who want the same rights as everyone else in this country.
March 9th, 2010 at 8:14 am
I can’t stop these responses from popping into my new IPhone!! Apparently they have to go there, or so says Patrick McCain. I want to read them all; don’t misunderstand — I’d just rather read them here…
At any rate, the main point of my post above is this: One can be gay and against gay rights; this does not make the person a hypocrite. That’s all I’m saying, and anything else someone may think I’m saying is speculation.
Now to the issue of “gay rights”: Gay rights, or anything else that ends in “rights,” is the same as the phrase “women’s rights.” These phrases are meant to couch complex matters in a feel-good solution, the idea being — Who in his or her right mind would be against gay rights (or women’s rights, or whatever)? The phrasing renders most people silent, for they feel they cannot speak out against something that sounds so good, so right, so natural.
When folks such as myself provide a different perspective to these issues, the result is this kind of rhetoric: “This has to be the sickest, most irrational appeal to anti-gay discrimination I’ve ever heard.” Most people cannot tolerate this kind of vitriol (and this example isn’t even that bad, actually), so they remain silent despite their concerns about how gay rights (or women’s right, or whatever) will manifest itself within society.
For example, during the 1970s there was the same kind of mass attention played to women’s rights as there now is to gay rights. The vast majority of people in power — Hollywood, the media, even the government — jumped on board to support the idea of women’s rights. After all, who wouldn’t support women’s rights?
But the ERA, the major piece of legislation put forth in support of women’s rights would have actually taken away legal protections afforded to unemployed mothers. In addition, passage of the ERA would have legalized the notion that there are no differences between men and women and thus women would have been subject to the draft.
This is a huge topic I cannot address adequately here, by my point is that “women’s rights” and “gay rights” sound benign on the surface. They are meant to appeal to people’s emotions. But the reality of how the legislation actually works is something else entirely.
Thus, a gay man (or woman) who understands how gay marriage (or other legislation involving gay rights) might have ramifications that he believes aren’t good for society doesn’t mean he’s not proud of who he is or that he doesn’t live life happily and peacefully as a gay man.
As to my comment about the emotions of liberals: Gay rights (or women’s rights, or whatever) is a politically correct subject: It’s considered “right” and “good” to agree with these issues. And political correctness is owned by the left. They define it and enforce it — and they decide who is to receive PC protection.
And according to leftists, gays need protection. At root is the assumption that some people are so weak (note James’ comment, “All kinds of people hate themselves and deny themselves happiness and self acceptance”) and need the strong to stand up for them.
I think more highly of people. I don’t insult them by assuming they’re too weak to stand up for themselves, which is what political correctness does. If Roy Ashburn doesn’t support gay rights I don’t assume he’s in denial or emotionally repressed. I assume he’s thought it over and that’s his conclusion.
Hope this helps clarify.
March 9th, 2010 at 8:33 am
Thanks to people like Ms. Wanker, self-loathing is an traditional art form among gay people.
March 9th, 2010 at 8:45 am
Wow, what an astonishing argument you make. You’re soaring intellect is truly awesome. Thanks for making such a good case for self-induced discrimination.
March 9th, 2010 at 8:47 am
Suzanne, your reply was a good rebuttal, until this awful meme:
“I think more highly of people. I don’t insult them by assuming they’re too weak to stand up for themselves, which is what political correctness does.” Don’t you think that the white Americans who marched with Dr. King saw how strong he was and joined his cause because they believed in it? Under your reasoning, however, they must have thought Dr. King needed a little “white” help, poor guy.
Political correctness doesn’t mean that you’ve relegated the other person to a helpless victim who needs help. Political correctness means that you empathize with others, despite fundamental differences in perspectives. It means that, even if you aren’t gay, for example, you understand that gay people who choose to live openly will suffer prejudice (and they will, just ask Matthew Shepard’s family), and that you choose to speak out against such prejudice whether you’re gay or not, because you recognize that prejudice is wrong.
If you can’t see that about political correctness, then I’m happy for you, because clearly you’ve lived a charmed life devoid of hardship.
March 9th, 2010 at 8:47 am
Heh, you know.. Liberals really piss me off for this exact reason. The man voted against these bills because he thought he was representing the will of the people who elected him. He is a great senator who did things the way they were intended. If he was in a majority gay supportive district then he would have voted FOR gay rights. I think you miss the point of what a senator is, they represent the voice of the majority like any other politician. At least that is what they were meant to do.
March 9th, 2010 at 8:51 am
The whole thing is everyone is not the same! Just because he says he’s gay doesn’t mean he thinks like a drone and follows the Gay Queen movements orders. He thinks independently, he doesn’t have the same beliefs and ideals maybe. It’s a free country. And since when does a party have certain people. Republicans which I am have gay people in it. It’s slow democratic thinking that labels everyone and categorizes people while telling everyone else to not categorize them. They are making it hard for gay republicans to come out because the (R) don’t think like them.
And whoever brought African/Americans on the same level, don’t. Why? Because we’re not. Being born a certain color and being discriminated against and bringing what you like in the bedroom public and being discriminated against have nothing to do with each other.
March 9th, 2010 at 9:18 am
“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.
March 9th, 2010 at 9:33 am
Jada,
If your Republicans are so understanding, then what’s stopping gays among them from coming out? Saying Dems make it hard for gay Repubs to come out makes no sense.
March 9th, 2010 at 9:49 am
I just wanted to congratulate Senator Ashburn on his recent coming out. I know it is a difficult time for him and that his revelation may cause negative feedback, but I for one am impressed with his honesty and courage in facing such a contentious issue head on. I hope his revelation leads him to feeling more at peace and at one with himself. Perhaps the model of openness will inspire others. Good work.
March 9th, 2010 at 10:03 am
Did you know that conservatives are more afraid of spiders than the average bear?
http://news.sciencemag.org/sciencenow/2008/09/18-02.html?ck=nck
March 9th, 2010 at 10:23 am
Did you know that liberals are more afraid of a fetus than they are of rabid genocidal theological murdering terrorists ?
March 9th, 2010 at 10:29 am
“Saying Dems make it hard for gay Repubs to come out makes no sense.’
Really ?
Everytime a gay con comes out all we hear is a bunch of sht from you about what a bunch of closet hypocrites we are.
Read the comments above. Get a clue
March 9th, 2010 at 10:45 am
I think the real issue here is that a political figure was arrested on DUI charges. That and the fact that his anti-gay voting was based only because that is what he thought his constituents wanted (what, are we in high school still?).
Whether or not his voting was “hypocritical” or “appalling” is a different matter. That can be argued over and over, either way. But I think we can all agree that a DUI charge is, for lack of a better word, bad.
Also, Venker’s closing line is so very ungraceful. Bravo to bad writing tact.
March 9th, 2010 at 10:52 am
[...] his homosexuality after he was arrested on a DUI after leaving a gay nightclub. A website called RightPundits.com posted an article by Suzanne Venker titled “Roy Ashburn, Anti Gay-Rights CA State Senator, Is [...]