http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/scavenger/detail?entry_id=64582&tsp=1Outed SoCal lawmaker 'sorry' for voting against gay rights

A closeted gay Republican state senator who outed himself after a drunk driving arrest apologized for voting against gay rights bills.

"I'm sorry for that," said Roy Ashburn, of Bakersfield, in an interview with the Bakersfield Californian.

Ashburn's secret was exposed in March when he was arrested for drunken driving in Sacramento after leaving a gay nightclub. Days later, he admitted to Kern AM 1180 host Inga Barks, "I am gay."

His sexual orientation sparked a debate over his voting record. Ashburn has voted consistently against gay rights bills and was decried as a hypocrite by some. His defenders, however, said his homosexuality wasn't relevant to his political work -- a stance that Ashburn echoed in his "coming out" interview. He told Barks that he was serving the people who elected him:

"Again I believe firmly that my responsibility is to my constituents, and so 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?' 'How would they have me vote on this?' Obviously each of us has differences of opinion on almost every issue but ... when I say that I understand my constituents on these questions I don't think anyone misunderstands what I mean."

Now it appears Ashburn has changed his tune. He also explained to NBC how fear played a role in the way he cast his votes.

"My practice in my entire political career when it came to gay issues was to prevent any kind of spotlight from being shined my way, because I was in hiding. So casting any kind of vote might, could in some way, lead to my secret being revealed. That was terrifying to me. It was paralyzing. So I cast some votes that have denied gay people of their basic, equal treatment under the law, and I'm not proud of it. I'm not going to do that again."Ok, so yet another closet gay drug addict "Republican" Congressman, who comes out only after being caught with his pants down, shouldn't come as any shock to any of us.

But after first lying about it, he reveals the real reason he voted anti-gay: because he was afraid he'd be outed if he didn't.

(I guess he took Fyyr's advice, hide as best you can and try to maintain the broken status quo.)

Man, what a shame people need to be so hypocritical just to get themselves elected.

http://punditkitchen.files.wordpress.com/2010/04/129153011876841490.jpg

(I guess he took Fyyr's advice, hide as best you can and try to maintain the broken status quo.)

If things were reversed, if only homosexuals could marry.

The last thing in the world I would do is fight to have or get marriage for heterosexuals. It is a horrible institution.

If things were reversed, if only homosexuals could marry.

The last thing in the world I would do is fight to have or get marriage for heterosexuals. It is a horrible institution.So are churches.

But people should have the freedom to commit to horrible institutions, if they choose.

Or at least, people should have an equal right to commit to such institutions.

What I'm saying is I'm sure that there are plenty of homosexuals who don't want to marry. Or want gay marriage. I'm sure a whole bunch of them are just waiting to pay spousal support and alimony and loss of half of what they own on divorce.

Does not make them hypocrites. Makes them rational.

If a certain class or group of people get special rights over others because of being in that group, remove the special rights. At best it is a violation of the 14th Amendment.

Single people don't get the same rights as married people. They get less.
They get less than gay couples in civil unions as well.

I don't hear anyone screaming for equality for single people.
Never seen a banner or picket sign for them. Seems kind of sleazy.

Or lazy thinking.

What I'm saying is I'm sure that there are plenty of homosexuals who don't want to marry. Or want gay marriage. I'm sure a whole bunch of them are just waiting to pay spousal support and alimony and loss of half of what they own on divorce.

Does not make them hypocrites. Makes them rational.You can opt out of those legal obligations in California, in case you didn't know.

What they really want is social acceptance of their relationship, and they see marriage as a symbol of that acceptance.

You and I don't need that acceptance, but it should be up to the individual. Just as individuals who need "god" to complete their lives should be allowed equal access to churches, even though we would laugh at the notion.Single people don't get the same rights as married people. They get less.
They get less than gay couples in civil unions as well.

I don't hear anyone screaming for equality for single people.To be consistent we should extend domestic partnership benefits to unmarried couples.

And no, you're not the only one acutely aware of unmarried couple discrimination, though it's relatively benign compared to gay couple discrimination.

And in some cases unmarried straight couples have it better than married couples.

What does church membership or allowance have to do with this discussion.

Churches should be allowed to include or exclude whoever they want.
Of course they shouldn't be subsidized by government either.
But that's a different topic.


Btw.
Have you ever had a rational pre nup discussion with a potential marriage partner? How did that work out for ya.

What does church membership or allowance have to do with this discussion.The government allows everyone free access to churches.

Imagine what it would be like if they didn't, if only certain people were allowed to join churches.

Everyone who was excluded, and wanted to join, would feel oppressed, ostracized, and what not.Have you ever had a rational pre nup discussion with a potential marriage partner? How did that work out for ya.Of course not. But many people do.

And if you can't have that rational discussion then, you better believe you won't be able to have it when the marriage falls apart.

I don't know what you mean by allows freedom of access.

Mormons excommunicate anyone who they don't want.
It's a rather common practice.

I don't know what you mean by allows freedom of access.Let me put it to you differently.

It used to be (at least in most states) that blacks and whites couldn't marry. The government wouldn't allow it.

That is seen today as an unfair law.

It's the same thing with gays.

What has that got to do with churches?

Besides.
Siblings and Parents and children can't legally marry each other.
Is that the same too?

What has that got to do with churches?Both topics deal with equal rights. If you can't grasp the analogy, forget it.Besides.
Siblings and Parents and children can't legally marry each other.
Is that the same too?Yes. Except there there's a compelling biological reason to not recognize the relationship.

What I'm saying is I'm sure that there are plenty of homosexuals who don't want to marry. Or want gay marriage.

That does not mean that those who do want it should be forbidden. After all being allowed to is not the same as being required to.

Somebody has yet to come up with a more convincing argument than 'It will destabilise society' (those few countries that do allow gay marriage have proven the impact of gay marriages on society is pretty much non-existent) or 'This 2000 year old book says it is forbidden' (there are a lot of things in that book that we do not want to start practicing again, including human sacrifice, genocide, offering your underage daughters up to gang rape to protect an o so precious male stranger, just to name a few things).


Eri

Both topics deal with equal rights. If you can't grasp the analogy, forget it.Yes. Except there there's a compelling biological reason to not recognize the relationship.
I can't grasp the analogy.

Sock is to foot, as mixing bowl is to head.
Wolf is to dog, as lion is to catfish.
I'll forget it, yes.

What if they don't plan on having children, or can't have children. They still can't marry.
What if they love each other? Don't you think they should have equal rights too? Is it your job to tell other people who love each other that they can't marry. Or even have kids? Audacious.

That does not mean that those who do want it should be forbidden. After all being allowed to is not the same as being required to.

Somebody has yet to come up with a more convincing argument than 'It will destabilise society' (those few countries that do allow gay marriage have proven the impact of gay marriages on society is pretty much non-existent) or 'This 2000 year old book says it is forbidden' (there are a lot of things in that book that we do not want to start practicing again, including human sacrifice, genocide, offering your underage daughters up to gang rape to protect an o so precious male stranger, just to name a few things).


Eri

Honestly, the Numbers 31 stuff is the best part.

I would probably sign up if religious folk sold that. I would love to have a bunch of virgin sex slaves.

What if they don't plan on having children, or can't have children. They still can't marry.
What if they love each other? Don't you think they should have equal rights too? Is it your job to tell other people who love each other that they can't marry. Or even have kids? Audacious.Marriage has nothing to do with children anymore, and never had anything to do with love.

It used to be, in European culture, a combination of an economic arrangement plus legally enforced sexual exclusivity, but those rules have slowly eroded to almost nothing.

Today it boils down to societal approval of a sexual relationship.

We can choose to extend that approval to gay couples, but not extend it to fathers and daughters. Rights are never absolute, and there are good reasons why we shouldn't approve of father/daughter relationships but should approve of gay relationships.

And yes, I have every right to control the breeding habits of other members of my society, since I have to pay for them and I have to bear their impact on this planet.

One huge point in the gays' favor, they always breed intentionally, and usually, responsibly. If everyone on Earth were gay, many of our global problems would solve themselves.

You said there was a biological reason to prohibit.

If they are not going to reproduce, then why do you want to prohibit them from marrying?

Seems pretty bigoted and intolerant to me. Why are you an intolerant bigot?

If everyone on Earth were gay, many of our global problems would solve themselves.
If only those who could take care of their own children were allowed to have children, MOST of our global problems would solve themselves.

And yes, I have every right to control the breeding habits of other members of my society, since I have to pay for them and I have to bear their impact on this planet.

I am glad we agree.

You said there was a biological reason to prohibit.

If they are not going to reproduce, then why do you want to prohibit them from marrying?I don't want to approve of father/daughter relationships because:

1) They may reproduce, with defective offspring. (How do you know they "are not going to reproduce"?)

2) Such relationships usually involve physical or psychological abuse, and as such aren't truly consensual.

Note the difference between "approve of" and "permit". You seem to want to merge the two concepts.Seems pretty bigoted and intolerant to me. Why are you an intolerant bigot?Bigots hate people for what they are.

Christian zealots hate gays because they are gay, not because they are gay and want to get married.

I don't hate fathers, or daughters. At least not any more than I hate the average person.

They may reproduce, with defective offspring.

That sounds like you actually support Eugenics.

Do you really think that we as a society should have laws that prevent people from having defective offspring? And that people do not have the right to choose that themselves.

You think like that?

That sounds like you actually support Eugenics.

Do you really think that we as a society should have laws that prevent people from having defective offspring? And that people do not have the right to choose that themselves.

You think like that?Again, you're confusing approval with permission.

Marriage is about approval, not permission. Disapproval is not synonymous with prohibition. Just because we disapprove of a relationship (i.e., don't allow marriage), doesn't necessarily mean we forbid the relationship (i.e., throw people in a cage if they do it).

Eugenics is a different topic altogether. Eugenics is so fundamental to our species that it's written in our genes. We are pre-programmed to propagate good genes and eliminate bad ones. We wouldn't be here, if it wasn't for eugenics.

Opposing eugenics makes about as much sense as taking an oath of celibacy at age 12, and keeping it.

Marriage has nothing to do with children anymore, and never had anything to do with love.


Huh?

Maybe I huhed this before, I don't remember.

Huh?Step out of the 1950s.

The days of "legitimate" and "illegitimate" children are long gone.

And the only reality where marriage is a natural consequence of love is in female põrn, i.e. romance movies. Guess you've been dragged to one too many of those.

For a very long time, marriage was an economic arrangement. There are a few lingering vestiges, but today it's symbolic, of an "approved" relationship.

Gays only want that societal approval too, the same approval we give to good white European blond haired Christian straight couples.

Have you ever been married?
Did you have kids with her?



http://www.funnyordie.com/videos/e01ae82c03/devin-glenn

Have you ever been married?
Did you have kids with her?Of course not. I guess you haven't been paying attention.

This will ruffle some feathers: Kids of lesbians have fewer behavioral problems, study suggests (http://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/06/07/lesbian.children.adjustment/?hpt=T2)

http://www.funnyordie.com/videos/e01ae82c03/devin-glennFunny.

But, it's not as though gays don't already live as couples.

Letting them marry won't change that.

Kids of lesbians have fewer behavioral problems, study suggests (http://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/06/07/lesbian.children.adjustment/?hpt=T2)It wouldn't surprise me one bit.

Because gays always breed purposefully.

And a child that is wanted, planned for, and desired will have a better shot at life.

Of course not. I guess you haven't been paying attention.

You know sometimes I question your rationality and intelligence.

But not at this.

In this, your rationality and intelligence exceed mine.
Please take this as intended, a compliment.