Congressman Ed Schrock (R-VA) not really outed.

[yesthattom]

I don’t think it can be called “outing” when

• an anti-gay crusader...
• who has a voting record that rates him a 92% with the KKKhristian KKKoalition
• who voted for the homophobic Marriage Protection Act...
• and is a CO-SPONSOR of the Federal Marriage Amendment

has made a habit of rendezvousing with gay men via the MegaMates/MegaPhone Line.

I think everyone should write Congressman Ed Schrock and ask how he can cruise for gay men and then co-sponsor the Federal Marriage Amendment.

“Dear Christian Coalition, I am SCHROCKED that you would support an adulterer who not only cheated on his wife but is a homosexual!” (quote from a commenter on the BlogActive web page.

The author says he has tapes and transcripts, all to be revealed soon. This is a good thing since news announced on Friday gets ignored... but now he can build buzz and release the evidence right before the RNC.

Comments

[kimuchi.livejournal.com]

I'm not too surprised. It's always been clear that some of that conservative rhetoric had to come from the self-hating closeted crowd (or something very close to that). I mean, that theory that homosexuals have better sex, so that if just -anybody- could be openly gay no one would choose to procreate? That could only come from a man yearning for dick.

[disappearinjon.livejournal.com]

I'm not a supporter of the MPA or the FMA, anti-gay, homophobic, a member of the Christian Coalition, Christian, a Republican, or a conservative. Far from it.

But I'm not sure we should be taking this tack, even though it's fun and emotionally satisfying. It's a lot like the ad hominem attacks on W: they make us feel better, but they definitely alienate people in the middle (ie, those swing voters we need to win the election this time around, who voted for W and who we now need to vote for Kerry). Books called 'Rush Limbaugh is a Big Fat Idiot' and 'Stupid White Men' do nothing, in my opinion, to advance our cause. (And books such as 'Treason' do nothing to advance theirs.)

People who tend to vote conservative don't see hypocrisy the same way that you do. (I think I might fall somewhere in the middle, or even be tending towards the conservative-leaning definition -- ack!) I think that, for people who hold a strong moral belief (in this case, 'being gay is immoral and wrong'), it's better to hold that position publically -- even if you're not strong enough to maintain perfect correctness yourself.

Which is to say, people are fallible and imperfect, but that's no reason to abandon support for a principle. Knowing the difference between right and wrong, and stating it publically, is better than not knowing or defending what is right. Even if you can't always do the right thing yourself.

I think that many --- perhaps most --- Americans believe this. It's the same thing that lets people separate the office of the church from the office-holder. An individual corrupt Catholic priest does not disgrace the church --- he's a temporal representative of something eternal and glorious. (Now, the church's covering for pedophile priests is something very different...)

All that said, I think that Schrock's positions are horrible and immoral, and we should press forward in our (the broad sense of our) campaign against discrimination. But attacking the man personally, and outing him, I'm not sure is such a good idea.

Schrock's district is extremely conservative. In a direct-democracy ballot-initative system, the citizens of his district might have a better (ie, higher than 92%) voting record with the Christian Coalition. They'd certainly sponsor the FMA. It may be that Schrock does not and has never personally held those positions, but believes that his job is to represent the views of the members of his district. (Personally, I believe that we should elect politicians to lead, not to follow, but that isn't a universally-held belief.)

If Schrock believes that a politician should represent the views of the majority of members in his district (ie, he doesn't see a moral conflict between having a different private position than his public position, or he believes that they're right and he's wrong, but he can't help himself), and he wants to be a politician, well, he'd have to closet himself. Because the members of his district are unlikely to elect an openly gay man to Congress.

If he is forced to resign and a special election is held, Schrock won't be replaced with a liberal democrat; he'll be replaced with another conservative Republican. I don't see how this helps us at all; I do see how the process makes us look bad, however.