Congressional Page Scandal [Archive] - Soulforce Community Forums

Jamie McDaniel

09-30-2006, 12:08 PM

When I heard about this, I was very curious. I guess it is the whole closeted Republican in adulthood thing that I find so bizarre. 365gay.com reports that Foley (http://www.365gay.com/Newscon06/09/092906foley.htm) was one of the Republicans who did vote against the federal marriage amendment, though. I don't know about his voting record on other LGBT issues.

I keep seeing the reports state that one of the pages described Foley's emails as "sick, sick, sick, sick." I first read those, and while they were inappropriate (asking for a picture, would you like a birthday gift) I certainly would not describe those individual emails as "sick." However, now ABC is reporting (http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/2006/09/exclusive_the_s.html) an instant message exchange (pdf (http://abcnews.go.com/images/WNT/02-02-03b.pdf)) between Foley and another page that took place in 2003. After reading that, I agree that Foley should no longer be in congress and there should be an investigation.

Another thing I find disturbing are the comments on the news reports. Some people are identifying themselves as conservative republicans, calling Foley a homosexual pedophile, and stating that such people should be "strung up." Wouldn't Foley's actions be much closer to sexual harassment, not pedophilia? Sexual harassment implies unwanted advances, and pedophilia involves children. Now when someone is underage, even if the advances are not rebuked, we still prohibit such actions to protect young people. So even if it is not harassment, there is a serious problem with Foley's actions.

I used to hear heterosexual men call pretty teenage girls "jail-bait." Meaning, of course, that until she crossed the age of consent line, sexual relations with her would get them jail. I just find it curious that some heterosexual men use the term "jail-bait" when talking about 16 or 17 year-old girls while the term "pedophilia" seems to be brought up if it involves a homosexual. I should say that I haven't seen any major news source using that term in connection with Foley, just in the comments from readers.

What do you think?

BruceChris

09-30-2006, 04:06 PM

That huffingtonpost.com link that you posted contains the names of how many thousand alleged Republican perverts and/or child molesters? I'm sorry, but I totally lost count before I got even part way down the page. Somebody either really has an ax to grind, or they have WAY too much time on their hands. And Neal Horsley was accused of having sex with a WHAT? Well, at least he kept it within the species. (O.K., O.K., maybe I have too much time on my hands)

Just Kickin' Back, Bruce Chris

Daniel

09-30-2006, 06:28 PM

That huffingtonpost.com link that you posted contains the names of how many thousand alleged Republican perverts and/or child molesters?

Interesting. I took a good look at that page now that you mentioned it. Yes. Someone is keeping tabs on the peccadillos of Republicans. Hypocrisy revealed in the Party of God? :rolleyes: Perhaps someone is doing the same for Democracts somewhere!

Wouldn't Foley's actions be much closer to sexual harassment, not pedophilia? Sexual harassment implies unwanted advances, and pedophilia involves children. Now when someone is underage, even if the advances are not rebuked, we still prohibit such actions to protect young people. So even if it is not harassment, there is a serious problem with Foley's actions.

I think, because of the laws regarding the young man's age, it makes it a matter of pedophilia. From what I've read, he may be prosecuted under the same laws he helped draft re the internet even though no sexual relations were involved (as far as we know!). It's a crime, therefore, to make a pass at an under-aged kid via the internet.

Is there a double standard here as to how straight and gay men are referred to in these matters at the water-cooler? Certainly! In casual conversation, when girls are involved (with straight men), they are often blamed for the seduction. Boys (with gay men) are not. What's seems to be at stake here is the perception of power and status of men. And gay men don't share coveted status as yet. It's Ok for a straight guy to get it on with a girl- a mark on his belt, but the gay guy is a pedophile. Of course, both situations are abuses of power. You have a person taking advantage of someone. I think that is morally and ethically wrong, no matter how you slice and dice it. The straight guy with the underage girl is a pedophile too.

An aside: as an unexperienced young adult (over the age of consent), I experienced the advances of a man who- to put it simply- took advantage of me. The repercussions were many. The sad fact is that the person doing the abusing often doesn't see themselves as doing anything wrong. They can only see what they want. That is their first priority.

addendum:

Several key persons involved don't seem to know about the matter- a very curious thing indeed. Who, one wonders, is investigating the investigators?

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/01/washington/01foley.html?hp&ex=1159761600&en=72f54d420adcb9e2&ei=5094&partner=homepage

midtnscott

10-01-2006, 08:58 PM

Daniel

10-02-2006, 12:31 AM

Let's be a little sympathetic to Mark Foley. Remember how we were before we came out. He's obviously been going through a lot in his mind and life and has been wondering about his sexuality. I don't know his heart and won't judge him. It's between God, him and the courts.

That being said, the emails we DO know about were, at the least inappropriate and at the worst sexual harassment. Apparently, there are more that are more explicit and that is a crime. Pedophilia - NO! But it is solicitation of a minor. If the page's family refuse to press charges it will be difficult, but not impossible, to prosecute him.

The real issue is that the Republican House leadership knew most of this at least as far back as 2005 and did nothing in order to keep political power.

Not unsympathetic here, just looking at the situation in practical terms. Whatever his sexuality, Mr. Foley overstepped the line, that seems certain.

The legal angle:

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/02/washington/02legal.html

And the political angle:

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/02/us/politics/02child.html

Congressional pages remember him as a really nice guy.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/02/washington/02pages.html?hp&ex=1159761600&en=84ba552ce1390908&ei=5094&partner=homepage

Gay people do a bang-up job being nice, but not always for the best of reasons: being nice can be overcompensation behavior.

I think there is another matter at work here besides the withholding of information on the part of Republicans and their retention of power (which has yet to be proven). And that is the failure of Don't Ask Don't Tell. Whether it is in the military or civilian life, if Mr. Foley thought he could be openly gay (if he is indeed gay), this situation might never have arisen. (There is the matter of self-destructive behavior, which may play an important role here: http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/01/weekinreview/01leib.html)

There are those who assert that sexuality should not be an issue. I'll readily agree to that as long as no one needs to hide who they are anymore.

I see this whole situation as a warning: you can't corral, box, or deny your sexual energy. It seeks a way out and defies all attempts to suppress it. And its always better to come to terms with it in a healthy manner-with another adult.

October 10th is National Coming Out Day.

Giancarlo

10-02-2006, 12:37 AM

Uh, it doesn't matter what some say. If he committed impropriety, he should face criminal charges. What he committed is both pedophilia and sexual harassment. I don't want gay people associated with pedophiles. That's something we have to deflect and criticize. For decades, the psychological and medical communities in this country were convinced that homosexuals were in the same group as pedophiles, and often many believed that they were child molesters themselves.

As a gay man, I absolutely CANNOT be sympathic towards Foley at all. What he did was criminal and he deserves to be prosecuted. I feel that all child molesters should be tried in law, and should receive equal consistent trials and punishment if convicted [regardless of sexuality] (often this is not the case in the United States, as homosexual age of consent is more strictly enforced).

Even with the faults in this system, what this guy did is not only ethically and morally wrong, but also criminally wrong. He should be facing criminal charges.

Daniel

10-02-2006, 01:31 AM

What he committed is both pedophilia and sexual harassment. I don't want gay people associated with pedophiles. That's something we have to deflect and criticize. For decades, the psychological and medical communities in this country were convinced that homosexuals were in the same group as pedophiles, and often many believed that they were child molesters themselves.

Mr. Foley, is not, strictly speaking a pedophile, at least, not in the accepted medical usage. The term, however, if often used in situations like this as noted below. I used the word this way earlier in this thread. Whatever the correct usage should be, the law, another thing entirely, has its own logic. I can only imagine that Mr. Foley is railing against his own stupidity at this moment.

Pedophilia
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Pedophilia or paedophilia is the paraphilia of being sexually attracted primarily or exclusively to prepubescent or peripubescent children. Persons with this attraction are called pedophiles.

In contrast to the generally accepted medical definition, the term pedophile is also used colloquially to denote significantly older adults who are sexually attracted to adolescents below the local age of consent, as well as those who have sexually abused a child.

Giancarlo

10-02-2006, 03:13 AM

Mr. foley, is not, strictly speaking a pedophile, at least, not in the accepted medical usage. The term, however, if often used in situations like this as noted below. I used the word this way earlier in this thread. Whatever the correct usage should be, the law, another thing entirely, has its own logic. I can only imagine that Mr. Foley is railing against his own stupidity at this moment.

I disagree with this assessment and I believe the otherwise can be said (that he in fact is). I am also speaking in the legal sense. Mr Foley committed a crime and should be tried for his actions under the court of law.

HillWilliam

10-02-2006, 07:02 AM

The real issue is that the Republican House leadership knew most of this at least as far back as 2005 and did nothing in order to keep political power.

What will be telling is how the investigation will unfold. Or there will be a repeated stonewall. Or "we'll investigate ourselves". We see how well that worked out before. I hope Pelosi is successful in getting sworn testimony. Unfortunately, we also remember how well that has worked before as well.

I wonder if the whole thing isn't orchestrated to draw attention away from the demise of habeas corpus. If in fact Hastert et al knew about Foley's activities at least a year before now (admitting only to six months), it certainly seems convenient to me for them to drop the ball now, just in front of elections. That's not a slip the RNC makes.

I believe that the sudden disclosure of Mr Foleys activities is because the RNC needs to do the Scanlon shell-game thing (http://dir.salon.com/story/news/feature/2005/11/03/abramoff/index.html) to redirect attention from what they have just done to the most basic fabric of American law. Foley was was an ace in the hole when Congress needed a deflection.

I agree, though, Foley is on his own between himself and G'd. He made his deals. One cannot survive inside the Beltway without making a few deals. I think that one can also reach deep inside and have an honest look at their eternity before trading it off for what's turning out to be a rather expensive thrill. The best way to go about getting into trouble is not to go looking for it. Too often, regret is an wholly avoidable place to be in. Regret at being caught in nefarious activity seems to be a regular pattern for Congressionals.

The tentacles of this whole series of incidents go way beyond who is now on the who's-who list of Congressional sex scandals. Who's been covering up and delaying investigations into the ever-unfolding Abramoff scandal, are the same "whos" who will be dragging their feet into any substantive investigation into Hastert's prior knowledge.

They're all the same Whos in that particular Whoville.

OTOH, youthful innocence only lasts so long. It's a shame to have it taken away. Foley had no right to take (or attempt to take) a youngster's innocence. It's hard to keep the faith of a little child when it's so greatly tested so early in life. I think it's a far better thing to teach a child what a predator is, in an honest fashion, than for a child ever to have to use that knowledge for discernment. Or worse, to find out the hard way. Even if there was no predation, the pages know that there could be. The fact that they could be thrown into adult intrigues is in and of itself disturbing.

I can only imagine how the parents of all the pages are feeling right now. How many adult situations, like political circuses, are those young pages expected to deal with? Neither they nor their parents bargained for any of this attention.

I wouldn't want that to happen to my young'un. I wouldn't want anything like that whole panoply of experiences to happen to me if I were sixteen.

But Foley knew up-front what he was in for. Or certainly he is old enough to know. He also had to know it was only a matter of time before the party threw him under the bus. That is a reality of the Log Closet existence.

It occurs to me that since Thursday night, I haven't heard a word on MSM about the President's self-forgiveness "we've been torturing all along, but now we're ripping the Constitution a new one so we can bring medieval law and 'justice' back home to you" legislation, yet much is being made of Foley's mess.

This has Rove's touch all over it.

Steven E. Webster

10-02-2006, 08:52 AM

Friends,

I just posted an item on my blog with a link to a interview with Newt Gingrich. Gingrich says the GOP didn't investigate Foley because they didn't want to be accused of "gay bashing."

http://morevile.blogspot.com/2006/10/republicans-arent-gay-bashers.html#links

Daniel

10-02-2006, 09:21 AM

I wonder if the whole thing isn't orchestrated to draw attention away from the demise of habeas corpus. If in fact Hastert et al knew about Foley's activities at least a year before now (admitting only to six months), it certainly seems convenient to me for them to drop the ball now, just in front of elections. That's not a slip the RNC makes.

Wondered about this too, though I also think truth can be stranger than any fiction dreamed up Karl Rove. It would be a pretty desperate move on his part if true, wouldn't it? Today's NYTIimes has a rumination on misteps made by the GOP. That the author sees this as involving Dobson is, of course, a matter of interest for those of us here.

http://select.nytimes.com/2006/10/02/opinion/02krugman.html?hp

It will be interesting, by the way, to see how Dr. Dobson, who declared of Bill Clinton that “no man has ever done more to debase the presidency,” responds to the Foley scandal. Does the failure of Republican leaders to do anything about a sexual predator in their midst outrage him as much as a Democratic president’s consensual affair?

All this aside, it bothers me - as it does you- that the topic of discussion- the trampling of the Constitution- has been so easily pushed aside by news of a sexual predator- which may be the best term used to desrcibe the actions of Mr. Foley. Does it work in the favor of Republicans? I guess we'll know for sure at election time. My ears did prick up a bit when I heard Dennis Hastert say that the sexuality of the person in question wasn't the issue at hand. And the media has (so far) not made the mistake of tarring gay people. Of course, this could all be political correctness speak. Even so, it's a step in the right direction. btw- for an interesting perspective on Hastert:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/alec-baldwin/forgeddaboutit_b_30716.html

Dobson, of course, could come out (no pun intended) and say that all gay people are sexual predators. That would be true to form.

Interesting how all these issues intertwine: politics, religion, and the desire for power and influence.

Meanwhile, Foley's rehabilitation has already started.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061002/ap_on_go_co/congressman_e_mails

HillWilliam

10-02-2006, 11:16 AM

Wondered about this too, though I also think truth can be stranger than any fiction dreamed up Karl Rove. It would be a pretty desperate move on his part if true, wouldn't it? Today's NYTIimes has a rumination on misteps made by the GOP. That the author sees this as involving Dobson is, of course, a matter of interest for those of us here.

Desperate? Nah. This is a very typical neocon media-manipulating tactic. This form of obfuscation has been played successfully for the last twelve years. The more Americans' attention is diverted from the real machinations of the neocons, the more the neocons have managed to get through Congress, usually very quietly, during dead-of-night sessions. The Constitution isn't dying from a full-on frontal assault; it's suffering the death of a thousand little cuts.

The PNAC site put their plan right out in the open quite a few years back. PNAC took the original site down, but you can still read their manifesto from Google Cache. The group includes the Bushes, Gingrich, Rumsfelt, and several corporate captains; much of their "logic" is built right upon Hegel. By no coincidence, Rove's dad worked for Goebbels' propaganda mill, so Rove is no stranger to crowd psychology and manipulation of opinion.

This coup d'etat has been a long time coming and should be absolutely no surprise to any American. Then again, the reason most Americans don't understand the impact of this likely-traitorous group is fairly simple, straightforward psychology. Rove works the obvious like a cheap fiddle.

So far, they've been quite successful in forwarding their plan to overthrow the Constitution, one tiny bill-addendum at a time. Like Bill Clinton said, "There's no right wing conspiracy. They're right out in the open with it." Throwing GLBT people under the bus as a group is always a useful redirection. Sex scandals of any kind seem to work as a distraction in today's sound-bite, tabloid "news". Unfortunately, the trick has worked successfully every time.

On the heels of the demise of habeas corpus, it has been most useful to redirect attention away from that with a bit of juicy gossip. If walking-around Americans realized the impact of the torture bill, there would be riots in the streets. How inconvenient that would be right before election time. Just sayin'.

A long time ago, my late stepdaddy was known to make a little 'shine. He always said if you want to hide something, just set it right out in the open. Most people simply don't pay attention to what's plainly in front of them, especially when stimulated to follow completely opposite lines of thought.

Stepdad related a couple of stories of being questioned by the sheriff, once right next to a 55-gallon drum of "fuel" right in the front yard (the sheriff kept searching for the goods everywhere but the front yard and eventually gave up -- nobody would be so stupid as to put a load of shine in the front yard, would they?); and another being met by revenuers in the woods who were looking for stepdad's cache which they simply couldn't find. If they had looked striaght up, there was a veritable tree-sized wind-chime of pint and quart Mason jars suspended by strings from high-up branches. The glint would have been obvious if the revenuers had only looked up. They didn't take in the whole situation, because stepdad was a fast talker and kept them jovially and harmlessly occupied with some of his wonderful (and highly colorful, extremely funny) tales.

The point is, stepdad never got caught with goods in hand because he was adept at telling a much better story.

I liken our current situation to that very same one. We're getting plied with tittilating stories while the real danger is in plain sight, if we only pay attention. Stepdad (and a quip erroneously attributed to PT Barnum) was unfortunately correct: a little fast talk and distraction work every time.

Giancarlo

10-02-2006, 12:18 PM

Well to be consistent, there are very serious dishonesty problems in both political parties. This just isn't isolated to the Republican party. This is everywhere, and is just as bad in the democratic party. Either way, I look at the upcoming elections as politics as usual with the same old faces from both parties. I'm not left and I'm not right. I just feel this country has to gain some sense and stay far away from either extreme.

I think it is a total stretch to say they are overthrowing either the constitution or committing a coup detat. The thing is in this country is that they will be out of power in 2008 (well at least the Bush administration). The other fact is either the Senate or House can go democrat (I question if that will really change anything at all). We are living in the US, not Venezuela where there is a dictator who wants to declare himself "president for life".

Ha, I'm a libertarian and I pretty much go after everyone. It gets me into a lot of trouble sometimes.

By the way, some Western European countries don't even have Habeas Corpus (or even a written constitution). Not that I'm arguing against either (I'm for it)... this country is actually more far along than quite a few countries in the OECD.

Daniel

10-02-2006, 12:24 PM

On the heels of the demise of habeas corpus, it has been most useful to redirect attention away from that with a bit of juicy gossip. If walking-around Americans realized the impact of the torture bill, there would be riots in the streets. How inconvenient that would be right before election time. Just sayin'.

So this would be Mr. Rove's October surprise?

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2006/9/20/141615.shtml

And the guy behind the throne- with his own gay dad- is at it again, using the same old Johnny one-note tactics? You may be right. However, I believe no cooked up distraction is going to make the Iraq war and its impact on the up-coming elections go away. Things can only get messier.

Then again, the American public may be suffering from attention deficit disorder! :D

Daniel

10-02-2006, 03:53 PM

I mentioned in an earlier post that Mr. Foley's voting record did not give him 'cover'. Cover or no, the fact is that he voted against the anti-gay marriage amendment. Shame on me for not getting my facts straight.

http://365gay.com/Newscon06/10/100206foley.htm]

Foley was considered a moderate Republican.

In 2000 he introduced legislation to expand the federal government's role in investigating and prosecuting crimes based on sexual orientation, religion, gender or ethnicity.

Foley voted against his party in 2004 and again this year to thwart a federal amendment to the Constitution that would ban same-sex marriage.

Does this get him out of hot water with gay voters?

No.

He had to know, on some level, what he was doing.

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/?p=240

Jamie McDaniel

10-02-2006, 06:31 PM

Shame on Tony Perkins for trying to blame this on society's growing acceptance of GLBT people.

Family Research Council Statement on Mark Foley
October 2, 2006 - Monday

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: October 2, 2006
CONTACT: J.P. Duffy or Bethanie Swendsen, (866) FRC-NEWS

Washington, D.C. - In response to the events surrounding the resignation of Congressman Mark Foley (R-FL), Family Research Council (FRC) President Tony Perkins released the following statement:

"We are all shocked by this spectacle of aberrant sexual behavior, but we shouldn't be. This is the end result of a society that rejects sexual restraints in the name of diversity. When a 16-year-old boy is not safe from sexual solicitation from an elected representative of the people, we should question the moral direction of our nation. If our children aren't safe in the halls of Congress, where are they safe? Maybe it's time to question: when is tolerance just an excuse for permissiveness?

"Both political parties need to be more serious about protecting children from sexual predators. We need public policy in our country that protects marriage, respects parental authority and aggressively polices boundaries around our children."

Daniel

10-02-2006, 11:47 PM

Dobson, of course, could come out (no pun intended) and say that all gay people are sexual predators. That would be true to form.

Jamie- It may be tacky to quote one's self, but the Mr. Dobson, true to form, has joined Mr. Perkins in uttering the same tired old rhetoric.

http://www.attytood.com/2006/10/family_research_council_blame.html

Democrats seeking to exploit the resignation of Rep. Mark Foley (R-FL) are right to criticize the slow response of Republican congressional leaders to his communications with male pages. But neither party seems likely to address the real issue, which is the link between homosexuality and child sexual abuse. Foley, an unmarried 52-year-old representative, had always refused to answer questions about his sexual orientation. Now that his emails and messages to teenage male pages have been revealed, it appears clear that Foley is a homosexual with a particular attraction to underage boys. While pro-homosexual activists like to claim that pedophilia is a completely distinct orientation from homosexuality, evidence shows a disproportionate overlap between the two. Although almost all child molesters are male and less than 3% of men are homosexual, about a third of all child sex abuse cases involve men molesting boys--and in one study, 86% of such men identified themselves as homosexual or bisexual. Ignoring this reality got the Catholic Church into trouble over abusive priests, and now it is doing the same to the House GOP leadership. They discounted or downplayed earlier reports concerning Foley's behavior--probably because they did not want to appear "homophobic." The Foley scandal shows what happens when political correctness is put ahead of protecting children.

Dobson conveniently ingores the fact - and it is a fact- that the overwhelming abusers of children are straight. But he isn't intent on tarring all straight people, is he? His words are repugnant and reveal a high level of mendacity.

Giancarlo

10-03-2006, 12:46 AM

It really pisses me off when I hear people like him speak. I try to be diplomatic about how I feel, but if I ever were to confront that man [Dobson] diplomacy is the last thing I would think about. Link between homosexuality and child abuse? Funny that the the medical and psychological communities (APA and AMA) disagree with that.

The majority of sex abuse cases towards children are committed by heterosexual men (towards young girls). I really don't know where he is pulling those numbers from...

Pedophilia is not a sexual orientation to begin with. It is criminal behavior, like rape.

Vortex

10-03-2006, 02:04 AM

Pedophilia is not a sexual orientation to begin with. It is criminal behavior, like rape.

But criminal behaviors are something society believes people can receive rehibilitaion for. I am yet to see a doctor who is an authority in the area say that Pedophilia is actually curable.

I know emotions tend to run high when children are involved (as they probably should), but the objective scientist in me wants to put emotions and politics aside and ask...

Do people choose to be pedophiles?

What are its origins, whether biological or environmental?

Is it curable?

They are not questions i've seen brought up in this discussion, one wonders if they are thought to be irrelevant. Maybe we don't want to ask them. Its simple to just call sometihing EVIL and be done with the debate, the GLBT Community knows this all too well. You'll have to forgive me for not wanting to be reduced to such simplicity.

Vortex

Giancarlo

10-03-2006, 02:12 AM

But criminal behaviors are something society believes people can receive rehibilitaion for. I am yet to see a doctor who is an authority in the area say that Pedophilia is actually curable.

Society believes that? So that's why they have life without parole huh? I think you have your facts down incorrectly about what society believes.

I do not believe serial killers are curable.

Do people choose to be pedophiles?

What are its origins, whether biological or environmental?

Is it curable?

Where did I say it was curable or anything of the sort? If anything, it isn't and those who commit such acts should be sent to jail. That's as simple as it'll get.

I'm not going to debate the merits of pedophilia, and I will not give it any time of the day. I have no sympathy for those who commit the acts and I feel they should be punished to the maximum extent of the law.

Maybe we don't want to ask them. Its simple to just call sometihing EVIL and be done with the debate, the GLBT Community knows this all too well. You'll have to forgive me for not wanting to be reduced to such simplicity.

Vortex

Why the heck should we ask them in the first place? Those questions are totally ridiculous in my mind. We cannot be grouped with child molesters. Pedophilia is not curable, and it is a criminal behavior.

And just because I hold these opinions I am less capable of being objective than you are? Really? Says who?

Jamie McDaniel

10-03-2006, 10:03 AM

I know emotions tend to run high when children are involved (as they probably should), but the objective scientist in me wants to put emotions and politics aside and ask...
Well, I for one appreciate the objective scientist. Just as I don't want every international adversary labeled a terrorist, I don't think every individual who violates the age of consent should automatically be labeled a pedophile. In states where the age of consent is 18, wouldn't this greatly increase the number of people defined as pedophiles? I just don't think that is helpful in trying to understand who is a pedophile and what can be done about it to protect children.

Mark Foley is losing his career in Congress over his actions, and I think most Americans agree that is the proper initial punishment. A consensus also seems to have been reached that an investigation is necessary to determine if Mr. Foley ever attempted to solicit sex from a minor. From the evidence available at the moment, does that instant message (see my previous post for link) qualify as soliciting sex from a minor?

keltic63

10-03-2006, 11:10 AM

I don't think every individual who violates the age of consent should automatically be labeled a pedophile. In states where the age of consent is 18, wouldn't this greatly increase the number of people defined as pedophiles?

I would think that a lot of 19yo's would become pedophiles on their 19th birthday.

Vortex

10-03-2006, 11:21 AM

Society believes that? So that's why they have life without parole huh? I think you have your facts down incorrectly about what society believes.

I do not believe serial killers are curable.

Allow me to rephrase that. Christian society in this country believes in redemption. They do not believe anyone is beyond saving. They still do make up the majority don't they? Now I readily agree with you that the laws do not always reflect these beliefs, but the death penalty and war don't in my mind reflect Christian beliefs either, but yet we have them.

Where did I say it was curable or anything of the sort? If anything, it isn't and those who commit such acts should be sent to jail. That's as simple as it'll get.

I was merely drawing a distinction between a behavior that can be corrected by learning a new behavior, and something that may be biological and can't be reprogrammed.

I'm not going to debate the merits of pedophilia, and I will not give it any time of the day. I have no sympathy for those who commit the acts and I feel they should be punished to the maximum extent of the law.

Why the heck should we ask them in the first place? Those questions are totally ridiculous in my mind. We cannot be grouped with child molesters. Pedophilia is not curable, and it is a criminal behavior.

Because when you stop asking questions, things just stay as they are. This seems to me to be a systemic problem within our society,(teachers,priest,neighbors,etc). Sure we can just wait until after they've committed an act, and put them in jail and throw away the key, but won't there be another to take their place. Does this really fix anything.

Criminal penalties(inprisionment, death penalty) in our society are not meant to resolve criminal problems within society. They are a means of retribution, and satisfying high emotions. Making us feel better about ourselves because "we've fixed the criminal problem" or "they are getting what they deserve" but yet they still exist. Crime can only really be resolved through both economic and social reform, but that raises too many questions so lets just throw them in jail and be done with it. But are we ever done with it?

And just because I hold these opinions I am less capable of being objective than you are? Really? Says who?

I know I used your quote to start off my post, it was really just a jumping point for what I wanted to express. I was really addressing everyone and everything in my post was NOT meant to be directed at you personally. I'm sorry if this is the impression you got.

Vortex

Giancarlo

10-03-2006, 12:33 PM

They still do make up the majority don't they? Now I readily agree with you that the laws do not always reflect these beliefs, but the death penalty and war don't in my mind reflect Christian beliefs either, but yet we have them.

I would sure hope that would you recognize that this is a secular society. Maybe it is difficult to recognize that with the present administration, but that is the way it is.

Criminal penalties(inprisionment, death penalty) in our society are not meant to resolve criminal problems within society. They are a means of retribution, and satisfying high emotions. Making us feel better about ourselves because "we've fixed the criminal problem" or "they are getting what they deserve" but yet they still exist. Crime can only really be resolved through both economic and social reform, but that raises too many questions so lets just throw them in jail and be done with it. But are we ever done with it?

Imprisionment and the death penalty are not retribution, they are punishment. And yes they do solve something. They keep the person off the streets. That simple. I don't know what is so difficult to understand about that. It isn't meant to change anyone else, but just keep the person off the street. Crime can be solved through a variety of a methods, and more law and order is one of them. This is proven by Colombia, where the crime rate has dramatically dropped because of both improving law and order and economic conditions. So to say that only economic and social reform will fix things is wrong.

I know I used your quote to start off my post, it was really just a jumping point for what I wanted to express. I was really addressing everyone and everything in my post was NOT meant to be directed at you personally. I'm sorry if this is the impression you got.

You were misquoting me and misstating what I said for one thing. I really don't appreciate that.

Vortex

10-03-2006, 12:52 PM

I would sure hope that would you recognize that this is a secular society. Maybe it is difficult to recognize that with the present administration, but that is the way it is.

The money you spend has In God We Trust on it.
We pledge allegiance to a nation under God.
The Supreme Court building has depictions of Moses and the 10 commandments.
The Congress of the United States before every session says a prayer.
And countless other examples.

Now whether this is right or wrong is not what I am debating. I'm just pointing out what IS. I do not think we live in a secular society, and it didn't stop being secular with the current administration. It never was.

You were misquoting me and misstating what I said for one thing. I really don't appreciate that.

Okay then we just disagree, sorry for the offense.

Vortex

Giancarlo

10-03-2006, 05:31 PM

The money you spend has In God We Trust on it.
We pledge allegiance to a nation under God.
The Supreme Court building has depictions of Moses and the 10 commandments.
The Congress of the United States before every session says a prayer.
And countless other examples.

What is said is quite different than what is done. The Chinese government calls themselves communist but their economic system is hardly that. You're simply incorrect in this regard. I can cite plenty examples showing this country is secular.

Christianity is not the official religion of this country.

And we say the pledge allegiance? Who? I don't say it. The last time I said it was in kindergarten years ago (that would of been 1990 or 1991).

Prayer has been banned in classrooms.

What Supreme court building are you talking about? Because from what I remember it was removed...

And the currency will be next. Many of these things were the result of the 1950s and the red scare, when all atheists were associated with communists.

Now whether this is right or wrong is not what I am debating. I'm just pointing out what IS. I do not think we live in a secular society, and it didn't stop being secular with the current administration. It never was.

I think you're just flat out wrong in that regard. I think we live in a highly secular society, that has become more secular overtime. A more accepting society too. It is proven that younger generations are more accepting of gay marriage, then previous generations.

NathanATX

10-03-2006, 06:17 PM

Foley is expected to announce he was abused by priests as a child.

Vortex

10-03-2006, 06:36 PM

What Supreme court building are you talking about? Because from what I remember it was removed...

The Supreme court building I was referring to is The Supreme Court of the United States of America. You can read Wikipedia's article on the Supreme Court where they mention the depiction of Moses and the Commandments. Also Muhammad for that matter.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Supreme_Court_building

I think we live in a highly secular society, that has become more secular overtime.

A highly secular society that still opresses the GLBT community mostly on the basis of what? Religion. I don't see where an orginization such as Soulforce would be necessary in such a society.

Look you're preaching to the choir on secularism with me(I'm the most secular person I know :rolleyes:). As Agnostic I often wonder whether society would be much better off without religion, but that is not for me to decide. Religion is very important to many people I know and my friends here at Soulforce, so I stand with them to end Religious oppression but NOT to remove Religion from society.

Vortex

Giancarlo

10-03-2006, 06:41 PM

The Supreme court building I was referring to is The Supreme Court of the United States of America. You can read Wikipedia's article on the Supreme Court where they mention the depiction of Moses and the Commandments. Also Muhammad for that matter.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Supreme_Court_building

Okay, well that's something that in my mind should be removed like prayer from public schools. Either way, this country is moving away from the religious fundamentalism it was stuck in the 1950s. This process has been taking place since the 1960s and 1970s.

I can prove that this country is secular based on Chapter 11 of the Treaty of Tripoli signed and ratiified by the US Congress in 1797. This treaty specifically stated that christianity is not in any way the basis for the US government. Many of the founding fathers, as we describe them, who endorsed this document, were in fact deists.

A highly secular society that still opresses the GLBT community mostly on the basis of what? Religion. I don't see where an orginization such as Soulforce would be necessary in such a society.

And you think I'm arguing for the oppression of the LGBT community? I'm gay myself. But I think it is wrong to state that we live in a religious society. We live in a society where people are free to practice whatever religion they want. However, the problem rises with the fact that some people think it is their right to push legislation (like the "defense of marriage act") that is beneficial for their religion and themselves.

Look you're preaching to the choir on secularism with me(I'm the most secular person I know :rolleyes:). As Agnostic I often wonder whether society would be much better off without religion, but that is not for me to decide. Religion is very important to many people I know and my friends here at Soulforce, so I stand with them to end Religious oppression but NOT to remove Religion from society.

I'm an atheist so I don't think we can really argue merits here. However, I'm also pragmatic and understand that a moderate form of religion that is non-threatening and non-infringing is perfectly acceptable.

revtj

10-03-2006, 08:36 PM

I would just like to thank God for the best b'day present ever. His son may be a republican, but the old man just tossed a bone(r) in Foley to the Dems & that has me giddy. I can't wait to see what Betty Bowers has to say about it. This scandal couldn't be better if I dreamed it up myself.

And look, nobody really gets hurt. America is saved by getting at least one branch of government from the nitwits, Foley will write a book and be embraced by the gays and find a young (legal) boyfriend, probably several, it's sooooo not fair. Bush may even try to get binLadens' head on a platter because nothing less could pull them out of this....it's a win-win situation if ever I saw one!

OH, and just so you know, I've been being molested by a clergyman about once a month since my ordination. He tells me things like, 'nobody will know,' and 'it's better than bar trash' and 'hurry before the cat comes back in here.' So now I have an across the board excuse for whatever public sins I may commit (such as this post itself!) :D

Jamie McDaniel

10-03-2006, 09:18 PM

While channel surfing I saw on Scarborough Country that Joe Scarborough (a former congressman from Florida and a very conservative Southern Baptist) is saying he knew Mark Foley since 1994 and was friends with him. Joe is also claiming that he knew Foley was gay the moment he met him. What does that say about the closet for gay Republicans and their involvement with a party that is hostile to GLBT equality? Is their closet a glass one?

It should also be noted that in the same 60 minutes, Scarborough is asking viewers if Oprah crossed the line with her recent "lesbian show."

Update: Scarborough says it doesn't add up with Oprah. Guests suggest Oprah and Gayle are in a lesbian relationship. Guest says having gay parents is the ultimate form of child abuse. Guest says Oprah should have Exodus and former homosexuals on the show. Scarborough says yeah right, good luck. All a big reminder why I don't watch Scarborough Country.

Vortex

10-03-2006, 09:45 PM

While channel surfing I saw on Scarborough Country that Joe Scarborough (a former congressman from Florida and a very conservative Southern Baptist) is saying he knew Mark Foley since 1994 and was friends with him. Joe is also claiming that he knew Foley was gay the moment he met him. What does that say about the closet for gay Republicans and their involvement with a party that is hostile to GLBT equality? Is their closet a glass one?

It should also be noted that in the same 60 minutes, Scarborough is asking viewers if Oprah crossed the line with her recent "lesbian show."

Absolutely amazing, I was watching as well when he said that. And on Larry King they were reporting that his being gay was an 'open secret in congress. I wonder if he would have served 6 terms if his voters knew he was gay. Were the Republicans keeping his secret? I really don't understand politicians.

Thats a great book title, "The Glass Closet" Just give me credit when you write the book Jamie ;) .

Vortex

Jamie McDaniel

10-03-2006, 10:27 PM

Thats a great book title, "The Glass Closet" Just give me credit when you write the book Jamie ;) .
Actually someone beat me to it. I saw the "glass closet" phrase in an interview with author Kevin Jennings. Here's that thread (http://www.soulforce.org/forums/showthread.php?t=1146).

Also, very funny post rev tj.

revtj

10-04-2006, 03:24 PM

I think I could feel a liitle more sorry for Foley if he hadn't been the sponsor of all the sexual predator legislation.

[OK, sorry, but one more thing had me laughing out loud: Katherine Harris says she had no idea Foley was gay. Wonder if she'll let him vote this year?]

Foley is exhibit A for what the religious right creates out of a gay man they can use & respect. They probably got tips on hair and home decorating from him all the time.

Did everyone hear Newt Gingrich and James Dobson say that the reason nobody acted on the prior knowledge they had about Foley was because they didn't want to be homophobic/politically incorrect? Gimme a break!

midtnscott

10-04-2006, 03:50 PM

Read this very interesting article from the Drudge Report:

http://www.davidcorn.com/archives/2006/10/the_list_of_gay.php

jlgosnell

10-04-2006, 09:45 PM

So, here is the straight dope, we have a republican congressman (Mark Foley) who like it or not went against the core values of American's and humans by having ill phone converstations and instant messanges sent to congressional pages who are underage. So why is it that now he is pulling the "Gay Card" the problem isn't that he is gay, the problem is that he is a pedophile. However, sadly this smells of political spin due to the fact the Conservative Neo-Con's whom are in charge of our government are setting up the stage to affirm their claim that all homosexuals are pedophiles or worse... So, I say cut crap.. this man is just proof that the republicans care more their image than the hardworking Americans they are sworn to speak for.

BruceChris

10-04-2006, 09:59 PM

"The issue here isn't whether a politician is gay, the issue is whether the politican is a liar and a hypocrite" -- Mark Aceto, a gay man, on National Public Radio today.

P&L, BC

Daniel

10-06-2006, 03:46 AM

Kirk Fordham's recollection (he is a former member of Foley's staff and who recently resigned from the staff of a NY Rep) regarding Foley's conduct is a key issue in the retention of of Hastert's seat in Congress.

http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-fordham5oct05,1,7047028.story?ctrack=1&cset=true

And this gentlemen has an interesting take on the matter.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lawrence-odonnell/closeted-gay-republicans-_b_31040.html

The Republican base--the Evangelical get-out-the-vote troops--are going to be devastated when they discover how many closeted gay Republicans were involved in policing Mark Foley in the House of Representatives. Republican House members know this. That's why momentum is building for a very quick House cleaning and a new Speaker by next week.

Oh...and guess what? T'he GOP may be ramping up an anti-gay purge. I think this means Mr. Fordham in particular.

http://365gay.com/Newscon06/10/100506hastert.htm

"Gay Americans have watched this scandal unfold like everyone else, but unlike other Americans, we have found ourselves targeted once again by extremists in the Republican Party trying to shift responsibility. Members of the gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender community are part of the fabric of our country and to demonize them in the name of politics is disgraceful," Solmonese said in his letter to Hastert.

"Mr. Speaker, when extremists in your party go on national television and assert claims that a person’s sexual orientation is responsible for immoral and inappropriate conduct, it sends a clear signal to the American people that they are more interested in pushing their anti-gay agenda than they are in holding our elected officials accountable."

National Gay and Lesbian Task Force Executive Director Matt Foreman also called for the GOP stop targeting gays in the inquiry and stay on the issue of abuse of power.

"The GOP has only one response when it’s in trouble — ‘blame the gays,'" said Foreman in a statement.

"First, they floated the excuse that past complaints about Foley weren’t pursued because Republicans didn’t want to look like they were ‘gay bashing.’ Then, they dispatched henchmen like Tony Perkins and Pat Buchanan to offer the blood libel that gay men are prone to pedophilia. Now — in another signal of desperation — it is clear they plan to poison the debate further with allusions to a shadowy network of closeted gay Republicans who closed ranks to protect Foley," said Foreman.

"The parallels to McCarthyism are chilling. Here it is gays, not communists, ‘operating at the highest levels of government.’

And if you haven't had enough, you can find out more here:

http://www.gaycitynews.com/gcn_540/foley.html

Steven E. Webster

10-06-2006, 08:54 AM

Friends,
I wonder if one of the ironies here is that gay men like Fordham recognized that Mark Foley's fondness for very young men was bound to lead to trouble and they tried to warn Hastert's office. Now the gay GOP'ers will be blamed for Foley's actions.

I'm reminded of an incident in the Wisconsin Annual Conference of the United Methodist Church in which I was part of "blowing the whistle" on a Pastor who was molesting young, underage men. Two of his victims were friends of mine (though I never met or knew the Pastor in question himself). I know my two young friends were damaged by this man, and was happy to assist them in pressing their case to a successful resolution. My role was simply to introduce them to each other when I realized that they had both been victimized by the same Pastor.

I'm a little disappointed in Andrew Sullivan who keeps bringing up that the pages involved were 16 or older and therefore "legal" in D.C. My two friends would have been "legal" in D.C. (but not Wisconsin), and yet they were very much damaged by this man who held a position of power and trust.

Steven Webster

Daniel

10-06-2006, 10:33 AM

Friends,
I wonder if one of the ironies here is that gay men like Fordham recognized that Mark Foley's fondness for very young men was bound to lead to trouble and they tried to warn Hastert's office. Now the gay GOP'ers will be blamed for Foley's actions.

Steven- you make a really good point! The matter is addressed- I really like this gal's take on the matter- thus:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/hilary-rosen/the-gay-gop-purge-on-capi_b_31087.html

The right wing and its allies in Congress have never liked the wing of the Republican party that tolerated the gays. Now, that relationship is inconvenient for Denny Hastert, John Boehner and Tom Reynolds, all of whom are close to gay republican staffers. So they have adopted a new strategy. They support a whispering campaign to say that it is the staffer's fault that Foley was protected. That whispering campaign is the aggressive understory in this Foley scandal this week and the leadership is hoping that it saves their own hides. It won't work.

Mark Foley is a sick and troubled man whose life in the closet was only made more painful by his overwhelming need to be accepted by the Republican leadership. We were friends. I spent many hours (to no avail) with Foley over the years trying to encourage him to embrace his sexual orientation so he could stop worrying about being outed. I finally gave up after his behavior during his aborted Senate run. When a newspaper printed a story that he was gay, he acted as though he had been called a pedophile. Upon relfection, perhaps he knew where an examination of his life would lead and needed to stop it any way he could. At the time, I just assumed he was ashamed of being gay.

The Republican leadership did not protect him these last few months out of political correctness. They protected him because he was a lapdog for their agenda. Not only did he raise lots of money for them from his Palm Beach contacts, but to have the gay guy support their legislative agenda gave themsome sense of comfort that they weren't really discriminators or bigots.

Foley and his gay republican friends thought that they were accepted by their GOP friends. It is sadly ironic and unfortunate that legislative discrimination has not had the same painful impact on them that this week's whispering campaign has had. I have been frustrated over the years about the attitude that many gay republican staffers have had about working for members who vote against the LGBT community's interest, but I truly believe that it is their personal problem. They pay (or not as the case may be) their own internal price of anguish, ambivalence and shame. I have always , however, blamed Members of Congress, not their staffs, for how they voted.

It is time for the Republican leadership to acknowledge what the rest of the country already knows: they screwed up and in a surge of power abuse protected disgusting and immoral behavior. They, not the staffers around the edges, are accountable to the people and must take responsibility for their actions.

The back row of the choir- where the the tall boys sit- is yelling: "Preach it Sister!"

"Amen!"

Giancarlo

10-06-2006, 01:46 PM

http://online.logcabin.org/news_views/reading-room-back-up/statement-from-log-cabin.html

"(Washington, DC) – Log Cabin Executive Vice President Patrick Sammon issued the following statement regarding Mark Foley:

"Mark Foley's shameful actions were reprehensible. He abused the power of his office, violated the trust of the voters, and exploited young people.

"There should be a thorough criminal investigation by appropriate law enforcement agencies. If Mark Foley broke the law, he should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law.

"Additionally, there should be a full investigation to see if Congressional leaders responded appropriately to Foley's behavior. This unfortunate and inappropriate situation shouldn't be unduly politicized.

"Preying on young people is shameful, immoral, unethical and illegal, regardless of sexual orientation.""

----

Well I used to be a log cabin republican believe it or not, but I trailed off to libertarianism. However, I am presently campaigning for Arnold Schwarzenegger in this state (passing out flyers at my campus). I feel like that both parties should be pushed back to the center, and with present circumstances this isn't going to happen.

keltic63

10-06-2006, 02:05 PM

and now we hear from our friend, Pat Robertson: http://mediamatters.org/items/200610050009

Jamie McDaniel

10-06-2006, 09:50 PM

Interesting article, if not sad about the "agreements" gay people sometimes make in exchange for a false acceptance.

Los Angeles Times: Path Is Risky for Gay GOP Politicians (http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-gaygop6oct06,0,1014369,full.story?coll=la-home-headlines)

Daniel

10-06-2006, 11:15 PM

I know the writer of this article, Andy Humm, who, along with Ann Northrop, hosts the weekly show here in NYC- Gay Cable News. Andy also writes for Gay City News. His piece on Foley and company is interesting, especially:

http://www.gaycitynews.com/gcn_540/thefastafallofmark.html

If only Foley had spoken with his colleague Barney Frank (D-MA). The lesson of the Foley case, he said on a visit to New York last weekend, is “don't be closeted. I lived it myself. You cannot deny your physical and emotional needs.” He added that he was “way too cranky” when he was in the closet.

Frank was here to boost the National Stonewall Democrats and their campaign both to return the House to the Democrats and make members of the party more pro-gay, a prospect that seems infinitely more possible after the Foley Follies.

Or Foley could have listened to Doug Jennings, a 19-year old gay activist from Utah here in New York interning at gay groups. “It's a choice to be in the closet. If I can live in conservative southern Utah and be out since I was 14 and have a great high school and social and family experience and be OK, then Foley has no excuse and neither does Jim McGreevey.” Jennings added, “I've never had the emotional energy to be who I'm not.”

Never better said Mr. Jennings!

Steven E. Webster

10-06-2006, 11:31 PM

Friends,
I'm a liberal Democrat at heart, but I love to read Andrew Sullivan. I disagree with him totally on the war in Iraq--it was wrong and I'm against it, but I agree with Andrew on a lot of other things. I first became a fan of Andrew's when I read his book "Virtually Normal."

Anyway, hear's a link or two to some interesting things he's been saying on the Foley matter:

http://time.blogs.com/daily_dish/2006/10/one_foley_point.html

http://time.blogs.com/daily_dish/2006/10/pelosi_and_fole.html

kara speltz

10-07-2006, 03:54 PM

I highly recommend reading this article that appeared in the San Francisco Chronicle.

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/10/07/MNG9HLKTVH1.DTL

kara

BruceChris

10-07-2006, 04:30 PM

Giancarlo

10-07-2006, 09:37 PM

I would like to point out to you that most homosexuals are not nearly as obsessed with sex as are those people who are obsessed with homosexuals.:eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek:

Peace and Love, Bruce Chris

That's perhaps the finest point I have heard on this forum. It is funny that christian conservatives spend most of their time talking about how evil sex is...they think about it more than anyone else.

Daniel

10-08-2006, 01:17 AM

The hay that is being made regarding gay persons in the Foley scandal (that being gay equals pedophilia) by fundamentalists ignores the facts. Here they are in black and white. The truth really does set us free from the lies being told by those who mean to condemn us in ignorance and fear.

http://www.gaycitynews.com/gcn_540/foleyssmokeandmirrors.html

Here’s the truth. In 1994, a study by Dr. Carole Jenny of the University of Colorado Health Sciences Center appeared in Pediatrics, a peer-reviewed journal. The subjects were 269 sexually abused children seen at Denver Children’s Hospital over one year. Heterosexuals molested more than 99 percent of the girls in the study. Of that number, heterosexual males who knew their victims molested 80 percent. Heterosexuals molested 98 percent of the boys in the study. Of that number, heterosexual males who knew their victims molested 75 percent. Got it? Gays aren’t the problem, pedophiles are, no matter what the Catholic Church or the Republican leadership say.

Now it is our turn. Every gay person has the obligation to make this critical distinction clear. Even more importantly, every friend and family member of a gay person now has the obligation to stand up for us. Go tell it on the mountain. Being gay is ok, being a criminal and preying on children is not.

Emproph

10-08-2006, 07:37 PM

Jim Burroway over at BoxTurtleBulletin (http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2006/10/08/105) did an excellent breakdown of Perkins' recent homosexuality=pedophilia claims (http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=WU06J04).

Steven E. Webster

10-09-2006, 12:10 AM

Friends,

Daily Kos takes note of some public statements from Tony Perkins of Dobson's Family Research Council. It seems that Tony Perkins has been in on the "secret" that Foley was chasing after congressional pages. He's no more pure than Hastert is.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/10/7/21832/0030

Steven Webster

Daniel

10-09-2006, 12:17 AM

A friend of Bill- as least if I remember that correctly- makes an interesting point on Hufftingpost.com

And yet when I watch the liberal punsters on television, I can't help suspecting that they're taking advantage of the homophobia in the culture in order to make slightly more of this episode than it may in fact turn out to be worth. When I watch the Democratic politicians smack their lips, I can't help wondering whether they've forgotten that this is the sort of scandal that can happen to either party, and there's no evidence that Democrats would have handled it any better. In short, I can't help thinking that the homophobia is catching.

I've been wondering this myself.

If this was ancient Rome (please don't throw rocks at me for saying this) mothers would be shoving their sons at Mr. Foley. We may think ourselves superior, but then, I think those old Romans knew what we have forgotten under our cloak of moral righteous: its not about sex, it's about power.

revtj

10-09-2006, 03:00 PM

I agree, the Republican right-wing christians are like the munchkins dancing just before the big poof when the wicked witch of the west shows up, only the witch will be one of their own (like Ralph Reed, etc.)

OH and did the editorial by Laura Douglas-Brown show up in any of the other national papers besides Southern Voice? Here is a link to the editorial:

http://www.sovo.com/2006/10-6/view/editorial/blame.cfm

And here is my response, written under a pen-name. :)

Editor:

Laura Douglas-Brown lacks empathy as well as
information about the long, checkered historical gay
male struggle for self-acceptance, and the definition
of pedophilia, as evidenced by her recent editorial,
'Don’t Blame the Closet' in which she blames HRC and
NGLTF groups for rallying around McGreevey but not
Foley. She says neither gentleman, nor any of the rest
of us, are allowed to blame the closet for their bad
behavior. To have it her way, gays would've abandoned
both of them. Makes me wonder, how long did you ever
spend in the gay male closet, Ms. Douglas-Brown?

Have you ever been blackmailed over your sexual
orientation? It appears you do not to have any idea
what that generation of gay men experienced as
normal to keep their jobs and their reputations.

You mention nothing of the right wing christian
groups, who immediately defended the Republicans for
hiding numerous reports of Foley’s pathetic online
life, saying they were only trying to be politically
correct and avoid homophobia. You mention nothing of
the numerous pundits and politicians who have actually
had the chutzpah to blame the scandal on the
Democrats. (Fox News actually identified Foley as a
Democrat in one segment! He is a Republican.)

More importantly, you neglected to mention that
pedophilia is a crime, different from adult consensual
homosexuality, and that both HRC and NGLTF are on
record agreeing that it is a crime. This is why they
distanced themselves from Foley but not McGreevey.
Your failure to understand this is inexcusable.

But true to form, SoVo says it’s HRC’s fault, or any
organization that is fighting for our rights. Why is
that the usual formula for a SoVo editorial? If we
ourselves are always to blame for every failure, every
defeat, every public figure sadly distorted and out of
bounds under the yoke of compulsory homophobia, then
what exactly do you suggest LGBT people do? Thrive on
SoVo’s endless cycle of communal demonizing and
blaming the victim? It seems more than a bit ignorant
and cruel to oppose our own progress no matter how
messy it gets.

Gay communities, independent & progressive voters are
beginning to catch on that not every legal loss, nor
every inconsistency in the gay community, can be
traced back to HRC, the NGLTF, the Democrats or the
imaginary ‘gay left.’ The closet is full of demons and
monsters and blaming the victim is the Hydra of them
all. We have the right to expect better from a
so-called gay newspaper.

Sincerely,
Aloof J.S. Swift
Atlanta, GA

NathanATX

10-09-2006, 03:44 PM

blog.myspace.com/nathanatx (http://blog.myspace.com/nathanatx)

The Religous Right Created Ex-Congressman Foley

If you have been camping in Kansas for the past few weeks and haven't kept up with the news, I'll fill you in...

Mark Foley is a REPUBLICAN U.S. Congressman who recently resigned after being confronted by ABC News about his emails & instant messages to underage male congressional pages.

He's recently admitted being gay and to being an alcholic. The news media and all the pundits are focusing on two things:

1. The despicable act of a grown man, an elected official, preying on teenage boys.

2. The lengths the Republican party went to in order to keep Foley's "indiscretions" a secret.

I think both of these things are worthy of the time and energy being devoted to them, but I think there is something else that is being missed.

The immediate conclusion of most people, myself included, was that he was simply a predator. But today, as I was reading the news that several more boys came forward about Foley's advances towards them, something else occurred to me.

Foley is exhibiting the behavior of a teenager because that is where he is at--in terms of normal socialization or dating skills. Being a closeted gay man and not getting to experience a normal, healthy dating process as a young man, he is now acting out on his sexual urges in a very immature and irresponsible way.

What on earth would cause a gifted, smart, attractive man to be so socially immature?

And everyone's eyes should be turning to look at the self-righteous, bigoted fundamentalist sitting in the corner... pulling the strings of the Republican party.

http://www.bettybowers.com/baptists/images/betty_bio_pic.gif

Meet Mrs. Betty Bowers, "America's Best Christian." In her words... "You see," says Betty with patience that never betrays her annoyance at her Savior for postponing the Second Coming - again, "Baptists hate anyone who does not take the time to be exactly like us --- not because we are afraid of missing out on the fun --- no, no, no, but because we love you enough to fix the Lord's careless errors and re-create you to conform to our, more exacting, specifications." This is why Betty started her ex-gay ministry BASH: Baptists Are Saving Homosexuals. "Although the so-called former-fairies always --- I mean, good gracious me, always --- lapse. Baptists still try to use the sweet love of Jesus to BASH them every chance we get. As long as we can convince everyone that being a homo is just a silly choice --- like picking a vulgar tie after one too many Manhattans --- then we can successfully marginalize fruits as humans." (from http://www.bettybowers.com/baptists/betty.html)

Of course, Betty Bowers is just a spoof character representing fundamentalists. Take out the satire, though, and what do you have? A twisted and manipulative theology that mandates control and conformity. It expels, condemns and excommunicates anyone who doesn't conform.

Because the Republican party sold it's soul to the likes of James Dobson and Jerry Falwell years back in their quest for power, they have themselves become the puppets of fundamentalism.

Now we have Mark Foley, who in anyone's eyes (before this happened) would be a dream husband, going around taking advantage of young immature teenage boys because he didn't have the chutzpah to come out when he was a kid and deal with dating & sex issues the way other kids do.

Do we blame him for not being responsible for coming out and dealing with his sexuality?

Do we blame fundamentalism for terrifying glbt kids into hiding who they are, limiting their normal development... causing them to grow up and make irresponsible & immature choices that harm themselves and others?

Yes, Mark Foley messed up big time.

What about all the thousands of young people who grew up in similar environments that cause similar issues in their lives? How many gay men who have died of AIDS might have valued their lives and taken care of themselves if they had been given a chance to grow up with an equal opportunity to love themselves and discover what it means to "be" them? How many people continually put themselves at risk through substance abuse, unsafe sex, violent relationships because they don't truly love themselves?

Where does the blame for all this really lie?

Take another look at fundamentalism, my friends. If you have been hurt by it, you need to know there is another way to believe. If you are caught up in it, you need to know the damage it causes.

revtj

10-09-2006, 04:20 PM

Excellent post.

Think how Foley could've served his nation had it been OK to come out 25 years ago!? It would redeem nearly every piece of legislation not to mention Foley himself.

The church may have the keys to the reign of God, bit the fundamentalists have the keys to the closet. And it's damned time we snatch them out of their hands, unlock the door, and free ourselves from the deformed personalities, distorted, compartmentalized lunacy it creates in our community.

I feel very sorry for Foley but I suspect his fate is sealed.

NathanATX

10-09-2006, 05:40 PM

Mr. Foley,

I just wanted you to know that people are praying for you. We are concerned about you.

Yes, you have made some mistakes. It's now time to dust yourself off and recommit to being the man you know you are.

In the Bible, Paul talked about "being in the race" where the goal was to be like Jesus. And he acknowledged that he messed up a lot. But he said, "this is what I do. I get back up and I get back in the race."

Mr. Foley, know that your mistakes do not define you, but your response to the mistakes does.

I pray that you will be surrounded with the protection & peace of God during this time in your life. I pray that you will see yourself the way God does and that you will forgive yourself.

From one gay man to another, let me tell you loud and clear that you can be gay and live a life of integrity. You can be gay and be a person of faith, of leadership and power.

I'm praying for you, Mr. Foley.

Sincerely,
Nate Black
www.nateblack.us

Friends of Mark Foley
P.O. Box 30505
Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33420

Phone: 561-688-0717
FAX: 561-688-5858

pnggrad79

10-10-2006, 10:14 AM

While Mr. Foley may have propositioned underage boys for sexual favors, it only highlights the fact that:

1. Because homosexuality is such a taboo in America, one may feel he/she has to go "underage" because they know if they went after adults, it would be called sexual harassment. Not that it makes it ok, but it might explain his actions. Still very wrong!

2. As a lesbian, I was accused by my own sisters, of being a sexual deviant and was not allowed near my nephews, as if "gayness" is catching! Please. I am not a pedophile and would never even think like that.

To be painted as a pedophile and have it linked to homosexuality is just grandstanding on the part of the fundamentalists because they know they are losing this fight. Hitler did the same thing with the Jews, painting them as killers of Christ. Stand firm, we will win this fight. Foley has his own problems and we need to pray for him, but this isn't about his homosexuality. It is about his integrity as an elected official. :confused:

NathanATX

10-10-2006, 10:35 AM

My issue isn't with the age of the boys because they were all over the age of consent. (Am I personally uncomfortable with a 40+ year old man hitting on teenagers...? Yes. But that's my issue.)

My issue with Foley is that what he did amounted to an abuse of his power as a supervisor/employer. Not only were these guys young, but their employment/internship was potentially under the influence of Mr. Foley. He could coerce them with threats of losing their jobs or seduce them with promises of promotions or other jobs. It's out of line and probably a textbook definition of sexual harassment.

Daniel

10-10-2006, 05:20 PM

This story is only getting more interesting as it unfolds. Mr. Foley had plenty of opportunity to leave the darkness of the closet- and plenty of warning about pages.

http://www.advocate.com/exclusive_detail_ektid37249.asp

Do you have any regrets about outing people?
Yes, my inability to get the nongay press to pay attention. I really got blasted for outing these congressman. We weren’t outing them as gay; we were outing them as hypocrites. Either people thought it was sensational or they were pissed off. Most of the people who were angry at me were gay. I’m still angry that we couldn’t get people interested in this.

Steven E. Webster

10-11-2006, 12:41 AM

Friends,

Reading Andrew Sullivan's blog again, I came across a couple of more interesting URL's:

Here's Tony Perkins of Dobson's Family Research Council making the claim that homosexuals have infiltrated the Republican party in Congress and have sabotaged the Christian Right agenda.

http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=WU06J06&f=PG03I03

From what I've read so far, Jeff Trandahl, the gay former House Clerk was a good, responsible guy. We'll being hearing more about what he did or didn't do as the investigation proceeds. I don't think Tony Perkins is being fair to him.

Andrew also links to an interesting commentary in the Washington Post:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/09/AR2006100901037.html

The Post article contains this quote (attributed to Cliff Kincaid of Accuracy in Media):
"House leaders permitted homosexuals to infiltrate and manipulate the party apparatus while they publicly postured as friends of family values and traditional marriage. The facade is now in ruins."

Again, I hope the truth will come out in the investigation and that the Christian Right will be confronted for their constant bearing of false witness against their lesbian and gay neighbors.

Steven Webster

revtj

10-11-2006, 10:23 AM

The age of consent is NOT the same in every state. Foley DID hit on some guys who were considered legally underage.

It isn't the pivotal part of the scandal to me either, except that legally it changes the entire situation. That is what will prevail in the case against him.

PS It is far more true that Andrew Sullivan infiltrated the gay civil rights movement in order to destroy it than it is that gays infiltrated the Republican party in order to destroy the christian right agenda. What hyperbole! Sullivan is an authority on almost nothing to do with gay civil rights, except as a sterling reminder of how hypercapitalism can seduce and divert a noble cause. Grrrr....

NathanATX

10-11-2006, 11:09 AM

The age of consent is NOT the same in every state. Foley DID hit on some guys who were considered legally underage.

I didn't realize that.

Do you think all the Log Cabin Republicans are second-guessing all the compromising they have done?

revtj

10-11-2006, 11:17 AM

I think the religious right and the our-numbers-are-in-the-ditch Republicans are desperate to put ANY spin whatsoever that they think will work to get this mess off of them before Nov. 2nd. We may hear that aliens from outer space, or those damned immigrants, or who knows who actually caused it.

It would be funny except that Foley's political life is ruined. Nathan, your letter to him is really how the church should be reaching out to him. I pray 100s of gay christians (or whatever faith he aspires to) seek him out & offer him the truth of repentance & new life. He could turn this around through faith and I truly hope he sees that. I can only imagine how depressed he must be.

Steven E. Webster

10-11-2006, 01:29 PM

Friends,

As I've said before, I consider myself something of a fan of Andrew Sullivan's, though I strongly disagree with his stance on the war, his neoconservatism and his affiliation with the GOP and probably several other things. Nevertheless there are things I like about him that keep me reading his blog.

Anyway, today he raises the specter of a GOP purge of gays from their ranks as a reaction to likely losses at the polls this November.

Here's a link.
http://time.blogs.com/daily_dish/2006/10/foley_and_the_s_1.html

I apologize to those who have strong anti-Andrew Sullivan feelings--consider this "opposition research," and let me proclaim once again that I am a liberal democrat at heart.

Steven Webster

revtj

10-11-2006, 03:24 PM

Steven,

I appreciate your perspective. It is clearly more objective than mine.

I am 47 years old, came out in 1980, and I was in my late 30s before I ever heard views like Sullivan's coming from a gay man. I should be more open- minded, but, it's kinda like, I never drink gin because I threw up on it when I was 21 at a lake party and spent the night on the pier alone. Sullivan is like gin to me! :lol:

Thanks for not taking my ad hominem attack on Sullivan personally. I'm just a pure (dirty?) idealist I guess. :rolleyes:

As for the question of will gays be purged from the GOP, it does look like a witch hunt has begun. Just in time for Halloween!

T J

BruceChris

10-11-2006, 04:24 PM

Becomes material for a popular Halloween costume. One year it was Extra Strength Tylenol, another year it was Bill and Monica. This year it seems to be a toss-up between Hastert, Foley, and President Kim. In Wag-The-Dog style, Kim has unfortunately taken the first two off the front page, all too often. Hey, don't let me distract you, TJ and company, this is a good thread.

P&L, BC

P.S.: The Republicans tried to use the sex thing to beat the daylights out of Bill Clinton, It is my impression that the Democrats are just returning the favor. It is hard to have much of ANY kind of a Christian point of view on Washington politics, all too often.

Giancarlo

10-11-2006, 05:24 PM

I'm so sick of both political parties. The republicans are bad, but the democrats are hypocrites. They both have had a fair of sex scandals... and they both cover it up. There is no excuse for this irresponsibility.

Giancarlo

10-12-2006, 12:47 AM

And this supports my disgust:

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20061011/D8KMO6NG0.html

Both parties are hopelessly corrupt.

Steven E. Webster

10-12-2006, 08:22 AM

Both parties are hopelessly corrupt.

How would we look at this situation through our Soulforce principles? What concerns me most about Giancarlo's post is the word "hopelessly." I guess my feeling is that we can never give in to hopelessness. I heard two political commentators (not politicians) comment on our current situation. They spoke of a need for a new Progressive era (and by "Progressive," I don't mean "liberal Democrat"). The Progressive era of the early Twentieth Century was an era of major reforms that aimed at removing not only corruption, but the control of "Big Money" in politics. The Progressive movement was a movement and not just a few lone voices of reform. There was even a third party movement called the Progressive party that was influential for a time.

Big Money and Corporate interests are flooding our political system with money that corrupts the whole system and both parties. Hopelessness, however is not the answer. The answer is for citizens to become active and involved, informed and ready to vote.

We have a two-party system--provided we don't allow one party (either the Dems or the GOP) a free-ride to power. We need, occasionally, to change parties. The Republicans have tried to establish one-party rule in Washington, and as a consequence Congress has been ineffective in serving it's important role of being a check on a President who is making a mess of the Middle East and the rest of the world, and who is undermining our Constitution.

There is a time and a place to throw out the Democrats, too--but right now I think we need them. There is also a time and a place for third-party movements, and non-partisan movements--all these serve their purposes and contribute something to our Government. Hopelessness, however, will help us very little.

Steven Webster

Steven E. Webster

10-12-2006, 08:35 AM

Friends,

I'm getting close to done reading Mel's book. It turns out he talks a great deal about Progressives in the last part of the book. He paints a picture of a struggle between Fundamentalists and Progressives rather than one of a Republican/Democrat split. Mel, obviously, identifies with the Progressives and seeks to encourage Progressives in the struggle against a Fundamentalism that is seeking to dominate our church, society and government.

I want to point out, too, that Soulforce is a non-partisan group. Something us liberal Democrats in the group need to keep constantly in mind. We need to keep our individual partisanship from blinding us to Progressive allies who belong to another political party--they exist.

I had a friendly conversation this last Sunday with a pro-gay Republican at a coffee hour at the (progressive) Presbyterian Church where I'm employed (I'm a church accountant). The trouble with the GOP, right now, is that Fundamentalists have succeeded controlling the party to a very large extent--something my GOP friend at the Coffee hour would not approve.

Steven E. Webster

NathanATX

10-12-2006, 09:28 AM

Giancarlo

10-12-2006, 08:13 PM

How would we look at this situation through our Soulforce principles? What concerns me most about Giancarlo's post is the word "hopelessly." I guess my feeling is that we can never give in to hopelessness. I heard two political commentators (not politicians) comment on our current situation. They spoke of a need for a new Progressive era (and by "Progressive," I don't mean "liberal Democrat"). The Progressive era of the early Twentieth Century was an era of major reforms that aimed at removing not only corruption, but the control of "Big Money" in politics. The Progressive movement was a movement and not just a few lone voices of reform. There was even a third party movement called the Progressive party that was influential for a time.

I think we need some moderates, not left or right. I think we need to get back to the center, because that in my mind is where rationality is attained. Rationality is not done by radicals on either side. We moderates have been responsible for a great deal of reforms of this century. Not the left and certainly not the right. The progressive party that the respectable President Teddy Roosevelt was a part of is no more. I can't side with progressives or conservatives because I feel these days they are much too radical for reality.

I'm a libertarian, and I'm also against a great deal of what these "progressives" stand for when it comes to economic values.

Big Money and Corporate interests are flooding our political system with money that corrupts the whole system and both parties. Hopelessness, however is not the answer. The answer is for citizens to become active and involved, informed and ready to vote.

I really don't agree with part of this, as I believe in the free market. But I do agree with the fact that people should be involved.

The Republicans have tried to establish one-party rule in Washington, and as a consequence Congress has been ineffective in serving it's important role of being a check on a President who is making a mess of the Middle East and the rest of the world, and who is undermining our Constitution.

Really? I think this is exaggerating the situation. I mean the Senate has what? A few seat majority? It isn't a one party rule necessarily, especially when many of the republicans break with their party a lot.

There is a time and a place to throw out the Democrats, too--but right now I think we need them. There is also a time and a place for third-party movements, and non-partisan movements--all these serve their purposes and contribute something to our Government. Hopelessness, however, will help us very little.

Steven Webster

I don't want them because I think they are just as bad... if not worse than the republicans when it comes to financial corruption. I want a libertarian movement that reduces the size of government and gets rid of the excess. So please, I have my views and you have yours.

And I'll say this upfront, Governor Schwarzenegger has done a lot more for gays and lesbians than his democratic predecessor did. He recently signed three LGBT positive bills, one is the income tax equity act. I actually support Arnold (and he has done a successful job at being a moderate and that is why he is 10-20% ahead in the polls).

I don't want them or republicans.

revtj

10-12-2006, 09:42 PM

Steven

I haven't read Mel's book yet but indeed the history of fundamentalism dates back to the rise of progressivism. Many people see it in Chicago as the progressive ideas of people like John Dewey were in vogue while Dwight Moody took a hard-lined stand against modernist or progressive views of the bible. Clarence Darrow was in Chicago as a hero of the Scopes trials as Moody began to preach against the notions of science being tolerated by the mainline churches.

Thank God the progressive movement is in revival. It is sad to look at what happened to the social gospel movement after WWII. But it needs to be revived also! And as far as I'm concerned it is happening as we speak as christians of all denominations choose loving their neighbor over theology stuck in the middle-ages. :love:

Giancarlo

10-13-2006, 05:00 AM

I must apologize. I don't want to come off as defensive. I just have serious trust issues when it comes to politics.

Dash

10-14-2006, 12:24 PM

I haven't said much about this issue. I must admit, that I was battling a good bit of schadenfreude over the Republican trouble.

Now that I'm past that, my thoughts are more compassionate...as well as identifying.

I did talk about it with my friend Shannon. She mentioned how she is giving voice lessons to a 16 year-old-guy. She says it intimidates her, because he "oozes testosterone from every orifice!" :lol: We talked about the erotic beauty of youth. In fact I first heard that statement from a straight, married physicist at a bible study several years ago. He was not one of those people that you would associate with virility or strongly sexual interests. He was intense, mathmatical and dry. I thought he was wonderful!!! But he commented one day on the power of youthful beauty--and he was talking about young girls. I don't care whether you are male, female, straight or gay...young people are often incredibly beautiful, and it is no shame to recognize beauty. I wish that we wouldn't make demons our of our attractions. Be wise, careful, restrained and concerned about the welfare of those younger and weaker than us...yes! But there's no need to hate ourselves, or engender further hatred toward the beauty of sexuality in the process. Ugh!

Anyway... I remember teaching the high-school Sunday school class in my old Mennonite Church for awhile. I hated myself at the time, and believed all the sterotypes about gays being predators, and evil. Teaching those young, vulnerable and often obviously troubled young guys was scary. Not only were they beautiful, but they were needy and hungry for attention. As a closeted gay, I too was troubled...yet I also knew more than they, and wanted to help them. Of course, I couldn't deal with the tension, and quit teaching...well, actually, I quit Church, gave my students all my Christian CDs and walked away.

So, if not for whatever grace and good will that follows and protects me, I could BE Mark Foley.

Politicians will use this scandal to gain or retain power, but I think we need to ponder it differently. There's a lot of wisdom to be gained, but we'll have to sift through the lies and political rhetoric to find it.

Just read an article from Salon today by Bill Maher. He hightlights the foolishness of a nation that worries about congressional pages being propositioned by a congressmen, but ignores or supports military recruiters collecting youngsters as cannon fodder in Iraq.

Daniel

10-14-2006, 10:49 PM

Just read an article from Salon today by Bill Maher. He hightlights the foolishness of a nation that worries about congressional pages being propositioned by a congressmen, but ignores or supports military recruiters collecting youngsters as cannon fodder in Iraq.

Yes. I saw Maher mention this very idea on his HBO program last night (the one reason I still have it after watching Angels in America and Rome).

That said, I identify with your remarks very much regarding youth and beauty: I have always thought that, no matter what the age of the student, if the teacher violates what amounts to an essential breach of trust, damage is frequently, if not always, the result. In the end, it is an abuse of power: sex is just the means.

But it's still Ok to send young men off to die. I think that's an even greater abuse of power.

Daniel

10-14-2006, 11:35 PM

Frank Rich, the one time theatre critic and now at large op-ed writer for the NYTimes (he's straight!) has grown into a potent advocate for Gay Rights. This op-ed is a brilliant.

The Gay Old Party Comes Out

By FRANK RICH
Published: October 15, 2006
PAGING Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council: Here’s a gay Republican story you probably did not hear last week. On Tuesday a card-carrying homosexual, Mark Dybul, was sworn into office at the State Department with his partner holding the Bible. Dr. Dybul, the administration’s new global AIDS coordinator, was flanked by Laura Bush and Condi Rice. In her official remarks, the secretary of state referred to the mother of Dr. Dybul’s partner as his “mother-in-law.”

Could wedding bells be far behind? It was all on display, photo included, on www.state.gov. And while you’re cruising the Internet, a little creative Googling will yield a long list of who else is gay, openly and not, in the highest ranks of both the Bush administration and the Republican hierarchy. The openly gay range from Steve Herbits, the prescient right-hand consultant to Donald Rumsfeld who foresees disaster in Iraq in Bob Woodward’s book “State of Denial,” to Israel Hernandez, the former Bush personal aide and current Commerce Department official whom the president nicknamed “Altoid boy.” (Let’s not go there.)

If anything good has come out of the Foley scandal, it is surely this: The revelation that the political party fond of demonizing homosexuals each election year is as well-stocked with trusted and accomplished gay leaders as virtually every other power center in America. “What you’re really seeing is the Republican Party on the Hill,” says Rich Tafel, the former leader of the gay Log Cabin Republicans whom George W. Bush refused to meet with during the 2000 campaign. “Across the board gay people are in leadership positions.” Yet it is this same party’s Congressional leadership that in 2006 did almost nothing about government spending, Iraq, immigration or ethics reform, but did drop everything to focus on a doomed constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage.

The split between the Republicans’ outward homophobia and inner gayness isn’t just hypocrisy; it’s pathology. Take the bizarre case of Karl Rove. Every one of his Bush campaigns has been marked by a dirty dealing of the gay card, dating back to the lesbian whispers that pursued Ann Richards when Mr. Bush ousted her as Texas governor in 1994. Yet we now learn from “The Architect,” the recent book by the Texas journalists James Moore and Wayne Slater, that Mr. Rove’s own (and beloved) adoptive father, Louis Rove, was openly gay in the years before his death in 2004. This will be a future case study for psychiatric clinicians as well as historians.

So will Kirk Fordham, the former Congressional aide who worked not only for Mark Foley but also for such gay-baiters as Senator James Inhofe of Oklahoma (who gratuitously bragged this year that no one in his family’s “recorded history” was gay) and Senator Mel Martinez of Florida (who vilified his 2004 Republican primary opponent, a fellow conservative, as a tool of the “radical homosexual agenda”). Then again, even Rick Santorum, the Pennsylvania senator who brought up incest and “man-on-dog” sex while decrying same-sex marriage, has employed a gay director of communications. In the G.O.P. such switch-hitting is as second nature as cutting taxes.

As for Mr. Foley, he is no more representative of gay men, whatever their political orientation, than Joey Buttafuoco is of straight men. Yet he’s a useful creep at this historical juncture because his behavior has exposed and will continue to expose a larger dynamic on the right. The longer the aftermath of this scandal continues, with its maniacal finger-pointing and relentless spotlight on the Republican closet, the harder it will be for his party to return to the double-dealing that has made gay Americans election-year bogeymen (and women) for so long.

The moment Mr. Foley’s e-mails became known, we saw that brand of fearmongering and bigotry at full tilt: Bush administration allies exploited the former Congressman’s predatory history to spread the grotesque canard that homosexuality is a direct path to pedophilia. It’s the kind of blood libel that in another era was spread about Jews.

The Family Research Council’s Mr. Perkins, a frequent White House ally and visitor, led the way. “When we elevate tolerance and diversity to the guidepost of public life,” he said on Fox News Channel, “this is what we get — men chasing 16-year-old boys around the halls of Congress.” A related note was struck by The Wall Street Journal’s editorial page, which asked, “Could a gay Congressman be quarantined?” The answer was no because “today’s politically correct culture” — tolerance of “private lifestyle choices” — gives predatory gay men a free pass. Newt Gingrich made the same point when he announced on TV that Mr. Foley had not been policed because Republicans “would have been accused of gay bashing.” Translation: Those in favor of gay civil rights would countenance and protect sex offenders.

This line of attack was soon followed by another classic from the annals of anti-Semitism: the shadowy conspiracy. “The secret Capitol Hill homosexual network must be exposed and dismantled,” said Cliff Kincaid of Accuracy in Media, another right-wing outfit that serves as a grass-roots auxiliary to the Bush administration. This network, he claims, was allowed “to infiltrate and manipulate the party apparatus” and worked “behind the scenes to sabotage a conservative pro-family agenda in Congress.”

There are two problems with this theory. First, gay people did not “infiltrate” the party apparatus — they are the party apparatus. Rare is the conservative Republican Congressional leader who does not have a gay staffer wielding clout in a major position. Second, any inference that gay Republicans on the Hill conspired to cover up Mr. Foley’s behavior is preposterous. Mr. Fordham, the gay former Foley aide who spent Thursday testifying under oath about his warnings to Denny Hastert’s staff, is to date the closest this sordid mess has to a whistle-blower, however tardy. So far, the slackers in curbing Mr. Foley over the past three years seem more straight than gay, led by the Buffalo Congressman Tom Reynolds, who is now running a guilt-ridden campaign commercial desperately apologizing to voters.

A Washington Post poll last week found that two-thirds of Americans believe that Democrats would behave just as badly as the Hastert gang in covering up a scandal like this to protect their own power. They are no doubt right. But the reason why the Foley scandal has legs — and why it has upstaged most other news, from the Congressional bill countenancing torture to North Korea’s nuclear test — is not just that sex trumps everything else in a tabloid-besotted America. The Republicans, unlike most Democrats (Joe Lieberman always excepted), can’t stop advertising their “family values,” which is why their pitfalls are as irresistible as a Molière farce. It was entertaining enough to learn that the former Christian Coalition leader Ralph Reed wanted to go “humping in corporate accounts” with the corrupt gambling lobbyist Jack Abramoff. The only way that comic setup could be topped was by the news that Mr. Foley was chairman of the Missing and Exploited Children’s Caucus. It beggars the imagination that he wasn’t also entrusted with No Child Left Behind.

Cultural conservatives who fell for the G.O.P.’s pious propaganda now look like dupes. Tonight on “60 Minutes,” David Kuo, a former top official in the administration’s faith-based initiatives program, is scheduled to discuss his new book recounting how evangelical supporters were privately ridiculed as “nuts” in the White House. If they have any self-respect, they’ll exact their own revenge.

We must hope as well that this crisis will lead to a repudiation of the ritual targeting of gay people for sport at the top levels of the Republican leadership in and out of the White House. For all the president’s talk of tolerance and “compassionate conservatism,” he has repeatedly joined Congress in wielding same-sex marriage as a club for divisive political purposes. He sat idly by while his secretary of education, Margaret Spellings, attacked a PBS children’s show because an animated rabbit visited a lesbian couple and their children. Ms. Spellings was worried about children being exposed to that “lifestyle” — itself a code word for “deviance” — even as the daughter of the vice president was preparing to expose the country to that lifestyle in a highly promoted book.

“The hypocrisy, the winking and nodding is catching up with the party,” says Mr. Tafel, the former Log Cabin leader. “Republicans must welcome their diversity as the party of Lincoln or purge the party of all gays. The middle ground — we’re a diverse party but we can bash gays too — will no longer work.” He adds that “the ironic point is that the G.O.P. isn’t as homophobic as it pretends to be.” Indeed two likely leading presidential competitors in 2008, John McCain and Rudy Giuliani, are consistent supporters of gay civil rights.

Another ironic point, of course, is that the effort to eradicate AIDS, led by a number of openly gay appointees like Dr. Dybul, may prove to be the single most beneficent achievement of this beleaguered White House. To paraphrase a show tune you’re unlikely to hear around the Family Research Council, isn’t that queer?

Of course, Rich is referencing Sondheim's Send in the Clowns from A Little Night Music.

"Isn't it rich? Isn't it queer? Losing my timing this late in my career?
And where are the clowns? There ought to be clowns.
Well. Maybe next year."

The GOP is losing its timing perhaps?