« Ovulating Pointlessly In The Moonlight | Main | A Non-Trial For A Non-Crime »

March 07, 2007

Left Quick To Exploit Gay Porn Past

Via JaneMoM, you have to love this.

Not content with trying to make all conservatives responsible for the perceived bigotry of Ann Coulter, now liberals want to punish Corporal Matt Sanchez for what they perceive to be the bigotry of the conservative movement as a whole.

The editorial staff has a question for these people. What did they hope to accomplish with their outing of Corporal Sanchez' past activities? The Left is always complaining that gays face horrible bigotry and discrimination in society - that gays have to hide their sexual orientation out of fear, that the 'religious theocrats' of the right search out and punish anyone who doesn't fall in line with their moral majority family values agenda. They honestly believe this.

And apparently they can't wait to expose Matt Sanchez to the delights of the world as they see it.

Is nothing - even chapters of one's life that are now closed - private anymore? Or didn't they stop to think of the possible repercussions? Maybe they just don't care. In their minds, whatever happens will serve him right for having the nerve to disagree with them politically. Plus, as an added bonus, they can now discount anything he says on the grounds that his past life makes him a hypocrite.

B. Daniel Blatt over at GayPatriot nails it:

While many on the left (particularly the gay left) delight in Corporal Sanchez’s apparent hypocrisy — or in the irony of conservatives honoring a man who was paid to be filmed having sex with other men, they would be better served to evaluate him for the man he is today. If they disagree with his public statements — of which he has made many — they should criticize those remarks. But, they should not be so eager to dwell upon his past. For it only shows an eagerness to engage in sensationalism rather than an attempt to take issue with his ideas.

That said, Matt Sanchez is a part of all that he has met. His past figures into the man he has become. But, people do have a right to their own private lives, to deal with their past mistakes — or merely just past experiences which no longer represent their present actions — in their own way. Once again, it seems that all too many are all too interested in the apparent hypocrisy of conservatives, more interested in defining us so that they may more readily dismiss our ideas.

And Matt Sanchez does have something to say:

We all have a tendency to want to hate the enemy; I suppose that’s why Ann Coulter got applause when she used the term ragheads (that was the last Coulter scandal, or was it the Jersey Girls?) I also suppose that’s why I got so much invective when bloggers posted decade-plus pictures of me that I knew were still around, but simply chose to ignore. Did I think I could become a “public figure” without some scrutiny? Of course not! Am I so craven for attention that I’ll stop at anything to get it? I’m the first to admit that I want to be heard, read and taken seriously, but some issues really are simple and some are more complex. I always hear the complaint of information reduced to sound bytes and of the lack of depth in public discourse. Well, porn is porn; self-explanatory and of little depth. The pictures do pretty much all the talking, and in an age when pictures are so abundant, they don’t say much. I’m concerned many will feel inadequate, as a conservative, I like to insist on equal opportunity even if some start off with more than others.

I don’t like porn, it reduces the mind, flattens the soul. That’s not hypocrisy talking, that’s experience. If I started off with liberal leanings, being on a gay porn set should have been heaven. In porn, everything taboo is trivialized and everything trivial is projected. How does a conservative trace his roots to such distasteful beginnings? Like all followers of a cult, it’s tough to figure out when you stopped believing in the party-line, but I can tell you that by the time I finished my summer tour of the major studios, I was pretty disgusted with myself. It was an emotional low, and the people who surrounded me were like drug dealers only interested in being with the anesthetized in order not to shake off the stupor of being high. Why did I become a conservative? Just look at what I left, and look at who is attacking me to today? Let’s face it people, you’re all cynical enough to know that if I had espoused liberal causes, spoken out against the military, got a liberal award for courage and then outed with a porn-past, you’d be clamoring for my memoir, and nominating me for a diversity ticket with Barack Obama. Instead those who complain about wire-tapping reserve the right to eavesdrop on my private life for political brownie points. Sure, I took a picture with Ann Coulter, I don’t endorse what she said, but anyone in the military would defend her right to say it. I realize that sounds prohibitively phony, but gee it’s really true! The right to say things is precious and like so many others, my decision to serve after September 11th is even a more salient point of my past. I feel I’m duty bound to help out my fellow veterans in any fight, both foreign and domestic. The issue of anti-military bias on campus is enormous and the CPAC was correct to recognize the gravity of the situation and award those who act for change. With so many experiences since the last George Bush was in power, you’ll have to forgive me for not listing a summer job in my resume, so many years later. It’s just a part of my past, and like anyone who reflects on the past realizes, it contributes to who I am today. No apologies, just recognition. No running away, just moving forward.

Who was it who once reminded us that liberals were above the politics of personal destruction?

Oh yeah. Hillary Clinton. Way to uphold those tolerant progressyve values guys. Here's a thought: if you really believe conservatives are all hate-filled bigots (as opposed to your garden variety love-filled bigot) why on earth are you so eager to throw Cpl. Sanchez under the bus?

Easy: Matt Sanchez has committed a very serious crime: he became a conservative. And in the best liberal tradition, he must now be punished for ideological non-conformity.

Posted by Cassandra at March 7, 2007 10:26 PM

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.villainouscompany.com/mt/mt-tb.cgi/1342

Comments

And Hillary should know...there is that vast right wing conspiracy just waiting in the wings.

So Matt was in a porn film. Whoop de whatever.
He left it. Forsook it. Isn't Bill still fondling women not his wife?

Just asking...since we need to have some sort of perspective here.

Posted by: Cricket at March 8, 2007 10:20 AM

I don't see anyone on the left attacking Sanchez. The first I heard about it was from righties rushing to defend him against attacks that don't seem to exist.

Posted by: jpe at March 8, 2007 10:36 AM

Well then you obviously haven't read the slew of posts on various blogs attacking him for being a hypocrite, or the HuffPo post by Max Blumenthal also saying he is a hypocrite and possibly also has psycho-sexual issues... or the MSNBC Countdown piece, or about all the hate mail he is getting. From just one post:

Can't get enough porn star-turned-conservative hero, Matt Sanchez? Well, take a little peak at the MSNBC Countdown round up up the scandal and journo Max Blumenthal's opinion on the matter. He's not pleased with Sanchez, that's for damn sure.

Perhaps you can explain to me how one gets "worked over" by one's tolerant Lefty friends, or why something should be a "scandal" if there's nothing wrong with what he did decades ago (according to the Left).

Yeah. I thought so.

Posted by: Cassandra at March 8, 2007 11:06 AM

...and then we have the usual elevated discourse from The Poor Man:

From Matt Sanchez, swallow-don’t-spit hero to supporting-the-troops-means-killing-them f*ckwits nationwide, and former gay porn star on the rise:

It’s only a matter of time before a GOP candidate, publically accused of molesting children for a solid fifteen years twenty years ago, slams the media/blogosphere for their partisan focus on his private life, rather than his bold new ideas.

***************

OK. So now making movies depicting gay sex is equivalent to molesting children? I can't wait to hear the Left defend that one.

***************

And the always-classy and tolerant FireDogLake:

where else can we find out that Ann Coulter, Michelle MalKKKin, Hannity, and O'Reilly's new BFF Cpl. Matt Sanchez is yet another gay hooker Republican with a slew of hardcore porn flicks on his resume with titles like "Jawbreaker", "Donkey Dicks", and "Glory Holes of Fame 3".

Kind of makes you sick, doesn't it? What's with the GOPerverts and their penchant for man-whores?

******************

he's definitely self-hating and conflicted and pathological enough to qualify for the Malkin/ Coulter/ Gingrich/ Hannity/ Limbaugh/ Rick Santorum wing of the GOP (the company he keeps is indicative of this; no self-respecting person, IMHO, could accept their endorsement).

***************

I could go on all day but I have things to do.

Posted by: Cassandra at March 8, 2007 11:30 AM

Personally I'm pleased that conservatives are rallying around the gay porn star Matt Sanchez, as they should. He served the nation and has a valid point regarding the anti-military treatment he's received. However, I do understand the left's point of hypocrisy. It was only 2004 that Republican candidates publicly and loudly denied the Log Cabin Republicans to even donate to the campaigns. Perhaps these events will open up the Republican party to be more inclusive of their gay supporters and more inclined to actually offer some solutions to their very real concerns.

Posted by: djrandeesha at March 8, 2007 11:33 AM

Yeah, me too. Perhaps Ann Coulter's little hoof in mouth stunt was a blessing in disguise :p

Posted by: Cassandra at March 8, 2007 11:50 AM


Well, whoever that guy sleeps with is his own business. Believe me, I won't be losing any sleep peeking through his curtains.

But, I have to say he's very eloquent with his words and it is IMO admirable on how he looks at his past experiences. If only we could all look at our past mistakes, and then grow from them like that. Rather than beat ourselves up and dwell on the decisions.

Posted by: Kevin L at March 8, 2007 12:05 PM

Kevin, you know as well as I do it is no longer necessary for the GOP voyuers to peek through other people's windows. Unless Hillary authorizes it.

Posted by: Cricket at March 8, 2007 12:15 PM

Necessary? What's that have to do with it?

But yeah... whatever Hillary wants, sure! You betcha.;)

Posted by: Kevin L at March 8, 2007 12:27 PM

You know, I'm still trying to figure out how acting in porn qualifies as a part of one's "private" past. And none of the commentary I've read on Sanchez on the left has criticized him for being gay or being in porn, but for equating a life in porn with life as a liberal.

BTW, I'm strongly against "outing" individuals, unless their public behavior is anti-gay or encourages anti-gay legislation (i.e., Ted Haggard). I don't think that is what happened here. Sanchez outed himself when he went on camera, and as far as I know he's never denied his sexuality since entering public life. How can you "out" someone who's not closeted?

I think conservatives like Cassandra are more embarrassed than anything by this post-CPAC revelation — all this supposed righteous indignation seems rather preemptive to me (especially since I first heard about this on right wing websites!). The lady doth protest too much, etc. etc. etc.

And I don't remember this much support from conservatives for keeping private lives private during the Clinton years, that's for sure!

Posted by: Candice at March 8, 2007 01:01 PM

Clarification:

"Appearing on camera" refers to Sanchez appearing in gay porn films, not at CPAC.

Posted by: Candice at March 8, 2007 01:12 PM

And I think you're projecting, Candice. You don't know me and you have no idea what I think. I've never supported dragging people through the mud for past transgressions.

And by the way, equating being in porn with child molestation is hardly what I'd call 'non-critical' commentary Candice. Nor is saying Matt is 'pathological' or an 'attention whore' (he didn't ask for this - YOU all outed him). Classical what liberals call 'blaming the victim' behavior. You guys do something sleazy and blame him for wanting to give his own side of the story. Guess that free speech thing is a one way street.

Classy. Really classy. And if conservatives don't stand by him we're homophobes but if we do, we're being outraged for no reason.

Amazing. It all goes to show that there is absolutely no course conservatives can take that you all won't criticize.

Posted by: Cassandra at March 8, 2007 01:23 PM

And as far as 'keeping private lives private', there is a HUGE difference between not crucifying someone for things he did decades ago and ignoring charges of sexual harassment (which is against laws LIBERALS fought to get passed to protect women) by a senior government official.

As I've pointed out before, conservatives thought many of those laws were overbroad and poorly written . But they were passed by Congress and they are the law. They dont' qualify as "private behavior" once you are called upon to testify in a court of law.

Posted by: Cassandra at March 8, 2007 01:27 PM

Not for disagreeing politically, but for supporting a party that says gays aren't equal, for having his picture taken with a leading voice among Republicans who gleefully called someone a faggot.

As a gay man, when you support people like that, I have zero sympathy. In doing so, they are offering cover for institutionalized bigotry. Hopefully he's kicked out of the marines too so he knows what the regular non-connected gays go through.

And by the way, you don't get to put stuff down on film for money and then say "Oh, that's private." when it becomes inconvenient later. Sorry he regrets his movie past, but given his article, he doesn't strike me as someone stupid enough to believe that movies just vanish at some point.

Silly.

Posted by: Dan at March 8, 2007 01:40 PM

Dan, I don't really think he thought they would vanish. But let's face it: none of us would be having this conversation if someone hadn't chosen to make a BIG deal of this.

How would you feel if someone went looking through your past and splashed some event from your youth all over the media just because you'd appeared at a liberal conference?

Does that really strike you as admirable behavior? Because it isn't something I would want to happen to me. I don't think when we attend a conference, we expect people to go digging through our past to see if we've ever done anything embarrassing that they can get on Keith Olbermann's Countdown.

The fact is, the Left is using Matt Sanchez to embarrass conservatives, or at least they hope this will embarrass conservatives.

And I think that's contemptible. But hey - that's just me.

Posted by: Cassandra at March 8, 2007 01:55 PM

"And by the way, you don't get to put stuff down on film for money and then say "Oh, that's private." when it becomes inconvenient later. Sorry he regrets his movie past, but given his article, he doesn't strike me as someone stupid enough to believe that movies just vanish at some point."

You know, that's what I find so striking about what he says there, Dan. That he does exactly the opposite of what you say. He doesn't say "Oh, that's private." but admits that its there. That it is a part of what he's done. Very refreshingly so.

As for gays not being equal in the Republican party, perhaps that is something that he is trying to change, rather than go to a party that stands for other things he does not believe in.

As you probably are well aware, "institutionalized bigotry" isn't fought by screaming and kicking and acting crazily. That just proves to people that folks deserve the bigotry. Rather, as he seems to be, offering a sober and sane voice is much easier to understand and accept.

Posted by: Kevin L at March 8, 2007 01:56 PM

"And by the way, equating being in porn with child molestation is hardly what I'd call 'non-critical' commentary Candice."

WTF Cassandra, I didn't do that. I only mentioned Ted Haggard, who as far as I know didn't molest any children. Are you thinking of that other paragon of conservative morality, Mark Foley?

Wow, what a bizarre, completely nonsensical response. As if the rest of the us needed anymore proof that American conservatism is caving in on itself.

FYI: I didn't even write most of the comments you attribute to me in your response(s) via quotation marks. I didn't call Sanchez "pathological" or an "attention whore." I've no idea where you got those remarks.

Posted by: Candice at March 8, 2007 01:58 PM

And by the way Dan, there are plenty of people in the DNC who dont' support gay marriage, and I don't belive Coulter had called anyone a faggot when he had his photo taken with her, though I could be mistaken in that. So that's a non-starter as an argument.

Posted by: Cassandra at March 8, 2007 01:58 PM

I got them from liberal blogs - they're right in the comments here Candice - Firedog lake, the Poor Man, etc.

I didn't think I needed to repeat that. Scroll up.

Posted by: Cassandra at March 8, 2007 02:00 PM

So mean to make Candice do her own reading....

Posted by: Carrie at March 8, 2007 02:11 PM

look at the "tolerant" liberal Dan just rant against a gay man.

I think this episode is going to open more than a few people's eyes to the truth. Dan's rant about how gays aren't equal in conservative circles doesn't seem to be backed up by the treatment Matt Sanchez is receiving. Which I expect is only angering him more.

Liberals expected that after their "outing" of Cpl. Sanchez the conservatives would denounce him and turn on him. AFter all he's proven to have been a liberal at one time and to them changing sides is unthinkable.

However, msot conservatives are rather open-minded. I personally don't care if someone once started in porn of any kind, although I wouldn't care to watch the movies Cpl. Sanchez made. At the same time, he felt strongly about what he saw as an injustice, and stood against it despite knowing he could pay a real price for it. (unlike most liberals who never pay a price for their stands.) I respect him for his courage and his integrity, even in the face of this outing, which only shows that liberals are less tolerant of homosexuality than I am.

Posted by: Mark at March 8, 2007 02:21 PM

Since when was ANYONE fair and tolerant in politics? This is a dirty game, Cassandra. I think you know that. This mosquito like whining does not become you.

You KNOW damn well if this had been some darling of the left that the right wing blogs would have had the guy for lunch. I agree that this has been ugly and lurid, but the arena of politics is no place for a shrinking violet.

And really, this is not getting much traction on the main left leaning blogs. They have laughed about it and moved on. I think most of this "outing" is one guy who recognized the guy from his personal porn collection, right? Correct me if I am wrong.

Posted by: Lisa at March 8, 2007 02:39 PM

I don't understand why he is getting flamed for being a conservative. So he is gay, so what. He has not made any anti-gay statements.

This liberal is sympathetic to the poor kid.

However, I am not surprised. When you launch yourself into the political stratosphere as talking head or advocate of any kind, be prepared to possibly get nailed to the wall by someone who doesn't like what you have to say.

Posted by: Lisa at March 8, 2007 02:55 PM

Keith Olberman has a Gay Porn collection?

Posted by: unkawill at March 8, 2007 02:56 PM

Actually the coverage on lefty blogs outweighs that on righty blogs, Lisa, and merely expressing an opinion is not whining. I have been consistent in my dislike for dirty politics - I defended Barack Obama (3 times now) when people attempted to smear him for something stupid and I apply the same standard here.

If you don't like it, you're entitled to your opinion. My nickel, I get to say what I like.

Sanchez is not even a political candidate or a public figure. He's a student and his only "sin" was to catch the eye of some particularly nasty liberals who delight in wading in the mud. IMO, defending that kind of bullshit does not become progressives.

Posted by: Cassandra at March 8, 2007 02:59 PM

Getting nailed to the wall for your ideas is one thing.

Having juicy little tidbits from your sexual history dragged into the spotlight is quite another.

Posted by: Cassandra at March 8, 2007 03:02 PM

Leave my tidbits out of this.

Posted by: spd rdr at March 8, 2007 03:05 PM

This is the same reaction that black conservatives get from the left. It is the same reaction that female conservatives get from the left.
Why should it be any different for a possibly gay conservative? (I say possibly because I don't think he ever stated that he was, in fact, gay and not everyone who does gay porn is. It wouldn't matter either way to me.)

Virtual lynch mobs and death threats...yeah..see?
This segment of the Left is an equal opportunity hater....
There is a segment on the Right that feels the need to do the same, I know that, and I disapprove of them too.


The difference is that I don't define all of the Left by what some idiot lefty bloggers and some idiot lefty commenters say and do.

Posted by: Carrie at March 8, 2007 03:13 PM

Allow me to explain this for the very confused liberals

Although most organized religion speaks of homosexuality as a sin, the majority of conservatives really don't care about whether someone is gay or not. But to liberals criticism of gay marriage, gay adoption and of some of the gay culture (unrestrained unsafe hook-ups with lots of partners for one) is considered to be on par with homophobia. Because liberals hold this belief in conservatives are homophobic so close to their heart they think all they have to do is mention the name of a conservative and the word "GAY" together and GOPers will lose their lids. I hate to break it to you but one of the most respected men in hte republican party has a gay daughter; if the GOPers are as homophobic as liberals claim, why is he still in the party and the vice president? I have genuine concern about gay marriage because marriage has been, for all its jokes, an institution for 50,000 yrs of human culture and I wonder what such would lead to. I wonder if truly gay adoption will raise good responsible kids but nearly every study is tainted with political bias. And the homosexual culture of unrestrained sex is not something I approve of as a religious person, BUT that's their choice and they can deal with the consequences of their actions. In everything I described I never showed a hatred to gays themselves or a belief they are inferior or not have a right to live, if you want that, GO TO IRAN AND SEE REAL HOMOPHOBIA. With this liberals once again descend into the mud and in their attempt to blanket conservatives, hit themselves directly in the face.

Posted by: Defector at March 8, 2007 03:15 PM

Leave my tidbits out of this...

Oh, but I don't see how I could possibly do that. Something tells me you've been a *very* naughty boy.

Posted by: Princess Lorica, Vegan Warrior at March 8, 2007 03:24 PM

Unfortunately, people rarely get nailed to the wall for their ideals Cassandra. I wish we did things differently, but we don't. We nail people to the wall for old and rather shady looking real estate deals; having affairs; saying stupid stuff when they were in college; for having the same middle name as an Iraqi dictator; for not being black enough; for being slim, hot, and blonde; for being old, fat and addicted to oxycontin; for being a male cheerleader; for having a somewhat annoying personality and a cheating husband that you refuse to divorce; for being rich; for not getting sufficiently wounded in combat in Vietnam.......the list is endless. Rarely do people get taken down for something that really matters.

I am not defending the way this guy was treated. I think it is pretty nasty. He is not even a hypocrite really because he is not some anti gay activist. He is a conservative student who spoke out on behalf of military presence on campus.

This is pretty low class, in my opinion. However, I think you should recognize that your conservative contemporaries had a hand in creating this kind of atmosphere of "gotcha" politics just the same as my liberal contemporaries. No it isn't right, but didn't we all either participate in creating this rancorous activity or sit by passively while this kind of behavior became the norm?

Posted by: Lisa at March 8, 2007 03:28 PM

But that's exactly what I'm trying NOT to do, and I haven't sat passively by when it was done to liberals (when I noticed, that is) either. Yet you say I am "whining" if I object.

Things don't change unless we demand that they do and set a higher standard. I don't participate in this kind of behavior and I try not to be a silent accomplice either. Maybe that's naive, but even if all it does is get some people to rethink the efficacy of dirty politics, I think it's worth it.

Posted by: Cassandra at March 8, 2007 03:33 PM

You are wholly missing the point here.

Liberals are not focusing on Sanchez for the purpose of chortling about hypocrisy, nor for "destroying" him personally. We embrace him. In fact, I think liberals will rise to his defense - to force this administration to allow him to continue his service in the Marine reserves.

This can be a breakthrough moment. The end of anti-gay discrimination in the military, and another step in gay equality in the society at large.

Whether you like to admit it or not, the locus of homophobia in this society is in conservative circles. When we hear of soldiers, sailors and airmen who have performed magnificently in service, but are outed as gays and then dismissed, conservatives never rise to the moment and stand up for equlity. Maybe it takes someone who is an actual rightwing propagandist, and honored as such, to cause the rightwing to finally back down.

Posted by: joebloe at March 8, 2007 03:41 PM

Though I don't comment except on days when I am feeling particularly manic, I read you regularly. I particularly appreciated your sane, sober thoughts on Senator Obama. Though he connects well with all Americans (so far), he particularly connects with black people like me. And there are a whole lot of educated, affluent black people like me who don't have a litmus test for being sufficiently black - we actually think that being well spoken, well educated, and living well is not a problem. Sorry to get off topic, but on the rare occasions that I agree with you, I have to say so.

Posted by: Lisa at March 8, 2007 03:41 PM

Okay, I take back the whining comment, that was inaccurate and I apologize.

I read Michelle Malkins take on all of this as well and she DEFINITELY participates in the down and dirty ass kicking that takes place on the blogosphere. I used too broad a brush there. You are not her.

Posted by: Lisa at March 8, 2007 03:46 PM

Lisa, since you are a liberal black lady, could you please tell me exactly what the democratic party has ever done for you. I mean what is the appeal of the democratic party?

Posted by: unkawill at March 8, 2007 03:50 PM

I am not a Democrat because they "do stuff for me". I believe in what they stand for. I don't agree with all elected Democrats. Some of them are idiots. Some of them are brilliant and make me proud to be a Democrat. But again, it is not about the individual politicians or what they can do for me. My vision for this country matches the closest with the Democratic Party Platform's vision.

Posted by: Lisa at March 8, 2007 04:16 PM

Thanks Lisa. I'm not perfect. I know that. But I'm glad you're reading, and I definitely am happy to have someone chime in with another point of view :)

And Joe, as someone who grew up in the military and has lived around it all my life, it's unfair to attribute the military stand on homosexuality to a dislike of homosexuals.

There are practical issues attached to bunking single people who are sexually attracted to each other and who have sexual relationships together, to having them shower and sleep and go to the bathroom in quarters where there is ZERO privacy, and they're no different from the issues the military faces with men and women. Except they can keep men and women apart. They can't do that with gays.

Posted by: Cassandra at March 8, 2007 04:32 PM

What tickles liberals about this is how "outraged" you all get. Malkin is the best at this type of reaction. You are doing a good follow up act though. Non serious non issues tit for tat bs.

Posted by: nice graphic at March 8, 2007 04:46 PM

"What tickles liberals about this is how "outraged" you all get. Malkin is the best at this type of reaction. You are doing a good follow up act though. Non serious non issues tit for tat bs."

Well, thank you. I'm sure your condescendence makes you feel special.:)

Really, though, I don't think we're all that outraged. There isn't as much heat here that I've seen, unlike the Libby discussions.

Posted by: Kevin L at March 8, 2007 05:04 PM

Lisa says"My vision for this country matches the closest with the Democratic Party Platform's vision." Link in her post.

I can't belive that I went and read that Bush Bashing Conservitive Talking Points DRECK

Support the Military,take care of the Troops, Win the WAR, Energy Independence, Affordable Healthcare,ect.

Posted by: unkawill at March 8, 2007 06:46 PM

Re 4:32 - Cass, you say that you grew up in the military and yet you propagate the fallacy that close proximity & showers & toilets somehow act as an irresistible catalyst of gay debauchery. Your "practical issues" are a documented red herring - starting with SSgt Eric Alva and extending through the finest fighting forces in the world (UK, Israel & many of our NATO allies) - your contention hasn't held water for year.

Posted by: Paul at March 8, 2007 09:58 PM

>> Is nothing - even chapters of one's life that are now closed - private anymore? Or didn't they stop to think of the possible repercussions? Maybe they just don't care.

Golly gee, folks. Tell me: where was this "live and let live" atttitude a few years ago when everyone was running scared over gay marriage and we had DoMA rammed down our throats?

Isnt it amazing that the "conversion" of a former porn star should provide the RR with a new shining beacon and allow them to say to all those nasty ol' liberals, "You have no business commenting about this man's private life!"? Well, hey, folks, mind if I hold up this full length mirror for you all to deeply look into as you continue to use gays and lesbians as a convenient political gangplank to further your specious agendae? If you *truly* believe that whole NOMB line, then you would do well to remember that it has to serve *all around* -- and if I and my lifemate choose to get married, it's none of your business. You do not enter into the equation. If I choose to serve in the military in *any* capacity, it is none of your business. Again, you do not enter into the equation.

Perhaps the next time you get all upset about the supposed hypocricy of how the poor corporal is being treated, you might remember to rein yourselves in.

Posted by: Sean at March 8, 2007 10:26 PM

Damn straight! Just because the man performed sex acts on tape for money doesn't make them any less private!

Oh, wait...

Posted by: nitpicker at March 8, 2007 10:32 PM

Is this what passes for social discourse these days?

Well then let me put a very fine point on it:

I don't give a flying f*ck who you are or how you want to live your life. Stay out of my face and I will stay out of yours. Stick your face into mine and I will bite your f*cking nose off.

Now shut up and get back to f*cking work.

Posted by: spd at March 8, 2007 11:26 PM

That was completely unnecessary.
I apologize.

Posted by: spd rdr at March 8, 2007 11:35 PM

can someone explain to me the privacy interest in commercially produced and distributed videos? Thanks!

Posted by: mara at March 9, 2007 12:11 AM

I would like the LLL dems to tell us all the things they do for gays. After all it was a LLL dem congress that passed the DADT and the dem pres who supported the DOMA initiative. It was the dem pres who cut the funding for AIDS research and Pres Bush who tripled it and also supported AIDS drugs for Africa.

All the dems do for gays is tell them they will support the gays until after the elections and then forget them until the next election. And I am a gay conservative!!

Posted by: dick at March 9, 2007 01:09 AM

Sean and Paul:

You have purposely chosen to ignore what I said in my comment because you find it convenient to your argument.

Paul: there is no "gay debauchery" issue. It is one of simple human nature. We do not bunk men and women together because (for instance) we recognize that there are privacy issues in expecting men and women to undress around each other because they are hard-wired by nature to be sexually attracted to each other. These are normal healthy impulses, and trying to label that as homophobia is ridiculous. It's just common sense - put people who attracted in close quarters and some of them end up in bed. Which is against the law in the military. Don't like that? Talk to Congress.

Given that the military keeps men and women separated, are you SERIOUSLY suggesting that there is no problem with putting gays together - that somehow human nature (which is no different for gays than heteros) is going to miraculously change? Wow. And I thought I was naive.

And Sean:

Maybe you think that if a student (not a political candidate or public figure mind you, but just a student) attends a conference to pick up an award, that makes him fair game for the opponents of a political party to dig through his past looking for something to embarrass the PARTY with.

I think it's sleazy politics. Go after politicians if you want, though even here personal things they did it the past is kind of pushing it. But using someone who isn't running for office is cheap and vicious. All this does is discourage young people from wanting to have anything to do with the political process - they are not going to want to get involved if they have to be afraid of partisan s digging through their personal history looking for sleaze to put on Keith Olbermann.

And on the DOMA, I never supported that so you're wasting your time frothing at the mouth about that, but hey don't let me stop you from a perfectly good rant. You've made up your mind and nothing is going to knock that enormous chip off your shoulder.

It's hard to have a rational conversation with someone who closed their mind long before they got here. I don't assume all liberals are alike - try putting the bias aside for a moment. You might learn something.

Posted by: Cassandra at March 9, 2007 06:12 AM

So, he's being attacked in some comments for being a hypocrite; eg, for his political positions. I thought you didn't understand the difference; thanks for confirming.

Posted by: jpe at March 9, 2007 06:12 AM

Many comments imply he's a hypocrite, though they almost never back that up with any reasoned argument but simply engage in nasty namecalling (and I read a LOT of posts, so I'm not just making that up jpe). If you want to say someone's a hypocrite, make your case, don't just call names. But then that's the garden-variety response to any gay conservative, just as with any black conservative: "hypocrite, self-hating, deluded, confused, blah, blah, blah..." It requires no imagination and they seem to think it also requires no rhetorical or logical support. Just say it and it magically becomes true! Yee ha.

Plenty more engaged in far more vicious invective, like the 'gay porn = child abuse" example cited earlier. Again, another example I'd love to see the Dems defend to their gay base. It's sad when you're so eager to attack the enemy that you end up wounding your own.

Oh well, both parties have their share of morons.

Posted by: Cassandra at March 9, 2007 06:28 AM

>> Given that the military keeps men and women separated, are you SERIOUSLY suggesting that there is no problem with putting gays together - that somehow human nature (which is no different for gays than heteros) is going to miraculously change?

I am saying exactly that. Do you SERIOUSLY think that we gays run around looking for any available guy to have sex with? Geez, give at least a few of us credit for some discretion. The grand majority of us (just like the grand majority of straight men) know when anything is appropriate or not. But just because you're clueless and fearful isnt going to make your hysteria any truer for anyone.

And "sleazy politics"? Oh please, do tell me *all* about sleazy politics, will you? The last two presidential elections were casebook texts on how to smear a candidate without having a single damn thing to say in one's own support. Rove made sure that Kerry looked like some kind of traitorous threat, while no one *ever* questioned Bush's somehow miraculous inability to serve in Vietnam at a time when pilots like himself were desperately needed. Funny how that worked out, huh...

>> You've made up your mind and nothing is going to knock that enormous chip off your shoulder.

Again, let me hold up this great big full length mirror for you. Enjoy the view, ma'am.

Posted by: Sean at March 9, 2007 06:34 AM

Of course not Sean. I am saying that, if you put people in close quarters, they form attachments, JUST LIKE HETEROS.

Let me guess: you are not in the military and have no idea how prevalent sexual harassment complaints, fraternization, sexual assault, and other issues of this type are AMONG HETEROS WHO ARENT EVEN BUNKED TOGETHER. Yet somehow this situation is going to be made far "better" if we increase the number of people who are living in close proximity and are sexually attracted to each other?

Gotta love your logic Sean.

Posted by: Cassandra at March 9, 2007 06:48 AM

And of course the great majority of gays dont misbehave, just like the great majority of heteros dont. WE DONT HAVE RULES BECAUSE MOST PEOPLE ARE JERKS - WE HAVE THEM BECAUSE A SMALL MINORITY RUIN IT FOR EVERYONE ELSE.

You are so full of the conviction that everything in life is due to homophobia that it blinds you to fairly obvious explanations that have nothing to do with homosexuality.

I am a woman, but I dont support women in the combat arms for many of the same reasons. Is this fair to individual women? Hell no. But the military isnt a jobs program for women. It exists to win wars. Not everything in life is due to prejudice Sean.

Posted by: Cassandra at March 9, 2007 06:53 AM

>> Let me guess: you are not in the military and have no idea how prevalent sexual harassment complaints, fraternization, sexual assault, and other issues of this type are AMONG HETEROS WHO ARENT EVEN BUNKED TOGETHER

I served in the Navy for eight years, including two tours in Vietnam. I knew many, many gay men and women in the service, and virtually all knew when it was right to keep things in their pants... unlike their straight counterparts, who saw it as a Boy Scout Merit Badge to hit on any available woman on the base and then laugh about it the next day because they *knew* there would be no consequences to their actions... even as something as insubstantial as innuendo and suspicion were sufficient to see my friends kicked out with a dishonourable discharge. No proof, just suggestion. So dont pretend to take the higher moral ground. It wont work. Believe me, I know *far better* than you ever will.

And of course not everything in life is due to homophobia -- that;s your own prejudice speaking. But the point you seem almost obstinate about ignoring is the sudden plea that we should just leave this poor boy alone and whose business is it anyway what he did or does now? Isnt he entitled to a little privacy in his own pursuit of happiness?

Yes he is. And so is everyone else in this country. But I find it astoundingly ironic that when the RR needs to find boogie monsters under the bed to get out the votes, it wraps itself in the Stars and Stripes and loudly declares to one and all that we gays are "a moral problem that must be stopped!!! Why, gay people getting married??? Horrors!!!! VOTE FOR ME AND I'LL MAKE SURE IT DOESNT HAPPEN!" Tell me, how many times in the last election did we hear that particular piece of moral superiority?

Whether *you* supported DoMA or not is irrelevant, sorry. You very much support the ideology underneath it, so you might as well support the results of that ideology as well. DoMA was nothing more than a desperate grab for power that was built on mindless fears, the same mindless fears that think gays and lesbians in the military are some kind of "threat" to our red-blooded American boys and girls (Funny, I always thought *I* was one of those Americans as well; apparently, by your logic, I'm not). I'm amazed that people somehow still believe that, like my serving in the military, my getting married is somehow a "threat" to their own... even though they seem incredibly hard pressed to spell out the specifics of *why*. And out of *all* the issues facing this country, which one got trotted out on a regular and convenient basis when nothing else seemed to work? Gay marriage. It was almost laughable the way it appeared when the candidates -- on all sides of the aisle -- couldnt talk about the economy or domestic issues -- nope, gotta hit that hot button that almost every voter will respond to like Pavlov's dog.

Posted by: sean at March 9, 2007 07:22 AM

Keep flailing away at that straw man, Sean.

You've almost got him whipped.

Posted by: Cassandra at March 9, 2007 07:26 AM

Cassandra,

This thread could be Exhibit A for why I don't want to write a political blog. Bravo to you for not only "putting up with it," but engaging with rationality and emotional self-control. I honestly couldn't do it.

(Yeah, that sounds a bit condescending. You know it's unintentional--it's 5 in the morning here, so forgive any lack of eloquence and due deference. ;) )

Posted by: FbL at March 9, 2007 07:58 AM

Yes... well... my husband constantly tells me I am certifiably insane for bringing any of these subjects up. He says I should bother even trying to talk to people who are just going to insult me and aren't receptive to anything I have to say anyway.

Some days, I feel like he's probably right. :p

However, I get tired of the left and right screeching at each other all the time so I guess I think someone ought to try. And since I do seem to have some liberal readers and commenters (for whom I'm very grateful) I suppose I'll keep flailing away! Otherwise, this just becomes a big cosmic circle jerk.

Posted by: Cassandra at March 9, 2007 08:19 AM

And you can always tell when Salon gives you a big link, can't you? I have the same influx of loonies hit every time that happens, too.

Oh, and while we're stoking the big fire here, let me point out an error that a few of your commentors made. They noted that opposition to "gay marriage" is discrimination. In fact, the opposite is true. At present, no person of one gender may marry someone of the same gender. For any reason. Everyone is treated equally under the law.

Posted by: Jimmie at March 9, 2007 08:53 AM

Few points:

Having lovers working together in the military, especially in combat, is bad for moral and bad for trusting them to follow orders. I know I would be hesitant to watch my wife charge the bunker while I was ordered to stay behind and do something else. If she were hit, I would say screw this and go to her aid. I would imagine that gay lovers would feel the same way. Which supports a rule keeping men and women from being together in this situation, and homosexuals.

Gay porn actors, according to an HBO documentary, a very pro-gay agenda and liberal TV channel that only shows liberal oriented documentaries, are 75% straight. They have gay sex for money, but do chicks off camera. I guess it is like prison without the bars. My point being that gay sex and "being a homosexual" are apparently not the same thing.

Finally, I am not aware of any hypocrisy here. Hypocrisy is claiming one standard of conduct while you are violating it. (Since most on the Left don't support any standards of conduct, they are seldom able to be exposed as hypocrites.) This guy did gay porn some time ago. Even if he is supporting bigotry against gay sex conduct today (which I understand he is not), unless he is engaged in the conduct currently, he is not a hypocrite. He is someone with a past, but he isn't acting contrary to his professed standards. I mean really, this is pretty basic, even for the Left.

Finally, who gave us "don't ask don't tell?" That would be the "first black" and gay President: Bill Clinton.

Posted by: KJ at March 9, 2007 09:34 AM

Hypocrite!

Mean spirited poopy head!

Spigot! Err... I mean, bigot!

Posted by: Princess Leia in a Cheese Danish Bikini at March 9, 2007 10:05 AM

KJ, the Left supports a standard of conduct from the right. We have to acknowledge, validate, affirm, and sustain their right to be whatever they want to be. If we call them on it we are
racist homophobes without feelings.

All I see is that the Left turned on this guy because he was a closet conservative.

Posted by: Cricket at March 9, 2007 10:56 AM

"But the point you seem almost obstinate about ignoring is the sudden plea that we should just leave this poor boy alone and whose business is it anyway what he did or does now? Isnt he entitled to a little privacy in his own pursuit of happiness?"

It strikes me that the Left has been hammering on the one criticism that somehow we've demanded that they "Leave the poor boy alone." Its a silly non-issue that they keep bringing up, because they can't get beyond the idea that Cpl Sanchez doesn't need protecting. His statements explain himself fine if they would read it for what it is.

Instead, what they need to address is the accusation of 'hypocrisy'. That they've made this an issue at all is the damning accusation... not the fact that they've decided to pick on somebody personally. Their target could have been any fellow, where once again they show how far away they are from being ideology that is above the politics of personal destruction.

Of course, its a fine distinction, and I don't know if these commenters have the ability to parse that.

Posted by: Kevin L at March 9, 2007 01:12 PM

Dan, I don't really think he thought they would vanish. But let's face it: none of us would be having this conversation if someone hadn't chosen to make a BIG deal of this.

Right Cassandra, but one of the reasons people are making a big deal of it is because of Ann Coulter's dumb remark.

How would you feel if someone went looking through your past and splashed some event from your youth all over the media just because you'd appeared at a liberal conference?

I wouldn't like it at all but it's hardly the first time that Ann and other Conservatives have said nasty stuff and I know it may not be you or the folks here, but the reality is that it comes from the right than the left.

I came out like 15 years ago when I was like 18 and I never would have thought that today we'd even be talking about gay issues so publicly, not back then. It's so different now. But there have been a lot of people who have tried to stop those changes and rather loudly. And Sean was right...we have been used by politicians for awhile now. 2004 & 2006 we were used most often by Republicans as a wedge issue.

The result of that was 11 states changing their state Amendments banning gay marriage, some of them even banning Civil Unions.

Even DOMA was proposed by the Right to blugeon Bill Clinton. As reprehensible as his signing it was, he didn't come up with that on his own. Dems didn't control Congress and certainly didn't write it. Know who one of the Senatorial co-sponsor was? Bob Dole. Know who ran against Clinton in that election? Bob Dole. Know when it hit Clinton's desk? September 1996. Know when the election was?

This has been going on for years by Republicans and it's revolting to see someone who is gay, who is in the military, support people who have kept and will continue to try to keep him from getting married to the person he loves and see him kicked out of his job and uniform.

His arm was around Ann Coulter. It may have been before she's said Faggot at that CPAC but it's not the first time she's said it.

I don't know if Bill Clinton is gay. But Al Gore - total fag.

Interestingly, sort of gives away the lie that she doesn't think "faggot" means gay, doesn't it?

The fact is, the Left is using Matt Sanchez to embarrass conservatives, or at least they hope this will embarrass conservatives.

Of course they are. But you're talking seriously about the left blogosphere who are far more liberal. To them, gays are not a talking point. My family isn't a wedge issue and to the left, these things have a serious impact on millions of lives.

How many people do you think were affected by those 11 states Amending their constitution? Millions of gay families were affected.

This conversation is not academic. At least not for me and I don't think that when things like that are happening, gays being used to win elections for conservatives, screwing the gays in the meantime, people who recognize how many lives are harmed by that use...should have to play fair. Why do I have to civilly argue or debate or abide by a set of "fairness rules" when the fact that I'm being forced to even have the conversation is so blatantly unfair in the first place?

Posted by: Dan at March 9, 2007 01:31 PM

Kevin, Kevin, Kevin....

You're arguing with a moving target. I don't support the DOMA, but *some* conservatives do and I am a conservative. Therefore I believe all the things they believe and have all the same horrid, horrid motives.

Matt, 15 years ago, was in gay porn. Of course he doesn't do that now, but he's a hypocrite man whore because his behavior 15 years ago (which he doesn't agree with now) contradicts what he believes today.

And his hypocrisy justifies any nastiness the Lefties want to throw at him - after all, he wants all this attention! He *asked* for it by daring to attend a conference and receive an award! Remember, when we get involved in civics, we are giving implied consent for partisan operatives to delve into our past and splash anything they can find on the Keith Olbermann show if it helps them embarrass the Republicans!

I'm sure the same rhetoric works for the other side too.

What a great lesson to teach our children - Democracy: get involved in your government, kiddies! Just make really, really sure you've never, ever made a mistake in your whole life, or you'll be "outed", even if you're not a political candidate.

Posted by: Cassandra at March 9, 2007 01:37 PM

The reason you ought to be civil, Dan, is that being uncivil alienates moderates who are sitting on the fence and might be inclined to help you, or at least not stand in your way.

That's why.

And FWIW, most conservative bloggers roundly condemned Ann Coulter. I did. So that's a non-starter here.

Posted by: Cassandra at March 9, 2007 01:43 PM

"Why do I have to civilly argue or debate or abide by a set of "fairness rules" when the fact that I'm being forced to even have the conversation is so blatantly unfair in the first place?"

Dan... you make it sound like gays are the only people in the world that get a raw deal in life. And that you're talking to people who haven't gotten the shaft at some point in their life. Maybe not you're particular shaft, but yes... we've felt the sting too. Women get a raw deal, as they get publically traded in airports internationally for whore houses. Moderate Muslems get a raw deal as no matter what they do, get blown up. White kids have to deal with the rough end of reverse discrimination. Our own blog princess rails on about the way the military is treated. They may not all be equal, but to those who are experiencing it, they're just as painful. The list goes on and on.

Civility is a recognition of that. Yes, Dan... gays in America have it rough. Yeah! They get used. Welcome to life, my friend. Its unfair. In that, there's little difference between you and I.

Posted by: Kevin L at March 9, 2007 01:53 PM

"You're arguing with a moving target."

Heh. I seem to be good at that... or... um... are we arguing about something else now?

Posted by: Kevin L at March 9, 2007 02:02 PM

Here's the thing. I didn't comment on your reaction to Ann Coulter. I commented on why she is important to this discussion.

But let me try to explain to you where I'm coming from with this.

A few years ago, my parnter of 8 years found my mom unconscious, without me there. He called the ambulance of course and they came and took her from her apartment. He tried to get a hold of me but he couldn't and my brother wasn't picking up either at the time. My mom and dad had just begun divorce proceedings but he was still her husband but Chris didn't even consider calling him or any of her sisters.

Chris and I can't and couldn't legally marry of course so Chris isn't family technically. So the hospital, once she was there, wouldn't tell him anything or even talk to him about her condition.

Unfortunately, my mom had had a stroke and they had no one there to tell them whether or not to give her that clot busting drug (forget the name now). My Aunt Diane, her sister, had been with her earlier that day and could have told them the timeframe of her stroke, possibly authorized use of the drug. But Chris had no idea that he should start calling any family member in his phone to get them there, he just kept trying to find me or Michael (little bro). As a result, my mom suffered irreversible brain damage.

I get your pragmatism. But it's not easy when you're facing f**king monsters who tell you that the above situation is how God wants it..cuz they know better and oh, vote for them or Chris and Dan might be able to live life not worrying about horrible, unforseeable situations like the above again. Cuz that is really what Americans should be concerned about.

Posted by: Dan at March 9, 2007 02:08 PM

Last post was in response to Cassandra's post to me. Sorry. :)

Posted by: Dan at March 9, 2007 02:11 PM

I'm sorry Dan. I really am. That must have been a horrible experience, and I can't even imagine how awful it must have made you feel.

Posted by: Cassandra at March 9, 2007 02:23 PM

I'm sorry Dan. I really am. That must have been a horrible experience, and I can't even imagine how awful it must have made you feel.

Thanks. I appreciate that.

And I really didn't bring it up to make people feel bad or guilt them into agreeing with me or to try to stop debate.

I know where you're coming from and I agree that the attacks on Sanchez are a little silly. There is some sick glee that I can sense when I see people posting his picture with Ann Coulter, glee from the fact that they know it's hurting the other side. All of it is not altruistic. I know.

But some of it does stem from genuine anger and frustration at mistreatment of others. Kevin's right of course..everyone gets shafted (and I'm going to ignore the double entandre as Kevin did - haha), but I can only speak to my own treatment.

I find it difficult to have a rational discussion with people who are telling me that I'm not equal. I feel like I'm validating what I see as blatant bigotry by addressing it as I would ideas on tax policy.

Posted by: Dan at March 9, 2007 02:34 PM

So John Flippe Floppe Kerry can change his stand every five minutes but he is marvelously consistent in his fluide nuance. Matt Sanchez stays the course and he is the Flighty Bitch from Hell.

I will take Ma(N)tt Sanchez over Jean Fraude.

Posted by: snarkymeany at March 9, 2007 02:44 PM

Jean Fraude may be consistent in his fluidity, but I really hate waiting for it to come out of the bottle....so what do you do.....you stick a knife up there, but that doesn't help...now you've got a messy knife and your fries are still cold.

Posted by: Snarktillery Command at March 9, 2007 04:04 PM

Silence, peons!

Don't you know who I am?

Do not force me to unleash the awesome power of my Post-Cartesian Multivariate Co-Directionality:

The Iraq problem returned in 1998, and Kerry proved again that there is no world crisis so grave it can't be addressed with a fusillade of subordinate clauses. Teams of highly trained spelunkers have descended into the darkness of the floor speech he gave on Oct. 10, 1998, searching for meaning, though none have returned alive.

In a characteristic sentence, which admittedly sounds better in the original French, Kerry exclaimed: "We know from our largely unsuccessful attempts to enlist the cooperation of other nations, especially industrialized trading nations, in efforts to impose and enforce somewhat more ambitious standards on nations such as Iran, China, Burma and Syria, that the willingness of most other nations — including a number who are joined in the sanctions to isolate Iraq — is neither wide nor deep to join in imposing sanctions on a sovereign nation to spur it to `clean up its act' and comport its actions with accepted international norms."

Posted by: Jean Fraude Kerrie at March 9, 2007 04:14 PM

No one expects the the Spanish Inquisition!
Clearly, it's time to beat a hasty retreat.....

Posted by: Sly2017 at March 9, 2007 04:50 PM

Jeane Fraud Kerrie, you are toast! Winter Soldier my ass. This calls for wine and song!

John Kerry's career lies a-mouldering in the grave;
John Kerry's career lies a-mouldering in the grave;
John Kerry's career lies a-mouldering in the grave;
His shade's marching on!

Chorus:

Glory, halle—hallelujah! Glory, halle—hallelujah!
Glory, halle—hallelujah! his cash's marching on!

He's gone to be a traitor in the army of the Left!
He's gone to be a traitor in the army of the Left!
He's gone to be a traitor in the army of the Left!
His cash's marching on!

John Kerry's mattress is strapped upon his back!
John Kerry's mattress is strapped upon his back!
John Kerry's mattress is strapped upon his back!
His cash's marching on!

His pet sheep will dump him on the way;
His pet sheep will dump him on the way;
His pet sheep will dump him on the way;
They go barfing on!

They will hang George Bush to a sour apple tree!
They will hang George Bush to a sour apple tree!
They will hang George Bush to a sour apple tree!
As they whore along!

Now, three rousing cheers for hypocrisy;
Now, three rousing cheers for the treason;
Now, three rousing cheers for demagoguery;
As we are spinning on!

Posted by: Swiftboat at March 10, 2007 05:48 PM

Sly is not taking Mssr. Kerry seriously. Blasphemy! LOL.

Posted by: Mark at March 10, 2007 06:06 PM

Matt Sanchez was in a porn film. Bill Clinton lives in one.

Posted by: Mark at March 10, 2007 06:16 PM

Post a comment




Remember Me?

(you may use HTML tags for style)