Yes but, again, I think you’re missing the point…

Nobody would question the propriety of the wider black community frowning on and applying pressure to a black man that voted in favor of Jim Crow. Nobody would suggest that it was improper for Jews to come down hard on a Jew that supported anti-semitic laws. Well, the gay community is sick of closeted gays that further actions and laws that they believe violate their fundamental human rights and, as an internal matter, they are identifying them and pressuring them to change or at least not pursue actions that are seen as damaging the larger group as a whole.

If you think that’s tyranny then you need to take a deep breath and acknowledge the wider reality around you - Social groupings have internal policing. Going against the grain of any social group you are part of WILL result in friction and stress. This is the price that one pays for going against that grain. If it’s a matter that one feel strongly about - if it’s a core value - then one gladly pays that price and moves along with life.

The Amish shun - Catholics excommunicate. - Republicans and Democrats toss people out of caucuses - People are barred from PTA meetings - Families turn cold shoulders to black sheep at the family reunion - etc. etc. ALL social and all identity groups police themselves.

Republicans and conservatives losing elections after being outed as homosexuals to the wider public is spillover. Republicans and conservatives - It’s not about you. It’s about the gay community responding to what is widely perceived within the gay community as an existential threat. Whether or not it is actually an existential threat is a different matter entirely. (I believe it is a serious threat.)

Who is seriously suggesting that any community shouldn’t respond to actions perceived as a threat to it’s good health, continued existence, and fundamental human rights? Or is it somehow less legitimate when the gay community does it as apposed to some other community you approve of?

What a riposte. Don’t hearken the message — attack the messenger. That’s the extend of degree in which the comments on this site have stooped to. Sad predicament.

President Clinton committed perjury, lying under oath in a sexual harrassment suit. It’s appalling to think that perjury and keeping one’s private life private are the same line.

And all law-breaking must be prosecuted. Right?

Like, say, conspiracy to torture? I really want to hear your answer here.

Laws should be enforced equally to all, and no person, even the President should be above the law.

As for your rather trollish insertion of inapt analogies:
President Clinton’s perjury broke the law, and he did so for the selfish reason of protecting his own skin.

All of the actions in the global war on terror that are now being questioned were good faith attempts to defend the US from terrorist attacks. It’s pretty clear that in fact the heavy interrogation methods used, ie waterboarding, not only were extensively reviewed by DOJ/WHC lawyers and okay’d, but were used sparingly on only 3 individuals AND helped uncover the Al Qaeda network and saved us from terrorist attacks. So the charge is “conspiracy to waterboard KSM - the murderer of 3,000 innocents on 9/11 and the guy who personally beheaded Danny Pearl - and two other AQ terrorist suspects in order to gain information to stop terrorist attacks” … go ahead, try that case … let’s just make sure the jury are American patriots and not leftist twits out to get us defeated in the GWOT.

And BTW, if you want to retroactively impeach former Presidents for over-zealousness in war, go ahead and impeach FDR for his massive violation of the civil rights of tens of thousands of Japanese-Americans by putting them in internment camps. Unlike the Bush admin and GWOT, FDR’s action had zero benefit to our war effort and was just based on paranoia. Think: Flyspecks, planks, and eyes.

The whole idea is about outing hypocrisy. … We are only out to expose hypocritical behavior in politics, REGARDLESS of the party affiliation!!! Let me say that again. We are exposing HYPOCRISY, and it doesn’t matter the political party.

What the identity politics activists call ‘hypocrisy’ is really those members of the ‘group’ who dare to dissent from the Party Line. See #25. You speak of “gay/lesbian/bisexual/transgendered issues” as if there is one One Right Way for a gay person to think about such things. Open-minded people call BS on that. Consider the possibility that closeted gay politician voted based on their consciences or different personal viewpoint.

Once you unwrap the faux moral-superiority built around this phony ‘hypocrisy’ claim, you are left with naked political bullying combined with the arrogant an prejudicial attitude that members of a group should “stay in line” with the Group Identity Party Line. The ‘escape hatch’ for any such closeted gay is to Vote the Party Line, So the threat becomes: “Do as we want - OR ELSE.” As such, its modern political Brown-shirt-ism.

Let’s be fair and not go for spin. This whole article is painting a one-sided argument. We are only out to expose hypocritical behavior in politics, REGARDLESS of the party affiliation!!! Let me say that again. We are exposing HYPOCRISY, and it doesn’t matter the political party.

“…but if it’s discovered that a closeted gay politician voted AGAINST gay/lesbian/bisexual/transgendered issues…”

Yes - and those “issues” are determined by liberal gay activists for the most part. The belief that there is only one agenda for gays is arrogant - but effective propaganda.

And I call bullshit on exposing hypocrites in politics regardless of party. When you expose a Democrat for anything, come back and see me.

ed.

If Cheney lied under oath, he should have been impeached as well, although it’s a little late for impeachment. You and your ilk, Mr Reynolds, want to prosecute Cheney for “conspiring” with the POTUS legal team to determine how far interrogators could go legally, but forcefully, to extract information from killers determined to murder thousands of Americans. If conspiring with a team of lawyers to determine a legal course of action is illegal, we can expect the courts to be busy for years to come.

Mr Reynolds, bring it on, tough guy, The depositions will be fascinating.

Speaking of blow jobs…I thought this post was about outrageously rude and in your face gays. That certainly isn’t Cheney. I’ll let you defend your man, Clinton.