The libs are in full rapture today with the disclosure that another Republican was caught in a compromising position. Wasn't the mantra during the Clinton impeachment hearings that he was being impeached for "sex" (although he said it was not sex) and we should leave his private business to him?

Now that we have an Idaho senator who did...well, I'm not exactly sure what he did but make overtures to a cop that could've been construed as asking for sex in the gay world, I guess. Even a hooker can't be arrested unless she discusses money.

If Jim McGreevey admitted to having anonymous sex at truck stops throughout New Jersey and never faced arrest, how can this case lead to an arrest? Craig "lingered," played footsie and made some questionable hand gestures. That is not a crime and he never should have copped to one. Note that the TPM folks are in agreement.

That's not the point of this post, however. The point I wish to make is that it becomes all the rage to slam GOP politicians every time sex scandals are discovered and the crescendo is double if it's a gay scandal because of the so called "hypocrisy."

Not much of a debate if you ask me. Democratic candidates, one at a time, get asked pointed questions about their position on issues that matter to gays. Ryan Sager has a good liveblogging summary, and the Sun-Sentinel has a write-up:

The candidates underscored differences with Republicans on gay and lesbian rights, but leading candidates also faced aggressive questioning on their reluctance to embrace marriage for same-sex couples.

All of the Democratic candidates support a federal ban on anti-gay job discrimination, want to repeal the "don't ask, don't tell" policy barring gays from serving openly in the military and support civil unions that would extend marriage-like rights to same-sex couples.

Sure, but that's the easy stuff, what about gay arriage, an idea against which amendments have passed by large margins in most states of the union, including states that Democrats need to win the presidency.

The runner-up in the Dallas, Texas mayoral election this year was an openly gay candidate, Democrat Ed Oakley.

"By all accounts, Oakley never tried to hide his sexual orientation, but he didn't trumpet it either," Newsweek reported. "Oakley never styled himself as a 'gay candidate' and he doesn't advocate for gay issues."

The race, won by Republican Tom Leppert, showed that Oakley had both strengths and disadvantages when running as an openly gay candidate. There were some unlikely examples of both.

As far as weaknesses, some Democrats did not want to vote for Oakley because of his homosexuality. Scott Bennett, of Dallasblog.com, noted that "Even some liberals he'd spoken to said they were planning to vote for Leppert because of the gay issue, including one socialite who didn't want the headlines to blare that Dallas had become the next San Francisco." Yet I'm guessing Oakley found some support from the city's gay evangelicals: "Dallas even has evangelical gays, and the Cathedral of Hope, said to be the world's largest gay church," Newsweek reported.

Running as an openly gay candidate may be one of the toughest current feats for anyone to accomplish. But it sounds like Oakley did a creditable job, and his effort should inspire future would-be campaigners to make the run.

Leave it to the party of "inclusiveness" to hold a debate in which only a minority group is involved. From 365gay.com:

For the first time the leading candidates for the presidency will hold a televised debate devoted solely to LGBT issues.

The one-hour event will be held on August 9 and broadcast on gay network LOGO at 9:00 pm ET (6:00 pm PT) and through live streaming video at LOGOonline.com.

Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, John Edwards and Chris Dodd have confirmed they will participate. Several other Democratic candidates also may join the debate.

Aren't these candidates running to represent all people? Suppose a debate was proposed devoted solely to white issues? There never will be because it would be considered bigoted to ignore other groups and those who argued such a point would be correct.

The issues facing America are not gay issues, they're not Hispanic, Asian or Black issues either, they're American issues. Homosexuals in America have some core issues they support such as gay unions and the ridiculous "don't ask, don't tell" policy that Bill Clinton thrust on the military. They are important issues that matter to that community, but are not of consequence in the bigger picture.

A three-year struggle to defend gay marriage in Massachusetts ended – at least for the moment – on Thursday, when the state legislature voted against a ban on gay marriage.

Supporters of gay marriage have been portrayed as ignoring the wishes of "the people" by using the judges of the Supreme Judicial Court, and state legislators, to circumvent the popular will. Still, we should remember that the popular will has also been used to back odious causes in the past ... and as for "the people" being solidly against gay marriage, why did so much anti-gay lobbying funds come from Dr. James Dobson's Colorado-based Focus on the Family?

Bob and Susannah discuss the results of Thursday's decision in the latest episode of "Running Gags."

Thanks to my muse for suggesting I write about this issue ... and to my Ohio source for mentioning the out-of-state cash contributions in an e-mail several months ago.

Looking back in time, it is so easy to see how the U.S Supreme Court was right in making many of its decisions. One might say, they were creating laws. Those creations made this country a much better place for all of us to live. Having said that, many of the historic decisions were not well accepted at the time.

40 years ago this week, on June 12, 1967, the U.S. Supreme Court said that Mildred Jeter, a black woman and Richard Loving, a white man, could marry. In order to change the law and allow such a marriage, the court relied on the fourteenth amendment. In writing the opinion for the court, Chief Justice Earl Warren said:

"This case presents a constitutional question never addressed by this Court: whether a statutory scheme adopted by the State of Virginia to prevent marriages between persons solely on the basis of racial classifications violates the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment. For reasons which seem to us to reflect the central meaning of those constitutional commands, we conclude that these statutes cannot stand consistently with the Fourteenth Amendment."

Many of the states were outraged with this decision. You see, these laws were created as part of the democratic process. If two people who were of different races made love, it was a misdemeanor as long as they were not married. If they married, it was a felony. The states wanted to protect the sanctity of marriage. The federal circuit court judge cited God in making his decision.

"Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix."

Divisiveness over gay rights, once exploited by Karl Rove and company in 2004, could be turning into harmony soon.

One symbol of this harmony may be country music. Last Valentine's Day, the Dallas Morning News reported on "Cowboys Are Frequently Secretly Fond of Each Other," a pro-gay-rights song by country star Willie Nelson. The Morning News quoted Alan Pierce, the co-owner of a Texas gay country bar: "It acknowledges it as a reality in life. It could help straight America acknowledge this."

Just as the idea of gay marriage has faced opposition through state bans, so did a previous pro-gay country song, Garth Brooks' "We Shall be Free," meet with disapproval.

"Though it didn't focus exclusively on gays, the tune stirred some controversy; some radio stations across the country wouldn't play it," the Morning News reported. "'We Shall be Free' peaked at No. 12 on Billboard's country singles chart, ending a string of Top 10 hits for Mr. Brooks."

Thanks to the efforts of stars like Garth and Willie, Republican candidates like Mitt Romney may have to find other issues to manipulate if they want to get elected.

Who represents the biggest threat to gay marriage: unscrupulous politicians like Mitt Romney, the religious right ... or businesses?

"Follow the money," New York Times reader Joan Evangelisti wrote in 2003, "and it will lead, I have no doubt, to the health insurance industry. As more companies balk at covering their own employees, and their opposite-gender spouses and children, these same companies will scream to high heaven to avoid covering partners in same-sex unions."

Is this true? In 2004, the Washington Times quoted an insurance bigwig: "'If the law required that such benefits be paid, then rates would be adjusted accordingly and insurers would suffer no net loss,' said Bob Hartwig, chief economist for the Insurance Information Institute, a trade organization of the insurance industry."

It does seem, then, that businesses big and small have an interest in opposing gay marriage. To uphold the gains that gay marriage has made, and to prevent further losses, the left should take note of this angle of opposition, an angle that Bob and Susannah explore in the latest "Running Gags."

Hat tip to my muse in Cambridge...

The father of the conservative movement is having his position on issues published to the world by his daughter, C.C. Goldwater. Dad (Barry) was firmly pro-choice, a supporter of gay rights and, in his later years, said that he thought it was OK for gays to serve in the military.

As a kid, the one thing that I remember about Barry Goldwater was his belief that you should keep Government out of the bedrooms of Americans. Your home is your castle. Here is a quote: "Government needs to stay out of personal lives, and do the job that we entrusted them with - to run and govern our country efficiently and truthfully, according to the laws our forefathers crafted."

He believed in the separation of church and state. How has that changed in the conservative movement? This morning on the Mike Barnicle show, Mike asked CC how her father would have reacted to the death of Jerry Falwell. Her response: "Ding dong, the witch is dead."

The Rev. Jerry Falwell has died, and Bob and Susannah examine his impact on the United States in this cartoon. The NPR episode Susannah references can be found here.

Three years ago today, gay marriage became legal in my home state of Massachusetts, a first for the nation. Since then, according to an e-mail I received from MassEquality, "over 18,000 residents are in same-sex marriages, and they and their children have security and protections that many never thought would be possible."

The e-mail, however, contains an element of concern, noting that "Four weeks from today, the legislature will cast a final vote on a constitutional amendment that would take away the right of same-sex couples to marry."

While the freedom for gays to marry deserves to be celebrated, it also cannot be taken for granted, given the heatedness of this issue come election time. Luckily, Massachusetts knows a thing or two about defending freedom.

Hillary Clinton is almost as adept a politician as her husband. She can go into a room and almost make you feel that she's in total support of you. Notice I said almost:

(AP) Democrat Hillary Rodham Clinton told the nation's leading gay rights group in an unpublicized speech that she wants a partnership with gays if elected president.

Clinton also said she opposes the "don't ask, don't tell" policy regarding gays in the military that was instituted during her husband's presidency.

Emphasis mine. If Hillary is so eager for a "partnership" (AP's word, not mine) with the gay community, why was the speech "unpublicized"?

This is classic Clinton campaigning. Bill was the master by courting the gay vote in 1992 than selling them out by instituting the "don't ask, don't tell" policy. Bill could talk to a group and they would believe that his first executive duty would be to implement your agenda. Hillary, on the other hand, is just not that good.

Clinton's numbers have been dropping precipitously of late and she has got to be sweating it. She has no choice but to grovel to the base that includes the gay community, anti-war activists, pro-abortion types and tax and spenders to gain the nomination. It can't help that the Associated Press labeled the speech "unpublicized."

I have read the conservative blogs and those that defend Ann Coulter. She has every right to say whatever she wants. She can imply that people who are heterosexual are really homosexual. She can put them in the box. You see, the success of the Republican party has been to create groups of people that hate each other. Fear and hatred have been the formula to victory for the Republican party. Newt Gingrich has a sister that is gay. So what. It is all about a political plan. Who cares about your sister. Attack them, smear them.

Dick Cheney is offended when somebody talks about his daughter being in love with another woman and having a child. That is private. Politics allows him to breed hatred against the group that is homosexual but he loves his daughter and we should leave her alone.

The Republican Party was led by the moral majority while their party leaders were immoral. No problem, it was all about politics. The formula for winning has included hatred. Go after immigrants, verbally attack homosexuals and most of all if you don't believe in God, how could you ever run the country. You see, all these things are a distraction. Ann Coulter is a lightening rod. She takes attention away from the real issues. Let Ann Coulter say what she wants. You see, she is the Republican Party.

Cartoonist Ted Rall is speaking up for his nemesis, Ann Coulter.

The Human Rights Campaign, a gay-rights organization, has urged people to request that Coulter's syndicate drop her column after she used the F-word at the conservative political conference CPAC. (I last wrote about the HRC's reaction to Coulter's speech here.) Rall opposes the HRC's decision.

"Attempting to stifle a creative person in a forum in reaction to content that did not appear in that forum is a chilling revival of the spirit of McCarthyism," Rall writes in a letter to the HRC. "Coulter's 'faggot' slur occurred in a speech to the 2007 gathering of CPAC, not her column."

Rall's reasoning becomes flawed, however, when he writes, "Once we establish one litmus test for who's allowed access to the public square -- no 'F' word, no 'N' word – who's to stop the other side from doing the same -- no Bush-bashing, no criticizing the troops?"

But this argument equates two very different things. Criticizing Bush and the troops is a legitimate option in public discourse because their actions are related to the national interest, and can thus be debated. Using slurs like the F-word, however, is an attack on a person that adds nothing to civilized debate. The HRC is right to oppose Coulter, even if Rall questions its tactics.

After earlier being just a wee bit shy about their positions, both Hillary and Obama have decided that homosexuality is perfectly fine. I wondered if they were more worried about traditional voters than the left-wing base. I guess that initial concern was more than outweighed by the flack they got for not toeing to the Democratic party orthodoxy on homosexuals.

Speaking of orthodoxy, it used to be that the only thing that got you kicked out of the Democratic party was a pro-life view. I think this shows that a traditional Christian stance on homosexuality and sin is also a no-no in current party thinking. At least for presidential races.

But now John McCain is the latest to get tripped up in the question. The NYT via Hotline:

On Thursday, even as he promised a stream of the candid comments that distinguished him in 2000 - "Anything, anything you want to talk about," he said - he steered clear of offering opinions on two of the biggest issues on the political landscape this week. He declined to say whether he agreed with the assertion by Gen. Peter Pace, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, that homosexuality is immoral, or whether he thought Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales should be ousted for his handling of the firing of federal prosecutors

Note that the only people being tripped up are those who can't or won't state their views clearly. Clearly McCain does not want to answer the question because he will either anger the media that loves him (at least they used to) or the conservatives who are his only chance left for winning the nomination.