Yet Another Republican Gay Sex Scandal

[HtownWxBoy]

Another one bites the dust.....

http://www.columbian.com/news/localNews/20...-steps-down.cfm

[jb4647]

At least when Clinton did it it was with an legal age woman!

[west20th]

Vitter keeps his seat and and Curtis is forced to step down. Hmmmmmmmmm. Little GOP double standard?

[dbigtex56]

From International Herald Tribune:

Curtis is married and has children, according to his legislative Web site. Elected to the state House of Representatives in 2004, he voted in 2005 and 2006 against a bill that granted civil rights protections to gays and lesbians, and in 2007 voted against a bill that created domestic partnerships for same-sex couples. Both measures eventually passed the Democratic-controlled state Legislature and are now state law.

"The lady doth protest too much, methinks."

What is it about hypocrisy that Republicans find so appealling?

[HtownWxBoy]

From International Herald Tribune:

Curtis is married and has children, according to his legislative Web site. Elected to the state House of Representatives in 2004, he voted in 2005 and 2006 against a bill that granted civil rights protections to gays and lesbians, and in 2007 voted against a bill that created domestic partnerships for same-sex couples. Both measures eventually passed the Democratic-controlled state Legislature and are now state law.

"The lady doth protest too much, methinks."

What is it about hypocrisy that Republicans find so appealling?

Beats me

[sevfiv]

Just in case anyone is interested (since his state site has been removed for the most part):

http://web.archive.org/web/20070206002658/...s/biography.htm

[HtownWxBoy]

Vitter keeps his seat and and Curtis is forced to step down. Hmmmmmmmmm. Little GOP double standard?

They are both Republicans! (and both hypocrits I might add)

[jb4647]

Vitter keeps his seat and and Curtis is forced to step down. Hmmmmmmmmm. Little GOP double standard?

The reason for this probably has to do with who can name a replacement. With Vitter, Lousiana had a Dem gov so she would have named a Dem replacement. With Larry Craig, the GOP has the Governor's seat, so there would not be a change in party affilation. That's why they called for Larry Craig to step down and didn't do the same with Vitter.

[west20th]

The reason for this probably has to do with who can name a replacement. With Vitter, Lousiana had a Dem gov so she would have named a Dem replacement. With Larry Craig, the GOP has the Governor's seat, so there would not be a change in party affilation. That's why they called for Larry Craig to step down and didn't do the same with Vitter.

Ahhhhh. So all this morality talk is just that. Keeping power is what is most important.

[texianjoe]

Curtis, under fire after revelations that he allegedly initiated sex with a male porn model while in Spokane last week, faced pressure from the caucus and the state party to step down. Party leaders were prepared to call publicly for his resignation if he did not agree to resign.

He can have sex with a chocolate covered midget sitting on a goat wearing leather underware if he wants. The only ones who should make him resign are the people that elected him.

joe

[west20th]

He can have sex with a chocolate covered midget sitting on a goat wearing leather underware if he wants. The only ones who should make him resign are the people that elected him.

joe

True, very true. Those who elected him should decide.

[HtownWxBoy]

Ahhhhh. So all this morality talk is just that. Keeping power is what is most important.

BINGO! You nailed that one on the head. I remember Republicans talking about how they always "get rid of those who are corrupt". Vitter just proves that that's not true... they chose power over morality... no big surprise, or course.

Personally I can care less what or who someone does in their private life... I just can't stand hypocrits.

[gwilson]

I'm a Republican and I could give a crap less about gays getting it on or Republicans getting it on and turning out to be gay. The problems I have is the extra-marital bit and when they spout off about gay issues, but end up being gay.

I can understand if someone fears their sexuality, it isn't an uncommon thing for homosexuals to hide their sexuality.

Hypocrisy is broad among PEOPLE, not just politicians or politicians of a certain party.

[HtownWxBoy]

It's so sad b/c if he really is gay he most likely does not want to be in the closet and probably didn't want to vote against gay rights... he just feels he has to do all of this to keep up a facade. Who knows what is true... that's just a possibility.

[gwilson]

It's so sad b/c if he really is gay he most likely does not want to be in the closet and probably didn't want to vote against gay rights... he just feels he has to do all of this to keep up a facade. Who knows what is true... that's just a possibility.

The vast majority of Republicans are not hateful or even intolerant of homosexuals. So I don't see a true Republican who happens to be gay not being electable. I'm what I would consider a TRUE Republican. I am socially liberal for the most part (eg. If I do it in my house, what business is it of yours unless it hurts others), fiscally conservative, small goverment, common sense legislation (I do NOT support gay marriage, but I do support gay unions as marriage is a religious institution. If a gay couple can find a church that will marry them, that is their business. It doesn't affect me. I do not support an amendment defining marriage either because, as I said, marriage is a religious institution. The legal marriage is a separate beast IMO and should be treated as such.), I am pro-marijuana legalization because it makes NO sense for it to be legal when cigs and alcohol are illegal, but I have no issues with coke, heroin, etc being illegal. I think that easily 60% of the laws on the books could be thrown out. I think the Constitution is the ultimate law of the land and any legislator or judge who attempts to usurp it should be removed from office (eg. gun bans or retarded gun control legislation, law suits under the veil of the establishment clause, etc). I think the concept of a "hate crime" is laughable , especially when it isn't applied equally (just like most legislation established with the intent of equality or fairness) using the Jena 6 as an example.

I spoke with a political strategist a few months back to discuss my desire to run for City Council within the next 5-8 years. He said if I had any desire to move past the City Council to a partisan political position (I hate that concept to begin with) that I should change parties to be a Democrat because in Texas a conservative Democrat is more likely to get elected than what would be perceived as a liberal Republican. That is idiotic to me.

[millennica]

(I do NOT support gay marriage, but I do support gay unions as marriage is a religious institution. If a gay couple can find a church that will marry them, that is their business. It doesn't affect me. I do not support an amendment defining marriage either because, as I said, marriage is a religious institution. The legal marriage is a separate beast IMO and should be treated as such.)

I don't understand why you say or what you mean when you say that marriage is a religious institution. Although I am not a lawyer, I always thought that marriage could be recognized by the law and/or religion. Most of the people I know (myself included) were married in civil ceremonies only, not religious ones. If marriage is a religious institution, then does that mean that people who were married in civil ceremonies by a government sanctioned secular official aren't really married? Or do you mean something else when you say that marriage is a religious institution?

[mojeaux131]

Word to pretty much everything gwilson said, but millennica's got a good point about the legal issues of marriage. If two straight people can get "married" in a civil ceremony, so also should two gay people. It would be a purely semantic issue if the legal/tax benefits of marriage weren't as they are, but alas...

[millennica]

To elaborate a bit more on the point I made about marriage being a civil union. I believe that when people in the US are married in a religious ceremony, the minister/priest/imam/rabbi functions an agent of the state to enact the civil marriage, such that both the religious and civil marriage occur simultaneously. But as I said, what matters in the US is whether people are married in the eyes of the state and when they are married by a religious official, they are legally married because this person is authorized to serve as an agent of the state. Not being a lawyer, I may not written this in precise legal terms, but I am fairly sure I am on track. Maybe a lawyer can weigh in and clarify.

[KinkaidAlum]

Off the cuff...

At the Bee-Hive's Halloween Party in Boston last night, by far the best costume was a Belgian man as Senator Larry Craig. He walked around all night with his slacks around his ankles with toilet paper on his penny loafers. He also handed out candy wrapped in the American flag and business cards that read;

Sen. Larry Craig

® Idaho

Loves God, Country, Family, and Tea Room Sex.

Classic.

While this new Pacific Northwest scandal seems even raunchier, it also appears to be harder to turn into a costume!

[CDeb]

Ahhhhh. So all this morality talk is just that. Keeping power is what is most important.

I think you'll find that true no matter what letter is after the name.

[gwilson]

Word to pretty much everything gwilson said, but millennica's got a good point about the legal issues of marriage. If two straight people can get "married" in a civil ceremony, so also should two gay people. It would be a purely semantic issue if the legal/tax benefits of marriage weren't as they are, but alas...

In a civil ceremony, yes. A "civil union".

[millennica]

In a civil ceremony, yes. A "civil union".

When people marry in a civil ceremony and enter a civil union this also is a marriage.

[HtownWxBoy]

As a gay man... I don't care what the heck you call it, I would just like the same rights. I would like to, when I meet someone I love, do something that allows us to have the same rights that come with "marriage". Call it whatever you want... it's all about the RIGHTS.

[gwilson]

As a gay man... I don't care what the heck you call it, I would just like the same rights. I would like to, when I meet someone I love, do something that allows us to have the same rights that come with "marriage". Call it whatever you want... it's all about the RIGHTS.

I'm with you on that, but let me say this. When the topic was first brought to the forefront of the media a few years back civil unions were offered as a compromise, but the lobbyists killed the idea. Since then, idiotic calls for amendments to the Constitution have been made (yes, I can admit what Bush has done wrong).

I don't see anything wrong with civil unions. They make sense to me.

[HtownWxBoy]

I'm with you on that, but let me say this. When the topic was first brought to the forefront of the media a few years back civil unions were offered as a compromise, but the lobbyists killed the idea. Since then, idiotic calls for amendments to the Constitution have been made (yes, I can admit what Bush has done wrong).

I don't see anything wrong with civil unions. They make sense to me.

Although I personally am OK w/ civil unions, I think the problem many have with that is that it's different. It's like the whole "seperate but equal" thing.

[gwilson]

Although I personally am OK w/ civil unions, I think the problem many have with that is that it's different. It's like the whole "seperate but equal" thing.

It is what I call the perfect compromise. It gives gay couples the exact same rights as straights while letting those that oppose it still think they won a small victor. It is called a win-win situation.

I'll be honest. I think it was the "letting those that oppose it still think they won a small victory" part that threw the lobbyists. But what do you say to the majority of Americans who still hold beliefs that homosexuality is wrong, amoral or a sin? Do we just trounce all over their beliefs or can we not come to a compromise?

[rps324]

But what do you say to the majority of Americans who still hold beliefs that homosexuality is wrong, amoral or a sin? Do we just trounce all over their beliefs or can we not come to a compromise?

Those that have a religious or other issue with it are certainly entitled to their beliefs/opinions. I guess I am not understanding what you are saying. Gays as a group should agree to settle for compromising their equal rights to appease the religious beliefs of others, or they are "trouncing" on them?

[webdude]

My religion webduism says people should not eat fish. But you sick bastards still eat them.

Luckily for you folks, our constitution doesn't require that you follow the rules of my religion.

Sadly, some others think that our constitution should enforce the rules of their religion.

[mojeaux131]

In a civil ceremony, yes. A "civil union".

What millennica said (just after your post I've quoted here) PLUS civil unions are not equal to marriage. I'm no expert, but the one glaring difference just off the top of my head is that when two straight people are married and cross a state line, they are still legally married in the next state. Not so for gay couples, married or "civil unionized" or anything.

[gwilson]

Those that have a religious or other issue with it are certainly entitled to their beliefs/opinions. I guess I am not understanding what you are saying. Gays as a group should agree to settle for compromising their equal rights to appease the religious beliefs of others, or they are "trouncing" on them?

Erm, not at all. Civil unions extend them those rights while not trouncing the beliefs of others. Where is equal rights not present in that equation?

What millennica said (just after your post I've quoted here) PLUS civil unions are not equal to marriage. I'm no expert, but the one glaring difference just off the top of my head is that when two straight people are married and cross a state line, they are still legally married in the next state. Not so for gay couples, married or "civil unionized" or anything.

This is the case now, but not if widespread civil unions were adopted. And that IS equal rights.

My religion webduism says people should not eat fish. But you sick bastards still eat them. Luckily for you folks, our constitution doesn't require that you follow the rules of my religion.Sadly, some others think that our constitution should enforce the rules of their religion.

One does not have to be religious to believe that homosexuality is wrong.