National Gay and Lesbian Task Force calls upon Democrats, Republicans and straight allies to stand up for gay Americans
http://thetaskforce.org/media/release.cfm?releaseID=985

"There's no accusation of any crime or impropriety,"

Actually, from what I've read, there is a claim that Craig participated in some of these activities in a public restroom at Union Station. There are two crimes here -- indecent exposure and public lewdness.

The blogger in question has a 100 percent accuracy record in outing what he sees as a hypocritical voting record.

The blogger is right on Craig's voting record: the Human Rights Campaign, a gay political advocacy group, gave Larry Craig a 0 rating (meaning he didn't vote on any issue benefecial to the HRC).

While Sen. Larry Craig may deny it, the only way for him to really clear himself of these charges would be to sue the blogger. I suspect he won't do that as that will put him subject to deeper investigation and if the bloggers sources come forth, it could be really bad for Craig.

In 1982, then Rep. Larry Craig was whispered to be part of a "sex with pages" scandal. He held a press conference to deny those charges too.

I found out about this yesterday evening on www.PrideDEPOT.com a blog site from here in Idaho. I am really pissed about this. I am really sick of these closeted homophobes consistently voting against us are every turn. This guy has been doing this for years all the while I have been hearing about his escapades. They should ALL be ousted whether they are Republicans or Democrats. I will say I hope this Rodgers guy has all his ducks in a row. If he doesn't tables should be turned on him.

I think this story warrants more prominence than being hidden inside the B section! Do you really think that's the proper judgment of the newsworthiness of this story? If Senator Craig were a Democrat, is that where you'd put it? It would be on the front page!

The importance of this story is not Craig's being gay; it is his hypocrisy. Here again we have a Republican politician preaching about moral values in public and doing the opposite in private.

It's time America realized that real men can be gay. Imagine Senator Craig living with his fears all his life. Yes, it's probably about hypocrisy. But if Senator Craig trys to dodge the facts in some way like saying a personal life belongs to him and that it's nobody's business, just feel sorry for the man who can't admit the truth of his life.
He's been in the Senate a long time. If voters don't want him there, he can retire on a great pension. It's all begun with viciousness towards gays and lesbians based upon religious intolerance. There has to be some kind of self-hatred in a man who won't admit the truth. Everyone should take pride in who they are and who they love...the one who cannot take pride in their very being, who hurts others because of their failures is a truly pitiful character...Senator or not.

No impropriety? Impropriety: an improper or indecorous act or remark;
improper: a: not in accord with fact, truth, or right procedure, d: not in accord with propriety, modesty, good manners, or good taste.

Sex in a public restroom? Closeted gay senator who consistently votes against the gay community? Years of rumors in Idaho?

I'd say that the story it warrants local coverage.

Perhaps the Spokesman-Review isn't aware of Rogers's previous record.

Particularly of interest to an Idaho and Washington-based news source, I would think, would be Rogers's justification of his outing campaign based on concentration camps for gays that he claims are operating in the area.

Be warned, however; should the Spokesman-Review do further investigation into Rogers or criticize his actions, it will probably be harassed in a fashion similar to other news organizations -- as seen here:

In the last week, Rogers launched a similar phone campaign at the Washington Blade, which he had previously praised on his Web site for covering the outing story, supporting outing under certain circumstances on the editorial page, and even outing an adviser to a U.S. Senate candidate in Florida.

But that changed when the Blade last week published a story that included Rogers’ photo from an appearance on Fox News’ “O’Reilly Factor” and reported that Rogers would not answer further questions about his own background. Rogers repeatedly called at least seven different staff members associated with the paper over the course of several days, digging for personal information on the reporter who wrote the story in question.

Mike Rogers's method of operating is to play on the petty revenge fantasies of most gays. Those of us who are more responsible and know that the way to deal with antigay actions is at the ballot box and through educating the electorate abhor and despise what he is doing as a betrayal of what we stand for and a hypocritical attitude that his private life should be off-limits while others's are not.

If a straight man supports gay marriage, is that hypocritical?

Then why should it follow that if a gay man supports limiting marriage to people of the opposite sex, he is a hypocrite?

I'm all for getting rid of conservative Republicans.

But I'm concerned about Michael Rogers being judge, jury and 'executioner' in deciding who is a 'hypocrite.'

It's a rather odious business, this outing people.

You wouldn't ask a Jew to support the Nazi Party so it is central to Craig's political life that he has sex with men but votes against LGT rights. Mike Rogers researches the facts exhaustively before he goes public with such information. Craig's penchant for sex with other men has been an "open secret" in Washington, DC for over 20 years - It's time for hypocrites to step into the light. Many of us in the LGT community have lost all patience with closeted people who vote against our interests.

It's much more odious to live a lie and to try to back that lie up by voting against the people you have sex with.

What "Julian Miller", who is in fact a regular commentor to Rogers's blog and enthusiastic supporter, omits is that Rogers, as a paid Democratic operative, openly supported voting against what he claims is "gays's interest", on numerous occasions.

Gays like Rogers and "Julian Miller" who supported antigay Democrats like Bill Clinton, John Kerry and Howard Dean are themselves the hypocrites, refusing to hold themselves to a standard that they hold others.

And, to Miller's claim that Mike Rogers "exhaustively researches", I would simply challenge them both to provide proof of the concentration camps they claim exist, as I cited above -- and to reveal their sources.

I am confused. Why are people attacking Mike Rogers? The hypocritical,homophobic,hate-mongerer
is Republican Senator Larry Craig.

Anyone else get the feeling that "North Dallas Thirty" has a personal grudge against Mike Rogers?

Suppose someone made an accusation about you based on "anonymous sources" that they refuse to reveal, Rick, claiming that you used drugs, that you had sex with prostitutes, and that you molested small children.

Based on your statement, this person should be allowed to say whatever they want about you -- and no one should attack them.

Again, gays blow blood vessels when people use unrevealed "anonymous sources" to accuse them of wanting to rape and molest infants, claiming that it's unfair and hateful -- but then cheer and clap when gays attack other people.

I would strongly urge people to go over to Rogers's blog and see what people who support him are really like, especially in the comments. You will be amazed at the level of vitriol and hate they throw at straight people, the religious, in essence anyone who isn't them. Over here, like Rick and Julian Miller, they control themselves -- but over there, they let loose and show their true colors.

Anyone else get the feeling that "North Dallas Thirty" has a personal grudge against Mike Rogers?

As a matter of fact, I do, Chris.

You see, what Mike Rogers is doing is wrong, unethical, and philosophical suicide.

Worst of all, he's doing it in my name.

Being gay does not require you to be vindictive, hateful, anti-religious, anti-Republican, and supportive of the worst examples of human behavior. Rogers makes intrusion into peoples' public lives, runs lies and smear campaigns, practices blatant harassment, including misrepresenting himself as working on behalf of the police to intimidate people, attempts to shut down other peoples' blogs and get them fired from their jobs, and appeals to the basest of homophobia.

He claims that the fact that he is gay allows him to do this and justifies his actions -- and that he is representative of gay people.

He is no more representative of gay people than Fred Phelps is of straight people -- and like Phelps, he is a hate-filled man who uses gays and gay rights to justify the most base of human behaviors.

If you are straight, Chris, Mike Rogers's actions to me are the same as Fred Phelps's to you.

Why is it hypocritical voting? Can't someone be gay and still believe that homosexuals should not be afforded special rights based on what they stick their genitalia in?

That's not hypocrisy. And how can you call him homophobic if he is a homosexual?

And why is he a "hate-mongerer"? Sounds to me like his problem is too much love, not hate.

I think the lefties around here have some identity problems of their own.

I don't support outing of gay people. They are entitled to their privacy.

I would make an exception in the the case of public officials who are gay and engage in gay bashing.

Has Larry Craig engaged in gay bashing?

If he has and there is credible evidence he is gay he should be outed. If not he should be left alone.

Have at it boys--the more we know what you think the more we know how odeous it is. The term for this is Sexual McCarthyism.

NDT, You're Gay?

You sound just like a fundie.

I guess Dallas, TX is so gay friendly that people have plenty of time cut down Mike Rogers and anyone else they don't agree with.

The irony, Chris, is that you seem to have no problem with Mike Rogers cutting down other people -- and with far fewer examples and references than I have given.

And, quite to your chagrin, not all gays support Rogers. In fact, most gays see his actions as disgusting and dangerous; he really appeals only to a small subgroup of revenge-oriented gays, whose outrageous antics have resulted in their complete impotence in terms of convincing people at the ballot box.

A leftist kook (merely described above by some useful idiot as an "activist blogger") makes an allegation that three like-minded kooks (not identified by name, of course) have made an allegation? Evidence to support the allegation?

Actually I think the gay community has pretty mixed views about this kind of thing.

A good example would be Andrew Sullivan (www.andrewsullivan.com), who's exposed other homophobic gay men in the past -- he even outed Pope Benedict! -- but still feels that Rogers is approaching Sen. Craig's case the wrong way.

There's no consensus on how to deal with this, in other words.

One of Senator Craig's alleged sex partners claims that his encounter took place in the men's room at Union Station.

I doubt that this is 'legal' and I'm certain it would not be considered 'appropriate' by many people.

If gay men want more respect from the public, they should quit going to public toilets for anonymous sex.

Unfortunately, some of these Web sites don't work.

Before I post, I'm going to submit this first.

"Honey, the belt that I bought last year was defective. While I was in the Union Station bathroom my pants accidently dropped to the floor in a nanosecond. Damn! In another nanosecond, a guy's mouth was on my johnson. Everything was totally accidental. I told this guy for 45 minutes to stop it. Stop it--you silly boy. Stop it you silly boy. I swear on a stack of Bibles. Please believe me, honey."

"Honey, it's a shame you have an STD. We're going to sue that belt company."

John

The above post is an abbreviated post. In fact, its length is very appreviated.

I spent a long time writing a post, and it did not go through.

I have no idea as to why my longer post was rejected.
John