Wednesday, February 01, 2006
The case for blackmail
One gay blogger has made that argument, threatening to out a closeted Reublican senator if he voted to confirm Samuel Alito to the Supreme Court.
Tomorrow you will be faced with a vote that may have the longest aftereffects (sic) of any other you have cast in your Senate career.
Tomorrow you will decide if your political position is worth more than doing what is right for others like you. For others like you, Mr. Senator, who engage in oral sex with other men. (Although, Mr. Senator, most of us don't do in the bathrooms of Union Station!) Your fake marriage, by the way, will NOT protect you from the truth being told on this blog.
How does this blog decide who to report on? It's simple. We report on hypocrites. In this case, hypocrites who vote against the gay and lesbian community while engaging in gay sex themselves*.
When you cast that vote, Mr. Senator, represent your own...it's the least you could do.
*While votes on many matters are considered, votes "FOR" either the Alito nomination and the Federal Marriage Amendment are enough to qualify legislators for reporting on this site.
Only one Republican, liberal Rhode Island senator Lincoln Chafee, voted against confirming Alifo, but that proves nothing. I would've voted for the newest Supreme Court justice, based on the conviction that such a choice is the president's prerogative. It's become a cliche, but elections do have consequences, and Bush was pretty straightforward about what kind of judges he'd appoint.
Alito is qualified, and while I may not agree with his views, I'm inclined to follow the American Bar Association's recommendation. That's how this process is supposed to work.
I do think the blogger has a point when it comes to the "Defense of Marriage Act;" politicians who are brazen hypocrites deserve to be exposed. Still, blackmail is never pretty, and I'm not sure it's the best way to garner support for your viewpoint.
Hypocrisy or blackmail: which sin is worse?