McCain's Senate Chief of Staff

Outed, today, by the usual suspects.

I'm not linking because I don't agree with outing as a political tool.

That McCain's chief of staff is gay tells us nothing new about the Senator - his embrace of the religious right, his opposition to gay marriage while going on Ellen and congratulating her and wishing her well already show him to be a hypocrite and using anti-gay positions to win political support.

Hell, it's not even a new story -- rabidly anti-gay Rick Santorum had a gay press secretary.

And we've seen how Republicans in private are gay friendly (recently, Newt Gingrich movingly eulogizing his gay friend at a memorial service I attended) and how they cynically use homophobia to appeal to voters even while acknowledging the anti-gay policy they espouse is something they personally don't agree with (GOP strategist Rich Galen saying gay marriage might save lives by promoting monogamy instead of promiscuity in a time of AIDS, but GOP candidates should scream "San Francisco values" anyway to get elected. In other words, to his view and in by his own logic, saving lives is less important than winning elections. Disgusting).

This news is simply, well, more of the same.

As for the gay COS. I don't know why he works for McCain and I don't think it's any of my business. I am out socially and professionally and I wouldn't choose otherwise -- but that's my business. We don't know the particulars of his personal life or the reasons he has made the choices he has. Nor should we. He is not the elected official here.

And outing someone -- a potentially personally destructive act -- for policy disagreement, however tempting, is a slippery slope. I know it seems cut and dried in this case, but where does it stop and who draws the line?

I don't think hate crimes laws are necessary. Does that mean the many gays who do are justified in trying to punish me personally? That's what outing is. It may make some gay activists feel good but doesn't change a damn thing.

The Hypocrisy Behind Fred Thompson's Stand Against Gay Marriage?

Fred Thompson, having just announced (surprise!) that he's running for president, made haste to tackle what he clearly considers one of the top priorities confronting the nation today: Stopping Gay Marriage:

“I am proposing a constitutional amendment that would stop gay marriages as a practical matter in this country."

Is this because Thompson clearly believes gay marriages are a serious moral threat or because Republican strategist Rich Galen -- who is a senior advisor on the Thompson campaign -- told him that playing the gay card was a good way to win conservative votes.

Lat fall, before the 2006 Congressional elections, Galen publicly (in a column published Oct. 27) called on GOP candidates to tie the then-recent NJ Supreme Court decision supporting gay unions to Nancy Pelosi, her "San Francisco values" and to Congressional Democrats.

Okay, pandering to homophobia to win votes isn't that new, but then comes the blatant hypocrisy from Galen:

I know I will be accused of gay-bashing, but I am not. I am looking at this from a purely political standpoint. I understand homosexuality exists and denying that is foolhardy. If we want to reduce the effects of HIV/AIDS on society, fostering long-term relationships - even homosexual relationships - would be one very good way to do it.

I was so stunned that someone could acknowledge that gay unions might be a good thing for society (Rich equates it with reducing the the effects of HIV/AIDS, which I might point out, people still die from) but at the same time abandon that moral and public good for partisan political gain. I am naive, which Rich pointed out to me when I emailed him challenging him on this point. He wrote me:

...you're shocked that political people look at things through a political prism? Oh, please.

So, the questions that Fred Thompson should be asked:

1. Are you privately supportive of gay people and their relationships (surely you came across many in Hollywood) despite this public stand?
2. Are you viewing the gay marriage issue through a "political prism" and not a societal/moral/public policy one?
3. With senior advisers on your payroll who believe one thing but abandon their beliefs to win votes, how will the American people know you are sincere about your beliefs when you stake out a position, especially on polarizing issues?
4. Will you take stands on issues you believe in even if you know it may cost you votes?