Why Has No Journalist Asked GOP Chair Mehlman If He's Gay?

They go after Howard Dean on everything. So, what's the deal?

Mehlman is CHAIRMAN of a virulently homophobic party that uses gays and lesbians as their #1 wedge issue, and not one journalist has the guts to ask Mehlman about the hypocrisy of his serving as the Chairman of this vast crew of vicious homophobes?

What the hell is wrong with the American media?

Or the "Star".

that could report on this?

Howard Dean's private life and his marriage to his doctor wife is ready fodder and front page news in the New York Times and the Washington Post.

So what's all the deafening silence about Mehlman?

No one has ever asked Howard Dean about his sex life. The absence of Judy Dean on the campaign trail was the RW talking point.

One can be entirely celibate and be gay or lesbian.

Being gay is a hard wired, affectional, fixed orientation that, because it dictates which gender you fall in love with, has profound implications on one's adult family life and social structure.

Being gay is about who you are, who you marry and who you fall in love with.

By reducing it to one's "sex life", you are repeating and reinforcing religious rightwing spin about gay men and lesbians.

One's adult orientation, whether gay or straight, is journalistically fair game for public figures, since they take stands on issues like gay marriage.

The country has a right to know if the Chairman of the Republican party is a gay man pushing an anti-gay political agenda.

currently lives in New York's Greenwich Village.

IMO, a reporter has no right to ask Mehlman if he's straight or gay. And the country has no right to know unless it affects his ability to do his job. (And it obviously has not affected his chairmanship.)

is married or has children, in your book?

Because if that is your contention, it goes against how politics has worked in this nation for the past 230 years.

people, as long as they don't have gay sex?

If a straight candidate is married and has children, we can assume they've had sex, right?

So should we ask any unmarried candidate whether they're straight or gay?

the rules should be the same for straights and gays.

If we inquire about a straight person's family life (married or not) and publicize that, we should do the same for a gay person.

Especially when there are indications that the gay person in question is working to promote an anti-gay agenda.

Were a Jew, in 1938, to be appointed head of public relations for the Nazi party, you don't think it would be appropriate for the media to explore that bit of, uh, cognitive dissonance?

referred to whom we were inquiring about.

If we make inquiries about one's family life of married or single public political people (what does your wife/girlfriend do, how many kids do you have, where did you meet your wife, etc) we should ask the same questions of a gay offical.

Are you romantically involved with anyone? Where do they work? Do you live with them? How long have you been together?

Perfectly reasonable questions which the public has a right to know.

asking about someone's sex life, right?

is NOT asking about their sex life, in your interpretation, but if asking if they are romantically involved or living with someone IS asking about their sex life?

I don't understand your distinction. Married couples don't have sex?

And that sure made a difference with NJ's McGreevey, didn't it?

because of internalized and external homophobia to find a woman and marry her. Even though he was not genetically hotwired to make a marriage work with a woman.

If we didn't have the attitudes I'm fighting against in the OP, the double standard for gays and straights in the media, homophobia would stand to decrease markedly and you would have less and less McGreevey-like situations.

And, I'm interested in knowing why you think the press only has a legitimate interest in asking about "government-sanctioned" relationships?

Especially because a hefty minority of the population has no access to "government-sanctioned" relationships.

relationships because we're a screwed up society, that's why. Because gay people can lose their jobs, their homes and their healthcare if they're outed.

as far as gays are concerned is because we don't routinely discuss affectional orientation openly? Which would eventually make it the non-issue it really is. Instead, we keep it as a double standard, a dirty secret that implies there's something wrong with it.

The press should treat straights and gays in public offices with the exact same scrutiny. No double standard where they can ask straight people about their private lives, but a gay person's private life must remain invisible, hushed and silent.

...to employ his lover and grant other favors to him (on the taxpayer dime)?

IMO, if his private life had been clear of corruption, the outcome might have been much different.

office and no one would be the wiser.

EVERYTHING.

Mehlman...and they were threatened with something and the story was quashed. I THINK it was The Washington Monthly...it WAS some magazine with Washington in the title.

Mehlman's about as STRAIGHT as Liberace...Mehlman's about as STRAIGHT as a $3 bill.

:shrug:

With the brain damage evident in the Bush crew, it's no surprise that Bush (and others) need an external brain. Too bad they don't have one, and just look foolish instead.

about policy toward gays. It looked like Russert was trying to trick Mehlman but Mehlman stuck to the script.

attempt to put any real effort in ensuring that everyone knows that the GOP is composed of nothing but hypocritical, lying, murderous bastards?

The american media has been summingly cowered into sniveling wanna be journalistic nonsense, that is pretty obvious...

Is Mehlman suspected of being gay?

has qualities and characteristics often associated with women, like Linda Tripp and Ann Coulter, than men? :shrug:

I do know that Mehlman is just as good as Ann Coulter when it comes to theatric's.

That's not up for debate.

All three (including K(ar)en Mehlman) need a good kick in the nuts.............

nt

And I'm glad that I'm not seeing this "oh, no, outing is so wrong and he deserves his privacy" stuff here. As the virulently anti-gay Marriage Protection Amendment has been voted out of the Senate Judiciary Committee (thanks a fucking lot, Arlen Specter), at the behest of the Republican Party, it is incumbent to reveal the nauseating hypocrisy of gay Republicans like Ken Mehlman who would presumably support this amendment. I haven't heard him come out in opposition to this amendment...have you?