Sep. 17th, 2004
out, out damn spot!  
Now to make this just a little more interesting, according to blogACTIVE, Rep. David Dreier (R-CA) is co-chairman of Californians for Bush.


A Republican congressman from California who has repeatedly voted against gay rights measures is said to be gay himself.... The 52-year-old single congressman voted for the Marriage Protection Act in July, a measure that would have stripped federal courts of jurisdiction over challenges to the Defense of Marriage Act, which bans the federal government from recognizing gay partnerships. Dreier did not vote on the latest amendment to constitutionally ban gay marriage, and said he was against it.

Dreier, a Christian Scientist, also voted for the original Defense of Marriage Act in 1996 and a measure that banned gays from adopting in Washington, D.C. He has a 92 percent favorability rating from the Christian Coalition

Michael Rogers, the gay activist who outed Dreier Thursday on his site, blogACTIVE, said he “was especially interested in talking with Brad Smith about his living arrangements with the Congressman here in DC.”

Rogers was largely responsible for the resignation of Rep. Ed Schrock (R-Va), after he posted a suggestion that the congressman might be gay Aug. 19. He subsequently posted three audio clips which allegedly reveal Schrock leaving voicemails on a gay phone sex service.

Hustler believes that the best way to deal with what appears to be glaring examples of hypocrisy is to expose them and bring them into full relief in front of the public,” the magazine said. “Our team of journalists in New York City covering the GOP convention struck gold—the details of which are to be published in an upcoming issue this fall.”

Full story on

Log Cabin Republicans refuse to endorse Bush; moderates begining to say enough's enough, calling for an end to the fundamentalist rule of the party in the wake of the Bush neo-theocracy. Now more anti-gay voting, suspected gay-themselves, GOP members being exposed.

Could Rome be crumbling?

::sits back and grabs the popcorn and soda::
Listening to: Thursday - Paris In Flames
( Post a new comment )
Brentmamabrent on September 17th, 2004 - 07:44 am
How fun! I used to live in his district, so I feel like... I was responsible for him or something? This somehow makes things better, easier to explain. Ya know?
(Reply) (Thread) (Link)
KuteLuvrkuteluvr on September 17th, 2004 - 08:47 am
There was a West Wing episode about this... a Republican representative that was gay and essentially voting against himself. His argument was that his job wasn't to represent his opinions or desires, but to represent the people in his district that voted for him. Despite the fact that it goes against my own personal desires, I respect that kind of dedication. Too many people focus on their own desires rather than what's good for the people they represent. If there were a "gay" district (read: San Francisco), I'd like to hope that even if a Republican were voted in (not that they would be), they'd represent their populus. It's a good question though: Are picking someone that will represent themselves (and we vote for the person) or are we picking someone that will represent everyone else effectively?
(Reply) (Thread) (Link)
The People's Exhibit Adavidology on September 17th, 2004 - 10:16 am
It definitely raises an interesting point. I think I lean more to the side that this the reason we are more of a republic than a pure democracy. The people aren't always right—especially historically when it comes to protection of rights. They elect a person to represent them, and if at the end of the term they believe s/he represented them badly or made too many wrong decisions, they vote him out. Which I guess means, I side with the idea that they're elected to do what's right, not what's popular. In this case, as an (allegedly) gay person, one would think he would understand the issue a little better rather than to reflect the ignorance of his constituency.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread) (Link)
eviltickles on September 17th, 2004 - 08:58 am
why do they have to be gay? i don't like the suggestion that they are hiding it as an awful secret. why can't they be necrophiliacs? or mass murderers? they would still be forced out of the election without making homosexuality look so awful. :( damn republicans.
(Reply) (Thread) (Link)
beachboytybeachboyty on September 17th, 2004 - 06:15 pm
David Dreier's sexual orientation has been the worst-kept secret in California politics for years. His partner is quite a hoot, and not NEARLY as camaflouge-capable as Congressman Dreier. Those of us in who have known for years have always respected his privacy and fear-based opportunism and left his secret alone.

When he voted for the recent marriage protection act a couple months ago, I almost wrote Michael Rogers and John Aravosis (the two "outers" who have been exacting revenge on the closeted supporters of right-wing agendas over the past few months) and begged them to pin it to Dreier something fierce. Not voting for gay-friendly legislation out of fear of being outed is one thing (as pathetic as it is). But voting for ferociously anti-gay measures to hide what you are and who you love is unacceptable. I say good-riddance to David Dreier.

John and Ken on KFI are waging a personal war against him anyway, so I think his days are numbered. His support from the Governor and the White House are his only lifejackets at this point.

I can't wait to see him on Real Time with Bill Maher (where he is a once-a-month guest) the next time to see how many stress-lines have suddenly appeared on his smug face.
(Reply) (Thread) (Link)
The People's Exhibit Adavidology on September 17th, 2004 - 07:06 pm
That's very interesting to know. I find this a pretty interesting subject. I am so very much in favor of respecting a person's decision to come out or not. While I understand the argument that actors should come out to serve as role models, I nonetheless feel it is their decision and respect that.


when you actively vote against such blatantly anti-gay measures, you're now not only not doing something but actively acting as an enemy. It's like joining in in calling someone a "faggot" so that people won't think you're one. It's one thing in Jr. High, but when you're an adult in a position to affect public policy, legislatively calling someone a "faggot" speaks to your maturity and ability to properly lead and (imho) necessarily demands your removal from office.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread) (Link)