i'm not really sure where the hypocrisy comes in. there are plenty of gays out there that don't want to be associated with marriage. i'm sure there are plenty out there that still believe that a family should consist of a man and a woman.

has schrock ever denounced gays in his sponsership of the federal marriage amendment? i don't know much about him.

Having grown up in Hampton Roads, I am familiar wiht the terror that is Pat Robertson. Never knew Schrock was his butt-buddy :)

Jillyn, my guess is that some quotes will get turned up in the next day or so, but you're right, someone could oppose equal legal protections for himself as a gay man and be completely consistent. But I'm sure you can see how it's kind of a stretch to imagine that was what Schrock was doing. Certainly, he was not open about his sexuality, and is not running for reelection because of its revelation.

And make no mistake, the FMA was designed to prevent legal protections, not to simply defend marriage from the homosexual hordes waiting to storm bridal shops and churches, burn them to the ground, and otherwise dismantle hetero marriage. From the bill:

"Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this Constitution, nor the constitution of any State, shall be construed to require that marriage or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon any union other than the union of a man and a woman."

That pretty explicitly opposes legal protections for civil unions -- and is thereby not just pro-marriage, but anti-gay, in that it denies them rights and privileges that are available to others.

I suppose Schrock could just be a married man who enjoys guilt-free albeit highly discreet homosexual affairs but believes in a principled defense of marriage between a man and a woman. But I'm willing to bet self-loathing and secrecy enter the picture at some point, and that's the point where you have to begin to question the psychology behind wanting to formalize the denial of rights in the US Constitution.

well, aside from the FMA, he also opposes gays in the military and it says at kos that "Schrock...opposes any possible rights for gay people, including non-discrimination in employment."

Of course he's a hypocrite. He's the portrait of a hypocrite. He doesn't have to denounce gays in the process of supporting the FMA, since constitutive to the FMA—and it's really the only thing that the amendment was supposed to do—is discrimination against gays. (I understand that there is a reading that suggests that this is not true, that the FMA has the purpose of "defending marriage" against her many enemies, gays being just one example over-cited by gay rights supporters. But excepting divorce and box turtles, the FMA only means to defeat one group: homosexuals. Let's not put our heads in the sand on this one.)

One could imagine a gay Tory with regard to conservatism. Andrew Sullivan was the most public gay conservative, and he supported the GOP right up until the Party publicly called for an amendment to the Constitution and Bush failed to take a stand against it. One could even imagine a gay person who is against nondiscrimination. Surely some women lined up against the suffragist movement and said that they did so because anti-suffragism wasn't really about women's rights but was about, say, family values, because nothing could wreck our homes like fast-talkin' career gals. Etc.

But Schrock fails even the Tory test. He supported a bill and a Christian conservative cause that he would be in no position to promote were he public about his orientation (or orientation issues). He closeted himself because, well, being public about his person would paint his beliefs as those of a hypocrite. And if he only supported the FMA in its capacity to defend family values, he's an even worse hypocrite, since lying to yourself, your family, your employers—not to mention implied infidelity—are hardly the family values that earned him respect from the GOP.

I don't mean to come off as rabid or directed this overly at one commenter, but it does seem a bit insulting to assume that discriminatory views are shared by those discriminated against. Probably not, I think.

mnletomol.com I don't like that I like them,
http://taylor-rain.letomol.com/taylor-rain.html taylor rain but that's the way it is. I understand
http://chantelle-fontain.letomol.com/chantelle-fontain.html chantelle fontain picture their usefulness. Often, a formalised
http://jana-cova.letomol.com/jana-cova.html jana cova exercise helps me to crack a block
http://avery-adams.letomol.com/avery-adams.html avery adams video of some kind, and often affords a
http://treasure.letomol.com/treasure.html treasure new way to see something. It's a
http://lisa-belle.letomol.com/lisa-belle.html lisa belle way of playing with the process of
http://sara-st.-james.letomol.com/sara-st.-james.html sara st. james creation - if one lets it serve that
http://tera-patrick.letomol.com/tera-patrick.html tera patrick purpose. Another example: a lot of
http://lenka.letomol.com/lenka.html lenka modern composers who use Finale or
http://adrianna-sage.letomol.com/adrianna-sage.html adrianna sage letomol.comnm