72 Comments - He Gone - Tuesday, Sep 16, 08 @ 11:04 am: Only if they make it an issue during their campaign or in the laws they sponsor…ala Mark Foley from Florida. - Ken - Tuesday, Sep 16, 08 @ 11:10 am: Why shouldn’t you be able to discuss a persons sexual orientation. Are they ashamed of their sexual orientation? Sounds like typical political correctness BS. - cermak_rd - Tuesday, Sep 16, 08 @ 11:11 am: It is only appropriate if they are doing something illegal with their sexuality, e.g. having sex with underage minors (of whatever gender) or are accused of having non-consensual sex. - Speaking At Will - Tuesday, Sep 16, 08 @ 11:13 am: I suppose the only time it would be appropriate would be if a piece of legislation concerns gay marraige, adoption, or some other issue that directly effects the gay community. Knowing someones sexual orientation during debate concerning those types of issues would give everyone a better perspective on the objectivity of that person or persons arguements. - the Other Anonymous - Tuesday, Sep 16, 08 @ 11:14 am: I think it’s less a question of when is it appropriate to discuss a candidate’s sexual orientation, and more of a question of how to discuss a candidate’s sexual orientation. I think it’s always inappropriate to discuss a candidate’s sexual orientation as a disqualification for office. It’s also inappropriate to use it as a whisper campaign. Of course, one can never stop gossip; but I’m referring to a conscious effort by a campaign to spread information. The discussion has to be about a question of public policy or service. So, it’s highly appropriate to discuss sexual orientation if a candidate is seeking to represent a district with a lot of gays and lesbians. It’s also appropriate to discuss issues relating to gays (marriage, civil rights, AIDS). And often, a candidate’s sexual orientation is extremely important to understanding her stand on these issues. - GofGlenview - Tuesday, Sep 16, 08 @ 11:20 am: Private lives should be off limits. Unfortunately they aren’t becuase both sides want to make, for some reason, private lives public issues. The reason is that they are divisive, they are issues that put people in one camp or the other- unfortunately. Private lives of individuals…if it’s sexual orientation or the right to “choose” are private issues the public need not know about. - montrose - Tuesday, Sep 16, 08 @ 11:21 am: *It is only appropriate if they are doing something illegal with their sexuality, e.g. having sex with underage minors (of whatever gender) or are accused of having non-consensual sex.* Regardless of a person’s sexual orientation, these things are wrong. Bringing up a person’s sexual orientation in these scenarios may only reinforce inaccurate stereotypes that there is some correlation between this activity and a person’s sexual orientation. Perhaps one good way of determining whether or not it is appropriate to discuss a person’s sexual orientation is to ask the question “Would I be mentioning his/her sexual orientation if he/she were heterosexual?” If the answer is no, then why are you bringing it up? - Fan of the Game - Tuesday, Sep 16, 08 @ 11:22 am: It is approrpiate when the candidate makes it a political issue. - You Go Boy - Tuesday, Sep 16, 08 @ 11:23 am: We have a more educated public today (maybe not by much) than we did in the days when a candidate would be on the stump and say:”It is a well know fact that my opponent is a flagrant hetrosexual”, or “…his sister is a notorious thesbian…”. If the candidate in question is openly gay, then its less of a problem than if one is in the closet or accused of being so…basically, it should be off limits since in MOST instances it has nothing to do with political decision making. One can be a liberal, conservative, or something in between, but “gayness” shouldn’t be a catagory in and of itself to qualify or disqualify one. - Scott Reeder - Tuesday, Sep 16, 08 @ 11:25 am: Here is a column I did on the subject earlier this year: SPRINGFIELD — With every election year comes the question: Is the candidate gay? In the 20 years I’ve been a reporter, there has always been at least one race that I have covered where rumors circulate that a particular candidate is homosexual. Local broadcasters rarely utter the word “gay” in connection with a candidate. The matter almost never makes its way into print. But you’ll find the question percolating up from the community — andd sometimes from the opposing candidate. And like every reporter I know, I just ignore the matter. I fall back on the cliches: It’s personal. It’s not relevant. Who cares? Well, obviously people care or it wouldn’t keep coming up. And how can we say it’s not relevant when one’s sexuality is one of the most important aspects of a person’s life. It not only reflects who one is attracted to but also one’s life experiences and the perspectives a candidate brings into office. When someone runs for office they shed some privacy. Just ask Bill Clinton. In a San Francisco newspaper, Eric Hegedus, president of the National Lesbian and Gay Journalists Association, called for journalists to ask public figures about their sexual orientation. He says: “Reporting on sexual orientation and gender identity — perceived or otherwise, whether in life or postmortem — should be included and dealt with the same way we approach subjects for such basic information as whether they are married, divorced, single or dating. This is an important part of providing a full measure of an individual’s life, one we should stop avoiding.” But like many reporters, I’m a bit queasy about asking: What’s your sexual orientation? Is the question about the candidate’s sex life or about who they really are? Let’s be clear, I’m not talking about “outing” someone. But why not give a public figure an opportunity to share something about another facet of their life? A few years back, while working for another newspaper, I interviewed Rock Island Township supervisor John Brown. He said he was the first openly gay person to ever be elected to office in Rock Island County. Knowing that sexuality and politics are volatile matters, I braced myself for the inevitable criticism of the story once it was published. It came from an unexpected quarter. A political opponent of his called and wanted us to know that he was gay, too. Apparently, he never had said anything because no reporter ever inquired. As my third-grade teacher used to say: “The only dumb question is the one you don’t ask.” - Skeeter - Tuesday, Sep 16, 08 @ 11:30 am: When their private actions are inconsistent with public positions. If a certain Chicago Reverend wants to tell a certain community about the importance of two-parent families but has a series of affairs, that’s legit. If a Senator wants to outlaw certain conduct between consenting adults but engages in that conduct himself, that’s legit. The test: Is the public position consistent with personal practice? - cermak_rd - Tuesday, Sep 16, 08 @ 11:32 am: montrose, I would guess more straights are having sex with underage minors than gay folk (just the simple fact that there are a ton more straights than there are gays would suggest that). So in that context, I was thinking that the pre-trial publicity would indicate that the pol was straight if the gender of the victim indicated that or gay if the gender indicated that (leaving aside the bi case where the gender of the victim doesn’t tell us anything). In such a case, it’s gonna come out, like the fact that the people involved in Snagglepuss’s case down in FL (Rich said no names) were male indicated his sexuality. So in that context, I think it’s going to come out and is probably appropriate that it do so. - Excessively rabid - Tuesday, Sep 16, 08 @ 11:33 am: It’s also appropriate to report on any activity that may make an office holder susceptible to blackmail or similar “leverage” that would compromise their ability to act independently and with integrity in the public interest. - Amy - Tuesday, Sep 16, 08 @ 11:33 am: if they legislate one way but live in secret another. if they portray their life one way but are really another way. this approach is actually just what you would do with other issues: ex. anti smoking crusader, smoking in secret. it’s just more contentious when it comes to sexuality. - wordslinger - Tuesday, Sep 16, 08 @ 11:34 am: Never. It’s bad manners. The only sex life I’m interested in is my mine. And that interests me to just about the time the pizza arrives. I don’t care about anyone’s sex life. Anything between consenting adults in private, cheers. That also means I don’t want to hear about your sex life or its “lifestyle.” Again, bad manners. I don’t think you should be discriminated against because of your sex life, but I also don’t think you’re in a special category — a la hate crimes — because of your sex life. Having said that, gay people have suffered enough — I don’t think they should be forced to get married, too. - Bill Baar - Tuesday, Sep 16, 08 @ 11:34 am: I don’t think its appropriate. What would anyone discuss anyways? I’m not a 100% certain what “orientation” means anyways, and a candidates personal sexual ethics is of little concern to me as long as it doesn’t comprimise them in their duties, and of course as long as what ever they do is legal. - WonderBoy - Tuesday, Sep 16, 08 @ 11:37 am: As a young gay man, I think sexual identity is completely fair game. “The Other Anonymous” is completely right in my opinion. I think a more interesting question might be when is it appropiate to discuss the sexual identity of candidates’ children? Personally, it’s a fine line to walk between respecting the privacy of family and (from the trend of GOP GLBT children from above) the pull of pointing out the hypocrises of candidate’s views. - Bill Baar - Tuesday, Sep 16, 08 @ 11:39 am: Skeeter, This… The test: Is the public position consistent with personal practice? …is a standard that adds nothing. Issues have pros and cons, and can be sensibly decided without regard to a person’s failings (or integrity). If a Pol has a model marriage, it would not be an argument for taking us back to times when it was far harder to get a divorce. - Skeeter - Tuesday, Sep 16, 08 @ 11:44 am: Bill, I just don’t see the inconsistency. I start out with the premise that personal sex practices are none of anybody’s business. It becomes relevant when the person wants to preach about the virtues of abstinence (without acknowledging their own failures) or to talk about how horrible some activity is, while engaging in that activity. In answer to your question: The pol who has a model marriage CAN talk about making it harder for getting a divorce, although I suspect that a politician who acknowleges a bad marriage could probably be more persuasive on the issue. - Paul, Just This Guy, You Know? - Tuesday, Sep 16, 08 @ 11:45 am: It used to be a homosexuals couldn’t get security clearances, for fear that they could be too easily blackmailed into revealing secrets. An officeholder whose sexual orientation is a secret could compromised with similar ease. I believe voters have a right to know the truth. - Phineas J. Whoopee - Tuesday, Sep 16, 08 @ 11:49 am: It is acceptable if you are hitting on them while over served after an inauguration in a circular bar way up high. Regrettable but acceptable - Heartless Libertarian - Tuesday, Sep 16, 08 @ 11:51 am: My line of thinking… We have a cuckoo governor making lives miserable, which is the one thing he is good at. Who cares about sexual orientation?! Can we just have a governor who is not a completely screwed up (in the head) failure? - Amuzing Myself - Tuesday, Sep 16, 08 @ 11:51 am: I don’t think it’s appropriate to use someone’s sexual orientation as a campaign issue, but I believe a candidate’s sexual orientation should not be a secret. It’s who they are. I think voters have a right to know, and if that’s the sole criteria on which they base their vote, that’s a shame. There are a few that already vote this way, but they probably base their vote simply on the suspicion anyway. So I doubt it would really change much. There are always blocks of voters that vote based on abortion, gender, ethnicity, etc. I think those blocks are fairly small, but I think we all want honesty in our officials, sexual orientation included. - Boone Logan Square - Tuesday, Sep 16, 08 @ 12:02 pm: It’s not quite an answer to the question, Rich, but are we at a point where it is just about impossible for journalists to keep *any* aspect of a candidate’s life confidential? Our right to privacy (not just candidates, but all of us) has eroded over the past few years due to both policy decisions and technological innovations. Is it realistic for a public figure to expect a confidence be kept anymore? - LadyRepublican - Tuesday, Sep 16, 08 @ 12:03 pm: I’m a republican and I really don’t care what he or she does at home. Hopefully, as a republican, their sexual orientation doesn’t effect their vote on gay marriage (which I oppose). They should at least be up front with the voters on this issue - Levois - Tuesday, Sep 16, 08 @ 12:03 pm: I don’t think it’s appropriate at all. Perhaps the only time it is to illustrate hypocrisy, but beyond that it shouldn’t matter. I think sexuality is only up to that individual, his/her loved ones, or whoever God they may worship. - OneMan - Tuesday, Sep 16, 08 @ 12:04 pm: I guess this makes me a bad Republican but… I can really care less. Cheating on a spouse I have an issue with, but sexual preference, don’t care. - VanillaMan - Tuesday, Sep 16, 08 @ 12:05 pm: Politics is fashion. It used to be vitally important to know if a candidate drank alcoholic beverages. It may be important in the future to know if a candidate smokes cigarettes - the new prohibition. Societies used to demand that princesses prove virginity. That royalty be fertile. Seeing the political nepotism rampant in our current culture, we may be demanding this again. So if a candidate wished to advocate for votes based on their sexual orientation, so be it. It will be voters who decide whether these campaigns fail on Election Day. If questions regarding a candidate’s sexual orientation permeate a campaign, we have to assume to some degree that it must be an issue for a reason. We cannot continue to question our ability to self-govern. When journalists attended college classes, no one bequeathed them the power to determine whom or what a political campaign was about. We are seeing a growing snobbery and an attitude that this is so. It isn’t, and it shouldn’t be. If you run for political office and wish to be successful at it, you will have to answer some questions to satisfy those voters who feel a need to know. It could very well be the dozen or so votes needed to win that election. So regardless of a journalist’s perception that “this issue isn’t important to a majority of voters”, we have to recognize the insulting assumptions behind such a supposedly enlightened remark and tell these people to step off. Voters are really not stupid. If a candidate’s sexual orientation sways votes, it is perfectly within our citizen’s rights to ask. Candidates may lie, tell the truth, or answer in any way they would regarding any other issue. It is not for us to decide. - downhereforyears - Tuesday, Sep 16, 08 @ 12:15 pm: In my opinion, only when the candidate himself/herself chooses to bring it up…. Otherewise its none of our business! - charles in charge - Tuesday, Sep 16, 08 @ 12:16 pm: When your election depends on getting the votes of ignorant culture warriors for whom fear of “teh gay” trumps real issues like the economy or health care, it’s not only appropriate, it’s a must. Even if your opponent isn’t gay and has no sexual indiscretions to exploit, just insinuate that he’s “effete” (see: John Kerry in ‘04), and the knuckle-draggers you’re courting will get the message. - 312 - Tuesday, Sep 16, 08 @ 12:17 pm: Its not appropriate unless their actions are illegal. Period. Underage interns? Appropriate, especially because of the position of power (Foley). But when its between 2 consenting adults, so what. I saw a smear campaign in the city this last year, and a lot of reaction seemed to be ’so what’. Thank goodness our society has become more acceptable of GLBT, but its different thruout the state. But I’m torn— if they are being hypocritical with their public pronouncements, I’m not sure. - Jake from Elwood - Tuesday, Sep 16, 08 @ 12:17 pm: A discusion of a candidate’s known sexual orientation is no different than a discussion of one’s age, gender, race, etc. A discussion of a candidate’s unknown sexual orientation is inappropriate and Enquirer-esque. I do not favor debate or discussion of “what-ifs” or the outing of candidates who are closeted. I can live with an exception for closeted hyprocrites with regard to gay rights. - siriusly - Tuesday, Sep 16, 08 @ 12:19 pm: Trust and honesty are the most important things we can demand from our elected officials. If they lie to us frequently and on purpose, all their other issue positions don’t matter - they are untrustworthy. I think it is appropriate to ask of candidates if the person has lied to the voters. Like “I am married to this woman and we have children” but perhaps he is actually gay. But usually people who are married aren’t questioned. Ironically, it is guys (or women) who are not married that have rumor campaigns against them. Which I think is extremely unfair. If a person is gay and they are not pretending to be something they aren’t (married to a member of the opposite gender) then let them be. It is nobody’s business but their own - again unless they are lying to us. - siriusly - Snidely Whiplash - Tuesday, Sep 16, 08 @ 12:21 pm: I think that unless they’re doing something felonious, candidates’ bedrooms are off limits. Even a political candidate should at least be safe from prying eyes there. - Irish - Tuesday, Sep 16, 08 @ 12:30 pm: Sexual ORIENTATION should not be a topic. Caucasians can be for or against bills that benefit African Americans for whatever reason. A legislator can be for or against issues that affect gays for what ever reason. Their sexual orientation does is not pertinent. Sexual ACTIONS may be relevant for the reasons others have noted above. There is a difference. - Wumpus - Tuesday, Sep 16, 08 @ 12:54 pm: Everything is fair game. Let the public decide. If someone is calling for the forced conversion of teh gheys, but engaging in such activities themselves, then they need to be called to the carpet. I just don’t want lies out there. - North of I-80 - Tuesday, Sep 16, 08 @ 12:54 pm: Not a topic or question unless there has been illegal activity, a crime [allegation of some type of sex-crime] or material open to blackmail - even then, it is a question only for the investigator/detectives. - steve schnorf - Tuesday, Sep 16, 08 @ 12:59 pm: Unless their sexual orientation is pedophilia or something similarly illegal (bestiality?), I don’t see it as something that needs discussing. Of course there will be voyeurs who disagree. - Little Egypt - Tuesday, Sep 16, 08 @ 1:01 pm: I believe this question is posed to the choir. Most of us posting here have a general opinion that if one’s sexual preference does not compete with the job they have been voted to do, then it’s none of our business. However, we are living in the age of the 24/7 news networks and they have become a huge monster that must be fed. It is impossible to keep anything in the closet these days. It used to be that candidates children were off limits. I don’t see that unwritten rule being adhered to any longer. Smoking, drinking, running around on your spouse, sexual preference, pork barrel projects (entitlements is the new PC definition) - it’s all going to be out there. Whether it should or should not, unfortunately, is now not something we can decide for ourselves. The masters of the 24 hour press are determining that for us. - Ted - Tuesday, Sep 16, 08 @ 1:09 pm: sexual orientation is not relevant. Criminal sexual behavior is relevant. Talking about sexual orientation rarely results in a meaningful discussion of an important public policy question. It does often injure, embarrass and ruin peoples lives. Have not seen such discussions lead to better government. - Commonsense in Illinois - Tuesday, Sep 16, 08 @ 1:31 pm: No. - Clementine - Tuesday, Sep 16, 08 @ 2:03 pm: I’m not convinced that personal sexual orientation is EVER legitimately an issue for discussion, unless the candidate decides to talk about it. Sexual orientation is too complex of an issue. However, behavior that conflicts with publicly stated positions (regarding sexuality or any behavior) becomes an issue of personal integrity, and that is always worthy of discussion. - Crimefighter - Tuesday, Sep 16, 08 @ 2:05 pm: Rich, you seriously want an answer to this question? Here it is…whenever I get into a debate with someone, when the other guy is losing, they go behind my back and say, “well this guy must be gay!” as a means to reduce my credibility and strength of arguement. The “gay shield” has been whipped out by many people so they can hide behind it when they’re losing the arguement and call their opponent gay even though they’re not gay and may be married with a dozen kids. It’s ridicious, but they do it cause they’re intellectually weak. - Carl Nyberg - Tuesday, Sep 16, 08 @ 2:11 pm: Sexual relations with someone who would be a conflict of interest are always fair game. For example, if an ASA is sleeping with a cop from a small police department and the ASA goes lenient on another cop from the same department who did bad stuff, the relationship is relevant. If the president of the school board is sleeping with the assistant superintendent who keeps the books, the relationship is fair game. If the politician is sleeping with the journalist covering the race, the relationship is fair game. - Carl Nyberg - Tuesday, Sep 16, 08 @ 2:12 pm: Suggestion for future QOTD: when is sex outside of marriage relevant or infidelity relevant? Should we assume that extra-marital sex constitutes infidelity? - Belle - Tuesday, Sep 16, 08 @ 2:20 pm: I would probably wonder about it if a candidate dressed as a woman came out of the men’s room. Or the same type candidate was in the womens room with the shoes going the wrong way in the stall. Yeah, I’m pretty sure I’d be curios. Should it be an issue? No. That said, even though it shouldn’t be, there will always be people who will make it an issue to give themselves advantage. - Bill Baar - Tuesday, Sep 16, 08 @ 2:25 pm: Carl, notice you’re talking about actions…acts that could compromise person and set them up for blackmail. That’s fair game in my opinion. Orientation is way too abstract to make any sense. Orientation is a chat about what’s going on in one’s head. That’s next to useless…. - trafficmatt - Tuesday, Sep 16, 08 @ 2:37 pm: Only when it involves hypocrisy related to legislation that they have pushed (i.e. “I want to ban all gay marriage”, and then it turns out they are gay) AND when it is pretty darn close if not 100% provable. It can’t be some loser coming forward and saying “I slept with him” and there is a question of the reliablity of the source. You can’t just slam someone with uncredible “evidence”. - The Horse - Tuesday, Sep 16, 08 @ 2:48 pm: Yes, but did he inhale On a more serous vein my problem is with a candidate or his surrogates seeking support from a family values point of view when he is/was cheating on his wife with a beer heiress. If she was a he would it make it any better or worse? Not a bit - Fickle voters - Tuesday, Sep 16, 08 @ 2:52 pm: Voters are fickle and want to know what they want to know. For many people, homosexuality is morally wrong, so they want to know they’re not voting for a homosexual. That’s what they believe, usually based in religion and that’s their right, even if you don’t agree. While intolerant (my opinion), it doesn’t equal racism or sexism. I live in a neighborhood where some people think putting ketchup on your hot dog is morally wrong, yet I defy them and do it anyway. If I were running for office, I would expect to lose votes because of it. “The untrustworthy lout. Did you know he uses KETCHUP on his hot dog???” Bottom line, I’m a voter and I can handle the truth and thus, politicians of every stripe should be able to handle telling the truth. Sure, the truth may cost them votes, but it won’t cost them their integrity. If they’re hiding the truth about anything, then they are capable of hiding the truth about everything. All that being said, if no one asks, and the candidate doesn’t throw themself out there, then it’s nobody’s business. - doc - Tuesday, Sep 16, 08 @ 3:01 pm: From what I can gather, sexual orientation or conduct/misconduct is only an issue if the candidate is Republican. - Loop Lady - Tuesday, Sep 16, 08 @ 3:04 pm: it is not relevant–and should not be an issue ever–when the candidate identifies themselves as gay it is a point of information only–being gay is not a choice… - Fickle voters - Tuesday, Sep 16, 08 @ 3:10 pm: Um, doc. Remember Bill Clinton? He was impeached due to sexual misconduct, so it was a little bit of an issue for that democrat. At the end, it’s really about the lies. Clinton lied to the country. Had he been honest, he might’ve gotten the pass that Chip McCain is getting. - doc - Tuesday, Sep 16, 08 @ 3:01 pm: From what I can gather, sexual orientation or conduct/misconduct is only an issue if the candidate is Republican. - GOP'er - Tuesday, Sep 16, 08 @ 3:12 pm: If someone has a “secret” that could very possibly compromise their ability to make policy or to seek needed reforms, then of course it’s relevant. That wouldn’t just apply to a “secret” about sexual orientation of course, but sexual orientation might be an obvious example. The issue is the lengths one might go to avoid greater publication of such a secret. Ask people in N.J. about their former Gov for example. The U.S. government still asks such questions for any top post involving a security clearance for that very reason. In other words, is a person blackmailable? And by the way, if gay is okay, then why any secret in the first place? Think about it. Is a closet anything ever going to have the nerve to take on a corrupt official for example? Of course not. It’s going to be all about going along to get along. Folks can speculate on their own about the likely examples in our own state. - anon - Tuesday, Sep 16, 08 @ 3:23 pm: it shouldnt be an issue or requirement of disclosure. also, it is not an issue if a gay public official represents the views of their constituents - even if it may not go with their personal view. they are elected to represent the views of the people they represent, not themself. - VanillaMan - Tuesday, Sep 16, 08 @ 3:25 pm: I especially like the comments that say that anyone who thinks sexual orientation is a valid subject is scum of the earth. Such an enlightened response! - Black Ivy - Tuesday, Sep 16, 08 @ 3:50 pm: Generally, one’ sexual orientation should not be disclosed unless he or she chooses to. An exception exists in my mind when a candidate’s sexual orientation jeopardizes another person’s health or safety (i.e. endangerment of a child). It then becomes a character/judgment issue and may elevate to a legal matter - Black Ivy - Tuesday, Sep 16, 08 @ 3:50 pm: Generally, one’ sexual orientation should not be disclosed unless he or she chooses to. An exception exists in my mind when a candidate’s sexual orientation jeopardizes another person’s health or safety (i.e. endangerment of a child). It then becomes a character/judgment issue and may elevate to a legal matter. - Political Observer - Tuesday, Sep 16, 08 @ 4:13 pm: It seems like I’m hearing one criteria for straight politicians and one for gay ones. When Jack Ryan and Blair Hull’s past marital problems came to light the voters reacted negatively. Shouldn’t we at least hold gay people to the same standard as others? - bored now - Tuesday, Sep 16, 08 @ 4:39 pm: i’m not sure that sexual orientation, per se, is ever relevant. but that doesn’t mean that one’s sexual activity is irrelevant. sexual predators, and other criminal behavior should definitely be exposed. i’m not fond of the bill clinton example. i don’t think people who have the power to terminate or move their employees should ever be sexually involved with subordinates. this is doubly so for interns. that is an abuse of power. but, iirc, clinton was impeached for perjury, not his abuse of (employer) power. still, he was wrong. and if he ran for office after this occurred, he should have been condemned for his irresponsible behavior. but then, i’m not too fond of adultery, either. if a candidate had an adulterous relationship, i have no problems with it being exposed. the problem is not the sexual orientation of those who seek public office, but the abuse of power by those in public office. that’s not necessarily a problem of sex… - Justice - Tuesday, Sep 16, 08 @ 4:44 pm: Not concerned about sexual preference. Am concerned about honor and trust. - Kinsey Report - Tuesday, Sep 16, 08 @ 5:53 pm: Doc is correct. Only Republicans seem to bear the brunt. How come MSM journalists (and opinion writers, editorial board members, et al.) sexual proclivities are never called into question when actively promoting a gay agenda at the same time proclaiming (correctly so) that it just doesn’t matter? Either it matters or it doesn’t. I believe it does not, many others also agree. Why the “fuss” from these folks who consider themselves opinion-makers of their dying industry? So why laud being gay or lesbian as a qualification for office as opposed to being a mere part of a person’s overall biography? At one time it seemed like surviving cancer was the ultimate qualification for office. I disagreed with that mentality as well. Why the mixed signals? - Disgusted - Tuesday, Sep 16, 08 @ 7:49 pm: It’s inappropriate to bring it up unless the candidate does so and makes it an issue of the campaign. We have a hard time finding great people who would be good fiscal managers of this country because of all the questions that are asked, many of them irrelevant. This question would just add to the multiple numbers of reason why qualified people will not run for office. - will county wiseguy - Tuesday, Sep 16, 08 @ 7:53 pm: Never. Sexual orientation should be off limits. Sexual BEHAVIOR, if it’s unlawful, certainly is fair game. This is a question that should not even be asked. - Excessively rabid - Tuesday, Sep 16, 08 @ 8:38 pm: Please, re: Clinton. He was not impeached for sexual misconduct or for lying to the country, neither of which is a crime. He was impeached for lying under oath, which is. - red dog - Tuesday, Sep 16, 08 @ 8:41 pm: shouldn’t be an issue unless small animals are harmed - Anonymous - Tuesday, Sep 16, 08 @ 9:15 pm: (Sorry, Rich. I’ll repost. (I only raised the two names as case studies re: timing of disclosure. Now removed.)) Obviously a very complex issue, so I’ll provide two answers. TODAY: ANYONE who is running for office should consider first and foremost their ability to be EFFECTIVE 1) as a campaigner and 2) in the office they are seeking. That includes considering–VERY seriously–SOCIETY’S behavior, including that of the Press and their opponents/staff. Using the Press and others as an excuse for “derailing your campaign” or “booting you out of office” because SOMEONE ELSE REVEALED the “issue” is NOT a valid excuse. Debating THEIR integrity for CONTINUING to make an issue of YOUR “revelation” is valid, but only if you’re certain you’ll be able to 1) control the damage fast enough and EARLY ENOUGH to get everything moving forward again in the right direction OR 2) someone will be able to replace you in enough time should you decide (or be forced) to step down. That’s NOT to say that anyone who is gay or lesbian, went through a nasty divorce, or has some “skeletons” in their closet, etc. should not run. It just means that you have to be effective–and that often means full disclosure up front and being able to deal with any resulting damage (right or wrong) quickly to the degree that the public agree it’s no longer “an issue”–and in those instances, where people referenced “blackmail”, you’re no longer susceptible. TOMORROW: Sexual orientation and behavior (unless illegal (and that, too, is complex because of instances where there may not have been a conviction) should NOT be an issue if the Candidate can serve EFFECTIVELY or has the potential to do so. - Reformed - Tuesday, Sep 16, 08 @ 9:41 pm: If a candidate is hiding their sexuality for the sake of improving their chances of being elected, then you must ask what else are they hiding or what else are they willing to do to get elected. I don’t think a gay candidate should be required to announce their sexuality, but I also do not think they should hide it. - Lakeview conservative - Tuesday, Sep 16, 08 @ 9:52 pm: Never. Any person’s sexual activities and choices are their own business. If they are engaging in illegal activities address those activities. It is completely irrelevant what sexual orientation they are. Some people here have said that if the politician is being a “hypocrite” than out them. I disagree even in those instances. People can be hypocrites regardless of their sexual orientation (Hmm… who could we be talking about). Just because a politician who is attracted to his/her own sex marries a member of the opposite sex does not mean they are a hypocrite. That person may desire to have children and a spouse for many reasons that do not depend on sexual attraction. This is their own choice and their own business. Heterosexuals may be making the very same decisions but given a “pass” because they fit the mold of what we define as acceptable - that doesn’t mean they are more or less honest than the next person. We can never know what is truly going on in a person’s heart regardless of their sexuality so it is foolish to try and make assumptions. We all make difficult choices in our personal lives and should not hold our chosen paths as superior to others. It is difficult enough to get sane people to run for office- I need not elaborate- why put another barrier in the way of possible success. - 47th Ward - Tuesday, Sep 16, 08 @ 11:12 pm: When an elected official supports anti-gay legislation, his or her otherwise private sexual behavior can be a legitimate issue. Especially when he or she is caught soliciting sex in the men’s room at the Minneapolis airport. The GOP is on the receiving end (no pun intended) more often because, aside from your political brothers and sisters in the Log Cabin Republican club, the overwhelming majority of anti-gay legislation comes from Republican elected officials. And don’t forget John Edwards, whose heterosexual private business between consenting adults cost him whatever political future he thought he had. Voters will forgive many things. Hypocrisy is not one of them. - Bruno Behrend - Wednesday, Sep 17, 08 @ 12:39 am: I get a kick out of all the equivocating here. It’s America in 2008. It’s politics. Everything is on the table. And oh yeah, if you are the party of “family values”, you can’t whine about a “double standard.” If you say you want “standards,” then try to live by them. - The Ibenidiot - Wednesday, Sep 17, 08 @ 1:09 am: Anytime all the time for public officials. If you jump in the fire, expect to be burnt. Sorry, comments for this post are now closed.