Crankster

Monday, October 30, 2006

Wild Rice

Okay, I'll admit it--I'm a little slow on the uptake. However, I recently saw the light. After watching her stomp around the public stage for almost six years, it has finally occurred to me.

Condi Rice is a lesbian.

A few weeks ago, when I first realized this, I felt like a genius. It was a eureka moment, and several key things fell into place. Within a few hours, though, I realized that this was so obvious that someone else must have realized it. Sure enough, a quick google search confirmed that this particular theory is fairly popular, and has been bolstered by a fair amount of friend-of-a-friend anecdotes.

Now, of course, this is merely heresay. Nothing in the above paragraphs is definitive, and none of my "evidence" could be admitted in a court of law. However, it brought an interesting thought to mind: if Condi were gay, how would she handle it? Would she openly admit her sexual preference, demanding that the rest of the country deal with it, or would she couch her sexual preferences in nineteenth-century stereotypes like "I never found the right man" or "he got away." Might she just claim that she was "married to her work?"

Historically speaking, the most likely response would be none of the above. In all likelihood, Condi would vehemently deny all accusations and proceed to sponser initiatives and legislation that would demonize lesbianism and outlaw Birkenstocks. She'd publicly attack the Indigo Girls, imprison Ellen DeGeneres, and make leg-shaving a legal requirement. While I know that this prediction seems extreme, frankly, it fits closely with the traditional gay Conservative response to homosexuality. To put it bluntly, gay conservatives always seem to be at the front of the torch-bearing mob attacking their own lifestyle.

When I was a kid, jokes used to come in waves. For example, there was a string of Challenger jokes for a while; another time, we all told James Brady jokes. Well, for a while in the early eighties, Bob Bauman jokes were in vogue. Bauman was a congressman from Maryland who had been caught soliciting sex and "oral sodomy" from a sixteen year old male prostitute. Thinking back, I feel a little guilty about making fun of poor congressman Bauman--after all, the guy was just looking for some fun, for which he lost his entire political career. However, it's worth noting that Republican congressman Bauman had gotten elected to office as an ultraconservative touting a return to traditional moral values. He had loudly and consistently spoken out against homosexuality, and had received a 100% rating from Christian Voice, a conservative group.

And how many other ultraconservative homosexuals have attacked their gay breathren in order to gain power and prestige? Off the top of my head, I can think of two--Roy Cohn and J. Edgar Hoover. Of course, homosexual activities were only one of many things that they demonized in their quest for power, but it still seems pretty strange given their own preferences.


While I was thinking about Ms. Rice, the Foley scandal broke. In the time since, Republicans have tripped all over themselves trying to blame everyone for Foley's fall from grace. Apparently, the pages were to blame, alcohol was to blame, and a priest who may or may not have molested Foley was to blame. The reality that seems to be eluding the Republicans is that nobody is to blame. Foley is gay, and is, apparently, in a relatively stable relationship with Dr. Layne Nisenbaum, a Washington-area dermatologist. This is the simple fact of the matter, and there is no shame in admitting it.
Of course, there is also the fact that the objects of Foley's ham-handed flirtations were underage, and there is simply no excuse for that. Nor, for that matter, is there any excuse for Foley's repeated and vehement denials of his own sexuality. And, while we're at it, it's worth noting that Foley's crusade against child molestation, which inspired George Bush to call him "A SWAT team leader" against child sex predators, was utterly merciless. Ironically, it looks like Foley might be prosecuted under some of the laws that he sponsored. Presumably, he will seek greater sentencing leniency than he offered to other predators.

I can't help but contrast Foley's behavior with that of Gary Studds, who died on October 14. In 1983, Studds was censured for having had a relationship with a male intern ten years earlier. Studds, who had long wrestled with the question of whether or not to openly admit his gay identity, stated that he was, in fact, a homosexual, and that the relationship had been consensual. He also noted that the intern had been over the legal age of consent. In spite of his censure, Studds was subsequently re-elected to Congress six times, finally retiring in 1997.

It seems to me that the main thing standing between gay Republicans and mainstream acceptance of gay Republicans is...well, gay Republicans. If you're gay, and your political party refuses to accept your lifestyle, then perhaps you need to ask yourself if loyalty should cut both ways.

16 Comments:

  • Well put! We've got neighbors here in VA with their "Marriage, One Man, One Woman" signs up in their yards. At first I was annoyed, but then I realized that it was very useful to know who to avoid.

    It's similiar to gay people trying to stay faithful the Catholicism. Why? Why try to fit into a group who doesn't condone who you are. They'll take your money though!

    By Anonymous Anonymous, At October 30, 2006 at 12:26 PM  

  • I have to admit...I'd take the Catholic's money if offered too!

    By Blogger Nihilistic, At October 30, 2006 at 2:00 PM  

  • Condi's not gay. I totally hit on her last summer when I was in DC. She blew me off. She definately digs men because otherwise she would have snapped me up. I am a jem.

    By Blogger mist1, At October 30, 2006 at 5:34 PM  

  • Lee-
    Wouldn't it be nice if all the assholes advertised like that? Think about all the time you could save.

    Also, it's so nice that the Catholic Church doesn't let its beliefs get in the way of a fast buck.

    Nihilist-
    Congratulations--I think you've demonstrated the most important quality necessary for becoming the Pope.

    By the way, nice to see you!

    Mist1-
    We've clearly ignored an important possibility. Perhaps she's blind.

    By Blogger Crankster, At October 30, 2006 at 7:01 PM  

  • Nah, Conde's not blind, too many cameras around when Mist was hitting on her. Otherwise, what a loss for the rest of us.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, At October 30, 2006 at 8:46 PM  

  • But, actually, the opposite is true. I guess you missed the part where she swore in Mark Dybyl while his partner held the Bible and referred to his partner's mom as his "mother-in-law."

    For Christ's sake, not every Republican is Roy Cohn.

    By Blogger Chris, At October 30, 2006 at 9:45 PM  

  • yeah, but enough republicans are like Cohn to give one pause... I guess standing up with McCarthy was one good way to keep fingers from pointing his way.

    Bear in mind though, that (and I'm speaking here as somebody who listens to crankster's political views daily) the author of this blog is just as contemptuous of dems as he is of republicans. I just don't think he's gotten to that in his blog yet. Just alluded to it a fair bit.

    By Blogger misanthropster, At October 30, 2006 at 10:05 PM  

  • Surely, Condi would blame the bottle and check herself into rehab if she was ever outed. That's what all the cool kids are doing these days.

    By Blogger SabilaK, At October 30, 2006 at 11:11 PM  

  • CEO-
    Too True! Clearly, Mist must give it another shot!

    Chris-
    Fair point; not every Republican is Roy Cohn. Yet it seems to me that far too few of them speak up when the Roy Cohns are holding the floor. By the way, thanks for stopping by--I tried to visit your blog but was unable.

    Sabilak-
    Way to notice that trend! Isn't that a fun idea--it's as if drinking can make you gay. Thanks for dropping by!

    By Blogger Crankster, At October 30, 2006 at 11:38 PM  

  • I am afraid I disagree that they are the main obstruction to mainstream acceptance. They are just the perverted manifestations of the force the 'mainstream' constantly applies to conform.

    Everyday must be a struggle for them not just trying to hide their true self, but acting holier-than-thou. Some of them must be deceiving their own selves too. It is just too sad. They must be shown as an example in museums, so the mainstream can see what they have done to a man who otherwise would have lived honorably and content.

    And I think probably you are right about Condi ;)

    By Anonymous Anonymous, At October 31, 2006 at 2:41 AM  

  • Wonder when Condis' sex tapes will hit the internets?

    They're all wolves in sheeps clothing.

    By Anonymous Drib, At October 31, 2006 at 11:09 AM  

  • Ramo-
    That battle between mainstream acceptance and contentment is, I think, what really upsets me.

    Drib-
    I agree. What I wouldn't give for a politician I can look up to. Reading an article about Foley, I actually thought, "well, what did you expect, letting your kid hang out in the Capitol." Then I realized--Congress is not like Michael Jackson's house. We shouldn't have to worry about the safety of the kids working there.

    By Blogger Crankster, At October 31, 2006 at 8:36 PM  

  • I think the most dangerous people seek power in every society. It's hard to see any real differences between Republicans and Democrats these days -- it's all spin, as they are not bound to keep their campaign promises if elected.

    I've never considered Condi's sexuality; she doesn't seem to have any. But it's hard to fathom the power of demons that cause anyone to deny his own deepest identity. That this still occurs is further proof that as a society, we are not yet enlightened, no matter how much skin we put on our beliefs.

    By Blogger heartinsanfrancisco, At November 2, 2006 at 12:32 PM  

  • Hearts-
    I think that what scares me isn't our lack of enlightenment, but rather the fact that some people seem to be actively fighting against it. Don't they see the trend? Women, African-Americans, Gays, etc. A robust society must move toward inclusion, not exclusion, if it hopes to thrive. What's so hard to understand here?

    By Blogger Crankster, At November 2, 2006 at 1:11 PM  

  • If drinking caused homosexuality, I would be a raging lesbian...

    There are non-famous, non-political, everyday Joes and Janes who can't admit to being gay. Which sucks. Obviously. But until it becomes more acceptable to the (straight) person on the street to live openly as a gay person, it's not going to happen for those in the public eye. I don't agree, but I can understand that if your job depends on public perception, you want that perception to be as "normal" as possible.

    Which is why it is important for those of us who have left the Mental Stone Age to demonstrate with our votes and our wallets that homosexuality is not "weird."

    ~Jinja

    By Anonymous Jinja, At November 3, 2006 at 5:12 PM  

  • Jinja-
    Or should I call you "K.D. Lang?"

    You make a great point. I guess the thing that bothers me is the extent to which people who are ashamed of their true identities target others.

    By Blogger Crankster, At November 3, 2006 at 8:57 PM  

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]



Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home