shocking news: anti-gay legislator turns out to be gay!

[topaz]

The big story of the day: anti-gay California state senator Roy Ashburn was arrested for DUI, allegedly after having left a gay bar earlier in the evening.  (Hat tip to mzrowan for bringing this to my attention and for hunting down the original story that broke.)

What's interesting to me is how much skepticism I've seen of this story.  And it's true, there are a lot of legitimate objections: they haven't named their sources.  The manager of the bar says she never saw him there that night.  He was blocks away from the club when the police pulled him over, so it's unlikely they witnessed him leaving.

Here's why I believe the story:

This morning there are lots of articles all over the news reporting that people have been asking Ashburn about his sexuality for years and getting non-denial denials. The mayor of Sacramento says he regularly sees Ashburn at gay clubs.

Why would these people let him go on like this and not say anything?  The usual reasons people let people stay closeted: he's powerful, they don't want to make waves, they don't want to invade his privacy, etc. etc. etc.  It's hard to be the first person to say this and risk being dismissed as a crank or a rabble-rouser.

What it really sounds like is that it was an open secret in local circles that Ashburn was just another a closeted anti-gay legislator and no one wanted to be the first person to address it, so no one did.  Until CBS13 printed the story yesterday.   And once someone has started talking about it, it's a lot easier for everyone else to start talking about it.  Which they now appear to be doing.

Comments

Re: Whether or not he's gay

[qwrrty.livejournal.com]

I was just speaking to the question of "why is it his business if I am [gay]?". It's not clear to me that he's made identifying anyone else's orientation his legislative business.

That's an unusually narrow way to interpret the question. There are many ways in which legislators "make it their business" with regard to their constitutents' sexuality, without identifying the sexual orientation of any individual citizen. Pretty much any law which treats citizens differently depending on their sexual orientation -- laws restricting what kind of jobs a gay person can hold, whether they may be served alcohol, or whether they may get married -- all count as "making it their business" by any reasonable interpretation.

Is it really a conflict of interest, though? It's not as if any of the legislation he favors or opposes makes closeted guys going to gay clubs better off per se, as far as I can see.

That's also a strangely narrow way in which to read the situation. If Roy Ashburn's total interest in same-sex relationships amounts to remaining closeted and going to gay clubs from time to time, there might be something in that. That's quite possible. But it's unlikely.

Re: Whether or not he's gay

[lhn.livejournal.com]

Pretty much any law which treats citizens differently depending on their sexual orientation -- laws restricting what kind of jobs a gay person can hold, whether they may be served alcohol, or whether they may get married -- all count as "making it their business" by any reasonable interpretation.

If those laws enquire into the person's sexual orientation, sure. (Including as a group; a law that allowed bars in a zoning region but not gay bars, say.) Which laws along those lines did he vote for that you're thinking of?

Re marriage, the law, in its majestic equality, allows gay people as well as straight people to marry anyone they like past a certain age, outside forbidden degrees of consanguinity, and of the opposite sex. It couldn't care less that this happens to exclude all the people that some might wish to marry. I don't happen to think most states' laws on that last bit are just (and might quibble with the boundaries of some states' positions on some of the others, for that matter). But if anything, that's a failure to take orientation into account. (No marriage license bureau will ask your orientation before giving or denying the marriage license.)

Failing to make something the law's business (like, say, the fact that gay people want to get married, and not to partners of the opposite sex) can also be unjust, of course.

That's also a strangely narrow way in which to read the situation. If Roy Ashburn's total interest in same-sex relationships amounts to remaining closeted and going to gay clubs from time to time, there might be something in that. That's quite possible. But it's unlikely.

Aside from possibly boosting his political career (which is presumably a big point of any politician supporting any legislation), is he benefiting from the laws he's voting for? Is he doing so in a way that's obscured by his keeping his alleged gay nightlife private? Where does the conflict of interest lie?