Ashburn Hammered

This time, it is by the Los Angeles Times, rather than by a bottle. The editorial board apparently thinks that who a politician finds sexually attractive should dictate how the politician votes, and they criticize California State Senator Roy Ashburn for voting against the wishes of certain activist groups while being attracted to other men.

But although we sympathize with Ashburn and hope he can turn his life in a more positive direction following this revelation, there's really no excusing his political hypocrisy.

I was interested to see if the editorial could clearly demonstrate that he's been a hypocrite, or if they're just going to assume it.

Ashburn, a Republican from conservative Bakersfield, has a deeply anti-gay voting record.

Voting in defense of marriage or against a Harvey Milk Day is not necessarily "anti-gay", and doesn't make a homosexual person a hypocrite.

Ashburn was arrested on charges of driving under the influence last week.

There's the real problem. But to some, nothing is worse than being a "hyprocrite". It's okay to do just about any evil thing, as long as you never point out that it (or something someone else does) is evil.

[Much more after the jump.]

Soon afterward, a Sacramento TV station reported that he had been at a gay club before his arrest. That led to accusations from gay-rights groups that the senator wasn't just living a lie, he was a hypocrite for opposing homosexual equality.

"Homosexual equality" – what do they mean by that? If they mean that people who identify as homosexuals are equal to anybody else – yes, they are, and I don't know of any opposition to that idea by Ashburn. If they mean that homosexual behavior is equal to heterosexual behavior – well, it isn't. For example, homosexual behavior has never produced a new citizen. And one can understand that, be a homosexual, and still not be a hypocrite.

Yet Ashburn's seeming concern for the will of the people is highly selective.

Here, the Los Angeles Times is on to something, as they cite that a year ago, he went against his constituents in voting for a tax increase. But the paper doesn't care about that. They care about advocating homosexual behavior and marriage neutering.

The best way to fight bigotry is by setting an example.

What bigotry? They never explain.

By coming forward, acknowledging his sexual orientation and pointing out that gay people can be successful business owners and politicians and even Christian conservatives, Ashburn could soothe his community's fears and help others like him end their deception.

Fears. They chalk up any opposition to neutering marriage as mere fear that can be soothed if someone is a great guy. And his sexual orientation? I'd say bisexual. We have proof.

And there are others; aside from famous examples such as former Sen. Larry Craig of Idaho or former Rep. Mark Foley of Florida, the documentary "Outrage" last year pointed out many other closeted right-wing politicians so full of self-loathing that they consistently vote to deny equal rights to themselves.

Again, they just assert that these votes deny equal rights, and in most cases I would disagree. But notice that they chalk it up to self-loathing. They don't want to even have a reasonable discussion.

Paul Thornton writes about the issue in the paper's opinion blog, jumping on Ashburn's back as well.

Ashburn wasn't consistent in voting for the majority will of his constituents. That may make him a hypocrite, but engaging in homosexual behavior and voting to defend marriage does not.