Didn't Like Milk, But Likes the Booze

Republican California State Senator Roy Ashburn was arrested for drunk driving after spending time in a gay bar. This is how the LATimes.com blog entry starts off:

State Sen. Roy Ashburn (R-Bakersfield) voted against a bill that would have allowed same-sex marriages in California. The bill was later vetoed by the governor. Ashburn also was among the minority in voting against legislation last year that designated May 22 of each year as Harvey Milk Day.

On Monday, Ashburn told a Bakersfield radio station that he's gay.

This makes as much news as it has because anyone who identifies as homosexual (though has apparently engaged in heterosexual behavior, including a marriage that produced children) is expected by the news media and homosexuality advocacy organizations to vote for the political agenda of such organizations despite their own political philosophy or that of their constituents.

I personally know a lesbian couple that has long opposed the idea of neutering marriage. It is not dishonest, insincere, or hypocritical for Ashburn to likewise oppose legislation aimed at neutering marriage, especially when considering his district and how Californians vote on the issue. As for Harvey Milk Day, he may have had legitimate reasons to vote against that, too.

[Much more after the jump.]

"But it is something that is personal and ... I felt with my heart that being gay didn't affect -- wouldn't affect -- how I did my job."

While I am convinced that homosexual behavior is problematic morally and otherwise, I can support politicians with a homosexual orientation depending on their public behavior and how they conduct their work. I have a serious problem with drunk driving, however.

That blog entry pointed to this one by Patrick McGreevy.

The episode, widely discussed on Internet blogs, in newspapers and on TV, spurred charges of hypocrisy against the senator from gay-rights activists who noted that Ashburn, a divorced father of four, had voted several times against legislation favoring gays and lesbians.

Do people make a big deal out of it if a wealthy U.S. Senator opposes legislation lowering taxes for the wealthy? Has he ever voted to increase taxes on alcohol, or made any move or statement against drunk or reckless driving? Yet that isn't brought up in either blog entry. How many politicians who smoke or gamble have voted for new or increased taxes or restrictions on those things, or against giving those behaviors more public support? Or what about a politician who chooses to remain unmarried, but still votes in a way that encourages marriage? Or speeds, but votes to increase penalties for speeding? It is ridiculous to insist that because a man is attracted to men, the only logicial course of action is to vote to neuter state marriage licensing, or vote in favor of a special day for Milk.

"It is unfortunate he helped spread the bigotry that forced him to stay in the closet," said Geoff Kors, executive director of Equality California, a group supporting gay marriage. "We hope he now takes this opportunity to educate people in his district and throughout the state that his sexual orientation is irrelevant.''

Apparently, it isn't irrelevant, because groups like Equality California insist that it compels us to strike down a state constitutional amendment.

He will not be reelected – that’s a guarantee because he's reaching the end of his limited terms. Whatever happens, I certainly hope he'll never drive drunk again, and if he has a drinking problem, I hope he gets help for that.