Gay Sex Scandal Rocks WA Republican, Spokane Mayor
By Matt Rosenberg Posted in Republicans — Comments (23) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
The allegations he sexually abused two youths as Boy Scouts years ago are unproven, but Republican Jim West, Mayor of Spokane and former State Senate majority leader, admits he's had adult gay sex and that he sought partners online. As one part of a three-year investigation into long-standing rumors about West, The Spokane Spokesman Review had an undercover investigator pose as a 17-year-old, (supposedly turning 18 last March), and online, longtime GOP player West offered him an internship and gifts, apparently seeking a relationship and - most crucially - showing a vulnerability to blackmail by making it clear his sexual proclivities toward men must not be overtly disclosed. THIS is what's key, right now.
Congruent with the ongoing media and activist frenzy over gay rights, one media meme (see P-I link, above) of L'Affaire West is that this closeted gay, or perhaps more accurately bi-sexual, is a flaming hypocrite: for voting to bar gays from teaching and day care jobs; for voting to outlaw consensual sex between teenagers (kind of an overbearing Nanny State approach, no?); and for quashing a legislative committee hearing on a gay anti-discrimination bill. I disagree. As long as West conducts his private life legally, he is free, in fact is arguably bound as a public official, to vote in the interests - as he perceives them to be - of the broader society, and especially the consituents who elect him. However, there is a higher standard still: he must conduct his private life so that it poses no risks for those he serves in his public life as an elected official in charge of a taxpayer-funded municipal corporation.
Moreover, if, as his legislative record indicates, West is worried about teens having consensual sex with each other, and gays having access to youth at work, it could be seen as skating too close to the edge of hypocrisy that he was seeking out a supposed teen (admittedly, one who clained he was turning adult, or 18, in March) in a gay online forum, and offering inducements including an internship.
But the real issue here, to me, apart from the public needing to know the accuracy of the allegations by drug offender convicts that West sexually abused them as youths, is NOT hypocrisy, tho it will regrettably dominate much of the coverage and commentary to follow. Rather it is that, by seeking and in fact admittedly having sex with adult men and continuing to seek them out for that purpose, Spokane's closeted Mayor showed a hideous lapse of judgement, opening himself up to blackmail.
For that lapse alone, West should resign immediately, despite his significant achievements so far as mayor.
Here is part of what West said, in an e-mail to the newspaper researcher posing as the 17-year-old turning-18 in March, according to today's Seattle Post-Intelligencer:
During a Feb. 26 online conversation published in the Spokesman-Review, West wrote to someone posing as a teenager.
"Remember, Im very closeted. No one knows I like guys. Except the few guys Ive been with and highly trusted," West wrote.
....The Spokesman-Review said the person posing as the teenager initially indicated he was 17 when the online conversations began and later told West he turned 18 in March.
As for the undercover sting, the ends, here, justify the means. Wouldn't you want to know if the closeted and fearful bi-sexual mayor of your town was trolling the Web for adult gay men? Sheesh.
The other issue, which the GOP really has to grapple with, even while it maintains its support of traditional marriage and oppposition to gay anti-discrimination legislation, is how to believably articulate a bifurcation between the personal and political, and how to tone down the increasingly outdated belief that homosexuality is "immoral." Personally, I find the idea awfully unattractive myself. But I'm not gonna get in someone's face about it, I'm just not.
Your bible's not the last word; sorry. Gays are here; they're queer and they're not going away. You may in heart still believe they're sinners, and "immoral," and pray for them, but as a public expression toward gays, that only makes the wedge issues sharper. Some of you will have to be more accepting and less condemning of gays, despite the discomfort aand disapproval.
For their part, gays, and supporters of their legislative agenda, need to remember large segments of American society and many legislators will continue to oppose gay marriage and gay anti-discrimination laws, and that do so does NOT, repeat, DOES NOT, make them bigots. One way to advance the debate, would be for gay advocates to compile a solid database of actual, documented financial settlements reached, around the U.S. for anti-gay discrimination. There must be dozens and dozens of such cases, right? Right? You're not gonna get much of anywhere with "When Did you Stop Beating Your Wife" tack (i.e., "as long as the ____ legislature refuses to pass a gay anti-discrimination law, they are, de facto, in favor of discriminating against gays").
Tolerance does not mean tolerating bad taste, and poor conduct. Too many urban gays are needlessly in everybody's face about their gayness. Get over yourselves, already. I don't really need to see gay men lasciviously tonguing each other on the cover of my local Seattle Sandinista alternative weekly newspaper, for instance. This sort of stuff, including the too-often appalling antics at Gay Pride parades, shows no pride at all, but a great insecurity. If you're confident in your sexuality, you don't need to egregiously flaunt it. Seems that somehow a lot of lesbians have grokked that.
More tolerance of "the other" all around, please.
« Burn the Witch — Comments (18) | GOP & Social Security — Comments (18) »
Gay Sex Scandal Rocks WA Republican, Spokane Mayor 23 Comments (0 topical, 23 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
but if they are picking up teenagers for anonymous sex that's beyond the pale. I agree: the guy should resign immediately. He's got some major issues he needs to deal with-- and his constituents shouldn't have to be part of that.
Oh Please...much to do about nothing and I for one don't care what your other "good" points are or are not. It's mostly a Black and White decision.
If you are in the closet, or are having extramarital affair or are a closet drunk, or illegal drug user you have a high potential for Black Mail. I don't want you representing me, or having a security clearance or handling my money, or anything to do with a position of trust, you lost all rights to be trusted by hiding things that others can hold over you. Be gone!
If you want to come clean and disinfect yourself with one of the best cleansers known, the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, well then we can talk.
If you are going after either sex to engage in sexual relations and your intended partner is under the age of majority, you are committing a crime. You should go to Jail!
Darn, it's not about religion, it's just common sense, why do some make it so hard?
Without a right relationship with God; we fall into wrong relationships with each other. Gays in same sex relationships, so-called straight folks in adultery or a myrid of sins. The key is to lives God's way.
If we say there is no God, we have no foundation for truth, right or wrong. Therefore we do what's right in our own eyes which always fails.
It's not about religion; it's about pleasing God. How are we doing?
What benefit accrues from my using crutches?
Not that I'm saying anything bad about crutches per se mind. They are a wonderfull innovation for those who are unable to get around without them, but that shouldn't translate into a requirement that everyone use them, right?
Question: having crutches = being gay?
not having crutches = being gay?
Confused.
commenting on.
Hint 1, not directly concerned with gays as such.
Hint 2, foundation for truth?
This book gives clear articulate facts why the Iraq invasion was valid and needed
Great, now the Fourth Estate is conducting stings, lying to entrap people it just can't get otherwise. Because, that's what the paper did -- "get" the mayor.
Unique circumstances, I know. The media could never apply the same reasoning to justify going after you or me.
Or so I'm told by sources close to the investigation.
promotion and endorsements.
The Third Terrorist
The ME Connection in the Oklahoma City Bombing
Jayna Davis
"When the full stories of these two incidents (1993 WTC Center bombing and 1995 Oklahoma City bombing) are finally told, those who permitted the investigations to stop short will owe big explanations to these two brave women (Middle East expert Laurie Mylroie and journalist Jayna Davis). And the nation will owe them a debt of gratitude."
Former CIA Director
James Woolsey
"It is my honest opinion that if the Department of Justice and the federal investigative agencies had not ignored Jayna Davis and instead accepted the mass of creditable evidence compiled by her, indicating direct Middle Eastern involvement in the bombing, the course of future events may have been altered. Had those investigators taken their duties seriously and followed up on the investigation of that information, it is entirely likely that the Twin Towers would still be standing."
David P. Schippers
Fmr. Chief Investigative Counsel for the
impeachment trial of President Bill Clinton
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2003/0312.bergen.html
But hey, as they say, you are free to do whatever you want and believe whatever you like.
The mayor put himself in a position in which he could be compromised, which the newspaper exploited. Unethical maybe but I doubt it's criminal.
Furthermore, I suspect abusing public office by offering internships based on sexual favours is both slightly more criminal and of concern to the populace than the method of exposing the deed.
I really coundn''t care less if Spokane's mayor is gay, straight or bi. But anyone that offers someone a job, public or private, in exchange for sex should be fired.
McGreevey, anyone? I'm just glad this guy was stopped before someone did start extorting him, or so we hope.
Replace "homosexual" with "incestuous" or "pederast". Now, should we "tolerate" incest and pederasty?
Look, you don't have to agree that they are equivalent. But if I believe that they are (which I do), asking me to "tolerate" the behavior is nonsense.
It's like telling someone who believes abortion is murder that making it "safe and rare" is a good compromise.
Homosexuality is bad. It is physically unsafe. It has a greater impact to the life expectancy of males than smoking or drinking. And I refuse to believe that the morality of an act is somehow changed simply by the invention of latex...
What do you suggest we do about them?
Given my view, there is only one consistent position - endorse legislation that either outlaws or prevents lending legitimacy to homosexuality - e.g., anti-gay marriage, etc. Personally, I agree with, for example, the Texas sodomy law - much as I would and do agree with laws against incest and pedophilia.
Look, I don't "hate" homosexuals - I think a much better job should be done of educating people to the dangers of homosexuality. How can we decry the terrible situation of our inner-city youth, while "tolerating" relationships that contribute to the breakdown of the most important support structure a child can have - a father and mother? Each bringing a sexually unique perspective and purpose to raising a child?
Sexual behavior is a tough topic. You can list a whole range of sexual behaviors: heterosexual monogamy, heterosexual polygamy, bisexual polygamy, homosexual monogamy, free sex, incest, bestiality, pedophilia, etc. A moral judgment has to be made on what behaviors should be legal, and what behaviors should be illegal. My line falls above homosexuality - yours may differ.
Prediction: polygamy is next. Followed by lowering the age of consent. Closely followed by incest being redefined/permitted for cases where no offspring are involved. Where are you going to set your line?
Re: It has a greater impact to the life expectancy of males than smoking or drinking.
Not true. You are no doubt relying on an old "study" by Paul Cameron which was so screwed up it has become a textbook case of how not to do statistics.
There simply are no reliable stats on gay life expectancy. And even if there were, so what? We know that Blacks have a lower life expectancy than whites and that men have a shorter life spoan than women. Is that an excuse to bash either group?
Our judgements on what is legal or not do not and should not depend on morality. That's how the world got into trouble into the past when we had religious war, inquisitions, witch burnings and the like.
The only judgments we should make when crafting public laws are practical judgments: is this good for society, bad for society or is it so trivial it doesn't matter either way? And if bad, is there any practical way to use the law to regulate the behavior? On the first question I would suggest that homosexuality (and just about any private sexual behvior this side of rape and pedeophilaia) is totally trivial and we shouldn't even bother to worry about it in a legal sense any more than we worry about what people choose to eat and drink, what fashiosn they wear and what church they go to. Secondly, though, there's really no practical way that a law against (private) homosexuality could be effective unless you wanted to flush liberty in general down the toilet and institute a police state so severe it would horrify Joe Stalin.
If we allow everyone the same opportunity to get married and earn all of the benefits, rights, responsibilities, and the same restrictions that my wife and I have then I think that's fair. At that point at least we are all playing by the same rules. If anyone wants something else on the list of things you mention above, then I will stand with you in opposing those other things.
To me this is all about fairness. If we can give same sex couples every single benefit and right that heterosexual couples get through marriage by allowing them Civil Unions, what have you, then I think that's fair. If we forbid them those rights then, to me, it is no different than segregation.
I'm a bit confused by the whole anti-gay marriage thing. I thought the Repulican party was the party of personal freedom, of getting the government off your back. Who you fall in love with and want to marry is your business, not the governments.
I support gay marriage.
but when we're discussing marriage, we're not discussing getting the government "off your back," in allowing you to marry, we're discussing getting the government "in your back pocket" by incentivizing your behavior.
I support gay marriage.
You and your vote may do whatever you wish.
So by being a straight male (which I happen to be) I've got the government in my back pocket? Does the government, "incentivze" (what ever that is) being a straight male? The leagal aspects of marriage should be open to anyone that's of age and consenting.
Churches should be free to marry or not marry people as they see fit. The government and non-members should butt out.
As far as gay peoples "behavoir" goes, that's got nothing to do with me. What consenting adults do behind closed doors is their own business and none of mine.
So by being a straight male (which I happen to be) I've got the government in my back pocket? Does the government, "incentivze" (what ever that is) being a straight male?
When you enter into a marriage relationship, the government incentivizes your staying in that relationship, through a number of legal factors.
The leagal aspects of marriage should be open to anyone that's of age and consenting.
You are assuming what you seek to prove (begging the question). Just because you assert that a thing is so doesn't make it so. If you believe that this statement is true, then you are free to vote accordingly. However, simply making this statement over and over again carries no legal weight whatsoever.
Churches should be free to marry or not marry people as they see fit. The government and non-members should butt out.
At the risk of sounding impatient with your ignorance, I will point out the fact that churches already flippin' are free to marry or not marry people as they see fit. In a church, you can get married to your dog, if you attend the sort of church that's into that kind of thing. What you can't do is go down to the courthouse and expect them to issue you a legal marriage license for that, since that's not the legal definition of a marriage.
As far as gay peoples "behavoir" goes, that's got nothing to do with me. What consenting adults do behind closed doors is their own business and none of mine.
That has nothing to do with the discussion on gay marriage.
and I saw this guy and his girlfriend kissing. This was at a major Southern California landmark known for inspiring romance, but I was like eeewwww! That's so gross! Get a room! Geez! Close little Bobby's eyes! He's not old enough to see this yet!
True story (minus my reaction), told facetiously. If you want to cut down on public displays of sexuality, well, I don't agree with you, but at least that's a tenable position. Only wanting to cut down on public displays of gay sexuality reeks of bias. The world will be a much better place when the reaction to both my story and two gay men kissing is, "Aww, that's sweet."