Subscribe to Breaking NewsWithers: Why does the sexuality of a McCain staffer matter?
Never met Mark Buse. Couldn’t pick him out of a line-up. I know he is John McCain’s chief of staff and that means there’s not much we agree on. That’s enough for me. His sexuality, just like the love life of “singer” Clay Aiken, are bits of information that do not need to be added to the flotsam and jetsam in my head.
Yesterday Buse’s supposed gayness became a talking point in the gay blogosphere. When the rumor first hit my email box, I rolled my eyes. Mainly because this type of conversation is as dated as watching a rerun of Beverly Hills, 90210. Isn’t outing a technique we have moved away from?
Aside from the moldiness of it all, why the shock? A gay man shills for the GOP and its candidate? We’ve seen this story before and it ain’t new. Can the choir say former senator Rick Santorum’s communications director Robert Traynham? And who can forget Mary Cheney (love the fact she got paid a whole lot of cash for a book no one read)? Are we so naive that we continue to be shocked when we find there are gays and lesbians who actually are Republican? The horror. The horror.
Yes Virginia, there are gay Republicans; instead of being shocked about that, it might serve us better to come up with reasons on why we disagree with them. And reasons do not include using the terms “Nazi” or “self-hating.”
I’ve said it before and have no problem repeating it. Sexuality does not equal ideology. Never has. Never will
When is it acceptable to make someone’s private life a political point?
When that person is highly involved in making a political point of the private lives of others.
Also, when they’re reaping the benefits of the work that they’re highly involved in combating/destroying.
That’s why people who aren’t acting like bigots are left alone. That’s also why people who are low-level staffers, but happen to be gay aren’t outed.
Shame on you, Mr. Withers.
If Oral Robert’s University hired a Muslim as president of it’s “school,” you don’t think that religious “orientation” would be questioned?
Mr. Buse heads a campaign which actively seeks to diminish gay people. And you say his sexual orientation makes no difference!
The focus here should be Buse. The man has been outed without his consent at the national level. Now he faces possible discrimination everywhere he turns. It’s not like you tell your landlord upon meeting him or her that you are queer. No, but of course it’s okay to think of him as a tool for your (or McCain’s) agenda. If you were in his position you (commenters) would never condone this.
I agree, sexuality does not equal ideology; it hasn’t at least since 1980, when the new Reagan administration brought boatloads of young men – very right wing, very attractive, and very gay – to Washington with them. At least until the AIDS disaster hit, Reagan Washington was MUCH more fun than Carter Washington.
But that’s beside the point. The sexuality of an aide to an anti-gay politician is worthy of comment because it ALWAYS is a good idea to spotlight the hypocrisy of someone who enjoys the benefits of the culture he is an accessory to oppressing and the hypocrisy of his boss, who will privately support someone he is prepared publicly to abuse.
Out every last one of them, I say.
I find that most in our community cannot seperate ideology from sexuality. McCain already new about his staffers sexuality when he hired him yet still hired him. Some homophobe there!
BUt we are expected to vote lock step with the dem party because they’ve supposedly have done so much for us. Hey let’s accept ’seperate for equal”. If anyone is self-hating it’s people who are proud to live like that and vote for the people who only pay us lip service.
The word “opportunist” comes to mind. or “unethical” or “blind ambition. So do lots of other words that you probably wouldn’t print. Stop pandering, Withers. They (McCain and Buse) don’t give a damn about you.
Wow, Mr. Withers you have made confounding statements before but you really blew it on this one. I really want to stop visiting this site. Does anyone have a good alternative for me?
This article was a complete hit and miss. Very few are proposing sexuality equals ideology. The shock comes from the fact that McCain employ a gay chief of staff, recognizing the value and competence of the indiviual. While simultaneously voting for legislation that makes that individual a second class citizen. The anger comes from when people like the writer of this article want to dismiss any criticism as shameful outing. Hipocrisy has to cited. We cannot allow individuals to reap the benefits of gays in society while also actively degrading us.
Finally, Withers, something we agree on
I dont think that ideology matters anyway… I am gay and non christian and vote republican
Well said. Mark Buse did nothing to deserve this sort of attack, if it was McCain or Palin that might be a different story. People can be both Gay and Republican, to say they can’t be is similar to those on the far right that say you can’t be Gay and Christian, it’s a pure matter of ignorance.
If McCain was not actively supporting positions that are harmful to GLBT citizens, then this would be a non-issue.
It is not acceptable for any person in a position of power (politician, religious leader, CEO, whatever) to take public positions and pass laws/policies which damn us, but tolerate us privately and make empty statements like “I have lots of gay friends.”
I also find it difficult to get too worked up about consequences that may befall Mark Buse, because he is knowingly working for someone whose positions against him are clear.
It is newsworthy. We deserve elected officials who display integrity rather than hypocrisy. If everybody yawns and nothing changes, so be it.
Well, Mr Withers, most of us do know that there are Gay Republicans, but as most of us know that Santa Claus is a myth, we cannot understand why there are Gay Republicans!
No, outing is not out-dated, nor should it be until Gay Americans are treated equally under the law.
It is absolutely correct for journalists of any stripe to point out hypocrisy – that is their job – how else can the average person get this information if not from the ‘news’.
Perhaps this Mr Buse would be so kind as to let himself be interviewed by the press so that he may explain himself.
Yes, I did go there – Mr Buse ought to tell his side of his story. And he ought to explain to the Gay community why he is working actively to destroy the civil rights of the rest of us!
I beg pardon and hope not to offend, but too damn bad – my family is too important and too precious to me to let this just pass.
If Mr Buse has so little care or scruples or that hard up for a job, that is certainly not my problem.
It is all our problem that this man is working to destroy our families.
If that is incendiary – then tough, grow a set!
This is the 21st century, Mr Withers, and the Gay community is no longer anyone’s patsy or anyone’s to fool with.
It is your duty as an editor of 365Gay to offer us this vital information and to avoid plain ‘gossip’.
The McCain / Palin ticket is dangerous. This is not gossip, these are OUR LIVES we are discussing in this forum.
How many times must Sen. McCain repeat his opposition to Gay Rights? He has done soo many times already.
How much more information can Gov. Palin give us that she has not already vouched for? She has repeatedly vowed her anti-Gay bias.
Then what in the world are our Gay brethren doing supporting an open, active, homophobic candidates?
If you oppose new taxes for those who earn more than $250,000 pre year, then fine, say so.
Tell the rest of America that you and the other 4% of our wealthiest citizens that your money is vastly more important than your right to live with equality.
Then I will tell you where to stick your fortune!
I hope that your money will buy you love – ’cause you’re not gettin’ any from the GOP.
Of course they “can” be gay and Republican. They obviously are. And nobody has the authority to stop them. The question of significance is whether they SHOULD be gay and Republican. That’s a value judgment based on an assessment of goals. Are the goals of the GOP compatible with the goals of gay rights? And if not, to what extent is privileging one over the other “tolerable” to the community at-large?
Your comment:
“And reasons do not include using the terms “Nazi” or “self-hating.”
I agree about the former, but not the latter. What kind of pathology is required to support, to work for, someone who wants to harm you…. who wants to deny you civil rights… who has repeatedly stated that he would never knowingly hire someone “like you”.
For a normal, self-respecting person, that situation would be untenable. To survive such a relationship, you have to be in deep denial, or buying into your “master”’s hatred of you. That’s called self-hating. And that’s exactly what it is.
You shouldn’t dismiss it so cavalierly.