Lame Save, Dude
Mood:  smelly
The thought is going around the blogosphere that California Congressman David Dreier may have lost out on a promotion to Acting House Majority Leader yesterday because of his sexual orientation. I don't know if that's true or not. I didn't even know his orientation was in question. (Then again, there was a long time there when I didn't know that Queen or Elton John or George Michael were gay ---if I even knew what being gay was--- so who knows?)

But what do I come across when I go looking for some spirited discussion at the large Leftist hang-out Eschaton? It's the proprietor of the place, asking in a post entitled "Sharks":

Will closet heterosexual David Dreier maintain the leadership position? We shall see...

Of course, this is just the sort of standard-issue rhetorical irony that people resort to when they wish to have something both ways. I asked why this is acceptable of a liberal-Left ideologue such as Black. Why can he insinuate ---without any repercussions--- whatever he wishes to about a possibly gay Republican when it should be a principle of enlightenment and decency that a person's sexual identity not be an instrument with which to shame him?

Well, I rhetorize myself. The fact is that it's okay by Black to do this because he believes that there is more partisan value to be gained by slagging Dreier as a member of a supposedly homophobic party than by respecting the dignity of a decent man.

As I put it to Black last night at his site:

Oh, hey, Atrios. I was asking everybody earlier why they thought it was okay for you to poke fun at Dreier's sexual orientation. Do you enjoy special immunity or is the irony just too delicious to pass up?

I don't know if there's any connection to my unanswered question, but this morning, Black links to a post by Steve Clemons, self-importantly titling the link (and the accompanying excerpt) "Why It Matters."

Well, what is "it"?

Is "it" the question of why Dreier did not land the job?

Or is "it" the matter of Dreier's putative homosexuality itself?

Turns out, "it" is nauseating weaselness, for Clemons' post states the case in a way that Black very obviously could not bring himself to do (emphasis mine):

Dreier was blocked because he has a long-term, loving relationship with someone of the same sex. This has been documented on many fronts and is widely known by members of Dreier's own caucus. If the reality of this blocked Dreier's ascension, then the news has a duty not to keep this matter hidden.

I'm pleased by Tom DeLay's fall from grace. But I'm irritated by the main stream media's complicity in hiding the bigotry that runs unchecked through a significant quarter of the Republican party.

Yeah, okay. Clemons really [cares] about Dreier's personal life; Black just wants to perpetrate like he was only talking about some Republicans. What a joke.

Guess what, folks: you can go on all day about how it's the Republican Party that's really keeping gay marriage from happening, but if gay marriage were such a broadly popular idea, you wouldn't see so many big league Democrats avoiding the issue at all costs. The Clintons? Kerry? Edwards? I don't recall them fighting for gay marriage.

Time to quit lying to yourselves and the rest of us.