Friday, July 22, 2005

The left and homosexual inconsistency

In the extremely few true hate mails I've received the term "homophobic" has been one of the terms I'm usually described with. (In fact, every single one of the few has said so.) I'm convinced it's just part of the rant since it was included with a long line of epithets that included "right-wing", "warmonger", "greedy", and various terms synonymous with "unthinking puppet." Like I said, it's been very few and they're easily deleted and ignored. It wouldn't have come up at all were it not for the lunatic actions of the left in professing to be the tolerant ones fully accepting of a person's sexuality without judgement or castigation. If these people are who they claim to be, then a person's homosexuality should never come up as an issue, and certainly not as a negative, right?

So how does one explain John Edwards' pointed use of Mary Cheney, the Vice President's lesbian daughter, as a negative factor against his opponent in the Vice Presidential debates last year? It was a big deal, all right, in that it cost Edwards dearly. It was so obvious that he was trying to paint Mary Cheney as a black mark against Dick Cheney because she was gay. Cheney's supporters basically said, "Yeah? So what?" and were, in fact, joined by many in the gay community in that question. For a party that prides itself, as I said, on their tolerance and acceptance of gay folks, this was a strange tactic. After it literally blew up in their hands, you'd think they'd know not to try this again.

Fast forward to today. The left isn't opposing a presidential election - they lost that one decisively - they're opposing the confirmation of a Supreme Court Justice. John Roberts has impeccable credentials, there's no attacking those. His actions both on the bench and advocating in front of it have also been impeccable. There's no way for them to attack his education, his ethics, or his record with any strength. I expected attempted character assassination, for certain, but I can't say I expected their latest tactic.

It all started with the commentary about President Bush's facial expressions during his announcement of Roberts' nomination. Daily Kos and other lefty blogs as well as one well-known center-right blog, Instapundit, thought the President was smirking during the nomination. What they didn't know - because it was off-camera - was that Robert's little boy had stepped away from his Mom and started a little break-dancing session in front of the audience. The President wasn't smirking because he thought he "had it in the bag" with the nomination, he was trying to keep from busting up in the middle of his announcement. (Instapundit was corrected on the issue and posted his correction on his blog.) When it started getting around that the President had had a perfectly good reason for doing what he did (and, in my opinion, showed some real control at being able to keep speaking) a rather unusual idea started to get floated.

OK, it's not unusual, it's stupid. Confederate Yankee had the goods and once again Daily Kos posters delved new depths. Out of nowhere, they began to surmise that Roberts' son might be gay.

Yes, that's right. Lacking any real, honest method of attacking Roberts' nomination, they decide to manufacture the idea that a four-year-old boy is probably gay. Gay. Four years old. Well, I'm going to float my own theory about the evil bastards who came up with this one. I think they must gay themselves, or harbor some real serious gay fantasies, and in either case are probably pedophiles. Who else thinks of four-year-olds having sexual identies well enough defined to claim that a little boy must be gay? Classic behavior of pedophiles; to project their own sexuality onto children in an attempt to justify their own behaviors. Sick? No, not sick. Evil. There's a difference.

Oh, but it doesn't stop there. Perhaps realizing what kind of shitstorm they were conjuring for themselves, they decided to shift targets, if not ordnance. And so, when the New York Times ran a story on John Roberts, ostensibly to provide background on the nominee, the left found little nuggets within to build their story upon. Yes, you see where I'm headed. The left is now proposing that John Roberts himself is likely gay. And their reasons for advancing such a suggestion? He attended a boy's Catholic high school, he wrestled on the team there, he played the role of Peppermint Patty in a high school production of "You're a Good Man, Charlie Brown", and - pay attention, now - he wore plaid pants. TV's favorite lefty blogger and perennial cutie Wonkette wonders:

::::::::We're not making any conclusions here -- we wouldn't want to comment on an ongoing investigation -- we're just laying out the facts: He is a graduate of an all-boys Catholic school where, as a member of the wrestling team, he regularly grappled with other sweaty, repressed boys. That is when he wasn't the drama club playing Peppermint Patty, for God's sake.::::::::

Oh, sure, wouldn't want to draw any conclusions. Calling this witch-hunt an "investigation" is just an attempt to lend some sort of credibility and it's ludicrous on the face. I wonder if she'd make the same observation about practitioners of other grappling combat arts, such as aikido? I'd love to see her walk up to Steven Segal and make the claim that he's probably gay and justify the comment by alluding to his art form.

All of which just brings us around to the question again: Why is it that the oh-so-tolerant left is wildly pointing at Roberts and basically screaming, "He's a FAG! He's GAY! And his little boy, too!" Why should that be a problem? As Charmaine Yoest says, who's homophobic now? The man's credentials and performance on and before the bench are the important factors. Will the man use the Constitution as his guiding principle in ruling on the cases that come before him on the highest court of our land? These are the questions that need answering and it's the right that wants them to be the focus. The left seems to think we care about his sexuality or, even less likely, that we find their accusations on the matter the least bit credible. This little firecracker went off in Kerry's and Edwards' hands already, so you'd think the singed fingers would have taught them not to light this one again.