Now, a bit of redux here: Mark Foley. Representative Mark Foley was chased out of his position by fellow Republicans when it came to light that he sent salacious e-mails to a same-sex page who was goading him on (and admitted such) about their proposed homosexual meeting. At the time this page was eighteen years old. A separate case was where Foley asked via a letter what a particular page would like for Christmas and sent this same page the present.This page was sixteen at the time. The press and blogosphere mixed up these two cases in a blurred attack on this person — really, because he was a Republican.
I would suspect (like most homosexual men) that Mark Foley was trying to have a homosexual “fling” set up with this “under-age” boy (sixteen years old which is under-age in most states… but NOT in Washington D.C.). Most homosexual men I have talked to had their first encounter (really rape), what is commonly referred to in the homosexual community as their “initiation,”when they were very young by a grown homosexual man. So even if there was a fling, under the laws of D.C., everything would have been legit. The Republican washed him out because of a stand (religiously and naturally — Natural Law) taken against the age and acts involved. To re-post something I and Dennis Prager said:
So when a Democrat says because Sen. Craig was looking for homosexual sex and this makes him a hypocrite because he supported the “Family Values” position of not supporting the “gay agenda” in their goal of same-sex marriage, here is a great set of propositions and questions to ask “said Democrat.”
So you know, I believe that Sen. Craig was trying to commit an immoral act and that he should resign because he should want what’s best for America and not for himself mainly because he cannot be trusted in his personal life, therefore he cannot be trusted in his political life… this aside, what makes him a hypocrite?
What do you do with the many people who are homosexual but have come out publicly stating that we should not change the definition of marriage? Are they hypocrites? If you have same-sex sex, does this mean you have to support the “gay-agenda?”
If a heterosexual supports the “gay-agenda,” does this mean he or she is a hypocrite? Does a heterosexual who supports the “heterosexual-agenda” make him a “homo-phobe?” I know a few Republican homosexuals who do not want the definition of marriage changed, does this make them “homo-phobes?” Or does it make them hypocrites?
Great points to ponder. Prager also points out that the dictionary definition of what a hypocrite is does not fit what we really experience in day-to-day life.
The point here is that really when Foley, Craig, and others are mentioned ~ what the Democrats are really saying is this:
The Republicans are a Party that state a “family values” position that stands against such acts… they are not living up to those standards, whether religious or Natural!
Which most people like myself would agree and want more reference to the Founders understanding of morality and Natural law referenced in the terms served by Republicans. But what the Democrat is also saying is this:
The Democrat Party invites all who want to act this way and have affairs with pages — whether same-sex or otherwise — legally in D.C. under our umbrella because we reject Natural Law’s stance on gender barriers and definitely take a more “progressive” stance on what Jesus and the apostles taught as well as the Old Testament prophets [e.g., the Judeo-Christian ethic].
In other words, if acted out there is nothing of “family values” in the tent of liberalism to counter such actions:
“We (liberal-progressive Democrats) like to point out when the right (Republicans) fails in this ‘family-value’, HOWEVER, we give standing ovations to those who practice such acts… alone~without Republicans joining in with applause!”
like IBD so aptly pointed out with Gerry Studds:
…It was loyalty to that extreme agenda that accounts for Democrats holding back their ire during a far worse underage homosexual scandal: that of Gerry Studds, a Democratic Massachusetts congressman, for more than two decades.
According to the 1983 House ethics committee report, one congressional page allegedly traveled to Europe with Studds and testified that he took him to his apartment in Georgetown three or four times and that there was sexual activity between them each time. The two later took a 2 1/2-week trip together out of the country, according to the page, and “engaged in sexual activity every two or three days.”
According to the ethics panel’s report, “the relationship may have begun when the page was 16. . . . At that time, Rep. Studds was 36 years old.” What’s more, the underage page had told Studds that he would have preferred not to engage in sexual activity with him. “I mentioned that to him,” the former page testified.
The report added that “two other former pages, both male,” stated under oath that Studds made sexual advances to them. “One was 16 or 17” at the time of the alleged incident, “the other was 17.”
Studds never apologized, and when he was censured by his colleagues, he defiantly stood in the House well looking up at Speaker Tip O’Neill, hands casually folded behind his back. Afterward, Studds not only remained in Congress for more than a decade; the House Democratic leadership allowed him to rise in the congressional ranks and for years hold a full committee chairmanship.
Some of Studds’ Democratic colleagues even voted against the slap on the wrist of censure. Then-Rep. Parren Mitchell of Maryland, for instance, complained of the “absolute humiliation and degradation” Studds had already suffered and said censure would “cannibalize him.”
When Studds returned home to his district, an August 1983 editorial — in the liberal Washington Post of all places — asked with astonishment, “What is it exactly, or even inexactly, that those Massachusetts Democrats were so loudly cheering when they gave Rep. Gerry Studds three standing ovations last weekend? What accounts for this extraordinary response to a man just censured for having taken sexual advantage of a youthful congressional page?”
Why were Democrats cheering? Maybe the answer lies in the causes they support and the ideological company they keep.
The American Civil Liberties Union, after all, gives a 90% rating to Rep. Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., who would be speaker of the House next year if the Democrats take control, and the ACLU Foundation has contributed to her campaign. That’s the same ACLU that defends the North American Man/Boy Love Association (NAMBLA) and has tried to bankrupt the Boy Scouts because of its resistance to the idea that male homosexuals should be able to be scoutmasters.
The congressional GOP leadership has clearly dropped the ball in the Foley case. They didn’t recognize what Foley was, and the adolescents under Congress’ care were subjected to the advances of a sexual predator as a result. That’s inexcusable. But it’s the Democrats who want our culture transformed so that people like Foley can feel good about themselves.