California State Senator Roy Ashburn told a local radio station this week that he is gay. In a heartfelt admission, he explained that coming out had been a struggle for a long time and now that his personal life had put others at risk, he needed to face who he was.
First of all, let's let it slide that Ashburn has linked driving under the influence with attending a gay bar. Many of us have spent nights in gay drinking establishments and managed to not also become drunk drivers. But that is beside the point.
Ashburn insists that being gay will not hinder his ability to do his job.
It's a phrase that sounds familiar and the automatic response is to agree with him. In fact, the Human Rights Campaign has issued words of support and encouragement for Ashburn as he embarks on the difficult process of coming out. I understand the supportive stance. We've been there and when you see someone else struggle with their sexuality, you want to be caring and kind and all the things many people weren't for you.
But do we really think that Ashburn can do his job now that we know he is gay?
This is a man who has consistently voted against his own rights. He does not believe in eliminating discrimination based on sexual orientation. He does not believe in honoring gay historical figures. He does not believe in gay marriage. While admitting he is gay, he maintains his commitment to the undermining of gay rights. Even Log Cabin Republicans -- advocates of change from within -- don't go this far.
Ashburn's explanation for this ridiculous voting strategy is that his votes represent the opinions of his constituents.
If we take that argument at face value, the man is disingenuous, without principles and swayed easily by the whims of a narrow majority. If the people in his district wanted to burn books, he'd sign on to that too.
So, while it does not sound like a generous and kind position, I do believe that Senator Ashburn has two choices: he can either change his voting pattern drastically and immediately or he can step down.
What is clear is that his identity as a gay man most certainly hinders his ability to continue the particular legislative role he has inhabited thus far.
Follow Emma Ruby-Sachs on Twitter: www.twitter.com/EmmaRubySachs
Tamara McClintock Greenberg: The Straight View: What We Lose in Prohibiting Gay Marriage
As I was talking with my friends the other night, I felt surprised as to how ashamed I was about living, working and loving my husband in a country that does not allow equal rights regarding marriage.
"He was only following orders" and "he was only serving his constituents" are feeble and pathetic whinging from a man who cannot possibly hope to repair the damage he's done to his reputation - let alone the damage he's inflicted on hundred of thousands of residents of California.
Edmund Burke said that "it ought to be the happiness and glory of a representative to live in the strictest union, the closest correspondence, and the most unreserved communication with his constituents. Their wishes ought to have great weight with him; their opinion, high respect; their business, unremitted attention. It is his duty to sacrifice his repose, his pleasures, his satisfactions, to theirs; and above all, ever, and in all cases, to prefer their interest to his own. But his unbiassed opinion, his mature judgment, his enlightened conscience, he ought not to sacrifice to you, to any man, or to any set of men living. These he does not derive from your pleasure; no, nor from the law and the constitution. They are a trust from Providence, for the abuse of which he is deeply answerable.
Most tellingly, I think, the conclusion: "Your representative owes you, not his industry only, but his judgment; and he betrays, instead of serving you, if he sacrifices it to your opinion."
Betrayal of trust. THAT's the point.
If this clown hypocrite wasn't arrested for DUI and caught exiting a GAY BAR, he would probably continue to live a lie and vote against his own personal interests. Except for using government property (his car) for personal uses.