OK, It May Not Be True and It Doesn’t Make Any Sense . . . Kinda Like that Craig “Outing” Deal
[Note for the irony-challenged: the following post is irony. Thank you. — The Mgmt.]
I hear there’s a Republican Senator who has been voting against affirmative action . . . but one of his ancestors is BLACK!!!
And he hasn’t told anyone. Worse, he goes around allowing himself to be photographed as a “white” person. While, all the while, he has an ancestor who is BLACK!!!
It’s not the race, it’s the hypocrisy.
[Irony alert ends here.]
The above fictional nonsense makes about as much sense as that Larry Craig deal, don’t you think?
UPDATE: OK, this is too subtle for some of my readers, so let me explain the joke and make the argument in a straightforward way. I’ll do it in the extended entry. If you get it, you can stop here. If you don’t get it, and you need it explained, then click on “more” . . .
If a Republican were to vote against affirmative action, would it make him a hypocrite if someone could show he was truly black? No, because many black people oppose affirmative action.
Similarly, as I argued this morning, even if Larry Craig is homosexual (and we don’t know that), it doesn’t make him a hypocrite to oppose special rights for gays, or gay marriage. Many gays feel the same way.
Given that, if someone were to come out with the spellbinding news that the Republican is BLACK!!! . . . many might say: why do you think it’s so important to say that? You are showing no hypocrisy, and there’s nothing wrong with being black (or gay) — so what’s the problem?
So what is the name of this guy?
Hypocrisy.
I hate hypocrisy.
EFG (33db69) — 10/18/2006 @ 5:40 pmSorry to disagree (for real this time), Patterico but I can’t see that Rogers is objecting to hypocrisy. He’s just trying to drag someone down to the same sewer he swims in. Before anyone jumps on me let’s look at the case:
Rogers: Anonymous people who have sex with middle-aged men in D.C.’s Union Station say that Senator Craig is one of those men. I have a radical gay agenda. I even posted an open extortion letter a few months ago trying to intimidate an un-named Senator against voting for the Constitutional amendment against same-sex marriage.
Senator Craig: I deny it. I am a happily married old man with three kids and nine grandkids. My life has been public since 1971. This is the first time this garbage has been told about me.
Gee, I wonder whom I should believe.
nk (5a2f98) — 10/18/2006 @ 6:13 pmEven if Craig is buggering random gays on the side and then voting against gay rights in congress, I still don’t see the hipocrisy. I have a habit of biting my finger nails, but I doubt I’d pass legislation encouraging it.
AndrewGurn (8a0c5d) — 10/18/2006 @ 6:40 pmSorry to disagree (for real this time), Patterico but I can’t see that Rogers is objecting to hypocrisy. He’s just trying to drag someone down to the same sewer he swims in.
Well, he claims to be objecting to hypocrisy. The point of this post is that it is a bogus claim.
Too subtle?
Patterico (de0616) — 10/18/2006 @ 6:44 pmMaybe he should read Pudd’nhead Wilson. It would explain a lot to him.
sharon (dfeb10) — 10/18/2006 @ 6:50 pmOhio Republicans are not above a good outing:
http://news.enquirer.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20061018/NEWS01/610180374
steve (fd60b6) — 10/18/2006 @ 6:54 pm“Too subtle?”
To me, obviously. I’ve told you before that you are not very good at parody. Maybe it’s only me. But maybe this comment exchange has helped make your point?
nk (d5dd10) — 10/18/2006 @ 6:55 pmI updated with an explanation for folks like you, nk.
Patterico (de0616) — 10/18/2006 @ 7:11 pm“Pudd’nhead Wilson” almost made me stop reading Mark Twain, Sharon. “The Stranger”, too. They gave us abridged versions of “Tom Sawyer” and “Huckleberry Finn” in school, didn’t they?
nk (d5dd10) — 10/18/2006 @ 7:11 pmWhat are the “special rights for homosexuals” that you keep refering to?
Polybius (7cd3c5) — 10/18/2006 @ 7:53 pm#10 Polybius
Out of the entire post and the update, this is your question (also, “…keep refering [sic] to?” implies it was a phrase used more than once)? Let me take a stab at answering. Where in the Constitution does it provide for equal protection based on sexual orientation? Answer: It doesn’t.
If sexual orientation is used as a defining characteristic for protection under the law in hiring, marriage, or anything at all, then I should be given special consideration for being a 5’10”, Polish-American (or Polack as my father and I both usually describe ourselves, political correctness notwithstanding), blue-eyed, male with 80-year-old knees in a 40-ish body. Any company I want to work at should be required to hire me if they don’t already have someone with all these qualities. I’ll want weekends off.
Stashiu3 (404f9e) — 10/18/2006 @ 8:13 pmWhere in the Constitution does it provide for equal protection based on sexual orientation? Answer: It doesn’t. – Stashiu3
Where in the Constitution does it expressly provide for the right to a fair trial? Answer: It doesn’t.
Or a separation of church and state? Or the right to privacy?
Conversely, the Constitution is fairly specific on a manifesto you might now consider fungible:
steve (8e37ec) — 10/18/2006 @ 9:04 pmMartin Luther King would tota;y reject Affermative Action he wanted a COLORBLIND SOCIETY and certianly not racial prefrences like JESSIE JACKASSON and the NAACP want
krazy kagu (24cfa2) — 10/18/2006 @ 9:10 pmBut you don’t know that do you? Nice try at the strawman steve, thanks for playing. My possible opinion regarding Habeas Corpus has nothing to do with this. And BTW, you should look at the Constitution in the Bill of Rights to see about fair trials (hint: numbers five, six, and seven for starters). Privacy is implicit in the fourth. Separation of Church and State isn’t in there. In my opinion, that is a fabricated right by an activist court. Bring up something accurate and relevant next time.
Stashiu3 (404f9e) — 10/18/2006 @ 9:49 pmBring up something accurate and relevant next time. – Stashiu
Fair trials ARE “implicit,” as is the right to privacy.
If you don’t consider the Constitution elastic enough to accommodate sexual orientation in its equal protection clause, how and where is “unlawful enemy combatant” defined respecting exceptions to the oldest defense against tyranny: the American notion that all citizens have a right to protection from government or state?
steve (8e37ec) — 10/18/2006 @ 10:14 pmRead #11, actually try to read all the comments before saying something stupid. My position on equal protection is up there. Unlawful enemy combatant is defined by the Commander-in-Chief. And these are not American citizens despite Dems protestations to the contrary. When they start playing by our rules, then I would support their protection by our benefits, not before. They want to kill us and have said so. They want to kill us and have done so. They kill Americans singly, in groups, and on 9/11 by the thousands. They want to terrorize us and make us subordinate to them and have said so. Apparently you don’t intend to get the message and take them at their word.
So, neither accurate nor relevant. Noted for future reference.
Stashiu3 (404f9e) — 10/18/2006 @ 10:31 pmWhere in the Constitution does it provide for equal protection based on sexual orientation? Answer: It doesn’t. – Stashiu3
The phrase “provide for” is cryptic.
The Constitution provides for many things it doesn’t enumerate. We permit exceptions to Habeas and the “right to bear arms,” so a more catch-all clause like “equal protection” has to be as limber.
In that vein, the term “playing by our rules” is laughably vague as the operational threshold for extending Constitutional protection. Might work on that a bit.
But you are correct. There are good arguments for the Military Commissions Act of 2006.
steve (8e37ec) — 10/18/2006 @ 11:10 pmI didn’t say “Constitutional protection”, I said benefits. If both those terms are too vague for you I can clarify: When they no longer try to kill us, we can consider peaceful behavior with them… until then it is war. Is that clear enough to take care of your laughter? They are not Americans and are not protected by any part of our Constitution. We try to treat others as we treat our own citizens, but when they kill thousands (and in my opinion, even just one) of our citizens, we need to respond as harshly as needed to deter future repetitions.
Habeas is not in the Constitution, is it? And why permit exceptions to the right to bear arms? (not saying it shouldn’t be limited, but why do you think it is?) Last, did you read #11? How limber it should be is the question. One extreme is my example of a company required to employ me because there is something unique to me. The other is no leeway given and be a strict Constructionist. I contend that most people would agree it needs to be between these two extremes. I don’t agree that anything “has to be as limber” as anything else or where you are drawing that line.
Getting better though. Much more thoughtful post with at least three valid points. (And to be clear, I’m not being sarcastic. Truly much better.)
Stashiu3 (404f9e) — 10/18/2006 @ 11:39 pm““Pudd’nhead Wilson” almost made me stop reading Mark Twain, Sharon.”
Why; on earth would it do that? It’s probably the most brilliant piece of social commentary Twain ever wrote and, at least for me, explained the phrase “being sold down the river.”
sharon (dfeb10) — 10/19/2006 @ 5:24 amI was young, innocent and optimistic and not yet ready for Twain’s cynicism. Even now, I avoid re-reading about half of his work.
nk (77d95e) — 10/19/2006 @ 6:11 amHabeas is not in the Constitution, is it? – Stashiu3
Of course it is. Article One, Section 9:
The four U.S. troops being court-martialed for raping a 14-year-old Iraqi girl and killing her and her whole family enjoy a presumption of innocence and full UCMJ regs.
As many at GTMO have been released and re-patriated, there’s a system in place to ascertain status. Such determinations and any rights the accused have to challenge detainment are now a matter for two branches of government to manage.
steve (8e37ec) — 10/19/2006 @ 6:57 amYou are correct and my implication that it was not there was wrong. My thought process was, “Why should Habeas apply to unlawful combatants who historically faced summary execution in the field? They are not citizens and the Constitution does not apply.” But I failed to convey that completely (typed it more than once and backspaced it out to rephrase, finally forgetting to put it back in… mea culpa). We’re getting into policy issues that, until I retire, I am going to avoid. My personal opinion on the disposition of detainees is somewhat different than the status quo. In some ways, it is harsher… in others, less restrictive. In any case, it is irrelevant to this thread (my fault this time as I responded to your Habeas example with which you made an appropriate point, but cherry-picking that point derailed the thread. Again, my fault).
The point was, we differ on where to draw the line at the “limberness” of the equal protections clause. I think sexual orientation should not apply, just as being a 5’10” Polack etc… would not realistically have it apply to me. Both conditions are irrelevant, people are different… always. I believe the conditions enumerated in the Constitution are sufficient unto themselves and well-reasoned. A “limber” interpretation diminishes the protections because where do you stop? If you add sexual orientation, the 5’10” Polack minority will want to be protected as well. Everyone is a minority is some small or large way. When it’s large, enact new legislation (i.e. Civil Rights Act) to reflect the will of the people. When it’s not large enough to do that, don’t use an activist court as an end-around the legislative process.
Stashiu3 (404f9e) — 10/19/2006 @ 7:37 amThe fate of Major John André is a pretty good indicator of where the leaders and opinion shapers of the late 18th Century stood on unlawful combatants. They regretted, as they said, the necessity, for André was, but for the one lapse, an honourable man.
Not one of Stashiu’s recent patients conducted himself as honourably as the late Major André. Not one of them deserves a better fate. For reasons known not to me, the leaders and opinion makers of the early 21st Century have chosen to extend to them more privileges and rights than their sort have been offered heretofore, anywhere, ever.
The detainees (and former detainees, given our ill-advised “catch and release” policy) have in no case returned to farm or field, but instead have in every case resumed the activities for which they found themselves hooded and transported before. The only exception I know of is a handful who were so grievously wounded pre-detention, as to lose their ability to maim and kill.
A rational response to Islamic terrorism would be to exploit the terrorists as long as they might be useful to defeat their brethren, then dispose of them — as the UK did with German agents during World War II. Most of the Nazi spies were superior human beings in every measure to the sweepings of Afghanistan’s battlefield that are even now plotting to attack their guards in Guantanamo Bay, but no advocate spoke for them and no one in Britain or the US mourned their receipt of the spy’s reward. The verdict of histor is, pretty much: they had it coming.
The argument to extend the legal rights of criminal suspects to captured terrorists is equivalent of demanding Endangered Species Act protection for Variola Major. It is a position that is legalistic to the point of suicidal irrationality.
Lacking Stashiu’s medical education, I will not characterize that position in medical terms, but in the common vernacular, it’s nuts.
Kevin R.C. 'Hognose' O'Brien (88bf29) — 10/19/2006 @ 12:02 pm#11- Patterio refered (I’ll be dead in my grave before I add on another r) to “special rights” down here.
No one is calling for gay quotas so that’s a complete strawman. But to answer your question, if someone were to say “I’m not going to hire you because your one of thems Polacks” then the government should (and can) tell them that’s not okay. That’s not a special right. And just like they shouldn’t be able to discriminate against you, they shouldn’t be able to discriminate against gays.
Polybius (7cd3c5) — 10/19/2006 @ 12:09 pm#24 Polybius
And if they don’t say it, but I claim discrimination based on being a 5’10” Polack etc?… it’s not a strawman, it is a matter of degree. Name one thing that, by statute, gays are discriminated in. Gays can marry, they can’t marry same-sex, just like heterosexuals can’t marry same-sex. Gays can join the military, they just can’t engage in homosexual behavior without facing discharge, just like heterosexuals cannot engage in homosexual behavior without facing discharge.
If someone is a pedophile, that doesn’t mean they may engage in their preferred sexual manner or it’s discrimination. Does that mean I believe being gay should be a crime or is equivalent to pedophilia? Not at all. But until the people are allowed to vote on whether marriage should include same-sex partners (and subsequently approve it), anything else is a special right.
Which is all beside the main point of “outing” and hypocrisy (scare quotes due to lack of credible evidence it’s even true) someone for political purposes just before an election when legal recourse would come too late to matter. My point in #11 was really that out of the entire thread, you cherry-picked one phrase to hijack the thread from the ethics of outing and hypocrisy to gay rights/same-sex marriage.
Why not comment on the post instead? Does it mean someone who is gay/black and votes against same-sex marriage/affirmative action, out of their own convictions, or as a representative of their constituents, is a hypocrite? Or are they required to stand in line with the radical elements of their own group, regardless of their own convictions or those of their constituents, lest they be accused of hypocrisy?
I would also note that even if the “outing” were true, and it was hypocritical to vote against the radical element’s wishes, the attempt to extort that behavior implies that being gay should affect the way someone does their job. I’m not sure I’ve seen that point made before, but I do find it interesting.
Stashiu3 (404f9e) — 10/19/2006 @ 1:27 pmIt all comes down to the same thing in the end: think as I think, or else.
Y’know, the “tolerance” thing.
Mike (390d41) — 10/19/2006 @ 1:46 pmMike, that’s hitting the nail on the head sir. Their attitude is “I am identifying myself as part of a group you also belong to and if you don’t act in the way I think you should, you’re a hypocrite.”
Stashiu3 (404f9e) — 10/19/2006 @ 1:57 pmStashui3: I have trouble with this formulation:
Gays can join the military, they just can’t engage in homosexual behavior without facing discharge, just like heterosexuals cannot engage in homosexual behavior without facing discharge.
To my eyes, the situation is this:
Gays can join the military, they just can’t engage in any sexual behavior they wish to engage in, unlike heterosexuals, who can join the military and engage in certain kinds of sexual behavior they wish to engage in.
Not being allowed to engage in homosexual behavior has a *completely* different effect on those who are homosexual than it does on those who are heterosexual, and to claim that they are equivalent is, IMO, to completely miss the point.
(That said, I think your point in #27 is spot-on: much of the support for this kind of thing in the gay community comes from a misguided sense of tribalism. In the minds of many gay people, gays who don’t support gay rights are traitors to the tribe.)
aphrael (e0cdc9) — 10/19/2006 @ 2:34 pmSteve, in #12:
Where in the Constitution does it expressly provide for the right to a fair trial? Answer: It doesn’t.
Amendment VI to the US Constitution:
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.
Amendment VII to the US Constitution:
In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.
——–
You’re right, I suppose, if you’re saying that the word “fair” isn’t in that formulation. But I think that those amendments pretty clearly lay down what is meant by the term “fair trial” as we understand it.
aphrael (e0cdc9) — 10/19/2006 @ 2:41 pmaphrael:
I also have trouble with it, but it is technically true as stated. The reason I brought it up was to short-circuit the whole “Gays in the military” argument as that relates to policy and I can’t really go there with my own opinion until after I retire. I can bring up my personal opinions while talking to my chain-of-command, but airing opinions on public policy while on active-duty is usually inappropriate. If he had used that as an example of discrimination, I would have been precluded from responding whether I concede the point or not.
On your response to Steve, I also added Amendment V by reasoning that if required to incriminate yourself, you are not necessarily getting a fair trial. “Misguided sense of tribalism”… very well-spoken and I agree. It applies to much more and explains a lot of the divisiveness we see today. A “well-guided sense of tribalism” would balance opposing views more objectively. I’ve never heard it expressed in that way and think it captures what I was trying to say in a much better fashion. Thank you.
Stashiu3 (404f9e) — 10/19/2006 @ 3:46 pmPolybius wrote:
One wonders how often prospective employers tell applicants, “I’m not going to hire you because you’re one of them (fill in the blank).
In the real world, cases of discrimination are made because an employer doesn’t have enough (fill in the blanks), and someone figures that he wuz robbed and deserved the job — and can get money for not getting the job and punish the bad ol’ employer to boot! They don’t have to prove that person X was not hired because he, personally, was discriminated against because he was a (fill in the blank), as opposed to the fact he was picking his nose during the interview.
You might not think that anyone is calling for a (fill in the blank) quota, but since numbers of whatever accredited victim group are what matters as evidence, a de facto quota system already exists.
Dana (1d5902) — 10/19/2006 @ 3:46 pmIf you add sexual orientation, the 5′10″ Polack minority will want to be protected as well. – Stashiu3
I haven’t heard recently of a guy walking into a bar, asking the bartender, “is this a Polak place” and randomly opening fire. (See: New Bedford, Roanoke, et.al.)
Institutional classism and “special treatment” are not abstractions in the services. Gays are singled out as potential detriments to unit cohesion – not because of what they do but who they say they are and what they “might” do.
True, there’s nothing hypocritical about voting for the Defense of Marriage Act and being gay. Or bi. Or curious. The group outing Senator Craig wants straights supporting gay marriage rights to be liberated from stigma, scorn and slur. But gays are not allowed to consult their conscience without risking those same censures.
That’s hypocrisy.
steve (8e37ec) — 10/19/2006 @ 3:53 pmStashui3: The reason I brought it up was to short-circuit the whole “Gays in the military” argument as that relates to policy and I can’t really go there with my own opinion until after I retire. I can bring up my personal opinions while talking to my chain-of-command, but airing opinions on public policy while on active-duty is usually inappropriate. If he had used that as an example of discrimination, I would have been precluded from responding whether I concede the point or not.
I respect your position and thank you for your candor. 🙂
aphrael (e0cdc9) — 10/19/2006 @ 3:55 pmYour comparison does not work. A better example would be:
“If a Republican were to vote against allowing blacks in teh military, would it make him a hypocrite if someone could show he was truly black?”
Um – Yes! It would make him a hypocrite.
“If a Republican were to vote for against inter-racial marriage, would it make him a hypocrite if someone could show he was truly black?”
Um – Yes!
“If a Republican were to in favor of internment of Japanese people, would it make him a hypocrite if someone could show he was truly Japanese?”\
Um – Yes!
Downtown Lad (d1ab59) — 10/19/2006 @ 5:31 pm“Gays can join the military, they just can’t engage in any sexual behavior they wish to engage in, unlike heterosexuals, who can join the military and engage in certain kinds of sexual behavior they wish to engage in.”
False.
Gays cannot join in the military, even if they vow to remain celibate. Don’t believe me. Then go to your local army recruiting station and tell them you would like to sign up, but you are gay and celibate. You will be turned away.
In fact – the military has an active witchhunt underway to try and find out the sexual orientation of their members. They are reading friendster and facebook profiles and firing anyone who self-identifies as gay, regardless of their “behavior”.
Three gay members of the military were recently imprisoned for having sex. They were jailed for three months.
Are those the “special” rights you keep talking about?
Bigot.
Downtown Lad (d1ab59) — 10/19/2006 @ 5:34 pm#34 and #35 Downtown Lad
So if a black Nation of Islam member were to vote against inter-racial marriage, would that make him a hypocrite? No, because they don’t believe in inter-racial marriage. Your first two examples would not be examples of hypocrisy and none of them are likely. Name a Republican that would vote for any of those things.
And who are you calling a bigot? The quote you used was not from me, so you think aphrael is a bigot? That is ignorant to an extreme and you would be completely wrong. If you meant me (since I made the points about special rights for gays), that’s not my quote. However, you are wrong about gays entering the military. They cannot identify themselves as being gay (Don’t ask, don’t tell), but they may serve.
You don’t know anything about my views on gays in the military and have nothing to base a claim of bigotry upon (kind of like the subject of this thread, thank you for the example). I have stayed completely away from policy and emphasized that several times. Now, should I have to defend myself against your words, or should you have to have proof before spouting off? What do you have to support your claim. Careful now, you don’t know much about me, my race, my family, the community I live in, what I do outside my military duties, etc… All you could possibly have is something posted on this or any other blog, so it should be easy to link. Or is this attack as baseless as most of your other posts?
Stashiu3 (404f9e) — 10/19/2006 @ 6:10 pmStash,
paul from fl (967602) — 10/19/2006 @ 7:23 pmDowntown lad exhibits the baseline belief system we find with the leftist/liberal mindset. You were expressing a divergent opinion and you get labeled (wrongly, also very typical) a bigot. This whole politcal discourse is becoming predictable and formulaic. I am questioning why we even bother. Is there someway we could get liberals to engage in a mature discussion?
Paul,
There are several who do, aphrael is a good example, among many others. To be fair, there are several wingnut trolls that frequent lefty sites and pee on the carpet there (although they are banned much more frequently than trolls inhabiting right-sided blogs). When I see them, I am embarrassed that they even claim to be part of the same group I am. I usually give two or three responses to a troll… if they don’t start to play nice and use some critical thinking, I just respond with “Ignoring trollish behavior” and try not to feed them. They usually claim that I have no response to their devastating logic and am afraid to continue being embarrassed. I respond again with “Ignoring trollish behavior”. Responding to personal attacks and deliberately provoking mischaracterizations only feeds into their narcissism even more. Letting them fade from the spotlight makes them seek out another bridge to set up house under and fling their feces.
Stashiu3 (404f9e) — 10/19/2006 @ 7:38 pmDowntown Lad, with respect to #35: you assume a very high burden of proof when you argue that someone who is *in the military* is wrong about what the rules which apply to the military are, and you have not met that burden of proof.
For what it’s worth, in case you are unwilling to believe Stashui3, i’ve been assured by my brother, who has served in the Army in both Afghanistan and Iraq, that I could serve in the army as long as I remained celibate and didn’t call attention to my homosexuality, and that he *knows* people in the army who are obviously gay and nobody really gives a ****.
aphrael (12fba5) — 10/19/2006 @ 10:57 pmStashiu: When I see them, I am embarrassed that they even claim to be part of the same group I am.
This is why I can’t frequent sites like dKos; I end up spending more time arguing with my ideological allies whose reasoning is specious or nonexistent than anything else, if i’m there.
aphrael (12fba5) — 10/19/2006 @ 10:58 pmaphrael, For what it’s worth, in case you are unwilling to believe Stashui3, i’ve been assured by my brother, who has served in the Army in both Afghanistan and Iraq, that I could serve in the army as long as I remained celibate and didn’t call attention to my homosexuality, and that he *knows* people in the army who are obviously gay and nobody really gives a ****.
Correct. I spent 25 years as an Army warrant officer and I concur with your statement and your brother’s take. All we care about in the military is whether you do your job well or not. The point in my mind is that your sexuality is a private matter. I feel the same about heterosexuals by the way. We do have women in the military these days so this question doesn’t involve only those who might be gay.
DL, you’re arguing from a false dichotomy. Of course you can’t go to a recruiter and announce you’re gay. Bill Clinton established the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy for the military that remains today. There is no “witch hunt”. If you’re in the military you have to live by the rules.
By the way, you do understand that we court marshal officers and NCOs for adultery and for fraternization, do you not? It’s a different culture that I wouldn’t expect a civilian to understand. Whether heterosexual or homosexual, the standard is whether your conduct affects good order and discipline.
Harry Arthur (b318a5) — 10/21/2006 @ 7:41 amDL, Three gay members of the military were recently imprisoned for having sex. They were jailed for three months. Please read #39 & #41, then address the context of the “imprisoned for having sex” comment. Having trouble with “nuance”?
Harry Arthur (b318a5) — 10/21/2006 @ 7:44 am