This is an AP story that ran today in either the NY Times or the Washington Post. Here is a link to the article in SFGATE.com.

Schrock, 63, cited unspecified allegations in a statement he released Monday as the reason he decided not to seek a third term for Congress. He said the claims “have called into question my ability to represent the citizens of Virginia’s Second Congressional District.”

The release said Schrock, a retired Navy officer and Vietnam veteran, would not comment further on his decision, nor did he comment specifically on the claims.

Claims that Schrock is gay were posted on a Web log Aug. 19 by Michael Rogers, who said his blog is aimed at exposing “hypocrites” in Congress.

I believe this is the group I’ve heard about that is outing gays who are, in some manner, working against gay rights. They best be right.

This oufit also intends to go against staffers. I have mixed thoughts about that aspect of their campaign. (Clock running class convenes in 15 minutes.)

It couldn’t have happened to a nicer guy.  I really want to see more lawmakers being held accountable and called on the carpet when they’re being hypocritical but I’m not sure I agree with the methodology behind this group that outed him.  It just seems like something GW would would do. 

Tom Gordy, Schrock’s Chief of Staff, did confirm that these allegations are the reason for his retirement.  It will be interesting to see what type of back-spin the Repubs can put on this one.

I’m less than enthused about outing folks who choose to be closeted—after all, “what goes on behind closed doors is nobody’s business” is a tenet of much of the gay rights movement, and I don’t think any of us want our own phone calls (or kinks) aired to the public.

That said, it serves the bastard right.

Les you do get around don’t you!! ***Dave yes what we do in Private should be private! But this %$#@!&*
was a cheerleader for The Patriot Act something our children and grandchildren will be calling us out on
not to mention his hypocritical stance on alternate lifestyles. I have always abstained from running for public office because I really did have a let us say Lost Years! How can these people show their faces in public?  I am of to bed, its midnight here.
Have a great day!LJ

I’m with ***Dave in that I don’t normally advocate outing anyone who doesn’t want to be whether it involves them being gay or atheist, but I think this is a rare exception to the rule.

Consider if I were running for office and hiding my atheism while publicly presenting myself as the most pious Christian around. I spend a great deal of time condemning atheists and their viewpoint and working to ensure that any legislation that would be at all advantageous to them, even if it’s just leveling the playing field, is defeated. If it were found out I was actually an atheist there’d be little hesitation in bringing this information to light and criticizing the hell out of me for trying to pretend I’m something that I’m not. My integrity and honesty would be rightfully called into question.

In short, the fact that Schrock’s private actions are related to and in direct conflict with his public actions justifies the invasion of his privacy and revealing the truth to his constituents.

I received the most audacious response to this story this morning from a Christian family member.

He replied that now that Schrock doesn’t have the pressure of politics he won’t seek the outside temptations of Satan and will be able to focus on getting his heart right with God.  HE also said that he did the right thing by going against gay rights and sticking with God because Republicans know how to seek forgiveness from God whereas liberals are doomed to seek forgiveness from man.

It’s great having neocon wackos in the family.

captcha = ‘house’ At least I’m not in the same house with them.

*groan*

Par for the course for Christian apologetics.

It will be interesting to see what type of back-spin the Repubs can put on this one.

So far they appear to be handling it with a minimum of comment. Yesterday afternoon CNN (Woodruff), in three or four sentences, reported ‘here’s what happened’. FNC carried the story in the scroll. Since I have a very low tolerance for Fox, I don’t know what they might have said in the evening.

This article in the Miami Herald covers the GOP’s nomination of Thelma Drake, a state delegate, as replacement candidate. Here is part of Drake’s statement

Asked whether she thought Schrock made the right decision by stepping down, Drake said, “Ed made his decision for this district and for this seat.”

Because of the allegations, she said, the media would have turned the campaign into a “food fight” rather than allowing the candidates to talk about the issues.

She clearly must disapprove of how the Swift Boat controversy has been distracting from the discussion issues.

ED SCHROCK SUCKS COCK!

Thanks for the link to theChristian Coalition of America.

They have some very good objectives.

Not like it was hard to find previously. Nice attempt at comment trolling, though.

I disagree on this.  I don’t mind that this man voted against certain gay “issues”.  He had every right to see things independently… and if he votes against these so called “rights” that gay men seem to think of as a panecea, then that’s his business.  I needn’t agree with him, yet as an elected official his decisions were his own… Just because its suddenly found that he slept with a man is no big deal at all.  It’s funny when gay men find out about this, they mirror the ignorance of their straight counterparts who they are desperately trying to court.

The issues wasn’t independent thought it was hypocrisy. Look very simple: He was a gay man who disliked and discriminated against gays. Hypocrisy. Simmple enough visible?

I know this is an old topic but I ran across it and felt the need to comment.