Another anti-gay Republican turns out to be a hypocrite.

I know, I know: Big surprise! Right?

The California Highway Patrol pulled over Senator Roy Ashburn at 2:00 a.m. Wednesday after an officer noticed a black Chevy Tahoe swerving at 13th and L Streets.

Ashburn, a father of four, is a Republican Senator representing parts of Kern, Tulare and San Bernardino Counties with a history of opposing gay rights

When the officer stopped the state-issued vehicle, the driver identified himself as Senator Ashburn. He was arrested without incident and charged with two misdemeanors: driving under the influence and driving with a blood alcohol level higher than .08% or higher.

A male passenger, who was not identified as a lawmaker, was also in the car but was not detained.

via Anti-Gay Lawmaker At Gay Club Before DUI Arrest – cbs13.com.

It only lends more credence to the stereotype that those who are most vehemently anti-gay in their politics are also most likely to be deep in the closet.

The California state Senator has already released an apology:

“I am deeply sorry for my actions and offer no excuse for my poor judgment. I accept complete responsibility for my conduct and am prepared to accept the consequences for what I did. I am also truly sorry for the impact this incident will have on those who support and trust me – my family, my constituents, my friends, and my colleagues in the Senate.”

So now the question becomes: Will he slink away into shameful obscurity or will he change his mind in a day or two and try to claim he’s actually straight and was there offering Christian counseling to the lost souls in attendance? Perhaps he’ll try to blame it all on the booze. “I was so drunk,” he’ll say, “That I didn’t realize I was smoking cock! I thought it was a cigar!”

It all depends on how much self-loathing he has for himself whether he’ll take this opportunity to stop living a lie and embrace who he really is.

14 thoughts on “Another anti-gay Republican turns out to be a hypocrite.

  1. Is there a website that chronicles this kind of thing? Homophobes who get caught putting from the rough, family values types who have affairs, fiscal conservatives who consistently vote for spending, anti-welfare people who give welfare to corporations, and hawks who never served?

    That last category has a site about chickenhawks, but I wonder if there’s a master compendium.

  2. As a former inmate of Tulare and Kern counties, I am laughing my ass off. Lots of reasonable, politically centrist folks live there,(especially the younger generations) but there is also a huge amount of far-right bigoted religious wackaloons, including a pretty big amount of creationist fundie baptists, seventh-day adventists, mormons, and hardcore conservative catholics, all of which are constantly on the anti-gay, anti-women, anti-sex warpath.
    Of course, not one of them will use this as a chance to reflect on their own prejudices, but at least we might get to watch them rip apart and sacrifice one of their own.

  3. He was probably just doing some research on a bill he is writing to BAN GAY BARS in Sacramento???
    😉

    Peace.

  4. “Will he slink away into shameful obscurity or will he change his mind in a day or two and try to claim he’s actually straight and was there offering Christian counseling to the lost souls in attendance?”

    Are you kidding? Why do you think the whole thing about “curing homosexuality” was created in the first place if not to allow public figures a “get back into the closet free” card? They can’t afford to get kicked out of their churches, their families, and they’ve got to have a way for their voters not to feel guilty about continuing to vote for them.

    It’s a really nice revolving door for Republicans.

  5. Maybe I am missing something, but other than the main story that stated he was “leaving Faces, a gay nightclub”, I see no evidence of homosexual activity. Years ago, I wandered into a lesbian bar in Detroit and I am not a lesbian.

    While I am never surprised at the hypocrisy of politicians or theists, maybe we should give a little slack here. He might have been so drunk that he didn’t know what bar he was in. I know that sounds improbable, but without corroborating evidence to the contrary, I think fairness says to give him a pass on the gay part but lean heavily on him for the DUI.

  6. Even if we accept your proposal that he was just too drunk to know where he was, well, that doesn’t exactly improve his image any. He goes from being a hypocritical homosexual to a chronic alcoholic with memory issues. Not exactly a step up on the morality meter.

  7. Les, I agree. Even if you dismiss the homosexual allegations as unprovable and not a crime, well maybe in Texas. 😉 Driving drunk is criminally irresponsible, even in Texas. Also, no one makes you get drunk. That’s a choice and apparently, a lifestyle. So there are a lot of differences. One is a crime and provable, the other is not, although horribly hypocritical. But “hypocritical politician”, isn’t that a redundancy? Like “moral politician” is an oxymoron.

  8. Como vai, James? Perhaps you recognize my gravitar. It is the logo of Istituto de Estudos Orientais do Brasil. As you mentioned, driving drunk IS a choice and a lifestyle, as well as a crime. For the “fundies”, however, being a closet homosexual is far more damning. Pity, that.

    😉

    Peace.

  9. Bom dia leguru. Tudo bom? I agree about being a closet homosexual. More likely though, is that he is bisexual. To the fundies, I think that will be just as “bad”. I wonder how he will try to wiggle out of this one? Maybe we should form a betting pool? I suspect he will run to the arms of a rehabilitation clinic claiming alcoholism with mental black outs so he can say, “I have no independent memory of those events.” Yes, that’s an old tired line but it has often worked in the past. Besides, the fundies are accustomed to believing what they want to believe and ignoring the most obvious facts.

  10. A male passenger, who was not identified as a lawmaker, was also in the car but was not detained.

    I believe this corroborates what he may have been doing in a gay bar.

    He might have been so drunk that he didn’t know what bar he was in. I know that sounds improbable, but without corroborating evidence to the contrary, I think fairness says to give him a pass on the gay part but lean heavily on him for the DUI.

    I still agree in leaning heavily on him for the DUI, but feel in all fairness he doesn’t deserve a pass on the homosexual issue.

    Peace.

  11. I really do agree that he doesn’t deserve a pass on anything. I was only speaking from a legalistic view. If the homosexual issue were still a crime, there would not be sufficient evidence to indict, much less convict him.

    As it is, I think it will be a case of, “Luuucccyyy, you got some ‘splainin’ to do!”

    The fun part will be seeing exactly what nonsense he spouts and whether his wife and constituents buy it. I suspect they will. As I said, theists are accustomed to believing what makes them feel good, no matter what the evidence to the contrary.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.