Sexual Confusion On Capitol Hill
By: Bob Parks
Itâ€™s easy to join the Mark Foley pile-on. What he did was wrong but does his treatment fit the crime? I think not. Please let me elaborateâ€¦.
Going back a few years, we all remember how the Boy Scouts of America were run out of most public buildings. National sponsors abandoned a group that did nothing but teach young boys how to be good men; lessons some could really use nowadays.
They were tossed because the organization didnâ€™t think a homosexual male taking young boys into the woods was a good idea. Even though homophobia was alleged, the logic was sound. Iâ€™m sure many would have a problem with some scruffy-looking, pot-bellied male taking young girls into the woods. The reasoning was that as there was that potential that young girls could sexually arouse a man and that situation should be avoided.
But gay activists, along with their tolerance-screaming allies on the left, alienated the Boy Scouts. They were called intolerant. Little Boy Scouts were picketed and scorned. They could no longer meet after school in public buildings. As young boys may arouse a gay male, that logic was called homophobia and the Scouts bore the brunt.
It was the heterosexual response that was to blame. The gay scoutmasters sued nationwide and were the latest victims of conservative bigotry.
For more than a decade, Catholic priests have been under scrutiny as hundreds of mostly young males charged Fathers with sexual misconduct. While the left was very careful to vilify the Church, they stayed clear of one glaring consistency: the priests were male as were their victims. The lust was obviously homosexual in nature, but that was the last aspect of the crimes to be explored.
Now donâ€™t get me wrong. Unjustified persecution of any group is wrong, but when certain character traits of perpetrators are overlooked, thatâ€™s just one more topic for people like me to explore.
This is about consistency.
So now we have the Mark Foley controversy on Capitol Hill. National and local newscasts are pushing the â€œRepublicanâ€ aspect of the case; however when the similarities between Foley are brought up against, letâ€™s say Barney Frank, his being a Democrat is seldom mentioned. It is an election year. With Senate and Congressional seats up for grabs and the reigns of power in play, we can see that selective persecution is political.
Mark Foleyâ€™s actions are now in the fish bowl, but itâ€™s Republicans who are taking most of the heat. The Washington Times has now called for Speaker Dennis Hastertâ€™s resignation as itâ€™s becoming another â€œwhat did they know and when did they know itâ€ episodic.
While thatâ€™s a valid question, was political correctness an issue here?
For years, many people knew Mark Foley had a â€œproblemâ€. Many of the congressional pages knew that Foley was a potential predator. Some had even saved Instant Messenger conversations as their own soiled blue dress insurance policies. Yet, if the Republican leadership took action against Foley before ABC broke the story, would they be called heroes or homophobes?
What should be done about this?
Of course the leadership is taking the correct measures and accepted the immediate resignation of Foley, but is this the tip of the iceberg? Surely some must have learned the lessons of Barney Frank, Gary Studds, and Bill Clinton. Young people come to Capitol Hill to learn about politics first-hand, not to get their salads tossed. Parents send their kids to gain personal experience in the lawmaking process, not how to circumnavigate sexual overtures by people who have the power to destroy
careers and bank accounts defending their young victims.
But has anyone noticed that very few in the media have looked at this for what it is? How many news reports have used the word â€œhomosexualâ€? Again, I find myself declaring that this is not gay bashing, but just pointing out the facts as theyâ€™re presented.
Until deviant gay behavior is handled without the kid gloves, weâ€™ll have more people whoâ€™ll prey on others with impunity.
Here in Massachusetts, gay groups distributed the â€œLittle Black Bookâ€ that, among other things, tells young boys where to go a meet other gay males. You know, places like adult gay bars, even though the book was given to middle and high schoolers.
Whenever we hear about men luring young boys to meeting places via the Internet, weâ€™re seldom told the sexual orientation of that predator. Yet, when men abduct and sexually assault young girls, their faces are plastered on our television sets, their backgrounds are picked apart, and they are justifiably vilified. And when a young gay man commits a similar act, heâ€™s given front-page treatment, but the vilification is minimal. Just ask John Mark Karr. While itâ€™s assumed, has anyone delved deep and billboarded his sexual preferences?
Mark Foley is receiving a fraction of the condemnation he would be receiving if he were a heterosexual male and we werenâ€™t around forty days from a national election. The Republican Party is being indicted because they didnâ€™t save Foley from himself years ago.
If the Party busted Foley before ABCâ€™s Brian Ross posted the damning IMâ€™s, they would have been called homophobes and racists as we are so close to an election, and such name-calling is standard operating procedure for Democrats.
Should Foley have resigned? Yes. Should the Speaker of the House as well? Some say yes as wellâ€¦.
According to an October 3 Washington Times editorial, â€œHouse Speaker Dennis Hastert must do the only right thing, and resign his speakership at once. Either he was grossly negligent for not taking the red flags fully into account and ordering a swift investigation, for not even remembering the order of events leading up to last week’s revelations — or he deliberately looked the other way in hopes that a brewing scandal would simply blow away. He gave phony answers Friday to the old and ever-relevant questions of what did he know and when did he know it? Mr. Hastert has forfeited the confidence of the public and his party, and he cannot preside over the necessary coming investigation, an investigation that must examine his own inept performance.â€
If that were the case, then weâ€™d better bust people equally. And as there are over 400 elected, power-tripping politicians on Capitol Hill, to say that Foley is the lone wolf is naÃ¯ve. If we are to clean House, then we need to clean the whole house.
If the sexual malfeasance will be political, then it should be political for all. If itâ€™s more of a crime for a politician to prey upon a subordinate of the opposite sex, then make the rule and stick by it. However, as predatory behavior is a crime regardless of sexual orientation or party affiliation, then treatment must be equal.
When Barney Frank was busted for practically running a gay brothel out of his Washington, D.C. pad, no one called for the Democrat leadership to resign. Frank was hung out to temporarily dry, and his sexuality was an afterthought.
So now is Foleyâ€™s.
I hope the rules are made clear and soon. I look for consistency. That may be futile when it comes to the mainstream media, but this story is a nice diversion for the Democrats. No talk of Hugo Chavez, Bob Woodward, al Qaeda, national security, or Bill Clinton for a week or so. Now, we can all spend our time imagining what Foley was going to do once alone with those young pages. Talk about an â€œewwwâ€ moment.
The media would like us to envision this vile activity with a GOP banner hanging in the background. I wonder what theyâ€™d do if that banner were a rainbow flag?
Looking the other way, just like theyâ€™re doing now.
Bob Parks is a member/writer for the National Advisory Council of Project 21, and VP of Marketing and Media Relations/Staff Writer for the New Media Alliance, Inc.