Thursday, October 13, 2005

John Aravosis: Closet Right Wing Nut

John Aravosis is a member of the swelling (no pun intended) ranks of so-called progressives intent on engaging in juvenile, accusatory speculation about the sexual orientation of certain people. Namely, Republicans.

If I understand John's position correctly, it is that because a portion of the Republican Party (OK, a large portion) opposes equality for gays, then the sexual orientation of ALL conservatives is fair game. And furthermore, being single is prima facie evidence that one is gay. Sure, John denies that he's accusing Harriet Miers of being gay because she's never married, but in fact that's precisely what he's doing here when he says

This week President Bush’s second Supreme Court nominee, Harriet Miers,
joined the swelling ranks of high-powered Republicans with, um—how to put
it?—ambiguous sexual orientations.

John assures his readers that he's not calling Miers's sexual orientation into question because she's single:

Miers, 61, has never been married, has no kids, doesn’t appear to have any
serious love interests, and has a special place in her heart for softball. Does
that make her a lesbian? Of course not.

But he offers no proof, none, of the alleged ambiguity of her sexual orientation. I can only conclude that he is indeed suggesting that her single status "makes her a lesbian." *

And, to use John's coy parlance: um - how to put this? - what the hell would John Aravosis know about female sexuality anyway? I would venture to say, not a fucking thing.

It might be different if Harriet Miers had a history of opposing equal rights for gay people. But that's not the case. Harriet Miers has NOT been a vocal opponent of gay rights nor is there any indication that she's a lesbian (NTTAWWT, of course). Her crime is to be single and Republican. Personally, I can forgive her, in fact I rather admire her, for the "single" part but not the Republican part. Nevertheless, unless she's muff-diving by night and gay-baiting by day, I think wink-wink-nudge-nudge innuendo about her sexuality is just as repugnant as the White House's wink-wink-nudge-nudge-I-promise-you-she's-the-right-kind-of-Christian innuendo. I wholeheartedly support full equal rights for gays, but bullshit like John's really throws me off. I really can't think of anything more puerile, more third-grade, than making sniggering innuendos that a woman (or man; I've seen this kind of crap directed at Lindsey Graham) is gay just because she isn't married.

The fact that a person is single doesn't mean that he's gay. Any more than, as we should all know, the fact that a person is married doesn't make him straight. NTTAWWT.

Personally, while I have nothing against parents as a rule - shoot, I have two of them myself - I find single politicians a refreshing change from the likes of the Mark Sanfords and the John Robertses with their perfect wives and cute little children, always ready to be trotted out for a cloying camera tableau when Daddy's running for office or vying for a Supreme Court position.

Oh, and yes, you guessed it, I am single, albeit MUCH younger than Harriet. MUCH. MUCH. (I'm only 59). But being single doesn't make me gay, most of the time. When people ask me why I'm not married I tell them, because he hasn't asked yet. And neither has she.

*Unless he thinks it's the softball thing that makes her gay. Huh. Now that I think about it, maybe she IS gay. 'Cause softball is for DYKES!


This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?