> supporting a ban on gay marriage, it's hard to find much sympathy for him if the charges are in fact true.

So your point is that by default every homosexual must support gay marriage? By that logic all heterosexuals must, by default, oppose it.

I with you on the rest of it, though.

I wonder how long it's going to take folks like Markos to wrap their heads around the idea that people can enjoy having sex with other people of the same gender and still be opposed to the changing the definition of marriage.

These folks will probably use the term "hypocrite." Which just shows that they don't get it.

Just that, if you're an active but closeted homosexual and working against a cause that a lot of homosexuals find self-defining, it's not surprising if they "out" you.

It is rather hypocritical to run as a family values Republican while leading a sleazy secondary existence, however.

Does seem a bit strange, though...
IN the case of Bubba Clinton, Democrats were complaining that his personal life was exactly that, and shouldn't enter into any discussion on fitness for office. Yet yet in a case like this, those judhgements are given the heave ho.

As I say... strange how that works

The Virginian-Pilot story linked by Drudge (and on my blog) has more details of how the whole situation evolved over the past 2 weeks.

On the surface, you are correct. However, it's not necessarily hypocrisy unless he was secretly asking men to marry him.

We should all have the freedom to espouse the values we believe in--even when we may not be able to live up to them perfectly.

Of course, the libertarian in me is delighted that we may finally have to recognize how widespread homosexuality is--and make some sort of allowance for it, whether that means marriage or something else. Neither Democrats nor Republicans should have to lead double lives.

I have to agree with Attila Girl on that one.

But if he's running on family values and committing adultery, that is hypocritical (no matter who he commits adultery with).

D.M.:

Your logic does not come close to my Earth-logic. Even if that's what James had been saying, the extension is that heterosexuals must support heterosexual marriage, which is not mutually exclusive.

The exposure of Ed Shrock as a secret homosexual must be tough for his wife and chldren. Keeping this kind of secret was the wrong choice to make. His choice to quit the race and give up his office is another wrong choice. His personal life does not necesarrily have to impact his public life. This is something he should have let the people of Virginia decide. Clinton proved that personal weaknesses can be forgiven by the public. It helped, of course, that Clinton besides being a weak man was a strong president.

dc,

If that is indeed him on the tape, he has zero chance of re-election in Virginia. Maybe in Barney Frank's district but not in the South.

I don't live in VA, but it seems to me that Schrock is a political figure who chose to make anti-gay positions a political policy with impacts on people throughout the country. Outing him is political news and important because it directly calls into question his motivations on public policy.. just like taking a bribe or ownership in a company would. Are you saying if Mrs. Bush had a secret abortion and W wants to make it illegal in all cases it wouldn't be news worthy? This is different than Clinton's private life. He wasn't trying to change the Constitution to ban cigars.

This is the second time I had to post. Guess freedom of speech doesn't exist here. Guess it is the Republican way "Freedom of speech, as long as we agree"