Is Aaron Schock really the victim here?

Is Aaron Schock a victim of bullying?

There’s a rather odd allegation being made, in some circles, that anti-gay Republican congressman Aaron Schock is a victim of “bullying” because many critics, myself included, are openly questioning Schock’s sexual orientation.  I did it in a punny way, poking fun at his rather-gay Instagram posts, while others were more direct.

Schock’s response, immediately locking down his Instagram account and no longer “following” newly-out 19 year old Olympic diver Tom Daley, only added fuel to the flames.  As did the news that a gay personal trainer with a rather racy Twitter feed, whose tweets were favorited by Schock more than anyone else’s, suddenly deleted his account yesterday after his Twitter relationship with Schock was mentioned in a story.

While some call it “outing,” I’d call it “questioning.” I don’t know if Aaron Schock is straight or gay.  I do know, however, that he’s virulently anti-gay and sets off my rather-reliable gaydar, repeatedly and often.  And that troubles me.  It’s bad enough for any member of Congress to be anti-gay.  Anti-gay members of Congress not only harm the gay community legislatively, but they also harm us culturally, and physically.  Anti-gay members of Congress help to buttress, and feed, a culture of homophobia in this country that harms gay youth (and all of us) in a very real way, including many youth who either consider, try, or succeed in committing suicide.

aaron-schock-plaid-pants-smalkerBut when you add in the fact that an anti-gay legislator is actually gay, the offense is multiplied.  While all members of Congress should “know better” when it comes to not legislating bigotry, gay members of Congress in fact do know better.  They are legislative liars and hypocrites for condemning an evil they know doesn’t exist.

But there’s another offense, possibly far worse.  Many anti-gay gays in politics are out to their congressional colleagues – sometimes directly, though oftentimes with a nudge and wink.  By voting anti-gay, gay members of Congress send a message that it’s fine to be and vote anti-gay – after all, even the gay guy does it.

Aaron Schock has a 100% anti-gay voting record. He voted against adding sexual orientation to the already-existing hate crimes law, against the repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, he opposes the repeal of the anti-gay Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), opposes the passage of the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (that would protect gay and trans people from being fired simply because of who they are), opposes marriage equality, and at one point even supported adding language to the United States Constitution that would not only ban gay marriage, but possibly revoke every gay rights law in the country.

That hasn’t stopped a number of gays from embracing their own version of the Stockholm Syndrome, in which the bully becomes the victim, and the actual victim… well, they appear to not give too much thought to the actual victim.

Buzzfeed provides a good example of the argument:

[A] group of several gay journalists and activists on Twitter — including Dan SavageMichelangelo SignorileJohn Aravosis and Josh Barro — have decided that mocking Schock for exhibiting stereotypically gay attributes, like caring about his clothes and body, or following Daley on Instagram is the way of dealing with him. This is the same sort of behavior that the same people have said is harmful when it happens to closeted LGBT kids in schools. And, when I look at this happening publicly, I know that those closeted kids could be seeing it too. If it’s harmful for those kids to see athletes say anti-LGBT things, how isn’t it harmful for them to see prominent out people teasing Schock for his pants?

I’m pretty sure gay kids who are being bullied aren’t looking to Aaron Schock and his 100% anti-gay voting record for validation. Nor do they take comfort from those who would compare their plight of being beaten up in school to a man who jets around the world and dines at the White House, while relegating them to second-class citizenship.

aaron-schock-pool-shirtlessYou really have to stretch the truth to portray the deputy whip of the Republican majority in the United States House of Representatives as some kind of defenseless victim. One hopes that there’s a slight difference in the emotional maturity and vulnerability of a closeted gay 15 year old living in Alabama and a 32 year old sitting member of Congress.  One expects the congressman to have thicker skin, especially when that member of Congress has chosen to live in the public eye with a zero percent voting record on gay civil rights issues.

But even if one were to buy the strained comparison between mocking the sexual orientation of a 15 year old child and exposing the hypocrisy of a 32 year old politician, let’s consider the relative culpability of the two.  A 15 year old has no choice in attending high school, and shouldn’t be put in a position of fearing such attendance as, among other reasons, it’s considered a societal good that children be educated.  We also don’t tend to endorse the notion that children should be beaten up, either mentally or physically. Children are considered our most vulnerable citizens, and they need and deserve our protection.

As for members of Congress? Not so much.

aaron-schock-white-house-clothesBut there’s a larger issue of culpability as concerns the anti-gay gay politician.  If a congressman is so ashamed of being gay, and so ashamed of anyone finding out that he’s gay, that he’s psychologically damaged by the thought of someone poking fun at his awfully-gay pants, then perhaps running for national office as a member of a party that officially detests gays, and then once in office taking a 100% anti-gay stance on the issues, which only makes you even more of a target, isn’t the smartest career move.

In other words, maybe, just maybe, anti-gay gays should assume a little of that “responsibility” for their own actions, and the consequences thereof, that their party (usually Republican) always likes lecturing the rest of us about.

Maybe, just maybe, the pickle that Aaron Schock find himself in isn’t the fault of his victims, but rather himself.

(I’m told that in order to better see my Facebook posts in your feed, you need to “follow” me.)

CyberDisobedience on Substack | @aravosis | Facebook | Instagram | LinkedIn. John Aravosis is the Executive Editor of AMERICAblog, which he founded in 2004. He has a joint law degree (JD) and masters in Foreign Service from Georgetown; and has worked in the US Senate, World Bank, Children's Defense Fund, the United Nations Development Programme, and as a stringer for the Economist. He is a frequent TV pundit, having appeared on the O'Reilly Factor, Hardball, World News Tonight, Nightline, AM Joy & Reliable Sources, among others. John lives in Washington, DC. .

Share This Post

165 Responses to “Is Aaron Schock really the victim here?”

  1. Mike_in_the_Tundra says:

    Why are you googling articles about Schock? That’s the only explanation for a non-regular commenter posting in a thread that is over a month old. You’re obviously a Schock apologist.

    Personally, I wonder what is wrong with a person who would vote against their own well being. No, there is not a code requiring gay folk to vote against gay rights, but most of us are sensible.

  2. FreddiesMomma says:

    What does being gay have to do with how he votes? Is there some kind of code that requires all gay people must believe in and vote for gay rights? I am straight so… does that mean I have to be against gay rights and always vote that way? I am pretty conservative in most respects but I don’t have a problem with gay rights, legalized marijuana, gun rights etc. Do I have to be liberal to be sympathetic to gay rights and other causes? Or, do I have to turn in my conservative card because I’m o.k. with these? If Schock is gay is there some kind of code that says he has be for or against anything? I don’t understand your outrage except for the fact that he doesn’t agree with your opinion. His private life is his, regardless of how he votes. If you don’t like how he votes support someone else. But the outrage I see here because he might be gay and not support gay issues is nonsense. This is the “little brother” mentality of “I can’t get my way so you are…” fill in the blank with whatever word will hurt the most… gay, communist, racist, stinky, crazy, etc.
    Oh and BTW… He is not out screaming through a bullhorn or arguing in the press or on TV that gay rights are wrong. I have not read nor seen anything where he spoke out on these issues at all. He just hasn’t voted your way. I do not see that as “working AGAINST” the gay community.

  3. Steven Smith says:

    I couldn’t have said it better!

  4. geoffalnutt says:

    “Cornflower”? Corn Hole.

  5. geoffalnutt says:

    A closeted gay politician working AGAINST the gay community and its dignity must be outed immediately…if not sooner. If Aaron Schock fits that profile…let the games begin. Non-politicians should be left alone…though “coming out” sooner than later is always preferable. Kids need positive role-models. Never again should homosexuality be a reason for suicide. If Aaron Schock IS gay – he is actually complicit in very many deaths.

  6. geoffalnutt says:

    If the little creep is a closeted gay politician working AGAINST the gay community…then it’s open season. Shades of Ken Mehlman. It won’t flush.

  7. Palto says:

    I think this is a win-win situation. If he’s really not gay, then by removing every trace of his perceived ‘gayness’ won’t really matter to him. He’s straight right? If he is gay (I believe he is) and doesn’t own up to it, then removing the Instagram / twitter footprints along with the flashy belts, shoes, and all around fabulous gayness he so enjoys, will send him back to the stifling closet where he belongs.

    In fact he’ll now be living in a closet in the closet with all eyes on him. Good.

  8. Palto says:

    Yep, I totally agree with you Ian. Just like Jonathan Paulk. To think of all the suicides and violence he caused for the LGBT community and once he’s caught red handed with his big gay hand in the gay cookie jar he wants to make nice? I say go away never to be heard from again.

  9. Tom says:

    I guess the word “sufficiently” is the issue. Has Portman acknowledged that his anti-gay positions were hurtful to his son, and that even after his son came out to the family that Portman sacrificed him for political gain by continuing to be publicly anti-gay until suddenly he wasn’t? If turning over a new leaf included acknowledging that they caused real harm, that would be a big help. And JDH, you don’t seem bitter.
    As a former enviro activist, I can tell you you’re never too young to be bitter.

  10. Rebecca Fine says:

    The fact that Schock suddenly unfollowed Tom Daley after it was discovered he’d been following sexy photos of Tom in a speedo on Instagram proves that there was something significant about it. It’s contradictory for an anti-gay Republican member of Congress to be following a twinky gay diver. Do any other members of Congress follow Tom Daley on Instagram?

  11. Ian_Llanganagain says:

    Sorry but I must emphatically disagree. Someone like this has done his damage — damage that is tangible and has real effects on real people — whilst in public life and has made considerable money and many valuable connections in doing so. Let him make his amends in private life, out of office and away from the kinds of connections that would have continued to enrich him whilst he caused suffering to others.

  12. RobNYNY1957 says:

    My experience is the opposite. Men in their 40’s or 50’s start to explore their bisexual side. Warm friendships, good sex, cocktails afterwards.

  13. You don’t care because you aren’t homophobic. You don’t care if
    strangers think you are gay because what they think has no impact on
    your life. I have several straight friends like you. It must be quite
    liberating not to give any fucks. Some of us gays aren’t quite there
    yet, but things are getting better thanks to straight allies like you.

  14. Guest says:

    I was referring to the article within the article….. thanks for a well written artcle , I also believe that one has a moral duty to expose this kind hypocrisy ..Schock was elected on a conservative anti-gay agenda and deserves to be and should be “outed” if he is gay.

  15. barbarajmay says:

    Really, really well written. No one does it better than you.

  16. ChrisDC says:

    Victim, perhaps, of being called on hypocrisy. But that’s really just justice, when you think about it.

  17. woodroad34 says:

    “victim”? Of what? Being gay is bad? I suppose the really bad people think “gay” is awful. The nice people don’t.

  18. teapartyidiots says:

    Also, at least in Illinois, we aren’t. This has been an open secret for quite a while.

  19. pericles9 says:

    Rainbow would be more appropriate.

  20. ChrisDC says:

    Coming from you, that really means a lot. If you find any of that verbiage useful, quote it. Or lift it (I’m a speechwriter, so I’ve got no problem being a ghost.) LOL. The next time you make it down to New Orleans, you have to promise to let me know, my friend.

  21. I was thinking the same thing, but couldn’t think of how to phrase it, you did it more succinctly.

  22. ChrisDC says:

    Glad you liked that. :-)

  23. “if he’s not gay, then we’ve got a right to poke fun at him, if for no other reason than the crap he throws in our direction. If he is gay, then we’ve really got a right to poke fun at him. So you’re good, either way, John. – bingo

  24. ChrisDC says:

    You said “pickle.” Hehehe. The way I look at it is this, if he’s not gay, then we’ve got a right to poke fun at him, if for no other reason than the crap he throws in our direction. If he is gay, then we’ve really got a right to poke fun at him. So you’re good, either way, John.

    It’s not quite the same thing in this case since, so far as I know, he hasn’t been advertising for sex on Manhunt or hanging out at J.R.’s, but the reaction to your writing on this reminds me of back in the 1990’s when there was a change in the rules and gay Republicans got caught flat-footed.

    They’d work all day demonizing gay people, and then show up at gay bars (and other places) thinking they could do that with impunity.

    What they didn’t realize was that the “cone of silence” that had been observed before was not out of some sense of community (although that was part of it). The thing that held it together could best be analogized to the doctrine of mutually assured destruction.

    “I saw so-and-so at a gay bar.”

    “What were YOU doing at a gay bar?”

    Which was not a conversation anyone wanted to have. So, once upon a time, we didn’t start it.

    But then, on the Democratic side of the equation, “What were YOU doing at a gay bar?” became a rhetorical question with no consequences.

    Which put us in a position to say, basically, “Listen. If you’re out to ME, then you’re OUT. And don’t expect me to ignore that when you’re lobbing mortar fire in my direction from what you think is your intact, but is actually your shattered, closet.”

  25. karmanot says:

    “What do we do with him if he pulls a Mehlman?” Make him buy clothes at Men’s Warehouse.

  26. Vegas Dave says:

    I’m just so over self-loathing closet cases like Schock, Larry Craig, Ms. Lindsey Graham. Then there is the holier than thou family values crowd with head cheerleader Sen. (Diaper) David Vitter (R-LA). Enough of the do as I say not as I do politicians.

  27. peterrabbit says:


  28. Houndentenor says:

    There’s also the “access” problem. In America the “reporters” are overly reliant on inside sources for information and if they write things those sources don’t like they find themselves cut off. Never mind those reporters are more often than not used for PR and propaganda purposes (by politicians of all stripes). Remember Judy Miller printing completely false WMD “evidence” in the NY Times? The press and the politicians they cover are far too chummy (and *cough* sometimes more than chummy) and it’s why there is no longer any depth to our reporting.

  29. karmanot says:


  30. karmanot says:

    Is Dupont Circle still DC’s largest closet?

  31. karmanot says:

    If that turquoise belt matched his thong—he’s a ‘Mo.’

  32. karmanot says:

    “At least he’s no Andrew Sullivan.” One would have to be a worm, to get under that limbo bar.

  33. karmanot says:

    That always worked for me John. The word got out quickly.

  34. karmanot says:

    Ah, yes, Joan Rivers, whose face launched a thousands snips.

  35. karmanot says:


  36. Brilliant observation

  37. karmanot says:

    Clearly, turquoise belt envy.

  38. karmanot says:

    Well said!

  39. Strepsi says:

    No, I think it’s more than that. It’s a bubble that protects its own, media included (protecting their sources, the politicians). Here in Canada, the 2 most powerful Conservatives after our Prime Minister are both gay (John Baird and jason Kenney) yet the media will NOT out them.
    At all.
    They still run the “too busy campaigning to find the right woman” stories, and if you confront the media types, they say “everyone knows”. No, everyone in your Ottawa media bar scene knows! I would not be surprised if Washington is the same.

  40. Strepsi says:

    @ Tor: I think many are much more fluid in their sexuality than older generations, as evidenced by the explosion in bisexuals and bi-curious and pansexual younger people.

  41. Strepsi says:

    @devlzadvocate: Agreed. I still remember seeing The Crying Game and boggling at the people in the cinema yelling and freaking out at the twist that I thought was obvious from frame 1.

  42. Strepsi says:

    Seriously, of course you can tell: my gaydar is 90% accurate and can gage from 1-6 on the Kinsey scale even through a photo or TV screen.

    @ JOHN ARAVOSIS: here’s my speculation about why the younger writers might not be able to tell: they’ve never experienced the closet. It is from the closet that we gay people became expert observers of gender performance and human performance, because we were forced to do it, often in fear of our lives. So we can tell when someone is hiding something, when the look lingers too long, when the eyes give someone away. Maybe people who never have to live in the closet have lost that level of very close, coded observation.

  43. Pissed Sissy says:

    No, the real victims here are those whose lives have been forever tarnished by the actions of the likes of closeted, self-loathing LGBTs like Schock. Schock, and others like him, have directly and deliberately harmed LGBT people. Here’s a prime example of the harm closeted, self-loathing people in power do to others:

  44. JDH says:

    At least Mehlman did all that fundraising and lobbying in the lead up to Hollingsworth and Windsor last June. Even so, their amicus brief was, in my opinion, a sanitized, watered-down conservative argument for gay rights. And really, that’s my beef with right-wing gays in general is that their support for gay rights only goes so far as their hatred of big government will take them. Nowhere on the right do you see full-throated support of gay rights because of the intrinsic worth of gay lives.

    Speaking of homocons, Charlie Crist’s backwash into politics has been nauseating to watch.

  45. Naja pallida says:

    Once you come to the understanding that Republican = victim, it explains much of their behavior.

  46. BeccaM says:

    I’ll forgive if Schock were to come out of the closet and use his political career to try to undo the damage he’s done as a 100% anti-gay Congressman.

    Unfortunately, the typical pattern for these types is they wait until they’re out of office or otherwise powerless to actually make significant amends. They wait until they’re retired or have lost an election — essentially when they have nothing to lose by coming clean.

    As for Mehlman, for example, appearing on TV now and then and saying the GOP shouldn’t be so obsessed with the gays doesn’t cut it. In fact, all he’s doing in this instance is still serving himself — namely being that rare bird, a Republican who isn’t totally anti-gay and therefore guaranteeing paid TV appearances.

    In other words, I forgive when it’s more than Captain Hindsight — “Gee, I shouldn’t have voted all those times against gay rights measures…and maybe I shouldn’t have said all those awful things about gay people” — and way less than totally self-serving.

  47. Houndentenor says:

    If we didn’t accept anyone who used to be a bigot, we’d have hardly any allies at all. Chuck Schumer voted for DOMA when he was in the House. We forgave Democrats who changed. We’re going to have to do the same with Republicans who do as well. If we don’t, we’re never going to get anything accomplished.

  48. Houndentenor says:

    Nor do they mention the persecution of religious and ethnic minorities there. It’s not just the gays that are being harassed and persecuted by russian thugs these days. That’s just part of a larger trend of intensely ugly nationalism.

  49. JDH says:

    I agree with that sentiment on a rational level, but not on an emotional one. It feels more like absolution than restitution. It feels like the “parable of the gay workers.” Tons of us came out and lived through hell because it was, in some sense, doing our part for the greater good. These right-wing closeted hacks do everything in their power to punish us for it. Then when they get dragged out of the closet kicking and screaming, they get a nice soft landing followed by a relatively comfortable life in an increasingly safe and affirming world that we suffered to secure.

    I’m too young to be bitter. =(

  50. The_Fixer says:

    Aaron Schock a victim? Perhaps he’s a victim of his own hypocrisy. Beyond that, no.

    The real victims are the people who’ve been denied their rights because of his behavior as a legislator. Also, LGBT people in general as he’s perpetuated the idea that being gay is something awful and not to be “admitted” to.

    More crap from the Republicans who are constantly complaining that they’re victims.

  51. Strepsi says:


  52. Strepsi says:

    Frankly, so are the other homos around him, who have been bought off by his perceived hotness or perceived power (or by good old cash) to protect him, or enable his closet, or, say, close their Twitter accounts. Quislings all.

  53. I think most of those arguing this are young. Though some aren’t. I can understand their confusion, since yes we do get annoyed at people who say “you’re so gay,” or whatever. But I’m pretty sure no one is pushing Aaron Schock’s heading in the toilet and mocking his sexual orientation. I think rather that they’re mocking the perceived hypocrisy in his perceived sexual orientation and his choice of careers. It’s subtle, and many don’t do “subtle.”

  54. ttyl says:


  55. Indigo says:

    Yeah. The line goes: Homosexuals are weak, real men like Roy aren’t weak and therefore not homosexual. That’s got to be the most weirdly twisted narcissistic argument on record.

  56. keirmeister says:

    I almost spit out my soda! shame on you! :)

  57. Indigo says:

    Which brings us to the delicate question that keeps haunting me, Is the PC gay crowd gay? They don’t talk like they have experienced anything outside the books and articles they’ve read or written. Maybe they’re not really “PC gays,” maybe they’re just virtual gays.

  58. keirmeister says:

    “Who is Cynthia Rowley?”

    “Leave this house!”

  59. Which article, mine or Buzzfeed’s? Mine is pretty clear. Theirs, less so.

  60. heimaey says:

    Thanks, I may give him another chance. At least he’s no Andrew Sullivan.

  61. hauksdottir says:

    Heavenly. ;^)

  62. Houndentenor says:

    I felt that way about him until the last six months or so. I even stopped following him on twitter because some of his tweets were so ridiculous. But lately his appearances on Up have been very interesting. (He also denies that he ever called himself a conservative. *shrug*)

  63. Houndentenor says:

    I was actually thinking about the gay conservatives who describe themselves as “straight acting”, but you have a valid point.

  64. Wifulated42 says:

    мʏ ɴɛιɢнвօʀ’ѕ мօм мαĸɛѕ $85 нօυʀʟʏ օɴ тнɛ ƈօмքυтɛʀ. ѕнɛ нαѕ вɛɛɴ ғιʀɛɖ ғօʀ ɛιɢнт мօɴтнѕ вυт ʟαѕт мօɴтн нɛʀ քαʏ աαѕ $17110 ʝυѕт աօʀĸιɴɢ օɴ тнɛ ƈօмքυтɛʀ ғօʀ α ғɛա нօυʀѕ. ʀɛƈօммɛɴɖɛɖ ʀɛαɖιɴɢ fox200&#46com

  65. karmanot says:

    A good point. On Sunday 60 minutes had a little blurb about Putin’s persecution of dissidents focusing on Pussy Riot, and never once mentioned the ‘gay’ pogrom going on. CBS has become the equivalent of a news douche.

  66. dcinsider says:

    Keep on him John. I mean the figuratively of course.

  67. cole3244 says:

    no matter his sexual orientation he is a republican and most likely cruel and uncaring when it relates to those that are less fortunate and not a member of the elite class, aka good ole boys/girls/white in the real rainbow diverse america the rest of us live in.

  68. Bill says:

    Makes me wonder if that “personal trainer” guy is actually Schock, and this was some way of him keeping these other relationships at a remove?

  69. devlzadvocate says:

    If man has Cynthia Rowley bedding – he’s gay! LOL. That is something considered in my gaydar.

  70. Aaron Smith says:

    Victim, no. Douchebag, yes.

  71. Monoceros Forth says:


  72. Matthew Gametime Jones says:


  73. And it’s not always accurate. But is it damn accurate for some of us, many of us – yes. Look, on its face, it’s laughable for anyone to even allege this. You know that everyone who has alleged this has themselves met someone and immediately known the person was gay. But now we’re supposed to pretend that it’s SHOCKING to suggest that some gay people act awfully gay. And we’re supposed to believe that just as many of those kinda acting gay people are really straight. Sorry, but they’re really not.

  74. devlzadvocate says:

    Along that same line, it seems that Schock doesn’t get much attention, committee work, etc for such a young player. With the GOP looking to attract youngish voters via Ryan, etc. I wonder if they (Boehner, Cantor) feel Schock’s sexuality could explode in their faces (sorry, couldn’t stop).

  75. karlj324 says:

    I’m not sure what the point of this article is? Is it to condemn outing or to condemn hypocrisy on both sides?

  76. devlzadvocate says:

    Being a man of considerable years (in gay years, past cruising age), my gaydar is pretty damned good for all generations. However, just to ensure it is still in good working order, I verify my reception with other gay men. In this case, the reception in agreement is in the thousands. Str8 people agree. I think our gaydar is accurate. I wonder, though, what his constituents think. Just a “nice boi”?

  77. I’m not sure that closeted members of congress are necessarily in denial. I think many of them simply hope/think they can hide who are they are.

  78. I’ll accept anyone who comes clean and makes amends. As someone said on FB regarding either Mehlman or Sen. Portman, we can’t keep asking anti-gay republicans to stop being anti-gay, and then why they do stop being anti-gay we beat the crap out of them and tell them sorry it’s too late. I think underlying the notion of “turning over a new leaf” is that we WANT people to turn over a new leaf, we want them to stop being bad, and sometimes the price you pay for providing people an incentive to stop being bad is to acknowledge that if they turn over a new leaf, sufficiently, that you will accept it.

  79. keirmeister says:

    Heck, outside of some gay-friendly establishments, a well-tuned gaydar can be the difference between having your advances met with a “no thank you” or getting beaten up.

    It is a little funny seeing the perceived generational issues you’re expressing. It sounds similar to what older women and black folks say about the younger generations. I guess this is a common thing when it comes to civil rights – and perhaps that’s positive in the end: the newer generations lose those ways of thinking and feel safe enough to worry about more trivial concerns. But perhaps the danger is that the progress they enjoy may still be tentative…and they don’t realize it because they didn’t have to fight as hard for it.

    But that’s for another topic. :)

  80. devlzadvocate says:


  81. Tor says:

    I have fairly reliable gaydar among men of my generation plus/minus a few years. I admit to being totally lost with the under-30’s. The gaydar pings all the time, so I think it must be busted.

  82. devlzadvocate says:

    Every picture tells a story. From pictures, I can tell Lady Bunny is a drag queen. Antonio Biaggi is a male porn star. Rupert Everertt had work done. Aaron Schock is a gay man. This is what pictures are for. When you speak loudly, you will be heard. Sometimes people speak loudly in their pictures. Why doesn’t he get that?

  83. Tor says:


  84. keirmeister says:

    Oh yeah, and Cohn (played wonderfully by Pacino) was so defensive about it, he threatened to ruin his doctor’s career. That level of self-hatred is very sad, actually.

  85. JDH says:

    What do we do with him if he pulls a Mehlman? Accept and forgive or punish and hold a grudge? My instincts lean toward the latter, but I feel very conflicted about it.

  86. heimaey says:

    Josh Barro said that? Good for him. Usually his conservative stances always disappoint me.

  87. Belthazar says:

    Not a politician but Rick Pitino, [head coach of Kentucky (conservative school), who was a GOP darling] comes to mind. He was very vocal in his stance against abortions. Come to find out that he paid $3k for his Mistress’s abortion. There was no consternation in reporting the story as I remember. Can we say different rules.

  88. Mad Max Powers says:

    Aaron Schock….a victim? Is this real life? I am so OVER all these closeted elected officials ruining the lives of MILLIONS of LGBT Americans just so that can stay in the closet for a few more months! If you don’t like the attention, RESIGN. It case it wasn’t clear, I do believe Aaron Schock is gay as the day is long and there’s absolutely nothing wrong with that…it’s the hypocrisy that killllssss meeeeeeeee!

  89. I think it’s a young post-gay far-left thing. It’s somehow offensive to suggest that how people appear on the outside is how they really are on the inside. It’s only a matter of time before gaydar is accused of being anti- genderqueer, anti- trans etc.

  90. Hue-Man says:

    They’d call it “Monday”. Just list all the GOP pols who claim family values and are shown to have hired prostitutes and the former Speaker who roars about the sanctity of marriage while ignoring his three marriages. Brazen hypocrites is too mild…

  91. Houndentenor says:

    I will say that sending out naked selfies with your face on them is a stupid move for a politician. It was just a matter of time before one of those would up all over the internet. I realize there were people gunning for him, but he kind of did that to himself. (And then screwed up the damage control.)

  92. judybrowni says:

    Ye shall know him by his turquoise belt.

  93. Houndentenor says:

    It’s especially funny since several recent studies have shows that people can identify who is gay and straight from pictures. Why is it the biggest flamers that think no one can tell they are gay?

  94. TheAngryFag says:

    Talk to the conservatives who had way too much time on their hands to create a trap for Weiner.

  95. Houndentenor says:

    Reminds me of the scene in Angels in America between Roy Cohn and his doctor.

  96. Houndentenor says:

    No, I understand. If you worked for a conservative employer or in a deep red state you might risk social ostracization or unemployment. I certainly wouldn’t recommend allies or even gay people take that risk, especially in the current job market. However, your approach to the issue is refreshing and increasingly common. Why should a straight guy feel threatened by gay people? He shouldn’t unless he’s repressing homosexual attractions about which he is uncomfortable. There’s a lot of that still going around as well. (Also, I think a lot of younger men have figured out that being too loud about being anti-gay makes people think that you have something to hide.)

  97. HolyMoly says:

    So if someone loses their job due to their perceived or actual sexuality, is denied promotion due to their gender, is gunned down for wearing a hoodie while black (in a predominantly white neighborhood), we just have to suck it up and live with it.

    But if anyone has the temerity to say “Happy Holidays,” call out the Outrage Battalion! If we offer assistance to the indigent victims (they would say lazy, greedy leeches) of a capitalist system run amok, of course it’s the wealthy taxpayers who are the true victims. If we want to add sexual orientation to the list of hate crimes, then of course it’s the…wait…who is it exactly that is victimized by extending these protections? Allow gays to marry? Why, then, of course, the heterosexual Bible Belt unions are going to be torn asunder. Bullying? Come on, don’t victimize bullies; they’re simply a product of their environment. They shouldn’t be ostracized for simply being who they are. The same goes for racists. Intolerance of racism is still intolerance! We have a no tolerance policy for intolerance against intolerance!

    And now this. Does he have a black eye, bruised or broken ribs? Has he been denied a position of responsibility/authority? Do his neighbors burn taffeta crosses in his front yard? If that were the case, then sure, I’d say he was a victim, but nothing of the sort has taken place.

    The righties seriously need to reevaluate the true definition of the word “victim,” because right now, they look to me to be a bunch of weak-kneed cowards (did I just bully them?). It’s an interesting little paradox, really, that they go around puffing up their chests to show us just how tough they are, while at the same time whining about being victims. Choose one side and stick with it!

  98. Houndentenor says:

    We were rather hard up for allies back then. Look at how many Democrats voted for DOMA.

  99. Houndentenor says:

    I’ve had that experience myself and the expressions are priceless. The follow up usually goes something like this:

    “So are you saying Obama was a bigot until he came out for gay marriage?”

    “Yes, that’s exactly what I’m saying.”

    Then there’s a shocked expression and no further conversation.

  100. Correct, that was always the funny part about that story. I was outing Mary Cheney, whose previous job was serving as the gay liaison at Coors!

  101. Actually, yes, I did too. That was pre-internet, for the most part, and yes there was more tolerance for the intolerant back then. Wouldn’t be now.

  102. Houndentenor says:

    Remember that in presidential elections about 1 in 4 gay people vote Republican. There are a lot more gays sympathetic to Schock and company that you think.

  103. Oh I wish I’d seen that.

  104. Houndentenor says:

    Mary Cheney was out by at least 1990(ish) when she worked for Coors to try to make nice to gay bars and end the boycott. The idea that she was in the closet before most people had ever heard of anyone in her family is a ridiculous lie that was used to make Kerry look like a dick for mentioning what was not a secret.

  105. Appalled is a good word. I’ll write about this another time, but I’m getting a little fed up with the PC gay crowd, usually youngins who have little experience in the politics or history of any of this, who think it’s “mean” and somehow “bigoted” to suggest that people look or act gay. Lots of straight people, they allege, act and look gay too, or something. Which I think it utterly untrue. I think lots of gay people act straight, I do not believe for a minute that lots of straight people act gay. Sure, you’ve got your metrosexual who raises eyebrows, but he doesn’t tend to follow Tom Daley on Instagram, and no other athletes, and then delete the follow when it’s discovered, among a long list of oddly queer behaviors. He also doesn’t tend to favorite gay “personal trainers” on Twitter, who then delete their accounts when it becomes known. And he CERTAINLY doesn’t favorite such trainers when he’s an anti-gay member of congress.

    I also have to chuckle more generally at the concept that you simply can’t tell if someone is gay simply by seeing them, talking to them. That’s a fascinating allegation, especially from the particular reporter who made the allegation who – and I mean no offense by saying this – is one of those you’d know was gay at first meeting.

  106. Houndentenor says:

    I saw Gunderson with his boytoy out once. I didn’t know who he was, but my friend who lives in DC knew and had plenty to say.

  107. keirmeister says:

    To be honest, I think it also has to do with my environment as well. I don’t care because I live in an environment where it’s not an issue. I live in a Blue State, work in a place where homophobia is not tolerated, and have friends from all spectrums of life, but all believe in tolerance. I can’t say i would be so cavalier in a less tolerant environment.

    But I sure as hell wouldn’t actively try to harm “my people” just to appease a bunch of bigots.

  108. Houndentenor says:

    I used to visit DC a few times a year (one of my best friend lives there and it was easy to get there from NYC). I often saw political types out in the bars. I’m not sure anyone protects them. They are often gossiped about by the people who actually know who they are. (Frankly, most members of Congress are not well known outside their own districts, if they are even well known there.) It’s the editors of media outlets that are still from a generation who think that saying someone is gay is about the worst thing you could say about someone, especially if it were true. That grows less true all the time and I suspect that reporting on gay people’s private lives will be done the same way it is with straight people, meaning: if you don’t want anyone to know you’d better be very discreet about it. Gay celebrities until about 10 years ago could go out to bars and everyone would keep their secret. If you look at the gossip sites you can see that’s no longer true. And even if the mainstream media keeps your secret, the bar patrons are going to send the pic of you out on twitter, tumbler or instagram.

  109. Houndentenor says:

    He’s a good dresser for a conservative gay closet case c. 1982.

  110. Houndentenor says:

    I think the public at large is rather astonished to see gay people fighting back. It’s a relatively new phenomenon. Last week Brian Brown seemed genuinely shocked on Up (with Steve Kornacki) when Josh Barro said to his face that anyone opposing gay marriage was a bigot. I guess he expected some hedging or self-loathing back-pedaling. Those days are over.

  111. Houndentenor says:

    Your twitter feed was shocking. Some of those guys are seriously deranged. But then I’ve long figured out that gay Republicans are motivated by hatred of liberals, not by any desire to promote rights for gay people.

  112. Houndentenor says:

    Those kinds of shows can be pretty mean. That said, if you have a lot of money and show up looking ridiculous, then you are fair game for being mocked. Making fun of how lower income people are dressed would be bullying. Mocking a wealthy celebrity for bad taste is just funny. If you are famous and can’t take a joke, you are in the wrong business.

  113. Houndentenor says:

    You don’t care because you aren’t homophobic. You don’t care if strangers think you are gay because what they think has no impact on your life. I have several straight friends like you. It must be quite liberating not to give any fucks. Some of us gays aren’t quite there yet, but things are getting better thanks to straight allies like you.

  114. devlzadvocate says:

    I wonder what he sees when he looks in the mirror and like so many others in denial, does he say, “I’m not gay. I just like to fuck guys”?

  115. Houndentenor says:

    But was anything Weiner did any of my business? I don’t think so. It might have been douchy and people are welcome to think less of him as a result and even not vote for him. But there’s hardly any difference. Everything seems to be fair game in public people’s private lives except for homosexuality and I think that reveals some internalized homophobia among the editors in the media and even in the gay community.

  116. heimaey says:

    It’s the same panic defense that atheists get. They can tell you you’re going to hell all they want, but the minute you question their faith in a bronze age book that is historically questionable they go nuts.

  117. devlzadvocate says:

    There is a Jennifer Lawrence/Joan Rivers battle regarding Fashion Police “body shaming”. So, yeah. I think that subject is on the table. I’m not sure how much following it will get. I watch FP all the time.

  118. Houndentenor says:

    If Schock is being victimized, what about every other famous person whose personal life is gossipped about and speculated upon? The tabloid pile-on of Sandra Bullcock after the implosion of her marriage a couple of years was pretty bad. I never heard her whinging about being “bullied”.

    P.S. I was going to give you a hard time about your espadirlles the other day but considering the grief the homocons are giving you on Twitter, I decided against it. Those are some real nutjobs. Is it me or are the gay right-wingers more deranged than ever these days?

  119. Northwest Dyke says:

    Frankly I was a bit appalled by Chris Geidner’s “you’re speculating based on stereotypes” silliness. The lack of psychological savvy is disturbing. This is textbook “identification with the aggressor” on Schock’s part. We deserve to call this crap out, given how his votes hurt members of our community. And if somebody doesn’t like it, they can stand on the sidelines twisting their hankies while we take care of it.

  120. TheAngryFag says:

    I wouldn’t put Spitzer and Weiner in the same category though. Spitzer, like Schock if he actually is gay, was merely engaged in a reaction formation. Spitzer went on a moral crusade against sex workers while all the while he was spending somewhere in the neighborhood of $80,000 on prostitutes. And if one of those sex workers had outed Spitzer instead of his bank ratting him out to the feds.

    Weiner on the other hand was just plain stupid.

  121. TampaZeke says:

    People like Schock become those mysterious “gay friends and family” that bigots always talk about when confronted with their bigotry.

  122. TheAngryFag says:

    All he is doing is reinforcing the rumors by trying to expunge the evidence. However he forgets the cardinal rule of the internet: it neither forgives or forgets. Not to mention it just takes one honest person in his social media circle to finally get sick of the stuff and leak it out.

  123. keirmeister says:

    I almost feel bad saying it…but that picture! A hot pink and white checkered shirt, well-fitted to show off all of that manliness.

    A torquoise hoop belt.

    White…what are those? Pants? Shorts?

    Seriously, no straight man dresses like that! If you look at the non-cropped image, his outfit definitely stands out – particularly compared to the other dudes there.

    Speaking of images, do a Google Image search for Aaron Schock. There are so many shirtless muscle hunk pictures of the guy, I’m afraid to keep my browser open at work. waka waka!

  124. jomicur says:

    Um…you think Schock is a good dresser?!?!?

  125. jomicur says:

    And of course that line of reasoning is based on the clear assumption that Schock is gay. Apparently it’s perfectly okay for homophobes to make that assumption, using it to justify their own homophobia, but when the gay community makes it. we’re being bullies of homofascists or something. Still another example of the endless claim that something that’s perfectly okay for straight people to do is downright evil when WE do it.

  126. devlzadvocate says:

    I think his sexuality is obvious given the long list of women he has dated.

  127. slappymagoo says:

    Where there’s smoke, there’s fire. Raging, flaming fire.

    This reminds me of Bristol Palin’s 15 minutes. It seemed crude to some to attack her when after all she was just the daughter of a famous politician…except that she started going to speaking engagements and getting interviewed and getting attention where she felt no problem putting her values front and center, at which point she ceased being just a politician’s daughter but a quasi-celebrity in her own right. Old enough to say “no, I don’t want to be interviewed” or “I don’t want to give a speech, I’ll tand by my mom’s side but that’s enough for me.” But she opted to be a neocon cover girl, and then when she got crap for it went “hey, don’t pick on meeeee, what? WHAT? I’m just being persecuted for being a famous person’s kid!”

    I believe celebrities deserve some manner of privacy – there’s no reason for paparazzi to hang out at a gym where someone famous is exercising hoping to catch a shot of them looking like crap – but if that celebrity routinely used his or her soapbox to rally against what he or she perceived as Wrong, then the public is certainly to entitled to ask “WTF is wrong with that a-hole?”

    And in Schock’s case, where his decisions literally affect millions of other people, for better or worse, he SHOULD be under a magnifying glass. And if he wants anonymity, resign, dude.

  128. Excellent point. I was rather surprised to see those stories last week.

  129. Right, and you’d secretly unfollow Tom Daley on Instagram while your twitter friend, the gay “personal trainer” who has a headless and shirtless avatar, provides no way to contact him, has no apparent web site for his training business, has practically no Google record to speak of, has a name a porn star would envy, has a nude pic of some guy in his feed, and chats up porn stars and porn producers via Twitter, joking about how he’d like to do films with them, suddenly deletes his account once your twitter relationship is made public? I’m just not convinced that this is the way the story of a straight guy wrongly ‘accused” of being gay would proceed.

  130. Bingo.

  131. MichaelS says:

    Let’s take the gay out of it for a minute… If this were a Congressman who had repeatedly voted against abortion, for example, but it then became known that he had been involved with several abortions in his private life, then that certainly would be – and should be – disclosed publicly. And I promise, the Right Wing Crazies wouldn’t call it bullying in that event.

  132. PeteWa says:

    it’s just awful the way everyone is picking on that poor, delicate straight flower known as Aaron.
    poor thing… those obvious questions, how could they?

  133. keirmeister says:

    I would definitely have a laugh! And knowing me, I would probably make it a point to share MORE as a way of saying, even if I were gay, why would I consider it a bad thing?

    But, of course, the difference is that Schock is doing things that specifically harm the gay community. This is unacceptable for ANYONE, but for a gay person (if he really is) is abhorrent.

  134. therling says:

    From a 1st Amendment perspective, remember that public officials have the least amount of protection when it comes to libel, compared to celebrities, who are considered “public figures,” and ordinary citizens, who have the highest degree of a right to privacy and protection from libelous publication. Schock shouldn’t have expected that going into an elected public service position wouldn’t also be accompanied by greater scrutiny of his life, especially if he has noticeably taken stands that are in opposition to what he is or has done in his own personal life. Just ask Eliot Spitzer and Anthony Weiner, who left office in disgrace because of actions they took in their own personal lives.

  135. Yes, I passed some info along to others, and more generally helped shed light on the outing issue back in 2004 by targeting Mary Cheney, and more generally closeted members and senior staff working for anti-gay members.

  136. Well, there are gradations. Yes, we saw Jesse Helms’ staffer at a bar, but that was the early 90s. There was no internet to expose him on. I certainly never saw anti-gay members of congress. Though some gay R members were seen, whether it was Foley or Kolby I don’t recall now. But again, it was very early INternet so the power to broadcast wasn’t there – nonetheless, had we seen an anti-gay gay member of congress at a bar we’d have blasted him. And I do have a friend, Kevin, who works in the congress right now, and back in 2004, right after Bush announced his support for the Federal Marriage Amendment. We were at The Duplex Diner, local gay bar and diner, and see a fundraiser for Ralph Reed having dinner with two women. Well, Kevin walks over and rips this guy publicly, in front of the entire restaurant, quite loudly, telling everyone who he is, who he works for, that he’s gay (he was gay), and just obliterating him. I didn’t know Kevin at the time, but I walked over and immediately made sure I got to know him. So, no, the idea of everyone in dc somehow being complicit in this is a bit too black and white. If an anti-gay member of congress showed up at a gay bar today he’d be toast.

  137. A gay kid is bullied so he punches the bully in the face, and ends up being the one accused of bullying. I’m having a hard time seeing the difference with this situation.

  138. You’d probably have a good laugh and once again say loudly and clearly, guys I’m not gay. In Schock’s case, his responses have been somewhat defensive and confused, though he did finally claim to be straight in the end.

  139. keirmeister says:

    Here’s the thing…I’m a straight guy who’s quite comfortable around “The Gays” – so much so that I’ve been teased about it endlessly (by both straight and gay friends and acquaintences).

    But let’s just say I’m in Congress, then some gay rumors about me start flying around. Let’s also say that there are…pictures…circulating with me dancing wildly at a Boston Pride event.

    Do I shut down my social network and take my photos offline? No! I know who I am! Hell, I would post MORE of them!

    Schock can’t make a claim of personal privacy here. He’s already put the images up himself! But if he’s straight, why be ashamed of it? Why be ashamed of his sense of style or his acquaintences? I think the worst insult to a friend is to try to hide your friendship with that person.

    All of this is to say that John has a good point: Where there’s smoke, there’s fire; and Shock’s behavior since this new brouhaha started is telling.

  140. Politicians don’t get a private life period nice try whom ever came up with that trick. I say it is fair game to go after this Congressman or any other one like this. Don’t let his cute looks fool you, he will take away your rights for another few years in office.

  141. Houndentenor says:

    Agreed. But more significantly, if it’s bullying to speculate about Schock’s sexuality, isn’t it at least as bad for the media to speculate about Rodgers’? Where is the outrage from the homocons about that one? I haven’t heard any and what they shows is that it’s not about “outing” or privacy. The Schock story is just a tool for homocons to play the victim and demonize liberal gays.

  142. Houndentenor says:

    If mocking a member of Congress is bullying then the whole country is nothing but bullies. People are speculating about his personal business. I suppose that’s not “nice” but there’s a whole industry that does nothing but this sort of thing. Why are gay people off limits? Been to a grocery store? The covers of the tabloids are nothing but speculations about the marriages and romances of various politicians and entertainers. If it’s bullying to speculate about Schock’s sexuality then it’s also bullying to speculate about the state of the Obamas’ marriage. At worst, it’s in bad taste, but unless someone condemns all gossip and rumors, there’s no there there.

    P.S. The local news here ran stories about the rumors that a certain quarterback may be gay. I have no idea if it’s true or not and don’t care. Was that bullying too? I haven’t seen the folks squawking about the Schock story complaining about that one. It’s either okay or it’s not. I’m good either way (frankly both got tedious very quickly) but it has to be one or the other.

  143. HereinDC says:


  144. HereinDC says:

    Someone would pay a hooker to have sedx with him and take hidden pictures….. Period.

  145. HereinDC says:

    “see prominent out people teasing Schock for his pants?”
    So, Joan Rivers’ TV show “Fashion Police” shouldn’t be on the air because it’s a bullying show?

  146. CA_2013 says:

    Who would have thought that the first week of 2014 would include two gay-related stories about two different public figures both named Aaron?

    As is by well known, Aaron Rodgers, the quarterback for the Green Bay Packers, has been the subject of swirling gay rumors after some curious tweets by his ex-roommate/personal manager that suggested that Rodgers and he were in some sort of personal relationship. On a radio show last week, Rodgers denied that he is gay and that he would keep his private life private. I was initially fascinated by the Rodgers story, soaking up all the details and reading the ex-roommate’s tweets for secondary meaning like a student in a college literature seminar. But on further thought, Rodgers deserves his privacy and he also deserves to be taken at his word. Rodgers, to my knowledge, has not actively worked against LGTBQ interests nor has he publicly denigrated gay people like a certain redneck television reality star. He plays professional football and does it very well, notwithstanding Green Bay’s close loss to San Francisco in last night’s playoff game. That alone puts him in whole different camp than Aaron Schock, who by supporting anti-gay laws and policies very much deserves to have people take a close look at the espadrilles, plaid pants and teal belts in his closet.

  147. FUFatherEisenman says:

    I doubt the people of Tampa even knew who he was.

  148. heimaey says:

    Many people got away with it when I lived in DC. I remember seeing George Stephanaplous out and about on 17th Street in the early 90s, although he is hardly anti-gay.

  149. heimaey says:

    Well said John. Even if he isn’t gay (highly doubtful) his record against gay rights is offensive, and he should be prepared to be questioned about his sexuality – especially since he’s a public representative and also because he fits those stereotypes he abhors so well.

  150. timncguy says:

    Well, the TMZ video of Schock trolling the gay district in Tampa was from the Republican National Convention. Surely there must have been witnesses in the gay bars there during that week.

  151. HeartlandLiberal says:

    How can anyone defend the actions and words of this man, and rationally argue his personal life and motives are not fair game for exposure to the public? If you fall for that argument, you fall for what has always been the principal tool of the rich and those in power: hide the truth of your actions from the peasants. You continue to maintain the fiction that rewards the sociopathy of the powerful that drives them to seek and maintain and exploit power.

    He is using his public office to attack, demean, and prevent access to civil liberties and justice and social stability for what is, whether anyone likes it or not, a significant slice of the population. Estimates vary over time, but we are talking anywhere from 2 to 6% of the population. And given the horror that can be brought to their lives by politicians like this, one has to assume that there are many respondents to surveys and studies who never in a million years would reveal their sexual orientation or practices. $DEITY knows I wouldn’t, and I am not gay, but if I were, in our society, I would be hiding in the closet out of sheer fear of my fellow man.

    The rank hypocrisy of these people not only justifies, it DEMANDS this sort of outing. The same goes for all the family values hypocrites of the GOP, as well. Not a week passes but another of them is revealed for their hypocrisy, including adultery, secret children, you name it. I just read a story about Florida Congressman Bill Young, and how back in the 80’s he dumped his wife and three kids, to marry his staffer, who was younger than his children! A sorry, sordid history that continued up to and after his death.

    Every time I read about these hypocrites, I am reminded of the death of the Alabama minister from a few years ago who died under the following circumstances. Note I was born and grew up in Alabama, so this one is in my repertoire of stories to bug my conservative brothers who did not flee the state with.

    An Alabama minister who died in June of ‘accidental mechanical asphyxia’ was found hogtied and wearing two complete wet suits, including a face mask, diving gloves and slippers, rubberized underwear, and a head mask, according to an autopsy report.” He also had a dildo up his ass, but it was wearing a condom.

    I am sort of guessing that if I were a member of a congregation, I would really, really like to know if my minister was doing this sort of thing.It just might influence my feelings towards him.

  152. He’d be toast if he’d ever been seen at a gay bar in DC.

  153. tcwaters says:

    Agree. Looking forward to John’s comments. I could be wrong, but I think he himself is responsible for bringing this issue to light in regards to some other politicians, but I could have that wrong.I believe my point is a valid one however.

  154. Roo de Loo says:

    Is the gay media jumping on this because he’s a good dresser or just ass-backwards in his political views? I wonder how Roy Cohn would be handled by the media in today’s age.

  155. timncguy says:

    I read your post and what I find the most interesting is this part

    “If Schock is gay, how about this roommate? what’s his story? If Schock
    is gay, the roommate isn’t likely to be the only guy he has been naked
    with. And what of those bar excursions? How is it that gay bars full of
    guys do not turn into multiple reports of seeing this guy out being
    gay? Where a real story is, revolves around the “turn a blind eye”
    mentality and to report as much about him as possible to see if it
    explains what this guy does. The Washington gay scene as well as the
    political arena in general has been complicit before in protecting
    closet cases, and that can not be tolerated any longer. Does that
    include making public information that illustrates what is being called
    hypocrisy? Yes most likely.”

    I’d like to see a discussion of the Washington gay scene and how and why it is complicit in protecting closet cases. As he has lived in the area for a long time, I’m sure John could give us some insight into how and why this continues to happen.

  156. Lawerence Collins says:

    This, vile, nasty, repugnant, “DSSRZS”, is no victim, he’s the amoral perpetrator! He must truly be one sad, pathetic, lonely, repressed Queen! His actions and deeds tell who he really is, thus he tries to hide who he really is by voting so extremely! Schock, you’re fooling no one!

  157. tcwaters says:

    I don’t think I’m a gay apologist, but there is valid reason to both find some fault with what has been written by you and by Itay Hod at the same time supporting your efforts. I hope I’ve done both adequately in my own blog post:

  158. Puckfair52 says:

    Does he mind people thinking he is heterosexual?
    If he truly is gay he truly would be a quisling a collaborator! If he admits it he get a 2 nd snippet of oh so sorry boo hoo. If he doesn’t he continues to work towards repression & actions that are hostile towards the gay community! Gay youth continued to have potentially imperiled futures because of the likes of this kind of vermin! Again does he mind people thinking he is heterosexual?

  159. bkmn says:

    You don’t get to have it both ways, especially when your actions harm the LGBT community. If you shine in the closet but turn out the lights in the main room, don’t be surprised when someone looks in the closet to see where the light is coming from.

  160. FLL says:

    “…it’s fine to be and vote anti-gay – after all, even the gay guy does it.”

    That is an excellent point that you should continue to bring up, John, especially regarding closeted elected officials who are clearly setting an example for their fellow elected officials.

  161. dommyluc says:

    I would sooner have sympathy for Hannibal Lecter while he was dining on a fresh meal of liver and fava beans than to shed one tear over the poor, “bullied” but impeccably attired Rep. Aaron Schock. Fuck him! I only hope this whole affair ends up outing every hypocritical gay Republican in Congress. Let’s see how many “Ds” FoxNews then mistakenly places next to their names during news reports. LOL! And for establishment journalists to compare his plight to that of young and truly bullied gay teens is beyond despicable but, of course, expected.

  162. timncguy says:

    So, I have the same question as yesterday. Why would any member of the community help this hypocrit stay in the closet? What is wrong with this gay personal trainer for him to participate in this? Does he have a personal relationship with Aaron? Is he his boyfriend or FB? Is the gay personal trainer closeted himself? Or, was he before this? And, one more time…. is there some sort of unknown code in gay bars that has the employees and patrons of those bars disallowed from outing the gay politicians that frequent those bars? Surely there are members of the community who have seen Schock at gay bars or who know personally who Schock is dating or has dated. So, why aren’t they spilling the beans? If the gay reporter, Itay Hod, is so upset by the media allowing these guys to stay closeted, then why didn’t he pony up the evidence for his story of “someone” seeking Schock in the shower together with his roommate with some actual names? Who is the respected journalist who saw this “shower scene” and reported it to Hod? Who is the mysterious male roommate? It seems that Hod is allowing the closet door to stay closed just as much as anyone else.

  163. Henry Owen says:

    If he’s OK with legislating other people’s behavior, then his own behavior is fair game. It seems that his political aspirations are blinding him, or he ascribes to the “do as I say, but not as I do” elitist mentality but, either way, he deserves what he gets. It’s time he put his man-pants on.

  164. Indigo says:

    Oh, I think it’s “outing” but that’s just fine, there is no privacy anymore. If he’s going to use his congressional post to bash the community, then out he comes. Period!

© 2021 AMERICAblog Media, LLC. All rights reserved. · Entries RSS