AFT's LaBarbera On Point: Crist's Sexual Preference Does Matter, If He's Being Considered For V-P

RFFM.org ^ | April 1, 2008 | Daniel T. Zanoza

[Daniel T. Zanoza]

RFFM.org Commentary

On March 27th, Americans For Truth (AFT) president Peter LaBarbera wrote an insightful column about the issue of sexual preference and whether elected officials and those seeking elected office should answer public inquiries about such matters. ["There has been ample speculation in the alternative press that Florida Governor Charlie Crist is homosexual or bisexual." http://americansfortruth.com/news/florida-media-speculate-on-gov-charlie-crists-bisexuality.html]

LaBarbera's position is: Such information about individuals seeking or holding office should be available to the public. LaBarbera took criticism from a few liberal Republicans and some homosexual activists because of his column. But history should have taught all Republicans a lesson concerning this matter. In addition, LaBarbera's thoughts on this issue are simply valid and here's why.

From reports, Florida Gov. Charlie Crist is being considered by some to be a strong running mate for GOP presumptive presidential nominee John McCain. Crist is popular in Florida--which is an important state for Republicans to take in the general election this November. But questions concerning Crist's sexual preference continue to pop up and those questions should be answered. Crist has refused to answer queries as to whether he might be a homosexual and some have come to his defense, saying privacy should trump any concerns about this issue.

I personally believe if Crist were not seeking public office, he would not be obligated to answer any questions about his sexuality. However, Crist is a public figure and he is being considered for an office that would be a breath away from the Presidency.

It is a certainty an individual's private life will influence the decisions they make in life. And, when an elected official is making decisions for a constituency which believes he or she holds certain views, the public has a right to know if their interest or the candidate's will be served. For example, a few short years ago, President George W. Bush proposed a Constitutional Amendment be passed which would define marriage as being solely between one man and one woman. Voters should have a right to know if an elected official's stand on the issue was impacted by their private life, even though that position might be in contrast to their Party's political platform or agenda. To say that Crist should not address the issue is absurd and there are other reasons why he should do so.

In recent years, former Gov. Jim McGreevey of New Jersey, former U.S. Rep. Mark Foley and Sen. Larry Craig have all been victims of scandals involving homosexuality. What made matters worse regarding Foley and Craig is the fact they often voted on issues which addressed matters involving sexual orientation. After their private lives were brought to light by the media, they were called hypocrites for casting pro-family votes while living a contrarian lifestyle. What would make matters worse would be if they voted secretly against the public will because of their private agendas.

LaBarbera called Crist's office and asked whether the Florida Governor was homosexual or bisexual. LaBarbera never received an answer, but he deserves one and so do the people of the United States.

Those who run for public office no longer can claim zones of privacy which may have been available to them in the past. Issues involving personal conduct, which would never have been considered by legislators a mere 50 years ago, are often hot points of public contention. Therefore, though it may make us uncomfortable, we have a right to know about things we didn't need to know in the past. It's not a matter of privacy any more, it's a matter of good government.