Posted on 07/16/2005 12:12:46 PM PDT by gopgen
Gay-rights opponent Santorum stands by outed aide
BY STEVE GOLDSTEIN
Knight Ridder Newspapers
WASHINGTON - (KRT) - The senior spokesman for Sen. Rick Santorum, R- Pa., Friday confirmed to a web log that he is gay.
According to PageOneQ, an online gay and lesbian publication, director of communications Robert L. Traynham, said that he was an "out gay man who completely supports the senator."
Santorum, the third-ranking Republican in the Senate leadership has been an outspoken opponent of homosexual rights and a leading proponent of a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage.
Santorum, who was traveling in Pittsburgh, released the following statement:
"Robert Traynham ... is widely respected and admired on Capitol Hill, both among the press corps and among the congressional staff, as a communications professional. Not only is Mr. Traynham an exemplary staffer, but he is also a trusted friend confidente to me and my family. Mr. Traynham is a valued member of my staff and I regret that this effort on behalf of people who oppose me has made him a target of bigotry in their eyes.
"It is entirely unacceptable that my staffs' personal lives are considered fair game by partisans looking for arguments to bolster my opponent's campaign. Mr. Traynham continues to have my full support and confidence as well as my prayers as he navigates this rude and mean spirited invasion of his personal life."
Mark Rodgers, chief of staff at the Republican conference, which Santorum chairs, said, "Robert is a tremendous employee and we're all for standing by him." Traynham's homosexuality was not news to the senator or his staff, he added.
In the online interview, Traynham defended his decision to work with the senator. "Sen. Santorum is a man of principle, he is a man who sticks up for what he believes in. I strongly do support Sen. Santorum.
Asked whether he supported Santorum's views on lesbian and gay issues, Traynham told PageOneQ, "Sen. Santorum is a family man. I have been with him for eight years and I am very proud to be with him."
The two-term senator is up for reelection next year. His expected Democratic opponent is State Treasurer Robert P. Casey, Jr.
Traynham began working for Santorum since 1997 as a press assistant and then deputy press secretary. He was press secretary for the senator's 2000 reelection campaign in Pennsylvania. Just prior to becoming communications director in the Senate office, Traynham served as director of communications for the Senate Republican Conference.
Traynham holds a bachelor of arts degree in political science from Cheyney University of Pennsylvania, where he currently serves on the Council of Trustees.
In supporting the Federal Marriage Amendment, which would prohibit gay marriage, Santorum has equated homeland security with the sanctity of traditional marriage. He has referred to gay marriage as "messing with the basic family unit."
During an interview with The Associated Press two years ago about a challenge to the constitutionality of Texas's sodomy law, Santorum said that if the Supreme Court allows gay sex at home (which it ultimately did), "you have the right to bigamy, you have the right to incest, you have the right to adultery. You have the right to anything."
On the marriage issue, Santorum also said: "In every society, the definition of marriage has not ever to my knowledge included homosexuality. That's not to pick on homosexuality. It's not, you know, man on child, man on dog, or whatever the case may be."
---
© 2005, The Philadelphia Inquirer.
Visit Philadelphia Online, the Inquirer's World Wide Web site, at http://www.philly.com
Distributed by Knight Ridder/Tribune Information Services.
A lot of it is downright embarassing, if you ask me.
I don't think I could hire a pedophile either. animals? If I caught one of my workers makin' yum yum to a poodle I'd fire him.
Thanks, it would figure they would get little coverage.
To shift your question ever so slightly . . .
Murder is vile and so are murderers. Would that change if your child murdered someone?
Facts don't change based on who does them, do they?
Homosexual acts are unnatural no matter if there is a tendency or not. Remember that for years, homosexuality was considered a mental disorder. Did you we get 'too smart' for our own good? I don't know if it is a mental disorder, but I do believe that it is a choice, a deliberate course of action and not beyond the realm of control.
To tell you the truth, I expected to see someone else's name mentioned, not Traynham's. There is another long time staffer who is supposed to be a homosexual.
I don't recall if you addressed this next point, but I think that if a person's staff isn't politically aligned with the boss, that there can be a substantial influence on the information that gets to that boss.
It's similar to the mainstream media referring to Iraq as another Vietnam. It doesn't take a 30 minute special on the subject to set the scene, just a passing derogatory reference or some omitted information or viewpoint.
If Santorum has not been making all of his own decisions lately, then the people around him do seem to have undue influence. On the other hand, if Santorum is making his on policy and initiative decisions, he seems to have lost his ever loving mind.
"That is your opinion. Opinions are fragile things, subject to change if the person holding them is willing to have an open mind and read and learn. Here's an article with a lot of info on the thread about the root causes of homoesxuality. Keep in mind that if homosexuality were inborn, there would be no - zero - former homosexuals. Turns out there are tens of thousands of former homosexuals. The mainstream media does not want their stories to be told."
What a pompous ass you are, talking down like that.
Your logic can't hold enough water to wet a stamp.
"Here's an article...the root causes of homoesxuality...."
There is a whole lot of professing and expressing about the "formers," but there is no empirical data I've come across, no respectable, reliably scientific examination.
Have men who've practiced homosexuality renounced the life, and never gone back? Yes, of course. Maybe they were never all that gay to begin with, but the culture steered them wrong when they were most vulnerable. And maybe, in some cases, there's more going on--maybe a deep, deep guilt, or shame, so they grab at the "conversion" "back to" heterosexuality like a drowning man grabbing a life preserver. (And as long as they cling tightly to it, they won't go back.)
Has it occurred to you that the zeal expressed by the "formers" very much mirrors the zeal of the those unfortunates we come across who've very suddenly and profoundly found Jesus--as if they were the first ones ever to find Him? There are many aspects about these "changed" homosexuals that parallels the fervor of the newly converted. This is a psychological/moral aspect that deserves serious examination.
Don't PRONOUNCE what is anecdotal to be fact.
Based on the chart provided, Santorum is virtually dead on center at 70% Right/Conservative, with no lean toward either side...
Which makes him just this side of moderate, which ain't that good. :(
They never do though, fatima, which leads me to believe they just like having the issue to carp about. :-)
"The only thing disgusting here is you."
NO, people like YOU who defend hypocrisy all because he is a Republican that PRETENDS to be "conservative". He has no principals and neither do you. Partisan HYPOCRITE!
"Do the Senator and the aide gaze meaningfully into each others eyes? Do they watch Gladiator movies together? Do they share a passion for show tunes and Judy Garland?"
Was that humor? If it was...it wasn't. If you were trying to make a point, I confess to having missed it. Please explain. Thank you.
You big mistake here, pal, is assuming that the rest of us are bigots like you. We're not.
I am not changing the subject, but that's it with you nmh. You're not even listening.
I don't think homosexuality is worse than adultery, or premarital sex, or unlawful divorce or lying or anything else.
I DO believe that there is a pervasive homosexual agenda that must be challenged, BUT THAT'S NOT WHAT THIS PARTICULAR ISSUE IS ABOUT.
I DO know that some conservatives are angry with Santorum for other reasons, BUT THAT'S NOT WHAT THIS PARTICULAR ISSUE IS ABOUT.
THIS is about the fact that Rick Santorum thinks homosexual sex is wrong but he employs a homosexual.
MY QUESTION IS, why does that make him a hypocrite? Rick Santorum thinks a number of things are sins (fornication, using birth control, adultery), but no one here is saying he is a hypocrite for employing OTHER kinds of sinners (it would be IMPOSSIBLE for him to avoid employing sinners). So why is this sin so special?
"No, I didn't call "hypocrisy" ugly. I said your attitude is ugly. Spare us all the strawmen and address the issue. What SHOULD Santorum have done?"
I'd say you're as much as a hypocrite as your beloved Santorum. I don't need "straw men" as you do to defend his selective hypocrisy.
What should he have done? Hired a STRAIGHT person that matches what he CLAIMS to believe. Duh!
Which means they never liked Santorum and want someone else or they do not like republicans.
You: You big mistake here, pal, is assuming that the rest of us are bigots like you. We're not.
First off, you're no "pal" of mine.
Secondly, this applies to you as well:
NO, people like YOU who defend hypocrisy all because he is a Republican that PRETENDS to be "conservative". He has no principals and neither do you. Partisan HYPOCRITE!
Re-read my post #33 for my take on this issue.
I have no interest in troll impersonators.
Cheers!
You know, Dane, while returning fire to little jeremiah and nmh, I've pretty much ignored you tonight. Let me correct that.
Everything I said to them, I say to you. And if the subtext of it isn't clear, here: you're an ignorant fool, and a very dangerous person to have on the conservative side. You're the one the Left points to when they want to paint all the rest of us as "intolerant homophobes." And, by extension, racists, anti-woman, impatient with the poor, etc.
Yes. Are you searching for grounds for an ad hominem attack, or do you wish to engage in substantive discourse?
Please re-read my post #33.
Cheers!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.