No it doesn't make any sense. Not to reasonable people, anyway.
Someone said something that made me think back to something that happened in the late 70's, in the start of David Boren's political career that might be worth revisiting though.
IIRC, there were two Republicans running in a primary to oppose him for the US Senate seat - I think 1978. Both the Republicans were losers, frankly - I recall both their names but I'm not going to mention them here. One of them, the son of a local car dealer who had transplanted from New Jersey, raised the issue of what we refer to today as Boren's "sexual orientation". The second Republican, a local attorney of dubious repute, took the allegation and ran with it. The good people of Oklahoma wrote it off as a cheap political smear. There were even a couple of lawsuits over it...
In the context of 2005, and what appears to be an attempted act of terrorism on the OU campus, though, maybe it's worth revisiting.
I recall when I worked for a defense contractor in the late 90's and had to get a low-level security clearance. One of the questions they asked was "Is there any reason that you could be blackmailed?" Once I went to work, I found that there were a couple of openly gay men working there. One of them explained to me that being openly gay was not a problem because an openly gay person can't be blackmailed - if he or she is "in the closet", that's a problem, because that makes a person at risk for blackmail by the threat of being "outed".
Anyway, I'm putting on my flame suit and asking the question a Republican Senate candidate was almost drawn and quartered for: Is David Boren "at risk for blackmail?"
No flames from me -- I agree with you 100%. Just found a very interesting article which I just linked below:
http://www.etherzone.com/2002/boot110102.shtml
All of these articles I have discovered are sourced which lends credibility to what we already know and suspect.