Thomas Lifson of American Thinker says it best:
Mainstream members of the homosexual community have a lot on the line with the Foley case. A new rule book is being written for behavior expected of homosexuals with consenting adult young males. It appears at this moment that Foley has not either touched or solicited anyone under 18.Our society as a whole, and specifically our federal government, has already decided that it is perfectly legitimate to be a homosexual and function as a valued member of Congress or federal employee. But now, homosexuality is being treated as a matter of shame, and Republicans are being castigated as insufficiently suspicious of a gay male. Homosexuality is being taken as a danger sign, requiring extra care.
And the fact that Foley is claimed to have had a sexual relationship with a 21 year old former page is making headlines in the Los Angeles Times and beyond. Foley evidently was punctilious about observing the rules.
“I always knew you were a player but I don’t fool around with pages,” declared one instant message from Maf54, a screen name used by Foley in exchanges that have now become public involving a number of male former pages.The former page’s account is consistent with Foley’s assertion that he did not have sexual relations with minors, a question that will be key to determining whether he committed criminal acts. Although the legal age of consent varies from state to state, in the District of Columbia, where the pages live in supervised dormitories, it is 16.Yet the former page’s exchanges with Foley offer a glimpse of possible predatory behavior by the congressman as he assessed male teenagers assigned as House errand runners.
Are gay men from now on supposed to have nothing to do with younger men until they are above the age of consent? What about all those gay scoutmasters the left wants to empower to go out on camping trips?
The mind of middle America is deeply uneasy about the idea that older homosexuals become friends with underage men, and then when they come of age, engage in sex. That’s why the visceral reaction to Foley, whatever the legalities, is so strong.
Shall we propose legislation that criminalizes sexual activities between consenting adult homosexuals if they came into contact before one of them was 16 or 18 or what ever the local age of consent is? And for that matter, what about heterosexuals?
Such a comprehensive law would be welcome, certainly by parents of both boys and girls. But I doubt very much that the gay community is interested in its passage. In fact, I strongly suspect that is a cause it would prefer not to discuss.
But once the point is conceded in the case of Foley that something truly objectionable has taken place, can ordinary homosexuals working in ordinary jobs ever feel secure again? Conceding that homosexuality combined with friendliness to young males is a danger sign warranting official inquiry is a big step in that direction.
And when the frenzy turns to outing or casting aspersions, nobody is safe, even practicing heterosexuals who happen to like show tunes, or have close male friends, or dress more elegantly than others.
This LA Times article makes it appear that Foley was like any other homosexual; not having a relationship until AFTER the page was of age.
This doesn't excuse Foley's actions and he should have resigned, but it appears the Dems are swimming up stream, trying to make this anything other than a homosexual relationship.
And according to their standards--between two consenting adults--something they have highly approved of.....as in the case of homosexual Dems Rep. Jerry Studds & Rep. Barney Franks.....who never resigned. And, of course....in the heterosexual relationship of President Clinton and White House intern Monica Lewinsky.
Wise words! Thanks for posting! ;-)
That would also be true if the "Older Person" was hetrosexual, although maybe not quite as much if she were an older hetro female.
You hit the nail right on the head, Victoria.