I noticed Andrew Sullivan characterized the Gannon-Gucket affair as a thing of the “homophobic left.” Now I know Sullivan’s been reluctantly agreeable to obvious cases of hypocrisy when individuals on the right either aren’t practicing what they preach or are throwing stones at glass houses, but his ambivalence towards shady deals like Gannon-Gucket makes me shake my head. Opportunism fuels hypocrisy, too, Andrew. Would you prefer to see Gannon-Gucket continue his Pretty Lady pose unchallenged?
I bring this up now because I read Sullivan’s comments on the heals of learning that Dr. W. David Hager, a Bush administration appointee to the Advisory Committee for Reproductive Health Drugs in FDA, had repeatedly sodomized his wife against her wishes. Part of me wanted to scream, “Is this an example of the work of the heterophobic left, Andrew?” That a sodomite thrived on the sympathy given to him by the right when his marriage crumbled is bad enough, but it’s all the worse because of he has power over my reproductive rights — and that of my daughter, my niece, my sister, my friends . . . shall I go on? It’s infuriating to me that the right’s own talent are such closet sinners at my expense.
And let’s not forget at his wife’s emotional expense. I can’t even begin to presume how horrible bringing Hager’s ugliness to light has been for her.
Now let me be clear: I’m all for sodomy. But only when parties consent to it and, presumably, enjoy it. And, to me, Hager’s backdoor tactics are the result not only of the biblically-based prudery of the fundie right, but the result of a far more generalized shamefulness about sexual desire. At best, it makes people lousy lovers. At worse, it makes them coercive, incapable of opening discussing their desires and needs and very capable of pulling selfish maneuvers to get what they want.
I doubt Hager sees himself as a hypocrite, however. Because he believes that women should submit to men, I bet he can “almost” perfectly justify his behavior — almost because if he strictly believes in the Bible, then he’s certainly a sinner. Of course, sinners can pray for forgiveness and profess reform, so even there, he has an out.
But not with me. He’s still a hypocrite and I’m not about to forgive him. He still has power over my reproductive rights and he still numbers among the many people on the right who fail to practice what they preach to others.
Like Jim West. The Today show webpage no longer posts its hard news summaries in a timely fashion, so let me point you to AmericaBlog’s summary. I saw the interview and West refused to accept any label of sexual preference — totally discounting it as unimportant — whined about the pain the media’s caused his family (not his actions, mind you), and claims to remain being a conservative who does the bidding of his constituents — the last of which John rightly shreds. Basically, West attempted to do a Hugh Grant recasting of the situation. I can only hope it’s publicly seen as disingenuous.
Sorry, West. Once a troll, always a troll.
On the bright side, at least Microsoft has canned Ralph Reed as a consultant. Of course, that’s not the whole story, but it’s not of a sexual freedom nature, so I won’t comment on it here.
American news and entertainment media isn’t all sexual hypocrisy, however, and I’ll bring you another entry of brighter news shortly.
