Is Duke Cunningham gay?

[bluestateguy]

http://washingtonblade.com/2003/7-4/news/national/birchdeny.cfm

By LOU CHIBBARO JR.
Friday, July 04, 2003

It began as a remarkable vignette about a virulently anti-gay congressman who reached out in private to gay activists with questions about how people know if they are gay. But last month, retold before an audience of nearly 200 at a Gay Pride town hall meeting, a remembered encounter from eight years ago has raised questions about whether the leader of this country’s largest gay rights organization has on several occasions effectively outed a member of Congress.

The most recent occasion was a Gay Pride forum on June 3, where a panel of gay rights leaders was addressing whether there was “a gay agenda.” Elizabeth Birch, executive director of the Human Rights Campaign, began her presentation, which focused in part on reaching out to gay rights foes, with an example about a private meeting she and an HRC colleague had in 1995 with an unnamed conservative Republican congressman who opposes gay rights.

The congressman startled her, Birch said, when he ushered his staff members out of his Capitol Hill office, closed the door, and asked Birch and Daniel Zingale, then HRC’s political director, just how it was that they came to know that they are gay.

cut

“And finally, he said, ‘Because I’ve loved men,’” Birch recalled the congressman saying. “And I said, ‘Was that in a military setting?’” Again, the audience laughed, acknowledging how awkward the conversation was for Birch and Zingale. “He said yes,” Birch recalled. “He said, ‘Yes indeed, on the field of battle, but I’ve also loved men.’”

cut

[Name removed]

1. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[SensibleAmerican]

4. More stereotyping

:eyes:

[MercutioATC]

39. Agreed.

...but you also have to consider that it's a release for some. This gay thing is relatively new...people are still getting used to it (yes, me too).



Small nudges. Nobody changes their perceptions overnight.

[MercutioATC]

2. Oh, brother...

...are we trying to emulate FreeRepublic tonite??

[SensibleAmerican]

3. This story is fucking bullshit!!!!

Apparently all corrupt politicians are gay? His sexuality is not notable and I highly doubt he is homosexual. Even if he is, I don't give a fuck.

[LiviaOlivia]

5. So why get so upset?

Geez. That's been known about the Dukester for years. Where have you been? Top Gun anyone?

[SensibleAmerican]

8. I haven't heard it

That being said I'm not too up to speed on these things as you might be. Regardless, it irks me when every bad guy is tagged as being gay, as the attempted implication is that being gay is being bad.

It's a subtle observation, but a real observation.

[Name removed]

10. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[SensibleAmerican]

14. What does his sexuality have anything to do with his crimes?

It's not notable.

[LiviaOlivia]

16. Do you know anything about his voting record?

And his "speech" on the the floor of the House of Reps?

I'm not going to fucking educate you. Look it up for yourself it's all a matter of public record.
Are you capable of doing any research on your own?

[SensibleAmerican]

18. delete

n/t

[LiviaOlivia]

21. self-deleted

[SensibleAmerican]

25. delete

n/t

[MercutioATC]

27. You both need to take a deep breath.

...you're on the same side, you just don't realize it.


Yes, it's an emotional issue. Personally, I agree that sexual orientation shouldn't be an issue at all but that doesn't stop me from seeing why some people would like to see this bite Duke in the ass.


Peace, folks. We really are on the same side here...

[Name removed]

31. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[dsc]

33. Given your thousand plus posts

you ought to know the rules, one of which is to avoid refering to other posters low post counts.

[LiviaOlivia]

40. Thank you

for reminding me. I can only aspire to reach your clarity and judgement.

[dsc]

43. I do love hypocrisy in a thread whose supposed purpose

is decrying hypocrisy.

[LiviaOlivia]

44. And what is truth then?

Please you are on the high road here. Show us our faults.

[dsc]

45. I have no idea

but frankly it isn't my fault you were rude, it isn't my fault you violated the rules, nor is it my fault that you did so in a thread decrying hypocrisy. The simple fact is you, and only you, caused you to do all of the above. Maybe instead of decrying me for having the temerity to point it out you should behave like the other poster did and own up to it.

[LiviaOlivia]

47. Where did I violate rules?

Please link a post to prove your point.

[dsc]

72. This is the rule in question

Do not draw negative attention to the fact that someone is new, has a low post count, or recently became a member of Democratic Underground. Do not insinuate that because someone is new, they are a troll or disruptor.

I can no longer link the post as it has been removed presumedly due to breaking the rules.

[MercutioATC]

49. Liv, you're in the wrong here...just 'fess up and move on.

I'm not suggesting that you don't have anything valuable to add to the conversation, I'm suggesting that you did obviously call somebody out because of their low post count and we're not going to get past that as long as you deny it.

No need for alerts...no need for deleted posts. We're adults and this is an emotional issue. We can have a constructive discussion if we just play by the rules.

[LiviaOlivia]

57. Why are you defending Cunningham?

Why are bashing me, a leftist, and protect a corrupt repuke, a convicted criminal and self-hating(and conversely himself a hater of openly GBLT people)closeted man?

see my link:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=1590934&mesg_id=1591347

[MercutioATC]

62. Hey, I just cautioned you on calling out members for their low post counts

...which was valid, if we're trying to police ourselves.

How have I defended Cunningham??

[SensibleAmerican]

35. Yikes, you're kidding me right?

Do you even know what activism for gay rights I'm involved in, both directly through GLBT issues and indirectly through campaigning for those who will support GLBT issues?

Nah you're just too busy thinking you're right and everybody else needs to shut the fuck up.

[MercutioATC]

36. "Personally"? No. They do seem passionate about the issue, however.

Look, all I'm saying is that both of you seem to believe that there's nothing wrong with being gay. That's big common ground.

As far as the Cunningham issue, I agree that sexual orientation should have no place in our criticism of Duke. The best anybody can hope to gain is showing that a former politician that's now in jail is a hypocrite...anf that's only if they can prove two things: 1) Cunningham made disparaging remarks about gays, and 2) Cunningham is gay. I really don't see the last one happening.

[SensibleAmerican]

32. I apologize to all who saw those posts before they were edited

I got upset when personal language was used, so I lost my cool. Thankfully, all the edits were voluntarily edited, so I thank Livia for that.

My blood is kinda cooling right now, though I probably will take a little break after I make this last comment.

I do understand why people are angry at Duke Cunningham if he was gay, yet opposed legislation for gay rights. I have equal contempt for heterosexuals who oppose gay rights and homosexuals, because their effect is the same.

However, Duke Cunnigham is in trouble not for what he voted on, but for his crimes. He is in jail because he was on the take, not for his voting record. So inherently when a comment is made, Duke Cunningham is gay, the conclusion is "aha, you're gay so you're a criminal". Let's not forget for a long time homosexuality was classified as a mental disorder.

But I do agree with you Mercurio, that we are all on the same side, the side of fighting for sexual freedom and equal rights for whatever consensual lifestyle people wish to choose.

[MADem]

17. How many out gays are painted with the bad brush?

It's the CLOSETED ones who seem to have trouble, not the out ones. I don't see Barney Frank buying commodes with ill gotten gains and living on a yacht paid for by lobbyists. The worst thing he ever did was make a foolish personal decision re: his love life!

[SensibleAmerican]

20. Your logic does not make sense

Let's separate three issues.

1. Being homosexual - does NOT have any bearing on the propensity to commit crimes.

2. Being a closeted homosexual - again your sexuality is private. This also does not have any bearing on the propensity to commit crimes.

3. Being a bigoted Republican - may have bearing on the propensity to commit crimes, but has nothing to do with your sexual orientation.

4. Being on the take - has a one to one correlation with being a criminal.

[MADem]

24. You can't separate the issues, though

The fact that they are COMBINED in the persona of this individual puts the Dukester in a PERPETUAL state of HYPOCRISY.

Each aspect alone is a single thing. Flour is flour, eggs, are eggs, sugar is sugar, and so on. But mix them all together and put the heat on, and you end up with a CAKE. The Dukester was quite the cake, and this is just the icing.

As another poster said, you need to research old Randy and then come back and give us your educated view. There are dozens of good articles out there to get you started.

[MercutioATC]

30. It's not "hypocrisy" unless Cunningham is gay.

I asked you politely before and you got rude.

Let's try it again. Do you have proof that Duke Cunningham is gay?

[MADem]

38. Did you read the article? This whole thread is an EXERCISE in

SPECULATION based on the original article that was posted. If you bothered to READ it, you would understand that. The QUESTION is posed in the article, no answers are provided. But hey, the keyboard beckons. Don't let a few facts get in the way of shooting off your mouth. You're the rude one, IMO. You jump in without doing the work, and then expect to be taken seriously.

READ, comprehend, then DISCUSS.

By your measure, without proof, there will NO discussions of anything, from Ken Lay's demise to the color of the sky, without the presentation of scientific evidence.

Of course I don't have evidence that the guy is gay.
And I haven't any evidence that he IS NOT, either.

I have heard him say rude things about gay people. That's my contribution to this exercise.

[MercutioATC]

46. See? There you go "thinking" again...

I did read the article. As I've said before, I don't doubt your accounts of Cunningham's statements and/or behavior.


I'm just asking you how those statements and/or behavior constitute hypocrisy.

[Name removed]

48. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[MercutioATC]

51. "Shitheel" or not, I still have a couple of questions...

You said:

"It's like making fun of people who smoke, and then sneaking into the restroom to light up. What I find interesting is his HYPOCRISY." and,

"The fact that they are COMBINED in the persona of this individual puts the Dukester in a PERPETUAL state of HYPOCRISY."

How is that not implying (at least) that Duke Cunningham is gay?



...oh, and I think we'd have a much more pleasant discussion if you'd refrain from juvenile labels like "shitheel"...

[Name removed]

52. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[MercutioATC]

54. O.K., IF the Duke is gay, THEN he's being a hypocrite.

...because he's made anti-gay statements in the past.

Is that your contention?

[MADem]

58. Genius....! You got it.

[MercutioATC]

60. It would have been a lot simpler if you had just said....

...something like "I only have anecdotal evidence that Duke Cunningham might be gay but, if he is, I think his negative comments about gays are hypocritical".


...instead of jumping to actually accusing him of being both gay and a hypocrite.

[MADem]

61. I DID, if you read my posts.

I made NO accusations, those appeared within your head.

RIF.

[MercutioATC]

65. Actually, you didn't. You just called him a hypocrite.

...and I've already posted your quotes.

I didn't see an "if" in any of those posts....

[MADem]

66. The speculation began in POST ONE, It asked a QUESTION.

Is Duke GAY? Not "Duke IS Gay" ...

You're just wanting a fight. Sorry, I'm done here.

[MercutioATC]

69. Fine. It appears I misinterpreted...

:eyes:

[helderheid]

76. it's the hypocrisy.

[MercutioATC]

9. Because it's making an issue of something that shouldn't be an issue.

It's like saying "Is Duke Cunningham part black?"

It's playing the "gay" angle as if there was something wrong with being gay.

It's offensive and unnecessary.

[LiviaOlivia]

11. Bullshit

He was a anti-gay gay.


Go read americablog.com a GLBT progressive blog. Get an education.

[MercutioATC]

19. So "outing" somebody who might or might not be gay helps how??

Duke Cunningham might be gay. He might not. His favorite color might be blue. It might not.


...but let's forget all of that for the moment. What proof is there that Duke Cunningham was ever involved in a homosexual relationship?


I have an education...I'd like you to show me yours.

[MADem]

13. Look, I knew that asshole on active duty, and if you did, you wouldn't

be so swift to dismiss this matter. He was quite the "gay bigot" in his jolly green poopy suit; so this is kinda interesting.

It's like making fun of people who smoke, and then sneaking into the restroom to light up.

What I find interesting is his HYPOCRISY.

[MercutioATC]

23. You have proof that Cunningham is gay?

[Name removed]

26. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[LiviaOlivia]

28. Isn't it incredible that some so-called progressives

protect the Dukester?

[MercutioATC]

29. Umm...you wanna back the fuck down?

I asked a question.

I didn't accuse you of anything, nor did I question your account of Cunningham's statements.


However, unless you (or somebody) has proof that Cunningham's gay, the contention that he's a "hypocrite" doesn't seem to be supported.

[LiviaOlivia]

50. From 2005

Friday, June 17, 2005

Two totally unrelated stories about anti-gay GOP Congressman Randy "Duke" Cunningham
by John in DC - 6/17/2005 01:22:00 PM

GOP congressman Randy "Duke" Cunningham. Was he outed by Elizabeth Birch several years ago?

And totally unrelated, the Wash Post reports this week that GOP Congressman Randy "Duke" Cunningham lives on his male lobbyist friend's yacht, and the yacht sure sounds like it's named after the congressman (it's called the "Duke Stir" - Dukester, get it?)

Not that there's anything wrong with that.

Oh, and Cunningham has a 17% rating from the gay rights lobby Human Rights Campaign.

on edit: add link: http://americablog.blogspot.com/2005/06/two-totally-unrelated-stories-about.html
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://ec.gayalliance.org/articles/000063.shtml


August 13, 2003
Did HRC's Birch out GOP congressman?
by Susan Jordan

Elizabeth Birch of the Human Rights campaign (HRC) has been accused of outing a member of Congress by telling the story of an anti-gay congressman who, eight years ago, privately asked her how people know if they are gay, and stated that he had “loved men”.

At a Gay Pride Forum in Washington, D.C. on June 3, Birch was commenting on reaching out to foes of gay rights. She said that in 1995 she and HRC then-Political Director Daniel Zingale had met with an unnamed conservative Republican congressman, who had been “derisive and demeaning” in his attacks on gay rights legislation.

Birch said that the politician held her and Zingale back after the meeting, and when his staff had left, he asked them, “So how do you know?… You know, how do you know if you’re that way?”

Birch said she offered a description of how people struggle to come to terms with gay identity, and the unnamed congressman said, “Because I’ve loved men.” She said that at the end of the meeting, she told the congressman that she would always protect him. She added that, although he continued to vote against gay rights, “We didn’t forget him. We check in on him.” She said that “there was a moment when we touched each other.”

Birch said that the meeting took place shortly after the congressman had created a controversy in 1995 when he referred to gays as “homos” on the floor of the House of Representatives. The Washington Blade says that media reports and background facts indicate that the congressman was Randall (“Duke”) Cunningham, “an arch-conservative from San Diego”. Cunningham was apparently the only member of the House who called gays “homos” on the House floor at the time.

Two gay Democratic activists in San Diego confirmed the first week in July that Birch told members of that city’s Democratic Club a nearly identical story in 1996, at that time directly identifying Cunningham. Harmony Allen, Cunningham’s press secretary, stated that Cunningham never met with Birch and never made any comments about loving men. She said the Democratic activists lack credibility and are motivated by political gain.

Cunningham has always been considered one of the most virulently anti-gay members of Congress. HRC gives him 17 points out of a possible 100 in their current congressional scorecard.

Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass), who has been on the receiving end of Cunningham’s homophobia, said, “He tends to blurt out stuff on gay issues. He seems to be more interested in discussing homosexuality than most homosexuals.”

Matt Foreman, executive director of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, said, “That kind of culture hiding is in every legislative body. I think the story was extremely sad. The relevant part of the record was he did not change his voting record.… I have no sympathy for a person like that. Because their actions harm millions of people.”

Birch told the Washington Blade that “I scrambled the facts. I created a composite.” HRC spokesperson David Smith said that the organization would have no further comment.

-Lou Chibbaro Jr., The Washington Blade

[MercutioATC]

53. That's your "proof"??

:eyes:

Using the first article as "proof of gayness" is just offensive.

The second could mean anything...


Is this really the best you can do?

[LiviaOlivia]

63. Since you want prove me wrong

please present your side proving me wrong in defense the convict Cunningham. Or don't you have any?

[MercutioATC]

64. O.K....here goes.

You're wrong because you have absolutely no proof that Cunningham is gay. Unless you do, your claim that he's a "hypocrite" is false.

[dsc]

73. Why is it defending Cunningham to say he isn't gay?

Doesn't that mindset sort of make my point. We only hear speculation about bad people being gay and when we dare criticise the speculation we are then accused of defending the very bad person. In reality we are defending both the truth and gays.

[Name removed]

6. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[chill_wind]

7. This matters to his criminal convictions exactly how?

We should care about his sexual orientation exactly why?

[MADem]

15. Well, he used to love to call people faggots on active duty

He was into the whole 'girly man' put down theme. He thought he was the definition of the manly man; and gee, I guess the definition is now shifting a bit.

It matters not a whit to his convictions, but it does matter when looking at his total picture in the military and in Congress. Some of the comments he made were stone cold hypocritical if this is true.

[chill_wind]

41. He was pure criminal sleaze.

Each to his own obsession, I guess.

His "titillating hypocrisy" being speculated here would true enough be odious- if ever proven- but still it pales in comparison to the rest of what we've learned he criminally did in known fact. He and his cronies are part of a wider scandelous iceberg I think we maybe haven't seen more than a tip of yet. It's a stain that just keeps oozing.

[Name removed]

12. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Heidi]

67. What do you mean? (nt)

[dsc]

22. I knew no gay people growing up

Well, actually I knew one. He was an ex gay really. I don't know if he went to an Exodus type of thing but he behaved as if he did. TV was all but berefit of gays. No gay teachers. No gay doctors, lawyers, or Indian chiefs for that matter. I remember the show Brothers on Showtime. My point, imagine growing up with literally no role model at all. Imagine wondering and not for crack pot reasons, if you are literally the only gay in your town.

Now imagine, if you eventually grow up and recognize that there are others only to see continually that even supposedly liberal sites continually speculate about the sexuality of every crook and liar on the planet but never the great and wonderful. Now you might have some idea why those of us who are gay are so damn tired of threads like these.

[Zan_of_Texas]

37. Speak for yourself.

I have been an activist in the lesbian and gay community for many years.

I have helped elect openly glbt people to office.

But, if a person elected to office is hiding something, it's relevant. If they are hiding their homosexuality, they CAN be blackmailed. We still live in a homophobic society. For some reason, the ones hiding seem to be to the right side of the spectrum.

They CAN be controlled by certain people who would do ANYTHING for power and greed.

I have seen a certain blue-eyed, attractive Hispanic man running for mayor in a large city, with support of national Republican money. A reliable source tells me he is gay. My hypothesis is that the Republican party loves to raise closeted gay people from when they are pups, and the higher the stakes, the higher the office they achieve, the less likely the person will be to go against the ones who promoted them, AND the less likely they will be to risk being outed.

Whether Duke is a closeted gay man or not, I believe there is more than one Republican closeted gay man in Congress, and I believe they are among those who do a fair amount of the ideological dirty work.

There are plenty doing dirty work (such as introducing the Patriot Act and countless other things). There are no doubt a number of secrets they are hiding, with closet homosexuality just one of many.

[dsc]

42. Oh please

I will start believing that these threads are about blackmail about the same time I believe in the tooth fairy. Name an evil bastard and I am likely to be able to find a thread speculating he or she is gay. Bush, Limbaugh, Cunningham, and I could go on. It doesn't take a psychic to see where this picture leads.

[Zan_of_Texas]

77. Well, I don't want them in my community ....

any more than I wanted J. Edgar Hoover.

Just sayin' ... I am not gay friendly to those who pass laws to criminalize and discriminate against openly GLBT people, whether they privately sleep with men, women, or beasts.

If you think of the cabal as solely interested in power and money, as opposed to democracy, you can understand why they would want to OWN people.

Have you checked out a photo of Mitch McConnell, a leading Republican in Congress, lately?

[Liberal In Texas]

34. "Some say he is..."

Sean Hannity

...or a statement by just about any anchor on Fox News(?) that makes it seem more authoratative.

[AngryAmish]

55. This shit pisses me off

Like every villian HAS to be gay. Grow up folks. There are bad straight folks.

[MADem]

59. But are they closeted straight folks? Who make fun of straight people?

I don't think it is the possible gay aspect that is the issue at all.

I think it is the speculated closeted aspect, the Federal Marriage Amendment supporting aspect, the publicly anti-gay and homophobic stance that is the issue. The hypocrisy...not the orientation.

[Ravy]

56. Who cares? (nt)

[ruggerson]

68. But what about Duke's PRIVACY???

Oh, sorry. I forgot.

DU'ers only indignantly bring up the privacy thing when it's a good person who's "accused" of being gay.

Carry on.

[MercutioATC]

70. Screw Duke.

We'll speculate that he might be gay and present it as fact because he's eeeeeeevil.....

It's O.K. because he's a gay-bashing Republican.

:eyes:

[varkam]

71. I feel pity for him, in some sense.

Living a lie is never easy, and no one should have to do it - not even a ReThug like Cunningham.

[lynne]

74. I just don't get this. I thought that "WE" were the gay-friendly -

- bunch. Now we are using homosexuality as a weapon and talking about gay-sexuality in a negative way - wishing it upon someone as a PUNISHMENT. Oh, yeah . . . that's REAL GAY FRIENDLY.

The hypocrisy here is absolutely STUNNING.

[Gormy Cuss]

75. Who cares?

He's out of Congress and on his way to jail. It's unlikely that he can do much damage any more with his homophobia. He's history.

For that matter, I don't care how many MOCs are self-loathing closeted gays. Their stand on the issues is all that matters to me. I don't care that Barney Frank is gay nor that Ted Kennedy isn't. I do care that both stand up for gay rights.