Sorry, Cruella and Mr. Ponath, But It Does Matter That Sheriff Paul Babeu Is Gay
HOMOSEXUALITY MAY INFORM POLICY DECISIONS AND IS THEREFORE RELEVANT
In reporting on and discussing the news that Sheriff Paul Babeu may have used his office to force a former gay lover to remain silent about their relationship or be deported, most seem to go to great lengths to avoid even the appearance of anti-homosexual bias. Reporters and radio figures utter the refrain, “it doesn’t matter if he’s gay,” incessantly. The Sheriff has said repeatedly that his sexual proclivities are private. Quite the contrary, the man is running for Congress, a body that sets policy, and the voters are entitled to know about the Sheriff’s preferences and if it will affect the way he votes. The cry that Babeu’s preferences are private and don’t matter amount to stating that the public shouldn’t vette their candidates, shouldn’t discern how a man will vote before they send him to Congress, that voters should just blindly send a candidate to Congress. In other words, ignorance is bliss. Only the ignorant, or those seeking to normalize homosexual behavior, can make that claim with a straight face.
OMISSIONS, VERACITY, TRUSTWORTHINESS, GOOD JUDGMENT
Some might make the argument, valid or not, that a Sheriff makes few policy decisions and therefore Mr. Babeu’s bedroom proclivities aren’t relevant to the position of Sheriff, so, it wasn’t necessary for him to disclose who he likes to sleep with. No tenable argument can be advanced that a Congressman doesn’t vote on public policy. Voters have a right to know every detail about a public official that may influence their decision-making on policy matters that may affect our freedoms, our pocketbooks, or our social norms. To argue otherwise is utterly benighted and laughable.
Since one’s homosexuality has the possibility of affecting one’s decision-making on policy issues, Paul Babeu owed it to the public to come out the instant he asked the public to vote for him. Babeu has actually been running for public office since 1987 when he ran for North Adams City Council in Massachusetts. He should have been out for more than two decades! The public expects their elected officials to be forthright and exercise good judgment. That he hid his homosexuality suggests a serious omission and lack of judgment. That he continues to give press interviews like Anthony Weiner or any other public official that believes they’re untouchable also suggests a lack of judgment or a penchant for listening to bad advice. The public can only logically prefer officeholders that have the wisdom to discern between good and bad advice.
In a live interview on February 21 with CNN’s Wolf Blitzer, the Sheriff stated that he wasn’t ashamed with who he his. If that’s the case, why fail to disclose his homosexuality at the outset when he ran for office in 1987? The Sheriff indicated that people have been trying to out him for years and in fact, he should have come out because now, those individuals who never knew he was gay may feel lied to.
WHERE THERE’S SMOKE….
The omission by Paul Babeu keeping his homosexuality a secret suggests that he may not be forthright on other issues as well. If the rumors of Babeu’s homosexuality turned out to be true, perhaps the allegations of abuse at the DiSisto school in Massachusetts are true.
THE GAY AGENDA AND THE SHERIFF
Returning to policy issues, there are a vast host of homosexual-related issues that Paul Babeu could vote on in Congress. The “LGBT community” has policy goals for normalizing and mainstreaming their behavior. It is very valid for voters to question whether the Sheriff will oppose the efforts to normalize homosexuality or if he’s going to be a champion for their issues because he’s gay. The default guess would be that, as a gay man, he would be sympathetic to the homosexual agenda. While we’re all individuals and the Sheriff could surprise us all by staking out strong social conservative positions all down the line…
…if it weren’t for his own statements. On Tuesday, February 21, the Sheriff gave a live interview to CNN’s Wolf Blitzer. In that interview, the Sheriff indicated that he believes we’re, “evolving as a nation.” So, we’re knuckle-draggers now, Mr. Sheriff? And we might walk upright, wear better than untreated animal furs and be civilized once we completely normalize and embrace the homosexual lifestyle? So, if we agree with you, we’re OK, and if we don’t, we’re Neanderthals or worse? What’s the end result of this “evolution,” Paul? The worldwide population is all gay or bisexual?
Sheriff Babeu also stated that homosexual partners should be allowed hospital visitation and stated that, “the right of inheritance should be honored all across America.” Sounds like he believes there’s room for the federal government to legislate on homosexual issues. Wolf Blitzer asked if the Sheriff would be heavily involved in the Log Cabin Republicans and he said that he would. That organization advocates for gay rights. He’d be involved with the organization primarily because he’s gay and it highly suggests that he’d be in lockstep with the gay agenda. So, again, there is the possibility that any homosexual’s preferences would drive their political decisions, so, sexuality is an issue for any candidate. It’s even an issue for straight candidates. It’s the subtext in any picture of a candidate with his wife and/or children.
HOMOSEXUALITY, FEDERAL ISSUES AND THE NEXUS OF SOCIAL, FISCAL, AND CONSTITUTIONAL CONCERNS
The voters have the right to know if his homosexuality informs his position on legislating against “hate speech.” This is more than just an issue for social conservatives. Federal law can make a company liable for tolerance of a broad pattern of speech that creates a hostile working environment. Does the Sheriff support the law? Should consumers be forced to pay higher prices for goods and services because a business chooses to exercise its private property rights by not policing the speech of its employees? That is a private property concern, an economic efficiency concern and therefore a concern for fiscal conservatives as well. Curtailing speech, no matter how objectionable, is also First Amendment Concern for constitutionalists and First Amendment activists.
In a related vein is the issue of “hate crimes.” Does the Sheriff believe that the federal government should be involved as it is in criminal law, or should criminal law be something best left to the states as often as possible? There has always been the concern of fairness with “hate crimes.” The objection has been raised that murder is murder, no matter what it’s motivating factors. The voters have a right to know if the Sheriff believes that all murders should be prosecuted and punished equally or if homosexuals and other individuals should receive special protections.
Like “hate crimes,” there are a host of other issues at the federal level that the Sheriff could vote on. The analysis is the same: will the Sheriff’s homosexuality impact his votes on the issues. It would be repetitive to go through each issue, but a list of the many issues would be illustrative. At the federal level, we’ve experienced the defense of DOMA or the lack thereof; gays in the military; the institution and repeal of DADT; the passage of the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA); workplace non-discrimination laws; the debate over allowing gay marriage nationwide; allowing HIV-positive visitors into the U.S.; and the federal funding of AIDS prevention, treatment, research, and community programs. Since the Sheriff has said he’d be heavily involved in Log Cabin Republicans and has rattled off a couple of issues that he believes the federal government should promote, it is logical to assume the trend will hold and the Sheriff will back the Left’s position on all these issues.
CONGRESS AS A STEPPING STONE FOR HIGHER OFFICE
Many Congressmen run for Governor. Idaho Governor Butch Otter was a Congressman, and Congressman Mike Pence of Indiana is running for Governor. Many Governors run or become President. Reagan was Governor of California. Bush was Governor of Texas. So, since Congress is a stepping-stone to higher office, voters need to keep in mind that whoever they send to Congress may wind up as their U.S. Senator, Governor, or President. Voters must ask themselves if they want to allow a candidate the access to run for even higher office. In the interview with Wolf Blitzer, Sheriff Babeu indicated that many gay agenda issues should be settled at the state level due to federalism. If that’s the case, do voters want another gay Arizona Governor? One that promotes the gay agenda? What about a gay President that promotes the gay agenda. If the answer is no, then those voters need to stop Babeu now by voting for one of his opponents.
The strident Left may scream “heterosexism,” but we enjoy the freedom in this country to vote for those who most closely align with our principles. The Bible condemns homosexuality in no uncertain terms. Those who agree with the Bible have every right to vote as their conscience dictates, even if that means they vote in a “bigoted” fashion. Similarly, Leftists who believe in the gay agenda have a right for someone who will promote their agenda.
PRIMARIES AND PREDICTIONS
Sheriff Babeu is done in politics forever as a Republican. He’s made national news with his homosexuality now. Unlike when he moved from Massachusetts to Arizona to get away from his problems, he can’t hide this time. His fundraising will dry up, his poll numbers will plummet, he will lose and garner perhaps ten percent or less at the polls. He’ll never win another election unless he runs as a Democrat.
Running as a Democrat may be apropros. Not only has the Sheriff begun to stake out pro-homosexual agenda stances, but he is also on track to overspend his budget by $2.3 million. So, he believes in big government issuing social dictates as well as overspending.
The Sheriff should make all haste to craft a comprehensive set of policy statements on all issues that may pertain to his homosexuality. Clearly, the Sheriff’s policy positions, which may well be driven or colored by his sexual preferences may have a direct impact on his votes. Granted, we’re all individuals and the Sheriff could stake out the most socially and fiscally conservative positions on the host of issues relating to homosexuality, but to claim that his sexual preference is his business, is private, or doesn’t matter is flatly perfidious. By running for public office, especially an elected position that has a say in policy matters, the Sheriff has made himself a public figure under increased public scrutiny and the public has the right to either know every niggling detail that may have a bearing on his votes or withhold their votes from him and support another, more open, forthright candidate. The Sheriff simply must stake out his positions and do so with the utmost haste or the questions about his policy stances will pile up so quickly that voters will wander away to other candidates for a lack of answers.
In the end, it is very relevant if the Sheriff happens to actually be a social and fiscal conservative or if he’s just another Massachusetts liberal and his homosexuality may have a bearing on that analysis. So, to all the reporters and talking heads, quit claiming that the Sheriff’s homosexuality doesn’t matter, we’re not buying it.
Submitted by an anonymous contributor
Submitted by an anonymous contributor