Pennsylvania Republican Congressman waits until after election to admit he’s gay

Congressman Mike Fleck (R-PA) claims he waited until after the election to admit he’s gay to “avoid unnecessary distractions for his friends and colleagues”, but I’m not buying it. He just announced it in an interview over the weekend with his district’s local paper.

No matter how you feel about his being gay or not, I find it absolutely dishonest to conceal it just to get elected. I’m not saying it was an easy decision to make for him to ‘come out’, but if I were a Republican voter in Pennsylvania I’d want to know all the facts about my candidate before voting. Otherwise I’d feel duped.

If power means more to Fleck than telling the truth to his constituents, he doesn’t deserve to be in Congress.

DAILY MAIL – A Republican state representative from rural Pennsylvania announced Saturday that he was gay in an interview with the Huntingdon Daily News, making him just the party’s second openly gay member currently in state office.

Mike Fleck, 39, who describe himself as a devout Christian, said that the decision to make his sexual orientation public was a difficult one but one that he felt needed to be made.

‘Coming out is hard enough, but doing it in the public eye is definitely something I never anticipated,’ he told the newspaper. ‘I’m still the exact same person and I’m still a Republican and, most importantly, I’m still a person of faith trying to live life as a servant of God and the public. The only difference now is that I will also be doing so as honestly as I know how.’

With his announcement, Fleck joins Missouri state Rep. Zach Wyatt as just the second openly gay Republican representative currently in office. He is also the first openly gay legislator in Pennsylvania, though he will be soon joined by newly elected representative Brian Sims, a democrat.

Fleck said that his announcement would not change how he votes in office and pledged to his constituents that he will remain a steadfast representative of their Republican beliefs.

‘The Republican party is all about the government needing to stay out of people’s lives,’ he said. ‘I’m not a one-issue person and it’s not a one-issue party.’

And it appears that he will have to, if he hopes to keep his seat long-term. The district is one of the more conservative in the state, as registered Republicans outnumber Democrats nearly 2-to-1.

Fleck said he waited until after the election to disclose his sexuality in order to avoid unnecessary distractions for his friends and colleagues. He has been in office since 2006 and ran opposed this year.


Comment Policy: Please read our new comment policy before making a comment. In short, please be respectful of others and do not engage in personal attacks. Otherwise we will revoke your comment privileges.
  • What is his position on gay marriage? Is he full fill his sexual desires or does he keep them in check? (as that would mean he really is a christian) Those are the questions i would like answered

    • DavidRobertson

      Good question. I care less about when or how he reveals he is gay any more than someone cares about my sexual preferences; I care more about his stance on policy.

      Is he a Republican that thinks that gay marriage is somehow a civil right? Or, is he one that believes that this is not civil rights related and is more around the dilution and redefinition of marriage as it is recognized by state?

      I may be in the minority on this, but I don’t buy the idea that the state has nothing to do with marriage. Government has a vested interest in supporting the basic building blocks of society: marriage and family. Nearly all the evidence out there suggests that the breakdown of the family brings more destruction to society than anything the government can invent on its own.

      If we want the “life of Julia”, then we can continue down the policy roads we are heading. If we want to flourish as a free society, we had better get our heads on straight about the fundamental importance of Fathers and Mothers in a child’s life. It’s not hate. It’s not leaving gays out of marriage; if they want to get married, they can do so in its current definition. Please, just don’t boil marriage down to a social contract between two people without regard to gender when it means so much more to our health as a nation.

      • BMinPA

        >>Government has a vested interest in supporting the basic building blocks of society: <<

        Be careful now. This is the exact line liberals have used to give the welfare state we now have. To you, building blocks is marriage and family and to them it is keeping the poor fed and housed.

        • warpmine

          …..on the plantation. Finished it for you.

          • BMinPA

            Absolutely. Romney should have taken pictures of Chicago public housing and showed them at his NAACP talk. They resemble concentration camp conditions. Then he should have told them this is what 50 years of Democrat rule has done to you. Instead, he delivers the boilerplate talk that has been said a 100 times and never works. It is a remarkable tribute to Democrats that they can sell this sorry track record year after year.

            • warpmine

              Just cannot fix stupid!

        • DavidRobertson

          Understood, but the overwhelming evidence suggests that welfare policies as implemented in our country have assisted in the exodus of fathers in the family. Therefore, supporting welfare isn’t supporting the family. moreover children from 2 parent households statistically do far better and stand a much better chance of not burdening the system.

        • DavidRobertson

          Thinking on the phrasing…I don’t expect the government to do much more than recognize and protect the institution of marriage and family. I don’t care for them to subsidize it, merely recognize and defend parental rights and responsibilities and their importance in a healthy society.

      • ssenecal5000

        You are right but this is a battle against the liberals slogans and avoidance of details
        Marriage , whether legal or religious, has nothing to do with the “rights” of the couple.
        The only rights addressed in a marriage is the biological rights of children to know and be supported by the man that created them.
        The biggest scourge of humanity is not war and disease, it has been the fatherlessness of children, which leaves the most vulnerable humans to the horrors of poverty, starvation and abuse.
        Everyone has this issue backwards. Anyone can now have a religious ceremony of their choosing. Gays have been having that for decades.
        A legal marriage is not a condoning of the sexual desires or wants of heterosexualss, it’s the recording of the man as the father of any child born to the woman.
        Any child born to the wife in the course of a marriage is legally and automaticaly the responsiblity of the husband When he signs the marraige certificate he’s gaining responsilibity not rights.
        Homosexual couples will never be in a situation where both of them are the biological parent. It’s very impossible, so in a court of law the notion of biological rights of the child are not answered becuase it can not be assumed that both are the parents.
        Sure they can have a surrogate or donation but that still does not answer the question of the childs biological rights in a court of law. The surrogate has to sign away their responsiblity to the child in a seperate legaal document
        But it gets worse. If we get convinced that sexual desires emit rights then our actual Constitutional rights are in serious jeapordy
        If sexual desires can create rights, then any sexual desire or want can create rights . Once this happens , our actual rights will be limited and even destroyed.
        Sound crazy?
        It has already happened.

        • DavidRobertson

          Spot on, thank you

        • tinlizzieowner

          Well put.

    • If he’s gay, then that means he probably has relationships with other men. He isn’t trying to deny his sexual orientation. Of course he would want to have a loving relationship! That’s a genuine human desire that isn’t constrained only to straight men.

      • 学中文的美国男人 the point is he went to the election without telling those who voted for him that he was gay. If he eventually comes out and supports gay marriage and that is not what his voters wanted, then he has deceived his electors. I hope he does a good job and stays out of trouble, but really if you are hiding something like this what else are your hiding. His human desires have nothing to do with his responsibility to his electors and to the rule of law. Your argument is the same dangerous moral relativism that says that if we call criticize UN Ambassador Rice for being incompetent or misleading the public on Bengazhi then we are racists. Or where it’s ok for movie directors to rape and abuse with minors because they are great artists.

    • warpmine


    • TexasBanker

      Since he is not my child, I care not what he prefers in his bedroom. The important questions for my election candidates are: Does he believe in a limited government as perscribed in the Constitution? If so, does he have the guts to stand up for those beliefs? Same goes with straight candidates. I don’t want to know what they do with their partners/spouses/friends behind closed doors, nor do I need to know.

    • Edward La Guardia

      wow that is so judgmental and inaccurate…do you keep all your vices and sins in check at all times?…if not then you really aren’t a Christian.

  • It is dishonest due to the issue of gay marriage as well. If his constituents knew he was gay and did not support gay marriage they might have thought otherwise about electing him.

    But the bigger issue is why do we have people running for Congress that feel the need to conceal themselves from their voters?

    • Because there are ignorant voters who care more about a candidates personal life or sexual orientation than they do about large issues of life and liberty, of limited government and fiscal responsibility, that’s why.

      • In this day and age one’s personal and or sexual life is political. If he as a gay was for gay marriage he might not of gotten elected. If he was not for gay marriage being gay then he would be branded a traitor and a hypocrite.

        The point I’m making is it is the liberal left that has taken the personal and the private and made it political, and yet they scream about the government in our bedrooms. Seriously…look at Sandra Fluke!

        Boy I could write a serious essay about this but I think you get the point.

        • 3seven77

          Yep. They want the government out of their bedrooms and their wombs…. until it comes to free contraceptives and abortions. Then the government and taxpayers are first in line to foot the bill.

        • Not all gays support gay marriage. A great many straight people DO support gay marriage. Agreed, IF he LIED about his position on gay marriage to get elected, then voted in favor of gay marriage while in Congress, that would be a problem. BUT that would be a problem whether he were gay OR straight, no? There is NO assertion that his political positions are any different than what he ran on to get elected. Therefor, to me, his gayness or lack thereof is a complete non-issue. I know a lot more straight people who advocate gay marriage than I do gay people, Democrats and Republicans alike.

          • That is your position which lacks a certain amount of logic but you are entitled to it. Lying is lying and concealing is also lying. So don’t be surprised when he does a 180 or takes a particular stance that was assumed wasn’t there because he purported himself to be something he isn’t.

            I understand why he did what he did but I don’t agree with it. Furthermore it puts another black eye on the GOP.

            I don’t really care about the straights you know that support gay marriage or not. It is irrelevant to the issue at hand, and moral relativism always leads to trouble and demonstrates a serious lack of judgment. That is why we are seeing so many problems in this country today.

            I hope this congressman doesn’t let you and his other supporters down and for many reasons. He should of been straight (pun intended) about who is he and why. Honesty is always the best policy.

    • What is he concealing? Sexual orientation of a candidate isn’t an issue or something that affects policy. I have yet to see a straight candidate come out and express publicly that they are straight.

      • BMinPA

        I’ll take a conservative gay republican over a church going liberal. There is nothing the former can do to me. The other guy can reach into my paycheck before I see it.

        • stage9

          How can he be conservative and a homosexual? Conservatism advocates moral values. It’s the liberal that advocates decadent behavior.

          “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” — John Adams

          • BMinPA

            You are right on one level but I am talking from a practical standpoint. I am too old to be persuaded to take up “alternative” lifestyles and as for my kids I’ll take care of their morals. Nobody has more influence on them than the family. You want proof? In the past 100 years, actually ever, gay marriage has never been legal and during the same period the reach and spread of gay culture has spread by leaps and bounds. Whatever you are doing is not working.

            • stage9

              Well, we aren’t doing much of anything frankly. That’s why it’s spreading. The main thrust of the Pro Family movement has been legislation rather than EDUCATION. Even the guys at massresistance are frustrated at this. Many Pro family organizations are timid and ineffectual.

              Kevin Jennings, Obama’s EX Safe Schools Czar said this:
              “If the Radical Right can succeed in portraying us as preying on children, we will lose.”

              Homosexuals KNOW that their key to winning is to lie and manipulate. We must come out swinging and show the public the truth and that requires education. And that’s why I’m passionate to educate my fellow Conservatives regarding these issues because many simply don’t realize what’s going on behind the scenes.

            Point taken? Not all gays are liberals.

            • ssenecal5000

              Or like Tammy Bruce
              You can not be a fiscal conservative without being a social conservative.
              In order for fiscal conservatisms to work , society has to be set up so it does NOT need big government programs
              Real marriage insures each child has a father who is financially repsonsible for them. The marraige cert officallly declares the husband the father of all children born to the wife during the course of their marriage. He is automatically the legal father of each. This reduces instance of fatherless children AND thus the need for bigger welfare programs.
              Homosexual marraige is aboutthe sexual desirs of the couple , nothing more.
              The government should be involved in chasing down dead beat dads, it should not be involved in sexual desires among adults themselves.

              • Tammy Bruce is gay.

          • Easy. You oppose big government, support cutting spending, and support individual rights. Then you are a conservative. In fact, you might even support getting the government out of people’s bedrooms and letting people have the individual right to decide whether or not they want to consent to a gay relationship.

            From a moral standpoint, you can also oppose theft, including the kind of theft that comes from excessive taxation and wasteful government spending, and oppose other immoral behaviors. Apparently you believe that being gay is immoral, but most people don’t, because being gay doesn’t violate anyone else’s rights.

      • For one we do have a very public fight over gay marriage so yes his homosexuality will bring into question his stance on gay marriage. Next up most people are not gay. As a matter of fact homosexuals are one of the smallest minorities to ever exist. People don’t proclaim they are heterosexual because it is a given for the most part. If one deviates from what most people are they are obligated to explain and or justify that deviation. Anything less is dishonest. If he is dishonest about that then he will think nothing of being dishonest about other things. I agree that in a perfect world one’s sexual orientation shouldn’t matter but I didn’t create this world and I certainly didn’t politicize sex…HOMOSEXUALS DID. You reap what you sow in this world. Behavior and integrity matters including that of homosexuals. Sexual orientation can and does effect policy. To think otherwise is naive at best.

        Homosexuality is beyond a sexual practice. It is a political agenda created by homosexuals decades ago.

        Cop a clue.

        • People don’t have to explain their sexual desires to anyone but the person they are interested in having sex with. I really do not want to hear all the details what someone did last night with their significant other. I don’t care, and it would frankly be weird.

          “Bill, this is my friend Bob.”
          “Hi Bob, nice to meet you. Did you have sex last night? Who was it with? What did you do? Tell me all the details.”

          That’s just strange. It’s irrelevant to the conversation of whether Bob will make a good Congressman or not.

          If you want to start asking what his sexual preferences are, what else do you want to ask? What’s his favorite color? Ask him to release his elementary school transcript? That’s just the kind of random irrelevant nonsense in the same boat as asking about his personal life.

          Even Mitt Romney didn’t want to release very many years of his tax returns, because tax returns are also irrelevant.

          • That is your choice but most of the thinking population disagrees with you. There are connotations and certain points of views that go with homosexuality…and votes on issues as well. And while you speak of ‘gay marriage’ and ‘gay related’ as no big deal, to most people that don’t wallow in moral relativism it is a very big deal.

            Yes spending does have an implication to homosexuality and is totally related. Have you not been watching the current debate and court case over extending federal benefits to gay partners of federal employees? That is spending!!!!!

            I know you want to think of sexuality in the abstract and it being no one’s business…but here is a cold hard fact that has been true since the dawn of time. Your sexuality is not abstract and is everyone’s business because your sexuality doesn’t happen in a vacuum and is a part of you and your worldview. Sexuality is a direct part of how we relate to one another.

  • tinlizzieowner

    If his sexual choice was a real issue, I’m sure it would have come out before now. Obviously, he doesn’t wear it around like a cheap tee shirt (can you say Barney Frank).
    😉 😉

    • SineWaveII

      …or a cheap blue maternity shirt (can you say Barney Frank).

    • I agree. Isn’t it a good thing that he doesn’t feel the need to tell everyone all the time? Isn’t that what we get onto the gay left for?

      I mean, are we going to protest Rock Hudson’s movies because he came out later in life?

      • tinlizzieowner

        I’ve said this a hundred times and I’ll say it again. I don’t care about ‘Gay’. I’ve got ‘Gay’ friends, I’ve got ‘Gay’ relatives, but……….
        If you are so insecure within your own sexuality, you feel the need to wear it around like a cheap (I’m Queer and I’m here) tee shirt and stick it in my face, dont become insulted or indignant if I choose to comment on it.
        This doesn’t just apply to Homosexuality. If you’re a young chick with tight shorts packed up in your crotch and your ‘jugs’ hanging out, don’t all huffy if I choose to look. I might be old but I’m still male. 😉 😉

  • colliemum

    You’re right, scoop: it is dishonest.
    I’d be deeply annoyed if I were one of his constituents. Not because he’s gay, but because he didn’t have the cojones to come out with that before the election. This shows he’s got a flawed character.
    If he doesn’t get re-elected, he can squeal it’s because he’s gay – but everybody knows it’s because he’s been dishonest.

  • nibblesyble

    Ahhh dishonesty at it’s most ugliest. Why wasn’t he ‘outloud and proud’ before the election…you know not be afraid to ‘express himself” and all that? I assume people on both sides of the issue probably see him as a snake.

    • That is just stupid. Does he stand for the principles of the Republican party, or doesn’t he? Does he believe in limited government and fiscal restraint or doesn’t he? He was absolutely right to not bother with this issue during the election as it most assuredly IS a distraction from the real, weighty issues, like the fiscal cliff and big government encroaching on our liberties. Does he support and defend Constitutional republican principles? Then I do NOT care who he is shagging.

      • nibblesyble

        Neither do I Kimberly, I take issue with his hiding it, but feeling free to ‘come out’ after the fact. He should have been out before hand and letting the voters decide if he would keep his lifestyle out of ‘gay marriage’ he should have trusted the voters to discern his platform for themselves. ALl he did was say..’I was afraid you backwards, nasty, ignorant republicans would only view me thru the spectrum of who I am “shagging” and not the other things I stand for” If he stayed quiet before hand he should have stayed quiet afterward..,what was the purpose for ‘coming out now? I don’t like frauds, they can be hetero, gay, green..whatever, just tell the bloody truth!

    • And yet these same people on both sides of the aisle have no problem ‘expressing themselves’ as big spenders who push big government and progressive legislation that damages the country after getting elected. They’re the snakes.
      Isn’t it a good thing he’s not parading his sexuality around as an issue? That’s the identity politics we rightly go after.

  • E. Lee Zimmerman

    Yeah, methinks that’s more than just a bit dishonest. I mean … why reveal it at all, at this point, except to thumb his nose at folks who may’ve voted for him unless they don’t choose to based on a lifestyle choice? I think this demonstrates what’s entirely dishonest about our political system. And NO I have no problem with him being homosexual. I’m making a statement about honesty in politics.

    • SineWaveII

      Well since we need every republican vote right now let’s see how he votes on the important issues. If he turns out to be a RINO or worse a DIFRIN (Democrat In Fact, Republican in Namel) then he should be primary’d out his office and replaced with a real republican.

  • marketcomp

    This is a deceptive move! I mean why does he believe that this was the right thing to do? It appears that no one really cares about his sexual orientation so why would he be dishonest about it? The Republican Party will destroy itself. If we go along with this kind of dishonesty then we are no better than Barack Obama and the democrat party who will do and say anything to get elected. If I were his constituent I would not re-elect him for another term because what if he had cancer or a terminal illness, would he tell his constituency? Well, if he’s dishonest how can his constituents trust him? Perhaps he is a democrat plant just like it appears that Obama infiltrated the Romney campaign. I trust no one who is this dishonest, no one!

  • Haywoodjbl

    Who cares? This is a non-story. I could not care less what anyone’s sexuality its.

    • marketcomp

      Yea, but apparently he does? You are right it is a “non-story” except for the fact that he was dishonest to his constituency and that’s really the bigger issue.

      • Dukehoopsfan

        That would put an end to any credibility I might have granted him.

      • Truck_Party

        Did he claim he was straight during his campaign?

        • marketcomp

          I don’t know what he claimed during the campaign but it is obvious that he didn’t say that he was a homosexual otherwise why say it now? But it he is saying that he is gay now but why not claim gay before the campaign? Look, no one knows your sexual orientation until YOU, the individual, annouce it. I have always thought that homosexuals have always concealed their sexual identity or orientation otherwise I do not beleive that they would have made many of the gains that they have made. It’s a deceptive postion that has paid off for them! Hey, were all homosexual now! Maybe we all should start claiming homosexuality then we can get special treatment!

          • wodiej

            If everyone running for office laid out all of their personal baggage, they’d all be liars.

            • marketcomp

              It’s not about everyone revealing their babbage, as you put it. It’s about being honest! Why would anyone hide this very important fact that reflects on character? For example, what if no one knew that he was gay and he was voting on all issues relating to same-sex marriage which his constituency is against? Revealing what you are will reveal motives and drive for casting votes. Another example, if my representative was against the 2nd amendment and did not reveal that information and voted for or against legislation that was anti-gun then I would be totally incensed and indignant. Well it’s the same with this representative and his constituency has a right to know before he is elected. If it doesn’t matter why reveal it now and not before? DECEPTIVE which is par for the course!

          • Truck_Party

            Or the guy just likes men, & was born that way. Or he thinks his sexual orientation shouldn’t matter to you. Or he thinks he couldn’t have won by announcing it before, & judging by a lot of the comments here there would be a lot of validity to that.

            Either way, I don’t care. I care how he votes, if he’s attracted to men but votes the way I’d like him to, then God bless him.

            • marketcomp

              OK, except for the fact that when voting you also vote on social issues and one in particular that may come up is same-sex marriage. If the constituency thinks that you will vote against this because you represent the distirct then they will be in for a rude awakening. Character matters and being silent about something so important that speaks to character then you will lie about anything! My contituents would know that I would vote for everything to keep the family in tact and that means the traditional family; mother, father, or support marriage between one man and one women, period. There would be no doubts about that. With this representative ther would be significant doubts!

              • Truck_Party

                Did he give a position on same-sex marriage? He says he will represent the his district’s republican values, I’m guessing that will include same-sex marriage as well. I guess we’re going to have to agree to disagree, because I don’t view being gay as a ‘character issue.’

                • marketcomp

                  Apparently he does otherwise why reveal it now?

    • Conniption Fitz

      ‘Gay’ is a political agenda term. It means having an agenda to normalize and/or promote a high-risk unhealthy lifestyle.

      According to the CDC, medical and mental health statistics:
      – 44 TIMES the incidence of HIV/AIDS
      – 46 TIMES the incidence of all other STDs (syphillis, gonorrhea, HPV, hepatitis)
      – Injuries, anal and oral cancers, depression, suicide, domestic/date violence, murder are greatly increased in this population.
      – Costly to care for an AIDS patient. $600,000. per patient.
      – Obama has spent hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars to promote homosexuality in public schools.

      It does matter – a great deal – socially and financially – and to the health of millions of children.

      Our future depends on honest, realistic decisions made on the basis of FACTS, REALITY, EVIDENCE and SCIENCE, not PC or sexual activism.

      • Conniption Fitz

        For the truth about homosexuality go to these experts:

        SCIENCE – Dale O’Leary – scientific facts and studies and the truth about activists agenda:

        SCRIPTURE – Biblical Truth about homosexuality – Dr. Robert Gagnon

        MENTAL HEALTH – Truth about reparative therapy for homosexuals: NARTH –

      • wodiej

        How many people use tax dollars so their kids get a free public education? Put your kids in a Christian school where they hopefully will learn more about being a real Christian

        • There is no such thing as a ‘free’ public education. The sheer fact that you said that tells me you are ignorant.

          And why should he put his kids in a ‘christian’ school when he pays taxes? Why do you think you get to set the agenda in schools over everyone else? What makes you so special?

    • E. Lee Zimmerman

      Well, he cared enough about it to keep it from the voters. Doesn’t that tell you something about the man?

  • Learnedsmtn2day

    OK ! Whats his position on gay unions being called marriage ?

    • SineWaveII

      What do you think?

      • Learnedsmtn2day

        How would I know. I personally wouldn’t vote for him either way, but if he said that Marriage is what it was for thousands of years, I’d understand why people who disagree with his lifestyle would still vote for him.

  • How is this more deceptive than what Saxby Chambliss is doing?

    • Nobody said it was. If he votes to raise taxes and become a RINO, then hopefully he doesn’t get reelected.

      • Eh.. this is such a non-story. It has no basis on my life at all.

        • Then run along and stop wasting time.

        • E. Lee Zimmerman

          So why comment on it twice?

          • Oh hush…lol Geeez.

            • E. Lee Zimmerman

              C’mon, Joe. You’re better than that. You know if they bring it up, then it’s fair game for conversation.

        • stage9

          THINK AGAIN!

          What Same Sex Marriage Has Done to Massachusetts

          You see folks, this is a classic example of how the homosexual propaganda campaign has made a “non-issue” out of homosexuality. They have waged a purposeful and consorted attack against the family causing the average person to buy into the lie that it just doesn’t matter to them!

          There used to be a mantra spewed by myself and many others who said: “I don’t care what homosexuals do so long as it doesn’t affect me.”

          Well, those words were uttered in pure ignorance.

          • I think you are stereotyping all gays to Marxist Gays.

            • stage9

              I’m presenting the FACTS concerning the homosexual movement and its intention to legitimize decadent behavior. I would NEVER suggest that a homosexual who struggles with SSA is a problem, but that’s not what is happening. You can’t invent a narrative just because you watched an episode of Will & Grace or the Ellen Show and have bought into their fantastical narrative.

              The media has done a fantastic job of both presenting gay marriage and the homosexual lifestyle in a positive light (propagandizing) while silencing the dissenters who show the cold hard reality of that lifestyle.

              You can argue all day long about rights! rights! rights! But the question is, “Do we have evidence to present that can tell us what homosexuals will do if given the opportunity to impose their counterfeit marriage agenda?”

              Yes, we do:


              Homosexuals didn’t stop with marriage in MA. They infiltrated the schools and demanded that children as young as 4 & 5 be taught how to engage in sodomite sex and how to perform oral sex. They are holding transvestite summer camps for young children to indoctrinate them into a transvestite lifestyle. They have admitted openly to targeting children because access to children is their last frontier. THIS is the agenda of homosexual.

              Many who have had the opportunity to get married in MA didn’t because homosexuality and monogamy are incompatible. And many of them admit that. It is a lifestyle characterized by high incidences of domestic violence, mental instability, suicide (which studies have determined are unrelated to societal stereotypes), shorter lifespans, promiscuity and disease.

              These are indisputable facts no matter which continent studies have been conducted on.

              And this information will never be brought to light because it is not compatible with the liberal narrative of endorsing moral decadence. We see Broke Back Mountain and believe that that is reality but it’s not. The media and folks like you (if you endorse this junk) are only ENABLING the deterioration and self-destruction of an entire class of people because you believe that you are helping them. And you are not.

              • Dude, I understand what you are talking about. Most people who are lining up at Pride Rallies yelling for equal rights have Sociology degrees and want to bring about a destructive marxist society to America. I get that – TOTALLY.

                Fleck is not a Marxist. He’s the type of person we should be promoting as a roll model for young adults. Why are you allowing the Marxist be the only choice as a gay leader?

                • stage9

                  Because homosexuality itself is a decadent lifestyle. We have been told that it is “normal”, but it is FAR FROM NORMAL!

                  Immorality begets immorality. The problem with all of this is that people lack an understanding of the very nature of morality. We live in a day and age of moral relativism.

                  When a liberal belittles a Republican for “living in the past” what they are really saying is that Republicans are holding to an objective moral framework. In other words a moral framework characterized by absolute standards of right and wrong.

                  Because liberals are relativists — right and wrong is subjective; it changes with their mood — they can apply their moral brushstroke to whatever they please. They can paint a decadent lifestyle as morally virtuous even in the face of evidence to the contrary.

                  It’s the old adage of putting lipstick on a pig. You can put lipstick on a pig but that won’t change its nature.

                  You can put an “R” in front of a homosexual’s name, or in front of a liberal’s name but it won’t change his nature; his worldview; what he genuinely believes.

                  I don’t care what Fleck claims to be on the surface; his lifestyle already tells me what he will do with the law, because He has already done it with God’s moral law. He ignores it.

                  “Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” — John Adams

                • Conniption Fitz

                  No, anyone who calls himself ‘gay’ is not a role model, but has identified himself with a political agenda.

                • That is ridiculous. Just because some marxist/leftist/whateverists are using “gay rights” to promote a destructive statist agenda, certainly does NOT mean everyone who is gay is part of that. Some people are just gay, that’s all. It is not like everyone who calls themselves “straight” is suddenly part of some far right wing agenda or something.

            • 401_Unauthorised

              Stop employing useless tautologies please. Thank you.

          • Conniption Fitz

            You can thank ROMNEY for that. Romney shoved gay marriage down the throats of Massachusetts citizens (pun intended) acting against the constitution of that state.

            • stage9

              Yep, he sure did, and this is why I struggled to vote for him. In the end I did, but I already knew in my heart it was wrong.

          • wodiej

            wow, you sure give gay people a lot of power. It shouldn’t matter to anyone else.

            • Conniption Fitz

              Yes, it’s a serious health and financial issue. Look at the facts in evidence.

            • Rshill7

              And you give them a lot of cover, a lot of excuses, and your seal of approval.

        • Conniption Fitz

          YES it does. You just choose not to think or learn the facts.

  • Rshill7

    How he votes is the politically important thing…however, since he “describes himself as a devout Christian” he should read, or reread this:

    “Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders, nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.” (1 Corinthians 6:9-10 NIV)

    Mr. “Devout Christian” must have ignored those two verses, among others.

    “Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven.” (Matthew 7:21 NIV)

    • Sandra123456

      Fleck is an “AG” Christian. Anything Goes. AKA Cafeteria Christian or a Nancy Pelosi Christian.

      • Rshill7

        Maybe he said he was a reroute Christian and was misunderstood.

        • SineWaveII

          “reroute christian”? LOL

        • E. Lee Zimmerman

          Wait a minute … that sounds like Scooby Doo.

    • Christi25

      He also told us that we have no right to judge.

      • Rshill7

        “…no right to judge?”

        No, he did not say that. Look it up. He said:

        “Do not judge, and you will not be judged. Do not condemn, and you will not be condemned. Forgive, and you will be forgiven.” (Luke 6:37 NIV)

        I didn’t judge, nor did I condemn.. .I quoted scripture. See the difference? The scripture itself judged and condemned him. I did neither.

        I also did what is called “discerning of spirits”. Here’s the scripture dealing with that. The entire chapter 12 of Corinthians might be good reading for you too.

        “To another the working of miracles; to another prophecy; to another discerning of spirits; to another divers kinds of tongues; to another the interpretation of tongues”
        (1 Corinthians 12:10)

        • Conniption Fitz

          Right – we are not to condemn, but we must discern between good and evil.

          The Bible says, “Woe to those who call evil good and good evil.”

          They are false teachers.

    • wodiej

      Looks like no one is going to Heaven then doesn’t it?

      • Conniption Fitz

        Repentance is the ticket to heaven. Excusing sin and teaching others to sin is not.

      • Rshill7

        If you have a problem with Bible verses, take it up with Him. I didn’t write them.

    • No Christians are perfect, we ALL are fallen, we all are sinners, we all fail. It is not up to us to cast out those who believe in Christ as the savior. He believes. WHo are YOU to judge? Very un-Christian of you.

      • Rshill7

        Once again…I didn’t judge, nor did I condemn, nor did I “cast out” anyone.. .I quoted scripture. See the difference? The scripture itself judged and condemned him. I did neither. If you have a problem with scripture, write your own bible.

        To the rest of your silly post:

        Are you permanently fallen then? A permanent sinner? Is sinning your stated lifestyle? Do you celebrate sinning? Is sinning part of every day to do list?

        If so, you are the one with serious issues Kimberly, not I.

  • johnos2112

    A devout christian? hmmmmmm

  • jrt1031

    I dont have a problem with him not talking about his preferences. We need as many smart people on our side as possible. Who cares what their preferences are. shouldnt be an issue.

    • E. Lee Zimmerman

      Right … so why’d he bring it up?

      • colliemum

        And – why did he bring it up now, and not before the election?

  • objective123

    All he has to do is switch and become a democrat. He will be accepted.

    • stage9

      Not anymore:

      “This speaks to the heart of what Republicans believe in — less government interference in our lives,” Klarides said. “We want our party to focus on growth and the economy and allowing us to thrive as a people, not on telling people what they should do in our private lives.”

      This is the STUPIDEST position I’ve ever seen anyone take in my life!

      So in other words if you want to be a child predator, the GOP won’t stand in your way because the only thing that matters is if your wallet is full.

      The GOP are idiots!

      • wodiej

        it’s not very bright to think that the GOP was supporting acceptance of child predators. I certainly hope you’re not implying gay people are child predators. Actually most CP’s are straight men not gay men. Second, it’s not the GOP’s job to judge the electorate nor is it yours or anyone else’s. I believe God alone holds that responsibility.

        • Rshill7

          Then you might try refraining from ignoring what he says on the subject.

        • MiketheMarine

          Right on. In fact, it isn’t the GOP’s job to pick our candidates during elections either but they do.

        • ryanomaniac

          You’re right. More CP’S are straight than gay. That’s because homosexuals are about 2% of the population. If your figures are adjusted you would see homosexuals would far out number straight men. When it comes to child predators it doesn’t matter if you’re a sodomite or heterosexual…..they both should be taken behind the wood shed and get two behind the ear.

        • stage9

          If they sign on with supporting homosexuality child predation inevitably comes with it.

          That is the end game here. They are ALREADY fighting for the age of consent laws to be removed! That is the package you’re signing up for if you jump on board with the homosexual movement. They aren’t fighting for “marriage” they’re fighting for the abolition of marriage and the destruction of the stereotypical family.

          This may sound far fetched given that much of our culture has bought into the media’s lies regarding the virtuous nature of homosexuality but it’s far from that:

          The 1972 Gay Rights Platform
          Platform created at the National Coalition of Gay
          Organizations Convention held in Chicago in 1972

          7. Repeal of all laws governing the age of sexual consent.

          Can We Please Just Start Admitting That We Do Actually Want To Indoctrinate Kids?

          “I for one certainly want tons of school children to learn that it’s OK to be gay, that people of the same sex should be allowed to legally marry each other, and that anyone can kiss a person of the same sex without feeling like a freak. And I would very much like for many of these young boys to grow up and start fucking men.”

          Britain’s Leading Gay Activist Calls for Lowering of Age of Consent to 14

          In Holland sexual liberalism which is promoted by the homosexual movement has led to the creation of a Pedophile Political Party, whose right to hold seats in parliament, to advocate for the legalization of adult/child sexual relationships, has been approved by the Dutch courts.

          It’s the battering ram approach. Keep beating at the door until it collapses.

          • cabensg

            Even a non-Christian shouldn’t want their society to become so depraved that their own children are taught depravity.

      • What you wrote comparing them to child predators is more in line with what registered Democrat and Al Gore supporter Fred Phelps has preached than how Palin, Breitbart, and many of our other leaders have accepted into the fold GOProud as a group.

        If that’s the stupidest position you’ve ever heard you must be living under a rock.

    • Nope. The Democrats never accept when a gay person gets out of their line. They only accept liberal gay people.

  • ryanomaniac

    You’re not a devout Christian when you proclaim a sin and then also proclaim that even though its a sin I will rationalize it and God will understand.

    God loves you. God loves the sinner but not the sin.

    • wodiej

      we’re all sinners. Sitting in church does not make one a devout Christian. Or perhaps you meant to say judgmental Christian.

      • Rshill7

        He didn’t say one word about “sitting in a church”.

      • Conniption Fitz

        A devout Christian does not defend sin or try to excuse it.

      • 401_Unauthorised

        I am ashamed at the incredible level of intellectual dishonesty shown by you here on this thread. And I mean no hyperbole.

        I absolutely mean it when I say ‘ashamed’. Like the sort of shame Mayer Amschel Rothschild would have had if all his five sons had turned out to be drugged-out bums living in the gutters of Zuruch, Paris and London, instead of financing their palaces.

    • Wrath is one of the seven deadly sins. I see a lot of that on the internet every day, and no group’s not guilty of it. Many of the practitioners would be proud of it if they were asked.

  • dontdrinkthecoolaid

    So what. What he does from 5pm to 9am is his own business and if you think it’s not, then you’re more liberal than you think.

    • E. Lee Zimmerman

      Right. So why did HE bring it up?

      • MiketheMarine

        To avoid a front page newspaper add thrashing him in the Chicago way. The only way to avoid the shock value is to out the info yourself. Preemptive strike, my Brother.

        • E. Lee Zimmerman

          Oh, yeah. I get that. But, as I’ve always said, if THEY bring it up, then WE’RE allowed to discuss it. Otherwise, they gots’ta shut it.

          • MiketheMarine

            That there is a fact.

      • dontdrinkthecoolaid

        He’s probably not as conservative as he says, and if anyone on the left got wind of him doing anything ‘wrong’ in a sexual way, the left would crucify him and hang him out to dry. He came out as a move to squelch the LIBs.

        • We don’t know how conservative he is. Or, I don’t anyways. I don’t know his voting record.

  • Conniption Fitz

    There is no such thing as ‘is gay’. Same sex attraction does not create a separate gender or identity. The whole ‘gay/straight’ ‘orientation’ thing was an invented paradigm to promote homosexuality and normalize it. That’s all a bunch of propaganda by the pan-sexual (bi, homo, trans, etc.) activists.

    What this guy has is ‘same-sex’ sexual feelings, emotional and physical responses…and it’s due to what psychologists call conditioning. Most likely due to an absent/abusive/apathetic/addicted father and/or an overbearing, emotionally needy, mother.

    All our responses are ‘conditioned’ from birth. Plenty of people overcome same-sex attraction.

    This guy is just a dishonest politician. Dishonest with himself and his constituents. What’s new?

    • E. Lee Zimmerman

      Yeah, I don’t think they’ve ‘learned’ anything yet.

    • wodiej

      You are an expert on gay people because you read a book? Do you know any gay people, friends or family? Re-conditioned? Anyone who says they went to the other side was not really gay to begin with or are living a lie. A person does not become gay from parental flaws. Many kids have parents that fit the description you gave and they are not gay. How does that explain one gay family member and the rest are straight but all raised by the same parents? Very uninformed opinion.

      • Rshill7

        And yours is informed? Having a member of your family that is “gay”, makes you defensive on their behalf. Simple as that. Find a Biblical defense for it please.

        You think people are born gay. Gay is a propensity and an activity. A learned lifestyle. Do you know any born liars? How about born bacon eaters, born thieves, or born pedophiles? How about born bank robbers? Born vegetarians?

        You accuse reformed gay people of “living a lie”…”not really gay to begin with”?

        in that case, I accuse you of telling a lie AND living a lie.

      • Conniption Fitz

        No, not one book, but many. I’ve studied psychology, social work, many decades of CDC statistics and published medical research papers and have several degrees. My family for generations has been in medicine and law.

        The facts are the facts.

        • Conniption Fitz

          Same-sex attraction is the consequence of a mixture of events, beliefs, conditioned responses both physical and emotional, family dynamics and experiences.

          The political activists have worked over decades (since the 60s) using empirically proven psychological heuristics/techniques to propagandize the public to believe that people are ‘born that way’ or are either ‘gay’ or ‘straight’ and can’t change. There is no evidence of this.

          They created hypothetical constructs or idiomatic expressions (orientation, sexual rights, etc.) to foment their agenda.

          A lie told often enough is eventually believed.

          The agendites also use Alinsky tactics. Everyone who dissents is vilified and marginalized. The ‘gays’ can be almost as intolerant, violent, vengeful and destructive as Islamists. They vandalize property, get people fired, prosecuted, etc.

      • MiketheMarine

        I don’t know about that Wodie. I know several, in fact, have friends that are same sex and one of the men told me the problem was two pronged. He was an only child raised by his mother who desperately wanted a daughter and raised him that way, dolls, pink clothes, had his hair done. Then, in school he had zero luck with the ladies and kind of gave up finding comfort and affection from other guys in his same predicament. He, himself suggests that had something been different he would not have ended up being gay. He still likes women but will only entertain relations with another man as that is all he has ever known.

        I am no expert and really don’t have my own opinion on the causes or driving influences as I’ve not studied it. All I’ve ever concerned myself with are women and have had, probably more success than I deserve.

      • stage9

        Stop with all of the diversionary tactics dude, it doesn’t fly here. There is OVERWHELMING evidence that shows that the homosexual lifestyle is a destructive lifestyle. No one here is arguing from silence. There is so much evidence that to deny it only makes a fool of the denier!

        Read it for yourself in their own sick words!

        Can We Please Just Start Admitting That We Do Actually Want To Indoctrinate Kids?

        “Why would we push anti-bullying programs or social studies classes that teach kids about the historical contributions of famous queers unless we wanted to deliberately educate children to accept queer sexuality as normal?”

    • MiketheMarine

      Wow, excellent. Well articulated and informative. May I borrow it for future use?

  • Scoop, you said, “If power means more to Fleck than telling the truth to his constituents, he doesn’t deserve to be in Congress.” Seems to me, he’ll fit in just fine. Too bad though, because folks are sick of this kind of crap.

    • stage9

      It doesn’t matter, the GOP are in control of your life just as much as radicals are. In 2016 they will force another piece of garbage candidate down your throat and demand you accept him/her.

      Our voice has been silenced for the despicable power of a few.

      Screw the GOP! It’s time for a TRUE Conservative Party!

      • I’ll be a citizen soon Stage9, and I can tell you right now, I’m not going to plug my nose, and the GOP will not get another dime from me, nor will they shove their choice down my throat. They could care less about Conservatives and social issues as you well know. Come see what some of us have been up to since the election (er, fraud) If you like what you see, come help us. 🙂

        • stage9

          EXCELLENT AmericanborninCanada! Great Charter! Keep me up to date on your plans!

          CONGRATS! I’m a little reluctant to welcome you, because our nation is going through a very “stupid” stage right now but…I am VERY happy for you!

          Move to the South!

          • lol 🙂 I’m in the south! I LOVE the South! Even back home, my favorite music were southern rock bands 😉 Thank you very much for the enthusiasm. I know, some folks think I’m nuts to go for citizenship now considering, but darn it, I love this country and I want to be able to fight along my patriot friends just the same, as a citizen. Hopefully in the spring. Keep me in prayers for this if you could Stage9. I really do appreciate it! And as far as the CFP goes, we’re working to get a website up within the next few weeks, so I’ll let everyone know when it’s on. God Bless my friend.

            • stage9

              Oh, well good then! lol! Welcome ya’ll!

              Hey, maybe you should enter in through Mexico, you might have a better chance…

              I’M KIDDING! Very bad joke!

              • LOL. I’ve joked about it myself. It’d be a lot cheaper than paying the fees. But- I aim to keep doing things the right way y’all 🙂

        • MiketheMarine

          And there are several excellent possible contenders to run for OUR NEW party right here, M’Lady.


          • I know it myMarine! 🙂 I know of one already don’t I. I’d love to see a few other folks here get the fire in their bellies to run. They’d be awesome!!

            • MiketheMarine

              I wish I could recall who it was last week, maybe Sinewave? will be my running mate. Matters not a bit which of us takes the #1 position but if asked I would certainly answer the call. My country needs me though I don’t know I’d survive the vetting.

              • lol. We’d be with you a million percent. As far as I’m concerned, you’ve been vetted already and came out an angel 😉

                • MiketheMarine

                  With a family like we’ve got here, we can handle anything at all, dear heart.

              • stage9

                Just cast yourself as a “moderate” and you’ll do just fine. Then you can pull a Fleck once you’re elected and come out as a Conservative.

                • MiketheMarine

                  I don’t think I could play the part of a kooky moderate with any success, whatever, sadly. Much like Barnicle Bill the Sailor, I am what I am.

    • SineWaveII

      That’s what I was thinking.

    • MiketheMarine

      It does cause a simple shrug of the shoulders with the thought right out of the Andy Griffith show. “Surprise, surprise, surprise…..”

  • If he doesn’t behave like a conservative with his voting record, he is going to be primaried.

    • SineWaveII


  • To prevent those dishonesties,the people should have a right to recall.

  • SineWaveII

    Countdown to when the left explains why his “gayness” doesn’t count begins now.

    8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3……

    • stage9

      When will the countdown begin by the GOP to get a clue and answer WHY homosexuality is a threat to civil society?

      • SineWaveII

        Beats me, I’m not a member of the GOP. I’m just a voter.

        • MiketheMarine

          Right on. I’m a Constitutional conservative. I have as much in common with the GOP as I have with the DNC. A relationship of distrust bordering on hatred…….

          • SineWaveII

            I hear that Mike, I feel the same way.

    • Rshill7

      Well, if he was a black conservative, they’d call him Uncle Tom or House Negro.

      Since he’s a white gay-guy conservative, they could call him Uncle Tutu or House Princess….

      …or Log Cabin Debutante.

  • jrt1031

    let his record speak for his representation of the conservative party not his preferences.

  • medicinewomantwo

    So, how do you figure out when he is being honest, now?

    • MiketheMarine

      When he isn’t talking, of course.

  • Watchman74

    The word hoodwinked comes to mind. I’m curious what his church believes, are they part of the emergent movement? If so they says volumes about him.

    • MiketheMarine

      Why, whatever do you mean?

      {sarcasm off}


  • wodiej

    I don’t blame him. How many judgmental, intolerant Republicans would have voted for him if he had come out before the election? Not many. This is what is wrong w the Republican party. Both sides have their share of corruption and lining their pockets. The difference is Democrats don’t care what someone does in their personal life nor tries to pass judgment on anyone. It’s so important for people to feel accepted that they will even overlook unethical behavior to get it. If Republicans would just mind their own business instead of trying to force a moral code on people, we just might win a few elections. There is a much better way to express one’s beliefs and that is through love and respect. We are all not going to agree-ever. As long as someone is not breaking the law, let God do the judging.

    • Conniption Fitz

      NOT a matter of ‘tolerance’ but of agenda.

      ‘Gay’ means having the agenda to normalize and promote something that is harmful and to excuse something that is sinful.

      Evidence in Science, Statistics and Scripture agree in this.

    • MiketheMarine

      I agree. Whatever you do in the privacy of your own home matters not a bit to me. It’s the ones that demand endorsement that I have a problem with. Being gay in and of it’s self doesn’t bother me. I believe that it goes against God’s word, but I am not yet an enforcer of God’s will. More power to this gentleman.

      • stevenbiot

        Yep, Mike. The dude was right, probably. He wouldn’t have got as much of the vote if he admitted he is gay. As long as he votes against raising taxes and decreases government spending, he’s a conservative.

        • MiketheMarine

          Agreed but, sadly, too many people are willing to rule out a person for a simple detail like being gay or pro-life or pro-choice. Fact is, I don’t see anyway to change the abortion law one way or another in our political climate reguardless of your stance.

        • He would be only a Fiscal Conservative and that is not enough for me. I want True Conservatives because we need to fix the problems in this country, not just the consequences of the problems. Just Fiscal Conservatives can not do that.

    • colliemum

      This is not about him being gay, or about people judging him and his lifestyle, wodiej.

      This is about being dishonest to his constituents.

      In today’s society, he could’ve easily come out well before the elections, it might have lost him some votes, but it might have gained him others. Coming out now, after the fact, is deception.
      There’s no way his sexual orientation was unknown to his friends and family – it is ludicrous for him to say he didn’t want to come out before the election in order to protect them. Now that he’s a Congressman, these friends will be of far more interest to the media.

      No – the grave error he made is that he basically deceived his constituents.
      They can now ask – what else has he been hiding from us, just to get elected.

      • Conniption Fitz

        It’s also about him having a STEALTH AGENDA – to get into office and further the LBGTXYZ sexual agenda.

    • Rshill7

      There’s a higher law. It’s called God’s law, and your opinion regarding that law is irrelevant.

      In addition, no one has to “let God do the judging”. He will do that regardless.

    • stevenbiot

      Exactly! We should simply be the party of individual liberty and less government. I could care less who’s kissing who.

    • Nukeman60

      …nor tries to pass judgment on anyone…‘ – w

      Have you been asleep this entire election cycle? I know you haven’t. All the Dems ever did the entire time is vilify this group, demonize that group, castigate anybody on the right. Their entire campaign strategy was to pass judgement on their opponents to win the election. And it appeared to work, with the help of the LameStream and the voters that bought into that crap.

      Interesting you would take that line of reasoning.

      Plus, you know full well there are many gay and lesbian people that are just as bigotted about these issues as those who are straight. We have heard it time and time again on this site, haven’t we.

  • 1tootall

    The fact that he withheld this information shows that he knows it might have affected the outcome, his excuses notwithstanding. I am a republican voter in PA and this is par for the course for many in this state. They love their power, but as soon as they are in office, they fall in line with leadership. Having a gay legislator is akin to a congressman who changes parties as soon as they get into office. It’s a material fact and to have withheld it is to have lied to his constituency. He will throw many excuses and rationales at this, but in the end, he has lied. I trust that his constituents will have a long memory. In this case, the lie is worse than the fact. Shame on him.

  • maynardb50

    Why is it that only gay people feel the need to tell everyone what they do with their private parts? That is sick!

  • Well, which is worse, lying about being gay or having Obama and Susan Rice going on a bunch of talk shows and to the UN and lying about how four Americans were murdered? As long as this guy votes along Republican party lines, I really don’t care. And since no major gay marriage laws are coming up in Congress, it doesn’t seem to really matter. I’d rather go after the people who lied about Americans being murdered.

    • Conniption Fitz

      We actually can and should face BOTH issues on the basis of facts and evidence. There is no either/or here.

      • There is no equal importance here. One of those things is considerably more important.

  • Kordane

    There’s nothing wrong with this, since homosexuals can do the job JUST AS WELL as heterosexuals.

    But you know that what they can’t do is enforce your un-American religious bigotry on America.

    Tell me honestly, how many of you out there accept theocracy, just so long as it’s your religion in charge? I bet a lot of you. You have no real consistent love for the America that the founding fathers envisioned. You want the benefits it brought, but really, deep down, you want theocracy with your religion as the ruling power over all. Don’t deny it.

    If we had the America that the founding fathers envisioned, you know what that would mean? – It would mean that people could have abortions up until viability, it would mean that homosexuals could get married, and a whole bunch of other stuff that you so-called “social conservatives” RAGE about and fight on a daily basis. Social conservatism is incompatible with the America that the founding fathers envisioned. Social conservatism is incompatible with individual rights. Theocracy is incompatible with individual rights.

    I think that many realise that already, which is why many so-called “social conservatives” don’t fight too strongly for individual rights. “Oh we’re for individual rights, unless you’re gay, unless you want an abortion, etc.” -_-

    • Conniption Fitz

      Really – the gays are the ones trying to force their agenda on everyone else including churches. These are the intolerant ones – along with the abortionists and the Islamists.

      FACT is – gay lifestyles are very high-risk and health care is costly.

      • Kordane

        They are fighting for the freedoms of action that are implied by the individual rights, but have only in recent times begun to be recognized.

        It never physically harmed anyone, or harmed anyone’s property, if a gay couple wanted to get married. That should have been indicative from the start that it was a freedom implied by the individual rights.

    • Nukeman60

      People don’t fight against you being gay, or you wanting an abortion, or any of your desires. People fight against those things infringing on our lives. Too many social issues boil down to whether they can infringe upon the way I live my life. You live your life the way you want. Just leave me out of it.

      Gay marriage has nothing to do with their union. It has everything to do with co-opting the sanctity of marriage between a man and a woman. Abortion has less to do with a woman’s ‘right to choose’ as it does with their right to make you pay for their right to choose. Gay pride parades have less to do with promoting their way of life as it does with shoving it down our throats for all to see.

      And finally, you shouldn’t take it upon yourself to tell us what we really think and believe, because once again you are co-opting our thought process and making it your own philosophy. You really don’t know.

      Just my humble opinion.

      • Kordane

        Quote: “People don’t fight against you being gay, or you wanting an abortion, or any of your desires. People fight against those things infringing on our lives.

        I don’t know whether you’ve been following politics that well, but it’s completely the opposite when it comes to social conservatives. They FIGHT against “gay marriage”, and they FIGHT against abortion (from conception). Don’t falsely claim that they only fight when it infringes on their own lives. Social conservatives want gay marriage banned and they want all abortion banned. They don’t give a sod whether it’s a violation of individual rights to prevent such freedoms of action; they just want it banned because their fantasy supernatural being is allegedly telling them to do it via the bible. That’s not a pro-individual rights outlook; that’s a theocratic outlook – The kind of outlook from middle easterners who use politics simply to further their religious beliefs/agenda.

        I want religion out of politics. I want it to go back to being for personal spiritual use. That is where it belongs. This is NOT the middle east. This is the post-renaissance west where mysticism died as a political power long ago, and I reject any attempt at revival by social conservatives.

    • The Founding Fathers designed our Constitutional Republic to have 3 branches, or offices.
      James Madison proposed the plan to divide the central government into three branches. He based this loosely on government from Isaiah 33:22;
      “For the LORD is our judge, the LORD is our lawgiver,
      the LORD is our king;
      He will save us.”

      While not instituting a theocracy, because the only Theocracy in Christianity is God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit, the Republic was built on the notion of Law giver in the Legislative branch, the King,in the Executive branch and Judge in the Judicial branch.

      We social conservatives are all for individual rights, but as we’ve continuously seen, too many so called rights being read into the Constitution, and once these so called rights are entrenched, they tend to trump legitimate rights as given by our Creator and re established under the Constitution.

      By all means, if someone wants an abortion, go, murder your baby. But don’t make me pay for it, and don’t try to tell me it’s a woman’s right to privacy while demanding tax money. Same thing if you’re homosexual. Whatever you do in your own life is between you and God. But don’t demand special rights, don’t demand the Christian church to officiate at something Christ calls an abomination, and don’t sue private business owners for standing up for their Constitutional rights and denying service to homosexuals. Simple as that.

      • Nukeman60

        You go girl. Too bad the Constitution says you have to be a Natural Born Citizen (you being an ABC rather than an NBC, lol). I’d vote for you, if the law allowed it.

      • “Business owners standing up for their Constitutional rights and denying services to homosexuals”…say, are you also against the 1964 Civil Rights Act by any chance?

    • colliemum

      Nobody has said that homosexuals can’t do the job of congress critter as well as heterosexuals – nobody.
      This is about deception and dishonesty.
      Above all – this is not about ‘theocracy’.
      I think you have no idea what a theocracy really is like. I give you a hint: look at Egypt or Saudi Arabia, where shariah law is the only law and nothing can be done against it because it was given to their prophet by their god. That’s theocracy.
      People in the USA have the right to decide how they want to live their lives, and they do not want the government to interfere.
      If one section of society wants to murder their babies in the wombs – ok, there’s no law against it, but why should those who object have to pay for this? In fact – why should they not object? Has it come to this, that any objection to the ‘modern’, ‘hip’, ‘whatever’ lifestyle is now equal to the objectors ‘enforcing’ a theocracy?

      I think you’re far overshooting the mark, and have lost of the one point on which we all ought to agree: it is dishonest as candidate, to hide something important about your life, only to come out afterwards when you’ve won. In his case it was being gay, it could’ve been a bankruptcy, a secret marriage, it doesn’t matter: he should’ve been honest with the electorate, before the election.

      If you cannot understand that, then I’m sorry for you.

    • 401_Unauthorised

      Tell me your post is satire please. Go on…

  • Nukeman60

    I am glad he feels his legislating won’t be affected by his orientation (although, I doubt seriously that he can keep it out of his thought process), but I suspect, by the way he waited until after the election to announce it that he is more a devout politician than a devout Christian.

    Having said that, I could care less what his sexual orientation is. Keep it in your bedroom and out of legislative decisions that affect me.

    • Right. He just opened the door to cynicism and mistrust. That’s my whole point.

    • stage9

      Ok, let’s consider that for a moment. How do you suppose he’ll vote when it comes down to voting for gay marriage and his a vote is needed to stop it?

      • Nukeman60

        Exactly. Can’t quite keep his sexual orientation out of that one. And it would have been good for his constituency to know that, depending on how they would like him to vote.

        Too many politicians think that once they get elected, they vote for themselves and forget their constituency. It is for them that the politician is even in Washington at all.

  • stevenbiot

    Maybe we can get the gay vote now. I’m a glass half full kind of guy.

  • stage9

    Once you begin to realize that all of this has been a well-orchestrated attack on morality and family in America, your sympathy flies out the window.

    The homosexual propaganda campaign in America’s media
    From the 1989 book, “After the Ball – How America will conquer its fear and hatred of Gays in the 90s”

    At some point you’ve got to stop buying into the lie.

  • spin43

    Leave the guy’s personal life alone. Does he believe in the Constitution?

    • Rshill7

      We were leaving it alone. Have you so soon forgotten who brought it up? Here’s a very good hint: He did.

      • spin43

        I agree with you that he should shut his trap on his personal life and concentrate on saving our Republic, if that is even possible.

    • Nukeman60

      When a person becomes a politician, he becomes the extension of his constituency. To be deceitful about that has everything to do with the issue. Getting elected on false premises, no matter what they are, is more than just who he sleeps with.

      • 401_Unauthorised

        I concur. (‘Well said’ is overused 😉

      • spin43

        Do politicians admit they are straight before they run for office? Is this guy a true Conservative or is he deceiving voters?

        • Nukeman60

          Because, in your world, gay is the norm, right? No wonder you call yourself spin. It’s not a matter of admitting that you are heterosexual, it’s the norm.

          The point is not whether or not he’s gay. He waited till right after the election to tell his constituency. He could have told them before. He could have not told them at all. But it was him that decided he needed to keep it secret until elected and then tell people right afterwards. So who is the one here who thinks it might have been a problem during the election?

          When people who are running for office can’t be honest about it, perhaps they aren’t worthy of the title.

          And if someone thought and stated that I was gay, yes, I would straighten that out publicly.

  • Conniption Fitz

    Oh great – I just looked to the right here at the RS site and there is/was an LBGT dating ad. “Real men. Real relationships. Real love. You’re welcome. The LGBT community.” from Find Love Now @ One Good Love, with a photo of two men half naked all snuggled up.

    • Nukeman60

      The ad people key on what the topic is – and hence we could see anything show up. Scoop, of course, has nothing to do with what ads pop up.

    • Ew. I’ve seen some racy ads here too once in a while. Scoop has no control over the ad content though. 🙁

  • WordsFailMe

    If he’s willing to stick his finger in the Obamerrhoid’s eye, I don’t care where he puts his other parts.

    Over the cliff! Over the Cliff!……..

  • 401_Unauthorised

    Meh. Romney would probably have done the same had he won this year. Funny thing is: that most likely still would have failed to wake up conservative America.

  • 401_Unauthorised

    PS I do care that this guy is ‘gay’. And it isnt just about the fact that he lied. Sodomy is no joke. It is abhorrent; unatural and will destroy America.

    However, the fact that this man lied makes this situation all the worst. How did this happen? How was this fake allowed to infiltrate the Republican party? Something tells me, See: RINO-ism

  • I know many Christians who lie. Many who are unfaithful. Many who take what is not theirs. Many who fall short of the teaching of Christ and the word of the Lord. So?

    • Rshill7

      Are those things permanent parts of their stated lifestyle? Do they proclaim to keep doing those things? Are those things part of the daily routine? Do they pronounce themselves a liar as if lying is something they are? Is unfaithful who they are?

      Do people who lie and are unfaithful intend to keep lying and keep being unfaithful till their final breath?

      See the difference?

  • Mike Fleck, news flash: You are NOT gay! You are practicing the chosen behavior of homosexuality. Homosexuality is not a state of being as liberals so often believe (which is why they do not believe in any type of “cure” or therapy). Homosexuality is actually a chosen behavior, similar to alcoholism and drug abuse. Do your constituents want an alcoholic or a drug addict as a representative? You can be fiscally conservative and strong on national defense all you want, and we thank you for it. But hiding your addiction from your constituents was cowardice. If you were not going to admit to this affliction before the election, then it makes no sense to announce it now.

    How little faith in your constituents you have. Conservatives love you as one of God’s children, as we love all people suffering from addiction. All because we openly disagree with the nature of your addiction does not mean we love you less. Glenn Beck is still an alcoholic but he makes the daily choice not to consume alcohol. You are suffering from the addiction of homosexuality and are making the choice to act on it. Hiding behind the state-of-being mantra of the left by claiming you “ARE” gay instead of behaving gay tells us you are less conservative than your constituents thought. Look up Sy Rogers and let the therapy begin. Remember God loves you, period.

    • Homosexuality behavior is actually more like Heterosexuality behavior than to alcoholism and drug abuse. In your hetero-lifestyle, you can choose your mate maybe multiple mates if you choose, you can choose with your mate when you have sex and how often, maybe before marriage or wait till marriage when you and your mate choose to have sex. So I think it’s absurdly self-righteous and wrong connecting alcohol and drug abuse(which many people believe is a disease) to homosexuality, because if you had sex with the opposite sex wasn’t that also chosen behavior as well?

      • stage9

        I disagree, it’s VERY similar, and no homosexuality is no where even NEAR the same universe as heterosexuality.

        Homosexuality is a disorder. It is a physiological disorder. It is also a mental disorder.

        Homosexuals are driven by lust, not love. In fact that is how they often define themselves, by their lust. In the West the two words, love and lust are often used interchangeably but to do so is wrong headed. Love and lust are NOT the same thing!

        Love is defined as: A deep, tender, ineffable feeling of affection and solicitude toward a person, such as that arising from kinship, recognition of attractive qualities, or a sense of underlying oneness.

        Lust on the other hand is defined as: a strong desire for sexual gratification

        The reason alcoholism and homosexuality are similar is because both lifestyles are driven by an insatiable lust for something that the addict believes will satisfy an inner craving.

        The public have become like some well-meaning families who ignorantly ENABLE their addicted love ones. Believing they’re building trust so as to help the addict the family may give the addict money or other resources and assure the addict that the family member is there to help. Instead, what they wind up doing is enabling the addict to spiral even deeper into the pit of alcoholism.

        The American public is doing the same thing with homosexuals. Rather than confronting the homosexual with his behavior and offering REAL help that can free him from the underlying problems, he is instead told that all is well. “Continue in your homosexuality, we support you.”

        But because the homosexual lifestyle is replete with high incidences (MUCH MUCH higher than heterosexuals; the numbers are staggering in each category) of mental instability, domestic abuse, suicide, promiscuity and disease, what the public is ACTUALLY doing is speeding the homosexual’s demise.

        Studies in nations even FRIENDLY to homosexuality have shown that high sucidality in homosexuality is NOT even related to societal stereotypes but to how the homosexual views himself.

        • There are many Heteros that lust after sex as the same for Homos… Love is not exclusive to Heteros, Homos can love the same way Heteros do. You sound like someone that’s never known someone who is a gay.

          • marketcomp

            Pediphiles love the young childrenand particualr young boys who they molest too, and abusive husbands love their wives who they continually abuse too! Would you say that’s the same as homsexual love? stage 9 is absolutely correct!

            • Here’s the thing, in our country, it’s illegal to be a pedophile, it isn’t illegal to be a homosexual. It’s also illegal to physically abuse your spouse.

              • marketcomp

                That’s where you are DEAD WRONG! How enforceable is the laws against pediphila when a man,like Sandusky, can do this for years?! Or when there is an organization called the NAMBLA who advotes for man/boy love. Heterosexuality parallels NATURAL LAW that supports the reproduction and family unit and what Natural laws does homosexuality parallel? None, that I know of other than the sea horse! So your argument is weak but you are free to continue to brainwash yourself is certainly your right.

                • Sandusky was found guilty and faces 30 to 60 years in prison, basically a life sentence at his age. What do you mean isn’t enforceable by law? I think the punishment is too weak for pedophiles. The shame is that it took so long for him to be turned in for his crime. NAMBLA is a pedophile organization, Homosexuals aren’t advocating pedophilia in our country, maybe a few but there probably even some Hetero males that want the same thing with young under age girls. As far as the natural law, you should look up ‘Homosexual behavior in animals’, it happens in nature. I don’t think homosexuality is right because of my faith but my faith is my faith not the law of the land in this country and I’ll let God sort that out and I’ll work on me what God doesn’t like in me. It’s not my business what two legal adults do in their personal life in this country.

                • marketcomp

                  Yea know, you can bow out and say that you don’t support this evil behavior but how can you profess to even have a religious beliefs and go against one of the basic tenets and foundation for morality and the support of human life. Look, I am not concern with what you, individually, believe but I am concerned with what is being taught in schools and how so many are persuaded with the same twisted ideology that you adhere too. I know many on RS disagree with my position but I don’t see that as my problem. But what I do see is more than just a disagreement among friends. I see it as supporting a mental disorder that none, other than stage9, really understand the effects on society in general as a whole and specifically individuals. Now while stage9 so fluently gives us the psychological positions I look at it from a biological standpoint that goes against what that part of the human body is made for. You know the area of excretion and not an area of entrance. So everything is wrong about this behavior physically and mentally.

                • Do you even have a friend that is gay? You might be surprised how normal they are except they like the same sex.

                • marketcomp

                  NO, and I am not particularly interested in having a gay friend! But, I can do one better, I have a nephew that says he’s gay and I completely disagree with him too.

          • stage9

            Of course there are! They are sexual addicts too! But we don’t REWARD addiction, we treat it! And that’s my point. Rather than treating homosexuality, we REWARD it and ENABLE it.

            And frankly, liberals do the same thing with hetero sex as well. Rather than abiding by moral boundaries they cast them off and proclaim a SEXUAL REVOLUTION (REVULSION)!

            But the underlying inference here is that you seem to be condoning one side of bad behavior to justify the OTHER side.

            Others use this same line of reasoning to justify immoral behavior:

            “Well, Catholic priests molested children.”

            “Well Sandusky molested children.”

            “Well, some Boy Scout leaders molested children.”

            How can THIS be used as a legitimate justification for homosexual pedophilia or any other decadent behavior exactly? Didn’t we learn anything from our parents when they asked, “If your friends jump off the bridge are you going to do the same?”

            I mean this is the entire ARGUMENT of the LIBERAL, to justify decadence by pointing out others’ decadence! We don’t judge morality by what the IMMORAL DO; we judge morality by what the MORAL DO!

            • I wasn’t talking about homo/hetero pedophiles. You seem to think Homos just want sex with boys and I wasn’t talking about illegal sexual activity. And the reason I bring up the Heteros do the same thing is because you bring up a negative one point seeming like it’s exclusive to Homosexuals. There are good homosexual people, parents and role models out there, teaching good values and how to treat people, just as their are Heteros that do the same. And I don’t care what you think is immoral or moral sexual activity between adults. What you feel is immoral or moral is irrelevant in this country. You don’t have control over peoples lives and they have the right to choose their life the way you choose your life, is my whole point. That matters is what is legal or illegal. The United States isn’t run by the Church. We are not a theocracy. But we can still live our lives according to God by our choices. We don’t need to force people to live that way unless they come to it for themselves. It’s the way it should be. Who cares if you don’t agree with the sexual preference of homosexuals if it isn’t illegal. You can still live your life the way you want.

              • stage9

                I didn’t even bring UP the church! You don’t even need to mention a SINGLE scripture to destroy the arguments of the homosexual movement. Just present the statistical data.

                And where do you think the LAW comes from by the way? It is ILLEGAL to murder precisely because it is IMMORAL! It is illegal to steal precisely because it is IMMORAL! It is illegal to rape precisely because it is IMMORAL! It is illegal to EMBEZZLE precisely because it is immoral!

                The law does not exist in a vacuum. It exists because there are underlying moral absolutes that we ALL intuitively know, and those absolutes, according to our Declaration of Independence, are a reflection of the nature of God.

                We are endowed by our Creator with…rights…that is a Judeo/Christian premise. Morality and human value come from God to man and man in turn is meant to institute those values in the things that he says and does.

                Naturalism cannot justify morality. Societal consensus cannot produce morality, otherwise the German people should not be held to account for their advocation of the persecution of the Jews during WWII. Because the vast majority of them approved of Hitler’s views towards the Jews! Since most of them approved, did that make them right? Of course not!

                So who dictates morality? God does. And WE are obligated to obey Him. For it is upon the foundation of these Judeo/Christian principles that America exists, and it will fail under any other.

                “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly
                inadequate to the government of any other.” — John Adams

                • You stated crimes, (murder, stealing, rape) that hurt or take things from others. That’s why it’s a crime, that’s why it’s wrong. Laws in this country are to protect people from others. Underlying moral issue is for God to judge.l Homosexuality doesn’t hurt you, doesn’t take anything away from you. You can come with all kinds of data but the same problems in homosexual community happens in the heterosexual community. You are fight a moral battle with others that you can’t win. You only control you, your choices and attitude. Let God judge the moral issues, if people want to obey him great, if not so be it, there is nothing you can do it about it.

                • stage9

                  Adultery is a criminal offense in the military and it is recognized by a court of law as grounds for divorce. And adultery is a consensual practice. And it hurts everyone involved. In other words there are behaviors that “harm others” and are not “physical” in their scope.

                  I would ask that you please read the following pages before you suggest that homosexuality “doesn’t harm anyone”. ” In law there are varying degrees of harm.

                  What same-sex “marriage” has done to Massachusetts

                  Homosexual activity harms no one

                  Condemning Homosexuality is practicing discrimination and this is wrong

        • marketcomp

          stage9, you are dead on about this, my friend! No one and I mean NO ONE is even thinking about the pshchological or mental disorder aspects of this. I find it amazing that what Sandusky was doing was homosexuality but on young boys and many think this is OK. What I have seen is that those who identify as homosexual have been molested somewhere along the way and that is the real tragedy. Yes, my friend many are complicit in their support by approving of this. All I have to say is that if you have young sons keep a very close eye on them because they are in the school system and they are there to turn these young boys out, just like Sandusky!

          • stage9

            WHO THINKS WHAT SANDUSKY WAS DOING WAS OK???? If they do, then they’re sick too!

            Second, I am NOT wrong!

            According to Dr N.E. Whitehead, Author of “My Genes Made Me Do it”:
            The authors of one study done in The Netherlands were surprised to find so much mental illness in h o m o s e x u a l people in a country where tolerance of h o m o s e x u a l i t y is greater than in almost all other countries.

            Another good comparison country is New Zealand, which is much more tolerant of h o m o s e x u a l i t y than is the United States.
            Legislation giving the movement special legal rights is powerful, consistently enforced throughout the country, and virtually never challenged. Despite this broad level of social tolerance, s u i c i d e attempts were common in a New Zealand study and occurred at about the same rate as in the U.S.

            Dr Whitehead says:

            Saghir and Robins (1978) examined reasons for s u i c i d e attempts among h o m o s e x u a l s and found that if the reasons for the attempt were connected with h o m o s e x u a l i t y, about 2/3 were due to breakups of relationships –not outside pressures from society.

            Similarly, Bell and Weinberg (1981) also found the major reason for s u i c i d e attempts was the breakup of relationships. In second place, they said, was the inability to accept oneself. Since h o m o s e x u a l s have greater numbers of partners and breakups, compared with h e t e r o s e x u a l s, and since longterm g a y male relationships are rarely monagamous, it is hardly surprising if s u i c i d e attempts are proportionally greater. The median number of partners for h o m o s e x u a l s is four times higher than for h e t e r o s e x u a l s.

            (Whitehead and Whitehead 1999, calculated from Laumann et al 1994)

            • stage9

              S u i c i d a l i t y Among H o m o s e x u a l s:

              Study #1:
              Arch Gen Psychiatry 1999 Oct; 56(10):876-80

              Is s e x u a l orientation related to mental health problems and suicidality in young people?
              Fergusson DM, Horwood LJ, Beautrais AL. Christchurch Health and Development Study, Christchurch School of Medicine, New Zealand.

              BACKGROUND: This study examines the extent to which g a y, l e s b i a n, and b i s e x u a l young people are at increased risk of psychiatric disorder and suicidal behaviors using data gathered on a New Zealand birth cohort studied to age 21 years.

              METHODS: Data were gathered during the course of the Christchurch Health and Development Study, a 21-year longitudinal study of a birth cohort of 1265 children born in Christchurch, New Zealand. At 21 years of age, 1007 sample members were questioned about their s e x u a l orientation and relationships with same-s e x partners since the age of 16 years. Twenty-eight subjects (2.8%) were classified as being of g a y, l e s b i a n, or b i s e x u a l s e x u a l orientation. Over the period from age 14 to 21 years, data were gathered on a range of psychiatric disorders that included major depression, generalized anxiety disorder, conduct disorder, and substance use disorders. Data were also gathered on suicidal ideation and suicide attempts.

              RESULTS: G a y , l e s b i a n, and b i s e x u a l young people were at increased risks of major depression (odds ratio [OR], 4.0; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.8-9.3), generalized anxiety disorder (OR, 2.8; 95% CI, 1.2-6.5), conduct disorder (OR, 3.8; 95% CI, 1.7-8.7), nicotine dependence (OR, 5.0; 95%, CI, 2.3-10.9), other substance abuse and/or dependence (OR, 1.9; 95% CI, 0.9-4.2), multiple disorders (OR, 5.9; 95% CI, 2.4-14.8), s u i c i d a l ideation (OR, 5.4; 95% CI, 2.4-12.2), and s u i c i d e attempts (OR, 6.2; 95% CI, 2.7-14.3).

              CONCLUSIONS: Findings support recent evidence suggesting that g a y, l e s b i a n, and b i s e x u a l young people are at increased risk of mental health problems, with these associations being particularly evident for measures of suicidal behavior and multiple disorder.


              S u i c i d a l i t y Among H o m o s e x u a l s:

              Study #2
              S e x u a l Orientation and S u i c i d a l i t y — A Co-twin Control Study in Adult Men
              Richard Herrell, MS; Jack Goldberg, PhD; William R. True, PhD, MPH; Visvanathan Ramakrishnan, PhD; Michael Lyons, PhD; Seth Eisen, MD; Ming T. Tsuang, MD, DSc, PhD, Arch Gen Psychiatry. 1999; 56:867-874.

              BACKGROUND: Several recent studies have found a higher lifetime prevalence of s u i c i d e attempts in h o m o s e x u a l males compared with h e t e r o s e x u a l control subjects or population rates. These studies used either convenience samples, most without controls, or population-based samples in which confounding factors such as depression and substance abuse were not measured.

              METHODS: This study used twins from the population-based Vietnam Era Twin Registry, Hines, Ill. An analytic sample of 103 middle-aged male-male twin pairs from the registry was identified in which one member of the pair reported male s e x partners after age 18 years while the other did not. Four lifetime symptoms of s u i c i d a l i t y as measured by the Diagnostic Interview Schedule were analyzed: thoughts about death, wanting to die, thoughts about committing s u i c i d e, and attempted s u i c i d e. A composite measure of reporting at least one s u i c i d a l i t y symptom was also assessed.

              RESULTS: Same-gender s e x u a l orientation is significantly associated with each of the s u i c i d a l i t y measures. Unadjusted matched-pair odds ratios follow: 2.4 (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.2-4.6) for thoughts about death; 4.4 (95% CI, 1.7-11.6) for wanted to die; 4.1 (95% CI, 2.1-8.2) for suicidal ideation; 6.5 (95% CI, 1.5-28.8) for attempted s u i c i d e; and 5.1 (95% CI, 2.4-10.9) for any of the s u i c i d a l symptoms. After adjustment for substance abuse and depressive symptoms (other than s u i c i d a l i t y), all of the s u i c i d a l i t y measures remain significantly associated with same-gender s e x u a l orientation except for wanting to die (odds ratio, 2.5 [95% CI, 0.7-8.8]).

              CONCLUSIONS: The substantially increased lifetime risk of s u i c i d a l behaviors in h o m o s e x u a l men is unlikely to be due solely to substance abuse or other psychiatric comorbidity. While the underlying causes of the s u i c i d a l behaviors remain unclear, future research needs to address the inadequacies in the measurement of both s e x u a l orientation and s u i c i d a l i t y in population-based samples.

              From the Division of Epidemiology-Biostatistics, School of Public Health, University of Illinois at Chicago (Mr Herrell and Drs Goldberg and Ramakrishnan); the Vietnam Era Twin Registry, Health Services Research and Development Program, Department of Veterans Affairs Hospital, Hines, Ill (Drs Goldberg and Ramakrishnan); the School of Public Health, St Louis University (Dr True), the Research Service, St Louis VAMC (Drs True and Eisen), the Division of General Medical Sciences, Department of Medicine, Washington University School of Medicine (Dr Eisen), St Louis, Mo; the Department of Psychology, Boston University (Dr Lyons), the Harvard Institute of Psychiatric Epidemiology and Genetics (Drs Lyons and Tsuang), the Harvard Medical School, Department of Psychiatry at Massachusetts Mental Health Center (Drs Lyons and Tsuang), Boston, Mass.


              S u i c i d a l i t y Among H o m o s e x u a l s:

              Study #3
              Am J Public Health 2000 Apr; 90(4):573-8 Related Articles, LinksLifetime prevalence of suicide symptoms and affective disorders among men reporting same-s e x s e x u a l partners: results from NHANES III. Cochran SD, Mays VM. Department of Epidemiology, UCLA School of Public Health 90095-1772, USA. [email protected]

              OBJECTIVES: This study examined lifetime prevalence of s u i c i d e symptoms and affective disorders among men reporting a history of same-s e x s e x u a l partners.

              METHODS: In the third National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, men aged 17 to 39 years were assessed for lifetime history of affective disorders and s e x u a l behavior patterns. The study classified this subset of men into 3 groups: those reporting same-s e x s e x u a l partners, those reporting only female s e x u a l partners, and those reporting no s e x u a l partners. Groups were compared for histories of suicide symptoms and affective disorders.

              RESULTS: A total of 2.2% (95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.3%, 3.1%) of men reported same-s e x s e x u a l partners. These men evidenced greater lifetime prevalence rates of s u i c i d e symptoms than men reporting only female partners. However, h o m o s e x u a l l y/b i s e xu a l l y experienced men were no more likely than exclusively h e t e r o s e x u a l men to meet criteria for lifetime diagnosis of other affective disorders.

              CONCLUSIONS: These data provide further evidence of an increased risk for s u i c i d e symptoms among h o m o s e x u a l l y experienced men. Results also hint at a small, increased risk of recurrent depression among gay men, with symptom onset occurring, on average, during early adolescence.

              • stage9

                I’ve got so many more that I can’t even post it all here.

                • marketcomp

                  Thank you, stage9! I know this behavior is a mental disorder but so many, like the liberals, refuse to see or hear or read evidence.

                • stage9

                  Then we must CONSTANTLY remind them of it my friend.

                  NEVER ALLOW A LIBERAL TO CREATE THE NARRATIVE! It is ALWAYS a narrative for evil!

                  And you WILL NEVER hear this on talk radio or see it on the evening news. The American people are being fed a lie that has been planned for YEARS.

                  Communist Goals of 1963
                  24. Eliminate all laws governing obscenity by calling them “censorship” and a violation of free speech and free press.

                  25. Break down cultural standards of morality by promoting pornography and obscenity in books, magazines, motion pictures, radio, and TV.

                  26. Present homosexuality, degeneracy and promiscuity as “normal, natural, healthy.”

                  “After the Ball – How America will conquer its fear and hatred of Gays in the 90s”

                  That was written in 1963! and it is the exact language they use today to sell their BIG LIE.

                • Tipper Gore loves censorship, and is undeniably a liberal.

                • Canada is one of the few country’s left that actually still studies homosexuality as a mental disorder.

      • I would also equate the heterosexual who needs a one night stand every weekend as also having an addiction similar to drugs and alcohol abuse. But it is not their heterosexuality that is the problem. It’s their hypersexuality that is the addiction. All because there is a “consensus” in the scientific community that claims they will find the “homosexual gene” some day, all their efforts to date have failed. My wife has worked in the genetics research field for almost 20 years. There are no series of research journals that suggest through scientific reasoning (and not consensus) that they are anywhere near finding a gene for homosexuality. That being the case, it is still a behavior issue. It is still a choice. I relate that choice to drug abuse and alcoholism not to belittle them, but to empathize with their struggle with the choice they have to make. My brother died from a lifestyle of heroin use. I am tired of walking on eggshells around addiction. Homosexuality is an addiction.

        It is not “absurdly self-righteous” of me at all to point this out. I sing in the choir with 2 homosexual men who each live with partners. They are my friends I have known for several years. Another friend of mine who is now “married” in California to his partner was a groomsman at my wedding and still a good friend of mine. They all know that I disagree with their chosen lifestyle. But I could no more disassociate myself from them as friends as I could disassociate myself from my drug addict brother. The reason is simple: because I am NOT self-righteous. I see plenty of faults in myself. How do I know if God sees my faults as worse than theirs? I don’t, so I treat them as I would treat myself, the way Christ has taught us.

        • It’s not an addiction. It’s amazing how you can compare the two, when your brother’s lifestyle killed him and you have gay friends living in your life.

          • It is what it is. The biology of it has never been proven, and the research community are trying very hard to find something, some thread of hope that a gene can be found to explain it. They tell us they are close but are not. All you have is behavior; choice.

    • Agree. He is making the wrong choices. Also a devout Christian doesn’t remain in their sin. They ask for forgiveness, repent, and let God turn their life around. They don’t out themselves. Your analogy to alcoholism is a good one.

    • chatterbox365

      Jasper, stage9…I appreciate your thoughts on this issue. I have had friends and family get upset with me because I equate homosexuality as a choice sexual behavior. Even if I remove the Biblical teaching on the subject, I still see it the same way.

  • I don’t think he needed to announce he’s gay or straight running for congress, especially when he’s been there since 2006 so it looks like the people of Pennsylvania in his district feels he’s doing a good job to reelect him.

    • stage9

      That’s what gays do. Why do you think they have “GAY PRIDE PARADES”?

      • If they want to announce themselves let them, and if they don’t who cares.

  • I honestly don’t care if he’s gay. It’s the dishonesty that bothers me.

  • Alborn

    Just another dishonest politician. Who cares if he is homosexual (I refuse to call these people gay anymore) or D or R. It is his dishonesty that should disqualify him for serving.

  • Dana ZZ Garcia

    I’m gay-friendly, but the voters have a right to know the basics about people who run for office. Why does the public need to hear this fact now, but not before the election?

  • He waited to come out until he felt comfortable. I’m happy for him and couldn’t care less what he does behind closed doors. The point about “honesty” and “integrity” is exceedingly silly. Either you have a problem with him being gay or it–and his coming out–is a non-issue.

    I’m glad the conservative movement isn’t picking up on this, and I trust the rising stars of the GOP are moving beyond this kind of dated inanity. I’m sure Mike Fleck (who isn’t a congressman, by the way) will serve his state legislative constituents as well as he always have and the people who have a problem with him will be increasingly few and rightfully embarrassed to go on about it.

    • stage9

      Well, he’s already proven that he’s a liar. What he does behind closed doors will only reflect the same.

  • It is good that he waited until after the election. This would have been an unnecessary distraction. Some people say he should have announced before the election, but he doesn’t even have to announce at all. After all, his sexual orientation is his business, and it has nothing to do with whether he should be elected or not.

    • stage9

      No it’s not JUST his business. It’s everyone’s business when you run for public office to be made aware of the character and intentions of the person you’re voting for. That is the RIGHT of the constituency. So, Mr Fleck’s first act in office is to LIE to his constituency.

      It’s understandable why this simple truth evades the intellectual limitations of radicals where lying is a favorite past time.

  • stage9

    “Safety” in the context of the h o m o s e x u a l movement helps to paint the h o m o s e x u a l as a victim who is being t o r m e n t e d and absused, h a r r a s s e d and maligned. And the word “safety” was purposefully chosen for its soft tone as a counterbalance to the nasty picture people have of h o m o s e x u a l i t y.

    When h o mo s e x u a l s were fighting to bring the h o m o s e x u a l agenda into the school system they immediately jumped on the word “safety” as a preemptive measure to silence opposition.

    In 1995, in his speech, “Winning the Culture War,” GLSEN Executive Director Kevin Jennings (yes, THAT Kevin Jennings, Obama’s “Safe Schools Czar”) recalled how he used the word “safety” as a theme to deceive the Massachusetts governor and the state legislature into adopting the h o m o s e x u a l agenda.

    He made these sobering comments:

    “If the Radical Right can succeed in portraying us as preying on children, we will lose. Their language–‘promoting h o m o s e x u a l i t y’ is one example–is laced with subtle and notsosubtle innuendo that we are ‘after their kids.’ We must learn from the abortion struggle, where the clever claiming of the term ‘pro-life’ allowed those who opposed abortion on demand to frame the issue to their advantage, to make sure that we do not allow ourselves to be painted into a corner before the debate even begins.

    “In Massachusetts the effective reframing of this issue was the key to the success of the Governor’s Commission on G a y and L e s b i a n Youth. We immediately seized upon the opponent’s calling card–safety–and explained how h o m o p h o b i a represents a threat to students’ safety by creating a climate where violence, name-calling, health problems, and s u i c i d e are common. Titling our report ‘Making Schools Safe for G a y and L e s b i a n Youth,’ we automatically threw our opponents onto the defensive and stole their best line of attack. This framing shortcircuited their arguments and left them backpedaling from day one.”

    “Finding the effective frame for your community is the key to victory. It must be linked to universal values that everyone in the community has in common. In Massachusetts, no one could speak up against our frame and say, ‘Why, yes, I do think students should k i l l themselves.’ This allowed us to set the terms for the debate.”

    “In Massachusetts, we made creating an environment where youth could speak out our number one priority. We know that, confronted with real-live stories of youth who had suffered from h o m o p h o b i a, our opponents would have to attack people who had been victimized once, which put them in a bully position from which it would be hard to emerge looking good. More importantly, we made sure these youth met with elected officials so that, the next time these officials had to vote on something, there would be a specific face and story attached to the issue. We wanted them to have an actual kid in mind when they had to cast their votes. We won the vote in the Senate 33-7 as a result.”

  • stage9

    P e d o p h i l i a Chic
    If you thought s e x with children was taboo–think again.

    P e d o p h i l i a Chic, Part 2

    H o m o s e x u a l s seldom openly admit that they want to s e x u a l l y assault children, but their literature and their actions tell another story. In the January 1-8, 2001 issue of The Weekly Standard, author Mary Eberstadt exposed the clear link between h o m o s e x u a l activism and the growing North-American Man- Boy Love Association (NAMBLA) movement. Writing in “’P e d o p h i l i a Chic’ Reconsidered: The taboo against s e x with children continues to erode,” Eberstadt notes:

    “The reason why the public is being urged to reconsider boy p e d o p h i l i a is that this ‘question,’ settled though it may be in the opinions and laws of the rest of the country, is demonstrably not yet settled within certain parts of the g a y rights movement. The more that movement has entered the mainstream, the more this ‘question’ has bubbled forth from that previously distant realm in the public square.

    Eberstadt notes that the book, Male Inter-Generational Intimacy: Historical, Socio-Psychological, and Legal Perspectives edited by pedophile Edward Brongersma is currently available in the “g a y/l e s b i a n” sections of bookstores like Borders. This book, which openly promotes p e d o p h i l i a, was first published in the Journal of H o m o s e x u a l i t y in 1990. The Journal is edited by John DeCecco, a psychologist at San Francisco State University. DeCecco is a board member of the Dutch p e d o p h i l e journal, Paidika.

    The h o m o s e x u a l magazine Guide published a pro-p e d o p h i l e editorial in its July, 1995 issue. In referring to p e d o p h i l e s as “prophets” of s e x u a l freedom, the Guide editorialist wrote: “We must listen to our prophets. Instead of fearing being labeled p e d o p h i l e s, we must proudly proclaim that s e x is good, including children’s s e x u a l i t y. . . . Surrounded by pious moralists with deadening anti-s e x u a l rules, we must be shameless rulebreakers, demonstrating our allegiance to a higher concept of love. We must do it for the children’s sake.”

    • The Weekly Standard huh? Bill Kristol’s rag? He has a lot of credibility to not be deceptive huh?

  • Constance

    Why did he feel the need to bring up the subject at all? Now, he just looks like a phony, and he appears to be dishonest. Perhaps his sexuality didn’t need to be explained, particularly if he makes a point of discussing it after the election and states he mislead his constituents. I’d never vote for anyone like this again. Not because he is gay, but because he deceived me.

  • aZjimbo

    He’s a politician. What the heck did you expect?

  • tshtsh

    Waited until after the election because that was the deadline the person who was going to out him gave him.

    • RowdyRepublican

      Heard it was Eichelberger who gave the ultimatum.

  • TLaMana

    I don’t know which is worse. Hiding it and getting elected or admitting it and losing because of it.

    For a super majority of the issues he will be voting on his sexuality will not be pertinent.

  • It’s not relevant to how he governs and would’ve just been a distraction. Just because he’s gay doesn’t mean he has to go around everywhere saying it. That’s our beef with the gay left, that they don’t make it a private issue and have to announce it everywhere. What matters is how he does in office.

    But what about Dubya, Boehner, and the other RINOs going around saying they’re conservatives when they act like liberals when they get power? That’s what I would be upset over.

  • This is getting ridiculous!
    Yes, I agree with the fact he apparently covered up an alternative lifestyle, and that IS wrong, when running for a public offfice.

    But imagine..a newly elected, conservative politician, calling a press conference and sharing that he or she is STRICTLY heterosexual.
    Can you imagine the horror of the MSM as they disect this need for such an announcement?

    See what I mean? Ridiculous b/c it IS our reality!

  • hongryhawg

    Prime example of what’s wrong with the political system. Dishonesty reigns and you can bet liberals and gays are applauding this without even seeing the hypocrisy. It’s who they are.

  • RowdyRepublican

    Truth be told, Mike ran unopposed this year. Plus, the rumor is that he was threatened by another Republican in a close district to come out or he would tell everyone. I doubt he is able to run opposed again!

  • agas84363

    who cares if he is gay or not……now it is known he is a sneaky sob

    • stage9

      The technical term is called “a liar”.

  • RKflorida

    Not only a sodomite but a liar. In our PC society we are supposed to embrace this behavior, but I abhor it.

  • stage9

    Judge blocks ‘gay-conversion therapy’ ban

    Now THIS is how you argue the debate!:

    “Why are Democrat legislators supporting child sex abuse? Why don’t they care about children’s immature hearts and minds being immorally manipulated and sexually seduced by public school teachers,” he continued then. “It is certifiably evil that this bill to protect school children’s bodies was defeated by this Democrat-controlled committee.”

    That’s a very good question, why DO liberal legislators support child sex abuse?

  • chatterbox365

    I have mixed feelings about this one. Fleck has been in office since 2006 and he waits until now to make it public. So what if some other person threatened to spill the beans. Fleck could have just admitted it then and say he didn’t want to bring sexuality (regardless of orientation) into his job as a politician. I think people would be more forgiving, but the fact he intentionally waited until after the election doesn’t look good.

    If he wants to keep his job, he better do one hell of a job and serve his constituents well. I’m certain another republican will seize the opportunity to run against him next election. It’s up to the people in this district to decide if they want to reelect him.