Whilst watching the Politics show tonight, I made the comment that Michael Portillo looked like the sort of man who'd try and seduce 17-year old au pairs, only to be reminded by someone that he's gay.

Now, after all the fuss in the States about gay marriage and this Postcards from Buster programme, this got me thinking. We've had a fair few gay MPs over here, even if Chris Smith was the only one who admitted it for a long time. Are there any openly gay members of congress, and if not, would it be political suicide to come out?

Well, there was a recent incident of a state Governor admitting to a homsexual affair (he's got a wife and kids). I think it's political suicide simply for the adultery part of it, but when you throw in the fact that there were not-insubstantial rumors about corruption on his part, the issue becomes distorted beyond the sort of analysis you need. I remember seeing a political cartoon about the issue, though - the guy's standing at a podium, and there's a big speech about embezzlement and whatnot, and then there's a big speech bubble covering it all up containing only the words "I'm gay." I don't claim to know all or even many of the facts about this issue, but when you've got discussion like this flying around, it becomes difficult to get a clear interpretation of what's going on.

There was, however, once a survey made of some American voters. It asked, basically, "Would you refuse to vote for a candidate solely on any of the following bases:" and there was a whole list, comprised mostly of religion and ethnicity. All but two of the options showed that fewer than 10% of Americans would refuse to vote for such a candidate on that basis.

One of them was homosexuality, and something like 25-30% of Americans in general (excluding certain regions of the country, mostly urban areas) would not vote for a gay candidate on that basis alone. (For bonus points, what was the other one and what percentage of Americans, according to this poll, would refuse to vote for such a candidate on that basis alone?)

Congressman Barney Frank, Whatdoyouthink from Massachusetts, is gay.

Funny enough; Congresscritter Franks represents a district largely made up of Portugese fishermen and their descendants. Most of these folks are rather to the right on social issues; but Franks is so good at his job, they don't care.

A few years back, some anti-gay legislation was being introduced by the pandering GOP; and Franks went and called a press conference. He announced that in 24 hours, he would out every single homosexual on the Hill. The bill was dropped in roughly a tenth of that time; and Franks then duly cancelled his little speech. You see, the only ones who don't know that there are a lot of screaming queens amongst the elected and staff type Republicans on the Hill are their constituents...and they weren't ready to face that particular bit of public education.

Again, that raises the point about stupidity vs. pragmatism - look at all the trouble British Intelligence got into in the 40s and 50s, quite probably largely due to the prevalant squeamishness about gays in government service. Not to mention the trouble in US Intelligence to date. Somehow the assumption is made that gay men are (a) terrible security risks and/or (b) bad for morale. I dunno - sex traps/blackmail work just fine on straight men - maybe we should just ban all men from intelligence work? and bad for morale? I've worked with plenty of assholes - all of whom have been (apparently) straight. The (openly) gay men I've worked with have varied as much as anyone, but have all been easy to deal with. Now personally, I'd rather work in a place where I'm surrounded by lovely, fawning young women, but I'm not sure that would be any better for either my morale or my job performance.
As to Congress (or the equivalent), old Barney got into some trouble a few years back when it came out that his 'personal associate' was, in his spare time, running an entrepeneurial operation as gigolo from the Congressman's quarters. To me, this just shows that (a) Mr. Franks has the same taste in companions as most of our government, and (b) Mr. Franks' companion demonstrated that fine Republican spirit of "seize the opportunity to get ahead", for which I think he should have been lionized by the GOP. I was rather surprised he didn't make "Entrepeneur of the Year". This whole thing about homosexuality still seems to me to be the most recent in the historical string of "different=bad!" political tools. As we continue to formally reduce the acceptable grounds for prejudice and intolerance, the few that are left become ever more powerful and strongly defended. Most of you all would probably not think of other nationalities by the sneering epithets common in my father's time, let alone to other races. But it was only a couple generations ago that Asians and Africans were regarded as sub-human, and that certain Europeans (notably the Irish and Mediterranean peoples) were barely out of the trees themselves. Each prejudice seems valid and important to the people who hold it - until it becomes socially unacceptable. What makes anyone think that acceptance of gays is any more likely to bring about the end of civilization than the admittance of Jews into country clubs and 'polite society'? Why is stupidity a valued human trait?

I thought he had only admitted to having 'some homosexual experiences' while at university, but still claimed to be, for the most part, not gay. Not that it really matters either way.