Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

SACRAMENTO, Calif. -- Republican state Sen. Roy Ashburn said Monday he is gay, ending days of speculation that began after his arrest last week for investigation of driving under the influence.

Ashburn, who consistently voted against gay rights measures during his 14 years in statewide office, came out in an interview with KERN radio in Bakersfield, the area he represents.

Ashburn said he felt compelled to address rumors that he had visited a gay nightclub near the Capitol before his DUI arrest.

"I am gay ... those are the words that have been so difficult for me for so long," Ashburn told conservative talk show host Inga Barks.

The 55-year-old father of four said he had tried to keep his personal life separate from his professional life until his March 3 arrest.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/03 ... latestnews" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

CBS-13 just reported this. Ashburn is staying in the Senate and plans to continue voting per the wishes of his ultra-conservative area. This has apparently been his M.O.: voting against himself and for the district.

This probably won't be a big issue because he's due to be termed out soon.

I think that it could be personally and politically reconcilable to be gay, yet vote against measures that are purportedly "anti-gay."

For instance, I can see how a person could be Jewish, black or gay yet be opposed to hate crimes legislation.

Ashburn never claimed to have "reconciled" it. "Reconciling" such this dichotomy is only an issue when one is looking to run for office. He's not eligible to run for re-election due to term limits, and has not identified further office for which to run. Someone else who fits the criteria of those in the district will be elected, and outraged gay-rights activists will have to find another conservative about whom to be outraged.

In a word, Ashburn is a lame duck.

Next topic.

SuperHornet wrote:Ashburn never claimed to have "reconciled" it. "Reconciling" such this dichotomy is only an issue when one is looking to run for office. He's not eligible to run for re-election due to term limits, and has not identified further office for which to run. Someone else who fits the criteria of those in the district will be elected, and outraged gay-rights activists will have to find another conservative about whom to be outraged.

In a word, Ashburn is a lame duck.

Next topic.

When I said reconciled, I meant that someone could reconcile their political positions and their personal habits/beliefs in their own consciences. Sometimes it is called voting for the greater good, regardless of what your own personal situation might be.

Some people will do anything to retain political power.......

SuperHornet wrote:In a word, Ashburn is a lame duck.

Next topic.

We'll talk about this as much as we want. Thanks.

Actually, Jeff, you'll just remind everyone that you're from the left with a one or two line jab at the right, put up the coffee emoticon, and go back to... well, I would say work, but probably not...

CID1990 wrote:I think that it could be personally and politically reconcilable to be gay, yet vote against measures that are purportedly "anti-gay."

For instance, I can see how a person could be Jewish, black or gay yet be opposed to hate crimes legislation.

Yup. I think an elected representative owes most of his or her votes to constituents.

native wrote:

CID1990 wrote:I think that it could be personally and politically reconcilable to be gay, yet vote against measures that are purportedly "anti-gay."

For instance, I can see how a person could be Jewish, black or gay yet be opposed to hate crimes legislation.

Yup. I think an elected representative owes most of his or her votes to constituents.

How cute. The elected representative owes ALL of his votes to his donors. Which are usually in direct conflict with most of his constituents.

AZGrizFan wrote:

native wrote:
Yup. I think an elected representative owes most of his or her votes to constituents.

How cute. The elected representative owes ALL of his votes to his donors. Which are usually in direct conflict with most of his constituents.

I don't expect every elected politician to cast every vote based on the latest poll. Every now and then, maybe one of every ten or twenty votes, I expect a Dem or Repub to save a vote for their party and another for their conscience.

AZGrizFan wrote:

native wrote:
Yup. I think an elected representative owes most of his or her votes to constituents.

How cute. The elected representative owes ALL of his votes to his donors. Which are usually in direct conflict with most of his constituents.

You are such a closet progressive.

I don't vote for representatives so that they will vote for everything I believe in.

I vote for my representatives because in some way they have convinced me that they have sound judgment. If they have good judgment then they might not always vote the way I would like them to, but at least I can feel assured that they will not blindly (or ideologically) lead us down the sh!thole.

Lately I find myself voting for people I would not normally support simply because as bad as they are, they are not as bad as their opponents.