Most people don't attention to individual votes - he's associated with the DOMA party and guilty by association, so to speak.

Although I think that taking a noticeable stand on an issue opens one up further. Maybe it's because he's not "our" congressman, but up here the mayor of Spokane got way more vile than Foley's getting because the mayor had such a public anti-gay stance.

There is not "DOMA party." It was introduced with sponsorship from both Republicans and Democrats, passed with broad bipartisan support in both houses of congress (85-14 in the Senate and 342-64 in the House), and was then signed by a Democrat president.

I should have said the constitutional amendment and not DOMA. (I think I was thinking of the state version.) Or am I totally out of touch and the dems starting supporting the amendment while I wasn't looking?

No, the Republicans are mostly responsible for that, though four Democratic senators did vote for it and six Republicans voted against it.

Of course not. It was more a sort of philosophical question for ISM. Let's focus more on wrong than inappropriate. I realize ISM wants harm done to the republican party, and I'm OK with that (I'm all for harm done to the dem party myself). I am wondering, though, if no harm was done, does ISM think a crime was committed worthy of prosecution?

ISM has long been someone who disagrees with victimless crime, as do a lot of people. So if he thinks no one was harmed, was a crime really committed? Let's say the guy was an independent rather than a republican....should he be prosecuted for anything?

Please understand I do think there was a crime committed. I regard the man as a predator.

I would actually be more offended if it were a female page rather than a male page, to refer to something earlier in the thread. Not exactly sure how to express why. Probably some chauvinistic view of the male being more able to protect himself, but that's not always the case necessarily.

Not one of his shining moments. I wrote Clinton as this was taking shape, and his letter back was cynical fence sitting; basically, I hate discrimination, but I will sign the bill. I had written him several years earlier to tell him to stop his cynical pandering (Christian benediction at the 1992 Democratic convention), but I guess the first letter didn't take.

When I wrote Dianne Feinstein about her support for the flag protection amendment, she wrote back forthrightly that we would have to agree to disagree. She's still obviously full of S***, but it was a better letter.

Yep, that's why I feel there's no harm in this case. Totally mysogenistic of me ... but I think most teen boys can handle the emotional trauma of being asked to measure their dick size.

And I don't see anything wrong (or rationally criminal) in dirty internet talk with teenagers of either gender. But where to you draw the age line? 15? 11? 9? At some point, and I don't know where, it becomes much more wrong to me. So, I guess the arbitrary "adult" line of 18 makes some sense.

Besides, the criminal element is, I believe, trying to set up meetings for sexual purposes ... which I feel is wrong with anyone lacking full maturity and judgment skills. That would make the age limit 25, by the way. So I actually agree with the criminal statue that outlaws luring teens via the internet to sexual rendez vous in the real world. Of course, I'd rather it only be a crime if the meeting takes place, but I understand it's the luring itself that is criminal. (However, can luring take place if no one is actually lured? Is that like a tree falling in the woods?)


I haven't read the emails myself ... so I can't form a coherent opinion on how much luring there was vs. how much gayspeak.

* * * * *

Oh, and to counter something posted earlier ... at least according to various reports I've heard, incoming pages were warned to stay away from Foley because he got a little too friendly, not because he was simply homosexual. I don't find it credible that pages are warned about every gay member of the House.

Other pages may have come forward with other warnings by now, I didn't watch or read the news at all yesterday. But when I posted it, the source of that story was one specific page who was reported to have said one thing but in his own writing space claimed the warning he had received was informal, from one Republican staffer and simply said "he's gay, don't get too involved with him."

Definitely not any kind of official warning, which is what the initial reports suggested, more like backroom gosisp. But maybe that story has changed again.

How about "He likes underage boys" Or "he's been known to be inappropriately forward" or how about "he's a lecherous old man, watch out".

Gay or straight isn't really the issue other than it was the male pages who were the desired as opposed to female pages that are the desired the other 90% of the time.

How about them? Have other pages said that they were given those warnings? Who were they warned by? Staffers or other pages? In high school we all had several teachers that we warned each other were lecherous or gay or taught P.E. so he could watch the girls run in sweaty t-shirts. Not quite the same thing as if the principal had come to us and said "stay away from Mr. Belding, he'll be thinking about your crotch."

All I was commenting on was the state of things yesterday morning when all the stories about pages being warned were from one specific source (whom I detailed) and that source said it wasn't really the warning that the news was making it out to be.