Schrock in a Hard Place

Meanwhile back in DC, Rep. Ed Schrock (R-Va.) announced that he would not run for re-election in the wake of allegations that the retired U.S. Navy captain called a gay hook-up line.

The Web site Blogactive claims to have a recording of Schrock "seeking gay sex off of gay sex lines." Other supporters of the Marriage Protection Act should expect similar treatment, the site warns.

Although his Web site makes no mention of it, a Schrock press release explains that "these allegations will not allow my campaign to focus on the real issues facing our nation and region."

Comments

[kevrob]

Waitaminute-

I thought Virginia was for lovers?

Kevin

[Trey]

Is it too late for him to get that discount to the naked-man Broadway show in NY while there for the convention?

[Trey]

I wondered how they knew it was him. It's strange that he ended the call with "I'm Ed Schrock and I approve this request for a blow-job."

That's what gave it away, I think.

[Doc]

As a Navy man, he was hypocrital about wanting gays in the military (frankly, they're chock a block with us!).

Privacy? Ask Andrew Sullivan about his "PowerMuscleGlutes" post on barebackcity.com

Schrock deserves what he got. For us gay men, having a jerk like this outed is bitter sweet (sweet he's shown up, bitter in that a** is one of us).

Too bad blogactive didn't wait until after the deadline for naming a replacement on the VA ballot.

[Stewart Vardaman]

James McGreevey to the white courtesy phone, please...

[Gadfly]

Just from googling around on this guy I found that he didn't co-sponsor DOMA - it was the Federal Marriage Amendment. And there are 112 "co" sponsors. Statistically speaking, there's a few other gay hypocrites on the list.

[Gary Gunnels]

Stewart Vardaman,

McGreevey is also most definately a jackass. He used being gay as a cover for government corruption for goodness sake!

[Dan]

This is a really dumb strategy for gay activists to use, since the likely result of it will be to replace homosexual Republican legislators, who presumably are sympathetic on gay issues even if they can't admit it in the current political climate, with heterosexual Republican legislators who have no reason to have the slightest interest in what homosexuals want. In short, it will delay federally-recognized gay marriage by making Congress marginally less gay.

Plus, of course, it makes gay activists look like amoral assholes. The people in Schrock's district presumably hate the idea of gay marriage, and aren't going to fault him for opposing it. They are, however, likely to take Schrock's unethical sexual behavior, and his opponents' outing of him, as evidence that homosexuals aren't good people.

[rst]

Who was blackmailed in this situation?

"The time has come for these gay homophobes to step up or be outed...Schrock is the first...more will follow."

Statistically speaking, there's a few other gay hypocrites on the list.

Sure, if you believe the "statistics". "Statistics" also indicated that U.N. sanctions were killing 1.83 million Iraqi children under 5 every year.

[joe]

Dan, if people like Shrock are sponsoring shit like the FMA, it doesn't really matter what their real feelings are, now does it?

And I suspect that people who would elect an FMA-sponsoring Congressman already think that gay people are not good people.

On the other hand, exposing this sort of hypocracy helps change the larger culture's feelings about gay-bashing politicians. People in districts like Shrock's becoming a little more homophobic - so what? But people in close districts deciding that homophobia looks a little more disreputable could be a big deal.

[Ernie Longmire]

Far be it for me to come to the rescue of this sad, sad man ... but it seems to have been lost on everyone that engaging in gay sex while opposing gay marriage is not, strictly, hypocritical.
In the abstract, you're correct. But this loser was a darling of the pro-God/anti-Gay movement -- solid 100% ratings from Concerned Women for America ("The mission of CWA is to protect and promote Biblical values among all citizens - first through prayer, then education, and finally by influencing our society - thereby reversing the decline in moral values in our nation."), the Family Research Council ("The Family Research Council (FRC) champions marriage and family as the foundation of civilization, the seedbed of virtue, and the wellspring of society.") and (in 2002) the Christian Coalition. I think most of those folks could find some hypocrisy in comparing his voting record with how he liked to spend his weekends.

[Dan]

Dan, if people like Shrock are sponsoring shit like the FMA, it doesn't really matter what their real feelings are, now does it?

Grow a brain. There was zero chance of the FMA becoming law; it was simply a political gambit, the same as the various "let's bring back the draft" proposals that drift through Congress from time to time. Gay activists got a homosexual man thrown out of office -- a man who had good reason to be their ally in another 10 or 15 years when the cultural climate is different -- because he backed a measure that did absolutely nothing to hurt them. In doing so, they revealed themselves as petty, vindictive, and unethical. That was a stupid thing to do. They sacrificed political capital for nothing more than personal gratification.

And I suspect that people who would elect an FMA-sponsoring Congressman already think that gay people are not good people.

Yeah, and now they have more "proof" of that. These activists are the equivalent of black men who smoke crack and father children out of wedlock, or white southerners who make "nigger" jokes -- they're playing to the stereotype.

On the other hand, exposing this sort of hypocracy helps change the larger culture's feelings about gay-bashing politicians.

Inasmuch as it makes the public more sympathetic to "gay-bashing politicians", sure. Schrock kept his homosexuality private -- which is what most Americans think gays SHOULD do. He violated his marriage vows and cheated on his spouse -- which is how most Americans think homosexuals WILL act. How is this whole event helping the gay marriage movement? It's reenforcing negative stereotypes about homosexuals.

People in districts like Shrock's becoming a little more homophobic - so what? But people in close districts deciding that homophobia looks a little more disreputable could be a big deal

That's idiotic. The revelation that Schrock is actually gay is going to convince people that Schrock wasn't motivated by homophobia at all.

Take affirmative action, for example. The leftist smear that affirmative action opponents are motivated by anti-black racism can stick to a white man; a white man has no defense to that charge. It can't stick to a black man. A black man who says "I am against affirmative action because I believe all races should be treated equally" is a man who, the public will believe, is sincere in his motivation.

The social-conservative position is that homosexuals won't respect the institution of marriage. Shrock, it turns out, is a gay man who didn't respect the institution of marriage. His existance provides supporting "evidence" for the Republican position. People will say "When Shrock said he was against gay rights because gays can't be trusted with those rights, he was speaking from personal experience."

[Gadfly]

Funny. As I was scrolling the above post I just knew it was Dan at the bottom.

I'm curious, though. In Dan's first graph he posits that in 10 or 15 years the cultural climate will be different and Schrock could then maybe be useful to the gay movement. What does he mean by that?

[Dan]

In Dan's first graph he posits that in 10 or 15 years the cultural climate will be different and Schrock could then maybe be useful to the gay movement. What does he mean by that?

Homophobia has been rapidly declining for the past few decades, and in the not too distant future will no longer be a significant political force. At some point before that, homophobia will still be a factor, but weak enough that politicians with strong personal motivations (e.g., the fact that they themselves are gay) will be willing to take a stand for gay rights.

So now a closet homosexual who pretended to be a Bible-thumper to be replaced someone who will almost certainly be an actual Bible-thumper. Guess which of two people is more likely to eventually support the gay rights movement?

[Gary Gunnels]

I'm Schrocked! 🙂

[Highway]

I love the way the 'real issues' are merely a prop for giving up, or trying to hammer the other guy. If everyone wanted to talk about the 'real issues', why don't they just start talking about it! Could it be because they don't REALLY want to talk about whatever 'real issues' there are, but rather merely lump unnamed things into a 'real issues' category and use the lack of talking about them as a reason they are somehow better than the other guy.

[c]

The definition of "real issues" is when the opposition is getting some same sex tickle-tickle, not when you are! The only time they'd agree on any given "real issue" is if they were actually having an affair with each other.

[Shannon Love]

As much as love seeing politicians take one below the water (social conservatives and sex scandals are especially delicious) this incident does raise issues of personal privacy.

How did Blogactive get "recordings" of Schrock and did they do so legally? I can't think of any circumstance were they could have obtained them illegally without Schrock's prior consent. If they did obtain the recording illegally they should be held accountable no matter how pure their intent. Schrock would seem to have good case for massive damages in a civil suit. After all, this (presumed) invasion of privacy destroyed his career.

I think we need a "fruit of the poisoned tree" doctrine for privacy the same we have one for illegally obtained evidence in criminal trials. The true protection for privacy does not arise from technology or even the law but rather from a generalized cultural belief that it is important and that people who violate privacy should be shunned.

[rst]

no matter how pure their intent.

Blackmail is a pure intent?

[joe]

Real issues. You know. Like the Federal Marriage Amendment.

[SR]

In regards to the privacy issue, I would tend to guess that if Schrock was leaving a recorded message the only privacy interest he would have is a contractual one with the service.

[alkali]

How did Blogactive get "recordings" of Schrock and did they do so legally? I can't think of any circumstance where they could have obtained them [legally] without Schrock's prior consent.

There is no federal law against taping a telephone conversation without the consent of the other person.(*) State laws on the subject vary widely. In Massachusetts, it's illegal. In Virginia, it's not. See the Reporters' Committee for Freedom of the Press for more information.

(* Obviously, I'm assuming that the recording was made by someone who was on the call, not by tapping someone's phone, which is illegal under federal and all state laws.)

[SR]

I also feel, in light of the post below on Hastert, that it must be emphasized that we do not know if, in fact Schrock and Hastert are long-time lovers, but we must recogize that it is an undeniable possibility.

[SM]

The bible-thumper who falls of his horse after being struck by lightning.

[Gary Gunnels]

Shannon Love,

I can't think of any circumstance were they could have obtained them illegally without Schrock's prior consent.

I can. The guy apparently called a dating service, which recorded his phone call (nothing illegal about that in the Federal law, and state law can be rather sketchy on the issue). Furthermore, even if recording his call without his permission was illegal in Virginia (assuming that's the state he had the call in), he specifically called the dating service in order to have his message recorded (he wanted a blow job amongst other things - I myself do not get into 60 plus year old men, but some guys are into that). In other words, the only privacy he has in this situation is whatever he contracted with said service. Finally, I've some experience with such services and their is generally a privacy disclaimer that goes along with them.

[Shannon Love]

alkali,

I could have sworn that the Federal standard was "all-parties," I know that in business the standard of practice is not to record anyone without prior consent or at least warning. I assumed that sprang from a legal requirement but apparently I was wrong.

I'll bet that most people do believe that recording without permission is illegal and that they therefor have an "expectation of privacy" I think that Schrock could still probably recover damages in a civil suit.

[Gary Gunnels]

SR & alkali,

I should have read the rest of the comments. 🙂

Thanks for the info on Virginia. 🙂

[Gary Gunnels]

Shannon Love,

Look, the guy called a dating service in an effort to record his phone call!!!! Don't you get it? He WANTED his message recorded!!!! He wouldn't have been calling the dating service if he hadn't wanted the message recorded; indeed, that would be patently obvious if you had actually listened to the recording. The guy wasn't ordering a pizza after all; he was ordering up a cock, and he had in mind doing so via the recorded message.

[kuros]

How did Blogactive get "recordings" of Schrock and did they do so legally?

Ha Ha Ha
Legally?
those phone sex lines have a disclaimer exonerating THEMSELVES from legal problems
once YOU put an "ad" on of those phone lines it is PUBLIC property
user beware

[Gary Gunnels]

kuros,

Shannon is pretty slow today, eh? 🙂

[Phil]

The guy wasn't ordering a pizza after all; he was ordering up a cock . . .

Hahahaha. "I'll have a large sausage and, uh, that's pretty much it, actually."

[Shannon Love]

Gary Gunnels, Kuros,

Thanks for the clarification. I thought the story described a "conversation" which would be different than leaving a message which is obviously a recording.

Even so, I wonder how many clients of the services believe that they have surrender all rights to privacy when they leave a messages? I doubt few people believe that the warning given by the service means their messages can be broadcast on the internet. The courts have ruled that an individuals "expectation of privacy" that is, their individual perception or belief that a communication is private, can be the basis for keeping information private.

I used to work in tech support for a major computer manufacture and all our inbound calls were prefaced with a "calls may be monitored for purposes of training and quality assurance" but when we harvested call recordings for training we stripped out all the information that could have identified an individual.

Privacy is a tricky thing. We took calls from celebrities and others in the public eye and some of those calls would be rather embarrassing if broadcast to the general public. People who make their living with their brains would not like it to be known that they sound like complete idiots when trying to operate their computer.

If Shcrock posted a message in what is essentially a public forum then of course he has no cause for complaint but if it was some form of a conversation then he might well have grounds.

[Shannon Love]

I finally managed to get the recording downloaded and it is definitely a recorded message.

[Gary Gunnels]

Shannon Love,

Even so, I wonder how many clients of the services believe that they have surrender all rights to privacy when they leave a messages?

When you call a rent a cock service they generally disclaim any and all legal liability.

I doubt few people believe that the warning given by the service means their messages can be broadcast on the internet.

Well, if we're talking about a government action here, the test is two-pronged: (a) a subjective expectation of privacy; and (b) that expectation has to be reasonable (in other words, our society has to find it reasonable).

The courts have ruled that an individuals "expectation of privacy" that is, their individual perception or belief that a communication is private, can be the basis for keeping information private.

Only if its a reasonable expectation (again with regard to government actions); and I don't know if the test is the same with regard to private actors, but I would assume that it is similar. Posting a rent a cock message in a public forum where the public can listen in doesn't seem to carry with it a reasonable expectation of privacy.

I used to work in tech support for a major computer manufacture and all our inbound calls were prefaced with a "calls may be monitored for purposes of training and quality assurance" but when we harvested call recordings for training we stripped out all the information that could have identified an individual.

Well, in this case, calls weren't recorded for training & QA, they were recorded because that's the function of the company; people leave messages so they can find guys who will given them a rim job.

If Shcrock posted a message in what is essentially a public forum then of course he has no cause for complaint but if it was some form of a conversation then he might well have grounds.

It was a public forum; indeed, he posted a message for the public to listen to. He has no right to bitch about his own stupidity. Indeed, his comments were not anymore

[Gary Gunnels]

Shannon Love,

So what? The guy left a message at a rent a cock service for other people to hear. He meant to leave the message. He used the service and part of that service is leaving a recorded message. Look Shannon, I know you'd take a double-headed dildo up the ass for the Republicans, but this guy doesn't have a leg to stand on.

[Gary Gunnels]

Phil,

Hahahaha. "I'll have a large sausage and, uh, that's pretty much it, actually."

That's nearly how it works. 🙂

[Gadfly]

Another hypocrite bites the dust. This guy was the co-sponsor of the DOMA bill and was totally invested in erasing any trace of legitimacy to homosexuals or their lifestyle - while gladly accepting their tax money and an occasional head job. Screw him and the horse he rode in on.

[David T]

On the subject of McGreevey, did you see The Onion's headline? "Homosexual Tearfully Confesses to Being Governor of New Jersey"

[SR]

Actually Gadfly, you have to call a different 900 number for that latter proposition.

[Gary Gunnels]

SR,

Ouch! 🙂 We'll call that the "Catherine The Great" man on horse sex line. 🙂

[Shannon Love]

Gary Gunnels,

I'm not so sure what you're worked up about as I have agreed with your point. I misunderstood the conditions under which the recording was made. Schrock essentially did the voice-mail equivalent of posting a notice on a bulletin board. He can't complain if it got wider distribution than he intended.

[Meshuganer]

I guess Washington DC is not the place if you're a closeted gay man in politics looking for love in all the wrong places. Friends from DC say these types are all over the place in gay bars, sex clubs etc etc.....I wish the Republicans would get off the sexual warpath, and the Dems would stop resorting to blackmail to smear Rep. politicians who are trying to get their rocks off. I don't care who does what as long as it's consentual and age appropriate. The larger issue of how the courts are being used as a legislative body isn't really being address except by libertarian & conservative sources. Plus ditto to all the posts here questioning how this info was attained by this blog.

[Gary Gunnels]

Meshunganer,

The larger issue of how the courts are being used as a legislative body isn't really being address except by libertarian & conservative sources.

The Massachusetts court, as a COMMON LAW court, did NOTHING wrong regarding the same sex marraige case brought before it.

I wish the Republicans would get off the sexual warpath, and the Dems would stop resorting to blackmail to smear Rep. politicians who are trying to get their rocks off.

Who was blackmailed in this situation?

[anon]

Shannon Love to GG:

"I'm not so sure what you're worked up about ..."

welcome to the club 😉

(FYI: GG likes to be an as**ole, especially with females:)

[craptacular]

Look this sleaze thing is going too far. Just because a Presidential candidate did coke, got convicted and did community service in Alabama, was a drunk for a decade, got a girl pregnant and paid for an abortion and to hush her up ... just because someone is gay ... just because a marriage is just a sham to hide someone's homosexuality ... it aint reason to vote against someone ... such things would not be enough. Their record and their ideas ... that's what should count.

craptacular

[Gary Gunnels]

anon,

*chuckle* Oh no, I'm being trolled by anon. How shall I recover? 🙂

[Sen. Rick Santorum (R-PA)]

Having listened to the ad, I volunteer to fuck him AND the horse he rode in on.

But what I'd really like to know is if he has any dogs...

[c]

Far be it for me to come to the rescue of this sad, sad man ... but it seems to have been lost on everyone that engaging in gay sex while opposing gay marriage is not, strictly, hypocritical.