Mike Rogers, gay activist, terrorist.
I'm not going to rehash my views on gay marriage and all that goes with it for the umpteenth time here. Those of you who know me know that I'm opposed to it, but that I think the issue should be treated with more respect by people on both sides. And those of you who've read my posts on Gannongate know what I feel about the disgusting leftist practice known as "outing". This practice mainly consists of finding a gay conservative Republican and trumpeting this homosexuality to the world. I have no time for it or it's practicioners. Not everything is politics, and I do think people have the right to private lives. The architect of this practice is one Mike Rogers, who cut his teeth by outing a variety of Republican staffers and a Republican congressman or two. Blogger
accused Mike Rogers of being a terrorist. This prompted Rogers to feel "threatened" and to, as a consequence, threaten legal action and a boycott against Gay Patriot's employers. Essentially, Rogers bulleyed gay patriot out of the blogosphere, though the blog (worth a visit by the way) still goes on under new management.
Now, I'm a simple student of politics at a small Christian liberal arts school studying at a little university across the pond called Oxford. I have no employers who may be boycotted, and those inclined to question my sexuality may take the issue up with my girlfriend, or any friends who know me well. As much as a blind man can, I certainly have an eye for ladies. So then, let me, a small-time blogger against whom Mike Rogers' venom has little sting, examine this charge of terrorism. Now, by the dictionary definition, a terrorist is one who seeks to cause terror. It has it's roots in the tactics of the Reign of Terror during the French Revolution. In more common parlance, it has come to signify a member of any given group of networks which seek to foment this terror for financial gain, political ends or, more likely in my personal opinion, power. It seems highly unlikely that gay patriot meant that Mike Rogers was running guns for the FARC or training in Afghanistan, so I'm going to evaluate the question in the dictionary definition context. What is it Mike Rogers is trying to do to these gay Republicans? Certainly not give them long life, joy or rosey job prospects. I think we can find in Rogers all the makings of a little Robspierre, an ideological fanatic who uses stalinist tactics to stifle dissent and opposition.
First, what motivates this string of outings? Not knowing Rogers personally, I have to generalize a bit from his particular set, which I take to be ravingly fanatical "gay rights" crusaders. Yes, I use the term crusader both deliberately and provocatively, for their fanaticism for their "holy cause" is such that it blinds them to even the possibility that the opposition may have a just cause. Thus, in an irony totally lost on them, they ape the worst and most extreme fundamentalists which they so despise. When we understand this crusader mentality, Rogers' actions take on more logic. Just as the crusaders could not imagine any Christian living under the Muslims still to retain his Christianity (some of them at least must have held such a view), so Rogers and his ilk can't fathom any gay man or lesbian woman not sharing their absolute dedication to "the cause". Worst of all for them are those who actively work for those who promote, or even support, a socially conservative agenda. Their myopia to any cause but their own makes it inconceivable for them that anything else might trump this group identity around which they have built their lives. In a classic case of projection, they assume then that these gay Republicans are somehow ashamed of their gay identity, and are hypocritically working to oppress a group which they are ashamed to be a part of. Why is this projection? Because, like the crusaders of old who felt the need to prove their piety and group identity in battles in the holy lands, these modern gay rights crusaders are proving their absolute group loyalty. Perhaps then, just as medieval Christians were motivated by insecurity and uncertainty of salvation, Mike Rogers may also be motivated by his own self-hatred and insecurities. But then again, I am no psychologist, and I don't really care what psychological conditions, Freudian or not, motivate Mike Rogers to embrace the crusade mentality.
So, to Rogers, gay conservatives are infidels and apostates of the worst sort. And, just as the most violent purges of Robspierre, the Communist Party and Islamic terrorists came against french revolutionaries, party aparachics and moderate muslims respectively, so now Rogers turns his venom on those within his own self-identified group who aren't gay enough for his taste. As he does not have the power to become a crusader, he has embraced petty terrorism. This savaging of one's own, of the very people one has swarn to protect, seems also to be a serious hallmark of all terrorists, not just the ones I have named. Witness, in particular, that the killing which has gotten the IRA in trouble of late was of a Catholic republican (in the northern irish not American sense of the word) and not a Protestant unionist. Mike Rogers may see himself as a noble warrior for gay rights exposing Republican hypocrisy. Yet, in point of fact, he is little more than a jack-booted thug attempting to conduct one of the brutal internal purges which is the hallmark of terrorism. Nothing shows this more clearly than his destruction of the blogging career of Gay Patriot. Like those moderate Muslims who stand up to Al-Qaeda and those brave republicans who risk the IRA, Gay Patriot seems to have had it with the terroristic activities of Mike Rogers and his ilk. So he called a spade a spade. One can imagine Rogers saying, in his mind at least, the line used by all terrorists and bully-boys in this situation: "Don't you know who I am? I will destroy you." And so he did, causing the blog death of gay patriot. However, in yet a last irony, Rogers' actions have proven Gay Patriot vindicated. Mike Rogers is in fact a terrorist, though an altogether small, petty and nasty terrorist who, fortunately, does not have the means to enact violence. Should Rogers be prosecuted under the Patriot Act? Certainly not, for his form of terrorism is of a kind which can't be defeated by tanks and guns. No, Mike Rogers must be brought down by the very people he claims to defend. It is only when a critical mass within the gay community becomes so outraged by Mike Rogers as to demand that he be brought low that his petty terrorism will end. Or, Rogers may find, at some point, that he has hooked a fish too big for him to handle. It is rumored that he is looking into the private life of Condoleeza Rice. Be ware Mr. Rogers, Rice knows how to deal with terrorists, and whatever details you may find in her private life, that's why this social conservative loves Condi. Either way, Mike Rogers' downfall can't come too soon for me. I don't like terrorists very much.