Browse By

Dennis Hastert On Sexual Orientation In Public And In Private

In 1996, Dennis Hastert voted for the Defense of Marriage Act, a law that gave state governments the authority to refuse to recognize the authority of same-sex marriages performed in other states.

In 2003, Dennis Hastert voted for the Marriage Protection Act, legislation that attempted to prohibit federal courts from hearing any case challenging the Defense of Marriage Act.

In 2004, Dennis Hastert voted in favor on a constitutional amendment banning marriage equality between heterosexuals and homosexuals.

In 2006, Dennis Hastert voted for legislation reducing the definition of marriage to only exclude homosexual unions.

In 2007, Dennis Hastert voted against a bill to ban job discrimination based on sexual orientation.

While in the House of Representatives, Dennis Hastert twice voted for legislation to annul every same-sex marriage in the United States.

hypocrite dennis hastertNow, In 2015, it is being reported that Dennis Hastert’s indictment on charges of lying to federal officials about cash he withdrew from his bank account had to do with hush money he paid to an underage male student he had sex with when Hastert was a high school wrestling coach.

There seems to have been some knowledge among Washington D.C. political insiders of Dennis Hastert’s homosexual interests years ago. In 2004, a reader repeatedly posted a message at Crooked Timber saying of Hastert that, “Someone may have documented the full extent of his pedophilia- there may even be a series of films of Mr. Hastert having sexual intercourse with boys- I would stress that at this point we don’t know for sure whether any such videotapes exist or whether Mr. Hastert might have destroyed them.”

In 2006, rumors of Hastert’s homosexuality surfaced again, in a message circulated around the web stating that “The member in question is House Speaker Dennis Hastert, whose “alternate” life style is the primary reason for him and his staff covering up the scandal involving ex-Florida GOP Rep. Mark Foley and his lewd messages sent to underage male congressional pages. Hastert’s penchant to receive anal sex is well-known to our sources in DC’s gay community. Additionally, Hastert’s reported extremely small penis is the subject of many jokes among Washington’s gay circles… old charges that swirled around Hastert when he was a high school wrestling coach at Yorkville High School in Yorkville, Illinois. Hastert decided to enter politics in 1980 after rumors surfaced about inappropriate contact with male high school students.”

Also in 2006, rumors about Dennis Hastert circulated about the allegedly homosexual nature of his relationship with his Chief of Staff, Scott Palmer. Doug Thompson wrote for Capitol Hill Blue, “Palmer, Hastert’s chief of staff, is more than an employee. He’s Hastert’s friend and his roommate in Washington, a living arrangement the Speaker may find difficult to explain in the wake of the Mark Foley Congressional page scandal.” Lawrence O’Donnell also wrote on the subject, saying, “Many chiefs of staff are close, very close, to their bosses on Capitol Hill. But none are closer than Scott Palmer is to Denny Hastert. They don’t just work together all day, they live together. There are plenty of odd couple Congressmen who have roomed together on Capitol Hill, but I have never heard of a chief of staff who rooms with his boss. It is beyond unusual. But it must have its advantages.”

Former U.S. Representative Barney Frank, who served in the House at the same time as Dennis Hastert, has accused Hastert of hypocrisy. “The rank hypocrisy of this man using his power to persecute other people for doing what he was doing. Secondly, and it is relevant to note that in terms of the hypocrisy area, you mentioned Gingrich had to quit. It turns out Gingrich was at the time having an affair with the woman he is now married who was an employee of the House Agriculture Committee. And then Livingston who was supposed to replace him had to quit because he was having an affair not just with a woman but with a lobbyist who was lobbying him. So then in an effort to get somebody, they get Hastert. The point is that all this was happening while they were impeaching Bill Clinton for having oral sex.”

Dennis Hastert is just the latest in a long line of Republican politicians who use their power to persecute gays, lesbians, bisexuals and transgender Americans, but then turn out to have pursued homosexuality in their own private lives. Hastert’s behavior appears to have been even worse than his predecessors in hypocrisy, because the person he had homosexual relations with was a child.

Homosexuality isn’t the big moral failing facing America. Hypocrisy and exploitation of bigotry for political advantage is the problem.

4 thoughts on “Dennis Hastert On Sexual Orientation In Public And In Private”

  1. ella says:

    I have to agree with your final assertion, “Hypocrisy and exploitation…” are a long known result of too much and prolonged power and wealth. However, I will still stand against marriage between to people who are naturally of the same sex. The relationships, as I have stated before, are as old, almost, as time itself. There are now and always have been a majority of such relationships which are abusive. Then add the power to adopt children who will also be abused, and you have a future generation of Americans who will have extremely confused sexual orientations. Be either cowed or brutal. Will they be able to work? Doing what, that they do not know which sex to be attracted to? Because they have been taught things against their basic nature. Make advances to the ‘boss’? And get fired? There will still be natural men and women to reproduce and populate the planet as married (or not) couples, that will make children feel comfortable with what they are. And some children become curious, needing to be taught the natural order of events. After they are adults, that is their choice. Ireland was it? That recently made homosexual marriage legal nationally. There are havens for those who feel the necessity of a binding tie that makes them sound like “man and wife”.

  2. M says:

    SIN is the Problem and gives birth to every Sin homosexual and otherwise

    REPENTANCE is the only answer may America do as Ninevah did not as sodom and Gommorrah Babylon and all who decided that they were god

  3. Korky Day says:

    As long as there are homophobes such as ‘ella’ and ‘M’, there will be Republicans and others in the closet.

  4. Bruce Nappi says:

    Peregrin,

    One of the reasons modern culture is having such a hard time dealing with the sexual orientation problem is that moral codes are still rooted in ancient social structures. While most people believe that morality is determined by religion, this has been repeatedly shown to be wrong. The major determinant of morality is TECHNOLOGY. Religion’s are just the “media” that circulates and explains the principles to their members. Marriage is just a current moral principle being disrupted by technology. The key change factors are: birth control chemicals, low cost transportation, medically extended life spans, the explosion of professions, professionally driven education, professionally driven careers, and the collapse of multi-generation “nuclear” families.

    There are other factors of course. One of these, which will become the most prominent of all, is the realization that human society has far exceeded the carrying capacity of the planet. The population must be drastically reduced to around 2 billion. This will force major changes is the concepts of family. What might this look like?
    Consider the following: The whole concept of “marriage” will be returned to the religions. Each religion can define it any way they want. Governments will recognize the new “marriages” but only as guidelines of respect. As for any laws that govern economic benefits, like income tax splitting, social security sharing etc., marriage will only be one factor. The government would, instead, issue “social unit” permits. These can have wide ranging structures including: 1 male – 1 female; 2 males; 2 females; x males – y females; 1 year permits; 5 year permits; 20 year permits; indeterminate time permits; cohabiting; distance – physical; distance virtual etc. In short, the basis of declaring social units will be come complex and very different from what we have now.

    The second important factor would be that children would be handled separately. For any social unit to procreate or adopt a child, a separate “child development” permit would be required. Instead of just issuing a “birth certificate” after the fact, in the future, to “birth” or “raise” a child (separate issues), a social unit will have to apply for a permit, and SHOW, that they have the capability of doing so.

    OK, to the point. In such a culture, consider how different the sexual orientation issue would be addressed. Society is only struggling with the issue because media and culture leaders are still blind to the fact that society is in a state of transition.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Psst... what kind of person doesn't support pacifism?

Fight the Republican beast!