VITTER SHOULD "CONFESS" HE'S HETEROSEXUAL

Republican Senator David Vitter of Louisiana was recently forced to admit publicly that he used a prostitute because his name was on the client list of the so called “D.C. Madam.” Well, big deal!

I’m sure some of my more conservative friends are about to scream at me for being “pro-prostitution,” but Oh Well, that’s their discomfort. The point, as Mac Johnson of "Human Events" has alluded, is that when Democratic Congressman-for-life Barney Frank of Massachusetts was busted for cavorting with a known prostitute and actually letting the male prostitute run his business out of Rep. Frank’s home, Frank just had to tell us he was homosexual, and the press coverage just went away.

Now let’s be clear about my views on homosexuality. To the satisfaction of most folks and to the horrors of the religious right, I couldn’t care less about someone’s sexual orientation. I believe some people are born with a predisposition toward either and they choose to live their lives according to what comes naturally. I also don’t believe this is flawed as that belief, in my opinion, would be calling God’s plan flawed. That last point assuming that God knows all present and future, and all is His will. So someone will say that just because someone does something bad that I must be condoning it because I think it is God’s will. Well, get a grip. I don’t think homosexuality is inherently bad. Anymore than I think bad people who are heterosexual are bad because of their heterosexuality.

With that said, the topic isn't worth any more ink. Good people are good people.

It’s really too bad that I actually had to explain that. But I know this site has a variety of readership from across the country, and they bear all stripes…including self righteousness. So especially to the latter, C’est la vie.

So back to my point. Mac Johnson had it right; all Senator Vitter should have had to do was declare his heterosexuality and if there is any consistency in the logic of the press, Democrats, Republicans or nuts of any flavor, he should be getting a pass, based on past performance of the above referenced proud organizations.

So by the logic applied to the Frank episode, Senator Vitter should be able to proclaim his heterosexuality -- proudly, I might add -- and move on without being further harangued.

Frank was letting his lover run a gay escort service from his home. Vitter paid for a heterosexual escort service. Frank, by simply explaining he was a homosexual, was treated as a victim. Vitter, by explaining he is an out-of-control heterosexual, should be vindicated as such. And both should be able to, as Johnson put it, declare their diversity.

Do you think it will work that way?

JD.