There isn't yet a good name for what has become a raging cliche over the past several years — men who make their living as so-called "family values" conservatives, who speak out against gay rights while having sex on the down-low with other men.  The most recent pathetic example being California GOP state Senator Roy Ashburn, who was arrested for driving drunk after leaving a gay nightclub with a trick in tow.



Inevitably, Ashburn, like Larry Craig before him, will deny being gay.  Gay activists will shriek outrage and howl with laughter.  But the truth is, as I have argued elsewhere, Craig isn't gay if he doesn't identify as gay, which thankfully he doesn't.  Gay is a category of social identity, not a sexual orientation, and it's high time we mainstreamed the distinction.  Because I, for one, am getting sick of Brand Gay being associated with people like Larry Craig, Ted Haggard, and Roy Ashburn instead of men like Dan Choi, Neil Patrick Harris, and, well, me. 

Clinicians in the field already use the clunky term "men who have sex with men" or "MSMs", a value-neutral, very literally descriptive label consciously emptied of cultural subtext that acknowledges the vital difference. This may seem nitpicky but the fact is you either have sex with men or you don't, whatever you call yourself —"gay", "bi", "curious", "queer", "evangelical", "Republican", whatever.

There are obviously many, many men who have gay sex who are vehemently anti-gay. What they object to is obviously not the sex, but the gay. They don't want to have to identify as gay — which means identifying with a class and a cause with a rich history and a culture — to partake in gay sex.  And the truth is, they don't have to.  No one's going to ask if you identify as gay when you're on your knees in the public toilet or ass-up in the Fens. 

Personally, I'm proud to be gay, and have actively sought out that rich history and culture. But these guys — the Craigs, the Haggards, the Ashburns — aren't gay. They're sexual opportunists, users, cheats, liars, hypocrites, and men who have sex with men.  That's not what gay means to me.  That's not what gay history and culture is about.    

It's true, gays have always had a self-love/self-hate relationship.  But that vital tension is the beginning of self-awareness, self-knowledge and self-worth, not the end.  Some gays are afraid to acknowledge that embracing a social identity is a choice, for fear that choice of any sort undermines our argument for civil rights, which is said to hinge on our lack of choice.  But orientation and identity are distinct, and we are seeing this in the kinds of unsavory characters who may share our orientation but not our history, culture, or values.

If, as one outraged blogger demands, "whenever someone speaks out against gays, the first question they should be asked is, 'Are you gay?'" we should not be surprised when the answer is "no."   Maybe we should ask, "Are you gop?"

This repressed minority clearly needs its own name.  Neologists: get to work!