Spectator to the outrage of others

Maybe some are wondering why we haven't had much to say about Sen. Paul Stanley's nearly complete fall. There's not a great deal we could have added. His actions in themselves are bad. I feel sorry for anyone who's ever been part of his family. But we all know that one element that heightened the scandal was the fact that he has been active in attempting to ban adoption by gays and lesbians. And we all know it because media outlets remembered it and made sure everyone else heard about it. Groups like TEP didn't have to do a thing to draw attention to that fact. We just stood aside as the media began devouring the Senator from Shelby County.

And that's just as well. We've got other things to do.

We didn't have much to say when Sen. Jeff Miller fell either. Again, the media enjoyed reminding everyone more than we ever could about his successful attempt to pass a state constitutional amendment banning our marriage rights. So you might say we outsourced our outrage and moved on.

Or maybe I should say, we're long past our outrage with both men and all the others like them. You see, we had our fit when the policies that attacked ourselves and those we love were introduced. Anger about policy isn't a compelling story, though. It takes a 22-year old intern, lurid photographs, and blackmail to generate real (meaning loud but fake) outrage. It's the kind of outrage that people who used to watch Jerry Springer might enjoy.

So "Should I stay or should I go now?" Stanley asks himself. If he left, I wouldn't miss him. But another self-righteous busy-body would probably take his place.