"Obviously, you don't have a MyPillow, too, do you?"

When everyone's focusing on everything except what really matters....

Moral certainty is always a sign of cultural inferiority. The more uncivilized the man, the surer he is that he knows precisely what is right and what is wrong. All human progress, even in morals, has been the work of men who have doubted the current moral values, not of men who have whooped them up and tried to enforce them. The truly civilized man is always skeptical and tolerant, in this field as in all others. His culture is based on "I am not too sure.”

• H.L. Mencken

As I listen to the news these days, I continually marvel at the foolish and meaningless things Conservatives have their panties in a wad over. I can handle people whose opinions legitimately differ from mine. That push and pull is one of the things that has historically kept America from going off the deep end and turning into a cult of personality. But when I listen to people on the Far-Right obsessing over the meaningless crap they’re prone to worrying about, I wonder who pissed in their sandbox.

We should be concerned about a few things- the economy, defense, foreign policy, education, and how we treat one another. Those things legitimately impact each of us, and we each have a stake in how they play out.

But a person’s gender identity and who they love? The faith tradition (or lack of same) they feel drawn to? How they vote? These are all deeply personal things that should concern only the person living those beliefs and decisions.

Instead, far too many believe they have the inalienable right to involve themselves in the lives of others. They’d happily control how and whom people love, how they express their gender identity, which faith tradition they follow, and other aspects of people’s lives that are none of their damned business.

I’m not a fan of Sen. Tim Scott (R-SC), but why should it matter if he’s gay…or heterosexual? What does his sexuality have to do with his ability to lead America? There are many reasons not to vote for Scott if he were to be the Republican candidate for President. His sexuality doesn’t make that list.

And Sen. Scott’s hypocrisy? Well, that might be a story worth investigating…if he’s gay. And there’s no evidence indicating that he is…at least at this juncture.

Discussion about the sexual orientation of GOP presidential candidate Tim Scott has broken wide open. According to an Axios story published on August 31st, the "bachelor" status" of the senator from South Carolina has caused GOP donors to "fret," as they’re looking for an alternative to Donald Trump and don’t think Florida Governor Ron DeSantis can pull it off now.

The story never mentions the word "gay," but as Boston Globe columnist Renee Graham put it, "‘bachelor status’ is code for ‘sexual identity’."

And let’s be clear: the GOP donors’ interest in this is far different from that of progressives or those of us who are queer. Scott very publicly presents himself as an evangelical Christian who opposes same-sex marriage. He wants to end federal funding for schools that engage in "indoctrination", that is, elementary and middle schools that allow trans students to use pronouns and bathrooms that fit their gender identity. He voted no on the Employment Nondiscrimination Act, which would ban discrimination in the workplace for LGBTQ people. As an anti-LGBTQ crusader, Scott’s sexual orientation is certainly relevant in his run for the presidency.

Now, Sen. Scott seems to be doing damage control, which seems odd for someone who’s never provided a reason for anyone to focus on his sexuality.

However, being a virulently anti-LGBTQ Republican does create questions of hypocrisy if he is, in fact, secretly gay. If you’re going to talk the talk, you’re damned well better walk the walk.

I don’t care if Sen. Scott buggers palm trees. What would concern me would be his trying to play both ends…if that’s what’s happening here.

Not surprisingly, Scott soon addressed the Axios story in what seemed like a staged and well-rehearsed (and not very convincing) exchange on Fox News this week, with host Brian Kilmeade reading from the Axios piece:

Kilmeade: "What’s your status?"

Scott. "I have a wonderful girlfriend. We have a wonderful relationship. God has blessed me with a wonderful Christian woman."

Kilmeade: "We met your mom. Will we meet your girlfriend?"

Scott: "You will, of course — at some point."

Kilmeade: "OK. Great."

Of course, Republicans have created this monster. By focusing on culture war issues, they’ve made same-sex marriage, “traditional” male-female relationships, family, and masculinity significant issues in Republican politics. None of those things are legitimate issues that impact America’s security or well-being…but culture warriors would have us believe differently, of course.

The GOP rarely focuses on the critical issues facing America today, primarily because they have no ideas, so they focus on fighting the culture wars. Perhaps they understand that when it comes to legitimate political matters, they can’t compete with Democrats. But they can beat the drums of the culture wars to their advantage. They can whip their base into an angry lather by convincing them that Democrats are baby-murdering, child-molesting, gay-coddling atheists, and drag queens.

Any rational person knows that’s not true, but if you’ve ever listened to supporters of The Former Guy, you’ll know that “rational” isn’t something the GOP values.

Angry, irrational, and foaming at the mouth are all qualities the GOP can work with.

Then came the in-depth Washington Post story today, which states upfront that it doesn't purport to be "a wink-wink story that uses 'single' in place of ‘gay.’” Reporter Ben Terris—who’d clearly been working on his story and an interview with Scott about the topic since well before the Axios piece and the Fox interview—says he’s "not interested in laundering innuendos." But he is "intrigued about how voter interest (or lack thereof) in Scott’s love life (or lack thereof) might illuminate the politics of marriage, family and masculinity in today’s GOP."

Fair enough. Terris’ story is fascinating and well-researched. He spoke with many people who knew Scott. But even Ferris admits in his long piece that he can’t determine if there really is a girlfriend and, thus, by default, if Scott is gay or straight.

He ends his piece, after speaking with Scott about "the girlfriend," like this: "His relationship and campaign were both new. It’s hard to know, this early, if any of this is real."

Is any of this real? Why does any of this matter?

It matters because Republicans have painted themselves into a corner. They’ve portrayed themselves as the party of “traditional values”- not that anyone can genuinely define “traditional” as anything other than “repressive.” But having painted themselves into that corner, Republicans can’t allow themselves to be seen as anything but heterosexual, cisgender, and straighter than straight. Any deviation from that “norm” is enough to end the brightest of Right-wing political careers.

Thus, Sen. Scott can’t afford to be anything but a gay-hating, heterosexual, Bible-thumping cisgender, America First male. Any deviation from that script and his already thin Presidential hope would evaporate.

And that’s before he gets to talk about where he stands on issues of substance. Not that he’s planning on doing that, mind you. He knows the Republican base doesn’t want to hear about foreign or economic policy. No, they want to hear about how he’ll keep CRT out of schools or transgender people from recruiting their kids into the LGBTQ cult.

Or something like that.

And what they’ll be especially interested in, as if it makes any difference at all, is whether or not Sen. Scott has a girlfriend. Because we can’t have a President who’s…you know…gay, right?

No, because the Far-Right’s WAY too interested in the sex life of our politicians- as if that means anything at all.

Because when your party is utterly devoid of ideas, this is the sort of trivial crap you end up with.

(All of my posts are now public. Any reader financial support will be considered pledges- support that’s greatly appreciated but not required to get to all of my work. I’ll leave it to my readers to determine if my work is worthy of their monetary support and at what level. To those who do offer their support, thank you. It means more than you know.)