Idaho Constitution Party Cans Gay Gubernatorial Candidate


The Idaho chapter of the Constitution Party nominated a candidate for governor named Steve Pankey who was, according to himself, openly gay. But when he actually came out in favor of marriage equality publicly, the party, which is blatantly theocratic, quickly decided to dump him. All eight of them did.

On May 20, Pankey wrote a letter to state Attorney General Lawrence Wasden in which he urged Wasden to comply with a federal court’s ruling overturning Idaho’s ban on same-sex marriage.

“As Idaho’s only gay 2014 candidate for governor,” he said, “I urge you to allow Federal Magistrate Candy Dale’s Order for same sex marriage to stand. Allowing same sex marriage is consistent with Idaho’s fair and equal values.”

On May 23, Pankey went public with those views. Five days later, he received an angry memo from Constitution Party chairperson Floyd Whitley.

“The publicly stated, albeit personally held, opinions of Mr. Pankey are an outright defiance of the clearly expressed Platform of the Constitution Party of Idaho,” wrote Whitley, “which has, since the inception of this party been clear as to its principled opposition to homosexual perversion.”

At their convention, attended by a whopping 15 people, only 8 of which had voting rights, they voted 6-2 to remove him as their candidate. But here’s an obvious question: Why the hell would a gay man be a member of a party that is openly theocratic?

Comments

  1. blf says

    Why the hell would a gay man be a member of a party that is openly theocratic?

    Because it’s widely practiced in babblical myths&nbnsp;?
    Because it was widely practiced in the ancient Roman society xianity is heavily based on?
    Because the gentlemen is a Poe?

  2. Chiroptera says

    Why the hell would a gay man be a member of a party that is openly theocratic?

    The party doesn’t have “family” in their name so he probably didn’t realize they were homophobic. Are they misogynistic too? Then they really need to put “family” in their name. “The Idaho Constitutional Family Party.”

  3. Michael Heath says

    Ed asks (rhetorically):

    But here’s an obvious question: Why the hell would a gay man be a member of a party that is openly theocratic?

    Why would a black person belong to the GOP? Why would a woman belong to the same or, a conservative Christian church?

  4. John Pieret says

    “Party Cans Gay Gubernatorial Candidate”

    Was that intentional Ed? Doesn’t matter, it’s still funny!

  5. Phillip IV says

    Why Pankey wanted to be that party’s candidate is one intriguing question, the other is what the party expected to get when nominating an openly gay candidate – did they really think he was a staunch social conservative despite being, you know, openly gay?

    But one funny thing is this Freudian slip in their press release:

    The publicly stated, albeit personally held, opinions of Mr. Pankey

    So they’re apparently surprised that a candidate said something publicly even though he actually believed it? Talk about being cynical.

  6. anubisprime says

    @ OP

    Why the hell would a gay man be a member of a party that is openly theocratic?

    Nothing is promised as to the veracity, cogency and coherency of those that bunny hop to a right wing theocratic circle jerk cult pretending to be political…

    Seems these bozos are to the right of the average tea party aficionado!

    That is the clue right there…so far off rational they dispense with any and all cognitive action that might actually reveal just what they are all actually advocating at any one time just as long as jeebus gets mentioned all is good.

    It would be a surprise if they can walk and fart at the same time!

Leave a Reply