Aaron Schock, The Marie Antoinette Of Congress, Resigns. Here’s Why…

Totally not gay Republican Illinois Representative Aaron Schock just announced his resignation amid growing ethical scandals. Here’s a quick run-down of the public ethical scandals he’s probably trying to avoid by resigning:

1. He accepted conspicuous donations from super-expensive furniture to having his office decorated like a room from Downton Abbey.

2. He took a mysterious “male companion” along on his business trip to India.

3. He took a private, taxpayer-funded flight to a Chicago Bears football game.

4. He has dishonestly charged the U.S. government for untraveled travel miles on his vehicle.

5. He used his office to conduct numerous sketchy real-estate deals.

6. He wore a turquoise belt with a magenta plaid shirt and white slacks while continuing to support anti-gay legislation. Because he’s straight.

Worry not! The Marie Antoinette Of Congress, as we shall now call him, will still receive a very public beheading and a likely cushy job after he’s done distancing himself from the national GOP. Grab your popcorn — it will be glorious.

  • Kindra Pring

    Should we have marriage licenses? Yes. But I’m tired of people breaking the law because they don’t like the way things are – you can’t sit down in a public building and refuse to leave. When Martin Luther King Jr. went to jail, it was either for nothing (they would make up reasons to lock him up) or it was for breaking the laws he was protesting AGAINST – we’re not AGAINST trespassing laws (I believe this would fall under trespassing but it might be something else). We’re against the restrictions on who can get a marriage license. There is civil disobedience to that, that we could practice, and sitting down and refusing to budge isn’t it.

    I’m working on becoming the most unpopular person here, but I’m sorry. I’m tired of people being martyed and people acting like these people are the new MLK’s and Ghandi’s and Susan B’s just because they dont seem to understand that getting arrested for breaking the law your protesting is NOT the same as getting arrested for breaking the law WHILE your protesting.

  • Kindra Pring

    Hold weddings anyway, infiltrate the institutions giving the licenses out and give them out anyway, put “Married” on all of your applications and paperwork.

  • Lucy_Skye_Diamond

    this actually makes me wish i lived in the south and was old enough to be married even there so my girlfriend and i could go and fight for what’s right beside our community.

    and you know something must be powerful if it makes you wish you lived in the SOUTH to participate…

  • Kindra Pring

    Weddings can be very public if you have them in the right places – churches that are gay friendly aren’t going to attract much attention. Parks, streets, clubs – I kind of want to get married on my college campus because so much of my life changed there. Picking places that are public will garner a lot of attention (not all positive of course). We just have to draw attention to it.

    But it does the job – it breaks the law you think is unjust. Just giving the best example I can think of.

    I just think that, given the title of this article (which is misleading, they weren’t arrested for seeking a marriage license, they were arresting for not leaving a building when asked), that this an attempt to misinterpret a situation and make it look like these women were arrested for being a gay couple, and trying to raise them as “martyrs for the cause”. It’s just hard ground to tread on – the protest they put up about the women who went to every office asking for a certificate I believe was MUCH more powerful, and yet few people shed tears. These women get arrested for breaking a separate law, and they’re used as an example.

  • johnwad

    The south has a way of dealing with the new blacks, LGBT people, they are going to make them legal slaves and make them pick cotton while the slave Christian masters whip them like they did to the black Africans until they lost the Civil War and President Lincoln freed them. Now if only Obama will free the gays.

  • bartykins

    I can sympathize with your point to a certain extent, but how, exactly, are these people supposed to do this the “right” way?  What I mean by that is – it’s not as if they can somehow get married to protest the fact that they can’t get legally married (?!?).  It’s not like sitting down at a counter where you’re not legally allowed to eat – it’s easy to break a law like that because you don’t need cooperation from anyone in authority (like a marriage clerk who would have to decide to break the law with you).  So since it’s not a law they can get arrested for breaking, the best they can do in terms of approximating civil disobedience is to get arrested for something like trespassing or disturbance of the peace while protesting.

  • bartykins

    Well, people do have ceremonies anyway (though you can’t get wedded without the license of course) and I put married on all the paperwork I come across.  Those are good things to do, but they are of limited utility in the sense that they aren’t nearly as public.  Part of the point of civil disobedience and other protest actions is the public nature of them – they are meant to galvanize. 

    Now infiltrating the institutions and giving the licenses out would definitely get attention but I’m not sure if it’s the best tactic.  After all, we are rightly calling for the clerks in NY to do their jobs, obey the law, and give out marriages licenses to gay people.  The central idea is that government officials should do their jobs and obey the law and if they can’t in good conscience, they should resign.  I think that is, in general, a sound principle, so I would prefer to see private citizens engaging in these actions for legal (tactical), political, and philosophical reasons.

    If what these ladies were doing was the main focus of our activism I’d be more upset, but the truth is in a civil rights movement it takes all kinds of tactics.  If they are willing to take the punishment that comes with any law that they are breaking then more power to them.

  • bartykins

    It doesn’t actually break the law because the law still shrugs and says “Nope,  you had a nice public ceremony but it doesn’t mean you are married.”  But it symbolically challenges it, which is a tactic that can also be useful, and I recognize your point about the potential publicity angle.

    Yes, the title is definitely misleading and that irks me too.  Sadly that seems to be par for the course across the journalistic spectrum. :/  I think the bottom line for me is that while I don’t have much of a problem with the action these women took, I do join you in being irritated about the various erroneous or overzealous ways in which it is framed.

    Thanks for the discussion.

  • Suny01

    Not allowing LBGT community to get married to the partner of their choice is wrong on so many levels. Let me give you a different point of view on this. Conservatives who deny civil rights have no idea the harm they do their own community by denying basic rights to others. I was the straight spouse in a mixed orientation marriage. I have seen the devastation first hand. I am part of a world wide organization called the Straight Spouse Network that lobbies for LBGT rights. 
    When you hold someone down, you have to stay down there with them to make sure they stay down but when you lift someone up, you rise up as well. 

  • Kindra Pring

    Yes, thank you. 🙂

  • Pingback: "1985" Proves That Films About AIDS/HIV Can Still Surprise Us | Unicorn Booty()

  • Pingback: The Top 5 Political Porn Parodies | Unicorn Booty()

  • Pingback: Former GOP Rep. Aaron Schock Arraigned on 24 Corruption Charges | Unicorn Booty()