What integrity?
It was easy for the conservative media to defend Matt Sanchez, when it was revealed by bloggers that he had an extensive gay porn past. All the Michelle Malkins, Anne Coulters, and Fox News of the world had to do was say, "That was in the past, he's moved on and we embrace him for his service". MSNBC made the mistake of jumping on this story.
How much of the past really matters though? I'm not talking about when Sanchez's most recent fling as a gay male escort was, I'm talking about how relevant his past is on current day commentary. If you ask Sanchez, he would tell you it means absolutely nothing, it was a dark day in his past and he is working hard to put it behind him. Fine.
If only it was that easy for everyone else in the national spotlight. Forgive and forget, wash your hands clean of past sins. To see the double standard, all we have to do is look at Fox News and the network's treatment of Barack Obama. They have looked into his past and claimed that he attended a Madrasah for four years when he was a young boy. This was found to be untrue in all respects. Along with the Madrasah claim, they have focused on his middle name being "Hussein", his smoking of cigarettes, etc. Barack says he is a practicing Christian, what more does Fox News and its right wing punditry need to know? It was in the past (although their smear job was unfounded and untrue), hence as with Matt Sanchez, it shouldn't matter, right?
Matt Sanchez, has been but surprisingly forthcoming about his past. He hasn't denied the gay porn, he hasn't denied the career as an escort, and it has been refreshing to be quite honest, even if it was because it was impossible for him to deny the claim; the facts are in front of him. What bothers me about Sanchez is his lack of integrity in my eyes.
A few days ago, Sanchez posted a blog entry about his being mentioned (focused on) in a story written by one of his heroes, Kevin McCullough, titled, "Why Christians Embrace Gay Porn Stars". Sanchez said that he was SO moved by the article he wanted to write McCullough a thank you letter, he instead went on his radio program a few days later. The inherent problem about McCullough's article and Sanchez is the content of the article itself.
The first is - he stopped having homosexual sex. The ability to "choose" one's actions particularly as it relates to which gender one has sex with is supposed to be unchangeable in the mind of liberals. The whole "made that way" argument tends to get decimated when someone like Sanchez simply decides that it is an empty, sad, and destructive life that brings him no joy.
McCullough's premise is that Matt Sanchez was a gay man, and has since turned away from that life, essentially, turning off the gay light switch. In that same paragraph, McCullough links to one of his own articles espousing how homosexuality is a lifestyle choice and not biological. Sanchez, now, has become evidence that you can become un-gay, by hating yourself enough and turning towards God. Matt Sanchez has denied being gay at every opportunity possible. While he was participating in sodomy on film, while he was a male escort charging up to $350 for his services, while he was posting himself on gay interest sites, all the while, not gay. McCullough's premise, if we choose to believe Sanchez, is then completely false.
I have written Matt many times about this, he has chosen not to respond, he has instead chosen to screen his blog comments and not post mine. How could you thank McCullough when he has written an article about you, using non-factual information, using you to push an anti-gay agenda? It's easy, Sanchez has no interest in serving anyone but himself, and has been doing everything in his power to stay in the favor of the conservative movement.
update:
A commenter has asked if Matt has made the statement that he has ceased having gay sex, please see below. It is interesting though, Matt has committed this statement many times, I wonder why it isn't asked and if it wasn't assumed that since his gay porn past was 15 years ago, he has ceased having homosexual sex. This is compounded by the fact that people have found advertisements for his "services" in the New York Blade as recent as 2004. Columbia University tuition costs a lot of money, I know, my family and I paid for it, it would be interesting to know where Sanchez is getting his income from to pay for his tuition, as he receives no pay being an reserve Marine. If it was discovered that Sanchez was still engaging in homosexual activity, would Kevin McCullough, Malkin, etc. still embrace him? He has not explicitly denied it, but has danced around it, kind of denying it.
Matt says he put it all behind him - Kevin McCullough radio program.
Matt says he isn't gay and loathed himself - On Alan Colmes radio program.
update 2 (corrections):
In a previous update I said that it would be interesting to know what Matt Sanchez's occupation is. Columbia costs a lot and Matt had admitted to prostitution, albeit he claims when he answered Alan Colmes, he says he was referring to porn, which he considers prostitution. According to recent interviews, he has worked in Hollywood pitching films, starting up a magazine, working on Angel for the WB, and most recently he has been working at NYC marketing firm, MDA (I couldn't find it on google, anyone know what they do?) and was recently made partner. Mystery solved
12 comments:
I'm curious I read the article you linked to "he stopped having homosexual sex" and I saw nothing in there from Matt Sanchez stating he has stopped having homosexual sex.
I don't believe Matt has ever come out with that claim. If he has can you point me in the direction of an audio link or other link that quotes Matt making this statement?
excellent points... keep up the good work!
It would be nice to have someone in the military who is respected by Fox News and members of the conservative party stand up against DADT.
Sadly I doubt such a thing will make much difference though in the long run. Views of CPAC are pretty well grounded against dissolution of the DADT ban.
Besides there are large numbers of gay veterans, combat veterans even, and retired officers willing to speak out against DADT. I recommend taking a look at SLDN - servicemembers legal defense network - with their many anecdotes and supporters. They do some great work and have done a lot in support of Rep. Meehan's military readiness and enhancement act to remove the DADT ban.
On another note, the notion that one's sexual orientation compromises military readiness if one is homosexual versus heterosexual has lost credence these days even among military circles. This may explain Gen. Pace's move towards a "morality" argument.
People have complained that the General does not have the right or authority to make statements or determinations about morality in the military. As the chairman of the JCS he most certainly does. He must both enforce and exemplify the high moral standards that are at the core of what it means to be a military officer. Much of these moral standards are fairly well codified in law. The UCMJ. And just like with any code of law, they may be rewritten. However, there remains much that is unspecified, and interpreted under the auspices of sometimes vague standards such as proper conduct of an officer.
Here is where one runs into trouble on issues of morality. In areas in which regular society is of general agreement, such as the instance of adultery, the military justice system, and thus the commander, can well ascribe those under their charge to such standards. Additionally codified law supports such standards, as exemplified by Article 134 which states "Adultery is clearly unacceptable conduct, and it reflects adversely on the service record of the military member."
In the case of homosexuality, or more specifically homosexual conduct, neither is general society in agreement about its immorality nor does the UCMJ specify that it is unacceptable conduct along the same vein as adultery. UCMJ 925.125 , Sodomy, was only used until the 1990s as grounds for dismissal of military personnel for homosexuality. Even so, generally The military regulation specifically pertaining to homosexuality in effect between 1981 and 1993 was DOD Directive 1332.14. Since 1993 the DoD policy on homosexual conduct has been based on 10 U.S.C. § 654. Thus it while it remains codified in law it is not part of UCMJ (which is 10 USC 800-934).
I mention all of this only to to assert that, unlike the example of adultery, the morality (or immorality) of homosexuality or homosexual conduct is not well defined or well agreed upon either among general society or in the context of military law.
My personal opinion is that it is not immoral. Others believe it is. It is currently seen as incompatible with military service under congressional law, but its moral status has not been established. Thus it does not stand as a standard of morality to enforce or exemplify.
Once congress decides to remove 10 USC 654, as it inevitably must, some will try to argue that the immorality of homosexual conduct still negates military service. Since this has nowhere been codified (except perhaps in the Sodomy article 925, which if challenged will almost assuredly be overturned after consideration of the Texas precedent) such an argument will not fly.
FYI Sanchez works for a marketing firm. His income does not come by unflattering means.
For real information on Matt Sanchez, go to my blog.
mattsanchez.blogspot.com
For TRUTHFUL and detailed information about Sanchez where he can't just edit out what he irks him, go to-
http://www.countyhistorian.com/cecilweb/index.php/Matt_Sanchez
You were likely on target when you wrote that Sanchez put himself through school as a "massage therpaist."
In an appearance on the Alan Colmes radio show, Sanchez admitted to prostitution. Ever since then, he's been scrambling to deny it. His usual tactic is to say that "pornography is prostitution," But the cat's out of the bag.
Colmes: Tell us what happened. A number of years ago, how many years ago was it, you did gay porn?
Sanchez: It was 15 years ago and it just wasn’t gay porn by the way. Uh, but it was 15 years ago
Colmes: What else was it?
It was more than that but it was ...
Colmes: Did you work as a male prostitute?
Sanchez: That as well, yeah.
Colmes: You were a male prostitute.
Sanchez: Yes. This was one of the worst periods of my life
There is plenty more evidence of his prostitution. In 1999 Sanchez registered the "Excellent-Top.com" website, where he advertised his sexual services through 2002, just before he enlisted in the Marine Corps.
The site linked to customer reviews of his performances -- reviews that identified Sanchez as "Rod Majors," the porn actor. The site contained headless photos, and a recording of his voice.
In March, Sanchez tried to block access to Internet archives of that site but his attempts were unsuccessful.
Also, when Sanchez appeared on Colmes's show the first time, Colmes impeached Sanchez's claim that his gay activity had been in the dim past by mentioning that his show had contacted Sanchez at the same phone number that had appeared in a massage ad three years ago in "The Advocate, a New York gay publication."
Colmes had confused The Advocate, a national gay magazine, with The New York Blade, a local gay publication. Sanchez jumped on the misidentification to deny that he'd advertised.
But later in the interview Colmes corrected the reference to The New York Blade, and then Sanchez admitted working as a "massage therapist." He claimed to have a state license, but people who have investigated the claim say that he does not have such a license.
He also tried to fuzz things up by saying that his clients weren't only gay people but also married men, and he claimed that he had run ads in non-gay publications.
I believe that Sanchez's massage business was called "No Regrets Massage." The ads ran from July 2, 2004 through Nov. 26, 2004 on the third-to-last page of each weekly issue of The New York Blade. If you click the link before, you can see that there's no doubt about what service "No Regrets Massage" was offering.
http://tinyurl.com/2ra7wm
All of this poses significant potential legal problems for Sanchez.
When you enlist in the military, you fill out a series of forms including SF-86 and/or DD-1966, which require that you list all periods of employment, unemployment and self-employment for the prior seven years. In Sanchhez's case, that would have gone back to early 1996.
If you lie on those forms, including making a material omission, you can be charged with fraudulent enlistment, a felony under Article 83 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice. Thus, Sanchez's porn, if filmed in the early 1990s, might be exempt from legal scrutiny, but his 1999-2002 prostitution, if (as we can reasonably presume) was not disclosed, he could be prosecuted for fraudulent enlistment.
If he was operating "No Regrets Massage" in 2004 as seems likely, that would be a potential violation of Article 133 and/or 134 of the UCMJ. This is because, at that time, Sanchez was attending USMC reserve drills in New York. He has told radio interviewers that, as a reservist, he was effectively a civilian. It's obvious to me that Mr. Sanchez doesn't have a lawyer, because if he did have a lawyer he would know different.
Finally, there are the allegations that Sanchez falsely claimed that he was being deployed to Iraq as a reporter with a civil affairs unit, and that he solicited money from a military charity and from U-Haul to help pay his expenses. There is some ambiguity about those issues that will likely turn on the precise wording of Sanchez's claims and solicitations.
There's no doubt in my mind that the Marine Corps will administratively discharge Matt Sanchez, who already has dropped mention of his "corporal" rank from his website. If I were laying down a wager, I'd be betting that Matt Sanchez does time in the brig for fraudulent enlistment and maybe for prostitution while on duty with the reserves.
He's pretty much denying the escort thing now, BTW. Seems his integrity is only skin deep.
It's funny because he admitted to being an escort in his own Salon.com article (and all of those other times he admitted to it).
Actually it's only mildly amusing. His five minutes are over.
hahah. he blocked your comments!?! that's sooo matt sanchez!
i'm just glad that you didnt stoop to his level and block his.
Your adoring public demands an UPDATE on this story!
An update...? If you are interested in the ongoing tale of Matt Sanchez, I would guess the best place to go is his own website, http://www.matt-sanchez.com/ .
He has been reporting alongside Marine units in Iraq and Afghanistan, and has recently been cleared of all charges made against him in some strange UHaul lawsuit.
At the same time, he is still coming up with witty invective against liberals, congressmen, and gays. Here's a fun excerpt from an interview he had with Rightwingnews.com
http://www.rightwingnews.com/mt331/2007/12/an_interview_with_matt_sanchez.php
"General Order #1 prohibits sex and pornography in a combat zone for multiple deployments of up to 15 months. Fortunately, the military frowns on that whole lisping and snapping thing, no one shines boots anymore and the term "drilling" means something entirely different in the Marine Corps.
I'm not sure how many homosexuals are willing to sacrifice (sex) and an entire season of "Ugly Betty." But it doesn't look good, every gay activist has waived a white flag on the Don't Ask Don't Tell quagmire.
Personally, I'd settle for gays serving, if Congressman John Murtha would stop outing himself as a Marine."
Riveting stuff. Apparently, gays don't serve in the military because they love sex and Ugly Betty way too much.
And... hmm. I don't know, suggesting that John Murtha isn't a Marine... or a good one at that. I guess it's easy to slime a 48 year veteran of the Marine Corps that doesn't believe in the same politics as Matt. Where's that Marine Corps brotherhood?
Post a Comment