The powerful anti-gay Democratic State Senator from New York, Carl Kruger, was outed this month by the New York Post for allegedly taking bribes that were used to partially pay for his gay lover’s water front mansion.  In its front page March 11 story, the Post outed the Democrat as a hypocrite because of his 2009 vote to deny equal marriage rights to gays despite having an alleged romantic relationship with a man.  The Post labeled the politician’s partisan affiliation prominently in the first sentence of the article.  The same day, New York Magazine used the label “Democratic” as the third word in its first sentence to describe Kruger in its’ breaking news story.  New York Magazine even finished their piece by admonishing, “if true, it serves as a helpful reminder that the phenomenon of hypocritical politicians who live gay lives in secret, but vote against gay issues in public, is not reserved for only one side of the aisle.”  But The Advocate magazine, the supposed promoter of gay rights and reason, only sits on the left side of the aisle.  It dropped Kruger’s political affiliation from its story’s headline and lead paragraph when it announced the influential Democrat’s troubles.  In fact, the editors of The Advocate only alluded to Kruger’s political affiliation in the last sentence of the last paragraph of their story by saying Kruger was “one of eight New York Democrats to vote against the state’s marriage equality bill, which failed to pass the senate.” 

Was it a mistake or was it deliberate? A look at the facts suggests it is part of The Advocate’s ongoing partisan bias – a bias permeating the gay media, but not always part of the left’s media playbook.  The Advocate’s cover-up and obvious strategic move is steeped in history.  Earlier this year on January 3, The Advocate writer Julie Bolcer wrote an article titled: “Iowa Republican Obsessed With Marriage Issue?”  Note the partisan affiliation announced in the title.  The lead sentence in Bolcer’s story also messaged the anti-gay candidate’s political relationship, “A friend and former campaign adviser to Iowa gubernatorial candidate Bob Vander Plaats says the Republican who led the recall effort against three state supreme court justices, is “obsessed with the gay-marriage issue.”” The word “Republican” is used consecutively throughout Bolcer’s piece and in gratuitous ways.

But it wasn’t the first or last time The Advocate tried its’ partisan tactic.  In November 2010, Bolcer also wrote an article titled: “Iowa Republican Predicts Removal of More Judges”.  Note the title announcement of the politician’s political affiliation again.  The lead sentence of Bolcer’s piece also once again messages the anti-gay politician’s political party connection, “Following a voter recall of three Iowa supreme court justices who voted for marriage equality, state senate Republican leader Paul McKinley said the four remaining justices would be at risk of losing their jobs unless lawmakers give Iowans a chance to vote on a constitutional amendment to outlaw same-sex marriages.”

And in October of 2010, Bolcer writes yet another article for The Advocate about an anti-gay candidate titled: “N.Y. Republican: Gays Are “Dysfunctional”.  The hopeful politician’s political attachment was also described in Bolcer’s first sentence, “Carl Paladino, the Republican candidate for governor in New York.”  It’s a pattern consistently repeated throughout The Advocate’s online archive.

The Advocate’s obvious double standard in describing politicians’ political affiliations is glaringly partisan.  When a Republican is anti-gay, the political relationship will be announced in the title of the article, messaged in the lead sentence and repeated throughout the piece.  But when a Democrat is anti-gay, the political membership will not be mentioned in the article’s title or even lead sentence.  In the case of Kruger, The Advocate only took a passing shot by referring to the politician’s colleagues’ political association.

Even New York Magazine, known for being a left-wing operation, describes Kruger as a Democrat.  So why would The Advocate cover it up?  Continuing to shill for the Democratic party after its’ disastrous two years of Washington control is foolish and naive.  And pretending that anti-gay elements exist in just the Republican party alone is one of the erroneous assumptions that led to Prop 8’s passage in California.  Readers deserve better from a publication calling itself their advocate.  As for the editors, for whom do they think they are advocating?