Last week Robert Traynham, Pennsylvania Republican Senator Rick Santorum’s Communication’s Director, admitted he was gay in recent response to numerous rumors floating around D.C.  This in itself isn’t a crime.  However, it’s one thing to be gay and another thing to be gay working for one of the most homophobic Senator’s in the country.  But it gets worst.  Traynham is standing by his man whom he claims is a man of principle, and a man who sticks up for what he believes in.

Uh, okay.

Now we’ve all heard the saying keep your friends close and your enemies closer, but that’s just taking it too far.

And when you thought that was enough, the plot thickens.  He’s Black.

So all together, we have a Black gay Republican working for and supporting a Senator who is known for his ultra conservative views on civil rights for gays and lesbians, a woman’s right to choose and affirmative action.

Whatever Traynham’s taking to sleep at night, I want some.

In the Black community, when an especially heinous crime occurs, there’s a consensus of “I hope they’re not Black.”  This was the case when Americans first saw the pictures of the D.C. area snipers when moans of disbelief could be heard from one end of the country to the next in Black neighborhoods.  Similarly, Black Americans I am sure, were just as surprised as everyone else upon the announcement that a Jamaican was somehow involved in the London bombings.

Likewise with Trayhnam, who caught us all of guard. 

To put all of this into context, consider Senator Santorum’s comments in a 2003 Associated Press interview in response to whether or not gays should be allowed to get married.

Every society in the history of man has upheld the institution of marriage as a bond between a man and a woman.  Why?  Because society is based on one thing: that society is based on the future of the society.  And that’s what?  Children.  Monogamous relationships.  In every society, the definition of marriage has not ever to my knowledge included homosexuality.  That’s not to pick on homosexuality.  It’s not, you know, man on child, man on dog, or whatever the case may be.  It is one thing.  And when you destroy that you have a dramatic impact on the quality.

He went on to explain that he didn’t have a problem with “homosexuals,” just the “homosexual act.”

Aside from the fact that I am sure this was an interview that his gay communication’s director approved, it’s absolutely baffling how he could get up and come into the office every day for eight years of this crap.

Now I can excuse him for being a Republican, but the fact that he is a gay Republican working for and supporting a man that is attempting to outlaw his life and compares the way he expresses love to a “man on dog,” is preposterous and one for the psychiatry books.

Talk about a bad case of internal homophobia.

The end all for me would be if it came out that Traynham and Santorum were secret lovers.  I can see the headlines now…