By Rabbi Rachel Esserman

Recent events have left me puzzling the connections between several things that, at first, may not seem connected. They are the results of the U.S. House Ethics Committee’s report on former Florida Congressman Matt Gaetz, the increasing restrictions being placed on the LGBTQ community and the right to privacy. The first of these is connected to the right of privacy because that report offered information about Gaetz’ personal life that, in other circumstances, might have remained private. The LGBTQ community is connected because various state governments are passing laws restricting their lives, although their right to privacy would mean that their sexual identities and actions are none of anyone’s else’s business.

Of course, anyone entering politics should know their actions will come under scrutiny. That’s the job of the press: to make certain people are worthy of the positions to which they aspire and have no connections that will prevent them from working for the good of the people. A simple example is that you shouldn’t be making decisions about a company/group that is paying you or whose stock you own. You should also not be doing anything illegal or immoral because, as a servant of the people, you need to be held to a higher standard. The same is true of those Congress investigates, especially before appointing someone to a position of power.

If Gaetz had not been a congressman, I doubt anyone would be interested in his actions. Perhaps, if they are considered illegal in Florida (his home state) and someone entered a complaint, he might have been arrested, but it certainly would not have made national news. If what occurred was consensual and legal, then those actions are no one’s business. Gaetz might then have some standing to sue those writing about him, but, as far as I’m concerned, he had no standing against the Ethics Committee. Its members did their job. If he didn’t want people learning about his behavior, he had several options: he could either have not paid for sex and drugs, or not run for public office. 

You may be wondering about Gaetz’ connection to the LGBTQ community. Since the November election, the LGBTQ community has been fearful about how the new presidential administration will affect their lives. But their desires are different from those of Gaetz in one very important way: they want to be open about their lives and families. What they now fear is that they will once again be punished or targeted for who they are. If you think this is not a worry, there are states were it is illegal for a child to mention they have two fathers or two mothers, as if somehow those statements bring sexuality into the grade school classroom. Why they are more sexual than a child noting they have a mother and a father is beyond my understanding, but some find anything about the LGBTQ community deeply disturbing.

I’m fine if someone wants to keep their sexuality private. I grew up with a mother who felt people should keep that knowledge private. I would argue with her, though, that heterosexuality was on display everywhere; we were just so used to it that we didn’t, and still don’t, see it. For me, it’s important to celebrate love in its many forms as long as it’s consensual. (And before you complain about sex with children, children are unable to give consent. Plus, most sexual abuse is heterosexual in nature.) The irony of all this is that Gaetz, who, according to the ethics report, paid for sex and drugs, was given a zero rating by the LGBTQ rights organization Human Rights Campaign for his lack of support. I guess heterosexual debauchery is OK, but loving LGBTQ families are not. I’m still trying to make sense of that puzzle. Recent events have left me puzzling the connections between several things that, at first, may not seem connected. They are the results of the U.S. House Ethics Committee’s report on former Florida Congressman Matt Gaetz, the increasing restrictions being placed on the LGBTQ community and the right to privacy. The first of these is connected to the right of privacy because that report offered information about Gaetz’ personal life that, in other circumstances, might have remained private. The LGBTQ community is connected because various state governments are passing laws restricting their lives, although their right to privacy would mean that their sexual identities and actions are none of anyone’s else’s business.

Of course, anyone entering politics should know their actions will come under scrutiny. That’s the job of the press: to make certain people are worthy of the positions to which they aspire and have no connections that will prevent them from working for the good of the people. A simple example is that you shouldn’t be making decisions about a company/group that is paying you or whose stock you own. You should also not be doing anything illegal or immoral because, as a servant of the people, you need to be held to a higher standard. The same is true of those Congress investigates, especially before appointing someone to a position of power.

If Gaetz had not been a congressman, I doubt anyone would be interested in his actions. Perhaps, if they are considered illegal in Florida (his home state) and someone entered a complaint, he might have been arrested, but it certainly would not have made national news. If what occurred was consensual and legal, then those actions are no one’s business. Gaetz might then have some standing to sue those writing about him, but, as far as I’m concerned, he had no standing against the Ethics Committee. Its members did their job. If he didn’t want people learning about his behavior, he had several options: he could either have not paid for sex and drugs, or not run for public office. 

You may be wondering about Gaetz’ connection to the LGBTQ community. Since the November election, the LGBTQ community has been fearful about how the new presidential administration will affect their lives. But their desires are different from those of Gaetz in one very important way: they want to be open about their lives and families. What they now fear is that they will once again be punished or targeted for who they are. If you think this is not a worry, there are states were it is illegal for a child to mention they have two fathers or two mothers, as if somehow those statements bring sexuality into the grade school classroom. Why they are more sexual than a child noting they have a mother and a father is beyond my understanding, but some find anything about the LGBTQ community deeply disturbing.

I’m fine if someone wants to keep their sexuality private. I grew up with a mother who felt people should keep that knowledge private. I would argue with her, though, that heterosexuality was on display everywhere; we were just so used to it that we didn’t, and still don’t, see it. For me, it’s important to celebrate love in its many forms as long as it’s consensual. (And before you complain about sex with children, children are unable to give consent. Plus, most sexual abuse is heterosexual in nature.) The irony of all this is that Gaetz, who, according to the ethics report, paid for sex and drugs, was given a zero rating by the LGBTQ rights organization Human Rights Campaign for his lack of support. I guess heterosexual debauchery is OK, but loving LGBTQ families are not. I’m still trying to make sense of that puzzle.