Evaluating Barney Frank-ly

REPUBLICANS could not have designed it any better. Barney Frank, a 100 percent, Grade A Massachusetts Liberal, pays for gay sex and then hires the prostitute as his personal assistant.

Every news story of the scandal associates the Democratic Party with gays, immorality and liberals. In essence, Frank does Lee Atwater's job for him.

Democrats would have a hard time imagining a more frightening scenario. Perhaps the most articulate and bright Democratic legislator, Frank embarrasses himself and the party. The high-flying career of the most prominent gay politician in the country crashes amidst charges of sexual indiscretion.

Now comes the hard part, especially for liberals: Should Frank resign?

No.

Barney Frank did nothing to permanently disqualify himself from the House of Representatives. His errors were human, not evil. His story commands pity, not self-righteousness. Most importantly, Frank never broke the public trust by abusing his elected office for personal gain.

FRANK made serious mistakes, as he is the first to acknowledge. But House members are elected to be legislators, not saints. Why else did Massachusetts voters re-elect Rep. Gerry Studds after he had sex with teenage Congressional pages? How else could Missouri voters send Republican Rep. Bill Emerson back to Congress despite his history of alcoholism? The history of Congress is full of examples of constituents forgiving their representatives.

Frank's admitted violation of the law cannot be the sole justification for his removal. Gay sexual acts are also illegal in D.C.; should Frank be prosecuted and removed from office for being gay?

The key to the Frank affair lies in the nature of his mistakes. House Minority Leader Robert Michel (R-III.) argued that because a heterosexual would be kicked out for hiring a prostitute, then Frank should be as well. Michel called Frank a "stain" on the House and said that applying a different standard to Frank would be giving preferential treatment to gays.

Michel's words could only be taken seriously if he applied his tough standard to Republicans as well. But Michel has yet to call Donald "Buzz" Lukens a "stain" on the House, even after Lukens was convicted of purchasing sex from a seventeen-year-old girl.

And Frank's case is less troubling than Lukens's. Lukens essentially abused a child; Frank was manipulated by a sleazy adult with more than 10 prior convictions. Lukens turned to hired sex because he had an admitted fetish for Blacks, according to the child; Frank said he turned to prostitutes after 45 years of repressing his sexuality. Afraid to come out of the closet, Frank said he had to turn to illegal methods of fulfillment.

It is not a double standard to criticize Lukens for hiring a 17-year-old girl and to sympathize with Frank's call to the prostitute. It is not giving preferential treatment to gays to acknowledge that the social stigma on them can be over-powering, and lead to desperate measures.

WHAT is unfair, however, is that Frank's sexual preference has been used against him. The Associated Press, in a story about Frank, included in its second paragraph that a poll revealed that 46 percent of Americans thought Frank should resign. Several paragraphs later, the story explained that 45 percent of those surveyed thought that no gay should serve in Congress.

In other words, the clamor for Frank to resign involves a tremendous amount of homophobia. If the poll cited is correct, virtually nobody cares about the allegations at all. And most unfortunately, the Associated Press did not care to make this distinction.

Frank is also suffering from an American obsession with sexual controversy. House Member Joseph P. McDade (R-Pa.), a powerful Republican on the Appropriations Committee, is now under fire for allegedly taking illegal contributions from a corrupt defense firm, and then channeling to the firm millions in taxpayer dollars.

McDade misused his House position in a way that Frank never did, and he hasn't received one-thousandth of the publicity. Frank paid the prostitute out of personal funds and only gave him Congressional privileges when performing legitimate business.

THE Boston Globe called on Frank to resign on Sunday, saying that his presence in Congress will hurt liberal causes. But even the Globe's political reporting cannot predict the future.

Only Frank himself can determine his effectiveness in promoting the issues he has championed throughout his career. Only Frank, and the constituents he serves, should decide his future in Congress.