Perhaps few things are as weird as having the allegedly "gay friendly" left outing gay men for political leverage.

A leading evangelist and outspoken opponent of gay marriage has given up his post as president of the National Association of Evangelicals while a church panel investigates allegations he paid a man for sex.

The Rev. Ted Haggard resigned as president of the 30 million-member association Thursday after being accused of paying the man for monthly trysts over the past three years.

Haggard, a married father of five, denied the allegations but also temporarily relinquished leadership of New Life Church pending an investigation.

"I am voluntarily stepping aside from leadership so that the overseer process can be allowed to proceed with integrity," he said in a statement. "I hope to be able to discuss this matter in more detail at a later date. In the interim, I will seek both spiritual advice and guidance."

Haggard told KUSA-TV late Wednesday: "I've never had a gay relationship with anybody, and I'm steady with my wife, I'm faithful to my wife."

Carolyn Haggard, spokeswoman for the 14,000-member New Life Church and the pastor's niece, said a four-member church panel will investigate the allegations. The board has the authority to discipline Haggard, including removing him from ministry work.

I suppose this is like being black and Republican--lynching approved.

As near as I can figure, this is a lot like the pass racists get for calling black Republicans Uncle Tom's and the rest of that rot. For years now, the left gets a perverse joy from ruining the lives of gay men. The nadir was John Kerry and John Edwards outing of Dick Cheney's eldest daughter--not that the did terrible damage to openly, but unobtrusively gay Mary Cheney, but that the gay outing behavior had reached the highest levels of the Democrat party to become a campaign tactic in a presidential election.

These kind of frequent incidents, and more importantly the defense of the indefensible, convince me that the left consists of moral retards. Once again its a matter of that puerile conception of fairness that paradoxically embraces two standards--one for him or herself, and the other for everyone else.

How can you argue for a respectful treatment of gays and then treat them in subhuman fashion simply because its suits your political agenda to do so. How can you state that you embrace the philosophy of Martin Luther King, and then argue for preferential treatment based on race? More to the point--how can you call a black man "slavish"? An Uncle Tom or worse--a House N_gger?

I doubt it wil have the desired effect--conservatives have become innured to Democrat dirty tricks. We figure if the lips are moving, lies are being spoken.

Has anyone seen Nancy Pelosi?