Michael at BlogActive appears to be publicly blackmailing a Senator.

Mr. Senator:

Tomorrow you will be faced with a vote that may have the longest aftereffects of any other you have cast in your Senate career.

Tomorrow you will decide if your political position is worth more than doing what is right for others like you. For others like you, Mr. Senator, who engage in oral sex with other men. (Although, Mr. Senator, most of us don’t do in the bathrooms of Union Station!) Your fake marriage, by the way, will NOT protect you from the truth being told on this blog.

How does this blog decide who to report on? It’s simple. We report on hypocrites. In this case, hypocrites who vote against the gay and lesbian community while engaging in gay sex themselves*.

When you cast that vote, Mr. Senator, represent your own…it’s the least you could do.

Michael Rogers
blogACTIVE.com

*While votes on many matters are considered, votes “FOR” either the Alito nomination and the Federal Marriage Amendment are enough to qualify legislators for reporting on this site.

Ian Schwartz responds: “Michael Rogers at BlogActive is gay himself and here I thought that gays wanted people to be tolerate of their lifestyle. Oh wait, that’s only if you’re a gay liberal. My bad, sorry. ”

Adam Graham, of Adam’s Blog, observes: “Subversion, blackmail, and deceit is all that’s left to the unhinged left.”

Daniel at The Mechanical Eye rants:

… brilliant, man. The Democrats were accused of being bullies armed only with smear tactics during Judiciary Committee hearings. So, in making a final stand, the activists are… bullying, armed only with smear tactics.

I mean, make an argument! Tell us why Alito is so wicked, how he’ll send children back into the coal mines and burn gay men at the stake and force women back into the kitchen and make the menfolk sandwiches.

UPDATE: Some readers may be curious as to what the legal definition of “blackmail” is. Section 22-3252 of the D. C. Code defines blackmail as containing the following elements.

1. The defendant threatened to accuse another of a crime or to expose a secret or publicize an asserted fact, whether true or false, tending to subject the other party to hatred, contempt, or ridicule or to impair the reputation of the other party;

2. The defendant did so with the specific intent to obtain property of another or cause another person to do or refrain from doing any act.

Is what Mr. Rogers is doing criminal? Maybe, unless the whole thing is a big hoax designed to draw traffic to his blog. If that’s the case, it’s working. If it’s not a joke and he actually has sent such a letter, he will likely find himself in legal hot water for this stunt. Of course, the catch 22 of it is that by definition, the target of the blackmail is never one who wants to provide evidence and press charges.

UPDATE 2: Others are wondering about the legality, or lack thereof, of Michael Rogers’ actions.

Rob at Say Anything (via Lime Shurbet) says: “Don’t look now, but this gay witch hunt may well be against the law.”

NRO’s John Podhoretz: “I’m not a lawyer, so I don’t know if threatening an unnamed person constitutes blackmail. But it could…”

Kerfuffles: “The legal question is … is blackmail of a United States Senator legal? If not, can we expect “BlogActive” to receive a not so friendly visit from the FBI?”

McGehee comments over at OTB: “The man is a walking Godwin’s Law violation.”