Bridget Ziegler: Gay for me but not for thee

What two (or three or four) people do in the privacy of their own homes is none of anyone’s business. But the utter hypocrisy concerning Ziegler, who helped found Moms for Liberty, is mind numbing.

Only in Florida.

The optics on this whole incident are horrible. And it’s typical of politicians to dig in and not to disappear in shame once the spotlight on something like this hits them. In my opinion, a quick exit would at least remove them from the fish bowl and from media attention. In my opinion, it should be the quickest exit possible for a politician who espouses conservative and moral values.

Now for the “however”… I do not consider it a problem if a politician espouses positions that are counter to his private lifestyle. If we set the expectation that a politician should vote in line with his lifestyle, then we are implicitly expecting an alcoholic politician to vote against tougher DUI laws, for example. Someone could practice immoral behavior in private, but still not want it being taught to school children.

Having said that, both these two people should have scurried out of the spotlight in shame.


From the article, it says that the video may have bolstered Christian’s claim that married Christian went to another woman’s house and had consensual sex with her, instead of rapey sex.

1 Like

Regardless its obvious they like a bit of super fun sexy time with other people and nothing wrong with that. It’s the hypocrisy that gets me.



Except that super fun sexy time with same sex partners or partners outside marriage is not part of their very public partisan political lifestyle, as heads and faces and active participants in the Republican party, Liberty Mothers, and judgmental school board member.

1 Like

Well, that’s the problem with giving people what they want. Seems this power couple tapped into the Christian zeitgeist and make a bunch of waves slamming gays and “protecting the kiddos”, with a little book burning to boot for old times sake. They got to speak to CPAC and hang with Fox hosts, things were going well.

Except for the whole “Wifey likes to bring girls home to share” bit. Trappings of power? Perhaps. But when wifey wasn’t feeling it old hubby decided to go to the extra’s home and may or may not have raped the poor girl. Even if not, can’t blame Bridget for feeling a little left out of the situation, the extra was supposed to be for both of them to enjoy. Although, no saying that Bridget didn’t partake without the hubby either, certainly a possibility.

Yet these are the driving force behind “Moms for Liberty”, a very catchy name with a pretty mean spirited approach to vilifying the gay community. I guess gay doesn’t mean lesbian, which sort of has a special place in the hearts of many.


I agree with the OP but…here’s the problem I also have with this; as a common citizen, I am held to a standard by society. A minister is held to a higher standard because of what they say they stand for and what they preach. If they don’t practice what they preach, they’re common hypocrites and society constantly examines their lives for examples of hypocrisy. That’s life.

IMO…the OP is viewing this lady as a commoner but she went into the public spotlight when she helped create Mom’s for Liberty. They’re doing great work and fighting the insanity of placing drag queens with children to read stories. This is a superb group but in doing this, you’re placing yourself under a spotlight where your actions will be scrutinized to a higher level and that’s life. On a common scale, I agree it’s nobody’s business. When she is representing a group whose whole reason for being is the welfare of children, kinky sex outside the sanctimony of marriage doesn’t mix well with the image of the group you’re representing as “Mom’s for Liberty”.


We want to protect children from people like us is a great take to have.


So I hear that there are a couple of sex tapes these Freaky deaky people were making.

In other news Toni Morrison’s “Beloved” has been removed from Florida school book shelves.

1 Like

The sanctity of marriage crew thoroughly enjoying the sanctity of their Christian GOP approved marriage?

Well to be fair… Slaughterhouse-Five was removed and that has him living in a alien zoo with a porn star… wait… why did they get that one banned… that seems right up their alley.

Is it hypocrisy?

On behalf of the constituency.

We elect them (allegedly) to represent us, not themselves.

Lol Wu.


Maybe Bridget for Liberty has a lesbian OnlyFans too.

1 Like

It’s unfortunate we’ve lost sight of that, as have they.


Is it hypocrisy though? Isn’t their whole deal “keep it away from the children?”

And if so, super sexy fun time isn’t hypocritical so long as no kids are involved, right?

Yes, it is.
Also, my favorite politics story of the year! How dare they?

1 Like

She is so ■■■■■■■ homophobic in public yet in private she likes to order the fur burger.

Her sanctimonious christian first attitude is complete hypocrisy.

All of her what about the children shouts and then they indulge in antics which is not exactly conducive for their kids.

I dont care who ■■■■■ who as long as its consenual and no one gets hurt (unless thats their kink) but dont do one thing in private and in public try and force morality on others that you do not adhere to