First, there's Stacey Campfield apparent terror of homosexuals. There's no rational basis for banning Tennessee teachers from mentioning homosexuality aside from blatant fear mongering. Most of the people I've met who oppose discussion of homosexuality seem to think merely talking about it will trigger a rush of man-on-man orgies in the classroom. This attitude is perplexing to me. If someone I do not want to have sex with propositions me with a sex act I find repugnant, I'm not going to dive in and engage in it no matter what sweet nothings the person mutters. The idea of "enticing" an allegedly straight person into a homosexual act is absurd. No one who is completely straight is going to have sex with someone of their own gender. The only way a man can seduce another man with sweet nothings or lewd suggestions is if the "straight" man is at least a little gay.
Being a gay man who is attacking the rights of homosexuals would be incredibly hypocritical, but Stacey Campfield is no stranger to hypocrisy or at least profound contradictions.
The article What the Heck is Wrong With Stacey Campfield? points out:
it is hard to escape the contradictions underlying his geniality. He is a family-values conservative who has never married, a fathers’ rights advocate with no children, a professed preservationist who has been cited by the city for property neglect and sued by his tenants (though he is quick to point out that he has also won a suit of his own against a tenant), an advocate for education who litters his blog with spelling and grammatical errors, and a legislator who rarely manages to get his own legislation out of committee. He proposes bills more likely to generate headlines than laws.
So if he's gay, how did he become a Republican? In his own words:
I was very much just more of a fiscal conservative and really the social issues weren’t as key to me as the fiscal side was. But after I got up there, the more I studied and the more I looked at stuff, the more I realized that social issues have huge impacts on the fiscal issues. You can go down through it, you can say, unwed parenthood or something like that, that’s somebody else’s problem. Well, it is until they need social services or they need something else.
That sounds a bit like how the average Log Cabin Republican gravitated towards the GOP. The problem is the Tea Party era GOP makes it hard to be a fiscal conservative and a social progressive / moderate. That puts you in something of an outsider position. Campfield appears to have that very kind of an outsider position in the GOP. He was cut from the Republican governor's news mailing list.
We have a man pursuing a homophobic agenda, in a political party known for the wide stance problem of closeted homosexuals, who isn't married and has no children. He appears to be on the track to marginalization within the GOP despite the success of his "Don't say Gay" bill".
Oh, and Campfield appears to assume most women are sluts.
Check out the tinycatpants article linked above. It sounds like Campfield appears to think women are trolling the Earth, seeking men to shag briefly in order to bind them into paying for a child that may or may not be his. It's a bit paranoid but professing such a fear would allow a closeted homosexual to offer a token explanation for why he doesn't have a girlfriend. Animosity towards women doesn't mean you're gay*, but the Republicans are the ones who often claim that Lesbians are "Man Haters." It's another red flag.
None of this of course constitutes proof that Stacey Campfield is gay. It's all speculative to circumstantial at best. There are a lot of red flags but as the jury in the Casey Anthony murder trial could attest, numerous red flags don't necessarily constitute solid evidence.
Is Stacey Campfield gay? No one knows, but I doubt anyone would be surprised if he were caught demonstrating a wide stance or exploring Santorum in a private bath house.
* OK, using Rush Limbaugh, the guy who was caught smuggling illegal Viagra on an "All Boy's Fishing Trip", may not have been the best example to use when claiming animosity towards women isn't necessarily an indicator of homosexuality.