1.) The notion that one can actually betray the gay rights agenda. This feels dangerous to me. I think it's easy on bright line issues like gay marriage, or even gay adoption. But my experience in the post-civil rights era says that the further you move forward, the more complicated the issues becomes. It's not hard to see a point (and maybe we've reached it) where there are serious fault-lines over what makes the agenda and what doesn't. But once you've embraced the tool of outing, it really can be deployed by any one claiming the sword of righteousness.
This, from a commenter, gets at what I mean:
I'm not concerned for the Ted Haggards and Larry Craigs of the world. This is what bothers me- who draws the line at who is "important" enough to forcibly out? I am worried that someone will interpret this as open season for anyone in any sort of leadership position, no matter how loosely defined. To add to that, while there might be legitimate evidence for people like Larry Craig, what happens when everything trickles down to the micro level and it becomes a battle of (s)he said-(s)he said? Bigotry is unacceptable at any level, but when one outs the head of the neighborhood association (S/he is in a leadership position, after all) over hearsay evidence, is that really advancing the cause.It's worth listening to this interview with an RNC staffer who was outed. He's a conservative operative who was working, in 2004, to help Bush get re-elected. He despised the GOP's stance on gays, but was, in his heart, a conservative. He was outed because the GOP disseminated anti-gay fliers, and the belief was that he could have (or should have) stopped them. I think it's fuzzy enough to make me uncomfortable. Who draws the line on this stuff? It's not enough to feel like it's justice. You have to be able to live with all the implications.
2.) Which brings me to this: How do you know you're right? Seriously. What if you're wrong?
UPDATE: Here's a response from Dan Savage to the earlier post. He concludes:
And here's the funny thing, Ta-Nehisi: these outed politicians--the Craigs, Haggards, Crists, et al--they never off themselves. Everyone talks about the potential of suicide when a high-profile hypocrite like Charlie Crist is outed. But they never kill themselves, do they? That cocksucker Crist just announced his run for US Senate. Outing "victims" either come out or they burrow deeper into their closets. You know who kills themselves when they're outed? The nobodies rounded up when the police departments conduct stings on cruising areas. Small town newspapers typically print names and mug shots after raids on rest stops and cruisy parks, a practice that has lead to suicides.
But no one gives a shit about these guys--they're nobodies, just small-town closet cases looking for a little cock, not powerful politicians doing violence on a daily basis to gay people and our families while scarfing down cock in toilets and bedding their aides.
It seems to me that your sympathies are misplaced, Ta-Nehisi.
It's true that the suicide thing is a hypothetical, and an unlikely one. Fair enough. But I think the "sympathies" critique misses the point. Being against the death penalty isn't the same as having sympathy for ax-murderers, or a lack of sympathy for the victims.
UPDATE #2: Meh, so much for legs to stand on. I just re-read my post. I actually did strongly imply sypathy for people like Craig and Haggard
The Beautiful Struggle: A Father, Two Sons, and an Unlikely Road to Manhood 
I'm not comfortable with the idea of outing but that doesn't mean I don't think it's right to do in some situations -- almost all involving the brute-types mentioned by Dan Savage. And you know how I look past the "what if I'm wrong?" possibility it's easy -- even caring about that question in this situation equates being wrongly accused of being gay as a somehow greater sin than being a homophobic dick. Even if someone is "wrongly" outed outside of my limited belief of when you should do it, you're still giving power to the belief that being gay is somehow "less than" if you allow outing to be a tool wielded bludgingly, which is why I don't think, in this society, it should be done very often.
And most of the people who are being addressed are basically relying on the closest-- Charlie Crist comes to mind if you read the previous thread. There's only so many times you can take pretty men home with you without the evidence being pretty clear.
Regarding your point #2 above, in the case of the RNC field director the blogger who outed him called him and asked him directly for confirmation before publishing.
Obviously outing is ethically suspect without a similar level of confirmation in all cases, regardless of target.
I think it's a murky area in all cases, for your reason #1 above, though. Self-appointed guardians of truth, righteousness, and anti-hypocrisy don't have a great track record in any arena.
Mr. C.
What's wrong with having a bit of sympathy for people like Haggard?
It should be possible to live in a world where we can both sympathize and emphasize with those we condemn for having views that are beyond the pale. A little compassion goes a long way.
I imagine there are a lot of things you'll have to apologize for but I'm not sure that sympathy should be one of them.
Apologies if that post sounded a little harsher than intended, especially the last bit.
I don't understand why having a bit of sympathy for someone is such a bad thing.
I find it very hard to be sympathetic to guys like Haggard or Craig, people who make a living in part by denying rights and basic moral decency to gays and lesbians. My sympathy here is for their families, especially their wives and children, to whom something like this can be very destructive. To me, that's where the moral dilemma is, the collateral damage that this can do to people who still maybe deserve it (I mean, if you're Ted Haggard's wife, well, my sympathy is still kind of limited, because you knew where your husband's bread was buttered and you never told him that what he was doing was wrong) but who often don't (do Haggard's children deserve to have the entire world know that their parents' marriage is a sham?)
Agreed with Craig T-- I have no sympathy for people who preach against homosexuality, well, period. There are, as Dan Savage points out, real people who get hurt by this bullshit-- there were a couple of preteen boys recently who committed suicide, in part because of homophobic bullying. The shit that Haggard et al. sell encourages that mindset, and I have no patience for it.
well yes he does all of those things, but in my mind he still deserves a bit (not too much) of pity because he obviously has not realized the truth of his reality (that he is gay), and compassion because he is still a person undergoing an intensely painfull personal struggle.
Meh, I don't agree with his intolerance, but if I can't see something human, something pitiable, something deserving of an emotion other than hatred even in bigots like Haggard, then how am I any better than they? The defining characteristic of people like him (and most bigots) is that they lack any ability to sympathize with opposing views. I don't want to be like them, so I try and extend a little bit of piy, compassion, or whatever (but not too much) even to the grossly intolerant.
I admit to having a great deal of sympathy for Ted Haggard because I understand from my Evangelical upbringing the kind of messages he heard as a kid. The sex education I had from my family was being sent to my room to listen to some tapes of Dr. James Dobson. Believe me, Haggard is literally playing some very old tapes that he heard about human sexuality over and over and over again.
One thing that is significant about Haggard's outing is that he was outed by someone he'd had sex with. I think that's an important distinction because that story belongs to the other person as well. I'm afraid I'm a little vague on this at the moment, but I think there's something different about someone saying from a distance, "You're gay," as opposed to making oneself vulnerable as well by being part of the story.
Well, I think people 'should' care very much if they're wrong. If you out someone and you're wrong you could find yourself on the wrong side of a defamation lawsuit. In such a scenario the burden of proof is on the accuser to prove that the person they outed was gay, not on the alleged gay individual to prove they are hetero. There could be some serious transfer of capital if one is wrong. Here, as in many cases, it pays to mind one's own business.
That assumes there is something wrong with being gay. That idea is becoming more and more an anachronism to most of the population.
Nothing wrong with being gay, but one can certainly object to an "outing" as an invasion of privacy and spreading of false information. It doesn't have to be defamatory.
You assume too highly of people. While yes, homosexuality being considered "normal" has increased significantly in recent years, there are still significant numbers and groups of people who think otherwise. And we've talked about many of them. They're a much larger population than people think.
That assumes there is something wrong with being gay.
No, it doesn't. It assumes that the outer being incorrect caused harm to the person wrongly outed. For instance, dude's wife no longer trusts him, etc. Even if you can't get sued for defamation, you can still get hit with intentional infliction of emotional distress or negligent infliction of emotional distress or some similar claim. And if you get this sort of thing wrong, you should get sued.
There may not be something wrong with being gay, but falsely releasing that someone is gay can still have negative effects. For one, there's the implied accusation of adultery of some form or another (if there's no adultery, then there's no evidence, I would imagine.) And that can certainly cause problems - ruin friendships, break up marriages, destroy families. I would want to be on *awfully* firm ground before alleging that a married man (or even one in a relationship) is actively gay, however unpleasant that man may be.
I don't like the concept of "outing" as a political strategy--frankly, if someone's positions or policies are despicable or if you even just disagree with them, you should be able to argue on the merits. Would Ted Haggard's opinions about gays be more acceptable if he had not been a closeted homosexual? Besides, it's just a slimy technique, even if you think the target deserves it--it's the same tactic that has often been used by homophobes to tarnish their own opponents over the years. It's an ugly violation of privacy that can be counterproductive for those trying to end homophobic policies and biases.
A lot of the recent outing that's gone on has been about pretty slimy stuff too-- Haggard's meth-fueled romps with prostitutes are probably not going to make people think better of homosexuals.
Though I suppose you can make the argument that outing non-creepy homosexuals becomes more important, because all we ever hear about are toe-tappers and the like.
Well, sometimes it's very difficult to make a legitimate stand against these people, cos they themselves use slimy techniques to convey their course of actions, and people eat it up. It's like the autism vaccine "debate:" You can explain all you want the problems with the research done, and how all the evidence indicates that there's no link between the use of the MMR vaccine/vaccine preservatives and the autistic spectrum. Yet, the Carreys and McCarthys win the day out through slimy techniques, instilling unnecessary fear in parents. The only way you can really fight them is if you call them out as bigots or racists (which opens up another nasty can of worms in the autism community if you do it wrong).
100% agreement, BD. I care much more about how my side argues than I do about how the other side does, and when it comes to an issue like this one, where we social libs are demonstrably in the right, it angers me to see people use bush league tactics. The facts are on our side, morality is on our side, human rights are on our side, societal drift is on our side; acting like yellow journalists only gives bigots a lifeline.
This is a tough call. No, I don't have sympathy for a man or woman who persecutes other people for having the traits they themselves do their best to hide. Do right or be wronged--these closet self-loathers bring it on themselves.
What if you're wrong? I can't imagine someone would call Michael Steele gay, and I've never seen him with a woman. Hillary Clinton's been fighting gay rumors since her career began and she's been married to the same man for decades. Folks who are getting the side eye now have been getting it for years--only now, MSM is paying attention. And, frankly, if politician decides to off himself because some random dude calls him queer, he has some serious issues.
If we take Hillary Clinton as an example, her views and her husband's on gay marriage are the same as Miss California's. Some see a hypocracy in those who oppose gay marriage because of the tradition of marriage arguement. So personally, I see hypocracy in those who talk about sanctity of marriage, yet whore around on their spouse. So does this open the door to outing those who state and legislate that marriage is a sacred institution, then betray such an institution?
Look at all these clowns who oppose gay marriage but are on their third spouse or have mistresses, Newt, John Edwards, Limbaugh, Clinton, Vitter.
I believe that Mike Steele is married with kids.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/01/30/raw-data-michael-steele-biography/
Of course we know that doesn't mean he isn't in the closet but its likely why nobody has taken a closer look.
What are we supposed to do with those who "use the sword of righteousness" against gay people then? Hope for their retirement? Hope they get involved in some political corruption case and lose reelection? Hope for their constituents to suddenly recognize it's wrong to discriminate against gay people and demand they stop?
Why sit around and hope for such things when a simple outing is all it takes to discredit their anti-gay attackers? Or should gay people just quit being so uppity and learn to deal with their demonization and marginalization?
Another note on outing: it's a powerful way of cutting through some false dichotomies set up in the debate over homosexuals. The anti-gays would have us believe that if we enacted enough anti-gay laws, we would have less gay people. The outing of anti-gay homosexuals proves that argument to be false. In the debate over the place of gays in society, our options are not gay vs. straight (ie no gays), it's a debate over the closet--whether gays should be allowed to live open and honest lives free from discrimination, or if they should be forced into the closet.
Outing anti-gay homosexuals exposes the falsities behind their arguments and lays bare the evils and the corruption of the closet. It forces anti-gay people to really think about the choices afforded to homosexuals, to really think about whether forcing homosexuals to lie and lead double lives is really the best solution for dealing with the presence of homosexuals in our society.
There are ways to fight bigotry without using such techniques--simply calling out the anti-gay arguments by engaged debate will do far more than trying to smear individuals (which, if anything, will only create sympathy for those people--every time they have their wives and children in tears on TV it doesn't exactly win more people for the cause of acceptance). Engaged debate on the other hand will win as people are forced to consider the logic of the respective positions. Case in point--some months back I saw a clip of Bill O'Reilly of all people taking some anti-gay advocate to task for arguing that same sex marriage (in CA this was, it was just before the Prop 8 vote) would "ruin the institution of marriage." Even O'Reilly--who I wouldn't consider a champion of gay rights--had to ask this guy exactly why that is so, and the guy basically had nothing. It was amusing and refreshing to see O'Reilly tell him "if that's your best argument, then you'll have to do better than that".
The point is, if you have good arguments, then make them--you'll win far more over to your side than attacking the personal lives of your opponents. If anything, closeted homosexuals should simply be encouraged to the effect that coming out is nothing to fear and they will find support--not that it will be used as an axe against them for any reason.
These people aren't engaging in arguments--they are using the power of their position to attack the lives and families of gay people who choose to live openly. Further, how can you argue with someone whose position is not based on reason, but on fear and loathing of their own sexuality?
There is a time and a place for arguments, but when I am being attacked for my personal life, you can bet I will fight back as effectively as I can. Exposing the depravity of the closet first hand hits closer at the truth than any theoretical argument ever could.
Motive matters. If a citizen outs a politician because of a sense of vengeance, or to make a quick buck from the publicity, that says more about the citizen than about the politician, and doesn't help the citizen's cause. If the citizen does it out of self-defense, or even better out of public interest, that's a different story. The thing is, motive can't be faked. You're either doing it for the right reasons, or you aren't. If you aren't, that will quickly become obvious to everybody.
"How can you argue with someone whose position is not based on reason, but on fear and loathing of their own sexuality?"
It might be you can't - but they're not the only people who are involved in the argument. If you're convinced that anybody who still disagrees is totally unreachable by reason, then you hold them in the same regard as they hold you.
There is a time and a place for arguments, but when I am being attacked for my personal life, you can bet I will fight back as effectively as I can. Exposing the depravity of the closet first hand hits closer at the truth than any theoretical argument ever could.
Does outing an anti-gay politician really advance your cause? Forget whether it's right or not. Does outing some GOP douchebag convince said GOPDB's constituents that their anti-gay beliefs are wrong? It was never my impression that it does. I always figured that they'll go find a non-closeted anti-gay politician to spew hate and intolerance on their behalf instead. My point is basically, how is outing effective in fighting for your right to live openly?
To AMT below (for some reason I can't respond to the comment directly):
It does certainly take the particular politician out of play. It also puts other closeted homosexuals on warning: if you don't want to risk being outed, then don't support anti-gay legislation or engage in anti-gay rhetoric.
If the politicians in question were ones who were saying "sexual identity is irrelevant, it's a private matter, everyone has a right to pursue their own sexuality in their own way (if it doesn't harm anyone else), it's nobody's business and shouldn't effect their rights, their careers, their reputations, etc," then TNC would have a point-- they would then deserve that same consideration. But these politicians are precisely the opposite: they are the ones who are explicitly politicizing, and often attempting to effectively criminalize, sexualities that do not match a particular (so-called) norm. It's a form of political violence that, not in some theoretical world of identity-politics, but in practical fact, destroys lives. Dan Savage gives one example; gays discharged from the military are another; there are many others. That these politicians are secretly gay is not irrelevant, but crucial to these issues. From an ethical standpoint, they deserve no better consideration around the implications of their identity than they are willing to offer others. From a practical standpoint, outing them makes their anti-gay policy positions less effective, and may help destabilize the entire notion that there is some sexual-identity-norm that is somehow aligned with moral correctness. If the arbiters of some (arbitrary, fictitious) moral rectitude, who are trying to impose that rectitude on everyone else, are in the closet, everyone deserves to know it. After all, if public figures wanted this portion of their private lives kept private, there's an easy solution: they should stop politicizing the issue of private lives in the first place.
Pam Spaulding just posted an entry at Pandagon that's relevant to this whole issue. I'd link to it if I didn't think it would get me in trouble with the comment software, but it's about NPR's Nathan Lee pulling his byline from his review of the film "Outrage" because NPR spiked references to Charlie Crist and Larry Craig before airing the story. It's worth a read. But there's a nutshell from Pam's post that goes directly to the issue here, and I'm bolding the heart of it:
Simply put, outing homosexual politicians who promote an anti-gay agenda (a) isn't going to disclose anything to their personal and social circle that isn't already known to them; (b) keeps them from bamboozling their constituency and hurting gay people in the process; and (c) discloses the closet cases who are so f-ked up with this stuff that they shouldn't be in charge of doing their own laundry, let alone any aspect of government.
The life of a closeted politician must drive a select few clear around the bend, and leave a healthy portion of the rest intensely vulnerable to blackmail. But I still absolutely oppose a policy of deliberately outing anti-gay politicians. It's bush league, it plays on exactly the sentiments we're trying to fight, and it's not how I want my side to behave. If a person has gone crazy cuckoo-pants from the stress of a double life, it won't be hard to find a legitimate reason (and I consider propositioning pages and cruising for tail in public bathrooms to be legitimate reasons) to show they're unfit. But just being gay isn't enough.
I am not comfortable with outing but I could not think of a better result than for the neighborhood association leader to be outed based on rumors. If everyone gets outed regardless of whether they are gay or not, then no one is outed.
It's hard to get a decent analogy for this situation, because living in the closet is only morally reprehensible if you're doing it at the same time as you work against my. It's not like a politician getting caught out as a tax cheat, because living in the closet on your own while being at least neutral to LGBT rights hurts no one but you.
Mostly, I lean towards outing people who've been influential in hurting LGBT rights, not just because I really do want to hurt them back (which I'm not proud of, but am honest enough to admit to) but because I think it can dis-empower them in their own movement. I think de-fanging these snakes is important. I'm not saying that the end justifies the means, and if there was a magic button I could push that would just make them better human beings, I'd rather do that.
But overall, I'm not a pacifist. If someone is hurting me, I reserve the right to hurt them back if it might make them stop. And that's the best analogy can come up with. Outing someone will hurt them. It'd be better not to hurt them, but if they give us no choice, we should fight back.
To Elizabeth above--the point is not to try and convince the irrational and hateful--they'll do anything they can to avoid listening to reason. It's the fence sitters that matter most when it comes to results. A decade ago I can remember that a large majority in Congress and President Clinton even backed DOMA, and that was because a large majority of Americans were against recognition of marriage rights for same sex couples. But after a decade of debate and engagement popular opinion has been swaying significantly. I think that's a more likely possibility than bigots dying off. And even those who seem hardest to reach can see their beliefs erode when forced into rational debate. You may disagree with me on this, but I think it's effective for this issue in particular, as well as other areas where the tide is turning, like the 21 year drinking age, marijuana legalization, etc. (though those are topics for another day).
I know it can be frustrating to hear someone push engagement and discussion on the merits when the other side is using despicable tactics and pushing hurtful and irrational policies, but the former is more effective.
Um, there are no merits to their arguments other than 'you deserve to suffer because G-d told me so'.
There are those in politics who think that it's none of their business who I select as my spouse, and there are those who preach that it's up to the state to stop me, punish me and shame me for living like a free citizen.
The first kind, I don't care who they sleep with as long as they don't frighten the horses.
The second kind, I will damage them using whatever. Sorry if it offends anyone's sensibilities but the culture war has been one-sided for far too long. The truth is that to their audience, being outed is damaging and take them out of contention for ever being taken seriously in politics again. Win!
As to the results of outing: One, it shuts up the closeted, or at least tones them down, when they can credibly fear that their own orientation will be publicly questioned. If the loudest voices against rights for LGBT folks are revealed to be screaming that stuff due to their own issues--and why else would you care, honestly?--that quiets them.
More important, it causes the public at large to question the motives of anti-gay politicians. Ideally, we'd create a climate in which the first response to a politician who wants to beat on us for votes and money will be: Gee, Bob, didn't know you swung that way!
Any means necessary, man. My kid's security is at stake and I'm not taking prisoners.
What did Crist do to make himself a hypocrite in Savage's view, apart from membership in a largely anti-gay political party, and views on gar marriage that are hardly different from Obama's?
Crist opposes the FL ban on gays adopting kids.
You know, I wouldn't out anybody either, but I'm beginning to think it's just because I'm a chickenshit. Whenever any politician gets outed I'm always completely happy about it.
Same here, Phoebe.
I think that while sympathy for larry craig is misplaced, pity is in order.Perhaps pity is what MR. Coats had in mind in his original post.
Many people say that MR Craig was a hypocrite for voting against allowing gays in the army.But the main arguement against gay men is that somehow they can not control themselves sexually around other men.
Please keep in mind that Larry Craig was arrested for soliciting sex in a public bathroom.He also was cheating on his wife ,and living a lie. He probably feels that all gay men are like him.This is absolutly false , since most gay people are not like that at all.But one can feel pity for Mr. Craig for his self hatred.
Many on the political right feel hatred when they see a gay man walking down the street.But Larry Craig probably feels the same hatred when ever he looks in the mirror.
You can "out " someone like that all you want.But it will be nothing compared to the self hating hell that they must live in day after day. For that we should pity them.
The main problem I have with hypocrites like Crist and the alike is that their current stance is a win-win proposition. They know they can continue to side with the GOP and lash 'the gays,' but they also know the instant they are revealed they can count on the LGBT community to take them in. For example, I agreed with Andrew Sullivan's commentary on Larry Craig. Rather than demonize him to my DC friends, I defended him and came up with reasons for his behavior. Looking back, I feel like the abused wife who sticks with her husband because - down deep - she feels there must be a reason for their ridiculous, harmful behavior.
Now, however, I'm strongly for outing these hypocrites. Why? Because they are using us. They know they are in a win/win situation. They can suck up to whatever team is winning and, if the truth finally comes out, the LGBT community circles our wagons and protects them. That's often what a minority does. We do it because an attack on our own is often felt as an attack on us personally. It's a reaction that I've felt many times and it's deeply emotionally driven - often little rationalization and intellect goes in to it. However, it's time to stop. It's time to call out these men/women for causing so much pain and suffering in our communities.
Ken Mehlman - you're always at Halo and fondling guys. Next time I see you - it's picture time. Gov. Crist - you're often on 17th Street with your gaggle. Next time I see you - it's picture time. I will no longer allow my deeply ingrained self hate to justify protecting you. I feel your pain, suffering and anger at a world turned against you, but you have made this world tougher for yourself. Many of us have learned that putting up with the hate, the names, the discrimination is tiny compared to putting up with the inner shame of the closet.
I'll be damned if I'm going to protect you from the choices you made. And I'll be damned if I'm going to protect you from the people - including myself - that you've hurt along the way.
To PhoenixRising--that's just my point, though--if someone's argument can't stand on its own logic, all the more reason to point that out. If the goal is to actually overturn noxious policies (gay marriage bans, bans on gay adoptions, DADT) there's no better way to win over the otherwise indifferent middle-roaders whose support makes the difference. Dirty tactics like invasions of privacy may give you a sense of revenge but they will more likely backfire when it comes to positive results. So it might silence a few closeted politicians who support an anti-gay agenda (as well as attack, according to some commenters here, can even include pro-gay rights Republicans who may support their party for other reasons)--this does nothing to hateful straight politicians and only turns off moderates.
Though to be fair my opposition to this is largely because I don't like invasions of privacy, whether it's a Bowers-style ban on sodomy or a public "outing" of someone's personal life.
One of the points made in the movie is that several politicians, after having been outed, ended up being able to start voting their true conscious and stop going out of their way to vote against gay rights issues (not just gay marriage as some people have focused on) just so their secret life wouldn't be suspected or exposed. So their argument is that outing these people may not only do a service to their constituents but also to the politician being outed themselves. That's why they also include Barney Frank in the movie to tell his story and talk about how liberated he felt once he actually came out. Now I am not saying that all outings are noble or something but I am saying that the guy who made the film tries to make the case that he is not outing these politicians just out of spite. I guess its up to everyone else to decide if they buy the argument.
BD, I guess where we differ is that I'm unsure there IS such a thing as a straight politician who makes a big deal of beating on gay people. Charlie Crist, who is the governor of Florida and aspires to a Senate seat, provides an excellent example of this.
It's not a dirty tactic to point out that Charlie Crist cruises gay bars looking for sex, it's a statement of fact that in itself is neutral but for the adultery affecting his beard--I mean wife. It's only a big deal that he's gay to the people who think that makes him sinful, beneath contempt and unworthy of their respect--no matter how much he has agreed with them in the past.
I want those people marginalized in this society, and if Charlie Crist has to be embarrassed to achieve that goal, oh well. He had the option of being closeted and supportive of my equality, like Janet Napolitano, whose private life is none of my business due to her consistent support for GLBT issues. Charlie chose to take the other road.
I want him and everyone who agrees with him out of politics, because they're harming me. Those who choose to cavort in the gay bars by night are giving me a stick to beat them with, and damned if I'm going to leave it laying there because I might turn off a moderate.
There are no moderates on Florida's laws impacting LGBT people. Either you think it's okay to deny children permanent placement with the gay couples who have been raising them since they were born HIV-exposed, or you're sane.
Either you think it's okay to make a woman die alone in a hospital bed while her spouse and children pound their fists on the door because her spouse is female, or your moderate opinion is worth a bucket of warm spit to me. If you're neutral on these policy outcomes and the laws that create them, pick up MLK's 'Letter from Birmingham Jail' and beat yourself unconscious with it.
In sum, TNC had a point when he asked 'who decides'? How much betrayal of what subtle degrees of whose gay agenda merits outing? That's the ethical question, not how moderates perceive outing or whether privacy trumps everything.
You can't be neutral on a moving train, and I understand that the train has picked up speed recently such that those who had been silent in the past are now scared to be held to a litmus test for bold action. But I don't think anyone is suggesting a campaign of outing folks who are quietly supportive rather than leaders. But Charlie Crist waived his personal privacy when he supported draconian, punishing treatment for LGBT people and our families, and then went out cruising.
TNC, I think people who advocate outing are making a lot of assumptions and inferential leaps that may or may not be justified. Everyone has things about themselves that they don't advertise and would rather not be made public. Some of them are trivial, some are important, and each of us would probably differ as to which is which. But in the final analysis, each person gets to define what makes him/herself be who s/he is, and how important to his/her self-definition any single particular aspect is.
To put it another way: we each choose the face we present to the world. For example, I'm not naturally charming and not naturally extroverted. But to be successful in my line of work I have to learn to be charming and somewhat extroverted. it's not really me; I'm much more of a bookish and cerebral type than a glad-hander. My wife knows this, and some of my close friends, but I have no particular desire or need to have these aspects of my personality become common knowledge.
I mention this not because I think that sexual preference is on a par with personality type - clearly it's a different kind of personal characteristic - but rather to make the point that each of us chooses how s/he presents him/herself to the world. And the choice of how to do that is uniquely each of ours; it's as much a part of who we are as the choice of clothing or the part of our hair.
If (hypothetically speaking) I like to look at porn, I don't tell that to my business colleagues. If I wipe my ass with my left hand instead of my right, I don't mention it in polite company. If I prefer certain sex positions or have certain harmless fetishes, I don't need other people to know about it.
What's more, I might even think (to take a hypothetical example) that if I like to look at porn it's not a good thing. I might have any number of negative characteristics that I am not proud of and prefer to suppress. That doesn't mean anyone has the right to go tell everyone else that I like to look at porn, or that I bite my nails in private, or that I like to scratch my ass. Even if I do those things, I don't have to be proud of them and - this is crucial - I may still think they are wrong. Maybe I'd advocate restricting access to porn in order to help me save myself from urges to look at it. Or, even if they are not wrong, they are none of anyone's business. (no, I don't urge restrictions of this type - I'm libertarian through and through on these issues - but I'm giving these examples for purpose of argument).
Sexual activity of all kinds, including sexual preferences, are precisely like any other kind of activity or trait. It's up to the owner to decide what becomes public and what does not. No one else has the right to interfere with anyone's life or personality or self-definition that way. It's a very intrusive, very personal violation. And for what? To demonstrate that someone is a "hypocrite?" Actually, no - because it takes a few assumptions to get to the conclusion that the person is a hypocrite. Yes, you might think the person is a hypocrite, but that doesn't mean s/he is - it could simply mean that s/he is wrestling with something, or indulged a curiosity, or what have you. You simply don't know how the behavior you happen to focus on fits into that person's life. It could be that the person "knows" what s/he is doing is wrong, and wants outside restrictions in order to help him/her stay away from it, and to remove temptations.
In short, you have no way to know what the person's motivation is, and no real basis for painting them as hypocrites - all you know is that s/he prefers to keep some aspect of life private. Be very careful about this sort of "outing" - there may one day be something you prefer to keep private, that someone else might think has to be exposed, for reasons of their own that you might not share - it might not even be sexual in nature. What goes around comes around.
Finally, there is apparently an assumption among the supporters of "outing" that all Republicans or republican supporters or voters hate gays or advocate restrictions on gays. To begin with, simply as an empirical matter, I doubt most people especially care about what other people do; they simply want to be left alone. You can't simply assume that a Republican voter hates gays. I have voted Republican at times in the past, and I would venture to say I have more gay people in my home on a regular basis than most; my occasional choice of a Republican candidate had zero to do with gays - what it had to do with is regulation, taxes and national security. That's what happens in a two party system: you're left with the choice of which party's candidates match more of the preferences you have at a particular moment than the other party's. There is no such thing as a candidate who matches me in all opinions, which means I'm always compromising. I would guess most gay Republicans do too. To suggest, as the "outers" do, that a free-market libertarian who happens to be gay should have to vote for a welfare state democrat in order to be able to maintain his privacy is totalitarianism - i.e., you have to do things the way the "outer" thinks you should do them, or else suffer the consequences. Bah.
In the final analysis, people are entitled to respect. ALL people.
If someone is trying to hurt me, I will try to stop them. If a conservative queer hating politician is secretly queer, and I find out, I will sure as hell use that knowledge to stop him because he's trying to hurt me.
What you're saying is, don't hit back if someone punches you in the face. Screw that noise. I hit back.
That sounds just swell. Now if only those who are against gay marriage, gay adoption, gay Boy Scout leaders, etc., would take that same point of view, we wouldn't have a problem, would we? As is stands, we most definitely do.
sure, Josh, but you should want to stop anyone of any persuasion from trying to hurt you. Right? The desire to stop others from hurting you doesn't depend on who the others are but rather on what they are doing - your focus is or should be on stopping the activity, not injuring the person doing it. Plus, part of what I was saying there was that you can't necessarily assume that everyone who votes for a Republican is trying to hurt you. You're very wrapped up inside your own view of the world, and because certain issues are important to you you're assuming they take on equal importance to others. You really can't assume that.
In thefinal analysis, you're arguing what rapidly devolves to "two wrongs make a right," and I'm not sure you really want to go there.
If an anti-gay politician won't listen to reason (and trust me, we do try that) they can listen to the sound of their own hypocrisy being revealed if they get caught getting a hummer in an airport bathroom.
You want good little queer Gandhi types who're perfect little pacifists.
I am not one of those. If you punch me in the face, *I will hit you back if I have to in order to defend myself*. I'll fight dirty, too. But if you don't bother me, I don't bother you. What part of that was not clear?
If I have to out a gay politician who's damaging GLBT rights issues to stop him, I'll do that too. If they're not doing it, I have no interest in outing them no matter what political party they belong to. If you'd bothered to read what I've been saying, that would be clear.
I think exposing the hypocrisy of those in power who are actively working against gay equality has played a significant role in swaying public opinion about issues like gay marriage and gay adoption over the past ten years or so. To those who grow up in communities where gays are hidden, and who are taught to think of being gay as foreign, evil and rare, exposing these guys shows that - guess what?! - even your local minister, congressman, senator, etc. may be gay. So then, maybe not so foreign, evil and rare after all.
Also, I think the public has the right to know if someone is running or governing on a platform of family values, but has had several affairs/marriages, or claims to advocate libertarian views, but publishes a newsletter full of racist rants. Similarly, I think I have the right to know if someone actively working against gay equality is a closeted gay himself.
Fine and good, Jennifer, but you're assuming an awful lot about people. I spend a lot of time checking my own premises and assumptions, particularly about other people's motives. Most of the time, if I think things through, I find that people usually have pretty good reasons for what they do. And I don't assume that people who disagree with me are necessarily stupid or evil. Sometimes they are, sure. But stupidity and evil tend not to be correlated well with particular political opinions.
Okay, we get it, you think this conversation is about Republicans in general and a political dispute that is happening on a level playing field.
Let me explain more concisely how I see it: The culture war has been on for awhile. What's changed since 1976 is that the gays are now shooting back at targets that selected themselves.
The political message sent by outing is: If you feel you might be affected because you're a politician making hay out of beating on gay people, feel free to duck. Or change what you're doing so that no one cares what tail you're chasing.
When someone is trying to knock me out with a 2x4, it's not relevant to me what his motives are. I don't care whether he's stupid or evil. I'm going to trip him up with whatever he hands me and never apologize.
Of course. But how do you know he's coming after you with a 2 x 4, unless he says he is? Again, you're elevating the particular issue you are concerned with to centrality in everyone else's universe, and really, it just ain't so.
More to the point, why is "outing" an answer, as opposed to opposition and political defeat? Or to put it differently: isn't an ideological victory better than imposing personal pain on those who disagree with you? If you impose the pain and just piss the guy off without silencing him (or her) -- which is a perfectly possible response -- you haven't won anything, and all you have accomplished is gotten some official pissed off at you.
That's what I don't get about a lot of political discourse. Political victories aren't enough, they have to be accompanied by personal destruction of the opposition. I just don't get it.
Look, I manage conflict for a living (I'm a litigation lawyer). I always make sure to be a gentleman to my adversaries, not just because I'm a nice person (or try to be), but also for the basest of reasons: I never know when I'll need them. I fight hard but I never wish harm on anyone. What goes around tends to come around.
how do you know he's coming after you with a 2 x 4, unless he says he is?
Because, ideologically speaking, we've been hit with enough two by fours to know what it feels like when someone hits us with one. We know what bigoted legislation looks like. If someone votes for it, and they're gay, we first ask them to stop and denounce the position. If they refuse, we can out them, and hope that their reputation suffers enough to get them out of office. And you know what? It works.
When you're playing safe, fun lawyer games that have no impact in your real life, we're fighting for our actual rights.