Washington Blade article:

Good or bad thing?

I've always felt torn by outing.

On the one hand, if a closeted gay person (Terry Dolan, the late conservative behind NCPAC, for example) is working actively to harm other gay people, why shouldn't her or his hypocrisy be exposed?

On the other hand, I do worry about a living person's private life and personal business being thrown open so readily to the public, particularly given that we still do not have universal civil protections for homosexuals, bisexuals and transgender people.

During the early 1990s, when the subject of outing swirled about the public sphere, particularly around closeted gays who refused to address the issue of AIDS or supported homophobes, philosopher Richard Mohr made quite powerful intellectual arguments for the overall positive effects of outing in his 1992 book Gay Ideas: Outing and Other Controversies. I actually met and debated a bit with him at the old Glay Day Bookshop in Boston (anyone remember that store?), and at that time had to concede to his more persuasive arguments.


Richard Mohr's Gay Ideas: Outing and Other Controversies

[ June 24, 2004, 01:50 PM: Message edited by: fantomas ]

Bad thing.

1) You can't force integrity.
2) Closted LGBT elected officials will be cast as untrustworthy liars. Not good for our cause, overall.
3) "Radical" LGBT activists who out closeted officials will be cast as untrustworthy extremists hell-bent on "special rights." Not good for our cause, overall.
4) That closeted LGBT officials would change votes once they are outed is no guarantee.
5) Further, threatening to out officials if they don't change votes provides compelling incentive to hold strong to your initial position; changing alliances at this stage of the game might suggest you're "one of them", whereas NOT changing your vote lets you stay in the closet while you dig up an old ex-girlfriend (or boyfriend) to confirm your heterosexuality, rehearse tales of love with your "heterosexual" married partner, etc.

Doing anything out of righteous igdignation is a bad idea. However, there are circumstances in which outing may be appropriate. I dislike the concept of "open secrets." If someone is living as openly gay, except as a political figure, and the media is ignoring it out of some misguided deference to a person's privacy (which one largely gives up when entering public life), then outing that person is not necessarily a bad thing. The litmus test for me is how private is the private life in the first place and how contrary to that private life does one live his or her public life. It would be the same as if a pagan practitioner were publicly advancing the agenda of the religious right without full disclosure of his or her own practices, or if a PETA member ate meat, wore leather, or, as Penn and Teller revealed, used animal derived insulin to control diabetes.

edited for word choice

[ June 24, 2004, 12:22 PM: Message edited by: jqueer ]

I've always leaned against outing; when it came into vogue in the early '90s I used to call it "tabloid activism". The ACT-UP/Queer Nation crowd had a habit of only outing folks they didn't much like, politically. "Tom Selleck? He's a Republican -- screw him!" But nobody ever outed Steven Sondheim (when he was still closeted), because, well, he's just faaabulous.

But I'm inclined to agree with jqueer's points. I've always respected those who say "I refuse to discuss my private life. Period." But someone who goes out of his way to lie about his "private life" is another story. If you ran into Jerry Falwell in a bathhouse (ick! now there's a visual) wouldn't you run to the NY Times?

When the personal is political, it will come out--as when "family values" hypocrite Newt Gingrich was "outed" for giving his wife divorce papers while she was in hospital--and if a closeted elected official is voting in a way that would harm my civil rights, I would not be against his being forced to see the light. However, since I am opposed to outing based solely on rumor (and it is likely I wouldn't have any firm & hard facts about a deeply closted elected representative) I would opt instead on working for his defeat based on his public votes. Ousting him from office would accomplish so much more than spreading gossip.

~Adam

If someone makes anti-gay comments and/or votes, and he or she is gay, I don't care how private they are or how often they've said "I don't discuss my personal life" -- they should absolutely be outed.

If they're gay but vote anti-gay they ARE untrustworthy. And if they aren't exposed as the hypocrites they are, we know for sure they won't change their vote.

Yes, indeed. There's either a hotel or condos where it used to be.

I find the practice of outing people to be troubling.

No, but it's not about forcing integrity. It's about punishing hypocrisy. If they already support homophobic policies, they're no friends of ours, and we have nothing to lose by discrediting them.

[ June 24, 2004, 02:37 PM: Message edited by: danimal ]

Well now the threat to out staffers has generated a lot of publicity, and even the mainstream press is starting to pick up on it.

From the Washington Post (registration required):

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It reads like an ominous threat: "For Years Our Silence Has Protected You. Today That Protection Ends."

The Washington Blade, the area's gay weekly newspaper, today is running a full-page ad, titled "Final Call to Conscience," that helps fuel anxiety on Capitol Hill involving what local gay rights activists call an "outing craze" over the past two weeks

The $1,400 color ad -- paid for by the Web site DearMary.com (Mary as in Mary Cheney, Vice President Cheney's openly gay daughter) -- is similar to "Call to Conscience," an ad that ran in the Blade in 1996 when Congress was deliberating the Defense of Marriage Act. John Aravosis, national co-chairman of DearMary.com, said yesterday that as with the previous ad, this one seeks to highlight the "hyprocrisy within gays and lesbians on the Hill who work for anti-gay members of Congress."

This time, the legislation in question is the Federal Marriage Amendment, which President Bush endorsed in February, calling on Congress to pass a constitutional amendment "defining and protecting marriage as a union of a man and woman as husband and wife."

...

Adams Morgan fundraiser and consultant Michael Rogers, 40, is leading his own outing campaign. Two days ago he started a Web log that lists the names of congressional staffers who he and his network of a dozen volunteers say are gay, based on tips from "Hill staffers" and "organizational staffers," he said yesterday.

"We're working on a lot of leads, two of them elected members of Congress," said Rogers, who says he has received death threats since launching the blog. "Fact is, a group of congressmen have declared war on gay people, and we're fighting back. We need to expose the hyprocrisy of Congress."


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

HRC, LCR and the Congressional gay staffers group have all "come out" against this type of outing. However, I am up in the air.

The thing that gets me is these people are leading an otherwise open life (or else there would be no information on which to out them), going to gay bars, restaurants, clubs, etc., and dating within the gay community. Without the sacrifices of the first openly gay people, like Frank Kameny who was the first to fight the government's sweeping anti-gay hiring ban in the 60s, or the Stonewall queens and other activists who got gay bars legalized (in many states it was illegal for more than 2 - 3 gay people to congregate, or to serve a gay person alcohol), or the early Mattachine and Daughters of Bilitis, who fought to have the mention of homosexuality in print ruled non-obscene, these staffers would not be able to lead this semi-closeted life.

Oh, and one of the men who has been outed so far appeared as the "coverboy" for MetroWeekly a few years back - I don't think you are keeping your private life too quiet if you are appearing shirtless in a magazine, talking about the lube and condoms in your nightstand and describing your perfect man.


[Post modified for hyperlink. - Outsports moderator]

[ July 09, 2004, 08:41 PM: Message edited by: m1 ]

I love this idea that these people are supposed to just quit their jobs and find work in another congressional office (which I'm sure most of you who live outside DC think is so easy, just walk in and say "Hey, I'm gay and I want a job and I hear you like us gay folk" and presto, you're hired) if they disagree with their boss on this one issue. There are other issues, you know, and for some of us being gay is not the essence of our being, it is not the end-all, be-all of existence. Believe it or not the standard day in the life of a congressional staffer, Republican or Democrat, does not involve sitting around talking about being gay or hating gays or knowing gays or anything like that all day. I'm sure it would be lovely if the world revolved around you people, but it doesn't. But I love how it's so easy for you guys to send this message that if you're boss isn't sufficiently pro-gay (ie, if he's Republican, because in yalls universe, is there any such thing as a pro-gay Republican?) just take one for the team and quit and go look for another job. Or hey, maybe gay Republican staffers should just give up their careers in public policy altogether and be a salesclerk at Abercrombie. I mean, if they have any integrity they'll sacrifice everything to score political points for gays and lesbians. You people being happy is really all that matters, I know.

And I love that people are being targeted even if they don't deal with this particular issue. The "Metro Weekly" guy works for Inhofe's committee - see in Congress, Senators serve on these things called committees (look it up!) - and he's an expert as I understand on privacy/environmental/commerce issues. He has nothing - NOTHING - to do with Inhofe's views on the FMA and there is absolutely no way he can influence those views. But hey, "out" him anyway because he's working in some capacity for a Republican and is thus "untrustworthy" and gets what he deserves.

The bottom line to all of this for these guys and I suspect for most of you guys is that you hate Republicans the way the Nazis hated the Jews, and you want to make their lives difficult until the Queer Eye guys find sufficiently trendy decorations for the gas chambers. This just makes me loathe Democrats even more. I mean, thank goodness yalls guy just like totally supports gay marriage 100% and is just ready to throw the chapel doors wide open, but really. I don't ever want to get married, and the idea that the FMA might f$#& some of these people (and some of you people) up just thrills me more and more. And I don't hesitate to say that because you guys already hate me and think I'm some sort of a traitor because I'm a Republican, no matter what I believe, so I might as well go whole hog and do a very thorough job of it.

I'm sure some of you have heard me say this once or twice before, but here's my view.

If you are in the closet, and working for a phobic politician, then you are fair game.

I do NOT mean the file clerks or the mail room boys, but the aides and staffers.

They are the ones who set policy. They are the ones who tell the politician how to vote on which bill. They are the ones who decide which lobbyist sees the politician, and which ones the politician will support.

They DO set the policy. They DO decide the agenda's.

My father was a politician, and every time I went to his office, I always felt that I needed to shower after shaking the hands of his aides. I have never seen such a sleazy smarmy backstabbing bunch of ass****s in my life. And yes, once I turned 16, a few of them tried to get me into bed.

EEEEEEEEWWWWWWWWWWW!!!!!!!!

Now for the repititious part.

Why do I care?

I have 2 steel pins in my jaw from someone who didn't agree with my rights.

I had a broken right eye socket from someone who didn't agree with my rights.

I have a partialy detached retina in my right eye from someone who didn't agree with my rights.

My first lover was beaten to death by someone, (never found) who didnt' agree with his rights.

So my thought is that if you are gay, and working against us on the hill, even in a minor capacity, then the article in the Blade is 1,000% correct.

The silence ends.

Out them all. No truck, no surrender.

Out them all NOW. Too many of our community have died to allow a gay uncle tom to take anything away from us. (is the phrase uncle tom acceptable? I hope a person of color will let me know).


And if it causes them pain, or causes them to lose their jobs or their reputations, I say tough ASS.

I equate them to the Kapo's in the camps.

And yes, it is extreme, but I set off metal detectors in airports, so I have a right to be angry.

Out the smarmy little faggots. As am aquaintance of mine said on another blog.

If you RIDE dick and then try to take away our rights, you ARE the enemy.

Wow, this is really sad. That the deprivation of equal rights for people just like yourself provides you with some sadistic glee is just astounding.

[quote]aquaman:
[QUOTE]That the deprivation of equal rights for people just like yourself provides you with some sadistic glee is just astounding. [/quote]I would prefer to be "mesmerizing," but I suppose "astounding" will do for now. Thanks!

William Ok, to begin with, Jews were born jews, and Republicans are NOT BORN REPUBLICAN. Nice try with an analogy, but come on, lets be smart in our debates.

Jews were not trying to overthrow the German world, and not trying to convert the entire German populus to Judeism. The Republican right is telling the US that unless you are Straight, you are not an equal person. The republicans are so scared of "our" population (yep, you are part of "us" simply because you smoke pole, regardless of you want to do it while you're married, or just "living with your partner), that they think it's necessary to ammend the most sacred document in the US. Something that has lasted for 200 years, without any kind of limiting language written into it, except for that one little ammendment (Prohibition) which was a major flop, because it LIMITED THE RIGHTS OF THE PEOPLE OF THE US.

Being a republican is fine, just stand up for the rights of you brothers who are gay. The way you talk about yourself being a republican, you make it sound like you are so persecuted, and tramatized by all of us evil people who actually call you on your stance. Face it, you're Republican, you don't want to change it, so get used to being abused.

To quote some of these retards that work for Homophobic senators, "It's not a personal issue william, it's all politics, and I don't let that influence my personal life." We still love you, it's just when we're talking politics that we have the obligation, and right to question your stance, and to verbally assault you, because we feel as if we are being assaulted every minute of the day.

Every time that the news paper prints some story about how Bush endorses the FMA, I get a sick feeling in my stomach. Everytime I hear some religeous idiot spout out about the fact that I am going to hell, I feel the effects of that in my soul. I'm glad that you have a political stance, but it's time to get off the cross, we need the wood. Playing the poor wittle wepublican who evwebody hates. boo hoo, gets you nowhere. How about you try to be a man and describe the good things that your party has done, and what makes you feel good about the future, thanks to your party. That is a whole lot better platform to stand on than a pitty platform presented to the people who are supposedly demonizing you.

[ July 09, 2004, 02:26 PM: Message edited by: MSUBobcat ]

Well I don't "love" you and am not trying to "get anywhere" on this board, honestly I don't know that there's anywhere to go on this board - it's not like I'm up for a promotion or a pay raise or anything - and I don't feel that I owe you or anybody else any justification for why I'm a Republican, nor do I feel being able to provide one is any indication of manliness. I'm just mainly frustrated, but I'll be out with my friends in about an hour and the frustrations will be gone.

By the way, Elmer Fudd, I have one brother, and it's not you or anybody else on this board.

(Nice to know the word "retards" is acceptable now.)

William1865, We don't hate you because you are republican, we severely dislike you because you have no problem denying us our constitutional rights. And you are one of us, amazing your short sightedness. Your analogy to the Jews/Nazis is ridiculous. Shame on you. I actually don't even really dislike you, I just feel really sorry for you.

Barry

[ July 09, 2004, 02:36 PM: Message edited by: gobar ]

"Every time that the news paper prints some story about how Bush endorses the FMA, I get a sick feeling in my stomach."

It's gonna be an ugly week ahead. I don't know how African Americans dealt with it (all the missinformation spread to demonize them) for so long, or even still. My partner is African American and I am amazed at how he deals with the rampant racism in our society. I don't think I am that strong and would maybe go to Canada if this awful amendment passes. Or I may stay and fight like a motherf**ker!!!

Wow, didn't take long for Godwin's Law to kick in, did it?

I suppose saying "I never took a Schein to Roy Cohn" makes me anti-Semitic? Do I dare admit that as I child I watched Hogan's Heroes ... and even (gasp!) played the theme (on clarinet) in junior-high band? eek!

Read Lksimcoe's post again, Willih Bawh ... and if that doesn't work, take your tax cut and go buy a clue.

Are you going to a gay bar?

Frustrated doesn't even beging to describe what is coming out of your keyboard. Hateful, meanspirited, derogatory. Some of these may describe your previous diatribe about being happy if the FMA passed. When will you start dancing on Matt's grave? That's the level of compassion that I see from you in that post.

And you wonder why gays generally don't care for Republicans.

[ July 09, 2004, 03:01 PM: Message edited by: MSUBobcat ]

I'm glad you got to spout of some steam there, William, but honestly I think you went overboard with the persecution bit.

I have nothing to hold against you for being a Republican, except on one issue. On the war, taxes, economic policy, education, healthcare, etc... support the Republican policies all the way if you want to. But when you or other gay people support candidates who would rather see us go away and be good little celibate homos -- and goddamn it, now you say you want the FMA to pass; it will take a while for that one to sink in -- hell yeah, we're going to disagree with you and loudly!

You should be ashamed of the Nazi/Jews analogy. Believe it or not, NO we do not want to kill Bush and Cheney, et. al., we just want them out of office! Hate is a strong word, and I'm darn near hating Bush & Company, but it's not because they're Republicans; it's because they hate me and they're in a position to destroy my life. However, I don't and never will want to put them in a gas chamber or kill them in any other manner.

[ July 09, 2004, 03:00 PM: Message edited by: maxallen ]

"the idea that the FMA might f$#& some of these people (and some of you people) up just thrills me more and more..."

Oh William, I've changed my mind, I seriously dislike you AND feel very very sorry for you.

Great post, Lksimcoe!....it is many of those "Uncle Tom's" who would undoubtedly be the first to celebrate and reap the benefits of the fight for equality that the millions of proud, OUT gays and lesbians have been painstakingly working to achieve for so many years....in my view, if they are employed in the office of an anti-gay Congressman who is outspoken against us and is having his staff devote countless hours in an effort to get bills passed that are designed to deprive us of our basic human rights they they DESERVE to be identified and called out for their deplorable hypocrisy.

William1865 may not have any desire to ever get married (which is clearly his prerogative) but to equate the venomous hatred of the FMA with that SOLE institution while ignoring the 1000+ federal benefits asssociated with marriage that this piece of discriminatory legislation would permanently deprive us of is absolutely ludicrous!....or is being able to be fired from your job, evicted from your home, unable to obtain health insurance, social security/pension/survivors benefits and basic visitation rights, to name but a few, as a result of your sexual orientation not important to you or ANYONE in the GLBT community that you care about?....perhaps I'm misinterpreting his earlier post (I certainly hope that is the case) but it actually sounds as if William, an educated GAY man, would be HAPPY if the FMA went into effect -- which thankfully stands no chance of passing when it is put up to a vote on the Senate floor next week.

[ July 09, 2004, 03:14 PM: Message edited by: gamecock ]

Thank you. Finally a voice of reason.

Frankly, that's way more important to me than the marriage issue ... not just because I'm single in every sense of the word, but because marriage doesn't do much good if you return from the honeymoon to find you've been fired, evicted, and turned down for a mortgage ... and that it's all perfectly legal in your state, as it is in the majority of states (and in all but one county of mine). "Regime change" alone won't fix that (it sure hasn't in Illinois), but I'll be damned if I'll support shameless defenders of discrimination. :mad:

William, though I'm sure you were hoping to provoke a rant, I'm afraid I'll just have to do a little eye-rolling at the gay republican "cult of victimhood". I'm suffering from outrage fatigue .

Wait a minute, who said anything about taking their jobs away? Are you suggesting that if a closeted congressional staffer came out, s/he would be fired? What kind of a boss would do that?

------
Some links:

Gay Rights Site Runs 'Outing' Ad Aimed at the Hill - Washington Post, 7/9/04

The ad Final Call to Conscience published in the Washington Blade

Outed Hill staffer condemns campaign - Washington Blade, 7/9/04

John Aravosis' blog

Michael Rogers' blog

One who kept his job: Agreeing to Disagree, an interview with Lynden Armstrong, openly gay staffer for anti-gay Senator Pete Domenici (R-NM). "I have to keep in mind [Domenici] isn’t personally against me or gay people." - Gay City News, 7/8/04

[ July 09, 2004, 10:16 PM: Message edited by: redsoxbreath ]

Hey poser Republican, consider this our own little Patriot Act for gay rights. Much like you Repubs in DC have done with the supposed war on terrorism, we're gonna trample all over the closeted types in DC until you stop posing and come clean about who you are.

Get off the fence and stand up for human rights.

Consider this our war on hypocrisy.

Wow, this thread really took off...

I'm still against the outings. These things never turn out the way one thinks they will. There is the distinct possibilty this will look like "Gay McCarthyism"

Besides that, though, we need to remember that no one gave a damn that Republicans were f**king thier secretaries/assistants/women other than their wives at the same time Clinton was being impeached for Lewinsky-Gate. Strom Thurmond was allowed to be a crazy ol' hoot, and allowed to say some pretty racist things, even though it was an "open secret" he had a black daughter.

So, nah...I don't think threatening people with outing is going to work, honestly. Congress will just turn a blind eye, and look instead at us crazy gays and wonder, "Why can't they let that man's private business stay private. It's a shame, I tell you..."

If anything, the media will be hard at work trying to put a "fresh spin" on all this, probably cooking up a story about poor Senator Bisexual, who was unfairly outed by radical gays as he struggled valiantly to come to terms with his sexuality.

What I CAN get behind:
- openly gay members of Congress working with non-gay political leaders and activists to bring greater visibility and political clout to the issues; they may capitalize, for example, on the support a few Black Panthers have thrown toward marriage equality, and the support of the King family, and highlight training LGBT politicians have received from Harvard and the support LGBT advocacy organizations receive from the likes of Paul Newman and Ed Kennedy
- openly gay members of Congress "reaching out" to closeted members and having discreet meetings where differences and common ground are discussed, and at which time closted members are asked directly to support LGBT rights
- openly gay members of Congress voicing thier displeasure about closeted officials, but without naming names

[shudder] [gag] [puke]

Slimiest post ever. Congratulations, you should be very proud.

Sounds like the FMA will have no impact on your life whatsoever, but never say never. Love to chat with you about that in 20 years or so. wink

If they all feel the way YOU do, I say out 'em all to HELL!

(Do us all a favor and continue to avoid GatorJamie's "We're Off to Our Wedding" thread. Geez Louise.)

A Pastor With a Drive to Convert

Twin58,

Thanks for that. Now to steal a little from Dan Savage's DTMFA (Dump the MFer already), OTMFA! Although I don't think it will help matters, but it would make me feel good.

I'm for the outings. Surprised? Don't be.

Here's my logic and rebuttal to one of the main arguments from the other side.

Those opposed say, "being gay is such an insignificant part of my being. I am more than that." (this is true)

They also say, "I agree with the GOP on most other issues and that's why I'm a republican" (this is also true and that's why I am also a republican)

However, the point of divergence is this.... I am totally out. and I was out as a Hill staffer many years ago. Those Hill staffers/members who are closeted say, "Being gay is so unimportant that I don't need to come out"

well ... tell you what. Let's out you guys and see what the reaction is to your newly revealed status from others including your bosses.

If your gayness is truly THAT INsignificant, NONimportant to all involved, then you don't have anything to worry about.

If however, you get fired for being gay.... then you'll realize that for people who hate fags, your gay status is significant. and if your gayness causes you to lose your job, maybe you'll then realize that homosexuality and homophobia aren't so trivial after all. Maybe if you get fired by a homophobic congressman or C.O.S. then you won't so easily dismiss being part of the anti-gay machine.

One last point. This is NOT a strictly GOP/democrat dichotomy. There are plenty of homophobic democrat congressmen and staffers and plenty of closeted democrat hill staff. Don't assume that it's all so nice and neat.

ung, as always, right on. The GOP/Democratic dichotomy isn't so simple, though the GOP LEADERSHIP (Rez, Cheney, Hastert, etc.) support FMA, while the leading Democrats (Kerry, Edwards, Daschle, etc.) do not.

But there are Congressional Democrats who support it, and some, like Zell Miller, are trying to stir up hatred as eagerly as many in the GOP. There are also are Democrats who, like Clinton with DOMA, will capitulate to cover their asses. Not everyone is willing to be or can be as bold as Teddy Kennedy or Russ Feingold. In the Senate, there are just enough moderate Republicans still--people like Snowe, Collins, Chafee, maybe even Specter--who find the idea of FMA distasteful enough that there won't be the 67 votes. Does anyone know what McCain's stand on the issue is?

In response to William's delusional rant, there are many of us, some committed liberals, who DO NOT HATE REPUBLICANS. In fact, were I living in New York City, I would have voted readily for the current mayor of New York City (over his "liberal" challenger, Mark Green). And it looks like Hizzoner is going to defy the hatemongers in the GOP once again, so we'll see what W has to say about it, especially given that he was defending FMA and bashing gay people once again in Pennsylvania yesterday.


Yahoo!: NY's mayor to entertain gay, pro-choice groups

Google for mark bingham senator mccain

This is the first hit.

Lest he waver, remind him of this.

Don't forget Oregon GOP Senator Gordon Smith, who has been one of the most fervent Republican supporters of gay rights and has been described as "a leader in efforts to make attacks against homosexuals a federal hate crime"....despite W's despicable endorsement of the FMA (which he forcefully reiterated again this morning during his weekly radio address) Smith has courageously been outspoken against the "party line" as demonstrated by his recent speech to a group of gay and lesbian voters when he stated, "I intend to be your champion on many issues in the future, if you want me".

Hopefully the voters in Oregon will have the good sense to keep this man in office (along with a number of the other Senators across the country that fantomas listed) for many years to come.

Hate to break it to you gamecock, but Sen. Smith announced his support of the FMA on the Senate floor yesterday (Friday). After making the announcement, he had the gall to say to the gay community, "I intend to be your champion on many issues in the future, if you want me". If I were an Oregonian, I would have something to say to him about that.

I think the vote Wednesday will be much, much closer than people think, and I also would not be surprised to see Sens. Kerry and Edwards not make an appearance.

[ July 10, 2004, 04:03 PM: Message edited by: JASooner ]

Sen. Smith is weak!

The hell he isn't.

Wow, didn't check out this thread over the weekend, and I am shocked, really.

William1865, having known you in person, I just don't get it, why all the anger?

This, quite frankly, is NOT a public policy debate. The question of gay marriage, and to a much larger extent gay rights, is not a question like taxation, it goes to the very core of our Republic.

Are all adult humans in this country to be given the same level of respect; the same ability to live full and complete lives according to their own moral codes (assuming those codes do not hurt others)? Are all adult humans in this country to be considered "innocent until proven guilty"?

The pro-FMA crowd says no to both questions - they claim that the very idea of gay equality - that our relationships are in every way as good for our lives and for our communities as straight marriages - must never be argued, must be decided in the negative right now. All of us, every single gay person, single or married, is being considered a negative influence on our communities - we are pronounced guilty, and this amendment will kill any statewide experiments that would allow us to clear our names.

May I remind you that you live in a state where, until last year, you were considered a felon because you were gay? That is was technically illegal for a gay person to be a lawyer in Virginia (can't be a member of the bar if you are committing felonies every evening)? That you live in a state where private companies cannot even provide health insurance to their gay employees' partners, even at the employee's expense!? A state that passed anti-gay legislation so sweeping it may invalidate the wills and healthcare proxies of gay people?

This is not a simply public policy issue, this is an issue of human rights. Either we are part of the human species or we are not.

The Religious Right launched a war against all gay people (not just liberal gay people, not just gay people who make their homosexuality the principal political issue in their lives) in 1975 - is it not time we treated this as a war?

As it turns out, I know the Inhofe staffer that got outed last week. I can report from personal experience that yes, he is gay.

I'm sorry that he has been forced to be more public about his life than he may have ever wanted to be. I'm more sorry he works for such a pig like Inhofe.

I hate to say this, but I am all for the outings. If you work for someone that wants to repress a certain groups rights, OH! like us, then those people need to get outted.

It's a little vindictive, I know, but this is how I feel.

Let me ask a couple of questions to the people against the outings.

Do you think that a staffer, being in the closet and working for a phobe, will actually be able to accomplish ANYTHING?

Do you think that if outed, and then fired, will NOT provide ammunition to correctly portray a lot of the Republicans as the prejudiced bastards they are?

ANd one question to everyone:

DO YOU HONESTLY THINK THAT THE RELIGIOUS RIGHT WILL STOP WITH THE FMA? Most have made it VERY clear that this is only a first step against us.

If you want to keep your heads in the sand (or up your ass), that is your right, but no-one has the right to impose tyrrany against another American.

Isn't that why your country was founded?

To clarify something for the slow-witted, my understanding of this campaign is that staffers are ordered not just to come out to their bosses, but to quit their jobs and go work for somebody else who digs gays and stuff. The theory, as I understand it, is that a gay individual, closeted or not, who works for an "anti-gay" legislator is a hypocrite and worthy of scorn, hatred, contempt, etc. until they leave that particular job and get one of which the gay community as a whole can approve. Because, of course, jobs on the Hill are really easy to come by, you just walk into an office and say, "Hey, I'm gay and I want a job," and you got it, brother. These staffers you guys want to f**k with have it so easy, as you all seem to understand.

I think I have changed my position on this. Not because I think these staffers all have access to senators and the like to actually change policy, but I think many of these guys in DC need to understand that there is someone in his office who his policies directly impact.

I say out 'em.

As with most of the posters on this thread, I am generally against outing anyone. But anytime there is clear hypocrisy by politicians, I have no problem having it exposed. The hypocrisies of both the Bush and Kerry campaigns have been exposed, and that doesn't seem to be a problem. So I do think that a closeted elected official who votes for anti-gay legislation is fair game. I do have a problem with a politician who is enjoying the benefits of his office by voting for anti-gay legislation, while at the same time trying to restrict our rights. So I assume the politician would have no problem having his rights restricted by being outed. My advice to closeted politicians who need or want to vote for anti-gay legislation is to stay celibate, and don't frequent any businesses frequented mostly by gay persons.

I do not know enough about congressional staffers and their roles in legislation to have an opinion on whether they should be outed. I see the point that staffers shouldn't have to quit their job based on "one issue." But if a staffer does come out and is fired because of this one issue, it doesn't say much for his scumbag boss. It does seem to be ironic that gay staffers may have to support legislation that directly or indirectly could get them fired.

I admit that I am still open in my opinion regarding outings, and can change my mind if I do see a rational argument against exposing these hypocrites. But I haven't seen one yet.

[ July 12, 2004, 03:45 PM: Message edited by: pat125 ]

Still not a fan of outing. It's not going to work people, I promise. In fact, if anything, a wave of outings will keep LGBT people OUT of public office.

I definitely believe in/understand Audre Lorde's sentiment "the master's tools will never dismantle the house" AND I have faith that genuine progress can be achieved through organizing and electoral activism.

I'm going to post a link to The Victory Fund again:
http://www.victoryfund.org/

It's my hope that LGBT elected officials can continue to advance these issues, and that the election of LGBT official itself signals a real and substantive change in public sentiment. I'd advocate that our community support this kind of activism rather than outing...

WAIT A MINUTE!

Should we out the politicians themselves, not the staffers? There is a difference between both groups.

Some of the politicians spout anti-gay talk, and they are despicable. If they also are in the closet, yank them out!

But the staffers are innocent. Some congressmen have large staffs of aides, and the further away one aide works from the congressman (lowly office help as an example), the less influence the lowly aide has on the congressman's opinions. These aides need their jobs on Capitol Hill. If they stay in the closet because of their rabid anti-gay boss, leave these aides alone.

I advocate leaving these closeted "lowly aides" alone.

Some of the aides are much closer to the congressmen and have more influence - such as chief of staff. These higher-up aides should be outed.

Let's make a distinction between the congressmen, higher-up aides and lowly aides.

Mikestead

I was undecided until I read William's posts.
Out 'em all.

William, I may be one of those "Slow-witted" individuals, but I believe the "Theory" (as you call it) is simply that individuals who are hiding in the closet and helping someone who is in support of this stupid amendment is going to be, or should be outed so that the person the gay guy is working for will see that Gay people are everywhere and that they may even care deeply about someone that they are going to completely bash with their coveted little piece of legislation.

In addition I think the other point is to show anyone who cares that there are a lot of gay people in all sections of society, including working within the ranks of hateful congressmen trying to pass this ammendment.

If someone is outed, and their senator is willing to let them stay on the staff, that means that they may not be near as hateful to the gay community as we think the person is, and it may lead to some change.

If the person gets fired simply for being gay, then it shows the congressman for what he is, a bigot.

The argument against outing is that homosexuality is still so negatively viewed by the majority of Americans that publicly stating a person's sexual orientation is damning them to career death. The argument often used by those staying in the closet is that homosexuality is so infentesimal an issue that there's no reason to make it a public issue. You can't have it both ways. If a gay staffer was a primary author of, say, DOMA, would that make him or her a legitimate target of outing? I would certainly say so. Senator Frist (I believe) has called homosexuals criminals and degenerates. Is a staffer in his office working on, say, tax policy really a part of that evil? I don't know. Would a evangelical christian staffer in Barney Frank's office working on tax legislation be subject to ridicule and censure in his community? A black staffer in Jesse Helms' office? I am not going to out anyone, not merely because I'm in no position to do so. However, I can't seem to get up the outrage that someone else is doing it. If there's no home in th eRepublican party for gay staffers, perhaps they should either find a different career or a different party. Having secrets in the political world is dangerous to one's self and one's employers. I'm much more comfortable with gay activists having and using this knowledge than, say, corporate interests who might blackmail a staffer into influencing a congressional vote.