This is one of the most convoluted cases I've read. Cunningham (R-CA) denies he's gay. HRC's Elizabeth Birch denies she outed him. Cunningham even denies ever meeting Birch.

Yet here we go ... article in the Washington Blade

Cunningham (in today's Roll Call): "The recent article in The Washington Blade is simply untruthful and irresponsible," Cunningham told HOH in a prepared statement. "I am a heterosexual — always have been, always will be."

He added that the story, which was sparked by statements made by Human Rights Campaign Executive Director Elizabeth Birch in a recent speech, is "gutter politics, pure and simple."

"The only lessons learned from this article are that Ms. Birch and the Washington Blade have zero credibility and will go to any level of personal destruction to further their cause," fumed Cunningham. "I thought 'human rights' represented fairness. The Washington Blade has proven that they will never be a reputable news organization. They continue to maintain their status as a tabloid rag."

[ July 09, 2003, 06:16 AM: Message edited by: DCBucky ]

Whatever Elizabeth Birch may or may not have done (and there is evidence she has named Cunningham as the individual in her story, although the facts about this mysterious Congressman that don't fit Cunningham), to call the Blade a "tabloid" for running the story is outrageous. They ran a story about a prominent DC lobbyist claiming a Congressman is a hypocrite, or at least hiding something. They did not create a rumor or story, they are reporting one.

First, although I haven't seen a copy in years, the Blade is a "tabloid," under common newspaper terminology, as it is printed in a tabloid format. Just like the NY Post or the Village Voice. Tabloids.

Second, under the more colloquial use of the term "tabloid," which would apply to the National Enquirer or Weekly World News, I thiink it's fair to call the Blade a tabloid if all they are doing is reporting a "rumor." Real newspapers are not in the business of spreading gossipy rumors, regardless of whether they are creating them or not. And if a periodical is merely trafficking in rumors ... denied by both the alleged starter of the rumor (Birch) and the alleged subject of the rumor (Cunningham) ... then I think it's entirely fair to dismiss the Washington Blade as a "tabloid rag." It's not "outrageous" at all.

But the main point I want to make is about the whole idea that it's fair to out conservative Republicans and conservative Republicans only. If you take the attitude that outing should be used to "punish" politicians who diverge from the particular set of policy positions of which the Gay Left has pre-approved, then why should you be upset when the subject of the outing treats this as being punished.

In my mind: you don't further the idea that being gay is OK when you use outing as a tool for attacking your perceived enemies. And here, the Washington Blade is using a second-hand rumor of homosexual inclination -- denied by the gay activist who allegedly started the rumor -- to discredit a politician who has said stupid things about gays, gays in the military, and probably a whole lot of other stuff too.

Explain how that furthers the notion that there is nothing wrong with being gay. Explain why, in that context, it's not natural for the target of the rumor to act accordingly.

My point was the the Blade was not merely repeating a rumor. The paper ran a story that reported the head of the nation's largest gay and lesbian civil rights organization was repeatedly and consistently outing a Congressman. She outed him directly to certain people in private and indirectly to others in public. In addition, she has related the story in such a way that, if it occured, the individual would be easily identified (which was the reason people thought she meant Cunningham in the first place). If anything the story carries negative connotations about Elizabeth Birch, not the Congressman, and calls into question her ethics and her accuracy.

I personally don't think it is a good idea to out anyone, although I understand the desire to out those who publically work against gay rights while secretly living as a gay man or lesbian. The Blade, however, did not out the Congressman, or even attempt to - they were questioning whether Birch had done so. They also printed 1) Cunninghams' denial, 2) Birch's denial, 3) accounts from those who said Birch had named Cunningham and 4) the inconsistencies between Cunningham's past (including military service) and the story Birch told.

This is a legitimate news story, not merely a tabloid rumor. If the head of HRC is making it a practice of outing Congressman or, worse, relating stories that aren't true, this is news.

Birch: "Representative Cunningham is a heterosexual male.

So now Ms. Birch has clarified ... ummmmm ... contradicted ... her story: "Elizabeth Birch, outgoing chief of the Human Rights Campaign, has apologized to Rep. Duke Cunningham (R-Calif.) for delivering a speech suggesting that the Congressman is a closeted homosexual.

After Roll Call reported Cunningham’s fury about Birch’s speech, she fired off a letter of apology to the Congressman. And she repeated the apology during an appearance on C-SPAN’s "Washington Journal"Tuesday morning.

"Representative Cunningham is a heterosexual male," she said. "He will tell you that if you ask him. And it is very unfortunate and I think that my presentation, frankly, was sloppy."

It’s unclear why Birch did not make all of this clear to the Washington Blade, a gay newspaper that published the original story about her speech." [from rollcall.com (subscr. req.)

... sounds like Ms. Birch had too many green apple martinis!

This pisses me off more than her contributions to Kerry and Dean - is Birch now saying that calling someone a homosexual is a bad thing? And how exactly does a lesbian "know" the Congressman is a heterosexual male?

Has she denied she was talking about Cunningham, or that the person in question even ever existed? This sounds like a big ole bid to avoid a lawsuit.