Outing politicians. Should it be done?

[TheBigotBasher]

In the UK Peter Tatchell managed to do a lot for gay rights by causing fear among outwardly homophobic closeted gay politicians and reporters.

In my eyes, although I did not always agree with his choice of target, in that many of his outings were of people who did not work against gays, he was a hero.

The Republicans have got themselves worked up as a result of what is at the moment nothing but a rumored outing, which includes a key Democratic Party operative as well.

Should Republicans who vote against gay rights be outed?

[napoleon_in_rags]

1. If a politician has a drink in private, its his business.

Unless he is a prohibitionist. EOM

[iamjoy]

3. +1

If a gay politician who is friendly to equal rights wants to remain in the closet, let him/her. Maybe they should be encouraged to come out to serve as inspiration to others, but not "forced" Let's give the benefit of the doubt that they believe they can do more to advance the cause keeping their own sexual orientation private. We may not agree with that, but it isn't our decision to make.

If a politician is against gay rights and gay - that's just bullshit. Out them in the most humiliating way possible.

[napoleon_in_rags]

9. You're exactly right. Because its about more than being gay at that point.

I've had gay friends who were for rights but pretty closeted, saying they didn't want it to define them and so forth, which is one thing. But when they are saying it should be illegal, and then doing it, they are either acting overtly criminal by their own definition, or they believe themselves to be part of some kind of elite who is above the law. These are matters of huge import when it comes to politicians, as most Americans believe no person is above the law. I say out them at that point.

[TheBigotBasher]

4. Exactly the kind of person Tatchell went after.

Public prohibitionists, private drinkers. All of whom had a position of influence.

[dkf]

2. Maybe super hypocrites.

Other than that I say no big deal.

[MNBrewer]

15. but not the somewhat hypocritical?

Even one passing comment that casts equality in a negative light would be enough for me to support their being outted.

[Double T]

5. Do you mean: If hypocritical rethugs who are gay vote against gay rights.......

should they be outed? Outed...YES, and perhaps stoned too.

[TheBigotBasher]

7. Something I am looking in to.

http://illinoisreview.typepad.com/illinoisreview/2009/12/rumor-source-is-lifelong-democrat-and-burris-fundraiser.html?cid=6a00d834515c5469e20128766fd2f8970c

It has Republicans going mad.

[provis99]

6. it's no big deal if its known that a politician is a heterosexual.

It's perfectly fine to "out" a politician as being a heterosexual. So why is it bad to "out" a politician as being a homosexual? I don't think homosexuality is a bad thing, or something that needs to be hidden, any more than being heterosexual is. And there's nothing wrong with calling out a politician on his hypocrisy.

[Toasterlad]

19. Sadly, Most of the Country Doesn't Agree With You That Being Homosexual Isn't a "Bad Thinkg"

Until this country grows up enough to regard homosexuality as naturally as heterosexuality, there will still be people in the closet...and people working AGAINST GLBT people.

[Warpy]

8. I'm generally against outing. We all have things we prefer

to keep very private. Gays with phobe famlies they would like to continue speaking to are especially at risk.

However, when some pol bases his career on discriminating against a group and is secretly part of that group, yes, he needs to be outed.

After all, Democrats are not generally looking down their long blue noses, pursing their lips and telling the rest of us how to conduct our lives. They will likely survive the outing.

When I say outing, I'm not talking specifically of gays. I'm talking about antidrug crusaders with coke habits, of antiporn crusaders with computers full of it, of any of the various moralists who do their best to make the rest of us miserable while they partake of whatever they're basing a career out of trying to abolish with the conceit that they can handle it but no one else can.

It's not the behavior as much as the rank, stinking hypocrisy, and that's why they need to be outed.

Thank you. <plink, plink>

[TheBigotBasher]

10. Accepted

As I said, I objected to some of the outings Peter Tatchell did in the UK, they were not always anti gay bigots, however most of them were and as a result he changed the policy positions of the Murdoch owned Sun and Members of Parliament.

Two Republicans running for Senate and possibly a key Democrat are likely to be outed. The latter has not taken a stand on gay rights, which some may view just as badly as opposing them.

I still very much doubt the credibility of the stories, given where they emanate from, although in terms of good Republican Congress members, I can not think of any Republican who has been a vocal supporter of equality.

[EmeraldCityGrl]

11. I have a problem with it when there are families

with children involved.

[TheBigotBasher]

12. I think that is a reason to out.

I do however understand the point.

The issue I have with American outings is that the reaction caused is likely to result in someone worse being elected as a result.

[closeupready]

38. I am gay and I have a family.

I don't have a child, but gay families do have children.

If she is saying that the families of closeted gay Republicans should be more highly protected than the families of the gay people whose rights they work to damage, fuck that.

[closeupready]

37. Wait, what? That wasn't the question. Did you mispost?

???

[Behind the Aegis]

13. This is very, very tricky.

What if a closeted gay politician (either party) votes against same-sex marriage equality, but s/he really is against granting equal rights to same-sex couples? Should that person be outed? In all honesty, s/he is not being hypocritical. How would we know? A politician who makes his/her platform (or a good portion of it) on homophobia, but is really gay...OUT THE FUCKER!

Hypocrisy always deserves to be "outed!"

[Unvanguard]

14. Probably not, but if it's a conservative hypocrite, my protests are going to be pretty quiet. n/t

[mitchtv]

16. absolutely

the truth will out hypocrites

[TheBigotBasher]

17. Well it is kicking off in Chicago

Republicans are busy almost outing each other. Surprisingly, or not, much of it is the fault of Steele. He thought the Republicans had bagged a Hillary supporting potential Barney Frank, when all he has done was recruit a Libertarian hater, more akin to Perez Hilton, whose only reason for being so pro Hillary was that he was very anti Obama. The blogger was feted by top brass Republicans, Rush Limpballs has been promoting his site and now the Rethugs have got burnt by a gossip.

It has got bigot Andy Martin excluded from the Chicago Primaries and Republicans up in arms.

http://illinoisreview.typepad.com/illinoisreview/2009/12/rumor-source-is-lifelong-democrat-and-burris-fundraiser.html?cid=6a00d834515c5469e20128766fd2f8970c

The offending article.

http://hillbuzz.org/2009/12/18/what-chicago-democrats-are-planning-to-do-to-out-republicans-mark-kirk-and-aaron-schock/

[Toasterlad]

18. Of Course It Should.

Any hypocritical POS who hides in the closet while legislating against GLBT people should be dragged out kicking and screaming and thrown under a spotlight so bright it highlights every fucking wrinkle and pore.

I'm a firm believer in respecting the desire of people who wish to remain in the closet...coming out is a very personal decision that everyone must come to terms with in their own sweet time. But that changes when you have a public trust to make lives better for your GLBT countrymen, and you instead work against them, even though you're gay yourself.

That's called being a traitor, and it warrants exposure, shame, and ridicule.

Those who work FOR GLBT people while hiding in the closet...well, I don't think they should be outed, but I don't have much respect for them, either.

[TheBigotBasher]

20. So what do you think of the stories I linked to

in the post right above you?

[Toasterlad]

25. I Think That The Author Is a Hateful Log Cabin Jackass With Questionable Motives.

I know absolutely nothing about Chicago politics, and nothing about Kirk or Schock (outside of enjoying them in Star Trek this summer. Ha!). I certainly have no way of knowing if they're gay, or, more importantly, if they work toward anti-gay goals (since they're Republicans, I'd have to assume they ARE anti-gay). If they are (anti-gay), I'd be delighted if they were outed (if they're gay), regarless of the motivation. But in any case, I have as little respect for Log Cabin Republicans as I do for closeted Republican legislators.

[TheBigotBasher]

26. He is worse than a Log Cabin Rethug

he is a nasty PUMA who has developed a big Conservative following as a result of Rush Limpballs plugging him. He called him his Chicago babes.

Of course, their outing by a non entity version of Perez Hilton, has caused major fights among Rethugs. So it is good all round.

[ruggerson]

21. "Outing" itself is a homophobic concept

as it proceeds from the construct that there is something inherently wrong with being gay, hence something to "hide."

If we are to move into the future, we have to start from a different premise. Our worldview should START with the fact that being gay is no different, no better, no worse than being straight.

When we encourage news organizations to be complicit in hiding politician's or celebrity's gay orientation, we are PERPETUATING the cycle.

There should be absolutely no difference in coverage for public consumption. If they cover the heterosexual dating habits and dalliances of straight politicians and celebrities (and they do) then they should cover the dating habits and dalliances of the gay ones.

I don't make the distinction anymore between those who support and those who oppose gay rights. WE live in a tabloid world and it's time we demanded that the news media treat us no differently than straight people.

[TheBigotBasher]

22. An article by Peter Tatchell on "outing"

http://www.petertatchell.net/outing/defence.htm

PETER TATCHELL argues that "outing" gay public figures who are homophobic and hypocritical is morally justified and necessary.

Before February 21 last year, there was little support for "outing" within the lesbian and gay community. But since that night, when parliament voted against an equal age of consent for gay men, more and more queers have become convinced that "outing" is legitimate self-defence against a hypocritical and homophobic society.

Although the gay community presented a rational, poignant case for equality, the majority of MPs remained unmoved by reason or compassion. The parliamentary process failed to uphold our human rights. Democracy proved to be a licence to discriminate.

Even worse, the vote for equality was lost, in part, by closeted gay and bisexual MPs who voted against sixteen.

Since polite lobbying has not succeeded, increasing numbers of lesbians and gay men are now convinced that "outing" (and the threat of "outing") can, in certain circumstances, be a very effective way of putting pressure on the political establishment to support equal rights.

While there is still relatively little backing for the indiscriminate "outing" of all gay MPs, the mood among queers is definitely shifting in favour of exposing closeted homosexual MPs who endorse anti-gay policies, such as the unequal age of consent. By supporting a discriminatory age, they are criminalising 16 and 17 year old gay men (and their partners). These MPs cannot expect other gay people to collude with their infliction of suffering.

In these circumstances, "outing" is queer self-defence. Many of us feel a moral duty to do whatever we can to protect members of our community against victimisation. If "outing" can help destroy the power and credibility of gay public figures who harm other lesbians and gay men, then arguably it is the morally right thing to do. By not "outing" influential gay people who are homophobic, we allow them to continue to hurt other homosexuals. Our silence and inaction make us accomplices by default.

Furthermore, "outing" (or the threat of "outing") may help persuade some homophobic closet gays to stop doing damage to other gay people, and thereby prevent considerable suffering. It can also very effectively pressure homophobic institutions to reconsider their anti-gay policies.

This is what happened when OutRage! named ten Anglican Bishops last November. Suddenly, for the first time ever, the Church of England began high-level dialogue with the Lesbian and Gay Christian Movement. In January, the Bishops held a previously unscheduled re-examination of their stance on homosexuality, which resulted in a strongly-worded condemnation of homophobic discrimination and anti-gay violence. Church officials have privately admitted that none of these developments would have occurred if OutRage! had not "provoked a crisis" by naming the Bishops.

[ruggerson]

23. I go much further than he does

Straight and gay people in the public eye should expect to be treated exactly the same by the news media.

If John Edwards, a generally "pro-gay rights" politician, had been having dalliances with a man instead of a woman, that should have been hidden just because he was gay friendly in his politics?

I don't think so.

[TheBigotBasher]

24. Agreed

That is still outing as he was selling a happy family picture and he got called out for his hypocrisy.

He could have handled that so much better.

As for the Chicago story, both Republicans are in denial, it was also funny to read Andy Martin got booted for rerunning the story.

[MNBrewer]

27. I disagree...

Outing is a jujitsu-like use of homophobia against itself. It, in itself is not "a homophobic concept".

[ruggerson]

30. Sure it is

"outing" would not exist if there were no closet to be yanked from.

In the context of politicians and celebrities, the question should not be "do we out them" - it should be re-framed as "how do we want the media to treat differing sexual orientations of famous people?"

And the answer should be - they should treat them exactly the same.

[MNBrewer]

32. No it's not.

those who would choose to be in the closet while enforcing the closet are dragged, kicking and screaming into the light. When the closet is empty, no more closet.

[dsc]

28. there is one major problem with that notion

gays still can be fired simply for being gay in an awful lot of places. Until that changes, there is a real qualitiative difference between saying Bob and Sue were seen at Club X and Bob and Jim were seen at Club X even if all four people are single.

[ruggerson]

29. Bob and Jim are not politicians or celebrities

In our country, fame brings a consequence. One of which is a media generated loss of privacy.

[dsc]

31. teachers are public figures under the same standards as other ones

when it comes to student journalists to name one example.

[TheBigotBasher]

42. Bob and Jim

a State representatives or even Federal Reps, have the power to legislate to ensure that Bob and Jim from the hardware store are not sacked simply because they are gay.

I would say there are also good and bad ways of outing. If the outing reveals their hypocrisy it serves a purpose, if all that it does is get a Primary opponent elected, what lesson does that teach except no gays?

[Tyo]

33. No one in politics has a right to a private life.

That's one of the things you give up when you get into the biz these days. Spouses and children should be exempt though unless they've done something material.

[TheBigotBasher]

41. To what level "no one"?

I understand people in Congress but Town Council, City, State?

Isn't politics too much a participatory sport of the rich?

[dickthegrouch]

34. Hell, yes. If they're traitors to the cause /nt

[RetiredTrotskyite]

35. If They Are Helping Wherever They Can...

they should be left alone. However, if they are backing homophobic laws and otherwise trying to make gay people's lives miserable then they should definitely be "outed".

[closeupready]

36. If you work to pass laws stripping me of my rights, then fuck you.

Regardless of whether or not you are gay. If you do that, then you relinquish your own rights, too, at least in the court of public opinion.

[Iggo]

43. Bam. Right there.

[Deep13]

39. Yes. The perception should match the reality.

It will make it harder for politicians to be hypocrits and it will make it harder for poeple to think that the country is as up-tight white-bread as they think it is.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

40. only if they are actively working against gay rights

[roughsatori]

44. Absolutely YES. They should be outed ASAP.

I have participated in outing campaigns. Democratic Party members and Republicans should be outed. If they lied to wives and their children, then that is a problem they created--let them deal with it. I want equal rights now. I'm tired of the cowards in currently in office,in the News fields and in DU.