the politics of "outing"

[BonosSaint]

How far down the chain do you out?

 

[ILuvLarryMullen]

i have no problem with exposing hypocracy. (that wasn't meant to be a reply to the post above mine, just a general statement on the whole thread).

 

[Angela Harlem]

many people do, it seems.



this could be a thread on it's own. i wonder what the general view on that is.

 

[Kieran McConville]

If people's private lives really don't matter, then what business on earth do any political figures have saying what the government should or should not proscribe? That's the nub of it, right?

No, if someone wants to make a living persecuting gay people, they deserve anything they get.

 

[BVS]

If they don't believe in gay marriage, then they don't believe in who they are?

The point I was trying to make. Is that the only reason people want homosexual marriage to be illegal is that they believe in some interpretation of religion that tells them it's a sin. That's it's wrong. So for any homosexual to truly believe it should be outlawed is claiming they are wrong, and what they do is wrong.

 

[nbcrusader]

If people's private lives really don't matter, then what business on earth do any political figures have saying what the government should or should not proscribe? That's the nub of it, right?

No, if someone wants to make a living persecuting gay people, they deserve anything they get.

If an individual runs for office and does not support changing laws to allow for gay marriage, they are deemed persecutors and the rights you would normally extend and argue for are thrown out the window?

 

[nbcrusader]

The point I was trying to make. Is that the only reason people want homosexual marriage to be illegal is that they believe in some interpretation of religion that tells them it's a sin. That's it's wrong. So for any homosexual to truly believe it should be outlawed is claiming they are wrong, and what they do is wrong.

As we saw in the other thread, there is broad support for maintaining marriage between a man and a woman (red & blue states). The support goes well beyond what can be characterized as the voice of Christians who read Scripture as saying that homosexual behavior is a sin.

And even if you deem the individual wrong on a public statement, does that mean the individual's rights are forfeited?

 

[melon]

As we saw in the other thread, there is broad support for maintaining marriage between a man and a woman (red & blue states). The support goes well beyond what can be characterized as the voice of Christians who read Scripture as saying that homosexual behavior is a sin.

And even if you deem the individual wrong on a public statement, does that mean the individual's rights are forfeited?

According to polls, over half of the nation believes in creationism over evolution, so I certainly think you can't brush aside the influence that Christian pseudothought has on society.

Melon

 

[BVS]

As we saw in the other thread, there is broad support for maintaining marriage between a man and a woman (red & blue states).

And why would that be, other than thinking homosexuality is wrong?

The support goes well beyond what can be characterized as the voice of Christians who read Scripture as saying that homosexual behavior is a sin.

I'd like to see evidence of that. I would think any secular vote against would be purely homophobia, and not some sanctity reasoning. For I haven't heard one person claim so.

 

[Moonlit_Angel]

he has made it his business to make the personal lives of people matter -- and, at the end of the day, don't personal lives matter, since society rewards aspects of personal life like marriage, which is the public sanction, recognition, and appreciation of one's private life -- then isn't he subject to the same standards?

A very good point. I see your side of the argument, can agree with the thoughts being put forward here, because hypocrisy does tend to bug me.

At the same time, though, I also tend to be of the belief that a person's private life should remain such. If they want to share a part of their life with the public, they should do so when they feel comfortable doing it. And if a person is spouting off homophobic views and yet is secretly gay, that kind of thing DOES tend to catch up with them eventually-lies and hypocrisy generally do have a way of coming back to bite the liar/hypocrite in the butt. So I wouldn't need to expose them-they'll trip up on their own eventually.

So I'm kinda on the fence, I guess.

to anitram and Angela Harlem's posts, by the way.

Angela

 

[BonosSaint]

I think outing is a fair technique against someone who is taking a high profile position against the civil rights of gays, a political or religious or whatever opportunist who deliberately panders to homophobia to further his own reputation or career. The worst offenders. Those who are powerful enough to affect those rights through legislation, or whose positions carry enough moral authority (or moral justification) that they can whip their followers into a homophobic frenzy.

I am completely uncomfortable with Melon's position on staff. Legislators' staffs worked on hundreds of issues, 99% of which do not deal with gay rights or lack thereof. While some may disagree with the principles of a staffer for working for such a legislator (or consider him a traitor), I am not sure that his "actions" warrant outing. It becomes then not a political tool, but a vindicative gesture. I think that crossing the boundary of exposing someone's private life should be reserved for those undeniably and specifically doing the damage.

 

[Irvine511]

while i'm still not sure, since most people tend to be against outing, i'll post some pro-outing thoughts:

The simple standard should be that it is proper to discuss, report on and ask about the sexual orientation of public figures—and only public figures—when relevant to a larger story (and only when relevant). In that respect, Cynthia Nixon would actually not pass muster as much some antigay members of Congress do. Congressman David Dreier, for example, is someone reporters should now be scrutinizing heavily, asking the question every time he shows up in public, and reporting on the hypocrisy of his life. Dreier, as I wrote in this column two weeks ago, is the California Republican and major George W. Bush booster (throughout the convention the Bush campaign put him on tv as much as it could) who has voted against gay rights for years—from the Employment Non-Discrimination Act to the Marriage Protection Act just two months ago. There have been rumors about the unmarried 50-something congressman for years, and yet when I asked him about his sexual orientation at the Republican National Convention, he gave me the Cynthia Nixon response, refusing to deny that he was gay but refusing to confirm it.

That response, however, didn’t land him on the front pages of the papers in his district the way Nixon was splashed across the front page of the New York Post. In fact, last week, Mark Cromer, features editor at Hustler magazine, which reportedly plans a sexual expose of Dreier for November, charged that the press in Dreier’s San Gabriel Valley district is protecting the congressman. Cromer, a former reporter for a string of conservative newspapers in the Valley, told Doug Ireland in the LA Weekly that the papers have covered up the details of a relationship that Dreier has had with his chief of staff, Brad Smith. The CEO of the company that owns the papers, Dean Singleton, is a major contributor to the Republican Party.

Now, don’t you think if we can hear about the lesbian love life of Miranda from Sex and the City, we should also know all about the true identities of the hypocrites on Capitol Hill?

-- MichaelAngelo Signorille

 

[joyfulgirl]

I think outing is a fair technique against someone who is taking a high profile position against the civil rights of gays, a political or religious or whatever opportunist who deliberately panders to homophobia to further his own reputation or career. The worst offenders. Those who are powerful enough to affect those rights through legislation, or whose positions carry enough moral authority (or moral justification) that they can whip their followers into a homophobic frenzy.

I am completely uncomfortable with Melon's position on staff. Legislators' staffs worked on hundreds of issues, 99% of which do not deal with gay rights or lack thereof. While some may disagree with the principles of a staffer for working for such a legislator (or consider him a traitor), I am not sure that his "actions" warrant outing. It becomes then not a political tool, but a vindicative gesture. I think that crossing the boundary of exposing someone's private life should be reserved for those undeniably and specifically doing the damage.

I think this most closely articulates the way I feel about it, the more I think about it. Staffers are generally more vulnerable than those to whom they report and are often young and caught up in the system, just trying to do their jobs. I was very conflicted in a job I had once and when my boss was called to testify before the Ethics Committee I certainly would not have wanted to be judged in my lowly position for his actions. I just needed the job. I did eventually resign, though.

 

[Moonlit_Angel]

I think that crossing the boundary of exposing someone's private life should be reserved for those undeniably and specifically doing the damage.

I think you've just sealed the argument for me. I can go with this line of thinking.

Angela

 

[nbcrusader]

I think you've just sealed the argument for me. I can go with this line of thinking.

Angela

But that is now a subjective judgment as to who is doing what damage. If I can make a reasonable case for "damage" - the door is now wide open to political use of one's private life.

 

[indra]

I think outing is a fair technique against someone who is taking a high profile position against the civil rights of gays, a political or religious or whatever opportunist who deliberately panders to homophobia to further his own reputation or career. The worst offenders. Those who are powerful enough to affect those rights through legislation, or whose positions carry enough moral authority (or moral justification) that they can whip their followers into a homophobic frenzy.

I am completely uncomfortable with Melon's position on staff. Legislators' staffs worked on hundreds of issues, 99% of which do not deal with gay rights or lack thereof. While some may disagree with the principles of a staffer for working for such a legislator (or consider him a traitor), I am not sure that his "actions" warrant outing. It becomes then not a political tool, but a vindicative gesture. I think that crossing the boundary of exposing someone's private life should be reserved for those undeniably and specifically doing the damage.

Well stated. That position works for me.

 

[indra]

But that is now a subjective judgment as to who is doing what damage. If I can make a reasonable case for "damage" - the door is now wide open to political use of one's private life.

Yep. It already is wide open. And until all (or at least the vast majority) agree that private lives should remain out of the political arena some people are going to get strung up for their's. No one ever said politics was fair and decent.

 

[the soul waits]

Very interesting thread here.

Many things to consider on this issue.

On the one hand, yes, I believe that hypocracy should be exposed when it goes to the extent that gay politicians actively fight gay rights.
I think that's a general principle that goes for other fields as well. (afro-american rights, womens rights, childrens rights, just to name a few)

Also, there clearly still is the need in the US for a certain activism to obtain gay rights. So yes, I think that involves sticking your neck out and outing yourself whilst proving by living the life you lead, that you're just a human being like the heterosexual part of society. History teaches us that it's just like that, people on the barricades do get things accomplished while there is a whole group with the same ideas staying silent, being oppressed and are suffering from the consequences.
So, there can definately be a political and human-rights-benefit to owning up to whatever you are and are fighting for.

On the other hand, like Angela Harlem said, it simply should not be necessary. People should just be treated equal. Period.
Unfortunately, that's not the case.

I agree with Irvine when he says that gays in the 50s and 60s had a rough time, many lives destroyed.
It's exactly because of the gays who were on the barricades (in many different ways) that society had to adapt and learn to accept what are basically just differences between people.

On the other hand, I believe that once basic gay rights are established, outing becomes less necessary upto the point that it's just none of anyone's business what you do in your private life as long as you're not harming anyone.

 

[Moonlit_Angel]

But that is now a subjective judgment as to who is doing what damage. If I can make a reasonable case for "damage" - the door is now wide open to political use of one's private life.

I'd figure that in cases like these, "damage" would be defined as a person who, for example, using the main issue at hand here, is homophobic to the point of taking away the civil rights of homosexuals-if they're going to that measure of discrimination, it can be seen as damaging to the victims of said discrimination.

Or, indra's post makes sense, too.

Angela

 

[Irvine511]

in the spirit of the thread, and because i know everyone is just so curious, here's a list of Republicans who may or may not be gay:

United States Representatives

US Rep. Ed Schrock (VA)
US Rep. David Drier (CA)
US Rep. James McCrery (LA)
US Rep. Mark Foley (FL)

Senior Republican Staff

Jay Timmons - National Republican Senatorial Committee
Dan Gurley, National Field Director, Republican National Committee
Ken Mehlman, Chairman, Republican National Committee
Jay Banning, Chief Financial Officer & Director of Administration, RNC

Senior Senate Staffers

Robert Traynham, Rick Santorum (PA)
Jonathan Tolman, James Inhofe (OK)
Kirk Fordham, Mel Martinez (FL)
Dirk Smith, Trent Lott (MS)
John Reid, George Allen (VA)
Paul Unger, George Allen (VA)
Linus Catignani, Bill Frist (TN)


Senior House Staffers

Jim Conzelman, Rep. Mike Oxley (OH)
Lee Cohen, Rep. Melissa Hart (OH)
Robert O'Conner, Rep. Peter King (NY)
Pete Meachum, Rep. Ginny Brown-Waite (FL)



Bush Administration Staffers

Israel Hernandez, office of Karl Rove and Assistant Secretary of Commerce
Jeff Berkowitz, Bush Liaison to Jewish Community


Local Elected Officials

Vincent Gentile, NY City Council


The rest of the gang...

Ed Koch, former mayor of New York City
Jennifer Helms-Knox, Judge in NC campaign staffer for Jesse Helms Campaigns
Armstrong Williams, Talk show host.
Matt Drudge, Headline writer
Steve Kreseski, Governor Bob Erlich of MD
Chip DiPaula, Governor Bob Erlich of MD
Lee LaHaye, the chief financial officer of the Concerned Women for America
John Schlafley, Eagle Forum legal staff

http://www.blogactive.com/

 

[nbcrusader]

So long, right of privavy......

 

[Irvine511]

So long, right of privavy......

isn't that the "so-called" right?

but it does return to the original question, and in the mind of the webmaster of BlogActive, if you are a Republican, then you are actively working to harm gay people. thus, your private life is game, as is the private life of Cameron Diaz, Oprah, Britney and K-Fed, etc.

 

[deep]

Under the headline "Arnold Quits the 'Fag Business," Radar mag's "Fresh Intelligence" columnSchwarzenegger3inside reports: "'Arnold has had a long association with rich gay men,' according to Wendy Leigh, author of Schwarzenegger: An Unauthorized Biography. 'When he moved to England [around the time of his first Mr. Universe title in 1967], John Dixey, a British businessman and well-known aficionado of muscle boys, was very, very kind to Arnold. You have to understand, before Arnold came on the scene, it was common currency that bodybuilders were less than macho—it was absolutely given and accepted that they supported themselves by catering to the tastes of wealthy gay men.'

"Another of Schwarzenegger’s early benefactors, Leigh says, was Paco Arce Gomez, a Spanish millionaire and renowned gay playboy. In a 1992 Spy magazine profile of the Conan the Barbarian star, Arce was credited as the lensman behind a series of photos [like the one above right] from the Austrian’s early days, showing him 'eating breakfast off of very fancy china wearing a tank top and tight underwear.' (Schwarzenegger also posed nude for homoerotic photog Robert Mapplethorpe at least three times in the seventies and famously appeared naked in a 22-photo spread in now-defunct gay rag After Dark.)

"Paul Barresi, an L.A.-based private investigator who claims P.I. Anthony Pellicano hired him before the 2002 election to 'look into' any compromising relationships the then-prospective candidate still had in the demimonde, said he was 'shocked that Arnold would turn his back on the very people who were obviously so helpful to him. In fact, Arnold even met his wife, Maria [Shriver], though his friendship with a gay member of Maria’s family.'

"The Governator has been careful to frame his veto as promoting the will of the people as evidenced by an outdated 2000 vote against same-sex nuptials (today public opinion is split down the middle), and has been mostly mum about his personal feelings on the issue. At least since his notorious 1977 interview with Oui magazine, in which he claimed to 'have absolutely no hang-ups about the fag business.' Apparently, it doesn’t pay like it used to," smirks Radar.