Come out, Come out wherever you are! (And if you don't we'll do it for you!)
According to the AP there is a small movement within the Queer Community to "out" right-wing politicians that are allegedly closeted gays. These are people that have either publicly come out against gay rights or work closely within the current administration.
Here is part of the report:
"Though decried by many gay-rights leaders, "outing"--the practice of exposing secretly gay public figures--is expanding into new terrain as Internet bloggers target congressional staffers, political strategists, even black clergy whose sermons and speeches contain anti-gay rhetoric.
Few issues are as divisive within the gay community. Numerous gay organizations, such as the Human Rights Campaign and the Log Cabin Republicans, staunchly oppose outing, yet many other activists support it when the targets are public figures--or their aides--who work against gay rights or condemn homosexuality.
"It's not the gay thing that's the problem--it's the hypocrisy," said Michael Rogers, creator of a Web log that has been at the forefront of several recent outing campaigns. "I'm going to be calling out the politicians who vote against us and work against the interests of the very community they come from."
I have to say that I understand where Michael is coming from and I have also checked out his blog and some of the posts seem valid although on the whole it is a little "rant-ish". But I still understand his point. People who use the detriment of their own community to advance their own power agendas really have no place in the community. But do we as activists need to tear them a new one "for being gay"?
I am not so sure about this. First, because while some instances have been more or less confirmed there are quite a few more that are clearly speculation. And when you are using only speculation to me that equates to nothing more than personal attacks and smearing. These kind of tactics make us no better than our opposition. Secondly, I know what it feels like to be "outed". It's not fun. And whether we like them or not, shouldn't we still be willing to consider these people our brothers and sister's anyways and treat them as we did our other friends and loved ones. (Think back to how you treated your closeted friends in college). Yes these people are working against us but again, isn't it our duty to 'take the high road' to separate ourselves from the heartless that stand against us?
Not sure if you can tell or not but for the most part I am not in favor of the "outing" campaign.
Still, part of me is very torn. Discuss.
Written by Marshall O'Coileain
This entry was posted
on Wednesday, October 05, 2005 at 2:22 PM.
Want to discuss? Leave a comment below.
ByIn general, I am not a fan of outing. It can do a lot of harm to an individual, especially if they are not prepared to deal with their sexuality.
Having said that, I really have no sympathy for politicians who are in hiding and have supported anti-gay measures, or who have talked out against our community. I don't think we need to be nasty, but I think it is fair game in politics if a closeted person is making anti-gay statements to point out that there are gay.
I also agree with you that we should not engage in ruthless speculation. That does nobody any good and can hurt our own credibility. Why is calling someone gay a personal attack and smearing? Now I know that in reality it is a personal attack and smearing, but I think it is an interesting question nonetheless. I am looking forward to the day when it is not considered a personal attack and smearing by the public at large.
I love you optimism and your kindness. We need to always remember that. Still if these closeted politicians are selling us down the river, do they deserve to be called our brothers and sisters? I think we can take the high road while pointing out hypocritical politicians, and still have compassion and kindness in our message.
In general, I am not a fan of outing, especially for innocent people, however I think politicians are fair play. As people that make decision for us that affect our lives, we should be able to question them and their motives.
As an aside, I don't think David Dreier's fate would have been different had he been a Democrat. I don't see either party giving the top job to a homosexual.
By
Right, the problem with Drier is that he opposed the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA), which would have banned discrimination against gay people in hiring; voted for the gay-bashing Defense of Marriage Act; voted for banning adoption by gay and lesbian couples in the District of Columbia (3,000 miles away from Dreier's district); voted to allow federally funded charities to discriminate against gays in employment, even where local laws prohibit such bias; and voted against the Hate Crimes Prevention Act.
He's nasty nasty nasty. He needed to be outed.
By
Thanks for the props...and I appreciate the work in having as many people discuss the work of my blog as possible.
The Cases reported on blogACTIVE are never made out of speculation...trust me if that were the case there would be hundreds of more cases reported. Calling people out on their hypocrisy is serious business and not something I do without evidence.
I agree that we should treat our closeted brothers and sisters with respect In every case where I have learned that as person may lose their job (Heritage Foundation and Sen. James Inhofe district offices come to mind) I do not report on the cases. In every case I make multiple attempts to talk directly to the subject.
The only cases reported on are those I refer to as "stuck" in their coming out process and "stuck" in their homophobia. For example, last year I heard of a major staffer on capitol hill who was an anti gay GOPer. I learned his wife and kids were not yet aware of his being gay and that he was working on coming to terms with it all. That was enough for me to put the case away and to move on.
Now, if in 5 years this guy is stuck in the same place, I'll review the case. Since he came out recently to his friends, however, I suspect his journey is continuing and is not the kind of story I would report on.
Contrast that to Ed Schrock. Talk about "stuck." Here's a guy, in Congress who served 23 years in the Navy and wanted to repeal Don't Ask DOn't Tell to permanently bar all gays from serving. That case was a no-brainer as to whether or not he should be reported on.
I think your being torn would be less so when you consider all of the standards I use before reporting on any individual.
Mike Rogers
» Post a Comment