July 10, 2004

• Okay, I know this isn't the point of the post, but Sullivan: Did you really mean to imply that being gay is only about what happens in a person's bedroom?
• ...looks like someone already outted this guy.
• i dont know whats funnier, the insuation of bush's homosexuality, or the absolutely ridiculous stereotyping cluelessness of the people making those insinuations... oh wait its betty bowers never mind
• Hmm, this is a tough one for me. On one hand, I am against anyone giving out information about someone they wish to keep private, but on the other hand one of the things that gay activists are trying to prove is that being gay is nothing to be ashamed of. By hiding their sexuality, gays are giving into this culture's fear of homosexuality. Their point is that gays have nothing to hide because there is nothing to be ashamed of. Now, that's in a perfect world... The reality is that even as gay folks can't legaly be fired for their sexual preference, one's boss, should he/she desire, could find another seemingly legitimate reason to remove you from your job and get away with it. In addition, outed gays face familial rejection as well as physical violence. On the whole though, I'd have to side with the folks doing the outing, especially if the people they out work for confirmed homophobes. They kinda deserve to be outed as they are working for assholes. They are contributing to the problem, not just passive innocents.
• squidranch: While I really want to agree with your argument, I have to question if you've ever heard the theory of working for change from the inside. Lot's of us work for assholes, but does that mean that we should have our personal lives aired because of it? As a openly lesbian woman, I'm still appalled that my privacy and safety was recently threatened by a local 'Christian' group, supposedly dedicated to ministering to the homeless and providing shelter to them. It seems that they are more concerned with fighting the homosexual agenda. As a result they published my name and home telephone number on their hate-filled website. So, it's not just privacy that gets invaded, it is often personal safety that is threatened. There are still hateful bigots in the world, and as long as there are I respect, regrettably, anyone's right to stay closeted.
• IgnorantSlut, I actually do understand your argument and sympathize. I am on the fence on this one and made a ballpark judgement. While I wrote the missive above, I was thinking of David Brock, the asswipe who worked for RNC who trashed Anita Hill then "saw the light" and came out to wrote a book telling us of all the crappy things he did while a stooge for the right wing. Whatever... This prick wasn't working for change from the inside and I have a hard time stomaching him now that he is living honestly. This is the sort of situation that a outing would have done much more good than harm. On the whole though I agree with you. You are a smartslut.
• Okay, I know this isn't the point of the post, but Sullivan: Did you really mean to imply that being gay is only about what happens in a person's bedroom? No.
• I bet no one ever thought *gasps, clutches chest, fumbles for nitro tablets*
• goetter, I know it is shocking to see me type those words. The fact is what right does this blogger have to say that this gay staffer is even defending Inhofe. Let alone say he should come out of the closet. That is the staffer's decision. My take on the staffer's comment was that he works with Inhofe (and not on his personal staff) and doesn't condone his views. That is hardly defending the man.
• As a result they published my name and home telephone number on their hate-filled website. Oh, I'd love to see that url, igslu. Wouldn't be related to Jeremy Reynalds, would it?
• Michael Rogers has begun outting people on this blog.
• igslut, you raised an interesting question for me. I agree that outing staffers who work for such crapheads is wrong, absolutely. However, what if it were one of the crapheads opposing gay marriage? Say for instance that I found out that Trent Lott was a drag queen. Does a different standard apply if I'm considering outing him?
• middleclasstool, another interesting proposition. Let me just state that not all drag performers are gay. So would you be outing him as a drag performer or as being gay? Very few things in this world are black and white. Then of course you get into the issue that Trent Lott is an elected official, whereas his staffers are still, technically, private citizens. I have a much harder time putting up with hypocrisy of elected officials in these situations. I think the point I'm elliptically trying to get to is that, for me at least, it's different to work for someone whose opinions you abhor than it is to live your life in one manner and publicly espouse another way of life. So, to answer your question, for me, yes - a different standard does apply. But I don't like that it does. I want to respect peoples rights to privacy and yet, when their politics threaten my freedoms and rights... well, I'm a hypocrite too.
• That's pretty much what I thought. (And yeah, I know there's a difference between transvestite and gay -- I'm a huge Eddie Izzard fan. I just used "drag queen" for a bit of color. Bad choice on my part.) I'll echo your dislike of a different standard, except to emphasize that I'd consider the different standard a necessity -- e.g., if I saw a gay-bashing legislator making out with a man, I'd consider it important to let people know what a huge, lying hypocrite he is. Not because he's gay or because I like scandal politics (I loathe them), but because people need to know the truth about their rulers. It's not a question of moral lapses or indiscretion, but a matter of betraying your own lifestyle and pretending that it's something to be ashamed of. Put another way -- if Strom Thurman had been a champion of civil rights, then I don't think it's anybody's business that he had an illegitimate biracial daughter. But given his civil rights record, then the people he represents need to know. It's okay with me that he had jungle fever, but not okay that he dedicated his career to see to it that his own daughter couldn't have what he had. All this to say that while I understand your distaste as much as any straight man could, I'm not sure it qualifies as hypocrisy.
• That should be "people he represented needed to know."