Outing Hypocrites
Back when I was a callow ingénue (a couple of years ago), I had a Craig’s List hookup. The hookup’s spacious apartment was the most memorable thing about the whole thing. A few weeks later, I was checking one of the blogs I read, and a headline jumped out at me: top Republican staffer outed. I clicked the link, and saw the face of my unremarkable trick from those weeks ago. So, that’s why he was so guarded, was my first thought. My second thought was, I could have been another Monica Lewinsky. Sans the dress.
In DC—in politics in general—scandal is currency and outing is the coup de grace of the gay activist community. This past week has seen the outing of John McCain’s chief of staff, Mark Buse. My feelings on outing are complex and sometimes contrary. I think celebrity outing is stupid. Who cares if Clay Aiken or Lance Bass are gay? And besides, what’s the use dragging out someone who’s ashamed of who they are? We live in a homophobic society, and I respect everyone’s choice with regards to this private matter. On the other hand, when politicians are actively working to limit people’s rights, I take an ‘all is fair in love and war’ attitude. Folks like Larry Craig and Ted Haggard are raging hypocrites, enjoying sex while condemning everyone else.
But when it comes to outing support staff, I have some reservations. Sure, Buse and my trick of long ago work for anti-gay forces. But they don’t wield any real power. Maybe these gay Republican staffers genuinely support the missions of their bosses, but disagree with one aspect. Maybe working on the Hill is just a job to them that looks really good on a resume. I don’t agree with the Log Cabin Republicans, but they have a right to their point of view.
What are your thoughts?
17 comments:
Being in the closet is not always about being ashamed. Being in the closet can be a conscious decision made because being out of the closet would distract from a purpose that someone finds more valuable than telling people that they're gay.
i'm curious as to how it would distract--because you would be overwhelmed with the urge to drop your pants every time you saw a member of the same sex?
No because instead of being focused on the goal you're actually trying to achieve OTHER people would be distracted by the fact that you're gay.
See my comments here: http://www.thenewgay.net/2008/04/teacher-there-are-things-i-dont-want-to.html
I think politics is very similar to the idea I voiced there.
kinda like women being no good at running the country because people wouldn't be able to stop looking at their tits? ;)
yeah, kinda like that for women circa 1930. which is about wear gays are in terms of acceptance and "normality" in society's eyes. if telling the world about their sexuality - which is part of one's personal life anyway - is going to hinder someone from making greater social change, it is no one's right to announce their sexuality for them.
if someone is so brilliant and politically powerful that they can continue to fight for gay rights, education, women's right whatever w/o announcing that they have a gay partner, why should they have to? just to make other gays feel more validated?? that's bullshit. there are other out people who can validate the life of insecure (not always insecure in a bad way) gays.
One major difference is that Mark Buse was already out. I think it's shameful for him to work for someone who has voted against employment protections, hate crime bills, smart HIV/AIDS strategy, an end to Don't Ask, Don't Tell, etc. but hey, I don't make choices for everyone.
I'm with you on outing politicians who hold these views and then go tapping on the bathroom stall next to theirs but for staffers who aren't public officials, they make me crazy but I don't want to be in a position to dictate someone else's coming out.
first of all, what you guys don’t understand is that mark buse was already out - and has been out for years. but just because you don't see him at town does not mean he is in the closet. and furthermore just because john mccain doesn’t support gay issues 100% of the time that doesn’t makes him a homophobe. if i remember correctly, which i do because i was in the senate gallery when it happened, mccain voted against the federal marriage amendment.
now on to outing. this is something i know a little something about. because as a gay republican, we are usually the ones subjected to this ‘all is fair in love and war’ attitude you speak of. in the summer of 2004 i was a young intern on the hill just coming to terms with my sexuality and experiencing washington politics for the first time. and during this time john aravosis, who is a sad man usually right in the middle of any outing of gay republicans – oh, and also deals e on the side from his apartment in dupont, was cutting a shermanesque path up and down pennsylvania avenue outing every gay republican he could find. i was frightened, i was just starting my career in politics and the last thing i wanted was to see was my name in roll call. so what did i do? i receded back into the closet not to emerge again until one year later. therefore missing out on what could have been a year of new experiences and new love and maybe encouraging someone else to take the huge and personal step of coming out.
outing anyone is wrong. everyone who reads this blog knows that coming out is an extremely long and personal process – and sometimes painful process as evident by the number of young adults who choose to commit suicide because of it. it takes time and its only something that you can do yourself. but because of people like john aravosis, and other progressive (codeword for liberal) bloggers, who feel it is their duty in life to hold gay republicans to a different standard, more republicans choose not to come out and choose instead to live a life full of lies. and who would blame them – i wouldn’t want to become part of a community that vilifies my work, my beliefs, and everything else that’s makes me, me.
I think outing, especially of staffers, is sad and pathetic.
All of these guys are on their own personal journeys. Being gay is not as easy for some people as it is for others and I think that the best way to continue making homosexuality more and more accepted by American culture, is to be our comfortable, well adjusted, smart, valuable selves. By pointing the finger and shaming others all we are doing is undermining our own agenda. I would think we would be past that at this point.
Mark Buse has absolutely no power. McCain runs nothing out of his Senate office. Anyone valuable there (i.e. his old chief of staff) moved to the campaign. You don't know if Mark Buse recuses himself on discussions of gay-related legislation or if he speaks up. You don't know if he's emotionally torn by the fact that he's working for someone who he admires but disagrees with on one issue. Or you don't know if he's a total jackass.
So the manner with which some of these gay bloggers gleefully out campaign staffers if more disgusting to me than anything that staffer has done. Contribute something positive to the gay agenda, don't bring other people down. There is no value in it, except for making what is already clearly a very tough journey for these guys that much tougher.
I also wanted to add that just because someone votes against gay rights doesn't make it anymore legit to out them. Yes, it sucks. But perhaps there is a cause on the Republican agenda that Mark Buse found to be of greater value than his own gay identity. Is it possible that some people choose another issue/cause to support even if it means not being gay-right all the time? I'm not saying that that was Buse's situation, but I don't think that gay people should be expected to put gay before every other belief, value, or cause that they support.
Finally, politicians are humans, too, and I think too many people forget that.
This is a town of politics, and politics is an ugly business. Outing is ugly. But tell me, please, gentle TNGers, if we don't out closeted gay republicans, what other method do we have to put the brakes on their aiding and abetting the enemies of our freedom? I'd really like to know.
One of my favorite bloggers, Joe.My.God, made a case study out of this topic a while back. The discussion is worth considering here. Here is the post, and the comments are quite interesting:
http://joemygod.blogspot.com/2006/10/case-studies-when-is-outing-ok.html
"Senator Jones (R-Your State) is married with children. Senator Jones is a strident anti-gay activist who consistently authors, backs, and votes for legislation denying gay people to right to marry and the right to equal protection from discrimination in the workplace. He votes against adding sexual orientation to hate crimes legislation. Senator Jones secretly meets men in public places for anonymous sex.
Do we out Senator Jones?
Senator Smith (R-Your State) is unmarried. Although he rarely speaks out against gays, Senator Smith votes however he feels his constituents will approve, which typically is against gay interests. He votes against gay marriage. He votes against adding sexual orientation to job discrimination protections. Senator Smith and his boyfriend are well known on the gay DC social scene.
Do we out Senator Smith?
Senator Brown (D-Your State) is married with children. He is a tireless advocate for gay causes. He consistently votes in the favor of gay interests. He has a high rating from the Human Rights Campaign and is loathed by the Christian Coalition. He and his wife socialize with prominent gay activists. Senator Brown enjoys meeting men through the internet and using gay phone-sex lines.
Do we out Senator Brown?
John Doe is a highly placed staffer in a prominent Republican senator's office. Doe's boss is virulently anti-gay publicly, even though he graciously hosts Doe and his boyfriend at dinner parties in his home. Doe is dedicated and skilled and with the help of his expert advice, Doe's boss successfully thwarts numerous gay-friendly bills and positions himself as a "pro-family" advocate.
Do we out John Doe?"
Jones, yes. Smith, yes. Brown, no. Doe, no.
When your vote as a representative of the people is in such direct conflict with your personal life, that hypocricy is fair game. We as a community should stand up against leaders who vote against our community.
If your sexual orientation doesn't conflict with your voting then your personal life is just that. As for staffers, they are not public officials and therefore haven't ceded privacy for their personal lives.
Regardless of whether its right or wrong, Rogers' timing was bad and the outing had little effect. It hasn't registered much in the mainstream media. There was this whole huge economic meltdown or something that happened this week that kinda overshadowed it all...
Just gotta share this, in case you didn't see it:
http://www.salon.com/comics/boll/2007/10/25/boll/
I appreciate that so many of you have a concern for personal journeys and for the freedom of the individual to think as he/she may deem best. But what happens when your personal journey or your freedom of belief interferes with the lives of all those gay and lesbians out there that do want full rights and do not find that other positions within the GOP platform are worth the trade?
Outing, I find, is at the atomic weapon level. You use it only if any and other option has been used. And at least in my opinion there should be a litmus test of sorts to use it, along the lines of 'are your actions actively hurting the gay and lesbian community?' Whether you are an elected official or not is not an adequate litmus test, because you may still in a position where you influence public opinion or official discourse without having been elected.
I do not think, however, that we should shy away from using it if needed. The other side has demonized us in every possible way, distorted our views, degraded our relationships, disparaged our feelings, declaring to be utterly incapable of any kind of attraction but the sexual kind. To the commenter who likened outing to 'running a Shermanesque path', you are more right than you realize. There has been a war on the GLBT community for years now, so how can we do any less than to defend ourselves with any means at our disposal?
I'm ambivalent at best about outing staffers - even high-ranking ones like Buse and Traynham. I do wonder how such people live with themselves, though.
My real issue in such cases is with politicians who are gay-friendly in private, but anti-gay in public (and yes, McCain is anti-gay, all you LCR types who think his FMA vote somehow proves otherwise) - and I imagine that they make up a sizable percentage of elected GOP officials. These people are actually worse, from an ethical perspective, than sincere anti-gay bigots; the latter at least believes that they're doing the right thing, whereas the former group knows that their anti-gay actions are wrong and harmful, but takes the anti-gay stance anyway just to further their pursuit of political power. Just vile.
The right-wingers are the ones who declared this war against us. Oppressing a minority group is ugly business and people on both sides get hurt -- that's one of the reasons not to engage in this kind of hateful, vile, bullshit. Anyone who has read a newspaper in the last 20 years would know what they're getting into if they choose to join the forces of oppression. My sympathies are with the suicidal gay teens in rural America who are victims of this hate war that Republicans have been fueling for decades. DC's well-paid semi-closeted gay enablers dining at Annies and going home to a Craigslist hook-up... I don't think I'll shed many tears for them when they get outed on some blog. If your bigoted boss fires you, boo hoo, get another job. You should be ashamed to be aiding that kind of bigotry in the first place.
Also, "torrey," if Buse was already out, as you insist, then it's not possible to out him in the first place, is it?
Post a Comment