The Atlantic - Latest Comments in A Little More On Outing

Re: A Little More On Outing

Josh Jasper — Fri, 15 May 2009 00:00:12 -0000

how do you know he's coming after you with a 2 x 4, unless he says he is?

Because, ideologically speaking, we've been hit with enough two by fours to know what it feels like when someone hits us with one. We know what bigoted legislation looks like. If someone votes for it, and they're gay, we first ask them to stop and denounce the position. If they refuse, we can out them, and hope that their reputation suffers enough to get them out of office. And you know what? It works.

When you're playing safe, fun lawyer games that have no impact in your real life, we're fighting for our actual rights.

Re: A Little More On Outing

boldface — Thu, 14 May 2009 11:44:03 -0000

Of course. But how do you know he's coming after you with a 2 x 4, unless he says he is? Again, you're elevating the particular issue you are concerned with to centrality in everyone else's universe, and really, it just ain't so.

More to the point, why is "outing" an answer, as opposed to opposition and political defeat? Or to put it differently: isn't an ideological victory better than imposing personal pain on those who disagree with you? If you impose the pain and just piss the guy off without silencing him (or her) -- which is a perfectly possible response -- you haven't won anything, and all you have accomplished is gotten some official pissed off at you.

That's what I don't get about a lot of political discourse. Political victories aren't enough, they have to be accompanied by personal destruction of the opposition. I just don't get it.

Look, I manage conflict for a living (I'm a litigation lawyer). I always make sure to be a gentleman to my adversaries, not just because I'm a nice person (or try to be), but also for the basest of reasons: I never know when I'll need them. I fight hard but I never wish harm on anyone. What goes around tends to come around.

Re: A Little More On Outing

PhoenixRising — Wed, 13 May 2009 21:34:34 -0000

Okay, we get it, you think this conversation is about Republicans in general and a political dispute that is happening on a level playing field.

Let me explain more concisely how I see it: The culture war has been on for awhile. What's changed since 1976 is that the gays are now shooting back at targets that selected themselves.

The political message sent by outing is: If you feel you might be affected because you're a politician making hay out of beating on gay people, feel free to duck. Or change what you're doing so that no one cares what tail you're chasing.

When someone is trying to knock me out with a 2x4, it's not relevant to me what his motives are. I don't care whether he's stupid or evil. I'm going to trip him up with whatever he hands me and never apologize.

Re: A Little More On Outing

PhoenixRising — Wed, 13 May 2009 21:23:57 -0000

BD, I guess where we differ is that I'm unsure there IS such a thing as a straight politician who makes a big deal of beating on gay people. Charlie Crist, who is the governor of Florida and aspires to a Senate seat, provides an excellent example of this.

It's not a dirty tactic to point out that Charlie Crist cruises gay bars looking for sex, it's a statement of fact that in itself is neutral but for the adultery affecting his beard--I mean wife. It's only a big deal that he's gay to the people who think that makes him sinful, beneath contempt and unworthy of their respect--no matter how much he has agreed with them in the past.

I want those people marginalized in this society, and if Charlie Crist has to be embarrassed to achieve that goal, oh well. He had the option of being closeted and supportive of my equality, like Janet Napolitano, whose private life is none of my business due to her consistent support for GLBT issues. Charlie chose to take the other road.

I want him and everyone who agrees with him out of politics, because they're harming me. Those who choose to cavort in the gay bars by night are giving me a stick to beat them with, and damned if I'm going to leave it laying there because I might turn off a moderate.

There are no moderates on Florida's laws impacting LGBT people. Either you think it's okay to deny children permanent placement with the gay couples who have been raising them since they were born HIV-exposed, or you're sane.

Either you think it's okay to make a woman die alone in a hospital bed while her spouse and children pound their fists on the door because her spouse is female, or your moderate opinion is worth a bucket of warm spit to me. If you're neutral on these policy outcomes and the laws that create them, pick up MLK's 'Letter from Birmingham Jail' and beat yourself unconscious with it.

In sum, TNC had a point when he asked 'who decides'? How much betrayal of what subtle degrees of whose gay agenda merits outing? That's the ethical question, not how moderates perceive outing or whether privacy trumps everything.

You can't be neutral on a moving train, and I understand that the train has picked up speed recently such that those who had been silent in the past are now scared to be held to a litmus test for bold action. But I don't think anyone is suggesting a campaign of outing folks who are quietly supportive rather than leaders. But Charlie Crist waived his personal privacy when he supported draconian, punishing treatment for LGBT people and our families, and then went out cruising.

Re: A Little More On Outing

Josh Jasper — Wed, 13 May 2009 21:11:45 -0000

If an anti-gay politician won't listen to reason (and trust me, we do try that) they can listen to the sound of their own hypocrisy being revealed if they get caught getting a hummer in an airport bathroom.

You want good little queer Gandhi types who're perfect little pacifists.

I am not one of those. If you punch me in the face, *I will hit you back if I have to in order to defend myself*. I'll fight dirty, too. But if you don't bother me, I don't bother you. What part of that was not clear?

If I have to out a gay politician who's damaging GLBT rights issues to stop him, I'll do that too. If they're not doing it, I have no interest in outing them no matter what political party they belong to. If you'd bothered to read what I've been saying, that would be clear.

Re: A Little More On Outing

boldface — Wed, 13 May 2009 16:52:21 -0000

Fine and good, Jennifer, but you're assuming an awful lot about people. I spend a lot of time checking my own premises and assumptions, particularly about other people's motives. Most of the time, if I think things through, I find that people usually have pretty good reasons for what they do. And I don't assume that people who disagree with me are necessarily stupid or evil. Sometimes they are, sure. But stupidity and evil tend not to be correlated well with particular political opinions.

Re: A Little More On Outing

Jennifer D. — Wed, 13 May 2009 13:26:47 -0000

No one else has the right to interfere with anyone's life or personality or self-definition that way.

That sounds just swell. Now if only those who are against gay marriage, gay adoption, gay Boy Scout leaders, etc., would take that same point of view, we wouldn't have a problem, would we? As is stands, we most definitely do.

Re: A Little More On Outing

Jennifer D. — Wed, 13 May 2009 13:20:10 -0000

I think exposing the hypocrisy of those in power who are actively working against gay equality has played a significant role in swaying public opinion about issues like gay marriage and gay adoption over the past ten years or so. To those who grow up in communities where gays are hidden, and who are taught to think of being gay as foreign, evil and rare, exposing these guys shows that - guess what?! - even your local minister, congressman, senator, etc. may be gay. So then, maybe not so foreign, evil and rare after all.

Also, I think the public has the right to know if someone is running or governing on a platform of family values, but has had several affairs/marriages, or claims to advocate libertarian views, but publishes a newsletter full of racist rants. Similarly, I think I have the right to know if someone actively working against gay equality is a closeted gay himself.

Re: A Little More On Outing

boldface — Wed, 13 May 2009 13:10:10 -0000

sure, Josh, but you should want to stop anyone of any persuasion from trying to hurt you. Right? The desire to stop others from hurting you doesn't depend on who the others are but rather on what they are doing - your focus is or should be on stopping the activity, not injuring the person doing it. Plus, part of what I was saying there was that you can't necessarily assume that everyone who votes for a Republican is trying to hurt you. You're very wrapped up inside your own view of the world, and because certain issues are important to you you're assuming they take on equal importance to others. You really can't assume that.

In thefinal analysis, you're arguing what rapidly devolves to "two wrongs make a right," and I'm not sure you really want to go there.

Re: A Little More On Outing

Josh Jasper — Wed, 13 May 2009 12:17:13 -0000

If someone is trying to hurt me, I will try to stop them. If a conservative queer hating politician is secretly queer, and I find out, I will sure as hell use that knowledge to stop him because he's trying to hurt me.

What you're saying is, don't hit back if someone punches you in the face. Screw that noise. I hit back.

Re: A Little More On Outing

boldface — Wed, 13 May 2009 10:57:40 -0000

TNC, I think people who advocate outing are making a lot of assumptions and inferential leaps that may or may not be justified. Everyone has things about themselves that they don't advertise and would rather not be made public. Some of them are trivial, some are important, and each of us would probably differ as to which is which. But in the final analysis, each person gets to define what makes him/herself be who s/he is, and how important to his/her self-definition any single particular aspect is.

To put it another way: we each choose the face we present to the world. For example, I'm not naturally charming and not naturally extroverted. But to be successful in my line of work I have to learn to be charming and somewhat extroverted. it's not really me; I'm much more of a bookish and cerebral type than a glad-hander. My wife knows this, and some of my close friends, but I have no particular desire or need to have these aspects of my personality become common knowledge.

I mention this not because I think that sexual preference is on a par with personality type - clearly it's a different kind of personal characteristic - but rather to make the point that each of us chooses how s/he presents him/herself to the world. And the choice of how to do that is uniquely each of ours; it's as much a part of who we are as the choice of clothing or the part of our hair.

If (hypothetically speaking) I like to look at porn, I don't tell that to my business colleagues. If I wipe my ass with my left hand instead of my right, I don't mention it in polite company. If I prefer certain sex positions or have certain harmless fetishes, I don't need other people to know about it.

What's more, I might even think (to take a hypothetical example) that if I like to look at porn it's not a good thing. I might have any number of negative characteristics that I am not proud of and prefer to suppress. That doesn't mean anyone has the right to go tell everyone else that I like to look at porn, or that I bite my nails in private, or that I like to scratch my ass. Even if I do those things, I don't have to be proud of them and - this is crucial - I may still think they are wrong. Maybe I'd advocate restricting access to porn in order to help me save myself from urges to look at it. Or, even if they are not wrong, they are none of anyone's business. (no, I don't urge restrictions of this type - I'm libertarian through and through on these issues - but I'm giving these examples for purpose of argument).

Sexual activity of all kinds, including sexual preferences, are precisely like any other kind of activity or trait. It's up to the owner to decide what becomes public and what does not. No one else has the right to interfere with anyone's life or personality or self-definition that way. It's a very intrusive, very personal violation. And for what? To demonstrate that someone is a "hypocrite?" Actually, no - because it takes a few assumptions to get to the conclusion that the person is a hypocrite. Yes, you might think the person is a hypocrite, but that doesn't mean s/he is - it could simply mean that s/he is wrestling with something, or indulged a curiosity, or what have you. You simply don't know how the behavior you happen to focus on fits into that person's life. It could be that the person "knows" what s/he is doing is wrong, and wants outside restrictions in order to help him/her stay away from it, and to remove temptations.

In short, you have no way to know what the person's motivation is, and no real basis for painting them as hypocrites - all you know is that s/he prefers to keep some aspect of life private. Be very careful about this sort of "outing" - there may one day be something you prefer to keep private, that someone else might think has to be exposed, for reasons of their own that you might not share - it might not even be sexual in nature. What goes around comes around.

Finally, there is apparently an assumption among the supporters of "outing" that all Republicans or republican supporters or voters hate gays or advocate restrictions on gays. To begin with, simply as an empirical matter, I doubt most people especially care about what other people do; they simply want to be left alone. You can't simply assume that a Republican voter hates gays. I have voted Republican at times in the past, and I would venture to say I have more gay people in my home on a regular basis than most; my occasional choice of a Republican candidate had zero to do with gays - what it had to do with is regulation, taxes and national security. That's what happens in a two party system: you're left with the choice of which party's candidates match more of the preferences you have at a particular moment than the other party's. There is no such thing as a candidate who matches me in all opinions, which means I'm always compromising. I would guess most gay Republicans do too. To suggest, as the "outers" do, that a free-market libertarian who happens to be gay should have to vote for a welfare state democrat in order to be able to maintain his privacy is totalitarianism - i.e., you have to do things the way the "outer" thinks you should do them, or else suffer the consequences. Bah.

In the final analysis, people are entitled to respect. ALL people.

Re: A Little More On Outing

Persia — Wed, 13 May 2009 10:20:04 -0000

Same here, Phoebe.

Re: A Little More On Outing

sgwhiteinfla — Wed, 13 May 2009 08:26:28 -0000

One of the points made in the movie is that several politicians, after having been outed, ended up being able to start voting their true conscious and stop going out of their way to vote against gay rights issues (not just gay marriage as some people have focused on) just so their secret life wouldn't be suspected or exposed. So their argument is that outing these people may not only do a service to their constituents but also to the politician being outed themselves. That's why they also include Barney Frank in the movie to tell his story and talk about how liberated he felt once he actually came out. Now I am not saying that all outings are noble or something but I am saying that the guy who made the film tries to make the case that he is not outing these politicians just out of spite. I guess its up to everyone else to decide if they buy the argument.

Re: A Little More On Outing

BD — Wed, 13 May 2009 08:06:58 -0000

To PhoenixRising--that's just my point, though--if someone's argument can't stand on its own logic, all the more reason to point that out. If the goal is to actually overturn noxious policies (gay marriage bans, bans on gay adoptions, DADT) there's no better way to win over the otherwise indifferent middle-roaders whose support makes the difference. Dirty tactics like invasions of privacy may give you a sense of revenge but they will more likely backfire when it comes to positive results. So it might silence a few closeted politicians who support an anti-gay agenda (as well as attack, according to some commenters here, can even include pro-gay rights Republicans who may support their party for other reasons)--this does nothing to hateful straight politicians and only turns off moderates.

Though to be fair my opposition to this is largely because I don't like invasions of privacy, whether it's a Bowers-style ban on sodomy or a public "outing" of someone's personal life.

Re: A Little More On Outing

shawninPhx — Wed, 13 May 2009 07:00:38 -0000

The main problem I have with hypocrites like Crist and the alike is that their current stance is a win-win proposition. They know they can continue to side with the GOP and lash 'the gays,' but they also know the instant they are revealed they can count on the LGBT community to take them in. For example, I agreed with Andrew Sullivan's commentary on Larry Craig. Rather than demonize him to my DC friends, I defended him and came up with reasons for his behavior. Looking back, I feel like the abused wife who sticks with her husband because - down deep - she feels there must be a reason for their ridiculous, harmful behavior.

Now, however, I'm strongly for outing these hypocrites. Why? Because they are using us. They know they are in a win/win situation. They can suck up to whatever team is winning and, if the truth finally comes out, the LGBT community circles our wagons and protects them. That's often what a minority does. We do it because an attack on our own is often felt as an attack on us personally. It's a reaction that I've felt many times and it's deeply emotionally driven - often little rationalization and intellect goes in to it. However, it's time to stop. It's time to call out these men/women for causing so much pain and suffering in our communities.

Ken Mehlman - you're always at Halo and fondling guys. Next time I see you - it's picture time. Gov. Crist - you're often on 17th Street with your gaggle. Next time I see you - it's picture time. I will no longer allow my deeply ingrained self hate to justify protecting you. I feel your pain, suffering and anger at a world turned against you, but you have made this world tougher for yourself. Many of us have learned that putting up with the hate, the names, the discrimination is tiny compared to putting up with the inner shame of the closet.

I'll be damned if I'm going to protect you from the choices you made. And I'll be damned if I'm going to protect you from the people - including myself - that you've hurt along the way.

Re: A Little More On Outing

Phoebe — Tue, 12 May 2009 23:44:25 -0000

Crist opposes the FL ban on gays adopting kids.

You know, I wouldn't out anybody either, but I'm beginning to think it's just because I'm a chickenshit. Whenever any politician gets outed I'm always completely happy about it.

Re: A Little More On Outing

pete from baltimore — Tue, 12 May 2009 23:43:39 -0000

I think that while sympathy for larry craig is misplaced, pity is in order.Perhaps pity is what MR. Coats had in mind in his original post.

Many people say that MR Craig was a hypocrite for voting against allowing gays in the army.But the main arguement against gay men is that somehow they can not control themselves sexually around other men.

Please keep in mind that Larry Craig was arrested for soliciting sex in a public bathroom.He also was cheating on his wife ,and living a lie. He probably feels that all gay men are like him.This is absolutly false , since most gay people are not like that at all.But one can feel pity for Mr. Craig for his self hatred.

Many on the political right feel hatred when they see a gay man walking down the street.But Larry Craig probably feels the same hatred when ever he looks in the mirror.

You can "out " someone like that all you want.But it will be nothing compared to the self hating hell that they must live in day after day. For that we should pity them.

Re: A Little More On Outing

calexical — Tue, 12 May 2009 23:15:29 -0000

The life of a closeted politician must drive a select few clear around the bend, and leave a healthy portion of the rest intensely vulnerable to blackmail. But I still absolutely oppose a policy of deliberately outing anti-gay politicians. It's bush league, it plays on exactly the sentiments we're trying to fight, and it's not how I want my side to behave. If a person has gone crazy cuckoo-pants from the stress of a double life, it won't be hard to find a legitimate reason (and I consider propositioning pages and cruising for tail in public bathrooms to be legitimate reasons) to show they're unfit. But just being gay isn't enough.

Re: A Little More On Outing

calexical — Tue, 12 May 2009 22:56:31 -0000

100% agreement, BD. I care much more about how my side argues than I do about how the other side does, and when it comes to an issue like this one, where we social libs are demonstrably in the right, it angers me to see people use bush league tactics. The facts are on our side, morality is on our side, human rights are on our side, societal drift is on our side; acting like yellow journalists only gives bigots a lifeline.

Re: A Little More On Outing

PhoenixRising — Tue, 12 May 2009 22:31:23 -0000

Um, there are no merits to their arguments other than 'you deserve to suffer because G-d told me so'.

There are those in politics who think that it's none of their business who I select as my spouse, and there are those who preach that it's up to the state to stop me, punish me and shame me for living like a free citizen.

The first kind, I don't care who they sleep with as long as they don't frighten the horses.

The second kind, I will damage them using whatever. Sorry if it offends anyone's sensibilities but the culture war has been one-sided for far too long. The truth is that to their audience, being outed is damaging and take them out of contention for ever being taken seriously in politics again. Win!

As to the results of outing: One, it shuts up the closeted, or at least tones them down, when they can credibly fear that their own orientation will be publicly questioned. If the loudest voices against rights for LGBT folks are revealed to be screaming that stuff due to their own issues--and why else would you care, honestly?--that quiets them.

More important, it causes the public at large to question the motives of anti-gay politicians. Ideally, we'd create a climate in which the first response to a politician who wants to beat on us for votes and money will be: Gee, Bob, didn't know you swung that way!

Any means necessary, man. My kid's security is at stake and I'm not taking prisoners.

Re: A Little More On Outing

Rich in PA — Tue, 12 May 2009 22:07:13 -0000

What did Crist do to make himself a hypocrite in Savage's view, apart from membership in a largely anti-gay political party, and views on gar marriage that are hardly different from Obama's?

Re: A Little More On Outing

LKT — Tue, 12 May 2009 19:43:13 -0000

I admit to having a great deal of sympathy for Ted Haggard because I understand from my Evangelical upbringing the kind of messages he heard as a kid. The sex education I had from my family was being sent to my room to listen to some tapes of Dr. James Dobson. Believe me, Haggard is literally playing some very old tapes that he heard about human sexuality over and over and over again.

One thing that is significant about Haggard's outing is that he was outed by someone he'd had sex with. I think that's an important distinction because that story belongs to the other person as well. I'm afraid I'm a little vague on this at the moment, but I think there's something different about someone saying from a distance, "You're gay," as opposed to making oneself vulnerable as well by being part of the story.

Re: A Little More On Outing

BD — Tue, 12 May 2009 18:28:39 -0000

To Elizabeth above--the point is not to try and convince the irrational and hateful--they'll do anything they can to avoid listening to reason. It's the fence sitters that matter most when it comes to results. A decade ago I can remember that a large majority in Congress and President Clinton even backed DOMA, and that was because a large majority of Americans were against recognition of marriage rights for same sex couples. But after a decade of debate and engagement popular opinion has been swaying significantly. I think that's a more likely possibility than bigots dying off. And even those who seem hardest to reach can see their beliefs erode when forced into rational debate. You may disagree with me on this, but I think it's effective for this issue in particular, as well as other areas where the tide is turning, like the 21 year drinking age, marijuana legalization, etc. (though those are topics for another day).

I know it can be frustrating to hear someone push engagement and discussion on the merits when the other side is using despicable tactics and pushing hurtful and irrational policies, but the former is more effective.

Re: A Little More On Outing

Elizabeth — Tue, 12 May 2009 17:56:23 -0000

To AMT below (for some reason I can't respond to the comment directly):

It does certainly take the particular politician out of play. It also puts other closeted homosexuals on warning: if you don't want to risk being outed, then don't support anti-gay legislation or engage in anti-gay rhetoric.

Re: A Little More On Outing

AMT — Tue, 12 May 2009 17:38:16 -0000

There is a time and a place for arguments, but when I am being attacked for my personal life, you can bet I will fight back as effectively as I can. Exposing the depravity of the closet first hand hits closer at the truth than any theoretical argument ever could.

Does outing an anti-gay politician really advance your cause? Forget whether it's right or not. Does outing some GOP douchebag convince said GOPDB's constituents that their anti-gay beliefs are wrong? It was never my impression that it does. I always figured that they'll go find a non-closeted anti-gay politician to spew hate and intolerance on their behalf instead. My point is basically, how is outing effective in fighting for your right to live openly?