Barney Frank Says Aaron Schock Should Be ‘Exposed’ If He's Gay

[RandySF]

But now, as rumors swirl alleging that resigning-Rep. Aaron Schock is gay, Frank said the Illinois Republican should be “exposed” if the gossip about his sexual orientation is true because of his voting record on gay issues.

“When you are in public office and you vote opposite to the way you live your life, no I don’t think you have privacy,” Frank said. “Anyone who is gay and votes in an anti-gay fashion has, it seems to me, lost their right to privacy, because it’s been converted to a right to hypocrisy.”

Schock has not publically responded to the recent claims about his sexual orientation, but his father Richard Schock told ABC station WLS that “he’s not gay.”

When Frank sat down with “Power Players” to discuss his new autobiography, “Frank: A life in Politics from the Great Society to Same-Sex Marriage,” the Massachusetts Democrat defended a joke he made about rumors over Schock’s sexual orientation. "If they're not true, he spent entirely too much time in the gym for a straight man," Frank told Business Insider earlier this week.


http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/barney-frank-aaron-schock-exposed/story?id=29760991

[libdem4life]

1. Agree with Barney. Being or admitting to being gay should not be shameful. Nothing wrong

with not saying one is gay either, but voting against gay rights as a career, is pure hypocrisy. I wondered why he backed down so quickly and sensed there must be some other reason. If it's this, well then he'll have to recreate his career by being honest.

That being said, with two gay nieces, I live for the day it just doesn't matter any more.

[Tom Ripley]

2. As always, I'm with Barney

[Aerows]

3. Right along with Barney

I still pay a price for being an honest lesbian, but I wouldn't have it any other way. Living a lie not only destroys you from the inside out, it destroys those that are close to you, too.

[rhett o rick]

18. I hear you and Barney but, and I am not gay, while I feel that the Rep is reprehensible for

his stands on gay issues and should see condemnation for such, I don't feel that exposing him as gay is appropriate. I will yield to you and Mr. Frank's opinions on this, but as I see it, exposing someone as being gay should never be used as a punishment.

I am not gay but two of my best friends are gay. I just had to use that cliche, but it's true. We live in Washington the State and almost two years ago my wife and I got to stand up for them at their wedding. It was a great moment.

[Aerows]

19. If you are gay

and vote for every reprehensible anti-gay measure you can, you aren't just an enemy to me - you are an enemy to yourself.

People shouldn't treat themselves like enemies. It's bad for those that are acknowledged homosexuals and it's bad for homosexuals hiding in the closet.

[rhett o rick]

30. I saw something or read something some time ago that stuck with me. It talked about how

horrible it must be to be gay and raised in surroundings that make you hate yourself. That's why some especially Republicons lash out. They want to deny their identity. I am not saying that as an excuse but just sayin'.

[Aerows]

31. It is. n/t

[RKP5637]

54. K&R! n/t

[Aerows]

55. Thanks!

A few don't get it. I'm an out lesbian in a conservative area, and I very much understand what people like Mr. Schock advocate for and how it would impact my life.

I don't like it one bit, because I'm not about to be resigned to hiding in the closet just so I have human rights.

[dsc]

34. people should have to live by the laws they pass

allowing people who are gay to write anti gay laws that other gays have to live by but they themselves don't is against the whole idea of a democracy.

[Aerows]

50. Bingo! n/t

[shenmue]

4. Loves me some Barney Frank

[mstinamotorcity2]

5. His sexual orientation

has nothing to do with him being a piece of hot mess crap. IJS

[nxylas]

8. It does if he's trying to make other gay people's lives more miserable

Under normal circumstances, I'd say it was his own business. But the hypocrisy rankles.

[mstinamotorcity2]

12. I see your point.

My mother always said what you do in the dark has a different view in daylight. I am waiting for the implosion.

[Skittles]

52. I am not a fan of outing

I will, however, make an exception for people who ACTIVELY try to deny human rights to gay folk

[Aerows]

56. And try to actively

force everybody else back into the closet so that they aren't denied human rights. That's the big kicker.

[ProdigalJunkMail]

6. so when Frank thinks you don't have privacy

you don't have privacy??? either you believe in privacy rights or you don't...

sP

[roguevalley]

16. privacy of everyone. That man has voted to make things evil for lots of good people.

he has a zero percent rating on human rights. out him.

[ProdigalJunkMail]

21. so... privacy for no one...

got it.

sP

[roguevalley]

36. no. It amazes me that people who are gay hide, then make it so evil for other gays that

kids hang themselves. He doesn't have the right to privacy because he holds power over others. If he was just another jerk at the job or some other place where he couldn't make laws and strife possible, he would have that right. But his place as a public decision maker removes that possibility because he can harm or help. He has the power to make life so bad that people kill themselves. If the man was a secret nazi no one would blink about outing him or if he was a KKK. But somehow, his sexual orientation which he personally repudiates and hides from the world by demonizing and persecuting others at the top of his lungs is sacrosanct. Amazing.

[ProdigalJunkMail]

38. so, when people said that Clinton's personal quibbles

with screwing interns was just a personal matter how'd you feel about that? just because a person has a public life does NOT mean they sacrifice their private one. no one would go into gov't service if that bullshit were true.

how about this... let's publish a list of all women who seek abortion counseling or actually have abortions. maybe post the address of all the people who have guns. or any other thing someone might not approve of.

his actions may be vile... but his privacy IS sacrosanct.

sP

[mercuryblues]

78. was Clinton

voting on and passing laws that made it illegal to have extra-marital affairs? Was he using his position of power to condemn people who were having affairs?

Schock used his position of power to help make lives of LBGTs lives miserable. If he is gay-that should be made known.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

7. I look forward to the day when we are concerned...

I look forward to the day when we are concerned about a person's race, religion, nationality. sexuality, et cetera as we are concerned about the color of his or her hair.

[William769]

9. I disagree with barney on this.

Outing anyone is never the right thing to do. Attacking him for the asshole he is is another story and I would fully support that course of action.

[Aerows]

20. I said it before up thread

and I'll say it again.

I *agree* with Barney Frank - here is why. Homophobia harms everyone - those out of the closet, and those who hate themselves because they are in the closet.

Being your own worst enemy because you don't have the courage to accept yourself makes you absolutely the worst enemy of those that do accept themselves.

Outing gay homophobes is the kindest thing we can do for them, in my opinion, because we show them that there is no reason to hate themselves for something as intrinsic as height or being allergic to peanuts.

[William769]

22. And I will say this again Tyler Clementi commited suicide because he was outed

As has so many others. Being in the closet is a terrible place to be and many are there for a reason.

I find it utterly disgusting that a fellow human being especially one in the LGBT community would condone such an action.

I know now to stay the hell away from you because of the dangers you would use to see people harmed. That is just pitiful.

[Aerows]

23. You want to stay the hell away from me

because I want people who use their political influence to harm gay people while they are gay themselves to be exposed?

Tyler Clementi was not a politician, didn't exert political influence to deny me (or you) our rights, and didn't work against the ability for me (and you) to achieve equal rights.

It's like saying that you don't want to know me because I would like for it to be broadcasted far and wide that Anita Bryant is a lesbian if it was discovered that she was.

Tyler Clementi has absolutely nothing in common with Anita Bryant, for example, and Aaron Schock. Not even in the same county, much less the same ball park.

[William769]

24. I stand by my statement.

What a sad day for the LGBT Group.

[Aerows]

25. Only if it is taken as such.

Living dishonestly and intentionally harming gay people seems to me to be far more sad than me standing up and saying "I agree with Barney Frank".

[Logical]

26. Wow, so exposing a private part of someones life is OK with you? How nice. nt

[Aerows]

29. If they are politically advocating

ruining my life and my rights while pretending they aren't doing the same in private, yes.

We have politicians in this country advocating to kill gay people. Aaron Schock most definitely conspired with Republicans to deny gay people their rights to equality in housing, employment, education and marriage. In what dream world do you think a gay person should accept that lying down? Should I not point it out when they themselves are enjoying the benefit of being in the closet while advocating for the destruction of those that are out of it?

Double standard much?

[LuvNewcastle]

44. You are right-on, Aerows.

People who use their power to hurt GLBTs are, for all practical purposes, waging war against us. I wouldn't think twice about outing someone who is doing harm to my friends and myself. Maybe other RW closet cases will think twice before they fuck with us in the future.

[Aerows]

46. I think that we understand a little better

because we live in an environment that is hostile toward the LGBT community. Those that live in places where it is easily accepted don't realize the pressure we are under in communities like ours.

We are dealing with our political reality, while they are dealing with a completely separate one.

[Orsino]

79. You can't expose this sort of hypocrisy without outing the person.

No free passes just because of a possibility. I think anyone really concerned about privacy shouldn't advocate for regulating other people's personal because of their orientations.

But until one is ready to present evidence, one ought not to engage in what amounts to stigmatizing someone with rumors.

[jberryhill]

59. He was elected representative of that district

Is he representing them?

Is that his job?

[Aerows]

65. If it is your job to actively oppose

me having rights to equal employment protection, housing protection, educational opportunity and the right to marriage, then it is absolutely my job to oppose you. If you happen to enjoy all of those protections by pretending to be straight, it is absolutely my job to point out what you are doing to yourself and others like you.

Last I checked, being a citizen didn't require I shut up just because I am opposed to a politician, and it won't happen any time soon, either.

You people are defending a Republican to the hilt. What the hell?

[jberryhill]

69. Then oppose

One wins an argument by winning an argument, and you and I are both on the winning side of that argument.

"Defending" him against what?

No one here is defending his record or his positions on these issues. His record and his positions are not defensible.

Defending him from having his sexual identity from being used as a weapon of social opprobrium against him? To shame him into behaving in some prescribed fashion? At some level of abstraction, is that a form of bullying?

[Aerows]

72. I've made my opinion very clear

I don't think I'm bullying anyone, and in fact, I am opposing a bully.

[840high]

57. yep

[Aerows]

67. Nope

I refuse to protect a person that votes and ardently supports stripping me or preventing me from having the rights of everybody else just because he can pretend he is straight.

Fuck that. I'm rather stunned that folks on DU don't realize what this jackwagon has been advocating - I want equal housing rights, equal employment rights, and equal educational opportunity without having to pretend I'm straight to get them.

Should I have to pretend to be straight to be considered a human being?

[sibelian]

10. Nope, not allowed.

Outing is wrong.

[craigmatic]

11. That's out of bounds because it's personal and you can only come out once. He's resigning let it go.

[DonViejo]

51. Not true....

coming out is like peeling an onion; you do it one layer at a time and sometimes you cry.

Short of being like Barney Frank or Ellen Degeneres, who everyone knows are gay, coming out is a never ending process, not a one night stand, so to speak.

[Aerows]

62. Indeed it is.

You don't just tell your family and then everyone knows. You have established work relationships, friendships, partnerships, and ships you probably didn't even realized hadn't sailed yet to contend with.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

13. In Cali every other guy is yoked. They can't be possibly all be gay, can they?/NT

[allinthegame]

14. Well That Flies in the Face

Of our privacy rights...everyone who agrees with Mr Frank should re-evaluate their NSA outlook

[CTyankee]

15. why does his sexual orientation matter?

[TDale313]

75. It's the hypocrisy.

If you're advocating for anti-gay policies, and you're gay yourself, it does add an extra level of shittiness.

That said, I don't agree with outing someone- even under these circumstances. My own personal take, and I get the arguement, but it just feels wrong to me.

[CTyankee]

77. well, yes, the hypocrisy is maddening. I'd be tempted to out him too but then

I would probably ponder that a bit further. I would hope I could apply a bit of moral reasoning to this issue and address my own issues of needing to seek revenge for his hypocrisy. But I must say hypocrisy makes me so angry I have to wonder if I am making good choices in the heat of that anger.

[n2doc]

17. That is wrong

Schlock has the right to his privacy. He has the same right as the rest of us.

This does not mean that if he broke laws he should not be punished for breaking those laws. But Frank is dead wrong on this.

[TheNutcracker]

27. What about kids Barney?

[mythology]

28. I wouldn't cry any rivers if Schock

Is in fact gay and was outed, but I wouldn't out him if I possessed such knowledge. I wouldn't be able to sleep if I did.

For me it's enough to find his stances on human rights and his seeming financial impropriety abhorrent.

[Chemisse]

32. I disagree, for a couple of reasons.

1. People have a right to disclose or not disclose their private, inner thoughts and feelings.

2. If he votes against gay rights' issues, then he is equally reprehensible, whether he is gay or not. Being a hypocrite is a piddle in the bucket compared to having bigoted and hateful attitudes.

3. Efforts to 'out' people, no matter what the motive, tend to take on a 'witch hunt' flavor. This gives the impression that being gay is a very bad and shameful thing to be.

[William769]

35. Very well said.

[awoke_in_2003]

73. +1000. nt

[Lancero]

33. Ugh, on the fence on this...

One one hand, I agree with his idea - If someone is hypocritical in their voting records, such should be exposed. We've talked about it in a number of politicians as is, though in their cases their hypocrisy was easy to see or they didn't put in a whole lot of effort to hide it..

One the other, calling for the revocation of privacy rights is a NSA wet dream come true.

[Terra Alta]

37. I like Barney, but he's wrong about this.

Sure, Schock is an asshole, but outing anyone is wrong, even if the person being outed is a homophobic asshole voting against his own self interests.

If Schock is gay, I hope he eventually comes to terms with his sexuality and become and advocate for LGBT rights. Living in the closet is no fun; I know from personal experience.

[NuclearDem]

39. Absolutely not.

Outing someone is unacceptable.

[sibelian]

40. The whole problem with outing is that it plays into the "gay as shameful" story.

It purports to reveal hypocrisy but surreptitiously legitimises nebulous, ill-considered ideas about whether or not being gay is supposed to be socially acceptable. The outer places themselves in a power relationship relative to the outed that they have no right to assume. It's abusive.

There's this whole ugly undercurrent bubbling under the practice that carries the unconscious association that being gay is creepy and perverted.

That's why coming out is such a weird thing to have to do in the first place and why we must keep the expression of sexual orientation within the agency of the individual and not as a function of social acceptability.

We've already spent years trying to explain to everyone that we're a normal part of the human species, how can we possibly expect anyone to believe us if folk are whipping the curtain away and pointing at gay people with cries of "SHAAAAAME!!!" ?

[NuclearDem]

41. THIS

YES THIS

[ProdigalJunkMail]

43. hell yeah... n/t

[beam me up scottie]

47. Agree.

"The outer places themselves in a power relationship relative to the outed that they have no right to assume. It's abusive."

Well said.

[Bonobo]

42. He's wrong. Shockingly so.

There is no excuse for outing someone against their wishes. Period. Full stop.

[Nye Bevan]

45. So Barney, how do you prove that someone is gay before "exposing" them?

Do you follow them around and base it off the places they visit? Spy on them hoping for displays of same-sex affection? Peer through their bedroom windows? I would say let's just not go there.

[wheniwasincongress]

48. If?

[Aerows]

53. That's kind of the funny part

of this discussion.

[Major Nikon]

49. I normally agree with Barney

But whoever a person chooses to share their bed with is none of my business. This doesn't change if they are a public figure. If Shock is on the wrong side of gay issues, what difference does it make who he has sex with? A straight person who is on the wrong side of gay issues is no different than a gay person that's on the wrong side of gay issues.

[jberryhill]

58. I would have agreed with this some time ago

But isn't it likewise hypocritical to some extent? The man's sexuality is his business and that of his partner(s) if any.

And if that is the society we want - where it truly doesn't matter - then I should not consider his sexuality relevant to anything. His ideas on equal rights are flawed, and they are flawed on the merits.

If the legislative agenda he advocates is representative of those who elected him, then isn't he really just conscientiously doing his job - representing and advocating for the views of the constituents he represents?

In other words, isn't he doing the job he was elected to do and, if so, why should being gay disqualify him from doing his job?

From what other jobs should being gay be a disqualification?

[LuvNewcastle]

60. No, he shouldn't just do what

his constituents want him to do. No one in Congress does that. In fact, one of the reasons we have representative government is that we don't want to have the majority making all the decisions. People in Congress frequently vote their consciences. If Congress simply followed the people's lead, I doubt the Civil Rights Act would ever have been passed.

[jberryhill]

63. Good points

But whose job is it to be his conscience?

I have enough trouble grappling with my own that I couldn't imagine hiring out to do it for someone else.

[LuvNewcastle]

64. Well, the ones who don't have consciences

simply vote however they're told by the person who gives them the most money. I don't think we have many people in Congress who have a functional conscience.

[jberryhill]

66. Yes, but they can do basic math!

[LuvNewcastle]

68. You have a point there.

My teabagger probably can't use a calculator.

[jberryhill]

70. The truly crazy are incorruptible

[lovemydog]

61. Schock has already resigned from Congress due to ethics charges.

I disagree with Barney Frank on this matter because Schock isn't a public servant.

I enjoyed the interview. Interesting hearing Frank's views on Warren, Clinton & how the democratic party can attract more younger male voters.

[Aerows]

71. Tell you what.

When you have to pretend to be straight to have equal housing opportunity, protection from getting fired because you are gay, and have the same rights as straight people, you have the right to talk to me about a person that pushes that same agenda.

Then you can tell me that outing a person that advocates those SAME things, votes on them and chooses to oppress gay people because he pretends to be straight is wrong.

I have absolutely no sympathy for gay people that make life worse for other gay people just because it firms up their support with straight America. None.

Looking for the wrong bastion of support if you are looking at me to condemn being gay while being gay.

[JI7]

74. is there anyone who doesn't know he is gay ?

other than the right wingers in his district who think he is just a good christian boy waiting for the right girl ?

[Ken Burch]

76. MUST Schock be exposed? Can't we wait and see if he exposes himself?

er...I mean...