Time for some serious outing

[Tyo]

Gay Republicans need to be flushed out, their party needs to publicly acknowledge them, and the Rethugs' theocratic gay-hating supporters need to be shown that there are more Grand Old Pansies in this particular "Moral Majority" than maybe they had bargained for.

As for privacy, screw it. When a politician becomes a politician privacy pretty much falls by the wayside, just as it does with professional athletes, entertainers and others who choose careers that put them in the public eye.

And if that argument doesn�t satisfy, what about plain old hypocrisy? When you make a profession out of saying one thing and doing (or being) another you can hardly complain if someone calls you on it.

For too long the Ruthugs have had it both ways on the Gay issue. They have vilified and discriminated against the vast majority of us while hiding and protecting their own. Time to let some sunshine into all those closets. Time to let the gays among the Rethugs know that if they are going to gay bash they are going to have to do it openly as gay men and women.

(cross-posted in GD)

[LiberalArkie]

1. You are being hard on the Republicans, they do not hate all gays

just the liberal, open gay people. They only want to wipe out the gays that are being true to them selves. The GOP are really happy with the closeted gays that they can bend to vote on any issue they wish, just as long as they are not outed.

[Tyo]

3. You are absolutely right

The Rethugs do have their kinder gentler side as evidenced by the way they treat their own closet cases. I guess I'm just cranky this morning.

[Benhurst]

2. "Time to let the gays among the Rethugs know

that if they are going to gay bash they are going to have to do it openly as gay men and women."

I agree with you.

I've never understood why sports figures and other entertainers are fair game (especially since their private lives are none the public's business whatsoever and their "power" extends no further than sports arenas and world of entertainment), while the politicians who hold the future of the whole world in their hands are off limits.

I've always suspected it was a bargain made in hell between the press and the powers that be.

In any event, Graham and all the others are fair game, especially since their positions of power and influence are based on hypocrisy.

[The Brethren]

16. "I've always suspected

it was a bargain made in hell between the press and the powers that be." You figured them out. LOL Hell is becoming the latest board meeting between our "free pres" and the bottom dwellers we call our government. Convenient place actually -- warm, a bit toasty at times, cozy dim lights, very private with just the right amount of a dominating atmosphere.

I have no tolerance for hypercritical gays in any field who denounce gay men and lesbians, pass laws or take actions against us, etc. or oh so coyly stand back whilst there party members do the dirty work for them by day and want to sleep with the same sex by night. Whatever label they want to put on themselves in or out of the closet, whatever laws they choose to pass or defeat regarding gays/lesbians effects not only their lives perhaps, but mine as well.

[elocs]

4. Here in the 3rd Congressional district of Wisconsin

Republican Steve Gunderson was my representative for 16 years and he was and is gay. Next month on our ballot here in Wisconsin we have a referendum that would change our state constitution to ban marriage between people of the same gender. I don't understand the self hate of homosexuals who are in the closet and then hide in the closet of the Republican Party. It is true that not all Republicans hate gays, but their party supports the suppression of equal rights under the law for homosexuals.

[davidinalameda]

5. I do understand

for whatever reason, some gay people are Republican

I'm not going to debate that right now

BUT would Steve Gunderson ever been elected if he was an open gay man?

no-just like some openly gay Democrats who were forced out after they were elected would have never been elected in the first place either

the Republican Party does not hold a monopoly on homophobia

[Benhurst]

6. No, just an overwhelming, controlling interest.

[xchrom]

7. not from i stand they don't.

homophobia -- like racism -- has all kinds of adherents.

and like racism -- homophobia can be quite subtle and nuanced.

i've seen enough homophobia/sexism all over in american society.

i'm always nervous when straights loudly proclaim to be on my side.

[davidinalameda]

8. not as overwhelming as you think

[elocs]

9. But the Republican Party is the party of record for homophobia.

Being gay in the Republican party and being elected to office while in the closet is a big, big secret. It would be like being a Jew and a member of the Nazi Party in Germany in the 1930s--the Party faithful would not look kindly upon that secret being kept. Likewise, a person who is an open bigot would generally not do well in the Democratic Party, but might find fond acceptance in the Republican Party. How would a Republican representative in the South do if it was discovered that they were black while they had deliberately tried to pass as white. If you cannot run for office or hold an office without being who you are, then where does the lie end and the truth begin?

[Tyo]

10. Exactly!

"If you cannot run for office or hold an office without being who you are, then where does the lie end and the truth begin?"

Thank you, wish I had summed it up as neatly. :applause:

[davidinalameda]

11. you're right

but the Democratic Party needs to clean up its act as well

but you're wrong about the Jews and the Nazis

the Nazi Party was all about killing Jews; I doubt the most radical of Republicans would even suggest something like that

it's time to turn down the rhetoric

[David__77]

12. Outing closeted gay politicians is just fine with me...

Some were so visceral in their opposition to it just a few years ago. I suspect many have changed their minds due to the sickness of these hypocrits.

[readmoreoften]

14. What about outing all the gay democrats

who are not anti-gay, but know that their careers will be toast if they are out?

Just wondering.

[Tyo]

15. I think there is a difference

Living and just doing your thing as a closeted gay is I think sad and an injustice to yourself and to those around you, but it's really not my business. Living as a closeted or semi-closeted gay politician or member of the Administration and pushing an anti gay agenda is in my view a different thing entirely. When you argue for laws restricting the rights of people whose only "crime" is to openly live the way you live in private you have, in my opinion, forfeited your right to privacy.

[readmoreoften]

17. I'm fine with that. But I really could care less.

I don't know what good it does us to out these people in the long run. Vengeance feels good, but it reinscribes that it's bad to be queer. And then what happens when closeted people "on our side" are outed?

I think the "homophobes are just self-hating gays" meme in itself is homophobic and destructive. All people who are closeted are not homophobic (for example, Anderson Cooper, if he is actually gay) and not all homophobic people are closeted gays (for example, most republicans.)

Why aren't we as concerned about STRAIGHT people's homophobia. Why is "hypocrisy" (i.e. being gay and hating yourself) a worse crime than bashing a minority to keep continued social power? Are black people who internalize racism and act negatively against other blacks "worse" than the Klan? The parallel isn't perfect, but I hope it gives folks pause. Frankly, I could give a flying fuck about Foley and I have no sympathy for him. But I have all the sympathy in the world for myself and my fellow gay peeps and I don't know what outing Foley is going to do for US.

All it seems to do is encourage more gay jokes as far as I'm concerned.

[Tyo]

18. I don't think they hate themselves

I think that they have made the "satanic pact" with the Conservatives. I mean in the their own world I think it's rarely a secret that they are gay. And they mix quite easily and live quite well by the standards that they have chosen.

Obviously we are concerned about straight homophobes, but I think the key thing is that I have no reason to think that Ken Mehlman (sp) hates himself. I think that it is more likely that the "quiet" closet cases are the ones with the self esteem issues.

Again, I have no desire to out anyone who doesn't attack me for being like him.

[Tyo]

19. I'm not doing your post justice, I'm sorry

But I reread it and I noticed another assumption that I don't agree with. How does outing reinforce the idea that it's bad to be queer? I don't think so. Outing is saying that we are good and so are you. Why hide something that is positive and good? Why hide a blessing from God(if you think in those terms)? Why corrupt it and try to paint it as something shameful that you are trying to come to grips with? And again, I'm not advocating outing closeted gays who don't attack us, their out brothers and sisters. On the other hand, readmoreoften, if it causes pain or difficulty in your life I need to think about that. I've been lucky I guess.

[readmoreoften]

20. Oh don't get me wrong, outing doesn't cause me pain.

Straight idiots cause me pain when they interfere with my life. I think that there are the Mary Cheney's who think they get to be gay and support gay bashers at the same time. But I think that many of the closet republicans are self-hating gays who support a hateful agenda. I don't think that outing them is saying 'hey! we love you! be who you are!' It's usually said (particularly by straight folks): "Hey you fucking pervert, you're no better then the rest of them! At least the fags in the streets are honest about "it", you're trying to hide the fact that you're a fag! But we see through you!"

It's not that I'm against "outing" republicans. It's that I understand that there are (I'm sure!) many closeted Democrat politicans who would not stand a chance of election if they were outed-- or who aren't willing to risk it. Is that cowardly? Frankly, yes. But I don't want them to lose dem seats over it if their politics are in the right place. I suppose the reality is, I'm not really "pro" or "con" when it comes to outing. I don't see it as effecting my gay ass at the end of the day. When we out gay republicans, we assure that they will lose the election based on homophobia. If gay democrats are outed, the same would happen. What pisses me off is the homophobia. And I suppose my pet peeve is the notion that "only self-hating gays" perpetuate violence and hate against gays. Anotherwords, homophobia is just gay-on-gay violence.

I'd rather keep the focus on the straights. They're the majority of the homophobes.

[Tyo]

13. There is a p pretty heated discussion on this topic in GD right now n/t