Yes or no. Should the gay republicans be revealed?

[Philosoraptor]

Its been discussed here for 3 weeks now, so I'd like to take a quick poll, I've read both sides here, and I'm curious.

[Virginia Dare]

1. I'm in favor of outing their extreme hypocrisy....n/t

[Philosoraptor]

4. exposing their hypocrisy would take away their power

their power to screw with gays and lesbians to gain power for the craziest fuckers on earth.

[Protagoras]

36. All about hypocracy not sexuality

Really I don't care if a politician is R or D on this. If they are hammering away on anti-whatever issues and they are a hypocrite about it then they should be exposed for the lying bastards they are.

Repugs just tend to be the biggest hypocrits on this...ya'll know they wouldn't pause a second to turn out a D who is saying one thing while doing another...this should be the gold standard for all political coverage.

[npincus]

2. only the married ones!

[beyurslf]

12. Why only the married ones? A closeted gay puke who supports a party

that hates us (him included) should be revealed. Maybe then he will see how completely foolish it is to belong to a party that hates him.

[npincus]

22. i was kidding around...

I'm all for dragging them all out of the closet.

[beyurslf]

26. Ahhh. Good. Drag them out kicking and screaming, high heels and all.

[cwydro]

48. I feel sure

you were just making your point, but I assure you that not all gays cross-dress.

[beyurslf]

67. I know that. I am gay and don't cross dress. I can also assure that my

gay friends and I have no problem making a joke about it and are certainly not offended by it.

[hippiechick]

3. Tricky question.

I guess it depends on their voting record: if someone is consistently voting against GLBT best interests and is themselves gay, I would say yes because they're not only hypocritical, but they're not "doing their job" as a representative of all the people.


:shrug:

[iconoclastic cat]

5. Expose and destroy them. nt

[bigscott]

7. because playing nice

with these hypocritical assholes has gotten us so far??? They all need to be exposed - they all played a part in the GOP majority - and they all need to go NOW

[Virginia Dare]

18. agreed, time to fight fire with fire...n/t

[Xenotime]

65. They need to be run out of town.

They are so fuckin two faced how can you trust them?

[atreides1]

6. They're Collaborators

They seem to have adopted the attitude of "we got ours, screw the rest of them", like Clarence Thomas!

[Philosoraptor]

8. shave their heads. they are like snitches in a prison camp

[skooooo]

9. Let the sunshine in! nt

[beyurslf]

10. Yes and preferably with damning photos. Shout of their hypocrisy

from the rooftops.

[iconoclastic cat]

43. I really don't want to SEE the pics, though. Ew. nt

[beyurslf]

66. True. But it is much more difficult to deny then.

[TahitiNut]

11. Do gays have less of a "right to be wrong"??

:shrug:

This is just one example of a range of prejudices that I reject - even in accepting the categorization of human beings by sociopaths. Why, I wonder, do otherwise sane people accept the categorizations of human beings perpetrated by obviously pathological people?

I once asked this question another way on DU - and it seemed to be totally missed by virtually all. I asked whether I was obligated, as a blond, to band together with other blonds (and blondes) as a special interest group - because there's obviously a lot of folks who want to deprive us of our rights and characterize us as somehow mentally deficient - a deficiency inherent in being blond (or blonde). Must I see myself as a blond first and a human being second? Is my blondness, due to the animosity toward blondness by so many, necessarily a determinant of how I see myself? Am I not free to identify myself according to the attributes I wish? Why must I adopt the pathological categorizations of others? Why do they deserve such respect for that 'thinking'??

It should be noted that I'm blond because I was born that way. In that sense, it was not a choice. It's "congenital." At the same time, we blonds accept "converts." :evilgrin:

Likewise, I totally and completely reject the notion that gays are somehow a materially different kind of human being. For me, to adopt such a view is to agree with a pathological perspective - and I reject that. Axiomatically, then, I do not accept the notion that a gay must perforce place their sexual orientation at the highest level of their political principles. I don't so why should they? Indeed, who the fuck has the right to say they should?



Please take note of the term "materially" - in the sense it's used in accounting and management controls. It's a VERY useful concept, presupposing the existence of a "reasonable person."

[DemocratSinceBirth]

13. What If?

What if a closeted gay person actively promoted policies that were harmful to gays?

[TahitiNut]

14. What if a human being actively promoted policies harmful to human beings?

Why accept the categorization in the first place???

[DemocratSinceBirth]

19. Does Hypocrisy Exist In Your Framework.?

What if a pastor in a fundamentalist church who has just given a sermon on promiscuity is found to frequent prostitutes?

Should the contradiction between what he counsels and what he actually does be revealed?

[TahitiNut]

32. That's pretty broad brush.

The presumption here is that gays somehow have to agree with others in the GOP who promulgate anti-gay legislation. I don't accept that presumption any more than I accept the presumption that anyone who claims to be a Democrat agrees with pro-choice positions. (See Ben Nelson.)

The FACT of the matter is that neither political party imposes any "litmus test" whatsoever on those who seek public office under that party's banner. Nor does either political party impose any "litmus test" on the electorate. What happens, then, is that people project their own perceptions into political party affiliation. Again, that's why I'm an independent.

Insofar as hypocrisy ... it's not in my job description to be the hypocrisy police, except insofar as I might detect such a failing in myself (withwhatever assistance others might offer). So, regarding such a pastor, I might make such a judgment for myself ... but feel no obligation whatsoever to police it in others.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

34. I Wasn't Suggesting You Did Or Didn't Take Hypocrisy Seriously..

I was asking you where it fits in your framework...


"The presumption here is that gays somehow have to agree with others in the GOP who promulgate anti-gay legislation. "


You're proving the point of many here... "(Closeted) Gays (who) agree with others in the GOP who promulgate anti-gay legislation" should be outed...

[mondo joe]

15. Wrong question. Should a repub political weakness be exploited is the

real question, IMO.

And the answer is YES.

[TahitiNut]

17. The end justifies the means, huh?

:puke:

[mondo joe]

20. I have zero problem with the means.

Nothing wrong with honesty, and no reason to be complicit in keeeping secrets for your enemy.

[Philosoraptor]

16. hell no, you're entitled to your opinion

I'm certainly not trying to force anyone to think in any particular way.

[dsc]

33. when they start firing blonds for being blond

then your analogy would be fair.

[Irreverend IX]

37. If you were a blond congressman...

Who dyed his hair and voted to fulfill the wishes of a hateful minority who wished to see blond people deprived of rights that others enjoy, then damn right you should be outed. The gay Republicans are living happy lives while playing along with a party that uses its power to deny that happiness to other gay people. Closeted members of the House and Senate will never have to worry about their partners being denied inheritance or hospital visitation. They have armies of lawyers to make sure their wishes are fulfilled. And the worst part of it is that they are able to do this because they lie and assume a straight identity. Just as Bush used lies to spark a war and rob innocent people of their security and resources, the gay Republicans lie about their sexuality and promote hatred of those like them. They fill their voters' ears with platitudes about old-fashioned values, using those lies to enrich themselves while they cause other gay people to suffer. Deceiving others to enrich yourself at the expense of innocents is never acceptable. It isn't acceptable when W does it, and it's not acceptable when Foley and his ilk do it.

This is war. There are no rules. And all wars have casualties. In case you weren't aware, gay men have a suicide rate six times the average for straights, and that can be attributed in large part to the hatred being spread by the GOP, and that's not even getting into the murders and brutality that result from conservative leaders' proclamations that gays are inferior. Anyone who whimpers that lying hypocrites have a right to privacy is abetting the death and hate that they cause.

[TahitiNut]

53. Ah, I see. You must be blond.

:eyes:

[Irreverend IX]

87. I'm not, actually...

And I'm afraid I don't get your point, if you had one. Care to address any of the points made in my post?

[TahitiNut]

95. No.

Your reply to my post didn't address the point I made - probably due to either a failure to comprehend it (perhaps due to a deficiency in my prose) or an unwillingness to address it. So, the nonsensical reply really isn't worth the 'ink' to respond further.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

81. but they have no more right to be wrong either

[William Bloode]

21. No, a person sexual orientation is their business.

It should remain their business, and no one has the right to "expose" anyones sexual preference. I find the idea of outing people, even ones i don't care for very unsavory. I thought most of us on DU thought it was a bad idea to get into people bedrooms. I guess some think it's fine since it would only hurt the opposition.

Talk about hypocrisy. :eyes:

[mondo joe]

23. I think it's fine because heterosexuality is reported on ALL THE TIME.

Hetero relationships are reported on freely. I don't have a double standard.

[William Bloode]

60. That might be okay, if not for the stigma placed on homosexuality.

Heteros are considered "normal" and face no backlash. Homosexuals on the other hand have to worry about such things. Also if a person is hetero and wants to be in the closet about it, i'm fine with that to.

A persons sexual orientation is their business.

[mondo joe]

70. So the press shouldn't reveal information that might result in a

backlash against a candidate or a party?

Curious standard.

Do you think when it's reported that a candidate is married that it's revealing their sexual orientation?

[William Bloode]

82. I care nothing about which party, or who. Never claimed such.

I just believe someones sexual orientation is their personal business. I would not out anyone, and risk the harm it may cause. I'm sorry, but my principles will not allow me to do something as back handed, even though they are my enemy.

I am not a religious man by any means. I do however firmly believe in the phrase "do unto others, as you would have done to you".

[DemocratSinceBirth]

24. I Am Ambivalent About Outing Anybody

But someone who surreptitiously belongs to a group and then advocates positions harmful to that group is a hypocrite that is worthy of opprobrium and censure.

[mondo joe]

25. Is it only sexual orientation you're ambivalent about outing?

This is a sincere question.

If you KNEW Bush was drinking heavily would you be ambivalent about outing him?

If you were around during segregation would you have been ambivalent about outing Strom Thurmond having fathered a biraciial child?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

28. That's A Good Point

Whenever someone in authority doesn't practice what he preaches then he opens himself up to charges of hypocrisy.

[VeggieTart]

83. Well, Strom Thurmond was a RAPIST

Do you really think that maid had a choice? Hell, no. And it was a dirty little secret that white men raped their female slaves.

And some of the most virulently anti-choice politicians arrange abortions for their mistresses and daughters, and the only reason I wouldn't want a daughter outed is it's not the her fault her politiican parent is an asshat. The mistress can be outed. She chose to boink a married anti-choice politician.

It's not so much outing as calling them out on their hypocrisy.

[IntravenousDemilo]

92. Perhaps "hypocrite" is too mild a word here. I think the proper word is

"traitor".

[abluelady]

27. It Seems to Me Any Politician

Who runs on a platform that he doesn't subscribe to should be outed. And the discimination against gays by the repukes is so blatant--it is used as such a wedge issue for them to gain power, it is horrible. Yes they should all be outed and if they want to stay Repukes, they should be obliged to vote against all the repuke bills that discriminate against themselves. This do as I say, not as I do is outrageous. If we want honesty in politics, this seems like it could be a big step.

[Lerkfish]

29. Never should we out, but if outed, we SHOULD highlight the hypocrisy

IMHO

[DemocratSinceBirth]

30. By Staying In The Closet They Are Implying Being Gay Is Shameful

That's a large problem too...

Being outed as gay should have a neutral connotation;like being outed as straight...

[Irreverend IX]

31. Revolting to see so many "no" votes. nt

[bunkerbuster1]

35. You remember Sean Connery's monologue from "The Untouchables", yes?

About "the Chicago way?" It's high time we didn't just lower ourselves down to their level of spreading dirt, but get below them and spread it faster and more furiously.

If we lose in November, and we've left anything in cold storage that we could've used, we'll all be very, very sorry.

Out the hypocritical fuckers. Out them all.

[mondo joe]

38. Ha! I think of that almost every time I see one of these debates.

And I agree.

"Here's how, they pull a knife, you pull a gun. He sends one of yours to the hospital, you send one of his to the morgue. That's the Chicago way, and that's how you get Capone! Now do you want to do that? Are you ready to do that?"

[bunkerbuster1]

40. Great Mamet script.

I'll really have to watch that film again. Or maybe just read the screenplay.

[hsher]

93. West Side Story had it first

The script from "West Side Story" (1961) had a similar line. Riff, leader of the Jets, instructs his mainly Polish-American gang underlings that if the Puerto Rican Sharks "fight skins, then we fight skins. They bring knives? WE bring knives." The other Jets start chiming in ratcheting up the weaponry, shouting, "Bottles!" "Pipes!" Then Tony enters the alley, overhearing them, and pokes fun at them by raising the stakes to munitions absurdity, then laughing at them all.

Playwright Arthur Laurents wrote the original line. And I agree with you both completely that this has come to a time where we either grow up and fight back like men or curl up and roll over dead in front of the regime. I realize most of us want a non-violent solution. My statement for those who want one unilaterally and won't even allow the discussion of "What if violence becomes necessary" is, when faced with subjugation and annihilation by George II and the occupying and amassing en route British Army, George Washington and his fellow Americans DID NOT respond to it by marching, waving signs and using harsh language. If you prefer to fight back solely on the high road, just remember that sheep, too, prefer to do that. All the way to the abattoir.

This lamb won't be silent.

[Virginia Dare]

42. One of the best movies EVER imo...n/t

[Lindacooks]

39. If they're been vocally anti-gay, supporting the marriage ban

and being outspokingly hypocritical, then definitely yes. If they are quiet about the topic, then let them keep their privacy.

[BlooInBloo]

41. There's no *fact* of the matter about it... Just a choice....

... about which of two orthogonal facets of a person one deems most important:

Insofar as a person republican, one is inclined to spill their secrets - who are we to hold their secrets for them?

Insofar as a person is gay, one is inclined to keep their secret - who are we to divulge their personal info.

It becomes a personal choice about which is more important to *us* the secret divulger/keeper when those two *logical* people are the same *physical* person.

For myself, I'm happy to divulge. But I wouldn't argue with anyone who made the opposite choice.

[Ian_rd]

44. They've lost their right to keep their own orientation private because ...

... they work for a political party that seeks to make people's private lives a public issue. You live by the sword, you die by the sword. YES, THEY SHOULD BE REVEALED.

[yurbud]

45. this should have been done a long time ago. gay & Clinton bashing...

for his sex life made this fair game. Democrats politely held back, and Republicans returned the favor by kicking them in the other ball--then cutting both off.

[Nye Bevan]

46. A question for those who voted "yes"

If:

1. you accidentally discover that someone at your workplace is gay;
2. you happen to know that this person is a Republican (perhaps you overheard them saying they voted for Bush);
3. this person is not open at work about their sexual orientation;

you would then proceed to reveal that this person is gay to as many people as you can?

So if you saw them coming out of a gay bar on Saturday, for example, the outing would begin on Monday morning at the water cooler?

And would it make a difference if this person asked you to keep it a secret?

[novalib]

47. I Would Begin IMMEDIATELY!!

If I saw a co-worker who I knew to be a supported of the EVIL Bush Cabal/Regime, and thus a supporter to people who wish to deny and take away rights of HUMAN BEINGS, coming out of a gay bar on Saturday night, I would get on the phone SATURDAY NIGHT and start outing the Republican hypocrite!!!!!

The only difference it would make if the person had asked me to keep it a secret would be to make sure everyone I called KNEW that this hypocrite wanted HER or HIS "secret" maintained! -- it just adds to the total hypocrisy of the person!!!!

[fladonkey]

49. I'm not concerned...

with whether someone is a homosexual or lesbian and in public office....unless they are parading themselves around under the banner of "family values".

[BlooInBloo]

51. The goalposts they are'a movin....

I took the OP to be talking about "repulblicans" in the sense of "republican politicians" - ie, those charged with the public trust.

I believe you are well-aware that this is a common usage, and are playing on the ambiguity in the hopes of creating a "gotcha!" situation - however spurious and artificial it may be.

Hey! There's a 16 year old gay republican (voter) in the hospital with leukemia! He's going to kill himself if he gets outed. Would ya out him? Would ya would ya would ya? GOTCHA!

Sheesh - what passes for thinking around here....

[Nye Bevan]

62. "a common usage"

The OP did say "gay republicans", not "gay republican politicians". And people on DU do commonly refer to "my republican coworker", "my republican sister" and so on without necessarily meaning that these people are politicians. I read the OP as referring to republicans in general, and I was curious as to what extent the "yes" voters would go to follow through with their "outing" strategy. I personally would not deliberately "out" a closeted coworker, even if they were a Republican, but at least one "yes" voter does not agree with me on this. I am not sure how this constitutes a "gotcha".

If we are talking only about Republican politicians, it's certainly fine to argue along the lines of "I'm surprised that Senator Smith voted against banning gay discrimination in the workplace, since he is himself gay". But that is not really an "outing" since if you or I know that a senator is gay then so does pretty much everyone else.

While almost everyone here has no special inside knowledge of the sexual orientation of members of Congress, one debatable question is-- is it appropriate for someone who does have an insider's knowledge of congressmen's or senators' sexual orientation to (for example) set up a web site to "out" Republican politicians who have not made it generally know that they are gay? Even if these Republicans have not taken any anti-gay positions? While I would not undertake a project like this myself, I don't really care that much if someone else does. I think it is unrealistic for a prominent politician who is secretly gay to expect that his secret will never be revealed, and I would rather have public figures in general being openly gay rather than in the closet. Ideally there would be no such thing as a closet because there should be no stigma at all to being gay.

[onenote]

64. agreed -- I voted no because I read it as repubs in general

not just repub public figures.

[mondo joe]

52. I don't think being gay is a dirty secret. I'd neither blab nor keep it a

secret except to the degree I would about anything else about my coworkers.

Now my question: Why conflate conduct with co-workers with a political battle?

[Irreverend IX]

89. Mercy or sympathy for Republicans is wrong.

Outing a Republican, any Republican, will psychologically damage them, reduce their capability to further GOP policies, and with luck make them too depressed to vote. The only situation in which it should not be performed is when the political cost to the outer outweighs the political gain from destroying the Republican in question. For instance, if someone knew they would be fired if they talked about a closeted Repub's orientation, losing much of their ability to organize for the Democratic party, they should not talk but should look into outing the target more surreptitiously--perhaps sending damning photos anonymously to someone else who would distribute them.

[bdamomma]

50. I voted NO because if this is related to Foley it's not that he is

gay he is pedophile, there are alot of gay men out there who do not prey upon young boys. Just my opinion.

[kerry-is-my-prez]

54. I vote for sending them to a good shrink....

n/t

[insanerepubs]

55. I have read

literally hundreds of times on DU that sex was private business. Now I am reading that it isn't...you can't have it both ways...

[mondo joe]

56. Being gay isn't "sex".

I'm gay even when I don't have sex. Even if I never had sex.

[insanerepubs]

71. I agree

Poorly worded on my part. My point is that a person sexual preferences are their own business. I don't feel it's anyone else business and it's wrong to disclose personal information about another person...IMHO...

[mondo joe]

73. It's wrong to disclose personal information?

Ever see a report about a candidate's wife?

How did you feel about outing Bill Benett as a gambler?

[Marr]

61. Now there's a stretch.

The sentiment you refer to is generally used in regards to Clinton's impeachment. No one here wants to put gays on trial or have them legally prosecuted for performing homosexual acts. Simply putting the information out there is a completely different issue.

I wouldn't have faulted Republican activists one bit for making Clinton's affair public. It was true.

The real hypocrisy here is to be found with Republicans who once claimed that an affair was worth impeaching a president over, but the sexual behavior of their own politicians shouldn't even be *discussed*.

[oasis]

57. Why hide?

:shrug:

[BoneDaddy]

58. If they are "out"...yes..

if not....no. It really is that simple.

[Marr]

59. Of course, and I don't understand the argument against it at all.

Homosexuality is a major political liability for Republicans, but nearly as much so for Democrats. Even assuming that relatively equal numbers of Dems are outted in response, the damage would be greater to Republicans.

Having said that, I'm not at all convinced that the numbers of closeted Democrats is anywhere near the number of closeted Republicans. It seems to be more of a Republican thing at this point, which makes outting them even more practical.

If you need a rational, just note that their party is actively scapegoating gays and has been doing so for years now. They've been fostering hatred for political gain all this time, so I don't see the problem with tossing them into their own hate stew.

[FourScore]

63. Chinese proverb:

Choose your enemies wisely, for you shall become them.

I prefer not to resort to such tactics. In the end, the gays will prevail in this fight. They are on the right side -- morally and ethically. I truly believe this argument can be won on the merits of equal rights and human dignity. Maybe I'm just an idealist whose always lived in progressive areas of the world.

I think many of the hypocrits will eventually be exposed anyway.

[hsher]

94. *Another* Chinese proverb

As an obsessive student of ancient Chinese war strategy, allow me to offer you a different proverb from China, one the world of making war against a ruthless and deadly enemy:

To cease violently boiling water with much steam in a cauldron,
Kick the firewood out from under the kettle.

[mmonk]

68. No.

Whether someone wants to be identified is that person's decision. How they could be republican with all the vitriol and hate toward the gay community from the republican party is beyond me though.

[barb162]

72. I agree. No one should be outed

It's a totally personal matter, like medical records.

[mondo joe]

69. To those voting "No", what other secrets do you think we

democrats should be complicit in hiding for them?

Is it just sexual orientation?

How about Bill Bennett's gambling, or the sordid details of Newt Gingrich's divorces and wife dumping? How about the CNN anchor dating Rush? If you could verify that Bush was drinking heavily, would that be a secret that should be kept as well?

[Change has come]

76. Yes,,,

Just sexual orientation. Are you comparing homosexuality to a Gingrich divorce or heavy drinking?

[mondo joe]

77. It's all personal information. I am gay and I don't see any reason

for homosexuality to be treated with special care beyond any other secret. In fact, I find it insulting.

[Alcibiades]

74. It depends

Normally, I think not. It's nobody's business, unless they are doing something inappropriate (and the Foley matter is a pedophile thing, not a gay thing anyway.)

However, I think that those who endorse the Republican "family values" agenda should be outed. If you are going to espouse heterosexual monogamous marriage as the only worthwhile lifestyle, then you should be outed for failing to practice what you preach, no matter if you are gay, cheating on your wife, having sex with turtles, or whatever. This sanctimonious hypocrisy is truly goat-getting.

[noonwitch]

75. People have the right to be in the closet

Yes, they are hypocrits, but outing them makes those doing the outing look petty and insensitive. I understand the urge to out them, especially among those who are openly gay, but outing them is an act that makes the one who is revealing the truth look bad, also.

What if these guys are married and have kids? I'd feel bad for kids if their dad was dragged through the press for being gay.

If it comes out because the guy committed a crime, a la Foley, then that's a different matter.

[Irreverend IX]

88. Outing makes us look bad? Not really.

In the country that spawned "Survivor" and "American Idol" there's little stigma left associated with dragging someone through the mud. Running a political cost/benefit analysis, the benefit of destroying the career of a Republican politician far outweighs any potential damage to the outer's reputation. Many people outing politicians right now are prominent gay activists with sterling reputations in the gay community. I don't have any tears to shed for the children of Repub politicians; their parents helped authorize the Iraq war and cause the slaughter of thousands of children over there. This spineless blubbering over abstract concepts of right and wrong is disgusting.

[ripple]

78. Not now, anyway

If that were to happen in the wake of the Foley scandal, it would only serve to feed the gross misconception that homosexuality and pedophilia are somehow related. That isn't helpful to anyone.

[Bake]

79. Since they really don't have a CHOICE,

then why not be totally honest about it?

Let the truth set them free. Hell, they might even become Democrats when they are forced to face how their own party treats them.

Bake

[Imagevision]

80. If their crooked or/and corrupt? -- you better believe it!!!

[LWolf]

84. No.

If outing people is wrong, it's wrong. It doesn't matter who the person is.

If causing deliberate harm to others is wrong, it's wrong. It doesn't matter who they are.

Anything else is self-serving hypocrisy.

[mondo joe]

85. If causing deliberate harm to others is wrong, how do you propose

one side defeat another without doing wrong?

[LWolf]

90. I guess it depends on what

constitutes "defeat." :shrug:

"Winning" occurs in a competition. Is it possible to compete, and win, without causing harm to those you "defeat?" Yes. If it weren't, I'd never play scrabble.

Is it possible to "win" by earning more votes, without causing harm to the opponent? Yes. Losing an election does not "harm" the "loser." It's part of the democratic process.

Do you need to cause harm in order to win?

Not when you campaign on truth. Truth will always come out, regardless of how an opponent of truth tries to spin it. Truth is truth, regardless of spin.

Not when the integrity of the vote and vote counts are guaranteed. Since we know that there have been numerous breaches of that integrity in recent years, it seems like that would be the place to focus efforts, rather than attempting to harm an opponent. What do you win, if you are campaigning on the ability to bully, manipulate, or cheat, rather than truth? The right to be the bigger bully?

[TheBaldyMan]

86. Other, it depends if they are hypocrites about gay rights ...

e.g. a closeted gay Republican that demonises gays and campaigns for discriminatory legislation should be exposed for the hypocrite he or she is.

a CGR that doesn't treat minorities as second class citizens & whose voting record backs up that position should have their privacy respected.

[Jed Dilligan]

91. There are a lot of advantages to being a public figure

The downside is you get no private life. At least not since 1998.

[go west young man]

96. The issue is about hypocrisy not about being gay.

If they were gay and content and honest they wouldn't care either way. Instead they profess to be moral and cater to the Christian right. I say let em have it with all guns.