On Outing Gay Conservatives

[bryant69]

Dennis Prager's latest article is about the practice of Outing Gay Conservatives. Dennis Prager is not someone I respect as he has written in favor of a second civil war (and this time the good guys will win) and is generally very belligerent.

But this article might be worth noting, if for no other reason because it is getting a big push over at Townhall. http://www.townhall.com/columnists/DennisPrager/2007/04/03/on_outing_gay_conservatives

" Movements are often better than their leaders -- and the movement to treat gays as fellow human beings created in God's image is a noble one -- but to the extent that a social agenda can be measured by its spokesmen and leaders, gay rights activism would have to be considered one of the least morally appealing movements of our time.

It is difficult to identify a more morally repellent act -- outside of violence -- than "outing" a gay person for political gain. Yet, those who "out" gay conservatives defend their actions -- and they do so by blaming their victims. The victims deserve it, the outers contend.

And why do gay Republicans and conservatives deserve to have the most private part of themselves revealed to the world?

Because, the activists argue, conservative gays are hypocrites, and hypocrites deserve no mercy."

Any thoughts?

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[baldguy]

1. People like Prager would have no qualms about putting gays in concentration camps.

Outing gays who support these people is a matter of survival.

[Marnieworld]

2. Exactly

It's not outing "gays". It's outing traitors, enablers. If a homosexual conservative opposed anti-gay legislation without even championing causes I believe they wouldn't be "outed". But if you are a Mark Foley and you actually work to do harm? All bets are off.

[pitohui]

49. bingo

nicely said, baldguy, and right on target

[KittyWampus]

3. As has been stated 1000's of times on DU. It's not outing the gayness but the hypocrisy.

Why DU must go over this so often puzzles me.

[AllieB]

6. Exactly, cryingshame.

With these people, it's all about the hypocrisy.

[mac56]

7. Absolutely.

They benefit from membership in a party that promotes homophobia and bigotry.

I have no qualms about outing them.

[TheBaldyMan]

15. being Republican doesn't justify outing, privately gay and publicly homophobic does

you should be ashamed of yourself for suggesting that being a Republican politician is grounds alone.

Outing has never been about that. Get this clear - if a gay Republican politician does not wish to come out publically we should respect that wish. However, if the same politician publically conforms to the gay-bashing norm for the Republican party then and only then is outing ever justified.

[mac56]

43. Bull.

Don't lay that shame on me, friend.

Get this clear(!) - A gay Republican politician has staked his/her political future on his/her allegience to a party that promotes prejudice against him/her and those like him/her. In most cases, reaped significant benefits and advantage from that party allegience.

I see no problem with outing them for being a Repug politician alone. Empowering them to continue is the worse of two evils.

I don't see any benefit to linking arms and singing Kum-ba-yah with them.

[TheBaldyMan]

90. I'm not saying you should date them, I'm saying it isn't justification

for outing anyone.

You bring the shame on yourself. It is disgraceful even to suggest that anyone should have a gross invasion of their privacy purely on the grounds of their political affiliation. It is most certainly not a good enough reason.

By your argument a closeted Republican politician who never made any homophobic statements and never introduced homophobic legislation could be outed simply because they were Republican. That shows that you have no feeling for the issues at hand. It is the sort of insensitive and wrong-headed tripe I'd expect from a social conservative not a liberal.

I don't agree with gross invasions of anybody's private affairs.

[mac56]

93. Hmmm.

"It is the sort of insensitive and wrong-headed tripe I'd expect from a social conservative not a liberal."

Don't call me names, chum.

"It is disgraceful even to suggest that anyone should have a gross invasion of their privacy purely on the grounds of their political affiliation. It is most certainly not a good enough reason....By your argument a closeted Republican politician who never made any homophobic statements and never introduced homophobic legislation could be outed simply because they were Republican."

Being Republican, being an estabished Republican political figure, means they benefitted from the hateful, homophobic platform and policies of the Republican party and administration. In short, turning against themselves and against those like them, those who hope for their support and advocacy. Wrapped up as it might be in this hypothetical politico's self-hatred, perpetuating this hypocrisy is unthinkable. Where will it end?

"That shows that you have no feeling for the issues at hand."

You have no idea, no clue about my personal circumstances.

[TheBaldyMan]

96. excuse me for mistaking you for an unfeeling freeper troll

if I have hurt your feelings then I apologise.

However you still seem to think that outing a gay guy purely on political affiliation is OK. If you look at Peter Tatchell's original outing campaign in the UK the position was made very clear. Only outwardly homophobic and privately gay guys were ever threatened with outing. In an ideal world this would never have been necessary, sadly several prominent politicians, clergy and public figures were presenting a very public and very hypocritical face.

If I may ask you to put yourself in the position of a gay man who has not yet come out voluntarily, how would you feel if you were outed before you felt you were ready to come out as a personal choice? This is what you are advocating for republican gays who haven't moved into their log-cabin yet.

Even if you could justify it, you haven't convinced me of your case yet, would you be willing reconsider on the grounds that even republicans are human beings and deserve a minimum level of respect.

[mac56]

97. Hmmm.

"excuse me for mistaking you for an unfeeling freeper troll"

Snarky.

"...if I have hurt your feelings then I apologise."

Takes more than that to hurt my feelings, sport.

"However you still seem to think that outing a gay guy purely on political affiliation is OK."

Not exactly. Gay gals, too.

"Only outwardly homophobic and privately gay guys were ever threatened with outing."

You don't think that gay Repubs fall into this category?!

"In an ideal world this would never have been necessary, sadly several prominent politicians, clergy and public figures were presenting a very public and very hypocritical face."

And which world are we in again?!

"how would you feel if you were outed before you felt you were ready to come out as a personal choice?"

I dunno. Am I a Republican office holder in this hypothetical? Did I get elected by chanting the party line? Am I publicly chastising the group I'm secretly part of? How much choice do they get about my chastisement?

"This is what you are advocating for republican gays who haven't moved into their log-cabin yet."

Exactly right. When they embrace, and benefit from, the Republican philosophy of hatred and bigotry they forfeit the right to stay closeted until such misty, warm-fuzzy time they feel "ready to come out as a personal choice". Hypocrites, of whatever stripe, make me sick. If they don't sicken you, perhaps you're a better person than I am.

"would you be willing (to) reconsider on the grounds that even republicans are human beings and deserve a minimum level of respect."

As much respect as they show us.

[TheBaldyMan]

102. in answer to one part of your reply

"Only outwardly homophobic and privately gay guys were ever threatened with outing."

You don't think that gay Repubs fall into this category?!


Simply put, no - not at all.

If I knew a republican politician that had not come out I would privately advise them to do so, if they decided against that it is not my business to out them. They may have perfectly valid reasons to remain closeted - who am I to judge what is going on in their head, especially a closeted republican.

Even when Ted Haggard was outed I felt sympathy for the guy - imagine coming out in his community, it must have been a nightmare, no better than he deserved but I can't be so heartless not to feel some pity for him. They sent him off to a spa to be 'cured' of the gay FFS! How do you think that will turn out?

You still want to out republicans in a community as poisonous as that? I'd have second thoughts about coming out if I was a republican. Sexuality is an intensely personal matter and we should only resort to outing as an extreme measure.

edited for spelling

[mondo joe]

94. And in most cases, IMO, it's not a very private affair.

Here's how it works: gay political figures are often plenty public in tyhe gay community. They show up at parties with their same sex date or partner. They go to gay bars. They are known to be gay.

There is a shamed based automatic assumption that what happens in the gay community isn't really "public" - it's somehow covert, and there is an assumption of shared secrecy.

I reject that assumption.

If you are a public figure and you are in a gay bar, I think you're out in public.

To my thinking there's a big difference between violating privacy and simply reporting what's done in public.

[kansasblue]

4. I never felt it was about them.

I see there 'outing' as small price to pay for a greater good. When I read of some outing I think that there is one less person passing legislation that's causing pain to other innocent people. I remember that the one biggest causes of teen suicide is dealing with the pain of being gay.

So I believe, and I think the outers do too, that we need not focus on one persons personal discomfort at being outed. But rather reflect on the teenage lives that were saved, the happier lives lived by hundreds of others as discriminatory legislation is less likely to pass. That a hate filled speech is less likely to read.

Those that oppose it are focusing on the wrong victims.

kb

[Smarmie Doofus]

17. Mmm... this is what I would have written...

... were I this articulate.


>>>But rather reflect on the teenage lives that were saved, the happier lives lived by hundreds of others as discriminatory legislation is less likely to pass.>>>

Indeed we sometimes forget what exactly the stakes are: literally... in may cases at least... life and death.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

23. That train of reasoning leads to some places you probably don't want to go.

Once you start arguing that the end justifies the means in the context of what is and isn't a legitimate political attack, you have no way of rebutting someone who argues that it's OK to pry into the private lives of liberal politicians because liberalism is bad.

[dsc]

5. I find it nothing short of amazing that a group of people who spent

untold hours and untold money investigating Bill Clinton's private life lamenting the outing of other people's private lives. On the merits of this particular issue. I thing outing should be extremely limited. Only those who have power and use it to harm gays should be outed.

[fishwax]

27. an excellent point n/t

[zanne]

8. A second civil war...

:rofl:

[bryant69]

12. He really did write it though - a few years back i guess. 2003.

http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com/2003/10/dennis-prager-writes-irresponsible.html

Bryant

[zanne]

16. I wonder if he'll send out invitations.

I'll bring the green bean casserole.

[BlueManDude]

9. My feeling is that Dems need to as nasty and petty as the GOP is

It is only after the GOP is exposed to the same tactics that they habitually use that they will change their ways and politics will be less corrosive. People will get trampled and hurt in the process.

[bryant69]

11. I'm not sure about that theory

Isn't it just as likely that they will say "We need even more corrosive and evil tactics to defeat those bastard Democrats who have hurt us so badly?"

You start a rhetorical arms race of sorts.

Bryant

[pampango]

19. Agreed. I really don't like the "In order to beat these guys, we

have to become more like these guys" theory of electoral behavior.

We do have to adapt to their tactics and come up with good counter strategies, but we do not have to become like them.

[Terran]

10. Prager's argument is a non-starter anyway

because there is nothing "morally repellant" about outing in the first place. Being homosexual is nothing to be ashamed of--therefore, why should anyone care if the public knows that you are? Many prominent repubs have been outed and it hasn't exactly destroyed their careers.

What I find amusing here is how well Prager sets out the correct argument, re the hypocrisy. He's right, hypocrites deserve no special consideration.

And yes, this is about the 10,000th time this subject has arisen at DU, but it's always going to be new to someone...

[dsc]

13. Until gays are treated equally outing does cause huge problems

Gays can be fired, have their families reject them, and sometimes even get driven to suicide or get harmed by others. That is why I am opposed to outing celebrities and the like. I do think anti gay politicians are a fair target.

[Terran]

30. You're right, but...

We have to resist this notion that outing is morally repellant, because it's the same as saying that homosexuality is morally repellant. If we buy in, in any way, to the notion that one person's sexuality is a liability while another's is merely 'normal', then we'll never be treated equally.

[dsc]

34. The act can be immoral even if being gay isn't

Take the outing of Plame. Even if it wasn't illegal, virtually anyone thinks it was immoral. Not because Plame was behaving immorally but because outing her put her in great danger. Some gays would be in similar positions.

[Sammy Pepys]

35. Coming out of the closet is that always not easy...

..and I think it should be the decision of that person to decide when it happens. Having someone co-opt your life like that is pretty disgusting, fi you ask me. I have friends that many years later are still trying to come to terms with some family members over it.

[valerief]

14. But conservatives are great proponents of civil rights. Bwahahahahahaha! nt

[skiddlybop]

18. Bullshit.

You out Valerie Plame and put her family and all her network in danger, fuck yes will I out every self-hating gay Republican hypocrite.

You push Matt Sanchez with his bogus you-spit-on-me whine, hell to the fuck yeah will I out him as a porn star and let people know he solicited money through the kkkonservative network claiming he will be deployed to Iraq, meanwhile he goes home with his Jeane Kirkpatrick award and all the money and gets on his manhunt webpage to solicit sex work?

You with your serial divorces and woman-hating rants point the finger at my morals? Insist you need tolerance for lying and we need to be too polite to tell the truth about liars? Fuck no to this deal.

[Lil Missy]

20. I wonder if he feels the same way about investigating Clinton's underwear?

[mondo joe]

21. Gays are not obliged to keep politically sensitive secrets for their enemies.

It's as simple as that.

If you want to stay closeted, stay home and keep it to yourself.

If you enter the public square by going to gay bars, or showing up at parties with your same sex date, you have shared your secret.

No one is obliged to keep it for you.

[BeFree]

22. Every FN one of them

Should be outed. No holds barred. Gay folks should have no compunction revealing who's who. To hold back is hypocritical.

[Toucano]

24. Conservative gays work against the gay rights movement.

They are traitors for personal gain, no less than Judas Iscariot.

From Roy Cohen and J. Edgar Hoover to Jeff Gannon and Matt Sanchez and Mark Foley, these greedy people are dangerous and must be EXPOSED.

If you've risen to a position of power or influence and you're not what you claim to be, you will be exposed.

No one is criticizing them for being gay. They're being criticized for being LIARS and in some cases (Foley, Sanchez, and Gannon) CRIMINALS.

[BigDDem]

25. Wonder what Ken Mehlman thinks of this....

[Rwalsh]

26. ALL gay politicians should be outed

Back in the 80's, AIDS activists had a saying: Silence = Death.


Well, today, when it comes to gay rights, Silence (politicians who choose to remain in the closet) = contributing to homophobia & complicity in crimes against gays.


Politicians who choose to remain in the "closet" are saying "I don't want to be a part of any of this stuff." That makes them worse than gay conservatives. Not getting involved is a far greater crime than being on the wrong side on an issue.


As someone once said: If you're not part of the solution (being open about being gay), you're part of the problem.

[bryant69]

29. Yes but who should decide for them?

I think nobody should smoke - I think any of you who smoke are stupid (in this one area, at least) and are contributing to long term health problems for our society. But do I have the right to force them to stop smoking?

I totally get the idea that they should out themselves; I even agree. But this is going a step beyond that and saying that whether they want to or not they should be out.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[mondo joe]

48. Here's the deal: there are out gay republicans who HURT other gays,

but also are out to other gays. There is an unspoken code that gays will keep each others' secret.

Well that's bullshit, IMO. If someone truly wants to keep this a secret, let them do so. But once they show up in a gay bar, or acknowledge their same sex partner at parties or get togethers, they are fair game.

[bryant69]

52. So they can be gay so long as nobody knows about it?

Bryant

[mondo joe]

56. If you want to keep a secret, keep it secret. Don't let it be known and

simple expect others with no obligation to you to keep it a secret.

That's an old shame based model that i have nothing to do with.

[bryant69]

57. You may not have created it, but it seems like you'll happily exploit it

No offense.

Bryant

[mondo joe]

59. I'll happily exploit what? I'm sorry - I don't understand.

I don't understand what you're saying.

What I am willing to exploit is any vulnerability of those who have made war on my family.

[bryant69]

62. I may have misunderstood you

I apologize - I took this phrase "That's an old shame based model that i have nothing to do with." to refer to the idea that being gay is somehow shameful which is why some homosexuals endeavor to stay in the closet. In which case, while you'd obviously prefer that not to be the case, you are willing to use it to swing away at Republican Homosexuals.

But if I misunderstood I apologize.

Bryant

[mondo joe]

65. No problem - (I think!). Just to be quite clear:

There is a shame-based code of conduct in the gay community that I do not approve or or take part in.

There are gay republicans who are out to other gays but know the shame based code calls on them to be complicit in keeping their secrets.

I refuse to take part in it, and if I could out every gay republican I would.

[bryant69]

67. Ah yes, I did misundestand you

Thank you for clarifying.

Bryant

[zalinda]

28. As I read this, a thought went through my head

Why not out them all? If every gay person was out, then people would have to accept them. It would be too difficult to say one day that person is great, and the next day when he's out, well, I knew he was bad news. Isn't there some proverb or story about shining a light into the darkness.

I know it's none of our business, but the repubs keep making it our business by trying to pass laws against it.....by preaching hate. The hypocrisy gets to me.

zalinda

[Sammy Pepys]

31. I pretty muich agree with that guy

I think these outing movements play right into the hands of evangelicals and homohpobes that being gay is something to be ashamed of. So many people fight for the causes of people being respected for their ideas and intellect rather than their sexual orientation or sex or skin color. But the outing movement just takes it a step backwards, IMHO.

[yardwork]

32. This is a classic "straw man" argument

Prager states, "gay rights activism would have to be considered one of the least morally appealing movements of our time. How many gay rights activists have ever outed anybody? Damn few. Yet Prager brushes the entire gay rights movement as "one of the least morally appealing movements of our time" because a handful of gay Republicans have been outed by a couple of gay newsletter editors?

Give me a break. Take a look at Abu Ghraib, torture and illegal detention of prisoners of war and U.S. citizens, outing undercover CIA agents, the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians, the deaths and maiming of thousands of U.S. soldiers in the name of a false war, etc. etc. for moral outrage.

Puh-leeze.

[MasterDarkNinja]

33. It depends on if they 'deserve' it or not

If they use gay rights issues for political gain by preaching hate of gays and homosexuals then they're just betraying their own kind and deserve to be outed. I mean gay politicans trying to rally voters and get elected by going "we need to ban gay marriage" etc is like black politicans 50 or so years ago trying to get elected by going "we must keep whites as the supreme race".

[ComerPerro]

36. I got no problem outing gay conservatives, and BTW, the good guys did win the civil war

[bryant69]

38. That was a commentary on Dennis Pragers version of history

Not my own.

Just so you know.

Bryant

[ComerPerro]

39. lol, its not a big deal but i shoudl have realized that

[Ganja Ninja]

37. The GOP has declared war on gays.

If you're a gay Republican and you choose to use the same anti-gay rhetoric to court the homophobic vote then you deserve what you get.

[Name removed]

40. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[AllieB]

44. Dipshits? Must you always resort to personal attacks, Bronyraurus?

It's quite childish. It seems you disagree a lot with the majority of people here, but there's no need to hurl insults. In fact, it's against the rules. O8)

[Bronyraurus]

71. Oh, come on

I mean well. I don't know how many people here I disagree with. I've found people here who I agree with very much.

[Bronyraurus]

79. For posterity, minus insults

I wrote that it is an unconscionable act to out anyone.

I later expressed my surprise at many comments on this thread. I used a very bad name.

[mondo joe]

45. Bullshit. No one is obliged to keep secrets for others, unless they

promise to do so.

There are gay and lesbian assholes who hurt others to advance their own power, but their own homosexuality is an "open secret". They are known to be gay, and believe there is some unspoken code that their secret will be protected.

Well FUCK THAT.

I never promised to play along with their lies, and if I could I'd out every fucking one of them.

[AllieB]

50. Maybe Brony is sensitive about the whole "outing" issue in general

it's hard to pretend you're something that you're not, if you get my drift.

[Bronyraurus]

76. !

Isn't there a Fred Phelps march you should be attending right now?

Unbelievable.

[AllieB]

100. The outing that I refer to has nothing to do with being gay

Of course, you know that and you're just toying with us. Have fun. :*

[Bronyraurus]

103. Clever

Now you've broken two rules: stalking someone from one thread to another and calling them a troll.

All I did was call someone a dipshit.

Why don't you take your orthodoxy and smarmy insinuations elsewhere and stop bothering me?

[Bronyraurus]

72. I don't really think that

sexuality ought to be a part of the public discussion. I know that the cat's out of the bag on that, but still. I think that a person's sexuality should be private unless made public.

Furthermore, admitting to yourself that you are gay can be an extremely painful process, and I would never want to be the cause of making that process even more painful. It's the same for admitting to the world that you're gay. That's a decision that should be left up to the person and no one else.

[mondo joe]

88. Being gay isn't simply "sexuality". I have a spouse, I have a family.

Is identifying my partner "sexuality"? If so, every hetero in office has made his or her sexuality part of public discussion, and it is universally accepted as standard political fare.

If you are out enough that other gays know who you are and that you are gay, you've already admitted it to yourself.

I feel no need to be complicit in keeping politically sensitive secrets for enemies.

[Bronyraurus]

98. What if

you are not out enough that other gays know who you are and that you are gay?

What if you don't go to parties and gay bars? What if you just have a private relationship with another person?

[mondo joe]

99. If you aren't out enough for that, then how does anyone know you're

gay in order to out you?

[Bronyraurus]

104. Hey, that's a good point

I don't know, there are plenty of ways to dig up dirt. Private dicks do it all the time. Speaking of private dicks! Hey-o!

[mondo joe]

105. There's a difference between "digging up dirt" and simply revealing the truth.

The latter is generally what happens in outing.

[Forkboy]

47. We love you too!

:hug:

I figured you might need that.You seem like you're having a tough...year.

[AllieB]

55. The faux outrage is quite touching, isn't it?

I wonder if he feels empathy with Muslims who are painted as fanatics.

[Forkboy]

66. It's the first time I've seen him show empathy for anyone or anything.

:shrug:

[Bronyraurus]

75. There are flashes here and there

stay tuned.

[Bronyraurus]

74. What's that got to do with anything

and why do you always stalk my posts?

To answer your question, I have great sympathy for Muslims who suffer from bigoted prejudices of others because of stereotypes. I have roughly zero sympathy for Muslim fanatics.

Edited to add:

And what the hell do you mean by "faux outrage?" I've been extremely outspoken on issues concerning homosexuals on this board. I suggest you take a look, if you can, before you accuse me of homophobia.

[Bronyraurus]

73. Times are tough all over, Forky!

You do what you can.

[Madspirit]

41. As a Lesbian

I have no problem with outing conservative gays. THEY shoud be ashamed of themselves for working for the side that wants to destroy us. DESTROY us. There are factions of the Republican party that call for the execution of gays. They certainly don't want to give us Rights, etc. Any gay who is a Republican deserves some shaming.

I don't even have a problem with outing liberal gays who are closeted but public figures. We NEED the world to know how many of us there are. For people like Jody Foster, who everyone knows is a lesbian, who has been sharing her life with the same woman for years and years and years and having all the artificially inseminated babies, etc. to not just come out and say..."I'm a dyke"...cowardly much. We NEED these people to say what they are because famous people are who the average joe/jane looks up to.

I am tired of cowards. So out gays on both sides. If they don't want to come out, they should go for the "cure". I mean really, if they are so fucking ashamed of what they are and sit behind..."it's no one's business" knowing good and well that people listen to them and that their words can help us, fuck them.

If it's a public figure, fair game, on both sides. Out them all.
Lee

[cwydro]

80. I agree.

I find the closet despicable.

[Freddie Stubbs]

83. Should gay Demcorats be outed as well?

There are certainly factions of the Demcoratic Party which are not in favor of gay rights.

[Madspirit]

87. Did you read all the words?

<g> Sorry for the snark. I said right in my post, several times, including a long paragraph...ALL public figures, on both sides, should be outed.
Lee

[Madspirit]

42. kicking

I'm kicking this up because I would like to hear more people's comments on Outing.
Lee

[pitohui]

46. yes, conservatives are hypocrites and hypocrites deserve no mercy

what the fuck is the issue here? i'm tired of the whole "it's okay if they're republican" deal

no

it ain't okay

no more free passes, if a man earns the bread on his table by putting his foot on the face of other people who are doing no different in their private lives than what he does then he needs to be exposed, i don't care if he's having gay sex while kicking gays down the stairs or if he's screwing young ladies while crapping on bill clinton, this isn't about gay and straight, it's about the conservatives spend every living moment of the day making sure that i have no rights as a private person, while they are supposed to be of an elite special class that has an elite special right to enjoy such things as gay sex and adultery and smoking up in private

no it ain't fair and it ain't okay

either sex, drugs, whatever is a private matter for EVERYONE or the people who are using these tools to persecute others need to be outed relentlessly

they think they're so special, well, they can kiss my ass

[yurbud]

53. So if the guy leading the lynch mob is secretly part black, you wouldn't out him to at least confuse

the mob long enough for their victim of the moment to escape?

These guys aren't just opposing gay-friendly legislation, but creating a climate that winks at violence against gays like the beating death of Matthew Shephard.

[pitohui]

69. of course i would out him

i don't see any moral dilemma at all, you out conservative/reactionary hypocrite buttwipes

my prose is really getting poor if that much didn't come clear

[yurbud]

51. you do it for same reason you'd out a klansman whose part black or a nazi dating a Jew

It prove the don't even believe their own propaganda and are playing the public for suckers

[bryant69]

54. Prager addresses that in a kind of a pathetic manner

Saying that simply being gay doesn't mean you have to think that gays should get married, which is, I suppose, technically true.

One thing that surprises me is that they haven't found an openly gay man to publicly oppose gay marriage. They found blacks who opposed affirmative action and other civil rights measures; why can't they find a gay person to stand up and oppose gay marriage?

I mean, if the price were right.

Bryant

[yurbud]

58. Yeah, why isn't Mary Cheney loudly jumping on the bandwagon?

[bryant69]

64. Presumably she's pretty well set money-wise anyway

Might not have as strong an incentive.

Bryant

[yurbud]

82. and it's a long way up to the surface from that bunker in an undisclosed location

[yurbud]

60. only reason this is getting a lot of play: talk about ANYTHING but WAR & GONZOGATE

[yurbud]

63. look for flood of anti-Harry Potter, anti-immigrant, red-baiting, abortion, American idol

speculating--anything but the central issues of the day: how conservative policies have lowered our standard of living and cost lives.

[in_cog_ni_to]

61. I agree with the last sentence.

Because, the activists argue, conservative gays are hypocrites, and hypocrites deserve no mercy."

They're hypocrites and support a party that doesn't support Gay Rights. They should be outed. IT'S THE HYPOCRISY.

[mondo joe]

68. How does he feel about abused wives outing their spouses as abusers?

I think it's very similar.

[NashVegas]

70. Repuke and Dem Alike - As Long As They're In the Closet, They Can Be Blackmailed

And I'd like my congress free of that.

As for hypocrisy? The corruption that follows when it is exposed - and not denounced - is a disaster on the landscape.

[mitchtv]

77. Please someone: Get the Maplethorpe Photos of the Gropinator out

they need to be exposed; also get something good on anti-gay gay David Dreier.

[Skittles]

78. mixed feelings

I absolutely believe a person's private life should be off limits but when a person is gay and is voting anti-gay - well, I understand the anger of those who detest the hypocrisy. Still not sure I would out a person though - I just, I don't know, I don't think I could do it.

[Forkboy]

81. My feelings too

I'm very uncomfortable with the idea,but the hypocrisy is hurting others and needs to be pointed out.

Still kind of sucks though.

[mac56]

85. Lesser of two evils.

The outing is less evil than the hypocrisy.

[mondo joe]

89. Private lives of people in politics just aren't all that private.

In fact, personal lives of politicians are standard fare -- do we not know about Giuliani's multiple marriages? About Newt dumping his ex wife in her hospital bed? About Elizabeth Edwards' cancer?

[Skittles]

91. knowing about their private lives is one thing

using the information against them to score political points is another - however, I can see how Newt going on about family values while having affairs and an in-the-closet gay politician voting against human rights for gay folk kinda makes their private lives ripe for the picking.

[mac56]

84. Remember at all times -

Republicans are less troubled by hypocrisy than normal people are.

[xchrom]

86. roy cohn is the standard by which ANY outing should be done.

gay in this country can still get you killed -- leave you without a job -- outing can do more than neutralize a political enemy.

and far too many straight folk have used the hypocrisy line as way to work teenage gay bashing of their own.

not at all unlike grotesque prison rape humour.


being straight and saying you are for gay rights, marriage, etc -- does NOT automatically make you my ally.

far too many straights have pretended to a kind of benign or even friendly relationship with gay folk -- all the while harboring some very anti-gay feelings -- and i've seen plenty of it here.

[Uncle Roy]

92. If "It's okay if a Republican does it" is the law of the land these days, then "Out them all!" is

good strategy.

Budget deficits, lying, stealing elections, "disappearing" people, secret prisons and torture are now all official Republican policy, and therefore okay, but homosexuality is still "immoral".

So it seems to me that the best strategy for gay people to gain widespread public acceptance is to create the impression that all Republicans are homosexual.

We should not only "out" all the ones who are known to be gay, we should give the rest of them the benefit of the doubt and out them too, even if we have to cherry-pick the intelligence, forge a few documents and just plain make up stuff to do it. Nothing wrong with that either, these days, is there?

[Madspirit]

95. No Thank-you

As a lesbian I just want to say, you straights can keep the bad non-gay Republicans. I only want the truth out there. I don't want "homosexual" equivalent to something Evil.

I do think we should out all gay public figures on both sides.
Lee

[Colobo]

106. What if they don't want to be "outed"?

[Colobo]

101. Isn't coming out a personal decision?

[mondo joe]

107. When one enters public life, he or she surrenders some of the usual standards of

privacy.

[Madspirit]

108. Thank-you!

Exactly. ...and if you are gay and working for a party that supports us NOT existing...tough shit. ...and if you're liberal, well, don't get in public life if you aren't willing to put it on the line for your own. Tough shit for any public person who is in the closet. They have no right, especially the ones who are Republican, actually working for our Would-Be-Destroyers. Fuck them. Fuck them. Fuck them.
Lee

[orleans]

109. the republic party has the prize on homophobia

being part of that party, caucusing with other pukes, voting party lines, adding to their majority control which gives them majority control over committees as well as preventing dems from putting a bill before congress....i don't really care how quiet they have been on gay rights (ie. i never said gays are sinful), or how supportive they personally have been on gay rights (ie. i'm very supportive of gay rights). the bottom line is that they support a party who has used the issue of gay civil rights to divide this country, to scare people, and to tout themselves as "perfect".

so, on that note--i'll start by saying any gay politician who supports a party that pushes an anti-gay agenda should definitely be outed. (and...should i go further to say that any gay person who supports a party who supports anti-gay agendas should be outed.)

(i used to be a far more tolerant person. more forgiving. more understanding. more empathic. more tie-dyed, hippie, woodstock. but with everything these pukes have done/pulled/stolen my tolerance has dissipated to a large degree)

we've been saying this for six years and it rings more true every day:

IT'S THE HYPOCRISY STUPID! IT'S THE HYPOCRISY STUPID! IT'S THE HYPOCRISY STUPID!