FMA and Public Outing

[VaHawk]

I definitely support protests to our senators to get them to vote against the FMA, but should such protests involve public outings of their staff?

 

There is not one, but two groups, known to most gays in DC, that have publicly outed gays who are on the staffs of mostly Republican senators, in support of the FMA. They have published the names/phone numbers of these gay men and women in the local gay paper and on internet sites such as Craig's list.

 

Their reasoning, I suppose, is that any gay who works for such a senator, and who is not out to their boss, is a hypocrite, and is thus a silent supporter of the FMA. As such, they should be publicly outed in "shame", and suffer the subsequent professional consequences. After all the individuals in these outing groups, KNOW what is professionally appropriate to their gay brethren! Not to mention what is best for them personally.

 

I've always been of the opinion that "coming out" should be a private matter only and that only the individual person, can make the decision as to when/if ever to "come out".

 

I feel that these two groups are engaged in a type of "gay terrorism", and find them to be disgusting in their tactics, and at least imo, a real disservice to the gay community. Kind of reminds me of the anti-communism tactics of McCarthy in the early 50's!

[buckguy]

"They have published the names/phone numbers of these gay men and women in the local gay paper and on internet sites such as Craig's list."

 

Are you speaking of the Washington Blade? Actually, Chris Crain, the publisher of the Blade (who also has the same capacity for Southern Voice) wrote a somewhat muddled, backpedaling editorial about all this last week http://www.sovo.com/2004/7-9/view/index.cfm. He has the delusion that Log Cabinnettes can be "reached". And this is the extent of the Blade's "outing"

http://www.washblade.com/2004/7-9/news/localnews/outed.cfm

 

Really, you've got to stop reading right wing news sources w/o checking the facts. You probably need to read some history, too.

 

For the most part, McCarthy made shit up (like his "lists of Communists in various govt agencies) and went after people who's association with communism was often incidental at most (going to meetings once or twice, belonging to orgnaizations that held any associations with Communist Party USA secret, etc.). Of course, outing hypocrites like the chiefs of staffs of right wing Congresspeople is something altogether different than what McCarthy did. Even with people like Ethel Rosenberg, the evidence wasn't all that conclusive (julius was a different story). But the folks that have been targeted are just plain evil. And don't forget, McCarthy himself went after the Socialist vote in his first Senate run. He wasn't above a little hypocrisy himslef (and I won't even mention the "gay" rumors about him--he was a self-loathing drunk who married "very late in life", you do the math).

[Guest Tampa Yankee]

>I definitely support protests to our senators to get them to

>vote against the FMA, but should such protests involve public

>outings of their staff?

 

No.

[VaHawk]

>Are you speaking of the Washington Blade? Actually, Chris

>Crain, the publisher of the Blade (who also has the same

>capacity for Southern Voice) wrote a somewhat muddled,

>backpedaling editorial about all this last week

>http://www.sovo.com/2004/7-9/view/index.cfm. He has the

>delusion that Log Cabinnettes can be "reached". And this is

>the extent of the Blade's "outing"

>http://www.washblade.com/2004/7-9/news/localnews/outed.cfm

 

And just HOW do any of the links you posted, dispute my point?

Does it matter just WHAT position in the hierarchy of the congressional staff one occupies? Does that give these radical homos, all of whom work in a profession where being openly gay, will not affect their professional opportunities, the right to out others, when such an outing could cost these people their livelihood? Does it give them the right to out them to their friends and families, before they have made the decsion to do so on their own?

 

>Really, you've got to stop reading right wing news sources w/o

>checking the facts. You probably need to read some history,

>too.

 

I don't need to read any kind of "wing" news sources, when self-righteous, holier than thou, queers post other gays' names and phone numbers on public internet sites such as Craig's List and call for others to call their bosses and report that they have "closeted queers" on their staff. What the FUCK does that accomplish, except to bring professional/personal hardship upon fellow gays? Is it going to change the senator's vote? NO!

>

> Of course, outing hypocrites like the chiefs of staffs

>of right wing Congresspeople is something altogether different

>than what McCarthy did. Even with people like Ethel Rosenberg,

>the evidence wasn't all that conclusive (julius was a

>different story). But the folks that have been targeted are

>just plain evil. And don't forget, McCarthy himself went after

>the Socialist vote in his first Senate run. He wasn't above a

>little hypocrisy himslef (and I won't even mention the "gay"

>rumors about him--he was a self-loathing drunk who married

>"very late in life", you do the math).

 

Yeah, some person who is gay, and who works in a very anti-gay arena, is definitely evil, because he doesn't feel it is to his professional/personal benefit to announce his gayness. Such people who have spent thousands of dollars on education and years of hard work, striving in an anti-gay professional environment should be publicly outed and lose their livelihood, especially by fellow gays who are in more gay-friendly professions, like gay newspaper columnist, waiter, bartender and busboy! Yep, they are bigger hypocrites than such public outers!

 

The biggest hypocrites, are those who DEMAND the public outing of their gay brethren. People like this, are certainly worthy of less respect than openly anti-gay politicians!

[+ Charlie]

I agree that it is not fair to out closeted staffpersons--how they live with themselves is their business. However, I think it is perfectly acceptable to out closeted politicians who propose and vote for anti-gay measures.

[Flower]

An important and good distinction -- I agree

[woodlawn]

I'm not sure I agree with you, Hawk. In the past, those who have "outed" other gays have put forward the rationale that it is legitimate to expose gays who actively work for an agenda that discriminates against gays. What's the difference between "outing" the gay henchmen of anti-gay members of Congress and "outing" members like Burton and Hyde and Chenoweth who were railing against Clinton's adulterous behavior while concealing their own past adulterous behavior?