Was it right or a good idea to out gay GOP staffers?

[yurbud]

Poll question: Was it right or a good idea to out gay GOP staffers?

That "list" of gay staffers that is circulating around the religious right groups makes me wonder. Why them instead of their elected bosses?

While the staffer is enabling bad policy, they are not in the same category of hypocrite as a legislator who gets elected by posing as straight, bashing gays, and then going Mehlman in his private life.

Agree, disagree?

[mondo joe]

1. All staffers are not equal.

Some are more involved in policy than others, and are thus active particpants.

[Hugin]

2. Outing pedophiles is good...

That's where it should be halted.

The rest should realize they're being outed as political cover for said pedophile.

[Prophet 451]

3. I'm unsure

I'm torn between two views here. On the one hand, if they want to closet themselves, it's not our business to stop them. On the other, I hate hypocrites above all else (very Brit attitude) so, I dunno.

[yurbud]

12. what if Hitler had a Jewish girlfriend?

[yurbud]

14. how about a drug addict who makes money by berating other addicts?

[Prophet 451]

19. Yeah, out him

like I said, I hate hypocracy so outing gay Republicans might be worthwhile since the R's have fought gay rights every step of teh way (plus, laying the boot into teh R's is always a good time).

[Bucky]

39. What about a law & order candidate who goes around murdering call girls?

I think we need to stay out of peoples' private moments like that

[pampango]

41. What about a Democrat who, in the past, was proud not to

judge the sexual orientation and to respect the right to privacy of others?

Let me see: Right to privacy and acceptance of others' sexual orientation, on the one hand;
Partisan advantage of outing hypocrisy, on the other hand.

If you believe we can have it all, go for it. Hope you're right. If I have to choose between privacy and acceptance versus outing hypocrisy, I will choose the former.

[mondo joe]

42. What right to privaacy from the press did you dream up?

And who is judging orientation?

[pampango]

45. I guess that I too old and grew up in an era when outing gays,

while legal and constitutional, was not considered a moral thing to do. I am no constitutional lawyer, so you are probably right that no one has a constitutional right to privacy from the press, although I will be saddened when the press publicizes women who have had abortions, people who have sensitive health problems they don't wish to talk about, my Social Security Number and other ID information.

So if you are saying that the world would be a better place if there were no secrets, I really cannot argue with that. More openness and more honesty are good for people, but forcing it on them is a bit a moral dilemma.

[Jed Dilligan]

47. I agree with the "not our business to stop them" part,

but, having chosen the closet, it is their business to stop us from knowing. If they are public figures people--not just political enemies--will want to know if they are gay or not. It is natural human curiosity, mixed with some homophobia, enacted by the press and other businesses that serve our curiosity. In a sense, they out themselves by placing themselves in positions of scrutiny. There are plenty of lines of work, other than politics, where you can be the "private person" you want to be.

I say if you want to hide your sexuality and still hold that political position, good luck. It's a project doomed to failure and in my opinion a sad way to live. I won't help you, but I won't waste my time trying to out you either.

[Stand and Fight]

4. No. n/t

[Journeyman]

5. Either you believe the personal is private or you do not. . .

but to hold different standards based on personal preference is hypocritical.

[mondo joe]

8. Personal heterosexuality is not private. Neither should

homosexuality be.

[Journeyman]

9. That's an odd answer.

My heterosexuality is most definitely private, both in my orientation and my activities. Why do say it is not?

[mondo joe]

10. The heterosexuality of public figures is certainly not private.

It isn't treated as if it's a private matter, and never has been.

[yurbud]

13. yep--otherwise they couldn't say they were leaving politics to spend

more time with their family--they'd have to say "with unspecified persons."

[Warpy]

11. When I post my rougues list of GOPerverts

I keep the heterosexuals like Hager front and center.

Anyone who is or does in private what he is preaching against in public should be outed. Period.

That tradition goes back to Christ, who wrote the sins of the villagers in the sand as they were about to stone an adultress to death.

[yurbud]

15. good point--let he who is without sin cast the first stone

If Republicans were really Christians, there'd be a hell of a lot less stones flying.

[Journeyman]

23. So because sinners have cast stones. . .

you feel justified in joining them, even though you be without sin yourself?

[mondo joe]

25. Telling the truth isn't casting a stone.

And being gay isn't a sin.

[Journeyman]

27. You obviously do not understand the contention at hand…

nothing I wrote indicated anything like the belief homosexuality is a sin, and the original "stone" referred to and the "sinners" in question are the very people you seem to want punished -- so what's your point?

[mondo joe]

29. Telling the truth isn't punishment. By what authority should anyone

be made to be complicit in deception?

[Journeyman]

30. Read Oliver Sipple's story and see if you can repeat such drivel.

www.lambda.net/~maximum/sipple.html

[mondo joe]

31. Sipple wasn't a GOP staffer.

Irrelevant.

[Journeyman]

32. Must be nice, to have only simple minded hatred as your guide. . .

lot of the rest of us use intelligence, empathy, compassion -- all those bothersome attributes of humanity you seem to see as useless. So be it. I certainly can't influence you, nor do I care to bother anymore.

[mondo joe]

33. No hatred at all. Love of my family, love of the truth.

Keep playing games if you like. The rest of us have work to do.

[Journeyman]

20. I have too much regard for the innocent to be so cruelly sweeping. . .

in any judgment against a fellow human being.

Are you prepared to take responsibility for all the pain and suffering your actions may cause others, people who are innocent of any filth but who will, nonetheless, be dragged into the limelight you seek to shine on others? What of all the children and wives, husbands and parents your rush to judgment will harm inadvertently? That you have suffered immeasurably may be irrefutable, but does that give you the right to inflict your pain on the innocent? Even Christ, when he sought to protect the adultress, did not intend to punish the rest, else he wouldn't have written their sins in dust and scattered it when the oppressors dispersed.

Do as you must, I won't sully myself with another's guilt. In keeping with my conviction, I abandoned a career because I would not partake in Oliver Sipple's crucifixion. I hope you find similar courage, or barring that, the strength to live with yourself.

[mondo joe]

21. You mean the wives who will learn they have been lied to?

Why be complicit in the lie?

[Journeyman]

26. By what moral authority do you condemn Oliver Sipple and his mother?…

What twisted logic helps you see human action in a void?

[mondo joe]

28. I don't have the power to condemn anyone. They can only condemn

themselves.

By what authority am I to be made complicit in lies??

[soothsayer]

6. I think that dude on blogactive.com is working his way up to members.

He's starting down the food chain and gradually building towards the election. Plans to do a senator this week I think. He says he is only outing the ones that turn around and write anti-gay legislation.

Here's his site http://www.blogactive.com/

[yurbud]

16. thanks! I heard about that on the radio after I posted the poll.

[bullimiami]

7. its really all about the hypocrisy.

liberal people dont give a hoot about who you sleep with.

[yurbud]

17. OR who you have sex with...

[WI_DEM]

18. If they were part of the conspiracy to protect Foley then yes.

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

22. Why them? Because that way their hypocritical Repub boss officeholder

gets to keep a seat for the GOP.

[Ksec]

24. Id like to see a list of gay religious right people.

Now that would be just.

[yurbud]

34. probably less than Catholic priests but more than general population

Priests aren't allowed to marry which gives them cover for not being in a hetero relationship.

But it's rare for a fundie preacher to not be married. He would be considered immature and the old ladies in the church would constantly be fixing him up with girls and gossiping about him.

I have known gay evangelicals, but they weren't in leadership, and they weren't openly gay or even knew it themselves as far as I could tell.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

35. Mixed Feelings

I have mixed feelings about "outing" people in general. As somebody who is transgendered and has had the experience of somebody disclosing my private activities to my father without my consent, I can sympathize with people who feel violated by such disclosures. Furthermore, as a Social Worker, I have a strong ethical belief in the right of people to make such decisions as they see fit as long as they do not appear to be engaging in illegal activities or endangering themselves or others. On the other hand, I also feel very angry about the blatant hypocrisy of many of our political leaders, especially those whom regularly push virulently anti-GLBTQ legislation, and I feel that such hypocrisy ought to be exposed for what it is wherever and whenever it is found. However, I'm also concerned that the tactic of "outing" may do less for our causes and more for continuing the cycle of personal destruction for political gain, which I'm not sure is a good thing either. :shrug:

[yurbud]

37. what if you knew someone who habitually ridiculed and belittled

transgendered people was secretly trans themselves?

[Proud Liberal Dem]

40. Confront them privately

If I knew that somebody who habitually rediculed and belittled transgendered people was also transgendered, I would likely confront them on their hypocrisy and attempt to get them to see the error of their ways, however I'm not sure that I would publicly reveal it no matter how much I detest such hypocrisy. Perhaps my having been "outed" to my father without my permission (which, thankfully, turned out o.k.) gives me a somewhat different perspective on the issue but I'm just not sure that "outing" is a moral or ethical thing to do nor am I sure that it's the best way to advance political debate. I believe that the key to ending homophobia, racism, sexism, etc. is ultimately through education and advocacy. Hopefully, the day will come when such prejudices are relegated to the "dustbin of history" and people will no longer feel like they have anything to hide (or expose).

[tomp]

36. i voted for: any exposure of hypocrisy ok

and that's for both dems and repubs.

also, i think of this issue as akin to financial disclosure. if you're involved in making determinations about issues that effect glbt,etc people, then the people have a right to know your orientation, ESPECIALLY if you're making it an issue of morality.

[Bucky]

38. How in the hell can George Bush have two votes on DU? Is he even a donor?

[Sammy Pepys]

43. I don't understand the fascination with it

People who think it's going to turn Republican voters away are deluding themselves. It just doesn't work that way anymore.

[BlooInBloo]

44. There's no fact of the matter about it either way... it's just a personal

... 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* body.

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

[onenote]

46. I think there is a big difference between staffers and public figures

Staffers toil in obscurity for the most part. Why should their private lives be a matter of public display if they don't choose to make themselves public figures? Where do you draw the line? Should the brother/sister/mother/father/child of a staffer be outed? As for the hypocrisy claim, not every staffer agrees with every position taken by their bosses. Hell, one could argue that Mark Foley wasn't a hypocrite - he may not have been open about his sexual orientation (although he wasn't terribly secretive about it either) but he voted against the Same Sex Marriage amendment. Should the closeted gay staffer of a Democrat who voted against the Same Sex Marriage amendment also be outed? And what about gay staffers for Democrats that agree with repubs that marriage should be between a man and woman but believe it should be left to states to decide (i.e., a lot of Democratic office holders).

It seems like a slippery slope once you expand the targets of outings to elected officials who misrepresent themselves to the public, thus opening the door for the public to know the truth about aspects of their lives that were the subject of the misrepresentation. I'd hate to go down the road where every staffer is expected to agree with every position that their bosses take.