loquitur,

great post; albeit i pretty much completely disagree with it, but i'm glad you're here to take up the other side with foolthemall. you've both made several points that are giving me cause to think about this.

1. i'm guessing from your post that this attitude carries over to other issues as well. you don't care if someone is honest in their representations of their character, as long as they espouse and are consistent to a list of campaign promises? do you care if they are true to their socio-political agenda?

2. i agree that everyone has a zone of privacy they deserve and should be able to maintain. i think that a person who chooses to disclose certain aspects of their lives to the public should be honest about those statements. if you're not, then don't make statements about that topic at all. it seems to me you're not advocating passive non-disclosure, but active lying. is this correct?

3. the affect of the hypocracy isn't only a product of their legislative power, but also in terms of creating and sustaining the environment of discrimination. as a politician, they have the bully pulpit, so to speak. they run for office so that their opinion can be heard more loudly and can recieve more attention. in this case, its not just about "gay marriage," its about an atmosphere wherein people are deprived of basic rights.

do you respect them if they are being lied to? of course you think your views are binding on other people, or that they should be. you don't want private details disclosed to the public. how do you feel about murder? rape? etc? we all want some of our views to be binding on other people, we're just not in agreement on which views in this case, or at least it seems that way to me. i'm not saying, nor are others in this thread that people shouldn't be allowed to keep their lives private, or that they shouldn't be allowed to be hypocritical in areas...but then don't be a politician or else don't legislate those activities. otherwise, you're going to get caught with your pants down.

Pigglet, just briefly:

1. Depends what you mean by representations of character. What I'm concerned with mainly when I deal with someone is whether s/he is reliable. If s/he says s/he'll do something, can I count on an honest effort? If s/he says something is true, can I rely on it? If the person advocates good personal hygiene in public, I don't care if s/he picks his/her nose when s/he is in private. That's his/her business, not mine. It doesn't take away the least little bit from the validity of advocating good personal hygiene - that position has to be evaluated on the merits, <i>irrespective</i> of whether the person who advocates it goes mining for boogers at home. If a congressman advocates charity but is personally a tightwad, that means zero about the validity of the position that giving to charity is good. See what I mean? If you think a congressman shouldn't be resisting gay rights, your argument is with his position, not with whether he has a secret gay lover. If he didn't have a gay lover but still resisted gay rights, you still would have to try to change his position. So his position is what you have an issue with, and that's what you need to try to change. His private conduct is not relevant to the validity of his position, because someone else who does not have his character flaws could equally well articulate the same position.


2. No, I don't approve of lying. But let's be clear about what lying is. Lying is saying something you know not to be true: a factual statement. What we're talking about isn't lying. What we're talking about is maintaining silence about a personal matter. Very different. I guess your premise is that someone who is a closeted gay necessarily must in reality think it's ok to be gay, and therefore is a lying hypocrite if he advocates a different position. Well, you can't assume that: you don't know what the other person is thinking and you don't know how he feels about his gay activities. If he is ashamed of them, then he's not a hypocrite, he's just weak - or so it would seem to him. Now you and I could agree he is just a conflicted soul who needs to come to terms with himself, but that would be our diagnosis, and not necessarily the way he sees it. You can't simply jump to the conclusion that your way of looking at things is the only correct one.

3. This point of yours is an argument on the merits of gay rights, rather than about outing. I don't take issue with equal treatment (as I think I said earlier, I believe I probably have more gay people in my home on a regular basis than most of the people here). But it's off point.

As for murder, rape - those aren't issues that are reasonably the subject of debate in society. Bad analogies. My point simply was that there are things that in current society are open to disagreement by people within, say, three SDs of the mean. I have my own views on them, and I would expect the social fabric to work the issues out over time, but I'm not about to start consigning everyone who disagrees wtih me on some issue or other to the outer limits of hell, or brand them as evil. They're not - they just have the bad judgment to disagree with me. And just as I don't want to be treated badly for disagreeing with them, I don't treat them badly for disagreeing with me.

Host, I don't understand your post other than that you're angry at people who see the world differently from the way you do. You say you want to know who these people are who have different opinions from you - well, suppose they were all totally blameless, upstanding, non-hypocritical types who <i>still</i> voted against what you perceive as the correct position -- does that change the result one bit? Of course not. You have not made yourself the slightest bit better off. If everyone who voted against you was some sort of saint, they STILL will have voted against you. So what does prying into other people's lives gain you? ZERO.

Outing doesn't make you the slightest bit better off; it just hurts someone else -- which means that your objective apparently is to inflict pain on those with different views, even though it helps you not one bit. Unless I'm missing something here, that's what you appear to be saying. And that's not very attractive. What you should be caring about is changing minds and persuading people, not inflicting pain on those who disagree.

Advancing equal treatment for gay people is not going to be achieved by hurting other people. Other than giving yourself a little bit of vindictive satisfaction, it doens't advance your goal one bit.

Let me add one more thing: I don't expect to be governed by saints. All I expect is good faith effort to keep promises, and an avoidance of corruption. Do that and I'll be a happy man. And if they want to pick their nose or buttfuck their pet goat in their spare time, go right ahead, just don't tell me about it.

As it is now, I would never stand for election to anything, or appointment to anything (even though I am pretty sure I could do a better job than many of the bozos now in govt) because I don't want to have my privacy invaded or be potentially subject to political grandstanding at my expense. And I know a lot of people who feel the same way -- talented people who have a lot to offer, but simply won't do it because the price in terms of the abuse and other shit you have to put up with is just too high.

loquitur,

all i can say is that i agree with your points 100%, save for when someone volunteers to be shephard for the rest of us. i don't expect them to be perfect - i do expect them to be forthright about issues that, right or wrong, are obviously huge controversial issues of our time. as i said, to me homosexuality is just one example, but it could go to any of the drugs, sex and rock 'n roll sins. these people get to set the agenda for our national focus in a lot of key ways. in addition, the way our system is set up, these guys (particularly for national offices) get a pretty sweet deal out of it - salary and speaking engagements, whip-ass insurance, not-too-shabby pension...yeah, i expect a little higher standard out of them. not to mention that they, ummm....sort of claim to hold themselves to a higher standard as well.

if those expectations keep people who aren't honest about their lives from running for office - i can't really say i'm upset at that prospect.

Agree with this and with everything else so well said by loquitur.

People have private lives and public lives. We all do. And they don't always converge neatly. But that is the decision of the individual, no one else.

My last post included this:
This was the response....followed by endorsements from pigglet and from highthief:
...our conversation comes in the context of closeted gay citizens, joining, supporting....contributing time, energy, money.....and engaging in persuasion of others to do likewise, to support a political party that views their homosexuality as a pathology....a deviance.....a "sin".

These secretly gay folks rise to prominence in this party, and support it's platform of singling out homosexuals for reduced rights, and exclusion from equal protection. The agenda of their party is to remove "sexual orientation" as a class description that is afforded civil rights protections, and to actually relegate anyone but heterosexuals to second class citizenship.

The closeted legislator devotes part of his political life to advancing this anti-gay agenda.....he votes for the legislation that will exclude homosexuals from equal rights and equal protection as a class that is discriminated against.

It has never been easy to be openly gay. Even in these enlightened times, gay people still suffer physical assault, occasionally fatal, merely because of their sexual orientation. Our closeted republican congressmen have witnessed the persecution....the harassment, bullying, and humiliation of homosexuals who have been too "matter of fact"....too open, about who they are, to the rest of the world.

The movement to "out" these congressmen is led by homosexual activists like Mike Rogers at http://www.blogactive.com/

There is no advocacy for outing closeted gay congressmen who do not specifically promote an anti-gay legislative agenda. Voting for anti-gay legislation....such as prohibiting adoption of children in DC by homosexuals, or to exclude sexual orientation from a workplace anti-discrimination category, is grounds for outing, if you are determined to be a closeted gay congressman.

Merely supporting the republican party anti-gay agenda is not grounds for outing. One must be, or work for a closeted gay congressman who actually casts anti-gay votes in congress.

These congressmen are closeted because they know that it is difficult and risky to reputation and personal safety to come out of the closet, yet they make the decision to make it even more difficult to live an openly gay life in American society.....to be hired and earn a living under the same assumptions of fair and equal treatment by employers, landlords, lenders, realtors, school administrators, and law enforcement, as heterosexuals live under.

We live in a day where the societal reforms of more than forty years ago are too casually dismissed. Many of us "know" that there is no reason or justication for affirmative action programs, just as we "know" that outing closeted gay congressmen "only hurts others".

Formerly....we had greater empathy. If we were not a racial minority, or if we were not gay, or female, we did not presume, as vigorously, to dismiss the challenges that non-white protestant heterosexual males faced in their everyday lives.....in school, in the workplace.....boarding a bus and choosing a seat....buying or renting a residence in a "good neighborhood".

Now....we presume to know all of that....even without personally experiencing it. That J6P over there.....he's/she's (insert whatever class description here) ....he "made it".... the rest of 'em can, too....

We are engaged in an argument that I think requires empathy. If you have never been chased, spat at, punched in the face, embarassed, or excluded, simply because you were perceived as "not heterosexual", why would you take the time to post so much in favor of protection of the sexual identity of folks intent on making life as a homosexual.....harder to live, via personally legislating to make it harder?

Consider that, for these closeted gay congressmen, living openly gay was perceived by them to be too dificult, evn before their own efforts to legislate more difficulty into living that way.....living openly as who you are.

I think that you have it backwards. It isn't "none of our business", who the closeted anti-gay members of congress are. It's "none of our business" how the homosexual community and it's supporters choose to react to these hypocrits and their political party with an agenda that works against homosexuals. No one is "outed" without a chance (numerous opportunities) to initiate a discussion about who they are, and what they stand for. This is not balckmail. They make the choice to portray themselves to be just like any other anti-gay republican legislator or staffer.

<b>After they've worked to create a more difficult and unfriendly society for gay people to live in, isn't it only fitting that the rest of the gay community makes an effort to make the closeted gay politicians who serve an anti-gay agenda, live in that unfriendly society, too?</b>

I have no idea what to say to this, host. You're speaking Swahili and I speak English. You statement is the very antithesis of what I believe and how I see the world.

I'm the first person to support gay rights, gay marriage, whatever - but people have an absolute right to keep their intimate, private lives seperate from their public life, no matter who they are or what they do for a living. Whether this is a closeted gay person who votes against gay-friendly legislation at the ballot box, a gay person who doesn't campaign for the candidate supporting gay-marriage, or a politician who would rather his or her sexual identity not play a role in their public life; everyone deserves this.

I see this as far, far more important a principle than scoring a few paltry political points - which seems to be the only motivation for "outing".

Host, I'll make this real simple. Your position is just plain spite. Outing has yet to produce any social change, so far as I can tell. All it does is inflict harm on people. All it does is give YOU a bit of a rush, some vindictive satisfaction. Basically, it's a form of terrorism: you think your pain is so important that it's ok to inflict it on others, even if inflicting that harm doesn't get you closer to where you want to go.

But that is the kind of act that gets perpetrated by those who are LOSING an argument. Your pro-gay rights position happens to be gaining ground -- mark my words, in ten or 15 years everyone will wonder what the fuss was about. All you're accomplishing by this viciousness is slowing down acceptance of your position. People don't like viciousness, and when they see it, they tend to tune out.

i would echo the above (and my own ambivalence about the tactic)...it presupposes, reinforces--legitimates even--exactly the homphobia that one would imagine it to be combatting if you allow yourself to stay entirely within the logic of the tactic itself. the responses it would elicit would not be symmetrical with the intent of the act---you would probably get a shitstorm, but in the main it would be a homophobic shitstorm, the source of which would not necessarily be "pillory the hypocrite" but rather "pillory the queer".

do you really think, for example, that evangelical protestants--who would react to outing these folk--would do so in the main for the reasons that you would prefer?

and if one were to try to explain the motives--and so try to shape the responses--the tactic would be revealed in ways that line up with what loquitor is saying above.

had maher just thought this up and done it, you could have said that the consequences would be of the order of unanticipated consequences. but he didnt. at this point, the consequences, in all their perversity, would be predictable.

it is a bad tactic.

oh yeah, and let's not forget the wife and kids that most of these guys have. Why the heck should they be made to suffer just because someone don't like the husband's politics?

Roachboy, you're right that the tactic feeds into homophobia, because outing would have no sting otherwise........ although I suspect it is more <i>presumed</i> homophobia than real homophobia.

Ok, so what does a politician have to be honest about? Anything that's not sensitive? Is that where you draw the line now - things that aren't uncomfortable or that don't hurt anyone's feelings? Its kind of funny to me, that at least with the class of politicians I think we're talking about - that the spectre of homophobia they help create is what you're claiming should protect them from disclosure.

No one forces anyone to run for office.

His or her campaign promises and anything covered by the law (campaign financing, criminal record, etc)

You know, the New Jersey governor who was outed a year or so ago, I forget his name, came on the talk show circuit recently to support a book he'd written. He was all about how coming out (in his case, to short-cut his imminent outing) was hard, hard on his family, hard all the way around, but in the end it was the best thing that could have ever happened to him. His wife is happy now, in the life she now has. His kids are happy. There was a specter of lies hanging over that family that, once it was out in the open, and people had some time to heal from it, allowed everyone to have a lot of freedom and peace.

I don't know if his case is typical, but from his point of view, being outed ended up being way better than continuing to live the lie.

roachboy,
I agree that, on his own....motivated by his political beliefs, it shold not be Maher's "place" to use his own celebrity to "out" anybody. This is not his fight.....his life is not adversely impacted by the political activities of closeted gay people who work for an anti-gay agenda.

I expanded my responses to discussion of the issue of outings by gay activists, of closeted gay republicans who work to legislate their party's platform into law, reinforcing the myths of the conservative/christian fundamentalist political alliance of homosexuality as deviant pathology.

I view Maher as a sympathetic ally who can provide a "bully pulpit" for Mike Rogers or any other gay activist, to publicize and press discussion of the phenomena of closeted gay political operatives with an anti-gay agenda. If Maher's intent during his Larry King interview, was merely to boost media coverage of the activism of gay people who have to live in the more repressive circumstances resulting from the activities of closeted gays who wield anti-gay political influence, I am in support of what he said to Larry King.

I think that it is not "my place" to disapprove the actual delivery of the details of an "outing", if it is delivered by a Mike Rogers, in an appearance on Maher's show, or elsewhere, if Rogers provides the details of the circumstances that have resulted in the outing, as he did in this example:
....and aside from former rep., Ed Shrock who was married and has a child when he was outed, this does not seem to be an issue where "fallout" includes humiliation of "wives and children". This is about closeted gay political operatives who practice an anti-gay agenda who are single and decide not to provide any details about their personal lives....as in the examples of Mehlman and Dreier.

Bisexual Ed Shrock would have been free to spout crap like this:
...under the "cover" that his marriage provided to him, if not for:

How do you separate the issues, though? It seems to me that the main justification to not "out" someone in a sensitive area like this is chiefly a plea to emotion. As I said previously, I can understand these things for regular people, who are just living their lives. In a sense, I find your response to be exactly my point. Some areas are ok to look into, in terms of consistency with their campaign promises, but some areas aren't. Every campaign ad I saw during the recent elections had some mention of "family values," "common man" imagery. At the same time, many politicians are fighting to make sure that this "family values," "common man" image is equated, in the minds of their constituency and the general public, with a falacy that they themselves contradict in a de facto sense. They're playing both sides of the ball, so to speak. I don't think its "right" to assault people with these bogus, homogenized images in the first place - but if you're going to do it, you're claiming that you are perpetuating this image because you stand for it, its your way of life, its just downright the "American" (or other nationality, etc) way...I don't see how its not germane if that is, in fact, a lie. How do you separate some campaign promises out as protected? Its all an emotional appeal.

I don't "like" the idea of forced outings, whether it be sexual orientation/practices, drug/alcohol use, gambling, etc - but I dislike even more the idea that people who do these things - just like a lot of citizens - are perpetuating stereotypes that demonize these practices - using the propaganda and legislative power of their public office. Of course I can see how such disclosures will be painful - I'd hate to have to go through that type of scenario myself - but I don't think I'd really be able to call it a "low blow" if I was speaking out against it on one hand, and practicing it on the other. Long term, such forced realizations on the part of the public might have the benefit of forcing our public/political awareness to be more inclusive.

Guess what? You can be gay...and conservative. You can be a family guy, and use marajuana. You can balance your checkbook, and gamble online. You can work to feed the homeless, and enjoy the company of a paid lady-friend. I'd like to see our ethics and morality claims challenged, and I can't see how the imagery that we allow our politicians to throw in front of us helps to do anything but perpetuate the current demonization of our "outcasts" and "taboo" behaviors.

I seperate such issues, as I have already said, by what is covered under the law. Until someone decides to legislate against having both a private and personal sexual persona, there's no issue for me.

Keep your campaign promises (even if you are a closeted gay person who campaigns for restrictions on gay rights) and obey all the legal requirements of the job.

Anything else is nobody's business.

That's my point - they are breaking their campaign promises. Is this a semantic question of "promise?" They say one thing, they do another. Is their public representation of their private lives during campaigns / at political meetings / in office - in your opinion, how do you characterize or label that? To me its a lie.

A broken campaign promise is a statement like "If elected, I vow to provide free milk to all children under 6", and then, having been elected, not providing said milk.

That's not to say I might not care if someone is fake. Many politicians are, on a variety of levels. But I'll decide that for myself. I see no need for someone's personal life, and the lives of their family, to be torn apart over this just so someone else can win an election.

To me, you can be a pot-smoking, hard drinking, jaywalker in your private life - I don't really care, so long as you do a good job and keep the promises made during your campaign. Equally, you can be gay behind closed doors so long as your campaign promises are met, even if those promises are not gay-friendly.