Is it wrong to "out" gays in The Bush Republican Party?

Normally it would be easy to say that the decision to publicly speak about ones sexual orientation would be a personal matter but these are topsy turvy times.

Anti Gay politics is at the fore front and when someone like David Dreir of CA supports every piece of anti gay legislation while oppossing things like increased money for AIDS research it may become pertinent that he is a gay man.

Or the fact that someone like Ken Mehlman is the leader of a strategy using gay bashing to get out the booger eatin' vote is, in fact, a pickle kisser himself.

That anti gay hypocrisy even spreads its turgid tentacles into the White House where advisor Jeff Berkowitz resides, working gaybashing as a strategy nationally on the one hand while using his other hand on the unit of his date.

Im not sure how I feel about spreading rumors about someone like Rick Santorum, suppossed vistor of gay bars, or Scott McClelland, rumored to be involved with gay male escort Jeff Guckert/Gannon may be secretly gay.

It is a conundrum...what about someone like Michael Savage, who lives in the Bay Area and is widely rumored to be a sampler of the pleasures of the male nether region?

Even Wonkette involves herself in these shenanigans:
http://www.wonkette.com/politics/supposedly-gay-republicans/index.php

Im not sure I could be part of such a thing so I can't recommend that you go to the following website:

http://www.blogactive.com/

attempt at picking up a guy at the Republican NAtional Convention?

I think it may be irresponsible to repeat such rumors.

he must be gay.

these rumors can get out of hand

LOL :hi:

Hypocrites deserve to be outted.

nt

I just was wondering if it would be right to out him if he was...

since he stopped returning my phone calls, and won't give me back my leather jacket, leather mask, whips and chains, and kept my box of condoms, he's left me with no choice.

unless of course he'll give me a letter of introduction to Guckert.

Gotta go. Scottie's on the phone, and he loves to dish...

we all have our idiosyncracies. when they turn into hypocrisy, the train, all becomes fair in the love wars.

chez whalerider

a "Cincinatti Bow Toe"?

:hi:

and I cannot in good concious repeat the definition or tell you how to find out.

It is one of those made up sex things.

like that. :rofl:

Hypocrites SHOULD be exposed no matter what the issue. If they are against something and they campaign on that issue,they are fooling their constitutes when they are guilty of the same thing they are running against. It's nothing but a sham and they should be exposed. Bet they wouldn't all be in power if the good fundie "Christians" knew they were all a bunch of Co*ksuckers.....in more ways than one.

I can't believe some of the replies here.

:eyes:

Think Golden Rule, people. (No, I'm not a practicing Christian.)

gay bashing and talking about Democrats having no morals then it's alright for them to leave the TV station and go pop a cock in their mouth? I don't know about you,but that really makes my blood boil. That is the reason we are stuck with all those neo-CONS running...err,I mean RUINING the country now.I don't like being DUPED.....by ANYBODY....especially a repuke.

I mean normally I would be all for Armstrong Williams being able to keep his lifestyle to himself but when he is part of a huge machine, a machine that undulates daily until it finally spews its load of filth all over an unsuspecting populace, well then maybe someone should say something.

Or maybe they shouldn't, maybe its none of our business about Florida Bush Republican Mark Foley.

To me it's clear that any person who engages in homosexual behavior in private but publicly bashes homosexuality is mentally ill. I have a strong personal ethic that prohibits torturing people who are sick.

thats the irony in the whole thing

What their own voters will do to them about it might be attacking.

Was disclosing that to the public against his will OK with you too? Was that outing just an exercise in keeping the public informed about an elected official's behavior, or was it actually done as an attack by people who disagreed with his political views? I'll give you two guesses and the first one doesn't count.

I'm sorry, but I don't see a difference.

time and all on his own by doing it and then by lying about it.

But I don't think the press has the power of the Starr investigation and would be doing its job by reporting such things.

If a politico got divorced or had a kid or got married you'd hear about it, whether they wanted you too or not. I don't see why being gay is treated differently.

As a gay man I find it insulting that my life is considered such a deep dark secret that it merits a special protection.

Like most other Presidents have done.

Nevertheless, I abhor the way he was pilloried in the press and how his enemies exploited his personal behavior (or character flaws if you prefer) for political purposes.

Let's not lower ourselves to THEIR level by making an issue of someone's private sexual behavior.

doing their job.

And being gay isn't simply SEXUAL behavior. My life with my partner, our family, are not simply SEXUAL behavior.

If they want to be hypocrites that's their problem. If you want to lower yourself to their level that's your problem.

I won't out anyone against their will, ever.

Nice.

I don't care about what anyone does in private with consenting adults.

Outing someone against his or her will is wrong, no matter what the circumstances.

How out to be is up to the individual. Let's not act so Machiavellian that we become the very thing we despise.

Why is this a sacred cow?

I refuse to do something I think is dishonorable, even if eventually the outcome might be advantageous. The ends don't justify the means.

I think being complicit in a secret with political consequences is much more dishonorable.

I'm not a journalist, so it's not likely to happen.

At the end of the day, we all have to be able to rest well with our choices.

Taking the position that the end justifies the means.

Thank you.

I see no reason for this to be a sacred cow.

If they oppose legislation that benefit gays, maybe. It depends on if they vote against the legislation but don't speak out against the legislation.

If they vote against, it might be a matter of representing their constituents rather than a personal vote, that is what they were elected to do. However, if they try to sway anyone else to vote against the legislation, then yes!!

In that case, they are playing a game and I say, show us your cards.

If they are VOCAL ANTI-gay, absolutely!!

After all the trouble they're causing us, I say to hell with them.

Those who have been outed are not "gay" in the garden-variety sense of our NORMAL same-sex attracted neighbors and loved ones. I call them "RoyCohns" as theirs is an entirely different sick trip. It so riles me that this psychotic sub-set is identified with "gay." It's kinda like rape having NOTHING to do with sexual orientation. It's about domination, power and control. Do google Roy Cohn and see for yourself.

As far as I'm concerned, politicians should be treated with the "silver rule": Do unto them, as they would do unto others

Just wondering since there are so many 'rumors' about those sooo close to him.

rubs bald mens heads and comments on the looks of men but that doesn't mean anything. I mean, he's married.

Fuck 'em. I don't care if they're gay. They don't care if anybody ELSE is gay. They're traitors.

dissing gay people...hell yes, out him/her.

Lyndon Armstrong, aide to Pete Domenici, working against gay rights while being gay, that would be okay?

Im still not sure.

GOP closeted, lying fucks who help issue anti-gay executive orders, write legislation against gays/lesbians, etc., who tax without representation, who destroy the honest and kill the innocent deserve worse then being outed.

It's a matter of life and death.

A gay friend was at a wedding rehearsal dinner at the White House, and he was pointed out by a gay associate. "He's gay" "Who is he?" "Ken Mehlman. Head of the Republican Party." That's how he knew who he even was, the gay

Out them all, so Repubs like the Cheneys have to admit "We don't like having to acknowledge gays are people"

<www.toolz.blogs.com>

for the future of the USA.

This is a big turnaround for me - but I am feeling particularly vicious and relentless today after heckofajob's performance today, disparagement of Cindy, gigantic payoffs to crony "reconstruction" firms, missing billions in Iraq, nearly 2000 USA dead, tens of thousands maimed beyond repair and countless innocent Iraquis dead and on and on and on.

If a few closeted gays working for the dark side are slurred - so be it.

just kidding, I know we can't sink to the level of the Bush Republican Party.

I mean literally, it would be very hard to sink to that level.

(republican) + (gay) + (official party platform is to deny gays rights) = OUT THE MOTHERF**ERS, WITH EXTREME PREJUDICE.

says me and my boyfriend

these people make policy that directly influences my life and the life of my partner. These policy wonks and political hacks make gobs of $$ and don't have to worry about who's going to pay for their health insurance, will they or won't they have access to their spouses' social security benefits. These traitors are selfish and arrogant.

Their rights, their humanity isn't in the cross hairs. They can afford adequate cover fire.

Out them? They should be tarred and feathered.

as a straight male, but I think anyone who is gay has that right. I don't know. It really depends on whether they are vocally anti-gay in their rhetoric or anti-gay in their votes, but then it is a case of hypocrisy. The whole issue is ethically dicey for me in a way that it isn't for some of my friends. Quite honestly, were I to find out that, say, a local politician were gay and that local politician was on record as being anti-gay, I would simply tell a friend who is gay and let them run with that. With that said, though, I know the friend I would tell and she would slice and dice them and run them through a bass-o-matic.

with the oppressor, I believe -- speaking as a journalist -- it is a matter of vital public interest and is therefore news.

But all the standards of caution and libel are also applicable. This means an absolute prohibition on defamatory or slanderous rumor-mongering. For example, proof that a specific named individual visited a gay bar or attended a Nazi Party rally proves nothing other than that the person was there -- possibly out of simple curiosity.

Nor is the news value of such a story when it is proven a matter of "gay politics"; it is the same principle as when a "reformist" politician is caught on a secret Mafia payroll or an apparent feminist candidate is proven to be clandestinely financed by anti-abortion forces or other agents of theocracy.

Some of the newspapers for which I worked were notably enlightened about such matters. Thus, during the 1970s, when one of the Washington state legislature's most outspokenly anti-gay politicians was arrested during a homosexual orgy in a state park men's room, we ran the story at the top of Page One, noting in the lead the politician was "the legislature's most outspoken opponent of gay rights." Indeed he was: self-righteously proclaiming his Fundamentalist Christianity, his anti-gay rhetoric had been not only constant but exceptionally vicious. (By contrast, normally such an arrest would not have made the paper at all.)

Bottom line, I think when the issue is taken out of its "gay" context, placed in the more general context of political hypocrisy or betrayal and weighed in the scale of what is legal disclosure, then the rightfulness (or wrongfulness) of "outing" quickly becomes obvious.


Edit: bad headline.

so the rumors about Rush Limbaugh should probably go on the back burner so to speak...

I'm gay. My partner is transgendered. We struggle constantly with the threat of hate crimes and policies that directly effect our lives. Just because someone lives in San Francisco and knew Ginsberg (M. Savage) or has no partner and 'appears to have the mannerisms similar to many gay men' (K. Mehlman) or is a hypocritical lying manwhore who dominates men for power and money (Gannon) does not mean that they are a part of the GLBT community-- the members of which ARE an oppressed minority. How are they oppressed? Because they aren't being 'true' to themselves or something? Maybe they just enjoy power trips. Maybe they are libertines who believe morality is for the masses.

If everyone is so concerned about the hypocrisy of the Republican elite, why don't you catch them on their knees licking their dominatrixes' boots-- right after the same hypocrites push to abolish women's rights.

The gay stuff is just another stick on the bonfire of their hypocrisy. They are everything they are not:

They are not self-made men.
They are not fighting for freedom.
They do not follow the words of Christ.
They send their daughters out of state to have abortions.
They purchase pornography.
They cry on television when they get caught with hookers.
They sexually harass women.
They support the murder of innocent babies (long as they're brown).

EVERY single thing they do is a lie.

you are addressing is ultimately that language is not reality -- only a symbolic representation thereof. Some of us (especially those of us who write and/or edit professionally) consciously strive for the greatest degree of representational precision possible -- and even then (just as your two cited posts reflect) we often fall short.

But though I acknowledge the validity of your objection, I cannot agree with its implicit conclusion. The problem with denying "oppressed minority" status to the closeted, oppressor-identifying homosexuals who serve the oligarchy is that application of precisely the same standard -- that "oppression" is determined exclusively by one's socioeconomic status and nothing else -- says that Condoleezza Rice is not a member of an "oppressed minority" because she has become an agent of what the aftermath of Katrina proves to be the most murderously racist presidency in U.S. history. Just as you point out in #57, homosexuality is being, far transcending an act or a sequence of acts; the same is true of one's racial or ethnic identity. In either case -- homosexuality or ancestry -- even the most privileged individuals would be oppressed were they stripped of their trappings and perquisites of office. Reductio ad absurdum, Roy Cohen dropped into the sort of crowd that murdered Matthew Shepherd, or Rice suddenly teleported into the midst of a Ku Klux Klan rally; or Cohen again, caught up by the tactical police charge through Sheridan Square and into the Stonewall on Friday June 27, 1969 (in which many journalistic colleagues of mine from the nearby Lion's Head were arrested -- precisely the reason the incident received the rightfully inflammatory publicity it did).

But I very much agree with the need to distinguished between the "oppressed minority" status of a black serving on a chain gang and the "oppressed minority" status of someone of the same race who is the boss of the labor camp. The solution is obviously to develop a vocabulary that is sensitive to degrees of oppression: for example the difference between Rice in the Oval Office and Rice as she would be treated if she were somehow mistaken for a displaced person from New Orleans. Certainly we already have slang that does that: the concept of the "Uncle Tom" and its counterparts among other racial and ethnic groups. But such slang is limited to in-group applications, and what we need is something universal to English, a commonly accepted noun for one who is a traitor to class, identity, gender, race, ethnicity -- something akin to the term "scab," a working-class person who nevertheless betrays his socioeconomic kindred by helping break a strike.

Personally -- whether as a journalist or a human being -- I am concerned with hypocrisy only on two occasions: when it reflects dishonesty in a potential friend (a circumstance in which it absolutely prohibits further development of friendship), or when it provides a cause of action against an oppressor. Again note my examples. Another political figure whose downfall I helped bring about was a city department head who was using hypocritical building-code enforcement to further racial segregation: infinite latitude for whites, zero tolerance for blacks. Same principle: in this case, investigation to prove and expose his racial hypocrisy disclosed other irregularities -- and these sent him to prison. But in the more general sense, while I share your anger at oppressors -- I have been scarred by their venomous fangs too (though the bitter details of that story are not relevant here) -- I tend to accept them as an unavoidable expression of human savagery (especially the patriarchal malevolence of capitalism). Thus I tend not to engage oppressors, even emotionally and from afar, unless they are afflicting me personally and unless it is within my power to cause them real political grief: probably the ultimate reason I had not -- that is, until now -- given much more than superficial thought to the problems at hand. If that is a failing, I apologize.

In any case, thank you for the comments: very thought provoking -- and therefore exemplifying the very best of why I come to DU.


Edit: clarification in 3rd paragraph.

And exposed as the contemptible, despiclable hypoocrites they are....

roy cohn was a fucking monster!!! is he above criticism because he is jewish. how fucking absurd...

and I would out every last fucking right wing hypocrite out there and I am gay..does that make me a gay homophobe? wow

Roy Cohn was a closeted gay that work to rid the State Department of all gay employees.

He was a very interesting pcychological case sense he was an anti semitic, homophobic Jewish homosexual.

J Edgar "Does this dress make me look fat" Hoover was another very dangerous closet case who bent over backwards to prove his machismo by attacking gays at every turn. All the while enjoying the pleasures of his house staff.

of Sen. Joe McCarthy (represented McCarthy during the Army-McCarthy Hearings) and with McCarthy himself was a savage witch-hunter and persecutor of Progressives, whether in the State Department or anywhere else. A truly vile creature, as despicable a man as ever lived, all the more so for his bottomless hypocrisy -- which no one dared expose lest they be denounced as "Communist." If pointing that out is "homophobia" and "anti-Semitism," than we are closer to the Orwellian reality of 1984 ("war is peace") than I had realized.

First of all, I'm gay AND I'm Jewish, so I guess I take issue with you calling me homophobic and anti-Semitic. Did you read my post long enough to comprehend it??

I don't know what's homophobic about outing gay hypocrites in the Bush administration, when that administration seeks to limit my civil liberties simply because I'm gay.

As for the Cohenesque comment, I was referring to Roy Cohn, a gay, closeted, homophobic, repugnant conservative hanger-on (and he was a DEMOCRAT, of all things) who ended up dying of AIDS. In case you didn't know who he was here's a link:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roy_Cohn

that the New York Bar Association rushed their procedures so that he would know that they disbarred him before he died.

Learn somethin' new every day!

There was nothing homophobic or anti-semitic in the post.

The same argument is used to say I can't criticize the policies of the Israeli state.

But its just annoying when they do hypocritical things...

Republicans and Democrats alike are having weird, closeted sex with women too-- they visit dominatrixes, ask barely-legal girls to perform the very 'obscenity' that they try to ban. Yes, we have ample opportunity to expose the utter sexual hypocrisy of these men.

But everyone's REALLY fixated on hunting GOP queers. Why be so fixated on their alleged homosexual acts? (Yes, I know that they are anti-gay, and that this makes them hypocrites, and blah blah blah.) What do you expect: these people are LIARS. More importantly, they are WRONG. They DO WRONG. They spew hate. Whether or not they secretly have shame-based, self-hating sex with other men doesn't prove anything important. What could it prove? What they are too weak to conquer their own internalized homophobia? That they keep failing the homework assignments given to them by their ex-gay movement therapists?

As a lesbian, I constantly see my life reduced to a SEX ACT. Strippers in a bar may make out with another woman for fun and/or tips, but at the end of the night, she very well might go home to her husband and children-- she might even identify as straight.

Who knows why these men have homosexual encounters (if some of them even do). Maybe they hate having sex with men, but are psychotics who compulsively self-harm as a form of punishment. Maybe they are like Gannon, someone who fucks other men to humilate and control them. (Is a lesbian dominatrix who gets paid to humilate and control straight men a heterosexual? If not, then why can't a straight man get paid to do the same?)

When you say JEFF GANNON IS GAY what you are saying is that Jeff Gannon is like your progressive gay and lesbian brothers and sisters who are fighting for equal treatment and that's not true. I'm fighting for the right to be able to get family sick leave so I can wipe the vomit off my partner's chin if she should ever have to undergo chemo. We're fighting for LEGALLY-RECOGNIZED RELATIONSHIPS and HATE CRIME PROTECTION, not SEX. (We already have plenty of sex, thank you.) The best you can do is say that JEFF GANNON IS A MANWHORE.

So who cares if these people fuck men? Even according to their own party's religious platform they can just repent in the morning and 'get right with god.' If you go around 'accusing' people of being gay, you look like a homophobe, like there's something wrong with it.

These accusations don't do a whole bunch for our side and they reduce gay people to sex acts. (If I found out that, say, a queer activist--a male--had heterosexual sex every now and then, I wouldn't scream to the world... HE'S A STRAIGHT!)

the Texas Delegation at the RNC bowed their headds in prayer when an openly gay man addressed the convention. This was similiar to the John Birch Society walking out of the 1964 Democratic Convention.

Outing Barbara Mikulski got her to come out against the FMA, which she didn't want to do before that.

If everyone was outed then there would be no closet.

Then it's just PUBLICLY REMINDING THEM that they are gay. You can't 'out' Mary Cheney. She's gay. It's all the speculation about "who's really gay deep down inside" that irritates me.

The other thing that itches my triptych is when people assume that someone 'must be gay' if they are a homophobe. In other words, all the people involved in this 'gay problem' are ...gays. It subtly hints that gays are inferior (bless their hearts, they try, they struggle, they bash one another) to straights. It makes straight people seem like de facto secure, reasonable people.

To me, when some straight people say that 'gay bashers are all secretly gay,' sometimes it sounds more like: "Ah, that asshole's just a hypocrite cuz everyone knows he's a fucking fag too!"

gays in politics. The press should not be in the business of keeping secrets like that.

What bothers me is when EVERY CONSERVATIVE becomes fair game. This one wore a dress to a halloween party when he was four. That one lives in San Francisco. That one doesn't seem masculine enough. It's bad form on the part of progressives who act like that and only seems to shame gays and lesbians even more.

But if people are actually partnered and reaping the benefits of their hypocrisy, I see no reason to let them hide. Partnerships are not private affairs (which is why we fight to be able to be 'out' with our lovers). Journalists reveal when heterosexuals are in relaitonships all the time. But when you start proclaiming people are gay because you found out about a private sex act they committed, it's just a stretch to me.

I suppose it would be easier to justify if the closeted gay republican was publicly calling for anti-gay legislation. Which most of them do. But in principle, I just don't think people's sexuality should be a political issue at all, ever.

Call me Pollyanna (but buy me a nice dinner first!)

He was my rep (Va-2) and was caught surfing gay chat rooms cruisin' for dates. He was outed by a gay Freeper! What's sad about this, he was a really good rep (yeah, I like some republicans!), and we got stuck with Thelma Drake in his place...who beat our Dem Iraq marine war hero David Ashe in a cruel swiftboating campaign paid for by the GOP. I'm still mad that the DNC pulled all their support from VA to concentrate on Ohio and Florida in the final weeks of the '04 election. Probably why I don't donate to them, just to the candidates directly now.

I think $10 to 25 candidates does much better than $250 to the DNC !

How can these people do this to our society just to protect or cover their fears?

I'm a gay man and I don't see why this is any different than ANY other news item about a political player.

I'm 99.9% sure he's gay. But he's one of those buried in a padlocked closet type gays. He'd probably commit suicide or something if he was outed.

I don't know if I could support outing all the gay Republicans. Then again, I wrestle with wanting these people exposed for the hypocrites they are.

So, what are we waiting for?????

First, there should be iron clad proof. Using stereotypes for Enquirer like standards won't do. The Rush is gay since he had a gay mentor and has no kids also won't do.

Second, I think there needs to be some element of hypocracy in the person being outed. Just working for Bush really isn't enough if there the person is in a job which doesn't have much to do with gays.

Finally there should be no innocent people involved. A gay person who is dating a Bush administration official shouldn't be sacrificed on the alter of taking these people down.

that it merits SPECIAL protection.

If Ari Fleisher marries a woman it's news - if he divorces it's news - if he has kids it's news - but if he moved in with his same sex lover it's such a profound secret that it can only be news if he first consents?

Fuck that.

The press is supposed to INFORM the electorate - not to be complicit in keeping secrets.

Good thing they sat on the Valerie Plame leak. That could have hurt Rove, and Bush's chance of getting re-elected.

was at best immoral at worst illegal. But I am a public figure at some level (I teach and am therefore a public employee) and I don't think the press should be able to report that I am gay and thus cause my firing.

appointing or nominating gays is. A gay person supporting anti gay legislation is.

I don't know how else to say it, but these ARE newsworthy items, and for the press to know these things but sit on it is to take a political agenda rather than doing their constitutional duty.

After all more than a few think that gay teachers begat gay students. While clearly more people care about the President than any one teacher, most people care at least as much about who their own kids teacher is as who their President is.

would be your problem since you chose a field in which it might be a problem.

And a politician would have made a similar - but much more explicit - choice.

just about anyone can have similar arguments made. There is a reason we call things like this personal lives. Divorces and marriages are different, in that they are matters of public record, but in the ordinary course of events things like affairs are not.

surrender some privacy, or risk doing so.

And I faill to see how marrriage is different - my partner is as much my spouse as any legally married person is to theirs.

I trust you're not willing to limit the press to ONLY matters of public record.

Or are you?

and in most cases being gay is irrelevent.

appointing gays is relevant. And the press choosing to be complicit in secret keeping is contrary to their constitutional duty.

Furthermore, many would say the history and family life of a nominee, or political figure is quite relevant.

but the flunkies of the President which is a huge difference. Arguably we have some interest in the personal life of the President, especially an anti gay one, but his secretary of labor? or his chief of staff? I think that is a harder case to make.

I'd say every cabinet member is game, as well as his white house senior staff. Court nominees as well.

All these appointees and nominees are political fair game already.

If the President nominates someone with a history of extra marital affairs, that's fair game. If his appointee divorced his wife on her cancer bed to marry his younger student, that's fair game.

but I fail to see that extending to people that are in jobs we have literally never heard of.

not very newsworthy - so I wouldn't see any point to it either.

And nobody else's business.

at all - that's *'s private life. Also, any mention of Jeb's divorce, or Newt's divorces and so on.

It's also a different category. It's a matter of legal record. Marriages and divorces are social events. The line gets blurry because, for gay and lesbian people, all of our relationships are treated as torrid and tawdry affairs.

(Unless we've been with our partners for 20 years. Twenty seems to be a magic number. 'Well they ARE homosexuals, but they've been together for TWENTY YEARS! Really? Twenty years? Wow, maybe those two do really actually love each other.)

records. That would be quite a diminished role for the press - in fact why have a press at all?

But I do think that insisting on a SPECIAL secrecy for our relationships continues to taint them as tawdry.

Also, any mention of Jeb's divorce, or Newt's divorces and so on.

Laura Bush is a public figure. We don't talk about what she does in bed with GWB. Divorces are in the public record so that's a pretty weak analogy.

Enjoy the rest of the thread. I've spoken my peace and must bail out.

You see you keep thinking being gay is about how you have sex.

I keeep telling you being gay is about who you love, who your spouse is, who your family is.

It's not wrong to expose hypocrisy.

and is found out to be gay, I say "Sure. Why not?"

Otherwise, it should probably be left alone.

I would not want the karma of outing them myself. I think it is wrong in all circumstances to out anyone who is gay.

him as a noted segregationist with biracial children?

since being biracial is not seen as a "morality" issue like homosexuality is.

A segregationist having biracial children is not a "morality" issue?

THOSE are the things HE was outted for. Not being biracial.

See, in their minds it is okay if men are philanderers...after all God built them with their "drives".

But they believe that homosexuality is more immoral than extramarital activities.

issue, even though he spent his entire adult life keeping it a secret?

Is there some guiding principle you have for determining these things?

I would not mind anyone being outed for anything, I just am not going to be the one to do it...

Good grief.

for being gay.

So I'm trying to figure out your principle on outting.

If it's always wrong to out someone as gay, is it also wrong to out a segregationist for miscegnation?

If not, what is the principle that distinguishes them??

and read the fact that these people we are dealing with have an attitude that the rules apply to everyone but them.

I personally would not out anyone, whether it be gay, or extramarital, or interracial. I personally think it is wrong.

But they are the ones who make the distinction that Gays are the root cause of all evil and that extramarital/interracial is less immoral. Not my words...THEIRS.

If we say that it is a personal matter and the Repukes and FUndies should stay out of our bedrooms....to turnaround and hold up someone to that sort of public scrutiny just to score political points. It is no better than thr Repukes for going after CLinton for his heterosexual peccdillos.

part of who I am, and the same stands for political figures.

And what the Repukes did to Clinton was to create a special investigation without limit and with all the power of the federal government.

There's a hige difference between that and the press simply informing the electorate (rather than being complicit in keeeping secrets).

It is mean spirtited and blood sport.... we are supposed to be the good guys.

of the package in the United States.

And being gay isn't about your bedroom. It's insulting to say it is.

politician/political figure who is publicly antigay and supports antigay legislation or antigay groups but who sucks cock or eats pussy behind closed doors, I say OUT THE FUCKERS.

I have too many gay and lesbian friends whose lives are demonized and made marginal by these very lying hypocrites.

No more hiding behind "family values", no more spewing hate and expecting a free pass on their own lives.

When lives are at stake, collaborators should never be tolerated!

in light of their hypocrisy. And no, not ordinary Republicans, but only active pols who preach the gospel, as it were.

I'm gay, and since I agree we are at war with the Bush regime, anything that can pull them down is a good idea. It's *their* problem if they're embarrassed by being outed, even if nobody should be embarrassed.

Gays in the Republican Party is one of the GOP's biggest Achilles heels. Play on it!

of other people and hypocritically hides his/her relation to those negativelly affected, my answer would be yes.

Implies that there is something wrong with being gay. Many gay people and many straight people have moved beyond the mindfuck underlying what "outing" implies.

If you live in a world where being heterosexual and being homosexual are fully equivalent biological facts of life, and if you understand that being gay is not about what kind of sex you have, but about who you are hotwired to FALL IN LOVE WITH AND CREATE A FAMILY WITH, then "outing" is irrelevant.

The concept of "outing" only feeds homophobia. If someone is ashamed of being homosexual, that is their issue. The world does not have to play by THEIR rules. If homosexuality is a perfectly natural biological fact, then it stands to reason that it is as appropriate to talk about someone being gay as it is to talk about their red hair or their left handedness.

I feel that CLOSETEDNESS implies that there is something wrong with being gay much more obviously then outing, so I cannot accept that outing, it's opposite, also implies the same thing as that is completely illogical. How can two completely opposing ways of dealing with a one of person's character traits imply the same thing, if we are to accept that the way we deal with character traits implies things about them? If you get my drift.

Outing implies that there is something wrong with being a hypocrite, surely?

You can't play for both teams at once, and it's not even the gay community who want the teams. We are on a team defined primarily by their legislation and are expected to protect their privacy while they want to play with us and against us at the same time? Why should we? What's in it for us???!!!

The only reason to keep someone's homosexuality a secret is to ensure that homophobes don't hate them. By this logic we should also keep someone's Juadaism a secret so that anti-Semites don't hate them.