What is the GLBT opinion on "outing?" We are having a discussion on another thread, and I wanted to

know what the "official" view on this subject is. If there is a website you would like to direct me to, I'll be glad to read it, but I just thought someone might know.

My own opinion is that it is up to the person involved to "out" themselves when and if they feel like it. It is not up to other people to do it "to" them.

If I am wrong on this, I apologize ahead of time.

the hypocricy of the "outee". in haggard's case, I am not so sure it was unjustified, given his track record.

just my opinion.

I have never outed anyone IRL, no matter how deeply closeted they were and how hypocritical I thought they might be.

However, men like Ted Haggard are trying to harm us all, gay and straight. That's the difference, and I will gleefully out them if I can.

Remember, the outings that have occurred are not only closeted gays. There are all sorts of closets out there: drugs (Lamebawl), gambling (Bennett), kinky sex (Hager), spousal battery (Campbell), and a whole list of others.

As we find them, we make sure they're known by everybody. It's not just mere hypocrisy, we're all hypocrites in one area or another. It's the harm they're doing to us and our country based on that hypocrisy.

Gay Pride
Posted by plgoldsmith in Editorials & Other Articles
Sun Nov 05th 2006, 12:27 AM
Gay Pride

by Patricia Goldsmith


It seems the Mark Foley scandal was only the beginning of a long-overdue national discussion about the ethics and wisdom of outing political figures. In Florida, gay journalists are the ones who advocate asking Republican candidate for governor, Charlie Crist, about rumors that he’s gay. The mainstream media continues to claim that it’s a non-issue, ignoring Reform Party candidate Max Linn’s statement that he will “swear on a stack of Bibles” that Crist is gay.

But even the mainstream media isn’t ignoring news that Ted Haggard, pastor of an influential anti-gay evangelical megachurch, was outed by a gay male prostitute. Given the startling homophobia of many in those fundamentalist pulpits, it’s a wonder more ministers haven’t been outed, until you remember that those most likely to know about a political figure’s homosexuality—prostitutes, children, and LGBT people in general—have been understandably afraid of the right-wing attack machine.

My position on outing is rooted in the idea of gay pride.

Gay pride is more than a march on the last Sunday in June. It’s more than being gay, too. While all civil rights movements tell truth to power, truth-telling and self-identification are the distinguishing characteristics of the gay movement. Without coming out, there is no gay movement, period.

Ideally, every LGBT person would realize that living a lie is not only psychologically and spiritually damaging, but that the more of us who come out the safer we all are from physical and social violence

But it’s not an ideal world. <1> If we were in any doubt about it, seeing Jim “I Am a Gay American” McGreevey on the cover of the Advocate’s coming out issue would clue us in. McGreevey, you’ll remember, didn’t come out, exactly. He announced he was gay when he was blackmailed by an employee with whom he was having an affair. Not exactly an inspiring profile in courage.

In his review of McGreevey’s life story, The Gay Governor Has No Clothes, Andy Humm argues that McGreevey exaggerates the homophobia he faced growing up in New Jersey in the seventies—the heyday of the gay liberation movement—in order to rationalize his self-interested decision to hide in the closet, just as he rationalizes his later failure to act on behalf of gay people while in office.

Many pro-gay progressives are, in my view, overly sympathetic to such rationalizations. They tend to subscribe to the school of thought that says outing is always wrong, even with elected officials. The reasoning is that outing contributes to homophobia, because it implies that there is something wrong with being gay.

As far as I can tell, the main cause of homophobia is and always has been the closet. That’s why the GOP loves it so much. They’ve even constructed one with a special swinging door for Mary Cheney, sort of like a dog flap, so she can go in and out at will.

The closet keeps us faceless, voiceless, and powerless—a blank screen onto which the rightwing noise machine can project whatever they want. It is the venerable institution of the closet, not heterosexual marriage, that neocons are so eager to protect. By attacking marriage equality, the right hopes to roll back 30 years of progress on gay rights won with blood, sweat, and tears.

Fortunately, nothing can roll back the changes that have come as a result of the most powerful act of coming out: telling our parents and siblings. Over the past three decades, millions of people took a big risk and told their families who they are. That takes guts. That’s where hearts and minds change. Coming out at work has been successful, as well; tolerant corporations have become major forces for equality. In both cases, timing is crucial. It has to be up to the good judgment of the individual.

But when it comes to political figures, we all have very good reasons to object to the closet. History shows that the closet breeds monsters.

A closeted homosexual masterminded the most infamous political witch-hunt of the twentieth century, McCarthyism. Persistent rumors of homosexual activity swirled around Senator Joseph McCarthy throughout his lifetime. Given that McCarthy relied absolutely on hearsay, innuendo, and blackmail, I’d say that’s proof enough. But there’s also guilt by association: there are also rumors that two other major figures in McCarthy’s anti-commie crusade, Roy Cohn and J. Edgar Hoover , were closeted homosexuals.

McCarthy gave targeted victims an impossible choice: betray the people closest to you or get blackballed and become an unemployable pariah.

Cohn, a Jew, was recommended to McCarthy by their mutual friend Hoover on the basis of his excellent work on the Julius and Ethel Rosenberg spy trial, which resulted in the Rosenbergs’ execution. Cohn denied he was gay right up to the day he died of AIDS.

But J. Edgar Hoover was the worst of the bunch. During his decades at the FBI, Hoover turned the agency into one big closet, shielded from oversight by blackmail collected on leaders of both political parties. In his new book, Conservatives Without Conscience <2>, John Dean says of Hoover (hardcover, pgs. 84-87),

After studying Hoover’s behavior and activities, Dr. Harold Lief, Professor Emeritus of Psychiatry at the University of Pennsylvania, concluded he was “what is known as an Authoritarian Personality. Hoover would have made a perfect high-level Nazi.”


The fact that these grotesque leaders were homosexual is a dire warning about the pathology of the closet—lying as one’s central life skill, disdain for the suckers who fall for the lies, inability to sustain (or even imagine) equal relationships. The false, vengeful lives they led were a cynical parody of the conformity they imposed on others. The truth is, when you deny who you are and who you love, you become soulless. All you’re left with are lies and hate. And, in Hoover’s case, unfortunately, power.

Regarding “Hoover’s true legacy,” Dean says:

it was he with his fanaticism who planted the seeds from which contemporary social and cultural conservatism has grown. Hoover’s focus on the American family and Christianity attracted an earlier generation of adamant anticommunists, who have become today’s zealous social conservatives.


Enter Karl Rove, the most zealous of the new authoritarians. James Moore, co-author of Bush’s Brain, has written a new account of the Rove phenomenon, The Architect: Karl Rove and the Master Plan for Absolute Power, in which he reveals that Karl Rove’s step-father, with whom he was very close, was a gay man. In an interview on Democracy Now!, Mr. Moore said:

Karl Rove buried his father Louie Rove in July of 2004. There was no public notice in the newspaper. And then he got on the campaign plane, and he went to eleven key swing states to help facilitate the anti-gay marriage amendments around this country, which drove voter turnout in the last election. . . .

And it turns out that Karl Rove, the man who is the architect behind evangelical voters and their turnout and a voter delivery system of the Christian right, is agnostic. . . .

. . . . referred to the Christian right and the fundamentalists north of Austin as “whackos.” They hold these people in more disdain than these individuals are aware of.


In Rove’s defense, it has to be said that some of his “voter delivery system” is not entirely savory. Greased by billions in faith-based initiative money, some black churches are eagerly continuing Rove’s attack on marriage equality—even after Hurricane Katrina. Gregory Daniels, senior pastor of the Greater Shiloh Missionary Baptist Church in Chicago, says, “If the KKK opposes gay marriage, I would ride with them.”

Reading a statement like that you have to wonder, is marriage equality really a greater threat to the black community than the KKK and George W. Bush? Or is it, for some reason, merely a greater threat to Gregory Daniels? In other words, is Daniels gay?

That’s exactly the question Keith Boykin and Jasmyne Cannick ask in a series of profiles of Daniels and other homophobic black pastors. It’s the right question to ask, because it’s definitely not a non-issue.

Eric Hegedus, national president of the National Lesbian and Gay Journalists Association, expresses my view on the subject: “There’s nothing wrong with asking a candidate <3> if he’s gay. It’s just like asking him if he’s married, dating anyone or has children. There’s nothing shameful about being gay.”

He’s right, there’s nothing wrong with being gay. But there’s lot wrong with lying about it. It’s a matter of pride.


<1> For an excellent book on a closeted father’s impact on a family, I highly recommend Alison Bechdel’s brilliant graphic memoir Fun Home: A Family Tragicomic.

<2> See also David Brock’s courageous insider’s account of rightwing politics in the nineties, Blinded By the Right: The Conscience of an Ex-Conservative, for more information on the closet from the inside.

<3> See Michael Rogers’ website, blogactive, for more information on elected officials and staffers who are closet cases. All closeted officials have a hidden incentive to act against gay interests, at best. At worst, they’re trying to out-hate the homophobes around them.

while not exactly profile in courage, coming outwas the right thing to do, for Mc Greevey, it took balls, as he could've taken the Henry Cisneros route
As an Irish Catholic growing up gay in NYC( queens) , It was pretty darn tough

that most of the people at DU who have stated that they OPPOSE outing are heterosexual. This could be because they aren't directly affected by the damage (be it anti-gay legislation or leading a homophobic, anti-gay religious organization) caused by the closet gay folks that are "out" worthy and they can afford to be self righteous about it. :shrug:

I think it has nothing to do with sexual orientation and to do with simple personal privacy. Nearly all liberals agree that what goes on in your bedroom between you and other consenting adults is your business, and no one else's. Not government's, not the press, not anyone's.

all heterosexual. there is nothing "liberal" about respecting the privacy of some bigoted closeted hypocrite with political power causing damage to their fellow GLBTers. i guess it's a nice, "liberal" concept to those it doesn't directly affect.

I'm gay all the time. I'd be gay if I never had sex. Saying I'm gay tells you NOTHING about what goes on in my bedroom.

I am gay and I never have sex anymore :mad:

or at all?

why the gov't ceremony if the bedroom stuff is private.

I also get annoyed when a celeb comes out and people get all up in arms whining 'who cares, it's private'. Well, alot of gay people, especially gay kids in their teens and twenties who need role models care. It drives me nuts when straight people try to tell me how I should feel about gay issues. Fuck that.

I have seen that "tendancy' , too. Most gay people will not out anyone, Pukes included, if they are a live and let live type, and they can tell the difference between discretion and the hypocrisy of anti gay operatives.

his name was roy cohn -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roy_Cohn

Rumors of Cohn's homosexuality began to spread throughout Washington shortly after he was appointed chief counsel to the Government Committee on Operations. When he brought on the wealthy and handsome Schine as chief consultant, it made for good gossip fodder. It became widely debated whether Schine and Cohn had a sexual relationship <1><2><3>(See Ted Morgan, Reds).

Cohn's homosexuality was an open secret during most of his career. His public response to all questions on this subject was sometimes evasive and sometimes a flat denial; he encouraged rumors of a relationship with his longtime friend Barbara Walters, who publicly stated that she thought he was heterosexual.

Though his closeted sexuality was far from unusual at the time, it was arguably in tension with his public life in right-wing politics. Cohn and McCarthy targeted many government officials and cultural figures not only for suspected Communist sympathies but also for alleged homosexual tendencies, sometimes using sexual secrets as a blackmail tool to gain informants. The men whose homosexuality Cohn exposed often lost jobs, families, and homes: some committed suicide. It is said that when Cohn learned that one of his victims had killed himself, Cohn cracked open a bottle of Champagne.

In addition, opposing politicians attempted to use Cohn's homosexuality to discredit McCarthy. McCarthy may not have known Cohn was gay, but it may have been alluded to during the Army-McCarthy hearings by Army attorney Joseph Welch when Cohn produced a photo as evidence and Welch asked McCarthy whether the photo came from "a pixie ... a close relative of a fairy."


mostly i'm against -- i don't live anybody else's life but my own -- and i can never know what you face and how you feel.

but there are lines that can be crossed -- and cohn really does provide a principled guide.

grown men who are public figures.

If a person were a young teenager who had not come to terms with their own sexuality, somehow it seems cruel for somebody else to out them.

When it comes to the "average" gay person, it should absolutely be up to them when to come out. Personally, I feel that everyone should out, but that it is ultimately the individual's choice of when & where to do it.

That being said, I do believe that hypocrites like Haggard should be outted. They are actively working to harm gay people and that is not acceptable. Unfortunately, a disturbing amount of people here relish these opportunities to bring out every gay joke they've been saving up. That bothers the shit out of me, especially when the response to being called on their homophobia is "it's not that he's gay, it's the hypocrisy." There is a right and wrong way to discuss the "hypocrisy" and "haggard the faggard" jokes are not the right way.

If you want to hide in the closet instead of living out and proud that's your business and you should be left alone. But when you make the decision to support and facilitate the persecution of your gay brothers and sisters you've also made the decision to waive your right to privacy regarding your own sexuality.

I really am.

My impression is that most outed people are well known to be gay in certain circles. There is ZERO obligation to be complicit in keeping a secret you never agreed to keep.

Public figures of all orientations sacrifice some of their privacy, and I see no reason whatsoever to treat gay public figures by a double standard.

People choose to keep their sexuality private for various reasons. They may fear rejection by their families and friends. They may fear losing their jobs, their homes or their children. They may fear being at risk of psychological or physical harm. Outing them could cause them significant distress or even place them in grave danger. Nobody has the right to do that to another person.

People in politics keep all sorts of things private that if revealed could cause them distress.

Outing someone as gay just to out them is wrong.

I got accused of outing a local doctor by my friend who was dating him. Well of course I couldn't imagine why in 2001 a young successful man would live in the closet, or even that it was possible. Most people who are in the closet aren't fooling anyone.

I DIDN"T OUT HIM. I simply didn't keep his secret or protect his lie. I didn't know that I was supposed to, and if asked to do so probably would have chosen to disassociate myself.

Yes, I said lie. Heterosexuals aren't stupid or oblivious- they're pretty good at figuring out who is gay and who isn't. Heterosexual men, in particular, will ask you a series of seemingly innocent questions designed to feel you out. Or make a series of seemingly innocent comments to watch your reaction. Gay men do the same thing.

So what is the definition of 'outing'? I say it's about intent. I can't keep other people's lies, it's too mcuh work and I got enough of that back in high school.

actively works against my civil rights. and uses his power to hurt the community. like David Dreier R-scumbag

if they have the power to legislate against gay people and they are actively gay then someone basically should save them from themselves. That is about classism...they are making rules that other people have to follow which they falsely believe they are in a position to be exempt from.

...from Gay Central yet ;) so there's no "official" opinion. We're as divided on this as we are on anything -- sometimes within our own households.

My opinion is the same as haruka's, post #8.

Maybe when he's done outlawing organized religion!

;-)

I didn't get the memo either.

I also agree with Haruka - hypocrites are fair game.

Anyone else, it's their business.


I almost wish it wasn't something that could be hidden. I think if it was more like
skin color, we would have more rights and more respect by now.

Welcome to the concept of pluralism.

I think it would be more valuable to have a discussion about the closet itself, by the way. The closet is a psychologically damaging phenomenon. It really, REALLY messes people up.

Closets aren't restricted to GLBT issues, either. It's actually about dishonesty, especially the level of dishonesty which prevents self-examination.