We hate to break it to you, but publishing’s all about favoritism. Yeah, it’s an ugly truth, but the truth none-the-less. While that may be true, our posting of this story by New York Blade reporter Kerry Eleveld has nothing to do with the fact that we think she’s the bees knees. In this editorial – a rare break from Eleveld’s typical objective stance – Eleveld brings up a topic that’s been on everyone’s minds as of late: the politics of outing. While Eleveld understands the difficulty of coming-out, she also believes that reporters have an obligation to out politicians when it serves the public interest. She writes:
Apparently, the subject of sexuality is still a bit too dicey for the mainstream press unless it’s attached to a scandal–then it becomes a topic they can’t ignore.
The overwhelming message here: Don’t talk about it… gay is still a dirty word and made even dirtier when we don’t talk about it. Gay politicians shouldn’t be a protected class of politician; they should be no different from other politicians, whose personal lives are always on display. When you run for office, especially at the national level, you should assume that your personal will become political. These are the times we live in, and voters should have the same information they have about other politicians.
Being gay will always be “dirty” if straights and gays alike don’t have license to talk about it on its own merits. And all journalists have an obligation to break the silence when they deem that it’s in the public’s interest. We are, after all, arbiters of fairness. We should be no more fair to gay politicians than we are to the public they serve.
We whole-heartedly agree. Do you? Why not hop over to The Blade website and read the entire article youself? Then you can make an informed decision. No pesky password required.
Oh, and in the same issue, we got a shout-out from Blade editor, Trent Straube. Thanks, Trent, you’re the breast!
Daniel Gonzales
Mike Rogers, the blogger who’s done the most controversial outing on his site Blogactive.com was on Tucker Carlson and explains the rational for his outing campaign.
http://www.blogactive.com/2006/10/video-i-was-on-tucker-carlson.html
David
I’m not sure I understand “outing”.
It’s always ok to talk and speculate about people’s lives if that’s what it means, but the expectation outers have is that the outed party will have to make an announcement about their private lives because they “owe” it to the community. That I don’t agree with.
Straight celebs don’t have an obligation of total transparency about their lives. Are they ever required to disclose their bisexual experiences or fantasies? Then why does it apply to people considered “fully gay” only? Where do we draw the line?
WriteQueer
I don’t think this is about Celebrities David, it’s about politicians and people with influence over law.
Being a homosexual is different then having homosexual sex. We’re not talking about sex, we’re talking about identity.
So if someone had the identity of being oh say… a clan member I would want to know esspecially if they were running for office. And equally if someone has a minority identity.
Unfortunately in this society not being a heterosexual makes you a minority in the same way not being white does. The difference is more of the homo’s can pass. And some of them turn out to be disgustingly hypocritical as a result.
I think if someone is in office they shouldn’t be voting out of internalized homophobia, they should be confronting reality and seeing what it’s like to be a gay person in this country, and if they still want to vote against equality well… that’s why we get votes too.
David
WriteQueer, good points..but again how do we draw the line?
Cause there’s a problem when being percieved as having a “gay identity” is held against someone, and holds them to different standards than everyone else.
The truth is that everyone lies about their sexuality in more ways than one (gay, straight, and in between) and we need to deal with that generalized hypocrisy in our society before pointing fingers at the closeted fags. It’s only fair.
WriteQueer
I believe ur right about the general hypocricy and sexual repression of america. But gay people in or out of the closet aren’t always in the same boat as every other sexual cover up.
If nothing else it’s a contextual issue. If a senetor wants to have kinky heterosexual sex, there isn’t nescesarily a team of reporters waiting to vilify him.
There’s a social bias about being a gay person not just having gay sex. There are social biasses surrounding the community of gay people who are honest about being gay. So in that context it’s not the same thing to hide ones sexual identity. Just as it wasn’t the same for an irish person to admit to their heritage in nazzi germany as it was for a jewish person.
The environment toward gay people (while not always genocidal) is explicitly more hostile then for other diversions of sexuality. And being a homosexual is distinctly oppositional to het-culture. So there is more responsibility.
But truth be told I haven’t heard of a lot of gay senators who just said they didn’t want to talk about it or that it was private. They almost always try to hide behind a wife and family or anti gay lobying. In someways that lie is much more hypocritical.
Kevin
If gay people weren’t so self-hating it would be a lot easier to come out. Most gay people don’t like other gay people. And as long as you have that situation this kind of thing will continue to happen. Look at the covers of all gay publications practically all of them have straight men or women on the cover. Gay people don’t want to see gay people on the cover of their own publications. And look at the supposed “gay icons” Tammy Faye Baker and Jake Gywhatever etc. yet who gives a f*ck about Harry Hay or Alan Turing or Chad Allen. Go screw yourself fags! You don’t have to worry about straight people oppressing you when you do it to yourself.