Queerty is better as a member

Log in | Register
  RIPPLE EFFECT

Why Rep. Aaron Schock Will Be Facing Questions About His Orientation For Quite Some Time

aaron-schock-picnic-belt-photoAll it took was one angry Facebook post from journalist Itay Hod, but his thinly veiled outing of GOP Rep. Aaron Schock stoked a debate that grows by the day. It doesn’t matter Hod hasn’t expanded on his original comments and that Schock has been silent. The conversation has taken off on social media without the protagonists, although how long Schock can ignore it without ruining his political career remains to be seen.

So far, the only reaction from the body-building Congressman has been to lock down his Instagram account, so that you can no longer see that he follows diver Tom Daley. Although everybody already knows he does.

Completely ignoring the point of Hod’s post–that the media can know the truth and still refuse to report it–many journalists have decided they are more comfortable questioning the ethics of outing than reporting on Schock and his antigay record. The bad news for Schock is that they still cover his purported double life as the basis for the stories on the ethics of outing. That includes the right-wing press, which is content to spread the news as a way of attacking “homosexual websites” for spreading the story in the first place.

Buzzfeed ran a long colloquy between two reporters discussing the issue, which simultaneously condemned Hod for not presenting sufficient evidence about his hypothetical Illinois Congressman while acknowledging reporters are overly cautious about reporting on sexual orientation. At The Week, gay journalist Marc Ambinder cited the episode as a case of How Not To Out A Congressman. (CBS also put some distance between it and Hod, saying that Hod hasn’t worked for the network for two years.)

Of course, the mainstream media is looking for a smoking gun (so to speak), something akin to a dress with DNA evidence on it to verify beyond all doubt the orientation of the politician in question. Circumstantial evidence won’t suffice under that standard.

But Itay has clearly struck a chord among people fed up with the media’s complicity with hypocrisy. His Facebook news feed now has more than 6,500 followers, and scores of you-go-girl comments, including one from Tales of the City author Armistead Maupin, who wrote, “You’re my hero today, Itay. Probably for a very long time. xoxo.”

Meanwhile, Schock’s Facebook page is becoming a handy place for angry people to post complaints about the closet and Schock’s dismal voting record on LGBT issues.

And that’s what makes Schock’s problem different. Other politicians who faced outing did so in the era before social media became its own force. Before Facebook, before Twitter, and certainly before Instagram, it was easier to contain the conversation and to count on the complicity of the mainstream media in not addressing it due to insufficient evidence or just plain squeamishness about the kind of reporting it would take to expose someone’s true sexual life and explain how it contradicts the public and political one.

That’s no longer the case, and Hod’s post heralds the change. Coy as Hod was, he started an entirely new type of conversation. It’s going to take a lot more than locking down an Instagram account to respond to it.

 

 

By:           John Gallagher
On:           Jan 6, 2014
Tagged: , , , ,

  • 74 Comments
    • Harley
      Harley

      There is only one thing better than outing hippocrit repugnant-Klans as gay when they vote for anti-gay laws, and that’s when anti-gay republicans have gay children. LUV IT!

      Jan 6, 2014 at 5:46 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Volvoguy
      Volvoguy

      With that outfit, bitch please!!!

      Jan 6, 2014 at 7:18 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • roboslk
      roboslk

      While I really can’t stand Congressman’s Shock’s voting record. I think it begs the question. Should the media be all in or all out..lol
      The reality is if they are going to out him then it’s fair game to have outed Robin Roberts years back or when she spoke at a seminar sponsored by Chic Fil A. I understand there is a difference between the two but I do think you can’t have it both ways. If I were this little twit the excuse I’d use was that I was voting according to the people that elected me. I did see him on a morning political talk show a year ago where he said he burned that turquoise belt.. I bet he wished he could take back that fashion statement.. LOL

      Jan 6, 2014 at 7:51 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • ncman
      ncman

      If Itay Hod is so fed up with the media’s complicity with the hypocrisy, then why was he himself complicit by not providing the evidence? He has the name of his source, why didn’t he publish it so it could be verified?

      Jan 6, 2014 at 8:02 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Clarknt67
      Clarknt67

      @ncman: Agree 100%. Itay could have named his source who allegedly caught Schock in the shower and challenged the source to explain why he felt comfortable telling Itay this but not reporting it? Why did he not? Itay is protecting the same hypocrites he is fed up with. (Alternate theory: Itay’s “friend ” is himself and he himself witnessed the shower incident.)

      Jan 6, 2014 at 8:40 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • ncman
      ncman

      And, honestly, the way the original Hod Facebook posting was written, I can’t tell whether the man in the shower with Schock was Schock’s male roommate or the male roommate of the unnamed journalist friend of Hod.

      Jan 6, 2014 at 8:59 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Cam
      Cam

      Please lets just stop trying to avoid the real issue here. While some people wring their hands about whether or not Hod should have said anything…why? The only reason being called gay is worth hand wringing is if it was a shameful, horrible, disgusting thing that should be hidden.

      This is the same kind of B.S. game that the right wing played with marriage and bullying and being labeled bigots, claiming they were under attack if gays wanted to get married, and some in the community again wrung their hands and would gently say maybe we shouldn’t say somebody is a bigot.

      Well sorry, if they are a bigot, they are a bigot. And if somebody is gay and harming the community for a reporter to report what they know is no problem. Enough Congressmen have reports on who they brought to an event, who they are dating, or engaged to and that is the level of this.

      Jan 6, 2014 at 9:30 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Cam
      Cam

      Oh, and the author of this article summed it up perfectly with this sentence….”But Itay has clearly struck a chord among people fed up with the media’s complicity with hypocrisy.”

      Beyond sick of it.

      Jan 6, 2014 at 9:31 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • AuntieChrist
      AuntieChrist

      Itay is so drop dead gorgeous, I’d get in the shower with him any day…Sometimes journalist sources don’t want to be named, that is not at all uncommon and it would compromise their journalistic integrity to do so…Maybe Schock was just trying to be stylish or it was Easter…He sure looks like a painted Easter egg in that photo…Just to play devils advocate here… I live in Oklahomo and the breeder males who are more affluent are wearing bright and pastel colors albeit in unfortunate combinations.

      Jan 6, 2014 at 9:36 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Fitz
      Fitz

      I guess I am sort of an extremist on this issue. Not because Aaron is homosexual, but because he works to project his discomfort with himself by attacking good gay people like you and me. In other words, I am all for attacking ANYONE who attacks my family, regardless of how they like their sex. If this is his weak spot, then exploit it. My all means, keep digging and shouting until scum like Aaron go in the backyard and hang themselves. Not for loving men, but for hating gays.

      Jan 6, 2014 at 9:40 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Dean Smith
      Dean Smith

      I have never ammended a Wiki page, but isn’t strange that there is no mention of this controversy on Wikipedia and the fact that his entire time in elected office his sexual orientation has been questioned. I think this is more than relevant considering he has the strongest anti-gay background in congress (you can’t get worse than 0% vote)??

      Jan 6, 2014 at 10:17 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • 2eo
      2eo

      @Fitz: There’s nothing wrong with that, nothing at all, these people deserve tearing apart for their crimes.

      Every person we can get rid of is another hating lunatic out of power.

      Jan 6, 2014 at 10:21 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Jackhoffsky
      Jackhoffsky

      I don’t think he will face ANY questions about his sexuality. His staying in the closet and his voting record, YES. But his sexuality… NO. LOL.

      Jan 6, 2014 at 10:45 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Cam
      Cam

      @Fitz:

      Clapping

      Jan 6, 2014 at 10:59 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Clarknt67
      Clarknt67

      People arguing for his “privacy” are really arguing he is entitled to hide in the closet from backlash of the homophobia Schock creates.

      Jan 6, 2014 at 11:14 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • balehead
      balehead

      Actually the outfit is very “WASPY”….surprised gays don’t know their fashion….

      Jan 6, 2014 at 11:44 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • sportsguy1983
      sportsguy1983

      And while they are outing him, I am waiting for them to out Janet Nepolitano, Hilary Clinton, and Sonia Sotomayor (just to name a few). Outing is nothing but bullying no matter how you try to justify it.

      Jan 6, 2014 at 11:59 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • redspyder
      redspyder

      @sportsguy1983: As opposed to using your elected position to bully every gay citizen in your district?

      Jan 6, 2014 at 12:02 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Caleb in SC
      Caleb in SC

      @sportsguy1983: So it’s ok for hypocrites like Aaron Schock to actively work against LGBT people when he is gay? That’s just another form of bullying. Not buying your logic, or lack thereof.

      Jan 6, 2014 at 12:03 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Kangol
      Kangol

      Itay Hod’s comments about the media’s hypocrisy and decision to maintain the closet for anti-gay politicians is one of the most important aspects of this brouhaha. Years ago when Mike Rogers was outing people, he was viciously attacked for doing so, but again and again, he unmasked homophobes who were trying to have it both ways: having sex with people of the same sex and benefit from all the hard fought-for protections gay people had secured, and yet actively work to reimpose legal strictures against and oppress gay people.

      There are a number of homophobic politicians and other high level figures that have been outed but the media will not touch it. Why? Because these people are powerful. To give one example, some years ago the Village Voice featured an article that outed the homophobic Roman Catholic Cardinal of New York, Edward Egan. Not a single other major paper touched the story. Why not even explore it, especially given Egan’s homophobic comments and his shameful record on the child sex abuse scandal?

      The same was true of Larry Craig, who Rogers outed before his infamous toe-tapping bust in the Minnesota airport. Craig repeatedly supported anti-gay legislation, but not a single mainstream publication would take up Rogers’ story. Other politicians who have supported anti-gay legislation and who have been outed include Lindsay Graham and John Barrasso, both current US Senators. (Mark Kirk, another Republican, is a bit more moderate, but he was outed during his campaign for the Senate.) It is not helping gay people or anyone to maintain the idea that being gay is shameful, or to aid and abet homophobes benefiting from gay rights while working against those same rights. Schock needs to answer the allegations, and also do as Charlie Crist (another outed politician) has done, and apologize for how he worked against LGBTQ people.

      Jan 6, 2014 at 12:10 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Black Pegasus
      Black Pegasus

      If you’re waiting on the ‘mainstream media’ to challenge hypocrisy, then keep waiting! Because it won’t happen. Just tune into any of the 3 Sunday political talk shows and you’re see what I mean. Politicians are allowed to go on national television to deflect, lie and distort with little to no push back from the host. The politicians are keenly aware of this game which is why they play it so well.

      Jan 6, 2014 at 12:20 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • AuntieChrist
      AuntieChrist

      @balehead: I already said that you idiot or can’t you read…? Breeders always steal from us gays and if we dress like that it’s meant to be ironic not high fashion.

      Jan 6, 2014 at 12:35 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Maharajah
      Maharajah

      So here’s something. With so many men being placed in the ‘closeted’ bracket, there’s going to be a few placed in there by accident. How would someone prove their heterosexuality? If we did have a straight guy in there – and after we ruined him by smearing him with an un-necessary, burdensome and illegitimate title – how would he ever be able to prove it to us that he is straight?

      And, if we lived in a world where we had to constantly prove to people that we were just as paranoid about their sex lives, as they have been with ours – then we are the ignorant, childish, foolish and illegitimate holders of a legacy that fought for us to transcend these disgusting and outdated practices.

      Coming out used to be annihilating – and that was when we were ripped from the staright world by the straight world. Ironic, isn’t it – that the one group that held the power to dis-empower the horrible thing that was coming out and the stigmas of the closet – as well as the way that the world views us – ends up making it worse. Well done guys…

      That said, I do think that we need to tackle this guy – he needs to be hounded on his anti-LGBT behaviors, and his inability to take a real stand for rights, and liberties – much as his party (and his early speeches) supposedly triumph for. Go after him for his ‘flash in the pan’ career. If he is homosexual – then allow who he is – a homophobic, conservative politician be enough for our boys to stay away from him.

      What are we hoping to prove here – that from the deepest hating portions of homophobia comes the biggest homo? We’ve already done that. We don’t just need to shut him down – we need greater dialogue on the issue. This seems counter-productive.

      How about everytime that an editor here think about how much they hate this guy – they dig up something that he voted on, or an issue that he commented on, or a bill that he suggested, or how he is wasting time as a public official. Let’s raise the bar a little and we’ll see him for more than just a confused and sad little thing – but how he is really hurting us, and how we can de-couple not only him – but his many, many other brothers.

      Jan 6, 2014 at 12:47 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Fitz
      Fitz

      @Maharajah: NOTHING is below the belt when someone attacks my family. I’ll go after anything that can hurt him, shame him, make him end his political or human life. He is a danger to my family, and he needs to go away. This is just an item, just a tool to use.

      Jan 6, 2014 at 12:55 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • JDJase
      JDJase

      All I have to say is that we sure are being quite generous with our use of the term “outed” here. I guess the more accurate term “accuse” has too much of a negative connotation so we just try to use “outed” because it sounds more noble and for a cause. Doesn’t the term “outed” pretty much imply an end result of being *out* (or, at least actual proof)? Just like Kangol’s suggestion that Charlie Crist was successfully outed — um, no he wasn’t. Regardless of whether he’s actually gay or not, he claims he’s straight and he’s married, there’s nothing “out” about it — he’s in the closet (or actually straight).

      Really though, I guess I don’t understand how this facebook post is suddenly a major “outing” event in the first place. Compared to the day before yesterday, and today, there’s really no new information about Schock. It’s just another “friend of a friend” story. You could argue that his Tom Daley follow is new evidence, but that technically doesn’t say anything about his sexuality (though even I’ll admit it’s extremely suspicious). But this is just another story added to the list that we’ve heard over the years — nothing new. I’ll change my tune if/when this alleged TMZ video comes out. As for his clothes — I find it interesting that the gay blogs always scream and whine when straight media/television/etc apply stereotypes to gays…yet if a straight guy exhibits one of those stereotypes that we claim to hate so much, we’re more than happy to embrace it and use it!

      I guess it’s just the lawyer in me that is searching for something beyond double hearsay. Like one of the commenters on a previous post stated: “there isn’t a gay guy in DC that hasn’t seen Schock at a gay bar.” Really? Thousands of gays have seen Aaron Shock at a gay bar and it just so happens at that very moment no one could every find their phone and snap a picture? Awfully convenient. And Hod could certainly throw us a bone by telling us who is making the accusations (or excuse me, “doing the outing”) — but of course he’ll conveniently and hypocritically keep that information in the closet

      I’m not saying he’s not gay. He may very well be. And if he is he deserves all the wrath we can give. But my point is that whining that the mainstream media isn’t covering this is ridiculous because there isn’t a shred of actual evidence beyond “I know a guy who has a friend that totes know’s he’s gay!” The mainstream media has a bit more dignity than that. That idle gossip is left for non respected gossip blogs like TMZ and Queerty. Oh, and unemployed journalists who need attention on facebook.

      [Note: this is not a defense of Aaron Shock - so no need to scream that in replies just because I disagree with you]

      Jan 6, 2014 at 1:31 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Niall
      Niall

      If he is gay, then I’m all for outing him. Immediately you make it your “job” to interfere with what people choose to do in this privacy of their bedrooms and their private lives, then you don’t deserve much privacy of your own when you’re being a flaming hypocrite.

      Jan 6, 2014 at 1:32 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • redspyder
      redspyder

      @Maharajah: Just an FYI – when you say go after him for his “flash in the pan” career: up til now, Aaron Schock has been a bit of a rising star. Redistricting in Illinois left the 18th Congressional District relatively unchanged – allegedly because Democrats wanted him to stay happy where he was in the House and not eye any statewide positions. He was widely seen as interested in the Governor’s job.

      Jan 6, 2014 at 1:46 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • CCTR
      CCTR

      @JDJase: Agree 100%!!

      Jan 6, 2014 at 1:56 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • 2eo
      2eo

      @Fitz: Generally you can look at the standard of person and ascertain whether what they say has worth.

      @JDJase: @Maharajah: @CCTR:

      Are all at the lower end of the opinion spectrum, given how they normally post, JDJ regularly defends conservatives and mormons, so it’s fine to dismiss them, they aren’t even worth the time to address in my honest opinion.

      Jan 6, 2014 at 2:09 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • JDJase
      JDJase

      @2eo: LMAO! I have never once defended a conservative and definitely not a mormon (though I am very interested in you finding an example of me doing this — oh wait, you can’t). Either you have me confused with someone else, or, as usual, you are making stuff up for your own trolling pleasure. You are on the lower end of the intelligence spectrum. In fact, the reason I put the note at the end of my post saying this wasn’t a defense is because I knew idiots like you who are too stupid to read and comprehend the post would shout “you’re defending him!!”

      I’m not concerned what you think about my opinion though, considering you’re one of the biggest trolls on this site along with jimbryant.

      Jan 6, 2014 at 2:17 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • JDJase
      JDJase

      @2eo: By the way, the only people who ever say “its not worthy my time to respond!” are people too dumb to come up with a remotely intelligent response. Congrats!

      Jan 6, 2014 at 2:19 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Maharajah
      Maharajah

      @Fitz: I understand the urgency for you – and I get where you are coming from. I am not as extreme in my views because, perhaps, I don’t yet have a spouse or children – so I am not as ‘invested’. From here, and maybe in time I’ll look back upon me of today and see him as naive (though I really hope not) – but I think that we need to see more of how this is really affecting us. Yes, this guys is scary because of his record – but how did he get there? Who is funding him? Can we shake them off? Can we boycott them if they decide to stay with him? How do we get him out of office? How do we engage an apathetic voter base to get not only this guy – but any other guy out!

      I don’t want this guy coming after your family – AND I don’t want anyone else to be able to do the same. We need to send broader messages – that this is not cool, that we are slamming him on the issues – not one aspect of his life that even if we were successful in finding him to be gay – that will just show how fuc*ed up hate is – and then a month from now – we see him apologize to the public and it’s over. This is bullshit because that’s how it ends. There is no change – and a few months later someone else takes up the torch.

      I want to shut him down, as much as you do – but I also want to shut all of them down, I want to decouple him, and his friends in Florida, and his friends in Washington – and his funders in this country – that go to Uganda and Russia to get them to ‘up their Christianity’!

      This is a tool – but it’s not the only one. It’s the most salacious – but not the most productive. If we spent as much energy researching how and why he is capable of being a conservative ass-hat then we could bring him, and all of his counterparts down.

      I agree with you – and don’t think that we disagree on most – but this is where I think that we would be much better served by being conscious, rather then blindly vicious.

      Jan 6, 2014 at 2:25 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • chaddyboy6
      chaddyboy6

      Oh the hypocrisy of the left is at it again. I guess it is okay to out only those people whose agenda you are against. So much for respecting everyone’s right to privacy and being objective-no matter how “anti-gay” or pro gay he is. I know a lot of out gays who are against gay marriage and who were against repealing DADT. I disagree with them but if they were in the closet I would never out them. Same old double standard with the left…if we like you and we agree with you we will keep your secret. if not to hell with you.

      Jan 6, 2014 at 2:27 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Maharajah
      Maharajah

      @JDJase: Will you marry me? I am a man, and if rumors are to be believed – a virulent homophobe/defender. I am marrying you for your logic (you really need to not whip that out around here – it’s dazzling to most, understood by some, and just a litmus test for bullshit for most of the others. Oh, and as a homophobe/defender I must suck a mean co*k – so, there’s that.

      Jan 6, 2014 at 2:28 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • litper
      litper

      @chaddyboy6: please kindly shove your HATE where the sun don’t shine and go back to Freerepublic!

      Jan 6, 2014 at 2:32 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • JDJase
      JDJase

      @Maharajah: Heck yes, us homophobe-defending mormon-loving gay-rights-hating conservative-pandering jesus-freak mo’s gotta stick together!

      Jan 6, 2014 at 2:33 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Maharajah
      Maharajah

      @redspyder: But placating him at the local level really stopped his upward mobility? He’s a national figure – and would have been one anyway (his GQ spread solidified him with a generation of straight men as a “game-changer”). But look at him now, nothing of the dream that he sold us on a national level. He should have shot for the highest office that he could get – it would only be logical for his career – but as a Democrat is that the best that we can do – placate him? We can cream this guy – he’s not only going to lose the vote of any undecided voters (who, instead of googling him now – will only find a bunch of closeted homo posts – which he can re-hab when he comes out later in his life (we are a fickle bunch at times), rather than things that really affect them. And, there are no Democrats that are better candidates than he? At all? In the entire state? We are not a weak party – why are we acting like one?

      He needs to be de-powered. Calling him a Homo and attacking him, is the same thing that they did to us. What a fuc*ing joke that we are the ones doing it now – years later, in a ‘time of acceptance’. If we fought for them to stay out of our bedrooms – then we should respect the same. If we are going to fight so hard for freedom and respect – we have to show that we are worthy of it. We are not a bunch of bitter queers – we are intelligent voters, liberated men, spirited and talented. We are not going to play to their games – because it only stands to empower one thing – a system that they built that still oppresses us.

      If he is a homo – he’ll be a sad, lonely, pathetic one. That’s his personal life. Opening it up, may benefit us all – but it’ll ultimately be his choice. No amount of mud-slinging, or photos, or videos are going to change that. Ask Ted Haggard.

      But, we can send a stronger message – and see who is really helping him along.

      Jan 6, 2014 at 2:53 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • ZaneStuart
      ZaneStuart

      @JDJase:

      Ultra-conservatives will lambaste any conservative in office who is simply perceived as pro-choice, pro-gun control or homosexual. The only reason they haven’t gone after Schock is because he has voted against every bill that would advance equality for LGBTQ Americans. This, and yet they (and some in our own community) call us LGBTQ folk the bad guys because we “out” people in power.

      They are wrong. This story is important because of Schock’s voting record. If he were simply another person on the street it wouldn’t be news worthy but he is a decision maker on legislation that change the lives of LGBTQ folk. We have every right to know who such a person is.

      You said “The mainstream media has a bit more dignity than that”.
      That’s laughable. The one ultimate goal of mainstream media – both conservative and liberal – is dollars. They’d sell their souls for viewers and tell any story they thought could bring in more money. Sure, whether in fear of litigation or some weird sense of propriety, they will want irrefutable proof about Schock before they commit to the story. However, once they have it they will beat the story to a pulp in their efforts to milk every last bit of money they could possibly make out of it.

      Jan 6, 2014 at 2:57 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Tyler100
      Tyler100

      @chaddyboy6:

      Trollol, a gay conservative (indicated by a reference to the “left”) is lecturing us about what’s fair and decent when his own party is dedicated to making all LGBT individuals second-class citizens. I’m sorry sucking up to your oppressors isn’t working out for you, and I’m sorry you identify and sympathize with such a diabolical closet case. But some of us have self respect and will not stand idly by while a major actor in the movement to disenfranchise LGBT individuals takes advantage of the glass closet while brutalizing us legally.

      Jan 6, 2014 at 2:59 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • spanprof
      spanprof

      The real proof will come now! This guy is going to be “dogged” wherever he goes, and every time he appears with a young hunk, he’s going to have to explain who his “friend is”. In other circumstances, I say “leave it alone” as in Robin Roberts, who came out on her own schedule and when she was ready. The difference is that Robin was doing no harm to her gay brethren. Follow him all around!

      Jan 6, 2014 at 3:01 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Maharajah
      Maharajah

      @2eo:
      Are all at the lower end of the opinion spectrum, given how they normally post, JDJ regularly defends conservatives and mormons, so it’s fine to dismiss them, they aren’t even worth the time to address in my honest opinion.

      Ironic is defined as; happening in the opposite way to what is expected, and typically causing wry amusement because of this.

      Sweetheart – you sure are IRONIC. Sadly, you could have been iconic – but the hate, the hate just ages a bit*h!

      Jan 6, 2014 at 3:02 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • CCTR
      CCTR

      @2eo: Thanks! I’m quite proud to be at the “lower end of the opinion spectrum”, which obviously means I post intelligent, well thought out, discerning comments. I don’t post to spew hate and anger nor to argue and attack others and their opinions. My standards are too high to sink to that level of nonsense.
      Best wishes on growing up and maturing!

      Jan 6, 2014 at 3:08 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • JDJase
      JDJase

      @ZaneStuart: I actually agree with pretty much everything you’ve said, which is why I feel like you missed my point. I never suggested that it’s wrong to “out” anti-gay closet cases and expose them for their hypocrisy. (in fact I explicitly stated that if he is gay he “deserves all the wrath we have to give”).

      My point was merely, right now there is zero proof, and, just as you said, the media will cover it when there is proof. I agree with you that it is an important story, but the point of my post was that as of now there really is no story. This is just another flare up of the same old rumors of people who claim to know people who know things but conveniently won’t say who or what. But I guess on the plus side, as Queerty pointed out with all his new followers, Hod got what he wanted out of this.

      On a different note, if he ever does decide to do it, now is the time for Schock to come out, because the filing deadline in Illinois has already passed, so the earliest he could face a primary challenge is 2016.

      Jan 6, 2014 at 3:21 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Maharajah
      Maharajah

      @CCTR: YAAAS Gurl!

      Jan 6, 2014 at 3:22 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Maharajah
      Maharajah

      @JDJase: @ZaneStuart

      And to add – when he is outed, I don’t want his legacy to be forgotton. I don’t want him to write a NY Times Best Seller and spend weeks on ed gloating about his bad childhood, or how the church harmed him, and then he’ll be in our good graces again. This is nonsense – and it happens to often. If it happens once, it has happened too many times. We suddenly develop amnesia and blame those ‘reckless pre-closeted days’ as a past-life. He has a conscious. Where is it? He comes out, and then he develops it? Does he not now know that he is doing something wrong? Coming out will change that? If we are that fickle as a society – why even fight him at all?

      I want so that if he does come out – if he does decided to ‘fess up’ (and that’s working on an assumption that he is gay – of which we have no evidence – and I acquiesce to the notion that if there is any proof – now is the time that it will be coming out), but until then – let’s focus on how shitty of a human being he has been. Let’s remind the world that we are not all like that. Let’s make it so that he has to take responsibility for his sins. If he is half the man that he pretends to be – then he’ll appreciate the gesture. Either way, every one affected will appreciate watching him drown – and responsibility will be the comfort to the people that he has hurt so far. We owe it to them – the ones that he is hurting – to show how and when he is doing it.

      And, believe me – in this day and age – there is rarely a closet large enough to hide in. But, this mud-slinging is only going to bring us down. Slam him on the issues – there are facts there. This is how we not only win the battle, but how we can win the war!

      Jan 6, 2014 at 3:33 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Maharajah
      Maharajah

      And, at Queerty in general – come on. Every other post is about outing someone and someone else. Ok, we get it – good for clicks – great for you! But at least do some form of journalism (even if it’s the quasi-journalism that you guys practice in the form of repost HuffPo or someone else’s stuff) that you are so fond of – at least do something. You guys are a well visited sight, and for no doubt – because you can draw a crowd. Now that you can, please do something more – inform them. This site is good, but it can be a lot better (socially, and consciously at least).

      Jan 6, 2014 at 3:42 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • LubbockGayMale
      LubbockGayMale

      @Volvoguy: My thoughts exactly!

      Jan 6, 2014 at 3:58 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • missedgle
      missedgle

      I love the outfit.in my hey day.I sho would wear the hell out of it..It’s like Barbra Streisand say..it’s easier to criticize than to praise..I tell ya ever one who has a cellphone is a photographer and journalist..

      Jan 6, 2014 at 4:16 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Taliaferro
      Taliaferro

      Anyone who runs for office, and wins, should expect all his or her dirty laundry to be aired in public. When that elected official is a member of a minority and zealously uses his or her office to vote for legislation that is detrimental to his or her group, the media has a morall impertive to report on that hypocrisy. It is 2014, not 1954. It is time for honesty in politics and gay and lesbain, bisexual and trangendered people who want to run for public office should be prepared to be open about their sexuality. After all, we insist on knowing about wives, children, religion and myriad other aspects of a candidate’s life. This is no different.

      Jan 6, 2014 at 4:20 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • haringfan1
      haringfan1

      @Volvoguy: Seriously, (and this may be very superficial) the belt alone, I mean come on!

      Jan 6, 2014 at 4:26 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Rudy
      Rudy

      @Jackhoffsky: This wasn’t exactly a secret to anybody in Peoria who knew the guy or google’d him. He’s waaaay to fabulous for peoria. I just think most people in that area just don’t really care. Blue collar. You go east to the galesburg area and your literally in Klansville and heavy tea party.. Crazy crap round those parts.

      Jan 6, 2014 at 5:12 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Teleny
      Teleny

      @Volvoguy: you just about killed me with that one. :)

      Jan 6, 2014 at 5:31 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Teleny
      Teleny

      @Fitz: I strongly agree. Anyone who has the goods on our enemies SHOULD spill the tea! These haters say we will burn in hell, so let them burn on Earth.

      Jan 6, 2014 at 5:35 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Degas
      Degas

      Sartorially, Schock appears as every other prep school and county club guy out there, gay or straight. His outfit is tame for that crowd, actually. Don’t assume anything about his orientation by his clothes.

      I’m not convinced his voting record is a reflection of his conscience. I don’t necessarily believe his voting record reflects self-hate, either, but is simply a way for him to rise to power in a conservative district. So, if he is gay, he sold his soul. And, he threw his LGBT brethren under the bus. All for his own personal gain.

      I’m only ever in favor of outing people in circumstances like this one. The very people doing us harm (including those denying us rights and legal protections) and then living a double life need to be exposed for their hypocrisy. There is no undoing what he has done, but he can atone for it. If Ken Mehlman was able to redeem himself to some degree, so can Schock.

      Politicians today can no longer get away with it. Technology has made it close to impossible for the hypocrites to carry on with their lies, double lives, and the harm they do to others while they hold positions of power and privilege. Technology holds them accountable for their votes and their personal lives. Yes, he is entitled to a personal life, but his personal life does not trump our personal lives and livelihoods. And if he is gay, his personal life and interests are deeply entrenched in our personal lives, as many of us are fighting for equality and legal protections merely by living our lives openly.

      That is why many people on this forum are so angry and and lack any sympathy for him.

      Jan 6, 2014 at 6:24 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Bee Gaga
      Bee Gaga

      @Maharajah: While I agree with your statement, except for the part about the ‘burdensome” label of a straight guy being seen as gay *gasp* omg because I ALWAYS worry omg I hope no one thinks I’m straight. Only a person who believes that there’s still something about being gay that needs to hold a kind of stigma or shame to it would say such a thing. And with that said, outing “gay” Republicans is popular for the same reason it’s entertaining to point out that the great segregationist Strom Thurmond had a daughter with a black woman. It’s still fun to point out and badger the hypocritical nature and carnal desires of our most conservative politicians who don’t practice what they preach or stand against.

      Jan 6, 2014 at 8:15 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Bee Gaga
      Bee Gaga

      @JDJase: I don’t agree with what you said, “And Hod could certainly throw us a bone by telling us who is making the accusations (or excuse me, “doing the outing”) — but of course he’ll conveniently and hypocritically keep that information in the closet,” any good journalist knows if a source wants to remain silent then its journalistic integrity not to put their name in there. One, you could be eliminating a possible source for future references. Two, other sources would be hesitant to tell you something because they’d know that you don’t like to conceal identities. And three, as another person pointed out, just like he was using “what if…” and “hypothetical” this supposed friend of his could really be himself.

      Jan 6, 2014 at 8:21 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • sangsue
      sangsue

      If someone is going to out someone else, have that proof. Otherwise it’s just insinuation.

      Jan 6, 2014 at 8:37 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • ZaneStuart
      ZaneStuart

      @JDJase:

      I understood your post. I don’t entirely agree.

      Itay Hod’s post on Facebook is only gossip but, knowing it is only gossip – because it certainly wasn’t written with any journalistic integrity -, if it manages to get a discussion more cerebral than “kill him” or “let him live in the closet if he wants” going I believe it is of some value.
      Then again, after reading the comments that might be a pipe dream…

      Those two quotes are nearly verbatim from comments here on the subject of Aaron Schock the last few days.
      I know Queerty is more a gossip rag than anything else but it really is disappointing to read comments that thoughtless.

      Jan 6, 2014 at 8:47 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • JohnnyMorales
      JohnnyMorales

      The notion that someone’s sexuality is a private matter is deeply rooted in self-loathing and homophobia.

      Implicit in any discussions about a straight public figure is an understanding of his or her sexuality.

      Talking about their wife, what person they have gone on a date with is all an implicit statement that they are straight.

      That we don’t want to talk about public gay figures the same way in order to “respect” their sense of privacy is sheer idiocy.

      Any sense of “shaming” attached to his actions are rooted in his being gay.

      We should be able to talk as casually about his activities, including his shower stuff just like we talk about the activities of straight people in society.

      As long as we pretend this is an invasion of his privacy we are sustaining the notion that there is something wrong with being homosexual.

      He isn’t being outed as much as he was treated exactly like a straight person would be treated in an equivalent situation.

      Jan 6, 2014 at 9:46 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • JDJase
      JDJase

      @Bee Gaga: Any good journalist also doesn’t report a story unless they have TWO confirmed sources as well as some sort of evidence that what they’re reporting wasn’t just some thought made up in their head (neither of which happened here). Anyone with “journalistic integrity” wouldn’t have reported this story until they had some sort of provable evidence. I’m all for journalists keeping sources confidential, in a serious piece of journalism that isn’t solely reliant on “some dude said.” Of course, less to Hod’s fault, I blame the person who made the accusation to Hod for wanting to keep their ID secret. Like I said before, they feel it’s their duty to unveil Schock’s secret but wont unveil that they’re the one doing it.

      Ultimately though, this was a random facebook rambling by an unemployed journalist. Not a lot of “journalistic integrity” going on here. It’s just a random hot guy who posted a hypothetical thought that got picked up by people who mistakenly thought he currently worked at CBS.

      [Side question: would Hod's post have been blown up by Queerty etc if he wasn't attractive?]

      Don’t forget, when this post was initially thrown around by Queerty etc, the lead off was always “A CBS anchor posted on fb…” The idea that this was a serious newsman of a major network posting this was the ONLY thing giving this story any legs. And that turned out to be false.

      As for your suggestion that Hod himself could have been the source and is the one that saw Schock getting it on: if that were true, my opinion would be that Hod is just as disgusting of a human being as Schock. All he would have to do is say “Yes, I saw them” provide a little bit of proof he was there at the time and place, and the justice that Hod claims to want against Schock would have been served. So in the case of Hod being the source, either he is the biggest hypocritical pussy there is, or else the story is bullshit. (To be fair to Hod though, I don’t believe that he himself is the original source – I doubt he’s THAT despicable)

      Jan 6, 2014 at 9:49 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Fitz
      Fitz

      @JohnnyMorales: I either don’t understand or don’t agree. The whole outing/privacy thing is a red herring. He is a fierce anti gay activist, who gets support from fiercely anti gay people. That makes this issue relevant, IN THIS CASE.. and in this case, doing things (ANY things) that cause him public humiliation are on the table. My sincere hope is that the pressure becomes overwhelming and he drinks himself to death. Won’t happen. He’ll probably do some tearful “respect my privacy” thing, and get forgiven cuz he has nice pecs. But, nice pecs or not, he is an enemy of everyone who believes in being fair.

      Jan 6, 2014 at 9:53 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Fitz
      Fitz

      Again, let me try to be more clear, cuz I am not so great at this kind of communication: I don’t really care if he likes men or women. Or labradors. What I care about is that he is our enemy, and HE AND HIS SUPPORTERS would care if he was gay. SO, rumor or fact– use it, stab with it.

      Jan 6, 2014 at 9:56 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • LadyL
      LadyL

      Is anyone else here bothered by this notion of “irrefutable proof” and the insistence that it be the basis for any mainstream reportage or discussion about pols like Aaron Schock? What exactly would serve as irrefutable proof of his or anyone’s homosexuality?
      I ask this because given the secrecy that has long surrounded the closeted, and the MSM’s discomfort about the subject of closeted politicians particularly, I wonder if proof considered “irrefutable” could ever truly be offered. What kind of proof are we talking about?
      *
      Would footage of Schock having sex with another man serve?
      (Probably not; such a tape would never see the light of day, or would likely exist only in some blackmailer’s vault.)
      What if an ex-lover of Schock’s came forward, or tried to publish a tell-all?
      (No, he’d either be threatened into silence and disappeared or paid off to keep quiet or both. Probably both.)
      What about Schock himself? If he came out, wouldn’t that be considered irrefutable proof?
      (Of course it would– but given his political affiliation and deplorable record on LGBT issues, what’s the likelihood of that happening?)
      *
      In these circumstances, what “irrefutable proof” could there ever be? And isn’t that entirely the point? All of these scenarios add up to perfect deniability for everyone and anyone who’d rather the subject be left strictly alone.
      We’re talking about a long, twisty history here: Powerful politicians are made and protected by powerful, moneyed interests who will not hesitate to punish anyone who threatens to rock a boat they do not want disturbed. (Thus it’s entirely believable to me that men who have seen Schock at gay bars have declined to offer proof of the sightings; fear of reprisals is a strong motivator for silence, especially if some of those men are themselves living closeted or semi-closeted lives.)
      And btw, what “irrefutable proof” do we require before reporting on or publicly discussing the private lives of heterosexual politicians and celebrities? We don’t need them to have done something wrong to justify our interest; that the scrutiny comes with the territory of being famous has always been considered reason enough.

      Jan 6, 2014 at 10:02 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Bee Gaga
      Bee Gaga

      @JDJase: Yeah, obviously this post wasn’t done in a journalistic way. The main point I was making was the person probably didn’t want to be outed (no pun intended) and Hod probably didn’t want to out the person himself because. A) He/she is a valuable mole apparently and B) As I stated about other sources. Not to even further mention, the person probably told him that in confidence so he doesn’t want to break that confidence and put that person’s business on front street. I’m guessing you were using hyperbole, or at least I hope, because what Hod and his source did is NO WHERE near as horrible as what Schock is and has been doing. With that said, I don’t think his appearance has much to do with it if a journalist as ugly as the lot of them said the same thing and made reference to Schock or any other politician Queerty would have definitely added it on here. It helped he is (seen) as attractive and that the person he’s outing is (seen) as attractive, but even if they were both 60 year old tubes of lard it still would have been newsworthy. To queerty at least. I don’t think what he’s saying is bs, I think the media does love to hide closet cases even when and especially when they have the history of Aaron Schock. Because, as someone stated somewhere on here, we think being gay is suppose to be “normal.” However, at the same time we feel like we should remain hush hush about it until someone makes a statement confirming or denying there’s if it’s obvious and has been experienced, as in Schock’s case, then we’re suppose to wait until he says it? I don’t think so, given his history he deserves this outing and even if he was an ally I very much support outing. We don’t sit and wait for a starlet to confirm them blonde hair or blue eyes because they can obviously been seen. So I’m not and nor am I going to demonize someone else for stating what they think is obvious and has been proved.

      Jan 6, 2014 at 10:15 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • M Pitt
      M Pitt

      In my opinion, every gay politician, activist, journalist etc who actively works against the rights of other gay people should be outed.

      I’m not surprised that there are gay conservatives, after all who you fuck doesn’t dictate whether you love tax cuts above human rights etc., but those who support anti-gay legislation and language must be outed for the hypocrites they are. Ken Mehlman is a perfect example of an uncle Tom. He was actually knee deep in the 2004 anti gay marriage initiatives around the country which encouraged a remarkable rise in homophobic rhetoric and attacks, all in order to get his boss the presidency once more.

      Jan 6, 2014 at 11:00 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Faggot
      Faggot

      @AuntieChrist: But Aaron Schock is hotter!

      Jan 7, 2014 at 12:32 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • AuntieChrist
      AuntieChrist

      @JohnnyMorales: I understood your comment,In fact Harvey Milk said something very similar…But his reasons were a little different…There should be no shame in being gay and since I have been OUT for the last 38 years I’ve taken quite a few beatings for it and on more than just a physical level…At this point I am tired of all the fighting and bullshit at my age I’m just an irrelevant old queer but I love watching the fur and feathers fly.

      Jan 7, 2014 at 7:04 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Cam
      Cam

      Here is a fact.

      Barbara McCulski of Maryland voted anti-gay years ago. Michelangelo Signorelli started showing up to her press conferences and asking questions such as “How can you as a lesbian vote for……”

      He told them that as long as a closeted lesbian continued to attack the gay community in order to hide the fact that she was gay he would continue to show up and out her.

      Her voting record changed immediately.

      Jan 8, 2014 at 12:48 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • LadyL
      LadyL

      @Cam: And I think that’s entirely fair. Politicians are elected officials and the things they do directly affect the lives and well-being of their constituents. They should be held accountable, with no allowances made for their closets.
      …Now if we can just get the MSM to understand this…

      Jan 8, 2014 at 5:17 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Pete
      Pete

      Relying on hearsay, conjecture, and the most anachronistic of homophobic gay stereotypes (meticulous wardrobe, cut physique), Hod and Savage have only succeeded in outing Schock as a Metrosexual. Neither would be in the least interested in him if he wasn’t ‘VGL’.

      Schock’s voting record only demonstrates that he’s a loyal Republican: he votes as his whips tell him. Other Republicans have far more repugnant records, only they don’t come up on Savage’s gaydar as ‘hunk-a-licous hotties’

      Jan 13, 2014 at 2:38 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Pete
      Pete

      Us gay men are constantly trying to claim attractive, successful men for our own. Aaron Rogers isn’t married or in a relationship, therefore he must be . . . The obvious reason, that as a great NFL quarterback the pussy is flowing like champagne and he doesn’t want the party to end, isn’t even a consideration. On the other end I’ve heard gays maintain that Peyton’s college sweetheart wife and three children are obviously ‘just for show’.

      Is Schock gay? Probably. But our cause will not be advanced in the public eye if we libel him. At least wait until you have some real evidence, like with Reckers.

      Jan 13, 2014 at 2:50 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Pete
      Pete

      @AuntieChrist: When I went to college I discovered that bright, colorful casual clothes such as Schock is wearing are de rigeur among preppie WASPs. In particular I remember DKEs in atrocious Kelly green chinos!

      Savage’s gaydar would be going apeshit at a Williams or Amherst homecoming!

      Jan 13, 2014 at 3:17 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Pete
      Pete

      facial hair makes everyone look the same, imo

      Jan 13, 2014 at 3:25 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Pete
      Pete

      @Pete: oops meant to post this in the scruff article convo!!!

      Jan 13, 2014 at 3:26 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·

    Add your Comment

    Please log in to add your comment

    Need an account? Register It's free and easy.



  • POPULAR ON QUEERTY

    FOLLOW US
     



    GET QUEERTY'S DAILY NEWSLETTER


    FROM AROUND THE WEB

    !-- Sailthru Horizon -->
    Copyright 2014 Queerty, Inc.
    Follow Queerty at Queerty.com, twitter.com/queerty and facebook.com/queerty.