![outrage[1]](https://queerty-prodweb.s3.amazonaws.com/2009/10/outrage1-202x300.jpg "outrage[1]")
Know what the definitive proof that gay politico outer Mike Rogers has come a long way? We’re no longer arguing about why we should expose gay officials who vote anti-gay, but why we shouldn’t — because doing so is becoming accepted wisdom. Among progressives, of course.
With last night’s HBO premiere of Kirby Dick’s Outrage as the newspeg, Newsweek‘s Joshua Alston delivers “The Case Against Outing Gay Politicians.” He argues “Outrage is plagued with problems.” And while the film is not perfect, it’s actually Alston’s own argument about why Outrage is mal that is plagued with problems. (Still following?)
We’ll spare you some of Alston’s nitpicking —
Outrage is plagued with problems, starting with title cards that describe a “brilliantly orchestrated conspiracy” to keep gay politicians in the closet. It’s a sexy idea that unfortunately is incompatible with how people actually behave. Then there’s the aforementioned anecdotal evidence, which, naturally, is as good as evidence is going to get in situations such as these. But that limits the film to convincing only those who don’t need convincing, those already inclined to believe that the most virulent homophobes might have secrets of their own. That isn’t to say the witnesses in the film are lying, merely that they aren’t going to sway anyone.
— and jump right to this:
But even if not for these missteps, the film’s core argument—that closeted gay politicians should be outed—is still at issue. The job of a public official, after all, is to represent his constituency, not to vote in the way that would most benefit him. We live in a democracy, and everyone gets a vote, including bigots and homophobes, and they get to be represented as well. Now, it’s fair to suggest that the voting public has the right to know everything about their elected officials, including their personal lives. But if we knew the details of what everyone was doing and voted accordingly, who would we have to vote for? Political scandals over the years, ones that have nothing to do with homosexuality, have proven that most politicians have skeletons they keep. If a gay man wants to run for governor of a socially conservative state, because he has terrific ideas on how to reduce crime, balance the budget, or bring new jobs to his state, should he put his sexuality front and center and risk going down to defeat? There’s a valid argument for both sides of that question, but Outrage pretends there isn’t. If you’re gay, the film suggests, then fighting for gay rights must always be job one, and anything less is an unforgivable betrayal.
And there’s where he’s wrong. We don’t demand to know everything about a politician’s personal life. In fact, we’re more than happy with elected officials keeping private matters, well, private. Does Barney Frank like SeanCody.com? Great, but we don’t need that information. Does Obama smoke two cigarettes a day, or a whole pack? Irrelevant to us! (Well, until Obama starts pushing tobacco legislation.)
It’s just when a politician’s personal life conflicts so greatly with his public platform that we endorse outing him (or her!) as a hypocrite.
Alston asks rhetorically: “If a gay man wants to run for governor of a socially conservative state, because he has terrific ideas on how to reduce crime, balance the budget, or bring new jobs to his state, should he put his sexuality front and center and risk going down to defeat?” Whether being openly gay is political suicide is another matter, but the answer to this question is No, he doesn’t have to put his sexuality front and center. Only when he begins endorsing anti-gay measures, like banning same-sex marriage or gay adoption or voting against anti-discrimination protections, will he fall into “deserving to be outed” territory.
When politicians advocate against healthcare reform, we demand to know exactly what type of healthcare coverage they receive — because we want to know if they’re hypocrites.
The bedroom may be a more private place, but when politicos insert themselves in ours, we’re going to be damn sure to set up a camera in theirs.
tinkerbell
Amen
MoHoTo
Well this argument certainly goes round and round. And round and round. And round again.
The problem with all the rationalization is that it masks a fundamental question as to motive. Most gay people have really good radar for the motives of others, because we have long experience reading through people’s masks in order to assess where they are actually coming from. Our emotional intelligence protects us from unwelcome surprises.
And in the case of the big-time ‘outers’ a lot of gay peoples’ radar (including mine) goes off. Because the tone of the outing smacks of homophobia itself.
The same holds true with groups with names like ‘gay shame.’
So the problem here is in a sense expressed on both sides of the round and round coin. You can never know what’s in a person’s heart, but you would be well advised to listen to what your instincts tell you. ANd mine tell me that whatever the rationalization, the heart of outing public figures is a dark one.
Amber LeMay
In July we, as the League of Drag Queen Voters, hosted a special screening and discussion of “Outrage” at the Roxy Cinema in Burlington, Vermont. Most didn’t care if they were gay and in the closet, concerns were if their actions betrayed the closet. Hypocricy trumped privacy. http://houseoflemay.blog-city.com/outrage_at_the_roxy.htm
Cam
That is the issue, the closeted politicians, aren’t voting against gay rights for the good of the country, they are voting against them because they think that is the way to prove to everybody that they aren’t gay, end of story.
The Gay Numbers
“You can know what’s in a person’s heart.”
It does not matter what is in their heart. It is what is in their action of supporting anti-gay politics that matter. It does not go round and round except with people hwo ignore the concern is public policy outcomes. If your concern is emotional intelligence, then maybe that’s why you are not concerned with policy.
Jack
I thought the issue was hypocrisy, rather than homosexuality.
Jake the libertarian
The issue of gay rights is not comparable to smoking legislation, health care, taxes, or other political issues. Gay rights is about equal protection under the law for all American citizens. The author mentioned that if a politician wants to oppose health care reform, then his personal health care choices are public domain. I disagree. Because a congressman has good health care does not entitle everyone to good health care. I oppose health care reform, and I have health care. I think its legitimate for me not to have to pay for others to cure themselves of illness… That does not make me a hypocrite, it’s just part of being a libertarian.
On the other hand, if a congressman is schtuping the hell out of a cute 18 year old guy and then voting to deny him equal protection under the law, then that should enter the public discourse. This is especially true if that congressman makes hateful speeches and aligns himself with radicals like Focus on the Family.
Frankly though, I am not sure I have any sympathy for any person serving in our congress. They are all corrupt, self serving, hypocrites. I think they should all be fired… both parties… 100% of them. They do nothing but spend money and discuss the personal lives of the people who employ them. I have less contempt for mass murderers than a fucking Senator or Congressman.
rudy
“I oppose health care reform, and I have health care. I think its legitimate for me not to have to pay for others to cure themselves of illness… That does not make me a hypocrite, it’s just part of being a libertarian.”
In which case, being a libertarian mnakes one a hypocrite.
J. Clarence
I couldn’t agree with Alston more. In normal circumstances I don’t think it is appropriate to out someone, it is for many people a deeply personal decision, and could have severe ramifications for that person personally and politically.
However, when that same person is discreetly going to gay bars and calling guys over only to then pressure them not to say a word, and on top of that voting “Yes” on anti-gay measures, that’s just the height of foolishness.
Qjersey
“The job of a public official, after all, is to represent his constituency, not to vote in the way that would most benefit him.”
Has this idiot ever read about our congress, lawyers who won’t pass tort reform. Taking money from the health care industry to kill health care.
ALL THEY DO IS VOTE THEIR SELF INTEREST and not the interest of the people. What an asshat.
Cam
“””The job of a public official, after all, is to represent his constituency, not to vote in the way that would most benefit him.””
______________________________-
Really? Then why are their lobbyists? Lobbyists are their to talk you into voting differently than you were going to. Our only problem is that HRC is a bad lobbying organization, we should have just sent the 300 million we’ve given them over the years to one of the big K Street firms, we probably would have all the gay rights bills passed by now.
RM
You know, it doesn’t really matter if it’s “right” or “wrong” to out people. Because in the end, their secret will get out.
The Gay Numbers
A hypocrite is a hypocrite is a hypocrite. Stop parsing to excuse the fact that you too may be a hypocrite.
Charles Merrill
Gay Democratic Candidate Jim Neal in North Carolina was outed by his opposition when he was running for House of Representatives. The Democratic Party turned their back on him after knowing he was gay. It works both ways.
Kropotkin
“I oppose health care reform, and I have health care. I think its legitimate for me not to have to pay for others to cure themselves of illness… That does not make me a hypocrite, it’s just part of being a libertarian.”
Unless you’re paying for health care straight out of your pocket to the provider directly in cash money, then other people are paying for your health care and you are paying for theirs. They call insurance a risk pool for a reason.
So if you are getting health care through an insurer, you may want to rethink your reasoning there, because you’re already apart of what you oppose.
Lady Ga-Gasp
It all boils down to motive. Exploiting people’s weaknesses to hurt them. I don’t live in that kind of world, and neither do the people I love. Have your gotcha’s all you want. Good luck finding your own redemption, because redemption doesn’t just up and find you.