PDA

View Full Version : Outings - NOT picnics



Ian McColgin
08-09-2004, 01:04 PM
A guy named Michael Rogers is "outing" closeted DC gay people such as Rep. Mark Foley, R-FL, and Sen. Barbara Mikulski, D-MD. While Log Cabin Dir. Barron, quoted at the end of the story below, has a point, given that more Republicans appear to be in the closet, I'm not sure that this is really a partisan issue. In this state, for example, there's plenty of D's opposed to gay weddings.

I personally think that being in the closet and carrying out an agenda the furthers repression of gays is distastefull but I think that outing is even worse.

For the story:

Published on Sunday, August 8, 2004 by the lndependent/UK
US Senators Targeted in 'Outing' Campaign
by Frances Dickenson and Caz Gorman

Michael Rogers lives on the top floor of a block of flats in Washington DC, with a balcony and a fine view of the city whose secrets he is systematically giving up. Mr Rogers, who is gay, is waging a controversial "outing" campaign against gay Senators, members of Congress and Capitol Hill staffers who support the presidentially sponsored campaign to ban same-sex marriages.

The headquarters for his campaign is a workstation in the corner of his sitting room. From here he sifts tips-offs, updates his blog site (www.blogactive.com) and above all makes the phone calls that gays on the Hill have come to dread.

"It's about exposing hypocrisy, about ending a conspiracy of deceit and silence," Mr Rogers says. "These people work for politicians who are working to discriminate against gays. Then they seek protection from the very people their bosses are trying to hurt. It's surreal."

Mr Rogers's first target was Jonathan Tolman, a senior aide for a senate committee chaired by Senator James Inhofe of Oklahoma, one of the most conservative Senators. A couple of years earlier Mr Tolman had posed for a risqué photo-spread in a Washington gay magazine. Mr Rogers posted this information on his website.

Senator Inhofe's office issued a statement that he did not hire openly gay staffers in case of conflict of agenda. When we contacted the office, his press officer told us: "The statement stands. You have the Senator's position on that."

Although a move to amend the Federal Marriage Act - which would have outlawed gay marriage nationwide - was narrowly defeated in the Senate three weeks ago, the issue has not died. Its passing or defeat was never the point. The point was to make it a rallying cry for the Republicans in the run-up to the elections, in particular the four million evangelical voters who did not bother to vote in 2000.

Republican activists are now agitating for anti-gay amendments to local laws in crucial swing states, keeping the issue hot. On Tuesday, record voter turnout in Missouri, the first state to vote on the issue, suggests the strategy is working. According to The New York Times, 41 per cent, instead of the usual 15-25 per cent, of registered voters turned out, many of them religious. They swung the ballot, making gay marriage illegal in that state.

Gay activists understand the strategy too and have turned up the gas. Michael Rogers is not the only Washington "outer". John Aravosis has also entered the fray. A political consultant, lawyer and former staff lawyer to Republican Senator Ted Stevens of Alaska, his spur to action was "Watching Bush announce it [his support for the Federal Marriage Amendment] from the White House. It was as if he was defiling the Oval Office."

Outing has always been a unsettling tactic and Mr Aravosis has some qualms about naming people, but President Bush's declaration convinced him it was time to "stop being nice to the enemy within". It was Mr Aravosis who was behind a recent ad in the gay weekly Washington Blade, which declared the new zero tolerance. The ad ran: "For years our silence has protected you. Today that protection ends."

Between them, Mr Aravosis and Mr Rogers have outed about 20 staffers and politicians, including Congressman Mark Foley, a Florida Republican, and Democrat Senator Barbara Mikulski of Maryland. Mr Foley's office has since confirmed he is gay, but Senator Mikulski has not commented on her sexual orientation. Both were targeted because they had not spoken out against the Federal Marriage Amendment. They both subsequently did.

Other outed staffers include Jay Timmons, the executive director of the National Republican Senatorial Committee. The NRSC exists to ensure the election of Republican candidates to the Senate and, according to the Blade, "has declared its intention to seize upon the issue of same-sex marriage to motivate conservative voters to unseat congressional Democrats". Mr Timmons has declined to comment publicly on his sexuality and did not return our calls.

The effect of this outing campaign has been electrifying. "People are worried, not wanting to answer the phone," says Lynden Armstrong, the administrative director for Senator Pete Domenici, a New Mexico Republican who opposes gay marriages. Mr Armstrong also co-chairs the Gay, Lesbian and Allies Senate Staff caucus. "People are uncomfortable going to places such as the Duplex [a restaurant popular with gay staffers], thinking, what if one of these activists sees me?"

Chris Barron, the political director of the conservative gay group Log Cabin Republicans, says: "The outing is outrageous. It's a partisan attack. It's hateful and unnecessary. Anyone I know who is straight can't believe gay people can do this to each other. This is just someone looking for their 15 minutes of fame."

© 2004 Independent Digital (UK) Ltd

###

km gresham
08-09-2004, 01:17 PM
This seems like a very mean, spiteful thing to do to anybody. I thought the homosexual community was a tight knit group, supportive of each other.

Bruce Hooke
08-09-2004, 01:34 PM
I am particularly bothered by outing people for their lack of action on an issue, which is apparently the reason why Foley and Mikulski were outed. Politicians frequently need to chose strategic positions that may involve not speaking up about issues important to them for many very valid reasons.

I am somewhat bothered by outing someone because they work against an issue that may have the support of most gays but on which reasonable gay people might take divergant views. Gay marriage certainly falls in this category. Not all gays support gay marriage, although I believe the vast majority do. Again, Foley and Mikulski may well fall into this category so that's another reason why they should not have been outed.

I have the fewest qualms (but still some) about outing someone who condems gays as evil and immoral for political gain and works against what should be "clear" issues like basic gay rights, especially if, from their actions and communications within the gay community it is clear that their public statements and actions do not reflect their true beliefs.

Ian McColgin
08-09-2004, 02:36 PM
Gays are by no means monolithic. Many do not even shop well.

But seriously, one of my now distant friends who claims me as a spiritual mentor of sorts, evolved from a fairly doctrinaire lefty to an ultra conservative Roman Catholic very far right sorta libertarian and a gold bug to boot -- and he's gay living finally with a good partner, last I heard.

And fameously J Edgar Hoover lived with one man for many years and was a cross dresser, which does not exactly prove he was gay but seems likely.

I agree with others that those who live by the sword are welcome to fall on their own sword, as it were and a phalic puns enguarde.

But in general, outing is pretty rude.

Gary E
08-09-2004, 04:42 PM
But in general, outing is pretty rude. Why?... seems to me that if dishonety is permited to flourish then honesty has taken a back seat, or does honesty not matter anymore?

Andrew Craig-Bennett
08-09-2004, 05:07 PM
There used to be an idea that what people did in the privacy and comfort of their own bedroom was their own business, so long as it did not involve children or animals or injuring people.

Gary E
08-09-2004, 05:14 PM
These people are public servants, if they are allowed to lie about some things, when do you know when they are not lying?

Dennis Marshall
08-09-2004, 05:36 PM
Ah, Andrew, and there is the rub, eh. Wasn't it the 60s generation that coined the phrase --"The personal is political?"

Outing is morally indefensible. In this case it is being used as retribution for not going along with a certain political agenda. Could the threat have been used as blackmail prior to this?

Finally, whatever happened to the idea that a representative of gov't spoke for his or her constituents and not just for special interest whether business or cultural?

And edited to ask: I thought that being gay did not matter in the great scheme of things. Isn't it one of the goals of the gay liberation movement to stop all forms of discrimination based on who one sleeps with? Apparently, even for those doing the outing, being gay matters. And isn't this, in the long run, a form of discrimination?

Dennis

[ 08-09-2004, 06:47 PM: Message edited by: Dennis Marshall ]

Andrew Craig-Bennett
08-09-2004, 05:50 PM
Dennis - I quite agree, and I have a horrible feeling that you are very likely to be right about the blackmail, in which case I admire those who have stood up to it.

And I am enjoying the novelty of agreeing with Karen!

Gary - I cannot go as far as you do. If Tony Blair wants to tell Cherie that she does not look fat in that dress, that's his business and none of mine. I do think that we are right to require a high standard of conduct in public life, and to that extent I agree with you, but I also think that public men and women are entitled to privacy and, even more important, they are entitled to hold public positions which depart from their private practice without being labelled hypocrites. For instance, if a politician is a smoker, does that mean that he or she must oppose restrictions on cigarette advertising?

JimD
08-09-2004, 06:23 PM
I see nothing wrong with closet picnicing lawmakers undermining the legal rights of those who openly picnic. Its when these closet picnickers deny that they themselves picnic behind closed doors that they become dishonest picnickers. Aside from that, as long as these picnickers aren't using the 'campers only' section I don't see that its anybody's business.

Bruce Hooke
08-09-2004, 06:24 PM
Originally posted by km gresham:
This seems like a very mean, spiteful thing to do to anybody. I thought the homosexual community was a tight knit group, supportive of each other.While the gay community may in general be tight knit and supportive, every community has its troublemakers among whom the worst are often those who believe so strongly in the rightness of what they are doing that they will undermine the overall community for the sake of their pet cause...sadly neither the gay community nor the WoodenBoat forum is immune to this sort of person...

Victor
08-09-2004, 06:29 PM
Every politician occasionally has to compromise on issues that he feels strongly about. It would be more honest for a gay legislator to be open about it and then explain why he may not be able to support a gay agenda.

km gresham
08-09-2004, 07:20 PM
But, if they don't want to be open about it for whatever reason, that should be their choice. I don't think someone else has the right to make that choice for them. Some people choose to remain "in the closet" for many reasons - to protect their family among them or just to avoid the general public knowing their private inclinations.

LeeG
08-09-2004, 07:53 PM
Karen,,how about heterosexuals with a large sexual appetite,,should we not be informed of their activities,,whether they are single or married?

Gary E
08-12-2004, 05:59 PM
Seems no one is responding to the question of "Does honety not matter anymore?"

So I have to assume that to some here it does not matter, which makes me wonder if those that think that honesty does not matter, then lying must be ok. Hey, is it ok to lie?.. and I dont mean the "Dear, does this dress make me look fat?" or the "But officer, I was not speeding" type nor the "Mom, I did my homework allready." I am talking about serious lies. Do you accept lies from your spouse? children? your boss? how about if your boss was Ken Lay of Enron fame? Is that ok?

Look at the trouble that lying has got the Gov Of New Jersey into.

Reading some of the messages within the forum make one wonder if some are lying to themselves.

G

km gresham
08-12-2004, 06:03 PM
Is not offering personal information lying?

The governor of NJ cheated on his wife, then apparently attempted to cheat on his boyfriend with an aide he was chasing around the desk. His problem was not only lying, but cheating and harassing. He had a lot of "issues" going on, only one of which was dishonesty.

Victor
08-12-2004, 07:33 PM
Is McGreevy queer? I didn't know that!

ljb5
08-12-2004, 10:27 PM
In a perfect world, none of this would matter.

In a perfect world, there would be no more shame in being gay than in being left-handed.

But since some people try to make politcal hay out of their heterosexuality, it only seems logical to find out if they are lying.

LeeG
08-12-2004, 10:49 PM
Originally posted by Victor:
Is McGreevy queer? I didn't know that!isn't it something the things we never know about people? Some folks are "gay",,some are boring,,some are bisexual but don't act out that capacity,,some are heterosexual but don't act out that capacity,,,golly, so many possibilities.

Donn
08-16-2004, 05:18 PM
smile.gif

Donn
08-19-2004, 11:26 AM
smile.gif