rationalizations and diversions…

Posted on Wednesday 18 October 2006

Michael Rogers of blogactive is a gay activist who subscribes to the policy of "outing" gay politicians who are publicly "anti-gay" and is the source for the current report of a closeted homosexual Senator. The logic here is complex. By any right way of thinking, the sexual preference of a government official should be immaterial. Even in the outrageous climate of today’s Religious Right campaign against homosexuality, only the sickest of people would suggest that sexual preference would have anything to do with public service.

The rationalization for exposing a closeted, gay, married politician who voted against the gay community on the Gay Marriage issue and who courts the vote from the Religious Right goes something like this. It’s fine to be gay and oppose gay marriage, but one should be open about one’s own sexuality if you’re going to do it. Rogers says:
My goal with this site and my companion site, Proud Of Who We Are, is to take that message further. To educate not just gays and lesbians about these homophobes, but to educate the greater electorate at large. Because of this, I find myself in the odd position of being one of the few people who seems to be willing to tell religious conservatives, who don’t approve of people like me, just how many conservative political leaders are like me.

I have been calling on gay Republican representatives, senators, and high-level staffers to stand up and be proud of who they are, to level with voters about the truth, and to let people decide on their politicians based on truth, honesty and openness.

The implication of this argument is that a person hiding their own sexuality might vote against the gay community as a way of staying hidden; as a way of garnering votes that might not be available otherwise; or as a person who is perpetuating the closeting of homosexuals in our society. I think Rogers would say that if you are gay and vote against gay rights, you should do it from a public position. That sounds like a rationalization to me, a moral high ground that has other motives. What other motives?
  • pointing out the hypocricy of the anti-gay "family values" agenda
  • pushing the "gay and proud" agenda of many homosexual activists
  • desensitizing the heterosexual population to homosexuality
  • opposing Right Wing political ideas
While Rogers says something about that…
As readers know, my work is bipartisan. The recent use of gays by the Republican Party during this election makes it necessary to focus on the Party and how it facilitates keeping gay men closeted.
… he doesn’t really sound that bipartisan to me.

I think several things about this, myself. First, Foley’s homosexuality is not the point here. This same activist "outed" Mark Foley, saying this on the day the story broke:

Another closet case hurting the gay community. I am glad to know I had a role in pushing these emails out there. I’ve been working on the story for a few days and am excited it’s out there now. Tomorrow it’s off to the FBI to request a full scale investigation of Rep. Mark Foley and his contacts with Congressional pages….

Foley’s homosexuality is not at the center of this scandal, it is his sexual predatory behavior.

Second, "outing" a closeted homosexuals doesn’t change the attitude of anyone towards homosexuality. If anything, it solidifies the notion of it being sordid or something that must be kept a secret, ergo, something bad.

Third, I do, however, agree that Congressmen open themselves to be questioned about their motives in taking a given position. Their lives are public because they make them public, by choice.

But finally, what I mostly think is that this is a side issue of the first magnitude. Forget gay marriage, forget abortion, forget stem cell research, forget the sexual habits of Congressmen. Right now our real agenda is the quagmire of a war in Iraq, North Korean atomic lunacy, our own atomic lunacy, Global Warming, partisan bickering, Bush’s assault on the Constitution, and corruption in politics in general. 

  1.  
    priscianus jr
    October 19, 2006 | 5:48 AM
     

    I agree with your analysis, but you’re leaving out one thing. These people are utter and total hypocrites, above all to the community they claim to serve, i.e. the religious conservatives. Whatever you think of that community, with the growing number of outings you can be sure that they will soon understand, if they don’t already, that these people have been making fools of them. And that’s good for the country, because I don’t know of anything else that could shake their blind faith that the GOP is God’s Own Party. Oddly enough, it is a situation in which the gay activists and the religious right are in basic agreement.

  2.  
    October 19, 2006 | 6:32 AM
     

    priscianus jr

    They are hypocrites, and they are not good for the country – both true [“they” being closeted gay Congressmen who are publicly anti-Gay]. I certainly understand the political reason for outing them.

    My concern is the “law of unintended consequences.” Neither outed nor outer give a very good picture of homosexuals. Neither are likely to convince homophobes of their own bigotry, or that religion has no place in politics. I’m not even opposed to doing it. I just don’t see it as a solution. But, then again, I’m having trouble with coming up with a solution myself.

    What would be “good for the country” would be for everyone to read the Bill of Rights every night before bed…

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.