2008 Woodie Awards
Don't Ask (I'm Telling): Outing Capitol Hill
Anti-gay hypocrisy & deceitfulness must go
Matt Hill Comer
Issue date: 10/24/06 Section: Opinions
Believe me, I am a supporter of privacy. I believe strongly that people should have the right to a private life. The public should not delve into the lives of public figures. It is a great principle.
But what happens if those public figures, especially elected officials, start to use the private lives of private citizens to advance their own (or their party's) political agenda? What happens if that agenda is an anti-gay agenda and the public official is gay, but closeted?
Should anti-gay, closeted gay elected officials (of any party) be outed? Does the public deserve to know the truth about individuals who portray themselves as being a part of the Irreligious Wrong's strictly defined, so-called "moral" and "traditional values" lifestyle, but in reality aren't living up to the strict "moral" code they try to push on everyone else? Does the public deserve to know the hypocrisy of those in government or should we just ignore it?
In recent days, activist Mike Rogers (who runs Blogactive.com and PageOneQ.com) has taken center stage in the debate over anti-gay, closeted gay elected officials. According to Rogers, who has been 100% accurate in outings he has done in the past, these closeted gay officials are living and working hypocritically and deceitfully. By day they push a strict, anti-gay, "moral" code of "traditional values." By day they vote against marriage equality, employment non-discrimination, the repeal of the Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy and every other lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT)-inclusive proposal you can name. By night, they seek out anonymous sex with men (for Senator Larry Craig, R-ID, that meant "visiting" men in restrooms at DC's Union Station). By night, they engage in the very same acts many of them describe as "immoral" and compare to pedophilia, incest and bestiality.
During a recent conference I attended in Greensboro, I was given some great advice, valuable to any public person - be that a blogger, columnist, reporter, Student Government official, city or state government official or a member of Congress: If you have biases or conflicts-of-interest that may influence or be in some way connected to your job or issues with which you are working, then openly and honestly admit those biases and conflicts up-front. Don't hide them. If you do hide them, then you are being, in some ways, dishonest and deceitful.
Personally, I believe that it is perfectly acceptable to out anti-gay, closeted gay elected officials. These public officials use the private lives of private LGBT citizens to advance an anti-gay agenda. These public officials deserve to have the mirror turned on them. They deserve to have their hypocrisy and deceitfulness shown to the public. These anti-gay, closeted gay officials who push the Irreligious Wrong's anti-gay agenda deserve to have their self-righteous supporters see just how much they are not conforming to their own strict, so-called "moral" code for humanity.
Morality can't be legislated, but these anti-gay, closeted gay officials seem to think they can, while they go off and break the standards they set for others. These hypocrites think they can have one set of rules for themselves and another for everyone else.
How would the public feel if a female legislator were pushing a ban on abortion when she had undergone an abortion herself as a younger woman? Wouldn't her bias and conflict-of-interest be of worthy public debate? Shouldn't the public deserve to know why she thought it was okay for her to have an abortion but for others it isn't? Maybe that female legislator has a good reason for pushing the ban. If so, she should tell the public about her past and why now she thinks abortion is wrong.
The same goes for these anti-gay, closeted gay elected officials. No one is outing them just because they are gay. They are being outed because they refuse to admit their own biases and conflicts-of-interest and refuse to tell the truth. Maybe these anti-gay, closeted gay officials have good reasons for taking the stances they do. If so, they should tell the public: "Yes, I'm gay, but these are the reasons for which I am voting against proposals that may help people like me; these are my reasons and these are my biases…"
The public deserves to know that. LGBT citizens deserve to know that.
Many will say I am wrong. Many will say Rogers is wrong for the outings. I ask just one more question:
If elected officials can use the private lives of private LGBT citizens for political gain and to advance a political agenda, why can't those LGBT citizens stand up and fight against it by exposing the deceit and hypocrisy of the anti-gay, closeted gay powers-that-be?
Read more from Matt at his blog, www.matthillnc.com.
But what happens if those public figures, especially elected officials, start to use the private lives of private citizens to advance their own (or their party's) political agenda? What happens if that agenda is an anti-gay agenda and the public official is gay, but closeted?
Should anti-gay, closeted gay elected officials (of any party) be outed? Does the public deserve to know the truth about individuals who portray themselves as being a part of the Irreligious Wrong's strictly defined, so-called "moral" and "traditional values" lifestyle, but in reality aren't living up to the strict "moral" code they try to push on everyone else? Does the public deserve to know the hypocrisy of those in government or should we just ignore it?
In recent days, activist Mike Rogers (who runs Blogactive.com and PageOneQ.com) has taken center stage in the debate over anti-gay, closeted gay elected officials. According to Rogers, who has been 100% accurate in outings he has done in the past, these closeted gay officials are living and working hypocritically and deceitfully. By day they push a strict, anti-gay, "moral" code of "traditional values." By day they vote against marriage equality, employment non-discrimination, the repeal of the Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy and every other lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT)-inclusive proposal you can name. By night, they seek out anonymous sex with men (for Senator Larry Craig, R-ID, that meant "visiting" men in restrooms at DC's Union Station). By night, they engage in the very same acts many of them describe as "immoral" and compare to pedophilia, incest and bestiality.
During a recent conference I attended in Greensboro, I was given some great advice, valuable to any public person - be that a blogger, columnist, reporter, Student Government official, city or state government official or a member of Congress: If you have biases or conflicts-of-interest that may influence or be in some way connected to your job or issues with which you are working, then openly and honestly admit those biases and conflicts up-front. Don't hide them. If you do hide them, then you are being, in some ways, dishonest and deceitful.
Personally, I believe that it is perfectly acceptable to out anti-gay, closeted gay elected officials. These public officials use the private lives of private LGBT citizens to advance an anti-gay agenda. These public officials deserve to have the mirror turned on them. They deserve to have their hypocrisy and deceitfulness shown to the public. These anti-gay, closeted gay officials who push the Irreligious Wrong's anti-gay agenda deserve to have their self-righteous supporters see just how much they are not conforming to their own strict, so-called "moral" code for humanity.
Morality can't be legislated, but these anti-gay, closeted gay officials seem to think they can, while they go off and break the standards they set for others. These hypocrites think they can have one set of rules for themselves and another for everyone else.
How would the public feel if a female legislator were pushing a ban on abortion when she had undergone an abortion herself as a younger woman? Wouldn't her bias and conflict-of-interest be of worthy public debate? Shouldn't the public deserve to know why she thought it was okay for her to have an abortion but for others it isn't? Maybe that female legislator has a good reason for pushing the ban. If so, she should tell the public about her past and why now she thinks abortion is wrong.
The same goes for these anti-gay, closeted gay elected officials. No one is outing them just because they are gay. They are being outed because they refuse to admit their own biases and conflicts-of-interest and refuse to tell the truth. Maybe these anti-gay, closeted gay officials have good reasons for taking the stances they do. If so, they should tell the public: "Yes, I'm gay, but these are the reasons for which I am voting against proposals that may help people like me; these are my reasons and these are my biases…"
The public deserves to know that. LGBT citizens deserve to know that.
Many will say I am wrong. Many will say Rogers is wrong for the outings. I ask just one more question:
If elected officials can use the private lives of private LGBT citizens for political gain and to advance a political agenda, why can't those LGBT citizens stand up and fight against it by exposing the deceit and hypocrisy of the anti-gay, closeted gay powers-that-be?
Read more from Matt at his blog, www.matthillnc.com.
Be the first to comment on this story