Out to Dreier

Julian Sanchez | September 15, 2004

Via Kos, I notice that BlogActive has claimed the scalp of another closeted gay Republican with an anti-gay voting record, California's David Dreier. As both note, Dreier has a fairly anti-gay voting record. Some of those are defensible on small-government or federalist grounds—plenty of gay libertarians would agree that if some bigot wants to rent an apartment to straights only, that should be his right—but others certainly aren't. Now, I ended up having a conversation on the ethics of this with John Aravosis, who helped launch the outing campaign, at a panel on another topic I did a couple of weeks back. And he convinced me that, while they're restricting their gaze to elected officials and top-level staffers, it's fair game.

But I'm increasingly thinking it's a counterproductive strategy. First, Dreier has at least recently been one of a number of Republicans who've pushed back against a Federal Marriage Amendment; now seems and odd time to blindside him with this. But more generally, it's unclear what this is supposed to accomplish. Assume elected gay officials are not, by and large, self-hating. If they go along with homophobic legislation, presumably it's because they'd often like to oppose it, but think their constituencies wouldn't go along. Moreover, the most homophobic districts are likely to be even more averse to electing a gay representative than they would be to electing a presumptively straight one who was lukewarm about anti-gay legislation. So what do outings ultimately accomplish? When they have any impact, it's likely to be to replace gay officials who might at least want to try to slowly turn their party around on such issues with authentic homophobes. How does this really advance the cause of gay rights?

Comments

|9.15.04 @ 4:40PM|#

Didn't the fairly active commenter "Dan" make a comment somewhat to this effect when that phone-solicitin' Congressman from Virginia got the hook?

|9.15.04 @ 4:44PM|#

The notion of discussing the ethics of anything with John Aravosis strikes me as amusing. I remember when he was running the "stop Dr. Laura" campaign, I read an account of a demonstration held outside of CBS affiliate that was scheduled to run the show. One of the protestors was fuming because she thought that the volume of a speaker that allowed passersby to hear the CBS broadcast had been raised to make it harder to hear the chants of the activists. "They are trying to drown us out!" she complained.

Well, let's see--you are running a campaign designed to make it harder for people to hear Dr. Laura's views because you diasgree with them, and you are upset about someone making it harder to hear your own views because they disagree with them.

Aravosis is consistently willing to sacrifice the free expression and personal liberty of others when he thinks it's "good for the gays."

|9.15.04 @ 4:49PM|#

Julian's post assumes that the impact of an outing is limited to the Congressional district of the outed pol. I think a larger result is to undermine the credibility of homophobic politicians everywhere.

Besides, I don't care what the motivation of a politician with an anti-gay voting record is. The hope, I guess, is that one day, the closeted gay basher will change his ways. But accepted Julian's premise that he's remaining closeted and voting against gay people because of his constituents' demands, why should we expect him to suddenly stop doing that?

fyodor|9.15.04 @ 4:59PM|#

joe,

"a larger result is to undermine the credibility of homophobic politicians everywhere."

Sorry, how does it do that?

"why should we expect him to suddenly stop doing that?"

I don't think Julian or anyone else necessarily expects that. Though, A) perhaps he's every so slightly more likely to shift his voting eventually than someone who's serving the same constituency AND is genuinely homophobic, and B) if someone's privacy is to be invaded, one might hope that some actual GOOD is to be accomplished beyond mere vengeance.

|9.15.04 @ 5:01PM|#

I think a larger result is to undermine the credibility of homophobic politicians everywhere.

Really? Because a homosexual was outed, other politicians lose credibility? How?

Half of me thinks that repeatedly treating homosexuality as a political "gotcha" just desensitizes the public to the idea that a politician should lose his job if it turns out he's gay. I'd bet it also gives homosexual would-be politicians pause before they choose a political career. It feels to me like the outrage following these outings is only a little about of the hypocrisy, and more about the secret homosexuality.

|9.15.04 @ 5:12PM|#

parse,

The problem with your statement is that "one of the protestors" wasn't John Aravosis. Now, "one of the protestors" ethics might be screwed up, but that doesn't mean that John Aravosis' are.

Aravosis is consistently willing to sacrifice the free expression and personal liberty of others when he thinks it's "good for the gays."

How so? Did he go to the government in an effort to "muzzle" someone? If he can convince CBS to pull Dr. Laura via protest and other free-market actions, then more power to him. After all, Dr. Laura has not right to be broadcast on CBS.

|9.15.04 @ 5:20PM|#

I'm always conflicted on these things.

On the one hand, I love seeing hypocrisy exposed. Nothing beats the sweet satisfaction of watching a hypocrite get caught and wriggle on the hook as he's reeled in.

On the other hand, as somebody who firmly believes that it's none of my fucking business what consenting adults do behind closed doors, I also recoil from seeing somebody's sexual life dragged before the public. Even if he is a hypocrite, even if he did lie, even if he did cheat, even if it was with an intern, and even if the lover is the state director of homeland security, I still recoil from it.

I guess that outing a homophobic politician is kind of like horror movies. I don't want to see it, but at the same time I can't look away.

I still don't know where I stand on this.

|9.15.04 @ 5:23PM|#

I think a larger result is to undermine the credibility of homophobic politicians everywhere

In reality, of course, it doesn't undermine their credibility. The official excuse of politicians who push anti-gay legislation is that they *aren't* homophobic, but instead are either (a) doing the will of the people or (b) protecting traditional values. Well, the activists just proved that Dreier is almost certainly not a homophobe; he, himself, is gay. The activists have, in effect, proved that Dreier really *was* just protecting traditional values and/or doing what the voters wanted.

On top of that, anti-gay politicians now have yet another example they can point to: "See? Even some homosexuals agree that this so-called 'gay rights' legislation is wrong. And what does the Gay Mafia do? It ruins their lives! I guess that shows how much they really care about gay men's rights, doesn't it".

In short, these self-proclaimed gay activists have helped strengthen the credibility of anti-gay politicians. Assholes. Like the gay rights movement doesn't have enough problems as it is.

Anyway, I have a question for Julian: in the previous article (Hewitt's call for congressional hearings) you implied that it was wrong to reveal the identities of whistleblowers, even if they were providing phony information to investigators. Here, you are arguing that there's nothing wrong with revealing the private sexual preferences of politically active people. How do you reconcile those two beliefs?

|9.15.04 @ 5:42PM|#

thoreau,

I have no problem with outing hypocrites like this guy. He's a public figure; he assumed a risk when he ran for office that this might be exposed.

|9.15.04 @ 6:00PM|#

Gary, my support for the value of free expression includes the notion that the government should not stifle it, but that is not the limit of it.

When people say things you think are wrong, you can try to silence them. Enlisting the power of the government is one popular way. Enlisting the power of the market place is another.

I don't think people should be forbidden from promoting boycotts designed to limit the ability of others to express their views, but I don't think you can fairly describe a person who does that as an defender of free expression.

DaveInBigD|9.15.04 @ 6:09PM|#

Dan

...implied that it was wrong to reveal the identities of whistleblowers, even if they were providing phony information to investigators.

I didn't see anything there that indicated that the allegedly fake memos went to government investigators. So it's not really the government's business, unless CBS wants to file a fraud complaint, or somebody wants to bring libel charges. There's a big difference between Larry Flint and John Aravosis independently researching the activities of government officials, and government officials with power of subpoena and the threat of felony lying-to-congress charges.

Muckraking has a long history of pulling up manufactured turds, but it doesn't mean that somebody needs to get hauled up in front of a Committee.

I'm not defending the outing or the forgers. I just don't think we need Congressional Hearings on either, and I think that's a reasonably consistent stance.

|9.15.04 @ 6:12PM|#

Did he go to the government in an effort to "muzzle" someone? If he can convince CBS to pull Dr. Laura via protest and other free-market actions, then more power to him. After all, Dr. Laura has not right to be broadcast on CBS.

Wow, very well said, Gary. Couldn't agree more. Now, when can we stop hearing the cries of "Censorship!" everytime a media outlet decides not to carry a message? You should send your comments along to people like Michael Moore to give them a better understanding of what the first amendment really means.

Paul

fyodor|9.15.04 @ 6:20PM|#

thoreau,

But this isn't a movie, it's real people. There's a part of me that's attracted to real gore too, but I know better than to applaud it. Sure, it's "fair-game" on a certain level when public figures are involved, but that doesn't mean it's a good idea, on either an ethical or pragmatic level. It's only "fair-game" because they chose to be public figures and thus know that they're targets for scrutiny and that the courts won't afford them the same protection as other people, based on the public's right to know. But unless you can show there's some very real good to be gained by outings (and I still don't understand Joe's reasoning), what "right to know" is there, really? And in lieu of that, the primary issue reverts to the very real harm being done to these real enough people. It's weird that they should be voting against the perceived interests of their own ilk, but that doesn't make their personal lives everyone's business, best as I can tell. Overall, I've always considered the whole shenanigan to a be the result of a rather infantile impulse.

|9.15.04 @ 6:35PM|#

Paul,

Oh, I agree. The whole "Michael Moore is being censored" mantra was utter tripe. Shit, the guy's movie was an oustanding success at the boxoffice.

|9.15.04 @ 6:37PM|#

Although the Caught-Someone-Being-A-Hypocrit is part of the appeal, I think the benefit to advancing gay rights comes from the effect of "Gee, he seemed normal to me," showing that gay people can be in all walks of life and even be Republican. The anti-gay forces *love* to portray gay people in the worst possible light, preferring to see them as entirely sexual and depraved. They only want to see the outrageous side of gay culture that shows up in the pride parades. But every time someone like this is outed, (or applies for a marriage license), it subtly drives home the message that gay people are just like you and I.
It's like when a gay-hater finds out that a son or daughter is gay- suddenly they have to re-think their whole viewpoint, or face losing a loved one. Suddenly a gay person is a real person instead of a stereotype. A public figure being outed isn't quite as personal, but I think subliminally the effect is similar.

|9.15.04 @ 6:50PM|#

I think a larger result is to undermine the credibility of homophobic politicians everywhere.

Actually, I am backing joe on this one. If the gay politician is doing a fine job and keeping with traditional mainstream standards, then obviously he/she is not pushing a gay agenda onto the mainstream, as the anti-gay hysteria so often rants. So in this case, it is quite possible that homophobes are shaking their heads in disbelief that this guy, whom seems normal by every other standard, is actually gay. "(Gasp!) We didn't know!" Kinda like the black sheriff in Blazing Saddles in the end; "He may be black, but he saved the town and he really is one of us!"

Segments of the pro-marijuana community try to use this tactic too to demonstrate that normal people smoke pot, its not just for burned out hippies and lazy punks afterall!

So Mr. Gay Politician, buck the homophobic stereotype of all gays and embrace your outing, turn it back on Avarvosis, especially if his outing of you was done out of malice.

fyodor|9.15.04 @ 6:52PM|#

dead elvis,

You're right, that's one of the chief justifications and probably the "best" possible result of outing.

However, a couple of howevers.

First, as far as the quasi right of privacy in such matters go, this potential benefit is so ancillary to the public's "right to know" about the public figure in question, that I still say it hardly justifies the invasion of privacy, even if this benefit is real.

Secondly, even this benefit is dubious since the outee is not only being outed as gay but as a weird, secretive hypocrite. Where's the validation for gays as just normal people there?

I should back off a little from the harshness of my previous post and say that I understand the frustration of gays when gay public figures don't voluntarily out themselves, but two wrongs still don't make a right. And if the outee is outed for being vile and evil, and it hardly makes anyone in the gay community look good.

fyodor|9.15.04 @ 6:54PM|#

The whole "Michael Moore is being censored" mantra was great PR!!

|9.15.04 @ 6:58PM|#

But every time someone like this is outed, (or applies for a marriage license), it subtly drives home the message that gay people are just like you and I.

The people who assume that homosexuals are deviants will just assume that, in addition to being a secret homosexual, Dreier was also a secret deviant. It isn't like he can prove that he *doesn't* lust for little boys.

It's like when a gay-hater finds out that a son or daughter is gay- suddenly they have to re-think their whole viewpoint, or face losing a loved one. Suddenly a gay person is a real person instead of a stereotype. A public figure being outed isn't quite as personal, but I think subliminally the effect is similar

It's not the same thing at all. Most people think of their children as good, wonderful people; learning that your child is gay therefore forces you to either concede that gays can be good, wonderful people, or to believe that you raised a horrible person without realizing it.

In contrast, most people assume that politicians are shady characters with skeletons in their closets. Finding out that one is has been secretly leading "deviant" sex life just confirms pre-existing prejudices and suspicions.

|9.15.04 @ 6:59PM|#

dead elvis:

I suppose what you're describing is one effect of "outings." It's certainly not the effect the "outers" are seeking, though: they are not embracing their gay ideological opponents; they're trying to destroy them. I suppose the best possible spin from their perspective would be "If you're gay and want to be a politician, we want you on our side or out of the game!" Ick.

fyodor|9.15.04 @ 7:03PM|#

s.a.m.,

What you're saying seems to fit what dead elvis said better than what you quoted from joe's post, but to follow-up on my reply to dead elvis, I agree wholeheartedly that if a politician voluntarily outs himself (or herself) that that helps show that gay people are everywhere and no different than anyone else and discredits homophobia in general.

But when they're outted involuntarily by gay vigil antes, the whole affair becomes rather sordid, and I tend to doubt it has the beneficial results cited by you and others.

Sigh, but then ultimately, who knows. It still strikes me as more of a gratuitous invasion of privacy than anything else, the public's right to know and the public figure's choosing to be a public figure and these possible and very theoretical benefits notwithstanding.

|9.15.04 @ 7:16PM|#

Correction:
...turn it back on Avarvosis, especially if his outing of you was done out of malice.

I meant BlogActive, not Avarvosis.

Fyodor,
But when they're outted involuntarily by gay vigil antes, the whole affair becomes rather sordid, and I tend to doubt it has the beneficial results cited by you and others.

I think it ultimately comes down the pol's constituents. If they have been pleased with the pol's efforts and leadership, only to be surprised by the outting, it is quite possible that there will be a bigger backlash against the malicious outter and a bounce in support for the gay pol. I am thinking of one of those situations where people get united by, "attacking our leader is like attacking all of us." And thus, the big rally of support. But it certainly all depends on the objective views of the pol's base supporters.

Now's the time for the pol to demonstrate the good he has done in light of his homosexuality. Use this to his advantage, its all he has at this point.

|9.15.04 @ 7:17PM|#

That explains this anecdote from Kitty Kelley's book:

Page 491-92: Barbara Bush is upset that her daughter Doro, a divorcee, is getting nowhere with Rep. David Deier after a year of dating. "Never laid a hand on her," Bar says.

I didn't read the book, but this helpful Slate article has a bunch of excepts.

http://slate.msn.com/id/2106773/

|9.15.04 @ 7:21PM|#

The Republicans set the table for this. When they morphed a two bit land deal into an investigation of a sitting president's sex life - and went totally over the top by trying to impeach him - they sowed the seeds of having their own sexual lives examined.

Fuck the Republican hypocrites.

|9.15.04 @ 7:28PM|#

I don't like the outing thing. First of all, I think it makes homosexuals look bad by trying to force their agenda on people that may agree with them. Reps are, in general, going to vote for what their constituents want, otherwise the people'll vote someone in that will. By looking vindictive and catty, it's only going to perpetuate the belief that homosexual activists would rather use coercion than democracy. Not positive PR.

|9.15.04 @ 8:02PM|#

Mo, you are a cunt. Maybe you have some redemption on other topics but on this one, you are flat wrong. The Republican slash and burn tactics of attacking the personal lives of their opponents are legend. We have watched three branches of our government fall to a party that lives on this type of slime and it's time to fight back.

|9.15.04 @ 8:22PM|#

Chill Gadfly. I support gay rights (including marriage), I just think this tactic is counter-productive. Kinda like insulting someone that agrees with you on a major issue, but disagrees on a tactic.

FYI, by Reps I mean Representatives, not Republicans. Not sure if you understood me, so I wanted to clarify.

|9.15.04 @ 8:24PM|#

Gadfly, while agreeing with you that the Republicans have made public examination of their personal lives fair game, I would not dismiss white-water as a "two bit land deal". It was fraud. The Clintons lied about their assets in order to obtain loans they could not back up with their personal wealth - and we had to pay for it. They are worse than the evil Republicans that did the same thing during the "decade of greed" because besides being criminals, they are/were also hypocrits. And that (expensive) investigation put a lot of people in jail, though I wouldn't say that is the best yardstick to use for determining whether a prosecution is in the best public interest or not.

I will confess to being a cunt as well.

|9.15.04 @ 9:36PM|#

Well, there's the schadenfreude to be had & then it serves as a warning to religious meddlers who will presumably think twice before casting the first stone. I doubt there's much more behind the outing.
And as for the theory that this will cause constituents to vote for hardened anti-gay crusaders - i doubt its that simple. They could just as easily conclude that if the nice Mr. Drier is gay then well, maybe it doesn't matter all that much. Though Drier certainly seemed a reasonable enough type on the few occasions I've seen him on TV, so he's an odd choice.

|9.15.04 @ 9:52PM|#

I have never understood the claim that the GOP improperly persecuted Clinton for his sex life. The fact is, Clinton was being sued for SEXUAL harassment, and his sexual habits with subordinates were relevant to that action. He lied about his sexual liaisons under oath, and has been suspended from the practice of law as a consequence.

Now, maybe perjury in a civil matter should not constitute grounds for impeachment; but such conduct is certainly about more than "just sex." Also, the way Carville et al. plotted to destroy the reputations of every female that complained about Clinton was pretty disgusting. They were depicted as neurotic, lying, crazy bimbos. That is quite hypocritical coming from the party that has championed sexual harassment laws as a protection women need.

I'm not sure what I think about this outing of gay legislators, but I certainly do not see a nexus with that and Clinton's perjury problems.

--Mona--

Tim Higgins|9.15.04 @ 10:06PM|#

Mona,

While the complaint that it was "improper" for the GOP to persecute Clinton might be without merit, it was certainly disingenuous. I think you are quite right to note the hypocrisy of the left in their defense of Clinton, but the right did its part as well. Does anyone for a moment think the GOP would go after one of its own so aggresively?

|9.15.04 @ 10:08PM|#

I think it's a fairly cheap shot at Dreier but to an extent he has to realize that running for public office these sorts of things will be fair game. If Dreier is smart, he will have planned for it and will make an appropriate defense and move on.

As for gay marriage, I don't think the Gov't should have any right to tell me who I can marry, but I'm not sure whether that means Gov't should start sanctioning gay marriages or stop sanctioning straight marriages. I suppose either is preferrable to the current situation.

|9.15.04 @ 10:15PM|#

Gadfly-

Callin people by the "c word" is the sort of behavior I'd expect from Jean Gunnels, um, I mean Gary Bart. ;)

|9.15.04 @ 10:26PM|#

Tim Higgins: No, of course most of the GOP would not have aggressively pursued one of their own had he been caught lying in a sexual harassment case. And a lot of Democrats are still defending CBS and Dan Rather, even if many have given up insisting that the memos may be authentic.

If the Swift Boat vets had been caught forging military documents to shore up their claims against Kerry, the same Democrats would be screaming bloody murder. They'd be clamoring to link it to Bush, calling for all manner of investigation and what not. But the situation is basically reversed, so they are claiming it is not all that important whether these documents are real or not.

Such is the world of partisan politics.

--Mona--

|9.15.04 @ 10:45PM|#

thoreau writes: "Callin people by the "c word" is the sort of behavior I'd expect from Jean Gunnels, um, I mean Gary Bart. ;)"

The embarrassing thing for me is that he must have taken such delight in watching me repeatedly insist that Gary does not = Jean. Instead, I engaged his overwrought and sometimes nasty posts directed to me, and tried to reason with him, even appealling to his intelligence and (claimed) credentials.

What a fool I've been!

Ah well, it's a jungle out here in the blogosphere. ;)

--Mona--

KipEsquire|9.15.04 @ 10:45PM|#

You want to have a private life? Stay a private person.

Whether it's disclosure of tax returns, military records, medical records, your sexuality (or sexual history), or anything else -- if you want the privilege of holding high office then don't be surprised, and definitely don't be indignant, when people come a-snoopin'.

This is especially true if you take a clear partisan position -- such as anti-gay legislation -- hypocritically. Whatever the nature of your pathology of self-contradiction, you simply cannot cry foul when people discover your condition and start shouting the political equivalent of "Leper!"

|9.15.04 @ 11:23PM|#

Omi Gad......

Not cool, man. I doubt if you would have called Mo a Cee U Next Thursday if you and she were sipping wine at my place and having the same conversation. Why do it here? There's real people behind these screens for chrissakes.

Tim Higgins|9.15.04 @ 11:24PM|#

Mona,

Right on - probably the most complete way to describe it would be to say that the left was disingenuously incensed at the right's disingenuousness.

Else,

I agree that personal life is fair game. The more interesting question is whether this tactic serves the larger goals of the left. I'd suppose that it does - even if there is an emotional backlash by homosexuals who would prefer to stay in the closet against people being outed, I doubt it would be strong enough to translate into votes. As for the broader effect (outside of the particular region of the outed official), in the long run it will just dissuade conservative homosexuals from running for office to begin with. I'd guess this is a minus for the left. Unless they think that a GOP unrestrained in anti-gay legislation by its gay members can marginalize itself into oblivion (which strikes me as extremely unlikely), isn't the left better off with elements that might temper the GOP's agenda?

|9.15.04 @ 11:28PM|#

Wasn't Dreier the guy who had the party at the GOP convention with the half naked chicks swinging from the chandeliers?

Hmmmmmmmm.

|9.15.04 @ 11:56PM|#

"Gadfly- Callin people by the "c word" is the sort of behavior I'd expect from Jean Gunnels,... "

I don't think it is fair (to Gary / Jean) to compare him with Gadfly. G/J often provides arguments and counter arguments.

|9.16.04 @ 12:40AM|#

zorel-

Yes, Gary frequently does provide constructive input. But last week Gary called Shannon Love the "c word". I was specifically referring to that incident.

|9.16.04 @ 1:08AM|#

I love seeing hypocrisy exposed. Nothing beats the sweet satisfaction of watching a hypocrite get caught and wriggle on the hook as he's reeled in.

Me too.

But on a more serious note.

I think only CUTE politicians should be outed.

If

Cheney and
Rumsfeld and
Ashcroft and
Bush

are having it off in the White House War Room, I'm absolutely not interested.

(ARE there any cute politicians?)

ps - Got CRABs? Use Kerry Anti-parasite Lotion in November!

|9.16.04 @ 2:07AM|#

Uh, TWC. I'm a he.

|9.16.04 @ 7:33AM|#

"I don't like the outing thing..." "...By looking vindictive and catty..." "...Not positive PR."

I take the C word back, Mo. I get to drinking and my language sometimes gets foul. I'm sorry.

Instead, you're a girly man.

|9.16.04 @ 8:02AM|#

Anyone who uses the word "homophobic" unironically cannot be taken seriously in an argument. It is the rhetorical equivalent of a nightstick, its only purpose is to beat an opponent into submission.

|9.16.04 @ 10:23AM|#

I dunno MJ. Homophobic works for those who fear a gay agenda as well as gays. I think those who claim that homosexual marriage is damaging to traditional marriage are homophobes.

IMO, those who say homosexual relationships are deviant and a sin because the bible says so, cannot be taken seriously.

|9.16.04 @ 10:43AM|#

"And a lot of Democrats are still defending CBS and Dan Rather"

Really? Where? Not TPM. Not Atrios. Not Slate's democrats. I've seen the just the opposite - cutting Rather loose, in order to salvage the story (which never depended on the memos in the first place).

Are there any specific instances you're thinking of, Mona?

|9.16.04 @ 11:05AM|#

"I think those who claim that homosexual marriage is damaging to traditional marriage are homophobes."

phobic is putting it in the wrong light. they are clearly insane, or have some sort of occult belief in the power of sexual activity being so amazingly strong that it works at a distance to affect unrelated third parties.

either way they're paranoid and suffering from some serious delusions.

|9.16.04 @ 11:27AM|#

I think it's a fairly cheap shot at Dreier but to an extent he has to realize that running for public office these sorts of things will be fair game.

If the Lewinsky affair wasn't fair game (and it wasn't), then neither is this.

It is funny however how groups like blog active expect legislators they perceive as being gay, or allege to have had homosexual sex, to embrace the gay agenda. Newsflash: just because one guy fucks another guy in the ass, that doesn't make either of them "gay". Neither does the act of homosexual sex require -- or allow -- a legislator to make political concessions on account of his own preferences and not the attitudes of his constituents. The gay agenda is a political device, distinct from homosexual culture, and further distinct from homosexual behavior. To enjoy homosexual sex, either constantly or from time to time, and oppose the introduction of gay marriage in the larger society, are not conflicting views.

Homophobia seems to be our new "anti-semitism". If you don't like their opinion, it must be homophobic.

fyodor|9.16.04 @ 11:34AM|#

Just rejoined the thread and haven't read all the posts yet so I don't know if someone covered this already, but:

Gadfly,

OUTING PRECEDED THE CLINTON PRESIDENCY!!!! Not sure by how much, but I was hearing about it in the late eighties or very early nineties, judging by were I remember living at the time. And so it definitely preceded Monicagate BY SEVERAL YEARS!!

But that's not the only reason it's ridiculous to say that outing is the fault of Republicans. Just like all partisan bickering, this yet another example of that type of deal where each side points its finger as pointedly as it can at the other but they're both equally culpable. In the case of unfair competition (dirty tricks, unfair investigations, false allegations, etc.), each side accuses the other of "starting it," and in fact each side is equally right -- or equally wrong, depending on how you wanna put it.

fyodor|9.16.04 @ 12:16PM|#

Just rejoined the thread and haven't read all the posts yet so I don't know if someone covered this already, but:

Gadfly,

OUTING PRECEDED THE CLINTON PRESIDENCY!!!! Not sure by how much, but I was hearing about it in the late eighties or very early nineties, judging by were I remember living at the time. And so it definitely preceded Monicagate BY SEVERAL YEARS!!

But that's not the only reason it's ridiculous to say that outing is the fault of Republicans. Just like all partisan bickering, this is yet another example of that type of deal where each side points its finger as pointedly as it can at the other but they're both equally culpable. In the case of unethical competition (dirty tricks, unfair investigations, false allegations, etc.), each side accuses the other of "starting it," and in fact each side is equally right -- or equally wrong, depending on how you wanna put it.

|9.16.04 @ 12:17PM|#

just because one guy fucks another guy in the ass, that doesn't make either of them "gay"

Nah, man, he's not gay, he's just on the DL. You know, down low.

fyodor|9.16.04 @ 12:18PM|#

Goddamn.

One thing I can assure you is, my multiple posts WERE REASON'S FAULT!!! :-)

|9.16.04 @ 1:44PM|#

If the Lewinsky affair wasn't fair game (and it wasn't), then neither is this

The Lewinsky affair could not possibly have been more fair game. The law making it easier for lawyers to inquire into the sexual histories of people accused of sexual harassment was signed into law by Bill Clinton himself.

The only way that the Dreier case would be comparable would be if Dreier himself had called for the outing of gay politicians. Which he might have, for all I know; I haven't followed his career.

|9.16.04 @ 1:57PM|#

Nah, man, he's not gay, he's just on the DL. You know, down low.

You'd be surprised how blurry the line really is. The homosexual vs. heterosexual battle is for political traction in specific issues, but trying to resolve that policy based on individual behavior, even of legislators, is ludicrous.

|9.16.04 @ 2:00PM|#

Nah, man, he's not gay, he's just on the DL. You know, down low.

You'd be surprised how blurry the line really is. The homosexual vs. heterosexual battle is for political traction in specific issues, but trying to resolve that policy based on individual behavior, even of legislators, is ludicrous. The political battle doesn't map to human behavior.

fyodor|9.16.04 @ 2:33PM|#

What's "fair game" only matters in regard to the politician itself crying foul. If someone does something to someone else that's vile and is only not a violation of that someone else's rights because that someone else is a public figure, we have every right, and even obligation, to criticize the someone doing the violating if we see it as gratuitous or harmful or of ignoble motivation.

Then again, because the violated person is a public figure, I would agree there's only so far we should get exercised about it, but still, outing is dumb, irresponsible and likely mean-spirited with probably little to no redeeming value that one can be even reasonably confident of attaining. So there.

|9.16.04 @ 2:37PM|#

If I may.

The very idea of heterosexual sex strikes me as unnatural. I can't imagine why any guy would want to make it with a woman. Eew!

So I can imagine what lots of straight people must think about what _I_ enjoy doing.

There are some "gay" sexual activities which I find thoroughly disgusting. Incomprehensible.

I imagine lots of straight people find what I like to do just as incomprehensible, just as disgusting. What I find natural, they find shudder-causing.

They're not vicious homophobes, any more than I am.

When I see a Gay Pride Parade, with "nuns" and Village-People clones... Well, these aren't people I would be comfortable hanging around with. Too in-your-face. Too mocking.

I try to imagine being straight, holding deep religious beliefs, considering matrimony a sacrament ordained by God, seeing Gay Pride. Seeing all these people mocking what I hold dear.

And I'd think: They want to get married to mock. That's all they want. To mock. They want to destroy the foundations of society.

And I wouldn't support gay marriage, either.

These aren't "homophobes". They're my MOTHER!


I'm of the generation of gay people who rejected imitating straight convention. (Maybe I'm the only member of that generation, but I don't think so.) If I was going to be in a relationship, it was not going to be a hide-bound, legalistic, let's-play-mommy-and-daddy kind of relationship. It was going to be two free equal individuals, renewing their commitment to one another daily, soaring above convention.

Even though I now see the need for equal protection under the law for homosexual couples, I still can't quite accept the word "marriage". And while I think the idea of weakening the Constitution with a Defense of Marriage amendment is stupid and spiteful, "marriage" will always be - in my mind - between a man and a woman.

I'll never be a bride.

|9.16.04 @ 2:49PM|#

I used to have issues with outing public figures based on their private lives and public actions. Over time I grew more comfortable with it because it felt to me like by constantly harping on the issue, the politicians were asking for it. I was able to coalesce the rationalization thus:

By bringing (homo)sexuality into the public arena, either by supporting, promoting, introducing anti-homosexual legislation (or even pro-homosexual legislation) they are involving themselves in the very private and personal lives of constituents. You are in effect making their private sexuality a public facet for people, and as a result can have no expectancy of your own sexuality to remaining within the private sphere.

If you want to remain free of 'outing' for homophobia or hypocrisy or both, stay out of legislating private behaviour, associations and contracts between individuals.

My only issue with BlogActive is that they concentrate only on outing Repugs, while giving some of the phobic 'Rats a free pass. Granted, the authoritarian nature of the Republican party has become rather apparent in recent years, but the Democrats are no better with their need to license every one of your activities. The Libs are for the most part the only ones who realize and advocate that private associations are no business of the governments, and should be the only ones given a real 'free pass' when it comes to evaluating their private sexuality.

|9.16.04 @ 2:51PM|#

You just haven't met the right girl ;-)

|9.16.04 @ 3:17PM|#

Geronimo. That's all well and good for you. It doesn't change the fact that your position makes the case that the option for marriage for gay people shouldn't exist, simply because you don't want to get married.

That has nothing to do with reasons why the option shouldn't be there for those that don't share your disdain for the institution.

Unless you're trying to say that there is something unique about all gay people that precludes their participation in the civil marriage contract, your position doesn't seem to differ much from the leftist feminist position that marriage is an institution promulgated to keep women down.

These arguments are fine, if you're trying to convince someone why they shouldn't get married. They strike me as irrelevant to the question of whether or not the option to get married should be there for those who wish to partake in it, for whatever reasons. Perhaps, the same reasons your folks got married.

|9.16.04 @ 3:32PM|#

I'll never be a bride.


It's been said: scratch a homophobe and you can find a racist or misogynist. Aside from looking rather ridiculous in a wedding gown (which isn't what I thought you were getting at with that statement), there's nothing bad, or weak, or undesireable about being a 'bride'. The connotations of 'bride' signifying the weaker, the property has been left behind. Marriage has evolved (leaving out the religious and anthropological elements for now) from being where a woman gave up her identity to become her husband's property, to the union of two equals. To many, this threatens the inculcated heterosexism of one party needing to be the barefoot, chained to the stove, childbearer and the other party the dominator of the relationship. To the misogynist, this translates into the submissive role being OK for the woman or the 'bride', but have a man taking that role and their fragile world view comes crashing down around them.


There are some "gay" sexual activities which I find thoroughly disgusting. Incomprehensible.

There's a simple solution to this: stop engaging in them or obsession about them.


They're not vicious homophobes, any more than I am.

The homophobia comes when instead of employing the solution I noted above, they try to get laws passed trying to restrict the behaviour and contracts of mutually consenting adults. If you, as a gay man, didn't want to marry a woman, I wouldn't call that heterophobia. However, if you wanted to pass laws that would prevent men from having sex with or marrying women because you had an irrational obsession with it, I would classify that as a phobia, and you imposing your will upon others as being a fascist.


When I see a Gay Pride Parade, with "nuns" and Village-People clones... Well, these aren't people I would be comfortable hanging around with. Too in-your-face. Too mocking.

This is the problem with public property. They have as much a right to dress up as nuns and have a parade as Jerry Falwell has to carry around a sign that says "God Hates Fags" during Matthew Shephard's funeral, since they were both on public property.


And I'd think: They want to get married to mock. That's all they want. To mock. They want to destroy the foundations of society.

The moment the state got involved in marriage, they destroyed the 'foundations of society'. It's not the homosexuals fault that the state runs the marriage business and not independent institutes and religions. If you ever want to destroy something, give it to the state to run. There's no surer way of seeing it's demise.

|9.16.04 @ 5:08PM|#

your position makes the case that the option for marriage for gay people shouldn't exist, simply because you don't want to get married.

No no no. My position does no such thing. You've got to read the whole thing.


Jerry Falwell has to carry around a sign that says "God Hates Fags" during Matthew Shephard's funeral

I think you mean Fred Phelps.


there's nothing bad, or weak, or undesireable about being a 'bride'.

If you're a guy there is. Or at least, if you're _this_ guy.

"Marriage." "Bride." "Wife." "Mary." There's something about these terms (when applied to guys) that makes me uncomfortable. (I suppose, given the level of reading skills I see in so many posts, that someone is now going to accuse me of wanting to pass a dictionary law.) There's something of "Let's pretend" or "In your face" about these expressions.

I also don't get drag. Why any male would want to dress up in women's clothes is beyond me. It seems to me to be a denial of the self. (Why the British find drag acts so entertaining is also something I can't fathom. And before anyone accuses me of godknowswhatophobia, most British cross-dressers seem to be straight.)

I confess. I gender-stereotype. I'm trapped in some antiquarian psychological prison, where all the inmates expect people with breasts to be female.

Gay men are not woman-wannabes. (Or at least this one isn't.) I'm not a girl who didn't turn out right.

(An aside. Either I read this or I saw it on a BBC programme... Something about gays on television. Camp gay men have been on tv forever. The general public views them as extremely funny, non-sexual, and non-threatening. This may shoot down my theory about gay-pride parades, but what the heck. Fair and balanced.)


you imposing your will upon others as being a fascist

That's not what a fascist is.


These arguments... strike me as irrelevant to the question of whether or not the option to get married should be there for those who wish to partake in it, for whatever reasons.

As I said in an earlier post, I now see the need for equal protection under the law for homosexual couples. (Equal with heterosexual couples.) I think, though, that it might make more sense to call it something other than "marriage".

|9.16.04 @ 5:15PM|#

ps - I LOATHE Will & Grace

|9.16.04 @ 5:41PM|#

I think you mean Fred Phelps.

Thanks for the correction. All these people with religious psychoses tend to blurr together in my mind.


"Marriage." "Bride." "Wife." "Mary." There's something about these terms (when applied to guys) that makes me uncomfortable.

I'm not saying such things don't make me uncomfortable, but I can see their value in overcoming gender disparity barriers that we've been preconditioned with. The very fact that it used to irk me a lot more, and less now is a sure indication that it is a reaction to learned notions.


I also don't get drag.

Was much of Monty Python lost on you?


I confess. I gender-stereotype. I'm trapped in some antiquarian psychological prison, where all the inmates expect people with breasts to be female.

Realizing your prison is usually neccessary to free yourself from it. How would you view intersexed people? And more importantly, would you force those intersexed persons to conform to your notions?


Gay men are not woman-wannabes. (Or at least this one isn't.) I'm not a girl who didn't turn out right.

I never implied that. However the social structures that persist even today are rife with the baggage of gender disparity and inequality, and those who are preconditioned with that gender inequality are squeamish when imposing those social constructs upon people who they see as their equal. Gay marriage is the perfect example of that. Homophobia due to the ick factor of penetration is another. Being the penetrator denotes a 'male' role and being the penetratee(?) denotes the 'female' role and because the female role is imposed on a man, it is repulsive to the heterosexist because it threatens their gender identification. Similarly with gay marriage, since marriage in the less homosexual tolerant eras have been between a man and a woman, the very notion of two men marrying threatens the gender roles of the heterosexist since they cannot fathom the concept of two truely equal individuals within a marriage.


That's not what a fascist is.

A fascist is a rather dictatorial person, and was in my opinion, a correct useage of the word in that context.


As I said in an earlier post, I now see the need for equal protection under the law for homosexual couples. (Equal with heterosexual couples.) I think, though, that it might make more sense to call it something other than "marriage".

Something separate but equal? Should there be separate water fountains and churches and schools too?


ps - I LOATHE Will & Grace

Good taste in boob tube programming is hardly a trait restricted to homosexuals. Although I find I can't muster up the energy to actually loathe anything that I can get rid of by changing the channel.

|9.16.04 @ 5:56PM|#

would you force those intersexed persons to conform to your notions?

I've got one life. I want to be happy. Why would I want to force anyone to do anything? Why would you think I would? What have I written that might lead you to think that?

(Do I really have to add the "so long as he does not seek to hurt me" qualifier? Probably.)


changing the channel

I was expecting that. And you did not disappoint me.


Something separate but equal?

Oh jeez.

If I'd said $1 = 100 cents, would you have hinted I was being an anti-copper racist?


And I forgot.

You just haven't met the right girl

I was really disappointed when I found out kd lang was a girl. So maybe you're right.

|9.16.04 @ 5:57PM|#

Fyodor, please don't shout. I'm hung over.

As for outing history, my recollection is that until recently it was done by vice squads, hollywood magazines and conservative politicians who purposefully terrorized and ruined queer's lives. The tables turned only recently and in my humble opinion are justified.

Here's an url to some more info: http://www.glbtq.com/social-sciences/outing,2.html

Some excerpts;

"The first modern instance of outing as a political tactic occurred in 1982 when a conservative, straight-owned magazine used outing in an effort to destroy the influence of liberal politicians. Deep Backgrounder, a small Washington, D. C. publication that had a brief life, exposed a number of queer congressmen who leaned to the left."

"In 1994, conservative Congressman Robert Dornan (R-Calif.) became the first to use the floor of the U.S. House of Representatives to conduct an outing." In this instance it was a fellow Republican but all agree Dornan was a homophobic sleaze ball.

"AIDS changed the attitude of the queer community towards outing. In 1989, ACT UP in Portland, Oregon carried out the first pro-queer outing. Its members exposed the sexuality of Mark Hatfield, the powerful conservative Republican U. S. Senator from Oregon. Hatfield had supported various homophobic initiatives, including the Helms Amendment, which aimed to prevent the federal government from paying for any AIDS education or prevention materials that would "promote or encourage, directly or indirectly, homosexual sexual activities."

|9.16.04 @ 6:23PM|#

What's wrong with outing hypocrites? Assuming it's the truth, outing an anti-homosexual politician who is gay is no different than outing a drug warrior who is a pothead or an anti-porn crusader who has the complete works of Jenna Jameson on DVD.

|9.16.04 @ 11:55PM|#

What's wrong with outing hypocrites?

The same thing that's wrong with outing non-hypocrites. Besides, that's dangerous ground to tread, since every person in the world is a hypocrite in some way or other. For example, most of us claim to care about human life, but every single person reading this has let dozens of children die from hunger because we decided we'd rather spend our money on net access.

Assuming it's the truth, outing an anti-homosexual politician who is gay is no different than outing a drug warrior who is a pothead or an anti-porn crusader who has the complete works of Jenna Jameson on DVD.

Unless you believe that a homosexual sexual orientation is something people *choose*, rather than something people are born with, that argument makes no sense. A person chooses to smoke pot or buy porn. They don't choose to be gay. A person's status as "homosexual" or "heterosexual" is independent from their beliefs about the rightness or wrongness of homosexuality, or gay marriage, or gay adoption, or any other moral, ethical, or political belief. In contrast, the decision to smoke pot or buy porn is not independent from the belief that smoking pot and buying porn are wrong.

But on top of that, outing gay politicians is "wrong" because it's counterproductive; it doesn't help the gay movement, it hurts it. Even if a case could be made that it was ethical, it would still be a stupid idea.

|9.17.04 @ 12:00AM|#

What's wrong with outing hypocrites?

The same thing that's wrong with outing non-hypocrites. Besides, that's dangerous ground to tread, since every person in the world is a hypocrite in some way or other. For example, most of us claim to care about human life, but every single person reading this has let dozens of children die from hunger because we decided we'd rather spend our money on net access.

Assuming it's the truth, outing an anti-homosexual politician who is gay is no different than outing a drug warrior who is a pothead or an anti-porn crusader who has the complete works of Jenna Jameson on DVD.

Unless you believe that a homosexual sexual orientation is something people *choose*, rather than something people are born with, that argument makes no sense. A person chooses to smoke pot or buy porn. They don't choose to be gay. A person's status as "homosexual" or "heterosexual" is independent from their beliefs about the rightness or wrongness of homosexuality, or gay marriage, or gay adoption, or any other moral, ethical, or political belief. In contrast, the decision to smoke pot or buy porn is not independent from the belief that smoking pot and buying porn are wrong.

But on top of that, outing gay politicians is "wrong" because it's counterproductive; it doesn't help the gay movement, it hurts it. Even if a case could be made that it was ethical, it would still be a bad idea.

|9.17.04 @ 2:01AM|#

Nobody ever got outed for yearning.

If some ultra-conservative anti-welfare pro-life congressman was secretly using food stamps to pay for his daughters' abortions, might his constituents not find that a useful bit of information?

|9.17.04 @ 6:06AM|#

Dan-
No, he didn't choose to be gay, but he chose to pass anti-gay legislation. Personally, I think this is more evidence for the old canard that most homophobic people have latent homosexual tendencies themselves.

Also, your equating this with "we care about human life, but have Internet access rather than give our money to starving children," doesn't hold water, unless you're talking about someone who has tried to make it ILLEGAL to give money to starving kids, or otherwise using legislation to add to the kids' misery.

|9.17.04 @ 6:08AM|#

Make that, "he chose to support anti-gay legislation."

Here's a question for you, Dan--what would you have thought if someone had, during his life, exposed the fact that Strom Thurmond had a biracial love child? Is this promoting racism, or exposing the hypocrisy of one who does?

|9.17.04 @ 12:00PM|#

I have some rather substantial problems with Sanchez's post, but, since he doesn't follow up here, it isn't worth the time and effort to bother posting them.

|9.17.04 @ 1:28PM|#

Mo, Mona?

Iceberg? Goldberg? What the hell's the difference? VBG

Thought you and Mona were one and the same---probably because my own sister goes by "Mo". Casual assumption, I know.

Apologies all around.

|9.17.04 @ 4:03PM|#

No, he didn't choose to be gay, but he chose to pass anti-gay legislation.

You missed the point. You compared him to an anti-porn crusader who buys porn, or an anti-drug crusader who does drugs. Both of your examples are examples of people making choices that they ould deny to other people. Dreier didn't choose to be gay (and for that matter hasn't tried making it illegal to BE gay), so your parallel doesn't hold.

Dreier is a hypocrite only in the sense that he is a gay man who pretended to not be gay. Is that hypocrisy? Yes. Is it completely forgivable hypocrisy, given how homophobic society is? Hell yes.

He is NOT a hypocrite for being a gay man who passed anti-gay legislation. There is nothing hypocritical about being against gay marriage unless you yourself are married to a member of the same sex, which Dreier wasn't. There is nothing hypocritical about voting against funding AIDS treatment unless you yourself are secretly receiving government-funded AIDS treatment, which so far as I know Dreier wasn't. Etc, etc.

Personally, I think this is more evidence for the old canard that most homophobic people have latent homosexual tendencies themselves.

How? Dreier's homosexual tendencies weren't latent; they were *private*.

what would you have thought if someone had, during his life, exposed the fact that Strom Thurmond had a biracial love child?

Again, this falls into the category of a person choosing to do that which he would forbid others from choosing to do; Thurmond did that, Dreier didn't. Dreier didn't try to make it illegal to be gay; Thurmond, on the other hand, fought hard to keep miscegenation laws on the books.

Is this promoting racism, or exposing the hypocrisy of one who does?

Both. You can sugar-coat this all you want, but the simple fact of the matter is that you don't like Dreier's politics, so you support using his sexual orientation against him in an attempt to remove him from office.

Let's say a secretly-gay Democrat, Senator Smith, supported gay marriage rights. Publically, he said "while I myself am not gay, I think all people should be treated equally". Let's say Ralph Reed finds out this guy's gay. Would you support Reed's outing of Smith? After all, Smith is a hypocrite; he's claiming to be hetero, and he's not. He's claiming to have no personal stake in gay marriage, but he does. He's supporting gay marriage for hypocritical reasons. The truth is that you can't make a moral case for using anti-gay politicians' sexuality against them that doesn't also grant carte blanche to the religious right to use *pro*-gay politicians' sexuality against *them*.

|9.17.04 @ 4:22PM|#

Dreier didn't choose to be gay

Did he choose to sleep with guys?

Just curious.

|9.17.04 @ 7:24PM|#

Did he choose to sleep with guys? Just curious

Ok, there are two possibilities here: one is that you don't already know that the answer to that question appears to be "yes". If that's the case, go read the damn article.

The other possibility is that you think he *has* slept with guys. Well, who cares if he's slept with guys? He didn't support legislation that would have made it illegal to sleep with guys.

Here are Dreier's anti-gay votes:

- Voted for the Defense of Marriage Act
- Voted for the Marriage Protection Act
- Voted to prohibit lesbians and gays in DC from adpting children

Dreier has not, to my knowledge, married another man and adopted children with him. So no hypocrisy there.

And here are Dreier's votes which activists claim were "anti-gay", but which even strong supporters of gay rights could have legitimate reasons for opposing:

- Opposed the Hate Crimes Prevention Act
- Supported allowing federally funded charities to discriminate against gays and lesbians
- Opposed the Housing Opportunities for People with AIDS Program
- Opposed increases in State AIDS Drug Assistance Program

Anyone who has a problem with "thought crime", or who believes in the right to freedom of association, or who favors small government, could easily have voted the same as Dreier.

What it comes down to is that Dreier is "anti-gay" only inasmuch as he has opposed letting gay people marry or adopt children. The overwhelming majority of Americans also oppose both of those things. So what, exactly, did Dreier do that was so heinous? He failed to commit electoral suicide by opposing measures that would have passed with broad bipartisan support anyway. That bastard! Let's ruin his life so he can be replaced by some right-wing homophobe instead. That's a brilliant fuckin' idea!

|9.18.04 @ 12:29AM|#

joe writes: Really? Where? Not TPM. Not Atrios. Not Slate's democrats. I've seen the just the opposite - cutting Rather loose, in order to salvage the story (which never depended on the memos in the first place).

Are there any specific instances you're thinking of, Mona?"

Well, yes. Like at Kos. But joe, may I have your permission to reproduce with attribution your post I'm quoting to show that no sane Dem any more questions that those memos are fakes?

|9.18.04 @ 3:43AM|#

Dan wrote: Unless you believe that a homosexual sexual orientation is something people *choose*, rather than something people are born with, that argument makes no sense.

imo, There's a world of difference between "orientation" and "being gay".

imo, It was a big mistake to turn "homosexual" into a noun referring to people in the first place. (If everyone who has ever participated in a homosexual act is a homosexual, then a huge HUGE number of homosexuals roam the Earth. WE'VE WON!) An act is homosexual. Shorthand is not scientific fact.

imo, What I do I choose to do. (I have assented to the notion of free will.) I am not some Bush-like puppet helplessly manipulated by innate rumsfeldian tendencies.


Dan wrote: A person chooses to smoke pot or buy porn. They don't choose to be gay.

(Frankly, I don't even know what "gay" means.)

A person chooses to sleep with me. He's not driven to it by some uncontrollable urge. There are no mitigating circumstances. He was not "born that way". He doesn't need an excuse.

(imo/btw, People who insist Alexander the Great was gay are being silly. It's like saying Atilla the Hun was a neocon Republican.)


Dan wrote: A person's status as "homosexual" or "heterosexual" is independent ...

I quote that only because it sounds so funny. My "status". Teeheehee...



What is the point of these rambling pensées?

I worry when people try to find excuses for me (and my ilk - lol). "He has no choice. He was born that way. Don't blame him." As if I were the helpless victim of some sad genetic defect.

What I do I choose to do.

|9.18.04 @ 4:36AM|#

ps -

(This is about Dreier, not about the use of language.)

Dan wrote: And here are Dreier's votes which activists claim were "anti-gay", but which even strong supporters of gay rights could have legitimate reasons for opposing:

...

- Supported allowing federally funded charities to discriminate against gays and lesbians

...

Anyone who has a problem with "thought crime", or who believes in the right to freedom of association, or who favors small government, could easily have voted the same as Dreier.

"Gay rights". There is no such thing. There are only human rights.

Why ever would a charity be "federally funded"? Did Dreier vote in favour of federally funding charities? If he did, he should be outed as a closet mobster. It's not a "charity" if you're forced to give to it. It's a racket.

How many "strong supporters of" black people do you suppose would have supported a secretly black congressmen's support for "allowing federally funded charities to discriminate against" black people?

"Thought crime".

Anybody who thinks a vote like that "favors small government" is guilty of a crime against reason.


Dan wrote: What it comes down to is that Dreier is "anti-gay" only inasmuch as he has opposed letting gay people marry or adopt children.

What is his stand on civil unions (with all the rights accorded to married couples)? Is he opposed to equal treatment under the law of gay people?

Do gay people pose a threat to children? Is this why Dreier opposes adoption by them? Should gay people be forbidden to be teachers?

(Note: Though I hate to, I'm using the "gay/homosexual" shorthand so I don't have to type out "free individuals who freely choose to share their lives with other free individuals of the same gender and to express their love sexually - or just wanna have fun" in every other line.)

Thank you for convincing me, Dan, that Dreier HAD to be outed.

|9.18.04 @ 6:55AM|#

(Frankly, I don't even know what "gay" means.)

Well, you've certainly used the word often enough in your previous posts. Maybe you should have looked in a dictionary before doing so?

A person chooses to sleep with me. He's not driven to it by some uncontrollable urge. There are no mitigating circumstances. He was not "born that way". He doesn't need an excuse

Well that's certainly a load of nonsense. He chooses to sleep with you; he doesn't choose to be sexually aroused by you. He is, or is not, sexually aroused by you because he was "born that way".

Thank you for convincing me, Dan, that Dreier HAD to be outed

I'd say "you're welcome", but that would convey the mistaken impression that I give a shit what you think. All you're doing is providing evidence to the homophobes of the world that gay men really *are* selfish, amoral sleazebags who think with their cocks. You morons set gay rights back with every "enemy" you out.

|9.18.04 @ 7:03AM|#

Men, when stranded on a desert island, will fuck mud.

|9.18.04 @ 11:09AM|#

Maybe you should have looked in a dictionary before doing so?

Better late than never.

Oh cool. I am a hobosexual!


And then there's this.

Scroll down to the "Usage Problem" section. Interesting.

"Cultural and social aspects of homosexuality". I must not be gay then. I like Shakespeare and Radiohead and scones with clotted cream. I must be... BRITISH!

selfish, amoral sleazebags who think with their cocks.

The "selfish" part you can blame on Ayn Rand. The rest is all MEEEEEeeeeee!


You morons set gay rights back with every "enemy" you out.

I wonder which morons have set back the cause of human rights more. The folks at BlogActive, or Bush & Co.

Scott Wood|9.20.04 @ 3:56PM|#

I am not intensively opposed to outing hypocritical gays, but the evidence posted here isn't good enough.

Here are the offending positions:

Opposed the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, ENDA (1996, 1997, 1999)
Opposed the Housing Opportunities for People with AIDS (HOPWA) program. (1996)
Opposed the restoration of funding to HOPWA (1998)
Opposed the Hate Crimes Prevention Act (1997)
Supported allowing federally funded charities to discriminate against gays and lesbians, despite local laws. (2001)

Opposed increases in State AIDS Drug Assistance Program (1997)

Voted FOR the Defense of Marriage Act (1996)
Voted FOR the Marriage Protection Act (2004)
Voted to prohibit lesbians and gays in DC from adpting children - 3,000 miles from his distirct! (1998)

To me, the first five come under the classification "opposing governmental intrusion into inherently private thoughts and decisions." The sixth opposes federal funding of essentially State services, a position libertarians ordinarily agree with. The final three consist of the non-libertarian, but not completely anti-libertarian, preference for official state recognition of only "traditional" family structures.

It seems to me that you are supporting outing Drier for his support of exactly one position that is not even entirely incompatible with libertarianism. That's wouldn't be enough for me.

|9.21.04 @ 12:11PM|#

(I thought this thread had died.)

I don't actually have an opinion on Dreier. I just figured, if someone is going to call me a "selfish, amoral sleazebag who thinks with his cock" (changed to singular for the purposes of comprehensibility), I'd try to annoy him a bit.

That said, I do think what the anti-adoption bill says is: "Queers prey on kids. We must protect the children!"

It's interesting, too, that in this day and age "outing" would be such an effective weapon against an opponent. We're obviously in greater danger than we think.