A Position on the Senator's Staff?
The Washington Post and a few other beltway pubs are covering Michael Rogers' campaign to out gay staffers working for legislators who supported the Federal Marriage Amendment. I suppose I see the logic, but at the end of the day, this seems pretty vile. If it were the legislator himself, I'd say fair game. But I don't think signing on as a staffer in some troglodyte's office should make it open season on your sex life; as Washingtonienne taught us, staffers who want to broadcast their sexual proclivities can always start a blog. Worse, it seems like a violation of people's privacy without any real purpose. The FMA has already gone down in flames, and even if it were to resurface, does anyone believe that this kind of tactic would do anything to change policy outcomes? It sure sounds vindictive and pointless. I'm betting at least some of the people now doing the outing found it difficult coming out to family and friends and are glad nobody pushed them into it before they were ready. (Hat tip: GrammarPolice)
