The Case for ‘Outing’ Gay Congressmen and Staffers
Jimmy LaSalvia and Christopher Barron of GOProud disagree with me. GOProud has a policy against outing. I consider it pragmatic. Knowing that GOProud won’t out them makes closeted Congress members and staffers feel safe working with them on the full spectrum of issues of concern to conservatives. A third of gay voters voted for Republicans in the 2010 election, according to a CNN exit poll. Thanks to discrimination, the gay community does not look to the government, family, or religion to address its needs. That’s also why gays in large numbers choose entrepreneurial professions. This makes the gay community a working model of self-reliant fiscal conservative principles — and a constituency that properly belongs to the conservative movement.
Regarding the recent controversy over GOProud’s supposed outing of Tony Fabrizio, Gov. Rick Perry’s pollster and chief presidential campaign strategist, I believe Chris and Jimmy had no idea that anyone considered Fabrizio closeted. They say that Fabrizio has been openly gay and associated with gay causes for many years. So when reporters called for their opinion of Fabrizio as a gay man crafting Perry’s “Strong” TV ad in which Perry shamed our soldiers who are lesbian or gay, their answers were based on their observation that Fabrizio was out. While Fabrizio reportedly advised against running the ad, I agree with Chris and Jimmy that the only way to register a real objection would have been to resign. But when Chris and Jimmy expressed their opinion, they didn’t out Fabrizio, they just made him more famously gay than he already was.
However, the Fabrizio controversy over whether or not closeted gays and lesbians participating in anti-gay activism should be outed marks a watershed. Public attitudes toward gay equality are considerably more positive now than they were when Bauman and Mikulski could lead double lives and use anti-gay activism as part of their cover. These days, vehement anti-gay activism is practically an announcement that you’re gay. The time when gays have to be closeted and lead double lives to succeed in their careers is nearly over in the United States. We have passed the tipping point in the gay community where people will keep their secret because they have a secret of their own. The community interest is now served by outing.
This poses a dilemma for closeted gays in public life, especially the ones who have married for cover. They’ve built their lives on a lie that they no longer have to tell. It’s the lie that matters now, not their sexual orientation. Their lie is now legitimate news, just as much as Anthony Weiner’s lewd Twitter self-portraits — all the more so when anti-gay activism is part of their deception. What these closeted gays need to understand is that fighting for the right to stay closeted is like trying to stay in the dark when the sun is rising. Their outing is mostly a matter of when, not if. They will be much better off if they achieve outness on their own, rather than having outness thrust upon them.
A lot of people, gay and straight, believe President Obama is a gay man, or at least bi-sexual. A lot of people believe President Obama has engaged “in anti-gay activism.”
Should there be an effort to out President Obama? Has President Obama built his family “on a lie?”
Who gets to decide what “anti-gay activism” is? Who gets to decide who is bi-sexual, rather than gay and “married for cover.”
Who gets to be Witchfinder General?
Recently, here..a young HS student was “outed” by his school administration..
“for his safety” .
Bullshite…people have a right to privacy.
ALSO!!…IT must be terrible to pretend to be what you are not..I believe homosexuality is genetics..nothing more, nothing less. It does have blackmail potential for people in high positions.
….if they engage in anti-gay activism they shold be outed as it presents a public problem and is no longer a private issue..
Excuse me, but how are you defining “gay”? What about a man who has homosexual tendencies, but believes in living a normal married life. He is not a hypocrite; he is simply refusing to buy into the “biology is destiny” garbage.
As far as I’m concerned, anyone who “outs” someone like this and embarasses his family ought to go to jail, and for quite a while.
I’ll go further. Suppose someone is practicing, but believes he is wrong and is simply weak; is he obligated to vote to support his sin?
This is nothing but blackmail and ought to be treated as such.
He IS very thin.
David, are you Del’s brother?
No, I’m Dian the Beautiful’s husband.
Gay members of Congress and their gay staff members will never come out, because staying closeted, they are of far greater value. Why? Because they are a solid, constant, and reliable source of inside information for both gay activists and gay members of the MSM. Also, gay staffers have a “very strong” influence on members of Congress, even straight ones.
I say yes. absolutely. Out them, if they are activists against gays interests. Of cause.
Courtesy should not be extended to people that misuse it to work against the interest of the people extending the courtesy, right? Isn’t that a nobrainer?
Shocking to see Stalinism advocated on this site.
Who decides which issues all gays MUST be for? Is it impossible for a gay man to come to the conclusion that same-sex marriage would be BAD for his society? Let’s check with Comrade Yockey.
Wanna help gays? Build more prisons. Womanish men are disproportionately gay, and womanish men tend to get raped a lot in overcrowded prisons. If you don’t agree with me, I’ll report you to the Supreme Soviet.
“Is it impossible for a gay man to come to the conclusion that same-sex marriage would be BAD for his society?”
Here’s the law of unintended consequences:
As long as people like Yockey are on the loose, blackmailing all gays to vote her way or be “outed”, that motivates me and many, many others to do some detective work to identify every candidate or politician who might possibly be gay and never, ever vote for or contribute to any of them.
Is that the result Yockey wants?
As for the ones who are out of the closet, not a single one of them agrees with my political stands anyway, so no chance of my voting for them either.
“Gay” is a politics and a chosen one at that. It’s not a sexual attraction.
So Yockey seeks to violate the privacy of those who disagree with her politics, to be a sort of female Flynt. Yecch.
If they are not willing to be open about it they pose a security threat due to blackmail potential–As well as an everyday day threat of being outed if they don’t go along with someone else’s program.
Yes, they should be outed. Their entire lives are fairly subject to scrutiny by those they “represent”.
Exactly.
Bulls**t. Do you honestly believe that Fabrizio faced such a loss of money or prestige that treason was the only answer? Give me a break.
GOProud made an honest mistake. So did Perry, hiring a gay man to push anti-gay planks. Breitbart made an awesome display of principle. Let’s not all file into the circular firing squad.
(s) A bisexual male, please, Google my ass. I should not be hard to find.
A physician recommends to you not to smoke.
Does it matter if the physician is a smoker? No.
The argumentation of Ms Yockey is that of an amoral person.
Get a grip.
You can do better for a response. Try again.
I am just making a clinical evaluation of Ms Yockey’s morals (but she has none).
I evaluate a piece of legislation on its own merit, using my set of morals. It does not matter who was the legislator.
An analogy: Obama confessed he has smoked marijuana. So he should not introduce, not enforce any anti-marijuana laws?
The relevant issue is for the law proposed by the legislator is applicable to the legislator itself. And many laws passed by Congress are not applicable to the members of Congress themselves. And that is immoral. Example: insider trading.
Whaddya talking about: Lopez totally made me change my mind.
As they say: idiots flock together. And Ms Lopez is one.
Come up with a better response. Try again.
You thought someone saying “get a grip” actually made me change my mind?
Get a grip.
It is truly sad when you cannot understand your own self.
You do need help. Mental help, that is.
It’s interesting, because I want politicians along with other public figures (like journalists and judges) to be outed so that we can identify where their sexual identity leads them to pro-gay policy positions and claims beyond what the evidence calls for–a striking and recent example is the gay California Supreme Court judge who overturned the referendum outlawing same sex marriage. I’m sure there are also plenty of examples of gay journalists and scholars who have slanted their stories and studies, and we should know about that as well. So, here’s some common ground between those who support and those who oppose the gay agenda!
I’m more concerned about our representatives voting to reflect their districts values, you obviously do not
Your logic is if you vote in a gay member they will carry the water for the gay community rather than the district ?
Further more because your gay you have the right to “out” representatives if they don’t reflect your views ?
This is at best sexual harassment and at it’s worst blackmail
By your logic no straight rep should ever vote for a law reflecting your views ?
Your hypocrisy is palpable.
Your article is a prime example of why I have to pause before casting a vote for a gay candidate
People shouldn’t be outed. They may be voting against gay marriage, horror of horrors, because they are thinking of the greater good and not putting the fact they’re gay at the center of the universe. In this sense the argument is used that if gays vote against policies in a way another gay person disagrees with then instead of having a reasonable position they are portrayed as hypocritical, traitors or self-hating, just as some do with Jews who are “clueless” about Israel. But one gay owes nothing to another gay by virtue of the fact that both are and acting as if there is only one way to be gay and that someone should be in charge of gayness is again the same tired view that there is only one view Jews should have; one side does not own Jewishness or being gay.
The theory is that outing people will then allow you to view their inner mind, their “real” reasons for voting a certain way and that will never be true. That theory is based on the idea that if you have an agenda everybody does and in that case well be nothing more than a Freudian slip by you.
You are making this seem like it is some Orwellian perceptual trap that must itself be outed and this is far from the case. For that you have to turn to the depraved policies of women’s college basketball teams where women of one sexual orientation are forced to shower with women of another orientation in a way that is basically forcing them to shower with men since this issue of who wants to have sex with who is at the basis of separating the sexes in such situations in the first place.
In this sense you are simply advocating an agenda without regard to an overarching and consistent philosophy because doing that might force you to admit you’re wrong sometimes and right others and it’s a lot more fun to be right all the time. This is glaringly true when it comes to members of the Rainbow Coalition because black issues for example, are wrenched about in such a way that they are basically never wrong and whites are never wrong.
It is glaringly obvious when Kobe Bryant is called out by GLAAD for making a gay slur on TV because it contributes to a belittlement of gay culture. 2 weeks later the “Hunky Jesus” contest undergoes no such scrutiny from GLAAD when it contributes to the belittlement of Christians in the most vulgar and wilful way possible.
Thank you for making the point that gay people can disagree with changing the definition of marriage to include any number and types of adults and not be bigots. Bigots against themselves, for pity’s sake.
Here, here! Good on you — I find this article and people supporting it just another kind of fascist. Because one is gay you must believe and support every single, solitary thing the so-called leaders of the gay community espouse? Doesn’t EVERYone have the ability to decide what they reveal about themselves, to who, and when?
I too believe, as another poster commented, that being gay is genetic — I’ve seen a very few rare times when it was an alleged choice (and those are suspect). It’s comparable to having a gene that makes one fat; the only diff. is that sexual preference isn’t always on display, while being obese is.
NO ONE has the right to tell other people’s business, unless the person is ignorant enought to tell those blabbermouths to begin with.
Everybody ought to put their cards face-up on the table. Tolerance based on “What people do in the privacy of their own,” etc. etc. stopped applying when homosexuality became a politics — a particularly sickening, slovenly, shrill and unappeaseable politics based on the morbid fantasy that, if you give my pro-gay org enough money, we can turn America lavender because, after all, “gender is just a social construct and, really, everybody is secretly gay” and etc. etc. etc. ad nauseum.
“The certainty of being outed has improved her subsequent record on legislation concerning gay equality.
That is why I believe we must and should out closeted gay and lesbian members of Congress and staffers when they engage in anti-gay activism.”
I don’t know – this sounds a little like ends justifying means…you want your version of a “gay equality” agenda advanced.
How is your brand of gayness superior to someone else’s ? Identity politics = march in lockstep.
“Nevertheless, Sen. Mikulski voted for the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act. Soon afterward, gay activists confronted her about her vote at a book signing. The certainty of being outed has improved her subsequent record on legislation concerning gay equality.”
By “improved” you mean “more acceptable to the thugs”, right?
And why not also “out” those who live straight and vote in ways you find acceptable? You started by declaring that NO ONE deserves privacy on their orientation, but then carve out a great big exception for those who toe the line.
Perhaps you’re little better than those “activists” who threatened Mikulski?
Outing “ordinary people” is bullying, plain and simple.
Having said that, I recognize that politics complicates the issue. Although you can’t generalize about gay people’s politics, it is a fact that some gay people have made sexual orientation a political issue. This brings up the question of whether gay politicians must always reflexively vote in favor of “pro-gay” legislation. Saying “yes” assumes that all “pro-gay” laws actually benefit gay people. It also assumes that all gay people must agree with the provisions of any “pro-gay” law that comes up for a vote. This, in turn, assumes that all gay people agree on what gay people want, how they should live, how they should relate to the larger society, and what their political agenda should be. That’s a big assumption.
Should a gay legislator be punished by the “gay community” for failing to vote for a piece of pro-gay legislation? Most legislators aren’t elected by the “gay community.” They’re elected by a heterogeneous group of voters for whom sexual orientation, presumably, is no reason to reject a candidate. The question is, did that legislator’s contingency send him or her to Washington to look out for their interests or to play a game of gay politics? Should that legislator vote the “gay party line” or vote the way his or her constituency would want? Does being gay give the gay legislator a special duty to always look out for gay people?
I don’t know the answer.
Thank you. A little common sense goes a long way.
This is just bull shit pandering as authority. Ms. Yockey poses as a lesbian invoking conservative values. Why even is this a topic?
I discovered early that there were boys and girls. I soon realized that from day to day I felt differently about those boys and girls. As we became men and women, I found that we men and women shared attractions to one another in varying degrees, depending on circumstance – and other values.
What I can do with a woman I certainly can’t do with a man just as what I can do with a man I can’t do with a woman. These days what I do with a woman I do only with my wife. What I do with a man is random and spontaneous. I don’t expect Congress to have any influence whatever regarding those activities in my personal pursuit of happiness.
My ‘sexual orientation’ is not a topic. Should a co-worker choose to ‘out’ me, that co-worker will no longer be able to work in this state. There are plenty of men and women willing to ensure that.
Are these political figures voting their interests or their constituents’ interests? Why should a gay politician necessarily vote a pro-gay agenda if their constituents are mostly opposed to it? Identity politics is crap.
Like it or not folks, here’s some input from a knuckle dragging troglodite: Sorry gay folks, but practicing homosexuality is a choice. It’s like saying that because I might be attracted to more than one woman, I can’t possibly be faithful to my wife. Bunk.
Don’t expect me to feel sorry for you or indulge your issues because you choose to act upon your impulses. Now let the attacks begin.
“Not only is your sexual orientation almost impossible to hide, but also knowing it is so fundamental to creating rapport that practically everyone you meet automatically sizes you up and makes their own decision no matter what you say.”
If it is so obvious to everyone, “almost impossible to hide”, why is there a need for outing at all?
How ’bout if everyone just minds their own business?
First off, I’m straight but I couldn’t care less if someone around me is gay. I do believe in the no means no rule though. If I’m approached by a gay man and tell him no but he continues to hit on me then that would be sexual harassment plain and simple. Same rule applies to me if I meet a woman and she tells me no, that she prefers other women.(Or for any other reason as well.)
As to elected officials, they are elected to represent their constituents, not to push some personal agenda. If they ran on the platform of advancing gay rights and do so that is their business but make it plain how they stand on an issue. Don’t lie just to get in where you can do what you please. That is why I don’t trust Romney and I’m worried Genrich isn’t much better. Not that they are gay or straight, just that they would lie to get elected. Will Romney actually do what he says he will or will he flip flop around again? Has Newt actually found religion or did he switch because he wanted that pretty little Catholic girl and thought it would impress her?
In other words, do what you want on your own time but just don’t lie about it and do what you were elected to do not some hidden agenda of your own.
I think I’m still stuck back at jeering at their marriages. A marriage is a contract, or a covenant, depending. It has two parties and a witness signing said contract. We expect children, but don’t require them. A party stepping out of that marriage, for any sort of extra-marital affair- is “cheating” on the marriage. It is still a valid, real marriage.
It literally does not matter if the emotional state of the cheating party is that the marriage is not “real” b/c the physical attributes of the non- marital sexual partner are different or the same.
Have some respect. it’s a real marriage, even if if involves bi-sexual, try-sexual, porn-sexual, swinger-sexual, bad-sexual, shy-sexual, boring-sexual partners. It might feel unfair to the mistress, but it’s a real marriage, of durable length and legal sturdiness.
If we out married congress-critters, must we also out ones having affairs, or alienated and lonely, so that we can pressure them on other points?
And- it’s gossip. One could creditably, “out” a person that one doesn’t like. How do you disprove a negative?
And- not everyone has a “gay-dar.” It takes a particularly slovenly mind to jump to prurient conclusions about someone’s naked habits. I haven’t got one. I don’t even know the little flags of solidarity that this group has. I know the little sub-groups I’m part of’s signs- but I don’t expect anyone else to notice, or care. My next door neighbor had to tell me point-blank that she had taken up women, after having three children with three different men. I didn’t know that the rainbow sticker meant anything other than that she was a seventies disco throwback. Why wouldn’t I think that? Her kids had rollerskates to play on their driveway.
It takes a particularly slovenly mind to jump to prurient conclusions about someone’s naked habits
I would have said “shallow” mind. Some people don’t have a lot of interests or sense of self outside their own naked habits, and assume everyone else has the same empty obsession. Rather tedious….I don’t care who you “play” with, or when, or how, why should every conversation keep coming back to that? And they’re always so disappointed that I don’t care. What’s the point of being “freaky” if people aren’t freaked out?
(“Coming out” kind of reminds me of potty-training. It’s cute the first several times a kid announces he used the big-boy potty, but if he’s still announcing it when he’s a teenager, you should check for developmental delays.)
“Coming out” kind of reminds me of potty-training. It’s cute the first several times a kid announces he used the big-boy potty, but if he’s still announcing it when he’s a teenager, you should check for developmental delay.”
And even worse if he stands under the staircase to peek up the shorts of his teachers to look for any soiled laundry he can use to his own personal advantage.
Marriage is an institution based on traditon and on relationships based on reality. One cannot say it doesn’t “require” children and then act as if the entire reality Mother Nature has constructed is out the door.
The exception is not the rule and courtroom arguments don’t make babies; by your standard I could marry a vending machine. This is what happens when you subvert reality to the individual rather than the individual to reality.
Making sidewalks and covering ourselves from the rain is one thing but crapping on the very life cycle that creates life on Earth is a stupid fad.
One expects, but does not require: because my infertile friends are just as married as anyone else. They have the paperwork, they went through the vows, and they have life-long fidelity as they understand it.
We don’t know what arrangements people have made for sexual satisfactions in their marriage. We know that Augustus was married to Livia. Gossip had it that she supplied his appetites with slaves. He’s married to her, not the slaves.
I’m not talking about the finer points of a higher union of souls and feelings- union. I’m talking paper. enforceable, good-enough for a divorce lawyer- legal paper.
Ideally, there’s a soul union, physical satisfaction, a growing bank balance, children to be proud of, etc etc etc.Ideal is not the only sort of real. My infertile friends already have the heartbreak of not having children. Why insult them with telling them their marriage is not real?
Any mistress is going to cry that her “personal” “freely chosen” “true, spiritual love” with a cheater is better than that ” paper marriage” where ‘the other partner just doesn’t understand’ the cheater….this article is a gay variant on this- sort of a political brokeback mountain. whether or not the guys had a life-long affair- they were both married men, and both had children, and both legal wives had claim on their person and possessions. That’s the part I’m calling out. I’m really clueless about the gay part, but I’m really up on the mistress/wife divide.
Centering your argument around what are essentially broken people or people who DECIDE not to have children reveals the weakness of this “argument” which again is not a debate anyway but simple reality.
The exception still doesn’t make the rule unless you know of a secret island like King Kong lived on with a giant population of gay tigers and grasshoppers.
I recommend the Discovery Channel for further information.
I’m missing something here, right? B/c as far as I can tell, I’ve just described every marriage everywhere- there’s a ceremony, there’s some paperwork, and there’s two unrelated, adult people doing the sorts of things that can possibly bring infants into the family. Last time I checked, when attending a religious wedding, we all turn to the wedding page in the hymnbook, not any other page. my secular friends go to a judge, and they have both papers, and a speech from the judge, and vows. They even get copies of the vows, and the speech, and some of them cross-stitch it onto a sampler.
So, how is describing a marriage “weakening” marriage?
Those are the minimums. The variants still meet the minimums.
We expect seeds to sprout when planted. When they don’t, we don’t say it’s “not a real seed.” We say ” it didn’t sprout.” When a couple marries, if they don’t have children, we say “they don’t have children.” not ” they aren’t really married.”
I put in the gossip about Augustus and Livia b/c I don’t feel like gossiping about current human beings. I could say ” so and so cheated ON HIS WIFE,” which is different than ” he’s not really married b/c he’s not feeling into it anymore.” One is a legal statement. The other is a gauzeous excuse for cheating, and runs up on the shoals of legal expression.
Marriage does have legal privileges and responsibilities. It’s a civil contract. Some people consider is a religious covenant- which is to say,a religious contract. We can date marriages, and divorces, and we settle property on people based on these dates. Louisiana has automatic allotments upon a person’s death- so much to the wife, so much to the children. There is not provision for mistresses, no matter how hot, or long- standing. Texas has community property statutes- a millionaire with a wife- they split their million dollars. The mistress has no claim on that property. None.
I’m not responding to the larger argument presented by the author of the article. First off, b/c I’m purely trivial about it- why else would one read the gossipy unauthorized biography of a minor public figure? except to find out their private amatory appetites? Unsourced, of course. It’s what makes Eusebius so much fun, discussing the great Roman emperors. And, second, she has a series of warranted statements to which I strongly disagree. Those, I am talking about.
oh, you’re talking about gay marriage, right?
I’m talking about marriages between infertile people, and you substituted ” protestants who use birth control, and infertile couples who don’t go to a reproductive endocrinologist, and gay marriages in Massachusetts.” You can go argue that with yourself, I’m not in that discussion.
And that is cold, cold, cold- telling an infertile person they are “broken.” they have parts that aren’t working in a particular way. Do you call amputees “broken”? Or athletes with ripped up knees? They have ripped up knees, not they are, overall and entirely, broken.
Save the political correctness Ari, this isn’t la-la land or an intimate cocktail party. In real terms they are broken, they don’t work. Use all the words you want, it doesn’t deflect the argument.
No I don’t call amputees broken. This was making an argument by taking off the blinders and saying an amputee is not broken in that sense will not change their reality or the argument. No one is going to hire them to play in football. Is that cruel? Politeness has its limits and reality is one of them. I’ve been around amputees and it is considered bad form to pretend they’re not; they don’t like the pity or averted faces or embarrassed swallows.
As a lesbian woman, I find ‘outing’ to be an ugly and nasty practice. And I think your article, Cynthia, is just another phony justification for emotional violence. Thuggery is thuggery no matter what the great cause.
Wouldn’t it be great if you and others who support such practices cared about individual people as much as you purport to care about gay rights.
Though I never bought the discrimination analogy of being born black being synonymous to being born gay as ammunition for argument, and in fact if I were black I would be offended with the comparison considering the history, but there is one characteristic that many blacks and many gays do share.
The 24/7 of focusing on color of skin or sexual orientation as the prism of how they view every facet of the world and how they frame every narrative, always replete with being black or being gay as first personal reference. Every criticism, every decision, every situation, every task prefaced with you knowing they are black or they are gay, as if the efficacy of melanin or choice of homosexual orientation the highest traits formulating the universe you are insufficient in understanding.
These are the most tedious, monotonous people to associate. And many times, as in here, the same traits are accompanied by being bullies of the highest order, while trying to maintain the status of victim.
Well said.
> There is no such thing as privacy about anyone’s sexual orientation.
Sorry, I’m just not buying it. I understand your argument, but my problem lies in the definition of “engaging in anti-gay activism” and who gets to define it.
To your Mikulski example, that bill passed the Senate on an 85-14 vote. I’m not convinced that merely voting on a bill on the Senate floor rises to the level of “engaging in anti-gay activism,” and therefore making someone’s private life fair game. (And as an aside, Mikulski’s re-election campaign against Chavez was a foregone conclusion. Chavez was a place-holder candidate and Mikulski won with 61 percent of the vote.)
I object to a strict doctrine that declares someone’s private life to be fair game just because they merely oppose something that a consensus of the gay community wants to have. It’s the worst sort of ad hominem attack, really. You want to skip over any substantive objections that person might have and go right into calling them a hypocrite and a liar. You want to use the threat of “outing” as a bludgeon to suppress dissent. And worst of all, this “it’s OK to out someone who is engaging in anti-gay activism” doctrine is an attempt to carve out a special place in public discourse that only applies to gays and lesbians. It says to me: “Some people’s personal lives are fair game for public destruction — but only when we say so.”
On top of that, since straight people flaunt their sexual orientation 24/7
That’s where I stopped reading. I’m sure you believe this lie you’ve been told because it’s comforting, but it’s bat guano.
I do have to wonder who Yockey is planning to bully, er, “out”, given this indulgent pre-justification. Or if she’s just retro-justifying the sliming of that Perry staffer a few weeks ago.
I believe the opposite is most likely true. It is usually homosexual people who insist on advertising their sexual preferences.
EXACTLY!! There’s a vocal subset who don’t seem to be content with just doing their own thing. They have to wave it in everyone’s face in a childish demand for acceptance.
I coach quite a few professional adults; a handful are gay. The straight folks hardly ever talk about sex, but the gay guys “never” stop talking about it. It gets extremely tiring and borish. So for the author to state “straight people flaunt their sexual orientation 24/7″ is not only untrue, it shows she is blind to reality. Whenever I meet a openly gay man, he introdusces himself as a gay man. When I meet a straight man, he say, Hi, I’m Bob! Is that what she means by flaunty his sexual orientations?
How do you know some of those “straight” folks are simply gays not talking about sex? Or is there a gaydar gun on the premises?
And I’m very disappointed in PJ Media for attaching the guy’s photo to Ms. Yockey’s article. Haven’t you ripped him up enough?
Nice that you guys want to get on the gay rights bandwagon, but if you think you’re helping us out by indulging Ms. Yockey’s steamroller tactics, you’re mistaken.
Our culture now approaches all questions as to the political ramifications of homosexual behavior with the unproved assumption that same sex attraction is both genetic and fixed. Recent studies seem to indicate that the genetic connection is ambiguous and sexual attraction is much more fluid than previously thought. I believe that when our sexual impulses are divorced from the context of procreation they become narcissistic and irresponsible. That the author can make this convuluted moral arguement for the “outing” of homosexuals seems to lend credance to my view.
The sexual orientation of a person is of little interest to anyone except their sexual partners. The political and military arenas are no place to insert ones sexual preferences. Not only is there a right to privacy, but there should be privacy when it comes to our sex lives, unless our proclivities cause harm to other people.
Frankly, I find the reasoning in this article distasteful. Who is anyone to intrude in the lives of anyone else? The premise of this article is that closeted gays or lesbians who are opposed to “gay rights” (my term) ought to be exposed as hypocrites. But, on what grounds do you intrude into anyone’s life?
Let’s start with Barbara Mikulski and DOMA.The author’s comment clearly suggests that Senator Mikulski and all gays and lesbians must subordinate their intellect and free will to the will of the broader “gay community”. Why? In principle isn’t the United States of America a nation that cherishes individual identity rooted in merit? Why should a gay man or lesbian be bullied into conforming to your views of progressivity if it is in conflict with their concience? Is it so inconceivable that a gay man or woman would support traditional marriage? Even if you find it incredible, why are they not permitted to reason or rationalize like anyone else? We live in a nation that rejects “community” in favor of the individual right to direct the course of their lives,or do we?
Also, who are you to decide that they will be “better off” if outed?
Then there’s this quote: “Not only is your sexual orientation almost impossible to hide, but also knowing it is so fundamental to creating rapport that practically everyone you meet automatically sizes you up and makes their own decision no matter what you say. On top of that, since straight people flaunt their sexual orientation 24/7, the more private you are about your personal life, the faster people assume you are gay.”
Ok, given that this country historically has been ridiculed for its prudish attitude towards sex, how can this be taken seriously? Maybe I’m in a small minority, but I never size up anyone sexuality upon meeting them in any setting.On a personal note I’ve had friends that have been astonished that I didn’t know someone was gay because it was “so obvious”. You see, in my case I value people on their character and never consider what goes on behind closed doors.
I also reject the notion that “straight” people flaunt their sexuality 24/7.Really? 24/7? I’ve known many who flaunt it but not 24/7.Never 24/7. Putting aside the hyperbole of that sentence. I can say that I and many Americans did not grow up in environments where sexuality was flaunted. Maybe you did,but I did not.
The author justifies intrusion into one’s personal life if they reject the consensus view of a community. This attempt at justification violates the most fundamental right of all: The right to live life on your own terms,to be your own man or woman without undue pressure to conform to someone else’s definition of the norm. They are free men and women living in a free country, they are justly entitled to live their life on their terms without being subjected to the shortcomings of community thinking.Those who hold their sexuality to themselves do not owe anything to anyone regardless of a common desire
We keep ignoring the elephant in the room.
The trial about the largest breach of US classified documents in history is ongoing at Fort Meade. The central focus, by the defense is that their guy, Pvt. Manning, was an open homosexual, and mentally unstable, who unsuccessfully sought help for his condition but was ignored by a chain of command who today, refuses to address the issue as a factor in his treason prosecution. Subsequent commanders have testified that his Top Secret clearance should have been cancelled due to his behavior; he was unfit for the clearance, and his work, intelligence analysis.
His actions occurred in the Don’t ask; don’t tell era. Prior to President Clinton, his outing would have been grounds for dismissal.
Our people die when classified information is given to our enemies. Our nation is wounded when this occurs. Hence, what should our policy be in the light of historical facts? Where, in the spectrum of human conduct, do we, Americans, draw the line? IMHO, when private acts in a bedroom can lead to graves in national cemeteries, or being defeated, it is a valid topic of public debate. This is not religious bias, it is essentially about national survival. And if it is germane to a soldier, it must also bind those who send him into combat.
You’ve hit a nail on the head: this blithe acceptance in America of advocacy by the Rainbow Coalition practically destroys the concept of the greater good in favor of one Sikh in a turban who doesn’t like something all Americans commonly do or people who want to marry their refrigerator. Personal space? That’s at home. Kennedy said it right out and it has been ignored as people whine not only about what their country can do for them but insist it be done, no matter how depraved.
Of course the concept of depravity is now entirely relative as one person’s Girl Scouts is another person’s co-ed gay organization.
“..in favor of one Sikh in a turban who doesn’t like something all Americans commonly do…”
Nonsense, John Senz. Still, if you have an actual example of a Sikh running to a court to ban something traditionally American let’s see what you’ve got.
I was obviously invoking a stereotype: however it is based on reality. You just haven’t been paying attention. Google “Sikh sues” and then choose more names to put in front of the word “sues”: pre-op transexual, atheist, whatever. Such people indeed have no respect for larger culture or the impact they have on that culture. America is not Amritsar and we don’t own squat to them. If I go to Amritsar and say I want to where my baseball cap at the Golden Temple they’d laugh and then kick me out. And no I don’t want to be better than them – I want my space and they can have theirs.
Ahh finally. Somebody hit it on the head. Why do you think Military Regulations forbid this filth in the first place? 6 little words: Contrary to good order and discipline. It’s no different in civilian life. No nation which had openly embraced this filthy lifestyle has ever lasted very long. America will never see
300. So prance on you girly men. Keep on doing what you do, manly girls. And when our nation collapse around you, you can pat each other on the back that you were a major contributing factor.
You normal people…it’s time to start looking for another country. I’ve checked the foundation of this one and it’s pretty rotten. Collapse will come when it’s least expected.
Just call me: The Orkin Man.
Thank PJM for posting this! The discussion it has generated is fascinating. Hypocrisy by any name…
This is another version of the minority politics argument, with the added dimension that whether homosexuality is a trait or a behavior, it manifests itself pretty much exclusively as a behavior. If a gay person dies young, and has no external indications of his sexual preference, an autopsy won’t currently discover his sexuality; it’ll merely tell you his gender. You’d find out he was gay by talking to his friends or family.
The issue, as always, is whether a person should be allowed to hold a certain opinion, if he belongs to a particular minority group. Blacks essentially are required by the media, in some fashion, to be anti-death penalty, among other things. Hispanics must favor loosening immigration laws. Arab-Americans are of course opposed to the Patriot Act; Jews are assumed to support the state of Israel no matter what it does. Women are at least in some controversy if they’re not pro-Choice, though more female politicians have bucked that one than most of the rest on this list. And of course gay people *must* be in favor of gay marriage. If they aren’t, they must be self-loathing or something, because no one who opposes gay marriage can be gay, and just expressing an opinion. There must be some agenda behind them, to cause them to espouse an opinion that’s so obviously not theirs.
I’ve always disliked the “outing” process anyway. And yes, gay politicians deserve their privacy, just as other public figures do. If they wish to be open about their choices and preferences that’s their business, but if they choose not to be open, that too is their choice. My old Congressman is thought to be gay (he’s a Republican from Southern California) and a few election cycles ago, we got a nasty piece of political mail from a Pac, which was trying to deny him reelection by referring to his “gay lifestyle”. The flyer included some pics of the congressman with his supposed partner (who’s also one of his staffers) in swimming suits on a beach somewhere, shot with a telephoto lense ala Jackie O. I don’t think he’s much of a homophobe, though I don’t think he’s much of a gay right activist either, and I believe he doesn’t support gay marriage.
Either you think that no one can represent anyone who is different, or you think Congress should have an ethnic, gender, and preference quota in its representatives, which would get pretty convoluted and confused. I say we pick the best person for the job, and ignore their personal life, except insofar as it impinges on their ability to serve the public. The guy who was picking up underaged teenagers in the train station can stay home.
I don’t see how this is much more than a moot point. If a politician or one of their aides are gay the press is going to out them eventually anyway. Especially if they are conservative. Even if they are democrats, the press will out them sooner or later, it’s just to much for them to pass up. If they can catch a politician in a red hot sex scandal there is no way the MSM will give it a pass. Obambi is probably the only exception to this rule in history. I still can’t believe no one, man or woman, has come forward to say they knew him when. There is no way Michelle could be his one and only.
Suppose you are attracted to the same sex. Suppose you choose to be discrete about your same-sex friendships. Suppose despite reasonable efforts to be discrete someone uncovers a homosexual relationship you are involved in. It would be wrong for him to disclose that fact and it would be doubly wrong to disclose it because he thinks you are anti-gay or that you support anti-gay policies. There are many things we do not disclose about ourselves. Others may or may not have a right to know. We may not be proud of our desires and behavior. The truth may harm innocent people. Sexual orientation is not a public fact unless we choose to make it so.
Stalinist! How can PJ Media publish this woman.
How is this different from what David Axelrod does? Please, Miss Yockey, join the Obama campaign; you belong there.
My uncle “came out” in the 80′s. It was difficult and uncomfortable, especially
with the Hispanic side of the family, who mostly happen to be social conservatives. But he tells me that it was NOTHING compared to the hateful intolerance he gets from bullies like Ms. Yockey whenever he dares to disagree with the “gay” agenda.
What I find repulsive about this article is NOT that she is demanding that elected officials be held accountable for their character. I don’t see this issue that much different than the adultery issue. Conservatives generally will not support a candidate who claims to support family values while having a mistress on the side – or a candidate who is against drugs but uses, writes tough domestic abuse laws while beating their wife and children, etc., etc.
No, what I find repulsive is the implication that they should be outed if they don’t tow the “gay” agenda. To put it in terms even she can probably understand: As long as Newt or Herman supports family values in their voting record, then it is okay to help them remain “discreet”.
There is a word for people who are willing to look the other way for John Edwards but then eagerly dig the dirt on Newt. It is hypocrite.
Anyone who puts an identity ahead of humanity is not worth knowing.
Let’s say your doctor drinks and smokes yet tell you it is bad for you and you should quit. His or her personal actions and habits do not vitiate the accuracy of the advice.
Never forget that if you live by the sword you die by the sword. It’s not that you will meet a better, but rather that you have room for complaint if you meet your end that way. Same goes for identity politics.
Again, anyone who basis their judgments on personal circumstance is trash.
Among the many flaws in Yockey’s argument is that it is based on the idea that those politicians who are promoting “anti-gay activism” deserve to be outed. But determining what constitutes “anti-gay activism” is dangerously subjective. If a politician is asked whether he or she appreciates the TV show Glee and answers in the negative…can that be ascribed to anti-gay bias? Is that evidence? Of course, Yockey is not being intellectually honest when she poses such ideas as These days, vehement anti-gay activism is practically an announcement that you’re gay.
Really? How convenient…
I just had this same conversation with a gay friend of mine. I told her I believed gay couples, striving to achieve some semblance of a normal life are constantly set back by the flaming activists in their group – which gives all of them a serious image problem. If you do make that choice, go about your business. If you are an activist – running up and down the streets wearing azzless chaps – prepare for complete social irrelevance – and don’t be surprised at the damage you do to your own cause.
This is not question of “packaging” but one of reality. Put lipstick, a tuxedo and sew hands on a pig and marry it and sons and daughters will not issue the majority of the time.
In fact let me go out on the same politically correct limb that declares it wrong to make sandwiches out of babies or pull the heads off of cute little kitty cats and say never.
Can’t believe the day has come when you are sized up by your sexual orientation!The government ought to stay out of peoples bedrooms!One ought to be able to keep their personal lives to themselves if they wish! But, if it is contrary to their public persona on legislation related to their Congressional position, that should be exposed as a hypocritical lie!
And, Ms Yockey, I hope that you are dating someone single. You deserve better than being someone’s weekend entertainment. Mistress-ing is a hard, bitter life. You are a nice person, and you deserve better than furtive, shameful assignments in the half-light of gossip.
Whoever dates you ought to be proud of you, and willing to show you off.
Perhaps what this author is calling anti-gay activism is really pro-family activism. It is not anyone’s business to be “outing” someone. Sexuality is a very small, private part of a healthy human’s life. Do what you want to do in private and don’t expect people to support embarrassing public displays of your sexuality.
Yockey’s “since straight people flaunt their sexual orientation 24/7″ is a puzzle to me. I am soon turning 66 years old and I have yet to see/hear anyone “flaunting” their sexual orientation EXCEPT homosexuals. I am referring to those who grope each other in public, that sort of thing. For the most part, the homosexual couples I have known have not “flaunted” their relationship either! They just live their lives like other couples do. I don’t get what the heck she is talking about. I live near San Francisco and on December 10, the homosexuals in that fine city marched to a park NAKED with only a Santa hat on. Now THAT is flaunting!
When I meet someone new, the first thing out of his/her mouth is not “I am a heterosexual”. In fact, I have never had it come up in a conversation. Neither have I had a homosexual define themselves to me in that way. So just what is Ms. Yockey alluding to? Men dressed as men? Is that flaunting? Women wearing a bra? It is a ridiculous statement she makes and her whole argument that homosexuals in Congress, the Senate or in any other government position must “out” themselves is too.
Why must we define ourselves by our sexuality anyway? As others have commented here, the person elected to a government position is a representative of that person’s constituency. The person has promised the voters that if he/she is elected, he/she will represent their views on laws or resolutions brought for consideration. As a representative, he/she has a duty to keep the promises made in campaigning and represent THEM (the voters) not their own personal opinions. I would hope that for the most part that who we elect will already be in agreement with his/her voters.
I am disappointed to even read this rubbish today but I will say that it has sparked a great deal of commentary which may be a good thing. I disagree with her stand and I am very tired of homosexuals seeing everything through the homosexual lens.
First, let’s get this out of the way, straights DO flaunt their orientation–their ‘sexuality’, if you will, all the time. They have to. It’s called normal human interaction.
See, the ‘flaunting’ includes things like the preponderance of hetero couples in films, books, TV shows, and commercials, like the wanton kissing goodbye of one’s spouse, like the flagrant appearing in public in hetero association.
It’s a very broad term.
They use it because they feel they can’t do it. And they can’t.
There can never be a preponderance of gay images because there aren’t enough gay people. Despite Kinsey, they are only 1-2% of the population.
So when they try to flaunt, they FLAUNT.
It’s why they are so focused on their sexuality. They know they’re not the ‘norm’–no matter how many times they try to appear as such.
Frankly, I don’t really care. I sincerely wish they could just meld in, that they could just do all the things that they see as ‘flaunting’ and not focus on the fact that they have to deal with the vast majority of humanity being straight. But, those that can are a small minority in a tiny slice of humanity.
And then there’s this article in toto. What happened? Did a Kos diarist get posted by accident? This woman is no conservative–she’s an ardent leftist aiming to harm people for not toeing the leftist line on homosexuality. I trust she will not sully the site again.
I have no problem with homosexuals supportign us. But I suggest blackmail-advocate Yockey please go join Obama’s campaign; David Axelrod could use an assitant on the divorce-papers-outing beat.
Shouldn’t gays be tattoed on their forehead? Perhaps, federal employees should be tattoed and a tag stapled to their chest. Why do they call it gay when so many of them are so unhappy?
It seems like other commenters have suitably deconstructed Ms. Yockey’s horrendous case for using the details of people’s personal lives as political weaponry (an ethical line I’m disgusted to see PJ Media crossing, by the way), so instead I’ll look at another fundamentally un-conservative aspect of her column.
“Not only is your sexual orientation almost impossible to hide, but also knowing it is so fundamental to creating rapport that practically everyone you meet automatically sizes you up and makes their own decision no matter what you say.”
Excuse me? Knowing someone’s sexual orientation is essential for basic human interaction? That sounds to me like a particularly unhealthy manifestation of Leftism’s fixation on identity politics, under which people are their race/sex/orientation, rather than the content of their individual characters.
Does she by any chance have hickies the size of frisbees because the term “internet” may be politeness run amok.