Obligatory Political Post of the Day

[muscadine]

Second Exodus Ad
See it here. (pdf) More at Ex-gay Watch (or if you prefer, exgaywatch)

Also:
The outing in Washington continues. Another story here.

And this must-see TV:
Jon Stewart on "Talking Points" (from atrios)

Comments

[glenrock.livejournal.com]

I don't believe in outing anyone who doesn't choose to out himself. I also don't think it's automatically hypocritical for a gay person to vote for or work for someone with an unfavorable gay record - unless being gay is the only part of your life that counts.

In most elections, we have two choices. Do you know anyone who ever lines up 100% with either of them? If not, then you'd agree one has to make some compromises if he participates in the system at all. Here's a hypothetical example:

Politician A:
I agree with him on: taxes, education, health care, crime and punishment, defense, labor, the environment, guns, abortion
I disagree with him on: gay rights

Politican B:
I agree with him on: gay rights
I disagree with him on: taxes, education, health care, crime and punishment, defense, labor, the environment, guns, abortion.

How hypocritical is it for a gay man to support A over B? And why should this person be 'outed' if he works for A?

[hyounpark.livejournal.com]

In today's day and age, personal hypocrisy is considered a political issue. If you're gay and engage in explicit anti-gay political activities, it's going to be noticed. It's just like being pro-marriage and having infidelity problems. Once Monica Lewinsky became front-page news, that cat was let out of the bag for good for separating public and private actions. Politics stopped simply being about public stances and actions when the Republicans actively sought the moral backing of the Religious Right. That's "why" this person should be outed.

Do I think he really should be outed? No, but then I think there's a lot of moral grandstanding in politics right now that really isn't news. If a guy wants to sell out his ability to be a full citizen because he'd rather work on other aspects of the country, that's his right. If you want to be anti-Christian Baptist or an anti-business CEO or an anti-education scientist, go right ahead. (although anyone who really took a conscious stand on gay rights would also have opinions on taxes, education, health care, crime and punishment, and labor that were directly affected by gay rights so it's unlikely that those viewpoints would all be separate unless they were conflicting and inconsistent.)

Politically,
Hyoun

[glenrock.livejournal.com]

I understand that hypocrisy is an important political issue, but I still fail to see how gay rights is the only test that counts toward determining whether someone can be called a hypocrite. If someone is gay and pro-life, is that person an 'abortion hypocrite' if he supports the pro-gay, pro-choice candidate? Maybe abortion is a more important issue to him and he chooses to support the anti-gay, pro-life candidate. I know that many gay people feel that their sexual orientation is the single most important identifying characteristic of their humanity, but not everyone feels that way.

I would also disagree with the notion that most gay people should automatically hold liberal positions on all other political issues in order to maintain consistency. It is possible for a gay person to favor low taxes, gun rights, capitalism, and a strong national defense without compromising his sexuality.

[hyounpark.livejournal.com]

"If someone is gay and pro-life, is that person an 'abortion hypocrite' if he supports the pro-gay, pro-choice candidate?"

It's harder to show hypocrisy over an issue that doesn't represent behavior. If that someone had previously undergone a legal abortion that she thought was necessary for herself and was now working to make abortion illegal, that would be hypocritical. Without that personal behavior that can be unveiled, it's harder to judge public hypocrisy. There may be moral hypocrisy, but that's harder to judge because of its private nature. There are definite political differences between actions of public record and statements of personal morals. That's how hypocrisy works in politics. Moral flip-flops are just harder to adequately communicate. A few other life-related issues can be similarly judged to be hypocritical: marriage, fidelity, military service, and maybe crime. Not all issues are similarly translatable to our political discourse, for better or for worse.

Capitalism and national defense aren't even on the table at this point: no major candidate believes that communism or socialism works or we should skimp on national defense. The questions are how they should be implemented and which special interests will end up being more subsidized, although this is sadly too subtle for a national debate. Anyone who thinks capitalism and strong national defense are still conservative political positions is living in the Cold War and pre 9/11 era. It's just as honest to say that legislating morality is still a liberal issue.

Low taxes depend on a person's ability to envision property rights, national defense and security, economic opportunities and civil stability as an individual vs. state matter, though a pro gay-rights stance could go either way based on a libertarian argument or a civil security argument. But taxes are one measure of our personal commitment to our national well-being. And gun rights really have nothing to do with gay rights, based on the anti-gay violence statistics that I've seen (which would presumably be the only link), even if some politicized groups might disagree. At least that's how I see it.

Additionally,
Hyoun

[legolastn.livejournal.com]

BTW, I don't know if you saw my first post on the topic (Politics Ain't Beanbag). I fully admit to being amused by the whole thing, although I haven't really said whether I think it is "right" or "wrong."

In general, I think private citizens should never be outed unless they choose to out themselves. OTOH, I tend to think public personas/ celebrities should not be allowed a double-standard in the reporting of their private lives. Rosie O'Donnell, for just one example, was showing up to public events with "friends" long before she outed herself. This was largely ignored or euphemized by the media. In this day and age, I don't think that's right, as it works under the assumption that being GLBT is something that one should be ashamed of or hide.

Elected officials, IMO, clearly count as public personas. Their staff members...it's a bit more of a grey area. First of all, how "out" are they already? If they are out in the community, should they have some sort of right to have this information withheld in the media? I'd tend to say no.

If they're more-or-less totally closeted, I think outing GLBT staff members just for supporting anti-GLBT-rights politicians is, at the very least, dirty politics. But then politics is dirty. OTOH, if closeted GLBTs (even private citizens) personally speak out publically against GLBTs/GLBT rights, I think outing them is just, if not necessarily compassionate.

Among other things, the Blade reported:

As far back as 1994, Dowless, then the director of the Christian Coalition of Florida, was quoted in the New York Times opposing the popular Gay Days event at Disney World in Orlando because it allegedly was a threat to kids.

“This whole day is focusing on sex,” Dowless was quoted as saying, “and when you put these elements together, there is the greater possibility of illegal activities on children or some harassment.”

In 1997, Dowless, still in his role as director of the state’s Christian Coalition, cheered when the University of Florida rescinded a student spouse ID card that had been given to the partner of a lesbian student. The card gave spouses of students special advantages, such as use of the university’s libraries and recreational facilities.

“Marriage should be reserved for a man and a woman,” Dowless told the Alligator, the student publication.

So, I don't have a problem with Dowless being outed.

In the past, Fordham has told the Blade that he is "out in the community but not in the press."

As I said above, I'm leaning towards not having a problem with this either, but it's more iffy.

Some say, in an extended olive branch to Virginia gay residents, Timmons arranged the then-Senatorial candidate’s 2000 controversial meeting with the Log Cabin Republican Club of Northern Virginia, in which he promised to “keep an open door toward their concerns.”

Given this, and the fact that Timmons' "mentor" has a non-discrimination policy for his staff, I'd lean towards it not being right to out him, since he does seem to be having a potentially moderating effect on the Senator's opinions, rather than just silently standing by and accepting his anti-gay opinions.

[arielspirit.livejournal.com]

Once again the Exodus ad makes me ill. But luckily I am now over at the Comedy Central site watching Jon Stewart clips, laughing, and having my faith in humanity restrored. Hopefully the boss doesn't catch me. :)