So I am back... the paid gig is up and running, and my friend Ray is on a plane home. Meanwhile, all hell has broken loose.
Apparently, Senator Larry Craig has become the first of what purports to be a string of high profile "outings" of possibly gay men in high ranking positions in the GOP (Craig's office denies the allegations that just came out). This is based on a "list" of supposed gay men floating around DC.
Of course, there's a lot that's tied up in this - the curious history of "outing" which cropped up initially as part of AIDS protests, which took on more urgency when Congress started pursuing "anti-gay-marriage" legislation," and which perked up again after Mark Foley's behavior came to light (I've mentioned some of that here, here and here).
I've spent a long time contemplating outing - partly because as with most gay folks, it's personal, and partly because I think obne's position should be thought through. I think everyone, in an ideal world, should come out on their own, in their own time, in a way that they're comfortable with. But after a lot of thought, I've come to agree, essentially, with Michelangelo Signorile that outing is probably what needs to be done in the cases where it comes up. I've come to this conclusion for two reasons - public figures have no reasonable expectation of privacy, and there's nothing wrong with being gay.
Second thing first - the reason that the closet has power, why hiding is accepted, is a lingering social stigma that says there's something wrong with being gay. One should be embarrased or ashamed; it's all bad. That's simply not so, and ironically, the Foley incident may have carried that truth to its logical conclusion, as conservative Republicans try to explain that not finding Foley sooner would have been "antigay" and that Foley's quietly gay lifestyle was accepted. Add the recent photo of Mark Dybul's confirmation, and it's clear that we've readhed a new plateau of gay acceptance.
The other, less liked point is that public figures are just that, public. First amendment law around libel is clear - public figures do not have a reasonable expectation of privacy, once you are a figure in the press, pretty much everything is fair game (the other part of libel being absence of malice). We are a nosy, gossipy society; it's not our most admirable quality, but it's also not our worst. By bringing formerly "dark" secrets out into the light, we've helped to give exposure to spousal abuse, alcoholism, and child abuse by Catholic priests, to name only a few. And we've made being gay just another part of the fabric of our world.
I'm not happy about "the list." I think it does a disservice for some of the left to push this the way they have; but the fact is that conservatives have walked into an obvious trap, defending those on the list from those who would give them a hard time about their sexuality. Apparently, there really is nothing wrong with being gay. But the larger point is that the list has power only as long as those on the list agree that revealing their names will hurt them. Being out is what makes 'the list" irrelevant. Those who suggest "purges" of gay staffers are the ones who show what power the list possesses, and are the true heirs of "sexual McCarthyism." And if conservatives are unconcerned about gay people in the Republican Party, then we have truly reached an amazing moment. Pardon me for suspecting that what is really happening is yet another example of the growing fissures within the GOP coalition, as years of pandering to the worst homophobic impulses of some religious conservatives is finally coming home to roost.
Comments