DEMOCRATIC PARTY PARTISANS TO ‘OUT’ GAY REPUBLICANS
Imagine being a homosexual who, for whatever reason - family, business, or personal - chooses not to publicly divulge their sexuality?
For some, it is a question of politics. And after 8 years of hearing the left say that a person’s sexual life is not the business of the public and what someone does when they are not doing the people’s business should be their own affair, it takes a lot of sand to suddenly become interested in such matters when they involve a member of the opposite party.
There exists a small homosexual clique that has taken it upon themselves to “out” gay Republicans. These vicious slime merchants inhabit “alternative” media including websites, newspapers, and now, Hollywood. Their stated goal; to expose “hypocrisy” by outing conservative politicians, and even more incredibly, those who work as aides for the lawmaker.
I will let “Andy” of the lefty gay blog Towelroad, give you an inkling of the kind of tactics used as he touts the opening of a film entitled (with exquisite, unintentional irony) “Outrage,” that will expose several gay Republicans who have chosen to keep their sexual preference to themselves:
Dick’s deft layering of audio tapes, interviews, and sexual confessions against the anti-gay votes these politicians have made reveals how journalists and the mainstream media, which the film ultimately damns for its refusal to expose hypocrisy, have been complicit in keeping public figures in the closet.
And the tragic and horrific effect the closet has had on LGBT rights and public policy is made all the more clear.
I debated whether I should actually link to the site and in the end, decided against it. I am not in the business of outing anyone which would be the practical effect of linking them. Google it if you are curious.
Why commit this heinous crime against privacy? They don’t agree politically with the targets of their slimey attacks, that’s why. And basically, it comes down to the issue of gay marriage and their notions of “gay rights.” Because their targets don’t promote their idea of a political agenda, this is “hypocrisy” in their book and must be “exposed” by divulging the most personal and private matters that anyone possesses; their sexual orientation.
In other words, despite the fact that their disagreement is political, they have chosen to respond by personally attacking the objects of their rage and in the process, attempting to ruin their lives.
There is more than one political ”agenda” for gays as just about any gay Republican or conservative can tell you. The fact that the pond scum who are outing these Republicans refuse to acknowledge this fact of political life shows them to be nothing more than partisan hacks who, in a gentler age, would have been consigned to the absolute fringes of American politics where even some of the whackos wouldn’t have come near them with a ten foot pole.
Now, they make big money and receive the kudo’s of their ideological soul mates for sticking it to the opposition in the most rank, unjustified, and irrefutably base way imaginable.
“Outrage” indeed. This kind of thing used to be done by hiring private investigators and handing off the damaging information in some dark alley. No one would dream of openly congratulating themselves for their shocking breach of ethics and common decency.
Now they make films that celebrate their sleazey political gambits.
I wrote this a couple of years ago when Mike Rogers (who used to partner with Americablog’s John Avarosis in outing people against their will) was outing Republican Congressmen and staff. It is appropos of what is happening today:
How any decent Democrat can stomach this worthless specimen of humanity is one reason I will never switch parties. I may be very angry with the Republican party at the moment, despise parts of its agenda, and have nothing but contempt for a broad swath of its leaders. But the GOP has nothing comparable to the Rogers operation.
Oh, they have their oppo researchers and underhanded tactics. But that’s politics boys and girls, get used to it or get out. What Rogers does has nothing to do with politics and everything to do with personal aggrandizement and the accumulation of power. And the fact that the Democratic left latches on to this lickspittle of a man and gives him encouragement puts them beyond the pale in my book.
There are many gay Republicans who oppose much of what Rogers considers “gay rights” including gay marriage. Conservative gays have wide ranging opinions on what constitutes gay rights. For Rogers to set himself up as an arbiter of opinion among conservatives - gay or not - about what people should believe is an astonishing demonstration of arrogance.
Quite simply, it’s none of his business. This is especially true of Congressional staffers who are not responsible to the voters but rather to the Member of Congress they work for. To “out” a staffer just because Rogers hears rumors about him is beyond belief. What possible difference can it make to Rogers except by outing the aide, he can put another notch on his gun. One more victim of his one man pogrom against gay Republicans who won’t slavishly think as he does.
This man is a blight on American politics and should be banished from public life forever. Instead, like his partner in “exposing Republican hypocrisy” porn magnate Larry Flynt, they receive the plaudits and adoration of the left for their efforts.
The Democratic party won’t do anything about these radical smear artists. Why should they? It is the Democrats who will benefit when some of the targets of these attacks are defeated for re-election. The press won’t do anything either. They have abandoned their role of referree to take an active part in destroying those who disagree with them politically. They would never dream of covering a film produced by Stormfront or neo-Nazi skinheads. But watch as they feel themselves “compelled” to report on what these political hatchetmen have produced.
Everyone knows that politics is a rough game and not for those with weak stomachs or too many skeletons in their closet.
But there used to be lines that just weren’t crossed regardless of the provocation. Letting it be known that a candidate’s wife was a drunk or a floozy was one such barrier although what earthly difference it would make to voters was never quite made clear. Regardless, the press was usually pretty good about refereeing the political playing field, coming down hard on anyone that crossed the boundaries of taste and what passes for “fair play” in such a cutthroat world.
Where’s the line now?
This post originally appears in The American Thinker
Where’s the line? At 110% fealty to the Leftist cause, where it has been for the Left the last 40 years.
Comment by steveegg — 4/24/2009 @ 7:26 am
I think clearly some effort needs to be made to “out” heterosexual democrats. Could take some time to work up a list though …
Comment by Beekums — 4/24/2009 @ 8:51 am
This is literally the most ironic thing I’ve ever read here. Well done.
This means something? And you say that so often no one can possibly believe you.
Care to share? Or were you just throwing strawmen as you usually do?
ed.
Comment by Chuck Tucson — 4/24/2009 @ 8:52 am
In the recent past, the line used by the press was slowly creeping away from the center but today it seems to be careening wildly to the left and even beyond.
And the one question I do not see being asked or answered is why? Why has MSM slunk so low? And I would be asking this question regardless of the tilt - right or left.
The press, the media, MSM if you will was widely regarded as the fourth estate. That extra check and balance of our political system that the founding fathers could not seem to wedge into the constitutional process - even though it was influential in determining the constitiutional development of the day with the publication and debate centered around the Federalist Papers and other publication of note in those days.
In its history, there have been mild swings to the left and right (Remember the Maine?) that have been looked on by historians as dark chapters of our history. Dark not only because of the events of the day - Dark because one of those great checks and balances of our system was out of whack and our system tilted as a result.
But why the tilt so far to the left today by the media? Does the fear of the result of honest reporting scare the press powers of the day that they see honest reporting as snuggling up to some right wing demon in their minds? Or is it simply that this fourth estate that we have so lovingly relied upon was never the credible agent we always thought it was.
What’s the answer. I for one would like to know.
Comment by SShiell — 4/24/2009 @ 9:04 am
Where’s the line? Obliterated when Republicans tried to take down an American president for lying about a private sex act.
Republicans didn’t “out” anybody. The revelation was part of a government investigation - partisan if you will - but nevertheless, legitimate under the law.
I knew some knucklehead would try and equate the two. Unbelievable that any rational human being could possibly make a connection between a lawful investigation that ended up proving the president told a lie under oath and the destruction of the lives and careers by partisans acting in a private manner - and about to make a lot of money doing it.
Try again. And is it my imagination or are you devolving into one of the biggest partisan hacks who comments on this site?
ed.
Comment by michael reynolds — 4/24/2009 @ 9:31 am
While I agree 100% that this guy is a blight, this is an empty statement… there is no authority in charge of banishment.
This, however is a lie. Even you point out that these are actions of a small clique. Does Rogers have an audience of like-minded jerks and fools? Yes. Does the Left en masse adore this guy? No.
What would you like to see the Democratic Party do? If they denounced this behavior, would you say “Great, they made a statement on principle”, or would you say “The hypocritical lefties are weeping crocodile tears as they further publicize this jerk.”
Comment by Postagoras — 4/24/2009 @ 9:44 am
Social Conservatives built the very closet that gay people find themselves in. Your outrage at those who attempt to dismantle it seems phony, despite their bullshit means of going about doing it.
Are you incredibly naive? Or incredibly dense?
You REALLY believe they are “dismantling” the closet? They are playing hardball politics pure and simple. Get real.
ed.
Comment by Chuck Tucson — 4/24/2009 @ 10:15 am
heinous crime?
ok.
Comment by HyperIon — 4/24/2009 @ 11:18 am
I knew some knucklehead would try and equate the two. Unbelievable that any rational human being could possibly make a connection between a lawful investigation that ended up proving the president told a lie under oath and the destruction of the lives and careers by partisans acting in a private manner - and about to make a lot of money doing it.
Try again. And is it my imagination or are you devolving into one of the biggest partisan hacks who comments on this site?
I know it irritates you when people point out that partisan behavior on your side sometimes results in blowback.
No, I won’t equate the two, because what you guys tried to do — remove a duly-elected president on a pretense — is far worse. The GOP made it crystal clear that it would sink to any depths to gain political advantage.
The GOP made itself the party of witch hunts and take-no-prisoners attacks under Atwater and Rove and Ken Starr and Dan Burton and Henry Hyde and Newt Gingrich and on and on and on.
So don’t come crying that some magic line of discretion has gone away when you are the ones who did so much to erase it.
By the way, do you really want to play that old song about having to follow the letter of the law and prosecute every offense? Because I can name a president, a vice president, and various cabinet officers who seem to have conspired to break the law on torture. You want to apply the letter of the law? Then you’ll have no problem when Holder arrests Don Rumsfeld.
I’m actually opposed to prosecuting Mr. Bush and Mr. Cheney and Mr. Rumsfeld for their gross violations of the law, which would make me rather less of a political hack than anyone who still dares justify the impeachment of Bill Clinton.
Comment by michael reynolds — 4/24/2009 @ 11:20 am
I don’t think this can, or should, be viewed as a matter of pure politics. There is simply not a large following for this man within the general left or the Democratic party in particular. There is, however, a following within the gay community. (A different kettle of fish entirely.)
While the gay community is not monolithic on the subject of gay rights it would be a wild stretch of the imagination to suggest that there is anything other than a general consensus on the matter within the gay community. That consensus hinges on the idea that gay marriage etc. are predicated on full and equal human rights. Anything less than that would be seen as a betrayal of the community. In short, most gay men and women will see this less as pure politics and more as a matter of addressing “their own”.
It might also be noted that conservatives who are truly blind to personal sexuality should be hard pressed to see this as an act of destructive smearing. How is it destructive or denigrating to confirm that someone is homosexual if sexuality is truly personal and not a basis for exclusion or shame?
Comment by Chance Randel — 4/24/2009 @ 11:33 am
The radical Modern Liberal thugs’ line was drawn decades ago by Marcuse’s “Liberating Tolerance” (i.e., ‘intolerance for anything coming from the Right and tolerance for anything coming from the Left’).
See:
http://www.academia.org/lectures/lind1.html
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qyu-9-OhHog
Comment by Don C. — 4/24/2009 @ 12:28 pm
Whose hypocrisy is more venal:
A.) A closeted homosexual Republican elected official.
B.) A Democrat elected official that embraces blacklisting.
Comment by Don C. — 4/24/2009 @ 12:50 pm
To the extent that the conservatives targeted have never spoken out against homosexuals, I quite agree with you.
To the extent that they have, I’m going to have to respectfully disagree. When someone in public service is building a career out of bashing a certain group of people, all the while secretly being a part of that certain group of people, I see nothing wrong with exposing that hypocrisy.
For example, let’s say there were a black politician who painted himself white, never let himself be seen with his true skin color, and went on TV bashing black people for all of the troubles in the world. Would it be out of line to point out that, yes, indeed, this person is black?
If you believe that homosexuality is not a choice, as I do, that analogy is pretty spot-on.
Comment by Russell Miller — 4/24/2009 @ 1:24 pm
Chuck;
“Social Conservatives built the very closet that gay people find themselves in. Your outrage at those who attempt to dismantle it seems phony, despite their bullshit means of going about doing it.”
So how does this “dismantle” the closet? It would seem to reinforce the closet if being in the closet means that if people around me knew I was gay it would be humiliating, dangerous to my job …Won’t this reinforce that conviction?
Comment by c3 — 4/24/2009 @ 1:40 pm
I like all this stuff about “outing” and sex. It takes our minds off how both parties are complicit in authorizing the interrogation “techniques” and nobody in either party wants any independent investigation into who knew what with regard to the “techniques”.
No partisan witch hunts. Give me sex any time!
Comment by bsjones — 4/24/2009 @ 2:46 pm
I think there are two different things at play. One is the brutal smear tactic employed for political gain. Been around forever and has nothing to do with any political stance (remember John McCain’s black child in the SC primary). It’s just a tool to hurt your adversary.
The other is the desire by a part of the gay community to shove their ideas on sexuality and society down everyone’s throat and they don’t take any prisoners. It shouldn’t matter what people do or don’t do behind closed doors but who am I kidding. Sad.
Comment by funny man — 4/24/2009 @ 3:13 pm
Who are these gay Republican politicians? I want to send them some money for their next campaign…if they are conservatives.
Comment by cdor — 4/24/2009 @ 4:59 pm
[...] about a documentary called Outrage that purports to out closeted gay Republicans, which was brought to his attention by the perpetually outraged Rick Moran, who spotted a post about it at Towleroad, a blog for gay [...]
Pingback by Because sexual orientation is NOT private — Cynthia Yockey — 4/24/2009 @ 5:14 pm
Several points here:
First, for the life of me, I don’t know of any respected director who fiddles with such tremendous intellectual bankruptcy while allowing himself to allot a considerable segment of the documentary to nothing but a panoply of baseless accusations and rumors on Charlie Crist’s sexual orientation. That is simply a dishonest attempt in concocting a story to garner up sensational activism. The remaining of the documentary appears to recapitulate the same old stories of politicians who have been, one way or another, outed or come out — nothing new here.
Some people question the methodology of certain groups, aka OutRage!, in outing public officials and in some cases, their decision has been absolutely abhorrent. The action, in my opinion, should be looked upon in a case by case basis. One’s sexual preference should, by the rule of thumb, be a private matter unless the action, first, diametrically opposes one’s very being, and second, the individual retroactively seeks to undermine the rights of others while privately practicing against his/her rendering of law. I think Barney Frank has adequately put it when he says (paraphrasing), “You have a right to privacy, but not to hypocrisy.” You can not be for abortion while performing it behind closed doors, especially when your ongoing pursue of abortion rights on the floor of legislation clearly goes against your deeds.
Comment by Elizho — 4/24/2009 @ 5:31 pm
Guys like Limbaugh preach their hate 24/7 and Rick is worried a gay group outing gay republicans. No one of the Democratic side is cheering these folks on. I guess America has woken up to the facts that most conservatives are hyprocrites. Especially ones that are outraged at the drop of a hat. The gop stands for nothing and shows us every day.
Comment by Joe — 4/24/2009 @ 7:50 pm
The link says this: “If we look at it analytically, if we look at it historically, we quickly find out exactly what it is. Political Correctness is cultural Marxism.”
Here is more, in his detailed exposition of the Institute for Social Research at Frankfurt in the 1930s:
This is pertinent because the “theory is to criticize”. Outing of a gay person who chooses to keep his sexuality private is a hostile act meant to criticize - IT IS DECONSTRUCTION APPLIED TO A HUMAN BEING.
Ponder that, and then ponder ‘the politics of personal destruction’ and the use of the ‘race card’ … these are the rotten fruit of a poisoned tree.
Comment by Travis Monitor — 4/24/2009 @ 7:54 pm
“Guys like Limbaugh preach their hate 24/7″
Garbage - no he doesnt. You are the hater here spewing slander. Rush has his opinion and it is often good and well-considered compared with the nonsense from the other side eg from Air America or MSNBC, but you just dont like his conservative views. So you call his pro-limited-govt opinion ‘hate’ and you call them ‘hypocrites’ when YOU are the hater and the hypocrite for engaging in these personal character attacks.
I am sick of the intolerance of differences of opinion on the liberal side and the left. They really are over-eager to engage in personal attacks and slanders and dissent suppression.
Comment by Travis Monitor — 4/24/2009 @ 8:03 pm
President Clinton committed perjury, lying under oath in a sexual harrassment suit. It’s appalling to think that perjury and keeping one’s private life private are the same line.
BTW The real hypocrites on that score were the feminists who would subject any male in America to getting legally beaten to a pulp on such a sexual harrassment matter, and would demand a male behaving in such a way (as Clinton did) be FIRED IMMEDIATELY. Even though Bob Packwood never treated a woman as badly as Clinton treated Kathleen Willey, Clinton got the get-out-of-feminist-way-free card due to being a pro-abort Democrat.
Comment by Travis Monitor — 4/24/2009 @ 8:14 pm
Rep Barney Frank has engaged in evils, corruptions, lies and assualts on our liberties that go so far beyond the nitpicking flaw of hypocrisy that he has no RIGHT to lecture mere hypocrites. It’s like Bernie Madoff lecturing cheap tippers.
Let he who is without a history of abusing his Congressional office to get his live-in gay prostitute boy toy out of legal trouble cast the first stone.
Comment by Travis Monitor — 4/24/2009 @ 8:23 pm
Another thought struck me - the Clarence Thomas precedent:
The point here is that conservative gays are NOT lock-step with the “Gay Agenda” so to speak. They may not think, for example, that gay marriage is necessary nor desirable.
#10 says: “That consensus hinges on the idea that gay marriage etc. are predicated on full and equal human rights. Anything less than that would be seen as a betrayal of the community.”
So what we have in gay conservatives are individuals who go AGAINST THE GRAIN OF GAY IDENTITY POLITICS, just as Clarence Thomas when against the grain of black identity politics (or for that matter Sarah Palin goes against feminist grain). Such individuals are considered even worse than the white/male/hetero conservatives - they are traitors to their ‘group’.
As such, the outing can be seen as an attempt to personally destroy any individuals (ie gay conservatives) who hard-core identity politics leftists think are illegitimate. That expression of illegitimacy we see in the false charge of ‘hypocrisy’. (NB it is not hypocrisy to have an opinion about the rights of a group that goes agains the identity politics grain; it is merely a DIFFERENT opinion!)
Comment by Travis Monitor — 4/24/2009 @ 8:35 pm
President Clinton committed perjury, lying under oath in a sexual harrassment suit. It’s appalling to think that perjury and keeping one’s private life private are the same line.
And all law-breaking must be prosecuted. Right?
Like, say, conspiracy to torture? I really want to hear your answer here. I want you to tell me that we had to impeach Clinton for lying about a blow job because the law is the law.
Because you know what, my friend? If the law is the law and we cannot help but prosecute, I think we may see Dick Cheney in handcuffs.
Comment by michael reynolds — 4/24/2009 @ 9:19 pm
[...] believe in SOME people’s right to privacy But not if they are Gay Republicans! Let’s call this Selective Privacy [...]
Pingback by DEmocrats believe in SOME people’s right to privacy « The Daley Gator — 4/24/2009 @ 9:50 pm
It seems to me that if Clinton hadn’t lied under oath he wouldn’t have been impeached, blow job or no blow job.
If Cheney lied under oath, he should have been impeached as well, although it’s a little late for impeachment. You and your ilk, Mr Reynolds, want to prosecute Cheney for “conspiring” with the POTUS legal team to determine how far interrogators could go legally, but forcefully, to extract information from killers determined to murder thousands of Americans. If conspiring with a team of lawyers to determine a legal course of action is illegal, we can expect the courts to be busy for years to come.
Mr Reynolds, bring it on, tough guy, The depositions will be fascinating.
Speaking of blow jobs…I thought this post was about outrageously rude and in your face gays. That certainly isn’t Cheney. I’ll let you defend your man, Clinton.
Comment by cdor — 4/24/2009 @ 10:20 pm
Outing gay Republicans: Fair game or invasion of privacy?
http://hotair.com/archives/2009/04/24/outing-gay-republicans-fair-game-or-invasion-of-privacy/
Comment by StewartIII — 4/24/2009 @ 10:55 pm
Talk about missing the boat… The whole idea is about outing hypocrisy. I don’t have a problem with someone keeping their sexual activities private, but if it’s discovered that a closeted gay politician voted AGAINST gay/lesbian/bisexual/transgendered issues simply because he wants to protect his little secret then you can guarantee that this little group of GLBT folk will be all over that like a pack of dogs on a three legged cat!!! It doesn’t matter who the person is or what the party affiliation. If it’s a Republican then they will be exposed for their hypocrisy. HOWEVER, if it’s determined that the closeted politician is a Democrat, then watch out because he will be DEVOURED (metaphorically speaking of course) and his bones will be cast aside and crushed into dust!!! While we (Yes, I am gay) can be somewhat rutheless with a member of our community serving the Republican party and voting against self-interests, if we were ever to find someone like that among the Democrats (which would technically make him our ally) the response from us would be even worse!!!
Let’s be fair and not go for spin. This whole article is painting a one-sided argument. We are only out to expose hypocritical behavior in politics, REGARDLESS of the party affiliation!!! Let me say that again. We are exposing HYPOCRISY, and it doesn’t matter the political party.
“…but if it’s discovered that a closeted gay politician voted AGAINST gay/lesbian/bisexual/transgendered issues…”
Yes - and those “issues” are determined by liberal gay activists for the most part. The belief that there is only one agenda for gays is arrogant - but effective propaganda.
And I call bullshit on exposing hypocrites in politics regardless of party. When you expose a Democrat for anything, come back and see me.
ed.
Comment by Ben Ragunton — 4/25/2009 @ 1:17 am
Totally agree here, Democrats should never out Republicans, and vice versa. Such tasks should be left up to the party that the homosexual politicians belong to, and if the party chooses not to out them then they can suffer the consequences. Imagine if the RNC had outed Mark Foley and Larry Craig early in their careers. Would they have been later tarred by sexual scandals that made their entire party and platform look hypocritical?
Comment by Surabaya Stew — 4/25/2009 @ 2:15 am
“I think Barney Frank has adequately put it when he says (paraphrasing), “You have a right to privacy, but not to hypocrisy.”
Uh ohh, then a lot more than a few gay Republicans are in trouble (including Mr. Frank)
Comment by c3 — 4/25/2009 @ 8:56 am
#30:
What the identity politics activists call ‘hypocrisy’ is really those members of the ‘group’ who dare to dissent from the Party Line. See #25. You speak of “gay/lesbian/bisexual/transgendered issues” as if there is one One Right Way for a gay person to think about such things. Open-minded people call BS on that. Consider the possibility that closeted gay politician voted based on their consciences or different personal viewpoint.
Once you unwrap the faux moral-superiority built around this phony ‘hypocrisy’ claim, you are left with naked political bullying combined with the arrogant an prejudicial attitude that members of a group should “stay in line” with the Group Identity Party Line. The ‘escape hatch’ for any such closeted gay is to Vote the Party Line, So the threat becomes: “Do as we want - OR ELSE.” As such, its modern political Brown-shirt-ism.
Comment by Travis Monitor — 4/25/2009 @ 8:57 am
Laws should be enforced equally to all, and no person, even the President should be above the law.
As for your rather trollish insertion of inapt analogies:
President Clinton’s perjury broke the law, and he did so for the selfish reason of protecting his own skin.
All of the actions in the global war on terror that are now being questioned were good faith attempts to defend the US from terrorist attacks. It’s pretty clear that in fact the heavy interrogation methods used, ie waterboarding, not only were extensively reviewed by DOJ/WHC lawyers and okay’d, but were used sparingly on only 3 individuals AND helped uncover the Al Qaeda network and saved us from terrorist attacks. So the charge is “conspiracy to waterboard KSM - the murderer of 3,000 innocents on 9/11 and the guy who personally beheaded Danny Pearl - and two other AQ terrorist suspects in order to gain information to stop terrorist attacks” … go ahead, try that case … let’s just make sure the jury are American patriots and not leftist twits out to get us defeated in the GWOT.
And BTW, if you want to retroactively impeach former Presidents for over-zealousness in war, go ahead and impeach FDR for his massive violation of the civil rights of tens of thousands of Japanese-Americans by putting them in internment camps. Unlike the Bush admin and GWOT, FDR’s action had zero benefit to our war effort and was just based on paranoia. Think: Flyspecks, planks, and eyes.
Comment by Travis Monitor — 4/25/2009 @ 9:27 am
Rep Barney Frank has engaged in evils…
What a riposte. Don’t hearken the message — attack the messenger. That’s the extend of degree in which the comments on this site have stooped to. Sad predicament.
Comment by Roy D — 4/27/2009 @ 8:59 am
Travis Monitor Said:
“As such, the outing can be seen as an attempt to personally destroy any individuals (ie gay conservatives) who hard-core identity politics leftists think are illegitimate”
Yes but, again, I think you’re missing the point…
Nobody would question the propriety of the wider black community frowning on and applying pressure to a black man that voted in favor of Jim Crow. Nobody would suggest that it was improper for Jews to come down hard on a Jew that supported anti-semitic laws. Well, the gay community is sick of closeted gays that further actions and laws that they believe violate their fundamental human rights and, as an internal matter, they are identifying them and pressuring them to change or at least not pursue actions that are seen as damaging the larger group as a whole.
If you think that’s tyranny then you need to take a deep breath and acknowledge the wider reality around you - Social groupings have internal policing. Going against the grain of any social group you are part of WILL result in friction and stress. This is the price that one pays for going against that grain. If it’s a matter that one feel strongly about - if it’s a core value - then one gladly pays that price and moves along with life.
The Amish shun - Catholics excommunicate. - Republicans and Democrats toss people out of caucuses - People are barred from PTA meetings - Families turn cold shoulders to black sheep at the family reunion - etc. etc. ALL social and all identity groups police themselves.
Republicans and conservatives losing elections after being outed as homosexuals to the wider public is spillover. Republicans and conservatives - It’s not about you. It’s about the gay community responding to what is widely perceived within the gay community as an existential threat. Whether or not it is actually an existential threat is a different matter entirely. (I believe it is a serious threat.)
Who is seriously suggesting that any community shouldn’t respond to actions perceived as a threat to it’s good health, continued existence, and fundamental human rights? Or is it somehow less legitimate when the gay community does it as apposed to some other community you approve of?
Comment by Chance Randel — 4/27/2009 @ 9:44 am