To Closet Cases Everywhere

By Edward

Instapundit sneers that it represents "more crushing of dissent," but that's just more of his trademark glib oversimplification. LGFers treat it as just another opportunity to mock the tolerance of those on the left and feel superior. Personally, I think it's a heartless overreaction to a careless overreaction, and it highlights one of the more complicated issues in the struggle for gay rights. It's a story of an objection to an outing campaign that's had rather severe consequences for someone who was not even closeted.

GayPatriot is a blog with a writer named "GayPatriot" and co-writer named "GayPatriot West." They're conservatives. I've skimmed this blog a few times, but honestly never got into it. I did appreciate that it represented the gay conservative point of view (and no, unlike other folks, I don't consider that an oxymoron), but I like my conservative thought served well-considered and, well, GayPatriot seemed a bit rabid to me (it's all relative, I know).

Recently though, GayPatriot overreacted to an ongoing outing campaign, and his target struck back hard. Outlet Raido Network explains:

On Friday, GayPatriot posted "WANTED: GAY TERRORISTS" in which he identified gay activists and bloggers John Aravosis (Americablog) and Michael Rogers (BlogActive) as terrorists.

Wanted for crimes against the gay community. Wanted for repeatedly conducting outing witch hunts against gays who do not believe in radical liberal anti-American ideals. For repeated violations of privacy of gay Americans. For conducting systematic civil liberties attacks on gay Americans.

WANTED! Let's do something about these gay terrorists who have infected our community with their hatred and self-loathing bigotry of gay Americans who wish to live their lives in peace. [WANTED: GAY TERRORISTS - GayPatriot - 03-25-05]

As many of you know, Rogers is the host and agent of a widely publicized "outing campaign" at BlogActive.com targeting closeted gay Republicans. One of the most notable results of this campaign was the dramatic retirement of a Republican Virginia Congressman, Ed Schrock. The most recent outing was that of Ken Mehlman [link added], the new chairman of the Republican National Committee. Whatever you believe about the practice, it is difficult to ignore the political impact the campaign has had over the past year.

According to GayPatriot, who is also a client of mine, Michael Rogers called GayPatriot's place of employment on Friday immediately following the post above and spoke to GayPatriot's secretary and boss. [emphasis mine] GayPatriot had no idea Rogers would go to such measures and shared with me that both he and his secretary were very upset by the calls but that his boss was understanding.

Later on that day, Rogers personally called me and recounted much of the same account, adding that he had also called the police and is working with the authorities on the matter. Rogers expressed feeling threatened by the post and compared it to posts by anti-abortionists who posted the names of doctors performing them.

There's so much wrong with what happened here, it's hard to know where to start.

First, as a blogger who sometimes blogs from work, I have to say I'm definitely with those who feel Rogers crossed the line in calling GayPatriot's employer. If Rogers really felt threatened, there were other options, better options, like calling the authorities (which he did, but should have limited his response to). Calling someone's boss seems downright vindictive. Blogging is, when all is said and done, entertainment. No matter how angry you get at someone on a blog, don't screw with their source of income.

Having said that, GayPatriot also crossed the line. According to Outlet Radio, "GayPatriot formed specifically in response to Rogers and his website and became a venue for criticism of outing Republicans." But in this day and age, labeling anyone a "terrorist" could well be inflammatory enough to incite violence or investigations against them. Rogers certainly felt threatened. (Frankly, I'm not sure why GP included Americablog in his rant, unless it's because of his work about the G/G scandal...if anyone knows, please share.) GayPatriot should have shown a bit more care in his choice of rhetoric.

But that's just the surface. What lies a bit deeper here are complicated issues of privacy, advocacy, and hypocrisy that get swept under the rug by the likes of those on LGF, once they've had their digs at the left. So, if you have the stomach for it, here's a bit more detailed commentary on all this:

Most arguments offered to defend the rights of gay politicians or federal government workers with regard to privacy about their orientation are not considered in a real world context. Often these are folks you'll see cruising in the bars or websites in DC, Maryland, or Virginia and then later on hear that they're working to support this or that measure that makes life that much harder for the people they were just partying with.

Even so, officially, I feel the degree of hypocrisy there is not quite erased by what I would consider any American's right to privacy. Given the reality of how much damage being outed can do to someone's life, I reluctantly side with those who oppose the practice.

That's how I feel officially though. Personally, I'm not quite so generous. This is my heart-to-heart advice to closeted gays who "date" and "party" (euphemisms for "trick") in the community while actively supporting the hatred represented in the GOP's 2004 platform. (pdf file).

Outing you, when you freely take advantage of the social structure it took years of activism (not to mention getting beaten up) to create for you is not that unanalogous to the child who pointed out the obvious in "The Emperor's New Clothes." In other words: "But you are gay, Blanche. You are." I saw you cruising someone half your age at JR's last night. So get real about being outed. Essentially, your objections boil down to defending your right to lie to people AND to let those who hate you assume you hate people like you too. I'm sorry, but that's twisted and pathetic.

Moreover, closeted people make horrible boy/girlfriends. So in the interest of protecting gays who are brave enough to live openly, I feel that you closet cases deserve some degree of pariah-hood. In other words, if your privacy is that important to you, perhaps you should practice abstinence. Actively involving other people in your circumstances is grossly unfair and emotionally unhealthy for them. Don't do it.

Finally, ignore the snark above for a moment and trust me on this. Coming out will be the very best thing you ever do for yourself in the long run. Regardless of how much it hurts at first, no matter how many friends or opportunities you lose, you'll be happy you did it down the road. Yes, it should be your choice and you should get to decide when and where, but helping those who are working to make your life harder once you do work up the courage to come out isn't exactly the smartest thing you've ever done, now is it?

Comments

[Jonas Cord]

While in general the notion of outing closeted homosexuals turns my stomach, it does not in the context of public servants. I'm not big on notions of privacy when it comes to these folks. And while I think that Edward is a little over the top in characterizing the GOP platform as hatred; it is definitely hypocrisy on the part of closeted GOP officials.

[Gary Farber]

I'm rather uncertain what to make of your giving separate "official" and "personal" views, given that -- and I may be entirely misunderstanding you -- you seem to be making some sort of distinction between the "official" part of your brain, and the "personal" part. Or did you mean you were actually "officially" speaking for some other organization?

(As I've said before, my own feelings about these sort of outings are more than sufficiently ambiguous as to leave me with no strong position, "official" or "personal.")

You caught my post earlier today on the DC Gay And Lesbian police unit, I trust. (And thanks for the plug; I'm really undecided whether to spend the money on a single hooker and a blended malt, or blended hookers and a single malt, though.)

[J. Michael Neal]

Somehow, it seems to me that someone who is cruising gay bars has willingly surrendered their privacy on the issue.

[DaveC]

I'm not big on notions of privacy when it comes to these folks.

What about Mary Cheney or Maya Keyes?

[rilkefan]

They were publicly out, weren't they?

[Chuchundra]

Both Mary Cheney and Maya Keyes "outed" themselves. I'm not sure what kind of privacy they're expecting.

[DaveC]

And the television publicity, in the debates and Sunday shows, that was helpful to them? Or if you're already out, then that's fair game?

[Happy Jack]

Not sure if it's analogous, but if the head of PETA was slaughtering Bambi in their spare time, would the members have a right to know?

[rilkefan]

Mary Cheney was (is?) working (has worked?) as a spokesperson for gay issues - I'd think the P.R. would be excellent for her. Why wouldn't it be?

And for someone publicly out, I don't see why there should be any presumption of harm.

[DaveC]

Oh I see. It was for the good of the Republican party, so they could facilitate their periodic purges ;-)

[DaveC]

It seems to me that about a year ago, people were saying that the Bush admin was about to out one of their biggest critics.

Looking back, the big public outing never took place, outside of the speculation on blogs. And, I might add, many - perhaps most - of the blogs that commented on this and anticpated this were anti-Bush blogs.

[Sebastian Holsclaw]

I know I'm an atypical case (live in a fairly open state, has fundamentalist Christian parents that nevertheless took it fairly well, came out less than a year after figuring it out, etc.) but I promise any of you who are in the closet that it really isn't so bad, especially if you aren't living at home. So much easier not to try to hide things. But if you must stay in the closet, please don't get married for appearances to a woman who doesn't know (or worse who thinks she changed you). It isn't fair and is only going to make things uglier later.

[cleek]

And, I might add, many - perhaps most - of the blogs that commented on this and anticpated this were anti-Bush blogs

oooh. they commmennted on it... !

[DaveC]

Wonkette "broke" the story. The blog buzz was about WHEN this would show up in the newspapers, television news and Sunday talk, radio talk shows, etc., etc.

As far as I know, this speculation NEVER bacame a mass media news item. Certainly it was never brought up in the (vice) presidential debates.

[liberal japonicus]

...you seem to be making some sort of distinction between the "official" part of your brain, and the "personal" part.

I took this to mean that Edward would not advocate that people do the same thing as he does (that would be 'official') but that this is the way he would choose to act (in other words 'personal') Though the terms are a bit problematic, the division is a useful one. There are tons of things that I do myself, but would not advocate that everyone else in the world must or even should do them. There are lots of people who I either choose to be friends with or don't really want anything to do with, but would understand completely if someone else felt the opposite way.

[JerryN]

Gary - go for the blended hookers and the single malt :-)

[Gary Farber]

Mary Cheney did a tv commercial for gay rights issues; she spent years working as the Gay And Lesbian Liasion for Coors; her father publically spoke of her being gay. How she could be any less closeted, I can't begin to fathom. Full-page ad in the New York Times? No, far fewer people would see that than had read a zillion newspaper stories about her work for Coors, over many years, or saw her on tv.

Maya Keyes did a public blog talking openly about being gay, gave an interview to the Washington Post about it, and has spoken to rallies for gay rights about it.

Gosh, yes, it sure is outing these people to mention any of this. How terrible!

[Gary Farber]

"There are tons of things that I do myself, but would not advocate that everyone else in the world must or even should do them."

I, myself, watch iterations of Star Trek.

Thanks for the advice, JerryN.

LJ said: "Though the terms are a bit problematic, the division is a useful one."

Didn't say it couldn't be; I just was unclear what precisely Edward meant, though by no means wholly so. Of course, it still remains to be seen if Edward will agree or not with your characterization.

[DaveC]

Mary Cheney did a tv commercial for gay rights issues; she spent years working as the Gay And Lesbian Liasion for Coors;

Unbelievable how a size 10 clodhopper can fit in my mouth.

I, myself, watch iterations of Star Trek.

Oh dear God, a trekkie has pointed out my errors. At least he didn't argue from the standpoint of the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle or whatever :)

[DaveC]

Anyway, Gary can't be trusted because he was for the war before he was against it, and then kind of liked the Iraqi elections - all very reminiscent of ... Beth Holbo. Except I think Beth is probably much cuter. Probably, because I've seen Gary's picture on his blog, but am desparately seeking photos of Beth! ;)

[CaseyL]

I distinctly remember seeing someone ask a WH guy - maybe Armitage? Hadley? - about Clarke's 60 Minutes interview, and I also distinctly remember the WH guy laughing and saying Clarke was a wierdo, something about his 'personal life' being weird. I don't remember the exact words (and can't find a transcript anywhere) but it was obvious the WH was trotting out its standard trial balloon character assassination.

There was, IIRC, a day or two between the first float of the trial balloon and the WH saying what was weird about Clarke was that he said bin Laden was mind-controlling Bush. Which, while it was a deliberate distortion of what Clarke actually said, was *not* about Clarke's private life.

It was in that day or two, I think, that the blogosphere took the initial remark and wondered what the WH meant by it. The consensus was that the WH was going to accuse Clarke of being gay. That wasn't an unreasonable speculation - when wingers say someone has a weird personal life, and snigger when they say it, 'gay' is usually what they mean.

As it turned out, the WH 'only' meant to insinuate that Clarke was crazy. But the trial balloon, whatever was really behind it, worked very nicely, since it did give the talking heads on TV a day or two to cast doubt on Clarke's Commission testimony and 60 Minutes interview on the basis of non-specific WH insinuations.

[hilzoy]

Once upon a time, every night at midnight I would be too tired to work, but not tired enough to go on sleeping, and lo! the original Star Trek was on at that time, so I watched it until it became unwatchable because I had seen the entire series about five times in relatively short time. This made up for a childhood in which Star Trek was on, but we didn't get to watch TV except for the news with our parents and one hour a week, which if memory serves was always the Wonderful World of Disney.

It's amazing how many Star Trek episodes involve computers foundering, and then destroying themselves or exploding, because of some version of a paradox of self-reference.

[heet]

Three thoughts --

1) The point that they were in public places (*cough gaybars cough*) is spot on. If it so damn terrible for them to be outed, they should have stayed at home. If I don't want anyone to know I go somewhere, I wouldn't go there. Real simple.

As satisfying as this thought is, it brings me to --

2) How long has it been since anyone has been brought down for being a screaming hypocrite on gay rights? You'd have to go back to before, oh I don't know, J. Edgar Hoover appeared at dinner parties in a muumuu.

3) Mehlman is gay?

[Macallan]

All ya'll are just saying all this because I'm a lesbian!

[DaveC]

This made up for a childhood in which Star Trek was on, but we didn't get to watch TV except for the news with our parents and one hour a week, which if memory serves was always the Wonderful World of Disney.

Now I understand hilzoy's point of view. All she watched was fantasy. If only she could have watched Andy Griffith or The Dukes of Hazzard, she would have been much more "reality based".

[Macallan]

Sorry DaveC, but I'm pretty sure the Miss Daisy portion* of Dukes would be defined as fantasy not reality.

*at least the shorts

[hilzoy]

There was, of course, the news. My earliest TV memory is Bull Connor turning the hoses on protesters in Birmingham.

[hilzoy]

By the way, just in case Gary is reading this: I am trying to comment on your blog (on the Diana Schaub story, which being in Baltimore and all I had seen ;P, and I wondered if you'd seen this, in which she goes on about Star Trek at some length), but: I've had the comment window loading for about 10 minutes now, over a high-speed connection, and it's still blank. So this may explain why people don't comment.

[rilkefan]

Gary: "publically"

Pet peeve, since I'm now infected with this spelling.

[Edward]

you seem to be making some sort of distinction between the "official" part of your brain, and the "personal" part.

The distinction I'm trying to make here is similar to my approach to abortion. "Officially," I support a woman's right to chose. By that I mean that I vote for politicians who promise to protect that right, I march to have my voice and body added to the count, and I will work to stop those who seek to end that right. "Personally," however, if a woman considering having an abortion came to me and asked my opinion (not a likely scenario, but the means I use to rationalize my stand), I would do everything in my power to encourage her to consider having the child, short of badgering her. Regardless of what she decided, though, I would support her decision.

With outing, it's similar. Although I "officially" condemn the practice, if someone who knew they were at risk for being outed came to me and asked my opinion, for all the reasons I stated above, I would encourage them to beat their adversaries to it. In other words, I would do everything in my power (short of badgering them) to convince them to out themselves. Not only would it foil their enemies, but it would make them happier in the end as well. I consider the closet a form of self-loathing and self-torture. I can't in good faith support an acquaintance's decision to stay in one. I won't out them, but I'll tell them if they ask that IMO they're making a big mistake by living a lie.

Strangers or people who don't ask me, on the other hand, I feel deserve to decide without my input, so "officially," I oppose outing.

Is that any clearer?

[rilkefan]

"This made up for a childhood in which Star Trek was on, but we didn't get to watch TV except for the news with our parents and one hour a week, which if memory serves was always the Wonderful World of Disney."

We had a color TV with cable, and a b/w TV without. My brother wanted to watch the (1.5 hr?) Bugs Bunny show (on some network station at the same time as Star Trek) on the color tv. While I wanted to watch (the 1. hr cable show) Star Trek. My parents' proposed solution would have made Solomon blush.

"It's amazing how many Star Trek episodes involve computers foundering, and then destroying themselves or exploding, because of some version of a paradox of self-reference."

One wonders if the writers were Goedelians.

[Gary Farber]

"It's amazing how many Star Trek episodes involve computers foundering, and then destroying themselves or exploding, because of some version of a paradox of self-reference."

That was pretty much a Captain Kirk specialty, actually; pretty much never happened in later series. But I, myself (in case you're not clear of which "I" I write), learned from this to demand of my toaster that it tell me who the Spanish Barber is whenever I was cross with it. Strangely, however, it would only explode at other times.

(I saw ST:TOS in original broadcast, when I was 7-9, but only by begging my parents for permission to stay up for the 10-11 p.m. third season, so I missed some, and only occasionally upstairs on my aunt and uncle's color tv, rather than on our black-and-white; thus my nostalgic affection for the silly thing.)

[Gary Farber]

"2) How long has it been since anyone has been brought down for being a screaming hypocrite on gay rights? You'd have to go back to before, oh I don't know, J. Edgar Hoover appeared at dinner parties in a muumuu."

I don't care to bother to google for all the Republicans who decided not to run for office in the past three or five years after being outed, but just in Congress it's been several.

My first tv memories are cartoons, and how annoyed I was after three days of coverage of JFK's death that the tv was still going on about it, and pre-empting my cartoons. (I was born on November 5, 1958; do the math.) I was "mature" enough to appreciate that it was appropriate to do this for the first three days of the President's death, but I distinctly thought that more than that was simply pushing it. Where's Crusader Rabbit and Minute Mouse, damnit?

Blogger is still being flakey about access, as I've been bitching about, I'm afraid. One has to either be lucky, just keep trying, or give up, at the moment, I'm sorry to say.

[NeoDude]

Sebastian Holsclaw's gay?

[Edward]

And while I think that Edward is a little over the top in characterizing the GOP platform as hatred

You say tomato, I'll say, well, "hatred." I've heard all the arguments against calling it hatred, but none of them feel make me feel any less like it's hatred: and I am the target here, so I should know. Here's the wording in particular I mean here. Under the heading "Protecting Marriage" (protecting it, from whom? I don't want to attack marriage. Quite the contrary, I rather fancy it.):

We further believe that legal recognition and the accompanying benefits afforded couples should be preserved for that unique and special union of one man and one woman which has historically been called marriage.

Forget how historically selective that has to be to be true. Put yourself on the receiving end of that. Go ahead. Give it a moment's thought.

[...]

If you haven't actually put yourself on the receiving end of that yet, skip to the next comment, the rest of this won't make sense to you.

[...]

If you're left out of legal recognition and benefits via this effort, where does that leave you? What's your role in society? Replace the implications of how unentitled gays are here for any group you like:

We further believe that legal recognition and the accompanying benefits afforded Christians should be preserved for that unique and special faith which has overwhemingly been the foundation of our laws and culture.

Does that feel hate inspired?

We further believe that legal recognition and the accompanying benefits afforded men should be preserved for that unique and special social status which has historically recognized the superiority of the stronger sex.

What about now?

We further believe that legal recognition and the accompanying benefits afforded landowners should be preserved for that unique and special race which has historically been the dominant force in exploring and conquering the world.

It stings a lot more when it's directed at you, doesn't it? And the only rationale that makes sense to you for why someone would so willingly hurt you like that is because they hate you. So, I call it "hatred."

And I stand by that.

[Jesurgislac]

My distinction would be:

Living in the closet is bad. It's bad in every way you can imagine, including being bad for the person in the closet, no matter what benefits they imagine they're getting from being in there. And we have all been there, at some time or other (all of us who are GLBT, I mean) - there may be exceptions, but I've never met any. (Me? When I was a teenager, at school and with my parents. Also at a couple of workplaces where I loathed working for more reasons than being in the closet.) I've never met anyone who regretted coming out - not even the dozen or so people I know who came out and got kicked out of the military. (Which officially can't happen now, in the UK, but could until a very few years ago.) Opening the closet door and coming out is the best thing any gay person can do for ourselves - and for others: Martina Navratilovna was right.

And I agree entirely with what you say, Edward, that gays who support homophobic policy publicly while remaining in the closet, but "partying" privately, really do deserve to get outed.

But ...

I don't think I'd do it. No matter how much I felt this person or that person deserved to be outed, I'd still feel, I think, a shred of compunction - that they ought to make this decision for themselves.

I think the only exception I'd make would be if these were politicians who had made homophobic speeches - if you're going to stand up and spout hate speech about people who have supported your "right to privacy", I tend to think that's kind of forfeited any right of respect anyone might think you had.

[Jesurgislac]

NeoDude: Sebastian Holsclaw's gay?

So am I. :-)

[Frank]

Edward- I really like your arguement here, but I'm going to have to beg to differ. When you are the victim of a bully it feels like you are hated by the bully, but I don't think the bully usually feels hatred for his/her victim. The bully simply enjoys stepping on people.

[Anarch]

So am I. :-)

Yeah, but you're British, so it's kind of a wash ;)

[liberal japonicus]

That was pretty much a Captain Kirk specialty, actually; pretty much never happened in later series

Well, I guess that depends on how you define what a computer is. You'd need to leave out Data (him or his brother somehow popping a cork must have been a quarter of the episodes) and the Borg (who, fair to say, didn't actually melt down when confronted with an illogical syllogism) There was the memorable two episodes where Sherlock Holmes' nemesis Moriarty was created on the holodeck. A bunch of others where computers played supporting roles. Of course, Star Trek was notably short on gay characters. ;^)

[NeoDude]

Sebastian, always seemed like a character out of a Whit Stillman flick!

Jesurgislac, I always imagined you to be a British chick with alabaster skin.

(Man, do my homophobic stereotypes kick in. This is why therapy groups are so important.)

[Jesurgislac]

"A pale yellowish pink to yellowish gray." cite

Yeah, that's me. ;-)

[NeoDude]

Actually, a young lady, from Britian had refered to her skin, as such...now I think of it eveytime I picture young ladies from Northern Europe.

More like "A dense translucent, white or tinted fine-grained gypsum."

[NeoDude]

Hey, If you are in Britian, what the hell are you doing up!

[Jesurgislac]

Hey, If you are in Britian, what the hell are you doing up!

It's 9:30 am - where I am - what do you mean, what am I doing up?

young ladies

:-) "Sorry, neither."

[rilkefan]

Probably Jes lives wherever Macbeth did. Wait, that would be Scotland, which would make "British" less likely than "Scottish" I guess. In which case I guess "British" is a narrow-usage adjective.

Anyway, _I_ should go to sleep, being in the SF Bay Area.
Hmm, wonder about that capitalization...

[McDuff]

There's no such place as Britian. And some of us work nights ;)

Incidentally, I'm not gay. Not that there's anything wrong with that.

[NeoDude]

I thought British was for the whole kingdom? (England, Wales, Scottland) I was hoping Jesurgislac, would be from Bristol (I love the music coming out of there recently).

I'm in Los Angeles...time for bed.

I have two little ones to care for, trolling is supposed to be part-time work!

[Anarch]

I have two little ones to care for, trolling is supposed to be part-time work!

Referring to your children as trolls is hardly appropriate, NeoDude.

[Unless they are, of course. I have a friend who refers to her sprogs as Spawn 1, Spawn 2 and Spawn 3. It's so cute!]

[Jesurgislac]

The British Isles are the whole archipelago off the coast of Europe, including Ireland and other islands that were acquired as part of various dowries nearly a thousand years ago, and never given back. Britain is the big island in the middle, England, Scotland, and Wales. The United Kingdom is England, Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland. The Republic of Ireland is also called Eire, officially, but in practice is just Ireland. The main rule about not offending anyone is not to assume that every citizen of the UK is English just because most of us speak it as our first language. I hope that's clarified matters. ;-)

This has nothing to do with coming out, unless you'd like to discuss the traditions of the Royal Navy.

[Phil]

This has nothing to do with coming out, unless you'd like to discuss the traditions of the Royal Navy.

I thought the tradition of the Royal Navy was cannibalism?

[Jesurgislac]

"Don't talk to me about naval tradition. It's nothing but rum, sodomy and the lash."

[carpeicthus]

On the first issue of calling the boss, um … so? It may have bit a bit ham-handed, but I don't see what's wrong with playing defense in this situation. If anyone started a campaign to villify me as a terrorist, getting fired is probably the best they could hope for from me.

[Edward]

If anyone started a campaign to villify me as a terrorist, getting fired is probably the best they could hope for from me.

Would you be so kind as to list the other rhetorical excesses that might stir this reaction in you...just so we're pre-warned? ;-0

[Paul]

"In the Navy, yes, you can sail the seven seas ..."

Blogging is, when all is said and done, entertainment.

True. Which makes the bloody squabbles all the more remarkable sometimes. But blogs are also a kind of publishing, a kind of public record. If someone publicly called me a terrorist, I'd take stock of all my options and counter humiliation might be one of them.

All of which makes we wonder if we're seeing the rise--or at least the privileging--of some sort of shame culture concurrent with the rise of the internet/24-7 media saturation. When practically anyone can know practically anything about anyone else with just a little work, politeness starts to demand that we choose not to say, or know, or acknowledge, while censure licences us to do so. I only play at being an anthropologist, but shame rituals and the modern media sure seems like dissertation material.

[Gary Farber]

"Sebastian Holsclaw's gay?"

Oh, man, now you've outed him! What a nasty thing to do! You creepy liberals are all alike.

LJ, I didn't say ST didn't again ever use computers; that would be ridiculous; I said that they didn't tend to feature the reliable Captain Kirk strategem of verbally confronting a computer with a paradox, which results in the computer exploding in a shower of sparks. I'm fairly sure neither Data nor the Doctor nor the ships's computers ever did that, although many other plots revolved around them, including the one where the Doctor (in V'ger) faced near-breakdown when having to face his moral dilema in letting one patient die to save another.

"Wait, that would be Scotland, which would make "British" less likely than "Scottish" I guess. In which case I guess "British" is a narrow-usage adjective."

What?

"I thought British was for the whole kingdom? (England, Wales, Scottland)"

Good lord. "Scottland"? And possibly you might want to look into some small bit of controversy and history regarding Northern Ireland. I mean, what's the rest that follows "The United Kingdom of..."? This shouldn't be terribly more obscure than "what follows 'The United States of...'"?

Though I'd be too embarassed to admit to not having a clue as what either country's title is, or consists of, myself; it would be like not knowing what country citizens of Guam or Puerto Rico are. ;-)

These are not deeply hidden matters. I hear there's a whole "internets" thingie people can find use to find answers to such deeply obscure knowledge.

[Anarch]

It's nothing but rum, sodomy and the lash."

Isn't it "buggery" in the original?

[Jonas Cord]

Edward,

Put yourself on the receiving end of that. Go ahead. Give it a moment's thought.

I understand where you're coming from, but I have to respectfully disagree. My girlfriend and I are (clearly) not married and live together. My Christian friends disapprove of this. What's more, they would not support civil union legislation to extend marriage-like benefits to us, because they do not believe such behavior is to be encouraged by law. They feel the same way about homosexuality.

Does this make sense to me? No. Do I agree at all? Not at all. But I'm not willing to call this hatred. Hatred is too powerful a word to be used when the religious merely disapprove of something and vote accordingly.

[Gary Farber]

"I think the only exception I'd make would be if these were politicians who had made homophobic speeches - if you're going to stand up and spout hate speech about people who have supported your 'right to privacy', I tend to think that's kind of forfeited any right of respect anyone might think you had."

But what about the staffer who wrote the speech? Or otherwise crucially helped the politician with this policy? Note: I'm just asking what you think, not giving an opinion.

Thanks for the clarification, Edward. Possibly "politically," might be a clearer choice of words than "officially," but whatever.

[caleb]

"I understand where you're coming from, but I have to respectfully disagree. My girlfriend and I are (clearly) not married and live together. My Christian friends disapprove of this. What's more, they would not support civil union legislation to extend marriage-like benefits to us, because they do not believe such behavior is to be encouraged by law. They feel the same way about homosexuality."

I think this is a false analogy, or maybe I didn't read it correctly, or maybe you didn't explain your self as intended, but for your analogy to be correct, wouldn't your christian friends also have to be against you marrying your girlfriend?

[Jonas Cord]

Caleb,

or maybe you didn't explain your self as intended...

That's the most likely explanation, actually ;)

but for your analogy to be correct, wouldn't your christian friends also have to be against you marrying your girlfriend?

For it to be a completely sound analogy, absolutely. My flawed analogy is to demonstrate that there are things that Christians consider sinful and will therefore want to not encourage under the law. Unmarried cohabitation would be one, homosexuality is another - and it does not require hatred to believe, as they do, that it is wrong and should not be encouraged. I know it does not involve hatred because they do not hate me nor our gay friends. While there are far too many Christians exhibiting actual and active hatred against homosexuals, I do not believe it to be a prerequisite for opposition to Gay Marriage.

[liberal japonicus]

LJ, I didn't say ST didn't again ever use computers; that would be ridiculous; I said that they didn't tend to feature the reliable Captain Kirk strategem of verbally confronting a computer with a paradox, which results in the computer exploding in a shower of sparks.

Actually, you didn't say it at all, it was hilzoy that said

It's amazing how many Star Trek episodes involve computers foundering, and then destroying themselves or exploding, because of some version of a paradox of self-reference

I merely wanted to suggest that the whole question of self-reference and computing (and the problems when that breaks down) is not something confined to the original series, but laced through the whole show. Though far be it from me to turn this into a ST thread.

[rilkefan]

Gary still can't read my shorthand, though hopefully he can spell "publicly" now. But for the record, the encyclopedia I glanced at in fact says that Britain is England, Scotland, and Wales - though it also says that "Britain" means "The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland" - which is why I use "UK" when I remember. As it happens, I was just reading "The Orpheus of Ulster", an essay by James Fenton on Seamus Heaney, in which Heaney is described as becoming irate to the point of writing a bad 198-line poem on being called "British".

Anyway, my (not-having-hung-out-with-Brits-in-years) guess is that most people in the UK tend to call themselves English or Scottish or (maybe) Welsh - well, perhaps except for unionists. Of course all that matters here is how Jes self-identifies.

[Catsy]

Hatred is too powerful a word to be used when the religious merely disapprove of something and vote accordingly.

There is nothing "mere" about codifying one's bigotry into law. They may not see those beliefs as bigoted--most bigots don't--but they are.

We don't soft-peddle the Christian Identity folks, or make excuses for their racism just because they justify it under the veneer of a religious belief. Bible-based discrimination against gays is different from CI racism only in degree, not kind.

[liberal japonicus]

Anyway, my (not-having-hung-out-with-Brits-in-years) guess is that most people in the UK tend to call themselves English or Scottish or (maybe) Welsh

I thought that I read something about how the majority of young people simply avoid the construction 'I'm English' in favor of saying 'I'm from the UK'. Can't find the article, but a Google search shows that 'I'm from the UK' has around 11,000 hits, while 'I'm British' has about twice as many, but number of those refer to book/movie titles like 'I'm British But...'

This wikipedia link is interesting. I thought there was also an attempt to create the word 'Ukian' (u-kay-ian) similar to Samuel Butler's attempts to have Usonian replace American.

Or, as Randy Newman sang in Political Science

'South American stole our name'

[Jonas Cord]

There is nothing "mere" about codifying one's bigotry into law. They may not see those beliefs as bigoted--most bigots don't--but they are.

Not all civil rights issues are created equal. Are "anti-sodomy" laws codifying bigotry into law? Absolutely and unquestionably, as it criminalizes any instance of homosexual behavior. Being against Gay Marriage? It's unfair on equal protection grounds, but not rising to that sort of level of intolerance.

[Edward]

Being against Gay Marriage? It's unfair on equal protection grounds, but not rising to that sort of level of intolerance.

I want Katherine!

[Catsy]

Being against Gay Marriage? It's unfair on equal protection grounds, but not rising to that sort of level of intolerance.

Hence why I said they are different only in degree, not kind.

[Jonas Cord]

Hence why I said they are different only in degree, not kind.

We agree on that point. However, I believe that your use of the word "bigotry" and Edward's use of the word "hatred" are non-applicable to the levels of what I'm calling "intolerance" that would lead one to oppose Gay Marriage.

For example, anyone who would share my view that polygamy should not be legally acknowledged could be said to be "intolerant" of it. I believe this to be an apt description. But is it hatred? Is it bigotry? Only if these words now apply to what I previously labelled "mere disapproval" - instead of the dehumanizing contempt that I believe such strong words are reserved for.

[dmbeaster]

I did appreciate that it represented the gay conservative point of view (and no, unlike other folks, I don't consider that an oxymoron)...

Oxymoron, no, since anyone can have conservative beliefs without regard to sexual orientation, but its still strange to give active support for the conservative gay bigots of the Republican party simply because they are conservative. Its strange, just as if a fiscally conservative black guy supported David Duke because of his fiscal conservatism.

[Jesurgislac]

Gary Farber: But what about the staffer who wrote the speech? Or otherwise crucially helped the politician with this policy? Note: I'm just asking what you think, not giving an opinion.

I probably wouldn't out the staffer.

First, because I would be less likely to know with as much certainty as I'd want that a specific staffer had written the homophobic speech, or had otherwise crucially helped the politician with this policy.

But, second, supposing that I did know:

I can't see any positive good from coming from having the staffer fired, as they would be, I don't doubt, if they were outed. Whereas I can see positive good if the staffer decides to out themselves and get fired, or otherwise raise a stink about the politician's homophobia with the benefit of inside knowledge.

The latter may be unlikely, but is impossible if the staffer is outed involuntarily.

And then the politician will just hire another one and their career will move on - it'll barely cause a hiccup. Whereas if the politician is gay, and has made a career out of saying how evil and wicked gays are, and is outed, with any luck their career has just dissolved into dust - which is a positive good.

[Charles Bird]

Blogging is, when all is said and done, entertainment.

Apparently not for Rogers. He has long embraced the politics of personal destruction, and what he did to GayPatriot was no different. However, GP used dreadfully poor judgment in calling Rogers a terrorist. He never should have given Rogers such an opening.

[Jesurgislac]

Italics begone!

[Phil]

Publicly calling someone a terrorist and urging like-minded people to "do something" about it: "Dreadfully poor judgement."

Notifying the authorities and that person's employer, who might want to know that that someone is using company time and resources to label people "terrorists:" "The politics of personal destruction."

Moral relativism from self-professed conservatives: Priceless.

[Andrew Frederiksen]

sez Edward: "I want Katherine!"

Wait, I thought you were...

(Sorry. Too easy.)

[NeoDude]

This thread could be read in some off-Broadway surrealistic theatre.

(Anyway, the Brits have incredible ears when it comes to American music and sub-cultures.)

[Gary Farber]

"(Anyway, the Brits have incredible ears when it comes to American music and sub-cultures.)"

And here I thought they only had a great navel tradition.

[ducks, runs, hides]

[Catsy]

But is it hatred? Is it bigotry? Only if these words now apply to what I previously labelled "mere disapproval" - instead of the dehumanizing contempt that I believe such strong words are reserved for.

We agree on that point. However, I firmly believe that "dehumanizing contempt" is an all-too-apt turn of phrase with which to describe the attitudes and--more importantly--the spirit of the policies most social conservatives have towards gays.

[NeoDude]

"And here I thought they only had a great navel tradition."

Well, there are all those British Naval Musicals, aren't there?