Out of the closet, by force

Q.: What do David Dreier (R-Calif.), Republican National Committee head Ken Mehlman and Ed Schrock (R-Va.) have in common?

A.: They are all Republican politicians who have been "outed" as gay.

The practice of "outing," or revealing someone's homosexual orientation without their permission, is a controversial issue. The practice has existed at least since the 1980s and tends to come in waves, according to Erin Cross, associate director of the Lesbian Gay Bisexual Transgender Center at Penn.

Sadly, another wave of "outing" has occurred over the past year. A recent effort led by gay activist and political consultant Mike Rogers uses a massive publicity campaign encouraging people to contribute names of Republican politicians, staffers and employees who might be gay. Their names are published on Rogers' online blog (www.blogactive.com) and picked up by newspapers.

Some people, including members of the LGBT community, have voiced concerns about these tactics. Rogers and his supporters counter that they must do anything necessary to defeat politicians who vote for anti-gay legislation and that their actions reveal the "hypocrisy" of gay Republicans.

With these issues, the main question is, "Do the moral concerns of 'outing' outweigh the possible benefits?"

The answer is an unqualified "Yes." Although I agree with many of Rogers' goals, I find the practice of "outing" reprehensible.

First, it is an invasion of privacy. OutletRadio.com, the top LGBT webcaster, reported that when Rogers revealed the identity of the hitherto-anonymous gay conservative blogger GayPatriot, he made phone calls to GayPatriot's home, co-workers and boss and threatened a national boycott of his boss' company. Similarly, according to the Washington Blade, the Gay, Lesbian and Allies Senate Staff Caucus accused Rogers of "terrorizing and harassing a number of Capitol Hill employees" through more than 10,000 e-mails and innumerable phone calls to the co-workers and neighbors of suspected gays and lesbians.

Second, it is wrong for activists to intrude on the intensely personal decision to come out. I know this through a personal story. My uncle came out as gay when he was 46 years old. He chose to delay his coming out until after the death of his ill father, a socially conservative man with whom he shared a close relationship. A person may remain closeted for a variety of reasons. It is the right of the individual to choose if, when, where and to whom to come out.

Third, the act of "outing" promotes and feeds on homophobia. Harassing congressional staffers because of their sexual orientation is a type of hate crime. Moreover, since sexual orientation does not affect one's ability to be a political leader, it is superfluous and ethically questionable to raise it as an issue. Most importantly, although I would not label Rogers and his supporters as homophobic, they certainly harness homophobia to achieve their goals. If both "outers" and anti-gay-marriage advocates trade in homophobia to promote their political ends, what is the real moral difference between them?

Fourth, it is wrong to presume that gay conservatives are hypocritical. It is not inherently contradictory for an individual to have gay relationships but not believe those relationships should be labeled as marriage. Conversely, an LGBT Republican may privately support gay marriage but choose to ignore that ideological conflict so she can influence other areas, such as education, foreign policy or tax reform. In fact, very few politicians probably agree with every detail of their party's platform. In effect, Rogers and his supporters seek to essentialize LGBT individuals. They claim that their orientation must dictate their politics and deny them the option of being politically pragmatic or philosophically nuanced.

Most tragically, "outing" gay Republicans does not achieve the goals espoused by the "outers." If a politician survives the "outing" and remains in office, as was true of Mehlman, his politics are unlikely to change. If the "outed" individual loses her position, the voters who removed her will likely replace her with someone more vehemently anti-gay.

Moreover, many LGBT Republicans say that they are slowly changing the party from within. In an interview with the Washington Blade, one gay staffer explained, "I want to tell [the "outers"] to think about the bottom line before they act. I've helped raise thousands of dollars for the gay community in my private life, and on the Hill, I was the only person to lobby my boss against the Federal Marriage Amendment." Similarly, gay conservative writers such as Andrew Sullivan and GayPatriot perform a unique service by discussing LGBT issues with a predominantly conservative readership.

Rogers and other "outers" have defended themselves by claiming that they don't act on all tips of suspected homosexuality and that they occasionally "out" Democrats as well Republicans. This hardly redeems them. Gay and lesbian Democrats, like gay and lesbian Republicans, are entitled to the same privacy and rights as everyone else. It's a shame some some self-appointed "gay activists" don't agree.

Jennifer Weiss is a senior Linguistics and Theatre Arts major from Los Angeles. War On Error appears on Wednesdays.

Please note All comments are eligible for publication in The Daily Pennsylvanian.