Gay & Lesbian Manners: Is Outing Closeted Legislators Unethical?

Q: I've heard a good bit about the controversial new film Outrage over the past few days, especially the filmmakers' outing of closeted gays in Republican circles. What's the deal on outing? I always thought that members of our community agreed that coming out was a highly personal decision. Is this good manners or bad manners?

A: Well, it's a good question and a timely one as the movie is opening this weekend. As I've written before: "Don't legislate the schedule or the degree of someone's coming out... Coming out is an extremely personal decision." And, in my previous book, The Essential Book of Gay Manners & Etiquette I added: "Outing a colleague - intentionally or unintentionally - is a violation of that person's privacy. Don't do it!"

So, what do we see in this new film by director Kirby Dick, but a hard hitting documentary that squarely takes aim at Republican lawmakers who are believed to be closeted gays. The film's trailer notes that these deep in the closet politicians lead "secret double lives" as they have sex with men but fight against same-sex marriage, vote against AIDS research, and denounce adoptions by LGBT parents. And, indeed, names are named.

To cut to the chase, we have two conflicting values at war here: privacy versus hypocrisy. At the time I wrote Gay Manners - back in the '90s --I often said in interviews that were I to have known that Senator Jesse Helms had had same-sex relationships, I thought it completely appropriate that they be disclosed and that he be outed. The harm his policies caused to LGBT people in this country - for instance, his hatred of gays and his refusal to support AIDS funding initiatives - would have been more than sufficient to outweigh any right to privacy.

Today we have a new cadre of elected leaders who vote against LGBT rights and under cover of dark - or away on vacation - maintain liaisons with same-sex companions. That is the definition of hypocrisy and as gay Congressman Barney Frank says in the film: "People who make the law ought to be subject to the law."

Manners usually takes up on the side of privacy, but when hypocrisy is at play, truthfulness and honesty are our more important companions in our struggle for fairness and equality.

Visit Steven Petrow on the Web at www.gayandlesbianmanners.com

 

Follow Steven Petrow on Twitter: www.twitter.com/spetrow

Comments

[bob5148]

Outing Republican politicians is no more wrong than denying equality to the LGBT community at large. They live high on the hog on their lobbyist kick backs while pandering to a hateful constituency and actually stoking those flames of hate against gays and any other minority which doesn't suit their Right wing christian campaign of hate.

[everychildsnana]

JESSE HELMS? Who knew this & let that mean,crooked southern pol pull it off? Politicians' hypocrisy is must be exposed widely & often if we ever can get to the truth about all politicians concerning this & concerning 1. finances pol & spouse; separate filings public, including schedules of all transactions; Other jobs; speaking fees,compensation in any form; 10 years PROHIBITION from any position where job/organization has business before/ involving congress,white house,bureaucrats 2 all self,family connections to any orgs./corps; campaign contributions from any member of a company, spouses, lawyers, accountants, "DIAL FOR DOLLARS" LOBBYISTS & BAGMEN;THEIR VOTES TO ENACT, TABLE, RESCIND, REWRITE, EDIT ALA SEN. CHRIS DODD ETC. THAT IMPACTED THE CORPORATION IN ANY WAY;RELATIVES ,NAMES KINSHIP, JOB TITLE & SPECIFIC QUALIFICATIONS FOR, ANNUAL SALARIES FOR HOW MANY WEEKS OR DAYS ; 3. TOTAL TRANSPARENCY IN ALL OF THESE MATTERS ABOVE & BELOW ,INCLUDING BUT NOT EXCLUSIVELY ,RECOMMENDATIONS TO APPOINT,HIRE pals,RELATIVES ,NAMES, KINSHIP, JOB TITLE, SPECIFIC QUALIFICATIONS FOR, ANNUAL SALARIES FOR HOW MANY WEEKS OR DAYS . RELATIVES ,NAMES, KINSHIP,TITLE & SPECIFIC QUALIFICATIONS ,ANNUAL pay/bennies FOR # of DAYS PER MONTH WORKED; FAMILY MEMBERS IN GOVERNMENT JOBs ;WORKING FOR A LOBBYING GROUP/LAW FIRM/SOLO AS LOBBYIST;SERVING ON BOARDS OF ANY COMPANY courting LEGISLATION ENACTED, PROPOSED ETC . Barney Frank said people who make law ought to be subject to law;Absolutely true;so Barney did what when he was called out on his repeated public support of the financial stability of Freddie Mac's & the rest ? He chose to bend or break

[caterpol]

If an anti-choice, abstince-only legislator has an abortion, should we "respect" her privacy? I personally wouldn't. At the very least, that person doesn't deserve any respect whatsoever.

But it is far worse in this case. These politicians aren't simply lying about an action, they are lying about who they are. And in a democracy, I think we have every right to know whom we're voting for.

[Alex5ive]

I don't think it should be a secret in the first place. I think America needs to wake up and realize that this gay issue isn't going to sweep itself under the rug. Gays are the only minorities that are legally and socially discriminated against. What ever happened to the pursuit of happiness?!?

[Rockerbabe]

Actually, single adults (age 18-65, never married, widowed or divorced and not remarried) comprise 45-58% of the population and are the largest minority , other than females that is discriminated against. Single people have the fewer rights and priviledges and little respect just because they aren't or haven't been married.
-Single people cannot get a beneficiary designation for the social security accounts.
-Single people, not matter what the FICO score, financial status have a much more difficult time getting any type of loan.
-Single people have few laws that protect them from being paid less than married people.
-Single employees cannot (often) add people to their medical insurance accounts, if they are not legally dependents (even if one can guarantee the premium).
-Employers often can get away with subsidizing married folks or employees with children with more benefits. Only employers with cafeteria stye benefits treat most single employees better.
-Single people are "assumed" to have no family; therefore can work more hours, even when not compensated.
-Getting the courts and family to respect wills and advanced directives is a real problem.
-Getting promoted not only in civilian, but military careers is more difficult for sinlge people.
So please! Outing anyone is just not acceptable, unless, the situation is actually criminal.

[DMHopper]

"Single people" includes the vast majority of gays, lesbians, and transgendered individuals, many of whom are not single by their own choice, but by the choice of closeted traitors in the government.

[SensibleJoe]

Hypocrites ought to expect to be outed. When you scapegoat a group you're secretly a part of, you're behaving unethically and deserve the exposure.

[PhoebeH]

Sorry, as far as I'm concerned, two wrongs do not make a right. The ends do not justify the means. (And any other tired-but-true cliches you wish to add.)

The fact that someone is being a hypocrite -- even a hypocrite with power who is working against our rights -- does not give us the right to take away their ability to come out on their own terms. The coming out process is a about a whole lot more than disclosing status -- it's about figuring out who you are, and integrating the different parts of yourself into a person who is whole and healthy. When you out someone, you damage their ability to do that...and lord knows the people we're talking about are going to have a hard *enough* time dealing with all that, don't you know.

And in the long run, it doesn't help us if we use the disclosure of someone's sexuality as a weapon. All that does is put off the day when sexuality can no longer be used as a weapon against *anyone*.

[AnotherTry]

Coming out is simply about being honest. If you are a liar holding public office, you deserve whatever you get.

[Soundofthunder]

The closeted haters do not hate LGBTs. They hate THEMSELVES. Championing anti-gay legislation is an externalization of this self-loathing, ergo outing them against their will is perfectly reasonable, as it sheds light on the impetus behind their actions and the fathomless hypocrisy.

SOT

[silverball]

...i couldn't agree more....

[blindhog]

Rot grows in darkness.

[dm10003]

it's a little messy, but so is democracy and social change. these are birth pains bringing us truth.

lies for the sake of cruelty is another matter but i doubt that's applicable here. opponents used that against us for forever.

if style points mattered in legislation for social equality, nothing would be approved because THERE'S ALWAYS A REASON TO SAY NO -- native americans dressed funny, women had mensies, slaves lived in shacks, blacks lived in slums, gays screech and wiggle.

not unconstitutional and not an excuse to treat people as 2nd class.

[VictorG]

The truth shall set us free. If closeted hypocrites who legislate bigotry are afraid of the truth that is their problem. That goes for straight people living in the sanctified bonds of "opposite marriage" having affairs as well.

What's wrong with the press? They let Bush get away with a phony war and almost 30 years after Ray-guns and his revolting conservative hypocrisy, they are still practicing this kind of whitewash? They let Karl Rove and Lindsay Graham get away with all kinds of stuff? Hello?!?! Is anybody a real journalist? Or just a corporate shill?

[gypsy508]

If it is okay to out a politician who engages in gay sex then why isn't it okay for those who believe in the sanctity of marriage to out politicians who have affairs? Either what one does behind closed doors matters or not.

[tbone99]

Exactly the minute every detail of a person's private life is fair game there are no exceptions.
And after all a person who has an affair and an person who hides behind a false identity are both practicing deceit .

[weatherwaxx]

No. The question is, does this person do, in private, things that he condemns others for doing in public?

A politician who has an affair in private but does not make it his (or her) business to invade someone else's privacy is not acting inconsistently or harming anyone with this behavior - except the spouse. Marital infidelity is a private matter. If we were talking about someone who wanted to enforce the biblical injunction to stone adulterers to death, that would be different.

Legislation is a public matter.

[nanucks]

absolutely o.k. If that politician is voting in ways that is hypocritical to his/her own behavior.

[wait500]

If the standard here is hypocrisy and outing it, what about the politician who in his heart is against gay marriage but who supports it for the votes that he gets? If we are outing in-the-closet "gays" for their hypocrisy, shouldn't the gay community equally target those who pay lip service for the votes? If the gay community doesn't then isn't it being hypocritical to hold one class of politicians to a standard of no hypocrisy but not other politicians?

[kforce]

No it is not. Way to miss the point or twist the intention.

[wait500]

didn't miss the point, I am making a point. the gay community is only concerned about itself at this point and its perceived injustices. it is navel gazing at its worst and ugliest.

[JohnJames]

You're setting up a straw man. Such politicians hardly exist. Anti-gay politicians almost always vote accordingly. Conversely, there are many politicians who are not personally prejudiced against us but don't feel they can always vote that way. Does anyone really believe that Hillary Clinton and Obama aren't at heart for gay marriage? Obama certainly was as a senator in Illinois government. At any rate, it's a poor straw man because your hypothetical politician wouldn't be causing any one any harm.

[dm10003]

yes, i find many anti-gay hypotheticals to be weird contrivances that seem only to be an excuse to impress themselves.

[weatherwaxx]

This isn't about what's in a person's "heart," sunshine, it's about treating all his constituents fairly - the Constitution states that US citizens are entitled to equal justice under the law.

If glbt citizens are expected to pay the same taxes as other Americans, they are entitled to the same civil rights. Period.

If politicians have religious reservations about same-sex marriage, they do have an inner conflict, but they is not elected to serve their churches in Congress.

THEY ARE ELECTED TO SERVE THEIR CONSTITUENCY.

Got that?

It says in Leviticus that eating pork is an abomination, same as same-sex intercourse. Now, if your hypothetical legislator is going BY THE BOOK, he won't eat pork himself. But gee, if he's getting funding from the pork industry, I'll bet you he won't start proposing bills to save America's soul by banning pork. In the first place, it wouldn't work, but in the second place... HE DOESN'T HAVE THE RIGHT TO INFLICT HIS PERSONAL RELIGIOUS BELIEFS ON AMERICA.

When JFK was elected, there was a lot of propaganda that a vote for Kennedy was a vote to put the Pope in charge of America. That didn't happen -- because JFK understood the principle of separation of church and state.

Your scenario is simply a case of someone voting in the interests of his constituency. And if he can't do it, he shouldn't be in office.

Outing hypocrites is something else altogether.

[KIVPossum]

If someone is homosexual and speaking or voting against gay rights, they should be 'outed' to let voters decide if their hyprocrisy influences their ability to govern. Same rules as for the ones who preach family values and run around on their wife, or vote pro-life and send their daughter to an abortion clinic.

[DRaymond]

Sorry, but what I read here is 'Outing someone is a violation of their privacy unless I have a revenge motive.'

Everybody has some level of hypocrisy, and much but hardly not all of it is sexual hyprocrisy. Why is gay hyprocrisy somehow exclusively a license to violate privacy? Not everybody outed in the film is an elected official, a number of staff-level people also were included.

Besides, where does it follow that a sexual orientation requires particular political stances? (It must require it because unless it is mandatory a gay person being against gay marriage wouldn't automatically be a hypocrite, would they?) There is some requirement to be loyal to your sexual orientation on every political matter? By that same logic all straights had an obligation to be loyal to those of their sexual orientation and 'defend traditional marriage'. In a strange way you are also rationalizing the opponents of gay marriage...anything else would be hyprocrisy regarding their heterosexual orientation!

[SJBrown]

Slippery slope

[nanucks]

no need for you to have a particular political stance based on your personal behavior, but it is important for voters to know form whence your decision come and they, in turn, may demand explanations (which are entirely appropriate). This isn't just about gay issues--abortion, fiscal matters (these "outings" occur all the time--remember Pres. Obama's non-tax paying appointments), etc.

If you are not voting on the issues for which you are being "outed", that's a different story--it is private and personal. Once you vote and your actions affect the public and the publice has a right to know.

[dm10003]

yes, sometimes i think people just vent in the form of a provocative question and don't really want a constructive opposing answer!

[pdxsteve]

Yet another poorly crafted argument. Again, you are assuming that to disagree with giving someone civil rights is a defensible position. It is not. There is no way to "defend" racism, relgious intolerance, etc. In regards to the issue about gay GOP staffers: They are no less hypocritical than the politicians they work for. While not every member of the KKK was as well known as David Duke, they should nonetheless be held accountable for their prejuidice. If someone was a closet racist, who worked for the Klan on weekends, should they be held accountable for spreading hate? I think the answer is a clear "yes". I find that opponents of gay marriage seem to believe that this issue is an opinion question, like whether one supports the Yankees or the Red Sox. It is not, there is a "right" side and a "wrong" side. Bigotry is never acceptable, plain and simple. Anyone who supports bigotry should be exposed, particularly if their bigotry coincides with gross hypocrasy.