If he's really gay, Rep David Dreier (R) should be outed.

[David__77]

Rep. Dreier is heading Schwarzenegger's transition team, and has been a shill for the actor since his campaign began, especially selling his non-platform to self-described conservatives.

I have repeatedly heard that Dreier is a homosexual. I say homosexual, and not gay, because someone that is embarassed of their sexual orientation is not truly gay.

If this is true, then he should be outed--now. His anti-gay record in Congress makes this matter "fair game." We should immediately seek out his former sex partners or boyfriends, if they exist.

[Skittles]

1. if he promotes an anti-gay agenda

then absolutely he should be outed.

[bearfartinthewoods]

84. you are promoting an anti gay agenda

you are re--enforcing all the fears that haunt many gay men and make some of their lives a living hell. this won't just stop with republican politicians you know. if we abandone outrage at the thought of this tactic it becomes a weapon against school teachers and coaches and everyone else who has the gaul to belive they deserve a private life free from threats by the new anti-gay gestopo.

[arwalden]

110. Wow... You Make Some Good Points...

... and I'm tempted to agree with you. But I see it more of an issue of hypocrisy--plain and simple--hypocrisy.

I've got mixed feelings about the witch-hunt aspect of it, I admit... but I think the hypocrisy of them all bugs me the most.

-- Allen

[bearfartinthewoods]

117. so, because you are bugged you are willing to risk the witchunt?

you're being bugged is more important that the safety and sanity of all the gays who have chosen to keep their sexuality private?

[Liberal Veteran]

126. Was outing Rush's drug problem wrong?

Shouldn't he have been allowed to keep his drug use a secret and not be damaged by the fact he's a hypocrite who claims drug users should do hard time in jail while you know he is going to skate with "treatment" at best?

[bearfartinthewoods]

138. you're comparing being gay to using drugs?

one is voluntary and illegal.

the other isn't. biiig difference.

[Liberal Veteran]

144. I fail to draw the distinction.

I do not see drug use as wrong. I couldn't care less if Rush Limpballs uses drugs or not. What I do care about is that as a public figure he has stated many times that drug abusers deserve to spend hard time in jail. He's a hypocrite and is cashing in on said hypocrisy by pandering to what his "employers" (which are his listeners really) want to hear.

Same thing here. If this guy is pandering to his "employers" while misrepresenting himself, then he doesn't deserve the protection of the closet because he's part of the problem.

I'm sorry if you find that offensive or a violation of your ethics, but I am not going to protect someone who's actions turn me into a second class citizen or at the very least, leave me in that status by preventing me from adopting children or marrying my partner.

[mitchum]

150. Actually, if the predeliction for addiction is genetic...

it is just as involuntary as being gay.

OUT DREIER

[bearfartinthewoods]

168. it's not my ethics or yours that are in question

really, it's the soul of liberalism that's at stake her. we are supposed to to be standing for tolerance but if you have your way, we have to change it to tolerance only for those who agree with us.

that's hypocracy.

we're supposed to stand for support for gay rights which includes the right to keep your sex life private. but you'd toss that out the window unless the person in question meets with your approval.

that's hypocracy.

we've stood for generations to bar the bedroom door to the prying eyes of the sex police and you want to kick that door down.

that's hypocracy.

excuse me for not wanting to sell the soul of our party for vengence sake.

[dsc]

186. terrific post

This is the best explanation of why outing is wrong I have seen. Brilliant.

[mitchum]

241. No, it is you trying to impose your ethics on me

The Democratic party is a big tent. There is room for shrill Sunday school teachers AND "dirty" fighters (like me)

[Muddleoftheroad]

243. Not in my tent

My tent has a sign that says, "No bigots." Anyone who supports outing someone because he is gay wouldn't get in.

[Liberal Veteran]

244. Well then, we can all thank god you don't own the tent....

Because I am not a person who will allow someone to place me in the position of doormat. Unfortunately, some of us, aren't afforded the luxury of arguing the politics of outing from the safety and security of heterosexuality.

I respect your position and respectfully disagree with it. Neither of us are going to budge.

[Muddleoftheroad]

246. There is a difference

I don't respect your position one iota.

In theory I'm your ally because I support gay rights and causes. In practice, if you can drive me away with these McCarthyite tactics, you will drive away many friends and have yourself marginalized.

[scottxyz]

425. Question for muddleoftheroad

You say: My tent has a sign that says, "No bigots." Anyone who supports outing someone because he is gay wouldn't get in.

Question: Do you support outing someone who is gay AND who is homophobic?

Because that's what we're discussing here - although you keep conveniently leaving off the homophobic part. We're not talking about "outing someone who is gay". We're talking about outing someone who is "gay and anti-gay". Big difference, wouldn't you say?

To draw a comparison: What if Halle Berry were trying to "pass" as white. What if she were a legislator and she was passing laws saying that black people shouldn't have the right to adopt and black people shouldn't have the right to health benefits.

Would you be in favor of pointing out "Actually, Halle Berry is black"? Or would you say (as I've seen it stated in this thread) that doing so would be "hate" politics or "Nazi-like"? Would you say that she is just "reflecting what her constituents want"? Would you say that she "might just not feel that those people deserve those new rights yet"?

Because that's the kind of crap people like you are saying in this thread. (Can't remember if it's you or 'bearfartinthewoods' - but you both keep apologizing for Dreier saying it's ok for him to be anti-gay for some mysterious reason.)

And to all you knee-jerk politically correct types: - we're NOT saying it's somehow "bad" for Halle Berry to be black. We're saying it's bad for her to be both black and anti-black. OK? So don't weigh in with your liberal credentials trying to say "Oh it would be so WRONG to out someone for being gay because that would mean there's something WRONG with being gay." For the umpteenth time I will repeat it: We are not talking about outing Dreier just for being gay. We are talking about outing Dreier for being both gay AND anti-gay.

Do you get it now?

[TrogL]

445. because you are engaging in "pot calling the kettle black"

which is a logical fallacy

[bearfartinthewoods]

247. bigotry is like corrosion

working it's way through the wires that hold the tent together.
every now and again, it has to be scoured off or the tent falls down.

intolerance doesn't fit thru the door either.

[scottxyz]

430. So we can't be "bigoted" against hypocrites?

Again, I remind you: we are not saying we are anti-gay. We are saying we are anti- anti-gay people.

Kind of complicated, I realize. But if you think about it, being anti-anti-gay might translate into being pro-gay. While YOUR stance, protecting people who anti-gay, might be the truly "bigoted" stance.

So maybe the bigotry that's corroding the tent wires is yours, 'bearfartinthewoods'. Since you're the one who is supporting people who are anti-gay - just because they also might be gay.

I say, if a person is anti-gay - go after them. Even if they're gay. ESPECIALLY if they're gay.

Yes, I'm being "anti-" something. But you're really stretching it if you think I'M the one who's bigoted.

Yes, it's a big tent. But do we have to make it big enough to let the hypocrites in too? Or in your knee-jerk political correctness, do you think it's ok to give a free pass to a hypocrite because he's gay?

[scottxyz]

438. Wrong, wrong and wrong 'bearfartinthewoods'

(1) You say: We are supposed to to be standing for tolerance.

Yes. We're fine with gays. We're don't have tolerance for homophobes and hypocrites. When you use the word "tolerance" you might want to pay attention to WHAT we're being tolerant of. Nobody on this thread has said they're not tolerant of gays. This isn't an anti-gay thread. It's an anti-homophobe, anti-hypocrite thread.

You misinterpret liberalism if you make a blanket statement We are supposed to to be standing for tolerance. We don't tolerate hypocrisy and we don't tolerate homophobia. You are deliberately clouding the issue I think, by trying to make it sound like we are against Dreier for being a homosexual. We have repeatedly stated that that is NOT the issue here, so you can stop pretending you haven't heard us.

So - are you preaching tolerance for homophobia and hypocrisy? Because someone told you liberals are about "tolerance"? Cut with the naive act.

(2) You say: "we're supposed to stand for support for gay rights which includes the right to keep your sex life private. but you'd toss that out the window unless the person in question meets with your approval."

A little tougher to rebut, but still not that hard. Yes people should have the right to keep their sex life private. However, an argument could be made that a legislator who is trying to pass laws depriving people of certain rights BASED ON THEIR SEX LIFE may have waived that privacy. Subtle, but you do get it now?

(3) You say : "we've stood for generations to bar the bedroom door to the prying eyes of the sex police and you want to kick that door down.

Are there any police on this thread? We are just honest-to-goodness gossips trying to bring down a phony by exposing him.

= =

In short. You have learned to mouth some of the tenets of liberalism: Tolerance. Privacy. Cool stuff like that.

Your next task is to learn that tolerance doesn't apply to EVERYBODY. We don't tolerate racism, sexism, anti-Semitism or homophobia or hypocricy. I know, I know, maybe you thought being a liberal was some let-it-all-hang-out kinda thing where we love EVERYBODY. Well, you were wrong. We DON'T like tolerate homophobes and we DON'T tolerate hypocrites.

[hippywife]

442. So to bring down one,

you would endanger the many. Typical republican witch hunt mentality. It amazes me that so many people here can't see that they are more than willing to stoop to the same tactics they criticize the rightwingers of employing. Anyone who would do what is being suggested here has a dash of the homophobe in his/her own psyche or they wouldn't dream of suggesting such a thing.

Look in the mirror folks. :eyes:

[scottxyz]

448. Yes, to bring down one HYPOCRITE HOMOPHOBE

You didn't answer any of the points in my post, and you just chose to talk about "bringing down one to endanger the many".

I guess I'm talking about bringing down a homophobe and a hypocrite. Whereas you're worrying about bringing down a homosexual.

So you think you're being "liberal" by protecting Dreier because he might be homosexual. You're saying that gives him the right to be a hypocrite and a homophobe, and if I try to point that out, I'm engaging in a "witch hunt" and I'm "stooping to the same tactics the right wing employs".

I think you are overly sympathetic for Dreier because you think he might be gay. Now he's become a sacred cow to you, as a way for you to show how "liberal" you are.

If he had been a married man seeing a prostitute (and passing laws against adulterers), you'd probably be all for exposing him. But being a homosexual is some kind of "protected status" in your book, because you think that's what being a liberal is all about.

And your language about "endanger" is revealing - and patronizing. It does not "endanger" Clarence Thomas for us to point out that as a black person, it is ironic for him to oppose measures which would help black people. It does not "endager" Phyllis Schafly for us to point out that as a woman, it is ironic for her to oppose measures which would help women.

But those poor homosexuals. We can never point out that one of THEM might be self-hating, because that might "endanger" them all.

Stop being so patronizing. Barney Frank and all the other homosexuals in Washington DC and the rest of the world will not be "endangered" if we point out the irony of an anti-gay gay in Congress.

The only person here who is "endangering" homosexuals is Dreier himself - whether or not he is gay. He's the one passing laws that deprive gay people of the right to partner health benefits. If it were to emerge that he were in fact gay, it wouldn't "endanger" him - but it might endanger the support he's had.

[hippywife]

450. Yes, I did say endanger

because if the Dems stoop to outing someone for a life-style they tolerate, the flood gates will open. Hypocrit or not, there's already enough anti-gay sentiment in the world. There's no need to encourage it.

You sound like some little kid on the playground, "Queer!" :eyes:

[scottxyz]

455. So we can't call homosexuals hypocrites now?

It's not about the Dems stooping to out someone for a lifestyle they tolerate. It's about outing someone whose hypocrisy we don't tolerate.

I don't think that by outing a closeted homophobic homosexual it would increase the amount of anti-gay sentiment in the world. It might increase the amount of anti-hypocrite sentiment in the world.

I find it amusing that you keep trying to say that I sound like a homophobe, or that I sound like a little kid on the playground calling someone "Queer!" You are leaving out the context. It would be more accurate to say that I am like a kid on the playground who hears a {male} bully saying "Queer!" and then I go up to them and say "Tell it to your boyfriend."

I would like to ask you a question. If this were a Congressman who had a wife and who was conducting an affair with another woman, and this Congressman passed laws banning adulterers from receiving health benefits because they're "immoral" - do you think it would be wrong for someone to point out that the guy has a mistress?

I ask you this because:

(1) I brought it up in my last post and it was a strong point and you didn't answer it, and

(2) I suspect that you have a sort of knee-jerk liberalism that says gays are never bullies.

You seem to be overly concerned with some notion about "endangering" gays. Your image of the gay guy is the one the playground who gets called "Queer!"

Perhaps you fail to realize that the guy yelling "Queer!" is often queer himself, and often the simplest tactic for dealing with such a bully is to point out that the bully himself has a boyfriend.

[TrogL]

462. because you don't need to

Perhaps you fail to realize that the guy yelling "Queer!" is often queer himself,

That's an urban myth and a generalization. You cannot apply it to specific cases or you, yourself, are a bigot.

The issue his not his hypocrisy. You don't need that. There are two issues:

• He may or may not be gay - we don't know.l
  
• He's anti-gay.
  

There's no need to mix the two. Attack the second.

[hippywife]

466. I didn't answer this point

I would like to ask you a question. If this were a Congressman who had a wife and who was conducting an affair with another woman, and this Congressman passed laws banning adulterers from receiving health benefits because they're "immoral" - do you think it would be wrong for someone to point out that the guy has a mistress?

I ask you this because:

(1) I brought it up in my last post and it was a strong point and you didn't answer it, and

(2) I suspect that you have a sort of knee-jerk liberalism that says gays are never bullies.

...because I don't think it's as strong a point as you do, obviously. I would fight against it because it would be wrong for the government to base policy on what consenting adults do in their privacy. I think the Supreme Court just upheld that view recently.

What I have a knee-jerk reaction to is someone looking for revenge and stooping to use the tactics of his enemies to get it. If the man is gay and supporting anti-gay legislation, it is up to you to prove that when you make the allegation. Instead you stoop to throwing out suppositions on a message board without any evidence of his hypocrisy. Your tactics in calling for his "outting" are nothing short of ugly and irrational.

[bearfartinthewoods]

452. you're right....i don't tolerate hypocracy

like the hypocracy that says only people who are just like us and do just like we want them to do deserve to have a door on their bedroom.

and if you read this thread you'll see people saying we should find his old lovers and boyfriends...if that isn't the sex police i don't know what it is...

also...since the story of his being gay has twice been shot down but DC area DUers we have at least as much proof that he isn't as we do that he is but that doesn't seem to matter to the people who are look to get even with him because arnie won.

the phonies on this thread are the ones complaining about hypocracy......

[scottxyz]

458. You're exaggerating

You say that I claim that "only people who are just like us and do just like we want them to do deserve to have a door on their bedroom".

Well... it depends what you mean by "just like us" and "do just like we want them to".

If you're a racist, or sexist or homophobic then you're not "just like us" and I would advocate removing you from Congress.

And if you're passing laws that try to intrude in people's bedrooms, then you don't deserve to have a a door on yours.

I don't really care if Dreier is gay or not. Either way, he should be gotten rid of, because of his anti-gay votes. Because he seems to feel that a person's sexuality should affect how they are treated under the law, then whether he's gay or not it would be a good thing for him to walk a mile in a gay man's shoes. Let him feel what it's like to worry whether what he does in the bedroom will affect his rights under the law. Then he might learn something and stop voting for all this anti-gay legislation. Whether or not he's gay.

[arwalden]

130. If I thought your fears had merit, then my answer would be in agreement...

... with you.

But I think that your fears are a bit unfounded and exaggerated to emphasize your point. And I do understand your point.

I just have difficulty making the leap (and the connection) that outing a POLITICIAN and particularly in the outing of a HYPOCRITICAL politician would somehow have a nationwide snowball and/or domino effect.

It's a compelling argument that you make, but when I stop to think about it rationally (as opposed to emotionally) I just can't see how the safety and sanity of all closeted queers can be made a part of this particular equation.

We're not talking about a private citizen. This is a politician whose private life (by the nature of the beast) is not truly private and fair game. They know this going into it all. This is NOT a big surprise to them.

I don't have a problem with it. --- Clearly you feel strongly about this, so we may just have to agree to disagree. You may have the last word if you like. :-)

-- Allen

[bearfartinthewoods]

140. fair game.......it wasn't that long ago that all gays were fair game

you're risking a return to that. i don't see where you can justify this. unless you are a private gay, you have nothing to lose. how can you justify putting other people's ptivacy on the line like this when you risk none of the consequences?

and it your bottom line is that we can out a few pubbie pols with no blowback you are niave.

[arwalden]

145. Call Me Naive Then... And Angry... And Vindictive....

And ready to take on any hypocrite that comes my way. This nicey-nice bullshit ain't working. It never has, and never will.

Closeted and self-loathing queers who use their political power against the rest of queer society do not deserve to be protected under the umbrella of all that's fair.

Explain to me why I should give "aid and comfort" (protection) to the fucking ENEMY?? No... I take that back. Don't bother explaining it to me. Let me just say that under no circumstances... no matter how I'm scolded... under no circumstances will I respect a closeted politician's privacy when he won't respect my basic rights either.

Forget it! Ain't gonna happen. Not in my lifetime. Not for me.

Like I said before. I'M NO FOOL!

-- Allen

[Liberal Veteran]

148. I am with you on this one.

I have no problem protecting those who do what they can within the limits of their closet. But some of these assholes vote on stuff that actively limits my rights as a citizens, but I supposed to just sit back and take it when they do so? I cannot do that! I fully understand the need for the closet, but I will NOT afford that protection to those who willfully act in a manner that forces the rest of us to a second class position in society.

In other words, you don't get to go hide in the safety and warm of your closet. I don't like log cabin republicans but at least they have the decency to stand up and be accounted for and live off the scraps given to them by their chosen party. Closeted gay republicans who act against civil equality gays don't get that respect from me!

[bearfartinthewoods]

169. who was it that said "no man is free unless all men are free"?

no gay is safe from sufferring the reprecusions of bigotry because of their sexuality unless the subject is totally off the table. we are getting there but you want to dismiss all the progress that's been made for your vengance. you don't care about the backsplatter that would be released because of your vengance.

vengance is mine...sayeth rev phelphs. he's into outing too.

my my my...strange bedfellows

[scottxyz]

443. Why is secrecy the ONLY hope for gays?

You say: no gay is safe from sufferring the reprecusions of bigotry because of their sexuality unless the subject is totally off the table.

I guess that means black people are doomed to eternal inequality. It's going to be pretty hard for them to be in closet.

A lot of people in this country are now pretty ok with homosexuality. Which means there isn't a whole lot of likelihood of "backsplatter" against Dreier if he were simply outed as being gay. Because at this point there are plenty of gays in Congress, and there's been no backsplatter against them.

But as an anti-gay gay, Dreier might lose people's respect. This shows that the real issue here is not Dreier's supposed homosexuality - because if he were to come out or be outed and say "Hey I'm gay and that's ok" then probably everyone would also be cool with that.

You're really being overdramatic with your proclamations that "no man is free unless all men are free". It sounds like you're saying that we have to protect the poor gay people and let them stay in the closet because if they're out they'll be subject to bigotry. Hardly a progressive position.

And Phelps is into outing any ole gay just becasue they're gay. In fact, Phelps probably would NOT out a homophobic homosexual - that's probably the kind that Phelps likes. The kind of homosexual Phelps doesn't like is the kind who's comfortable being gay. I'm sure Phelps totally agrees with you that only way for gays to be totally safe is to stay in the closet.

If Dreier is gay and passing anti-gay laws, then that's just the kind of gay Phelps probably likes. And it's just the kind of gay we don't like. So your comparison of us with Phelps is really off the mark. You're more like Phelps than we are. We say come on out, the water's fine. You say if you're out then you won't be safe from suffering. Phelps outs plain ole homosexuals but leaves homophobic homosexuals alone. We out homophobic homosexuals and leave plain ole homosexuals alone.

I keep coming back to your statement that "no gay is safe from sufferring the reprecusions of bigotry because of their sexuality unless the subject is totally off the table." I really can't get over how ignorant that sounds. If that was the attitude of gay people, they'd all still be in the closet and we'd still be in the dark ages. The progress gays have made sure didn't come from people with attitudes like yours, who thought the only safety was in the closet.

[TrogL]

454. but why does that progress have to be made by outing someone?

That's the point.

[Terran]

183. Gay people in the closet are fair game now anyway

What makes you think the republicans would hesitate to out someone if they thought it would do them any good? The difference is, we (I, in any case) would only out someone who is actively working against the interests of my peers. You make it sound like like outing gay politicans is some big sea-change, but it's not. It's using a weapon against republicans that they have never hesitated to use against us. That's not hypocrisy. You make an argument that sounds good, but it doesn't hold water.

Most gay people who are in the closet are there because of fear, and that's something they can overcome. But gay republicans are in the closet out of hypocrisy and greed--they'd rather bash their own to get ahead than be honest with the world. I find that intolerable.

[Liberal Veteran]

185. That's correct...it's their avoidance of the consequences that..

...bothers me. Gays are perhaps the only minority that can fake being something other than what they really are. In other words, most can "pass" as straight and there is an assumption of heterosexuality in this society anyway for the most part.

This attitude that we play nice at all costs is ridiculous. It's no different than saying if someone shoots a gun at us, we should not fire back in self-defense because it's wrong to shoot people.

Outing closeted gays who engage in anti-gay behavior from the safety and security of the closet is a form of self-defense. What we are saying is "You do not get to sheild yourself from the consequences of your actions while millions of openly gay Americans suffer because of what you do and how you vote".

[bearfartinthewoods]

197. so is it that you want to punish them?

trust me....i have known enough closeted and out gays to know that if there is anything harder than being gay it is being gay in the closet.

come on...this isn't rocket science here. closeted gays can never come close to any sense of normality....not even gay normality. ask any gay in the military if they'd prefer not to have to hide their sexuality. would they like a picture of their lover by their bunk?
would they like to share a love letter with their friends like the straights can? share their memories and plans? and their term in the closet is generally finite and not all inclusive. nothing like a gay in the closet as we are talking about.

the concept of being in the closet as a sheild may apply to a tiny fraction of their life but in exchange, think about what they give up.

now think of what demons move them to stay in the closet.

if punishment is what you desire...leave them in the closet.

[Liberal Veteran]

199. Don't try to assume my motives.

Or put words in my mouth.

Is it punishment to expose the truth of a hypocrite?

That's subjective as to whether or not it's punishment. Consequences of one's actions are not necessarily punishment.

And don't presume to lecture me on the closet. I am gay man who served in the military. I've been in the closet friend and I have been out of the closet. You may be able to empathize with the travail of being in the closet but I've been there.

And you know what? I also have to live under the oppression of a closetted gay person's anti-gay voting record. If you want to take a principled stand on this issue, then have at it. You are free to express your opinion on the matter, but it's really easy to sit back and make excuses when you are not the one who is being targetted.

Like others have said, we will have to agree to disagree here. I see it as a matter of self-defense. I will not protect the sexual identity of a politician who is unwilling to accept the consequences of his votes by actually living under the conditions and with the obstacles he or she may be placing in front of millions of people in our community.

[bearfartinthewoods]

203. my post title was a question

you wrote:
That's correct...it's their avoidance of the consequences that bothers me.

which led me to ask about your motives. what did you mean? what about their so-called avoidance of consequences bothers you.

i stick to my opinion that the consequences of staying in the closet are pretty severe.

btw....this debate seems to have developed into this idea that one gay republican is responsible for all the oppression of gays in this country. that's silly. he's got one vote. and as i said elsewhere, how do you know what kind of a person will replace him? it might me a gay friendly liberal. it might not be.

[Liberal Veteran]

208. I never implied anything of the sort....

I said outright that a closeted gay republican who votes for anti-gay legislation (legalized discrimination) is part of the problem and I will not afford him the courtesy of his privacy when he's publically acts against the interest of the gay community while hiding in the security of the closet that protects him from experiencing the consequences of his actions that he in part is responsible for creating. Either way, it's irrelevant. What you seem to be proposing is that his vote is not important because after all, it's only one vote, therefore he bears no responsibility for said vote. That's ludicrous.

And as I said in another post that was a reply to one of your thread, I made it quite clear that I had no expectation he would be replaced by some gay friendly democrat. Indeed, it could be a zero sum game. On the other hand, I would rather have an honest idealogue who votes anti-gay based on principles that a hypocrite who votes consistently anti-gay to protect his sexual identity from discovery.

[bearfartinthewoods]

250. now who's puting words into someone's mouth

i said the fate of all the gay legislation don't hang on his vote.
his vote is no more important than any other. except, of course to you since it seems he offends you so by daring not to abid by this so called gay agenda.

and i'll go look to see if you've answered my question on how in the hell you figure his anti-gay votes protect him since it seems that those same votes so inflame you that your ready to caste off one of the tenets of liberalism to attack him for it.

piss poor self protection plan if you ask me.

[scottxyz]

460. It was a protection plan that used to work - and now it's backfiring

Doesn't work much any more in these days of the internet. But you know Congressmen hate email and the web and all that.

So the guy may have screwed up. Lots of closeted gays thought they could protect themselves by acting homophobic. People are catching on to this one though.

And it's really weak of you to minimize this whole thing by pointing out that the guy only has one vote. You could find better ways to bolster your argument.

[TrogL]

464. Up above

you said that homophobes were repressed gays. Now you're saying they're protecting themselves.

Where is the truth in this? Which is true?

[scottxyz]

434. Stop being so condescending to gays in the closet

Basically you're saying that it's so rough being gay that we have to understand that someone like that might become a hypocrite and might become homophobic and might want to deprive people of their rights, so we should go easy on them. Yeah and I suppose we should all try to be understanding of Clarence Thomas and his psychoses as well. Let him stay on the bench, he's a black man in a white man's world, he had a rough life, let him stay up there and keep acting like a madman and screwing up everyone else's lives, it's the least we can do for the poor guy.

What a load of bullshit.

Don't be so condescending. What you are saying is an insult to gay people. Just because somone is gay and might be having a rough time in the closet doesn't give them the right to go around making life miserable for other people. If someone is that screwed up in the head that they are voting against their own interests, they should be on a psychiatrist's couch, not in Congress.

Gays in the closet don't somehow automatically get the right to pass legislation depriving other gays of basic rights such as adoption or partner health benefits just because it's so hard being in the closet. That's a bunch of crap.

You're being too much of a bleeding-heart liberal. Relax. It's ok to call someone a hypocrite - even if it's a gay person in the closet. He'll survive! Don't worry! Stop having so much pity for this guy who's running around making life so hard for other people. He doesn't deserve your pity, he deserves your contempt.

Don't overdo the liberal shtick. It's ok to hate a gay person! Some gay people are really fucked up in the head! Gay people are just like everyone else! They're not automatically "sainted" somehow for being gay! Gay people make mistakes too! And if they do, they should be pointed out. It's very condescening of you to be soft on Dreier because you feel bad because maybe he has a rough time being in the closet. This doesn't mean we have to support him in his efforts to deprive 10% of the population of their right to adopt children or get partner health benefits.

What twisted logic! "This legislator might have had a tough life so I'm going to let him pass crummy laws that hurt people rather than letting everyone know the guy is crazy."

[TrogL]

280. There's certainly no assumption of heterosexuality where I grew up

in that space/time you constantly had to prove your heterosexuality or you were automatically assumed to be gay.

[dsc]

180. both teachers and coaches

are considered public figures in many regards. Our salaries are public records, children can run websites criticising us under the public figure standard. While I admit that it is unlikely this would degenerate to every teacher, certainly in certain parts of the country and with certain public figures it surely might. In many states people can run your plates for 5 bucks and find out who you are. This is not a completely idle threat.

[Muddleoftheroad]

131. His sexuality

Is NONE of your fucking business. Literally.

What is gay? Is gay having sex with a man once? Could he be bi? Could he have been experiementing? Could you be mistaken?

Anyway, it's not your concern. You are using the worst hate-baiting tactics of the right and employing them on the left.

It makes me sick.

[arwalden]

135. We'll Have To Disagree On This One

The issue is not his sexuality as much as it is his hypocrisy. If indeed he *is* gay and if indeed he is outed. Neither of which has happened, so all this fuss is about a hypothetical anyway.

I've got other things to get riled up about.

-- Allen

[Muddleoftheroad]

137. Again, what is gay?

You didn't respond.

West Wing handled this topic very well one episode. A Repug congressman pointed out that he agreed with 95% of what the GOP has to say. He just happened to be gay.

Sexual identity is not a top issue for all people. You have no right to make that choice for them.

[Liberal Veteran]

141. So essentially, it's okay to ignore hypocrites....

....whose actions and votes get gay people relegated to second class citizenship?

Where do we get to draw the line? Is it just sexual orientation? Race, religion, ethnic background? Behavior?

Should Newt's affairs been off limits to discuss publically while he was simultaneously spouting about Clinton's behavior and persecuting him for it?

Should we just give a Rush a pass and hope he gets treatment instead of hard jail time that he advocated for drug users?

These are difficult question and it deserves better than an "always wrong"/"always right" answer.

[Muddleoftheroad]

142. Gay

Sexuality for too long has been used as a club to keep "different" people in line. Now many here propose doing the same to bully people they THINK are homosexual into voting exactly the way they demand.

Guess what, it doesn't work that way. People vote in Congress for all kinds of reasons, including because it's how they think their constituents want them to vote.

Who gets to decide what is private? Who gets to rule on whether I can have a private life?

That's crap.

[bearfartinthewoods]

170. i draw the line at gays

being gay is not like commiting adultry. besides. i spent years of my life promoting the idea that a politican's private life was not the issue while defending clinton.

being gay is not like using drugs. there is no issue involving violation of laws or impaired judgement or poor work habits in being gay.

people aren't tied to fences and left to die for being an adulterer or a drug addict. the travails of gay people are more than well known. i won't waste my time reminding people of them. or maybe i need to because if people don't remember they may actually buy your line that using gayness against someone is the same as calling out an adulterer (which i also find none of my business) or drug addict.

[scottxyz]

427. Stop saying the issue is about "Being Gay"

It's not about Being Gay. It's about Being Gay and Anti-Gay.

You can support homosexuals. Fine. Great. But do you support homophobic homosexuals?

You talk about "using gayness against someone". Again you miss the point. We are NOT talking about "using gayness against someone". We are talking about using HYPOCRISY against someone.

We're not saying it's bad to be be gay. So will you please stop implying that we are. We are saying that it's bad to be gay AND to be anti-gay. Big difference.

If Dreier weren't a legislator trying to pass laws depriving gays of their rights, then it wouldn't be an issue of whether he was gay or not.

Dreier's HYPOCRISY needs to be exposed. Not his gayness.

Yes you're right it's none of your business if a person is an adulterer. But if an adulterer is casting stones at other adulters, then it IS your business if that person is an adulterer..

Yes you're right in saying it's none of your business if someone does drugs. But if that drug-addict is going around saying "Drug addicts are bad", then it DOES become relevant that they themselves are a drug addict.

Do you understand?

[arwalden]

143. "You have no right to make that choice for them." Oh yes I do. Yes I do.

In this case... I'll just have to live with someone shouting at me how wrong I am. I can live with it. If it's wrong... then two wrongs make a right. I'll be satisfied and unashamed and unapologetic about it.

You (the gay politician) use your power to attack me... limit my rights... deny me equal protection? I'll attack you back. Sorry, life's like that. You (Mr. Closeted Politician) want to play that game? I can play too.

As far as defining gay... are you serious? I ignored your question on purpose. I thought you were being rhetorical. I didn't know you actually wanted an answer. --- I'll acknowledge that I know what you're getting at, but other than that... Sorry, I'm not going to play the semantics game. Gay is gay. We'll let the philosophers and public decide how gay is too-gay. Or... if a politician is in the closet, perhaps he's already defined for himself how gay is too gay.

As I said before... we'll just have to disagree. You won't change my mind, and I'm not going to bicker trying to change yours. If you want to have the last word, go ahead. I'll check back to read anything you want to add... but I'm done here.

-- Allen

[Muddleoftheroad]

146. That's fine

But I will say this. I will vote against any politician of any party who does this -- using hate against people.

[noiretextatique]

152. please...WTF do you think HE'S DOING!?

using hate against people to advance his poltical career...using hate against HIMSELF to advance his career. i feel the same way about him as i do about conservative blacks who utter racist nonsense...and get away with it because they are black: using HATE TO ADVANCE THEIR CAREERS. there is nothing noble about allowing hypocrites a free pass, black or gay or otherwise. if he's gay, of course.

[Muddleoftheroad]

173. Not at all

You can be gay and still think gays don't deserve particular treatment under the law. (The laws don't exist now. By creating them, you are giving gays new freedoms.) You can be black and be against affirmative action. Neither case loses your status as a minority. Beliefs are not a requirement.

[noiretextatique]

188. being black and being against affirmative action

is quite different than being black and being a mouthpiece for racism. likewise with being gay and join the forces of homo-hatred, while 'pretending' to be straight.

[arwalden]

192. Thank You!

:hi:

[noiretextatique]

200. you're welcome

:hi: :wtf: ???????? do homo-hatred collaborators have a "right" to hide in the closet? isn't this type of lying more about winning the approval of constiuents and power brokers...for the purpose of promoting an anti-gay agenda...than anything else? isn't that about using the cloak of "heterosexuality" to act as an agent of homo-hatred? isn't THAT despicable!?

[bearfartinthewoods]

204. if they don't have the right to a private sexual life, no one does

what is so hard about that concept? why is it so difficult for people to understand. if one person's private sexual choices are fair game, everyone's are. personally, i'd prefer to keep my sex life private. what i do alone or with she-bear is none of anyone's business and i'll fight to keep it that way.

even if it means i have to fight the new liberal sex police and defend a damn gay republican on the way!

[noiretextatique]

207. oh for fucks sake...this isn't about SEX!

the issue is 'pretending to be straight,' to appease his anti-gay constiuents, while hiding behing the cloak of heterosexuality HIMSELF. the issue is NOT who he fucks, but who he's fucking over, while cowering in his closet.

[Muddleoftheroad]

214. The issue is YOU have no right to his sex life

He might BE straight or bi or whatever. He might also simply disagree with you. It's a sad day when Democrats want to out a gay man simply because he doesn't agree with them.

[Liberal Veteran]

215. Sexual orientation is not the same as sex life.

Unless you are buying into to the argument that openly gay people are shoving their sex lives in other people's faces and that married heterosexuals are shoving their sex lives in other people's faces.

I think you are confusing sexual behavior and sexual identity.

[Muddleoftheroad]

217. Nope, but I don't think it's that clear cut

And it doesn't matter. You are outing him because he dares disagree with you. That's offensive.

[noiretextatique]

220. do you have ANY idea of what's going in california..right now?

a big battle over gay rights. if this homophobe is in fact gay...you can bet your ass THAT will be relevant to the ongoing battle. if that offends your delicate 'democratic' sensibilities regarding the rights of closeted homophobes to "privacy"...TOO FUCKING BAD.

[bearfartinthewoods]

227. it isn't the rights of "rights of closeted homophobes" that concerns me

it's the rights of everyone.

i understand your idea....you say it's ok to violate the bedroom door and it's okay to use a person's sexuality as a weapon in THIS case.

i think that bullshit. i think it's unethical. and i think it's foolish to assume that it stops here with you outing someone you perceive as your enemy.

i have enemys too ya know. there are people i'd like to see discredited. what's to keep me from deciding that my enemys are as heinous as yours?

pubbies have enemys and not nearly the ethics of MOST liberals so they won't even have to have a debate about the morality of this if we take away the tenuous wall we have built against sexual bigotry.

[Muddleoftheroad]

228. It offends me and the democratic process

Unless someone meets your litmus test, you will try and destroy him. Ironically, you will destroy because you think he is one of you.

This is so immoral and sickening. I keep expecting that I logged into the wrong website.

[noiretextatique]

374. you did...i could care less about your moralizing

about a (possible) closeted homophobe...and his "right" to fuck over other gay people. tell me again about immorality?!?

[bearfartinthewoods]

223. that's ridiculous

if this wasn't about sex it would be a non issue. you and your ilk would have to find some other way of defeating him. if just so happens that you think he is gay so that's the club you will use on him. if his SEXuality wasn't an issue we wouldn't be talking about this.

and errr...you are attributing a motive to his alleged closeting of himself which assumes he's pretending because he's a politician.

tell me, miss cleo, how do you know what motivatss him? it's pretty hard to decide to go into the closet when you decide to run for election so it's a pretty sure bet that if he is gay he has always been closeted so how can you assume a motive?

[Name removed]

225. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Muddleoftheroad]

230. Congress represents all of us

So the ridiculous litmus test you propose impacts us all as well.

[bearfartinthewoods]

231. yes...you and the others here who are trying to justify this

that's you and your ilk...some sort of liberal that i don't recognize as being very liberal at all.

and i'd be afraid to tell you whether or not i was gay. you might decide to use it against me somehow.

[bearfartinthewoods]

235. this asshole is gay, he deserves whatever is coming his way.

do me a favor. go into your bathroom. look yourself in the mirror and say the above quote a couple times out loud.

don't you feel at all odd saying this?

this asshole is gay, he deserves whatever is coming his way.
this asshole is gay, he deserves whatever is coming his way.
this asshole is gay, he deserves whatever is coming his way.
this asshole is gay, he deserves whatever is coming his way.

how is it that these words can even make it out of a liberal's mouth?

[bearfartinthewoods]

257. just to be perfectly clear

'this asshole is gay, he deserves whatever is coming his way.'

is not my sentiment. it is from the now deleted post above.

[noiretextatique]

294. aren't you enlightened....defending homophobes?

great...you (and your ilk) are certainly 'ethical' ...congratulations!!!!

[bearfartinthewoods]

295. my ilk is the majority of liberals and dems in this country

who respect the efforts which have been extended over a half century to bring us to the point where Barney Frank could come out and still be a respected member of congress.

you and your ilk are gratefully a small minority of people who want to use being gay as a way to discredit a congressman and turn your back on that progress for a pitifully small effect.

seem pretty clear to me. you want to reinvigorate the sex police under a democratic banner. i don't. i am perfectly comfortable with my ethics. i hope you are too.

[noiretextatique]

336. what gall you have...who are you to lecture me about anything?

'liberal attitudes' had nothing to do with my process of coming out...accepting myself did. i know what it's like to come out, and i know why it's a lot more accepable to do so now...it has nothing to do with 'liberal largese' and everthing to with gay activists, like the ones at stonewall. and people like harry hays, del martin, phyllis lyons...and barney franks. i am perfectly comfortable with my ethics...and i don't think i need to be in the prone position just to satisfy someone's notion of how ethical so-called 'liberals' are when it comes to protecting the rights of closeted homophobes.
i hate that i have to inform you of this, but being gay is about more than just SEX. this issue here in california is about the rights of gays and lesbians to adopt...drier and his "ilk" are attempting to turn back THAT progress...because THEY can't focus on anything but the SEX. and of course, it is an issue that directly affects me...since my partner wants to adopt a child. there is nothing "noble" about protecting a homophobic asshole's "right" to stay in the closet, while he screws over other gays and lesbians...there is nothing "liberal" or "ethical" about that position either. IF this man is gay, i pray that he is revealed as the hypocrite he is...call it "divine justice." and :wtf: how do you know WHAT "the majority of liberals" think? speak for yourself, please.

[bearfartinthewoods]

349. well maybe i'm wrong in thinking that respect for the privacy of people

is something most liberals believe in. i don't think so but i haven't asked all of them.

what i have seen here is a few people who seem so wrapped up in this faux kick ass attitude that they have lost any tolerance for the people who don't, won't or feel they can't be kick ass. what i see is a bunch of people who have decided to come out and now disdain and disrespect the desires of those who have made a different choice.

if we are to size up the liberal nature of the two sides of this debate, i sort of think the side that's calling for tolerence and choice is more firmly rooted in liberalism than the side who wants to kick ass and to hell with who gets caught in the crossfire.

[noiretextatique]

358. who made you the arbiter of what is and is not "liberal?"

"tolerance" for homophobes is not "ethical" or "liberal." hypothetically speaking, he forfeited the "right" to privacy when he CHOSE to attack rights of other to simply live as full citizens, a right he claims for himself by pretending to be straight. IF this man is a homosexual, his advocacy for the anti-gay agenda, which harms all gays and lesbians, means he has no "right" to hide in the closet. that's very different than those who feel they need to be closted because they need to be to stay alive, or employed. i understand the fears that this type of "outing" may lead to other types...and i think THAT is a valid position. however, i don't think liars and hypocrites deserve shielded to satisfy some notion of "fairness," while they actively work to HARM other people. that's not being "liberal," that's being a doormat.

[bearfartinthewoods]

362. i never claim to be the arbiter

some stuff just is...whether you agree with it or not. if your brand of liberalism doesn't embrace tolerance and choice and respect for privacy at least to the extent still allowed by law.

by the way, ducking the hard questions by trying to shift the issue and attack my right to say what i believe isn't working. all the indignation in the world will not make me stop asking the simple questions.

"revenge" or what? outing one republican congressman who, by the way, is not gay according to one DUer who claims to know, outting him achieves what?

what is the benefit to the rest of the BLBT community?

[noiretextatique]

364. this man is a poltical adversary

and not, i am not "tolerant" of people, like him, who think i have no right to live as a full citizen because i am a lesbian...call me crazy :eyes: this is no mere "difference of opinion"...and you SHOULD know that. i am no more "tolerant" of the "different views" of homophobes than i am of the "different views" of racists...they are a symptoms of the same disease, imho. the point of david_77 original post is about politics...and at least he believe the tactic of "outing" might help stop the current homophobic attacks on gay adoption, among other things. as to whether that is or is not true or not...i don't know. i still am not opposed to using the tactic, in this case, since the stakes are pretty high. and as i mentioned, since i don't grant homophobes the "right" to be homophobic in a manner that limits my rights i have not the least bit concern about whether this offends the ethics of those who think homphobes have the right to limit my rights to full citizenship. eom

[noiretextatique]

378. tell him and his homophobic friends: it's NOT sex

or the bible, or their "right" to be homophobic. tell them it's about children who need parents being "allowed" to have gay parents who will love them. please tell them it's not about SEX...as soon as you figure that out :eyes:

[scottxyz]

429. Stop saying we're using "hate" against people

If anything, we're using "truth" against people.

I don't think that the poster you're arguing with, who has all those gay icons in his posts, "hates" gay people. He just hates homophobes. Which I totally agree with.

If a light-skinned black person who could "pass" as white was passing laws denying black people the right to adopt or have spousal health insurance - and if someone exposed such a person by pointing out they were black - would that be "hate"?

Of course you know it wouldn't be. It's probably so obvious to you that there's no reason to hate black people, so it would never occur to you that calling someone black is "using hate against people".

But you keep thinking that calling somone gay is "using hate" against them. Why?

In the end, it doesn't even matter if Dreier is really gay or not. People who are not gay get hurt all the time for "seeming" to be gay - and Dreier, by his anti-gay votes, is contributing to this kind of damage as well.

Really, it would be quite alright if Dreier were 100% straight. Since the guy seems to happy going around trying to deny gay people the right to adopt or get spousal health benefits, then it's quite justifiable to fan rumors that he himself might be gay. Let him see how it feels to lose your rights based on who you're attracted to. Let him walk a mile in gays' shoes - whether he is gay or not. He might learn something.

But you just go on trying to show how "liberal" you are with your misguided statements that calling someone gay is "using hate" against them.

[Name removed]

216. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Muddleoftheroad]

219. Thanks for the voice of sanity

Much appreciated.

[noiretextatique]

224. a personal attack as "sanity?"

replete with homophobic insinuations about "promoting stereotypes?!"
me thinks YOUR agenda is showing.

[Muddleoftheroad]

232. The post dared to object

To this offensive witch hunt.

[noiretextatique]

338. tell me something: do you support "gay rights?"

for example, the right of gay and lesbian couples to adopt? and other civil/human rights issues affecting gays and lesbians? i see you were wondering in another post exactly what "gay" means, so i am wondering what your position is on "gay" issues? can you clarify this for those of us who know what "gay" means, and identify as such? thanks.

[wrkclskid]

407. What suddenly gave you that right?

The fact that he disagrees with you? Suddenly how he feells about a certain topic gives you the right to make the most intimate of his life under your control? How nice to have won jurisdiction over such sensitive matters in another individuals life! If he is a hypocrite, that's pathetic, but it still doesn;t mean he has no right to a private sex life. The right to privacy is a substantive due process right, that means it can only be violated when laws are broken or their is dnager of imminent harm and the laws being broken must themselves be in pursuit of an important interest in order to iolate such a right. It is a right that should not be violated because someone wishes to embarass him. Which would seem to he the only possible result here, if he loses, it will be to a more Conservative repuke anyways. Of course, as I stated down below, this particular rumor is an old wives tale from the Hill anyways.

[bhunt70]

255. Agreed.

Using tactics like this leaves a bad taste in my mouth. People should have that kind of privacy no matter who they are.

[scottxyz]

436. Is a Congressman's hypocrisy any of my business?

This legislator is saying that OTHER PEOPLE'S sexuality is HIS business, and he's trying to punish them under US law for a "deviant" sexuality that he might also have.

But you keep saying his sexuality is none of our business.

His HYPOCRISY however IS our business. And by outing his hypocrisy, his sexuality gets outed in the process. Oops.

Are you saying a person's hypocrisy can't be outed if it were to also out their sexuality? Even if their hypocrisy involved punishing other people for their sexuality? So if a Congressman is all pro-family and then he's going to titty bars, we can't say that because his sex life is no business of ours?

That's a pretty high standard. You really have learned your liberal talking points real good. We can NEVER talk about anyone's sex life and we can NEVER say anything bad about homosexuals. Not even homosexuals who go around ruining the lives of other homosexuals. No, because liberals are supposed to LOVE everyone - ESPECIALLY the poor little homosexuals - ESPECIALLY the poor little closeted homosexuals - and even the poor little closeted homosexuals who think a great way to reinforce their closet is by going around passing laws against other homosexuals.

What a good little liberal you've learned to be. Now tell us how we should all support Clarence Thomas because he's had a rough life as a self-hating deluded black man. We should support Clarence Thomas's horrible effects on this country because, gee, it's HARD being a self-hating black man. Gee, give the guy a break, so he makes some screwed-up decisions on the bench and he ruins the country a bit - we should feel bad for the guy because it's not easy being a self-hating black man and we should cut him some slack. I don't mind having George W Bush as my President if it can help one poor self-hating black man like Clarence Thomas have some self-esteem. I know those poor self-hating black men have such a rough time and they really need my pity, so I'm prepared to put up with them ruining my country. After all, I'm a big-hearted liberal and I love ALL black people - including the self-hating ones.

Do you now perhaps see why gay people don't like the way you are patronizing them by saying you support giving a free pass to a self-hating gay person because, hey, it's rough being in the closet. (You have gay friends who have told you this, so you know! You're an INFORMED liberal too!)

[Skittles]

175. BULLSHIT

someone who promotes an ANTI-GAY AGENDA MAKES HIS SEXUALITY AN ISSUE.

[bearfartinthewoods]

269. is that a universal truth?

cause if it is, since imho, this effort is anti gay and you are promoting it, tomorrow morning we shall delve into your sexuality.

maybe there is something in there that makes your position on this suspect. it's fair game now so meet me here tomorrow and well discuss what possible influences your sexuality is bringing to this issue, ok?

nighty-nite.

[scottxyz]

451. Not the "anti-gay" gestapo

The "anti-hypocrite" gestapo.

Barney Frank and other "out" gays are safe. "Closeted" gays who don't vote against gays are safe.

Homophobic homosexuals aren't. If you're making other people's private life a legal issue, then logically your own private life should come under scrutiny.

By the way. This has been a very long thread. I've gone back and tried to figure out how it go to be so inflammatory. I don't imagine your introduction of the word "gestapo" in like the third post was much of a help.

[tedoll78]

2. Amen.

[Selwynn]

3. This concerns me

A persons choices and decisions about how they deal with their own sexual identitty should remain personal.

I agree that a person who is emabarassed of their sexual orientation is in a sad place, and at the same time I think it is TOTALLY INAPPORPIATE for anyone to take away their right to work out their own issues privately and on their OWN TIMETABLE. I don't care who it is.

I am vehemently opposed to "outing" an opponent or using sexual orientation in ANY WAY as a political tactic.

[Padraig18]

4. Absolutely NOT!

It is *NEVER* appropriate to 'out' someone--- EVER!

[davidinalameda]

6. yes it is

if they are consistantly voting against gay issues, then it is appropriate

they need to get busted out of that closet

[Padraig18]

9. No, it's NOT!

It is the LEAST ethical position I can imagine a gay person having--- 'outing' someone!

[tedoll78]

15. Haha..

:nopity:

When a person in some seat of power uses that power to suppress the rights of others, and when there's such a deep tint of hypocracy evident, that person is fair game.

Boo-hoo all you want.

[Padraig18]

18. It's not about boo hoo-ing

It's about your personal ethics and integrity! If *anyone* should understand that, a gay person should!

[tedoll78]

21. Well then..

Aren't you a superior person?

*sniff* I think I'll be able to live with myself.. *sniff*

[JasonBerry]

100. Padraig18 - You are SO RIGHT

You are absolutely 100% correct. Sexual orientation should never be used against someone for political purposes. Ever!

It is hard to imagine the hypocrisy in the heart of people who would select RAINBOWS as their avatar, and put stickers like, "Hate Is NOT A Family Value," on their cars and then turn around and be so HATEFUL.

[arwalden]

136. I've Only Got Two Cheeks... And They've Both Been Turned.

At some point someone will eventually realize that civility for civility's sake is foolish. Being kind simply for the sole purpose of demonstrating to the opposition how "kind" you can be is foolish.

I'm no fool.

-- Allen

[noiretextatique]

156. enabling, perhaps?

i am so kind...i will let you stomp all over ME, just to prove how wonderful i am. meanwhile, you can continue stomping all over me, because you don't give a SHIT about how wonderful i am :crazy:

[scottxyz]

420. This is not about HATE it's about exposing HYPOCRISY

People such as JasonBerry who say stuff like this:

"Sexual orientation should never be used against someone for political purposes. Ever!"

keep missing the point here.

The issue here is NOT about sexual orientation. We are NOT against this guy simply because he is a homosexual. We are against him because he is a HOMOPHOBIC HOMOSEXUAL.

Enough already with the knee-jerk political correctness. Yeah, this is DU, so we understand you want to show that you're fine about gays.

But are you fine about homophobic homosexuals? That's what Dreier is.

Do you like anti-Semitic Jews? Do you like anti-black blacks? Do you like misogynist women? Sure, you want show your "liberal" DU stripes. Does that mean that WHATEVER a gay person does they have your support?

Probably one of the worst things a gay person can do, from a dignity standpoint, is be homophobic. If Dreier is gay, then he's sick in the head - NOT BECAUSE HE'S GAY, BECAUSE HE'S HOMOPHOBIC.

So chill out and feel free to criticize a few gays in your life. It's alright. You can criticize Andy Sullivan while you're at it. You can still be a liberal and criticize gays, if you're criticizing the ANTI-GAY ones. Relax.

[TrogL]

453. But you're not planning on criticizing, you're planning out outing

which is a whole different issue.

[niceypoo]

107. Call Rev Phelps and tell him

Im sure he would be glad to do your little smear for you

[bluestateguy]

5. I'm all for outing

If you want to make an omlet you've got to break a few eggs. All anti-gay politicians who have been or are homosexual should be outed and treated with the same contempt that they treat gay people. Possible suspects:

David Drier
Lindsey Graham
Ken Starr
Mark Foley

[davidinalameda]

8. Ken Starr?

yick!

we definately don't want him on our team

[bearfartinthewoods]

32. possible suspects??????

suspected of what? on what grounds? because of the way they walk or talk?

yet again...another display of the total dearth of ethics among some on this board.

[RobertSeattle]

7. That amazing internet

Have no clue the veracity of this website

http://www.geocities.com/bull_chris_1999/

[Faygo Kid]

10. Disagree

It's his choice to come out. If the Right outed a Dem, we would be angry. Plenty of other things to go after.

[David__77]

16. I wouldn't be too angry if the right outed a Democrat, actually.

I think that we can be proud that there are openly-gay Democratic officials around the country. And the ones who are closeted I would think are pretty pro-gay in their stands.

The key thing here is that Dreier is ATTACKING lesbians and gay men with his political positions. Is he indeed a homosexual, he should on that basis be exposed.

[Lars39]

11. Deja Vu again!

One of the worst flame wars here was this exact same subject, just different people.

[JohnKleeb]

14. A man named Lindsey from South Carolina is that who

[Lars39]

23. I really don't remember who was under discussion.

I just remember it getting VERY heated.

[charlie]

28. The Lindsey Graham thread

from last year was one that turned into a 200+ post brawl, as did the Dubya / Victor Ashe threads.

[JohnKleeb]

80. I knew it was him

Yes George and Victor.

[critical_thinker2]

12. huh?

Do you think being homosexual is a bad thing? How would outing this guy forward OUR agenda? Don't tactics like this make hypocrits of us all?

This is mean and vindictive and would only be done to hurt him with his constituency.

[Selwynn]

19. Amen!

[Padraig18]

27. Amen #2!

:thumbsup:

[bluestateguy]

20. It's politics

What is mean and vindictive is the gay bashing that people on the Right routinely engage in and the policies that they embrace. Outing a right wing politician who bashes gays in public life is fair play and subjects him to the same treatment that his politics promote throughout society. If somebody's feelings are hurt that's not my problem.

[noiretextatique]

24. actually, it would forward "our agenda" since he

supports an anti-gay agenda, per post #13. he's fair game, as far as i'm concerned.

[David__77]

25. Well, being gay myself...

I have NO problem with homosexuality or being gay or lesbian. But I DO have a problem with Dreier's evident hypocrisy. I have a right to be mad about that.

Why should the fact that he's gay be private. If someone had Jewish parents, concealed that fact, and then proceeded to engage in anti-Semitic demagoguery, I think the same principle would be valid.

[tedoll78]

29. this homo agrees.

He's made a public issue out of it, and no one is forcing him to do so.

[critical_thinker2]

31. Makes no sense..

I just dont see how it's any of our business what he does in his bedroom, mind you this all speculation, we just dont know nor should we. Getting into people's bedrooms is a tactic of the right, we shouldn't be doing it ourselves.

[noiretextatique]

35. it's about his VOTES nt

[critical_thinker2]

39. The talk about his votes..

Why talk about his sexuality?

Go ahead and out him, and the right will laugh at us..the tolerant..the "pro-gay" party.

[noiretextatique]

41. i don't think they will give a shit

except to the extent that they might have one less person voting for "the anti-gay agenda."

[critical_thinker2]

49. maybe not..

But they will use it next time we attempt to talk about the gay issue in a serious manner.

[noiretextatique]

51. use what...serious manner...surely, you jest nt

[critical_thinker2]

56. How about this

The fact that WE have outted this guy, as if being gay is a BAD thing. Do all gay people have to think alike? Does him, IF he is gay, have to agree with our agenda and if not, we're going to use him being gay as a club?

[noiretextatique]

154. it's not about "being gay," it's out "being gay and voting anti-gay"

it's about using his closeted status to advance an agenda of hate...against himself!!! but wait...he has the closet to shield against the shit he would foist onto other gay people (closted or not). great..."i was pretending to be straight while i voted against other gay people"..."so don't out me" excuse. sorry...whatever club there is, he's holding it, and using it against himself (and others).

[Liberal Veteran]

221. So are you saying that as a public figure...

(and keep in mind this is a hypothetical since at this point since I have no evidence of this particular public figure's sexual orientation)

Anyway, are you saying that as a public figure who has a responsibility for passing legislation that affects millions of people, we have no right to ask how he reconciles his sexual identity with his voting record?

[bearfartinthewoods]

253. if he choosed to talk about his sexuality yes.

if he hasn't made an issue of his orientaion then it's wrong for anyone else to.

i admire you for at least using the hypocthetical. many people on this thread have judged him on the basis of rumors alone. which brings me to another point. how would we know? i mean how would we know for sure, short of catching him in the act. shall we try and catch him? someone on this thread said we need to contact his old boyfriends and lovers....is that something you'd feel comfortable with? what if someone decided to pry into your life like that?

the new liberal democratic sex police...my gawd...

[Liberal Veteran]

260. No but he is free to make everyone else's an issue....

...and then cringe behind the safety of the closet door while you and other "principled" people stand by his right to treat the rest of us as doormats and not fight back by exposing his hypocrisy?

I think not. I will not protect collaborators and that is EXACTLY what these people are.

There is nothing magical about sexual orientation that places it above and beyond the same kind of treatment that unions used to give to give to collaborators. And they did that because collaborators undermine the position and solidarity of the union.

[bearfartinthewoods]

297. if memory serves, unions used to beat the crap out of "collaberators"

so now you are advocating violence against gays as well?

[critical_thinker2]

270. Correct..

What he or anyone else does in his/her bedroom (unless illegal) shouldn't be brought into the rehlm of politics on either side.

Rummaging around in someone's bedroom is a tactic of the bible thumper conservatives, it shouldn't be one of ours.

[Liberal Veteran]

271. But he's allowed to rummage around in mine?

Besides, it is ridiculous to claim that homosexuality is something that is confined specifically to the bedroom. Homosexual intercourse, perhaps, but anyone who tries to claim that homosexuality is just about what I do in the bedroom is going to get an earful from me.

I am gay 24 hours a day. I am a gay veteran. I am gay when I shower. I am gay when I am sitting in the theatre with my lover. I am gay when we go out dancing. I am gay when we go out to eat. In fact, I am engaging in homosexual activity when I go on a date with my lover in a public setting. I am being gay when I am holding my lover's hand in the hospital to comfort him before surgery. I am being gay when I hug him at the airport when he comes back from a trip. I am being gay when he calls me up crying when his mother died from cancer and he wants to speak to the one person who he knows loves him without reservation. It is part and parcel of what I am. You cannot separate me from my sexual orientation anymore than you could separate me from gender, race, ethnicity, or age.

Being gay is not simply about what goes on in the privacy of the bedroom.

And this argument is not about what he does in his bedroom. Do you define your entire sexuality by the 10 minutes to 2 hours you spend engaging in intercourse?

And the same thing holds true for closeted gay politicians. They are not magically straight in public. They are still gay. They are gay when they say "Aye" or "Nay" on gay legislation. The fact that sexual orientation is not self-evident like most minorities does not give someone a special pass to compartmentalize themselves and say "you are forbidden to call me to account for my hypocrisy". And when a closeted gay politician votes in a way that harms me and my family, I feel no obligation to protect them by keeping their secret.

Do I like it? Of course not. On the other hand, it is a fact of life that often two deeply held values can collide in a situation where you have to make a choice between which one is going to win out. When it comes to someone's right to privacy and to live a lie where they harm me and mine versus my right to equality as an individual, I am going choose the latter over the former.

Does that denote I am willing to win by any means necessary. No it doesn't. But as I have said before, I will not suffer a hypocrite who votes in for anti-gay legislation while hiding behind the security and safety of the closet. I feel no allegiance or encumberance to protect their secrecy about what they obviously consider to be a dirty little secret.

[bearfartinthewoods]

298. have you had sex with the congressman in question?

do you have video of him having homosexual relations? do you have DNA?

if not, then all your proclaimations about how this alleged closeted person behaves are irrelevant to say the least but i'll continue with a hypothetical.

you and others harp on the issue of his hypocrisy.

one which issue to you peg his hypocrisy?

is this furor inspired by his lack of a public gay life? you describe your life as a public expression of your total gay package. are you saying that if he is gay and chooses not to be publicly gay that he is a hypocrite for that?

or is it his voting record? as has been mentioned earlier, there is no real gay agenda that is universally accepted. many gays want the validation of the word marriage. many gays want a civil union status instead. many gays dismiss both as a attempt to corral them into a hetro-based monogomous life style.

do you accept that this diversity of opinion exists in the gay community? could it be that an elected politician may diverge in his opinion as compared to yours without being hypocritical?

also, what is the job of a respresentative? is it to vote the will of his constituants? if so, and i do hope so since this is a democratic principle, if he is voting the wishes of his district, fairly reflecting the wishes of those that elect him how is he hypocritical.

finally, i ask again...if you are so very offended by hypocrisy, how is it that you can even consider this action which goes against liberal and democratic tennants. the idea that this party would enodrosed the outing of any gay man is the heigth or maybe better said, the depth of hypocrisy.

[bearfartinthewoods]

194. first, you are assuming he will lose his seat and that a dem will take it

it's possible but what if another pub takes it? if he resignes, doesn't arnie get to replace him? and in the next election, you could very well end up with another republican who really has no connection to the gay community.

so what have you gained? you replace a gay guy with a non gay guy and sell our souls in the process. wonderful faustian bargain.

given the uncertain benefit for gays in general, this seems even more like vengence. using gayness as a weapon is not a liberal action.

[Liberal Veteran]

198. You could look at it another way....

After being exposed to exactly the kind of homophobia that he is promoting instead of being allowed the safety and security of hiding in the closet, it might force at least one person to re-examine his affiliation with a party that promotes intolerance.

The fact that he may or may not be replaced by another republican is pretty much a zero sum game. In some ways having a person who votes anti-gay to protect his own sexual identity is more of a threat to the gay community than a person who has less connection to the gay community and votes his conscience.

[bearfartinthewoods]

213. how do you get that he is voting anti gay to protect his sexual identity?

explain please. how does voting against what some here have referred to as the 'gay agenda' protect him. it's obviously endangering his secret since it has pissed off people who will stoop to outing as revenge.

[Liberal Veteran]

218. Don't pretend to be dense....

You know very well that he can dispell rumors about his sexual identity by pointing to his anti-gay voting record under ordinary circumstances. I've seen it plenty of times where a person will behave in an inconsistent manner with their own actions in order to maintain a public facade.

Neither you nor I are simpleminded so let's not go there.

And you know what? If we play the game the way you want to play it, he will continue to get away with it. I repeat: I will not suffer a person who behaves in a dispicable and hypocritical manner to go unchallenged.

To be completely honest, the attitude that we must always to play nice nice and put everything aside because we afraid of getting our hands a little dirty is costing this party. There is a such thing as being so nice that you become a doormat and people like yourself allow people to use as doormats.

I am not a doormat and I refuse to be a doormat. It's just like the fact that I do not like violence, but I am not about to allow a person to beat me to pulp and not fight back.

[arwalden]

251. I Think I'm In Love With You...

... well okay. Not really IN love. I just love the way you express yourself and how closely it mirrors my feelings as well.

As a follow up on something you mentioned: It's definitely true that folks will use their anti-gay behavior to dispel rumors that they themselves are gay. --- I did it all through high school and for a short time in college.

How could my friends and family EVER suspect ME of being gay if I'm always the one to ridicule "those" faggots with jokes and put-downs and insults.

And it works! For my 20th high school reunion many of my friends were shocked (SHOCKED I tell you!) that I was gay. (To my own surprise, a couple of my friends were delighted and bit flirtatious as well. But that's a topic for another thread.)

-- Allen

[bearfartinthewoods]

266. pointing to his record ...ha!

it obviously hasn't worked to dispell your suspicions has it?

it's obvious from the sentiments on this thread that he'd be a hell of a lot safer if he'd voted "your" way now wouldn't he.

I will not suffer a person who behaves in a dispicable and hypocritical manner to go unchallenged either. that's why i'm here
on this thread. IMHO this is dispicable and hypocritical for a liberal to seriously consider using a person's sexuality as a weapon.

there is a such thing as bending your ethics and the tenets of the dem party and the liberal movement until it snaps. this is the same party and movement that has made the progress that has been made in making gay be no big deal. you seek to overturn that progress for the sake of getting rid of one possibly gay congressman and i say it's a lousey bargain.

btw...i'd like to know just what exactly this man has done to 'beat you to a pulp'.....but i have a life and need to attend to it tonight.

if you'd like to share, i will check back in the AM.

[TrogL]

284. So no matter what he does

If he votes gay, he must be gay.

If he votes anti-gay, he must be a closetted gay.

This is ridiculous.

[Liberal Veteran]

290. I don't think I ever implied his voting record was indicative of...

...his sexual orientation.

I did imply that it could be used as a cover to protect a closeted person and I have seen examples of that in my own experiences, but if I implied that anything other than an overt sexual act or statement by a person could be used to conclude homosexuality, it was certainly not my intent.

And also keep in mind I have kept this argument completely in the realm of a hypothetical. No one has presented me with evidence of this person's sexual orientation one way or another. I don't play the rumor mongering game. I need hard (no pun intended) evidence.

[TrogL]

291. So you would out him despite his sexual orientation?

I fully realize that's a contradiction in terms.

Nevertheless, it's happened several times to me.

[Liberal Veteran]

293. I would not out anyone without being sure....

In other words, if I had no evidence that the person was gay or straight, I would not out them at all. On the other hand, if I had sufficient cause to believe a person was gay who acted against the interest of the gay community at large, I would out him.

Let me explain why in a private message.

[bhunt70]

258. If its about his votes then tackle him on the issues...

not sexuality.

[AntiCoup2K4]

128. Some Repukes DO think it's a bad thing.

And if Drier is helping them to perpetuate that, then his hypocrisy should be pointed out.

The thing about ignorance is that it breeds (pardon the expression) in the dark. Republicans remain homophobes because they think of gays as some distant "other", rather than their own, be it Lindsey Graham, Drier, "Jeff Christie", or whomever. Maybe the more Republican homosexuals they know, the less homophobic they will be?

Just this breeder's 2 cents. :-)

[critical_thinker2]

272. I guess..

..I give the Republicans more credit than that. I think they have a religious objection to homosexuality.

The sad part is that most people do, cause if they didn't we'd have been able to get though gay marrige, survivor benefits, adoption and simple stuff like that.

[dutchdemocrat]

13. Seems there are some rumors in the air.

http://www.geocities.com/bull_chris_1999/



These two closeted Members of Congress, Rep. David Dreier (R-CA) and Ed Pease (R-IN), consisently vote against gay people, despite the fact that most other members and Congressional staff know that they are gay. They have recently cast the following anti-gay votes:

Both voted for the Largent amendment (July 29, 1999, Roll Call Vote No. 346) which would have prohibited gay couples in the District of Columbia from adopting children. Luckily, the amendment failed by a close vote of 213 for, 215 against.

Both also voted for the same Largent amendment (August 6, 1998, Roll Call Vote No. 414) when it came up last year. That year, it passed by a vote of 227 for, 192 against.

SNIP

[dutchdemocrat]

22. Guestbook

http://www.geocities.com/bull_chris_1999/geobook.html

I have heard that Dreier's Chief of Staff Brad Simth is also his lover. This would certainly be nepotism in spirit, if not in law. Does anyone have any information on that point? Also, Pease has been going to the gay bar Omega in Washington. Has anyon seen him there?


And here

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/change-links/message/9759

The MOST OUTRAGEOUS thing they have done recently is to have voted against
the Hate Crimes bill. The only way that supporters of the Hate Crimes bill
have been able to call for a vote on it in the House was through a
procedural
vote in support the attachment of the Hate Crimes provisions to a defense
authorization bill in the Senate. On September 13, 2000, the House passed a
"Motion to Instruct" conferees to agree to keep the Hate Crimes provisions
added by the Senate in the final version of the defense bill. Although the
motion passed by a vote of 232 to 192, these TWO COWARDS, Dreier and Pease,
voted against the motion. Eventually, the final version of the bill did not
contain the Hate Crimes provisions, despite the fact that a majority of
members in both the House and the Senate voted in favor of them. This is a
true testament to the bigotry of the Republican Leadership in Congress.
Both members also voted against a bill to repeal the Boy Scouts' federal
charter. This was a vote meant to embarrass Democrats, especially pro-Gay
Democrats. Although the vote on the bill was a political stunt and the bill
had no chance of passing, Dreier could have used his position as Chairman of
the powerful Rules Committee to prevent this type of gay-baiting from
occurring on the House floor.
Now we see David dating BO Derek to cover up his alleged romantic
relationship with his chief of staff Brad Smith......

[julka]

153. from the guestbook at the above link:

hahahaha

Terry Dolan - 11/04/00 05:08:29
Gay, Straight, MYOB?: straight (gay sex only)


Comments:
I have never seen a signed affidavit that Mary Cheney is homosexual. Even poor Liberace was maligned with this type of libel since he never formally announced he was gay. As far as I can tell there are less than 100 documented and verified homosexuals in he USA. We need to realize that great heterosexual role models like George Bush or Charleton Heston don't ever have to produce any proof. Heterosexuality can be assumed through certain heroic personality traits and mannerisms. On the other hand, you can n ver be sure about those cunning homosexuals. We should never talk as if someone might actually be 'gay' unless we have video or DNA evidence. Please go back to your quiet closets.

[WoodrowFan]

172. Ed Pease

I think he retired. (edited to remove comment because I realized I mistook him for someone else, sorry)

[JackSwift]

17. Telling the truth in politics about politicians in this country

is always fair game. If you pull your political punches you deserve to be beaten and oppressed. If the guy is gay and is a hypocrit and you can get somewhere from exposing it, then by all means do it. If you aren't prepared to tell the truth about your opponents, then the lies your opponents tell will be remembered as true.

[critical_thinker2]

26. Accomplishing what?

What is there to gain for OUR side if is outed?

[59millionmorons]

30. Excuse me

I thought we were the party of tolerance. We start doing this kind of thing, then we become them.

[David__77]

34. What's not tolerant.

I'm gay, I'm pro-gay. I'm not pro-hypocritical closet homosexuals attacking me and my family.

[59millionmorons]

40. I will admit you are more up on this subject than me

but I never heard Drier's stance on the gay lifestyle. To me if someone wants to be in the closest that is there choice and I can respect that. Outing him seems to me to be mean spirited. But if he has came out about gay's in the past, then count me in for outing him. I love nothing more than outing hypocrits.

[Muddleoftheroad]

132. This is not pro-gay

This is the kind of bullshit that can discourage anyone who might be closeted never to run for office. Hell, it might keep someone away who even had sex with a man once.

Very stupid. Very slimey. Very disgusting.

[noiretextatique]

159. you apparently see some virtue in being closeted

i don't...if it's used as a "shield" to promote anti-gay bigotry.

[Muddleoftheroad]

174. I see some virtue in freedom

YOU don't define someone else's sexuality. I find it to be NOT of your concern as long as what he does involves consenting adults. Again, I see lots of people trying to decide what gay people have to do here. That's not freedom in any sense of the word.

[noiretextatique]

201. the freedom to promot ean anti-gay agenda

by hiding behind a false cloak of 'heteroseuality' while working against the rights of other gay people? he defines his sexuality, and by "playing straight" he also denies it. so, does he have the freedom to lie? sure. and i have to freedom to point out that he is lying.

[Muddleoftheroad]

222. You have no idea

What thoughts go through his head? What is in his heart? Maybe he doesn't know. Maybe he just doesn't care.

Either way, this is the kind of infantile strategy that will keep good people from running for office because they don't pass muster of the nutjobs of the far right or, now it seems, far left.

[noiretextatique]

342. whatever...he knows enough to support an anti-gay agenda

but i'm sure he appreciates your concern about his (possible) delicate psychological state.

[bearfartinthewoods]

47. you haven't been paying attention.

it perfectly fine to betray our principles when it's convenient now....NOT!!

if i thought for an instant that the attitude here was IN ANYWAY typical of the vaste majority of dems i'd be too depressed for words.

[noiretextatique]

376. "we" don't have the same "principles"

something you keep failing to realize. the "right" to be homophobic, and to advocate anti-gay legislation, ideas, and iniatives is NOT something i must "tolerate" to prove how liberal and open-minded
i am. it's not just a difference opinion, it's an attack on my being and my right to live as an equal (with heterosexuals) in this society. the betrayal i see in this thread is the argument that closted homophobes have "special rights" to privacy and protection from so-called "liberals," regardless of the harm they do to society, and to other gays and lesbians.

[jsw_81]

162. We shouldn't be "tolerant" toward evil

And Republicans are pure evil. Look at what they did in Florida. Look at how they demonized patriots like Cleland last year. Look at how they just stole the goddamn California governor's mansion! And let's not forget how they're gerrymandering the districts in Texas at this very moment.

These bastards show no mercy when they attack our side, so why in the world should we be merciful and "tolerant" toward them? If we want to start winning this country back we have GOT to start playing hardball. And that includes "outing" closeted hypocrites like David Dreier.

[bearfartinthewoods]

181. and the phelps' of the world say we shouldn't be tolerant of evil

but the evil they are reerring to is gayness. you think this stops with a couple gay republicans? you think the rabid right won't froth at the mouth if we legitimize outting gays? Hahaha....

i shouldn't laugh. it won't be at all funny of we drop the pressure against bigotry. if we take up outting, they'll make it into a freaking sport.

[Name removed]

33. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[David__77]

36. Egads! I AM gay...

He should be OK with the fact he's gay, if it's true. I think it's fair to find out. If he is, he should be outed in order to neutralize him politically, or force him to recant his past positions, that's all.

[noiretextatique]

38. LMAO

a lot of lecturers in this thread.

[eleny]

44. There's a Catch 22 here

How does Dreier's hypocrisy get revealed when the source of the hypocrisy is his being homosexual (if he is indeed)?

[noiretextatique]

48. why his anti-gay votes, of course

i'd love for him to have the opportunity to explain his votes...if he is gay.

[Name removed]

57. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[bearfartinthewoods]

106. clue.......you DON'T GET TO DECIDE

you DON'T GET TO DECIDE what another person is 'OK with'.

it's their choice not yours. that's sort of one of the tenets of the democratic party.

[noiretextatique]

115. look...if he's in the closet, he knows the risks of exposure

especially as a politician who has an anti-gay voting record. personally, i don't think he deserves the cover of the closet, since he is voting against issues of importance to gay people.

[bearfartinthewoods]

122. you could say the same thing about any gay guy who works

with kids. they know the risk and this venange move against politicans will increase the risk for everyone else.

have you ever noticed that the gay guys who support this are openly gay? they have nothing to lose and they feel they have the right to make choices for everyone else.

[noiretextatique]

151. a teacher is a not a politician with an anti-gay voting record nt

[dsc]

184. But we are public figures

which means the same reason it is legal to point out Dryer is gay (if he is) makes it legal to point out I am gay. Frankly I don't think it is my students business if I am or not. Shouldn't that be my choice?

[noiretextatique]

190. are you voting for anti-gay legislation while using the cloak

of heterosexuality as a cover? you are NOT a "public figure," i.e., holding elective office, in part (perhaps) because you are lying about who you are, to (likely) some of the people who are voting for you because you are a liar and a hypocrite. you are a private citizen, who happens to be a teacher.

[dsc]

191. we are atleast quasi public figures

I would have no cause of action against a school newspaper and would likely have an uphill battle against my local one. Also my point is that a right you take for yourself (outing public figure gays who do something you don't like) will be taken by others (outing public gays who do things they don't like). You can't define this as just the behavior you don't like.

[noiretextatique]

193. i don't define it that way

i define it as someone pretending to be straight who does harm to other gay people. it's not a question of "liking it," i think it is wrong. i think it is wrong to use the cloak of the closet to harm other gay people...and it's hypocritical. i think defending someone's "right" to do that is the only issue in question here. and...i can only assume that you are not doing that, i.e., using the cloak of the closet to harm other gay people.

[dsc]

196. And I am sure the Phelps' of this world

are sure they are helping children or the 'sinners'. The problem that happens when we decide we can take people's freedom for the service of our cause is that our enemies will do so for theirs. For the record, I don't hurt other gay people and I would call me in a quasi closet. Most of the older students probably know due to my not lying about certain things (ie not having been married, not dating a woman right now etc.). When I am directly asked I say I MYOB type answer.

[noiretextatique]

202. the problem is, dsc: our enemies are already doing

exactly what you describe. the point of david's post is about an anti-gay measure we will be facing soon in california. i say: fight fire with fire. and no one has the freedom to lie...without being called to task about it, especially those who are entrusted with representing the people, all of them. isn't that a part of the current problem...in our involvement in iraq, for example...the administration's lies about WMD? and...our collective failure to call them to task about it, as a society? granted...a lot of people tried, but of course, there is an entire industry devoted to perpetuating those lies...the media, the weapons manufacturers, the people who stand to make billions on rebuilding what was destroyed...all based on lies.
you are a private citizen: MYOB is an appropriate response.

fred phelps...his is a personal vendetta, based on an incident involving one of his grandchilren. i liken his irrational hatred to anyone else's who judges an entire group of people by one negative experience with one individual...it's crazy. that's his "right" though. personally, i think he turns off more people than he turn on.

[dsc]

262. Using Phelps as an example was a mistake on my part

my point was much broader. If there is an anti gay initiative in California coming up we need to fight it not Dryer. I see no benefit at all to gay rights from outing Dryer. At best it would remove him from office to be replaced by another Republican. I presume that his district is like most and safely one party. It would also tar us as hypocrites when he make arguments that any other people on the public payroll deserve privacy in their sex lives.

[bearfartinthewoods]

314. fight it, not dryer....yes..especially since dyrer serves in the US house

not in the CA house so he won't even be voting on the measure which is just a minor detail i guess <sarcasm>

[noiretextatique]

347. Schwarzenegger Appoints Anti-Gay To Head Transition

you don't live in california...do you?

http://www.365gay.com/newscontent/100803caTrans.htm
(Los Angeles, California) Governor-elect Arnold Schwarzenegger has appointed conservative Republican Congressman David Dreier to head his transition team.

Schwarzenegger won a landslide election Tuesday night in a vote that saw the ouster of gay-positive governor Gray Davis (story)

Following the announcement of Dreier's appointment, the Los Angeles Gay and Lesbian Center invited the governor-elect to a meeting with the state's gay and lesbian leaders.

"One of the quickest ways for the governor-elect to show that he is not playing 'politics as usual' is to meet with this core component of California's constituency," said Lorri L. Jean, director of the center.

Schwarzenegger has not commented on the invitation

http://www.365gay.com/NewsContent/092603calSuit2.htm
2nd Suit To Kill Calif. Gay Partner Law
by Matt Johns
365Gay.com Newscenter
Los Angeles Bureau



Posted: September 26, 2003 11:23 a.m. ET


(Los Angeles, California) A conservative Christian group has filed suit to block California's new domestic partner law from taking effect.

The Campaign for California Families filed the lawsuit in Los Angeles Superior Court alleging that the law, set to come into effect January 1, 2005, seeks to circumvent state law barring same-sex marriage.

In 2000, voters passed Prop. 22 which says "only marriage between a man and a woman is valid and recognized in the state of California.'

The new domestic partner law, signed September 19 by Gov. Gray Davis, extends to gay couples most of the rights traditionally accorded to heterosexually married people, but does not go so far as to give gay and lesbian couples the right to marry. (story)

It is the second suit that seeks to prevent the law from coming into effect. One day after Davis signed the legislation, the man who pressed for Prop. 22, Republican state Sen. Pete Knight launched a suit in Sacramento County Superior Court court. (story)

[dsc]

352. I fail to see how outing

Dreier would do anything here. The first issue will be determined by Arnold and not Dreier. The second will be in the courts which are probably around the same as the 9th circuit which should be a good sign.

[bearfartinthewoods]

357. excellant point

this whole idea that outting one republican is going to do anything to promote gay rights is ridiculous but i don't think it matters here.

this is coming from some other place. this is is about a sense of 'power' and revenge, i'm think, for some of the people here. it's getting really hard to load and read this whole thread but if you do, i think you'll see a strong indication that there are other forces and agendas at play.

[noiretextatique]

360. so you're a psychologist now too?

arnie is 'supposedly' pro gay rights, yet he appoints a known homophobe to his transition team. do ya think there's something a little suspicious about that...hmmm? nah...it must be just a bunch of people seeking "power" and "revenge"...nothing at all to do with defending the attack on gay rights...currently in progress in california...which is ACTUALLY about "power and revenge" :eyes: you are truly "all-knowing" :eyes:

[dsc]

375. I am willing to give Arnold the benefit of the doubt here

I would be surprised if he had a lot of pro gay Republicans even out there from which to choose. Dreier is anti gay to the extent that it is a signature issue with him and thus it is possilbe Arnold wanted him there for other reasons. It surely doesn't bode well which is why Democrats out there should have thought before they voted for him (the 18% who did I mean).

[noiretextatique]

377. so true...of course, i wasn't among that number

just like i wasn't in the number of democrats who voted for bush in 2000...go figure :shrug: still some "reagan democrats" left out here...perhaps they will support clark in 2004.

you may be correct about arnie. my friend thinks he'll be more interested in appeasing log cabin types than the homophobes. i am not so sure...

[dsc]

379. If he wants to work in Hollywood again

he had better. Just imagine what the queer eye people could do to make Arnold look bad if they put their minds to it.

[noiretextatique]

381. LOL...you DO have a point...peace eom

[bearfartinthewoods]

400. that's funny....

this whole thread reeks of disections of the supposed gay man's psyche and i'm chastized for having my own opinions on motives?

simple thesis...people want to out one man without any proof that such an act will have any real effect on gay issues and in doing so, mock what this party has stood for for decades.

it is not logical.

so i look to other reasons and when you read posts that scream sentiments like'closeted jerks have ruined my family' it isn't a far leap to assume the motives i stated.

[noiretextatique]

424. enuf already!

your moralizing has become very tiresome. you don't like the tactic...fine. it does not equate to the end of the democratic party, no matter how hysterical you get about claiming so. this is long past :boring:

[bearfartinthewoods]

300. no, she is more important than that

she is molding little skulls full of mush (to put it in rusheeze) and i'm sure that some of the parents of her children would love to out her at work because they see her as an enemy...just as you see a gay congressmen.

make dsc "fair game". that's what you do when you legitimize the concept of outing your enemies.

[dsc]

312. It is he

but thanks for the back up

[bearfartinthewoods]

315. ooops

my apologies and no thanks needed. i have a friend who taught and coached b-ball in philly for only as long as it took for him to be able to retire. he loved the job and the kids but this was in the 60's-80's and the threat of exposure haunted him. i understand what teachers go through.

[dsc]

321. I have no earthly idea what would happen

It doesn't take Columbo to figure it out in my case but that is different from knowing for sure as we both know. I would like to think things would be fine but one never knows.

[Denver Bear]

42. I don't agree....

I don't think the point is that being gay is wrong, but being gay and actively participating in the discrimination of the GLBTQ community is wrong.

[karlschneider]

50. Nobody (here, anyway) has said "he's evil because he's gay."

If he is, and consistently pursues anti-gay agendas, then he's an asshole no matter what he does in private. But his votes and agenda are NOT private, they are PUBLIC and thus are hypocritical and, yes, evil.

It is essentially no different from the "stealth candidates" frequently adopted by the wingnut fringe: pretend to be moderate or progressive in order to gain power, then act in a completely inconsistent manner. If
(IF, I really have no idea) Dreier is gay and wants to pursue a homophobic agenda, simple honesty would demand he make that public. Not doing so is dishonest. I would rather have an honest bigot than a clandestine hypocrite any day.

[bearfartinthewoods]

124. no...you are saying he is vulnerable because he's gay

be honest. that's what you are saying. his gayness is a weapon you can use to destroy him. is that really something liberal dems can endorse.

[Name removed]

149. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Dr Fate]

163. He is not "vulnerable" if he supports gay rights...

...if he supported gay rights, no one here would even care, we would applaud his stance and leave him be.

His hypocrisy on the issues makes him vulnerable, not who he sleeps with...

[Muddleoftheroad]

176. Not hypocrisy

He might actually disagree with you. Perish the thought.

So you decide to destroy him and his family and career just like the worst of the right would do.

Despicable actually.

[scottxyz]

467. Very revealing statements you make, 'muddleoftheroad'

You keep saying things like "He might actually disagree with you. Perish the thought."

You just don't get it, do you? How would you like it if we were talking about a legislator who felt that black people shouldn't have the right to partner health benefits and you were up in arms and we came back and said "He might just disagree with you. Perish the thought."

You think it's just some matter of "opinion" whether gay people should have equal rights. That's where you show how dead-wrong you are. Gay people's rights are just as inalienable as yours. Until you understand that, you will have no idea at the outrage gays feel against Dreier, or anyone else who tries to deny them their basic rights under law.

You keep acting like it's just some minor issue we're talking about here, like equal rights for gay people are optional or something. You are SOOO out to lunch on that one.

If a legislator was saying that your wife doesn't have the right to health benefits because, after all, you're both black, and maybe that's just the legislator's "opinion"... you'd be pretty damn pissed off.

You keep trying to trivialize this whole thing like Dreier somehow has the right to deny gay people basic rights under law. Like he's entitled to his opinions and who are we to disagree with him.

What planet are you on? The guy is a CONGRESSMAN and he is passing LAWS - that's why we have the right to disagree with him.

You are so lost. Let's take away your wife's health benefits because it's some legislator's "opinion" and who are we to disagree with him and THEN see how you'd feel.

[bearfartinthewoods]

212. so the deal is if he does what we want his sex life is secret

if not he's vulnerable. this is really a code you want to live by?

person A, wants to exert influence over person B ....A just needs to dig up the details of B's sex life and use that to force them into doing whatever.

this is a good thing? this is what you are defending?

[brook]

54. Hold on!

Nobody here said that being gay is wrong. The point is that the gentleman in question is using his elected position to deny civil rights and respect to the gay community, voting against their interests. Obviously he thinks they are 'fair game'. So should he be...for his hypocrisy - not his 'gayness'.

[Brian Sweat]

37. Why I think it is ok to out homosexuals that work to oppose gay rights.

Homosexuals who have the guts to come "out of the closet" are often subject to ridicule in this country. Homosexuals who hide in the closet while helping to foster an atmosphere of open hostility toward gays and lesbians deserve to be exposed to the hostility the create.

What tolerance there is for homosexuals in this country was won by those who had the courage to come out and fight. It is reprehensible then that someone would attack the rights of these people while enjoying a level of comfort provided by them.

[critical_thinker2]

43. So..

It would be ok for the right to out closeted gay democrats?

[59millionmorons]

52. Hold on

I doubt many gay democrats would hide it and those gay democrats would not be speaking bad about the gay issue. If Drier has spoken out against gays and he is so that is one thing. But if he is outed just to be mean then that is wrong.

[Brian Sweat]

71. Only if those closeted gay Democrats

were actively working to oppose gay rights, but then you knew your response was a straw man, didn't you?

[critical_thinker2]

89. No strawman at all..

I asked a valid relevant question about closetted gay democrats. It would seem to me that if any politician is gay but doesn't tote the line on gay issues, his sexuality is fair game.

Thats just wrong in my opinion, his sexuality should have nothing to do with how we attack him.

I asked the question as a measure of your evenhandedness.

[TrogL]

45. Who are you to judge when someone should come out of the closet?

For that matter, how do we know he's gay? Just become some repug says so?

[noiretextatique]

55. a vicious anti-gay crusader may be gay...a hypothetical

this hypothetical anti-gay crusader is suggesting it's ok to go out and shoot hoomosexuals...cause it's in the bible. you have info that this person like to hang out at the local leather bar...he's been seen there on several occasions, and you can get pictures. would it be ok to "out" this closet case, given his work as an anti-gay crusader?

[TrogL]

67. No, for a variety of reasons

• The splatter effect. In retaliation, right-wingers will begin outing other people on our side.
  
• By our rules, it shouldn't work. There is no problem with being outed.
  
• It will prevent other people from coming out who want/need to
  

[noiretextatique]

68. fair enuf...i disagree

but i understand your views. i don't think those who support an anti-gay agenda deserve the protection of the closet. peace.

[Brian Sweat]

81. You reasons are bogus.

• The splatter effect. In retaliation, right-wingers will begin outing other people on our side.
  
  Right-wingers need no provocation to out liberals who are homosexual.
  
  
• By our rules, it shouldn't work. There is no problem with being outed.
  
  What rules are those. I am not aware of a liberal rule that says that being outed will not create problems for homosexuals who try to remain closeted. If that were true, we wouldn't be having this conversation in the first place. Also, even if being outed as a liberal were harmless, it is silly to suggest that being outed as a Republican would also be.
  
  
• It will prevent other people from coming out who want/need to
  
  Say what? This makes no sense at all.
  
  

[TrogL]

282. *sigh*

1. At least where I am, the right wingers have been behaving themselves - sort of am armed truce.

2. There's nothing wrong with being gay. In a perfect world, outing would be ridiculous.

3. It's not a perfect world.

[Name removed]

74. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[eleny]

53. This is like Rush Limbaugh...

speaking out against drug addicts and insisting on tough jail sentences for them - when he is also an addict. Jeez! I can see both sides of this issue.

[critical_thinker2]

60. Good point..

But has Drier suggested jail for gay people? Rush is definetly a hypocrit for that stance, but then again being addicted to pain killers will be strange things to people.

He wont be talkin about drugs like that again anytime soon.

[eleny]

66. Seems like Rush is sure trying to have it both ways

I know the analogy falls short. But I also know you understand where I was going. This board also hashed it out when some folks had pity for Rush and others felt no mercy.

Btw, I fell on the no-mercy side. From the way the right wing has conducted itself in recent years, I find it hard to feel mercy for Rush. The duplicity has plucked at my very last nerve.

As for Dreier, if he is homosexual, then I leave it to his partner(s) to out him. That should come soon enough given the high profile Arnold will give him. The National Enquirer won't even have to go looking. Their phones should be ringing off the hook in due time.

Welcome to Great Britian <w>.

[bearfartinthewoods]

127. what is the opposite of opposing gay rights

in my mind, the opposite is supporting gay rights.

and your position is that outing gays is supporting gay rights.....

i think you need to think about this...about more than the limited scope of damaging a few enemys.

[Dr Fate]

165. He cannot stand up for his own rights, how will he protect mine?

...If a republican is gay, he should support his own rights. How can anyone trust a "leader" to stand up for our rights when he cannot even stand up for his own?

No one said that outing gays is supporting gays- people are saying that we need to call gay republicans and their straight friends and supporters to task on this issue...it's a call for honesty.

[Stupdworld]

46. whats the point?

he'd deny it and basically it would get like 5 minutes of traction, then talk radio would call it "trash politics"

doesnt seem like it would accomplish much.

[RobertSeattle]

58. Just an observation from his 2002 (D) Opponent's website

http://www.marjoriemikels.com/mainconcerns/three.html

Bottom of page
"David Dreier has never had to feed a family. David Dreier has never had to hold down a job. David Dreier has never owned a small business and struggled to meet payroll taxes. David Dreier has been on the government dole his whole adult life, thanks to campaign contributions from the oil industry. "

[foreigncorrespondent]

59. I cannot believe we are having yet another...

...if he is gay then he should be outed threads.

This is unbelievable.

It doesn't matter ig the person is gay or not. It doesn't matter what their voting record is like in Congress. The fact is using someones sexuality as a weapon is making us no better than them (the repukes)

It might show them up to be the hypocrites they are, but for crying out loud us LGBT's have enough hatred towards us without the left causing more.

[noiretextatique]

62. fc...a question? this man is a politician who is anti-gay

doesn't this strike you as...well, hypocritical? why should he have the protection of the closet (if he is gay), of pretending to be straight...meanwhile supporting an anti-gay agenda, that hurts other gay people? especially since there is not wrong with being gay.

[foreigncorrespondent]

69. Yes it does noiretblu...

...but again I say, using someones sexuality as a weapon is NOT the right answer.

And every LGBT person who believes in outing people from the right in order to get a job done are walking with blinders on. In the end that will only manage to make us more hated than ever before, don't you see that?

If you want to win rights then go about it the right way, don't lower yourself to a repuke level in order to achieve it, because you won't be winning in the long run, none of us will.

[noiretextatique]

73. well, if it is the truth, and if there is nothing wrong with being gay

then i wouldn't have a problem with him being eaten alive by the folks he chose to cozy up to hurt other gay people...while pretending to be straight himself. but...i do understand what you mean about using "outing" as a weapon.

[foreigncorrespondent]

75. But the problem is...

...then we are going to have the right coming back at us saying, "Look the left is now admitting that being gay is wrong."

This is just rediculous! Find real dirt on someone and use that against them, don't use their sexuality.

[noiretextatique]

77. no...i think it would say

lying about your sexuality to score points with rw wackos who hate gay people is wrong, and pretending to be straight to advance an anti-gay agenda is wrong. if he's so proud of his "work" he shouldn't have a problem with coming out...but perhaps his friends and constiuents would. the price one pays for such self-hating deception.

[foreigncorrespondent]

79. That would be the statement we are making yes...

...but you need to think about what the right and the religous right is going to say about it. And then you need to think about the damage it is going to do to our cause in the process.

Remember they are the ones with media control not us.

[noiretextatique]

109. frankly, i don't see a problem, but i will think about it more nt

[Padraig18]

63. Thank you!

:thumbsup:

[dutchdemocrat]

61. Seems Bush and Dreier are friends for 20 years.

http://www.mikemalloy.com/archives/round22.htm

That small number of visits, though, masks a flurry of campaign activity. Last year, for example, Bush raised $500,000 from California residents during his reelection campaign for governor. And the day after he was reelected, he called David Dreier, a senior California congressman with whom he's been friends for over 20 years, to sound him out on the political scene. Bush told Dreier he was giving serious thought to running for president and added, "I'd like you to be part of my leadership team in California."

The two stayed in regular contact over the next few months, and in June Dreier was named one of five co-chairs of the California campaign (the others are Condoleezza Rice, a Hoover Institution fellow who was a senior foreign-policy aide in the Bush White House; Jim Brulte, a state senator; Ann Veneman, food and agriculture secretary for Governor Pete Wilson; and Eloise Anderson, Wilson's director of social services). Even more impressive is the breadth of support for Bush among California's Republican elected officials: Thirty-six of the state legislature's 47 Republicans are backing him, as are 19 of the state's 24 GOP House members.

[bearfartinthewoods]

65. and we all know that real men aren't freinds with gays right?

i mean any man who is a friend of a gay must be in the closet.....right?

this is disgusting.

[dutchdemocrat]

85. Whatever...

I was looking at his relationship with Bushco - Look at the link - the paragraph comes from Mike Malloy's site...

I am just googling around a little. I find the story interesting.

It is parallel to Rush blasting drug users and secretly taking drugs.

You find it disgusting, go to another thread. Simple.

[bearfartinthewoods]

103. you'd like that wouldn't you

it's a standard response in these let's out the gay guy threads.

sorry ...you haven't driven us all off the board. there will ALWAYS be people ready to stand against gat bashing and bigotry. and some of use have been fighting this fight for decades .

some of us are partly responsible for the changes that made it even imaginable to be an openly gay politician and we sure as hell are not going to sit back and let faux liberals give back that hard won, blood soaked groud.

[Dr Fate]

105. How do Bush and his supporters fight for gays?

A gay man who supports Bush is also supporting the likes of John Ashcroft and the Christian right. The very same right wingers who PROMOTE violence and discrimination against gays.

It's time we be honest about sexuality in America- if gay republicans, and their straight allies continue to support gay hate, then it will never end. I wish Republicans would be honest about this and stop doing things that proximatley and intentionally spread malice and hatred against gays.

[bearfartinthewoods]

112. this battle has never been fought by politicans

this is a hearts and minds of the people thing. this is grass roots not from the top down. this is about the relentless push to make being anti-gay sooo uncool that fewer and fewer politicans dare vote against it.

we cannot abandone the war for a short term victory over a couple politicans. we cannot reintroduce the idea that it's okay to use beig gay as a club. it will not stop with a couple republicans if the dems validate this idea of gay as a weapon to crush an opponent.

[Dr Fate]

160. I t is not about "gays" its about gay REPUBLICANS who OPPOSE Gay rights

If a Republican was anti-jewish, but it turned out he was Jewish, or had jewish friends- I would want to know about it- I expect that jews, non-racists, and even the racist supporters would be interested in this...

And no, I am not equating race with sexual preference, - I am trying to draw a parallel that makes the hypocrisy more obvious to you.

[Dr Fate]

90. There you go again, defending Bush...

...REAL men STAND UP for their gay friends- REAL men and women like the good Democrat candidates who SUPPORT gay rights.

COWARDS like Bush USE people like this guy in private- but publically speak out AGAINST GAYS.

The most disgusting thing I see is a COWARD like Bush who stabs his gay friends in back everytime he supports the Fake-Christian Right aganda.

No one said Bush was gay- the point is that he has a gay so-called friend and yet is publically ANTI-GAY. Bush neeeds to explain this dishonest behavior- its the right thing to do.

[bearfartinthewoods]

129. please show me where i have defended bush???

ever.....

[Dr Fate]

158. How many examples would you like?

Off the top of my head, I recall when you opposed us DUers making fun of the way he says "Murcka"...

Perhaps that was your Ketchup hating alter-ego that started that thread.

[bearfartinthewoods]

167. just one would do....

my point on the 'murican' thread was an objection to what i perceived as a slam against southerners. i had no idea the word had anything to do with bush. as soon as someone explained the connection and conotation i withdrew the objection. no where in there did i defend bush.

and if you are referring to my wife with the ketchup hater bit, the thread made it perfectly clear what was going on. she had spent days
begging for money to try and make a decent Christmas for the kids at the shelter when the story of Kerry's expensive haircut hit DU.

she just got pissed that someone could have a half billion dollars just sitting around while she was having trouble finding the money for the kids to have fancy sprinkles on the cookies they were baking for their parents.

[Dr Fate]

64. If he votes anti-gay, or supports anti gay Republicans, certainly...

...if he tends to vote pro-gay, and publically denounces his party's anti-gay policies, then leave him alone.

[critical_thinker2]

76. Political Expediency..

Sacraficing one set of principles for another.

[Athletic Grrl]

92. Being gay is not a principle.

But I do understand that it's possible this guy had to choose either his career or his sexuality. I guess some people still have to make those choices, especially as one rises in power. As progressives, we should want even a closeted puke to be able to be who they really are.

[critical_thinker2]

93. No..

I was saying that in this case if he is gay and outted by us, WE would be sacraficing the principles of staying out of the bedroom and tolerance and stuff like that for a quick political gain.

We dont know about his sexuality, nor should we. NOr should we dictate how how he expressed "who he really is". It's possible that ones political views are not wedded to their sexuality.

[bearfartinthewoods]

301. damn.....

'As progressives, we should want even a closeted puke to be able to be who they really are.' --OaktownGrrl

damn ... i sit her flailing away for two days trying to make my point and you do it in 17 words...

:yourock:

[noiretextatique]

385. by all means...let's support a closeted homophobe's

"right" to stay in the closet while screwing over other gay people! if that's "who he is," then as we progressives sure should give him all our support (even as he supports an anti-gay agenda) :crazy:

[roguevalley]

78. For the sake of argument and comparison...

Remember Jimmy Swaggert? His fundamental core identity was
Christian fanatic-social chastizer. He was 'outed' for his
behavior regarding hookers and porn. We all got a laugh and
felt he deserved it.

Consider the men under discussion here. Their fundamental
core identity is homosexual-public hypocrite. How is outing
them any different than outing Swaggert?

Before you go off on being born gay and learning to be a
Christian moralizer, I am talking about the fundamental
core identity that motivates these men.

Hypocracy isn't a deadly sin for nothing. If a person is in
a place to detrimentally affect someone's life by their actions
and they are part of the group being affected but are hiding
away, then they lose the right to hide. I don't care one way
or the other if people are gay. I wish the world was different
so that people could be who they are. But when they aim their
guns at people to hold them back, all the while being part of
the targetted group, they lose their right to privacy.

[Dr Fate]

83. I agree, however, if he is for making his party more tolerant...

...then I have no problem with him.

I have absolutly no idea where this fella stands on "gay issues" (I prefer to think of them as "human issues")...

Does anyone know? If he is a hypocrite, then out he must come.

[dutchdemocrat]

91. Here's one look at his stance from net.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/change-links/message/9759

These closeted gay members of Congress consistently cast anti-gay votes. We need to fight this hypocrisy.

These two closeted Members of Congress, Rep. David Dreier (R-CA) and Ed Pease (R-IN), consisently vote against gay people, despite the fact that most other members and Congressional staff know that they are gay. They have recently cast the following anti-gay votes:
Both voted for the Largent amendment (July 29, 1999, Roll Call Vote No. 346) which would have prohibited gay couples in the District of Columbia from adopting children. Luckily, the amendment failed by a close vote of 213 for, 215 against.
Both also voted for the same Largent amendment (August 6, 1998, Roll Call Vote No. 414) when it came up last year. That year, it passed by a vote of 227 for, 192 against.
Pease voted for the Hefley amendment (August 5, 1998, Roll Call No. 398), which would have overturned President Clinton's Executive Order to prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation in the federal civilian workforce. Dreier showed some spine for a change and voted against it. Luckily, it was defeated by a vote of 176 for, 252 against.
Both worms also voted for the Riggs amendment (July 29, 1998, Roll Call Vote No. 349), which would prevent funds from being used to implement San Francisco's ordinance requiring private companies and organizations contracting with or receiving grants from the City to provide health care benefits to domestic partners of their workers. This amendment passed by a vote of 214 for, 212 against. If these two "profiles in courage" had voted in favor of gay interests, the vote on the amendment would have been a tie and the amendment would have therefore failed. A perfect example of when a closet case can make a difference.
The MOST OUTRAGEOUS thing they have done recently is to have voted against the Hate Crimes bill. The only way that supporters of the Hate Crimes bill have been able to call for a vote on it in the House was through a procedural vote in support the attachment of the Hate Crimes provisions to a defense authorization bill in the Senate. On September 13, 2000, the House passed a "Motion to Instruct" conferees to agree to keep the Hate Crimes provisions added by the Senate in the final version of the defense bill. Although themotion passed by a vote of 232 to 192, these TWO COWARDS, Dreier and Pease,voted against the motion. Eventually, the final version of the bill did not contain the Hate Crimes provisions, despite the fact that a majority of
members in both the House and the Senate voted in favor of them. This is a true testament to the bigotry of the Republican Leadership in Congress.

Both members also voted against a bill to repeal the Boy Scouts' federal charter. This was a vote meant to embarrass Democrats, especially pro-Gay Democrats. Although the vote on the bill was a political stunt and the bill had no chance of passing, Dreier could have used his position as Chairman of the powerful Rules Committee to prevent this type of gay-baiting from
occurring on the House floor.

[bearfartinthewoods]

134. you just said that if he does what you want, you'll keep the secret

but if he doesn't you'll expose him.

now apply that to every guy who 'knows' someone who's gay.

i think that's called extortion? i know it isn't liberal to use a person's sexuality against him or her.

[Blitz]

70. Yet another example of casual bigotry

and homophobia among "progressives." Does it occur to you, even a little, how hateful your suggestion is, towards homosexuals?

You are reinforcing the disgusting idea that "exposing" someone as a homosexual is equivalent to exposing a sin or a great shame that can be used to destroy that person. What's more bigoted than that? And how nice to see you make the distinction between "homosexual" and "gay" because, in your world, "gay" is good and "homosexual" is, apparently, not good.

Nice to see so much latent support for the Phelpsian wing of the Democratic party here on DU.

Edit for typo.

[Dr Fate]

98. Did you know Strom Thurmond voted against his own flesh & blood?

When I heard that Strom Thurmond fathered an illegitimate mixed-race child in the 1950's I was disgusted.

Disgusted because being of mixed heritage is "bad?" Disgusted because I am a secret racist? Did my disgust fuel the stigma of illegitimate children?

NO- I was digusted that the GOP/media would support a man who was so EVIL and racist that he would vote against his own flesh and blood. I hope that at least some moderates or "fence sitters" who read that Strom article made this connection as well. I would hope that moderate or republican leaning gay republicans would take notice of these anti-gay homosexual republicans and their allies, and start asking questions about who's side they are on as well.

I see your point though- I can certainly see how some could see it this way- but do you see mine?

[cally]

72. I think we have to be very careful that he is

actually gay and that the rumors are not just political spin. If he is actually gay, then I agree it is fair to out the hypocrite. I have no ethical problem with calling the hypocrits what they are.

But comeon...Ken Starr...that I don't believe?

[dutchdemocrat]

82. Here is Dreier's voting record

He's Bushco. Christian Scientist. Unmarried.

http://www.issues2000.org/CA/David_Dreier.htm

SNIPPETS

David Dreier on Civil Rights

Voted NO on Constitutional amendment prohibiting Flag Desecration. (Jul 2001)
Voted YES on banning gay adoptions in DC. (Jul 1999)
Voted YES on Amendment to prohibit burning the US flag. (Jun 1999)
Voted YES on ending preferential treatment by race in college admissions. (May 1998)
Require 90 day delay for compliance before ADA lawsuits. (May 2002)
Limit interstate class-action lawsuits to federal courts . (May 2002)



David Dreier on Crime

Voted NO on funding for alternative sentencing instead of more prisons. (Jun 2000)
Voted YES on more prosecution and sentencing for juvenile crime. (Jun 1999)
Voted NO on maintaining right of habeus corpus in Death Penalty Appeals. (Mar 1996)
Voted YES on making federal death penalty appeals harder. (Feb 1995)
Voted NO on replacing death penalty with life imprisonment. (Apr 1994)
More prisons, more enforcement, effective death penalty. (Sep 1994)


David Dreier on Energy & Oil

Voted NO on raising CAFE standards; incentives for alternative fuels. (Aug 2001)
Voted NO on prohibiting oil drilling & development in ANWR. (Aug 2001)
Voted NO on starting implementation of Kyoto Protocol. (Jun 2000)
David Dreier on Homeland Security

Voted YES on $266 billion Defense Appropriations bill. (Jul 1999)
Voted YES on deploying SDI. (Mar 1999)
No US troops under UN command; more defense spending. (Sep 1994)

David Dreier on Abortion

Voted YES on banning human cloning, including medical research. (Jul 2001)
Voted YES on banning Family Planning funding in US aid abroad. (May 2001)
Voted YES on federal crime to harm fetus while committing other crimes. (Apr 2001)
Voted YES on banning partial-birth abortions. (Apr 2000)
Voted YES on barring transporting minors to get an abortion. (Jun 1999)


David Dreier on Gun Control

Voted YES on decreasing gun waiting period from 3 days to 1. (Jun 1999)


David Dreier on Foreign Policy

Voted NO on keeping Cuba travel ban until political prisoners released. (Jul 2001)
Voted YES on withholding $244M in UN Back Payments until US seat restored. (May 2001)
Voted NO on $156M to IMF for 3rd-world debt reduction. (Jul 2000)
Voted YES on Permanent Normal Trade Relations with China. (May 2000)
Voted YES on $15.2 billion for foreign operations. (Nov 1999)

[Dr Fate]

86. He voted against Gay families- he is a hypocrite then.

Just because he does not start a family of his own is no excuse.

If these rumors are true, then since learning this, I have no problem with an organized effort to "out" him.

I have a lot of respect for the openly gay "Log Cabin" Republicans, who in the tradition of Lincoln, fight to make their party more tolerant. He should follow suit, or explain himself otherwise.

I invite them to join the "big tent" Democratic party, where they will be welcomed and respected, rather than shunned and ignored.

[Blitz]

87. Yes, the "big tent"

In which people openly advocate using someone's sexual orientation as a political weapon against them. I'm sure that, upon reading this thread, the Log Cabin Republicans everywhere will be just dying to get into the tent.

[Dr Fate]

94. Okay- so we let him and Bush continue to be against Gays?

Without pointing out the hypocrisy? If that is the correct route, then please explain?

The Log Cabins are OPENLY GAY, by the way.

[critical_thinker2]

97. And how did they vote on those issues?

Ya think they went pro-gay down the line?

I dont think so, just cause they are gay doesn't mean they are going to support our agenda when it comes to actual votes on the floor.

I can easily see one of those log cabin guys voting with the Boy Scouts.

[Dr Fate]

99. Probably true...

...I said I had "some" respect for them.

I'm not here to defend any republicans, much less the Log Cabins...

[charlie]

88. Links to his votes on homosexual issues

sorted by year, if you scroll down a bit on this page.

http://www.vote-smart.org/voting_category.php?can_id=H0511103

Looks like he also voted for DOMA.

[bearfartinthewoods]

96. now you see the truth of this

his alledged hypocrisy isn't the real issue....the issue is that he disagrees with you politically. he pissed you off by working for arnold eh?

so now the caeds are on the table and we have alledged liberals trying to promote attacking gays because they don't like the way they vote.

how about we blackmail the guy at the office so we get the promotion.

or start a nice rumor campaign against anyone who gets in our way. yeah....that's just what the democratic party should stand for.


psssttt........did you hear about XXXXXX. HE'S LIGHT IN THE LOAFERS.
YOU DON'T LET YOUR KIDS HANG OUT WITH HIS KIDS DO YOU? HEY MAN...I
DON'T WANT HI COACHING MY KID. WHAT IS HE DOING TEACHING KIDS ANYWAY?


DO YOU REALLY THINK FOR ONE FUCKING NANO-SECOND THAT THIS WOULD STOP WITH REPUBLICAN POLITICIANS???????

PEOPLE HAVE DIED FOR BEING GAY.

PEOPLE HAVE KILLED THEMSELVES OVER THE FEAR OF BEING FOUND OUT AND YOU ARE PISSING ON ALL THOSE PEOPLE'S GRAVES

[Dr Fate]

102. No one suggested blackmail, just old-fashioned honesty...

...you are right about one thing though- gay people have been murdered- no thanx to the ANTI-GAY agenda of Bush and his allies, whoever they may prefer to have sex with.

If Bush needs to clarify his stance- if he has a gay friend, then he needs to be more clear about why he supports the Christian right- who is he loyal too- his friend, or extreme religous Rightwingers who really do hate gays, and support violence against even republican gays???...

[bhunt70]

259. agreed. I second everything you've said in this thread.

nt

[dutchdemocrat]

95. On a Positive Note

Not long ago, several GOP congressmen, including Chris Cox of Newport Beach, Dana Rohrabacher of Huntington Beach and David Dreier of San Dimas, joined with 60 Republicans to defeat a GOP-sponsored repeal of job protections for gay and lesbian federal employees. These are baby steps but in the right direction.

http://www.cockring.org/columns/showbulletin.cfm?Show=35

Well at least he is protecting his job it seems.

[DemLikr]

101. Absolutely, positively, without a doubt. (Here we go again...)

Any person who hides their gayness as though it is something to be ashamed of does every gay man, woman and child a disservice.

By living their lives in shame, THEY are the ones who telegraph the message that gay = a life of suppression.

Particularly gay Republicans, who are a part of a largely anti-gay political party and further its overall goals, should be outed.

I don't see how Drier can promote the Republican gay-hating agenda and then go home and diddle his boyfriend. It's sick and unhealthy and he needs treatment.

We can help David by outing him.

Besides, he's kind of hot, and when he's out of the closet he'll become even better looking, what with all that suppressed self-loathing released.

[Catherine Vincent]

104. What gives you the inclination that he is gay?

He's not a bad looking guy, imo.

[foreigncorrespondent]

113. While I am against this thread...

...and should be paying more attention to your question, I can't.

Your post gives me a question I need to ask you.

Are you saying that gay guys are bad looking? That is the impression I am getting when I read your post.

[Catherine Vincent]

118. Oh heck no.

Sorry. The first sentence doesn't go with the other. Whenever I would see him on Crossfire, I thought he was a goodlooking guy, and it pains me to say that because he is a republican...most republicans are UGLY. I am not in California, so I do want to know why people believe he is in the closet.

[Liberal Veteran]

108. He voted to ban gay adoption and for DOMA....

....if he's gay then I say out the bastard. You don't get to hide in the closet and persecute your fellow gay Americans and then turn around and expect us to protect you.

I am not for blanket outing but when someone in political office votes in a manner that undermines gay rights then I have no problem with outing that specific individual.

You can say what you will about it feeding into the homophobia of our society, but he is part of the problem if he is hiding in the closet while benefitting in other aspects of his life by pandering to the homophobic agenda that passed DOMA and bans gays from adopting.

In my book it makes him a traitor and a collaborator and therefore, fair game.

[Kip Rainville]

111. David Drier's Rights

Hey - I and some gay friends don't think the whole gay agenda is accecptable, and some personally prefer to live what appears to be a 'straight' life.

Whether Drier is or isn't gay and whether he wants the world to know is his business. Also, what he feels is best for the culture (whether it pleases you or not) - is his right either as a gay or straight guy. Un-elect him don't 'out' him.

Isn't there any room for diversity in the gay world ? (other than in sex :-)

The straight world is not monolithic and neither is the gay world.
KR

[Liberal Veteran]

114. Would you like to tell us about the "whole gay agenda"?

It sends up red flags when someone is using the term "gay agenda". I'll leave it to you to infer why that is.

[Kip Rainville]

120. Gay Agenda ?

Apparently I am not gay enough (for you) becuase I don't understand your inference. Remember there is and should be diversity and even innocence in the gay population. KR

[Liberal Veteran]

123. Diversity of opinion is fine within reason....

But do not expect me support diversity of opinion that limits my equality. Diversity does not mean I have to accept and defend opinions that relegate me to the status of second class citizen in this country I served and promote active discrimination against me.

[foreigncorrespondent]

121. Gay agenda????

Care to clarify that for us gays and lesbians who have no idea what the gay agenda is?

[QC]

187. I think it has something to do with those "special rights"

I keep hearing about, if you get my drift.

[sal]

116. What about Dana Rhorbacher or Utah Senator Foghorn Leghorn

Ur, I mean Orin Hatch?

[Liberal Veteran]

119. Should we then not talk about Rush's drug habit...

Or Bennett's gambling?

I don't see outing someone who practices hypocracy by voting against gay rights as any different than outing Mr. "Let's send all the druggies to jail" Limbaugh or Mr. "I write books about virtues and bash those without them while gambling away millions" Bennett.

[greekspeak]

125. Outing people is unacceptible

Coming out of the closet is an intensely personal process. Outing someone is an act of retaliation or revenge. Its childish, and as wrong-spirited as homophobia. I honestly think a lot of people are gay. What gives me the right to out them if they are not out?

[Padraig18]

133. Bingo

If we out people, we become what we profess to despise.

[noiretextatique]

155. maybe because they are hypocrites supporting an anti-gay agenda? eom

[greekspeak]

384. Don't you think, though...

1) That if we go outing neo-cons and others on the right, that it will be thrown back in our faces?

2) That it is petty to out people, no matter how crappy a person they are?

3) That it makes us no better than neo-con slugs?

These cons do a lot more out in the open that they could be brought down with that, without outing them and insulting homosexuals? What we should be concentrating on is taking back the media so that jerk offs like these can be taken to task on their much more serious evils.

[Liberal Veteran]

397. Hardly...it's merely stripping away the facade...

...and watching the republicans eat their own.

(and keep in mind I have yet to hear evidence that this person is really gay so I am working in the realm of hypothetical)

You make it sound as though we would be the one's doing the destruction. Nothing could be further from the truth. It's obvious that a closeted gay man who votes is anti-gay doesn't consider himself to be on our side. So we reveal his "dirty little secret" and sit back and watch the teat he is sucking at dry up and his "friends" in the republican party and his "supporters" turn on him. And maybe, just maybe, he'll realize that he has been a fool and learn from the experience.

Maybe not. I daresay, however, that we owe this person no loyalty. Not politically because this person is a republican. Not as fellow gay person because he does not identify with the gay community through voice or his actions. Not even the respect of being person enough to stand up and live openly under conditions that he himself was partially responsible for creating.

[bearfartinthewoods]

398. what if that doesn't happen?

what if he isn't abandoned? he's high profile, from CA where even the fiscal conservatives are more socially liberal. he may very well retain his seat and if he did, the pubblies might just decide to let him be an example of their tolerance.

the times, they are a-changing.

gay hatred still exists but homophobia, and i'm talking about fear of homosexuality, which is the true meaning of the word, is obviously decreasing. log cabin pubbies do exist. CA pubbies abandoned a true conservative and went with arnie, despite his divergance from typical conservative social values.

in general, the pubbies have retreated to a defense of marriage and the military. can their acceptance of an opinly gay pubbie in a very prominent position be far behind?

so...what happens if we violate his sexual privacy and they back him up? it isn't out of the question, you know....

suddenly we aren't quite as much the good guys and they aren't quite as much the bad guys.

[Liberal Veteran]

414. Then we have lost nor gained anything, except....

We will be able to ask him pointed questions that we are currently not "allowed" to ask, such as:

"How do you reconcile your sexual orientation with your vote on H.R. 666 which says homosexuals should have a giant Q branded on their forehead?" (obviously an absurd example)

[scottxyz]

428. Fine if he stays in Congress

Maybe once he's outed he'll stop voting to deny gay people their rights.

[jumptheshadow]

139. I've changed my mind on this issue

I used to be adamantly against the outing of anybody. However, some of the political issues that are now on the table have changed my mind.

1) When Sen. Rick Santorum basically argues that gays don't have a right to privacy and finds support in the Republican party I feel that the people supporting him become fair game. They are, after all, arguing against the right to privacy.

2) If the Republican party demonizes gays as part of the presidential campaign then I believe we have the right to ask anybody who supports this platform if they are gay.

[jsw_81]

164. Agreed

We need to remember that many, if not most Republicans supported the sodomy laws, and some of them would even like to see all gays and lesbians killed. Don't believe me? Just go over to Free Republic or one of the other right-wing forums. They routinely laugh and joke about AIDS victims and spread some of the nastiest anti-gay propaganda imaginable.

These bastards do NOT deserve "privacy" or "tolerance," especially when they're serving in public office and actively oppsing civil rights for gays. They should be outed, humiliated, and destroyed politically. Period.

No mercy.

[Trek234]

147. Wellllll time to update the ignore list

nt

[QC]

189. Publicly PLONKing people is juvenile.

[HitmanLV]

157. his life is his business...

...'outing' people against their wishes and intent is terrible.

[Dr Fate]

161. Wrong- his life is everyone's business- he votes in congress...

If he supports a pro gay agenda, and if he did the right thing and spoke out against anti-gay republicans, I would agree with leaving him be...

[HitmanLV]

166. Wrong - if he votes in the manner...

...he campaigns on, there is no inconsistency.

If he votes the way he says he will vote, and thats good enough for his constituency, then it should be good enough for everyone else.

You won't win hearts and minds with tactics like that.

[Booberdawg]

171. If Dreier is a closet gay who USES his Congressional office to

promote and shill for an anti-gay agenda, then he is fair game to be outed. Period.

[Muddleoftheroad]

177. What gives YOU the right?

To decide if he's gay? Or decide if he is hypocritical?

He says he will vote for something and does it. Maybe he dares to disagree with you even if he IS gay.

I said it before and I will say it again, I will vote AGAINST any politician who agrees with this tactic -- no matter who that means I vote for.

[Booberdawg]

182. I said:

"If Dreier is a closet gay who USES his Congressional office to promote and shill for an anti-gay agenda, then he is fair game to be outed"

I did NOT say I presume to decide whether or not he is gay. If he IS, the point that he is hypocritical is a matter of FACT and not opinion. I maintain his use of the office to shill for an anit-gay agenda under those circumstances makes him fair game to be outed.

[Muddleoftheroad]

234. So every person who disagrees with the group that claims him/her

Is not a hypocrite if they don't vote the way you mandate?

Sorry, but this is a bullshit litmus test that smacks of the McCarthyism.

[Booberdawg]

267. If he uses his office and hipocrisy to violate the rights of gays then

tough shit. He's fair game.

[Muddleoftheroad]

274. He is not violating their rights, he is voting in Congress

nt

[Booberdawg]

288. But he does.

If he votes to limit the rights of gays, or outright deny equal rights, he IS violating their rights with his vote.

[Muddleoftheroad]

296. Nope

Until those rights are clarified, he isn't violating them. If the rights are clarified and he refuses to rent to a gay man, THAT is violating rights.

BTW, Congress is never covered by the laws they pass anyhow.

[Muddleoftheroad]

285. No, you CLAIM he does

There is a big difference.

But either way, his sex life is his business, not yours.

Will you send every politician you think might be a gay a pink star now and demand they wear it, even if they aren't gay. After all, if they don't you will destroy them, ruin their life, abuse them in the media and generally do your best McCarthy impersonation.

[Booberdawg]

289. Fair enough. I claim he does, and I think the facts bear it out.

And for reasons of his use of power, position, and hipocrisy already stated, I consider him fair game to be outed, and would do so. For the greater good of equal rights of the gay and lesbian community as a whole.

We simply disagree. I'll not provoke the argument any further.

[theboss]

178. Let's burn a cross on Clarence Thomas' lawn too

I understand he's black.

Who cares about ethics and morality? It's all about winning, baby!!

In all seriousness, I don't want to win this badly. If the only way my side can win is to resort to the dirtiest tactics of the others, the battle is not worth fighting in the first place. Nothing is worth my soul.

[David__77]

179. My point with this posting...

was really not to argue with anyone over the merits of outing, although it obviously would come to that. I used to oppose outing in a circumstance like this, but have changed my mind since the LGBT progress is at stake thanks to lawmakers like Dreier. Politically neutralizing people like this is a good thing.

My point was, for those who agree with me, to please do some research, and if anyone knows anything even somewhat concrete, to make sure this information goes to the appropriate place. May I suggest Michaelangelo Signorele or a more militant rights group like ACT-UP perhaps.

I apologize for offending anyone's sensibilities, but we in California are facing an anti-gay referendum in March and need to fight like hell starting yesterday. I hope everyone will help us out on this one regardless of how you feel on outing.

[gasperc]

195. Gays wish he were straight, check out this link

http://www.365gay.com/newscontent/100803caTrans.htm

He must suffer from extreme bi-polar disorder.
But I must say I know and have met David Drier. I worked on Tommy Randle's 1994 congressional campaign against Drier. He's a total slime. And it was widely discussed and rumored then that he's gay. Me personally, I don't think he has any balls or a dick and has his head so far up his ass he can't walk upright. After his first razor thin victory back in 1980 he's built up this huge warchest and sends totally bullshit and false mailers to Democrats and independents and has only token opposition every two years. The guys scum and sooner or later he's going down.

[Loyal]

205. Maybe, except David Dreier

is NOT anti-gay. He is for gay adoption and is one of the more tolerable members of the CA Republican Congressional Delegation.

[Liberal Veteran]

209. Please cite a reference....

According to his voting record, he voted to ban gay adoption in DC.

Indeed, I see very little in the way of his votes on particular issues that make me believe he is a moderate in any sense of the word.

http://www.issues2000.org/CA/David_Dreier.htm

[West Coast Democrat]

211. Just because he has a nice personality in public

doesn't make him any more tolerable than any other conservative republican pretending to be moderate.

[Name removed]

233. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

206. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[noiretextatique]

210. tell that to drier

it seems other people's sexual orientation is a BIG issue for him.

[David__77]

229. "Leave people alone"? I don't think so.

Why should I "leave people alone" who are supportive of laws that would lock up my spouse and I for having sexual relations? I fail to see why I should do so. I guess you think that using this fight back tool is "lame"--I can live with that. By the way, I have no problem with my sexual orientation. Homosexual and Jews ashamed of being gay or being Jewish and racist whites hearful someone will find out about their Black great grandmother--that, I have a problem with.

[Muddleoftheroad]

236. Fine, attack him

But do so because of his stance and not his PRIVATE life.

Either that, or go buy yourself a new wardrobe filled with brown shirts.

[David__77]

237. Brown shirts? That's a bit hysterical...

I'm not advocating that anyone be discriminated against:

Would it be wrong to reveal an anti-Semite's Jewish heritage?
Would it be wrong to reveal a racist's African-American lineage?

I don't think so, and I think it goes to the same issue I originally addressed. Hypocrisy is a legitimate issue to deal with. If, for instance, Sen. Thurmond had fathered a Black child, I think it would have been just fine for this to be revealed when he filibustered civil rights legislation. I guess we just disagree.

But I think it's unfair to impute fascism here.

[Muddleoftheroad]

238. It is wrong to use PRIVATE life against someone

Yeah, there's loads of hypocrisy here, but not his.

The Nazis persecuted homosexuals because of their sex lives. If you were outed, you were destroyed. Hmmm, sounds awful similar.

Basically, you are trying to blackmail him into voting the way you want.

No we don't "just disagree." I am so offended by this that I am ready to vomit. I support gay causes, but now you have added a litmus test for me. Any gay organization that acts this way won't get my money or support. In fact, I will spread the word and do what I can to ruin them.

[Liberal Veteran]

240. You mean like Rush's private drug use?

Or Bennett's gambling habits?

Or Newt Gingrich's adultery?

[Muddleoftheroad]

242. Actually yes

With one exception. If the drug use impaired his ability to do an ELECTED or governmental job.

If we are going to go after affairs, then we could go after almost everyone in power it seems. Certainly, between rumor and reality, we could hit every major politician in both parties.

And that would make us lower than the National Enquirer. Yellow journalism anyone?

As for Bennett, last time I checked, gambling in a casino is perfectly legal. And if you have the money to lose, that also is fine.

[David__77]

245. I repeat:

Would it be wrong to reveal an anti-Semite's Jewish heritage?
Would it be wrong to reveal a racist's African-American lineage?

Or is that different?

[Muddleoftheroad]

249. Apparently you missed that class on privacy

Yes. It is wrong to be using what the rest of us celebrate in the way our enemies use it.

Oh, you're black, you must be a criminal. Oh, you're gay, you must be a pansy. Oh you're...

To quote one of my friends, "It's all shite."

[Duncan Grant]

254. Why not keep the political arguement?

It's strong enough to stand up under criticism.

If we (Democrats) had a Senator or Representative who thwarted our efforts or who blatantly sabotaged Democratic policy...we would 'out' him and work like hell to place our own candidate in his/her district.

If Dreier is gay, he should be outed.

edit: Dreier's name

[Muddleoftheroad]

256. Cool

Let's out AIDS victims next. Then we'll out women who have abortions. Then let's try the whole family of STDs. Then we'll hire a team of researchers to do the genealogical work on every member of congress who dares to disagree with us. We'll out them as blacks or Asians or Hispanics or whatever.

More need to vomit.

[Duncan Grant]

261. It's about power not 'identity'...

I'm trying to make a point about power. (I don't believe in outing 'ordinary' citizens.) If you are a gay-person-public-official who uses their power to oppress gay people...then you are fair game.

(Do we still call people with AIDS 'victims'? I don't think so...)

[Liberal Veteran]

265. No we don't. But I have to wonder.

If a person with HIV (and we will assume that it was a secret for sake of argument) voted to quarantine or deny the right to work to people with HIV disease, would anyone object to "outing" him and forcing him to live with the consequences of his own vote?

[Duncan Grant]

268. Hypothetically speaking of course...

if a person with HIV (who had political power) voted to quarantine or deny the right to work to people with HIV, I would not object to outing him/her as a person with HIV (based solely on their abuse of power...outing should not be used as a precident to oppress or exploit private citizens). I would not want anyone to live in quarantine or be denied the to right to work.

(Let's remember that we're talking about a hypothetical situation as a means to further an examination of larger issues...)

Personally, that is a very frightening scenario you posit.

[Liberal Veteran]

239. Apparently being gay is a special minority....

...in that because they CAN pass as straight and are assumed to be heterosexual in most cases, then no one is allowed to talk about that person's status as a minority.

I just don't buy into the notion that there is something so special about the particular minority of homosexuality that it is somehow taboo to discuss that person's status unless they reveal it. Maybe that's one of the reasons why gays are still one of the last people that it's still socially acceptable to bash and discriminate against is because so many are allowed to ignore it and others are allowed to fake it.

[GinaMaria]

226. I respectfully disagree

I believe it is the individual's decision to out themselves or not. I don't think it should be done by someone else. Just my personal opinion. I'm not thinking specifically about Dreier, but more the average Joe or Jane. They should decide who to out themselves to and in what situation. Some people may choose not to be out to some or all of their family members, their employers etc. I think this is a matter of self protection and I support it.

[cap]

248. out him and out everybody...

true tolerance will not be achieved until people come out. If life is so dangerous so that people have to be in the closet, then American society must be changed. If the general public can see what gays are up against, then there will be a backlash against intolerance -- a backlash that will lead to major changes for gays.

It is truly dangerous for the first folks; but we can split the Republicans. There are too many gays esp neocons who go along with repressive policies. They need to be outed and hopefully along with outing will come a conversion in their way of thinking.

[Loyal]

252. DAVID:

I'm callin you out. You're wrong, and I'm right. David Dreier HAS voted against gay adoptions in DC in the past, but he changed his mind on September 25, 2001. Sorry!

http://clerkweb.house.gov/cgi-bin/vote.exe?year=2001&rollnumber=352

Dreier voted NO on an "amendment that sought to prohibit any funds from being used for implementation of the District of Columbia domestic partnership act."

You were wrong, I was right. Now apologize to everyone in this thread for spreading your misonformation. Thanks!

[David__77]

263. I said he opposed same-sex adoptions... he does.

I am well aware that he voted to ALLOW DC to fund the domestic partner system they themselves voted for. I am aware that for this reason he has a Human Rights Campaign score of 17% instead of 0%. This does not in any way mean that he is gay-positive. It means, perhaps, that he is respecting DC sovereignty.

He has never voted in favor of adoption by same-sex couples.

By the way, there is no need for talk of "calling out." That's not needed. I apologize for referring to what you said as a lie-that, I'm sure is not what was intended.

[Loyal]

264. ...Okay,

whatever.

[scottxyz]

273. The most reliable homophobes are homosexual

In a way, Dreier's already "outed" himself by being so homophobic. Straight guys with nothing to prove tend to be more live-and-let-live. When you hear someone being homophobic, that's a red flag that they might be gay or "different" in some other way. In psychology, they call this "projection".

Probably the biggest example of this was Hitler. Yes, it's been conjectured recently that he was gay, and there is a fair amount of evidence. You can google it. It makes total sense that Schwarzenegger, with his long history of professing "admiration" for Hitler, would hire a homophobic homosexual. Although in some ways Schwarzenegger isn't quite Republican enough for some Republicans, he's Republican in the Taliban-like ways that count: he substitutes "toughness" for ideas, he admires Nazis, he doesn't respect women, and his supporters have no qualms about roughing up nuns at a political rally. A homophobic homosexual such as Dreier is a perfect fit for this type of administration.

I want to also point out that 'muddleoftheroad' and 'bearfartinthewoods' have consistently missed the point. The question here has never been about outing a homosexual - it's been about outing a homophobic homosexual. 'muddleoftheroad' and 'bearfartinthewoods' try to get us to fall back on some sort of "politically correct" notion that being a homosexual is a "private" thing and not a "bad" thing so it's none of our business.

If that were the case here, then 'muddleoftheroad' and 'bearfartinthewoods' would be quite right. But this argument is NOT about outing a mere homosexual - it's about outing a homophobic homosexual.

We might have sympathy for Rush being a drug-addict if he hadn't been so against drug-addicts. We might have had sympathy for Bill Bennett for having a gambling problem if he hadn't gone around writing things like "The Book of Virtues".

Really the issue here isn't about "outing" a homosexual. It's about "outing" a hypocrite. I would challenge 'muddleoftheroad' and 'bearfartinthewoods' (and those who agree with 'muddleoftheroad' and 'bearfartinthewoods') to focus on the real question at hand here. The question is not "Is it right to point out that a politician is homosexual?" but "Is it right to point out that a politician is a hypocrite?"

If 'muddleoftheroad' and 'bearfartinthewoods' continue to derail this discussion by repeating the irrelevant notion that "It's wrong to out a homosexual then either (1) they missed the point or (2) they are being "disingenuous", to put it politely.

The person on this thread who really "gets it" is 'liberal_veteran'. Being "gay" isn't something you do only while you're in bed with a member of the same sex - being gay is something you are 24/7. And when a country slides into Talibanism and fascism, gayness (like other hatreds of "different" people) is one of the hottest buttons around. Schwarzenegger probably senses this, and he might feel he's just playing to his base by giving a homophobic homosesxual a position of prominence.

People like Dreier are very dangerous, but by simply engaging them in the terms of their OWN debate, they can be exposed and brought down. Dreier is already "fair game" just by being a homophobe - whether he's gay or straight. He was the one who stated that gay people's private lives are a matter of public importance and should be subject to special regulation by Congress. Let him play by the rules he himself has invoked. Let Dreier hang himself by his own rope.

[Muddleoftheroad]

275. You are not only wrong, but this claim is bigoted

I love this gross generalization. Oh, straight guys don't care so much about gays, so because he objects so strongly, he must be a closeted gay. What horseshit. What unbelievable generalization and horseshit.

Oh wow, a "fair amount of evidence" that Hitler was gay. Also a fair amount of evidence probably that Hitler was a leprecaun. He was short after all.

I am not saying being a homosexual is a private thing. I am saying sex life is a private thing. I am also saying that this thread smacks of the worst years of McCarthyism where they go after people in the most vile ways because they dare disagree with them.

I don't care if he is a homophobic homosexual or heterosexual. If he is homophobic, out him for THAT. But leave his sex life out of it.

Why do you claim he is a hypocrite, even assuming the morons who are so "sure" of his sexuality are right? Maybe he actually believes that homosexuals don't deserve new rights that they have not yet been given. How dare he disagree with you?

No, Muddleoftheroad has the point. If someone dares disagree with some of the most ridiculous of the right or the left, they will be savaged by monstrous assholes who care nothing for humanity and everything for winning.

[scottxyz]

276. Generalizing based on many years of experience and observation

Most of the guys I've known who were most vociferously homophobic turned out to have engaged in homosexual acts. I'm not generalizing in the dark - I'm generalizing based on many years of observation and experience. Hence I pointed out the psychiatric term "projection" - a well-known phenomenon. And although the American Psychiatric Association removed "homosexuality" from its Diagnostic and Statistic Manual by a vote in 1971, they still left in something called "ego-dystonic homosexuality" as a disorder - essentially, being gay and not wanting to be gay. Kind of like being an Oxycontin addict and not wanting to be an Oxycontin addict - or being a gambler and not wanting to be a gambler. And going around pointing the finger at everyone else in a pathetic misguided attempt to deflect attention from oneself. Also known as "the pot calling the kettle black" in the vernacular.

I do agree that ideally one's sex life SHOULD remain private. However, we do not have an ideal situation here. What we have is a public figure trying to pass laws denying people equality based solely on their sex life. At that point, any reasonable person would agree that the public figure's sex life becomes "fair game" in this situation.

But 'muddleoftheroad' keeps insisting we should "leave his sex life out of it". Again, I might agree - if Dreier hadn't made the fatal error of bringing everyone else's sex life into it. Dreier is the one who cast the first stone here.

It is wonderful to have a general principle that we should "leave sexuality out of it" and 'muddleoftheroad' does score some points by citing this general principle. However, in this case, it's too late to do so, because (1) The legislative issues we're talking about deal with sexuality, and (2) Dreier himself by his votes and views isn't "leaving sexuality out of it". So what I'm saying is, "Dreier started it".

Dreier cast the first stone, by saying that a person's private sex life should have something to do with their legal standing in this country. Dreier is the one here who is claiming the following (dubious) points:

(1) People have a sexual orientation. (Gore Vidal, for example, doesn't believe this. He says there are no homosexual persons, only homosexual acts.)

(2) Supposing that (1) is true, then a person's sexual orientation should affect how they are treated under the law.

These are, I repeat, Dreier's views. Since he has espoused these views, he should have no problem with them being applied to him.

And if 'muddleoftheroad' would care to google 'Hitler gay' he might find a lot more hits than googling 'Hitler leprechaun'.

And don't even bother googling 'George Bush' and 'Victor Ashe'. That's another whole can of worms.

I guess what I'm getting at here is that a lot of homophobia - perhaps MOST homophobia - is perpetrated by homosexuals themselves.

'Muddleoftheroad' also tries to apologize for Dreier's reprehensible voting record by saying: "Maybe he actually believes that homosexuals don't deserve new rights that they have not yet been given. How dare he disagree with you?" Of course Dreier actually believes that homosexuals don't deserve equality - because Dreier, if he is a homophobic homosexual, is messed up in the head.

To see how wrong-headed 'muddleoftheroad's' statement is, only has only to rephrase it to refer to a minority that already has some degree of equality in this country. Let's say it were Clarence Thomas not sticking up for equality for black people, would 'muddleoftheroad' also say: "Maybe he actually believes that blacks don't deserve new rights that they have not yet been given."?

If Dreier is so obtuse or screwed up in the head that he thinks gays should be second-class citizens, then he doesn't belong in Congress.

[TrogL]

281. Why are you linkiing homosexuality and addiction?

You can't give up homosexuality. That's the goal of reparative therapy which we've already seen doesn't work.

http://members.shaw.ca/trogl/orient.html

[Muddleoftheroad]

283. Brevity

Come on, the thread already is nearly 300 posts. Geez.

Again, in summary a generalization. You just don't know.

I love this, you agree everyone's sex life should remain private except when you disagree with them. Nice double standard that allows you to savagely destroy a human being because he doesn't agree with you.

And no, reasonable people think this idea is fucking insane.

No it is not a fatal error. Politicians legislate. It's what they do. A good chunk of the time, they don't even agree what they are voting on. It's either a deal for another bill or them representing their constituents. After all, how dare they try that. Dreier did not cast any stone. He did not out you. You should not out him, and even worse because you know nothing about his sex life.

I will agree that homophobia seems perpetuated by homosexuals, many of them on this thread. I could never have imagined such horrendous brownshirt tactics in our own party.

I notice, as you try to psychoanalyze someone you never met (Dreier) that you keep supposing what he thinks, feels or does. This is one of the many flaws behind your witchhunt. You just don't know squat.

Actually, I would say precisely the same thing about Clarence Fucking Thomas. I don't believe in the ideological litmus test just because his skin color and mine are similar. That and a couple dollars will buy you a tasty treat at Starbucks.

As for the last, if you don't think Dreier belongs in Congress, vote him out. But don't resort to the worst tactics and gutter inuendo.

[arwalden]

395. He Didn't Say That And You Know It...

Scottxyz did an EXCELLENT job of writing out a well-worded and well-thought-out reply... and you have the nerve to pretend he said something that he didn't.

It's more than outing someone who we "disagree" with. There are larger issues here. You know it. I know it. Scottxyz knows it.

You're choosing to ignore the larger issues and that, sir, is a cop out.

You also seem to be incapable of distinguishing the difference between "starting a rumor about" and "presenting evidence of". Nobody (to my knowledge) has advocated starting baseless rumors about the fellow. I'm not for this. What makes you think that Scott is for this?

I'm all in favor of revealing FACT. Fact is something that's hard to hide and will be revealed eventually.

"Brownshirt tactics"... once again... very rich! I think I'll choose "Brownshirt tactics" over the "cookies-and-tea" overly-polite tactics that apparently work so well for you.

-- Allen (the little Nazi-queer-brownshirt... according to you.)

[arwalden]

392. My God! An Excellent Post. A Flawless Response To "Muddle's" Assertions...

and I see that he hasn't bothered to try and deny any truths you spoke.

Bravo! You were right on target. You were fair. You spoke well my friend! --- Let me buy you a beer!

-- Allen

[incapsulated]

277. What if McCarthy was a Closet Communist?

Would it be "wrong" to out him for it, because it is "wrong" to pry into a citizen's political beliefs?

There are certain unusual conditions in which a person's private beliefs and actions are fair game. One condition that has to be met is that they are in public life, I doubt anyone here is in favor of "outing" private citizens. The other is that they are using their position to wield power, and to use that power against a group of innocent people, while shielding themselves from the punishment they choose to meet out to others like them.

I am of mixed race. If I where able to hide this, if I where fair enough to "pass" myself off as white, and then took public office where I proceeded to use my posistion to harm, subjugate and oppress minorities, I would pray to God that I would be outted. Not just because I was wrong. To save my soul.

[Liberal Veteran]

279. Exactly what I have been trying to say.

Just because he can pass as straight with his constintuency it does not follow that he gets a free pass to subjugate and discriminate against his own kind then hide in the safety of his closet.

[Name removed]

278. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

286. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

287. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Terwilliger]

304. do you condone that?

Maybe he actually believes that homosexuals don't deserve new rights that they have not yet been given.

Is that an acceptable position for a person with any authority in this country? What about the rights they don't have?

[Muddleoftheroad]

305. Clearly I don't agree with him

That's why I've spent so much of my time defending the rights of homosexuals here.

If you don't like what he does IN OFFICE, vote him out, don't try to destroy him by becoming what we all hate.

[bearfartinthewoods]

322. what makes you think he is a homophobe?

what is the evidence? because he hasn't voted the way you would like him to? that means their is a shitload of senators and reps that are homophobes eh? so....go after him the way you would go after anyother rep or senator. on the ISSUES not his sexual orientation.

can't you see that if you use his orientation as your weapon you are singling him out for a special attack because you think he's gay.

singling someone out for attack because they are gay is bigoted.

bigotry is what we have been fighting against, for decades. you can try and spin it any way you want to but you can't change the simple facts.

[noiretextatique]

341. thanks...great post...and you nailed the dynamic here precisely eom

[Liberal Veteran]

292. Oddly enough, I got this quote from the lounge.

People in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.

My thoughts: If you are a closeted gay man who throws stones at the gay community at large, don't expect me to intercept the stones being thrown at your house.

[Lurking Dem]

299. The ONLY person who should "out" a homosexual

is the homosexual in question.

Yeah, hypocrisy sucks. But I can't believe that anyone here would think it was okay to out someone.

[arwalden]

302. ... And I Can't Believe That Anyone Here Would Think The Opposite.

-=sigh=-

[Muddleoftheroad]

306. Yes, how dare we have a right to privacy

You treat homosexuality like it's a bad thing by using it to destroy your enemies.

[arwalden]

309. When Cornered... Hell Yes... I'll Use Whatever I Have At My Disposal...

... to vanquish the enemy. You have to keep in mind that his "outing" will be quickly forgotten... it will be less than a mere footnote. But the laws and legislation that limit and restrict and lessen the rights of queers will be around for DECADES.

This is war. WAR! There is no "Geneva Convention" or rules for outing the enemy.

Clearly you want to "set a good example" for the enemy to model themselves after. Right? If only we'll be nice-nice then then the enemy will see that queers aren't so bad and they'll be nice-nice too. --- Hmmm... how's-that-working-out-for-ya?

And in the meantime... the enemy continues to make strides forward and continues to strip away the rights and benefits and privileges of queer Americans.

You've never addressed any of these realities. You simply restate and repeat your "moral grounds" incessantly. Apologists never win, and the meek don't inherit the earth.

This philosophy of "do-unto-others" doesn't work when it comes to queer-bashing queers. It never has. It never will. Face it!

Homosexuality a "bad thing"??... no. Not in my eyes. But if the enemy thinks his own homosexuality is bad, then I'll take advantage of his own weakness to expose his hypocrisy and bring his ass down.

I'll do it instinctively. Without hesitation. Without guilt. Without remorse. Without shame.

As Joan Crawford says in Mommie Dearest "DON'T FUCK WITH ME FELLAS! This ain't my first time at the rodeo."

-- Allen

[Name removed]

316. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Liberal Veteran]

328. One could make the same argument about war...

War often means that we have to do really horrible and disgusting things to protect ourselves and our way of life. Reducing everything to black and white when we live a technicolor world is not productive.

Sometimes we have to get our hands dirty. That's a fact of life. Values and principals are good and well within reason.

Do you honestly believe that our actions in WW2 were unjustified? Did we cross the line and become the enemy by refusing to allow a menace to grow and conquer the world? Should we have said "violence is the way of the enemy and we will not stoop to their level" while they overran us?

You might want to ask yourself when you actually believe that we have to get our hands a little dirty to achieve a greater good.

Sometimes the means are justified by the end. Not always or even most time, but I when I was in the military, I made a conscious decision that I would kill if necessary to defend my country even though I personally deplore violence. Why? Because it was necessary. Because I understand that rigidly standing by a principle to the point of extinction is foolish.

[arwalden]

332. "I'm An Example Of Everything That's Wrong In American Politics" Really???

What nonsense. What alarmist nonsense.

You should be ashamed of yourself. Name calling doesn't become you.

Yes we are at war with one another. You're not as naive as you're pretending to be.

I think you've painted yourself into a corner... and now you're FORCED to defend an indefensible position or risk being embarrassed.

Let me tell you... you're embarrassing yourself anyway. I'd respect you more if you just got down off your high horse and faced reality.

-- Allen

[arwalden]

391. P.S. You See .... WE ARE AT WAR... That is the problem.

Anyone who cannot see that we are a nation at war is blind.

Arrogant fundamentalist politicians and fundamentalist televangelists (among others) have declared war on queer Americans.

It's foolish to deny it. We are at war!

They use queer-phobia to whip up their faithful into an antigay frenzy. This spills over into lawmaking and policy-setting. Tell me that's not true. You can't.

I am at war with anyone who agrees I should have fewer rights than any other American. I am at war with anyone who creates those bigoted laws and policies. I am at war with anyone who would DARE to try and STOP me from seeking equality for queer Americans.

I guess I'm at war with you. You clearly don't care a bit about what REAL equality for queers is all about. Clearly, you're more interested in appearances.

Miss Manners would be oh so proud of you. How polite you are!

You wouldn't last a DAY in the real world of politics. Good thing you spend all your time on DU instead of doing something MEANINGFUL to benefit queer Americans. I don't think you'd be able to handle it if all you could do is just repeat the same broken-record mantra that you've been whining at us for the past two days.

Get over it and move on!

-- Allen

[bearfartinthewoods]

325. There is no "Geneva Convention" or rules for outing the enemy.

exactly my point....you wrote:
You have to keep in mind that his "outing" will be quickly forgotten... it will be less than a mere footnote. But the laws and legislation that limit and restrict and lessen the rights of queers will be around for DECADES.

and again i say that you act like outing this one republican will change the legislative outlook for the GLBT communinty. one vote in the house that is firmly in the control of the pubs. outing him will change absolfreaking nothing legislatively.

but, while there is no geneva convention or rules on outing, there is a tenuous ceasefire created by out stalwart and universal condemnation of the practice. you want to throw away that ceasefire by removing us from the high ground.

and for what? to damage one republican. you'd put thousands in jepordy for what? a passing blow at one man. sheeeeesh.

[arwalden]

333. "Putting thousands in jeopardy" --- Oh Dear!

You're making this stuff up. And it makes no sense at all.

I can't take you seriously anymore.

-- Allen

[bearfartinthewoods]

345. what a freakin cop out

we have here at DU a teacher who feels his position is vunerable because he is gay. you think he's unique? i know a guy who taught a sweated the fear that he'd be outted. that's two. you think they are unique?

bullshit...there are thousands of people who percieve there occupations at risk of attack because of their orientation.

a public outing of a repub by a dem will backsplatter and anyone who doubts that is living in a dream world.

for every action there is a reaction. it's easy for someone who doesn't live under that particular threat to be casual about the
reaction but it's pretty callous for them to ignore the risks they expose others to.

and to what end....i keep asking....what glorious new dawn of enlightenment will be born out of outting a republican congreesman.

will it get bush out of the whitehouse? return the house and senate to our hands? rid the world of phelps and his minions?

no

the only thing it will do is legitimize outing anyone who anyone else perc0eives as an enemy or a threat.

what a wonderful world it will be...again....because that's the way it used to be and i have no clue what motivates people who delude themselves into thinking some sort of kick ass attitude won't bring all that crap back on us.

[arwalden]

388. So... In Other Words: "The Sky Is Falling! The Sky Is Falling!" Right?

I guess we'll just have to call them "collateral damage". War is hell. Sometimes innocent people get hurt. Sometimes bad things happen to good people. Pity.

There is NO COMPARISON between your teacher friend and a HYPOCRITICAL ANTI-GAY LAWMAKER. None whatsoever. I don't see the connection. You're grasping at straws. You're trying to draw some sort of parallel connection between an ANTIGAY LAWMAKER and a private citizen. There is none. (You want to talk "cop-outs"?... THERE's your "freakin" cop-out.)

The "glorious" new dawn will be that we will have ONE LESS HYPOCRITICAL BIGOTED LAWMAKER in our midst. The "sheeple" will see that they have been misled and fooled and will be a bit wiser. Maybe they will question their leaders more... maybe they will want to know what the background motivation is behind these anti-gay laws.

Others will know that we know how to play dirty too. They'll think TWICE about fucking around with us. They'll realize that we're not the NICEY-NICE little compliant mealy-mouthed milquetoast limp-wristed faggots who'll just sit back and be POLITE for every new anti-gay law and every sodomy law that comes down the pike.

If everyone was like you, we'd still be treated the same way that Oscar Wilde was treated. "Be nice... just wait... things will get better. I promise." BULLSHIT.

You know what? They aren't getting better. They are getting WORSE! The advances we've made have come from folks who are COURAGEOUS... not the folks who want to sit back and wait for any little scraps the fundamentalist heteros in power choose to give us. --- I choose to fight the good fight. You can hide and cower if you want to.

I'M ANGRY... but I'm not MAD! Waiting around a-la Emily Post is pure madness.

Oh dear! The sky is still falling! What ever will we do? It's the end of the world as we know it.

-- Allen

[scottxyz]

410. It's not about outing a HOMOSEXUAL, it's outing a HOMOPHOBIC HOMOSEXUAL

Why don't you get this simple point?

You keep saying wrong-headed things like: "You treat homosexuality like it's a bad thing by using it to destroy your enemies."

And everyone keeps saying back to you: we're not into outing homosexuals in general. We talking about outing a HOMOPHOBIC HOMOSEXUAL - a homosexual who is voting AGAINST homosexuals.

We're NOT saying being a homosexual is a bad thing. We're saying that being homosexual AND anti-homosexual is an inconsistent thing. We've said it over and over and you still refuse to see it, and you keep coming back with ridiculous statements like "You treat homosexuality like it's a bad thing by using it to destroy your enemies."

This discussion is about HYPOCRISY, not about homosexuality. Haven't you read the examples where people have said "What if McCarthy were a closet communist? Would that have been worth outing?"

Can you understand that the person we're talking about has to have TWO qualities in order to be worthy of "outing": They have to BE something (something good or something bad, doesn't matter) and they have to claim to be AGAINST that very thing that they are. Could be being a homosexual, could be being a communist. We are NOT saying it's bad to be a homosexual or a communist. We are saying that it's INCONSISTENT to be a homophobic homosexual, or to be an anti-communist communist.

So stop falling back on this pseudo-politically correct stance and pretending like the people favoring "outing" this guy somehow think that homosexuality is a "bad" thing. What's bad is being a hypocrite.

[wrkclskid]

413. Screw that

I don't care if he is both. If so he is a pathetic hypocrite, and being homophobic (by the way to be fair, not all those who vote against such rights are neccesarily homophobic, I would prefer to see how Dreier explain such votes before we discuss if he is homophboic)is stupid. Either way, he has a right to privacy, I have a right to privacy, you have a right to privacy. None of his votes, which I disagree with, violate your right to privacy, so what gives you the right to violate his? I remeber when I started my Civil Liberties class a semester ago. My professor came out and warned us that the people the court protects in such cases are often not the most likeable fellows. Miranda was a rapist (never convicted obviously but the evidence was so obvious.) Many free-speech expansions have been granted by cases brought to the court by hate groups. Yet they deserved, under our system, their rights. This is the same for hypocrites, they have their rights. And we, the party that fights for such rights, should demonstrate how much they mean to us by not engaging in such silly and destructive tactics.

[arwalden]

303. The Ones Who Want To OUT Him Will ALWAYS, ALWAYS Win...

Once the closet has been opened and the hypocrisy has been revealed, the deed will be done. It can't be un-done. The words can't be un-spoken. The evidence can't be un-discovered.

No matter how much the "leave-him-in-the-closet" apologists want to try and protect him... if someone has irrefutable proof of his homosexuality, then it will be revealed. The apologists won't be able to stop it. Not with threats. Not with "logic". Not with shame. Not with denial.

Face it... if he's gay... it's going to come out.

I suppose that theoretically, he can go back in and hide... or he can go into denial... but he will still be out and his hypocrisy exposed.

Besides... if this clown cares enough about MY sexuality to encourage legalized BIGOTRY and LEGISLATE AGAINST ME... then I care enough about his sexuality to REVEAL IT. --- Otherwise I could care less.

[Muddleoftheroad]

307. Destruction is so much easier

But the forces for good usually win out in the end, so your side will receive some brief publicity for its stupid and Nazi-like behavior, then rational people will take over again.

Face it, people should have personal lives and it's none of your damn business. We might lose a couple fights along the way on this one, but we WILL win that war.

[arwalden]

310. Pollyanna? Is that you?

Time for a reality check!!

Your "nicey-nice" way has been tried for generations. It doesn't work, the queers always lose.

When will you ever learn?

-- Allen

P.S. Nazi-Like? Oh that's rich! No... it's a sign of desperation. You know I'm right. You know your arguments and logic are weak (at best) and rather than defend your position, and rather than trying to explain how my position is wrong... you resort to *that* well-known tactic.

If that's the way you want to be, then I can't stop you.

I would, however, like to take this opportunity to invoke the unofficial flame-war rule that says (in effect) that "he who makes the first comparison of his opponent to HITLER or NAZIS shall be declared the loser."

[Name removed]

317. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[arwalden]

326. Name-Calling Doesn't Become You...

... want to try to defend your position again? I'll entertain anything you have to say that's substantive.

But I have to tell ya, pal... your approach of being noble and gentlemanly doesn't work. Never has. Never will. --- Not as far as THIS issue is concerned.

This issue deals with HYPOCRISY and HYPOCRITES. You've tried several times to change the issue and frame it differently... but we still come back to outing a HYPOCRITE.

You'll never win. You can whine and moan about it all you want. You can sit there on your high-horse and scold us for not setting a good example.

But tell me... what has your good-example gotten us? Where are the queer rights advances that can be attributed to allowing HYPOCRITES to set the agenda and destroy our rights, or families?

I'm so glad you noticed that we HAVE been making progress. Thanks for proving my point. It's the BACK-AT-CHA "tactics" that have enabled us to make such strides.

It's Newton's rule that for every action there is an equal and opposite RE-action that has enabled us to stand firm and hold our ground.

The pacifist will always accuse those who stand UP for their rights and who want to FIGHT for their rights as being "Nazi-Like". I guess it all depends on your perspective and spin, right?

The arguments you make are emotional, to be sure... but aside from the emotion you evoke... your arguments are weak. In the real world of politics, your methods have gained NOTHING. NOTHING! In the real world of trying to set a good example for the enemy to follow has resulted in... let's see... uh... NOTHING!!! (Other than the fact it makes it easier for the enemy to run roughshod all over us.)

I'll take my way thank you. Your way has gotten us nowhere.

You're playing a role... and unfortunately you don't realize that the role you're suggesting that I play is the one of SECOND-CLASS CITIZEN.

Nah-gah-dah. Not gonna happen. Not in this lifetime.

Action always wins out over INACTION. You want to be INACTIVE? You want to sit there POLITELY and QUIETLY and DO NOTHING?

FIND! Sit there!

Sit there and roll your eyes and shake your finger and scold-away. Other than making you feel better than the rest of us... what EXACTLY have you accomplished?

See you on the other side of the rainbow!
-- Allen

[bearfartinthewoods]

335. ???

if i'm understaning you correctly it seems that your position is that nothing good has happened re:gays.... no progress has been made and if any has happened it's because someone outed a gay politician.

huh? this is a very odd view of history.,,,details please.

and while i'm asking questions...

"Nah-gah-dah"

is that sort of like nanny nanny booboo? Just curious

[arwalden]

340. Stop Pretending. You're Smarter Than You Let On...

Suffice it to say that you misunderstand. Or do you?

Stop twisting my words and my meaning. You know exactly what I'm talking about. You can dissect phrases and idioms and pretend that the mean something OTHER than what I'm talking about. I can't stop you from doing that.

But I see what you're doing, and I'm sure that others can see that as well.

I am saying that our gains have come from fighting HARD and fighting fire with fire. You know it. I know it. Everyone knows it. Fighting HARD doesn't mean outing a politician for every gain. What a silly suggestion. No wonder I can't take you seriously anymore.

-- Allen

Any SNL fans want to explain "Nah-Ga-Dah" to him? I'm not going to. Wouldn't be prudent. Not at this juncture. Not gonna happen.

[realFedUp]

308. Should his partner be his Chief of Staff?

Do any wives of Congressmen work as their Chief of Staffs?

That is a legitimate question.

[Muddleoftheroad]

318. Since you don't know, who can say

All we have is the rantings of one rumor monger, no facts, just supposition.

Even a poster who works in D.C. said this is crap, but that seems too much for some here who are using the yellow school of journalism. No facts, just mud.

[realFedUp]

329. Easy enough to find out.

Just ask him or his Chief of Staff. He owns two homes.
He doesn't live in his district. Ask someone in the know
in his district.

[varun]

311. Out Dreir!

http://www.365gay.com/newscontent/100803caTrans.htm

Schwarzenegger Appoints Anti-Gay To Head Transition
by Matt Johns
365Gay.com Newscenter
Los Angeles Bureau



Posted: October 8, 2003 12:31 p.m. ET


(Los Angeles, California) Governor-elect Arnold Schwarzenegger has appointed conservative Republican Congressman David Dreier to head his transition team.

Schwarzenegger won a landslide election Tuesday night in a vote that saw the ouster of gay-positive governor Gray Davis (story)

Following the announcement of Dreier's appointment, the Los Angeles Gay and Lesbian Center invited the governor-elect to a meeting with the state's gay and lesbian leaders.

"One of the quickest ways for the governor-elect to show that he is not playing 'politics as usual' is to meet with this core component of California's constituency," said Lorri L. Jean, director of the center.

Schwarzenegger has not commented on the invitation.

Dreier, who served as co-chair of the actor's gubernatorial campaign, has record in Congress of opposing gay rights initiatives.

In 1996 he voted for the Defense of Marriage Act which bans the federal government from recognizing same-sex couples. The legislation passed and was signed into law by then President Bill Clinton. In 1999 he voted to ban gay adoptions in the District of Columbia. That bill was narrowly defeated. He opposes granting gays and lesbians civil rights in the workplace, and is in favor of a constitutional amendment to bar gay marriage.

Dreier was named this year as a "True Blue" advocate by the Family Research Council - the preeminent anti-gay lobby organization. His appointment to head the transition team has raised flags among some gay activists....

-------------------------------------------------------------------

This guy (Drier) is hurting me and my partner (we are gay). I will not sit still anymore and take this bulls**t

:mad:

[arwalden]

313. I Agree With You...

But you should be prepared to defend yourself against those who think that "his privacy is more important" and that "we should play nice in order to set a good example".

After all "good always wins" and "evil always loses"? Right.

If we just bide our time and wait long enough, good will win and everything will turn out lovely. So... just sit here and wait. And do nothing. And your basic civil rights and protections will be handed to you on a silver platter.

Eventually.

If you live that long.

Clearly those who are advocating that pollyanna-like do-nothing solution are NOT the ones who have been directly affected by legalized and sanctioned BIGOTRY. Or... they just don't give a damn.

Either way, their do-nothing attitude and their wait-and-see approach has gotten us NOWHERE so far. Yet, still, they INSIST that it needs more time. If we just play nice a little while longer then we'll win.

Wrong-o!

Sadly, I must admit that I feel these folks in our midst are almost as dangerous as Dreier is. I feel that the damage they do... they apathy and lack of action will cause more damage in the long run.

Sad really.

-- Allen

[Muddleoftheroad]

319. Talk about dangerous

Your hate tactics are the worst thing I've EVER seen on DU. An apparently intelligent person rationalizing hate.

Wow, when the Greens talk about how the two parties are the same, maybe they are becoming more correct. Both parties now have their wings of hate.

[varun]

320. when "their" policies tear YOUR family apart...

..then lets see how much you tolerate them...

I wont even list the number of ways that these closet cases have hurt me and my partner - and are still hurting us.

[Muddleoftheroad]

324. Don't tolerate, vote them the hell out

Campaign against them. Rally support against them, etc.

Don't lower yourself to the lowest common denominator.

[arwalden]

327. Doesn't Work When They Have The Sheeple Fooled...

But that's a "nice" thought anyway. Aren't we "nice"? We played "nicely".

But... despite how "nice" and kind and polite we've been... we STILL LOSE the election... again. Aww. Better luck next time, huh?

We'll just have to regroup and be EVEN MORE NICE the next time. Oh-BROTHER... give me a break!

Meanwhile, the HYPOCRITE in power continues to strip away queer Americans' basic rights.

But NO MATTER! At least we played fair and we were NICE about it. We can always look at ourselves with pride at how NICE we were.

-- Allen

[Name removed]

348. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Liberal Veteran]

371. I disagree....

For the most part Americans let themselves be led around by the nose instead of doing any kind of research for themselves.

The entire invasion of Iraq and the relative lack of fallout for attacking a country that was no threat to us as well as the opinion polls where a majority of people think Saddam was involved in 9/11 and/or possessed WMD is fairly good indication that our populace is not very good at ferretting out the truth for themselves.

Not sheep? Come now. Is this true of all, no. Most? Probably, considering that most people don't exercise their right to vote.

[arwalden]

386. If It Had Been Up To You, There Would Have Been No Stonewall...

... after all, it's not NICE. Not polite. Mustn't be too aggressive now, people might think we've forgotten our MANNERS.

Give me a break!

Sheeple. Sheeple. Sheeple. What exactly does that term say about me? What are you getting at? --- By god if you have something to say to me then say it! Don't prance around and make little insinuations like that! What exactly are you implying? Huh? Be a man and say what you mean.

I just love how you EXTRACT imagined meanings from my words. Someone ought to go to you for plots.

When or where did I make such a broad statement about the American people being sheeple? I didn't, you silly goose. You're just being a drama queen to try and make your case with WILD exaggerations.

In any case... you certainly can't deny that there are ENOUGH "sheeple" to be in control and to not fight unfair laws and policies and legislation. But not for all these willing sheeple, these laws would not exist. There would be rioting in the streets to have them overturned. Where's the rioting? Where are the complaints? Why aren't they voted out of office?

Oh that's right! The SHEEPLE!

There will always be lazy whiners who sit back on your noble asses and do nothing. There are ALWAYS going to be do-nothing pacifists who will scold and tsk-tsk and wag fingers and roll their eyes. That's fine. --- We'll take care of things.

I think that's why they call us ACTIVISTS. The root word being ACTIVE! or ACTION! Get it?

No? I figured as much.

Pray tell... what do you know about "irony". That's got to be the most hilarious sentence you've written in this whole thread. How rich! Irony... as if. How delightfully funny.

-- Allen

[varun]

330. this is one way of voting them out

..when the conservative base of Drier finds out that he's a HOMOSEXUAL, they will withdraw their support.

It has worked very well in the past (as recent as a congressman from Florida
http://www.sovo.com/2003/9-12/news/national/foley.cfm )..

I was one of those who campaigned hard against the former atty.
general of Georgia - Bowers (Remember him)?

That hypocrite was mouthing the "family values mantra", and firing lesbians from his staff - when he was outed for the scum he was - a CHEATING HUSBAND. http://www.bostonphoenix.com/archives/1997/documents/00452106.asp

He lost the election - By a wide margin (he was the favorite to win it before he was outed).

[bearfartinthewoods]

334. Muddle, we have been missing something important here.

i have suspected for awhile that for some on this thread, this isn't about dryer. i figured that such hatred and annimosity and a willingness to throw away liberal principles and democratic tennants for such a negligable reward was coming from someplace else.

it's no secret that many out-gays hold a deep animous for
closeted-gays. the reasons vary from the fact that those who are secreted don't seem to have to endure the family stresses that being obviously or openly gay can bring. that's generally a wrong assumption since there are different stressors involved and the closet is often more like a tourture chamber but still the myth of the safety of the closet remains.

obvious gay people are still often ostracized from their families and resent the fact that gays that can "pass" still enjoy the family embrace.

there is also the issue of employment. in many cases, obviously gay people do suffer in the workplace. sometimes it's hard not to resent gay people who aren't quite so obvious especially when they are successful. it's only human to wonder "what would have happened if i could 'pass'. would i have gotten that job or that promotion?" thoses kinds of thoughts can build up a lot of resentment to others who they percieve as "getting away with" something or "avoiding the consequences" of being gay.

there is also a reason that some straight people hold special dislike towards closeted gay men. in our family, one uncle-in-law is gay. he knew he was gay but married my aunt anyway. they had a son. when the sun was about 8, he announced his gayness and moved to san francisco. it took a lot of work to get over that. for many years his son hated him, not for being gay but for being a liar. that kind of lie leaves deep scars.

Muddle, we should be mindful of these issues . maybe it isn't a political matter at all with some here. maybe their hatred of dryer comes more from the fact that they perceive him as closeted rather than republican. if so, i don't think trying to explain things from an ethical standpoint is going to work. that kind of envy and hatred will overide ethics everytime.

[Liberal Veteran]

344. Sorry I am not "liberal" enough or "progressive" enough for you.

Actually I am not. Because people like yourself would have sat back at Stonewall and said "don't riot...good little liberals don't do that sort of thing". The gay rights movement was born when a bunch of people got tired of the system abusing them and fought back at Stonewall.

Here's a little history lesson for you friend:

The Stonewall riots were a series of violent conflicts between homosexuals and police officers in New York City. The riot began on Friday, June 27, 1969 outside the Stonewall Inn, a gay hangout in Greenwich Village. "Stonewall", as it is often called, is considered the start of the modern gay rights movement in the U.S. and worldwide. It was the first time any significant body of gays resisted arrest.

Prior to Stonewall, police raids on gay bars and nightclubs were a regular part of gay life in cities across the United States. Commonly the police would record the identities of all those present, which would be subsequently published in the newspaper, then load up their police van with as many gays as it would hold. Kissing, holding hands, or even being in a gay bar at all were used as grounds for arrest on indecency charges at that time.

The Stonewall raid started out just like any other raid on a gay bar. Seven plainclothes policemen entered the bar along with one uniformed policeman, allegedly to investigate improprieties in the liquor license. They cleared the bar, whose clientele remained on the sidewalk and street outside.

Some of the people outside the bar that night began to toss coins at the police, making fun of the system in which regular raids were a part of extorting payoffs from the bar owners. The gay bar system in New York at the time was widely corrupt. Many gay bars were owned by the Mafia, and operated by a form of payola called gayola, paying off the police to look the other way.

Details about what happened next vary from story to story. The situation quickly got out of control, as there were 400 gay people outside of the bar, milling around, so the stories are confused and sometimes contradictory. One story says the situation escalated when a drag queen stood in the doorway and defied the police. Another says a butch lesbian started it. Either way, at some point the situation took a dramatic turn for the worse, and the police began beating people who resisted with their nightsticks. Several were sent to the hospital, and one teenage boy lost two fingers after police slammed his hand in a car door.




And you know what, if everyone at Stonewall had been good little liberals like you are suggesting, NOTHING would have changed! Nearly every advance made today got made because people with a little bit of backbone decided that the powers that be were not going to use them as doormats anymore and decided to get a little dirty. From the American Revolution to the Labor Unions to the Stonewall riots, change was made by people who decided that playing the game within the established "rules" was a recipe for further oppression. So don't presume to lecture me on ethics and presume I am somehow less virtuous or less of a fighter for freedom and justice than you.

[Muddleoftheroad]

350. This thread

Has nothing to do with making a political statement. It is an attempt to either out someone or destroy him -- even if he isn't gay.

It's repulsive and sick.

[Liberal Veteran]

354. Please cite where I said we should imply he was gay if he wasn't

I have stated several times I would not be willing to out anyone without sufficient evidence. This entire discussion is an excercise in a hypothetical.

And if he is a closeted gay man with an antigay voting record, then he is engaging in the politics of his own oppression and dragging me and Allen and every gay American willing to stand up and be counted along for the ride. I will not abide that.

The idea that I you can sit back and paint me as some kind of nazi because I am not willing to sit back and allow hypocrites to make a mockery of every advance made by the gay community is appalling. I will not apologize for defending myself by exposing the truth.

[TrogL]

355. We're simply saying it's the wrong methodology

Attack his voting record. You don't need to out him. Outing him detracts from your argument.

[Liberal Veteran]

359. Yeah...great idea. How's that been working out the last few years?

Our opposition is playing an anything goes game and they are winning because they know too many of us are not willing to respond in kind, which in turn makes us look spineless, not principled.

They have a copy of our playbook and can anticipate our every move as long as we treat the playbook as though it were a Bible. Unless we are willing to modify our strategy and do the unexpected, we will lose.

How many more losses can we abide? The same old tried and true methods are no longer working for us and this entire country is heading in the direction of fascism while we continue to shake our heads in confusion over why what has historically worked is no longer working.

We will have to agree to disagree on this.

[bearfartinthewoods]

369. loses? what freakin country are you living in

or haven't you noticed that as of this summer it's now legal for you to have sex. gay characters are on the tube now in roles that don't constantly embarrass the gay community because they are fascile and stereotypical.

sweet jeezus...queer eye is a hit!!

i gotta wonder what the hell you are talking about....details please?

i'll be back in the morning for your response.

[Liberal Veteran]

370. Wow. And to think it only took 227 years.

for the Supreme Court to say sex between consenting adults was legal.

Besides, I was referring to our losses as democrats and progressives in general, not just the gay community.

But it really doesn't matter. I should just be thankful for whatever crumbs fall from the table of "mainstream" society, I guess.

[TrogL]

372. If things are going right, for once, why fsck things up?

[Liberal Veteran]

373. Are they going that well?

Between DOMA and talk of amending the constitution to prevent gay marriage, things aren't really all that great.

Has progress been made? To be sure.

[bearfartinthewoods]

406. see this is what bugs me..gayness as a political tool

if the issue is that dems/liberals are losing so we go after the enemy by attacking his weakness which some people perceive is that he's gay.

is that what you're saying? or go back and say it's his hypocracy and answer the questions i asked about his hypocrisy.

i gotta say...especially since this seems to be rooted in CA gay dems. i return to the ide that this is motivated by a desire for revenge with little concern for those who get caught in the crossfire.

and, as i said in my other post of this am, what happens if the pubbies decide to run with it and use this to promote their tolerance?

we have a very messy load of egg on our face if we're the ones making a big deal of someone being gay and the pubbies say "so what?"

[Liberal Veteran]

432. So hide away and don't take chances....

You know when our forefathers decided they wanted to be free from the rule of Britain, they knew very well that they could end up on the chopping block and lose. Instead they had the spine to take chances. I am not going to cripple myself with "what-if" scenarios that paralyze me with fear.

And let me brutally honest here. One of the biggest problems that is facing the entire political spectrum and causes our party such grief is because people are paralyzed exactly in the manner I described. Always hedging bets, always playing it safe. Never taking the chances that need to be taken. Ooo...we can't stand up to Bush, we might get labeled "anti-American". Oooo...we should be careful not to push too hard on the lies about WMD....it might come back to haunt us. Oooo...we shouldn't try to tell the truth about our foreign policy because we would be labeled "appeasers".

How many more losses must we continue to endure because people like yourself are afraid to take a risk?

[noiretextatique]

439. the weakness is HYPOCRISY, for the umpteenth time

the issue is PROTECTING hard-won gains in civil rights not "losing" and not "revenge" and this other nonsense you keep repeating. this is about real issues, like the ability of gays and lesbians to adopt, that affect real people's lives...not some political version of football, where the best "team" wins. this is about combatting homophobia and homophobic attempts to ATTACK GLBQT folks...to DENY us the rights that YOU have the luxury of taking for granted. your "crossfire" fears are a hypothetical as are the rumors about dreier, btw. unless you've been consulting ms. cleo...you have no idea how "outing" a closeted homophobe would affect anyone else.

as to this comment: "what happens if the pubbies decide to run with it and use this to promote their tolerance?"

this would be a GOOD thing, right? according to everything you've written in this thread, one would hope so, since it's what "we" liberals *really* want.

[Liberal Veteran]

461. Excellent point.....

After all. God forbid our actions cause the republican party to change it's anti-gay stance and become tolerant. Wouldn't that just be a fate worse than death?

[scottxyz]

423. Oh please 'bearfartinthewoods'

"It's now legal for you to have sex". Wow. Thanks.

"Queer Eye is a hit". Yeah, and I bet black people could just go out and celebrate in the streets once "The Jeffersons" hit the tube.

The fact is, gays are one of the few minorities that it's still ok to hate. And one of the few minorities that still has members voting AGAINST themselves.

[bearfartinthewoods]

368. do me a favor...

my typing hand is giving out and i'm having trouble getting this sucker to load. go up thread to my questions about the nature of his hypocracy and respond to it so i don't have to retype it? thanks

i'll check back in the morning when the net is a bit faster.

[arwalden]

389. I Think It's HONORABLE To Destroy One's Enemy...

You want to vilify me and you worship him. Now THAT'S "repulsive and sick"!!

It's clear by his actions that he wants to "destroy" queers. It's war. He's the enemy. We find his weaknesses and ATTACK him. THIS IS WAR after all.

Or have you forgotten already?

I have no problem with that at all. Nothing you say can change my mind. No amount of scolding or name-calling will make me lose sight of the fact that he (and others like him) are my sworn enemy and must be "destroyed".

AT ALL COSTS. NO MATTER WHAT.

No false pride. No false morality. No false humanity. The enemy must be destroyed.

-- Allen

[bearfartinthewoods]

365. i welcome your honesty in admitting this isn't a liberal thing to do.

it makes it easier to understand the motives. you want to kick ass.
nobody wants to riot anymore so the only action you see available is to out someone you don't like. the part i don't get it how you think it's going to make things better for the GLBT community.

i'm wondering if you may be suffering from a little bit of tunnel vision. i have many gay friends and have learned of stonewall as history but the real story of how progress happened has little to do with stonenewall.

most of the progress happened because a million people had gay friends who they didn't want to see suffer so they said. "that's not fair". they said it to their golf foursomes when someone cracked a gay joke and they said it in the office place or schools when someone was harrassed and they told it to their representatives and they taught it to their kids. that's how it happened.

i understand how it is to be close to the heart of a movement and have a skewed estimation of it's importance. i fell into the same trap during the anti-war movement in the 70's. i thought we stopped that war. we didn't. the population in general stopped the war because they didn't want to see anymore kids coming home in bodybags for no good reason. many of them hated the kids in DC and on campuses all over the country. they thought we were dirty druggies who should get a job. we didn't change their minds any more than stonewall changed their minds. they changed there minds because it hit someone they knew...because it hit them in their gut and hearts.

that's what has changed things for gays in this country. if the people in general were not supporting change, a riot in NYC would just be another bunch of kids who ought to get a job....

[Liberal Veteran]

367. I admitted no such thing.

But thank you so much Mr. Arbiter of all things Liberal for jumping to such conclusion. I guess you missed the fact that I was being sarcastic.

I also don't require you to be the conscience of the gay rights movement. Judge if you want, but if you are not gay, you are not living under the oppression of closeted hypocrites.

[arwalden]

390. I'm Always Amused When Someone Pretends Not To Understand...

... my words when they have no substantive rebuttal. Or they pretend to "read in" a hidden meaning that was never there in the first place to avoid having to answer or explain their position.

I'm afraid this is what's happening to your WELL THOUGHT OUT and well written and well-stated messages.

Don't let them yank your chain... your message made perfect sense to me. I'm sure they actually understood your meaning as well.

-- Allen

[scottxyz]

419. As you said, 'muddleoftheroad'

As you said, "Campaign against them. Rally support against them, etc."

That's exactly what where doing here. We are campaigning against a HOMOPHOBIC HOMOSEXUAL. We are rallying support against a HOMOPHOBIC HOMOSEXUAL.

How? By telling the TRUTH about their hypocricy. Glad you support our approach (although you sometimes don't realize it, when you say that exposing hypocricy is somehow "Nazi-like").

You have to get over your knee-jerk reaction to protect this guy just because he's gay. He's not just gay - he's a HOMOPHOBIC HOMOSEXUAL. A plain ole homosexual might be deserving of your support and your concerns about privacy. A HOMOPHOBIC HOMOSEXUAL on the other hand, who is actively trying to DENY other homosexuals rights based solely on theiry "private lives", deserves to have the insonsistencies and hypocricies of HIS OWN private life scrutinized publicly.

You don't get a free pass just by being in an oppressed minority. If you're in an oppressed minority, and you're trying to BECOME an oppressor (of the the very minority to which you belong) then you're screwed up in the head and your hypocricy needs to be pointed out.

You're being overly "politically correct" 'muddleoftheroad'. Chill out! It's ok to be against a homosexual IF HE'S ALSO A HOMOPHOBE. We're not against his homosexuality. We're against his HOMOPHOBIA and his HYPOCRISY.

And please stop saying that the only thing we're allowed to do is VOTE against the guy. This is a free country and we're also allowed to TALK against him. If that's alright with you. It has generally been found that talking about candidates BEFORE the election is a useful approach. Please stop trying to say that the only thing we should do is VOTE against him. We can TALK against him too. It's a highly effective tool in a free society - TALKING about the candidates, disucssing their positions on issues. So please stop telling us we shouldn't TALK about this guy. HE'S the one who thinks homosexuality is a political issue that should be regulated. HE'S the one who cast the first stone. Hope you don't mind if we throw it back at him.

[arwalden]

331. I'm Afraid I Don't Understand. Exactly How Am I Defending Hate?

You make these wild accusations accusing me of "hate tactics". I call them BATTLE TACTICS. This is war. Or haven't you realized?

When you can manage to take a break from being NICE... why don't you come down out of that ivory tower and see what it's REALLY like.

When did defending one's self become "hate"? What kind of pacifist attitude is that? And what kind of success has THAT proved to be in the past?

When you try to equate my self-defense with hate... and when you try to equate my disarming the ENEMY with "hate"... your words remind me of when candidate George Bush said "all crime is hate crime". Remember that nonsense?

An excuse me? Hello? --- What's so wrong with HATING the enemy? I do hate the enemy!

REPEAT: I HATE THE ENEMY! Did you get it that time? Do I need to say it again?

You try to fault me for hating that against which I am opposed... why? You try to fault me for hating THOSE PEOPLE against which I am opposed... why?

How does NOT hating them benefit me?

For you to suggest that I just sit politely while getting fucked by the HYPOCRITES for the sake of being nice... well, that's simply foolish.

I'M NO FOOL!

Like I (and others) have said before... you go ahead and sit there on your cushy-pillow. Do nothing. Hum koom-bah-yah or whatever.

WE will do the dirty work that needs to be done. WE will fight the good fight. You just sit there and whine and moan and criticize incessantly. If that's what it takes to float your boat... go ahead.

In the end... we'll win DESPITE the do-nothing's and wait-and-see's like yourself.

-- Allen

[candy331]

337. I don't really care about a persons'

sexual preferance/orientation if that is the correct way to describe it. What I do care about is the sanctimonious hypocrisy of condemning others, all the time asking to pick a straw out of someone else's eye and living with A rafter in their own eye such as the recent drug revelaton of Limbab. David Drier was totally obnoxious on TV leading up to Arnolds election. I did wonder at the time what was the driving force behind him sticking up for Arnold's conduct so vehemently. I guess he knew he would need the same favor in return.

[Muddleoftheroad]

351. You confuse fighting with anything goes

Once anything goes, everything goes -- morality, civility, privacy.

Go after someone because YOU fantasize that he is gay and you remove any barriers from the other side doing and getting away with it. After all, the media will say, even gays now destroy other SUSPECTED homosexuals.

The truth of the matter is peaceful protest works. The truth of the matter is being moral works. The truth of the matter is you don't know how to rise about such a despicable tactic.

As for you being a fool or not, I will leave that to others to judge here about your ridiculous rant and tantrum about someone you hate.

[arwalden]

387. You Sit Back And Play Nicey-Nice... I'll Do The Dirty Work For You.

You keep your hands nice and clean. I'll get out there and fight for what's right.

You organize online petitions and I'll reveal the hypocritical bastards for who they really are.

You forget... this isn't a ladies' luncheon pie-baking competition... THIS IS FUCKING WAR!!

Peaceful protests do not work when it comes to THIS issue. You know that. Stop pretending like we're in Selma. We ain't.

Whose morality? Yours? Fine! --- Keep it.

I fight fire with fire. You don't want to get burned... step back pal... it's gonna get HOT around here.

Nothing you can say nothing you can do will stop me from using my "despicable" tactic. Call it what you want... my tactic WORKS.

It works because they hypocrites cannot fight the truth. They cannot hide from the truth when their lies are revealed. It works because it's comparable to EVERYTHING they are doing to queer Americans.

You cannot stop me. I will win. I WILL ALWAYS WIN. No matter what you do, YOU WILL ALWAYS LOSE. Face facts. You ain't gonna win this one.

-- Allen

[arwalden]

396. Honey... "morality, civility, privacy" have already GONE!!

Those virtues don't exist in real life. They certainly don't exist in the lives of the enemy.

Why should I allow myself to be hindered by those signs of weakness. Why should I continue to be victimized when I can fight.

Victim?
Fighter?
Victim?
Fighter?

Such a hard decision.

Okay... I know...

I choose FIGHTER! You can be the victim... that's clearly what you want... so go ahead. Be the victim.

-- Allen

[noiretextatique]

366. an extension of the notion of the "noble savage"

recall that as one of the racist/imperialist/colonialist excuses for screwing over people? sort of like those "magical negroes" who help white folks find themselves. see...liberals, especially gay liberals, are supposed to be "better" than regular folks. we are supposed to accept that homophobes have the "right" to hate us (just a difference of opinion, anyway) and therefore be "tolerant" of their hatred for us, as expressed in legislation and lawsuits to block legislation. see THAT's not *really* about hatred, hegemony or superiority or power or revenge...it's natural, and reasonable, and some level...just a difference in opinions...see? so...we should "take it for the team" so the "team" can feel good about being ethical, tolerant, and reasonable to homophobes. it's NOT ABOUT YOU...you pesky gays clamoring about "rights"...it's about the largesse of liberals in being "tolerant" of the "different views" of homophobes...see the difference? cause we're "better" than them :eyes:

[Undemcided]

323. This will backfire.

How is anyones sexual preferences "fair game."?

[jumptheshadow]

339. It's larger than sexual preference

Yes, sexual preference and the concomitant "sanctioned bigotry" is a big part of this.

But, even more to the point, we are dealing with a well-organized faction in the Republican party that has no compunction about defaming any of our candidates in order to gain a stranglehold on power in this country. We are dealing with a party that, in all probability, will demonize gays next year during the presidential race. This is a party that has made the word "liberal" an epithet, that questioned Max Cleland's patriotism, that hounded the Clintons, and that has spread unsubstantiated rumors about Wesley Clark. This is a party that supported Rick Santorum when he likened gay relationships to beastiality and argued that gays don't have a right to privacy in their own bedroom.

*They* are the ones who have put the issue of privacy and private lives on the table. I say that we should hold their feet to the fire.

[noiretextatique]

343. thank you...my position exactly eom

[Liberal Veteran]

346. And you correct...this is nothing more a measured and equal

response to the level they have brought the fight to. Do I like it? Hell, no! I don't like it when my hand is forced. On the other hand, if someone is coming after me with a baseball bat with the intent to bash my head in, I am not about to keep trying to reason with him after my initial attempts have failed. Eventually, I am going to respond in kind to defend myself.

This is no different.

[TrogL]

353. Does he out people?

then you're not responding in kind.

[Liberal Veteran]

356. No he cowers behind that safety of the closet and profits from..

...the oppression of his own people. But I am not allowed to expose his hypocrisy because some vague unwritten honor code that says I have to respect the privacy of someone who is isn't willing to respect my equality and worse, profits by oppressing me?

[noiretextatique]

361. the "ethics" of the prone position

screw me over as much as you like: i am too "noble" to fight back...more please, thank you :eyes: i don't need those "special rights" anyway...i'll have my "ethics" when i can't adopt or get my partner health insurance coverage :eyes: what's important is my protection of the rights of closeted homophobes to screw me over...after all, i'm a liberal! more please... :eyes:

[QC]

363. Anyone Remember Andrew Sullivan's Barebacking Scandal?

For those who don't, here's a quick summary. Sullivan, as we all know, has made a career of condemning what he sees as the immorality of the gay mainstream--promiscuity, unsafe sex, etc. This has made him a favorite of conservatives, who could look to him for validation of their own prejudices. But it came out in 2001 that Sullivan, who is HIV+, had placed personals ads on the 'Net seeking bareback (unprotected) sex. (That link is not office-friendly, by the way.) That's a pretty remarkable bit of hypocrisy, even for a conservative, and soon enough Mike Signorile and GayBC Radio went public with it.

This was widely discussed on the gay boards, and a poster at Datalounge made one of the smartest observations I've ever seen in any forum. Here's how it goes:

There is a major distinction between privacy and secrecy. By posting pictures of his ass in a very public place, Sullivan could not credibly claim any expectation of privacy. Instead, he wanted secrecy. He expected the same community that he spent years demonizing to keep his little secret for him.

But, the argument goes on, is any community really obligated to extend its protection to an enemy?

I think that's a key issue here, even more than privacy. If a homophobe elected official is widely known to be gay--i.e., hangs out in gay clubs, takes his lover to public events, etc.--why should the gay community feel any obligation to protect him?

[eleny]

380. Could outing him be considered a preemptive strike?

Using the Saddham analogy:

He's used his power to hurt his own people
He's planning to do it it again

:shrug:

[noiretextatique]

382. is the "gay community" the equivalent of the united states

in your example? a hegemonic superpower intent on imposing its version of "morality" on a smaller, less powerful "enemy" who poses absolutely no threat to the superpower? or would the "moral majority" be the more appropriate villian in your analogy? seems to me it would. so...would we expect hussien, and the iraqi people to simply give up and not fight US, simply because we so believe in the "morality" of our mission? if the "outing" is based on a LIE, like the one used to justify the war on iraq, i could see your point. however, i think it's more realistic to view dreier's possible outing as self-defense, again using your analogy.

[eleny]

393. my point was...

to apply Dreier's political philosphy to himself. that's all.

[noiretextatique]

383. NO...there is no "right" to secrecy for public homophobes

and the community is under no obligation to keep the "secret" someone whose "work" damages the members of that community. i was talking with a friend about this, and she couldn't understand why, if someone was really gay...why would he work against his OWN interests. i explained to her that not everyone needs to have his partner covered on his health insurance policy, and not everyone needs or wants the right to adopt children. it's not at all inconceivable that a gay person might be completely hostile to issues that aren't of concern to him...even though those issue might be on concern to other gays and lesbians...and that's fine. however, it certainly isn't the "duty" of the community to keep his secret, and effectively ENABLE him to continue working against their interests.

it's like "passing" imho. say for example a vicious and vocal racist is "passing" as white. say some members of the black community find out this person is "passing" as white. would the black community be "obligated" to keep his secret, so that he could continue his "work" against the members of that community? it's no different than a homopobe "passing" as straight.

[Zorra]

394. Yeah, it's the hypocrisy

that needs to be outed. If he is gay and pretends to be homophobic, he is dangerous to the people as an elected official.

[dutchdemocrat]

399. one more to go

bump and 400 wow...

[Muddleoftheroad]

402. I missed that in the Constitution

You must not care about that document.

[arwalden]

403. No... You Didn't "Miss" Seeing It In The Constitution... IT'S NOT THERE!!!

I fail to see the connection between your reply and the message you're replying to. Did you even READ the message? Or are you just jumping to conclusions based on the subject-line only?

Here we have a reply of yours that doesn't really address any of the valid points made by someone with whom you disagree. Instead it just bandies about wild accusations of not caring for the constitution or the bill of rights. --- Oh-BROTHER!

Oh well.

-- Allen

[QC]

405. Was firing Rush a violation of the 1st Amendment?

Lots of his followers have said so, and you seem to be making a similar argument.

Since nobody has said that the government should out anyone, your "point" about the Constitution is moot.

What some of us have said is that no community is obligated to protect its enemies. That's an entirely separate issue, one that elected homophobes' defenders have carefully avoided in this thread.

I think the issue of sexuality is so highly charged that it can be hard to discuss, so let's try another angle here. I'm interested in knowing what you think.

One of Alabama's senators, an obnoxious "family values" type, is a regular at Sammy's Go Go in Birmingham. I know this for a fact because I know people who have seen him there, and his favorite stripper, to whom he always brings flowers, is a friend of a friend. The senator does not make a big secret of any of this; in fact, on one of his nights out, the emcee spotlighted him and congratulated him on this election, at which point Mr. Family Values stood, smiled broadly, and hoisted his beer to the cheering crowd.

Do the good senator's supporters, most of whom presumably chose him because of his outspoken support for "family values," deserve to know that he hangs out in tittybars? Is this "private"? Or does it have some bearing on his career, since his entire political appeal is built on a carefully-crafted but false impression that he is an advocate of Christian values?

[wrkclskid]

401. I worked on the hill as an intern

And these rumors are BS, such rumors go on all the time on the hill. Shame on you for falling for such crap. Secondly, outing someone is a sick tactic. My gay cousin lives in fear of such tactics. He is also opposed to gay marriage (he is a devout catholic who beleives the ceremony is sacred) should you out him?
The argument here seems to be "the ends justify the means," if MLK Jr. had taken that posistion, I shutter to think how far back civil rights for African Americans would have been taken back. I can understand your frustration, but this will not help ur cuase and only cause people unneeded pain and suffering, many of the homosexuals who will feel the "brushback" from this attack.

[QC]

408. Is your cousin an elected official?

If not, the comparison you are trying to draw is invalid.

And, if your cousin is opposed to same-sex marriage, then the solution is simple: he should not get married.

BTW, would you say that all such rumors are BS? Are Tammy Baldwin, Barney Frank, and Jim Kolbe the only gay members of Congress?

[wrkclskid]

409. Well My cousin does speak against Gay Marriage

In his gay and Lesbian organizations (sorry I don't recall which ones he belongs too) so I guess you could say he is invovled in the political process. And it's not invalid, becomming an elected offical does not mean you los ur most basic right to privacy. The repukes do it, but I thought the whole point is we are not them? Secondly, Dreier could be homosexual and beleive that recognizing such marriages has problems for soceity, blah, blah blah (my cosuin does) I think it's BS (I argue with my cousin over it) but many beleive it. How are we to know how sincere it is, or iof he is a claculating pol. Eihter way, it's his right to privacy. If such a right doesn;t protect the scumbags, then it truly can;t protect anybody. So, no my compariosn is not invalid, they are both American citizens, and thus both have a right to privacy. If anyone here does feel like undergoing a massive campaign to "out" him, be prepared to spend soem massive time in court, their is a trend, both judicial and public, of less tolerance towards such tactics.

As far as the rumors, from what I heard the Dreier one if most def. BS. from what I understand Senator Lindsey Graham and Rep. Mark Foley, both repukes, have a little more credibility. It makes for an interesting study in psycho-analysis, but not much else. It's their business and their beliefs.

[QC]

411. If your cousin runs around lecturing in public on this subject,

and belongs to gay organizations, then he is, for all practical purposes, out. So the issue here is not your cousin's privacy so much as his desire that others keep his secrets for him. It's like me hanging out in a gay bar and then getting angry if someone says that he saw me there.

As for invalid comparisons, what I meant is that there's a big difference between, say, a smalltown school teacher and a Congressman. A Congressman is, without any doubt, a public figure, and a very powerful one. If he uses that power to hurt a community to which he belongs, he is at the very least a stinking hypocrite.

I feel no obligation to protect stinking hypocrites. That doesn't mean that I will run around town putting up posters outing him, but neither will I lie for him.

[wrkclskid]

415. Their is a difference between refusing to lie

And actually outing them, I am glad u would not take it on yourself to make this most personal decision for him. And still, they are both American citizens. By the way, my cousin does hide his sexuality (sometimes not very well) from many people, but being strong in his views may tell people unaware of his sexuality that he also opposes such marriage. I would not feel the need to then tell those he talked to, "He's gay." It's his business who he fels like telling. In a perfect world, he wouldn;t have to worry about telling people, but alas such a world does not exist.

[QC]

418. Do the circumstances of his life require him to be closeted?

It sounds to me that he has some issues far more serious than his sexual orientation.

BTW, does it violate the privacy of a heterosexual pol's sexuality when the press publishes information about his wife and kids? Of course not. So why all the attitude about gay politicians? The subtext there is that it is a shameful thing to be gay.

[Muddleoftheroad]

421. No, politicians volunteer such information about families

They think it helps personalize them.

[QC]

426. Sure--they seem to believe that fertility is a qualification for

holding public office, so they always display their children.

Silly, but it's a tradition.

My point is that no one considers sexuality private until it comes to the homos, and then both reactionaries and nice liberals suddenly agree that sexuality is deeply personal and must never be discussed.

That's also silly.

[noiretextatique]

444. it is very silly

politicians wear their HETEROSEXUALITY like a badge of honor...it's blatant and obvious...which is the point of this thread. a closted homophobe who cowers behind heterosexual priviledge is doing so FOR A REASON...and we all should be able to figure out what that reason is. some prefer to ponder the possible PERSONAL motives of such an individual, but clearly, there's the big, fat, pink elephant of the POLITICAL motives for doing so: to get elected, to court the favor and the money of the right, and to advance an acceptable type of bigotry.
some of our liberal friends seem to suggest that "tolerance" for this accpetable type of bigotry is somehow our "duty," to uphold the ethics of liberalism. however, some are failing to grasp: liberalism is NOT about "tolerating" bigotry or bigots. gays and lesbians are no more "obligated" to "tolerate" the views of homophobes than are people of color "obligated" to "tolerate" the views of racists. some views are INTOLERABLE...no matter what holy tomes, churches, and traditions dictate. even some "liberals" choose to "accept" anti-gay bigotry as "the norm," or at the very least, minimize it to "a difference of opinion"...i see this as a much larger problem than the ethics of outing.

[Muddleoftheroad]

457. Actually, people can talk about whatever THEY want

Maybe in some areas being gay is a plus. Try running in some areas of San Francisco being opposed to homosexuality. You will get trounced.

But you reveal your personal life on YOUR OWN.

To have someone do otherwise is disgusting.

[Deja Q]

404. Absolutely!!!

Politics is a dirty game.

Hypocrisy stinks and we need whistleblowers, badly!

He's a viable target.

And the pukes would do the same to us regardless.

[Mairead]

412. Voluntary collaborators deserve what they get

Someone who tries to have a foot in both camps -- queer in the clubs but a straight bigot in the office -- deserves outing because he's a collaborator, little different in principle to the Vichy French or the Norwegian quislings.

Don't want to identify as queer? Fine: stay home at night. Live in your closet 24/7.

Want to enjoy the scene but not come out at work? Fine: work FOR freedoms and rights, not against them.

[Liberal Veteran]

416. And it's kinder than the unions treated collaborators.

Collaborators ARE traitors with no loyalty except to themselves. This idea that we are doing something horrible to some innocent is bullshit and I notice the majority of those who denounce this tend to be doing so from the safety of not having to live under the oppression of said collaborators.

[Muddleoftheroad]

422. Oh, that must be right, lol

Yeah, why not just beat them with baseball bats. That sounds about the speed of the other comments here.

[noiretextatique]

433. don't be idiotic, if possible

telling the truth is not akin to beating someone up, no matter how hysterically you scream it.

[Muddleoftheroad]

459. There are lots of ways to destroy someone

Rumor, inuendo, invasion of privacy, destruction of their. Basically, all the ways advocated by the radical fringe here in this thread.

[Liberal Veteran]

463. Truth can also be used to destroy someone.

It doesn't make it wrong to tell the truth.

[Mairead]

446. No, it's the gay men and dykes who get beaten with the bats

You never find that happening to the 'phobes.

And I'll echo noir's suggestion.

[bearfartinthewoods]

417. the rules for gays by Mairead

care to list the rest of them? i mean, there may be some gays here that need a refresher course on what you may and may not do according to you. </sarcasm>

[Liberal Veteran]

431. It's a members only thing...thinking of coming out soon?

Sarcasm is a two-way street.

[noiretextatique]

435. the rules for gays, by a straight man

1) being gay is about sex
2) homophobes have a right to be in the closet, and the gay community is obligated to "shield" their "private" life...it's in
the constitution, and this is what gay rights is all about.
3) just because you disagree with homophobes, you have no right to "out" closeted homophobes because this offends MY "liberal ethical code" and marks the end of 'liberlism as we know it'
4) i am the ultimate authority on all things gay
5) if you don't think as i do, you aren't *really* liberal

[dsc]

447. I may be misremembering

but I could swear that the poster you just responded to is gay.

[noiretextatique]

449. i don't think so...but he has mentioned

having several gay relatives and friends, perhaps the source of his authority on all things gay. if i am wrong...i am sure he will let me know.

[Mairead]

441. "care to list the rest of them?"

Sure.

- be authentic
- reduce the amount of misery in the world
- appreciate small things

Did you think they'd be different for queers?

[jumptheshadow]

440. The outing of people

I don't care what people at work do in their bedroom (really!) and whether they are "out" or not. They're just schlubs like me trying to earn a living.

I don't care whether actors or actresses are gay. Sure, the ones who come out help the cause considerably. But, unless celebrities support anti-gay political causes, I oppose outing them.

However, politicians and public figures who throw their weight behind homophobic causes are fair game. They're helping to make policies that have a major impact on our daily lives. They should be held personally accountable for their actions.

[jumptheshadow]

437. My assumption

I assume that the folks who oppose outing will be the first to contribute money to GLBT organizations that fight for gay rights.

[TrogL]

456. money, time, political influence

the list goes on

[TSIAS]

465. Locking

This thread will soon become nearly impossible to access. If you wish to further the discussion, feel free to open another thread.

Thanks,
Taylor :)
GD Moderator