Official Outings - NYT Magazine's take on the ethics of outing

[kweerwolf]

I have always believed that an elected official's private life is not a part of the public record. Before and after the Mayor Jim West episode, I have heard colleagues discuss outing legislators who oppose gay rights but are rumored to be gay. What are the ethics in this case? State Senator Ken Jacobsen, Seattle

Your colleagues may ethically out an official only if that official's being gay is germane to his policy-making. A person who seeks elected office, voluntarily entering the public arena, does surrender some claims to privacy. (Financial disclosure comes to mind.) Some, but not all. An official's private life should remain private unless he or she makes it relevant to a public position freely taken. A cross-dressing secretary of agriculture who voiced no opinion on the sexual high jinks of soybeans -- do legumes engage in high jinks? -- would not meet this standard; a gay state senator who opposed gay civil rights would. Similarly, the assault weapons stockpiled by a gun-control advocate would be pertinent; his nude trout-fishing would not be.

Identifying when this ambiguous standard has been met is admittedly difficult. Is a single vote on a single bill enough? My guideline is this: the more aggressively, the more centrally, an official participates in a policy struggle, the more reasonable it is to out him.

A counterargument could be made in defense of hypocrisy, or at least for its irrelevance: a policy should stand on its merits, not on its advocates' behavior. That may be so in the dispassionate discourse of academe (at least idealized academe), but in the hurly-burly of political life, the human factor is meaningful and often invoked by politicians themselves -- their military service, their religious observance.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/17/magazine/17ETHICIST.html

[Ian David]

1. Excellent article. One point...

A counterargument could be made in defense of hypocrisy, or at least for its irrelevance: a policy should stand on its merits, not on its advocates' behavior. That may be so in the dispassionate discourse of academe (at least idealized academe), but in the hurly-burly of political life, the human factor is meaningful and often invoked by politicians themselves -- their military service, their religious observance.

The problem is, people like Santorum and the anti-gay folks are hardly "dispassionate," let alone "academic" in their arguments.

If Santorum had said something like, "I have nothing against gay people. In fact, my most senior aide is gay. However, I think gay marriage would be fiscally and logistically difficult because we haven't budgeted enough money to Justices of the Peace to handle the increase in license applications. I'll talk about it some more tomorrow, when I give the opening invocation at tomorrow's Gay Pride Parade."

Instead, Santorum and his ilk talk about marrying dogs and fucking box turtles.

I don't think I have heard of a single anti-gay politician with an "academic" or "dispassionate" argument.

Ok, there is one person that I know of. That would be Mass. State Rep Christine Canavan, who basically says she can't vote in favor of gay marriage because she's afraid she'd lose votes or literally be attacked by angry mobs.

Do you know how hard it is for a Democratic incumbent to lose an election in Massachusetts?

[ladeuxiemevoiture]

2. Remember, the political is personal.

I used to be on the fence, but I think if a closeted gay politician votes in favor of anti-gay legislation in any form, that politician can ethically be outed.

[swimmernsecretsea]

5. A politician who is voting or acting against the interest of the LGBT

community, yet taking advantage of it, should be shown up for the hypocrite he/she is. I don't agree exposing family members, or repeatedly harrassing the political or celebrity figure for a relation or family member.

[Brian_Expat]

3. The NYT has been hypocritical about outings for years

Sexual orientation is benign information, just like race or religion or gender.

Can someone honestly claim an "egregious violation of privacy" for being "outed" as part-black (despite "looking white") or for being "outed" as having been born in West Virginia? Why then, claim such a violation of privacy over sexual orientation?

If someone reveals that "this gay candidate enjoys regular flings with his partner on a private nude beach in San Diego where they (insert graphic description here)," that's a violation of privacy. But a simple note that the individual in question is gay? Nope.

[davidinalameda]

6. I was born in West Virginia

why are you "outing me"

:bounce:

[PageOneQ]

4. BlogActive...My item on the NY Times Column

Hello friends...

OK, so I do think they should call it "reporting" instead of "outing" but I'm really excited about the NY TImes piece.

I wrote a bit about it on my blog, blogACTIVE.com

Mike Rogers
blogActive.com

(I used to post here as "blogACTIVE" but decided to go with my news site's nick name on forums....Mike