Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Outing Homosexuals in DC

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
romantico Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-14-07 09:50 AM
Original message
Outing Homosexuals in DC
Outing pioneer Michelangelo Signorile tried to out Congressman Mark Foley years ago, but the media refused to pick up the story.

If the media had paid attention, those pages would not have been hit on.

People who say they are against "outing" usually mean they are against outing the postman or actors, but people who are for "outing" are never outing postmen. They're outing closeted homophobic politicians who are working to defeat gay rights.

I say out Karl Rove but don't out John Travolta.


http://potw.news.yahoo.com/s/potw/51/brokeback-hill

Here's a fascinating case-in-point:


Meet Tyler Whitney: 18 and Already Outed

Posted by Dan Savage on June 12 at 10:15 AM

Tyler Whitney is a young conservative activist—he’s serving as webmaster for the GOP’s most rabidly anti-gay presidential candidate Tom Tancredo, leads an anti-gay group on his college campus, carried a “Go Back in the Closet!” sign at anti-gay protest. On his MySpace page, Whitney says he’s interested in meeting, “any conservative college student in the DC area that is interested in fighting the left.”

And Tyler Whitney is gay, and he’s just been outed.

Well, not so much outed. Whitney had begun quietly coming out to friends—presumably his more tolerant “fight the left” buddies—and Between the Lines, a gay paper in Michigan where Whitney goes to college and works with that rabidly anti-gay student group, got wind of it and decided to hurry Whitney’s coming out process along.

Bay Buchanan, Senior Advisor to Tancredo, says Whitney’s “sexual preference is a personal matter,” and that it should have “nothing to do with the campaign.”

Sorry, Bay, but gay-bashing conservative thugs—people like you, your horrible brother, your vile candidate—can’t have it both ways on the gay issue. If Whitney’s sexual preference is a personal matter, if Whitney’s sexual preference shouldn’t have anything to do with the campaign, then neither should mine—or the sexual preferences of any other Americans. Until your candidate lays off the gay bashing, until the GOP stops attacking the rights and humanity of gay and lesbian Americans, then Tyler Whitney’s sexual orientation—it’s not a preference, Bay, and you know it—is fit for public debate.

Or is sexual orientation only a private matter when a Republican is being sodomized?

Responding to Bay Buchanan, Michelangelo Signorile says…

In other words, if he wants to work against his own kind—for a man who’s railed against gay rights and has a zero rating from the Human Rights Campaign—we’re happy to have him!

Some folks will question the ethics of outing a messed up 18 year-old. Like lots of young ‘mos from conservative backgrounds, Whitney seems to have compensated for his sexuality by going off the anti-gay deep end. What better way to cover up for your homosexuality than working against the rights of gay people?

But by eighteen you’re old enough to know better—if you’re 18 and gay in America, you’re old enough to know that you don’t have to live a lie. If you’re 18 and gay and not ready or willing to come out, you’re old enough to know that keeping your closeted mouth shut about gay issues is the option that doesn’t make you a flaming hypocrite.

And if you’re 18 and closeted and gay and politically active, as Whitney was, you’re old enough and savvy enough to know that aligning yourself with anti-gay politicians, marching with assholes that carry “Straight Power!” signs at anti-gay rallies, and being best buds with a guy that thinks gays should be imprisoned is as good as painting a bulls eye on your back. You not only risk being outed, you invite it.

Hell, you’ve earned it.

And I say this as someone who… how can I put this? I say this as someone that recently talked someone else out of outing someone in the public eye. A “Savage Love” reader was contemplating outing an innocuous celeb back in April. I advised him against it because, as I wrote to him privately, outing is brutal and it should be reserved for brutes.

Tyler Whitney qualifies.

http://slog.thestranger.com/2007/06/tyler_whitney_just_18_and_already_outed



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
yardwork Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-14-07 09:55 AM
Response to Original message
1. As a lesbian I have no problem with outing hypocritical politicians
There is no shame in being gay. Anyone who buys into that idea is perpetuating the oppression of gay people. However, I am tolerant of private citizens who choose to live in the closet. I think they're pathetic, but I'm not going to mess around in their business.

The minute a person becomes a "public figure," which definitely includes people doing what Tyler Whitney has been doing, then their hypocrisy becomes part of the public record.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
havocmom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-14-07 10:00 AM
Response to Original message
2. "outing is brutal and it should be reserved for brutes" YES!
Judicious use of the facts of life show wisdom and decency. Outing anyone just for the sake of outing is hateful. People who try to hide their lives while attacking others should face some light on their agenda. Out the tyrants who want to deny rights and decency to others.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
romantico Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-14-07 10:05 AM
Response to Reply #2
5. Okay, let me ask you about this guy!
MATT DRUDGE! He is NOT a politican, but he has political influence and is a major part of the media. I say he should be outed!!!




Matt Drudge, a Gay Who Backs the Gay Bashers

A BUZZFLASH EDITORIAL
From the BuzzFlash Editorial Archives

Normally, we ignore Matt Drudge. If you pay him too much attention, you just start to feel slimy yourself, like you need to run and take a shower.

But, back in June of 2000, we wrote a couple of editorials about Drudge, because he is typical of Republican gays in the media and government who shore up right wing leaders who advance an anti-gay agenda.

Indeed, right now Bush and the Congressional Republicans are trying to exploit "class value" wedge issues by promoting an anti-gay marriage Constitutional Amendment, one that they know will never be affirmed by enough states to become law. It is political opportunism at its most base.

Yet, how does Drudge, who has been outed by a variety of people -- including David Brock -- since we first wrote our June, 2000, editorials justify his anti-gay innuendo?





MATT DRUDGE, ARE YOU GAY?

Matt drudge, are you gay? In almost every case, BuzzFlash would regard this as an inappropriate question, a violation of an individual’s privacy rights and an assault on his or her dignity. Gender orientation is a personal and private issue. But Matt Drudge is a special case.

In the past week, the tone of Matt Drudge’s dispatches (DrudgeReport.com) has been feverish and desperate. During the first week of June, the Drudge Report was filled with crackling denunciations of a book called "The Insane Clown Posse," not yet published. Drudge is claiming that it unfairly attacks the personal lives of the Clinton-haters (particularly Kenneth Starr and his merry pranksters) who have worked so tenaciously to bring down the President. Drudge was frantically trying to keep the expose from going to press, and launched a scorched earth attack on TALK/MIRAMAX, the erstwhile publishers of the yet unedited book. By Friday, June 9, it appeared that Drudge’s efforts at editorial intimidation succeeded. TALK/MIRAMAX will not publish the book, according to Tina Brown, chairman of Talk Media, Inc., in an announcement issued by the firm.

Matt Drudge fashions himself the cyber Walter Winchell, but his prototype is really a right wing town crier, delivering the news in blaring tabloid headlines about politics, entertainment and freak stories. He posts a steady diet of salacious tidbits about the Clintons and other Democrats fed to him by a well-organized right wing consortium of lawyers(working through "foundations"), opposition research professionals, the right wing press, and the conservatives on Capitol Hill. He is a hero to the remaining members of Newt Gingrich’s 1994 class of junkyard-dog-"Contract with America"- congressmen and their staffs. Together with conservative lawyers filing cases against Clinton, they form an ongoing pipeline that feeds Drudge a steady supply of sludge aimed at personally attacking the Democrats, particularly the Clintons and Janet Reno. His efforts reached their highpoint when he printed the lascivious details of the Monica Lewinsky scandal, giving the sexual details enough credibility for the mainstream press to accept them as fact.

Yes, Drudge does post "inside" political strategy and policy leaks attacking the Democrats. But the heart of Drudge’s appeal to the right wingers is his unrelenting personal assault on the Clintons.

Drudge’s basic focus and complaint about "The Insane Clown Posse" has been that gays will be unfairly outed. Of course, BuzzFlash finds this is a compelling argument under normal circumstances. Drudge, by the way, does not dwell on many of the other sexual peccadilloes that the book allegedly will reveal. (Although he does indicate that Ann Coulter, one of the "blonde babes" that the right wing trots out as a commentator, dated Bob Guccione of Penthouse fame. She responded to that alleged charge in the yet unpublished book by writing a column in which she swore that she never slept with Geraldo Rivera. Coulter, Drudge and Starr sound like an "Insane Clown Posse" to BuzzFlash, even if the book hasn’t gotten to galleys yet.) By focusing on gays who might be outed should the book reach the public, Drudge is making the Clinton persecutors and prosecutors into sympathetic figures. At one point in his feverish dispatches, Matt Drudge posts an item referencing the Barney Frank rule and implies that it is the standard that he would use in determining who should be outed. That rule decrees that only gays in political positions who use their power to adversely impact gays should be publicly disclosed.

So now Drudge is suddenly defending the rights of gays not to be outed and claiming that Democrats and liberal publishers are out to destroy gays. Say what Matt? When you support the likes of the right wing types that you consort with, you violate the Barney Frank rule. You have tossed red meat to voracious, ferociously bigoted members of the right who believe that gays are sprung from the seed of demons. You help sustain the power base of those politicians who would deny equal rights to gays and call them unnatural human beings. You give aid and comfort to the followers of Dr. Laura, who regularly derides and demeans gay people. ("If you’re gay or a lesbian, it’s a biological error," Dr. Laura has decreed.) In every way, Matt Drudge has violated the Barney Frank rule.

Drudge, who also has a radio program that is promoted in many markets along with Dr. Laura and Rush Limbaugh, is not generally a gay basher himself. He leaves that to his legion of admirers on the fringe edge of right wing politics. (Go to almost any kook or "mainstream" right wing Internet site that has links and the Drudge Report will most likely be among them.) But, from time-to-time, Drudge subtly helps move the ball down the field, advancing the stereotypes of gays fostered by the fundamentalist armies of intolerance and conservative Internet sites.

In a Village Voice article (May 5, 1999), Richard Goldstein charges Drudge with reinforcing negative attitudes toward gays in relation to the Columbine massacre. "Rumors that the killers were gay abounded, stoked by America’s favorite Matt Drudge. In the days following the shootings, Drudge put two stories on his Web site based on nothing more definitive than a posting from a self-proclaimed ‘gay biker’ praising the shooters as ‘a bunch of our fellow homosexuals decided that they had taken enough.’ Drudge seized on the black nail polish favored by Goths as further evidence that the killers were part of a pack of murderous poofs. That was proof enough for Jerry Falwell of Tinky Winky fame; he reportedly called Harris and Klebold gay on Geraldo Live. Followers of another antigay divine, the Reverend Fred Phelps, picketed Littleton memorials with signs that claimed ‘Fags Killed Them.’

On the day that this BuzzFlash article is being posted (June 10), Drudge has a sub-headline:"Gay Dads: We fathered a twin each." He is putting the gay dads in the same tawdry category of another story in the next column: "Freak: Cat born with two faces." Both the cat and the gay dads are offered up on Drudge’s Internet freak show for all the Pat Robinson, Laura Schlessinger and Tom DeLay followers to enjoy.

So which is it Matt, are you gay? Yes or no. And if the answer is yes, is your own outing what you most fear in the release of the "The Insane Clown Posse." And if the answer to this question is yes, then what you most fear about your own outing is that your readership will then roundly reject you as a son of Satan who engages in sodomy and unnatural acts. If you are gay, do you fear that your cyber-power and earnings will suddenly collapse because the very right wing power base you help sustain will turn on you and cast you adrift? Because they believe that gays are lost souls who can only be redeemed by "going straight." Alas, BuzzFlash understands that it would be a bit demoralizing to return to folding T-shirts at the CBS gift shop, which was your career choice prior to starting the Drudge Report. But this, of course, is all hypothetical conjecture, because BuzzFlash certainly doesn’t know whether the answer is "yes" or "no."

And if you are not gay, is your ferocious and feverish attack on "The Insane Clown Posse" focused on the gay issue because you know that Democrats are supportive of gays and you want to hit them in their weak spot? The pertinent questions for you, of course, are ones like why weren’t the Log Cabin Republicans, gay members of the GOP, allowed to have a booth at the Texas GOP convention. Why didn’t George W. Bush stick up for them? But you don’t take on the Republicans and their general disdain toward gays in the Drudge Report. Why not?

Since you are the master of character assassination, having been unceasingly tossing mud and slime on the Clintons for several years, you know how the personal revelation can tarnish someone and weaken them. So now you are doing everything you can to protect you and your buddies. You are taking the insanely hypocritical stance of calling "The Insane Clown Posse" a "sex witch hunt."

Oh Matt, when BuzzFlash read those words, "sex witch hunt," we were sure that you were really referring to the Starr inquisition. And we thought that you were referring to the Starr Report when you charged that the "working manuscript also features derogatory sex slurs against impeachment players!" Then we realized that you were referring to "The Insane Clown Posse" and that you were unaware of the irony embedded in your indignation. After all, Matt, among other intimate and voyeuristic details of the President, you posted a report that a distinguishing characteristic of Clinton's manly physiognomy was a curvature caused by Peyronie's disease. (Like many of Drudge’s spicy tidbits, this later proved to be erroneous.)

Matt Drudge is a cyber hypocrite without equal. And if he is gay, he has done irreparable harm to people who prefer their own gender. (In a June 7th report Drudge implies that two media figures might also be outed.) In that case he would be a Quisling of the first order. In that case, it is the civic responsibility (given a thorough vetting) to publish "The Insane Clown Posse" and let the chips fall where they may.

In March, there was a flurry of speculation about Drudge’s sexuality when MSNBC Scoop columnist Jeanette Walls wrote a book in which she claimed that Drudge was known as a practicing gay during his pre-L.A. years. She quotes several former gay friends, including one David Cohen who claims to have dated Drudge before he went off to Hollywood and the CBS gift shop. Of course, rumors aside (and Drudge is an expert in broadcasting rumors), we don’t know Drudge’s sexual orientation, and normally wouldn’t give a hoot. Because the BuzzFlash credo is that all of us, whatever color, gender or gender orientation are God’s children, endowed with equal and inalienable rights. But Drudge serves as the "new media" spigot for the manure of the right wing – enemies of whoever is gay – and Drudge should be held to a different standard.

So which is it Matt? Tell us which way you swing. Because sooner or later, despite your efforts, "The Insane Clown Posse" will leak out in dribs and drabs and we will know one way or the other if you have betrayed a generation of gays who have been battling your right wing supporters and readers for the most basic recognition of their human rights. They have been fighting in the trenches while you have been frolicking in the gutter.




http://www.buzzflash.com/editorial/04/07/edi04050.html

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
havocmom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-14-07 10:06 AM
Response to Reply #5
6. LOL thought he already was
;)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Horse with no Name Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-14-07 10:01 AM
Response to Original message
3. I take issue with your post
Gay and child molesting are not synonymous so why would "outing" him protect the pages?
In other words...you are saying...all gay people should be purged from Congress to keep the pages safe?:puke:
ANYBODY has a right to whatever sexual orientation they desire.
It is not YOURS OR ANYONE else's right to disclose that information if they choose not to.
For God's sake...we are "supposed" to be progressive yet "some" still act like being gay is a sin and continually "dirty" it as if it were shameful.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bryant69 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-14-07 10:02 AM
Response to Reply #3
4. Good point
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
romantico Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-14-07 10:10 AM
Response to Reply #3
7. Would it make a difference if the pages were over 18?
I'm not connecting the fact they were minors to homosexuality at all. Hell, most pedohilles are staright males. If you assumed I was making a connection between the two you are mistaken. I went back to re-read my post and did';t get what you got from it. Sorry, but I didn't.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
gollygee Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-14-07 10:19 AM
Response to Reply #7
9. What it sounds like you're saying
is that if people had known he was gay, they would have kept him away from pages or something. But that assumes that pages need to be kept away from gay men. The problem with Foley isn't that he's gay - it's that he had relationships with pages. If he'd been a straight man who had relationships with female pages it would have been exactly the same situation and exactly as bad. Do we need to out straight senators so we know to keep female pages away from them?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Horse with no Name Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-14-07 10:37 AM
Response to Reply #7
11. What I "get" from your post
is an anti-gay message.
It advocates that someone lose their job because they are gay and oh by the way, if we fired him because he was gay then that gay man wouldn't have molested the pages since everyone knows all gay men are pedophiles. Did I get that right?
Cause that is the message that comes screeching through loud and clear.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
romantico Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-14-07 10:41 AM
Response to Reply #11
12. Thats odd
Edited on Thu Jun-14-07 10:44 AM by romantico
Thats not what I meant and I don't see it. As a gay man I would be just as sensitive to that and thats not it at all.Lets take away his sexual orenientation. If this had come out and he was straight those pages would NOT have been approached or hit on, or atleast not by him.His gender or sexual orientation is what I am addressing.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Horse with no Name Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-14-07 10:44 AM
Response to Reply #12
13. Your first two sentences
"Outing pioneer Michelangelo Signorile tried to out Congressman Mark Foley years ago, but the media refused to pick up the story.
If the media had paid attention, those pages would not have been hit on. "

In other words, the media refused to carry Signorile's water in outing Foley. Because IF they had...the implication that Foley would have been fired and the conclusion that if he was fired...the pages wouldn't have been hit on.

How else can this be interpreted?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
romantico Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-14-07 10:53 AM
Response to Reply #13
15. I have explained this enough
If you mis-read my post than thats your problem.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Horse with no Name Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-14-07 10:57 AM
Response to Reply #15
17. And yet it still stinks
:shrug: No misreading the message you put out there.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
David__77 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-14-07 11:09 AM
Response to Reply #17
19. I think closet cases are a bit problematic actually.
There's nothing wrong with out gay men, but I think the pressure and stress of closeting is a serious problem. I don't think the poster is intentionally or implicitly pushing heterosexism.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
romantico Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-14-07 11:09 AM
Response to Reply #17
20. Oh yeah, thats me
Edited on Thu Jun-14-07 11:20 AM by romantico
Everyone of my posts on DU have all been anti gay. I myself am a self loathing gay man. Puh-lease! I mostly post on GLBT board anymore so if you want to judge me and think you know me go right ahead but you are WRONG!

I have re-read this post about a dozen times now and I honestly don't see where your attacking me. How can I debate you or prove myself if I HONESTLY do not see where you are coming from. I read it and think to myself how could I have reworded it? But I just don't see it. Sorry. I guess I am just stupid. Dumb in your eyes. But I AM NOT HOMOPHOBIC! Paint me as a dumb liberal if you must DO NOT tag me as a homophobe. I have dealt with plenty of them in my life and will not be labled one so casually by someone who thinks they know me better than I know myself!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Horse with no Name Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-14-07 11:29 AM
Response to Reply #20
21. I'm not attacking you
But I wonder if YOU have misread the post?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BushOut06 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-14-07 10:15 AM
Response to Reply #3
8. Thank you - I picked up on that right away
The notion that if he were openly gay, that he wouldn't have been able to hit on pages?

I guess that means that politicians who are openly heterosexual don't hit on pages either.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Elspeth Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-14-07 11:00 AM
Response to Reply #3
18. Thanks, Horse with no Name.
Outing Foley as gay would not have stopped him from secretly trying to procure underaged males. Just knowing that a politician is straight does not safeguard underaged teen and preteen girls from him.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mitchum Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-14-07 10:28 AM
Response to Original message
10. Wow...TYLER WHITNEY IS GAY?!!!
I'm in favor of outing all of these Friends Of Eva
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
David__77 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-14-07 10:47 AM
Response to Original message
14. Tyler Whitney is pretty gay-looking, kinda cute (pic)


If I saw him, I'd immediately assume he was gay. He certainly deserves outing.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Laughing Mirror Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-14-07 12:00 PM
Response to Reply #14
23. It's those pink eyes of his that gave him away


As you say, he really is a cute little boy. Now that's outed, he deserves a spanking, but, who knows, he might love it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-14-07 10:56 AM
Response to Original message
16. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
Laughing Mirror Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-14-07 11:53 AM
Response to Original message
22. "Log Cabin is strongly against outing," says its president, Patrick Sammon
Well that certainly comes a great big surprise, doesn't it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Sun Nov 03rd 2024, 08:32 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC