"To be disclosed or revealed"

So, in light of the big Gannon story of the day, I have a few thoughts.

What is the the virtue of outing public people?  The argument that is being made is it reveals the hypocrisy of the Republican party.   That the party who so cavalierly used homophobia in this country to help secure the election in certain key battlegrounds seems to have so many among them.  And yeah, yeah... I get it.  It is a neat little punch line.

I'm not an expert on gay culture, but I'd imagine that, like every other group in America, they aren't a monolith.  You can't define them as one thing or the other.  To that end, why should it surprise us that there are gay republicans? 

It is funny because I feel like, over the past few months, I have more posts decrying the viciousness and the hypocrisy of my own party than I do the Republicans. 

I've said it several times over the past few weeks, but I do not share the same enthusiasm as many of the lefty bloggers seem to for outing the gay members of our opposition.  This is not, however, to spare them the embarrassment of it, although I don't see embarrassing people as justification enough to snoop into their personal lives.  No, I find this behavior abhorrent because it exposes the hypocrisy within our own party.

We pride ourselves at being the party of tolerance.  There are countless places where liberals defend homosexuality as another segment of humanity that is not chosen, but that is inherent.  We talk about acceptance and humanness within this culture, all the while standing with our arms crossed, looking around as we bask in our moral superiority.

And yet the audacity with which we decide it is simply ok to out gay Republicans defies logic.  By our own definitions, we might as well be outing black Republicans.  We cannot say that we believe gay people are simply another group, deserving all the same rights as everyone else out of one side of our mouth while pointing to those who are different in the opposition and laughing out of the other.

Just because you are a liberal doesn't mean you can't gay bash.

It is because of this that I refuse to cover the Gannon/Guckert story any longer until it is actually about something substantive again.  There are troubling issues in this story which could very easily grow into something huge... but none of them have anything to do with Gannon/Guckert being gay.

It is time we started acting like the people we say we are.

Comments

[Kris]

I've been following this story as well, and I was very disappointed by the end result.. I thought perhaps it might have more to do with the CIA papers.. perhaps some thoughts on how he got in the White House Press Room.. etc.. I'm tired of this outing of gays in public areas. How does this discredit them? Although it is important to note that he has gay-bashed on many occasions. I still believe it is using one evil against another and I'm tired of it. Just thought I'd drop a note saying I agree.

[Dylan]

Thanks for the comments, Kris. I, too, had hoped that this would focus more on the CIA document aspect of this case... I think it still will.... it is just sad that it is about gay sex first.

Thanks for dropping by.

[Andrew]

Al Gore once said, in a post-2000 speech (the name of the college/venue escapes me at present), "We must not tolerate intolerance!"

If tolerance (tolerance and acceptance being two distinct things, which people sometimes confuse, but that's another issue) is truely putting up with views you find distasteful, then then this sort of statement, which far too many liberals rally around, is nonsense at its finest.

This whole fiasco is one more wrinkle of something I've been chewing on for a while, and I agree with you, there's really no need to sit here and deliberate over this when the bar has been lowered this far.

[Roxanne]

I tend to agree with you here, but I think we're in the minority.

[Dylan]

We most certainly are, Roxanne.... The conservatives are trying to paint us with a certain brush, and we are playing right into it.

[Alan]

Dylan,

So, yeah...the response to this post is WAAAAYYYYYYY past due, but then, I wasn't reading you back when this happened. Just saw it listed as one of your favorites and wanted to give it a read.

I think I'm in a unique position to offer perspective on the Gannon/Guckert brew-haha, being a homo, and all.

I remember, all too well, the Jeff Gannon blow up. And I agree with you that there were some in the liberal/left wing that seemed to be seething at the opportunity to put out the 'sex' angle on the story. That it was 'gay sex' after a divisive election that tempted the unwashed masses to the polls on the promise of the pressing and evil issue of gay marriage, seemed to be a big plus for them. It was sensationalism.

Most coverage was portrayed in a kind-of 'gotcha' mentality. "Hey, Republicans. You have someone who you publicly detest and seek to deny rights to, carrying your water for you." I didn't have a problem with the Republicans for that. That's politics and if you can find someone to do that for you, fantastic. It's how the game is played. I had no problem with the Republican party on that front.

My problem was with Jeff Gannon, himself. And with those other gay Republicans who engaged in an outright push for the anti-gay agenda. The thought is repulsive to the gay community that Jeff Gannon and others who have not been outed and who trade on their supposed heterosexuality are working to deny rights (marriage, adoption, healthcare, etc.) to a decently sized swath of the American population. It would be as insidious as if a Jewish reporter cloaked his identity so that he could have reported on why Hitler was right, in World War II.

Now, if Jeff Gannon had been forthright with his sexuality and prefaced his writings by saying that as a gay man he firmly believed that gays deserved to have their rights curtailed, this would have been a non-issue.

And, like you, I believe there were greater issues to have been reported on. Not the least of which was, how did this non-accredited, (excuse the term), journalist ever receive access to the White House press room. It, like the recent revelation of the "message force multipliers", of the same time frame (2005) is symptomatic of a huge propaganda operation by this administration.

Well, just stopping by.

Alan