He’s gay, gay, gay

Not this again. Now that Tom DeLay has been sidelined and replaced with closeted homosexual Rep. David Dreier, the gleeful outing campaign has begun anew. As with the Gannon scandal, I’m of the opinion that using someone’s homosexuality as a smear is a bit hypocritical when you’re trying to tarnish the reputations of bigots. Granted, it’s a much lesser hypocrisy than being a gay homophobe, but I’m still uncomfortable with liberals using homosexuality in a negative way to taunt conservatives. Nevertheless, in this particular instance, I agree with the L.A. Weekly story on Dreier’s outing from last year :

I have always taken the view that outing a gay person should be approached with caution, and that in doing so one should strictly adhere to the Barney Frank Rule. As articulated by the openly gay Massachusetts congressman during another anti-gay GOP witch-hunt over a decade ago, when Frank threatened to out a number of gay-baiting Republican fellow congressmen, the rule insists that outing is only acceptable when a person uses their power or notoriety to hurt gay people.

Dreier clearly meets that standard, for his voting record is strewn with anti-gay positions. To cite just a few: He opposed the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA), which would have banned discrimination against gay people in hiring; voted for the gay-bashing Defense of Marriage Act; voted for banning adoption by gay and lesbian couples in the District of Columbia (3,000 miles away from Dreier’s district); voted to allow federally funded charities to discriminate against gays in employment, even where local laws prohibit such bias; and voted against the Hate Crimes Prevention Act.

Asking Dreier to reconcile his anti-gay public record with his homosexuality is a legitimate avenue for criticism. Playing “gotcha!” just reinforces the notion that being gay is something to be ashamed of. So yeah, Dreier is a hypocrite whose private life is about to catch up to him. So be it. But can the liberal blogosphere try to point this out without being so childish about it?

I’ll close with something I said in the comments section earlier this year :

What makes this situation so tragic is that the right’s homophobia forces some of their strongest supporters even deeper into the closet. Gay Republicans aren’t hiding from us, my conservative friends, they’re hiding from you.


posted by greg on September 28, 2005 @ 12:00 pm

5 comments

  1. There’s something ironic about a party that just used homophobia to hang on to power now being led by a gay legislator.

    The GOP talk the talk of diversity; let’s see how they walk the walk.

    Comment by Jeff — September 28, 2005 @ 12:58 pm

  2. Isn’t whether someone is “gay” or not, something that person is allowed to choose for themselves? What I mean is that I’ve been under the impression lately that a person who engages in homosexual behavior isn’t necessarily gay unless they choose to be identified that way. That has little bearing on the situation at hand except that it might be very easy for him to rationalize his choices if he doesn’t believe that his sexual behavior is his sexual identity.

    If he doesn’t identify as gay but is brought down because of his homosexuality, isn’t that a problem in the long run for people who want the freedom to choose their sexual and/or gender identities? I’m thinking, in particular, of trans segment of the LGBT community.

    Comment by E-Rock — September 28, 2005 @ 2:06 pm

  3. Hell, yes…I definitely think he should be outed. He’s helping to lead a political party that has used hatred of gays as a catalyst to win several elections.

    Comment by jimmarquis — September 28, 2005 @ 6:15 pm

  4. Suppose a communist ammasses a personal fortune. Suppose a charity distributes dividends to its investors. Suppose Ayn Rand had been on food stamps. Actually, consider that Rush Limbaugh was on Food Stamps, Welfare, and illegally using pain-killers. Suupose a Catholic priest molests children while demanding abortion be outlawed.
    Is the appropriate analogy something like one of these? That is, would one be justified in exposing one of these active hypocrites, those who exploit the difference between their spoken beliefs and their actions to maintain their comfort, to manipulate others for their own pleasure, to accomplish goals that are themselves dishonest?
    I suspect that calling them on their shit is justifiable in all these situations. The question is, what goal does destroying them serve? What is our endgame, to use chess terminology? How can we use this opportunity most effectivly to get this country to a better place?

    Comment by Joe — September 28, 2005 @ 6:30 pm

  5. No, homosexuality is not a choice. You either are, or arent, and you know it.

    Comment by happytimeharry — September 30, 2005 @ 8:15 pm

Copy link for RSS feed for comments on this post

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.