Documentary film-maker Kirby Dick ("This Film is Not Yet Rated") has just released his latest doc, "Outrage," about anti-gay politicians who are secretly gay. These are the twisted lawmakers who campaign against gay rights in public, but who are, in fact, gay (and who generally enjoy the rights they're publicly against, thanks to their power and privilege).
"Outrage" premieres on HBO this week.An official selection of the 2009 Tribeca Film Festival, OUTRAGE investigates the hidden lives of some of the country's most powerful policymakers - from now-retired Idaho Senator Larry Craig, to former New Jersey Governor Jim McGreevy - and examines how these and other politicians have inflicted damage on millions of Americans by opposing gay rights. Equally disturbing, the film explores the mainstream media's complicity in keeping those secrets, despite the growing efforts to "out" them by gay rights organizations and bloggers.
Through a combination of archival news footage and exclusive interviews with politicians and members of the media, OUTRAGE probes the psychology of a double lifestyle, the ethics of outing closeted politicians, and the double standards that the media upholds in its coverage of the sex lives of gay public figures. As Barney Frank, perhaps the best-known openly gay member of Congress explains, "There is a right to privacy, but not a right to hypocrisy. It is very important that the people who make the law be subject to the law."
OUTRAGE (Thanks, Kirby!)
RSS Feed
I have a personal ax to grind with Larry Craig. I can't tell my yoga students to 'take a wide stance' without everybody giggling.
why aren't these people in jail. they've done more harm than any ordinary criminal could.
There's not necessarily a contradiction-- they may sincerely think gay sex is morally wrong yet continue to engage in it. It merely means that they themselves will knowingly engage in an act they consider wrong.
And really, who among us doesn't, before we start picking up the stones to throw.
Functionally, I imagine all this would do is to perhaps replace gay anti-gay politicans with straight anti-gay politicians. The constituency which elects them isn't going to change, so they'll just find someone else.
You're making the flawed assumption that politicians represent their constituents.
I think this movie brings up a great number of really hard questions. I've been involved in the GLBTQ rights movement since I was in high school (even though I happen to be straight I'm not narrow) and one of the core principles has always been the right to personal privacy. The notion that who one loves should not affect what job you can have, where you can live or your right to equal protection under the law.
But "outing" flies in the face of that. It says that the private lives of some people are a matter of public interest. Straight or gay, someone who espouses homophobic rhetoric should be countered on the weakness of their argument, not their love life.
Seeing a procession of anti-gay politicians in recent years turn out to be gay themselves might have delighted some people, but if anything I saw it as sad. These men were so ashamed of who they were that they turned their loathing into hateful action. There's nothing triumphant about it, just a sad footnote in the history of equal rights.
i have to admit this is one i don't get. i mean the whole "i'm gay and living a double life" thing. i think it was one of the myth adventure characters who said something like... "whatever two consenting adults do in the privacy of their own bedroom is bound to be disgusting, so why split hairs about who's what gender."
some of the best advice i got as a young not exactly straight person was to just assume that everyone is bisexual and is therefore a potential sexual partner. i found it made it a LOT easier for me to bring up sex and attraction when i though that everyone was potentially queer. but it also made it very difficult to understand peeps that are violently anti-gay.
i think this same advice may be good for non queer folk. if you just assumed that all politicians are queer, peeps who have a problem with queer folk could just get past it and then focus on what's important: do the politicians represent your interests? then when you find out that some random politico was seen winking at a beautiful same-sex aide, it wouldn't be a shocker.
hmm...
no mention of the bachelor Senator from SC?
well, I guess he's not gay then.
Yes, hypocrisy should be exposed, but will some who don't know the difference take this as carte blanche to out people who aren't necessarily anti-gay Republicans?
Try this, we don't care if they are gay; nor do we care who or what they do, as long as it is consensual.
We support equal rights.
They stand in opposition to equal rights.
We oppose them.
If they are outed and honest, they can keep their job.
If they are outed and honest, maybe they will stop opposing equal rights.
For the most part, the only politicians to lose their jobs, broke the law.
@3 Kmoser- I'm assuming that if a politican's made a big deal out of opposing homosexuality that it was because his constituency expects such.
How likely would it be for someone who whipped out a speech on the godless nature of the sodomite and tribade to be elected from a district which wasn't homophobic?
@#6 Foetusnail: Try this, we don't care if they are gay; nor do we care who or what they do, as long as it is consensual. We support equal rights.
Yes, perhaps that's the most compassionate, consistent approach to such cases. If we support a live-and-let-live policy ourselves, then surely this should be applied to lawmakers as well.
But Americans are quick to hate hypocrisy! What about that? Well, maybe that's an ugly quality of Americans. These lawmakers are hypocritical? Get over it! Even if they are hypocrites, they deserve the same privacy and protections as we would hope everyone is entitled to.
However, it's more than just hypocrisy if the hypocrite is empowered to cause real suffering to other people, while at the same time enjoying immunity from that suffering himself.
I think this is the basis for the justice of such a project.
I think mgfarrelly & FoetusNail hit the nail on the head. Are we saying they are wrong in action? or thought? If the action is hypocritical, and therefore deemed wrong... what if it wasn't hypocritical?? BUT, IF it is wrong because it is an attack on the free will of others, than that stands by its self.
"Free will", and the exercise there of = what keeps me up at night.
P.S. Of all the Posts to make me Sign up, after lurking for a while.
You misunderstand, I support outing those politicians who would oppose equal rights, outing other public figures is more complicated.
Hypocrisy is not a problem in politics. Politics is politics.
Nosehat, you misunderstand...
@#2 "There's not necessarily a contradiction-- they may sincerely think gay sex is morally wrong yet continue to engage in it."
That IS the definition of contradiction. 'Contra' against 'diction' what you say.
While we're doing Webster, there's hypocrite: a person who feigns some desirable or publicly approved attitude, esp. one whose private life, opinions, or statements belie his or her public statements. hypokrites a stage actor, hence one who pretends to be what he is not.
"There is a right to privacy, but not a right to hypocrisy. It is very important that the people who make the law be subject to the law."
I'm generally a fan of Frank, but his second sentence seems out of order. If the film focuses on the ethics of the matter in the case of hypocrisy, it seems an appropriate conversation. But, if it's a glorified outing campaign, I'm not sure what that qaccomplishes.
That would seem to imply that the reasons gays are continuously frustrated in the righteous quest for equal rights is at the failing of the few hypocritical politicians that oppose them, who are gay themselves. But, the failing extends to the whole body of congress. Minority blocs don't pass laws. And where laws they support are passed, or not written or not overturned, it is with the complicity and complacency of others.
I think Mgfarrely @ 4 hit the nail on the head for that case. There isn't any law against hypocrisy in Congress, and a quest to out secretly gay antigay politicians only seems to use their tactics against them. Though, that may not be the focus of the film in question. I suppose these comments reflect more qview on their hypocrisy in general than on a film I have yet to see.
The argument against gay rights fails on its own merits, hypocritical politicians or not. It does tickle to see a politician hoisted on their own petard (oh that's a naughty unintended pun) but I'm not sure what it accomplishes outside of that guilty delight.
That they are proven hypocritical doesn't really further gay rights. Im for hanging a lantern on hypocritical politicians. And I'm not overly sympathetic; public service means public life.
@ #12 jphilby Um, not quite. It is double-think or maybe self-hate. What if they "sincerely think gay sex is morally wrong yet continue to engage in it" AND sincerely think they are dirty/evil/wrong for doing it? This yields not a contradiction of thought, But perhaps a set of actions that hint towards self-hate/shame.
Hypocrite? YES. Contradiction? maybe not.
We have a right to hypocrisy.
Hypocrisy is only a problem when it affects you.
Hypocrisy is part and parcel of politics.
What about a politician who finds homosexuality offensive, but supports equal rights?
This has nothing to do with hypocrisy and everything to do with politics.
Who knows, outing a closeted LGBT politician, may not result in them losing their seat and could even result in their change of position, if not what have we lost.
@ #15 FoetusNail "could even result in their change of position, if not what have we lost" Good point.
I guess my question is, Are we talking about moral right and wrong OR just results?
If its just results, well then, All is fair in love & war. Out them, it is the hazard that the hypocrit exposes himself to.
If we are debating the morality of uni-laterally deciding When the sexual preference (or lack-there-of) of another person becomes public, well that gets a bit sticky. It is presumptuous to decide when things are best for others.
Suds, agreed, this is why the outing of other less powerful public figures is another, more complicated issue.
@15
" ... Hypocrisy is only a problem when it affects you. ... "
That's like saying cancer is a problem only when and if it affects you personally. I think suppression of civil rights affects us all and it is even more heinous when it's done in a hypocritical manner.
" ... Hypocrisy is part and parcel of politics. ... "
Right, because hypocrisy is part and parcel of the human condition. There's no escaping it in politics or literally any other human venture. Just watch me.
" ... What about a politician who finds homosexuality offensive, but supports equal rights? ... This has nothing to do with hypocrisy and everything to do with politics. ... "
That particular case you mention seems to have little or nothing to do with hypocrisy.
But, we're not talking about that case. We are talking about cases in which part-time cocksmokers focus full-time on the oppression of other homosexuals.
Please, if someone is going to claim something is the root of all evil then they should at least narrow their stance in the bathroom. Udderwise, they're just yet another confused, cliché, closeted, conservative hypocrite who lusts for power and control over udder people almost as much they lust for a fat cock in their orifice.
Closeted, conservative homosexuals (a.k.a. many republicans) are fine until they start hypocritically picking on my gay friends. That's when it's time to take off the gloves. Although, I will admit many of these guys would actually enjoy a good beating if you know what I mean...
Humm, What factor does Power over ones fellow citizen play in the moral question? What is the morality of HAVING power over the life of others??? (sorry God, just ask'n)
My real question about this tactic is does it help the cause?
Look at Iowa. The recent legalization of gay marriage is still a contentious issue, but 92% of Iowans surveyed answered that gay marriages had not affected their lives at all.
The sky did not fall, the rapture did not come and cats and dogs are not sleeping together...not that there's anything wrong with that.
Many GLBTQ rights groups have pushed the idea that when people know a Gay or Lesbian person in their lives they're far less likely to harbor homophobic feelings. It's easy to fear "the other", it's harder to be afraid of Eric down the street and his boyfriend Tom.
Outing turns what should be a revolution of love and equality into one where sexual identity becomes a weapon. So a given Senator is outed. He, and likely his family, are embarassed, perhaps he denies it, perhaps he goes into "recovery". The right wing media reacts with it's usual bile and the end result is what? A shame-faced politico?
Let's beat their ideas. Let's end the shame, instead of turning it into a cudgel for our own purposes. I like to think that those who support GLBTQ rights won't stoop to the level of these folks.
Cowicide, what the hell?
As I have said, I AGREE with outing LGBT politicians who would use their power to deny equal rights to others. Politicians are public employees.
However, while they may be hypocrites, hypocrisy is not the issue.
You prove my point, that hypocrisy is not a problem until it affects you. Both politicians are hypocrites, one you detest and one receives your vote.Or would you then be willing to out a politician who hates LGBT citizens, but supports equal rights? As they say, politics makes strange bedfellows. Futhermore, should a closeted LGBT politician who doesn't get involved in equal rights be outed? What if they are valuable on a few dozen other important issues?
This is why this is just politics. Ugly, bigoted politics, but politics none the less.
Homophobia isn't always what it seems.
The last word probably goes to this article in the Journal of Abnormal Psychology: "Is homophobia associated with homosexual arousal?" ... as the punch-line to the abstract says, "Homophobia is apparently associated with homosexual arousal that the homophobic individual is either unaware of or denies."
@22- Stross- Which would make forcible outing of someone the rough equivalent of hitting someone with a life-twisting phobia to spiders with a sackful of spiders over the head.
Next up, treating the vet with PTSD by throwing a string of firecrackers behind him...
Try this, something people say is wrong but do themselves, really isn't wrong. See also, drug consumption, masturbation, sex (of any kind) etc.
Cicada: that's much my point. These people need help -- psychiatric help -- to come to terms with their phobias.
Then, hopefully, they'll be able to quit the homophobic grandstanding while staying in politics.
@25- Stross- Psychiatry might be a bit too narrow a field, though. What if you felt a strong compulsion to do something which you intellectually considered morally wrong?
Say, you find yourself in a society of Wall Street bankers, and discover you have a talent and taste for shady derivative making. You want to do it, you enjoy doing it, the majority around you think it's fine...what do you do about those scruples? Would a psychiatrist help?
Cicada: dunno, but it's better than letting them f* up everyone else's lives, which they will continue to do sans intervention.
The problem is (and I think this should be obvious), homophobia isn't cost-free; it has external costs, savage ones, imposed on other people. Legislators who indulge in that kind of behaviour can cause immense misery and suffering to other people.
I have a strong dislike for any ideologically motivated behaviour that harms other people. (I recognize that other folks differ.) That's why I'm judging this as a situation where intervention may be called for -- not automatically, not in every case, but as an option on the table.
Incidentally, on a related note: Mahmoud Ahmadinejad revealed to have Jewish past.
@28- Stross- Not sure how far you could carry that implication- we don't automatically assume that people who hate racists secretly despise other races, or that people who hate warmongers have deep-seated urges to cause widespread mayhem.
@#21
“ ... hypocrisy is not the issue. ... “
coulda’ fooled me...
“ ... You prove my point, that hypocrisy is not a problem until it affects you. Both politicians are hypocrites, one you detest and one receives your vote. ... “
Errr...? Repeat... that particular case you mention seems to have little or nothing to do with hypocrisy... that’s not what we are talking about. Please read your browser’s window title.
“ ... Or would you then be willing to out a politician who hates LGBT citizens, but supports equal rights? ... “
I’m willing to “out” anyone who spreads hate against LGBT citizens unless they are just angry because they didn’t get a reach-around.
Do you know any politicians who actively hate LGBT citizens, are gay themselves AND adamantly fight FOR equal rights for the LGBT community? What a mythic beast this is!
Well, I do know this one politician (Republican Sen. Redd H.) that’s gay, hates gays, secretly hates other closeted gays and fights against them but also fights against other gays on every other tuesday but the rest of the time openly fights for gay rights except in the case of furries in which he fights them at all costs (but is also sekretly a furry) that fricken’ hypocrite...
...and I just don’t know what to do with him and the hundreds of millions of udders just like him in the United States.
“ ... should a closeted LGBT politician who doesn't get involved in equal rights be outed? What if they are valuable on a few dozen other important issues? ... “
What do you mean by “doesn’t get involved”? How is that even possible? (See Sen. Redd H. above)
“ ... This is why this is just politics. Ugly, bigoted politics, but politics none the less. ... “
Ugly, bigoted politics is invasively attacking peoples civil rights (by trying to limit them with laws) and demeaning them in the process (spreading ignorance, fear and hate). Doing that while actually doing it themselves seems to me like just turning the screw on the same people you demean. It’s like some sick power trip from hell.
I don’t feel sorry for outed anti-gay politicians who are secretly gay; I feel sorry for all the families in the United States who have lost a loved one who happened to be gay (lost to suicide, gay bashing, etc.). I feel sorry for all the wonderful gay people that have to put up with demeaning assholes who are closeted gays and/or homophobic douche-bags. The ones that are constantly berated and pushed into self-loating, depression and suicide. What sort of “public servant” (secretly gay or otherwise) does this shit to his or her constituents?
Cowicide, maybe you're right, this is all about hypocrisy. Because outing a closeted gay politician only works because LGBT activists exploit homophobia to fight homophobia.
If huge portions of our population weren't homophobic, outing wouldn't be a weapon, then we would be left with ordinary honest hatred.
Why, when we agree that politicians who actively work to deny fellow humans equal rights under the law are despicable, does it matter if they are honest in their hatred or hypocrites?
Admit it, only because the country is homophobic, does outing a closeted gay politician get them removed from office and give us another chance to elect someone who supports our shared view that all citizens deserve equal rights.
You are missing my point. There are many politicians who vote for or against legislation, sometimes in opposition to their own view.
Maybe one politician doesn't believe or care about global warming or doesn't view abortion as a privacy issue, but pretends to to get elected and hold on to their seat.
I'm against abortion, but support a woman's right to choose. Does that make me a hypocrite?
I feel some of the most vitriolic homophobes in office are that way in order to deflect suspicion, warranted or otherwise, on their gender identity. Ted Haggard comes to mind. While I know many respect Reagan, I can never get beyond his stubborn head-in-the-sand refusal to do anything about HIV/AIDS while the epidemic spread. Not saying he's gay, but at the root of it, was he afraid someone would think he was if he did something human that would have helped them? Did millions die because he was afraid of being called a fag?
One of the other obvious public health cost is the 4 times higher rate of suicide for gay teens.
I do recognize it's a moral bramble patch, but feel they should be stopped.
Charlie Stross@28
I thought of that too.
@24 - "Try this, something people say is wrong but do themselves, really isn't wrong. See also, drug consumption, masturbation, sex (of any kind) etc."
See also torture, declaring unjust wars, ripping off investors, etc.
Every bad thing is attractive, or we as humans wouldn't have to act against it. And every human being finds his own case exceptional and is much more likely to condemn others while excusing himself. There've been reams of psychological studies on that phenomenon.
Your rule would only lead to everything being declared right. Of course, that's probably where our societal logic is headed in any case.
As a rule, I'm against outing other people. But in situations like this, I'm not.
Is this like a stoner politician who is against drug law reform? Not quite.
But there certainly is that element of "one set of rules for ME, another set of rules for other people" that is pretty disgusting.
I have an example of Nail's 'inverse' politician -- former Canadian Prime Minister Paul Martin. When the Supreme Court recognised a gay marriage, he initially tried to oppose it, but after a while his only response was "It's a human rights issue, plain and simple."
It's clear he still doesn't *like* the idea, but his ethics will not allow him to publicly oppose gay marriage.
Hopefully we'll have a sequel where they discuss priests who condemn homosexuality and deviant behavior, then turn out to be secretly gay, child abusers, or whatever.
As most Canadians know, just a few days ago a prominent Nova Scotia catholic bishop was arrested on child porn charges (http://tiny.cc/v9esg), the same bishop who was in charge of determining compensation in the previous round of child abuse scandals a few years ago. This very morning, catholic priests are standing at the front of their local churches, asking people to pray for those involved, wringing their hands, wondering how in the world this could possibly happen...and all the while supporting the system that causes these abuses to happen again and again and again.
Not surprisingly, the bishop who was arrested also spoke out strongly against gay marriage.
(Please note: I am certainly not equating homosexuality with deviant behavior or child porn, but unfortunately too many people on the pulpit do.)
@#31
Two words... Barney Frank. Openly gay since 1987 & has NOT been “removed from office”.
Plenty of non-homophobic people would like to see these charlatans removed from office because they are pathetic, hypocritical liars who cannot be trusted to serve any of us well. Not because they are gay.
Shall we also stop “outing” people who fight against a single payer health care system who are also taking massive bribes from the insurance lobby, etc. (via the American public) while all the while they are telling the American public to quit expecting some sort of “hand out”? Should we keep the bribes of these hypocritical bastards a secret so we don’t hurt their feelings as well?
Have you also ever considered that another purpose of “outing” hypocritical, homophobic, closeted conservatives is that it can show the rest of the populace how batshit crazy homophobia is in general?
How about those kids out there who are gay, depressed and full of self-loathing who find out the idiot who has been telling them they are worthless all this time is actually batshit crazy and is, himself, gay... don’t you think those kids might find some solace and empowerment in this realization?
Dude, how many more kids (and adults for that matter) have to die because of these idiots before you realize this isn’t an attack on homosexuals... this is an attack on homophobic hypocrites who’ve used their power to harm and oppress people?
After years of a deadly illegal war, a decimated economy, a precarious environment, a health care system that needlessly kills (yes, kills) 45,000 people per year without insurance, a climate of bigotry that still permeates against gays... after all this...
Should we really keep pandering to these malevolent idiots? Should the media keep lying for these sociopathic motherfuckers? Should we all?
I don’t think so. People like Kirby Dick are American heros. You should thank him... not treat him like one of these truly homophobic, confused, power mongering, hypocritical assholes out there spreading misery.
Cow, how many times do I have to say, "I AGREE!"
I just don't give a damn about hypocrisy in politics.
As far as I can tell, everyone here agrees with you and Kirby, including me. We are bigoted towards bigots. We hate hate. We are intolerant of intolerance. Wait, I'm actually intolerant of tolerance too, oops.
Yes, Barney would poll well in all the other 49 states too?
P.S. they are all, with few exceptions, "...pathetic, hypocritical liars who cannot be trusted to serve any of us well."
As a strong supporter of gay rights, I am amused whenever one of these anti-gay politicians gets "outed."
That said, I do think they have a right to privacy and they do have a right to hypocrisy. Hypocrites can be right. They can act against their own self-interested. That doesn't mean that THESE hypocrites are right, but the fact that they SHOULDN'T hold an opinion doesn't mean that opinion is invalid.
Some excellent points made.
Our politicians wield a great deal of power, they delegate power to others that ordinary citizens do not have, up to and including the power of life and death.
I take it as a FIRM rule of thumb that the more power one has or is given then the more oversight and scrutiny they should receive. With that in mind, I believe politicians, ie those in PUBLIC office, do and should have a minimal right of privacy. They work for the public and their honesty and integrity is IMPORTANT. Simply put, if you want a great deal of privacy, DON'T run for PUBLIC office.
As to the points about hypocrisy, yes it is important that it become known by the public. A representative that is a hypocrite may also be dishonest about other things not to mention being subject to manipulation by those who know their secrets.
We don't like it if a police officer is speeding without cause, or parking in a handicap spot, or using his siren to get home in time for the game. ( NOTE: by no means blaming all but a police officer is an excellent example of delegated power and unfortunately a few bad apples have made such an example understandable to the general public. ) Even though we perceive "NORMAL" politics as a dirty business we should never be satisfied with dishonesty in our representatives.
But what if the dishonesty benefits the public?
Personally, I don't approve of outing folks. What they do behind closed doors should be their own business.
But I really can't blame those who feel that where that respect isn't given, it shouldn't be returned.
And there is a certain poetic justice to it.
COW, your're udderly right in your arguments. You too, NAIL. The subect, after all, is about hypocrites who do harm; we're all hypocrites to some degree, but let us hope our hypocrisies are small and laughable. I can't imagine either of you wilfully doing harm.
I know a closeted congressman. He is a champion of civil rights for all people, an ally of Barney Frank, and he is secure in his district. We do not think, however, he could politically survive an "outing." There is no reason to risk it. Progessivism could lose a warrior to no cause and no gain. Let it be. He is no hypocrite.
The target is hypocrites who do harm. They are dangerous. If they are also tragic, that is beside the point. Let us have pity, if you will, for their wretchedness, but outing for their hypocrisy.
Couldn't the outing of hipocritical politicians be considered "open source politics", as opposed to "black-box" (ahem, closeted) politics"?
After all, the outing lets the public know the code in the machine, and gives more control on its workings.
#42 "But what if the dishonesty benefits the public?"
A good question. I would hope such circumstances would be very rare. But if necessary to mislead the public, I would much prefer such decisions be made by someone who is trustworthy.
Note the distinction between dishonesty and mislead or even keep in the dark. An honest person can conclude that it's in the public's best interest to remain ignorant or even wrong about something BUT it should be VERY RARE and regularly reviewed with a high burden to do and maintain.
Any politician who is comfortable with such a decision shouldn't be making it.
Qth Brny Frnk, trlss f f hypcrsy:
"t s vry mprtnt tht th ppl wh mk th lw b sbjct t th lw."
Whch s why Rp. Frnk hs rptdly chllngd th vltrs f th ntrnl Rvn Cd wh ccpy pstns f pwr n Wshngtn (Gthnr, Rngl), rght?
ps! Pls xcs my cnfsn. trg nly gs s fr, ftr ll.
While I think anti-gay legislation is essentially moronic, there's nothing new about hypocritical politicians.
You elect the politicians to vote the way you want on key issues. There have always been politicians who publicly supported something and privately did the opposite. And, often, those issues have been detrimental to one group or another.
If you somehow managed to ban hypocracy in politics, chances are the only difference is that different people would be casting the same votes.
Such politicians are more vulnerable to blackmail too. Do what we want and we won't tell. And how can you know how many times they have already done such a deal during their political career.
Wow, a person's sexual preference/orientation is no longer private? That's awesome...
What a huge step forward for civilization.
The politician's right to privacy ends at the prurient interests of so-called activists acting in their target's best interests? They assault the rights of the politicians for privacy in an effort to extort their desired political end?
In my experience, all homosexuals don't share one single point of view, they don't all want the same things, and that an active majority sees virtue in crushing the rights of a few select homosexual politicians undermines their effort, no matter how noble they believe their goal.
As a side note, Gov. McGreevy was not such a powerful Gov in NJ, he was on the take, actively being investigated, and his homosexuality was a well-known secret for years - it didn't prevent him from getting elected, interesting how his nasty, mean, Republican opponent never used it against him - I guess maybe he thought it was a private matter? He came out when the corruption investigation was getting too close.
Google McGreevy and Machiavelli if you are curious...
#22- that's the study I was going to reference too, thanks for finding it again. This implies that as more that gays and lesbians are considered people, fewer people with those tendencies will want to act out.
This film doesn't really advance that agenda. Homophobes and non-homophobes should be equally outraged by these politicos. And outing someone against their wishes is a violent act, no matter what the justification.
But then, Stonewall taught us all that being violent in response to violence, will gain respect.
Kirby Dick makes me squirm, I do not enjoy his movies, and I always need a unicorn chaser afterward. But I'm glad there are people like him out there being obnoxious, so that I don't have to.
Notary Sojac,
Nice threadjack.
Should you feel compassion for closeted politicians? Sure. I feel compassion for serial killers, but I would still do what it take to stop them from killing more people.
I've seen the film and I'm not sure it does much more than out closeted bigots (I've seen a few films since and have grown fuzzy on the details).
That said, I see no problem with outing closeted politicians who work against queer interests. I see the case of closeted politicians making it a point to legislate against queer rights as being no different ethically from, say, Jack Valenti testifying in Congress about how the movie studios are going bankrupt because of rampant downloading, and then going home and burning copies of his favorite movies that he got off BitTorrent.
The crux is the power wielded to make the daily lives of the public more miserable, plus the ability to exempt oneself from that same misery imposed on others. It's not just hypocritical, it's also unfair and an abuse of power.
There's obviously nothing wrong with being closeted, so being closeted and homophobic is really no different ethically from being straight and homophobic.
However, from a practical perspective, putting a spotlight on homophobic politicians is a very important thing to do, whether they're gay or not. We need to bring as much attention to this kind of bigotry as possible, so that their constituents and society at large has to confront it.
Outing homophobic politicians is a very effective way to put a spotlight on their bigotry. So if that happens to be an available strategy for a particular homophobic politician, I say do it.
Someone really needs to come up with a suitable, or at least comical, gay equivalent to calling someone an Uncle Tom.
These guys also try to define and control what heterosexuality is, and they really don't like purely heterosexual men either (I had to grow up in a conservative community with a few of these perverts running around), so I'm not sure that "anti-gay" is the proper term (although it's probably the easiest and most convenient term, considering their professed beliefs). They're just asexual sociopaths capable of violating anything.
If we lived in some theoretical society where homosexuality was the norm, and heterosexuals were a minority, these guys could easily make the switch and speak out against those aberrant heterosexuals. (And in addition to having their male sexual partners, these guys would keep -- as a necessary evil -- harems of women for breeding purposes. Plus methamphetamines would be legal.)
What people do in their bedrooms is absolutely nobody's business. Being a hypocrite, a public employee or an elected official gives no one the right to out gay politicians if they haven't chosen to do it on their own.
What people do in their bedrooms is absolutely nobody's business. I don't care who it is.
There is a right to privacy, but not a right to hypocrisy.
Are you serious? Are you insane?
"There is a right to privacy, but not a right to hypocrisy. It is very important that the people who make the law be subject to the law."
It's funny that this is an ethical quandary, but not necessary illegal under the "voice of the people" frame of mind. If all the constituents of a politician are homophobes, and the politician is scared of coming out of the closet, his anti-gay legislature would be morally repugnant, but 100% representative of the people's wishes.
It makes me wonder exactly how much individual morality is truly displayed in politics. Popularity is everything, and personal conviction seems irrelevant.
(Hats off to the concern trolls above conflating homophobia and hypocrisy with homophobia and hypocrisy in politicians in a position to affect the rest of us.)
I'm all for outing gay rightwingers, but I think it's a bit late. US political history might have turned out different if Terry Dolan had been outed in, say, 1979, when the Moral Majoriy were gathering steam, or even if Roy Cohn had been outed in 1951.
Sen. Larry Craig and Rep. David Vitter are still in office. So's S.C. Gov. Sanford. In the old days, maybe the GOP could censure, call for resignation or challenge thee likes if Craig and Vitter in the next primaries. Not any more. The GOP will continue to sponsor them as long as they deliver the crazy and the Congressional and Senatorial votes, and their own voters will re-elect them as long as they deliver the pork. Because the alternatives to Craig and Vitter are worse. By "worse," I mean too crazy and stupid even for their constituents.
At best, outing gay conservative pols may demoralize the base a little, and that may translate into less enthusiasm for manning the phones and getting out the vote, but nothing spectacular.
"These are the twisted lawmakers who campaign against gay rights in public, but who are, in fact, gay (and who generally enjoy the rights they're publicly against, thanks to their power and privilege)."
Replace gay or gay rights with any hot button issue and you shoud begin to see the root of the problem.
I just always assume that anyone who publicly espouses an anti-gay position, secretly harbors some gay feelings.
The fact that outing continues to be a threat to one's political career speaks volumes about the status of the gay in America and, tangentially, to the challenges faced by the gay marriage movement nationwide. Blackmail politics may give short-term satisfaction, but the larger goal requires a more thoughtful strategy.
If you have power over any number of people and your personal hypocrisy hurts people it needs to be exposed and dealt with. Out 'em, I say. Eye for an eye.
I also say Out 'em, just to add my vote.
Jim McGreevy was anti-gay? Funny, I live in New Jersey and did at the time, and I never noticed that. And he's a deacon at my church now, and comes with his husband and their little daughter. Nice guy.
Corrupt? Oh yeah. He was corrupt in office, no doubt. But anti-gay? That allegation surprised me.
Teller sez: "The fact that outing continues to be a threat to one's political career speaks volumes about the status of the gay in America and, tangentially, to the challenges faced by the gay marriage movement nationwide. Blackmail politics may give short-term satisfaction, but the larger goal requires a more thoughtful strategy."
True to a point, but I think it misses the point here. They're not being outed by people who want to disgrace them as gays; they're being outed to disgrace them as hypocrites.
My vote: out them. If someone makes a career out of denouncing gays, this particular hypocrisy is fair game.
Dwasifar: That such a term, Outing, even exists is testimony to exactly what I said. The road is still long as long as that word is still in use.
Teller: fair point, but only if you use "outing" to refer only to gays. My point was that these people are really being "outed" as hypocrites.
Are you familiar with the Out Campaign? It has everything to do with "coming out," and nothing to do with being gay. The word "out" has slipped its mooring and doesn't necessarily just mean revealing someone as gay any more.
Outing the known homophobic hypocrites in power may cause the unknown ones to tone down the violence of the rhetoric, and to stop comparing gays to paedophiles. That can only be a good thing. We aren't talking about ordinary people, were talking about people vicious enough to build a career on inciting hate that they can not justify even to themselves. Why should such people not reap what they sow? And why shouldn't the people that vote for them be thrown into confusion, and perhaps be forced to question their own prejudice and gullibility?
Ultimately, what if no one heard took any antigay politicians seriously, because everyone automatically suspected them of being hypocrites? Would that really be a lousy development?
As for the idea that all politicians are hypocrites - I doubt it, but even if its true, why should that let any of them off the hook?
What amazes me is how one sided this is - "It's good - they're anti-gay, out them!"
A few thoughts:
1) Presumably this will have some backlash. Pro-gay closeted politicians will be outed. As will others who are closeted. Which is a choice of theirs, not of ours.
2) There will now be an argument against a right to privacy in the bedroom. This has the potential to have repercussions beyond closeted anti-gay politicians, I would think. Anyone who's had an abortion, is concerned with their HIV status, or otherwise will start to see the "right" to privacy eroded. Hypocrisy is the excuse now, but once you start down the road, other excuses will crop up. HIV: the world should know you are HIV+ for public health reasons. No right to privacy there. On down the line.
I worry about the repercussions of this.
D: If you think the use of out in Outrage is not about outing gays, we're at a delightful impasse. Doesn't mean I don't love you. Or that I could be wrong.
@Xopher #70--
Thank you, just what I was thinking. As far as I'm aware, McGreevy never did or said anything specifically against gay interests, corrupt though he may have been politically.
It's a shame if what was posted, using McGreevy as an example of a closeted politician who opposed gay rights in office, is the "official" description of the film.
re: #75
You' are right to say that its not as one sided as most comments would indicate, and it is worth thinking about not-so-obvious repercussions. In response, I'd note that every single political act carries a risk of backlash, with one exception: leaving the political arena to be dominated by people who hate the people and things you care about; that path simply leads to defeat.
Secondly, people who assert the paedophile-gay link are fucking dangerous, and have forfeited the right to enjoy what they condemn, although I can understand how others could see that point differently.
Consider this: If Hitler was convincingly outed as a closeted Jew, his movement would have lost its figurehead, and perhaps another would not have been available, or perhaps the next in line just would not have been taken seriously. A loss for privacy would have been a massive victory for every other human ideal, in such a case. (OK, I broke Godwin's law, so sue me ;).
The outing of these hypocrites may have actually had a big impact in recent years. According to the 538 pollsters, gay marriage has dropped from being the number one issue among the Christian Right to being a very low-ranking issue indeed, in a fairly short space of time. Cause or correlation?
Hypocrisy is the tribute Vice pays to Virtue.
Kirby Dick's TFINYR is one of those films that I completely agreed with in philosophy (or whatever) and yet I couldn't have hated the film more. I can't say I'm too excited to see another one of his films.
We should out politicians who, on the one hand cut funding for condom-based education and activities, while on the other privately seek out risky bareback sex.
OK, I broke Godwin's law, so sue me.
It is impossible to break Godwin's Law, any more than you can break Boyle's. Godwin's Law is just this:
While it's certainly generalizable to internet discussions generally (Mike Godwin said that in 1990, and Usenet was kinda it then), it's not a rule about what kind of talk is permitted. In factSorry if I'm being pedantic, but I'm tired of people thinking they can't ever say "Hitler" in a thread about politics without transgressing some imaginary rule of etiquette.Damn, Xopher, you're a regular Internet-rules-and-etiquette-Nazi.
/fulfilling Godwin's Law
Yeah, TDawwg, I knew you'd say so. You and HITLER!!!!!
I don't understand how this seems like a good idea, or even an intelligent one. Surely nobody actually believes that this has to do with anything more political mudslinging.
How do these people propose to defend themselves against civil suits for slander and libel, or do they actually have incontrovertible and substantive proof (I don't wanna know what it is if they do)?
What is the point of outing politicians? Do people think that, if they say somebody's gay, that politician's going to suddenly see the "error of their ways" and do a 180?
This is ridiculous, and I can't think of a worse way to get mainstream politics to rally to the side of the LGBT agenda. It looks more like an effort to ruin the lives of people the LGBT front feels (in their own minds in many cases) aren't doing "their duty," or who simply don't agree with certain things, their own private foibles notwithstanding. Beating an allegedly gay senator or congressman over the head with something that might not be true seems like an act of desperation and vendetta, and an odd way to bring in new supporters. I don't take issue with gay rights, I take issue with the folly of trying to out people with no evidence (oh, and the fact that it's the politicians' own business; how many gay people in the closet would react favorably to being outed against their wills?)
This is a tremendously stupid, politically-motivated way to attempt to bring down people the filmmakers disagree with. Whether it's right or not, they're gonna end up in court.
"Homophobia" is a loaded, propagandist term; it deliberately misrepresents the phenomenon. I am always immediately suspicious of anyone who uses it.
I find it VERY interesting that gay rights groups are trying to "out" anybody, even if it's anti-gay politicians.
Do people think that, if they say somebody's gay, that politician's going to suddenly see the "error of their ways" and do a 180?
The point is to smash the vile loathsome hypocritical son of a bitch to the earth, never to rise again.
"Homophobia" is a loaded, propagandist term; it deliberately misrepresents the phenomenon.
You have a better term?
I find it astonishing that some commenters can post the same crap that's been put forward and refuted multiple times in this very thread. Apparently having one's head up one's ass so far that one can bite one's uvula from behind is no impediment to posting.
Alas.
Xopher, how about we develop a TV series where we shine a spotlight on the ever-present bullshit of the human condition.. like Mythbusters without the explosions.. and with lots of political discourse and philosophy thrown in.
On second though.. I like explosions far too much.
"Are you or have you ever been, a memeber of a homosexual group?"
Damned trick questions!
@Antinous
Something catchier than "anti-homosexual," you mean? I'll see if I can come up with something. As much as I'd like to see a different term adopted, I doubt offering one now would do much good. I think the gay lobby is happy with "homophobia," as it serves their purpose very well. Maybe I've misread the situation, but I don't think so.
Uncle Eccoli, something that makes being anti-gay* sound as irrational as it really is. I'm pretty sure that's precisely what you don't want, because you want to pretend that hating gays is reasonable, and that preventing us (for example) from marrying is rational instead of cruel and selfish and prideful.
___
*That's the term I personally prefer, for the political animal; the "ick-factor" version is purely and clearly phobic.
@ Uncle Eccoli,
By all means, go ahead and use "anti-homosexual" if that's the term you prefer. But to my ear that's akin to the distinction between "bigot" and "anti-negro."
For the record:
1. This movie was released theatrically back in May of this year.
2. Larry Craig is not still in office. He served out the remainder of his term and then didn't run for re-election in November of last year.
Hitler's dead, Xopher.
Next you'll be claiming that he didn't have only one big ball.
That's a tough one, though: the predations of that angry nanny-goat on Hitler's testes are well-known (or well-atTESTEd, heh), yet the size of the surviving "ball" remains a matter of some conjecture: the main textual witness, the song "Hitler Has Only Got One Ball," being silent on this matter. Compared to all things named ball we can relatively assume that it was small; compared to all subsets of ball that signify "testicle," then it may have been comparatively large, medium, small, or even miniscule. You see the difficulties!
I think the textual witness you cite is not quite silent on the matter, though it speaks through implication rather than direct statement. Of course the song exists in folkloric variants; here is the version I first saw:*
The text then gives the instruction "repeat until spanked."Note the second line above. While it's not entirely clear that the 'but' is intended to constrast Goering's balls with Hitler's, I think that's a reasonable interpretation.
____
* Sung to the tune of the "Comet/Vomit" song, not to be confused with the Vomit Comet (which is generally not an occasion for singing).
Wouldn't Comet/Vomit properly be referred to as 'Colonel Bogey March'?
Methinks the "but" is in apposition-opposition to the "two," i.e., he's got a "normal" set of two, but they're quite small and, hence, not "normal": just like the rest of the oddly-balled Nazi goons.
While we're on the subject of Hitler's equipment, I heartily recommend Walter Benjamin's minor masterpiece, "Hitler's Diminished Masculinity." I'd love to post a link, but the text seems not to have been digitized. One of the few times I'll inveigh against those rent-seeking academic press copyright bastards: essays about Hitler's balls should be FREE for EVERYBODY.
Further examination reveals that it was a billygoat, and not a nanny-, that bit young Shickelgruber, which sort of qualifies my, ahem, expert witnessing.
I've always heard "Hitler had only one big ball". Can't find Bette Midler's version on YouTube. Surely somebody has a VHS tape of Divine Madness that they could check.
Antinous, Antinous, Antinous: of course I knew that. Did you know that it was named that because of a colonel who whistled the first two notes instead of shouting "Fore!" on the golf course?
I'mnot at all sure I support a free-standing "right to privacy". Yes, by all means limit the power of the state to compel you to give up information, and to collect it about you.
But if I find out something about you, and wish to publicize it, any restriction on my doing so would seem to violate my rights to free speech.
Antinous - neither being gay nor holding certain opinions about so-called "gay rights" are illegal. (I put "gay rights" in quotes because it is a catch-all that means differnet things to differnet people, not because I don't believe in anything called gay rights)
The so-called "greater good" doesn't trample individual rights, no matter how good the "greater good" is... It's wrong when the Patriot Act trampled personal privacy and it's wrong here.
The so-called "greater good" doesn't trample individual rights, no matter how good the "greater good" is...
So you don't want any laws then. Because laws are nothing more than the restriction of individual rights for the greater good.
I'm old enough to remember the homosexuals insisting that the government didn't belong in their bedrooms, they felt they deserved some privacy - when did that change?
ANd this mysterious "something" you say you found out about "me" - how did you find it out? DId you break any laws? Is it of a protected nature (credit card, SS, bank account, numbers, etc.? Medical conditions? These are all legally protected pieces of information, why must an individual's sexual orientation be fair game? Is it only fair game if your particular cause has a chance to benefit from it? If you learn that "Tom" is gay, and use it to force him to vote in a way you agree with, how is that right? Does this freedom of expression you are so fond of extend to my commenting on "Tom's" sexual orientation without any benefit for my particular cause? Can I just call him offensive names, and he has no recourse becuse it's true?
Saying the ends justify the means is a very weak argument...
FANTASTIC film. Watched on HBO. Are you in the Theater?
Keep them coming - Thanks