From politics1 (), posted 8/31/04 (I have not yet seen the news reported anywhere else):
Issues for debate:
-
Is it ethical to “out” a gay person without his/her consent?
-
How many “gay homophobes” can there really be in high goverment positions?
My impression is that most gay activists believe that such “outing” should only be done in extreme circumstances such as this one where the person is using his or her political position to pursue viciously anti-gay policies.
This guy was worse than Roy Cohn. He should be outed.
I dunno. While I find the likes of Schrock repulsive for their hypocrisy, it’s the rare politician who has to pay for being a hypocrite. Take the Chimp in Chief, for instance. While I don’t condone Schrock’s behavior, it’s sad that the man feels he has to leave office just because he’s gay. Maybe he had it coming, but so do a lot of these dirtbags, and while Schrock clearly was unethical himself, I doubt the skelitons in his closet are any more troubling than his average peer in the House.
It’s just wrong all around, if you ask me. It’s deplorable that this guy voted for hate legislation; but he’s hardly alone in that offense. It’s inexplicable that he is a gay man himself, and yet would show so little empathy to other gay Americans whose vote he descriminates against. However, I don’t doubt the man is voting as his constituents would have him vote. And I don’t think he has comitted any obvious crime (unlike Gov. McGreevey of NJ, another gay pol whose outing corresponds with his ouster). I actually can’t think of a good reason for his constituents to reject him, unless they’re just bigoted homophobes; after all, he appears to have done their bidding.
Terrible ironies, through and through. American politics reeks more every day.
If this is true, I don’t feel a lot of sympathy for Schrock, but there is nevertheless a difficult ethical issue here.
A key foundation for gay activism (or any other sexuality-related activism) must be the individual’s right to autonomy and control in relation to his sexuality. I decide how to express my own sexuality, and if I choose to have sex with someone of the same gender as myself that is my business, and his business, but it’s not your business. If I wish to make a public affirmation or expression of my sexuality (by participating in a gay pride event, for instance) that’s my right; if I wish not to do so, that’s also my right.
These rights are intrinsic; I have them simply because I am a human, because my sexuality is a dimension of myself, and I have a right to dignity and autonomy. I don’t have them because you like me, or because you agree with me, or because I have earned them by approved behaviour in other areas of life.
So, Schrock has a right to be homosexual, and to engage in homosexual behaviour, and to keep that to himself or to himself and a small circle, and to present himself as heterosexual, and to deny that he is homosexual. We all have that right. This particular combination of behaviours may not be admirable, but we all have the right to engage in it.
Does Schrock lose these rights because he has opposed gay marriage? I don’t think he does. Even if we assume that his stance on gay marriage is hypocritical and opportunistic, his right to sexual autonomy does not depend on his honesty, integrity or other qualities. It is an intrinsic right, and even people we don’t like have intrinsic rights.
So I say no, outing him was wrong. Satisfying, perhaps, but wrong.
What about Rogers’ threat to “focus on outing another Congressman and highly placed officials in the Bush Administration”? I mean, can this be for real?
I have to say, I agree. I have some sympathy for the silence=death ethos as a recommendation, but if one wishes to maintain their silence, they should be entitled to it. No one owes anyone else an explanation of their own sexuality, so long as they go about things in a legal and consensual manner. Unless I am mistaken, that demand for equal dignity is a major issue in the gay political platform, and the ironies just thicken when any man or woman has their sexuality used against them as a weapon, be that person deserving of scorn or not.
Bumped by the glutton…
Seems it quite possibly is for real, as Rogers’ has already demonstrated his knowledge, as well as his willingness to use it.
I so agree. Just because he could not deal with his sexuality, he doesn’t have the right to legislate against those of us who are out and strong.
That’s why he shouldn’t be in office. But does that give people the right to use *his * sexuality as a weapon against him?
It feels satisfying since this guy did support anti-gay legislation, but this tactic does subtly imply that being a homosexual is shameful, and something that should be exposed like any other kind of corruption. It could be just as damaging to a moderate or liberal politician.
I consider it to be a form of self-defense. Legislation was the gun he was using to assault us. We merely disarmed him. If we’re going to quibble over whether we should use judo, kung-fu, taekwondo, or hapkido to disarm the mugger, we might as well not even bother.
My take on it, is that his hypocracy was exposed. It was his choice, and his choice alone to resign. It is also his choice to view his sexuality as shameful. They were right to do it.
It is nice to to see him hoist by his own petard. Maybe he’ll come out the other end of this episode with a little more compassion towards his fellow travellers.
True, indeed. The blogger also had the right to put his information up on the internet. The Representative had the right to decide whether or not he would attempt to deny the allegations, or acknowledge them. And he had the right to stay in office or to resign. The last I heard, homosexuals aren’t immediately disqualified (yet) from serving in public office. Although they try to claim otherwise, no one has to resign from Congress (or the governorship of New Jersey) just because he’s gay.
But we’re not talking about rights, we’re talking about ethics. And I honestly see no ethical quandry here at all.
Don’t misunderstand me – there are plenty of gay activisits who believe that every homosexual, especially those in the public eye, are obligated to be out, to show people just how common and “normal” homosexuality is. I personally believe that’s reprehensible. They of all people should know better, knowing what a painful process it is to come to terms with your sexuality, how you live in constant fear that you’re going to be found out. Some people just love speculating about or directly outing celebrities, defending it by saying that “as soon as you put yourself in the public eye, you give up your right to privacy,” or “you have an obligation to live as an example.” That disgusts me.
But, that’s not at all what’s going on here. It’s really very simple – if you want your private life to stay private, then keep it private! When you vote against the rights of homosexuals (thanks to Otto for the link), you are making a public statement about homosexuality. You have made your stand and have forfeited your right to privacy about that issue.
Here’s an easy guideline to remember: don’t vote against the rights of homosexuals “in defense of marriage,” and then cheat on your wife by giving or receiving blow jobs to strange men.
This simply isn’t a case of a homosexual (or bisexual) man whose private life was thrust into the public by the self-serving Extremist Gay Agenda. This is a case of a man who was revealed as a hypocrite; the fact that he’s gay (or bi) is somewhat tangential. If he’s so happy with his private life and comfortable with his orientation, then why does he now need to resign?
Again, how is his sexuality being used against him “as a weapon?” Where is this scorn coming from? From the “gay political platform,” or from the Representative’s homophobic constituents? Or the Representative himself?
Yes, I’m demanding equal dignity for homosexuals. Therefore, I don’t see that calling a man who likes to have sex with other men a “homosexual” is an attack.
My point exactly. Schrock has the right to engage in homosexual acts while holding himself out as a heterosexual; it doesn’t follow that it is ethical for him to do so. Similarly the blogger has the right to publish his information; it doesn’t follow that it is ethical for him to do that, either. And the OP is about the blogger’s ethics.
I’m with you so far.
Actually, no, I don’t think so.
I might be persuaded if Schrock had, say, voted to criminalise homosexual acts. But Schrock’s vote was about marriage. It may be a subtle distinction, but marriage is a public matter; the whole point of marriage is that it’s public. It involves the entire community in a relationship which would otherwise be the exclusive and private concern of the couple involved.
Schrock wasn’t commenting or voting about any aspect of exclusively private behaviour, or denying anybody’s sexual autonomy. He was voting that society should be under no obligation to accord recognition or legal consequences to homosexual relationships and, if you think about it, he was seeking none for his own homosexual relationships. He may be a hypocrite in his marriage but his political stance (while it may be despicable for other reasons) wasn’t, strictly speaking, hypocritical.
I doubt very much if he was happy with his private life or comfortable with his orientation and, in any event, the issue is not whether he “needed to resign” but whether his right to personal sexual autonomy has been violated . And his rights in this regard don’t depend on his being happy or comfortable, any more than they depend on his being a man of honesty or integrity.
I think the scorn probably is to be expected from the constituents, which is precisely why the whole business of exposing ones sexual foibles makes me uneasy. I didn’t like it when it happened to Clinton, and I don’t like it now. I have no realy sympathy for this Schrock guy. But I do think Rogers’ Purpose is not to provide a public service announcement as it is to, as I said, use Schrock’s sexuality against him as retaliation for his voting record. Sure, his voting record sucks, but it’s the retaliation angle that makes me uneasy. This isn’t even tabloid sleaze; this is the specific targeting of individuals for outing, and the reason for the outing is political ideology. Perhaps Rogers’ tactics are being directed at a particularly worthy individual, but Rogers must know that it is the bigotry of Schrock’s constituency that will bring about his downfall. In that regard, it seems to me Rogers is exploiting the hate of homophobes to bring down another homophobe. On the one hand, seeing the derserving get hoisted by their own petard does have a certain ironic appeal; but on the other hand, it just seems to me in principle no one should have their sexual lives used against them in such a blatantly political way. It’s using the enemies weapon in a way that I think diminishes the moral stance of Rogers himself. I know you disagree. I don’t argue this point out of any liking for Schrock or his ilk, that’s for sure. But the outing tactic makes me uneasy.
[/quote]
It is not a subtle distinction. It is a “distinction” that simply does not exist.
Claiming that the so-called “Defense of Marriage” acts are anything other than anti-homosexual legislation is… I’ll just say “disingenuous at best.” They are clearly intended to restrict homosexual relationships from being recognized as being of the same legal status as heterosexual ones.
There are those who would attempt to obfuscate the issue by claiming that there are other factors invovled, or that it’s a two-sided issue more complex than a simple case of discrimination against homosexuals. (Unfortunately, Cecil Adams seems to be one of them). They point out that the history of the institution of marriage is for the purpose of procreation, however to the best of my knowledge no DOMA has been worded so as to restrict marriage only to those couples who are able and/or willing to conceive a child. It is always worded to restrict the institution to those of opposite sexes.
Conversely, they point out that marriages could be abused by same-sex couples (“frat guys as a gag” in Cecil’s example) going for benefits without being genuinely “married.” Again, the wording of the legislation makes no mention of commitment or dedication, and it does nothing to restrict the institution from mixed-sex couples who would get married on a lark.
The wording of the law limits marriage to people of the opposite sex. Its intent is to codify the idea that homosexual relationships are not as valid, lasting, or deserving of recognition as heterosexual ones and, by extension, should be kept private. Proponents of DOMA are quite open in who they’re targeting by passing the laws; it would be much simpler if apologists were equally open in acknowledging that the law is nothing more than anti-gay legislation.
If your claim is that saying “homosexuality is fine as long as it’s kept completely secret” is anything other than an anti-gay viewpoint, I’m afraid I can’t debate that. Because I see that as completely reprehensible.
No, his right to personal sexual autonomy has not been violated. He is perfectly free (at least in some states) to continue soliciting strange men for oral sex. He would be free to do this even if he were not a hypocrite, and he would be free to do this even if he were not an adulterer.
The issue is whether it was ethical to make these details of his personal life public. I claimed, and still claim, that since he has taken a clear position of being for marriage and against homosexuality (see above), it is perfectly valid to bring information into the political arena that reveal him to be an adulterer and a bisexual. There is a direct one-to-one correspondence.
If he had voted in favor of tax cuts to a major industry, it would be completely ethical for a journalist to expose the fact that he had major stock holdings in that industry.
You’re right, I disagree. But I can definitely understand your viewpoint.
It’s not the same thing as when sex-life revelations were made against Clinton, because Clinton was never particularly vocal about being pro-marriage or anti-sex-with-interns. It was a matter completely irrelevant to his political record, but was instead used as an attack against his credibility and his entire administration. (For the record: I think the guy’s a sleaze and a transparently political opportunist. But I still think that the whole thing should’ve never been brought up, because it was nobody’s business but his own, it was irrelevant to his administration on the whole, and he was doing good things otherwise. I didn’t have to be friends with the guy, I just wanted him to be my President.)
I think the difference is that we both believe in the principle that your private life should remain private, but I believe that the principle can’t be so easily extricated from this case. As I said before, there is a direct discrepency between his words and his deeds, and it’s completely valid to point out the hypocrisy.
If his being outed is a bad thing that is damaging to his political career, he only has himself to blame. He helped perpetuate the idea that homosexuality is not valid and is something to be ashamed of and kept hidden. It’s distressing to see people like Schrock and McGreevy getting sympathy just by virtue of being gay, because it just does more harm than good.
If Schrock had had a better voting record in favor of gay rights, but had somehow made political enemies who sought to discredit him by outing him, then I would be right there with you in being appalled at that.
In other words: exposing someone as gay to discredit him is evil, exposing someone as a hypocrite to discredit him is encouraged.