Yes, it has been violated. His right to conduct his sexual liaisons privately has been denied to him. His right to present himself as heterosexual has been denied to him. We all have the right to decide how much of our sexuality to express or reveal, and how, and where, and when, and to whom, and in what way. Even if that involves contradiction, concealment, hypocrisy or dishonesty on our part. Even if we are Schrock.
If this right can be denied to Schrock because we consider his private sexual conduct reprehensible and his public stance on sexuality indefensible, then we surrender what seems to me a very important principle. If Mr Schrock has no right to autonomy as regards his own sexuality, then why does anyone else? If there is no such right, or if it can be legitimately denied to people about whose sexual behaviour or views on sexuality we have made adverse moral judgments, what is the objection to legislation restricting homosexual behaviour or gay activism on the grounds of morality?
If Congressman Schrock had been cheating on his wife with a woman (or perhaps, with anonymous women), would we still be having this debate? (Would such a revelation have caused Schrock to resign or would he try the redeemed sinner schtick?) I imagine, we would, although with a slightly different take on it. Why, in this case, does the gay angle matter (other than that it may matter to his constituents)?
I don’t think we would. At the very least, I don’t think Schrock would have immediately resigned. My guess is he would appear on some podium with his wife, make the requisite tearful confession, and plot his future campaign strategy based on the fact that his infidelity gives him a bit of an achilles heel. But let’s face it: Schrock’s constituents likely include a majority of relatively devout Christians, with a higher density of fundamentalist evangelical Christians among those than one will find in the average voting district. If Schrock could have made sufficiently public and contrite-seeming exhortations to Jesus and his fellow Christians to forgive, could have given enough of a media show of his self-flagellating penitent self, the voters would probably be willing to go along with it. Infidelity can be dealt with reasonably effectively. Your average televanelist could attest to that.
But to be a gay adulterer is unforgiveable, obviously, or Schrock would have put up a fight. Schrock knew what he was in for, both with the voters and his fellow party members, and chose what is probably the only tenable path.
I think it’s pretty sleazy in all circumstances to exploit purely sexual issues only for political or financial gain. Again, I see no legal offense here. It’s not even possible for me to discern at this point if there is a breach of marital trust. If we contrast Schrock’s offenses with McGreevey’s, I think you can see what I mean. McGreevey is being accused of sexual harassment. He also clearly used his position to employ an unqualified individual for his own personal gain, and blatantly abused taxpayer funds to do so. I have a feeling if Cipel were a woman, the scandal could still sink the Gov. of NJ. There are possible criminal offenses here, as defined by legal statute, namely workplace sexual misconduct and corruption. Even if exonorated, few pols could withstand such controversy hanging over them in an election year. I also speculate that if McGreevey’s only offense was purported infidelity with a man, being in NJ, I doubt very much he would feel the need to resign. If he could demonstrate publically that his wife and himself were dealing with the issue privately and in good faith, my guess is the majority of people in NJ would shrug it off.
Not so, Schrock’s district in VA. I’ve lived right next to the Old Dominion, and some parts of that state are very conservative Christian. The consequences for being outed in those parts are clearly much more severe.
I submit Rogers’ was fully aware of that, and exploited the circumstances as an act of retribution for Schrock’s voting record. If Rogers had outed McGreevey for the offense of gay hanky-panky, and McGreevey had done no other “wrong”, the act would have been politically pointless, and I doubt Rogers would have bothered. Hence I am suspect of the assertion this is a simple, sweeping demand that gay pols identify themselves a such for the sake of keeping the voter base properly informed. It’s political revenge, as far as I can see, and sex is the means of enacting it.
That’s not what you were saying earlier. His “right” to have sex with men has not been violated; he’s still free to do that.
You now claim that his right to keep his sexuality under wraps was violated. Your stance is that it was violated by the blogger that exposed him; my stance is that he violated it himself by showing a consistently anti-gay voting record.
Because “gay activism” is not the same thing as saying “our entire moral framework does not apply anymore.”
Shrock’s “sexual autonomy,” as well as everyone else’s, has not been compromised. Ignoring things like anachronistic laws against sodomy and such, and assuming it’s between cosnenting adults and all that, Shrock is still free to do whatever sexual thing he cares to do.
That does not, should not, cannot, and will not mean that his actions have no consequence. If you commit adultery, that action will have consequence. If you have sex with a stranger, that will too. If you vote on a piece of anti-gay legislation, that will have consequence.
“Gay activism” isn’t saying “anything goes as long as it’s kept private.” It’s saying that “what I want to do is healthy and not harmful, nothing to be ashamed of, and no one should have to keep it private.” It’s saying that there should be no consequences just for being in love or having sex with people of the same sex, because nothing wrong is being done. It’s saying that there is no valid moral objection to homosexuality itself; there’s nothing inherently unhealthy or immoral about homosexual relationships. There’s no reason that same-sex couples are inherently undeserving of “married” status.
The fact that it can be used this way is entirely due to his active pursuit of a Neanderthal agenda, and is his own damn fault. If he wants to make it impossible for people to be kicked out of office “just because” they’re gay, then he needs to stop supporting policies that marginalize homosexuals. As far as I’m concerned, he has trod upon a mine of his own laying.
“Outing” per se is wrong. But calling someone who has made public (and used any power he may have to promote) an anti-gay stance is not so much being “outed” in the original sense as being called on his own hypocrisy.
Translate this into other terms. Imagine a small town 50 years ago, where the use of alcoholic beverages is “officially” frowned on, but where people do drink in private, and the custom is not to expose them as drinkers. But if someone starts up a “Demon Rum” crusade and attempts to get the town to “go dry” legally – no alcohol permitted to be sold or consumed in town – it’s perfectly acceptable to point out that he is in fact a secret drinker.
Allow me to submit a third issue for debate: If there are more “gay homophobes” in Congress and/or the Bush Administration, who are they? (Speculations based on unsubstantiated rumors are perfectly acceptable here. )
It’s certainly what I meant to say, and I’m not conscious of having altered my position. If I haven’t expressed myself well, I apologise.
Sexuality is not just about what I do with my genitals, and a sexual relationship is a great deal wider than just having sex. My sexual autonomy includes the right to present my sexuality how I choose to whom I choose, and so does Schrock’s. That includes a right to privacy, and it includes a right to reticence or even dissimulation about sexual orientation.
Well, on this one I’d have to say that logic is on my side. His privacy is violated by the person who publicly exposes that which he seeks to keep private.
Your own position assumes the conclusion for which you are arguing. You’ve yet to convice me that Schrock’s right to sexual autonomy is conditional upon his not publicly expressing views with which you and I disagree. Until that’s established, you can hardly expect me to accept that, by expressing the views he did, Schrock waived his right to conduct his sexual relationships privately.
Nope. He’s not free to conduct sexual relationships privately. He’s not free to present his own sexuality as he wishes to present it. Both important freedoms which, I think, most gay people (and most straight people) would claim for themselves.
I agree that gay activism (or any other form of sexual activism) is not saying “anything goes as long as it’s kept private.” But, for me, the basic principle is not the one you suggest, that homosexual behavour is not immoral. It’s much more fundamental that that.
I shouldn’t have to assert the morality of my sexual behaviour or the goodness of my sexual orientation in order to establish my right to engage in my behaviour or express my orientation. Whether you do or don’t have a “valid moral objection” to my homosexuality (or, for that matter, heterosexuality) is no concern of mine. Gay or straight, it is my sexuality which is in issue. I am a human being, entitled to human dignity and autonomy in my own self-expression, including my sexual self-expression. Society is entitled to protect third parties, so laws against rape, the exploitation of minors and the like are justified, but beyond that other people’s views about the morality of my sexual behaviour are simply not a basis for interfering with my autonomy, and therefore I do not have to assert, much less persuade you, that my behaviour is moral in order to establish my right to engage in it. Conversely your assertion that my behaviour is immoral, however strongly argued and fervently believed, does not warrant your interfering to limit my autonomy.
I agree with what you’re saying, up to a point. Where you and I diverge is that I feel, when someone uses a person’s sexuality as a political weapon, they are giving de facto permission for their own sexuality to be used against them.
If I may use a rather facile analogy, it is always wrong to shoot another human being, unless that human being shoots at you first. If Schrock wanted his sexual privacy to be respected, he should have been a lot more careful about where he was pointing his gun.
Well, I agree with 90% of the rest of your post, so the only thing I can add is just re-iterating what I’ve already said:
Yes, privacy is important. But I think Shrock gave up his right to privacy in this issue, by voting so consistently against gay issues. I don’t think the blogger was unethical to “out” him. He has a right to be gay in private. He does not, as a public official, have a right to be a hypocrite – about any topic.
The way I look at this, Rogers is just holding Schrock to his own standard.
Schrock wants those who serve their nation to be barred from doing so because of homosexual orientation or encounters, regardless of their desire to keep such orientation or encounters private.
Well, looks like he got his wish.
Just because you’re not in the armed services doesn’t mean you aren’t serving your country.
I usually think that the private life of politicians is nobody’s business. And fortunately, this is generally respected over here by the medias. The fact that the former president Mitterand, who served 14 years, was actually living with a woman other than his wife and their teenage daughter, well known by the medias, was only disclosed to the general public when he allowed/ asked them to do so, shortly before the end of his second mandate. Similarily, the fact that the current mayor of Paris was gay was only discussed during his campaign because he outed himself. That’s how things should work according to me. I can’t see what particular interest electors could claim to have in knowing what politicians do in their bedrooms and with whom, because this has no bearing on their ability (or lack thereof) to fill their duties.
But precisely, I make exceptions for cases such as the one described in the OP, when said politician (or other public figure, it would apply equally to a famous singer, for instance) is actively fighting something he’s himself practising in secret. That would apply to a predicator condemning the moral turpitudes of others while sleeping with prostitutes as well as to the OP’s navy veteran trying to pass laws intended to keep homosexuals out of the army.
I can think of two examples of MPs being outed here. One because of its vote or position about some particular policy related to AIDS. I dissaproved it because it had no direct relationship with his sexual practices (it was more or less a retaliation by Act-Up for “dissent”, hence unacceptable). Another because besides voting against the homosexual civil union law, he was proeminently present in an anti-gay protest organized at the time this law was passed. I approved this outing because he was publically comdemning what he was personnally engaged in and was pandering for anti-people-like-him votes. Live by the sword, die by the sword.
In the same way, I’m opposed to the medias disclosing that candidate X is cheating or used to cheat on his wife. Nobody’s business. On the other hand, if politician Y is publically stating : “you shouldn’t vote for X because he isn’t an honest man, he cheated on his wife” , then the private life of Y becomes fair game, since he brought up himself the issue, and chose himself to use it as a political argument to gain votes.
Executive summary: since anti-gay marriage laws are a way of saying ‘our marriages are so vastly superior to your own that ours are the only ones that should be permitted,’ those who advocate for them are holding their marriages up as lifestyle models. That means that their adherence to the private morals they publicly promote is a matter of public interest.
Executive summary: those who are openly working to destroy the Queer community cannot expect it to shelter their hypocrisy.
Unfortunately, I see no practical advancement of civil rights in Schrock’s downfall. The next congressman to hold his seat will simply be more careful to avoid the appearance of hypocrisy. Given the obvious limitations of Schrock’s constituency, there’s little reason to expect that his relacement will be any different than himself. In fact, Schrock’s replacement may be more stridently anti-gay than his or her predecessor.
In the end, Schrock’s outing will amount to an act of revenge. And those who voted him into office will simply make more certain their next representative isn’t queer. Outing him, beyond punishing him for sex, will serve no other practical purpose.
)