What's it like to work for an anti-gay, conservative in Washington, while being gay?

Interesting article: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15170951/site/newsweek/

Still, to someone who is in the closet today, this current scandal is terrifying because you think someone is going to put a bull’s-eye on you—psychological, physical or economic. Even where I live, in Long Beach, Calif., we hear about religious right lobbyists compiling lists of gay congressional staffers demanding that they be fired. Intimidating stuff when you know our party has a history of scapegoating gays and lesbians at the first sign of election trouble. And there is big trouble in Potomac River City.

Funny, everything I have seen lately about lists to out gay staffers is from the left.

Well, sometimes gays out one another if they're being hypocritical. Or at least, they threaten to do it.

What'd you see, Galain?

Well, sometimes gays out one another if they're being hypocritical. Or at least, they threaten to do it.

What'd you see, Galain?
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1589/is_2004_August_31/ai_n6196839

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0808-01.htm

http://www.blogactive.com/

Michael Rogers lives on the top floor of a block of flats in Washington DC, with a balcony and a fine view of the city whose secrets he is systematically giving up. Mr Rogers, who is gay, is waging a controversial "outing" campaign against gay Senators, members of Congress and Capitol Hill staffers who support the presidentially sponsored campaign to ban same-sex marriages.

The headquarters for his campaign is a workstation in the corner of his sitting room. From here he sifts tips-offs, updates his blog site (www.blogactive.com) and above all makes the phone calls that gays on the Hill have come to dread.

"It's about exposing hypocrisy, about ending a conspiracy of deceit and silence," Mr Rogers says. "These people work for politicians who are working to discriminate against gays. Then they seek protection from the very people their bosses are trying to hurt. It's surreal."

*shrug* I guess its the same dilemma as if you're a rabidly anti-abortion politician sending your daughter to have an abortion. I think this sort of hypocracy should be exposed.

Why would you guess that?




How would the baby of the daughter whose father was an anti-abortion politician feel about his grandfather sending his mother to an abortion clinic?

Interesting, another article about closeted Republicans and their fear to come out:

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=6244331

Well, sometimes gays out one another if they're being hypocritical. Or at least, they threaten to do it.
How convenient a cover it is for those outting gays to limit outting to those who don't follow a particular political agenda. Who decreed that all gays have to have the same political agenda? Is it so impossible to believe that someone who is gay just might disagree with gay marriages? That's not hypocritical. I think it rather hypocritical for those doing the outting to presume that all gays should think/vote alike. It's similar to some of the names called conservative blacks by liberal blacks, as if they should all think alike simply due to the color of their skin.

What has ended up happening is liberal gays "out" conservative gays under the guise of "hypocrisy", but don't out closeted liberal gays simply because they have the same political agenda. At least the "outters" should be honest about their motives. Sometimes it seems that those who use hypocrisy as a justification for their actions end up appearing to be the biggest hypocrites.

Is it so impossible to believe that someone who is gay just might disagree with gay marriages?
Pretty much, yes.
At least the "outters" should be honest about their motives. Sometimes it seems that those who use hypocrisy as a justification for their actions end up appearing to be the biggest hypocrites.
Sounded like they were being pretty honest with their motives to me. Or at least, I don't see any evidence to the contrary.

If you read the Newsweek article, he was afraid he'd lose his job if he came out. And he very nearly lost his life by being in the closet, being a victim of a hate crime. I think he's grateful now he is out. I also think it is good for Washington to have to acknowledge the terrible hypocracy.

I remain a Republican. Sometimes it’s difficult but terror abroad trumps deeply held personal issues I can still fight and win at home. I was one of the Austin 12—a group of gays and lesbians who met with Gov. George W. Bush in 2000 in Austin. I liked him then and had great hopes he’d do the right thing. He did. In his first term, he kept all the promises he had made in that meeting and more. But then he cynically decided to back a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage so he could get re-elected. Both the religious right and the gay and lesbian community agree on this much: we know George W. Bush couldn’t care less about the marriage amendment other than as an election year tool.

That’s what makes him such a huge disappointment from the decent man I met on April 13, 2000. So, despite the president saying “be respectful” about the marriage debate, it doesn't mean a damn. He knowingly unleashed these ugly, mean-spirited homophobic forces within elements of the national Republican Party. Worse, he resurrected the now uncontrollable theocratic armies of religiously intolerant political “bullies” (to quote ex-Majority Leader Dick Armey) which the president proudly, and in the tradition of his father, had once muzzled when he launched his compassionate conservatism platform in 2000. The responsibility for any bull’s-eye on gays and lesbians today falls very near the doorstep of the president.

Pretty much, yes.

Speak for them all, huh?

Hell, I am heterosexual and think that marriage should be abolished. If I were gay, would think that would be exponential.

It is a pseudo patriarchial anachronistic institution, and if it were not here before I got here, I would never, ever feel compelled by it.

How convenient a cover it is for those outting gays to limit outting to those who don't follow a particular political agenda. Who decreed that all gays have to have the same political agenda? Is it so impossible to believe that someone who is gay just might disagree with gay marriages? That's not hypocritical. I think it rather hypocritical for those doing the outting to presume that all gays should think/vote alike. It's similar to some of the names called conservative blacks by liberal blacks, as if they should all think alike simply due to the color of their skin.


Gay people who disagree with the notion that the government should never be allowed to limit their rights simply because they are gay, should be beaten severely by the Gay community.

Not believing that the state should not be limiting marriage based on sexual orientation, by a gay person, would be akin to a Jew agreeing with constitutional proposals to disallow Jews to get married. If any Jew so collaborated with the enemy in such a fashion, I think I'd probably shoot him.

Speak for them all, huh?

Hell, I am heterosexual and think that marriage should be abolished. If I were gay, would think that would be exponential.

It is a pseudo patriarchial anachronistic institution, and if it were not here before I got here, I would never, ever feel compelled by it.

Wow, again Fy'yr, you sound like some rabid femifoamingatthemouthnazi. For real, dude, get yon testicles forth from the jar in which you've imprisoned them and reattach.

arriage is not innately patriarchial nor is it anachronistic. Its been a part of most human societies and cultures and quite likely neaderthal culture as well. Now, the form marriage takes can change vastly from culture to culture, but to call it innately patriarchial smacks of you having drank too much of the feminist kool-aid

Its what we do. We create famlial bonds to ensure that our genes are passed on and to provide the caregiving of our children and to provide security for the family unit as a whole.

It is still of use and, dare I say, quite valuable. There are a few studies out there which strongly suggest that children who's parents have stayed married and both live with their children do significantly better, in general, than children who's father doesn't live at home, or even those who live with a step-father.

No, I'm not speaking for them all. The question was, "Is it impossible to imagine...?" and my answer is "Yes". I don't quite see any pronoun in there that says I am speaking for anyone else, although I can't imagine that any gay would want to see themselves more restricted in rights than anyone else. If such a person is out there, they're probably not right in the head.

As Aidon pointed out, were there Blacks that wanted to be slaves or forced to sit in the back of the bus? Were their Jews that thought they should be exterminated? Does anyone here want to volunteer to be denyed rights everyone else has?

There are blacks that want affirmative action abolished, or don't agree 100% with Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton's agendas (insert NAACP or any other black organization if you like). There are legal Mexican immigrants that believe that all the illegal immigrants should be deported immediately, or that a fence should be built on the border. I'm a republican but don't agree 100% with the Republican agenda. I'm pretty sure there are even Democrats on this message board that don't agree 100% with the democratic agenda.

So why are gays expected to agree completely with the alleged gay agenda? There are gays that believe that traditional values are better for the country. There are gays that believe children are better raised by a heterosexual couple, and not by a gay couple. There are gays that support enacting "civil unions", but not expanding marriage to include gay couples. There are even gays in government who vote based on what their constiuency wants, not their own personal preferences. Isn't that what an elected representative supposed to do (especially if that is what they told their constiuency they would do)? They are not hypocrites. Nor are they "not right in the head".

For liberal thinkers who advocate tolerance, it seems odd that you can't imagine that not all gays think alike or agree 100% on the "gay agenda". It also appears rather intolerant to support punishing or outting those who disagree with the gay agenda. (If it's not punishment, why not out all gays, regardless of their voting records?)

ore and more, the liberals come across as being the most intolerant people, especially when faced with people who have come to different conclusions on political issues than them. Isn't this stereotyping when saying that all gays should think alike?

Your example is flawed, badly.
There are blacks that want affirmative action abolished, or don't agree 100% with Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton's agendas (insert NAACP or any other black organization if you like).
They aren't asking to be denied rights that everyone else has. They're asking to be treated exactly like everyone else currently is, no additional rights to compensate for their position in society due to the lack of those rights.

There are legal Mexican immigrants that believe that all the illegal immigrants should be deported immediately, or that a fence should be built on the border.
And there again, your example isn't of someone asking for themselves to be denied rights, its asking for someone else to be denied rights. They're here legally, it wouldn't affect them.

There are gays that believe that traditional values are better for the country.
And those traditional values often include taking a baseball bat to queers after getting drunk on Shlitz on Friday night. It would certainly also include denying them jobs or housing. There was a HUGE outcry about the "Gay Agenda" in my state when it came to including "sexual orientation" in my State's anti-discrimination laws. But lets say you're just talking about "marriage". What proof do you have of this?

Did you pull this out of your ass or have you actually found such people?

I think there is a chicken and egg situation. Which comes first, electable gay politicians or capable gay politicians in office? If the political parties think that gays are unelectable then they make that belief self-fulfilling. Exposing gay politicians, so that the public has to deal with the homosexuality of the candidates they elected, gets around that chicken and egg problem. Despite that, I wouldn't support outing.

The left wing can certainly get into a mess on gay issues as much as anyone else. In the UK the Liberal party had two candidates withdraw from a leadership race when it was revealed they were bisexual. Their sexuality wasn't itself a problem, it was their untruthful denials and use of rent boys that ended their ambitions.

There are blacks that want affirmative action abolished, or don't agree 100% with Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton's agendas (insert NAACP or any other black organization if you like). There are legal Mexican immigrants that believe that all the illegal immigrants should be deported immediately, or that a fence should be built on the border. I'm a republican but don't agree 100% with the Republican agenda. I'm pretty sure there are even Democrats on this message board that don't agree 100% with the democratic agenda.

These examples do not correlate with gay marriage. Gay marriage is a constitutional issue of equal protection.

There are even gays in government who vote based on what their constiuency wants, not their own personal preferences. Isn't that what an elected representative supposed to do (especially if that is what they told their constiuency they would do)?

This is such a huge misconception..and yet so prevelant. No, elected officials are not just supposed to vote as their constituents want. They are elected to do what they believe is the best and proper course of action for the benefit of their constituents...not to just do as they're told by their constituents.

They are not hypocrites. Nor are they "not right in the head".

If you stand against equal rights for your own people...you are not right in the head and really should be beaten.

ore and more, the liberals come across as being the most intolerant people, especially when faced with people who have come to different conclusions on political issues than them. Isn't this stereotyping when saying that all gays should think alike?

Who suggested all gays should think alike? The overriding issue on the "gay agenda" the past few years seems to be gay marriage. In that issue, I have zero tolerance for anyone who disagrees with the notion. Equality is equality and if you believe that inequality is acceptable for some groups, then it'll only be a matter of time before you believe inequality is acceptable for any group different than yours. I don't espouse to be a tolerant person. I don't expect everyone to be tolerant. I do expect everyone to have respect for the ideals our nation was theoretically founded on..and that means equality for all, even if you think they are sick perverts or filthy Muslim Arab butchers.

Did you pull this out of your ass or have you actually found such people? Found what people? If you are asking if I know any gay people who believe along the lines that I've said, then yes, I do know some. Not surprisingly, they call themselves republicans and conservatives as well. Also not surprisingly, I'm probably more likely to meet such people since my friends tend to be conservative type thinkers (not all, but most). If one hangs out with mostly liberal thinkers, I guess it's not surprising to never have met a conservative gay. The two men I know of who espouse these views seem quite sane to me, one is a banker and the other is a lawyer. Being gay is incidental to who they are. Protest all you like, but yes, not all gays think alike.

As an aside, I got rather intimidated when I realized I was going up again Panamah and Aidon in this thread. The better part of wisdom in me says walk away... walk away now while you still can! Heh You two are fierce debaters and while I do enjoy the debate, I just don't have the time to keep up with it. I stand by what I posted, but concede the thread to you.

I got rather intimidated when I realized I was going up again Panamah and Aidon in this thread.

Really?

They are soft squishy pushovers really.

Don't let them scare you, honestly.

Remi, I'm skeptical to say the least. You'd think there'd be something in the media or on the Internet about a group of people who want to be treated worse than everyone else.
As an aside, I got rather intimidated when I realized I was going up again Panamah and Aidon in this thread. The better part of wisdom in me says walk away... walk away now while you still can! Heh You two are fierce debaters and while I do enjoy the debate, I just don't have the time to keep up with it. I stand by what I posted, but concede the thread to you.
Aw gee. It's getting too easy these days. All the conservatives seem to fold up the monopoly board when the competition is winning. Well, if this is how the Nov election is going to go, who am I to complain? :)

Ya, you do got it easy.

You only have to debate Conservatives.

I got you both, Liberals and Conservatives.

Not for the faint hearted.