Outing

Pam’s got an interesting post up on outing today, which I highly recommend. I always find it interesting that people to whom I’ve spoken who dislike the practice inevitably agree that they would argue with “outing” other aspects of a politician’s life that would expose hypocrisy, but remain uncomfortable with outing someone on the basis of his or her being gay. I think it reveals an entrenched discomfort with homosexuality that some people are unwilling to admit to themselves, even as they champion gay rights. When one supports exposing a politician’s ties to a special interest group that could fundamentally undermine his or her legislative objectivity, but doesn’t support acknowledging a homosexual relationship that is known to the political community but not the politician’s constituents, the basis for the distinction is often cited as, “I wouldn’t want someone to tell people I were gay if I didn’t want them to know.” Fair enough, but said politicians also don’t want their constituents knowing about their ties to energy companies (for example), either. Embedded within such reasoning is the thought that being gay is something of which to be ashamed, further evidenced by the nearly unanimous support for outing politician’s extramarital affairs. Comfort with homosexuality means one doesn’t see it as off limits.

It’s rarely politicians who support gay rights who seek to hide their sexuality; instead, it is almost exclusively conservatives, who support anti-gay legislation and hide behind the notion that exposing one’s homosexuality isn’t fair game. They depend on people’s discomfort in pursuing outing campaigns to keep their secrets—and their jobs. If the truth were known, their own constituents wouldn’t elect them.