Closeted gay lawmakers who vote against HIV fundiing/gay rights

[Le Libérer]

Edit: Moved to discrimination

I am presently working on an article that will detail my personal involvement with outing a US congressman who voted against HIV funding to mask his sexual identity. There is a new film that was just released, Outrage, which will be featured in the article as well.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KgESXQccWi8&feature=player_embedded
I was one of 4 other ACT-UP members that stood outside the doors of a congressman who did exactly that in the 1990s. We announced his involvement with several of his fraternity brothers, to preface an Advocate Magazine article featuring one of the men to whom had sex with the La Congressman. McCrery. The Congressman we were targeting, immediately married after the article ran and stayed in Washington, until a few months before the 2008 elections, where he would no longer be a featured GOP statesman.

Outing is still a subject of debate. But the idea of a closeted politician who's voting record clearing is against rights over gay issues, moves their private lives public.

The movie goes to great lengths to explain that what the closeted class amounts to is tyranny, closeted politicos aren't just hurting themselves but the public, a homophobia driven by their double lives.

"There's a right to privacy, but not hypocrisy," says Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.). I think that quote pretty much sums it up, especially when at the time, 100s of thousands of gay men were dying from HIV/AIDS, when time was of the essence, and now their lives are lost forever.

My article may follow here on revleft. I will see how copyright issues follow.

[TC]

Honestly, I don't like hte idea of outing closeted gay conservative politicans because it means going after them on a personal level where you wouldn't with a straight politician of the same ideology: it amounts to holding them up to a higher level of scrutiny because they're gay. There are female politicians who oppose equal pay legislation, abortion, birth control, etc, and black politicians who oppose affirmative action on the basis of race, hate crimes legislation, etc; they are no different from gay politicans who actively undermine gay people in issues that are most relevant to the gay population but they aren't presented as 'traitors' so to speak, their views are still attacked on their merit(lessness)s and not the personal lives and social group membership of the people promoting them.

[Le Libérer]

When politicians enter the political arena, they are aware their personal lives will be under the microscope. Where as I do have issue with outing in general, someone who votes against a oppressed group that they participate in, should be made public and be held accountable for.

I'm adamently against personal outing. I saw and fought against lawmakers and the general public for people living with AIDS for 12 years, first through ACT-UP, then working within the system as a HIV counselor and educator. I know the effects society has on people living with AIDS, and in the beginning, were mostly gay.

But closeted lawmakers deliberately voting against a group they are a member of, is the same as eating your young. I cant think of anything more dispecable. Its totally unacceptable.

[Rjevan]

But closeted lawmakers deliberately voting against a group they are a member of, is the same as eating your young. I cant think of anything more dispecable. Its totally unacceptable.
That's it. There's a difference between a female who votes against birth control and this special case. What this politician did was hypocrisis in it's best, it would be the same as if a woman who voted against legal abortion would be seen in an abortion clinic and as much as I'm against personal outing I think this was the right step here. The quote by Mr. Frank really sums it up quite well.

[Le Libérer]

I am interviewing people who were involved in the outing of Jim McCrery and who are featured in "Outrage" the documentary. As a child Gary Cathy was outed on the playground. He tells

"No one could know more than me the horror of being outed. I was outed at the age of five the first day I stepped on a school bus. The willful celebration of ignorance that cannot or will not make a distinction between the abuse I took on the playground and my speaking truth to power to expose McCrerys deadly hypocrisy is in the end far worse and far more evil than anything he will ever do."
I can completely see why someone who has been victimzed as a small child and growing up dealing with this stereotype, would absolutely not be able to hold back at the on set of watching the conservative lawmaker who was his very first lover, as he was many fraternity brothers, vote no to HIV meds, or any funding that could save the lives of those who were dropping like flies.

In that time period, being diagnosed with HIV was a definate death sentence. And Reagan and his cronies were stamping the issue with a seal of death. Something had to be done. And one man stood up to the hypocrisy.

[TheCultofAbeLincoln]

Honestly, I don't like hte idea of outing closeted gay conservative politicans because it means going after them on a personal level where you wouldn't with a straight politician of the same ideology: it amounts to holding them up to a higher level of scrutiny because they're gay. There are female politicians who oppose equal pay legislation, abortion, birth control, etc, and black politicians who oppose affirmative action on the basis of race, hate crimes legislation, etc; they are no different from gay politicans who actively undermine gay people in issues that are most relevant to the gay population but they aren't presented as 'traitors' so to speak, their views are still attacked on their merit(lessness)s and not the personal lives and social group membership of the people promoting them.

It's not that a gay man can't be conservative (I know several, for example, who just kinda ignore the whole gay rights activism and favor pre-emptive war and whatever else makes someone a Republican), it's the hypocrisy that makes outing a Neo-Con so sweet.

Many Republicans run on the campaign that they, are, basically, better people then those they are running against. In the (rural) South, this often entails riling up homophobic hysteria. I haven't been in McCrery's district, but I wouldn't be surprised if this was he case, at least in some degree.

I have no problem with a Republican being gay (other than being a Republican), it's a Republican being in the closet so he can use homophobia to his advantage that is the reason this has to be done. A black man can't demonize blacks the same way gays are bashed all the time, especially in the rural South, and that comparison is a bit shaky in my opinion.

Go for it Poetess, it'll be sweet.


By the way, David Vitter opposes same-sex marriage because his faith tells him marriage between a man and a woman is a sacred bond.

hahahahahahahahaha

[Sean]

It's not that a gay man can't be conservative (I know several, for example, who just kinda ignore the whole gay rights activism and favor pre-emptive war and whatever else makes someone a Republican), it's the hypocrisy that makes outing a Neo-Con so sweet.
Theres nothing "sweet" about outing someone mate, it isn't done as part of some candid camera show or dirty political trick. In these cases it is only in the public interest because of the huge conflict of interest that closeted homosexual politicians have in affirming the public perception of their hetrosexuality by effectively killing people to do so that they have been outed. I think you're really missing the whole point. Its not hypocrisy or treachery, it is attacking gay people through legislation because of issues with their own sexuality, not in spite of it.

I'm sure the documentary itself will explain it a lot better than I ever could, but I really hate the idea of people rubbing their hands wanting to see this as a collection of caught-with-your trousers down scandals.

[TheCultofAbeLincoln]

Theres nothing "sweet" about outing someone mate, it isn't done as part of some candid camera show or dirty political trick. In these cases it is only in the public interest because of the huge conflict of interest that closeted homosexual politicians have in affirming the public perception of their hetrosexuality by effectively killing people to do so that they have been outed. I think you're really missing the whole point. Its not hypocrisy or treachery, it is attacking gay people through legislation because of issues with their own sexuality, not in spite of it.

How is it not hypocrisy? Are you suggesting that politicians launch anti-Gay legislation due to the fact that they have issues with Gay people?

Please. American politicians of the right (especially in the rural south) bash gay people all the time because of fairly widespread homophobia. He uses homophobia to help his career, it should be viewed as nothing else.

But even more than that, here we have a case of a politician denying medical research because the disease in question is linked, by public perception, to gay men.

This scumbag plays the role of 'true believer' when he's on the campaign yet obviously has no personal problem with gay sex. I can guarantee that to him, like just about all Congressmen, that the decision to deny HIV/AIDS funding is nothing more than a political move. It's not because he has some issue with gay people per se.

Though I fully agree that it would never be 'sweet' to out someone who would like to keep their sexual preference discreet, and I truly believe that people should mind their own fucking business in this regard. That changes, however, when said person is in a position of power and uses that to bash gay people.

That's why I brought up another Louisiana politician, Senator David Vitter, who has voted against Same-Sex marriage on the stance that marriage is a sacred bond between a man and a woman. From wikipedia,


Vitter professes that marriage is a sacred vow between a man and a woman. In 2003, Vitter proposed to amend the U.S. Constitution to ban same sex marriages. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Vitter#cite_note-127)In 2004, he said, "This is a real outrage. The Hollywood left is redefining the most basic institution in human history...We need a U.S. Senator who will stand up for Louisiana values, not Massachusetts’s values."

I bring this up because in July 2007, it was found he was on the "DC Madams" list, which means he was engaging in prostitution. Personally, I have no problem with prostitution.

However, if you are going to enforce discrimination based on the reasoning that marriage is a 'sacred vow between a man and a woman' the standards are a little different. Indeed, if it is found that you don't even believe the shit you say to justify discrimination and have a hooker on the side of your marriage (without your wife's approval), then fuck you. It's a whole different ballgame.

I believe the same can be said of McCreary.


I'm sure the documentary itself will explain it a lot better than I ever could, but I really hate the idea of people rubbing their hands wanting to see this as a collection of caught-with-your trousers down scandals.

What are you suggesting? I'm supposed to feel sympathy for the personal issues of a man who's held power for years and, from that position, repeatedly worked to deny same-sex marriage, funding for HIV/AIDS research and treatment, as well as Gay adoption (not sure if that's the proper phrase) because it was politically convenient to do so?

No, too many people have died from HIV/AIDS in this country because of right-wing homophobic hysteria for me to see this as anything more than a political gain.

If McCreary gets troubled by it and can't handle the pressure, I'm not going to feel much sympathy after he's had a career with large benefits from homophobia. If, on the other hand, he admits to it and says it was a mistake to bash gay people --as opposed to saying it was a mistake to have sex with another man-- then I can respect him even if I don't agree with his political agenda.

[Pawn Power]

LP, your story was on the NPR today.

edit. by your story I mean that new movie you mentioned, Outrage.

edit II. Though they also talked to outed politicians and the issue in general.

[rogue]

Liking homo sex doesn't make someone magically have good politics. I don't know why you expected any different from them: members of the ruling elite are not on the side of the oppressed. The end.

Signed,
Former ACT UP Member

[Le Libérer]

Liking homo sex doesn't make someone magically have good politics. I don't know why you expected any different from them: members of the ruling elite are not on the side of the oppressed. The end.

Signed,
Former ACT UP Member I dont remember saying I expected any different from them, just that they need to be held accountable for their actions.

Its really interesting, here locally there is a segment of the gay community who are opting not to bring the film here, (though not sure of their reasons why) as part of a film festival. It has caused lines to be divided.

We are talking about a history of oppression within a group who is discriminated against. So yeah, rogue, there is definately elitism in this regard.

Remember our chant, "ACT-UP! Fight Back!"

[rogue]

I believe in fighting back, obviously, I just am not interested in singling out the gay folks and going after them. Politics is the basis for who I oppose, not some expectation of identity-based solidarity (which is the only logic for singling them out to oppose). You might not be surprised, but why hold them to a higher standard? They are the ruling class, it is not in their interest. No shock there. Oppose the entire ruling class, not just the gay ones, I say.

[Le Libérer]

I believe in fighting back, obviously, I just am not interested in singling out the gay folks and going after them. Politics is the basis for who I oppose, not some expectation of identity-based solidarity (which is the only logic for singling them out to oppose). You might not be surprised, but why hold them to a higher standard? They are the ruling class, it is not in their interest. No shock there. Oppose the entire ruling class, not just the gay ones, I say.
I was waiting for someone to come into this thread, and scream identity politics! But I was fighting this fight for years before I even knew the difference between identity politics and class struggles. Of course now, I adhere to class war, and until the revolution, I will do what I do. I have no intention of stopping.

Plus, thats why we have the discrimination forum, to discuss different aspects of oppression.

[Le Libérer]

An update on the documentary, Outrage will air on HBO.
http://www.hbo.com/apps/schedule/ScheduleServlet?ACTION_DETAIL=DETAIL&FOCUS_ID=706669
Genre: Documentary http://www.hbo.com/img/core_template/spacer.gif They fight against same-sex marriage, AIDS research and adoption by gay parents. But are they fighting themselves? This eye-opening film explores the disturbing phenomenon of allegedly closeted gay politicians who vote down pro-gay legislation--and get a free pass from the media. Probing the hidden lives of some of the country's most powerful policymakers, the film examines how these politicians may have betrayed the confidence of American voters by denying the truth about themselves...and how the media has been complicit in keeping these secrets. (R) (AC,AL)

[TC]

Not all men who have sex with men identify as 'gay', and homophobia is wrong, and equally wrong, regardless of who the homophobe is or what their sexual interests are.


When politicians enter the political arena, they are aware their personal lives will be under the microscope.

Maybe, but just because its a feature of bourgeois politics doesn't mean its something we should participate in. Publicly shaming people for sex, which is what is going on here, is not something we should participate in. Thats a tactic of the right.

As for hypocracy, I think thats a dangerous standard. If a politician who opposed the death penalty was 'outed' as having had an abortion by people who think that thats a hypocritical position, I would find that to be an order of magnitude more disgusting than simply criticizing their position.

Or, if its just for tactical purposes, then why not just make shit up?