Shoving your sexuality where you won't publicly admit to wanting it...

I was listening to Unflitered on Air America Radio, as I often do to get me rage on in the morning, and they posed an interesting conundrum. John Aravosis, an ex-Republican aide, current-homosexual political activist, was on the show discussing the ethics of outing gay people on Capitol Hill. Aravosis has promised to out gay congressional members and staffers who are actively working towards making the Federal Marriage Amendment (the nice way of saying the "Marriage Ain't For Fags" Amendment) a reality. Is it right to out someone for political purposes? Even if those people are bringing great harm to people?

I'm personally torn. Usually my gut feeling is to fry the bastards, but this is a very difficult, personal thing. I'm uncomfortable with the idea of gay people using sexuality against one another and there is the very real chance that doing so would alienate a potential ally in an otherwise unfriendly office. But then again, if they are supporting the FMA they aren't an ally at all. And yet it's very insensitive towards a very personal process and that's not how liberals operate.

But this isn't about outing your local grocer or a school teacher (even though we can all think of a few limp-wristed pink-dress-shirt-wearing teachers who could have benefited from the honest truth back in high-school). We are talking about outing people who are actively crafting policy that will damn gays and lesbians to second class status. Working for this amendment threatens the community and is as tangible a case of self-loathing as could exist.

The terrible thing about this amendment is that not only will it deny my God-given right to register at William-Sonoma's, but it also could unravel all gay rights legislation in this country. Gay rights are all based upon the relationships we forge with one another, with the gender or who we love. If you make in unconstitutional to recognize such a relationship in one sphere, it's only a hop, skip, and Justice or two on the Supreme Court Bench from denying rights to homosexuals across the board. I know it's paranoid, but I'm not about to sit idly by and pretend it could never happen.

Being closeted infers that the individual recognizes his or her own sexual identity as GLBT but it also denotes a certain amount of fear or insecurity about the reaction one might receive if they came out. If attacking homosexuality in the political sphere, one forgoes one's right to the "protection" of the closet, because this is a PUBLIC denunciation of ones own identity. It's like Jack Ryan who ran on a platform of solid family values and then ruined his marriage through his insistence that his wife engage in sexual play in public sex clubs against her wishes.

Outing is a super complicated issue which I mostly oppose, but this case does have legitimate arguments in favor of the practice. Gays who are working to pass the FMA are essentially making sexual orientation into a political weapon, so perhaps they should be prepared to have it used against them.