Box Turtle Bulletin
News and commentary about the anti-gay lobby“Now you must raise your children up in a world where that union of man and box turtle is on the same legal footing as man and wife…”
News and commentary about the anti-gay lobbyA Commentary
July 26th, 2012
I grew up in a smallish town in which my father was a church pastor. Which means that his life – and that of his family – was subjected to constant scrutiny. And what might be considered the height of rudeness if others were to face it was justified due to the ever present threat of possible hypocrisy. And, of course, any deviation from perfection in his children is evidence that he’s not a man of God.
So decisions which others chose with ease had to take public perception into consideration. What car you drive, where you go on vacation, what clothes you wear all are up for public debate. And if you don’t like it, well then you shouldn’t have become a minister, should you!
Consequently, privacy was highly valued in my family. So much so that secrecy – to the point of serious dysfunction – ruled the way in which my family was structured. Combined with temperament and natural reticence, this pretty much destroyed any interpersonal relationships that normally develop within a family structure.
So it through the lens of this experience that I view debates about outing. I’m intimately aware of the damage done to family and associates who are impacted by a belief that the public is entitled to know details of someone’s life. And I have some hint at the price paid by those “in the public eye” to live with some semblance of normalcy.
But it isn’t just my childhood that flavors the way in which I think about outing and other issues of privacy. I’m a blogger who uses his real name and whose opinions are not always popular. Some who don’t agree with my views would feel no reservation about trying to use situations in my life to discredit my views. And they feel that because I choose to make my views public that they are therefore entitled to engage in personal destruction.
But what do people have a right to know? I don’t mean a legal right, of course, but what is fair game? What is reasonable?
Many have set the standard to be what they consider “hypocrisy”. But their definition of hypocrisy too often sounds like “disagreeing with me”.
For example if someone is gay – and not public about that fact – and takes a position of disagreement on an issue like same-sex marriage, that’s “hypocrisy” to those who see them as a political obstacle rather than a person. But hypocrisy is exhibiting one public position and secretly holding a different position or benefiting somehow from that which you publicly oppose. We know openly gay people who do not support marriage equality (or didn’t in the past) so we know that one does not equate the other.
But still many in our community have come to expect that if someone that they have heard of is gay, then they have the right to know it. Even absent some real or imagined hypocrisy, that there is an obligation on the part of someone like Sally Ride to make her orientation a public statement. They have the right to know.
Often this is justified by insisting that they, the person demanding, are not closeted. They are perfectly open to all of their family, or most of their family and many of their acquaintances. And that is probably true. But so was Sally Ride.
But because Sally was successful and accomplished – because they had heard of her – they want more. They insist that Sally be open to total strangers, people whom she doesn’t know or trust. And they want Sally to take on the cause of gay rights – to fight their battles for them. Because that’s what coming out means when you are a celebrity of sorts – that’s the issue that journalists and legislators and random people on the street will ask you about. Or curse you about. Or denounce you about.
Few of us seek out public attack. But yet for some reason we think it reasonable to demand that others subject themselves to that which we avoid simply because they are famous. That they are hypocrites from benefiting from rights that we – albeit behind the veil of obscurity – have fought so hard for.
And others see “hypocrisy” in those who seek to make spirituality a part of their lives. And there certainly is plenty in the lives of those who practice their religion as a form of political oppression.
But it is not hypocrisy to see the flaws, temptations, and difficulties in your own life and declare them to be less than ideal. And if you listen closely to most religious speakers, ministers, or counselors, you hear very little condemnation of others that does not include recognition of their own failings. This tradition in Christianity goes back to the Apostle Paul who wrote, “For I have the desire to do what is good, but I cannot carry it out. For I do not do the good I want to do, but the evil I do not want to do—this I keep on doing.”
And some seem to believe that simply speaking publicly gives them a right to the details of your life. Or, as Azariah Southworth said in justifying his vague but suggestive outing of young Christian writer Jonathan Merritt, “Transparency is required of anyone who chooses to lead discussions on a large public platform.” He didn’t even pretend that Merritt was a hypocrite; all that mattered was that Jonathan moved in conservative Christian circles (though as a voice of moderation), that he had on at least one occasion engaged in some level of intimacy with Azariah, and that he knew this fact would discredit Merritt.
Of course, Southworth is not “transparent”. None of us are. We all have secrets, situations, history, flaws, judgment errors, or just embarrassing moments that we want to put behind us. We all have areas we seek to overcome or advance past or goals left unaccomplished. I have many skeletons, and I want them kept firmly in the closet where they belong (and please do not view this as a Gary Hart invitation).
Who has a right to know? What is “a large public platform”? What is fair game, or is anything at all off limits?
I understand the frustration with those who want to benefit from the hard work that some do while taking no risk themselves. But what are we entitled to demand of others?
I guess I wouldn’t be as troubled if those who did the demanding held themselves to the same cost. Not “the same standard”, because that’s just another way of saying “you must make the same decisions as me”. But the same cost. If they were willing to pay the same costs that they demand in others.
Sadly, that seldom is the case.
I learned something very young: those who want to know your secrets are usually extremely protective of their own. The type who were quick to gossip about my family’s life would be horrified if my father were to casually drop the flaws and mistakes about which they sought spiritual counsel. And, indeed, they should be; but they didn’t see that what was a given for themselves was worth considering for others.
In a culture that seems to find an increasing gap between rights and obligations, I worry about the ever growing assumptions that we have in a right to know the details of the lives of others. What was off-limits in celebrity rags just a decade ago is now de rigueur. And people are increasingly incensed if a public figure – no matter how they became “public” or how hard they seek to protect their privacy – does not divulge their dirty laundry. “I’ve heard of you” seems to be the only criteria for turning the personal into the public realm.
But I hope that as we go forward into an age of increasing visibility in which technology makes the very possibility of privacy elusive, that we keep in mind that our targets are people and that it is we, not they, who are flawed when we demand of them that which we are not willing to pay.
And as a starting spot, maybe we should ask ourselves this, can we ask for the details of a person’s life while hiding behind an online identity that shields our own? Can we insist that “public” people reveal their finances when we would tell anyone so bold as to ask our salary, “That’s none of your business!”? Can we insist that the details of a scandal be explained in minutia if we would find such an exposure to be horrifying?
I know that there are very valid reasons for some outing. And I know that my experiences flavor my views in ways that others’ experiences do not. But as we each take our position on outing and when it is appropriate, I hope we keep in mind that our targets are human and that they experience the same levels of pain and humiliation that we experience. And let us soundly reject the “transparency is required” standard proposed by Southworth.
If we do not, we soon will find that the only ones willing to speak are those who champion conventionality – and have limited their lives accordingly – or those who are so desperate that they have nothing to lose. And while these voices should be a part of the conversation, we will lose those from whom we may benefit but who do not want the details of their life to be the conversation.
Latest Posts
Featured Reports
In this original BTB Investigation, we unveil the tragic story of Kirk Murphy, a four-year-old boy who was treated for “cross-gender disturbance” in 1970 by a young grad student by the name of George Rekers. This story is a stark reminder that there are severe and damaging consequences when therapists try to ensure that boys will be boys.
When we first reported on three American anti-gay activists traveling to Kampala for a three-day conference, we had no idea that it would be the first report of a long string of events leading to a proposal to institute the death penalty for LGBT people. But that is exactly what happened. In this report, we review our collection of more than 500 posts to tell the story of one nation’s embrace of hatred toward gay people. This report will be updated continuously as events continue to unfold. Check here for the latest updates.
In 2005, the Southern Poverty Law Center wrote that “[Paul] Cameron’s ‘science’ echoes Nazi Germany.” What the SPLC didn”t know was Cameron doesn’t just “echo” Nazi Germany. He quoted extensively from one of the Final Solution’s architects. This puts his fascination with quarantines, mandatory tattoos, and extermination being a “plausible idea” in a whole new and deeply disturbing light.
On February 10, I attended an all-day “Love Won Out” ex-gay conference in Phoenix, put on by Focus on the Family and Exodus International. In this series of reports, I talk about what I learned there: the people who go to these conferences, the things that they hear, and what this all means for them, their families and for the rest of us.
Prologue: Why I Went To “Love Won Out”
Part 1: What’s Love Got To Do With It?
Part 2: Parents Struggle With “No Exceptions”
Part 3: A Whole New Dialect
Part 4: It Depends On How The Meaning of the Word "Change" Changes
Part 5: A Candid Explanation For "Change"
At last, the truth can now be told.
Using the same research methods employed by most anti-gay political pressure groups, we examine the statistics and the case studies that dispel many of the myths about heterosexuality. Download your copy today!
And don‘t miss our companion report, How To Write An Anti-Gay Tract In Fifteen Easy Steps.
Anti-gay activists often charge that gay men and women pose a threat to children. In this report, we explore the supposed connection between homosexuality and child sexual abuse, the conclusions reached by the most knowledgeable professionals in the field, and how anti-gay activists continue to ignore their findings. This has tremendous consequences, not just for gay men and women, but more importantly for the safety of all our children.
Anti-gay activists often cite the “Dutch Study” to claim that gay unions last only about 1½ years and that the these men have an average of eight additional partners per year outside of their steady relationship. In this report, we will take you step by step into the study to see whether the claims are true.
Tony Perkins’ Family Research Council submitted an Amicus Brief to the Maryland Court of Appeals as that court prepared to consider the issue of gay marriage. We examine just one small section of that brief to reveal the junk science and fraudulent claims of the Family “Research” Council.
The FBI’s annual Hate Crime Statistics aren’t as complete as they ought to be, and their report for 2004 was no exception. In fact, their most recent report has quite a few glaring holes. Holes big enough for Daniel Fetty to fall through.
“Google” is a trademark of Google Inc.
© Box Turtle Bulletin. All Rights Reserved.
Posts 
Posts via daily email:
Tybalt
July 26th, 2012
‘let us soundly reject the “transparency is required†standard proposed by Southworth.’
Hear hear.
Gene in L.A.
July 27th, 2012
Sally Ride was certainly not a hypocrite in any of the ways you talk about; but a secretly gay person who supports and actively campaigns for laws that penalize the rest of us for who we are is not someone for whom I can produce much empathy. There are times when outing is required simply for our preservation. If it subjects the outed person to public censure or discomfort, boo-hoo, I do not care.
tristram
July 27th, 2012
Lot’s of good thoughts and questions in this post.
But one question has me stumped because it seems so out of synch with the rest of the discussion –
Can we insist that “public†people reveal their finances when we would tell anyone so bold as to ask our salary, “That’s none of your business!�
By “public people” do you mean presidential candidates? If so, the answer is unequivocally “Yes.”
Hyhybt
July 27th, 2012
::APPLAUSE::
If someone is using their position to cause harm, and if outing them would cause them to lose that ability, and if they really are gayetc, then outing them is simply self defense. Otherwise, it’s nobody’s business unless they want to make it so.
As for Sally Ride… did any reporter or whatever ever even ASK her? Regardless of anything else, you can’t rationally accuse someone of keeping their personal life a secret if nobody’s ever shown interest in hearing about it in the first place.
Matt Kennedy
July 27th, 2012
I have to say that I disagree with your assessment that Azariah outed Merritt to discredit him. Perhaps it is just my perspective, but that was not the impression I got from his post at all. If anything it may have the opposite effect since Merritt seems to be taking the ex-gay approach and claiming that his homosexuality is only the result of being molested as a child. From what he’s said so far he sounds more like a potential poster boy for fundamentalist that want to claim change is possible (even though even Exodus has now repudiated that idea).
Ed
July 27th, 2012
I think what we’re missing by focusing on Merritt’s supposed hypocrisy is how disingenuous his argument is. Boycotts and protests by conservative Christian groups have been largely ineffective, while those of gay groups often are. Look at the heat Cracker Barrel took, even back when homophobia was still socially acceptable, and look at the about-faces pulled by companies like Target, Tom’s Shoes, And Jitters ‘n Bliss when they’re called on there associations with bigots. Compare that to the yawns and brush-offs that greet the latest Focus or NOM boycott. I don’t think he dislikes boycotts for the reasons he states in his column. He dislikes they don’t work for his side.
Gus
July 27th, 2012
Pastor’s kid here, too. The BIG problem for my family members when I came out in 1974 was I was not ashamed when asked in public. It was OK for me to be gay, but don’t ever show up with my partner and never at a church function or where members might be. To this day it still is a problem for them even in their own homes. I may show up with my partner of 27 years when it is just our family, no in-laws, and never at any more public occasion.
I am to attend alone and show what my family called “church face.”
CPT_Doom
July 27th, 2012
For example if someone is gay – and not public about that fact – and takes a position of disagreement on an issue like same-sex marriage, that’s “hypocrisy†to those who see them as a political obstacle rather than a person.
But it’s more than that Timothy. It is not simply about people taking a position that disagrees with the LGBT rights movement. Almost without fail, taking the non-equality position also means signing on to the anti-gay propaganda used to denigrate, demean and dehumanize all LGBT people. The hypocrisy comes in when people claim to be staunch defenders of “family values,” and promote the idea that LGBT Americans must be opposed to those values, yet those same individuals are proof that the anti-gay lies are untrue. Outing them serves that purpose.
I personally don’t see any hypocrisy in Dr. Ride’s decision to wait until death to come out; what I feel is sadness that she felt the need to hide the truth about her life in order to do what she wanted to do. She clearly understood the importance of her decision to come out, as was expressed by her sister (also a lesbian, btw), who noted the LGBT community, like the community affected by pancreatic cancer (to which I also belong – my mother died of the disease 15 years ago) now have a hero they didn’t know about before.
What I do see as hypocrisy is in our American society. As you noted, privacy is vital to all of us, and many good-thinking straights will insist that a person’s homosexuality does not matter to them – “I don’t care what they do in the privacy of their bedroom” is a typical response. But what they don’t perceive is the double standard. Marriage and family are not private things, they are part of our public face, at least for straight people. Marriages and engagements are announced in newspapers and online because people are proud of their choices and because they want their new family to be accepted and integrated into their communities.
Dr. Ride, even though she worked hand-in-hand with her partner for years, did not feel the same freedom to celebrate her choice of partner or integrate her family fully into her community. In fact it is likely she would not have been invited into the community of space travellers had she been open about her life – even after her trips to space. Dr. Ride suffered because of that hypocrisy, she certainly did not cause it.
Jay
July 27th, 2012
I agree with Gene of LA above re Sally Ride. She was no hypocrite, she supported gay rights, she lived openly and honestly, and she arranged to come out in her obituary. She strikes me as entirely admirable person. She was not obligated to be a role model and she probably thought that being out might negatively impact her work with children.
The journalist campaigning against equal rights is another matter altogether. He deserved to be outed.
In any case, why is it that bigotry in the name of religion is given a pass in this society? It seem to me that homophobia is evil whether it is cloaked in religious rhetoric and belief or not.
Ms Rowena
July 27th, 2012
Tricky wickets here. I think I’ve paid just about every price for being out, short of being killed. Kicked out of the family, beaten up, fired from jobs, etc. (you can tell I’m an old heffer, lol).
Sometimes I think our most dangerous enemies are the closet cases. And yet they are also the most damaged among us, and may never heal.
That doesn’t mean I think they should be allowed to hinder our progress toward recognition of our rights, our equal status. But they are often our brothers and sisters, so wounded, so terrified, as to be unable to accept and love what they see in the mirror, so they strike outward instead.
I’m not sure I can think of a worse punishment for the harm they inflict; what a bitter life of unhappiness and loneliness they have.
Ben In Oakland
July 27th, 2012
Of all of the so-called moral controversies one could take up, outing appears to me to be one of the least about morals. The waters are way too muddy from my perspective. Arguing about the morality of outing is to create a moral question where there isn’t one. The right or wrong of it is a matter of opinion. What is always true is the reality of consequences.
I’ve always seen outing in this context—reality and consequences. Reality: any gay person who sticks his/her nose out of the closet, from posting anonymously on a website to getting blowjob in a restroom in minneapolis, runs the risk of being known or thought of as a homosexual. The consequences of being out and/or outed can range from a parade to murder– depending on who and where you are. And any gay person who lives an out and proud life takes the chance of great joy, or equally, severe retribution. A secret told, no matter how quietly, is not a secret. Merritt told his secret, and now he’s all butthurt that it’s no longer a secret.
There are no rewards and no punishments. There are only consequences. And Mr. Merritt, honey, you’re not allowed to escape them.
There are two sets of consequences. First, there are the consequences for being homosexual. Straight people who hate gay people, and more importantly, wanna-be-straight-but-ain’t’s, have set up those consequences wherever possible to be negative; they should not be surprised if those consequences ensue. Merritt, in his theological position, apparently agrees. Nor are they allowed to avoid those consequences, because they are responsible, as are all of us, for their actions. To say that they deserve a break from those consequences would be self serving of them, to say the least, and is an argument against the validity of the disapproval and sanctions to begin with. “You should be punished, but I shouldn’t be, because I am on the side of the right, except when I’m on my knees in a mensroom in Minneapolis.” This does not cut it as a defense or an excuse.
Then there are the consequences of hypocrisy. These can range from public disgrace to laudatory hymns of praise, and also depend on who and where you are. Wide Stance Larry suffered a lot of public embarrassment, but stayed in the Senate, as did Vitter. Such is its privilege. Ted Haggard believed his own press (I’m God’s right-hand man) and bit the balls he was licking– always a mistake when someone’s foot is in your groin. My experience with holier-than-thou Christians is that they really only like the kind of hypocrisy that allows them to maintain their myths of moral and spiritual superiority. Even the apologies for slavery and segregation, for the catholic pedophilia scandal in all of its disgusting glory, contained a subtle bid for reasserting moral superiority– we used to think that but way, now we’re even better than before. We finally have it right. The kind of hypocrisy that reveals them to be no better than anyone else– or quite a bit worse– is really not going to be tolerated.
And here’s the crux of the issue, and why this is not a question of morality at all, but of hypocrisy. When the gay haters out people, it is good. DADT is the perfect exemplar of that thinking. But when we out people, it is bad. Really, in either case, it is simply a matter of the consequences which other people have set in motion. And what about someone like Merritt who, though he has attempted to maintain the advantages (to himself) of the closet, outed himself by having consensual homosexual sex with another man? Did he say a word about that? No, he wanted to appear heterosexual, and maintain the from-birth advantages of that status, the cost to other gay people be damned.
He might not be a grade-A hypocrite– Craig, Haggard, Eddie Long, Gingrich, and Vitter are way out of his league. But he is certainly in there trying, at least on this issue. The substance of a good life, which I believe lies in integrity more than anything else, is in question.
You might say he has been trading his pottage for a mess o’ birthright…
The immorality of what is done to gay people world-wide on a daily basis is where the actual roots of the problem lie. Immorality begets immorality, lies beget lies, hate begets hate, and all of it begets CONSEQUENCES.
Consequences, not morality, not ethics. But if you don’t attack the roots, the weeds still sprout in the garden.
Blake
July 27th, 2012
You’re conflating “The Closet” with other privacy concerns. The Closet is a unique beast. The Closet, for one, is distorted by politics. Any open display of our sexuality is tied invariably to politics because it is a political issue. We cannot move past the political nature of our open expressions of love until the closet is defeated by true equal treatment before the laws (and not then, probably, until people stop trying to “put us back in our place.”).
Sally Ride along with every other person partially in the closet, through their inaction, are taking a politically opposed position. They are implicitly agreeing with bigots who tell us we should be ashamed. They are demonstrating the act of shame by hiding and obscuring.
Do I believe in outing people a la the example? No.
Do I believe that people in the Closet should be out? Yes and I will resent those who are not.
The sense of hypocrisy which justifies my resentment does not rest on the right to one’s private information but on the reaping of the benefits of those who came before without the risk. That Sally Ride lived her privileged comfortable Lesbian life without risking a fraction of what has already been paid is galling.
Since the very beginning of our struggle people have been paying terrible wages so that you and me and Sally Ride could have the things they lost forever. That one can stand on the shoulders of those who were killed, imprisoned, fired, exiled, and still reap the benefits of those very sacrifices without exposing themselves is such a demonstration of blatant egotistical-hypocrisy that it leaves me breathless. Is the hypocrisy mitigated by Ride’s other good? A bit. She’s still a hero. But she’s also a disappointment.
She’s a disappointment because it took so long for our country to see her and people like her’s potential. Really America? The 80’s? Bronze is the best we could do? She’s also a disappointment because at the same time she was breaking down barriers of an intolerant culture she was upholding others tenants of the same awful cultural ideal.
And the pain that would have resulted from her coming out? The wages she was laying down for those that are coming behind her. But if you’re not willing to pay that wage someone else will have to. You’re only deferring collective pain. We all dream for the day when an astronaut on the launching pad can say “I love you” to his/her spouse regardless of their respective genders. As long as you embrace the Closet, you are not working toward that goal.
Sally Ride could have made that a reality in all of our lifetimes. She did not. Now it’ll fall on some other astronaut. But more likely it’ll fall on some kid in some bubba-fuck town who’ll have to take all the abuse, lose a bunch of his friends, and still live out and proud, and in doing so, will do his little part to change people’s attitudes so that future generations don’t have to make the same sacrifices he did. So that gay kids younger than him don’t have to go through the same pain and loss he experienced.
I cannot live in dishonor of the past sacrifices which have allowed me to live my life in liberty; no matter the cost to me. I will resent all of you who do. And my resentment will be in proportion to your public exposure. It is not that you’re known to me; it’s that you have much larger influence than I do despite the pain and scarifies that I’ve put myself through.
The reality of celebrity is that it moves more people. Rendered in Pop-philosophy: “With great [influence] comes great responsibility.” A pastor’s opinion is going to be more damning than a butchers. An astronauts life is going to be more significant than a paralegal’s.
Think of Magic Johnson & all the hearts & minds he changed so that those everyday folks, those little people, who came behind him didn’t have to suffer in the same degree of stigma. He didn’t have to do that, but he did & the world is better for it. Sally Ride could’ve done that. But she chose to defer the pain on back down to us kids, who at that time, were just coming out. We had to suffer because Sally Ride and all you other closet cases refuse to suffer.
So what is fair game? That which is political. An individual might feel that by obscuring their sexuality they are not making a political statement, but they are. A politician might feel that their tax returns fall outside the realm of political discourse, but not when the issues before the nation are tax reform. If you’re going to run for president when the nation is in a terrible place financially expect your own financial information to be fair game. If we were in the height of an economic boom no one would care about your tax returns (alright some would care, but it would not have the ability to color a campaign like it does right now).
Chuck
July 27th, 2012
I am a PK as well, and have had similar childhood experiences to the ones you had. As such, I also feel that we are becoming too preoccupied with “outing” people who speak against our cause.
I feel it does nothing to serve our cause, and may even harm us, but I also recognize the defensive nature of it. LGBT communities are attacked from many areas of the board, and we have been driven into corners. When we “out” someone who has taken a position against us, it’s akin to de-clawing the power that person has against us. He or she becomes demoted in the eyes of their community, and they will have a difficult time to recover.
Is it moral? Does it really do anything in the long-term? No. For every single one we out, not only are we ruining their social standing, but there will always be someone to replace him or her.
The biggest hypocrisy I see is in those who, like you said, are zealously in the mind of outing others, and it seems to me, that they eventually even discriminate against those within their movement for “not doing enough” or “not lending their support”. They are viciously defensive, and feel attacked on all sides, and the victim mentality has been beat into them so well, they they will furiously defend themselves.
Nathan F
July 27th, 2012
“We know openly gay people who do not support marriage equality”
Do we? I certainly don’t. Can you name three? I’m sincerely curious.
I know gay people who do not personally want to marry for one reason or another, but I do not know any openly gay people who oppose equal access to marriage.
Neil
July 27th, 2012
I agree with Ben in Oakland. The closet is not about a right to privacy. It’s about the consequences of being LGBT. If you have an elevated profile and you ever admit to or act on same-sex attraction then there’ll quite likely be speculation. At some point you’ll likely have to deal with coming out (even if to make a denial).
Back in more racist times, some people of mixed parentage had the choice to “pass” as white merely by allowing people to assume their race based on appearance. There was an understandable temptation for such people to avoid the negative characterisation of an unpopular minority. The consequences of their fall from majority grace if their heritage was discovered were significant. Over time, due to civil rights campaigning, much less so now. Does anyone even attempt to “pass” as white any more?
Many would empathise with the choice to escape minority circumstances. It seems only humane to want an individual to avoid a difficult status. Surely we’ve come far enough in 2012 that the mere fact of having a same-sex partner isn’t somehow nobody’s business.
I’m not sure that Sally Ride is a good example. I’m not aware of any denials on her part. But then it sounds like, from the description of her relationship, she was as good as married. I suppose you could say a person’s permanent life partnership may be a matter of discretion, although it so rarely is for straight people. I don’t have any idea whether Sally Ride put any effort into discretion. I’m guessing that as was more typical in the past, people (ie, the press) chose not to mention the awkward detail it in public.
Outing isn’t so much a matter of privacy. It’s more about refusing to accept shame. I think it’s usually the better part of valour to let people come out in their own time. I also think if that they’re outed otherwise, it might be considered discourteous but surely in a developed country in 2012, no big deal.
Donny D.
July 28th, 2012
Chuck wrote,
Oh really? Who replaced George Rekers?
Jerry Sloan
July 28th, 2012
I think every glbt person has to heed Harvey Milk’s repeated call to “come out, come out wherever you are!” He said it was for the kid in Altoona or Des Moines.
Sally Ride’s final act to come out in her obiturary is laudable but I think it would have been much more meaningful for that kid in Altoona or Des Moines to have known about it when she was alive and able to talk about it in public.
At least here in California in our schools we can add her name to the list of accomplished GLBT persons in our science and history classes.
Hyhybt
July 29th, 2012
“Do we? I certainly don’t. Can you name three? I’m sincerely curious. I know gay people who do not personally want to marry for one reason or another, but I do not know any openly gay people who oppose equal access to marriage.”—I don’t know any, but I know *of* them; there have been some in Britain arguing against marriage because they already have civil partnerships, and I’ve run into some commenters here and there who like to rant about “assimilation” and claim gay people are totally different than straight people and (not their words, precisely, but clearly the sentiment) that we should not only go back to things like anonymous bathroom sex, but also work towards making fully public sex acceptable for everybody.
And they’re clearly *serious* about this.
David Malcolm
July 30th, 2012
As somebody who was outed, this whole thing with Merritt didn’t seem fair. He got outed for arguing that people shouldn’t stop eating fried chicken? Really?
Honestly I like Azariah, I follow him on Facebook … partially because he’s cute as a button. But this guy wasn’t saying anything that was going to make a kid put a gun in his mouth. He was probably just saying the worst he was ever going to say, and Southwroth took that as an excuse to out him. I hate to say it but the kid wants to matter. He’s cute, he’s used to people treating him well and my guess is that when the shit storm calmed down after he came out, he wanted back in on the action. Maybe he didn’t even realize he was doing it, heck I’ve done similar things (though thankfully not quite as hurtful I don’t think) sometimes when you get used to fighting you forget what it’s like to not look at everyone else as an enemy.
Leave A Comment