Should all Republican gays be "outed?"

[Cyrano]

Evidently, many people in government were aware of Mark Foley's follies for years. And it also seems that many knew of Larry Craig's sexual preferences.

Bigots of all stripes have found a home in the Republican Party. We all know that Blacks, Hispanics, Asians, and many other "THEMS" are not welcome in the GOP's "big tent." But do I really need to review their endless hypocrisy?

We like to think we have a higher sense of morality and compassion than they do. And while I tend to think that outing all Republican gays would, in some way, be a just form of retaliation, I'm not really sure.

So here's my question. Should all closeted Republican gays be outed? Given how they have joined their party in bashing gays and doing there best to portray them as "child molesters," it would seem like outing them all would be an act of justice. What's your opinion?

[Warpy]

1. Although I'm generally against outing in private life,

when a man has abused his power by seeking to deny equal rights to and punish people for being exactly the same orientation he is, he deserves to be outed in the nastiest, most public way we can.

It's not the orientation, folks, it's the hypocrisy and the abuse of power.

[pacalo]

2. For me, it's a no-brainer: yes, they should be outed.

If they are bold enough to garner votes from the religious fundamentalists by speaking out against gays & supporting legislation that takes away or denies human rights from gays, then the hypocritical public servants more than deserve to have their true colors shown for all to see.

[stillcool]

3. I wish they could be 'outed'...

regarding the embezzlement and fraud they commit on a daily basis. Unfortunately that doesn't seem to matter so much.

[Nite Owl]

4. If they vote with

the GOP then yes they should because they are being hypocritical. If they vote for gay rights (don't know if there are even any they would fit this description) then it is no one's business.

[donheld]

5. Yes Yes Yes

If that's the question then in my mind the answer is an unwavering YES.

[madokie]

6. hard for me to answer that as I think there should be no reason for the closet in the first place

but all hypocrites should be though in our present climate of gay bashing

[lateo]

7. Absolutely.

[FreepFryer]

8. If they oppose rights for gays, and they are themselves gay, that should be public info. (nt)

[Ohio Joe]

9. No

Any person that is gay and a member of the GOP is seriously in need of therapy, not public humiliation.

[yardwork]

12. That reminds me of the old public information campaign against drunk drivers.

The voice over used to say, "Sure, let's get him some help. But first let's get him off the road."

I'm not interested in revenge. I'm interested in getting bad politicians out of office. If public outing will get them out of office, I'm in favor of it. I'm not sure it will work, though.

Republicans talk about "morality" but they worship only one god - the god of Mammon. Watch them find every excuse. Vitter's still in office. Looks like Craig might stay.

And Foley is a pedophile. Different from being gay.

[Ohio Joe]

14. Using someone sexuality against them...

with the single purpose of humiliating them in public is abhorrent to me regardless of anything else. Sorry, I will neither participate nor approve.

[yardwork]

22. Did you even read my post? I specifically stated that humiliation is not my goal at all.

In fact, I stated that my single interest is in getting Republicans out of office.

[Ohio Joe]

23. Yes, I did read it

However, saying you want to out them for their supports to see, therefor getting them out of office, IS humiliation to achieve your purpose. While you may state a different intention, the result is the same.

[yardwork]

24. I guess you're right. I really don't care if lying hypocritical Republicans get humiliated.

[MADem]

10. No, not "all." Only the ones who, by their words and votes in Congress,

act against others who are just like them. If they endorse the economic attitudes/less government philosophies of the GOP, well, that's one thing--it doesn't mean they necessarily embrace the homo-hatin', Jeebus-lovin' aspects endorsed by a segment of the party.

Look at Linc Chaffee or Jumpin' Jim Jeffords--could you ever see them crapping on gays? AFAIK, they aren't gay, but they were never onboard the "Let's Be Shitty To Gays" bus. I'm sure there are some gay GOP types who are the same way...they like the 'old school' GOP, not this fundy-moralist nonsense.

[Tesha]

11. Ayup.

I really don't think we need to worry about the
imaginary class of Republicans who vote *FOR*
gay rights; out them all and let the voters
sort it out.

Tesha

[bunkerbuster1]

13. Yes. they give you an opening, you take it.

They wouldn't hesitate for a nanosecond to screw us, given the opportunity.

In politics, playing fair is for losers.

[onenote]

15. so you would go beyond those in government and include private citizens as well?

based on what? those that give money to a repub candidate? register as a repub? In virginia, you don't have to register with a party, so what then? What about family members of repubs. Should they be outed as a way of revealing the hypocrisy of their repub family member? If a repub has a gay brother, should that be a matter of public record? If the rationale for outing them simply is that they are hypocrites for supporting someone who doesn't support gay rights, why not out any friends that they socialize with that are gay as well? (Straight Joe Repub had closeted gay best man at wedding so he's a hypocrite and thus friend should be outed?).

Slippery slope methinks.

[BlooInBloo]

17. It's only slippery *theoretically*, not practically.

[Cyrano]

21. Perhaps I wasn't specific enough. I was referring to elected Republicans and

their henchmen/hit-men.

[BlooInBloo]

16. I'm ok with it, but I understand why people would also be against it.....

... For myself, AmericaBlog being ok with it suffices for me.

[BuyingThyme]

18. No.

[Atman]

19. What gays? We have no such phenomenon in this country.

Just a bunch of confused straight people waiting for the Republicans to set the straight. So to speak.

.

[Cleita]

20. No. That would make us no better than the freepers.

There is plenty of other malfaesance to expose most of them for, like Jack Abramoff. Just follow the money and find out how corrupt they are politically.

[Cyrano]

25. The almost total corruption of the Republican Party is so incredibly obvious that

anyone who doesn't see it by now is willfully blind.

But given the vast number of homophobic Republican voters, it's an issue that would all but bury their party for perhaps the next 20 or 30 years.

Nonetheless, as I stated in the OP, I'm really ambivalent about whether or not every closeted Republican politician should be outed. As you say, we are not freepers. On the other hand, how many times are we going to let ourselves be kicked in the face without responding by any and all means?

[Cleita]

26. I think that eventually they will be outted by their own actions

like Senator Craig. We don't need to lower ourselves to it. Someone will come forward and tell on them that either were solicited for sex with them, saw them have sex or had sex with them. It never fails, really.

But from my POV, I don't like delving into the sex lives of our elected representatives even if they are hypocritical. We need to stick to those issues where they are abusing the power of their office for personal gain. This means they aren't doing their job and should be exposed for it and any other criminal behavior they commit in the job.

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

27. "Outed"? no. "Ousted", yep

ousted along with the rest of the big-oil, big-pharm, big-military/industrial/complex mfers.

If we got rid of folks just for being hypocrites, both sides of the aisle would take big hits.

But "outing" as a political weapon is just another expression of homophobia. To me, the issues should be war, health, education, economy. Not party-specific gay bashing.

[Cyrano]

30. IMO, the majority of Americans already know about the Republican tie-ins

to big-oil, big-pharm, big-military/industrial/complex mfers. And the price they've paid to date has been zero, zilch, nada.

They own the the major media which is their echo chamber, distracts their rank and file voters from reality, and gets them to vote against their own interests.

As of today, the Republican Party still "owns" the South due to "the Southern strategy" started by Richard Nixon and carried on by every Republican presidential nominee. But how long will "the South will rise again" die-hards stick with a Republican Party made up of people like Foley, Craig, and who knows how many others like them?

So what I'm really asking here is, should we use the one big issue on which Republicans have made themselves vulnerable -- gays. Most people will put up with all kinds of hypocrisy, but homophobia seems to be the single issue that can change the equation. Which brings me back to my original question. Should every gay Republican politician be outed?

[truebrit71]

28. If they oppose gay-rights and support a virulent anti-gay policy then I say YES.

Show them up to be the hypocrits they are...

[insleeforprez]

29. Not all Republicans

Just socially conservative ones that vote against their own self interest.

[Arugula Latte]

31. If they vote against rights for gay people ---> yes. nt

[Pyrzqxgl]

32. It matters a lot if they are vocal gay bashers.

[in_cog_ni_to]

33. YES...any "family values, holier-than-though, anti-gay" HYPOCRITE should be outed. n/t