I really don't have a problem with outing ANYBODY.

People who lead public lives, and who have pretenses of leading others, should be honest about who and what they are.

And that means that they should not be in the closet.

It's even more morally wrong if that politician is married and has kids, and is still leading a secret life of anonymous gay sex.

If they're willing to lie to their life partner, somebody they supposedly love and have sworn an oath to share their life with, you KNOW that they would lie to their constitutents in a heartbeat.

So I have no problem with closet gay politicians being outed - be they liberals like Barney Frank or neoconservatives like Larry Craig.

In the case of guys like Craig, as a straght man, I have a serious problem with the closet cases who prowl public mens rooms.

Those facilities are put there so people can have a place to relieve themselves when they're out and about.

They were never intended as a trolling grounds for the horny and deviant.

If Craig had just picked up the phone and got a male escort, or just gone down to Dupont Circle and picked up a guy in a bar, it would be one thing (he'd still be lying to his wife and his consitutents, but he wouldn't be sexualizing a public space).

But he chose to troll for sex in a restroom intended to enable male travellers to urinate and defecate before they catch their flight.

Apparently, enough Minneapolis Int'l Airport passengers were disturbed by the sexualization of their airport mens rooms that they complained to the cops - which is why a detective was stationed there, which is why Craig got caught out there.

Sadly, Craig STILL hasn't had the integrity to come out of closet, even though the whole world knows he's gay!!!

Over the last year, the topic of off-hand jokes overheard in the bathrooms at my mid-western workplace has shifted from "the Democrats are a bunch of wusses" to "the Republicans are creepy pervs."

I won't comment on the ethics of outing individuals, because I can see strong arguments on both sides. But I will say that it's nice to see "Republican morality" outed as the joke it's always been.

Honestly, I wish Larry Craig had pulled a McGreevey - announced that he's a "Gay American", left his wife, married a guy, and returned to public life as an out and proud gay man.

Instead, he's taking the coward's way out (and in a really sad and amazingly lame way - let's face it, if you have to have a televised press conference on the state capitol steps, with wifey at your side, to announce that "I Am Not Gay!!!!".... well, you might as well just go to the LGBT pride parade committee and apply to be the grand marshal next year!!!)

"So really, what's to gain from outing? I suppose it feeds into a larger narrative about Republicans being two-faced. It allows us to feel like we're "punishing" a politician who has long voted against fundamental rights for others. But beyond that...? "

The anti-abortion movement LOVES when women who have had abortions in the past crusade against abortions. The equivalent would be a politician who was gay and claims he was "cured." The comparison just doesn't work.

It's deterrence that goes well beyond punishment. Some male politicians desire simultaneously to (1) appear straight, even though they are having sex with men and (2) persecute gay people by enacting oppressive legislation. By threatening to out them, Rogers tells them they can have (1) or (2) but not both. If they want to stay in the closet, they have to give gay citizens the decency and respect they expect for themselves. Seems at least fair to me, if not downright generous.

What makes me angry about Craig's actions isn't that he was looking for gay sex, but how he went about it -- he fucking waved his hand under the stall of the guy next door to him and basically just acted really aggressive and creepy. He strikes me as somebody who doesn't understand that no means fucking NO, and for that part of it I don't feel bad that he was outed; Just like if some senator used a unisex restroom and solicited a woman for sex how Craig did, I'd have no pity. However, for public figures who have gay or lesbian relationships with people who are consenting, I think that's a little more tricky, even if they're Republicans. On the one hand, they are public figures, and as such they've consented to having their lives basically open to the press. On the other hand, ethics are different from laws, and we also don't know what motivates these men to be in the closet while simultaneously being Republican and/or anti-gay. It could be fear or self-hatred, or it could be simple greed and thinking you're above everybody else in your situation. And for the latter, I have no sympathy.

I am an Idahoan and I just have to say that it's not a problem for me if he's "outed" or not. The issue for me is his hypocrisy. He votes anti-gay, he is part of a party that is quite conservative in this state, and he pushes "family values". If he wasn't such a front man here for "family values" I don't think I would have so much issue with his "outing". Big deal if he's gay or not. The deal is that he's been lying, cheating on his wife and playing the dutiful Republican all the way along.

*I put family values in quotes because I want to emphasize that it is a subjective term. Family is a term that means different things to many people..he just happens to push hetero-based families hard. So that is the family values I put quotations around. Not that I agree with his views on family mind you! :)

Count me in as a person completely uncomfortable with the idea of "outing" anyone. I do understand and appreciate the exposure of someone like Craig as the hypocrite that he is, however, Ann's point is sound: people who DID support him now think he's a pervert. There's that evidence- those gays, man, they lie and have sex in gross places and isn't it vile??? That isn't the message any of us should want for the homosexual lifestyle.

GREGORY, I'm wondering how far you would take your stance? I, for one, have NO IDEA if Craig has an agreement with his wife (ala "open marriages!") or not. Maybe he has some serious denial issues. I don't frankly care. I think he's gross because of his position regarding equal rights for all people. Do I want to know the sexual proclivities of my politicians? Not really.

I agree, though, that the use of public space for sex is an unfortunate choice. Funny, though, how "mile high" clubs and sex in the bathroom between heterosexuals is usually glorified in film but here, with gay men, it's disgusting. I personally don't want to have sex where I defecate, but I wouldn't go so far as to say it's an unheard of, absolutely perverse thing.

It's deterrence that goes well beyond punishment. Some male politicians desire simultaneously to (1) appear straight, even though they are having sex with men and (2) persecute gay people by enacting oppressive legislation. By threatening to out them, Rogers tells them they can have (1) or (2) but not both. If they want to stay in the closet, they have to give gay citizens the decency and respect they expect for themselves. Seems at least fair to me, if not downright generous.

I'm going to agree with Unree, if a public figure is keeping their private lives to themselves (someone like Jodie Foster or Anderson Cooper who were unfairly "outed" by Out magazine a few months ago) then it's really none of my business unless they themselves decide to tell me, but when you've got politicians who are actively trying to take away the rights of other people, when they themselves ARE those other people, they deserve to be called out for their bullshit and hypocrisies.

Something good that is coming from this is that this behavior is being discussed out in the open. Say what you want about conservatives just brushing this away as "all gay men are perverts" they're doing that anyway and pretty much nothing is going to change their minds. Though if you have Republican after Republican who touts "family values" as their mantra and this shit keeps happening, then right wing supporters are going to have to realize that there really isn't a party that totally caters to them.

Dan Savage was on CNN a few days ago and he articulated how gay men who are out don't engage in this kind of behavior, it's the one's like Craig who do and I was happy to see a MSM source have this conversation. At some point the right wing is going to have to pull off their blinders.

I am sorry, straight or gay, in movies or not, sex in bathrooms- planes or anywhere- is gross. Ewww.

I think people should come out on their own terms. Being in the public eye doesn't give anyone the freedom to out them, if the outing is even true, which brings me to my next point. It seems that in pointing out the hypocrisy, people like Mike Rogers are still using "gay" as an insult, when "homophobe" or "bigot" is more appropriate and should be more insulting. There's no such thing as "acting gay" even if you strongly believe that heterosexists are only covering their own homosexual desires.

Ann, you laid out a scenario where the outing is inevitably followed by resignation and replacement by someone just as bad. Not always:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Kolbe

(And maybe Steve Gunderson, Wisconsin 3rd (ret's), but I don't recall if he was out when he ran or came out.

If guys like Graham and Drieir were out, would they still take the anti-gay stances they take? Or are those "cover" stances that would change if they were out? Kolbe is notably better out than in on GLBT issues, and Gunderson has long broken party lines -- inlcuding being the only Republican against DOMA. Now, maybe Graham would lose a primary challenge, but Dreier wouldn't.

I could get all partisan and say that getting Republicans who are bad on almost every issue to be better on one thing is not progress; but that's the Kos throw-folks-under-the-bus approach. More elected officials who are openly GLBT? Good. More legislators acting like adults on GLBT issues instead of voting like middle-schoolers afraid of losing access to the kool kidz table? Good. Exposing the anti-gay agenda as the province of religious zealots and self-haters? Good.

i agree with ultramagnus and unree, i think this ending quote says a lot-- "Here's the question: What community is expected to protect its own enemies? Don't beat up the gay community, and then expect us to protect your secrets and your double life."

while i have compassion for craig or an anti-choicer who had an abortion, i cannot forgive the fact that they have stomped all over the chance to have a worthwhile conversation about a subject they publicly abhor.

I feel as though it is wrong to "out" anyone who doesn't want to be outed. But, if they basically do that themselves, by, say, getting arrested for soliciting sex, that's their own fault. I don't think it's anyone else's business what anyone else does in their personal life, and that also applies to disgusting Republicans who make me cringe.

This is exactly what I thought of when you mentioned an anti-choice legislator having an abortion.

http://archive.democrats.com/display.cfm?id=159 -sorry, the link didn't work.

How about the double standards at play here?

Craig resigns after it is found out he solicited sex from another man, but how many male politicians have solicited sex/had extraneous affairs with women and still kept their jobs?

How about the double standards at play here?

Craig resigns after it is found out he solicited sex from another man, but how many male politicians have solicited sex/had extramarital affairs with women and still kept their jobs?

I'm ok with the outing of Republican congresspeople. While it's unethical to out people in general, public figures are different. They are not just regular people, they are also 'representatives.' Because they make laws that affect all of us, there is something larger-than-life about them. Ethical codes are insufficient when trying to figure out how to relate to such figures -- we need to supplement such codes with political calculations.

Ann makes some good points about the politics of outing gay Republicans, but ultimately I think that the possibility of splintering the Republican coalition is worth whatever negative social or political effects might come from outing a few gay Republicans. If enough white evangelical Christians would decide not to vote because they thought 'all politicians are immoral and corrupt,' the Democrats would make substantial gains, which would make, say, the passage of ERA, or ENDA, a much greater possibility. thats enough reason for me to say Mike Rogers should feel free to do what he will.

I kind of feel like people are taking a nasty sort of glee from the outing of these people. I'm angry at any politician or piece of legislature that discriminates on the basis of sexual orientation. And I think, not matter what kind of a person you are, you have the right to keep your sexuality private if you want it to be. My sex is mine, and it's no one's business to be outing me regardless of whether I fuck men or women. The reason that there is humiliation is because of a larger cultural problem with homosexuality, and deriving satisfaction from the humiliation of these politicians, even if they help to perpetuate this culture, serves to perpetuate it as well. It's like saying that repulsion to the idea of homosexuality is okay in this case, because they deserve it. I'm not okay with that.

“…were to send an anonymous tip to Feministing that a prominent anti-choice legislator had had an abortion in the not-too-distant past.�

There was an under-appreciated movie in 2000 (“The Contender�) with Joan Allen that posed a scenario just like this – Allen was a senator, nominated to fill a VP spot created by death of previous VP. She’s being dogged by a morality hypocrite and has the chance to expose a well-concealed abortion by the hypocrite’s wife.

It's a nice flick dealing with privacy issues, Joan Allen is really good in it. I think she and Jeff Bridges were both nominated for those fancy awards. So if you're at a loss this weekend....

I would totally be in favor of outing a male or female legislator who tried to criminalize abortion while hiding a past abortion in their background. That's the nadir of hypocrisy, and criminalization of, and restrictions on, abortion have far more serious consequences for women than lack of marriage or service in the military have on gays.

I definitely see what you're going for here, Ann, and in general I agree. The problem is, though, that in this particular case, not only does Craig happen to be of a party that does not support gay rights, but he has made his career on squashing those rights. So if we agree that outing people is a pretty crummy thing to do, what is the alternative? To watch quietly as someone hypocritally strips our friends and ourselves of our rights? I think it is important to note, as well, that those who are outing Craig and demanding he step down from office are not those involved in the LGBTQ community who feel betrayed by one of their own; they are, instead, those anti-gay ex-cohorts who feel tricked into thinking Craig toed the "family values" line.

I agree that coming out is something someone should do on their own terms, but people like Larry Craig, Bob Allen and Mark Foley need to have their hypocrisy exposed. Larry Craig and his co-closeteurs ARE perverts. An out-of-the-closet gay man can meet men the way the rest of us do, while closeted homobigots like him have to play footsie under the bathroom stall or hit on underage congressional pages. These are people whose entire careers are built upon denying gay people their basic rights, and when their hypocrisy is exposed, maybe their constituents will realize that all that "family values" legislation was a bunch of hot air. And anyway, Craig was forced to resign because Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell threatened to REALLY expose him; so it was a fellow Republican who pushed him out of office.

I see a slight difference between outing an anti-choice advocate who's had an abortion and outing a gay politician who does not support gay marriage. It's a slight difference, but a difference. In the case of an anti-choice advocate who has had an abortion, she is attempting to deny others the EXACT service that she had. In the case of gay marriage, unless the politician is in a gay marriage, he's not advocating banning others from what he has done.

Outing doesn't exist. What's going on is we are refusing to lie on behalf of someone.

"So if we agree that outing people is a pretty crummy thing to do, what is the alternative? To watch quietly as someone hypocritally strips our friends and ourselves of our rights?"

Exactly, Roro80.

Normally, a person's sexuality is their own business. But when they themselves have been trying to legislate discrimination against others based on their sexual practices, well, that person has just forfeited their right to sexual privacy.

This is the reason why I threw a fit when, years ago, Canadian PM candidate Stockwell Day said something like, "I know some homosexuals, and we can agree to disagree about gay marriage". It's one thing to say that as a next-door neighbour; it's quite a different thing to say that as someone trying for a position of dictating national policy.

Like others have said, this business of "outing" Craig and others can be justified on the grounds that they are public officials who make careers out of intruding into the private lives of citizens and trying to criminalize their behavior because it doesn't comply with some half-baked antiquated religious mores. I think its a great way to illustrate to those people exactly why, for the most part, private life should remain out of the law.
The problem of course is the way that most of the media and the far right seem to write off these cases, as lone bad apples. Or even worse, use these cases as a basis for an extended "gay-joke". It should be possible to expose these politilcians, but without resorting to mockery and hateful stereo-typing of minority groups.

I am all for outing hypocrisy, but a different aspect of the Craig scenerio bothers me. He was arrested for tapping his foot and waving his hand? What is that about? Yeah, ok, it can be argued that he intended to have sex in a public place, but it can also be argued that he intended to get a room and either way, how is that illegal? If a guy can legally say "hey baby, lets fuck" to me in a public place ,how is it that some obscure signaling in a bathroom is illegal?

I don't support outing anyone basis on their involvement with politics or their political parties.

However it is the responsibility of the media to expose political hypocrisy and I, as a voter want to know about it. A politician votes against gambling in their state but uses a private jet to gamble in another state on weekends? It's important. Another politician lobbies for campaign finance reform while accepting under the table donations? Their constituents see their hypocrisy.

It is vitally important that politicians that vote one way, but act another in private are exposed for the frauds they are, particularly if they use their power and influence to hide their actions. It's a sign they believe they are above the law. They believe certain options should only be available to the elite, instead of the average citizen. They support political positions they find untenable in their own lives, yet expect their supporters to follow. If honesty, consistency, morality, fairness and willingness to live by the laws they create aren't relevant to you, what criteria are you voting by?

Politicians should not be excused from these things because their hypocrisy is of a personal nature. People choose to go into politics, and again choose their political stance. If a politician votes down gay rights despite being in the closet, HE is politicizing his sexuality, not the public or the media. How people react to the revelation is beside the point. Politician need to be held to these standards regardless of the nature of their hypocrisy. It's a risk they accepted when they ran for office. I support reporting on Larry Craig's actions because hopefully up and coming politicians will realize they will be held responsible for their actions and vote accordingly.

kimberst: I think it's a matter of context and police involvement. That bathroom was enough of a known problem for public sex they had an officer staking it out. Craig acted in an aggressive and intrusive manner, grabbing under the stall and peeping through the crack. The officer interpreted that as trying to initiate a sexual encounter, a situation he was explicitly there to prevent. It's the context and circumstances of those actions that got him arrested. He could have gotten a lawyer and made a good case that his actions were circumstantial. Instead, he plead guilty.

The differences between that and someone propositioning you in a public place is that you're not a cop it's not a logical conclusion that the propositioner wants to have sex IN that public place or that anything else illegal would follow.

I think that anyone who uses their power (their elected or appointed position, public profile, or financial/social power), to further a set of goals that limits the choice (in the case of abortion) or the inclusion and safety (in the case of queer and gay rights) of others, while AT THE SAME TIME, using their power to get the exact thing (an abortion, the ability to have a sexual relationship with whomever they chose) they would deny to others, should be "outed".
The double standard I am concerned with is less the hypocrisy of 'they say this, but do that', and more that they use their power to deny rights to others while subsequently using that same power to enjoy these rights for themselves.
This is why Mary Cheney's private family life is a publicly relevant matter. She uses her power (her money and her relationship to the vice president of the USA) to live as she wants, in the relationship she wants, while at the same time working to support a party/government that seeks to deny those same rights to everyone else.
The same is true for an anti-choice crusader who has an abortion.
Of course, political views do evolve, as do people's lives, so it may not be fair to bring up someone's distant past and compare it to their current situation/political views for the sake of pointing out the hypocrisy.
(I'm thinking here about someone who had an abortion years ago, and then later became involved with anti-choice politics. The 'she says this, but did that' argument isn't very relevant in this case. However, the argument 'she had the opportunity to choose for herself, and now she wants to deny that choice to others' may still be useful.)
Essentially, I think that outing public figures for their (private) actions needs to be more about furthering discussion of the actual issues at stake. Otherwise, we will simply end up in a revolving cycle of outing, and punishing (by both sides).

I'm absolutely opposed to outing people.

One problem with outing people- even asshole politicians- is that it's using that person's sexuality against them as a weapon. I don't think that the gain is worth the loss. Sure, you can point out some level of hypocrisy, but you do so by, as someone else pointed out, throwing others under the bus. I don't think that's worth it. Who a person chooses to have sex with shouldn't matter to you unless you're trying to have sex with that person (assuming consent, obviously).

So if we agree that outing people is a pretty crummy thing to do, what is the alternative? To watch quietly as someone hypocritally strips our friends and ourselves of our rights?

I think that the alternative is to point out that he's a bigot, not that he's engaged in homosexual acts.

Another thing that troubles me is that the justification is, "Well, outing them exposes hypocrisy!" But... aren't most of us pretty much of the opinion that a person's sex-life should be a private thing? That the people with whom you have sex shouldn't matter? That your sex partners are your business and not the public's?

If so, isn't there a certain level of hypocrisy in outing people for political gain? It starts to sound like "Well, the end justifies the means- we're gaining political capital by outing these people, so it's okay when we do it." That doesn't really sit well with me. Does their hypocrisy make me want to throw something or scream? Absolutely. But, be that as it may, I don't think that justifies outing them.

Ultimately, we live in a nation where homosexuality is still taboo, and the choice to be out or not is pretty big. When we out people against their will, I think we probably make it harder for other people to choose to out themselves because they see homosexuality used as a weapon against people.

I think that anyone who uses their power (their elected or appointed position, public profile, or financial/social power), to further a set of goals that limits the choice (in the case of abortion) or the inclusion and safety (in the case of queer and gay rights) of others, while AT THE SAME TIME, using their power to get the exact thing (an abortion, the ability to have a sexual relationship with whomever they chose) they would deny to others, should be "outed".
The double standard I am concerned with is less the hypocrisy of 'they say this, but do that', and more that they use their power to deny rights to others while subsequently using that same power to enjoy these rights for themselves.
This is why Mary Cheney's private family life is a publicly relevant matter. She uses her power (her money and her relationship to the vice president of the USA) to live as she wants, in the relationship she wants, while at the same time working to support a party/government that seeks to deny those same rights to everyone else.
The same is true for an anti-choice crusader who has an abortion.
Of course, political views do evolve, as do people's lives, so it may not be fair to bring up someone's distant past and compare it to their current situation/political views for the sake of pointing out the hypocrisy.
(I'm thinking here about someone who had an abortion years ago, and then later became involved with anti-choice politics. The 'she says this, but did that' argument isn't very relevant in this case. However, the argument 'she had the opportunity to choose for herself, and now she wants to deny that choice to others' may still be useful.)
Essentially, I think that outing public figures for their (private) actions needs to be more about furthering discussion of the actual issues at stake. Otherwise, we will simply end up in a revolving cycle of outing, and punishing (by both sides).

sorry about the double post.