I Know All I Want To Know About the Outing Game

Mary Katharine Ham
|
Posted: Oct 18, 2006 12:47 PM

First there are snitches.

Then there are lies.

And, then before you know where you are, you're being outed by a gay gangster who claims he knows people who caught you with your Senatorial pants down in the men's room at Union Station with same-sex partners, even though you're a Republican and a member of the most socially conservative singing group of all time-- the Singing Senators.

And, he must reveal all, because of the HYPOCRISY, to use a Goldstein-ism.

Craig is denying the allegations.

This is a really serious matter. If Michael Rogers, who I've pointed out is a jerk on numerous occasions, wants to out people, he should at least have better info than this:

I have done extensive research into this case, including trips to the Pacific Northwest to meet with men who have say they have physical relations with the Senator. I have also met with a man here in Washington, D.C., who says the same -- and that these incidents occurred in the bathrooms of Union Station. None of these men know each other, or knew that I was talking to others. They all reported similar personal characteristics about the Senator, which lead me to believe, beyond any doubt, that their stories are valid.

Ooh, and I heard that Kathy and David did the deed under the bleachers at Friday's football game. For real. Would I lie to you?

So utterly lame as a political point and so utterly vile as a personal matter. You're battin' a thousand, there, Rogers! Keep it up and you may swing the GOP back into both Houses yet!

The Kos Kidz rally 'round the forcible outing flag in the name of peace and tolerance, or something.

If you're republican (12+ / 0-)

you're anti-gay. Ipso fatso.

  • Yes, really- how many Republicans don't gay-bash? (14+ / 0-)

    Maybe a few. How many Republicans decry gay-bashing? None whom I can think of. Anybody got some exceptions to cite?


Hmm, how many would decry a nasty, tacky violation of the the privacy of Members of Congress, based solely on their sexuality? Who are the conservatives who would do that? I just can't seem to think of any.

Oh, but some of us oppose the legal redefinition of marriage, so we all hate "The Gay," right? 

Via Instapundit, Ann Althouse has this to say:

I think aggressive characters like our "lefty blogger" think that uncovering gay Republicans will disgust social conservatives and change their voting behavior. They might also believe that they are demonstrating hypocrisy and that doing so will motivate Republicans to abandon social conservatism. I would like to see Republicans abandon social conservatism, and I'm not cheering on these slimy outings. But, honestly, I think these creepy, gleeful efforts at outing will only make social conservatives more conservative, and they will continue to look to the Republican party to serve their needs. 

I agree with her that this kind of tactic is likely to backfire, but I'm not sure I think it's for the same reasons Ann does. Here's the thing about conservatives. Even among those who are uncomfortable with the idea of redefining marriage to encompass same-sex partners, there's a pretty strong contingent of the Leave-Us-Alone Coalition.

Many social conservatives want to run their businesses, run their lives, raise their kids, and own their guns without government interference. Sure, they want to influence the culture, but they don't necessarily want to do it through big, government programs, and they don't want them enacted on their behalf.

Of course, there are some big-government social conservatives. I have issues with those people, and there's a battle going on in the party over just that right now, but I'll deal with that another time. For the most part, I think conservative voters, even socially conservative ones, don't like interference. That's why the Bush administration's long experiment with compassionate, expensive conservatism has got so many base voters teed off.

A lot of these folks are just average Americans who've had gay cousins and neighbors and schoolmates all their lives, and don't spend all their time thinking about gay people. In my experience, they are not obsessed with homosexuality, they do not go around condemning it at every turn, and they don't hate gay people. Granted, many of them have a moral problem with the homosexual lifestyle, but as Christians, we have a moral problem with lying and sex before marriage, and countless other things, but it doesn't keep us from loving the people who do those things.

What would sit wrong with the Leave-Us-Alone Coalition is a forcible outing campaign for political purposes. It just feels wrong, on a gut level. I'm a Christian and a social conservative. I'm also a small-government conservative, part of the Leave-Us-Alone Coalition, with libertarianish leanings. Instead of making an effort to convince me that the gay rights movement is one worth joining, gay rights activists attack my gay allies on the Leave-Us-Alone front who are already out, and out those who are not. They show themselves to be thugs. They also insult me by suggesting that a political ally who's with me on guns and taxes and life issues is gonna send me running from the Party because I'm all, "eww, he's gay?" 

There are gay-haters and thugs on my side of the aisle, of course, but I really think people tend to overestimate the relish with which the average American conservative is condemning gays. I don't think all the pro-traditional-marriage amendments would have been so widely supported had conservatives not resented the redefinition of a long-standing social institution being imposed upon them by the courts and a small community of activists. It was "The Interference" more than "The Gay," though, of course, homosexuality played into it.

Ryan Sager has addressed this before.

Polls show that the Bay State decision caused a massive
anti-gay-marriage (and, to some extent, anti-gay) flare up. U.S.
opposition to gay marriage shot up from 53 percent in July of 2003 to
63 percent in February of 2004, reports the Pew Research Center for the
People and the Press. That anger lasted through the November elections,
propelling 11 state anti-gay-marriage constitutional amendments to
victory - along with (some would argue) George W. Bush.

Just some thoughts. After all, if the end game for gay activists is gay marriage, who's more likely to convince me of its merit-- the gay rights activist who just forcibly outed my gay, Republican friend as a political maneuver, or my gay, Republican friend who thinks gay marriage is a good idea along with the Second Amendment, low taxes, and the free market? There are a lot of people like me. Hearts and minds, people. This is not to way to win them. You're turning people off, but you're not turning them off to Republicans.

Think I'm an outlier? Think I'm that one weird conservative who feels this way? I'm writing at Townhall. I can't be that weird.