It is one of those scenarios that offer plenty to ponder. Why are so many closeted gay men who are politically active vocal opponents of equality for homosexuals? (Indeed, why are so many vocal Right Wingers revealed to have life styles that don't comport with their stated beliefs, period?) Does the closeted gays' hypocrisy provide permission for others to out them? Should bloggers, particularly anonymous bloggers, do the outing? There is all that and more in the revelation that a legislator has resigned after being outed by blogs. Planet Out reports on the controversy.
A Washington, D.C.-based blogger triggered the resignation of U.S. Rep. Edward L. Schrock, R-Va., with accusations that he solicited sex with men.
Schrock, a vocal opponent of gay rights and proponent of several anti-gay laws, announced Monday that he will not seek a third term in Congress.
"In recent weeks, allegations have surfaced that have called into question my ability to represent the citizens of Virginia's Second Congressional District," Schrock said in a press release.
Apparently, the love that dare not speak its name had still better keep mum. His statement is purposely vague. He did not say: I have been accused of being homosexual.
Schrock, 63, is married and a father. The most outspoken of the weblogs that have made the allegations, Blog Active, has posted audio that it says is of Schrock calling gay sex hotlines and soliciting specific acts. The blogger is not apologetic about having taken action against the politician.
The editor of blogactive, Mike Rogers, said his blog's purpose is to expose "hypocrites" in politics. Rogers has promised more embarrassing revelations about people "who say they are Republicans and then use sexual orientation to stay in power."
Is Shrock a reasonable fellow who just happens to be a Repubican? Far from it. He is a poster boy for the extreme Right. He seems to be particularly opposed to liberalizing laws in regard to homosexuality.
Schrock, who received a 92 percent rating (out of 100) from the Christian Coalition, was one of 233 lawmakers who supported the Marriage Protection Act, which would block federal courts from considering constitutional issues arising from same-sex marriage cases, and he was a co-sponsor of the Federal Marriage Amendment, which would amend the U.S. Constitution to prohibit same-sex marriage.
Continued on the next page Page 1 — Page 2
Article comments
1 - boomcrashbaby
If you're an average joe, then you shouldn't be outed, it's your own business. If you are a closeted hypocrite and pass harmful legislation against people, while masquerading as something you're not, then I'm all for the outing as long as it destroys the career.
Speaking of the closet - word on the gay web is that the bars in NYC are hoppin with business in the evenings, with all the closeted out-of-towners visiting.
2 - Mac Diva
I haven't made up my mind about outing in general, Steve (Boom). I do find myself considering the context. If an employee in a medical office leaked information saying Schrock is gay, I would frown on that. There's an expectation of privacy when a person goes to the doctor. But, a person calling sex hotlines is not expecting privacy. His status as a public official is another aspect of context one can consider in the equation.
This is interesting coming on the heels of the McGreevey situation just weeks ago. I wonder if Schrock was among those condemning McGreevey in water cooler conversation. After all the guv is a Democrat, and those people are bad. (Winking.)
I also wonder how much cell phones might have to do with Schrock's sudden need to resign. People don't realize their calls are easily listened to, recorded and traced. If I were nosy enough to want to confirm who calls sex hotlines, that is the route I would follow.
3 - Mike Kole
Gosh, Boom. You're against people masquerading as something they're not? Tell me: which pol will be left standing after being subject to that scrutiny, and, who shall be in charge of applying the scrutiny?
4 - boomcrashbaby
Tell me: which pol will be left standing after being subject to that scrutiny
Dianne Fienstein and Hillary Clinton come to mind. Barney Frank too. I'm not sure about new people like Obama, but hopefully them too.
and, who shall be in charge of applying the scrutiny?
Liberals.
5 - Mike Kole
Know what? I'll give you that list, but while I long for a world free of hypocrisy, we still are dealing with fallible human beings. I don't fear hypocrites so much as resent them, but I do fear the obvious powerlust held by those who would relish the opportunity to be the scrutinizer of the private lives of public officials.
6 - boomcrashbaby
I don't fear hypocrites so much as resent them, but I do fear the obvious powerlust held by those who would relish the opportunity to be the scrutinizer of the private lives of public officials.
There's a fine line between outing hypocrisy and just blabbing gossip about one's sexual proclivities.
The prevalent attitude in today's society is what is responsible for gay youth having a suicide rate 5 times the national average of their peers. Most hate crimes go unreported. Of those that do get reported, they don't get media coverage, so society is unaware that it happens hundreds, sometimes thousands of times per year.
Hateful rhetoric and legislation and condescension from the Right fuels this bigotry. I have no sympathy for someone who condemns homosexuality and furthers this prejudice, which has a ripple effect into violence, when that same individual practices what he condemns.
I don't expect you to understand.
7 - Mike Kole
I know, Boom. It's a gay thing and I couldn't possibly understand. Thanks for the smug cynicism. My day is now complete.
I happen to agree, though, that the hateful anti-gay rhetoric is destructive. I don't think, however, that if those on the left think it's great policy to 'destroy the careers' (your words) of those who finally come out or are outed, do you think you are making it any easier for them?
I think you're giving them all the more reason to stay in the closet. You have to give people a chance to have a change of heart, confess their sins, and to move on.
Or maybe I just don't understand.
8 - Mac Diva
But, Schrock was doing just the opposite, Mike. He was enhancing his status in society economically and politically by working against full human rights for gay people. There are always people from minority groups who do that. Booker T. Washington was successful mainly because conservative patrons supported his projects in return for him accepting segregation as the status quo and urging all African-Americans to do so. (Which is not to say all Washington's ideas were bad.) The irritating thing about sell-outs in contemporary times is that the selling out is usually just a way for those individuals to get goodies and affirmation. They don't even confer any benefit on the group effected. I believe Schrock is an excellent example of that.
9 - boomcrashbaby
do you think you are making it any easier for them?
What?
As I said earlier, if it's an average joe, then it's his own business. If it's a politican who consistently passes the most anti-gay agenda around, when he's not busy bobbin on the knob, what part of that am I supposed to make easier? Should I give him 4 more years in office so he can continue to pass harmful legislation while he comes to grips with who he is? He'd given no indication he was 'trying to handle his orientation' at, what is it, 70+ years of age? When will he be able to deal with himself?
The closet can often manifest itself as hate. It doesn't always but it can. That hate can turn outwards and be directed at those that created the closet (the church, the government, an intolerant community, etc.) That hate can turn inwards and be directed at 'that which made me who I am', or at one's own self. While both are wrong, only one qualifies as a wretched soul.
Or maybe I just don't understand.
You don't. But don't sweat it, you aren't expected to, unless you have firsthand knowledge of what the closet is like. Hope that makes your evening as complete as your day.
10 - Mike Kole
As a matter of fact, my evening *is* now complete.
I don't have firsthand knowledge of the closet, and neither do 90% of human beings. If you choose to write off that 90% as incapable of understand, why even gripe when bigotry surfaces?
I might have thought that you would want the larger community to understand. Alas...
I'm with Stephen Fisher of the HRC on this one.
11 - boomcrashbaby
I might have thought that you would want the larger community to understand.
Mike, for about 40 years now, America has been told the consequences of hate speech, of bigotry, of discrimination, of moralistic judgement towards unachievable ideals, of prejudice, of ghettoization, America has been shown the consequences of this time and time again. The larger community doesn't want to understand. The larger community chooses to not understand. Instead, the larger community is busting it's tail to go beyond anything it's ever done before. So what is one to do?
Anytime a hypocritical person is no longer able to further entrench hatred and bigotry into societal practice, it makes me happy. Since you are in the larger community, I can entirely understand you differing with that perspective.
12 - Mike Kole
I don't know, Boom. That gay marriage is a topic at all tells me that the issues have moved forward into the national consciousness. I'd say those 40 years have paid off.
I get why these look to you like desperate and oppressive times, what with the rampant proposals to ban gay marriage via US & state constitutional amendments, but it strikes me as the sort of desperate gasp of a fading old order. I look at the 50s and 60s at the civil rights movement, when anti-black sentiment and violence rose up, but then tremendous gains occurred.
So, I am not disputing that some people hang on to bigoted views. I am disputing that the thing to do is to throw up one's hands and not continue to try to reach the larger community.
You know that I am a Libertarian, so I fight on your side on this issue. If I give up and you give up, the larger community isn't going to take it up on its own, so if you want to succeed, you have to soldier on.
What we do as political operatives is to seek out philosophical libertarians who are Republicans or Democrats and we *recruit* them.
You can tell people "you're wrong, you're stupid, you're evil, I celebrate your failure", but in so doing, you burn a bridge you might have built and give away the opportunity to convert former foe into friend.
If there is no room for forgiveness, their is no room to have anything but eternal strife.
13 - boomcrashbaby
I get why these look to you like desperate and oppressive times, what with the rampant proposals to ban gay marriage via US & state constitutional amendments, but it strikes me as the sort of desperate gasp of a fading old order. I look at the 50s and 60s at the civil rights movement, when anti-black sentiment and violence rose up, but then tremendous gains occurred.
I actually wonder if the gay community didn't make too much progress too fast and that after 200 years of this country, mainstream America still isn't ready to handle the concept that all men are created equal.
The Canadian government is 99% likely not going to challenge or limit their marriage rulings, which means ALL gay Canadians will be able to get married soon. Spain is set to legalize gay marriage in 2005. Germany, Belgium, the Netherlands, all already have full equality for their citizens. Hell, even the machismo-driven society of Buenos Aires has just passed more civil rights protections than most of our midwestern states. South Africa is apparently next in line to allow marriages.
but it (the ban on gay marriage) strikes me as the sort of desperate gasp of a fading old order.
Mike, 5 times so far, the option of amending a state's constitution has gone to the ballot. 5 times it has passed. That doesn't sound like a desperate gasp to me.
The recent amendment to the Missouri Constitution that just got passed by 70% of the vote, well, the majority who showed up to vote were Democrats. A federal amendment to discriminate, now written on the biblical tablets of the Republican platform, has a very real chance of happening, Mike. America is not the land of equality, it really never was, but Europe, even parts of South America have more equality than this country. Within one or two decades, America will be the only industrialized country that prohibits equality for all it's citizens, and it will be right alongside Sudan, Syria, Iran and North Korea in terms of it's citizenry, and no longer alongside Europe, France, Canada, etc. But apparently, now it's very American to hate Europe, France and Canada, so we seem to be going the direction that mainstream America wants us to go.
You can tell people "you're wrong, you're stupid, you're evil, I celebrate your failure", but in so doing, you burn a bridge you might have built and give away the opportunity to convert former foe into friend.
I understand where you're coming from Mike. But it's like one guy watching another guy get beat up and saying 'take it like a man, hang in there, don't burn that bridge, you might get to be the bully's friend someday'. Because of where I'm standing, my perspective of the situation is just going to be different than yours. By the time a man is over 70 years old, married and with grandchildren, and has a career of working hard to promote anti-gay legislation, well, there is too much of a chasm there to try to bridge. A man in that situation is not going to walk away from his life, his family, his career, in order to be true to himself. The closet and self-hatred has withered away any possibility of such an older, established man saying 'hey! my entire life is a sham!'
I'm not an activist although I wish I was because I feel so passionate about this countries future. I love this country so much, it tears me up to see what is happening to it. I don't want to be here when all my civil protections are overturned, by the work of probably 3 Scalia-clones who Bush will nominate in the next 4 years. I don't want to be here to be able to say 'I told you so', when Roe v. Wade gets overturned, when God gets reaffirmed as the true Leader of this Country. I don't want to be here when the state I live in, designates my family to second class citizenship and condemns my daughter to a life made unnecessarily difficult. I don't want to see any more Judge Moore's tactics to bring their Christian interpretation into our court system. I don't want to see Falwells new law school finally open it's doors and hordes of Christian lawyers released, with my community, my family, as their specific target.
This country and all that we hold dear, is going to hell in a handbasket because some Texas suffering from Mad Cowboy Disease has a vision and apparently that's all that matters.
Mac Diva, I totally understand your reaction to many bloggers. Totally. People tell you that your harsh reactions will turn people off, but you know their minds are already closed. But you keep going. I got to hand it to you, hon, you have an inner strength like nobody I've ever known. I have expanded my list of places to move, I'm now looking into Canada or maybe some quaint little cottage in the English countryside, where the true American ideal of equality for all still holds true, or at least is closer to the ideal than what we are experiencing here. I can't imagine raising my daughter under 4 more years of Bush. With every setback of our rights, there is an emboldenment of anti-gay sentiment and an increase in violence. And I think the next 4 years are going to be very violent indeed for my community.
14 - Mike Kole
Boom, you're quite right in identifying the Democrats as a large part of the problem. There isn't a constituency group they wouldn't trade away for political power. You are also right in identifying mainstream America's refusal to understand and embrace 'all men created equal', but it is not a new phenomenon. Mainstream America has never embraced this, not even during the civil rights movement of the 60s.
One of the many reasons I'm a Libertarian is the LPs grasp of the distinction between our society as a republic versus a democracy. When the (small 'r') republican principle of all men created equal gets lost to the (small 'd') principle of majority rule, it's always going to be tough on a group the size of the gay community, but this is how the major political parties have reduced the discourse. Libertarians will never trade a constituency away in a power hunt because it is outside of the small 'l' libertarian philosophy and small 'r' republican principle to do so.
The adherence to principle in the political debate is roundly sneered at in favor of democracy, but the result is plain to see in the plight of gay rights. Indeed, it is most fortunate that the civil rights movement made the principle of all men created equal its centerpiece, because if it were left to (small 'd') democratic vote, Jim Crow would be the law of the land in a great many states, if not nationally.
Boom: "But it's like one guy watching another guy get beat up and saying 'take it like a man, hang in there, don't burn that bridge, you might get to be the bully's friend someday'. Because of where I'm standing, my perspective of the situation is just going to be different than yours."
Just know that the Libertarians are willing to stand up and take it like a man for you and your community, on principle, while the Democrats are not... unless it's very convenient.
15 - Mac Diva
We have several vocal liberatarians here at Blogcritics. They can usually be found on any thread about race asserting the most backward ideas around. Such as:
*Pres. Lincoln was a tyrant.
*The Civil War was not about slavery, but 'states' rights. And, the wrong side won.
*Slavery was beneficial.
*The civil rights movement was wrong. African-Americans should have relocated away from the South instead of challenging laws that deprived them of their basic rights. Furthermore, Rosa Parks should shut the hell up, and, it is not a bad thing that some thugs beat her up. She deserved it. (No. I am not kidding. See the comments to Al Barger's entry attacking Rosa Parks.)
*Claims alleging genetic inferiority of black people aren't racist, but reality.
To summarize, we know libertarians here. As is true of the libertarian movement nationally, they are usually in bed with the most retrograde elements of the Right. Clyde Wilson, a neo-Confederate and a libertarian is an example of where many touting the label are in reality. There is absolutely no basis for believing any oppressed minority group is going to have the sympathy of most libertarians.
16 - boomcrashbaby
Mac Diva, my mom and her family have always been Democrat. My sisters are Democrat. When we moved out here to California, we found we were around Democrats or other liberal groups as well, coworkers and acquaintances and soon friends, etc. It's who we are, middle class, born and raised with Democratic values, we aren't going to leave our political 'family'. This type of treatment isn't unexpected, it just hurts when it happens.
Mike, I have one question for you. The Libertarian party platform on sexual rights says this:
"Sexual Rights
The Issue: Government has presumed to decide acceptability over sexual practices in personal relationships, imposing a particular code of moral and social values and displacing personal choice in such matters.
The Principle: Adults have the right to private choice in consensual sexual activity.
Solutions: We advocate an end to all government attempts to dictate, prohibit, control or encourage any private lifestyle, living arrangement or contractual relationship.
Transitional Action: We would repeal existing laws and policies intended to condemn, affirm, encourage or deny sexual lifestyles, or any set of attitudes about such lifestyles."
Does this platform mean an end to the governmental recognition of heterosexual families too? The transitional action says it would get rid of anything recognizing a sexual lifestyle. I assume this means it gets rid of ANY governmental recognition of my family, since the relationship between me and my partner is often defined as a sexual lifestyle. Is John and Mary and their kids considered a sexual lifestyle too? Would any federal recognition of their relationship be wiped out as well?
17 - Mike Kole
MD- If I was to get all I know about Democrats or liberals from the most prolific Blogcritics, I'd come away with the idea that hate is their fuel, anger their primary emotion, and subject changing their argument closing tactic. You would be far more genuine if you dealt with me as me, and with libertarianism as a philosophy rather than its exceptions.
18 - Mike Kole
Boom- I hate the LPs platform. It's such a verbose document, designed in my estimation to show how smart those who drafted are.
In plain English, I believe that the state has no business issuing marriage licenses. Marriage is best left to the churches or other spiritual organizations. The state has a dismal record with regard to the practice of recognizing marriages, with much of that history racist in nature.
To answer your question, libertarian policy would remove all state recognition of marital & partner status, including heterosexual ones.
I personally resented having to obtain a marriage license. Not the state's business, thank you. And to have to pay a fee? For what?
Contractual partnerships can be entered into by any two people, of any sex, of any races, for any purpose they care to choose. You and your partner should be able to confer benefits onto one another, insuring each other, leaving estates in wills, you name it. Nobody's business but your own.
19 - Al Barger
Boom, the best answer to marital issue of marital rights, as Mike was expressing in a different way, would be to have the government issue only domestic partnership contracts, leaving sexual unions between the couple, the spiritual sanctity between the couple and their God or church.
Again, the Diva must be called out by the truth patrol. She is again saying things that she must know are not true about me and, in this case [comment 15], about good ol' Dan Precht. Again she accuses Dan with the same malicious slander repeated yet again over the Rosa Parks business.
However, she is an angry black woman speaking out for "civil rights," so normal rules of civility and honesty do not apply to her as to others.
20 - Mac Diva
I have more than documented Dan Precht's views. Anyone wanting to see for himself can read the thread.
I am skeptical about claims of sexual and gender freedom by the Libertarian Party. The party's presidential candidate, Michael Badnarik, is anti-abortion. If that isn't meddling in people's privacy and intimate relations, I don't know what is. Indeed, most of Badnarik's views are extremely far Right, if not just plain crazy. I doubt he has carved out an exception in regard to homosexuality. Most of the more extreme positions Badnarik has taken have been erased from his web site. But, here is a source that says that in addition to opposing public education and abortion, Badnarik opposes gay marriage. Over all, it probably does not matter much since, even for a third party candidate, Badnarik is too far out to attract fringe voters.
21 - Al Barger
And if anyone traces back to the Rosa Parks thread, Diva, they will find nothing whatsoever from Dan that equates with your dishonest claims.
Abortion is a tough question all around. I come out reluctantly pro-choice, but I'm not happy about it, exactly because of the uniquely personal nature of it.
Pro-life libertarians, on the other hand, will look at it that you're killing a baby human. Murder is bad, therefore it should be illegal.
Diva, look at it as protecting the civil rights of the unborn. How many little black babies get KILLED like this every year?
In short, though I disagree with Badnarik on this issue, being pro-life is a perfectly respectable mainstream view.
22 - boomcrashbaby
Mac Diva, what are the legalities of posting emails on a blog? I've had a brief conversation via email with Maggie Gallagher (Pres. of the right wing Institute for Marriage and Public Policy). I know Jan Hermann and others post emails they receive, and in my emails with her, she basically says nothing more than the philosophy behind her organization.
Mike, I like the libertarian platform of no governmental recognition of relationships but don't you acknowledge that it doesn't ever have a chance of becoming a reality? What about things like home loans where you can only have a spouse co-sign, or places like disneyworld that allow family discounts? Is all the 'public' sector's distinction of family to be rewritten as well?
In my conversation with Maggie, she mentioned that statistics prove that a child does better with a mother and a father. (of course, these are statistics that compare a child with one parent to a child with two, as there are no statistics that correlate a heterosexual family with a homosexual one).
I had always thought right wingers were against government intruding on their personal lives, which is why so many conservatives are against things like equal rights for gay people or affirmative action, etc. because it's big government. Yet apparently no less than 16% of conservatives believe strongly enough to make the amendment their #1 voting priority because they believe that heterosexual families NEED a governmental affirmation of the ideal family unit, because statistics show heterosexuals apparently can't figure it out for themselves. (Not my ideology folks, don't blame me).
So it's no affirmative action, no gay rights, nothing that sets one group above another because that's not fair, except when it comes to reinforcing that white Christian family with a two story house with the white picket fence and SUV in the driveway. Then government needs to step in and make sure heterosexuals are "guided" on the correct path.
This was the gist of my conversation with her and it's why I think the libertarian platform will never be successful at getting the government to step out of what defines the ideal unit. Too many conservatives believe that heterosexuals can't achieve what they believe is the 'optimal' family without governmental encouragement.
23 - Mac Diva
There's no legal problem unless the person has explicitly said 'do not publicize this' or something close, Steve (Boom). Even then, it is pretty iffy, if the request comes after the conversation began. Comes down to whether one feels it is proper netiquette. As a beginning blogger, I posted another blogger's email to me. One of my mentors, the CalPundit, Kevin Drum, advised me that as a matter of courtesy, he usually asks people in the blogosphere if it is O.K. to post their emails. I do that normally, but, if the person is a creep being abusive, I will post the email.
I would have no problem publishing email from a public source such as a think thank. They want their views known. If Ms. Gallagher disagrees with you, it will be about your opinion of what she says, not the content itself, which will be accurate. Let her disagree.
BTW, 'netiquette' is now in the dictionary.
24 - Mike Kole
Boom: "Mike, I like the libertarian platform of no governmental recognition of relationships but don't you acknowledge that it doesn't ever have a chance of becoming a reality?"
No, I do not acknowledge that it has no chance. I'm wearing the same shoes the activist for women's suffrage wore in 1890. It looked hopeless then to think that women would ever vote in the US. It happened by the end of WWI. Just as with that issue, policy won't emerge without doing something about it.
Here's the value of a strong LP: in most states, your Democrats won't even court the GLBT vote, because they know that they can take that bloc of voters for granted, safe in the knowledge that there is absolutely no threat of losing those votes to someone else on the ballot.
Here in Indiana, a state thought by most to be a conservative state, you have a real fight for the GLBT vote in the gubernatorial race. Why? The LP is plainly offering something to this bloc of voters. The Republican candidate, former Bush aide Mitch Daniels, is not keen on losing any more votes than he has to to Libertarian candidate Kenn Gividen, so he has been meeting with GLBT leaders, courting their vote. The Dems are rallying to get in front of these same leaders to let them know, "we don't take you for granted, honest we don't".
There had been some talk earlier in the year about a constitutional amendment here, that would no doubt be similar to what you have seen in Missouri. That talk got crushed by Libertarians, and the Legislature dropped the item without so much as a reading of it.
That happens here because the LP of Indiana is on the radar, polling between 6-14%. Those numbers are too big to ignore, so it forces the other two parties not to take core constituencies for granted, and to work to try to demonstrate that they give a rip.
It isn't what you are ultimately after, but it is working in the right direction, don't you agree?