Outrage
Check out the trailer for Kirby Dick's (of This Film is Not Yet Rated) new documentary exploring the hypocrisy of closeted politicians in the U.S. who, on the one hand, vote and vocally denounce gay rights, while seeking having gay relationships behind closed doors.
It's been getting unanimously positive critical reviews.
Thanks to Bob Lamm for the heads up.
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Outrage .
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.feministing.com/cgi-bin/movabletype/mt-tb.fcgi/13713
the hypocrisy of closeted politicians [who] vote and vocally denounce gay rights, while seeking having gay relationships behind closed doors.
Thinking out loud, with the obvious caveat that I support full gay rights: Is it per se hypocritical to engage in same sex relations but vote against gay rights? If somebody votes for laws that criminalize same sex sodomy and then engages in those acts, they are indeed hypocritical.
However, if somebody votes against gay marriage but never seeks to get married to somebody of the same sex, then there's not necessarily an inconsistency; they do not seek the right that they vote to deny to others. Similarly, if they vote against the right of people who engage in homosexual relationships to adopt but never seek to themselves adopt, then there's also no inconsistency. In the latter two cases, it would seem to me that they're on the wrong side of the debate (and I hesitate to even call it a debate, as it's so lopsided), but not necessarily hypocritical. They remain worthy of contempt and/or pity, but I'm not sure this particular charge is completely fair, depending on the circumstances.
I understand the point you're making, and I think on the surface of things it would appear to be true, but the problem is that many (most?) anti-gay politicians and their supporters aren't just concerned about the technical details of things. That is, for them, it isn't just about not adopting or not being able to get married--it's about non-straight couples not being able to adopt because their lifestyle is immoral, not being able to get married because it's an offense to God. The hypocrisy charge, I think, applies not just to their voting records, but to the supposed moral values that are behind their votes. They vote against these things because they (supposedly*) believe that it's wrong to be gay. Yet many of them appear to be queer to one degree or another in their personal lives, and typically don't make a remotely convincing show that they actually feel conflicted about it. So they practice something privately, but publicly claim to be morally opposed to it. Hence the charge of hypocrisy.
*I say supposedly because imo it seems quite likely that many of these folks are much more interested in political power than in any particular moral system. If the majority of their constituents were against the color blue, or cute ducklings, they would probably propose anti-blue and down-with-ducklings legislation. But if they're just following the will of the people, they could certainly do that without making a show of 'protecting family values' or some such rubbish.
I think the point here isn't hypocrisy -- the point is that closeted politicians, in order to cover their "shameful" secrets, pursue policies which are incredibly harmful to other homosexuals.
Personally, I think that the concept of calling someone out on "hypocrisy" is overrated. It's not about "do as I say, not as I do," it's about cowardice and the infliction of your own self-hatred upon an entire community.
I support marriage equality and LGBTQ? rights. However, to open a big time can of worms, I am not sure that (say) a homosexual senator voting against same sex marriage is always hypocritical. They could be voting so as to reflect the wishes of their constituents (even if their constituents have the wrong views).
In light of Human Bean's comment, I have to say that a desire to maintain power is part of it, too.
Again, who cares if it's hypocritical?
The point is that these politicians pursue policies that are harmful to gay people in an effort to cover their own asses! A gay politician whose constituents are unsympathetic to gay rights has basically two choices: A) do the courageous thing and work to combat ignorance and hatred, or B) buckle under and join the witch hunt.
I'm not sure the "voting to reflect the view of the constituents" idea works: do you really believe that people who would vote against gay adoption or gay marriage would vote FOR an openly gay senator? Just being a gay senator is most likely already going against their wishes.
Also, as my girlfriend says, "The ethical issue is not about only voting a certain way. It's also about all the social and ethical damage of living a closeted life. The damage done to family members, and the damage done to society. And it's not voting necessarily; it's the sound bytes. What sound bytes are these officials churning out? They do just as much or more harm than a vote."
My bad. The post mentioned "the hypocrisy of closeted..." which I thought was enough context, but I was wrong. I probably should have made it clearer that meant a closeted homosexual senator.
Hypocritical may not be quite the right word to describe their actions.
Lame, awful, disgusting, homophobic, reprehensible, hateful, self-hating...these words, among others, ring the right bell.
Regardless of how gross the actions of these men is (which is EXTREMELY gross), I have a HUGE problem with outing them against their will. It doesn't matter how disgusting of a person they are, every single person deserves the ability to come out at their own pace, because only they know their readiness and the readiness of their loved ones, and the level of personal safety that is available to them. Outing people against their will can be DEVASTATING (not to mention a threat to their safety, depending on where they live), and I wouldn't wish that on anybody, not even these asshats.
"every single person deserves the ability to come out at their own pace, because only they know their readiness and the readiness of their loved ones, and the level of personal safety that is available to them"
I don't agree. When you are a high-ranking politician with a tremendous amount of power and visibility, I think that you waive some of your rights, privacy being one of them, because your personal life is impossible to distinguish from the policies you support. For example, if a pro-life voter found out that a pro-life candidate she voted for had had a legal abortion herself, that would be a major concern: that politician would be taking a right for herself that she would deny to others. Similarly, closeted politicians are taking a right for themselves that they would deny to other people - not marriage necessarily, but the right to engage in homosexual sex. I agree with some of the previous posts that the issue with being vocally opposed to same-sex marriage isn't necessarily about the policy, but is about the language of immorality surrounding it, and when these politicians are engaging in those "immoral" acts, it is imperative that their voting constituency be aware of it. Hypocrisy is reason enough for me to change my vote, and I absolutely think this type of personal information is fair game when you're in such a position of power.
You stole the words right from my fingertips.
I think you underestimate the danger that can be associated with being an out public figure..... say one of these politicians starts receiving death threats from homophobic zealots after being outed by these filmmakers? Or worse, is attacked or killed? There is NO excuse to out another person, because you never know what dangerous situation you are going to put them in. (Again, I am NOT excusing their disgusting behaviour. But even jackasses deserve basic rights.)
You're forgetting that politicians have the privilege of bodyguards and other means of protection. The danger of an out politician being physically attacked is negligible compared to the dangers facing LGBTQ people who DON'T have this kind of power.
These politicians are upholding dangerous forms of bigotry by participating in gay-bashing. They are doing real, serious harm to gay people and their families every single day, and that exempts them from the right to live in the closet.
Seriously, WHY sympathize with someone who seeks out power and uses it to oppress people, ESPECIALLY when they oppress people with whom they should, in some way, identify?!?!?!
I have not seen this film, but since the title is called 'Out'rage, I think the following needs to be considered: I sincerely hope that this film doesn't go about 'outing' gay politicians. Coming out as a homosexual is a very personal decision and w/o the full support of your friends, family, and colleagues is a trying, difficult experience. In the same vain that 'outing' Carrie Prejean for her boob job, which was previously posted on this site, outing politicians, hypocritical or otherwise, will not help in the fight against homophobia or homophobic legislation.
I'm undecided on whether its the right thing to do, but I actually think that exposing these people as hypocrites and frauds WILL help the equal rights cause.
Consider someone like Ted Haggard. He's not a politician, but he spent years and years as a preacher saying that homosexuality was a sin, and advocating oppressing gay people. Exposing him as a hypocrite made a lot of people rethink his original message. Not everyone, of course, but it did change a lot of public opinion. Now when we hear of someone ranting against homosexuality, instead of thinking "hmm, maybe that guy is right that being gay is bad," a lot of people think "I wonder if he's another self-hating hypocrite like the last few."
I definitely think its wrong to out the average gay person against their will, but I'm undecided on whether its ok to out someone who is actively trying to oppress other gay people.
i wouldn't compare revealing somebody's (speculated) sexual orientation to revealing that somebody has had a boob job, but otherwise i totally agree with you.
I think that a lot of people are sort of missing two of the big points of this film.
The problem isn't that these people are gay in private and anti-gay in their politics. The problem is also that dozens of very powerful people have been collaborating to build a closet around these men. These men have the privilege to live their lives with their sexuality an open secret among both party insiders and the MSM. This privilege does not exist for GLBT people in the armed forces for example, with discharges continuing under the Obama administration.
So it's not just that these men, like Log Cabin Republicans, are gay and vote against their interests. It's that these men have used the politics of fear and prejudice to build unimaginable privilege around their same-sex relationships.
And the mainstream media is also implicated. NPR refused to run a film review that named names, on the grounds that private sex lives were not newsworthy, while eagerly examining the conflicts of interests behind the affair of John Edwards.
I'm really unsure as to how I feel about this film.
While I can understand how important it is to realize the deep hypocrisy of these men, I don't necessarily believe that saying "LOOK! GAY!" is really appropriate.
Firstly, as I understand it to be, this completely disavows the possibility that these men could be bisexual. So, Larry Craig is married. Larry Craig also has homosexual sex. Why can't he both love his wife (and sex with her, presumably) and also enjoy male-male sexual activity? While I'm not going to say these men *are* bisexual, I think that assuming they can't be is really damaging.
Secondly, this sort of thing reminds me of Know Thy Neighbor, the organization which takes public record petition data about people who've signed anti-gay petitions and plots where they live. While you *can* do it, it doesn't mean you *should* do it.
On the other side, the people spoken about have done real damage to the LGBT community. They stand in the way of our progress towards equality, while enjoying a lifestyle they publicly abhor.
Honestly, it almost makes me feel bad for these men who're outed because it's not their choice. Coming out was my choice and I did it on my own terms. I'm not going to say that being outed isn't all together damaging, as others have suggested, since it's the sudden nakedness of being exposed on part of you that you've kept hidden. It can be positive, but it often isn't.
I understand the premise, and will probably watch the film, but I find the idea of "look at you! you voted against rights for the people you want to sleep with" to be, I guess, immature. It just smells, to me, of "I know you are, but what am I?"
GAH! This Film Is Not Yet Rated was AMAZING. I highly suggest everyone watch it. I wrote a community post about it once but was having technical problems and couldn't post it :( .
I like Kirby Dick--feminism seems to come through in his films. Several times, it was noted that the MPAA a) considered violence more acceptable than sexuality; b) thought male sexuality was more acceptable than female sexuality. It was all right to show a woman having sex, but to show them explicitly enjoying it was pushing things too far, or something.
And then that reveal at the end, of the appeals board. Wow. I have never been so close to laughing in sheer shock and vomiting in horror at the same moment.
I haven't seen this new film, but I imagine he won't out any Congresscritters that aren't already out (or haven't already been outed by other sources).
I'm curious, as I have not watched the documentary (but want to, very very much)- is there/do you think there will be any criticism from conservative forces contesting the sources of men saying they've been with the politicians? Or is that a non-issue here, as I hope it will be?
I look forward to seeing this.
Sorry, but anyone who has made a vow of commitment and monogamy to one person (wife, husband, whatever), yet has sex with someone else doesn't love their spouse so much as they love themselves.
Now, if you've been honest and upfront, and both parties freely agree to this arrangement, that's one thing. I hardly think that's the case here.
That's just the thing, though. We *don't* know the terms of the marriages these men have. We *don't* know what spaces they've decided to negotiate with their partners and we *don't* know if they both decided they wanted to keep it secret given the political aspirations of the people involved.
It's seems pretty reasonable for me for them to consider homosexuality a choice because it could very well be in their reality. They choose to be sexually active with men because they can also choose to be sexually active with women.*
I think that, to a certain extent, assuming that these men haven't talked about these things with their spouse, or that they are cheating assholes, is a judgment on the part of the people who levy these criticisms. We don't know what's going on in these marriages and the things that these two adults have spoken about and agreed to in private.
*That's not to imply that bisexual is a choice. These men can choose to ignore any part of the sexual spectrum in favor to what's "normal". It's unhealthy to ignore it, but they do have the ability to do that.
I was about to be disagreeable and say that closeted homophobic homosexuals are clearly hypocrites. Then I thought about it a minute and realized that they probably hate themselves more than they actually dislike the idea of gay rights. It's more about self-loathing and a total state of denial than it is about hypocrisy.
I think they vote against gay rights because they've demonized their own sexuality. If they can make it bad and wrong for others to be LBGT, then they can still maintain their denial about their own sexual preferences. Accepting other people's sexual preferences would force them to confront their own sexuality. Voting against gay rights allows them to stay closeted.
Society says in so many ways that "opposite marriage" (sorry-couldn't resist the opportunity to make fun of Miss CA) is the only acceptable romantic union. There are probably a lot of people who are completely closeted and repressed and miserable. While I think it's wrong to vote against gay rights, I feel a mixture of sympathy and anger in this case. It's sad that these people have been so shamed by society that they can't accept themselves or anyone who reminds them of who they really are.
I cant be the only one who is upset about the outing part of this whole deal. I don't think outing someone is respectful at all. I was outed and it was not appreciated. A person should be able to come out when they choose to do so, which is usually when they're most comfortable. I feel like this outing is purely political and hypocritical because there was a time when genuine politicians who were gay were outed in order to embarrass them to force them out of office for their "lifestyle". The gay community had empathy for them but now we're doing it to others? That's hypocrisy.
I understand that its frustrating to have "gay" politicians voting anti-gay, however, this is not the right way to go about it. I feel like they've just burned a bridge and it will never be repaired.
Very disappointing. I feel like we can do so much better than this.
When an anti-gay politician is continuously attempting to control and possibly ruin my life, I have no issues with exposing their bullshit. The point is that if they were successful in passing all of the anti-gay legislation they stood behind, they would probably still continue to have secret gay relationships because of their social status. LGTBQ people as a whole simply do not have these privileges.
This is obviously not the only way, or even the best way, to gain full equal rights in this country. However, I feel that it IS important to expose a politicians actions when they are completely hypocritical to what they say in public.
As someone who had a very closeted girlfriend in the past, I understand the importance of respecting someone's decision to remain silent about their sexual orientation. There were simply too many things going on at the time that made her afraid of being out, such as her homophobic family.
However, when considering the people in this documentary, I have very little sympathy. Just like someone else on this thread mentioned already, they probably feel hatred and shame towards themselves.
BUT when a closeted gay politician continues to take advantage of their privileged position and engages in sexual relationships with people of the same sex behind doors, while simultaneously attempting to oppress LGTBQ people who lack those privileges, I would simply have to say fuck you.
When a closeted gay politician repeatedly fights against gay rights, their personal life is completely relevant and should be known to the public. It exposes their lies and that they don't believe in the bullshit they say. This is absolutely no different than any other politician. For example, many people have looked into Al Gore's lifestyle because of his stance on environmental issues. By looking into his personal life, we can see if he lives by what he preaches. We do this, and have always done this, to ensure that politicians are genuine about where they stand. When we find a homophobic politician having sexual relations with someone of the same sex... that is too important to not be made known to the public.
Question: Does engaging in same-sex sexual activity necessarily mean you're gay?
The last time I checked there were more than two sexual orientations...
And even if you do have sex with a member of the same sex doesn't mean that you can carry a mature, romantic relationship with them. Sex sometimes is just sex.