Outing gay politicians

Is it wrong to “out” a closeted gay politician? Does that politician’s strong opposition to gay rights affect the ethical calculus?

There has never been any serious doubt in Illinois that GOP Rep. Aaron Schock is gay. No one is likely to be too terribly surprised at the public airing of that fact, reported by a DC journalist. Is it anyone’s business?

Schock was already likely to draw a challenge from the Tea Party in next year’s election. It will  be interesting to see how he handles this publicity and whether it influences that campaign.

Chris Ladd is a Texan living in the Chicago area. He has been involved in grassroots Republican politics for most of his life. He was a Republican precinct committeeman in suburban Chicago until he resigned from the party and his position after the 2016 Republican Convention. He can be reached at gopliferchicago at gmail dot com.

Tagged with: , ,
Posted in Uncategorized
25 comments on “Outing gay politicians
  1. DanMan says:

    Hilarious watching liberals debate hypocrisy. And DFC’s projection of what a repub is makes him an extra special snowflake to observe.

    • Turtles Run says:

      Kinda of like when right-wingers try to project what a “repub” is by calling others RINO.

    • DFC says:

      By all means, enlighten me on “what a repub is.”

      • DanMan says:

        and giving repubs advice on what they ought to do, don’t give that stuff away when you can charge for it dfc

      • RightonRush says:

        Don’t hold your breath waiting on a rely from DanMan. She get’s her panties in a wad and hates this blog. Chris is a good guy, and one of the few sane Republicans left in the GOP IMO.

    • Texan5142 says:

      ….and yet they say liberals have an elitist attitude. My, my Dan the Richard, we are simply not worthy of your cunning insight into the human condition of others around you. Please forgive our collective ignorance. ( bows slowly with slight curtsy)

      • rightonrush says:

        Lawd have mercy Tex, now DanMan is attempting to convince DFC that he isn’t a “repub”. rotflmao

      • DanMan says:

        I think y’all outed him and he’s mad about it. 1st stage is denial so we’ll see how far he gets towards his recovery.

    • DFC says:

      DanMan, I’ll ask again: enlighten me on “what a repub is.”

      • DanMan says:

        according to the poster with two names you are dfc, rock ribbed and all that too right?

      • DFC says:

        No. Stop ducking the question and tell me, if you can, “what a repub is.”

      • DanMan says:

        you are dfc, ask rightonrush/texan5142. Are you so obtuse you don’t recognize yourself? Or are you saying ror/tx5142 is projecting? I’d say the rucas posse needs to gets its story straight…or, um less homophobic…no wait, mixing my metaphors. The rucas posse needs to get its lies sorted out. Period.

        But hey, at least the oceans have stopped rising so we have that. And the $2,500/year savings for health insurance. And evolving. Lots of evolving.

        anybody else notice Chris’ topics always end up featured on that obscure Kos site none of you know anything about? weird how a goplifer is so plugged into promoting liberal talking points.

        Income equality!!!11!!!

      • DFC says:

        DanMan, you still haven’t explained “what a repub is.”

  2. bubbabobcat says:

    This has already been noted by others below but it bears reinforcing. Hypocrisy always matters in a public political figure that has an impact on the laws relevant to his hypocrisy.

    • flypusher says:

      Exactly. If the guy is living a gay lifestyle, even in the closet, while promoting those odious laws that would make such activity a criminal offense, then yes, let that disinfecting sunlight in!!!

      Now if he was outed because someone didn’t agree with his stance on climate change, or abortion, or invading Iraq, and wanted to embarrass him, that’s not the same at all and isn’t ethically justifiable.

  3. RightonRush says:

    It never fails to amaze me how folks have the propensity to vote against their own best interest. Must be a form of self hate and denial.

  4. Bobo Amerigo says:

    Yes, his anti-gay positions, if reportedly correctly, make outing him a relevant step to take.

  5. DFC says:

    Yes, in this case, it is “anyone’s business.”

    Schock has traded on the position that being gay is and ought to carry a stigma that affects a person’s options and status in our society. Were he a heterosexual, he’d be wrong by every empirical standard to take such a position, but if he is gay, he’s a hypocrite on top of simply being empirically incorrect. The gays whom his positions would affect, whose lives would be made worse, have a right to defend themselves against that kind of mendacity, and Schock’s voters both gay and straight have a right to know who and what they’re voting for.

    It shouldn’t even come to this question. If Schock admits to being gay then the GOP ought to withdraw its support immediately, which would sound like the dog whistle for their anti-gay crowd while simultaneously letting them insist that they’re fine with gays but dumping Schock for lacking integrity.

    Your blog is new to me and very interesting. Let me invite you to get the paper on my website, http://www.empiricalconservatism.com. I’d be glad to hear what you think.

    • goplifer says:

      ***Schock has traded on the position that being gay is and ought to carry a stigma that affects a person’s options and status in our society.***

      Are you sure? For one thing, if Schock has ever denied being gay, I missed it. In the meantime he’s been, well…pretty gay-fabulous. Schock is no Larry Craig. He isn’t hiding and that’s what makes this such an interesting scenario.

      If anything, Schock’s approach suggests that he thinks there are higher priority issues at stake that he can help influence by keeping his private matters private. He seems to be pretty openly gay in every sense except publicity and a voting record. I disagree with his approach for a variety of reasons, but I’m not sure that everyone should have to wear a badge stating their orientation.

      • rightonrush says:

        Did a Google search and found that Schock has denied being gay.
        “Perhaps the most eye-catching contest in Illinois is the 92nd State Representative District race between Democratic State Rep. Ricca Slone of Peoria and 23-year-old Republican upstart Aaron Schock. Schock’s party has hailed him as a wunderkind ever since, at the age of 19, he won the District 150 school board presidency. He has even caught the eye of the state’s top Republican, Tom Cross, who has visited Peoria to help Schock’s campaign. However, it is some of Schock’s views as well as his aptitude that some find alarming. For example, he recently told The Illinois Leader that if a person is pro-life, he should stay that way even if the child is ‘conceived because of a difficult situation’—which some have interpreted to include rape or incest. Moreover, Schock even has a problem with abortions performed to preserve the life of the mother.”

        “There have been whispers downstate regarding Schock’s sexual orientation. However, when contacted by Windy City Times, Schock denied being gay. When asked, he simply said ‘No … I’m not.” http://www.windycitymediagroup.com/gay/lesbian/news/ARTICLE.php?AID=6413

      • DFC says:

        Schock is Republican, which by definition aligns him with people who seek to make gays unequal and separate. His silence is his testimony. “Seeming” to be “pretty openly gay” isn’t being openly gay. It’s something like what Walter White or John Howard Griffin tried in that they “seemed” to be “openly black.” The difference obviously is that for White and Griffin, “passing” entailed sacrifice and grave personal risk. Schock is “passing” for straight to capitalize and mitigate his risk. White and Griffin took action in order to try and make life better for their causes. Schock in hiding his homosexuality–and if he doesn’t come out, clearly and he’s hiding–is acting to make life worse for people like him, by permitting his political colleagues to institutionalize hate and fear, by remaining silent in the face of an evident wrong against other Americans, and by permitting unfairness and ignorance to persist.

        Telling gays that their interests and dignity have to be subservient to Schock’s higher cause is telling them, first, that Schock has a higher cause–does he?–and second that they don’t have any choice but to serve it, sometimes by making sacrifices that Schock himself declines to make. That isn’t right. This isn’t an “approach.” It’s a lie. If he thinks he’s serving some higher cause by lying, I’m dying to hear this rationalization, because what ever higher cause he thinks he’s serving he is certainty serving plenty of lower ones.

      • Turtles Run says:

        Lets say that RoR’s comment does not exist and it is true he has never denied or even covered up being gay. If this is true then how is it possible that he was outed? It sounds like he outed himself.

        In that case then Itay Hod’s action were a waste of time.

    • goplifer says:

      I’ll have a look at the link, thanks.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s


Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 455 other subscribers
%d bloggers like this: