McCain's GAY Chief of Staff...

[ryankeith]

He has zero control over our lives at the moment because he's merely helping a candidate get elected. Even if McCain wins, I'm not sure I'd agree with it. There's absolutely no difference between that and outing someone because of something they've done to you. We don't know what his stance is. All we have so far are a bunch of blog reports. There are plenty of gay Republicans. Should they all be outed? (I know most Dems on JUB would say yes) My point is politics brings out the worst in all of us. It forces some to make concessions they don't want to have to make, it makes others act converse to their best interests, and it makes other justify what they would otherwise consider a horrible act were it against anyone else.

So what might those concessions be when a gay man actively supports and tries to get elected a candidate/s who openly tries to reduce the rights of a group of American citizens because the candidate/s believe they are morally wrong and are beneath other American citizens? Not only is he trying to get McCain elected, he is his Chief of Staff. Why do wealthy Americans support the republican agenda? Gay or not, I think he is trying to protect his wealth, but I could be wrong.

Sometimes people who have a lot of money don't think laws or rules that may limit their own personal freedoms and rights will apply to them...money buys everything. So to them, their money is far more important. Scary, but true.

 

[RandomAccess]

I found out why Mark Buse works for McPain. Found in thread "October Surprise comes Early ?"
http://www.justusboys.com/forum/showthread.php?t=233267
OtownDWB's post #4 says that Buse:



It's third paragraph from the bottom of the post.

It must be nice.

Whoa! A rich twink! I think I'm in looooove!

 

[RandomAccess]

Not outing someone isn't abetting the enemy. But if outing someone over their political leanings is acceptable then outing someone for simple revenge is acceptable. Hey, I'll write this shit down because apparently the rules are changing.

I think deep-seated hypocrisy, to the extent that it has a direct impact upon the lives of others, may be the exception that would make outing acceptable. I don't think of it as "revenge," but as leverage.

 

[RandomAccess]

Is this going to benefit McCain? Are GLTB going to think he cares about them because he has a gay chief of staff?

Somehow I wonder if this was planned. Perhaps this guy was a part of his own outing? Taking one for the team if you will...

I am sick by this, and I worry that people will overlook where McCain stands on GLTB issues and just think, "Well his CHIEF OF STAFF is gay. He can't be homophobic."

I can hear Mrs. Palinlover now (read with a nasally twang): "Well, Senator McCain has certainly proven how open-minded he is about those homosexual people. Just look. He's got one of those homosexual boys on his staff!"

 

[RandomAccess]

^In those terms, I'd say "outing" is okay. But I'm really starting to think there was no "outing" involved at all. . . unless from the inside. As in a blatant attempt to soften McCain's anti-gay views? Hmmm?

 

[construct]

^In those terms, I'd say "outing" is okay. But I'm really starting to think there was no "outing" involved at all. . . unless from the inside. As in a blatant attempt to soften McCain's anti-gay views? Hmmm?

One of the sources for either Signorile or Rogers described Buse's situation as a glass closet. This is the kind of guy who doesn't broadcast it, but everybody in Washington knows he's gay. So it's not an outing in the traditional sense. It's a shaming and a scolding of an embodiment of the Log Cabin strategy, i.e. working within a ridiculously anti-gay environment to no effect.

The incident doesn't soften McCain's anti-gay record. It highlights McCain's anti-gay record.

 

[RandomAccess]

The incident doesn't soften McCain's anti-gay record. It highlights McCain's anti-gay record.

But I think you can see how it could easily be spun otherwise. McCain: "See? I like gay people! I'm 'inclusive!'"

PS. Besides, who in Washington doesn't have ways to strategically "leak" news that can be spun to advantage?

 

[Kulindahr]

WTF? MOST of all politics! If a gay person is actively working to limit the rights of GLBT persons, outing is not only acceptable, it's imperative.

I can't imagine anyone here feeling otherwise. Why abet the enemy?

1. He works for McCain.

2. McCain supports DADT and opposes gay adoption.

3. Therefore, he is the enemy.

Right there is the problem with just about the whole "gay rights" movement: anyone who disagrees with the agenda is regarded as an enemy.
That attitude makes gays a special interest, not a group interested in rights. And that's one reason I oppose any gay marriage proposals/movements: it's just an effort to grab the same privileges granted a current group under an exclusive religious definition, not an effort to get equal rights for all.

And the attitude that it's acceptable to out someone under any circumstances is also a mark of a special interest. Special interests are interested in ownership of things, and outing someone is a major invasion of someone else's self-ownership. Since self-ownership is the basis of human rights, outing shows a disinterest in those rights.

 

[construct]

But I think you can see how it could easily be spun otherwise. McCain: "See? I like gay people! I'm 'inclusive!'"

PS. Besides, who in Washington doesn't have ways to strategically "leak" news that can be spun to advantage?

Well sure, and the first sources for this story were Log Cabiners. (Does that have one "n" or two? Okay, Log Cabinets. There.)

Still, when they were leaking to Mike Signorile and Ameriblog, what kind of spin could they possibly hope to do later. And the stories they told were all about how McCain never paid attention to Buse's pro-gay complaints. If they think they can spin spinners like Signorile and Rogers, they must be on drugs.

 

[White Eagle]

I can hear Mrs. Palinlover now (read with a nasally twang): "Well, Senator McCain has certainly proven how open-minded he is about those homosexual people. Just look. He's got one of those homosexual boys on his staff!"

You slipped out of the nasally twang before you got finished with the first sentence. It's "homo sex' u al".

 

[Spensed]

Right there is the problem with just about the whole "gay rights" movement: anyone who disagrees with the agenda is regarded as an enemy.
That attitude makes gays a special interest, not a group interested in rights. And that's one reason I oppose any gay marriage proposals/movements: it's just an effort to grab the same privileges granted a current group under an exclusive religious definition, not an effort to get equal rights for all.

Now apply what you're saying in a racially mixed marriage context and you'll see it makes little sense.

Conceptually, what you say may, or may not, be correct. But your position is a reduction to the absurd. One that Bill O'Reilly and other bigots and homophobes use.

While it's true that marriage equality theoretically might mean allowing multi-partner, incestuous unions, etc., those are issues that are tested by prevalent social taboos and practices not by some blanket rule that has to apply in all cases because it applies in one.

In the case of gay marriage, for those who want it, the social taboo is fading and the time is ripe.

And the attitude that it's acceptable to out someone under any circumstances is also a mark of a special interest. Special interests are interested in ownership of things, and outing someone is a major invasion of someone else's self-ownership. Since self-ownership is the basis of human rights, outing shows a disinterest in those rights.

There's simply no intellectual necessity to see outing in terms of special interest. It seems to be introducing an extraneous and irrelevant subjective notion into the equation.

More germane are the circumstances of each particular case and especially the difference between outing a private as opposed to a public figure and someone who isn't persecuting gays as opposed to someone who is.

In the case of a public figure, who is gay and who is actively anti-gay, outing becomes less about him or her being gay and more about authenticity and integrity. No different than unmasking someone in public office as a thief.

 

[Kulindahr]

If a human being is denied something another human being is granted just because of their sexual orientation then that is wrong. Special interest or whatever you want to call it it is wrong. The principle behind it and the hate is wrong.

If my sister or my best friend want to marry their gf/bf then they should be able to. Plain and simple. I don;t care their reason, I care their right! You disagree?

If gays are a special interest then fine. Gay rights are THAT important. I demand, as should everyone affected by gay discrimination, more and more stepping stones to the equality of GLBT.

If I am misunderstanding you then I apologize and PLEASE help me understand your above post.

Also, anyone working against the equality of gays IS the enemy! Should he/she be outed if they are themselves homosexuals? I am not sure. My anger says YES! The hypocrisy is mind numbing.

If all we focus on are our rights, then the religious right is correct: we're after special rights. Of course what they don't recognize is that at the moment, they have special rights, rights that trump all other religions and philosophies and views.

My concept is this: first we have a "Let Marriage Be Sacred" Act that takes marriage out of the hands of government and lets churches and whoever have it. Then we acknowledge that different faiths have different views of marriage, and that under the First Amendment, all of those have to be honored. Finally, we acknowledge that under freedom of association and equality before the law, no one can be denied the privileges of marriages/unions/whatever just because they aren't religious, and reduce the role of government to one of just registering/recording the union of whoever comes and says "We're united/bonded/married/joined/whatever."
At that point we have ended religious discrimination and established equal rights for everyone; if a man and a woman, two women, two men, a man and three women, a woman and two men, three men and two women, or whoever comes and says, "We're united", then the government would duly record that and grant to them the same benefits/privileges that everyone else who is united/whatever.

Doing it as a special interest means we're neglecting the rights of others whose definitions of marriage don't match the two-person model, and effectively shuts them out -- just as we've been shut out for so long.
And that's wrong.

 

[construct]

More germane are the circumstances of each particular case and especially the difference between outing a private as opposed to a public figure and someone who isn't persecuting gays as opposed to someone who is.

In the case of a public figure, who is gay and who is actively anti-gay, outing becomes less about him or her being gay and more about authenticity and integrity. No different than unmasking someone in public office as a thief.

Your public/private figure distinction is akin to the public/private figure distinction in defamation law. Why do you think that distinction is useful in the context of outing?

Buse is, I guess, a public figure in as much as he has appeared as a guest on broadcast chat shows, but he has not spoken publicly about gay-rights issues. Do you think he should be treated as a public figure in this case?

 

[Kulindahr]

In the case of a public figure, who is gay and who is actively anti-gay, outing becomes less about him or her being gay and more about authenticity and integrity. No different than unmasking someone in public office as a thief.

Okay, for public figures I'll concede your point; by accepting public service they've surrendered a certain amount of privacy. When there are facts that show they are being hypocritical, or corrupt, or whatever, then there is probably a public interest in knowing those facts.

 

[Kulindahr]

BTW, for gc64s1, here's a better statement of my ideas concerning what should be done about marriage inequality:

http://www.justusboys.com/forum/showpost.php?p=4261161&postcount=47

 

[Spensed]

Your public/private figure distinction is akin to the public/private figure distinction in defamation law. Why do you think that distinction is useful in the context of outing?

Buse is, I guess, a public figure in as much as he has appeared as a guest on broadcast chat shows, but he has not spoken publicly about gay-rights issues. Do you think he should be treated as a public figure in this case?

Person A is a private individual, who's married to a woman and who has a family, but who cheats on his wife with gay partners. Obviously, he's harming his wife with his infidelities and dishonesty. But, assuming the observer doesn't owe her any obligation to tell her, then he doesn't have one and it isn't his business.

Person B is exactly the same, but is a public figure. Easy to deal with the Larry Craig type of case. But, as you say, what about someone who is publicly gay neutral or who has become a public figure involuntarily? While it's a more difficult call, becoming a public figure in reality changes the rules.

I'm not sure it's about the gay issue as opposed to character and integrity. If a hero rescues children from a burning bus, is it relevant that he has an extensive criminal record or has worked with the Peach Corps or that he's gay? Probably not but not only are those factors then matters of public interest, but, if they reveal some questions about authenticity or motive, then they become unavoidable.

 

[construct]

Person A is a private individual, who's married to a woman and who has a family, but who cheats on his wife with gay partners. Obviously, he's harming his wife with his infidelities and dishonesty. But, assuming the observer doesn't owe her any obligation to tell her, then he doesn't have one and it isn't his business.

Person B is exactly the same, but is a public figure. Easy to deal with the Larry Craig type of case. But, as you say, what about someone who is publicly gay neutral or who has become a public figure involuntarily? While it's a more difficult call, becoming a public figure in reality changes the rules.

I'm not sure it's about the gay issue as opposed to character and integrity. If a hero rescues children from a burning bus, is it relevant that he has an extensive criminal record or has worked with the Peach Corps or that he's gay? Probably not but not only are those factors then matters of public interest, but, if they reveal some questions about authenticity or motive, then they become unavoidable.

Well and good. And by the way, you've also now introduced the concepts of duty and public interest in addition to the public/private figure distinction. Now let's add another couple of categories--truth as a defense and matters of common knowledge.

Let's review the allegations. Mr. Buse is in a long-term same-sex relationship which may or may not be an open relationship (we don't know). Mr. Buse is unquestionably gay and has never denied it. It is a matter of common knowedge within his circle of acquaintances that Mr. Buse is gay. Mr. Buse has made sexual advances toward at least one other person apart from his partner, which is only important for convincing others who don't know him personally that he is indeed gay.

So defamation categories seem to me not particularly relevant to these circumstances. More fundamentally, the category of outing may not be all that germane either. While we're looking for legal categories, might I suggest and dispense with false light. The statements about Mr. Buse, while true, are here being used to bring him into disrepute; but it is not false light because they are not innuendo that would lead someone to a false conclusion.

I'm just unconvinced that any categories derived from tort law are all that useful in analyzing the pseudo-outing of Mark Buse.

 

[Kulindahr]

Equality under the law isn't an agenda.

When it's focused on just your group in a situation that is already discriminatory, it is.

 

[Kulindahr]

Thank you for your posts! I have a better idea of where you are coming from. While I am not sure I can adopt your concept and ideas, I appreciate the insight. You've expanded my horizons on the issue and for that I am appreciative.

I was told by some that my plan in that post was devious, since it does an end-run around the whole gay marriage issue, but accomplishes the goal while playing to the religious right.
That wasn't my intent, but it just might do the trick....

 

[Spensed]

...So defamation categories seem to me not particularly relevant to these circumstances. More fundamentally, the category of outing may not be all that germane either. While we're looking for legal categories, might I suggest and dispense with false light. The statements about Mr. Buse, while true, are here being used to bring him into disrepute; but it is not false light because they are not innuendo that would lead someone to a false conclusion.

I'm just unconvinced that any categories derived from tort law are all that useful in analyzing the pseudo-outing of Mark Buse.

Well they're useful in terms of providing some moral touchstones.

A gay guy, who publicly identifies himself with an anti-gay politician and policies, even by default, is IMHO fair game in a way that a wholly private individual may not be.

It would be no different than out someone about his or her adultery or alcholism. Perfectly OK for someone campaigning for "traditional" family values, etc. Not so OK (unless other factors are in play) for your neighbor, who's a private individual.

Obviouily, there's a grey area in between. e.g. the gay accountant, whose one-of-many-incidental-clients is an aggressive anti-gay public figure.