The first of which is pretty straightforward, and is posed as a question: what exactly does outing these politicians do? Provide necessary institutional changes in regards to queer rights? No. Make other politicians who might be in a similar situation more willing to come out? Probably not. The only thing I might suggest that it does is make people question their assumptions about stereotypes and sexuality, though that seems significant in what DAMAGE I think this outing can do.

This brings me to a second point. I do not intend to justify homophobia. I do, however, want to be clear on what this outing may obscure and how this obfuscation may let these queer-negative institutional structures flourish. Allow me to explain.

Personal experiences and upbringings of these men are not examined. In what ways have their own parents, families and communities influenced their attitudes and beliefs about society? If they seek to gain prominent positions of authority on the basis of other ideological principles (however flawed we may view them as), isn’t homophobia a NECESSARY condition of their value system that has been tied to religious fundamentalism since the gay rights movement gained prominence in culture post-Stonewall? Who is to say that they haven’t battled their own desires and suffered psychologically because of it. (Fronts and facades are put up all too often.)

The third point, tied to the other two, is that this outing distracts us from real, measurable goals and difficult questions that disrupt comfort. Rather than attacking the person, attack the ideas. Queer voices need to speak in conservative circles, in religious fundamentalist circles, in places that are “dangerous” and previously avoided because this is where IDEAS need to change the most. This is where heternormative attitudes are most entrenching (and celebrated). Embroiling gay homophobes in scandals will likely not change their own attitudes and beliefs and seems antithetical to coming out as a process of maturation and personal growth and development. To engage in dialogues, however unproductive they may initially seem, can have positive effects. And really, I think allows us (out and proud queers) to more carefully examine how we once treated homosexuality, what it took us to overcome psychical distress, and how we are still dealing with it.

(I perhaps have more to say on this, but right now I will stop. I think I’ve written something fairly substantial.)