ACTION: Thank The Washington Blade. Editorial Board stands for truth!

Written by on July 7, 2004 in LGBT Media, Media - 2 Comments

OK, Folks…Here’s our first easy to do action. Take a look at the Washington Blade’s editorial on lesbian and gay hill staffers and then send a note off to Executive Editor Chris Crain on how fantastic this Viewpoint is. You can see the entire editorial here: DON’T CRY FOR HILL STAFFERS

While the entire editorial is worth a read, I couldn’t resist posting some of my favorite lines from it:

“IF EVER THERE were a definition of a gay Uncle Tom, it would fit these people. These are not dishwashers or short-order cooks at Cracker Barrel, facing poverty if their redneck bosses learn they’re big homos.

“These are smart, talented, well-educated professionals who could find success in any number of highly paid positions on or off the Hill but who instead have chosen to devote their professional lives to advancing the careers of politicians who would strip them and their friends of basic civil rights protections and even redress of their grievances in the courts.

It is 2004, not 1954, and sexual orientation in and of itself is no longer a “private fact” beyond the pale of inquiry.

It is not the job of the Washington Blade – and ought not be the job of HRC – to protect the identity of semi-closeted congressional aides who have important questions to answer about why they have not acted to protect their fellow gay citizens.


2 Comments on "ACTION: Thank The Washington Blade. Editorial Board stands for truth!"

  1. Anonymous July 13, 2004 at 7:07 am · Reply

    In the present political reality, where the GOP is terrorizing and intimidating gays and lesbians, our knowingly protecting gays and lesbians who aid the GOP is sheltering war criminals.

    To closeted queer gay oppressors and their apologists (like GLASS): Don’t ask me to be your co-dependent secret-keeper, and don’t expect me to be complicit in your crimes against humanity.

    If you want my support, you’ll first have to come out and fight with the rest of us for lives of dignity and equality — even if it (gasp) actually costs you something.

  2. Anonymous July 14, 2004 at 5:13 pm · Reply

    How do you “out” someone who’s not “in?”

    When folks were lambasting Michaelangelo Signorile back in King George I’s reign for “outing” Pete Williams, I wondered how you could be violating the privacy of someone wwho brazenly walked in the front door of JR’s (a washington gay bar) night after night, and practically had a brass plaque on his seat at the bar?

    If folks are being truly clandestine about their sexual orientation (or, probably worse, are engaging in occassional same-sex sexual activity furtively because they are involved in a public heterosexual relationship), the disclosure of the time place and manner of specific sexual liasons would undoubtedly be a violation of privacy…

    However, if people are generally living their lives as part of the gay community (i.e., frequenting gay bars, reading the Blade or the Advoocate on the subway on their way to work, flying off to circuit parties or the like, or, let’s face it, cruising gay chat rooms, which is as public as a bar), it’s unreasonable to expect people to “lie” or obfuscate on their behalf just to “hide” a fact that they themselves have chosen to make public…

    I would argue that these folks are not actually “closeted” at all… “Closeted” refers to a much more self-repressive condition where one allows NO ONE (frequently, including the individual in question) from knowing the truth about their sexual orientation.

    No, there’s another “C” word that more properly applies to these folks, one that was used by the French as an epithet to describe those who aided and abetted the Vichy regime: COLLABORATIONIST.

    And like the collaborationists of the WWII era, these people SHOULD be singled out and treated as pariahs by the rest of the society that they are willing to sell out for their own gain.

    It wasn’t ethically wrong when the people of France shaved the heads of known collaborationists and subkected them to ridicule in the public square, and despite HRC’s (self-interested?) objection to the notion of “Naming, blaming and shaming” those who make their living working against our interests, I don’t believe there’s anything wrong with making these members of the gay community accountable for THEIR actions (or inactions) as well.

Leave a Comment