Bio
Nordette is a freelance journalist, published fiction writer, poet, and the mother of two children. She is also a BlogHer.com Contributing Editor an...
 
 
 
 

What’s Hot on BlogHer.com

From Outrage to Outcast: Is Outing Members of the GLBT Community Ever O.K.?

  • Share This Post
  • submit
  • 21
  • Sparkle (
    )
     

This could be a horrible thing. This post may be the proverbial train wreck the curious must watch--an opinionated heterosexual writing about a controversial topic deemed "queer," as it relates to the sensibilities and politics of the gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender communities. But I'm writing about it because, well, it's a train wreck with cars twisted and toppled, hanging precariously over cliffs, heavy with philosophies about the right to privacy, journalistic integrity, the sanctity of 12 step programs, and the circumstances under which homosexual politicians or pastors should be outed.

But I can write this, I tell myself, because straight or gay, humans generally don't care for hypocrisy and that is what this story is really about: hypocrisy, which probably began when humans first preached moral laws. There's no need, however, to go back that far. Our story can start with Outrage, a documentary about outing closeted gay politicians who actively bash homosexuals and fight gay rights legislation, crafting or voting for policies that perpetuate discrimination against the GLBT community.

Person's hand holding rainbow-colored flag waving in the sky

Is it still a big deal to come out as gay, lesbian, or bisexual? Coming out as gay or lesbian presents a number of issues too complex to discuss in the space allotted, but revealed in pop culture pokes at both homosexuality and homophobia, such as the furor following the recent airing of a Boondocks episode skewering movie mogul Tyler Perry, who is a Christian asserting heterosexuality. Otherwise, it seems lately that celebrities have been popping out all over, declaring they play for both teams, to use one of society's euphemisms for bisexuality.

I'm never sure anymore in this "enlightened age" what the big deal is about these revelations, homosexual or bi, unless I explore my heterosexual privilege and relate the announcements to a time when some fair-skinned black people, who could pass for white publicly, declared they had African blood. Declaring oneself to be "Negro" in times past--especially if you were a celebrity with fair skin and straight or wavy hair--was not simply stating the obvious, but a political statement akin to the "Black is Beautiful" movement that came later.

Long after the Civil War ended, some states had "one drop" laws and banned marriages between white people and black people. Being black meant you couldn't eat or buy goods wherever you chose, and any action that indicated you believed yourself to be equal to white people was condemned. The stigma of being black as well as being in love with a black person is one of the reasons the late Lena Horne kept her marriage to a white man secret for a few years.

The story of the "tragic mulatto" has been explored or exploited in old films such as Pinky and Imitation of Life and called "a myth" by some critics in the black community. However, when similar observations have been made of members of other groups, such as those in the Jewish community who have misrepresented ethnic identity to get ahead, people seem to accept more readily that it happens. When I was a child, I saw the movie Gentleman's Agreement one night on television and understood how bigotry also pressured some members of other ethnic groups to hide their ethnicity.

A person mistaken for being purely of Anglo Saxon descent held a key to enormous social capital if he or she would simply deny self and family and pass for white. Consequently, the black community gladly claimed these individuals who in turn claimed them. The community applauded them because the pride, sacrifice, and courage it took for fair-skinned blacks to admit their black blood in the past seemed an act of love and solidarity, a comment that "I'm not afraid of who I am and it will be all right. One day we will be accepted as equal and deserving of respect."

However, these famous, fair-skinned people weren't "outed" by others. Neither did they make announcements to the newspapers. I recall no scandals in which an actor or musician who appeared white called a news conference or told a reporter "I am black." They simply didn't deny it when people referred to them as "colored" or "Negro" in interviews. However, there were some celebrities that I

  • 21
  • Sparkle (
    )
     

Comments

Post comment as twitter logo facebook logo
Sort: Newest | Oldest
Nordette Adams 6 pts

When people have no means to prosecute, they persecute. In Brock's case, he believes being gay is wrong. That's why he was keeping it a secret from the masses, but he was not keeping it a complete secret. He was attending Courage. He believes Courage is legitimate. The people at Lavender believe it's bogus. So, they are not harassing him for hypocrisy as much as they are harassing him for what he believes. That's persecution that seems justified because Brock is also persecuting the gay community.

Eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth. That's revenge in the clothes of justice.

Some of humanity's earliest laws written to achieve "justice" resulted from the need to bring order out of chaos and address the bloodshed caused by people seeking revenge or to avenge. The desire for justice often connects to revenge, and given the intense passions and howls of "righteous indignation" apparent in cases of "outing," it's as reasonable to argue the motive is revenge as it is justice. Lavender magazine is not outing all pastors in the closet nor are the Outrage people outing all politicians in the closet, just the ones who hurt the gay community.

It only works because the people being outed are ashamed of being gay and the circles in which they travel would disapprove and probably shun them or not vote for them if they knew the truth. From what I see, activists who out want to do more than simply stop these people from using hate speech or voting for oppressive laws. They want to shame them for their hypocrisy and bring the pain.

In the case of Brock, he might get up and keep saying what he's said before. If he does that, stands up and says, "Yes, I've been trying to overcome being gay because being gay is wrong!" then what happens? Did the outing serve its highest purpose?

Nordette Adams ( http://www.bookotopia.com ) is a BlogHer CE ( http://www.blogher.com/haystackprofile/viewprofile... ) & you can find her other stuff through Her 411 ( http://her411.com ).

Deb Rox 5 pts

I don't understand why you wouldn't classify anti-gay rhetoric as hate speech. It leads to person costs (check the suicide rates of young gay people), a denial of basic human and political rights and leads to dangerous programs that seek to destroy people's essential selves. Unless there are active hate groups seeking to oppress and legislate against nudists I need to suggest that to compare a homophobic, closeted politician with a private nudists is missing a major threat to our dignity as humans and our agency as citizens.

Deb Rox

3 Smart Girlz ( http://www.3smartgirlz.com/ ) consulting

Blog ( http://www.debontherocks.com/ ) like a freaking butterfly, sting like a Tweet. ( http://www.twitter.com/debontherocks )

Deb Rox 5 pts

I have to disagree that the motive of outing is revenge. Whether or not it is a good or even ethical tactic, the motive is justice paved by transparency.

Deb Rox

3 Smart Girlz ( http://www.3smartgirlz.com/ ) consulting

Blog ( http://www.debontherocks.com/ ) like a freaking butterfly, sting like a Tweet. ( http://www.twitter.com/debontherocks )

Mata H 5 pts

But I think you see me through rose colored lenses. I'm just pragmatic, I think. I'm the soupy, messy spiritual struggle with the rest of the planet. I just agree with you that revenge is not only destructive, but pointless. I have more thoughts about that and will try to frame then into a post.

Thx for the dialogue!
mata

~~ Contributing Editor, Mata H. also blogs right along at Time's Fool ( http://timesfool.blogspot.com )

Nordette Adams 6 pts

I think due to the kind of person you are, one who thinks about right from wrong at a higher level than most people and who puts love and compassion above any permission that lets humans seek personal vengeance, you can't get into the shoes of people on the lower road who have almost a "by any means necessary" approach to a sociopolitical struggle. In other words, you're not going to compromise your belief about love and compassion to score a few points, and that's good. If we all lived that way, there'd be a lot less suffering in the world. Or as you once wrote a friend of yours told you, before we do anything to anyone or say anything, we should ask ourselves, "Would I say or do this if I loved her/him?" I've probably paraphrased.

What you say makes perfect sense to me on a spiritual level. And on a spiritual level, since I had to read the Lavender Magazine article to write this post, I'll tell you what I thought as I did.

If Townsend wrote an accurate description of Brock, then from what I read, Brock's got some issues about acceptance and judging others that have nothing to do with homosexuality. And these are issues only he can address alone in conversations with God.

If I think about his outing as a life trial the way I've thought about some traumatic things that have happened to me in my life where I initially felt a sense of shame, then I wonder, what lesson can he learn from all this or what is God trying to teach him?

Under that model for examining personal tribulations (the spiritual equivalent of life giving you lemons so you make lemonade, I guess), the result of all this could be Brock becomes a better Christian if he will listen to the deeper lessons and not wallow in "Look what those horrible people did to me."

In looking at this topic otherwise, I've viewed it much more like a warfare scenario, and we know in war humans do unthinkable things to each other. Some of the soldiers eventually veer from whatever honor codes warriors claim to follow into committing war crimes.

Stepping back and considering outing through spiritual eyes instead, I would conclude outing is not right ever because the motivations behind it, especially in the case of Brock, smell more like revenge dressed in the clothes of righteous indignation. No matter the justification, the desire to out still springs from wanting revenge.

Seeking revenge usually backfires someplace in our lives, even though we may not make the connection to how, when, and where. That's my belief, and since it is a belief, I can't prove it.

Nordette Adams ( http://www.bookotopia.com ) is a BlogHer CE ( http://www.blogher.com/haystackprofile/viewprofile... ) & you can find her other stuff through Her 411 ( http://her411.com ).

Mata H 5 pts

Well, I think we've found that there is no real one-for-one analogy here. That is probably because of the super-intimate-private nature of ones sexuality.

Plus I think there are other choices to outing someone --- exposing what he says as homophobic is one (standing up more loudly for the right principle than expending energy exposing/punishing the hypocrite.) Speaking to him one on one is also a choice. ("The game is up. Get what help you need.")

I think we cannot afford to (to borrow a phrase) do anything that diverts us from keeping our eye on the prize. If the prize is equal rights for the GLBT Community, then we need to just be more visible than the homophobes in speaking out for the GLBT community.

If I were LBT, my opinions may be different, but I can't get out of my own shoes enough to know. I can only speak for me and my shoes.

~~ Contributing Editor, Mata H. also blogs right along at Time's Fool ( http://timesfool.blogspot.com )

Nordette Adams 6 pts

Brief? What's that? :-)

You say the KKK is committing criminal acts of domestic terrorism. They do sometimes, but not as much as they used to in the old days. Mostly today they just wear suits and try to influence the masses to be racists like them via hate speech, some of which is directed against homosexuals.

It's not illegal to be a member of the KKK. Therefore, to expose a politician as a KKK member is to prejudge him based on the crimes of other KKK members. To believe one's race is superior is not a crime (in the legal sense). To promote that notion is also not a crime, just detrimental to a nation that seeks harmony.

If the government really viewed the KKK as a dangerous terrorist org. (which in my opinion it is), then they'd arrest and interrogate its members the same way Homeland Security arrests and interrogates suspected Arab terrorist. But they can't b/c the KKK is protected by freedom of speech laws, right to assemble, etc., and an unfortunate number of Americans, while not members of the KKK, are sympathetic to some of its beliefs.

A substantial number of Americans are also sympathetic to those who condemn gay people. Given that hate speech against gays contributes to violence against gays, why is a closeted gay person in public office who perpetuates hate speech against his own community different from a white guy in a sheet speaking hate speech about other groups? (I think in some places Klansmen aren't allowed to cover their faces if they march). Most people may declare that since the Klansman is white, then that's a member of the privileged majority persecuting an oppressed minority, and that's what makes it so horrible, which is why in one of my analogies I said the Klansman turns out to be a black guy. Is he excused because he's black?

I think people want to excuse the closeted gay politician because they feel sorry for him. If society really felt there was no shame in being gay, they wouldn't feel sorry for the closeted gay politicians who use hate speech and worse, promote discriminatory polices against other gays, and they'd extend to them the same "outrage" they do for other hypocrites and not mourn over these unveilings.

If this were a case of a Jewish person changing his name to something Anglo Saxon and covering up his roots so he could have a better chance to win public office someplace in America, and then he took office and started making antisemitic statements to distract people from finding out he's actually Jewish because his constituents would never vote for a Jewish guy, nobody would weep for him when the ADL published a piece exposing his roots. Why? Because there's no shame in being Jewish that's why.

I'm not talking about you, Mata. You might still say that kind of outing would be wrong as well.

If it were me, I'd do a one-on-one also if I did anything at all. Nevertheless, I'm not going to judge gay activists' more militant tactics against my own standard of behavior and desire to show compassion because I have not walked a mile in their shoes. (I would, however, advise some who get violent occasionally, like some gay activists are accused of doing after the Prop 8 vote ( http://www.startribune.com/local/81782082.html ), that's a bad move for winning people to your side.)

Still, I am African-American, and so have had to contemplate the nature of struggle and political movements for long periods of time. I recall my mother repeating comedian Flip Wilson's old quip ( http://www.nytimes.com/1998/11/26/nyregion/flip-wi... ):
Mr. Wilson worked his way across the country, appearing in black clubs and theaters where he honed his skills and silenced insistent hecklers with lines such as, ''You know, when we take over, we goin' to have to kill some of us too.''
He meant that in the figurative sense, and I only clarify that for people who may quote me out of context. In addition, some in the black blogging community have a running joke about which African-Americans deserve a visit from the "drop squad." I grasp the concept, again in the figurative sense, but I guess that is shaming too.

( http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0109675/plotsummary )

The constant hurdle for gay activists is some of America's lingering puritanical views about sex, I think, especially homosexual sex. People feel strongly about maintaining privacy for people's sex lives, applying the "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you," teaching. They don't want anyone exposing their sex lives, and so they condemn exposing the sex lives of others. But exposing political hypocrites in the closet gay community is not really about sex. It's about sociopolitical struggle.

America may never get past the issue of sexual acts and privacy when it comes to allowing gay activists to use the same tactics used by other minorities fighting for rights. Consequently, gay people may forever be seen not as simply human but as the sexual act itself. Case in point, anti-sodomy laws may make a comeback ( http://www.thepoliticalcarnival.net/2010/06/texas-... ) as a "back door" to oppressing gay people and getting in a lick against gay rights below the belt.

I know. That last line was horrible. I've been hanging with a bad crowd on Twitter.

Thank you for being a good sparring partner on this topic, Mata.

Nordette Adams ( http://www.bookotopia.com ) is a BlogHer CE ( http://www.blogher.com/haystackprofile/viewprofile... ) & you can find her other stuff through Her 411 ( http://her411.com ).

Mata H 5 pts

Well, I'll try to keep it brief...the difference between exposing someone who is a legislator ans is also in the KKK is that the KKK is a hate group committing criminal acts of domestic terrorism. That isn't outing someone, it is exposing a crime. I'm delighted when people expose criminal hypocrisy.

If I found out that a homophobic politician was secretly involved in some same sex encounters or relationships I might bring it up to him one-on-one --

I used the nudists as an example because they could be hypocritical about nudity, could engage in it themselves, and could be publicly shamed by exposure for a non-criminal, natural act.

Yeah, well maybe hypocrites do "have it coming", as you say...but if I couldn't do it myself, it doesn't make it more right when someone else does it "for me". That's my limit anyway.

YMMV

~~ Contributing Editor, Mata H. also blogs right along at Time's Fool ( http://timesfool.blogspot.com )

Nordette Adams 6 pts

I'm posting the message I sent to Denise privately when I was in the doctor's office today so I can point other people to it who may think I'm cheering for Brock being outed.
For the record, I would not out anyone for being gay. And I know this is painful for Brock. Even though I think he had it coming from the Universe, I'm not cheering for his suffering. I think that he went to war and took fire.

That's life. I am so glad you commented. I worked hard on that post.
I only say that b/c I don't know if you're telling me you disagree with my opinion or if you disagree with Lavender Magazine. If you disagree with me too, that's fine, but I need to clarify my opinion, I feel, one more time because I'm obsessive like that and I want to poke you, my equally opinionated friend. :-)

The most I said is if I related this to the African-American struggle, I understand why Lavender did it and why the Outrage people out politicians. When it comes to political leaders, who make policy, who say one thing and do another, I don't have a problem with people shining a light on them. If they want to approve policies that monitor what consenting adults do with each other in their own bedrooms, then they should be ready to have a spotlight on their own bedrooms or bathroom stalls or whatever.

I don't think they should hold office and that's because I'm a really, really ornery person sometimes. They may be suffering in secret about their sexual orientation and their hypocrisy may be a sign of their deep psychic distress, but they need to go off and heal in private and stop making everybody else suffer in public because they feel guilty about what they do in the dark.

Whether or not I would personally out a gay person is another subject entirely. I'm not a gay activist fighting for gay rights night and day. Furthermore, it's none of my business what anyone's sexual orientation is unless their struggle to deal with themselves is making them vote for policies on Capitol Hill that oppress the people of the U.S.A. in the same way some of us thought gay activists and others were right to grill Elena Kagan about her sexual orientation.

Ironically, I thought that raking Kagan over about it was wrong unless somebody can prove to me that her sexual orientation will drive her judicial decisions. I don't get the willingness to investigate Kagan about her sex life and spin her in innuendo b/c sexual orientation is supposedly important for a judge. How does that stack up with letting politicians off the hook about sexual orientation who claim to be straight but are not and who make judgments about voting for legislation that hurts gay people? Could somebody explain that to me please? Must be a blind spot for me.

I say I would not out a gay person personally, but if it personally came to my attention that a politician was campaigning on say, racial harmony and equity, for instance, but secretly working with groups that supported Jim Crow renewal or donating money to the KKK, I'd out him in a heartbeat after I had all my security team in place and had purchased suitable body armor b/c the KKK will kill you if they think they can get away with it. A few of 'em were just sentenced down here earlier this year for murdering a woman b/c they thought she would reveal their secret ritual.

Now I'm recalling the people who voted for Prop 8 who have objected to anyone comparing the struggle for African-American rights to the struggle for gay rights. Are they right? Should such comparisons be discarded?

Maybe they should because in this case, some people who are pro-gay rights and in race relations unsympathetic to racists who use hate speech, people who offer no solace to say, Clarence Thomas--who sometimes appears to have internalized white supremacist messages that have been used against black people so much so that he votes more like Limbaugh would on the SCOTUS--would feel deep sympathy for a gay person who's spreading hate speech against gay people and promoting policies that deny gay people their civil rights. Aren't these gay people exhibiting signs of internalizing heterosexual supremacist language the same way some people think Thomas has absorbed white supremacist messaging? Or is this unwillingness to out gay people who practice the worst kind of hypocrisy akin to the "no snitching allowed" culture of the gangs?

I understand that a gay hypocrite has issues and should be shown compassion and that the person needs help to work through his/her issues. However, in the meantime that person is working out those issues up against the skulls of other people. Is this the suffering of one outweighs the pain of the many?

But I do get your point about shaming Brock. I'm not a fan of shaming, but people use shame b/c it gets results. Ironically, could anyone shame a person for being gay if we didn't collude with hypocrites by showing them the very mercy they withhold from others? (I know the Christian way here is turn the other cheek, but all the players in this saga aren't Christian. So, I won't hold them to a Christian standard.)

While I personally would not have outed Brock, I still say he had it coming. Saying he had it coming is not the same as cheering for his suffering. I didn't hear this story and jump for joy. Nor did I laugh. Although, a dear friend of mine did. I heard this story and shook my head.

The gay rights movement has moved beyond weeping victims of the 60s Civil Rights approach to the militancy of the black power movements that grew beside the nonthreatening weepers. Militants are willing squash people who get in their way. Not all activists in the gay rights movement are militants just as not all in the black power movement were militants, but this move toward a "take no prisoners" mentality is the natural evolution of sociopolitical change when people feel they are not being heard until either the change comes or passion for change dies. Some people feel no change comes for the nonmilitant without the presence of militants for contrast. (Martin vs. Malcolm) Perhaps humans shouldn't work that way, but that's the way humans work.

And I would still out a Klansman if I pulled off his sheet and he were black like me. If he were white, I'd put him on blast too, but it wouldn't be so shocking. Remember, it's not illegal to be in the Klan.

Guess I'm not that spiritually evolved or maybe just plain stupid b/c, seriously, outing a Klansman will get you killed. I don't think in such a case love must cover a multitude of sins. I think it's love must protect the people from the guy in the sheet with the rope.

Finally, I like the nudists analogy, but I keep thinking there are no laws saying nudists can't marry, and while some people think nudists are odd, few people are campaigning to have nudists' rights restricted to the point where they can't even go nude with other nudists in private. People do however prefer nudists hide in colonies and so would arrest one who wandered into the mall naked. But then, the nudist has a choice, he/she can get dressed. Can gay people simply get straight?

*teasing you* :-) For me this is mental exercise.

I am not at all surprised you're against outing people under any circumstance. It's a higher path.

I'm not surprised Denise feels that way either. She wants everybody to respect privacy, behave and play nice even when she knows that's not going to happen, bless her heart.

Nordette Adams ( http://www.bookotopia.com ) is a BlogHer CE ( http://www.blogher.com/haystackprofile/viewprofile... ) & you can find her other stuff through Her 411 ( http://her411.com ).

Mata H 5 pts

I don't like hypocrisy either, and I have wished more than one person would feel humiliated in public for what they really do/are. But I'm not proud of those feelings.

That is what outing is -- it is embarrassing someone at a very deep level. If the person felt comfortable about their sexual identity, they'd not need to be outed.

What I'd like in the world is for people to be comfortable with their own sexuality, and to feel safe in living it openly. But if someone is closeted, they have reasons - perhaps deep and scary internal reasons - that are theirs alone. If they are also publicly anti-gay, then that may speak to an internal fragility that will crack at some point even if they are not outed.

I have no right to make someone parade down the street naked, just because they were secretly members of a nudist camp...even if they publicly condemned everyone who was not dressed modestly.

Anyway, like Denise, I couldn't out someone. I could want to if they anger me with hypocrisy, but I couldn't do it.

~~ Contributing Editor, Mata H. also blogs right along at Time's Fool ( http://timesfool.blogspot.com )

Nordette Adams 6 pts

I get your point, but according to Kim Pearson's comments on her post about the ACORN scandal here ( http://www.blogher.com/why-james-okeefe-not-journa... ), some journalists have question the methods used for "To Catch a Predator" and like shows.

As for the Nelly Bly case, I think this quote from Kim's post also applies:
SPJ says (going undercover) should only be done "when traditional open methods will not yield information vital to the public." ...
That's very similar to the quote I used from Jane Kirtley, Silha Professor of Media Ethics and Law at the University of Minnesota, as stated by NYT regarding this Brock sting.

I suppose one could argue that going undercover in the 12 steps program was the only way to get the information. It could even be argued reasonably, as I've suggested in this post, that Brock was doing the public harm and so outing him was a public good.

However, playing devil's advocate here (Ooh, lookie! Irony), I think the better argument against Lavender Magazine's methods may be rooted in religious freedom. The Courage program is associated with the Roman Catholic Church. If I were on deflection patrol for Brock and the Lutheran Church and Courage, I'd spin this back on Lavender and accuse them of religious persecution: "Brock was a man struggling with his faith and spiritual nature. Those radicals interrupted." Weep. Weep. or Passion, more passion!.

While the invasion of church organizations to ferret out crimes against children and physical abuse is usually cheered, generally infiltrating a church group in America to point the finger at someone who has not committed an actual crime is jeered no matter how much the infiltrators and others disagree with the church's belief system (unless of course, the organization is mismanaging money, sometimes known as America's true god).

To run to a church is to take sanctuary. So, I'd move the dialog away from Brock's hypocrisy to another ideal Americans hold dear, religious freedom.

Hmm, imagine if I had written all my thoughts into the main post. It would have been a series. LOL.

Final analysis, Brock went to war against people who've decided to take no prisoners. He should have known this could happen.

Nordette Adams ( http://www.bookotopia.com ) is a BlogHer CE ( http://www.blogher.com/haystackprofile/viewprofile... ) & you can find her other stuff through Her 411 ( http://her411.com ).

Deb Rox 5 pts

Undercover investigative journalism has a rich and important history. Think about Nelly Bly posing as a mental patient to uncover inhumanities in hospitals, or Griffin exposing racism by passing as a black man. I don't understand why America loves it if Dateline catches predators using a mix of stealth journalism and activism, but is concerned about the sancity of a group like Courage that has closer connections to genocidal tactics and eugenics than it does to 12-Step Programs.

Deb Rox

3 Smart Girlz ( http://www.3smartgirlz.com/ ) consulting

Blog ( http://www.debontherocks.com/ ) like a freaking butterfly, sting like a Tweet. ( http://www.twitter.com/debontherocks )

Denise 9 pts moderator

I just know I won't be the one who does the outing or the one who cheers about it. I just can't do it.

~Denise
BlogHer Community Manager
Life. Flow. Fluctuate.

Nordette Adams 6 pts

I understand the magazine's logic. However, I do think the methods deserve scrutiny. I think the editor and reporter were motivated more by their loyalties to gay activism than to journalism. Hence my reference to the crumbling house of journalism. I think media today is overrun by pundits and activists and most people can't tell the difference between them and journalists.

The violation of the confidentiality of a 12-steps program doesn't sit well with me. But I understand the emotions that motivated Townsend to breach it and Rocheford to approve the breach. What they did makes perfect sense for their agenda. Activists are motivated by passion for a cause. Strategy for political activism is akin to that of war.

I think Brock had it coming. That's my opinion as a person not what I learned in journalism ethics. :-)

Nordette Adams ( http://www.bookotopia.com ) is a BlogHer CE ( http://www.blogher.com/haystackprofile/viewprofile... ) & you can find her other stuff through Her 411 ( http://her411.com ).

Nordette Adams 6 pts

I know a lot of people agree with that point of view. I'm sure there's bad karma or something for outing people, regardless of the logic behind the outing. At the same time, I think the outing in cases like Brock's may be his bad karma related to his hypocrisy.

Nordette Adams ( http://www.bookotopia.com ) is a BlogHer CE ( http://www.blogher.com/haystackprofile/viewprofile... ) & you can find her other stuff through Her 411 ( http://her411.com ).

Nordette Adams 6 pts

I think that's why he ended up in Lavender's crosshairs. He was making pulpit statements and his reach was extending beyond his congregation to influence attitudes about public policy and gay rights, which is how the magazine became aware of him. If he had been an everyday pastor who was in the closet and rarely mentioned homosexuality, I don't think they would have paid attention.

I think, however, if your'e a pastor preaching against deeds in which you indulge, you should anticipate that you may be exposed because most Christian denominations have rules in place to say what a leader should and should not do morally, and lots of churches have members who live to find dirt. Pastors doing the very things they tell others not to do usually hits the grapevine fast.

However, I knew of a church where a known wife beater was appointed to bishop. His district split, but he kept his title and his wife.

Should anyone actively hunt down pastors to find out if they're straight in the light and gay in the dark, however? I'd say no. People should mind their own business.

However, I do understand why someone listening to a pastor say to be homosexual is sinful would want to out that pastor if he or she found out he was in the closet having a lot of fun with discreet friends. As you suggest, it's about the desire to reveal hypocrisy.

Nordette Adams ( http://www.bookotopia.com ) is a BlogHer CE ( http://www.blogher.com/haystackprofile/viewprofile... ) & you can find her other stuff through Her 411 ( http://her411.com ).

Denise 9 pts moderator

I'm a lesbian. And I have struggled with how I feel about this since TW sent it to me last week.

Ultimately, I decided that I do not support Lavendar magazine. I do not support publicly outing anyone, for any reason. I just can't. It doesn't matter whether I believe being queer is perfectly fine or not. It doesn't matter whether I think the good minister is a jerk or not. How I feel about Courage doesn't matter a single iota.

What matters to me is an individual's right to privacy. An individual's right to seek support privately and trust that those who claim they will maintain an individual's privacy - do not.

To me, it just feels wrong.

~Denise
BlogHer Community Manager
Life. Flow. Fluctuate.

Melissa Ford 5 pts

I think in this case, you're talking more about revealing hypocrisy. And that is important when we're talking about elected officials--we need to know information when we're choosing them. I'm more on the line with religious leaders. And I'm definitely against outing for outing sake. It's not how I would personally live my life, but my comfort comes from a host of factors and not everyone is in my situation. Just because someone is in the public eye doesn't make everything public. But once they bring up the topic by even speaking out against it, I do think it becomes more fair game.

Melissa writes Stirrup Queens ( http://stirrup-queens.com ) and Lost and Found ( http://lostandfoundandconnectionsabound.blogspot.c... ). Her book is Navigating the Land of If ( http://thelandofif.blogspot.com/ ).

TaylorSiluwe 5 pts

... because, yes, struggling quietly is one thing - but blatant and dangerous hypocrisy is another.

For this particular story, that "program" operated on the premise that homosexuality is an addiction, like gambling, and therefore treatable. It's bogus on its face, and therefore the pros of infiltration far outway the cons.

I support the magazine and the reporters methods. And great breakdown btw ....

Nordette Adams 6 pts

I wouldn't dare print this sucker. LOL.

Thank you. I was concerned about the length but I wanted to say something other than just recap what happened. :-) I started mulling this topic over last year when I first heard about the Outrage movie.

Nordette Adams ( http://www.bookotopia.com ) is a BlogHer CE ( http://www.blogher.com/haystackprofile/viewprofile... ) & you can find her other stuff through Her 411 ( http://her411.com ).

JennaHatfield 10 pts

My initial reaction to your title was: "No, it's never okay." I felt deeply for Baxter last year. Coming out is not an easy task for some, no matter how enlightened we think our society has become. Where I live, I can tell you with certainty, it's still taboo and it's a long, long way from not being so.

But I read the piece anyway and, man, you have my wheels turning. First and foremost, this a fantastically written piece for which you should be proud. Print all 82 pages of it and wallpaper you room. :)

I went back and forth for awhile, detesting the hypocrisy but waffling on the concept of the breech of trust, until I got to this point:

It's wrong to out somebody who is quietly struggling with the decision to come out and live a life honestly, and therein lies our dilemma. Some of these people aren't struggling quietly. They're making great noises, verbally bashing people who choose not to hide, creating the climate in which discrimination and physical bashing may flourish.

So, I get what some in the gay community seem to be saying, which is pretty much "If somebody's making your life harder with hate speech and hiding under a sheet to do so, then you've got a right to investigate, confront your accuser, and pull off that sheet."

And it all makes sense.

I really could go on but you've covered everything so well in this post that I feel no need to ramble. Thank you for taking what looks like an obvious chunk of time to share all of this information with us.

Jenna Hatfield (@FireMom ( http://twitter.com/FireMom )), from Stop, Drop and Blog ( http://stopdropandblog.com ) and The Chronicles of Munchkin Land ( http://thechroniclesofmunchkinland.com ), is a freelance writer and newspaper photographer.