|
|
John Aravosis is a longtime Washington lobbyist and activist
and Internet strategist.
He can be reached at john@gayadvocacy.com.
|
|
|  |
|  |
|
|
| |  |
HOME > VIEWPOINT > OPINION
By: John Aravosis COMMENTS
ONE YEAR AGO, I would have opposed “outing” gay congressional staffers
who work for anti-gay members of Congress. After all, I was once one of those
staffers, working for a Republican, no less. Today, while outing still gives
me pause, I believe recent events have made it necessary.
When President Bush and anti-gay members of Congress teamed up with the radical
right to push for passage of the anti-gay Federal Marriage Amendment, all the
rules changed.
The FMA is the legislative equivalent of a nuclear bomb. Its passage will
ban same-sex marriage from now till eternity, ripping apart thousands of already-married
gay couples. Worse yet, the amendment is so broadly written that it could overturn
every pro-gay federal, state and local law, and private industry policy in
the country.
Facing such an unprecedented threat, it is time we considered an unprecedented
response.
We once laughed off the gay staffers who worked for Jesse Helms or Pat Buchanan.
We loathed their self-loathing, but figured that for the most part they were
hurting themselves more than us.
In post-FMA America, we no longer have that luxury. President Bush and anti-gay
members of Congress have declared war on gay people.
GAY STAFFERS WHO work for such politicians are hardly innocent bystanders
simply exercising their right to free speech. They are hired guns defending
policies intended to destroy our relationships. Such staffers are, at best,
enemy combatants; and at worst, war criminals. Those who would choose to aid
and abet our enemies deserve neither our pity nor our protection.
Some say that congressional staff members are hardly responsible for the anti-gay
positions of their bosses. That is simply absurd. We’re not talking about
young kids who simply walk the dog or stuff the mail.
There are gay men and lesbians serving anti-gay members in the most senior
levels of Congress, from chiefs of staff to press secretaries to lawyers and
other senior advisers. To suggest that their role in policy-making is negligible
is naïve or disingenuous.
It’s high time we stopped treating grown men and women as children who
simply need a hug. These people don’t need a hug; they need a swift kick
in the ass. They are, for the most part, well-educated, highly paid adults
who are perfectly aware of the harm they are causing.
Yet still they choose to perform their roles. To suggest that all, or even
a majority, are closet cases living on the fringes of gay life, and thus deserving
of our pity, is a fiction. They may work against our civil rights by day, but
they surely enjoy its benefits by night.
BUT WHAT IF the marriage amendment is doomed, as some say, so no harm, no
foul? That’s nice, but it’s hardly a defense to admit you tried
to kill me, but failed.
And in any case, it’s not at all clear that the amendment is dead. Only
a fool crows victory before the votes have been counted. It would hardly be
unprecedented for our “allies” in Congress to cave when faced with
a hard-to-oppose anti-gay vote.
And even if the amendment doesn’t pass this year, the gay marriage debate
is hardly over. The debate has spurred the passage of dozens of new anti-gay
laws across the country.
It’s only a matter of time before the Defense of Marriage Act is declared
unconstitutional, and the issue is again ripe for future congressional consideration.
When that day comes, who’s to say the House and Senate won’t be
composed of a super-majority of anti-gay Democrats and Republicans — aided
to victory by their LGBT staff — willing to endorse what now seems unthinkable?
What will outing really achieve? An outing campaign takes troops away from
the enemy, teaches members of Congress and their staff that there is a price
to be paid for legislating “family values,” and ultimately helps
create an environment in which legislative gay-bashing and working for the
enemy is less and less acceptable.
In the end, LGBT staffers working for anti-gay members of Congress ask of
us what they are unwilling to give in return. They condemn the use of their
sexual orientation as a weapon while brandishing our own against us.
They demand their private lives be protected and kept off limits while helping
their bosses turn our private lives into criminal acts. And they ask us to
ignore our own self-interest and defend them with our silence, while they refuse
to consider anyone’s well being but their own.
These staffers are complicit in destroying the very people whose protection
they now demand as a birthright. I, for one, have had enough.
|