Jul 02, 2004  |  By: CHRIS CRAIN  | COMMENTS     

A CHILL WIND is blowing these days on Capitol Hill, where closeted gay congressional staffers are facing the growing threat of being outed by a small but determined group of activists.

Speculation that this newspaper was planning to publish a list closeted gay staffers only added to the tumult, as some scared aides acted as if they were scrambling for their very jobs.

It’s a curious Washington irony that the fear of being outed has mobilized the Hill’s gay aides in a way that threats to their civil rights seem never managed to before.

But lest we feel too much sympathy for the plight of these congressional staffers, or too much indignation for the activists who are targeting them, we should keep in mind just who we’re talking about. Or, better yet, who we’re not talking about.

Not at risk are gay congressional staffers open about their sexual orientation.

Not at risk are gay congressional staffers working for members of Congress who oppose or haven’t yet taken a position on the Federal Marriage Amendment, an unprecedented measure that would forever usurp from the states the definition of marriage and deprive gay couples of their access to the courts to challenge heterosexual-only marriage laws.

Not at risk are gay congressional staffers at the lower echelons of authority, who work as legislative aides answering constituent mail or answering the telephones. The activists have said they are focusing only on aides with real influence on public policy.

Not at risk are gay congressional staffers who are deep in the closet. As a practical matter, the only way an aide’s name can make it onto one of these activists’ lists is if the staffer is out within the gay community. These are not people struggling to figure out their sexual orientation; they are well-adjusted gay men and lesbians who attend gay social functions and patronize public gay establishments.

So who are we talking about? Semi-closeted Hill staffers who happily play in gay D.C. but who work in positions of authority with real influence over members of Congress who support an amendment to the United States Constitution that would prohibit states from legalizing marriage, civil unions or even domestic partner registries for gay couples.

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.

The level of rationalization and denial it must take for these people to show up for work each day must be mind-boggling. Add to that their newfound paranoia that an activist — or even this newspaper — might reveal their sexual orientation, and thereby their hypocrisy, and you have some pretty unhappy people about whom all of us should feel absolutely no sympathy whatsoever.

DOES THAT MEAN that the rumors are correct, and the Washington Blade would out this narrow group of semi-closeted, influential and yet hypocritical Hill staffers? Yes and no.

No, this newspaper has not worked on a story that would publish the names of closeted congressional aides under any set of circumstances.

Yes, this newspaper would investigate and report about whether influential Hill aides are gay if facts about their sexual orientation raise highly newsworthy questions of hypocrisy in the stands taken by the anti-gay members of Congress for whom they work.

The Blade is, after all, a gay newspaper and as such, our reporters regularly ask almost every person they interview about their sexual orientation because it is invariably relevant to the story and to our readers.

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

If the subject of an interview is a private citizen and not a public figure, then their expectation of privacy is understandably higher, and the Blade would respect their desire not to have their sexual orientation discussed in print. This newspaper will not, for example, publish photographs from gay-themed events without first asking the individuals for permission.

But if the interview subject is a public official or a public figure — in government, entertainment, sports, wherever — then that person’s privacy expectations are a lot lower. Those who choose ...