So, is it the contention of the heterophobic LGBT lobby that LGBT Americans be separated from other Americans?  Just asking.

Expose the kapos.

I just heard about this guy a half hour ago on NewsHour. They were interviewing people who know McCain well for their “Closeup” of McCain, and they spoke to Buse. I have to say, the guy set off my ‘dar immediately.

I have to ask, though—and I really do hope I don’t sound too trollish—is Buse any MORE culpable than any other Republican, just because of his sexual orientation?  Doesn’t everyone have an equal responsibility to seek justice, and don’t they deserve equal blame for not doing so?  I mean, I don’t think women (like Sarah Palin) make EXTRA-bad anti-feminists; women have enough problems without getting an extra dose of blame for not improving their own situation.  I’m inclined to use similar logic in this situation; I can understand the argument that hypocrisy is worse than general Republicanism, but I’m not sure I quite believe it.  Is there something else I’m missing here?

Buse any MORE culpable than any other Republican, just because of his sexual orientation?

This isn’t about his orientation per se (the self-loathing of some GOP gays is almost cliched now) —it’s really about McCain and his willingness to employ openly gay (to him) staff, yet promise fundies that he will back every anti-gay measure one can imagine. Talk about throwing people under the bus.

I have a bonus point round for you—McCain’s campaign, after freaking out that an online sex magnate donated $2300 to his campaign and saying it would be returned, has in fact, kept the donation.

See my post, McCain keeps Crutchley’s homo-tainted Manhunt money.

You know, the Republicans, who are supposed to be so close-minded and bigoted seem to look the other way at an awful lot of these “open secret” gays among their ranks, even at very high levels.

Meanwhile, liberal advocates love dragging these guys out and publicizing their private lives to try to ruin them.

It seems bizarre that the right-wing bigots are content to let these people’s private lives remain private, while the people who supposedly value tolerance and diversity are crusading against these people for failing to live up to what is essentially their moral standard.

let these people’s private lives remain private

He works for a guy who thinks Roe Vs. Wade should be overturned, so he’s not in favor of ‘letting people’s private lives remain private” if the people in question are women who seek to have an abortion as a private matter.

people who supposedly value tolerance and diversity are crusading against these people for failing to live up to what is essentially their moral standard.

Tolerance and diversity doesn’t extend to hypocrisy.

If you think the folks like Focus on the Family would be tolerant of an openly gay/lesbian serving as a chief of staff for a representative on their side, I’ve a bridge over the Tule River that I’d like you to have a look at…...........

So in other words, gay rights are only for those who meet your ideological criteria.

Mitch, the ability of gay people to function in the GOP political sphere is heavily conditioned on things like having their lives be at most an “open secret,” strict gender conformity, and not speaking up for their own rights.  I think it would be a big mistake to describe that as having anything to do with “gay rights” or as a model for Democrats.

Like so many others, I’m conflicted on the outing question.  I tend to see not much wrong with outing people because I don’t think there’s anything wrong with being gay.  The other thing is that there are negative externalities associated with being closeted, in particular that if you stay closeted you tend to support and extend anti-gay social contexts by perpetuating the notion that it’s not okay to be openly gay and by letting people think that there are fewer gay people than there are.  With all due respect to Avenger for me it’s not about the hypocrisy but about the damage done to other gay people by staying closeted.  That this guy is also working to build public structures that are anti-gay compounds the basic problem.  I think there’s a right to privacy but I also don’t think it’s the whole story here.

mitchforth, think of it in terms of a property analogy.  Buse and the guys they work for think they can shoot a fist through a gap in the fence between their property any time they want because your property rights don’t matter.  Ah, but grab their fist as they do so, or reach through to grab them and they scream about property lines.  They ignore the fact that you would have left them alone if they hadn’t taken a swing at you and think, genuinely think that you are the bad guy.

1.  It’s the hypocrisy.
2.  It’s the damage caused by the hypocrisy.

arg..
“...between their property and yours ...”

ummeli, do you think there’s a right to privacy?

Nice try, Melinda.  There is a right to privacy, unless one waives that right.  Buse has entered the political arena (at a VERY high administrative level) in the service of an organization which is dead set against LGBT rights, which will revoke them if it gets a chance, and which is wants to have that chance. 
By the ROE which govern our political discourse—and by the day-to-day rules of basic fairness—one cannot play a game and then complain that the rules don’t apply to you, you can’t take a swing at somebody and not expect them to fight back.  They’re right to fight back.

There is also a class element here.  It is fairly well established within conservatism that if you are connected enough then the sanctions that apply to the other 99.9999% of gays don’t apply to your privileged ass.  (Paging Mary Cheney!)  Guys like Buse, therefore, are double hypocrites.  First, for being gay and advocating restricting the civil rights of gays.  Second, selfishness is added on to the top of that because they won’t suffer any blowback.

I’m sorry, if you generally believe that it’s unacceptable for gay people to be singled out and have their careers damaged and be subjected to attack and ostracism, then those rights should be equally applicable to all gay people. 

The very notion that your movement is about basic human rights and dignity is compromised when you attempt to further it by invading the privacy of people who are doing something you contend is perfectly permissible. 

This guy works for John McCain, a mainstream republican.  That doesn’t exactly make him a nazi collaborator.  Considering that McCain is perfectly willing to employ a gay man as his chief of staff, I have to assume McCain is not particularly vested in witch-hunting gays. 

And McCain is not campaigning on a promise to lock up or kill gay people.  His position on gay marriage is that he supports it in principle, but he wants to call it a “contract” instead of a “marriage.” If that’s such a sin to the gay activist community that they are going to set out to hunt down any gays on his staff, then frankly I have no trouble placing my sympathies with McCain and his people who are clearly the ones being victimized.

The only people I see attacking a gay man here are these activists.  I don’t see who empowered these guys to decide what political beliefs or lifestyles are acceptable.

Seeker, the question was in response to the assertion that “nobody is saying Buse should be denied his civil rights.”  It seems to me that there is one civil right that’s being challenged in Buse’s case.  I think Mitch is very wrong but I also think that we need to be absolutely clear on our terms.  In my post at 4:48 I explained why I think Mitch is wrong and why I think the issue isn’t “hypocrisy.”  Indeed, it seems to me that depriving someone of his right to privacy because you’ve decided he’s a hypocrite is going too far.  There are far more substantial problems with what Buse is doing than a modest character flaw.  We’re all inconsistent about something.  It’s not the inconsistency itself that’s the problem.

Turn it on its eat for a second. Imagine:

There is a political party that has for decades had as stated policy planks that Christians should not have any protection under the law. That Christians may not be civilly married, and have passed and continue to support federal legislation to that effect. They insist that private employers have the right to fire Christians simply for being Christian. They systematically oppose anti-bullying efforts protecting Christian school kids. Political candidates and judicial nominees are vetted in part based on their willingness to declare that they do not support equal rights for Christians. Among the most readily identified demographics of this parties “base” are organization of stridently anti-Christian atheist organizations. The Presidential nominee for the party has gone out of his way to express support for their efforts and acknowledge that Christians are a threat to family and society.

The Chief of Staff for this candidate is a member of a large congregation at a DC area church that has branches around the country. In the past, he has had both private and public prayer group meetings with other members of the church. Although he attends regularly, whenever asked about his religion, he either publicly denies it or dodges the questIon.

Christian rights is a central issue in many political races around the country.

Now,

Do you condemn other churchgoers who come forward to call him a hypocrite? Do you think that it is purely a private matter? Is it an issue that the candidate, with a publicly stated anti-Christian stance, overlooks his religion? Is it national news?

After all, Obama’s preacher was.

Coincidence that Buse aka “dupontpig2008” solicits for sex parties on the Internet & Palin was mayor of the crystal meth capitol of Alaska?

Lymis has it nailed.

Whenever I hear a conservative say that we should “allow [a gay person’s] private life to remain private” I believe that they are really saying “allow us to turn a blind eye to our mutual hypocrisy.”

Michforth claims that the people who outed Mr. Buse are trying to ruin him. I disagree, but Mitchforth is right about one thing. This is about politics. If this Mr. Buse were a liberal democrat (and therefore in line with most of the people at this blog), then being openly gay would not ruin him. This ruin would only occur if he was working in an environment that is rife with homophobia—where people would fire him for being openly gay. Apparently, the Republican party fits this description, otherwise this would not even be an issue.

However, there is more to it than that.

The problem with Mr. Buse is NOT that he chooses to remain closeted. If that was all he was doing, I would be against his outing. We all do we have to in order to survive.

The problem is that he has chosen to remain closeted so that he can accrue power and privilege by working for a political party that has worked to deny civil rights to GLBT people. He turns a blind eye to their prejudice and, in exchange, the people he works for turn a blind eye to the fact that he is one of the people that they rail against.

There are a couple of problems with this arrangement: 

1) I suppose if you share the fabled conservative viewpoint of “I’ve got mine and screw the rest of you,” this problem is not a problem at all. However, as a liberal I do believe, to an extent, that working for the collective good is important. Mr. Buse can actively work against gay rights because he knows that, no matter how bad things get for 99.9% of gays out there, he will be insulated by his money and connections. He gets power by oppressing others like him, but suffers none of the blowback. It is hypocritical to work for the punishment of others who live their lives no differently than you. It is selfish to accumulate power at their expense.

2) The problem with “keeping private lives private” is that it’s not all about privacy. The push for civil rights tells us that many GLBT people want their orientation known publicly and taken for granted, much like the orientation of heterosexuals. Furthermore, the push for marriage rights indicates that many gays want their partnerships to be a matter of public record. Of course, if you do think that GLBT people are inferior, and deserve to be denied housing, employment, marriage, and even their lives, then this is not a problem either. For those of us who believe in civil rights for all, it is. 

If you choose to live life in the closet, that is your choice to make. Just don’t make it difficult for others who do not wish to emulate you.

(Oh, and use the cedar chips. They smell nicer.)

maatnofret:

If this Mr. Buse were a liberal democrat ... then being openly gay would not ruin him.

If Mr. Buse were a liberal democrat, gay, and discovered to be advocating that the state limit people’s religious rights (for example, forcing Christian churches to marry gay people) then the people so eager to trumpet his right to privacy here would be conspicuously silent…. if you define “conspicuously silent” to mean “baying for his political hide and yelling that gays like him are seeking special privileges”. 

Doesn’t this rather stand as a good example of privilege?  Part of that concept is the realization that not only that many people are treated as second class citizens, but also that their right to expose the ongoing mechanics of their oppression are considered inappropriate or impermissible.