I deleted a few comments that insinuated the sexual preference of a Georgia State Legislator. No one has the right to “out” another person because he no longer caucuses with the House Democrats. If you are going to lay fault then lay fault with his oversized ego to believe that he still represents his constituents by switching political parties.

Let’s try to stay above the fray in these coming difficult months. You don’t have to play nice here but you do have to play decent.

 

25 Responses to A little house cleaning is in order

  1. Mel says:

    Thanks Nita for watching out for us.

  2. Julez says:

    It’s a really complicated issue. I’m glad you deleted the comments outing him, wasn’t sure why someone would even go there. IMO it’s a form of cyberbullying and not something I’d want this blog to be associated with.

    In most circumstances the closet cases out themselves anyway.. luggage lifters, manhunt postings, massages it all comes out eventually.

  3. Random LGBT Observer says:

    All three of the defectors voted for the bill: http://www.legis.ga.gov/legis/2003_04/votes/hv1124.htm

    So yes, they all three are anti-LGBT. I don’t have a problem if someone outs them.

    • Gunner says:

      How do we know this said person is gay?

      • Random LGBT Observer says:

        That becomes the real question… Not so much “if we should” but “if we can”

        • Bernita says:

          The real question is WHY??? Random, your logic fails to hold up…if someone voted for the 2004 Marriage Amendment bill and then switched sides 6 years later then it is ok to “out” them even though no one has showed a shred of evidence saying such person is actually gay. I stand by my removal of those derogatory comments. Dumb is just dumb no matter what side tosses the ball.

          • Random LGBT Observer says:

            I think any politician, no matter the party or time, who is gay and votes for anti-gay bills should be outed… the hypocrisy should be a concern to their constituents.

            Now, whether or not the member is gay or not is another issue. But your original assessment said “No one has the right to “out” another person because he no longer caucuses with the House Democrats.”

            • Gunner says:

              I really don’t think that folks have any right to out anyone. It just seems wrong to me for some reason. I can understand your point about hypocrisy but then it still doesn’t seem right to me. That is that persons own personal business and I think it should be left at that.

            • Bernita says:

              WHAT HYPOCRISY?!? Did the guy run around in 2004 screaming “I hate gays and I’m voting for this amendment” or this week run around screaming “I won’t caucus with the Democrats anymore because they like gays”. No, he didn’t. The dude has been a legislator since the early 80’s as a Dem and not once did anyone call out his sexual preference until he switched parties.

              So here’s your hypocrisy: it’s ok for the Dems to know a legislator is gay but won’t call him out when he votes against LGBT bills but once he switches to a Republican then it’s ok to out him as gay.

              For the record, I have never met this legislator, spoken to him, or shook his hand.

          • Drew says:

            Having read the comment, I don’t think I’d characterize it as derogatory. It was simply a statement of fact, like saying he’s Muslim.

            • Bernita says:

              Drew, I’m praying that you are kidding, right? Please don’t say you really didn’t see anything derogatory in calling someone gay when there is no proof that the person is gay.

              • Drew says:

                No, not really. I think everyone – at least around here, including the commenter – can agree that a person’s sexual orientation is irrelevant to their worth as a person, so speculating that a person is gay (or straight) is no different from speculating that they’re Catholic. Your speculation might be incorrect but it wouldn’t be derogatory.

                That said, it might be harmful if a bigot were to hear it and decide that they would rather not be represented by a Catholic, but I don’t know how responsible I’d hold someone for harm done by someone else’s bigotry.

                • Random LGBT Observer says:

                  Their sexual orientation is irrelavent to their personal worth.

                  What is very relevant for discussion is that they are not being honest with their constituents, they are being hypocritical, and they are holding back those of us who are LGBT

  4. Sara says:

    Let the guy show his true colors by voting anti-LGBT before making the hypocrisy argument to justify outing him. The mere fact that he has switched to the R side of the aisle does not mean he “publicly opposes LGBT rights.”

  5. Stefan says:

    I suppose that’s the ethical thing to do. I highly disagree with it, of course.

  6. Random LGBT Observer says:

    As a gay man, I don’t have a problem with outing someone who publicly opposes LGBT rights. In fact, I think it should be done. The same way I think someone who promotes “family values” should be exposed for cheating on their wives.