I'm conflicted about the justifications for outing gay politicians without their consent.
Sure, there are self-loathing gay politicians out there that wield state power over the LGBT community and play their part in making life harder for them. I do admit to feeling some satisfaction that a hypocrite who isn't willing to live by his own rules is exposed. On the other hand, there may be very good reasons why a politician is closeted and this new information may put his life at risk while at the same time not winning over any homophobic constituents to the cause of equality.
I'm not sure what the answer is yet.
Same. I generally hold to a rule of "you do not out anyone without their consent". But there is a strong argument that the anti-LGBT politician is a valid exception to that rule: for most people, their sexual orientation is entirely personal, at worst affecting them and their partners, whereas a politician that promotes anti-LGBT policies is actively harming people by being closeted.
The counter-argument is that this weakens the power of the rule (if you become comfortable ignoring one principle for one kind of political enemy, what's going to stop you from doing it again?), and that there's really no guarantee an outed politician has any significant effects on policy (there are more than enough cishet anti-LGBT politicians that will continue to be assholes).
I definitely don't believe in outing as punishment for hypocrisy.
On an entirely non-serious note: Randy. Boehning. To steal a line from
someone else if I wrote a book in which the lawmaker involved in a Grindr scandal was named Randy Boehning, my editor would throw me out of the room. But here we have it.
