In our community, the issue of “outing” someone’s sexuality against their express wishes is a topic that sparks much heated debate with no middle ground: you either condone or condemn the practice. The discussion has been going on since at least 1990, when writer/activist/radio host Michelangelo Signorile outed American millionaire Malcolm Forbes. Then most people were against outing. Now it seems opinion is split down the middle.

However, Outrage, a new documentary just released on DVD, makes the case that we should be outing closeted gay politicians who promote anti-gay legislation.

The film focuses on several American political figures who have supported legislation harmful to the LGLT community, while they themselves led closeted lives. Juxtaposing the hypocritical politicians, director Kirby Dick (This Film is Not Yet Rated, Derrida, and Twist of Faith) interviews several men and women combating discriminatory legislation flowing from governments. There are compelling segments featuring Sirius radio host Michelangelo Signorile along with figures like U.S. Rep. Barney Frank and Jim McGreevey, the former governor of New Jersey.

Outrage puts together a compelling case against a political system which prefers hypocrisy to honesty. With interviews from various LGBT political figures and writers, the film also transposes their thoughts up against the actions of these closeted homophobic politicians. While it has its moments of titillation and frustration (e.g. Larry Craig’s fervent denial he is gay), the documentary moves best when it takes a deeper look at why these people do what they do, why the system may even force them into this pigeonhole.

Mike Rogers, a D.C. blogger devoted to revealing closeted politicians, was among the more compelling figures profiled in the film. His site blogactive.com concentrates on outing closeted gay politicians who actively oppose gay rights. Some of his targets have included Representative David Dreier, Larry Craig, and Mark Buse—John McCain’s Chief of Staff.

In a phone interview, we discussed how both the film and many members of the LGBT community notice the unspoken double standard regarding evidence of a politician’s hypocrisy. A straight politician can have only the fewest whispered rumours of a mistress to cause the media to investigate. A gay politician has to either be “sexting” teenage pages, doing drugs with an escort, or getting caught in a washroom sting by the police before people start to think “hey...maybe he is gay”. Mike’s opinion is that there should be no difference in treatment of the politician when the media investigates.

“The only difference is that there’s two dicks involved,” said Rogers. Mike’s well aware of the double standard; as someone who works in the Washington D.C. political scene he’s seen how the media goes into a feeding frenzy investigating the sexual adventures of straight politicians—“...just one guy speaking about a woman or [a woman speaking about] a guy and next thing you know it’s on every tabloid and every newspaper.”

Michael Phair, former Edmonton City Councillor, isn’t as convinced there is a double standard when it comes to the media discussing the sexuality of a politician. He does believe what we are seeing develop in the past 20 years is that the party in power wields an inordinate amount of power over the media. The media feels threatened by them in terms of not getting their stories and not getting their contacts, so they may start self-censoring. He thinks it’s an unfortunate collusion between the media and the government. It’s certainly endemic in Alberta, and federally, this silent conspiracy between government and media has gotten worse under the Conservatives.

This means that the large media chains can mock small bloggers like Mike Rogers when he does cover stories they wish to remain under cover.

“The mainstream media tries not to take me seriously.” They downplay his work as that of a mere blogger with no-one doing any fact-checking. Mike then pushes back, citing major errors in papers like the New York Times and how his accuracy is 100%. He feels the mainstream media certainly tries to stand in the way, but with newer technologies and ways of disseminating information, that is no longer as effective as it once was.

As for those claims of “inaccuracy”, realistically as one individual, Mike can’t afford to make mistakes. He has a greater danger of being shut down by litigation than a large media corporation (with a team of lawyers). Mike is brash on this one, as his confidence in his information compels him to challenge people who would be likely to threaten litigation. But as he puts it, “No one ever sues me.”

Additionally, he has the right to report on this issue, as it is a free society. “Unfortunately for them, politicians do not get to decide what stories are written about them...My work is to expose the hypocrisy – and what I always say to people is that I don’t really out people, I merely report on the hypocrites.”

One of the main drawbacks of Outrage is that the focus is limited to American politics. Canadian viewers would have to research information on some of the politicians the film names, to fully understand the context. In our political system, we rarely have anything similar happen.

However, in early February, Conservative politician John Baird (Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities) was inadvertently outed by Ontario provincial Conservative candidate Pamela Taylor on a CBC radio show. The show’s host had challenged Taylor to name one openly gay Conservative politician. Taylor named John Baird. The only problem was that Baird hadn’t publicly stated his sexuality. Weeks later, he still remains mum on the issue.

And while he hasn’t denied it, it seems like the “Cone of Silence” has descended upon him and the mainstream media, in regards to this issue. The following is a list of the media sources that have picked up the story: Xtra, Bay Windows (“New England’s largest GLBT Newspaper”) and now this magazine. That’s it. CBC didn’t even do any follow-up.

Unfortunately, it’s difficult to say whether this is the old media double standard in play or whether the mainstream media thought they’d shut up about this, lest a government which is already hostile towards them withdraw even more – thus shutting down any contacts for future stories.

John Baird’s sexuality wasn’t a major secret – he was well known in Ottawa’s gay social scene and has in the past attended Ottawa’s Pride parties, along with being a “walker” for Lauren Harper at social events when Stephen Harper was otherwise occupied. Additionally, John Baird has avoided voting against our community and has spoken out against anti-gay legislation in Uganda. While it’s a shame he doesn’t have the courage to openly admit his sexuality, his outing does illustrate an interesting possibility for future gay politicians – not voting against the LGBT community, but don’t confirming or denying their sexuality either. This could mean in the future we will see politicians working for a party that is homophobic while they themselves abstain or vote against homophobic legislation.

If this were the case, should their sexuality still be revealed in the media? Mike Roger thinks that, regardless of their sexuality, a person in public office gives away that right to privacy when they sign up for the job.

That being said, Mike may choose not to further out said politician. He does know of several gay Republicans who don’t vote against the interests of the LGBT community (are not hypocrites in essence) so he has not outed them. He does admit party-specific politics does play into this – if a closeted Democrat votes in favour of pro-gay legislation 75% of the time versus a closeted Republican rated also at 75%, Mike would be more prone to asking the Democrat “what the hell” for the missing 25%.

Which is exactly what former Councillor Michael Phair would likely say to John Baird regarding his silence on his sexuality.

“I think it’s reprehensible for him to not have disclosed that and talked about that much earlier, particularly from the party he is a member of which has a history of trying to find ways to exclude persons like myself.”

Phair believes someone like Baird whose sexuality is “suspected and known for years”, who may not vote against the gay community, yet who remains silent about their personal life is still a hypocrite.

“Every other member of that party represents that party and their beliefs...clearly some of the policy and legislation was very offensive...and directly opposed to gays and lesbians”.

Michael puts forth the opinion that Baird had an opportunity to tell the party some of their policies could be offensive to him as a gay man. He feels it might have opened a window of discussion and changed some opinions (not all, obviously) about legislation impacting the LGBT community.

In the end, whatever your feelings on politicians and their sexuality, Outrage will continue the debate that the LGBT community has had on outing. Who knows what we may think twenty years from now, but let’s hope we have seen the last of the Larry Craigs and the other male and female politicians who, in denying their true nature, become traitors to their own people.