Gay Republicans: When Is Outing Okay?

January 7, 2014
Gay Republicans: When Is Outing Okay?

It's been a high profile week in outing. From Super Bowl Champ Aaron Rodgers to two (or more) alleged Hobbit stars, people seem to be breaking down closet doors that are not their own. And while it would be nice to add NFL players and a few more actors to the team roster, there's one outing in question that our community could do with out: the gay republican hypocrite. In this particular case, it's Republican Congressman Aaron Shock, who's been outed this week by noted CBS journalist Itay Hod. In a not-so-blind item on his Facebook page, he poses the question of when it's right to out someone. Citing Shock's disgraceful anti-gay voting history, he sees fit to call this gay man out for all the world to see. And I agree with Hod - if you discreetly come to our community looking for "our services" and then turn around and openly plot against us, you need to be brought down. That kind of hypocrisy should be out in the open.

There's a lot at stake when you're a public figure. In many cases, your livelihood depends on little more than your image and how the public perceives you. I would love for every closeted man to come out (public or otherwise) but understand that it's a personal decision that not to be taken lightly. And even though greater visibility can only make our community stronger and those struggling to accept themselves easier, I still respect a person's decision not to come out. But when you're doing harm to our lives and the rights of a minority (a minority that, secretly or not, you seek acceptance from), I take no issue with someone taking you down and exposing your lies. There are all kinds of tricks the mind can play - ambition and a spotlight on you can make life seem askew - but it still baffles my mind that a conscience would allow someone to vote as Congressman Shock does and then troll our streets looking for sex/love from us.

What's your take on the case of Aaron Shock (and other gay hypocrites)? Should he be outed by anyone other than himself? What about the others outed this week?

By the way, we were on to Shock back in 2011 when we put him at #8 on our list of RILFs (Republicans I'd Like to F*ck), but with all they do we really want to f*ck any of them?

Daddyhunt.com presents…The Top 10 2011 RILFs from DaddyhuntNYC on Vimeo.

Tags: Aaron Shock, Outing, Aaron Rodgers
Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share this
Author
Post written by RobHeartsDH (View Author Profile)
About this author: Rob lives in Manhattan with his black pug Riley. When he’s not thinking about daddies, he enjoys writing, eating burritos, watching copious amounts of television, and thinking about his next meal.
View all posts by RobHeartsDH

Comments

We have to be careful of what we say about another. If it is not true it could be classified as a dafamation of character. When an individual chooses to announce his sexual orientation they are now open for conversation. Until then its off limits to pronounce that classification either in print, audio, or film.

I completely agree with the idea that politicians or anyone in the spotlight that when they work against us their privacy no longer needs to be respected. They lost that when they showed their hypocrisy

outing someone out of vengeance or spite is a pretty rotten thing to do.

You miss the point . No one is suggesting or even talking about outing someone out of a personal gripe. When a politician votes in a way that is not in the best interest of gay people, he needs to be heard and strongly by the people he is harming. When he/she is gay and doing that as well, I think outing him/her is a way to kind of a thing to do. Imagine hating yourself that much? Must be hell. Outing might be the kindest thing you could to for him. Maybe too kind.

couldn't agree more! And this man deserves to be outed.

You said "us". Well we all don't march to the same beat, and a lot of us simply don't trust political agendas as portrayed by the media. Everyone should have the right to speak his piece without the fear of vicious retalliation.

Amen, brother. You are completely correct. Only the intellectually immature need the prison of an agenda. They don't have to actually think.

What kind of magical peter pan dream world do you live in that makes you think an adult's actions that directly, and possibly negatively, affect a lot of people's lives should not face consequences for his behavior simply because it's his 'opinion'? That's the kind of messed up logic bigots use to defend themselves from people who speak up about injustice.

We can all agree that there are probably more productive and constructive tactics for dealing with a politician bullying people who have struggled with the same things he has struggled with (and clearly still was), but I do not feel sorry that he faced negative consequences due to supporting his party's ideological beliefs. And let's be very clear, that legislation that marginalizes, mislabels, and beats-down a group of people IS bullying. I'm dumbfounded to see so many people have so little regard for accountability and responsibility. Are we so fed up with, and discouraged by, politics these days that we don't even give the profound power these legislators have a second thought?

There's just too much going on here to even comment about, least of all the pure self-hatred it must take for a man to support and try to thrive in a party that actively reviles and opposes part of who he is any chance they get. He's that scrawny kid who joins the bullies so that he doesn't have to be the bullied (because, let's be honest, republican economic policies are terrible and bogus class warfare). It is sad, just so so sad.

mnguy01 PERFECTLY STATED!

Let me guess. You're a self-styled "progressive" who voted for Obama and thinks he's perfectly competent executive.

The notion that someone's privacy choices are motivated by "self-hatred" is precisely the type of idiocy that causes people like me not to want to be associated - in any way - with people like you, the type I refer to as "the professional homosexual," sedated into thinking you're right and that anyone who disagrees with you on anything is some form of "hater." Including, apparently, even a "self-hater."

What makes your comments particularly laughable and vapid are your broad categories into which everybody, apparently, must be placed. "He's that scrawny kid . . ." It's "self-hatred." "Profound power" of "these legislators."

What you demonstrate for me is that there is a certain type of reactionary - your kind - who can't be trusted with power. There is no disagreement, there is just the "hater" and his or her point of view. I find it punchline-worthy that self-styled "progressives" are invariably the least progressive. No thought, no nuance. All reaction and category.

Outing is the tactic of the unhappy, unwise, unaccomplished non-thinker. It has the flavor of a taunt and perpetuates stigma.

Who is your "us"? I don't want to be in your "us." I don't want an association with any movement or people who think that "outing" is an acceptable practice. It isn't. It, in fact, pronounces that the outed condition is so bad that to announce it places the target into disgrace.

It is ironic that "outing" is deemed by some to be such a potent weapon. It is potent. A potent reminder that being gay is, to this crowd, so shameful that you can destroy someone by "outing" them. That's quite a mature movement, isn't it?

Well said. Also, the practice of "outing" just smacks of vindictive immaturity and hate. Call someone a hypocrite if the shoe fits but not everything is black and white and easily explained. The politics of sexual identity is a complex thing that prevents any single one person to speak on behalf of the whole community. I can't say I agree with everything gay activists espouse and I do not go along to get along or acquiesce for personal convenience. What's right for some may not be my cup of tea and I'm perfectly OK with that.

While I don't think I could ever out someone myself, and I agree that it's often an ugly and terrible practice, but in this case I think they were saying that his behavior was harming other people. He is in a position of power, and he used it to harm the lives of other people. And he should have known better because he's 'lived it'. By casting the light on his own life I think what people were trying to do was start a conversation with context about the subjective perception of sexual orientation, and the harm that ignorance and hate in politics can cause.

Are you saying that there was a better way to change the behavior of one of our leaders that harmed the public he was sworn to serve and should have known better? Or are you saying we should just take the consequences of his actions that shape the laws of the land that we live in day to day simply because 'he's not there yet' at this point in his life?

Outing a hypocrite does not disgrace him by exposing him as a gay man. It disgraces him by exposing him as a hypocrite; a hypocrite of the most traitorous destructive and evil kind. If he were a waiter at Starbucks his actions, while reprehensible, would not reach the level of evil that is attained by one who has the ear of the public via the 'bully pulpit' of a politician. He chose to live his life in the limelight. So be it.

GoNavy, I don't completely agree with you. If the Republican in question is going out on a limb to curtail our civil liberties (such as the recent "religious freedom" thing in AZ) and yet he/she is gay, then by all rights and means, expose the (expletitive)! If they've *not* introduced anything that would harm our community, then they deserve their privacy, as you and I do. Do unto others!

Wow. I don't "completely" agree GoNavy! The hatefulness and his arguments are so without merit that they are the words of a really angry and ill man who was told by really stupid people like Sarah Palin or evilness of a Rush Limbaugh or Bill O"Reilly, a teabagger (probably one himself.. I certainly do not agree with President Obama on many things. However, the democrats are really dumb by not taking credit every day for what a good president he has been and with what the Rebublicans handed over to him how with all the crititisism and to where he has gotten us with what he was handed from 8 years of Bush J,. He captured Bin Laden (and all the military involved give him the credit for capturing Bin Laden). He saved the auto industry which we as taxpayers would have ended up paying for, big time. It goes on and on. However,
where the republicans are excellent of getting their message and press, etc really well. The democrats are inept and wimpy people who should learn how to brag about their accomplishments, and the Republicans are brilliant at bragging about their accomplishment. Only trouble is the Republicans are bragging about lies and a press through Fox News along with a large portion of self identified Republicans to say exactly what GoNavy says. Hopefully you do no't agree with him about a lot of things. At least in my opinion.

I agree with you 100% that when politicians or anyone in the spotlight work against us their privacy no longer needs to be respected. But also we need to be careful with others who are in the closet that don't or do not intend harm against us. We do not want to see gay men being sued for defamation of character.

I think Shock really "outed" himself by creating a backlash from "out and proud" gays who are simply fed up with such hypocrisy which he represents.

Baloney! Elected political figures are fair game and always have been. If they wanted to maintain any privacy or secrets in their or their family's lives, then they should never have run for political office in the first place.

First, the "outer" Hod doesn't work for CBS anymore so this can have the taint of a "blogger" trying to inflate his own importance.

But mainly, I don't approve of "outing" anyone...it's their life, t heir reasons for how they live it. We have no more right to out somebody because we think they share a sexual preference with us, than reporters have a right to speculate without independent verification, stories about others.

I don't agree with everything in the gay "agenda" any more than I do w/ Republicans, Democrats, progressives or conservatives. I'm capable of making my out analysis of public figures, particularly politicians, and select my representatives based on their WHOLE personna, not one factor.

Gays complain constantly that the public "judges" us because of only one trait, i.e. being gay. Then someone unsubstantiated outs a politician because (a) he's gay and doesn't admit it publicly and (b) they decide his voting record isn't sufficiently doctrinaire enough for that single factor.

If gays want to treated equally and respected as full members of society, then they should act like that.

I agree with you as far as the context of what you say goes, but why are you ignoring that fact that there's more to it than what you are presenting. You are either obviously or obliviously ignoring the fact of Shock's working against us politically. It's not that "his voting record isn't sufficiently doctrinaire enough", it's that he votes against us in everything! THAT HYPOCRISY is why he deserves to be outed.
I agree with what you say. You just don't say it all.

Against "us?" Who's "us?"
"Us" clearly doesn't include anyone who disagrees with your position. So you not only marginalize anyone who has a differing POV from yours but you also further separate yourself from society by labeling yourself "us" ... which requires there to be a "them." I guess I'm a "them" because his voting record is on par with my POV. Progressivism is such a dangerous hate-filled lie. Please realize that it not only destroys those with whom you disagree, but will eventually destroy you as well. "He who does not know history is bound to repeat it." And this is what we're seeing. Once again.

And what's with this "he deserved" to be outed? So being outed is a punishment? I thought it would result in being welcomed by open arms into the "Community." I guess not; I guess it's a punishment. That says a lot.

Another "amen brother" to you, jayrod. The "progressive" left has an anti-intellectual myopia that they mistake for enlightenment. What movement celebrates itself by issuing as punishment the charge that a target is actually one of them?

Great comment. The idea that being gay means that we must all goose step to the same political agenda or be punished deserves a label -- like gay fascism. I don't support anything that the jerk-liar-Marxist-jihadist in the White House is doing to destroy freedom and prosperity. And that's just about his entire agenda. Some of us took an oath to support and defend the Constitution, an oath we take seriously. It seems like tolerance is a one-way street with the gay Left.

Thanks, man. Yes, many of us took that oath, with the understanding that we would defend the Constitution with our lives if necessary. Many of us in fact did risk our lives in war to keep that oath and defend that Constitution. To see it figuratively ripped to shreds and overtaken by extremists ... the lunatics are running the asylum. They really have no clue. They consider themselves worldly and erudite and have never experienced life in those parts of the world where they would be ... oh forget it. It's like talking to a wall, as you already know. God save us.

gay fascism. Ugh, I hate when people throw those ism words around like they know what it means. Freedom to harm other people's lives is not ok, and people who make you accountable for doing that are not 'intolerant'. Being intolerant of intolerance is not a bad thing. If you are using your power as a leader to harm people's lives for NO REASON other than because you have the ability to do so, you are an asshole and should be called out on it. That is not fascism, that is not what our constitution is for, and it seems like you don't really understand how our representative democracy works.

The term "fascism" can be used to refer to regimentation of people in which the dignity and rights of the individual are subordinated or eliminated in favor of the group, and where individuals who do not conform to the group in thought and action are punished or eliminated.

I am intolerance of the intolerance of the "progressive" left.

Fully agreed, buzz50. Outing is the equivalent of a playground taunt, with all of the accompanying insecurity and pettiness.

I have to laugh anytime I read a supposedly informed "analysis" that starts and ends with the same assumption: dissent is forbidden. That is the modern mindset not of the conservative, but of the so-called "progressive," a designation I now always put in quotes because it's such a manifestly false designation.

Note the "progressive" intolerance on display in the article and its subject - you can't dissent from the agenda, or else you're a "hater" (another "progressive" technique: name-calling). Exactly what is wrong with Mr. Shock's voting record? Bill Clinton advocated the DOMA with great vigor. His administration originated the DADT policy. Many reasonable people support civil unions while opposing labeling it "marriage."

In today's political discourse, it is the left and the "progressive" who have become close-minded and intolerant - and particularly intolerant of dissent. It is a spectacularly ignorant tendency, and advocating it only manages to announce that the speaker is incapable of mature and genuine reflection and deliberation. The original article set its premise - no dissent! - and then proceeded from there in a straight line to its conclusion - it's ok to out.

No, it's not. Dissent is to be encouraged, not discouraged. Dissent from our own precious views is sometimes very hard to listen to. But it's what mature people do.

Oh Grow up, do you call social services when the neighbor is clearly abusing her children? Schock got exactly what he deserved. It is a sad case when someone must do that to one of our own, but abuse is abuse and Schock was abusive of the very people he sleeps with, tere are sexual preferences for the Sadistic types, but their place is not in D.C. where peoples lives and well being are at stake...better to take down a SOB such as him that destroy thousands of humans kinds happiness because he is too selfish and self serving in the homophobic, racist, xenophobic, sexist realms of the GOP.

Perfect comment.

I was biased right away by the biased headline "Gay Republicans: when is it OK...." Sorry guys, but Republicans have as much right to be gay and private about it as you do, and might even be more principled in their beliefs, to boot. Who the hell is this blogger to be outing anyone? And for his lame excuse that this guy "worked against us"…who is "us?" Evidently you don't think like I do, so cut the familiarity. And a "gay rights" bill vote is no barometer, but that judgement just shows how little this blogger really knows about politics, much less Republicans.

This is a perfect example of the allegedly "tolerant" poster boys being intolerant, and it ain't pretty or becoming. Grow up and mind your own business.

I think RobHearts is right that only in the case of hypocrites, should gays be outed to help undermine their heinous acts against the GLBT community. Just like clergy members who "preach" against gay rights and marriage equality, politicians who do the same need to be held responsible for their actions. BUT, we have to be absolutely sure that the offending party is really closeted and acting in inexplicable wrath against his own community. It is that aspect of self-denial that I find so incomprehensible and reprehensible! And the GOP's mixing of church and state issues in regard to our gay rights is just one more reason I quite often end my political posts with:
NEVER VOTE REPUBLICAN OF YOU VALUE AMERICA OR OUR FUTURE! ;-)

The latest statistics I could find has 47% of registered voters as being Democrat or Democrat-leaning Independents. The same survey has 42% of registered voters as being Republican or Republican-leaning Independents. Those are rather close numbers. You're rejecting 42% of your fellow Americans. Some of whom may actually agree with you 100% but have a party affiliation you don't like.

A reader who chooses to inform himself politically and then use his own brain to determine his positions may or may not agree with your final line. Regardless, if he is in fact using his own brain, his vote will be his vote and will not be influenced by your patent rejection of your fellow Americans. That's the real community, isn't it? The USA?

That's true to a point. When I look at Republican politicians, locally and nationally and analyze their voting records, party platform and overall performance, especially as that relates to GLBT issues, I see a world of difference between the two parties. I'd love to see a similar statistical survey of GLBT party affiliations!
I've heard several people say things like it's an oxymoron to be a gay Republican. The two hardly mix at all. When I looked at the slate of GOP clowns they had in their 2012 primaries, it makes me REALLY glad to NOT be a Republican. Michele Bachmann, Jon Huntsman, Rick Perry, Rick Santorum, Herman Cain, Sarah Palin and others were RABIDLY anti-gay. Newt Gingrich was the only one among them who came out for marriage equality, because of the close family tie to his lesbian daughter. Democrats in general have no problem seeing the constitutionality of marriage equality, the unconstitutionality of DOMA and reflect my philosophical underpinnings from 60 years on this planet. Nearly half of America needs to change, and it will when marriage equality is unified in all 50 states, just like inter-racial marriages were in the past. You don't see much opposition to that anymore, but when there was, it came from the Republican camp! I'll stick to my bottom line above!

I think you need to inform yourself as to which party has the record of civil rights and which party was responsible for what. Civil Rights legislation was the Republican hallmark long before the 1960's. Dems take the credit because it was passed under Johnson and some Reps disliked some of the things in the legislation. But there were still plenty of segregationists in the Dem part at the time and there still are; they just segregate by ensuring that certain minorities remain in lower classes and dependent upon them. DOMA and DADT were strong Democrat issues praised by the "Gay Community." So Democrats seeing the unconstitutionality of an Act that they pushed so hard for and lauded as if it were the new wheel and rewarded the Dem party for with their votes is not an oxymoron to you? It's called swaying with the breeze and following the money.

Regarding GLBT party affiliations, the numbers would be as wrong as any other such polls would be. Untold numbers of us would never respond to such a question on a poll regardless of party affiliation. Knowing my sexual proclivities are not in the public interest; the info is only used to divide persons from each-other and line the pockets of those heading the Gayist movement.

Put the vitriol aside and look at the facts. Just the facts. And there's no need to call names.

I believe that coming out MUST be an individual's decision and that nobody has the right to out someone else just because they are out themselves and think everyone should be. HOWEVER, when a gay man gets elected to public office and, for whatever reason, chooses to vote against every measure that would grant the gay community equal status with the rest of the nation, then I think it becomes the moral responsibility of the gay community to shout "hypocrite" when that is the correct label. For a while, gays were the last group left in the USA that it was OK to hate. I am confident, though, that this particular hypocrisy will not last much longer because the Republican party seems to be moving back toward their old institutionalized hatreds of women and organized labor.

Shock wasn't elected as a "gay" congressman. If you object to his voting record, or anyone else's, then state that objection and reason. Why is a straight congressman that votes completely homophobic different than a gay congressman who votes that way? When I started fucking asses or sucking dick, my political positions didn't change because of it. If he WAS out and voting against gay interests, then I agree an expression of that hypocrisy is appropriate, because it IS public hypocrisy. If he's straight or not out, and it's offensive positions, then say that. Who he, or we, fuck in bed should not be a tint in our political views.

Sometimes all I can do is shake my head in wonderment about how someone can so clearly miss the point so obtusely.

Coming out is indeed a very personal thing and I too am anti-people pushing other people out of the closet . It is not anyone's job to act as a role model for anyone. If said person wants to live his or her life privately then it's their prerogative to do so. The fact that many people in our world think that it is their right to out celebrities simply because it bugs you that you made a brave choice to live your identity in the open while they chose not to and yet still get to enjoy many of the privileges that come with the combination of being gay and famous in private, doesn't qualify as a good enough reason to shove your nose into their lives and appoint yourself judge and executioner on what they need to do with a life that is after all their own.

Is it unfortunate and sometimes unworthy of respect when big named celebrities choose to keep their sexuality private. Sure. But that's a personal feeling about someone else's behavior not a mandate to come after them like they did something extra to deserve being put in your cross hairs.

I do however draw the distinction between a movie star who just wants to work (As false and ego and fear driven as I completely recognize that choice to be) and a politician who is an elected public official whose voting record matters. Shock may or may not be gay. I don't know. I don't live in DC. Attaching behavior to sexuality is now a rather antiquated and archaic practice. My brother is much "gayer" than I am and yet he pretty much lives eats (sorry) and breathes women. It's rapidly becoming irrelevant how someone dresses or how much into their body they are (I have seen many more straight men at the gym who are shaved down to the bone everywhere than I have gay men and the amount some of these ladies men spend drying out their already great looking hair makes most of the well groomed gay men around them look like slobs.) But if Shock were indeed gay and when you combine that with his anti-gay voting record then maybe he deserves to be outed in order to expose his hypocrisy. Why should he get to be the hot politician who can bang whomever he wants because of his status, looks and the novelty factor while publicly condemning the very life that he lives privately? That sort of behavior is dirty and despicable. You want to be gay quietly then keep your mouth shut on gay issues. Someone who goes out of his way to shame and hinder a population that he belongs to doesn't deserve to be treated as a civilized human being.

That said, I have no proof nor do I know anything beyond the innuendo, association and hearsay that most of us have access to so he maybe just a bigoted politician who hates gays.

Well-put and you raise many good points. Ultimately, however, remember that legislative representatives are elected to do just that: represent their constituency. I don't see hypocrisy when an elected representative votes in favor of his constituents' point of view when it is not the same as his personal stance. Inner conflict and the like perhaps, but not hypocrisy. That's what his position exists to do and that's why he was democratically elected.

I wholeheartedly agree with Jayrod on this. A politician should vote the way his constitutes wants not what he thinks or feels. Hard to do and most don't these days.
Outing someone because you disagree with them is hateful and vicious, and, what does it accomplish anyways? Nothing. I thought gays were past hatefulness and being vindictive?
Gays are perceived by the way they act, or anyone for that matter. You act in a hateful or vindictive manner that is the way you are perceived. It only takes a few, and most think all are that way, Just the way it is.

Gays "past hatefulness and being vindictive"? Yes, it's ironic. At my favorite gay blog site, which I won't identify, members of the open-minded and tolerant gay Left attack conservative gay men with just about every slur in the book.

It's a two-way street. I have as little regard for gay Statists as I do for Statists in general. Socialism promises a People's Paradise, but destroys freedom and prosperity. I have no respect for gays who sell America down the river in return for special-interest pandering by the human wrecking ball in the White House and his accomplices.

The only solace I take in this revelation (if true) and indeed in all the revelations of Republican hypocrisies is that time is against that party. Their numbers are literally dying out and it will be relegated to the dustbin of history along with Whigs, Federalists, Mugwumps, Know Nothings et cetera. Perhaps our citizens may then be able to transcend towards acceptance we are all in life together as one human family and thus move on to solving our collective problems.

Dying out? Really? References? I can't find any that Republicans are "literally dying out...." You want to "transcend" individuals who disagree with you? You think you're enlightened but you've only been made into a useful idiot by the progressivists and the greedy who make a lot of money off "gay issues." Stop being so easily lead and think for yourself.

The hypocrisy lies in stating "It's OK to stay in the closet, but...". The point is not to expose any kind of alleged hypocrisy but to try to destroy someone you don't like. Gay Inc. has a knack for that. From just about anything from politics to sex, gays not only dislike but HATE whatever they dislike or disapprove of. That's why the rainbow is such a lie. Gays are supposed to be all about inclusion, but they only include anyone who thinks the right way or whomever they think they can get in the sack. Gays, for the most part, are some of the least inclusive folks out there. Ever think maybe that's why some folks prefer to stay in the closet rather than associated with that sort of nonsense?

Well-said, Rob. There are gay men who actually use their brains and not have this Gay Inc, as you so aptly put it, dictate what their politics, religion or any associations must be. The rainbow is a ruse and as such the corruption of what was once a beautiful symbol of promise and new beginnings.

Why is it presumed that if an individual is gay, he must embrace and endorse everything the "Gay Community" represents? In fact, many gay men do not agree with the gay socio-political agenda. But instead of being embraced under the so-called inclusive and tolerant "Gay Community," they are treated like ... there aren't words for the rejection, hatred and animosity. So, if a gay guy wants to use his own brain and hold positions and opinions that are not in perfect lockstep with the "Gay Community," he HAS to go into the closet; not out of fear of how straight people will treat him, but because the "Gay Community" has driven him there. I know very well what it's like to be treated that way; the "Gay Community" WANTS me in the closet, with the door bolted shut, pretending that I -- and others with differing points of view -- simply do not exit. And then I'm called the hypocrite. The "Gay Community" is very effective at hurting their own, to the core, and being exactly what they hate.

I have no problem with the civil rights of gays who wish to engage in publicly anti-gay hypocrisy, but it's a different ball game when they hold voting powers in political office and affect the laws that protect us and, ironically, themselves, as well as anti-gay religious leaders who speak against us as religious professionals while allowing themselves the privileges of gay sexual activities on the down low. They are undeserving of our respect. What is with this one-sided "respect" for private lives toward those who have none for OUR lives? They deserve to be called out.

There's that "us" again, which necessarily creates a "them." Since I have no problem with his voting record -- a voting record that is supposed to reflect the constituency that elected him!! -- that makes me a "them." Thus you create a situation of rejection and division with no room for plurality. The rainbow flag is a lie, as is the progressivism reflected in the article and many of the responses.

"What is with this one-sided "respect" for private lives toward those who have none for OUR lives? They deserve to be called out."

Because you either respect it or you don't. You can't demand it for yourself and not for others you don't like.