The Aaron Schock Conundrum

Rep. Aaron Schock (R-IL)

This morning, I woke up to a Gawker news update that apparently Itay Hod, a former journalist for CBS News, has posted that Rep. Aaron Schock (R-IL) is gay, and that he has proof.  On the surface, this is interesting not just because a sitting congressman is being potentially outed, but because Schock has a vehemently anti-gay voting record in the U.S. House.  Schock voted against the repeal of DADT, opposes the repeal of DOMA, is against gay marriage, is in favor of the Federal Marriage Amendment, and has voted against adding sexual orientation to existing hate crimes legislation.

It's also worth noting because Schock has developed a level of celebrity amongst the internet community due to his good looks and well-toned physique.  This isn't a case of some obscure politician being outed-this is a man who has been on the cover of Men's Health, who has been profiled in GQ, and has been something of an obsession of the gossip website TMZ.  Schock is also one of the youngest members of the U.S. House (he's only 32, which is an infant in political terms), and has a fairly promising future in politics in Illinois, where redistricting has just gotten him a solidly conservative seat to rely upon, provided his voting record stays the same.

So the question becomes in all of this-is it right to out Schock, who has championed discriminatory legislation toward gay people, but also has a right to privacy?  That's a question that has been dogging the gay community for the past decade.  Bloggers Michael Rogers and Perez Hilton frequently went on the "pro-out" side of this debate, with Rogers specializing in politicians, for much of the past twelve years.  Rogers outed people such as Mark Foley, Larry Craig, Ed Schrock, and a few others that have been more alleged than reality though with the former two there's been a swirl of rumors for years regarding their sexuality (those in question are Jim McCrery, David Dreier, and Mark Kirk).  It's worth noting that with the exception of Kirk (who at the time was more conservative on gay rights than he is now), all of these men had strong anti-gay voting records.  This was not true with Hilton, who outed or led to the outings of singer Lance Bass and actor Neil Patrick Harris.  Neither Bass nor Harris were politicians, and neither had contributed to the discrimination of gay individuals, but Hilton justified his actions by claiming that "I don't think it's a bad thing.  If you know something to be a fact, why not report it?" (here's a link to that quote if you're an English teacher looking for properly cited sources).

Hilton's stance is far more controversial than Michael Rogers stance, and has been derided by many in the gay community, including myself.  While people like Bass and Harris have become strong role models within the gay community, and in particular Harris has been a great ambassador for the gay community, outing is a serious thing to do and shouldn't be done without some sort of just cause.  Every person has the right to his or her own privacy, and as a gay person, I know that being outed can be a nasty business and can put you in a situation that you weren't prepared for (most gay people experience being "outed" in some fashion during their coming out process, and I was no different in that regard). Therefore, Hilton's actions seem reprehensible, particularly since Bass and Harris weren't doing anything to harm the community.  While they can be better champions as openly gay men (nothing helps more than being who you are), that's their choice and right to decide when and where to come out to the public.  Hollywood, as we have seen countless times, still has its goggles on when it comes to casting openly gay actors in straight roles (anyone else think Matt Bomer would have made a good Christian Grey or Superman?), and in particular have an issue with gay men being cast for specific parts.  Even when it comes to playing openly gay men on-screen, the parts rarely go to men who are gay off-screen (has any actor, aside from Ian McKellen, been nominated for an Oscar for being gay on and off screen?).  There is still a career hit that someone takes by taking that brave choice, and the timing of when to do that should be respected.

Rogers quest, and that espoused by Hod, though, is a different question entirely.  Former Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA), perhaps the most significant openly gay American politician since Harvey Milk, has coined the phrase the "Frank Rule" which states that it's okay to out a gay Republican if they are being hypocrites and having their cake and eating it too.  Frank stated on Bill Maher, "I think there's a right to privacy.  But the right to privacy should not be a right to hypocrisy.  And people who want to demonize other people shouldn't then be able to go home and close the door and do it themselves."

Frank's rule on the surface makes sense, and when it's someone like Schock, a young, single man who has no children and who consistently and vehemently opposes the gay rights legislative agenda, it's easy to say that he's getting his comeuppance and move on from there.  However, what happens when it's a married man with children?  Or when it's someone who is grappling with depression about their homosexuality?  The coming out process doesn't just affect the person that is doing the coming out-it affects those around them.  I support the Frank Rule in theory, but in practice it occasionally gives me a queasy feeling in my stomach-as someone who grew up in a deeply conservative part of the country where I didn't always feel safe even in the closet, much less out of it, I have a bit of an understanding for Schock in particular.  We have very similar backgrounds (we grew up near each other, though I've never met him), we are almost the same age, and I understand that he may have had a rough go if he is indeed gay.  Most gay people have a place or a person they never come out to, and I would hate to put Mr. Schock in a position that would infringe on his privacy.

But at the end of the day, Mr. Schock's positions are not that of your average person.  He is not an entertainer or a lawyer or a member of the community whose sexual preferences affect no one but himself and his romantic partners.  He is in fact a powerful politician who frequently votes on legislation that affects millions of gay Americans.  If a politician were strongly anti-choice and had had an abortion, we would call that hypocritical.  If a politician were against welfare programs but had received them themselves, we'd call that hypocritical.  This is the same sort of idea.  If Schock is gay, and there is proof to such statements, it is hypocritical of him to try and have his cake and eat it too, and if he had wanted to avoid such outings, he probably shouldn't have entered politics as an anti-gay man.  Sometimes opportunity slices both ways, and you can't get everything you want, and this is a case where hypocrisy shouldn't be tolerated.