Video message (added 10:40pm EST, June 13) with a secondary typed message (*not a transcript*) below
The gay and political blogospheres have been abuzz with “news” of the “outing” of 18 year old Tyler Whitney, a staffer and webmaster for the Republican Tom Tancredo’s campaign for the Presidency (background info at Pam’s House Blend).
Heck… even I posted a small news brief on my site a couple of days ago.
I say, give the kid a freakin’ break. Yeah… “kid.” Let’s not forget the boy is only 18 years old. Fresh out of high school.
As far as any “outing” goes… I think not. Tyler had already begun to come out to friends and people close to him. Tyler was beginning to come out on his own. So, and this goes for me as well, let’s stop calling this an “outing.” Tyler wasn’t “outed.” Tyler came out on his own and, being the person he is, involved in the high-level politics he is in and working for the campaign he works for, I’m not surprised that someone in the media found out, the media then reported on it and the blogosphere picked it up (or the blogosphere first and then the media, either way… it is the same).
So, there we have it: Tyler came out and the media reported on it. Tyler was not outed.
I give the kid some major kudos. Coming out is tough. In the situation he is in, I bet it is even tougher. He’ll have a lot to deal with as he continues to come out. He’ll lose friends. He’ll lose support. Heck, he might even lose family members over it. I’m sure he had some good reasons for coming out as slowly as he had, but…
Again… Let’s not forget that Tyler is only 18 years old. He’s still growing, maturing and figuring out who he is. The same goes for me at age 21.
It isn’t fair to pick on Whitney. It isn’t accurate to say he was “outed.” He’s figuring himself out and I say SHAME ON THE LGBT FOLKS who are treating Tyler with such disdain. Let the boy come out. Let him be who he is. Give him the support he needs and let him figure out who he is. Don’t attack him.
Update (1:50am, June 14th): A good quote from Rick Sincere’s post on the subject:
“Have any of these gloaters thought about the personal consequences for Tyler Whitney, the consequences that any one of us might have faced had we come out to the wrong person or at the wrong time? How will it affect his relationship with his parents, his grandparents — or even, perhaps, with his boyfriend (if he has one)? Could he be disowned, disinherited, sent to an ex-gay treatment facility where he would be scarred by psychotherapeutic quacks?
People like Tyler Whitney need sympathy and support, not opprobrium. I’m tempted to say he should be given a chance to grow up — since his detractors have obviously not taken the time to do so.”
And this is what I mean by offering Tyler the support he needs. What is happening now are things which will only add to whatever could happen. Tyler needs support to make decisions that are best for him in his coming out process and which are best for his life. He doesn’t need the public meddling in his affairs at such a young age, an age when most people are still dependent upon family and friends for support… support that may not last too much longer from his family and friends (although I really can’t say that as fact, I can only assume, as I don’t know him or his family or friends).
Update, 10:00am, June 14: Real examples of what I mean when I say we should give the kid a break and stop bashing him, specifically, comments which are cruel, profane, obscene or downright inappropriate and unacceptable (some words and phrases changed for decency):
Tyler Whitney is a Republican who likes the c#@k. A conservative who longs for National-Socialist bukkake. A bigot who wants Karl Rove’s pigly d!@k in his a$#. But if there’s nothing wrong with being gay, there’s something seriously wrong with being a hypocritical piece of shit in denial like that Whitney guy.
Eva’s Blog of Terror: Another Fag Bites the Dust
This isn’t about his sexual preference.
It’s not about his age.
Tear him up and bring him down.
All of them.
Comment at Michelangelo Signorile’s site
My heart bleeds, but not for the likes of him. Make him bleed. Make them all bleed. If you aren’t up to it. Don’t watch, or stay out of politics. This is not a polite and civil endeavor.
Portion of Comment at Michelangelo Signorile’s site
No. A lot of you are misunderstanding Tyler. He is part of a new generation of ‘conservative’ GOP gays. They actually believe they can simultaneously demonize and rant against “faggots” while also sucking c#@k and r—ing other men.
Portion of Comment at Michelangelo Signorile’s site
In response to a question of, why don’t people just leave the kid alone, we get a taste of honesty:
Because… it’s important to them that you kill these people off early.
Heck, gay lefties and Democrats were hoping Samuel Cheney died in utero, and when they didn’t get that, they started praying for of Sudden Infant Death Syndrome.
Comment at Michelangelo Signorile’s site
I wonder how much republican c#@k this guy was sucking.
Comment at Michelangelo Signorile’s site
Other various comments tracked down by Rick Sincere:
I don’t have any sympathy for Tyler Whitney. We’ve all got mistakes in our past, but seriously: What. An. Asshole.
* * *
Out the bastard. The little sh*t should be dragged kicking and squealing from his padded red closet. Junior can hate himself all he wants, but once he starts spraying his execrate all over normal people, it’s open season. Actions have consequences.
* * *
There’s a sadistic, hateful streak at the core of the Republican Party, and this junior Karl Rove needs to be taken down a notch.
* * *
Whether or not he is too ignorant to understand, he is being used to perpetuate hate. He needs to learn the hard way that what he is doing is far, far beyond unacceptable.
No sympathy for tools of hate. If he needs to learn, then let us and the rest of the world teach him.
Please, spit roast him.
Portion of Comment at Dan Savage’s post
Oh fine already. Can we get an a$# shot?
What?
Someone’s gonna have to f#@k some sense into him.
Comment at Dan Savage’s post
LOL!…. i just wanted to stop by and laugh… this is funny… LOL!!… btw tyler, i could see why ur shamed to be homo…. i mean… what smart gay man would give you a chance anyways? you hate yourself as it is, lol… i dont even know u, but i just had to laugh… ty for being a flamer, gave my day some amusement
Comment at Dan Savage’s post
Here is Tyler’s phone number and email address. Source is a publicly circulated press release from Nov, 2006. Give him a call and let him know what you think!!
Tyler Whitney
555-555-5555
whitney’semailaddress@email.com
A comment on Dan Savage’s post advocating the harassment of Whitney (info removed & I’m not linking to this one)
I hate to say it, but I hope the boy gets a taste of the AIDS. That more than anything will force him to face the hatemongers he has encouraged among his Right-Wing clique. As soon as he sero-converts, they will cut him off on the spot.
Comment at Dan Savage’s post
He just needs a hard d#@k in his a$@
Comment from AmericaBlog
I’d say a group of his gay peers should show him what it feels like to be gay… roll up on him in a pickup truck and beat the crap out of him.
I have NO respect for this piece of shit.
Portion of Comment at AmericaBlog
Why anybody has the least bit of sympathy for this disgusting scum bag is beyond me. He is 18. He is an adult. The guy is a foul hypocritical bigot. I hope his parents read all about him on the internets and completely disown him. I hope his ‘friends’ drop him like he deserves. The guy is a horid excuse for a human being, and until he wakes up I hope he is kicked to the curb.
Comment at AmericaBlog
And why does it matter and why should we care about these comments, even if they are from anonymous folks left on a blog? Because they reflect upon our community and show the world what we are willing to show them. And that is why I have spoken up against it. Somebody needs to be speaking against the vile, cruel and inappropriate words being tossed around. One LGBT leader has said that he should not have to take responsibility for what a member of his community does. Being a leader sometimes means one must take responsibility for something one hasn’t done. In one instance I had to take responsibility for the bad behavior of members of the LGBT community after I asked folks to email a local D.J. Although I wasn’t the one using profanities, and although I had asked people to be respectful in their opinions before hand, I still had to issue an apology and take responsibility as “the leader.” A leader of the community who is witnessing and allowing this horrid behavior to occur on a site he or she owns or operates should be speaking against it and stopping it. I’m not saying take away people’s rights to say what they think, but at the least speak out and implore that the cruel, vile language stop and for decency’s sake, take down the profanities and obscenities being thrown around.
Update, 6pm EST, 6/14: Between the Lines, the Michigan LGBT paper which first reported on Whitney’s coming out process has published an editorial on the subject. Among their thoughts:
When Whitney was originally contacted by BTL he was eager to talk. But after several days, phone calls and emails, he withdrew from participation, saying he was only 18 years old and his coming out was his private business.
We would have liked to have agreed and left Whitney to his coming out process. But giving a pass to someone who is actively working on political campaigns targeting LGBT people crosses the line.
Let there be no mistake, Whitney is not just a rank and file conservative activist, or a nameless, faceless cog in a campaign machine. He is pictured at a protest at Lansing City Hall holding a sign which read “Back in the Closet.” He is quoted in a Washington Times article about the protests that disrupted the Tancredo speaking engagement at MSU in November of last year. He is currently creating the cyber image of Tancredo’s long shot bid for the presidency, a bid that is supported by such hate leaders as David Duke and well known white supremacy organizations.
We hope that Whitney will not have to see the ugly side of his friends. The side that had Kyle Bristow exposes when he says he’d kill his son if he were gay, or calling on homosexuals to be jailed. The side that says people should not be allowed to marry the person they love if they are of the same gender and the side which says if your sexuality is not heterosexual, you should be able to be fired without recourse.
We hope that Whitney is accepted by his fellow conservatives and his belief in equality for all is a message they hear and to which they respond. We all need to pause and listen to Whitney. His voice may vocalize a different viewpoint that we need to be aware of. Too often young LBGT people are not involved in the political process. Whitney is involved and whether you agree with the people he supports or not it is important to pay attention.
Mr. Whitney, welcome to the LBGT community.
After some discussions with some individuals, I fully believe that staff at BTL did what they thought was in the best interest of the LGBT public. I believe they took care and great caution in how and when they reported this news. I am fully assured of the fact that BTL staff and others closely involved with the story wrestled with questions of what should be written, what should be told, how it should be told, is it right, is it wrong, so on and so on. BTL, a credible media agency which reported the coming out process in, as I believe now, a responsible way, is in no way the main subject of the criticism I have offered. It is sad that those on staff at BTL might feel as though their responsible reporting on this issue has allowed some people to express themselves in what I certainly believe to be abhorrent ways. The entire situation is regrettable: For Tyler Whitney, for BTL, for those who have spoken out (on either side) and for the entire LGBT community.
Update, 11:00am, 6/15: “In bed” with an unlikely ally… It seems as though I’ve found myself agreeing with blogger North Dallas Thirty. If you have been around the LGBT blogosphere for long enough, you will have quickly learned that Dallas is all too popular, specifically because of some of his conservative views. To be honest, I think I’ve also had run-ins with Dallas in the past.
The Malcontent also weighs in on the Whitney debacle, with a matter-of-fact style, holding nothing back:
What was the reaction of the gay blogosphere? Offers of support? Understanding? Potential discussions that might help him see that gays and lesbians are not the demons he has no doubt been raised to think we are?
Of course not. The gay blogosphere reacted with disdain, hatred, vitriol, and hundreds of vicious, borderline unhinged comments. From Dan Savage to Signorile to Joe.My.God, gays poured scorn, bile, and rage on an eighteen year-old fellow traveler.
And yes, he is a fellow traveler, even if you find his politics abhorrent.
While Pam’s House Blend offers the most balanced reaction in the comments section, even that place is filled with gays poring over his myspace page, critiquing his appearance, attempts at contacting him (to suspect purpose), and a bizarre obsession often reserved only for the most serious and deadly political opponents.
All of this, against an eighteen year-old.
At what point does basic humanity take a back seat to political identity? While the justification of this mass out-pouring of hatred is (as ever) “the hypocrisy”, it is difficult not to note the deep and deeply unsettling hypocrisy laid bare in these putative guardians of the gay community.
[...]
This being June, we’re supposed to reflect on our sexuality, the struggle to be open and free in a society that isn’t quite with us yet, the pride we feel in making it through that struggle and being exactly who we are. However, it’s difficult to feel much pride towards the community today. What have we to be proud of in this incident? That we can be just as hateful, bitter, and intolerant as our opponents? That we, too, can set aside our hearts and see even in our fellow gays a dangerous political enemy who must be crushed?
Are we proud the community is gradually filling with loud, hateful assholes who are slowly casting aside self-celebration based on personal identity in favor of a brothers-in-arms mentality, people who are bound by the ability to out-hate their common enemies?
So a group of middle-aged gays have discovered their ability to hound and bully an eighteen year-old who is struggling with his sexuality. Yeah, let’s have a parade. We’re a terribly fabulous people, don’t you know.
UPDATE June 22, 2007: Between the Lines has published a follow-up story on the national debate on their original Whitney story.
Technorati Tags: Tyler Whitney, Republican, Conservative, Closet, Gay
June 13th, 2007 at 7:33 pm
People are mischaracterizing this story. Tom Tancredo is not anti-gay at all. He welcomes all kinds of people who support his campaign. He only disagrees with homosexual militants who seek an agenda of special rights, social experimentation in our military, and attacking the sanctity of marriage.
Whatever you do in the bedroom, Tancredo could care less. Stop hyperventilating folks and give people with family-values a break.
June 13th, 2007 at 7:39 pm
The Log Cabinettes are all over the blogs defending this guy. They are experts at PR make-overs from living lifetimes of deception.
The crux of their strategy is “How can we out such a young a vulnerable 18 year old”. GOPers are experts at appealing to emotion and ignoring logic. People are now argueing about stuff that tangential issues that aren’t even related. Don’t let the Republicans win with their propaganda.
#1: Tyler Whitney wasn’t even ‘outed’. He came out over a month ago to his Republican buddies. So it has nothing to do with ‘outing’ a tender 18 year old.
#2: Tyler Whitney rallied with racists and bigots against “the perverse homosexual agenda” and he still defends that viewpoint today.
#3: Gay Republican staffers are rallying to his defense. His buddies include gay staff for Richard Shelby, Wayne Allard, Jim Bunning, Trent Lott, James Inhofe, and Robert Bennett. I’m sure there are more. But come on folks, is this really creating “progress from the inside”?
#4: The media will provide cover. Of course if David Duke’s webmaster turned out to be Black or Louis Farrakhan’s private assistant turned out to be Jewish … IT WOULD BE 24/7 COVERAGE IN THE MEDIA!!!
June 13th, 2007 at 7:45 pm
Again… Tyler is only 18. Did you know everything about yourself and where you fit into life at 18? Heck… I don’t know everything about myself now either.
Give the kid a break.
And for the record… I’m not a Republican… I’m simply a guy who thinks we should give the 18 year old kid a break.
June 13th, 2007 at 8:32 pm
Thank you Matt. I’ve been reading with disgust how the blogs are tearing Tyler apart. I stand with you in saying Tyler deserves respect and support.
Yes, he may have held up “Get back in the closet” signs. Yes, he might work for a politician devoted to taking away the rights of LGBT people. But he is still a fellow human being and moreover he is a fellow GLBT person as well.
I hope he finds supportive voices for all parts of his identity.
June 13th, 2007 at 8:56 pm
“give people with family-values a break”
Wow, this fag says this as if gays don’t have “family values”.
June 13th, 2007 at 9:04 pm
“SHAME ON THE LGBT FOLKS who are treating Tyler with such disdain”
And shame on anyone who treats the entire gay community with disdain, like Tyler and his “kill the gays” friends. If he’s smart, he’d “go back in the closet!”, to quote the “kid”.
Also, does anyone here want to offer the “kid” their titty? You’re acting like he’s 5 and isn’t aware of what he’s doing, when being into politics from a political family, he knows damned well what he’s doing.
He’s made his grave, so he can lay in it, or grow from his mistakes. Either way, I don’t care.
June 13th, 2007 at 9:15 pm
Matt : Gays are human beings. Let’s face it (from Nero to Guy Burgess..), they can be as vicious and mean as the worst heterosexual bigots. (Glad you’re not mean. Just a bigmouth).
June 13th, 2007 at 9:55 pm
Brian, thanks for your comments.
GayLeftBorg said: “And shame on anyone who treats the entire gay community with disdain…”
I agree with you GayLeft… but those who treat the LGBT community that way are not constantly promoting equality, diversity and open arms. WE ARE and right now some of us are not acting this way. It is time to remind ourselves of what our values truly are.
Joe… as always, your short, concise but always true and accurate statements sum up a point I make in a space 20 times larger than what you can say it in.
June 13th, 2007 at 11:45 pm
If he’s going to let Tom Tancredo’s campaign use him as some kind of prop for an agenda (cause I don’t believe anyone would have been interested in the sexuality of a 18y old on Tancredo’s staff unless that information was put out somehow), then Tyler should face the consequences of his actions.
But who should ultimately be ashamed is Tom Tancredo for using a “kid” for pulling out this publicity stunt.
–
Comment caught up in spam filter, restored 2:15pm EST 6/14 ~Matt
June 14th, 2007 at 1:18 am
Tyler Whitney had come out to his buds over a month ago. The whole purpose is to consolidate with fellow gay Republicans and innoculate against any opposition. Remember, just like Dan Gurley was able to excuse his actions by saying “oh, but I was out of the room when the ‘Bible Banned – Fags Marry’ hate mailer was proposed”.
This whole Tyler Whitney story is being reported backwards. It is being characterized by Log Cabin as an ‘outing’ specifically to generate the sympathy it has and to fool people into thinking some kind of magical evolution is going to follow. But the reality is that Tyler Whitney, like many gay Republcans, truly believe that “homosexual militants” must be opposed, that gay marriage is a “deviant special rights issue”, that ENDA is a step too far, and that gay adoption is abhorrant. For them, all these issues pale to defense against Islamoterrorists, tax breaks, and apple pie wholesomeness.
You people have been fooled. Tyler will continue to work for Tancredo who he adores. Gay Republicans will continue to claim victimhood like they did all the way they were cheering Bush on. And more glbt people will be bashed and brutalized.
Why do other communities hold their own more accountable. Do you really think if an 18-year-old conservative Southern Black boy had been webmaster for David Duke, the African-American community would be giving him a break? What about an 18-year-old Jewish college student working as a personal assistant to Louis Farrakhan? Again, there would be little sympathy.
I have to hand it to the Log Cabin types. They spin, they win.
–
Comment caught up in spam filter, restored 2:15pm EST 6/14 ~Matt
June 14th, 2007 at 1:27 am
“In the situation he is in, I bet it is even tougher. He’ll have a lot to deal with as he continues to come out. He’ll lose friends. He’ll lose support. Heck, he might even lose family members over it.”
This is absurd. His family love him just like the Cheney’s embraced Mary. Mary even went to work for Coors as a gay liason and if you remember at the time, the media specifically said it quashed any gay-related stories to respect the Cheney’s privacy (back in the early 90′s).
Was Mary a courageous hero? And did the ‘respect’ she was shown for her very private bedroom life create a gay affirming, civil rights embracing lady? Or did it just allow her to campaign for Bush/Cheney and continue the hate agenda?
Mary, as any gay Republican has every right to oppose civil rights and view other gays as perverted and degenerates. But why are we supposed to just turn a blind eye because they are so precious? Tyler Whitney knows full well the homophobes he is empowering. Cpl Matt Sanchez glories in it. When are we going to stand up for ourselves once and for all?
June 14th, 2007 at 1:33 am
Sharing a confidence — especially a confidence about one’s sexual orientation — with a few friends does not grant permission to the news media to publish that information widely.
Tyler Whitney was “outed” no matter how one might try to spin it. Whether it was because a friend or acquaintance broke his confidence or because an intrepid reporter chased down the story, he was still pulled out of the closet against his will.
I can empathize with Tyler because, when I was just a few years older than him, I was employed within the conservative movement and was also terrified that my private life might be revealed without my permission. When the moment was right, I came out on my own terms — in the pages of the Washington Post.
Everyone — including low-level political operatives like Tyler — should be given the same privilege of choosing when, where, why, and to whom to come out.
June 14th, 2007 at 1:49 am
Gene: The LGBT community talks a lot about how we care so much about the LGBT youth who are in situations where coming out is dangerous for the well-being. Well, I’d say Tyler Whitney is definitely one of these youth. He is going to be forced to, at least in part, deny himself with the threat of losing everything he has ever known in his short life.
Rick… thanks for your comment, and in reply to some of the other comments, I’m going to quote from your post on the subject:
June 14th, 2007 at 9:33 am
>>>Tom Tancredo is not anti-gay at all. He welcomes all kinds of people who support his campaign. He only disagrees with homosexual militants who seek an agenda of special rights, social experimentation in our military, and attacking the sanctity of marriage.
June 14th, 2007 at 9:35 am
So Tancredo is fine with gays so long as we don’t expect full equality under the law? Is that how it works? How “nice” of him.
–
Comment caught up in spam filter, restored 2:15pm EST 6/14 ~Matt
June 14th, 2007 at 12:31 pm
Cum on, Matt. Your only real valid point is that Tyler Whytney is not a lawmaker who votes against gay rights legislation.
You keep repeating endearing words like “youth”, “young”, “only 18″, “doesn’t know who he is” etc. which really means you find him so devastatingly handsome that you would rather f#@k him than out him.
He is old enough to smoke, drink, vote, drive and kill!
He should be old enough to be outed if his agenda is to “fight the left” and screw the gay activists who support it!
–
Profanity edited, 12:41pm, 6/14 ~Matt
June 14th, 2007 at 12:40 pm
BTW, Whitney’s outing is none of your concern, nor that of Mike Jones. It is the entire responsibility of Michigan’s gay paper “Between The Lines”, which certainly knows him better than either of you and, based on this knowledge, decided to out him. And I am sure they are “man enough” to assume the totality of their action.
P.S. Were Tyler a fat, ugly male, would you be such an apologist of him?
–
Comment caught up in spam filter, restored 2:15pm EST 6/14
And a note: I have been in contact with folks associated with BTL and no, BTL did not “out” him and this is not an “outing.” And, honestly, I like the folks at BTL and they are not my concern and not the main subject of my criticism. ~Matt
June 14th, 2007 at 1:06 pm
Thank you for saying what you did and for sticking up for this guy. I really have to wonder if everyone tearing into him would have withstood this kind of scrunity when they were 18. I know I wouldn’t have.
June 14th, 2007 at 1:32 pm
Matt–
I’m afraid I must disagree with you, and I hope you’ll consider my reasons.
Tyler Whitney is 18 years old. But 18 is simply a number. It is not a measure of any person’s maturity or intelligence. (My niece, I’m somewhat chagrined to admit, is more mature about some things at age 17 than I am at age 44.) Furthermore, maturity– or, for that matter, the acceptance of responsibility for one’s words and deeds– is not something magically acquired beyond the age of 18. Hopefully we continue to mature both physically and mentally throughout our lives.
To use your own bio as an example: by the age of 14, you were already mature enough to have recognized and accepted who you were and what issues were important to you. I would imagine that as you grow older, your self-awareness and knowledge and tastes and political activism will continue to grow in pace with your body. (Believe me, that’s the only plus side to aging…)
Are all 14-year-olds as strong and aware and motivated as you were? Of course not, and more’s the pity. But by age 16, at least, Tyler Whitney was mature enough to have recognized that, in today’s political environment, he could reap personal gain by denigrating others. (Do some research into his fight over being “censored” at his high school.) Is this a mature attitude? Well, I wouldn’t say so, and I suppose you wouldn’t either, but there are men and women in the Republican Party who are many, many years older than Tyler Whitney and who have deduced and practice the same thing.
So, if men and women in their sixties and seventies can be said to harbor immature– i.e. divisive, hateful, self-enriching– attitudes toward others, at what age do we hold them responsible for their words and actions. I will leave it for you to decide: 19 years? 21 years? 40 years? A minute before death?
For the sake of argument, let’s say you think people are responsible for their actions only after they’ve attained the age of 25. (I think people are responsible for their actions once they are old enough to understand that their actions have consequences.)
Now suppose that some anti-reproductive-choice group somewhere learns that you don’t think it is appropriate to hold to account someone under the age of 25, and so they recruit several 21- and 23-year-olds and send them out on the media trail to passionately denounce a woman’s right to choose. And then it is discovered that one of these not-yet-of-personal-responsibility-age 21-year-olds had a few years earlier impregnated his girlfriend and then convinced her to get an abortion. Is he a hypocrite? Yes. Is he reaping personal gain– publicity, a paycheck, an expense account– at the expense of others? Yes. But you, my friend, are powerless to say anything because you do not believe in holding anyone to account for actions that precede one’s 25th birthday.
Gotta say it: preposterous.
How is the hatemongering of Tyler Whitney any different? Once you declare that an arbitrary number, like 18 or 25 or 40, marks the age of personal responsibility, you have given a free ride to anyone under that age, and people opposed to you WILL exploit it.
Your defense of Tyler based on his numerical age is misguided, and I gotta say this too: a tad mawkish. As you continue to mature, you may well learn that emotions and attraction can sometimes cloud our judgement, and this is what I think has happened here. The thought that we can save someone from himself is a powerfully romantic delusion that I daresay we have all felt, or will feel, about someone one day
One further point that seems to be overlooked in this fray: Tyler Whitney had, by many accounts, begun to tell some of his friends and co-workers that he was gay. He had not, on the other hand, begun to tell them that he was reconsidering some of his beliefs or that he may have been wrong in any way (so far as we know). He may, as you say, need our support, but not so that he might accept who he is. If he commits himself to it, he deserves our support in a quest to become a decent human being of whatever orientation he settles on.
I have a great deal of respect for you, Matt, and I hope you will not see this as an attack on you because I certainly do not intend it as such. But your reasoning is fallacious and bound to render you ineffective in the good work to which you are committed.
June 14th, 2007 at 1:42 pm
Greg… Thanks for your thoughts. This is the kind of debate I wish I were seeing across the internet. Instead, I’ve seen hate returned with hate and bigotry returned with bigotry. Our community knows better, or at least I would hope they do.
“I have a great deal of respect for you, Matt, and I hope you will not see this as an attack on you because I certainly do not intend it as such.”
Thank you Greg, and no, I do not see your comments as an attack. They are well-thought out and presented… like I said the exact type of thing of which I could see more.
However, we know that LGBT youth are 6-7 more likely to be at risk for suicide. There is no way for us to know what Tyler thinks or what he is doing, but I know that even as politically involved as I was at 14, 15 or 16, I still, at times, had thoughts of suicide. Perhaps our community should have been more cautious, precisely because we know what the effects of hate and bigotry can be. Sadly, some of us have returned the hate given to us, only with more hate handed over to the other side, and specifically, to Tyler Whitney.
June 14th, 2007 at 3:38 pm
[...] Despicable speech is not limited to anti-gay knuckle-draggers, though. Rick Sincere and Matt Comer both have excellent posts up about the horrible comments directed at an 18 year old activist from the far-righty hate group Young Americans for Freedom (Eugene Delgaudio was once its executive director, back in the day) who recently came out/was outed as gay. These cruel, vicious outbursts are not coming from the anti-gay right, but from some within the GLBT community. [...]
June 14th, 2007 at 5:06 pm
“He doesn’t need the public meddling in his affairs at such a young age”
This revisionism is stunning. When Tyler shoved a placard saying “GO BACK IN THE CLOSET” in the face of a young lesbian mother seeking the most basic of civil rights was he meddling?
When Tyler’s friend waved a sign reading “FAGGOTRY” in front of an angry homophobic YAF gang, was he meddling?
When Tancredo talks about the degeneracy of homosexuals who want to adopt, or the threats they pose to our heroic and valiant military, is he meddling?
When Tyler’s friends call for actual death to queers, are they meddling? And no, I’m not exagerating. Do you think the gay people whose faces have been pulverized by bashers and had their teeth poke out through severed lips care about “accepting” and “honoring” paleo-conservatives who consider them evil and worthy of death?
June 14th, 2007 at 5:19 pm
Republican?
Conservative?
Why not voluntarily CRAWL into the ovens?
June 14th, 2007 at 5:21 pm
“Tyler needs support to make decisions that are best for him in his coming out process and which are best for his life. He doesn’t need the public meddling in his affairs at such a young age”
What the hell? You still don’t get it. Tyler IS making the choices which he deems best for his life. He disagrees with the homosexual militants who want special rights and those who demand in forcing their lifestyle on others and attack the institution of marriage. He honestly holds those views as do many other paleo-conservative gay men.
Yet you mention the liberal elitist gays who are “meddling” in his life. When Tyler pushed a sign saying “GO BACK IN THE CLOSET” in front of a young lesbian mother, was he meddling?
When Tyler’s friend waved a sign saying “FAGGOTRY” in front of an angry crowd of YAF conservatives, was he meddling?
When Tancredo speaks of the evils of homosexuals and their attacks on the sanctity of marriage, is he meddling?
When a gay youth is bashed and brutalized by dittoheads and tastes blood as his tooth poke through a severed lip, is he expected to “honor and respect” the views of paleo-conservatives?
June 14th, 2007 at 5:35 pm
“Being a leader sometimes means one must take responsibility for something one hasn’t done.”
In 2000, Howard Dean stepped out on a limb and supported glbt people. Then it was John Kerry. What pray happened to these ‘leaders’. They were immediately cut down and defamed as “faggot lovers” by the very same people you are now trying to honor.
Do you honestly think gay people get bashed out of thin air? People are angry because it is the very frat boy air of superiority and demonization of gay people by runts like Tyler Whitney that have hit them hard. Words cut deep and when we’ve heard for years “GO BACK IN THE CLOSET” and “FAGS BURN IN HELL” we are just supposed to keep on sucking it up – and from other gay people?
June 14th, 2007 at 5:53 pm
Craig said:
This back-biting, hate-filled spirit is stunning. Did you miss your mother’s lesson: Two wrongs do not make a right?
Craig said:
Tyler just started coming out. He is only 18 years old… hardly old enough to know exactly where he stands or fits into the world and politics. Who is to say that he doesn’t grow up to leave his hate-filled life? Unfortunately, he has been shown a side of the LGBT community that no teen coming out should have to face: The nasty, rude, cruel side that says he should be raped or shot.
Craid said:
No, we are not, but neither should we return hate with hate or treat other people like trash. Isn’t that the point of our movement? To treat all people with the inherent dignity and worth bestowed upon them at birth? How do we accomplish that if we continually bash other people.
Honestly, this situation has taught me a lot. And I believe that maybe a lot of what I have thought in the past is being re-shaped and reformed.
A friend of mine said something to the effect of: This situation should teach us something. It should teach us to be more welcoming of teenagers like Tyler who make the choice to be honest with himself. We should create an atmosphere that is welcoming, not hateful so that, perhaps, he can be brought over from the “dark side.”
June 14th, 2007 at 6:03 pm
ATTN: Greg @ 1:32pm – your writing jumped off the page at me. I have never seen such a divisive issue worded so eloquently. Can you please email me or provide us to a link for your website or where we may read more of your writings. Thanks
Craig
bt34zp@yahoo.com
June 14th, 2007 at 6:15 pm
“This back-biting, hate-filled spirit is stunning.”
You directed that at me. And yet directly above your comment I related actual quotes from YAF hate rallies. Please name a single mean or back-biting statement I made.
This is what I am talking about. Gay people have been bashed and ridiculed so much that there is a reaction formation by which they now hear the words of murderous homophobic hate and think they are coming from within their own heads.
You chastised me for merely quoting the rhetoric of Tyler Whitney’s YAF Republican group. You magically transferred the actual rhetoric from his own mean-spirited gang onto me. Yes, I find it truly stunning.
June 14th, 2007 at 6:20 pm
“he has been shown a side of the LGBT community that no teen coming out should have to face: The nasty, rude, cruel side that says he should be raped or shot.”
This is an outrageous comment. The Republican hate groups like YAF and many others have been spewing the worst kind of murderous threats against glbt people for years. And guess what – that ideology of hate, exclusion, and white power superiority specifically attracted Tyler Whitney to it. He helped out, he organized, and eventually he came to lead the very group because of their monstrous ideas. Now suddenly, a group of effeminate limp-wristed aging queers are supposed to frighten him?
June 14th, 2007 at 6:28 pm
“It should teach us to be more welcoming of teenagers like Tyler who make the choice to be honest with himself. We should create an atmosphere that is welcoming, not hateful so that, perhaps, he can be brought over from the ‘dark side’.”
But the gay community is incredibly welcoming. Look at the stuff you’ve created, look at the GSA’s at many high schools, and numerous support groups and PFLAG. Tyler Whitney is a webmaster for god’s sake. He is aware of all this more than anyone. Yet he was attracted to the belief system of YAF, the Republican Party, and Tom Tancredo. This was not some casual hobby. He is totally devoted to advancing their cause and acheiving victory with his buddies. Please have the respect to speak to him and he will proudly tell you that you are only patronizing him to assume he’s on “the dark side”. On the contrary, he believes that it is you that are part of a dark militant homosexual agenda that threatens the very foundations of our wholesome traditional society. Are you not aware that there are plenty of gay men (only a few woman like Tammy Bruce) who believe this at age 15 all the way up to age 99?
June 14th, 2007 at 6:35 pm
Here is another example: right now on his MySpace page Tyler has a picture in which he is holding a sign reading “BASH LEFT WING SCUM”. What feelings and ideas does that impart to you? Also you have to realize that the picture was taken a while back. And yet he just redesigned his site and specifically left it on there to express his current views. And you know what, gay Republicans flock to that kind of threat. He is considered a hero among Log Cabin because he is willing to openly threaten and denigrate “leftist scum”. Who does he want bashed?
June 14th, 2007 at 11:59 pm
I’m just sitting back here with the popcorn.
Really.
I hope you are learning something, Matt, now that you’ve seen the true faces of Pam Spaulding, of John Aravosis, of Dan Savage, and of Michael Signorile — and the crowds with which they surround themselves.
I think you’ve also realized that their goal is to make Tyler Whitney’s life a living hell, to ostracize him, to namecall him, and to get him fired from his job — versus Tom Tancredo, Whitney’s friends, and others, who have offered him support, a job, and a chance to express himself.
Perhaps, as you say, you are reforming who is and who isn’t truly “antigay”.
And perhaps you and Soulforce can, in your mission to combat hatred, start taking a look at sources far closer to home.
Good luck.
June 15th, 2007 at 12:15 am
Hi North Dallas. I appreciate your opinion and you comments here.
I don’t know Savage nor do I know Aravosis, but I do know Pam and she is a very good friend of mine. We have certainly disagreed before and honestly, I haven’t taken a close look at what she has or hasn’t said in detail on the subject. Either way, Pam and I will continue to be close friends.
I wouldn’t go as far to say that Tancredo and that crowd are offering the support Tyler needs, but I do agree that some in our community certainly aren’t offering that type of support either.
I am quickly learning – with the recent passing of the Reverend Falwell and now this – that hate exists on either side of the spectrum and no matter on which side it exists, the hate is wrong and needs to stop.
Personally, I’m learning from this situation, as I’ve stated in the comment thread already. I think I’ll be coming out of this with some new perspectives.
June 15th, 2007 at 12:22 am
Thank you, Matt; the warm welcome is greatly appreciated.
And your willingness to learn and consider different perspectives is most heartening and pleasant.
Have a good evening.
June 15th, 2007 at 2:13 am
How exactly did Tom Tancredo become such a boogie man to the gays? Have any of you ever even spoken to him? I find him one of the most honest and decent politicians I’ve ever met.
Instead of attacking Mr. Whitney for supporting the values this country was founded on, why don’t you look in the mirror at your own lifestyle. I happen to be straight and accept Tyler for who he is. You know why? Because he doesn’t shove his lifestyle down people’s throats. He doesn’t want to change society so that it revolves around his sexual preference.
I used to belong to YAF when I lived in Houston and had crossed paths with Tyler a few times. Never once did he blather on about faggy garbage like you all are doing. Let me give you a simple piece of advice – if more of you followed Tyler’s lead and worried about the critical issues of our time like illegal immigration and citizens speaking English, you wouldn’t appear to be such a sex-obsessed, neurotic, juvenile bunch of girls.
–
Moderated out of spam filter, 6/15 9:36am EST ~Matt
June 15th, 2007 at 9:01 am
One of the comments from Mike Signorile’s site that you quote was mine. Specifically, I wrote “Maybe he can go stay at Mark Foley’s house, hmmm? Sending this kid to a gay Republican to “mentor†him? Why don’t you just send him to a Roman Catholic priest?” But you left out the context of that quote.
A previous comment had suggested that the best way to help Tyler Whitney would be to find some nice gay Republican in D.C. who would would “mentor” him. I found that suggestion to be utterly preposterous, and my comment was on that suggestion, not on Whitney himself.
The point of my comment is that closeted, fearful homosexuals such as those skulking about the GOP tend to be pathological like Mark Foley. Find a gay Republican to mentor him? Who? Name ONE gay Republican who you would trust around YOUR 18-year-old son.
My comment wasn’t about Tyler Whitney at all, but about the mental stability of gay Republicans. You have mischaracterized and misrepresented that statement by me.
–
Moderated out of spam filter, 6/15 9:36am EST
Note: Demesne Lord. Thank you for that explanation and I apologize. I will remove your comment from the post. ~Matt
June 15th, 2007 at 9:19 am
Tyler Whitney was not ‘outed’ at all. He’s been out to friends and family for over a month. He had just become eligible to assist our armed forces in the critical battle to free the middle east. Instead, like most homosexual Republicans, he chose to value his sexual preference more than to serve this great nation.
Tyler Whitney instead of enlisting in the ’cause of this generation’ chose to announce his gay bedroom lifestyle and thereby become instantly inelegible for military service. Why do GOP queers prioritize sexual behavior higher than service to the freedom and security of this nation? Shame on you Tyler Whitney.
–
Moderated out of spam filter, 6/15 9:36am EST ~Matt
June 15th, 2007 at 9:43 am
In other words, Rob and Bradley… you are saying to Tyler and all other gay people: “Get back in the closet.”
No wonder it took Tyler so long to come out when the average age to come out is now around 14 or so. If I had friends as conservative and demeaning as you, I’d be afraid to be honest with myself and my friends, too.
June 15th, 2007 at 11:05 am
Bradley–
It’s not my place to do so, but nonetheless, I’d like to apologize for the person who hijacked your computer and caused this blog to appear on your screen. That was not very nice.
And I guess I should also apologize for the person who restrained your hands, making it impossible for you to navigate to some other site.
And, too, an apology is due from the person who propped your eyelids open with toothpicks. In addition to being just plain wrong, that might have been kinda painful too, so my apologies on behalf of that insensitive lout.
I will also apologize for whomever it was whose hands were not restrained, and who scrolled down through all these comments. That person KNEW that you couldn’t close your eyes because of those pointy little toothpicks, and yet they still did it. Sometimes people can be so cruel.
And let me throw in an apology for the person who helped sound out all the big words for you so that you’d understand what had been written. (And while I don’t know this for sure, it’s possible that somebody consulted a dictionary for those words you still didn’t understand, and so I’m going to provisionally apologize for that atrocity but only IF it actually happened.)
Well, there are probably many more apologies due you, victim that you are, but that doesn’t mitigate the fact that this was shoved down your throat, as you say. I sincerely hope that it never happens again.
June 15th, 2007 at 11:09 am
hahahahahaha omg hahaha
Greg… awesome.
Dude… you gotta come around more often.
June 15th, 2007 at 3:13 pm
Matt, you may wish to consider “Rob’s” comment as a variant that’s been appearing on other blogs, repeatedly.
And I particularly like Robbie’s answer; as in, can we assume your declaration of homosexuality was to avoid serving in the “approved” war in Afghanistan?
Meanwhile, Matt, I think your acceptance and support of Demesne Lord’s explanation is rather interesting, given that it is based on the belief that all gay Republicans are mentally ill, unstable, and child molestors who can’t be trusted.
Yet you take such a sanctimonious tone with Bradley about how “demeaning” he is to others, even as accept as explanation from a fellow gay leftist and Democrat that he wrote what he did because all gay conservatives and Republicans are “pathological”, of questionable “stability”, and not able to be trusted around your “eighteen-year-old son”.
At this point I question your concern, given that you blithely accept hateful and bigoted stereotypes about gay conservatives and Republicans while claiming that Tyler deserves “kudos”.
June 15th, 2007 at 3:31 pm
In my quest for finding these vile and cruel comments, I was specifically looking for those comments which *directly* attacked Tyler Whitney in vile, cruel, threatening and harassing ways. I admit that I did not look at what Demesne Lord was replying to in the comment thread where I found his comment. In the context he provided, I felt as though it was not a comment *directly* targeting Tyler Whitney in a vile, cruel, threatening or harassing manner.
North Dallas, I have emailed you a private message with more thoughts concerning this. I used the email address you provided when you made a comment. If you didn’t get that email (along with about two others I sent), email me with a good email address at matt ‘at’ interstateq ‘dot’ com
Thanks.
June 16th, 2007 at 10:18 pm
I agree with North Dallas. Those folks he mentioned in Message 32 are a bunch of immoral horrors. But it’s not for me to say who he chooses as friends. And… my admiration for Matt, once again. It’s so much easier in this world to just go Left-Wing or Right-Wing and just parrot all the positions of whatever group you’re in. Matt (though more liberal Democrat) is an individual with an individual thinking brain. He’s developing along nicely to deal with a world where things aren’t always black and white, but shades of gray. (Gotta stop. My compliments will make him too conceited).
June 17th, 2007 at 1:01 am
And… my admiration for Joe, once again. We haven’t even ever met and he already knows not to give me too much praise, lest my ego grow much too large.
June 17th, 2007 at 6:57 am
One more thing (you don’t have to respond to this, Matt): Matt is one of those who soldiered off on his cross-country trip this year, to face unfriendliness and some hostility head on. He doesn’t just sit on his duff blogging away (blogging has its place, but it’s just a limited thing. There’s a whole more effective dimension to making a difference by dealing with people in real life). He had to get arrested, get plopped in a jail cell, insulted, has probably dealt with bullying at other times in his life, and if he’s human has some residual anger over all of that, but still has enough sense not to take out his anger on an 18-year-old kid. So since he’s actually taken a hands-on approach with trying to end homophobia, his critics (though free to disagree with him) should see that he has enough merit to be polite and respect his decision.
June 18th, 2007 at 4:56 pm
[...] Previous Posts: The “outing” of Tyler Whitney [...]
June 18th, 2007 at 5:49 pm
“People are mischaracterizing this story. Tom Tancredo is not anti-gay at all. He welcomes all kinds of people who support his campaign. He only disagrees with homosexual militants who seek an agenda of special rights, social experimentation in our military, and attacking the sanctity of marriage.”
SCREW YOU. You say it’s OK to be gay as long as you stay in the closet. What a pathetic joke. I am an American citizen and I do not need to be told how to comport myself in society. Special rights? HA! In Georgia where I live you can be fired from your job, lose your biological child, and be kicked out of an apartment lease because you are gay. Social experimentation in our military? HA! 50 some odd Arabic translators were kicked out of the military for being gay. Feel any safer? Attacking the sanctity of marriage? HA! How many divorced people work in Trancredo’s office?
You can kiss my wide butt!
June 18th, 2007 at 10:10 pm
Might I remind folks to tone down their language just a bit. Let’s keep it polite and civil, as much as possible. Thanks.
June 19th, 2007 at 8:29 pm
“In Georgia where I live you can be fired from your job, lose your biological child, and be kicked out of an apartment lease because you are gay.”
And, oddly enough, the same can happen to you if you are a white male — since they don’t have any antidiscrimination laws protecting them, either, and the court system is strongly biased against fathers.
Ain’t life grand?
“HA! 50 some odd Arabic translators were kicked out of the military for being gay. Feel any safer?”
The most recent graduating class from linguistics school — just the past year’s graduates, mind you, not including other years — had approximately 500 people in it, which means that they were replaced by a factor of 10.
Meanwhile, there are plenty of other government service roles — the FBI, the CIA, the State Department, the Department of Commerce — in which they can be put to use without having to force straight soldiers into sharing intimate quarters with people who are sexually attracted to them.
“Attacking the sanctity of marriage? HA! How many divorced people work in Trancredo’s office?”
Do you really want to go down that path?
( Article from Boston.com )
—
Fixed problem with url link ~Matt
June 20th, 2007 at 10:12 am
North Dallas… I’d like to hear more about your views on Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell. I don’t think I have ever run into a gay person who puts out the argument you have here.
The main question I have revolves around this statement of yours: “without having to force straight soldiers into sharing intimate quarters with people who are sexually attracted to them.”
Under the current Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell policy straight soldiers are already serving with people who may (although not always) be attracted to them sexually. Furthermore, we all know that the lines between gay and straight aren’t always so clear and human behavior doesn’t always match up with the verbal and linguistic labels we have created and assigned to people throughout all of history.
If straight soldiers shouldn’t have to serve with people who are sexually attracted to them and if gay and straight people are already serving together (although gay people can’t be open about it), do you propose that we just have a complete, straight-up (no pun intended) ban on gay soldiers? Should we go back to pre-DADT policy?
(BTW… Just asking, not picking on you or anything)
June 21st, 2007 at 11:02 am
[...] Pico uses my post on Whitney as his “evidence” in points 1 and 2. [...]
June 26th, 2007 at 7:20 pm
“If straight soldiers shouldn’t have to serve with people who are sexually attracted to them and if gay and straight people are already serving together (although gay people can’t be open about it), do you propose that we just have a complete, straight-up (no pun intended) ban on gay soldiers? Should we go back to pre-DADT policy?”
That’s a good question, Matt.
As I mentioned before, the basic idea here is similar to that with making men and women share quarters; it isn’t done, except under very specific circumstances, because of the very real and very obvious absence of privacy and the fact that there is sexual attraction between (heterosexual) women and men; that tends to create uncomfortable situations that could greatly interfere with the military’s smooth running.
What makes sexual orientation different is that it is, by and large, invisible. Most people would be none the wiser unless you tell them. Hence the point behind DADT; people won’t be uncomfortable about you being sexually attracted to them as long as they don’t know about it. It is a rather pragmatic compromise; while it doesn’t provide ideological purity in either direction, it’s a means of allowing service without creating issues for the group.
June 26th, 2007 at 7:28 pm
Okay North Dallas… Good answer.
Second question… Can we not make Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell equal in its application? Going beyond sexual attraction, why can we not make the policy so that servicemembers remain strictly business while on duty and no one is allowed to disclose his or her sexual orientation, gay or straight?
At the same time, we could make it fairer, by making the policy reflect my question above (no one discloses sexual orientation), but allow all service members to at least communicate with those they love, gay or straight, without fear of losing their jobs and livelihood. Would that work?
Again… not trying to argue, just some good ole’ fashion, clean, honest debate and discussion.
June 27th, 2007 at 1:53 am
I have no problem with people being ordered to not disclose their sexual orientation, period; indeed, de-sexualizing interaction is something that MUST be done in order to have a well-functioning workplace, and the military is certainly no exception. Given some of the scandals that have come down relative to military conduct and sexual harassment, it’s an imperative that they be taught to mind their own business and keep their mouths shut.
But what needs to be kept in mind is that the military is not a standard 9 – 5 workplace; it is literally a 24-hour “on duty” assignment in which you live, eat, shower, and sleep with your co-employees. There is still going to be an imperative to separate the genders and to “don’t tell”.
But I would definitely agree with your last; it needs to be emphasized that DADT refers to public telling. Sending an email or making a telephone call in an appropriately-private venue to your boyfriend is hardly public. To your first, soldiers should be given the privacy they request to contact their loved ones; in return, they should keep matters private. Most employers frown on non-emergency personal communications while in a workplace setting (“on duty”); so should the military.
June 27th, 2007 at 10:09 am
See… I like this intelligent, sound debate and discussion thing; so much comes out of the wood-work (like, perhaps, you aren’t as “radical” as some would say you are).
I think you have some good points. I don’t necessarily agree, because that kind of policy would cause problems.
For example: When troops are getting ready to leave and they have their families assembled. A husband and wife are likely to hug for a very long time and perhaps share a kiss (maybe the last one they will ever share). Gay couples are denied the right to show their emotions at the (possible) loss of their loved ones in the same way.
Would you say that that kind of “public display of affection” should never be allowed, or should it be allowed and if it is allowed it should be equal, allowing all people to say goodbye to their loved one?
June 27th, 2007 at 12:37 pm
“Would you say that that kind of “public display of affection†should never be allowed, or should it be allowed and if it is allowed it should be equal, allowing all people to say goodbye to their loved one?”
I lean towards the “should never be allowed” — or, perhaps better put, should be done somewhere prior to your getting on the bus/standing on the tarmac waiting for the plane/etc.
Harsh, but fair to everyone, and avoids exactly the situation you mentioned of the have and have-nots.
November 8th, 2007 at 1:00 am
I just stumbled on this blog entry, but I want to point out a glaring error: An 18-year-old is not a kid, but a legal adult; that makes Tyler Whitney a man, not a boy.
As such, he’s responsible for his actions. These actions, which comprise being a willing pawn for anti-gay bigots such as Kyle Bristow and participating in anti-gay activism.
I think the people who outed Whitney did him — and the whole gay community — a big favor. A self-hating, 18-year-old gay guy won’t grow up to become a 45-year-old, self-hating gay guy who expresses his self hatred by legislating, preaching or lobbying against gay rights.
January 8th, 2008 at 12:58 am
If adj can post long after in November I can post in January 08:
1) Tyler was not outted. So deal with a gay guy that disagrees with you, oh darn too many bad reminders of your last gay.com chat session – huh?
2) While there is evidence of a gay gene, not one scientist has ever asserted there is a liberal gene.
3) Given the controversy over the dropping of trannie rights by gay men in their quest to get ENDA vetoed, the concept of gay rights is nebulous to say the least (and yes, some transgenders are gay AND lesbian regardless of their starting and ending genders).
4) Hate is never acceptable. Isn’t that the message? Cuz otherwise you are teaching that hate IS acceptable depending on how many people agree.
Nice job Matt… I’m off to piss off other people now…