Outing: A Spiritual Dilemma

Note: This column incorporates some material originally posted in this blog.

SOULFULLY GAY - VOL. 2, NO. 2

By JOE PEREZ

Have you ever received a private e-mail and struggled with whether it would be okay to forward it to others? When I faced this dilemma recently, I made a choice that helped me understand the spiritual dimensions in the debate over outing.

I had attended a retreat where I was the only openly gay man among all the participants. A controversy arose and I spoke out about an incident of heterosexism that I witnessed. Afterwards, the participants of the retreat discussed the controversy by e-mail.

One heterosexual man sent me a couple of private e-mails that I saw as containing rude and heterosexist remarks. I knew I was in trouble when I read the first paragraph of his e-mail. It began with the tell-tale sign of the homophobe: "I am not at all homophobic," he said, before telling me about how many gay friends he has.

I wanted very much for this man to send his e-mails not only to me, but to everyone who attended the retreat. I thought it would raise a healthy discussion. However, the man declined to give me permission to forward his e-mails. Perhaps he was afraid of being judged a homophobe or bigot.

I faced a fairly common ethical dilemma involving privacy. On the one hand, I felt offended by this man's insensitivity and rudeness, and part of me wished that I could expose his beliefs to everyone. I rationalized that sharing his e-mails could raise consciousness about the heterosexism that gay people face every day.

On the other hand, I wanted to respect his privacy, since he clearly didn't want his beliefs known. If I exposed him without his permission, he would be hurt and would probably respond with anger. Moreover, other people might begin to feel sorry for him, and then lash out at me because I had exposed something that he wanted to keep secret.

As I wrestled with my decision, I thought of the current controversy over outing. Recently debates have raged regarding conservative Republican politicians such as Congressman Ed Schrock of Virginia. Is it okay to reveal the secret homosexual orientation of those who oppose our political agenda?

I have mostly been sympathetic to the folks who "out" politicians, because the politicians are public figures and are behaving in a hypocritical manner. I have believed for some time that outing such politicians can be defended as serving the public interest.

However, a recent editorial by Andrew Sullivan in The New Republic online raised some troubling questions in my mind. Sullivan acknowledged that outing politicians who are obviously hypocrites seems justified. However, he pointed out that gay men who live secret lives have complex psyches, and it is difficult for outsiders to judge them accurately.

It is impossible to truly know the hearts of those tortured souls, Sullivan implies. He adds: "But what I do know is that forcing this man [Schrock] to cope with all of this in public, as an exercise in public humiliation and disgrace, is simply and manifestly cruel. And if the gay rights movement is about anything, it should be about the abatement of cruelty. Especially when directed by one gay man toward another."

Sullivan claims that the gay movement should be about the abatement of cruelty, a vision that I applaud. This conception of the gay movement signals the deeper spiritual dimensions of our collective struggles. It holds that our purpose as a community goes beyond our social life and political agendas into healing the hurts of our souls that have been scarred by homophobia.

The notion that the core purpose of the gay movement is the abatement of suffering brings our struggles into harmony with the best insights of the wisdom traditions. Jewish heritage finds solace from continual suffering and persecution in communal bonds. Christian liberation theology finds the essence of Christian practice as solidarity with all who suffer.

Sullivan's opposition to outing is in essence a spiritual argument. Outing means playing God. Who are you ... who am I ... to cast a judgment on a man that will cause him and his family to feel pain and suffering. Such arrogance can only backfire, spirituality suggests.

"Judge not, lest ye be judged," says the Bible. Have mercy on the hypocrites, and we may hope to receive mercy for our own shortcomings. A loving and compassionate gay culture will use outing rarely as a political strategy, if at all.

But is it true to say, as Sullivan does, that outing is merely "simply and manifestly cruel"? I think this is going too far. There are some public figures whose work causes great harm, and outing them could be an act of "tough love" that actually alleviates suffering in the long term. When facing this dilemma, we should choose the act--outing or not outing--that results in the greatest abatement of suffering for the greatest number.

Although Sullivan's argument against outing may not always hold up, the spiritual principle that outing should usually be avoided is a good one. We can choose to reject an "eye for an eye" mentality.

I encountered this spiritual lesson myself with the man who offended me by e-mail. I decided not to forward the messages without his permission or reveal his identity to others. If I had treated the man with harshness, I fear I would only have created a backlash of meanness where others would treat me with the lack of mercy that I showed to another.

Outing should have little if any part of a more compassionate gay and queer culture. Let us work to cultivate a political climate based on respect, love, and diminishment of suffering. Our goal should be to make outing unnecessary and rare.

---

Soulfully Gay is a bi-weekly column that explores spirituality and religion from a queer man's perspective. Joe Perez has studied comparative religion at Harvard University and The Divinity School at The University of Chicago. Send feedback to joe@writingwolf.com.