The following post is a reprint of an email I sent to Mike Signorile concerning events that took place today. I attempted to call in to Mike's radio show this afternoon, but was rebuffed.
Hi Mike....just wanted to get your feedback on John Aravosis's comments on Americablog today in regards to the article on RAW STORY in which it is alleged that Chris Crain, editor of the Washington Blade, is protecting individuals from being outed.
In the Comments section of the post, I mentioned that John and Mike Rogers had publicly admitted to protecting from outing the staffers of antigay Democrats -- that is, ones who had voted for the FMA and MPA, as I quote below:
I have yet to meet a Democrat staff member who opposes what their boss has done. The only case where one Democrat voted for the anti-gay law who has a gay staffer was clear to us that the member was forced to vote that way to attempt to hold the conservative leaning seat.
John himself confirms this today, albeit cryptically:
ONE MORE POINT, ASSHOLE. WHICH CLOSETED DEM STAFFERS ARE WE PROTECTING? I DON'T KNOW OF ONE. OH YOU MUST MEAN THAT COMMITTEE STAFFER IN THE HOUSE WHO'S VERY SENIOR AND WORKING FOR A MAJORLY ANTI-GAY MEMBER, THE ONE WE DECIDED NOT TO OUT. BUT, OOPS, HE'S A REPUBLICAN. AND WE DIDN'T OUT HIM BECAUSE HE IS WORKING TO HELP US FROM THE INSIDE, UNLIKE YOUR BUDDIES.
However, Aravosis was clearly quoted in the Washington Blade previously as completely contemptuous of those who tried the "work from inside" defense:
“An acquaintance of mine, a Southern Republican, worked for a member who was not anti-gay personally, but he signed on to the amendment [banning gay marriage],” Aravosis said. “My friend quit. I’m basically saying, ‘You know what, you have a choice. It’s 2004. You can work for pro-gay Democrats, and now you can work for pro-gay Republicans.’”
Finally, the argument that Aravosis makes for allowing Democrats to be antigay without any criticism from the gay community or tactics like outing being used is that it would be "political suicide" for them to be anything other than antigay. However, he is also openly against the argument that Republicans "have" to vote antigay because their constituents would vote them out of office. In short, Democrats may be antigay to pander for votes without reprisal, while Republicans may not.
My expectation is that you will not respond to this email, which is why I have attached additional members of the glbt media and will be reposting it on my blog at North Dallas Thirty where I will be commenting further on the issue of Rogers and Aravosis's apparent partisanship on this issue.
In any even, thank you for your time and consideration.
North Dallas Thirty
cc'd: Ken Sain, Chris Crain, and others