Some people see all this public wrangling with Koch’s sexuality as outing him. In a Daily News op-ed about whether Koch’s orientation should even be talked about, New York University Professor Jonathan Zimmerman says no. It’s “cruel” to out gay people, he says, as “all of us lead private lives that sometimes clash with our publicly held principles.”
The tradition of outing closeted figures is perhaps one of the most controversial things that gay activists and writers do. Some see it as a critical tool in the fight for gay rights — gay visibility has always been an important way to calm social fear. Other activists want to punish the hypocrisy that happens when closeted figures make anti-gay remarks or pass anti-gay legislation. Others, like Zimmerman, think that revealing the gay sexual orientation of people who don’t want it revealed pierces their privacy in an unacceptable way.
But was this even outing? I don’t think so. Though Koch avoided talking about his sexual orientation and once, in a 1989 radio interview, even said he was heterosexual, there is enormous evidence that he was gay (Humm goes through it step by step). And speculation about his homosexuality has been floating around in the public consciousness at least since 1977, during his mayoral primary against Mario Cuomo (New York’s future governor and father of the one currently serving) when, the Daily Beast notes, “posters of mysterious origin appeared saying, ‘Vote for Cuomo, Not the Homo.”
Important public figures like Koch, who affected the lives of millions of people, deserve to have their impact and legacy evaluated carefully, and that’s what these gay writers did. In the end, we should have sympathy for such a complex man, Richard Socarides writes in The New Yorker, though he says that he, too, wishes that Koch had come out. It would have made the mayor a light to young gays and lesbians, like Socarides, who had needed one. Even so, he says, “How difficult it must have been, to maintain that kind of secret for so long and in the context of such a public life.”
My recollection is that questions about the sexual orientation of Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan were considered to be typical examples of 'conservative' Borking. There were similar objections to overt discussion of the sexual orientation of the California federal judge who overturned voter-approved Proposition 8 because he didn't like it. I guess, as always with self-absorbed and hypocritical bourgeois liberalism, it just depends.
#1 Posted by Mark Richard, CJR on Fri 8 Feb 2013 at 12:31 PM
Yes, yes, doesn't matter what the issue is, the failure of public officials to deal with a public health crisis, or whatever the case, it's always those evil, hypocritical liberals who are at fault. It's important, no matter how nuanced the arguments may be, no matter had multi-faceted the ideas and questions discussed, to boil them down liberal hypocrisy.
Never mind that there's exactly no difference -- no hypocrisy -- between the opinions expressed regarding Kagan and the Prop 8 judge and the legacy of Koch.
In the case of Kagan and the Prop 8 judge, many "liberal" commentators objected to the idea that, if you're gay, you are somehow tainted and should be disqualified from positions of power or making decisions about public policy.
That's EXACTLY the argument that's driving recent critiques of Koch's legacy -- that you shouldn't be disqualified from holding public office or making public policies simply because you're gay. Koch, commentators argue, failed (and people died) because he failed to push back against this homophobia. He let his fears about the political damage of being identified as gay prevent him from responding sensibly and responsibly to a health crisis in the city he claimed to love so much.
#2 Posted by whm, CJR on Fri 8 Feb 2013 at 05:48 PM