Thomas Nephew writes July 7, 2004:
One example from 1996: When Congress was considering the now-enacted and still-vile Defense of Marriage Act, which put the US government firmly in the camp of anti-GLBT discriminators, Sen. Barbara Mikulski(D-MD) made a speech on the floor of the Senate in which she said, "Discrimination is wrong, plain and simple." That same day, she voted in favor of the bigoted and immoral legislation.
Back then, I was associate editor of the now-defunct Baltimore Alternative, an award-winning GLBT publication. Mikulski’s story, I decided, was one that needed to be told. Her constituents deserved answers — after all, their senator had betrayed them with her vote.
I first spoke with the senator on the phone. Interestingly, she stonewalled me when I pressed her to explain the discrepancy between her statement opposing discrimination and her subsequent vote supporting it. When I mentioned a press story about an activist who — on the Capitol Hill steps before a cadre of reporters — named her as a "closeted lesbian," she abruptly ended the interview.
The article continues:
The Alternative once again questioned the senator, this time, in a face-to-face encounter outside the Walters Art Gallery September 29. She was there, escorted by an unidentified woman, as part of the Baltimore Book Festival to promote her new Dutton book, Capitol Offense, a mystery novel she co-wrote with Washington author/journalist Mary Louise Oates.
The Alternative asked Mikulski a question: "In regard to the Defense of Marriage Act, are you now aware of the rumors circulating about you along the lines of [activist] Michael Petrelis’ statement?"
Refusing to entertain the question, she answered tersely, "Miss Davis, I already gave you my statement," and quickly moved to enter the gallery.
Another question was asked: "If what is said is true, why would you choose to discriminate against yourself?"
Mikulski and the woman accompanying her kept walking, and the senator repeated her reply: "Miss Davis, I already gave you my statement." The unidentified woman attempted, unsuccessfully, to block photographer Joseph Kohl from taking any pictures of the senator.
There was a final question: "Senator Mikulski, are you a lesbian?"
"Miss Davis, I already gave you my statement."
Mikulski and her companion then rushed into the building. …
In her long political career, which includes a 1971-1976 stint in the Baltimore City Council, a decade in the House of Representatives and 10 years in the Senate, Mikulski’s sexual orientation had never been directly addressed until Petrelis’ press conference. It had been, however, the subject of rumors and whispers within the gay community and the media for years.
After its publication, my article set off sparks, receiving much praise and criticism in Maryland and throughout the nation’s GLBT community. There was one big repercussion: My access to Mikulski was terminated, though I still maintained communications with a couple of her staffers. One in particular, who happened to be gay, said he was sorry that his boss wouldn’t cooperate with me. He told me that staffers had urged her to oppose DoMA — as Ted Kennedy, John Kerry, and 12 other senators did — simply because it was the right thing to do. It was fear, he said, that paralyzed her from doing what she knew was the right thing and kept her from telling the truth.
"What truth?" I asked.
The staffer wouldn’t elaborate. But, then, he didn’t have to.
To this day I stand by the article. Barbara Mikulski voted to oppose the equality of many of her constituents — and many people believe she caused great harm to her own community. She railed against discrimination, but voted in favor of it. Because of fear. She proved herself both a hypocrite and a coward. That is newsworthy.
I don’t know about you, but I want my representative to be honest and courageous, to do what is right whatever the cost. And if that person is a hypocrite whose hypocrisy hurts the very people he or she had sworn to serve and represent, it is news.
With the looming Federal Marriage Amendment vote, Barbie Mikulski has another chance to do the right thing. Journalist/activist Michelangelo Signorile, who was generous in giving me advice and moral support when I was doing the research for my Alternative piece, notes this in a New York Press article that talks about the Maryland pol. In the item, Mike mentions his own 1996 run-in with the senator, which occurred at a New York bookstore shortly after my article was published.
Most importantly, the Signorile article explains why outing a powerful lawmaker with a well-known secret is sometimes necessary:
… Mikulski is once again flirting with an antigay vote as she is up for reelection. Perhaps she’s being pressured by the homophobes as well, who might be threatening to out her if she says she’ll vote against the amendment, while gay-rights activists will certainly focus attention on her sexual orientation again if she even hints at voting for it.
"The FMA is the legislative equivalent of a nuclear bomb," wrote DC activist John Aravosis in the Washington Blade last week, defending outing members of Congress and their staffers. "Facing such an unprecedented threat, it is time we considered an unprecedented response."
Of course, Mikulski and any other closeted member of Congress could disempower everyone on either side by simply living openly. All of Capitol Hill, reports the Blade, is in a "panic" over activists’ efforts to out politicians supporting the FMA and, perhaps more controversially, threatening to out staffers who might be gay. The argument for outing the staffers is that many of them have a lot of influence in their offices and are public figures in their own right, quoted often in the beltway press, representing their bosses. Activist Mike Rogers has been calling the offices of at least 13 members of Congress urging the closeted gay staffers to confront their bosses on the issue, and outing them to the chiefs of staff if they refuse to discuss the issue with him. …
The corporate media report on every last detail about the marriages and divorces of heterosexual public figures, often when it’s not relevant to a larger story and often when the information is even wrong (as in the case of John Kerry’s non-affair with an intern). In this case, the votes of Barbara Mikulski and every member of Congress make their sexual orientation — and the status of their marriages and divorces — open to discussion, no matter if they’re gay, straight, bi or whatever. Will the Washington press corps realize this time around that protecting the closet means siding hands-down with the gay rights opponents?
Outing isn’t nice. It certainly isn’t pretty. And, trust me, these stories are often difficult and painful to report. There are times, though, when it is justified, fair, and the only option. The Federal Marriage Act threatens the very meaning of America’s supposed values. If passed, it will have a negative impact for millions of people. That makes this one of those times.
Bottom line: If you are gay, in power, and inclined to vote against equality for other members of the inclusive gay community, you had better be prepared to deal with some tough questions. Better yet, come out — be honest. That’s your choice. But if you intend to cling to the closet, you had better do no harm.
