A few of you might vaguely remember Aaron Schock. He’s an American politician and a conservative representative for the state of Illinois, and . . . oh fuck, no one actually cares about that. He’s really only known because he’s jacked as hell. Take that away and he’s a generic Republican.
Above: Literally the only reason anyone has ever cared about Aaron Schock.
And like most generic Republicans, Aaron may or may not be leading something of a double life. If journalist Itay Hod is to be believed, Schock may be well in the closet, despite having a lengthy track record of voting against gay rights.
According to Gawker, Hod took to social media to call out “a certain GOP congressman, let’s just say from Illionois” who he believes is gay. Hod framed it as a hypothetical question, asking what you would do if “a journalist for a reputable network, told you in no uncertain terms that he caught that GOP congressman and his male roommate in the shower . . . together."
(I hate myself for this, but . . . sploosh. A very hesitant sploosh.)
Hod also points out that Schock has voted against repeals of DOMA and Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, before finally asking “Are we still not allowed to out him?” Which kinda puts us in a weird moral spot.
Yes, the guy’s clearly a hypocrite. He’s selling out an entire group of people for the sake of scoring cheap political points in a country where clinging to ignorance is a badge of honour. Whether he’s gay or not, he’d still be wrong. At this point, we’re just debating what specific flavour of wrong he is.
Whether or not you’re “still not allowed to out him” is entirely a matter of personal moral opinion. The only thing I’d say is this: You can’t say you’re against outing, buuuuuuut it’s okay if they have it coming. The whole point of morals is that they’re supposed to be inflexible. If you believe in something until it becomes inconvenient, it’s not a moral; it’s a hobby. Or perhaps a passing fancy.
But let’s not veer away from what’s important here: Schock is still using gay rights as a wedge issue to gain political leverage, and he’s in the wrong for it. Whether he’s gay or not is just a means of contextualizing how wrong he is.