Come out, come out wherever you are. And if you happen to be a Seattle Public Utilities employee and a member of the city's Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Questioning and Friends group, well, you'd best make a couple of important phone calls.
Philip Irvin, a City Lights employee and a well-known anti-gay crusader in Seattle, filed a public disclosure request to get the names of the folks in the group.
The group said "hell no" and the city originally sided with them. Until the city realized that, well, they kind of had to release the members' names because it really was public info.
"The city sympathizes with the concerns that plaintiffs have expressed," a city attorney said. "Nonetheless, the city believes that the Public Records Act obligates it to disclose the records at issue."
The LGBT group has since filed for an injunction to block the release, but with the city itself arguing in Irvin's favor, it seems unlikely that the group will prevail.
So just who is Philip Irvin and why does he want the names to begin with? According to the Seattle Post-Intelligencer, Irvin "sees himself as the victim of bigotry by the city and intends to form an employee group for former homosexuals."
Describing his intentions on the Faith and Freedom Network Web site, Irvin claims he was just "curious to find out who was using city resources." But no doubt his "curiosity" was peaked by more than his identity as a taxpayer.
"Call me a homophobe if you want to but I don't think the city should fund a secret gay employees group," Irvin said.
Dan Savage, editor of Seattle's the Stranger newspaper and author of the syndicated advice column Savage Love, describes Irwin as a "semi-professional homophobe" and "an anti-gay Christian nutcase." Savage, however, also agrees with Irvin, at least on this one issue.
"You're a homophobie, Phil, but you're right: the city shouldn't be funding secret groups for gay employees," wrote Savage on Slog, the Stranger's blog. "And if SPU's gay group is an official city group, and it receives funding from the city, it should be subject to the same rules and regulations regarding openness and public disclosure that all other city groups, agencies, individual employees, etc., are subject to."
Of course, there's more to this fight then mere procedure. But Savage knows that.
"And that's easy for me to say, I suppose, sitting here at the Stranger, where everyone is gay and everything is glorious," Savage writes. "What about SPU's closeted employees? What about their privacy? Privacy is a concern for some gays and lesbians – for closeted ones – in way that it isn't for, say, women at SPU who might form an employee's group. But the lesson here is this: If you're not out, an employee group funded by the city – and subject to public records requests – isn't the right support group for you."
Granted, Savage doesn't have a lot of patience with closeted folks, but he has a good point. However, it's going to be a rough transition for some folks in that LGBT employee group.
Considering Irvin's anti-gay notoriety, he knows good and damned well how high the stakes are for any gay and lesbian employees who haven't come out of the closet. Outside their employee group, the wider world is a much scarier place. And folks like Irvin are exactly why. Can't exactly blame them for not wanting to put their names in his hands.
