In my news release yesterday, I described Judge Vaughn Walker as “openly gay.” An AP reporter called me out (privately and politely: thx!) about that description. His question: “What is the attribution for that? I wasn’t aware that Walker had ever commented publicly on his sexual orientation.”
I clearly recall the San Francisco Chronicle reporting that Judge Walker was gay. This report came after the close of the Prop 8 trial, and created quite a stir. People talked about it all over the place. Judge Walker never denied it.
So, I ‘m thinking, and maybe you are too, that “openly gay” vs. “widely reported to be gay,” this is a distinction without a difference. But not necessarily. Could be a slanderous rumor and nothing more. Even “widely reported to be gay and never denied it,” isn’t exactly the same as “openly gay.”
In my world, those differences seem not so big because in my world, a person who isn’t openly gay, wouldn’t allow himself to be described as gay without attempting to set the record straight. (no pun intended.) In fact, the SF Chronicle story reported this exchange:
did he (meaning Judge Walker) have any concerns about being characterized as gay?
“No comment.”
Shortly after our conversation, we heard from a federal judge who counts himself as a friend and confidant of Walker’s. He said he had spoken with Walker and was concerned that “people will come to the conclusion that (Walker) wants to conceal his sexuality.”
But this is not my world. Among those who live with same sex attraction, in varying degrees of comfort, being “openly gay” means that you are willing to describe yourself as gay to anyone and everyone.
So in the interest of respect for the facts, and for Judge Walker’s self-definition, I hereby amend my press release. I am going to repost it, as “Amended” with the words “openly gay” changed to “widely reported to be gay,” and leave it at that.