"Outrage" Documentary: Activists Outing Gay Conservatives

UPDATE: NPR has spiked a review of "Outrage" for naming some of the politicians outed in the film.

Citing a policy of protecting the privacy of public figures, an NPR superior cut the names of current Florida governor Charlie Crist and former Senator Larry Craig from the review after writer Nathan Lee and his assigning editor at NPR had agreed on the text of the piece. However, a photo of Larry Craig accompanies the review and says that the former Senator is a subject of the documentary. It also hints strongly at the inclusion of Crist in the doc.

* * * * *

"Outrage," a new documentary from filmmaker Kirby Dick, takes issue with the secret lives of closeted gay politicians -- especially conservative Republicans who outwardly oppose gay rights.

The film, which premiered last week at the Tribeca Film Festival, features tell-alls from men who say they've had relationships with various Republicans, including Florida Governor Charlie Crist, Bush strategist Ken Mehlman and former Senator Larry Craig.

According to Magnolia Pictures, "Outrage" is a "searing indictment of the hypocrisy of closeted politicians with appalling gay rights voting records who actively campaign against the LGBT community they covertly belong to."

In the documentary, Dick lambastes the mainstream media for not better investigating the politicians' "hypocrisy" and double lives. He told New York magazine that the film explores "the issues surrounding closeted politicians and their hypocrisy in voting anti-gay -- and how these people have harmed millions of Americans for many years."

"Outrage" premieres May 8 in five cities, including Washington, D.C.

Watch the trailer:

Comments

[BeltwayInsider]

11:59 PM on 05/24/2009

Shouldn't closeted representatives be outed if for no other reason than in the interest of our National Security?

Note that closeted homosexuals cannot get government security clearances because their life of duplicity is (correctly) deemed to make them an easy target for blackmail, and subsequent manipulation by the blackmailer. Our representatives are often involved in either bringing forth, or voting on legislation that affects our National Security. Is it too much to ask of those who represent us in a democratic society that they not live lives that put them in compromising positions?

While it will invariably cause tremendous initial hardship on these representatives and those who are a part of their personal lives, the act of outing representatives can be considered a patriotic measure that helps ensure that outside forces are not playing a part in the actions of these public servants, who have sworn to act on our behalf.

After an outing, the voters can decide in the next election in the cycle if they still want the candidate in office. If the representative handles the crisis well, it should not necessarily mean the end of their career. Either way, they will finally have the burden of living a life of duplicity lifted off of their shoulders, and they will finally be relieved of the fear of anyone discovering their "secret" life.

[TFDNYC]

12:48 PM on 05/18/2009

Hmmm. A lot of innocent people could get hurt (spouses, children, trusted friends, etc) in the process. I'm not for it however satisfying it may appear. I'm openly gay and uber pro-marriage equality etc. but this is not fair to the nation or the private lives of these people.

There is more than one way to skin a cat (in this case public humiliation) and this is not an ethical way to do it. Unfortunately.

[SteveDenver]

01:37 AM on 05/26/2009

It's difficult to explain the damage done to many women who are married to gay men. The sooner they know, the easier it is to move on with normalizing one's life.

See the documentary. The people who are outed have been asked about their positions, their personal lives, etc. They are presented with the evidence of their secret life.

The filmmakers aren't outing every closeted politician, just the ones whose voting record is virulently anti-gay. Attitudes espoused by self-hating gay politicians spawns attitudes that bring forth violence. They also block furtherance of equal rights. It's almost as if they gang up on gays to reinforce their mask: "Look! I'm beating up a gay person, I can't be gay."

U.S. Rep Barney Frank put it best: "There is a right to privacy, there is no right to hypocrisy."

[TFDNYC]

09:29 AM on 05/26/2009

I understand the arguments/ pros/ cons. I simply disagree that this is ethical.

[Sardonica]

01:28 AM on 05/18/2009

I do not understand the controversy. Gay politicians who pretend to be straight are liars. As representatives of the public, they must either live their lives openly and honestly, or retreat into private life. End of story.

[llmitchellb]

12:58 PM on 05/17/2009

When you out them they don't acknowledge and go on about their business (unless they are under arrest, well even then).
They need to be CALLED OUT while they are giving an anti-gay speech on the floor. That will make news and ruin careers.

[McG007]

05:23 PM on 05/14/2009

What happens in two consenting adults bedrooms, is between those two adults. If being gay is equivalent to other a-moral/illegal bedroom activity, then yes..out them! If it is not, then it is nobodies business but theirs! Job performance and the content of their character should determine if they are suitable for public office.

[Joshua Johanson]

01:41 PM on 05/14/2009

Just because they are gay doesn't mean they have to support all the bills on gay rights. Do seniors have to support everything AARP does? Do blacks have to support everything the NAACP does? Elton John doesn't support same-sex marriage. Where is the outrage against Elton John? Lots of people are against same-sex marriage. Why are these senators being attacked because of their sexual orientation? Isn't that discriminating them based on their sexual orientation?

Of course they're going to be closeted. Society puts gays in boxes as tells them how they're supposed to act. Those who rebel are labeled as being untrue to themselves. Many gay people feel the gay community does not represent their values, and so they choose to distance themselves from them.

I don't condone any type of affair, whether gay or straight, and I don't think they should cover it up. However, just because they are gay doesn't mean they cheat on their wives. Do you have to reveal all of your attractions when you are in public office? Do straight politicians who are faithful to their wives have to admit that sometimes they find younger, prettier women more attractive than their wives.

Rather than attacking every gay who doesn't conform to the values of the gay community, maybe it is the gay community that should change and recognize that gay people come in all varieties and political beliefs. And yes, even some gay people believe children should have both a father and mother.

[Beca]

05:15 AM on 05/15/2009

Joshua, your argument is very weak. AARP does not represent all seniors and certainly does not speak for the needs of seniors! example: AARP supported the disastrous Medicare part D Prescription plan that placed many seniors in terrible financial peril because of the "gap" in coverage. Just like the NAACP does not represent all African Americans and does not speak for the needs of all African Americans. Elton John is in a civil union, a legal contract akin to a legal marriage contract. He did not say he was "against" gay marriage, he just said that for him, civil union has worked well. He does not speak for gay people. And yes, there was outrage over his comments, you just didn't hear it because you were not listening.
The issue in this film, I believe, is that not only are these legislators gay and closeted, but they have consistently voted against ALL bills that would support any form of gay rights, including hate crimes. This is not just an issue of gay marriage, that is a very small part. The issues of gay rights involve discrimination in the workplace, housing, etc., hate crimes, adoption rights, police abuse and brutality, etc.--basically equal rights under the law. Gay Americans are not granted all the same rights, priviledges, and protections granted by our Bill of Rights and Constitution, as the rest of Americans enjoy and take for granted.

[Joshua Johanson]

03:34 PM on 05/15/2009

I think comparing the LGB community with AARP is a good analogy. Estimates of people with same-sex attractions go up to about 10% of the population, yet only 2% identify themselves with the LGB community. If these estimates are right, that means about 80% of LGB people choose not to identify with the LGB community. One report suggests 20% of gay men and 40% of lesbians are heterosexually married. (http://marriage.about.com/cs/straightspouses/a/straightspouse.htm) Yet their needs are constantly being ignored by the LGB community. Obviously, these closeted politicians are in that category.

I am also in that category. I am attracted to men but in a very fulfilling, faithful and honest marriage with a woman. Many of us feel that many so-called "gay rights" legislation actually prejudices people like me. It favors LGB people in same-sex relationships and ignores us.

Take Iowa's Supreme Court decision legalizing same-sex marriage. They said that gays cannot change nor have a fulfilling marriage with someone of the opposite sex. That is degrading to us and calls into question the validity of my marriage. I feel an obligation to protect my rights and my marriage. I live in California and I voted Yes on Prop 8. Maybe these politicians feel the same way I do.

LGB America does have the same rights as the rest of America. We can get married in all 50 states. I got married, and I'm not straight.

[ReedYoung]

02:58 PM on 05/13/2009

Hypothetically, whether being gay is a choice or an inherent trait (Medical science proves it is the way some people are born, not a choice they make, but for sake of discussion ...), sexual activities of consenting adults in pursuit of happiness are the unalienable human right of each individual. Normally, I would consider "outing" a person who wishes to remain in the closet to be bad form, but voting against people's Constitutional rights is inexcusable.

Out them all, let the Bible Belt sort 'em out.

[Anonani]

03:03 PM on 05/13/2009

Be careful what you ask for...the devil is in the details.

[Charlie888]

03:23 PM on 05/13/2009

"I would consider "outing" a person who wishes to remain in the closet to be bad form, but voting against people's Constitutional rights is inexcusable."

I agree--I think this is the heart of the matter and what 'Outrage' explores~!

Definitely check out the interview with Mike Rogers if you have not already:

http://news.aol.com/article/angry-anchor/478089

[Anonani]

04:01 PM on 05/13/2009

Charlie, thank you for sharing the link...very informative and very eye opening. The commentator was so over the top as to make the blogger look exceptionally good. Extremism in any form is extremism. I will see the movie if it comes to Honolulu.

[Anonani]

12:37 PM on 05/13/2009

I think you have done your cause a huge disservice. Seems to me with this OUTRAGE that is happening here has resulted in a redefining of the term "gay". IMO it just became a political statement and not an inherent state of being. A person self-identifying as gay is one who is openly indicating that they are announcing and living a lifestyle that includes a preference/orientation for same sex partners and participates in activism for the civil rights of all who share those same views and the lifestyle.

The individual who does not accept being "gay" may prefer same sex partners, be bi-sexual, but for a variety of individually determined reasons (religious, family, ambivalence, confusion, personal choice, fear) never choose to endorse the activism, the lifestyle, or to live openly as a person of homosexual orientation.

Follow my train of sociological thought...if I am headed in the right direction, you have no right to label these men and possibly women as being gay. There is no requirement that they do despite the opinions of those who do identify themselves as gay. This outrageous effort to out these folks is playing is ultimately playing to the fears and prejudices of a society that hasn't figured out how this is going to play out. Are you really helping your cause with this self-righteous outing of people who are not, by this definition, gay?

[paisleyface]

01:32 PM on 05/13/2009

You can see the trees, but you're missing the forest.

The issue is not whether one is gay or not. The issue is that some individuals who do not accept being "gay" but still prefer same sex partners, or are bi-sexual are hiding behind the unsaid notion that they do NOT prefer same sex partners or are NOT bi-sexual and expend much effort to suppress those of us who do accept being "gay". Parsing this into a difference between "gay"/political and a preference for same sex partners is unworthy of any place in the discussion, IMO.

[Anonani]

06:56 PM on 05/13/2009

Opinion noted. I also do not agree that anyone will be suppressed. . But, IMO, you don't get to decide what is worthy of a place in the discussion. All opinions are worthy of being expressed.

There are as many sexual preferences out there as there are people when get down to it. I've never figured out who is the final arbiter on what isnormal/acceptable/immoral/legal/illegal. But we do legislate it and have done so every since somebody decided that we are civilized people living in a civilized society.

[Joshua Johanson]

02:33 PM on 05/14/2009

There maybe many reasons why someone who naturally prefers same-sex partners may not be pursing same-sex relationships, including health reasons, religious reasons, internalized homophobia, or even simply a duty to be faithful in a marriage. Likewise, they might have many reasons why they vote against things like same-sex marriage, without necessarily being trying "to suppress those of us who do accept being gay". They might be worried about the affect of taking the father out of a marriage, or the affect on religious freedoms, or the rights of the parents to teach their children morality, or even the rights of gays to pursue celibate or straight lifestyles.

I don't think it is fair to expect someone with same sex attractions to vote for gay rights issues, when the gay community rejects their lifestyle choices (being married to a woman.) I also don't think it is fair to assume just because someone is voting for traditional family values that they are necessarily attacking the gay community.

[AmbientDiscord]

04:07 PM on 05/13/2009

you do not understand what gay means obviously. it doesn't matter if you participate in a flamboyant lifestyle, that does not define you. you are attracted to the same gender, you are gay. end of discussion.

[kwinter]

12:23 PM on 05/13/2009

I'm still a little "on the fence" on this one.
If they drew the line at gay politicians who had definite records, voting against gay rights, I think I would lean towards saying this is fair.
But, they also go after Shepard Smith. Because he works at FAUX news? He has spoken out against the Bush administration several times, and as far as I know, has never voiced an opinion on gay rights.
I don't think "outing" someone just because you don't like their employer is a good idea.
If the purpose is exposing the hypocrisy of those whose salaries are being payed by our tax dollars, that's one thing, but, if it's just revenge on those we don't agree with, with no beneficial purpose ...

[Beca]

05:32 AM on 05/15/2009

You have a good point.

[Jeremy Braud]

11:35 AM on 05/13/2009

To see if this film is playing near you go to http://www.magpictures.com/dates.aspx?id=6bd65572-cede-4f4b-9353-eab49ba422d1

[ThomasMc]

10:56 AM on 05/13/2009

Wait... there are people out there who actually think Crist is straight???

[fredamae]

11:09 AM on 05/13/2009

Honestly? I did not ever give it a thought and did Not know before this Forum.

[somsoc]

10:41 AM on 05/13/2009

Is there anything that the rethugs are not cynical or hypocrites about? Is there anything they have that is good and decent about them? If there is, I sure am at a loss to think of what it is.

[scottowego]

08:37 AM on 05/13/2009

oooooooh... Can't wait to see it!!!!!

[MrMojoRisin]

08:36 AM on 05/13/2009

Outing gays - wrong. Outing self righteous, self hating hypocrites - VERY RIGHT!!!

[lisa36]

08:39 AM on 05/13/2009

Here, here!

[fredamae]

08:58 AM on 05/13/2009

I would see it and since the Premise of this film is "TRUTHFULNESS" I would Up the Ante to Include Cannabis Consumers as well!

Hypocrisy IS Hypocrisy.

Our Elected Reps ARE Making Laws in Direct Conflict with their Own Lives.

I am happy to see the TRUTH finally Emerge!

They MUST Stop Holding the Public They SERVE To A Higher Standard Than They Hold Themselves!

[somsoc]

10:45 AM on 05/13/2009

The issue with Gay and Lesbian rights is civil rights and equal protection, the issue with cannabis is simply whether or not it should or should not be illegal. Two vastly different issues with vastly different life altering impacts.

[obackarama]

06:49 AM on 05/13/2009

"Citing a policy of protecting the privacy of public figures...."

Since when?

[psy]

08:28 PM on 05/13/2009

LOL! Public figures have no right to privacy. Absolutely none at all. Public figures are very different, legally, than private figures.