Outrage

Most of the comments left previously do not address the actual legal aspects of this. The worst offender is lady moon.

The Constitution of the U.S. guarantees each and every one of us Freedom of (and FROM) religion. The separation of Church and State is VERY important in this issue. The word "marriage" is semantics, yet it is the most commonly used term world-wide and that is why advocates use it in attempting to secure the rights they were born with but are being denied.

It is organized religion which is fighting this tooth and nail. Yet it is not organized religion which issues "marriage" licenses; It is states, counties, and cities. States who have changed their constitutions denying same-sex marriage will eventually lose this fight because it it is unconstitutional (at the Federal level) to deny any group the same rights as others.

Granting same-sex couples the right to marry will in no way affect organized religion. Why? Because of their right to practice their religion(s) without government interference; "The Freedom of religion" will protect them, which is as it should be.

Additionally, saying those rights are available through various legal avenues is ridiculous! Does a heterosexual couple have to pay (as much as) $60,000.00 to secure only SOME of the rights? No.

And I'm not gay - I have been happily married to the same woman for over 20 years. I just happen to believe that denying a segment of society the same rights that others enjoy is wrong. Plain and simple. Unfortunately, just as was the case for inter-racial marriages until 1967, it is going to take the US Supreme Court to guarantee those rights.

Here is a much better logistical argument.

1.The government is involved in marriage.

2.All adult citizens of the United States are guaranteed equal protection under law.

3.Therefore, the government has two choices.

A.Not be involved with marriage at all

-OR-

B.Treat all adult citizens equally

This whole debate is not complicated guys. So if you do not like the idea of gay marriage get used to it, because the authors of the constitution laid down the groundwork for this centuries ago.

p.s. as for your "slippery slope" theory about people one day marrying their pets, it should first be noted that a pet does not have a choice in the matter so it would not be able to be defined as marriage. The pet would not even know that it had been married. In other words, that part of your comments is laughable, and can be construed as very rude. Very similar to a comment like this, "I mean, why would anyone be religious, thats just left over tradition from cavemen." Don't be inconsiderate of others please.

Kirby Dick's attitude to material that's a 'no-no' is to say "yes-yes!" His previous film, a near masterpiece chronicling the hypocrisy of the MPAA on American film censorship since the inception of the NC-17 rating, served as an indictment while also having some fun. While a sense of fun only springs up on occasion in Outrage he still gets right what needs to be shown: an in-depth look at the rampant hypocrisy of government's 'in-the-closet' stance. Gay politicians rarely come out of said closet - in the film we see two such promininent figures interviewed at length, NJ governor Jim McGreevey and Massachusetts rep Barney Frank - and Dick's aim with the documentary is to seek out the hows and whys. It's poignant when it needs to be, but above all else it serves up information we as the public should know about figures. It's a truth-to-power assemblage on public figures who, time and time again, have voted against gay and AIDS rights (it may not surprise some to know it's Republicans who are the ones most in the closet-side) while denying what people can see outright.

Dick frames his doc on two key figures, one being Larry Craig, the disgraced congressman who was caught in a bathroom doing something that, perhaps, was equatable to what he described Bill Clinton as doing in the mid 90s. He propositioned a cop for 'something' and fervently denied it in public, despite allegations that there had been other incidents in the past suggesting more than likely that he was and has been in the closet. It's been one of the great follies of the past couple of years, and opened up the discussion that appears in the film (Craig, it should be added, has something like a 16% voting record on gay rights through his career).

The other figure, not with as much national notoriety as Craig, is Florida governor Charlie Crist, a "bachelor" who had married once and quickly divorced in the 70s and remained a single man for as long as anyone could tell - not to mention having a chief aid allegedly going with him around the world on vacations (the trick being that one would go the day before and the other the day after - every vacation for *decades*), and denied up and down being possibly, at all, gay. Despite all matters on the contrary, Crist denies it (after going through a girlfriend and another wife during and after the election), and continues to put fervent anti-gay judges on the state court.

Dick isn't out to "out" anyone of the closet - at least, anyone that would rather be kept private. But these are public figures, and the aim is that of This Film is Not Yet Rated: open up the lid, look inside, and see what makes this subject tick to hell. And with Washington and US politics and media, there's so much to mine and Dick and his team do a very good job. Hell, we even get Ed Koch! Who knew?

Just watched "Outrage" and I must say that it's a very revealing and interesting doc. As many know politicians are crooks, and they lie and cheat and get involved in scandal mostly bribes and sexual affairs. However one secret that has been hidden which of late is becoming more and more the scandal norm in D.C. and of elected officials all across the land, is that many are closeted homosexuals. Who in engage in affairs and sexual encounters with their own gender. You must stand up and cheer for director Kirby Dick who you can tell as you watch really researched this topic well and was well informed as he interviewed many top sources who knew about the secret lives and sexual scandals of many closeted politicians.

Interviews come from many independent internet people and off beat newspaper reporters who have connections to the political world and have even personally seen many of these closeted politicians at gay spots and been told by others of their activities. As gay journalists Andrew Sullivan even gives his take. Also well displayed is the most well known cases beginning with Idaho senator Larry Craig who was caught by an undercover cop in a bathroom stall at a Minnesota airport asking for sex. What's even more shocking is even after this we see in interviews that Craig will not own up and say that he is gay. As shown during his segments and something that is revealing and hurts gay people the most is it shows along with Craig he and all other outed gay politicians continue to vote no and against gay rights bills time after time. As it shows many other lesser known congressman who were found to be gay vote no on gay rights bills.

As mentioned in the film from many gays that are fighting for rights they state that this voting no hurts the community. As those in power will not own up to their own faults and guilt of being gay as it hurts deep down inside so therefore their power of voting no defeats the hurt they feel as it's better to keep it inside. As the film states those with power can hide their homosexuality with no problem take the case of former New York mayor Ed Koch who had so much power that he banned his ex lover from the city! And the historians of literature and film give their history take as Tony Kushner showed with his "Angels in America" that this underworld of gay life in politicians from the right wing dates back many years as mentioned the most notable closeted figure was right wing attorney Roy Cohn. It even mentions many friends and staff members of both the Reagan and W. Bush administration were gays.

It showcases how politicians work around their hidden homosexuality but yet to stay in the spotlight and to look more acceptable for the right wing they will even do a marriage of convenience. Take the case of Florida republican governor Charlie Crist who married just to look more acceptable for the right wing and Republican voters. Yet still Dick shows an honorable and acceptable side when openly gay Massachusetts congressman Barney Frank talks telling viewers for years that he's been open about his homosexuality and that he feels better for it. And most touching is the words of ex New Jersey governor Jim McGreevey who said it right he was living a lie as he was married to an attractive and elegant looking lady named Dana but inside no matter how hard he tried to hide it he was gay. And coming out and opening up made him feel better and it was a justice feel for all.

Overall "Outrage" is a doc to watch it's interesting and revealing you feel anger at the same time a big thumbs up for Kirby Dick who's interviews and resources have exposed many and elaborated on many that were already lit up as more shocking info was told. Even though it's theme is homosexuality it still proves that those in power especially politicians abuse power and go to any means to hide their deepest darkest secrets. And still they feel as if though their actions are above the law. Clearly it's a film that showcases hypocrisy at it's best. As in the docs end as many gays would agree ex San Francisco supervisor and slain gay hero Harvey Milk said it best it would be best if all gays open up to the truth not only for themselves but to everyone. As clearly that's the message these closeted politicians should take it would be a better world for them and everyone else.

An indictment of closeted politicians who lobby for anti-gay legislation in the United States.

I found something missing here, though I am not sure what. I feel like there was some muckraking going on, but the film never completely raked the muck -- there was still something more they could have done. For one thing, they never really touched the religion connection -- perhaps a gay man is in the closet to try to appease what he sees as God's wishes?

Most interesting is viewing the 2009 film from a 2013 vantage point. Here we have the Republicans pushing for a same-sex marriage ban through a federal amendment. Four years later, we have same-sex marriage spreading to more states and even Rush Limbaugh saying the conservatives have lost the issue. What was seemingly impossible a decade ago is almost common sense now. And what this film shows is a step in that path we have taken as a country.