Outrage

Kirby Dick's ("Twist of Faith", "This Film Is Not Yet Rated") new exposé is as revolting as it is provocative. Featuring interviews with journalists, activists, media personalities and the film subjects themselves, Kirby exposes all the hypocrisy behind closeted elected officials (Larry Craig, Ed Schrock, Jim McCrery, David Dreier and Charlie Crist, among others) who lied their way into high office, claiming to be morally conservative family men while living a double life.

Naturally, the issue of "outing" these men is morally questionable – but as Massachusetts Representative Barney Frank (a former closeted official himself) says, "There's a right to privacy, not to hypocrisy". And hypocrisy is all there is, since once these men are in power, they shockingly, without exception, work against any and every gay right. Theories are discussed about what causes closeted gay men to join those who work against them, joining forces against what would technically be their "community". An interesting analysis goes way back to Roy Cohn and McCarthyism, and to the kid called a "fag" in school that will join the bully to save his own skin. As simplistic as this example sounds, it certainly has a lot of truth in it.

"Outrage" is a terrific documentary because it isn't one sided. It doesn't suggest that every closeted gay person is a hypocrite, and from a predominantly homosexual point of view (documentarians and interviewees), it's acknowledged how difficult the "coming out" process can be and how each person deserves to have their right to privacy respected. However, all citizens also should know what's behind their superiors' speeches, and the fact that these people are working against homosexuals as they lead double lives themselves is repulsing, heartbreaking, and most infuriating. It's one of the most incendiary, straightforward documentaries I've seen in a while, and I hope it gets enough exposure to provoke some serious discussions.

The so-called log cabin Republicans, elected officials or not, tend to put financial and professional reasons above anything else, and since they chose to live a life of lies, they don't care about the rights other people should be allowed to have. I know gay Republicans who will say "Oh, they make such a fuss about gay marriage and such... you can always live with someone, there's no need to have a paper to prove it", etc. Well, personally, I even agree with that in a way, since I don't think I will ever feel the need to legally marry myself (but I'd like to think that, if I change my mind, I will have the right to do it). But what about the concept of equality? Just because you don't care about it, don't you think John and Stuart should have the right to get married if they want to? I can be accused of being biased myself as I say this, that I'm generalizing all gay Republicans by saying this... which is true. But I firmly believe that what they tend to do is put anything that will benefit them professionally or financially above anything else, including the fight for equal rights and the respect for others. In doing that, they lose their own dignity, and if you support just one of these hypocritical officials, you're one of them.

This is a never-ending discussion, but an important one. It's a question of moral integrity to really know those who are being elected so we can actually claim for our rights – whether you are gay, straight, bisexual, pansexual, asexual, black, white, yellow or blue. 10/10.

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.

Outing somebody,s sexual preferences is a complex thing. People are certainly entitled to privacy, even when they are public figures. The trouble starts when people spew hatred for gay people, vote against their basic rights, and in a same time have gay relationships out of public eye. There is an exception to the privacy rule. When you have a man who testifies about sickness of gay people, tries to cure them from their "perversity" and then gets caught with a young gay male escort, he has it coming. " Outrage" is a very good documentary. It lets the subjects of the story tell us all we need to hear. It doesn't lecture or pressure us , it just tells it like it is.

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.

I walked into this film with quite a bit of ambivalence on "outting" anyone regarding their sexual orientation. True, it would be nice to live in a world where that isn't or shouldn't be an issue.

The phenomenon of "interalized self-hatred" is something I was introduced to in the early 1990's. It may not be the reason someone--in particular a closeted homosexual--takes a position on a particular political issue, yet this film lines up a number of politicians and people who work in Washington's legislative community and lays out quite convincingly the argument that bigotry indeed is at work in our Nation's capitol, and the suppression of a group of people's rights is achieved through collusion with people who cannot or will not be honest with themselves or the people they represent.

Does exposing these individuals accomplish anything other than the satisfaction of calling a spade a spade? This film makes the case that, yes, in more than a few cases it is worthwhile.

A superb example of the art of film-making, together with passionate testimony from people on one side of a fence that often aren't covered in the mainstream press, this is one of the better documentaries of the decade. I was a convert by the time I walked out of this film.