Outrage

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?

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.

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.

The big question whether or not it serves the cause to out those closeted politicians. That is a question that is outside of this documentary.

The big question here is whether or not the makers of this film did a good job of covering the issue. Expectations were high on my part as Kirby Dick did the outstanding "This Film Is Not Yet Rated." I was captivated throughout by the stories and those who told of their experiences with the individuals covered. I really thought my own Charlie Crist would just have insinuations, but I am convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that Florida will have her first gay Senator.

The fact shown that the Republican Party used the marriage issue to get votes was repugnant. But, these people will stop at nothing to gain and maintain power. They truly have no shame.

Outstanding.

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.