Via AmericablogGay: NYT TV critic thinks it’s time for Anderson Cooper to come out

NYT: 

The one thing he hasn’t done yet — and the lacuna grows more obvious and awkward with each show — is talk about his love life. It’s hard to see how he can continue to leave that out selectively and preserve one particular zone of privacy while building a confessional talk show wrapped around his good looks, high spirits and glamorous adventures.

Gossip magazines like Us and People, and Web sites like TMZ.com follow his exploits, but he has so far managed to avoid mainstream prying. As he put it in a 2007 interview, “The whole thing about being a reporter is that you’re supposed to be an observer and to be able to adapt with any group you’re in, and I don’t want to do anything that threatens that.”

The whole thing about being a talk show host is that you stop observing and make a spectacle of yourself, and that usually entails losing control over what you disclose and what you hold back. “Anderson” raises the question of whether Anderson is quite ready for that, and its success may hinge on the answer.

I've defended Anderson in the past. He's done good work for the community on his show, and never commits hypocrisy. Sure, it'd be nice for him to come out, but I understood his desire not to, and respected it. I think what the Times is getting at is the fact that it was once a secret, but not any longer. At this point, it's almost interfering with his show(s): knowing the truth, but knowing that it must not be spoken.

I'm still not terribly worked up over this subject, but if the Times is writing about it publicly, then perhaps it's time to just get it out of the way.

Via Bjork Espana:

Foo Fighters sing to Westboro in counter-protest

Jay Leno confronts Michele Bachmann on gay marriage

Via AmericaBlogGay: Boehner’s lawyer suggests being gay is a choice. Does that mean Boehner is into dudes?

On pages 11 and 12 of a recent brief in the Edith Windsor DOMA case, US House Speaker John Boehner's lawyer argues that sexual orientation is a choice. Really? Then I guess it's time to ask the Speaker if he simply chooses to sleep with women, but could just as easily choose to do a dude.

Windsor filed an affidavit in response to Boehner's absurd suggestion that people choose their sexual orientation.

Via AmericaBloggay: Imminent demise of DADT could have far-reaching implications for gay rights

Next Tuesday is the day. 

From Chris Johnson at the Washington Blade: 

“They really took the time to train and educate the force on the various assets of this policy and hypotheticals,” Nicholson said. “It was an hour of instruction on gays and lesbians, on gay families, on gay partners and it was a really a normalization routine. It was really exposed to millions of America’s most conservative youth to the normality of gays and lesbians.”

Among the situations that the training addressed, Nicholson said, were gay troops holding hands, going on dates or participating in military events with their partners. Nearly 2 million service members received the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” training before certification took place on July 22, according to the Pentagon.

Workplace discrimination against LGBT people could be an issue that gains new focus after “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” repeal. No federal law exists to protect LGBT workers against discrimination. Firing someone for being gay is legal in 29 states and firing someone for being transgender is legal in 35 states.

Krehely said open service could generate support for the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, which would prohibit discrimination against LGBT workers in most situations in the public and private workforce, or encourage other employers to add protections for LGBT workers.

“The military is probably one of the biggest and most visible workplaces in our country,” Krehely said. “I think Sept. 20 is a clear indication that this discrimination should not be there any longer, and that we need to move forward on ENDA, and educate people about the broader workplace issues that we’re up against.”

Via AmericaBlogGay: Are gay public figures supposed to remain celibate?

Shame on the Desert Sun newspaper and its reporter Kate McGinty. 

It seems reporters now think it fine to report on single public figures seeking love, or just a roll in the hay, online.  Good.  Then let's also report on all public figures, including reporters, who aren't married and who have sex.  Because that seems to the be standard for this story - oh, and the guy is gay too, so that just makes it all the more salacious, doesn't it?

Seriously, what is wrong with a local city councilman, who is single and openly gay, looking for sex in his off hours?  Do single straight people have sex?  I think they do.  Do they sometimes have it with people they've just met, at bars or parties?  Why, yes they do.  So is that the new standard - if you even vaguely intimate that you're interested in sleeping with someone else, it's news!  Because straight guys, when they go to bars, they never go looking to get laid.  Oh no.  It's only for a friendly platonic drink with friends.  No sex, please, we're straight.

There are a few things going on in this story. First, homophobia.  How salacious that a gay man was looking to get laid (oh my!).  Second, Internet-phobia.  How salacious that someone used the Internet to try to meet another human being.  Kate McGinty likely wouldn't have written a story about an unmarried heterosexual city councilman using eHarmony to meet women (and he indicated in his profile that he actually might just consider sleeping with those women!).

Oh, and let me guess.  Had this guy been "caught" going to a gay bar to meet guys, then the story would have been about him frequenting sleazy gay bars.

If there were any kind of hypocrisy here, I might understand the paper's rationale.  But what's going on here is that the hetero paper is simply not familiar with how people date in the modern era.  Especially gay people.  Straight people can reasonably assume that most "hot chicks" they meet are straight - I'm not saying they will be straight, I'm saying that in our society the assumption is that you're straight, so no one would look at you funny if you made a pass at someone of the opposite sex who ended up gay.

Try being gay.

Imagine what it's like being a gay man and wanting to make a pass at a cute guy at the office, at the bus stop, at church.  I'd be damn careful about doing any of those unless I knew, or strongly suspected, the other guy was gay.  Straight guys don't have that problem, worrying about getting the sh*t kicked out of them if they make a friendly pass at a woman who happens to be a lesbian.

There's a reason gay people were early adopters of online dating.  Other than a few bars (and the Whole Foods), there's nowhere else we can safely assume the other person is actually gay.  And I mean safely.

It's abominable that this newspaper thought it relevant to write about this.

Via AmericaBlogGay and TowleRoad: Brad Pitt on gay marriage and religion

Parade via TowleRoad:

He also had questions about same-sex marriage: 

 “What are you so afraid of? That’s my question. Gay people getting married? What is so scary about that? It’s complicated. You grow up in a religion like that and you try to pray the gay away. I feel sadness for people like that. This is where people start short-circuiting—instead of being brave and questioning their beliefs, they are afraid and feel that they have to defend them.

“I don’t mind a world with religion in it. There are some beautiful tenets within all religions. What I get hot about is when they start dictating how other people must live. People suffer because of it. They are spreading misery.

On the continuing battle for equality:

“Can you believe that we’re still fighting for equality in America? To be against marriage for everyone is utter discrimination. I feel strongly about that because if equality of marriage doesn’t happen now, the next generation will have to deal with it.

“It is an amazing thing that New York has finally gotten same-sex marriage. But the real problem is that the federal government hides behind states on this issue. It is blatant, ugly bigotry, and the federal government shouldn’t be doing that. You’re denying some Americans the right that all Americans have, to live their lives as they choose.