'Outrage': Kirby Dick kicks open Washington's closet door

Would a host of key members of the Washington political establishment be less hostile to gay rights if they came out of the closet and acknowledged being gay themselves?

That's the question at the heart of "Outrage," Kirby Dick's rabble-rousing new documentary that debuts tonight at New York's Tribeca Film Festival. (It opens  May 8 in L.A. and four other cities, including Washington.) Clearly pulling no punches, the film investigates the secret lives of closeted gay politicians, some of whom have spent years in office with only the skimpiest of scrutiny from the mainstream media. If nothing else, "Outrage" establishes Dick as a formidable force in the investigative documentary field, especially coming on the heels of his last doc, "This Film Is Not Yet Rated," which bashed the MPAA's impenetrable and often irrational film rating system.

I know what you're thinking. If you've seen the film, spill it already. So who does he out? Dick's targets include Florida's current  governor, Charlie Crist, who was viewed for a time as a front-runner to be John McCain's vice-presidential pick; David Dreier (R-San Dimas), who was once a leading candidate for the House majority leader post when the Republicans still controlled Congress; Ken Mehlman, George Bush's campaign manager during the 2004 election and former Republican National Committee chairman; former New York City mayor Ed Koch; the now-retired Idaho Sen. Larry Craig; Jim McCrery (R-La.), a ranking member on the House Ways and Means Committee who retired last year; Ed Schrock (R-Va.), who retired in 2004; and -- gasp -- the prominent Fox News anchor Shepard Smith. 

It is pretty obvious from this list of names that the film's real issue is hypocrisy. With the exception of Koch, the outed politicians are all conservative Republicans who have repeatedly voted against gay rights legislation that would allow gay marriage, gay adoption or include gays among those protected in hate crimes laws. (Though he wasn't an elected official, Mehlman is included because he ran the Bush re-election campaign of 2004, which was propelled by a push for a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage, which was seen by many as a cynical effort to lure evangelical conservatives to the voting booths.) 

Dick's world view is best expressed in the film by Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.), one of the few gay congressmen who has voluntarily come out of the closet, who says: "There is a right to privacy, there's no right to hypocrisy." Dick makes a strong case that closeted gays are often the most enthusiastic opponents of gay rights legislation, in part to establish their bona fides in the straight world. He gives a wealth of screen time to Michael Rogers, a blogger who has been a leader in outing closeted gay politicians, using his wealth of contacts among gay congressional staffers and Washington journalists.

Like Jon Stewart on "The Daily Show," Dick has a wonderful eye for capturing telling moments of political sanctimony and posturing. He shows clips of Craig, on the Senate floor, extolling his wife's virtues on Valentine's Day, not long after he plays us an audio tape of Craig being interviewed by an undercover agent whom Craig had played footsie with in an airport men's room. After airing reports that Dreier had a longtime relationship with his male chief of staff -- a story first reported in 2004 by the L.A. Weekly -- Dick shows photos of various exotic vacation locales around the world that were visited by Dreier, noting that each time, Dreier's chief of staff would arrive at the same getaway spot a day later. 

Dick is especially hard on the mainstream media, who  he clearly believes have turned a blind eye to the hypocrisy issue, perhaps out of old-fashioned respect for privacy, perhaps -- as former RIAA Washington lobbyist Hilary Rosen contends in the film -- because straight journalists are squeamish about dealing with gay issues. To prove the point, Dick shows Bill Maher's original Nov. 8, 2006 interview with CNN's Larry King, where Maher refers to Ken Mehlman as a closeted gay man -- and then shows how CNN edited out the remark from later editions of the program. (Mehlman, who isn't interviewed in the doc, has publicly denied that he's gay.)

My only issue with the film is that in its fervor to open up every closet door, it doesn't always offer us the full story -- or ample justification for the outing process. The mainstream media has clearly been behind the curve in terms of reporting about closeted gay politicians and their anti-gay voting records. When Dreier, for example, lost a bid to join the GOP congressional leadership, it was widely reported by the mainstream media that his defeat came because he was viewed as being too moderate -- while many insiders actually believed he lost because the GOP thought giving the post to a closeted gay man was a potential political disaster. In the film, asked if he believed Dreier was passed over for being too moderate, Barney Frank quips: "Yes, in the sense that I marched in the moderate pride parade last summer and went to a moderate bar." The GOP clearly seemed more attuned to its potential PR debacles than the Washington media: The day after Maher outed Mehlman on CNN, Mehlman resigned as party chairman. Was that really just a coincidence?  

Still, I wish Dick had made time to interview some establishment Washington journalists so we could hear their justifications for remaining so silent on the issue. I'm also not entirely convinced that he has any good reason to out Fox News' Smith -- even if he works for a conservative news network whose commentators have often been critical of gay rights, he's a news anchor, not a strident opinionator, like Sean Hannity or Bill O'Reilly. But Dick doesn't pretend to be objective. He has a case to make and he makes it well, reminding us that it was closeted gay political figures who were usually the last ones to join the fight against AIDS or lend support to any gay anti-discrimination efforts. When the closet door is securely shut, it's awfully dark inside.

Photo of Congressman David Dreier, left,  and Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger by Brian Vander Brug / Los Angeles Times

Comments

[MSM]

Washington journalists shouldn't be in the business of outing politicians because their duty is to bring to light information that serves the public interest, not to further any particular agenda. Info on politicians' private sexual preferences is not expedient to the public interest, except in some cases where these private details in some way interfere with or say something about the individual's fitness to serve (ie, Monicagate).

[jdb]

Right. It's about hypocrisy - which is why he coincidentally doesn't mention, say, President Obama and his opposition to gay marriage. Sure. That's obvious.

Oh, wait...

[Mel]

Why does this film suggest that it is hypocritical for a gay politician to take political stances that are "anti-gay"? Is Dick kidding? Are we to understand that if you are gay you MUST be pro-gay marriage? Pro-gays in the military? Etc? Also if you are gay you MUST out yourself? Isn't that a personal choice? Isn't it the whole point that we are all supposed to be open to one another's sexuality and privacy? If you are black, are you a hypocrite if you voted for John McCain? If you are a woman, are you a hypocrite if you voted for Joe Biden and not Sarah Palin? If you are a white male was it hypocritical to vote for Obama? Of course not.
People of any sexuality can take conservative or liberal political stances. That's their right. But according to this film, if you are gay and don’t make it public, and don’t support gay rights, you are a hypocrite! The very stance of the film is hypocritical!!
Perhaps the politicians attacked in this film are in fact gay; yet don't believe in gay marriage, or gays in the military, etc., or being public about their sexuality. That means they disagree with Dick's politics, but he claims it makes them hypocrites. Why? Because they are gay? Don't they have the right to whatever politics they want, regardless of their sexuality? Must their sexuality define their politics? According to the hypocrites in this film, it must. Don't they have the right to their privacy as it concerns their sexuality? Not according to this film. Out 'em all! Just because the open gays in the film "came out", why must all gays "come out"? Who are these guys, the gay "out" police? Isn't the whole "gay rights" point that sexuality does not define "who" a person is? Well it defines them in Dick's eyes, but only because they do not toe the gay line!
Here's the deal Dick: All people are different. Some gays are conservative! Oh the horror! ALL gays do not take the same political stance as you. ALL gays do not wish to be public about it. That does not make them wrong OR hypocrites, any more than all men, women, blacks, whites, etc. are hypocrites if they don't vote with their "kind". It means they have a different opinion than you. For you to attack them on that makes YOU the hypocrite, since you claim to come from a position of open-mindedness regarding sexuality, and equal rights for all. This film is one big joke.

[Annette Robbins]

LOVED this documentary!... but I do have a couple points to make here both for and against the makers of this film...

First of all... we as the public have every right to know the beliefs and (most) actions/practices of our politicians. They know the press will be going through everything in their lives... every piece of lint they may have ties to.... no skeletons (or gays) can stay in the closet forever. I will offer this example for you... if you have a politician that say is a HUGE advocate for tax reform... but then later we find cheats on his taxes... wouldnt that discredit his position? Dont we have the right to know? Doesnt it at the very least raise questions of his character?.... and with that if he is capable of saying one thing and doing another in all areas of concern? Where does his personal moral line get drawn? Politicians arent perfect people... like the rest of us... but they definitely DO have to live in a clear black and white world... gay activities in ones personal life then voting against ALL gay friendly legislation is not drawing a clear line.
This can be almost compared to war criminals during Nazi Germany... it doesnt matter that you didnt turn on the gas to the chambers or that your great great great great grandpa was Jewish... if you knew it existed... worked to keep it happening and benefited from it both in social status and financially you are equally to blame.

I think it abhorrent that we have people in public office that forget the separation of church and state and have also seemed to forget that laws, rules and rights apply to ALL Americans... not just a chosen few. I find it interesting how our country cant seem to get over being so focused on what our neighbors do in bed and live their own lives.

My only criticism of this film... Kirby has created in essence a witch hunt to "out" the hypocrites.... but he has forgotten those "witches" are indeed gay. He's making gay something of filth... calling attention to the fact that its so horrible that EVEN elected officials know better than to show them selves and are trying to hide it. He makes it look like being gay is a personal choice and can be avoided with diligent work and marriage to a naive woman. Thats a dangerous line. It comes close to "With Gods help I can beat the affliction of homosexuality".
In truth I dont know how you could present this in any other way... but that line must be constantly watched for fear of tripping into an abyss. I am no politician... but maybe present evidence with more "love"... have your witnesses discuss their love or passion they felt with the accused. The feelings of loss when cast aside out of fear of appearances and objections. (just a suggestion I guess)

I am not gay.... but I do vote to gay friendly issues for the simple reason that if they can harm gay people and create constitutional amendments that deter the pursuit of happiness .... what will they be able to turn around and do to me? Segregating a selection of the population from having the same rights as the rest of the population is wrong. Where does it end then? Really... think about it... voting rights of persons with Down Syndrome... are they capable of understanding the complexities of choosing a candidate? No? Well... lets just make sure we as a society dont have to worry about that. Lets create an amendment that requires a certain level of competency to vote. How about Children... these children are clearly not showing average aptitude in school for meaningful life work.... why not relieve the society of the burden of educating them and just run off and train them for sweeping streets and picking up trash... really its the best for society all around.. and with a little work I may be able to find a bible passage to support it.
Where does discrimination draw a line?

[TKinDC]

Loved the documentary, and now that Mehlman just came out, "Outraged" is even more important.

[pickle]

I share Mel's opinion.
Thank you Mel.