The horror of "the Hollywood coming out"

Coming out: Johnny favours the ukelele, potentially ruining his film career.

The idea of a "coming out" is one I have always hated, particularly a Hollywood one. The tradition was for the celebrity in question to give an intimate interview to a generic, waxwork model of a host, who would nod sensitively, as the celebrity talks about their long, personal journey and the battles they faced in being gay/lesbian. The family of said celebrity are there, holding each other hands in a daisy chain and fighting back the tears.

Now, the norm is no longer. More and more celebrities have decided that sexuality is.. well, their sexuality. Zachary Quinto (Spock from Star Trek and Sylar from Heroes) came out in an interview with New York Magazine, saying:

'"As a gay man, it made me feel like there's still so much work to be done, and there's still so many things that need to be looked at and addressed."

In just four words, Quinto caused a celebrity shit-storm. Some were praising Quinto's bravery whilst others said he should of done it "louder and prouder". More recently, Jim Parsons (Sheldon from the Big Bang Theory) was "outed" in an interview with the New York Times. This time, it was not even Parsons who said it. It was in a throwaway line at the bottom of the page which said:

"'The Normal Heart' resonated with him on a few levels: Mr. Parsons is gay and in a 10-year relationship, and working with an ensemble again onstage was like nourishment, he said."

Again, reaction to Parsons has been mixed. A columnist for Out magazine, Michael Musto to be come out "louder because it was the honourable and sensible thing to do". Musto's words send a chill down my spine, casting my thoughts back to a Hollywood-pleb host and crying family.

Being "loud" about homosexuality only hurts the cause. It emphasises sexuality as an issue, one that should be shouted from the rooftops. I know several gay people and they do not feel the need to scream about it. I am not suggesting that gay/lesbian people should stay quiet and never mention it. I am just against the Hollywood-style of coming out. If an actor/actress is gay, so what? It does not affect their talent, their ability to make us laugh or cry. It just means they hug another man or woman at the awards shows.

Being openly gay like Ellen DeGeneres or Neil Patrick Harris is perfectly OK. They are reverting stereotypes about gay people, by being normal, funny, happy human beings. Campaigning for gay rights is an admirable cause too. The battle for legalised gay marriage was twisted on its head when Barack Obama announced his approval, despite the difficult political and social climate for the proposals. But there is a difference between legal recognition and social acceptance. Homosexuality should not be made into an issue and the horror of the sit-down interview should be a warning to those who think it should.

Will gay marriage cost Barack Obama the presidency?

Politics is a cynical trade. When the President of the United States makes a historic announcement that he is in favour of gay marriage, the first reaction is not one of celebration. Instead it is fear of what the polls will say. On Monday night, a New York Times/CBS poll gave Obama these hard numbers: 67% of those polled thought his endorsement of gay marriage was for "political reasons".

It shows the cynicism in politics when two thirds of the public believe Obama was only doing it for the sake of doing it. Twitter was an interesting place to be in the aftermath, the perfect place to gauge this reaction. All kinds of theories were flying about, ranging from the idea that senior Democrats pushed Obama into accepting gay marriage to the announcement being a vote-winning tactic before the general election. 

I am not naive, I know how politics works. The upcoming election was likely a factor in Obama's decision to make the announcement, in order to try and win back those on the Left who were still feeling "short-Changed". But accepting gay marriage as a vote-winner? In America? Those who believe this should look at the numbers. 57% of those polled feel no different about Obama than they did before his announcement, but 26% said they were now less likely to vote for Obama. If it was intended a vote-winner, they royally screwed that one up, didn't they?

I am inclined to think that the announcement was a genuine change of opinion from Obama - albeit quite sudden and rushed. It was certainly a risky move from him and one that could cost him the presidency. As the polls show, Obama just lost 26% of votes. But to be fair to him, there is no data to suggest who that 26% of people are. They could be Republican voters, who see the announcement as further evidence that he is not their man. However in what is proving to be an already tightly-contested election, it is possible that even the slightest swing away from Obama to Romney could hurt the incumbent's chances. 

The good news for Obama is only 7% of those polled view gay marriage as the most important issue. The majority are still regarding this election as an economic one. Jobs and unemployment levels are what Obama and Romney will be jousting over in the coming months. But it was a bold move for Obama to say what he did. He is playing Russian Roulette with his electoral chances, a game that I personally respect him for.