How Hollywood Keeps Stars in the Closet

To Hawaiian. DADT (Don’t Ask/Don’t Tell) is more a one-sided legal mandate than a contract. It is non-negotiable by soldiers. Courts gave DADT a pass in the name of wartime and defense priorities. That is not to say it is right, OK or that it is even Constitutional. In fact, most research indicates DADT is unconstitutional yet it has not been allowed the appropriate court challenges. The problem is the other business segments that mirror DADT without the same legal mandates to back them up. Gays in entertainment is just one segment of life that follows (or probably in fact led) government on this path. Sadly, entertainers feel they need to be purveyors of the “Don’t Tell” part. We can’t blame business managers when the entertainers are themselves not bold enough to live open, integrous, responsible and honest lives as out gay and lesbian people. Industry contracts ARE negotiable and require both parties to agree.

The answer is simple. NO. Hollywood cannot legally keep gays closeted. In 2010 why would they? Contracts can constrain public behavior. They can’t ban who you are. Most judges can cite legal precedent to deem such clauses illegal. Many states and municipalities also have employment non-discrimination laws to help prevent such discrimination. The problem is not contracts but the understood Don’t ask/Don’t tell policies at the corporate levels. It permeates Hollywood and pressures gays. Pressure comes at the manager/agent level in discreet conversation with the star to not tell. It comes from the agent/PR people to news outlets to not ask. In my opinion it is at the peril of all concerned. Entertainers own into the lie that pretending and bearing false witness to be something they are not is more bankable than living a life of integrity and truth. Most formerly closeted stars will tell you the stature they thought they gained was never worth the sacrifices.

I read a lot of the articles here on the Advocate and some of them are good, some are just fluff. I don't usually criticize because everything doesn't have to be serious. I enjoy a good fluff piece once in a while. But honestly, I read both articles and neither of them says how Hollywood keeps them in the closet. There was only _speculation_ about what may be in their contract. In fact the original article "Can Hollywood Legally Keep Gay Stars in the Closet?" ends with: "Sure would be interesting to know exactly what type of pressure—contractual or otherwise—has kept them in closet, don't you think?" meaning that the author didn't know why stars stayed in the closet. The article would have been better titled: "Are Hollywood stars kept in the closet by their contracts?" I was really expecting a more in-depth article, perhaps with industry insiders who know closeted actors and why they choose to stay closeted, not some speculation. Sorry, this is def not a case of "striving valiantly".

PoorJournalismReview: If you think of a better headline, seriously, they might adopt your suggestion. Recently I noticed a headline here that was obviously WRONG and said the opposite of what they thought they were trying to convey. After I pointed it out (politely!) they changed it. (I realize the "polite" part is very difficult for a lot of gay men to do, ha ha.) In the internet era, probably like everywhere else in the journalism field, I'm guessing the Advocate staff are overworked & under- or UN-paid, and inexperience shows at times as we geezers can't afford to stay in journalism. But in this case I don't think this headline is that bad; the "how" is at least kind of explained and there is a link to the "aggregated" article from another source. ...Also, if "PoorJournalismReview" is a real publication like Columbia Journalism Review or something, can I get a subscription? :-)

I agree with Jerome. Many of us protest too much on the Advocate skills. Having said that, I also sense that some of the articles are too brief. However, they do offer a digital webpage for a nominal cost. Perhaps that has 'more of the story.' Do any of us have that feature or are we too cheap to purchase it? I still purchase the paper copy of The Advocate but get little chance to read it. I need to switch to the digital version. Think about it.

I have to agree though. This isn't a matter of collumn inches. This is the internet. If you're going to write something, make it worth it. Why is this article so short? Why isn't there specific evidence and quotes? Why aren't sources cited or even anonymously quoted? If The Advocate writers actually wanted to do some investigative journalism on a real gay-issue like this then they should go full force. This sort of half-assed blurb that says nothing really at all is fine for a teen-bop magazine or even in a gay newspaper. But, again, I say, "this is the internet." Who told you it had to be 300 words or less?

PoorJournalismReview, are you blind or dumb? Can't understand the article by yourself? Hollywood keeps stars in the closet my making them agree that they must stay in the closet or else.

How is this any different than the contract between the Pentagon and the soldiers which states that they cannot say they are gay? United States hypocrisy once again. It's ok for the government to discriminate.

"Love" the Anonymous critics that troll here. Every article is put down as being worthless or misleading, knocking the journalists of Advocate. I go back to the Theodore Roosevelt quote: “It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood, who strives valiantly; who errs and comes short again and again; because there is not effort without error and shortcomings; but who does actually strive to do the deed; who knows the great enthusiasm, the great devotion, who spends himself in a worthy cause, who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement and who at the worst, if he fails, at least he fails while daring greatly. So that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who know neither victory nor defeat.” To Advocate journalists: keep up the good work!

Seperating yourself from the heteros is a difficult task. Good job.