A bomb thrower rather than a problem solver, but then again much of this was only firecrackers that became tedious towards the end. It was on Amazon.

Very well done, quite an exposà (C).

Tragic, infuriating, enlightening and at times wickedly funny.

Excellent political/social documentary!

Dick takes aim after those who are more than happy to legislate your sex life, just so long as it doesn't curtail their own.

Interesting, but sadly, not compelling. This should have been a better documentary.

Intelligent, straight-forward expose.

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

Worth Contemplating, but Never Proves Its Thesis In general, I have serious problems with "outing" people. In general, I don't think it's anyone's business who you're sleeping with, provided you're both consenting adults. I understand the impulse here, but I'm still uncomfortable with it. I really do think there's a slippery slope, though I also think it's important for hypocrisy to be revealed. It is certainly true that the film presents several people with hypocritical voting records. They were caught, you know, propositioning undercover cops in airport bathrooms or whatever, and they still have a voting record that's, say, eight percent positive on gay rights issues. (It should also be noted that I do not consider AIDS funding to be strictly a gay issue.) I mean, I totally understand why you'd want to reveal that, though of course none of these people are out of the closet, so in order to reveal their hypocrisy, you have to reveal their homosexuality. The film posits that there is a giant conspiracy to prevent gays and lesbians from being open in politics. To demonstrate this, it prevents the litany of politicians, mostly Republicans, who were vehemently anti-gay--the best gay issues voting record stands at twenty-eight percent--who are or probably are gay. In many cases, specific and detailed cases of ex-lovers are described. Some are even interviewed. How these closeted people--mostly men--have harmed gay people all over the country is examined; they voted against gay marriage, against gay adoption rights, against anti-discrimination legislation, against gays in the military, against, against, against. They married; some of the wives probably knew and others probably didn't. One has an ex-wife who herself ended up in a relationship with a woman later. And, of course, the media only talks about all of this when they, say, turn out to have a page on a gay dating website, because it's all covered under privacy. I still don't think any of this is evidence of some grand conspiracy. In fact, if the movie hadn't posited that it is at the beginning, I would give it a higher rating. A thing can be terrible and wrong and pervasive without being the result of a vast media conspiracy. It is easier to run for office while holding certain principles if you're a Republican, but it is nigh impossible to run for office as a Republican if you're openly gay. I mean, you can do it, but I wouldn't count on winning. However, if we're going to call it a vast media conspiracy, we have to explain a few people who appear in the film. Yes, several of the out people in it are now former whatevers, but you know, Tammy Baldwin is now a Senator, and several of the formers served openly for some time, most notably Barney Frank. A couple of them were even, contrary to expectations, elected as gay Republicans! Clearly, it's possible to be an openly gay elected official. Does the media conspire to keep the secrets? That's a more complicated issue. There's a clip of Bill Maher on Larry King included in the documentary where he mentions that he'd be sued if he were the first person to reveal that certain people were gay. Part of me suspects that it's harder to get a verdict of defamation over an outing now than it used to be, that being called gay is less of an insult than it was the first time people started suggesting that maybe Larry Craig is gay. (Five years before Barney Frank came out!) And in general, it's a lot harder to get that judgement if the person who outs you can provide actual evidence. Certainly I am not going to claim that the news outlets are too busy putting out real news, because that's obviously not true. If anything, though, I think there's a certain amount of inertia involved; yes, the journalists would be more likely to win those suits now, but the fear of them still holds people back. And anyway the legal bills would probably give a lot of people pause. This film has not convinced me that outing is ever a good idea, no matter the circumstances. I'm still extremely uncomfortable with the whole thing. I would like to reach the point where no one cares, and certainly we're closer there than we are with any other "abnormal" sexuality. (The clip they show of Matt Lauer asking Larry Craig if maybe he's bi is one of the only times I've ever heard bisexuality mentioned as a possible place on the spectrum.) In a Q&A included on the DVD, various people involved with the film (including Oscar nominees Tony Kushner and director Kirby Dick, both of whom might win on Sunday), they talk about the difference between outing public and private figures. I can see the argument, but I'm still not entirely comfortable with it. Unhappy though it makes me, there are still dangers in being outed, still a lot of losses possible. Sometimes, I think it's kind of what people get for the position you've taken, but I still, at heart, don't think who anyone sleeps with is my business unless they're sleeping with me.

This Kirby Dick documentary was passionate and strong but it made statements that it could not backup. Such as the media covering up gay affairs and hardly talking about them. That's highly unbelievable and the film showed contrary if anything. I don't believe in the method of outing, which is purposely trying to drag famous men out of the closet, this is actually conducted primarily by gays. I just ended up feeling more and more pity for the people that were outed the farther this movie went. The in compassionate list of politicians just kept going, and the Film makers didn't stay away from the rest of the family. These aren't criminals they're trying to destroy, just politicians they disagree with. It got so disgusting I turned off the film with twenty minutes left, this was also due to the horrendous film editing. But the stories will stick, and I'll remember it for awhile.

It's an amazing look at the lives of some of the people who are so fervently against gay rights of any kind that they turn ones stomach.

Recommended enlightening.

A very disturbing and needed topic. Gives great insight. Kirby Dick is a documentary filmmaker who really can not disappoint when it comes to his films.

Really interesting documentary. It's really sad that closeted gay politicians are the gay communities biggest foe and roadblock in making real progress toward truly achieving civil rights for all.

Although I'm unconvinced of an intentional nationwide media conspiracy to keep gay politicians in the closet, this film certainly does an excellent job of exposing these stories of hypocrisy and explaining the psychological reasons for such violent attacks against a group one fears to be associated with.

Extremely unsettling but very necessary to expose the hypocrisy of the people we elect that end up stabbing us in the back - it is in fact an outrage !

Somewhat outdated at this point - Another documentary examining how messed up and hypocritical politics are.

Kirby Dick is a great documentarian (see This Film Is Not Yet Rated) Here he blows the lid off politics and the hypocrisy within.

Americans really never stop surprising me with the amount of hate and shame they perpetuate. the first political doco I have watch and I liked it.

One of the best gangster films I've ever seen. Yakuza 101.