Michael Urie is a "member of the LGBT community" but would rather talk about his work

it should always be "your decision". Basic human rights you don't have to tell anyone anything. Many people think that if you in the public eye and gay then you HAVE to tell everyone. That is bull. We all have the right to chose who we tell and when we tell it.

I agree that visibility does matter. But some people are just private individuals. That is not being internally homophobic or anything, it's just not wanting everything you do plastered on the newspapers and on websites. 

...I didn't call you chickenshit, and I didn't call every single closeted person chickenshit -- I called Michael Urie chickenshit, and I stand by it.

Liz, I'm sorry that you are surrounded by people who preach that being gay is wrong and that you fear hell, and I'm sorry that you are in a situation where you feel you can't come out to some of the people who you care about.  I grew up in a very small town in the middle of the country where there were many similar people and I know what it's like to be in that environment.

But Michael Urie is not in that environment.  If he comes out (formally), the things that you mentioned won't happen to him -- he will not be kicked out of his home, he will not be beaten to death, and I don't believe he would be fired.  To me, when people are in a situation where there is no real danger in coming out, well, I feel that they should.  And when they are coy about it, they send a message that there is still something wrong with looking someone in the eye and saying, "I'm gay."

I'm not asking him to march in parades or to "shout it from the mountaintops."  In fact I take offense that a number of commenters here seem to equate coming out to "shouting it from the mountaintops."  They sound like the homophobes who say, "I don't care if you're gay, but I just never want to have to see it."  But I got off track.  All I think Michael Urie should do is give one interview and say, "I'm gay."  He doesn't have to say one other word.  And if he doesn't want to answer questions about his love life or about the gay community, I don't really care. 

Coming out is the single most powerful thing that any gay person can do to help other gay people -- much more powerful than marching in a parade or organizing a rally or debating gay marriage on CNN.  And if there is no compelling reason not to come out (like the ones you mentioned, Liz), I believe every gay person should do it. 

There are so many reasons for people to not want to shout their sexuality from the rooftops or even go to protests: not only is everyone in a different situation, everyone has different priorities. I'll be the first to say that while gay rights is certainly important to me, its not at the top of my activism agenda. Not every single gay/bi/trans person has to be at the front of the movement. That's another why gay/bi/trans people can show the they're just like everyone else! Caring about other things and just generally being awesome shows that you can stand on the same ground as everone else - LGBT don't need special attention. Just acceptance :)

And it is COMPLETELY true that people are in situations where it would be detrimental to their lives to come out officially. That has to do with priorities to: if you're in a community where you could lose your family, you schooling, and possibly risk being beaten, then maybe coming other can wait a few years. That's not chickenshit. That's smart. I know its more complicated than logic, but I think there are circumstances where it is entirely justifiable to not announce your sexual orientation to the world.

idk, that's just my view on it. It's not necessarily worth much...

"To make a bad day worse, spend it wishing for the impossible." - Calvin of Calvin and Hobbes

Personally, I don't ever remember Kris being solely in the spotlight, and Adam arguably was getting more press and focus by not coming out.  Questions of his sexuality were hardly a disadvantage to him press-wise during the competition with the possible exception of overexposure and/or actually winning the competition (and coming in second hasn't seemed to affect his rising star).  So, ultimately, I question whether it would indeed have harmed him to come out during the show.  Of course, we'll never know.

That said, I also don't think coming out would hurt Michael's career on Ugly Betty.  It may, however, have an effect on future roles.  Both men are/were in a position of risk.  Are there different or extenuating circumstances?  Absolutely.  Just like there are different or extenuating circumstances in the case of any public figure deciding to come out.  IMO, I don't think that those differences are enough to warrant vilifying one while praising the other as some sort of role model for a new type of gay celebrity.  If "living his life and pursuing his career without publicly coming out or flat-out denying his sexuality" is good enough for one, it's good enough for the other.  I respect that you and others may see it differently, but that's how I feel.

I agree Brent.

Also, I think this wasn't just about possibly stealing Kris' thunder (though I think that was part of it).  This was also about having some autonomy over one's own life story.

Adam got a lot more press attention once he was in the top 5 but previous to that there was no interaction between the Idol competitors and the press.    The Idols weren't allowed to make statements that weren't related to Idol, there was no need to push the issue.

Adam was such a different kind of Idol competitors in so many ways that he would have gotten massive amounts of attention even if he'd been straight.  There was nothing "gay" about the way he looked or acted and anyone who's paid attention to the way 20-somethings dress would know that.

It wasn't until the photos of him kissing his ex came out that so much of the attention shifted to his sexuality and that was  months into the competition already. 

The press wrote about Adam but they were not interviewing him so there was no opportunity for him to make a statement that was independent of Idol control and wasn't just a sound bite.

So the press chose to obsessively "speculate" instead of just accept the obvious fact because we in the gay community have made "fear of outing someone" such a huge issue that folks fall all over themselves not do so so even when a person isn't closeted.

Adam happily acknowledged that the pictures of him kissing his ex boyfriend (and there were a lot of them) were definitely him and "what you see is what you get"

That should have been the end of the speculation.

I think that Adam was smart to wait until he was contractually allowed to speak freely to the press to make his statement about himself to The Rolling Stone on his own terms without the scrutiny of American Idol.

Unlike a lot of the "deniers", Adam Lambert did everything but wear a T-Shirt that said "I'm gay and you know I'm gay and you know I know you know but I can't talk to you right now" while he was restricted by Idol from talking to "non Idol approved" press.

But he never hid, denied or pretended and I can support that.

"That's our job today: to control the extent to which people can publicly manifest antigay sentiment." (Bayard Rustin)  **   "Heterosexuality is not normal, it's just common" (Dorothy Parker)

He already is out. He's not closeted. He just doesn't want to discuss his personal life. And he shouldn't have to. He's not denied he's gay and on his own billboard to the rest of the world he's said he's gay.

But he sees himself in public life as primarily an actor. I heard him interviewed on radio here when WTC View came out on DVD and he's a very serious, old school actor. He doesn't want to be a celebrity or a star, he wants to be someone who is good at his job as an actor.

Whatever celebrity or star status he has, he has used to support gay causes. Fair enough, if he's in the role of a celebrity or star, you can ask him about his personal life. But if you're talking to him about an acting role - and he takes his craft incredibly seriously - I think it's entirely legitimate for him to tell the journalist to go to hell.

When Urie is interviewed about something he's worked on/is working on he seems to want to talk about his job - the way he's approaching the role, the quality of writing, the sort of direction he's received.

Again, when I heard him interviewed, he didn't shy away from his past working in gay theatre, but that wasn't particularly of interest to him or the interviewer or, actually, the listener. It was a case of 'OK you're gay, but that's not the most interesting thing about you'. He wanted to talk about the impact of 9/11 on New York - which was infinitely more enlightening than him discussing what he did in bed last night.

It's like Sir Derek Jacobi. Everyone knows he's gay and in the past he's talked about his misssed-opportunity love afair with Sir Ian McKellan. But when Jacobi was playing Alan Turing (a genius gay scientist who had a vital role in WWII), Jacobi brushed over any discussion about how he - as a gay man - approached playing a gay man. And he was dead right. Jacobi sees himself first and foremost as an actor. He wanted his actions and interpretation to pay tribute to Turing (and he did so brilliantly). But he wanted to pay tribute as an actor and not as a gay man. That's the 'personal lens' thing I was talking about.

I've just IMDBed Urie and it seems he's won awards as a theatrical actor, which would indicate to me that he takes his job seriously. I can see where he's coming from and I respect him for it. He's already said he's gay, but doesn't see that as the most important thing about himself. He sees being an actor as the most interesting thing he can contribute to the rest of the world.

I just don't get why people see a personal declaration of sexuality on MySpace and then don't accept it's a public coming out. Any journalist can Google Urie and mention his sexuality in their article. Urie's not going to object - he's the one who put it in the public domain.

Urie's entirely within his rights to say 'sod off' to any journalist who thinks his sex life is more important than whatever role he's playing.

Of course you can have an opinion, but I get really tired of people insulting celebrities who don't come out, calling them closet cases and such (not saying you did that though.) saying that you think coming out is a good idea is one thing, criticizing their choice is anothe thing completely.

Michael Urie shouldn't be getting crap for this, and nor should other "closeted" celebrities like Anderson Cooper.  

You too can be saved by the blog! www.savedbytheblog14.blogspot.com 

I may be straight, but I'm not narrow.