Roger Ebert is Openly Heterosexual
Roger Ebert loved Sean Penn in Gus van Sant's new movie "Milk", about the legendary Harvey Milk.* Not only that, Ebert comes out as straight and makes a useful point:
In 1977, Harvey Milk became the first openly gay man elected to public office in the United States. Yes, but I have become so weary of the phrase "openly gay." I am openly heterosexual, but this is the first time I have ever said so. Why can't we all be what we prefer? Why can't gays simply be gays, and "unopenly gays" be whatever they want to seem? In 1977, it was not so. Milk made a powerful appeal to closeted gays to come out to their families, friends and co-workers, so the straight world might stop demonizing an abstract idea. But so powerful was the movement he helped inspire that I believe his appeal has now pretty much been heeded, save in certain backward regions of the land that a wise gay or lesbian should soon deprive of their blessings.
[Roger Ebert, "Milk", rogerebert.com, 24 November 2008.]
However, one must note with a some sadness that Milk's call to come out is not quite so universally heeded as Ebert would hope to think, but it's a good thought anyway and we've made obviously incomplete but substantial progress in cutting back on "demonizing an abstract idea" of teh gays.
———-
*Legendary to me, at least. I saw the documentary "The Times of Harvey Milk" at a sensitive time during my own coming-out process and it affected me deeply.
3 Responses
Subscribe to comments via RSS
Subscribe to comments via RSS
Leave a Reply
To thwart spam, comments by new people are held for moderation; give me a bit of time and your comment will show up.
I welcome comments -- even dissent -- but I will delete without notice irrelevant, rude, psychotic, or incomprehensible comments, particularly those that I deem homophobic, unless they are amusing. The same goes for commercial comments and trackbacks. Sorry, but it's my blog and my decisions are final.
on Monday, 1 December 2008 at 13.56
Permalink
How I wish Harvey Milk's call was as universally heeded as Ebert suggests. Did he follow the vote on Prop 8? Here in the South, being out can mean professional suicide, and (in some places)ostacism. At best, grumbling partial acceptance.
It's easy when you're white, hetero, male. Talk about privilege.
Forgive my ranting.
on Tuesday, 2 December 2008 at 09.11
Permalink
Poor Roger, and clever Jeff – you've zeroed in on his clumsiness, and appropriately so. I have probably mellowed since I took only the slightest umbrage. The overall review is enthusiastic and overwhelmingly perceptive.
Except that itty bitty thing about being openly heterosexual. I'll let alone, other than mentioning it, being overtly heterosexual.
I agree with Bear Toast Joe – I was being openly homosexual in the early to late seventies in Tallahassee and Athens, GA. There weren't a whole lot of us. Now, 2008, in Athens, GA, there still aren't a whole lot of us. And that's in one of the few parts of Georgia that voted blue on Nov 4. It seems to me that Roger Ebert may have misevaluated:
"…I believe his appeal has now pretty much been heeded, save in certain backward regions of the land that a wise gay or lesbian should soon deprive of their blessings."
There are a lot of such backward regions.
on Wednesday, 3 December 2008 at 01.22
Permalink
I don't take umbrage, really, because I think Ebert was trying to express support via an exasperation with people who insist on making gay an issue–still.
It's easy to think of some places as "backward" and wonder why everyone doesn't come out when one doesn't live in those places. I haven't, but then I came out rather late and had my own issues to deal with on the way. Now the memory recedes and the anxiety seems so pointless, but I still can't tell Joe what to do in his situation.