There's a recent campaign to out an actor in the media—using his name. Not cool. We won't dish details here, but if you read gossip, you've surely caught wind of who it is.
Look, Hollywood's a business and town full of liars—and, not just the talents who like to often play coy or hugely misrepresent their true sexuality. Publicists, studio execs, producers, hell, even friggin' gardeners in this town tell fibs to try and help cover up the true dirt on their cash cows.
Hell, this gay witch-hunting's been going on for decades, Rock Hudson was tortured by the gossip rags for many years, just because he happened to prefer men.
And we here at the AT live to dig up that deceitful kind of soil, both romantic and not. But when it involves a person's sexual preference...
We usually veil that detective work in the form of a Blind Vice, as it's not our business to out folks. That's their job—and these famous celeb jokers can do a pretty good job of it, considering the damn library of Vices we have at this point. But there has to be a line somewhere, and, lately, the public and some journalists seem to think it's their decision to decide where that line begins and ends—not the celebrity.
Does becoming a public figure mean you give up your right to decide when—and when not—to declare what sex turns you on? Certainly if you're engaging in anti-gay policy or you yourself are the fruit (like a lot of lawmakers tend to be) furthering that policy, then, yes, you've given up your right to remain mum on the subject.
But, it you're just trying to, say, by a house with your partner, does that mean your sex life automatically becomes accusatory fodder for the gossips?
We say no, not by name.
Chill out, homo hunters, you're the ones turning into the freaks, not the star who wants to remain in the closet.
Hear Ted sound off on Twitter