Link.
I’m torn between “good for him” and “about damn time.”
I’ll come down solidly on “good for him”.
Really? Everybody knew he was gay. He was going to be Colbert’s new gay best friend like a year ago.
What a really nice email. I found myself in agreement with all his points - that he’s sometimes in areas and situations where being known as gay could be physically dangerous, that interviewees sometimes open up more to a blank slate of an interviewer, and that’s why he’s resisted coming out until now, but also that at some point dodging the question may be misinterpreted as being ashamed, and he thinks that’s the point it’s at now so he’s come out.
I hope people still afford him some measure of privacy.
I’ve thought for years that his uber-private policy was more detrimental than beneficial, if only because it’s meant he’s essentially been hounded for years about it. Of course, I also think that being that circumspect sends the implicit message that there is something wrong with being gay, even if that’s not the message intended to be sent.
Please don’t get defensive, this is not an attempt to pick a fight.
What difference does it make how he handles his closet?
To me, it seems that no one else should judge when and where another person reveals something so personal like that.
Another vote for “good for him”.
How reliable is The Daily Beast ?
Andrew Sullivan is a well known (gay) blogger. Its pretty unlikely that he’d lie about being friends with Cooper or fabricate an email from him.
Cheers for Cooper.
In my opinion, when we treat it like a state secret, it becomes, or feels like it becomes more of a big deal than it should be.* The fact that I’m gay should not require some big announcement anymore than revealing my true hair color. And the more people who treat it as an, oh yeah, sort of thing, the more mundane and un-noteworthy we make it. And for someone as visible and notable as Anderson Cooper to not appear to be afraid of mentioning it, well that’s a really nice bit of PR.
Pretty darn reliable, when you’re looking at statements of fact.
Because, as he says in the email, the fact that he’s refused to discuss his sexuality had long since reached the point where it seemed like he was ashamed of it.
To me, personally, it makes no difference at all – he’s long been on my list of “I don’t care if he’s gay, I’ve got a massive freaking crush on him anyway.”
Line starts behind me, sister.
I had been wondering whether he feared lost ratings in response to him coming out, and that’s why he stayed closeted.
I can’t imagine any bigger tell than how he giggles. If he didn’t lose ratings following the Depardieu Ridiculist incident, I don’t think they had anything to fear from him coming out.
I should think so.
Confirmation on the world’s most poorly kept “secret.”
I’m with Anderson on this one. It really isn’t anyone’s business, except for those he wants (and needs, natch) to tell. His sexual orientation has little bearing on his professional work, and he doesn’t seem interested in being an activist (yes, contrary to popular opinion, there is no obligation for anyone in a marginalized population to lead parades and the like).
The fact that this rumor has been out for years and he’s never really bothered to address it, and certainly never denied it (like, say Tom Cruise), suggests that he’s fine with people figuring it out for themselves.
I predict this will have absolutely no impact on his life/work/anything. I’m sure someone will clutch their pearls, and there’ll be some late night jokes about it, but then it’s back to your usual scheduled programming.
If you refuse to discuss your sexuality, does that mean you’re in the closet? If you’re private about your sex life, for whatever reason, it’s really no ones business to begin with.
Another vote for ‘good for him’.
This is the 21st century, right?
<checks atomic clock on the wall>