Showing posts with label Coming Out?. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Coming Out?. Show all posts

July 6, 2017

Andrew Garfield Comes Out But He Quantifies it "I don't Have Sex with a Man"

Andrew Garfield Plays a dying gay man in HBO and He thinks coming out could be embarrassing. When he said he was gay he quantified it by saying he doesn't have gay sex.Gay is gay and if someone says there are straight they usually don't say and by the way, I never get laid. 

Wow. Andrew Garfield made a huge announcement during a recent Q & A, but we can’t tell if he was kidding or not! The actor revealed during an interview he considers himself a ‘gay man’ who doesn’t have sex with other men.

Did Andrew Garfield, 33, just come out or is he messing with all of us? During a recent discussion with the audience following a performance of the critically-acclaimed drama Angels in America in London, the actor seemed to, jokingly, confirm he was gay. Huh? Andrew, who portrays a gay character who has AIDS in the play, told the crowd that he believes he is a “gay man right now just without the physical act,” according to the Gay Times. 

“My only time off during rehearsals – every Sunday I would have eight friends over and we would just watch [RuPaul’s Drag Race]. This is my life outside of this play,” he said. Andrew explained he would watch the competitive drag racing show while preparing for his role in the play. The actor — who was previously in a long term relationship with actress Emma Stone — said, “as far as I know, I am not a gay man,” but that he isn’t ruling out the idea of having a same-sex physical relationship one day. “Maybe I’ll have an awakening later in my life, which I’m sure will be wonderful and I’ll get to explore that part of the garden, but right now I’m secluded to my area, which is wonderful as well,” he said.
The Spider-Man star has previously joked about his sexuality, so it is hard to tell if he was being serious in this interview. Andrew famously kissed Ryan Reynolds at the 2017 Golden Globe Awards after the latter lost to Ryan Gosling in the Best Actor category. The moment shocked viewers so much it instantly went viral. Andrew would go on to discuss it in several interviews, including one with Stephen Colbert, in which he then jokingly kissed Stephen as well! Click here to see pics of Andrew and Emma.
Andrew told the Angels in America audience he was concerned about playing a homosexual character in the play — which he says is “as much devoted to my friends in the gay community as it is those that passed during the epidemic” — but had to “trust that it was the right thing.” Andrew has shown support for the gay community by speaking out in favor of marriage equality and publicly questioning why the role of Spider-Man couldn’t be gay. 
HollywoodLifers, what do you think of Andrew’s statement that he thinks he may be a gay man who doesn’t have sex with other men? Let us know below!

March 31, 2017

Carly Simon’s xHubbie Reveals He’s Always’ Being Struggling with Sexuality

Jim Hart is pictured with Carly Simon on their wedding day. 


 “Lucky Jim" is Jim Hart’s astonishingly candid account of his long, sexually fraught marriage to Carly Simon, who ended her notorious run of famous lovers with a gay man.

Not that she knew. Hart, a recovered alcoholic and struggling novelist working as an insurance broker, was in deep denial when he met Simon in 1987.
They were introduced by a friend on the platform at a train station in upstate New York.

What had to have struck Simon was Hart’s almost doppelganger resemblance to ex-husband, James Taylor. Their rock-star marriage, as much sexual fusion as anything else, had cratered four years earlier. On their first date, Hart and Simon enjoyed a cozy evening at her sprawling Central Park West apartment, ending the evening chastely with a kiss.
“She had clearly been swept away by me,” he writes.

The door had barely closed on him when Hart started envisioning the golden new life ahead that would allow him to “escape” from “the dreary, unrelenting, middle-class obsession with making a living. I was so tired of everything about my career in insurance.”

At the time, Hart was seeing three other women and had “discovered” gay phone lines. He’d taken to dropping into the gay movie house near his West Village apartment.

An evening out with Simon, though, beat all. Hart escorted her to a birthday party director Michael Nichols threw for himself at his Upper East Side townhouse. The rooms were thick with celebrities.

Harrison Ford, Paul Simon, Sigourney Weaver, Dustin Hoffman, Candice Bergen, Steve Martin, Richard Avedon, Rose and Bill Styron. This was Simon’s crowd — and now his.

Six months after they met, they married. He already fit comfortably into her life both in New York and Martha’s Vineyard, where their magnificent seaside home was the one she famously shared with Taylor.

Hart had grown up hardscrabble in Long Beach, N.Y., and spent years in and out of a seminary as a teenager. The trauma of life in those years was something he shared with Jackie Onassis, Carly’s good friend and, soon enough, his as well.

Jackie, Hart writes, was always eager to hear his opinions about the men in her life. But as her sixty-second birthday approached, she had a more specific male-related question to ask.

Hart recalls her asking in her “breathy whisper” whether his friend, Alec Baldwin, might consider being her date that night for dinner and the theatre. Even though Baldwin had just started seeing Kim Basinger, his first words were “I’m there.”

One day Simon came to him stuck for lyrics on a song she was writing for Mike Nichols’ new movie “Working Girl.”
Hart hit the books, specifically James Joyce and Walt Whitman, presenting Simon with a “first draft” that, after she added a few phrases, became “River Run,” the first song ever to win a Grammy, a Golden Globe and an Oscar.

Yet old urges kept intruding on Hart’s idyllic life with Simon. One night she confronted him with phone records. He’d been making calls to an S&M sex line, The Dungeon, to “chat with guys about what they wanted to do with me.”
Simon took a day to think about it before agreeing she’d never mention it again. But her final words on the subject, as quoted by Hart, sound bizarrely like something a guy hired to answer an S&M sex line might say.

“I think it must have something to do with the seminary. You must be a very bad boy. Do you think you need to be punished?”

Hart emerged from his writing class one night at the 63rd Street YMCA to see a veiled Simon, in spike heels and a bright red wig, greeting everyone in a thick Spanish accent.

Convinced the women in the class were in love with Hart, Simon had disguised herself as a Latina hooker to check them out.

One morning, John Kennedy Jr. called, distraught. He’d flunked the bar exam and headlines were huge. Kennedy was so humiliated he was threatening not to show up that night for the Rolling Stones concert at Shea Stadium.

Simon talked Kennedy down and into the limo. But Hart found himself shut out when his wife and Kennedy rushed behind a closed door to chat with Mick Jagger.

He seethed that “Carly had gone in to see the man who had almost broken up her first marriage” without him. Back home, Hart erupted into such a venomous rage that Simon’s 13-year-old son, Ben, threatened to call 911.

She was clearly “terrified.” In bed that night, Simon tried to reassure him, but Hart had some hard reckoning to do about his wife’s many famous lovers, including Warren Beatty and Jack Nicholson.

“I would never be enough to capture the part of her that Mick and James and so many others had already captured,” he writes. Pauls friend, Pulitzer Prize winning novelist William Kennedy, advising him.

When it became obvious the book wasn’t going to find a publisher, Simon had Onassis talk to him. A book editor herself, Onassis suddenly struck up a conversation about how it might be time for Hart to find something else to do with his life.

He turned on her and snarled, “Jackie, can I ask how many novels have you written?”

Hart wisely started a software company and his life with his ever-more famous wife rolled on.

As the years passed, their marriage entered what he calls a “film-noir stage,” veering into strange territory. One night when Hart called from the Fairmont Hotel in San Francisco, where he was staying on a business trip, Simon announced that he needed to “get laid.”

“You have to go to a whorehouse,” she ordered. “You have to do this for the both of us.”
Simon urged him on by phone as he stumbled into a massage parlor in Chinatown where an aggressive Madam accosted him.

“What are the girls like? Are there any pretty ones?” Simon asked. “Remember this is my treat.”
Hart hung up and backed out of the deal.

But the glamour of their life never abated. In 1999, they spent the weekend with Bill and Hillary Clinton at Camp David after the Senate acquitted the President in his impeachment.

The Clintons’ astonishing equanimity gave Simon and Hart hope for their own troubled marriage. But in 2002 — after 21 years sober — Hart suffered a prolonged and vicious relapse on crack.

He writes candidly about the sordid and brutal homosexual encounters he had through years of repeated relapses on drugs and then alcohol. Simon stayed in the marriage until filing for divorce in 2006 after 19 years.

On what would have been their 20th anniversary, Hart was truly a changed man. Not only was he sober, he was in the loving arms of a man. So ends the saga of James Hart and Carly Simon.

NY Daily News

January 10, 2017

‘Indian’ Bollywood Director Careful About His Sexual Orientation-Is He Right?

{Section 377 may be a law about sexual acts, but it camouflages a more sinister agenda}

 Karan Johar

Karan Johar has been rumoured to be gay for a long time. Now, in a recent excerpt from a yet-to-be released biography titled An Unsuitable Boy the Bollywood director seems to have just come out.

Except, as Johar notes himself, he hasn’t actually said it: “Everybody knows what my sexual orientation is. I don’t need to scream it out. And if I need to spell it out, I won’t only because I live in a country where I could possibly be jailed for saying this. Which is why I Karan Johar will not say the three words that possibly everybody knows about me in any case.”

Johar has got flak for this – and not just from the homophobes. He’s been criticised by LGBT activists for not being willing to make an explicit statement at a time when gays and lesbians across the country are increasingly open about their orientation.

If they can be open without fearing prosecution, why can’t he? At a time when it seems increasingly possible to lead a fairly open life as a gay or lesbian, to write about LGBT subjects, make films with LGBT themes, appear on TV quite open about your sexuality, why is Johar reminding us that it is still illegal under Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code?

Sinister agenda
Because he is correct, not just about the law and how it appears to operate, but about how it is meant to operate. Section 377 may be a law about sexual acts, but it camouflages a more sinister agenda. A brief look at the history of the law tells a story of far wider significance than a mere sexual act

It took Lord Macaulay (the man who gave us our Penal Code) over 30 years, from 1825-1860 to fine tune the offence of sodomy. Section 377’s predecessor in Macaulay’s first draft of the Penal Code in 1837 was clause 361, which defined a severe punishment for “touching another for the purpose of unnatural lust”. Macaulay, who never married himself, wrote that he wanted “as little as possible should be said” about this issue, abhorring even the idea of any debate or discussion on this “heinous crime”.

This squeamishness may be why we finally ended up with a more cumbersome offence which punishes “carnal intercourse against the order of nature” between men, and also between a man and a woman. Even though neither “carnal”, “intercourse” or the word “nature” was defined, in time they came to stand for any sexual activity that involved ‘penetration’ without ‘procreation’.

But Section 377 always was, and continues to be, a smokescreen law. Its real intention was never to get inside bedrooms of people to catch them having sex, which is both impractical and to an extent not easily possible. The goal behind Section 377 was to create an environment of fear and persecution among people who are likely to partake in “sexual activities against the order of nature”.

This is the link between the archaic wording of the law and the reality of LGBT individuals today. They might not think the crude assumption of a sexual act extends to covering their lives as people whose sexuality is a natural part of themselves, as likely to be criminalised as their height or which hand they use to write. But under the law, as it has been interpreted, the possibility definitely exist.

  Queen Empress v. Khairati  
This was made clear in the 1884 case of Queen Empress v. Khairati, where a hijra was picked up by the police while dancing in a ceremony and arrested under Section 377. According to the case a “eunuch”, was kept under constant “supervision” by the police and arrested upon being “found singing dressed as a woman”.

There was no record of any actual sexual act taking place, but the prosecution argued that incriminating evidence existed: on examination – the record does not state how, or whether consent was involved – the hijra was found to have an anus distorted into the shape of a trumpet. This, the prosecution argued, was the mark of a habitual sodomite, who had committed the offence at “an unknown place, at an unknown time, with an unknown person”.

The Khairati case established that under the law there was a presumption of sex which could make all LGBT people vulnerable, even in the absence of any sexual act. That precedent doesn’t just hold today, but was expanded and made even more explicit in other judgments over the years.

In fact, far from being the almost never used law that it is often assumed to be, the affair of Indian courts with Section 377 that began with Khairati has a very long and interesting life. Courts both before and after Independence have been devoted to finding ways of expanding the scope of Section 377.

Never satisfied with the narrow vision of “gay sex” alone, which could mean anal sex, in the much cited case of Khanu v Emperor (1925) they added oral sex to its scope. The courts used two essential parameters under S 377: (a) Existence of penetrative intercourse with an orifice, and (b) Impossibility of conception, thus against the order of nature.

To determine whether there could have been penetration, the judges defined intercourse as, “a temporary visitation to one organism by another... The primary object of the visiting organisation is to obtain euphoria by means of a detent of the nerves consequent on the sexual crisis”.

Thus as long as there is an orifice (in this instance, the mouth) which can envelop the “penis” and provide sexual climax, it qualifies as carnal intercourse. This logic was extended to also include acts of masturbation between two men under the scope of Section 377, bringing us closer to the earlier definition of ‘touching’ contemplated by Macaulay.

The case of Noshirwan vs Emperor (1934) makes it clear how the law was used to stigmatise. In this case a neighbour forcibly committed two young adult men to the police station for sodomy. The two accused were released and their conviction set aside as the act of the sodomy was never completed, although the judge did reprimand one of the men, Ratansi, as a “despicable” specimen of humanity for being addicted to the “vice of a catamite” on his own admission. As with Khairati we see the association of the person, a habitual sodomite or a catamite, with the act, rather than the act in isolation.

Thus a better way to understand the law in the present times, if we must stick to a sexual definition, is that it proscribes any kind of same sex intimacy, no matter how it expresses itself. In the year 2007, an English tourist called Desmond Hope was caught kissing another man behind a church in Colva, Goa, and arrested under 377, under a false charge of indulging in “gay sex”.

The police allegedly asked Hope for a hefty bribe of Rs.50,000 – a confirmation of how the most effective use of the law has actually been in enabling blackmail. When Hope refused the police booked him in jail, where he spent over 30 days – under both judicial and media scrutiny – before finally being acquitted.

Hope’s account is an extreme example of the kind of harassment same-sex couples have faced regularly across the country under the garb of Section 377. While, most of us escape by paying a bribe, Hope’s defiance only landed him in actual prison time.

False charges
An even more egregious case was that of Arif Jafar and three other employees of Naz International, a Lucknow-based HIV-prevention organisation. In 2001 they were arrested under false charges of Section 377 and kept in jail for over 45 days before being acquitted. No sexual act was said to have taken place. The only evidence deemed necessary for the police to charge them with sodomy was the material on safe sex practices that they possessed to disseminate against the spread of HIV. This got them charged with running “sex rackets” and “promoting homosexuality”.

Both Jafar and Desmond were finally acquitted, yet they ended up spending more than 30 days in prison. Their only crime was that they were gay. As far as the police was concerned, they applied the law correctly, to its true meaning, to arrest gay men for being gay.

Section 377 was always about the individual, which in the 19th century was the “abhorrent unnamed Khairati”, in early mid-20th century the “sexually depraved” and now in modern times stands proudly as the gay man. The fact that people aren’t being arrested doesn’t mean that they can’t be, or that they can’t be threatened with the harassment of the charge.

Johar understands this clearly when he writes, “The reason I don’t say it out aloud is simply that I don’t want to be dealing with the FIRs. I’m very sorry. I have a job, I have a commitment to my company, to my people who work for me; there are over a hundred people that I’m answerable to. I’m not going to sit in the courts because of ridiculous, completely bigoted individuals who have no education, no intelligence, who go into some kind of rapture for publicity.”

LGBT activists aren’t wrong when they note that so many brave people are coming out and leading their lives openly in India. But they should not in true conscience say that Johar is wrong either. The presumption of being gay, and of this being a criminal offense, is still very much alive and menacing in India today.

November 8, 2014

Harry Styles Seems to be dating a dude, if so he is probably100% gay, You decide….

Is Harry Styles gay? Critics of One Direction may answer that question emphatically in the positive, but Styles himself has been a little ambiguous as of late. Now it’s been rumored that Harry Styles’ girlfriend may be Erin Foster.
In a related report by the Inquisitr, the rumors claiming that Harry Styles is gay have been going around for quite a while and he apparently considers them amusing. When Styles was interviewed by GQ in the past he was directly asked if he was bisexual and in a relationship with his friend Nick Grimshaw. His response seemed to answer the question in a definitive manner.
“Bisexual? Me? I don’t think so. I’m pretty sure I’m not.”
The reason that people are calling Harry Styles gay is because he and Liam were recently asked by E! News what made the perfect mate. This is how the discussion was described.
“Payne responded first by saying, ‘Female. That’s an important trait,’ causing Styles to shake his head and interject, ‘Not that important’… Instead he listed ‘sense of humor’ and being ‘nice to people’ as traits he admired… Harry has been a big advocate for gay rights and was even in the center of gay and bisexual rumors himself in recent years.”
Apparently, Styles is well known for making jokes about the rumors of him being bisexual. It’s also being reported by E! Online that Harry Styles’ girlfriend may have already been found.
“Sorry ladies, but this cutie might be off the market… One Direction hunk Harry Styles was recently spotted picking out a gourd for the Halloween season alongside blond beauty Erin Foster, and what was initially considered to be just two pals hanging out at the pumpkin patch and gearing up for a festive holiday may actually be something a little more.”

September 18, 2014

Video of One Direction Niall Horan shows Lips Locking with another Guy

Niall Horan is he or is he not? I don’t think is that important but the truth is if you are a star and you say you are straight but people record you making out with a guy then most people particularly the fans will be interested. Usually when the stuff hits the fan the best route is the truth because it can stand alone all by itself.  Half truths and lies will only make people talk more and say more particularly things that might not be true.
I wish him luck he has been a friend of the gay community. His career will only suffer if he is caught in a bunch of lies. People usually don’t hold against a young artist that he’s said that he was straight and then is forced to come out. People will hold it against you if you are ashamed of who you are, particularly on someone that was supposed to be as pure as the honey from the bumble bee. People that know better know that humans are not bumble bees but more like yellow jackets. I didn’t want to say much except show you a few pics for those that might not be fans and then the video. Don’t want to repeat what I have read instead I will let you decide and wait for more solid news ‘ coming out’, like him saying more than what he is said which is more like the question of wether is true is a joke. No joke when thereat least one video.

The One Direction star took to Twitter this morning to tease his fan base about their crazy claims and unbelievable theories and it was all over some pictures which reportedly showed him kissing a man in Las Vegas.  
“how does it feel to know half the one direction fandom thinks you and Niall were making out last night?”
niall julian
He replied:
“Feels good.”
However Niall immediately denied the claims, posting on his official Twitter page to say:
“all these rumours huh? you guys Crack me up”

one direction

August 7, 2014

James Franco gets a man just like Cary Grant got himself Randolph Scott

They even came up with “hostessing ideas,” like this seafood luncheon.

They even came up with "hostessing ideas," like this seafood luncheon.
Media History Digital Library / Via 

A few days ago, The New York Times published a short item about writer-actor-poet-director James Franco’s various collaborations with the actor Scott Haze, such as Franco’s recent film adaption of Cormac McCarthy’s Child of God, in which Haze plays a necrophiliac named Lester Ballard. Another role Haze appears to be playing: Franco’s live-in boyfriend.

So was Grant gay? Is Franco?

Who knows. Rumors have long circulated concerning a relationship between Grant and Scott — or Grant and any number of leading Hollywood men. The “truth” of his sexuality, if there is such a thing, will remain unknowable.
Grant spent his decades-long Hollywood career at once defining and belying standards of masculinity — a description that not only applies to Franco, but to James Dean, another Hollywood star to whom Franco is often compared, and around whom rumors of homosexuality have also long circulated.
Living with another man doesn’t “prove” that you’re gay. Neither does maintaining a close friendship. It’s faulty logic to assume that two college-age football players living together are straight; it’s silly to assume that two thirtysomething artists are gay. As for me, I hold firm to my belief that Grant and Scott, gay or not, posed forthose beautiful photos as a sort of 1930s version of the internet troll. And we’ve all witnessed the internet playfulness — and varying degrees of success — in which Franco has participated in the past.
Just sayin’.

July 9, 2014

Ian Thorpe Gay? Does it matter at this point? You Shall See

This question still make some guys tremble in fear. We have Ian Thorpe someone who is followed and interview as he dines he is gay. Some evidence indicates otherwise, but is that important. I think it is and Im ready to give you a few pages to explain but no don’t worry Iam doing that. Instead Im going to give you someone who is more moderate on his views and how he interviews people. 
Iam going to give you GRACE DENT from Lets have her take a moderate look at the issue wether coming out by a celebrity is important enough to keep asking that person.

Sometimes you only realise how far you’ve travelled when you turn around and see the distance behind. This felt true about Great Britain yesterday as Australia’s Channel 10 rattled and fizzed with trailers promising news about swimmer Ian Thorpe’s sexuality. Tune in on Sunday. Don’t you dare miss it! Earth-shattering news about Ian Thorpe’s sexual preference on the way! He could, perhaps, be gay.
To the British eye, it felt quaintly yesteryear. Two or three decades ago, perhaps? A previous time, not too long ago, but certainly the past, where gay was something that needed a frank and formal explanation, in a one-on-one interview with hard-backed chairs. The fact the titillation about Thorpe’s life takes place in an interview with Michael Parkinson, a chat show T-Rex during the 1970s male dinosaur period of British broadcasting, all felt rather fitting.
I am frequently proud to be British, but it felt amplified yesterday trying to imagine Thorpe’s “secret” – which we’re still unsure of – upstaging any other segment on The Graham Norton Show. “I’ve had sexual feelings… for a man,” Thorpe could shout, while Joan Rivers walloped Will Young over the head with a dildo-shaped telephone and Louie Spence gazed on doing high kicks. Not one stuff would be given. I’m not as blinkered to claim Britain has left homophobia behind – it has not – yet there’s been a hulking shift over the past 20 years in how bothered we are by whose bedroom floor one leaves one’s pants on. A quick look at Channel 10’s crash-bang-wallop trailers shows us the past as another country.
Yet, increasingly, I feel the next stage for “civilised” Britons will be to accept that for millions of human beings “sexuality” is such a fluid, ever-fluttering concept that there’s no point in these public declarations of “out” or “in” at all. In Thorpe’s case, for example, he had been seen with a string of beautiful girlfriends, been “dogged by gay rumours”, has been in rehabilitation for depression and now wants to speak candidly. Whether this is his intention, or his publicity team’s wording, or Channel 10’s intention, we’re being presented with the interview as a vital revelation. Will we be satisfied if his truth is “I don’t know”, or if his truth is, “I’ve had a think Parky and it’s none of your business”.
Because at the moment, rational, liberal thought still seems to say, “Look, we’re totally fine if you’re gay, but can you just be 100 per cent gay and tell everyone you’re gay and your straight days are over, or at least openly identify as bisexual, so we can tick a box mentally in so much as ‘what you are’. And we can write ‘the openly bisexual star’ beside your quotes to spice things up?” Then, having hassled the friend or famous person to identify as something, anything, to satisfy our need to “know”, we’re let down, surprised and betrayed, when time passes and they’re not.

I’d also beg for special clemency for the people who are roaringly, blatantly one sexuality but won’t talk about it, often for the most obscure personal reason – that old octogenarian aunt they can’t quite face upsetting; that religious hang-up logged deep in the cerebral vaults; their dead mother’s ghost they don’t want to offend. Human beings are complex and flawed, our logic for white lies and our lifelong dissembling evades even ourselves.
“But why won’t that celebrity admit they like women or men? They have a duty to on behalf of anyone else on earth less privileged who feels similarly.” Good Lord, what pressure? Trapped in a personally made prison, with the human race demanding you be a poster boy and role model. My rule of thumb with being in the closet is, as long as you’re not spending Sundays thumping a bible about Sodom, or weekdays in the Commons reducing LGBT funding, I’ll respectfully await your return ticket from Narnia, if, and not when it comes.
The next hurdle with sexuality is to embrace that some people are proudly, resolutely, unshakeably homosexual and others stalwartly, honkingly straight, and some people just love when they love,  who they love, however they love, and some of these people don’t want to talk about it, and even in an age of round-the-clock, worldwide exclusives, that’s acceptable too.

May 1, 2014

Shepard Smith’s Coming Out got him Ailes- kicking him Back into the Fox-closet

 This is been more than an open secret and we have put our two cents in like other bloggers. Now Slate comes out with the story behind the story and here it is as it appeared at Gawker by J.K. Trotter~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~How Fox News Shoved Shepard Smith Back Into The Closet

Why hasn’t Shepard Smith come out yet? The affable Fox News anchor has a longtime boyfriend, ranks among Fox’s most senior talent, and lives in New York City. It could be, of course, that he’s just a very private person, or—as the Times argued in October—that public attitudes have changed and nobody cares if a famous figure is gay.
Or it could be that, when Smith tried to come out last year, Fox silenced and punished him.
In the summer of 2013, according to multiple sources with knowledge of their exchange, Shepard Smith approached Fox News president Roger Ailes about publicly coming out. The newly attached anchor was eager, at the time, to finally acknowledge his sexuality. “It’s time,” he told Ailes and other colleagues. “It’s time.”
Instead, Ailes informed Smith that the network’s famously conservative audience would not tolerate a gay news anchor. Ailes’ answer was definitive: Smith could not say he’s gay.
“This came up during contract negotiations,” a Fox insider told Gawker. “Shep wanted to and was ready to come out, and Roger just said no.”
Smith, one of Ailes’s first and most loyal disciples, acquiesced to his boss’s demand, and dropped the matter. But the discussion worried enough Fox executives to prompt Smith’sremoval, in September 2013, from the channel’s coveted prime-time lineup. According to a Fox insider with direct knowledge of negotiations, Smith’s desire to come out was a large factor in the dramatic move.
“They tried to play it up as a big promotion,” the insider said. “But everyone knew that Shep was getting demoted. And the coming out thing was a significant part of that.”
It’s difficult to square all of this with Smith’s characterization of Ailes as an uncommonly honest businessman, a second father who would never hurt him. “Roger has always had my back and never lied to me and never told me what to say,” Smith said in 2009.
Yet Smith’s demotion wasn’t actually Ailes’s idea to begin with. Nor was Ailes very surprised when Smith finally approached him. “Roger has known Shep has been gay for a long time,” a current Fox staffer said. So why was Ailes suddenly afraid of everyone else knowing, too?

How Fox News Shoved Shepard Smith Back Into The ClosetSEXPAND
Roger Ailes and Bill Shine (Getty Images)

A few weeks before approaching Ailes about coming out, Smith surprised Fox staffers by bringing his boyfriend, a 26-year-old Fox producer named Gio Graziano, to a company picnic at Ailes’s compound in Garrison, New York. Held annually on Independence Day weekend, the picnic is a small gathering—only executives, on-air talent, and their frontline producers are invited—so Smith likely felt comfortable bringing along his steady partner.
Despite the intimate venue, the new couple put several Fox executives on high alert. According to multiple sources with knowledge of the picnic, the most dramatic reaction came from Bill Shine, the channel’s Executive Vice President of Programming. Shine “flipped out,” one source said, when Smith introduced Graziano to attendees. (Within and outside of Fox, Shine, who is 50 and grew up on Long Island, carries a reputation for insensitivity toward gay people. “He’s a major, major homophobe,” a Fox insider said.)
Back in New York City, Shine called a meeting among high-level executives to discuss a plan of action regarding Smith. “His fear was that Shep’s audience would implode,” said an individual familiar with the meeting, during which Shine forcefully argued against Smith coming out. His argument was simple: Our audience is not ready for a gay anchor.
Shine’s plea wasn’t particularly well-received. (“Everyone’s jaws just dropped,” a Fox insider said.) But the potential impact on Fox’s ratings was enough to scare Ailes into believing his lieutenant’s apocalyptic scenario. Fox’s unparalleled numbers are, after all, what give Ailesalmost complete autonomy over his channel’s content, and immense power within Rupert Murdoch’s 21st Century Fox. 
With Ailes’ approval, Shine quickly choreographed Smith’s move from Fox’s 7 p.m. block, where he anchored The Fox Report, to the 3 p.m. block, where he currently runs Shepard Smith Reporting. Anticipating Smith’s desire to come out, Shine also coached Ailes on what to say when Smith finally approached him.
Ailes, meanwhile, ordered the channel’s media-relations shop to control any leaks or coverage of Smith’s romantic life. To this day, a Fox insider told Gawker, “the P.R. department tries to prevent anyone from talking about Shep’s sexuality.”
(Of course, that hasn’t always worked. When Gawker noted in March that Smith wasn’t attending a gay journalists gala sponsored by Fox News, the P.R. shop scrambled to place Smith on the guest list. “Gawker’s reporting obviously caused them to do that,” said a source familiar with the shop’s decision, which turned out to be less bold than it seemed: Smith showed up with three Fox minders to insulate the anchor from any reporters.)

Shine’s behind-the-scenes maneuvering troubled many at Fox. “It’s totally backwards thinking,” an insider at the channel said. And it flew against the gay-friendly image Ailes had worked so hard to construct among New York’s media elite. The image was always cynical—if Ailessponsors the N.L.G.J.A., or blurbs Rachel Maddow, both will naturally think twice before criticizing his channel. But it depended on the basic assumption that Ailes didn’t mistreat actual gay people in his immediate vicinity. (He merely employs hosts who bemoan the Girl Scouts’ “homosexual overtones.”)
Smith seems to have brought Ailes, and Fox News, to an impassable contradiction: Either embrace the anchor’s wish to come out (and risk the audience’s revolt or desertion) or completely reject it (and risk Fox’s acceptance among a community for whom coming out is an immutable right). Up until now, very few have known that Ailes even had to make such a choice.
Smith, Ailes, Shine, and Fox News all declined repeated requests for comment.
To contact the author of this post, email
[Photo credit: Getty Images]

Featured Posts

Staten Island and The US Looses One of Its Fighters to COVID-19 {Jim Smith}

                             Jim Smith helped organize Staten Island's first pride parade in 2005. He served as its...