I know this isn't really the place for this but here goes anyway. I got no problem with outing because being against it simply colluding with the notion that there is something shameful about being gay. What I have a problem with is this: "The A-list and even B-list gays are mostly in the closet still, and those are the kinds of people we need to have on our cover. This is a way of addressing that." Why exactly do we NEED gay gazillionaires, movie stars, captain of industry, or socialites on Out Magazine cover? I'm gay. I don't need Anderson Cooper or Jodie Foster to validate my existence. The fact that rich, pretty, and/or influential people are gay is neither here nor there when it comes to the issue of gay equality. Even if every single glitteraty in America were straight and gay people were only found in trailer parks and public housing developments, gays would still deserve freedom and equality. I figure the real reason Out magazine wants to feature "beautiful people" on its cover is because celebrity sells. It's fine, as far as it goes. But implying that it somehow advances gay equality, with the unspoken notion that somehow gays deserve equality more because they count so many of the "beautiful people" among them, this I find deeply distateful, borderline offensive.

It's about the straights! The more visible and accomplished gay and lesbians there are in the consciousness of Americans, the more equality there is likely to be in the long run. Compare the approval of same-sex marriage by age groups and it's clear that coming/being out has raised the "acceptability" of queerness to those under 40 significantly.

Is EVERYBODY fricken gay now!?

Even you...you just don't know it yet. ;-)