Will 'Outrage' Become Tribeca Fest's Most Controversial Film?

What you are failing to realize that these politicians are politicizing and codifing the homophobia and hatred of homosexuals in society. It's very telling when children call each other "faggot" and "gay" as derogatory expletives. They learn this behavour which is sanctioned by their parents, the schools, their teachers, the media, and finally the government.

A tax increase to the very wealthy is not producing a generation of people hating rich people. As Americans we love rich people, that's the capitalist aspiration. So your comparison has no bearing on this subject whatsoever.

These dangerous and distorted politicians view of themselves and the power that they hold to take away rights from a group of citizens is an outrage, and should be called into question.

Rex, you're politicizing the point because you disagree with their actions. But my point is that politicians are allowed to advocate things that don't conform to their own behavior. The fact that that occurs does not make their arguments invalid. It might make for a great documentary, and a great way to cost those politicians their jobs in upcoming elections, but it does nothing to attack their points. If they say "I think homosexuality is wrong and should not be supported by the government" and then you find out they're gay that doesn't make their statement inherently false (for the record, I think the statement IS inherently false, but thats because I disagree with the premise). You're making an argumentative mistake here. If I say I'm against drunk driving and then get a dui does that mean that I secretly support driving drunk? No, of course not. I can still argue for stricter punishments for drunk drivers, it just means that I am advocating a stricter penalty for my own actions. If you can prove that a politician is gay who says he is against gay marriage you haven't proven his statement wrong in any way. All you've done (and all this documentary will do) is show that he is saying that he shouldn't be able to get married to another man as well. The only way that this would point out any level of hypocrisy would be if he said "I don't believe gays should be able to get married, but I believe that I should be able to marry my gay lover". Thats an inconsistency, but what you're claiming is not. Sorry about rambling. Like I've tried to say, I agree with your point on gay marriage and gay rights (or your presumed points on those issues), but a gay man being against gay marriage does nothing logically to attack the anti gay movement. It looks bad, but thats all.

Yes Allen, I realize that, which is why I intentionally added the word "moral" to that statement. We have a legal right, clearly. But do we have a moral right to know? Thats what is being advocated here. The argument is that this person is voting against gay rights, and therefore we have some sort of moral right to know if they're gay or not, and if they are gay then we have a right to know who've they've been sleeping with, how long they've been together, etc. etc. etc. My point is that just because a politician votes one way does not mean we have a right to know about that persons private behavior regarding that issue. I can know that recycling aluminum cans is smart and good for the environment. If I pass a law requiring citizens to recycle every aluminum can and then you show me throwing an aluminum can into a trash can have you done anything to attack the premise of my position? No, my premise that all aluminum cans should be recycled is still valid, all you've shown is that my own behavior does not conform to that ideal. Nothing more.