"Appearing" on the cover of the May issue of Out (expected to hit on newsstands Apr. 17) are CNN anchor Anderson Cooper and actress Jodie Foster. Or rather models being photographed holding up masks of the celebrities' faces.

Cooper and Foster, who have not publicly identified themselves as gay, are ranked numbers 2 and 43 respectively on Out's list of "The 50 Most Powerful Gay Men and Lesbians in America."
Cooper, 40, is an Emmy Award-winning journalist and writer who anchors Anderson Cooper 360 on CNN.
On the Internet, one can easily find out that 44-year-old Foster has been in a relationship with her long-term partner Cydney Bernard since they met on the set of 1993's Sommersby. The couple has two sons aged 8 and 5.
Topping the list is billionaire entertainment mogul David Geffen while Cooper, Ellen DeGeneres, philanthropist Tim Gill, and Massachusetts congressman Barney Frank occupy the top positions. Others on the list include gossip blogger Perez Hilton (#17), interior decorator Nate Berkus (#24) who frequently appears on Oprah, and X-men and Superman Returns director Bryan Singer (#32).
In the same edition, well-known gay writer Michael Musto writes the cover story titled "The Glass Closet: Why Stars Won't Come Out And Play" in which he examines the lives of semi-closeted celebrities who are said to be living in the "glass closet" where they neither refute speculations nor confirm their sexual orientation when asked.
Says Musto: "It's true that stars are free to put up whatever walls they want in order to maintain boundaries with the public. But even at their most controlling, straight stars never seem to leave out the fact that they're straight in interviews. Whenever a subject tells me, 'I won't discuss who I'm dating' or 'I resent labels,' I generally know not so much that they're passionate about privacy but that they're gay gay, gay."
Out editor in chief Aaron Hicklin has denied the list as being merely an attempt to stir up controversy.
He was quoted by radaronline.com: "It's a bit of chutzpah [Yiddish term for courage bordering on arrogance] on our part. 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."
Many have criticised the magazine's decision to out people without their explicit consent.
A reader wrote on gay blog towleroad.com: "This Out list is unjournalistic, criminal, and downright shameful!! – And please, don't tell me how it's "not shameful to be gay" – this has absolutely nothing to do with it: Gossip are journalism are not intercheangable, nor they should never be. A magazine wishing to be taken seriously in the community cannot get away with establishing a list of powerful LGBT people through relying on trash gossip tactics."
Hicklin however has his flame guard up: "We expect some flak for daring to create a list like this. But it's a mark of real progress that the vast majority of men and women who made our Power 50 have attained their positions without feeling the need to hide their sexuality to do so. We took the task very seriously. We wanted the list to reflect, as accurately as possible, the standing of the people on it." He was quoted as saying on Queerty.com.
Reader's Comments
I love love Anderson Cooper to be gay.
Handsome, smart, and eloquent.
Also known as a good package that is not out in stores yet.
(Whisper: he is the reason to watch CNN although the channel has very good coverage of international news.)
Heh i admit i'm a BBC guy and the only reason i tune into CNN is for Anderson 360! Everytime he's on i will have my own rose petals ala american beauty experience! swooooooon!
While I agree that people's sexuality is something private. The same cannot be said for celebrities. If it's not their sexuality making a stir in the tabloids it will be something else. Let's face it would people be still as bothered with Jodie Foster if it weren't for the fact that she is semi-closeted (admit it Flighplan was terrible).
Heterosexual celebs' personal lives are often plastered on a daily basis in the press, to their dismay. And their complaints for privacy are ignored. Why should semi-closeted celebs be treated any differently.
It's impossible to keep this sort of information out of the press forever, even for people who are truely in the closet. They just need to accept the fact that they are a gay public figure, just because of that doesn't mean they should give into the pressure of supporting 'gay rights' if they don't want to. Once the press realise that their no longer is a story here, they will then leave them alone.
That explains a lot to me.
one of the rather odd issues about gay culture is the undying need for role models. why should we look outside ourselves for models? does fame make being gay person easier or more acceptable? and if people think this way, then what about all of us living our lives in obscurity? i find it a rather sad statement that we tend to look outside ourselves for validation.
ahhh...this is just sour grapes...i am sooo certain i was #51 ;p
Imagine a magazine featuring you (or, eg, a straight person) and his/her most profound and disturbing antisocial habits (dig and flick snot, anyone?). Some people just like to do what they like to do in private!
There's also a problem of being typecast and devalued. No longer being viewed as a person but instead as a label.
"John? Oh, that gay" .
"Jane? Oh, that lesbo".
"Harisu? Oh, that trans".
All very annoying.
Sure they can publicly lie about their sexuality, you can call that their right to privacy too, for whatever reasons, under whatever circumstance. But please don't insult my sensitivity by saying its not fucked up to have to live a life of lies, half truths, and convenient publicity.
The parallel will be, if the world today is still iffy about being racist, meaning it is ok to be racist or perpetuate racism, then maybe Naomi Campbell should put on ALOT of white make up and pretend she's white or something. She don't have to denied being black but she'll never clarify that she's black too.
What's the deal, just because someone else thinks being gay is shameful or any less, we pretend we're not, or we are vague about it so that when someone tells the truth about us being GAY, that's invasion of privacy? Right. So the truth, is less important then someone's private lies?
Grow up!
Greg Louganis is gay but no one refers to him as "Greg...oh that gay!!!"
Ellen DeGeneres is a lesbian but no one refers to her as "Ellen...oh that lesbian!!!"
Rosie O'Donnell is a lesbian but no one refers to her as "Rosie...oh that lesbian!!!"
Main stream American journalists as well as the public don't refer to those famous people as this gay or that lesbian at all!!!
I think he is out of his mind. and downright selfish!
I think Out magazine had fought their own internal demons to make this happen. The chief editor & some are putting their heads on the line, so there's guts for you.
It's in good faith I believe that this expose does align with it's magazine objective mission as a gay advocacy medium. Also, there is no better time to stand up for LGBT rights then now in today's world - be it in Iran, S'pore or US.
Our community should stand united in these testing time and make good history of ourselves. Last thing is to be having in-fighting among ourselves.
So, let people be free to live their lives the way they want to. We complain that mainstream society "shackles" us, especially at the work place and the home because we have to lead double lives, etc.
Well, if it's freedom that we want, then let's be magnanimous about it and be the first to give it, i.e. let other people, whoever they may be, have their freedom to live life the way they choose :-)
We need as much help in outing people so people can recognise that gay people are out and about; not as rare as the conservatives make it out to be.
It's a choice whether an individual wants "out" or "locked". To out people against their choice is not a nice thing to do.
Sometimes letting the imagination fly is nicer than to see/know the "exposed". It's more erotic seeing men in tight swim trunks (or briefs) than buck nakid men. hehehee....
I say, leave 'em alone...if/when they want to come-out, let them do it on their own terms...don't we all deserve the same sort of treatment? Shouldn't free speech and freedoms of the press be balanced by dignity and respect? Or, is that an arcane concept these days?
anderson cooper is extra creaaaaamy.
sigh*
As for what Out mag did, they've truly showed how ugly tabloid journalism can be. Total and blatant disregard for an individual's privacy - celebrities or not, they're still human and everyone has a right to privacy.
If he decides to come out one day, we will welcome him into our family with open arms.
Gay men constantly frustrate me and let me down. The one group of people who feel the most ostresized (sp?) by society and who feel the most judged are ever so easily the cattiest of the bunch... dissing men if they don't have a 6 pack, full head of hair, and not youthful or butch enough. They often times leave lesbians out of the equation all together.
I think what is far more beneficial is to concentrate on those people, gay and straight, who have done everything they can to unburden the isolationism of the gay community and enforce possitive affirmations towards gay people.
If I have to hear one more gay man worship crack heads like Paris Hilton and Lindsy Lohan, or gossip about what guy is hot and MUST be gay, I think I'll go back in the closet... for fear there is no humanity left in the gay community.
So if a person is black and but looks white, then that person is more likely not to face racism against blacks if he/she "fits in" in the looks department. People make their judgments based on what they see and react accordingly.
The conundrum when it comes to being gay is this - it's easy to hide and be invisible. You don't have to declare whether you're gay or straight, and you (usually) cannot tell just by looking at someone (please don't flame me for this).
What the article argues is that A-list celebrities have a moral obligation to fulfill their roles as role models. By virtue that they are out-there celebrities, they do the communities, and themselves a big disservice by not being out of the closet, they perpetuate the need to be hidden, invisible, and they perpetuate homophobia, in a way. These celebs gave up the right to be private when they became celebrities. If you want to be private, then join the ranks of the billions of others who are invisible to the media.
The very fact that we know your names, know who you are, and the media is interested in you, means that you're someone public, not private. But that's a discussion about celebrities and their right to privacy.
And I don't think the discussion is about who's gay or who isn't. It's about whether people who are well known, and gay, ought to come out.
Difficult enough in life why make it even more.
The press or the tabloids can be very trashy and guess what, that's what their readers demand, and that's what they will supply to sell themselves. Get over it.
Celebrities will be nothing if they names are only know via word of mouth and nothing else. Make no mistake, any publicity is better then NO publicity for a celebrity. It would probably means the end of the road for them as celebrities if no media bothers to run anything, not even trash on them. Get over this as well.
Since you are hardly a celebrity, you should try and be objective and keep your comments to yourself and how you will feel? Loses the possibility of you ever being anything remotely famous, and thus not even having to deal with such a problem and you perhaps can be more objective.
Being GAY is NOT a crime nor is it neither shameful nor something one should actively, passively, subconsciously try to hide. If you don't see this point, and insist on your right to tell lies about your own sexuality then, you know what? This conversation should be about why the fuck are you so frighten of about being gay. And why you are so adamant about trying to protect your rights to lies and deceptions.
Go ahead. Think harder. But DO NOT pull the freedom to be a fucking liar on me. Enough of your own insecurity.
Be like Tom Cruise, do whatever it take to live a life of lies after lies after lies, until the scheme is so grand and yet so pathetic, Most people gag just thinking about his Bullshit.
Get it? The discussion is not about freedom of press or privacy rights. It's about telling the truth. You can't handle it. Think harder.
frankly, i still find the terms "gay" and "straight" simplistically and pejoratively inadequate to describe the variety and complexity of human beings i have met since i learnt those words.
as for cooper and foster, they have earned our respect professionally as someone has said, and who they find appealing is their business, just as who i find appealing is mine if i choose, even if i were "straight"..
get it?
But I would to bring up this point for discussion sake, should we be ok with HIV+ celebs being outed by the media (for the benefit of discussing stigmatisation, visibility, and discrimination of PHA) the same way the 2 celebs were being outed - since I believe that neither being gay or poz is a crime or shameful... One of the points of contention is that the discrimination (and/or lost of career opportunities) faced by both groups of people might be quite real although one might never really know for sure. And where do we draw the line on privacy?
Quote..."The press or the tabloids can be very trashy and guess what, that's what their readers demand, and that's what they will supply to sell themselves."
Do you think that if "readers demand" child pornography then it is OK to publish it to "sell themselves". Believe me there are plenty of people out there who would be only too happy to read it!
Quote..."Since you are hardly a celebrity, you should try and be objective and keep your comments to yourself and how you will feel?"
This suggests that you think that anyone who has a contrary opinion to you should not post here.... an interesting insight into you! Not very objective
Quote..."Being GAY is NOT a crime nor is it neither(sic) shameful..."
Not one person here has even remotely suggested that being gay is shameful or that it is a crime.
Quote..."This conversation should be about why the **** are you so frighten of about being gay. And why you are so adamant about trying to protect your rights to lies and deceptions."
The whole discussion here has not been about being "frightened" or about "lies and deception", its about the right of an individual, celebrity or not, to keep some things about themselves private from the general public. I am certain there are certain things about yourself that you would not want to tell the world about. This is not "pulling the freedom to be a ****ing liar. Sexuality is personal, you own your sexuality and have the right to keep it private if you so chose regardless of your status, this is a about "pulling the freedom" to privacy.
Quote..."****" ... "*****"
Do you think the use of expletives makes your point better? It doesn't, it just makes you look a little silly.
Quote..."The discussion is not about freedom of press or privacy rights. It's about telling the truth."
No, this discussion is about the above article and its contents. You can work it out....think harder
The closet has finally outlived its usefulness. So why do gay celebrities insist on staying in? And why do journalists guard the door?
* By Maer Roshan
http://nymag.com/nymetro/urban/gay/features/4431/
Please log in to use this feature.