Gay outrage builds over military invasion of the Oscars
Just two years after Oscar snubbed best-picture front-runner "Brokeback Mountain," gay leaders wonder if they just got slapped deliberately again by Golden Boy. Outrage continues to build over how Oscar chiefs chose to stage the presentation of the award for best documentary short. It was bestowed by U.S. Army, Navy, Air Force and Marine troops in Iraq. Surely, Oscar leaders must've realized that a gay-themed nominee, "Freeheld," might win and the award presentation would be an awkward setup.
Indeed, "Freeheld" triumphed, thus rewarding an expose about the heroic struggle of a lesbian police officer dying of cancer who wanted to bequeath her pension benefits to her partner, just like married heterosexuals can do.
"The irony here, of course, is that soldiers can't leave their benefits to their partners or even be openly gay in the military," notes Andy Humm, co-host of TV news show "Gay U.S.A." Listen to the program's podcast HERE
Typical of the outrage expressed across the blogosphere is this observation at CourtingEquality.com: "'Freeheld' demonstrates that the freedom and liberty that some LGBT citizens fight for abroad are not theirs at home."
"Probably no one planning this year’s show thought about the hypocrisy of having the military, which bans openly gay and lesbian soldiers from service, announce" the winner, noted the New Jersey Bergen Record. "It may go down as the ultimate Oscar irony."
Below is a video clip of the presentation on Oscar night. Notice how clueless the presenters seem to be about the ironic scene. (Entertainment Weekly tells the back story HERE.) Ignoring it with great diplomacy is winner Cynthia Wade, a heterosexual New York filmmaker who produced and directed "Freeheld."
"It was Lt. Laurel Hester's dying wish that her fight against discrimination would make a difference for all the same-sex couples across the country that face discrimination every single day — discrimination that I don't face as a married woman," she said, accepting the Oscar.



I don't think it was akward but I understand your point. It is not the same as having African Americans *only* presenting to African Americans (as someone posted) but it would be like having an African American receive an award by a racist anti-African American group, as the army is cleary anti-gay
Posted by: Andrew | March 07, 2008 at 04:09 PM
I heard an interview with the director of FREEHELD. She was specifically asked by two major LGBT organizations to speak to heterosexual America as a married woman about how same-sex couples do not get the rights that married people get. She wasn't speaking to your demographic, she was speaking to people who otherwise wouldn't care about the issue.
Posted by: Eleanor Duckett | March 06, 2008 at 02:22 PM
The reason that this isn't a "scandal" is because those were individual soldiers presenting the awards, not US military leaders. You know the whole "support the troops, oppose the war" slogan. It applies here.
This is even more of a non-issue than Marion Cotillard's past remarks. Are people that desperate for Oscar news that they can't wait until next year?
Posted by: junior | March 06, 2008 at 10:08 AM
It was an awkward presentation & confusing for an important moment in LGBT history. However no one knew who's name was in the envelope. For the truth about gay marriage check out our trailer. Produced to educate & defuse the controversy it has a way of opening closed minds & provides some sanity on the issue: www.OUTTAKEonline.com
Posted by: Charlotte | March 06, 2008 at 09:34 AM
Am I the only person who has noticed that in the sequence of soldiers reading off the nominated films, that the soldier doing "Freeheld" is very obviously gay? Do you think that's a coincidence? Rather than cruel irony, I just find it funny.
As someone who is gay and vehemently opposes the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy, I can tell you I was NOT IN ANYWAY offended or upset at the military presenting this award or the fact that they presented the award to this movie regarding the struggle for equal rights.
Posted by: Charles | March 06, 2008 at 09:26 AM
So when Denzell Washington, Halle Barre, or Jennifer Hudson present an award, it HAS to be to a African American actor? Is this the logic Gay America?
Posted by: SimpleRep | March 06, 2008 at 07:09 AM
Yeah, that's a stupid connection to make.
The only thing I found kind of offensive that BOTH award recipients mentioned in their speech that they were straight. It just felt strange to me. Like they didn't want people to think they were gay too.
Posted by: graeme | March 05, 2008 at 06:19 PM
Tom you're being sensational again. I'm gay and I also take no offense at the presentation of that award. There was no awkwardness whatsoever.
Posted by: richard | March 05, 2008 at 05:32 PM
So basically any gay-themed Oscar nominated film should only be presented by gay people..is that it?....Isn't this really...well...just plain stupid?....I'm gay and I don't care who presents what at an awards show...well kinda...Miley Cyrus????..
Posted by: Frankie R. | March 05, 2008 at 02:13 PM