Comments on the Passing of a Successful Confirmed Bachelor

Merv Griffin died recently. And apparently, he was a gay man.

Actually, some of us knew that already. No, not from first-hand experience with the crooning real-estate and game show mogul. We had a friend whose ex-girlfriend's father worked for Merv. And this was back in the early 1980s.

And as I always say, if I know something, I assume - and usually correctly - that everyone not comatose knows it.

The article Reuters release, written by Doug Danger [actually by Ray Richmond] chastises the late, great Merv for not coming out of the closet.

I disagree with it on a few levels.

First, if a single man is seen around town squiring say Loni Anderson, Eva Gabor, Parker Posey or Liza Minelli to a social event, there is a good chance that that man may be gay. So, I don't know how deep in the closet Merv was.

Secondly, so what. If he was closeted, let's have some respect, and - dare I say it? - some admiration for Merv. Merv was a celebrity who kept his private life private. Instead of condemning him, I applaud him. God bless Merv Griffin for not assuming that the public's interest in a celebrity extended beyond being entertained by him or her. I don't recall one time seeing Merv when he wasn't attempting to be entertaining. That was his job, and unlike so many other celebrities, he insisted on doing it. It's called "professionalism" and I commend him for it. Can you imagine the degree to which the white noise that is created by celebrity culture would be decreased if other celebs acted like this? I'm sorry, I don't care that you are in rehab, that you bought a new painfully miniature dog, that you are getting divorced from Lisa Marie Presley ... I try to save getting emotionally involved in people's lives to the people who I am personally involved with -- my actual family and friends. And not the people I may assume I know because I have seen them act, or heard them sing.

Spoiler alert: This is where I am certainly going to offend some people.

I don't believe that the premise of the author's article is true. Does having more openly gay celebrities equal more acceptance for gays? Not necessarily. This is a highly suspect theory [more = better] for a few reasons. Imagine a world where all homosexuals made their gender preference known. Does disclosure equal acceptance? I don't think so - this new evidence [certain unknown homosexuals are now known] could be used by interested parties to support the acceptance or condemnation of homosexuals. "See, I told you [insert boorish celebrity name here] is gay, and he acts like a complete ass!" So, unless Mr. Richmond could have only the upstanding, mature and non-threatening homosexuals come out, he might regret having homosexuals - as a policy - come out.

While I do agree it is harder to condemn homosexuality as a lifestyle choice when one personally knows homosexuals who are great people, I don't think that we are lacking for known gay celebrities. So, the addition of Merv to the cluttered miasma would have been, as they say in sports, piling on.

Also, I somewhat reject the notion that there is necessarily a tipping point in the culture. I think people either accept or reject the concept of homosexuality not on the basis of the known sample size of homosexuals, but on a moral basis ["I'm against homosexuality based on my moral beliefs, unless I can just find one more successful homosexual."] It does not logically follow that increasing the known sample size increases acceptance of behavior that some people deem immoral.

For example, many married people cheat on their spouses. Now, some people say that the behavior is immoral. Some say it is acceptable. It appears to be a popular behavior. If you knew that 95% of all married people cheated on their spouses, would it change the morality of the behavior? Not if your morals had any underlying basis, it wouldn't.

That being said, the landscape does improve as it becomes normalized. I do agree that if one does not know any out gays, it makes it easier for one to be both a homophobe and an idiot. And conversely, if one does know gays, it is harder to be a homophobe and an idiot ["My uncle is gay, and he was always the coolest relative" for example]. But again, I differentiate the policy that Mr. Richmond espouses [celebrities should come out], from the logical extension of that argument - that all homosexuals if out would equal greater public acceptance. The logical extension, I agree with. The half-measure is not strong enough medicine to cure the patient.

But let's address reality here: given the state of American law, being openly gay can get you fired in some states. And some people still discriminate against, hate and beat gays. This reality is deplorable. But to implicate Merv, by inference, and hold him responsible for the state of gays in America, is misguided. And the timing is weak, coming just after the death of this extremely successful and laudable man.

So, that - to me - is the sad reality of the state of dialogue. One more gay celebrity does not mean one step closer to tolerance towards gays. One more gay schoolteacher, co-worker or relative might.