Console best movie i've ever seen.

Dirtylogy It's funny, it's tense, it features two great performances from two actors and the director expertly creates a web of odd tension where you actually don't know what is happening for the majority of the run time.

Keeley Coleman The thing I enjoyed most about the film is the fact that it doesn't shy away from being a super-sized-cliche;

Scarlet The film never slows down or bores, plunging from one harrowing sequence to the next.

evening1 Until seeing this I hadn't realized there were so many closeted gays battling gay-rights legislation.The filmmaker does a great job using documentary footage of these men -- no female hypocrites are targeted -- arguing vociferously against gay adoption, gay marriage, and other laws aimed at giving homosexuals equal opportunities.Some of the evidence is stunning; there are phone tapes of politicians soliciting sex and on-the-record interviews with men who have been propositioned. And while I dislike Barney Frank's personality and politics, I came away from this film with admiration for his courage in walking the walk. There was a weak link in this otherwise above-board film. A reporter discusses having been propositioned by a Fox news anchorman. Yet the reporter, who seems flattered while relating his tale, coyly remains mum on whether he visited the guy's apartment. This film makes the excellent point that if everyone came out to their families, the whole gay-rights movement would become moot. Very educative.

jotix100 About half way through the documentary, Michaelangelo Signorili, speaking directly to the camera, explains how, as a young man, he would be side by side with the school tormentors, scaring and beating those kids deemed to be gay. After all, being against the gays gave him a certain status, and being gay himself, he was excluded from the unfair treatment of the bullies. The actions of some of the politicians believed to be gay, clearly proves this theory to be right. Most of these elected officials voted against any legislation that would give rights to a minority in which they were part of, but which they denied by acting against homosexuals in general.Kirby Dick's documentary is an expose about the hypocrisy of people in high places that happened to be hiding their sexuality. Three prominent men are showcased as examples of the double standard they lived. Larry Craig, Ed Koch and Charlie Crist are examined in somewhat great detail. These men, while not having openly declared themselves to be gay, have certainly acted against the interests of their constituencies, as it is pointed out by Larry Kramer when he recounts how Ed Koch, the famous mayor of New York, could have done a better job in being influential for the community, had he the courage to admit he belonged to it.There are courageous accounts by James McGreevey, the former governor of New Jersey, who came out to his state and the nation in confessing he was a gay American. His interview is one of the most poignant moments of "Outrage". Same can be said of Jim Kolbe, an older man whose courage in coming out, rather than being "outed", took some guts to declare his sexual orientation.Kirby Dick the director of the documentary has a long career of tackling controversial topics. His view on the hypocrisy of the men in the story is an eye opening for many Americans.

pthornton-2 Most of the comments left previously do not address the actual legal aspects of this. The worst offender is lady moon.The Constitution of the U.S. guarantees each and every one of us Freedom of (and FROM) religion. The separation of Church and State is VERY important in this issue. The word "marriage" is semantics, yet it is the most commonly used term world-wide and that is why advocates use it in attempting to secure the rights they were born with but are being denied.It is organized religion which is fighting this tooth and nail. Yet it is not organized religion which issues "marriage" licenses; It is states, counties, and cities. States who have changed their constitutions denying same-sex marriage will eventually lose this fight because it it is unconstitutional (at the Federal level) to deny any group the same rights as others.Granting same-sex couples the right to marry will in no way affect organized religion. Why? Because of their right to practice their religion(s) without government interference; "The Freedom of religion" will protect them, which is as it should be.Additionally, saying those rights are available through various legal avenues is ridiculous! Does a heterosexual couple have to pay (as much as) $60,000.00 to secure only SOME of the rights? No.And I'm not gay - I have been happily married to the same woman for over 20 years. I just happen to believe that denying a segment of society the same rights that others enjoy is wrong. Plain and simple. Unfortunately, just as was the case for inter-racial marriages until 1967, it is going to take the US Supreme Court to guarantee those rights.

scope_72 Here is a much better logistical argument.1.The government is involved in marriage. 2.All adult citizens of the United States are guaranteed equal protection under law.3.Therefore, the government has two choices.A.Not be involved with marriage at all -OR- B.Treat all adult citizens equallyThis whole debate is not complicated guys. So if you do not like the idea of gay marriage get used to it, because the authors of the constitution laid down the groundwork for this centuries ago.p.s. as for your "slippery slope" theory about people one day marrying their pets, it should first be noted that a pet does not have a choice in the matter so it would not be able to be defined as marriage. The pet would not even know that it had been married. In other words, that part of your comments is laughable, and can be construed as very rude. Very similar to a comment like this, "I mean, why would anyone be religious, thats just left over tradition from cavemen." Don't be inconsiderate of others please.