Mr. and Mrs. John Travolta
Should it matter if John Travolta is gay? It shouldn’t, no. To say it shouldn’t, however, is not to prove that it doesn’t. In his industry, for all its liberal and progressive grandstanding, the perceived sexuality of leading men does matter, because it is believed that it affects the bottom line. Most important of all, John Travolta doesn’t want the public to know/believe/think that he’s gay.
That alone ends the story, in ethics terms. Revealing this aspect of a private life that the actor has chosen to keep private is entirely his decision to make, and nobody should force him to make it, or make it for him. Therefore, what did actress Carrie Fisher, Hollywood kid, writer, “Star Wars” icon, and former bride of a gay man, think she was doing when she told the Advocate, in response to a question about Travolta’s legal maneuvers against a website that published a story about his alleged gay lifestyle…
“Wow! I mean, my feeling about John has always been that we know and we don’t care. Look, I’m sorry that he’s uncomfortable with it, and that’s all I can say.”
Presumably, she was trying to defuse the issue for him. Being gay is no big deal, she was suggesting, and being called gay isn’t an insult or a slur. Why behave as if it is one? These are good questions, but need to be raised in the abstract, not in defiance of a fellow performer’s autonomy. Until Travolta goes public with his sexual orientation, it is not the proper role of Carrie Fisher or anyone else among his friends and associates to out him. “Everyone” knew Jodie Foster was gay for decades, but the Hollywood community respected her right to present her public image as she chose, just as it did past gay performers like Rudolph Valentino, Robert Taylor, Barbara Stanwyck, Marjorie Main, Montgomery Clift, Rock Hudson, Robert Reed, Sal Mineo, Raymond Burr and too many others to list. Though Fisher is sufficiently sophisticated, tolerant, open-minded, caring and intelligent to conclude that it “doesn’t matter” to her, this still cannot make it fair, respectful or responsible to make a life-altering decision for John Travolta, who also has a wife and children who have a stake in the decision as well.
It will be a happy day when no actor feels that revealing his or her sexual orientation will harm professional relationships, public images and box office receipts. That day is obviously not here, however, and to the extent that John Travolta’s life and career are involved, the decision to be out or not remains his alone. It was wrong for Carrie Fisher to presume to make the decision for him.
________________
Pointer: Salon
Source: The Advocate
Ethics Alarms attempts to give proper attribution and credit to all sources of facts, analysis and other assistance that go into its blog posts, and seek written permission when appropriate. If you are aware of one I missed, or believe your own work or property was used in any way without proper attribution, credit or permission, please contact me, Jack Marshall, at jamproethics@verizon.net.
Ethics Alarms 
Agreed. It shouldn’t matter what sexual orientation an actor has, talent is talent. And if someone doesn’t want to be outed, they shouldn’t be outed.
The problem with leading men is that they are pitched as someone all the women are supposed to want and all the men are supposed to want to be. Given that recent studies show that only 3% of the population identifies as LGBT, and, like it or not, a lot of those of us who aren’t are still repulsed by male homosexuality and would choose other entertainment to a movie featuring a gay lead (and no, I still won’t watch “Brokeback Mountain” or “Philadelphia” just like I didn’t watch “Schindler’s List” or other obvious liberal, compassion-bullying Oscar-bait), it just doesn’t make sense to invest a lot of money in a film that might not make back the investment.
Values-wise, the question of outing is the ONLY thing I agree with Dan Savage on, that outing is brutal and should be reserved for those who have done something really wrong, particularly hypocritically wrong. Even then it’s ethically fuzzy.
An interesting factoid, though, is that many women DO “want” (i.e., think of as attractive and sexy, want the attention of, etc.) men who identify as gay or bisexual. I’m not interested in going into the possible (and not necessarily accurate) psychological reasons that have been posited about this (e.g., gay men are “safe,” women want to “turn” them away from their sexual orientation, etc.). It’s just a fact.
But Carrie should have thought first before she engaged her mouth. There’s a lot of that going around, inside show business and in the “real” world.
I don’t know. My eye kept returning to the wife and kid” line. If I were the wife, I would want to know that information, and in fact, I think I would have the right to know that information, and be exceedingly grateful to someone for disclosing it. That would be my health that was involved after all. I think it would be unethical for someone to keep that information away from me.
A single man has a different analysis of course, but that isn’t the case here. Though I do have to wonder what the ethics of “passing” in general are, as well as those celebrities in the “glass closet”, where everyone knows they are gay, they don’t try to hide it, but it is considered information too sensitive for the “rubes” in middle America to know about. I’m conflicted.
Good point – James McGreevey, the fallen governor of NJ, hid the fact that he was gay from two women, and the second ex said she would not have married him had she known he was gay and would not have chosen a gay man to father her daughter. He himself admitted he hid it because his political career (even in liberal NJ) would have been over if it came to light, as in fact it did end afterward. It also gave birth to hundreds of jokes about changing the state bird [the swallow], renaming the turnpike [the Hershey Highway], and so on, making it impossible to take him seriously as a leader.
Oh, Kelly Preston knows for sure. The kids? Hard to say. Heck, Kelly might be gay too—such marriages with bilateral beards were standard issue in Hollywood in the Golden Age, and might be still. Stanwyck and Robert Taylor were married. In a book about Hollywood lesbians, the author’s interview with Miss Stanwyck was prickly but cordial until he brought up Taylor’s sexuality. Stanwyck snapped (I’m paraphrasing): “Robert Taylor was a gentleman. You are not. Get out of my house.” Wonderful. They don’t make ’em like Barbara any more!
I thought everyone already knew he’s gay.
I thought everyone already knew he’s gay.
*********
I didn’t know.
Eaxctly.
“Rudolph Valentino, Robert Taylor, Barbara Stanwyck, Marjorie Main, Montgomery Clift, Rock Hudson, Robert Reed, Sal Mineo, Raymond Burr”
I’m of the generation when most of these stars were very big names, and I think we all “knew”, but because it wasn’t “out there” we enjoyed their movies and shows anyway and they remained very popular. This held true for my parents generation as well. I’m not sure about the ethics of this or how it impacted their personal lives. But to this day I still watch and enjoy the various performances of Robert Taylor, Rock Hudson, Montgomery Clift – because they made great movies, were believable in their roles and made their characters very engaging. But somehow, when it gets pushed in my face, ala Ellen DeGeneres, then I lose interest, because it’s more about being Gay than about being a performer.
Is it ethical of Travolta to expect everyone to lie for him? I cannot see how it is unethical for Carrie Fisher to tell the truth, your advocating lying about what has generally become common knowledge, or at least common suspicion. It is unethical for Travolta not to address this in a way that takes the burden off of others and puts it on him. I don’t think it is ethical to out someone just to out them, but once done how is it ethical for everyone else to lie about it?
Not talking about somebody else’s private business isn’t lying about it, Steve. Nobody’s saying that Fisher has to swear that Travolta is straight. She has to shut up about personal matters that don’t concern her in any way. John Wayne was a chess playing, well-read, sophisticated college grad who passed for an intellectual by Hollywood standards.Colleagues respected the fact that he wasn’t keen on that aspect of his life being publicized, so they didn’t talk about it. Danny Kaye was a bitter, cruel, depressed sociopath who was generally detested despite his performing and public persona as a kid-loving mensch. Nobody blabbed about the real Kaye, either—it’s an unwritten Hollywood rule that makes perfect sense in a culture about artifice.
There is a line, and with Travolta I think that line has been crossed. When an individual makes decisions and takes actions that lead to being reported in the news at what point does “no comment “ become a dodge and a poor reflection on the one giving that answer? At some point there has to become a breaking point where someone is no longer obligated to hide your open secret and at this point I can’t see her comments as unethical, if Travolta is not willing to get in front of this then it is not her problem. She is not ethically obligated to prop up his career with lies or omissions when at the same time he is making news and driving the conversation.
Makes no sense. She is not OBLIGATED to talk publicly about John Travolta’s sexuality at all, no how, no way. It is bad manners and bad ethics to do so. And it is hardly an open secret..I’d guess that less than 10% of the public is aware of the controversy. Same with Tom Cruise.
Jack, I said she is not obligated to cover for him, and if she chooses not to the there is nothing unethical about it, he made his choices. She is not outing him, that has already been done.
And I am saying it has NOT been done. There are only rumors at this point. Jody Foster was not officially gay until she said so herself (albeit in a veiled manner.)
The thing about being on the inside of a secret that’s shared by a lot of people is that it’s hard to keep track of who knows and who doesn’t, and after a while, it’s hard to be sure that it’s even still a secret. Your friend Beth tells you that she’s pregnant, but that it’s a secret, then a little later you meet her and she’s talking to her friends about it, and then next time you run into Beth and her friends you make a comment about her pregnancy and she gets upset at you because she hadn’t told Janice yet…
At some point, it’s just not your responsibility to keep track of who does or does not know someone else’s secret. You say that less than 10% were aware of the controversy, but from the viewpoint of an insider like Fisher, everybody she knows seems to know. It’s not her responsibility to keep track of Travolta’s public image.
Doesn’t matter. She knows he’s uncomfortable with it, so her duty, Golden Rule-wise, is to remain neutral.
o Doesn’t matter. She knows he’s uncomfortable with it, so her duty, Golden Rule-wise, is to remain neutral.
Nonsense, she has no duty, just as a woman who was married to a cheating spouse would have no duty to keep his wandering ways a secret. Additionally Travolta is a celebrity, by his own choice, he is a public figure who although should be able to count on a minimal level of privacy must be careful about his interactions if he wants to stay in the closet. If she did not enter into the relationship with foreknowledge that he liked men and that she would be burdened with that secret then how does she have any duty to maintain the secret? Your argument reads as -by the virtue of being gay he now special and must be protected. Because he is gay everyone has a duty to maintain this secret regardless of the impact on their lives, the decisions he makes that brings it in the open or the number of people who know. This amounts to the Kings pass, it doesn’t matter if he cheats on his wife, lies to his fans, coerces sex from employees or places others in the position to have to cover for him he gets a pass because he is gay, all other considerations are secondary.
Being gay has absolutely nothing to do with it.She has knowledge that she knows the person involved does not care to publicize. Terminal illness; secret Ted Cruz admirer, cross-dresser, fan of Roseanne, whatever. She has a duty, as do we all, not to harm our fellow human beings without good cause. It’s the central duty of ethical civilization. Don’t be a dick. There is no “but being a dick to closeted gays is OK” exception.
The fact that he’s a celebrity makes Leia’s betrayal worse…so is she. She knows how hard it is to maintain any level of privacy. Does she have any business outing John Travolta’s kids as part of a PR lie, when they are too young to handle this stuff? Is that OK with you too?
Well maybe if the secret is so important to him he should keep his hands to himself, not coerce sex from employees and keep his mouth shut. If it is so important to keep this from his kids then he shouldn’t have sex with guys or solicit it from those rubbing him down. Yes I know none of that is proven and it all could be a smear campaign but with lawsuits and charges flying where the central issue is Travolta being gay is there no news worthy issues to report on? Are you saying the media has an ethical duty to not report on lawsuits if the lawsuit pertains to homosexuality? Why not? Are we to “think of the children?” If he is not gay then those claims are false, story over, if he is then is there any merit to the claims? Seems to me the media investigating if he is gay is logical in their effort to determine if Travolta is being smeared or if he is a piece of shit who uses his fame, fortune and position to coerce sex from employees.
The media should report such lawsuits, and should support the settlements, dropping of, or other disposition regarding such suits. But celebrities are the targets of spurious suits all the time…by any fair standards, they cannot be taken as proof. I don’t see what that has to do with a colleague getting involved, unless her objective is to be a whistleblower for potential victims. That does not seem to be the case. (I am not aware of any workplace allegations against Travolta.)
“At some point, it’s just not your responsibility to keep track of who does or does not know someone else’s secret.”
That’s exactly right. And the answer is simplicity itself. Someone has put you in a position of confidence. Continue to keep the secret–as if NO ONE else knows–until that same person tells you otherwise.
Or . . . you know . . . after the baby’s been born. 😉
That said, this principle might not actually apply to Carrie Fisher in this instance if she genuinely believed that it was not a secret. However, it was definitely something deeply personal, and thus not a suitable topic of discussion for publication.
–Dwayne
Very well said. And may I say, I have had many, many occasions where a good friend or colleague, nervous and solemn, has “come out” to me, and my first reaction, unspoken, was to respond, “Are you kidding? Who doesn’t know that? This isn’t news.” But instead, I responded, “Thank you for telling me; it’s important to me that you trust me enough to let me know.” Because it’s not about who else knows; it’s about the individual feeling that he made the choice, and that it wasn’t made for him.
Would we be having the same conversation if he had been outed by Adel Dazeem?