08/17/2007
Hollywood Reporter: Merv Griffin Was Gay
The Hollywood Reporter has effectively blown the late Merv Griffin's closet door open for good, on the day he is laid to rest following a celeb-filled invitation-only funeral at Beverly Hills' Church of the Good Shepard:
Writes Ray Richmond for the industry bible: "Merv Griffin was gay. Why should that be so uncomfortable to read? Why is it so difficult to write? Why are we still so jittery even about raising the issue in purportedly liberal-minded Hollywood, in 2007? Griffin, who died of prostate cancer Sunday at 82, stayed in the closet throughout his life. Perhaps he figured it was preferable to remain the object of gossip rather than live openly as 'one of them.' But how tremendously sad it is that a man of Merv's renown, of his gregarious nature and social dexterity, would feel compelled to endure such a stealthy double life even as the gay community's clout, and its levels of acceptance and equality, rose steadily from the ashes of ignorance. What a powerful message Griffin might have sent had he squired his male companions around town rather than Eva Gabor, his longtime good friend and platonic public pal. Imagine the amount of good Merv could have done as a well-respected, hugely successful, beloved and uncloseted gay man in embodying a positive image."
Well, they said it.
Griffin never revealed man behind the curtain [hollywood reporter]
Saying What Merv Griffin Never Felt He Could [past deadline]
The Truth on Merv Griffin Bubbles Up [the gist]
Recently
TV Titan Merv Griffin Dies of Prostate Cancer at 82 [tr]
Posted 8:45 AM EST by Andy in I'm Gay, Merv Griffin, News, Television | Permalink
Like it?
Subscribe to FREE Towleroad daily headlines with our RSS feed!
RECENT STORIES:
Beautifully written. Does Anderson Cooper read this publication?
Posted by: jmg | Aug 17, 2007 9:13:07 AM
Eva Gabor may have been his beard, but Nancy Reagan was his hag.
Posted by: Davey | Aug 17, 2007 9:31:20 AM
The world changed so profoundly regarding gays during his lifetime. I wonder what it must have been like, peeking out of his closet at the growing numbers of gay people living authentic lives and ending the hiding. I wonder if he felt regret or if it was all just too much to comprehend.
I know a few old men who came out very late in life and it was very liberating for them. Too bad he couldn't bring himself to get honest.
Posted by: sam | Aug 17, 2007 9:34:16 AM
This article's original opening: "Dear Tom Cruise and Oprah Winfrey ... "
Posted by: the other jeff | Aug 17, 2007 9:50:30 AM
if Entertainment Tonight would just say so, then it'd be an absolute truth. until then, it's just totally "not out" there, and the mainstream media will continue to celebrate Merv's shame.
Posted by: A.J. | Aug 17, 2007 9:58:26 AM
Not everyone feels the need to be all open and public about being gay. Give it up! Some of us are pretty "selective" in who knows.
Posted by: yawn | Aug 17, 2007 10:33:34 AM
Since it was a matter of public record that a man sued him for palimony and that Denny Terrio (not sure about the spelling) sued him for sexual harrassment, was there really any secret?
Posted by: John | Aug 17, 2007 10:37:23 AM
This is a VERY important piece. The damn has finally bust.
And the timing couldn't be "worse" for Jodie Foster.
"Yawn" you have my permission to climb back into your closet and fucking DIE!
Posted by: David Ehrenstein | Aug 17, 2007 10:43:12 AM
It would have been great if Merv had come out publically during his lifetime. But he came of age during the days when coming out meant career suicide for performers. I'm sure he experienced a lot of pain because of that. That's sad, and berating him after his death for staying closeted is not only pointless, it's kind of cruel.
Now, as for a few of the younger public figures mentioned in other posts . . .. .
Posted by: kimmer | Aug 17, 2007 10:47:07 AM
who even knew he was alive for the past 20 years. he could have come out, but it would have been about as exciting as when tab hunter came out. people would be like, "who?" and "why do i care?" and they'd wiki the name and go, "oh, yeah, okay, still don't care..." nobody under the age of 50 cares if some old fogie queen comes out, and young people, the ones supposedly going to be saved by all this "honesty" sure as hell don't either. whatever.
Posted by: dan | Aug 17, 2007 10:57:40 AM
DAN... if Merv had a spine, he could've influenced policy makers in both government and media which in turn would have benefited the young people. instead he legitimized shame.
so screw that "whatever" of yours.
Posted by: A.J. | Aug 17, 2007 11:16:20 AM
But where is the proof that he was gay? Who slept with him? Any confessions? Not yet. Looks like most celebrities have to go through this "is he gay or not?" scanner some time in their life. This country is obsessed with sexuality in general and homosexuality in particular. And even if Merv was gay (perhaps bisexual) he was under no obligation to any of us to come out. A person's sexuality is a private matter (as one's religion should be). If you want to come out, fine. If not, that's okay too. Everybody has their own reasons. But look at the hate and discrimination that's heaped on anyone who comes out, (not to mention the possible financial implications of losing your job and being unemployable) No, I can't blame one for staying in the closet. I had no choice being a flaming queen myself, but for others who have that option, I can understand their position to remain "incognito".
Posted by: the queen | Aug 17, 2007 11:20:47 AM
But where is the proof that he was gay? Who slept with him? Any confessions? Not yet. Looks like most celebrities have to go through this "is he gay or not?" scanner some time in their life. This country is obsessed with sexuality in general and homosexuality in particular. And even if Merv was gay (perhaps bisexual) he was under no obligation to any of us to come out. A person's sexuality is a private matter (as one's religion should be). If you want to come out, fine. If not, that's okay too. Everybody has their own reasons. But look at the hate and discrimination that's heaped on anyone who comes out, (not to mention the possible financial implications of losing your job and being unemployable) No, I can't blame one for staying in the closet. I had no choice being a flaming queen myself, but for others who have that option, I can understand their position to remain "incognito".
Posted by: the queen | Aug 17, 2007 11:22:43 AM
aj-
i'm not ashamed. are you ashamed? i don't need some old show tune queen to make me feel good about myself, and really, neither do today's young people. so again...whatever.
Posted by: dan | Aug 17, 2007 11:24:04 AM
Whatever is the laziest of dismissals.
Posted by: Whatever | Aug 17, 2007 11:42:47 AM
And "whatever" usually implies that the person just cannot wrap their heads around a concept so they just give up.
It's quite the hollow ego-feeder.
Posted by: Anon | Aug 17, 2007 11:44:42 AM
sounds like Dan is only interested in the young and fuckable coming out. Whatever.
Posted by: Bill W | Aug 17, 2007 11:52:34 AM
...let's get over this "private matter" business...by saying you are gay, it does not mean you are giving intimate details about your sexual partners or their identities or your exact physical conquests...you are simply admitting a preference...the actual problem is that many people feel they have the right to denegrate someone on countless levels for even admitting that fact; that is what homosexuals and those who support their rights are fighting against...saying you are gay is NOT about inviting someone into your bedroom and we need to evolve from that immpression...especially since indicating one's orientation is NOT only about having sex, although that still seems to be the predominate image in someones head when it's mentioned...why can't the world in general and Americans in particular just grow the fuck up? (that's a rhetorical question BTW...)
Posted by: yeahisaidit | Aug 17, 2007 12:05:30 PM
to bill w and anon
hey guys -- bill, why would you say something like the "young and fuckable...?" is that really how you think? that only the young are fuckable? how gross and chicken hawky that is. anyway, no, i actually think its just plain fantastic that gay kids are more aware, more mature, more sure of themselves, and that they don't need the validation of things like over the hill celebrities coming out to validate them. i think thats a really good thing. you might think its just another way to get laid, but thats not really the way my brain works.
to anon...i'm confused that you think that the idea of merv griffin being gay, or not being gay, is a complicated concept for someone to get their head around. its actually pretty simple, its just boring is all.
later guys, have a good one.
Posted by: dan | Aug 17, 2007 12:11:42 PM
Dan, with due respect, the reason younger gay people today are more comfortable with their sexualty and being out and open is because of the gay people who came before them who had the courage (in more difficult times) to be out and risk the personal social and physical dangers of doing so. Young gay people today should be thankful to those "over the hill" people (celebrities or not) for risking much more than some of the younger people today have to risk in coming out. The world today is very different than it was 20 years ago, but it's still far from perfect on gay issues and many gay people (young and old) still have a lot at risk by coming out. While I think it is best for everyone to eventually come out, it has to be on the individual person's own time table.
Posted by: Patrick | Aug 17, 2007 12:32:30 PM
Who slept with him? Come to West Hollywood, ask around... I have a friend who used to work as a "masseur" back in the mid-80's and he met "Merv the Perv" a few times...
Posted by: jim | Aug 17, 2007 12:33:09 PM
hey patrick -- i completely agree with you that things are different today, but i don't think that the oldsters are 100% of the reason. i think a lot of it has to do with a change in "opposition" if thats the way to say it, wherein society has become more laissez faire, and people just don't give a crap what anyone is. and i think that has more to do with societal changes begun in the 1960's that made it safer for feminists, for blacks, for gays, for anti-establishment activists, for anti-war protestors, all to assert their place in society than it does with the positive or not so positive imagery provided by celebrities. not to make too sweeping a general statement, but celebrities of all stripes generally act like freaks, and while they provide interesting fodder for us weekly or whatever the 40 year ago equivalent might have been, they don't actually provide much in the way of inspiration.
Posted by: dan | Aug 17, 2007 12:52:24 PM
Someone here says that outing Merv now that he's dead is pointless and cruel. Cruel, perhaps, but not pointless. I think middle America may learn something.
Posted by: phil | Aug 17, 2007 1:01:23 PM
I can't say that I blame him. He really did have the best of it all. Incredible friends. Incredible fag hags, money and power, yadda, yadda.
Why not just enjoy life? Have several martinis (or pills), go shopping at Bergdorf's, & enjoy your hags? Works for me!
Saving the world is just too damn tiring (and boring), when things like the fall collections beckon.
Posted by: Jordan | Aug 17, 2007 1:16:53 PM
Dan: societal changes do not simply and magically happen, they are created by people who feel they must oppose the status quo. The freedoms you enjoy today are the direct result of the work of people in the past and the continuing work of people in the present.
Posted by: Sam | Aug 17, 2007 1:23:28 PM
hey sam -- i know. thats what i said.
Posted by: dan | Aug 17, 2007 1:30:14 PM
Hey Dan -- that's not what you said.
Posted by: LUMOX | Aug 17, 2007 1:52:27 PM
A.J. is right...Merv was an extremely wealthy, extremely powerful man who was politically well-connected. Had he been out of the closet, he could have helped influence policy through his friendships with politicians (Merv was very good friends with Ronnie and Nancy as well as with George W. Bush...which shows his level of self-hatred, but I digress). Merv had the opportunity to improve the lives (or at least decrease the suffering) of millions of GLBT Americans. Instead, he punted. What a waste. What a coward.
Posted by: peterparker | Aug 17, 2007 1:53:16 PM
hey lumox -- no, that is what i said. the point being that life has changed favorably for a lot of people because society experienced an upheaval in attitudes towards establishment thinking. it had nothing to do with celebrities coming out or not coming out. i guess i just don't subscribe to the thinking that gays exist in a world of their own, somehow unconnected to the larger world, and that changes in societies attitudes towards gays is due only to the work of gay people. in my mind thats limited vacuum based thinking, and doesn't reflect reality. again, i'm not looking to celebrity culture for anything meaningful, and unfortunately anyone who does, will be sadly disappointed.
Posted by: dan | Aug 17, 2007 2:09:52 PM
I'm a lot less concerned that Merv the Perv lead his life in the closet and a lot more concerned that he actively fired workers around him that had the gall to live an openly gay life. Homophobia , esp at this time in our culture, is disgusting. Internalized homophobia directed at one of our own is unforgivable. Period.
Posted by: Snottyboy | Aug 17, 2007 2:17:00 PM
He didn't do this, he didn't do that. He should have done this, he should have done that. He should have said this, he should have said that. You should think this, you should think that.
All to make me feel better about myself.
Posted by: Princess Superstar | Aug 17, 2007 2:17:52 PM
Dan, as already noted, society doesn't just experience upheavals in attitudes. The upheavals you speak of come about from efforts of ALL kinds whether it be an "old fogie queen" or something that began in the 1960's. Maybe you're right that "nobody under the age of 50 cares if some old fogie queen comes out" but it's those that are over 50 (for the most part) that stand to learn something from Merv's passing.
Posted by: LUMOX | Aug 17, 2007 2:29:31 PM
sorry...make that Merv's passing and outing.
Posted by: LUMOX | Aug 17, 2007 2:31:48 PM
Oh, and Merv, honey, rest in peace. I'm glad your time here in Hell is over. My heart goes out to those who actually knew and will miss him.
Posted by: Princess Superstar | Aug 17, 2007 2:44:10 PM
lumox -- point well made...it wasn't my point that upheavals just happen, but that advances are due to the upheavals. you are absolutely right, these events are instigated by people, but not by identity. i'm not trying to be dismissive, so much as to say that the actions or lack thereof of these dying off old folks are not terribly relevant to today's society and thats something to be happy about. and yeah, i know i know, it was terrible awful bad back in the old days...but that was then, this is now, and thats good. cheers.
Posted by: dan | Aug 17, 2007 2:45:37 PM
Dan, ever hear of the Stonewall Riots? Your views on social change in America are astoundingly simplistic. Change like that doesn't just happen. People marched, protested, got bashed and arrested for your right to be lazy fairy about Gay rights. For the lvoe of God, pick up a history book and read it.
I have to stop reading the comments section of this site!
Posted by: sugarrhill | Aug 17, 2007 2:54:42 PM
hi sugarhill -- i think you've misunderstood. i'm actually pretty well versed in history, but history is contextual as well as specific. everything i'm talking about, i'm talking about in context of an overarching societal shift, that was of course driven by individual action, however the stonewall riots are not single handedly responsible for anything, but are a part of the "upheaval" i've been talking about. the riots and the actions that proceeded them and followed them were important, just as the peace movement, the civil rights movement, the feminist movement were important, and all worked together to advance human rights...that said, what i'm trying to say is that the coming out or lack thereof of someone like merv griffin, is no longer something worth noting in terms of contemporary society...as for the snark...well, you know...you don't know me or anything about me, so i'll just leave that alone.
Posted by: dan | Aug 17, 2007 3:08:46 PM
being unforthright about who you are implies you are hiding something and therefore you are ashamed or embarrassed about that something you are hiding or unwilling to come forth about. stop dressing this argument in the wardrobe of "privacy." are straights "private" about who they kiss in public or choose to hold hands with walking down the street? this has nothing to do with privacy. it has everything to do with being who you truly are. how convenient that we as gays can be gay one day but then appear to be straight the next depending on the context of the situation. it's not as if we have any conclusive physical markers identifying us as such. homophobia begins in your own backyard. get out a rake and clean it up. remember ACT-UP's "silence = death?" when you are silent about being gay (i.e., an essential part of who you are), you are complicit in how the status quo treats our community. merv griffin may have been a lot of things... wealthy, talented, charming, dynamic but he did not live a full life... and yes, everyday he lived a small act of cowardice.
Posted by: sean | Aug 17, 2007 3:16:26 PM
Would it have been better had Merv come out? Yes. He had influence. He had clout. He could have made a difference!
...But he didn't. And now that he's dead, calling him gruesome names like "slime" or "coward" on an internet blog will do nothing but make yourselves look bad. It changes nothing. He didn't come out, but millions of people have instead. Every day more and more gays are making a difference and all we can do is concentrate on the ones who don't scream two simple words into the ears of the nearest reporter.
For every minute we condemn assumed closeted celebrities, what could we--who actually ARE out--be doing with ourselves instead that actually puts some truth behind our words? Is this the new gay activism for the new century? Throwing names at dead closet cases for not coming out? Who shall we slander next, Abe Lincoln? Surely he had more power than even Merv...
The causes of the gay community will be advanced by the little things each and every one of us does. You think Mr. Fundie out there cares if Lance Bass or Doogie Howser says they're gay? Or Merv, for that matter. These inaccessible celebrities who exist in a near parallel universe from Main Street, USA?
We could atleast keep from verbally clawing at people no longer even on this Earth to defend themselves. That's plain low.
Posted by: Derrick | Aug 17, 2007 4:06:15 PM
I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but like it or hate it, it would seem that the Hollywood Reporter has censored it. Ray Richmond's Merv column appears to have been pulled down from both his PastDeadline blog AND the HR site. Despicable.
Posted by: Gene | Aug 17, 2007 4:29:01 PM
Anyone doubting that not Bush, not Dobson, not Fred Phelps, not Ann Coulter, not Bill O'Reilly, not fill-in-the-blank is our worst enemy but many of "our own" are our worst enemy need only read this and the earlier string about Griffin. A plague on your houses!
Posted by: Leland Frances | Aug 17, 2007 4:55:53 PM
FYI: the Hollywood Reporter has pulled the article from their website
Posted by: Rob | Aug 17, 2007 5:23:10 PM
actually it seems that the story is still up on the hollywood reporter website... maybe it got taken down and now put back up ?
Posted by: A.J. | Aug 17, 2007 5:38:02 PM
it saddens me to read comments here sometimes. so many guys who still think being a gay man is some kind of shameful 'private matter'.. and the young guys who have only a sketchy grasp of the history of struggle for basic human dignity of their own kind. as members of a 'community', we have failed each other in so many ways.
Posted by: el polacko | Aug 17, 2007 5:45:09 PM
actually it seems that the story is still up on the hollywood reporter website... maybe it got taken down and now put back up ?"
Bingo! Apparently they also threatened to fire the writer, who is straight. Michelangelo Signorile got wind of them scrubbing the site, and had his radio show listeners calling the Hollywood Reporter, and they caved pretty fast and put it back up. I'd imagine the writer's job is safe now as well, knowing the gay activist community would go batshit if they tried to mess with him.
Posted by: Johnny | Aug 17, 2007 6:00:05 PM
Some people just aren't motivated or built to be an activist. Just because you think he was rich and would have a lot of influence doesn't mean that he had to choose to come out and help the world.
Taking your own beliefs and forcing them onto someone does no good. He did what he wanted and he was comfortable with his situation (if he wasn't he would have changed it).
He never spoke out against gay people. I never heard a bad word about gays and lesbians come out of his mouth. He wasn't hiding his sexuality behind homophobia. Those are the people that we should be after.
Posted by: Ray | Aug 17, 2007 7:55:23 PM
Some people just aren't motivated or built to be an activist. Just because you think he was rich and would have a lot of influence doesn't mean that he had to choose to come out and help the world.
Taking your own beliefs and forcing them onto someone does no good. He did what he wanted and he was comfortable with his situation (if he wasn't he would have changed it).
He never spoke out against gay people. I never heard a bad word about gays and lesbians come out of his mouth. He wasn't hiding his sexuality behind homophobia. Those are the people that we should be after.
Posted by: Ray | Aug 17, 2007 7:56:44 PM
So I was just reading the comments over at Ray Richmond's blog where this story is. Some f***head named "JD" just put up this insane post in the comment thread:
"There IS something wrong with being gay and everyone knows this to some extent. That really is the elephant in the room."
Oh. My. God. He did NOT just say that, did he? I invite you all to go to Ray's site and give this little effer on the comment board a piece of your mind:
http://www.pastdeadline.com/2007/08/griffin-never-r.html
Posted by: Jensen | Aug 18, 2007 12:21:01 AM
HI: The solution is a groupsex party. Nobody says that one has to have only one partner.
kaiyo
Posted by: kaiyo | Aug 18, 2007 12:46:36 PM
See, hear's the thing. I know that Merv Griffin was an old man, so I can understand his not coming out when it was career suicide to do so, back in the day. But later in life, Griffin was so well-connected with people in power and so well-heeled that no one could hurt him, really, in a pecuniary sense.
He was so tight with the Reagan's that When Nancy and Ronnie left the White House and retired to California, Griffin co-hosted (with Barron Hilton) a $25,000-a-table homecoming gala for them. In a statement after his death, Nancy said that Griffin had been a close friend of theirs for over fifty years.
Would it have killed him, then, while AIDS (remember when it was called GRIDS?) was killing thousands of gay men, to publicly call on his old pal to pay attention, to get the government involved? (Reagan's heartlessness in this regard is well known.) I wonder how much further along science would be in finding a cure or a vaccine if the right-wing Reagan administration hadn't considered this an outre` disease, hitting a disposable element of society -- a disease of "the other"?
In 2003, Griffin went on MSNBC to lambaste CBS for planning to air the less than flattering biopic of the Reagan's, calling the network cowardly. (The network ultimately showed it on Showtime.) What was cowardly, was Griffin's silence during Reagan's relentless attacks on his gay brethren. No one is saying that he should have dressed up in drag and paraded on the street. By simply acknowledging his homosexuality, he could have done a world of good for gay Americans without personally suffering much (if at all) in the process. Older and middle-age Americans who DO know who he was and who vote in much higher numbers than the young demographic that Dan, above, is so fond of, might have been influenced, if even in a small way, to change their point of view regarding gays and gay rights, if someone as apparently mainstream as Griffin would have stepped out of the closet.
Instead, he continued to pal around with the Reagan's well past the time when there was a paradigm shift in the thinking of Americans vis-a-vis homosexuality. How sad for him and so sad for the people who were hurt by the apathy, neglect, and antagonism of Merv, Ronnie, and their cronies.
Like his ol' pal, Griffin was an extremely successful man. A good man? Hardly.
Posted by: nic | Aug 18, 2007 2:56:03 PM
It's too bad he didn't come out in his lifetime, but it seems a bit pointless to bemoan it now. Let's hear it for real heroes like George Takei!
Posted by: Aman-About-Town | Aug 18, 2007 6:54:40 PM
I don't agree that it is pointless to lament Merv's closeted, and in the end, ineffectual life. His secret life, now exposed and belittled, might serve as a cautionary tale, an object lesson, if you will, to other rich, self-satisfied queers with a let-them-eat-cake philosophy that no matter how much they kiss up to powerful bigots, they will never have a place at the table. Or if they do, it will be to beg for scraps and crumbs.
Posted by: amanda b. rekndwit | Aug 18, 2007 8:40:11 PM
I heard something about the writer of the story being gay. Is he gay? I don't know why but for some reason I thought Richmond was straight. Just wonderin.
I guess it would be nice to know that a straight guy wrote the piece.
Posted by: Jaden | Aug 18, 2007 8:48:00 PM
I didn't know that Merv's sexuality was a closet secret. Didn't a young guy bring a palimony suit against him years ago? And win?
After that, Merv didn't really need to come out.
Posted by: Ray | Aug 18, 2007 9:08:21 PM
I didn't realize all this shit about him being such a homophobe & being so tight with Adolf II (George W. Bush), and Ronald Reagan. I just knew him being Nancy's pal (which is bad enough...maybe SHE will be the next one to die).
Yeah, I hope he is roasting in hell now too (even though I really have my doubts about it's existence).
We all can't be activists & martyrs though. God knows I'm just a pretty boy who loves to shop and & am as vain as they come, who basically lives to drink, take pills, & shop at Bergdorf's. I just thought that Merv had it made with his money & connections (certainly not looks). That bastard (why didn't he grow some damn balls?)
Thank God he's dead. Now if only George W., Dick C., & Nancy R. can join him soon.
Posted by: Jordan | Aug 19, 2007 12:35:20 AM
Oh come on, everyone (including my grandma) knew Merv was gay. For like the last 40 years. I am more shocked that people thought he actually was IN the closet. Same thing went for Liberace, Elton John and Anthony Perkins. Everyone knew they were gay before they died.
Posted by: mervin | Aug 19, 2007 2:31:36 PM
sometimes i think we are pathetic, pissy, fussy, gross people.
and that makes ME want to crawl back in the closet. i don't want people thinking i am YOU.
not everyone has to live the life YOU WANT THEM TO LIVE. thank god for the activists, and thank god for the people who are out there and pushing, fighting for equality. but they shouldn't do it and then turn around and say YOU DON'T COUNT because YOU weren't there too.
everyone has their own story, their own weaknesses and fears, and their own strengths.
let merv alone. look in the mirror, bitches. so many of you are uptight, queenie and fussy prisses who walk around looking like they have a stick up their ass. and probably do.
Posted by: BC | Aug 20, 2007 9:33:41 PM
It took only a few hours after news circulated that entertainer and entrepreneur Merv Griffin had died (at 82, Sunday, in Los Angeles) for a drumbeat of wrath—yes, wrath—to begin on some of the Internet's fringe Web sites, where Griffin was assailed by various contributors for allegedly having been a "closeted" homosexual who should have announced he was gay to the world—though at which stage of his career he should have made the declaration was not specified.
Perhaps when he was a big-band singer in the '40s? Or a talk-show host from the '60s through the '80s? Perhaps when he emcee'd "Play Your Hunch" in the '50s. It would have been career suicide at any rate, but some of the angry voices implied Griffin should have gone public with his sexuality anyway—whatever it may have been.
Griffin—just "Merv" to the world—was married early in his career and had one son. In later decades rumors did indeed circulate about Griffin allegedly throwing gay parties and being escorted by handsome young men. Two lawsuits from men claiming Griffin essentially jilted them were dismissed.
Whatever, the vehemence and fury in the attacks was disheartening. "A bloated pig like that should burn in hell," wrote one anonymous assailant. Michelangelo Signorile, who runs a Web site called The Gist, wrote that Griffin could have helped prevent the AIDS epidemic if only he had spoken to his friends Ronald and Nancy Reagan about it, but that "it is highly unlikely" he ever did, preferring to remain "shockingly silent" even as "his own people were dying."
No benefit of a doubt for poor old Merv.
There were lots of allegations, virtually no documentation, and a discomfortingly virulent tone to many of the entries (one writer referred to the late star as "Perv Griffin"), but others wrote to defend Griffin and to say that his sexuality was his own business. A few noted that for Griffin to have declared himself gay during the period of his greatest success would likely have ended it, times and attitudes being what they were.
The Internet is rife with rantings from what sometimes sound like members of a lynch mob. In this case, one might think that victims of persecution would feel a tad more reluctant to persecute someone else, especially a recently deceased man.
It would, of course, be just as wrong ever to think that a vocal malicious minority is representative of any race, political party or sexual persuasion.
Or so let us hope.
-- Tom Shales
Posted by: Tom Shales | Aug 20, 2007 9:46:36 PM