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:
Comments
You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.
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