Adam has an amazing vocal range and a falsetto so rich in quality that it is imperceptibly different from his chest voice.  His incredible ability to control his vocals enables him to hold his high notes seemingly forever.  His versatility is unmatched in “Idol” history.  With the arguable exception of country music (his rendition of “Ring of Fire” received strong emotional reactions both pro and con, as it was more like Johnny Cash doing Goth music with Middle Eastern undertones), Adam excels in every genre of music.  He sings soulful ballads to pop to heavy metal and glam rock, all with ease, style, and pitch-perfect tone.

Week in and week out, other “Idol” contestants appeared on stage in sneakers and T-shirts without sets or lighting design, all of which are in the contestants’ control.  But enter Adam, and the show began!  One could criticize his attire (and did!) but every week Adam came with an outfit, sets, lighting, and moves that fit his song choice and made his performances both unpredictable and more entertaining.  He’s not just a singer; he’s the whole performance package.

Unfortunately, talent has not always been the focus of commentary on Adam.  Rumor has it that some on the Christian-right refused to vote for Adam because of his ambiguous sexual orientation.  Explicit photos of him making out with other men, attending the Burning Man (an annual event in Nevada which constitutes an experiment in community, radical self-expression, and radical self-reliance), and occasionally dressing in drag, detracted from his deserved praise.  Supposedly, Kris Allen’s church pastor urged “all believers” to vote for Kris (though Kris emphatically objected to votes based on religion).  Additionally, “Idol” contestant Danny Gokey, who touted his Christianity, had a similar performance style to Kris’.  His devout following likely swung in favor of Kris once Danny was booted off the show.

Many deemed it unpalatable if not morally wrong to deny Adam his hard earned votes based on sexual orientation.  This should have no place in the “Idol” competition.  As Kris explained, this was supposed to be a competition about singing, not a vote for the presidency.

Yet, as soon as the winner was announced and the finale was over, the left-wing media started bashing Adam for not being gay enough.  Adam has admitted that the explicit photos were of him, and he has not been at all shy about anything including his sexuality. (To date, interviewers have beaten around the bush and have not put the “gay question” to him directly.)  But neither has Adam made his sexuality a political issue…at least thus far.  Still, the photos and Adam’s behavior, which are about as “out” as can be, still leave some dissatisfied.  As is often the case with leftists, words are more important than actions, and one isn’t truly “out” until he mouths the words “I’m gay.”  Adam hasn’t done this and thus will suffer the wrath of leftist activists.

No sooner had he walked off the stage than criticism has befallen him — not for his performances, which were controversial but fair game, but for his alleged “silence” on his sexuality.  Indeed, Entertainment Weekly Online dedicated four whole pages to chastising him for failing to announce his orientation.  But, making one’s private life fodder for public consumption seems to be something the gay community does often.  In the recently released film “Outrage,” the filmmaker assumed that if he outed gay Republicans, they would change their votes on gay marriage.  The presumption seems to be that gay marriage is the world’s most pressing issue, and everyone who is gay should prioritize this about all else.  To hell with national security, the arts, or whatever else one might be interested in.

Adam has acknowledged feeling pressure from some quarters to use his sexuality and “alternativeness” to influence how America views related social issues.  Contrary to helping those in the gay community, they are doing Adam and the gay community a disservice.  By pressuring Adam to act differently than his straight counterparts, they separate him out rather than allow him to integrate and be accepted as equal.  They are also denying him the right to define himself as he wants to be defined and decide for himself how his talents will be used.

It is unlikely that at age three when Adam starting singing around the house, or at age ten when he first began musical theater, that his goal was to achieve success as a vehicle for gay rights activism.  Why does everyone who is gay have to represent a political cause?  Why can’t Adam just be a singer and an entertainer like other artists?  Both those who withheld votes because Adam’s gay and those who are bashing him for not being gay enough, insist on defining Adam by his sexual orientation.  But Adam clearly defines himself by his music.

Politics aside, it is apparent that Adam is not going to be a flash-in-the-pan like previous “Idol” contenders.  Adam was the only reason to watch the cheesy show this season.  My prediction is that he is destined to be a national star, if not international.  Offers are already pouring in, and there’s talk of him touring with Queen, being courted for Broadway leads, and making his own CD’s.  Refusing to be boxed into a specific genre as most record labels demand, his first album promises to range from pop to rock to funk with innovative electronics.  Additionally, he hopes to do corollary theatrical performances.  His goal is to fill an artistic niche of theatrical pop music which is currently female-dominated on the scene, and largely devoid of male artists.  It is Adam’s artistic expression and personal style that make him notable, not his sexual orientation.  If he does have a political message, it’s one of personal empowerment for anyone who might not fit the mold…sexuality aside.

Those making social criticism of Adam based on his sexuality — one way or the other — should apologize.  I myself owe him an apology for using his orientation in the title of this article.  However, I doubt if he cares much about any of this.  Adam is all about the music, and I’m sure he’s too busy singing to pay this any mind.

Written and directed by Kirby Dick, “Outrage” holds itself up as a serious-minded expose on the hypocrisy of supposed gay politicians who, from within the hypocritical, self-loathing confines of a straight closet, make life difficult for the gay community through a self-hatred which manifests as votes against same-sex marriage, civil unions, gay adoption, and the like.

But the film’s not really about that.

“Outrage” is really about “Outrage.” Rarely does the narrative deviate from droning talking heads plucked primarily from the gay activist community to rationalize why it’s justifiable and even important for “Outrage” to out individuals using the worst kind of rumor mongering and speculation into their private lives.

The goal of “Outrage” is not to enlighten as to what it is to live a lie or even to engage in a discussion on same-sex marriage. The goal is the settling of scores and to further cement Democrat dominance through the character assassination of a number of prominent Republican lawmakers. Oh sure, a predictable fig-leaf of “fairness” arrives in the form of a Democrat, but that this sole target with a “D” after his name has long since retired and supported both Bush and the war in Iraq is no coincidence.

“Outrage” is what you call a leftist loss leader; where a bunch of Hollywoodists drop a few million dollars they know they’ll never recover (so far, the film’s grossed less than $33,000) hoping that with the help of a willing liberal media and conservative outrage an “important discussion” will begin — which really means poisoning the mainstream news cycle with character assassination talking points.

Thus far, for the most part, the mainstream news media’s resisted grabbing this tiger by the tail. Those few outlets doing Dick’s dirty bidding are laughably using the old “This story is about how the news media is covering the story…” trick, with a side order of, “Oh and they claim so-and-so is gay.” Wisely, we righties haven’t come close to swallowing such obvious bait.

But that may be because it’s difficult to get indignant over such a silly movie that’s best described as the Inspector Clouseau of leftist hit pieces. Dick’s evidence is downright comical. Various men, many hidden in shadow, describe their stolen sexual moments with the famous “hypocrites.” One witness – and I’m barely paraphrasing here – says, “After his orgasm he threatened to destroy me if I told anyone.”

And that’s the best of the evidence. The rest is second and third hand accounts of conversations. But the most absurd “gayness evidence” is the use of the gayest photographs available of the various targets. Give Dick credit. Like Ken Burns preparing “The Civil War,” he and his team must have spread out across the country to cull through thousands of photos and then gathered with their best finds in order to choose final cuts based on such factors as “the limpness of the wrist.” The cruelest homophobe couldn’t have found meaner-spirited photos to ridicule these individuals and after a while, the very small (around 20 people on opening night in the heart of leftist Hollywood), sympathetic audience I was with started to laugh out loud at the sight of them.

And let’s face it, if any one of us were photographed as often as most modern-day politicians, now and again we’d all be caught in what you might call a “heterosexually-challenged moment.”  

At times you wonder if “Outrage” isn’t the most subversive of comedies. What we have here is a film posing as a moral crusade with Barney Frank and former New Jersey Governor Jim McGreevey as its conscience.

Writer/Director Kirby Dick

The high point, however, arrives when “Outrage” brazenly violates its very own rules. Dick’s License to Out, so his film tells us (ad nauseum), is provided by the same tired excuse the left always summons to destroy innocent individuals: perceived hypocrisy. You see, because these supposed gay men are not towing the gay activist line, this presumably justifies outing them (based on no actual evidence). The unceasing drumbeat is, “This isn’t about outing, this is about hypocrisy,”  and yet after nearly an hour of drilling this into our skulls, Dick violates his own standard and “outs” a popular Fox News personality. Not a conservative one, mind you, not someone who can be tagged with this ridiculous definition of a hypocrite, just a guy who does straight news – if you’ll pardon the expression.

Being shocked or appalled by this glaring double standard or anything else having to do with “Outrage” is like being shocked and appalled at being shot at on the battlefield. Like much of Hollywood and almost all of the news media, Dick’s not interested in truth, fairness, moral clarity, making a profit, or a lasting legacy as a serious artist. This is rough and tumble, no holds-barred ideological warfare and anyone on our side who stands wide-eyed wondering why the other side isn’t following the rules needs to wake up and look around at the casualties who were similarly wide-eyed.

Now, I’m not gay, and other than the warm, wonderful feeling I get in my stomach at the sight of a blond Brad Pitt in “Legends of the Fall,” I have no idea what it’s like to be gay. But were I, the only outrage I’d feel would be at those furthering the conventional wisdom that your sexuality is tied to your politics. There’s absolutely nothing hypocritical about being homosexual and standing by a tradition that dates back thousands of years, or thinking that maybe a child is best served being raised in a household with a mommy and a daddy.

Seems to me there’s more room to be true to yourself in the closet than on Kirby Dick’s ideological plantation.

If those in the closet were attempting to write or enforce sodomy laws or lock up homosexuals, that really would be hypocrisy. But this isn’t the case, and while the film claims their targeted lawmakers voted against laws in favor of gay civil unions and increases in AIDS research, no context is offered. Were those votes based on larger bills found unacceptable? Did any of these individuals ever vote in favor of these issues in better bills? The film never says so and knowing nothing terrifies the left like context, you can color me skeptical.

How boorish, poorly executed, and clumsily obvious is “Outrage?”

It should’ve been called: “John Kerry Mentions Mary Cheney is Gay: The Movie.”

UPDATE: Can’t believe I forgot to mention that at no point in the film does Dick mention that President Obama along with Bill and Hillary Clinton oppose gay marriage. Not once is Bill Clinton’s signature on the Defense of Marriage Act brought up.