Remember when Jewish groups attacked The Passion of the Christ because they thought it made Jews look bad? They weren't winning themselves any fans among Christians. Rather than advance their cause, in the end they really only made themselves look petty and sad. What they accomplished was to engender resentment among the very people they were so worried about seeing them in a bad light. They weren't doing themselves any favors.
Gay groups like GLAAD are now on their way now to accomplishing the same thing. They're openly attacking film critics who don't review Brokeback Mountain in a way that they feel is acceptable. Now, they're demanding an apology from critic Gene Shalit, for his review of the film in which he describes Jake Gyllenhaal's character as a "sexual predator". GLAAD says, "Shalit`s bizarre characterization of Jack as a `predator` and Ennis as a victim reflects a fundamental lack of understanding about the central relationship in the film and about gay relationships in general." So apparently they aren't just activists now, they're film critics.
Whether Shalit is wrong or right is irrelevant. That's his opinion of a specific character in a specific film. Being gay doesn't mean that no one can say anything bad about that character. His comments aren't hateful nor are they homophobic, though in their "call to action" GLAAD describes them as "anti-gay". But Shalit's comments speak to the structure of the film he saw and they have nothing to do with his view of gays in general. In fact, Shalit's son is openly gay, and if the 1997 piece he wrote for The Advocate on the subject here is any indicator, they have a stellar relationship.
But he shouldn't need a gay son to justify his review of the film, nor should he have to apologize for it. You're not doing yourself any favors GLAAD. You make yourself and those of us who support gay-rights look pretty bad. It's nice to preach tolerance, but it's meaningless if you don't practice it yourself.
