Did you folks see the Golden Globe Awards ceremony last week? I did, and must say I for one found the program not only entertaining, but educational. I guess I never fully appreciated the fact that it is now acceptable to discriminate on the basis of a group’s sexual preference. Did you? Well apparently it is. Last week it was obvious that many Globers had selflessly taken it upon themselves to transform what I thought was supposed to be a sexual-orientation-neutral ceremony into a “Hollywood-coming-out-of-the-closet” party. How precious is that?

When I turned it on (excuse the pun), I only expected to watch another semi-boring, run-of-the-mill tribute to narcism. You know, the typical self-congratulatory ego-fest where – as the camera pans the losers’faces hoping to catch a grimace, if not an actual snarl – winners take the stage to thank, if not their hamsters, ... their moms, their children and their astrologers, and then proceed to thank a mind-numbing list of industry colleagues known only to them – when in fact we know that what the winner is really thinking is, “Boy, after tonight are the people in this room who didn’t help me when I needed them the most going to have to kiss my butt from now on, or what?” Like I said, however, this year’s ceremony was different.

Highlights of the evening included one star from Will & Grace boldly informing us that movies and television shows can’t possibly be made without gay people; information provided as a subtext of a more general tribute to the series about gay life in which he stars. Then, later, yet another actress seemed to want to dedicate much of her award to the same group, informing the audience how much she admired (and I paraphrase) people who have the courage to remain true to who they are, even when it means their having to put themselves out there on the outer frontiers of what is considered by the mainstream in our culture to be socially acceptable. Tributes such as these, however, merely served as the foundation to what appeared throughout the program to be an overall desire by many in the room to encourage the unenlightened viewers in “middle-America” to accept Hollywood’s finding that this was the year a movie about gay sheepherders was really the only obvious choice to win award after award throughout the evening, including those for the year’s Best Director, Best Screenplay and Best Drama.

Before we continue, let me be clear about my position. I have no problem with any of this, if that is what the enlightened in Hollywood choose to do, except one. Hollywood’s commitment this year to pay tribute to a particular group’s sexual orientation and allowing that to appear to be the basis upon which who should win awards was decided seems to me to set a double standard that is difficult to reconcile, when the rest of us are prohibited by law from making any of our decisions on that same basis.

To see this point more clearly, suspend your disbelief for a moment and assume that somehow everybody in the world has seen Brokeback Mountain. Further, assume that afterwards they all unanimously agree, by far, that it is not only the best movie to have been released in 2005, but in fact, is also clearly the best movie to have been made since the dawn of creation. But, now also further assume that at the Golden Globes it wins NO AWARDS in any category, and, that when asked, the only reason given by the Globers for their decision was because the sheepherders in the movie were gay, and that was a sexual preference they refused to endorse. Can you imagine the outcry that would ensue? While some Hollywooders would be urging that the Globers be tarred and feathered, others would be found crying, “These Glober bigots can’t discriminate like that. Why, the movie’s sexual orientation theme should have nothing to do with their decision.” And that is my point exactly.

What’s the difference between the discrimination of the hypothetical Globers and that of the Globers we witnessed last week? In both instances, their same sexual orientation bias led them to discriminate as to who would (and, perhaps just as importantly, who would not) be awarded Golden Globes. The only distinction I can find appears to be that in the case of the Globers we watched last week, their bias was politically correct, and thus, apparently acceptable.

So what’s the point? It is this. If our society’s goal (as I assume it is for some) is to eventually remove the smear of sexual orientation discrimination from our midst, then would it not have been preferable for the Globers to have shown the world that they had given the Best Movie award to the movie that in fact was the best movie of the year? Instead, they left the unenlightened in “middle-America” with the impression that the movie that did get the award was chosen solely on the basis of the very discrimination Hollywood claims to abhor. Rarely does a display of such blatant hypocrisy endear anybody to one’s cause. In fact, by the end of the show many across America probably felt like they had been assaulted. In their minds, the ceremony was more than just a “Hollywood-coming-out-of-the-closet” party. It was at the same time a “Hollywood-in-your-face” party being hurled at them in complete disregard to their personal feelings, beliefs and morals. Thus, in the end the Globers may have accomplished only further alienating the “middle-America” they had hoped to enlighten. In short, if, in fact, Brokeback Mountain deserved the awards it received, I think the Globers went about it in a way that did a diservice to all concerned, and to that, all I can say is, “Good going Globers”.

© 2005 Clifford C. Nichols, Esq.

Cliff Nichols is an attorney practicing criminal defense/entertainment law in Santa Monica, California. He may be contacted regarding this editorial at either (310) 917-1083, cliff@cliffnicholslaw.com or www.cliffnicholslaw.com and you may join his blog at www.thedailystand.com