The New York Post's gossip column didn't have much to base its conclusion that Ritchie had given the sleuthing tale a homoerotic backstory except for Downey's quote in the News of the World earlier this year that his Holmes and Law's Watson are "two men who happen to be roommates, wrestle a lot and share a bed. It's bad-ass."

That was apparently enough to put conservative radio host and family-friendly movie critic Michael Medved into a full-blown gay panic. "There's not a seething, bubbling hunger to see straight stars impersonating homosexuals. ... Who is going to want to see Downey Jr. and Law make out? I don't think it would be appealing to women. Straight men don't want to see it."

Well, we got a hold of a copy of a script to see just how gay it is, and to Medved's relief (or secret disappointment?) there're no scenes of Holmes and Watson going Brokeback. Our version is dated March 18, 2008, so it may not be the final, final revision. But the only explicit sex mentioned is a half-naked post-coital shot of Downey and Rachel McAdams in bed. That doesn't mean, of course, that Ritchie didn't direct his actors to give the Holmes-Watson dynamic some sexual tension. Here's the script's gayest moment — a scene that comes early in the movie when Watson tells Holmes that he's getting married. I could see how it could be played gay, but be your own judge.

Click images for a larger, more legible version

He is talking about how Senators are lonely, and desperate for love, or something.

You know, all three of us spend a lot of time covering politicians and I don't know about you guys, but in my view, they're all emotional freaks of one sort or another. They're guaranteed to invade your personal space, touch you. I sat next to a Republican senator once at dinner and he had his hand on my inner thigh the whole time. I was like, ehh, get me out of here.

And some people are like, "who is he talking about? Lindsey Graham? Mitch McConnell?" And other people are like he is such a sexist because he is freaked out by sexual harassment and that happens to ladies all the time and he doesn't care!

But, yeah, it really just seems like a really lame attempt at a gay panic joke of the sort that old straight dudes always think are funny. "One of those queers touched me once, it was gross!" And the fact that "Republican senator" can basically stand in for "one of those queers," in that joke, as made by a conservative columnist, is proof of how far we have come, as a nation.

I was expecting an interview on Austrian economics. So, that didn't turn out that way. But, by the time he started pulling his pants down, I ... What in (inaudible) is going on here? I ran out of the room. This interview has ended.

Now the libertarian hero to whackjobs everywhere is very sad that people make money with this raunchy lying-to-famous-people stuff, but he is even sadder that if this movie makes Sacha Baron Cohen any money he will have to pay taxes on it. :(

A flamboyant gay fashion reporter is probably the least embarrassing person Ron Paul's been associated with over the last year or so but try telling that to the 73-year-old Texas Representative. Sorry he didn't get you a blimp, Ron!

As you can see from the video, O'Reilly aired photos that appear to show Lambert kissing other men, an act so revoltingly gross and icky and offensive to O'Reilly's deeply, unfalteringly heterosexual being that he actually cropped the photos to cut out the parts where man-mouth touches man-mouth (ewww!).

Here is an actual photo with the below-the-nose business included, but be very careful and please don't look directly at it unless you are already a confirmed gay.

Also, here's some video that O'Reilly saw fit to air that included gyrating, bikini-clad drunk girls humping people during Spring Break.

The Wrap reports that the film—in which Baron Cohen plays gay Austrian fashion correspondent Bruno who talks about doing ickies with other men—got the basically-banned-from-theaters rating because, in part, the character "appears to have anal sex with a man on camera. In another, the actor goes on a hunting trip and sneaks naked into the tent of one of the fellow hunters, an unsuspecting non-actor."

Baron Cohen's previous outing with Universal, Borat, initially earned an NC-17 as well, but was re-edited and got its coveted R. That film had a famous naked men wrestling sequence, though it wasn't as overtly homocentric as Bruno butt fucking or going on a talk show to discuss same-sex parenting, adopted black baby in tow. The notoriously homo and dick-phobic ratings board just can't abide that. Baron Cohen has appealed and the film will go back to the editing room to try and come up with a more palatable version.

Meanwhile the gratuitous tits of a movie not trying to say anything at all except "Straight men! Whoo!" like the abysmal College sail comfortably under the radar. Boys will be boys, not do them.

Craig may never have uttered the words "wide stance" himself; that phrase came from a police report filed by Minnesota airport police officer Dave Karsnia, in a summary of Craig's explanation after his arrest. So let's relive this great moment in criminal history:

Image via Foundshit.com)

A TMZ.com story on the death of John Travolta's 16-year-old son, Jett, mentioned that he was found by family nanny Jeff Kathrein — but it didn't run a famous picture of Travolta kissing Kathrein.

In 2006, Kathrein and Travolta were caught by paparazzi locking lips. The Travolta camp's official explanation: Why, John kisses everyone like that! But in the wake of a teenager's death, no one stopped to ask who the man who found him dead is, and what his relationship was to the kid's father.

Kathrein is one of the Travolta family's two nannies. On his website, he describes himself as a photographer; he mostly lenses weddings. His qualifications for childcare are unclear, other than being a Scientologist like Jett's parents, John Travolta and Kelly Preston. Kathrein's wife, Ana, is also a Scientologist. (Some Scientology critics believe the church forces gays and lesbians to stay in the closet and pursue heterosexual relationships, frequently citing Travolta and Preston's marriage.)

Why the deference from TMZ, which is usually the standards-bearer of standards-lowering? Much remains mysterious about Jett Travolta's tragic death — and impolite questions ought to be asked. Isn't that what celebrity tabloids are good for?

Take the family's unchallenged assertion that he suffered from Kawasaki disease, an immunological syndrome which causes painful inflammation, after exposure to carpet-cleaning chemicals, and that he died after hitting his head after suffering a related seizure. At least one doctor disputes the notion, saying that there's no link between chemical exposure and Kawasaki disease and that it does not cause seizures.

Jett may have suffered instead from autism which went untreated, because of Travolta's adherence to the cultlike religion of Scientology and the bizarre beliefs about mental illness that go with it. And if Travolta hired Kathrein for reasons other than the best interests of his child? That only makes it worse.

The TMZ story, with a grainy photo of Travolta and Kathrein buried in the lower right-hand corner:

And the 2006 National Enquirer story which ran both an innocent-seeming photo of Travolta and Kathrein talking, and the two locking lips:

Of course, the reporter who first published New York State Senator Diaz's "they're going to see exactly what we can do" rant is Liz Benjamin of the Daily News, not the Post's octogenarian gossip doyenne Liz Smith. (Benjamin, in addition to being 100 years younger than Smith, is a brunette.)

FYI, here were Diaz's remarks:

"The gays are calling my office. They're jamming my phones. They're going to see what we can do. They've going to see exactly what we can do. Ed Koch is going to see what we can do. They're just going to see. That is what I'm telling you."

And here is his clarification:

For the Record

I need to state exactly what I told Liz Benjamin from the NY Daily News this past Tuesday evening because some of the important facts that I told her were not reported:

I told Liz Smith that the gay community has been jamming my office phone line and making threats to me and my staff. I told her that I am very angry that my office has received phone calls threatening my life and calling the women on my staff “whores” and “bitches”. I told her that to add to those names, Ed Koch called us rats.

I told Liz that the only rat is Ed Koch. I told her that when he was Mayor and was rejected in my community, the only person who stood by him was this rat, and that now this rat is good no more. I told her that I am so angry that because of their calls and editorial boards and because of the insulting Koch statement, there is nothing else that they can do to us or say to us, and that they will see what we can do.

That, my friends, was the basis of my anger, not because the gay community is jamming my phone lines. I am an elected official and I am an old man, and they can do this any time. It was the content of their calls that made me angry. I welcome people to call my office - but with respect to me and to my staff.

When I told Liz that they will see what we can do, this was not at all meant to be a physical threat. As far as what we can do, we have many options, which include: going to the Republican Party, staying neutral to create an impasse, or going to the Democratic Party.

So that is the whole story, and I hope it will set the record straight, for good or for bad.

Yes, sure. That clarifies everything! He was furious because Malcolm Smith and the Albany Senate Democrats refused to cave on their principled support for gay marriage and let him be the majority leader, so he told the gays, and Ed Koch, that "they'll see what we can do" as an explanation that he and his colleagues have many options open to them, not as an open threat to fuck over the gay community. Also, he is very old, so you shouldn't be mean to him.

Obama did kinda promise to end "Don't Ask Don't Tell," the old Clinton compromise, while he was campaigning. Now that he's won, he knows that governing requires not doing what is ethically right but politically difficult. Or at least holding off on doing it. So, gays, look for your right to die for your country to be granted some time in 2010, as long as a special Pentagon committee and the Joint Chiefs of Staff all agree that your serving in uniform won't make the uniform all faggy and gross.

Mr. Sarvis said not to look for the debate to begin until late next year or 2010.

"What's the reality for the new administration?" he said. "Financial crisis. Economic upheaval. Health care reform. Environmental challenges. Where does 'don't ask, don't tell' fall in all this? I would say it is not in the top five priorities of national issues."

Man, that darn economy! You just can't get anything completely unrelated to it done while it's sitting there cratering like that!

(This is all according to the dodgy Washington Times, of course, and their sources are just some informal Obama advisors, so it is not actually really "news" in any way.)