It's because they Hate Gays, there is no other reason

Here's a timely tidbit:

News organizations ignore gay filmmaker’s sexual orientation
Obituaries for Ismail Merchant mostly silent on 44-year gay relationship

Ok, so are people supposed to constantly point out and advertise people's sexual preferences (essentially separate from everyone else), or is that supposed to be none of anyone else's business and treated the same for everyone? It has to be one or the other--now I'm not even sure what gay activists are aiming for. Because it's pretty confusing seeing two conflicting messages, if I understand correctly. Of course, there could be conflicting opinions among gay activists themselves, so that could explain it. So the guy was gay--who cares? What's the big deal? It's not like that was his biggest life achievement--talk about that instead. I didn't read much of that article but it seems silly to me.

It's the same with disabled people--should it be ignored as much as possible (treat them identical to everyone) or simply accepted (often talked about and acknowledged)? What is considered the "right" (non-rude) thing?

His life partner was also his collaborator. If it had been a husband/wife team, it would have been a curious omission to mention their working relationship without any mention of their personal relationship. The wishes of the deceased and his survivors must be taken into account, and perhaps they didn't want sexual orientation to detract from the man's body of work. But it just seems... off kilter.

If the obituaries are silent, they are probably respecting the wishes of Merchant and his family. His orientation might have coloured his work, but it was after all, not a really big part of his life. He never used his notoriety for a bully pulpit, nor should he be expected to - any more than you would expect Scott McClellan to do the same.

Exactly, that's what I found curious. Perhaps it was Merchant's wish that his sexual orientation not be included in his obit, but even that raises a question about the cultural pressures that might have led him to that decision (if, in fact, that was an explicit request -- at least one major publication made mention of his "life partner".

The main reason that I thought this issue appropriate for inclusion in the discussion was really to demonstrate that the gay community still has to censor itself to appease the mainstream. Let's say we go along with Miss Ellie's argument about foregoing the use of the term "marriage" when referring to gay unions. Wouldn't that, even subtly, coerce gays into a less-than-equal societal position?

To address Garoad's confusion, I think it's an entirely different matter for third parties to "call out" one's sexual orientation. What we're really talking about, here, is the perpetuation of a societally sanctioned closeted lifestyle that may lead individuals to make shame-based decisions about even the most benign matters. Even if the opacity is being lifted, there is still a solid "door" on the closet keeping gays on the "other side" of the societal fence.

In a world with ever-more deadly ways to express disapproval of somebody else's culture or lifestyle, the alternative to tolerence is extinction.

Ahhh, that explains something. Still, for the reason you mention (wishes of the deceased and such)--it may not be a simple "media coverup". Why would they do that, anyway? If they're doing it there has to be a reason--I can't think of any.

Imperceptible/assumptive cultural bias, perhaps?

So you mean they omitted it, thinking it wasn't really a big deal? Yeah, I could believe that I suppose.

I meant that cultural biases and pre-suppositions may be so deeply ingrained that it wouldn't even require a "cover-up" or "conspiracy" for such omissions to occur; it's just part of a mass-scale unconscious competency.

His family does live in Pakistan, after all. They still behead homosexuals there, so maybe everyone wished to avoid the stigma and embarrassment that would happen there, rather than in this country.