This interesting way to twist and spin things around is something that politicians like Marco Rubio have turned into an art form. At least I hope that's what it is because if he really believes this nonsense we're all in a lot of trouble. In short, at least from what I can gather from this link, Rubio claims that just because someone is not supportive of gay marriage that doesn't make him/her anti-gay. I've heard this convoluted logic before. I'll comment below.
'I promise you even before this speech is over I’ll be attacked as a hater or a bigot or someone who is anti-gay.
'This intolerance in the name of tolerance is hypocrisy. Support for the definition of marriage as one man and one woman is not anti-gay, it is pro-traditional marriage.'
He added: 'Today there is a growing intolerance on this issue, intolerance for those who continue to support traditional marriage.'
He is claiming that those who are supportive of gay marriage are the most intolerant even though they claim to be fighting for tolerance. I know. It reads as confusing as it was to write.
However, this is where the spin comes in. Gay marriage is NOT about tolerance or intolerance, not at the most basic level. Gay marriage is about equal rights, giving equal rights to US citizens who have been denied the same basic equal rights that heteronormative couples have always had. Gay marriage is not about God or religion. Last I heard we're living in a country that is supposed to know the difference between church and state. I just believe in equal rights, the same equal rights that allow someone to practice a religion or marry the person they love. It wasn't that long ago when interracial marriages were illegal in many states. Or, even worse, when women were not allowed to vote.
I also think this is why the Republican party should really reconsider its so-called star players in the next general election. People like Marco Rubio are going to turn off gay Republicans, moderate Republicans, and younger Republicans.
And, for the record, I don't think Rubio is a hater or bigot or someone who is anti-gay. I doubt that the gay Republicans I know would feel that way either. Or the Republicans who have sons, daughters, mothers or fathers who are gay. I just think Marco Rubio is trying to be clever with an issue that's already won the popular vote in the most recent polls and he's choking the same way he choked after the last State of the Union Address. You'd think a guy would learn the first time around.
There's more here.
Nathan Lane on Gayface
It seems that actor, Nathan Lane, whom I've always known to play the most stereotypical gay roles in films, claims he's thrilled to see straight actors play gay roles. He's also played straight roles and he's thankful that he had a chance to do this. I'm not disagreeing with him completely. I just think he's leaving a great deal out.
Lane said this:
‘We just had ‘The Normal Heart’ [with] Mark Ruffalo, fantastic job. I think who’s right for the part and most talented [should get the part],’ Lane said, according to Salon.com.
‘That way only madness lies … I wouldn’t have played Nathan Detroit or Max Bialystock [if I'd only been allowed to play gay characters],’ Lane said, referring to characters he performed in Guys and Dolls and The Producers.
I praised Mark Ruffalo more than anyone else in The Normal Heart. Mark Ruffalo carried that film and made it great. I have nothing but praise for Mark Ruffalo. But it's not just as simple as who plays gayface and who plays straight. It goes much deeper than that and my post yesterday about the GLAAD survey where Hollywood has failed gays so far is a good example of this. It's trendy and fascinating for Matt Damon to play gayface, and even though he did a great job no one complains when he laughs at kissing a guy after he finishes a role. But when Matt Bomer was up for the part of Christian Grey in Fifty Shades of Grey it was a completely different story. I posted about that many times.
I'm not even going to mention the fact that so many gay men in Hollywood are terrified to come out, still, for fear they won't get the parts straight actors get. And I'm not talking about "straight" parts in musical theater like the ones Lane plays. I agree with Lane that sexuality really should NOT be an issue when it comes to acting in a film, however, when they even the score and give openly gay actors the same chances they give straight actors I'll agree with Lane. But right now, as it stands, Hollywood has a long way to go on this issue.
There's more here.
More Simon Cowell
Last week I posted about Tulisa making statements that Simon Cowell is allegedly gay. I didn't believe it then, and I followed up with a post about Simon Cowell responding to these allegations. And I'm thrilled to announce that I was right, and Simon Cowell is not gay. But the underlying message here is important to consider.
This is what Tulisa said recently:
Varey released a statement of apology on Wednesday (23 July) saying that 'in the course of seeking to entrap Tulisa, the reporter, Mazher Mahmood, supplied Tulisa, him and others with a lot of alcohol.
'I can no longer recall all of the details of that evening but I have listened to the recording made by Mahmood. I was clearly very drunk. 'At some point and utterly out of the blue Mahmood asked me if Simon Cowell was gay. I said he was.
This is not true. I do not know why I said it, but assume it is because I was so drunk and felt that I was giving Mahmood the type of information he was seeking. I am very sorry for this.'
The issue shouldn't be about whether or not Simon Cowell is gay, because there should be no shame whatsoever attached to being gay. It shouldn't sound as if it were a drunken accusation...or a slur. There should be no apologies offered in a way that makes it sound as if there's something wrong with being gay. Maybe I'm reading too much into this, but that's how it sounds to me.
There's more here.
In Cowell's defense, he did make his own statements that sound much better than the apology:
‘In 2014 the question of whether someone is or is not gay is antiquated. As it happens he isn't, though if he were, he would simply have said so.
‘However, the issue was the false suggestion made by Mr Varey that Simon - who is renowned for his honesty and candidness - had thus not been truthful in the public arena and this is what we have been obliged to clarify.’
To put this in another perspective think about how I might react if someone in a drunken state who wanted to get even with me said I was straight. I'd smile and ignore it completely. I wouldn't think of it as an accusation or a slur. I wouldn't feel the need to defend myself with a reply. I would kiss my husband and dismiss it completely.
Here's more about what Cowell said.
Small Town Romance Writer
by Ryan Field