Comments on: New Sign at Marvel: "Homosexual Stars Not Allowed"

By: Adultrn

Adultrn — Sat, 18 Nov 2006 12:34:56 +0000

By: Adultts

Adultts — Fri, 17 Nov 2006 10:33:27 +0000

By: kelvingreen

kelvingreen — Mon, 21 Aug 2006 18:51:18 +0000

I have to agree with Graeme. It seems like gay characters ar only okay at Marvel now because they're okay at DC.

By: Graeme Burk

Graeme Burk — Mon, 21 Aug 2006 14:33:59 +0000

Leaving aside the fact that I don't think Freedom Ring or Batwoman are exactly leading the vanguard of furthering gay rights, I think the whole thing smacks of opportunism and makes me highly pessimistic of Marvel's motives. Marvel in my view did a great thing with the Rawhide Kid series (it's one of the, forgive the pun, cheekier things they did in the Bill and Joe era). But there's a backlash, so suddenly it's "no gay characters headlining unless it's a Max book". Then Batwoman gets all the print space for a while, DC looks great in the New York Times and it's "Oh, hey, we're all for having gay characters headlining books...um...yeah, we have, er, there's Freedom Ring in Marvel Team Up. Yeah, only about six or seven appearances in a team up book where he's relegated to a recurring character/ongoing plot for the teamed-up heroes to encounter, and it's going to get cancelled in about a month. But yep, yes, we have a gay character as a title character. In a book actually titled Marvel Team Up." At least this will be Marvel's stand until the wind blows in another direction.

By: FunkyGreenJerusalem

FunkyGreenJerusalem — Mon, 21 Aug 2006 09:53:11 +0000

That's fine - I only boycotted because they said they wouldn't do it.
If Joe Q had said "Marvel has no problem with a gay character having their own book" and then never publishing one, that would have been ok.

I only boycott because of what he said, to try and show that even tolerating bigotry was bigotry.
It's just a shame more people didn't do the same - then there would have been a proper apology.

By: markus

markus — Mon, 21 Aug 2006 09:05:47 +0000

err Funky, you do realise that the only thing that has changed is that Marvel decided it's not wise to have a public pro-bigotry stance? It's not as if any major character starring his or her own title actually was gay.
And I'm fairly sure it won't happen.

By: FunkyGreenJerusalem

FunkyGreenJerusalem — Mon, 21 Aug 2006 04:35:47 +0000

Yay!

I can finally end my boycott!

By: Brian Cronin

Brian Cronin — Sun, 20 Aug 2006 22:38:04 +0000

Ha! That's pretty funny, Andrew.

I guess I'll just try to avoid using strikethroughs in titles in the future.

By: Andrew Wickliffe

Andrew Wickliffe — Sun, 20 Aug 2006 20:04:01 +0000

Just so you guys know... your RSS feed, nor your html subject line, picks up the crossing out line... so this article reads "Homosexual Stars Not Allowed," which I found somewhat confusing, since I'd read the Joe Friday thing.

By: hostile17

hostile17 — Sun, 20 Aug 2006 19:35:44 +0000

The truth is that there have been gay characters in comic books for a very long time, in both of the big companies. The media just latched onto the "Batwoman is gay" sound bite as the topic of the week and once that happens, exposure in the mainstream follows. I do think that it is about time that the gay issue fades away from comics, but then again, I find comic books more progressive in some respects than some newspapers and other forms of media.

By: Evan Waters

Evan Waters — Sun, 20 Aug 2006 18:04:18 +0000

I can't recall how, but I think this issue came up a bit in the week or so preceding this column, with more bloggers and forum posters commenting on how it was a very stupid thing. Also, DC's had the "gay Batwoman" thing in the interim- sure, she isn't going to be the star of her own book either, but it does make DC look more progressive, so maybe it's just a rush to catch up.