So, he’s saying Mephisto made MJ a dude?

Well, *that* would be an interesting twist to the Jackpot mystery.

Whatever, I'm pro gay marriage and anti-BND, so I guess Guggenheim's formula works!

Was that ACTUALLY Wacker stepping in just to defend a non-sensical statement? Seriously?

Well, if you've read an interview with Wacker, it read exactly like him.

UNLESS someone else actually goes even further to take those statements seriously and deride the people who make them while at the same time defending the original statement that was so stupid in the first place.

Well, I think he was doing a bit of damage control - you know, 'yeah, that was a really silly thing to say, but we all know it was, so it lets just let it go' kind of thing... I think he's had to do a lot of damage control due to the old guys since taking over, that he just wants to keep moving instead of worrying about a silly comment from one of the writers.

Of course, I wonder who Marc thinks he'll win over with that comment, especially as he's working at the comic book company where gay heroes must be in MAX books... not necessarily the right company to be arguing for gay rights...
(If that's what he was trying to say...)

And what about people who are pro-civil union but anti-defacto?
Where are they left right now?
(And lets face it, if the internet has taught us anything, those people exist).

I wonder were that fits in with Guggenheim's theory.

Maybe he's just trying to pull a "Millar" and just saying whatever he thinks will get people talking on the internet.

*going back to not caring*

Our New York does not. If "Marvel" New York does, then it must recognize common law marriage after living together for only a few years... which certainly must create a lot of legal problems in the Marvel U. Thank god for She-Hulk and Daredevil...

Anyway, I'm spending too much time thinking about this.

Plus Guggenheim's comment ignores all the other non-marriage-related changes brought on by BND. I don't think Harry living in Europe is covered under any kind of civil union, regardless of sexual orientation.

And even if they had, only if New York recognizes common law marriage.

I am so confused about…all of this. Can we just read comics we like and not read comics we don’t like? It works pretty well for me.

Oh brother, chill out Chicken Little, the sky is hardly falling. Go to the front page and there are tons of posts on comics people like. Why do we have to be Pollyannas 100% of the time, occasionally talking about comics we don't like works for some of us here too.

Not to get too far off-topic, but I just read the Wikipedia article on the Clone Saga and now I see why readers hate it. I must have missed a lot of it. Sorry for being clueless. Show your support for “Brand New Day” by helping save the Amazon rainforest, everyone.

Ah shit. I've been going down there every weekend with a hacksaw and a blowtorch.

I'm so confused.

I'm so confused now.....

Because nothing's more pathetic than someone making a stupid statement via the internet... unless it's people wasting their time griping about it... UNLESS someone else actually goes even further to take those statements seriously and deride the people who make them while at the same time defending the original statement that was so stupid in the first place.

If that's actually Wacker, then screw him, I'll drop Amazing Spider-Man, which I was just starting to get into, and excited about, especially the upcoming Dematteis, Waid, and Stern issues. Although I seriously doubt that was actually him.

As a homosexual male who is in support of gay marriage or unions or whatever States decide to do, but also in support of the Spidey and MJ marriage, I'm thoroughly confused as to whether or not I should stand behind my original decision to not buy or read what I feel is storytelling tripe.

Should I just continue to ignore the Spider-books, then?

Reason #2456 why Comics Should Be Good is the best blog that I read: Kelson, who has a Flash blog, drops a South Park reference to show just how illogical a statement by a Spider-Man writer is. It's like putting pop culture in a blender.

With that said... while I respect Wacker for coming on and defending Guggenheim, the point stands that the statement Guggenheim made was incredibly laughable.

Again... I'm really tired of the Spider-Man writers/editors defending the BND changes. It's done and over with -- if some fans haven't accepted it now, they either never will or will come back when the stories interest them again. Wasn't the whole intention of BND was to start a newer, better era of Spider-Man stories? Then why are we still talking about the old era?

Man... if only the internet was around during the 1986 Superman reboot. "If you don't like the Byrne Superman reboot, well, that means you support Reaganomics."