Iconic? Yes, but not in the way many expected.

DC Comics made it official: the character they teased (shamelessly) as being gay under the new revamped “52” reboot is Green Lantern Alan Scott, who in the previous continuity was the Golden Age version of the Green Lantern character. In the New 52 continuity, [...]]]>

Iconic? Yes, but not in the way many expected.

DC Comics made it official: the character they teased (shamelessly) as being gay under the new revamped “52” reboot is Green Lantern Alan Scott, who in the previous continuity was the Golden Age version of the Green Lantern character. In the New 52 continuity, he’s a character in the present that exists only on “Earth 2,” which is an alternate reality Earth that revamps but is not to be confused with “Earth-Two,” the old version of Earth where the Golden Age characters resided that was combined with Earth-One (DC’s primary Earth) in 1985’s Crisis on Infinite Earths.

Got all that?

Probably not, unless you’ve been a comic fan for a long time. And that’s the problem.

Look, it’s great that they have a gay character. Actually, let me rephrase that: it’s about goddamn time somebody did it and acknowledged that it’s something that should be seen as acceptable in today’s society. But to tease that it’s going to be an iconic character and then make it an alternate version of a character living on an alternate Earth? To the mainstream casual observer, it’s going to look like a cop-out.

It speaks to the problem that DC and Marvel has when it comes to everything they do that’s related to the actual comics themselves: they cater to an older and shrinking base of fanboys that excludes a larger potential base. I personally don’t think their press release announcing the “iconic character” was written with the intent to deceive. No, the problem is that the guys in charge over there are fanboys themselves who seem to write and speak only in fanboy. You see it in the comics and you even see it in the press releases. To them, Alan Scott is an iconic character on par with Superman, Green Lantern, The Flash, and so on, and they don’t and won’t understand why the people they sent the press release to won’t understand or get it and they’ll scoff.

Oh, and don’t even get me started on the concept of rebooting continuity with “The New 52″ to make it more accessible for new readers only to immediately start re-introducing the multiverse and alternate Earths that are and aren’t connected to previous versions of alternate Earths that were wiped out because things got too confusing and convoluted. Oy vey.

By the by, writer James Robinson says he won’t be the only gay character in Earth 2. Which is good, but – and this might be unfair but it’s a question that’s going to be asked – is Earth 2 going to be the dumping ground for gay heroes they’re not brave enough to put in their main titles?

Previously: Is DC Comics’ Approach to Unveiling a newly Gay Character the Right One?

In case you need a refresher: O’Donnell was the candidate for Congress that, after an embarrassing clip aired from an old [...]]]> I’m largely indifferent towards CNN personality Piers Morgan and his “news” program. But he had a great moment this week in an interview with Christine O’Donnell.

In case you need a refresher: O’Donnell was the candidate for Congress that, after an embarrassing clip aired from an old episode of “Politically Incorrect with Bill Maher” where she told a story about going on a date with a witch and dabbling in “witchcraft,” released the classic “I’m not a witch” political ad that revealed her as a complete moron: she didn’t even get that people weren’t criticizing her for once being a witch, they were laughing at her for being such an obvious liar making up a ridiculous story to gain points with a live crowd.

Well, she’s got a book out now where she talks about her life as a…uh, failure? I’m not quite sure. She says it’s quite inspirational. Morgan, naturally, turned to one of the topics she covered in her book: gay marriage. He asks her for her opinion on the matter and…well, watch for yourself.

The two highlights for me:

Morgan: “Do you answer that question in the book?
O’Donnell: “I talk about my religious beliefs, yeah, of course. I absolutely do.”
Morgan: “Do you talk about gay marriage in the book?”
O’Donnell: “…what relevance is that right now?”

…

Morgan: (incredulously) “Why are you being so weird about this?”

Oooo! I can answer that last one! Piers, me! Me! PIERS! Over here!

Christine O’Donnell is being weird about this because she is weird. She’s a bit vapid and prone to tall tales about her activities and non-accomplishments, one of which includes her story about how she was supposed to be one of the original hosts of “The View.” Not true. But that’s the sort of weirdness we can laugh off. Not so laughable is her stance on gay marriage and homosexuality in general, which is in line with one of the last culturally acceptable forms of bigotry in our nation. Her vehemently anti-gay stance, rooted in writings thousands of years old that are not very far removed at all from text once used to defend slavery and other abhorrent practices, would be laughable if there weren’t so many people nodding their heads in approval when she spews it.

Still, we can be dismissive in this case, because her relevance to the political mainstream right now is nigh non-existent. There are worse, though, that are still out there: people that hold beliefs even more strongly rooted in paranoia, hatred, and ignorance that are not only relevant but considered front-runners for the GOP nomination.

The O’Donnell Walk-Out makes me laugh, think, and in a small way, hope. It’s my hope that O’Donnell ran away from her beliefs because she is ashamed of them. And rightfully so. Which means that this outrageously outmoded approach to homosexuals and active pursuit to derive them of basic human rights – including the right to exist as who they are – is something that will very soon be chased off into the shadows.

Not yet, though. Not while Michelle Bachmann is running for President while her husband actively seeks to deprive homosexuals of their right to exist by using medicinal malpractice to “reform” those which do not fall in line with his insecure view of the world.

The billboard is sponsored by Bombers’ Burritos and is the handiwork [...]]]> If you’re driving on the stretch of Interstate 787 that runs parallel to the border of New York State Senator Roy McDonald‘s district, you might notice a billboard urging him to support gay marriage:

The billboard is sponsored by Bombers’ Burritos and is the handiwork of its owner, local entrepreneurial socialite and blogging gadfly Matt Baumgartner. Gay Marriage is in a tight race in New York, and McDonald is one of the holdouts.

He claims he’s “undecided” on the issue. The legislative session ends June 20th, and Governor Andrew Cuomo has gone on the record stating he’d like to see gay marriage passed in the Empire State before then.

Anybody who’s ever read this blog before knows my position on gay marriage, but just in case: I’m for it. The concept of marriage is not owned by any specific church or religion, and any claims to the contrary are historical and contextual fallacies. Parishioners can have their objections noted, but it should not be used to refute any efforts to legalize it. Other arguments, even if we are to take the concerns as earnest on the part of those objecting, fail to hold water:  marriage won’t make any person more gay or encourage more people to become gay, nor will any heterosexual marriage be threatened by the existence of a gay couple being granted a license to marry.

I do see it as a right, and don’t think one should be comfortable clouding it with concessions like granting gay couples the right to a “civil union.” As a right, it should not be held up to compromise or muddled with semantics. It should be clear what we are and aren’t willing to accept in this society, and no homosexual person in this country should be given a mixed message as to whether or not they are tolerated or, better yet, embraced by an American society in the throes of the 21st Century.

So I ask Senator Roy McDonald, who represents me in the State Senate: what, exactly, are you undecided on? How many of your constituents are also undecided? If you ask them, I think you’ll find a clear answer on either side.

Part of me thinks maybe you being undecided is a good thing. Perhaps you’ve grown up your entire life viewing homosexuals as one thing, but the last few decades and all the friendships and alliances you’ve cultivated with homosexuals in and around the Capital Region forced a change of heart. Maybe you’re undecided because for your entire life you were fundamentally opposed to the concept, but in your heart you now know that voting “yes” is the right thing to do.

Then there’s the cynic in me that just wonders if you’re a coward and/or are waiting for someone in the Legislature to approach you with a deal or compromise that benefits you in some way or another, wholly unrelated issue you want to address.

If you’re reading this, Roy, please don’t be offended. That’s just a part of my thought process that harbors ill will, and is granted space due to the past behaviors and attitudes of your fellow Senators. There’s a bigger part of me, though, that believes you can change and do the right thing.

I believe, just like so many others, that you can say “yes.” So please do so. Show them that you’re a better man than they think you are.