Colleen McAllister: Let Gay Be Gay
I love visiting Perez Hilton’s gossip site. I used to roll my eyes at it during my MetroBuzz days, but since then have had to eat my words because I do visit the site at least once a day to catch up on the latest gossip. I can’t help it. I have a list of websites that I make my rounds to each day either before or after work and he’s one of them.
That being said, I have a complaint. A big one. Perez needs to let gay be gay. The blogger is an open homosexual and it often feels as though he needs to make sure that he outs every single other homosexual within his radar. It’s even a topic on his Wikipedia page. And that’s not exactly fair nor is it right.
The latest target is American Idol runner-up Adam Lambert. Prior to the show’s finale, Perez was a huge supporter of Lambert and (rightfully so, IMO) excited about the prospect of America’s first gay American Idol. During the competition, Lambert refused to comment on speculation of his sexual preference, which he had every right to keep to himself. After all, we all have the right to maintain some of our privacy, don’t we? Even in today’s world of TMZ and blog sites that update 24/7, some things should still be your choice of whether or not to share with the world. Once the show was over, many people assumed Lambert would feel comfortable announcing his sexuality publicly. There have been rumors that he’s going to “come out” in next month’s Rolling Stone, but as of today, he still hasn’t verbally confirmed anything.
Here’s what Perez has had to say about Adam Lambert in the weeks since American Idol ended, as Adam has still been wishy-washy about his sexual orientation:
May 22, 2009
Adam Lambert is lame. The guy still refuses to admit his homosexuality. And his reasoning is stupid!
In an interview with Entertainment Weekly after losing American Idol, the former musical theater actor was asked bluntly about the “dangling speculation” about his sexuality.
His reply?
“It’s not dangling over my head. [Laughing] It may be dangling over yours, but it’s not over mine. Yeah, I think speculation keeps things really interesting. “
What? Why? The f*cking show is over!Just admit it, homo, so we can all go home!
“Like I said, I think speculation keeps things very, very interesting.”
Oh, screw you. You can’t hide forever, just ask Clay Aiken
May 27, 2009:
Kris and publicly closeted queer Adam Lambert both were forced to release their versions of the shiteous Kara Dioguardi song No Boundaries as their official first singles, but Kris is outselling Adam by a mile.
You get the picture.
Now, there have been pictures and reports of Lambert being out and he doesn’t deny he’s gay. He’s just a young adult living his life and (as of right now) not using his sexuality to gain publicity a la Clay Aiken. He just refuses to comment on it. Natalie Portman has always maintained the policy of rarely-if-ever commenting on her love life. Why is it okay for her to get away with it? Because she’s straight, so no one cares about what one of the world’s most beautiful actresses is up to in her spare time? Is it just about making himself feel better about being gay because he’s in the comfort of lots of famous people who are just like him?
And honestly, who cares who is gay and who isn’t? Isn’t the whole point of the civil rights movement that we’re all people who should be treated equally? I am not afraid to say that I am 100% against Prop 8, but I don’t think that anyone should be defined by their sexual preference. I was talking to a gay friend from college earlier today about this topic and whether or not he found Perez’s behavior offensive. He told me, “Absolutely! It’s a pretty rough time for anybody, even if they aren’t famous. Everybody deals with it different, so he shouldn’t be taking it upon himself. I doubt he would’ve liked it if somebody outed him before he was ready.”
I rest my case.
Related posts:
- David Letterman’s an Insensitive Prick: Colleen McAllister So David Letterman is no better than the rest of...
- An Open Letter to Jaimee Grubbs: Colleen McAllister Tiger Woods is expected to give a formal apology for...
- A Frequent Flyer’s Humble Advice to TSA: Colleen McAllister So on Christmas Day 2009, a man who was on...
- More Deaths Or More Twitter?: Colleen McAllister David Carradine. Michael Jackson. Billy Mays. Dom DeLuise. Ed McMann. ...
Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.
I find Perez Hilton a disgusting piece of trash. He has no right to out someone if they don’t want to be. People have a right to not tell anyone else what their sexual preference is, it’s no one else’s business, but their own. Perez is the kind of person that would sell out his own grandmother if he was given enough money.
I agree with you. I thought Adam was the best singer in this year’s competition. I don’t care about his sexuality. Now, if you told me he was a great singer/performer because of his gay ways, then maybe it would be a factor. With that said, however, Perez is scum. Most recently verified by his reaction towards Miss California. Furthermore, I thought Adam should have won; however, I am what could be described as an opponent to the radical extreme gay rights movement. Next, comparing the Californians’ decision to support Prop 8 is misaligned in comparison to the Civil Right’s Movement. The Civil Right’s Movement had to due with acquiring equal protection in the private/public sphere for all people regardless of their race, ethnicity, relgious affiliation et cetera. On the other hand, the folks against Prop 8 are anti-democratic republic sheeple. Their position lost, so like good quasi-fascist, they take to streets and cause mayhem. Instead they should have rethought their argument and tried again at the next election.
Choosing when and where a gay person comes out should be a personal decision, made by the gay person themself. Just common courtesy.
Unfortunately, too many people these days have far too much fun at the expense of others. It’s rampant in society today. Perez is just a reflection of that. Just a big, nasty bully, in a sense.
That said, now I would like to address Alex Hume. I can’t believe you think the right to gay marriage is part of a “radical extreme gay rights movement”. What’s so radical about wanting the same rights as everybody else? Isn’t that what the constitution calls for? Equality for all? Gays are not 3/5’s of a straight citizen, and do not deserve to have their rights restricted due to sexual orientation. How you can’t see the connection to the Civil Rights Movement is quite beyond me.
You also comment on “California’s” decision. Prop 8 was funded with a great deal of money from outside of our state, money from organized religion…fancy that. That’s not too cool. I also don’t believe the initiative ballot is the place to change a state constitution, making discrimination legal . Hell, if that’s how it goes, how many southern states would make slavery legal again? Or outlaw interacial marriage…again? Or go back to complete segregation?
And as for outraged citizens taking to the streets and protesting…how does this make them “sheeple” or “quasi-facists”? Sheeple would probably just go along with the homophobic crowd, wouldn’t they? And quasi-facists…what is that? Faux corporations taking over the government? The power of the people is usually the only way to bring about true change. Dissent is patriotic.
But don’t worry Alex. I think the opponents of discrimination based on sexual orientation are taking your last bit of advice. Organizing is going on, and the issue will be addressed in the next election, and the next, if that’s what it takes. Because when people get together to fight for equal rights, it takes time, sure…but it eventually works out. It’s just a little shameful, here in one of the most progressive states in the country, that it’s taking us so long.
Love is Love is Love. Gay, straight, bi, transgender, whatever…love is love is love. See the movie “Milk”, and get inspired. People have the power!
Why should i care, or have any say for that matter, about whether or not two dudes should be able to get married? I just find it to be such a non issue. Maybe that’s just me but i REALLY don’t care who gets married.
Amen. Like Adam said in Rolling Stone, sexuality is just one facet of what defines a person. He’s an entertainer, and his private life is private. There’s nothing wrong with someone choosing to keep his romantic life private.
I also agree about the weird gay double standard. I don’t publicly proclaim my heterosexuality all the time. As far as I know, no one is angry about it.
I’m a Kradam fan for life.
I have to agree with Jessica. Perez is the lowest of the low….
As for Adam, we all knew he was gay, big deal!
Great post! Perez doesn’t really help the gay rights movement if you think about it. He just plays into all those stereotypes about annoying gay men, and of course he handled the whole story with miss California in the worst possible manner.
I think it’s important that famous people come out, but it should be 100% their own decision. The only people who really should be forced to come out are those politicians who fight against gay rights during the day and cruise public bathrooms during the night. IMO, those hypocrites just don’t have any right to privacy.
I understand where you are coming from Cindy. However, allow me to clarify my comments for clarity sake. Correct me if I am wrong, the question of how marriage shall be defined is through popular vote. Otherwise, the state’s politicians would have already have made gay marriage legal in CA. State’s are well within their right to define social boundaries (up to a degree). Once social boundaries have been established, those that fall into those boundaries shall have equal protection under that law. Those that do not fall within the legislated boundaries have no recourse except through referendums/propositions. A quick example, if a state chooses to have the driving age at 21, they can do so. Once a person has met that age they are now afforded the privilege as every other 21 and older persons to apply for a driver’s license. But what about everyone under 21? Well, they do not meet the required boundaries outlined to obtain a license, so they are banned from obtaining one. If that person does not like that law they can either reform the law at next election or leave the state for one that allows licenses at 16 or 12 even. Get my point. Laws must be followed otherwise we have anarchy and chaos. If a law is viewed as unjust, then there are many lawful avenues to take to change that law. Obtaining a marriage license is not a right. It is a privilege. The people have spoken. Homosexuals can still be together. However, their union is not regulated/governed by the state. In a way, they are truly free from California’s increasingly oppressive socialist government. Next, my term sheeple. A person of any poliitical persuasion can be referred to as sheeple. Progressives/liberals are not exempt. Lastly, quasi-fascists can be described as folk that lose their position at the ballot, then take to the streets not to just protest but to intimidate and usurp the democratic process. These similiar tactics were also used by Mussolini.
Almost forgot… There is scant comparison between the Civil Right’s movement and the gay right’s movement. This post about Perez and Adam is not the place for me to delineate as to why they are different. If someone starts a post about that topic I will definitely reply.
“Lastly, quasi-fascists can be described as folk that lose their position at the ballot, then take to the streets not to just protest but to intimidate and usurp the democratic process. These similiar tactics were also used by Mussolini.”
Do you mean like the anti-tax teabaggers did last month? Or do you mean like the founders of this country did by breaking English law? Perhaps you are talking about abolitionists who should have minded their own business and obeyed the law? Oh sorry you meant the suffragists of the late 1800’s… after all the law is the law.
If anyone is still reading these comments, this was on Perez’s site today, haha: http://perezhilton.com/2009-06-16-weve-got-a-crush-on-you
Michael, the tea protest would be an example of how to peacefully have a protest against a government that has been continually reducing our freedoms and liberties, not exclusively but through higher taxes. The founders of America correctly broke away from an empire 3000 miles away that afforded them no representation as new taxes were being implented. The abolitionists, like Frederick Douglas and John Brown, again, correctly through print and gun fought a government that was permanently enslaving a race by the whip, noose, & denigration of the mind and body. Let’s not compare the state sanctioning homosexuals marrying to the plight of slaves. Suffragists, like Motts and Stanton, fought against disenfranchisment by means not used by the quasi-fascist in California. They matched the error they perceived using legal methods. They did not attempt to cause mayhem to change voting process. Yes, the law is the law. I have no problem with the law changing, as I will never move to California. However, it has to be done through the correct processes. I hope gay marriage never passes in CA. However, if it does pass by the vote of the people, you will not see the manic response displayed at the last election by opponents of gay marriage.
“by means not used by the quasi-fascist in California.” So the people protesting prop 8 are “fake authoritarian right wingers”? Just throwing pseudo-political terms out there does not make your evidence any stronger. Also you apparently do not know what the term fascist means. Considering it was the Mormon church that pumped millions of dollars into Cali to sway the vote,I would argue that you would be citing the wrong people as fascists. Pushing the authoritarian views of a religion through politics is more in line with fascism than people protesting to have the same rights as all other citizens. California has created it own problems because their constitution allows the people to vote for to many things. I would argue that if states like South Carolina or Alabama would have still had slavery late in the 20th century if the people of those states were allowed to vote for propositions such as California is. A representative Democracy helps to protect the rights of the minority from the whims of the majority. A majority of people believing something does not make it correct nor ethical. Limiting peoples rights because they are sinners or ,whatever quasi-logical classification you want to use, is beneath human decency.
Sorry for the poor grammar in the last comment.
I don’t go to his site, but times I’ve seen him interviewed he’s come off as a charming guy. However, I agree that his outing people is unfair and wrong. I’m sure he wouldn’t have liked being outed when he wasn’t ready to do so. And most of these celebrities are only harming themselves by staying in the closet. If you’re going to out, observe The Frank Rule (named after Barney Frank, who is openly gay) and out those closet cases who are so afraid of who they are that they persecute gay people, like Ted Haggard or Larry Craig. Leave the celebrities who keep it quiet alone.
Michael, fascism can rear its ugly head in many forms. Fascism is essentially state (government) control/regulation of private affairs. Whether it is a conserative stating that the government should force everyone to pray in school or a liberal stating that the government should force everyone to become vegans or drive hybrids, these are both examples of fascism. Fascism is not exclusively right-wing. Woodrow Wilson, Frederick Roosevelt, and (most recently) Obama are all American-style fascist. Fascism allows for private ownership; however, the government will heavily regulate its practices/operation. I will state again. There is nothing wrong with taking to the streets to vent your frustration. The Mormons dumping their money into the process is not illegal. If it was, then I would be opposed to their involvement with last years vote. Also, we agree on some level. I am not a fan of sraight democracies on the state or federal level. I am in favor of what this country was created to be which is a REPUBLIC. Democracy is mob rule. A republic protects the majority and minority from majority tyranny and minority tyranny. Let us not assume that the minority is always correct. The minority has in many cases abused their position and power at the expense of the majority (example France pre-revolution). That is why we have laws. Laws in “theory” keeps everyone honest. Again, if people wish to have gay marriage in CA, then reform your argument, and try again at next election. That is the American way. Lastly, let us say that gay marriage is allowed in CA. Where would your boundary be, Michael, regarding the state recognizing couples getting married? Should the state have no boundaries? At some point, the state, if it is to have a law, has to draw a line concerning who can or cannot get married. So, if you were dictator of CA, would you sanction all couples that wish to get married? Or would you at some point draw a line and say certain types of couples will not be recognized by the state.
Almost forgot…I cannot wait until Adam Lambert single is released. He has the potential to an international star. I hope he is not boxed up. He needs to be allowed to be creatively free.
Paris was also a novelty at a time for me also. I never went to his site, but when I saw him (before the Miss California meltdown)he was entertaining. Too bad he forgot to take his psychotropic medicine after Miss CA mirrored the opinion held by most Californians and Obama.
I would only draw the line at adults marrying minors. If three four or five people wish to be married and are not be coerced or forced into the situation I have no issue with that either. Also I have no problem with insurers or government saying in a case of multiple spouses one must be the primary for health decisions or for other legal matters. I’m not sure how people marrying and probably divorcing who they wish affects anyone other than those in the relationship. There are plenty of lifestyle choices I disagree with but I see no reason to outlaw them or demean the people involved in them. Also fascism is almost exclusively prescribed to authoritarian right wing regimes. Last I checked it was the Bush administration who cracked down on personal freedoms as well as freedom of the press under the pretense of national security. That is authoritain control and I would still not call that administration fascist.
Leave your response!
Categories
Popular Posts
Recent Comments
Archives