Rufus Wainwright: I was taken out of context

It's funny, isn't it: it's always "I've been taken out of context".

Latest victim of an apparent misunderstanding caused by people taking his words literally is Rufus Wainwright, who has attempted to clarify his comments about how "I’m actually not a huge gay marriage supporter”:

“Recently, a quote from an interview was taken out of context and as these things go, it has appeared on many internet sites. So, to set the record straight (or shall we say gay?), I am not nor have I ever been opposed to anyone's right to marry - straight or gay.”

The singer goes onto say that he is “appalled” that lesbian and gay couples in the US don’t have the same rights that straight couples do.

“I myself just don't want to at the moment and feel a strong tie to the traditional bohemian concept of being a homosexual, ie: the last thing we want is to be like everybody else. But who knows, a girl likes options. Maybe someday I will want to marry! Plus, in terms of practical issues such as citizenship, taxes, inheritance, etc...it is appauling (sic) that LGBT couples don't have the same rights and options that other people have and compared with Europe and Canada, the US should be ashamed of how they treat love.”

Did you spot the joke where he said "to set the record straight - or gay"? But once the hilarity has ensued - it's a little hard to see exactly how Wainwright has been taken out of context: he was reported as saying he's not a great supporter of gay marriage; his clarification pretty much says the same thing. He does go on to say that he "strongly opposed" Proposition 8 and "will continue to do so", which does seem a little contradictory. And it's interesting that Wainwright didn't even bother to mention his other comments where he drew parallels between gay marriage and marrying dogs, but perhaps that's been taken out of context so badly that he wouldn't know where to begin.

We're not even going to try and pick the bones out of "being gay means you shouldn't want to be like everybody else, but you should have the same rights as everyone else, but apparently not including marriage, which I don't support, but do".

In the comments section on our earlier story, Danbut argues that Rufus' comments have been misportrayed and shouldn't be seen as being inconsistent - and actually does better at explaining Rufus' position than Wainwright manages.

Rufus Wainwright lines up on Elton's side

Et tu, Rufus? Wainwright has attempted an explanation of why he isn't interested in helping the pro-Gay marriage campaign:

"Oddly enough, I'm actually not a huge gay marriage supporter. I personally don't want to get married but I think that any law or amendment to the constitution that deals with sex and love should just be banned in general."

So you personally don't want to get married, Rufus, so there's no need to support the rights of those who do. You don't think that, perhaps, many of the freedoms we enjoy have been fought for by people who are not personally going to benefit from the victory, but do it because it's right?

It gets worse, though:

"I don't think any government should encroach on what goes on in the bedroom at all. Frankly, if you want to marry a dog, why don't you go ahead and marry a dog, I don't care. I'm a complete libertarian and so I really disagree with it".

This is a gay man, lazily comparing gay marriage - which is about the state valuing a relationship, and one of the few times the government has to encroach on affairs of the heart - with marrying a dog. Although, confusingly, Rufus seems to think that marrying a dog is fine, but marrying someone of the same sex is a right you shouldn't even need to have. And if he is a "complete libertatian", then shouldn't he be campaigning for those beliefs, rather than just doing nothing and trying to claim that his apathy is somehow noble?

Aint no Purple in the rainbow flag... oh... yes, there is

Prince is worried that America is going to hell in something of a handbasket, and blames politicians and - oh, yes - gay marriage:

"It's all about religion," he said.

"You've got the Republicans, and basically they want to live according to [the Bible]. But there's the problem of interpretation, and you've got some churches, some people, basically doing things and saying it comes from here, but it doesn't. And then on the opposite end of the spectrum you've got blue, you've got the Democrats, and they're, like, 'You can do whatever you want.' Gay marriage, whatever. But neither of them is right."

Republicans wanting to live according to The Bible? I suppose John McCain's daughter can do the bit about her father's many mansions if nothing else.

But is Prince really attacking gay marriage - or "marriage" as grown-up people call it - as "not right"? Prince? Little 'sticking women to the ceiling, umpteen positions in a one night stand' Prince? He's finally found a place he's going to draw the line, has he?

Predictably, his people are already trying to change the vision that he's a spite-filled homophobic hypocrite:

The Perez Hilton blog has weighed in with an anonymous source "close to the rocker", alleging that the singer was "grossly misquoted and misinterpreted".

"What His Purpleness actually did was gesture to the Bible and said he follows what it teaches, referring mainly to the parts about loving everyone and refraining from judgment," Perez Hilton reported. "'We're very angry he was misquoted,' says our Prince insider."

Beware people who claim that a person was misquoted who, erm, won't allow themselves to be quoted on that. It's also worth mentioning that this interview was with the New Yorker who are standing by their story.

It's also a little odd to understand how this is either a misquote or a misinterpretation - "they're, like, 'You can do whatever you want.' Gay marriage, whatever. But neither of them is right" does seem pretty conclusively to be saying that the allowing of gays to marry is wrong - and if he didn't mean to be condemning gay marriage, why mention it at all?

In addition, in the same interview, Prince talks about being a proselytizing Jehovah's Witness - which would suggest he buys the Church's view of homosexuality which they claim is based on Bible teaching:

Today, many people—even some clergymen—soft-pedal the issue of homosexuality. Yet, the Bible leaves no room for confusion. It tells us that Jehovah God made man and woman and that he purposed for sexual desires to be fulfilled only between husband and wife. (Genesis 1:27, 28; 2:24) It comes as no surprise, then, that the Bible condemns homosexual acts.—Romans 1:26, 27.

Of course, many would say that the Bible is out-of-date. For example, 14-year-old Megan asserts, “Some of the things stated in the Bible have no place in today’s world.” But why are some so quick to make that claim? Often, it is because the Bible’s view conflicts with their own. They reject God’s Word because it teaches something different from what they want to believe. That view is biased, though, and the Bible encourages us to rise above such closed-minded thinking!

Since the unnamed Prince-mate who talked to Perez Hilton didn't try and suggest that when Prince was talking about being a Jehovah's Witness he actually meant he was registered as a state notary and somehow it's got lost in translation, it's difficult to see how Prince could simultaneously believe that gay marriage is right and homosexuality is wrong.

It's pathetic to see off-the-record briefings trying to 'correct' what seem to be Prince's actual views. If he's so upset with the New Yorker, could he not go on the record and explain what he actually believes? Or, at the very least, tell his management team not to go round trying to make him seem pro-gay marriage

[Thanks to Jack B for the tip]

Slash better for equality than Elton John

With Elton John happy to support the LDS line, thank the lord for Slash. And Perla. Who've teamed up to fight Proposition 8:



The comments have, as you'd imagine, attracted a bunch of bigots, some patient posts explaining the rather obvious difference between paedophilia and gay marriage, and, right in the middle of this battle of the culture wars, this:

Slash still using his Chris Derrig copy here... :) that's his favourite guitar

Which is either a spectacular missing of the point, or else a wry comment.

Elton John shares his views on Proposition 8

Elton John seems to be a little confused by the question of Proposition 8, which he seems to think is somehow about him. Apparently gays "only have themselves to blame":

"I don't want to be married," he says. "David and I are not married. Let's get that right. We have a civil partnership. What is wrong with Proposition 8 is that they went for marriage. Marriage is going to put a lot of people off. It's the word marriage."

The 61-year-old pop star believes that same-sex couples should be happy with a civil partnership as it gives them the same legal rights and protection as straight couples. "I'm very happy with a civil partnership," he adds. "If gay people want to get married, or get together, they should have a civil partnership."

Yes, of course you don't want to be married, do you Elton? Marriage is a sacred institution between a man and his recording engineer, and not to be entered into lightly.

Now, if Elton doesn't want to get married to David Furnish, great. Nobody should force him to. But just because that's right for him doesn't mean he should support a nasty attempt to stop gay people for whom a civil partnership isn't the statement they choose to make.

And, to be blunt, John is deluded if the thinks the homophobes who funded Proposition 8 were doing so simply because they object to the idea of gay people being 'married'. The Mormon Church, whose members lavishly funded the campaign to withdraw rights from gay people [Google Doc] in California, are pretty clear that homosexuality is immoral:

The Church has a single, undeviating standard of sexual morality: intimate relations are proper only between a husband and a wife united in the bonds of matrimony.

Is Elton really so stupid he thinks that a group so committed to pouring cash into removing marriage rights simply because it's the word they object to? Does he really think that a group who are so busily organising themselves, driven by a belief that they should be arbiters of sexual morality for world, are going to meet each other at Temple and say "so long as they only have a civil partnership when they shag each other, that'll be alright"?

Elton John has always seemed a little selfish, and a little self-obsessed, but to not fight for a right simply because you yourself are happy without it is a step beyond. John didn't really do that much to help with the struggle for gay equality; you would have thought the least he could do was try and be a bit more careful with the gifts others bled for.

Yes on 8? No to taxes, concludes Mel Etheridge

Following on from the Mormon church buying a slice of repression in California, Melissa Etheridge has decided that if the state doesn't recognise her love, she won't recongise its demands for taxation:

So Prop 8 passed. Alright, I get it. 51% of you think that I am a second class citizen. Alright then. So my wife, uh I mean, roommate? Girlfriend? Special lady friend? You are gonna have to help me here because I am not sure what to call her now. Anyways, she and I are not allowed the same right under the state constitution as any other citizen. Okay, so I am taking that to mean I do not have to pay my state taxes because I am not a full citizen. I mean that would just be wrong, to make someone pay taxes and not give them the same rights, sounds sort of like that taxation without representation thing from the history books.

In her piece for the Daily Beast, Etheridge reveals that not paying taxes will save her about half a million dollars a year, which means in laying her heart on the line, she's also shown us how much she earns.

Now, witholding taxes is good - but wouldn't it be more fun if she took the half million and funded a tit-for-tat measure in Utah come the next election? Perhaps a ballot on Mark Steel's proposal that everyone has to do a gay National Service of two year's homosexuality?