Eminem Censors Himself for the Gays

Rapper Eminem, known for his homophobic lyrics, has agreed to tone down his lyrics for upcoming tour dates in the U.K.

The organization OutRage! announced a plan to protest summer 2010 concerts, but now Eminem and the group have come to an agreement that the rapper would not use homophobic language in his shows.

Wireless Festival spokesman David Allison said that Eminem agreed to sign a document, stating that he would not use the language. In exchange, there would be no protests at the show.

“We have a condition that he does not use lyrics that encourage or incite hatred against gay people," Allison said, according to the U.K. newspaper The Evening Standard. "He is free to express his views on gay people, as long as he stays off the violence and hatred. He has got plenty of other lyrics to choose from. In recent years he has become quite well-behaved.”

The Wireless Festival is slated for London's Hyde Park in July.

Advocate

Tom Ford swaps fashion for film with ‘Single Man’

Fashion designer Tom Ford has made a seamless transition to filmmaker with “A Single Man,” the soulful, immaculately styled story of a grieving college professor in 1960s California. The ultra-confident Ford never doubted his abilities – though he admits plenty of other people did.

”It’s funny, because everyone was so supportive,” Ford said. “And now that I’ve made the film, quite a few people have said to me, ‘Isn’t it nice you did that when everyone was laughing at you?’”

They’re not laughing now.

”A Single Man” has earned strong reviews – it opens widely across North America on Christmas Day – and last week received Golden Globe nominations for its score and the performances of Julianne Moore and Colin Firth.

Firth won the best-actor prize at the Venice Film Festival for his performance as George Falconer, a gay Englishman in Los Angeles mourning the death of his longtime lover in a car accident.

Ford – who directed, co-wrote and co-produced the film – has been praised for his subtle adaptation of Christopher Isherwood’s novel, which recounts a day in George’s life through seemingly unfilmable interior monologue.

The film adds a dash of plot and gallons of visual flair.

Unable to see a future without his partner Jim (Matthew Goode), George resolves to end it all. He gets a gun and starts to set his affairs in order.

Along the way he encounters his best friend, Charley (Julianne Moore, sporting a wardrobe to die for), and Kenny (Nicholas Hoult, all grown up since he played the boy in “About a Boy”), a young student who takes a slightly stalkerish interest in George.

It’s all remarkably assured, but then the Texas-born Ford has never lacked ambition. Now 48, he transformed luxury brand Gucci in the 1990s before founding his own Tom Ford label. Filmmaking seemed like a small step.

“I’ve just never let the thought of failure stop me when there was something I felt that I wanted to do,” he said. “I wanted to make a film. And I want to make another, and another, and another.”

“A Single Man” is the work of a film fanatic, a love letter to cinema. George’s monochrome life bursts into Technicolor when he makes contact with other people. Ford includes visual salutes to directors from Alfred Hitchcock to Pedro Almodovar to Wong Kar-wai. Even “The Wizard of Oz” gets a reference. These are not the acts of a director afraid to be compared to his idols.

The movie’s stylish surface offers all you would expect from a fashionista’s film: precise period detail, handsome actors and gorgeous outfits that capture the early 1960s in all their sartorial glory, from pin-sharp suits to pink mohair sweaters.

“I don’t know how to help myself,” laughed Ford, who despite a jetlag-inducing round of international openings is impeccably tailored, from his crisp shirt cuffs to his neat suit jacket.

“People said to me afterwards, ‘Everyone’s so beautiful.’ And I thought, ‘They are?’ It wasn’t anything that occurred to me.

“It’s kind of enhanced reality. You’re seeing the world through the eyes of a man who thinks he’s leaving, and everything becomes hyper-beautiful to him.”

Ford insists, however, that he did not put style over substance. Many reviewers have been surprised by the film’s restraint, the unflashy way it depicts an intelligent, ironic, emotionally reserved man consumed by grief. It’s a tribute to Firth, who gives the performance of his career, but also to Ford.

Ford says that, when he chose the project, “believe it or not, I didn’t care about the style. It’s layered on to support the characters. But when looking for the right project it was the story, something worth telling. That’s what attracted me.”

“I had to figure out what my voice was as a filmmaker. I knew what I stood for as a fashion designer, but let’s be real: Who needs to see a Tom Ford film? Who cares? What did I have to say?”

What the film seems to say is: embrace the moment and enjoy the beauty around you.

Like the late Isherwood – best known for writing the stories of 1930s Berlin that inspired the musical “Cabaret” – Ford has an interest in philosophy and spirituality. The film approvingly cites Aldous Huxley’s maxim, “Experience is not what happens to a man; it is what a man does with what happens to him.”

“It is a very spiritual book,” Ford said. “It’s about a guy who can’t see his future. It is all about living in the present.”

Despite the film’s warm reception, it hasn’t all been smooth sailing. The openly gay Ford has taken some flak for advertising the film with a poster featuring Firth and Moore – implying, in some eyes, a heterosexual theme.

Ford says the poster is “marketing 101: you have your two biggest stars and they give great performances, who are you going to put on the poster to get people to go see it?”

He’s less happy about having to cut the trailer to remove a male-male kiss – fine in Europe, but classified in the U.S. as “adult sexual content” that would limit the circumstances in which it could be seen.

He agreed to the cut – marketing won out again – but says the classification is “totally absurd.”

Overall, though, Ford is enjoying this new career.

He says filmmaking is “the closest thing to God we get to be.”

“I created that universe: it’s forever sealed in that little bubble. A hundred years from now, all the actors will be dead, I’ll be dead – but you’ll still be able to pop it in and laugh, cry, smile. It will be alive. It’s just amazing.”

365Gay

Where Was Anderson Cooper At His Boyfriend's Bar's Hanukkah Party?

The 4-Year-Old Cross-Dressing Boy Who Got Drunk and Stole His Neighbors Gifts

The Thanksgiving Family's Savage Murder Suspect Is 'Effeminate' and Hits Gay Bars

How to find one of America's most-wanted killers? Oh, just look for his "effeminate" qualities. Because that's how the U.S. Marshals are describing Paul Merhige, who's believed to have murdered his twin sisters (one of which was pregnant), 6-year-old cousin, and 79-year-old aunt in a shooting ramapage over the Thanksgiving holiday.

The APB on Merhige — who's been added to the 15 Most Wanted list — notes the suspect might be "homosexual and/or effeminate and may frequent homosexual establishments." Also, he supposedly fakes his OCD, so be on the look out for a man who must flip his hair four times in a row before doing two pirouettes.

Allegedly killing him family north of Miami over "ongoing resentment," Merhige — who bought four guns in the month leading up to the shooting — also injured his brother-in-law and another guest at a gathering, which he actually left before returning with murder on the mind.

He remains on the lam, and might be using the names Paul Mariage, Carlo Rabisi or Michael Manis. Neither of which sound very faggy.
Queerty

Adam Lambert on The View

The NY Couple Who Want Their Marriage Annuled (Because It's Unconstitutional)

While Sacramento's John Marcotte's attempt to put a ban on divorce on the voter ballot next year is an admirable mockery of the right-wing's opposition to gay marriage in California, one New York couple is seeking a different tactic: Rachel Murch D'Olimpio and Matthew D'Olimpio, both 29 and with an infant son together, want their marriage annulled, because their own union is a violation of the Constitution because gays cannot also get hitched.

It's always hard to tell just how serious folks are when they pull stunts like these, but Brooklyn's D'Olimpios are, at the very least, showing how ridiculous it is to deny gay marriage rights, particularly in the wake of this week's legislative defeat in the state. And they appear to actually be exploring how this could all pan out legally. (Facebook group here.)

So why get an annulment instead of a divorce? Because annulments are reserved for deleting marriages that are, supposedly, never legal (or consummated) in the first place. The D'Olimpios argue that by not extending marriage rights to gays, existing marriage laws violate a constitutional right to equal protection, and is thus invalid. Notes Emma Ruby-Sachs:

Legally, their approach has some promise. Contracts freely entered into can be deemed void if they contravene public policy. There is an argument — one that has been successful in Iowa and California — that giving marriage rights to straight couples and not same-sex couples violates the right to equal protection of the laws. This is not new reasoning.

However, usually the courts require the applying individual to prove that they are, in some way, being denied equal protection of the laws of the state. Rachel and Matthew are fully protected. It's their friends and fellow New York residents who are being denied their rights.

But striking down a contract for being contrary to public policy provides more flexibility than the strict constitutional analysis courts have previously engaged in on this matter. Courts can assert, in some cases, that acts are contrary to public policy simply because they create any effect on society as a whole that is undesirable. For example, contracts promoting the sale of babies are considered contrary to public policy. While offending the moral character of many, selling infants may not actually cause concrete harm (this is, in fact, an argument put forward by famed legal scholar Justice Richard Posner).

New York's courts may choose to use the annulment challenge as an opportunity to hear evidence on the social harm marriage discrimination causes for the entire state — gay and straight residents alike. There are plenty of arguments to support this assertion. Inequality breeds social division and resentment. Children of same-sex couples denied marriage rights suffer psychological harm. Residents in same-sex committed relationships arbitrarily bear greater tax burdens. The list goes on.

Is a New York court going to strike down existing marriage laws based on their case? Highly doubtful. But we're excited to see yet another case make its way through the courts proving marriage is not always about religious beliefs or procreation, but merely a legal contract between two people.

Meanwhile, notes Matt in a statement:

Never before have I been so ashamed of my state or to be a New Yorker. For me, New York is the only place I feel truly comfortable calling home, and one of the many reasons for that is how progressive, diverse and accepting the people of this great state are towards each other and how our state constitution protects so many more of our rights than nearly any other state. While the failure of the bill to pass wasn't a complete surprise, obviously, or our actions wouldn't have been necessary to begin with, I was surprised with how many Democrats voted against it. Only 24 voted for it, which in my opinion is a disgrace. Our Senator, Ms. Montgommery voted for it, and gave a kind speech in support of it, along with several moving and eloquent speeches in favor of it. As I listened to these Senators speak, like Senator Liz Krueger, explaining their positions with passion, explaining its connection to civil rights, referring to the vote as part of a movement, really gave me a feeling of hope that this bill may very well pass. Especially considering that the voices against really used nothing more than their tired arguments about the historical or "traditional"
definition of marriage being defended, but without really explaining why it needed defending, and without regard for how drastically society has changed in the last several thousand years.

So now, we have our work cut out for us. We're currently in contact with several lawyers who have offered, to various degrees, pro-bono assistance with helping us figure out exactly how to file our annulment in court, especially in matters of jurisdiction, and precisely how to word our request to maximize its effectiveness and avoid any quick defeat on a technicality.

Once we have dedicated legal counsel, we'll proceed as fast as we can to filing our annulment and will be asking the members of our group, which has nearly doubled since 9am today, to join us at the court when and where we file.

It's always the time to be on the right side of history. In the meantime I will be posting links to all the Democratic Senators who voted no, followed by the Republicans that includes their contact information, and a brief bio of their record, encouraging our members to write to them about how they feel. I will also be contacting the heads of the Democratic party in their areas, along with the state, explaining to them how our group feels, how fast we're growing and how we won't stand for the Democratic party being so disloyal to itself and to the people it claims to represent. All the Republicans were once again able to stand together, while the Democrats split, and split big. We have only just begun our fight. And we won't stop until all couples, gay or straight, will be able to marry in New York. As far as we're concerned, our marriage in the eyes of the state died today and won't revive until same-sex marriage is legalized here.