"I've always felt our one goal should be to make every left-handed, single, senior African-American woman healthy, happy, and safe. And that alone would mean that a lot of systems were in place."

What?

Lighten up, Kevin Sessums: Rupert Everett was just having a few laughs, making a couple of acid points for effect, and just trying to get us think about why the gay movement has become so boringly conventional.

On the isue of gay marriage....
I am absolutely in favor of legal adults, of legally sound mind, being treated equally under the law in all civil contract. including marriage.
If anybody wants to assume the legally binding responsibilities of marriage, let 'em.

When is the last time Rupert Everett's opinion mattered on anything? Perhaps he was influential in any manner of gay realm when he was promoting My Best Friend's Wedding in 1997, but seriously, go back to quality work like Shrek 4.

First, let's be clear, their is nothing middle class about Mr. Staley or Mr. Kramer they both have money, Mr Staley is of the manor born. Mr. Kramer's brother helped sent him up for life. I think the Brits just like to take the piss out of people. I admire Rupert for his vinegary honesty and the balls to say what he thinks. I think Mr. Sussum is unfair and bitchy in his characterization. Don't judge, let the reader do it, first rule of good journalism.I agree with Rupert to a point, I would however like to be legal. The sexual outlaw thing is fun in bed, but in reality it's nice to have a tax break. We as a species have bred ourselves into an octo-mom frenzy and if we continue to do so we won't have a planet for any of us.

As my dad says, "they want to get married, let 'em get married: it should be as hard for them to get a divorce as it is for everyone else."

When all are equal in the eyes of allimony, child custody and property laws, that, my friends, will be a great day for America.

First off; the seriousness in which one should take Rupert Everett's completely irrelevant babble should amount to about the seriousness in which anal bleaching kit you decide to use weekly. This article is boring and OVERLY pretentious. As if written by some crazed rupert everett fan... Rupert Everett is NOT a player in my gay rights, in fact his life compares nothing to mine and although MAYBE a 'middle class gay' (which i'm sure he refers to everyone but himself as. ass.) I certainly don't see this freak fighting for my causes, a few noble ones I might add. Anyway. Irrelevant article if there ever was one.

Repeat the arguments now against group marriage or wedlock between species. Or are there anymore?

I just like hearing from another gay-faggot-queen-whatever with a strong opinion that isn't so damn overly warm and fuzzy. That doesn't mean I don't care that others (than me) want to get married and have kids, but we all don't want that it's nice that Everett will just say what the f*** he feels.

From the headline I thought this was a story about where I grew up.

"Auntie Diluvian" priceless!!

marriage for gays?
why? haven't they suffered enough?

Clearly the people interviewed by this article don't have much knowledge or respect for the difference between what religion and culture calls "marriage" and the valuable and desirable legal protections offered to marriage under civil law, a.k.a. "civil marriage." Lots of people who say they support "civil unions" think that they support the legal protections of marriage without the name, but in fact only "marriage" as defined by civil law--separate from any cultural or religious concern--can provide those protections. If that were clearer then a lot of people of every sort and condition would be a lot happier.

Am I the only person who finds Kevin Sessums' writing irritatingly prissy and mannered?

I'm a bit more concerned Kevin, at the relatively worshipful stance you have towards groups that priortize HIV-treatment over prevention. It's because of them that barebacking has re-entered the mainstream, and infection rates are skyrocketing among younger guys who have lost any sense of how serious it is. After all, they might say, "why should I worry about getting HIV? If I do, I'll just go on aidsmeds.com or something and take a pill that some gay billionaire helped subsidize!"

There's a lot of money in making HIV look like something that's not a big deal, or can/will be "cured" (it won't -- basic immunology. You'll cure the common cold before you'll eliminate a retrovirus)... but what we need is a strong prevention and safe sex message.

As for Rupert, why do you care? He's just saying he doesn't dig the whole married-with-children scene. That's fine... I can't stand showtunes and the musical theater crowd, and have more than a bit of fun at their expense... but that doesn't mean I don't want anyone to be allowed to enjoy them! Show me where exactly Rupert said that marriage and kids isn't an issue -- he's just saying its not an issue HE cares about.

Is Auntie Duluvian just playing a mean ol' theatre queen here? I think he's channeling Coward. He shoots from the lip without thought. Sometimes he misses the mark. So what?

LOVE Rupert Everett. In one sense he is sooo right.
Why do gay people want to ape the traditions of straight people?
On the other hand, there are legal issues, visas, inheritance, property law, a million things that perhaps can only be sorted out if gay people can get married.
Great article, made me chuckle...and great comments too!

I don't think gay adoption should be legal. Civil unions okay with legal rights,but not gay marriage, marriage should remain only between a man and a woman.

There is a huge difference between tolerance and acceptance.

Children should not be subject to the sexual choices of their "parents". Life is hard enough without this confusion. Ask a kid what it's like on the playground when they have "two moms" or "two dads". It's hell.

Oh come on, people, Rupert is hallarious --

"But this whole idea of two gay guys filling a cocktail shaker with their sperm and impregnating some grim lesbian and then it gets cut out is just really weird."

Tell me that's not funny and it's evident you lack a sense of humour. And his point -- that this lgbt struggle is bourgeois -- is factually correct. I came of age during Stonewall, when the mostly working-class queens rioted against police and kicked off the movement.

What respect have these drag queens received from the bourgeois community for their struggles and sacrifices? Oh, they're still "unacceptable", and middle class gays do not generally participate in marches, or demonstrations, or community action. (Oh they do for now, because it's all about them.) They go shopping for overpriced accessories they don't even need.

I see these types in the Castro in San Francisco, parading down the sidewalk, shopping bags in hand, subtly rolling their eyes or looking down their noses at working-class and poor lesbians, gays, bisexuals and TVs.

The marriage thing has become about civil rights, I agree, because the homophobic opposition made it so. I wish the lgbt community had tackled the issue of youth suicide and discrimination/oppression in the public schools. That cause would have united all of us, not just the "nice" gay and lesbian couples.

Sort of a disappointing story, but to be expected. Sessums's standard interests (obsessions?) dominate, like they do most of what he's written: celebrity, people he knows from the gay-list. News flash: Marriage change is not taking place in either Hollywood, New York City, or Fire Island.

I don't have a strong opinion about gay marriage but gay issues are radioactive and I see so much thats more important and needs Obama's attention: jobs, health insurance, getting out of Iraq and Afghanistan, etc. No one is starving or dying or terrified of being impoverished by an illness because he/she can't be legally married.

We will see this issue change now that the anti-gay marriage side has decided to confront the charge that they are just bigots. I wondered why that didn't happen last year, why they would go on TV shows and just allow the pro-gay marriage side to rant about bigotry and they didn't bring up things that have already happened like the Ocean Grove, NJ case and the case of "King and King" being read to first graders in MA and the other episodes that are mentioned in that new ad. Politicians got complacent that they could pass civil union bills and it would be OK with everyone. They didn't think about the lawsuits that would be filed to get them to enforce anti-discrimination laws. Politicians are not going to like those lawsuits; they are not going to like to take stands for or against parents and churches.

This contretemps would be remarkable were it not so predictable: the insta-bashing that comes out of Evertt's unfiltered and honest comments - it's not as though he hasn't lain down for the cause and put his money (career) where others have refused.

The ignorance, though, and lack of context put forth in this piece and subsequent follow-up is more than a little dismaying. Miss Sessums' journalist cred takes more of a hit than his subject who was, had she done her research, speaking from a certain p.o.v.

"Hello, Darling, Are you Working?" (Evertt's excellent roman a clef) is about a male sex worker who ends up in Paris. And had Miss Sessums done her research, she might know the semanitic origin of the word "gay" comes from the 19th Century demimondaine of Parisian courteseans (high class whores.)

Thus, the reason why Evertt essentially states that "marriage" and "gay" are incompatible. And, like any smart Natural Born Hooker, he's actually relinking gay culture with its outr� origins.

The knee jerk response of Sessums et al, is territory covered by Michael Warner ("Fear of a Queer Planet") and Leo Bersani ("Homos"), two seminal works that discuss gay / queerness / homosexualities with a degree of seriousness totally at odds with this reactionary drivel.

From Bersani's 'The Gay Absence': "Perhaps, as I will argue in my last chapter, we should be questioning the value of community and, even more fundamentally, the notion of relationality itself ... If, say, there is little self-criticism within the gay and lesbian community, this is partly out of fear of the academic thought police (any criticism of gay and lesbian self-promotion is condemned as homophobic), and partly because some of us feel it is nobler to keep our annoyances to ourselves (to voice them would be to betray the common cause, to give ammunition to the enemy). Still, we are not exactly in the position of the jailed and murdered dissidents under Stalin or even of those Americans pursued by the House Un-American Committee in the early 1950's. ... We have enough freedom, even enough power, to stop feeling like traitors if we cease to betray our intelligence for the sake of the cause and, if - to repeat one of the least appreciated lines in "Is the Rectum a Grave?" - we admit to having told a few lies about ourselves (and others)."

Once again Banjo1 reveals much about his beastiality tendencies. But I'll say it again, if and when your beloved dog, is granted citizenship, I'll be the first to RSVP to your wedding.

Go ahead, beat me - Rupert is right on!

I have a ghastly feeling that many of these comments are being written by Americans who really do not have a good understanding of English wit and social observation. I have been looking for comments that would reflect on the issues: that the gay movement has become far less effective than it was in Harvey Milk's time, a bureaucratic mess of ineffective and uninspired people who are doing their best. People who are having children because it is part of the American maxim, the validation of the prostitution ethic, which entitles women to collect, which has somehow infected the gay movement. Or are there rebuttals?

You see, I am not wedded to any of the things I have just written. They are talking points, the basis of debate, where a proposition is made, and invites people to think about where they stand.

English culture is centered on spirited debate. Watch Parliament on TV, and you can immediately see the enormous cultural difference between the US and Britain.

My heritage is English culture. I understand what a delight Rupert Everett is to the people around him. I watched the movie "Unconditional Love" and rolled on the floor. It is an American look at English gay men, but it has excellent moments.

This interview is classic as well. Here is Sissums, the American, showing classic American responses to an English presentation. I would strongly suggest that Sissums go visit Rupert Everett amongst his friends, and just observe the interaction.

This is what I miss most in America. The intellectual interchange that takes place between people who know how to present a viewpoint using the precision that is possible with the English language, barbs and all.

The funniest times I have ever had have been amongst wonderful English culture conversationalists, minimalists with language, maximalists in impact. The English laugh.

In the same conversational environment, Americans use clumsy language, and they get angry when people debate or question their ideas. God forbid that you disagree. Then, they reach for their guns!

In America, I have become accustomed to people droning on, using 100 words where 10 would do. Just watch CNN or Fox News, and compare them with BBC News for informative content.

And the reason that most Americans don't get mainstream British humor is that it is simply too fast. If in doubt, look for the TV show "Coupling", and get an education. Mind you, this is English straight humor, which is not too quick, but proves the point regardless.

My experience of Americans is based on my Australian experience. We embrace Americans there as our slightly retarded cousins, not very quick, who define themselves by what they do, not who they are. We open them like oysters, and let them see themselves in a caring light. Which is why they return to the US reinvented, swearing to return.

So the more you watch Rupert, and can laugh at the wit, the more you will understand rapid-fire communication, because in real life, all this flashes through your American brains faster than you can comprehend the comments. But put somebody raised in English culture who also has a brain across the table, and listen to the repartee. If you can keep up, it will blow you away.

So you don't have to agree or disagree with Rupert. You just have to think about what he is saying. The conclusions you reach fo yourself may help move you forward.

Too many words? Yes. I am writing for Americans.

Richardhg-- you are an arrogant jerk.

i'm so tired of europeans, australians, and many other "developed" countries acting like they are intellectually superior to americans. I don't know what is was about this article that made you write such a bitter critique, but you are completely out of line.

I will agree some Americans, a lot of Americans, are ignorant morons, but to call the entire country your "retarded cousins" is insulting. Whatever, I'm sure this isn't going to change your mind. You sound like you'd be an arrogant jerk no matter where you lived.