James Bond Can’t Be Gay: Roger Moore
According to Roger Moore, James Bond can’t be gay or a woman because that’s not the way Ian Fleming wrote the character.
“I have heard people talk about how there should be a lady Bond or a gay Bond, but they wouldn’t be Bond for the simple reason that wasn’t what Ian Fleming wrote,” said Moore, who played Bond in seven films.
“It is not about being homophobic or, for that matter, racist – it is simply about being true to the character,” he told the Mail.
I think I feel a gay James Bond movie tie-in parody coming on. Why not? I don’t care what Roger Moore thinks. Instead of Bond getting the girl he would get the guy…or guys.
I would title mine something like “James Bend.” It wouldn’t be fanfic either. It would be strictly parody…for those of you who don’t understand what I’m talking about.
This statement by Roger Moore is one reason why I wrote a few gay parodies of straight movies (An Officer and HIS Gentleman). I took a lot of slams for that and in some cases still do, but I have no regrets whatsoever.
Bernie Sanders on Hillary Clinton and Gay Rights
When I post this way I’m not trying to be political and I never/rarely add my own opinions. However, I have heard this very same discussion on Hillary Clinton and gay rights at several small parties over the past six months and I thought it was newsworthy. Most gay people I know remember Hillary and how she stood on gay rights…or rather, didn’t stand.
In any event, I honestly don’t have a clue who I’m going to support…at this point. And Bernie Sanders is now calling Clinton out on her past stand on gay rights.
“On Defense of Marriage, I think what my husband believed — and there was certainly evidence to support it — is that there was enough political momentum to amend the Constitution of the United States of America, and that there had to be some way to stop that,” Clinton told MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow.
But those who were familiar with deliberations in the Clinton White House say that that’s not what happened. Clinton’s presidential papers also show no evidence that fear of a constitutional amendment factored into support for the bill. Instead, Clinton signed DOMA when it landed on his desk — it passed both houses of Congress with ease — because it was politically convenient and because he was publicly opposed to gay marriage.
You can read the rest here.
I think in a general sense this shows how gays were treated and thought of in the 1990’s. I remember how horrible I felt when I heard about DOMA. In the same respect, it was a feeling I’d already gotten very used to as well.
This is what President Clinton stated…for those of you who might not know or have forgotten:
Statement by President Bill Clinton
On Friday, September 20, prior to signing the Defense of Marriage Act, President Clinton released the following statement:
Throughout my life I have strenuously opposed discrimination of any kind, including discrimination against gay and lesbian Americans. I am signing into law H.R. 3396, a bill relating to same-gender marriage, but it is important to note what this legislation does and does not do.
I have long opposed governmental recognition of same-gender marriages and this legislation is consistent with that position. The Act confirms the right of each state to determine its own policy with respect to same gender marriage and clarifies for purposes of federal law the operative meaning of the terms “marriage” and “spouse”.
This legislation does not reach beyond those two provisions. It has no effect on any current federal, state or local anti-discrimination law and does not constrain the right of Congress or any state or locality to enact anti-discrimination laws. I therefore would take this opportunity to urge Congress to pass the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, an act which would extend employment discrimination protections to gays and lesbians in the workplace. This year the Senate considered this legislation contemporaneously with the Act I sign today and failed to pass it by a single vote. I hope that in its next Session Congress will pass it expeditiously.
I also want to make clear to all that the enactment of this legislation should not, despite the fierce and at times divisive rhetoric surrounding it, be understood to provide an excuse for discrimination, violence or intimidation against any person on the basis of sexual orientation. Discrimination, violence and intimidation for that reason, as well as others, violate the principle of equal protection under the law and have no place in American society.