Kevin Hart Won't Play A Gay Role Because 'Of What People Are Going To Think'
Kevin Hart Won't Play A Gay Role Because 'Of What People Are Going To Think'
“The Wedding Ringer” star Kevin Hart says he won’t play a gay character because of what “people are going to think” if he were to take on such a role.
“I can’t [play a gay character] because I don’t think I’m really going to dive into that role 100 percent, because of the insecurities about myself trying to play that part,” the 35-year-old comedian told hosts of the Breakfast Club on Power 105.1 in an interview, as TMZ reports. “What I think people are going to think while I’m trying to do this is going to stop me from playing that part the way I’m supposed to.”
The actor had been discussing his regrets in turning down Brandon T. Jackson’s role in 2008’s “Tropic Thunder” at the time of the remarks.
Noting that he “appreciates and respects” the gay community, Hart said, “The dude…he was doing a lot of stuff in the draft that I read. It was real flagrant.”
Hart has taken a cautious stance on lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) issues in the past. In early 2014, the star revealed in a Reddit AMA he would not deliver jokes about the gay community because “it’s just a sensitive topic and I respect people of all orientations.”
When hosting the MTV VMAs two years earlier, he praised R&B star Frank Ocean for opening up about a same-sex relationship.
“I think what Frank Ocean did was really great,” he said at the time, as quoted by Towleroad. “Not everybody can do that, and for that, I commend you.”
Supreme Court to Take on Marriage Equality Cases
Could The Supreme Court Decide That We Don’t Have A Constitutional Right To Marriage?
Could The Supreme Court Decide That We Don’t Have A Constitutional Right To Marriage?
The Supreme Court has finally run out of road to kick the marriage equality can down. Tacitly acknowledging that the issue can no longer be ignored, the justices have agreed to decide once and for all whether there is a constitutional right to marry.
Specifically, the Court will be answering the questions that it left unanswered with the Windsor ruling two years ago: do states have the right to ban same-sex marriages and can states refuse to recognize marriages from other states? At the time of the Windsor ruling, the justices insisted that they weren’t being asked to address that question, suggesting that it’s each state has the right to make its own choice.
So much has happened in the intervening year and a half that the Windsor ruling seems from a previous decade. We’ve gone from 9 states with marriage equality to 36. Public support for marriage equality keeps growing.
But every case has its risks. As inevitable as the final outcome looks, there’s always a chance that a majority of justices decide that its still too soon to declare marriage equality a federal right, as opposed to one that states can confer.
The case at issue this time around is a ruling from the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, which covers Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio and Tennessee. In a 2-1 ruling last November, the Court reinstated marriage bans in those four states. The two majority judges, both appointed by George W. Bush, relied upon a one-sentence ruling from a 1972 Supreme Court ruling involving two Minnesota men who sought to marry. The judges didn’t even bother to refer to the Windsor arguments, which was a remarkable feat of judicial acrobatics.
Could the justices decide that the time isn’t right? After the Windsor ruling, Ruth Bader Ginsburg said that the Court acted “just the way they should have” by not getting ahead of public opinion. That will probably be the question hanging in the air when the Court takes up oral arguments. This is not a famously activist group of judges (at least not on cultural issues) and basically telling the residents of Tuscaloosa that gay couples have the same right to marry as they do to bear arms may be a bit too far even for those sympathetic to the issue.
Still, in the end it only takes five justices to make a majority. Would any of the five who struck down the Defense of Marriage Act get cold feet now? Even Ginsburg isn’t that cautious; she was the first justice to perform a same-sex marriage ceremony.
Moreover, on this single issue, Justice Anthony Kennedy has shown a willingness to be bold. He wrote the majority opinions in the decisions striking down sodomy laws and “special rights” ballot measures. Why he would change his mind now would be hard to imagine.
Still, that doesn’t mean it can’t happen. We’ll have a better sense of what the justices are thinking when they hear oral arguments in the case, like in April. The final decision will likely come down to the wire again at the end of the Court’s term in June. In other words, just in time for the second anniversary of the Windsor ruling.
JohnGallagher
MI5 Makes Stonewall's Top 10 List of Best British Workplaces For Gay Employees
MI5 Makes Stonewall's Top 10 List of Best British Workplaces For Gay Employees
Just in time for the 15th anniversary of MI5’s decision to allow gay people into its ranks, the British intelligence agency has been named as one of the top 10 gay-friendly employers in the UK. The British Army, Navy and the Royal Air Force were also included in Stonewall’s annual equality index.
“It represents incredibly significant progress in a very short time,” said Stonewall spokesman Richard Lane. “I wouldn’t say I am entirely surprised by it though, because the Armed Forces have been working very hard to change the culture of their organisations. They have realised the importance of recruiting the best people for the job, regardless of their sexual orientation.”
Charles Pulliam-Moore
Youtubers React to Most Shocking LGBT Moments of 2014
Youtubers React to Most Shocking LGBT Moments of 2014
SUBSCRIBE TO THESE COOL PEOPLE BELOW! LIAM – www.youtube.com/channel/UCmZM9dHWja_pyYVDR_tqRuQ ROLAND …
WATCH: Janet Mock Sounds Off on InTouch's Bruce Jenner Cover
WATCH: Janet Mock Sounds Off on InTouch's Bruce Jenner Cover
The author, commentator, and trans advocate calls the tabloid’s Photoshopped cover of Bruce Jenner ‘shockingly insensitive, sensational, and inaccurate.’
Sunnivie Brydum
www.advocate.com/politics/transgender/2015/01/16/watch-janet-mock-sounds-intouchs-bruce-jenner-cover
Proposed Bill Would Let Students Sue If They See Transgender Students In Certain Bathrooms
Proposed Bill Would Let Students Sue If They See Transgender Students In Certain Bathrooms
One Kentucky state senator wants to make sure that transgender students are only allowed to use bathrooms and locker rooms that correspond with their biological sex.
Earlier this month, state Sen. C.B. Embry (R) filed a piece of legislation that would force schools to “provide separate, private areas designated for use by students based on their biological sex” in settings where students could be in a “state of undress.” Embry reportedly filed the legislation on behalf of the Family Foundation of Kentucky, a conservative organization that opposes issues like gay marriage. The foundation approached the politician about sponsoring the bill after a high school in the state approved a policy allowing transgender students to use the bathrooms that correspond with their gender identity, reported local outlet WBKO-TV.
One part of the legislation would allow students to recover thousands of dollars if they encounter a transgender student in a bathroom that does not fit the student’s biological sex. The bill says that if a student sues over the issue, they could gain $2,500 from the school for every instance that “he or she encountered a person of the opposite sex while accessing a school restroom, locker room, or shower room designated for use by the biological sex of the aggrieved student.” The bill allows for these lawsuits if the school did not take steps to prevent transgender students from using the bathroom of their choice.
The bill is named the Kentucky Student Privacy Act. It says that “because situations currently exist in which the privacy rights of students are violated, an emergency is declared to exist.”
If passed, the bill would allow transgender students to use private bathrooms if their guardian provides written consent.
Embry told US News and World Report that he has received backlash over the bill, but he does not view it as offensive.
“They’re certainly welcome to live their lives as they choose, if they want to dress as the opposite sex and the school is OK with that, that’s fine,” he told the outlet.
He also said he does not think gay and lesbian students should be prevented from using the same locker rooms and restrooms as same-sex peers, but that steps should be taken to make sure transgender students do not make others uncomfortable.
“I have a friend, and we can all say these things, who is a homosexual and she agrees that she doesn’t want men in her bathroom,” he told the outlet.
Embry did not immediately respond to requests for comment from The Huffington Post.
Thomas Aberli, principal of a Kentucky school that allows students to use bathrooms that correspond with their gender identity, told Kentucky outlet the Bowling Green Daily News that the school hasn’t had problems implementing the policy.
“It’s a non-issue in this school,” Aberli told the outlet.
HRC: “Kill Them” Anti-LGBT Message of Hate Does Not Represent Mississippi Values
HRC: “Kill Them” Anti-LGBT Message of Hate Does Not Represent Mississippi Values
Today, HRC responded to a disturbing message advocating for violence against LGBT people spray-painted in big letters on the wall of a building in downtown Jackson.
HRC.org
Attorney General Eric Holder: Dept. of Justice Will Ask SCOTUS To 'Make Marriage Equality A Reality For All Americans'
Attorney General Eric Holder: Dept. of Justice Will Ask SCOTUS To 'Make Marriage Equality A Reality For All Americans'
Attorney General Eric Holder, hot on the heels of news from the Supreme Court today that it will hear four challenges to same-sex marriage bans in Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio and Tennessee, announced that the Department of Justice will file an amicus brief with the Court asking the justices to recognize marriage equality as the law of the land:
“After the Justice Department’s decision not to defend the constitutionality of Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act, the Supreme Court sent a powerful message that Americans in same-sex marriages are entitled to equal protection and equal treatment under the law. This landmark decision marked a historic step toward equality for all American families.
“The Supreme Court has announced that it will soon hear several cases raising core questions concerning the constitutionality of same-sex marriages. As these cases proceed, the Department of Justice will remain committed to ensuring that the benefits of marriage are available as broadly as possible. And we will keep striving to secure equal treatment for all members of society—regardless of sexual orientation.
“As such, we expect to file a ‘friend of the court’ brief in these cases that will urge the Supreme Court to make marriage equality a reality for all Americans. It is time for our nation to take another critical step forward to ensure the fundamental equality of all Americans—no matter who they are, where they come from, or whom they love.”
In case you missed it, check out our legal editor Ari Ezra Waldman’s analysis of today’s news from the Supreme Court. And in case you’re wondering what happens should we lose the cases before the Court, Lambda Legal has spelled out what could happen HERE.
Sean Mandell
