What Do Armistead Maupin And Hilary Swank Have In Common?

What Do Armistead Maupin And Hilary Swank Have In Common?

Screen Shot 2014-10-06 at 7.50.26 PMOn a purely surface level, it’s difficult to think of two more disparate individuals than august author Armistead Maupin and two-time Oscar-winning actress Hilary Swank. Yet it makes sense that both the writer behind the beloved Tales of the City novels and the performer who brought transgender man Brandon Teena to life in Boys Don’t Cry are to be honored with Outfest Legacy awards later this month for contributing to stories, make that tales that have inspired all of us.

During a swanky affair in Los Angeles on November 12, Maupin will be presented with the Visionary Award, while Swank will receive the Trailblazer Award. In a statement released to the media, Outfest’s Executive Director Kirsten Schaffer drew a connection between the two honorees:

“Armistead Maupin’s diverse, interconnected community of San Francisco bohemians — which shaped our collective fantasy of what LGBT life is and could be – may stand in stark contrast to Hilary Swank’s all-too-real portrayal of a trans man who is murdered in Boys Don’t Cry. But the two have one important thing in common: They are stories that inspire change.”

The awards serve as a fundraiser to support the Outfest UCLA Legacy Project, the largest archive of LGBT moving images in the world. Tickets go on sale today and can be purchased here.

Jeremy Kinser

feedproxy.google.com/~r/queerty2/~3/DA90FwhZBcw/what-do-armistead-maupin-and-hilary-swank-have-in-common-20141007

Rachel Maddow Looks At SCOTUS' October Surprise, Interviews 'Incredibly Joyous' Edie Windsor: VIDEO

Rachel Maddow Looks At SCOTUS' October Surprise, Interviews 'Incredibly Joyous' Edie Windsor: VIDEO

Rachel

Yesterday, in the wake of the Supreme Court’s refusal to take up any of the seven marriage equality cases pending before it, our own Ari Ezra Waldman offered analysis as to why each judge on the Court may have wanted to duck the equality question at this time. On her show last night, Rachel Maddow took a look at the path that led to yesterday’s decision (or lack thereof) and what may have motivated it. She wondered, since it only takes 4 votes for the Supreme Court to decide to hear a case, why didn’t the anti-gay marriage wing of the Court (Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Scalia, Alito and Thomas) want to take the opportunity to try and reverse some of the “damage” done by United States v. Windsor (a case in which all 4 justices dissented)? Could there be a Machiavellian motive at play?

Watch and listen to Rachel’s take along with an interview with Edie Windsor and Roberta Kaplan, AFTER THE JUMP…

Anti


Sean Mandell

www.towleroad.com/2014/10/rachel-maddow-looks-on-scotus-october-surprise-interviews-incredibly-joyous-edie-windsor-video.html

LGBT BLOG




You must be 18 years old or older to chat