Gay Marriage | News | Rufus Wainwright

Rufus Wainwright on Marriage Equality

RufuswainwrightFrom an interview in the New York Press:

"Oddly enough, I’m actually not a huge gay marriage supporter. I personally don’t want to get married but I think that any law or amendment to the constitution that deals with sex and love should just be banned in general. I don’t think any government should encroach on what goes on in the bedroom at all. Frankly, if you want to marry a dog, why don’t you go ahead and marry a dog, I don’t care. I’m a complete libertarian and so I really disagree with it."

Feed This post's comment feed


  1. What a putz. I hated his music before and now I hate it even more. Him and Elton need to run off and get their civil union and live on a secluded island were there is no marriage.

    Way to win over your audience.

    Posted by: Travis | Dec 8, 2008 6:41:15 PM

  2. We can expect a half-assed clarification of his "out of context" comments, a la Prince, tomorrow.

    Posted by: JohnInManhattan | Dec 8, 2008 6:47:59 PM

  3. Read the quotation in context, people!!!

    He's not talking about "marriage equality"

    The question was: "How do you react when activism is nullified, like when the same-sex marriage law was reversed in California?"

    And he's against that. If Sarah Silverman can marry her dog, why can't Rufus? Don't you think he's just sticking it to all those people who make that stupid slippery slope arguement?

    Posted by: Kevinvt | Dec 8, 2008 6:51:32 PM

  4. Rufus, WTF? Why don't you just completely throw the gay community under a bus?

    Posted by: KFLO | Dec 8, 2008 7:04:03 PM

  5. I'm a big Rufus fan, so this hurts to say, but:

    The reason he can afford to be against marriage equality for him and his long-term German boyfriend is because they are both rich enough to be able to fly back and forth, procure professional visas, etc. For those of us who are in binational relationships and are not millionaires, the situation is much bleaker. He should think of those people before he speaks next time.

    Posted by: Jeremy | Dec 8, 2008 7:11:25 PM

  6. A: Rufus is NOT against marriage equality, though it's true that he (like Gore Vidal) is rich enough not to care.

    B: He's Canadian, and they HAVE marriage equality, and it's no big deal.

    Andy's headline is misleading.

    Posted by: Kevinvt | Dec 8, 2008 7:14:46 PM

  7. Wow, I can see from some of the comments on this post what some refer to as the negative aspects of gay culture. Not only is it consumerist, superficial, anti-intellectual, but it's also homogenized, simple, and vapid. The lack of respect for Rufus is appalling. Don't you all realize that with the right to marry comes the right not to marry? In fact, one way to approach it is that the right not to marry is one we all already enjoy. So what if you disagree with Rufus? If anything, he's hardly alone in his opinion, chiefly among the younger generation of homosexuals. Bottom line is this: it's hypocritical to preach tolerance and inclusiveness when at the same time views that dissent from the mainstream are denounced and persecuted. Wake up people.

    Posted by: Ben | Dec 8, 2008 7:22:44 PM

  8. Thanks, Rufus. Because constructive comments such as this ARE SO HELPFUL right now.


    Posted by: Tim | Dec 8, 2008 7:26:18 PM

  9. @Ben:

    And along comes the clueless homophobe, scanning blog comment sections, looking for evidence of over-arching themes with which to confirm his biases, extrapolating generalizations from a handfull of comments, applying them to an entire demographic, and ultimately perpetuating the same tired old stereotypes about a supposed "gay culture" and its "negative aspects".

    Go fuck yourself Ben.

    (That's my personal opinion of what you should do and doesn't reflect the opinions of any other gay people, by the way)

    As for Rufus - well I've encountered people like him before. Actually that same wording, "I don't care if someone wants to marry their dog". Usually what they're saying is anyone should be free to enter into whatever contractual agreement they want without the government intruding. And they're wondering why the government is privileging any particular partnership in the first place. And while of course the wording is terrible (since it sounds a little too much like something Rick Santorum might say), once you get over their tactlessness of how it was phrased and think about what they actually said, you realize they didn't mean anything close to what "man-on-dog" Santorum believes, and you can sort of see their point.

    I don't think it lessens the case for gay marriage at all, it just frames equality in another way. Actually turning the argument around could do us some good. Why are straight couples given extra rewards and tax breaks that nobody else gets? Why should my taxes subsidize these rewards? Why should I pay the same taxes if I don't get the same rewards and prizes from the government?

    Why can't people just sign over their belongings, custody rights, health care coverage, etc. to whomever they want? Why does the government have to swoop down and make sure they're sleeping with each other?

    These are all good questions.

    But then again, until we get to that wonderful libertarian paradise where there is no government and everyone lives in peace and harmony with each other on their own accord (yeah right), currently we have a system that requires two people be married in order to get full legal rights and protections for their closest family members.

    Until we get a different system, making sure that everyone who needs and deserves those rights gets them is the agenda.

    And either way, if you don't want to get married, then don't fucking get married. Nobody said you have to. But in the meantime, shut up and stay out of the way of people who do.

    Posted by: Eshto | Dec 8, 2008 8:09:48 PM

  10. nice -- this twerp with a modicum of talent just gave a great pull quote to Fox News.

    They can say:
    former meth addict, gay singer Rufus Wainwright who performs a Judy Garland drag act for adoring fans says he thinks marrying animals should be legal.

    As if his music didn't suck enough -- now whe know he is also a pussy when it comes to cvil rights.

    Posted by: Rufus Sucks | Dec 8, 2008 8:32:51 PM

  11. this guy has always been a mediocre and over-rated talent, but now he qualifies for being a first-rate idiot. Thanks, Rufus, for opening up your mouth and saying the very thing that the Bible beaters have been warning about forever. please go away and shut up. and by the way, dogs and other beasts cannot give their consent.

    Posted by: niles | Dec 8, 2008 8:45:42 PM

  12. Everyone has a right to their own opinion. Rufus quite clearly stated that he beleived that same sex marriage should be legal. His music? It's brilliant! Not over-rated by far. He's definitely no slouch.

    Posted by: javo | Dec 8, 2008 9:06:52 PM

  13. While the debate could be had regarding whether or not it is appropriate for the government to be involved in legitimizing relationships, the reality is: they do, and that is not changing anytime soon.

    The treatment of the subject was terribly lazy of him, but the whole man-on-dog note is shockingly naive.

    Fox News can now run this quote beside the Elton John one about civil unions.

    Posted by: Rey | Dec 8, 2008 9:14:52 PM

  14. OMG, Jeremy's comment is so right! It's rare to hear it mentioned in the gay marriage debate, isn't it? But Jeremy's exactly right. I've been steamed countless times as i've watched my hetero expat friends marry & bring their partner back to the USA while I cannot. I guess it's the same ire many people feel when they hear the "sanctity of marriage" line at the same time we see coverage of Brit Spears Las Vegas marriage, which i think lasted about 56 hours or so. Watching visa after visa be granted to marrying binational heterosexuals while I and so many others just have to "settle" for not having that option! It's not all about hosptial visitation rights & custodial stuff, it's an immigration visa issue,too! Jeremy's on target, i just don't see much movement on the issue.

    Posted by: Daniel | Dec 8, 2008 9:32:48 PM

  15. Bear in mind Rufus is a Canadian citizen and can get legally married there to a man in a civil marriage, so the arrogant prick doesn't have to give 2 cents for anybody else's civil rights. Nice one. Thanks, Rufus

    ps -- His Judy Garland song act was total shit

    Posted by: Kira | Dec 8, 2008 9:40:39 PM

  16. Someone has to tell Rufus that with power comes responsibility. His prestige gives him power and he has now used it irresponsibly. First, he has given a weapon to our enemies. Secondly, his argument is meaningless, as someone said only those who can give consent should enter into marriage or have sexual relations. He gave this matter no thought and has done harm to gay people. I like his music and have supported him up to now. I am not sure I will in the future.
    Irresponsible and harmful faux little boy.

    Posted by: Puddy Katz | Dec 8, 2008 9:46:08 PM

  17. In a unanimous decision, the Completely Self-Involved Bourgeois Airhead Award for December 2008 goes to Rufus Wainright.

    Or wait, was that the Petulant, Overweening Nasally Voiced Asshat Award?

    Either way, he deserves it. Wake up, Lord Fauntelroy, the riffraff fly over rainbow waving gay trash can't walk between the raindrops in their Prada shoes like you do.

    Posted by: FASTLAD | Dec 8, 2008 10:00:02 PM

  18. On a completely superficial and bitchy side note, when exactly was that photo taken? Was jimmy carter still president? He hasn’t looked like that in a long time –there was a photo of him in the times a few months back and I was appalled to see what a hag he looks like in real life which is to say not the world that photo was taken in -- btw his judy garland act was truly a crime for which he should be held accountable--

    Posted by: professor crabby phd | Dec 8, 2008 10:15:14 PM

  19. Rufus, You kiss your momma with that mouth?!

    Posted by: Conyers | Dec 8, 2008 10:16:40 PM

  20. What a dumbass. Just what we need - as if the wingnuts like O'Reilly don't bring up marrying an animal enough.

    Posted by: Dan | Dec 8, 2008 10:56:03 PM

  21. His position would have some merit, were it not for the fact that the government will never simply step out of its role in the marriage contract and invalidate all the marriages that exist. Marriage will not be abolished--not that I care either way.

    bottom line= certain people have the right to marry someone they can love and enjoy consensual sex with, and certain others don't. That's not fair.

    I myself am not interested in marriage, and my only reservation about gay marriage is that some married gays will inevitably turn their noses down at promiscuous gays. Monogamy is not for everyone, and if you are married it is not because of some virtue like maturity or moral propriety, it is because you felt that marriage suited you.

    Posted by: Kbone | Dec 8, 2008 11:25:43 PM

  22. GREAT! First you piss all over Judy Garland's grave, now you piss on gay marriage. What an asshole you've turned out to be.

    Posted by: Jeff NYC | Dec 9, 2008 12:20:43 AM

  23. Rufus just played right into the hands of those who say that after gay marriage is legal people will then sue to be able to marry their dogs. Rufi is entitled to an opinion but he handed this one to the religionists on a fancy silver platter wrapped up with a big shiny bow.

    A very foolish statement from a very gifted musician. Sing Rufi sing, but for gawd's sake shut the fuck up about politics.

    Posted by: Tom Clark | Dec 9, 2008 3:12:17 AM

  24. i've never really been a big rufus wainwright fan in the first place. his views on just about everything piss me off. i remember he gave one interview where he was talking about how children are little impostors or something...that really just made me hate him. lol.

    oh and his music IS overrated...i didn't even like it before i knew his political background

    Posted by: Robbie | Dec 9, 2008 5:12:17 AM

  25. Rufus doesn't give good sound byte. But he doesn't look like a hag, he looks fine, at least as of three weeks ago when I saw him in concert. (Professor Crabby.) His comments were from his own personal perspective, he would make a lousy politician. Which while a compliment is also startling to our ears accustomed to hearing just exactly what we ourselves would want to say. So, as a communicator of ideas and emotions, a songwriter and singer he flubbed. Shit happens. From what he has always said and done he does not intend ill, he is not the enemy. And if he gives 'aid' to those who are by giving them a Santorum moment, who the fuck cares - let them have their tee hee hee moment and look all foolish and doggy-lovin.' It's time this issue has grown beyond the tip toeing around it stage where everyone has to be afraid about what so and so says that might be a tad off. So Rufus put his foot in his mouth? He's not the ambassador from Gay nor the Gay Pope speaking ex-cathedra.

    Posted by: JamesR | Dec 9, 2008 6:09:08 AM

  26. « | 1 2 3 »

Post a comment


« «News: The Bible, Thong, Oaxaca, Josh Holloway, Cape Cod« «