Interesting Quote: Adam Lambert

"I’m not being puppeted around. I didn’t want to jump onto a gay magazine as my first thing, because I feel like that’s putting myself in a box and limiting myself. It was my desire to stay away from talking about certain political and civil rights issues because I’m not a politician. I’m an entertainer. That is not my area of expertise. I can talk about relationships and personal experiences because as an artist those things involve writing lyrics and that part of my process. But I didn’t feel comfortable talking about the March on Washington. I didn’t feel comfortable, so I asked my publicist to ask the interviewer to stay away from the political questions. I take full responsibility for that. I think that the editor has his agenda and has his opinions, which I respect, but they’re not necessarily my opinions. And I wish there was a little respect for that. Not every gay man is the same gay man....in order for us to progress, we need to stop segregating ourselves. And a letter like that, that viewpoint — the letter that Aaron wrote is holding us back. Because it’s recognizing the big difference as opposed to letting us all ignore preference and just be people."

Adam responding to OUT's editor, Aaron Hicklin.

Adam Lambert Vs OUT

Merciful Minerva, Gay and Fame don't mix well.

In today's episode is called, Adam on OUT's cover drama.

Adam Lambert's folks didn't want him to look "too gay" on the OUT 100 cover.

Editor in Chief, Aaron Hicklin, wasn't feelin' it so he had this to say:

Dear Adam,

I like you, I really do. Although I’d never watched American Idol, I became a fan this year thanks to your unapologetic flamboyance and sexual swagger. It was refreshing to see someone playing by his own rules among so many cookie-cutters. And although you narrowly lost to Kris Allen, you were the real winner for those of us who saw your success as a test of America’s growing tolerance. That’s why we’re proud to have you in this year’s Out 100, along with all the other men and women who don’t believe their sexuality should be a barrier to success. It’s unfortunate, therefore, that your record label and management don’t share the same view.

We’re curious whether you know that we made cover offers for you before American Idol was even halfway through its run. Apparently, Out was too gay, even for you. There was the issue of what it would do to your record sales, we were told. Imagine! A gay musician on the cover of a gay magazine. What might the parents think! It’s only because this cover is a group shot that includes a straight woman that your team would allow you to be photographed at all -- albeit with the caveat that we must avoid making you look “too gay.” (Is that a medical term? Just curious). Luckily, you seemed unaware that a similar caution was issued to our interviewer.

Perhaps we should have had you and Cyndi in a tongue lock. That would be radical. It’s odd, because this magazine has done covers with Pete Wentz and Lady Gaga -- getting straight men and women to do Out is easy these days. It gives them cred. Getting gay stars like yourself is another matter. Much easier to stick you in Details, where your homosexuality can be neutralized by having you awkwardly grabbing a woman’s breast and saying, “Women are pretty.” So are kittens, Adam, but it doesn’t mean you have to make out with them. Imagine how much more radical it would have been to go down on a guy instead of that six-foot Barbie. We don’t think you would have a problem with that -- why should you? -- but your record label would, and letting them dictate the terms is the very opposite of rock ’n’ roll. And did you read the article? You would think your entire fan base was made up of women and heterosexual men, or “straight dudes” as the writer describes them, just so we can all be clear. No mention of your gay fans, which is kind of disappointing, don’t you think, given what your success represents?

We don’t want to sound ungrateful -- you agreed to do our cover, and your interview is gracious and frank -- but if the Out 100 has a purpose it’s to challenge the kind of apartheid that lays down one rule for gay mags and one for all others. We think you probably feel the same way -- you even say as much -- so we don’t mean to diminish your achievements this year. That’s why you’re in this issue. You’re a pioneer, an out gay pop idol at the start of his career. Someone has to be first, and we’re all counting on you not to mess this up. You have to find your own path and then others can follow. We just hope it’s a path that’s honest and true and that you choose to surround yourself with people who celebrate your individuality. The irony is that right now it would be easier to get Kris Allen to do a solo cover shoot for us. But only because he’s straight.

Aaron Hicklin, Editor in Chief

P.S. It would be remiss of me not to thank the amazing dedication, perseverance, and grace under fire of the Out editorial team that put this -- the largest original portfolio of its kind in any magazine -- together in challenging circumstances. In particular, I must acknowledge deputy editor Bill Keith, who oversaw the project, photo director Annie Chia, who has made this most daunting of issues as painless as it’s ever been, and photographer Jason Bell, who took on this time-consuming assignment with a relish and passion that was simply awe-inspiring.

Cat Scratch!

But Adam (in true Madame form) Tweeted his response




Good Grief!

Is this how Adam wants to start his career? Well judging by the the 1st song and that CD cover, he's not on a good start.

Do we need HRC?

Andrew Sullivan wrote an interesting article about the relevance of the Human Rights Campaign. He feels that the group came up short in its support of No on Prop 8. Andrew has never been a fan of HRC, but in this article I can almost understand why.

In the biggest rise to battle, HRC was not really as vocal as some of the grassroots groups. Joe Solmonese wrote a letter addressing some of issues we already have discussed. And in someways, he wants us to be nice. But I needed to hear more from this group. I needed to know what else do they have in store for the battle.

Andrew would like to know as well. He really wasn't feeling the HRC and had this to say:

HRC claims to have spent $3.4 million on No On 8. The Mormon church was able to spend over $20 million, by appealing to its members. Why are non-gay Mormons more capable of organizing and fund-raising on a gay rights measure than the biggest national gay rights group? I mean: they claim (absurdly, but bear with me) 725,000 supporters and members. In the summer, the major problem for No On 8 was insufficient early funding. If HRC had led, they could have thrown their money weight behind it. If every supporter had given $20 - chump change for the biggest ever battle yet for civil rights - they could have delivered $14 million overnight. So why didn't they?

That's a very good question. Sure there are a lot of Mormons, but with all of the HRC star-studded galas, funraisers, and big time events, shouldn't they been ready for war? I, like Andrew is concern over the reactive stance of HRC. I need them to act like the JLA, be out there fighting for us, not coming in at the last minute. I need to feel secure in their purpose, as well as, secure in their existence. I'm not so sure that we need them, some of grassroots groups are doing just fine. And all the money they get from us, what is it really going to?

Right now, I wonder if HRC is a after High School popular club for the gays that were picked on. I wonder are they really working for us or just title-hungry folks. I need you to be more HRC, we need you to be more. Please step it up.