Lesbian Marriage Too Tough For Batwoman, Authors Leave

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 NEXT
 

Typical damn executive meddling... then again, I have little interest in the New 52 as it is... so for me, it's no real loss.

Lilani:

Spot1990:
Once again, it might have nothing to do with her being a lesbian. Marrying off a character is a big deal that can mess with the status quo of the character and their books. That's why comic book characters getting married is always a big deal. There are plenty of comic book romances who aren't married and who won't be anytime soon. Seriously, if you can't see why her being a lesbian would discourage them from marrying her off then maybe that's not what's discouraging them.

There's a quote in there that makes me think otherwise.

It was the marriage, Williams Tweets, which was the final straw; "we fought to get them engaged," says Williams, "but were told emphatically that no marriage can result."

If they didn't want Batwoman to get married, then why did they concede to an engagement in the first place? Were they just going to have her be perpetually engaged? That doesn't make any sense.

To placate the writers, because an engagement is easier to break off than a marriage, because they already have future plans for the character that need her to not be married. There are so many possible reasons and no actual reason given to support the anti-gay marriage theory that I'm starting to think people just like taking offense to stuff. I mean think about it they already have a book about an openly gay character which explores her same sex relationship. They reintroduced an established character as gay. They're not just token gay characters who we're just told are gay and it's left at that. Their relationships make up an important part of their stories. Considering all that is DC just not wanting to show this character getting married more likely out of homophobia or preserving the status quo?

Dark Knifer:
I'm going to guess they didn't want to jeopardise their no 1 spot by doing anything remotely controversial and completely failed as the writers, rightfully, gave up.

It's time for stupid apparently.

Aren't they a couple years late on avoiding commentary?

erttheking:
Wow, that's a major dick move. I mean seriously D.C.? Ah well, if AT4W is anything to go by, they've been a bit of a mess for awhile now.

Linkara's had a bunch of nice things to say about quite a few of the comics in the line. I believe, though I can't remember for sure, Batwoman was one of them. Gah.

Angelous Wang:
I never thought DC had a problem judging who its customers are and what's best to keep them.

The company that writes comics for 45 year olds?

Spot1990:
Batgirl got paralysed decades ago and became Oracle. That was before the New 52 reboot. Still completely different people, Batgirl and Batwoman. Also they replaced Barbara Gordon's Batgirl with others in that time as well.

A couple of which were actually pretty good.

Still, I can hardly blame people for being confused between Batgirl and Batwoman. The two words have been used pretty interchangeably in the biz for decades and there's usually only one female "version" of a character.

Lilani:

If they didn't want Batwoman to get married, then why did they concede to an engagement in the first place? Were they just going to have her be perpetually engaged? That doesn't make any sense.

It makes perfect sense from an American media perspective, as serial media tends to do this all the time.

There's a funny coincidence in Finnish language that's related to this:

Finnish slang word for "lesbian" is "lepakko", the same word that means a bat. So Batwoman, or Lepakkonainen, could be interpret as a lesbian woman in Finnish language.

TheDoctor455:

Erm... having a prominent, admirable, lesbian character wasn't controversial?

Anyway...

We live in the era of Ellen DeGeneres on one side of the Atlantic and Claire Balding on the other, so no, that's not controversial at all.

It's weird though that DC has become so risk averse, this is the company that let Alan 'completely fucking crazy' Moore write for their flagship characters and has an openly gay Green Lantern. It's not as if comic book continuity is set in stone anyway, there are so many retcons and counter-retcons you need a flow chart just to track one character.

I suspect there's more to this than just cold feet upstairs about plot arcs, although I doubt it has anything to do with the writers and everything to do with the egos of higher ups.

Spot1990:
Exactly, it probably wouldn't be a big controversy. Making Alan Scott gay wasn't a big controversy. So maybe that's not the reason they don't want her married! We have no idea what the writers had planned, how they wanted to handle it. It might have been terrible or it could have just been too big a shake up for the character. There are other possibilities. Can people stop acting like it's definitely the gay thing. Lots of characters don't get married to their SO.

Ok, that's fair enough, But even if it was poorly handled, they should have at least put it out there so people could judge it on their own or maybe broken it off in-story instead of some exec going "Let's drive away two good writers by constantly screwing them over at every turn and trying to stop two girls kissing at the altar".

Karloff:
snip

The title should be changed. Writers leave because of corporate meddling. Why isn't the headline about Killer Croc's origin getting axed? Even the source never says DC's problem is the "lesbian" aspect of "lesbian marriage". It was pure click bait.

This news sucks. Batwoman was a great series which I enjoyed immensely.

Even if the decision not to show marriage wasn't an anti-gay stance, it's still stupid. One of the things which distinguished Batwoman from the other New 52 line-up (I haven't read Animal Man, so can't comment on that) was the sheer fact that the relationships were done so well. Kate felt like an actual well-rounded (if not well-adjusted) person beyond having plenty of money, tonnes of gadgets, and kicking ass. She was a mature character whose sexuality was actually expressed through relationships, rather than T&A.

Sure, the art was fantastic. But I'll miss the the characterisation more, I think.

Gearhead mk2:

Spot1990:
Exactly, it probably wouldn't be a big controversy. Making Alan Scott gay wasn't a big controversy. So maybe that's not the reason they don't want her married! We have no idea what the writers had planned, how they wanted to handle it. It might have been terrible or it could have just been too big a shake up for the character. There are other possibilities. Can people stop acting like it's definitely the gay thing. Lots of characters don't get married to their SO.

Ok, that's fair enough, But even if it was poorly handled, they should have at least put it out there so people could judge it on their own or maybe broken it off in-story instead of some exec going "Let's drive away two good writers by constantly screwing them over at every turn and trying to stop two girls kissing at the altar".

They might have other plans for the character. There is no reason to believe it had to do with "two girls kissing at the altar." There's plenty of examples of writers not getting to do what they wanted to do because they don't own the characters and don't have to worry about the character's futures. Hell the Watchmen came about because DC didn't want Alan Moore screwing up a bunch of their characters so he created new ones. It happens all the time. The only difference here is it involves the word lesbian and people love a chance for a bit of moral outrage.

fix-the-spade:

TheDoctor455:

Erm... having a prominent, admirable, lesbian character wasn't controversial?

Anyway...

We live in the era of Ellen DeGeneres on one side of the Atlantic and Claire Balding on the other, so no, that's not controversial at all.

It's weird though that DC has become so risk averse, this is the company that let Alan 'completely fucking crazy' Moore write for their flagship characters and has an openly gay Green Lantern. It's not as if comic book continuity is set in stone anyway, there are so many retcons and counter-retcons you need a flow chart just to track one character.

I suspect there's more to this than just cold feet upstairs about plot arcs, although I doubt it has anything to do with the writers and everything to do with the egos of higher ups.

I don't recall saying anything about this being the writer's fault.

I put the blame squarely on DC Comics, as in the organization itself.

Though quite frankly, I don't think we should be surprised.

This is the same company that LOVED Frank Miller's work.

Yeah... seriously... I don't think the guy could write a story with women in it without them being whores or the word 'whore' being used at some point to save his life.

Angelous Wang:
I never thought DC had a problem judging who its customers are and what's best to keep them.

Hey DC guess what? The majority of your customers are male and are otherwise the exact same audience lesbian porn is aimed at.

Lesbians = good for business.

That's not necessarily it. You probably have a lot of teenagers/kids who read the stuff and if their fundamentalist christian soccer moms (the majority of USA's voting demographic) see any of that sinful heathen whacky tabbacky, they'll throw a fit because how dare they instill a thought that betrays the will of our lord and savior Jesus Christ?

Hey DC, you remember when every single issue had to have some DRAMATIC OR CONTROVERSIAL moment in order to sell books to potential collectors? You remember how that lead to the comics crash? stop it.

Besides, The Question has always been the better lesbian.

Spot1990:

Gearhead mk2:

Spot1990:
Exactly, it probably wouldn't be a big controversy. Making Alan Scott gay wasn't a big controversy. So maybe that's not the reason they don't want her married! We have no idea what the writers had planned, how they wanted to handle it. It might have been terrible or it could have just been too big a shake up for the character. There are other possibilities. Can people stop acting like it's definitely the gay thing. Lots of characters don't get married to their SO.

Ok, that's fair enough, But even if it was poorly handled, they should have at least put it out there so people could judge it on their own or maybe broken it off in-story instead of some exec going "Let's drive away two good writers by constantly screwing them over at every turn and trying to stop two girls kissing at the altar".

They might have other plans for the character. There is no reason to believe it had to do with "two girls kissing at the altar." There's plenty of examples of writers not getting to do what they wanted to do because they don't own the characters and don't have to worry about the character's futures. Hell the Watchmen came about because DC didn't want Alan Moore screwing up a bunch of their characters so he created new ones. It happens all the time. The only difference here is it involves the word lesbian and people love a chance for a bit of moral outrage.

Well I came into this article expecting pretty much what I've seen thus far: everyone immediately assuming it was shot down because DC doesn't want gay-marriage. Personally I shared your viewpoint: nothing in the article specifically says it's because of an anti gay marriage stance held by DC and that all this hubbub regarding it could very well be completely unfounded.

After doing a bit of digging, I found a nugget of evidence that supports your position:

That's right, while Batwoman has proposed to Maggie twice - twice on panel - DC not only refused to let the wedding be depicted on panel, but refused to let them be married at all. "[We] were told emphatically no marriage can result," said Williams on Twitter. He later added it was "was never put to us as being anti-gay marriage."

(Source: http://io9.com/dc-wont-allow-batwomans-gay-marriage-to-be-depicted-1257106266 )

Now the piece that comes from is, itself, an opinion piece in which the writer makes the same assumption that most of the responses to this article have made, going on to say "Although how refusing to let people marry - even fictional ones - is not anti-gay marriage is beyond me."

Furthermore, coming from Blackman's blog as linked in this topic's main article:

We've always understood that, as much as we love the character, Batwoman ultimately belongs to DC

Just wanted to throw you a bone since you seem to be the only one in here suggesting that this might not be some vast anti-gay conspiracy and DC's attempt to grab a bunch of "Fox News watchers" as part of its target audience. It seems to me more likely that DC is balking at the concept of marriage in general, not so much that the one in question is going to be between two lesbians.

@RJ17: I don't think it was specifically anti-gay either, just for the record.

But that doesn't stop it being stupid. With so many comics focussing on T&A, with early New 52 characters courting soft-porn (I'm thinking Starfire), it's a shame when DC won't allow a mature character in a mature series to behave in a mature manner and actually have a relationship that involves commitment rather than titillation.

I'm almost more annoyed with the blanket 'no marriage' stance than I am by the supposed 'no gay marriage' stance, because that hinders ALL characters.

I read Batwoman and being frank I'm kind of tired of Kate being in such a serious relationship, and I as a fan wouldn't like her getting married, I believe this is the reason why DC don't want her married, funny how must people jumps on the " against gay marriege" wagon so easily.

mjharper:
@RJ17: I don't think it was specifically anti-gay either, just for the record.

But that doesn't stop it being stupid. With so many comics focussing on T&A, with early New 52 characters courting soft-porn (I'm thinking Starfire), it's a shame when DC won't allow a mature character in a mature series to behave in a mature manner and actually have a relationship that involves commitment rather than titillation.

I'm almost more annoyed with the blanket 'no marriage' stance than I am by the supposed 'no gay marriage' stance, because that hinders ALL characters.

And THAT is a perfectly acceptable criticism. I was just helping out Spot since he seemed to be the only one pointing out that this might not be about gay marriage, but rather marriage in general. Seeing as how the majority of people that have posted in this topic have assumed it's because DC is anti-gay, I felt that Spot could use some back-up.

Now being upset about DC's refusal to try and make marriage in general work is a completely different story and one that is fair for discussion. Just because it hasn't worked in the past doesn't mean they should just give up on the concept entirely. I'm not huge into comics, but evidently these two writers were very good at what they did and maybe they could have pulled it off where others have fallen short.

RJ 17:
snip

Ha I actually I appreciate that. I've even said maybe it is out of homophobia but there's nothing to imply that and I'd wonder why they'd have Batwoman in a serious same sex relationship that actually plays a key part in her books if they were a bunch of homophobes. I can't say it definitely isn't because I'm not the one making the decision. But there is no reason to suspect it, there's plenty of valid alternate reasons and there's a lot to imply that DC aren't a bunch of homophobes. But people just love to jump to conclusions if they can get a moral crusade out of it. Especially if that moral crusade only involves bitching online and continuing to not buy books they've never even read or even heard of in some cases.

well, when you can say DC wants to be more stagnant that freaking Archie Comics, you know it is a sad day.

When they made Kate Kane (Batwoman) a Lesbian it was a publicity stunt to try and draw people in to read the comics. It made such a buzz when it was announced. The same thing with the Flash it would be good PR for DC but when it comes to gay marriage they toss on the brakes.

If the writers had to fight to get an engagement, what you have is a clear sign that DC isn't progressive because once a publicity stunt is over there is little use for the stunt aside from holding it up to critics and saying "seeeee? we dont have a problem! really!" with a big false grin that they secretly hope nobody will see through.

I do not blame the writers for leaving the project.

I blame someone at DC for being a small coward.

Given that, to my knowledge, the only married major character in the entire New 52 is Animal Man, I agree that DC fears all marriage, not just gay marriage. So... kudos to them for treating their gay couple the same way that they treat all of their straight couples, I guess?

(Seriously, though, last-minute editorial meddling to prevent changes in the status quo is very DC, and is the main reason I don't read it anymore.)

Mariahsyn:
When they made Kate Kane (Batwoman) a Lesbian it was a publicity stunt to try and draw people in to read the comics. It made such a buzz when it was announced. The same thing with the Flash it would be good PR for DC but when it comes to gay marriage they toss on the brakes.

If the writers had to fight to get an engagement, what you have is a clear sign that DC isn't progressive because once a publicity stunt is over there is little use for the stunt aside from holding it up to critics and saying "seeeee? we dont have a problem! really!" with a big false grin that they secretly hope nobody will see through.

I do not blame the writers for leaving the project.

I blame someone at DC for being a small coward.

Wasn't Kate Kane always a lesbian? The one who slid down the batpole in the 70's was a different person who was reintroduced after over 30 years, 7 years after the creation of Kate Kane, both called Katherine Kane. But Kate has always been a lesbian. Again making major changes to a character (such as having them get married) is the kind of thing publishers are reluctant to do because too many changes make the character harder to pick up for new writers. Whereas if the status quo never really changes then the character stays easy to write.

Oh and the Flash isn't gay.

Spot1990:

Mariahsyn:
When they made Kate Kane (Batwoman) a Lesbian it was a publicity stunt to try and draw people in to read the comics. It made such a buzz when it was announced. The same thing with the Flash it would be good PR for DC but when it comes to gay marriage they toss on the brakes.

If the writers had to fight to get an engagement, what you have is a clear sign that DC isn't progressive because once a publicity stunt is over there is little use for the stunt aside from holding it up to critics and saying "seeeee? we dont have a problem! really!" with a big false grin that they secretly hope nobody will see through.

I do not blame the writers for leaving the project.

I blame someone at DC for being a small coward.

Wasn't Kate Kane always a lesbian? The one who slid down the batpole in the 70's was a different person who was reintroduced after over 30 years, 7 years after the creation of Kate Kane, both called Katherine Kane. But Kate has always been a lesbian. Again making major changes to a character (such as having them get married) is the kind of thing publishers are reluctant to do because too many changes make the character harder to pick up for new writers. Whereas if the status quo never really changes then the character stays easy to write.

Oh and the Flash isn't gay.

she only became a gay character in 2006 during infinite crisis as a way to rework her back story. My only issue with making character's gay is mainly alan scott. they took all the things his son in the original 52 had for character development axed him and fused his thing with his father's while also destroying the original story of a man who grew up during ww2 coping with his son being gay because of the era he grew up in. I like alan scott and his son and the dynamic that went on there but i think it robbed the series of jade and her brother(too lazy to remember or look name up) because of the new 52 and it's stunt pulling hijinks(they only really made alan scott gay because they had no intentions of bringing his son back because alan was too young and they did a circus of it of hyping a green lantern character(which most lantern fans when they hear an announcement regarding green lantern they never thing of alan scott) and then saying it was alan scott messing with people's expectations while generating alot of media buzz to boost comic sales.

Marriage is for stability, which is anathema for a comic book. It's a cheap gimmick up there with 'The Death Of'.

The wedding always ends up being this stupid spectacle issue with everyone happy and crying and even the villains showing up to play nice when you know it's all going to end horribly later. Until the breakup, plots are constrained because marriage makes things staid and boring - that's what it's /supposed/ to do. Old heroes are sometimes allowed to get married and mostly stay happily married, like Reed and Sue Richards once Namor got over his thing for her, but writers can't resist f@#$ing with that at some point either.

I'm sure the writers really cared for the character, but it sounds like DC was trying to keep them from fanficing her. Lesbian or not, it's a bad idea.

Sicht:

Spot1990:

Mariahsyn:
When they made Kate Kane (Batwoman) a Lesbian it was a publicity stunt to try and draw people in to read the comics. It made such a buzz when it was announced. The same thing with the Flash it would be good PR for DC but when it comes to gay marriage they toss on the brakes.

If the writers had to fight to get an engagement, what you have is a clear sign that DC isn't progressive because once a publicity stunt is over there is little use for the stunt aside from holding it up to critics and saying "seeeee? we dont have a problem! really!" with a big false grin that they secretly hope nobody will see through.

I do not blame the writers for leaving the project.

I blame someone at DC for being a small coward.

Wasn't Kate Kane always a lesbian? The one who slid down the batpole in the 70's was a different person who was reintroduced after over 30 years, 7 years after the creation of Kate Kane, both called Katherine Kane. But Kate has always been a lesbian. Again making major changes to a character (such as having them get married) is the kind of thing publishers are reluctant to do because too many changes make the character harder to pick up for new writers. Whereas if the status quo never really changes then the character stays easy to write.

Oh and the Flash isn't gay.

she only became a gay character in 2006 during infinite crisis as a way to rework her back story. My only issue with making character's gay is mainly alan scott. they took all the things his son in the original 52 had for character development axed him and fused his thing with his father's while also destroying the original story of a man who grew up during ww2 coping with his son being gay because of the era he grew up in. I like alan scott and his son and the dynamic that went on there but i think it robbed the series of jade and her brother(too lazy to remember or look name up) because of the new 52 and it's stunt pulling hijinks(they only really made alan scott gay because they had no intentions of bringing his son back because alan was too young and they did a circus of it of hyping a green lantern character(which most lantern fans when they hear an announcement regarding green lantern they never thing of alan scott) and then saying it was alan scott messing with people's expectations while generating alot of media buzz to boost comic sales.

This incarnation of Katherine Kane was introduced in 2006. She's a separate person to the Katherine Kane of the 70's who still exists. She has always been a lesbian

And anyway if they're willing to use homosexuality as a publicity stunt why stop at marriage? A gay wedding would get lots of publicity. Maybe they have other, not homophobic, reasons for doing it?

...Meh.

I can see a few perfectly good reasons why they might be hesitant to have them married. For one, nearly every major wedding in comics has been an absolutely HORRIBLE move. And this would be a controversial one.

On the other hand, I don't read Batwoman. I didn't even know there WAS a Batwoman comic. So I have no idea if it could work or not.

So my answer to this is meh.

I'm pretty sure this is more about marriage and divorce then them being lesbians. Even though married Spider-man was working fine, Marvel hated his marriage and most of their silly choices with him came from that, all because they couldn't just have him divorce MJ. DC didn't want Superman married, even though that was also fine, but at least lived with it until they could easily retcon it without an awful OMD story. If future writers wanted to give Batwoman a new love interest, they'd be in the same predicament.

Wait, they allow a lesbian relationship but no marriage? That's kinda interesting.

Though, most of the big name superheroes never get married for some reason. Not the the DC universe. So here's hoping that was just a general policy on marriage of main heroes whose writers are regularly shuffled around rather than specifically against gay marriage in a series that had already taken the leap to have a gay relationship. Either way, good on DC for allowing it to go as far as it has. It isn't all the way but it's a badly needed step in that direction.

Perhaps they consider the hugely polarized issue of gay marriage as something that would piss off far more people. In modern times, acceptance of gay marriage is shifted against it still, but acceptance of gays in general is only increasing with anyone else on the wayside being a bigot now considered in the ranks of racists and sexists. So they may have thought this was a step to far at the moment and aren't necessarily wrong.

Zhukov:
Batwoman is into chicks?

I did not know this.

Then again, I didn't really know there was a Batwoman. I thought she got paralyzed... or something? Or is this one of them alternate universe things?

Eh, comics.

Titles pass on, bro.

OT: Their loss. They should've included it because nerds would've flocked just for the wedding kiss, and it'd hit up the publicity meter when Fox news would babble about it. Stupid DC, I guess I should expect no less from the guys who grab an element, recolour pajamas and say it's a new hero...

marscentral:
I'm pretty sure this is more about marriage and divorce then them being lesbians. Even though married Spider-man was working fine, Marvel hated his marriage and most of their silly choices with him came from that, all because they couldn't just have him divorce MJ. DC didn't want Superman married, even though that was also fine, but at least lived with it until they could easily retcon it without an awful OMD story. If future writers wanted to give Batwoman a new love interest, they'd be in the same predicament.

I get that, but in the New 52 we've seen Barbara Gordon out of a wheel-chair for the first time in decades. And Batwoman has been an on-off thing for most of her existence, being re-introduced and re-invented as whoever was writing saw fit. Also, it's hard to justify decisions which MAY affect future writers when the same decisions cost you your CURRENT writers (and artist) who have turned the series into a highly acclaimed work.

What it comes down to is this: Would anyone who is currently invested in the character and series mind if Kate got married, so long as it was handled with the care that the series has been shown to date? I'm pretty sure the answer is 'no'.

Gunjester:

Zhukov:
Batwoman is into chicks?

I did not know this.

Then again, I didn't really know there was a Batwoman. I thought she got paralyzed... or something? Or is this one of them alternate universe things?

Eh, comics.

Titles pass on, bro.

OT: Their loss. They should've included it because nerds would've flocked just for the wedding kiss, and it'd hit up the publicity meter when Fox news would babble about it. Stupid DC, I guess I should expect no less from the guys who grab an element, recolour pajamas and say it's a new hero...

But also yes, it is an alternate universe just like anything in Marvel and DC is, now that they've both broken the glass and hit on the multiverse button as hard as possible. The question is, which universe is the traditional one?

Lightknight:
Wait, they allow a lesbian relationship but no marriage? That's kinda interesting.

Though, most of the big name superheroes never get married for some reason. Not the the DC universe. So here's hoping that was just a general policy on marriage of main heroes whose writers are regularly shuffled around rather than specifically against gay marriage in a series that had already taken the leap to have a gay relationship. Either way, good on DC for allowing it to go as far as it has. It isn't all the way but it's a badly needed step in that direction.

Perhaps they consider the hugely polarized issue of gay marriage as something that would piss off far more people. In modern times, acceptance of gay marriage is shifted against it still, but acceptance of gays in general is only increasing with anyone else on the wayside being a bigot now considered in the ranks of racists and sexists. So they may have thought this was a step to far at the moment and aren't necessarily wrong.

Thing is, it might be worse if it's 'only' against marriage rather than against gay marriage.

If it's about marriage in general, it might not homophobic, but it prevents ANY character from actually growing up and developing a proper relationship. And maybe, just maybe, DC comics could stand to have a few more adults and a few less T&A adolescents.

mjharper:
Thing is, it might be worse if it's 'only' against marriage rather than against gay marriage.

If it's about marriage in general, it might not homophobic, but it prevents ANY character from actually growing up and developing a proper relationship. And maybe, just maybe, DC comics could stand to have a few more adults and a few less T&A adolescents.

I don't know if I'd really agree with that. I think it blocks them in. How many TV shows have you seen where the guy gets the girl and the loss of that element of pursuit ruins or at least devalues the story going forward? Perhaps you haven't noticed that but I've seen it in more than one show. Comics, like shows, are episodic. It is best to have multiple fronts of drama to shift the focus to and from to keep the audience engaged. Romance is one of the big ones and taking that out of the picture by giving them what they want does box the writers in unless the spouse is now a plot mechanism that is all but a red shirt going forward. Even then, there's not much difference between a married hero and a hero with a girlfriend.

Friv:
Given that, to my knowledge, the only married major character in the entire New 52 is Animal Man, I agree that DC fears all marriage, not just gay marriage. So... kudos to them for treating their gay couple the same way that they treat all of their straight couples, I guess?

(Seriously, though, last-minute editorial meddling to prevent changes in the status quo is very DC, and is the main reason I don't read it anymore.)

Well actually Animal Man's wife left him after their son died so yeah there are no married characters in the DCU at the moment.

Well done to the writers for making a difficult decision and sticking to their principles.

Let's hope that Batwoman crashes and burns from this point and DC are forced to retcon everything back to this point and allow the writers to tell their fucking story!

Bollocks to DC for screwing over the people who are making all their damn money for them and screw them for being think enough to think that an engaged couple wouldn't eventually get married because they are lesbians.

K12:
Well done to the writers for making a difficult decision and sticking to their principles.

Let's hope that Batwoman crashes and burns from this point and DC are forced to retcon everything back to this point and allow the writers to tell their fucking story!

Bollocks to DC for screwing over the people who are making all their damn money for them and screw them for being think enough to think that an engaged couple wouldn't eventually get married because they are lesbians.

The only one making this about lesbians are the writer of this article and the people in here bitching. As has already been said, none of the major DC heroes are married. They even broke up Lois Lane and Superman for the New 52. There's no reason to think this is any different than them not marrying their other heroes other than people love moral outrage.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here