When liberal writer Grant Morrison links sexual deviance to gay men it’s no big deal. If a conservative comic book writer did that he’d never get to work in the industry ever again. But hey, have fun writing The Caped Sandusky, Mr. Morrison.

Seemingly out of nowhere, writer Grant Morrison decided he was going to issue a decree: Batman is gay. Morrison is a powerhouse of a comic book writer, so I assume that he thinks he could start the editorial ball rolling in that direction. And that very well could happen, even if he was eventually given some sort of “alternate universe” gay-Batman story to write. As he told Playboy:

“[Bruce Wayne is] very plutonian in the sense that he’s wealthy and also in the sense that he’s sexually deviant,” Morrison told the magazine. “Gayness is built into Batman. I’m not using gay in the pejorative sense, but Batman is very, very gay. There’s just no denying it.” … Morrison adds, Batman’s “gayness” is actually part of the character’s near-universal appeal: “I think that’s why All these women fancy him and they all wear fetish clothes and jump around rooftops to get to him. He doesn’t care — he’s more interested in hanging out with the old guy and the kid.”

If Grant Morrison was named John Boehner or Kurt Cameron this story would be plastered on cable news shows for the next 48 hours. Since Grant Morrison has sturdily planted his feet in liberalism’s camp the generally-bigoted explanation he gives will go largely unnoticed.

If a conservative comic book creator coupled sexual deviance and “gayness” there would be hell to pay. When Grant Morrison does it, complete with allusions to what Bruce would do with “The Boy Wonder” … nothing. According to Grant Morrison, Batman really should be called The Caped Sandusky. Where is GLAAD when you need them? Probably monitoring conservative websites, I guess.

Let it be known that Grant Morrison is a guy who pumped himself up with so many drugs in Katmandu that he claims to have had a discussion with hyper-intelligent silver blobs from the fifth-dimension. Perhaps the fifth dimension exists, or…perhaps the trip melted parts of Grant’s brain.

With that said, the universal appeal of Batman doesn’t stem from his sexuality, but from his constant struggles with his inner demons, and his obsessive drive to root out evil. Or, as I said in regards to The Dark Knight Rises:

“Bruce Wayne, like all of us, is fallible. Like many Americans, he doesn’t want to believe that The Batman has to exist, but “he must.” He must because there are evil men.”

Bruce is wealthy, and most people would like to be wealthy. He’s fallible, and all of us are fallible. He’s conflicted, and all of us are conflicted. And he strikes fear into the hearts of of very bad men. What’s not to like?

If you’re still wondering why someone would decide that it would be okay to switch a character’s sexuality out of nowhere, look no further than the writers of Marvel’s Ultimate Spider-Man, who created a half-black, half-hispanic version of the ol’ web head:

Italian artist Sara Pichelli, who was integral in designing the new Spider-Man’s look, says, “Maybe sooner or later a black or gay — or both — hero will be considered something absolutely normal.”

As I said before, it is normal! It’s only not normal when it’s shoved in our faces. It’s only not normal when political points are shoe-horned into a story for no other reason than to make readers adopt a Progressive worldview. Instead of creating a likable gay character with mass appeal, guys like Morrison wish they could just say, “Batman is gay” and have one. It doesn’t work that way, and all it does is annoy people.

Now if you’ll excuse me, I have to watch The Dark Knight Rises trailer for the 100th time.


  1. Morrison’s comments aren’t even coherent. He tells us that although Batman as a character is heterosexual, he’s sexually deviant, gay in a non-pejorative sense, and is chased by women because of his gayness. In what universe does this make any sense?

    1. Ha. It basically comes down to…he wants Batman to be gay. I like how he says he’s not saying “gay” in a pejorative since, even though that’s exactly what he does. I supposed he’ll ultimately say he erred and wasn’t as articulate as he wanted to be, but who knows what the clarification will be like.

  2. Morrison made a jackass statement. Don’t k ow if he is a jackass or not.

    On a side note, do you notice the Occupy subtext in Selina’s whispered “have-nots” comment? Curious what that’s going to be about.

  3. I got some good chuckles from this one. Morrison is pretty respected in the comics community, so I’m guessing that’s why there’s no outcry there either.

    Pretty much everything you said is why I like Batman. With this in mind, I’d like your take on age old debate – is Batman a superhero or not given he lacks superpowers?


    1. I’d say Batman is very much a superhero. His intelligence and resourcefulness allow him to compensate for what he lacks in brute strength. An animated movie touches on that:

      Yes, I am a nerd.

    2. I the great, I highly recommend you get a copy, book ‘All in Color for a Dime’ there is a section about M.C. Gains. He was the comic book publisher who recognized the potential for Superman and bought the character from Siegal & Shuster. According to Gains, and I use this distinction myself, a ‘superhero’ has superpowers, whether scientific or magical, where a ‘costumed hero’ doesn’t, but tends to use various tools and gadgets to fight crime. Batman is therefore a costumed hero.

    3. That is a very good point. I’d probably go with that distinction for the vast majority of costumed heroes … but Batman does seem to sort of break the mold. I’d be comfortable with either term for him.

  4. One in ten people are born gay, so it only stands to reason that 10% of all superheroes are gay, too. There probably should be more characters out there besides Batwoman, gay Spiderman, and that other Marvel guy I can’t remember. Personally, I’d like to see Wonder Woman portrayed as gay more than Batman, and not just because that’s hot, but because she’s an Amazon from an island populated exclusively by women.

    1. Ha. Well, the Wonder Woman angle would make sense… That’s actually pretty funny. I’m sure there are a lot of adult videos that have already explored that idea.

    2. That 10% nonsense, still often quoted by liberals, gays and feminists, is complete bunk. It was a stat from the Kinsey report of the 50’s and highly inaccurate. He even admitted later that as a bi-sexual he favored a higher ‘gay’ number. His interview subjects were male prison inmates and college co-eds, hardly an everyday representation of America or anywhere for that matter. And besides that he asked if they had experimented with homosexuality, not if they were gay. In the late 60’s and 70’s both Playboy and Masters & Johnson did far more accurate sample poles, including both city and suburban families. Their findings concluded that between 2-3% of our population was actually gay, with bisexuals jumping those figures to 4-6%.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: