"Astonishing X-Men" Plans a Same-Sex Wedding



Wedding bells are ringing for the X-Men, and Marvel Comics is getting topical with its newest superhero marriage.

In Astonishing X-Men issue 50, out Wednesday, the openly gay mutant hero Northstar proposes to his longtime boyfriend, Kyle, with a same-sex wedding featuring a super guest list to follow next month — as well as sure controversy in some quarters.

President Obama recently came out in support of gay marriage, but Marvel's views evolved a while back. Alonso says he and his team began having conversations about such a story line shortly after New York legalized same-sex weddings last June. "Most of our characters reside in New York, and our stories always work best when we reconcile them against the real world, so it raised some questions."

Marvel has focused on bringing a more realistic flavor to its characters and books, such as introducing Miles Morales, the half-black, half-Hispanic Spider-Man, last year.


  1. Zack
    Posted May 25, 2012 at 3:11 pm | Permalink

    There goes an entire generations childhood.

  2. OvercameSSA
    Posted May 25, 2012 at 3:51 pm | Permalink

    If they really want to make it align with real life, they should introduce how the HIV/AIDS epidemic figures into the gay characters' lives.

  3. Good News
    Posted May 25, 2012 at 4:42 pm | Permalink

    You said it Zack! And with much more calm and poise than I could.

    Hollywood is watering at the mouth with all the ready and waiting possibilities to redo all the thousands of old, already written scripts of love stories. By simply replacing the heterosexual couples with same-sex couples, as well as redoing all past love scenes with larger than life homosexual action. Or how about a nice traditional family, who's wife runs off in a love relationship with Betty the children's school teacher. The consumer is always looking for a new thrill. And Hollywood, Wall Street and the American free market (business and money first, morals and family second) capitalism, with all its bought off republicans are always looking for the easy and fast money.

    Of course publishers and producers of such things should be punished by law. And their pathetic publishings and productions outlawed and destroyed. How else can you break a nasty national, and civilization, hooked on money habit. One that is willing to educate their own children into new habits, for the lucrative creation of new markets. “Help give the economy a boost : legalize gay marriages.” Oh, and if you're looking to buy a baby, make the doctor an offer.

    So what's new? Nothing. We knew very well from the start that we were walking into a hard, long and dirty fight when we walked into this one. We are up against snot nosed pigs. And wallowing int the dirt is their pleasure.

  4. Phil
    Posted May 25, 2012 at 4:55 pm | Permalink

    "Gay marriage" will be trumpeted by the popular culture and shoved in our faces...but of course it "won't" affect anyone who disagrees;) How long before a disney movie features this crap???

  5. Pete
    Posted May 25, 2012 at 5:27 pm | Permalink

    Ahh, poor babies.

    There's nothing better than when art imitates life! This will be a huge success for Marvel, much like the sold out Archie's comic with Kevin Keller.

    Best of luck to the newly weds!!!!

  6. Randy E King
    Posted May 25, 2012 at 5:37 pm | Permalink


    "There's nothing better than when art imitates life! "

    Well at least they are acknowledging it is an unnatural mutation. The very fact that you believe the 'X-Men' is an imitation of real life speaks to your disassociation to the laws of nature.

  7. JR
    Posted May 25, 2012 at 5:49 pm | Permalink

    "Of course publishers and producers of such things should be punished by law. And their pathetic publishings and productions outlawed and destroyed." (Not such) Good News - Are you advocating we establish a religious police force like Saudi Arabia's Mutaween here in the land of the free to go after that which is somehow deemed "offensive"? Should fatwas be rendered against "guilty" parties. Maggie has often said "Gay people are free to live their lives as they please but should not be allowed to redefine marriage for everyone." Fair enough. But in your comments and many others here, I see much more than that. I see talk of outlawing this and outlawing that and getting rid of "them". It is all rather scarey. It would be interesting to see Maggie herself, an intelligent woman who has at times participated in the comments section here, reply to comments like yours.

  8. OvercameSSA
    Posted May 25, 2012 at 6:04 pm | Permalink

    Wow, my comment was really deleted because I mentioned HIV/AIDs and the spread of disease? I've had comments deleted for that on gay sites, but here?

    Does everyone want to ignore the realities of the homosexual lifestyle and why we need to protect our kids from it??????

  9. Pete
    Posted May 25, 2012 at 6:31 pm | Permalink

    Darn, JR, you beat me to it

    "Of course publishers and producers of such things should be punished by law. "

    Yep, the religious rights love of freedom of speech, as long as its theirs of course. So who is really silenceing whom?

  10. Pete
    Posted May 25, 2012 at 6:43 pm | Permalink

    "Does everyone want to ignore the realities of the homosexual lifestyle and why we need to protect our kids from it??????"

    You and the other NOMers do a great job of ignoring the facts.

  11. Randy E King
    Posted May 25, 2012 at 6:49 pm | Permalink


    32 to 0 is a fact; 50% to 47% is a pipe dream. Ignoring the facts is the only thing keeping you in the game.

    It's going to be Grrrr8!

  12. AM
    Posted May 25, 2012 at 7:14 pm | Permalink

    "Best of luck to the newly weds!!!!"

    You do know this post is about comic book characters, right?
    BTW, it's newlyweds.

  13. Reformed
    Posted May 25, 2012 at 7:25 pm | Permalink

    A change of heart. A change of mind. Why do these things alway get chalked up to being a lie. Isn't that the real lie? Is it because you thought Mark Grisanti was bought and paid for with your out of state money?

  14. Randy E King
    Posted May 25, 2012 at 7:31 pm | Permalink

    Gallup Poll: Pro-Choice Support Hits All-Time Low

    "The previous low for the pro-choice label was 42 percent recorded in May 2009, when Gallup also reported 51 percent identifying as pro-life. Gallup has been polling on the question since 1995, when 56 percent said they were pro-choice and 33 percent pro-life. The gap has narrowed over the years to a point where they are relatively close in polls."

    The writing is on the wall marriage corruption supporters. The more the truth is reported the more people turn back to the laws of nature.

  15. Beth
    Posted May 25, 2012 at 7:37 pm | Permalink

    Dear God I really really hope Disney does a movie featuring a same sex couple. I'll take my kid every day for a week. Then the neighbor kids too.

  16. Pete
    Posted May 25, 2012 at 9:17 pm | Permalink

    I thought NOMers day polls don't matter? Can you guys get it together.

  17. Pete
    Posted May 25, 2012 at 9:18 pm | Permalink

    Don't you have a clinic to bomb, Randy? We know how violent you guys are.

  18. Ash
    Posted May 25, 2012 at 9:26 pm | Permalink

    A crushing blow to the "it's inevitable because young people support it" meme, Randy.

  19. Skooter McGoo
    Posted May 25, 2012 at 9:44 pm | Permalink

    NOM's new FB page? NOM once again advocating death for all gay people by hanging?
    Sounds like the NC pastor that thinks I should be put in a concentration camp. I say if Pastor Chucky thinks he is man enough to try and put me in a camp, bring it. One on one, man to man, let's see who walks away and who doesn't. Christians calling for physical violence against all gay people is the reason 16-25 yr old youth are running from the church as it only shows HATE as it's message.

  20. Randy E King
    Posted May 25, 2012 at 10:15 pm | Permalink


    It is the second death; the eternal death that you have embraced with your God given gift of free will that NOM acknowledges. You are free to live your life as you choose; and I hope you choose the life that leads to eternal life.

    Nobody is calling for violence against sexual deviants. The scriptures are telling the faithful that if they violently oppose your choice they will be found guiltless. This is all a part of these truths we hold to be self evident; truths that you have chose to deny because your depravity is more important to you than your God given gift of freedom.

    “We have our freedom because of our faith; we do not have our faith because freedom” George W. Bush

    Disclaimer: I never voted for either George Bush’s, but even a blind squirrel finds a nut every now and again.

  21. Posted May 25, 2012 at 11:46 pm | Permalink

    No thanks, I'll pass.

  22. Fred
    Posted May 25, 2012 at 11:50 pm | Permalink

    Uh oh. A comic book fan just had the audacity to question of the X-Men "gay marriage" is a shameless stunt.

    And he's not alone:

  23. Fred
    Posted May 26, 2012 at 12:11 am | Permalink


    Since you want art to imitate life, Marvel should also show the following:

    * The young X-Man Dust skips the so-called wedding because she of her religious beliefs:

    Well, Dust is Muslim so such a response is realistic.

    * Black Panther (husband of X-Man Storm) openly says Northstar and his boyfriend are not married and promptly questions Americans' sanity:

    Well, the Panther is from Africa, a continent that except for South Africa dismisses "gay marriage" as ludicrous on its face. So, Panther shooting down the happy couple's delusion would be pretty realistic.

    * And the X-Men have boasted Latin American superheroes like Sunspot who likely wouldn't call Northstar's relationship a marriage:

    When Marvel publishes stories that don't always toe the "gay marriage is a civil right" line, then they will be reflecting real life.

  24. Good News
    Posted May 26, 2012 at 7:15 am | Permalink

    Them be fighten words (1 of 3)

    I am not Muslim, nor Christian, nor religious. So I will not enter into your religious arguments here. My above post was only directed to the Wall street, The City of London and the overly aggressive western capitalistic system. Ones sexual preferences is of no interest to them. But sex is.

    Now to address what I believe was your general idea.
    This subject of the word marriage (and sexuality), is a very serious subject that will effect how our children will be treated in the future. And it is coming about without a serious and concerted debate by the adults of the community.
    The clearest and most disrespectful act in this issue, as well as being the most telling as to how this civilization change is not at all in the hands of the people, remains the simple idea that 'they' absolutely refuse to allow one word in the language for the people to clearly and simply name the man-wamon union. This is because the issue is not homosexuality, or homosexual rights, nor how homosexuals are treated. The issue is that they will be teaching that there literally is no difference between a man and a woman. And that sex is a choice. Meaning that a human being can get sexual pleasure and satisfaction from the contact of another naked body and its mind, weather that body and mind be male of female. And that both “homosexuals” and “heterosexuals” will have to come to terms with that fact. Homosexuals claim that there is a difference between the two sexes (by saying something in the one sex attracts them, while something in the other sex does not). So there is reason for all of us to be interested in what exactly are 'they' getting at.

    The practicing homosexual can be generally more sexually “liberated” in his psyche than the heterosexual. Because he was obliged to develop his sexual activities outside of social norms, (obliged to “liberate” his mind about sexuality). So giving him the impression that he knows better, more, than the average person on the subject of sex. Mature homosexuals in the past, and today no doubt, understood that they where working in an “out of norm” situation and they understood how others could be influenced to try different sexual activity simply by observing their own openness to the subject. So they understood the aspect of respect that they were giving to their fellow citizens of their community when they did not, put it in their faces. As it is being done in our culture today.
    Because of his experience the homosexual today can be less psychologically effected by the openness and promotion of homosexuality in the society, in that he has already been there. It is nothing new; which gives rise to the sincere but ingenuous; “get over it, its natural” mentality. For a mature monogamous heterosexual can be completely sexually “liberated”. Understanding all the possibilities of sex and there potential varied effects on person and behavior. And liberating himself from all that by the conscious choice of monogamous heterosexuality. It is the one who keeps sex to himself (whatever he does) that can help the others in his community to live out their own sexual “liberty” as they please. For a mature confident (and liberated) adult knows that all people, especially the young, are effected by what they hear and see on the subject of sex. No matter how much it is put in their faces with the false idea that, you'll get over it, to where sex in your face wouldn't effect you anymore.

    So what are 'they' getting at, the powers that be? With the insistence that there is absolutely no difference between a man and a woman that is worth mentioning to our children at first glance. And most importantly what are they getting at in our society by saying, without any possibility of negotiation, that the man-woman union is in no way unique enough that it should have its own word to name it, (be it marriage, or another word)? It is they and their activities that I am most interested in. And in how it will influence and educate the children of my community. Homosexuals and their activities are very secondary to me; being that they have always lived among me in my society, without me feeling that I had anything to say about the subject, other than being respectful to others.

  25. Good News
    Posted May 26, 2012 at 7:16 am | Permalink

    Them be fighten words (2 of 3)

    But to respond more directly on the subject of violence that you bring up. And to, in a way, put it all on the table. First I am not a violent person. And I do not at all want to influence anyone toward violence with my post. But I, like hundreds of thousands of loyal, good, honest and honorable American's, can go off to a war and kill. To then come back home and live peacefully; harboring no hate or ill will in his heart. Though maybe with some scars that any such necessary but regrettable action might cause. Take, Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Pakistan or anywhere else where good American's feel justified in killing other human-beings in order to protect their way of life. Times of war, violence and killing for ones beliefs, and ones way of life, is very American, and a very human thing by the way. (You would need some radical Christian or other religious teachings to try to take hate and killing off of the plate of reasonable human activities). So when such actions are legalized, as in warfare, one can engage in them without fear of undo judicial reprisal. The subject at hand is one that directly effects our very own children. It would not be fair than to say that we do not have an eventual interest in fighting to protect them. (For this would be saying that nothing, not even our own children, are worth dieing for.) When at the same time we are fighting and killing other people in the name of protecting their citizens, and their children's well being. As well as doing so for such things as oil, or money and power, etc.
    Being that I am a peaceful, respectful and law abiding citizen. I detest war, and force by violence. And so it would only be when such a possibility of physically fighting over this specific subject of our mutual interest would become legal that I than would be able to contemplate my eventual participation or abstention from such an activity. (And my interest would not be toward homosexuals, but to the powers and people that put such a societal construct in place.)

    You know that child sexual abuse, for an example, is a very touchy subject. And that it often makes adults a little hot under the choler. Well this subject of our day, is also a subject about our children's sexuality and the potential manipulation of their sexuality by our very own government and its educational and media system, its financial system, its medical and pharmaceutical world (and on a secondary level, for those who do want to give them such credit, the homosexual and feminist activist). So there is some genuine and valid concern about our children's welfare. Even abortion, to take a subject that often comes up, is a subject that can be kept at a distance from our children in their education and developing psyche. And so limiting how it might effect their personal growth and development. Because abortion is not necessarily something that directly effect them. Where as the subject of sex and marriage does. And without an original word like marriage to distinguish the man-woman union during their formative educational years. One that can be used by their parents teachers and community alike. The growing children will be put into an unjustly vulnerable situation. Before the promotion of homosexual marriage, the idea and education of sex for pleasures sake alone could be tampered at a young age because the child seeing man and woman together, thinks not first of sex, but thinks first of baby. And he could continue to do so through much of his childhood. And this could even bring comfort and strength to him knowing that that is where he came from. In other words, thinking that the man and woman are together for him, the child, as much as they are for themselves. This can reassure the child in knowing that he is a valid (and valued) part has of the community). The new idea of marriage taught to kindergarten children would be that adults first get together for life long unions of sexual physical pleasure (and that children are an after thought in the lives of adults). This will be unavoidably putting the emphasis during their childhood education on the idea that all adults get together above all for sex. And that the community is built first around these sexual pleasure relationships and not around them, the children.
    But what is more certain, is that we as adults can truly do what we want with children. And we could, if we wanted, teach them to get their sexual pleasure from someone of the same sex. That would be a hundred times easier and more natural than teaching them... algebra, or spelling for example. What is to be retained by that last remark is that our educational and media system is going to be playing with our children's sexuality and sexual development, by exploring through the presentation of educational tools and media influence, the range of ways in which they can find sexual pleasure. And doing so, behind the parents backs if you will. And this under some new and always variable government sanctioned social science umbrella of so called healthy sexual education and human development. In other words, we the people, and the parents, do not know what is best for our children. For to know what is best you need to have had a specialized ivy league doctorate education on the subject. Which might simply, in other terms, to someone less educated, appear more as legalized sexual child abuse (or manipulation), than anything else.
    Remember that it is the lack of the word marriage (man-woman union) as an educational tool, to be able to clearly signal out to the child a unique union, that makes the child most vulnerable to disorientation. And so to being more easily manipulated by new teaching techniques and the media.

  26. Good News
    Posted May 26, 2012 at 7:17 am | Permalink

    Them be fighten words (3 of 3)

    So, to not allow a little leeway for some people to “flip out” about the subject at hand. While this new controversial social structure is being forced into place, would not be allowing for a reasonable understanding of the normal reaction of the human-being when he is found in such a situation. Now, I don't want to say that you're not reasonable JR. But maybe ill informed. Or, as I, you are simply making your war like maneuvers, through your words in blog posts, within this very real cultural war of ours. For that's what we are reduced to, to simply using words. Even when the subject at hand is literally the physical well being of our very own children.

    As going to war and killing is a temporary extreme that does not necessarily characterize the potentially peaceful and loving people involved. So it is with laws of a community and their occasional extremes. Outlawing the things I suggest in the above post, would be a direct reaction to the situation at hand (of the saturation of homosexuality, and sexuality in general, in our media, in or children's education, and in marketing). Yes I would, if it where to come to a vote, have no difficulty in voting to outlaw such things. Something on the lines of what they are doing in Russia today. Nothing too extreme. But only what is reasonable, when knowing that are children are influenced to behave in part by what they see. And that the media and commerce of our day is an extremely powerful and effective tool of human behavior manipulation. And with the understanding that as much as sex is desired and needed by the human; the desire to have ones own children is also a strong natural desire and need. And so helping direct the child with the least obstacles possible, to where he will naturally be able to fulfill that desire and need of both sex and child, family and independence.

    I can only assume that many homosexual couples would have no difficulty in discussing with everyone involved, what is the best way to raise our children and construct our society in this very new environment that we are creating around us all.

    PS. It goes without saying that I am not advocating violence to anyone.
    But I am suggesting that there is a legitimate reason to have a word to signal out the man-woman union (marriage); for educational and clear communication purposes. And that doing away with such a word, is a direct and open attack on me and my children. And that doing so while at the same time saturating the community with the subject of homosexuality does suggest ulterior motives.

    Now lets get back down to our level of discussion. “My dog is bigger than your dog.” Or, “fine, go ahead and tell Mommy (I mean Maggie) about it. I'll tell Daddy (I mean Brian) what you said. You see how important mothers and fathers can be for disputing and growing children.”
    Their, that about brings us back down to our general level of talk.

    Good weekend to ya. Next time we'll have a coffee. Not Starbucks if you don't mind; unless you really, really must.

  27. Mikhail
    Posted May 26, 2012 at 11:10 am | Permalink

    Randy E King, SPOT ON! Same-gender activists think support is at 50% but even the Angus Reid Centre put it at 42% (and remember these polls are grossly exaggerated). I think there is a strong chance gays will win in California and the New England states but only because they control the public school systems there and indoctrinate children to accept their sinful behaviours. They will also win in Finland, Denmark, Australia and France etc. because those countries have turned their backs on God and polls suggest a disturbing level of support for gender-neutered marriage. They will lose in the end though as u cannot fool God even if u can fool man!

  28. Zack
    Posted May 26, 2012 at 12:22 pm | Permalink

    What the artist doesn't show you in that picture is that while they're all gaping at that, Magneto and Apocolypse stroll in and destroy them all.

  29. Skooter McGoo
    Posted May 26, 2012 at 1:19 pm | Permalink

    Screenshots are forever.

  30. Randy E King
    Posted May 26, 2012 at 2:02 pm | Permalink


    Facebook will go down in history as Fraudbook.

  31. AM
    Posted May 26, 2012 at 3:11 pm | Permalink

    Silly Skooter
    That screenshot is meaningless. Marriage supporters are well aware of the tactics used against NOM.

  32. OvercameSSA
    Posted May 26, 2012 at 5:22 pm | Permalink

    Time for SCOTUS to reverse Lawrence v. Texas.

  33. Skooter McGoo
    Posted May 26, 2012 at 6:48 pm | Permalink

    @AM It's a site that blocked me after I posted the comment "Marriage licenses are issued by the state, not the church. No religion is necessary for a marriage to be legal. valid or recognized". It would not have blocked me if it were a ruse site, it's a NOM supporter if not staff member. I believe it's a NOM supported FB group that calls for the hanging of all gay people. It's not about marriage, it's about using the Christian faith to justify murdering gay people on the street. Pastors & elected officials nation wide have called for physical violence against gay people citing Leviticus as justification, so "Nobody is calling for violence against sexual deviants." is a lie.

  34. Randy E King
    Posted May 26, 2012 at 8:08 pm | Permalink


    "Time for SCOTUS to reverse Lawrence v. Texas."

    My thoughts exactly. The (5) t0 (4) majority ignored standing precedence on that decision by dismissing concerns that such a ruling would lead to demands for public acceptance of sexual depravity. When Scalia noted his concern in his decent opinion two concurring jurist noted in their opinions that there was no way this opinion could ever lead to such a conclusion.

    The opinions alone stand as a rational for reversal; in that the stated rationales of at least two of the jurists proved to be misguided.

  35. Randy E King
    Posted May 26, 2012 at 8:52 pm | Permalink

    "it's about using the Christian faith to justify murdering gay people"

    There is no such thing as a "gay people." Equating what you do with who you are is the tell-tale sign of an elitist mentality.

  36. Bryce K.
    Posted May 27, 2012 at 2:38 am | Permalink

    There is no such thing as a "Christian people." Equating what you do with who you are is the tell-tale sign of an elitist mentality.

  37. Randy E King
    Posted May 27, 2012 at 9:42 am | Permalink

    The 1st Amendment to the United States Constituton says you are wrong Bryce.

  38. OvercameSSA
    Posted May 27, 2012 at 2:36 pm | Permalink

    Randy -

    I think Lawrence was about legalizing private activity in the bedroom, which, frankly, I don't care about; but I think what the 5-4 majority failed to foresee was that what you legalize in the bedroom allow that bedroom activity to overflow into public. The opinion should have legalized homosexual activity in private but made public discussion or display of homosexual activity a crime.

    Perhaps when the Court decides to make same-sex marriage illegal it will also reverse Lawrence, as Lawrence is what has led to the talk of so-called same-sex "marriage" in the first place.

  39. Dan
    Posted May 27, 2012 at 3:51 pm | Permalink

    No surprise here as far as the storyline goes. I recall seeing a portion of an X-Men movie awhile back that was obviously a thinly-veiled attempt to promote the LGBT agenda. That's when I changed the channel.

    No, the real shocker to all of us should be that the LGBT camp actually approves of the use of "mutants" to promote their agenda. I mean really, "...the openly gay mutant..."? Wow. I'm *very* surprised the LGBT lobby endorses this stuff! I don't see Marvel as really being their friend in this as much as they seem to believe it. If you're going to promote your cause as a cause of "mutants", is that truly a good rationale to expect society to not only endorse your behavior, but to even redefine marriage? All just to accommodate your "mutation"?

    And to say in reference to this that "art imitates life" is to say that these "mutants" imitate you. Is that really how you see yourself? As a mutant? Well, I don't see you that way. I see you as one created in God's image who is calling you to repentance, as He has calls us all.

    As for the comic books promoting this stuff, they should be written into the child endangerment laws, along with the other items it is illegal to sell, furnish, or give away to minors.

  40. GFPC
    Posted May 28, 2012 at 9:16 am | Permalink

    A sad day for Marvel. They are so much better than this.

  41. Zack
    Posted May 28, 2012 at 11:54 am | Permalink


    I think they were losing readers, so this was a stunt to get more people engaged in their comics.

  42. Doug
    Posted May 28, 2012 at 2:38 pm | Permalink

    "Of course publishers and producers of such things should be punished by law. And their pathetic publishings and productions outlawed and destroyed."

    Burn the books! Burn the books! Get out the swastikas and the torches! Destroy "the other"!

  43. Randy E King
    Posted May 29, 2012 at 10:12 am | Permalink

    Marvel just jumped the shark!

  44. Bryce K.
    Posted May 29, 2012 at 10:28 am | Permalink

    Where does the first Amendment say I'm wrong?

  45. Fred
    Posted May 31, 2012 at 6:54 am | Permalink


    It's doubtful that this so-called "wedding" will result in a long term sales boost. The issue of Spider-Man starring Barack Obama enjoyed record sales, but following issues saw sales drop to their usual low levels. This publicity stunt will have the same effect on X-Men.

Comments are temporarily disabled. Please try back later.