« Jersey Shore's Snooki: 'I would consider myself bi,' but won't be with a girl 'because I like ... penis' | Main | Video | Gay man, 20, speaks about brutal attack by gang members in Atlanta »

CNN suspends Roland S. Martin over 'offensive' - some say anti-gay - Super Bowl night tweets


NEW YORK -- CNN suspended political analyst Roland Martin on Wednesday for "offensive" tweets during the Super Bowl that some critics said were anti-gay.

Martin commented on Twitter about a commercial during the Super Bowl that showed soccer star David Beckham in underwear: "If a dude at your Super Bowl party is hyped about David Beckham's H&M underwear ad, smack the ish out of him."

The Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation said the remark advocated violence against gays. Martin said that he was making a joke about soccer and that he doesn't support violence against anyone.

Martin also tweeted: "Who the hell was that New England Patriot they just showed in a head to toe pink suit? Oh, he needs a visit from (hash)teamwhipdatass."

Martin later issued an apology on his website saying he was "truly sorry" to those who felt his tweet was anti-gay, homophobic or advocating violence. "I'm disheartened that my words would embolden prejudice," he said.

CNN said Wednesday that Martin's remarks were "regrettable and offensive" and he will not be on air "for the time being."

"Language that demeans is inconsistent with the values and culture of our organization, and is not tolerated," CNN said.

GLAAD spokesman Rich Ferraro said CNN "took a strong stand" against demeaning language and anti-gay violence. He said GLAAD looked forward to discussing the network's decision with CNN and Martin.


GLAAD has issued the following statement:

“CNN today took a strong stand against anti-LGBT violence and language that demeans any community,” said GLAAD spokesperson Rich Ferraro. “Yesterday, Martin also spoke out against anti-LGBT violence. We look forward to hearing from CNN and Roland Martin to discuss how we can work together as allies and achieve our common goal of reducing such violence as well as the language that contributes to it.”


Erik Wemple of The Washington Post reports that CNN commentator Roland S. Martin has been suspended following a series of Super Bowl night Tweets that offended many gay people.

From Wemple's blog:

“Roland Martin’s tweets were regrettable and offensive. Language that demeans is inconsistent with the values and culture of our organization, and is not tolerated. We have been giving careful consideration to this matter, and Roland will not be appearing on our air for the time being.”

GLAAD called for Martin to be fired after this Twitter exchange:

f a dude at your Super Bowl party is hyped about David Beckham's H&M underwear ad, smack the ish out of him! #superbowl

GLAAD wrote:
.@rolandsmartin Advocates of gay bashing have no place at@CNN #SuperBowl #LGBT

Martin replied:
@glaad @CNN well you're clearly out of touch and clueless with what I tweeted. Way to assume, but you're way off base

Martin apologized on Tuesday.

Click here to read Wemple's complete post.


TrackBack URL for this entry:

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference CNN suspends Roland S. Martin over 'offensive' - some say anti-gay - Super Bowl night tweets:


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

More bullying and intolerance by the gay community. This time aimed at Roland Martin and his comments.

Are you kidding me? Are you kidding me? "smack the ish out of him"? is an afront to gays? If gays can take the stiff one, surely they can take a joke.

I am not surprised. He has been known to make anti gay comments before on the radio & this was captured on twitter. Good By & Good Riddance !

The only ones that are offensive and bulying are the gays pushing their BS on the majority who do not care for it. CNN is a bunch of bull anyway just as all of these Gay organizations

For any African American to start in about anyone else (based on anything that makes them a minority), it is surprising and offensive. This is probably a case of his own insecurities making him take a stand so that he will appear more straight and macho to other people.

I am tired of gay life being pushed in my face at every turn, and I am a gay man. When we can all just live and realize what each of us needs to do to make a better world... our world will be a better place. And that includes the straight people who made rude comments on this chat board. Why do you criticize in such a way as to demean an entire group of people? You give straight people a bad name.

Well, well, well. This idiot liberal, Obama butt kisser, arrogant defender of the black persuasion has now gotten a taste of his own medicine. He, who yelled so much against Imos, Dr. Laura and so many others is now getting a taste of his own intransigent bigotry. Enjoy it, Buster.

According to the Bible God and Jesus do not condone Gay behavior. So, is an individual wrong to not like it also. I thought this is America where you can say you don't like anything you want.

hey homos its America its FREEDOM of SPEECH, you guys and girls are fighting for the right to do w.e you want right?!?!?!?
Thats not right that he got suspended because of the gay and lesbian alliance how about speding money on something more important than worrying about a comment. Read the ammendments FREEDOM of SPEECH and FREEDOM of the PRESS NOW GET OVER IT!!!!!!!!

I think you can safely take the "some say" out of your headline. Many of your commenters certainly lend credence to that. ;-)

Time for a little education for some of the courageously anonymous folks above, though.

First of all, "anti gay," thanks for leaving no doubt as to your bigotry. I'd rather see my enemies coming than get stabbed in the back by them. But you might want to go back and read the "ammendments." I realize you might have some literacy problems, though, given the syntactic abortion you call a comment above.

The First Amendment states, in part: "Congress shall make no law [...] prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press ... "

If Congress tried to make a law telling CNN whom to hire or fire, you might have an argument, although it would clearly be unconstitutional. But media outlets are not required to allow any and all commentary on their airwaves. The First Amendment has not a thing to do with it.

As for you, "Shakespeare," your parroting of religious talking points is not only simplistic in the extreme, but you're flat-out wrong. First of all, there is not a single passage in the Bible where Jesus mentions homosexuality, so let's get that off the table.

Moreover, there is only a small handful of passages in the Old Testament that touch on homosexual behavior, and even there, there's significant scholarly debate about the true meanings of the verses, given various translations among Aramaic, Greek, Latin, etc. But scholarship probably isn't your strong suit.

Also, how do you square biblical admonitions about homosexuality with all of the OTHER admonitions? Fundamentalist Christians are obsessed with gays, which Freud might have something to say about, but that's another issue. But you never seem to ask questions like these:

a) When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord (Lev 1:9). The problem is my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?

b) I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?

c) I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanliness (Lev 15:19-24). The problem is, how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.

d) Lev. 25:44 states that I may indeed possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians?

e) I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself?

f) A friend of mine feels that even though eating shell fish is an Abomination (Lev 11:10), it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this?

g) Lev 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle room here?

h) Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev 19:27. How should they die?

i) I know from Lev 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?

j) My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev 19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? (Lev 24:10-16) Couldn't we just burn them to death at a private family affair like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14)

My questions above are cribbed from here:


I know people who think the Bible is the inerrant word of God rarely stop to think about these things. If you did, your heads might explode from the cognitive dissonance. Which would be a pretty good thing, come to think of it.

Oh, and please choose a new screen name. It is an affront to the Bard and to the entire English language that someone who writes as poorly as you do would go by that moniker.

The comments to this entry are closed.