Elton John's performance for Rush Limbaugh sparks backlash
- Photo: Darron Cummings/Invision/AP1 of 9
- Photo: Lefteris Pitarakis/Invision/AP2 of 9
- Photo: Steve Fenn/Retna Ltd.3 of 9
- Photo: Kevin Mazur/WireImage.com4 of 9
- Photo: Anonymous/Invision/AP5 of 9
- Photo: PATRICK GARDIN/Invision/AP6 of 9
- Photo: ANG/Fame Pictures7 of 9
- Photo: Matt Sayles/Invision/AP8 of 9
By Jennifer Odell
When right-wing radio star Rush Limbaugh tied the knot with his much-younger fourth bride Kathryn Rogers this weekend, the event's main spectacle -- aside from a tongue-in-cheek congratulatory banner flying above the ceremony, courtesy of Gawker -- was the mystery of why the openly gay singer Elton John performed there.
RELATED: Ricky Martin and more out celebs
But in the wake of news that Elton's $1 million artist fee may have influenced his decision to serenade a guy known for his homophobic and anti-liberal on-air crusades, the gay community is starting to vocalize its collective outrage.
"I'm flabbergasted," Aaron Hicklin, Editor-in-Chief of Out, told PopEater. "It betrays either ignorance or self-interest or both, and jeopardizes his admirable record on gay rights."
Michael Musto of the Village Voice called the Rocket Man a "whore" for his actions on Monday's "Countdown With Keith Olbermann." And blogs like Queerty.com as well as the comment sections at websites for The Advocate and Out Magazine have been lighting up with tsks about the singer's apparent hypocrisy, according to PopEater.
RELATED: Read more about Elton John
Still, it seems unlikely that the Rocket Man will admit fault in his apparent support of the conservative couple. His 2001 duet with Eminem at the Grammys also incited ire among viewers who noted that some of the rapper's lyrics include anti-gay slurs. And Elton's 2005 assertion that "if gay people want to get married ... they should have a civil partnership," a comment he made to USA Today at his own civil partnership ceremony with David Furnish, hasn't exactly made him the celebrity spokesperson for overturning Proposition 8.