During the Super Bowl show, Martin reportedly tweeted that “real bruhs” wouldn’t wear David Beckham underwear and that people should “smack the ish out” of any male that did. Watch the ad here:
Unfortunately, Martin’s controversial comments didn’t stop there. After receiving backlash for his statements, Martin tweeted:
Well you’re clearly out of touch and clueless with what I tweeted. Way to assume, but you’re way off base.”
On Monday, Martin seemingly continued his controversial statements. Further commenting on the Super Bowl, Martin added:
Who the hell was that New England Patriot they just showed in a head to toe pink suit? Oh, he needs a visit from #teamwhipdatass.
The gay rights group Gay Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD) wasn’t pleased. To them, anti-gay sentiment in this country is too high and Martin’s comments just add fuel to the fire.
Aware that his comments had taken on a life of its own, Martin released this statement:
Fam, let me address the issue that some in the LGBT community have raised regarding some of my Super Bowl tweets yesterday. I made several cracks about soccer as I do all the time. I was not referring to sexuality directly or indirectly regarding the David Beckham ad, and I’m sorry folks took it otherwise. It was meant to be a deliberately over the top and sarcastic crack about soccer; I do not advocate violence of any kind against anyone gay, or not. As anyone who follows me on Twitter knows, anytime soccer comes up during football season it’s another chance for me to take a playful shot at soccer, nothing more.
And even though 370 people or 81 percent of NewsOne voters felt that GLAAD was overreacting, CNN decided it was best to actually suspend the CNN personality:
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.
Do you think CNN and GLAAD is out of line or do you think that Martin shouldn’t have made the statements in the first place?