DC Creative Team Leaves after Ultimatum for Lesbian Batwoman

The 2011 run of Batwoman comes to an uncomfortable close. Citing editorial interference, creative leads W. Haden Blackman and J.H. Williams III have left the project; despite two on-panel proposals between Kate Kane (Batwoman) and Detective Maggie Sawyer, DC Comics refuses to not only feature the marriage on-page but also refuses to let it happen at all. Blackman and Williams included in their formal statement:

"...in recent months, DC has asked us to alter or completely discard many long-standing storylines in ways that we feel compromise the character and the series. We were told to ditch plans for Killer Croc’s origins; forced to drastically alter the original ending of our current arc, which would have defined Batwoman’s heroic future in bold new ways; and, most crushingly, prohibited from ever showing Kate and Maggie actually getting married. All of these editorial decisions came at the last minute, and always after a year or more of planning and plotting on our end."

 While DC Comics never clarified that their decision was anti-gay marriage, the implications of their decision are  stark clear to see, especially after trying to reap the benefits from multiple gay characters in their lineup, including a reboot of the original Green Lantern Alan Scott in the 'Earth 2' timeline. But that attempt wasn't  universally well-received either, including by the gay community. Due to unnecessary tragedy, LGBTQA+ readers found it a familiar story of needless conflict: characters punished not just by social forces but also seemingly by the narrative for being gay. Did the same editorial guidance that was the heartbreak of Alan Scott and the force that causes LGBTQA+ individuals to get murdered in media with surprising frequency also dog the 2001 Batwoman?

Batwoman #17, Kate Kane proposes to Maggie Sawyer

Beyond being just a question of social inequality, these events suggest a picture of how much of our media, including traditionally 'nerdy,' cult, or niche works is produced. The intent of the creators is very often changed for the sake of the publisher's whims. Whenever we say that we like a movie, a book, a video game, or even a comic series run, we aren't only saying that we like and approve of the primary authors or creators of the material but also the label, publisher or other media entity that controls the content released. Why are these units not subject to scrutiny as problematic or progressive as individual creators are? It is widely theorized that the reason behind DC's reluctance to make any emphasis on a progressive marriage is partially due to Orson Scott Card working on a recent run of Superman. With a notorious big-name bigot on payroll for a critical project, can DC afford to stress his (narrow) tolerance?

Is Orson Scott Card, a writer that alienates such a broad audience, worth more than two progressive, competent staff writers with a release already underway and years in the making?

DC's decision is a call for a critical eye in comics and beyond. How much other media that consumers would  (and already do) gleefully devote to has been held hostage by executive decisions like this?