Hollywood celebrities and other entertainment industry people are making a strong push against California ballot initiative Proposition 8, which would prevent the state government from encoding same-sex marriage into the law and forcing all California citizens to recognize such marriages regardless of their personal opinions on the matter.
Falsely portraying the legality of same-sex marriage as a matter of civil rights for homosexuals, instead of its real foundation as a denial of everyone else’s rights, the fundamental and essential freedoms of speech, assembly, commerce, and opinion, many in the industry have contributed significant amounts of money in opposition to Prop 8 in recent days.
Actress Pauley Perrette (mentioned below also) called this "the biggest civil rights issue of our generation." She is correct about that, but not in the way she thinks. The civil rights in danger are those of all the citizens of society, which will be trodden under in order to make way for an entirely fictional civil right for a very small minority of people, if Prop 8 is defeated.
Proposition 8 offers the people of the state of California the opportunity to stand up for their real, fundamental rights. The alternative is forced universal obeisance to the opinions of a small minority group.
That is not an endorsing of preexisting civil rights. It is tyranny.
Most highly prominent individuals in the industry have stayed out of the fight, which is rather interesting given the strong push so many in Hollywood and in the state’s highly left-oriented media-government complex have given it.
However, quite a few have signed on to the effort to deny citizens their fundamental rights in the matter. Here is a list of some of the contributors, including both Hollywood celebrities and other prominent people. Readers shall decide for themselves whether to support them and their causes by purchasing their wares.
Filmmaker Steven Spielberg
Filmmaker George Lucas
Apple Computer
Sergei Brin, President of Google, Inc.
Producer Bruce Cohen, American Beauty, Pushing Daisies
Talk show host Ellen DeGeneres
Actor Brad Pitt
Actress Pauley Perrette, NCIS (an excellent TV show which I recommend watching)
Actress Bridget Fonda
Actor Jason Tam, One Life to Live
The California Teachers Association
Actress Mary McCormack, In Plain Sight
Director Gus Van Sant, Good Will Hunting, To Die For, Finding Forrester, Milk
Producer Greg Berlanti, Brothers and Sisters
Actor George Takei, Star Trek, Heroes
Producer Jonathan Murray, The Real World
Singer-actress Barbra Streisand
Director Rob Reiner
Actor David Hyde-Pierce, Frasier
Talk show host Chelsea Handler, Chelsea Lately
Actress Amy Brenneman
Actress Tyne Daly
Actress Christine Lahti
Actress Camryn Mannheim
Actress Dana Delaney
Actress Loni Anderson
Actor Eric McCormick
Saucey: No, these are not the arguments made during the civil rights era, unless you are asserting that black people choose to be black or that people who enter homosexual marriages are forced by genetics to use the government to coerce others into acknowledging their marriages. The two situations are not even remotely similar.
The ones who are being treated as sub-citizens are the entire population, who when same-sex marriage is encoded into law are being denied the right to decide their associations, commerce, and opinions.
That is tyranny.
Notice how Marcus calls those of us who don’t agree with him bigots. Not only do they want to impose their tyranny on us, but they want to stigmatize any and all who disagree with them. And further they want to force everyone to see homosexuality as morally equal, as good and right and natural as heterosexuality. And just like they’ve used only the courts thus far to push their agenda, they will further use the courts in their attempt to stifle all dissent should Prop. 8 fail.
Weren’t the same/similar arguments used many years ago during the civil rights era?
You and like minded folks really need to get over yourselves. This isn’t about you… really it isn’t.
They (Homosexuals) aren’t going away as much as you might want them to… they want to be treated like full citizens, not sub-citizens who are just allowed to exist
Thanks for your comment, Marcus. You would do well to read the other items I cite in this article. It is there that I make the point that no one is standing in the way of homosexuals marrying one another.
Let me repeat that point for emphasis: same-sex marriage is not illegal anywhere in the United States. People may pledge their troth to whomever or whatever they choose, in any forum they choose.
What they cannot do, however, is force other people to recognize those marriages–which people would indeed be forced to do if same-sex marriage were encoded into the law.
For example, an insurance company already has the right to allow same-sex couples to register for insurance as a married couple, but it cannot be forced to do so. You want to change that. You are wrong, and your policy is tyrannical.
The “right to disagree” you cite must include the right to act on one’s convictions, or it is not a right at all. You and the other supporters of encoding same-sex marriage in the law want to take away that right. That is tyrannical in the extreme.
That is what is at stake in the California vote.
Your argument is flawed and makes little sense… Allowing gays to get married is in no way intruding on the rights of others. You claim that legalized gay marriage would in some way force people to recognize the union of gays as legitimate when in reality you have the right to hold your own opinion on the matter regardless of what laws are passed. Legalizing gay marriage would not “force citizens to recognize it as marriage.” It would merely change the way marriage is defined by the state. If you don’t want to recognize the union between gays as marriage then don’t… You have the right to disagree. Just because people are in favor of granting equal rights to a minority group, doesn’t mean that anyone is imposing on YOUR views. You just happen to be in disagreement with them and it seems that in your thinly veiled bigotry, you are just rationalizing a way to make such views appear unconstitutional.