The Hot Blog

I hate to be this silly, but it's an easy place to go. The people of Utah and their state sponsored religion, got involved with something that did not involve them. So they have to pay. THERE SHOULD BE BLOOD.

I know it's a bit over the top and all, but the mormons spent a lot of money on the Prop 8 advertising. Utah also voted for Obama less than anybody. Does Hollywood really want to give this group of people millions of dollars in a few months?

Luckily I am not in the position to make the call. If I were. It would be to let the motherfuckers go and fuck themselves, and move Sundance out of that whack ass state.

'state sponsored religion'?

http://www.mtvmusic.com/stallone_frank/videos/214878/far_from_over.jhtml

Where does it say there's no price to be paid for making political statements? By all means the Sundance folks should boycott the theater if that is where their beliefs lead them; but they should be prepared for the financial hit the festival takes as a result. This anti-Mormon thing is going to peter out sooner or later, but right now it seems like later, given how petulantly the pro-gay marriage side is behaving.

I'm not really sure that boycotting the Cinemark theaters in Park City for a week or so really does that much, if anything, to hurt the Plano, Texas-based theater chain.

If movie people are really upset about Alan Stock's contributions or what causes he and other people that share his religion give to, it would seem more effective to stop giving allowing them to show movies at all of their 4,000-some-odd theaters (or however many thousand there are).

Or, if anybody wants to contribute to an egg-buying fund, I'd be willing to go egg the guy's house (or get my wife to do it, since she passes his neighborhood on her way to work every day).

I will continue to only ski in New Mexico or Colorado if that helps the cause at all.

Petulant, Cloudy? Really? Occassionally you have to take a stand, draw a line in the sand, and state things stop here. It's utterly ridiculous that an entire minority of people in this country that's composed of every minority, are being treated like second class citizens.

If that's petulance. Let me be petulant all day. Folks have to pay for not minding their own business.

My god, to think if only this much ruckus was made at the start of the Iraq war or each time some 8 year old is gunned down in South LA or, better yet, as our government decided to bail out every single financial institution that caused the entire PLANET'S financial meltdown... I get that you're all mad as hell but why can't this much emotion be shown to other causes as well?? I don't know, I guess I'll stop there.

I said it before but apparently nobody paid attention, the 'they should mind their own business' argument is retarded. I repeat: if Utah decided to pass some kind of anti-gay ordinance, by the same logic, Californians or people from anywhere else shouldn't volunteer or donate money to see it defeated because it's 'none of our business'.

I get the passion, but a little consistency in the principles would be good too.

*Please* bear in mind before I ask this that it is not my question or my opinion, but I am merely acknowledging something that was asked on a certain "fair and balanced" cable channel yesterday. Obviously the venue in which it was asked it subject and most would consider slanted, but I'd be interested in hearing an answer, even if their question was loaded and intentionally provocative:

Since (allegedly?) African-American and Latino voters went yes in large numbers on Prop 8, how come the protestors are aiming their efforts (like the one detailed in this thread) rather overwhelmingly at Mormons and white churches? AGAIN, not me asking this (or at least not me originating the question), but the argument on Fox was, why don't those who are angry about the Prop 8 results hightail it down to a predominantly African-American or Latino neighborhood or church and try to make their voice heard?

The Mormon Church is an organization.

As far as I know, there is no Black headquarters. There is no black headquarters captain telling its followers what to believe about gay marriage and how to vote.

What are they going to do? Just find out where a bunch of random black people live and throw eggs at their house?

Zahn, the obvious insinuation on (bullyish) Fox was that gay folks were too scared or too P.C. to roll into Compton or South L.A. and start running their mouths. Again, it was a totally loaded and probably offensive question they were asking, but I wondered if there was a kernel of a point that it's easier to take on a lily-white religion like Mormonism (which seems to come second after only Scientology in terms of religions that are OK to make fun of) instead of setting up shop in front of some high-profile Christian, Catholic or Baptist megachurch.

I understand that you're saying, but black churches did not play a major role in funding Prop 8 the way the Mormon church did.

They might not have played a major role, as you say (though how can you really prove that unless you frequent these churches), but they do overwhelmingly skew anti-gay marriage. Again, not scientific here, but I'd bet that there were quite a few sermons at black churches in certain parts of LA that, in the weeks before the election, made their views crystal clear to a constituent that was only to happy to vote a certain way.

SO, Lex, to answer your question -- yes, IMO, Fox does have a kernel of a point.

I agree that targetting the Mormon church or all mormons is not appropriate. Other churches have certainly damaged the gay community as much or more.

That is why I am good with specific targetting of specific supporters. If you want to take political stands, one should realize that there politcal consequences.

Are mormons taking a bigger hit than black californians from the protesters? Yes. Why? Because it is so much easier a target. Yes... I agree with that. But that doesn't make anyone who gave thousands to limit civil liberties right. The target on the back is still earned.

And why this all matters... I mean, why does anything matter? Civil rights may not mean much to you and gay America may already be doing better than "separate but equal" by most standards. But right is right. And whether it's equal rights to be married/have legally binding status with the state or having the right to display a crucifix in a bottle of piss or getting elected president with a Middle Eastern sounding name... we all choose the fights we choose to fight.

The arts are, on the surface, a triviality. And the business of the movies is certainly even more silly a pursuit of interest. But trains have to run, someone has to make the donuts, and so long as there is a movie business, people will discuss it and deserve smart voices to offer what insights they have.

The reason the Mormon Church is getting so much heat is not just because they advised their members to vote for Proposition 8. It's because they directly bankrolled the majority of the Yes on 8 campaign (I believe the figure was about $20 million). The Yes on 8 campaign was notorious for its highly misleading ads about what TEH GAYZ were going to do to decent heteros and their children once they got marriage. It's not just because of some kind of philosophical difference - the The Church launched itself majorly into the campaign and thus, must deal with the consequences of playing in Caesar's court. They were as much a player in this as an individual who gave $1,000.

And I imagine it galls gay and lesbian Californians that a Church which had a pretty unmainstream version of the institution of marriage up to quite recently would dare try and claim that giving gays and lesbians that right would destroy it.

Aris, have you attended a protest of the Iraq war? Or a candlelight vigil for a murdered 8 year old? Did you bury your congressional representitive with postcards and emails over the bailout?

Each of these subjects you mentioned deserve attention but people pick their battles, often choosing the one most personal. It is not reasonable to ask people who would protest one evil to protest every evil, especially if you have not made the effort yourself.

Nate Silver on fivethirtyeight.com:

Exit polls suggest that first-time voters -- the vast majority of whom were driven to turn out by Obama (he won 83 percent [!] of their votes) -- voted against Prop 8 by a 62-38 margin. More experienced voters voted for the measure 56-44, however, providing for its passage.

Now, it's true that if new voters had voted against Prop 8 at the same rates that they voted for Obama, the measure probably would have failed. But that does not mean that the new voters were harmful on balance -- they were helpful on balance. If California's electorate had been the same as it was in 2004, Prop 8 would have passed by a wider margin.

"And I imagine it galls gay and lesbian Californians that a Church which had a pretty unmainstream version of the institution of marriage up to quite recently would dare try and claim that giving gays and lesbians that right would destroy it."

I wasn't aware that 1890 was "quite recently."

"The Yes on 8 campaign was notorious for its highly misleading ads . . ."

The No on 8 campaign was not exactly all truth and light in its ads. Its either a pot/kettle or first stone situation. One can decide for oneself which is more appropriate.

Lex,

The reason the Mormon Church is being targeted is because to do anything else would require the proponents of SSM to actually have a sense of complex and nuanced thinking...which they do not.

The fact is, Obama brought out a large percentage of Hispanic and African American supporters. Those demos are overwhlemingly morally conservative. But supporters of SSM still see the old paradigm. Gay = "other" = minorities. All standing side by side. The truth is more complex as they will soon find out.

That is what I have written about here for a long time...shifting paradigms.

Boycott a Mormon Church? Ummmm...did they boycott Obama? Last time I checked he was officially opposed to SSM. Now either supporters of SSM think Obama is lying and really supports them or they really have no concept of demographics. Either way they look bad...and make Obama look bad in turn.

It is much easier for a supporter of SSM (largely speaking, white, liberal, secular and "educated" as a demographic) to see "uneducated" white Mormons as villains than a visible minority because then they would have to genuinely understand them and risk exposing themselves as intolerant of other cultures...which of course they are.

The situations are quite ludicrous and this battle is going to be one of many where we start to see how

1) Obama cannot truly unite his own party let alone all of America or the world and universe as many believe

and

2) a realignment of the left

Obama made a choice to court minorities and religious groups as opposed to feminists and the gay lobby. It was a concious choice and the only way he knew he could win. he also made that choice because he knew the most ardent feminists and gay demos would never vote Repub anyway. That's what politics is. If you know you have your base anyway and they aren't going anywhere...why cater to them. Religious votes on the other hand...he needed.

The last paragraph is quoting Nate as well. This comment section requires tags for each paragraph, I guess.

Blackcloud;

The Yes on 8 campaign broadcast an ad which claimed that passage of the proposition was needed or schools would be forced to teach about gay marriage to children against the will of their parents. This was after a judge in Sacremento told the campaign that this was bullshit. They complained that gay marriage would destroy church's tax exempt status, also a lie.

The LA Times said;

"Much has been made about same-sex marriage changing the traditional definition of marriage. But marriage has evolved for thousands of years, from polygamous structures in which brides were so much chattel to today's idealized love matches. In seeking to add a sentence to California's Constitution that says, "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized," Proposition 8 supporters seek to enforce adherence to their own religious or personal definition. The traditional makeup of families has changed too, in ways that many religious people find immoral. Single parents raise their children; couples divorce and blend families. Yet same-sex marriage is the only departure from tradition that has been targeted for constitutional eradication.

Religions and their believers are free to define marriage as they please; they are free to consider homosexuality a sin. But they are not free to impose their definitions of morality on the state. Proposition 8 proponents know this, which is why they have misdirected the debate with highly colored illusions about homosexuals trying to take away the rights of religious Californians. Since May, when the state Supreme Court overturned a proposed ban on same-sex marriage as unconstitutional, more than 16,000 devoted gay and lesbian couples have celebrated the creation of stable, loving households, of equal legal stature with other households. Their happiness in no way diminishes the rights or happiness of others."

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-ed-prop8-2-2008nov02,0,5926932.story

If you can find a similar level of lying from the mainstream of the No on 8 campaign, I would be surprised.

As for having 'complex and nuanced thinking' - gays have been working patiently on this issue for years. In California, it has been through the legislature successfully (twice!) and has been ruled on by the state Supreme Court. But all this has to take a back seat to people who take against the idea because of what they believe was written a couple of thousand years ago on the issue. They took a verse from the Old Testament and decided that it was worth stripping a minority of their civil rights in order to uphold this. Yet Nicol is saying that it is proponents of Same Sex Marriage who lack complex and nuanced thinking.

I will agree with Nicol on one thing. There does seem to be a realignment taking place within the gay community as a result of this - an understanding that working through traditional coalitions and waiting for acknowledgement may need to be rethought. The silence from the mainstream gay organisations on the outbreak of hurt and anger at the passing of the proposition and the poor quality of the No on 8 campaign seems to be a bit of a tipping point. Hopefully aggressive outreach to all potential allies (across all political stripes, ethnicities, and yes, faiths) will be the result. Some of the more extreme anger and hurt will have to die down first and a proper autopsy on the campaign take place

i'd also like to point out to nicol re: his obama remarks that, while obama has been vocal about his views on same sex marriage, he was quite outspoken regarding his opposition to california prop. 8......

Prop 8 ugliness isn't limited to Park City. The director of Sacramento's oldest theater troupe resigned after he was targeted for supporting Prop 8. (He converted to Mormonism 2-3 years ago).

Also, the Catholic church was just as fervent for Prop 8 as the Mormons.

Are you saying that he shouldn't have resigned? There's simply no way he could have stayed on at the theatre after it was made public that he donated to the pro-prop 8 movement. The theatre would've lost tons of business.

Two facts to correct:

1 - Sundance hasn't used the Sugarhouse theaters since 2001.

2 - Two states - Wyoming and Oklahoma - had higher percentages of support for John McCain than Utah did.

Nicol, once again you act as though you are an expert on American politics when that is oh so very far from the truth.

The 50 State Strategy. Maybe you have heard of it? It was Obama's plan from the beginning. To suggest that Obama courted minorities and religious groups because it was the only way he could win is completely false. You go on and on about the complexity of things and the left's inability to handle complexity and then act as if Obama winning was as simple as "courting minorities and religious groups." Guess what Nicol? It was more complex than that, but apparently you can't handle "complex and nuanced thinking."

Right now the Democrats are a model of unity and cohesion compared to the GOP. But since you are such an expert on American politics I'm sure you already knew that.

I actually did march in protests over the Iraq war -- one in Hollywood and one in San Francisco. And I'm not even American. But that's neither here nor there.

As far as the theatre director -- If I was being targeted/protested for a BELIEF I would never ever resign. Period. It's MY OPINION and therefore is not wrong. If business declines because of it, try your freakin' best to fire me. See what happens.

The Economic Learning Curve for Businesspeople who Supported Prop 8

"I have to answer the question myself as well. Right now, I would lean to making the statement by joining any boycott of the Holiday Village. There are other options during the festival. Nothing plays the HV exclusively."

So is it correct to infer that if there was a movie you wanted to see, and it was playing at the HV exclusively, you would lean toward NOT "making the statement"?

[i]As far as the theatre director -- If I was being targeted/protested for a BELIEF I would never ever resign. Period. It's MY OPINION and therefore is not wrong. If business declines because of it, try your freakin' best to fire me. See what happens.[/i]

A belief is no longer just a belief once you've used it as the reason to directly affect the lives of others.

In all the Prop 8 stuff, the fact that Connecticut is now the second state to grant gay marriages seems to be largely overlooked. Part of the reason might be because again it was accomplished through judicial means, but there was a ballot question to convene a Constitutional Convention in the state that lost pretty handily. Though the question mentioned nothing about gay marriage, it was a strategy by gay marriage proponents to work around the court's decision.

^ Then what does it become? A principle? A philosophy? An opinion? Truth? Knowledge?

That's a naive outlook. The whole point of beliefs is that they directly affect the lives of others. No one would care about them otherwise.

@djk: The Connecticut case got lots of airtime on CNN yesterday.

@Zahn: Linking to a story is one thing. Putting words in my mouth is another.

I didn't put words in your mouth. I asked you a question.

Okay, now I got it straight. Blacklisting Communists who supported Stalin, who killed millions and millions of people was bad.
But boycotting and blacklisting people who do not want to change the definition of marriage is good.

Okay, just want to be clear.

Okay, now I got it straight. Blacklisting Communists who supported Stalin, who killed millions and millions of people was bad.
But boycotting and blacklisting people who do not want to change the definition of marriage is good.

Okay, just want to be clear.

Okay, now I got it straight. Blacklisting Communists who supported Stalin, who killed millions and millions of people was bad.
But boycotting and blacklisting people who do not want to change the definition of marriage is good.

Okay, just want to be clear.

There's nothing wrong with a boycott, if targeted properly, which is both an expression of democracy and of free-market capitalism.

Chucky, your seemingly flat manner of writing, plus the phrase "Prop 8 ugliness isn't limited to Park City" make it sound like you think the Sacramento story is something you think is 'ugly'.

I think we can chalk that up to an Asperger's-ian lack of affect, though.

Oh, and Nicol's posting was more of his usual bullshit in which he hypocritically claims that liberals can't see 'nuance' or 'complexity' and then lays out excessively un-nuanced, simplistic arguments for his own side. Apparently we're in for a solid eight years of incessant whining and nagging (on top of the pre-existing lying) from him.

Most of these posts are extraordinary. This sour-grapes mentality is, in effect, a reverse form of bigotry -- stereotype an entire group or region of the country because you disagree with certain behavior...and work hard to punish them.

Sound familiar?

This is not about free speech; this is about hurting those who used their free speech to disagree with you. So what is a better use of your time and energy -- getting so -called vengeance on a select few (which will simply temper the opposition), or using persuasion and public influence to overturn something you feel is unjust?

I agree with jeffmcm that a boycott is a reasonable response. More problematic are demonstrations (still perfectly legal) that are often characterized by belligerent, counterproductive behavior.

And I agree with Estavares that singling out one group for anger and revenge is silly and counterproductive.

That dope at California Musical Theatre is not being blacklisted (nobody is saying "We will not employ you and we will collude to make sure no one else does"). Artists are saying they don't want him to profit from their work because they believe he played a role in harming them, which is certainly within their rights.
And, incidentally, bigotry is not the same thing as a political belief. If you deny me my rights because of who I am, you bet I'm going to boycott you. IMHO, Prop 8 could turn out to be the rallying cry gay people need.

Unfortunately there lies the rub, as they say. Is marriage a civil right? Or is it on par with the senior discount at Denny's? ;)

We're not dealing with sodomy laws here - we're dealing with rewarding behavior that many people believe to be both counter-productive to a healthy society (at best) and immoral (at worst). Being "gay" hasn't been made illegal. The people voted to clarify the legal definition of marriage - just as it was clarified years ago to prohibit close relatives from marrying.

Boycotts are perfectly acceptable...but this smacks of sterotyping and bigotry, and isn't that something gays and lesbians are fighting to prevent?

Just to clarify, more heterosexuals practice sodomy than homosexuals, and they haven't been stripped of the ability to marry lately.

Jeffmcm - I assume you understand the context of "sodomy laws" in that it did indeed used to be illegal to practice homosexuality. As far as I understand it, those laws have since disappeared.

Yes, they were declared unconstitutional. My point, however, is that this debate has more to do with whether one's definition of homosexuality is based on 'identity' or based on 'activity'. I don't believe that the 'rewarding of activity' argument holds water.

But that's the whole point. Marriage rewards two people by behaving in a certain way. The whole point of "marriage" is a contract that, if upheld, allows special benefits and rewards because a society deems the arrangement beneficial for society at large.

But let's be honest: this really isn't about any benefits or rewards. Not at the core. Allowing same-sex marriage officially legitimizes homosexuality as a normal and appropriate social behavior. That's what supporters want. And when people vote against that notion, the very people who cry "equality" are ready to destroy those who oppose them.

Ironic.

"people of Utah and their state sponsored religion, got involved with something that did not involve them."

It was the Mormons who live in California who voted, and the state of Utah does not sponsor any religion.

"Civil rights may not mean much to you. . .But right is right."

Yes, right is right, and gay marriage is not a civil right; a majority of Californians agree.

"Religions and their believers are free to define marriage as they please; they are free to consider homosexuality a sin."

That's good to hear, because homosexuality is a sin.

"Marriage rewards two people by behaving in a certain way."

That is correct, for deciding they want to form a more fully united family bond. No argument here.

"Allowing same-sex marriage officially legitimizes homosexuality as a normal and appropriate social behavior."

While I sense a certain passive-agressive hostility to this position, I don't disagree with you. This is fine by me.

"And when people vote against that notion, the very people who cry "equality" are ready to destroy those who oppose them."

Well, this is not a uniform position and it is oversimplifying things and seeing them in a non-nuanced manner to explain it away in this manner.

"Ironic"
Sort of, but also understandable. Also, you remind me of someone who likes to use that word.

And you, R Scott R, are a bigoted troll.

jeffmcm said, "And you, R Scott R, are a bigoted troll."

No, I'm not. But, unlike you I won't resort to name calling.

It's not name-calling if it's 100% accurate. You are a troll, in that you only appear at this blog with comments designed to annoy/irritate/infuriate people with whom you do not agree; you are not interested in discourse, conversation, or bandying ideas about in an open and honest back-and-forth. Therefore I can also call you lazy, intellectually dishonest, crude, and foolish.

And you are a bigot, that speaks for itself. You are also a homophobe, a zealot, and a liar.

I used to live in Plano. Fuck Cinemark.

Jeffmcm: oh certainly there's some oversimplification on the matter, because the reality is (obviously) far more nuanced and shaded with a million tones of gray. Broad statements generated to promote discussion and offer a snapshot of my point of view tend to be more fun. :)

I am curious to hear, though, how marriage is considered a "civil right." What is your take on the matter?

Thanks for asking. I would simply say that, in any circumstance in which it is legal for a heterosexual couple to marry, it should also be legal for homosexual couples to marry. I am unaware of any good reason why this should not be the case, except for political expediency (as in, right now it's legal in MA and CT, so people in TN or ID should expect to wait a while).

i take umbrage

estavares, any unmarried man and woman of legal age of any race, religion or creed who are not siblings (or first cousins i guess) can get married at 'city hall' or the equivalent and legally there's not a darn thing you can do to stop them, so yes, marriage is a civil right that pretty much every adult heterosexual has, whether or not enshrined as such in the law.

you said, 'Allowing same-sex marriage officially legitimizes homosexuality as a normal and appropriate social behavior'

by virtue of its very existence, homosexuality is normal; it's evident in human mating behavior in every race and culture around the world - and in other animal species as well - a minority sexual orientation that is an established part human behavior. therefore, by definition it is natural behaviour, and within the expected norms of the human population, though a quite minority segment (and minorities are easier to bully, esp. a minority not accepted by most religions for arcane, ridiculous reasons.) the rightious truth is, everyone person should have the EXACT same rights as the next regardless of race, creed, gender or sexual orientaiton. get on the bus.

(rscottr, get ye back to bible studies, sinner!)

Leahnz - the bus ain't going anywhere yet. :) There is a big difference between a "legal right" and a "civil right."

A civil right implies you are born with it. It's your civil right to vote and get equal protection under the law. Those rights are established by our Constitution. It's not necessarily a civil right, however, to own a house or own a TV or get the youth price at the movies or even get married. We discriminate all the time; we decide who can drive, who can go to a college, who can qualify for a particular job, etc.

Should a line be drawn? If not, why not allow ANY type or number of consenting adults to marry...regardless of circumsatnces?

passive aggressive much? i don't even know where to start with that post, so i'm gonna take the high road, otherwise i'll run my mouth off and get into trouble as is my tendency

"Should a line be drawn?"
Well, as a sign I saw among the NYC protesters said, "In 1967, Barack Obama's parents could not have legally married in 16 states."

yeah, estavares, put that in your pipe and smoke it

Yeah, Estevares, I was giving you the benefit of the doubt that you were actually approaching this conversation in the spirit of open-mindedness, but it seems pretty clear you're just another agenda-monger. Correct me if I'm wrong.

You're catching on, Jeff.

It's admirable and kind of cute the way you give these guys the benefit of the doubt, but eventually you realize you're howling into the wind.

Well, I half suspect E. is actually our friend N.D. trying to regain some credibility for himself.

But, uh, thanks. I guess there's a downside to assuming that people are honest and intelligent above a certain level.

"A civil right implies you are born with it." Indeed, which is why gay people are, essentially, lesser civilians because they are not born with the right to marry who they love and they are not allowed equal benefits.

What aggravates a lot of homosexuals (including myself) is that we are being told what we can and cannot do by a bunch of people who are either clueless or bigots. What if gay people were allowed to vote on whether churches should be allowed tax benefits? There'd be an uproar.

Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out)

(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)

URL:
Remember me? YesNo

Comments: