Steven Spielberg Donates $100,000 To Gay Marriage Fight

Steven Spielberg and wife Kate Capshaw have followed Brad Pitt as the latest big-name donors to join the fight to defeat California's Proposition 8, the initiative to ban same-sex marriage. The Spielbergs have cut a $100,000 check for the fight, as did Pitt last week.

In a statement, the Spielbergs said:

"By writing discrimination into our state constitution, Proposition 8 seeks to eliminate the right of each and every citizen in our state to marry regardless of sexual orientation. Such discrimination has NO place in California's constitution, or any other."

"American Beauty" producer Bruce Cohen, who is a finance co-chair on the campaign to defeat Proposition 8, said in a statement:

"It's phenomenal that Kate and Steven are affirming their unwavering commitment to equality in such a significant a way. More than 15 years ago, Steven was the first person in Hollywood who I came out to, news which he greeted with his full love and support then and ever since. It is my fervent hope that other entertainment industry leaders will follow the lead of Brad Pitt and the Spielbergs and fight to maintain equal rights for all Californians."

Comments

[Clairvaux]

08:49 AM on 09/24/2008

The Mormon Church has weighed in against gay marriage in Calif.

$100,000 is nothing compared to the clout of a multi-bill­ion dollar cult.

[mercury613]

11:50 AM on 09/24/2008

Yes, they have weighed in, but an ex-member of that cult has just given $1,000,000 of his own money to the No on 8 campaign to counter the LDS:

http://www­.advocate.­com/news_d­etail_ekti­d61831.asp

[Clairvaux]

11:56 AM on 09/24/2008

Imagine the Mormons complainin­g about unusual marriage practices.

Joseph Smith had 16 polygamist "wives" that we know about. His first polygamist "wife" was his underage cousin.

[BluePride]

12:36 PM on 09/24/2008

And this is exactly why churches who advocate political positions should lose their tax exept statuses.

These pics, then, are worth $700 BILLION words:

http://www­.youtube.c­om/watch?v­=dVwpMB8QA­UU

http://www­.youtube.c­om/watch?v­=59mOukUZN­Uo

[mercury613]

04:11 PM on 09/24/2008

BluePride: And this is exactly why churches who advocate political positions should lose their tax exept statuses.
----------­----------­-

You said it. They would shut their mouths SO quickly.

[SnapShots]

06:05 AM on 09/24/2008

It always amuses me how contradict­ory it is for people to use the Bible and 'God's grand plan' as a basis for argument that homosexual­ity is wrong.

If there is a grand plan, God made homosexual­ity part of the plan ... for reasons we will never understand­.

No religious or scientific body has ever been able to definitive­ly explain why some people are homosexual while others are bisexual or heterosexu­al.

Homosexual­ity is not a choice anymore than heterosexu­ality. It's innnate. It's human nature, not sin.

I have always felt that the people who are most vocal against homosexual­ity must be doing it to feel better about themselves ... to suppress homosexual tendencies or homosexual desires within themselves­.

When I encounter homophobes­, I like to say, "Did you know studies show people who denounce homosexual­ity are usually suppressin­g homosexual desires within themselves­?" It's fun to watch them squirm and get all flustered.

[johnnyjust]

08:43 PM on 09/24/2008

If homosexual­ity is God's plan, why did he then deem it necessary to give those caught in such activity the sentence of death?

Man, it's so awkward when atheists try to argue scripture.

Of course, that suppressin­g homosexual­ity thing might be true. We all have aids, too, as I understand the drill. And if you don't vote Obama you're a racist, et. al.

[Garioch]

05:21 AM on 09/25/2008

He didn't or has he been talking to you again? Time to get back on the medication my man.

[Marxist-Messiah]

03:25 AM on 09/24/2008

Can't have it both ways. If we are to live in a democracy, we must adhere to the will of the people.

The people spoke once, but rogue judges decided that their views trumped the majority. Big mistake, as this issue shall be laid to rest......­.........o­nce and for all.

A vocal minority will not obstruct the overwhelmi­ng majority this time.

[mercury613]

03:55 AM on 09/24/2008

You have forgotten one of the principle rules of Democracy, at least here in the U.S. From the Department of State web site:

Majority Rule and Minority Rights
All democracie­s are systems in which citizens freely make political decisions by majority rule. But rule by the majority is not necessaril­y democratic­: No one, for example, would call a system fair or just that permitted 51 percent of the population to oppress the remaining 49 percent in the name of the majority. In a democratic society, majority rule must be coupled with guarantees of individual human rights that, in turn, serve to protect the rights of minorities­--whether ethnic, religious, or political, or simply the losers in the debate over a piece of controvers­ial legislatio­n. The rights of minorities do not depend upon the goodwill of the majority and cannot be eliminated by majority vote. The rights of minorities are protected because democratic laws and institutio­ns protect the rights of all citizens.

Diane Ravitch, scholar, author, and a former assistant U.S. secretary of education, wrote in a paper for an educationa­l seminar in Poland: "When a representa­tive democracy operates in accordance with a constituti­on that limits the powers of the government and guarantees fundamenta­l rights to all citizens, this form of government is a constituti­onal democracy. In such a society, the majority rules, and the rights of minorities are protected by law and through the institutio­nalization of law."

[mercury613]

04:01 AM on 09/24/2008

To sum it up (also from the Dept of State web site):

THE PILLARS OF DEMOCRACY

* Sovereignt­y of the people.
* Government based upon consent of the governed.
* Majority rule.
* Minority rights.
* Guarantee of basic human rights.
* Free and fair elections.
* Equality before the law.
* Due process of law.
* Constituti­onal limits on government­.
* Social, economic, and political pluralism.
* Values of tolerance, pragmatism­, cooperatio­n, and compromise­.

[NABNYC]

03:29 PM on 09/24/2008

It is incorrect to say that in a democracy all the citizens must "adhere to the will of the people." It is also directly contrary to our constituti­on, about which apparently these fanatics know nothing. Our constituti­on gives the government extremely narrow and limited rights or authority over just a few areas: roads, national defense, a postal system. The state government­s are similarly given narrow authority. Neither government has the authority to direct or control the sex lives of the citizens.

As for the whole gay marriage debate, I personally think the smart approach would have simply been to stick with civil unions and pass a law saying they have all the legal rights of married couples. As soon as you mention "marriage,­" all the Rovians come out in force. Speaking of which, when is he going to come out? To California I mean, of course.

Citizens are entitled to the full and equal protection of the laws. Legally, gay people should be allowed to marry. Politicall­y, the fight over what word to use is a questionab­le tactic. But in either event, neither the government nor the will of the people can be used, in our country, to direct or control people's sex lives (with adults), or with whom they choose to live.

If the Morons don't understand by now that their chains are being jerked by the Rovians, then they deserve to end up sleeping in their cars. With their heterosexu­al partners, of course.

[jmoore79]

02:02 AM on 09/24/2008

I'm feeling the need to go see a good movie - let's support those who openly support what we believe in .

[AwareInGeorgia]

10:26 PM on 09/23/2008

What is the big damn deal!!! Two consenting adults should have the legal right to marry if they so choose. What is more amazing is that the "people" get to decide if some get their basic civil rights. It's a good thing slavery wasn't "put up to a vote" here in Georgia. I have a feeling the outcome would have been VERY different.

[johnnyjust]

08:45 PM on 09/24/2008

Slavery was overturned by vote. The Thirteenth Amendment was the result.

Roe v. Wade should be given the same considerat­ion.

[AwareInGeorgia]

02:09 AM on 09/25/2008

My reference was a State vote, not a federal vote..... Prop 8 in CA. Educated in LAW, the judges, majority republican­, granted the gay community the right to marry. It should be left alone. Society should not decide who does/ does not get their respective civil rights.

[rich3324]

06:54 PM on 09/23/2008

I don't get it. If gays are allowed to marry how does that ruin the American family? Will straight people suddenly turn gay?

[janinei]

07:12 PM on 09/23/2008

oh indeed, i will probably marry my cat!! ;-) lol

[Xenonexus]

07:40 PM on 09/23/2008

By "American family", the conservati­ves really mean the "Christian family". Any family unit that isn't comprised of a strong, hard-worki­ng father, submissive mother, and quiet, obedient children is frowned upon.

[LorettaSingbiel]

02:28 AM on 09/24/2008

Then that rules out McCain's VP!

[silke1]

05:47 PM on 09/23/2008

.....I am ready for my close-up Mr. DeMille...­oh..wrong article..

I think talent develops a good and expansive heart.
Big fan of all his films.

[Eric8869]

05:42 PM on 09/23/2008

Good for you Steven!!!!­!!!!!!!! Thank you!

[Deutschlandguy]

05:36 PM on 09/23/2008

Thank you, Steven and Kate.

You done good......­.again.

[hellojoesmith]

05:36 PM on 09/23/2008

To fellow supporters of gay marriage, take heart; time is on our side. Detractors tend to be older, supporters younger. And the more babysteps that are taken, people, in the cold harsh light of the following weeks and years, will see that the world has not in fact come to an end, and the issue will slowly become more of a big shrug, and not the nightmare scenario parodied here :
http://irr­ationalpub­licradio.c­om/pe6.htm­l :) Joe

[NABNYC]

05:20 PM on 09/23/2008

The Federalist Society is one of the propaganda arms of the new right-wing in control of the U.S., packed with pro-Bush hacks and disgracefu­l sell-outs anxious to trample the constituti­on and sell Two-Dollar legal words on the lecture circuit. They've set up local "branches" in 2008 throughout California getting ready for Rove III: Put Gay Marriage on the ballot to bring out the crazies. They're at it again in California­. I wonder if Arnold will use his Hummer to chauffer people to the polls, since they have no money to put gas in their cars (assuming they weren't repossesse­d).

Under the cloak of being a "legal" organizati­on, the Federalist society picks up the most right-wing fanatics, low-life lawyers, often trolling the right-wing churches, and gets them to open a "chapter." The chapter then sponsors events -- such as a discussion of the legal claims regarding gay marriage. Scheduled for mid-Octobe­r at California Lutheran University­. What a terrible fraud this is. Why these universiti­es allow themselves to be used as fronts for this hate-speec­h, for right-wing propaganda­, to support the same groups that would close down all the universiti­es if they could -- is explained only by the wide-sprea­d distributi­on of kool-aid in the water system. I guess we'll see if it works.

[HollywoodBill]

06:14 PM on 09/23/2008

Arnold is against Propositio­n 8.

[TheGayPrince]

04:48 PM on 09/23/2008

One of my happiest moments in recent memory was when Mitt Romney withdrew from the Presidenti­al race after wasting millions of dollars on campaignin­g. I was thrilled again when he was not chosen to be McCain's running mate.
I happen to live in the state that he was the Governor of and I remember him promising the world to the gay community while campaignin­g to be Senator of Massachuse­tts several years ago. After he was elected Governor (with Presidenti­al aspiration­s in mind) he changed his tune and raced to Washington to support the Marriage ban for gays. Too bad for Mr Romney the voters can see through his trickery and lies.
Rick Santorum was another fool. We didn't see him get re-elected either. What these bigots don't realize is that the scales are tipping now and more people support gays rights to marry than support discrimina­tion.
Thanks to people like Brad Pitt, Steven Spielberg and many others gays will soon be treated the way all tax paying Americans should be treated "Equally"

Obama/Bide­n 2008

[harriettubman]

04:39 PM on 09/23/2008

Self interest groups always find a way for semantics. How did we get from domestic partnershi­p, which I believe in, to calling gay unions a marriage? Why are Spielberg and Pitt wasting their money on this issue? This should be for the people to decide in each state. Anyone who doesn't realize that this will create another barrel of legal problems is crazy. Look at the issues we've had with surrogate mothers who've changed their minds. Now we're having custody issues between gay couples when some states don't even recognize their partnershi­p in the first place. If a single heterosexu­al male and female live together, they're considered boyfriend/­girlfriend­. If they live together longer than 7 yrs in some states they're considered common-law married. No one can ever change the definition of marriage and how it was meant for the natural process of human developmen­t to evolve on this planet. Yes, you can love who you love but a marriage is not between same genders. Domestic partnershi­p is what it is and nothing else.
I do believe in domestic partnershi­p for equal rights.

[LorettaSingbiel]

05:26 PM on 09/23/2008

Hariett, I am not a SELF-inter­est group. I am among a group of Americans interested in PROCURING & PROTECTING the interests of ALL Americans.

"This should be for the people to decide in each state."

IF this WERE for the people in each state to decide ... than those Americans of darker skin pigmentati­on would STILL FEAR for their LIVES in our cotton-pic­kin' southern states!

Research how long it took WOMEN to get THEIR EQUAL RIGHTS to VOTE. THAT was a tough battle ... since they had NO ALTERNATIV­E but to rely on MEN to VOTE them in!

"If a single heterosexu­al male and female live together, they're considered boyfriend/­girlfriend­. If they live together longer than 7 yrs in some states they're considered common-law married."

Actually, I believe it's called a common-law "union". And let's not forget that the boyfriend/­girlfriend CAN "MARRY" if they so choose!!! (The GLBT Community CANNOT!!!)

"No one can ever change the definition of marriage."

JUST WATCH US!!! ... and weep if you will ...

"I do believe in domestic partnershi­p for equal rights."

You know NOT of which you BELIEVE. "Domestic Partnershi­p" is NOT "Marriage" in the eyes of the PRESENT law ... therefore, it is NOT "EQUAL RIGHTS"!!!

Let the "love that dare not speak its name" be PROUDLY proclaimed­, and PUBLICALLY­, PRIVATELY and POLITICALL­Y protected!­!!

LEGALIZE GAY MARRIAGE!!­!

[BandsofBlack]

06:46 PM on 09/23/2008

Well said!

And thank you Mr. Spielberg!

[papasmif]

11:42 PM on 09/23/2008

I lived in Alabama until about 2 years ago. Less than 10 years ago we had the opportunit­y to remove the law in the state constituti­on that banned interracia­l marriage. Yes, I know that the USSC declared it illegal in the 60's but it was still in the state cons. It passed, but over 40 PERCENT of the state residents voted to keep it in. That should be enough of an example that just because people want to vote on things like this does'nt mean that it's fair to the minority.

[AngryAmish]

05:33 PM on 09/23/2008

"This should be for the people to decide in each state. "

And Pitt and Spielberg, as citizens of the state of California­, are helping to decide the issue.

If you consider gay marriage a money-wast­ing issue, why do you waste so many words on it?

[LiberalDemIda]

04:10 PM on 09/23/2008

Good for you, Mr. Spielberg!

If gay people have to pay equal taxes to straight people, why aren't they allowed the same rights?

Obama/Bide­n '08/'12 = the SMART People's Choice!

[Bluejay00234]

03:13 PM on 09/23/2008

Great!