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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

[Marxist-Messiah]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

[AwareInGeorgia]

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]

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

Roe v. Wade should be given the same consideration.

[AwareInGeorgia]

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]

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]

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

[Xenonexus]

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]

Then that rules out McCain's VP!

[harriettubman]

It's not about ruining the American family but a continual erosion of the nuclear family. Heterosexuals have done a great job of ruining marriage. However, if the majority of people were gay how would we procreate? That's key in any civilization and I think some gay people sidestep that in order to promote their lifestyle.
In almost every religion worldwide, not just American Christians, being gay is not accepted. Why is that? Partly due to the procreation process.
I have no problem with gay people. I just don't think a group of people think they can replace mom and dad in the natural process of human development. Some do think that way.
Right now some schools want to teach about 2 mommies and 2 daddies yet can't even teach about sex ed. Teenage pregnancy is one of the most important issues in our society today.

[mercury613]

The procreation argument was brought up in the "Brad Pitt Donates $100,000..." thread, so I will repeat what I said there:

"Not legalizing same-sex marriage won't turn gay/lesbian people heterosexual, and it won't have any effect on the number of gay/lesbian people born into a given population; thus, birth rate would not be affected. If anything, same-sex marriage might encourage gay/lesbian couples to have kids. Your very, very uninformed argument does not make sense. At all."

Just because a belief is widely-held doesn't make it a good thing. Women are still fighting the widely-held belief that they are inferior to men.

It's obvious you do, in fact, have a problem with gay people.

[tploomis]

People with strongly negative emotional reactions to gay rights are having difficulty coping with their own homosexual feelings, and their irrational anger toward gays is their way of trying to prove to themselves that their own gay impulses are not real. Homophobic heterosexuals that insist homosexuality is a choice are also trying to cope with their homosexual impulses by telling themselves they can choose not to be homosexual. Of course that is ridiculous. I don't choose to be heterosexual.... it's just the way I am. it's the same for gays.

[silke1]

.....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]

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

[Deutschlandguy]

Thank you, Steven and Kate.

You done good.......again.

[hellojoesmith]

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]

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]

Arnold is against Proposition 8.

[TheGayPrince]

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]

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]

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]

Well said!

And thank you Mr. Spielberg!

[papasmif]

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.

[harriettubman]

Please find another analogy besides race to compare with being gay. The two can not be equated. A white gay man can walk into a public place and he's still seen as white. Melanin is seen first for a person of color.

Each state determines what a marriage is. They also determine cohabitation agreements and that's how it should be for gay people too, if they want to be considered "married". I believe domestic partnership should be a federal law and called exactly that.

Lorretta: It's people like you who have felt so defeated, in your quest to be "married", that are hurting young gay teens in high school. Out of this anger, gay teens are being told to go in and tell everybody they're proud of who they are.

I have no problem with Domestic Partnership. If you want to call it a marriage, say it but legally I don't want it called that. Now you're demanding what it should be. Benefits are benefits.

Bitter gays are trying to OUT celebrity or famous gays who don't want to be outed. They have the right to be in the closet and as a consumer I'd prefer to watch the talent than to read about thier orientation. I could never go to a movie and imagine Ellen Degeneres playing anyone's girlfriend or wife in a movie. Never, especially after all the trouble she's gone to to prove her gayness by having it tattooed on her forehead.

[AngryAmish]

"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]

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]

Great!