Hypocrisy or Co-Signing? Elton John Concert is Fundraiser for Anti-Gay Politicians
Two politicians who have consistently voted against gay rights, Reps. John Shimkus (R-IL) and Jean Schmidt (R-OH), will be holding fundraisers at the Elton John/Billy Joel Face2Face concert in Washington DC's Nationals Park July 11, reports PartyBlog.
Maybe they don't care that Elton John is gay, united in a civil union with David Furness, and a tireless fundraiser for HIV/AIDS. Shimkus held a fundraiser at an Elton John concert in 2005 and the Kentucky Democrat reported:
A spokesman for Shimkus, Steve Tomaszewski, said his boss's fund-raiser at the Elton John concert was neither an endorsement of the singer's politics nor a betrayal of Shimkus' stand on gay marriage. Shimkus won't attend himself, however, because of a scheduling conflict, Tomaszewski said.
In 2006 Schmidt and Shimkus voted to define marriage in the Constitution as a one man-one woman affair, and a year later they voted against a measure aimed at prohibiting job discrimination based on sexual orientation. Then in June 2008, they co-sponsored a bill to amend the Constitution to prevent same sex couples from marrying.
Despite campaigning for global gay rights, Elton John is very not supportive of civil marriage equality. Or maybe he just doesn't understand that civil unions do not allow couples in the U.S. over 1,300 rights granted to heterosexual married couples. In November 2008, Sir Elton told USA Today:
We're not married. Let's get that right. We have a civil partnership. What is wrong with Proposition 8 is that they went for marriage. Marriage is going to put a lot of people off, the word marriage...I don't want to be married. I'm very happy with a civil partnership. If gay people want to get married, or get together, they should have a civil partnership. The word "marriage," I think, puts a lot of people off. You get the same equal rights that we do when we have a civil partnership. Heterosexual people get married. We can have civil partnerships.
His quotes were used by Yes-on-8 fund raisers in the aftermath of the passage of ballot initiative that eliminated same-sex marriage in California. Who knows, Sir Elton's views on marriage might just be the ticket for Schmidt and Shimkus and their supporters. Shimkus will most likely not be attending Saturday's concert and Schmidt's rep did not respond to press inquiries.
Concert promoters are happy to sell blocks of tickets; politicians are happy to use concerts as a fundraiser, their constituents are thrilled to see a hot show, so it's a win/win situation for all. But in this case, the whole thing is nasty, self-serving and hypocritical for the Congresspeople and maybe for the artist.
[h/t PartyBlog]
Lisa Derrick is LaFiga on Firedoglake.com
Follow Lisa Derrick on Twitter: www.twitter.com/lalisa93
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
Since the initial statement made by Elton John regarding gay marriage,
he has clarified that he was not aware that the laws were different
regarding gay rights in America- the land of the free- and his native homeland.
Elton John took for granted that they had a different law concerning gay rights.
Maybe they should call themselves The Land Of The Free.
Even in a system where marriages and civil partnerships have "the same" legal rights, there is no justification for only allowing heterosexuals' relationships to be called marriage. It is still "separate-not-equal", and there is no rational basis for it. "Tradition" doesn't cut it. Equal is equal. Since gay people are not disordered, they're equal to heterosexuals in every respect. Not mostly equal. Not somewhat equal. Equal.
The right to the word marriage is part of the collection of rights conferred by the legal recognition of the pair bond. As long as heterosexual pair-bonding gets the word, homosexual pair-bonding should as well. The only way it would be permissible to differentiate in the terminology is for marriage to be made a more detailed word by having "heterosexual marriage" and "homosexual marriage" as official terms. That would be fair because it would simply represent an extra level of detail, not the creation of an inferior category.
He could correct his position by dropping support for civil partnership, civil union, (segregation-style separate-not-equal) nonsense. There is nothing rational to support a redundant and inferior legal classification for same-sex pair bonds.
Just like everyone else if you are not married you have the right to marry someone of the opposite sex. You want a privilage to be able to marry someone of the same gender. That is a privilage NO ONE else has.
What you are asking for is not equal rights (you already have them) but a special privilage that no one else has. THAT is a violation of the 14th amendment equal protection clause.
Well I guess when you're as rich as her majesty, you can be satisfied with civil unions. The rest of us have to get by with what we have and fight to better our situation, which Elton & David would surely benefit from, at least here in the US.
Civil partnerships? The Brits are currently debating this, and some folks are calling it separate and unequal, and apartheid like..... (Are you listening Elton and Barack?)
Kudos to New England and Iowa for supporting (civil) marriage, where marriage licenses are issued at
town halls.
And as a justice of the peace I'm proudly officiating for many couples who are coming to CT to wed from around the country because they aren't allowed to do so in their own home states just yet.
Joe Mustich, JP, Washington, Connecticut
And to the marriage foes, and marriage confused, please find something else to do with your time, because life's too short. Find love. And remember, in America we have freedom of religion and freedom from religion. Kudos to civil marriage.
"Kudos to New England and Iowa for supporting (civil) marriage, where marriage licenses are issued at town halls."
This statement is a bit strange to me, since atheists can get married in any state.
See Lisa Derrick's Profile
Obama siad he would tepeal DOMA and DADT, and now hes backpedaling so yeas TomSJ, I am taking him to task on that.
Marriage is a civil contract. As a clergy person, all I have to do is sign the paperwork, have the opposite marriage couple and a witness sign, and mail it it. Done. But if that paperwork is not filed with the state, no matter who performs the wedding, be it Pat Roberson or the Pope, no marriage certificate will be issued and in the eyes of the state, the country and insurance companies etc, the cuple is not married.
Additionally, in CA, opposite couples are forbidden form getting a civil union, which is reserved for same sex couples only. Therefore civil union and civil marriage are not the same.
"Additionally, in CA, opposite couples are forbidden form getting a civil union, which is reserved for same sex couples only. Therefore civil union and civil marriage are not the same."
Even if heterosexual couples could choose between marriage and civil union they still wouldn't be the same.
Marriage is secular already because atheists can and do marry. A Buddhist can marry a Muslim at a courthouse. A Mormon can marry a Wiccan, too. There is just no rational basis for separate-not-equal, in any form.
If civil unions are forbidden for opposite couples then why did the No on 8 campaign air a commercial showing an elderly couple who said they would lose their civil union if Prop 8 passed? Was it deceptive advertising?
If you're not going to censure Barach Obama for enthusiastically endoring the Defense of Marriage Act through his Justice Department brief which basically compared us to adulterers and worse, then you can't really go after Elton John. Elton is greedy. He'll take his money wherever he can get it. He'll take it from Eminem, John Shimkus, or Jean Schmidt. Elton is George W. Bush in sheep's clothing. Personally, I think Elton, George Michael, and Barney Frank should all get together and have a three-way. They're cut from the same...cloth.
"which basically compared us to adulterers and worse"
You mean incest and pedophilia?
http://www.americablog.com/2009/06/obama-justice-department-defends-doma.html
Elton John's world seems to still royally reek of the closet--regardless of his current level of being "out"--perhaps this is why these two anti-gay Republicans feel so comfortable doing the fund raiser with Sir John: birds of a feather...
"I don't want to be married. I'm very happy with a civil partnership. If gay people want to get married, or get together, they should have a civil partnership."
Very egotistical. His preference is somehow universal.
"I think, puts a lot of people off."
Separate-not-equal puts people off. Segregation put people off. People not upholding the Constitution's 1st and 14th Amendments puts people off.
"You get the same equal rights that we do when we have a civil partnership." Wrong.
"Heterosexual people get married. We can have civil partnerships."
Nonsense. There is nothing special about gay people that make gay people's pair bonding "civil partnerships" and heterosexual people's pair bonding "marriages".
Marriage is a secular institution. Atheists can and do marry. There is no scientific evidence that a same-sex marriage is different enough from an opposite-sex marriage to require the addition of redundant terminology like civil partnership/civil union and an inferior legal classification.
I was with you until the last paragraph. Sorry, but asking for scientific evidence of a difference between same-sex and opposite-sex marriage is NOT the way to go. In fact, it plays right into the wingnut conclusions because on a purely functional basis, the parts don't fit. And intercourse is necessarily improvised. IMHO, that's a dangerous direction to take in arguing for gay marriage.
"Sorry, but asking for scientific evidence of a difference between same-sex and opposite-sex marriage is NOT the way to go. In fact, it plays right into the wingnut conclusions because on a purely functional basis, the parts don't fit."
Not at all, actually. The juvenile "parts don't fit" stuff doesn't have scientific credibility.
It's already a scientific fact that homosexuality isn't a disorder, which is all people need to know. Not being a disorder means gay people are equal to heterosexuals.
Marriage is a secular institution defined by Federal Law as between a man and a woman.
That law was passed by 86% of Congress.
That law was signed by President Clinton.
That law has been upheld by Federal courts.
Similar laws have been approved by 64% of voters (almost a 2 to 1 margin) in 30 states.
The definition of "a man and a woman" has been ruled as not violating the 1st or 14th amendments or any other constitutional provisions claims as you claim.
Legally by Federal Law marriage is between "a man and a woman".
"Marriage is a secular institution defined by Federal Law as between a man and a woman."
A contradiction. There is no secular (rational) basis for denying gay people legal recognition for their marriages.
Gay people are gay. Gay people have same-sex marriages.
Actually, I would be curious to see the ruling where it was ruled that DOMA did not violate the 14th Amendment. When has the supreme court decided that? I believe that's precisely the ruling we await from the court fights currently in the process of bubbling up through California.
And, let's not forget, even more clearly than either of these things, the refusal to recognize marriages performed out-of-state (note, not internationally mind you) is a violation of the full faith and credit clause, which actually was Article IV, Section 1 (that is, not even an amendment, but in the original constitution), and says, "Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state."
Regardless of whatever heretofore unknown rulings you may be referencing, I find it hard to believe you can find a way to twist that very simple statement to mean anything but that any public act of marriage in any state should be fully recognized by every state.
You seem to ignore the law.
Marriage under California and US law is between "a man and a woman". 86% of Congress with a majority of both parties passed that definition. President Clinton signed it. Courts upheld it.
Other unions are NOT marriage under federal law.
"Marriage under California and US law is between 'a man and a woman'. 86% of Congress with a majority of both parties passed that definition. President Clinton signed it. Courts upheld it."
Red herring.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
