LA Film Director steps down because of flack over his donation to Prop 8.
A lot of people are saying it is intolerant to ask someone to step down over religious beliefs. I have a couple responses to that.
First - what if you were head of an organization with a very large gay and lesbian contingent and you were NOT religious and still made that donation just based on personal beliefs?
Second - I don't think it's intolerant to be critical of someone who gives money to TAKE AWAY a minority group's rights.
Plain and simple - the people who voted Yes on 8 voted to take away rights. Rights that I (and MANY believe) are inherent civil rights. Taking away civil rights is very different from just saying "I don't condone gay marriage because of religious beliefs".
I don't feel bad at all that he had to step down from his job.
In other news - the Prop 8 Protests appear to be working. I think we need another one in Orange County Soon?? According to a recent survey, 8% of people who voted Yes on Prop 8 have changed their minds. When the spread was 52-48, that is significant. The protests are the main cause as to why people have changed their minds.
Sadly it's a little late for this time around - but not for 2010 (if things don't change before then). I think people are starting to see the real issue is about rights and gay marriage isn't going to harm anyone so why make it illegal? I'm glad to see 8% more of the voters are coming to their senses.
Keep up the fight!!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
8 comments:
Of course you don't feel bad about someone losing a job for exercising their First Amendment rights. I understand you "lost your rights" so you think everyone else should. If a brother and sister were given the inherent civil "right" to marry for less than 5 months until that was corrected, I imagine they would feel hurt too.
As for 8% "Yes" voters changing their minds (as you said "a little late"), how many "No" voters changed their minds because of the violent protests? Lastly, I disagree with your premise that same-sex marriage "isn't going to harm anyone". The SECULAR reason I voted for Prop. 8 was exactly because of the harm same-sex marriage will lead to.
I still haven't hear a single valid argument about how same sex marriage will ruin marriage. It has NOT ruined marriage or been harmful in areas where it's been legal for years.
The only arguments I hear is ones like how same sex marriage will lead to children being taught about same sex marriage (even if they are it won't make them gay), or about how it will affect free speech like it has in OTHER countries (we are not other counties and no preachers have gone to jail in MA for refusing to marry same sex couples).
In fact, most of the arguments against gay marriage are about protecting the beliefs of a subset of a religious group in this country. Gay marriage isn't going to harm their beliefs and the sooner they realized that the better.
Of course, any argument against your side is considered "invalid". People losing their jobs is not "valid". We know that any religious reason is not "valid" as well. You will have to read the following out loud in order to qualify as "hear[ing]" it though.
First, I have mentioned the effort to revoke tax-exempt status for churches supporting Prop. 8, right? If not, that seems pretty likely to me. Can you GUARANTEE that won't even be attempted? I noticed that you didn't answer my first question: "how many 'No' voters changed their minds because of the violent protests?" I would argue more than 8%.
As for other SECULAR reasons, if "closeted" gays marry someone from the same-sex, instead of marrying and procreating with the opposite sex, then that has a direct impact on our population growth, and society as a whole. Why is that not a "valid" reason? There is also, clearly, both physical and emotional harm to many individuals in gay relationships (unless you are going to just explain away the lower life-expectancy rates for homosexuals males). I could go on and on, but you just asked for one "valid" reason.
Back to thread topic, the majority of Californians were "tolerant" enough to allow domestic partnerships with EVERY State right afforded to opposite-sex married couples. Why wasn't that enough?
Also, it was not 8% of "Yes" voters who changed their minds. Read the poll more closely. Seems to be a wash though:
"Will the recent rallies held by "No on Prop 8" protesters ultimately help their cause? Hurt their cause? Or will it not make a difference one way or the other?"
28% Help
28% Hurt
37% No Difference
6% Not Sure
Charles - the OVERWHELMING majority of protests have been very peaceful. When 1 million people protesting around the country recently, how come we didn't hear all kinds of reports about how violent they were if that's what is happening? They have been VERY FEW cases of violence or vandalism. There will always be SOME cases when you get people like this together. I highly doubt more than 2% of No on 8 voters have changed their minds.
Current laws do not prohibit churches from contributing to propositions, just from endorsing political candidates. But I think there is a fine line between tax-exempts status and using that to influence governmental regulations. It will be challenged and there is already an investigation into how the Mormon church handled everything.
You can't use the "can't procreate" argument against gay marriage. If you do then any couple who is not able or not willing to have children should not be able to marry - gay OR straight. There will always be people procreating in the world and our country. There already ARE gay couples in this country who are not procreating and so far it hasn't destroyed our population has it?
CA domestic partnerships DO NOT provide EVERY right afforded to straight married couples in the state. AND they provide ZERO rights on the federal level. Separate is still not equal.
There have been some studies that say gay men have lower life expectancies. These studies all closely correlate with AIDS. The fact is that gay sex is the most likely way to get AIDS. The real statistics is that people with AIDS have lower life expectancy.
Should we prevent people from becoming window washers because of their lower life expectancy? Or what about people who smoke? Or do anything else that lowers life expectancy? Even if you argue homosexuality is a "choice", shouldn't we Americans be free to choose what we want and suffer our own consequences? Americans Already do that with many things on a day to day basis.
At least you can say you haven't heard a single valid reason anymore. BTW: Did you read the poll? There is no indication if all 8% who changed their minds were "Yes" or "No" voters. For all we know, it could have been 1% "Yes" and 7% "No" voters.
P.S. (from the LA Times story today, it was based on religious grounds):
In a statement, Raddon said, "I have always held the belief that all people, no matter race, religion or sexual orientation, are entitled to equal rights. As many know, I consider myself a devout and faithful Mormon. I prefer to keep the details around my contribution through my church a private matter. But I am profoundly sorry for the negative attention that my actions have drawn to Film Independent and for the hurt and pain that is being experienced in the GLBT [gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender] community."
Raddon's support for Proposition 8 has sparked debate within both the gay community and Hollywood, as many publicly worry about punishing people for free speech, even speech they deemed hateful, and his departure has already provoked ambivalence.
"I'm personally saddened by the outcome," said Film Independent board member Bill Condon, the writer-director of "Dreamgirls." "Someone has lost his job and possibly his livelihood because of privately-held religious beliefs. I think the organization was ready to tough this out, but Rich ultimately decided it wasn't worth the cost. I'm not sure he was right."
You still think it's acceptable for someone to lose their job because of their political donation? Would it be OK to fire someone for calling out "gay" from work?
Post a Comment