Republican vice presidential nominee Sarah Palin says she supports a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage - a break with her presidential running mate John McCain who has said he believes states should be left to define what marriage is.
Please Support Right to Marry Rally Sign available on NoOnProp8.com's online shop
"I'm not gonna be up there judging individuals, sitting in the seat of judgment telling them what they can and can't do, should or shouldn't do. But I certainly can express my own opinion here and take actions that I believe would be best for traditional marriage and that's casting my votes and speaking up for traditional marriage. That instrument that - it's the foundation of our society, is that strong family and that's based on that traditional definition of marriage..."
In 1998 she voted for a state amendment banning same sex marriage in Alaska.
McCain, an Arizona senator, says he supports a ballot initiative in his state this year that would ban gay marriage although he opposes a federal marriage amendment, saying it would usurp states' authority on such matters.
Democratic vice-presidential candidate Joseph Biden who appeared on the "Ellen" show on Monday when asked said he would vote against a ballot measure that seeks to ban gay marriage if he lived in California.
He called Proposition 8 "regressive" and "unfair" and added that he and running mate Barack Obama opposed a similar initiative nationally.
Meanwhile talk show host Ellen DeGeneres who married actress Portia De Rossi in August has reportedly spent US$100,000 to buy TV airtime for a 30-second public service announcement (PSA) she had filmed to urge California citizens to vote against Proposition 8 which seeks to outlaw same sex marriage.
Her move follows actor Brad Pitt and filmmaker Steven Spielberg with his wife Kate Capshaw also supported the campaign to keep gay marriages legal in California by donating US$100,000 each.
Usnews.com reported that as of last week same-sex marriage proponents are struggling to keep pace both in donations and on the air, raising less than US$20 million, while Protect Marriage - a group leading the campaign in support of the ban - had raised more than US$26 million from more than 64,000 donors, many of them from outside the state.
Other notable gay and lesbian donors include billionaire Jon Stryker (over US$500,000), Dreamworks Studio CEO David Geffen (US$100,000), Grey's Anatomy actor T.R. Knight (US$100,000), personal finance guru Suze Orman (US$10,000), Milk director Gus Van Sant (US$2,500), Star Trek veteran George Takei (US$2,500). Even infamous celebrity blogger Perez Hilton managed US$1000, according to Gaywired.
Transcript of Ellen DeGeneres's public service announcement:
Hi, I'm Ellen DeGeneres. I got to do something this year I never thought I'd ever be able to do: I got married. It was the happiest day of my life. There are people out there raising millions of dollars to try and take that right away from me. You've seen their ads on TV. They're twisting the truth, and they're trying to scare you. I believe in fairness. I believe in compassion. I believe in equality for all people. Proposition 8 does not. Please, please, vote no on Prop. 8.
讀者回應
Biden as usual failed to answer the question. Palin at least is honest. Biden is opposed to gay marriage and when asked a question that a "yes" or "no" wouild have answered, with a statement that he thinks it is regressive.We dont care what you think (ifyou think at all for that matter from the way you speak Senator Sir). We care about what you will do.
Personally, I am always amazed at how the larger gay community tends to fall for the annual pack of lies about democrats supporting special interest gay legislation...when they are the party that lies to try to get our vote and then betrays the trust they have sought to earn.
As much as I never liked McCain ( dating back to his run in 2000)I am voting for McCain and Palin. I don't think our country can affordto have a President that in a candid moment admits to wanting to redistribute wealth from the worker to the non-worker. I dont want a devotee of Marx, Lenin and Mao as President of my country.
And I promise...if you want to know about the democrats true feeling about gay.... just DONT ASK AND DONT TELL ... right Mr. Clinton
Clinton passed an executive order to enable gay people to serve openly in the military - it was the huge Republican backlash that forced the absurd compromise of Don't Ask Dont' Tell.
John McCain would not even meet with gay men who went to Congress to lobby against Don't Ask Don't Tell - I was there. (Most other Republicans in Congress did meet with us by the way.)
Republicans are not openly supportive of their own gay wing, the Log Cabin Republicans, and most refuse even to take money from them. The evangelical right wing of that party would probably treat us as well as the Taliban if it were not for the Constitution. It's fire and brimstone for the likes of you Mr. (if you're gay).
As for your ludicrous remarks about devotees of Marx and Lenin, since when is progressive taxation anti-capitalist?
I agree it would be nice for more Democrats to support gay rights more openly (and many currently do unlike all Congressional Republicans); but how does it make it better to support hatred against gay people just because it is expressed openly?
I personally think that McCain will offer no change to America as he is just going to follow the Bush administration's political direction.
Obama on the other hand, offers a change, at least the hope of a change. Whether or not America is open enough to accept a black president, that remains another question.
But I believe that over the past 10 years, America has been moving in a negative direction, sacrificing more people in the war, bigger national debt, etc.
McCain is a war veteran. Has he got the relevance and ability to connect with the world's economy? Can he help America with their widening national debt?
With the world credit crisis, I think a new young president would help a lot. As proven, old ideas don't work. We, the world in general, need new fresh idea.
As for Palin, I think she hasn't got the experience nor the knowledge to assist McCain. She didn't travel enough (or near to never apart from going to Afghanistan once), she lives in a small place. I have nothing against people who live in a small place but I feel that Palin has very little grasp of the rat race big world.
Most importantly, I believe that Palin's appointment is pure political strategy to sway away votes from the previous Clinton supporters.
I am wondering about our beloved Cher...She has been idolized by lotsa gay men and got lotsa money from us.
Where is her support?? What is her payback for the community who loves her??
I wonder...
document can stop the departed spouces family, who denounced there son's lifestyle 25yrs ago, from trying to take everything the couple had made together.. ohhh yes, it happens. most democrats would go allong with a civil union for legal matters and maybe even the Log Cabin Republican group. now, as for obama's taxing. he is going to return bill clinton's tax on the upper rich in the U.S... oh yes all of george bush's cronies. i wish more people would work for equality like ellen. thaks ellen for being who you are.
I'm definitely anti-homophorbic society and totally support gay marriage. Eventhough not financially, however, you got my moral support all the way from south east asia!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FuF5URA7q-g
although I really admire Sarah Palin even though I don't agree with her on the gay marriage issue, I would much perfer Suzie Orman to run the economy ... I especially like her segment (can you afford it?).
by the way the comment about Cher, I saw her Las Vegas stand in show for Bette Midler and thought she was great (even though I am more into Green Day, REM and older grunge rock like Nirvana)
So much for "christian" love. Dun think there really was any in the first place if one dun conform and submit to the misguided man made political power games the faithless has sadly generated, clearly completely opposite to what God has intended.
Kudos and Bravo to Ellen for being the shining Beacon as usual and the Greatest respect to Brad Pitt for starting the movement.
I totally agree with goodvenus. Where are all those stars that the gay community supported all their careers? Time to give back, damn it!
PS: Time for your Big Give Oprah.
As Jammyboi says, it really is a shame to spend all that money for Prop 8 when it could be going to help create jobs, help people with their mortgages, fight crime, increase education and help the poor.
Hats off to Brad and the Spielbergs!! They know their audience.....us !!
It's a shame that the clear rational and constitutional approach of the Supreme Court judges in protecting the gay minority could be overturned by this bizarre proposition procedure set on an uneven playing field (donations, airtime) and which plays to the basest prejudices of some of the population.
If they get away with this one, I wonder who the right wing "religious" folk will pick on next?
San Francisco-based Levi Strauss & Co. will cochair with Pacific Gas & Electric to encourage businesses to oppose California's proposed gay marriage ban, Proposition 8.
The move is in keeping with the philosophy of Levi Strauss, the first Fortune 500 company to ever offer health benefits to the domestic partners of gay employees. Levi Strauss has pledged $25,000 to Equality for All, the coalition leading the campaign.
While we respect the strongly-held beliefs that people have on both sides of this argument, we see this fundamentally as an issue of equality. We hope that California voters will vote no on Proposition 8 - we should not eliminate anyone's fundamental rights, whatever their sexuality, to marry the person they love. Because our company has a great diversity of people and opinions - Democrats and Republicans, conservatives and liberals, all religions and no religion, straight and gay - we do not generally take a position on issues outside of our field, especially not social issues."
...cont'd below (Levi's)
Hope Prop 8 is shot down permanently. (sorry had to cut & paste..Fridae can't take my size..;P)
=====
Google
Google has taken a stand against Proposition 8, an anti-gay marriage measure on the November ballot in California.
Google's co-founder Sergey Brin released a statement, saying that "while there are many objections to this proposition - further government encroachment on personal lives, ambiguously written text - it is the chilling and discriminatory effect of the proposition on many of our employees that brings Google to publicly oppose Proposition 8.
..con'td 1 below
(cut and paste html if does not open successfully)
http://tvnz.co.nz/view/page/1318360/2210652
h.t.t.p://tvnz.co.nz/view/page/1318360/2210652
(cut and paste html as does not open successfully) Replace (-) after http with (:)
http-//tvnz.co.nz/view/page/1318360/2210652
Almost all I read is "Yes on Prop 8" outside gay media.
besides, heterosexual couples created the word divorce.
then why are we being banned from marriages?
if the debate is truly about children and providing them with a 'functional' family... shouldn't they focus on preventing divorce?
i believe we're good mothers and fathers because of our discrimination. besides, we adopt abandoned kids.
Prop 8 for the sake of the children?
i don't think so.
Yes On Prop 9, reading,
"No het marriage allowed, Only gay marriage is human."
Hets monopolized marriage for the entire history.
They used up their monopoly eons ago.
By monopolizing marriage and family, hets destroyed gay couples AND IN THE SAME TIME the even more voluntary and involuntary singles.
There is so little civilization in modern marriage.
this article reminds me, time and again, how much I love Ellen ...
YOU GO GURL!!
The article, "Why Gay Marriage Was Defeated in California", appeared in the Time magazine recently.
Here's the link: [www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1856872,00.html?imw=Y]
A couple of reasons really stand out in the article, as turning points that can especially influence people who are undecided on which way to vote:
"...a group of San Francisco first-graders was taken to city hall to see their lesbian teacher marry her partner. Apparently the field trip was a parent's idea not the teacher's but the optics of the event were terrible for the gay side. It seemed like so much indoctrination..."
In other words, gays shot themselves in their own feet. They gave the impression that they were ready to "indoctrinate" young children into becoming gay. This would have appeared a real possibility to straight people, considering how gays are never tired of saying how "proud" they are to be gay and thereby conveying the impression that being gay is a "choice".
To continue:
"...That news came around the same time the pro-amendment forces were running a devastating ad showing a self-satisfied San Francisco mayor Gavin Newsom shouting wild-eyed at a rally that same-sex marriage was inevitable "whether you like it or not." The announcer then said darkly, "It's no longer about tolerance. Acceptance of gay marriage is now mandatory."
"Many fence sitters were turned off by Newsom's arrogance; blogger Andrew Sullivan attributed mid-October polls against the gay side to the "Newsom effect..."
So, with gays like this Newsom, the gay community doesn't need enemies. When he could have just as easily won the fence sitters over by appealing to their good sense, he instead turned them off by threatening to shove gay marriage down their throats.
Another reason that comes up is:
"...Part of the reason is that Obama inspired unprecedented numbers of African Americans to vote. Polls show that black voters are more likely to attend church than whites and less likely to be comfortable with equality for gay people. According to CNN, African Americans voted against marriage equality by a wide margin, 69% to 31%. High turnout of African Americans in Florida probably help explain that state's lopsided vote to ban same-sex weddings..."
Not sure what the solution to this last one can be. However, it is quite clear that some of the biggest enemies of the gay community are to be found within the gay community itself; those selfish individuals who, against all good reasoning, insist on performing destructive acts in the name of freedom and liberation.
The same United States has just elevated a black man to the highest position in the country. Can we learn something from his example? Obama didn't have it easy either. But what are the lessons we can learn from his campaign?
For one thing, the Obama campaign made it a point to appear as nonthreatening as possible to the white man. This was a deliberate campaign strategy, and also fitted in with his general nature. They wanted white people to feel comfortable with the idea of having Obama as President. They could very well have screamed that Obama would win whether they liked it or not. Why didn't they EVER do that? Because they realized it would have been stupid. It may have given someone a few seconds of satisfaction, but it would have cost them HEAVILY. So they kept their message very very consistent.
Normal
Consistent
Comfortable
Non-threatening
These are powerful words, that create powerful images in the mind while keeping away threatening images. Powerful words that got Obama the Presidency; won former racist voters over to his side.
How does the GAY community CHOOSE TO project itself; choose to be perceived?
Different
Abnormal
Threatening
Unpredictable
Ready to indoctrinate
Waiting impatiently to propagate its decadent values and win more "members"
As I've said many times, perceptions are more important than facts. But the gay community just doesn't get it, does it? Well, not to worry, they can still have their "Pride" all to themselves.
請先登入再使用此功能。