Tom Hanks: Prop 8 supporters are “un-American”
posted at 1:13 pm on January 16, 2009 by Allahpundit
The boss wonders when, precisely, it became “progressive” again to level this charge against one’s opponents. Hasn’t it always been? Just in the past few months, we’ve seen Pelosi toss it at TARP naysayers and Jennifer Granholm fling it at critics of the auto bailout. Given Biden’s framing of the economic crisis as an emergency equivalent to war, I expect to hear from Harry Reid any day now that opposing the stimulus is quasi-treason.
“The truth is this [show, "Big Love,"] takes place in Utah, the truth is these people are some bizarre offshoot of the Mormon Church, and the truth is a lot of Mormons gave a lot of money to the church to make Prop-8 happen,” he told Tarts. “There are a lot of people who feel that is un-American, and I am one of them. I do not like to see any discrimination codified on any piece of paper, any of the 50 states in America, but here’s what happens now. A little bit of light can be shed, and people can see who’s responsible, and that can motivate the next go around of our self correcting Constitution, and hopefully we can move forward instead of backwards. So let’s have faith in not only the American, but Californian, constitutional process.”
Rusty’s pithy rebuttal: “Also un-American by this definition? Americans.” Exit question one: Anything “un-American” about Jerry Brown’s attempt to have a constitutional amendment declared unconstitutional? Exit question two: How far, in his immaculate American-ness, would Hanks be willing to go to make sure “people can see who’s responsible”? This far?
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 … 4 5 6
What was Prop 8 really about?
Stopping gay marriiage in CA before it spread across America reaching the federal level – eventually.
That’s what the opponents feared, isn’t it?
AprilOrit on January 17, 2009 at 7:27 PM
You must have missed this. Care to give some insight?
Then I’ll answer your question.
Thats how that works.
Itchee Dryback on January 17, 2009 at 7:55 PM
It was about the people having a voice in the regulations that govern them…you know..democracy.
Do you have something against that sort of thing?
Itchee Dryback on January 17, 2009 at 8:14 PM
I live in Commiefornia and voted in favor of prop 8, I would do it again tomorrow! Nothing Mormons did or ANY advertisement convinced me to cast my vote because basically, I voted for prop 8 because of gay discrimination against heterosexual couples; you see, heterosexual couples cannot enter into domestic partnerships in Commiefornia until age 63. Even after the Commiefornia Supreme Court violated the State’s Constitution and overruled a Constitutionally mandated vote of the people and granted gay marriage last spring, gays fought tooth and nail to prevent a change in the laws to allow heterosexuals to have domestic partnerships. Gays don’t want equality.
Tom Hanks has become a blithering leftists, too bad, I used to like his movies but I won’t watch another. Hanks will join a long line of idiot leftist actors who I will continue to boycott.
Hanks, how DARE you claim to support our troops then support blacklisting and the unconstitutional attempt to overturn an Amendment to California’s Constitution. You don’t support veterans like me who have fought to DEFEND 51 constitutions; each State and the U.S. Constitution.
YOU ARE A FRAUD SIR AND A COWARD!
nelsonknows on January 17, 2009 at 10:44 PM
The IRS doesn’t pay attention to the state code and taxes the couple separately. Inheritance taxes are a big issue.
dedalus on January 18, 2009 at 1:06 AM
I think that it starts out, “We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union”……
and then there is, “Consent of the governed “…..
and do not forget, “government of the people, by the people, and for the people”. That about says it all.
Johan Klaus on January 18, 2009 at 1:35 AM
You’re really not that important, that bright or that interesting.
I’ll pass.
AprilOrit on January 18, 2009 at 1:36 AM
Hey Tom…
Blacks overwhelmingly opposed gay marriage. You gonna attack them too?
Of course not. Attacking Christians is cosmopolitan…attacking blacks is racist.
jackass.
Maybe they’ll force you to do a Bosom Buddies reunion show if Prop 8 is dropped?
Black Adam on January 18, 2009 at 3:57 AM
If thats the case, and I don’t know if that gays are the only ones in the country that are subject to such horrors, but for any groups involved, would it be feasible to simply draw up a will or a POD to the one you want property and funds transferred to upon death? Has there been any challenges to the inheritance exemption in states that have the legal status of Civil Unions?
Itchee Dryback on January 18, 2009 at 6:22 AM
Predictable, willfully blind, and intellectually dishonest. The consistent qualities of…you know—lefty libtards.
In other words, you are unable to defend your claim and attempt to hand wave away any questions that show you to be a narrow minded hypocrite. This is typical of lefties and liberals.
No soup for you!
Itchee Dryback on January 18, 2009 at 6:29 AM
I’m sure he was ridiculed on every late night show, just like Palin was for insinuating Democrats were not as patriotic as Republicans.
No?
Phoenician on January 18, 2009 at 8:40 AM
As Eric Cartman had said of Tom Hanks, “He couldn’t act his way out of a paper nutsack.” I find myself in full agreement.
Let me get this straight…an actor who is only marginally talented and known for such roles as “Bosom Buddies” and “Bachelor Party” stars in a sympathetic movie about a guy who has AIDS. Instantly, he’s collecting Oscars and telling people how to live their lives.
Gary Sinise is ten times a better actor than this clown.
ynot4tony2 on January 18, 2009 at 9:36 AM
Not to mention a better American.
Johan Klaus on January 18, 2009 at 9:59 AM
You’re really not that important, that bright or that interesting.
I’ll pass.
AprilOrit on January 18, 2009 at 1:36
When the going gets tough, “The tough” get going.
In his desire to be part of the “In” crowd, Hanks has lost his fan base. And Hollywood wonders why their movies, and especially Anti-American movies bomb at the box office.
kingsjester on January 18, 2009 at 10:05 AM
Another example of the willful ignorance and hypocrisy.
Itchee Dryback on January 18, 2009 at 10:31 AM
Geez. Am I going to have to add Hanks–one of my fave actors–to my ‘do not watch’ list, along with anti-semite Mel Gibson and tax cheat Wesley Snipes?
Getting pretty tough to go to the movies these days without having to hear the nagging off-screen voices of these blithering idiots in the back of my brain.
And crooner Bruce Springstein; break my heart. Love his music; hate his politics.
redfoxbluestate on January 18, 2009 at 12:58 PM
Straight couples have assets pass to each other tax-free when one dies. Gay couples can use a will to transfer assets, but are subject to a death tax that can be 50%. In the case of a house that is owned by both and has appreciated in value over a couple of decades the surviving spouse would have to raise the cash to compensate the government for 25% of the market value of the house. Either that or sell it, pay the government, and move.
dedalus on January 18, 2009 at 1:10 PM
It’s a joke to say Republicans are patriotic. They are racist, sexist, homophobic religious nuts who ran this country into the ground.
Noneya on January 18, 2009 at 2:49 PM
Put a flag on the back of your pickup and sing the cheesy Lee Greenwood song all you like, but you are not patriotic when you want to deny other Americans basic human rights (not to mention nearly bankrupting the country but that’s a discussion for another thread…)
Noneya on January 18, 2009 at 2:53 PM
Interesting. Thanks.
If thats the major rub, why not work on the tax codes and changing them. I would guess that even opponents of gay marriage would have little problem with that. A compromise that would have a kind of healing the rift effect, based on common understanding.
That being said, I find it hard to believe that is a major issue, and I base that belief, in part, on the observation that it never seems to be even a minor focus of any gay protest.
An important fringe benefit in some situations, I’m sure,but on the other end of the spectrum, not being married allows one to walk away from a failed relationship with no legal strings attached, monetary, property or otherwise…which probably happens a lot more frequently than a life long partner dying after mutually amassing a great degree of wealth, or a short term relationship of immediate access to wealth and property. Close to six of one, half dozen of the other imo. In a situation of leaving expensive property to a person of ones choice in a will..like a house..expensive property, etc, there should be no taxes until it is sold for cash.
Work on the tax laws and have the expanded base of support.
What are some of the other issues that make SSM such a volatile problem?
Itchee Dryback on January 18, 2009 at 2:54 PM
What a compelling argument.
Case closed. The science is in.
The debate is over.
Anyone who disagrees is like a Holocaust denier, and a big Mr.Crappy McCrappypants..
Itchee Dryback on January 18, 2009 at 3:00 PM
What science would that be? creationism?
Creationism. For people to stupid to understand evolution.
Noneya on January 18, 2009 at 3:04 PM
Are you high?..just curious, because that response made no contextual sense……….let me guess.
None says what context…which post?
Walk it off.
Itchee Dryback on January 18, 2009 at 3:14 PM
neither did yours. what science were you talking about?
Noneya on January 18, 2009 at 3:19 PM
O.K., maybe it was an honest mistake.
The post of yours I was responding to, just made..imo..a bunch of simplistic and predictable declarations of “fact” with no supporting evidence.
I responded by mimicking the chants and tomes of the global warming religionists.
Just a little sarc on a Sunday.
Itchee Dryback on January 18, 2009 at 3:31 PM
Noneya,
How typical you are of the smarmy left. Do yourself a favor, educate yourself before you make a larger fool of yourself…. you might start with the U.S. Constitution, Federalist Papers and then the California Constitution.
Facts have a nasty way of making leftists like you gag.
nelsonknows on January 18, 2009 at 3:45 PM
uh, ok i did and nowhere in any of those does it say that gays are second-class citizens. so why do religious nuts continue to treat us as such?
Noneya on January 18, 2009 at 3:49 PM
I want to see Tom Hanks call blacks, muslims and jews Anti-American. C’mon Hanks, just like the spineless gays who protested against churches and assault old women, you don’t DARE attack Black Churches, Mosques and Shuls, and people attending THESE institutions voted FOR prop 8.
Pack up your career Hanks, you are DONE.
nelsonknows on January 18, 2009 at 3:52 PM
oh boo hoo some old bigot had a styrofoam cross ripped from her hands, big deal. it’s not like someone is trying to take away her right to marry, i mean, she can’t procreate either but she still can….
Noneya on January 18, 2009 at 3:57 PM
Noneya,
Again you put your foot in your mouth and show your complete ingorance and indiference to the rule of LAW.
You IMMEDIATELY attack anyone who proves you wrong as a religious nut with NO proof they even follow a religion.
California GRANTS marriage licences and the State takes them away. The State has the right to deny a marriage license to ANYONE the State sees fit to deny, and California will DESOLVE a marriage without your consent because California is a No-Fault divorce state, it’s called THE LAW. There is NOTHING in the U.S. Constitution nor in the California Constitution confirming a right for ANYONE to be married.
I suggest that if you want the Amendment to California’s Constitution changed, you attempt to further amend the State’s Constitution because any attempt in court will be ILLEGAL and UNCONSTITUIONAL.
nelsonknows on January 18, 2009 at 4:06 PM
a ballot box win is inevitable, but i doubt your “separate but equal” law will stand in the courts. oh, and the courts get the final say, they protect the rights of all californians from the tyranny of the church
Noneya on January 18, 2009 at 4:15 PM
Noneya,
I must have hit a nerve, but then, I never see cowards like you in public, only on the internet. I would BET you are too ignorant to know Barrack Obama is against gay marriage and if you even BOTHERED to vote, you probably voted for him. Noneya, stupid IS as stupid does.
nelsonknows on January 18, 2009 at 4:16 PM
Noneya,
Try reading the California Constitution, until then, I’m afraid your argument is baseless.
Have a nice day!
nelsonknows on January 18, 2009 at 4:20 PM
first you complain about “spineless gays who protested against churches and assault old women” then say you never see “cowards like you in public”. well, which is it?
Noneya on January 18, 2009 at 4:21 PM
1. That’s what I wanted to establish. Same sex marriage advocates who claim that this is an issue that should be decided by the states aren’t being entirely honest.
2. Itchee Dryback is right. Why not just reform inheritance tax laws?
Bobbertsan on January 18, 2009 at 4:34 PM
I think gay advocates would have been better off pushing for civil union laws that were completely on par with marriage. I’m guessing there is debate within various gay political groups over that question.
dedalus on January 18, 2009 at 4:50 PM
I believe you mean ‘too stupid to understand evolution.’
Normally I don’t correct someone’s spelling or grammar, since it’s not exactly my forte. But if you’re going to call someone stupid, you should do so in a way that doesn’t make you look like an idiot.
===========================================================
It’s called assault and it is a big deal.
Find a man willing to marry you and go to a justice of the peace. You can get married.
==========================================================
It’s not separate but equal. It’s a different license to recognize a different type of relationship.
The people get the final say. We can amend the constitution.
Bobbertsan on January 18, 2009 at 5:01 PM
Taxes have to be paid when a gain is realized. In the case of a house it is when you are granted an increase in your ownership share. For a gay couple this can happen with the death of one partner, but can also happen if they “marry” and one moves into the house and becomes a co-owner.
In the case of employee benefits, gay people have to pay a tax on health insurance if they get it from their partner’s employer.
The issue being fought over right now seems to be the legitimacy offered by the state when it uses the word marriage. I’m skeptical about the actual value of that issue for either side.
dedalus on January 18, 2009 at 5:06 PM
For the record, I think same sex couples should have the same legal rights as opposite sex couples. But I also think that ‘marriage’ is a relationship between two people of the opposite sex; take away that aspect of the relationship and it becomes a different type of relationship. People who think ‘marriage’ is a relationship between any two people who love each other think that makes me a homophobe and I’m not. I don’t think they are ‘second class citizens’, I don’t want to ‘tell them who they can love’ and I am not a bigot. I just define a word differently than they do.
Bobbertsan on January 18, 2009 at 5:15 PM
I use to think Hanks was a favorite actor of mine. What an idiot he turns out to be in real life.
FY Hanks. FY.
trailboss on January 18, 2009 at 5:29 PM
Are you talking about Cali. Civil Union rights? It seems the reading of those grants all rights equal to marriage. If thats true, anyone with a Civil Union in Cali. should be exempt from tax burdens from transfer of property. do you know if that is the correct reading of the protects offered by C.U?
Or are you referring to a gay people who happen to be living together without the Civil Union protections?..if thats the case, it really is no different than 2 heteros living and investing together who transfer assets via a will.
Again..if thats the rub, working on the tax codes would seem the more fruitful course of action imo.
In states with no Civil Union provisions, that should be the angle of attack, but it seems to be totally avoided as an imortant goal in the gay community.
Why do you suppose that is?
Itchee Dryback on January 18, 2009 at 6:45 PM
I’m referring to federal taxes. I think the CA domestic partnership status offers nearly everything that marriage does at the state level.
I don’t know why the groups do what they do, but I think the ballot initiatives defining marriage are more often proposed by groups opposing gay marriage than those favoring it.
dedalus on January 18, 2009 at 7:38 PM
Could be.
But then it would seem to follow that, if ban proponents would not propose it, the gay proponents would just drop it.
I don’t know if I buy that.
Itchee Dryback on January 18, 2009 at 8:00 PM
When did Hanks go insane? I used to like him in the late 80s.
ErinF on January 18, 2009 at 8:04 PM
Where does it explicitly state in the U.S. constitution that there is a “Right” to marry?
eanax on January 19, 2009 at 11:32 AM
on the contrary…..
If you are able for a moment to pull your head out from where it is you poo consider the following.
1. Republicans are for less government,not more government that gave us our current economic mess,starting with Clinton ,progressing through Fannie and Freddie by way of Franklin(stock must go higher)Raines.
2. If I see no value in having children indoctrinated with Gay this and that,rainbow coalition this and that, why do I have to ? I dont care what you do behind closed doors, whether you have sex with animals, yourself or 12 other people.I have the right not to hear about that. I dont go into the streets yelling about the sex between a man and a woman, its private, and nonya business.
3.The republican party, being sooooo racist, elected A.Lincoln to the presidency and freed blacks from slavery. Wanna see some real racists? look at (D)Robert Byrd, West Virginia Senator,(D)George C. Wallace, governor of Alabama, look up and see how tolerant these individuals were.
Please refrain yourself from posting garbage here,you are making it look like all gay people are facists idiots.
UNREPENTANT CONSERVATIVE CAPITOLIST on January 19, 2009 at 12:51 PM
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1523692/posts
check this
UNREPENTANT CONSERVATIVE CAPITOLIST on January 19, 2009 at 12:52 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 … 4 5 6