Tom Hanks to Prop 8 supporters: Oh, hey, sorry for calling you “un-American”
posted at 3:53 pm on January 23, 2009 by Allahpundit
Turns out it’s divisive.
Now, in a exclusive statement to PEOPLE through his representative Leslee Dart, Hanks is softening his stance.
Last week, I labeled members of the Mormon church who supported California’s Proposition 8 as “un-American.” I believe Proposition 8 is counter to the promise of our Constitution; it is codified discrimination. But everyone has a right to vote their conscience – nothing could be more American. To say members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints who contributed to Proposition 8 are “un-American” creates more division when the time calls for respectful disagreement. No one should use “un-American” lightly or in haste. I did. I should not have.
I guess it just slipped out. Exit question: Why the change of heart? I like to imagine he was home surfing the Net and had his heart touched by a certain clip of B-listers espousing a little bit of Hope and a whole lot of Change…
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 2 3 Next »
Being anti-gay is so Taliban. It’s you who is un-American
Noneya on January 23, 2009 at 5:00 PM
You know I like you, JetBoy, but voting for Prop. 8 is NOT “inhuman”.
I realize hyperbole is very popular with liberal causes, but come on. Hanging young gay boys like they do in the middle east is inhuman; refusing to hand over the word “marriage” to people who won’t be satisfied until they pervert it (sorry – but that’s the truth) – particularly when they have civil unions, which are nearly identical – is not “inhuman”.
capitalist piglet on January 23, 2009 at 5:01 PM
Noneya — HotAir poster voted most likely to be used as a human shield!
Blake on January 23, 2009 at 5:01 PM
But, he speaks for himself and as an American, he is still allowed to do so. You have your opinion, mad has one too.
HornetSting on January 23, 2009 at 5:02 PM
Oh so now that the liberals realize that
regular americans ARENT going to BACK down
From their
Racist comments
Un patriotic attitudes
Outright TREASON for some democrats
Oh now they want to apologise
Sorry
TOO LATE MORONS
we know what you really stand for..
jcila on January 23, 2009 at 5:02 PM
Noneya, I bought a one-way, first class ticket to Iran for you. Need a vacation?
HornetSting on January 23, 2009 at 5:03 PM
What? Are you warming up to us, Non? I thought we were the Taliban.
Esthier on January 23, 2009 at 5:03 PM
Jetboy, I have a question for you. I know you think gay marriage should be legal. Do you think polygamy should still be illegal? If so, why?
redshirt on January 23, 2009 at 5:03 PM
The apology doesn’t pass the smell test. I’m surprised because he IS an actor after all.
As the late, great Barbara Stanwyk said about Hollywood:
“The most important thing in show biz is sincerity– and when you can fake that, you’ve got it made.”
J.J. Sefton on January 23, 2009 at 5:03 PM
Blake on January 23, 2009 at 5:01 PM
It’s more fun because she’s totally tone-deaf on the irony.
theotherKate on January 23, 2009 at 5:03 PM
Noneya — HotAir poster voted most likely to be used as a human shield!
Blake on January 23, 2009 at 5:01 PM
Her night job is planting IED’s in Afghanistan.
Bishop on January 23, 2009 at 5:07 PM
sure, i’m only boycotting Utah
/
Noneya on January 23, 2009 at 5:09 PM
never!
Noneya on January 23, 2009 at 5:10 PM
Thank you. You both have summed up pretty much what I have to say. Yes, Hornetsting, madmonk does have the right to speak for himself as an American–no one’s denying him that. But he does not speak for me or many of the others here and elsewhere.
Noneya: Go back and read your Marcuse–your “Repressive Tolerance” is showing again.
As for Hanks: I agree with Sefton, that apology had all of the sincerity of a Hollywood “air-kiss”. He does have the right to spout off–and I have the right to not spend my hard earned money on his works.
Matt Helm on January 23, 2009 at 5:10 PM
no way! I am against birth control!
Noneya on January 23, 2009 at 5:11 PM
no way! I am against birth control!
Noneya on January 23, 2009 at 5:11 PM
Hey, now THAT was funny….in a “nice try you poor thing” sort of way.
Bishop on January 23, 2009 at 5:13 PM
Respectfully, piglet, it has so much more to do with simply “handing over the word ‘marriage’”…it’s allowing two people the same exact rights two other people have. Prop 8 and the like do nothing but keep something away from people.
As for “marriage” and “civil unions” being “nearly identical”, that is where so much misinformation comes in. They’re nothing alike. As I’ve stated, there are over 300 legal differences alone.
If so many want to preserve the definition of the word “marriage”, I’d be happy with calling it “qwidjibo”, as long as it afforded the same rights and benefits as marriage.
JetBoy on January 23, 2009 at 5:13 PM
Of course he is, but that doesn’t mean he can talk as though he’s speaking for the Right. He isn’t.
Esthier on January 23, 2009 at 5:14 PM
Sorry, I’m not down for this.
And, frankly, I’m not interested in allowing a small minority of the population to re-define an institution that’s as old as mankind. I don’t have an explanation for homosexuality, but I’m not inclined to be bullied into changing an institution to accomodate people who define themselves solely in terms of their sexual conduct.
Civil unions, fine. Gay marriage, no way. I don’t want religious organizations sued and tax-exempt status revoked for those that refuse to perform gay marriage ceremonies.
BuckeyeSam on January 23, 2009 at 5:14 PM
You’re far more likely to get a majority vote on that. I realize it sounds stupid, but it’s true. It’s “marriage” that most people are concerned with protecting, not the right of gays to sign contracts pledging to share their lives together.
Esthier on January 23, 2009 at 5:16 PM
“Being” gay is a form of a mental illness, it is dementia. Sorry, it is perversion.
That’s the way it be, bro.
klickink.wordpress.com on January 23, 2009 at 5:16 PM
Don’t lie. You’re secretly in love.
Esthier on January 23, 2009 at 5:17 PM
I dunno, Est…I think this issue goes further than just the word “marriage”…it’s a scapegoat.
As for that, straight couples who divorce and re-marry someone else should have the word “marriage” stricken. Same goes for those who marry with pre-nups…Wouldn’t want to tarnish the good name of “marriage” now…
JetBoy on January 23, 2009 at 5:19 PM
All points correct, but the importance of your first sentence can be applied to just about everything “American” that certain individuals are trying to change.
But in the end, everything dies, everything passes.
America has passed.
Liberty is dead.
All the caterwailing, well, it’s just our death-throes. Not going to affect anything.
klickink.wordpress.com on January 23, 2009 at 5:19 PM
Agreed with what you say. There is a bit of slippery slope here, though. If we don’t want to force churches to perform gay marriages for fear of abrogating freedom of religion, how do we force mosques to tolerate non-muslims when their religion sanctions murdering them?
J.J. Sefton on January 23, 2009 at 5:20 PM
What are the differences? Tax breaks? Parenting rights? Rings? I’m not sure what they are…..(And since this is the internet, this is meant sincerely, fyi)
darii on January 23, 2009 at 5:21 PM
Get a room, you two. :)
HornetSting on January 23, 2009 at 5:21 PM
If so many want to preserve the definition of the word “marriage”, I’d be happy with calling it “qwidjibo”, as long as it afforded the same rights and benefits as marriage.
Just as long as we allow the same rights be granted to polygamists, those who practice incest (or liberals as I call them) and anyone who wants to marry a dog, horse, corpse or their living room couch.
Bishop on January 23, 2009 at 5:22 PM
Hey Tom! At least I’m consistent. Same comment I made last week. FUCK YOU!
GarandFan on January 23, 2009 at 5:24 PM
I pledge not to let dumba$$ Hollywood hypocrites tell me how to live my life. Evah.
Pilgrimsarbour on January 23, 2009 at 5:24 PM
I still fail to see why gay marriage is such a big deal.
Ares on January 23, 2009 at 5:24 PM
Sorry, darlin, but I agree with BuckeyeSam on this one. If I could be sure that the gay community would be happy with marriage and not go after those who cannot endorse it, I might agree but I am pretty sure history tells us that won’t happen. And if it was only a word then why isn’t civil union two words that you can embrace.
Cindy Munford on January 23, 2009 at 5:25 PM
Actually, I wouldn’t disagree with you there either. People who keep getting divorced and keep getting remarried surely do worse to tarnish the word.
I don’t necessarily disagree with you here, but I think there are some sincerely concerned about things being labeled hate speech once homosexuality is brought into the accepted norm specifically through marriage.
I’m not saying they’re completely rational, but some of the anti-Prop 8 people haven’t done much to assuage those fears; Tom Hanks calling them un-American being just one example.
Esthier on January 23, 2009 at 5:27 PM
Right. If gays main gripe is that they can get legal rights equivalent to marriage but that it is really inconvenient to obtain all of these contractual and legal states, I can understand making it easier. The sort of contracts which civil unions would enjoin could even be signed by friends with no romantic interest at all. The key issue here is the sexual aspect.
darii on January 23, 2009 at 5:27 PM
HOLY CRAP! Can you imagine what that means for our borders!!!!
We’re done. Obama promoting the destruction of Israel, everything comes to pass all those supposed right-wing “nutroots” claimed.
klickink.wordpress.com on January 23, 2009 at 5:27 PM
Movie coming out soon perhaps? And he wants those un-American dollars as much as the pro gay American dollars.
See what happens when one get’s off script…
Hog Wild on January 23, 2009 at 5:28 PM
No worries…Here’s just a few differences I’ve saved:
Immigration:
A United States citizen who is married can sponsor his or her non-American spouse for immigration into this country. Those with Civil Unions have no such privilege.
Taxes:
Civil Unions are not recognized by the federal government, so couples would not be able to file joint-tax returns or be eligible for tax breaks or protections the government affords to married couples.
Benefits:
The General Accounting Office in 1997 released a list of 1,049 benefits and protections available to heterosexual married couples. These benefits range from federal benefits, such as survivor benefits through Social Security, sick leave to care for ailing partner, tax breaks, veterans benefits and insurance breaks. They also include things like family discounts, obtaining family insurance through your employer, visiting your spouse in the hospital and making medical decisions if your partner is unable to. Civil Unions protect some of these rights, but not all of them.
*facepalm*
Why does this have to denegrate to the usual “They can marry a dog” crud?
JetBoy on January 23, 2009 at 5:29 PM
Up yours Hanks!
FireBlogger on January 23, 2009 at 5:31 PM
Does this mean Tom gets to go to rehab now?
RalphyBoy on January 23, 2009 at 5:32 PM
Those who would like to pretend that this will not happen need look no further than eHarmony. A Christian based online dating service forced through lawsuit to provide services to gay people.
doriangrey on January 23, 2009 at 5:33 PM
I don’t follow. Are you suggesting that there are non-muslims lining up to join mosques? If you are, I would argue that that’s not the case.
BuckeyeSam on January 23, 2009 at 5:33 PM
Why does this have to denegrate to the usual “They can marry a dog” crud?
JetBoy on January 23, 2009 at 5:29 PM
The door was opened my friend, and those sorts of things trotted on out.
This is a “Hey man, let me live my life I’m not hurting anyone” scenario, and if so, why can’t a person marry a dog (like Noneya wants to do) or their own sibling or fifteen women?
It’s no more unnatural to the people who make those choices than your lifestyle is supposed to be to me, and apparently no more harmful to the fabric of American society.
Bishop on January 23, 2009 at 5:33 PM
I’d actually favor that.
But I like being American. j/k
Esthier on January 23, 2009 at 5:34 PM
I know that’s not all of the differences but I would be all for those being adjusted, certainly seem doable. As for *facepalm*, of course you don’t think those things would happen because they don’t interest you but I think you would be surprised at how quickly some of them would come up. I think the move to endorse polygamy is already in the works. Hollywood likes to take things that it wants to be mainstreamed and beat us over the head with it until we submit.
Cindy Munford on January 23, 2009 at 5:37 PM
Eh. My preference honestly is to change the law so that it applies to all consenting adults, other issues need not matter. Dogs, inanimate objects and children wouldn’t count.
Esthier on January 23, 2009 at 5:37 PM
BINGO! +1
A non-apology apology is a statement in the form of an apology that is nothing of the sort, a common gambit in politics and public relations.
Utah, we have a problem.
pain train on January 23, 2009 at 5:38 PM
Bad syntax. How do we get Islam to tolerate non-muslims when the islamic religion preaches that they, the non-muslims, should be killed?
J.J. Sefton on January 23, 2009 at 5:39 PM
Thanks.
If two individuals decide to live together in a nonsexual-relationship for life (in order to take the problem aspect out of the equation), I can see granting a number of rights–making medical decisions for your partner, certain tax breaks for being a single household, etc. However, the problem here is that the union is merely legal. I would not grant this sort of platonic relationship the same status as marriage.
The problem really comes down to the sexual aspect. Why does marriage recieve all these benefits? It’s not because these people are involved in a lifelong legally binding romantic (sexual) relationship. Heterosexual marriage is a natural good and a social good; it makes sense for the government to encourage people to marry. It is the foundation for families, the proper place for children to be raised. Government should encourage families with tax breaks, etc. Therefore, since children are the result of marriage, it makes sense to encourage people to get married.
The issue here ultimately comes down to two points:
1) Is homosexuality good/moral/ok/whatever you want to call it
2) If we ignore the moral question, are homosexual relationships equal to heterosexual relationships in view of their ends? (With the exception of gay adoption–an issue for another time–I say there is a difference).
darii on January 23, 2009 at 5:49 PM
The meaning of “is”.
Hanks is only reacting to his agent’s suggestion that Hanks’ being a typical arrogant Hollywood ass might reduce future movie profits.
viking01 on January 23, 2009 at 5:49 PM
I don’t have a good answer. I admit that I haven’t studied Islam to any degree. But in the aftermath of 9/11, I’ve been told repeatedly that Islam is a religion of peace and that Islamic terrorists are merely perverting the religion.
I suppose my conclusion is that any religion that advocates murder should be put in the same category of the Ku Klu Klan.
BuckeyeSam on January 23, 2009 at 5:49 PM
Our present state is indeed unjust to gay folk. It’s also unjust to religious folk. The only solution to ensure maximum freedom to all parties is for the state to relinquish control over and responsibility for marriage.
However, that’s not an option as yet. While the state holds the office of marriage and I have a stake in the state, I will vote my conscience on the issue. If that makes me “unAmerican” or “inhuman” so be it.
Should an initiative arise to allow all couples wishing to join their lives contractual ability to do so equal to marriage, I’m all for it. I would cheerfully vote for such an initiative, as I don’t like the injustice I see now. But I can’t sacrifice my principles on the meaning of something I take to be sacred either.
And the irony to all of noneya’s rantings is that while there’s no reason for an atheist to look down on a gay person, there’s also not necessarily any reason for an atheist to treat a gay person well either. There’s no particular reason why an atheist shouldn’t be a bigot of any variety if it suits their purpose in the moment. That it sees no irony in mocking the religious traditions that gave rise to the freedoms it enjoys should give it pause. But, as is the case with the Angry Bile Spewer sub-species of troll, that particular capacity has not been observed.
TheUnrepentantGeek on January 23, 2009 at 5:50 PM
The little balls of shit that roll out of your mouth every time you open it is typical of your ilk.
You’re nothing special….we’ve seen it before and it is simply the same old liberal moonbattiness.
csdeven on January 23, 2009 at 5:51 PM
+1
darii on January 23, 2009 at 5:56 PM
That’s disgusting and way too descriptive.
Esthier on January 23, 2009 at 5:57 PM
These Hollywood types have very strong ideals until it hurts their pocketbook. I guess I’ll be going to fewer and fewer movies in the coming months.
d1carter on January 23, 2009 at 6:00 PM
No kidding! Hey, was that Grue on the other thread or does memory fail?
Cindy Munford on January 23, 2009 at 6:01 PM
Cheers. But that’s the thing…you, and every married couple (or those who may marry) should consider their own marriage as sacred. Not the general term “marriage”. Is a 50% divorce rate “sacred”? Are pre-nups “sacred”?
When it comes to marriage, we should all worry about our own…
JetBoy on January 23, 2009 at 6:07 PM
Gheys, stop whining.
You could be living in an Islamic country, and having the life strangled out of you legally instead of being here and just not being allowed to twist the definition of marriage to fit your distorted perception of sexual attraction.
God bless the best nation in the world.
Hening on January 23, 2009 at 6:09 PM
Noneya — HotAir poster voted most likely to be used as a human shield!
Blake on January 23, 2009 at 5:01 PM
Her night job is planting
IED’sWMD inAfghanistan.Hillaryhttp://www.freewebs.com/theteenconservative/snuke.jpg
Bishop on January 23, 2009 at 5:07 PM
UNREPENTANT CONSERVATIVE CAPITOLIST on January 23, 2009 at 6:10 PM
The little balls of shit that roll out of your mouth every time you open it is typical of your ilk.
Creative.
+1
Bishop on January 23, 2009 at 6:12 PM
Whatever, Tom.
The Ugly American on January 23, 2009 at 6:12 PM
Seems like those Islamic countries are closer to your ideology…Why don’t you just say it: Allahu Akbar!
JetBoy on January 23, 2009 at 6:13 PM
+1 for the South Park reference.
Although with Hilldog as SoS, wouldn’t that make her a potential suicide bomber when on foreign trips?
darii on January 23, 2009 at 6:18 PM
I finally got around to watching the I Pledge video. OMG. Demi Moore pledges to end slavery and then pledges to be a “servant” to Barack Obama? Bwahahaha.
I pledge to defeat idiot liberals!
Buy Danish on January 23, 2009 at 6:23 PM
But there is a difference between outright slavery and indentured servitude.
darii on January 23, 2009 at 6:26 PM
I repeat, when the California Supreme Court overturned Proposition 22, the first thing you people did was ban bride and groom marriages.
If you people establish gay marriage, you will never tolerate bride and groom marriages while you have to settle for “applicant A and applicant B” marriages. It would spoil the whole concept for you.
Buddahpundit on January 23, 2009 at 6:37 PM
Let me see…
Homosexuals constitute 5 – 10 % of the total U.S. population. The states break down as follows:
Connecticut
In a 4 to 3 decision, the Connecticut Supreme Court overturned the state’s ban on same-sex marriage, making it the third state to allow legal gay marriage.
New Jersey
New Jersey is the third U.S. state to offer same-sex civil unions behind Vermont and Connecticut. The new same-sex civil unions law, which goes into affect on February 19, 2007, grants gay and lesbian couples the same rights as marriage. *(Although same-sex unions in New Jersey are classified as civil unions, couples are granted the same rights as married heterosexual couples.)
New York
Note: By a May 29, 2008 directive, New York only recognizes gay marriages from couples legally married outside of the state.
Massachusetts
On May 17, 2004 Massachusetts became the first U.S. state to legalize same-sex marriage. The State of Massachusetts also issues licenses to gay couples from New Mexico and Rhode Island since neither state explicitly prohibits same-sex marriage.
The majority of Americans oppose gay marriage. In a poll by the Liberal newpaper U>S>A> Today, 55% of Americans said
that allow gays to marry would denigrate the word marriage.
kingsjester on January 23, 2009 at 6:39 PM
allow gays=allowing gays
oops.
My question is how do these small per centages constitute any sort of mandate?
Answer: They don’t.
kingsjester on January 23, 2009 at 6:43 PM
The way I see it, everyone thinks that there should be limits to what can be considered a marriage.
Most agree that people who are too closely related should not be married (siblings, parents and their children, etc).
Most agree that children should not marry adults.
Most agree that there can be no marriage between a man and a consenting sheep.
We don’t disagree on whether or not there should be limits on marriage. We disagree on where those limits should be placed.
Johnny 100 Pesos on January 23, 2009 at 6:45 PM
“You people”?
Don’t put me into any group. I’m speaking for myself.
JetBoy on January 23, 2009 at 6:47 PM
Whatever. Demi is still an extraordinary idiot. To paraphrase Mark Steyn, whose apolitical wife finally got fed up with all the ubiquitous “Save Tibet” bumper stickers she saw in Vermont, What will Demi Moore actually do to end slavery?
It’s particularly ironic since Bush freed 50 million ‘slaves’ to the Taliban and Saddam Hussein, but got nothing but Hollywood hate for it. Why was she not willing to be a ‘servant’ to George Bush?
Buy Danish on January 23, 2009 at 6:50 PM
I guess my witty repartee wasn’t up to snuff. :P
darii on January 23, 2009 at 6:54 PM
i cant wait to see what south park does with this appointment to SoS
thanks for the acknowledgement
UNREPENTANT CONSERVATIVE CAPITOLIST on January 23, 2009 at 6:56 PM
We know you here and appreciate you but we all know what it is like when people go to far and do more harm then good. You are not “them”.
Cindy Munford on January 23, 2009 at 7:01 PM
Now you see. This is the American way – opinion and dissent.
You won’t find this at the Kos or HuffPo. And there are even posting from people like Noneya, who should wear a safety helmet before leaving the house, who can post here.
Ah, to enjoy the Constitution is great. Unlike those screwballs, like Noneya, on the left who want to silence us, even though they push their idea of free speech, i.e., control.
God Bless America.
madmonkphotog on January 23, 2009 at 7:09 PM
The left damns the right as being obsessed with God, Gays, and Guns.
Threads like this make me think they have a point.
Ares on January 23, 2009 at 7:12 PM
The “pledge” would have made so much more sense if had been made on 9/12/2001. They “pledge” when their guy and their ideals are flaunted in the face of the near 50% who didn’t vote for him. They pledge when socialist government is about to take away our freedoms. The folks who can’t even live decent lives are telling us how to live.
I pledge to help more people find Jesus Christ as Savior and Lord! After all, the benefits are out of this world!
Christian Conservative on January 23, 2009 at 7:15 PM
Nope :)
Buy Danish on January 23, 2009 at 7:15 PM
But it’s a thread about God (Mormons) and Gays (Prop 8), no guns mentioned so what did you expect. One out of many many threads is hardly an obsession. I think it is actually about money.
Cindy Munford on January 23, 2009 at 7:15 PM
The concept of marriage as a sacred bond between a man and a woman exists independent of my perception of it. It is an observable reality verified by others. It is currently overseen by the state. Some want to cause the state to legally alter that reality, and I believe that is morally wrong. This is a bad spot, because I really don’t think I should have to fight this fight … but until we can compromise by removing “marriage” from government control and symbolically return it to individual churches, we’re going to run into problems. These acts mean something to me.
I know it’s hard to understand if you don’t believe. But things like symbolism are important to me (and, I think to other believers). Voting to allow gay marriage – not just equal legal rights for all people – requires me to alter something it’s simply not within my authority to alter. Because again, the concept exists independent from my perceptions.
TheUnrepentantGeek on January 23, 2009 at 7:21 PM
True dat.
darii on January 23, 2009 at 7:22 PM
And the left is obsessed with the same things. They just argue differently.
TheUnrepentantGeek on January 23, 2009 at 7:24 PM
“You people” obviously means “gay marriage proponents”. You aren’t part of that group? Funny that you would reply to that instead of to the substance. You people could at least pretend that you have no intention of banning bride and groom weddings as soon as you establish your homosexual weddings.
Buddahpundit on January 23, 2009 at 7:28 PM
Gay marriage isn’t about marriage, it’s about validating a lifestyle as being perfectly normal, acceptable and most importantly of all, not a sinful perversion and abomination before god that damns one to hell for all eternity.
doriangrey on January 23, 2009 at 7:34 PM
Hmmm, it seems to me that the left is more obsessed with those things.
Buddahpundit on January 23, 2009 at 7:35 PM
For some, it might well be about validation and approval. But I try not to go there first unless the other side starts off assuming bad faith with cries of “homophobe” and “bigot.”
TheUnrepentantGeek on January 23, 2009 at 7:36 PM
Thanks for making me smile.
God, Gays, Guns, and Race are all very well but how about the real issue – the economy and the insane ‘bail outs’?
Ares on January 23, 2009 at 7:37 PM
Cough cough……
doriangrey on January 23, 2009 at 7:37 PM
This thread is about money. Tom Hanks has a thriving little show on HBO about fringe Mormons and polygamy. He’s the executive producer of Big Love. I am sure few Mormons watch but to bash them and make a buck off of them is pretty crass.
Cindy Munford on January 23, 2009 at 7:48 PM
BuckeyeSam on January 23, 2009 at 5:14 PM
Great read on this topic Sam!
TheUnrepentantGeek on January 23, 2009 at 5:50 PM
Nicely stated!
Ares on January 23, 2009 at 7:12 PM
Kinda what these boards are designed for Ares. We are given a topic & the hosts take on the topic; we respond. Kinda works that way.
As for Tom Hanks; another Hollywood idiot that thinks his opinion is somehow important and meaningful. Tom is a really good actor; but like most Liberals, he’s also horribly misguided on real life issues. I got my middle finger pointed directly towards Hollywood!
Keemo on January 23, 2009 at 7:57 PM
Cindy Munford on January 23, 2009 at 7:48 PM
That fresh-faced likable young guy that starred in “Bachelor Party” and “Turner and Hootch” has turned into a member of the “Hollywood Elite”, Left Coast cousins of the “Beltway Elite”. They believe that they are more intelligent and more culterally advanced than we are and therefore any view that they espouse is what the Average American should believe in, also. It used to be that the individuals in both locations served (through films and legislation), not the other way around.
kingsjester on January 23, 2009 at 7:58 PM
I know, it is so sad. Give me Cary Grant and Jimmy Stewart any day of the week.
Cindy Munford on January 23, 2009 at 8:05 PM
OMT: Sorry folks, but the thought of a man sticking another man in his back side….. Don’t think that was the intended use for that particular cavity. Trying to make it so is not going to happen in my lifetime. I have no problem with gays being gay, as long as they don’t try and force their lifestyle on society. Same applies for organized religion; I have no problem with any organized religion as long as they don’t try and force their lifestyle (belief system) on society. When a human shows up on my door step, wanting to sell me on his/her religion, this is an act of desperation in my view. One should not have to hard sell these type of things, they should attract interested parties without such drama. Marriage between a man and a woman is a sacred tradition that should not be messed with; in my humble opinion. Gays have pushed the envelope and will ultimately pay a big price for having done so.
Keemo on January 23, 2009 at 8:14 PM
Well for the one who will remain “nameless” please, please boycott Utah and take all your libs for Salt Lake City with you. Our mayor has been a dem for many, many years. Sundance is in Utah and I guess hanks maybe thought he wouldn’t get out with all our guns and our clinging to God.
Bambi on January 23, 2009 at 8:26 PM
How are you so certain that he wasn’t sincere? Are you God? Do you know his heart?
He admitted he was wrong. Do you believe he was lying when he did so? If you can supply a good reason why he shouldn’t be given the benefit of the doubt, I’d like to hear it.
Bizarro No. 1 on January 23, 2009 at 9:06 PM
Here you go.
This thread is about money. Tom Hanks has a thriving little show on HBO about fringe Mormons and polygamy. He’s the executive producer of Big Love. I am sure few Mormons watch but to bash them and make a buck off of them is pretty crass.
Hollywood is bleeding money, they probably won’t get any of the bailout, I may be unkind but I am also skeptical. But I agree, I am willing to give him the benefit of the doubt.
Cindy Munford on January 23, 2009 at 9:14 PM
What rights do straights have in regards to marriage that gays don’t? Oh, that’s right – NONE. No one in the US has the right to marry whomever they might want to, whether they are straight or not. Gay men and women can already marry women and men, respectively, just like straight men and women can.
You need to face the truth that your real issue is that you want to create a new right by changing the definition of marriage, not extend gays a right they in actuality already possess.
Bizarro No. 1 on January 23, 2009 at 9:39 PM
An apology doesn’t require formal statements like “I’m sorry” or “I apologize” to convey true regret. When someone admits he’s wrong the way Hanks did, it counts as an apology, going by the strict definition of the word, unless he was lying when he said he was wrong for saying what he did.
Bizarro No. 1 on January 23, 2009 at 9:58 PM
Your assertion there is based upon the presupposition that morality is dependent on something other than rationality, which makes it irrational. Fear of God’s wrath for being immoral certainly falls under that category.
An atheist can be as consistently unbigoted as the most righteous Christian by using reason alone.
Bizarro No. 1 on January 23, 2009 at 10:10 PM
Does the thought of a man sticking another woman in her back side bother you as much as the thought of a man doing that to another man? If not, why not?
Bizarro No. 1 on January 23, 2009 at 10:18 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 Next »