Friday, July 06, 2012

Brad Pitt's Mom Hates Gay People


So, what do you do if you are one of the biggest celebrities in the world and are very pro gay marriage and your girlfriend, and mother of many of your children is also one of the biggest stars on the planet and is bisexual and your mom writes an open letter denouncing gay marriage and gays in general. Well, if you are Brad Pitt you say, "She's very, very loving -- very open, genuine, and it's hilarious because she always gets painted in the tabloids as a she-devil. There's not an ounce of malice in her. She wants everyone to be happy."

But, it turns out that is not the case. Here is her letter in its entirety which was first published in the St. Louis News-Leader.

I have given much thought to Richard Stoecker’s letter (“Vote for Mormon against beliefs,” June 15). I am also a Christian and differ with the Mormon religion.

But I think any Christian should spend much time in prayer before refusing to vote for a family man with high morals, business experience, who is against abortion, and shares Christian conviction concerning homosexuality just because he is a Mormon.

Any Christian who does not vote or writes in a name is casting a vote for Romney’s opponent, Barack Hussein Obama — a man who sat in Jeremiah Wright’s church for years, did not hold a public ceremony to mark the National Day of Prayer, and is a liberal who supports the killing of unborn babies and same-sex marriage.

I hope all Christians give their vote prayerful consideration because voting is a sacred privilege and a serious responsibility.

220 comments:

1 – 200 of 220   Newer›   Newest»
MISCH said...

Oh shit, she must be in the throws of dementia

hunter said...

For some reason this cracks me up.

FSP said...

whatever

Swaysway1 said...

Didn't Brad and Angie say they weren't getting married until gay marriage was legal in every state? maybe Brad's mom doesn't want them to get married, heh.

rejectedcarebear said...

I'll just give her the Jim Halpert stare...

Cindy said...

At least Brad was smart enough to have his own opinions.

MontanaMarriott said...

Yeah this is insane as liberal as her son and grand babies mama are and if I am not mistaken are Brangelina huge Obama supporters too?!?! Grandma needs to keep her opinion to herself and keep drinking the kool aid.

RenoBlondee said...

Yeah, but that's exactly what most conservative Christians do believe. So?
I'm liberal, but my parents are conservative repubs, so I feel Brad. Happens all the time. Doesn't mean they don't all love each other or not get along.

Frufra said...

I knew you'd post on this little gem, Enty!

Frankly, this story made me happy, because you can be Brad Fucking Pitt and still have a crazy mama.

Stars - they're just like us!

Bet their holidays are as awkward as mine - I love it!! Maybe I should look into those fentanyl patches...

anita_mark said...

Brad is the father of all her children.

I hate when someone tells others how to act and vote based on how that person believes everyone's religious values should be.

The Black Cat said...

My parents don't share the same opinions as I do on a great many things. I that's normal, the fact that she went to the trouble of writing to a newspaper to share her views about a number of "old fashioned" values is a bit much and Brad is likely embarrased right now to even know such a person, let alone his mother. Of course he's going to defend her and make her sound like the best Mom on the planet but then again, he is very skilled at the art of media manipulation isn't he?

Amber said...

She is certainly entitled to her beliefs, but I think that when you have a public/famous family member you really need to heed/bear the burden of STFU and smile.

angel said...

Hmmmm.. you also have to read that as a scathing condemnation of Brad and Angie's relationship, non?

Mom may find the house a bit empty for future holidays.

M said...

Not all Christians are this bat$hit crazy.

Moonmaid said...

I love how people who hate Obama - first of all, how do true Christians hate?? - use his middle name like it is such a terrible thing, and makes him an automatic Muslim terrorist.

Idiots.

angel said...

@M, exactly. She's the fundamentalist type, thinking that being saved grants her a license to play God. True Christians, the ones who 'get' it, always head in the other direction.

Pookie said...

the only thing i can get on board w/ here is to agree that jeremiah wright is a freak of the week who fully endorses violence via liberation theology. that ish is dangerous. no likey the obama association on that one.

on the flip side, romney sucks the big one too.

so wth, mama pitt. go clean up your own home rather than trying to housekeep elsewhere. go examine your own heart before assuming all christians will follow a hate-mongering lead. boo on you.

amanda said...

I don't agree with mama Pitt; however, I don't think that she shouldn't be able to express her opinion simply because of who her son happens to be. Celebrities constantly shove their political, moral and legal opinions in the general public's faces simply because they have the forum to do so. Right, wrong, or indifferent, she clearly feels strongly about these issues and has felt the need to express her opinions.

MadLyb said...

I think Brad Pitt's mom and Jon Voight have a lot in common. Who woulda thought, considering their kids are a bit to the left?

My mom was a staunch born again Christian and didn't believe in gay marriage (she thought gays could be cured by Jeebus) and thought Harry Potter was dangerous, but all her kids and grandkids are about as far left as you can get. She inadvertently raised us with liberal values, though - be kind, generous, feed the hungry, fight for justice, etc.

Lizzymagoo22 said...

I wouldn't say her comments are batshit crazy, but I would say 100% all Christians are.

Jesse D said...

Wow, she just made Obama sound way attractive to me and I'm a crazy Christian. I've never liked people telling me how I "should" vote because I love Jesus.

Danielle said...

"Mother of many of his children"? Is Enty implying that she's not his only baby mama?

amanda said...

Please realize that was only about her speaking her opinion. I also feel that it's crazy that self-declared Christians, as well as other religions, feel that their religion gives them the right to hate others as they see fit.

__-__=__ said...

Wow, so much hate.

Topper Madison said...

Feh. My parents and I completely disagree about politics and religion, but I do respect their right to believe what they want to believe, and they respect mine.

In fact, I think it shows excellent parenting on their part because they raised me to think for myself rather than blindly follow their lead. It sounds like Brad had similarly great parents.

This is such a non-story.

Ice Angel said...

Where does it say she hates all gay people? I don't really get that. We've gone from 10,000 years of defining marriage is between a man and a woman and that now, anyone who rejects the change "hates all gay people???" I am actually pro same-sex marriage, but certainly understand how and why people feel the way they do. Calling them haters really doesn't advance the cause, it just deepens the divide, IMO.

For all of those that say she needs to keep her mouth shut, I bet you that if she had spoken out in FAVOR of same sex marriage, we'd have bravos all around.

She is responding to a political piece and is discussing her political opinion, that by the way, HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS of Americans also agree with!

So what I take from this is that if you are pro-life, Christian and pro-traditional marriage, you are a "hater" and "crazy."

I lost my very best friend over political beliefs. She and her husband just can't accept that we are republicans and that makes us "bad people." Why can't we all agree to respect one anothers views and opinions? Because in this country, we enjoy the liberty of free speech and the power of our vote. While I understand it also our power to disagree with someone's views, even if completely opposite of ours, I do believe that we should at least try to be respectful of that liberty we sometimes take for granted.

Pookie said...

you know, Amanda, that's a really good point. while ida w. mama pitt either, i do agree that celeb political shilling is quite possibly even more annoying...and you're right. it's all b/c they have the platform to do so--and so they do.

i'm still waiting for susan sarandon and a few of the baldwins to honor their declared moves to canada, et al locations, as per the first gb-son election.

and as much as i wish celebs w/ a platform would stop speaking out their ass, and desperately wish they'd stfu (mama pitt included), i do defend their right to opine...that doesn't exist in all parts of the world, so i hope those asshats at least don't take it for granted.

surfer said...

Believe me when I say this, I am not defending (nor do I agree with her views) her, but from what I read last night, her letter was in response to someone else's letter.

katsm0711 said...

blah blah blah I'm proud to be an American where we are free to express our opinion.

No I really am and I feel it's important to acknowledge someone who's doing what she thinks is right by writing this letter (to whom?) as long as it's not really really hurting anyone (she's not declaring war or bombing abortion clinics (I hope!). It's just her stating her opinion. I disagree with it and that's what makes America great. I think we hurt ourselves when we can't accept others opinions.

AMD said...

So Jane Pitt will stand up with unmarried Brad and his bisexual baby mama and their kids and smile and play happy family when they have movies to promote, but she wants to deny other people in nontraditional families basic human rights. Fuck her and all their hypocritical bullshit.

Danielle said...

ITA @AMD

FS said...

Ah, the National Day of Prayer lie comes up again. Whatever.

Yeah, she's free to express her opinion, and we are all free to express our opinions about her opinions. Moving on. :)

Happy Friday everyone.

Jennifer H. said...

I am in favor of marriage equality for all. I do believe that people who want to legislate against marriage equality are ignorant, elitist hate mongerers. If someone simply doesn't agree with marriage equality for all, I don't care. Everyone has a right to their own opinions and beliefs. The solution for those folks is for them not to marry someone who is the same gender they are. It's when they try to make their opinions law that I have an issue.

And yeah, if his mother had made pro-marriage equality statements I would have applauded her beliefs because I'd agree. What's wrong with that?

FS said...

Ice Angel, good post. Thank you, even if I don't agree with everything you said, I appreciate that you are so level headed about it, that's a great quality. :)

crazy/beautiful said...

Why does she think Romney is a family man with high morals but somehow Obama is not??? Is Obama's family somehow not valid? I don't understand...

rejectedcarebear said...

I'm more annoyed that she felt it was necessary to included the presidents middle name when addressing him. Yeah, we get it..his middle name is a super common name in the middle east! I have friends with similar Muslim sounding names and it just pisses me off that someone always has to ask them if they or their family happen to be terrorists. That's the image she was trying to put into peoples minds when she wrote that. That is shady.

Cook said...

I have read about this all over the Internet and I don't see where she says she hates anyone. Just because someone doesn't support something doesn't mean they are haters. I don't support abortion, however, I know many people who have had them, including some in my own family. I don't hate them at all...love them, in fact.

amh.producer said...

ice angel, I don't understand why people can't agree to disagree. I mean, I'm a democrat and one of my besties is a republican. we have healthy conversations, neither trying to sway the other (unless booze is involved - lol) but just walk away when we're done with it. It's one of our defining characteristics, but not the ONLY one.

So sorry you lost your BFF or politics of all things.

CandiCanee said...

Thought the exact same thing. What other reason is there for using his full name?

Sherry said...

My opinon and no one should give two shits about it, is once you start campaigning from the pulpit, your church has become a PAC and you are no longer tax exempt. Not that she's a preacher with a church but there's a reason why church and state are separate and yet, this shit all the time.

On Mama Pitts side, she certainly can say how she feels politically and it doesn't rub off on Brangelina any more than the other way around. I'm sure she wouldn't be on board with Angelina's girlie flings but then it's none of her beeswax either.

You can't choose your relatives!

KittensRUs said...

I am in favor of marriage for all HOWEVER I don't see "hate" in that letter. I don't "hate" everything I wouldn't vote in favor of. The woman has a right to her own opinions.

angel said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Farron Azalia said...

She has it all wrong. I am a Christian, I've actually read the freakin bible (go figure) & I hate it when other so called "Christians" harp on things from the old testament because they're not really Christians. They're non-practicing Jews. The main message via JC is that we love, respect, & show compassion toward our fellow man. Trying to dictate how other people should live their lives is neither respectful nor loving. It's people like Mitt & Jane Pitt that give the rest of us a bad name.

CandiCanee said...

She has a son who cheated on his wife and has had all his children out of wedlock, that doesnt need prayer but two people who love each other and want to commit their lives to each other does? I never understand why anyone feels they have the right to say who another person should marry. I dont think she "hates" gay people though. Just a bit close minded.

Sherry said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
angel said...

Well, her 'opinion' is intellectually dishonest and she's using it to manipulate which is what I find offensive. She extolls Romney's 'virtues' when any objective person, regardless of party affiliation, is aware that he has a well documented history of saying/believing whatever will get him elected, and then contrasts him with Obama who doesn't support anything Romney hasn't in the past. She also paints Obama as supporting "the killing of unborn babies" which he does not. He supports letting people makes their own decisions about matters that aren't illegal, and that's just one example. If you're going to preach, at least be honest.

AMD said...

Who knows or cares if she "hates" gay people? (Although, if she does, karma is a vicious bitch and good luck with your bisexual daughter in law and your granddaughter who supposedly wants to be a boy, haha.) She's free to express her opinion all she wants just as I am free to call her and her son and his paramour hypocritical assholes. She wants people to vote someone out of office because, among other things, he wants to ensure gays have basic civil rights. Meanwhile she'll "promote" her son's very nontraditional lifestyle when he's Oscar campaigning. Her very wealthy son whose money and prestige afford him a huge buffer from the kinds of discrimination other nontraditional families face on a daily basis.

timebob said...

I wouldn't hold Brad Pitt accountable for his mother's beliefs. But Christmas is sure going to be awwkkwaaarddd.

No, she doesn't say she hates gays but by and large her tone was not supportive of the homosexual community via same sex marriage. Her wording on pro-choice is pretty disgusting also.

Fuck her.

CandiCanee said...

Btw, I have two daughters and am not married (yet) Im not judging Brad Pitt but if youre going to be so high and mighty you cant just pick which sins you find to be most offensive.

Melissa said...

From reading the letter it seems she is against same-sex marriage, but was not "denouncing . . . gays in general." Opposing same-sex marriage and hating gays is not the same thing.

yodelay said...

Ahahahaha! It's funny becuase that couple is so tightly controlling of their own image and they are now related to someone at the exact opposite end of the spectrum. And now, he has to try to play the PR game, saying even though she believes those things, she's really a great peeson. AwkWard.

Agent**It said...

Sherry, I love you:)

"once you start campaigning from the pulpit, your church has become a PAC and you are no longer tax exempt".

OT:
Going on a rare vacation (remember those?). Please don't think I was kidnapped by Co$. But, I'll be reading from my Kindle!

Be well, folks:)

Liv said...

Reports have shown that this is not Brad Pitt's mother, but another Jane Pitt entirely.

And, frankly, her letter is not hateful, but an opinion well-stated. (An opinion I do not agree with, but it doesn't mean it's hateful.)

Carrie L. said...

I don't agree with Mom Pitt at all, other than the point about voting being a serious responsibility. But as a history geek, in her defense she's from another generation. Heck, it wasn't that long ago where many people thought slavery was just fine.

It's our job to evolve through the generations; those who grew up in a certain era are unlikely to change their core beliefs when they hit their senior years. It's the job of each new generation to advance things to a higher level of humanity. And it looks like that's happened...just look at Brad. While I don't care for him as an actor, his beliefs have evolved to a higher level than his mom's. And chances are that his children will be even more evolved than him.

The day will unfortunately come where our current beliefs will seem archaic and small minded to those generations that haven't even been born yet. That's just how life goes. But at least it looks like we keep making progress...even if it seems like very slow progress.

B said...

I find it upsetting that so many people think that having an unpopular viewpoint (at least by Hollywood standards) equals hate. She is entitled to her opinions and beliefs. I do wish she hadn't used his middle name like that, as that just sets her up to be another fundie crazy in most people's minds...but I don't see hate. I am a conservative Christian and will not vote for Barack Obama this election, as I did not vote for him last time. But I'm not thrilled with the alternative, either (as I wasn't last time). And for the record, I am not against gay marriage. All I ask is that people who have different viewpoints be allowed to share their opinions without being automatically dismissed and labeled negatively.

yodelay said...

Rejected & Candi, when "conservatives" use his middle name, its to remind the small minded that he's not One Of Us. He's Muslim, non-American, and rumor has it, Black.

angel said...

@Agent**It, have a wonderful vacay :)

angel said...

@yodelay, yup.. another intellectually dishonest misrepresentation, intended to imply that Barack is Muslim.

slut4LIFE said...

OMGoodness! I skimmed through this post at first and thought Enty wrote those last two paragraphs!

Ugh. headache.

Unknown said...

Anytime someone uses Obama's middle name, I just take it as passive racism and conclude the rest of their argument is invalid.

timebob said...

have fun @Agent don't let Xenu get you!

Thomas said...

It's a free country (for now, at least). The letter in question expresses the lady's opinions in a calm and rational manner. She is ENTITLED to her opinion, folks. There are a lot of very reasonable people out there who have a problem with the idea of same-sex marriage, and homosexuality, and just because they do does NOT necessarily mean that they are full of hate. Brad's mom may or may not be full of hate, I dunno. But I wouldn't say she was just from the contents of this letter. Some of the comments on here about the letter are a pretty good example of why some people kinda get worked up about what they call the "gay agenda": molding public opinion in their favor. Is it even POSSIBLE for a person to express a negative opinion regarding homosexuality without sounding like a nutcase nowadays? Apparently not. But when people are in opposition to the idea of redefining "marriage" to include members of the same sex, and thereby giving the word a meaning that it has never had in recorded history (until now, that is), and they can't even express an opinion on the subject without everyone tut tutting and saying "shame on her", then yes, I'd say something is a little out of whack. But not with Brad Pitt's mom...

Sarah said...

Agreed, and more importantly, I love that little beastie in your avi. What kind of dog is that? I think I need one. Haha

Sherry said...

Agent I wish you a wonderful vaca. I'm gone the 3rd week in July myself but may also vaca from Enty. I think I'm obsessing.

angel said...

lol, Sherry, I know what you mean. Easy to do here, but no worries, I think you're doing just fine ;)

Tr├ębuchet said...

I'm an Obama supporter but the only "hate-mongering" I see is the use of Obama's middle name. Abortion and same-sex marriage are (SHOCKER) legitimate issues, or Obama and Mitt wouldn't have to declare their position on those things. Obama even did a huge "why I changed" event regarding same-sex marriage. It's a legit issue.

lazyday603 said...

Fundamentalists of any religion annoy the crap out of me. From Khomeni to Billy Graham. They're sending us careening into a new dark ages. It just depresses me to know that if Inherit the Wind was written today, Clarence Darrow would be the villain and William Jennings Bryan would become the hero defending ignorance.

Agent**It said...

I have to wear a bathing suit. And you people think you have problems.
Thanks, all for your good wishes.

The Fame Whore said...

Since when is being anti-gay marriage equal that you hate gays?

Marriage is a sacrament of the Church, meaning it is sacred. Just like taking communion or getting baptized. It is against the teachings of the Christian Church to marry people of the same sex.

I am a Christian. I have gay friends whom I love.

I am all for civil unions so that gay and lesbian men and women can have the same legal rights as anyone else.

But when you start using the word "marriage", you start getting into religion and it's not just Christians who are opposed to it.

angel said...

@Tr├ębuchet, I think because there has been so much hate mongering against gays in particular, people naturally associate the same basic mindset with those who are against them having equal rights. I find that a lot easier to understand than the relentless campaign against gays in general.

AKM said...

I'm a liberal Christian and I disagree with Mrs. Pitt. She's still entitled to her opinions. Whatever.

BTW, Enty, your fact-checking is horrible. It's the SPRINGFIELD News-Leader, not the STL News-Leader. Our newspaper in STL is the Post-Dispatch. Thanks.

Texshan said...

Ice Angel, I commend you on your post. In my experience, I have found that many liberals tend to be very open-minded -- as long as you agree with them. The moment you espouse a belief they don't share, you are a "crazy Christian," a "hater," and a "sanctimonious fundie." At least ultra-conservatives don't try to fool anyone into believing they are tolerant when they aren't.

I believe that good people can disagree about things without anyone being butt hurt, as long as there is respect on both sides. I have many friends whose political views I do not share. So what? As long as they respect my beliefs, I will respect theirs. Same with family members. My family tends to be more fundamentalist than I am, and I tend to be a little more liberal about some things than they would like (i.e., the environment, birth control, soft drugs). We listen to each other's views and, while we don't agree, we don't get into arguments about it. Life's too short.

I share Ms. Pitt's opposition to gay marriage, because I believe marriage is a religious institution and my religion forbids active homosexuality. I believe that there should be an option for a civil union, which would be legally equal to a marriage in every way, available to all people, gay or straight, who are not religious and/or do not wish to involve religion in their partnership. My reason for this is that I do not want to have preachers legally forced to perform marriage ceremonies for gay people if they are opposed to it. That is a violation of their freedom of religion. But this doesn't mean I hate gay people. I don't, as my gay friends would attest.

Also, Barack Obama does, in fact, support the killing of unborn babies, as well as those babies that have actually been born. He is very pro-abortion. He voted in the Illinois legislature to deny medical care to aborted full-term babies who managed to survive an abortion. To me, that is absolutely evil.

Sherry, would your belief that all churches involved in politics lose their tax-exempt status apply to ALL churches, or just those that are conservative? Because there are many, many traditionally black churches that have been actively involved in politics since at least the 1960s. It's not just white, conservative churches.

angel said...

@The Fame Whore, with divorce rates and remarriages skyrocketing even within the church, their basis for denying equal rights is flimsy at best. If churchgoers don't have to obey the rules, they have no right to impose them on anyone else either.

Sherry said...

AKM: Enty doesn't have a fact checker to be horrible. Hence the mistakes. He does bring the juicy gossip most the time but we all need to remember it's gosip and not fact but it is fun. NOT preaching or bitching to you. That's what I remind myself..Gossip:Grain of salt...works.

Sherry said...

Oh and sometimes grammar isn't his friend either..Just sayin'!

wenx said...

Liszt, please don't paint all Christians with the same brush :) I am Christian and I disagree 100% w/ Mrs. Pitt. Then again, that's why I told someone recently that I was an "independent" when they asked me my denomination, b/c I would rather I (& everyone else) choose my own beliefs based on what I believe is right rather than tell others (or be told) what to believe.

I also agree w/Amanda, above, that she should have the same freedom of speech to say what she thinks like any person...just as I have the right & freedom to disagree :)

wenx said...

Lizzy, not Liszt. Stupid cellphone keyboard :p sorry!

Maja. With a J. said...

I saw a cooking show the other day, where the chef kept talking about the "marriage of these different flavours". Was he getting into religion as well, or is it OK when talking about food?

The Fame Whore said...

angel - The Church does not embrace divorce.

Everyone falls. We are all sinners.

Thinking the church should embrace the sin is quite different than the church embracing the sinners.

I may not love everything my children do, but I love all three of them unconditionally.

That is how God and Church has always been and will always be. I freely admit there are some whackos out there who mistakenly think God hates gays.

God loves us all. No matter what we do or whether or not we love Him back.

He may not always like what we do, be He always loves us.

wenx said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
wenx said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
AMD said...

Marriage predates Christianity and marriage as a legal concept was recognized in ancient non-Judeo-Christian societies. So no, anti-gay Christians, Jews, Mormons or any other religion don't have dibs on it.

Lian said...

As a non-religious person and someone who has been married for 5 years, I always get confused by the "marriage is a religious institution" argument. What is my relationship with my husband then? When I fill out forms, I check "married."

I got married in a courthouse, I married my husband because we loved each other and wanted to spend the rest of our lives with each other, and, to be honest, make things easier for us (in terms of taxes, insurance, etc).

As such, I have no problem with gay marriage.

I don't have a problem with churches not wanting to marry two people of the same gender, because I think that's their right. It's that they want this to be law that bothers me.

But the fact that people are arguing over semantics is so puzzling to me. Why are we letting the Bible, a religious book, define how the government classifies couples?

And of course, for me personally, I always think that just 40 years ago, it was illegal for me to have married my husband (I'm Asian, he's white). And that some states still had miscegenation laws up until as late as 1999. And that a majority of Republicans in Mississippi still think interracial marriage should be illegal. And before Loving v. Virginia, people used some of the same arguments as they are currently using for gay marriage .

surfer said...

Obviously people are entitled to their opinions, but to those who are vehemently opposed to gay marriage, I always wonder why.

How does two people being married affect your life personally? I mean would the fact that two women or two men being able to marry affect your ability to earn an income? Put food on your table? Send your kids to whatever school you choose to? Attend whatever church or synagogue that appeals to you?

What other people do in their personal lives has zero affect on me, and I would never be so presumtuous as to tell others what I thought they should or should not do.

FS said...

No, marriage is not a religious institution, holy matrimony is a religious institution. Marriage is a civil contract recognized by the government and given certain rights and privileges. You can be married in the US without ever stepping foot in a church, and you can get a marriage license without any involvement of clergy. Either we all get civil unions or we all get marriage, neither one involves a church.

auntliddy said...

whoa! who knew mom was so tightass? mb she can get together with mel's dad.

curlyhairslacker said...

Agent, have a great vacation!

IceAngel, very well said! Sorry to hear you lost your bf, that really sucks. I've always said the button I push in the ballot box does NOT define me as a person.

Sherry, ITA about the tax comment. And that is all churches that preach from the pulpit, imo.

Its just U said...

Ah, religion and politics. All rational arguments start from mixing the two.

Michael said...

Some of you guys talking about marriage being a sacred union only between a man and a woman sanctioned by the church need to hit the history books. The catholic church has married same sex couples (yes knowingly) in the past.

lazyday603 said...

@Michael - The weakness to that argument is that fundamentalist Christians don't even admit to the Catholic Church being really Christian. They are all still pissed about Luther & The Reformation.

Liz said...

This has to do with Pitt's statement that he wouldn't marry Angelina until gays were allowed to marry.

Lori said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Lori said...

First of all, the christian church did not invent marriage, it is a legal civil contract, and does not require the involvement of the church at all. Second of all, priests/preacher/other religious persons are not required to perform/ can deny performing a ceremony to anyone they want now, so to use the idea that they may be legally forced to marry a gay couple against their will is a misleading and invalid argument against same sex marriage.

Lastly, I do not have a problem with Mrs. Pitt's expressing an opinion that differs from mine, I have a problem with her inflamitory language and misinformation, "othering" by use of the president's middle name, and general lack of respect.

Lori said...

*inflammatory...sheesh

Katie said...

God, "Enty" why are you such a dumbass? this came out yesterday, as well as the news that this is not THE jane pitt. some other jane pitt in the lou. Please come correct with your gossip before you try to work everyone up into a tizzy and start political flame wars

yodelay said...

Lori, I 100% cosign, ^THIS, and ITA with everything you posted.

Ice Angel said...

Thanks for all of the support to all of my friends on "both sides of the aisle." I love seeing a civil debate from both sides. And honestly, this type of dialog has actually made me change my stance on certain issues.

As far as the difference between marriage and holy matrimony is concerned, that is why I believe it should be legalized. I was married in a church. I have 2 documents. One is for our holy union issued from the church. The other is a legal document which defines us as a legal partnership.

But many people are stating the debate a bit backwards. No one is trying to "legislate against gays." It is actually the opposite. Liberals are actually trying to "legislate for gays" in that the law is and has always been between a man and a woman. So conservatives are actually fighting to keep the status quo and the liberals are trying to change the existing law.

It is a difference that must be noted, because what you are asking for is for people to suddenly think that something that has been generally thought of as illegal (i.e. same-sex marriage) should be not only legal, but moral as well.

So I guess what I ask is to continue attempting to educate and further your cause, but don't try shoving down people's throats by declaring anyone who disagrees with you a hater, bigot, etc... Patience and tact goes a lot further.

(P.S. My views on same-sex marriage were greatly changed due to a couple of my gay friends very reasonably explaining to me their reasons and they were patient and understanding with my view points. Like I said, a little patience and tact went a long way with me. Some people will NEVER change their opinion and don't bother trying. But if you are after the fence-sitters, tread lightly, as you don't know which way your words will tip them over either eay. Remember that all those fence sitters are VOTERS!

MissCrop609 said...

Forty percent of conservatives believe that Barack Obama is a Muslim but he attends a Christian church in both Chicago and Washington DC. Kudos to the propaganda arm of the GOP, Fox News, Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck and the Michael Savages of the world. The brainwashing of some American voters is complete.

I'm a Christian and a disagree with Jane Pitts assessment. Like so many of you have pointed out, we all have conservative thinking members of our family who will never accept same-sex marriages or homosexuality. It's a generational issue. Thank goodness the younger generation is much more tolerant. What goes on in your lives is between you and your God of choice.

AKM said...

"...we all need to remember it's gosip and not fact but it is fun. NOT preaching or bitching to you."

Thanks, Sherry, but I don't need to be reminded that this is in fact a gossip site. I almost wrote what YOU wrote above on the GP post RE: the BI reveal, but I decided against it because it sounded bitchy.

Sloppy journalism bothers me, even on a gossip site. I make no apologies for that.

surfer said...

For those insisting that the letter was not written by Brad's mother, it was in fact verified yesterday that it is indeed her.

Here is a link to a site that picked up the story - please pay attention to the update at the top.

http://www.towleroad.com/2012/07/brad-pitts-mother-pens-anti-gay-letter.html

RenoBlondee said...

@Texhan
That is not true about Obama not giving "live aborted babies" the right to live.
See: http://blogs.chicagotribune.com/news_columnists_ezorn/2008/08/early-warning-h.html

OMAMA is BROKO said...

Freedom of speech people. I don't hear her calling for lynching of gay men in this, or of atheists.

She has a right to say what she feels.

We don't all have to agree on gay marriage or on religion. And Barry did vote for full term abortions when he was Senator, and Jeremiah Wright does harbor hatred for America, so what's the problem?

Turkish Taffy said...

I don't think the criteria she mentions are germane to the selection of a president. Fiscal responsibility, intelligence, and commitment to justice and fairness would make a much more persuasive argument.

Voting strictly on "religious" values can blindside the voter to the better nature of a candidate: humility, honesty, stance on corruption.

Michael said...

@omama: I haven't read anything here stating that Jane Pitt should be deported or arrested or anything so freedom of speech is not an issue here.

surfer said...

Very well said, Turkish Taffy.

The Bitch Next Door said...

Jennifer's having a good 'I TOLD YOU SO' laugh!

Anna said...

You can tell Mrs. Pitt hasn't read a whole lot over the years about her son and his baby mama.

0_0 said...

I am a nonevangelical Republican who isn't voting for Rmoney. When you eliminate US jobs and send them overseas, you also send consumers overseas. And overseas consumers are less likely to buy your product.

Texshan said...

Renoblondee, that blog posting was one of the worst-written pieces of garbage I've ever read. Plus, that guy is a longtime Obama apologist. I take everything he writes with a HUGE shaker of salt, especially since this was a blog, not an actual news article.

The fact is, Obama voted against legislation in 2001, 2002, and 2003 that would have defined an aborted baby that showed signs of life (vital signs, etc.) as a "born alive infant" entitled to legal protecvtion, i.e., medical care. That, to me, is disgusting.

Worstcompanytoworkfor said...

When people start using his entire name, my Nazi radar goes up.

She and Mel Gibson's dad are probably good friends.

I noticed she never holds Zahara's hand but that may not mean anything.

Texshan said...

Lori, do you honestly believe that if the federal government extended marriage rights to gay people, that any minister who refuses to marry a gay couple will not eventually be sued? In recent years, the trend has been that "equal" rights trump religious rights. As people who believe in a "living document" view of the Constitution remain in charge (Obama), more and more "rights" are being read into the document. These "rights" are almost exclusively extended to people who, they believe, have been discriminated against in the past. I can easily foresee a future in which any church official who refuses to marry a couple, for whatever reason, will be committing a civil offense or even a criminal act.

angel said...

Here here @Turkish Taffy! We're electing a president, not a pope. Both history and current events are littered with examples of how far out of hand things become when a Theocracy rules. They are invariably much, much worse.

Me said...

i have no issue with her taking this position. she is free to believe what she wants and to tell the world. and, i'll go so far as to say that its good for the kids of brand & angie (first name basis) to see that the world is not all love and rainbows for our neighbors. and that people we love can have differing views and we can respect their right to have that view and disagree BUT still love them.

but i do think this i going to be enough for mitt to lose. you bring being mormon into this presidential race-scares people-and focus on that; done.

Thomas said...

Personally, I don't mind at all if a same-sex couple have some sort of government-sanctioned formalized union between themselves. And we/they/whomever can agree to call it whatever they/we like, other than "marriage". Because there is this word (marriage) and it takes place between a man and a woman. A male/female relationship is part and parcel of very definition of the word. Including a same-sex relationship in "marriage" is like saying "she's my husband" or "he's my wife" or deciding that circles have four corners and sides of an equal length. You have to change the meaning of the word itself to make it fit. And in my opinion (yep, that's right, all of this is just my opinion) it is pretty obvious that the GLBT community doesn't WANT to have something that has ALL the characteristics of marriage but isn't actually CALLED marriage. Because they want to take something and make it their own when it is NOT their own. They are not satisfied to get the LETTER of what they want; they want the SPIRIT of it as well. That's what's not right about all this, and is what tends to set some people off. And when politicians can change the law regardless of the wishes of the majority, and in so doing seek to change the very meanings of words, well, where does that leave us? Not knowing up from down, black from white, day from night. Totally confused and ready/waiting for others to tell us what to think, in other words. Which is possibly (?) just how some people would like it...

Michael said...

@Texshan: A person can't sue a pastor for refusing to marry them. Pastors refuse to marry people every day and don't get sued. Note that no pastor got sued for refusing to marry interracial couples when half of our states had miscegenation laws on the books.

RenoBlondee said...

@Texshan I believe he declined to vote for what he believed to be a badly written bill. Doesn't make him a monster that loves the thought of murdering babies.
I won't say anything more on it.

Elle said...

Brad Pitt did not make that quote in response to her letter, which is how it's set out above. He said it in January in the Hollywood Reporter. Reporting gossip is one thing but twisting it to make it a more salacious story is another.

AMD said...

@Texshan, you are speaking in complete ignorance of the law. Churches can and do discriminate when it comes to their doctrinal positions, and the Supreme Court recently reaffirmed their right to do so. See here: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/11/supreme-court-church-minister-employment-discrimination_n_1199556.html.

And here's another example: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/11/30/interracial-couple-banned-from-kentucky-church_n_1121582.html.

For several decades, Bob Jones University banned interracial dating on religious grounds and they only lawsuit was the one they filed against the feds demanding their tax exemption despite it.

So no, there will not be lawsuits against pastors for refusing to officiate gay marriage ceremonies. Just like a Mormon can't sue a Catholic priest for refusing to preside over his or her ceremony.

Saffron said...

It must be embarrassing for Brad that the world has found out his mum is an idiot. You just can't keep those fucking crazies fundamentalists contained!

Barton Fink said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
angel said...

You have to acknowledge that remarks such as "voting is a sacred privilege" is really 'out there' and scary. Fundamentalists are hell bent (excuse the pun) on overthrowing our Democracy to impose a Theocracy on everyone whether they want it or not, and that's dictatorship.

libby said...

Lian, that was beautifully written, especially the part about the arguments against same sex marriage being the same ones that were used against interracial couples.

The arguments that were used against allowing openly gay military service were the same ones used when the military was trying to integrate black & white.
---

Lori, ITA. Good post.

And the 'Hussein' is like a dog-whistle calling card. You don't have to tell me what she meant. I live near enough to her, and have known MANY people like this growing up. It's why I moved to the city, and chose to live in a diverse neighborhood, because I hate that crap so much.

I seriously wonder if she favors her biological grandchildren, for the very, very wrong reason. Ugh.

OMAMA is BROKO said...

@Michael....then what's the problem??

You're not going to agree with everyone's thoughts, or belief's, nor is everyone going to concur with yours. So why is everyone getting their panties in a knot? She has just as much of a right to voice what she said, as did the original author of the letter which got her panties in a knot.

Texshan said...

Michael and AMD, you are ignoring a large part of my explanation for my opinion on this. If the federal government decides that marriage is a RIGHT that should be afforded to all citizens, what is to stop anyone -- including a gay couple -- from suing a clergy member who denies them something that the government has defined as a RIGHT? Nothing, unless the law includes an "out clause" for clergy. But, if they do include such a clause, then how does the government justify giving someone (clergy) permission to infringe on someone else's right? Is it really a right if it can be denied to you? So no, AMD, I am not "completely ignorant" of the CURRENT laws. I am leery of what kind of future the continual broadening of our laws will lead to. And I think that's a justifiable concern.

RenoBlondee, let's just agree to disagree. We'll never convince each other to change our minds.

Michael said...

@omama: I don't know why your "panties are in a knot" with people disagreeing with her letter. You're the one who posted "freedom of speech people" and I rightly pointed out that no one has called for her freedom of speech to be impeded therefore that's not an issue in these comments

@texshan: If same sex marriage is legalized federally, that means couples can go to any courthouse and get married . If the couple went to a pastor and s/he refused, they would have no ground to sue in any way since the laws allow the couple to go to any courthouse. That's how the law works.

RenoBlondee said...

"RenoBlondee, let's just agree to disagree. We'll never convince each other to change our minds."

Yes, agreed on that. :)

angel said...

@Texshan, you have a legit concern imo. I didn't stop to think about it like that because just as a doctor can't be sued for refusing to perform an abortion, I naturally assumed (or hoped at least) that clergy can't be forced to go against their personal values either. If an "out clause" for clergy is necessary to unequivocally establish that, then I'm absolutely in favor.

Hmax17 said...

Enty should really make sure to say he's quoting that letter! I kept looking again and again, thinking HE wrote the last part!!!

yodelay said...

Texshan, you're argument is sheer fearmongering. I'll believe you when the first Catholic diocese is sued and punished for denying women prietshood.

surfer said...

@ Texshan & those who may feel the same way.

As you know, I'm Canadian. Gay marriage was legalized in Canada in 2003, I believe, and no pastor, minister, church or rabbi has EVER been sued because they wouldn't marry someone. It just hasn't happened.

Like others have pointed out, all you have to do is go to the courthouse, or find another religious figure (if that's important to you) who will marry you.

For what it's worth, people have been really cool about it and no one hasn't gotten their panties in a knot!

ghost said...

I hate people who use religion as a means to promote a political agenda. People are absolutely entitled to their beliefs, but all too often use religion as a crutch for their propaganda. It's disgusting.

AMD said...

@Texshan, AGAIN, the Supreme Court has reaffirmed the right of churches to discriminate in their doctrines. No "out clause" for clergy is needed, because an "out clause" is never needed for a constitutional right. Banning civil interracial marriage was outlawed at the federal level and no church has been sued for refusing it. Women are routinely discriminated against in the Catholic Church and no lawsuits. The Mormon church openly discriminated against Blacks until very recently, no lawsuits.

You are concern trolling, and you are doing so in a completely ignorant fashion.

MissCrop609 said...

@Texshan, by your way of thinking, if I haven't been a member of a particular church in awhile and I don't tithe at my church and the pastor refuses to marry me and my fiance, I should sue the pastor because it's my right to get married?

Should religious leaders get an "out clause" for financial reasons too? Personally I think church should be taxed if they participate in the political arena.

Sherry said...

@Texshan: Yup every church that contributes to a political entity. Conservative, Buddhist, Synagogue, the whole ball a wax. It's gotta be fair across the board. Now this is just MY wish.

AKM: I was agreeing with you. I'm sorry if I did not state that clearly and it made you stabby
especially when I followed up with grammar not being his friend either. Is there an "I concur" emoticon? We should all decide what one could be. Who's in?

Sherry said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Texshan said...

People, just because I disagree with you, that doesn't make me a troll nor does it make me ignorant. It makes me someone who disagrees with you. That's it.

I have a legit concern because we as a country have been on a slippery slope of "evolving" laws for quite some time now. The government creates a new law, then someone says "Oh, what about this example?" and the law is amended to include something extra, and it goes on and on.

A federal law making gay marriage legal will create a protected class of gay couples. The government will then be obliged to normalize gay marriage and can eventually label anything opposed to it as "hate speech."

In 2008, a Christian photographer turned down a job shooting the wedding of two lesbians because she said she only shot "traditional" weddings. The couple sued her and won. A NJ church that refused to allow two lesbians to get married at a beachfront property it owns was found guilty of discrimination. So these people refused to perform a service for gay couples, and were sued (successfully) for their beliefs. Eventually, I can see someone saying, "Hey, what makes ministers different? How come they get to discriminate?"

For the gay marriage law to pass in NY, legislators had to include an amendment that gave "expansive protections for religious organizations." All I'm saying is, if the government wants to make getting married a right, they need to uphold the rights of clergy with the same vigor. And I absolutely don't trust them to do so.

Lizzymagoo22 said...

Sorry don't mean to offend (or do i) but even my mom calls herself a good Christian and goes to church every week and yet has no qualms telling her kids that they are basic POS. so maybe I just get annoyed with religion in general and wish people would stop worshipping the man in the sky and donating money to priests driving Porsches' and instead just try to be a decent human being. Don't even aim for a great person, just be decent. Sigh

AMD said...

What makes ministers different is the first amendment. This is not a matter of "opinion" or "disagreement." You are simply misstating what the law is and does.

And NY legislatures did not have to include protections for religious organizations, they did it to appease powerful (and yet somehow still tax-exempt) religious lobbys. The Iowa Supreme Court did not build in a religious exemption when it held banning gay marriage was unconstitutional, and yet NO LAWSUITS against clergy in Iowa. Same is true in MA and was in CA as well.

Ice Angel said...

FYI Obama has mandated theat Catholic churches must provide birth control to their employees.

If you want to stop giving tax exemptions to all churches who stick their noses in politics, then I hope they will be in line right behind every other nor for profit organization out there as well. Even the liberal ones.

But before we do think of all of the fantastic things that our religious institutions do in the world. From food and clothing drives, to homeless shelters, hospitals, financial assistance, emotional and spiritual assistance, etc.

Also, remember that at the end of the day, those who go to church are told constantly to behave. Of course, there are always hypocrites out there. But for the most part, I think most people go there to help them to try to live a better life, be kinder to their fellow man, etc...

Our founders wanted freedom of religion, not freedom FROM religion. Think twice before wanting to squash our churches and take away incentives for people to give to worthy causes. You really don't want a godless country. It's proven not to work.

AMD said...

@Ice Angel "FYI Obama has mandated theat Catholic churches must provide birth control to their employees."

Actually, 28 states already require that, and Obama has permitted them an exemption so long as the insurance carrier provides it directly. But this is not germane to this discussion because this is a regulation of the Church as an EMPLOYER, not as a parish. The Church can't impose it's doctrine on employees who have nothing to do with carrying out Church doctrines. the Church is still free if they so choose to excommunicate a parishioner for getting an abortion or using birth control.

yodelay said...

Thank you AMD, you took the words right out of my mouth. The First Amendment protects the free exercise of religion. Familiar with it?
@Texshan, neither of those examples pertains to churches, so again, fear-mongering.
@Ice Angel, no, Obama has not mandated that the Church must provide birth control. The insurance mandate HAD stated that BARRING HOUSES OF WORSHIP, i.e. universities, agencies, hospitals etc., employees' insurance coverage should cover contraceptives. Now, the mandate says this feature is included in insurance coverage, but not supported (read:paid for) by church funds. You may want to believe the government is trying to change the rules of your church, and there is nothing wrong with being vigilant against that, but the fact of the matter is that it is just not happening.

HalleGoLightly said...

Yow. Pitt's parents are some CRAZY mofos! They must have secret meetings with Angie's dad.

ABlake said...

What's wrong with using his full name?
He is the most powerful man in the world. To suggest using his full name is some kind of insult suggests he has something to hide.
Unless I'm wrong, Obama doesn't post here so I'm quite confused as to why everyone is up in arms about her using his 'full' name.

I'm with Texshan on just about every point. Then again, I don't trust any politicians. Her letter reminds me of things my mom writes. I love my mom but we certainly don't agree on everything. The love is still there and we just don't talk about it. She knows how I feel and I know how she feels. I actually though Brad's mom was pretty respectful in sharing her views (especially the appeal to give prayerful consideration meant for people who share her faith). I didn't see anything about hate for gays. Maybe I misread.

Krissie said...

What a hateful woman she is. Sorry, Brad.

nightowl said...

As a conservative, I take umbrage at MadLyb's assumption that only liberals are kind, generous, etc.
Not being leftist does not make someone not generous or kind. I have spent my entire professional life working in the non-profit world, eschewing high paying jobs that have come my way in order to help people. I make about 1/5 of what I could make by moving into the for-profit world, but by staying where I am, I can help people get a hand up. And I am not the only Republican/conservative who does this.

I'm a major fiscal conservative, but when it comes to social issues, I have libertarian beliefs - politically. For example, I don't agree with abortion (very pro-life), but don't believe the government should have their nose in personal decisions. I don't agree with the government granting gays marriage licenses - but I don't agree with the government giving heterosexuals marriage licenses. The government has no business being in the marriage business. Marriage is religious ceremony. The government should only issue civil union licenses (gay and hetero) and let churches decide whether they want to perform same sex marriages.

I get damn sick and tired of hearing a liberal tell me that they are open minded and I'm the close minded one. How many of you who think in that manner have voted for a Republican? I vote based on issues and views, not parties. I have never voted straight ticket in my 20+ years of voting. I have voted for majority Democrat rule in my county for the last 8 years. You know why? Because those specific Democrats do a better job handling the $$ in the county than the Republicans against whom they are running.

And on Obama, just because I don't want to vote for him doesn't mean I hate him. Can those who didn't vote for W say the same? I don't agree with the man on fiscal or social policies and that is why I won't vote for him. I especially don't agree with him on the extraordinary power grabs he has made. He is making W look like he was a figurehead, not the power grabber he was too. Penn Jillette has given some great interviews on this, as well as written some very good articles. As he has stated, our founding fathers wanted the Presidency to be more of a figurehead, not more like the king they were eschewing. The states were to have the power in this country, not the federal government.

And I am still waiting for all of those folks who really hated Gitmo and illegal wars to start complaining about the drone strikes (including killing an American citizen without a trial) and our illegal, undeclared to Congress, entry into Libya. If you don't like it when someone of the other party does it, be honest about it when your guy does it.

Michael said...

@ABlake: Besides the fact that using his middle name is political code for "Muslim" and "not American" (yes there are still Birthers), there is also the fact that Ms. Pitt left out "President" which is disrespectful of the office.

ABlake said...

Cripes nightowl, I wish I had waited to post:) You NAILED it, very well said.

Excellent post

jax said...

I am so fucking sick and tired of people using their beliefs/opinions/politics to tell someone else how they should live.

Stop fucking judging people's choices that don't fit your mold. Live your own damn life under your own set of rules and leave me and everyone else out of it.

God it's 2012- MOVE past it already. For a country supposedly built on freedom you sure as fuck like to keep your people's hands tied. Thank you progressive and forward thinking compassionate people for continuing to fight -plain and simple- hate mongering.

Pretty Pixels said...

For someone who claims to be a Christian she sure seems pretty angry.

astrogirl said...

I was married in a non denominational chapel by a public servant. I didn't want a religious service and didn't have one. So my question is why do some people assume that all gays want to be married in churches by priests?

I got married because I loved my husband, religion didn't even enter the picture. Why don't others get the same consideration especially if religion plays no part in their life either?. I can't imagine how I would feel if a church I didn't even believe in forbid me to marry the person I wanted to share my life with.

ABlake said...

Ahhh, gotcha Michael.
I was confused because he's never really taken an issue with his middle name. Love him or hate him, the man is a charismatic person who kind of seems to own everything about him. Including the Jeremiah Wright church and (yes) his full name and heritage.
It doesn't mean I'm a fan but I do respect that part of his persona.

I suppose if we wanted to get into semantics, her leaving out the President part could be seen as dismissive. At the same time, if this was a letter written by Joe Q. public, would anyone care?

Michael said...

@ABlake: I can't speak for anyone else but I'd care whether the letter was written by Jane Pitt, Brad Pitt or John Q. Public. I greatly disagreed with President George W. Bush's policies but I didn't like it when people would call him Dubya and crap like that either.

nightowl said...

@Michael - His middle name is not "code" for Muslim - it is his middle name. Kind of like Richard Milhous Nixon or William Jefferson Clinton. And yeah, there are birthers out there AND there are a damn huge bunch of truthers out there too. You know, people who thought George Bush and Dick Cheney plotted to kill 3,000+ Americans just so they can go get some oil. THERE ARE CRAZIES ON BOTH SIDES OF THE AISLE! Accept it and move on!

There are always going to be people that hate black people (and that is wrong), but there will always be people that hate white people (and so is that!)! Is it any better to vote for Barack Obama because he is black than it is to vote for Mitt Romney because he is white? I have had plenty of people with whom I work specifically state they voted for the current President for just that reason. I was appalled - just as appalled as I would be if another person said they had voted for McCain because he is white!

And I am tired of hearing how not calling Barack Obama, President Obama, is disrespectful. Is it any less disrespectful than the 8 years prior where people didn't call George W. Bush, President Bush, or should I call him what people called him - Chimpy McHilter Bush? This is not a monarchy, the President isn't king. He works for me and as such I do not have use a title unless I so choose. I have been afforded freedom of speech, thanks to the many who fought and died to provide and preserve that freedom.

And to Jax. This country has a set of rules to live by, it is called the Constitution. There is nothing "hate-mongering" about following the document that established our freedoms. And being free means allowing people with whom you disagree the freedom to voice their opinions, not calling them hate mongers. And being free means telling someone with whom you disagree to kiss off when they tell you how to choose to live your life. Don't agree with Mrs. Pitt, don't live your life the way she does. It's called freedom.

Marie said...

The part that I don't get about Christianity (or anything based on the bible) is that it CLEARLY states 'love thy neighbor, do unto others and judge not lest ye be judged', yet they all rock around telling everyone they're doing it wrong.

Doesn't add up for me! Follow THOSE rules FFS, and let the big man (if there is one) make the decision on individuals himself... Although I still don't get how someone who is all loving and all about forgiveness could refuse someone entry to heaven... Another concept which I find crazy, but that's a rant for another day :)

B. Profane said...

"She is responding to a political piece and is discussing her political opinion, that by the way, HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS of Americans also agree with!"

No. Current US poulation is 314 million, 80% of whom are old enough to hold an adult opinion. Repeated opinion polling shows that about 25% of Americans have opinions on gay marriage very similar to Grandma Pitt. So 60 million American adults believe likewise. Not even close to a majority of Americans.

That's not the key number. The percentage of Americans under 30 who virulently oppose gay marriage is way, way smaller and shrinking every day. Projections show that in another 10-15 years the percentage of the electorate who are hard core opponents of gay marriage will be negligible.

Michael said...

@nightowl: You need to take a chill pill. I haven't screamed anything in caps and I didn't call birthers crazy (although since you did, I'll agree that they are). And if you read my post you'd see that I didn't find calling President Bush out of his name cool either.

nightowl said...

Michael, you are correct, I do need a chill pill. I apologize to you as I see in your post above you discussed your past condemnations. I just get so tired of hearing how the right is full of crazies (birthers, Birchers, etc.), but no acknowledgement of the crazies on the left (starting with the Truthers). And yes, the birthers are just as crazy as the truthers.

nightowl said...

This stuff just gets me so riled Michael! People on the left accusing the right of stereotyping...by stereotyping those on the right! Have a great night.

nightowl said...

@Texshan - agree so much with much of what you said. And on the politics from the pulpit - "Sherry, would your belief that all churches involved in politics lose their tax-exempt status apply to ALL churches, or just those that are conservative? Because there are many, many traditionally black churches that have been actively involved in politics since at least the 1960s. It's not just white, conservative churches. - I'll just add this. Sherry, would you then take away tax-exempt status for those black churches that Attorney General Eric Holder just visited to discuss voter ID laws - http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/on-faith/ag-eric-holder-black-church-leaders-mull-voter-law-changes/2012/05/30/gJQAAngW2U_story.html? Is it right for our AG to counsel church leaders (black, white, purple or green)regarding voting? I think not.

ABlake said...

B. Profane

I have a feeling that if same sex marriage hit the national level (as far as voting goes) you would see vastly different numbers than the polls we see.

Personally I'm for state's rights (that goes for abortion as well)

But hey, the government knows best. Or something.

angel said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
liteNOTSObrite said...

Why must she keep her opinion to herself? She is a tax paying American citizen therefore her opinion, no matter how assinine it is, is allowed to be expressed.

angel said...

@Marie, your comment hits on the most frustrating aspect of religion for me, and I'm an instinctively conservative Catholic who strives for the middle ground now after realizing just how insufferable and intolerable both extremes can be.

Yes, the Bible clearly states "judge not lest ye be judged" and yet the more 'religious', the more judgmental many of them are, and dictatorial about what you should do and how you should live. That's why I prefer the term 'spiritual' because it connotes for me a genuine Inner Life that's humbly focused on correcting it's own faults. The Bible also instructs "first take the plank out of your own eye and you'll better see how to remove the splinter from your brother's eye", another of Christ's teachings that's routinely ignored.

angel said...

@lite, you're right of course, and those who read it are just as entitled to consider it's legitimacy and formulate their own opinions about her.

Sunny said...

@angel
You and I are kindred souls. I was brought up in a very Christian home, went to Christian schools etc. I had the most shining example of Christian love from my Mom - she doesn't judge anyone, she's always smiling, will laugh with you, cry with you, and she makes everybody feel like a million bucks. (Seriously, if you ever need an ego boost, tell a joke to my Mom). Anyway, I quickly became disenchanted with the Church because of exactly what you explained above. Now, I just try to keep my side of the street clean, say a prayer for others as I see fit and advocate for love and tolerance whenever I can

Henriette said...

I guess we now know why she preferred Jennifer to AngieJo.

angel said...

@Sunny, thank you for that. I actually feel alone a lot, spiritually speaking, for just those reasons, so I really do appreciate it. You last sentence nails it :)

lilo723 said...

Oh sweet Enty...this is my one place to get away from politics. I'll forgive you this time, but only because of your hard work on the 4th.

B. Profane said...

@ABlake--"I have a feeling" may make you feel warm & fuzzy believing what you like, but that doesn't mean it's ever going to be the majority opinion of America again. When you're talking poll margins 5x or 6x over error, and the adjusted-for-age slope breaking hard in favor of gay marriage, that's reality.

I thought that there was a burgeoning silent majority in favor of MJ legalization 20 years ago. I might even have been right. But the poll numbers have only finally broken decisively in favor of that now. The poll numbers in favor of gay marriage are breaking even harder. There is no silent majority condemning gay marriage. The generations who only condoned fags in closets are dying in droves every day, and they're being replace by like-minded by new voters one-for-five at best.

ABlake said...

Yikes B., I wish you were correct in your hunch of MJ being legal. It should be, hands down. Tax the hell out of it and hush already.
(Agree agree AGREE!)
Thing is, (and again, I am for state's rights. Not things on a federal level) I think people will be 'inspired' to get out and vote on hot button issues such as gay marriage and abortion. I also think folks who are following internet polls are going to be very surprised.

Texshan said...

Nightowl, I think I love you and would like to subscribe to your newsletter.

AMD, there haven't been any lawsuits YET. There will be, mark my words.

@Jax: "I am so fucking sick and tired of people using their beliefs/opinions/politics to tell someone else how they should live. Stop fucking judging people's choices that don't fit your mold." Do you truly not see your own blatent hypocrisy here? In one breath, you tell us how sick you are of "people telling others how to live," (even though I don't think anyone here has done so). In the VERY NEXT sentence, you tell us to "stop fucking judging people's choices that don't fit your mold." Excuse me, aren't you doing that EXACT SAME THING to us? YOU are telling US how to think and live, while demanding that we shut up and not have any opinions. Sorry, America doesn't work like that. At least, not yet.

Having an opinion is not the same as "telling someone how to live." I have a right to my opinion, just like you do. What I don't have is the right to tell other people how they should think. Neither do you.

Michael, I don't have to call Obama "President Obama." I'm not his subject. No one is. In other words, he's not the boss of us. If I want to call him Jug Ears McStupidson, I can. I sincerely doubt you always referred to GWB as "President Bush." So untwist your panties.

B. Profane, I don't know where you are getting your "25%" figure. I haven't seen that anywhere. While it's true that when random people are asked, "Do you think gay marriage should be illegal?" a slight majority (53%, according to a Washington Post-ABC News poll in May) say "no," many pollsters will tell you that the polls are misleading, because the question implies some sort of "sanction" against gay marriage. A way to get a more accurate view of how people view gay marriage is to ask, "Should marriage be defined as the union of a man and a woman?" Many pollsters say that if that question is asked, a clear majority answer "yes." It's also interesting that, in states that had a poll in which the majority said they do not think gay marriage should be illegal, voters also voted against allowing same-sex unions (California, Hawaii, and Maine, for instance). So, while people may SAY one thing, they often vote differently.

WUWT? said...

A racist I come into contact with at work says, "I have nothing against the Blacks, but they shouldn't be president." (So clearly, he DOES have something against black people). I hear it the exact same way when people say, "I have nothing against gays, but they shouldn't be allowed to marry." Marriage is a joining together, for many reasons, but hopefully love, and we should not exclude others from the institution and its benefits because we don't like who they love. I have more of a problem with Michael Jackson's marriages or Tom Cruise's marriages or Kim Kardashian's, than I do with Barney Frank's or Suze Orman's. Put another way, I have more of a problem with marriages built on anything other than love than I do with any marriage built on love.

Of course Ms Pitt has the right to say what she believes. We have the right to respond according to what we believe. But I'm glad that in 20 years (hopefully sooner) the tide will turn, and people will realize that RIGHTS are RIGHTS, and NOT something that ever should be put up to a vote.

Til Eulenspiegel said...

"RIGHTS are RIGHTS". Right! I too am for making sure that absolutely everyone gets their RIGHTS. I'd like to see RIGHTS for zoophiles and necrophiles: cuz it's all about love, RIGHT? And while we're talking about RIGHTS, pedophiles are people too, right? RIGHTY RIGHT RIGHT! Don't go stepping on their doggone RIGHTS, now...

Joanie Ra X said...

We incestophiles are getting the short end of the stick in this discussion, I'm afraid. Don't be hatin'. Between consenting adults, incest is a victimless crime. It is high time for the concept of marriage to move forward into the 21st century. Marriage between sibs needs to be legalized, as well as marriage between widowed (or divorced) fathers and their adult daughters, and widowed (or divorced) women and their adult sons. THINK OF THE CHILDREN!!!

B. Profane said...

"B. Profane, I don't know where you are getting your "25%" figure...."

From the vast mass of polling data that supports that figure, on average. I was clear in my analysis: only 25% of Americans hold a hard opposition to gay marriage on deep moral grounds as espoused by Grandma Pitt. Most of those are over 65. Do the math.

People like you don't like to be told that their beliefs are dying out and will become moribund in their lifetime. I understand. But the numbers don't lie, especially those reflecting the hard and growing break in favor of gay marriage among younger voters. If you're under 50 and you have a normal life expectancy and you oppose gay marriage, you will live to see your beliefs become a figure of quaint ridicule. That's reality.

auntliddy said...

So u are equating 2 same sex oriented people with incest? How do u make that jump?

auntliddy said...

Again, adding 2+2 and getting 5. Homosexuals are NOT pediphiles-think jerry sandusky- they arent fans of beastiality, and they dont have sex with dead people. They are not any sort of perversion. They are people, incidentally, made in the image and likeness of god, who happen to be same sex oriented. Is that really so awful? In what way, exactly, does 2 men getting married in ANY way diminish YOUR hetero marriage? How does it harm you in ANY way? All the other scenarios bought up are criminal activities. 2people in love is NOT a criminal activity. If you dont care for it, well then who asked you? Myob.

angel said...

It is kind of hilarious auntlibby. Hard to tell if that person is being facetious or really believes it. I've also heard the argument put forth that what if people suddenly decided they wanted to marry their dogs, etc. lol.. grasping for straws because deep down they know they have no right to be sticking their noses into other people's personal business.

katsm0711 said...

Aren't we all embarrassed of our parents?

Thomas said...

@Auntliddy- "homeosexuals are not pedophiles" is an opinion, not a fact. Since you're such an expert, kindly inform us where the line between pedophile ends and homosexuality actually begins? It's a valid (and frequently discussed) point that an adult having sex with an opposite-gendered child would be considered a heterosexual pedophile, and an adult having sex with a same-gendered child would be considered a homosexual pedophile. Just as it is a valid point that, once you open the door to what marriage IS (other than a recognized union of man and woman, which is what it has been since the word came into use), then other combinations are possible. Yes, the idea of people marrying corpses, animals and children is absurd, but the incest angle is plausible, IMO. Between consenting adults, incest is no one's business other than the parties involved. I can certainly see the possibility that, at some future date, persons closely related by blood may wish to have the right to marriage (once "marriage" is broadened, that is). By you totally ignoring the philosophical point of Eulenspiegel's admittedly comical argument (that of changing the meanings of words, i.e., the actual ramifications of letting "marriage" be something other than what it is) and instead wrongly focusing on the absurdity, you would appear to be either disingenuous or dense. Which is it?

angel said...

At the risk of butting my own nose in where it doesn't belong (these politically correct posts really are a mine field at times), Thomas I think you woke up on the wrong side of the bed this morning, reducing this discussion to splitting hairs over semantics, and not in a respectful way either. I very much appreciated and enjoyed reading your comments.. up until now.

Thomas said...

@angel- Auntliddy read Eulengspeigel's comment and told him or her "who asked you?" and "myob" (mind your own business). In my mind, that allows for some plain speaking right back at her. If you disagree, that's fine. But this is not a matter of "splitting hairs". Far from it...

angel said...

Ok, hers wasn't the most eloquent comment perhaps, but she was responding to absurdities from two different commentors (Til Eulenspiegel and Joanie Ra X) in one comment of her own, so I think it's understandable that the response got a little blurred.

Thomas said...

Fair enough :)

auntliddy said...

Im gonna go with disingenious dense, lol. Look, a pediphile can be a homosexual, but all homosexuals are not peiphiles. If u r serious not knowing the diff, a homosexual relationship is btwn 2 consenting ADULTS,

auntliddy said...

Sorry, pressed wrong thing. Two consenting adults= homosexual relationship. One adult and one child- 0 to 17 years old = pediphile. I am against incest as its rarely consensual or healthy. And my point about myob is , if u dont like something, dont talk about ir stew about as it only makes u uoset. I personally dont care who marries what or who because its a non factor in my life.

Barton Fink said...

I think that the problem comes because very very stupid conservatives pretend that non-conservatives believe "no one can ever judge anything, and so you cannot disagree with me because you are denying your biggest belief, which is that no one can disagree with anything." The fact is, liberalism is not the idea that no one can judge anything or that no one can disagree with anything ever. That's a stupid idea that Fox and Rush and the whole HeeHaw gang came up with, and you only hear rightwingers say it. So ... what a bunch of stupid crap. There I said it. Non-birthers and non-rightwingers have a total right to judge things, even if birther/rightwinger idiots think that "liberalism is not being able to judge things." How stupid. How utterly stupid.

auntliddy said...

Thats funny, because I find myself very eloquent, lol

auntliddy said...

Of course you have to call him President Obama, thats who he is, whether you like it ir not! And bush was president bush, whether i liked him or not. Its called respect, which is sorely lacking from alot if people when it comes to this president. You can insert your own reasons, i hv no idea. And he is the boss of us, under the constituion we hold so dear!

auntliddy said...

And no one is telling u how to think, but pwople who r pro gay marriage arent trying to pass any restrictive laws, we arent calling them an abomination, we say live and let live. The other side is all up in arms because they think anything different is wtong and has to be stopped right away. Stay outa my bedroom and my uterus, and we'll all be happier. Stop trying to pass laws that restrict my fellow americans perfectly lawful freedoms. Note the word lawful.

Thomas said...

@Barton Fink- you've set up a straw man argument. No one says Liberals cannot or do not judge. What I myself say, though, is that, generally speaking, Liberals very self-servingly pick and choose what they are going to judge and what they are going to turn a blind eye to. And also that they are much more prejudiced than they care to admit. You would appear to be extremely prejudiced against anyone with right-wing or Conservative viewpoints. And you, I will bet, are JUST FINE with it, because you seem to feel that your side is "right" and the other side is "wrong" and that anything goes when fighting against what's wrong. Right? Ha ha. The way that people of your apparent mindset dehumanize and delegitimatize people (members of the "HeeHaw" gang?) and paint your enemies with such broad strokes of villainy is quite sickening. Mostly because you are so smug, so confident that you have the moral authority to do so. You're obviously trying to instigate further argument by banging the "stupid stupid stupid" gong against those you disagree with, instead of talking. Which is pretty much typical Internetry: loudly pontificating / mansplaining that something is this or that instead of arguing point by point against it. You'd fit right in over at Fox News...

Texshan said...

Aunt Liddy, you REALLY need to read the Constitution. The president is in NO way, shape or form our boss. Quite the opposite -- he works for US. It is the only job in the world with 300 million bosses. I am very upset that there are people out there who think that the president is our master. This country was founded precisely because we did not want to be subjects, we wanted to be citizens.

Also, I don't "have" to call Obama anything. I can call him anything I want. I could call him a murdering, communist sociopath if I wanted to, even though he isn't.

You really, really need to learn about basic American government, especially before you post things about it that are quite obviously wrong.

Texshan said...

B Profane, I would appreciate it if you could please direct me to this "vast mass of polling data" that shows a 25% figure opposed to gay marriage. I have looked and looked and have been unable to find a single instance of this figure online. Thank you.

B. Profane said...

Yes, but would you have expressed that egalitarian sentiment so vehemently about George W. Bush? You'll say that you would--and did--but you'll be lying.

B. Profane said...

"I have looked and looked and have been unable to find a single instance of this figure online."

No, you haven't looked.

I said that 25% of the electorate, at the moment, on average, hold a hard, morality-based opposition to gay marriage along the lines that Grandma Pitt espouses. With the soft opposition the overall opposition numbers are around 45%. The soft opposition margin, naturally, has been declining much faster over the last ten years, but interestingly it's a pretty much even decline across the 18-65 demographic. Project out the decline of the soft opposition numbers and marginal opposition will be down to 5% in another ten years.

Gay marriage will inevitably be a normal feature of American society in your lifetime, assuming you're not that old and don't get hit by a bus. You can be a crabby old bitch about it or you can start respecting the human rights of your fellow citizens.

Thomas said...

HAHAHAHAHA.....sorry...but whenever I hear someone talking about how various and sundry human-managed decisions/events/zeitgeists will "inevitably" take place in the future, I can't help but laugh...keep up the good work, Criswell...

auntliddy said...

It doesnt have to be expessed. However onorus i may hv found him, he was the elected president, elected to run our country by majority of americans. He gets defacto respect. Not calling obama president us childish, and does not negate his position. Yelling out"you lie" at a speech makes US look bad in eyes of the world. So just suck it up. The guy u backed didnt win, and u r being the worlds worst sport, instead of working together to improve country. Thats unforgivable. And then to clutter up the laws with anti gay crap, voter fraud crap is just a waste of time. And dont hand me any crap about alleged voter fraud. Stastically, u have better chance of sighting ufo than finding legit case of voter fraud. And that was actual study done, im not pulling it out if the air. Just stop with asine hate and play nice.

auntliddy said...

I never heard if anyone thinking the president is our "master", ever! Where'd u come up with that?!

katsm0711 said...

I have a friend named Osama. Am I a bad American because I support 9/11 by being his friend?

Barton Fink said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
«Oldest ‹Older   1 – 200 of 220   Newer› Newest»