comment #1

George Prager says ...

It's not the end of the world if he resigns. He can always get work as Ronnie Schell's stunt double.

comment #2

Kristopher Tapley says ...

As an aside, it's nice to see Poland actually doing journalism after claiming to be a journalist in the guise of a pundit for so long. But I have to say, the lack of any attribution is still bothersome. Is this the voice of God or something?

comment #3

Celebrity Werewolf Hunter says ...

I would prefer they keep Raddon in the public eye, where he has to openly defend his support of Prop 8, especially to those people who are his friends in the gay community.

The company firing Raddon or accepting his resignation only allows him to take martyr status amongst Yes on Prop 8ers. I firmly believe the more public this fight gets, the better the case will be for a reversal on Prop 8 as underlying levels of hate and misunderstanding will come to the surface.

comment #4

MASON says ...

Mixed feelings about this situation.

And come on, when is Poland going to come out of the closet already?

comment #5

D.Z. says ...

Werewolf: "I firmly believe the more public this fight gets, the better the case will be for a reversal on Prop 8 as underlying levels of hate and misunderstanding will come to the surface."

That's how I felt about the Navy murdering whales with sonar, until the Supreme Court supported it. :( It ain't over 'til it's over.

comment #6

JoeJustice says ...

The Morman Church murdered my right to marriage with phony spiritual hate sonar.

comment #7

TedM says ...

Same thing happened with the California Musical Theatre. The artistic director, Scott Eckern, gave a donation in support of Prop 8. A couple of prominent people (most notably Susan Egan and Marc Shaiman) spread the word about the fact that he supported the measure and the pressure was on, so he resigned. I have a feeling that there will be more, especially since the L.A. Times has a searchable database with the names of those who gave money to both sides.

I have to say that this is all unfortunate and smacks of a greylist, if not an out and out blacklist. That is NEVER a good thing.

comment #8

Adviltablet says ...

Prop 8 passed. Maybe the No on 8 campaign should've organized before the election instead of after? And how does threatening to take job of someone who supported the prop make sense at all?

comment #9

Joshua Mooney says ...

Thank God I'm a Presbyterian. My church requires almost nothing of me, although it does suggest that I wait until the back-nine for my first Bloody Mary on Sundays.

comment #10

Luke Y. Thompson says ...

Too much of a potential slippery slope here for me. I vehemently oppose prop 8, but on the other hand I voted No for bigger chicken cages.

I'm sure there are people in Hollywood, PETA types, who wouldn't want to work with me because of that. What we vote for, so long as it's legal, shouldn't be a litmus test, unless it directly impairs the job at hand, i.e. chemists refusing to sell birth control, or grocery store cashiers refusing to touch pork for religious reasons.

comment #11

D.Z. says ...

Advil: "And how does threatening to take job of someone who supported the prop make sense at all?"

How does it make sense to threaten to take a couple's benefits?

LYT: "Too much of a potential slippery slope here for me. I vehemently oppose prop 8, but on the other hand I voted No for bigger chicken cages. I'm sure there are people in Hollywood, PETA types, who wouldn't want to work with me because of that."

Perhaps, but if the latter law didn't pass, at least any food poisoning you got would be your problem, so...

"What we vote for, so long as it's legal, shouldn't be a litmus test, unless it directly impairs the job at hand, i.e. chemists refusing to sell birth control, or grocery store cashiers refusing to touch pork for religious reasons."

If it impairs your ability to successfully work with someone who's gay, then I'd imagine it's a problem. Plus, you have to deal with the issue of theoretically moving up the ladder to a managerial position, and having to deal with benefits for a hypothetical gay couple.

Unless you personally beat your dog, though, I doubt any PETA or similar types would care, since you believed whatever propaganda the animal factory corporations were spewing about how it's actually "better" for the animals, if you vote against Prop. 2.

comment #12

Woodrow says ...

Why did all those gay Californians vote for BO, who has the same homophobic views of marriage as Raddon? Should we start the impeachment process now?

California voters took away the right of gays to marry, a venerable right created by a 4-3 majority of the California Supreme Court 6 months ago. The court found that California's decision to ban gay marriage was unconstitutional. So California changed its constitution.

Gay marriage has been an issue for what, 10 years? In the 90's it was all about benefits for same-sex partners -- we never heard a word about same-sex marriage then. In the 80's, AIDS -- caused by Ronald Reagan himself -- was the issue. It is less popular now that it is suffered by poor Africans. No ribbons or quilts necessary.

Where were the protests for gay marriage 15 years ago? If it is such a fundmantal issue that right-thinking people can have no disagreement over, what was it 15 years ago? 20 years ago?

A society does not have to recognize anybody's marriage. Over the millenia, societies have decided to grant a certain status to committed heterosexual couples -- because the society determined that it benefitted society. The fact that gays want marriage real bad (at least lately) isn't enough for a society to have to recognize their unions as marriages. Gays have to make their case that what they want is, on balance, good for everybody. They haven't yet. No doubt, in the coming years, they will. Until then, must the unconvinced become demonized?

comment #13

corey3rd says ...

Who wants to support a film festival knowing that your fees, tickets or sponsorship cash will trickle down to support a campaign of lies in order to deny Sulu his wedding day? This will be coming back on the ballot in 2010. This is a continuing battle. Lines have been drawn. Cheerleaders have been marked. Raddon going to give another check in 2 years? you want to contribute to his bank account?

Do I blame anyone for boycotting people or businesses that spent case to strip a right away from Sulu? You cared enough to put your name on the donation check - live with the consequences. You denied people a chance to have the "happiest day" of their lives. So learn to live with their anger.

comment #14

D.Z. says ...

Woodrow: "Why did all those gay Californians vote for BO, who has the same homophobic views of marriage as Raddon?"

He still was against Prop. 8, though. Hell, even Mr. "Girly Man" Arnie was against Prop. 8.

"California voters took away the right of gays to marry, a venerable right created by a 4-3 majority of the California Supreme Court 6 months ago."

Oh, and "Brown vs Board of Education" should have been decided by the people, too.

"In the 80's, AIDS -- caused by Ronald Reagan himself -- was the issue. It is less popular now that it is suffered by poor Africans."

Actually, it was a non-issue which was blamed on gay people. And the only reason it's not a priority is because the people running the country for the last eight years think any sex education automatically means support for promiscuity.

"Where were the protests for gay marriage 15 years ago? If it is such a fundmantal issue that right-thinking people can have no disagreement over, what was it 15 years ago? 20 years ago?"

Back then, it was tough enough being gay and being acknowledged as such by your family and your peers. [See the military.] Hell, up until five years ago, you could be pulled over by cops for having a consensual physical relationship with someone of the same gender in the privacy of your own home. You'd figure the anti-government Republicans would be against that one, but they embraced the idea more than any one.

"A society does not have to recognize anybody's marriage."

So does that mean a society shouldn't have to recognize Obama's parents' marriage, either?

"Over the millenia, societies have decided to grant a certain status to committed heterosexual couples -- because the society determined that it benefitted society."

They also said you can have a harem, even though that never benefited society, and often led to some of the worst wars in history.

"The fact that gays want marriage real bad (at least lately) isn't enough for a society to have to recognize their unions as marriages."

Oh, and women shouldn't be given the vote, just because they wanted it so badly.

"Gays have to make their case that what they want is, on balance, good for everybody. They haven't yet."

Why should they be the ones to make their case? What argument have the Prop. 8 proponents made which unanimously proves that gay marriage is a threat to society?

comment #15

John Cocktosten says ...

I'm an agnostic straight guy who voted no on 8. I say, share the misery. Gays can enjoy the fruits of a 50% failure rate institution as well.

Now, let's look at reality for a minute. Let's leave any question of religion/morality/whatever out of it and stick with the rule of law. Even in Massachussetts, the only state in the union with gays allowed the exact same rights as staights in marriage, it still doesn't extend nationwide thanks(no thanks) to the Defense of Marriage Act, which defines marriage as only for partners of the opposite sex. And many other states will refuse to recognize your marriage. The incredible anger pouring out now is unfortunate, because the cause of gay marriage has many many miles to go. And the increasingly fascist behavior exhibited by some of the more foaming-at-the-mouth types is only going to set back their cause with the 52% of Californians who voted yes on 8.

The underlying theme here is that you can't force empathy. It has to come organically, and it has been coming around quite nicely in the last ten years. People have to come to it in their own time. Keep fighting, but try to realize that you can never force someone to agree with you.

comment #16

Edward Havens says ...

Fact of the matter is, we should never allow religious-fueled propositions to become ballot measures in the first place. If those who believe in God want everyone to respect their choices to live life the way they see fit, they need to respect everyone else's choices to live life the way they see fit. It's a two way street. You want your religious freedoms, then you need to allow others their freedoms.

Anyway, marriage as an institution existed long before Catholicism or Christianity or Mormonism or any of the other religions who preached for Prop 8. Let marriage be what it's been for many thousands of years, a union between two people, and let the religious find their own fucking word for it. Marriage is not the exclusive domain of religion.

comment #17

Woodrow says ...

DZ: "He still was against Prop. 8, though. Hell, even Mr. 'Girly Man'Arnie was against Prop. 8." So is the issue bigotry, or how you feel about the wording of a particular proposition? BO is a bigot because of his view that marriage is between a man and woman, right? BO is as two-faced and backstabbing on this as Bill CLinton was on the military.

"Oh, and 'Brown vs Board of Education' should have been decided by the people, too." You really want to make the argument that discrimination based on race is the same as discrimnation based upon sexual preference or lifestyle choice or whatever it's called this week? Maybe I forgot about the slavery gays have endured (really low wages in set decoration notwithstanding) or the JIm Crow laws designed to keep them from voting.

"Actually, it was a non-issue which was blamed on gay people. And the only reason it's not a priority is because the people running the country for the last eight years think any sex education automatically means support for promiscuity." No administration has done more to ease the plight of Africans suffering from AIDS than the W. administration. Gay people made AIDS a political issue, rather than a health issue.

"Hell, up until five years ago, you could be pulled over by cops for having a consensual physical relationship with someone of the same gender in the privacy of your own home." Only if you lived in an RV.

"So does that mean a society shouldn't have to recognize Obama's parents' marriage, either?" When you get your constitutional amendment banning discrimnation based on gayness, let me know.

"They also said you can have a harem, even though that never benefited society, and often led to some of the worst wars in history." The point is that attitudes develop. No more harems, outside the NBA.

"Oh, and women shouldn't be given the vote, just because they wanted it so badly." Woman have the same rights as men regarding marriage. And sufferagettes fought to amend the Constitution. Try that route.

"Why should they be the ones to make their case? " Because they are the people seeking a change from the status quo.

comment #18

lawnorder says ...

LYT, your vote No on the Animal Rights Proposition is fifty times worse than Yes for gay marriage. You clearly lack compassion for another living species. How the fuck was it ever going to effect your life by voting Yes for bigger cages (and stalls) for chickens and other livestock. And, for the record, yes, I am a PETA member - and proudly so. Let's blacklist all No voters on Prop 2. One of these days, an alien species is going to descend on Earth and round us "humans" up for factory farming. I sure as fuck hope LYT gets that tiny little cage where he can't move a muscle until his time comes to provide the liquid essence for some creature's breakfast.

comment #19

D.Z. says ...

John: Actually, gay marriage rights have recently expanded to CT.

Woodrow: "So is the issue bigotry, or how you feel about the wording of a particular proposition? BO is a bigot because of his view that marriage is between a man and woman, right?"

No, because if he were a bigot, he'd openly support a constitutional ban on gay marriage.

"BO is as two-faced and backstabbing on this as Bill CLinton was on the military."

Not really, since Clinton was never really against anti-gay discrimination in the military. He just wanted to
redefine it, so that he could sweep it under the rug. Obama is clearly against anti-gay discrimination in the legislature, though.

"You really want to make the argument that discrimination based on race is the same as discrimnation based upon sexual preference or lifestyle choice or whatever it's called this week?"

Do you want to make an argument that pulling a black guy by the neck by truck is not the same as what happened to Matthew Sheppard?

"Maybe I forgot about the slavery gays have endured (really low wages in set decoration notwithstanding) or the JIm Crow laws designed to keep them from voting."

Did you forget about gay people being murdered in the Holocaust, too?

"No administration has done more to ease the plight of Africans suffering from AIDS than the W. administration."

http://www.bushwatch.com/condoms.htm

"Gay people made AIDS a political issue, rather than a health issue."

It's a bit of both, actually.

"Only if you lived in an RV."

Didn't matter if you were in an RV, actually. http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/06/26/scotus.sodomy/

"When you get your constitutional amendment banning discrimnation based on gayness, let me know."

There's no amendment for discrimination against gays, though.

"The point is that attitudes develop."

I agree. Only a 4% majority supported this prop here, when it was over 20% in 2000 for Prop. 22.

"Woman have the same rights as men regarding marriage."

Only recently, ironically thanks to Reagan.

"And sufferagettes fought to amend the Constitution."

They had to amend the Constitution, even though there was no law which said they couldn't vote.

"Because they are the people seeking a change from the status quo."

I think you're confusing the anti-Prop 8 people with the pro-Prop 8 people, since the fundies aren't really considered part of the status quo nowadays.

comment #20

D.Z. says ...

sorry, "for anti-gay discrimination"

comment #21

dd says ...

That's how I felt about the Navy murdering whales with sonar, until the Supreme Court supported it. :( It ain't over 'til it's over.

Designer Handbags

comment #22

Cheap Sunglasses 2011 says ...

Life is a flower of which love is the honey.

comment #23

janee says ...

Si vous etes interesses par le dossier, ou desirez en savoir plus, contactez-moi par mail, et je vous mettrai en contact.
Best regards,Jane, CEO of high availability server