Pitt donates $100,000 to support gay marriage

First off, read the article again. The advisor wasn't surprised. The article states Brad Pitt was surprised.

Second, history is full of minorities who have no choice but to go to the courts to attain the same rights enjoyed by everyone else because the majority fears change. If we waited on the "majority" to vote it in, there would also be no inter-racial marriages, no vote for women (and very few rights for them, too), no civil rights, and probably still slavery.

The question I would ask you is...exactly HOW will it negatively affect YOU, personally, allowing same-sex couples in a committed relationship to be legally recognized as a couple?

" [It] ...is repulsive and averse to every sentiment of pure American spirit. It is abhorrent and repugnant. It is subversive to social peace. It is destructive of moral supremacy."
--Rep. Seaborn Roddenberry of Georgia, made in 1911 in his appeal to Congress, when he introduced a U.S. constitutional amendment to ban interracial marriage.

See any similarities?

it's because of right-wing nuts like you

Just so you know, insults like that are considered inflammatory and are in violation of the Code of Honor.

#1.a. Adding a personal attack to an otherwise valuable comment or article serves only to render that contribution invalid in its entirety. Such content is subject to moderation.

will, you better clean your crystal ball, because I don't read "stupie" tabloid magazines and I don't OWN a television. It's time for you to seriously question your own ability to think and reason. I don't know George Bush or the Pope, but I can still have an opinion of them. I never knew Thomas Jefferson, but I still have an opinion of him. So, when I see an actor taking a stand towards fighting for liberty and justice for ALL (not just for hterosexuals), I have the right to say my opinion of him is improving. Read my original post again, in fact, you might want to read it about five times - I said "MY" opinion. Using your reasoning, you shouldn't say "You're and idiot", 'cause you don't know me!

Maybe you SHOULD GET A TV SO YOU CAN SEE WHAT IS REALLY GOING ON IN THE WORLD!

Please follow the COH.

LOL! You should be a politictian Will. All you do is watch TV. You don't watch TV? You should watch more TV. Yeah, that's the ticket!

Ouch--Please refrain from personal attacks, per the Code of Honor.

Funny that we've had an actor president whom Republicans consider just shy of canonization and no one seems to remember him as an actor.

Part of why people don't remember Reagan as an actor was because he was a B-list actor at best.

Check out The Killers. It's a movie based on an Ernest Hemingway story. It's a pretty good flick, it even has Lee Marvin in it. And it has the distinction of being the only movie that Ronald Reagan is the bad guy in it. Criterion has a pretty good DVD edition that has the old and newer versions.

It's his own money. They (Pitt and Jolie) earned it, they can spend it how they want. It's their right to choose to spend that money in another country, which also happens to be the birthplace and native country of one of their children.

You have the option to donate money to your alma mater because that school has a connection to you and your life. Why don't you donate money to every college and university in the country? And so it is, they chose to give their money to support a country that has a connection to their daughter and her life.

Furthermore, they have given money to support charities and philanthropies in this country. Pitt himself has given a lot of money and a lot of his own time and labor to the greater New Orleans area relief and reconstruction efforts.

Am I on glue, or did he not just give this money to an American cause? And then there's that whole New Orleans relief and reconstruction effort he is a part of. New Orleans is still part of the United States after all.

I will also be sure to pass on your anti-foreign adoption opinion to every American I know who has adopted from abroad. I will tell my aunt and uncle that they shouldn't have adopted two kids from Ukraine and my cousin and her husband that they shouldn't have adopted their two kids from Russia. I will also tell my friend her parents shouldn't have adopted her siblings from Chile and my coworker that she shouldn't have adopted her child from Ethiopia. Let's not forget to tell John and Cindy McCain that it was a bad choice to adopt their daughter Bridget from Bangladesh.

There are thousands of children who are adopted from other countries by Americans every year. Make sure you personally attack each and every one of them for making the choice to love, parent, educate, and provide a healthy, safe life and home to these children who need someone to do that for them. Let's not forget that after their adoption, these children become Americans and grow up to contribute to our country the same way as any other American child.

Obviously you are not as smart at you think! Obama made the statement that he is going to campaigne in all 57 STATES! I dont know how long you have lived here but we have 50 STATES. The Islamic nations have 57 states! Wake up before it is too late! Its people like you that think the know everything, that really no NOTHING!

Will 534888- did Obama really say he is going to campaign in all 57 States? If so how come that hasn't been on the news big time, since everything that Palin breathes is all over the news, dissected and trashed? I am curious when he said that? I don't understand why so many think that Obama speaks the truth in what he will do, we don't know him, he just talks but we haven't seen a thing he actually does. We have seen lots that McCain has done. No one in Obama's family that I know of, has served in the military. Think of this one, Islam men do now allow women to have a say in anything, Obama totally cut down Hillary left and right, when his wife said too much she disappeared from the scene, now Palin, he is totally destroying her, he is acting like she is the enemy and running for president, it's pitiful how he treats women. There were also comments on how he talked about his grandmother, not very kindly at all, he made her out to be some sort of racist. Then imagine, he calls himself an African-American, so therefore denying his white heritage, after all he is 50/50, biracial. Oh my therefore he is also ignoring the biracial group.

Yes he did say it on the night he accepted his nomination. I was appauled that he didnt even know how many stated were in the US and he wants to be President! That remark was very scary to me as I know he is from Muslim descent. He as also written two books, Dreams of My Father and The Audacity of Hope. Here are excerpts take from HIS OWN BOOKS:

From Dreams of My Father: 'I ceased to advertise my mother's race at the age of 12 or 13, when I began to suspect that by doing so I was ingratiating myself to whites.'

From Dreams of My Father : 'I found a solace in nursing a pervasive sense of grievance and animosity against my mother's race.'

From Dreams of My Father: 'There was something about him that made me wary, a little too sure of himself, maybe. And white.'

From Dreams of My Father: 'It remained necessary to prove which side you were on, to show your loyalty to the black masses, to strike out and name names.'

From Dreams of My Father: 'I never emulate white men and brown men whose fates didn't speak to my own. It was into my father's image, the black man, son of Africa , that I'd packed all the attributes I sought in myself , the attributes of Martin and Malcolm, DuBois and Mandela.'

and last but not least...the scariest one of all:

From Audacity of Hope: 'I will stand with the Muslims should the political winds shift in an ugly direction.'

Do we really want him as OUR President! I dont think so!

Please stay on topic. This article is about Pitt and his donation, not Obama.

Not to mention that every one of those quotes has been formally debunked. It's all bull@!$%#.

nope sorry, I HAVE THE BOOKS!

I think he's sexy. I also enjoy his movies.

"Angelina Jolie was a dude..." Hillarious. Too bad she has always been female, as evidenced by the fact that she has been some what of a public figure her whole life due to having a celebrity parent.

Do you want to pay out benefits like I do as an employer for same sex marriages. I certainly do not! But as a business owner, I dont have a choice because of people like you. Gay marriages should be banned in the US as well as being able to insure a domestic partner. If you dont like the laws here, the MOVE SOMEWHERE LIKE DENMARK! Everything goes there!

Well, that's an excellent and rational response. Yes, yes I would have benefits the same. Indeed, people like me. So, please do tell, why should gay marriages be banned? And as for the if you don't like it, you can just leave, do you honestly think that's what the founding father's of this nation would want their political discourse to be?

Our founding Fathers would not agree to same sex marriages. Our constitution was based on biblical principles so I do believe if they were still here, they would agree that this is not what they meant when writing.

Will, it wouldn't cost you any more to pay the benefits of a same-sex employee couple as it would to pay the benefits of a hetero employee couple. I guess you are just a cheapo business owner.

I believe that if a couple is not of the same sex and their marriage is only recognized in certain states, then I should not have to cover them with insurance, just as I would not have to cover my neighbor just because the live next door!

will-534888 said "Do you want to pay out benefits like I do as an employer for same sex marriages. I certainly do not! But as a business owner, I dont have a choice because of people like you."

Your greed is showing. The same greed that brought down Fannie. Freddie, Lehman
I personally would boycott your business if I lived in CA

I would love you too as I wouldnt want people like you in my business!

Hey, I don't want to pay out benefits for opposite sex marriage. Why should I be expected to pay for someone else's lifestyle choice. I say ALL marriage should be banned.

Our constitution was based on biblical principles so I do believe if they were still here, they would agree that this is not what they meant when writing.

Ah yes, biblical principles like "Congress shall make no law regarding the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free practice thereof..." Making a law because God said it first is de facto endorsing a religion. Hence against the Constitution. Not to mention, what the hell are the gays doing to you?

Will, I don't think you have to worry about paying for same-sex partner benefits as it is obvious that you would never hire a homosexual.

Of course, if you overcame your prejudice and did hire a homosexual employee, you would want to give them the benefits they were legally entitled to if you actually valued that individual as an employee. If not, they will find another company who will pay and will do great work for them. If you live in a state where same-sex partner benefits are not required, then you have nothing to worry about. If you do live in a state where it is required, tough luck.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

So if they are created equal why shouldn't they have equal rights?

If it wasn't our business, he would not have publicists make sure we read about it.

Angelina has been with everybody? How was she Will?

I guess I'm not her type because she hasn't been with me.

Will, you gotta' read your Bible and not just listen to what Rush says. Jesus (remember him? He's the Son of God and one third of the Trinity) never mentioned homosexuality. He did, however, say in three of the Gospels and in the book of Romans, that a man who marries a divorced woman is committing adultery. Do you have a problem with paying for benefits to spouses of remarried, previously divorced employees? Don't use the Bible to justify your own prejudices! I strongly advise you to read Matthew 7:22-24. Now, if you want to go only by what is in the Old Testament, then you had better be living your own life following the Law.

awww. You are so mistaken. There are several verses in the Bible where is clearly states a marriage is between a man and a women. God created Adam and Eve, NOT ADAM AND STEVE!

I pretty sure the Bible also teaches us to love our neighbor and respect all. If you believe that same-sex couples are going straight to hades, that's your belief. However if that is the case, they aren't taking the rest of us with them, so leave them alone. They make their choices, and we make ours.

Personally, I believe that God created us exactly as we are, which means that God also created some people to be homosexual, the way he created some people to be born with disabilities, brown hair, pale skin, or hairy backs. It's your job as a Christian to learn to live with and help everyone, not to condemn them. Leave the final judgement to the one you pray to.

Will, First off, don't just say there are verses, give us some. Second, the Church's stance really should be based on John 18:36: "My kingdom is not of this world. If it were, my servants would fight to prevent my arrest by the Jews. But now my kingdom is from another place." The believers in this country really do need to learn their history about what happened in Europe when the Church and the state were one. So, the Church should stay out of earthly government.

Did you ever see same sex marriage in the Bible?

What about David and Jonathon?

I totally AGREE with you!

Any reason what others believe holds no sway here? In a democracy? How do you justify not allowing the rights to one group (homosexuals) that another group (heterosexuals) enjoy?

Well stated.

How much are you donating?

Five million dollars.
Link

They are donating it to charities and philanthropies here in the USA, and even to diaster relief efforts as evidenced by their work in New Orleans. It is their money to spend and donate as they choose, not based on the selfish opinions of random internet posters. How nice of them to share it with multiple countries (including the USA) for the betterment of humanity everywhere.

"Norm"- who are YOU to define the "norm"? And I don't "hate" those who stand for what they believe in and yes I do think that people should have their views and opinions on issues like this but I think you are narrow-minded and the world is not just for you and your lopsided philosophy. And please don't call me sweetheart. We are not friends and probably won't be. The premise of my argument is not "if you don't like what i want, you must be a bigot or a racist!" but "if you don't like what i want, then don't start defining terms like the "norm", "deviation" and stop trying to get people to think the same way as you". DO you really think we (homosexuals) go out and actually "recruit" heterosexuals, like you, to think the same way as we do? NO, we don't because we are NOT looking for your APPROVAL of anything. If you think we want to BE LIKE YOU, you must be on some kind of drugs. We don't want to be like you, believe me. WE WANT WHAT IS SOLELY OURS, OUR RIGHTS OF LIBERTY! What kind of science are you relying to come to a conclusion that being GAY is an aberration. LET ME ANSWER THAT, SCIENTOLOGY, perhaps. Unfortunately, with good souls like Brad Pitt, this fight for the cause has turned from being a "one-note song" to a FULL ORCHESTRA SYMPHONY! Whether you like it or not.
Just as a side note, maybe one day your grandchildren, if not your children, will come to you and tell you that he/she is gay. Or maybe someone who is really close to you. What will you do? Tell them that they will go to hell because you think that it is an "aberration". Believe me because it will happen.

You also have to think about this in the negative aspect of things. Don't people who oppose gay marriage have better things to focus on?

JustinPM...It is possible you have a valid reason that Gay and Lesbian couples should be married in the eyes of the state. I have yet to hear a reason that validate the need to the point of making special interest legislation. Please enlighten me.

I am a heterosexual, I celebrated my marriage in the Church 12 1/2 years ago. I received a license from my state 12 1/2 years ago. I am married in the church and licensed by the state. I could care less what the state calls it as long as it is not confused with my Christian right to marriage.

And if there was a pending proposition to amend the state's constitution to invalidate your right "Christian" right to marriage, would you be bothered by it? Or would you say, "That's okay", my former right was just "special interest legislation"? And, pet peeve here, how much less COULD you care? It's just my guess, but did you mean "I COULDN'T care less"?

man from Uncle...The state represents no authority in my church to denigrate my marriage. That is part of the whole church and state separation.

Now if they want to cancel my license then my darling dear one and I could choose the legal route to assure our cohabitation rights. We could also ditch the marriage tax benefit and file separately. As I am not employed, because I am a stay at home mom, I could file taxes with no income, claiming my three children as dependents and clean up on entitlement programs.

Now, I actually could possibly care less. I can empathize with the hardship of same sex couples to exercise legal authority for their partner. I can empathize with the frustration of not being covered by a committed partners insurance. I can empathize with the need to make sure that a partner is cared for after death or separation. These however, are not rights guaranteed me by the church rather by the state license.

I don't get the chip people carry about the importance of having a "Marriage". Why is it important to attack the Church in order to receive comparable states rights?

The Church is attacked when it's members use it as an excuse to deny equal rights for all citizens.

Now, Will, name calling is the last resort of someone who has no hard facts to back up his argument.

will-534888...I take it you are not Methodist. Perhaps Baptist or do you represent one of those groups that bites the heads off snakes? Maybe you profess to have a direct line to God?

txmom32, Amen to what you are saying. The sanctity of marriage has been preserved by the church for over 2 thousand years, and we don't need legislation redefining it. If the gay community wants equality, then they should create their own terminology for their own alliances and leave mine alone.

As for Mr. Pitt and his charitable work in New Orleans, that is done through his foundation rather than from his own finances.

He has pledged to match $5 million worth of contributions for the project

Link

His foundation has pledged to match. This is money that comes from fundraising, not from his own pocket.

Sounds to me like he is pledging to match donations to the foundation. How can he use foundation funds to match donations to the foundation?

Wouldn't his foundation qualify for tax exempt status? Now how is that truly fair when it is involving itself in political issue? Maybe the IRS should just take a look see.

It is possible you have a valid reason that Gay and Lesbian couples should be married in the eyes of the state. I have yet to hear a reason that validate the need to the point of making special interest legislation. Please enlighten me.

I have yet to hear a reason the government controls marriage.

You are such a stupid person. You are surely a Methodist!

Please abide by the CoH, #1.

Cubs fan, okay, we'll create our own terminology rather than use the one preserved by the Church for over 2 thousand years. Maybe we'll use the one that Chinese society (definitely NOT a Christian society) has been using for, hmm, about 3 thousand years, at the very least. Now, what is the English translation for the word they use? . . . OH, it's MARRIAGE! Whoops, you'd better give the term back!

SteveHouse. The Government should not control marriage. Marriage is a Faith based tenant. The License offered by the state is a tool to instill legal rights for couples. There is no reason that tool could not be extended to include committed same sex unions (all the people). So we could as a nation consider taking marriage related legislation and converting it to partner legislation. This would offend no one and allow personal inequities to be met.

The objection I have is my marriage (the vow I made to my partner, my sacred promise, to state to God my intentions to love and honor my Husband) is not something I care to have confused with my legal rights bestowed by my state.

I am very tired of Gay and Lesbian groups assaulting my faith based marriage in order to get states rights they should not be denied. I'm all for separation of Church and State. I have no problem with a Gay or Lesbian couple taking marriage vows in a Church if it is truly for spiritual reasons and a part of their litany. I would like Gay and Lesbian organizations to stop mocking my commitment to my opposite sex partner.

Case in point-have you ever heard a straight person call a press conference to announce that they are heterosexual and for everyone to accept their lifestyle?

Oh come on. Do you expect white leaders in the 60s to have needed to announce their whiteness and ask for acceptance? When it comes to having to push for people to accept a lifestyle that isn't hurting anyone, that usually is a sign of oppression.

Throughout my working career (going on 40 years), I have subsidized YOUR lifestyle. If you are a worker with a husband or wife, and you die, MY social security tax dollars will help support your spouse and children. If you have a non-working spouse, MY tax dollars allow you to claim him or her as a dependent on your income tax. If you have children, MY tax dollars allow you to claim them as dependents on your income tax. MY tax dollars pay for educating your children. I don't have a partner, but if I did and shared my employee health benefits with him/her, those benefits would be taxable on the part of my partner. "Marriage" is the key to equality with sharing benefits, joint property rights, and medical and funeral decisions. If you don't want us to have equal rights, then I would suggest one of two things: 1. Give us a hefty tax deduction to counter-act all the years of us subsidizing your lifestyle, or 2. Do away with survivor benefits for social security, do away with income tax deductions for spouses and children andfinally, tax the health benefits that are given to spouses and children of every worker - then we can have true equality.

Please use the Reply button at the bottom of the post you're responding to. It makes the thread easier to follow.