You can purchase an autographed copy of Anything But Straight by sending a $35 check or money order to:
-------------------------
Wayne Besen
PO Box 25491
Brooklyn, NY 11202
Brad Pitt has said that he won't marry Angelina Jolie until the laws over marriage are changed in America. Pitt told Esquire magazine: "Angie and I will consider tying the knot when everyone else in the country who wants to be married is legally able."
This is not just a Hollywood story, but a much bigger deal. In their zeal to "protect marriage" social conservatives have actually degraded the institution and made it less appealing for thinking straights. Increasingly, we are going to see people who view marriage as defined only by who it excludes, rather than for its merits. If marriage is seen as an unfair and discriminatory, it will have been greatly devalued and less families will participate.
Once again, the right wing is screwing up a good thing in the name of "family values."
14 Comments:
I'm sure Angelina Jolie is the prime motivator here. I applaud and appreciate the socio-political statement she and Brad Pitt are trying to make, but frankly, I don't want Brangelina or any other heterosexual couple and their children to miss out on the rights and privileges conveyed by legal union. With my blessing, they should go ahead and wed, but otherwise continue the fight for marriage equality.
posted by Stuffed Animal, at
9/10/2006 3:38 PM
I am a member of the clergy in a small church that equally recognizes same-sex and opposite-sex marriages. We use the term marriage for same-sex marriages regardless of state recognition, as we regard them as sacramentally valid. I will officiate at a heterosexual wedding in October where the couple is asking their guests to donate to Freedom to Marry to promote legal recognition of same-sex marriages -- I think that may be one way to go to raise consciousness.
posted by Tim Cravens, at
9/11/2006 10:01 AM
Someone asked elsewhere: How useful is their stand going to be?
How many people are going to say: "Ya know, I HATE the idea of same-sex couples, triples, whatever marrying but if it's preventing these two from getting hitched, I've gotta change my mind..."
More likely it's the same old same ol'...Brad's not man enough to make the decision to want to give up his perceived freedom and tie the knot (or maybe he knows deep down he really doesn't want to get married again, or just to marry Ms. Jolie) and this is a convenient excuse to hold off on making the decision.
I'm glad they made a stand. Though are they getting married in another country?
posted by Anonymous, at
9/11/2006 1:15 PM
Perhaps the most positive thing about their decision is that it may encourage others to do the same.
I read an article about a year ago about straight couples in the SF bay area making the same decision. I was very pleased to read a quote from one woman who said that her role models for a healthy relationship were two men. I was further pleased to realize that I knew them and that both she and one of the men had been roommates of mine in the late 80's and to discover that Rich and Chris (with whom I'd lost touch) were still together.
And while folks may dismiss the Brad and Angelina decision as being "hollywood" or a convenient excuse or unimportant to them, it's harder to be dismissive or cynical when its your own friend or family member.
Ducky's family may not care about Brad Pitt's wedding, but I'm certain that they care about hers.
posted by Timothy Kincaid, at
9/11/2006 3:31 PM
I don't necessarily think that other straight couples have to decide to follow Pitt's lead in order for this to have been a really helpful development. What it does, probably more so than inspiring others to take a similar pledge, is to keep the issue of same-sex marriage in the spotlight, and associate it with people who are beautiful and cool. Yikes, go to the supermarket sometime, they don't have Evan Wolfson's picture on all those checkout magazines, KWIM? There is a big segment of the population that is hugely interested in what Brad and Angelina are doing and saying at any given moment, and if his "no marriage pledge" brings the marriage issue to the forefront of their minds, and in a positive way, that's a wonderful thing.
No one is asking for "triples or whatever" to marry. We want equal rights, not special privilages. Gay marriage should be the same as straight marraige. Straights are not allowed poligamy and gays shouldn't be allowed poligamy either. Just equality, right down the board. Yeah, I picked it out. It's religious right rhetoric. If that's not what you meant, please feel free to correct me.
posted by jekelhyde, at
9/12/2006 8:49 PM
polygamous marriage will never be legal any more than incest or pederastic marriage will. Because these involve more than just moral objection, to legalize these unions would be to sanction abuse. Abuse was the reason the federal government went so forcefully after the mormons, the women in these marriages complained to senators and the president about the widespread abuse in these marriages. The government outlawed them not because of hatred of mormons, but to stop the abuse of these women. And a man can't marry a dog or a child because they can not consent to marriage. So the rights assertion of a slippery slope is utter bullshit. Just like the opposition to letting gays serve openly is silly too. If these conservatives really believed that it would lower morale for troops, then why support Israel, they let gays serve openly, so to support that country is endorsing homosexuals in the military.
posted by Adam Kautz, at
9/13/2006 5:20 AM
I don't know what a "Side B" FOF person is... sorry. I guess I should!
But I do think that folks who attend conservative churches or follow a religious right line on social issues DO also read the Star, watch ET, and are interested in celebrities. It seems like everyone in America is fascinated with celebrities. I am sure there are some religious conservatives who shun that interest, just like there are many people on the more liberal side of the spectrum who also claim disinterest, maybe for different reasons, but overall, yeah, somebody is buying all those magazines, and I don't think it's just the Unitarians!
"Side B" is the descriptor used at websites such as gaychristian.net for a Christian who believes that it is not sinful for a person to have a homosexual orientation, but that it is sinful for that person (or any person, I suppose) to engage in homosexual relations. A gay person who follows this Christian doctrine would be expected to be celibate for life, but could still identify as gay.
"Side A" is the descriptor in these web communities for a person who sees no biblical conflict against homosexuals in loving, committed, monogamous relationships.
Though Focus On the Family (FOF) would certainly be more sympathetic to the Side B view point, I suspect that even that does not fit in neatly enough with their theology of ex-gays ("Side X"?).
posted by Buddy Cole, at
9/13/2006 12:43 PM
Christians who read gossip magazines are not practicing christianity as gossip is not correct. (That would be in proverbs under things to avoid and also under the ten commandments of false witness) Watch out for those who do. Also, FOF ( a group whom I do not agree with in their mission statment) but anyhow - will accept a person who has homosexual feelings and does not act on them.
posted by Anonymous, at
9/13/2006 1:35 PM
"Also, FOF ( a group whom I do not agree with in their mission statment) but anyhow - will accept a person who has homosexual feelings and does not act on them."
Actually, Anon, that isn't correct.
FOTF will only accept those who reject a "gay identity". Simple celibacy is not enough.
posted by Timothy Kincaid, at
9/13/2006 1:50 PM
