The Animation Guild's Executive Board has voted in favor of the following:
The Animation Guild, Local 839 IATSE endorses the Respect for Marriage Act and urges Congress to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act ("DoMA"), because DoMA adversely impacts our gay and lesbian members' health and pension benefits. ...
Generally speaking, the Animation Guild doesn't endorse a lot of candidates or legislation. But in this case, the Motion Picture Industry Health and Pension Plan follows federal law (DoMA) which negatively impacts our members.
The law as it stands doesn't negatively impact heterosexual married couples, but does damage to same-sex couples; they have to jump through more bureaucratic hoops and wait longer for health coverage than heteros.
Personally, I've always thought the Defense of Marriage Act was stupid. I never thought my marriage needed defending by the Feds.
In any event, the Guild's executive board has now made its position known, which I think is a good thing. I've seen the pain DoMA has caused, so the sooner it's thrown into the dustbin of yesterday, the better.
Posts
54 comments:
Boo hoo, they have to jump through a few more hoops than heteroes do to have some of the same health benefits. So what? They have to jump through a few more hoops than heteros do to have a child.
This farce about homosexual relationships being as valid and vital as heterosexual relationships has gotten out of hand. I don't care what people do in the privacy of their homes, or who shacks up with who. But the fact is that the male/female bond rules the natural world, and, in truth, the human world as well. And the male-female bond is what marriage was created for - it's the bond that keeps life going. It deserves a special regard, special rites and traditions. Why can't homosexuals create their own word/rites/traditions for their bonds, instead of trying to pretend there's no difference and claim that homosexual bonds are equal in importance to heterosexual bonds when in fact and in truth that's a goddamn lie?
Not EVERYTHING has to be equal to EVERYTHING else, or the same as everything else. There's a troubling homogenization of society taking place, where everything has to be regarded as equal or the same as everything else. Thus enforcing mediocrity and lack of true identity. It's like that line from The Incredibles: "When everyone's super...no-one will be." Screw it, and screw the march towards social engineering - "justice", if you like - that Mr. Hope and Change is helping to champion. Thank god he'll be outta there in a few months. Go Santorum!
It upsets me greatly that people like you are a part of this world, Anon #1. Hide behind your anonymity and say the hateful things you want to say.
America was founded on a society devoid of one particular set of religious values. That was the goal at least. The "bond" you're referring to is one of an Abrahamic religion, in particular - Christianity. And what's so valid about a heterosexual marriage considering the 50-plus percent divorce rate. Damn, the sanctity of marriage is sure being violated by those horrible gays, huh?
Homosexuals have every right to be married. And yes, congratulations on realizing that the human race is dominated by heterosexuals. Did you know however that homosexuality is rampant throughout nature?
I also hope you can come to the conclusion that treating people with equality is not a bad thing. You're mentality is strikingly similar to the mentality on slavery and equal rights for black people. Brad Bird would be thoroughly upset with your use of his movie quotes.
Man, I seriously dislike people like you.
^LOL...aren't heterophobes silly? They're such haters. "You pathetic, homophobic piece of crap"? Yeah, there's love and tolerance for you.
Like they say...no one hates, oppresses, stereotypes and libels like the left.
"Wrong side of history"? What's that mean? If you think the states which legalized gay marriage without putting it to a fair vote, the states which denied the portion of the population marriage was created for any say in the matter, is being on the "right side of history", you'd love the Third Reich, the supporters of which also believed they were on the right side of history, and which didn't want people of opposite opinion voting on its mandate either.
I'm proud to live in a state where my view on the matter was counted, instead of brushed aside by elitist dunderheads and "impartial" (read: gay) judges. Oh, and I'm not religious, so you can skip flinging badly-quoted and barely-understood Bible verses at me, in a vain attempt to show me what a hypocrite Christian I am. That ploy just makes me laugh.
And you might note that I had the class not to stoop to name-calling. That's how narrow-minded and bigoted I am.
What's really nifty about this is that eventually when it becomes mandatorally legal through all states, that is these UNITED STATES, it will become prevalent education throughout the school system starting from pre-school. This will enable kids to find themselves sooner through our society rituals like Valentines Day, in which they can openly card their targets, such as anonymous #1(Or his darling, cherubic little boy, who beyond his control and ignorance, might be a gay too). This will lead to a normallizing of the young gays growing up and becoming our state and country leaders in the future.(Who knows, maybe even the leader of the cartoonist union...then SOMETHING GOOD might actually get done, lol!)
Who ever thought we'd have a colored President in the Whitehouse 30 years ago?
Two people loving each other. This what you're spending you're time thinking about? How does it hurt you? I really do not understand.
I just hate humans, I can't wait for the robots to take over.
"Personally, I've always thought the Defense of Marriage Act was stupid. I never thought my marriage needed defending by the Feds."
Steve, if I understand you correctly you are saying that the Feds should not impose the "Defense of Marriage Act" because it is "stupid" (according to your value system) , but the Feds SHOULD impose the "Respect for Marriage Act".
So, you're not opposed to the Feds imposing a system of morality on the citizenry , as long as it is a system of morality you agree with ?
"But the fact is..."
The FACT is, muther-f-er, that nature rules. Not man made scribbles.
Anti-gay #1:
Could you explain why, in your preferred world, left-handed people shouldn't also be barred from receiving equal treatment under the law?
Or do you think that left-handers, having made their abnormal, decadent lifestyle choice, *should* be barred from equal treatment under the law on the basis of their hand orientation?
I'm glad you agree with me.
How about he "No Marriage Act" Governments should have nothing to do with marriages. That is between two consenting adults and their church or spiritual beliefs or non beliefs.
The government should only recognize civil contracts which would be available to all regardless of sexual orientation. This allows the legal rights that come into question.
Let individuals decide what "marriage" is.
Everything evolves, even marriage.
Polygamy used to be the norm. Also, if your brother died, you used to be obligated to marry his wife, unless she was barren, then you could just toss her out.
You used to be able to stone your wife for committing adultery.
So I see no problem with two same sexed people getting married. Filing joint taxes, taking each others names, having hospital visitation rights. Adopting children. Having their union be recognized by the state. My rights aren't infringed upon. So where's the issue?
Marriage doesn't need defending, except perhaps from divorce.
And Anon #1, what traditional marriage are you defending, anyway? Marriage has, for most of history, been a financial transaction between families - it still is in much of the world. It was/is an economic contract codified into law, not much different than a contract written up between two businesses, or between an employer and an employee. Would you prefer to define it as it was originally intended? I don't think you would, and I think most conservatives would reject that position as well. Stop being so naive and blind over what basically comes down to semantics. Stop being a luddite.
There was a comment about putting marriage equality to a "fair vote". In some (most) parts of this country, civil rights are not to be voted on.
Had they been left up to voters of the 1960s, neither miscegenation laws nor "Jim Crow" laws would have been stricken down; those laws were changed by federal and judicial force.
Anonymous at 9:44 PM is a good case for moderating the comments on this blog.
Haha! A nazi comparison in no more than 4 posts! Wow! Is that a new record?
Actually "Nature rules" sounds more like what the nazis believed in, thinking that one race should dominate the other (and ofcourse the nazis were homophobic too).
Fact of the matter is, if you believe not all people should have the same rights, you're living in the stone age, where nature really did rule. If you're willing to allow everone to have the same rights, then welcome to the now, where civilization rules.
Homosexuality is not a morality issue.
Morality deals only with how a person treats others.
Social mores, on the other hand, are not issues of morality.
Since homosexuality itself does not inherently affect how people treat each other, and only affects other, consenting gay people, it is morally neutral. Like being left-handed.
But the fact is that the male/female bond rules the natural world, and, in truth, the human world as well. And the male-female bond is what marriage was created for
It's all arbitrary, anon.
I'm fine with churches marrying or not marrying whoever they want to. I'm talking about state marriage licenses.
At present, events are moving against the homophobes who know how things are supposed to be. And when these folks no longer have the juice to mold the laws to their liking, then another system will prevail.
But remember: it's all temporary.
... you're not opposed to the Feds imposing a system of morality on the citizenry , as long as it is a system of morality you agree with? ...
I'm in favor of the Feds getting out of the morality business as it regards marriage.
If two men want a marriage license, fine. If a man and a woman want a marriage license, okay. And if two women want a marriage license, that's okay too.
I'm also down with the state getting out out of the marriage license business and just issuing civil union contracts to paired couples who want them.
Let churches, synagogues, and mosques marry those they want to.
I'm glad we live in a Secular nation. People should marry whoever they want. When churches pay taxes, the can open their yap. Until then, zip it up and keep it in your rectory.
--> But the fact is that the male/female bond rules the natural world...
Rules? Nope.
Same sex activity is widespread in the animai world. Spend some research time looking it up. The information is there when you look for it.
Or you can burn all those research scientists at the stake.
Whichever.
Whitney Houston is dead. I feel so gay.
"Same sex activity is widespread in the animal world..."
The animal world is full of bizarre behavior. Not the best place to go to justify human behavior.
The animal world shows what is natural--because it is nature itself.
When heterosexuals engage in their heterosexuality, they are engaging in animal behavior. Humans, after all, are animals--no more, no less.
Animals make no conscious "choice" about their sexuality. They simply do what is natural. If a small percentage of ALL populations, human and animal, engage in homosexuality, that demonstrates that this phenomenon is a part of the natural world, and natural biology.
"The animal world is full of bizarre behavior. Not the best place to go to justify human behavior. "
So is the hetero world. Amazing how quick the homophobes tried to point to animal behavior when they thought it served their purposes, but now they don't care.
It seems to me there have been case studies that most homophobes are just tightly closeted Gays. At least that seems to hold true in politics.
Humans after all are animals--no more, no less.
I guess its becoming quaint to believe that humans are noble and have a higher purpose and destiny than the animals.
Who would ever believe THAT? We're the same.
There's not been a cogent argument made against same sex marriage that hasn't included religion of some sort.
That ends it right now. Gay Marriage should be 100% Allowed and Legal.
"I guess its becoming quaint to believe that humans are noble and have a higher purpose and destiny than the animals."
Please join this millennium. Please, I beg you. You are an animal just like any other. You are just another speck in the chain of life in the vastness of the cosmos. You matter no more to god than a cockroach. IN fact, god obviously values them more, as they will likely be wandering this earth much longer. The sooner you accept that, the better for all of us. You are as flawed a lump of flesh as any other organism emerging from the slime. Time to grow up. And no, you don't get to go to a heaven specially made for humanity. You will have to sit next to the cockroach you stepped on, too. Sorry to break it to you.
Is your life that empty and pathetic or are you joking?
Is your life that empty and pathetic or are you joking?
I'm sorry for you that the only meaning in your life depends on believing in man-made mythology.
In fact, it is only when you stop leaning on the crutch of your Santa-Claus-for-adults that you will be able to appreciate life as it really is.
Life is far more wondrous once you stop falling for silly, fictional, man-made fairytales, and see the brilliance of the natural world as it came about naturally. And yes, we humans are simply members of the animal kingdom--mammals, in fact. Nature evolved a more complex brain for you than any other species--try using it now.
"... or are you joking?"
Odd. People like you usually don't have a sense of humor. But I appreciate you projecting the possibility that I was joking. Keep going with that feeling, reaching for the funny, you'll start evolving like the rest of us. Great inspiration lies ahead for you yet.
To the person above schooling the religious person, well done. I used to be religious as well and thought my religion gave my life meaning. I know better now, and have been so much happier ever since.
Who knows what happens when we die, but I sure won't waste one second worrying about it here on earth. Besides, if there IS a god, I'd like to think it'd be intelligent enough to know that curiosity and the quest for knowledge and discovery about the universe (and the subsequent evolution of society and morality on earth) is a more rewardable trait than criticizing others for not believing their particular brand of fairy tale book.
In any case, god is probably Zeus and we're all doomed to the underworld for stopping believing 2000 years ago
First off we all know the union will only support a democrat so Steve you aren't fooling anyone by saying it is not often we support,you always and only support liberals. The people of liberal California have voted twice now about gay marriage and it was loud and clear, even our left winged state does not recognize it yet it gets tossed. Being the people have no voice then expect them not to hear us on taxes as well. Being gay is not a civil right like everyone claims. How did a sexual preference become a civil issue. People say they are born gay and we need to accept then you better start accepting child molesters as well. They say they are born that way, in fact you better allow every type of sexual variation because if you accept one because they claim they are born that way then you will need to accept everyone. You liberals wouldn't accept child molesters or sex with animals etc. gays push for these rights because they want us to believe it is normal, be gay fine but it isn't normal and not everyone needs to agree that it is. I work in animation and work with gay people and have no problem with them but I do have a problem being told I cannot speak out that I don't agree with it. Let the haters comments start flying at me but someone needs to say these things. I a glad that anim 1 spoke up we need more people like them.
to the first homophobic commenter, MIND YOUR OWN DAMM BUSSINESS!!!
anon at 3:22 hit the nail in the head.
What I have come to realize, is that people of religious persuation think 'gayness' is a choice. I myself do not know wether it is a choice or if there was a biological cause . Studies are still on going on this issue, but it looks to me like is not a choice for the most part.
As a straight dude, I say we should all be equal under the law. And that if two adults want to tie the knot, then so be it. It doesnt bother me or anybody else.
It's a red herring to equate same sex marriage to bestiality and pedophilia. One involves two consenting adults, the other does not! Besides, was'nt Moses married to a 9 year old? Did she consent? Didnt Solomon have like hundreds of wives and concubines??!?
el diablo
It's a red herring to equate same sex marriage to bestiality and pedophilia. One involves two consenting adults, the other does not!
Bingo.
So if an adult and a child consent then it is ok? Also could you show where Moses was married to a 9 year old, thats a new one. Also no one said that Solomon having 700 wives and 300 prostitutes was a good thing. He himself said it was what destroyed him so those two points you gave are moot. No one is equating being gay to a pedophile or anything. All that is being said is that a sexual preference is just that a preference but then how does society say one is bad and one is fine? You start going down a road and one might not be able to turn back.
The prophet Muhammad married Aisha when she was 6 and consummated the marriage when she was age 9. It was not Moses. Get your religions straight!
By definition, a child cannot consent.
Dumbass.
Go ahead, keep arguing the point. You'll either "get it" or keep losing.
It is you who does not get it sadly enough, by someone saying they cant help being gay they are just born that way and people accepting it as normal than where do you draw the line with what is normal just because someone says they cant help it and they are born a certain way wanting a certain type of sexual prefernce. No matter how you see, any type of sex wether you agree with it or not is a preference. If you are accepting one type than at some point down the road the issue will be brought up that other sorts of preferences are "normal" and people just need to accept it. Where do you draw the line then. I am in no way saying a pedophile is good, absolutely not but following the chain of thoughts about being gay than any other person of a sexual preference could do so as well.
God you're stupid.
The line is drawn when the sex act (preference or not) is not consensual.
An animal cant consent. A child cant consent. But two grown adults CAN, and should be able to get married if they want. The end.
Besides, you're dwelling so much on the act of sex itself, that you're forgetting about love and partnership, and that being recognized by the government. THATS what this is about.
Here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CbmbdWK6338
PS) normal is subjective and constantly changing.
"David's son King Solomon broke the record with seven hundred wives and three hundred concubines. Abraham had three,and Jacob had two at the same time. In total, more than 40 biblical patriarcs had multiple occurring matrimonial arrangements." quote from 'God's Lunatics'
also
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polygamy_in_Christianity
Not that I'm encouraging having multiple wives. I think one is headache enough....
el diablo
It suddenly got quiet.
Thanks to Steve and the board for voting in favor of supporting repeal of DOMA and these disciminatory laws that exist in our country.
I love how the liberals who call themselves opened minded don't want to hear an argument from the other side. It makes them soooo mad that they have to ridicule just to say a point. Go ahead and argue but don't revert to high school name calling. Also how did people having x amount of wives in the bible get into this talk?
Being open-minded doesnt can also mean being aggressive and hostile to people who arent open minded. (aka backward and not progressive)
Oops. typos. Nix the "doesnt"
First off we all know the union will only support a democrat so Steve you aren't fooling anyone by saying it is not often we support,you always and only support liberals.
I voted for Ronald Reagan and Richard Milhouse Nixon.
I think that undercuts your argument a little, don't you?
I love how the liberals who call themselves opened minded don't want to hear an argument from the other side.
We've heard your argument. It's weak, and doesn't stand up to either moral or legal scrutiny.
If you only have a weak argument, expect to get called on it. And the anti-gays have a very weak argument.
I didn't see any namecalling, by the way. Not sure where that came from.
Your own bible shows that marriage has changed and evolved over the years. The bible absolutely does speak approvingly of polygamy, as many exalted biblical figures had multiple wives. It was just how things were done back then. Times change.
Nobody has ever given me a logic-based argument why the State should use the iron fist of Government to prevent the freedom and liberty of two non-related, consenting adult US citizens from marrying, if they so choose. A logic-based argument cannot include fallacies such as slippery-slopes, ad hominems, appeals to tradition, or religious myth. Go ahead, if you have an actual logic-based argument, bring it on.
Quote: "I love how the liberals who call themselves opened minded don't want to hear an argument from the other side."
What argument?? I don't see it. Do you mean the "nature rules" thing? Hasn't that been addressed despite its luducrousy?
So you have an instinctive opposition against the idea of two people of the same sex wanting to have sex. I can understand that. Not that i have it myself, but I do have a similair aversion with other sorts of people (strict religious people for example). But it's not about the sexual preference or what they do in the privacy of their own home. It's about all adults with a will to marry having the equal right to do so, as long as both parties consent. In a society you live with different (sorts of) people. If you feel you should have rights in a society, then at least allow others in the same society the same rights. It's called civilization.
I've never understood why this should be a religious thing and why one would want to believe in a doctrine so contradictive it says 'God sees all people as equal' and 'love thy neighbour' on the one hand and withholds others from obtaining equal rights on the other.
Comparing gay people to child molesters and homosexuality to bestiality is so ridiculous, it's not only ignorant, but very offensive as well. In fact, I bet a lot of child molesters are married, having the exact rights you wouldn't allow homosexuals to have.
It all comes down to this: if you're willing to rely on rights you have, but won't allow others to obtain the same rights, you're a fraud. (Especially in God's eyes, from what I've learned.)
anon 12:49...That's a great response!!
e. d.
"This farce about homosexual relationships being as valid and vital as heterosexual relationships has gotten out of hand."
A release for something repressed perhaps ?
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-big-questions/201106/homophobic-men-most-aroused-gay-male-porn
"Heterosexual men with the most anti-gay attitudes, when asked, reported not being sexually aroused by gay male sex videos. But, their bodies reported otherwise."
^ Are you really citing "Psychology Today" in an argument that there is no difference between the sexes?
That is ignorance defined. Freud wrote volumes about the differences between men and women. You proponents of gender keep spouting that gender doesn't matter and that gay marriage should not be separate but equal.
Men and women ARE separate but equal. Every time you use a public restroom you invest in that belief. Every sitting judge in our legal system gives preference to women in child custody cases because the genders are different.
Gay marriage has been voted down EVERY time it has been put to a vote.
I think homosexuals are going about this all wrong. If this were truly about the rights of homosexuals to receive health care and other benefits, then they would be fighting for those benefits under their Domestic Partnerships. At the state and federal level.
Instead, they are fighting to have the government redefine the meaning of a word that the majority of Americans do not want redefined.
I understand that marriage means something different to me than it does to you.
I also understand that homosexuals who choose to live that life style should be able to have the same health care benefits that are given to heterosexuals.
But, we need to have respect for each others differences. We need to work together to find a solution that will accommodate both sides.
I believe the solutions is removing the government from our social lives.
Until we can work together to limit the governments roll in our lives, we will remain divided. The bigger the government, the smaller the individual.
I'm sad to see my union pick a side in a divisive war. I believe unions should stay out of politics because politics tend to alienate people with different views. I'm also sad to see my fellow artists belittle others because of their religion. Until we can learn to come together and help each other, I do not wish to be a part of this "union".
For me, marriage will always be one man and one woman. Not the government, or you, can change that.
For me, gay will always mean happy.
When we stop fighting each other, and accept our differences, we will all be a little more gay.
Steve,
can you post on here to whom we should send our letter of resignation? (Financial Core?) Also, is there a policy concerning when and to whom Beck objections should be submitted?
I think the information would be helpful to those of us who do not agree with the unions politics.
Post a Comment