On Monday’s CBS Early Show, co-host Harry Smith played a clip of himself talking to left-wing actor Sean Penn following the Oscars Sunday night: "In a night full of first-time winners, Sean Penn took home his second Oscar as best actor for his emotional performance as slain gay civil rights activist Harvey Milk in Milk. I caught up with him and other big winners at the Governor's Ball." During the interview, Smith admitted to Penn: "As I sat watching the film, seems to happen to me more rare these days, but I wept openly during several scenes in the film because it really is a film about a civil rights movement." On December 10, Smith interviewed Penn’s Milk co-star, James Franco, and called the film "a must-see."
Earlier in the broadcast, a clip was played of Penn describing his feeling’s about the Oscar win during a press conference after the award show: "That means a lot to myself and to everybody involved, not only in the movie, but to anybody who believes in equal rights for other human beings." However, no clip was played of Penn’s actual acceptance speech, in which he declared: "I think it is a good time for those who voted for the ban against gay marriage to sit and reflect, and anticipate their great shame and the shame in their grandchildren’s eyes if they continue that way of support. We’ve got to have equal rights for everyone."
—Kyle Drennen is a news analyst at the Media Research Center.
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
Men in the Media
February 23, 2009 - 11:43 ET by GothampcCan we please get some real men in the media? I'm sick of these girlie men metrosexual types with thrills up their legs and open weeping.
You weenie men in the media need to take some tips from Helen Thomas and butch it up a little.
He's already way out of the closet
February 23, 2009 - 11:49 ET by SickofLibsBig deal - Harriet blubbers over Fancy Feast commercials.
Good thing I wasn't
February 23, 2009 - 11:51 ET by MichelleCGood thing I wasn't drinking something as I read that last line! Priceless!
Republicans believe every day is the 4th of July. Democrats believe every day is April 15th ~ Ronald Reagan
Michelle... I'm laughing
February 23, 2009 - 12:11 ET by bigtimerMichelle...
I'm laughing too...and I also am glad I had already took my last sip of coffee before reading this.
Good work SoL...
Shame, no, sham, yes
February 23, 2009 - 11:47 ET by legacyrepublicanYears from now my grandchildren will regard this debate as a sham, not a shame.
Where is Grand Torino
February 23, 2009 - 11:54 ET by jbeeebI had tears at the end of Grand Torino...and it wasn't even nominated. Wonder why? Is Clint a bit too far to the right for our liberal movie establishment? Did the fact that it showed that people can actually rise above gang violence and make something of themselves go against the victimization posed by the left? Was it because someone could be a craggy old veteran who is not politically correct can be a hero?
Yeah...I cried
February 23, 2009 - 11:58 ET by BlondeI cried when Marley died, too.
Which is the only movie I've seen in about four years....but that's because John Grogan used to write for the local fishwrapper, so of course, Marley was kind of part of my family for a really, really long time.
How about this for Male
February 23, 2009 - 13:13 ET by motherbeltHow about this for Male emotionalism ? LOL!!
(advance to the 3:00 mark)
I didn't think it was physically possible, but this both sucks and blows. -Bart Simpson
Hollywood has nothing
February 23, 2009 - 12:08 ET by balboaHollywood has nothing against Clint Eastwood. Every year people don't get nominated that should be. There's nothing to read into it.
I just assumed Gran Torino
February 23, 2009 - 12:11 ET by JasonCI just assumed Gran Torino was released too late to be in the running this year. Didn't it just come out last month? I hate Academy Awards Shows and don't follow the logistics, but GT seems awfully recent.
JasonC
February 23, 2009 - 14:34 ET by UtherpendActually no, Gran Torino was released in limited theaters to give it time to be in the academy award nomination run. The Academy chose to ignore the film and gave Clint a very public snub for producing a pro right film. Basically Eastwood made a person who changed his community without the help of the police or governement so that put him in the class of vigilante or conservative nut job not to be exalted by the Liberal Media and Hollywood as a whole.
"If you love wealth more than liberty, the tranquillity of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, depart from us in peace. We ask not your counsel nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you."
Maybe they just didn't feel
February 23, 2009 - 16:42 ET by balboaMaybe they just didn't feel it was Oscar-worthy. Any time a conservative gets snubbed, you think it's part of left / right politics.
You mean
February 24, 2009 - 00:48 ET by ahusserSean Penn's and Tim Robinson's Oscars' a couple years back and Sean Penn's Oscar today weren't politically motiviated. Yes conservatives are snubbed and it isn't delusional.
"Somehow, I told you so, just doesn't quite say it." Will Smith in 'I, Robot.'
I have a great idea
February 23, 2009 - 12:29 ET by KC MulvilleMaybe we should put this question to, like, a vote or something. Of course, it would never pass in California, but maybe it would pass in the rest of the country.
I'm sure that these people, who are so committed to civil rights, would surely respect the democratic political process.
Ahem.
Conservative Californian
February 23, 2009 - 15:49 ET by GNConservative Californian groups do not respect the will of the people when the vote goes against them, but they demand the prop 8 vote ends this issue (even though deceptive campaining meant many Californians were voting not against gay marriage but false boogey men like homosexuality being taught in schools). They have repeatedly had propositions put on the ballot that would require parents to be informed before young women can get an abortion even though the voters continue to vote it down.
Regardless, civil rights issues and the fate of vulnerable minorities should not be left to the will of the majority. If state votes had decided the issues of interracial marriage, the ability of black people to vote, and the legality of measures like pole taxes intended to keep blacks from voting Americans would not have seen civil rights expand in many states. Determining and protecting civil rights is, as the founding fathers intended, the province of constitution and the courts.
The consent of the governed
February 23, 2009 - 16:15 ET by KC Mulville"Determining and protecting civil rights is, as the founding fathers intended, the province of constitution and the courts."
This is a liberal misunderstanding. Courts don't make the constitution. The constitution makes the courts. You need to clear up some distinctions:
As for your first argument, that conservatives keep putting the measures on the ballot that Californians vote down -- yes, but the point is that conservatives keep appealing to the will of the people. What have the liberals done when they lose? Answer: they target people using Google Earth, they hold intolerant protests, they blather from the Oscar podium about shame, etc. Why is it that a screenwriter is allowed to assure everyone that eventually the law will be changed, but when a pro-lifer hopes for the same thing, you regard it as a nuisance?
In the end, let me ask something simple: where do rights come from? I say, from the will of the people, and from nothing else. In the Bill of Rights, we voluntarily consented to protect the rights of the minority (remember, the Bill of Rights had to be ratified before they became law).
I pause for reply.
Urp!
February 23, 2009 - 11:49 ET by mizflame98It's bad when Anderson Cooper
is starting to look more manly then some of these other media men.
"Not to be a republican at twenty is proof of want of heart; to be one at thirty is proof of want of head." - Francois Guisot
Ah for the old days, when
February 23, 2009 - 14:39 ET by motherbeltAh for the old days, when men were men, and women were glad of it!!
Public tears used to be the death knell for public men. Now it's practically a requirement!!
Nowadays it's the men who seem to be proud to be tearing up publicly, and the women who don't dare!!
I didn't think it was physically possible, but this both sucks and blows. -Bart Simpson
Fortunately, "open public
February 23, 2009 - 15:29 ET by winston smithFortunately, "open public weeping" by adult males is, for the most part, still veiwed as a serious personality disorder or at the very least, childish sissy-like behavior in most of America. However, total whimp behavior is very important for sophisticated gentelmen like Smith who need to maintain their status among the elitist upper-Manhattanite, cafe society croissant-munching liberals.
Oh the Irony
February 23, 2009 - 11:58 ET by GothampcWasn't it Sean Penn that recently said that Fox News anchors were failed actors? And yet we see Harry Smith acting like he's just learned the fate of Bambi's mother.
What happened to Bambi's mother
February 23, 2009 - 12:11 ET by legacyrepublicanOh dear, something happened to Bambi's mother? Why didn't someone tell me. I will start crying cartoon tears right away so I can interview people about the issues of the day.
Okay, Mr. DeMille, now I am ready for the closeup of me interviewing Mr. Gore on the issue of global warming.
Do I cock my head Mr. DeMille so you can see my tears flow and how moved I am about saving the planet.
Yea, Gothampc, you called it. It is an act, but not worthy of an oscar. Rather, worthy of comtempt!
Equal rights for everyone?
February 23, 2009 - 12:00 ET by JesseJacksonIVAccording to the Declaration Of Independence "All men are created equal", that's how America should be. Black, white, gay, straight, man, woman. We all need the same rights. Who you share a bed with shouldn't affect your right to do anything.
great link
February 23, 2009 - 12:12 ET by SickofLibsNAMBLA and bestiality fans will be happy to hear about this.
Since it's in the Declaration of Independence and all.
You're joking, right? While
February 23, 2009 - 12:15 ET by ThisnThatYou're joking, right? While we're at it, how about young boys? Is that ok too? Or how about 3-somes, or 4 or 5 people? What's wrong with that?
On a nice summer day, what's wrong with strolling down Main Street in your birthday suit? If you're not touching anyone, then what's wrong with that? Or how about urinating in the gutter? Isn't that sewage anyway? Hell, equal rights -- to you -- means anything goes, doesn't it?
Unless you're joking -- you're a complete idiot. A civilized people has standards that keep a civil society together. And as a civilization, we get to say what are standards are, and we get to decide to keep perverts from taking over. You need to conform to society's standards, or get arrested. No way we are going to live in an "anything-goes" society. That's called anarchy.
___________________________________
The challenge is to follow a consistent plan despite inconsistent prices - Sarah Palin, State of the State of Alaska speech
Society's evolve. Fifty
February 23, 2009 - 12:47 ET by JesseJacksonIVSociety's evolve. Fifty years ago society said black people were lesser human beings and were forced to used seperate bathrooms and water fountains. Thankfully things changed.
There's a differnece between anything goes and gay rights. What's wrong with gay people having the same rights that straight people do? Giving them rights doesn't mean anarchy. Straight people aren't legally able to marry 4 or 5 people, so obvioulsy neither would gay people.
What's wrong with gay
February 23, 2009 - 13:06 ET by ThisnThatWhat's wrong with gay people having the same rights that straight people do?
You are just simply wrong. Read MB's post below. Men already have the right to marry women and vice versa -- and those rights are extended to queers. You are trying to invent other "rights" that don't exist, and you're being stupid and silly trying to spin this to death. In order to invent these other "rights", you are first trying to get us to redefine marriage. Well, it doesn't work that way. I just happen to already know the definition of marriage. I don't need people like you to try to tell me the definition is wrong and needs to be changed.
Now, try real hard not to be as stupid as you sound.
___________________________________
The challenge is to follow a consistent plan despite inconsistent prices - Sarah Palin, State of the State of Alaska speech
Actually
February 23, 2009 - 13:20 ET by ahusserThere is no "right" to marriage. Marriage is licensed by the state and as such is a regulated activity. You cannot marry your sister/brother or your mother/father your first cousin in some states and other restrictions including minimum ages (which vary) same sex unions (Hawaii and Mass. excepted?), animals, inanimate objects etc. States now will not restrict "normal" marriage based on race, creed, or national origin.
"Somehow, I told you so, just doesn't quite say it." Will Smith in 'I, Robot.'
Using a word like queer
February 23, 2009 - 13:26 ET by JesseJacksonIVUsing a word like queer shows who the stupid one is. What other rights am I trying to invent?
What harm would gay marriage do really? Half of straight marriages already end in divorce, so the sanctity of marriage argument is meaningless. The gay marriages that have already happened haven't affected my life in any way and I doubt they have affect anyone here either.
~'Who the stupid one is'
February 23, 2009 - 13:31 ET by choselife3xQueer is what they call themselves.
"We're here, we're queer, get used to it!"
In order to be pro-choice, one must first be born. Ah, the irony.
What harm would calling it civil unions do really?
February 23, 2009 - 14:19 ET by KC MulvilleThe sanctity of marriage argument is meaningless? That's no different from saying that marriage should no longer be treated as sacred. Forgive us, we don't want to lose that. If marriage was reduced to a mere business arrangement, why are gays so upset about it in the first place? They've diluted its meaning to the point of irrelevance. In the act of getting what they want, they've destroyed what they wanted.
This is exactly what the debate is about. We don't want institutions and traditions to be relativized away, so that they lose all meaning. Words have meanings. Moral institutions and traditions have meanings, and we don't want them thrown away.
It isn't that gays want to be left alone. That's already the case; no one cares if gays want to live together. No one is rounding up gays and throwing them in jail for being gay. Instead, gays are demanding that we re-define the traditional meaning of marriage to give them as much social respect as society reserves for marriages with children. With tax breaks.
"What harm would gay
February 23, 2009 - 14:54 ET by NL207"What harm would gay marriage do really?"
Simple. It extends not just an aura of government approval to behavior God calls abomination, but the force of legal protection. Once this is 'legalized' it will become illegal for individuals to reject personal, professional and public associations with such persons. It will become illegal, as it already is in Canada, to criticize this behavior as immoral.
"Half of straight marriages already end in divorce, so the sanctity of marriage argument is meaningless"
A logically bankrupt argument. Because some group of people fail in their marriage vows, the sanctity of marriage has been violated. Therefore, defiling the Holy defnition of marriage by applying the term to state sanctioned fornication cannopt defile marriage any further? Yours is an asinine argument.
The sanctity of marrige is independent of the sins of individuals. Some people divorcing does not desanctify marrriage. Nor does a counterfeit definition of marriage forged by the Government desanctify marriage. But like those who failed at their marriage vows, the Government's defilement of marriage is sin. It is sin maquerading as righteousness.
"gay marriages that have already happened haven't affected my life in any way and I doubt they have affect anyone here either."
Clearly you have your head pushed way up your arse. These phony marriages are legally elligible to receive all the same services as any other. This means spousal healthcare benefits which were once intended to support full-time mothers rearing children are being siphoned into the support of persosn whose lifestyle is a major societal disease vector. The disolution of these counterfeit 'marriages' requires the same legal interventin as any other, only these relationships disolve far more frequently than do Marriages, burning societal legal resources that might be better spent elsewhere.
I'd wager I could find more examples of how Homosexual activity damages society if I were to look a little further.
Using a word like queer
February 23, 2009 - 15:05 ET by Jack BauerMmmmm. You shouldn't really play the word-fascist enforcer
Queer as Folk. Queer Eye For The Straight Guy. These are TV shows. If homosexuals don't like the word queer, they should set an example and STOP using it.
But they do like it.
And how about the old
February 23, 2009 - 15:12 ET by motherbeltAnd how about the old standby "We're here; we're queer!"
I guess this is one of those words like "ni@@er that only people of a certain "group" are allowed to use in reference to each other.
I didn't think it was physically possible, but this both sucks and blows. -Bart Simpson
Good evening Jack
February 23, 2009 - 15:14 ET by cocodrieYou're not being politically correct here Jack. A queer can only be called queer if he wants to be. He may be queer but you shouldn't call him that unless you don't give a sheet. Then go right ahead.
Jesus Loves You
Using a word like queer
February 23, 2009 - 16:46 ET by ThisnThatUsing a word like queer shows who the stupid one is.
Really??? Are you telling me that queer has a special meaning, and that if I use the word in a sentence that everyone instantly understands exactly what it means?
Hmmmmm, let me think about that for a moment........ok, I get it.
Now, stupid, apply the same logic and emotional outrage to other words. Let me pick one ---- how about marriage? If I use the word marriage in a sentance, will everyone instantly understand exactly what it means?
According to you and your buddies on the left, marriage can mean anything it wants. And, it only has a good meaning whenever you use it. Otherwise, when I use the word marriage (according to you and all the queers), it's not complete enough ---- because it needs to be redefined (according to you).
I'll go back to my original statement -- you have to be plenty stupid if you think I'm going to fall for that.
___________________________________
The challenge is to follow a consistent plan despite inconsistent prices - Sarah Palin, State of the State of Alaska speech
I think the point was that
February 23, 2009 - 16:53 ET by balboaI think the point was that you were using the word derisively.
You are seriously comparing the Civil Rights Movement
February 24, 2009 - 05:25 ET by thebutlerdiditand what blacks in this country once went through to a gay guy who can't marry another gay guy and have it legally called a marriage? Uh, Civil Unions? Not good enough? Tough s#!t. You are a joke. And a jerk.
All a Democrat needs is the upper-story window of public attention and the chamber pot of rhetoric. How else to explain the rise of Joe Biden? P.J. O' Rourke
Uh, JJ...we are all created
February 23, 2009 - 12:55 ET by motherbeltUh, JJ...we are all created equal and we have equal rights.
Any man in America has the right to marry any woman he wants.
Any woman can marry any man she wants.
I didn't think it was physically possible, but this both sucks and blows. -Bart Simpson
Sheesh, mb!
February 23, 2009 - 12:57 ET by BlondeI thought you were talking to me.
See all? This is why I HATE my initials...
~Blonde
February 23, 2009 - 13:02 ET by choselife3xThat's been confusing me lately, too. I keep running to butt into your conversations and find out it isn't you. ;-)
In order to be pro-choice, one must first be born. Ah, the irony.
Sorry! I didn't know your
February 23, 2009 - 13:18 ET by motherbeltSorry! I didn't know your initials are JJ....I usually call you B.....
And how do you think I feel? There is now a poster here with the screen name "Mother." ( I should have copyrighted motherbelt and all names including mother. LOL)
Talk about confusing!
I didn't think it was physically possible, but this both sucks and blows. -Bart Simpson
LOL, mb
February 23, 2009 - 13:29 ET by BlondeI know...it can be quite confusing at times. We have quite a few "mom's" here now.
My dislike of the JJ thing goes back to college...there was a stoner on the waterski team..."Judy Joint" (coincidently she was a better skier than I, dammit!). It hasn't gotten any better over time, either.
May I offer you the copyright symbol? Perhaps you could put it in your tag, although your latest one is one of the better ones I've ever seen here.
©
mb... You cannot put it any
February 23, 2009 - 13:00 ET by bigtimermb...
You cannot put it any plainer...yet the left keep eating the pages.
We have equal rights. Any
February 23, 2009 - 14:37 ET by HockeyKidWe have equal rights. Any man is free to marry any single woman he chooses, one at a time, and vice versa.
What you're talking about is special dispensation, not equal rights.
"Beauty is only skin deep, but liberal's to the bone." - me
Any right minded person can
February 23, 2009 - 15:31 ET by amiesAny right minded person can see that. But here apparently here being in your right mind makes you a leftist, pedophile enabling scum - they lose the distinction on the age of majority real quick.
I personally think that gay marriage would be brilliant, allowing everyone to rejoice in the love between two people, but here men and woman lying to each other in marriage is preferable to (shock!) two people of the same sex having a releationship.
Just remember the governemnt isn't allowed to interfere in lives unless it suits the right wing agenda
What you just said
February 23, 2009 - 16:52 ET by ThisnThatWhat you just said .......is any of that in English? Is there a translator nearby? Does anyone care?
___________________________________
The challenge is to follow a consistent plan despite inconsistent prices - Sarah Palin, State of the State of Alaska speech
To be honest, I have no
February 23, 2009 - 12:00 ET by flyingmonkeyTo be honest, I have no objections what-so-ever to gay marriage. The arguement that marriage is for procreation strikes me as silly when so many heterosexual couples are not having children, and as for it cheapening the sanctity of marriage, I see no sanctity in a divorce rate that's over 50%.
With that said, I have read an article about gay divorces and I find them both amusing and entertaining. Imagine a man suing a man for spousal support, or two women fighting for custody of a child and then requesting child support. It's happening.
So what the hell, let them get married, at least for the entertainment value. And remember, like pro-choicers who are aborting the very children that would carry on their agenda, two homosexuals are incapable of passing the gene along. Besides, maybe more monogomous relationships would slow down the spreading of diseases.
To be honest
February 23, 2009 - 12:12 ET by Gothampc"Besides, maybe more monogomous relationships would slow down the spreading of diseases."
I seriously doubt that. People can have monogomous relationships without the benefit of marriage. The spreading of disease is not based on a piece of paper.
You fail to take into consideration the people that think marriage is a religious, sacred event that God blesses.
One of the reasons religious people are against gay marriage is because they don't want their clergy forced into performing gay marriages when their belief system says it's wrong.
Gay marriages/divorces amusing?
February 24, 2009 - 05:36 ET by thebutlerdiditAre you high? Do you HAVE children? I have told this story here before. I lived next to a lesbian couple a few years back. One had decided after having 3 children she was gay. Her husband ended up with 2 of the boys, and she ended up with the son with health problems. He was 14 when we met him, and he was a miserable kid. The kids at school knew about his 2 "mommies" and they ragged him unmercifully. When he got off the school bus everyday, they would yell stuff like "tell your rugmunching mom I said hi." That being one of the cleaner comments. He ended up commiting suicide at 15, and left a note saying he couldn't take the fact he was separated from his Dad and 2 brothers and he was so uncomfortable about his "moms" making out, (he told me this often, as he used to beg to sleep at my apartment), and he was sick of being teased. It is not amusing, nor is it entertainment value, it is playing with the very real lives of very real people.Kids are screwed up enough in this shiteous world, why make new problems for these selfish people? Divorce in hetero marriages is bad enough, but this stuff is an abomination. It makes me ill.
All a Democrat needs is the upper-story window of public attention and the chamber pot of rhetoric. How else to explain the rise of Joe Biden? P.J. O' Rourke
Just as I suspected...
February 23, 2009 - 12:07 ET by jazboHarry Smith is a homosexual.
Those who believe in nothing will believe anything.
You can't conclude that from his comments
February 23, 2009 - 12:45 ET by ArminiusMaybe he was weeping because someone stole his gummy bears.
who gives a feck?
February 23, 2009 - 15:32 ET by amieswho gives a feck?
Equal rights?
February 23, 2009 - 12:13 ET by moderncommentaries83Yes, unless you're one of those mean, bigoted, religious conservatives. Then you don't deserve to have rights and better shut up and pay $20 for a ticket to my next movie.
Aut viam inveniam aut faciam
What a bunch of
February 23, 2009 - 12:15 ET by rbosqueWhat a bunch of P******!!!
These people need to grow a pair!
Is this the same guy?
February 23, 2009 - 12:34 ET by awffp1890Isn't Harry the same guy that whined about not being able to go to the corner store in Iraq and get ice cream? Idiot. Hey Harry, my son's over there. Why don't you whine to him about ice cream.
"Not for fame or reward, not for place or rank, not lured by ambition or goaded by necessity. But in simple obedience to duty." - From the barracks at Ft. Benning
Go straight to the cow
February 23, 2009 - 12:56 ET by Jack BauerBudget
$15,000,000 (estimated) (and don't forget the $ millions for publicity)
Worldwide Latest gross: $34,248,699
USA Latest gross: $26,748,699 (13 February 2009)
Hey look... No release dates for PAKISTAN, IRAN, SYRIA, SAUDI ARABIA, LIBYA, YEMEN.
I can't think why!
RELEASE DATES
USA – 28 October 2008 (San Francisco, California) (premiere)
USA – 26 November 2008 (limited)
Israel – 22 December 2008
Singapore – 8 January 2009
Spain – 9 January 2009
Greece – 15 January 2009
Netherlands – 22 January 2009
Ukraine – 22 January 2009
Italy – 23 January 2009
Poland – 23 January 2009
Switzerland – 23 January 2009 (Italian speaking region)
UK – 23 January 2009
Sweden – 25 January 2009 (Gothenburg Film Festival)
Australia – 29 January 2009
Portugal – 29 January 2009
Denmark – 30 January 2009
Romania – 30 January 2009
Philippines – 4 February 2009
New Zealand – 5 February 2009
Finland – 6 February 2009
Uruguay – 6 February 2009
Germany – 10 February 2009 (Berlin International Film Festival)
Argentina – 12 February 2009
Czech Republic – 12 February 2009
Germany – 19 February 2009
Hong Kong – 19 February 2009
Hungary – 19 February 2009
Brazil – 20 February 2009
Iceland – 20 February 2009
Norway – 20 February 2009
Belgium – 25 February 2009
France – 4 March 2009
Mexico – 6 March 2009
As I see it, all kinds of logistical problems with same sex M
February 23, 2009 - 12:56 ET by krendlerAt the ceremony, how does it end? "I now pronounce you...man and husband"? "I now pronounce you woman and wife"? "I now pronounce you husband and husband"?
Or does one partner take the "husband" title and the other guy takes "wife"? So at a party, you'd overhear someone saying "...and this is Steve's lovely wife, Frank".
Or maybe just always use "partner". The terms "husband" and "wife" - even if referring to hetrosexual couples - will be considered non-PC. Perhaps bigoted, even (kind of like saying "black" rather than African-American or African-English or African-French).
how about
February 23, 2009 - 15:33 ET by amiesI now pronounce you married
Equal rights for gays but not Madonna, eh Sean?
February 23, 2009 - 12:56 ET by Lord ErondWhen you used to beat your ex-wife or any other photographer that used to irritate you, were you so concerned with human rights? Maybe Sean is secretly gay. Maybe he liked playing a homosexual
"What you can not enforce, do not command" -Sophocles-
Gothampc
February 23, 2009 - 13:01 ET by flyingmonkeyI seriously doubt that the government would force churches to perform gay marriages but if that were the case, I'd be against it.
I'm one of those people that believes that homosexuality is a biological faux pas and not a choice. If they choose to marry someone of their own gender, so be it. They aren't bothering me.
My problem with the homosexual community is their penchant for flaunting their sexual preference publicly in ways that heterosexuals would be arrested for. No matter what your sexual orientation is, keep it behind closed doors.
Clergy & Gay Marriage
February 23, 2009 - 13:29 ET by Gothampc"I seriously doubt that the government would force churches to perform gay marriages but if that were the case, I'd be against it."
Catholic Charities in Boston stopped their child adoption program because they were being pressured into letting homosexuals adopt children which they felt was wrong. Forcing clergy to perform gay marriage isn't very far behind.
Katrina
February 23, 2009 - 13:10 ET by slickwillie2001Every time I see Penn now, I think of his shotguns and his leaky boat scene in New Orleans during Katrina. That's my favorite Sean Penn film clip.
Has Harry Smith Opened The Closet Door ?
February 23, 2009 - 13:28 ET by Morgan StevensNow that Harry Smith has assumed 'screaming queen' status maybe we can hook him up with one of the 'girls' from RuPauls Drag Race Show. Then Harry and his new 'gal pal' could both cry on each others sholders when they get booted off the show. Afterwards Sean (there's a hole in my boat) Penn can break into the studio and beat the crap out of the Judges as retribution, the same way he used to beat up photographers. Hey Harry, by the bye will you be leading this years Gay Pride Parade in NYC ? You go GIRL !
Too much information Harry.
February 23, 2009 - 13:34 ET by CTYour fawning comments say more about Harry Smith than I ever wanted to know.
And I'm weeping over idiot journalists
February 23, 2009 - 13:46 ET by Mary Louise TurnerI've had it with Terry Moron, Harry Smith and the rest of these idiot "journalists" who can't stop their drooling over anything liberal, from Ears to Sean Penn...When will we ever see "real" journalism again, especially from nutwork TV?
I wept openly...
February 23, 2009 - 13:55 ET by ckbennetttnThis is news? Did David Brinkley or Kronkite ever weep openly about the portrayal of a gay man in a movie? Did they ever report on things like that? This is such tripe! One, that it's even accepted as news, and second, that an "objective" journalist (one who routinely and defensively asserts he has no agenda) "openly weeps."
Obama: 'I screwed up'--We're going to be seeing this a lot.
And let's not forget that
February 23, 2009 - 14:40 ET by Old EuropeGay marriage basically undermines the sanctity of the holy matrimony in which man and woman become one flesh to recreate the holy trinity of man,woman and child. The Bible calls gayness an abomination in both the OT and NT. And yet, liberal liars try to convince people that it's not really condemned. Yes, it is! So one has to wonder why gays want to redefine marriage. Because that way they can fool people and especially susceptible teens into accepting a lifestyle that is sinful and a self-destructive addiction. THIS is why gays want the blessing from the Church. They can just as well have civil unions. The problem lies in the wrong message we send to our children. We know that the vast majority of gays and lesbians have emotional traumas from childhood and at least half of them were even sexually abused. Thus, they were not born gay but became gay because of emotional distress. We know how many kids have serious issues to deal with. And when they see that gay marriages are legal, paired with the gay propaganda from Hollywood and MTV that gayness is harmless and cute, there is a high chance of them acdopting the gay lifestyle. And where does this gay lifestyle end? Two thirds of all AIDS cases involve gays ! On average, a gay person has between 500 and 1000 sex partners! On average, a gay has a life expectancy of 40 years which is less than a chain smoker's!
Two thirds of gays admit that they are unhappy with their gayness and this is not because of discrimination. It's because they know they are sinners and because they never dealt with the chidhood abuse that made them gay.
Half of the females on death row are lesbians! Remember Eileen Wuornos, the serial killer who was portrayed by Charlize Theron in „Monster"? She was gay, too.
And let's not forget that gays end up like sad old duffers without kids and a family to look after them. And God created sex for man and woman to have progeny. A man could never love another man as much as a man his wife. Why? Because the fact that a wife can give a man a child elevates their love to a whole new dimension that gays could never achieve. The gays’ so-called love is merely a poor imitation of real love because there is nothing to elevate their love to the same level as between man and woman. Gay sex is mere idolatry for its own sake. And this is yet another reason why gays are never really happy: It’s pointless. What’s left after the first crush is over to keep gays together and help them bond? Eventually, the sex cannot save them from their meaningless lives without kids. They have gay sex, feel guilty about it, then have more sex to relieve the concomitant distress. Their lives are defined by their deviant sexuality and whenever somebody strays from the norm, their lives are defined and dictated by their deviance. This is why gays go to gay clubs and gay bars and gay olympic games! The only reason these people gather is sex! They have nothing else in common but sex!
So all in all there are good reasons not to allow gays to convince the public that their perverted sexuality is normal and harmless. Gays are not only a danger to themselves, but they also chip away at the basic foundations of society be it through their promiscuity and inability to have a family(the basis of society) or through the veneral diseases that are rampant among them which they pass on to other people too. They try to exculpate themselves by lying that they were born gay so that they can claim no control over their misdeeds. Even if they were born gay, since when does that make a deed acceptable or not? If somebody was born a murderer, the murder becomes legitimate?!
So if Sean Penn says we should be ashamed of Prop8, we know that these words come from a dangerous ignoramous who is out to destroy society. Satan knows very well how to use the mass media to destroy society. He knows that if he can redefine marriage and seduce enough kids to gayness, he can demolish society.
And we all know that Satan is everywhere on the media. Just look at how Christians taking their faith seriously, are ridiculed. No, we will not let Satan destroy society!
Check out this testimony:
http://www.dennisjer...
http://www.crossmini...
ToGay or NOT ToGay
February 23, 2009 - 15:40 ET by MaximusBraveheartOld Europe that was soooo good; thank you. I wanted to express the same thing but you said it all so well.
Kids, and the rest of us, are being lied to. You are not born gay. They say if you have a reaction to seeing something "gay," then you are gay. That is such a lie.
Via a porn, a love scene in a movie, or seeing 2 dogs go at it does not mean jack. So RE the dogs, you are therefore "born that way?" By their own logic, you should seek out dogs? And since you are born that way, therefore are not guilty of doing it with beasts? This is also prohibited in the Bible and it illustrates the same point. Immoral behaviour is immoral. You are not going to win a battle against God! And be comforted in this: He tells you this for YOUR own GOOD; indeed, he does love HIS children; that is YOU!
Now this is scary but true: YOU make the choice to be turned over to your lustful desires. At that point, God will NO LONGER rescue you till you repent and turn from you folly. He will let you destroy yourself. That is free will.
They want an excuse like you said: I was "born that way;" that is a lame excuse, and a dangerous excuse. We are all "born that way," as in born sinful. Do not therefore persue sin! Then they wonder why the feel bad about themselves!
God gave us a concious. The Bible says the law is written IN our own hearts. You KNOW that it is wrong even WITHOUT the Word. They are ignoring this internal LAW that is written in their heart. Then, their itching ears seek out advice and comfort that they WANT TO HEAR. This choice of sin leads to only one thing in the end, and that is an unpleasant death.
The law was written to confirm sinfullness. You cannot keep it on your own. The FEAR of God is the beginning of wisdom.
Respect God your creator and turn to Jesus, the final sin offering which covers us all. It is FREE and you can NOT do enough to earn it. This would be futile to try to be "good enough." Fighting God all your life leads to unhappiness and in the end, a worthless death vs. victorious life and everlasting life with the creator of all.
Keep up the good fight!
M-B
Tolerance and the lack thereof
February 23, 2009 - 14:38 ET by rowdygirlIt's interesting that all liberals preach tolerance, but only for themselves and their beliefs. To have Sean Penn think that he can tell me what to believe is laughable. For him to say that anyone who doesn't believe what he does should be ashamed of themselves is ridiculous. How can you DEMAND tolerance, but only a one sided version? If I don't believe in gay marriage, which I am 100% against, then I'm intolerant. I don't hate gays, or anyone who wants to live that "lifestyle", but please don't tell me I have to like it or accept it. I won't. If I can only be tolerant if I believe in what you believe in Sean, then what does that make you?
Harry Smith Pro Sodomy
February 23, 2009 - 14:38 ET by The Smokin FrogThis had to be the logical outcome of political correctness and liberalism. Open sodomy, anal intercourse, a truly filthy practice, is now about the civil rights movement. Someone is crazy here.
TSF Protests!
I cried
February 23, 2009 - 16:04 ET by jacktheripperwhen Paul Blart got the girl at the end of Mall Cop.....
HS is a sissy metro-sexual (I blame "Queer Eye...." and SP is a closet homophope
Smith must be a pillow biter
February 23, 2009 - 15:45 ET bySmith must be a pillow biter himself. No normal man would look at ugly assed Sean Penn slobbering all over James Franco and see anything of "worth". Possibly some mouth vomit but that's about it.
I am deeply ashamed of James Franco who I went to Playhouse West with. We both studied acting under Jeff Goldblum and Mark Pellegrino. This is a rather elite acting school and all of the people in this particular class are famous, ranging from very famous like Franco and Scott Caan to television stars who while rich, are not household names. A strange thing happened in the "advanced" portion of the program. They began to do what they called "fantasy" work. Essentially it involved delving into the subjects mind and finding the things that you would be loathe to do and making you do it. A popular actress expressed a reticence to be naked on stage, she was a shy talented girl and I remember walking into class one day and finding the lighting altered. It was like a nightclub. Then she comes out with a boom box and does a striptease that was uncomfortable to say the least!
This led to the portion of the class that essentially is designed to break down your moral "prejudices". This was where you had any vestiges of morality brow beaten out of you. "How dare you judge your characters behavior" they would say. "As an actor you are a blank slate upon which anything can be written". I begged to differ. That would be "okay" I said, IF movies just "happened" to appear! But they don't, I argued, they are produced with an agenda in mind! There's a reason that they don't use homo's to play homo's. The normal heterosexual male when viewing a male homosexual on screen develops a distaste, a revulsion, that slowly creeps in. But industry studies have shown that these unconscious "triggers" aren't there when they have a NON-Gay play the gay role! That's why the star of "Will and Grace" now on "Trust Me" was a heterosexual even though his sidekick was a flamer well known for being so! I know for a fact that this was done in the industry as a means of making "mom and pop midwesterner" not see homosexuals as disgusting or immoral.
They didn't care much for these "truths" and apparently the lessons have paid off well for Mr Franco. I am deeply ashamed of having known him.
On Monday’s CBS Early
February 23, 2009 - 19:54 ET by ReaverOn Monday’s CBS Early Show, co-host Harry Smith played a clip of himself talking to left-wing actor Sean Penn following the Oscars Sunday night:
Left wing actor? Isn't that redundant?
If stupidity got us into this mess,
then why can't it get us out?
--Will Rogers
What? Harry didn't include Penn's wonderful
February 24, 2009 - 05:44 ET by thebutlerdiditand classy comment where he thanked all the Commie Homo lovers in H'wood? Or did everyone just accept that as fact? The comments made by Penn, and that guy from SlumDog, and of course Bill Maher, along with the 3-4 clips of gay men kissing just illustrates the serious disconect between what Hollywood thinks and what middle America thinks. No wonder people don't watch this disgusting display of gratuitous backpatting. That, and the movies are picked strictly for political reasons. Penn didn't win, Gays won the award.
All a Democrat needs is the upper-story window of public attention and the chamber pot of rhetoric. How else to explain the rise of Joe Biden? P.J. O' Rourke
Old Yeller
February 24, 2009 - 09:54 ET by misterbee241I cried when Old Yeller died. And right now I have more respect for a rabies-mad hound than I do for either Sean Penn or Harry Smith. Penn is a punk - period. Harry Smith is just a weepy old man. Pull up your big boy Depends, Harry and man up.
"I dont need to read a newspaper to know the world's been shaved by a drunken barber."
Walter Brennan, The Colonel, Meet John Doe, 1941
Don't flame me... but...
February 24, 2009 - 10:21 ET by commonwealthI'm generaly a conservative on most issues... and I still am on gay marraige... however -
We have civil unions for boyfriends and girlfriends who live together for a certain period of time. And then after that certain period of time they quailfy for tax benefits and health insurance or whatever it be through some sort of civil union.
Why can we give the gay community their benefits without calling it marraige?
Why would they want to use a lable (marriage) that has been primarily used and instituted by their worse enemy (the church) through the ages?
So what are the implications of giving the gay community the same thing as marraige but calling it a civil union?
Nick
well Nick
February 24, 2009 - 10:30 ET by botgit's not about getting benefits, it's about forcing you to accept and justify their behavior
“The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.” -- Chief Justice John Roberts