Althouse: "Martin Sheen commanded the stage with his impassioned portrayal of an attorney arguing for gay-marriage rights..."

March 8, 2012

"Martin Sheen commanded the stage with his impassioned portrayal of an attorney arguing for gay-marriage rights..."

"... Jane Lynch inspired instant response as a vehement same-sex marriage opponent; Brad Pitt dazzled as a judge. It was all part of the star-studded West Coast premiere of '8,' a play about the 2010 federal court fight against Proposition 8, the gay-marriage ban that California voters approved in 2008."

Also in the performance: George Clooney, Kevin Bacon, Jamie Lee Curtis, Christine Lahti, George Takei, John C. Reilly, Chris Colfer, Matthew Morrison, and Jesse Tyler Ferguson.

Here, they put it on line (at least for the coming week):

45 comments:

GulfofMexico said...: I bet Sulu killed it. Perhaps as a police lieutenant.; 3/8/12, 8:15 AM
rhhardin said...: Marriage equality is about gay marriage.

Who knew.

You'd have guessed it was about sharing the housework.

Which shows that marriage in fact means heterosexual.

The plan is to make that impossible to think in the future, by removing the word as it stands.; 3/8/12, 8:21 AM
GulfofMexico said...: In order to save marriage, perhaps it should be blown up, forever separated from government sponsorship.; 3/8/12, 8:27 AM
Curious George said...: So Clooney is gay.; 3/8/12, 8:37 AM
Christopher said...: For gay marriage = impassioned.

Against gay marriage = vehement.

The only kind of standard on the left is the double standard.; 3/8/12, 8:41 AM
chickelit said...: Hanging Palin in effigy happened around the time of Prop 8 in West Hollywood.

Were those guys in the audience?; 3/8/12, 8:43 AM
Mark O said...: Polygamy. Cutting edge.; 3/8/12, 8:49 AM
n.n said...: GulfofMexico:

There is a very simple and objective reason why society assigned a special status to couples: natural order (i.e. procreation). Other behaviors which only serve individual self-gratification, whether by a couple or couplet, are not generally accorded the recognition for the same reason.

Of course, this is not exactly liberal, or progressive, but neither is nature nor evolutionary fitness. People would like to believe they are free from those constraints, but that has not yet been demonstrated.

With the normalization of deviant behaviors, we are conducting a grand experiment, where humanity's basest desires are pitted against nature's order. Eventually, we will learn which is the superior force.

In the meantime, with the rejection of evolutionary fitness, your suggestion is indeed superior. We should neither discriminate by couples, couplets, or multiplicity. The only remaining restriction that society has deemed inviolable seems to be conditioned on consent. However, even with that, enforcement can be selective, for example when equivocation occurs based on a violator's stature.

So, in conclusion, the proponents of homosexual coupling need to end further arbitrary discrimination. It's unbecoming a liberal or progressive people.; 3/8/12, 8:49 AM
Bill said...: I'm starting to think more like Gulf.

The problem isn't that civil marriage isn't extended to gays. The problem is that civil marriage sucks.

Instead of including gays in civil marriage laws, or giving them 'civil unions', let's do away with marriage law completely and make everything a civil union. Let's decide what rights partners could have and exactly what responsibilities we expect from them. Let's make dissolving a civil union as easy as ending a business partnership unless there are children involved and then let's make it very, very difficult. Let's have a prenuptial aspect to it so that both parties understand ahead of time what will happen if the relationship ends. Let's have something that can be the same for a straight couple or a gay couple or even roommates.

And let's be done with the farce of calling it "marriage". Let's draw a big bright line between the sacrament of marriage and what used to be the societal imprimatur of those unions and is now just a signpost of society's collapse.; 3/8/12, 8:50 AM
I'm Full of Soup said...: A Lemmings Production.; 3/8/12, 8:55 AM
Wince said...: Let me guess, the characters in the play who oppose same sex marriage are each shown to have a deep-seated character flaw.; 3/8/12, 9:03 AM
n.n said...: Bill:

That's not bad. There is room for compromise. Should we permit polygamy and incest, too? You mentioned roommates, will civil unions be restricted to the arbitrary criteria of physical intercourse? The civil union could be another class of corporation, perhaps designated as "cu corporation".

Productive heterosexual couples should seek to trademark "marriage" and related terminology for their purposes while they still can.

This is indeed progress. Ambiguous, confused, arbitrary, but progress nonetheless.; 3/8/12, 9:06 AM
GulfofMexico said...: EDH,
Yes, they are secretly gay and once the pressure of the trial gets to them, they come out, get married and live happily ever after.

... not to dismiss what might just well be a brilliant piece of work but I'm not going to watch it until the reviews come in and then we'll see.; 3/8/12, 9:10 AM
The Crack Emcee said...: As the old saying goes, "Don't care. Don't care. Don't care,..."

Until Hollywood allows other voices and opinions to be heard - beyond these usual suspects - I will not listen to anything they have to say.

You're so gullible, and such a sap for PC, I bet you think "Milk" was an honest film as well, right?

Riiiight,...; 3/8/12, 9:12 AM
Anonymous said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 3/8/12, 9:20 AM
traditionalguy said...: Apocalypse Now. Sheen's mission this time is to bring Gay Marriage back from its captivity by Proposition 8.; 3/8/12, 9:23 AM
Anonymous said...: Polygamy. Cutting edge.

Been there. Done that.

My great-grandfather had five wives until the government came in, abolished the church he belonged to, took the church's lands, arrested him, brought his wives into court and forced them to testify (see the women's outrage Link text here), and put him in jail.

(And the gay rights people cry "infamy and hate!" because someone cast a vote against the gays' interests.); 3/8/12, 9:23 AM
stutefish said...: That partial cast list makes the whole thing sound like an exercise in getting as many celebrities as possible into one room to congratulate each other on what good activists they are.; 3/8/12, 9:25 AM
Bill said...: n.n.:

If these hypothetical civil unions aren't marriage, then it wouldn't be polygamy. It would just be a package of benefits and obligations that are agreed to in advance and that provide some sense of stability to society such that society would have an interest in endorsing them. As such, I guess it wouldn't matter if there was more than one partner. Sexual behavior would be irrelevant unless, as I said, it results in children and then it becomes very relevant. Whether that sexual behavior is 'sinful' would be irrelevant as well (at least as far as the contract is concerned).

If we can't save/protect/return to the traditional idea of civil marriage (and I see no indication that we can), then my concern becomes divorcing (ha!) civil marriage from sacramental marriage.

My only criteria is that there be a genuine benefit to society and that it promote societal order, especially when children are produced as a result of the union, and that we stop calling it marriage and conflating it with marriage. Beyond that, let them work out the details as they see fit.; 3/8/12, 9:31 AM
damikesc said...: I hope they don't insult private citizens who just spoke up. That'd be really wrong and likely upset Obama.; 3/8/12, 9:33 AM
edutcher said...: These people are always on the wrong side of any issue.

If you remember the 80s, they didn't want us opposing the spread of Communism and didn't like the idea of cutting entitlements.

Same thing.

Curious George said...

So Clooney is gay.

Lynch is, so is Sulu, and Marty Sheen would come out just because it was in. The last 4 I never heard of, but I'll bet at least 1 will say he is, just to get his picture printed.; 3/8/12, 9:34 AM
Carnifex said...: No proffessor. I went down this road before and got called naive. How about I just say, "I don't care to be preached at by the hypocrites in Hollywood", and leave it at that. By the way, what's wrong with being naive? To think the better of people? Hmmm. Too nuanced for me I guess.; 3/8/12, 9:43 AM
Bender said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 3/8/12, 9:46 AM
Bender said...: Did you know that Martin Sheen was one of those crazy religious nut jobs and, therefore, he hates gays?

That he takes his Catholic faith very seriously, and even took the stage name "Sheen" from Catholic Archbishop Fulton Sheen?; 3/8/12, 9:46 AM
John henry said...: Isn't Jane Lynch the one who worked for a certain SF movie adult movie producer? Doing "certain things the other girls wouldn't do?"

Or do I have her mixed up with a character?

Also, casting her as anti-gay is playing against type, isn't it? Isn't she gay herself?

John Henry; 3/8/12, 9:57 AM
Christopher in MA said...: Pfft. Agitprop theatre, written and performed in a perfumed hothouse of smugness. Give it a year and you won't be able to pay people to see it - except, perhaps at the high school level, where they think "The Crucible" is a devastating attack on McCarthyism.; 3/8/12, 10:08 AM
n.n said...: EDH:

The cognitive dissonance arises when people [falsely] perceive the natural order to supersede or constrain the enlightened (i.e. conscious) order. The objective definition of evolutionary fitness is reactionary and therefore must be rejected as it harshes people's mellow.

That said, there may exist an occult knowledge, which demonstrates humanity has surpassed its natural constraints without consequence. Perhaps that is the case. However, by definition it is hidden from my view, and I cannot accept its assertions on faith.

There are certain concepts I can accept as axiomatic (or on faith), including consciousness or individual dignity, but I hesitate to accept that the natural order has been overcome through artificial machinations. However, since there are two orders which I acknowledge as objective: natural and enlightened, it seems prudent to tolerate, but not normalize, behaviors which while unproductive are not otherwise known to be generally harmful when engaged between consenting adults. There is the exception given to the prevalence of STDs, including HIV, but that applies not only to male couplets but also to promiscuous couples. I suppose they can always indemnify their public liability with insurance, possibly with a premium commensurate to the increased risk associated with their voluntary behavior.; 3/8/12, 10:09 AM
Paddy O said...: No one knows the value and sanctity of marriage more than Hollywood Stars!

"Or do I have her mixed up with a character?"

From The Mighty Wind.; 3/8/12, 10:20 AM
caseym54 said...: Let me guess, the characters in the play who oppose same sex marriage are each shown to have a deep-seated character flaw.

Doubt it's that subtle. They probably beat their wives and pine for the days of slavery.; 3/8/12, 10:22 AM
Andy said...: It's cute seeing the dumb-dumbs here arguing against marriage equality.; 3/8/12, 10:34 AM
n.n said...: Bill:

Polygamy is not strictly a reference to marriage; although, it does seem constrained by sexual union.

They don't want civil unions or civil marriage. They want marriage. This is, ostensibly, for the purpose of normalizing their behavior.

In any case, as there would no longer be an objective standard for social order or any other, this compromise will only succeed in deferring final judgment. Each generation will have to decide what it considers to be objective.

That said, from an evolutionary perspective, it seems worthwhile for society to distinguish between behaviors it would normalize and tolerate. Unfortunately, that would require an objective standard, and we have progressed past that capability.; 3/8/12, 10:41 AM
GulfofMexico said...: n.n,

And that is why marriage should be destroyed. To save it.; 3/8/12, 10:50 AM
cubanbob said...: So a bunch of Hollywood actors are showing their political courage performing in a play that is completely in line with Hollywood's political thought. If they had real gonads they would have acted in a play with a story line in favor of prop 8.

And they wonder why so many have such a low opinion of them.; 3/8/12, 10:56 AM
Paddy O said...: By the by, I suspect that very few influences have undermined the actual institution of marriage more than Hollywood celebrities over the last century.

They glamorized divorce, glorified sentimentality, and dismissed commitment.; 3/8/12, 11:08 AM
damikesc said...: So, it's now OK to mock people and insult them for their beliefs in the political arena?

Man, things change a lot in a week.

I notice that there is a lack of black people opposing gay marriage --- odd, since they are, possibly, the most vehemently opposed to it.

Which is why Democrats can never come out in full support of gay marriage.; 3/8/12, 11:45 AM
Anonymous said...: "It really felt like she was sticking it to the man.”

The "man" being the society they claim to love so much they want to join.

Regardless of whether you approve of gay marriage or not, this is typically really dumb politics.; 3/8/12, 11:48 AM
prairie wind said...: Brad Pitt dazzled...

Ha. Tell me another. He hasn't dazzled since Thelma and Louise.; 3/8/12, 11:51 AM
Curious George said...: "Andy R. said...
It's cute seeing the dumb-dumbs here arguing against marriage equality."

I guess we could stand by and read again today how you like the cock in your ass versus putting your cock in another's ass with a blog participant.

Wait, that's not really true. All we know is that you exclusively don't have your cock in another's ass because you will take one in yours.; 3/8/12, 12:31 PM
Anna said...: Bender, please don't post false statements. Martin Sheen has been an outspoken advocate FOR gay marriage. Learn the facts before you post!; 3/8/12, 12:32 PM
Curious George said...: "Anna said...
Bender, please don't post false statements. Martin Sheen has been an outspoken advocate FOR gay marriage. Learn the facts before you post!"

Uh, he's making the point that not all Catholics hate gays like Andy the gay bigot claims here daily.; 3/8/12, 1:08 PM
Anonymous said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 3/8/12, 2:56 PM
Delayna said...: The longer I look at the issue of gay marriage, the more I'm convinced that it's a futile quest for parental approval.; 3/8/12, 3:02 PM
Bender said...: Anna? Anna?? Are there?

It has been over five hours since CG pointed out the obvious to you (thanks CG).

How about you tell Andy, the resident rabid anti-Catholic bigot, to "please don't post false statements" and "learn the facts before [he] post[s]!"; 3/8/12, 5:45 PM
Bender said...: Could two sons be any more different than Emilio and Charlie?

The prodigal will come home one day.

By the way, Charlie was himself in a very good movie with papa Martin, The Fourth Wise Man, with Martin in the title role and Charlie in a bit part as a soldier whom Martin bribes to save the life of a little boy during Herod's Slaughter of the Innocents.

Based on the short story by Henry van Dyke, Artaban, "the fourth Magi," spends his entire life looking for the King after having missed accompanying the other three Magi on their journey. Artaban (played by Martin Sheen) had intended to give Him precious jewels and pearls as gifts, but these are spent instead saving the lives of various people along the way. His last gift, which he had wanted to use to ransom Jesus from crucifixion, having finally found his King on the day of execution, he ends up giving to save a young girl (Sydney Penny) from being pressed into slavery to pay for her late father's debts.

Watch the entire movie at the link.; 3/8/12, 6:00 PM
Anthony said...: I wonder if they'll be so impassioned about marriage equality when the polygamists come a calling?; 3/8/12, 6:48 PM