Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Madonna slams Proposition 8 passage
Los Angeles Times ^ | November 7, 2008 | Shelby Grad

Posted on 11/07/2008 11:37:08 PM PST by nickcarraway

At Dodger Stadium, Madonna took time out from her concert to praise the election of Barack Obama and also express her disappointment that Prop. 8, which bans same-sex marriage, was approved by California voter. So says our spy, The Times' Molly Hennessy-Fiske. Listen to Madonna's take here. here. More from Popsquire:

During a celebratory moment for President-elect Barack Obama, M also commented on Calfornia’s Prop 8. She expressed disappointment that “we didn’t win” and offered hope to the audience when she said, “If we can have an African American president, we can have gay marriage!”

Of course, some people were interviewed on TV last night complaining that the big anti-Proposition 8 march in Westwood made them late to see Madonna. The rally generated national press coverage but also clogged traffic for hours. The Times' Jessica Garrison looks at how the No-on-8 forces became obsessed with Mormons:

During the campaign, a website established by Proposition 8 opponents used campaign finance data and other public records to track Mormon political contributions to the Yes-on-8 campaign. Opponents estimated that members of the church had given more than $20 million, but the amount is difficult to confirm since the state does not track the religious affiliation of donors.

(Excerpt) Read more at latimesblogs.latimes.com ...


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Extended News; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections; US: California
KEYWORDS: airhead; excommunication; homosexualagenda; madonna; prop8; tramp

1 posted on 11/07/2008 11:37:08 PM PST by nickcarraway
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: nickcarraway

Who cares?


2 posted on 11/07/2008 11:38:09 PM PST by period end of story
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: nickcarraway

If Madonna does like the gay marriage ban, then she ought to blame the blacks and latinos for voting for it.


3 posted on 11/07/2008 11:38:51 PM PST by yongin (The 2008 election proved the MSM has more influence than Talk Radio)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: nickcarraway
It's really pathetic when stupid, has-beens trying to reclaim what they thought was relevancy.

Can't they have the class to retire with their multi-millions, step aside to give another aspiring star a chance, and donate to charity rather than asking us to pay more taxes?

4 posted on 11/07/2008 11:41:59 PM PST by Ghost of Philip Marlowe (If Hillary is elected, her legacy will be telling the American people: Better put some ice on that.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: nickcarraway
Madonna Finally Talks Prop 8—but Was It Enough?

AP Photo/Gary Kazanjian; John Shearer/Getty Images No doubt Madonna has done plenty for gay rights over the years, but where has she been during this year's very heated—and very expensive—fight to try and save gay marriage in California?

Until her concert last night in Los Angeles, the outspoken politically minded Queen of Pop had been uncharacteristically silent about Prop 8, the ballot measure that overturned the legalization of same-sex unions in California.

She didn't even speak a word of it during her concert in San Francisco—San Francisco!—on the Saturday just before Election Day.

And even when she did finally say something, it was brief—very brief.

SNIP

Asked about Madonna's noninvolvement with Prop 8, her rep emailed me, "The one thing I do not have to do is defend Madonna's very very heartfelt and extensive commitment financially, verbally and numerous other ways to gay rights in the course of her career."

Very true, but let's just hope we see more of that decades-long commitment as the battle for gay marriage rages on. This is not the time for silence.

5 posted on 11/07/2008 11:43:09 PM PST by nickcarraway (Are the Good Times Really Over?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ghost of Philip Marlowe

Is she allegedly American again? I thought she was a Brit now, complete with bogus accent.

But maybe I’m getting her confused with Gwyneth Paltrow.

It’s hard keeping track of celebrity idiots.


6 posted on 11/07/2008 11:43:28 PM PST by nyc1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: nickcarraway
Madam Madonna has spoken

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_I2j2VVNXosc/SJkFzjxBrKI/AAAAAAAAAzE/OSPqlqWK-9Y/s1600-h/madonna_plastic_surgery.jpg
7 posted on 11/07/2008 11:43:43 PM PST by Blogger
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: nickcarraway
“If we can have an African American president, we can have gay marriage!”

The logic that launched a thousand cone-bras.

8 posted on 11/07/2008 11:43:53 PM PST by Darkwolf377 (1-22-13)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: nickcarraway

Another reason to be happy I voted for it!


9 posted on 11/07/2008 11:45:14 PM PST by Hugin (GSA! (Goodbye sweet America))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: nickcarraway
This was a posting on Dansimmons.com. Simmons is a terrific novelist, and he's no rightwinger. But he supports the WOT and has been very articulate about what it is we're facing now. Here, first a post from a reader, followed by Simmons' response:

Originally Posted By: KenBreadbox mrstandfast: I'm sorry. I saw a number of pro-Prop 8 commercials essentially characterizing homosexuals as monsters and fools and retaliated in kind. I will try to define my terms and advance the argument as best I can...when I can. Time constraints prohibit the kind of in-depth argument I'd like to mount.

When you say "the case for these rights has not been compelling", right there is one disconnect among many for me. You shouldn't have to make cases for human rights. When you start questioning human rights as they apply to human beings, on some level you're dehumanizing them. Lest we think marriage is not a fundamental human right, let's go to the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights:

Article 16. (1) Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution. (2) Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses. (3) The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State.

Now, you will note the first clause does not specify that men must marry women, or that women must marry men. It simply says that men and women of full age have the right to marry. It also implies (in my mind, at least) that marriage in and of itself is sufficient to "found a family". I only note this because so many people seem so determined to deny family status to any couple without children--which includes most (but not all) same-sex couples.

There's my first salvo. Intercept and destroy.

Dan Simmons comments:

This statement shows a profound lack of understanding of culture, government, the United States, of democracy, and of the entire idea of "rights." It's a staggering misperception and the fact that more and more young people tend to think this way -- that whatever they think should be a "basic right" needs to be imposed on entire societies by force -- makes it no less a misunderstanding.

The constitution of the United States created no rights. It tried to define the universal human rights that should be protected through guaranteeing that NO GOVERNMENT SHALL INTERFERE WITH THEM. Thus the right to free assembly, free speech, voting, etc. But the list was very short -- and meant to be. The idea that there is a cosmic, universal, Gaiea-given right for men to marry men (and have sex with them) and women to marry women, (etc.) is absurd.

Marriage is such a basic societal function that every culture in history, while having variations in it, has reserved its own right to legally and socially (and usually religiously) define what marriage is and to whom its status will be granted. These definitions and boundaries to marriage are decided within each culture by human beings based on their basic religious and civil mores and have nothing to do with "basic rights" that have to be imposed by force on citizens and cultures unwilling to recognize them.

Throughout history -- and in some Arab nations today -- it is a man's "right" to marry any number of women he so chooses. The United States does not now and never has recognized that right. Indeed, the U.S. government refused Utah's admission to the Union for decades until the Mormons there legally and officially abandoned polygamy. Thus this "basic right" was denied.

Throughout history -- and in some nations today -- a man's "right" in marriage was to be the de facto owner of the woman he marries. She is legally counted as property and protected in the courts as such. This "basic right" has never been accepted by the people and culture of the United States. It is denied.

Throughout history -- and in many parts of the world today -- it is a basic right of men to marry (and to have sex with) women and girls of any age. A man might marry a girl of six and, if he wishes, force conjugal relations at any time he wishes. The societies supported this (and continue to support it even in some modern industrial nations). The people of the United States -- because of their religious and philosophical background -- have never acknowledged this "right." It is a right denied.

Throughout history and in much of the world today, cultures recognize and legally enforce the "right" of men to divorce their spouses unilaterally and easily -- in some cultures by publicly saying "I divorce you" three times while dropping a stone each time you speak. The United States denies this basic right so commonly associated with marriage.

Until recent years in certain post-industrial (and, whether incidental or not, post-Christian and post-religious) nations, there has been no culture anywhere in the world, no culture in all the annals of history, that granted the term "marriage" with all its accruing legal rights and privileges, to homosexuals wishing to live together. If it is a basic human right, it is one which no one -- not even the homosexuals from ancient Greece (where many city states had elaborate social accommodations for the man-boy relationships, but which held the practice itself to be illegal and immoral) through thousands of years of European pagan and then Christian societies, Asian societies, Islamic societies, African societies, aboriginal societies in Australia, South Pacific tribal societies, Aleut societies in the arctic . . . nowhere in history or the world did men wishing to have sex with men or (much less common) women admitting to wanting to have sex with women -- believe it was any sort of "right" for them to have a public union recognized by the society as marriage.

The United States preserves the democratic mechanism by which to change its official state (but never the many religious) views on what constitutes even so central an institution as marriage -- which has always, in all cultures, at all times, been defined as a recognized union between men and women -- but the idea that this new demand for homosexual marriage is a "right" that trumps all democratic process, and one that must be inflicted on the majority of Americans not wanting it as a feature of their society, and that a small minority of special pleaders should be allowed to enforce such a basic change to society, culture, and laws simply because they shout "basic right!" -- goes beyond being arrogant. It's essentially fascist.

Someone on this forum recently argued -- actually, stated as if it were a truism -- that the best sort of government was a "benevolent despotism." Benevolent by whose definition? Despotisms, by their very nature and definition, are never benevolent because they deny and suppress the most basic right acknowledged and defended across more than two centuries by the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States -- the right of a free people to decide their own destiny by free speech, free ballot, and by the will of the people being heard and heeded by their government within the safeguards and protections of the constitution.

These "progressive" judicial fiats that attempt to change the legal and cultural definitions of the single most basic human association and legally protected institution in our or any other culture are not merely wrong-headed, they're dangerous to the very structures of freedom that protect homosexuals and other formerly unpopular groups from real discrimination and harm.

Several years ago, almost two-thirds of Americans were polled as being "very sympathetic" to homosexuals' demand for various "rights." The support of the idea of legally recognized civil unions was -- and remains -- very high.

But gay groups and their supporters overreached by demanding judicial recognition of the basic and profound redefinition of marriage as one of those "rights." Public support went from two-thirds in favor of supporting "gay rights" to almost two-thirds opposed.

It's not Americans' basic tolerance and sense of fairness that changed. It's their recognition that this superior, arrogant, anti-democratic demand that the historical and social definition of marriage itself be changed -- without due democratic process and simply through claims of moral superiority by a minority and their supporters demanding special treatment -- is wrong.

It's not right and it's not their right.--Dan Simmons, dansimmons.com

10 posted on 11/07/2008 11:45:20 PM PST by Darkwolf377 (1-22-13)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: nickcarraway

Anything that pisses that megalomaniacal bitch off has got to be good.


11 posted on 11/07/2008 11:48:34 PM PST by fieldmarshaldj (~"This is what happens when you find a stranger in the Alps !"~~)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: nickcarraway

Mad Madge is just roid-raging (and ‘rhoid-raging) because she’ll be banned from marrying a third husband as long as she’s taking those hormones she’s been on...


12 posted on 11/07/2008 11:48:58 PM PST by counterpunch ( Mike Pence for House Minority Leader. Now!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Darkwolf377

Thanks.


13 posted on 11/07/2008 11:49:18 PM PST by nickcarraway (Are the Good Times Really Over?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: nickcarraway

If they banned plastic surgery, Madonna would legitimately have something to whine about.


14 posted on 11/07/2008 11:49:20 PM PST by Chairman of the Bard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: yongin

And blow her chances for future quickies?

Not bloody likely!


15 posted on 11/07/2008 11:49:53 PM PST by Salamander (Welcome to Obamageddon! The best apocalypse foreign money can buy!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: nickcarraway

She’s just trying to get even because people are always slamming her.


16 posted on 11/07/2008 11:51:00 PM PST by perfect_rovian_storm (RNC:NEWT OR NOT ONE DAMN DIME!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: nickcarraway

Why should she care? She lives in Great Britain!


17 posted on 11/07/2008 11:52:01 PM PST by tallyhoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: nickcarraway

Washed up whore has been. Hardly worth a key stroke.


18 posted on 11/07/2008 11:55:50 PM PST by Westlander (Unleash the Neutron Bomb)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: nickcarraway

She also approves of adultery.


19 posted on 11/07/2008 11:58:46 PM PST by Hi Heels (Now here at the Rock we have two rules. Rule #1 obey all rules. Rule #2 no writing on the walls...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: nickcarraway
Awwww...too bad!


20 posted on 11/07/2008 11:59:20 PM PST by Pinkbell
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: nickcarraway

Modonna, with all due respet (which I have zero for you musically or politically), take a hint from the Dixie Chicks debacle. Shut up and sing. Do you want to end up like BaBa Sricknine? Please go away - and take your Pal Gwennie with you.

Oh, and by the way Modanga, I always liked Cindy Lauper more than you.


21 posted on 11/07/2008 11:59:36 PM PST by ChetNavVet (Build It, and they won't come!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Hi Heels

Well, for people who are better than the rest of us, sure.


22 posted on 11/08/2008 12:00:46 AM PST by nickcarraway (Are the Good Times Really Over?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Hi Heels

What about when she gets as bored of her children as she did of her husband?


23 posted on 11/08/2008 12:01:23 AM PST by nickcarraway (Are the Good Times Really Over?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: nickcarraway

Hmm... In the course of one month:

Madonna divorces man.

Madonna whines about anti-gay-marriage landslide.

Just saying.

(Paging Ellen, Paging Ellen, please pick up the house phone...)


24 posted on 11/08/2008 12:02:26 AM PST by Cringing Negativism Network (PALIN 2012: No more RINOS... Ever!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ChetNavVet

25 posted on 11/08/2008 12:05:10 AM PST by Westlander (Unleash the Neutron Bomb)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Darkwolf377
In Simi Valley, the police department looks like this:

We call it "Madonna's Bra".

26 posted on 11/08/2008 12:05:51 AM PST by Hi Heels (Now here at the Rock we have two rules. Rule #1 obey all rules. Rule #2 no writing on the walls...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Pinkbell
The *itch should get rid of the big sunglasses and get a whole face welding shield.
27 posted on 11/08/2008 12:08:01 AM PST by The Cajun (Mind numbed robot , ditto-head, Hannitized, Levinite)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: ChetNavVet; Westlander

Although there is now public citation of her opposition to Prop 8, given her previous support for “homosexual rights,” there is every indication she bop.


28 posted on 11/08/2008 12:08:54 AM PST by nickcarraway (Are the Good Times Really Over?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: nyc1
I don't know if she gave up her US citizenship.

I do know that she went to England to pretend to acquire an English accent in an effort to sound more intelligent.

To Euro-trash travelers, the two-week English accent is like the Botox of intelligence that hides the frown lines of confusion and stupidity.

29 posted on 11/08/2008 12:10:30 AM PST by Ghost of Philip Marlowe (If Hillary is elected, her legacy will be telling the American people: Better put some ice on that.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: nickcarraway

I wonder what the karbala has to say about homesexuality? Anyone?

Madonna is a has-been. She should quietly fade away.


30 posted on 11/08/2008 12:36:13 AM PST by rfreedom4u (My Freedom of speech trumps your feelings!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: nickcarraway

Like a virgin. Pricked for the very first time (with a clean needle)

31 posted on 11/08/2008 1:36:53 AM PST by weegee (Global Warming Change? Fight Global Socialist CHANGE.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: nickcarraway

Serious question here, who are her fans? I mean, she had a couple of pretty good pop songs about 25 years ago, but I can’t name anything she’s done since then. She mostly stank as an actress, I liked Evita for the music, but I’d have to say that others could have done her role better.

So who actually goes to her concerts? Is she popular with the young crowd or has she become a sort of minor Elvis helping middle aged fans pretend they’re teenagers again?

(Now Frank, he knew how to grow old gracefully.)


32 posted on 11/08/2008 1:59:07 AM PST by JoeDetweiler
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: fieldmarshaldj

“Anything that pisses that megalomaniacal bitch off has got to be good.”

Very well said.


33 posted on 11/08/2008 3:30:18 AM PST by RU88 (The false messiah can not change water into wine any more than he can get unity from diversity.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: nickcarraway

I couldn’t care less if I tried what a washed-up, has-been skank has to say about anything.


34 posted on 11/08/2008 3:33:50 AM PST by Allegra
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: nickcarraway

STFU you worthless whore.


35 posted on 11/08/2008 3:52:41 AM PST by Joe Boucher (An enemy of Islam)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Allegra

What a terrible thing to say about your next Vice-President Dictator.

36 posted on 11/08/2008 10:58:48 PM PST by fieldmarshaldj (~"This is what happens when you find a stranger in the Alps !"~~)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Darkwolf377

“If we can have an African American president, we can have gay marriage!”

Yeah, blacks love it when you compare them to fags.


37 posted on 11/08/2008 11:54:29 PM PST by Marie2 (Everything the left does has the effect and intent of destroying the traditional family.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

Comment #38 Removed by Moderator

To: nickcarraway

Senator Madonna.


39 posted on 11/09/2008 5:00:21 AM PST by Toespi
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: nickcarraway

The old girl is getting Cranky. She must be all blocked up.
Rust?


40 posted on 11/09/2008 7:43:53 AM PST by Anti-Bubba182
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: nickcarraway

Who cares what she says.

We don’t march and threaten Catholics and Mormons.

We can boycott the corporations funding the repeal of Prop 8.

Boycotts can work for our side too.

There are many corporations funding the repeal of Prop 8.

This link takes us right to the corporate sponsor page to repel Prop 8:

http://laglc.convio.net/site/PageServer?pagename=SU_CORPORATIONS


41 posted on 11/10/2008 1:11:32 PM PST by Grampa Dave (Do we trust 0W0N$PENDALOT, Pelo$i, Barnie, Dodd & Reid to leave our 401k's/IRA's alone?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson