Is Tom Hanks Un-American?
Culture-Splitting Battle
Quick … name one person, in all of world history, born as the result of a homosexual union. You can’t. It’s biologically impossible.
Yet, we are seeing a neverending, culture-splitting battle to equate homosexual unions with those between men and women. No matter how you slice it, they’re not equivalent, and that’s why most states specifically codify marriage, per se, as a union between man and woman. Heterosexual unions, joined by marriage, are the bedrock of our society — providing necessary structure, stability, and continuity.
Personally, I have no objection to civil unions. My only problem — for religious, biological, and sociological reasons — is calling a gay union “marriage.” It makes no sense to me. Let’s remember also that marriage, even between men and women, is a licensed privilege and not a right.
In November 2008, California put this issue to a vote via Proposition 8, which reinforces existing law to prohibit gay marriage. In that election, 52.3% of voters — including 70% of blacks — supported keeping the ban.
These results reinforce the publicly stated policies of Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, who are against gay marriage, as are the Roman Catholic Church, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, the Eastern Orthodox Church, and the Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations of America.
More American Than Obama?
Yet, today, actor Tom Hanks called Mormons un-American because they supported Prop 8: “There are a lot of people who feel that is un-American, and I am one of them. I do not like to see any discrimination codified on any piece of paper, any of the 50 states in America, but here’s what happens now. A little bit of light can be shed, and people can see who’s responsible, and that can motivate the next go-around of our self-correcting Constitution, and hopefully we can move forward instead of backwards. So let’s have faith in not only the American, but Californian, constitutional process.â€
First of all, we don’t have a “self-correcting” Constitution — either in Washington or Sacramento. If we as a populace want to add to or remove from our Constitution, we must vote on it. That’s exactly what happened in November 2008.
Second, calling someone un-American is a serious charge, and it presumes the accuser a “benchmark” American. Obviously, Tom Hanks thinks he’s more American than those against gay marriage. Is he more American than Barack Obama? Logic should hold. I’d like to witness Hanks telling the new black president, to his face, that he’s un-American.
What does it mean to be un-American? In my opinion, someone is un-American if he or she wants to see this country fail and/or is actively trying to destroy it — with words or actions.
So, let me understand this, Mr. Hanks: People who deeply believe in the sanctity and uniqueness of traditional marriage and family, including Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, are trying to destroy America? The evidence is all around you, Mr. Hanks: the dilution and dismantling of traditional marriage and family are destroying America.
Sell More Tickets
Why did Hanks single out the Mormons? Using all logic, he should have condemned blacks, who, one could argue, put Prop 8 in the victory column. Why didn’t he? I’m purposely baiting you here. Hanks knows that the Mormons are “safe” to attack — they’re nonviolent proxies for his fake wrath, and he’ll gets points in Hollywood for bashing them.
I have a deeper question: Why did Tom Hanks speak out at all on this matter? He’s not gay; Prop 8 doesn’t affect his life in any way, shape, or form. Why does he care? Simple: he’s a mercenary and believes that speaking out will sell more tickets and, consequently, fatten his wallet. And, that is why gays should be offended at his hypocrisy and disingenuousness.
There’s more to Tom Hanks’s hypocrisy, though. Again, let’s play out the logic. If Hanks is so outraged and offended by codified discrimination, on any piece of paper, in any of the 50 states of America, why doesn’t he publicly protest Roe v. Wade, the Freedom of Choice Act, and the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) — all three of which unconstitutionally discriminate against men? After all, Tom Hanks is a man, and these pernicious “codifications of discrimination” affect him and all men directly. Answer: being politically incorrect would make him lose ticket sales and, therefore, poorer.
The NoNonsense Bottom Line
I reject the transparently hypocritical, disingenuous, ludicrous claim of Tom Hanks that Mormons are un-American for supporting Proposition 8. A plurality of Californians — across all religions, races, and ethnicities — decided that marriage must be preserved as a union between one man and one woman. On that same day, by the way, voters in Florida and Arizona decided likewise.
Accusing others of being un-American, for financial gain, certainly could make Tom Hanks un-American, but I do not feel superior or phony enough to be the judge.
Postscript: Tom Hanks apologizes for “un-American” comment
About the Author
Marc H. Rudov is a globally known radio/TV personality, relationship coach, and author of 100+ articles and the books Under the Clitoral Hood: How to Crank Her Engine Without Cash, Booze, or Jumper Cables (ISBN 9780974501727), and The Man’s No-Nonsense Guide to Women: How to Succeed in Romance on Planet Earth (ISBN 0974501719). Mr. Rudov, the 2008 recipient of the National Coalition of Free Men’s “Award for Excellence In Promoting Gender Fairness In The Media,†is a regular guest on Fox News Channel’s Your World with Neil Cavuto and The O’Reilly Factor.
Rudov’s books, articles, blog, radio/TV archives, and podcasts are available at TheNoNonsenseMan.com.
Copyright © 2009 by Marc H. Rudov. All rights reserved.
| More from Marc H. Rudov
Stumble It!
January 17th, 2009 at 2:04 am
In your article you say:
"I have a deeper question: Why did Tom Hanks speak out at all on this matter? He’s not gay; Prop 8 doesn’t affect his life in any way, shape, or form. Why does he care?"
So, why do you care? It doesn't effect you either.
Just a bigot to be a bigot? You are Lame.
January 17th, 2009 at 2:06 am
Wow, Tom Hanks is sickening. I guess "stupids is as stupid 'says'". Honestly voting is American. Contributing to political campaigns is American. The vote was about the essential American aspect of marriage… and hence the rights related to it. Somehow Tom Hanks combines the three and decides the supporters are un-American. He is ridiculous. I wish he would keep his narrow-minded perspectives to himself.
January 17th, 2009 at 2:09 am
You nailed it. Thank you.
January 17th, 2009 at 2:11 am
"but I do not feel superior or phony enough to be the judge."
Really, really? Are you sure? Want to take a day or two and think about that Marc?
Wow. The dumb just seem to get dumber.
January 17th, 2009 at 2:25 am
a) Quick, name one person, in all of world history, born from an infertile couple. Or a post-menopausal couple. I don't need to, but I CAN name people who were born from a heterosexual relationship and end up being cast away, unwanted. And I CAN name kids who have same-sex parents, or single parents, or adopted parents, or guardians, who end up no worse than the average kid. Arguably, a same-sex couple who wishes to adopt kids will end up providing a better family than MANY heterosexual couples, because they are ready and willing to parent, as opposed to the heterosexual unions you see today: riddled with serial monogamy, extramarital affairs, spousal abuse, child neglect, etc. So if anything, this would only strengthen the supposed bedrock of society.
b) Marriage has already been affirmed as a right many times in court. Example cases include Meyer v. Nebraska, Griswold v. Connecticut, Loving v. Virginia, Zablocki v. Redhail, Turner v. Safley, and most recently, the In re Marriages cases. But I'll humor the point; let's say marriage is a privilege. Article I of the California Constitution maintains that one class of citizens may not hold a special privilege denied to another.
c) It's un-American because America champions the concept of 'liberty'; that is, we GRANT rights, rather than ELIMINATE them. We promote different viewpoints, and if you don't agree with it, well, no one is forcing you to get married. Ironically, it's 'liberty' that grants them the right to take someone else's right to 'liberty' as well.
d) "traditional marriage" to begin with is a vague notion. What's traditional? Polygyny, as was the first practiced form of marriage? What about marriage as a form of political, social, and economic contract? Perhaps, instead, we're referring to marriage that applies to white, heterosexual landowners? Or, a definition of marriage that bars interracial couples? Your idea of "traditional marriage" does not exist; consider: the United States, a country with less than 250 years of history, has already changed the institution of marriage to grant equal spousal status for women, exclude polygamy, and include interracial couples, despite notions of "tradition" that were echoed each and every time. And furthermore, I find it ironic that promoting stable monogamous relationships among same-sex couples somehow destroys the institution of marriage more than divorce. Here's an interesting tidbit: ALL nations that have legalized same-sex marriage thus far ALL have lower divorce rates than the United States. Causation? I won't assume that. Correlation? Kind of ironic.
There are real families being torn apart and denied benefits while Joe Schmoe produces a stream of babies from different marriages. If you believe that your marriage would have been personally threatened or diluted by a same-sex couple getting married hundreds of miles away, then your marriage is not a stable one to begin with. Quit engaging in armchair judgement and actually meet some of these couples and their kids. You'd be surprised at how perfectly normal (and open-minded) these families are.
January 17th, 2009 at 2:28 am
"Heterosexual unions, joined by marriage, are the bedrock of our society — providing necessary structure, stability, and continuity."
Marc — I want to live in the country where you do!! In America, where I live, the divorce rate is well over 50%. Children are born out of wedlock at an astonishing rate, here in America. Single mothers, here in America, are burdened with working and taking care of their children where the fathers feel no obligation to the family.
Where do you live? — maybe all of us anti-gay folks, here in America, can immigrate to your country! Please, tell us, in what county do you live that is so perfect and gay folks have no legal rights. I'm ready to move.
January 17th, 2009 at 2:34 am
Sorry, pal, I don't want to live in a country where gays have no rights, and I never once stated that I want America to be that country. You didn't read my article. My words are very clear and specific. — MHR
January 17th, 2009 at 2:36 am
I am not a bigot. I gave my answer above: the dilution and dismantling of traditional marriage and family are destroying America. THAT is why I care!
January 17th, 2009 at 2:39 am
I need no time to think about it, Sheffield. Calling someone un-American takes a lot of hubris. THAT is the substance of my article. Are you prepared to call Obama dumb? He's against gay marriage. Did you even read my article, or are you just a font of irration?
January 17th, 2009 at 2:39 am
"Why did Hanks single out the Mormons? Using all logic, he should have condemned blacks…"
Oh Marc, you poor uneducated idiot — this has been proven untrue by a recent study that evaluated the voting patterns on Prop 8. In case you are interested in the truth, it was folks 65+ years or older that made the difference in favor of Prop 8 and getting it passed.
If there ever was a reason NOT to have Medicare, I think we have found it. Let nature take care of the problem citizens 65+ years or older.
January 17th, 2009 at 7:08 am
I'm wondering if he donated to the no side.
January 17th, 2009 at 7:14 am
Nam, that study doesn't disprove that tons of blacks voted for prop 8. The study just claims that they weren't the deciding factor. And by your logic, Mormons then, are not responsible for the prop 8 outcome.
http://pearl-diving.blogspot.com/2008/12/dang-tho...
thanks for the post marc! it's awesome.
p.s. if we stop providing old people with medicaid, why don't we also just let gays take care of themselves. let's stop funding AIDs research, lets stop providing government assistance to homosexuals with stds because they refuse to engage is safe sex practicies (like using a condom…oh wait, using condoms doesn't really prevent some of the stds and diseases they expose themselves to).
January 17th, 2009 at 11:24 am
Great post! I love it! You're exactly right. I especially love the part about marriage being a privilege, not a right.
"What does it mean to be un-American? In my opinion, someone is un-American if he or she wants to see this country fail and/or is actively trying to destroy it — with words or actions."
Its interesting that Tom Hanks is only pointing the finger at Mormons when there were several other religions involved in the fight to pass prop 8. I don't think he could say that Mormons are actively trying to destroy this country. I just wonder why he is so blind to the destruction of the gay agenda.
Great point about why Hanks is speaking out at all. It certainly took him long enough, it's appears he's just following the Hollywood in-crowd now.
January 17th, 2009 at 11:44 am
Get ready Marc. Seems you've been linked by some website in Frisco (I won't give them free advertisement).
The floodgates of idiocy are about to burst.
January 17th, 2009 at 2:12 pm
What is not Un- American? From the outside America is a plurality, as most western countries are. There are many different and often fiercly conflicting views that 'Americans' hold. For one lot to call another lot 'un-' is daft.
We play that same ridiculous game in Australia too. Un-Australian is a charge leveled at some by Politicians with weak minds.
Hanks is an American. So are Mormon citizens. To say Hanks is Un-American is just joining in the ridiculous.
By the way, are murders, thieves and women who falsely accuse men of rape American while Prop8 voters (one way or another) not?
But…. good call on Hanks, Marc.
January 17th, 2009 at 4:59 pm
I am glad to learn the key words that apparently bring lefties quickly to Mens News Daily. I have to agree that the Loving case and others did show that marriage is, in fact, a right and not a privilege. That is part of the why we are fighting IMBRA. The lefty feminists feel that American men do NOT have the right to meet and marry women so they invented IMBRA to say that we need to be background checked first (the law now only deals with marriage to foreign women but it can be quickly expanded to deal with marriage to all women).
So will the pro-gay marriage people here admit that IMBRA is wrong?
Will they say that it is just as much a right for an American heterosexual male to meet and marry a foreign adult female than it is for a gay male to meet and marry another gay male?
Why do I hear the crickets chirping on this?
Now let's move to the comments on polygamy once having been a traditional form of marriage (even in Mormon America).
OK. I will buy that. I actually would like 3 wives. So when will the Left Wingers start promoting polygamy as much as gay marriage?
After all, if you did a survey, more American men will probably say "Hell yes, I would gladly have 3 wives" than would say "Hell yes, I would like to do another man from behind".
So when will Tom Hanks start promoting polygamy?
Why do I hear the crickets chirping again?
January 17th, 2009 at 5:32 pm
Marriage is not a right. Marriage is a privilege. Couples must first apply for a marriage license — and the state is not required to grant that license, for a variety of reasons.
January 17th, 2009 at 6:14 pm
From the federal point of view, the US Supreme Court found that Richard and Mildred Loving had the right to reproduce while being white and black and the court equated reproduction with marriage. They were arrested for being in the same bed in Virginia after getting married in another state. Virginia did not have to give them a license but had no right to arrest them later. Especially because of the Loving Case in which conservatives said marriage as a means of reproduction was a right, if conservatives on the Supreme Court side with the National Organization of Women in saying that marriage is NOT a right between a man and a foreign woman there will be Hell to pay.
What I am doing here is pointing out the disgusting hypocrisy of the people who disagree with you on gay marriage, Marc. The feminists will never grant that men and women have a right to marry and stay married…so there is no need to argue with them in any other way other than that they are hypocrites who want only rights for themselves while leaving no rights for normal heterosexuals.
Your argument was fine except it allowed left wingers to come here and think they were arguing successfully for the other side. My argument is something that left wingers cannot self-righteously answer.
I would like to see a gay marriage advocate come here and defend IMBRA while saying, with a straight face, that gay men have a right to meet each other online and later marry each other without being forced to take an Aids test first.
January 17th, 2009 at 8:31 pm
IMBRA?? That involves a US Citizen and one that is not. Same Sex Marriage is about two US Citizens with the U.S. Constitution representing both parties. Another important item…lots of gay men and women serve and protect this country night and day also and deserve the same right as their straight military personnel. I was an active duty sailor that served my country for the freedom of "Every U.S Citizen" Everyone…without exception. Tom Hanks was supportive of gay rights years ago when he received his award for "Philadelphia" over 15 years ago. The constitution was created to protect the minority against the majority rule. Step back…look at the past few years history here in the good old USA…and there is no doubt that we about to cross the last discrimination line against our citizens. Thank God for the intelligence of younger voters. God bless us ALL!
January 17th, 2009 at 8:42 pm
Marc the pursuit of happiness is guaranteed by the u.s. constitution and if someone decides that getting married will them make happy…Then marriage is indeed a right and the state doesn’t have the right to interfere in that decision…
January 18th, 2009 at 12:45 am
If you only have to outnumber people to violate their human rights, then the 95,000 politicians, religious leaders, "pro-family" leaders, and businesspeople who account for 95% of human rights violations against gay people should simply have their human rights violated by gay Americans who outnumber those violators over 100 to 1. Afterall, why should those thousands of Americans who violate human rights enjoy their own human rights when millions of Americans are suffering human rights violations? It seems like the homosexuals are peaceful and they are being punished for being peaceful.
January 18th, 2009 at 12:57 am
As I understand it, IMBRA does not involve a US citizen if that citizen happens to be female. It is a restriction on US men only. So I wouldn't be too ready to jump across that 'last discrimination line against our citizens' just yet.
January 18th, 2009 at 1:33 am
Rob…so you feel that a Gay American (Vet) should be compared to a non citizen of the U.S. Well…that sure puts it in a nut shell. Unfortunately, it's not an unpopular train of though. You and others like you are exactly what the makers of the constitution had in mind. Damn…blacks would still be riding on the back of the bus, women would still be in the kitchen instead of the Supreme Court….and I'm sure you would love to keep all gay's in the closet. Sorry! It ain't gonna happen!
January 18th, 2009 at 1:55 am
I agree with the basic premise of this article. I think it makes sense to define marriage in the historical context of a sacred contract between one man and one woman.
I also believe that there should be an avenue for gays to be lawfully joined so that their rights can be protected.
___________________________________________________________________
–“What does it mean to be un-American? In my opinion, someone is un-American if he or she wants to see this country fail and/or is actively trying to destroy it — with words or actions.”
___________________________________________________________________
If that’s the case, knowingly or not, most Americans are un-American, and in my opinion, that includes Tom and Marc.
January 18th, 2009 at 4:45 am
HBO’s Big Love Ex. Producer Tom Hank’s is trying to promote the show (come on, does anyone really watch that show, I think most of us didn’t even realize it was still on the air…..oh wait, I quess we all know now!) this was all about the money and publicity, too bad Hanks has to trash a religion and prove that he will do anything for a buck. Marc was right on with this article. Also, please note that Hanks comments were untrue when he stated that money was given to the mormon church to support Prop 8. Individuals directly supported and donated funds to support Prop 8 on their own – not through the mormon church.
January 18th, 2009 at 4:46 pm
You gay advocates are missing the point that you are on a Men's Rights Forum where laws are discussed that massively violate the rights of males in general.
It is not expected nor appreciated if you side against men when you could be wisely suggesting that you will help fight violations of male rights wherever you see them.
I didn't think anyone would really take the bait and try to argue that IMBRA is OK while the public opposition to gay marriage is not OK. I agree that majority rule is nonsense and not what our Republic is about…but you cannot pick and choose when the majority is wrong (it is mostly always wrong) and which laws are OK (most new laws are not OK).
IMBRA takes away the right of an American citizen (gays, lesbians, male or female including heterosexual veterans like myself) to say hello to another individual without intrusive US government interference. It is a gateway law, meaning that it does not mean much that it only now regulates communication between Americans and foreigners. If this gets upheld, the right for Americans to communicate with each other (online or off) will be hanging on a thread.
After messing with initial communication, IMBRA then forces the citizen (male or female) to go through more intensive background checks in order to get married. This violates the Loving decision as a judge correctly noted in the restraining order you can find at OnlineDatingRights dot com.
The correct correlation with gay veterans is that the US government apparently has the right to regulate Gay.com and background check older gays in the interest of the younger gays who can be called "vulnerable" the same way as the feminists claim foreigners are in their own countries. You gay "veterans" better get on board in the fight against IMBRA, VAWA and other anti-male laws or the men's rights movement will work to make sure your gay "rights" get permanently truncated by a still-conservative Supreme Court.
Gays have no business serving the National Organization of Womyn like slaves when these laws take away their rights as well. There are gay dating sites that fall under IMBRA but they, like everyone else, are just ignoring the law until the courts give the Obama Administration the backing to enforce it.
Your right to get married should be the least of your worries. Wait until HIV checks are necessary to say hi online. Surely, you don't think the conservative justices on the Supreme Court would uphold IMBRA saying "but older gays, of course, retain the right to meet young vulnerable gays online without regulation". Someone has to protect those innocent young men don't they?
January 18th, 2009 at 4:58 pm
“Also, given that I spend a lot of my time trying to make America stronger and adhere to law and principle, I don’t think anyone would call me un-American.â€
___________________________________________________
The only other time I ever tried to comment on one of your articles you deleted three of my comments because I didn’t agree with your opinion. In one of the comments all I said was that someone who claims to know the meaning of love, yet lashes out at those who don’t agree with him (which you did) is probably on the wrong track. There was no reason to censor my comments, (it was the only time my comments on this website were ever censored) but you did it anyway.
Censorship is as un-American as it gets. I would bet the farm that you’re un-American in more ways than you would ever care to admit.
And that’s the no-nonsense bottom-line.
January 18th, 2009 at 4:58 pm
“Also, given that I spend a lot of my time trying to make America stronger and adhere to law and principle, I don’t think anyone would call me un-American.â€
The only other time I ever tried to comment on one of your articles you deleted three of my comments because I didn’t agree with your opinion. In one of the comments all I said was that someone who claims to know the meaning of love, yet lashes out at those who don’t agree with him (which you did) is probably on the wrong track. There was no reason to censor my comments, (it was the only time my comments on this website were ever censored) but you did it anyway.
Censorship is as un-American as it gets. I would bet the farm that you are un-American in more ways than you would ever care to admit.
And that’s the no-nonsense bottom-line.
January 18th, 2009 at 6:28 pm
To Vets Abroad…I took a moment to check out IMBRA….and with the limited information reviewed…it seems like a crock! Good for you and the passion in going against it….well done! Same sex Marriage being made legal is just another step to address IMBRA and other discriminations. Men's Rights/Women's Rights … all the same to me..as long as discrimination is not used to deny rights and liberties and protects all of us.
January 18th, 2009 at 6:55 pm
I, too, (as a sometime Catholic) find aspects of Mormonism to be off-putting, but I have tremendous admiration for their conceptualisation of Family. They seem to see Family in the way the middle ages Catholic builders saw Cathedrals, a magnificent Testament. They are Rocks for ‘Family’ amid stormy seas and it is hardly surprising that they should viewed as become the vanguard of defence of Family – even more so than Catholics – and a target for the wreckers of the Left, the ‘useful idiots’ of Marxism.
January 18th, 2009 at 10:00 pm
Tom Hanks may be a great actor but his prejudice is disturbing. Although it may be easy political sport to take aim at Mormon participation on Prop 8, I doubt Hanks would be willing to make this statement about other groups. If it is un-American to support Prop 8, then… The elderly are un-American (67% supported Prop 8), Hispanics are un-American (59% supported Prop 8), and Blacks are un-American (58% supported Prop 8). It’s ironic that these statements would be considered politically incorrect, but when Hanks takes a shot at a religion it is viewed as acceptable and even praised.
January 19th, 2009 at 2:26 am
States regulate marriage and divorce. One cannot get married without a license — as one cannot teach, practice medicine, sell stocks, practice law, practice accounting, fish, hunt, or drive without a license. Marriage is a privilege, not a right.
January 19th, 2009 at 2:29 am
There is an avenue for gays to be lawfully joined: the civil union. By the way, my article is not about gay marriage; it is about hypocrisy.
Also, given that I spend a lot of my time trying to make America stronger and adhere to law and principle, I don't think anyone would call me un-American.
January 19th, 2009 at 2:33 am
Precisely. That is the point of my article. Hanks made his statements to increase ticket sales. If he is so disturbed about "codified discrimination, he would rail against the unconstitutional Roe v. Wade, Freedom of Choice Act, VAWA, maternity fraud, paternity fraud, rape fraud (part of VAWA), and Green Card fraud (part of VAWA). Does he? Of course not — he's a hypocrite.
January 19th, 2009 at 3:12 am
“Also, given that I spend a lot of my time trying to make America stronger and adhere to law and principle, I don't think anyone would call me un-American.”
__________________________________________________________
The only other time I ever tried to comment on one of your articles you deleted three of my comments because I didn’t agree with your opinion. In one of the comments all I said was that someone who claims to know the meaning of love, yet lashes out at those who don’t agree with him (which you did) is probably on the wrong track. There was no reason to censor my comments, (it was the only time my comments on this website were ever censored) but you did it anyway.
Censorship is as un-American as it gets. I would bet the farm that you are un-American in more ways than you would ever care to admit.
And that’s the no-nonsense bottom-line.
January 19th, 2009 at 4:26 am
The media has tried to back away from its early claim that blacks passed Prop 8. Here are the stats from a decent poll of those who voted – 67% of the elderly voted for 8, 59% of Hispanics voted for 8, and 58% of blacks voted for 8. Where are the gay rights marches at nursing homes, etc.?! Part of the reason gay rights groups have targeted Mormons is because it's just not PC to attack old people!
January 19th, 2009 at 4:27 am
Well, I'm here and I agree with what Marc says. What Tom Hanks said is not only un-American but purely hypocritical. Before you bite my head off, here's WHY I'm saying this. First off all, he has no right to ostracize the LDS Church; why this church out of all the other religons is beyond me.
He does if for the publicity; no thanks to this asinine comment, people who used to have respect for it have lost all respect for him (which wasn't that much in the first place). Does he think he's BETTER than everyone else!? Oh, wait, I almost forgot that he's from Hollywood, which means he doesn't have to have common sense.
No, let me finish, I know exactly what I'm saying. Yes, we "Mormons" may have beliefs that make other people react weird and, in this case, hostile. But we're just as American as everyone else! We DON'T hate gay/homosexual people! We NEVER said that! It''s just we find it sad that people choose that kind of lifestyle and they need help, but they are often afraid/scared to admit it! We may not tolerate or condone what they do, but we never openly said anything about antipathy. Tom Hanks, who obviously has no intelligence and/or no life whatsoever, assumes as such and he should just shut up.
January 19th, 2009 at 8:58 pm
Marc, you missed the bottom line on this one. Apparently the Durkheim constant got the better of you.
Civil unions grant nearly all secular social and economic legal rights that marriage does. A civil union is essentially equivalent to marriage but only lacking the label. One cannot support marriage as being 'the necessary bedrock" and support its secular replacement via same-sex civil unions.
No matter how you cut it, when any two women can have a civil union or same-sex marriage, men have no social parenting rights, their economic rights subservient to ornery child support orders, and political rights demolished in the world of alpha-male feminist politics.
Feminists pushed civil unions first because they knew it would be relatively easy to pass lacking opposition from religious conservatives. Now, they want to absorb the word "marriage" too.
January 19th, 2009 at 10:44 pm
David Usher, I didn't miss anything. This article is not about gay marriage or civil unions — and I have no problems with civil unions, regardless of what you say.
This article is about the HYPOCRISY of Tom Hanks. Unfortunately, when most people see gay and marriage in the same sentence, their emotions take over, their brains shut down, and they become totally blind to the other words in the article.
January 20th, 2009 at 10:57 am
Senator Hatch and the Mormons practically wrote VAWA 2005 (Violence Against Women Act). By comparison, Tom Hanks and the gay community are just innocent babes in the woods. They are only hypocrites if they know about the VAWA controversy, etc.
Marc accuses Tom Hanks of only attacking a safe target and not attacking those on "his own side" that he also could be attacking. But Marc considers gays and Hollywood to be a safe target while he considers social conservatives to be "his own side" (not a safe target) despite the fact that they are siding with the feminists in Congress.
To be fair, Marc will make a generic comment now and then stating, correctly, that ALL politicians are betraying heterosexual males in Congress.
January 20th, 2009 at 11:14 am
Government censorship is Un-American, yes. Marc deleting comments on Marc's posting isn't. You can go start your own website anytime.
January 20th, 2009 at 11:32 am
Government censorship is Un-American, yes. Marc deleting comments on Marc’s posting isn’t. You can go start your own website anytime.
____________________________________________________
I’m sure a lot of feminists would agree with you. From what I’ve heard, they like to run their websites like that.
Feminists apparently see it your way, but I doubt very many reasonable people do.
Allowing a free and fair exchange of ideas and opinions, without censorship, is what makes this such a great website.
We may not agree with each other, but at least we all get a chance to be heard.
January 20th, 2009 at 8:13 pm
Shame that…..Usher makes a good point. That your intended topic, or angle is something else is important when explaining emphasis or its lack. But following his assertion to its hypothetical conclusion and testing it there may tell you there be a problem.
Though your articles are not direct leading indicators to legislation (sorry…I like em, but they are not yet getting directly codified), rather than "I don't care what you say"….care to address those potential pitfalls to men that SSM present?
January 23rd, 2009 at 12:51 pm
[...] Men’s News Daily has a good article on this very issue. BTW Mr, Hanks is a supporter of the Obamassiah. No shock there. [...]
January 31st, 2009 at 5:30 pm
Once again Marc you get it wrong as you so often do…Marriage is a natural right conferred by nature and not by an artificial construct called the state except by the barrel of a gun and that is called tyranny in any language…
February 12th, 2009 at 1:24 am
Geeezus!! Don’t attack the lefts religion!!
Abortion and Gays….You can’t win…and as a non-liberal you are NOT ALLOWED to mention either unless you mention a bible thumping nutcase conservative who should burn in hell…know the rules.. the left can spill acidic comments all over anyone that dares to disagree. You however, are not allowed to disagree, ever!!!
Liberalism, ya gotta love it.