George Clooney joins L.A. cast of Prop. 8 play

I went to Yoga this morning and many people did not know about last nights live stream and I live in a large University Town with a large gay population. I was surprised. They probably needed to advertise more on the internet. Many people asked me to send them a link.

Voilà, case proved !

We started talking about streaming it on youtube on this forum just a couple of days ago, ... , and BANG, there it was on their facebookpage, twitteraccount and website, but toooooooooo late !

Well I hope next time they won't make the same mistake again, if there ever will be a next time.

I know, the fact that the entertainment programs are going to show interviews tomorrow is a bit after the fact....they should have been interviewing before AND after the program. Oh and I thought I read a tweet that said it would be available for a week. I am thinking HBO or something should pick it up and show it on cable....then more people will really see it....

Thanks to everyone for the articles, pics and video! The actors all did a great job!

Yeah if their main motivation is/was spreading awareness then they are sure handling it a wee bit wrong. Really weird, they should get a marketeer.

Over 26,000 hits on youtube...won't it stay there forever now ?

I thought this was cute:

Jesse Tyler Ferguson ‏ @jessetyler
One of my fondest memories of being in the play "8" last night will be Brad Pitt whispering to me: "Jesse, how do you do a curtain call?"

they should all do more theater....

Youtube content depends on who owns the rights. For example, NBC will often take down clips other people post from Saturday Night Live and instead of the video you get some message about copyright violations. I would think AFER would keep this up as long as possible to spread awareness and use as a fundraiser.

There has been quite a lot of press about it, more than you would expect for a play however I think the timing of it did not help. People were too distracted by the oscars and whitneys death that I think it got overlooked on many entertainment shows.

horrible pic
Jo

There is one thought....maybe they wanted to sell all the tickets for the theatre first before giving out the information that
it's free on the internet ?
Maybe now it will get coverage in other ways, TV etc

Not to me I M.....I like it

it's me wrote:horrible pic
Jo

I agree

Just finished watching it on YouTube --- so good! I can see why George wanted that role, he got a lot of the better lines. And I was happy to see my other crush, Martin Sheen, knocking it out of the park as usual. He really needs to get back on my TV.

Did anyone else think George's "Tam went on the lam" line (after his questioning of George Takei's character) might be an ad lib? It just struck me as a very "George" joke. Anyway, great job by all, and I wish I could have seen it live.

silly girl wrote: I am thinking HBO or something should pick it up and show it on cable....then more people will really see it....

That's a FANTASTIC idea!

I don't like a few of the avatars shown here....
But as I believe in good manners and not upsetting people,
I leave my opinion's unsaid.

Bravo Joanna!!!
I believe that everyone chooses their avatars to suit themselves, and I agree that there are many, MANY avatars that I don't like, and even some offend me. BUT, those people chose those avatars as they meant something to them. So, as in posting, if you don't like it, don't look at it.

There was an avatar of a Roman centurion's head that I absolutely hated. I won't mention the name because that person is not worth mentioning. LOL Put that one on ignore list, don't know if she is still posting.

Ok for anyone who watched and listened to the program did anyone else wonder what was going through his mind when they talked about marriage and what it means? Do you think it changed his mind?

SillyGirl, there were several time during his speaking and some of the others that I was wondering that exact thing. I doubt it changed his mind, but it had to get him thinking about what he and the others were saying.

Sorry, changed his mind about what? I think I'm a little off track here but to me marrying your (soulmate) was mainly because of certain issues (life insurance, etc.). If you love your mate then a marriage certificate doesn't necessarily validate your union except in the eyes of the law. IMO

Haven't watched it yet...just snippets....looks Brilliant !
My husband is going to link my Mac to our TV this evening and if the picture quality is suitable, we'll watch it on there....if not on my Mac.

Can someone just enlighten me about a basic fact regarding gay marriage please ? It's my understanding that the gay couples don't want a conventional marriage, as in the the type that male & females have, sometimes with a religious influence.
It's more about having the same legal rights in that form of commitment. Am I right ?
I think maybe the word "marriage" confuses a lot of people who are fiercely opposed and is this partly the media's fault for using that expression all the time ?
Of course, it's now allowed here in UK, with a civil ceremony.

I think George knows about the pros and cons of marriage with the involvement all of his friends over the years.
I just can't imagine him a married man at all....

I know that being married helps with legal issues but some of the comments were about being able to say "wife" or "husband".... I know that marriage is more than a piece of paper it is a way of uniting two souls--- but in order to have the same rights that is what is needed....does that make sense? The way the plaintiffs expressed themselves was that they wanted to feel that their union is the same as any married couple....to legitimize their life choices. I agree with what the judge said...if no one is getting hurt than who should care (I am paraphrasing). It is was funny because they talked about how gay marriage would be detrimental to traditional marriage....not realizing that marriage itself has been on the decline for years. Just my observation....

Thanks melbert & cindi for your comments re avatars.
They're a personal choice to the person who posts them IMO.
It's not a popularity contest after all, is it ?

Mine, at the moment, reflects the play 8, with George
chatting to the producer.

SO ?

Yes sillygirl, it does.....thank you for your comment.

silly girl wrote:--- but in order to have the same rights that is what is needed....does that make sense? The way the plaintiffs expressed themselves was that they wanted to feel that their union is the same as any married couple....to legitimize their life choices. ....

That's exactly my point. Thanks.

My understanding is that gays want all the rights to BE married in the eyes of God and the laws of the land. Along with that comes the rights that ALL married couples have in regard to family insurance coverage, the right to make decisions for your spouse, children, etc. It's not about the "piece of paper" per se, but in saying that, the law requires that piece of paper for you to have those rights. The gays want to be considered the same class citizens that the heteros are in the ability to get married and share their lives with the one they love. AND to have the same rights as everyone else who is allowed to get married. Even hetero couples, if they are NOT married (with the piece of paper), they don't have some rights.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

BRAD PITT AND GEORGE CLOONEY SUPPORT GAY MARRIAGE, PARTICIPATING IN PROP 8 PLAY

Brad Pitt and George Clooney participated in a table reading of the play 8 last night -- a work that explores the legal battle to overturn Proposition 8, California's ban on gay marriage.
Clooney recently addressed rumors he is gay, in an interview with The Advocate, saying: "My private life is private, and I'm very happy in it. Who does it hurt if someone thinks I'm gay? I'll be long dead and there will still be people who say I was gay. I don't give a s--t. I think it's funny, but the last thing you'll ever see me do is jump up and down, saying, 'These are lies!' That would be unfair and unkind to my good friends in the gay community. I'm not going to let anyone make it seem like being gay is a bad thing."
Pitt has said he and partner Angelina Jolie wouldn't marry until ALL couples have the legal right to wed. Pitt and Clooney were joined by fellow actors martin Sheen, Jamie Lee Curtis, Kevin Bacon, Modern Family's Jesse Tyler Ferguson, Glee's Jane Lynch, Matthew Morrison, and Chris Colfer, and George Takei.

PICS : [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]



Click HERE if video above doesn't work : [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Well, she didn't arrive with him, but left with him. Oops, wrong thread.

Yes, but I think she sat through the entire play to show her support. I give her credit for that. Hope PRC doesn't strike!!!

Ok off topic---what the heck is PRC????

Joanna wrote:Do we really want comments about anyone other than George and the play on this thread ?

ROTFLOL! That's like a double negative. She's in your avatar, so she's now in EVERY thread. Do as I say, not as I do. LOL, reminds me of someone else. LOL!!!

Joanna wrote:I don't like a few of the avatars shown here....
But as I believe in good manners and not upsetting people,
I leave my opinion's unsaid.

LOL, another "double negative".

I leave my opinion's unsaid.

Well, not exactly true.

What avatars have been that upsetting? I haven't seen any.

It's a picture, not a comment.
Actually... sisieq.... I've won a bet now, as I was waiting for your predictable comment.
So thanks for my £5 gal

PRC ? Phantom Red Clicker


Good to see you happy again sisieq

Joanna wrote:It's a picture, not a comment.
Actually... sisieq.... I've won a bet now, as I was waiting for your predictable comment.
So thanks for my £5 gal

Congratulations! BTW, you've become predictable, too!!!! LOL!!

Oh, BTW, a picture is worth a thousand words, so your avatar is a comment in and of its own. So you can no longer complain that "she" is brought up in George threads.

cindigirl wrote:Sorry, changed his mind about what? I think I'm a little off track here but to me marrying your (soulmate) was mainly because of certain issues (life insurance, etc.). If you love your mate then a marriage certificate doesn't necessarily validate your union except in the eyes of the law. IMO

Very well said!

However, life insurance can't be an "issue" (not saying its you CG) because a person name's a beneficiary. Same with wills and trusts, people are purposely added or not. And, now with Living Wills, you designate who makes responsible decisions when one is dying and can't make their own choices.

Thanks again laetval for all the pictures and videos.

You are funny sisieq

Did you enjoy the play ?

Joanna wrote:
Mine, at the moment, reflects the play 8, with George
chatting to the producer.

SO ?

SO!?! So, what interesting is that you chose the one with "her" in it. To me THAT is making a personal statement. Why didn't you chose the photo of just George and Norman alone? Its the one just left of the photo you chose one Wire Image.

#140636052

LOS ANGELES, CA - MARCH 03: Actor George Clooney (L) and producer Norman Lear...

Michael Buckner

Getty Images Collection

People: George Clooney, Norman Lear

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Joanna wrote:Can someone just enlighten me about a basic fact regarding gay marriage please ? It's my understanding that the gay couples don't want a conventional marriage, as in the the type that male & females have, sometimes with a religious influence.
It's more about having the same legal rights in that form of commitment. Am I right ?
I think maybe the word "marriage" confuses a lot of people who are fiercely opposed and is this partly the media's fault for using that expression all the time ?
Of course, it's now allowed here in UK, with a civil ceremony.

Yes, Joanna, they DO want a conventional marriage, the same type that male and females have, whether performed by a clergyman(so will do so), a justice of the peace, a judge, a marriage bureau official or some other official or friend (it seems that there is a "church" called something like Universal Church, which ordains people who are then able to perform legal marriages) . It isn't just to have the same legal rights. They want their union to be recognized as equal to those of heterosexual couples. They want more that a civil union as that doesn't put them in a equal place in the norm of society. They want that norm so there is no longer a stigma cast upon them.

They want to be able to "procreate" if they so choose without having their children labeled "illegetimate" or be able to apply for adoption as a married couple and receive the SAME consideration as a hetrosexual couple would. They want the same traditional trappings that marriage brings to a two-sex couple.

In most states in the US, they already have the rights under the cover of a civil union, but they want to be able to marry and if they are truly "in love" and have found their soulmate, IMHO I think they should be able to do so.
I think the divorce rate is probably a lot less among the Homosexual community than it is in the Hetrosexual community.

Hope this explanation helped.

They want more that a civil union

PP I know you were only giving an explanation, so my comment is NOT aimed at you.

No one can tell a religious group who they can marry. Many hetro couples only have civil unions because one or both are divorced.

Spanish and Muslims in California will continue to oppose Prop 8 because it's against their religious beliefs. I say Spanish as oppose to just Catholics is because Spanish Catholics have stronger Bible interpretations.

sisieq wrote:

They want more that a civil union

PP I know you were only giving an explanation, so my comment is NOT aimed at you.

No one can tell a religious group who they can marry. Many hetro couples only have civil unions because one or both are divorced.

Spanish and Muslims in California will continue to oppose Prop 8 because it's against their religious beliefs. I say Spanish as oppose to just Catholics is because Spanish Catholics have stronger Bible interpretations.

To be fair, you can't really assume a person's beliefs based on what religious/ethnic/other group they belong to. Martin Sheen, for example, is both Hispanic and devoutly Catholic, and participated in the play last night to support gay marriage. Just saying.

Missa wrote:

sisieq wrote:

They want more that a civil union

PP I know you were only giving an explanation, so my comment is NOT aimed at you.

No one can tell a religious group who they can marry. Many hetro couples only have civil unions because one or both are divorced.

Spanish and Muslims in California will continue to oppose Prop 8 because it's against their religious beliefs. I say Spanish as oppose to just Catholics is because Spanish Catholics have stronger Bible interpretations.

To be fair, you can't really assume a person's beliefs based on what religious/ethnic/other group they belong to. Martin Sheen, for example, is both Hispanic and devoutly Catholic, and participated in the play last night to support gay marriage. Just saying.

LOL, the "just saying" isn't necessary as it denotes a "tone" - that's the general reason for that phrase, IMHO.

You are correct. Not all from those groups feel that way. However, there were numerous articles when it failed after a state wide vote that Democrats were shocked that the Spanish communities showed a high percentage of being against it since the vast majority of Spanish vote Democratic. Reporters did research and found that both the Spanish and Muslims voted in high numbers against it due to their religious beliefs.

Martin Sheen is a far liberal. If I remember reading correctly, Nick and Nina are not supporters due to their religious beliefs. I think I remember George stating they had many arguments over this issue.

It goes without saying that not everyone from any particular demographic all vote alike. I'm sorry I forgot to express that.

Most, but not all, who are against it has nothing to do with Gay people, but their religious beliefs about the union of marriage. I think very strongly that Nick and Nina fall into that category.

BTW, just because one is married doesn't mean one will receive the life insurance money, pension monies, etc. Not if the spouse designated another person for the beneficiaries.

Good article, I like him like this:
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]


George Clooney: Marriage Equality Will Fall 'On the Right Side of History'

The actor joined an all-star cast Saturday for the play "8," raising $2 million for national marriage equality efforts. "At some point people are going to look back and wonder why this was ever an issue,” the actor tells THR.

A sold out reading of Academy Award-winning screenwriter Dustin Lance Black’s play 8 at the historic Wilshire Ebell Theater Saturday night not only filled both the stage and audience with a glittering constellation of Hollywood stars, but also demonstrated just how broad and deep the entertainment industry’s support for marriage equality has become.
The reading—whose all-star cast included George Clooney, Brad Pitt, Martin Sheen, Christine Lahti and Jamie Lee Curtis and was directed by Rob Reiner—raised more than $2 million to further the cause of securing full marriage equality at the federal level, more than double what it raised at its Sept. 19 New York premier. Black’s play, which might more accurately be described as a docu-drama, is based on the actual transcripts of the closing arguments in the federal lawsuit, which ultimately overturned Proposition 8, the California initiative that stripped gays and lesbians of their state constitutional right to marry.
The American Foundation for Equal Rights, which was co-founded by activist and political strategist Chad Griffin, brought the landmark suit and was a co-sponsor of “8” along with the New York-based Broadway Impact, which has organized the theater community on behalf of marriage equality.
Griffin recruited a bipartisan pair of legal superstars to argue against Prop. 8: former Republican Solicitor General Theodore Olson and Democrat David Boies, who represented Al Gore in Bush vs. Gore before the U.S. Supreme Court.
In Saturday’s reading, Sheen played Olson and Clooney portrayed Boies—who was in the audience—while Pitt filled the role of U.S. District Court Judge Vaughn R. Walker, whose decision to overturn Prop. 8 recently was upheld by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal. John C. Riley played David Blankenhorn, a key pro-Prop. 8 witness in the case, while Jane Lynch portrayed Maggie Gallagher, who as former chairwoman of ollowing Saturday’s performance, Clooney told The Hollywood Reporter that he has embraced the cause of marriage equality because “it's important to be on the right side of history. In 20 years, I don't want anyone to wonder where I stood. At some point people are going to look back and wonder why this was ever an issue.”
Clooney recalled that “eight years ago, when my dad (television journalist Nick Clooney) was running for Congress in Kentucky, this was used as a wedge issue to help defeat him. It’s not a wedge issue anymore.”
The actor/director described the preparation for Saturday’s reading as “unnerving. We began rehearsal at 12:30 this afternoon. There wasn't a lot of time for preparation." There was added pressure, he said, because many of the principals in the case—including Boies and the gay and lesbian couples on whose behalf the suit was brought—were in the audience.
PHOTOS: Hollywood's '8' Reading: Red Carpet Arrivals and Inside the Rehearsal
Even so, nerves didn’t deter the legendary levity that accompanies every Clooney-Pitt collaboration. There was lots of laughing and joking backstage, Clooney said. "After all, I only see him a couple times a year."
One of the highlights of the post-play celebration was the conversation between Clooney and Boies, who talked in rapid fire about the play, Sheen and the British House of Commons.
"Martin was the right guy for the part ," Clooney observed of his co-star Sheen, who played the part of Olsen. "He's had 30 years of preparation," he said. "He's been an activist all that time. You could imagine him chaining himself to a bridge.” (In fact, Sheen, a longtime supporter of the pacifist Catholic Worker Movement, once chained himself to the gates of a defense contractor’s headquarters as part of a protest.)
"Martin would say the lines tonight and his face would get red. He was perfect," Clooney said.
Asked whether he thought Black’s play gave his Boies character most of the night’s best lines, Clooney quipped, "Since we're not actually in court, I can say 'no comment.' Otherwise I would have to take the 5th."
Clooney and Boies skipped to the next subject: Their love of watching CSPAN. "I'm not talking about watching it constantly on a loop, because that would put you to sleep," Clooney said. "You have to pick your spots."
“Like the House of Commons,” Boies interjected, provoking Clooney’s pitch-perfect take on a posh English accent: "My good man, order!"
"CSPAN is fun," he added, cementing his reputation as political junkie.
Boies smiled broadly. He’d started the party by talking politics with Barbra Streisand and there he was ending a memorable day in the company of the world famous actor who’d just portrayed him. He clearly enjoyed the moment—and who wouldn’t.
As Clooney and Boies were talking, former deputy L.A. Police Chief, George Gascón, the new City Attorney of San Francisco, pushed his way though the throng of people (mostly women with cell-phone cameras) to shake Clooney's hand.
"You did a really great job," he said.
Clooney thanked him, posed for a few more photos and then informed Boies and his crowd of admirers that he needed to leave. After 11-hours at the theater, the activist actor was ready to call it a day—a very lucrative day in the fight for marriage equality. National Organization for Marriage also testified for the initiative. Kevin Bacon played Charles J. Cooper, the lawyer representing the anti-marriage equality case.
Entertainment industry attendees included Bryan Lourd, Kevin Huvane, Barry Meyer, Michael Lombardo, Rich Ross, Alan and Cindy Horn, Norman Lear, Carl Reiner, Steve Bing and Chris Albrecht.

Thanks SillyGirl. Great find!

Maybe you'll like my avatar??

yes Michelle
I like it

thanks

Joanna wrote:Can someone just enlighten me about a basic fact regarding gay marriage please ? It's my understanding that the gay couples don't want a conventional marriage, as in the the type that male & females have, sometimes with a religious influence.
It's more about having the same legal rights in that form of commitment. Am I right ?
I think maybe the word "marriage" confuses a lot of people who are fiercely opposed and is this partly the media's fault for using that expression all the time ?
Of course, it's now allowed here in UK, with a civil ceremony.

Most states and the U.S. federal government don't acknowledge civil unions or marriages. Only eight states and Washington, DC. allow same sex unions or marriages. A few states have friendly domestic partner laws which would allow your partner to be on your health insurance, and adoption laws that would allow same sex parents to be the legal parents of a child, etc. But almost half the states ban same sex marriages and unions.

A religious marriage is not what is being argued. None of the states that allow same sex marriages are forcing any religious group to perform marriages. It is also more than just the word marriage or civil unions, at least in the U.S. we have a history of "separate but equal" which never really worked for anyone, so I think this is part of the problem with changing the wording. They want the right to get a marriage license and then have your partner have the same legal rights as any spouse would. In your business arrangements, health, family and just to be recognized by the law as your spouse. I know George doesn't appear to see the need for him personally to be married again, or at least that is what he says, but a lot of people do, and good for him to see the importance for everyone.