AP is reporting that Brad Pitt "says he won't be marrying Angelina Jolie until the restrictions on who can marry whom are dropped. 'Angie and I will consider tying the knot when everyone else in the country who wants to be married is legally able,' the 42-year-old actor reveals in Esquire magazine's October issue, on newsstands Sept. 19."
We IGF types have been warning social conservatives that excluding gay couples risks doing to marriage what excluding women did to the once-great men's clubs of mid-century-namely, condemning it to cultural obsolescence. If marriage is going to be defined as "that form of family which excludes homosexuals," more and more equality-minded heterosexuals are going to leave marriage behind. On several occasions when I've given talks at colleges, students have stood up and announced they won't marry until gays can.
Many conservatives seem to believe that by stopping same-sex marriage they can prevent marriage, and the culture, from changing. Brad Pitt says they're wrong. The social risks of gay marriage get debated incessantly; the risks of not having gay married, alas, get ignored.
15 Comments for “Brangelina’s Marriage Boycott”
posted by dalea on
Thank you Jonathon for this timely article. Now if George and his naturallawbots could get the message, but I suspect miracles are fairly rare events. What the campaign against gay marriage has accomplished is to show fair minded straight people that relationships can endure despite the lack of legal relationships. The widespread appearance of committed but unwed couples is going to have an effect. One part of which I suspect is to make marriage a quaint but unecessary part of life.
This threat to an industry in which the US leads the world, the Bridal business, is a real problem for those who rule over us. Perhaps we shall begin to see some movement our way fairly soon.
BTW, we should be celebrating those Unitarian Universalist and United Church of Christ clergy who have refused to perform any marriages until they can offer the same rights to all their parishoners. And note that no conservative christian clergy are in this group.
posted by Hershel on
People, nobody cares about celebrities. If Brangelica decided to go on a vegetarian diet, very few people would follow them.
It’s not that I don’t appreciate their gesture, I do, but since my conservative friends hate celebrities, this doesn’t help at all, only reafirms their beliefs that Hollywood is out of touch with America.
The news I care about is that the mother of Ann Heche spoke to O’reilly and says she regrets the way she treated Ellen, and that Degeneres and her former girlfriend had been very nice to her and were a good couple.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Honestly, Jonathan, if you think Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie are doing this out of some sort of moral stand, you’re crazy. They’re doing it because it’s a more socially-acceptable way of saying, “I don’t want to have to go through the divorce process again, especially not in California, and have my assets be fought over and be torn to bits in the press.”
Furthermore, it’s contradictory. If the argument for gay marriage is that a) we need to be married to protect our children, b) that we need to be married to have a viable relationship with the necessary benefits, and c) that we are harmed by the lack of a) and b)…..then Brad and Angelina’s skipping about, happy as clams, no problems at all, without those protections and benefits, completely undercuts the argument that we need them.
Same with the protesting clergy that dalea mentions above — if marriage is so essential to survival, then why on earth are they denying it to couples that ARE eligible because others aren’t? That’s like saying that, if there are more parachutes than there are passengers on a crashing plane, then no one should get one and everyone should die. It’s the logic of a two-year-old throwing a temper tantrum, not an adult.
I think the gay response to them should be like this: “Thanks, but no thanks. You see, we think marriage is so important to stable relationships and to raising kids, that we believe you’re hurting both your relationship AND your children by not taking advantage of it when you can. It makes no sense for you to willfully deny yourself these necessary benefits and protections just because we can’t get them; it’s bad for you and it’s bad for your kids, and our major concern is that relationships be protected and that children be given the best opportunity possible.”
That does two things:
— Disassociate gays from Hollywood libertines
— Make it clear that we do value relationships and family, and that we want the best situation for everyone
Win-win.
posted by CPT_Doom on
I think the gay response to them should be like this: “Thanks, but no thanks. You see, we think marriage is so important to stable relationships and to raising kids, that we believe you’re hurting both your relationship AND your children by not taking advantage of it when you can. It makes no sense for you to willfully deny yourself these necessary benefits and protections just because we can’t get them; it’s bad for you and it’s bad for your kids, and our major concern is that relationships be protected and that children be given the best opportunity possible.”
I would agree with you, ND30, if a) we weren’t talking about a couple who already has three “marriages” between them (I believe Jolie was married twice before, but may be wrong) and is likely to break up anyway and b) if an unmarried heterosexual couple faced anywhere near the discrimination that all same-sex couples face. In reality, Pitt and Jolie are already considered a couple by the vast majority of people, and were one of them hurt in a car accident, or some other tragedy, the remaining partner would certainly be given all the consideration and deference of a spouse, regardless of the legal niceties of their relationship. As it is, they can both adopt the same children, and be recognized as parents of the same birth child, without any specific issues, giving them a heightened set of protections before they even get to the question of marriage.
In addition, although I may be speaking blasphemy on a conserative-leaning site, we certainly should not be encouraging marriage for all couples, no matter who is a party to them. There are very few couples out there like Paul Newman and Joanne Woodward, or Tom Hanks and Rita Wilson, who have managed to make successful marriages co-exist with acting careers. Chances are that any children in a Pitt/Jolie relationship are going to be dealing with a breakup at some point in the future, and perhaps this is a case where suggesting marriage is counter-productive. Given the relationship is likely to fail no matter what, isn’t it better for all concerned for the true nature of the “commitment” to be expressed in their lack of a legal arrangement?
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
In reality, Pitt and Jolie are already considered a couple by the vast majority of people, and were one of them hurt in a car accident, or some other tragedy, the remaining partner would certainly be given all the consideration and deference of a spouse, regardless of the legal niceties of their relationship.
So, just because they’re heterosexual, they would be able to claim each other’s Social Security benefits, automatically make health decisions, immediately be first in line for inheritances, etc., despite not being married.
Don’t think so. The public may consider them a couple, but that doesn’t give them the rights of a married one under law.
As it is, they can both adopt the same children, and be recognized as parents of the same birth child, without any specific issues, giving them a heightened set of protections before they even get to the question of marriage.
Of course they can both be recognized as parents of the same birth child — they are capable of producing a child that is directly related to both of them. The fact that simple biology prevents a gay couple from doing so can hardly be construed as “discrimination”.
And if gays want to adopt the same child, they can; they just have to do it the same way that Brad and Angelina do, which is convince the correct agency that two unmarried parents is a good idea for a child.
Chances are that any children in a Pitt/Jolie relationship are going to be dealing with a breakup at some point in the future, and perhaps this is a case where suggesting marriage is counter-productive. Given the relationship is likely to fail no matter what, isn’t it better for all concerned for the true nature of the “commitment” to be expressed in their lack of a legal arrangement?
Then, since gay couples are likely to break up, there’s no need for them to have the legal right to marry; the nature of their “commitment” can be expressed without it.
And, since presumably having a commitment would harm the kids more, since it’s likely their parents will break up anyway, it’s better that gay couples not have a commitment.
This is where the lunatic tendency of the gay community to champion anyone who invokes “gay rights” as a reason for their behavior, regardless of how stupid and counterproductive it is, gets us into trouble.
posted by Bobby on
” I may be speaking blasphemy on a conserative-leaning site,”
—Don’t worry, this website is a center-left site, only diffference is that we have a few conservatives here speaking their minds.
North Dallas has a point. Besides, if they’re worried about divorce, they can always get a prenup. That can save you from California’s crazy divorce laws.
Personally, I don’t believe in no-fault divorce, if a wife or husband cheats, they should get nothing.
posted by kittynboi on
“”””They’re doing it because it’s a more socially-acceptable way of saying, “I don’t want to have to go through the divorce process again, especially not in California, and have my assets be fought over and be torn to bits in the press.”””””
Wouldn’t it be even easier for them to just not get married? Of course, regarding that reality undermines your excuse for an argument.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
I don’t see your point, kittynboi.
They are claiming that they would get married, but that they don’t want to do so unless everyone is allowed to do that.
Of course it would be easier for them to “just not get married”. But that wouldn’t have the panache of making a social cause out of your want to shack up.
My point is that they shouldn’t be allowed to hide behind some veneer of “social awareness”; they should just come right out and say that they want to screw like rabbits and pop out kids without having to have any legal responsibility to each other.
In short, gay marriage should not be used as a means of legitimizing straight couples’ irresponsibility.
posted by Audrey on
NDT, straight couples would be irresponsible whether gay people got married or not.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
I totally agree, Audrey.
But I don’t think they should be allowed to claim that their irresponsibility is some kind of “social protest”, especially when it links gay rights with either a convenience-first or a marriage-is-unnecessary attitude.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
And now to Jonathan’s direct point:
On several occasions when I’ve given talks at colleges, students have stood up and announced they won’t marry until gays can.
And this is a threat, why?
After all, if people deliberately want to cut themselves out of the benefits and protections of marriage, it does two things — 1) hurt only them and 2) make it more and more obvious that marriage is unnecessary for gays, since heterosexuals can willingly and happily do without it, and indeed believe that living without it is a better choice.
It also plays nicely to the belief that gays are out to destroy marriage, but we’ll set that aside for a bit.
However, the actual consequence of the action is not the point; what is obvious is that Jonathan and his ilk really want to stick it to social conservatives, so they champion things like this out of the belief that they’re actually hurting social conservatives’ feelings — no matter how counterproductive and contradictory the message it produces.
One of these days, the portion of the gay community that he represents may learn to think in terms other than taking out petty, short-sighted, and meaningless revenge against social conservatives.
For ALL our sakes, I hope it happens soon.
posted by dalea on
Bradgelina are not just random individuals shooting from the hip, IMHO. They are leading figures in one of the US’s most successful industries. And one of the most influential world scale cultural businesses going. It appears that this was a vetted, gone over statement approved by those with whom they work.
In other words, this statement is coming from and with the approval of many people in the entertainment industry, which is one of the US’s leading export businesses. I think it shows that finally our friends are beginning to get off dead center and work for and with us on advancing gay marriage.
It also serves to separate the entertainment industry from the conservative parts of US society. Making it easier to market US films etc abroad. Where social conservatives are not very influential. It would be interesting to see how this is treated in Europe, Asia and South America.
posted by Northeast Libertarian on
Kudos to the couple for stating their personal convictions in such a public forum, without regard to the baleful consequences I’m sure their PR and personal managers warned of.
However, I saw and had to comment on this:
our friends are beginning to get off dead center and work for and with us on advancing gay marriage
If by “our friends,” we’re talking about the Hollywood establishment, I think this is misplaced.
Hollywood’s given us a lot of “gay” content which is really just a straight man’s view as to what gay lives are like (see QAF for example). The “amazing, groundbreaking” movie for gays was a story about two married guys cheating on their wives with each other who meet a tragic end due to their unwanted sexuality — and still was unable to win an industry self-congratulatory award against a poorly-performed dramatization of the LA riots (too risky, we were told).
Before Hollywood in general can say it has got cred for going to bat for gay relationships in real life through their art, they have to develop some cred for portraying gay lives in a way which is, at a minimum, recognizably close to reality. That hasn’t happened yet — and shows few signs of happening yet.
Remember, it wasn’t that long ago that Paramount and Tom Cruise effectively said that a gay man could not be a heartthrob for straight women or play a straight man on the big screen. As Stevie Nicks sang years ago, it’s a real long way to go.
posted by Randy R. on
I’m not so much interested in the specifics of Brad and Jolina’s annoucement. Will it have the desired effect? Will it change anything? I really don’t know. No one does.
But I prefer to look at the bigger picture. Here you have two major leaders in a major industry voicing support for gay issues. In fact, a single gay issue that really doesn’t affect them at all, since neither is gay. Imagine this happening ten years ago, or even five. Brad Pitt announces his support for gay rights! This is far more than even many gay celebrities do. So Brad and Jolina have sent a strong signal to the world that it’s okay to support gays, in fact, sorta cool. Whether their intention is sincere or not doesn’t change this fact; whether they are doing it for their own selfish reasons or not doesn’t change this fact. I’m not interested in what they reallly really think inside their heads: I’m interested in what they say and do about gay rights.
In the future, we will see more straight people voicing support for gay rights: gays in the military, gay marriage, gay work rights, and so on. We should welcome all of it.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
I rather like the way it was put in today’s Chronicle:
Take heart, toxic bachelor-celebrities! You too can hitch your relationship ambivalence — hell, all your bad habits, for that matter — to a worthy cause. In the new issue of Esquire, in one stunning, triple salchow of a spin job, Brad Pitt has skillfully disguised his (and presumably Angelina’s) total uninterest in the legal state of marriage as a quest for the Greater Good, thrilling the silky socks off of homosexuals everywhere…..
Perhaps, following Brad’s example of making the world a better place by heroically not doing things he has no interest in doing, Lindsay Lohan will refuse to stop binge-drinking until all cars have hybrid engines.
I personally refuse to stop looking at animated Japanese porn until all wars, including Drug and Terror, are over. Following Brad’s awesome celebrity example, I am prepared to make this sacrifice for the sake of peace.
We must all ask ourselves, “What Would Brad Not Do?”
And then not do it.
Truer words were never spoken.