Idol Headlines for 11/28/08

Nice Q&A with Chikezie. Too bad Brooke has to have her name in that same article about Mormon support for the gay marriage ban.

Both links for the articles in the East Valley Tribune are death to me…

And Kim Locke continues to remain a very sad case of potential unrealized. I have always thought that Kim Locke was one of the truly great voices on AI, and yet she continues to remain mediocre in what she produces. Oh well…I still laugh when I think about that outfit she wore the last time she was on AI — the Christian Siriano nightmare.

Kim definitely hasn’t found the right music to showcase her voice yet. And it’s a strong, rich voice.

I do like her rendition of I’ve Got Your Love to Keep Me Warm.

Actually I think that article that mentioned Brooke also reported that gay Mormons and their supporters would hold a vigil across the street from the lighting in opposition to Mormon support of the gay marriage ban.

So I guess even Idols can’t escape from the real world, where debates ensue … as to how Brooke feels about gay marriage, I couldn’t begin to know.

New Blog

Happy Thanksgiving

Hey Guys! Just wanted to say that I hope everyone had a Happy Thanksgiving!! We were in New York this week, and I had a blast! Yesterday was the Macy’s Thanksgiving Day Parade, and that was really exciting. I was on the Green Dog float, and there were tons and tons and tons of people on the sides. It was pretty chilly too, but I heard that it was a really nice day compared to previous years haha. I bundled and layered up as much as I could though. I sang Crush near the end, and a couple of songs played during our time going down the streets. And there’s a mouse in here. Sorry I know that was random, but I can hear it wandering around and it keeps squeaking.

Celeste ´s notes: it goes on and on…

P.S. It was really fun to see all the signs you guys made during the parade! haha

Songs for the day: Decode – Paramore (From the Twilight Soundtrack) It shows just how great of a singer Hayley is.

LOL at this part too in the blog:

Oh, the night before we saw the musical, my mom and I watched Twilight. I never read the books but a bunch of my friends are really into it, and the movie’s been getting a bunch of hype so we decided to go see it. I actually really liked it. The weird thing is when we walked into the theater Crush was playing so we walked back out because it was so weird haha

Good for Terri Seymour for speaking up for herself and not letting Simon mischaracterize her. At least from my perspective, it appeared that she was probably the reasonable partner, as Simon doesn’t seem to be the most trustworthy person to be intimately involved with. Just a guess.

Diana going country. Seems to happen to a lot of people these days. hee. I have to say, I like the new country a lot more than I ever liked the old.

And Kim has a new Christmas song. Will have to check it out.

I don’t care where Brooke stands on gay rights. Frankly it’s her business. I feel a little sad for any Mormon right now who feels their church may not be speaking for them, just as any mainstream Christian might feel when their leadership does something that they disagree with. No religious sect is monolithic, even though we sometimes characterize them as such. There are Mormon’s who support gay rights. Maybe Brooke does, maybe she doesn’t.

The Christian Siriano dress was a nightmare. They both should have realized that Christian doesn’t design for women with curves. Too bad, if the dress had been fierce, it would have been a boon for both of them. That being said, considering the state of the music industry Kim could be in an even worse position.

David is funny, how he was weirded out hearing Crush in the theater. When I went to see Quantum, it played after the movie credits….it’s so great to see how week after week he pushes other people’s music, when he could be pushing his own. Impressive.

Yet another Idol has gone Broadway, well sort of (Sabrina Sloan).

Full review of Chris Sligh’s sweetheart performance in Culpeper, VA to commemorate Kelsey Orndorff, who died in a car crash en route to a concert he had elsewhere. Awwww he was so sweet to do that

The Christian Siriano dress was a nightmare. They both should have realized that Christian doesnà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â€ž ¢t design for women with curves. Too bad, if the dress had been fierce, it would have been a boon for both of them.

I love Christian but that dress did not work, imo. It’s a shame to waste such a great opportunity to appear before millions of people and not look your best. Sometimes I think idols who come back want too much to make a good impression, and try too hard.

A case in point is Kellie Pickler, the first year she came back, when she looked much older than she should, and especially it looked like she had had her “chest” done and that was all anyone talked about after her performance. She made up for it though last season, when she did a fine job on Idol and totally worked the crowd.

Oceana, I love Christian too, it’s because of him I started watching PW. That dress was so disappointing because I know how good he can be.

Sometimes returnees do try too hard, they understand more than anyone what exposure on this show means. Regarding the Pickler return though, I would never have noticed her ‘additions’ had it not been for Ryan. I just don’t notice stuff like that unless it’s too obvious, and it wasn’t to me. I dig Ryan, but it was sorta crass to mention a young ladies breasts, period.

I meant to metion how caring and kind for Chris Sligh to support his fans family the way he did. I’ve not had much use for him, but he really gained some cool points from me.

Unpopular opinion but I do care to know how both Brooke and David stand on the gay marriage issue. They both are prominent members of a church that actively worked to take away the civil rights of a segment of society and I won’t support any of their career endeavors until I know whether or not they condone it.

deleted…

Niall- It is your choice who you support for whatever reasons. Personally, I don’t want the idols or any entertainers pushing their beliefs on me. I just want to hear them sing.

Also, this issue is extremely complicated and not as simple as many on the negative side make it out to be. The church did not work to take away anyone’s rights. Individuals who believe in marriage of many religions and beliefs worked to keep marriage the same institution it has been for eons of time.

Fans ask Cook questions in the latest edition of People Magazine. Scans:

http://i40.photobucket.com/albums/e204/crzytarau/DavidPeople.jpg

http://i40.photobucket.com/albums/e204/crzytarau/DavidPeople001.jpg

Personally, I donà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â€ž ¢t want the idols or any entertainers pushing their beliefs on me. I just want to hear them sing.

Agreed. And I don’t think we’d be hearing from them soon about their stand on the issue They’re bound to alienate some of their fans either way so I think they’d be smart and they’d just keep quiet about it.

I believe that everybody gets an opinion. I don’t feel that voicing an opinion is pushing beliefs on me. I may agree or disagree with said opinion, but unless they are obnoxious about it, it has not one thing to do with whether I like their music or not.

I believe that everybody gets an opinion. I donà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â€ž ¢t feel that voicing an opinion is pushing beliefs on me. I may agree or disagree with said opinion, but unless they are obnoxious about it, it has not one thing to do with whether I like their music or not.

I agree with this.
When I say I hate chocolate, I’m not telling everyone else they should hate chocolate too, I’m just saying I don’t like it. I don’t think voicing your opinion is pushing beliefs on others.

I just believe that as an entertainer with a wide audience, it is offensive to a major portion of your audence if you voice an opinion on something that is controversial. I understand others feel differently, but I just want my entertainers to entertain. Entertainers are not normal people (at least famous entertainers).

Yeah, “Shut up and Sing”. That is for entertainers, but not artists.

To me Artist= entertainer. (interchangeable)

Entertainers, however, are normal people we just see more of them and their opinions seem to have more weight (to the general population). That’s why when they make a statement of some sort I (as a normal unseen person) need to know what my own beliefs and opinions are so I can get past the fact that they have made a statement of some sort.

Bottem line: If I’m confident in my own beliefs then I won’t feel threatened by their opinion if is different than mine, and I can ultimately enjoy their music and entertainment in spite of what they believe.

I still don’t want them to give their stand on the issue, they’re going to offend a lot of people either way. If they say they are pro, they’re gonna get backlash from their church. If they say they are against, they’re gonna get backlash from the gay community. It’s a lose-lose situation. Everyone has an opinion but there are times when it’s better kept to oneself. I think this is one of those times for them.

And artists are normal people too. IMO.

David Archuleta’s “Crush” has reclaimed the Number 1 spot on the Vh1 Top 20 Countdown, displacing David Cook’s “Light On” to the number 2 spot. Congratulations to both Davids!

Thank you the news Ozarka….

The current tour, which kicks off Saturday in Pittsburgh, features former Top 10 à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã…“American Idolà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬  finalists David Hernandez and Chikezie Eze, both from Season 7, Diana DeGarmo from Season 3, and Kimberley Locke from Season 2.

So, did David Hernandez get promoted? Had he been in any other season, he would have gotten into the Top Ten. Other than Amanda, this was the strongest group of singers on the show.

David Archuleta is such a doll babe. As time goes by, I hope he is able to retain some of the sweetest that is part of his personality.

If an artist has reached the status of SUPERSTAR, then s/he can express an opinion without too much fear of fan rejection. I’d rather they not do it now.

I believe that everybody gets an opinion. I donà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â€ž ¢t feel that voicing an opinion is pushing beliefs on me. I may agree or disagree with said opinion, but unless they are obnoxious about it, it has not one thing to do with whether I like their music or not.

I totally agree. I might even go farther and say, even if they are totally obnoxious about it, it may have nothing to do with whether their music moves me. But, I’m odd that way. :tongue_laugh_ee:

I just believe that as an entertainer with a wide audience, it is offensive to a major portion of your audence if you voice an opinion on something that is controversial. I understand others feel differently, but I just want my entertainers to entertain. Entertainers are not normal people (at least famous entertainers).

I understand where you are coming from to an extent — protective of the artists’ commercial interests, if you will. But, entertainers/artists ARE normal people, human beings, too. And, it remains their right to decide for themselves whether a cause or issue or debate is one that means enough to them to voice their views. Personally, it seems a little unfair to me to judge an artist, the person (or their art, the product) because an artist chooses to speak, or because the substance of his/her view on one particular “controversial” issue may differ from mine. There’s so much more to it than that, isn’t there? (rhetorical)

I don’t know. I’m just continually disheartened by this inclination to demonize or marginalize those who disagree with us. Or, to suggest that people (any) should have reason to fear if they speak out. I’m sure, at some level, it’s true, but I don’t have to like it or believe it’s right. :sad_wp:

I will admit to a couple of singer’s who were so OTT obnoxious about their views I have never purchased another thing from them. I will add a couple of actors to that list also. No names. I am sure they are not crying over losing my money.

Ok so let me clarify to say that if somebody is OTT (obnoxious) and I agree with them, it won’t bother me. If I disagree with an obnoxiously given viewpoint, I’d probably not buy their music (art, books, whatever)…I am human after all. But to say that an artist and an entertainer is interchangeable baffles me. Miley Cyrus is an entertainer but I’d be hard pressed to say she’s an artist.

If you are a true artist, your viewpoint of the world has to color your art. I’m not opposed to hearing what that is. For me, it only adds to the art To say somebody should shut up and sing (write, paint) makes me think that you are losing so very much of what they are saying. For me, the context in which they are sharing that view means so very much.

ETA to say that a respectfully given viewpoint would never sway me either way to buy or not buy their music. Because I believe everybody gets their viewpoints. I had a difficult time with people who said that Chris Daughtry shouldn’t try to get people to vote. He was very careful not to try in any manner to get people to vote either way. But the fact that people were offended by him trying to get the vote out either way truly baffled me.

I believe in live and let live. The artists have a right to express their viewpoints and I reserve the right to not support them. I have this strange need to like and respect the artists that I support. I don’t buy music from artists that I don’t like as people. No song is or has ever been that good to me.

Of course, gabam, I never said I’d buy what I don’t like. I wouldn’t whether they agree with my political/social viewpoints or not if I think their music sucks. I feel many more agree with my viewpoints than not but I don’t buy their music because they have a similar social outlook. That would just be a given for me. What I said was those who I like the music of would probably not make me not want their music whether they agree or disagree with me. But foremost to that is that I like their music to begin with.

They both are prominent members of a church that actively worked to take away the civil rights of a segment of society and I wonà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â€ž ¢t support any of their career endeavors until I know whether or not they condone it.

As I know, not only Mormons were against Homosexual marriage, I have read some articles in the Times and they only are 2% of the total population in California so said that is their fault is giving them to much credità ¢Ã¢â€š ¬ ¦ member form the Catholic Church were too, people from Protestant or separate Christian people too (sorry Spanish speaker here donà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â€ž ¢t know how you call them), people to whatever religion were against homosexual marriage, or people that donà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â€ž ¢t take part in any religion and just donà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â€ž ¢t like the idea of homosexual people getting marriedà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬ ¦.every member in this groups has the right to choose their side, weather it was pro or against, and personally I donà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â€ž ¢t care if David and Brooke supported or not the Prop 8à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬ ¦ not because I donà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â€ž ¢t care about gayà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â€ž ¢s rights but because if both their right to choose their own point of view with out the fear to people attacking then for it, after all that is Democracy and US is a Democratic country, that the reason because the vote is secret, so nobody can attack me because of my believesà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬ ¦

I hope neither of them addresses the issue ever, it will problem to both of them, and as far as I know at 17 he canà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â€ž ¢t vote in USà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬ ¦.

Well, the Morman church gave multi millions of dollars to see this thing passed. All that tithing is huge bucks. People give their money to a church to do with as they will. Much money went to see that Prop 8 went the way they wanted. It didn’t go to see that people were clothed or sheltered. But to be fair, much money that wasn’t from the Morman church went the same way. I just guess (know) I have a difficult time hating people who don’t want to hurt you, don’t want to take away God as you know him/her, just want to live and let live.

Prop 8 was going to fail in California until religious factions saw how it was going. I guess I have a problem with the fact that it has nothing to do with religion. It’s not ours to judge in my mind. We all have to meet our maker eventually if that’s what we believe in. I’d rather meet him/her knowing that I loved and gave a chance to everybody than saying I condemned anybody for what I believed was the way I felt God wanted it. As always YMMV.

^I agree with you, our believes tell us to love everybody no mather they preference, who or how they are… my point is that since US is a Democratic country attack a group, Mormons, for their believe is not better that attack gays for their sexual orientation… both gruops will find justice in their own acts and is out our hands to judge them…

Other thing that bothers me is how much hate, I can ´t think in other way to call it, after all a lot of different groups were againts Gay Marriege, as it said in this article:

Exit polls data
Exit polls show that religious views had a profound effect on the result, spanning racial lines:

– 84 percent of those who attend church weekly voted yes.

– 81 percent of white evangelicals voted yes.

– 65 percent of white Protestants voted yes.

– 64 percent of Catholics voted yes. Catholics accounted for 30 percent of all voters.

A late push by many churches to win over their congregations played a decisive role in increasing turnout and swaying opinion, said Mark DiCamillo, director of the Field Poll, who analyzed the figures.

The last Field Poll, conducted a week before the election, showed that weekly churchgoers increased their support in the final week from 72 percent to 84 percent. Catholic support increased from 44 percent to 64 percent – a jump that accounted for 6 percent of the total California electorate and equivalent to the state’s entire African American population combined.

The shift in Catholics alone more than accounted for Prop. 8′s 5 percent margin of victory.

“The Sunday before the election is just a very influential time for churchgoers,” said DiCamillo. For religious conservatives, “there was a lot of interest and attention and concern on this whole issue, but they brought it to a big conclusion on the final weekend.”

So if the point is to attack Mormons for the money they collect, not only Mormons have money, if I ´m not mistaken, all churchs have a great power to collect money, after all thats the way Churchs building are build isn ´t it?…

Speaking in general, artists and entertainers alike can make their own decisions about how much they want to share, and they live with the consequences, if there are any. I do sometimes turn away from an artist if their beliefs differ from mine in ways that truly matter to me, however, I don’t mind that they expressed their opinions, and I’m sure they have plenty of fans left who agree with them or don’t care about that particular issue.

I would never say their opinions were being forced in my face, that’s not an expression I’d use. It’s not for me to tell people to keep their opinions to themselves. That’s up to them. I don’t have to agree or like what they say, but that’s not their problem.

When it comes to specific artists like the ones from Idol that we support, I might have thoughts about what they should or shouldn’t do, because in a sense aren’t we a bit paternalistic with them? We watched them make it this far, and we want them to succeed, so we fear for them if they make a misstep.

But I don’t care, they should make up their own minds what they want to say. I see David Cook as open-minded and tolerant, and no babe in the woods, so I don’t think much he could do or say could shock me, but I also believe he has good basic values, and I don’t think he is likely to say anything that would upset me.

I don’t think that just because she’s a mormon that Brooke should be expected to speak about the gay marriage issue anymore than anyone else. She’s not responsible for what her church did, so I don’t think it’s fair to expect her to speak out and not expect it of other artists.

Abortion is very divisive so I think it wouldn’t be wise for any of them to comment at this early stage in their career. They’re all so new and their careers are not established, a mistake could hurt them right now.

But if they felt led to speak out on an issue, I would respect them for that and whether I agreed or not, whether I approved or not, I would always respect their right to say what they choose to say.

I didn’t attack only the Morman church. I attacked many churches that condemn in the name of Christ. I think the Morman church may have been in the forefront but I have problems with any church that says in essence that I am holier than thou. Yes, I attack churches. I don’t find them much but self serving. Sorry, just my opinion but I don’t find many serving what Jesus said we should do…to love and not judge. I find many adherents of just about any churches judging in the name of Christ and it bothers me. It isn’t ours to judge, in my mind. We have no right.

^I agree…
Then when all it is said and done… we can said that we can ´t ask neither Brooke nor David their position, because we will also have to ask our neighboirs our parents and friends wicht was theirs and that is not just… every person has right to choose weather we agree with them or not, and we can ´t judge them, same they can ´t judge us…this all IMHO…

Gingerly- I can see how you got your information because the side against proposition 8 put out a lot of misinformation about what the Mormon church did. The Mormon church DID NOT collect money and DID NOT give tithing money or any money. It was individual members of the church who gave their own money by their own choice. There was so much misinformation given out. It was the No side’s intent to target a group of people who they have found is still greatly discriminated against (and people find that ok) to get people to work for their cause.

The mormon church does not hate gays. They allow gays to belong to the church, to go to their church schools and to go on missons for the church. They must just follow the same morality rules as the other single people who go to church schools and go on missions.

This is all about keeping the sacred institution of marriage untouched- not about taking others’ rights.

Personally, I think it might be best to take the government out of marriage. Have everyone get a civil union and then let the churches do “marriage” under God. That might solve the problem. JMO

And LK08 I can see how you got yours…it’s all the same. It is all how you look at it. My information is not more misinformattion than yours. It is perspective. That you can’t see that we are both right may be telling on you. I don’t think the Morman church has anything to do with gays. One of my son’s best friend’s is gay. He said to me that he is a pariah in his church. Are you a gay morman? Do you really know? I’d not comment on that because I’m neither gay nor morman, thank god> I thank my maker, but my sister, the oldest, valdictorian, child happened to be a lesbian. Yeah, she married, had her two kids (one of each gender, thank god). Well maybe not thank God because if you’d look at her medical history, you’d have as many tears as I have. She wasn’t made to live that way, and I am so very thankful she doesn’t have to anymore.
s

From the New York Times:

Mormons Tipped Scale in Ban on Gay Marriage

The campaign issued an urgent appeal, and in a matter of days, it raised more than $5 million, including a $1 million donation from Alan C. Ashton, the grandson of a former president of the Mormon Church. The money allowed the drive to intensify a sharp-elbowed advertising campaign, and support for the measure was catapulted ahead; it ultimately won with 52 percent of the vote.

In the end, Protect Marriage estimates, as much as half of the nearly $40 million raised on behalf of the measure was contributed by Mormons.

New York Times

Mormons weren’t the only religious group to oppose gay marriage, but a disproportionate share of organization and money came from the Mormon church, ensuring the measure would pass.

That is why gay groups have targeted the Mormon church for protests in particular, rather than say, the Catholics or the Evangelicals.

Thanks MJ, I think that is exactly what I was saying. It wasn’t all Mormans, but they had a very disproportionate share in it

BTW, I’m going to allow this discussion to continue, but only if it’s respectful.

I donà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â€ž ¢t think that just because sheà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â€ž ¢s a mormon that Brooke should be expected to speak about the gay marriage issue anymore than anyone else. Sheà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â€ž ¢s not responsible for what her church did, so I donà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â€ž ¢t think ità ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â€ž ¢s fair to expect her to speak out and not expect it of other artists.

Exactly.

I actually don’t expect anybody to speak on it, but if they do, I’m more impressed with them. It gives me more of a feeling of how they approach their musuc. I am moe into music with some feeling why they did it.

I will say again that the Mormon church did not raise any money. It went from individuals, such as Alan Ashton to the cause, but did not go through the church. News organizations can paint it any way they want, but that doesn’ t make it true. The New York Times has very little credibility in conservative circles.

^^
Who is “the church” if not the people?

The church advocated and the people responded — organizing, contributing, volunteering. Ultimately, a distinction without a difference.

BTW, to me, the argument against mainstream media credibility, and particularly the NY Times, is old and a fallacy.

In the end, Protect Marriage estimates, as much as half of the nearly $40 million raised on behalf of the measure was contributed by Mormons.

The NYT didn’t pull that number out of thin air, the info comes from the conservative group that was trying to get the measure passed.

I see it differently, if only for those mormans who want to disassociate themselves from the church. But well the Morman church will never disasssociate itself from this mess. Yes it’s a mess and however you want to disassociate it, it is in the forefront of denying peope civil rights. I tried to assimilate them but when somebody says they have nothing to do with it, well makes them seem forefront to me.

BTW, I don’t really care what Brooke and David think about Prop 8. It’s their business if they want to speak out on it or not. What they think will have no bearing on what I believe or whether I buy their music or not.

Mj- I did not say the money was not contributed by Mormons, but that it was not raised or contributed by church headquarters as many are claiming. That would violate tax exempt regulations.

Here is an archive of the information put out by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints from the church website, beginning with the newest information with an archive going way back. This newsroom is available and is used by many major news organizations. There is never any statement that asks for members to give money to the church. The church does not teach politics over the pulpit, but once in a while issues a statement about beliefs, and every election, issues a statement about how important it is to vote but does not support any candidates. You can see the statement about voting in news release #27 and you can see other statements about proposition 8 in the archives, available to all news organizations.

http://newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/news-releases-stories

BTW, I donà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â€ž ¢t really care what Brooke and David think about Prop 8. Ità ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â€ž ¢s their business if they want to speak out on it or not. What they think will have no bearing on what I think. or whether I buy their music or not.

I’ll say nothing more about the morman church, anybody can draw whatever conclusions they desire. Everybody will regardless. I try not to speak on this subject because if is certainly volatile and so much depends on your beliefs.I so think you need to follow your heart and your sense of right and wrong on this. If you believe that an eight year old that nobody wants shouldn’t be adopted by somebody who doesn’t share your sense of sexual encounters, so be it…so sad for the eight year old who only wants a family….

Who is à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã…“the churchà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬  if not the people?

The church advocated and the people responded à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬’  organizing, contributing, volunteering. Ultimately, a distinction without a difference.

Yes…the call-to-arms came from the church, and the faithful responded. It wasn’t that a bunch of individual Mormons gave to the cause independently of church headquarters. As was true for the Catholics and Evangelicals. It just so happened the the Mormon’s were better organized, and really stepped up to the plate when asked to by their church.

My original point, though, had to do with the idea of gays scapegoating Mormons. I don’t believe they are. They’re just following the money, like everyone else.

LK08 – Thanks for the link.

“Yesà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬ ¦the call-to-arms came from the church, and the faithful responded. It wasnà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â€ž ¢t that a bunch of individual Mormons gave to the cause independently of church headquarters.”

That is everyone’s right- to speak for and to put their money in causes they believe in. I did not contribute to it, and there are members who chose to support the no side with time and money . They have their right to do so and will in no way be treated differently for it by the church.

Those on both sides have the right to support the cause they believe in, but the troubling thing to me is the hateful and criminal reaction from some on the no side since.

Thanks for a civil discussion.

I totally agree LK…our money speaks. So said that nobody speaks for the children nobody wants. From personal (yes, personal) experience, gay people who want to be parents, are so willing to take children that nobody else want.
Having not the normal sexual orientation doesn’t take away their desire to parent…I look at my sister and think she would be a better parent than me but I’m able to parent as many children as possible because I’m heterosexual.

So yeah, I don’t think your sexual orientation has any bearing whatsoever on your ability to parent or parent well.

^^^ Let’s keep the discussion focused on Prop 8 and the Idols. Gay adoption is way off topic for this thread.

ummmm ism’t gay adption part of prop 8

Not that I’m aware, unless theirs some fine print that escaped me. Adoption also was not mentioned in the original article I posted.

ummmm ism’t gay adption part of prop 8> maybe I’m confused but I thought everything that goes along with prop 8 matters

OK. I’ll just stop with the fact that I couldn’t find this site after searching. I’
d say MJ’s big blog means nothing in the grand scheme of things. Anybody who thinks that children don’t matter, earns nothing in my scheme of things. My whole focus toward Prop 8 was for children…for families…for people…maybe people don’t get that but I understand that not all families are 2 heterosexual people who may or may not like each other. I have a difficult time believing the fairy tale view of a family. Prop 8 is so much more than many here would believe and it would serve those unbelievers well too in my mind

They have their right to do so and will in no way be treated differently for it by the church.

Members who have the guts to take a stand against the church leadership in SLC on this issue won’t face any backlash and judgment from fellow members or church leaders (especially if they happen to live in Utah)? They wouldn’t be treated any differently? Sorry, I’m not buying it.

My original point, though, had to do with the idea of gays scapegoating Mormons. I donà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â€ž ¢t believe they are.

If some advocate not supporting a public figure/celebrity simply because they happen to be Mormon, I think that’s scapegoating. It’s their right to do so, but I still think it’s scapegoating.

Shell29 said:

“Members who have the guts to take a stand against the church leadership in SLC on this issue wonà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â€ž ¢t face any backlash and judgment from fellow members or church leaders (especially if they happen to live in Utah)? They wouldnà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â€ž ¢t be treated any differently? Sorry, Ià ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â€ž ¢m not buying it.”

I stand by what I said about “the church” not treating them differently. As far as individual members, they are human, but I would not expect a hateful or criminal act against the person. If they, on the other hand, organize a major assault against the church in which they lead a group in revolt and tear the church apart (not literally), that is a different matter. I would expect any organization to take action if people from inside are trying to tear it apart.

BTW, how do you bold things on this site or quote things like you did?

You have the quicktags at the bottom of your reply box… to quote you copy the text you want to quote and you past it in the text box, you select the text, then you use B-quote

^^ OK. Thanks. I never saw those.

hehe ;D… you are welcome

I wanted to clarify on my statement. I did not buy the music of (unnamed artists, or the movies) because of how they voted or what they stood for. I quit buying their things because of the way the attacked the opposite party. They made it personal. It had nothing to do with their *views*.

I don’t care who or what artists vote for or don’t vote for. It’s really none of my business. When you resort to calling people tacky names or say derogatory blanket statements about the other side of a political party that is going way too OTT.

Even if Brooke & Archie came out and said they stand with the church, I don’t see how that would hurt their record sales. It honestly should not. I don’t see them making any OTT statements.

Both sides of prop 8 have a right to vote for what they believe in. In politics there is always going to be a side that has *more money*, more passionate people sinking money into one side.

If some advocate not supporting a public figure/celebrity simply because they happen to be Mormon, I think thatà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â€ž ¢s scapegoating. Ità ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â€ž ¢s their right to do so, but I still think ità ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â€ž ¢s scapegoating.

No. I’m not talking about individuals not supporting individual Mormons. I’m talking about gay groups protesting outside of Mormon Temples rather than say, Catholic churches. They aren’t scapegoating the Mormon church, or picking on them because it’s easy. These groups are following the money. That was my point.

I don’t see a problem with these protests, btw, as long as they remain non-violent and respectful.

I donà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â€ž ¢t see a problem with these protests, btw, as long as they remain non-violent and respectful.

Mj- I agree. A major problem is that many have not been nonviolent and respectful. I think they are hurting their cause.

It is anyone’s right to peacefully protest, just as it is a right of those who went out to educate people about the issue and to vote their conscience.

Maybe is one of this LK08:

Prop. 8 opponents take lead in money race

From Wikipedia:

The campaigns for and against Proposition 8 raised $35.8 million and $37.6 million, respectively, becoming the highest-funded campaign on any state ballot that day and surpassing every campaign in the country in spending except the presidential contest. The proponents argued for exclusively heterosexual marriage while claiming that failure to change the constitution would require changes to school curriculum and threaten church tax benefits. The opponents argued that eliminating the rights of any Californian and mandating that one group of people be treated differently from everyone else was unfair and wrong.

Calif. gay marriage ban a $73M race

Opponents of Proposition 8 had a slight lead in contributions as of Monday, having raised $37.6 million. Supporters of the gay marriage ban had raised $35.8 million.

A little less than $33 million was spent on campaigns to pass or defeat gay marriage bans in the 24 states where they appeared on ballots in 2004, 2005 and 2006, according to the National Organization on Money in State Politics.

Experts have said the California measure has become the most expensive social issue campaign in U.S. history and is the costliest election this year outside the race for the White House. About 30 percent,or $22 million, of the donations reported by supporters and opponents of Proposition 8 have come from outside the state, according to an analysis by The Associated Press.

about the violent acts:

Prop. 8 boycott talk spreads to movies and more

And about the “follow the money comment”… I don ´t know you guys but I don ´t always follow what people tell me to do in the adds on the tv, so no matter how much money they have spend if people were really against the Prop 8 they would have voted that way no matter how much money the parts have spend to support the cause, and this made targeting people for giving their money very irrational… IMHO…

gingerly, I can speak with no authority on the actual reach of Prop 8 but I do believe that other measures have been passed elsewhere prohibiting gay and lesbian adoptions, and I believe we can be fairly concerned that could be the “logical next step” in this effort as well. Since supporters assert that the theory behind Prop 8 is “the sanctity of marriage” and also advocate for the “traditional family,” we may very well be watching the chipping away of various rights for those (many) who fail to fit the mold. It is very concerning to me, too.

My apologies if this is off topic. It is sort of difficult for me to be sure, and I did not want gingerly to go away unclear or misunderstood on this point. Hopefully, I’ve not offended any person or rule. That is not my intent.

I said this yesterday. It still applies.

I donà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â€ž ¢t care where Brooke stands on gay rights. Frankly ità ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â€ž ¢s her business. I feel a little sad for any Mormon right now who feels their church may not be speaking for them, just as any mainstream Christian might feel when their leadership does something that they disagree with. No religious sect is monolithic, even though we sometimes characterize them as such. There are Mormonà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â€ž ¢s who support gay rights. Maybe Brooke does, maybe she doesnà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â€ž ¢t.

I will add David Archuleta’s name to that as well since he too is a Mormon, although he could not have voted, and very well at may not have a well formed personal opinion on it yet.

I truly think either way that there are more ways to spend 80 million dollars no matter on what side you fall on. This is a such a divisive topic and will never be hashed out on blogs or the ballot box. We have such a long way to go until we figure out what our priorities are in this country, and if we are truly the progressive, accepting nation we profess to be.

Both sides of prop 8 have a right to vote for what they believe in.

No, the problem about Prop 8 is the majority shouldn’t vote to eliminate the minority’s existing basic rights.

ummmm ismà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â€ž ¢t gay adption part of prop 8

Yes that was the main argument, gay parents couldn’t provide appropriate parenting. That and kids would learn about gay marriage in school. The funny part is kids learned more about gay marriage from Prop 8 ads than they ever will from school.

Arkansas passed a law that you must be a married couple to adopt a child. I seriously don’t think it would hurt a child more to have one parent or gay parents (more than one who can’t be married) than to be living in an orphanage or in and out of foster homes. Maybe that 80 million could be spent to help unwanted, not perfect, children find families. However if you are on the side that is denied human rights, I think you would probably find no amount unreasonable to secure for yourself what everybody else enjoys.

Gay marriage was not a right until it was voted down a few years ago and the court overturned the will of the people making it newly legal.

You may or may not agree with this, but it is worth reading. It is a very divisive issue, so many will not agree.

http://newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/commentary/the-divine-institution-of-marriage

No, the problem about Prop 8 is the majority shouldnà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â€ž ¢t vote to eliminate the minorityà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â€ž ¢s existing basic rights.

Exactly, I think it’s really different from voting for a president.

On the subject of keep supporting an artist if they express a different opinion… I would never stop listening to their music, watching their movies, etc… if they just had a different opinion. But lets say I’m a gay person, and a certain asrtist does actually go his/her way to fight against my rights, vote againts my rights, act against my rights. Would I keep supporting him/her? Most probably not. I wouldn’t be able to forget that artist sees me as an inferior human beeing.

No, the problem about Prop 8 is the majority shouldnà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â€ž ¢t vote to eliminate the minorityà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â€ž ¢s existing basic rights.

Then the problem is the model that is used to made decisions…

IMO it is not a matter of human rights or seeing someone as inferior. It is a matter of preserving the sacred, God ordained institution of marriage that has been around for Millennia. We can argue until we are blue in the face, but we may just have to agree to disagree, respectfully I hope.

Gay marriage was not a right until it was voted down a few years ago and the court overturned the will of the people making it newly legal.

Blacks drinking out of the same drinking fountain wasn’t a right either. People marrying outside of their race wasn’t a right. Minorities having the same educational opportunities as non minorities wasn’t a right. Women being able to vote or to not be the property of her husband wasn’t a right. All of these things were protected by the constitution but denied people…

^Don ´t worry LK08, althoug I don ´t share your opinion in the matter, I know that the leaders of my Church have the same point of view, I ´m catholic,they have said:

The Catholic Church takes a very high view of marriage and human sexuality. As the account of Genesis shows, marriage and sexuality were created by God and given to mankind as gifts for our benefit. Scripture records God’s statement that “it is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a helper fit for him” (Gen. 2:18). As a result, “a man leaves his father and his mother and cleaves to his wife, and they become one flesh” (Gen. 2:24). Some may forego the good of marriage to serve a higher calling (cf. Matt. 19:10-12), but it is a good nevertheless.

Marriage is a conduit through which God’s grace flows to the couple and their children.1 The Catholic Church understands marriage between a baptized man and woman to be a sacrament, a visible sign of the grace that God gives them to help them live their lives here and now so as to be able to join him in eternity.2 For Catholics, marriage is social as well as religious, but its religious aspects are very important. The Bible repeatedly compares the relationship between man and wife to that between God and Israel (cf. Hos. 9:1) or between Christ and his Church (cf. Eph. 5:21-32). For Catholics, marriage is a holy vocation.

Since the Church sees marriage as holy, it believes it must be treated with reverence. It also recognizes that marriage is basic to the health of society and therefore a public institution that must be defended against harm.

Marriage is a public institution. Consequently, proposals that could harm the institution of marriage must be subjected to the same sort of objective analysis that we give any public policy question. Marriage is not just a private matter of emotion between two people. On the contrary, its success or failure has measurable impact on all of society. Rational analysis yields solid, objective reasons for limiting marriage to one man and one woman-reasons anyone can agree with on purely secular grounds.

Our analysis will show that prohibition of homosexual marriage is not just a “fairness” issue, nor does it require anyone to “force religious dogma” down anyone else’s throat. Nor is it a manifestation of hatred, as proponents sometimes suggest.

I don ´t agree with the believes of my Church but I respect the reason why other people don ´t want Gay Marriege to be approeve…

Now , since I don ´t live in USA I may be a little un informed on the matter but what about the model of civil partnership like the one that Elton Jhon has… do you think that will get pass???

gingerly- The black issue and the gay issue are not all the same. I saw a program where a black lesbian said this is not at all the same. In fact, gays in CA already have the same civil rights and rights in the hospital, etc. They just won’t be able to call it marriage. That is a major reason many African American voted for the Bill to become an ammendment. It IS NOT the same.

cruz- they are already allowed to have civil unions like Elton John.

Then the problem is the model that is used to made decisions.

Nope, the California Supreme Court has agreed to hear lawsuits challenging Prop 8.

Thanks cruz- even though you don’t agree, I feel like you understand the issue, and I respect that.

I have a long-standing loathing for the referendum process. Referenda (regardless of whether they are called propositions, referenda, or something else), are too often poorly written, are often funded by groups hiding in the background that the electorate never see, and, as studies show, are often misunderstood by the voters. I particularly find them to be problematic where, as here, they are aimed at a minority group in society.

I would much prefer for these sort of issues to be put through a legislature, where lobbying dollars would be easier to trace and where votes would be on the record, such that the voters for or against a particular principle would be accountable.

As for whether an entertainer should speak out on such issues, I tend to think that should be up to the entertainer, who (I would hope) would understand the risks of speaking out. For me, I’m okay with an entertainer disagreeing with me, as long as s/he isn’t nasty in the disagreement. There’s a pretty good chance that I’ll give zero credence to the celebrity’s opinion—unless I have reason to believe that the celebrity has special knowledge on an issue, like Bono does with African issues, why should I view the celebrity’s views as worth any more than anyone else’s?—but I probably won’t take against him or her.

That said, I know that for some people, there are issues that they view as so fundamental that their enjoyment of an artist would be compromised if they knew that the artist disagreed with them. I may not feel the same way, but I know that there are those that do.

Folkfan- I never watched the Dixie chicks but I remember when they said something while they were out of the country and people were really mad about it. I guess it wasn’t just disagreeing with something, but it was nasty.

^From Wikipedia

The Dixie Chicks became mired in political controversy after comments made by Natalie Maines about the 2003 invasion of Iraq war and United States President George W. Bush. Maines told a sold out crowd in London, England, “Just so you know, we’re ashamed the president of the United States is from Texas.” Many critics of the comment felt that criticism of the Commander-in-Chief should not be done on foreign soil. The aftermath led to a severe backlash. Maines subsequently released a public apology to Bush stating “As a concerned American citizen, I apologize to President Bush because my remark was disrespectful. I feel that whoever holds that office should be treated with the utmost respect,” in order to quell the controversy. It did not work, and at one point, 76% of former fans polled responded with, “If I could, I’d take my CDs back.”

ETA:
IÂ ´m posting this just so we all now what are we talking about… sorry I know is really out off the subject and I do not want to address the Irak war….

I am legally married and there was no word of “God” in the marriage ceremony. The fact that I don’t believe in God (and neither does my husband) and our marriage is not sanctified in the least does not change its legality one iota. Not believing in God and not having a religiously-based marriage is my right in a nation founded on the principle that church and state should have a wall between them and the state has no business establishing religion or forcing its citizens into one system of belief (or any system of belief).

I am very uneasy with the idea that gay marriage shouldn’t be legal because other people’s religions don’t allow for it. So let those religions decree no gay marriages may be performed in their churches or temples. Big deal. Let the judges and clerics from the other religions perform the gay marriages.

If a marriage between two men or two women must be called a civil union simply because they’re gay, yet MY (godless) marriage doesn’t have to be called a civil union because I’m female and my husband is male, it seems to me that a specific class of person is not enjoying equal protection under the law.

On the issue of whether celebs should keep their mouths shut… I think they have every right to say whatever they want and we have every right to judge them based on what they say. If they say really stupid things (not talking about conservative or progressive or anything political, just like “I don’t want to be around ugly people because they make me sad.” Things that anyone would agree are stupid.) then I am probably not going to appreciate them much. See: Jessica Simpson. They’re risking turning off a percentage of the population anytime they choose a toothpaste. But they have every right to choose that toothpaste, anyway. Or support or oppose Prop 8. Or run for president (see: Ronald Reagan) or governor of California (see: Arnold Schwarzenegger.) Celebs, stars, artists, actors, musicians — they all have the freedom to speak and to be involved, and the rest of us have the freedom to weigh what they say and decide if it’s important to us.

TDC took much heat, but it gave them a opportunity to grow as great artists who bow to no one.

I never understood why what the Dixie Chicks said caused such a furor, other than their genre. What’s sad is that TDC started me listening to country, but now they can’t be found on country radio.

But that’s what I mean by artists having to weigh the risks. Some may refuse to listen to you in the future because you said something that people end up viewing as too controversial.

I stand by what I said about à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã…“the churchà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬  not treating them differently. As far as individual members, they are human, but I would not expect a hateful or criminal act against the person. If they, on the other hand, organize a major assault against the church in which they lead a group in revolt and tear the church apart (not literally), that is a different matter. I would expect any organization to take action if people from inside are trying to tear it apart.

Oh, I wouldn’t expect them to carry out hateful or criminal acts against the person either. I just don’t buy that they wouldn’t be treated any differently, but we’ll have to agree to disagree on that.

Gay marriage was not a right until it was voted down a few years ago and the court overturned the will of the people making it newly legal.

If it was not a right to begin with, there’d have been no need for it to be “voted down a few years ago,” nor would the “court (have) overturned” the “voted for” unconstitutional prohibition. That’s exactly what the courts are there to do when a law is passed that defies the constitution. I agree with celeste that, assuming the proposition process is commonly used essentially to amend the state constitution, then the process is flawed.

That is the problem here. As others have pointed out, this country, our Constitution, and our Bill of Rights all were built upon the cornerstone principle that the majority not be able to oppress the freedoms and rights of the minority, even if the majority is in a position and has the power to do just that.

No one disputes that a number of religions or interest groups may disapprove. The dispute is whether religions or interest groups whose beliefs differ from others are free to impose those beliefs on other people to deny their freedoms simply because those religions or groups are bigger, stronger, more vocal, or have more money and people. The answer in this country, if we follow our Constitution, is a resounding, “NO.” If we follow the edicts of something or someone else, possibly so, but that is not what this country is supposed to be about and it won’t be constitutional.

Think about it. What if the majority of people in this country believed in astrology and numerology as their religion, and they all got together, organized, campaigned and got out the vote to make those studies the country’s religion to the exclusion of all others — making the others illegal. Would that be ok?

I never purchased a Dixie Chicks cd nor do I ever plan to so what they said or did back in the day was not a loss to me. I could care less about their political views, I have never cared for their music.

I realize we are way OT at this point, but I wanted to chime in. The reason I didn’t support prop 8 is along the same lines as smartcookie’s. It seems to me the major argument being used to NOT put gay marriage on the same footing as heterosexual marriage is a religious one.

But marriage is not a solely religious institution. Otherwise why can you be married in city hall, by a judge, on a boat by the captain, with no religious component at all? What about churches that allow gay marriage? If it’s okay by them, why can’t they perform those unions and have them be valid? And what about atheists? are they “really” married if they don’t sanctify it with some sort of religious blessing?

Marriage under the law is a secular institution which defines family relationships for the purpose of legal and property rights. Adding religion to it is optional and has no business being basis of law in a country where separation of church and state is one of our founding principles. And once you eliminate the religion argument, I don’t see any other objective strong reason to ban gay marriage.

If you are a-ok with civil unions that exactly resemble marriage, then it’s just a question of semantics. Why not just differentiate marriage inside your church as opposed to all other marriage?

And besides, those manipulative ads supporting Prop 8 using kids left a REALLY bad taste in my mouth. As if your kid could “learn” to be gay or as if being gay would be this horrible thing to happen to them. I wonder sometimes, would they stop loving their kids if they were gay?

As for whether LDS was formally involved in the campaign for Prop 8…let’s just say I have a hard time believing they weren’t when so much of the money came from their church members out of state, and the young people I saw staffing the pro-8 rallies around election day were the same kids I would see the rest of the year proselytizing in my neighborhood (I live practically next door to a Mormon temple.)

Attempt to swing back on topic: The Davids and Brooke and whoever else are absolutely free to speak their minds on political issues. I’m sure they’re aware that they risk backlash if they choose to do so. I’m also sure they each have enough of a sense of their respective fanbases to know what sort of opinions will fly and what would be best to keep to themselves.

Michelle- As I said in an earlier post, probably IMO the best way to solve the major problem here is for the government to get out of marriage and just have people get civil unions to begin with. Then they can get married by the church if they choose to.

As for money coming out of state from church members- the only thing that was formally said from the general church out of state was a short blurb read to the congregations one time. You can read it on the link I put in a prior post. I couldn’t have told you what it said. Given that, many people have relatives and friends in California, so information probably spread in that manner, as it has a tendancy to do through e-mail etc.

I have no idea what kids’ adds you are talking about, but I assume the prop 8 commission, or whatever it is called, put those out.

Also, if you look at my earlier post, I never said the church did not get involved. I only said that they did not collect money and pay money to the campaign- that it was individuals. And only missionaries proselytize- not ordinary citizens, so it is not likely you saw the same kids in your neighborhood, unless of course, they had the missionaries manning the prop 8 phoneback. I wouldn’t think they would do that, but I don’t know. I am curious now, so I am going to see if I can find out if the missionaries were manning the phone banks. The missionaries are also there on their own dime entirely, not the churches. My point was about money, since there have been many news stories put out that say the church paid millions. Not true.

wereallinnocent- as pointed out earlier, no one is taking away their rights. They have the same rights that married people have already.

Michelle- I was thinking about the terminology you used. When you use the word proselytize, that is the word normally used for preaching the gospel, so maybe you saw ordinary citizens who chose to go out and talk to people about proposition 8. Also, you say you live by the temple. Do you really mean the temple or do you mean a church building, which is where everyone goes to church? There is a big difference. I am absolutely 100% sure that there was no phone bank at the temple, so I am curious where you saw the phone bank.

In the end, if you really want to know the truth of the matter, you will look into it.

as pointed out earlier, no one is taking away their rights. They have the same rights that married people have already.

This simply is not so. But, I’m not going to debate the matter here for a variety of reasons, not the least of which is that you seem to have your mind completely made up based on information provided to you and that is what you believe, which is fine. I believe it was you who mentioned earlier that just because you read or believe it doesn’t make it so, and respectfully, that sentiment applies.

To be fair, I’m also decorating for the holidays with my 3 year old, and that makes me happier and more joyful than this particular subject. Wishing the same for you as well.

Peace~ :bye_tb:

I agree that the holidays and family are much more joyful than this subject. Peace to you as well, and I mean that sincerely. :bye_tb:

The New York Times has very little credibility in conservative circles.

And Fox News has very little credibility in most circles, so maybe we don’t want to go there.

oceana- I suggest you go to nonpartison sites that evaluate places like fox news. It IS fair and balanced. That is why it is #1 among all cable stations. Try going to Pew research center, which is nonpartison for an evaluation.

And by the way, I brought up the New York Times because MJ quoted it. Why you brought up fox news- not sure.

But, but Sarah Palin quotes NYT so very often.