George Cloney To Star In Dustin Lance Black'S Prop 8 Play

[california boy]

The actor takes a strong position in favor of marriage equality by joining the cast of "8" for a one-night showing in Los Angeles.

George Clooney has signed to star in the West Coast premiere of 8, a stage play chronicling the historic federal court trial overturning Proposition 8, the ballot measure that denied gay and lesbian Californians the right to marry.

“It is astonishing that gay and lesbian Americans are still treated as second-class citizens,” Clooney said. “I am confident that, very soon, the laws of this nation will reflect the basic truth that gay and lesbian people -- like all human beings -- are born equal in dignity and rights.”

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/george-clooney-dustin-lance-black-prop-8-marriage-equality-272999?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+thr%2Fnews+%28The+Hollywood+Reporter+-+Top+Stories%29

[Sky]

Thanks for sharing, but it’s hardly a surprise. Are there any Hollywood celebrities that are not gay marriage supporters? If there are any, they would certainly be the rare exception. And we shall see how this stage play portrays the Mormons. I’m not very hopeful.

[bluebell]

"I'm astonished that people have the nerve to disagree with my beliefs about homosexuality. I am confident that very soon people will see the error of their ways and admit that i am right."

Honestly, i think it's great when actors get invovled and contribute to society-just don't expect me to care what their actual opinions are. Most of them so consistently mischaracterize my beliefs on the subject while implying that those who disagree with them are horrible people on par with the KKK, that i've lost the ability to believe they are capable of indepth scrutiny of the issues from a perspective other than their own.

[Sky]

They may be handsome and wealthy and famous, but Hollywood celebrities are the last people I look to as a moral compass.

[california boy]

"I'm astonished that people have the nerve to disagree with my beliefs about homosexuality. I am confident that very soon people will see the error of their ways and admit that i am right." Honestly, i think it's great when actors get invovled and contribute to society-just don't expect me to care what their actual opinions are. Most of them so consistently mischaracterize my beliefs on the subject while implying that those who disagree with them are horrible people on par with the KKK, that i've lost the ability to believe they are capable of indepth scrutiny of the issues from a perspective other than their own.

Are you talking about actors here? Or Mormons. I wasn't sure. Sterotypes are so useful don't you think?

[thesometimesaint]

Everyone entitled to their own opinions, but I'm very selective about the ones I actually believe .

[Sky]

Are you talking about actors here? Or Mormons. I wasn't sure. Sterotypes are so useful don't you think?

You saw an opportunity to take a swipe at the Mormons and just couldn't resist, could you?

[Jaybear]

George Clooney: “It is astonishing that gay and lesbian Americans are still treated as second-class citizens,” Clooney said. “I am confident that, very soon, the laws of this nation will reflect the basic truth that gay and lesbian people -- like all human beings -- are born equal in dignity and rights.”

"I'm astonished that people have the nerve to disagree with my beliefs about homosexuality. I am confident that very soon people will see the error of their ways and admit that i am right."

Mr. Clooney expressed his opinion, which I happen share, very eloquently. Your re-statement of his words comes across as snarky.

BTW, Mr. Clooney is not only handsome, famous and wealthy, but he is also very well spoken and widely respected.

In the battle for the hearts, minds and souls of the next generation on this issue, we have on our side front and center people like Clooney, Tom Hanks, Martin Sheen, Matt Damon, Ann Hathaway, and you have Maggie Gallagher, and Rush Limbaugh, and people who donate money from the shadows.

In case you haven't figured it out, you are going to lose this battle.

[frankenstein]

Honestly, i think it's great when actors get invovled and contribute to society-just don't expect me to care what their actual opinions are.

Excellent point. As though the person having been in many movies makes that person any more qualified to hold an opinion. (It is not without merit that in the South Park Episode "Smug Alert" that Clooney was lampooned as creating a "smug cloud" for his pretentiousness and self proclamation of greatness.)

[Sky]

Mr. Clooney expressed his opinion, which I happen share, very eloquently. Your re-statement of his words comes across as snarky.

BTW, Mr. Clooney is not only handsome, famous and wealthy, but he is also very well spoken and widely respected.

In the battle for the hearts, minds and souls of the next generation on this issue, we have on our side front and center people like Clooney, Tom Hanks, Martin Sheen, Matt Damon, Ann Hathaway, and you have Maggie Gallagher, and Rush Limbaugh, and people who donate money from the shadows.

In case you haven't figured it out, you are going to lose this battle.

You have on your side many famous people who tend to get married only if it’s convenient for them, and then after only a few short years get a divorce. Fornication and adultery are not uncommon among them. But we have Thomas S. Monson on our side. I, for one, would rather be on his side over any of those other people any day.

And I find it interesting that when famous people use their influence, wealth, and power to further a cause, it is somehow not a problem. But when those Mormon bumpkins do it, it is another story. I guess spending money is okay only when it’s towards a cause that we happen to agree with.

[selek1]

Are you talking about actors here? Or Mormons. I wasn't sure. Sterotypes are so useful don't you think?

Of course, reading comprehension is far more useful than stereotypes- but then you weren't really interested in an honest dialogue, any way.

Excellent point. As though the person having been in many movies makes that person any more qualified to hold an opinion.

Being able to parrot the lines of others with accuracy and convictions does not qualify one as a great thinker.

In point of fact, mere celebrity does not make one "more qualified" to hold an opinion, nor does it obligate or require us to pay homage to their opinions simply because they were uttered by the glitterati.

If I want information on filming a movie, method acting, or how to cry upon command, I'll listen to people such as Clooney.

If I want real-world data on raising a family, planting and rotating crops, hemming my pants, or baking a chocolate souffle, I'll go to someone who knows what they're talking about instead.

The cult of celebrity and personality does not and should not automagically imbue any person's opinion with more weight than anothers, simply because they're famous.

Additionally, given the morally corrosive and fawning nature of that particular society- a politically homogenous echo chamber where celebreties are afforded special privelege and are shielded from both unpleasant realities and from the consequences of their decisions- it is perfectly appropriate to examine and question the "data" and "evidence" underpinning their opinions.

Is this opinion based on something of weight and merit? Or is it merely the latest conventional wisdom making the cocktail-and-champagne circuit?

Is this a cause celebre or de jour? Or is this something about which they've advocated knowledgeably and passionately about all along?

Is this there deep-felt conviction? Or just an attempt to suck up to the boss?

Is this their true belief? Or just something concocted by their press secretary to keep their name in the papers?

Given the insular and unreal nature of Hollywood in general, the number and frequency of bigoted, stupid, vacuous things said by celebrities when they're on-mike and off-teleprompter is amazing only in that it's so low,

[Zeta-Flux]

selek,

But the issue is not the actor, per se. It will be the message of the play. Will the writers be clever enough, and the actors good enough, to move the audience emotionally. If so, it doesn't matter how the actor behaves in real-life. It doesn't matter how strong the counter-arguments are. The public will be swayed unless we counter-act it in a similar manner. Unless we show, via an emotionally moving, well-written, form of entertainment exactly what we believe the negative effects are.

[Jaybear]

You have on your side many famous people who tend to get married only if it’s convenient for them, and then after only a few short years get a divorce. Fornication and adultery are not uncommon among them.

I said Tom Hanks and Martin Sheen, not Tom Arnold and Charlie Sheen.

But we have Thomas S. Monson on our side. I, for one, would rather be on his side over any of those other people any day.

Well then, it looks like we are both satisfied with who is batting for our team.

And I find it interesting that when famous people use their influence, wealth, and power to further a cause, it is somehow not a problem. But when those Mormon bumpkins do it, it is another story. I guess spending money is okay only when it’s towards a cause that we happen to agree with.

Not that interesting. Its the result of a very effective strategy to paint those who provide money to oppose gay marriage as being on the side of bigotry and intolerance. That is why its nice to have clean cut, handsome, adored, and well spoken people like Tom Hanks and George Clooney. out in front.

The best looking spokesman you have is Rick Perry.

If I want information on filming a movie, method acting, or how to cry upon command, I'll listen to people such as Clooney.

If I want real-world data on raising a family, planting and rotating crops, hemming my pants, or baking a chocolate souffle, I'll go to someone who knows what they're talking about instead.

Good for you. But no one expect Clooney to convince you or others religious conservatives on this issue.

This is all about image and message. Clooney is the epitome of cool. The message is that opposing marriage equality is not cool.

Like it or not, you are losing the PR battle. Unless you change the momentum, you are going to lose this war.

[LeSellers]

Like it or not, you are losing the PR battle. Unless you change the momentum, you are going to lose this war.

No, we will not lose it, although I doubt we'll win many battles. And I freely acknowledge that our victory will come deus ex machina.

Fighting the long defeat has always been the plight of all those who defend virtue and truth.

Lehi

[Sky]

I said Tom Hanks and Martin Sheen, not Tom Arnold and Charlie Sheen.

I wasn't referring to any particular famous person, but just pointing out that in general, fornication and adultery and short-lived marriages are common with Hollywood actors. Not only that, but immodesty and foul langauge. Some are worse than others, but they generally aren't exactly shining examples of morality for our younger people. But they show up in our homes on our TV screens every day.

Not that interesting. Its the result of a very effective strategy to paint those who provide money to oppose gay marriage as being on the side of bigotry and intolerance. That is why its nice to have clean cut, handsome, adored, and well spoken people like Tom Hanks and George Clooney. out in front.

The best looking spokesman you have is Rick Perry.

I agree with you that the strategy you described above is very effective. Some here on this very board are very good at using that strategy, too. It is effective because it demonizes and silences the opposition.

And having a good looking spokesman never hurts. But I don't let good looking famous rich people determine how I should think about something, especially when it involves moral matters in which the Lord's prophets have taken a position on.

[selek1]

But the issue is not the actor, per se. It will be the message of the play.

True- but the actor IS the point of this thread. Except for the fallacious appeal to Clooney's non-existent "authority", there's nothing to see in this thread.

It has nothing whatever to do with LDS theology or belief.

Will the writers be clever enough, and the actors good enough, to move the audience emotionally?

You are, of course, correct in this. And yet it must be noted that despite several decades of concerted propaganda, Hollywood has yet to sell this dogma to the American public.

If so, it doesn't matter how the actor behaves in real-life. It doesn't matter how strong the counter-arguments are.

True- but this argument cuts both ways. Is any one really going to care about Clooney's posturing in ten years' time? His star is already fading- and will continue to do so as time goes on.

In short, within another decade or so, he'll just be another fond memory- a relic of another time, and an object of nostalgia.

Case in point, can you remember any particular political stances that Richard Gere, Richard Chamberlain, Cary Grant, or Lorne Greene espoused? Can you name any lasting effects their celebrity brought to the table?

What about John Wayne?

Rob Reiner? Ed Asner?

Did they really convince anyone who didn't already agree with them?

You will, of course, recall Tom Hanks' anti-Mormon screeds of a few years back- can you name anybody truly swayed for or against by his posturing?

The public will be swayed unless we counter-act it in a similar manner. Unless we show, via an emotionally moving, well-written, form of entertainment exactly what we believe the negative effects are.

I'm not arguing for a moment that we shouldn't continue to fight the good fight- I just don't consider Clooney's press release (or California Boy's triumphal announcement) to be any kind of shift in the battleground.

I said Tom Hanks and Martin Sheen, not Tom Arnold and Charlie Sheen.

The entertaining fact is, there's very little evidence that most Americans see much difference between them.

Not that interesting. Its the result of a very effective strategy to paint those who provide money to oppose gay marriage as being on the side of bigotry and intolerance. That is why its nice to have clean cut, handsome, adored, and well spoken people like Tom Hanks and George Clooney. out in front.

The best looking spokesman you have is Rick Perry.

That is, of course, a matter of opinion. It is good, however, that you can acknowledge how profoundly shallow that particular line of reasoning is.

It's also good to keep in mind that however handsome and glamorous Hanks and Clooney may be, they're still counter-balanced by the likes of Roseanne and Rosie O'Donnel.

Good for you. But no one expect Clooney to convince you or others religious conservatives on this issue.

On the contrary, that was the entire point of California Boy's triumphal announcement- and your own position.

It was hoped (though not necessarily expected) that we would throw up our hands in dismay and proclaim, "Oh, no! George Clooney has turned against us. All is lost!"

This is all about image and message. Clooney is the epitome of cool. The message is that opposing marriage equality is not cool.

On the contrary, George Clooney is a fading star who will be relegated to guest appearances on the Love Boat within another decade.

Like it or not, you are losing the PR battle. Unless you change the momentum, you are going to lose this war.

And yet you claim we're not supposed to be convinced by Clooney's position. You can't have it both ways.

And contrary to your assertion, there's very little justification for the claim that we're actually "losing the battle".

As noted, a decade's worth of TASS-style propaganda, billions of dollars, an ongoing campaign of intimidation and terror, the endorsement of Hollywood, most of the union- and government-types in California and voter fraud still weren't sufficient to sway even the California electorate- let alone the rest of the country.

The last celebrity to truly have the kind of reach and influence you and the rest pretend was Walter Cronkite.

And even his influence would not have survived in today's competitive news environment. There are simply too many respectable alternatives out there for "the party line" to hold the sort of dogmatic sway that Cronkite projected.

Clooney's stint as quisling will have no long term effect on either the debate or his future career prospects.

[bluebell]

Are you talking about actors here? Or Mormons. I wasn't sure. Sterotypes are so useful don't you think?

For those people who can retain a sense of humor while being disagreed with-i was joking (hence the smiley face in the middle of the post).

For those who take themselves very seriously all the time, it does seem that sterotypes are useful, as you have said.

[bluebell]

Mr. Clooney expressed his opinion, which I happen share, very eloquently. Your re-statement of his words comes across as snarky.

BTW, Mr. Clooney is not only handsome, famous and wealthy, but he is also very well spoken and widely respected.

He's only respected because he's handsome, famous and wealthy. If he was poor, ugly and socially awkward i guarantee he could hold the same beliefs and no one would care.

But again, for the smiley-face challenged: I. Was. Joking.

In the battle for the hearts, minds and souls of the next generation on this issue, we have on our side front and center people like Clooney, Tom Hanks, Martin Sheen, Matt Damon, Ann Hathaway, and you have Maggie Gallagher, and Rush Limbaugh, and people who donate money from the shadows.

In case you haven't figured it out, you are going to lose this battle.

It's never much of a loss when the winning group won because their spokespeople showed up on TMZ regularly.

[noel00]

George Clooney appeared here last week in Sydney to Speak at The Power of Collaboration Convention.

"George spoke about working with the peace activist group Not On Our Watch, which aims to focus global attention and resources toward putting an end to mass atrocities around the world.

“What I am trying to do is continue to keep a satellite, that we’ve been using to monitor war criminals, on the border between the south and the north of Sudan,” "

I understand he donated his fee to charity. He has long been involved in fighting for independence for Sth Sudan.

There have been many stars who have lived with the same wife e.g Paul Newman.

[Duncan]

I have never gotten the whole Actor turned Poltical commentator scene. I mean yeah they are entitled to their opinions but I would take much seriously people who have PH.D's in Politics. Jack Black makes stupid movies as does that guy from Harold and Kumar, Kal Penn-do they really think I can take those guys seriously? I wonder if they and others regret supporting Obama

[Zeta-Flux]

Thanks selek. I agree

[Jaybear]

I have never gotten the whole Actor turned Poltical commentator scene. I mean yeah they are entitled to their opinions but I would take much seriously people who have PH.D's in Politics. Jack Black makes stupid movies as does that guy from Harold and Kumar, Kal Penn-do they really think I can take those guys seriously?

What is to get. No one is suggesting that their opinions are "special."

Their fame and celebrity gives the access to the public megaphone. If they share your opinion, and can articulate those opinions well, then its good to them on your side, to spread ideas you value. They are also very good at raising money.

In the end, to be effective, they still have to promote ideas and values that resonate with the public.

I wonder if they and others regret supporting Obama

I suppose some regret supporting Obama in lieu of supporting Hillary,.

In lieu of supporting McCain, nope.

[Mordecai]

Hollywood has a very large cloud of "smug" hanging over it. Smug clouds are much worse than smog.

[Ares]

Political and not about Mormonism.