Prop 8 The Play To Broadcast On Youtube

[thesometimesaint]

I think we should give the play and the internet broadcast of it all the attention it deserves.

[Jeff K.]

LOL

[Saints Alive]

Tell me then, when anti-mormon evangelicals seek to undermine a loving and committed couple who want to provide a safe and healthy marital environment to raise their children, is that evil vs evil?

Are you suggesting that an evil group / person can do no good or never be in agreement on an issue? I think now a days both liberals and conservatives are against slavery, but maybe that is an example of evil agreeing with evil.

[Jaybear]

Are you suggesting that an evil group / person can do no good or never be in agreement on an issue? I think now a days both liberals and conservatives are against slavery, but maybe that is an example of evil agreeing with evil.

No, I am suggesting that Jeff's belief that people he considers "Anti-Mormon" are part of a monolithic conspiracy to promote evil and attack righteousness is patently absurd.

Democrats are not evil. Republicans are not evil. They simply see the world through different lenses.

[california boy]

I am sure you have a great deal to cheer for in the play. It will of course reflect your truest motivations toward the prophet and his council. Your defense of the play says more than I could possibly voice.

There are some people who are so blinded by prejudice and bigotry that they think what ever the Mormon Church does must be evil and no good can come from it. There are some people who are so blinded by prejudice and bigotry that anything related to the gay movement must be evil and no good can come from it. Both are wrong. When we let fear and prejudice determine our thoughts and actions without any judgement by the spirit, then it only leads to unjust judgements. We certainly have seen a lot of this attitude towards the Mormon church especially during this election cycle People in the church can easily recognize that kind of attack on the church and it's beliefs. I guess it is always easier to see when you are the one taking the brunt of bigotry and prejudice and harder to see when you are the one giving in to such emotions.

Here is a play about the legal arguments of prop 8. No one yet has offered any scrap of evidence that it may contain even a sentence that may be anti Mormon yet there are some that are quick to judge the entire play simply out of ignorance and prejudice. They lash out comparing it to " fecal matter" before they even know anything about it. And what is their reasoning? Because it deals with the legal injustice of how gays are treated in this country. My defense is against bigotry and prejudice no matter where it exists. Like I have said in many previous posts, I also defend the church when others deride it without justification. Fighting bigotry and prejudice no matter where it exists is a Christ like thing to do.

[Jeff K.]

No, I am suggesting that Jeff's belief that people he considers "Anti-Mormon" are part of a monolithic conspiracy to promote evil and attack righteousness is patently absurd.

Democrats are not evil. Republicans are not evil. They simply see the world through different lenses.

Nope, lynch mobs are not monolithic in the sense of some leadership. They are simply tied together to hurt one particular target. You may now continue with the denigrating comments and suggestions.

You were caught with your logical pants down and merely wanted to deflect.

[Jeff K.]

Jeff K., on 02 March 2012 - 01:45 AM, said:

I am sure you have a great deal to cheer for in the play. It will of course reflect your truest motivations toward the prophet and his council. Your defense of the play says more than I could possibly voice.

There are some people who are so blinded by prejudice and bigotry that they think what ever the Mormon Church does must be evil and no good can come from it. There are some people who are so blinded by prejudice and bigotry that anything related to the gay movement must be evil and no good can come from it. Both are wrong. When we let fear and prejudice determine our thoughts and actions without any judgement by the spirit, then it only leads to unjust judgements. We certainly have seen a lot of this attitude towards the Mormon church especially during this election cycle People in the church can easily recognize that kind of attack on the church and it's beliefs. I guess it is always easier to see when you are the one taking the brunt of bigotry and prejudice and harder to see when you are the one giving in to such emotions.

Here is a play about the legal arguments of prop 8. No one yet has offered any scrap of evidence that it may contain even a sentence that may be anti Mormon yet there are some that are quick to judge the entire play simply out of ignorance and prejudice. They lash out comparing it to " fecal matter" before they even know anything about it. And what is their reasoning? Because it deals with the legal injustice of how gays are treated in this country. My defense is against bigotry and prejudice no matter where it exists. Like I have said in many previous posts, I also defend the church when others deride it without justification. Fighting bigotry and prejudice no matter where it exists is a Christ like thing to do.

Basically what we have is a member claiming that those who have always disdained the church and its leadership, ridiculed it are somehow not going to do it now with this new play, every actor holds a certain political position that is on one side of the political spectrum (we will call this spectrum human wastage). These specific stalwart members are suprised since they place the church in the role of hapless Charlie Brown, and when he decides he is not kicking the football anymore, Lucy Van Pelt calls him prejudiced and racist.

I realize that among some psuedo elites it is fashonable to dismiss prophets and apostles, fashionable to denigrate the church and its efforts and to join in the anti Mormon chorus, after all, now suddenly they feel wanted for their "true"? or truer nature? It is this same type of person that argued Joseph Smith should go to Carthage, the same type that took the societal 30 pieces of silver. But fear not, they are after all, true and good stalwarts of the Church of Jesus Christ. They want what is best and they do not think the church will be injured by the action, well, only injured to the level it justly deserves. But no, they aren't impeding the church, they aren't harming it, they have temple recommends after all, and they go to church, and the harm that might be caused to, well, that is something that should happen given the horrible prejudicial motivations of prophets and apostles. But what wonderful members they are.

Right?

[LeSellers]

You evidently don't even have a clue as to what this play is about and whether Mormons are even mentioned.

If we're not, then this topic does not have any reason to exist. It is about things pertaining to the Gospel of Jesus Christ and His Church, not random political statements by those seeking to destroy society as we know it.

Why did you bother opening this topic if it doesn't fit the forum's raison d'être?

Lehi

[Jaybear]

Nope, lynch mobs are not monolithic in the sense of some leadership. They are simply tied together to hurt one particular target. You may now continue with the denigrating comments and suggestions.

You were caught with your logical pants down and merely wanted to deflect.

Wow, you stepped in it once again with this lynch mob analogy.

Lynch mobs are ruled by their passion, and driven by fear and bigotry.

The Prop 8 trials shows what happens when those who led the lynch mob against gay couples were required to back their case with evidence and honest testimony in open court.

[Jeff K.]

Lynch mobs are ruled by their passion, and driven by fear and bigotry.

Yes, you should have seen some of the lynch mobs that members of the church had to face here in CA after prop 8.

[Jeff K.]

The Prop 8 trials shows what happens when those who led the lynch mob against gay couples were required to back their case with evidence and honest testimony in open court.

I am sure there are some Mormons who post here that agree with you, that the church is one large lynch mob seeking to destroy gay men and women. They will of course voice their opinion. But we also know that the play is being produced by people who disdain and have denigrated the church, that the actors are all of a single mindset, and there will be no critical thinking allowed. Only dogma. It is the norm for that type of politics.

You are free to embrace it. But don't try to tell us you aren't part of the lynch mob.

Stop the inflammatory labels if you expect to stay in this thread.

[california boy]

If we're not, then this topic does not have any reason to exist. It is about things pertaining to the Gospel of Jesus Christ and His Church, not random political statements by those seeking to destroy society as we know it.

Why did you bother opening this topic if it doesn't fit the forum's raison d'être?

Lehi

Prop 8 is certainly a topic that is closely tied to the Mormon Church. This is a play depicting the legal arguments supporting and opposing the legal validation of that proposal. I think that truth and justice is a Mormon value. I would think that viewing a play about an issue that the church felt so passionate about would be something that all Mormons would be interested in. I can understand some members feeling that Judge Walker's ruling was wrong. This play gives members an opportunity to see the arguments for and against this issue. Will members draw a different conclusion than Judge Walker? The only way of determining that is to see exactly what those legal arguments were. The only reason to not want to watch this play is a fear that what the Mormon church was advocating was not a just law.

[Jaybear]

I am sure there are some Mormons who post here that agree with you, that the church is one large lynch mob seeking to destroy gay men and women. They will of course voice their opinion. But we also know that the play is being produced by people who disdain and have denigrated the church, that the actors are all of a single mindset, and there will be no critical thinking allowed. Only dogma. It is the norm for that type of politics.

You are free to embrace it. But don't try to tell us you aren't part of the lynch mob.

The Prop 8 play dramatizes the Prop 8 trial.

At that trial, the lynchers (Pro Prop 8 ) had a chance to put on evidence to back up the "reasons" for the lynching.

The victims were, of course, the gay couples that lost the right to marry.

I have no idea why you are playing the victim card here.

[Jeff K.]

Of course you don't. You have no empathy, most lynch mobs don't have empathy for their victims.

Jeff has left the building.

[TAO]

C'mon Guys, let's get over it. Both sides were victims in different ways.

Like TheSometimesSaint said, I think this isn't worth very much attention at all. People are people and will do things that aren't very nice. It's our job just to ignore them.

[Jeff K.]

I agree, but it is telling how there were "no victims" among the saints in the eyes of some. For them, the saints will never be victims no matter what happens.

[california boy]

I agree, but it is telling how there were "no victims" among the saints in the eyes of some. For them, the saints will never be victims no matter what happens.

I think that most people have acknowledged on this form that there was bad behavior from some supporting gay rights. Evidently that was not enough for you. I understand that. If you want to carry bad feelings, no matter what is said, it is never enough. Pretty natural feeling.

[Jeff K.]

I suggest you reread the a few posts back. It is not as universal as you seem to think. And the justifications have always been quick for that bad behavior.

[Jeff K.]

As for carrying bad feelings.... think about that for a bit.

[california boy]

As for carrying bad feelings.... think about that for a bit.

Hey I am first to admit that I too have bad feelings towards the actions the church took against what I believe is an equal rights issue. I have also stated repeatedly, the church certainly has the right to voice their political views on any subject they wish. But I certainly am not willing to vilify the members of the church for any actions some of them might have done. As you well know, I have no animosity towards the church, its leaders or its members.

[Jeff K.]

Even when it makes it more difficult for people to either remain in the church or join it? Can we believe the actions have helped people embrace the gospel or undermined the ability of many? Is anyone willing to be judged for it? Even when I have a disagreement with the church I have not undermined or attempted to undermine the faith of others.

[california boy]

I just watched the Prop 8 play. I hope that many of you that voted for prop 8 did as well. You could have seen exactly what you voted for. I have to say first, that the word Mormon was never uttered. This was not about the involvement in financing the prop 8 initiative. It was however very much about the ads run with the money paid for by the members of the church. What is said in a court room is entirely different than what is blurted out on television. Actual proof and documentation is required to make statements. The goal of a court is to determine truth not sway emotions. I certainly can see why the prop 8 supporters have tried so vigorously to keep the actual trial tapes out of the public viewing.

When documentation and proof is required to support their statements, there is no case. What is on trial here is as much about bigotry and prejudice as it is about gay marriage. When you take away prejudice from a legal argument, there is no argument left.

The church is right about one thing. Gay marriage is a moral issue. Allowing the coming together of a gay couple to have a committed relationship is a moral issue. Allowing gay families to have the protection of marriage is a moral issue. Condemning someone for having sex outside of marriage without allowing them to marry is a moral issue. Policy statements have changed in the past. Who knows, maybe this policy will change as well over time.

[Daniel2]

The play was FANTASTIC. It consisted almost entirely of the actual words of the trial, itself (the occassions it departed from court transcripts were a few scenes involving the plantiffs interacting outside of the courtroom--mostly the lesbian couple and their twin sons--as well as showing three or four of the "Yes on 8" commercials used during the Prop 8 campaign). I was moved to tears several times during the performance.

If any are concerned/curious to know: the LDS church was never mentioned.

I understand the play will be posted in it's entirety. Those who missed it but wish to see it can do so, here:

Theodore B. Olson and David Boies (the legal team opposing Prop 8 ) did an outstanding job--especially the impassioned closing arguements (as performed by Martin Sheen---see the 1:46:06 mark in the video), which brought a prolongued standing ovation.

I highly, highly recommend the play.

Daniel2

[Daniel2]

Apparently, the play will only be available for online viewing for a week, per the SL Trib:

Pitt, Clooney, Sheen headline Prop 8 play

By SANDY COHEN

The Associated Press

Published: March 4, 2012 10:47AM

Updated: March 4, 2012 11:07AM

From left to right, actress Yeardley Smith, actor George Clooney, and actor Martin Sheen take a bow during the curtain call at the Los Angeles premiere of the play "8" in Los Angeles on Saturday, March 3, 2012. (AP Photo/Dan Steinberg)

Los Angeles • Martin Sheen commanded the stage with his impassioned portrayal of an attorney arguing for gay-marriage rights; Jane Lynch inspired instant response as a vehement same-sex marriage opponent; Brad Pitt dazzled as a judge.

It was all part of the star-studded West Coast premiere of “8,” a play about the 2010 federal court fight against Proposition 8, the gay-marriage ban that California voters approved in 2008.

The performance Saturday at the Wilshire Ebell Theatre in Los Angeles also featured George Clooney, Kevin Bacon, Jamie Lee Curtis, Christine Lahti, George Takei, John C. Reilly, Chris Colfer, Matthew Morrison and Jesse Tyler Ferguson.

The play by Oscar winner Dustin Lance Black made its Broadway debut last year in similar starry fashion. Saturday’s benefit performance was broadcast live on YouTube, where director Rob Reiner said it drew 200,000 viewers. He hopes it attracts more than a million before its weeklong online run ends. The play will also be staged around the country with local actors at colleges and community theaters.

“We want as many people as possible to see what happened inside that courtroom,” said Reiner, a founding member of the American Foundation for Equal Rights, which is funding the federal fight for marriage equality.

Relying largely on transcripts from court proceedings, “8” introduces viewers to the couples who challenged the California initiative, the attorneys who argued their case and a bumbling witness who spoke out against them.

One couple has two children together; the other wants to start a family; and a witness testifying in favor of the same-sex marriage ban said under oath that marriage equality was best for couples, kids and the country.

The real-life couples in the case — Sandy Stier (Curtis) and Kris Perry (Lahti), and Jeff Zarillo (Matt Bomer) and Paul Katami (Morrison) — and the attorneys — David Boies (Clooney) and Theodore B. Olson (Sheen) — were in the audience Saturday, along with director Brett Ratner, designer Diane Von Furstenberg and Clooney’s girlfriend, Stacy Keibler.

“We did put fear and prejudice on trial, and fear and prejudice lost,” Olson said after Reiner brought him on stage.

Last month, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld an earlier judge’s decision that found California’s proposed amendment banning same-sex marriage unconstitutional.

Reiner said he and Black decided to make a play and eventually a movie based on the Prop. 8 trial after proponents successfully petitioned to block cameras from the courtroom.

Saturday’s reading was held on a courtroom-like set, with eight chairs on each side and Pitt’s judge’s box in the center. Sheen and Clooney made for an impressive legal team, while Reilly cracked up the crowd as a verbose marriage expert.

“I knew that Martin Sheen was going to get a huge ovation after that speech because we applauded for him in rehearsal,” said Ferguson, adding that he wanted to be in “8” as soon as he heard about it. “John C. Reilly did a brilliant job with his role but I loved seeing Jane Lynch play such a villainous, homophobic creature. It really felt like she was sticking it to the man.”

Reilly said he was moved by the material, and even more so by its message.

“I think America will be a better place and we can hold our chins up a little higher in this country when everyone is treated (equally),” he said. “These aren’t gay rights or special rights, they’re basic rights that people who love each other should have.”

Reilly was thrilled to participate in the play, and even took on a last-minute role change when Pitt signed on. Reilly was to play the judge, but instead jumped into a role that Reiner originally was going to play.

Said the director: “I took one for the team.”

———

Online:

www.8theplay.com

———

AP Entertainment Writer Sandy Cohen is on Twitter: www.twitter.com/APSandy.

[Daniel2]

Actor John C. Reilly gave a commercially flustered performance as David Blankenhorn, one of the two witnesses that the Pro-Prop 8 team featured in the trial.

I was curious to learn more about the real David Blakenhorn, so I googled him. I was surprised to learn how Dr. Blakenhorn's testimony actually helped the pro-gay side. Here's some of the surprising testimony statements (keeping in mind these are from the PRO-Prop 8's witness):

BLANKENHORN ADMISSIONS/Prop. 8 Trial

Defendants’ witness David Blankenhorn this morning made several admissions that bolster the key points of our case:

Marriage is vitally important in American society. Prop. 8 causes grievous harm to gays and lesbians and their children Prop. 8 perpetrates this harm for no good reason.

He admitted marriage is a “public good” and that marriage would benefit gays and lesbians, their children and society at large.

He also testified (text below as shown on screen):

·         “Gay marriage would extend a wide range of the natural and practical benefits of marriage to many lesbian and gay couples and their children.”

·         “Extending the right to marry to same-sex couples would probably mean that a higher proportion of gays and lesbians would choose to enter into committed relationships.”

·         “Same-sex marriage would likely contribute to more stability and to longer-lasting relationships for committed same-sex couples.”

·         “Same-sex marriage might lead to less sexual promiscuity among lesbians and (perhaps especially) gay men.”

·         “Same-sex marriage would signify greater social acceptance of homosexual love and the worth and validity of same-sex intimate relationships.”

·         “Gay marriage would be a victory for the worthy ideas of tolerance and inclusion. It would likely decrease the number of those in society who tend to be viewed warily as ‘other’ and increase the number who are accepted as part of ‘us.’ In that respect, gay marriage would be a victory for, and another key expansion of, the American idea.”

·         “Gay marriage might contribute over time to a decline in anti-gay prejudice as well as, more specifically, a reduction in anti-gay hate crimes.”

·         “Because marriage is a wealth-creating institution, extending marriage rights to same-sex couples would probably increase wealth accumulation and lead to higher living standards for these couples as well as help reduce welfare costs (by promoting family economic self-sufficiency) and decrease economic inequality.”

·         “Extending marriage rights to same-sex couples would probably reduce the proportion of homosexuals who marry persons of the opposite sex, and thus would likely reduce instances of marital unhappiness and divorce.”

·         “By increasing the number of married couples who might be interested in adoption and foster care, same-sex marriage might well lead to fewer children growing up in state institutions and more growing up in loving adoptive and foster families.”

It's no wonder that the Pro-Prop 8 team wants recordings of this trial to be kept secret.

Daniel2