Anne Hathaway Protests Rick Warren: emotionality running wild & disguised as logic
January 12, 2009
I recently read an article on Fox News and found the following section really interesting:
Hathaway is also proving to be incredibly articulate, and, as the year passed, politicized in a way that puts her in the legacy of Jane Fonda and Susan Sarandon. She speaks her mind about issues she feels passionately about.
One of them is Barack Obama—whom she backed—and his choice of Rick Warren as the Obama Inauguration’s clergy of choice.
“I am against it,” Hathaway told me at the after party last night amid champagne toasts to her, to Streep, and to her “Rachel” co-star Rosemarie Dewitt. “My older brother is gay, and so its a family issue for me. My father is coming with me to the Inauguration. At first we discussed not going, and then we thought we’d just turn our backs when he [Warren] speaks. But we didn’t want to be disrespectful. So we’re going to wear ribbons protesting his appearance.”
So she’s outspoken, and polite. That’s a combination you can’t beat.
Anne Hathaway is polite, but her reasons for protesting Rick Warren (and traditional marriage) expose emotionality running wild & disguised as logic.
People who support traditional marriage are not “homophobes” (a made up/etymologically incorrect word).
People who support traditional marriage are not bigots.
People who support traditional marriage most likely see it as a wise move for society. Children do best with a married mom and dad. People who support traditional marriage want to do everything they can to help their society present the best possible situations for children: keeping marriage exclusive is one way to achieve this goal.
Marriage is exclusive for a reason. Its exclusivity encourages participation (which means commitment, stability, sacrifice).
People can support traditional marriage and love their brothers at the same time.
A gay brother is not justification for stripping children of their right to a mom and a dad.
The existence of homosexuality is not justification for changing the foundational unit of any society: a man and a woman.
———————–
Related Articles:
Fox News: Anne Hathaway Against Rick Warren, But Won’t Turn Back on Him at Inauguration.
Thinking the Wright Way: Anne Hathaway to Protest Rick Warren at Inauguration
Beetle Blogger: Smokerphobe (n).
Entry Filed under: Children have a right to a mom and a dad, Marriage and Culture, tolerance. Tags: anne hathaway, gay brother, gay marriage, inauguration, rick warren, same gender marriage, traditional marriage.
1.
Secular Heretic | January 12, 2009 at 10:11 am
Your making sense to me pomegranate. The term homosexual is so broad. It can mean people who have a same sex attraction or it can include people who take part in homosexual sex. So when someone says oh my brother is gay it becomes really confusing as to what exactly they mean. Are they taking part in promiscuous homosexual sex which has unhealthy outcomes or are they struggling to live a celibate life while dealing with a same sex attraction?
2.
Euripides | January 12, 2009 at 4:30 pm
“Hathaway is also proving to be incredibly articulate, and, as the year passed, politicized in a way that puts her in the legacy of Jane Fonda and Susan Sarandon.”
I saw Anne Hathaway on late night TV just a little while ago and she was anything but “articulate.” She was vain, foul-mouthed, and infantile. Then again, I suppose comparing her to Fonda and Sarandon is appropriate.
3.
rubyeliot | January 12, 2009 at 7:55 pm
You’re right euripides. I found this video of her after I posted, she’s on the red carpet and her responses are pretty juvenile and awkward.
Watch it here:
http://vids.eonline.com/services/link/bcpid1396519019/bctid6621603001
4.
rubyeliot | January 12, 2009 at 7:56 pm
even when she mentions rick warren, it’s hardly “incredibly articulate.”
5.
Therese | January 12, 2009 at 8:35 pm
It seems to me that Ms. Hathaway is intolerant of someone having a different belief to hers.
I really love your blog and articles Pomegranate. I have given you an award. See my blog for details.
Therese
6.
rubyeliot | January 12, 2009 at 9:25 pm
Thank You Therese! I’m so complimented! Thank You!
7.
daniel rotter | January 13, 2009 at 10:43 am
“It seems to me that Ms. Hathway is intolerant of someone having a different belief to hers.”
Yeah, wearing a ribbon…Anne is just bursting with intolerance.
8.
Op Ed. | January 13, 2009 at 3:00 pm
PA: People who support traditional marriage are not bigots.
Identity politics is the only reason to support neutering marriage so naturally supporters of neutering marriage think identity politics must be the only reason to oppose it. Just like opposing slavery back in the 19th century supposedly meant you hated your own “race,” so too opposing neutering marriage means you hate “homosexuals.” The arguments those like Ms. Hathaway find relevant reveal much about what motivates them.
A gay brother is not justification for stripping children of their right to a mom and a dad.
But that’s just it. To practitioners of identity politics, it is. Identity politics trumps all else and justifies any action. Whether it is slavery, genocide, or neutering the foundational institution of society, identity politics justifies them all.
9.
rubyeliot | January 13, 2009 at 7:43 pm
You are right Daniel. It’s not intolerant at all to protest a religious man, giving a prayer, because he believes marriage should only be defined as between a man and a woman–
10.
daniel rotter | January 14, 2009 at 2:57 am
“It’s not intolerant at all to protest a religious man…”
Wearing a ribbon isn’t much of a “protest,” which was basically the point of my earlier post.
11.
Op Ed. | January 14, 2009 at 5:18 am
Daniel: Wearing a ribbon isn’t much of a “protest,”…
That her protest is inept does not refute her intolerance.
12.
daniel rotter | January 14, 2009 at 6:02 am
“That her protest is inept…”
Polite, non-disruptive protest (i.e. wearing a ribbon) is not “inept” protest.
13.
rubyeliot | January 14, 2009 at 6:16 am
i would say it’s a distracting show of intolerance: showy and empty.
14.
rubyeliot | January 14, 2009 at 6:23 am
op-ed, thanks so much for your comment about identity politics. it’s totally true. when someone gets sucked into that trap: anything is justifiable.
for anyone interested in further discussion of this topic, opine is kind of the king:
Identity Politics
15.
Op Ed. | January 14, 2009 at 3:49 pm
Daniel: Polite, non-disruptive protest (i.e. wearing a ribbon) is not “inept” protest.
Take it up with a Mr. Daniel Rotter. He’s the one that said Anne’s “isn’t much of a ‘protest.’” My point, that it doesn’t take away from her intolerance, stands.
16.
daniel rotter | January 15, 2009 at 3:04 am
“I would say that it’s a distracting show of intolerance: showy and empty.”
Wearing a ribbon is “distracting” and “showy”? Good grief.
17.
Op Ed. | January 15, 2009 at 4:13 am
Daniel: Wearing a ribbon is “distracting” and “showy”?
It seems to have distracted you. Good grief.
18.
Jesurgislac | January 15, 2009 at 3:02 pm
Children do best with a married mom and dad.
And children with other parents – two moms, two dads – are presumably of no importance and do not merit any consideration.
See, this is what I don’t get about you anti-marriage people: you never seem to want to think about all children. Only the children who have the right kind of parents need to be thought about.
People who support traditional marriage want to do everything they can to help their society present the best possible situations for children: keeping marriage exclusive is one way to achieve this goal.
So the best possible situation for the children of same-sex couples is to ensure that their parents can’t get married? You feel that, if a child has two moms or two dads, marriage is actually a negative?
…or you just haven’t thought about these children at all in your rush to oppose marriage?
19.
Op Ed. | January 15, 2009 at 4:48 pm
Slac: And children with other parents – two moms, two dads – are presumably of no importance and do not merit any consideration.
This is a standard talking point of those seeking to neuter marriage. This special pleading is usually aimed at just one relationship type to which the arguer wants special benefits to apply, but the argument is more far reaching than that. In fact, it argues that anyone can take a child as a hostage of whatever relationship type and require the government to redefine marriage or else cause indirect harm to that child. Why not three moms or three dads? Why not two moms and a dad? Why not a whole village or a corporation? It is clear that with such a broad charter, marriage could no longer acknowledge and provide for the unique requirements of the procreative couple as it now does.
Extant children are not the focus of marriage law. We have other bodies of family law aimed at recognizing the needs of children in whatever situation they find themselves. The one universal truth about all children is that they cannot choose the situation in which they are raised. This is what makes marriage too important to waste on the capricious whims of adults. Marriage is for creating the optimal environment before the child is created. It’s us as adults before a child is created making the choice that we will provide that child with that optimal environment the child cannot choose for himself or herself.
The call to care about the children by this particular arguer rings particularly hollow. Jesurgislac has argued with John Howard repeated over the issue of same sex conception. Slac believes that if two same sex people should want to conceive, the medical industry should find a way to make it happen.
Same-sex conception would require research into some method of combining DNA from two same sex parents to produce viable offspring. This experimentation would result in many experimental errors, i.e., much suffering and death on the part of children produced by these experiments. Even if such experimentation could eventually perfect the technique it could not justify any of the horror in its wake since same-sex conception does not solve any medical need of the children it would create. It only satisfies the wants and desires of the adults involved. It is clearly not the needs of children that is Slac’s overriding concern. Indeed, that the wants of anyone claiming to be “homosexual” should be indulged appears to be her highest moral motivator.
20.
Jesurgislac | January 15, 2009 at 4:50 pm
[Editor's note: J.slac, I moved your comment to the appropriate thread so that this discussion can stay on topic.]
21.
rubyeliot | January 16, 2009 at 12:11 am
J.slac, I would like to hear your response to opine’s argument. What do you think about what he said?
22.
jesurgislac | January 16, 2009 at 1:21 pm
Ruby, I gave up responding to Opine and his buds some time ago – they never seemed to read any response nor to think about them. But, since you ask, though I do not promise to respond to any further comments by Opine or either of the other two:
This is a standard talking point of those seeking to neuter marriage.
I am not seeking to “neuter marriage”.
This special pleading is usually aimed at just one relationship type to which the arguer wants special benefits to apply, but the argument is more far reaching than that. In fact, it argues that anyone can take a child as a hostage of whatever relationship type and require the government to redefine marriage or else cause indirect harm to that child.
I think that defining the relationship of parent to child as the parent “taking a child hostage” completely absurd, not to say hostile. The parents we are discussing are adoptive parents, foster parents, birth mothers, step parents – yet because these parents are gay, Opine seems to think this is good enough reason to regard the children of these parents as “hostages”, in effect redefining gay parents as criminals.
The government is not being asked to “redefine marriage”. Marriage is not redefined when same-sex couples can marry. The “redefinition” of marriage is all on the side of those who need to redefine marriage to find some reason why same-sex couples ought not to be allowed to marry. (more at my blog)
And the question still exists: who is considering the children of same-sex couples?
Why not three moms or three dads? Why not two moms and a dad?
Marriage in the US, and in most Western countries, has been defined for centuries as between two people. Removing this – arguing that a person should be allowed to marry two or more people at the same time – would change marriage for everyone, even the monogamous. Massive, significant change to legislation would be required in order to ensure equality in marriage when marriage can mean three or more people. Constant comparisons of same-sex couples having the right to marry with polygamous marriage, while not as insulting as some comparisons, do tend to show that the person making this argument has never thought through all the ramifications of changing marriage legislation to apply to three or more people. Whereas, in any legal system where both spouses have equal responsibilities, rights, and obligations (which is the case in North America and in Europe), giving same-sex couples the freedom to marry is usually just a matter of amending one line, if that. And, unlike a systematic change where any spouse could then add a new person to a marriage, altering marriage for everyone, giving same-sex couples the freedom to marry affects no one else’s marriage.
Why not a whole village or a corporation?
Same applies for triplet-marriage, only more so.
It is clear that with such a broad charter, marriage could no longer acknowledge and provide for the unique requirements of the procreative couple as it now does.
Marriage does not require a couple to be procreative. Mixed-sex couples who have and intend to have no children – who can have no children together – can marry. Marriage provides for the responsibilities, rights, and obligations of two people who wish publicly to commit their lives to each other: to love, cherish, and honor each other, to become each other’s closest kin and dearest friend. There is no obligation to procreate.
Marriage also provides a stable background and family for children. I think is this a good and useful function of marriage, though it’s not something any married couple are required to do. That being so, it is absurd that people who argue “marriage is about caring for children” would also argue that “but same-sex couples who are parents mustn’t be allowed to marry”. If marriage is all about providing a stable background and family for children, then plainly, it is wicked to argue that some children shouldn’t be allowed to have married parents – not because their parents don’t wish to get married, but because their state bans from marriage.
Extant children are not the focus of marriage law.
Nor is procreation.
We have other bodies of family law aimed at recognizing the needs of children in whatever situation they find themselves.
True. By this argument, then, marriage is unnecessary – children don’t need to have married parents at all.
The one universal truth about all children is that they cannot choose the situation in which they are raised.
Well, actually, there are many other universal truths about all children. All children need love and affection; need to be hugged and held and given attention; need someone to care for their physical needs, food, drink, warmth, shelter, cleanliness, health, education… All children need these things. And ideally, a child will have two caring parents who will provide these things – with a network of family and friends behind those parents helping them out.
This is what makes marriage too important to waste on the capricious whims of adults.
Marriage is not something that can be “wasted”. Marriage is not a scarce resource. If marriage is important for children, then it is absurd to argue that some children shouldn’t be allowed to have married parents.
Marriage is for creating the optimal environment before the child is created. It’s us as adults before a child is created making the choice that we will provide that child with that optimal environment the child cannot choose for himself or herself.
Fine. So, why again, would anyone argue that some children mustn’t be allowed to have that optimal environment – married parents?
The call to care about the children by this particular arguer rings particularly hollow. Jesurgislac has argued with John Howard repeated over the issue of same sex conception.
To give some background to this – John Howard is, um, an individual who used to regularly comment on Family Scholars Blog who was utterly obsessed with how awful it would be if two women or two men could somehow combine chromosomes and have children who genetically had two mothers or two fathers. I find the idea interesting as a science-fiction fan, but with a lay person’s knowledge of science, I’m well aware that something like that is decades if not centuries away. It’s not something that would be possible any time in the foreseeable future, and once I realized that John Howard was really unhealthily obsessed with the idea that it might happen I stopped arguing with him. It seemed unfair, when I was only interested in the notion as a science-fiction fan, and saw no relevance at all to modern family law.
Slac believes that if two same sex people should want to conceive, the medical industry should find a way to make it happen.
No, that’s not so. As noted above, my arguments with John Howard tended to be on the sciencefictional aspect of this, and I suppose could have been misunderstood by people who were not science-fiction fans. But no: I see no reason why scientific research should focus on same-sex conception. (Also, though I don’t expect Opine to pay attention, my preference is “jes” or “jesur”, if you want to shorten my rather long pseud. Just FWIW – I don’t take offense at how anyone wants to shorten my chosen nick, but I kind of like “Jes”.)
It is clearly not the needs of children that is Slac’s overriding concern.
I care for human rights and civil rights: these are my overriding concerns.
Indeed, that the wants of anyone claiming to be “homosexual” should be indulged appears to be her highest moral motivator.
No.
23.
Op Ed. | January 16, 2009 at 5:03 pm
Slac’s response is filled with contradictions.
Slac: I am not seeking to “neuter marriage”.
To neuter is to remove gender, which is exactly what Slac is seeking to do to marriage. That it also connotes separation from procreation, which Slac is also attempting to do, makes the term all the more accurate. Slac’s preferred term, “gay marriage,” is both highly inaccurate and dependent on identity politics.
because these parents are gay, Opine seems to think this is good enough reason to regard the children of these parents as “hostages”, in effect redefining gay parents as criminals.
Slac is wearing her gay identity filter goggles too tight. I don’t talk about “gay couples” at all. Even if my comments were construed as referring only to same-sex couples, the vast majority of those couples with children are not “gay” or sexually active in any way. Slac, in fact, would bar the majority of these adult situations with children from marrying.
Were Slac to actually read or think about what I said she would see my comments clearly point to the fact that her argument is much more far reaching than she is even able to see. There are many relationships with children, including “three moms…three dads…[and] two moms and a dad.” Slac claims defending the man-woman criteria of marriage is wrong because same-sex couples have children, but then she goes on to defend the “two” criteria of marriage even though various threesomes, foursomes, etc., “have children.”
Hostage taking is the taking of an innocent bystander and threatening they will be harmed if the hostage taker’s demands are not meant. Slac’s argument, not “gay parents,” is what is turning children into hostages. By Slac’s argument any relationship which could claim to be raising a child could demand that child be “protected’ by marriage or else be harmed. As I point out in my comment, children in all circumstances, even less than optimal circumstance, need to be protected and cared for, not just the children of married relationships.
The government is not being asked to “redefine marriage”. Marriage is not redefined when same-sex couples can marry.
Slac is being entirely disingenuous here, particularly in light of her later comments.
Marriage in the US, and in most Western countries, has been defined for centuries as between two people.
Marriage throughout the world for millenia has been defined as between a man and a woman. Eliminating the requirement “two” is just as much a redefinition as eliminating the man-woman requirement.
Constant comparisons of same-sex couples having the right to marry with polygamous marriage, while not as insulting as some comparisons, do tend to show that the person making this argument has never thought through all the ramifications of changing marriage legislation to apply to three or more people.
Changing the number two, a simple one line change, will have ramifications and eliminating the man-woman criterion won’t? Who’s not thinking things through?
And the question still exists: who is considering the children of same-sex couples?
We are, and as I said, Slac is not. Most same-sex couples with children are related couples, two sisters, mother and daughter, etc. Slac supports not recognizing those relationships as marriage even though they have children. If she doesn’t buy her own argument, why should we?
Marriage takes care of the needs of children before they are created, the need to be loved and cared for by the two adults who created it. It seeks to ensure that the two parents who create a baby together will be committed to that baby as long as possible. There is an extensive body of family law to cover children caught in other relationships.
Marriage does not require a couple to be procreative.
Totally irrelevant. Seat belts do not require their owner to have a car crash. There is no doubt, however, that the potential for a car crash is why we have seat belts. One can see the great potential for harm if Slac’s “no requirement” argument were allowed to eliminate the link between an entity and its purpose.
Consider, for example, eliminating the link between seat belts and car crashes. A car manufacturer could claim that a cheaper alternative looks just as good as a seat belt even though they do nothing in a car crash. This argument would change entirely the purpose of laws requiring cars to have seat belts.
Well, actually, there are many other universal truths about all children.
True. What I meant was “The one universal truth I’m sure even Slac would not dispute…” The point still stands that children need to be cared for in all circumstances, not just those involving marriages.
And ideally, a child will have two caring parents who will provide these things
Yes, but in the case of a same-sex couple, one of the child’s parents is not present. In fact, some partners in a same-sex coupling choose to pay another person, with malice aforethought, to create a baby and then not care for it, not “provide these things,” but rather to abandon it. Such is the epitome of selfishness.
It is a myth that marriage provides simply any “two caring parents” is false. It assumes that most unwed parents try to raise their child unassisted and so underperform. The truth is the vast majority of unmarried parents seek some kind of adult cooperation in raising their child from family members, friends, and neighbors. Despite this caring, loving, and selfless involvement by extra adults, these children still face extra obstacles growing up than children raised by their married parents.
Marriage is not something that can be “wasted”.
That other change favored by marriage reformers, no-fault divorce, proves otherwise. How is your marriage affected by someone else’s divorce, after all? Yet divorce has decimated marriages everywhere, to the detriment of children around the globe. Children don’t need marriage? Marriage isn’t about children? Then why do children bear the brunt of the harm due to its demise?
Marriage is not a scarce resource.
Marriage is as scarce as any resource can get. As a society, we have but one definition of marriage and squandering that definition on the wants of adults leaves the needs of children unfilled.
Arguing that marriage is not a scarce resource because new “marriages” can be created at any time is like arguing academic degrees aren’t a scarce resource because they can be generated at will. Changing the definition of what it means to have a medical degree to make other degree choices equal would be devastating to Society.
If marriage is important for children, then it is absurd to argue that some children shouldn’t be allowed to have married parents.
All children are allowed to have married parents. That some parents choose different relationships is unfortunate.
Also, Slac just got done arguing that children of threesomes, etc. “shouldn’t be allowed to have married parents” by this reasoning. One can’t claim maintaining one definition of marriage ignores children but arguing another definition doesn’t.
And if marriage is important for children? IF?? Slac just got done saying “children don’t need to have married parents at all.” Oddly, this is the point that all proponents of neutering marriage get to. They would be just as happy if there were no marriage whatsoever since that would make things “equal” for “gay couples.” This is really what shows their interest in children to be merely pretend.
No, that’s not so. As noted above, my arguments with John Howard tended to be on the sciencefictional aspect of this,…
Slac’s arguments for neutering marriage are no less unrealistic, and despite her assurances to the contrary, there is research in same-sex procreation ongoing currently. However serious one believes such research to be, I am at least relieved Slac opposes allowing to continue research with such an atrocity as its goal.
One final, unrelated point. For the sake of accuracy, I am not “Opine.” Opine Editorials is a blog where I am a contributor. Opine Editorials was founded many years ago to present the best arguments in favor of defending the man-woman criteria of marriage, and with the hopes of soliciting the best arguments from the other side. In the many years we have been in operation, we have yet to encounter an argument to neuter marriage that did not rely on identity politics. Likewise, over that same period our initial argument, which I wrote up in our inaugural post, has never been refuted.
That said, my monicker, Op Ed, is not short for anything. Any attempt to extend it to something, including “Opine,” is therefore inaccurate and discounts the fact that my fellow contributors tend to do a far better job at its defense than do I.
24.
rubyeliot | January 16, 2009 at 8:13 pm
Thank you op-ed, I apologize for my error. But thank you for your thorough comments.
And thank you j.slac for participating.
25.
jesurgislac | January 16, 2009 at 11:12 pm
Ruby: And thank you j.slac for participating.
You’re welcome. [Editor's Note: Comment deleted because J.Slac brings up issues with other commentators. Talk to them on Opine if you want to complain.]
26.
Op Ed. | January 17, 2009 at 12:16 am
Slac: As I’d thought, it wasn’t going to lead to any thoughtful response from any of the three O’s…
There are no “three O’s.” No other Opine contributor has responded in this thread. A “thoughtful response” would have noted at least that much, even if it didn’t bother to respond to the points raised.
were I drawn to respond to Op-Ed’s farrago…
If Slac is having trouble keeping up with the range of points raised, perhaps she should whittle down her own comment as my reply does not raise any issue not originally included in Slac’s own.
Ruby: I apologize for my error.
I just wanted to correct the error for the sake of my fellow contributors who are the real heavy hitters on that site. No apology needed. I should apologize to you for the many typos!
Thank you for your help moving the discussion along. There’s a few blog posts I can get out of the material covered.
27.
rubyeliot | January 17, 2009 at 12:19 am
Op-Ed:
It is a supreme compliment anytime you comment on this blog. The Opine forum (which has multiple contributors)is one of the most interesting discussion-sites out there.
Everyone should visit:
The Opine Editorials
28.
jesurgislac | January 17, 2009 at 2:08 am
Deleted because J.Slac brings up issues with other commentators.
So they’re allowed to bring up issues they have about me, but I’m not allowed to? Hm.
Fair’s fair, Ruby: if you’re going to edit out comments I make about the “Three O”s because you think I should be making them on Opine Editorial, I think you should edit out comments they make about me. Obviously, it’a your blog, it’s your choice how to moderate it, but if your idea of “moderation” is to alloow them to “Bring up issues” about me, but not to allow me to point out the background to their “issues” – well, Ruby: I’ll take that as your deciding to throw me off your blog.
29.
rubyeliot | January 17, 2009 at 6:46 am
You brought your issues into the discussion first. Leaving their comment is part of the consequence of your choice to break the rules.
Ruby: I’ll take that as your deciding to throw me off your blog.
I’m laughing out loud. You aren’t being kicked off. You are simply being asked to follow the rules I gave you. You often distract from the issue at hand by attacking the commentators. I abhor distraction.
It’s a technique you like to use in order to dodge questions and topics. I won’t allow it on my forum. So if that means your are unable to contribute intelligently and sincerely to the discussion, then I wish you peace and happiness and joy.
30.
jesurgislac | January 17, 2009 at 11:46 am
Ruby, I posted my comment last night – I still think you’re being unfair, but on reflection in the morning, I do have a lot of issues with the “three O”s and should just go back to my previous practice of never responding to them – not even, sadly enough, when politely invited to do so by a blog owner.