Brad Pitt: I'll Marry When Everyone Can

Damn it, now I need to watch that movie again...been too long :P

Excellent movie.

I agree, Shawn. I hope that they adopt villages of kids and turn them into a school of Super Adoptees whose life mission is to change the world. ^^

Super Adoptees whose life mission is to change the world.

Kinda like The Boys From Brazil?

Actually, Walt, that's exactly what I had in mind.

...I was gonna do that.

"I never felt alienated or ashamed of the fact I was adopted."

Me either, because even though my parents told me as soon as I was old enough to understand they were always there for me and treated me like one of their own...I suppose I was :)

No, I don't think that's it. He is demonstrating--quite rightly--that change begins at home.

Besides, there are thousands of people out there who really value what celebrities do, say and think, and these two are setting a good example. If Pitt can reach just one of those thousands of fans who are just aching for a Brad-and-Angie wedding in their next summer issue of People, he's made a difference.

I think that's rather harsh. I wouldn't doubt that Brad Pitt has a formidable ego (I would too if I'd impregnated Angelina Jolie), but he's simply making a statement. It's not like he called a press conference specifically to announce this, it was said in an interview! He might as well weigh in with his opinion on the matter. On a personal level, it is still a form of sacrifice to not marry someone he truly wishes to marry in the name of equality.

Is he including polygamists, because this is the path that is being headed down.

Is he including polygamists, because this is the path that is being headed down.

I hope so. Why discriminate against people who want to torture themselves with the kind of stress that would come from multiple partners that know about each other? :P

Man, I am so torn on polygamy...it totally works for some. It totally @!$%#s up your genes and your family tree for others.

"I wont allow my son to play in the Buger King Play Land until people over 54" tall can play in the Burger King Play Land"

Actually, last time I looked, the height restrictions were only for the ball-pit. The slides and tubes, however, weren't marked by any restrictions so they were fair game ;)

That was 7 years ago, so it might have changed. If not, go there during some non-kid-crazy hours and have fun!

No, I don't think that's it. He is demonstrating--quite rightly--that change begins at home.

I got that, half of what I said was sarcasm, but if charity that starts at home, why not get married and preach about it? I dunno... it seems off, but I'm not a doctor.

That was 7 years ago, so it might have changed. If not, go there during some non-kid-crazy hours and have fun!

Here, we have an enclosed play land, and there is a height restriction to get into the series of tubes and slides (but its also completely indoor). The ball pit is no longer around - too many drug needles have been in certain kinds of neighborhoods nationwide I hear. They do have a really bouncy .. thing... though. I dunno what it is my son loves it.

I do, and I also drive through the drive-thu backwards, walk through it pretending I'm in a car, and I also drive around with a Burger King Crown on... I'm @!$%#ing weird sometimes, but I have a lot of fun being me.

Is he including polygamists, because this is the path that is being headed down.

I would have to disagree, there is a prominent case in the news right now that is indicative of the potential for and history of problems and abuse we have seen from the exercise of polygamy in this culture.

http://www.lasvegassun.com/sunbin/stories/nevada/2006/aug/30/083010364.html

There is no corresponding legal precendent to argue against same-sex monagamous relationships; and if the "sanctity of marriage" crowd is to be credited, there is significant evidence that favors the idea of allowing more people to commit to monogamous unions.

I'll go you one better Shawn: Presumably he's referring to the guy marriage issue. However his statement is vague at best and gives me an opening.

I here-by announce my intentions to campaign for the legal and spiritual right to marry my herd of goats.

Motion denied...your goats can't consent to the marriage....sorry :(

I care very little about celebrities and what they do and say, but I applaud Brad on this one. I've personally made the same decision in my own life after a family member lamented to me how upsetting he found it that he has no right to marry his partner, that basic rights that straight people take for granted are denied to him. And it isn't about hoping that not getting married will change the system. It's about making a statement to others and about showing support and solidarity for the gay community in their fight for equal rights.

As for polygamy, it most certainly should be legal for consenting adults. Most of the problems from polygamy have arisen when certain polygamists marry underage girls. But not all polygamists do that.

As for wanting to marry a herd of goats, that's just ignorant. The idea that somehow our law wouldn't be able to distinguish between what two consenting humans do and the victimization of animals, random sexual fetishes, or the effects of mental derangement, is ridiculous. Besides the slippery slope argument goes both ways: if we are going to deny marriage rights to gays, what other groups could possibly find themselves unable to marry. How about interracial marriages? Lots of people don't like that.

I applaud Brad on this one. I've personally made the same decision in my own life after a family member lamented to me how upsetting he found it that he has no right to marry his partner

But the family member can live in the exact same way that Brad and Angelina are living right now!

@ stolte-sawa

No, I don't think that's it. He is demonstrating--quite rightly--that change begins at home.

Yeah, like not cheating on your wife, Jennifer!

Here, we have an enclosed play land, and there is a height restriction to get into the series of tubes and slides (but its also completely indoor).

You have a height restriction on the Internet? Ted Stephens would be shocked. Shocked I tell you. His staff sent him an Internet a few days ago. He got it this morning!

@ all
I wonder if Brad Pitt will eventually become a Hugh Hefner. Not really married to the women (or constantly married to the women), but totally devoted to his work.

@killfile

You have a height restriction on the Internet? Ted Stephens would be shocked. Shocked I tell you. His staff sent him an Internet a few days ago. He got it this morning!

Comedy Gold... Comedy Gold...

@Rukh

Motion denied...your goats can't consent to the marriage....sorry :(

Are you sure? I don't think understand them. I think if we set up a committee to analyse the goats, maybe get a goat correspondent and perhaps a couple of goat herder accounts that dictate otherwise we can then either make goat-human marriage or goat-goat marriage legal....or charge a few farmers with rape.

@ The Observer

But the family member can live in the exact same way that Brad and Angelina are living right now!

The difference is that Brangelina has a choice. Some gays do not. I'm an advocate for gay marriage, but I think it should be done on a governmental level. Most churches will not marry a gay couple, so the church should have the option to marry a gay couple with out pressure from government to make them do so (separation of church and state?), but I think that if a gay couple wishes to marry, they should. For those that say it isn't fair to bar them from church marriage, I'm not, I'm saying its up to the church - religion is a club...kind of like being gay. You're in or you're out. Other than that... one up hill fight at a time... don't push for both, you might not get either one.

Uhm, he's talking about gay marriage.

As far as I know, anyone can get married as long as they are of age.

In the United States, gays can't marry. Even if a state allows them to have a civil union, other states don't have to recognize that union.

Very admirable of him IMO. He's saying that they are no different- no more special than any other couple in love, so they shouldn't be bestowed a privilege denied to so many others.

Sounds like a cool dad too!

In the United States, gays can't marry

CORRECTION: Can't marry in some states.

nathan.

i see you're against gays being allowed to marry, or you wouldnt have grouped them with people wanting to marry animals or spectral beings. do you really think that homosexuals are just like people who want to marry horses? if you yourself are married, than you can understand that some people might love men (ie, your spouse). why then is it ludicris for someone who loves a man, and wants to spend the rest of his life with him, to want to have their consentual adult relationship recognized by the state (if they happen to also be a man)?

re: brad pitt. bold move. besides we know that if they married it wouldnt last long anyway, might as well make a statement out of not getting married.

...that's not exactly marriage.

The union of two people in a lifelong commitment has been recognized "traditionally" as marriage in some cultures long before the modern attempts at redefining the term.

The societal definition of marriage makes exception when one of the parties in the supposed union is unable to express consent to the arrangement from a legally binding standpoint, which is one of the reasons animals and imaginary friends do not apply. The "different species" argument has been used against other humans in the recent past, in the case of interracial marriages. Thankfully we outgrew that particular form of non-sense; or I would not have the lovely nieces and nephews that I have today.

MrESquid

re: brad pitt. bold move. besides we know that if they married it wouldnt last long anyway, might as well make a statement out of not getting married.

A "bold" move would have been to marry before having a baby, a bold move would have been not to make political statements using said baby.

Opponents of traditional marriage say that it's so unenlightened to impose such a narrow view of marriage, but isn't saying that two people, regardless of gender, who share love and commitment... isn't that also narrow? What about groups of people more than two? When you open the door to changing the definition of marriage, it's not fair to stop at marriage being between two people.

The traditional definition of marriage is about morality (love, commitment, the image of God in the creation of a man and a woman) and math (1 man plus one woman).

The proposed new definition of marriage is also about morality (love, commitment, etc.) and math (2 people of either gender).

Both definitions are pretty narrow in my mind, and leave out a whole lot of possibilites. Sure, threesomes and foursomes and incestuous relatives aren't en vogue now, but if we're trying to be inclusive, let's not leave anyone out. I'm not being a smartass here. If our goal is to be inclusive, we need to do away with marriage all together, because we can't keep it and not leave someone out.

Marriage just is.

I'm not comparing gay people to other groups, I'm just saying it's unfair to leave people out because they don't have a big Hollywood presence, a loud voice, etc. If you're going to take up for the cause of those left out, take up the freaking cause and demand that marriage be abolished... it's the only way to level the playing field, so to speak. But the great majority of people in America define marriage as between a man and a woman. So it's not unenlightened to state the obvious.

I might want to be pronounced legally dead by my state (and recognized by all other states) so that I can have all my debts cancelled, and my wife can collect on my life insurance policy. But the definition of being dead is a stopped heart, no breathing, etc. I can't change the definition of being dead just because I want the legal benefits.

Now, there are some rights that we should give to all citizens (not just gay ones), like the right to designate anyone you want to make medical decisions for you, or the right to leave your property or social security survivor's benefits to them, but again, these rights should be extended to all Americans, not just gays. It's not fair to leave anyone out.

What about the celibate? What about the woman who lives her whole life, never marries, never has any romantic life period... who does she get to leave her property to, without being crippled by estate taxes? Who does she get to designate as being able to make medical decisions on her behalf? Even "social activists" like Brad Pitt have forgotten about her. I guess celibacy isn't cool enough of a bandwagon to jump on.

I'm not being a smartass. I'm just not impressed by Brad Pitt's "activism" because it is so unbelievably easy to be an activist for gay marriage today. If he really cared, he would have been talking about this 15 years ago, before the sea change. He should have spoken out about this before he did his part to make a mockery of marriage by quitting his own. I think he's an adulterer and a quitter and a coward.

See my comment above:

http://www.newsvine.com/_news/2006/09/08/355487-brad-pitt-ill-marry-when-everyone-can#c283558

... pointing out the potential for abuse is recognized as being higher in the case of multiple partner marriage arrangements, and that society has not developed sufficient safeguards against the potential for abuse that it has with monogamous unions.

Marriage just is.

Does that include interracial marriages? Marriages between people of different religious beliefs? Marriages across national boundaries? Marriages across different social classes? All of those examples have at one time been legally or socially taboo in many Western nations.

I trust you are not trying to be a smartass, but you are trotting out the same strawman that if we start to consider the inclusion of one type of union under the "traditional" definition of marriage, then we must open the door to all sorts of relationships gaining the same status. The problem with that stance is it conveniently overlooks the changes in the defined state of marriage showing that is is an evolving concept, and that historically those that argue to protect the tradition of marriage are usually trying to protect their own interests over that of the concept of marriage.

Funny you bring up death, as there are cases of people trying to rebuild their lives when they encounter the difficulty of correcting having been pronounced legally dead.

Some rights are only extended to Americans after they have established a legal position that makes those "rights" open to them. I have a "right" to pay property taxes as a consequence of being a home owner, those taxes (I hope) help to pay for products and services that make my local community a place worth owning a home in. And this society has a legal precedent that certain "rights" are only available to those who attain a legal document establishing their state as married. There are some rights that you do not get simply on the merits of being a citizen.

Celibacy and the legal status is a bandwagon worthy of jumping on. But you act as if it is not part of the greater debate on the legal status of marriage rights and benefits as provided by society, and the considerations that should be made to make the same equitable to all citizens.

Why would he have spoken about something 15 years before he was in a position to consider it as an issue? I suppose I should have held an opinion 15 years ago on the nature of Homeowner Associations and managing an escrow account along with my mortgage, but I did not own a house back then, and had never considered the possibility of home ownership.

The first line of this article "Brad Pitt, ever the social activist..." implies that this is not an unusual stance coming from this personality. The idea that he has never expressed a specific opinion on record on this issue may well hinge on the idea that he has never been specifically asked about it before.

Sorry Tyson, he can't marry you...

Not meant in a derogatory way at all.

It's admirable for Pitt to do this, but I doubt it will achieve much.

Yes, he could if he wanted - here in Canada is LEGAL AND ACCEPTED by our society.

I vote for Brad to marry Tyson. I'll take Angelina. We can coexist in a wonderful extended family. You and Brad get the kids on the weekend. Angie and I will stay in bed.

Wait a second! Gays can marry? Oh my god, your courts and county clerks offices must be inundated with all those people now seeking to marry their goats and goldfish. How can they possibly keep up with it?

And how are you guys coping with the vast societal breakdown that we've been told must accompany that kind of permissiveness? Traditional marriages must be breaking up at a record pace! I've always loved Canada, our next-door neighbor of a country, but how much longer can it last when anyone who wants to marry a herd of elk can legally do so? That slippery slope of equal rights claims yet another society as victim. Such a shame.

Evano I think that really says everything that has to be said about the gay marriage debate.

is it all its cracked up to be or are you planning on forever holding the secret to my significant others success....

Yep! This was my thought, exactly... Totally lame.

Oops, I meant Namibian border.

At first I thought you wrote the Lesbian border!

disgustingly hilarious.