Morgan Freeman narrates ad touting sa...

Morgan Freeman narrates ad touting same-sex wins

There are 126 comments on the WMTW-TV Auburn story from Nov 25, 2012, titled Morgan Freeman narrates ad touting same-sex wins. In it, WMTW-TV Auburn reports that:

One of Hollywood's most recognizable voices has been put to use narrating a spot marking Election Day achievements for proponents of same-sex marriage.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at WMTW-TV Auburn.

“Happiness comes through giving”

Since: Feb 08

Location hidden

#21 Nov 26, 2012
barry wrote:
<quoted text>are you so insecure that the only response you have is an insult? maybe it is impossible to converse with you.
apparently it's ok with you for an old man to dump a faithful wife of twenty six years to date and fornicate with her daughter. what is she 29 now? if morgam freeman is a good actor[and he is] that's all he is. someone who is good a portraying something that he is not.
My objection was to your smearing Mr. Freeman's personal life, of which you have no close up knowledge. The subject here has to do with Morgan lending his talents to promoting what should be a basic civil right. Clearly he is inviting enemies for doing so. That brave act alone deserves my applause.
barry

Rainsville, AL

#22 Nov 26, 2012
DNF wrote:
<quoted text>First my apologies if I misunderstood your stance on SSM.
As for what happened in his own marriage, the 50% divorce rate indites more than just Mr. Freeman when it comes to the "sanctity of marriage".
I'm just happy he supports equality for gays and lesbians under marriage laws.
As for his dating his daughter as long as she's not his biological child I don't see that it's really anyone's business.
Trophy Brides was a term invented by heterosexuals to describe an older man dumping his wife for a younger woman. It's not that uncommon.
no, you didn't misunderstand my position on ssm.
you just misunderstood my point. morgan freeman is a scum bag and really is a very poor choice to represent any position apart from acting. you did notice that i was speaking out against what is happening in his personal life, what he has done to his wife of 26 years and is now doing to the daughter he essentially helped raise. such a quality person to be chosen to represent i guess what is your position. you all might have done better but i guess those who made the decision were more enamored with his voice than the quality of person he is.
i also find it disturbing that you seem to be ok with what he is doing. would i be right in guessing that you were ok with what bill clinton did while in the oval office?
dumping your older wife for a younger women may not be uncommon but that doesn't make it right.
a trophy wife, while i am not happy with that is a totally different thing than taking advantage of someone who has trusted you since they were a little child.
woody alan is the same kind of jerk.
barry

Rainsville, AL

#23 Nov 26, 2012
Lawrence Wolf wrote:
<quoted text>My objection was to your smearing Mr. Freeman's personal life, of which you have no close up knowledge. The subject here has to do with Morgan lending his talents to promoting what should be a basic civil right. Clearly he is inviting enemies for doing so. That brave act alone deserves my applause.
mr morgan is a very public person. it is his choice to be politically active on several fronts. he also flaunts his life style for all to see. what he is doing in his personal life by his choice is not very private or personal. so just simply asking questions and pointing out the facts of the situation is not smearing anyone.
http://hellobeautiful.com/2504313/morgan-free...

http://www.celebitchy.com/category/morgan_fre...

DNF

“Judge less, Love more”

Since: Apr 07

Born in Newark Ohio

#24 Nov 26, 2012
barry wrote:
<quoted text>no, you didn't misunderstand my position on ssm.
you just misunderstood my point. morgan freeman is a scum bag and really is a very poor choice to represent any position apart from acting. you did notice that i was speaking out against what is happening in his personal life, what he has done to his wife of 26 years and is now doing to the daughter he essentially helped raise. such a quality person to be chosen to represent i guess what is your position. you all might have done better but i guess those who made the decision were more enamored with his voice than the quality of person he is.
i also find it disturbing that you seem to be ok with what he is doing. would i be right in guessing that you were ok with what bill clinton did while in the oval office?
dumping your older wife for a younger women may not be uncommon but that doesn't make it right.
a trophy wife, while i am not happy with that is a totally different thing than taking advantage of someone who has trusted you since they were a little child.
woody alan is the same kind of jerk.
No I understood your point.

And I'm not the least bit surprised you and others want to focus on that rather than the bigger question of legal discrimination.

Much like people who get upset whenever inter-racial marriage laws are compared to anti gay marriage laws.

I see the similarities. Not my fault if you don't.

DNF

“Judge less, Love more”

Since: Apr 07

Born in Newark Ohio

#25 Nov 26, 2012
barry wrote:
<quoted text>no, you didn't misunderstand my position on ssm.
you just misunderstood my point. morgan freeman is a scum bag and really is a very poor choice to represent any position apart from acting. you did notice that i was speaking out against what is happening in his personal life, what he has done to his wife of 26 years and is now doing to the daughter he essentially helped raise. such a quality person to be chosen to represent i guess what is your position. you all might have done better but i guess those who made the decision were more enamored with his voice than the quality of person he is.
i also find it disturbing that you seem to be ok with what he is doing. would i be right in guessing that you were ok with what bill clinton did while in the oval office?
dumping your older wife for a younger women may not be uncommon but that doesn't make it right.
a trophy wife, while i am not happy with that is a totally different thing than taking advantage of someone who has trusted you since they were a little child.
woody alan is the same kind of jerk.
So you'd have to agree it's fair for folks to judge Sarah Palin based on Bristol being an unwed mom.

It's clear now, thanks.

But I mentioned Newt and what he did with his second wife and you remain strangely silent on that point. In fact you seemed to try to avoid it.

“Happiness comes through giving”

Since: Feb 08

Location hidden

#26 Nov 26, 2012
barry wrote:
<quoted text>mr morgan is a very public person. it is his choice to be politically active on several fronts. he also flaunts his life style for all to see. what he is doing in his personal life by his choice is not very private or personal. so just simply asking questions and pointing out the facts of the situation is not smearing anyone.
http://hellobeautiful.com/2504313/morgan-free...
http://www.celebitchy.com/category/morgan_fre...
I see, o innocent one. Your "questions" have biased negative implications, the entire purpose of which is to smear Morgan Freeman.
barry

Rainsville, AL

#27 Nov 26, 2012
DNF wrote:
<quoted text>So you'd have to agree it's fair for folks to judge Sarah Palin based on Bristol being an unwed mom.
It's clear now, thanks.
But I mentioned Newt and what he did with his second wife and you remain strangely silent on that point. In fact you seemed to try to avoid it.
i did say this in on the previous page. maybe you missed it.
" just because newt might agree with anything i would say doesn't mean that i would hold him up as a valid spokes person for whatever we agreed on."
so in case you didn't get the point i don't hold newt up as a model of anything. of course he may get some slack as he did publicly acknowledge that what he did was wrong.
and yes we can judge sarah palin on the choices that bristol made. the nut doesn't fall very far from the tree. however her overall record is what we need to look at and much of what she is accused of [seeing russia from her house etc] never happened.
barry

Rainsville, AL

#28 Nov 26, 2012
DNF wrote:
<quoted text>No I understood your point.
And I'm not the least bit surprised you and others want to focus on that rather than the bigger question of legal discrimination.
Much like people who get upset whenever inter-racial marriage laws are compared to anti gay marriage laws.
I see the similarities. Not my fault if you don't.
so now you want to call it legal discrimination. you do realize that we make discriminatory choices every day and that it happens to be legal. you want to focus on this one point. so, when you win this what will be next? polygamy? polyandry? or group marriages, you know two guys perhaps bi-sexual and 3 girls? why not what would be your reason to be against any of this? or why not marry your dog or horse? what is the real cultural purpose of ssm?
barry

Rainsville, AL

#29 Nov 26, 2012
Lawrence Wolf wrote:
<quoted text>I see, o innocent one. Your "questions" have biased negative implications, the entire purpose of which is to smear Morgan Freeman.
the whole point was to ask the questions that are being asked. what will mr morgan support next year. you hang with the dogs you're going to get flees. mr morgan is not a role model for anybody but how to be a good actor. he is not really what i would want my children to become. he with all his talent and money couldn't keep his wife happy or should i say couldn't be happy with his wife. so i do think that the choice of spokesperson is an indication of the type of people who are behind the issue in question.

“Happiness comes through giving”

Since: Feb 08

Location hidden

#30 Nov 26, 2012
barry wrote:
<quoted text>the whole point was to ask the questions that are being asked. what will mr morgan support next year. you hang with the dogs you're going to get flees. mr morgan is not a role model for anybody but how to be a good actor. he is not really what i would want my children to become. he with all his talent and money couldn't keep his wife happy or should i say couldn't be happy with his wife. so i do think that the choice of spokesperson is an indication of the type of people who are behind the issue in question.
You're frothing at poverbial mouth, Barry. Freeman just narrated a damn promo.
barry

Rainsville, AL

#31 Nov 26, 2012
Lawrence Wolf wrote:
<quoted text>You're frothing at poverbial mouth, Barry. Freeman just narrated a damn promo.
riiiight. and his disclaimer was that the opinions expressed in the promo were not necessarily the opinion of the promoter. i missed that.

DNF

“Judge less, Love more”

Since: Apr 07

Born in Newark Ohio

#32 Nov 26, 2012
barry wrote:
<quoted text>i did say this in on the previous page. maybe you missed it.
" just because newt might agree with anything i would say doesn't mean that i would hold him up as a valid spokes person for whatever we agreed on."
so in case you didn't get the point i don't hold newt up as a model of anything. of course he may get some slack as he did publicly acknowledge that what he did was wrong.
and yes we can judge sarah palin on the choices that bristol made. the nut doesn't fall very far from the tree. however her overall record is what we need to look at and much of what she is accused of [seeing russia from her house etc] never happened.
I agree we should look at her record. Lots of quitting and then Fox deciding she wasn't worth a paycheck.

I'm still laughing over the one who claimed that by not renewing her contract Fox didn't actually fire her.

DNF

“Judge less, Love more”

Since: Apr 07

Born in Newark Ohio

#33 Nov 26, 2012
barry wrote:
<quoted text>so now you want to call it legal discrimination. you do realize that we make discriminatory choices every day and that it happens to be legal. you want to focus on this one point. so, when you win this what will be next? polygamy? polyandry? or group marriages, you know two guys perhaps bi-sexual and 3 girls? why not what would be your reason to be against any of this? or why not marry your dog or horse? what is the real cultural purpose of ssm?
Why is it people like you suddenly start wanting to discuss sex with children and animals?
Is it that difficult for you to understand that banning SSM violates the Equal Protection clause in the 14th Amendment just like bans on inter-racial marriage did?

DNF

“Judge less, Love more”

Since: Apr 07

Born in Newark Ohio

#34 Nov 26, 2012
barry wrote:
<quoted text>the whole point was to ask the questions that are being asked. what will mr morgan support next year. you hang with the dogs you're going to get flees. mr morgan is not a role model for anybody but how to be a good actor. he is not really what i would want my children to become. he with all his talent and money couldn't keep his wife happy or should i say couldn't be happy with his wife. so i do think that the choice of spokesperson is an indication of the type of people who are behind the issue in question.
Just like Palin, Limbaugh and so many others who claim to represent family values.

No matter who decides to support us I'm pretty sure you'll attempt character assassination rather than admit there is no valid reason to oppose SSM.

“ WOOF ! ”

Since: Nov 12

Coolidge, AZ

#35 Nov 26, 2012
barry wrote:
<quoted text>so now you want to call it legal discrimination. you do realize that we make discriminatory choices every day and that it happens to be legal. you want to focus on this one point. so, when you win this what will be next? polygamy? polyandry? or group marriages, you know two guys perhaps bi-sexual and 3 girls? why not what would be your reason to be against any of this? or why not marry your dog or horse? what is the real cultural purpose of ssm?
Why do people like you always bring up somone "marrying" an animal, when such a thing is impossible ???

Since marriage requires the WRITTEN consent of both parties, AND the VERBAL consent of both parties, please explain in detail HOW a marriage to ANY non-human thing would be possible. Go ahaead and tell me how you would do that.

Thank You.
barry

Rainsville, AL

#36 Nov 26, 2012
DNF wrote:
<quoted text>Why is it people like you suddenly start wanting to discuss sex with children and animals?
Is it that difficult for you to understand that banning SSM violates the Equal Protection clause in the 14th Amendment just like bans on inter-racial marriage did?
and banning multiple marriage partners might also violate the equal protection clause as you would interpret it.

now why do we bring those things up? because it is a reality. it's not like it has never been done or it is an absurd possibility. so what would be next? why stop with ssm? if we are going to rewrite the definition of marriage why have one at all? it will only come under attack again.

btw your "equal protection clause" is a wish and a prayer. saying you are a special class of person does not make you a special class of person.
barry

Rainsville, AL

#37 Nov 26, 2012
Fa-Foxy wrote:
<quoted text>
Why do people like you always bring up somone "marrying" an animal, when such a thing is impossible ???
Since marriage requires the WRITTEN consent of both parties, AND the VERBAL consent of both parties, please explain in detail HOW a marriage to ANY non-human thing would be possible. Go ahaead and tell me how you would do that.
Thank You.
who said that marriage required a written consent or a verbal consent? who made up that law?
barry

Rainsville, AL

#38 Nov 26, 2012
DNF wrote:
<quoted text>Just like Palin, Limbaugh and so many others who claim to represent family values.
No matter who decides to support us I'm pretty sure you'll attempt character assassination rather than admit there is no valid reason to oppose SSM.
you assume much. what is the real cultural value of ssm? i'm just wondering if there is any real reason to be for it?

DNF

“Judge less, Love more”

Since: Apr 07

Born in Newark Ohio

#39 Nov 26, 2012
barry wrote:
<quoted text>and banning multiple marriage partners might also violate the equal protection clause as you would interpret it.
now why do we bring those things up? because it is a reality. it's not like it has never been done or it is an absurd possibility. so what would be next? why stop with ssm? if we are going to rewrite the definition of marriage why have one at all? it will only come under attack again.
btw your "equal protection clause" is a wish and a prayer. saying you are a special class of person does not make you a special class of person.
First off the equal protection clause is a well established legal principle. Second, there is no need to be part of a "protected class" since equal protection would apply to everyone.

The same claim was made when sexual orientation was added to hate crimes laws. You're saying that heterosexuals are now a "protected class" because sexual orientation is now part of the National Hate Crimes law.

Are rapists a protected class because the laws allow them to marry?

Is it that hard for you to wrap your brain around the idea the every citizen should be treated equally under the law?

Now about your "re-defining marriage" crap.

If marriage is what you say it's always been then there would be no reason to pass laws re-defining it as one man one woman.

DNF

“Judge less, Love more”

Since: Apr 07

Born in Newark Ohio

#40 Nov 26, 2012
To Barry: So when it FINALLY became legal for a black man to marry a black woman and have it legally recognized was that re-defining marriage too?

Gimme a break!

The only ones I see "re-defining " marriage are the people who want to equate it with breeding at puppy mills.

The "procreation is the primary purpose of marriage" crowd.

That's really insulting to my father and step mother. My step mother is well past her child bearing years so I guess their marriage is a "play marriage" right?

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Gay/Lesbian Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Same-sex marriage fight turns to clerk who refu... 3 min WeTheSheeple 1,682
News Colo. gay discrimination alleged over wedding cake (Jun '13) 5 min Reverend Alan 24,071
News Ex-Navy SEAL alleges anti-gay bullying by CIA w... 7 min NE Jade 6
News Gay wedding cake at center of Colorado Appeals ... 29 min WeTheSheeple 786
News Orthodox Jewish man stabs 6 gay pride marchers ... 34 min Christsharian Law 3
News Is Polygamy the Next Gay Marriage? (Sep '14) 35 min Reverend Alan 8,077
News Ill. House Approves Legalizing Same-Sex Civil U... (Dec '10) 44 min Mark 52,063
News Supreme Court extends gay marriage nationwide 9 hr NorCal Native 1,166
More from around the web