Sean Penn's Speech

[Beanieboy]

I'm curious to hear reactions to Sean Penn's acceptance speech. I was pleasant surprised about what he said.

For those of you who didn't see it:

"Finally, for those...two last "finalies: for those who, uh, saw the signs of hatred as our cars drove in tonight, and, I think it is a good time for those who vote for the ban against gay marriage to sit and reflect, and anticipate their great shame and the shame of their grandchildren's eyes if they continue that way of support. We've got to have equal rights for everyone...."

In watching Milk, not only is it an amazing performance by Penn (having seen the documentaries about Harvey Milk myself), but you also see the glaring similarities in what was fought then, with what is fought now:

n January of 1977, the Dade County Commission passed a gay-rights ordinance, making Miami the fortieth US city with such a law. The vote alarmed Anita Bryant, a singer, former beauty queen, and born-again Christian, who began a campaign to repeal the ordinance. Within six weeks, Bryant had gathered the signatures necessary to put the issue to Dade County voters. Bryant formed an organization called Save Our Children, Inc., and based the campaign on the idea that "Homosexuals cannot reproduce, so they must recruit." In June, the gay rights ordinance was repealed by a vote of more than 2-to-1. The repeal in Miami led to a wave of repeals and gay-rights defeats in other states, including the passage of an Oklahoma law banning gay men and lesbians from teaching in the public schools.

By focussing on the idea that gays and lesbians were somehow threatening to children, Bryant had created an incredibly powerful rhetorical focus for social conservatives. In 1981, Jerry Falwell echoed her language in a fundraising letter that reminded his followers, "Please remember, homosexuals don't reproduce! They recruit! And they are out after my children and your children." By the beginning of the 1980s, the Religious Right had made the fight against gay and lesbian liberation one of its primary issues, and found it a particularly effective focus for fundraising appeals. The efforts of conservatives slowed the advance of gay-rights and established an organized anti-gay opposition. That opposition is still a force in US politics today. Gay rights and anti-gay conservatives have squared off in a number of recent battles, including the fight over gays in the military and efforts to legislate against civil rights protections for lesbian and gay men. http://www.pbs.org/outofthepast/past/p5/1977.html

The ordinance?
By 1977, Miami was one of nearly 40 cities in the U.S. that had passed ordinances outlawing discrimination against gay men and lesbians.[5]


Here is the ballot allowing voters to repeal:
"Shall Dade County Ordinance 77-4, which prohibits discrimination in areas of housing , public accomodations and employment against persons based on their sexual preference be repealed?"

Then, a threat to children.
Now, a threat to your marriage.
Then, homosexuals shouldn't be protected from unlawful firing because they reproduce, meaning that they must recruit. (But they all come from straight families.)
Now, homosexuals can't get married because they can't reproduce (ignoring heterosexual couples that cannot or choose not to have children.)
Then, the church was involved, led mostly by conservative Christians to try to repeal a ordinance that would prevent people from being discriminated against solely on the basis of their sexual orientation.

What did that entail in 1977?

Throughout the 1950s and 1960s, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and police departments kept lists of known homosexuals, their favored establishments, and friends; the U.S. Postal Service kept track of addresses where material pertaining to homosexuality was mailed.[9] State and local governments followed suit: bars catering to homosexuals were shut down, and their customers were arrested and exposed in newspapers. Cities performed "sweeps" to rid neighborhoods, parks, bars, and beaches of gays. They outlawed the wearing of opposite gender clothes, and universities expelled instructors suspected of being homosexual.[10] Thousands of gay men and lesbians were jailed, fired, or institutionalized in mental hospitals. Many lived double lives, keeping their private lives secret from their professional ones.

In the early the early 1960s,Entrapment usually consisted of an undercover officer who found a man in a bar or public park, engaged him in conversation; if the conversation headed toward the possibility that they might leave together—or the officer bought the man a drink—he was arrested for solicitation.
One story in the New York Post described an arrest in a gym locker room, where the officer grabbed his crotch, moaning, and a man who asked him if he was all right was arrested.[29] Few lawyers would defend cases as undesirable as these, and some of those lawyers kicked back their fees to the arresting officer.[30]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stonewall_riots

Lest you think the recently-passed Proposition 8 is extreme, Briggs' Prop 6 would have banned gays and lesbians from teaching in public schools. Not only that, but it also called for the firing of all straight teachers who dared voice any support for their gay colleagues. Briggs' amendment was defeated---but not by much.

That was what Bryant was fighting for - to be able to legally do this, and using the Bible to support her as being the "good guy."

What was your reaction to the speech?
Have you seen the movie?
Do you see any parallels?
Are you unsure?
Or do you totally disagree?

Do you think that this will be looked upon in future generations the way Save Our Children is looked upon today?

 

[kat69]

To be honest I was disappointed that Mickey Rourkey didn't win the award. However, It did seem like a geunine heartfelt speech though.

kat

 

[I <3 Abraham]

I have seen the movie and really enjoyed it, a number of scenes were done with brutal honesty and it was able to maintain interest throughout. Penn did a fabulous job, [quibble] although I think that it was a bit too much of an ensemble piece for him to win best actor...[/quibble].

On to your actual question. I was surprised by his statement, although in retrospect it makes a lot of sense that he would say it. I think that because the protesters showed up to cause a stink, Penn was justified in leveling what would otherwise be a pretty harsh charge against social conservatives. He stated it in a completely direct way and didn't ramble on to make his point, always pluses in my book. Also, by utilizing the language of personal shame as well as inter-generational shame I think he rhetorically flipped the game board on social conservatives. In their book, homosexuality would be the thing about which a person should be ashamed, rather than political actions that opposed homosexuality. This is an effective rhetorical strategy.

I do not know whether or not dialogue of this type advances the cause of LGBT persons very much, but I bet it helped some folks feel a little better about how prop 8 turned out.

Lastly, I see where you are coming from in wanting to draw strong parallels between the events depicted in Milk and the passing of Prop 8. I do not, however, think that the parallels are terribly convincing. Certainly, on the surface, the battle as to the acceptability/unacceptability of homosexuality continues to be fought out in the political sphere. I do not, however, think that the same kinds of tactics are being used by the social conservatives to drum up support. The scare tactics back in the day were just that, scare tactics. Today, their arguments are much more abstruse and, quite frankly, are just dummy arguments. Everybody knows that the rationales behind their positions will be circulated at churches, among like minded people and NOT through the media. By doing this, they are able to avoid a thorough public discussion. Ultimately, I think that comparing the present to Milk's time is unhelpful. In Milk's day, the social conservatives had the guts to come out and say what they mean in front of television cameras. Today, they do not. That is the difference.

 

[Criada]

I thought it was a great speech... was just watching the repeat since I missed it last night.
I haven't seen the film yet... will have to wait for the DVD due to lack of babysitters!

 

[salida]

Sean is filled with falsehoods and misguided. He himself is the one who should sit and reflect about his own words and should be aggressively ashamed of himself! He ought to read Matthew 18:6, Mark 9:42 and Luke 17:2 and reflect about this the rest of this life until he does John 3:16. It has nothing to do with racism - its not about color. But its like saying because I smoke and people don't like me smoking around them they are a bigot. What a fatal error this is.

 

[Inviolable]

He only took the role so he could win.

 

[SughaNSpice]

It was a nice speech. (haven&#8217;t seen the movie &#8211; will probably have ot wait till its out on DVD) I think he summed up the idea that the vote by many Californians to make bigotry legal is shameful and one they will be hard pressed to justify to their grandchildren

 

[yguy]

I guess we don't have enough threads on homosexuality after all...

 

[tcampen]

While I agree with Penn in his sentiments (and like him as an actor), I do not think the Academy Awards was the proper venue for this speech. It was a bit too preachy for me at an entertainment awards show. Although I though the writer who received an Oscar for best screenplay for Milk gave a truly heartfelt acceptance speech that was less fingers on a chalk board.

 

[Beanieboy]

I didn't know what he was talking about with the "protesters", which made little sense since Prop 8 is done, for now, but Fred, and signs that said, "Heath Ledger Burns in Hell."
Classssssy.

 

[canukian]

i didnt watch it, but i think its safe to say, it made me puke.

 

[Beanieboy]

I have seen the movie and really enjoyed it, a number of scenes were done with brutal honesty and it was able to maintain interest throughout. Penn did a fabulous job, [quibble] although I think that it was a bit too much of an ensemble piece for him to win best actor...[/quibble].

On to your actual question. I was surprised by his statement, although in retrospect it makes a lot of sense that he would say it. I think that because the protesters showed up to cause a stink, Penn was justified in leveling what would otherwise be a pretty harsh charge against social conservatives. He stated it in a completely direct way and didn't ramble on to make his point, always pluses in my book. Also, by utilizing the language of personal shame as well as inter-generational shame I think he rhetorically flipped the game board on social conservatives. In their book, homosexuality would be the thing about which a person should be ashamed, rather than political actions that opposed homosexuality. This is an effective rhetorical strategy.

I do not know whether or not dialogue of this type advances the cause of LGBT persons very much, but I bet it helped some folks feel a little better about how prop 8 turned out.

Lastly, I see where you are coming from in wanting to draw strong parallels between the events depicted in Milk and the passing of Prop 8. I do not, however, think that the parallels are terribly convincing. Certainly, on the surface, the battle as to the acceptability/unacceptability of homosexuality continues to be fought out in the political sphere. I do not, however, think that the same kinds of tactics are being used by the social conservatives to drum up support. The scare tactics back in the day were just that, scare tactics. Today, their arguments are much more abstruse and, quite frankly, are just dummy arguments. Everybody knows that the rationales behind their positions will be circulated at churches, among like minded people and NOT through the media. By doing this, they are able to avoid a thorough public discussion. Ultimately, I think that comparing the present to Milk's time is unhelpful. In Milk's day, the social conservatives had the guts to come out and say what they mean in front of television cameras. Today, they do not. That is the difference.

I agree. By being afraid of making this a public discussion, or by the quickness to label someone homophobic, discussion gets shut down, rather than brought out into the open for an exchange of ideas.

A friend of mine today said that she is glad that Penn said something, because it is allies from the heterosexual side that will help bring more change than the gay community alone. I'm not sure what my opinion is about that, but that may well be true.

 

[Beanieboy]

Sean is filled with falsehoods and misguided. He himself is the one who should sit and reflect about his own words and should be aggressively ashamed of himself! He ought to read Matthew 18:6, Mark 9:42 and Luke 17:2 and reflect about this the rest of this life until he does John 3:16. It has nothing to do with racism - its not about color. But its like saying because I smoke and people don't like me smoking around them they are a bigot. What a fatal error this is.

Why are you saying, "this is about race" as an argument?

This isn't race, but national origin:

When I was a kid, we used to tell Polack Jokes. A Polack was a derogatory word for a stupid person (which we didn't understand at the time, was directed at people from Poland.

This isn't about race, but religion:

Here's a list of US History of Discrimination:
1. Blacks beginning in about 1680 when slavery is officially adopted in all colonies.
2. Women beginning with their arrival in 1619 during which time they could not sue, could not own property, and could not start businesses.
3. Members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormons) 1830s in which they were driven from New York, to Ohio, to Missouri, to Illinois, and finally to Mexican territory in what would later become Utah.
4. Irish starting with their mass arrivals in the 1840s following the Irish potato famine.
5. Blacks following the Civil War (especially in the South during the Jim Crow Era--1877-1970)
6. Eastern Europeans starting in the 1880s following their immigration to the United States and the opening of Ellis Island.
7. Jews especially during the New Deal when many blamed the Great Depression on Jews and felt they played to large a role in the New Deal (Jew Deal) of President Roosevelt.
8. Blacks again during the civil rights years of 1954-1970.
9. Gays and lesbians beginning in earnest during the later-half of the 1960s.
10. Southeast Asians (the Boat People--Vietnamese, Laotians, Cambodians) especially in 1978 following their arrival in mass following the Vietnam War.
11. Middle Easterners especially following the November 4th kidnapping of 66 hostages in Iran during the Carter administration and following the September 11th attacks on the World Trade Centers, the Pentagon, and the foiled attack on the White House which crashed in western Pennsylvania (Flight 93.)
http://en.allexperts.com/q/U-S-History-672/2008/8/Discrimination-Prejudice-U-S.htm

 

[Beanieboy]

i didnt watch it, but i think its safe to say, it made me puke.

Can you expound?

 

[AdamClarke]

I honestly didn't see the acceptance speech and I do not now have working speakers but I suspect I would not like it. Not necessarily because of the content of the speech but because I have little if any respect for Sean Penn's opinions about anything.

As for the performances Mickey Roark's performance was by far the better of the two. It showed much more depth of character. Roark made "The Wrestler" his own much as Penn did "Dead Man Walking". (see I'm not totally anti-Penn.)

 

[canukian]

Can you expound?

it's humor. i dont have time for sean pen.

 

[Sojourner1]

I honestly didn't see the acceptance speech and I do not now have working speakers but I suspect I would not like it. Not necessarily because of the content of the speech but because I have little if any respect for Sean Penn's opinions about anything.

I agree with you on this one. I have no respect for Sean Penn and have no interest in listening to his opinion on this subject.

 

[Beanieboy]

I honestly didn't see the acceptance speech and I do not now have working speakers but I suspect I would not like it. Not necessarily because of the content of the speech but because I have little if any respect for Sean Penn's opinions about anything.

As for the performances Mickey Roark's performance was by far the better of the two. It showed much more depth of character. Roark made "The Wrestler" his own much as Penn did "Dead Man Walking". (see I'm not totally anti-Penn.)

Can you read? I typed it out.

 

[Beanieboy]

it's humor. i dont have time for sean pen.

"i didnt watch it, but i think its safe to say, it made me puke." qualified as humor where you're from?

Don't get cable?

 

[AdamClarke]

Can you read? I typed it out.

Of course I can read, where does his speech end and your commentary begin?