Comments on: PETA Reaches Out To Samantha Ronson After Blog Entry On Propostion 2

By: Love one another

Love one another — Wed, 31 Dec 2008 15:32:19 +0000

I’m sorry but I think everyone is truly missing the point here what she was truly upset with is that her gf was publicly humiliated for wearing something the animal rights community didnt agree with. While some people do things that others dont necessarily agree with I believe her true point is that perhaps people should try and come together to fight issues rather than trying to bully and humiliate each other.

By: Kay

Kay — Wed, 31 Dec 2008 01:31:21 +0000

oh Fuck me. it IS 2008. wake up . stop wearing animal pelts!!!( duuuh) and gay and lesbian couples ( u know since this IS 2008 ) should be allowed to marry i mean why the fuck not eh. just come 2 canada. dont worry u wont have 2 stay that longgggggggg.

By: Ultimate Veggie Sympathizer.

Ultimate Veggie Sympathizer. — Tue, 11 Nov 2008 11:53:06 +0000

Okay, So I’m not exactly a Vegan or whatever but I do love animals & I don’t think its right to compare Prop 8 & 2. The whole world is full of problems and both are worthy causes but I don’t think Ms. Ronson needs to get all pissed off just ’cause marriage between same sex has been knocked off the building (I’m sure gay-rights advocates will one day find a way to change it somehow). I don’t necessarily despise the girl but I don’t think she, or anyone for that matter, is right in thinking that Prop 2 was passed because animal rights triumph over the right to having same-sex marriage or human rights for that matter. First point, why should we think so highly of ourselves when we are the ones actually doing these to the animals? They are being tortured just so that we enjoy them at feast time so why not give them the pleasure to live a life without cruelty of a small cage. Second point, What has been taken away from the gay community beyond all this? A paper. A state paper professing their love for each other that is all. They weren’t tortured like the men in the 16th century hiding their love for other men because they will otherwise be killed. I may not understand gay love because I am in no way gay or otherwise but I don’t think this will stop them from still professing their full and utter love to someone they adore, they most certainly don’t need that approval from anyone. Third, Are we even to think that people care MORE about animals that people? Not so likely. We self-conceited organisms damaged enough of our environment for our own progress to tell the whole universe we care more of ourselves than anything. So, tell me, is that much to ask Ms. Ronson to actually show some care for her dinner?

It sounded so arrogant for her to think of herself more than the poor chicken dying in its cage just for her mere satisfaction.

By: Jennifer floyd

Jennifer floyd — Tue, 11 Nov 2008 05:42:37 +0000

I think Ronson let her frustration get the best of her by suggesting that the results of Prop 8 had any real correlation to the results of Prop 2.
Animals were not given the right to marry. They were given the right to turn around. I’m 100% for gay rights, and am saddened by all oppression, but I think Ronson is being a little whiney and self-centered in thinking that the right to marry is somehow equivalent with the right to not be physically and mentally tortured.
The reason Prop 8 passed is because the anti-8 campaign was heavily flawed. Minorities were left out of the outreach process. A lot of the communities that came out for Obama were the same who voted for Prop 8. It may seem that all minorities would support each other, but religion and machismo run deep in black and hispanic cultures, and the anti-8 campaign managers obviously failed to do their homework.
Instead of partying w/ Lohan and belittling the importance of other causes, Ronson should be reflecting on why it passed, and what she can do to remedy the problem.

By: VeggieTart

VeggieTart — Mon, 10 Nov 2008 21:10:22 +0000

My understanding is AP is right–it’s about religion. Maybe their religion got it right on one area–a little less cruelty for the animals they eat–and wrong in another–denying gay couples the right to marry. My understanding, though, is Prop 8 banned same-sex marriage, and gay-rights advocates were hoping for its failure.

Although I’m not gay, I understand her disappointment that she has lost a civil right–to marry the person she loves, should it come to that–and that’s all it is. She’s not upset that Prop 2 passed–in fact, she’s quite happy–but she’s disappointed at the way other things have gone.

Cut her some slack, huh?

By: Lianne

Lianne — Mon, 10 Nov 2008 21:02:06 +0000

Thanks for the mention! It’s unfortunate that Samantha Ronson feels that Prop 2 and Prop 8 have to be one or the other, and also that Prop 8 didn’t pass among CA voters. Lashing out against animals won’t do a thing for the human rights cause, and denying rights to “tomorrow’s dinner” doesn’t help her equality argument. Find out more about why animals need your help at http://www.peta.org

By: Drew Barrymore Declares Proposition 8 “So Wrong” // Archives // ecorazzi.com :: the latest in green gossip

Mon, 10 Nov 2008 18:42:18 +0000

[...] few days ago we created a healthy dose of drama here on the Razz by spotlighting Samantha Ronson’s thoughts on Proposition 8 — an initiative [...]

By: Sarah Townsend

Sarah Townsend — Sat, 08 Nov 2008 06:15:20 +0000

I agree 100%. I took part in the Prop 8 protest rallies here in West Hollywood, and saw many protesters with signs that had similar messages. It’s not that people care more about chickens, or pigs, or any animals in general, it’s that standing up and living a less-painful life (even in still inexcusable conditions) is a completely different issue than marriage. Giving an animal the right to move around more as they are being raised to be killed is in no way comparable to allowing two people of the same sex to marry.

I don’t see why the two are being compared at all. We’re also giving young women the right to abstain from sharing their pregnancy with their parents… (Prop 4) where is the mention of that?

By: AP

AP — Sat, 08 Nov 2008 00:33:29 +0000

I meant that Prop 2 should have passed and NO on Prop 8 should have passed. Sorry for the confusion! By the way, I volunteered for both Yes on Prop 2 and No on Prop 8, and a lot of my fellow volunteers were involved in both efforts, too.

By: AP

AP — Fri, 07 Nov 2008 23:39:03 +0000

I agree with Parrish 100%

I would like to add that people who voted against Prop 8 did so mostly because of religion-induced bigotry. If they had been asked whether gay people should be eligable for the legal/civil protections conferred by marriage, it definitely would have passed, probably with a much larger margin that Prop 2 passed. Remember, Prop 8 failed only by 4 points. It is terrible that many religious people voted no on Prop 8, but try to remember how big a deal to them this is, even though they are completely wrong and irrational. A lot of these same people think the rapture is right around the corner; what do you expect from them?
I am very upset about Prop 8 and also very happy about Prop 2. They both should have passed with 100% of the vote.