Home
Archive
Newsletters
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement

Why Is Elton John Doing a Concert to Raise Funds For an Anti-Gay Politician?

Posted by Lisa Derrick, Huffington Post at 4:00 AM on July 7, 2009.


The whole thing is nasty, self-serving and hypocritical for the Congresspeople and maybe for the artist.
eltonjohninsienna

Share and save this post:

      

      

Share on Facebook       

AlterNet Social Networks:
follow us on twitter
find us on Facebook

Got a tip for a post?:
Email us | Anonymous form

Get PEEK in your
mailbox!

 

Two politicians who have consistently voted against gay rights, Reps. John Shimkus (R-IL) and Jean Schmidt (R-OH), will be holding fundraisers at the Elton John/Billy Joel Face2Face concert in Washington DC's Nationals Park July 11, reports PartyBlog.

Maybe they don't care that Elton John is gay, united in a civil union with David Furness, and a tireless fundraiser for HIV/AIDS. Shimkus held a fundraiser at an Elton John concert in 2005 and the Kentucky Democrat reported:

A spokesman for Shimkus, Steve Tomaszewski, said his boss's fund-raiser at the Elton John concert was neither an endorsement of the singer's politics nor a betrayal of Shimkus' stand on gay marriage. Shimkus won't attend himself, however, because of a scheduling conflict, Tomaszewski said.

In 2006 Schmidt and Shimkus voted to define marriage in the Constitution as a one man-one woman affair, and a year later they voted against a measure aimed at prohibiting job discrimination based on sexual orientation. Then in June 2008, they co-sponsored a bill to amend the Constitution to prevent same sex couples from marrying.

Despite campaigning for global gay rights, Elton John is very not supportive of civil marriage equality. Or maybe he just doesn't understand that civil unions do not allow couples in the U.S. over 1,300 rights granted to heterosexual married couples. In November 2008, Sir Elton told USA Today:

We're not married. Let's get that right. We have a civil partnership. What is wrong with Proposition 8 is that they went for marriage. Marriage is going to put a lot of people off, the word marriage ... I don't want to be married. I'm very happy with a civil partnership. If gay people want to get married, or get together, they should have a civil partnership. The word "marriage," I think, puts a lot of people off. You get the same equal rights that we do when we have a civil partnership. Heterosexual people get married. We can have civil partnerships.


His quotes were used by Yes-on-8 fund raisers in the aftermath of the passage of ballot initiative that eliminated same-sex marriage in California. Who knows, Sir Elton's views on marriage might just be the ticket for Schmidt and Shimkus and their supporters. Shimkus will most likely not be attending Saturday's concert and Schmidt's rep did not respond to press inquiries.

Concert promoters are happy to sell blocks of tickets; politicians are happy to use concerts as a fundraiser, their constituents are thrilled to see a hot show, so it's a win/win situation for all. But in this case, the whole thing is nasty, self-serving and hypocritical for the Congresspeople and maybe for the artist.

[h/t PartyBlog]


Digg!

Tagged as: gay marriage, same sex marriage, proposition 8, elton john, john shimkus, jean schmidt, steve tomaszewski

Lisa Derrick is LaFiga on Firedoglake.com


The Ugly Politics of Mass Killings
Where's the liberal cover-up?
Post by Steve M.. November 7, 2009.
(VIDEO) More Torture by Taser: Cops Zap Man Offering No Resistance
This is part of such a clear pattern.
Post by Digby. November 7, 2009.
Right-Bloggers React to Fort Hood Exactly as Expected
Muuuuuuuuslim!
Post by Roy Edroso. November 6, 2009.
Advertisement
Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Elton Johns Fund Raiser
Posted by: Atheistno1 on Jul 7, 2009 8:27 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It hasn't occurred to anyone that all politicians hide behind a charity or two, in order to make themselves look innocent.
Elton John is on a mission for a good cause & these politicians will cash in on him anyway they can.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Since Elton
Posted by: Natasha_W on Jul 7, 2009 8:42 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
is not an American citizen he should just shut-up. He should go back to the British Isles and butt out of American politics.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Since Elton Posted by: zipper696
Since Reg Dwight..
Posted by: zipper696 on Jul 7, 2009 9:17 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
...spent so many years in the closet to get his career on a sound footing, even going so far as to fake a straight marriage, he's hardly an outstanding example of "I'm here, I'm queer, deal with it"

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Since Reg Dwight.. Posted by: Sekhmetnakt
» RE: Since (Be Accurate Before You Post) Posted by: lynmarenjensen
C'mon, Lisa
Posted by: realist on Jul 8, 2009 5:28 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
You know better than this. Elton John is not throwing a fund-raiser for these guys. The DC gig is part of a national tour, and fundraisers for these congressmen bought a block of tickets for their supporters.

He can no more deny them tickets than they can deny him entrance into a movie theater.

Instead of attacking a man whose contributions to the gay community dwarf anything you could possibly ever hope to achieve, why don't you focus on the hypocrisy of the two schmuck congressmen?

Otherwise, your attacks sound as nutty as Sarah Palin's.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Self Inflicted Defeat by refusing to build the Trojan Horse
Posted by: Purple Girl on Jul 8, 2009 6:00 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The Gay community is allowing the homophobes and Religious Traitors (Separation of Church & State) to define the terms of the debate and thus allow them to continue to win the agrument.
If the Right wants to play word games- let them. Fight the battle by redefining the perimeters. "Marriage" as a ceremonial ritual performed by clergy of that particular faith, but the Required Signed and witnessed legal documents filed with the states is the legally binding contract.
How many Catholics still must jump through both the legal hoops of a divorce, and the Religious hoops of an Annulment? That in itself is an admission that there are two aspects to a "Marriage".
The Right knows it can not change/restrict, what defines a Legal "partnership", so they went for limiting definition of marriage. And that is what becomes the Archilles heel in the Debate. What defines a 'marriage' and what defines a legally binding partnership. The Religious Ceremony does not make for a legally binding agreement.You don't need to be 'married' in a church to be subjected to legal proceedings to dissolve the contract. In fact you don't need to seek a Religious annulment of that Ceremony either before divorcing.
This myopic fixation of a mere word is self defeating for the gay community and it's goals.
As anyone proficient at debate knows you never allow your opponent to define the terms or perimeters. By Redefining a 'marriage' as a religious ritual,but not a legally binding contractual agreement, the Rights "Defense of Marriage" then becomes a mute point.It becomes a fight between religious sects as to what they call their ritualistic Ceremonies. Catholics keep "marriage" and Liberal Episcopalians must call them 'Spiritual Unions'- let them duke it out as to the rhetoric used on their forms submitted to the states.There are many forms of legal partnerships which have numerous terms- Partnership, S-Corp, Inc. The state and legal system can handle these various terms (forms) designating legally binding contracts.
A Religious 'annulment' is optional, but not required to legally terminate the contractual agreement.
Seems the Gay Community is more concerned over Terminology than legal rights anymore, playing into the hands of the Religious Right.
much like the public option in Healthcare being a 'Trojan Horse' for Universal healthcare- Legal Unions/partnerships are the Trojan horse for Gay marriage.But first you have to get the Horse in the Gates.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Elton is very happy with a civil partnership.
Posted by: rickiey on Jul 8, 2009 3:43 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Well, bloody good for him. Sure, HE will have he same rights as a married couple, lets face it, with his wealth he could have the pope officiate his marriage ceremony.

But for NORMAL people, a civil partnership is NOT equivalent to marriage.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]