Spielbergs Donate $100,000 to Gay Marriage Fight

Steven Spielberg and his wife Kate Capshaw have donated $100,000 to the campaign to defeat a proposed constitutional ban on same-sex marriage in California.

Their donation is the latest high-profile contribution to the campaign, as gay marriage advocates seek to narrow a gap in fund-raising. Brad Pitt donated $100,000 to the No on 8 campaign last week, in what was seen as a wakeup call to entertainment industry figures to pony up more money for the fight.

The proposition would restrict marriage to unions between a man and a woman.

Spielberg and Capshaw said in a statement, “By writing discrimination into our state constitution, Proposition 8 seeks to eliminate the right of each and every citizen in our state to marry regardless of sexual orientation. Such discrimination has NO place in California’s constitution, or any other.”

Producer Bruce Cohen, who has been working on the campaign to defeat Proposition 8, said in a statement, “It’s phenomenal that Kate and Steven are affirming their unwavering commitment to equality in such a significant a way. More than 15 years ago, Steven was the first person in Hollywood who I came out to, news which he greeted with his full love and support then and ever since. It is my fervent hope that other entertainment industry leaders will follow the lead of Brad Pitt and the Spielbergs and fight to maintain equal rights for all Californians.”

Although a recent Field Poll shows that the proposition is losing support, and is opposed by a majority of Californians, opponents have been outraised, and worry that gay rights advocates will grow complacent. Yes on 8 supporters have collected almost $16.2 million from groups ranging from Focus on the Family to the Knights of Columbus.

“Support from the entertainment industry is critical to defeating Prop 8. The forces behind this measure are highly-motivated and supported by millions of out-of-state dollars,” said Chad Griffin, political strategist working to defeat the initiative.

Filed Under:

Want to read more articles like this one? SUBSCRIBE TO VARIETY TODAY.
Post A Comment 5

Leave a Reply

5 Comments

Comments are moderated. They may be edited for clarity and reprinting in whole or in part in Variety publications.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

  1. Sincerely Disagree says:

    Steven and Kate need to find and support a cause which truly makes for a better society and world. The idea to support those who may be discriminated against is good, however, this is not about discrimination but of natural law. The discovery and recognition of the true being of man with congruent action manifests the universal realization of god’s true law. Those who live outside the god’s law are obstructed from the spiritual evolution path of god and the results are manifested in their physical lives. The Spielbergs should support universal laws which truely make for a better world and not idealistic concepts of laws created by man which are not aliened with the universal truth.

  2. The fact this is an issue in California is disconcerting for those of us living in less-progressive states. Four years ago this month, we lost our rights here in Ohio. Groups are STILL lobbying for restricting the rights of people they perceive as a threat. This is a huge problem! Focus on the Family should do as their name suggests; leave alone things that don’t involve them directly, stay out of politics and share their rhetoric with those who want to listen. The Spielbergs said in their release “Such discrimination has NO place in California’s constitution, or any other.” That couldn’t be more true, it’s right here in Ohio folks, because nobody knew. I’ve talked to a lot of people who’ve admitted they voted yes to Issue 1 back in 2004 because they had no idea what they were voting on. The good people of this state blindly elected to change the constitution by voting yes on a proposed ammendment so lengthy and incomprehensible it was easier for voters to just assume our lawmakers would only make changes for the better; they voted yes on Issue 1 because they didn’t know. We didn’t have the funding here to educate our voters and tell people this ammedement was discriminatory-exclusionary-concentrated-evil. Mr. Pitt, the Spielbergs, and anyone else who’s donating or fighting for this right now, thank you and good luck. If voters go in to the polling place with all the facts, this ban will fail miserably.
    http://www.myspace.com/winslowsoul

  3. - NJ says:

    Uhm… Can anybody that is so strongly agreeing to oppose the band on same sex marriage define to me what the marriage constitution is, as it’s foundational existence?
    2.Then answer the Question does same sex marriage meet the criterion?
    3. Why get married then? and then Hollywood is confused about the high divorce rate… when you use sand instead of flour to bake a cake, even though you’re following the same recipe, the product will differ immensely.
    People are free to do whatever they like, we are all free moral agents_ to each their own. Just don’t call it marriage, call it what it will be defining.
    Just like you call a dog a dog and a cat a cat!

  4. Shaun O'Banion says:

    What year is this? How many times does this law need to be shut down?
    Anyone who wants to be married should be allowed to do so.
    Wow, this country is f’ed up.

  5. CJ says:

    I think equality should not be a matter of debate these days and I welcome news or this proposition.

More Biz News from Variety

Loading