Gay Rights

Tom Ford Thinks Banning Gay Marriage is...

Published September 12, 2009 @ 12:15PM PT

Tom Ford

Fashion designer turned film director Tom Ford has a few choice words for countries and states that decide to ban gay marriage.  Or, rather, one choice word.  Any guesses?

Take it away, Tom.

"It is, I have to say, quite disgusting that in America and in other countries you cannot have a civil union or something equivalent to marriage," says Ford.

Ford has a new movie coming out, "A Single Man," which delves into the storyline of a middle-aged gay man who loses his partner in a tragic accident, and is left wandering through life lonely, afraid, scared, and -- in many ways -- looking to reignite his spark.  Though "A Single Man" itself is not bent on politics, it's not hard to see how this story lends itself to many of the arguments made by marriage equality activists.  Ford himself drew these connections while speaking at the Venice Film Festival.

"I have someone I’ve lived together with for 23 years. Recently he was in hospital for something. I had to carry papers on me at all times that he had signed saying that I could visit him in his room and make medical decisions for him if anything happened. Our taxes, by the way: if I died tomorrow my estate would be completely taxed and then the remainder go to him whereas if we were a couple his life wouldn’t have to change and my entire estate would move to him," says Ford.

And those are just some of the 1,100 benefits not given to gay and lesbian couples, but that are given to heterosexual couples in marriage.

That, frankly, is disgusting.  Not to mention unequal, unfair, and unjust.

"A Single Man," by the way, is winning rave reviews at the Venice Film Festival, with Colin Firth's performance as the middle-aged man who loses his lover receiving the best actor award.  Check out a trailer for the film below.

Share this Post

Related Posts

Comments (10)

  1. Edwin Bonilla

    Tom Ford is correct in that countries and states which have banned same-sex marriage have made a large mistake. Although the movie "Single Man" isn't strictly political, the perspective of the movie is a gay man. Tom Ford's own experience shows that inequality has surfaced in that his estate won't be moved on to his companion. The movie "Single Man" seems like a fancy movie which involves obstacles experienced by the gay character.

    Posted by Edwin Bonilla on 09/12/2009 @ 03:08PM PT

  2. Reply to thread
  3. Graham Smith

    I agree with him wholeheartedly!  The United States claims to be the land of the free without persecution of any kind.  What a joke!  I am gay and an American but I personally would be satisfied with a civil union.  To me, marriage is religious and I am not about organized religion.  I feel "spirituality" is more natural.... also more forgiving and compassionate.  So keep your "marriage" and give us civil unions for legal reasons.  I personally don't need a piece of paper to love someoone.

    Posted by Graham Smith on 09/12/2009 @ 03:39PM PT

  4. Chris Marshall

    Fortunately you are wrong about marriage. Marriage was a contract that was created to sell goats for wives back in the pagan days. It evolved during the Egyptian dynasties and carried into other parts of the world as it was changed to be more about a relationship with benefits than that of just trading humans.

    When the US was founded and the constitution drawn up, our systems looked at marriage as a legal contract. Unfortunately the religious zealots of this country have brainwashed even the gays to thinking civil marriage is nothing more than religious institution, when in fact it is not. The only power religion has on marriage is that a pastor or priest can sign the marriage license instead of a government official or judge. That is it.

    Now from a sociological stand point. The word marriage, despite what some think, is actually significant in how the public treats individuals as a whole. When this country refused to allow African Americans to marry one another they did so to keep them separated from their humanity. They did the same to interracial couples as well in the 40's and 50's. The word civil union is not new but old. Because back in the late 1800's black people were not considered "people," just as LGBT are not seen today, people offered a slew of names to codify and play down their relationships just as people are trying to do to us LGBT, but refused to give them marriage. By refusing to give these people their humanism, their marriages, the people eventually started to agree on those lines. Separate but equal became a staple as it has once again. But more importantly the white man was able to justify his power over the black man because only the white man had the ability to get married.

    This is no different today. I assume you are not aware of the four states that tried "civil unions?" These ideas of separate but equal did not grant any more acceptance towards our brothers and sisters but more separation and justification of that separation. Do you feel happy to be separate and unequal just because the opposition seems too stern to beat? The reason why they want to keep marriage from us is not because it's a religious institution. There are many religions outside of Christianity, Islam and Judaism that actually support gay marriage, and many different sects and religious leaders of those three abrahamic dogmas that do support gay marriage. The main reason why these bigot few want to keep marriage from us is because it has become a symbol of humanity, a symbol that describes the love of two people, a symbol that shows society that these two people have formed a life bond with one another. It is a symbol that shows the true side and nature of humanity, at least in our country. 

    If you believe that the UK made the right decision over Canada by granting the separate but equal "civil partnerships" law then let me inform you that many people in the UK, who were not already supportive, have not changed their mind on how they see or feel about gay people. The court system in the UK goes so far as to use the civil partnership law to call LGBT "less than human;" as was the case when the high courts' forcibly divorced a Canadian "married" couple and gave them a civil partnership against their wishes when they had to relocate to the UK. However in states like Massachusetts and in countries like the Netherlands, Spain, and Canada, who have allowed our people to marry, peoples' minds about who and what gay people are have radically changed. They now see us a normal every day people in those countries. Once bigoted religious groups have now reevaluated their dogma and come to accept gay people as the humans they are.

    So now do you understand why marriage is so important to humanity as a whole, especially LGBT people. We as human beings have become so strident in our likings to oppression that we are turned from one another; walking in the abyss not knowing what to do and what to support. If it says separate, then walk away and never look upon it again. If it says include then fight with a full heart until you and your fellow brothers and sisters are seen as equal. Never settle for second especially when it comes to your humanity and the humanity of those around you.

     

    Posted by Chris Marshall on 09/12/2009 @ 05:08PM PT

    • Report close

      You must be signed in to report content.

    • 4 people like this comment.   Like
  5. Lee Dorsey

    Oh, well said, Chris. There has been so very much discussed about this ... just pay attention to Canada everyone. Where ALL adults can Marry legally, and all married couples are called such by grocers, doctors, pastors, repair men, teachers of their children, etc etc etc. 

    Only bigots here want to keep others from being able to marry... Want to force their own values on strangers.

    But we won't have it. Day by day, person by person, we will achieve the freedom to marry here.

    Posted by Lee Dorsey on 09/12/2009 @ 10:00PM PT

    • Report close

      You must be signed in to report content.

    • 2 people like this comment.   Like
  6. Chris Marshall

    I sure have hope that you are right... but as each day wanes to a close my hope for this country dwindles further. The bridge I once believed was as wide as the Mackinaw has become as thin as the pubic hair from pathogen laced anal region that we like to call American democracy. A democracy that is against the supreme courts and legislation's duty in allocating out fundamental rights to oppressed minorities, and is all in favor of of using ballot initiatives to remove those rights from and re-oppress productive, tax paying, members of society that do not conform to their, said, religious ideals.

    Posted by Chris Marshall on 09/13/2009 @ 02:32AM PT

    • Report close

      You must be signed in to report content.

    • 1 person likes this comment.   Like
  7. Thomas McHugh

    Indeed mr. marshall and well said indeed.

    Posted by Thomas McHugh on 09/14/2009 @ 04:14PM PT

  8. Thomas McHugh

    @ Chris Marshall.

    Dont give up my friend.

    We will win...We will win.

    Posted by Thomas McHugh on 09/14/2009 @ 04:16PM PT

  9. Reply to thread
  10. Jay Jonson

    I can't wait to see Ford's film of *A Single Man.* It is a very great novel--Isherwood's masterpiece. It will be interesting to see how he locates it at a very specific time (1963) and also conveys the submerged Hindu religious theme. Any information as to when it will be released?

    Posted by Jay Jonson on 09/13/2009 @ 10:01AM PT

  11. Fred Frankenberg

    The US has a long history of promoting inequality. The American Indian Holocaust killed far more native 'Americans' than the Nazi's did Jews. Slavery that was replaced with a racist system that by and large continues today. Women and voting, pay equality, etc. Current times are a mirror of history with gays playing the part of the illegitimate, the subhuman.

    The essential question to answer is this: Why must everyone fight our OWN government for the rights citizens are 'guaranteed' in the Constitution? 

    Posted by Fred Frankenberg on 09/14/2009 @ 10:28AM PT

  12. Chris Marshall

    From a psychologist standpoint of looking at cognitive dissonance I was wondering that exact same question. However I do not know if there is an answer.

    Posted by Chris Marshall on 09/14/2009 @ 01:05PM PT

    • Report close

      You must be signed in to report content.

    • 1 person likes this comment.   Like
  13. Reply to thread

Add a Comment

For your comment to be published, you will need to confirm your email address after submitting your comment.

If you already have an account, click here to log in.

Comments on Change.org are meant for further exploration and evaluation of the ideas covered in the posts. To that end, we welcome constructive comments. However, we reserve the right to delete comments that are offensive, abusive, or off-topic; that contain ad hominem attacks; or that are designed to subvert or hijack comment threads rather than contribute to them. Repeat offenders may be permanently removed from the site at our discretion.

Author

Twitter Feed

Michael Jones

Michael is the Communications Director for the Human Rights Program at Harvard Law School, and previously was Communications Director for Pax Christi USA, a progressive Catholic human rights organization.

close

This user's Profile page is not public. They have restricted it to only their friends.

Already a Member?

Create an Account

You must create a Change.org account to complete this action.
If you already have an account click here.