Nonprofit, nonpartisan journalism. Supported by readers.


Brad Pitt gives $100,000 for gay marriage ballot efforts in Minnesota and other states

REUTERS/Yves Herman
Brad Pitt: "If you're like me, you don't want to have to ask yourself on the day after the election, what else could I have done?"

Part of actor Brad Pitt’s $100,000 contribution to the Human Rights Campaign will be used to help the effort in Minnesota to defeat a marriage amendment that would place a ban on gay marriage in the state constitution.

Pitt said his contribution will match donations to the Human Rights Campaign as it works to pass ballot referendums in Maryland, Maine and Washington State that would permit same-sex marriage and works to defeat the Minnesota amendment.

Pitt’s email pitch on behalf of the Human Rights Campaign says:

It’s unbelievable to me that people’s lives and relationships are literally being voted on in a matter of days.

In Maine, Maryland, Minnesota and Washington, voters will go to the polls to decide if gay and lesbian couples — our friends and neighbors — are worthy of the same protections as everyone else.

But that’s the system we have and I’m not going to back down from the fight for loving and committed couples to have the ability to marry. Especially when groups like the Human Rights Campaign are fighting these battles day-in and day-out.

So, here’s what I’m going to do. If you make a contribution to these ballot measure campaigns in the next 24 hours, I’ll double it every dollar of the way, up to $100,000.

This is our last chance to make a difference. If you’re like me, you don’t want to have to ask yourself on the day after the election, what else could I have done?

Every person’s right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness is enshrined in our country’s Declaration of Independence, but powerful, well-funded groups are flooding the airwaves with lies trying to take away those rights from certain people … and we can’t stand for it.

The Human Rights Campaign which is a partner in Minnesota with Minnesotans United for All Families, the coalition working against the marriage amendment says it’s spent $5 million this year in the four states with gay marriage issues on the ballot.

You can also learn about all our free newsletter options.

Comments (3)

  1. Submitted by Richard Pecar on 11/01/2012 - 06:23 am.

    Well, Mr. Pitt, it’s unbelievable to me that …

    It’s unbelievable to me that people are actually voting in a matter of days to write laws that restrict religious ceremonies.

    After all, the act of ceremoniously joining two people in marriage has a tap root that includes Judeo-Christian Scriptures, the Quran, the Vedas and Upanishads. Our government should have no say in the matter. If a church and its congregation marry two people; the who, how and why is their decision not governments.

    Plain and simple, marriage is an act of religious freedom — it’s actually one the most widespread acts of religious expression — and as such it is protected by the U.S. Constitution.

    • Submitted by LynnMarie Lindl on 11/01/2012 - 09:02 am.

      You are wrong

      Marriage was not a religious institution for centuries. The governments, territories, kingdoms, et al controlled who got married. The higher up the royal food chain the more it was for land, power, money, control. The peons in the fields didn’t get “married” in the legal or religious sense. It was an agreement by bordering farms to expand land and the work load. When the Catholic church actively became involved in the land and power grabs is when religion decided to control who got married. And we know that even though that lasted for centuries even the royal families started to balk at the power and control over who they married being controlled by the church.

      Marriage is NOT a religious freedom. Having it sanctioned by the church IS. And no one is telling the church whose marriage to BLESS. The fact that the clergy can legally marry is just a happenstance. I am no church clergy and I have the full blessing and legal right to perform a marriage ceremony that would and will be recognized by the state of Minnesota and US government. I am also not a judge or representative of any court or county and yet I STILL have that ability. So does a judge in any county of the state. So to say that it is a religious freedom is very incorrect.

      One of the most widespread acts of religious freedom is NOT marriage since no one HAS to get married in a church. Freedom to gather in worship is the MOST widespread act of religious freedom. Please… before you start to confuse what is of “Ceasar” and what is of “God” do some research. I do believe you are a bit confused.

  2. Submitted by Richard Pecar on 11/01/2012 - 10:16 am.

    So now we can debate what is or is not a religion…

    But, there is this class of people in America (mostly republicans) who seem to advocate God needs help and He has anointed them to police the world in His behalf. This kind of thinking is also found among extreme factions of Islam.

    The God that I love doesn’t need help…He has all the bases covered.

    Then there is Jefferson’s 1802 letter to the Danbury Baptists and the “wall of separation” between church and partially states as follows:

    “Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship…”

    Therefore, the state should only have authority over civil unions, none of which should the state object to if a union is created in accordance to partnership laws. A “marriage” belongs to the church, and that, as Jefferson said, “lies solely between man and his God”.

    If same, sex marriages are sanctioned by a church then the state has no say in the matter and must honor them. If two people have a legal partnership the state has no say and must honor that was well. That doesn’t make me angry or fearful.

Leave a Reply