Filmmaker Paul Haggis (Crash) has reportedly resigned his membership in the Church of Scientology over the church’s support of California’s controversial anti-gay ballot initiative Proposition 8. Ex-Scientologist Mark Rathbun published a lengthy letter said to be penned by Haggis to Scientology representative Tommy Davis on his blog.
Reps for Haggis and Davis could not immediately be reached for comment; The Hollywood Reporter has reportedly confirmed with “a friend of Haggis” that the letter is real. Read the whole letter at Rathbun’s blog.
Comments (1-15) of 117 Add your comment
I don’t see what all the fuss is about with Prop 8. The word “marriage” itself refers to the union of man and woman. It’s neither pro gay or anti gay. That’s just what marriage is. Two guys can’t possibly marry any more than two girls or a fish and a bicycle. This doesn’t mean that boys can’t sleep with boys and do naughty things to each other. It just means that you can’t call it a marriage. ‘Cos it isn’t. Why is this hard to understand?
John Davis
John Davis: Let me guess: you’re a straight, white male who happily enjoys all of the rights and privileges afforded you by the government. And it’s beyond your comprehension that other tax payers and citizens who don’t fit the straight, white male demographic might want to be afforded those same rights. Sad for you that you can’t see beyond your own nose.
I agree Billy.
The sad part is that it is a fact that you do not even care that you are going to hell because of your sinful ways and will probably take alot of people with you. Vengence is mine says the Lord.
I’m ashamed of some of you people, quoting Bible scripture, please. I am a straight white female and common sense tells me that people don’t wake up and decide to be gay. That’s the way they were created by guess who…your God and My God. God is love and forgiveness which is a good thing for all you so eager to pass judgment. Here’s one for you…Judge not lest ye be judged…I pray for equality for all, which is the basis of our country. Smells a lot like religious persecution to me.
You go Girl!!!
John, your definition of “marriage” is a religious one. Unfortunately, the government, which bestows financial and legal rights upon couples, uses the same word “marriage.” That’s what gay couples are fighting for.
I think you nailed this on the head crispy. As long as a government wants to support or have any role in recognizing unions as marriages, I believe Gay marriage must exist. Personally the government should have no role in what defines a marriage. I leave it to each religion to define what they feel is a marriage. But as long as its a legal contract basically then nobody should be denied. The only thing I do not believe is that from the other side a church can be forced to perform a ceremony they don’t agree with. That would be just as wrong in my mind.
The only problem with that thinking is that churches should not be allowed to pick and choose which government regulations they like, and accept, and which ones they don’t like and therefore reject. If the government says, “Ok, we recognize gay marrage as legal.” then the church either gets on board and follows the law, or they get off the gravy train they enjoy due to the “legal” status of a tax exempt entity other government laws afford them.
agreed and Zaphod — well said!
Zaphod, here is the problem with your argument; there is a separation of church and state for exactly the reason you suggest. Government should not be forced to accept church definitions any more than church should be forced to accept government definitions. This isn’t China.
It’s hard to understand why people like you John who still believes in this outdated view of marriage, yet never say anything about divorce, which is ruining the state of marriage, not gays and lesbians who simply want the right to marry. I know more gay and lesbian couples that have stayed together longer than straight couples.
John Davis, you’re ignorant.
no you are ignorant and john davis is the only one on this whole page who has any sense. Being gay is immoral no matter how much hollywood tries to make it cool. Grow up people and stop following the crowd. Cause if you follow the crowd on this one you will burn in hell no matter what you beliefs are on religion.
I don’t understand how people can be so ignorant and bigoted. “Cause if you follow the crowd on this one you will burn in hell no matter what you [sic] beliefs are on religion.” Actually, Justin, you’re assuming that hell actually exists. That’s your belief. You have no proof, only faith. Which is fine, and you can believe whatever you want because we live in a country that thankfully allows religious freedom. What is unconstitutional, however, is for you to take your narrow-minded, religiously-informed idea of “morality” and shove it down people’s throats by denying them civil rights which they are fully entitled to due to the fact that they are American citizens.
JOHN DAVIS, if that’s your real name, I do believe you’re getting the term “marriage” confused with “heterosexual intercourse”.
Because one refers to the union of two people in a committed, legal, preferably loving relationship.
The other refers to two people of the opposite sex “getting it on”.
Just so you know, “marriage” has NEVER referred to sexual orientation, creed, color, race, or gender. I hope this clears up the confusion and your ignorance.
And until relatively recently, wasn’t marriage “defined” as a union of two people of the same race? Probably what it still says in that dictionary of yours. Please, do tell where you got your degree in linquistics or English or anything relevant that allows you to define terms. Unless you’re dear Mr. Saffire’s ghost, I really don’t need to hear your homophobic blather.
We are talking civil marriage here, John. This is to give a couple full rights. Religious marriage should be left up to individual churches and what they chose to acknowledge or not.
If you think that’s all “marriage” can mean you really need to get a dictionary.
Umm. Yes they can. Look up north to Canada…
It’s hard to understand because it’s a big pile of antiquated discriminatory cowpie, JOHN.
John Davis, please pick up the white clue phone. John Davis, white clue phone, please.
I just had to swallow a huge laugh while reading this and now have tears in my eyes from the effort. Thanks for the chuckle. And yes, John Davis, get a clue asap.
I’m in Canada where everybody can get married, and *shocker* our society has yet to crumble! Our women and children are safe and our streets are not overrun by locusts. You guys south of the border will have the same situation soon enough – I have to believe that. In the meantime, please feel free to get married here!
John, I absolutely agree with you, this is just another battle for gays to win to feel justified. Unfortunately these days if you disagree with someone who is gay and/or liberal you receive a backlash of negativity from a group united. Never mind that it’s your feelings and beliefs on the matter just as they have feelings and beliefs. Apparently the day has passed when certain groups of people (you and I) can have an opinion on something.
You are entitled to you opinion, but just because MOST of the people commenting here disagree with your ignorant claims, does not mean that you are not allowed. My husband and I (a woman) were not married in any church, so does that make our marriage and love any less special? Why can’t two people who love each other enjoy the life that my husband and I do. A couple of years ago, you couldn’t argue with someone who was conservative with out 30 other conservatives jumping all over you. Just because it is our time, your panties are in a twist.
Your response just confirms what I wrote above. What is the point in saying “ignorant claims” other to imply that you are superior? What claims did I make? I stated an opinion. You can blame other people for “jumping all over you” but I didn’t do it then and won’t now. Two wrongs don’t make a right. You’re attitude about payback gets us nowhere.
I absolutely agree that yourself, John and any other person is entitled to their opinion(s). What you are NOT entitled to do is make those opinions LAW if they strip the rights of others, that’s all. It is interesting to me that when conservatives speak out against liberal behavior, they are simply stating an opinion but should the same be done to them, it is a secret agenda or conspiracy intended to strip them of their freedom of speech.
“You are not entitled to your opinion, you are entitled to your informed opinion. If you are not informed on the subject, then your opinion counts for nothing” – Harlan Ellison
Dear John Davis,
I don’t see what all the fuss is about with Prop 8, either. The word “marriage” itself refers to the union of two consenting adults. It’s neither pro-gay or anti-gay. That’s just what marriage is. Two guys can’t possibly be any different than any other couple, unlike something ridiculous like a fish and a bicycle. This doesn’t mean that boys have to get married to sleep with boys and do naughty things to each other. It just means it’s their choice and NO ONE ELSE’s business. ‘Cos it isn’t. Why is THIS hard to understand?
John, do yourself a favor and rent MILK to see what all the fuss is about.
milk is a horrible movie hollywood trying to glorify something terrible like being gay
Justin, you’re ridiculous. You obviously haven’t seen Milk or you wouldn’t say something so crazy. You probably also think Gandhi was a “horrible movie hollywwod trying to glorify something terrible like being Hindu.”
John, that’s “just what marriage means” to YOU and the people who agree with you. If you’re against gay marriage, don’t marry a man. Problem solved! Who the hell are you to tell me or anyone else that your definition is the only definition? 1952 called, it wants it social mores back.
Let me try to bring this rather controversial, devisive issue into perspective.
Regardless of what I beleive, regardless of you believe; whether those beliefs are based on religion, custom, tradition or personal feelings,the argument over Gay Marriage comes down to one thing – our Constitution. Under the law, marriage is a contact – nothing more, nothing less. Despite all of the religious, social and moral trappings each of us may attach to it as an institution; it is a contract. Therefore, in a Democracy – which by definition assures that the rights of the individual are preiminent above those of a government, a dissenting majority or any other group or organization; if two consenting adults wish to enter into a contract with one another giving each other the rights which are defined as marriage; then, in a Democracy, how then can the government or any other entity forbid it or outlaw it? To do so is unconstitutional.
As for religious organizations and indivuals and groups that are vehemently opposed to it and frankly disgusted by it; they have every right not to accept it or even recognize it as marriage; however, the Contract would still be binding.
I am no lawyer or scholar. I am not gay nor do my husband of 15 years nor I have gay members of our families – that we know of, anyway. With that said, I just cannot beleive that the point that I just made has not been stressed in this long-standing argument.
It’s the definition that is the problem. There are financial and symbolic benefits to being married. Comparing another human being to a fish or a bicycle really shows your prejudice and your ignorance.
@John Davis
Are you using the Rush Limbaugh dictionary?
Note Webster’s 2nd definition for marriage:
1 a (1) : the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law (2) : the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage b : the mutual relation of married persons : wedlock c : the institution whereby individuals are joined in a marriage
Good. One less person in that cult the better.
Let us guess: his friend is Jason Beghe?
So what if his friend is Jason Beghe? What is the Church of Scientology doing in the middle of a political arena in San Diego? For tax exemption status, there is seperation of church and state. They wandered into a place they had no business to be in. And stood on the side of denying law abiding citizens that pay taxes and do contribute , their rights. This is not about who Paul had lunch with one of his friends with last week.
For many years L Ron Hubbard adamantly denied that Scientology was a religion. Then when he found out that religious status provided tax protections, he turned around one day and said “Guess what Scientology is a religion.”
Scientlolgy is a pyramid scheme that attracts no-so-bright people. It’s a “religion” created by a science fiction author and it’s utterly ridiculous. I lose instant respect for any celebrity who becomes part of this cult of make-believe.
I’m a little disturbed that this was what caused him to quit. Lisa McPherson’s death wasn’t enough? What about Elli Perkins?
I should add that I find Haggis’ resignation trivial. It appears that Haggis knew for 35 years that the church (like many other churches)does not approve of gay lifestyles. Many churches consider it a sin, Scientology considers it as an aberration. I rather think he doesn’t like David Miscavige who admittedly is the no good leader and causes Scientology to shrink.
What?! “Many churches consider it a sin, Scientology considers it as an aberration.” Most religions, including Christianity, Judaism, and Islam, consider it to be an aberration. Most religions are anti-gay. Of course, there are exceptions to that rule, but the majority of organized religions are homophobic and promote heterosexual relationships as “right” and homosexual relationships as a “sin” AND “aberration”…
The word marriage only refers to the union of a man and a woman because that’s what it’s been defined as by those who regulate it. The act of marriage is a symbolic one that has nothing to do with gender and as such, should not be based on or qualified by what sort of genitals the couple involved have. Same sex marriages are not new and there are instances of same sex marriages or unions dating back to Ancient Greece and Rome and even before. Just because it’s not legal or widely recognized doesn’t make it wrong.
I would just like to point out that the article really should state that the ballot was an “anti-gay MARRIAGE ballot initiative”–not an “anti-gay” ballot initiative. Despite what the author’s personal opinion is regarding the motivation behind the proposal, even if correct, he should not incorporate it in a “news” article. People are free to discern for themselves whether Prop. 8 was “anti-gay.” On its face, the initiative was anti-gay marraige. Just a former editor’s opinion.
Rant over. 
Keep telling yourself that, Danielle…
It was ANTI-GAY. End of discussion.
Take it easy. If you read my post clearly, my problem was with the words the author used. I made no judgments about the Prop itself. The media–on both sides–has gotten away from simply reporting the news and it bothers me. This wasn’t an editorial or opinion piece so opinions should not enter the picture. That’s all I’m saying.
I agree with “bunker” and several other people here: anti-gay marriage is by definition also anti-gay.
So by your definition the only anti-gay legislation would be law that says we have to kill all homosexuals?
Do you we really need qualifiers for things that are anti-freedom of any kind, gay or otherwise?
You are correct Danielle. Don’t listen to dummies like Jennifer who don’t understand what you’re trying to say.
We dummies understand just fine what she was trying to say. The initiative was driven by anti-gay sentiments and a belief in legislating anti-gay morality. It was anti gay. Period.
By that logic it would be okay to create a law that was anti-straight marriage as long it the law didn’t say simply anti-straight. Ummm, cool. I’m glad you’d be okay with it.
finally he got out of there. Not that I care one way or another about him , but now I can go see his project without feeling that I’m supporting Schienshologee. Now if only some some of the actresses would leave the fold, one never hears of them quitting – not that I know of.
so you quit your “church” – are we as the collective public suppose to say ‘awwww’ or something – so you quit – so what
YAWN . . . . . I agree – its just another way people follow like sheep . . . baaaaaa
Did anyone else see the Nightline interview with Tommie Davis. The reporter asked him about the church’s more outlandish beliefs about thetans and Tommie refused to answer and stormed out like a big baby. He essentially answered the question by getting so defensive.
No good comes from Scientology. Just lies, pain and secrecy.
Scientology is ridiculous! I cant believe that any sane person would join a religion that was thought up by a science fiction writer. There was an excellent article in Rolling Stone a few years back about scientology and the things that they believe and the things that they put their people through are sad and silly.
That was an excellent article. Very fair and balanced, which surprised me.