Fran Lebowitz "Cannot understand why Gays Want To Marry"
In her words Gay marriage is...
"a kind of unbelievable tedium. I still have the same car that I bought in 1978 because I’m not tired of it. A human being? Please. My idea of a long relationship is a three-day weekend. I don’t have that kind of ability to not be bored."
btw she also says some of her best friends are Republicans
|by Anonymous||reply 105||11/09/2012|
Oh, yeah. That "writer" who hasn't had a book in a couple decades.
|by Anonymous||reply 1||11/03/2012|
She has an awesome car. I love her and wish she were on the internet.
|by Anonymous||reply 2||11/03/2012|
In fairness, she also says she's in favor of gay marriage; she just doesn't want one.
|by Anonymous||reply 3||11/03/2012|
Fran will be getting her own HBO talk show soon, and I cannot wait. I believe Fran is the only person I ever agree with 100%.
|by Anonymous||reply 5||11/03/2012|
Hey op, thanks for posting this!
|by Anonymous||reply 6||11/03/2012|
You can watch Martin Scorcese's doc on Fran, "Public Speaking," right here. Well worth it.
|by Anonymous||reply 7||11/03/2012|
She enjoys being controversial.
The article says that she doesn't think children are so special. The fact is that she prefers them to adults. She has told me this, and has written "better to be a mere child than a mere adult."
And despite her claims about "a three day weekend," she has had several long term relationships.
Granted, some of her best friends are Republicans. She has also spoken at a memorial to Jerome Robbins. He was a friend of hers, but she had no illusions about him.
|by Anonymous||reply 8||11/03/2012|
Incidentally, Fran's incomprehension of gay people who want to marry is matched by her incomprehension of why straight people want to marry.
|by Anonymous||reply 9||11/03/2012|
We here this all the time. Marriage is "boring", why would you want this?
It's so stupid. It's about having the choice, it's about having legal protections resulting from that choice. No one has to get married. We all know there are negatives as well as positives.
|by Anonymous||reply 10||11/03/2012|
R10, learn to spell "hear."
|by Anonymous||reply 11||11/03/2012|
r5 - that is great news. I don't always agree with her, but she is always brilliant. I will have to watch it in illegal places since we all know that HBO won't let any of their stuff get out.
|by Anonymous||reply 12||11/03/2012|
I agree with Fran about cars.
However, "wanting" to marry and "having the right" to marry are two different things. But the fundamental issue is equality. And that's the fight.
|by Anonymous||reply 13||11/03/2012|
Is she ... like ... relevant to anything?
|by Anonymous||reply 14||11/03/2012|
She is right. Marriage is bullshit.
|by Anonymous||reply 15||11/03/2012|
Just because she can't be monogamous and have love doesn't mean others can't.
|by Anonymous||reply 16||11/03/2012|
Scorcese's documentary was too fawning to be truly good. Such cringe-worthy questions like "What's it like to be right about everything?" Come on. She rattled on about how people need to do work. If Scorcese wasn't so enamoured, he would have prided into why she has written anything in ages. But too many balls were dropped in order to make a cinematic equivalent of a monument.
She's too smart and clever to be reduced to that. It's like what Pauline Kael said about Streisand "You don't go easy on her. That's the last thing she wants or needs."
|by Anonymous||reply 17||11/03/2012|
I find that when some people make this comment, there are a lot of people on DL that do not understand what is being said. And they get angry.
|by Anonymous||reply 18||11/03/2012|
Frank Lebowitz should question why she never publicly came out. Is it because it might hurt her "lucrative" career?
|by Anonymous||reply 19||11/03/2012|
Prided ball dropping and cinematic monument equivalency? I blame auto-correct. Can I do that? Prided?
|by Anonymous||reply 20||11/03/2012|
Folks like Fran can think whatever they want, just as long as they aren't trying to take away the right to be married from LGBT's.
|by Anonymous||reply 23||11/03/2012|
She never said anyone of the sort, R23.
|by Anonymous||reply 25||11/03/2012|
Fran was surprisingly sexy when young. She still looks great, considering her smoking habit. Her novel, "Exterior Signs Of Wealth", was described as being like "Bonfire Of The Vanities", seemed to be near publication, then...nothing. Great news about her HBO show.
|by Anonymous||reply 27||11/03/2012|
You are thinking of Annie Leibowitz, r26.
Talking about being uninformed...
|by Anonymous||reply 28||11/03/2012|
OP did you wander astray from ONTD?
Fran is a liberal through and through. Even though she does not understand or desire marriage, she still votes for everyone else to have it. She has said these things many times.
Find a new target.
|by Anonymous||reply 29||11/03/2012|
Some people are just dense, R29. Incapable of sophisticated thought.
|by Anonymous||reply 30||11/03/2012|
Be glad Fran Lebowitz doesn't post here, bitches.
She would own W&W and eat she would eat every last one of us alive.
|by Anonymous||reply 31||11/03/2012|
Unlike me, who apparently cannot sentence construct sentence a.
|by Anonymous||reply 33||11/03/2012|
r26 cracked me up. WRONG PERSON dumbass. LOL
|by Anonymous||reply 34||11/03/2012|
[quote] It seems if you deal with royalty in a public way you ought to understand all the ramifications involved
|by Anonymous||reply 35||11/03/2012|
Doesn't Lebowitz sell La-Z-Boy recliners?
Who cares what she thinks. I want to know where Rent-A-Center stands!
|by Anonymous||reply 36||11/03/2012|
R26/R32 you're an idiot. Own it. But it does not entitle you to call these people cunts.
|by Anonymous||reply 37||11/03/2012|
Fran herself, checking in at R38.
|by Anonymous||reply 39||11/03/2012|
Personally, I appreciate anyone who doesn't know Annie Leibovitz.
BTW, thanks to R7 for posting the youtube link. This has been on my wishlist at Amazon for a while, but I'm poor.
|by Anonymous||reply 40||11/03/2012|
the one who snaps the pictures is a babe, the one who's still not writing is a dog.
|by Anonymous||reply 42||11/03/2012|
Fran has a very hairy crack & hole
|by Anonymous||reply 43||11/03/2012|
She has this awesome white checker cab that is like a tank. It's in the documentary. I found sort of pic at the NYT. It's gorgeous.
|by Anonymous||reply 45||11/04/2012|
R29 why pick on the OP?
These are Fran's own words.
|by Anonymous||reply 47||11/04/2012|
John Waters has also said that he always thought the two advantages of being gay was not having to serve in the military and not having to marry. Like Fran, he was K I D D I N G.
|by Anonymous||reply 48||11/04/2012|
r45: it is NOT white; it is pearl. Fran says that only heterosexuals refer to her car as "white".
|by Anonymous||reply 51||11/04/2012|
the one who snaps the pictures is a babe, the one who's still not writing is a dog.
Annie Liebowitz is a babe? Now I've heard it all.
|by Anonymous||reply 53||11/04/2012|
No! Fran is the hottie, and I'm so glad I was reading DL yesterday else I wouldn't have discovered her.
|by Anonymous||reply 54||11/04/2012|
Where does she get her money? She lives a lavish lifestyle and she owns a co-op (didn't know she owned a vintage car, too.)
What is her secret?
|by Anonymous||reply 55||11/04/2012|
Well, she's on Law and Order and has a new show coming up.
Before that, I assume she made all her money much like Susan Sontag--the college speaker circuit.
|by Anonymous||reply 56||11/04/2012|
r47 because Fran is allowed to have a different opinion on shit than yours/OPs. Get over it.
|by Anonymous||reply 57||11/04/2012|
In what sense did you mean that she had no illusions about Jerome Robbins?
|by Anonymous||reply 58||11/05/2012|
R58, she knew that he was a louse to many, many people, naming names during the McCarthy era. But he was kind to her.
As for R55, she sold the coop.
And she teaches at Princeton, which pays something.
|by Anonymous||reply 59||11/05/2012|
Fran Lebowitz has repeatedly asked her 'people' to approach The View about guest co-hosting from time to time at the table.
Barbara Walters has repeatedly refused.
I wonder why?
|by Anonymous||reply 60||11/05/2012|
Sharon Osborne has had both breasts removed. She said she didn't want them hanging over her while they contain the breast cancer gene. She's a colon cancer survivor.
|by Anonymous||reply 61||11/05/2012|
"Some reviewers have called her a modern-day Dorothy Parker."
|by Anonymous||reply 62||11/05/2012|
I like Fran and could listen to her talk all day. Unfortunately, I think she's gotten stale. I saw her at Town Hall in NYC recently, and almost everything she said was rehash of things I've heard her say before. Her gay marriage stuff was the same old stuff plus some tacked on stuff about not having to visit your sick or dying partner being a plus, not a minus. It was pretty lame, actually.
Also, her proud Luddite status is starting to catch up with her. It's not nearly as cute as she seems to think it is.
That said, I can't wait for her talk show. First I'm hearing of it.
|by Anonymous||reply 63||11/05/2012|
I agree with ol' Frannie. How or why gay rights activists decided to start spending so much time, money, resources and energy on gay marriage, I'll never know? Maybe 5% of gay men I know, myself included, really give a fuck about it when there are so many other more important, pressing issues (gay youth, hate crime laws, etc.)
I truly believe the push for gay marriage is boring straight society's way of trying to trick and tame gay men.
|by Anonymous||reply 64||11/05/2012|
Anyone know why Babs refuses to have Fran on The View?
|by Anonymous||reply 65||11/05/2012|
AIDS did that, and cultural maturity, not gay marriage, r64.
|by Anonymous||reply 66||11/05/2012|
They don't want anyone intelligent
|by Anonymous||reply 67||11/05/2012|
Are u saying Joy Behar is not intelligent?
|by Anonymous||reply 68||11/05/2012|
R66, I don't think HIV spiked such a vested interest in gay marriage. If anything, many HIV activists would argue that gay marriage steals away tons of $$funding, resources and energy that could be used for HIV education/prevention. I would argue that most gay men are no more interested in boring heterosexual-like relationships than before. Look at the boom in apps like GrindR, Scruff, Craigslist, etc.
It's all one big trick, I tell you.
|by Anonymous||reply 69||11/05/2012|
Actually, Whoopi Goldberg strikes me as intelligent. And Barbara Walters herself has a certain animalistic intelligence -- hardly the erudition with which she credits herself, but an ability to create a career without charm or good looks. But the fat woman and the blonde airhead clearly lack any intelligence whatever. Are there others on the panel?
|by Anonymous||reply 70||11/05/2012|
R70 that is why Fran's can't understand why she is repeatedly denied a chance to GUEST co-host. She thinks she would be perfect.
But Babs doesn't want her.
|by Anonymous||reply 71||11/05/2012|
You seem to know more about the range and depth of gay promiscuity than I do. I bow to your superior investment in interest. I still think gay marriage is a shrewd and wise avenue to mainstream access to legal parity.
|by Anonymous||reply 72||11/05/2012|
I too think marriage is silly- really outmoded or outdated. BUT- for those who want to get married it imparts legal rights- that regard children, estate planning and taxation etc. THAT is the reason for the absolute necessity for equal treatment. The question is less about whether you want to get married or not rather if you do- you get equal treatment.
Not everyone wants to borrow money. Some people never want to borrow money. Now imagine if there different laws for straight people who borrow money (they get lower interest rates for example than gays.)
That is what this issue is about. Equal treatment before the law.
Just goes to show that smart people can be stupid- Gore Vidal did it all the time. Some people get too carried away with themselves and their ideas and lose sight of the real interests of others. Such is the case here.
|by Anonymous||reply 73||11/05/2012|
[quote]That is what this issue is about. Equal treatment before the law.
Then Gay marriage is a Big Fail -- if you have to be married to get certain rights, there is no equal justice. Gays could have been on the forefront of correcting the real problem, but instead, they never looked farther than the current system's benefits that many just want for themselves.
|by Anonymous||reply 74||11/05/2012|
R74 makes an excellent point.
|by Anonymous||reply 75||11/05/2012|
But if he wears a hat, no one will see it.
|by Anonymous||reply 76||11/05/2012|
[quote]if you have to be married to get certain rights, there is no equal justice.
Um, the rights are SHARED rights between two people in a marriage. It's not like everyone who gets married receives a pony, while single people get nothing. It's the benefit of linking two unrelated people together as family, which straight people enjoy but gays are currently deprived of due to prejudice.
Sharing social security benefits, hospital visitation, and so on... These are not rights that are being deprived of single people in order to privilege and advantage a favored majority. There is no way a single person could exercise those rights so whining that you're not getting them is ludicrous.
Moreover, focusing on marriage has transformed gay people's position in our society for the better. It has benefitted all gay people.
Your "Me, Too! Me, too!" is just ridiculous. "I want the right to visit my sick um, um...well, I don't have a partner... If straight people can share social security benefits with their partners, I want um... umm.. Well, I feel I deserve SOMETHING, DAMMMITTT!!!
And if in the end, fighting for marriage equality isn't your thing, fine. There are thousands upon thousands of gay organizations working away at every aspect of our movement that could use your help. Don't let anyone stand in your way in becoming a leader of those parts of the movement you think most worthwhile.
|by Anonymous||reply 77||11/05/2012|
[quote]Then Gay marriage is a Big Fail
Like the civil rights movement was a big fail because not all black people ride the bus or want to sit at the lunch counter at Woolworth's.
|by Anonymous||reply 78||11/05/2012|
I thought this was about Fran Drescher. I always confuse them.
Anyone know her gay ex-husband? That deserves its own thread.
|by Anonymous||reply 79||11/05/2012|
No- R74 makes no sense. Marriage is a legal contract between two people; traditionally two heterosexuals of the opposite sex. Once married they have legal rights that they did not have while they were a couple. Now when one dies the other inherits the deceased spouses estate without taxation. They can file joint income taxes and in most cases reduce their tax bite. They can adopt children as a couple. These are rights that come by virtue of a legal marriage. Gay men and women in most states cannot adopt as a couple. When your life long live in partner dies, you will pay the going rate on inheritance taxes assuming you have prepared a will- I could go on an on.
When you say "equal justice" (which is redundant by the way), you have to put it into a context. Marriage is such a context. R74 provides no context. Prejudice cannot be legilated away R74. But laws should not set up legalized prejudice. That is really the only way to chip away at prejudice: Get rid of legalized bigotry.
In 1964 it was pretty much impossible for a black person to get a mortgage in NYC. In 1968 denying people a mortgage based on the color of their skin was made illegal by a Federal Law (cannot recall the detailed law- sort of an addendum to the 1964 Civil Rights Act.)
|by Anonymous||reply 80||11/05/2012|
[quote]Sharing social security benefits, hospital visitation, and so on... These are not rights that are being deprived of single people in order to privilege and advantage a favored majority. There is no way a single person could exercise those rights so whining that you're not getting them is ludicrous.
No -- you're ludicrous. Why should my SS benefits revolve around my personal life? They should be rewarded to individuals, regardless of who is sharing their house. If people pair up to share assets, that falls under business dealings, and they should incorporate, not marry.
|by Anonymous||reply 81||11/05/2012|
[quote]In 1964 it was pretty much impossible for a black person to get a mortgage in NYC. In 1968 denying people a mortgage based on the color of their skin was made illegal by a Federal Law (cannot recall the detailed law- sort of an addendum to the 1964 Civil Rights Act.)
They were denied benefits because of who and what they were -- the same as single people and unmarried couples are denied benefits. Everyone should be free to decide who should visit them in the hospital, and who (as in the famous Philadelphia case) should be the one to inscribe their lost partner's tombstone, married or not.
|by Anonymous||reply 82||11/05/2012|
R72, and I bow to your condescending sense of moral superiority, simply because you or people like you have some vested interest in mimicking straight people.
Meanwhile, I will choose to concern myself more with things that I think actually matter, such as gay youth suicide prevention, and continue to donate my $$ to LGBT youth-related programs.
|by Anonymous||reply 83||11/05/2012|
OK, Fran, but why should the question be any different addressed to gay people than when addressed to straight people?
It's a question that all couples should have the right to make.
End of story.
|by Anonymous||reply 85||11/05/2012|
[quote]Oh -- and Lebowitz is a Jew.
Oh -- and why does this matter to you?
|by Anonymous||reply 86||11/05/2012|
[quote] Lebowitz, who is a lesbian, supports the idea of gay marriage, but cannot understand why [italic]anyone[/italic] would want to get hitched
- from the article, please reference r85 and r84
Italics are mine
|by Anonymous||reply 87||11/05/2012|
R86? It's a difference between her and Paglia, you ninny.
|by Anonymous||reply 88||11/05/2012|
I wonder if she's ever eaten any pussy? I bet she would STILL be holding a lit cigarette while she was doing it and even taking puff breaks in between while she had her tongue in some snatch.
|by Anonymous||reply 89||11/05/2012|
[quote]"a kind of unbelievable tedium. I still have the same car that I bought in 1978 because I’m not tired of it. A human being? Please. My idea of a long relationship is a three-day weekend. I don’t have that kind of ability to not be bored."
lol. love it and completely agree.
|by Anonymous||reply 90||11/05/2012|
I'm shocked that anyone pays attention to her. She wrote 2 wry essay books at the end of the 70 while working with Warhol. It's almost certain she's a trustafarian as her parents owned a furniture store, and trustfund kids were the only people Warhol hung with (except trannies/porn stars).
She's just Paris Hilton for a different crowd.
|by Anonymous||reply 91||11/05/2012|
[quote]They should be rewarded to individuals
OMG, r81. social security benefits ARE awarded to individuals. They're not denied to single people.
They can only be SHARED by married couples. Again. it's not as if married people get an extra pony from social security. Straight couples are getting an unfair privilege by being able to share their benefits through marriage, which gay people cannot do.
Really, I'm trying not to be bitchy or condescending but your comment really is pretty dense.
|by Anonymous||reply 92||11/05/2012|
[quote] human being? Please. My idea of a long relationship is a three-day weekend. I don’t have that kind of ability to not be bored.
What kills me about this particularly pathetic sort of narcissism is that it's routinely given a pass as some mark of sophistication. Instead of a complete failure to engage fully with other human beings that verges on autism.
|by Anonymous||reply 93||11/05/2012|
Gay widowed partners don't get social security benefits the way married widows do.
|by Anonymous||reply 94||11/05/2012|
More from r91 who seems more interesting than Fran, please!
|by Anonymous||reply 95||11/05/2012|
[quote]Fran Lebowitz has repeatedly asked her 'people' to approach The View about guest co-hosting from time to time at the table.
[quote]Barbara Walters has repeatedly refused.
Because Fran could read that entire table to filth in five minutes and have the audience in the palm of her hand while she does it, and Barbara knows that. Fran would upstage them all.
|by Anonymous||reply 96||11/05/2012|
R93 sounds like she'd be a real [italic] [bold]BLAST [/italic] [/bold] at parties. (That is, if she were ever invited to one).
|by Anonymous||reply 97||11/05/2012|
I'm in no mood for an eccentric take on same-sex marriage. Serious topic.
|by Anonymous||reply 98||11/05/2012|
Lot of people on this thread do not get it. Maarriage is a legal contract available to heterosexuals to protect their joint interests and their children, legally. It is not available to gay men and lesbians on the Federal level- just the way home loans were not available to blacks before 1968. One does not get married to obtain rights that are not relevant (unless you are married.)
I will probably not marry in my lifetime. But if I meets someone who wants to and convinces me- well I sure hope I have the option as a straight person would.
It's just that simple. It is not about stupid rights- if you do not care about marriage, then OK- but it is important to many couple, particularly those with children.
All this is lost on Fran.
|by Anonymous||reply 99||11/05/2012|
r97 = self-hating cunt, willing to put up with every last stupidity disgorged by a pre-approved "icon." And probably autistic, as well.
|by Anonymous||reply 100||11/05/2012|
charlie, the only one who is lost on anything is you.
Fran supports (with her votes as well) the right of marriage; she simply does not see the value of it for HERSELF. For the 80th time, she is allowed to not want to get married, to deride the practice, etc. and yet still vote in support of it because "[she] know[s] the people want it".
|by Anonymous||reply 101||11/05/2012|
Here is Fran talking about gay rights and gay marriage. You can tell she's for gay marriage, but doesn't personally want it.
|by Anonymous||reply 102||11/05/2012|
I can't understand either. Marriage was created to sell women to the highest bidder. oppress and humiliate women around the world Yes marriage is between a man and women Oppressor and opress
|by Anonymous||reply 103||11/05/2012|
"I'm in no mood for an eccentric take on same-sex marriage. Serious topic."
Excellent point. It's like a black comedian making jokes that he doesn't like to sit in the front of the bus during the civil rights movement.
As a gay man, I never thought I'd address this to a lesbian but... That's not funny, Fran.
|by Anonymous||reply 104||11/05/2012|
I wish Fran would get over her computer-phobia and get on Twitter and Facebook. She is a natural for those formats.
|by Anonymous||reply 105||11/09/2012|