I am saddened that one of my favorite networks has thrown a hat into ring on such a controversial front...the Characters Unite commercial had me until it went down the gay marriage road with "everyone deserves wedding gifts" obviously being said by a gay man and his partner. I do not approve of discrimination in ANY form and if the Characters Unite pledge was just talking about discrimination based on race, nationality, physical appearance or disabilities, I would be signing up. But supporting traditional marriage is NOT discrimination. I could say I am being discriminated against for my belief in the traditional definition of marriage. We LOVE USA network. We love Monk, and Burn Notice and countless other shows on USA. But if we cannot watch USA without being bombarded with anti-traditional marriage propaganda, we will NOT watch.

I'll agree that I find the characters unite commercials irritating. Especially since, you know, I refuse to pledge allegiance to the socialists new messiah. Sorry, didn't vote for him, and find it kind of strange how, when there was a republican president..."dissent was patriotic" now it's all "let's be best buddies!".

I don't think so.

Must say I'm relieved to find people already posting regarding USA Network's offensive "take the pledge" campaign. And the artist who is "character approved" because he did such a great image for Obama's campaign? C'mon. Next, they'll have George Soros on their hero list.

Defending traditional marriage is not an expression of hate... it's defending a cornerstone of a sane society. Even the ancient Greeks recognized the difference between same-sex relationships and the role and purpose of marriage.

This is the first time I've ever logged onto this website, and I joined for the express purpose of telling the network executives that although I enjoy Burn Notice and Monk, and NCIS and House re-runs, I won't watch them if the price is assault by pc-politics. All the networks are confusing entertainment and political commentary to some extent, but this is egregious.

End the "take the pledge" campaign now!

I believe you should beable to marry anyone you want. And Gay people are discriminated against. I have two children and if they told me they were gay and wanted to marry someone of the same sex, I would throw them the biggest wedding ever. I just want them to be loved and to be happy. That is the most important thing to me, is their happyness. Only close minded people feel differently


Way to go USA boldly going where no man has gone before.

Wow, that statement is incredibly 'intolerant'. I sure hope you didn't sign the pledge.

Truth > Tolerance

I agree (it's why I had to register today finally) I LOVE that USA is taking a chance and a step with this, tying in their own channel and tag line into something that came make a difference. I signed the pledge the first morning.

Good job USA for recognizing that racism and sexism and homophobia still exist and have a very real effect on the daily lives of many people. According to the US Census Bureau, one third of Americans identify as a minority. It's time that we introduce *real* diversity to our media. It's time we give women strong roles, and it's time we shine a light on the LGTB movement in their fight for basic human rights. Thanks, USA! Props to you!

I wonder if it bothers USA Network that one of their "Character Approved" award winners was just arrested?

Obama poster artist arrested

http://lajuntablog.blogspot.com/2009/02/new-morality.html

You may not know who Shepard Fairey is, but he fast becoming a central figure in the "New Morality" issue. Fairey is the fellow who did President Barack Obama's "Hope" poster. However, there is a problem with that. It seems that Fairey lifted the design from an AP photograph. He makes no bones about it; he freely admits taking the photographer's work and "posterizing" it. He claims this is "fair use". AP differs, and has brought suit against Fairey. Fairey also claims that he has made no money off the poster. Maybe so, but the Obama campaign and many others certainly have.

There is more to the Fairey story. He claims to be a "street artist". Here in The Smile Hi City, he would be called what he is, a "graffiti artist". Fairey has this tendency to spray paint other peoples' property without bothering to ask their permission first. He was recently arrested in Boston on two outstanding criminal mischief warrants for that very thing. He has been arrested for the same crime many times before. Fairey jokes about this. Apparently he believes it's OK for him to do this, because he is making "political statements". Understand that Fairey has not been arrested for his political views; he has been arrested for vandalizing other people's property with his political views. He does not appear to be able to distinguish the difference. Nor, apparently, can the President of the United States, whose people continue to send out emails asking for cash, and who continue to make money off the pirated photo. It appears that they have their own definition of "fair use", just as they have their own definition of "patriotism" (if rich people don't want to pay more taxes, they are not "patriots"; if wealthy presidential appointees don't want to pay more taxes, they have made "mistakes").

There is yet more to the Fairey story. Shepard Fairey is one of those "Characters Welcome" we see on USA Network television. Not only that, but this self-confessed vandal has been selected by the network as the recipient of a "Character Approved" award, honoring "Leading innovators shaping American culture." The mainstream media is honoring a vandal, a glorified tagger, as a "shaper of American culture."

This fits with what we have seen coming out of Washington, DC in the past couple of weeks, as one presidential nominee after another is bagged for not paying taxes or other ethical issues. They have the attitude that so long as they don't get caught, it's OK, and if they are caught, all they have to do is pay it off. Read that "pay off the Senate", if you will, because that's how I see it. It seems to work. That was Shepard Fairey's attitude over those warrants, too. Misconduct is not wrong. Getting caught is what's wrong. So I call this "The New Morality of the Democrats."

This "New Morality" is being taken even further by the United States Senate, as Debbie Stabenow (D-MI) moves to hold hearings about radio talk show hosts. She wants to gag people like Rush Limbaugh and Anne Coulter. Stabenow told nationally syndicated talk show host Bill Press that she wants to impose government-mandated "balance" in the radio marketplace. Stabenow feels that the "airwaves are being dominated by one view" that "overwhelms people's opinions - and unfortunately, incorrectly." In my view it's a toss up as to which are bigger wastes of airtime: Chris Matthews and Keith Olbermann, or Limbaugh and Coulter. But since when do the American people allow the government to tell us what we will listen to, what is right and what is not? Stabenow thinks the time is now. She wants to apply the so-called "Fairness Doctrine" as a gag. She wants to do it to save you from yourself. And, in case you missed it, so does President Obama, who has told the American people that they "...should not be listening to Rush Limbaugh...".

Shepard Fairey has a website, called "Obey Giant". You can see examples of his work there. It closely resembles the propaganda posters of the old Soviet Union, Red China, Cuba, and other such regimes. "Obey Giant" prides itself on two things: "Propaganda Engineering" and "Manufacturing quality dissent since 1989". Fairey is the darling of the Democrats. He likes to "manufacture quality dissent". He likes to "engineer propaganda". He likes to trash other people's property as well. Do you think that Stabenow wants to gag Fairey's "engineered propaganda"? Does President Obama? Or do they want to have the government deciding what you will listen to, based on what they think is "right"?

I am so happy that USA has started this Forum, it is much needed!!!!

I hope I'm not stepping on any toes by saying this, but getting back to the whole idea of gay marriage, I actually approve of it. I'm not gay myself but I do know people who are. I always viewed marriage as a way of saying "I love you" to the one person in the whole world that you love the most and is outside your family.

What right do you people have to be judgemental? We are who we are bacause of genetics, brain chemistry, and upbringing. How can you possibly judge your fellow human beings on things over which they have no control. Judge not that ye be not judged people.

So is this new movement going to focus on the most rascist program in existance today, the issue of Affirmative Action? Or is it going to be another quote "Equality" program that only focuses on one side of the issue?

Every time we see one of these movements the white man's fight for social justice is continually ignored. Turning a blind eye to all sides of the struggle is nothing less than discrimination itself.

Must be sad to be a closet homosexual!. You have to be if you are so afraid that you will 'go gay' if you see gay people or relationships on TV. Funny that you would state that you are against discrimination. Not funny ha ha, but funny as in stupid. May God Bless you and your homophobic family. Let me guess. White Anglo Saxon Protestant and 'very' Republican.

Got a question maybe someone can answer for me...is it free to take the pledge? Because I might take it...idk yet. I think it's a great idea, but if it's going to cost me anything, then I won't do it...

USA Network is one of my favorite networks. I watch ALL of their lineup (and even the reruns). But I've been somewhat annoyed at the inference of their 'characters unite', in that they seem to want everyone who is NOT a Republican, or conservative, or traditional minded. Their tent seems to enclose only the Democratic Party's constituents and no one else.

Really, tons of shows have ugly zingers against Republicans. Never have I heard a single joke at the expense of Democrats. (Shows like Law & Order SVU are famous for their anti-Catholic, Anti-traditional, Anti-Republican bias). But there is something inherently wrong in insulting HALF of your audience. If half the country is red state (actually this country leans center-right) it is pretty arrogant to be so condescending and partisan (even when it is veiled in 'progressive commercials or television scripts').

The latest commercial has an actor proudly proclaiming that they are a Democrat. No one claims to be a Republican. I suppose actors cannot 'out themselves as Republicans' for fear of losing work, such is the 'progressive atmosphere' of television production today.......

People routinely describe "Hollywood" (as an all encompassing generic term for the entertainment industry) as living in a bubble, or echo chamber, where people who don't think like the power players are 'the enemy'. It's about time that "Characters" include ALL characters. Don't insult the audience with the message of 'inclusiveness' when we all know that anyone to the 'right' of "Hollywood's" politics, need not apply.

Oh my gods, people, do you even begin to realize how little sense these arguments make? "Marriage" is a social contract, nothing more, nothing less. It allows two people who have committed to each other to enjoy protections under the law. And no, our current system for gay couples does NOT allow them the same rights.

Marriage can be religious, but a couple who trots down to a justice of the peace or a Vegas couple who've only known each other a day before tying the knot at a "quickie" chapel are not having a "religious" ceremony in any sense of the word. And yet we do not question their right no marry, no matter how unsuitable, rash, or even stupid their actions may be.

And keep in mind, not every religion has a problem with same sex couples. Denying them the ability to marry under their set of beliefs is in direct violation of the first amendment. And yes, in any court of law that does equal discrimination.

Discrimination doesn't happen when someone doesn't want to hear or support your point of view--as the folks quoted above claim to have been treated for their views--its when something you take as a god-given right is denied to another person on basis of race, sex, gender preference, and so on. So if you deny the same rights to another individual and actively fight to block them, that is discrimination, and yes, it smacks of prejudism. It wasn't so long ago blacks were denied the right to marry whites for much the same reasoning we now don't want to give marriage rights to gays.

Not to mention, no one is taking away the right of the Church to deny marriage. Any Christian church who desires to, any religious affiliation can refuse to marry a same sex couple. Why? Because they are private institutions. No one is forcing any church to swing wide its doors, only asking that same sex couples can--much like rash couples, atheists, and anyone not wanting to marry in church might do--be married by a justice of the peace, in a quickie chapel, or under the blessing of the religion which they do follow.

This may indeed impact traditional Christian marriages, changing how they are seen in society, but I somehow doubt they will unravel the fabric of a culture based in diversity and freedom. I don't know why the Traditional Marriage folk are so negative. We have weathered two major wars on our soil, intense poverty, a number of cultural revolutions, a terrorist attack, and disaster after disaster, and we always bounce back. If we can survive a Civil War, Osama, and the 60's and 70's, I somehow think a couple of poofters making whoopie behind closed doors will not unravel us. No, not even if they wear wedding rings.

For a more level-headed and utterly fantastic speech than I could ever make, check this out:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dCFFxidhcy0

They also appear to support illegal immigration.

You know I don't really think those commercials are really that focused as you imply. The commercials I'm seeing now are people of ALL kinds; including republican, saying they are characters. Now I'm one of those that thinks ANY kind of prejudice is wrong. There are people in my own family whose opinions don't agree with mine and we avoid those subjects. Any I myself can get prejudice thrown my way because I'm disabled and have to use a mobility scooter. When I signed the pledge stating that as my reason; it didn't get rejected, it's a valid reason.

Did it ever occur that this drive is not about gay/straight, black/white, Republican/Democrat, it's about the fact that we are ALL characters. We all have little quirks that make us unique. And we are all in our own stories that are sometimes pretty hard. Anyone and everyone's story can be hard which is something I try to keep in mind. So I took the pledge to not make anyone's story harder than it has to be in the perhaps naive hope that it will spread enough that the stories of my family and I might just get a little easier. Heck I'd just settle for seeing *anyone's* story getting easier.....I keep hoping and praying but with evidences like some of the posts on this thread it looks like we still have long hard road ahead.

And no you don't need to know if I am in any of the above groups. I'm a disabled and I'm a character. I prize my own uniqueness and I try to help others do the same. That's enough.

Thank you, thank you, thank you for the Charactors Unite and Charactor Approved spots! Slowly and gently attempting to open closed minds - even if just to consider or talk about the issues from a point of conversation instead of knee jerk judgment will help in creating a world where we evolve beyond ignorance, hate, and prejudice.

This is a good program, especially as USA has recognized that many people still hate homosexuals. I've really looked around and found only some people with a religious book telling them to hate and some rappers hate homosexuals. There are no coherent secular arguments against gay rights, so unite against discrimination.
And feel free to put some loving, conscientious Christians who love gay people, but just want them to deny their god-given homosexual nature and commit to a life without love in the company of people who consider them to be an abomination.