Dedicated to those who wish to limit or suspend the film credit. You couldn't make this up*
TALLAHASSEE — Movies and TV shows with gay characters could be ineligible for a “family-friendly” tax credit in Florida under a little-noticed provision tucked into a $75 million incentive package that Republican House leaders hope will attract film and entertainment jobs to the state. The bill would prohibit productions with “nontraditional family values” from receiving a so-called family-friendly tax credit. But it doesn't define what “nontraditional family values” are, something the bill's sponsor had a hard time doing, too.
“Think of it as like Mayberry,” state Rep. Stephen Precourt, R-Orlando, said, referring to The Andy Griffith Show. “That's when I grew up — the '60s. That's what life was like. I want Florida to be known for movies for kids and all that stuff. Like it used to be, you know?”
Crossposted at ONE Massachusetts
*Thank you Leo!
He comes right out and says he wants to turn back the calendar! I’d be tempted to make a film featuring a gay couple raising well-adjusted kids and argue that this family IS the epitome of traditional values. I saw this on Think Progress which I encourage people to read. They come up with so many things about the Right that it’s hard to imagine are not being loudly called out and refuted, the above being a perfect example.
He wants to turn life back to a time that never existed!
every week, there were no african americans living in the south.
Mount Airy is only 8% African American now. I have no idea what the demographics were in 1960, but I’d be willing to bet the current 7% which are Asian or mixed race or Hispanic didn’t live in Mount Airy in 1960. I don’t know how the black population has changed in the past 50 years — it’s possible it’s increased, decreased, or stayed the same.
<
p>In short: it’s not obvious to me that Mount Airy had very many black people amongst the 7,000 or so inhabitants back then.
I ask because this is a STATE Rep. over a state bill. Who represents Disneyland, btw, so this may be a constituent request/issue.
<
p>Is there any indicagtion this is likely to happen at Plymouth Rock? Or any other MA location? Or even in Florida (reading the story, it doesn’t look good for the amendment)?
<
p>I ask because a majority of states have outlawed Mass.-style gay marriage. Would you feel comfortable with them imposing their ideas/opinions here? (I know DOMA is unpopular here, but if repealed and an individal STATE cannot make determinations – as a nationwide referndum, it may not go as expected).
<
p>And if FL did pass such a silly law, then doesn’t it just benefit Plymouth Rock?
See Progressive Blog Text
But I was too considerate of my Republican sister to even imply that a GOP State Rep from Massachusetts would try to make such a bonehead move.
I’ll come right out and say I’d much rather our marriage laws become the norm in other states as opposed to other states’ laws being forced on ours. Article IV of the federal constitution SHOULD be interpreted to require other states to recognize ANY marriage solemnized in MA, IMO. I care greatly when a group is singled out for bigotry in another state or even another country. It is a moral wrong that knows no political boundaries. Was it MLK who said, “Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere?” I’m sorry, but especially given that Disney was at the forefront of offering benefits to same-sex couples, leading to threatened boycotts from the Christian Right, your suggestion that this was about them being based in Orlando is preposterous.
The comment about Orlando was to ask why such a silly law was filed in the first place (you couldn’t make a movie out of the Bible if it went into effect due to David and Jonathan!) – did Disney ask the Rep. to do it?
<
p>The second thought was more in line with your comment. I asked Judy if she thought we should enforce our standards on another state, seeing as how we might not like it if they enforced theirs on ours. While you have your opinion about MA attitudes prevailing, it may well not be the case if it should come to a national opinion.
<
p>So why not let FL make silly laws that would only benefit us in the long run anyway?
could be excluded….but you could still watch NASCAR!
Disneyland is in California. Disneyworld is in Florida.
<
p>Would the Walt Disney corporation, which derives so much profit from Gay Days in Orlando, and that long ago permitted gay couples to have “fantasy weddings,” promote this bill? Really?
<
p>Would any media company promote a tax bill that purports to regulate the content of movies? I think not. Are you really comfortable with the idea of the government using tax policy to regulate the contents of movies? How about books? Newspapers?
<
p>Maybe the Republican party could take up a collection and buy Mr. Precourt a copy of the Constitution of the United States of America. I’ll contribute a highlighter so they can show him where to find the First Amendment.
<
p>When did Judy call for Massachusetts to “enforce” anything on another state?
but not with Florida taxpayer’s money. The state shouldn’t be forced to subsidize a private film, the state should be able to choose what to subsidize.
Based on past conversations, I’m guessing you’re against funding films with gay characters, just as you oppose gay rights. What you didn’t respond to is this:
<
p>
<
p>Do you really believe the state should be able to control content?
All this would do is ensure that films that Florida citizens invited on their dime to come and film were unobjectionable to the people who are being asked to help fund them. And though it’s a little weird that this guy singled out gay couples as opposed to introducing a more general law about uncontroversial content, I think it’s a result of a reasonable fear that if Florida didn’t protect itself, Hollywood liberals and their allies in the Florida film culture would stick it to notoriously anti-gay Floridians by making them fund gay-normalizing movies as penance. That wasn’t the plan, was it? So, then it won’t affect content. He’s just ensuring that won’t happen up front for everyone, so that everyone can support incentives to bring the revenue of a few film productions to the state.
<
p>If you ask me, states should all start imposing taxes on film productions, especially California, which is looking for revenue. The state with the highest tax on making movies and recording music should get a federal bonus of exemption from federal income tax for all residents.
You can’t say that the state shouldn’t control content, then say they should only allow “unobjectionable content.” Your definition of such is clearly different than mine.
<
p>I’ll ignore your rather bizarre and unsupported blanket statements as to the motivations. Penance? Sheesh. Why do you hate gays so virulently?
There’s an additional 5% reward for being a family family film, so non-family friendly movies would still be supported by Florida taxpayers (I wonder if they realize this?) but just not quite as much. I was mistaken about the wording of the bill, here it is:
I guess it is an attempt to persuade filmmakers to leave out gratuitous violence and smoking and nontraditional family values in exchange for a bigger check, so OK, I’ll admit that it attempts to control content. But what I meant originally, and still mean, was that films made in Florida don’t have to be family friendly, they can just eschew that incentive and be as nasty as they wanna be (but not obscene) (and even get public funding! that’s not right). So you’re mis-stating the situation when you use the word “allow”. But I agree now that the act is poorly written and doesn’t do what I thought it should do.
I will learn that you make no sense whatever.
<
p>It might be useful for you to think through your positions, and to test them thoroughly for soundness, consistency, and practicality. As it stands, your objections to “gay-normalization” just sound garbled.
to tax film productions? Oh no, Avatar might not be as good if had to pay taxes! I think taxing films is absolutely necessary, not just because all the states need revenue, but because films have enormous externalized costs that need to be recouped.
<
p>My objections are garbled, it’s a major problem. I wish I didn’t have to garble them.
Well, if you think that the dread rulers of BMG are forcing you to keep your commentary on matters of sexual orientation incoherent, you might want to avoid the topic altogether. I don’t see what you gain by hinting opaquely at your views. You’re not going to recruit many players to a game of “What might dcsurfer be thinking?” As it is, the stuff you write on the topic simply sounds unhinged and invites dismissal.
<
p>Something about which one can only write incoherently might best be left alone. By resolving to be incoherent, you have also resolved to convince no one.
The state can’t choose to subsidize only white people or only white-owned businesses, for example. The state can’t choose to specifically subsidize Christian themed or owned businesses. Etc etc etc.
preferences would be unconstitutional, true.
And not the one a lot of us want to hear.
…and the answer is worse than I thought:
<
p>
<
p>Good lord. dcsurfer is John Howard 2!
offspring that resulted from hot sperm-on-sperm petri dish action?
Who can forget gems like this?
<
p>
The state has an obligation to protect people’s heterosexual potential and fertility as basic human rights.
Last I checked eugenics was discredited ages ago and nobody’s being barred by any government from reproducing the old-fashioned way. I also don’t know where this is refered to in any constitution.
Frankly, dcsurfer, this makes no sense at all.
<
p>Malthusian concerns aside, even if it were true, it still doesn’t prove your point. Heterosexuals’ heterosexuality remains undiminished in the face of homosexuals’ acceptance.
<
p>Again, see my comments above. I don’t understand why you bother writing incoherent, illogical, and dyspepsic screeds on gay rights issues.
<
p>It certainly isn’t to win friends.
…we shouldn’t have worried about blacks not being able to marry whites in the past in other states it would seem. Now bring it forward; tax credits for films unless they show mixed race couples – because those are our state’s values?
<
p>If FL leaders want to define literally millions of Floridians out of what they want to call their ‘culture’, I don’t have any particular problem saying it’s wrong just because I don’t live there. It isn’t ‘right’ because its in FL and ‘wrong’ because its in MA.
But hasn’t this been done before?
They burned Beatles records and the Catholic Church banned book list included Gone with the Wind. And the Nazi book burnings… all fairly unsuccessful attempts at thought control.
though the bigoted one is the worst of the two.
… is that ‘gay’ and ‘family-friendly’ are mutually exclusive and are never appropriate for 5 year olds?
<
p>Lets find some kids that haven’t been brought up to be bigots and have them decide:
<
p>
A husband and a husband filming a young child in the bathroom. I wonder if the filmmaker of this piece applied for any Florida film tax credits.
Hat tip Salon:
<
p>