ESMB has entered archive mode. All posts and threads that were available to the general public are still readable. The board is still searchable. 

Thank you all for your participation and readership over the last 12 years.

If you want to join in the conversation, please join the new ESMB Redux at

Met Gala Blind Item

Discussion in 'Tom Cruise/Katie Holmes' started by Lulu Belle, May 9, 2018.

  1. Lulu Belle

    Lulu Belle Moonbat

    Met Gala Divorce Obstacle


    [Blind Gossip] This well-known actress lives in New York. She has been at every Met Gala for the past few years. She loves this event!

    She was invited again this year. She made sure she did not have any scheduling conflicts for the night of the event.

    So… why wasn’t she there this year?

    We have the fascinating reason!

    She goes every year, but this year she legally was prohibited! There were some conditions she agreed to in her divorce from her husband in order to collect child support. One was that she could not publicly support any religion except his. Since the theme of the Met Ball this year had to do with Catholicism, she could not go without violating the agreement!

    She was really mad because she definitely wanted to go. She couldn’t stay in NYC and simply not show up without people asking questions. That trip she arranged at the last minute was just to pretend that she had another commitment. She’ll be there next year.

    It’s odd that he is still controlling her after the divorce, but she is doing what she has to do to keep those child support payments flowing.

    This is not about Blake Lively, who wore a gorgeous Versace dress and brought shoe designer Christian Louboutin as her date!

    Answer: Katie Holmes
    Pooks and Leland like this.
  2. dchoiceisalwaysrs

    dchoiceisalwaysrs Gold Meritorious Patron

    If this is true then we can see that Tom Cruise is treasonous against the 1st amendment. Not surprising to me at all.
    Leland likes this.
  3. Enthetan

    Enthetan Master of Disaster

    From what I was reading about the event, they weren't "supporting" Catholicism, they were mocking it. Either way, Scientology probably would have preferred not being even remotely associated with the event.
  4. pineapple

    pineapple Silver Meritorious Patron

    The event seems to have been both mockery and celebration. Article from NY Times, amusingly titled "Make Catholicism Weird Again." :)

    According to the article, Cardinal Timothy Dolan opened an accompanying museum exhibit and the Sistine Chapel Choir performed at the gala. So I can see how attending this could be construed as "supporting" a religion other than scn, if one was looking to make trouble.
  5. FoTi

    FoTi Crusader

    The COS is treasonous against the 1st amendment. TC is 100% Scientologist and wouldn't do anything contrary to the COS, or anything to hinder his "relationship" with the Degraded Midget.
  6. Clay Pigeon

    Clay Pigeon Gold Meritorious Patron


    The Constitution does allow groups to have their own bylaws.

    The Catholic Church can forbid it's parishioners from reading condemned books

    CoS can forbid banned books and install net nannies

    Then you get to what CoS does to silence critics...

    I take the charge of Treason very seriously and I'd be slow to pull the trigger on that one

    But Jesus!!!

    TC doesn't do his own public image any favors with that demand on Katie.
  7. pineapple

    pineapple Silver Meritorious Patron

    FYI, the Catholic Church no longer does this. The Index of Forbidden Books was abolished in 1966. More (probably more than you want to know, even) here:
  8. Clay Pigeon

    Clay Pigeon Gold Meritorious Patron

    I didn't know that

    Thank you.

    The decline of the RCC in America probably starts when they told Catholics not to buy Frank Sinatra records after he divorced his first wife
  9. pineapple

    pineapple Silver Meritorious Patron

    Jesus or Frank Sinatra -- wow, that IS a tough one. :eek:
  10. Bill

    Bill Gold Meritorious Patron

    This is a bit of a misunderstanding of the US Constitution. The Constitution does NOT "allow groups to have their own bylaws". The Constitution isn't about "allowing" things. What it does is define and create the US government and prescribe its duties and constraints.

    What the Constitution does do is recognize the basic "God-given" human rights and declares the the government shall not abridge those freedoms. (Not that that has stopped the government from doing just that - but that's another rant.)
    WhatWall likes this.
  11. Leland

    Leland Crusader

    If this was part of some divorce is kinda weird IMO.

    But, if it as stated, ties into a greater $ alimony payment ....then perhaps Katie’s legal team thought it best?

    Still weird.
  12. TexasLurker

    TexasLurker Patron

    Father knows best!
  13. pineapple

    pineapple Silver Meritorious Patron

    Frank Sinatra

    Good points
    1. Good singer
    2. At least one black friend
    3. Hot-looking daughter
    Bad points
    1. Doesn't like rock 'n' roll ("played by cretinous goons")
    2. Thinks "Something" is by Lennon/McCartney
    3. Not nice to fans ("Hands off the suit, creep.")

    Good points
    1. Really knows how to tell a story
    2. Will cut you a break if you screw up
    3. You'll never run out of booze
    Bad points
    1. Messiah complex
    2. Likes hookers to wash his feet
    3. You never know when he's going to show up
    Last edited: May 11, 2018