Prop 8: Media Ignores As Bigoted An Ad As You Will Ever See
Posted by Dirty Harry on Tuesday, November 4th, 2008
Remember, a vote for Prop 8 in California leaves same-sex couples protected by full marriage-equivalent civil unions. None of that matters. If you think marriage means a husband and wife you are just like a racist and you can be treated any way they want.
Apparently people who think they are the civil rights movement of the century do not think they have to behave with even minimal decency towards those of us who disagree with them.
These are not some outliers in the wacky blogosphere. These are the leaders of the gay marriage movement in America who made and ran this ad.
If there were a civil union initiative on today’s ballot to give gays and lesbians the same rights as married couples, I would just as eagerly vote for it as I will for Proposition 8. This is not an easy decision as I have gay and lesbian friends and family members, but the left never stops and won’t stop here. If I truly thought they would be satisfied with gay marriage I would be much more comfortable voting in favor of it. But the left won’t be satisfied until America is one big anything-goes Playboy Mansion and for that reason I am voting for a firewall with Prop 8.
Comment away, but keep in mind Dirty Harry is a friend to the gay man and won’t tolerate anything that might hurt people I care for, or anyone. Comments I tolerate reflect on me.
And this ain’t HuffPo or DailyKos.
Filed in General |
thudon 04 Nov 2008 at 9:06 am 1As you say DH..if it was just about marriage then it would be merely a matter of yes or no based on ones values…it is however the thin edge of the wedge to be used by those who would destroy all forms of what we have come to expect as decent behaviour.
Dark Edenon 04 Nov 2008 at 9:09 am 2You know I feel pretty much the same as you. I am the stereotypical ‘fiscal conservative’ who has pretty traditionally liberal views on social policies. I also am more and more troubled by the crazy things the Democrats want to do with social policy, much more so than I am with the Republicans trying to clamp down. The fact is our culture is under assault by a wider array of forces than it has ever been and maybe its because I’m getting older but I am starting to agree with Republican ’speed brakes’. You don’t need to be a radical fundamentalist to be troubled by what’s happening these days.
I will probably vote against Prop 8, but its not an easy decision. I really wish that the gay rights movement would go for civil unions first and have less of a scorched earth policy with people that disagreed with them. The whole ‘you either vote our way or you’re a dirty bigot’ thing makes me very tempted to vote against them.
Mashaon 04 Nov 2008 at 9:22 am 3I don’t understand what marriage gives them, legally, that civil union doesn’t. I think it’s just a matter of principle that they don’t want any differenciation between gay and straight couples, not even in terminology. Plus it’s a typical liberal way of just pushing and pushing until their agenda is taken to the furtherst possible extreme. Like with the whole Born Alive issue. Now don’t flip out on me anyone. I’m not comparing gay marriage to killing babies. I’m just making a point about going too far.
G-MANon 04 Nov 2008 at 9:23 am 4I’m a former democrat, but still believe whatever people decide to do in relationships is really their own decision. I think it’s a basic freedom that needs to be allowed.
Fiscally, there should be no burden on others…nor should there be for straight couples.
The ad is in very poor taste and judgement and reminds me of the female manequin dressed in a red suit on a noose. Oh. Maybe it’s art…..
soulpileon 04 Nov 2008 at 9:23 am 5This is similar to why I voted for my state’s version of Prop 8. Give me a vote on civil unions and I will vote yes.
My problem is that I know activist groups will use the government to persecute those who don’t agree with them if Prop 8 does not pass. It’s not about marriage, it’s about politics and that is not right.
By the way- when you vote today be aware:
I just heard this on the radio - this guy (the host of the show - I won’t reveal who ’cause it reveals my home state) was warning listeners that Obama’s people who registered voters have a master list of all the people they signed up and they’re going to be standing at the polls listening to people give their names to the poll workers. Using their cellphones, they will send those names back to a central database and near the end of the day, anyone who is on their list but hasn’t been recorded by the One’s minions as having voted will be contacted and driven to the polling places to vote. Big Brother in action.
Mashaon 04 Nov 2008 at 9:25 am 6I thought it was illegal to use cell phones at polling places? We have a big sign posted where we vote.
Oh, right. Cell phone is just a code word for black. Sorry.
Bibion 04 Nov 2008 at 9:30 am 7Isn’t it aggravating to be told that it’s conservatives that initiated the culture wars?
whiskeyon 04 Nov 2008 at 9:31 am 8I oppose Gay Marriage. In no place (Netherlands, Sweden, Canada) where it has been legal, has the outcome been good:
*Gay Marriage always leads to legalized polygamy — there is no legal justification for excluding polygamy when you allow Gay Marriage.
*As Mark Steyn notes, in Toronto, where Gay Marriage has been legal for 10 years, there have been around 200 takers, and about 2500 polygamous marriages
*Marriage rates are already low. Make marriage “gay” and almost no man will want to go through with it — it will have the appeal of a Broadway musical for straight men.
*The harm done to gays and lesbians, who are a tiny minority, by outlawing gay marriage is far outweighed by the benefit of keeping polygamy legal and encouraging straight marriage. It’s not as if the illegitimacy rate is not 41% already — as opposed to 4% in 1965!
Mashaon 04 Nov 2008 at 9:42 am 9I honestly don’t know. I think it may be better for society to have two men in some kind of union and taking responsibility for each other than to have two unattached men, or worse two gay men in two marriages to women with very likely adultery involved. Still don’t see why marriage vs. civil union other than liberals pushing the envelope.
Woody Tanakaon 04 Nov 2008 at 9:43 am 10Great and effective ad. As an allegory of this Prop, it is quite apt and captures what is really going on. Amusing is Maggie Gallagher’s dismay that the ad’s maker’s aren’t showing “proper respect”. Wow, imagine that, she wants to strip away their rights and imbed bigotry in the Constitution and she’s surprised they take it personally and fight back…
soulpileon 04 Nov 2008 at 9:46 am 11You know what?
Here’s the website of that radio show:
http://ktar.net/blogs/dankarlo/
I can’t get audio on my current computer, but it looks like he might have today’s show up on the site under the “shows” link. He posits that these people will be using Twitter from their phones, but more likely they’ll be directly text messaging back to their people. It’s more covert that way.
GeronimoRumplestiltskinon 04 Nov 2008 at 9:47 am 12The Mormon Church is taking over the government? News to me.
Kind of reminds me of some of the stuff said about Catholic Al Smith in his presidential bid in 1928. As major-party (Democrat) Catholic nominee, Smith was repeatedly asked to prove he was more loyal to America than to the pope. Critics used to claim that if Smith were elected, the pope would be “packing his bags” to come rule America. (Smith joked after his defeat that he had sent the pope a one-word telegram: “Unpack.”) Hoover was running on a platform of peace and prosperity, and Smith supported the repeal of Prohibition, which re-enforced the stereotype of the hard-drinking ethnic Catholic. Republicans sneeringly referred to him as “Alcoholic Smith,” told of drunken public behavior (In truth, Smith was a moderate drinker who enjoyed a cocktail in the evening from legal, pre-Prohibition stock), and claimed that he had already secretly promised to appoint a bootlegger as secretary of the treasury.
When Smith’s campaign train headed West, it was met by burning crosses on the hills and explosions from dynamite charges echoing across the prairies. Klansmen and other religious bigots swayed ignorant voters by telling them that the Catholic Smith, having supposedly sworn fealty to the pope, would turn the United States over to “Romanism and Ruin.” Protestant ministers told their congregations that if Smith became president, all non-Catholic marriages would be annulled and all children of these marriages declared illegitimate. Preachers even warned their congregations that if they voted for Al Smith, they would go straight to hell. At the time of the election, New York’s Holland Tunnel was just being completed. Republicans circulated pictures of Al Smith at the mouth of the tunnel, declaring that it really led 3,500 miles under the Atlantic Ocean to Rome—to the basement of the Vatican. In Daytona Beach, Florida, the school board instructed that a note be placed in every child’s lunch pail that read: “We must prevent the election of Alfred E. Smith to the presidency. If he is chosen president, you will not be allowed to read or have a bible.”
Smith lost the rural areas badly, even in half of the Democratic south, and got swamped nationally 58 to 41 percent. It was said that Smith was defeated by the “3P’s: Prejudice, Prohibition & Prosperity.”
These days, the Left has a very odd relationship with religion: it’s OK as long as you don’t let it interfere with your allegiance to any liberal position. Liberals tend to alternate between slandering religion and claiming to be religion’s true adherents. Their attitude toward those who practice and preach a more orthodox version of their faith (an increasing number of Catholic bishops and laity, Evangelicals, Mormons, Orthodox Jews, etc.) is derisive and vitriolic.
Lord deliver us from this type of vulgar display….
ChristopherMCon 04 Nov 2008 at 9:48 am 13Tough one for me too. I don’t like courts forcing changes to marriage, but I think gays should have *something*. But what that is, I really can’t say. I do think it’s good that gays are seeking committed, monogamous relationships.
Kyleon 04 Nov 2008 at 9:53 am 14This ad is again the distinction between thinking someone is wrong and evil. I think it also continues to blur the lines between what are rights, and what are priviliges. The constitution says we have the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That does not mean we are absolved of our responsibilities to take care of ourselves or our familys, it also does not mean that the minority gets to bully the majority.
I would say that the ability to practice a lifestyle without fear of reprecussion (vandalism, firings, physical abuse, mental abuse and government disposal) is different than government and society as a whole recognizing said lifestyle as legitimate. This is not hate, this is not oppresion. This is my saying that I cannot condone a person pursuing an actively gay lifestyle the same way I cannot condone a person committing infidelity within a marriage.
Rick Zon 04 Nov 2008 at 9:54 am 15As a libertarian-leaning (but increasingly conservative) Republican, in my ideal world there would be no such thing as civil marriages–only civil unions. Marriage is a sacrament to my mind, and the state should have no business defining it.
That being said, I voted (reluctantly) against Prop 8 for several reasons. First, while I find the very idea of court-imposed gay marriage repugnant, I can accept the judgement of the electorate. Secondly, I fail to grasp the argument that allowing gay marriage is somehow an attack on conventional unions, either collectively or individually. Finally, as the member of a religious minority myself, I find the very idea of the state defining the limits of a religious sacrament abhorant.
I can respect the views of those who feel otherwise, and I was outraged by the underlying court decision that triggered this initiative. I hope whatever the result, it doesn’t end up being overturned by a panel of judges.
Splashon 04 Nov 2008 at 9:54 am 16What Whiskey said.
Even in pagan Rome, where homosexuality was “accepted” in some respects, the institution of marriage was sacrosanct due to the negative implications for the fabric of the republic. What we see today in the drive to legitimize the absurdity some call “gay marriage” would be anathema to the “decadent” ancients.
The only good thing about it? Our own decadence is resulting in population decline in all the right places.
http://www.worldmag.com/articles/14582
And…”Comment away, but keep in mind Dirty Harry is a friend to the gay man…
Proving on this issue, again, Dirty Harry’s Place is really more “a right-of-centerish look at film, punk.”
Jake Was Hereon 04 Nov 2008 at 9:55 am 17I would be fine voting for civil unions, but that’s not what they want. They want MARRIAGE and they want it NOW… Well, the Left don’t have a perfect track record when it comes to such things as Strategy. This is just another case where they fail to understand that some battles are better fought by attrition than by frontal attack.
The academics obviously understand that, so why don’t the gay-rights activists?
Our state’s equivalent of Prop 8 wants to enshrine the accepted definition of marriage in the state constitution. I think that’s a little drastic, and I don’t know if I can vote for it — but I wouldn’t be surprised if it passes by a very narrow margin. We haven’t been entirely Californicated yet.
Tommy Von 04 Nov 2008 at 9:57 am 18I am a supporter of gay marriage or at the very least a complete legal equivalent…
But I am also a supporter of religious rights and oppose religious bigotry.
This ad really offends me.
Not to mention lesbians are rarely that hot.
PerfectTommyon 04 Nov 2008 at 10:05 am 19I’m not a Mormon, I’m an Evangelical Christian and obviously just as evil.
Let’s see…What rights should we steal next.
Certainly, pornography. We’ll go into your houses and take your smutty magazines and your DVDs and your computers.
And then we’ll take all your contraceptives.
And your cigarettes (oh, wait, liberals would like that. You can keep your cigarettes.)
And your chewing gum. We’ll break in and take that too.
Bwah-ha-ha-ha-hah!
ChristopherMCon 04 Nov 2008 at 10:06 am 20Not doing themselves any favors with crap like this. But like (some) minorities and (some) women, gays have been fooled into believing that leftism is the only way.
Splashon 04 Nov 2008 at 10:10 am 21That ad was seriously gay.
Ohio Wolverine Momon 04 Nov 2008 at 10:19 am 22This thread is seriously funny—thanks!
And Tommy V–my thoughts exactly on the cast.
I have gay friends as well; they were perfectly content in their long-term relationship—never blocked from each other’s hospital room, made each other their heir…..
“Slippery slope” sounds cliche, but as Hal Prince once told me, it’s a cliche because it’s true.
Splashon 04 Nov 2008 at 10:23 am 23Yeah, but gay divorces can be…messy.
http://roguewavelength.blogspot.com/2008/10/gay-marriage-ends-in-ultra-bloody.html
Growltigeron 04 Nov 2008 at 10:34 am 24Gay marriage was on the ballot in VA in 06. I went through the whole ballot and rechecked it before I cast my vote on this one. I truly was undecided until I actually pushed the button. (we have touch screens).
It was a toughie.
I’m in favor of gay civil unions and gay equal rights, but just as I was getting ready to vote to allow gay marriage in VA, the image of those two ditzes in SF in their white bride dresses carrying their stupid bouquets popped into my mind, and I voted against it.
I don’t think gay and lesbian voters realize just how much harm the SF crazies did your cause.
David A.on 04 Nov 2008 at 10:39 am 25I live in NYC, so I can’t vote on Prop 8, but I can say what the problems I had with gay marriage were. Incidentally, I grew up in Greenwich Village, which truth be told, gay marriage wasn’t a particularly important item on the agenda of most gays. I only started seeing the buttons and stickers around a few years ago.
Anyway….
The problem I have is basically what someone else said about marriage becoming the equivalent of a musical to a straight man. Like it or not, there is something inherent in heterosexuality that finds homosexuality not appealing.
The whole idea that some couple’s gay marriage doesn’t hurt my marriage or someone else’s is nonsense.
If someone gets divorced, one can say that doesn’t affect another marriage, but this is also wrong. It affects the other marriage because the option of getting a divorce becomes seen as much easier, as divorce itself becomes more common.
When you find that marriage is merely a contract, like gays seem to make it out to be in their arguments about the benefits of marriage (nary a word about the responsibilities), then there is likely to come a time when people come to think of it on this level.
And like it or not, homosexuality is not seen as something comparable to heterosexuality. There is great tolerance and acceptance of homosexuality, but that is not the same as feeling the same equanimity one might feel with heterosexuality, in general.
Because of this, marriage will be seen, on some level, as less special, even if it has been devalued for so long by other things, or perhaps especially because it has been devalued for so long..
It will be seen as less for the sake of children and such.
And there will be less marriage.
There are other reasons to oppose it, but I just wrote this one because I think it gets at a truth that is not quite PC, but is true.
Moon 04 Nov 2008 at 10:42 am 26Here’s the simplest, most straightforward commentary on this issue I have ever seen.
8 Is Not Hate
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MWY4OTAwYTBjMjYwMzk5Yjg5OWM4NjdmOWU5NjE5NmU=
Ohio Wolverine Momon 04 Nov 2008 at 10:43 am 27ButI want Brad and Angelina to get married before their 12th child is born, and they won’t marry until George and Matthew can…..s/o.
DJon 04 Nov 2008 at 11:00 am 28Actually, the real problem with the ad is that it’s completely unhinged. Without gay marriage lesbians won’t be able to exchange rings? Huh?
Gays can do anything they need to right now, with or without gay marriage, including have a religious ceremony with some of the wackier denominations. The only thing they can’t do is use the power of the state to strongarm other people into acknowledging those unions.
A truer ad would involve a family sitting down to dinner when the police arrive and arrest mum and dad for failing to show proper deference to their gay neighbours’ pretend ‘marriage’.
As to DH’s main point though: slippery slope? Oh yes!
http://tinyurl.com/6rnh53
Buck Turgidsonon 04 Nov 2008 at 11:05 am 29Hey, I have some gay friends too, including some lesbians. They sure don’t look like the gals in this ad.
The whole issue is absurd. Gay sodomy is not illegal and even when it was the ban was never enforced except for public occurrences, like park restrooms, etc. Gays are free to shack up, create trusts and draft wills to pass property however they please, whatever. They don’t need “marriage” to make them monogamous — unless they also want to eliminate the concept of no-fault divorce, which could conceivably make a difference. What they need for monogamy is simply will power. Where gay marriage is legal, few opt for it after a time. This is just a push to normalize deviance.
If gay marriage became the law of the land, for gays it would change nothing. For the rest of us, as already noted, it would mean a cheapening of the meaning of marriage (already cheapened through easy divorce) and an open door to straight polygamy, not an incentive to gay monogamy. And once the straights are polygymous, how loud a cry will we hear from gays about the need for marriage to make them monogamous? You’ll need a bionic ear to detect it.
Liz L.on 04 Nov 2008 at 11:16 am 30Wow about that ad, just wow. I thought with the smear tactics thrown at Romney this year, I was through being shocked at the vitriol thrown at people of the LDS faith; sadly I am proven wrong.
Woody Tanaka, using a specific religion and vilifying them in that way is not an “allegory,” it’s a smear. They might as well have given them white hoods to go along with their white shirts. (And they couldn’t make fake LDS name tags? Really? That’s like the most obvious part of the whole missionary uniform.) Of course opponents of prop 8 are allowed to fight back, and no one is saying otherwise; but demonizing the Mormon church like this does not elevate that message, it just shows the messengers to be as narrow-minded as they feel the supporters of prop 8 are.
As someone who is a devout mormon, but whose sister/best friend is a lesbian and left the church because of it, the issue of gay marriage had been like navigating a landmine. The church loves its members who are gay but is pro traditional marriage, so gays in the church can never marry; that is a tough thing for anyone to reconcile. And I’ve had my own issues with the church staying apolitical but supporting certain legislative amendments. But to create this false image/straw man of how the church would react of prop 8 were passed, and perhaps other religions as well, is just reprehensible. Implying in an ad that a religious menace would employ its members to terrorize and enact vigilante justice on those who believe differently, symbolic or not, is a despicable tactic. Plus a lot of people still don’t know what Mormons really believe or are like, and to prey on that naivete by presenting a false image of the church is slander. Doing so sets the religious/political discourse of our country way, way back.
I could go on and on, you get my point. Presenting reasons to vote no on prop 8, laudable. To present this ad as a reason to vote no, ridiculous.
Keiraon 04 Nov 2008 at 11:50 am 31Another Mormon reader here: My relatives in California have been asked to canvass and organize in support of Prop 8 (an extremely rare occurrence for members of our faith–we generally are asked to vote but rarely given council further) and the way our wards and stakes are set up makes this easier for our congregations to act together. So, I can see why we’re the biggest target there but individual Protestant and Catholic (and other) congregations are also involved.
My MIL has had her sign slashed. Other family members have been screamed at, etc.
My aunt is a practicing lesbian–not comfortable in the church obviously but I must have missed the family get together where we all decided to stone her to death. She and her partner live in Hawaii and have raised her kids (from previous hetero marriages) just fine (well, my cousins are freaks but they would have been anyway) without the official sanction of marriage. I’m okay with civil unions, et. al.
I like what Dennis Prager has to say on this subject. (A less hate-filled commentator I have yet to hear) Marriage is important and the more loosely it is defined the less meaning it has.
Mormons had to drop that whole polygamy thing in order to achieve Utah statehood.–If we managed to conform to government norms (not without a great deal of personal sacrifice, I add), is this not a similar case? I have compassion, I’m just not willing to legislate from that position.
The_Rickon 04 Nov 2008 at 11:50 am 32I have to agree with Liz L.
I am as vile and dirty a person as you can find on this Earth, but if we are going to respect people for their race, gender and sex habits, then we must also show respect to religion.
Hell, why not make an ad showing an obviously middle-eastern guy chopping off a lesbian’s head?
At least that would be more truthful.
Anymore, it’s the left that has become small minded, petty, and intolerant. exactly why I left academia and became conservative.
Mighty Skipon 04 Nov 2008 at 11:50 am 33I’m in agreement with the people here who mentioned that the state has no right define marriage, it is a sacrament and is defined by the church. The state should is responsible for contract laws between its citizens. I have no problem whatsoever with a gay couple having the rights normally associated with a man-woman marriage (financial decisions, health, taxes and so on).
However, people have a right to their own beliefs and marriage is not a civil right. It is no more right for gays for force people to accept their marriage then it is for straights to deny them their contract law rights.
The problem is the genie has already been let out of the bottle. Hardly anyone sees a difference between the contract law and the sacrament. You might say it’s a matter of semantics, but to many people it is not. And the refusal to recognize the rights of people who believe it is not I find unacceptable. Not just a disagreement, but as this ad demonstrates just the demonizing of those who hold their own beliefs. Sympathetic as I am to the cause of gays rights, I just can’t trust the leftist leadership of the movement and won’t pull the lever for them.
Maybe, hopefully, someone someday will argue from this conservative/libertarian point of view. I’m not holding my breath.
The Ugly Americanon 04 Nov 2008 at 11:59 am 34I don’t think they ran this ad on television…at least not on any of the major networks, or I’d have seen it.
Over on the LAist blog, they’ve been tossing up No on Prop 8 posts pretty much non-stop and anyone dare profess their support for Prop 8 is immediately branded as a “bigot” and their religious beliefs denigrated.
Personally, I find it detestable when my “community” compares our “struggle” to the civil rights movement. It’s an outright insult to compare homosexual marriage “rights” to digging little black girls out of a firebombed church. I don’t know why more blacks, like Samuel Jackson for instance, can even stomach these kinds of comparisons let alone agree to voiceover an ad for these people.
BTW, I just got back from my polling place and this conservative lesbian happily voted YES on Prop 8.
Civil Unions Yes, Marriage No.
Continuumon 04 Nov 2008 at 12:00 pm 35Utah is an example of the Mormon version of government by a theorcracy.
In Utah it’s either be a Mormon or forget about politics.
The Mormon church has given over $20 million dollars to pass this law, and yet they cry foul when this ad points out their involvement.
Sorry Mormons you can’t have it both ways. If you want to play in politics then expect to be treated like a politician.
The_Rickon 04 Nov 2008 at 12:15 pm 36Continuum,
“the Mormon Church”?
or Mormons have donated 20 million.
big difference.
BTW, how did Salt Lake City’s mayor get elected in this theocracy?
You know, the asshat mayor that flipped off President Bush when he visited?
Not a Mormon that one!!!
The_Rickon 04 Nov 2008 at 12:18 pm 37and yes, I am defending Mormons here.
I live in Mormon country, and employ several of them. and you know what? There is not a group of people in this country that are less deserving of criticism.
they may believe in some freaky sh_t, but they are honest, hard-working, and very respectful in my experience.
And, unlike other “Christians” they never miss work with the “brown bottle flu” and don’t indignantly demand smoke breaks.
As they said on South Park - if you don’t like that they are nice people, go Suck Balls.
PerfectTommyon 04 Nov 2008 at 12:22 pm 38Just got a robo call from Bill Clinton to vote no on 8. Amazing how running for office Clinton always said he was opposed to gay marriage. Biden in the debate that he and Obama were opposed to gay marriage, but Obama has been in the ads opposing prop 8.
You would almost think that Democrat politicians aren’t completely honest about this issue.
Keiraon 04 Nov 2008 at 12:41 pm 39“freaky sh_t” notwithstanding, thanks for the nice words The_Rick.
I think the point that we’re missing here is that this ad crosses the line. It is perfectly acceptable to disagree with your political opponents without making caricatures out of them (High-fiving missionaries gloating over the home invasion and oppression of lesbians would be well over that line). And, yes, I know this is all perfectly legal and protected by the First Amendment.
Dennis Prager is always saying that the right thinks that the left is wrong but that the left thinks of the right as evil. As with many issues, this is one about which rational people of conscience can disagree. I ask only that my motives are taken as honestly as those I attribute to the other side.
The Ugly Americanon 04 Nov 2008 at 12:55 pm 40Biden in the debate that he and Obama were opposed to gay marriage, but Obama has been in the ads opposing prop 8.
Yeah, I keep bringing that up with the No on Prop 8 supporters but their response is basically, “they don’t hate gays like conservatives” or some such nonsense.
But the big kicker for me was when Biden appeared on the Ellen show and said he and Obama don’t support gay marriage but people should vote No on Prop 8…..and DeGeneres reaches over, THANKS him and the audience applauds as they cut to commercial.
I was like, WTF just happened?
Woody Tanakaon 04 Nov 2008 at 1:22 pm 41Liz L , Mormons took it upon themselves to organize - as Mormons - to use the political process to strip rights from these people. That opened them up to criticism, caricature, and mockery - as Mormons. They are doing so in an attempt to give their religious views the force of law - even for people who see those views as wrong or stupid or evil. That is repugnant, not this ad.
Attmayon 04 Nov 2008 at 1:40 pm 42#28: You do realize that the passage of Prop 8 would interfere with those “wackier” churches’ rights to perform gay marriages?
If this proposition passes, I’ll destroy all my Osmonds CDs. Wait, I don’t own any.
Ohio Wolverine Momon 04 Nov 2008 at 1:52 pm 43“These people” were granted rights not guaranteed by the founding fathers in the Constitution, but by activist judges. The Mormons stood up for the ideals that were the basis on which this country was founded. And as is their right, as citizens of this country.
Not being a CA resident,I can’t vouch for the ads that accompanied this proposal, but I doubt there was one that quoted the Book of Mormon….or the Bible…the church goers already know what’s there, and the others don’t care.
Woody Tanakaon 04 Nov 2008 at 2:21 pm 44Ohio Wolverine Mom, Regardless of whether they quoted those books or what they thought they were standing up for, they pressed for this Prop. as Mormons. The fact that they are a religious group gives them no basis to demand or expect respect for those beliefs, especially when they are pressing for this bigoted Prop. “Were going to take from you something you deeply treasure, but don’t make fun of us. . . ” Is that what they expect? Shows them stupid if they do.
DJon 04 Nov 2008 at 2:25 pm 45@Attmay
What’s with that then? Are the LAPD Unlicensed Ceremony Squad going to burst through the doors should the Church of St Beefcake be holding a gay marriage ceremony? Gays - and wackadoodle churches - can hold marriage ceremonies till their eyes bleed. Also, solstice ceremonies, Easter ceremonies, Satanic rituals. They can even knight each other too, but it’s just that they can’t have people arrested for failing to call them ‘Sir Dorothy’.
johnmark7on 04 Nov 2008 at 2:33 pm 46Same sex attraction is a terrible affliction, just as pedophilia is, and both lead to degrading and depraved situations if such affliction is acted upon.
“The research shows that legalising same-sex marriage will increase prevalence of homosexuality, says a psychologist ”
“Extensive research from Sweden, Finland, Denmark, and the United States reveals that homosexuality is primarily environmentally induced. Specifically, social and/or family factors, as well as permissive environments which affirm homosexuality, play major environmental roles in the development of homosexual behavior.”
http://www.mercatornet.com/articles/view/permissive_laws_permissive_behaviour/
Twin studies show that homosexuality is neither genetic nor a matte of hormone levels in the womb.
There are more homosexuals in urban areas than rural:”For Danish men, the environmental factors associated with higher rates of homosexual marriage include an urban birthplace and an absent or unknown father. Significantly, there was a linear relationship between degree of urbanization of birthplace and whether a man chose homosexual or heterosexual marriage as an adult. In other words, the more urban a man’s birthplace, the more likely he was to marry a man, while the more rural a man’s birthplace, the more likely he was to marry a woman. ”
“For American men, the environmental factor most related to homosexual behavior was the degree of urbanization during the teenage years. Specifically, boys who lived in large urban centers between the ages of 14 and 16 were three to six times more likely to engage in homosexual behavior than were boys who lived in rural communities during those same ages.”
“Rather, the data find that human sexuality is malleable, and environmental experiences and influences can and do shape its expression. Moreover, these findings are supported by decades of anthropological and sociological evidence that reveal that rates of homosexual behavior fluctuate—sometimes greatly—with changes in the social, cultural, and legal climate. The more an environment affirms or encourages same-sex sexuality—whether an urban center or a university campus—the more homosexuality there will be in that setting. ”
Sexuality is not as fixed or determined as many insist.
Also, for those of faith, there is simply a matter of prayer and perseverance in overcoming the same sex attraction. Homosexuality really does come down to a choice. And to choose to practice it is evil. Just as choosing to practice sodomy in as a heterosexual is an evil and does harm to marriage or the unmarried.
MovieBobon 04 Nov 2008 at 2:38 pm 47“Some of my best friends?”
Seriously, now?
Okay, okay. I’m sure it’s sincere, but still…
The overtness of the slam on the Mormons is… uncalled for, at best, but it’s not like they AREN’T basically the primary motivation force behind Proposition 8. And, bad-taste though it may be, I can understand the impetus that went into using it: It’s not mere reactive-bigotry, it’s STRATEGY: “We’re not fighting against YOU, moderates-who-could-go-either-way, we’re fighting against a seperate, smaller, kinda-spooky mutual opponent!” It’s a red-meat ad, and probably does exactly what it needs to. Politics is dirty, dirty business.
“But the left won’t be satisfied until America is one big anything-goes Playboy Mansion and for that reason I am voting for a firewall with Prop 8.”
One of these days, someone’s gonna have to explain to me how that whole country-wide Playboy Mansion would be a BAD thing…
So, then… you’re position is to vote to do (a certain level of) definative and tangible harm to innocent people right now in order to possibly avert a theoretical later issue that MIGHT happen and that you MIGHT be against at some indeterminate point down the road?
And people say I’M cold
Rusty Jameson 04 Nov 2008 at 3:05 pm 48I don’t understand the anti-gay marriage angle at all. You’d have me believe y’all live in mortal fear of legislated polygamy. Talk about an obscure boogey-man.
It doesn’t even seem like your objections are based on anything more specific than a general feeling that liberals are bad.
Emilyon 04 Nov 2008 at 3:06 pm 49As a Mormon, I personally find this ad hilarious. Compared to smears I’ve personally faced because of my faith, this is just weak.
Oh, and Woody Tanaka, give it a rest, hm? It’s perfectly legal for my Church to give money or ask its members to vote for or against a proposition, okay? I don’t know if other churches have told their members to vote for Prop 8 or not. Can’t say I blame them if they didn’t though. They’d end up in an ad too.
Buck Turgidsonon 04 Nov 2008 at 3:07 pm 50Woody,
“Strip them of their rights?” In what way? Hell, even in this goofy ad, the eeevil Mormons leave the lesbians living together in their house, just as before. What right are they taking away? The “right” to force everyone else to recognize their union as the equivalent of June and Ward Cleaver? Give me a break.
And Mighty Skip et al — remarks like “the state has no right to define marriage” is unbridled lunacy. Of course it has that right. Just as it has the right to define ages of consent and outlaw bestiality — and, until Sandra Day O’Connor reversed herself, homosexual sodomy. Who and what you rub your genetalia on, when and how, has effects beyond just you. No man is an island. Give me liberty — but not chaos.
Buck Turgidsonon 04 Nov 2008 at 3:09 pm 51Rusty James’ obtuse post is further evidence that liberals simply need to be protected from themselves.
Danielon 04 Nov 2008 at 3:36 pm 52If Prop 8 does not pass, then what right does a church have to refuse to marry a gay couple?
If marriage is a “civil right” guaranteed by the State Constitution, then isn’t a church in violation of these rights if it refuses to conduct same-sex wedding ceremonies?
A Small Business was dragged before a Government Magistrate and forced to pay fines simply because it would not photograph a same-sex so-called marriage ceremony. What’s going to happen to churches that refuse to conduct same sex so-called wedding ceremonies?
Attmayon 04 Nov 2008 at 3:50 pm 53Ideally what would happen is the same thing that would happen to churches that refuse to perform interfaith marriages:
The couple would find someone else who would.
Penelope27on 04 Nov 2008 at 4:01 pm 54That ad is as obnoxious as those stupid “truth” advertisements.
What is worse, while those who would agree that the definition of a marriage is a union between one man and one woman, that somehow they are betraying their gay friends because they disagree with them, is sad.
I, too, have gay friends, and they are just that, my friends. Because I disagree with them on the “gay marriage”, does not lessen my commitment to them as a friend. Marriage and gay marriage are two separate definitions. The problem I have with gay marriage is that, in order for it to exist the way it is being proposed is to destroy the true meaning of marriage, and there in lies my real problem with it.
MovieBobon 04 Nov 2008 at 9:20 pm 55Daniel
“If Prop 8 does not pass, then what right does a church have to refuse to marry a gay couple?”
A church is a private group-organization. Therefore, it can refuse membership or benefits thereof to anyone for any reason it so chooses. The WORST that might happen is that churches may lose certain types of federal funding to various projects - something that, imo, makes logical and legal sense to begin with.
Mike Kriskeyon 04 Nov 2008 at 10:30 pm 56Live your life, be good, love who you will. God bless you.
A man and a man cannot marry. A woman and a woman cannot marry.
Now, you can force us to call you married. I’ll give you that.
But marriage predates religion and marriage predates government. We can’t change the meaning of the word on a whim. Actually, we can’t change the meaning at all.
Good luck to you folks, I wish you well.
Be happy. Be kind. Be joyful. Be good.
I’m sorry that you can’t be married. Don’t blame me. It is what it is.