GayPatriot

The Internet home for American gay conservatives.

Powered by Genesis

Could Proposition 8 Win?

October 8, 2008 by GayPatriotWest

After seeing the commercials on both sides of Proposition 8, I was certain the initiative would fail.  The “No” ad was, in my view, far superior, to the “Yes” ad.

Seeing the first polls since since the “Yes” side started running their ad, however, I realize I may have misjudged its effect.  The latest poll shows “likely California voters overall now favor passage of Proposition 8 by a five-point margin, 47 percent to 42 percent.“  And these polls tend to undercount initiative proponents.

I had long thought the California Supreme  Court decision mandating gay marriage would lead to a backlash.   People don’t like courts resolving such controversial issues.  But, I believed the advantage the initiative proponents had had was erased with the language in the voter guide.

Crude as is the “Yes” ad, it does dwells on the court decision, reminding voters that four judges overturned a popular initiative.  The ad also features “San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom proclaiming same-sex marriage is here to stay ‘whether you like it or not.’“  Perhaps, it was that Democrat’s language which swayed voters, reinforcing the sense that citizens didn’t have a say in this matters, that judges and mayors of large cities get to decide these things.

It seems the best strategy now would be to counter that.  Opponents of 8 must make clear that this initiative gives us the citizens of California a chance to weigh in.  Instead of saying it’s about preventing the state from taking away a “right,” they must point out the very initiative gives us citizens the choice to resolve these matters.  This would undercut the proposition’s proponents’ apparently effective use of Newsom’s words.

Now, if only we could find someone to put this in a 30-second television spot.

UPDATE:  As per ILC’s request in the comments, you can watch the “No” ad, here and the “Yes” one, here.

Filed Under: 2008 Elections, California politics, Gay Marriage

Comments

  1. Jen says

    October 8, 2008 at 11:35 am - October 8, 2008

    I think it is a sad day in California if this passes. I hope that people are just telling polling people what they think they want to hear and will vote in private a different way. One can only hope.

  2. OutliciousTV says

    October 8, 2008 at 12:11 pm - October 8, 2008

    I voted no on 8. However, I theorized how the judge’s decision to allow gay marriage has actually hurt the GLBT community more than helped. You can see this by looking at proposition 4, the parental notification for a minor’s abortion measure.

    Proposition 4 (a different number on different years) comes up on the ballot about every two years. Every time it fails, the backers just put it back up on the ballot.

    The same could happen for prop 8. When the voters defeat proposition 8, the crazy backers can just put it back on the ballot. Therefore, the GLBT community has to continuously fight for the right to marry. The way to stop this is to put GBLT marriage into the California Constitution but since gay marriage is already legal a ballot measure can not be approved. So basically our community has now been put in the position of always being on the defensive for something that is legal in California. This is why legislation by judiciary is so fundamentally wrong.

    As I said, I voted no but I know that this is unfortunately not the end.

  3. ILoveCapitalism says

    October 8, 2008 at 12:31 pm - October 8, 2008

    I think a lot will depend on the margin. If Prop 8 loses by 11 points or more, they can put it on the ballot again but it will be unlikely to ever pass and their efforts will grow progressively lamer. Same in reverse, if Prop 8 wins by 11 points or more.

    GPW – Since your post is about the two commercials, could you please post (or re-post) video links? Thanks.

  4. rusty says

    October 8, 2008 at 2:22 pm - October 8, 2008

    Mildred Loving, the woman involved in Loving v. Virginia, the 1967 Supreme Court case on interracial marriage, wrote a letter, supporting same-sex marriage.

    http://centerblue.org/2008/05/08/mildred-loving-on-gay-marriage/

    “My generation was bitterly divided over something that should have been so clear and right. The majority believed that what the judge said, that it was God’s plan to keep people apart, and that government should discriminate against people in love. But I have lived long enough now to see big changes. The older generation’s fears and prejudices have given way, and today’s young people realize that if someone loves someone they have a right to marry.”

    Loving continues:

    “I believe all Americans, no matter their race, no matter their sex, no matter their sexual orientation, should have that same freedom to marry. Government has no business imposing some people’s religious beliefs over others. Especially if it denies people’s civil rights.”

    With over an estimated 11000 gay marriages already in California, it won’t be long until gay marriage will come to pass as being ‘nothing special’. If 8 does pass, there are many people out there who will not let their committments be tossed aside. It may not happen in ‘08, ‘09 or even 10.

    But it will happen.

    The Mormons have taken on 8 in an attempt to clear their ‘name’ in light of the recent Mormon scandal.

  5. rightwingprof says

    October 8, 2008 at 4:34 pm - October 8, 2008

    Mormon scandal?

  6. Alexandra says

    October 8, 2008 at 5:02 pm - October 8, 2008

    I’m sorry, I’m really confused here. And PLEASE don’t take this as an attack…but how can you vote for a party that is mostly religiously based in it’s ideals and principals, and that fairly unanimously want gay marriage banned (and believe that homosexuality is a life choice) and then turn around and want Prop 8 NOT to pass?

    Can you give a little more info? I’d really appreciate it.

    Thanks!

  7. OutliciousTV says

    October 8, 2008 at 5:08 pm - October 8, 2008

    Alexandra, it seems everything you know about the Republican party you learned from everyone but Republicans. The Republican party is not a religious party but rather a party that believes that the government should not interfere in our everyday lives. There are a few loudmouth crazies that the media focuses on as the voice of the party; however, that would be like saying Michael Moore is the voice of the Democratic party.

    If you ask a libertarian like myself, both parties are actually very similar and full of crap-head do nothing politicians. Both are out to screw us, it’s just a matter of choice if you like it from the right or left.

  8. Leah says

    October 8, 2008 at 5:14 pm - October 8, 2008

    If prop 8 passes – it will be because of many Democratic voters. The Hispanic and Black communities may vote for entitlements and hand outs – but don’t expect them to vote for anything pro-gay.

    The Hispanics tend to be very conservative socially. And the Black community is not happy with all other groups trying to hang onto the coattails of civil rights.

    Yes, many Republicans will be voting for prop 8, but guess what, the Republicans are a minority in California. I know people like Alexandra will blame the Republicans – but honey – look to your own party for this one.

  9. Erik says

    October 8, 2008 at 5:15 pm - October 8, 2008

    I’ve seen the “No on 8” commercial before and don’t like it. I don’t think it’s effective. Which was fine, of course, when the polling numbers looked good. However, we should have a better picture when the Field Poll puts out its new numbers.

  10. Kit says

    October 8, 2008 at 5:55 pm - October 8, 2008

    So Gavin Newsome may have killed any hope for a “No on 8?”

  11. John says

    October 8, 2008 at 7:28 pm - October 8, 2008

    I’m tellin’ ya, they have a Plan B to have a victory for Prop 8 overturned in court as being a revision instead of an amendment. Because of the high court’s ruling they have a good case to do this, which only adds to why I think California has one of the most peculiar constitutions around. Amending your basic document by a mere majority vote? Puh-leeze, you deserve the chaos this brings. All in all though it would be far better for California and the nation as a whole if this were defeated at the ballot box.

  12. rusty says

    October 8, 2008 at 7:29 pm - October 8, 2008

    um, I think the scandal was about a compound, with um, some young women being forced into having sex, even marrying, even though they were under the age of consent. let’s see, the state even got envolved, and pulled the children from the families of the compound. YIKES.

    but yes the MOrmons are looking for a new spin. and like most Churches in America, aside from the mega churches, monies and tithes are down. Energizing current MOrmons by reclaiming the church’s ego through an ‘Act of saving others from the evil of hoMOsexuality’ has been the rallying cry. Don’t believe me, check in with some folk in any MOrman ward in or around Cali, Nevada, or the mother state UTAH.

    IT would be interesting to findout how much of the tithe for the ’cause’ is actually being skimmed off the top for each ward before it is sent off to the YES folk in CALI 8 and the Arizona Offices

  13. John says

    October 8, 2008 at 7:30 pm - October 8, 2008

    One more thing, if this does win at the polls I’m really interested to see by how much. I mean 8 years ago it was with something like 61%. If it wins by say 55%, that’s still a victory of sorts. Kinda gives one hope too regardless of what is done in the courts.

  14. John says

    October 8, 2008 at 7:32 pm - October 8, 2008

    Rusty – in fairness that was a splinter group that has no affliation with the LDS Church. You might as well blame the Catholic Church for the misdeeds of the plethora of tiny independent catholic groups.

  15. rusty says

    October 8, 2008 at 7:45 pm - October 8, 2008

    yes john it was a splinter group. but the fact is the whole church was tarnished. check in with MO about that. . .

  16. rusty says

    October 8, 2008 at 8:01 pm - October 8, 2008

    but in fairness, I admit, I am a recovering Catholic, who by the grace of God, has forgiven the Catholic CHurch for its many sins.

    but let’s see, fairness, I don’t blame all priest for the actions of a few, but would like to thold those in power who, new about the abusers, shuffled the abusers to different parishes, hoping things would go away.
    I am for holding them accountable.

    fairness: AIG executives, who walked away with wonderful earnings and yet now many retired and semi- retired folk are wondering about keeping their lives together.

    fairness: people like Peter the Evil, who goes to the Castro Street Fair, films folk enjoying the fair and then turns the video into hate propaganda, trying to Represent the whole GAY community.

    fairness: youth being taunted, brutalized, even murder, because they live their lives outside the gender box, and churches ciriticizing the only safe haven for some of youth, GSA’s, as SEX clubs.

  17. just me says

    October 8, 2008 at 8:32 pm - October 8, 2008

    I think the swing is itself is interesting-I just don’t see how either ad does all that much to sway that many to vote in favor of the proposition. But maybe I am just not seeing it.

    i do think in general people who might be neutrally supportive of gay marriage get uncomfortable when the courts start getting involved, and it is possible that maybe it is a court backlash and the ad highlighted it enough, but I am not seeing anything all that convincing in the “yes” ad.

    I also think that is wrong to blame the initiatives on republicans. I know back during the last big round of initiatives on gay marriage-either amendments or laws prohibiting or defining marriage there were a lot of voters that voted for Kerry then turned around and voted in favor of the definitions limiting marriage to heterosexual relationships.

  18. Mark J. Goluskin says

    October 9, 2008 at 12:05 am - October 9, 2008

    This would be a non-issue-if the California state supreme court did not get it wrong. One of the dissenting justices, a Gov. Benedict Arnold appointee, said it best. That because it was a California constitutional question, the people have to decide. And, she is in favor of same-sex marriage. My pro-yes on 8 position is simple. The courts should not be making such monumental decisions, especially by a narrow 4-3 vote. I think I have commented before, but if not here it is. I agree. California attutudes were changing and there were people being moved to the other side. If there was patience and education on the proponents of same-sex marriage part, I felt that within five years, the proponents could have put the issue to a vote of the people and it would have probably won. And, I would live with that. It is what the people would have wanted. This court decision sets that back probably another 10 years. And, Gavin Newsome is a lousy proponent for your cause. He is a charecture of himself.

  19. Vote NO says

    October 9, 2008 at 5:29 am - October 9, 2008

    Proposition 8 is a Constitutional Amendment. If it passes gay people will no longer be able to sue for marriage rights in California court.

    If Prop 8 passes it will embolden anti-gay bigots to repeal other gay-related laws and make new laws to limit gay people’s rights. Because of America’s tremendous influence it will affect every gay person on the planet. This vote is that important.

    Here is a leadership training video:
    http://tinyurl.com/436s4o

    Kate Kendell makes an important point in the video. Will you wake up on November 5th knowing you did everything you could to defeat Prop 8?

    Vote NO on Prop 8.
    Tell a friend. Speak out online. Donate.

    NO on Prop 8 —> http://tinyurl.com/6ddtf5

  20. Casey says

    October 9, 2008 at 3:34 pm - October 9, 2008

    Guys, I’m as concerned about courts going where they shouldn’t as anybody (though, having read the decision and studied the precedents, there really isn’t a principled way the CA court could have done otherwise once the case was brought before them), but there’s something that is getting overlooked here – Proposition 8 had collected enough signatures to be on the ballot BEFORE the ruling came down on May 15th. We would have been fighting this thing either way – so the question becomes, do we have a better chance now, after 11,000 thousand couples have married, to defend those rights, or would we have been better off trying to protect the abstract idea of gays someday marrying?

    Thus far, we have only once been able to defeat an amendment where same-sex marriage wasn’t happening, and that was on the argument that the amendment hurt straights. In Massachusetts, on the other hand, we saw a rapid movement by voters into opposition to amending the state constitution because they didn’t want to take something away from real, living, breathing people. Without that ruling, people would be voting against the abstract idea of “gay marriage” – with it, they’re voting against gay people. That makes a big difference, and might be the only thing that saves us this year.

  21. Non-partisan Miamian says

    October 9, 2008 at 3:44 pm - October 9, 2008

    How about outlawing civil marriage altogether? Delete the benefits across the board, especially the Social Security and Income Tax benefits.

    If marriage is given such a “sacred” status, does that not go against the separation of church and state? Should it not be relegated to the status of a curious, if antiquated rite, defined differently by different sects? How many wives did Obama’s dad have again?

    If 8 passes, the gay advocacy groups should redirect their efforts to removing the rights of married people across the board. I’m too old and too conservative for activism, but in the euphemistic words of Sarah Palin, “Dog gone it!!!”

    We’re going to be in SF in December for our marriage, whether it is civil or not. Although the priest says we can have the marriage ceremony, we’re opting for the Rite of Adelphopoiesis, or “Brother Joining”. If the judge is not permitted to perform the civil ceremony, his wife will still sing at the Brother Joining.

    We have been to the movies ONCE in the last 20 of our 25 years together and that was to see Brokeback Mountain. I saw it as a vote; a vote with a poll tax, but a vote nonetheless.

    I see flying off to California for this to be the same: a collosal poll tax. We should all stream to California and get married.

    Would the gentle people of the Left Coast stand for having their rights eroded, one at a time or en masse?

  22. Sean A says

    October 9, 2008 at 6:17 pm - October 9, 2008

    #19: “I’m as concerned about courts going where they shouldn’t as anybody (though, having read the decision and studied the precedents, there really isn’t a principled way the CA court could have done otherwise once the case was brought before them)…”

    Uh, sorry, NO. It would have been “principled” for the Court to have declined to hear the case. It would have been “principled” for the Court to resist it’s do-gooder urge to dive through flaming hoops to construct the fiction that heterosexual unions and homosexual unions are indistinguishable. It would have been “principled” for the Court to, just this once, pretty please, NOT flagrantly ignore the constitutional doctrine of the separation of powers.

    There were many “principled” things the Court could have done. Bending over backwards to reach the legally-defective decision they did (because it just FELT like the right thing to do) was NOT one of them.

    So, I’m going to have to disagree that you are “as concerned about courts going where they shouldn’t as anybody.” To call the decision a “principled” one suggests the opposite–that you’re not concerned AT ALL.

  23. American Elephant says

    October 9, 2008 at 10:08 pm - October 9, 2008

    Does CA elect their Justices or are they appointed?

  24. ILoveCapitalism says

    October 10, 2008 at 2:48 am - October 10, 2008

    I believe Prop 8 is going to win. As a gay marriage supporter, I say that with sadness. I believe it because I don’t think “No on 8” is running a good campaign.

    The initial “No on 8” ad is, as GPW has pointed out, a good one. And the “Yes on 8” ad, also linked by GPW, is exaggerated and fearful. However, the latter has sent some parts of the “No on 8” campaign, and its supporters, into conniptions. So I don’t think they’re going to make a good response and hence, I don’t think they’re going to win.

  25. ILoveCapitalism says

    October 10, 2008 at 2:54 am - October 10, 2008

    I mean: being in conniptions isn’t a good state to be in, if you want to develop effective counter-responses and run a winning campaign.

    Now here is my evidence for the “No on 8” conniptions. First, a close friend who is a “No on 8” supporter (like me) and usually a responsible, level-headed guy, came to me raving that the “Yes on 8” ad was all “lies”. That didn’t sound right to me. I reviewed the ad and for the record, here is my line-by-line analysis of its script.

    “Four judges ignored four million voters and imposed same-sex marriage on California.”
    – Slanted and one-sided, but referring to true facts. The voters spoke in 2000 with Prop 22, and SCOCA has overridden that.

    “It’s no longer about tolerance. Acceptance of gay marriage is now mandatory.”
    – Again, a slanted or one-sided way to refer to true facts. The whole point of a same-sex marriage license is to legally mandate recognition of the marriage in all circumstances where an opposite-sex marriage license would be recognized.

    “That changes a lot of things.”
    – Literally true, as you have found in your life.

    [such as] “People sued over personal beliefs.”
    – A fearful prediction. Possible basis: Someone with a personal belief against gay marriage may refuse to recognize a licensed same-sex marriage and thereby create a tort, for which they could and probably would be sued. That is, again, the point (or part of it) of having a State marriage license.

    “Churches could lose their tax exemption.”
    – Again, a prediction / expression of fear. Arguably it is overblown. To play devil’s advocate, I’ll try to think of a basis for it anyway. If a church refused to recognize the same-sex marriage of one of its employees, say, or if it engaged in political activities to overturn same-sex marriage, then arguably it could be subject to legal or administrative reprimands, ultimately costing its tax-exempt status.

    “Gay marriage taught in public schools.”
    – Note: No mention of kindergartners; it could mean high school kids. Again, it’s a slanted / fearful way to state something that is literally true: Public school students will now be “taught”, to one degree or another, the basic legal fact that California has gay marriage.

    “We don’t have to accept this.”
    – An appeal to voters.

    Conclusion: The ad doesn’t lie. It is just extremely opinionated – which I would expect. The solution for our side is to (1) keep pushing our viewpoint in a positive way, while (2) answering any rational fears and (3) ridiculing (with a light touch) our opponents’ irrational fears.

  26. ILoveCapitalism says

    October 10, 2008 at 2:59 am - October 10, 2008

    My friend dealt with this by basically telling me, he didn’t want to deal with it. Basically that he *knows* the “Yes on 8” ad is “deliberately false” and that is that. As a substitute for further discussion, he offered me this ad rebuttal piece produced by the No on 8 campaign:

    http://noonprop8.com/campaign_updates?id=0001

    If you read the piece: it’s passionate, but it knocks down a bunch of straw men. It claims the “Yes on 8” says a bunch of things that would be false, if the “Yes on 8” ad had said them – but that the “Yes on 8” ad didn’t say.

    In other words, the rebuttal piece demonstrates the falsity of points that it *wishes* the “Yes on 8” ad had made; not the points that the “Yes on 8” ad actually made. Based on that, I conclude that the “No on 8” campaign is not functioning rationally or dealing with reality, at this point. In layman’s terms: They’re having conniptions.

  27. ILoveCapitalism says

    October 10, 2008 at 3:06 am - October 10, 2008

    (and that is sad and unfortunate for gay marriage)

  28. GayPatriotWest says

    October 10, 2008 at 3:41 am - October 10, 2008

    ILC, the “No” on 8 response TV ad is lame, except for the tag, “Keep government out of our lives.”

    I may do a followup post to this one, noting that, offering my thoughts after reviewing the first “Yes” ad several times to try to figure out why it’s been effective. As has been my assumption.

  29. ILoveCapitalism says

    October 10, 2008 at 2:33 pm - October 10, 2008

    GPW, I just looked at the “No on 8” response ad, and you’re right, it is lame. Just like the “No on 8” Web response I linked, the response ad knocks down straw men. Here is the script:

    Their attacks have come before. And they always use the same scare tactics. This time, they want to eliminate rights. And they’re using liiiiies to persuade you.

    Prop 8 will not affect Church tax status – that’s a liiiiie! And it will not affect teaching in schools – another lie!

    It’s time to shut down the scare tactics. Keep government out of all of our lives. Don’t eliminate marriage for anyone. Vote No on Prop 8.”

    My thoughts:

    1) First section – Who the hell is “they”? The viewer is given no clue. The visuals make no connection with the gay marriage issue or with anti-gay slimeballs. Why didn’t they at least put in a Fred Phelps “God Hates Fags” type of visual, so the viewer would know what the hell the ad is complaining about?

    2) Second section – *Huh*? Why is this ad DEFENDING Prop 8?

    3) Third section – Ah, finally we learn the ad is about gay marriage and the point is to vote No on 8. Too little, too late. And the Reaganism in there (“keep government out of all our lives”) is nice, but beside the point: State-issued marriage licenses are a form of government interference in all our lives that shouldn’t go away, or that most people want.

    Long story short: I give No on 8’s initial ad an “A”… and I give this new ad an “F”.

  30. ILoveCapitalism says

    October 10, 2008 at 2:58 pm - October 10, 2008

    P.S. In their middle section, they should have said something more like this:

    Gay marriage has not affected Church tax status – that’s a liiiiie! And it will not affect teaching in schools – another lie!

    That would have been vastly more clear. Why didn’t they?

  31. Randall says

    November 2, 2008 at 12:38 am - November 2, 2008

    i just want to know what will happen if this DOES pass–either the court will have to annul 50,000 marriages orrrr theres a special club of married gay people. And if THAT happens, then the whole yes on 8 campaign is shot to shit, because the ‘sanctity’ is still ‘ruined’, gay marriage can ‘still be taught in schools’, all that. i dont know. Im voting no on 8 either way. Equality for all Americans. Land of the Free, not land of the free for some.

  32. Juan Jaasiel Rodriguez Ornelas says

    November 3, 2008 at 10:55 pm - November 3, 2008

    there is very deep issue here at hand in terms of marriage. This problem will in no way be solved in this election. The door for conflict has been blown wide open, and the issue will go on to weig more important things in our country.

    We must truly look at the responsibilities of the state, and its need to promote the well being of it’s systems ability to provide freedoms and liberties for its constituents and to avoid creating inconsistencies for them that leads to moral dilemnas.

    If we are to be true liberterians, and propose a state of anarchy, we must therefore not ask the state to consider our contracts, agreements, rhetoric etc. in its decision making process. For example, absolutely free trade and economy. However, because we request help (Welfare, police, defence, social security), recognition (race, profession, sexual orientation, business, sexual orientation, single or married), and action (money, punishments, reimbursements, domicile, visitation rights) from the system, and beg often for its interference for its constituents, we therefore grant it a power. And this is it: discernment.

    It must have the power to categorize. Who is poor, guilty, friend, enemy, retirement aged, hispanic, white, black, architect, school teacher, lawyer, president, soldier, pilot, gay, straight, neither, both, single, married, owed to, owes, guilty, not guilty, afflicted, afflicting, is in georgia, is in texas, is in california, related, unrelated, etc. This is key to our system of law. We give it this power because of the complexity it has due to our requests of it. No one is exempt in this request by virtue of living here. Therefore, we cannot claim infinite equality from the law.

    This is fine. It’s ok. Anyone against it or that says it is not true is simply not looking hard enough.

    Proposition 8 proponents, and anyone who comes against it, are fighting over a power of discernment of the law, and that is the relational status that the law categorizes two people as “marriage”. The category has already existed for a long time, and the law has helped, recognized, and acted on this category. And therefore it has interfered. Once again this is ok. Because we expect this of the government. And if we do not consider this fair, than that person does not belong here, and probably not in any other government.

    They are absolute anarchists.

    Now, this is the danger that our modern day is putting before our government: regulating on popular basis what the different categories are, and furthermore, what their individual responsibilities, benefits, demerits, restrictions and other qualities are.

    So, the marriage contract, homosexual relationships, heterosexual relationships, polygamist relationships, incest relationships, and others are all recognized by the law and assigned a status, legal or illegal. This too is ok. They are each individual categories. However, the marriage contract is a far more formal category. The real differences between the different relationships are all implied by the different titles we give them, however the differences occur in reality. They are obvious. And no one can deny them. Any straight person who would say that their relationship is the same as that as any other relationship, gay or plural and so on, and believes it, is in serious trouble.

    Now, this is the problem of not supporting a measure such as prop 8. You force the law to take two VERY different relationships, with very REAL differences, make it dishonor those differences, and force them into a category that will provide the EXACT same qualities to both relationships. We do not need the law to do this, because it is already done. It’s called a union.

    Furthermore, we are forcing the law to take a category, called a contract, and force it into one of our most fundamental categories: a Right. We are confusing it with a real right: the right to hold a contract. Therefore, we remove a serious right: the right to exclusivity in any contract. And we will take it to the supreme court to do this.

    All in the name of equality. This is perhaps the biggest challenges this country will face. Are we going to force the government to hand over its power of discernment to our will and whim. And then, force it to close its eyes to real differences because of the word of the day, Tolerance and Equality, in this case, and then make it act irrelevant of those differences.

    The psychological impact that this will have on the future of this nation is unknown and could not be calculated. Because we will begin the eroding of value and difference for the law, we may affect the very nature of this culture in the future. And in no good way, because we may begin to affect the categories of the general culture and social structure because of its interdependence of with government in a negative manner, for example the many court cases already being held as well as their rulings show this. This is not a direct attack human rights and decency, and neither are people calculating to do this great harm to our nation. It is simply our inability to see past the real issues, and handle them as required.

    That there are ways to protect different groups from discrimination and that we can, with the law, is true. And we should definitely have them in play. But granting the formal homosexual union the same as the formal heterosexual union is not the way. This will unnecessarily inhibit the rights of heterosexual union.

    We should avoid this precedent at all costs. Because it is a precedent for lying at the fundamental levels of the government, not just at decision making and bureaucratic levels.

    Forget the problems for the two groups for and against gay marriage, we are entering a discussion of this nation’s government’s future, it’s quality, and possible eventual demise.

    to say the least, picture ralph wiggum getting thrown through a glass window and saying: “I’m a brick”

Categories

Archives