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”

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?

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”.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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

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.

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.