Prop 8 Opponents Need a Better Narrative
Our readers and yours truly are not the only people unhappy with the direction that “No on 8″ campaign has taken. I had considered giving them money despite their troubling slogan, “Equality for All.” I did want them to have more money to put up more ads like the first one they had produced.
Since seeing the second ad, however, I fear my contribution, in the words of commenter ILoveCapitalism, would be “downright counterproductive.”
Others, more liberal than we, agree. Last night, I went out to dinner with several friends from my synagogue, including a recently married lesbian couple, both Democrats. The elder wife agreed the second “No” ad didn’t do enough to counter the apparently successful first ad from the “Yes” folks. Indeed, she thought it as confusing.
What the “No” folks need is a better narrative. I thought they had that in the first ad. But, that won’t be enough now. We need a narrative to counter the points made in the “Yes” ads.
Whatever they do, they need an ad which is less diffuse and more focused than the current ad. Maybe have a narrator start by saying, “Supporters of Proposition 8 have have tried to scare you, claiming it’s needed to protect churches from losing their tax-exempt status. Well, they’re wrong.” Then, go on to say all its defeat would do would be to allow churches the freedom to choose whether or not to marry same-sex couples. It wouldn’t require them to do so.
My friend thought perhaps having a commercial featuring a rabbi and pastor saying something to that effect. Perhaps, I suggested, just have one prominent minister address the camera, saying simply that defeating the initiative would not lead to the parade of horribles its proponents suggest.
That’s the best I can come up with. I’m not exactly sure how effectively that would counter the “Yes” ads. Whatever they “No” folks do, they need to construct a narrative. Their latest ad is just plain confusing and won’t serve to change any minds.
Even if my idea is not an appropriate narrative for a 30-second spot, I do think it addresses themes which should resonate. Opponents need to focus on freedom and choice, making clear that should Proposition 8 fail, churches and synagogues will still enjoy the freedom to determine whom they can marry in their sanctuaries.
This proposition is about state recognition of civil marriages, not about defining the marital standards for religious institutions. Should the proposition lose, those institutions will remain free to set such standards according to the articles of their faith.
That is, private institutions still have a choice in how they define marriage. If some churches believe marriage should be between one man and one woman, the failure of the initiative will not prevent them from holding that view and acting accordingly.
46 Comments »
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI
You’ve got some funky grammar going on there so I’m guessing this is what you meant to type. If not, please correct me.
You don’t actually believe this do you, GPW? If so, could you please explain why the Catholic Church no longer runs adoption services in Massachusetts? Why a religious organization in NJ was sued, and lost, for not renting their facilities out for a gay civil-union ceremony? Or explain the cornucopia of actions taken against religious groups and persons in Canada and elsewhere by gay activists?
The truth is, where ever “marriage equality” has been approved, militant gay activists have used it to bludgeon religious freedoms and the freedom of speech in the courts, and there is every reason in the world to expect the same will happen in California. Indeed, it seems incredible to me to suggest it wouldnt.
Comment by American Elephant — October 11, 2008 @ 8:37 pm - October 11, 2008
Yeah, AE, I did have some funky grammar there. I too caught it soon after the post went up and have since fixed it.
Perhaps, I’m wrong on this then. I had thought the suits you mentioned were related to state non-discrimination laws.
By bringing those cases up, you do remind me how some gay activists have used gay marriage to undermine the freedom of others.
Comment by GayPatriotWest — October 11, 2008 @ 8:52 pm - October 11, 2008
I really think they are really blowing it with these “No on Prop 8″ commercials. People are simply tired of activist judges forcing them to follow some politically correct directive. They won’t allow this stuff to be shoved down their throats any more. I think the best attitude is humor. There is a great movie out right now called “An American Carol”. It pokes fun at our lifestyle but not in a hateful way. If we lighten up about some of these issues, I think people will tend to tolerate us more instead of activists wearing their lifestyle on their sleeves.
Comment by Ken — October 12, 2008 @ 5:12 am - October 12, 2008
You might want to read this, which I offer without comment.
Comment by rightwingprof — October 12, 2008 @ 6:00 am - October 12, 2008
As dire as the legal ramifications will be for those who oppose same gender marriage if prop 8 does not pass, the more important ramifications will be on the moral grounds. I am a very religious person. I understand that we are all God’s children and that we all should be treated as such, but when it comes to crimes against God’s law, there will be consequences. God has blessed and sanctified the union of one man and one woman only–nothing more and nothing less. I believe in “honoring, obeying, and sustaining the law,” but I don’t want to have to “honor, obey, and sustain” a law that goes directly contrary to my deep moral and religious beliefs. I believe that is the greatest issue that most people have. That is why the push to support proposition 8 is so important.
Comment by Thomas Gain — October 12, 2008 @ 12:25 pm - October 12, 2008
RWP, that was a powerful essay. I think both John and Robert recognize that when the chips are down - it won’t be the ‘gay community’ coming out to help them - it will be their families.
One thing that really sticks in my craw in the No on 8 campaign. The equality for all - marriage for everyone.
I’m always called an idiot when I mention the slippery slope. But if it’s all about love and that ‘marriage’ is a fundamental right - regardless of how you define it - then why shouldn’t the polygamists join in the fight in a few years.
I can just see all those Muslims coming forward with this law in CA and saying it talks about love and equality - so why are our century old traditions being denied??
I hate the negative turn the NO people are taking. It won’t win them any middle of the road supporters. But it will reinforce the victim mentality - which maybe is all they are going for.
Comment by Leah — October 12, 2008 @ 12:52 pm - October 12, 2008
#4: rightwingprof - that is an interesting article. My Catholic parents and conservative family are completely accepting of my partner. He and my mom are a hoot together and my dad likes to sit and talk genealogy with him. He’s is family. I am offended when my “community” goes out of its way to mock and offend my family. I am ashamed.
I confess ambivalence on Prop 8. I suspect I will vote “no” but I understand the “yes” arguments.
A lot of people are tired of having their beliefs and principles called racist-bigoted-sexist-homophobic. Yes, there are people who hold opinions based on unthinking bigotry but there are people who support/oppose various policies based on principles they’ve thought about and hold to.
The easiest example is the presidential race: I oppose Obama because he is too far to the left and I think “progressive” policies may be fatal to Western civilization (the one that allows us to live in freedom). The left says I oppose Obama simply because he’s black and I am a racists.
Once you tell me I’m wrong because I’m stupid or because I’m a racist, I stop listening.
There are a lot of reasons why allowing gays to marry is a good idea but the majority of people who can be convinced are the same ones who tune out as soon as the “Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence” show up to tell them that they’re superstitious boobs.
As AE points out in #1, people think (with some justification) that allowing the camel’s nose into the tent is just a start. For many, tolerance is a one-way street.
I noticed that a Boy Scout troop was selling popcorn at the store yesterday… so I think I’ll head over there today to buy some. I wonder what my community thinks of that.
Comment by SoCalRobert — October 12, 2008 @ 1:16 pm - October 12, 2008
The only pastors the campaign will find will be from the MCC. That won’t really help the cause. hehehe
Comment by OutliciousTV — October 12, 2008 @ 1:33 pm - October 12, 2008
I’m always called an idiot when I mention the slippery slope. But if it’s all about love and that ‘marriage’ is a fundamental right - regardless of how you define it - then why shouldn’t the polygamists join in the fight in a few years.
“Love” is a silly basis on which to demand “equality.” Some people can love multiple partners simultaneously. Some people fall in love with biological relatives. Some people are infatuated with people below the age of consent. If “love’ is the standard, than all of these people are being arbitrarily denied their “equality.”
I would posit that the question of “who is accorded the right to marriage” should be a question of benefit to society, and not on anything as capricious as human emotion.
I fear that giving out marital “rights” without marital responsibilities (commitment, monogamy) will be, and has been already, as disastrous as giving out mortgages without financial responsibilities.
Society decided about 50 years ago that divorce should be easy, that serial marriage was okay, and, more recently, that single motherhood was just fine, too. The results for society have been disastrous, maybe even catastrophic.
Instead of diluting marriage further, the more beneficial direction for society would be to make it more restrictive. Make divorce harder. Make the expectation of abstinence before and monogamy after part of the social contract.
If the straights were to do that, most gays would lose interest in marriage.
Comment by V the K — October 12, 2008 @ 1:54 pm - October 12, 2008
As a gay man, I have been basically ambivalant on Prop 8. However, a call I received yesterday from the “No on 8″ campaign has now swayed me to vote in favor of Prop 8. As SoCalRobert points out in comment #7, once you start telling me I am stupid or rascist because I question your ideas, I stop listening. After being told that I was a homophobe by this young man who called, I had to explain to him that as a gay man, he had convinced me to vote for Prop 8. (And even then he just didn’t get it.)
My most serious concern with gay marriage has always been the fact that it was shoved down our throats by judges. The advocates of gay marriage, if they ever hope to win, will have to make a convincing intellectual argument to the voter of this state. So far they have failed. When I see Gavin Newsom gloating that gay marriage is here, whether you like it or not, I am reminded only of the arrogance and increasing thuggery of the left in this country. I shudder to think what we will face should Obama win.
Comment by John in Dublin California — October 12, 2008 @ 3:19 pm - October 12, 2008
Right on @ John in Dublin
Comment by American Elephant — October 12, 2008 @ 5:45 pm - October 12, 2008
John, you hit at a point I’ve been talking about for years. The advocates don’t want to make the case for gay marriage. They do want to make the case that opponents of gay marriage are anti-gay, bigots, mean-spirited or a combination of all three.
Interesting American Elephant seconded your point because you both have raised two issues which make me somewhat sympathetic to the “Yes” folks. He in the first comment about the potential effect of the initiative’s failure. You about the tactics of the opponents.
I nearly burst a gasket when a friend of mine, a guy I like and repsect, called proponents of Prop. 8 “mean-spirited” as if he didn’t understand how people might feel about an unelected court overturning a popular initiative.
Comment by GayPatriotWest — October 12, 2008 @ 5:58 pm - October 12, 2008
John, you hit at a point I’ve been talking about for years. The advocates don’t want to make the case for gay marriage. They do want to make the case that opponents of gay marriage are anti-gay, bigots, mean-spirited or a combination of all three.
I think this is very true.
I think the reality is that the vast majority of people opposed to gay marriage are persuadable-the problem is that it is hard to keep an open mind if your honest concerns or fears are returned with charges of being a homophobic bigot. That immediately shuts down any possible dialogue and both groups head into their respective corners to continue the fight.
I admit I love reading Daniel’s posts on the issue of marriage-I think mostly because he gets what makes marriage a marriage and why it is important to me.
I think one issue that has been covered here so well is the idea that those in favor of gay marriage needed to make the case for why they want the institution, not just the bag of goodies that comes with government recognition.
I really think three weeks probably isn’t enough time, but I would like to see the No people make the case for why they want marriage that is outside the civil benefits-I want to hear why marriage is important to them as the institution, because I really think the fear isn’t so much based on the idea of gays getting married, but a fear that gays want to destroy the institution itself, and I can say outright that what makes my marriage important to me isn’t the tax breaks or the government recognition of the relationship, but what it means commitment wise to my husband and I and what our relationship means before they eyes of God.
Finding a pastor to reassure people of their fears may help, but I suspect a pastor would be viewed with suspicion, but having gays advocate exactly why the institution is important to them, and why they want to maintain the importance of what it represents would do more to persuade.
Basically back away from the cries of “It’s not fair” and try to state clearly, or as clearly as a TV or radio ad will allow, why the institution is important and why those who want it don’t want the institution harmed. I am just not sure three weeks is enough time to make this case, and stirring up fears among those who aren’t certain is going to make this argument tougher to make.
Comment by just me — October 12, 2008 @ 7:05 pm - October 12, 2008
Ding! Ding! Ding! Ding! Ding! We have a winner!
You’re absolutely right, GPW. They dont make the case for gay marriage because for the vast majority of gays, this whole argument has nothing to do with the marriage institution whatsoever and everything to do with their own psychosis and insecurities.
They don’t want marriage! (hardly anyone has actually availed themselves of it where it is legal) …they want a law that says “being gay is just as good as being straight”, with which they can bludgeon anyone who believes differently. Indeed, in the end, what they really want is to outlaw believing differently (as they have very nearly done in Canada where calling homosexuality sinful is illegal hate speech.)
With the exeption of the military and only the military, we have equality. We’ve had tolerance for some time, and for the most part we have acceptance. The entire gay agenda is now about forcing people and society to approve of homosexuality. Which is precisely why, in the end, it always boils down to religious freedom and the freedom of speech vs the gay agenda. Because the agenda is approval, both cannot peacefully coexist.
Comment by American Elephant — October 12, 2008 @ 10:13 pm - October 12, 2008
[...] is a woman who even before her election as Governor caused her state party’s chairman to resign from the Alaska Oil and Gas Commission and also ex…. As Governor, she held the line on spending and fought attempts by big oil companies attempts [...]
Pingback by GayPatriot » More Interest in Palin’s Peccadillos than Obama’s Record — October 13, 2008 @ 2:30 am - October 13, 2008
John, you have a great point about liberal arrogance and left-wing judges shoving SSM down the public’s throat, but the up or down vote on prop 8 is the public’s chance to have their say.
I have no personal stake in the passage or defeat of prop 8, I am straight so I can marry who I want. The question is, is it good for society to alter the institution of marriage to allow same sex couples to marry? I think it is good, or at least there is no down side that would lead me to vote to ban SSM.
Why left the arrogance of left-wing elites sway your decision?
Comment by Andrew — October 13, 2008 @ 3:48 am - October 13, 2008
Ban heterosexual marriage. I am not kidding.
Heteros don’t deserve it. They made a mockery of it with no-fault divorce and a blithe attitude towards single parenting.
Comment by Attmay — October 13, 2008 @ 6:35 am - October 13, 2008
Okay, I was kidding.
But using Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence as representative of theoretical gay marriages is like using Elizabeth Taylor as representative of “straight” marriages.
Comment by Attmay — October 13, 2008 @ 6:48 am - October 13, 2008
But using Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence as representative of theoretical gay marriages is like using Elizabeth Taylor as representative of “straight” marriages.
The only problem with this analogy is that while most straights would agree that Taylors’s track record on marriage sucks, they also know personally more than enough people who have been married 40, 50, and 60 years. They know what heterosexual marriage that is committed and respects the institution for being the institution looks like.
For a lot of people the face of gay activism on this issue is the in your face, sister’s of the perpetual indulgence type. It is the images shown during pride parades or Folsom Street Fair.
This is one reason why I think gays need to make the case for why they want the institution, and they want it for what it means, not because they want to destroy it. I think that is what the real fear is-that the only reason gays want the right to marry is so they can destroy the institution itself. And the institution has meaning for many het couples above and beyond government goodies. If the government didn’t recognize my marriage anymore, I wouldn’t be any less married or feel any less committed to my husband. It is the vows and what they mean that make marriage important, not the piece of paper that says we can file our tax returns jointly or make decision for each other with regard to medical care.
I really believe that the vast majority of people in favor of the amendment would be persuaded, if they understood that most gays who want to get married want to get married because of a desire to enhance the institution of marriage, but the in your face, if you aren’t with us, you are a bigoted homophobe accusations don’t do much to persuade and likely cause those who might be swayed to hunker down and support the amendment out of fear.
Comment by just me — October 13, 2008 @ 9:08 am - October 13, 2008
God has blessed and sanctified the union of one man and one woman only–nothing more and nothing less.
Thomas, how do you know this? You’re certainly free to believe this, but many people don’t. Of course, since this is probably the belief that your church has, your church should not be forced to marry persons of the same sex.
I believe in “honoring, obeying, and sustaining the law,” but I don’t want to have to “honor, obey, and sustain” a law that goes directly contrary to my deep moral and religious beliefs.
Fortunately, even if Prop 8 fails, you will not be forced to marry someone of the same sex.
Your beliefs may be contrary to the deep moral and religious beliefs of others. But that’s okay too.
“Love” is a silly basis on which to demand “equality.” Some people can love multiple partners simultaneously. Some people fall in love with biological relatives. Some people are infatuated with people below the age of consent. If “love’ is the standard, than all of these people are being arbitrarily denied their “equality.”
V the K, I agree somewhat with your point here. I don’t believe that marriage should involve one or both parties under age 18. And I certainly don’t buy the notion that an adult having sex with someone underage is somehow not as bad simply because, “well, they’re going to get married someday.”
The difference here is that in my opinion, and from what I understand is your opinion, is that we should not encourage relationships between adults and children, or relationships involving a person who is “committed” with two or more persons at the same time. As such, I would not favor marriage for these situations. On the other hand, I do believe that gay people should be encouraged to enter monogamous relationships with persons of the same sex. They should not be encouraged to be promiscuous, to enter relationships in which they cheat on their spouses, permission or not. And certainly they should not be encouraged to marry someone of the opposite sex. As such, I do favor same sex marriage.
Yes, I know it’s possible to have a committed relationship, even with children, and not have to be married. Kurt Russell/Goldie Hawn and Tim Robbins/Susan Sarandon come to mind. So I certainly wouldn’t impose marriage on those who don’t want it, and allow them to make whatever legal contracts they so choose.
Yes, simply granting same sex marriage, by itself, is not going to make someone monogamous. And I’ll agree with you that steps should be taken to make it an expectation for all married couples. However…
Instead of diluting marriage further, the more beneficial direction for society would be to make it more restrictive. Make divorce harder. Make the expectation of abstinence before and monogamy after part of the social contract.
This sounds good in theory, but I don’t think this will strengthen marriage. More people would marry younger than they do now, and lead more people to divorce, even if they have to jump through more hoops to do so. Or remain in a long, miserable marriage that could not have any benefit to those around them, and would not benefit society.
If the straights were to do that, most gays would lose interest in marriage.
If you’re right, and that were to happen, so be it. Leave marriage to those who are really serious about it. If it’s only 1% of gay couples, fine by me.
I have no personal stake in the passage or defeat of prop 8, I am straight so I can marry who I want.
Andrew, what’s interesting about this point, is that many of those who believe gay persons already have equality say so because we are free, just as straight people, to marry someone of the opposite sex. So, if Prop 8 passes, you would not be free to marry someone of the same sex. As if you would if Prop 8 failed. Some equality, right?
Anyway, I really did understand the point you made regarding your choice of whom to marry. And I also agree with the other points you made. It would be a shame if Prop 8 passes because of the ads from some of the “advocates” of No On 8.
Dan, I appreciate your concern about what has happened with the Prop on 8 campaign. And I agree it should focus more about how same sex marriage would benefit couples and society. But you have thought about this a long time. There are always going to be people who will look at marriage (opposite or same sex) differently than you. There will probably always going to be ads regarding marriage that you will not agree with. Why not vote regarding your own personal beliefs on marriage, and not what others are saying about it?
Comment by Pat — October 13, 2008 @ 9:26 am - October 13, 2008
On the other hand, I do believe that gay people should be encouraged to enter monogamous relationships with persons of the same sex.
Giving gay people marriage ‘rights’ and expecting them to become more committed and monogamous as a result sounds remarkably similar to the theory that people with bad credit should be given mortgages in the expectation that they would become financially responsible as a result. And we all know how well that worked out.
Comment by V the K — October 13, 2008 @ 9:51 am - October 13, 2008
Sorry, but that’s no change. It’s the ad / narrative they are currently running. “Don’t buy the liiiiiiies and scare tactics of the ‘Yes on 8′ campaign.”
Prop 8 is a referendum on gay marriage, whether we like it or not (Newsom - haha). Gay marriage is already the law in California, but because it was passed by the courts not the Legislature, it still hasn’t been ‘bought’ by most people outside the ultra-liberal Bay Area. So, the ‘narrative’ (I hate that term, it’s pretentious) that we need is one that shows people why gay marriage is good for society.
Not why gay marriage is good for gays (a ‘benefits’ narrative). Not why the rest of the world owes us (a ‘justice’ narrative). But showing why gay marriage is good for the rest of society. The first rule of sales is, you have to sell. You have to tell people the *positive* reasons why *they* should buy. Then you can go on to demonize your competitor, if you must.
A “Don’t buy the scare tactics of the ‘Yes on 8′ people” narrative puts the cart before the horse. It demonizes and alienates gay marriage skeptics, when we still haven’t accomplished the far more essential task of showing why gay marriage will be good for the rest of society.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — October 13, 2008 @ 11:24 am - October 13, 2008
I.e. it demonizes the voting majority. I mean, can’t we at least win over a majority of the skeptics first? And *then* paint the remaining minority as a fringe?
The “No on 8″ campaign is incompetent and, as I was quoted saying, counterproductive at this point. At this point, I give Prop 8 an 80-90% chance of passing.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — October 13, 2008 @ 11:28 am - October 13, 2008
The first rule of sales is, you have to sell. You have to tell people the *positive* reasons why *they* should buy. Then you can go on to demonize your competitor, if you must.
Right on, ILC.
Right now, what this election is about is giving people who dress up their children as sex slaves and take them to sex fairs, walk around naked, have public sex, rationalize promiscuity with “men are pigs, so it doesn’t mean anything”, and insist that doing so is a requirement of “pride” in your sexual orientation, the same legal setup as the couple across the street celebrating their 50th year together amid a bevy of relatives, children, and grandchildren.
And then insisting that people who disagree are nothing but “sick obsessive haters”.
Winning strategy, sure.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — October 13, 2008 @ 12:00 pm - October 13, 2008
Giving gay people marriage ‘rights’ and expecting them to become more committed and monogamous as a result sounds remarkably similar to the theory that people with bad credit should be given mortgages in the expectation that they would become financially responsible as a result. And we all know how well that worked out.
That’s right, it didn’t work out well, V the K. Sure, there is a similarity. But you’re not saying that we should NEVER give out mortgages to anybody because of all the bad loans that we have right now. Sure, a promiscuous person is a bad candidate for marriage, just as a person with bad credit is a bad candidate for a mortgage. For individuals, these persons have to change themselves, and accept the responsibility for their actions.
In the meantime, we need to start setting policies that encourage fiscal responsibility, or at the very least, not make questionable mortgages out there, for the next generation of borrowers. We also need to start encouraging monogamy for all persons. Not just teach our straight children that they should grow up as responsible adults (including sexually, with the goal of a monogamous marriage) and say sh&t on our gay children, let them figure things out for themselves, because “hey, I’m gay, and I figured it out.” Otherwise, why not throw everyone to the wolves, and let them figure it out for themselves. Sure, they’ll still be responsible for their actions as adults, but if you think marriage and promiscuity is a mess now, just wait if we tried that social experiment.
Comment by Pat — October 13, 2008 @ 1:49 pm - October 13, 2008
A “Don’t buy the scare tactics of the ‘Yes on 8′ people” narrative puts the cart before the horse. It demonizes and alienates gay marriage skeptics, when we still haven’t accomplished the far more essential task of showing why gay marriage will be good for the rest of society.
Good point, ILC, but at this point, both points need to be emphasized. There are going to be people who won’t have a strong opinion either way, but will side for giving rights to people, as long as it doesn’t infringe on their rights. So the message needs to get out there that people shouldn’t be swayed by scare tactics. But, the ad campaign should focus on how same sex marriage is a benefit to ALL.
Comment by Pat — October 13, 2008 @ 1:58 pm - October 13, 2008
We also need to start encouraging monogamy for all persons.
Why don’t we just do that FIRST, and then revisit the marriage issue later?
Comment by V the K — October 13, 2008 @ 2:19 pm - October 13, 2008
Think of defeating prop 8 as sticking it to the Islamists.
Comment by Andrew — October 13, 2008 @ 4:22 pm - October 13, 2008
You mean, even though it isn’t?
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — October 13, 2008 @ 4:53 pm - October 13, 2008
The Islamists not only oppose gay marriage but gay breathing. They’d be voting Yes on 8 while planning to blow up gay weddings.
The freak shows in the gay community, which includes the Folsom Street freaks and those who would treat marriage as trivially as many heterosexuals seem to, need to be ostracized by gays. You are to me what pimps, hoes and pushers are to many blacks. I’m sorry if that hurts anyone’s feelings, but that’s too f—ing bad. It is they who have held back the cause of gay rights and driven otherwise reasonable people into the arms of the opposition.
Comment by Attmay — October 13, 2008 @ 5:32 pm - October 13, 2008
May I ask a question that I am unlikely to get a civilized response to? If it were really only a teeny, tiny, itsy bitsy fraction of the gay community that supported and tolerated that kind of depravity, would there even be a Folsom Street Fair?
Comment by V the K — October 13, 2008 @ 6:12 pm - October 13, 2008
[...] put it in the comments to a recent post, opponents of the initiative need make the case “why gay marriage is good for the rest of society” because, after all, this is really a referendum on gay [...]
Pingback by GayPatriot » “Hate” Against Prop 8? — October 13, 2008 @ 8:39 pm - October 13, 2008
The Islamists not only oppose gay marriage but gay breathing. They’d be voting Yes on 8 while planning to blow up gay weddings
I did not mean to imply that a comparison between the Islamists and your average everyday American who opposes SSM, but I still think the fact that this kind of thing sticks in the craw of the Islamists.
Comment by Andrew — October 13, 2008 @ 8:55 pm - October 13, 2008
Why don’t we just do that FIRST, and then revisit the marriage issue later?
V the K, I guess you mean same sex marriage, and not all marriages. Anyway, that’s a possible approach. I just think it would be better for all if we take all the steps to normalize homosexual relationships, in the sense that they become no more of an issue than heterosexual relationships. Having same sex marriage is just one step. It’s not just about having a piece of paper (even though that piece of paper seems to be quite necessary for most heterosexual couples and their parents). Most of us here went through the mill, and no longer need government or anyone else’s approval for our relationships now. But it will be a big help when we get to the point where a gay child has the same confidence as a straight child in being accepted for what they are and the relationships they enter.
So perhaps most of America will need to wait. Wait until there is sufficient societal acceptance of gay folks. Until children are no longer are excoriated by their parents, other family members, peers, schools, and churches for being gay. In the meantime, yes, gay people have to get their act together as well.
May I ask a question that I am unlikely to get a civilized response to? If it were really only a teeny, tiny, itsy bitsy fraction of the gay community that supported and tolerated that kind of depravity, would there even be a Folsom Street Fair?
I’ll give it a shot. First of all, I’m not from California, and never been to FSF, so I don’t know exactly how bad it is. I think I know enough that children should not be allowed to enter the fair, and I don’t know what kind of parents would think of bringing their children there. Also, is the fair exclusively homosexual? Further, how much of the fair is that depraved and outwardly sexual? In other words, by simply attending this fair, does that mean that person automatically endorses the depravity that occurs there. Just like a lot of people attend Mardi Gras, but don’t partipate and do not necessarily condone the shenanigans that goes on there.
Comment by Pat — October 13, 2008 @ 8:56 pm - October 13, 2008
but I still think the fact that this kind of thing sticks in the craw of the Islamists.
Andrew, I don’t think it’s same sex marriage as much as it’s the fact that we are even allowed to debate and vote on this issue (and many other issues) sticks in the craw of Islamists.
Comment by Pat — October 13, 2008 @ 9:00 pm - October 13, 2008
ILoveCapitalism writes:
So, the ‘narrative’ that we need is one that shows people why gay marriage is good for society.
You are entirely correct.
Has anyone here done that? Or is ti simply the case that SSM isn’t “good for society”, and therefore they can’t make that case?
Because I’ve been following this for the last 8 - 10 years, and I’ve never seen anyone actually try to make that case. And until it’s made, I will be an opponent of SSM.
Comment by Greg Q — October 15, 2008 @ 7:47 pm - October 15, 2008
I’m saddened as I read many of these commentaries supporting Prop 8.
The issue is simple - inclusivity over exclusivity; Two committed adults - one simple ceremony of commitment. There’s no reason to exclude; there’s no reason to differentiate. There’s no reason to attempt to prevent two loving adults from unifying their relationship!
** If you do not believe in same-sex marriage; don’t marry anyone of the same-sex!
** Gay Marriage is not the biggest threat to marriage - Divorce is! If you want to “protect marriage” then you should be attempting to BAN DIVORCE!
** Polygamists don’t care about gay marriage and it will never affect what they do / want;
** Gays and Lesbians do not want to attend any church that doesn’t support their union;
** Gays and Lesbians aren’t attemping to shove gay marriage down anyone’s throat;
** Gay Marriage will NOT be taught in public schools;
** Priests are not subject to law suits for failing to marry gays / lesbians and Prop 8 does not address this.
Comment by Jeff Gagnon — October 17, 2008 @ 6:09 pm - October 17, 2008
Gay Marriage will NOT be taught in public schools
Well, let’s take a look here
For more, follow the link.
Comment by Greg Q — October 18, 2008 @ 2:50 am - October 18, 2008
Jeff Gagnon list a bunch of foolish nonsense, but he began with the following declaration:
>> The issue is simple - inclusivity over exclusivity; Two committed adults - one simple ceremony of commitment. There’s no reason to exclude; there’s no reason to differentiate. There’s no reason to attempt to prevent two loving adults from unifying their relationship!
* * *
First, would the marriage presumption of paternity apply to arrangements that lacked either husbands or wives?
Nope. Big difference there.
Second, if this marriage presumption is no longer something to which people consent when they marry, then, the relationship type, as recognized by the law, becomes nonsexual.
The boundaries that exclude some people are based on the core of the conjugal relationship type. That core is 1) sex integration, 2) responsible procreation, and 3) these combined as a coherent whole (a social institution). But “gay marriage” excludes and indeed rejects this core.
The marriage presumption and the man-woman criterion are definitive legal requirements and yet no one-sexed arrangement can meet these requirements. Whatever does nto fit the one-sexed arrangement must be an unacceptable difference — according to Jeff Gagnon’s declaration above. So these definitive legal requirements which are vigorously enforced must be dropped.
More than that, no differences are to be permitted, no one is to be excluded.
That means you’d abolish the distinguishing features of marriage and equate it with nonmarriage.
The category of nonmarital arrangements is far broader than just those which identify as gay or lesbian. And, as just discussed, the merger of the one-sexed idea and the marriage idea would gut marriage of its core. It would no longer be a sexualized type of relationship, at law.
So forget about excluding some related people due to concerns about responsible procreation and sex integration. Likewise with people who are already married. For starters, there is no equality of the sexes within an arrangement that likes one of the sexes. It is absurd to point to the use of “donors’ and “surrogates” for such practice is extramarital, even when married people partake. And such pointing does not counter the presumption of paternity that would still apply to polygamous unions. Nor even to procreative incestuous unions. Family diversity means not excluding families in need — families with commitment and love and so on.
SSM proponents need to justify the boundaries, if any, they’d maintain to exclude some people while including the one-sexed variation of nonmarriage.
Propositon 8 affirms the both-sexed nature of marriage, a social institution that is foundational of civil society. The government does not own civil society. Yet the gay identity politics of the SSM campaign seeks to impose the falsehood that government owns the people.
The truth is the People have a government, not the other way around. The gay identity filter is far too much like the racist identity filter that also segregated the sexes and also undermined responsible procreation.
Say no to identity politics being pressed into marriage law.
Say YES to propositon 8 and the affirmation of marriage’s special place in our culture, traditions, customs, and laws.
Comment by Chairm — October 18, 2008 @ 2:49 pm - October 18, 2008
Typo correction: that lacks one of the sexes.
Addition: the marriage presumption is based on the shared sexual behavior of husband and wife. it is a presumption of paternity, not maternity, and cannot apply to an all-female arrangement. It does not presume that a man can impregnate another man.
If an alternative presumption is to be consented to, by all unions of husband and wife as wella s those lacking either husbands or wives, then, it would not be based on shared sexual behavior. it would not be based on whatever sexual conduct might occur among an all-male or an all-female combination. It would remove from marraige the unity of motherhood and fatherhood, in the eys of the law and of the government.
What is so awful about the cor eof marriage that it must now be abolished? Try to explain without resort to gay identity politics and the axiom that to disagree with SSM is an act of bigotry or hatred. Be rational and avoid emotivism. Stick to the facts instead of doctrinaire talking points.
Does not society need to promote sex integration — (which is not merely a role in the haystack, btw) — and the integration of motherhood and fatherhood? if not, why not? If yes, then, how to do so if we gut the core of marriage that provides this?
Remember we are not talking about any and all kinds of procreation, but Responsible procreation, the first principle of which is that each of us, as part of a procreatieve duo, is responsible for the children we create, barring dire circumstances or tragedy. Are we going to do away with one of the strongest laws in our legal tradition? Why?
Comment by Chairm — October 18, 2008 @ 3:00 pm - October 18, 2008
First of all, this is some of the most intellectual talk about this prop I have seen yet online. I’m sure most of you on places like Youtube have seen automatic responses of “bigot,” “homophobe,” “Discrimination,” the list goes on and on. So I’m glad to see good conversation finally.
The original post by GPW and several other bloggers on here is an interesting take on this situation. What we forget as a state is that after Nov 4th passes, we have to unify these two groups of people the “Yes’ers” and the “No’ers”.
Take the presidential election for example. One party has concentrated on attacking the opposing candidate so much so that it is no longer about the issues. At the rallies supporters shout out about his opponent, “kill him” “he’s a terrorist” “I don’t trust blacks” “he’s muslim” “he’s an arab”. *i’m sure you can figure out which side this is =)
Once these phrases become a normal rebuttle; when the negative campaigning becomes the norm, not the exception, the voters on either side of the ticket get aggressive and biased. Compare this to this prop and the responses of “bigot” “nazi” “homophobe” “8 = hate” …things like this are similar. The negative takes over the whole point of the actual topic being voted on.
We forget that there will be life after Nov 4th, and whether or not Prop 8 passes or otherwise, we are going to need to unify this state together again. This will be even harder if the negative campaiging continues.
Like most Yes’ers, I am able to “love my neighbor as I would like to be loved” but that doesn’t mean I condone their sexual behavior. I agree for equal rights for gays, which I believe exists per the California Family Code 297-297.5 (google it.) But I also believe that traditional marriage should be upheld. I believe in a child having a nurturing mother, and a spirited father. I don’t promote hate, I don’t discriminate others, and I am not a homophobe, my gay friends can attest to that.
So thanks again for this post GPW. I think the negative tones of this campaigning on both sides needs to stop so that people can truly think about the issue and vote accordingly.
Comment by Ken P. — October 31, 2008 @ 3:45 pm - October 31, 2008
First off, I would like to thank everyone here for acting civil instead of the name calling, which is my first point after letting people know where I stand on politics and religion.
I would like to let everyone here know that I do not support either party. the 2 party system is designed to divide populations. As long as people are fighting each other, it is easy for politicians to have something to settle and build bigger government. So I am neither left, nor right, dem or repub.
Next, I have devoted the last 15 years of my life to following the person that is known as Jesus, I follow his teaching in a spirit of love as defined by the scriptures.
This post may look scattered at first, but bear with me and I will lay out the concerns of the religious, the political, the gay right’s activist and basically all concerned with many areas of this campaign.
The first point is the psycological tatics used by the “no” crowd on this prop. Name calling is something that is a basic of peer pressure, and the activating part is that someone does not want to be associated with being labeled as a bigot, hater, intolerant and the many other “titles” given to the ones who are against using the term “marriage”. This is a calculated campaign by social psychologist to get as many as possible to hop the fence because they do not want to be identified with these titles. Even the vote “yes” or “No” is reversed from past prop’s by the way it was written so that many would make the mistake when voted on.
The Bush Admin makes a great example with the agenda since we invaded a country that had nothing to do with 9-11 by insinuating that if you did not support the policy that you were either a terrorist, un-patriotic, or stupid, retarded, and a host of other names, and it worked like a charm until reality set in. So this tactic is setting up for another battle if this is won by the “no” crowd
It has been an obvious attack as far as the people who hold their religious teachings and traditions close to heart. Now, that being said, I know that God is pro choice (free will), and the religious community is out in left field if they were to try to oppose civil unions with full rights, but to call it “marriage” is a direct attack on the institution of marriage as it was founded and known for thousands of years. Now, to me it is “another” personal attack on me as a person, it is an attack on my religion and my Lord and his doctrine.
Now let’s look at the argument that it is a “right” for gay’s to be married and that it is “wrong” for us (yes crowd) to oppose it.
Let’s say a 15 year old want’s to be a Doctor, because he a high school dropout and does not have the required schooling he is denied a license, if he calls everyone haters, bigots and other names, should we cave in and allow him the license?
What about the girl scout that wants to be a boy scout? There are, and have always been things that are not possible because of the structure or laws of a land, people, religion ect.
There are already hundreds of lawsuits against churches for refusing to “Marry” gay couples. And this is a step the gay community has taken to gain equal access to the churches as equals and able to obtain salvation contrar6y to what the bible says. So it is an attempt to rewrite our core beliefs, and that is denying my rights that are directly protected by the Constitution of the United States of America.
As stated above in another comment, it is a hate crime to say gay marriage is wrong in Canada already, and punishable by criminal courts, and I for one, as millions of others do not want to be persecuted for our religious beliefs at anytime in a “free country”!
If you want to be part of the Church, conform to it’s rules. It is that simple, not change the rules to fit a few and destroy the many in the process.
The bible defines marriage as a holy union between a man and a woman, and the standard has been set for many thousands of years, not just 2 k years, it was just compiled 2 k years ago, and for the one asking Who Says, Go look it up yourself, study some biblical history and get the answer yourself. You just may learn why we oppose Gay marriage in the process.
Politicians love this issue because it causes a division and allows them to attempt to be the “Hero” to solve the issue, which is a fable also, Government has never solved problems, but rather generate crisis to justify their existence.
I pray that this issue can be settled in the right way, but seriously doubt it.
Comment by Jim — November 1, 2008 @ 11:54 pm - November 1, 2008
I wish you could ALL stand in my shoes….be born this way, and feel this discrimination. It’s sick, it hurts and it’s UNAMERICAN!!! Enjoy you’re privilege:) Thank you for fighting against mine…when it doesn’t even affect you.
Comment by Lara — November 5, 2008 @ 5:46 am - November 5, 2008
My thoughts on the passage of Prop. 8.
It doesn’t really undo “In Re:Marriage” nor, obviously, does it undo the California constitutional provisions that that decision rests on.
What it does do is - with the full force of constitutional law - set the legal contract of “marriage” in stone as only being between opposite sex partners.
But by the reasoning of the California Supreme Court, the Ca. Constitution protects the rights of all persons without reference to gender or gender orientation.
Without trying to write a full legal or philosophical defense, the only logical conclusion, in order to keep one part of the state constitution from contradicting another part of the constitution, is that what Prop. 8 has done is outlaw the legal contract known as “marriage” for everyone in California.
Someone needs to sue to stop anyone from getting married.
Comment by MIke — November 5, 2008 @ 4:41 pm - November 5, 2008
Prop 8, what a mess. The majority has spoken twice on this topic. This is a democracy and the people of our state have defined gay marriage as outside the scope of what is acceptable in this society. Is it discrimination? Of course it is! And had it not passed it would be discrimination in the other direction. Choosing 1 opinion over another is discrimination (see Webster’s). Equal rights apply within the framework of society bottom line. Anyone doesn’t like that is in the wrong country or state. Discrimination does not mean hate. We need to grow up people.
Comment by eric — November 7, 2008 @ 5:20 pm - November 7, 2008
The San Francisco Chronicle on their SFGate website provides a list of contributors pro and con Prop. 8. Don’t neglect to check “supports” or “opposes”.
http://www.sfgate.com/webdb/prop8/
Comment by Lee Henry — November 13, 2008 @ 3:44 am - November 13, 2008