Matrimonio tradicional

Ok, so at least it's not exploiting children because it's only a cartoon, but it does play heavily on the "husband watches sports, wife cooks" stereotype for no obvious reason.



I'm getting tired of this angle of "Oh, we completely respect you and aren't judging you, we just had the word first." Then why does that word have to be included in our legal code in the first place? Why demand rights from the government when you claim this is a religious practice? If all you care about is the definition of marriage, not the rights, then why do you bother with a marriage license? Why not opt for a domestic partnership? Isn't that exactly the same?

Sigh, I need blog goggles. I just want the next generation to grow up to an age that they can tell their parents' generation that they don't care how much private OR parochial school they hear it from, they still disagree with religious doctrine claiming same-sex acts are sins. Not all cultures have had this taboo. Hopefully we'll shed it eventually.

Comic relief

Parody of a Yes on 8 commercial:




(thanks for the link CT)

A refreshing dose of sarcasm:



Ban gay divorce instead (from 9in10dotorg's youtube)


Another from 9 in 10. More risqué, still funny



--------------
Sans humor

New No on 8 ad with Cali Superintendent of Schools



A slightly longer blog post from a straight guy defending his lesbian sister-in-law's right to marry. He draws parallels to the miscegenation/interracial marriage laws of the past, giving some historical details of which I'd been unaware. Very sweet message.




Same-sex couples ask really nicely for rights from the rest of the state's voters



-----------
Another Yes On 8 Blog:
First off, this Yes On 8 guy doesn't know the phrase "civil union."


Also, he apparently hasn't read my new health insurance application for coverage under a Cali health care provider:



Separate but what? Oh that's right, unequal.

Gaining ground

A recent telephone poll reports that 45% of respondents support the ban, 43% oppose it. Since the margin of error was 3%, that's pretty darn close to a tie.

LA Times update of total contributions after the weekend:
$26.9mill for the ban, $24.4million in opposition. The last update on Friday had $26-something to $23-something. Hooray for contribution matching!

Videos

Yes on 8 claiming that rights will be exactly the same under Cali law




The problem here is that even if the letter of the law does not state any exceptions that would confer certain rights to Cali married couples and not to domestic partners , evidence of separate-and-unequal treatment under the law of same-sex unions has shown the separate-but-equal approach to be insufficient. This is why justices in the Connecticut Supreme Court who recently decided that their state's civil unions were not producing a fair alternative for same-sex unions made this statement:

"Any married couple [reasonably] would feel that they had lost something precious and irreplaceable if the government were to tell them that they no longer were 'married' and instead were in a 'civil union.' The sense of being 'married' -- what this conveys to a couple and their community, and the security of having others clearly understand the fact of their marriage and all it signifies -- would be taken from them. These losses are part of what same sex couples are denied when government assigns them a 'civil union' status. If the tables were turned, very few heterosexuals would countenance being told that they could enter only civil unions and that marriage is reserved for lesbian and gay couples. Surely there is [a] constitutional injury when the majority imposes on the minority that which it would not accept for itself.''

------------
No On 8

Touching, supportive words from a variety of faith leaders


Short, simple, real people


Aside: The above ad reminds me of a 1995 Guinness ad aired in the UK, posted below. So cute!




Respect differences, don't change the constitution


I'm grateful for the support of persons of faith and all, but this clip feels a bit Big Brother


Fairly straightforward comment, perhaps alluding to the often-made observation that those who are the loudest opponents of anything gay tend to be self-hating, closeted gay people themselves. I'll try to find the scientific studies supporting this, but I mean, just look at John Paulk (chairman of Exodus International) getting caught at a gay bar OR Michael Johnston (founder of "National Coming Out of Homosexuality Day") having scandalous unproteced sex with men he met on the internet OR evangelical superstar preacher Ted Haggard soliciting gay sex and meth ...the list of overcompensating closet cases goes on at TruthWinsOut

Rays of hope

- Mormons against Prop 8 speak up within their church; last month ex-Mormon Bruce Bastian chipped in $1mill

-No On 8 fundraising is still behind, but $3mill have come in over the last 10 days (compared to $.4mill for Yes On 8) to help close the gap some. This was helped by contribution-matching donations by producer Steve Bing ($.5mill) and an earlier similar offers by Grey's Anatomy's TR Knight ($50,000) and Ohio entrepreneur Jonathan Lewis ($.5mill).

-A survey released from Asian American Californians find the Yes/No split to be 32%/57%. The article credits the framing of the matter as a civil rights issue.

-California's largest teacher's union gives $1mill for No On 8. I'm happy about the message of support it sends, but kinda surprised they'd spend their money like this.

-Google didn't give any money, but made a public statement in opposition to Prop 8.

Dan Savage asks you to bribe him

Internationally syndicated sex & relationship advice columnist Dan Savage - whose column, Savage Love, appears in Seattle's The Stranger - made a generous offer:

Well, dear readers, for two weeks—and two weeks only—you can get a guaranteed response from me. Just go to www.noonprop8.com, click "Donate Now," and do your part to help preserve marriage equality in California. On the left-hand side of the donation page, there's a spot where you can indicate that you're making your donation in someone's honor. Type in "Savage Love," put my e-mail address— mail@savagelove.net—in the space provided, and then send me your question in another e-mail along with the e-mail confirmation that No on Prop. 8 sent you after your donation cleared. The six biggest Savage Love donors get their letters in the October 16 and 23 installments of Savage Love. Everyone who makes a donation of $25 or more by October 16 gets a personal reply to their question from yours truly. The cutoff dates for donations that qualify for a letter in the column are October 9 for the October 16 column and October 16 for the October 23 column.

So you have until TODAY to get your questions and proof of donation in to Dan Savage and get the answers you've long awaited.

Why this is still a Federal Issue

Both presidential candidates have been shying away from the issue. The safe response for anyone running for national office tend to be "I'm not for redefining marriage. I think this should be left to the states to decide."

Here's the problem:
States confer about 400 rights/responsibilities to a couple when a marriage occurs. The other 1,139 rights/responsibilities can only be granted on a Federal level. These rights include immigration for bi-national couples, social security for surviving spouses, and protection from testifying against a spouse in Federal court. So even the couples married in California, Massachusetts, or soon Connecticut still only get about 26% of the rights that both my parents (married many years) and 24-hour-marriage Vegas couples enjoy. So yes, I'm grateful to these 3 states, but the playing field isn't level yet.

source: Religious Tolerance. Org

Videos and more videos

I'll try to keep this updated as more videos come out, but here are a bunch of the ones I've come across that deal with Proposition 8. Why videos? Because videos capture our collective short attention spans. Both sides are running their commercials (the Yes On 8 more frequently because they have more money), landing the issue in Californian's living rooms. Not all of these are commercials, some are just projects thrown up onto YouTube and Facebook. Enjoy and be entertained!



First, the No On 8:

The following four, produced by HomoTracker are intended to be Mac-vs-PC-esque




"Yes on 8" hits on the Cali Constitution


Hetero couples still ok, despite several months of same-sex marriage in Cali


Bi comedian Margaret Cho explains ballots


--------------------
This one focuses on people with two moms or two dads who want equal treatment under the law for their families


--------------------
The official No On 8 website's videos, courtesy of the No On 8 YouTube channel

The first to hit the Cali airwaves. A happily married hetero couple named the Thorons with 3 kids, one of whom they identify as their gay daughter, who want their kids to all have the same rights.


The second, I'm not sure if it's on TV yet/still, but it may be. It refutes some of the Yes On 8 ads, to be listed below


The third and most recent ad for tv, quoting newspapers



Ellen's plea to keep her current rights afforded by her recent legal marriage


Young voters appeal to young voters



There are some more slightly off-topic videos on the website/channel if you want to see more
-----------
A YouTuber/s took it upon himself/herself/themselves to counter the Yes On 8 commercials being aired



Another refuting that same ad:


And against their other ad




The No On 8'ers have been trying to get these false ads discontinued. Read more here about distorted truths and how Pepperdine University has made it very clear that they do not want to be associated with Yes On 8.

-------------
The Republicans Against 8 (including Governor Schwartzengger) make their own ad

------------
The final message is No On 8, the rest of the video is just hilarious entertainment


Fantastic satire #1


Fantastic satire #2

--------------
Love Honor Cherish has a bunch of first-person testimonies

LoveHonorCherish's Token awesome Jewish mother








--------------
--------------
And now the Yes On 8 stuff.


I will weep for this child one day because she will likely end up with gay friends, siblings, children, or -heaven forbid- maybe even figure out that she prefers the ladies (or even both the men and the ladies) herself. Indoctrinated, internalized homophobia is no fun, guys.



Here's what's on the airwaves:


Again, I will weep for this child. At least she gets to get the role of Open Minded Child


More cries of "Protect the children!" while using kids too young to understand that they're being used as part of a political campaign, much less voice an opinion on the matter


This video shows old line of thought that goes, "If gays can get married, next we'll have polygamous marriages, incestuous marriages, and pedophilic marriages!" A. the Mormons already tried polygamy and were persecuted for it, yet now they're financing Yes On 8, B. I'm fairly sure that this taboo is ingrained enough in our social fabric that it doesn't even have an interest group, but I'm no expert, C. Look, no one is supporting anything that is not between consenting adults. Take out "consenting" or "adults" and then people start to get hurt.


Dear Newt Gingrich: You claim that "our courts have an important role to play in our government, but it is not their role to define American values." What about the values of gay Americans? Don't they get values, too? If you truly believe that marriage is inseparable from "values," and that government should butt out of values, then shouldn't we get rid of marriage rights for everyone and just give marriage back to the churches? Oh wait, it's more important to scare people with the idea of judges becoming dictators and ruining society for EVERYONE (minus gays, friends of gays, children of gays, residents who have changed their minds since 2000, and any other minority that has ever been protected from the opinion of the majority under the law).

The Knights of Columbus' money

For all you unfamiliar with this Catholic organization, let me introduce the Knights of Columbus. From their website, you can see parts of their mission statement put thus:

The Knights was formed to render financial aid to members and their families. Mutual aid and assistance are offered to sick, disabled and needy members and their families. Social and intellectual fellowship is promoted among members and their families through educational, charitable, religious, social welfare, war relief and public relief works.

In general, their reputation as a charitable organization which helps people in need is well-regarded, at least in the eyes of the Catholics I grew up with and around. And yet, their headquarters in Connecticut is reported to have contributed over $1.2 MILLION to Yes-On-8. Depending on how you define contributers (for instance, the Mormon church can't lay claim to individual parishoner's donations which were estimated to have totaled $6.4 mill by Sept 24th), this makes the Knights' donation currently the single largest contribution of Prop 8's life. So Catholics, if you've donated to the Knights in the past, or if your collection at mass sometimes gets contributes to this group, please hold them accountable for what they have chosen to do with your money.

To see statements made by reps of the Knights about $1mill of their donation, go here.

"Preserving marriage as the indispensable institution in which children are conceived, born and raised to adulthood by a loving father and mother is vital to a healthy society."
-Knights spokesperson Patrick Korten

Sources: Washblade Sept 19th lists $1.25 mill; Washblade Sept 24th "nearly $1.3mill"; Washblade Oct 7th $1.2 mill; on October 9th, Hartford Courant explained that $.25 million was donated in February, while the other $1 million came in August.

What kind of misplaced priorities are these? There are a lot of people that could be fed, clothed, and vaccinated with 1.2 MILLION DOLLARS.

Catholics, please. You can do better than to have your money irresponsibly involved in secular matters. The Catholic church and other religious institutions are entitled to continue to define their sacrament however they like, preserving the separation of church and state. Please hold your leaders accountable and contact the Knights here.