ACTION ALERT: Tell the Right-Wing Consultants NO to Prop 8!

This just came to me over the transom (consider this a reminder after last week’s Prop 8 update). Let’s get out & tell these extreme-right nutjobs that we won’t allow discrimination to be written into our Constitution! Let’s show them what real people power is made of. Be here tomorrow from 5:30 pm – 8:30 pm if you want to show Schubert-Flint how unpopular discrimination is… Even here in OC! :-)

  56 comments for “ACTION ALERT: Tell the Right-Wing Consultants NO to Prop 8!

  1. Jubal
    August 13, 2008 at 4:46 pm

    Wow, will jackboots be handed out, or do protesters have to bring their own?

  2. Republican Dementia
    August 13, 2008 at 5:58 pm

    Wow, will jackboots be handed out, or do protesters have to bring their own?.

    We’ve been assured that Schubert Flint has all of the authoritarian paraphernalia you might ever need.

  3. August 13, 2008 at 6:36 pm

    Actually, Jubal, we’ll be handing out rainbow paraphernalia to our sandal-clad ‘thugs’.

    If you want to see real jackbooted demonstrators, you should check out the demo that Prop 8’s lead spokeswoman, Jennifer Kerns, organized in Costa Mesa 5 years ago:

    http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/8/3/115050/5336/684/561735

    You’re the guys bringing the scary, not us.

    Oh, and just to make it easier for folks to find, here’s a direct link to that flyer in a PDF 8.5 x 11 print format:

    http://www.echols.info/SF-Irvine-Aug-14-Flyer.pdf

    And kudos to TheLiberalOC for helping to promulgate this alert. You rock!

  4. August 13, 2008 at 9:12 pm

    UPDATE: The local tel contact for this action is Vern Nelson at 714-235-VERN

  5. August 14, 2008 at 8:40 am

    Since you guys are in love with these kind of street tactics, why don’t Vern annd Andrew post their home addresses, and welcome pro-Prop. 8 protesters to march outside their homes — or their places of work — calling on them to cease their support for government re-definition of marriage by judicial diktat?

  6. August 14, 2008 at 8:52 am

    Chino Blanco:

    You’re comparing an OCYR demonstration in support of our invasion of Iraq, at a public intersection, with yesterday’s left-wing attempt to disrupt a private company’s open house for a new office? Simply because you lefties don’t like one of their clients?

    Clearly, moral eqivalence continues to infect left-wing thinking.

  7. August 14, 2008 at 9:46 am

    Hey, Jubal, posting the announcement about the Schubert Flint Open House over at Red County was truly a brilliant move on your part.

    You rock!

  8. August 14, 2008 at 9:50 am

    Jubal – you’re confused. We’re not the ones who go to private homes to threaten and intimidate the families of those we disagree with.

    In case you haven’t been paying attention – the extreme right-wingers are the people who do that. How many families and children of doctors who have chosen to perform abortions for the sake of the individual woman’s well-being have been victimized by just such actions?

  9. August 14, 2008 at 12:06 pm

    yesterday’s left-wing attempt to disrupt a private company’s open house for a new office

    Catch that guys? Clever. Like the local Republican parties in ’04 (I think) that put out leaflets throughout black neighborhoods urging them to come out and vote on Wednesday (a day late)

    The event is today.

    I’ll give you my home address, Jubal, if you promise that you and that skinny friend of yours will march around in front with anti-marriage signs. That would be hilarious! I’d pull out my lawnchairs and watch.

    government re-definition of marriage by judicial diktat

    NOT. Of course. But how many times do you have to explain our Constitutional system of government to Jubal before you give up? He doesn’t care. He and his friends actually think they have a winning issue here, which is what makes this so hilarious, and fun.

    See you at 5:30. (And don’t fret, we’re all very nice. We just disagree.)

  10. August 14, 2008 at 12:28 pm

    Chino Blanco:

    Hey, thanks for completely dodging the point of my comment!

    SFPA asked me to post their open house announcement, as have other organizations in the past.

    But it’s never resulted in a left-wing mob organizing to disrupt an ordinary business event.

    Vern:

    There nay come a day when lefties like you can actually distinguish between a private business event and campaigns, between the political and non-political. Unfortunately, the Left believes everything is political, and hence political action is always justified in every case…at least when it comes to people and causes they oppose.

    And Vern, I didn’t ask you to send me your address. I asked you and Andrew to POST your home and business addresses for all to see. If you think this kind of activity is democracy in action, then be willing to put yourselves in its path.

  11. August 14, 2008 at 12:50 pm

    What was your point, Jubal? I’ve never posted Jeff and Wendy’s residential address online and I’d never go there. That’d be sick.

    Sheesh, you’re a puddle of tears today, aren’t you? Man up, my friend.

  12. August 14, 2008 at 1:33 pm

    What was your point, Jubal?

    If you’re able, scroll up and read my comment.

    I’ve never posted Jeff and Wendy’s residential address online and I’d never go there.

    Yes, but you’ve obviously researched it annd his wife’s name, and are none too subtly sending a message. Have you dug up his kids’ names, as well, Chino?

    No tears, Chino. Mine aren’t worth shedding over a petty little cyber-thug like you.

  13. August 14, 2008 at 2:21 pm

    I’m no thug, Jubal. I’m just tired of bullies like you and Jeff. You wanna back your friend in his campaign to relegate my gay friends to second-class citizenship? Go ahead. But don’t come whining to me when I push back. That’s why Prop 8 is so f*cked up. What would you do if it was your friends or family getting their civil rights abridged by an operator like Jeff Flint? You wouldn’t stand for it, would you?

    Damn I wish I could be in Irvine today.

  14. d'Anconia
    August 14, 2008 at 3:35 pm

    Chino-

    “You wanna back your friend in his campaign to relegate my gay friends to second-class citizenship?”

    “What would you do if it was your friends or family getting their civil rights abridged by an operator like Jeff Flint?”

    Let me explain this to you silly liberals, AGAIN. The traditional definition and the legal definition of “marriage” (up until the Supreme Court snafu) has always been that of between a man and a woman. Gay couples have been allowed to engage in a civil union for years, with the same civil rights and benefits as most other married couples. The right for two men or two women to marry never existed in the first place, so no one’s “right” is being abridged here. The Supreme Court of California effectively created a right that never existed, hence the need for an initiative for a Constitutional Amendment to represent the opinion of everyone who disagrees with the Supreme Court legislating from the bench.

    Now, that’s the background. Whether or not you agree with the initiative is irrelevant. What you need to keep in mind is that consultants like Jeff Flint and Matt Cunningham are hired by a constituent group (in this case the millions of Californians who voted for Prop 22 only to have their will undermined) so that their opinion and their values can be represented.

    Showing up at a private consultant’s office to protest the motive behind an initiative is not only childish and pointless, but also undemocratic and un-American. Direct your criticisms and your protests to the Prop 8 Orange County campaign office, wherever that may be.

    Do you get the difference? I’m willing to bet you do, but you don’t care and won’t admit to it.

  15. Dan Chmielewski
    August 14, 2008 at 4:13 pm

    **Showing up at a private consultant’s office to protest the motive behind an initiative is not only childish and pointless, but also undemocratic and un-American.++

    you mean they way those Republicans showed up to protest the recount in Florida? I couldn’t agree more.

    “Gay couples have been allowed to engage in a civil union for years, with the same civil rights and benefits as most other married couples”

    You would be completly wrong; there are about 1500 rights associated with Marriage that are not granted under CUs.

    Perhaps you’d like to roll back marriage to the days of arrainged marriages or deny interracial marriages. The court’s decision was not a SNAFU, but an equal application of the law for everyone. That is what a court is supposed to do.

    So when the Supreme Court ruled on the 2nd amendment, were they being activist?

  16. Jubal
    August 14, 2008 at 4:30 pm

    I’m just tired of bullies like you and Jeff.

    The same, tired excuse used by left-wing punks like you whenever you’re called on the carpet for your behavior. I haven’t bullied a soul, and neither has Jeff — unless your definition of “bullying” includes simply disagreeing with you.

    No one is “relegating” to “second class citizenship.” Use your brain and think, man.

    This is in no way, shape, or form, a civil rights issue. That’s a giant canard, the false premise on which your “activism” is based.

    One cannot have a right to equal access to a thing, when the very nature of that thing – in this case, marriage — inherently precludes their participation.

    What you and your cohorts seek to do is use naked government power to re-define marriage into something it is not, and have never been.

  17. Dan Chmielewski
    August 14, 2008 at 5:19 pm

    Matt – it is totally a civil rights issue; perhaps we roll back the definition of traditional marriage to the 1940s which would deny you the right to marry the lovely Mrs. Jubal — and that would be wrong too.

    The state cannot legislate who you fall in love with and we do have a right to pursue happiness, which marriage falls under the umbrella of. Its none of your business of Adam and Steve want to marry.

  18. Richard
    August 14, 2008 at 5:37 pm

    Just for the record, here in a northern California county, on January 27th, my beloved husband died. We were registered Domestic Partners with the Secretary of State. Had been since 2001. But Domestic Partners really is 2nd class – no it really is no class here.

    He died at home so the Deputy Sheriff acted as Coroner. He refused to recognize me as next of kin. He insisted we call a blood relative in New York State to choose a funeral home etc. He wanted to remove all of my beloved’s possesions from our home and ship them back East … including his wedding ring. It was a Sunday night so I could not get the County judge or attorney to set things right (as I did on Monday) I had to lie and weasle to keep our stuff in our home. Because I did not count at all. Our family did not count. We were 2nd class – no class. Because we were not married.

    Don’t tell me that Domestic Partnership is just as good as marriage. And don’t tell me that I was not married in my heart AND in my church to my husband. The Court just recognized what is a fact … he and I were married … and it is a civil right.

    You have no idea how much it hurt … still hurts … that in 2008, in California, my family was ignored when I needed it to be recognized the most.

  19. Dan Chmielewski
    August 14, 2008 at 7:54 pm

    Richard — Thanks for your comment. Our hearts are with you.

  20. August 14, 2008 at 8:35 pm

    d’Anconia: whether or not I agree with the initiative is entirely relevant. What a goof you are – you wanna teach me something about democracy, but you don’t even understand its most basic aspects. In any case, point me in the direction of a campaign office, and I just might take your advice … but you can’t, can you?

    My guess is that there is no OC Prop 8 campaign office. Prop 8 is a totally top-down, professionally-run, scare-the-voters-to-the-voting-booth kinda operation, isn’t it?

    I don’t see much point in antagonizing the folks you’ve bamboozled into pounding the pavement for Prop 8, but the pros who run the campaign? Hell, yeah. Frank Schubert, Jeff Flint, Jennifer Kerns and anyone else who makes a dime off discrimination deserves whatever protest might come their way.

  21. Jubal
    August 14, 2008 at 10:00 pm

    Chino Blanco:

    FYI, you’re whole effort was a big flop. Big, Flop.

    I went to the SFPA open house. 4 or 5 people actually showed up. A couple tried to get in. Vern Nelson tried to lie his way in claiming he was my guest, and someone else tried to pretend they were with the media.

    Great job!

  22. August 14, 2008 at 10:09 pm

    Thanks for reporting back so promptly, Jubal, but what kinda cub reporter comes back with no photos?

  23. Jubal
    August 14, 2008 at 10:16 pm

    I brought a camera, but by the time your puny posse showed up, I was at the open house, which was well under way and a great success.

    So congrats on masterminding a complete failure! Keep up the good work!

  24. August 14, 2008 at 10:29 pm

    On the one hand, you’re telling me 4 or 5 people showed up, and on the other you’re saying it was a complete failure? Look up ‘complete’ in your dictionary, fool.

    That said, your line about ‘masterminding a complete failure’, you might wanna keep it handy … you can use it again when you blog about Jeff’s Prop 8 campaign on November 5th.

  25. Jubal
    August 14, 2008 at 10:42 pm

    On the one hand, you’re telling me 4 or 5 people showed up, and on the other you’re saying it was a complete failure? Look up ‘complete’ in your dictionary, fool.

    All the time, effort, the CafePress sign store, the appeals for ideas and help on Daily Kos and the other nutroots sites your post on, and supposed power of the Left Netroots…all that effort and you’re claiming with a straight face that 4-5 people hanging around outside an office building, making a couple half-ass efforts to crash the event…is a success?

    Bravado is one thing, Chino. Now you’re just lying to yourself and us. Man up, as you like to say, and admit your operation was a c-o-m-p-l-e-t-e bust.

  26. August 14, 2008 at 10:52 pm

    Wow, Jubal, you’ve really been paying attention. That’s great. I admit that I wish more of my readers would pay the kind of attention that you’ve obviously paid to my posts.

    Too bad all the folks who swung by 2020 Main are probably all out Drinking Liberally tonight. Not that I don’t mind keeping you company, Jubal. I get that you’re lonely. It’s OK.

  27. August 15, 2008 at 8:36 am

    This thread shall live on as testament to Jubal’s terror of the left and the euphoria of his subsequent relief. I guess he was really expecting a mob of “jackbooted,” Molotov-cocktail-flinging yippies. You should have seen all the security he hired!

    I had been planning to just attend, maybe with one friend, to observe and write about it, especially if I saw or heard anything absurd or outrageous. I unfortunately didn’t RSVP, partly because I wasn’t sure if I could get a ride (my car’s broken down on the Grapevine right now) and I wasn’t sure if it was a good idea to use my real name. (Now I know I wouldn’t have got in with my real name.) The last-minute attempt by some to make it some kind of protest (see above) kind of threw me for a loop.

    There were seven anti-8 folks who showed up during the hour I was there; about the same number called me to express regrets they couldn’t be there; some were at some Disneyland event in support of workers’ healthcare; a couple of them wanted to send money for some reason (?!)… All about what I would have expected.

    I resent this weenie Jubal saying I tried to “lie my way in.” When I saw there was a guest list I decided to give my real name and say I was a guest of Matt Cunningham. Of course I knew they’d call him and check, and I kind of hoped he’d be a good sport and let me in so I could observe and write, and if not, it would just be a little shout-out to let him know I was there. IF I WANTED TO LIE, I had plenty of opportunity, waiting in line behind some ladies, to pretend I was one of the men whose name tags were sitting there awaiting them (they didn’t check ID’s.)

    The success of our little adventure was in all the extra security Schubert-Flint felt they had to hire to protect themselves from the mob they expected (I counted half a dozen guards) and the resentment they earned from their new neighbors in the 2020 Main St. building. The whole north side of the building was locked up prematurely, and all the doors but one on the south side, that one carefully guarded. Remember, Schubert Flint has an office up on the 11th floor and is one of dozens of businesses there. I saw several workers go out for cigarettes or whatever and get really pissed off at how hard it was to get back in. These folks were especially receptive to and appreciative of Chino Blanco’s great flyer (above.) I think when some of us have a chance we’ll deliver more of these flyers to all the 2020 Main St. businesses.

    You’re right, Chino Blanco, we were at Drinking Liberally when Jubal was running his victory lap here last night. I think I’ll write about this in more detail on my own blog (sorry Dan C but I’ve earned this) I’m thinking of the title: “Jubal’s Terror Unfounded: Schubert-Flint Not Overrun.”

    What a project it is, stopping gays from marrying!

  28. August 15, 2008 at 8:44 am

    Oh, and a certain Servite grad has been needing this lesson from a Mater Dei alumnus for a long time:

    it’s = contraction for it is
    its = possessive of it
    you’re = contraction for you are
    your = possessive of you

    You’re welcome.

  29. Wombat six
    August 15, 2008 at 8:49 am

    Great job Vern.

    Somebody has to help create jobs in this horrible economy, and I’m glad you helped some working class security guards get some extra hours.

    It’s always great to see how easily these authoritarian crybababies can be manipulated,

  30. d'Anconia
    August 15, 2008 at 9:34 am

    Glad to see this half ass attempt of a protest was a bust.

    Chino Blanco – like I said, your position on this issue is irrelevant; if you understood our democratic process as well as you claim, you would understand that legitimate criticism should be pointed towards a campaign, not its consultants. Your inability to understand this simple concept is enough to understand why you’re so hysterical about the issue.

    Vern – I’m sure Jubal appreciates you acting as his spell check. Let’s just hope you don’t run into the same problem one day, right Mr. Webster?

  31. August 15, 2008 at 9:56 am

    The most important comment in this whole thread is Richard’s above. Because, as much as we enjoy all the verbal fray, banter and sophistry, Richard’s story demonstrates the injustice that Jubal’s crowd is fighting to perpetuate, and the rest of us are fighting to end. So I repost:

    Just for the record, here in a northern California county, on January 27th, my beloved husband died. We were registered Domestic Partners with the Secretary of State. Had been since 2001. But Domestic Partners really is 2nd class – no it really is no class here.

    He died at home so the Deputy Sheriff acted as Coroner. He refused to recognize me as next of kin. He insisted we call a blood relative in New York State to choose a funeral home etc. He wanted to remove all of my beloved’s possesions from our home and ship them back East … including his wedding ring. It was a Sunday night so I could not get the County judge or attorney to set things right (as I did on Monday) I had to lie and weasle to keep our stuff in our home. Because I did not count at all. Our family did not count. We were 2nd class – no class. Because we were not married.

    Don’t tell me that Domestic Partnership is just as good as marriage. And don’t tell me that I was not married in my heart AND in my church to my husband. The Court just recognized what is a fact … he and I were married … and it is a civil right.

    You have no idea how much it hurt … still hurts … that in 2008, in California, my family was ignored when I needed it to be recognized the most.

    Any smart alecky retorts, Jubal? d’Anconia?

  32. Dan Chmielewski
    August 15, 2008 at 10:08 am

    Guys — typos are a fact of life. I think everyone knows what Matt was trying to say.

  33. August 15, 2008 at 11:29 am

    Actually I’ve been reading Jubal for a couple of years and he always makes the same mistake – you’re for your, and it’s for its. I was always too polite to say anything. Until he called me a liar.

  34. Marvin the Martian
    August 15, 2008 at 3:47 pm

    I learned about this protest on Pam’s House Blend, and was eager to participate once I got off of work after the time the event was to have begun. Unfortunately, Jubal is right… the planned–or I should say, poorly planned–event was a flop. Still, in any campaign, both sides have events that don’t pan out as anticipated, but it isn’t necessarily representative of any lack of passion on either side. It’s all about proper planning, and this event had none.

    Still, if Jubal wants to gloat about it, let him. What ultimately will matter is the ballot results in November.

    At the same time, it is obvious this event needed better coordination and communication. My friend called Vern to find out where we should meet, and once I arrived at the nearby restaurant, no one was to be found. I called Vern myself and left a message and phone number and asked what to do, and so did my friend.

    We never heard anything back. I have to say we were a bit pissed off by that. The least that could have been done was to acknowledge our interest and give us a return call, even if it was after the time the event was scheduled to end, just to update us of what did or didn’t happen. That’s just common courtesy… especially for those of us who took time out of our busy week to participate.

    Here’s hoping for better opportunities between now and November.

  35. August 15, 2008 at 5:59 pm

    Hey Marvin, sorry about that. The whole protest thing kind of came up 24 hours beforehand, I was wanting more to “infiltrate”, but then I did offer to be the contact number so I should have stayed around longer. We stayed around for 90 minutes or so, some of us handing out flyers, some of us at the nearby El Torito when we found out we couldn’t get in. Got your number, I’ll call you, maybe we’ll do something else and be more organized.

  36. August 15, 2008 at 6:48 pm

    I hope we get to see a link to Vern’s report here.

    If anyone was inconvenienced by the lack of planning, the fault is all mine. For such a hastily-called action, seven seems like a decent number. I wish I could personally thank everyone who showed up, but this’ll have to do: respect.

  37. Jubal
    August 15, 2008 at 10:24 pm

    I admit that I wish more of my readers would pay the kind of attention that you’ve obviously paid to my posts.

    You’re crawling closer to the truth, Chino. Hardly anyone pays attention to you.

    Too bad all the folks who swung by 2020 Main are probably all out Drinking Liberally tonight.

    Yeah. I’m sure that what “all those people” probably did. I’ll bet DL was bursting at the seams after they rolled in.

    Not that I don’t mind keeping you company, Jubal. I get that you’re lonely. It’s OK.

    Thanks, Chino. You put of a game front. Not effective, but game.

  38. Jubal
    August 15, 2008 at 10:25 pm

    Oh, and a certain Servite grad has been needing this lesson from a Mater Dei alumnus for a long time:

    You’re a Monarch, Vern? That explains a lot.

  39. Jubal
    August 15, 2008 at 10:30 pm

    Until he called me a liar.

    Vern, I didn’t call you a liar. I said you lied.

    Vern, you called up to Schubert Flint from the lobby and told them I had invited you to their open house?

    Which, of course, was a lie.

  40. Jubal
    August 15, 2008 at 10:34 pm

    You should have seen all the security he hired!

    I hired?

    Vern, if you’re going to crack me over some typos, then try to get your facts straight. I didn’t hire anybody. I don’t work for SFPA or Prop. 8.

  41. Jubal
    August 15, 2008 at 10:43 pm

    IF I WANTED TO LIE, I had plenty of opportunity, waiting in line behind some ladies, to pretend I was one of the men whose name tags were sitting there awaiting them (they didn’t check ID’s.)

    Don’t fool yourself, Vern: the women at the lobby desk had you pegged a mile away.

    The success of our little adventure was in all the extra security Schubert-Flint felt they had to hire to protect themselves from the mob they expected (I counted half a dozen guards)

    Yes, that is something to be proud of: causing a private enterprise to needlessly spend money to deal with the possibility this little exercise in political thuggery wasn’t the bust that it was.

    Still waiting for you (and Andrew, for that matter) to open yourself to the kind of treatment you delight on inflicting on those your disagree with, Vern, by posting your home and work addresses. I wouldn’t encourage anyone to leaflet your neighbors, co-workers, or business neighboring your work. But somehow, I doubt you would expose yourself to the kind of harassment you like dishing out.

  42. August 15, 2008 at 10:46 pm

    … with yesterday’s left-wing attempt to disrupt a private company’s open house …

    Pants on fire.

  43. August 15, 2008 at 11:03 pm

    Jubal, have I got these “facts” (in this case, addresses) straight?

    ProtectMarriage
    915 L Street, # C-259
    Sacramento, CA 95814

    Schubert Flint (Sacramento)
    1415 L Street, Suite 1250, Sacramento, CA 95814

    L Street in Sacramento must be some kind of happening place. If you hear about any upcoming events at either location, I trust you’ll give us a heads up. Cheers.

  44. August 15, 2008 at 11:12 pm

    Oh, and Jubal, you write:

    I wouldn’t encourage anyone to leaflet your neighbors, co-workers, or business neighboring your work.

    Are you seriously that clueless about what the LDS (Mormon) church is up to in California?

    It’s well-known that they are actively canvassing their neighbors for the Yes on 8 campaign.

    Are you suggesting that they should cool it with their efforts on behalf of Prop 8? Wow.

  45. Jubal
    August 15, 2008 at 11:29 pm

    Sigh.

    Chino, would the exercise of rudimentary logic and elemental reading comprehension skills be too much to ask for? I might as well be arguing with a cat.

  46. August 15, 2008 at 11:37 pm

    As it so happens, I’ve got a cat here who’s keen to engage – her only request is that you first respond to her owner’s comments re the canvassing that’s going on in support of Prop 8.

  47. August 15, 2008 at 11:41 pm

    “elemental reading comprehension” – that must be the discernment of poltergeists and nature spirits emanating from ancient books.

    I’m writing up my report now. The guys who run this blog don’t like when we link to Orange Juice stories, but that’s where you’ll find it in a little bit.

    I’ll try to be a little more precise – of course Matt is not the one who hired the security.

    Just found out a legit journalist who RSVPd in plenty of time wasn’t allowed in. Is that who Jubal was referring to above? She wasn’t even one of us, and wasn’t planning to cause any trouble. (And if Matt had been a good sport and let me in when I called up as “his guest” I would have been perfectly respectable too.) Oh well….

  48. August 16, 2008 at 12:19 am

    Matt, I’ll tell you why it was not a lie when I said I was your guest.

    You very plainly wrote “Come To Schubert Flint Public Affairs’ Open House” on your blog, July 31! How was I to know that invitation was not directed at me?

  49. Jubal
    August 16, 2008 at 10:14 am

    How was I to know that invitation was not directed at me?

    Don’t be disingenuous, Vern. You know perfectly well it was not directed at liberal activists whose intention was to attend in order to embarass and/or disrupt the SFPA open house…which was not, contrary to what you have convinced yourself, a Prop. 8 even.

    Beside, I did not invite you to the event. Contrary to the falsehood you told, you were not my guest. And what is “sporting” about letting you in so you can try to embarrass a long-time friend of mine?

  50. August 16, 2008 at 10:37 am

    OK, OK, Matt. Of course my last comment was tongue in cheek. My claiming to be your guest was about as big a lie as your “yesterday’s attempt” comment. Not big. Congratulations on your open house. This thread’s gone on long enough.

  51. Dan Chmielewski
    August 16, 2008 at 1:05 pm

    Juice boys? Please refrain from blogwhoring your OJ posts here. When I get back to my PC, comment 49 will be gone

  52. August 16, 2008 at 6:05 pm

    I did not do that, Dan. It seemed to happen automatically. I don’t even know how. (seriously)

  53. August 16, 2008 at 10:16 pm

    I think it must happen automatically when one of our posts links to one of yours, or to some comments in your thread. In this case, I linked to a LOT of comments in this thread.

    Yeah, now I look at it, that nonsensical out-of-context quote is right where my first link to you was.

    Remove it if you want, I didn’t intend to put it there.

  54. sam
    October 4, 2008 at 10:10 pm

    Why Vote Yes on Prop 8

    The people of the State of California have approved state licensed marriages only as between a man and a woman. We, the people, want to have state licensed marriages to demonstrate our societal approval of and support for a monogamous sexual relationship between those being married because we believe the relationship is morally acceptable and is good for our society. By voting for Prop 8, we, the people, are saying that we desire only to approve monogamous sexual relationships between men and women, and have no interest in promoting any other sexual relationships. We are NOT saying that the state should prohibit all sexual relationships which are not between monogamous heterosexuals; it’s just that we don’t want to promote them.

    Whether or not a particular sexual relationship should be encouraged is not always an easy decision, and people can have differing views. For example, in most states, marriage between first cousins is not permitted, but in other states, including California, this is allowed. Where marriage of first cousins is permitted, the people of the state determined that it was morally acceptable and beneficial for our society.

    The State of California does not make illegal many sexual relations. In fact, any consenting adult may lawfully have sexual relations with any other consenting adult. For example, a man can live with and have sexual relations with two women, but the State of California does not want to promote this so the state does not permit a man to marry two women because we, the people, believe polygamy is not morally right and good for our society. Likewise, an adult woman can lawfully have sexual relations with her father’s brother, but the State of California does not want to encourage this so the state does not permit a woman to marry her uncle because we, the people, believe the relationship is incestuous, and is not morally right and good for our society. Even a group of men can lawfully have sexual relations with a group of women, but the State of California does not want to encourage this so the state does not permit a group of men to marry a group of women because we, the people, believe polyamory is neither morally right nor good for our society. By voting YES on Prop 8, we the people are affirming that even though two individuals of the same gender can lawfully have sexual relations, the State of California does not want to promote homosexual relations because we, the people, believe homosexual relations are not morally right or are not beneficial for our society.

    Are homosexual relationships morally right?

    Whether engaging in homosexual relations is morally right is a decision for you to make, based on your sense of right and wrong and your religious beliefs. You will need to determine where you stand regarding homosexual relations. If you are not sure, you may want to talk with family, friends and your pastor, priest, rabbi or other religious leader. If you believe that homosexual relations are morally wrong, vote YES on Prop 8 so that the State of California does not license marriages between people of the same gender.

    Are homosexual relationships good for our society?

    Whether homosexual relations should be approved and encouraged by the people of the State of California as good for society, is another decision you will need to make. A few of the related arguments for and against Prop 8, set forth below, may be helpful in making this decision. If you believe that promoting homosexual relations is not beneficial for our society, vote YES on Prop 8 so that the State of California does not license marriages between people of the same gender.

    Arguments For Prop 8 (With Rebuttals)

    In all human societies throughout history, marriage has always existed, has always only involved men and women, and has always existed to serve the family. It has never existed solely for individuals or for couples, and though marriage benefits adults, offspring are the primary reason societies favor marriage. Anthropologists tell us marriage has always been about the next generation. Marriage, as a fundamental tool of society, is used to promote the best home life for children, that being the child’s father and mother who are married to each other. Children have a fundamental right to be raised by their mother and father. Marriage between same gender persons will encourage and give approval of children being conceived by artificial means and born into a family where they will not be raised by their mother and father. Scholars agree that the best for every child is to be raised in a loving home by its own mother and father who love each other. (The rebuttal to this argument is that being raised by a mother and father is not necessary as evidenced many individuals that are healthy, stable and successful in life and who were not raised in a two parent home. One, two, or more, caregivers can raise children successfully. In addition, there is no data available yet to support the idea that just because they are raised by two homosexuals, children will not be healthy, stable and successful in life.)

    Arguments Against Prop 8 (With Rebuttals)

    The primary argument by opponents of Prop 8 is that “getting married” is a fundamental human right of every person in a committed loving relationship, and therefore should not be denied to homosexual couples. (The rebuttal to that argument is that marriage is not a fundamental human right available to everyone, as evidenced by the fact that incestuous, polygamous and polyamorous marriages are not permitted. Only certain relationships that society wants to encourage are afforded marriage rights.)

    A secondary argument by opponents of Prop 8 is that the rights afforded to married couples are not the same as the rights given to domestic partners. (The rebuttal to that argument California law grants exactly the same legal rights to registered domestic partners as every married couple has. “Registered domestic partners shall have the same rights, protections, and benefits, and shall be subject to the same responsibilities, obligations, and duties under law, whether they derive from statutes, administrative regulations, court rules, government policies, common law, or any other provisions or sources of law, as are granted to and imposed upon spouses.” 2003 Domestic Partner Act, California Family Code, Sections 297.) A related argument by opponents of Prop 8 is that because health care providers and other people in society do not understand the rights of registered domestic partners, homosexual couples are not treated the same as married couples. (The rebuttal to that argument is that anti-discrimination laws exist to protect the rights of individuals in domestic partnerships.)

    Another argument is that discrimination in the workplace and in public accommodations will continue until homosexual relationships are respected by society, so by allowing homosexuals to marry, the State will give homosexual relationships respect and dignity so that there will be less discrimination. (The rebuttal to that argument is that laws already exist to prohibit discrimination, and the State has just as much an interest in protecting against discrimination in the workplace and in public accommodations of those engaged in multi-partner or polygamous or other lawful sexual relationships, as it does in protecting against discrimination against homosexuals, yet we do not grant them the right to marry.)

    Another view is that encouraging marriage between homosexuals will encourage monogamy between homosexual individuals, which will be good for society because promiscuity, whether between same gender or different gender people, tends to spread sexually transmitted diseases and is otherwise not good for society. (The rebuttal to this view is that individuals in committed relationships do not need to be married to be committed to monogamy, and there is no data to support the view that homosexuals in committed relationships are less monogamous than married homosexuals.)

    For more info, go to http://www.protectmarriage.com

  55. Alvin
    November 3, 2008 at 3:16 pm

    I think that if marriage ends up recognized as only a union of a man and a woman at the state constitutional level, then to be fair, it has to also be defined as just a special sub-case of a civil union for legal treatments and gain no additional benefits that are not inherited from that. That way you can still be “special” in a way that doesn’t interfere with the needs of the general population.

    And really, marriage has always been more of a religious construct that should not be recognised at any government level, in any form.

    also, Sam: What a horribly misplaced wall of text, you’re preaching to the atheists, as it were.

Comments are closed.