We’ve been working against Prop 8 here since day 1 and it’s not totally an uphill battle, but it is tough. Several of our friends have gotten married since the court ruling and we have one couple that had planned to be married earlier next year, but moved it up to before the election “just in case”. The attitudes here in “the OC” range from indifferent to outright hostility. We’ve taken to writing letters (as far back sas the original prop 22) to the newspapers, but they rarely get printed. I’m in an island of red in a blue state.

www.letcaliforniaring.org

Also, all the money for prop 8 is coming from (mostly) out of state religious groups.

Which groups should one donate to that oppose Prop. 8. As a former (and sometimes) Californian, I’d definitely like to see it fail.

It’s been over five f’ing years for gay marriage in Canada now and the sky has neither fallen nor changed color. Instead, no one can remember what the fuss was all about.

And if the Morons want to run political campaigns of this sort, they should be stripped of their tax-exempt status as a church.

It’s a brilliant ad.  To the outright haters, it may play as “gay marriage will turn your children gay!”  To fence-sitters who have some homophobia or belief in anti-homosexual doctrine but notice that the sky hasn’t fallen and won’t condemn gay friends and neighbors as bad people, it plays on subtler fears.  “You’ll have to explain this to your children.  They won’t be convinced by what you tell yourself.  They’ll see you as a bigot.”

Honestly, sometimes I’d rather deal with the forthrightly hateful all-sodomy-all-the-time-ers like the Phelps clan than people who’d take away someone’s rights just to avoid thinking about their own opinions.

maybe a Biblical quote about polygamy.

seriously.

because this shit about “marriage means one man and one woman and always has” is a fucking LIE that every Christians should KNOW is a lie.

I hate, hate, hate the “But we’ll have to explain it to our children!” excuse conservatives trot out for why LGBT people should be as closeted as possible.  Because, you know what?  Liberals have to explain to *our* kids why Uncle Mike can’t marry Uncle Joe, and we don’t like it either.  Raising kids means having to explain to them the many ways that the real world doesn’t match up with the way we’d like it to be—conservatives do not have a monopoly on that, and their family values are not automatically more important than ours.

I don’t know if Prop 8 is a real threat. I know a few years ago Prop 22 screw up gay marriage chances for a while, but a lot of mental progress has been made in that time AND even at the time, people thought some folks had been confused which way to vote to allow gay marriage.

This time, I hope the confusion is gone, because people have seen the happy couples tying the knot after years of worrying and waiting. They have favorite gay celebrities—and not ones they find amusing because of exaggerated stereotypes—and they know gay people in real life. And it’s hard to take away a right people have. Now, school board level fights to keep out textbooks that have princes marrying princes, sure that could go on for decades. But I think the bigots won’t win.

I got a call from a local Yes on 8 person yesterday.  It took a lot to get her to admit that what she was calling about (the call started with her asking what my opinion on Prop. 8 was).  I can’t say I reacted well (having been with my partner for more than ten years and in a domestic partnership with her for several), and I pushed back pretty hard.

After pointing out that what they wanted was to take away my rights to visit my partner in the hospital (and so on), she fell back to claiming that she didn’t want those things to happen—she was volunteering because she was offended by the “judicial activism” that allowed judges to interpret the (state) constitution in ways that she didn’t like.  When I pointed out that our governmental system relied on the judicial system to keep the other branches in line, she begged off.  I wished her a shitty day.

After the fact, of course, I was shaking with post-adrenaline syndrome (I was really, really angry).  And, of course, after the fact, I realized that I should have pointed out that if what the Yes on 8 people were really against was judicial activism, they’d have a proposition trying to modify the constitution to stop judges from being able to interpret the constitution in ways they didn’t like (because, of course, they’re all for judicial activism when it means overthrowing Roe v. Wade or other precedents they don’t like). 

But what they came up with is a proposition that strips away the rights of a not insignificant part of California’s population to do things that the majority has always had.  Which kind of makes it clear that they don’t care one bit about judicial activism, they just hate gays and lesbians and want to deny them the rights that heterosexuals have.

Pam, I don’t have school kids but I imagine they are being taught that now. Most teachers have a humanitarian bent, else they would be doing something more lucrative. This fact of life propels many conservatives to homeschool.

But I am actually glad that they brought the issue to the voters, rather than bitch endlessly about “judicial activists” creating “special rights” for homosexuals. Most people in California know gay couples who have been happily partnered for years, so I expect Prop 8 to go down in flames.

I do see a few pro Prop 8 yard signs in my redneck neighborhood. But there are just as many Obama signs (there are no McCain yard signs), so I’m not too worried.

I know when looking at ways to frame an issue we need to think of what will appeal to everyone, not just what appeals to us, but to me that speaks as an anti-prop 8 ad.  I mean, I hope one day my kid will be taught that a prince can marry a prince and a princess can marry a princess. 

And if gay marriage is legal, well, it’s pretty idiotic not to let kids know it exists, isn’t?  Otherwise there’ll just be all sorts of confusion when they finally learn it does.  But then the right is Proud to be Ignorant.

Seriously, homosexuals stop being scary when you stop thinking someone’s going to “persuade” your kid to be gay. It doesn’t work like that.

I wish they’d run a series of ads about happy heterosexual families in MA. I’d be happy to volunteer for it. My husband and I have not had our marriage affected by gay marriage one iota. And, of course, the children’s many friends who have gay parents, and their gay teachers, are only happier and better friends and teachers.  Why don’t they run an ad saying “what did you learn in school today” with the kid saying “nothing but love…why? Are they learning hate in some other school?”

aimai

Which groups should one donate to that oppose Prop. 8. As a former (and sometimes) Californian, I’d definitely like to see it fail.

http://noonprop8.com/

or

http://www.hrc.org/10459.htm

Doesn’t every child learn about homosexuality in school?  I know I did, when other kids started calling me a “lesbo” in 2nd grade…

The attitudes here in “the OC” range from indifferent to outright hostility.

Don’t call it that.

Are the pro-8 people saying that if parents don’t like seeing an interracial couple in a textbook, they should be able to ban that as well?

Yes.

Over the last couple months, I’ve been confronted with the outright hatred and hostility within so many Americans. If they cannot accept gay marriage then many most likely don’t accept interracial marriages either. I am saddened by this Prop 8 in CA, not just because I am in an interracial marriage but because so many people out there cannot see who the real enemy is - the right wing, religious nutjobs and apathetic fucktards out there. African American out there who vote Democrat and then are homophobic as hell make me so mad.

“I wish they’d run a series of ads about happy heterosexual families in MA.”

I agree 100%. Why oh why do people think that if gays are able to be married that somehow diminishes the value of their heterosexual marriages? It makes no sense to me.
And that add is such bullshit. If parents can sit there and embarrassingly explain sex and pregnancy to their kids, I don’t see how hard it is to explain gay marriage.

Liberals have to explain to *our* kids why Uncle Mike can’t marry Uncle Joe, and we don’t like it either.

Run from this and take the gloves off. Have an ad with a parent explaining to the kid that Uncle Mike is dead because someone at the hospital wouldn’t let Uncle Joe tell them how to treat him, because Uncle Joe wasn’t a member of Joe’s family. So Uncle Mike isn’t coming to her school play.

(In a 30-second spot you can leave out the part about hiring a lawyer and getting an emergency hearing for a court order, but all of that happening too late.)

How about teaching kids about something important and practical, like personal budgeting, home finance, constitutional government? This “My Two Mommies” drivel has vastly less importance in day-to-day existence, especially facing the real crises of leadership and faith and belief in our country that we face. Teach kids how to be self-sufficient ... grow food, fix electronics and mechanical devices, understand legal rights, negotiate and reason soundly. Putting such soft issues as this first and foremost on a school agenda is what’s driving our educational system’s performance further and further down.

understand legal rights…...
Sugar Ray Republican on 10/10 at 09:50 AM

Well gee SRR, I would guess that the legal right to marry might be a part of that dontcha’ think?

Massachusetts does have the lowest divorce rate in the country.  So marriage armaggedon has not quite panned out there.  I think that’s a perfectly reasonable point to make.

I’d love to see an ad with kids/young adults growing up in or who have grown up in same-sex households talking about how wonderful their parents are…then showing pictures of them with their same-sex parents.  They could end the ad with the mention that marriage confers over 1000 benefits, including the right of children to call their parents married.

God freaking forbid a parent explains to their child that homosexuality is a-ok.  I would jump for joy if my child came home and told me that she’d learned about love and tolerance in school.  Teach your hate on your own time.

“The attitudes here in “the OC” range from indifferent to outright hostility.

Don’t call it that.”

Sorry, I don’t like it either, but that’s how my family & friends from back east refer to us.

Counter-ad 1:

I’d love to see an ad showing happy het families doing ordinary things: going to a Bruins game, picking up the kids from school, etc. 

The voiceover would be one of those voice-of-doom kinds saying about how MA has had gay marriage since X date and it has destroyed marriages and families.... With more visuals of normal, happy life ... voiceover repeats destroyed marriages and families ... again, normal life continues, [repeats], one hears the narrator off-camera complaining that Nothing’s Happening! ... [etc.]

Counter-Ad 2: A more sarcastic version:

Voice-of-doom says that on X date Canada legalized gay marriage, and Canada was destroyed by fire ... Camera is on some Canadian guy in front of some recognizably Canadian scene.  Nothing happens.  Voice-over, more insistently, destroyyyyed by fire!!!!.  Canadian looks up, faces camera, both bored annoyed.  Says something like, “You guys have been pointing that camera for five years and nothing’s happened.  Don’t you have homes to go to?”

The (most easily accessible) ad on the No On 8 website does seem to address the issue, although I can’t tell if it’s intended as a response to this particular Yes commercial. The key line:

Prop 8 will not affect church tax status—that’s a lie. And it will not affect teaching in schools—another lie.

It’s an open question whether that’s an effective ad, but it does at least appear to be on point.

After pointing out that what they wanted was to take away my rights to visit my partner in the hospital (and so on), she fell back to claiming that she didn’t want those things to happen—she was volunteering because she was offended by the “judicial activism” that allowed judges to interpret the (state) constitution in ways that she didn’t like.

I got one of those calls, too, and it creeped me out that the guy addressed me by name.  I must still be on a list somewhere as “Decline to State,” which in California is an invitation for the nuttiest of nutjobs to put you on their mailing list.

He tried to run the “But churches will be forced to marry gay people!” line on me, but you can’t get that past an ex-Catholic.  If churches can’t legally be forced to marry (hetero) divorced couples, no court is going to insist that they have to marry gay couples.

If someone else uses the “judicial activism” line, don’t forget that the California Legislature passed a gay marriage bill.  So if the judicial branch and the legislative branch are both banned from changing laws in California, what are we supposed to do?  Run the entire state by initiative voting?

“judicial activism” (modified noun)
Term used by American conservatives to decry any judicial decision with which they disagree.

Cultural interpretative note:
The visitor to the United States is cautioned that the phrase is not to be taken as an objective descriptor, but rather as a subjective pejorative.  A judge declining to substitute his judgment for that of the legislature on a matter on which conservatives wish him to act is a “judicial activist”, even though he is exercising deference to the wishes of the elected legislature.  Conversely, a judge who renders a decision of which conservatives approve is not a “judicial activist”, even if the decision in question goes directly contrary to the clear language of the statute and the expressed intent of the legislature.

I like seeker6079’s ads the best. I’d really like to see those run, preferably one after the other.

Good news—the Connecticut court just overturned their state’s ban on same-sex marriage.  I bet it’s because they’ve been taught that gosh darned tolerance in schools.

I was thinking about something about the wisdom of children….like two children playing peaceably, parents talking worriedly in the background, and the children chatting matter-of-factly about their different families.

“my mom makes me eat my peas.”
“yeah, my dads make me eat broccoli.”
“you have two dads?”
“yeah”
(pause) “Wow, you must have to eat a lot of broccoli.”

I’m not doing this well, but it would redraw the frame to just basic parental values rather than gay/straight.

Or they should hire Johnny Symons to do the ads…. his film _Daddy & Papa_ would provide some easy material….

s.

The thing about this:

<blockquote>When Massachusetts legalized gay marriage, schools began teaching second graders that boys can marry boys. The courts ruled that parents had no legal right to object.</quote>

is that if gay marriage is legal in a state, then boys can marry boys there. (Well, actually, men can marry men, but young children tend to think in terms of boys and girls, not men and women.) So what’s wrong with a teacher correctly representing the laws of the state?

Seriously, why do these people have such trouble with the idea that you can tell your kids you disagree with a law? I don’t have kids, but I do have nieces, and when I babysit them and we see someone smoking on TV or in public, I tell them that smoking is yucky and just because it’s legal doesn’t mean it’s a good idea. Can’t these wackos do the same with regard to gay marriage?

Seriously, why do these people have such trouble with the idea that you can tell your kids you disagree with a law?

Because they know that lots of parents won’t tell their kids they disagree with this law. And what they’re after is complete suppression of all dissent.

“So if the judicial branch and the legislative branch are both banned from changing laws in California, what are we supposed to do?  Run the entire state by initiative voting?”

Of course not. If Prop 8 is defeated, you know darn well that the bleaters are not going to say, “Oh, well, then that’s okay, the people have spoken.” The place has to be run by the religious leaders - of the right religion.

I don’t know what phrase they will use, but I guarantee that if Prop 8 fails, there will be some new buzzword to explain why the clear consensus of legislature, judiciary, executive (the Governor has said he will not veto a passed marriage law after the ruling, nor support Prop 8) and the people voting on an initiative is a clear affront to democracy, but you know there will be one.

Its seeds are in the the idea that some things are “the foundation of our society” (Unlike, say, the Constitution)

henh.  My first thought on reading the transcript was “*sigh*, no, sweetie, you’re probably not going to marry a princess.  There’s not that many to go around.  But I’m sure you’ll marry someone wonderful who makes you happy.”

Susuna, that made me laugh. You did it beautifully.

Maybe Prop 8 opponents could hearken back to that prop on the CA ballot in the ‘70s (I forget the number) that would have barred gays from teaching in public schools. It failed, and lo and behold, the schools proceeded not to disgorge streams of brainwashed gay children.

(The kids got shortchanged because of another proposition that throttled property taxes. But that’s another story.)

Gay marriage is going to deprive creepy middle-aged white guy narrator his child bride! Oh noes!

The mom is saying, “remember, it’s ROYAL Dutch Shell, and they have at least three princesses there who are about your age.”

D00ds, I’m straight(ish) and I wish I could marry a princess.

Susanna:

“my mom makes me eat my peas.”
“yeah, my dads make me eat broccoli.”
“you have two dads?”
“yeah”
(pause) “Wow, you must have to eat a lot of broccoli.”

Ha! That’s beautiful.

¨If someone else uses the “judicial activism” line, don’t forget that the California Legislature passed a gay marriage bill.  So if the judicial branch and the legislative branch are both banned from changing laws in California, what are we supposed to do?  Run the entire state by initiative voting?¨

Yes, it has been really frustrating in California; first, the legislature passes a bill and The Terminator vetoes it, saying, oh, it´s not really the will of the people because a referendum is required, even though the will of the people as expressed by popularly elected representatives is good enough in every other context. Then, the judiciary inerprets the state constitution in a fair way, and rather than accept an unremarkable (as a matter of constitutonal interpretation) decision, we have to have a referendum. This is a wonderful example of the Gay Exception, which is that process arguments that apply in every other context do not apply to gay rights, and that process arguments that do not apply in any other context suddenly apply to gay rights - the upshot being that opposition to gay rights is never personal! Even though it is.

Susana, I DEFINITELY want to see that ad made! So precious. It’s something kids WOULD say.

Arrgh!  That ad has been running about every fifteen minutes on TV here in San Francisco, and it makes my head explode every time.  “If gay marriage is legalized, your children will find out that gay people exist, which they totally weren’t going to do otherwise!  And then you’ll have to sit them down and explain why it’s important to hate gays!  Which will be hard!”

Seconding (thirding?) the love for Susana’s ad.

My first thought on seeing it was if my 8 year old came home that excited about marrying a princess, I’d be backing same-sex marriage like I back my semi. (OK, mixed metaphor, but you get it)

My then-11 yo was that excited that the Sims 2 allowed same sex couples.  We suspected something was up when we realized every sim of her took a wife…

From Brad Hicks, more than a year ago:

somewhere out there is a cute, charming, blonde-haired, blue-eyed sweet-faced and sweet-voiced child. That child has no surviving biological parents. That child’s late biological mother was an upper middle class blonde professional woman with an attractive figure and impeccable professional and academic credentials who never got in any kind of trouble in her life, who died of some disease or accident that wasn’t even vaguely her fault. That has left the child with only one “parent” left in the world, her mother’s equally blameless and mediagenic and upper middle class and attractive and entirely impossible to criticize long-term stable romantic partner. And for some reason, because that sweet little child’s mother wasn’t allowed to marry her partner, that child is about to be thrown into foster care, or handed off to known to be violently abusive or white trash or drug addicted or chronically unemployed relatives. As a matter of statistical chance, it is all but guaranteed that this child exists. And that I don’t know her name, and that everybody in America doesn’t know her name, is why you don’t have legal gay marriage yet.

Of course, we do have legal gay marriage in Mass. But this still seems like the obvious political move.

We’ve got our own wacko thing going on in Michigan in Proposal 2.

The right to lifers are foaming at the mouth over it. The lies have been exposed and yet it keeps coming.

I thought of a bumper sticker:
“No on Prop 2
The sick deserve to die
- Michigan Right to Life”

It’s crazy… http://2goes2far.com/

The group fronting the ads and website is called “Michigan Citizens Against Unrestricted Science & Experimentation”. Does that sound scary enough? The site is from Hanon-McKendry. They’ve worked for Focus on the Family and the Alliance Defense Fund. They also work for RayoVac, Rubbermaid and Zondervan and National Heritage Academies.

Spooky stuff…

Sorry, proposal 2 involves stem cell research…

Evidently trying to end run a possible lifting of the ban on stem cell research…

I have a 14-year old daughter in high school here in California. I’ll have to ask her what she’s being taught about marriage. But I find this law professor’s claims hard to believe. I’ve signed at least two permission slips regarding “family and sexuality” classes, and with that kind of careful soliciting of permission from parents, I guess I just find this whole thing ridiculous. And I’m appalled that any self-respecting, so-called law professor (yes, I know it’s Pepperdine) could agree to support such a thing.

I don’t know if Prop 8 is a real threat. I know a few years ago Prop 22 screw up gay marriage chances for a while,

Samantha, I know you are a frequent commenter here and you have a good heart, but this is an incredibly ignorant post.

Proposition 22 did not “screw up gay marriage chances for a while”. It prevented same-sex marriage in California starting in 2000, not “a few years” ago. It was overturned because it is unconstituitional. Proposition 8 is indeed a real threat because it will make bigotry part of the state constitution.  It will probably also prevent the state from recognizing same-sex marriages from other states.

This is a big fucking deal and it matters very much to a lot of people here. Maybe it doesn’t affect your life very much, but it is trivializing and insulting to assume that it doesn’t affect anyone else much either.

Well, there’s one reason for me not to send any kids I may have in the future to Pepperdine…

I was convinced that this thing wouldn’t pass, but now I’m worried.  Shit.  Now I have to go donate some money.  Grumble, grumble, damn homophobes, grumble.

Pepperdine Law Professor Doug Kmiec , though a conservative Catholic Republican, endorsed Barack Obama for President back in March. So they’re not all bad.

Amanda:

not only can you teach “BOTH why it’s wrong to call a kid “gay” and beat him up and how to balance a checkbook,” but not being beaten up will give some kids more time and emotional energy to learn, and not beating them up with do the same for others.