Proposition 8 - The Musical!

[evilgEEk]

This is absolutely hilarious!

Proposition 8 - The Musical! (http://www.funnyordie.com/videos/c0cf508ff8/prop-8-the-musical-starring-jack-black-john-c-reilly-and-many-more-from-fod-team-jack-black-craig-robinson-john-c-reilly-and-rashida-jones)

I think I could turn gay for Neil Patrick Harris. It's his singing voice that gets me every time. (See: Dr. Horrible link)

[stevento]

they are so full of it. packaging lies in a funny two minute viral video. prop 8 has nothing to do with hate. the prop 8 campaign NEVER made the claim that children would be taught about sodomy. the prop 8 campaign never said anything about biblical teachings or christian values.

this is a video summary of their argument.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6zbpDe_QhS0&eurl=http://www.protectmarriage.com/

read their argument:
http://www.protectmarriage.com/about/why

hit ctrl + F (or apple + f on a mac) and search that page for the word "bible" or "church" and YOU WONT FIND ONE SINGLE MATCH
Prop 8 opponents need to stop attacking and rebutting arguments that were NEVER MADE.

[evilgEEk]

Wow.

I just thought it was funny.

I think someone needs to push away from the computer for a bit and take a deep breath...

[CalBoy]

I think I could turn gay for Neil Patrick Harris.

Are you kidding? I switched teams just for him! :D

[Macaddicttt]

Wow.

I just thought it was funny.

I think someone needs to push away from the computer for a bit and take a deep breath...

Well, I haven't seen the video since I'm at work and can't, but I imagine (judging from stevento's response) it has something to do with supporters of Prop. 8 getting tired of being called hateful. It's probably even more offensive to hear in a two-minute "funny" video that makes light of the issue of hate.

[NT1440]

they are so full of it. packaging lies in a funny two minute viral video. prop 8 has nothing to do with hate. the prop 8 campaign NEVER made the claim that children would be taught about sodomy. the prop 8 campaign never said anything about biblical teachings or christian values.

this is a video summary of their argument.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6zbpDe_QhS0&eurl=http://www.protectmarriage.com/


I stopped watching after the words "lifestyle choice" seeped their way into the video.

Edit: just watched the rest of it, what a load of complete and utter crap. "will churches be forced to perform same sex marriage? blah blah"

For some reason no one can seem to come up with a reason that doesn't somehow involve their religion or simply being offended by gays, that supports prop 8. Gee I wonder why.

[CalBoy]

Well, I haven't seen the video since I'm at work and can't, but I imagine (judging from stevento's response) it has something to do with supporters of Prop. 8 getting tired of being called hateful. It's probably even more offensive to hear in a two-minute "funny" video that makes light of the issue of hate.

They never use the word "hate" in the entire video.

I think it's just easier to cry fowl than to admit to one's self that their position on an issue denies something to others. I'm sure it's much less damaging to the psyche that way.

[FreeState]

What I don't get is why supporters of Prop 8 don't see why those who appose it see it as hateful. I mean how can you lovingly take away a civil right?

[NT1440]

What I don't get is why supporters of Prop 8 don't see why those who appose it see it as hateful. I mean how can you lovingly take away a civil right?

Its for the greater good of society of course!

**cult like chanting**
The Greater Good
**/cult like chanting**

:rolleyes:

[FreeState]

Its for the greater good of society of course!

**cult like chanting**
The Greater Good
**/cult like chanting**

:rolleyes:

Generally thats probably correct - its very similar to what we that were raised in the LDS church called "lying for the Lord." The end result somehow justifies the method.

[Macaddicttt]

They never use the word "hate" in the entire video.

Well, it appears then I need to apologize for prematurely defending stevento. That'll teach me to comment on something without seeing it first. :o

[NT1440]

Generally thats probably correct - its very similar to what we that were raised in the LDS church called "lying for the Lord." The end result somehow justifies the method.

You were one of them?:p

Do you agree with prop 8? or do you have different views from your church?

[Macaddicttt]

What I don't get is why supporters of Prop 8 don't see why those who appose it see it as hateful. I mean how can you lovingly take away a civil right?

Because those who support Prop. 8 don't agree that marriage to someone of the same sex is a civil right.

[NT1440]

Because those who support Prop. 8 don't agree that marriage to someone of the same sex is a civil right.

so their perfectly ok with controlling the lives of others in regards to things that in no way shape or form can cause harm to anyone?

[Macaddicttt]

so their perfectly ok with controlling the lives of others in regards to things that in no way shape or form can cause harm to anyone?

Look, I don't want to debate this. I've done it too many times. My only point is that the gay rights movement will never get anywhere if they just say, "You guys are hateful." It shows ignorance of the debate. And besides, it's never a good idea to start a debate in which you're trying to convince someone you're right with an insult.

[aethelbert]

It's a shame that I don't work in an industry that would profit on their marriage; it seemed to be quite the deal for those in the show. I guess that I'll just have to remain a neutral, merciless, unsympathetic, sinister, indifferent onlooker.

It makes for a great example of the populace of the United States voting with their pocketbooks rather than their own ideals.

[NT1440]

Look, I don't want to debate this. I've done it too many times. My only point is that the gay rights movement will never get anywhere if they just say, "You guys are hateful." It shows ignorance of the debate. And besides, it's never a good idea to start a debate in which you're trying to convince someone you're right with an insult.

:rolleyes:

Yup, ALL the gay rights movement does is say people are homophobic biggots.

I agree with you on what you said, just your idea of the gay rights movement is flawed.

[Macaddicttt]

:rolleyes:

Yup, ALL the gay rights movement does is say people are homophobic biggots.

I agree with you on what you said, just your idea of the gay rights movement is flawed.

Wherever this gay rights movement is that doesn't claim that supporters of Prop. 8 were hateful, it certainly isn't on this board. Just search "prop 8" and "hate" and I'm sure you'll find plenty of examples of calling the passage of Prop. 8 a hateful act. Take, for example, the name of the group the filed a lawsuit against the Mormon Church for allegedly misusing campaign funds: Californians Against Hate. If that's not an insult to those who are against gay marriage, I don't know what is, because if you're not a part of Californians Against Hate and support gay marriage, you must be part of the 52% who are Californians for hate.

[NT1440]

Wherever this gay rights movement is that doesn't claim that supporters of Prop. 8 were hateful, it certainly isn't on this board. Just search "prop 8" and "hate" and I'm sure you'll find plenty of examples of calling the passage of Prop. 8 a hateful act. Take, for example, the name of the group the filed a lawsuit against the Mormon Church for allegedly misusing campaign funds: Californians Against Hate. If that's not an insult to those who are against gay marriage, I don't know what is, because if you're not a part of Californians Against Hate and support gay marriage, you must be part of the 52% who are Californians for hate.

Just like anti-choice people hate abortion right?;)

labels, nothing but labels.

[Macaddicttt]

Just like anti-choice people hate abortion right?;)

labels, nothing but labels.

Um, what does abortion have anything to do with it? :confused:

And if "hate" is just a label, then I'm sure you wouldn't mind such charged labels being used against yourself. So I guess that's my permission to call anyone "hateful" or a "bigot" whenever I feel like it.

I have a feeling Godwin's going to have to make another law for the internet...

[NT1440]

Um, what does abortion have anything to do with it? :confused:

And if "hate" is just a label, then I'm sure you wouldn't mind such charged labels being used against yourself. So I guess that's my permission to call anyone "hateful" or a "bigot" whenever I feel like it.

I have a feeling Godwin's going to have to make another law for the internet...

The abortion thing is to point out that groups tend to label themselves in ways to catch attention. Just like anti-choice people call themselfs "pro-life" in an attempt to cast pro-choicers in bad light, the people you pointed out have used a label to bring attention to the issue. Both instances are equally petty and stupid for itbut at least one side doesnt try to take away the rights of others.

And yes, call me a bigot or hateful all you want, ill laugh at the ignorance of someone who gets enjoyment out of belittling others for nothing. (note that I know you were just providing an example with that and not trying to insult me, the same goes for this post, i admire that you always stay on topic and never stoop to name calling and the like. I also like when you play devils advocate)

Cheers.

[EricNau]

Wherever this gay rights movement is that doesn't claim that supporters of Prop. 8 were hateful, it certainly isn't on this board. Just search "prop 8" and "hate" and I'm sure you'll find plenty of examples of calling the passage of Prop. 8 a hateful act. Take, for example, the name of the group the filed a lawsuit against the Mormon Church for allegedly misusing campaign funds: Californians Against Hate. If that's not an insult to those who are against gay marriage, I don't know what is, because if you're not a part of Californians Against Hate and support gay marriage, you must be part of the 52% who are Californians for hate.
Prop 8 supporters may not be intentionally motivated by hate, but that doesn't make their actions any less hateful.

[Macaddicttt]

The abortion thing is to point out that groups tend to label themselves in ways to catch attention. Just like anti-choice people call themselfs "pro-life" in an attempt to cast pro-choicers in bad light, the people you pointed out have used a label to bring attention to the issue. Both instances are equally petty and stupid for itbut at least one side doesnt try to take away the rights of others.

And yes, call me a bigot or hateful all you want, ill laugh at the ignorance of someone who gets enjoyment out of belittling others for nothing. (note that I know you were just providing an example with that and not trying to insult me, the same goes for this post, i admire that you always stay on topic and never stoop to name calling and the like. I also like when you play devils advocate)

Cheers.

Ah, I see your point now. And thanks for the kind words.

[NT1440]

Ah, I see your point now. And thanks for the kind words.

np, I have no issues with those of different viewpoints as long as they are respectful and those views aren't ones that would infringe on others.

You mostly play devils advocate correct?

[FreeState]

You were one of them?:p

Do you agree with prop 8? or do you have different views from your church?

Im in the process of leaving the church - in direct relation to Prop 8. I got a letter from the church today saying in 30 days I should get an official letter saying my name has been removed from the church records.

[FreeState]

Because those who support Prop. 8 don't agree that marriage to someone of the same sex is a civil right.

So - dont they realize that gay people do see it as a right? As does the CA state supreme court and the US Supreme Court as well (see Loving vrs Virginia).

[NT1440]

Im in the process of leaving the church - in direct relation to Prop 8. I got a letter from the church today saying in 30 days I should get an official letter saying my name has been removed from the church records.

Congrats for following your sense of right and wrong rather than just conforming to others' beliefs.

[iJohnHenry]

Im in the process of leaving the church - in direct relation to Prop 8. I got a letter from the church today saying in 30 days I should get an official letter saying my name has been removed from the church records.

Congratulations.

We have the same 30-day period up here, for the "do not call" list for tele-marketers.

http://i55.photobucket.com/albums/g158/MouseMeat/Smilies/MMCdaDay.gif

[Macaddicttt]

np, I have no issues with those of different viewpoints as long as they are respectful and those views aren't ones that would infringe on others.

You mostly play devils advocate correct?

I usually try not to necessarily play devil's advocate so much as try to steer the conversation away from unnecessarily hyperbolic and divisive "debate." I feel as though on the biggest debates of our time (eg. abortion, gay marriage), both sides just talk past each other. And while I definitely have a side that I agree with, I am really bothered when one side says, "You're killing babies" and the other side says, "Your taking away a woman's right to make decisions about her own body." Obviously one side doesn't see abortion as "killing babies" so simply yelling that out will get us nowhere. Similarly, no one wants to take away a woman's rights over her own body, it's just that some people think a fetus is not the woman's body, but someone else's.

No one seems to engage people at the same level anymore. Both sides think that the bases of their arguments are flawless ("life begins at conception" and "life doesn't begin at conception") and just "debate" the logical results of those bases. The debate should be, "When does life start?" and similarly, "What is marriage and why do we have it?"

So - dont they realize that gay people do see it as a right? As does the CA state supreme court and the US Supreme Court as well (see Loving vrs Virginia).

Yes, but a difference of opinion is not enough to call someone hateful. (And by the way, Loving v. Virginia in no way says that marriage to someone of the same sex is a civil right; it says marriage is a civil right; the debate should be, "What is marriage?")

[FreeState]

Congratulations.

We have the same 30-day period up here, for the "do not call" list for tele-marketers.

http://i55.photobucket.com/albums/g158/MouseMeat/Smilies/MMCdaDay.gif

We have that on tele-marketers as well. Technically in the US if you send a resignation letter to any organization (be it a religon, club or anything) the moment they open it you are legally no longer a member of the group. The LDS Church gives you a 30 day cooling off period just incase you want to come back without having to be re-baptized etc (weather you request one or not).

[FreeState]

Yes, but a difference of opinion is not enough to call someone hateful. (And by the way, Loving v. Virginia in no way says that marriage to someone of the same sex is a civil right; it says marriage is a civil right; the debate should be, "What is marriage?")


I think we are on the same page - I was trying to point out that both sides extremist rarely look at the other sides position with any respect. For example if one truly understood that gay people see it as a civil right they would never be asking why GLBT people see taking it away as hateful - weather you see it as a civil right or not.

As to the Loving Vrs Virgina - I do not believe there is such thing as same sex marriage - there is just civil marriage - a civil contract between two consenting adults - in my opinion - and thats what the justices in CA ruled as well.

[EricNau]

I usually try not to necessarily play devil's advocate so much as try to steer the conversation away from unnecessarily hyperbolic and divisive "debate."
Normally I would agree with you, but this video obviously wasn't intended for formal debating purposes. This video was meant for everyone who opposed Prop 8; if we can't find a way to laugh about it, we'd cry.

[CalBoy]

Its for the greater good of society of course!

**cult like chanting**
The Greater Good
**/cult like chanting**

:rolleyes:

Say, isn't that what the town council says in Hot Fuzz? :p
Because those who support Prop. 8 don't agree that marriage to someone of the same sex is a civil right.

You still haven't answered the question: how do you lovingly take away a civil right?

Unless we are to believe that the South loved African Americans during Jim Crow. Since that would be the logical extension of the argument.
Look, I don't want to debate this. I've done it too many times. My only point is that the gay rights movement will never get anywhere if they just say, "You guys are hateful." It shows ignorance of the debate. And besides, it's never a good idea to start a debate in which you're trying to convince someone you're right with an insult.

You obviously don't pay attention to gay rights then.

Until Prop 8, the Human Rights Campaign (the primary advocate for gay issues in the US) did its work through various activites that were meant to bridge people together. They still do this, in fact.

The current battle over Prop 8 has brought out some of the same elements that the Civil Rights movement did in the 1950s and '60s: activism and protest. At this point, we've basically gotten as far as we can through hand holding and "pretty please, we promise not to go too far with our rights requests." Now is the time for visible and consistent protest and calling out bigots for who they are. We aren't going to convince them, but we are going to minimize their ability to change the law in the short term. Once a few more years pass, we'll win the war easily since young voters don't care about this issue (as in they support gay rights by margins of 2:1 or higher).

[TSE]

Honestly I don't really have an opinion right now on Prop 8. On one hand I believe Gays should have just as much rights as anyone else, but on the other hand I kind of disagree how parents don't have the right to control what the teacher's teaching their children about gays.

[NT1440]

Say, isn't that what the town council says in Hot Fuzz? :p



I LOVE THAT MOVIE. I cant remember the main actors name but him and his friend are just rediculously funny.

Edit: And a huge amount of us young people DO care about this issue, so much in fact that we dont understand what the issue is. Gays are people and they deserve the rights, I dont understand how anyone could think otherwise.

I love knowing that the country is only going to become more and more open and liberal as time passes ;)

[CalBoy]

Honestly I don't really have an opinion right now on Prop 8. On one hand I believe Gays should have just as much rights as anyone else, but on the other hand I kind of disagree how parents don't have the right to control what the teacher's teaching their children about gays.

Why does that part scare you?

The teacher is only going to provide objective information (gay people exist, they are just like everyone else, etc) to an age-appropriate classroom.

The people who should be scared of that are people who still think that homosexuality is a "choice" and that all gays are going to hell.
I LOVE THAT MOVIE. I cant remember the main actors name but him and his friend are just rediculously funny.

Simon Pegg. ;)

Edit: And a huge amount of us young people DO care about this issue, so much in fact that we dont understand what the issue is. Gays are people and they deserve the rights, I dont understand how anyone could think otherwise.

I love knowing that the country is only going to become more and more open and liberal as time passes ;)

I meant "care" in the other direction.

Younger people aren't going to be voting for Prop 8-like measures, and while I'm sure some of you are going to be a huge help, your real help to us comes from the fact that you're ready to vote for us rather than against us.

[EricNau]

Honestly I don't really have an opinion right now on Prop 8. On one hand I believe Gays should have just as much rights as anyone else, but on the other hand I kind of disagree how parents don't have the right to control what the teacher's teaching their children about gays.
That issue, specifically, is completely irrelevant to Prop 8. Parents most certainly have the right to remove their child from any instruction they deem unfavorable, and Prop 8 doesn't change that in any way.

Also, California schools are NOT required to teach sex education, but in the event they choose to, they must comply with the following:
Instruction shall be age-appropriate and bias-free, and all factual information shall be medically accurate and objective. Instruction shall be appropriate for students of all genders, sexual orientations, and ethnic and cultural backgrounds, and . . . teach respect for marriage and committed relationships. Link (http://www.cde.ca.gov/ls/he/se/sexeducation.asp)
Based on the phrasing of this standard, Prop 8 in no way changes the optional instruction regarding relationships, gay or straight, marriage or not.

This is a perfect example of how the Yes on 8 campaign downright lied to the public in order to gain their vote. How righteous of them. :rolleyes:

[abijnk]

hit ctrl + F (or apple + f on a mac) and search that page for the word "bible" or "church" and YOU WONT FIND ONE SINGLE MATCH
Prop 8 opponents need to stop attacking and rebutting arguments that were NEVER MADE.

Maybe not in the links you posted, I admittedly didn't go to them, but in a commercial that aired here in California there was a clergyman in full religious robes talking about Prop 8. Just thought you should know.

[Demosthenes X]

Yes, but a difference of opinion is not enough to call someone hateful.

No, but translating that difference of opinion into action can be hateful.

[Blue Velvet]

I've gotta be honest, I'm a bit tired of all the Prop 8 stuff, and all the hysterical finger-pointing, especially after reading this article... and anyone who knows me know that I support gay marriage 100%.

I've been saying this all along in similar threads. Don't blame black people, don't blame the Mormons, calls for boycotts are just petty gesture politics.


Prop 8 should have been defeated — two months before the election, it was down 17 points in the polls — but the gay-rights groups that tried to stop it ran a lousy campaign. According to veteran political observers, the No on Prop 8 effort was slow to raise money, ran weak and confusing ads, and failed to put together a grass-roots operation to get out the vote.

"This was political malpractice," says a Democratic consultant who operates at the highest level of California politics. "They ****ed this up, and it was painful to watch. They shouldn't be allowed to pawn this off on the Mormons or anyone else. They snatched defeat from the jaws of victory, and now hundreds of thousands of gay couples are going to pay the price."

...

From the start, the leaders of the No on Prop 8 campaign and their high-priced consultants failed to realize what they were up against. According to Geoff Kors, who headed the campaign's executive committee, the No side anticipated needing no more than $20 million to stop the gay-marriage ban. The Yes side, by contrast, set out to change how initiative politics are played, building a well-funded operation that rivaled a swing-state presidential campaign in its scope and complexity.

...

The No on Prop 8 campaign, meanwhile, was oblivious to the formidable field operation that the other side was mounting. Worse, its executive committee refused to include leaders of top gay and lesbian grass-roots organizations, which deprived them of an army of willing foot soldiers. "We didn't have people going door to door," admits Yvette Martinez, the campaign's political director. The field operation consisted of volunteers phone-banking from 135 call centers across the state, an effort that didn't begin ramping up until mid-October.

"They had no ground game," says a leading Democratic consultant. "They thought they could win this thing by slapping some ads together. It was the height of naiveté."

...


The Yes on 8 campaign's get-out-the-vote effort was equally prodigious. The weekend before the vote, Schubert's religious volunteers once again went door to door, speaking to supporters and directing them to the right precinct locations. "On Election Day," he says, "we had 100,000 people — five per precinct — checking voter rolls and contacting supporters who hadn't showed up to vote."

By contrast, the No on Prop 8 campaign mobilized just 11,000 volunteers on Election Day, which they deployed to polling locations to hold "Vote No on 8" signs.

:rolleyes:

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/24603325/samesex_setback


Gotta do it right the next time around.

[CalBoy]

Don't blame black people, don't blame the Mormons,

I don't like to blame individual social groups who voted in favor of 8, because I think that voters as a whole are fairly manipulatable. They are sheep and will follow whatever message of fear the TV brings them in large enough doses.

I do, however, blame the shepherd. In this case, the principle shepherd was the Mormon Church, and I think we can assign adequate responsibility onto them (and they are willing to accept it in conservative regions, yet unwilling to accept the same responsibility in progressive regions where their wallets are now in jeopardy...hmmm...).

Put another way, I think we can assign blame into tiers:

1st Tier (least responsible): Voters who don't think for themselves and voted based on TV adverts or only the word of their religious leader. This is irresponsible voting, and in this case it cost a group its rights.

2nd Tier (Medium responsibility): The No on 8 campaign. Their derelict campaign didn't do enough to stop what happened, but in the end they don't bear ultimate responsibility because they didn't engage in the fight to begin with.

3rd Tier (Most Responsible): The organizers of the Yes on 8 campaign (and large organizations which provided implicit help through money or manpower) and religious figures who felt it was appropriate to use their power to the detriment of others. They are engine of the movement and the vote. Had they not acted, all of this could have been avoided, saving not only upwards of $60 million (imagine how many mouths that could feed in the world), but also a very divisive election that has pitted neighbor against neighbor and colleague against colleague.

Since I'm a fan of analogies, and because I just heard a Titanic reference (:p), I think that we can say that the voters are like the iceberg; they do the damage in the end, but they are rather stationary and not very aware. The No on 8 Campaign is like the designer of the ship; had he built it better, it might not have sunk. The Yes on 8 campaign is like the captain who lets the ship hit the iceberg. Had he been more responsible, the entire mess could have been avoided.

calls for boycotts are just petty gesture politics.

Gesture politics speak volumes to judges, however, and there are 4 in San Francisco who need the gesture come March. ;)

Besides, these types of things (days of protest/boycott) are usually the start of a more organized political movement. Gay Americans haven't been as well organized in the past. If this helps them, then maybe it's all for the best.

[Blue Velvet]

I do, however, blame the shepherd.


They organised an efficient campaign and mobilised supporters. That was their right to do so.

The other side, the establishment entrusted with campaigning for your rights, didn't. They neglected the first rule of war 'know thine enemy'.

Demand the best from those who claim to speak for you, instead of blaming others.

[CalBoy]

They organised an efficient campaign and mobilised supporters. That was their right to do so.

Unquestionably, just as it is now within the rights of others to hold them responsible for that mobilization.

However, a certain amount of blame does belong to the oppressor (I'd argue the preponderance). Their actions may have been legally above water (and apparently not so in every case, as the other thread about campaign investigations seems to indicate), but they were morally reprehensible. To organize against a specific minority in a society, for any reason, invites culpability.

Furthermore, the campaign they ran may have been well organized in terms of groundwork, but it was also guilty of the same swift boat tactics we saw in 2004. Using fear and manipulating people by striking at the things closest to them. Honestly BV, some of the ads were absolutely horrendous, and frankly reflected the philosophy of the entire Yes on 8 campaign.

The other side, the establishment entrusted with campaigning for your rights, didn't. They neglected the first rule of war 'know thine enemy'.

Demand the best from those who claim to speak for you, instead of blaming others.

Why can't I do both? ;)

I didn't like the No on 8 side, until the very end when they realized the race was tightening (some of the best commercials came during the final week of campaigning, when it was already too late for nearly 10% of the voters since they had already cast their ballots).

Honestly, I too was a fool. I imagined that Prop 8 would fail (the polls showed it for the longest time) so I put my money and time towards Obama. I'm guessing that many of us did, and I'm sure we won't make the same mistake again.

[FreeState]

Honestly, I too was a fool. I imagined that Prop 8 would fail (the polls showed it for the longest time) so I put my money and time towards Obama. I'm guessing that many of us did, and I'm sure we won't make the same mistake again.

I think a lot of people did that.

I do however have a problem with the Rolling Stone Article. Prop 8 should have never been on the ballot. You can not blame a campaign for this - however you can and should place blame on a system that is broken. When they were gathering signatures to put this on the ballot they used paid signature gatherers who lied about what you were signing. In San Diego they told people in gay areas they had to sign it so they could make gay marriage legal while they covered up the top of the sheet you signed that explained it would outlaw it. I have pictures to this day on my computer of a woman who tried to do this to me.

I strongly dislike public propositions and feel they need to be done away with. I also feel that paying people to gather signatures is not direct democracy. In additon passing an amendment with only 50% of the popular vote is just wrong on so many levels. CA needs to fix its system in order to protect its citizens.

Minority righty should never be voted on - its disgusting and un American - as is blaming an unpopular minority for the loss of their own civil rights.

[CalBoy]

as is blaming an unpopular minority for the loss of their own civil rights.

I agree with the rest of your post, but BV isn't blaming the minority group, but rather those who ran the campaign. Frankly, she does have a point. The No side didn't run the best campaign.

[Blue Velvet]

Minority righty should never be voted on - its disgusting and un American - as is blaming an unpopular minority for the loss of their own civil rights.

I'm sorry, but you had paid political professionals to organise an expensive campaign on your behalf, which they did so appallingly by accounts. Solidarity on issues alone is a fool's game. Demand better and wonder why so much blame is being deflected elsewhere.

Holding signs isn't a GOTV strategy.

[CalBoy]

Holding signs isn't a GOTV strategy.

That ship has sailed.

There won't be another vote in the near future, and we turn our attention to the Court. Holding signs can have an impact on their decision making process (as sad as it is), so it isn't all for naught.

[FreeState]

I agree with the rest of your post, but BV isn't blaming the minority group, but rather those who ran the campaign. Frankly, she does have a point. The No side didn't run the best campaign.

I was referring to the Rolling Stone article - not BV.

Your right the no side ran an awful campaign - they knew the #1 issue they were going to push was children and they did nothing about it until the middle of October.

[FreeState]

Holding signs isn't a GOTV strategy.

It worked for the Yes on 8 side. That was one of there #1 tactics - to have people hold signs on corners - you can do a google search on it. It changes public perception that it was okay to be against equality.

I tried to get a no on 8 sign for over a month and never got one. They told me it was not important - that people did not vote by what sign their neighbors had in their yard. One more mistake on the campaigns part IMO.

That being said - no on 8 was one of the worse campaigns I have seen in a long time. But that does not change my opinion that it should have never been on the ballot in the first place and that we as a state must make sure no minorities rights are put up to popular vote ever again.

[CalBoy]

I was referring to the Rolling Stone article - not BV.

It's not blaming gays either, but rather the campaign.

Your right the no side ran an awful campaign - they knew the #1 issue they were going to push was children and they did nothing about it until the middle of October.

Yeah, the children thing was really bad. Whenever I saw those ads I wanted to yell at the TV. :o

Honestly it was disgusting the way they painted gay people in those ads, and somehow never even showed a single gay person.

I can't even begin to imagine how one would campaign against that kind of commercial.

[Blue Velvet]

It worked for the Yes on 8 side.

Did you read the article?


Schubert put Mormon volunteers to work in an expansive field campaign modeled on the effort his business partner, Jeff Flint, worked on in 2004 for George Bush in Ohio. "This is the first time in initiative history that it's ever been done" for a ballot measure, says Schubert. Throughout the summer, Yes on 8 deployed an army of more than 100,000 volunteers to knock on doors in every zip code in the state.

"We had an enormous grass-roots advantage," Schubert says. "Our core was people of faith, and we were able to organize through churches." In the end, he says, the campaign visited 70 percent of all California households in person, and contacted another 15 percent by phone.

The No on Prop 8 campaign, meanwhile, was oblivious to the formidable field operation that the other side was mounting. Worse, its executive committee refused to include leaders of top gay and lesbian grass-roots organizations, which deprived them of an army of willing foot soldiers. "We didn't have people going door to door," admits Yvette Martinez, the campaign's political director. The field operation consisted of volunteers phone-banking from 135 call centers across the state, an effort that didn't begin ramping up until mid-October.

"They had no ground game," says a leading Democratic consultant. "They thought they could win this thing by slapping some ads together. It was the height of naiveté."

The Yes on 8 campaign's get-out-the-vote effort was equally prodigious. The weekend before the vote, Schubert's religious volunteers once again went door to door, speaking to supporters and directing them to the right precinct locations. "On Election Day," he says, "we had 100,000 people — five per precinct — checking voter rolls and contacting supporters who hadn't showed up to vote."

By contrast, the No on Prop 8 campaign mobilized just 11,000 volunteers on Election Day, which they deployed to polling locations to hold "Vote No on 8" signs. The campaign even turned away volunteers who were unable to attend a sign-holding training seminar. Terry Leftgoff, a veteran campaign consultant who was once the highest-ranking gay officer in the California Democratic Party, was one of those who was informed that his services weren't needed. "I was told I could come by on November 5th and help clean up a campaign office," Leftgoff says.

[FreeState]

It's not blaming gays either, but rather the campaign.

I think that if you go back and read it and look up all the people and organizations its discussing you will realize they are all GLBT groups (Equality CA/HRC, The Center in LA etc).


Yeah, the children thing was really bad. Whenever I saw those ads I wanted to yell at the TV. :o

Honestly it was disgusting the way they painted gay people in those ads, and somehow never even showed a single gay person.

I can't even begin to imagine how one would campaign against that kind of commercial.

When the No campaigned asked the Supreme Court to pull the prop from the ballot they also sued to stop the Yes side from using Schools and Children and the court ruled that it had nothing to do with schools or children but the Yes on 8 campaign could say what ever they wanted (free speech).

Its very hard to combat that though - so instead if they really wanted to put an end to it they could have, and IMO should have, attacked the Yes campaign on that issue rather than only trying to disprove it.

[CalBoy]

I think that if you go back and read it and look up all the people and organizations its discussing you will realize they are all GLBT groups (Equality CA/HRC, The Center in LA etc).

Sure, but that doesn't mean that it's saying anything about the people who are most affected (us).

Flip it around. The Mormon Church was a huge player on the Yes side, but does that mean that we are blaming Mormons in general? No.

When the No campaigned asked the Supreme Court to pull the prop from the ballot they also sued to stop the Yes side from using Schools and Children and the court ruled that it had nothing to do with schools or children but the Yes on 8 campaign could say what ever they wanted (free speech).

And I agree with that decision. It was within their rights to say whatever they wanted to. There really was no good way to counter those ads. Even if we had 100,000 people on the ground, the fear impact of those ads was just immense.

IMO should have, attacked the Yes campaign on that issue rather than only trying to disprove it.

If they had attacked on that front, the Yes said would have declared, "See, they are going to teach your kids about gays!"

Discussing the truth and using the State Superintendent was really the only way to go, even if it wasn't great.

[FreeState]

Did you read the article?

Yes I did - now go google about the yes side and why they did the same thing. I do not agree with the article that it was ineffective - both sides did it. Actually the Yes on 8 side started standing on corners with signs before the no on 8 side. The problem was the No side did very little else - holding signs has a place in a campaign - however its not enough on its own.

[FreeState]

If they had attacked on that front, the Yes said would have declared, "See, they are going to teach your kids about gays!"

Discussing the truth and using the State Superintendent was really the only way to go, even if it wasn't great.

I worded that wrong - I meant they should have attacked the yes on 8 side with the Supreme Courts ruling on the issue. For example make and ad showing how dishonest the campaign was with proof that they were pushing BS. Very few CA residents even know that the court said Prop 8 had nothing to do with children. No one knows who the Education department is headed by, he has no clout - the court does.

[CalBoy]

I worded that wrong - I meant they should have attacked the yes on 8 side with the Supreme Courts ruling on the issue. For example make and ad showing how dishonest the campaign was with proof that they were pushing BS. Very few CA residents even know that the court said Prop 8 had nothing to do with children. No one knows who the Education department is headed by, he has no clout - the court does.

I think the State Superintendent is a much better authority figure than the Court.

Remember, some middle of the road voters weren't sure how they felt about the Court at the time. It would have been risky to bet on that.

[Blue Velvet]

Yes I did - now go google about the yes side and why they did the same thing.

I was specifically talking about GOTV. 100,000 people knocking on doors on and then getting out the vote on that day vs. 11,000 people holding signs outside polling stations.

I'm hearing too much of the victim mentality and not enough demanding of accountability. The entire purpose of a campaign is to persuade and to motivate. It sounds like they did little of either. Don't kowtow towards or feel any allegiance to the Californian gay establishment; they screwed up... they didn't understand what they were up against and many prominent people were saying so weeks beforehand.

[EricNau]

Did you read the article?
With the advantage of hindsight, it's clear that the No on 8 campaign was an utter failure. Why? Because none of us thought it would pass. I mean, really, how could it?

A No vote was encouraged by the Supreme Court; Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger; our Federal Senators Boxer and Feinstein; the mayors of our largest counties; the majority of our elected national and state officials; every major newspaper in the state; private corporations including PG&E, Levi Strauss, Google, and Apple; the Democratic Party; the Teacher's, Nurse's, and Farmer's Associations; and even the President to be, Obama!

...We had the support of essentially all three branches of government, with some of the largest names in politics as our personal spokesmen. Plus, every poll prior to the election showed us with a significant lead.

We were arrogant, underestimated our opponents, and as a result, got lazy. Trust me, it won't happen again.

(Although, I suppose the Yes campaign had the advantage of lying. ;))



I would like to point out again that the video of which this thread is conversing was never meant to be fair: it was meant to be biased, satirical, parodical, and ultimately, fun. For those of us who voted no, we lost; can't we commiserate and have a good laugh?

[NT1440]

its sad we live in a country where the fight is started by the other side, you have to play defense the whole time against dirty campaigns, and your side gets blamed for having your rights taken away.

Thats the america we are supposed to love so much?

[Prof.]

"Jesus" is right, ya know. Christians pick and choose from the bible what they want to believe in. Therefore, in my opinion, there is no such thing as a true/devout Christian.

Funny skit tho. :D