The Creepy, Yet Beautiful Street Art of Dan Witz Now in L.A.
Recession Obsession: Sky's Gourmet Tacos
Silver Lake Art Crawl: Also a Food Truck Crawl?
Does Traffic Get Worse After the End of Daylight Saving Time?
Eye Nosh: Is This the Best Pastrami in America?
Last week No on Prop 8 launched the first TV ad in the November ballot fight and everyone knew the Yes on Prop 8 side would fight back. That day is today when they launched an ad using footage of gay rights San Francisco mayor Gavin Newsom in the ad (and also includes Pepperdine University School of Law professor Richard Peterson).
Proposition 8, which would eliminate same sex marriage in California if passed, is one of the most heated battles within the state with large amounts of money raised on each side. Protect Marriage, the proponents of the prop (they want same sex marriage eliminated), are asking for donations while saying "wealthy gay activists and Hollywood liberals like Brad Pitt have spent $5 million on an 8 week media buy airing an issue advertisement designed to create public support for gay marriage."
No on Prop 8 campaign manager Dale Kelly Bankhead wrote in an e-mail today that truths presented in the proponents TV ad are "a blatant lie":
Their ad claims that the California Supreme Court "mandated" the right to marry for same-sex couples and, as a result, school children will be taught about same-sex marriage unless Prop 8 passes.Of course it's a blatant lie.
What the Court did was uphold the Constitution's promise of equality.
And the proponents know that their claim that the law requires that children be taught about same-sex marriage in school is also a lie, just like the other false claims in their misleading ad.
But honesty clearly is not a value that the proponents of Prop 8 believe in.
Both sides also launched more ads on their respective YouTube channels last week. Blogger Justin Mclachlan went through all of statements in the ads and fact checked them. He said both are "mostly accurate," but both did not get green lights from him.
add to stumble upon
add to reddit
tweet this
post to facebook
Argh.
Really, if you don't like gay marriage, don't have one. But, please, don't try to tell me that my marriage is any less valuable or worthy.
Thank you.
Seriously.
Same with guns, drugs and all laws. Stop forcing people at gunpoint to live the life you live.
Prop 8 campaign is going to win we are all tired of the gay mafia trying to take control because its politictly correct
lahipster: Ha ha ha ha. You are pathetic.
Fuck politically correct.
It's our human right to do whatever we please with our own existence.
I'll never understand where people get off telling others how to live.
No on 8!
"LAhipster" you're really from the midwest, aren't you?
aw, come on, joeygirl, you don't have to insult the entire midwest. sure, i now live in los angeles, but for reasons other than the whole population of that huge region supposedly being of one mind. please. i spent most of my life in either cleveland or toledo, ohio - and can attest to the fact that there are many, many wonderful and open minded people in that part of the midwest.
bigots, unfortunately, are everywhere.
as a matter of fact, did you not realize that this prop 8, and the homophobic people fighting to ban gay marriage - is/are in the supposedly liberal state of california? sure, gay marriage is now legal here, as it should be everywhere - but, it did still take until the year 2008, and there are many people here opposed to it.
again: bigots are everywhere. our only hope is enough small victories - regardless of issues - that lead to the day that non-vocal/rarely voting majority who i do believe are opposed to laws that limit freedoms finally beat the far too vocal/votes every time kind of voter that bigots ("value voters") are.
We live in a democracy. CA voters voted on this issue, with an overwhelming majority favoring Marriage defined as a union btw a man and a woman.
A few judges overturned the will of the majority. That is no democracy.
Gays and lesbians enjoy all the legal rights and benefits of a legal marriage via California's domestic partnership unions, so "gay marriage" is not legally necessary.
For all the love and devotion gays and lesbians may feel, the fact remains that only a woman and a man can create new life via their union. Marriage protects new life. Children are meant to have a mother and a father who are committed via marriage.
Gays and lesbians will never be able to create life, so why call their unions "marriage" -- they are partners, but not truly married.
"Gays and lesbians will never be able to create life, so why call their unions "marriage" -- they are partners, but not truly married." -Open Mind
Many definitions of marriage still specify heterosexual gender, but since when is marriage defined as the ability to create life? I couldn't find that in any selection of dictionaries. So by your definition, is a heterosexual couple that cannot have children for biological reasons not qualified to be married since they will never be able to create life?
Gary -- Yup. That's what Open Mind is saying. I think my mom and dad have to get a divorce now because they aren't going to have any more kids. Sorry mom and dad... but Open Mind said that's just how it works. From now on you're just partners.
contradictio in terminis:
lahipster - probably not from la, definitely not hip.
open mind - believes in very closed definition of marriage (that would, as pointed out, exclude many heterosexual couples).
maybe you were just being playfully ironic...
Throughout American history, the legislature and the courts have stepped in to ensure the rights of all people, especially the rights of the minority. President Lincoln abolished slavery to the frustration and outrage of the South because of the impact on their 'slave' economy. The U.S government in 1920 voted to give women the right to vote when the popular majority of men were against it. The U.S. Sumpreme court in 1954 overturned 'Separate but Equal' education to enforce and mandate integration of races in our public schools, again, against popular opinion.
These are just a few examples of where the legislature and our judicial system stepped in to protect the rights of people who were not of the majority.
Now we have legalized same sex marriage in California. Those 'radical' judges looked at all the cases in California and found one that similiarly applied: 1947 - California Supreme Court decision to allow for inter-racial marriage. The courts used this as their analysis as to why it is unconstitutional for gays and lesbians to marry. In addition, singling out gays and lesbian couples to the distinction of 'domestic partnership' is discriminatory when others are not held to that same distiction.
The Supreme Court made a 'legal' decison based in its analysis of discrimination. The courts, by their own admission, are not the arbitors of 'tradition' (as in traditonal marriage) because traditions do change over time, nor do they arbitrate religion and God because of our separation of church and state.
The Yes vote is not about 'the children' and preserving the tradition of marriage, it's about denying the rights of a minority group the same privileges that all others have as a fundamental right. It's discrimination.
Uhemm, the California State Supreme Court overturned the Federal governments, not the people's, law DOMA (Defense of Marriage Act which passed in '96) because they found - and rightfully so - that is was both unconstitutional and a violation of equal protection.
A little background: It wasn't until 1977 that California defined marriage as "a personal relation arising out of a civil context, to which consent of the parties making that contract is necessary." Very ambiguous, I know. Then, in 2000 (13 yrs later), those Prop 22 people came in and demanded that marriage be defined as "a personal relation arising out of a civil contract between a man and a woman, to which the consent of the parties capable of making that contract is necessary." The overwhelming majority you speak of - 61% - is not that overwhelming. Especially since in 2006 California allowed same-sex marriage as a result of the midterm elections. Furthermore, it is with great certainty that the same people who created Prop 22 are the same ones who are pushing Prop 8. Do these people not have enough trouble in their own lives that they have to cause trouble in the lives of others?
My point being is that this proposition has risen from fear of a "live and let live" attitude. We can all believe what we choose and we can agree to disagree, but you can tell me I'm wrong when gay/lesbian/tg couples take time out of their day to rally people together to change the way heterosexual couples live their lives even when it has absolutely nothing to do with them.
PS. I agree with Gary's statement.
PSS. The Mid-West comment was in no way an insult but a case in point to where no LA native would call themselves an "LA Hipster" (It's like a native from San Francisco calling the city "Frisco": not gonna happen). The fact that you take my comment as an insult showcases and plays on the insecurities of the stereotypes and realities you have of where you're from and the people who inhabit it.
*I
That was supposed to say I heart LAist. :)
the ca supreme court did not overturn the federal DOMA act because a state supreme court does not have the power to overturn federal law. the ca supreme court overturned the CA doma act, prop 22.
Excuse me, I misspoke, but Prop 22 is California's DOMA and that's what I meant they overturned.
You can have your views but put that tolerance into play. I see more hate directed at those in favor of prop 8 than those opposed. Gays and Lesbians are not being descriminated against. On the contrary, those who support traditional marriage are being descriminated against.