UCLA Students Take Over Building in Protest of Fee Increase Vote
Jason Segel Sings His Phone Number at the Swell Season Last Night
BART Cop Murder Trial to Move to Downtown L.A., Lawyer Predicts More L.A. Riots
-thumb-110x110-459458.jpg)
Bouchon Amuses Our Bouches
Midnight Movie: VICE Explores LA's Hidden Urban Oil Wells
Finally. After a barrage of slanderous and fear-mongering commercials from the Yes on Prop 8 campaign, and somewhat tepid and underwhelming ads from the No on Prop 8 campaign, it is heartening to see positive and effective messaging put forth by these witty videos by Margaret Cho, Molly Ringwald, and friends, in the style of the Mac vs PC ads. The first video is posted above, the rest, below.
This video stars a very attractive California State Constitution:
Here's Molly Ringwald and her husband:
And Margaret Cho and her show co-star Selene Luna:
add to stumble upon
add to reddit
tweet this
post to facebook
Awesome :)
Nothing quite like a "core truth" to really let everyone know what this proposition is all about. Denying fellow citizens their rights.
Excellent !!!
Thank god.
Yay! This is GREAT news! :)
Prop 8's twin passed in 2000. There's no reason to think it won't pass this time, too, even with unoriginal commercials.
Children are supposed to be raised with a father and a mother; that's how they're made. Prop 8 protects this natural pattern. To vote no on Prop 8 is to take away this right from children.
although i want to be sympathetic to "thatwasrad" i am sorry to say i am horrified. the thought that all a kid needs is a mother and a father and that any old heterosexual couple will do is absurd. what a kid needs is love and understanding, from a man, a woman, two men, two women, you name it. to say that prop 8 protects a child's right is missing the point entirely. what if that child grows up to be gay, what about his or her rights then?
Following thatwasrad's logic, we need to outlaw single parenting as well. Tell me, how do you expect to pay to care for all of those children?
Have you ever noticed that mom + dad parenting has resulted in some messed up abuse and broken homes? Don't kid yourself, hetero parents are just as prone to raising kids poorly, or fabulously, as gay parents. Also - who said that getting married means you're going to choose to have kids?
There's some cool Obama vs. McCain ones like that too: http://www.votesmarter2008.com .
Think of the children. Always a sure fire way to claim you're right and your opposition is wrong.
I'll believe social conservatives on this rights of the child claim when they start supporting things like pre-natal care, family planning, children's health insurance and other important programs.
uhm, children are created by a man's sperm and a woman's egg, not necessarily by a mother and a father. if you can't see the distinction, you shouldn't even be allowed to vote.
and how is it a 'natural pattern'? do you not know there are many mammal species out there that do not raise their offspring as a couple, not to mention are not monogamous?
at least make an attempt to not be so ignorant.
Much better ads.
Bingo, Gary, good points.
thatwasrad, as jamiebeth says, the sexual orientation of the parents has little to do with whether the child will be raised in a home where both parents love each other, will provide the children a positive and loving environment, and where the parents are well adjusted, comfortable with being themselves, and will be good role models to their children.
If Adam and Steve want to express their committment as their parents, Adam and Steve should get the same level of recognition.
Seriously... the apple / pc ads never get old. It's the "Got Milk" ad of our generation.
OK, so it will get old... but it will take 10 years and lots of kids with posters on their wall.
What about children who grow up to be gay? Or children raised in households with gay parents? No on Prop 8 will send a message that their families aren't second-class. They are loved and accepted. And then, of course, many people get married without the intention of raising children - it's to solidify and legalize their own relationship. That's it.
I hate the Yes on 8 ad that show a mother who's distraught over her second grader learning about gay marriage (like she's afraid her daughter will learn how to be gay?). If/when I have children, they will learn far earlier than second grade that there are many types of loving families that may look different from ours. Jeez, people, not everyone is made from the same cookie cutter. (Your children are also not little clones, but I guess that's for another post.)
> Children are supposed to be raised with a father and a mother; that's how they're made. Prop 8 protects this natural pattern. To vote no on Prop 8 is to take away this right from children.
Well thank the gods (or god [or the big kahuna in the sky]) that the divorce rate in the U.S. is soooo low. How fortunate that all those little kids will have a mommy and daddy raising them. And if Prop 8 passes we'll make sure that non-breeders have limited rights.
Truth be told if that keeping a natural order of male/female parentage was the real reason behind Prop 8 an it would be an attempt to end all divorce rather than that of depriving one very narrow group of people the right to marry whom they wish.
-If this prop is about denying NO ONE their rights, what about the allowing ANYONE to marry ANYONE? Really think about that and see if you are open minded enough for it? If you are, keep using the argument that it's just about rights.
-I thought intellectual property rights meant you don't steal ideas, these ads are played out and overly simplify the issue.
-Do I think gays should be able to live their lives privately, peacefully with visitation rights, financial, property rights etc? Of course I do, and I everyone I personally know who is supporting this prop thinks the same. Gays already had all these rights w/ domestic partnerships/ civil unions.
As stated above "I'll believe social conservatives on this rights of the child claim when they start supporting things like pre-natal care, family planning, children's health insurance and other important programs."
-I do support all these things and I am a social conservative.
I have an Obama sign on my lawn (I don't want McCain to be the guy with his anger problem and finger on the button) and a YES on 8 sign on my lawn. Guess which one was slashed and pulled out on Mon. night and pulled out last night? You guessed right, it wasn't the blue one.
This is not "dignified" (a word used in the first ad) or tolerant behavior. Do I think 99 percent of the people who are voting no would do this? Of course not. It's probably the same person walking by every night. If I'm not going to categorize you why would you make assumptions about me as a social conservative?
beth321321: i'm not sure i'm following your logic, because i found your logic a little hard to follow, but let me just say this, if by saying, "If this prop is about denying NO ONE their rights, what about the allowing ANYONE to marry ANYONE? Really think about that and see if you are open minded enough for it? If you are, keep using the argument that it's just about rights," you are linking gay marriage to bestiality or polygamy you are being far more insulting and bigoted than you probably realize.
and obama doesn't believe in gay marriage anymore than you do so please don't use that as a badge of honor.
what you should really be thinking hard about is what the hell you are so afraid of, because everything you've said above reeks of fear.
you say you believe that everyone should have the same rights as long as it's called something other than marriage -- separate but equal has never worked. ever.
i wish you a lot of growth and wisdom in this coming year and i hope you can come to a place where you truly value all people as equal and don't feel the need to relegate certain people to second class citizen status.
peace be with you.
If you're attempting to discount a rule because of some exceptions to the rule, you must be from another planet. Since day one, the best method to raise a child has been from a mother and father. (If you want to take "religion" out of it, consider how Darwin would view homosexuality.)
Along those same lines, it is ridiculous to compare the parenting behaviors of humans to those of other mammals. Just because a bird regurgitates into the mouth of its chick doesn't mean that I should do the same to my newborn.
To comment on the effect of legalizing homosexual marriages on education: there are two appalling items here. First is that my children could be taught moral issues from an educator who may have completely different ideas than I do. I'm fine that people have different opinions--I love it, and it would be a scary place without it--but to have issues as important as these inculcated in my children from his or her primary place of learning is scary. Secondly, the fact that parents in MA have been unable to have a say in these teachings is not scary but terrifying. Could this not happen here? Elementary school kids are already being brought on field trips to gay weddings. This is not acceptable.
This proposition is not about tolerance, because you can have tolerance of a behavior without condoning it.
thatwasrad: do you really think your kids AREN'T being taught moral issues in school right now? is this the first issue that could be taught in a school that doesn't match with your values? if so, you're lucky.
I'd like to do something that seems to be unpopular on this site, and that's side with beth321321 and thatwasrad.
I'm not in agreement with Supreme Court Judges overruling the voice of the people (prop 22 which was passed 8 yrs ago). And that would give me reason alone to vote with a Yes on this proposition.
And jamiebeth, I don't get the sense that beth321321's post carried a "fearful" tone whatsoever. That's you reading into this simply because you seem to have a different view on the issue.
Which brings me to an annoying occurrence with supporting this prop...the immediate accusation from those opposed that I'm a homophobe and side with the "right." Neither of which is true.
If we're all about tolerance here, it would be nice to be able to take a stand on one side or the other and be able to have respect for one other--even if those views don't coincide.
Instead, all I seem to hear is how ignorant and bigoted those who stand up for the definition of "marriage" being between a man and a woman are.
I love the fact that we live in a place where we can have different views and are able to voice them at the polls.
"Guess which one was slashed and pulled out on Mon. night and pulled out last night? You guessed right, it wasn't the blue one."
You have a sign on your lawn that specifically declares your opposition to civil rights. Are you really surprised that people would be offended enough to deface or remove that sign?
"Elementary school kids are already being brought on field trips to gay weddings."
Hahahaha!!!
jamiebeth, it's not "all or nothing." My kids will obviously be taught things in school that I disagree with. But you seem to think that because this is the case, I shouldn't even bother trying to change things from getting worse. If you truly believed this, I don't think you'd give a hoot about elections. Yet you obviously do, and I applaud you for that.
"I'm not in agreement with Supreme Court Judges overruling the voice of the people (prop 22 which was passed 8 yrs ago). And that would give me reason alone to vote with a Yes on this proposition."
wowie:
Are you aware of the concept of Tyranny of the Majority? Since when has a majority vote ever actively protected the rights of a minority group? My hope is that it will this November, but do you really think that throughout all the social leaps we've experienced as a nation--women's suffrage, the striking down of anti-miscegenation laws, the granting of rights to really any sort of minority group--that a majority vote would have been responsible for these victories? The popular conservative catchphrase of "activist judges" ignores one of the central tenets of our judicial system- to protect the rights of ALL citizens, regardless of whether or not popular opinion is immediately supportive.
"Do I think gays should be able to live their lives privately, peacefully with visitation rights, financial, property rights etc? Of course I do, and I everyone I personally know who is supporting this prop thinks the same. Gays already had all these rights w/ domestic partnerships/ civil unions."
beth321321:
This is another talking point that Yes on 8 has been parroting: that civil unions already contain all the rights and privileges of marriage. This is untrue. They grant about 1/3 of the rights and protections afforded by marriage. Granted, this won't change thanks to DOMA, but for example: the Social Security Administration, Citizenship & Immigration Services, and every other unit of the federal government denies same-sex couples in civil unions the equivalent rights and protections given to male-female married partners.
thatwasrad: by "getting worse" do you mean "allowing same sex couples to marry?" i cringe and cringe and cringe. let's agree to disagree and call it a day.
"I'm not in agreement with Supreme Court Judges overruling the voice of the people"
Okay, so I assume you think that people in the Deep South should have been asked to vote on whether or not blacks should be treated as full citizens in the late nineteenth (or hell, mid twentieth) century? That's called tyranny of the majority; 51% of people shouldn't always make decisions for the other 49%, though in this case it's more like 91% vs. 9%. This proposition basically has nothing to do with the 91%, despite what they may think. Put it to a vote by the people it will actually affect - those who will be able to obtain the rights and benefits of having their relationship legally realized. And civil unions are not equal to marriages, they are inherently separate and therefore unequal - for an explanation look at Plessy vs. Ferguson (1896) and the ruling that overturned it, Brown vs. the Board of Education of Topeka, KS (1954).
Sadly, there are still over a thousand rights at the federal level that married gay couples won't be able to enjoy because their marriages aren't recognized by the US government.
Writing discrimination into our constitution is wrong!
And if you don't think your children should be taught not only tolerance but acceptance, send them to a different school or home school them.
"Secondly, the fact that parents in MA have been unable to have a say in these teachings..."
Firstly thatwasrad, how about supplying one credible link to what you and the "Yes on 8" commercials are saying about what has happened in MA.
Secondly, I don't see what is so horrifying about children learning tolerance at an early age.
a school did pay to bus kids to a gay wedding:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/10/11/MNFG13F1VG.DTL&tsp=1
a man was arrested "trespassing" for asking for notification before gay themes taught to elementary age child:
http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2006/04/27/when_parents_value_conflict_with_public_schools/
opponent of Prop 8 not tolerant, Yes volunteer attacked:
http://www.protectmarriage.com/article/prop-8-supporter-violently-attacked-for-distributing-lawn-signs
All not funny.
beth321321, from your article...
"Parker was arrested on trespassing charges when he refused to leave the school grounds without a promise that he would be alerted before similar lessons were taught in the future."
Seems the man was arrested for not leaving school grounds, not for asking for notification.
The sfgate story has already been refuted. The kids had to have their parents permission to attend the wedding.
And an article from a "protect marriage" website is not a credible source.
AND, (last but not least), WHAT IS SO HORRIFYING ABOUT CHILDREN LEARNING TOLERANCE AT AN EARLY AGE ANYWAY?
-Seems the man was arrested for not leaving school grounds, not for asking for notification.
I did not mean to imply he was arrested for asking. He was indeed arrested for "tresspassing" because he would not leave until he was given assurance of notification. This article is of note because he was denied the right of notification. He was not allowed to opt his child out.
-The sfgate story has already been refuted. The kids had to have their parents permission to attend the wedding.
Did I or the article state that the children went on the trip without parental consent? No.
The link was posted because a no on 8 tv ad says "it will not affect teaching in schools, that's a lie". This case shows it is being taught, is 'affecting teaching' and has taken kids out of school away from academics and uses tax money to get kids to the cermemony.
-And an article from a "protect marriage" website is not a credible source.
I realize you may not consider it credible. Doesn't mean it didn't happen.
-AND, (last but not least), WHAT IS SO HORRIFYING ABOUT CHILDREN LEARNING TOLERANCE AT AN EARLY AGE ANYWAY?
I am not horrified at tolerance. I am concerned about young children being confused by gay themes.
I share the concerns of the parents here:
click on listen/play now:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5366521
Lastly, I take issue with the definition of tolerance being twisted into meaning "consent" and "in total agreement with".
How do gay themes "confuse" children? If you mean that they'll learn that it's acceptable for people to be attracted to whom they are naturally attracted to, I don't see the problem. If you mean you think homosexuality is a lifestyle choice that your kids will be recruited to, I disagree, as does the scientific community.
Prop 8 is not about "tolerance/no tolerance" of a gay lifestyle. If my voting YES on Prop 8 meant that I was intolerant of gays, then how is it possible that I have good friends that are gay? If I am intolerant, it means I would not tolerate homosexual behaviors; that I would not allow them. This is obviously not the case; I'm not telling people that they can't be gay.
Tolerance does not mean permissiveness.
beth321321:
The article about the incident in Massachusetts, despite being paraded as evidence that somehow offering equal rights to same-sex couples will result in public schools conspiring against parents to teach their students about a minority group being just as good as the heterosexual majority, is completely irrelevant with respect to California's Prop 8. What the Yes on 8 proponents are so eager to leave out of their propaganda is the fact that California, unlike Massachusetts, expressly grants parents the absolute right to remove their children from health and family instruction with which they do not agree.
In July of this year, Judge Timothy Frawley of Sacramento Superior Court found that "state law does not require school districts to teach anything about marriage or same-sex marriage ... for those school districts that choose to include instruction about marriage as part of a health education curriculum, [state education code section] 51240 requires that they allow parents to excuse their children from any such instruction conflicting with the parents' religious or moral convictions."
And again, what makes you believe that children would be "confused by gay themes?" It seems to me that it would be far more confusing for the adopted child of a same-sex couple to be taught that "normal" children have to have a Mommy and a Daddy than it would for children to be taught that no matter what kind of family one has, they are loved and cared for.
thatwasrad:
Correct, Prop 8 is not about the tolerance or intolerance of "a gay lifestyle." It is about the tolerance or intolerance of the idea that your good gay friends deserve to keep the same rights, protections, and dignity that your straight friends have enjoyed exclusively for a very, very long time.
What is everyone's take on the idea of changing the definition of "marriage?" This is another reason I'm voting yes...
Any dictionary you look in, you'll find that's it's defined by a male and female uniting...So, we should change the definition of that, just because??
If you're leading a non-traditional lifestyle, why in the world do you even want a title that heterosexuals carry for their unions??
I'm all for gay unions. I'm not for calling it "marriage."
The word, "marriage" has held the same meaning for centuries.
Blue is blue. You don't call blue by another word, simply because time's have changed. Now, if you want to create a new shade of that color--do it! But, you've gotta call it by another name...
lot49:
I do not want children being taught in school that marriage is between people of any gender. This means that I do not want my tax dollars paying for teachers to teach this, even if I pull my child out of school, or out of a field trip to a gay wedding. I feel the same way about the idea of God being taught in school. These moral issues should not be addressed in school; they need to be taught by parents.
Secondly, according to the Voter Information Guide, "Proposition 8 doesn’t take away any rights or benefits of gay or lesbian domestic partnerships. Under California law, “domestic partners shall have the same rights, protections, and benefits” as married spouses. (Family Code § 297.5.) There are NO exceptions. Proposition 8 WILL NOT change this."
If in fact there are differences that I am not privy to, then I have no problem voting to have civil unions gain additional benefits. But I will not change the definition of marriage.
"I did not mean to imply he was arrested for asking."
Oh no? Here's your original post...
"...a man was arrested "trespassing" for asking for notification before gay themes taught to elementary age child..."
He was NOT arrested for asking for notification, he was arrested for not leaving school grounds when he was asked to. If he had been protesting bland school lunches and refused to leave school grounds when asked to he would have been arrested for trespass as well.
"I am not horrified at tolerance. I am concerned about young children being confused by gay themes."
I was horrified by the Ventura kid who recently killed a classmate for being gay. Perhaps we should teach children that there is nothing obscene, dirty, or abnormal about some one being gay or lesbian.
I see nothing different happening now than when southern African Americans were asking for equal rights 50 years ago. Some said it would be the end of civilization as we knew it, and I guess for the bigots it was.
In the end equal rights won out and we are better people for it.
I sure hope that these "open-minded" supporters of Prop 8 do all their "gay friends" a favor and let them know how they are voting in the upcoming election. It will help their gay friends when it comes time to make the invitation list for any future weddings. I know that if I found out one of my friends voted yes on Prop 8, I would ask them to refund me the money back that I paid the caterers when I fed them at the reception, including their percentage of the open bar and tip.
As someone who has been confronted personally with what gay marriage and domestic partnerships actually get you, let me say from experience that (i) saying "partner" in an emergency room in CA doesn't get you through the door as fast as saying "husband" will, and (ii) domestic partnerships certainly have not prevented some of my friend's families from legally contesting "contractual" arrangements between two members of same-sex relationships.
As an another counterpoint, why are you expecting _my_ tax dollars contribute to a state and educational system which would devalue my family and teach my children that we are second-class citizens? Think of how uncomfortable that makes me feel.
And that a simple majority is all that is needed to write discrimination into the constitution is appalling.
Even in Florida, with its more draconian Prop 2 on the ballot, they need 60% to pass.
Again, I just really get upset when people start bringing up where their tax dollars go and what they get used for. As a professional gay male, I have spent my life giving money to support programs across this state and country for people who either (i) don't get it, or (ii) would choose to discriminate against me.
i do not understand why anyone cares if gay people can marry each other. IT HAS NO EFFECT ON YOUR LIFE OR YOUR OWN MARRIAGE(S). and these arguments about it being taught in schools are ridiculous. when do kids learn about heterosexual marriage in school as it is now??
before anyone says anything along the lines of "what the hell do you know?" know that i have an 11 year old daughter who has been in public school her whole life and i have yet to hear about any instruction including reference to hetero marriages.
seriously, it's not your life. you have no right to dictate to others who they can love openly and/or marry. didn't you ever learn as a child, "if you don't like it, ignore it"??
gay people have every right to be happily or miserably married, just like everyone else. anyone who believes differently and claims to be open-minded is delusional and bigoted.
These new advertisements are not going to work if people do not see them. It's important that the groups airing them have funds to pay for airtime. That is absolutely essential if this nauseous ballot measure is to be defeated.
Equality California, the leading gay and lesbian rights organization in California, is leading the battle against Proposition 8, or Proposition Hate, as many have accurately termed it. Anyone who believes in justice, equality and tolerance can help out by going to the website at www.nqca.org and making a generous contribution. If good people work together, evil measures such as Proposition 8 can be defeated.
So, get over to the Equality California website and donate today!
christians against prop 8!!
http://christians-against-prop8.tumblr.com/