A comment only indirectly related to this Proposition: where does the money donated to the campaign (from both sides ) go?
Mostly, to advertising - TV, signs, phone calls, and wherever else they advertise their position. Which is, by its very nature, SOUNDBITE ADVERTISING (how much can you say, really, in an unsolicited phone call before being hung up on? in a TV commercial?)
And this is where I see the problem. WHAT KIND OF A RATIONAL PERSON WOULD DECIDE HOW TO VOTE BASED ON SOUNDBITE ADVERTISING?
Apparently, many people would - otherwise, nobody would bother to buy advertisement which urges people to vote this way or that way. And it bothers me greatly. Because it means that the politicians who have more and more power, and laws that interfere more and more with our lives, are being voted for by people who made their decisions based on soundbite advertising. PEOPLE WHO DON'T THINK, in other words. Isn't it depressing?
Oh, and I'm voting no on Prop 8 (and leaving the presidential candidate portion of the ballot blank).
True, but clearly most people are uninformed voters which is how the bastards keep winning. But then most voters realize that their vote isn't likely to change the results so making too much of an investment in being informed doesn't have much a return -- it costs more than it's worth. So they resort to soundbites. Small investment, small return. They may question you making a large investment for a small return. : )
This is an amazing blog CLS, I've read all your posts for months now, but I'm only now commenting for the first time. What you do is nothing short of a public service.
I was wondering if you have a primary source indicating the Mormon church is officially or un-officially involved in fund raising for Prop 8? I know members of the church leadership who would be interested to hear about such. (My wife is LDS, I'm an Atheist, btw)
Travis: The LDS leadership is doing it. News reports recently said that top church leaders have televised broadcasts to each of their churches in California just this Wednesday. I quote AP:
"Senior elders of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints made a televised appeal to members Wednesday night and laid out a week-by-week strategy for boosting Mormon involvement before the Nov. 4 election."
"They urged Mormons to man phone banks, distribute campaign materials and intensify voter registration efforts during an hourlong meeting, which was broadcast to church buildings in California, Utah, Hawaii and Idaho."
In the private broadcast sent to the local stakes Elder M. Russell Ballard told them: "What we're about is the work of the Lord, and he will bless you for your involvement." A Mormon website set up to ban gay marriage says church members have given $8.4 million to date for the crusade.
Elder L. Whitney Clayton says: "In California, the phone trees are up and running. We just want to be able to help, and one of the things we can do is we can organize."
That such propositions are even considered by an office of government. Too bad democracy allows such ridiculously "deluded" people to have any influence.
I'm happy for America that Obama is so strong on change. He might not do anything he says at all, but at least his spirit is encouraging. Unlike that other candidate, of which we do not speak.
Diederick: I have no love for Obama. He's big on talk but bad on policy. In this regard he says he opposes gay marriage and has the same opinion as McCain. When it comes to the war Obama isn't willing to go out and say we should end it. When it came to the corporate bailouts he voted for them with McCain.
One criticism I've seen is that the gay community has much so much effort into Obama that they have negelcted fighting these bad measures. Perhaps valid, perhaps not. But this initiatives are more important because they effect policy now where Obama won't touch this stuff after he's in office.
The biggest indication that Obama won't change things is his VP choice, Joe Biden is a career politician of the Old School.
Your position on gays is not consistent with your overall philosophy. Marriage is not a right, it is a state sponsored relationship; i.e. the state has an interest in supporting it because it produces children and, ideally, provides the best environment for them. Just because gay people assert that their relationship should be viewed as equally special does not mean others should be required to view it the same way. It is not a right, and therefore it is appropriate for it to be voted on by the people.
Since the govt. will only allow people to excercise certain natural rights, if they are married, then the state should not hand out that contract in a prejudicial manner. Marriage is a right and is more than the bundle or legal privileges handed out by the state, but there is also a bundle of rights which the state refuses to recognize unless married. As long as the state uses marriage to determine taxation levels, immigration restrictions, etc., then it should be given to both gay and straight couples.
Govt. should neither promote child bearing or restrict it. And there is more than enough evidence to show that reproduction is not limited to marriage. In addition you treat people like breeding stock with an obligation to reproduce for some collective good instead of people who have an individual right to enter mutually loving, satisfying relationships.
I have no patience for the bigots who want to deprive loving couples of their rights.
MDA: Govt has monopolized or nearly monopolized many things. If govt. then said that it was available to everyone but Jews or Blacks or Baptists, what would you say to those who are left out of that? Would it be right to excluse these people from the state education system? And would they be demanding special privileges to be allowed equal access? Is it okay to keep Blacks off the buses because most are govt. owned thus no right is being violated?
When govt. takes upon itself the near monopolizing (or total monopolozing of something then it must be forbidden from discrimianting.
"Since the govt. will only allow people to excercise certain natural rights, if they are married, then the state should not hand out that contract in a prejudicial manner."
Then the appeal should be made to natural rights. Marriage is a civil right, i.e. voted by the people. Proponents of gay marriage argue as if it were a natural right. Natural rights exist in the absence of the state, civil rights do not.
One could argue that marriage is a natural right, as people would still pair up and marry even without state sanction or encouragement, at least I believe we would. Looking at it as a civil right only takes into account the state's role in creating motivation for marriage, such as tax breaks, SS benefeits...
I don't believe these are the primary motivations for marriage, these are increased financial flexibility, child rearing, and wanting to send your life w/ someone. These motivations exist outside of the state, hence so would marriage. If this is true, then marriage is a natural right that Prop 8 only serves to take away from gays.
Marriage pre-existed the state so the argument that it is created by the State is pure rubbish. State involvement in marriage is a relatively modern activity. There are documented historical examples of socially recognized gay marriages in different cultures over the centuries while the modern state dominated form of marriage is new.
What we have is that some people want to monopolize marriage and use the State to do so. They wish to monopolize it by forcing on it an interpretation that is consistent only with their religion.
Finally, while I hear these sorts of arguments from conservatives I never see them actually trying to remove marriage from heterosexuals. If it isn't a right and is merely state privilege then why are they so keen on keeping it for themselves and equally keen of excluding others? My experience is that 90% of these people who claim marriage is an unwarranted intrusion by the state, and thus they are saving gays from themselves, are in fact married themselves. People making these arguments would better prove them if not married themselves. But they realize the State imposes burdens on couples who are not married especially gay couples and that the only way to remove those state-imposed burdens is through marriage.
"Marriage pre-existed the state so the argument that it is created by the State is pure rubbish."
Then they can get married and quit complaining. If they don't need state support then why do you keep advocating it. It is not a question of being denied rights; traditional marriage is subsidized, gay marriage is not. Gays are free to get married without state support all they want.
But the state says they are not married and penalizes them by denying them rights which you have. This is not about subsidies since gay people tend to subsidize straight people (due to the higher taxation levels imposed on gay couples vs. straight couples). The State denies rights based on legal marriage.
Gays can have private services and the state will still deport the foreign partner (in such cases). The state will still take control of the assets of the one who dies and deny them to the partner unless they have jumped through extra hoops. In the case we outline a gay man was paralyzed by a stroke and the state gave his mother control of his home and his banks accounts. She threw out the partner of 20 years because she's a rabid Catholic who hates homosexuals. She had her son moved to a bedroom in her home where he couldn't see his partner. And she got control of the bank account the two men built up. The court said that since the men couldn't marry legally it was obliged to ignore their relationship of 20+ years and give everything to the hateful mother.
And you think this is about getting benefits and subsidies. That shows how little you know about the legal status of gay people in America and shows you know nothing about what they are wanting.
Sounds like they should have jumped through the hoops.
Your knowledge of the naturtal law and the role of the state is lacking. You are asserting that individuals have a universal right to enter into a state enforced contract, that the state has no right to discriminate bewteen who gets to enter into a contract. This is absurd. If the state is responsible for enforcing a contract, then it gets to decide who may enter into it.
In this case, there was no contract, so how was anyone denied their legal right? If you are asserting that the paralyzed man had a natural right to be with his lover, that is problematic as well. There are no natural rights which require another to provide a service. If the man was of sound mind and expressed his wishes to remain with his lover, and the lover agreed, the state still has the obligation to judge whether the lover or the mother is better suited to care for him.
Perhaps this case was decided incorrectly, perhaps not. You didn't provide enough detail to decide.
Why should the law impose special burdens on one group of peaceful citizens? That is unacceptable in a free soecity. You misread what I said. People do have rights to enter into contracts and the function of the state is to protect rights, including contractual rights. Are you saying the state should not enforce contracts?
If it absurd to say if the state has to enforce a contract it can decide who enters it. I can have a contract to buy a book from you that doesn't mean the state must approve me, you or the book.
Some of what you say is just stupid. The man had a right to be with his partner full stop. And it wasn't a matter of anyone providing that but of people getting the fuck out of the way. The man was with partner for decades but because of the stroke couldn't express the obvious, which his actions for decades had expressed. So the court ruled that the bitch mother (a vicious Catholic) had the right to intervene and make decisions since the partner was not family and couldn't be family because Fundy twats passed a law forbidding the recognition of gay relationships.
As for not providing enough details I blogged extensively on the case and I believe I provided a link to the court ruling, but don't remember for sure.
Of course anybody can enter into any contract they wish, but the state is not necessarily obliged to uphold it. I'm sure you can think of reasons why and examples.
This case is a perfect example of why people should make a living will. Why leave it to the state to decide? It is not really much of a hoop.
Calling people names is not likely to win support.
What you ignore is that there are hundreds of these hoops which are only imposed on gay couples and not straight couples -- literally hundreds. And most people, gay or straight, don't think of them, or think of all of them. Nor can they since many of them are literally dependent on circumstances which haven't happened to them yet. Of course the straight couple has some legal resulve to it immediately without thinking about it. The gay couple does not.
In addition there are some hoops which gay couples can't jumpt through since the govt. says they can't. So your spouse can't be compelled to testify against you in court but a gay person's can and no legal contract will remove that issue. Because gay marriage is not recognized on the federal level no gay American can bring his foreign partner to the US regardless of how many contracts they sign.
Your "solution" argues that one set of couples only should be forced to spend thousands of dollars to sign multiple contracts and must atnticpate all circumstances to makie sure they are covered. The other set of couples need on get married. And you don't think that is discriminatory and denying equal protection under the law. That is precisely the definition of inequality before the law.
Commenting by HaloScan
