25 comments

• 

  brady234

  7 months ago

  Learn something new every day. Thanks!
  reply
• 

  JoeDallas

  7 months ago

  I disagree with RS about the ads, at least the first ones. The initial tv spot "No on 8" produced, showing a bride running into obstacles on her way to the altar and ending with the question, "What is someone kept you from marrying the person you love?" was powerful. But then, IMO, they never effectively countered the Yes on 8 arguments regarding school programs and religious liberties. When gay rights proponents can reassure the public that that they won't infringe on religious freedom and won't prosoletyze kids, then I think future campaigns will be a slam dunk for them. But to do that, they'll either have to lie, or change their agenda.
  reply
• 

  ryanzondervan

  7 months ago

  Hey Randy - did you see this?
  
  
  http://www.breitbart.tv/html/233083.html
  
  
  reply
• 

  ryanzondervan

  7 months ago

  Hey Randy - did you see this?
  
  http://www.breitbart.tv/html/233083.html
  reply
• 

  Randy

  7 months ago

  I did and was trying to decide whether to blog about it or not.
  reply
• 

  Randy

  7 months ago

  I just blogged it http://tinyurl.com/6b64pj
  reply
• 

  brady234

  7 months ago

  Hey Randy. Can you tell me what the use of tinyurl is for? I've seen you and several other people use it around the web, but I don't really know anything about it. Is it just to shorten the web address and make it look cleaner?
  reply
• 

  Randy

  7 months ago

  Yes and I use it for Twitter A LOT because Twitter limits you to 140 characters max.
  reply
• 

  brady234

  7 months ago

  Learn something new every day. Thanks!
  reply
• 

  JoeDallas

  7 months ago

  I disagree with RS about the ads, at least the first ones. The initial tv spot "No on 8" produced, showing a bride running into obstacles on her way to the altar and ending with the question, "What is someone kept you from marrying the person you love?" was powerful. But then, IMO, they never effectively countered the Yes on 8 arguments regarding school programs and religious liberties. When gay rights proponents can reassure the public that that they won't infringe on religious freedom and won't prosoletyze kids, then I think future campaigns will be a slam dunk for them. But to do that, they'll either have to lie, or change their agenda.
  reply
• 

  brady234

  7 months ago

  "But to do that, they'll either have to lie, or change their agenda."
  
  I'm having trouble with seeing how you come to this conclusion, Joe. Any threat of proseltyzing to children or infringing on religious liberties were already stretched to their very extreme by the "Yes on 8" folks.
  
  Come on, showboating a Pastor from Sweden (a country that does not have the same free speech and religion constitutional protections as us) that actually was found not guilty by the courts and then telling people Pastors could be jailed here if they preached against homosexuality is hardly up front and honest.
  
  Similarly there was the class that went to their teacher's same sex wedding at the court house. The trip was put together by another parent, all kids had to have parental approval, the trip was not funded by the school, and students were allowed to stay at school if their parents didn't want them to go. Yet, a ton in the right wing media and the anti-gay marriage backers completely and totally fabricated the details of the story (see Michael Savage as a prime example).
  
  It looks to me like next time the pro gay marriage crowd just needs to point out the inconsistencies and stretched truths of the other side. I'm thinking honesty wins it for the gay marriage crowd--but they have to forward about it. They can't just let these claims go unchecked like they did this time around.
  reply
• 

  Cheryl

  7 months ago

  Hi Brady. I live up here in Canada where same-sex marriage is already legal. While gay activists claimed to have respect for religious liberties, reality has proven very different. There are law suits against clergy and justice of the peace officers because they have refused to perform gay marriages for religious reasons. Some have lost their licenses and been forced to pay huge fines. There are now counter suits. It's a real mess. I don't buy the argument that gay marriage will not infringe on religious liberties. It has, it is, and it will.
  reply
• 

  Randy

  7 months ago

  Thanks for adding your perspective Cheryl. I keep hearing about what your describing more and more from our friends in Canada.
  reply
• 

  brady234

  7 months ago

  Hi Cheryl, thanks for the reply! The main counter I have to that is that we have legal same sex marriage in Mass now, and we have for 3 years (I think), and none of these issues have come up there that I have seen.
  
  As far as JOP's are concerned--it is their civic duty to perform marriages. They are asked to perform marriages of people that are divorced and remarried, of two different religions, and various other marriages that their religion may not agree with, but as part of their civic duty, they still have to perform them. I think gay marriage would have to be included in that. Although, I would not be against letting them opt out, provided they could opt out for any reason (not just the gay marriage one).
  
  As for religious leaders--Catholics do not marry divorced and remarried people (without an annulment), they also will not marry people outside of the Catholic church. This is their religious right, and it has not been infringed on. Similarly, their religious right would also mean they could exclude gay marriages.
  
  I appreciate your examples and viewpoint, but the answer for Canada is similar to that of Sweden--the religious protections there have never been the same as what they are here (the US has always considered Canada to be weaker and more liberal in those areas, so it would make sense that they are now too).
  reply
• 

  Cheryl

  7 months ago

  Well, I hope for the sake of Americans that your laws are what you claim. JPs in Canada are supposed to be protected by religious liberty laws.
  
  Should same sex marriage become law in the States, what would gay activists fight about next?
  reply
• 

  Randy

  7 months ago

  Hey Brady, ... Joe did reply to you below. I reminded him to hit reply directly under links so it will thread and email the person he is replying too. I am leaving this comment to let you know his is below (if you weren't already aware.)
  reply
• 

  brady234

  7 months ago

  Thanks, Randy!
  reply
• 

  Randy

  7 months ago

  Yeah, I thought some of the No On 8 ads were really effective. That's why I said I thought the article was "semi-adequate." Overall, when it comes to campaigning, the No On 8 crowd did as good a job as the Yes on 8 camp. I mean seriously... both sides pulled out all the stops. When it comes to weaknesses, I am sure you could find all kinds of issues on the Yes On 8 side as well (priorities and snafus.)
  
  and consider ... the No On 8 had almost every high profile celeb and CA Elected Official condemning 8. That's nothing to sneeze at. it's hard to get three pastors to sit down at lunch together. I couldn't possibly imagine trying to coordinate a bunch of prima donna celebs and politicians!
  
  :)
  
  And the other thing Joe, maybe this is just me, but from what I have seen ... the Yes On 8 crowd did have their opponents pegged on what moves they could and probably would take and planned accordingly. The No on 8 folks really misread the situation with their opponents and overplayed false caricatures. That's just one element over the whole affair but I think it was *the* element that kept their reach just short of the goal.
  
  I think all the time of how the gay activist leadership has and is failing but they aren't looking to me for help and I am not sure I want to offer that up :). They make some serious and simple leadership mistakes quite often. They have big consequences and yet very few people in those realms want to scrutinize themselves (from what little I see from this side of the yard.)
  
  But then again, we get accused of that on this side as well by folks who don't see what we see sooooo... take that for what it's worth.
  reply
• 

  B.T.Carolus

  7 months ago

  It's funny but I, and a lot of other people I know who saw that ad, thought it was completely ineffective. Because that stupid bride and/or her wedding planner did almost everything that went on to herself. Planning on walking to the wedding from a room with a door that doesn't open? Choosing to park cars between that door and the entrance to the aisle? Not ducking when you go under a low hanging arbor?! That one really got me, because she should have ducked! And then the old lady trips her with her cane and the groomsmen won't let the groom help the bride, which is just totally not believable. The whole thing was easily analyzable into "the wedding planner should have foreseen that," rather than, "oh, that poor couple." (and, in point of fact, the whole car thing would never have happened, because the wedding planner/coordinator stands at the end of the aisle telling everyone when to start walking, so there's no way the cars would have stayed parked there very long).
  
  I thought the most effective commercial of the whole thing was the pro-8 one that kept playing Gavin Newsom, one of the world's most annoying mayors (seconded perhaps by Ken Livingston and that guy from Washington DC), saying "Whether they like it or not." It made the gay rights crowd look arrogant (not hard, when using Newsom) and gloating, and the clip was annoying to listen to.
  reply
• 

  JoeDallas

  7 months ago

  Actually, I didn’t have Pastor Greene or the San Francisco example in mind, and you may be right about their relevance to Prop 8. But the number of public and well documented cases of American churches and organizations vandalized or disrupted over the past two decades (not by solo extremists but by large groups of pro-gay activists); the public “mobbing” of individuals expressing a religious viewpoint; the international trend (certainly not limited to Sweden) restricting traditional religious views on sexuality; the introduction of pro-gay literature to students K-12 – to me, these do constitute “infringement on religious liberties” and “proselytizing of children.” So to reassure the public about these issues would, to my thinking, require either dishonesty or a changed agenda. As for constitutional protection, I sure hope you’re right. We’ll see how future legal decisions regarding freedom of speech and religion play out.
  reply
• 

  Randy

  7 months ago

  Hey Joe... when you reply to another comment, click on the reply link directly underneath that comment and it will thread the discussion as well as email Brady your response. :).
  reply
• 

  brady234

  7 months ago

  Thanks for your response, Joe. I responded to Cheryl above about some of this. With regards to the pro-gay K-12 literature--that's separate from marriage imo. You may be right that it plays a role in the public opinion of gay marriage, but almost all of the charges I have seen have been trumped up. The main example from Prop 8 is the one I mentioned, but in nearly all other cases, students and parents are able to opt out from teachings about homosexuality, and while less than a handful of cases involve elementrary school students reading children's books with gay themes, the huge majority involve older children. The problem is that listening to many on the anti-gay side, I'd think it was the other way around.
  
  As for American churches vandalized or disrupted--I really have not seen this sort of action participated in or supported (or even condoned) by mainstream or large gay activists groups in my adult life (which admittedly is only the last decade or so). Any incidents of this would be terrible, but they've been rare enough and fringe enough that I'd equate them more with the Westboros or Abortion clinic assaults that alleged Christians (I use the word alleged on purpose) participate in than mainstream acts of the gay populace.
  reply
• 

  JoeDallas

  7 months ago

  Actually, I didn’t have Pastor Greene or the San Francisco example in mind, and you may be right about their relevance to Prop 8. But the number of public and well documented cases of American churches and organizations vandalized or disrupted over the past two decades (not by solo extremists but by large groups of pro-gay activists); the public “mobbing” of individuals expressing a religious viewpoint; the international trend (certainly not limited to Sweden) restricting traditional religious views on sexuality; the introduction of pro-gay literature to students K-12 – to me, these do constitute “infringement on religious liberties” and “proselytizing of children.” So to reassure the public about these issues would, to my thinking, require either dishonesty or a changed agenda. As for constitutional protection, I sure hope you’re right. We’ll see how future legal decisions regarding freedom of speech and religion play out.
  reply
• 

  brady234

  7 months ago

  Thanks, Randy!
  reply
• 

  B.T.Carolus

  7 months ago

  It's funny but I, and a lot of other people I know who saw that ad, thought it was completely ineffective. Because that stupid bride and/or her wedding planner did almost everything that went on to herself. Planning on walking to the wedding from a room with a door that doesn't open? Choosing to park cars between that door and the entrance to the aisle? Not ducking when you go under a low hanging arbor?! That one really got me, because she should have ducked! And then the old lady trips her with her cane and the groomsmen won't let the groom help the bride, which is just totally not believable. The whole thing was easily analyzable into "the wedding planner should have foreseen that," rather than, "oh, that poor couple." (and, in point of fact, the whole car thing would never have happened, because the wedding planner/coordinator stands at the end of the aisle telling everyone when to start walking, so there's no way the cars would have stayed parked there very long).
  
  
  I thought the most effective commercial of the whole thing was the pro-8 one that kept playing Gavin Newsom, one of the world's most annoying mayors (seconded perhaps by Ken Livingston and that guy from Washington DC), saying "Whether they like it or not." It made the gay rights crowd look arrogant (not hard, when using Newsom) and gloating, and the clip was annoying to listen to.
  
  
  reply