Whistleblower hotline: (213) 785-6098
mayorsam@mayorsam.org

Saturday, October 25, 2008

No on Prop 8 ad geared towards the liberty-minded



Is there an echo in here? I think bloggers have been saying this for a while, no? Well, now liberty goes mainstream in this new No on 8 spot that spoofs the popular Apple commercials.

Not only did Apple provide inspiration, they have also donated $100,000 to No on Prop 8 according to Yes on 8 agents on local blogs who have recently made good on their promise to call out local businesses who contributed to No on Prop 8 as being 'anti-family' unless they were given an equal or greater donation.

Kudos to Schubert/Flint Consulting, who, at the start of this campaign, I accused of lining their profits with wedge issue/special interest money. As you can plainly see, they totally didn't sell out.

SMS

Labels: ,

10 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said:

About Proposition 8

Proposition 8 is simple and straightforward. It contains the same 14 words that were previously approved in 2000 by over 61% of California voters: “Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.”


Because four activist judges in San Francisco wrongly overturned the people’s vote, we need to pass this measure as a constitutional amendment to restore the definition of marriage as between a man and a woman.


Voting YES on Proposition 8 does 3 simple things:


• It restores the definition of marriage to what the vast majority of California voters already approved and what Californians agree should be supported, not undermined.


• It overturns the outrageous decision of four activist Supreme Court judges who ignored the will of the people.


• It protects our children from being taught in public schools that “same-sex marriage” is the same as traditional marriage, and prevents other consequences to Californians who will be forced to not just be tolerant of gay lifestyles, but face mandatory compliance regardless of their personal beliefs.

October 25, 2008 8:40 PM  

Blogger Sarah Michelle Spinosa said:

'It overturns the outrageous decision of four activist Supreme Court judges who ignored the will of the people.'

It's the Supremes' job to interpret the constitution, not allow people to circumvent it by claiming tyranny of the majority.

Points for trying though.

SMS

October 25, 2008 9:10 PM  

Blogger Jack Hoff said:

Sarah, in 2000, Alabama's citizens finally legalized interracial marriage in their constitution. I guess these things take time! No on 8.

October 25, 2008 9:30 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

No. 3 is a total red herring. It's like the assholes in the Republican party calling Obama a "Muslim" to which Colin Powell replied: "What if he was? So what? Muslim Americans are Americans like all of us.

If gay marriage becomes a part of the landscape of California, the schools would be remiss to not mention it in curricula or truthfully answer questions about it. What if we did teach gay marriage was part of the legal structure or our civil rights in schools? So what? Are gays not also American? Californian?

The other part, the part about mandatory compliance against someone's belief, that is just B.S. There is no basis for this claim other than trying to raise fear in the uniformed. The Yes on Prop 8 Campaign is immoral. It relies on fear mongering and lies to sustain the argument of bigots and small minded zealots. Good riddance to them and their ilk.

October 25, 2008 10:08 PM  

Blogger Michael Higby said:

That's the problem with some people they don't understand the role of the Courts. It's not all about who votes the most.

At the same time though the courts have legislated from the bench, something that deviates from the strict constructionist view of the courts the framers had.

October 25, 2008 10:32 PM  

Blogger Sarah Michelle Spinosa said:

'At the same time though the courts have legislated from the bench, something that deviates from the strict constructionist view of the courts the framers had.'

Are you serious??? The framers set up our system of checks and balances for a reason. 'Legislating from the bench,' as you call it, is really just correcting legal mistakes of the legislature, or in this case the electorate, which is not mostly comprised of constitutional scholars. That is indeed the only function of the judiciary at the appellate level.

That 'activist judge' line is a GOP talking point that somehow seeded itself in your brain and incidentally got suspiciously little play in the recent decision that reinforced the 2nd Amendment, which, by the way, I also happen to support.

SMS

October 25, 2008 11:00 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

THE 1972 GAY RIGHTS PLATFORM
(Formulated in Chicago, Illinois.)

FEDERAL:

1. Amend all federal Civil Rights Acts, other legislation and government controls to
prohibit discrimination in employment, housing, public accommodations and public
services. (1972 Federal-1)

2. Issuance by the President of an executive order prohibiting the military from excluding
for reasons of their sexual orientation, persons who of their own volition desire entrance
into the Armed Services; and from issuing less-than-fully-honorable discharges for homosexuality; and the upgrading to fully honorable all such discharges previously
issued, with retroactive benefits. (1972 Federal-2)

3. Issuance by the President of an executive order prohibiting discrimination in the federal
civil service because of sexual orientation, in hiring and promoting; and prohibiting
discriminations against homosexuals in security clearances. (1972 Federal-3)

4. Elimination of tax inequities victimizing single persons and same-sex couples. (1972 Federal-4)

5. Elimination of bars to the entry, immigration and naturalization of homosexual aliens. (1972 Federal-5)

6. Federal encouragement and support for sex education courses, prepared and taught by Gay women and men, presenting homosexuality as a valid, healthy preference and lifestyle as a viable alternative to heterosexuality. (1972 Federal-6)

7. Appropriate executive orders, regulations and legislation banning the compiling,
maintenance and dissemination of information on an individual's sexual preferences, behavior, and social and political activities for dossiers and data banks. (1972 Federal-7)

8. Federal funding of aid programs of gay men's and women's organizations designed to
alleviate the problems encountered by Gay women and men which are engendered by an oppressive sexist society. (1972 Federal-8)

9. Immediate release of all Gay women and men now incarcerated in detention centers, prisons and mental institutions because of sexual offense charges relating to victimless crimes or sexual orientation; and that adequate compensation be made for the physical and mental duress encountered; and that all existing records relating to the incarceration be immediately expunged. (1972 Federal-9)


STATE:


1. All federal legislation and programs enumerated in Demands 1, 6, 7, 8, and 9 above should be implemented at the State level where applicable. (1972 State-1)

2. Repeal of all state laws prohibiting private sexual acts involving consenting persons;
equalization for homosexuals and heterosexuals for the enforcement of all laws. (1972 State-2)

3. Repeal all state laws prohibiting solicitation for private voluntary sexual liaisons; and laws prohibiting prostitution, both male and female. (1972 State-3)

4. Enactment of legislation prohibiting insurance companies and any other state-regulated
enterprises from discriminating because of sexual orientation, in insurance and in bonding or any other prerequisite to employment or control of one's personal demesne. (1972 State-4)

5. Enactment of legislation so that child custody, adoption, visitation rights, foster
parenting, and the like shall not be denied because of sexual orientation or marital status.
(1972 State-5)

6. Repeal of all state laws prohibiting transvestism and cross-dressing. (1972 State-6)

7. Repeal of all laws governing the age of sexual consent. (1972 State-7)

8. Repeal of all legislative provisions that restrict the sex or number of persons entering into
a marriage unit; and the extension of legal benefits to all persons who cohabit regardless of sex or numbers. (1972 State-8)

October 25, 2008 11:03 PM  

Blogger Jack Hoff said:

Wow, 11:03, that is a terrific argument, and, saaay...what a terrific year; 1972. Why, just 36 years ago "the gays" came up with this? And, of course, that applies to right now, correct?

Time to take the aluminum foil off the apartment windows and look around for a bit.

October 25, 2008 11:33 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

SMS comment at 9:10 and 11:00 are a breath of fresh air, SMS is using intelligence and logic in discussing a topic on this blog.

Now if only Haikula had any class , intelligence or logic to her comments, but unfortunately Haikula only knowa...foo, clickitey click and swizzle-stick.

October 26, 2008 10:29 AM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

Yes on 8.

October 26, 2008 10:42 AM  

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home

Advertisement

Advertisement