Brief Analysis of the Yes on 8 Side

To give you an idea of the tactics of the people who want to strip Californians of their rights, here are a few YouTube videos, along with a few of my comments.

First up is one of the TV commercials. I have seen this one myself, so I know it is getting airplay on mainstream stations:

The commercial lies. Although there are state education standards, the classroom content is partially controlled by the local school board. Teaching second-graders that “boys can marry boys” will not be imposed upon a community from on high.

Also, I want you to look at who paid for this ad:

List of hate groups

First listed is the Knights of Columbus, an international Catholic organization. These are the same people who successfully lobbied Congress in 1954 to add “under God” to the Pledge of Allegiance. They describe themselves as “being dedicated to the principles of Charity, Unity, Fraternity, and Patriotism.”

You can scratch Unity. It’s clearly a divisive group. First, they made all non-theists second-class citizens by adulterating the Pledge. Now they’re making gays second-class citizens by trying to take away their civil rights.

You can also scratch Patriotism. The Knights of Columbus are anything but. A true patriot supports and defends the Constitution. These people have nothing but contempt for it.

The second sponsor is the “National Organization for Marriage California Committee”. The National Organization for Marriage is a small religious political action committee with (in their own words):

…a focus on developing new strategies for increasing influence in the Northeast and West Coast, where marriage is most under threat.

So their goal is to impose outside values upon communities that don’t share those beliefs. That’s funny. Isn’t that exactly what the above commercial is trying to imply about gay marriage supporters?

The third sponsor is James Dobson’s Colorado-based Focus on the Fundie, one of the most repressive of all fundie groups.

What’s missing from this list? Californians!

Here’s another video. I don’t know if this runs on television, because it’s a bit longer than the typical commercial. It’s very slick, so it’s obviously intended for wide distribution. It stars that stellar example of family values, Newt Gingrich:

So by Newt’s logic, all judges are bad because they’re just lawyers. OK. So let’s get rid of the courts. That’s what he’s advocating. Let’s start with the activist judges on the U.S. Supreme Court. Oh wait. Newt wouldn’t want to do that, because his side is in control of those judges. In fact nothing was more activist than the judicial intervention in the 2000 presidential election. The U.S. Supreme Court installed King George upon the throne, despite the fact that Al Gore won both the popular and electoral vote.

So which is it, Newt? Do we need courts or don’t we? Is “judicial activism” good or bad? Who decides? I have a radical idea to fix things. Appoint judges who follow the Constitution! That’s what the California Supreme Court did when it overturned laws banning gay marriage. That’s what the U.S. Supreme Court did not do when it intervened in the 2000 election.

Newt, of course, is another outsider trying to tell Californians how to vote. In fact, let’s look at that issue a little closer. One of the groups trying to defeat the initiative is Californians Against Hate. They list the top donors who are trying to get the proposition passed:

  • Knights of Columbus, New Haven, CT ($1,275,000)
  • National Organization for Marriage, Princeton, NJ ($941,135)
  • John Templeton, Bryn Mawr, PA ($900,000)
  • Howard Ahmanson, Jr., Irvine, CA ($900,000)
  • American Family Association, Tupelo, MS ($500,000)
  • Elsa Prince, Holland, MI ($450,000)
  • Focus On the Family, Colorado Springs, CO, ($439,644)
  • plus many more

Of the top seven donors, six of them are out of state!

Now let’s drop the level of discourse down a notch or two and look at a couple of YouTube videos produced by individual bigots who haven’t aligned themselves with one of the national hate groups. Both of these videos reveal much about the people who are in favor of Proposition 8.

First up is “The Hidden Agenda of GARRIAGE (a.k.a. Gay ‘Marriage’)”:

One thing the marriage bigots have never made a secret about is that they are motivated entirely by religious doctrine. That video just underscores that apparently this is their only reason. But this justification is a total non-starter. We cannot base our laws upon the Bible. It’s prohibited by the Constitution. That’s the problem with fundies today. They’ve gotten so powerful they don’t even bother to hide their motives.

This last video claims that there are lots of good non-religious reasons to ban gay marriage. It lists three, all of which are disputable. Then it goes on to make its entire case solely on religious grounds. And this argument is supposed to convince me to abandon our Constitution? Do these people even understand the purpose of government?

54 Responses to “Brief Analysis of the Yes on 8 Side”

  1. Ron Britton Says:


    It makes my blood boil, too.

    One thing that really stands out about these Yes on 8 ads is that most of them are focussing exclusively on the schools. “It’s part of the homosexual agenda! They’re going to teach our kids to be gay! That’s how they recruit new faggots, because they can’t reproduce!”

  2. Blackrose Says:

    Yeah, just like you can teach gay kids to be straight, or that straight parents always raise straight kids! Makes so much sense. These people need a reality check…Plus I absolutely hate the term “Homosexual agenda” It’s crap. Since when is love an agenda?

  3. Chuck Says:

    My favorites are the third and fourth videos XD.

    In the third, his “argument” for children’s “entitlements” implies that single parents should either be stripped of their children so that the children can be placed in two-parent-heterosexual families, or that single parents should be forced into cohabitation so their children can have both sexes as parents.

    Even if this were true, which it obviously isn’t, his argument is incorrectly stated because sex isn’t strictly bound to gender, and most of these people really mean to say that a child should have parents of opposite GENDERS, or at least parents who display opposite gender characteristics. For example, there are straight couples (or at least, heterosexual couples) with very masculine women and very feminine men, but no one bitches about them having kids.

    I also love how he talks about marriage being historically child-centric. XD His ignorance is over 9000.
    Marriage in the West is a formalism created by patriarchal groups to create a blood bond to firmly seal a political or economic contract in such a way that would make it almost inviolable for either party. He’s correct that it has nothing to do with love, but he’s incorrect that it has something to do with children. Sure, if it was politically motivated everyone assumed children would result, but there were plenty of scandals in which an illegitimate heir was produced because they couple couldn’t make one of their own. *cough* Ishmael *cough*

    The fourth video is awesome because it tries to drawn on tradition as a valid argument against change. That worked well against heliocentrism, didn’t it?

    What about the higher STI transmission rate in gay men? What about the fact that lesbians have the lowest STI transmission rate of any sexually mature group, bitch? Guess that argument implies LESBIAN marriage should be the only legal marriage.

    Finally, I don’t know where the third point was fabricated, but there have been studies on the children of gay civil unions since we were allowed to adopt that show PRECISELY the opposite – just like in La Cage Aux Folles (The Birdcage, for you monolingual people), gays can have perfectly healthy, normal children of any sexual orientation.

    I hate fundies.

  4. Modusoperandi Says:

    Ron Britton “Then count on the fundies starting a boycott. They’ve boycotted every other company that has given money to the No side.”
    Do they actually buy anything worth buying anyway? I’m sure that Big Hairspray and Big Pickup would take a hit to their bottom line if they came out against Prop 8…

    ericsan “Leave it to ubergeeks to turn an anti-fundie blog into a PC vs. Mac slugfest.”
    PC v Mac? Pbbt! Amiga all the way! Woo! Go, Amiga! They’re due for a comeback, I tell you.

    Blackrose “…Plus I absolutely hate the term ‘Homosexual agenda'”
    I’ve read through it, and I don’t see anything all that bad about the homosexual agenda.