Paul Wellman (file)

After a candlelight vigil the Friday after the election, Santa Barbarans took to the streets to voice their opposition to Proposition 8’s passage.

California's Prop. 8 Defeat: A Bungled Campaign

How We Blew It

Thursday, December 4, 2008

By Terry Leftgoff

Article Tools

Print friendly

E-mail story

Tip Us Off

iPod friendly

Comments

Last night I attended a meeting in Beverly Hills to hear some of the leaders of the No on Prop 8 campaign discuss why they thought we lost. I found myself strongly disagreeing with their assessment, and I found myself in excellent company among the many villagers gathering outside the village gates.

So what happened? On a day of a monumental tidal shift, when voters bust down the front door of the White House for an African American, and Californians voted to prevent the closing of another door to abortion rights, in a stunning reversal, Californians voted to slam the door on the civil rights of gay couples by stripping us of our right to marry.

The single biggest reason for the Proposition 8 loss was an ineffective and inept campaign strategy by the leadership of the No on 8 campaign, Despite raising record-shattering amounts of money, and volunteers who worked their hearts out, the overarching state campaign strategy was a huge flop.

How to Lose a Political Campaign: The statewide No on 8 campaign violated numerous standard rules of political campaigns, and overlooked or ignored basic campaign strategy, and in so doing lost a double-digit lead to predictable scare tactics. Independent polls from both the Public Policy Institute of California and the California Field Poll showed Prop 8 losing by an increasing margin following the tidal wave of joyous wedding coverage after the springtime California Supreme Court decision reversing a ban. No on 8’s lead grew to a double-digit lead in September--before intensive television advertising began. (Internal polls conducted by Equality California (ECQA) are said to have provided a different picture of voter opinion but ECQA has thus far declined to disclose them.)

All three major elements of a successful campaign - media, field operation, and getting out the vote-- were flawed, or worse, completely non-existent.

Ineffective Media: The No on 8 campaign began by allowing Yes on 8 proponents to define the debate, and it was never able to recover. This violated the first rule of political campaigns, which is to never let your opponent define you first.

After this near-fatal slow start, every emotional attack ad from Yes on 8 received a tepid intellectual response from No on 8. This violated another rule of political campaigns, which is to quickly respond in equal kind to an attack so it is not allowed to penetrate the public mind.

Instead of running a diverse, multi-message campaign of persuasion, No on 8 issued a media message that was emotionless, monotone, and uncompelling. In short, the media message failed to move or even educate voters about the issue, instead appealing to a single abstract principle - equality - that was neither sufficiently persuasive nor connected to the content of the proposition. Worse, there appeared to be no effective Black or Latino strategy.

An effective target strategy would have been to send Democratic voters mailers with a picture of Barack Obama and other prominent, diverse leaders who oppose Prop 8, and to send Republican voters mailers with pictures of Arnold Schwarzenegger and other prominent religious and conservative leaders who oppose Prop 8. This is textbook targeting.

TV AD #1: A perky but awkward teenager is sitting in a school yard. He or she is Black or Latino. He could be the actor who plays the gay son on Ugly Betty. He speaks directly into the camera while shuffling his feet: "You know, it's hard growing up feeling different. Rejection hurts. Self esteem and acceptance are vital to the success of kids like me. Did you know that as many as one in three gay and lesbian teens attempt suicide? Prop 8 would prevent people like me from marrying. When I grow up, I hope to get married someday. Please don't take that hope away from me. Just growing up is hard enough." (Gentle woman's voice: "Vote no on 8, Please don't discriminate.”)

The touching images of post-Supreme Court decision weddings, which so effectively humanized the issue, were squandered. The magnificent media saturation about our personal stories, broadcast into every corner of the state, caused huge gains in public opinion and, by extension, voter preferences. Did our advertising strategy utilize these moving stories? Inexplicably, they did not.

The sanitized media messages smacked of a campaign by focus group. Such an outdated, orthodox approach should have been over-ridden by common sense and political savvy. How it is that our community's considerable collective campaign knowledge could have led the No on 8 campaign so astray?

Ads never even mentioned the subject matter of the proposition -- gay marriage or marriage equality -- ceding that to the Yes on 8 proponents to define for the electorate. The No on 8 ads never featured simple, first-hand, heartfelt stories of gay and lesbian families talking about what it means to them and their children to have the legal benefits of marriage and conversely, what it would mean to have that right ripped away. They never featured our children and what the legal protection of marriage means to them. And significantly they did not reflect the diversity of our electorate.

TV AD #2: A gay couple is sitting with their young children. They speak directly into the camera: "The legal protections of marriage are important to us because, like other parents, we're concerned about what might happen to them should something happen to one of us. Prop 8 would take away the right to marry of people like us. Please don't take that away from us or from them." (Gentle voice: “Vote no on 8. Please don't discriminate.”)

When it became clear things were going awry, campaign managers were changed mid-stream. There was a noticeable shift in messaging during which media messages became more powerful, but they continued to dance around the issue. By this point, it was too little too late.

The “Ick Factor”: Let's address the “Ick Factor.” In this situation, it applies to the way Yes on 8 proponents sexualized and demonized the gay community, then exploited the discomfort they created. One particularly effective theme of the demonizing attack ads by Yes on 8 proponents was the shameless use of lies about children. But instead of humanizing ourselves and our children, No on 8 responded by hiding us in the closet, in effect a self-inflicted wound, and failing to show how such attacks are hurtful to the well-being of our children.

History has shown us that when the humanity of the gay community is showcased, public opinion is highly responsive. This has been true with AIDS, prior attacks on gay teachers, and the coverage of gay weddings. Instead, the campaign message rendered gay couples and parents invisible with antiseptic ads, allowing these demonizing attack ads by Yes on 8 proponents to flourish in the public mind. These emotional tactics by Yes on 8 proponents were clichéd--shopworn and completely predictable. The gay community was “disappeared,” hidden in the closet like a shameful crazy uncle, within ineffective third party media messaging. The media message, approach, and roll out was, at best, painfully slow and monotone, and, at worst, it reflected internalized homophobia.

There were no ads that peeled back the curtain on who the stealth sponsors of Prop 8 were, and on the religiously based campaign they were waging. The Mormon Church and its members bitch-slapped the gay community, accounting for nearly $20 million, close to half of all Yes on 8 contributions. They sponsored and ran an effective ground operation that trained members to never let on they were Mormon. The Mormon Church has, in a well guarded secret, been the primary sponsor of virtually every anti-gay initiative that has appeared on a state ballot in the United States. How salient would an ad have been that asked voters whether the Mormon Church of Utah, infamous for its polygamists and for forcing underage young girls into exploitive marriages, should lecture Californians about marriage? We'll never know since no such ad was produced.

TV AD #3: A well known black civil rights figure or minister speaks directly into the camera: "The Mormon Church of Utah is behind Prop 8 on the ballot. They want to ban gay marriage. Did you know that for over a century, the Mormon Church banned blacks from becoming members? Now they want to tell Californians what our marriages should look like? (Gentle voice: “Vote no on 8. Please don't discriminate.”)

I wonder how such an ad might have resonated with African American voters, 70% of whom ended up siding with the Mormon Church on Prop 8. (Internal polls conducted by Equality California (ECQA) are said to show 57% support, but ECQA has thus far declined to release them. )

By contrast, Jewish voters in Los Angeles overwhelmingly opposed Prop 8 by a margin of 78-8%. Jewish opposition to Prop 8 is reported to be the highest of any ethnic or religious voter group. It is remarkable how these two voter groups, who are frequent allies and traditionally vote along similar lines when it comes to social justice issues, completely diverged. We need to understand why and learn from it.

Perhaps one of the most instructive and disturbing contradictions of the election was to hear black religious leaders justify their position using the same language and rationale against gay marriage that was historically used against them. Several interviews with leading black leaders supporting Prop 8 repeated the mantra that to them it was not a civil rights issue, but rather a moral or religious issue.

This is the identical language used by the racists of their day to defend segregation, to ban interracial marriage, and to justify discrimination in housing. This latter issue is particularly salient because, like marriage equality, it was placed before voters and, in a similar expression of the “people's will,” it was overwhelmingly approved prior to being stricken by the California Supreme Court. Clearly we failed to sufficiently make our case with black voters. And we need to understand why.

TV AD #4: A black minister speaks directly into the camera: "There used to be a legal ban on blacks and Jews moving into white neighborhoods. They used to tell us it wasn't a civil rights issue, it was a moral issue. Yeah, right. Now they've put Prop 8 on the ballot to ban gay marriage. They are saying it isn't a civil rights issue, it's just a moral issue. Uh huh. Photo montage of Barack Obama and other black leaders who are against Prop 8. (Gentle female voice: “Vote no on 8. Please don't discriminate.”)

No Grassroots Organization, Weak Field Operation, Failed Get Out the Vote Program: Rather than tapping local organizing committees across the state for a strong, locally grown grassroots operation, the campaign appeared insular, and apparently did not include or listen to those with experience in the winning activism that has beaten back repeated anti-gay measures during the past three decades.

Further, they failed to run a basic ground operation; and they relied upon a website that was so bad it frequently acted as a repellent.

The Yes on 8 proponents used a traditional field operation, personally talking to potential voters at the precinct level. There is no substitute for face-to-face campaigning. The personal approach has proven to be the most effective and it is backed by years of political science and empirical experience. Standard campaign practice holds that it takes three personal contacts to firm up a leaning voter.

In contrast, No on 8 apparently never conducted an actual ground operation, relying instead on a patchwork of phone banks with limited reach and saturation, and surrendered outlying areas, likely racking up larger losses.

Further, looking beyond ineffective media and a weak ground operation, there was an incompetent Get Out The Vote (GOTV) strategy which likely resulted in lower turnout of supporters in key, voter-rich counties. I personally received a note from the No on 8 campaign thanking me for my offer to volunteer for Election Day GOTV activities but declining because they had no need. No need for volunteers on Election Day?! They did offer, however, that I could come in to help clean their offices the day after the election. How nice. I imagine cleaning their office the day after the election might produce scads of new votes. Not.

As it turns out, I was not alone. Numerous volunteers, whose stories have lit up Internet blogs, were turned away by No on 8 on Election Day because there was no real GOTV strategy.

So what was their GOTV program? The weekend before the election, volunteers were trained to stand outside polling places on Election Day. And if you missed the training there was no use for you.

What's wrong with that approach? It is often counterproductive because a) people are already entering the polls so it doesn't increase turnout, b) by this time voters generally have already made up their minds, c) even though the law specifies a buffer around polling places where there can be no electioneering, it can be intimidating to voters and can turn people against you, and, d) you want all available hands on deck on Election Day without any artificial barriers.

A textbook GOTV program is one that focuses on actually getting your supporters to vote: Transport people to polling places, check the polling place throughout the day to see who of your supporters hasn't voted yet, and then make efforts to get them to the polls.

What about all those voters who voted by mail? Typically, it is crucial to have a strategy to contact these early voters at the time mail ballots are being received, weeks before the election and outside the reach of last minute media messages. This is where early targeted mailers make a crucial impact. But that was not part of the strategy either.

How could there be no mail voter strategy? Good question. It was well known and anticipated that the use of mail ballots would be unprecedented; in fact, more voters cast their votes by mail in this election than at any time in state history.

Los Angeles County was the Linchpin: So where did it really go wrong? Los Angeles County. It is the single most important County in California, accounting for 25% of all votes cast in the state, and it is where the campaign appears to have collapsed.

Due to a 2-to-1 ratio of Democrats to Republicans, L.A. County typically delivers enough votes to dilute and cushion conservative votes elsewhere (primarily in Orange and San Diego Counties, among others).

L.A. is essential to the electoral success of a traditionally liberal cause. A simple party line vote in L.A., given the projected turnout, would have polled between 500,000-600,000 more votes against Prop 8 than it did. Had it done so, Prop 8 would have lost. In the case of Prop 8, not only did L.A. not deliver, it leaned in the wrong direction and contributed to a state deficit of over 500,000 votes.

Could a more effective GOTV strategy have increased turnout among supporters, increasing the winning margin in supportive areas and decreasing the margin of loss in hostile areas? That is the intended purpose. Too often, elections are won by who stays home.

(It appears that Prop 8 had a headwind as well as a tailwind on its side. One signal is that Prop 4, demanding parental consent for minors’ abortions, was defeated by the identical vote margin that passed Prop 8. So there was a clear discordance among some voter groups.)

Despite repeated media reports about record turnout of over 80 percent, the reality was slightly lower in California. As of this writing, L.A. County, with about 4.1 million registered voters, reports about three million votes cast, for a turnout of close to 75%, which is strong and consistent with turnout of 71% statewide, which will likely be revised upward due to reporting delays. So there appears to have been some room to increase turnout. Numbers are preliminary as votes are still being tallied, and it is likely they will continue to be revised upward into early December.

Turnout in Orange County, with just over 1.6 million registered voters, is reported to be lower, at about 70%, or 1.12 million ballots cast as of this writing. It is a bastion of conservative votes, where John McCain polled with a margin of 3%, or 36,000 more votes than Barack Obama. Prop 8 won by 172,000 votes, or 58%-42%. Prop 4 won by 93,000 votes, or 54%-46%.

By comparison, turnout in San Francisco, with 477,651 registered voters, is reported to be 375,000, or 78.5% (with less than 1% or close to 4500 ballots still to be counted). Both Prop 8 and Prop 4 lost by identical margins (75%-25%). Still, 25% of voters in S.F. voted yes on Prop 8. Just think about that for a moment.

A Call to Account: I blame an incompetent campaign that blew through $40 million and had little to show for it but a losing strategy.

The Yes on 8 proponents relied on an early gusher of funding, much of it from the Mormon Church. So No on 8 was initially hampered and swamped in early fundraising. No on 8 raised $15 million before October 1, and $25 million after October 1; this trend was reversed for Yes on 8 proponents which earned them some strategic advantage. No on 8 deserves huge accolades for fundraising. Although slow to start, it was spectacular for the sheer volume of contributions and the number of individual contributors.

But it turns out that in the end, for No on 8 -- the gay and lesbian community and our allies -- it wasn't a matter of money, it turned out to be a matter of simple political smarts. There were plenty of brilliant attorneys and managers in the room, but apparently no political or grassroots operatives to guide an electoral strategy.

It is painful for our community to face such a public rejection. The dimensions of that pain from rejection are where many of us live our lives. But it did not have to be. So this moment represents a special time for painful introspection about a lost opportunity, and a new opportunity for profound learning.

I hereby call upon activists, community leaders, and local, state, and national organizations in California and throughout the country to hold community town-hall forums to account for such a momentous series of campaign blunders. We need a transparent, comprehensive, campaign post-mortem, to air concerns, share collective wisdom, and jointly plan our future. Democracy is messy; it's inside that mess where we regain traction and rebuild a stronger movement.

We need to have an open, two-way conversation that rectifies the insularity of this campaign, where our diverse community is welcome at the table and no voice is shut out. This must involve everyone: young and old, street activists, uber-lesbigays, celebri-gays, leatherfolk, allies, donors and leadership.

In Los Angeles County, I call for a forthright and blunt introspection about what went wrong, without defensiveness or recrimination. There needs to be full accountability before we can trust our leaders with another $40 million for a future initiative endeavor which we are already being called upon to support. For a future campaign to succeed, we must be there together for the liftoff if they want us there for the landing.

The starter for these forums should be the words, "We screwed up and here's what we need to learn from it. What do you think?" Then those responsible for this campaign need to bust open the process, welcome in all the villagers, and quietly listen as the sorrow of our anguish meets the redemption of our ambitions.

Any good news?: What can we take from this debacle? Despite such a bungled campaign and the loss of a 20 point lead, support still grew by 10% over year 2000 Proposition 22 results, narrowing the margin of loss to a slender 4%. Imagine what we could have done with a well-crafted campaign strategy.

We can learn from what went right in a County like Santa Barbara, where No on 8 succeeded 53%-47% despite the state campaign strategy, not because of it. Santa Barbara is an excellent case study, since this one county mirrors the most extreme political divisions of the state as a whole. This is a county where, due to culture and geographic isolation, political campaigns are not won by media but by the shoe leather of smart, locally originated and locally implemented field operations. Unlike the state No on 8 campaign strategy, local leaders targeted the very areas lost to Prop 22, joined local precinct walk operations and GOTV programs, organized the faith community, secured and publicized important endorsements and, most importantly, they successfully humanized the issue. If you can win in a region that is evenly split between coastal progressive voters and inland conservative voters, you can win almost anywhere in California.

The silver lining is that shifting voter demographics reveal an inevitable generational and historical trend toward acceptance of gay civil rights. Impressively, half of all donations to No on Prop 8 were in amounts less than $100, which is promising as it indicates width of active support.

This devastating loss jolted and awakened new generations of outraged gays, lesbians, and our allies out of their slumber around the world. It is awesome to witness the sea of humanity at our protests. When our civil rights are ripped away, we bleed.

It's not over; we're just getting started.

We suffered an electoral gay bashing and we will not rest until we get our rights back. To mangle a saying, now we need to get angry and get organized. Let's harness this new energy, rebuild a fresh new movement out of our defeat, learn new ways of community organizing, and revitalize and launch new organizations. And let's learn from our mistakes not by making bigger and better mistakes, but by avoiding them next time. We need to rebuild better strategic working coalitions with our social justice allies, who are key to our advancement. It is time for the elders to begin passing along the successful strategies of our struggles to the next generations, and then join in a new torch relay together.

That many of our western allies are ahead of the United States on gay marriage offers hope that America, led by an Obama Administration, rather than bringing up the rear, will once again reassert its leadership on human rights issues in the world. And it is positive that the Mormon Church has finally been publicly outed for its obsessive anti-gay electoral activities.

So the battle and the struggle continues and it now moves back to the California Supreme Court, which only last May recognized our fundamental rights and made an unprecedented declaration that sexual orientation is a class legally protected from discrimination.

Judging by their sweeping ruling last May, I believe they are expecting us.

FOOTNOTES

1. 'Polling on Prop. 8 - California's Same Sex Marriage Ban', by Mark DiCamillo, Director of the California Field Poll, Pollster.com, November 7,1008 . Early September Field Poll showed the opposition leading by 14 or 17%. depending on wording. Mid-September polling by Public Policy Institute of California showed a lead of 14%. Prop 8 proponent ads began airing mid-to-late September.

2. The term, 'Ick Factor', was coined by Eric Rofes to describe a visceral recoil between gay men and lesbians.

3. 'The Church and the Negro', John Lewis Lund. Deseret Books. (Documents the history of the LDS Mormon Church ban on black members and clergy)

4. CNN Exit Polling Data (Black voter support of Prop 8 at 70% in favor)

5. The Leavey Center for the Study of Los Angeles at Loyola Marymount University. (Jewish voter opposition to Prop 8 at 78% against - 8% in favor)

6. Mulkey v. Reitman (1966) 64 Cal.2d 529, affd. sub nom.Reitman v. Mulkey (1967) 387 U.S. 369 (Case which struck down racial discrimination in housing, a measure previously enacted by an overwhelming popular vote.)

Comments

Discussion Guidelines

You've got a few factual errors...

If that where true why where there so many Black members that moved to SLC with the Utah Pioneers. Blacks where bard from the priesthood and holding leadership positions until 1978. However... JS the founder of the church ordained black priests. This offended some people and is one of the factors that lead to a mob lyncing him.

Readers say: Thumbs Up: 0 of 0 • Thumbs Down: 0 of 0

Zakuska (anonymous profile)
December 4, 2008 at 8:38 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Despite the sour grapes tone of the article, this is a very good post-mortem on the campaign. Let’s begin by at least getting the factual errors corrected.
• “One particularly effective theme of the demonizing attack ads by Yes on 8 proponents was the shameless use of lies about children.” I viewed every Yes on 8 ad and there were no shameless lies about children. There were suppositions about what would happen if 8 failed, but those were all based on the facts of what has happened in other states that allow gay marriage. Documented.
• “The Mormon Church and its members bitch slapped the gay community, accounting for nearly $20 million…” The Mormon Church gave exactly ZERO cash to the Yes on 8 campaign. The Church did encourage their members to help Prop 8 get passed and their member responded. There is no accurate data on how much money the members gave to the campaign, because donations were not tracked by “faith”. The use of the words “bitch-slapped” is offensive.
• “They sponsored and ran an effective ground operation that trained members to never let on they were Mormons.”. It is true that they did run a very effective ground campaign. They did not train their members to conceal the fact that they were Mormons. They were, in fact, very open about it.
• “African American voters, 70% of whom ended up siding with the Mormon Church..” Actually, the number was 77%.
• “The Yes on 8 proponents relied on an early gusher of funding, much of it from the Mormon Church.” Not true. See above.
• “We suffered an electoral gay bashing.” Fifty two percent of the folks exercising their constitution right is not gay bashing. It’s called voting.
• “The Mormon Church has finally been publicly outed for its obsessive anti-gay electoral activities.” The Mormon Church has been openly involved in preserving traditional marriage for many years, including similar activities in getting Prop 22 passed in 2000.

I respect your right to express your opinion about gay marriage. Clearly, the debate will continue with much emotion for some time. Happily, for those that feel differently, 44 states have laws on the books similar or identical to Prop 8. No state population has ever voted for gay marriage. Only two states, Massachusetts and Connecticut have laws allowing gay marriage because of one vote majorities by activist judges. We have federal law passed in 1996 identical to Prop 8. Joe Biden, Joe Lieberman, Chris Dodd, Robert Byrd all voted for it and Bill Clinton signed the Defense of Marriage Act of 1996.

You said, “Several interviews with leading black leaders supporting Prop 8 said that to them it was not a civil rights issue, but rather a moral or religious issue.” For many of those large majorities, this is exactly the point. A point that you appear not to want to address in your analysis.

Readers say: Thumbs Up: 2 of 2 • Thumbs Down: 0 of 2

Loveforall (anonymous profile)
December 4, 2008 at 10:21 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Finally, an analysis into some of the REAL causes of prop 8's passage.
I can only hope lessons were learned from this analysis, but I can assess that w/ the attacks on Christian institutions & people's personal beliefs that the no on 8 protesters have launched, many once in support of gay marriage are going to not care for it anymore.
Funny how this article also left out the smug arrogance by no on 8 people such as Gavin Newsom & his "it's gonna happen... Whether you like it or not!" comment :) henry

Readers say: Thumbs Up: 2 of 2 • Thumbs Down: 0 of 2

hank (anonymous profile)
December 4, 2008 at 12:04 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Loveforall:

"You said, 'Several interviews with leading black leaders supporting Prop 8 said that to them it was not a civil rights issue, but rather a moral or religious issue.' For many of those large majorities, this is exactly the point. A point that you appear not to want to address in your analysis."

From the article:

"'There used to be a legal ban on blacks and Jews moving into white neighborhoods. They used to tell us it wasn't a civil rights issue, it was a moral issue. Yeah, right. Now they've put Prop 8 on the ballot to ban gay marriage. They are saying it isn't a civil rights issue, it's just a moral issue.'"

He's addressing the point as a comparison to the segregationist policies of this country that were supported by popular vote and overturned by "activist judges."

Readers say: Thumbs Up: 0 of 0 • Thumbs Down: 0 of 0

typo (anonymous profile)
December 4, 2008 at 1:05 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I stand by my analysis.

Unfortunately, the footnotes included with the analysis were omitted. They are as follows:

FOOTNOTES

2. The term, 'Ick Factor', was coined by Eric Rofes to describe a visceral recoil between gay men and lesbians.

3. 'The Church and the Negro', John Lewis Lund. Deseret Books. (Documents the history of the LDS Mormon Church ban on black members and clergy)

4. CNN Exit Polling Data (Black voter support of Prop 8 at 70% in favor)

5. The Leavey Center for the Study of Los Angeles at Loyola Marymount University. (Jewish voter opposition to Prop 8 at 78% against - 8% in favor)

Readers say: Thumbs Up: 0 of 1 • Thumbs Down: 1 of 1

TerryLeftgoff (anonymous profile)
December 4, 2008 at 1:19 p.m. (Suggest removal)

The footnotes do not clarify any of the incorrect data in your letter, except one - African American support for Prop. 8 was 70% according to CNN. The polling data that I saw was 77%. On all of the rest of my points, you are wrong.

Readers say: Thumbs Up: 1 of 1 • Thumbs Down: 0 of 1

Loveforall (anonymous profile)
December 4, 2008 at 1:36 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Loveforall:

"There were suppositions about what would happen if 8 failed, but those were all based on the facts of what has happened in other states that allow gay marriage."

Regarding Massachusetts, they have a different set of laws involved in education concerning marriage, and different guidelines for parental authority. The California Comprehensive Sexual Health and HIV/AIDS Prevention Education Act lists one of its objectives as:

"To encourage a pupil to develop healthy attitudes concerning adolescent growth and development, body image, gender roles, sexual orientation, dating, marriage, and family."

But that same act also includes an parental excusal clause:

"A parent or guardian of a pupil has the right to excuse
their child from all or part of comprehensive sexual health education, HIV/AIDS prevention education, and assessments related to that education"

I do not believe Massachusetts has this exception. Therefore, it seems highly unlikely that the examples cited in the Yes on 8 ads would be a legitimate concern to California's who are averse to the idea of their children understanding homosexuality.

Readers say: Thumbs Up: 0 of 0 • Thumbs Down: 0 of 0

typo (anonymous profile)
December 4, 2008 at 1:47 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Loveforall simply doesn't get it. If LFA could present evidence showing how marriage brings harm to any one class of people, perhaps there might be some grounds for creating this rather arbitrary distinction called "gay" marriage. Without evidence, the Prop 8 proponents are asking us to codify law that merely appeases their sensibilities while clearly discriminating against a class of people. This is not what our country was founded on.

Readers say: Thumbs Up: 0 of 0 • Thumbs Down: 0 of 0

tegrat (anonymous profile)
December 4, 2008 at 2:09 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Tegrat:
Here is what I don’t “get”. I have repeatedly, in other threads and in other responses to you specifically, pointed how “gay marriage brings harm to any one class of people”. You are great at ignoring me. As far as “creating this rather arbitrary distinction called “gay” marriage” – the opponents of Prop 8 are the ones who are fighting for this distinction. Those who voted yes are perfectly happy with the traditional definition. “Without evidence” – are you kidding me? Either you can’t read or you are badly ignoring the facts. Those that voted for 8 are not “merely appeasing their sensibilities”. Thankfully, they were those who stood up for what they believed in, despite being abused by the name-calling crowds of intolerant No on 8ers. There is room in this great world for more than one opinion, unless you happen to disagree with Tegrat and his/her ilk.

Readers say: Thumbs Up: 1 of 1 • Thumbs Down: 0 of 1

Loveforall (anonymous profile)
December 4, 2008 at 3:28 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Loveforall:

“gay marriage brings harm to ... one class of people”

Which class, and how?

Readers say: Thumbs Up: 0 of 0 • Thumbs Down: 0 of 0

typo (anonymous profile)
December 4, 2008 at 8:06 p.m. (Suggest removal)

LoveForAll:

"... As far as “creating this rather arbitrary distinction called “gay” marriage” – the opponents of Prop 8 are the ones who are fighting for this distinction."

Claiming something is a fact because you disagree does not make it so. This quote is a great example of creating internal logic conflicts to justify a position - the underlying claims don't hold up any better than the logic.

Those who support marriage equality want there to be no distinction between people; those who single out gays and lesbians for different legal treatment clearly have done so by their action.

That is the definition of an intolerant homophobe.

Religious justification does not change anything. If my religion will perform gay weddings, which it will, then who is anyone to interfere with my religious freedom? Why should one religious view be imposed on anyone else? I would argue it should not; that is why we have as one of our constitutional foundations the separation of church and state.

By singling out a minority in such a way, you help prove how much the gay community needs the protection the Supreme Court ruling offers.

Fortunately, the advancement of civil rights has rarely relied upon public opinion, quite the contrary as most progress met harsh and sometimes violent opposition. And typically those who opposed civil rights progress hid behind religion as their justification. Looking back on slavery or the ownership of women, it seems we've come a long way.

But when it comes to gay civil rights, not so much.

Readers say: Thumbs Up: 0 of 0 • Thumbs Down: 0 of 0

HueyChapala (anonymous profile)
December 4, 2008 at 8:39 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Hank says:

"I can only hope lessons were learned from this analysis, but I can assess that w/ the attacks on Christian institutions & people's personal beliefs that the no on 8 protesters have launched, many once in support of gay marriage are going to not care for it anymore."

Interesting point. There have been no 'attacks' but rather protests and the beginning of boycotts, traditional hallmarks of a civil rights movement.

Here are poll results from 11-19-08, approx 2 weeks after the election. It appears there has already been a shift in opinion.

8% of those who voted YES would switch their vote to NO when asked, 'Have the protesters changed your opinion on Prop 8?'

From: SurveyUSA News Poll Conducted 11-19-08
Sponsored by KFSN-TV Fresno

Readers say: Thumbs Up: 0 of 0 • Thumbs Down: 0 of 0

TerryLeftgoff (anonymous profile)
December 4, 2008 at 10:04 p.m. (Suggest removal)

(1) The biggest problem with the No on 8 campaign was that rather than trying to convince people that gay marriage was OK, they simply accused anyone that disagreed with them of being a bigot. I'll bet the backlash against the bigot accusations alone changed the outcome of the race.

(2) Most African-Americans find analogies between gay rights and the civil rights movement to be offensive. You can hide the fact that you're gay, but you can't hide the fact that you're black. The idea for an ad that would accuse the Mormon Church of past racism and then compare that to their stance against gay marriage would be a legendary sleazy ad in the Willie Horton tradition.

Readers say: Thumbs Up: 1 of 1 • Thumbs Down: 0 of 1

Kratatoa (anonymous profile)
December 4, 2008 at 10:25 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Terry, when someone makes a blanket statement claiming that ALL Christians are evil for voting for prop 8 that is in effect an attack.
Imagine if somebody made a statement saying that all gay men are AIDS carriers & all lesbian women are all manhaters. That would be an attack right?
The blanket statements made by the no on 8 "protesters" against the beliefs of people are an attack. Vandalizing houses of worship is an attack.
The no on 8 crowd can't seem to realize that not all Christians voted for 8 based on the very same principles the no on 8 crowd seem to despise: Love thy neighbor as you would yourself.
The big concern here is that the support from those who have been lumped into 1 big group (Christians) may erode so should the issue ever come up again on a ballot that support may not be there anymore, not for "religious" reasons, but rather for the attacks the no on 8 crowd has made.
Look, bedroom/life choice decisions between 2 consenting adults should never be put on a ballot, period. As a constitutionalist that's what I believe.
But @ the same time those seeking a helping hand should not lump those they seek support from into 1 group.
I've said it before, if you survey the population of CA you will find that Christian belief is a fraction of said population. CA has as large agnostic, atheist or loosely affiliated w/ Christianity population.
It was a societal attitude & the "ick factor" that propelled prop 8 into passage as well as the arrogance & smugness of folks like Gavin Newsom. More harm came from those for gay marriage than those not.
Plenty of blame to go around, but lumping ALL Christians as those who voted for prop 8 is not the way to go.
Sure, Christian based churches did fund prop 8, but leadership & congregation hardly ever see eye to eye, simple fact, take it from a Latino Lutheran w/ 1/4 Jew.
By the way, Muslim belief teaches that homosexuality is a sin against Allah. How much of the yes on 8 vote was Muslim? Why don't the no on 8 protesters go protest in front of Muslim temples? I'll tell you why: Political correctness. It is easier to attack Christian based churches because we're SUPPOSEDLY all white rednecks who kill for Jesus. How wrong that is!
More research will show it was society's attitude that pushed this prop & while religion was a factor, it wasn't the ONLY factor :) henry

Readers say: Thumbs Up: 0 of 0 • Thumbs Down: 0 of 0

hank (anonymous profile)
December 5, 2008 at 9:58 a.m. (Suggest removal)

hank, you are pulling some of your strongest claims out of your... back pocket...

For example, you forward the idea that some type of backlash against the No on 8 crowd's supposed rudeness lead to it's (narrow) defeat.

You said:

--- "I've said it before, if you survey the population of CA you will find that Christian belief is a fraction of said population. CA has as large agnostic, atheist or loosely affiliated w/ Christianity population.
It was a societal attitude & the "ick factor" that propelled prop 8 into passage as well as the arrogance & smugness of folks like Gavin Newsom. More harm came from those for gay marriage than those not."

But here is an actual poll recently reported::

--- "The ban drew its strongest support from both evangelical Christians and voters who didn't attend college, according to results released Wednesday by the Public Policy Institute of California.

--- "Age and race, meanwhile, were not as strong factors as assumed. According to the poll, 56 percent of voters over age 55 and 57 percent of nonwhite voters cast a yes ballot for the gay marriage ban.

--- "People who identified themselves as practicing Christians were highly likely to support the constitutional amendment, with 85 percent of evangelical Christians, 66 percent of Protestants and 60 percent of Roman Catholics favoring it."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081204/ap_o...

And here is a Pew study on the preponderance of faith in California, far higher than you assert:

Evangelical Protestant Tradition
18%
Mainline Protestant Tradition
14%
Historically Black Protestant Tradition
4%
Catholic Tradition
31%
Mormon Tradition
2%
Orthodox Tradition
1%
Jehovah's Witness Tradition
1%
Other Christian Traditions
1%
[ http://religions.pewforum.org/maps# ]

-- That's 72% of Californians who fit into the profile you insist is underrepresented.

I agree that tarring all Christians as against gay marriage is wrong; obviously with a super-majority of Californians self-identifying in the Christian tradition, a large portion of those folks who voted "no" on 8 had to be in this Christian group.

Readers say: Thumbs Up: 0 of 0 • Thumbs Down: 0 of 0

binky (anonymous profile)
December 5, 2008 at 10:37 a.m. (Suggest removal)

There's an old saying that floated around in the math dept. @ UCSB: "W/ polls you can show anything, especially after the effect is said & done."
Again, the views of the clergy & the views of the congregation differ.
The thing to look @ is the geography of where the yes or no votes had the predominance, that'll paint a more accurate picture.
The Pew study shows what they gathered in congregations, but doesn't seem to show any "average" data, as average Californian. There's where you'll see the tendency for agnostic, atheist or other (non-Christian) :) henry

Readers say: Thumbs Up: 0 of 0 • Thumbs Down: 0 of 0

hank (anonymous profile)
December 5, 2008 at 11:52 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Upon further review of the play, just kidding! Looking @ the data provided, I still have to go w/ the previously stated demographics, but now that I read it right (was in a hurry to get to a meeting before noon, sorry binky), this data also provides the fact that MANY of the Christian population voted against prop 8.
So again, the question: Why the blanket statements about all Christians? Why the verbal & vandalism attacks? :) henry

Readers say: Thumbs Up: 0 of 0 • Thumbs Down: 0 of 0

hank (anonymous profile)
December 5, 2008 at 1:11 p.m. (Suggest removal)

If the Judge(s) rule in a way I do not like, then they are ACTIVIST JUDGES.

But if they rule the way I want, then they are Protectors of the Constitution and Upholders of Civil Rights.

And I STILL never knew that California was a theocracy!!

Readers say: Thumbs Up: 0 of 0 • Thumbs Down: 0 of 0

David_Pritchett (David Pritchett)
December 5, 2008 at 7:49 p.m. (Suggest removal)

"CA has as large agnostic, atheist or loosely affiliated w/ Christianity population.
It was a societal attitude & the "ick factor" that propelled prop 8 into passage as well as the arrogance & smugness of folks like Gavin Newsom." -Hank-

Well put. Gay *pride* rallies don't exactly go over very well with most people either.

Readers say: Thumbs Up: 0 of 0 • Thumbs Down: 0 of 0

billclausen (anonymous profile)
December 5, 2008 at 9:59 p.m. (Suggest removal)

By the way...how come Martin Luther King, who gave his life for his beliefs, didn't speak up on this issue?

Readers say: Thumbs Up: 0 of 0 • Thumbs Down: 0 of 0

billclausen (anonymous profile)
December 5, 2008 at 10 p.m. (Suggest removal)

"So again, the question: Why the blanket statements about all Christians? Why the verbal & vandalism attacks? :) henry"

Because it's a religion that teaches people not only to behave in a certain way externally, but also to change their hearts. Most of the hedonistic types we see in these blogs--who in all fairness probably are reflective of Western culture--do not want God dictating to them and telling them they're messing up. What they do is they simply take the parts of the Bible they don't like and throw them out and replace the God of the scriptures with a user-friendly god who does not call upon them to demonstrate any humility. (To wit: "Gay Pride") The Episcopal Church, the Evangelical Lutheran Church of America and the United Methodist Church are examples of this.

In short, the people who attack Christianity do not want to hear about monogamy or anything else related to them having to control their primordial urges. To paraphrase Ted Koppel "It's not the Ten Suggestions, but the Ten Commandments".

I daresay that perhaps the anger of Christian bashers is not so much that these people actually care about gay people, but rather they see their own ungodly behavior called to light when this issue is raised.

Readers say: Thumbs Up: 0 of 0 • Thumbs Down: 0 of 0

billclausen (anonymous profile)
December 5, 2008 at 10:15 p.m. (Suggest removal)

"I daresay that perhaps the anger of Christian bashers is not so much that these people actually care about gay people, but rather they see their own ungodly behavior called to light when this issue is raised."

The most likely cause, as I see it, of blanket criticism is that Christianity, in its more strict forms, often advocates ideas that run counter to the ideals of a progressive society, which promotes social freedom, gender equality, and, more to the point, gay rights. These people are reacting to what they see as a perceived attack, by the very general icon of "religion", on their rights. In turn, they counterattack, criticizing the traditional forms of society that represent, to them, oppression and intolerance.

More respect is needed on both sides. Calling those who argue against you "ungodly" is not the way to go.

Readers say: Thumbs Up: 0 of 0 • Thumbs Down: 0 of 0

typo (anonymous profile)
December 5, 2008 at 11:15 p.m. (Suggest removal)

David Pritchett:"And I STILL never knew that California was a theocracy!!"
Well, define theocracy? A theocracy is when religion rules the state & all decisions or mandates are based on religious decree inposed by the state, such as in Tehran, Iran where the Quoran dictates the political choices & decisions made FOR all, not by all.
Here in CA we're FAR from a theocratic state. The voters decide for themselves.
HOWEVER, some voters will allow religious influence, decided on BY THEMSELVES, to influence their PERSONAL vote.
Conversely, some voters will make decisions based on anti-religious sentiments. Both scenarios are in effect democracy as it is supposed to be: Personal choice based on presonal reason.
If anything, we're more like a socialist/communist state & I solely say this based on every attempt the "liberal" contingent has made to eliminate ANYTHING religious from the state.
After all, it was Karl Marx, the father of that failing/failed system, who stated "religion is the opitae of the masses" in the efforts to eliminate religion from the lives of people within the state. Yeah, that went far: R.I.P. USSR, 1917-1989.
But after all separation of church & state are a staple of the United States Constitution so maybe the socialist/communist thing won't really fly.
Claims of CA being a theocracy, w/ all due respect, are ludicrous @ the very least.
If anything it is more a system of idolatry & the idol the state worships is $$$. That's what seems to win & solve everything & prop 8 ain't exempt from this fact.
Theocatic? Nah, just the average run of the mill mixed up set of voters out to make decisions based on THEIR own ideas :) henry

Readers say: Thumbs Up: 0 of 0 • Thumbs Down: 0 of 0

hank (anonymous profile)
December 6, 2008 at 7:35 a.m. (Suggest removal)

One more comment on the "theocracy" thing. In Western culture it was the Gospel, Mid East/Arab culture, the Quoran & Israeli/Jewish culture the Torah, that did offer guidelines for the laws that affect all in said regions/peoples, so the CONCEPT of government is theocatically based, regardless of religion, people or region.
You have to keep in mind these things (Torah, Quoran, Gospel) were the ONLY guidelines available to those @ the time. There weren't slick attorneys, political action comittees, special interest groups or coalitions anywhere in sight.
But it is the governments that STILL base & impose laws based on scripture as well as impose THEIR thought of what should be decided on by the people that are true theocracies. We're far from it :) henry

Readers say: Thumbs Up: 0 of 0 • Thumbs Down: 0 of 0

hank (anonymous profile)
December 6, 2008 at 8:05 a.m. (Suggest removal)

BillClausen asks:

"By the way...how come Martin Luther King, who gave his life for his beliefs, didn't speak up on this issue?"

I realize this is probably a rhetorical question that might imply the gay community is not entitled to its own civil rights movement. But I think it deserves a reply.

Obviously the gay community was not MLK's primary issue or objective. MLK had a full plate and an artificially short time to advance it. But his comments always referred to ALL people treated equally by judging 'the content of their character.'. It is true he may not have mentioned sexual orientation, which was not spoken of as much in those days. So the question should be, what might MLK say today?

We needn't look far to find out. We need only look to his widow, Coretta Scott King, who carried the flame of the civil rights struggle for MLK after his death. Mrs. King spoke lovingly, frequently, eloquently, and forcefully about the need to extend equal civil rights to the gay community, particularly in the years before she died.

BTW, the same could be asked about Latino civil rights leaders. And in fact, many of the leaders ot the Chicano/Latino civil rights movement , such as Delores Huerta, have also spoken forcefully about the need for equal civil rights for gays and lesbians.

Clearly, some cannot be more equal than others; equal rights for one means equal rights for all.

Readers say: Thumbs Up: 0 of 0 • Thumbs Down: 0 of 0

TerryLeftgoff (anonymous profile)
December 6, 2008 at 10 a.m. (Suggest removal)

"...the Mormon Church of Utah, infamous for its polygamists and for forcing underage young girls into exploitive marriages" I was not aware of that, and I've lived in Utah for 50 years. I've always understood polygamy and child abuse are grounds for excommunication.

"the Mormon Church banned blacks from becoming members" - another surprise considering there have been black members since the earliest days of the church (Elijah Abel was baptized in 1832, he died in Utah in 1884 after returning from a mission to Canada for the church), I've never heard of blacks being banned from membership. Surprising notable black people such as Thurl Bailey and Gladys Knight would join such a church.

Apparently, African-Americans also tended to side with Catholics, Orthodox Jews, Evangelicals, and other people who feel strongly about "traditional" marriage.

Readers say: Thumbs Up: 0 of 0 • Thumbs Down: 0 of 0

GB (anonymous profile)
December 6, 2008 at 11:58 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I was a volunteer and contributor to the Yes on 8 campaign, and I was one of the thousands upon thousands who were knocking on doors, visiting precincts and checking voter lists, and calling those who had self-identified as Yes on 8 but hadn't yet voted on election day.

I have to tell you, Terry, that the two most important, and long-lasting, effects of Prop 8 will be, first, the permanent definition of marriage in California (there will be no overturning of Prop 8 in the current Supreme Court case), and second:

the birth of an incredibly potent pro-family coalition in California.

I ran into a Mormon dude who recognized me from some Catholic-Mormon debates I had engaged in. We chuckled at the cirumstances which had brought us together, and I said:

"I only hope the day comes when we can get back to arguing theology".

He responded:

"It won't happen in our lifetimes".

The Prop 8 campaign won against huge odds in the most liberal state in the nation against the combined weight of the Supreme Court, the Governor, the AG, both Senators, all eight of the largest newspapers, all the Hollywood celebrities, and, as if that weren't enough, it won on Obama's night.

That is absolutely astounding.

The gay movement instinctively knows it will never have as good a shot again, and they are right.

I doubt there will even be a 2010 initiative, but if there is, it will lose by 10-15%

See you in New Jersey.

Readers say: Thumbs Up: 0 of 0 • Thumbs Down: 0 of 0

proprop8 (anonymous profile)
December 6, 2008 at 5:31 p.m. (Suggest removal)

"I've never heard of blacks being banned from membership. Surprising notable black people such as Thurl Bailey and Gladys Knight would join such a church."

From what I remember, Blacks *were* banned from the priesthood, and/or one of the levels of the attainable kingdoms of the Mormon church. Then-president Spencer Kimball (sp?) decided back in the 70's that this was wrong, when "negro blood" was needed in the church as one representative said coinciding with the desire to spread to the word to the dark-skinned folks who lived in Brazil. It was all rather silly really.

As for Gladys Knight, she joined the church after this debacle.

Readers say: Thumbs Up: 0 of 0 • Thumbs Down: 0 of 0

billclausen (anonymous profile)
December 6, 2008 at 8:17 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Terry, I think yours is an excellent and much-needed analysis. Your insight is piercing, honest and highly reasoned. Pity your critiques are only present at the Independent. They need a far greater audience, that will attract serious reflection and discussion on how to implement them.

One reason Jewish voters may have voted so strongly against Prop 8 is because Jews and gays were firsthand and together tortured with the effects of so-called morally motivated, popularly supported discrimination: in the Nazi concentration camps. The memory of these terrors and the popular hate that caused them is in the living memory of many of our Jewish neighbors in L.A.

Simcha Udwin

Readers say: Thumbs Up: 0 of 0 • Thumbs Down: 0 of 0

palmsierra (anonymous profile)
December 6, 2008 at 11:49 p.m. (Suggest removal)

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q...

Readers say: Thumbs Up: 0 of 0 • Thumbs Down: 0 of 0

billclausen (anonymous profile)
December 7, 2008 at 7:40 p.m. (Suggest removal)

i can't wait for the day Jesus comes back....

as a gay, pot smoking, communist activist...

Readers say: Thumbs Up: 0 of 0 • Thumbs Down: 0 of 0

iriesouljah (anonymous profile)
December 8, 2008 at 6:54 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Irie, I think Haile Salase beat him to it, except I don't think it was the 2nd coming :) henry

Readers say: Thumbs Up: 0 of 0 • Thumbs Down: 0 of 0

hank (anonymous profile)
December 8, 2008 at 10:12 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Lifted (and not vetted) from the DailyKos:
If we are to let the Bible determine our standards for marriage, then we might consider:
A. Marriage in the United States shall consist of a union between one man and one or more women. (Gen 29:17-28; II Sam 3:2-5)

B. Marriage shall not impede a man's right to take concubines in addition to his wife or wives. (II Sam 5:13; I Kings 11:3; II Chron 11:21)

C. A marriage shall be considered valid only if the wife is a virgin. If the wife is not a virgin, she shall be executed. (Deut 22:13-21)

D. Marriage of a believer and a non-believer shall be forbidden. (Gen 24:3; Num 25:1-9; Ezra 9:12; Neh 10:30)

E. Since marriage is for life, neither this Constitution nor the constitution of any State, nor any state or federal law, shall be construed to permit divorce. (Deut 22:19; Mark 10:9)

F. If a married man dies without children, his brother shall marry the widow. If he refuses to marry his brother's widow or deliberately does not give her children, he shall pay a fine of one shoe and be otherwise punished in a manner to be determined by law. (Gen 38:6-10; Deut 25:5-10)

G. In lieu of marriage, if there are no acceptable men in your town, it is required that you get your dad drunk and have sex with him (even if he had previously offered you up as a sex toy to men young and old), tag-teaming with any sisters you may have. Of course, this rule applies only if you are female. (Gen 19:31-36)

What say ye, oh biblical scholars?

Readers say: Thumbs Up: 0 of 0 • Thumbs Down: 0 of 0

tegrat (anonymous profile)
December 10, 2008 at 11:06 a.m. (Suggest removal)

As for multiple partners:

Matthew 19:3 ¶ The Pharisees also came unto him, tempting him, and saying
unto him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause?
4 And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made
them at the beginning made them male and female,
5 And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall
cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?
6 Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath
joined together, let not man put asunder.
7 They say unto him, Why did Moses then command to give a writing of
divorcement, and to put her away?
8 He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered
you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so.
9 And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for
fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso
marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery

Readers say: Thumbs Up: 0 of 0 • Thumbs Down: 0 of 0

billclausen (anonymous profile)
December 11, 2008 at 2:53 p.m. (Suggest removal)

A and B above are definitively handled by bill clausen's post above.

C. A marriage shall be considered valid only if the wife is a virgin. If the wife is not a virgin, she shall be executed. (Deut 22:13-21)

>> Would certainly do wonders for bringing down teen pregnancy rates, eh? Might be a bit of a tussle getting it on the ballot and approved, although I predict it might only take a few more bank failures to start a whole bunch of folks wondering whether God might really BE po'd at us. Something for the culture radicals to consider as they lay their plans for the Obama Years.

D. Marriage of a believer and a non-believer shall be forbidden. (Gen 24:3; Num 25:1-9; Ezra 9:12; Neh 10:30)

>>In Catholic practice, the non-believer must assent in advance that the children will be raised in the faith. Doesn't seem at all unreasonable, considering that marriage is, after all, a religious matter both for the Hebrews of Deuteronomy and the Catholics of today.

E. Since marriage is for life, neither this Constitution nor the constitution of any State, nor any state or federal law, shall be construed to permit divorce. (Deut 22:19; Mark 10:9)

>>>That is completely in force and full effect to this very day in the Catholic Church, and will be until the end of time.

It is true of course that the present, rapidly disintegrating post-Christian culture legislates circumstances under which non-religious "marriages" can be done, undone, and even redone as quickly as a cleat hitch on a sailboat, but man, the way these banks keep failing, ya never know what tomorrow might bring........

F. If a married man dies without children, his brother shall marry the widow, etc...

>>Thank you, Jesus, for delivering those of us with...ahem...unattractive sisters in law from the Mosaic Law! (nota bene: one shoe seems quite mild, as far as punitive assessments go).

>>Bunk. No such teaching exists, and this is the obligatory Kosification, to which the enemies of the Church and Scripture must needs always succumb, in service of their rhetorical jonesing.

What say ye, oh biblical scholars?

>> I say, get baptized, keep the faith, and you will live an infinitely better life than the guys over at the Daily Koz.

Readers say: Thumbs Up: 0 of 0 • Thumbs Down: 0 of 0

proprop8 (anonymous profile)
December 12, 2008 at 5:25 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Sorry "proprop8" you fail in the most elementary research, regarding point "G" above.

From Genesis 19 (King James version):

::: HAVING SEX WITH YOUR DRUNK DAD

"30 And Lot went up out of Zoar, and dwelt in the mountain, and his two daughters with him; for he feared to dwell in Zoar: and he dwelt in a cave, he and his two daughters.

"31 And the firstborn said unto the younger, Our father is old, and there is not a man in the earth to come in unto us after the manner of all the earth:

"32 Come, let us make our father drink wine, and we will lie with him, that we may preserve seed of our father.

"33 And they made their father drink wine that night: and the firstborn went in, and lay with her father; and he perceived not when she lay down, nor when she arose.

"34 And it came to pass on the morrow, that the firstborn said unto the younger, Behold, I lay yesternight with my father: let us make him drink wine this night also; and go thou in, and lie with him, that we may preserve seed of our father.

"35 And they made their father drink wine that night also: and the younger arose, and lay with him; and he perceived not when she lay down, nor when she arose.

"36 Thus were both the daughters of Lot with child by their father. "

OFFERING UP HIS DAUGHTERS FOR SEX

"8 Behold now, I have two daughters which have not known man; let me, I pray you, bring them out unto you, and do ye to them as is good in your eyes: only unto these men do nothing; for therefore came they under the shadow of my roof."

The Kos description is glib, but essentially accurate. Such teaching does exist.

Readers say: Thumbs Up: 0 of 0 • Thumbs Down: 0 of 0

binky (anonymous profile)
December 12, 2008 at 7:23 p.m. (Suggest removal)

O dear me, binky, I fear you must not have read the original post. Let me reproduce the relevant passage, for ease of reference:

"G. In lieu of marriage, if there are no acceptable men in your town, it is required that you get your dad drunk and have sex with him (even if he had previously offered you up as a sex toy to men young and old), tag-teaming with any sisters you may have. Of course, this rule applies only if you are female."(Gen 19:31-36)

Let us pay close attention to detail here, binky. Please note:

"IT IS REQUIRED THAT you get your dad drunk and have sex with him".

And again, below, binky, we are told that the text teaches this REQUIREMENT as a "RULE".

Since nowhere is any such thing REQUIRED in the referenced text you quote from the KJV above, and since there is no such RULE taught anywhere in that text, my original response stands, and deserves reiteration:

"Bunk. No such teaching exists, and this is the obligatory Kosification, to which the enemies of the Church and Scripture must needs always succumb, in service of their rhetorical jonesing."

You see, binky, it is intellectually dishonest to maliciously misrepresent a text which you mean to impugn.

It is a form of falsehood commonly referred to as "straw man" argumentation, where on sets up an imaginary "straw man" in the place of the actual opponent, and proceeds to demolish the straw man, instead of the actual opponent.

It is a type of profound dishonesty which has led many to a deeper examination of a certain darkness characteristic of the anti-Christian bigotry so suddenly fashionable among "progressives".

Readers say: Thumbs Up: 0 of 0 • Thumbs Down: 0 of 0

proprop8 (anonymous profile)
December 12, 2008 at 8:38 p.m. (Suggest removal)

You are quite correct, it is decidedly not required. If that were the totality of your point, which I don't think it was, it was certainly my oversight.

No straw man here, however. And no misrepresentation on my part, or the Kos citation, either. The Lot fables are certainly illustrative and frequent cited in churches in the "teaching."

It does exist, in spite of your claim and amendment, and I know many of your cohort refer to it as the inerrant word of God. Perhaps you do as well.

I have, as I sure you would find, quite a sunny disposition, in spite of my lack of belief in any bible as coherent, dispositive, or anything beyond interesting literature.

Readers say: Thumbs Up: 0 of 0 • Thumbs Down: 0 of 0

binky (anonymous profile)
December 12, 2008 at 9:37 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Binky.

Please.

If the Bible reports that Christ was beaten, spat upon, reviled, crowned with thorns, and crucified ignominiously, are you saying the DailyKos would be justified in alleging that it commands Christians to go and do likewise?

Of course, that would be an absurdity.

In precisely the same way, when the Bible reports that Lot's daughters deceived their father by rendering him intoxicated, and Kos alleges that the Bible, therefore, commands all females to do the same thing as a "rule", what we have is a grotesque bit of carnival-sideshow gimcrackery, a classic example of "straw man" hokum.

Now it is true that I hold the Catholic faith, and I hold therefore the divine and catholic truth that Scripture is absolutely inerrant in all that it affirms (an attribute easily deduced, once one has accepted the complementary catholic dogma of its divine Authorship).

But one need not accept either the divine Authorship, nor the inerrancy, of Scripture, to know with absolute certainty, by unaided reason alone, that merely because a document reports an event, constitutes no grounds whatsoever for alleging that document to enforce, approve of, or establish legislative obligations concerning that event.

This is as true of the Quran as it is of the New York Times, or of a Superman comic book.

The DailyKos is apparently not intended for readers interested in obtaining a more truthful understanding of its subject matter..............

It ought to do very well in these times.

Readers say: Thumbs Up: 0 of 0 • Thumbs Down: 0 of 0

proprop8 (anonymous profile)
December 12, 2008 at 11:55 p.m. (Suggest removal)

It mentions that they got him drunk. Would it not stand to reason that since being drunk is a bad thing according to the Bible that what those sisters did was wrong?

Readers say: Thumbs Up: 0 of 0 • Thumbs Down: 0 of 0

billclausen (anonymous profile)
December 13, 2008 at 9:09 p.m. (Suggest removal)

And the way I read it, it doesn't appear that getting one drunk is commanded.

Readers say: Thumbs Up: 0 of 0 • Thumbs Down: 0 of 0

billclausen (anonymous profile)
December 13, 2008 at 9:11 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Previous Month \| Next Month
Today's Events	Best Bets	Submit an Event

California's Prop. 8 Defeat: A Bungled Campaign

Thursday, December 4, 2008

Article Tools

Related Links

Comments

Post a comment

EVENT CALENDAR

Local Weather