My latest podcast is up The Mustard Seed.

It features up and coming Fresno rapper Fashawn who uses unorthodox sample tracks to rhyme over (click on the pic to get to the podcast).

Click here to subscribe on iTunes.

Possibly my all-time favorite American sit-com.¹ It fizzled out towards the end, but I think there’s something to admire even in failure, when that failure is based on a determination to keep on pushing boundaries rather than repeating past successes.

Leigh posted on the subject, focusing on Darlene and how well the show handled the teen girl characters. I loved all the characters, but Jackie and Dan were my favorites, probably due to the incredible performances of Laurie Metcalf and John Goodman.

Also worth noting: Joss Whedon got his start as a TV writer on Roseanne.

1. My all-time favorite sit-com is Black Adder. Although this is always a bit hard to say, because the truth is I have five or six different all-time number one favorites. (back)

A little footnote to Jonathan Rauch’s comment that the marriage strategy is “exhausted and counterproductive”: according to a report from Connecticut,

A new poll says 53 percent of Connecticut residents support last week’s state Supreme Court ruling that legalized gay and lesbian marriages.

42% oppose it. When you think about what the numbers most likely would have been even five years ago, for a tired old strategy, it doesn’t seem all that counterproductive to me. It certainly seems more productive than waiting around for the majority to decide that it’s time we were allowed to marry.

This seems to be what Rauch favors:

Thanks to Andrew Sullivan.

[Reprinted from Hunter at Random.]

I was going to try to come up with some sort of snarky rejoinder to this, but really, how could I? If I tried to argue that Barack Obama was the son of Lao Tzu and Booker T. Washington, I couldn’t come up with a more incomprehensible and bizarre argument than the one Pam Gellar came up with, arguing that Barack Hussein Super-Allah Karl Marx Gaius Baltar Benedict Arnold Adolf Mondale Hitler Obama Soetro Chirac IV is actually the illegitimate son of Malcolm X.

I mean, fuck me gently with a chainsaw, this is the most batshit crazy thing Atlas Pam has ever said, and she’s ATLAS PAM, fercripesake. I don’t know if I’d go so far as to join Jesse in declaring this the dumbest thing ever written, but it’s in the top ten.

I can’t wait for the next four years. By 2011, Barack Obama will be the secret love child of Bill Clinton, Al Sharpton, and Jane Fonda. Yes, all three. He will also be the Fifth Cylon, the man on the grassy knoll, and Bill Ayers himself, after extensive plastic surgery. It’s only gonna get more insane, folks. Buckle up.

“Halloween in the time of cholera” — A wonderful set of pre-1940 Halloween photos.

From Ethan Pollack, at the Economic Policy Institute:

As money is spent, it creates beneficial ripples through the entire economy. The evidence is that most of the money from the recent tax rebate was saved rather than spent, thus blunting its stimulative benefit.1 By comparison, other options—such as infrastructure spending, aid to states, food stamps, and unemployment insurance (UI) benefits—are much more cost-effective because they target the needs most likely to channel money back into the economy. Mark Zandi from Moody’s Economy.com estimates that each dollar of refundable tax rebates only boosts GDP by about $1.26, while each dollar of infrastructure spending could provide a $1.59 boost. Not only are many of these stimulus options more effective, but they also have the added benefit of assisting those hardest hit by the downturn and tackling long-standing infrastructure needs that would lower transportation costs, decrease traffic, and increase business productivity.

Zandi’s analysis also shows what doesn’t work as stimulus: a variety of tax breaks for corporations and wealthy individuals, which cost over twice as much as they return to the economy.

The speaker is Brad Dacus, the president of the anti-gay-marriage Pacific Justice Institute.

There was another time in history when people, when the bell tolled. And the question was whether or not they were going to hear it. The time was during Nazi Germany with Adolf Hitler. You see he brought crowds of clergy together to assure them that he was going to look after the church. And one of the members, bold and courageous, Reverend Niemand (sp?) made his way to the front and (inaudible) said “Hitler, we are not concerned about the church. Jesus Christ will take care of the church. We are concerned about the soul of Germany.” Embarrassed and chagrined, his peers quickly shuffled him to the back. And as they did Adolf Hitler said, “The soul of Germany, you can leave that to me.” And they did, and because they did bombs did not only fall upon the nation of Germany, but also upon the church and their testimony to this very day. Let us not make that mistake folks. Let us hear the bell! Vote on Proposition 8!

The best revenge is a donation to No on 8.

What’s APE? It’s the Alternative Press Expo, a indy-leaning comic book convention.

If you’re in San Francisco, please stop by and say “Hi!” I’m alllll the way in back, and if all goes well there will be a big “Hereville” sign behind my table.

I really like this one, which is not terribly slick, because of this point it makes: “Even though we pay the same taxes as everyone, when it comes to our relationships, our families, we’ve been treated like second-class citizens.” It really is as simple as inequality versus equality.

Ten Reasons Gay Marriage Is Wrong

Gay Marriage… NO!
I like this one especially for the tagline at the end.

A “no on 8″ commercial modeled after the “I’m a mac, I’m a PC” commercials. Plus, it’s got Molly Ringwald. I’m 40, so I’m legally required to love anything with Molly Ringwald in it.

Barbara West, a right-wing reporter with WFTV in Florida, surprised Joe Biden by asking him questions from the far-right-wing — which is to say, questions that pretty much reflect the framing of the McCain campaign.

West: “You may recognize this famous quote: “From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs.” That’s from Karl Marx. How is Senator Obama not being a Marxist if he intends to spread the wealth around?”

Biden: “Are you joking? Is this a joke?”

West: “No”

Biden: “Is that a real question?”

West: “That’s a real question”

The liberal blogosphere has reacted to West with disdain, demands for an apology, and calls for West to be fired. And the Obama campaign blackballed WFTV from any further interviews before November 4.

Journalist Frank James writes:

Embarrassing and painful are two words that quickly come to mind to describe West’s interrogation of Biden last week. [...]

Whatever she was going for, it certainly wasn’t straight-ahead journalism. Where was the balance or the attempt at fairness?

Most journalists have their points of view and political leanings. We’re citizens. We’re allowed that.

But any journalist who’s covered politics and politicians long enough knows it’s important to keep a certain distance. You don’t want to drink the Kool-Aid of either political party.

I disagree. I thought it was a good interview, and I want to see more like it.

Don’t get me wrong — West clearly has guzzled the kool-aid until its running out the nostrils. And despite her denials, she’s ridiculously biased. But what’s wrong with that?

On November 4, 2000, then-President Bill Clinton was making get-out-the-vote calls to radio stations, one after the other. And some assistant had failed to vet the calls properly, so Clinton ended up on the phone with Amy Goodman (of Democracy Now) and Gonzalo Aburto. What followed was a half-hour interview — one that Clinton clearly was astonished to find himself giving — and the only time Clinton was interviewed by unapologetic left-wingers in his eight years of presidency. Goodman and Aburto asked about “Leonard Peltier, Racial Profiling, the Iraqi Sanctions, Ralph Nader, the Death Penalty and the Israeli-Palestinian Con,” among other subjects.

I remember listening to the interview with astonishment and glee. I felt… included. I felt represented. For almost the first time in my life.

It shouldn’t have taken eight years before Clinton was asked questions from the left. And it should have happened more than once in eight years. My concerns aren’t so worthless that they shouldn’t ever even be addressed by the conceited, arrogant people who think so much of themselves that they think they’re qualified to rule over us, but at the same time, are shocked and appalled if they have to answer a single question from outside the comfortable circle of mainstream political concerns. And neither are Barbara West’s concerns.

Probably 20-30% of Americans think that the questions Barbara West asked Joe Biden are serious questions, and are are eager to hear Biden (and Obama) answer them. 20-30% isn’t a trivial number of Americans. There are likewise probably 20-30% of voters who, like me, share a lot of Amy Goodman’s and Gonzalo Aburto’s views.

There are some views that are so extreme that they needn’t be included; I don’t want to see KKK members interviewing major candidates, or folks who think the moon landing was faked. But Barbara West’s views are shared by millions of voters.

When Obama (or, if disaster strikes, I suppose, McCain) becomes President, they won’t be President of only the middle-ground 40% or so of America. They’ll be President of the entire country; they’ll be my president, Amy Goodman’s president, Barbara West’s president. Why is it a given that they should only have to face questions from the middle 40%?

Sorry — I just had to use that.

More on Jonathan Rauch’s comments on the Connecticut SSM case, Kerrigan vs. Commissioner of Public Health:

Rauch makes a point of noting that Connecticut has passed civil unions legislation that gives same-sex couples the same legal rights as married couples:

It’s a defensible analysis. But here’s the thing: like California, and very much unlike Massachusetts in 2004, when that state’s Supreme Court ordered SSM, Connecticut was not proposing to give gay couples nothing as an alternative to marriage. To the contrary: in 2005, the state legislature enacted civil unions, granting every state right and responsibility of marriage, and withholding only the designation “marriage” itself.

Rauch ignores the very pertinent point that civil unions are not equal to marriage. From the opinion:

We conclude that, in light of the history of pernicious discrimination faced by gay men and lesbians,1 and because the institution of marriage carries with it a status and significance that the newly created classification of civil unions does not embody, the segregation of heterosexual and homosexual couples into separate institutions constitutes a cognizable harm.

This was also a key element in the California decision: the term “marriage” in and of itself constitutes a value that is left out of alternative, newly created institutions such as civil unions and domestic partnerships. To miss that point is to miss the whole point of the debate.

Rauch:

As the smart dissent, by Justice Borden (joined by Justice Vertefeiulle), notes, most political observers in Connecticut agreed that the conversion of civil unions to marriage was just a matter of time, and “sooner rather than later.” The state’s steady stream of pro-gay legislation, topped off by civil unions, makes the idea that gays need the court’s protection from a hostile majority seem obsolete. So says the dissent, and I’d add that, as a political matter, we ought to be maturing beyond official victim status, not welcoming it.

This is a point that parellels my comments in my brief prior post: Rauch is conflating the political and the judicial here, which is something that, all propaganda aside, we assiduously try to avoid. It’s a matter of process: The court isn’t allowed to say “Well, it’s going to happen eventually, so we’ll just wait.” That is not in its purview (although several courts have tried that tack on related issues, and New York and Washington state actually avoided the issue altogether and threw it back to the legislatures by the simple expedient of asking the wrong questions.) Rauch’s criticism of the court and its decision seems to be based on this idea that the courts should be content to wait; my contention is simply that they’re not really allowed to do that. They have to decide the cases before them, particularly if there are fundamental rights issues involved. (We see a similar process going on right now in New Jersey, where the court told the legislature to come up with something — very much akin to what happened in Massachusetts — and the legislature came up with civil unions, which are now being seen as not equal to marriage. This one will be the result of legislative action, but the court has already spoken: this is just the court’s instruction working itself out.)

Rauch again:

Second, the issue before the court was: Is man-plus-woman a discriminatory restriction on marriage, or is it part of the very definition of marriage? I, and probably most visitors to this site, hold the former view; but it’s foolish to pretend that the notion of same-sex marriage isn’t newfangled. If the people of Connecticut aren’t quite ready to go all the way to changing what many regard as the core definition of marriage, should it be unconstitutional for them to compromise on civil unions while catching their breath? In effect, what the court has done here is to make patience illegal.

Back in May, commenting on the California decision (”Hold the Champagne”), I called this kind of all-or-nothing thinking “legal totalism”, which,

it seems to me, is tailor-made to rule out any kind of accommodation, even if that accommodation gives gay couples most of what we need with the promise of more to come (soon). I think SSM is a better policy than civil unions. And I think denial of marriage to gay couples is discriminatory. But to make even a well-intentioned compromise ILLEGAL strikes me as a step too far, and a good example of how culture wars escalate.

And now, once again, a court pulls the rug out from under a compromise that gives us 95 percent of what we want uncontroversially.

First off, the whole “patience” thing is bizarre. I think I see his thinking here — it would be nice if we all just waited our turn like good boys and girls, and eventually papa will give us something nice. Y’know what? I wasn’t a particularly good little boy. Secondly, we’ve seen where that has gotten us — and it doesn’t seem to matter which party is in power. Somehow, when it comes to gay rights issues, the Republicans just laugh in our faces, and the Democrats can only deal with one issue at a time — not ours.

I’m also bemused by the term “legal totalism.” What is the alternative? “Legal partialism”? I answered that in my earlier post: can you imagine a court coming down with a decision that “all are nearly equal under the law”? Sorry, but constitutions tend to be written in absolutes.

I really can’t figure out what Rauch’s baseline is here. Is it simply that he wants to avoid controversy? And how do we make any progress that way, particularly since the controversy, when all is said and done, is not of our making? I hate to cast it in these terms, but we are in a fight. Trying to be quietly persuasive is going to get us exactly nowhere when we have very well-organized and well-funded opponents who are determined that we get nothing — the Dobson Gang is not afraid of controversy. That’s how they make their money.

As for the definition of marriage, I don’t understand why Rauch is allowing himself to fall into the trap of thinking that there has always been one fundamental definition of marriage. I’ll even grant that the idea of same-sex marriage is “newfangled” as such things go. (There are those who would argue quite convincingly against that assessment, starting with anthropologist Patrick Chapman and sociologist Stephen O. Murray.) Anyway, even granting that, if the traditional definition of marriage is one man, one woman, so what? Like we’ve never discarded traditions in this country? Like our basic system of government was traditional in the eighteenth century?

Rauch:

But at the moment I wish nothing more than that our side would recognize the court-driven SSM strategy for what it has become: exhausted and counterproductive.

I’m dubious. Massachusetts still has same-sex marriage, a constitutional amendment there failed, Proposition 8 in California will pass only if the Mormons manage to pack the polls, and both New York and New Jersey will probably have same-sex marriage laws on the books within a year. Watch for Vermont to follow suit. And I can hardly wait to see what the court in Iowa decides. The “exhausted and counterproductive” part just doesn’t hold water. As for it being a “strategy,” whose? The major gay rights organizations were dragged kicking and screaming onto this particular bandwagon, and still haven’t been very useful. Rauch’s implication seems to be that there’s some master plan in place, when it’s really been an ongoing battle waged mostly by individuals, starting in Hawai’i in 1993. And considering the way things have been going the past few years, I think the tide has turned.

(Side note: I discussed Rauch’s comments on the California decision here – (scroll down to the section titled “Compromise.”)

[Reprinted from Hunter at Random.]

“He didn’t even know it was to protect his virgin spirit from the wretched dead that rome the earth one night a year to steal souls.”
-Lauralee Hickok

In The Know: Has Halloween Become Overcommercialized?

And the racism spews on:

A Republican attack ad invites viewers to “meet the real Ashwin Madia,” but the still photos featured in the spot present a noticeably darker version of the 3rd District DFL congressional candidate.

“At least three of the photos of Madia were obviously darkened, using one method or another,” public affairs and media consultant Dean Alger told KARE 11.

He said the viewing public has grown accustomed to hearing distorted claims, or statements and votes used out of context. However, Alger asserts the altered images of Madia, the son of Indian immigrants, crosses a line.

“There is an attack ad tactic that goes beyond distortion, and frankly, is a betrayal of what Minnesota politics is all about.”

I disagree. This is exactly what the Minnesota GOP has been about this year. It’s pathetic and disgusting, but the GOP has been using racial fears to attack Madia this entire race, and while it’s despicable, I don’t expect them to stop. To stop would be to admit that race-baiting is bad for the country. The GOP doesn’t seem to care about that very much right now.

Frankly, the only way to repudiate this kind of fear-mongering is for the people in the 3rd to vote for Ashwin Madia. Even if you’re a Republican, racism shouldn’t be rewarded.

Just in case you missed it.

Like most bloggers, I’m a surly curmudgeon who tends to view politics with a jaundiced eye. But I have to say, I found this to be not just well-done, not just effective from a political standpoint, but genuinely moving. Yes, the people who put this together used all the standard tricks of the trade. But they used them in service of a powerful and clear message: you’re not alone, America. Things are tough, but we’re going to get through this together. That isn’t socialism, that’s the basic American ethos that we help our neighbors out when they need it, that when we work together, we can accomplish anything, whether it’s whipping Hitler or sending a man to the Moon or building the internet.

The message from the GOP has too often been the opposite — I’ve got mine, you get yours. It’s a simple message, and completely wrongheaded. Because every time we’ve abandoned the idea of giving those below us a hand up — whether in the gilded age, the roaring twenties, or now — we’ve ended up seeing the wheels fall off the wagon. Our nation’s most prosperous age came after World War II, when we decided that we’d send our soldiers to college, that we’d invest in infrastructure, from NASA to the interstates, that we’d build a better future for the children of tomorrow. And like too many unappreciative kids, the children and grandchildren of the Greatest Generation were born on third base and thought we’d hit a triple.

We are, I think, finally shaking off the selfishness that has defined our nation in the past quarter-century, finally starting to realize that we can’t have a stable nation if we don’t invest in the future. I don’t expect Obama will be a perfect president, and I’m sure I’ll find plenty of reason to criticize him, but I think he understands that basic fact: we are all in this together, and as Franklin said, we must all hang together, or we shall all hang seperately.

Dennis Prager has done America a huge favor. He’s finally just come right out and said what the hardcore righties actually believe:

Equality, which is the primary value of the left, is a European value, not an American value. Let me tell you that right now. I know this sounds offensive to half of my fellow Americans, because they have been Europeanized in their values. The French Revolution is not the American Revolution. The French Revolution said Liberty, Fraternity, Equality. The American Revolution said Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. We have lost touch with what our distinctive American values are. We have distinctive American values. … We have a better value system, and this is being protected by one of the two parties: the Republican party.

Yeah, where would we liberals get the stupid idea that there’s some self-evident truth that all people are created equal? Or the dumb concept that all are equal under the law? Probably from the French. Stupid French, what with their liberté, égalité, fraternité crap.

All snark aside…I mean, Sweet Zombie Jesus, does Prager actually listen to himself? That people are created equal, and endowed with inalienable rights — that’s the fundamental principle on which our nation was founded. To declare that Americans don’t believe in equality is like saying that Christians don’t believe in Jesus — it’s flatly and self-evidently false.

Of course, Prager doesn’t believe in equality. He thinks that some people are more deserving of civil rights than others. He was vocal in saying Rep. Keith Ellison, DFL-Minn., shouldn’t be allowed to be sworn in on a Qur’an, despite the Constitution’s clear and unambiguous language that there are no religious tests for office in this country. And he’s equated the threat of same-sex marriage with the threat of Islamic terrorism. Prager doesn’t think that some are deserving of equality under the law. And it’s clear in the bile he excretes.

Dennis Prager, as I’ve said before, is truly anti-American. He doesn’t believe in the ideals of our nation. He doesn’t believe in life, liberty, or the pursuit of happiness — or at least, he doesn’t believe everyone should have the right to those things. Since I do believe in the ideals this country is founded on, I’m not going to suggest that Prager be silenced. No, in America, rights accrue equally to all, even those who reject that very notion. And the First Amendment applies to Prager no less than to me. Besides, I wouldn’t want Prager silenced, because in his venom he shows the exact kind of country he believes in, one where he and Napoleon the Pig would get along swimmingly.

Lisa Schiffren at NRO takes time out from exploring the vast Communist-Jewish conspiracy to make Barack Obama our Kommisar to note that it’s terribly, terribly unfair that homeless people are allowed to vote:

Try as I might, I cannot really understand how even a minimum standard of voting security can be maintained when, as an Ohio judge did yesterday, you decide to let the homeless vote. If there is no address — how do you check whether  someone has voted before or whether they are using a real name? I get that the judge is attempting to enable fraud on behalf of his campaign — but how does this pass even a minimum test of reasonableness?

Okay, Lisa, let me explain. The homeless have a right to vote. This right is enshrined in the U.S. Constitution, which is, in fact, the law of the land. The Founding Fathers thought about whether we should have a property ownership requirement to vote. They rejected it outright.

All U.S. citizens have the inalienable right to cast a ballot — even citizens who, for whatever reason, don’t have a home.

I realize that the Republican party would be better off if it could purge the poor from its rolls; next, they could go after apartment-dwellers, since we can just up and change addresses at a moment’s notice. Or maybe denizens of trailer parks — who’s to say they won’t just tow their home to Ohio for the election? When the franchise is reserved only for people owning deeded property, preferably worth more than $250,000, then the GOP will be in fine shape. Yes, it flies in the face of the basic liberties the Founding Fathers envisioned, but hey, that hasn’t stopped the Republicans any of the other times they’ve gone after our rights, it won’t stop them now.

I really haven’t understood why the right is freaking out about Obama being a socialist/communist/redistributionist. After all, Obama is talking about doing crazy socialist things like taking your money and using it to build schools in poor areas to better educate children. This is not exactly taking your money to give to me.

But I was taking this at face value. I was taking the attack as an actual attack on Obama’s economic plans. It isn’t. John Judis has nailed exactly why:

I mention the Bradley effect because I think, too, that McCain and Sarah Palin’s attack against Obama for advocating “spreading the wealth” and for “socialism” and for pronouncing the civil rights revolution a “tragedy” because it didn’t deal with the distribution of wealth is aimed ultimately at white working class undecided voters who would construe “spreading the wealth” as giving their money to blacks. It’s the latest version of Reagan’s “welfare queen” argument from 1980. It if it works, it won’t be because most white Americans actually oppose a progressive income tax, but because they fear that Obama will inordinately favor blacks over them.

Of course it is. I don’t know why I didn’t see it, but it’s a dog-whistle, and it wasn’t meant for people like me who really don’t care if assistance goes to needy whites, needy African-Americans, needy Latinos, or needy Cylons. It’s meant to raise the specter of lazy African-Americans stealing good, hard-working white money. It’s yet another attack on race.

Seen that way, it makes sense…sort of. This is just another in the McCain campaign’s decision to put country last, to exacerbate our country’s long-simmering racial divide in order to push Johnny Maverick over the top. I had thought this was an incoherent, stupid attack, but I was wrong. It’s a disgusting attack. And it’s yet another milepost in John McCain’s slow slide into the mire.

Today’s medical appointment was not perfect, but the doctor renewed all my prescriptions without suspicion.

Unfortunately, I did have the de rigeur panic attack, so I am shaking, blurry, and feel like I’m going to faint.

Still. Good news.

[This post, written by Brian Leubitz, is reprinted from Calitics. This post is governed by the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 2.5 License.]

A week or so ago, the legislature held a hearing regarding Proposition 8, the anti-marriage measure. These hearings are required by law to be held for every proposition, but this one, of course, was a bit more interesting.  A future Assemblyman, John Perez, an openly gay community and union leader running to replace the termed out Fabian Nunez, spoke of the inherent discrimination of seperate but equal. Samuel Thoron spoke of the importance to families of marriage equality.

On the other side, you had Dr. Jennifer Roback Morse basically said, “Why do you hate the children? THink of the Children who will be forced to grow up in a loving stable home where two parents love and support them?”

Ok, maybe not so much with the second part of that quote.  I’ve dutifully captured that video (after much labor with a corrupted DVD…let’s just say I spent way too much time on this) and offer it up to you.  Sincere Kudos go out to Assemblyman Dave Jones (D-Sac) who absolutely put Dr. Morse in her place. Exposing her argument as completely devoid of logic, and that is essentially a pretext.

Asm. Dave Jones:  Would you then tell the older heterosexual couple that they should not get married.

Dr. Morse: No, no I would not say that they shouldnt get married, but what I would say is that if the only kind of couples we had in society are elderly couples who are sterile we wouldnt need an institution of marriage.  You know, we wouldnt need it. So the point is, there are ways to solve–the problems that those couples face as elderly persons who arent going to have any kids

Jones:  Well, why didnt you craft this legislation to allow older gay couples to marry, if kids are the only concern

Morse:Well we thought it was simpler just to go back to the old man-woman definition.

Jones:  Or maybe this isnt about children after all

Morse: Right after this thereès some crazy stuff she gets into about in vitro fertilization becoming an entitlement.  The Rep asks her if she would outlaw In Vitro if the child knowing the biological parent is so important, and she says no.

Jones:  So let me sum this up.  You wouldnt ban infertility centers even though the children there wont know who their biological parents are, you dont agree with baning adoption even though in those circumstances children are not necessarily being raised by their biological parents, youre ok with, um, the adoption of children by gays and lesbians, you dont believe in banning divorce, even though by your own arguments theres been all sorts of analogous studies that indicate that divorce is very very harmful on children.  Um, its hard for me not to conclude that this isnt about protecting children…  I am utterly unconvinced that thats whats going on here.  What s going on here is fundamentally, I believe, an effort to discriminate against a class of people and deprive them of something that everybody else has.

But this is what Prop 8 supporters are attempting to sell both to the loyal flock of the Mormon Church and to the greater state of California.  An argument only thinly veiling its real purpose: to discriminate against one group of Californians, to only exclude those whom you don’t like.  And the lies only continue. The proponents argue that a failure of Prop 8 will lead to churches rocking house remixes of Madonna every Sunday because they have to let the gays take over. And not the good Madonna stuff…the new stuff! Boogy-Boogy-Boogy.

In fact, the Yes on 8 Campaign has gone through and come up with 6 Whole Ways Gay Marriage Will Ruin Your Life and the Life of All Straight Couples With Children. It’s basically a run down of everything you’ve seen in their commercials. You know, children will get taught gay marriage in schools, churches will be forced to marry teh gayz, Churches won’t be able to say anything about teh gayz being evil, and it will cost you tons of money (huh?).

Well, I’m sure I could go through point by point on this ridiculous list. But fortunately, it’s already been done.  Morris Thurston, a lifelong Mormon, long-time partner at Latham & Watkins (a big LA-based law firm), has already gone through point by point and taken them all down.  You can find a mini-post at Mormons for Marriage with the full PDF here or over the flip.

Mr. Thurston goes through each point, and completely rebuts them legally and also from a general logical standpoint. Take Reason #2, for example, churches will lose tax-exempt status if they don’t do same-sex marriages. Nope, says Mr. Thurston:

2. Churches may be sued over their tax exempt status if they refuse to allow same-sex marriage ceremonies in their religious buildings open to the public.  Ask whether your pastor, priest, minister, bishop, or rabbi is ready to perform such marriages in your chapels and sanctuaries.

Response:  This false “consequence” is based on the misrepresentation of a case in New Jersey involving an association affiliated with the Methodist Church. In considering that case, it is important to remember that New Jersey does not permit gay marriage, so that case had nothing to do with Proposition 8.  

*  *  *(More info on the New Jersey lawsuit)*  *  *

The California Supreme Court ruling on gay marriage cannot have any federal tax consequences, and the Court so noted explicitly in its decision.  The Supreme Court also noted that its ruling would not require any priest, rabbi or minister to perform gay marriages, which should be self-evident because of the First Amendment’s guarantee of freedom of religion.    

I’ll let you read the full smack-down of the “6 Reasons” but suffice it to say there’s not much left of the “Reasons” to argue with.  Which isn’t to say that you won’t be seeing them repeated over and over again on TV commercials and from silly talking heads like Dr. Morse, the Right isn’t really known for bowing to the reality of logic.

So, on this Sunday, consider giving to Equality for All, No on Prop 8, through the Calitics ActBlue Page, where we are just $1,500 from hitting $50K. (We’ve also given $2,000 from the Calitics CaliPAC, and another $5K+ from other Calitics pages). You can also do so over at Big Orange, where the Hell to Pay fundraisier has now raised well over $100K to fight back Prop 8.  Thanks to every who has given money to oppose Prop 8. And to everybody who hasn’t, time is of the essence. If you are considering, please do it as soon as possible.

mat-responses-to-six-consequences-if-prop-8-fails-rev-1-1 - Get more Legal Forms