[mobile site, backup mobile]
[SoapBlox Help]
Menu & About Calitics

Make a New Account

Username:

Password:



Forget your username or password?

- About Calitics
- The Rules (Legal Stuff)
- Event Calendar
- Calitics' ActBlue Page
- Calitics RSS Feed
- Additional Advertisers


View All Calitics Tags Or Search with Google:
 
Web Calitics

Prop 8 Tidbits: An Update and a Lying Ad

by: Brian Leubitz

Wed Oct 22, 2008 at 14:20:25 PM PDT


• An update on a previous story I wrote about Knobbe Martens, the law firm for whom I used to work.  While I included the $25K+ worth of contributions to Yes on Prop 8, I neglected to mention that there were at least $2K of contributions to No on 8. So, to those attorneys at Knobbe who stand on the side of equality: Thank you.

Here are some photos from a No on Prop 8 fundraiser in LA last night.  I think in one of those pictures you can see former Speaker of the Assembly Fabian Nunez dancing the Robot.  Get Funky!  The event raised about $3.9 million for No on 8, including some interesting fundraising techniques and performances from Melissa Etheridge and Mary J. Blige. From Karen Ocamb at Bilerico:

Bruce Cohen, the Oscar-winning producer who co-produced the event, brought her back onstage to announce that a gay couple was pledging $50,000 if Etheridge would sing at their wedding. She said yes and the crowd erupted in applause.
*  *  *  *  *

With heads bobbing, and couples clutching each other's hands, Bruce Cohen dancing wildly, the scene looked and felt more like a secular revival than a political concert. Blige opened up about how she had survived being her own worse enemy, when on one would accept her - and "you say, 'No more...no more pain, no more tears..." as tears started welling up in the eyes of those listening, identifying. "I chose to win!" she said, raising her fist in the air - to screams of glee and thunderous applause.

• And here we have another lying Prop 8 video. Despite the fact that California law allows parents to pull their students out of any class they deem objectionable, despite the BYU law professor who wrote that these claims were not true.  This isn't subjective. This isn't open to various opinions. This is the law.  And the Religious Right is lying to you, to me, and to 37 million Californians.

It's up to all these Californians to see through the lies of the Religious Right. It's up to us to say that they can't come to California from Utah, from Colorado, from wherever and change our laws and to write discrimination into the constitution. It's up to Californians to say No on Prop 8, we treat all Californians equally.

Brian Leubitz :: Prop 8 Tidbits: An Update and a Lying Ad
Tags: , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email

Where is Field? (0.00 / 0)
12 props, biggest Pres election in ages.... and the Field Poll hasn't published since September? I'd be interested in seeing their updated numbers on Prop 8, the latest of which were a month ago...

...with liberty and justice for al[most everybody].

I'd expect it soon (0.00 / 0)
Given past as prologue, I'd expect one pretty soon.  

I think?

[ Parent ]
Sorry, another question (0.00 / 0)
I've been having a debate on Facebook (I know, I know) with a religious conservative who argues that if Prop. 8 fails, he's going to face intimidation from the gay community and not be able to practice his religion.  When I said this was patently ridiculous, he pointed out this link from NPR that showed several examples where gay rights and religious freedoms clashed and used that evidence that similar things would happen.

How would you guys respond to that argument?


Almost every one of those cases (8.00 / 1)
is a situation in which someone is offering a general service to the public OR taking public money in some way.  To take just one example, the adoption services situation is one in which the Catholic adoption agency was taking state funds, and the state of Massachusetts told them they couldn't take state money and discriminate against gay people.

The Catholic hierarchy chose shut down the adoption agency rather than use only private funds and discriminate.  It was more important to them to treat gay people differently than it was to find loving homes for children.  BTW, the hierarchy did that over the objections of the people actually running the adoption agency.

So what your religious conservative interlocutor is demanding is the right to have the government support his religious discrimination against people he doesn't like -- for example, if he wanted to discriminate against Jews when he offered a public service.  What he wants to be able to do is lock gay people off into a special box where he can treat them worse than everyone else under state law.

Most of those specific situations are, BTW, treated here by a Mormon scholar who objects to the falsehoods being spread to support Prop 8.


[ Parent ]
That's not all that hard, really (8.00 / 1)
First of all, that NPR link is superficial and ridiculous. It doesn't give any context as to the theme that underlies all those legal cases:

1) You can't take government money while discriminating.
2) You can't hold your services out in the stream of commerce to the general public and then discriminate based upon the identity of the patient.

As for 1) It's that simple. Catholic Charities in Boston took government money for their adoption services. The state has every right to expect that you won't discriminate with their money.

As for the Berkeley case, that isn't even a tough case. How does it violate your First Amendment rights? You want to discriminate against LGBT folks? Well, do it on your own dime, but the City of Berkeley (and Philadelphia and San Diego) needn't subsidize you.

It's the same thing with one of the "6 points" debunked by Morris Thurston: churches can choose not to marry same-sex couples. That is their right as a private body. If you take no government money and don't offer your services to the public, feel free to discriminate.

As for 2) this is the basis behind the California reproductive case cited as "medical services." If you offer your services to one customer, you can't say that you won't provide them to another because of their identity. This is the old lunch counter/motel case from the civil rights era. Just as motels couldn't say that they wouldn't based on race, nor can service providers discriminate on orientation. If performing your services are so objectionable to you, perhaps you are in the wrong line of work.  

I think?


[ Parent ]
Barbara Hagerty seems to have a Religious Right bias (0.00 / 0)
which explains why she chose to highlight all of those situation is the particular (frankly deceptive) way she did.

Some background:

http://betterangels.blogspot.c...
http://www.dailykos.com/story/...


[ Parent ]
thanks, you wrote my talking points (0.00 / 0)
I have the chance to discuss this on Saturday at an election forum.  Perfect.

I'm union staff, but not a spokesperson for my union - all posts represent my views solely.

Calitics in the Media
Archives & Bookings
The Calitics Radio Show
Calitics Premium Ads


Support Calitics:

Advertisers


-->
California Friends
Shared Communities
Resources
California News
Progressive Organizations
The Big BlogRoll

Referrals
Technorati
Google Blogsearch

Daily Email Summary


Powered by: SoapBlox