I had a water polo coach who told me, "you know you are winning when the other team starts scratching and biting".
Well, the scratching and biting is in full force.
Today, I was notified that the web domain "yesonprop8.com" was purchased and is being run by the opposition to proposition 8 and that they are using it to drive traffic away from the yesonproposition8.com site and give out misinformation.
I really don't care about any argument for gamesmanship or strategy. This is pure deceit. Just like the commercial about marriage that was broadcast during the Olympics.
Deceit keeps people from exercising their right to choose. People need the right to choose. But if you keep material information away from people, the right to choose is taken away from them. A choice is made, yes, but it is based upon misinformation and is therefore not the person's choice.
Knowledge is power, and limiting the people's knowledge is the most powerful weapon in a tyrant's arsenal. Look at every dictator, fascist, or tyrant. They all limited the knowledge of the people, so that the people were easier to control.
Yes, I am drawing a line in the sand and the no on proposition 8 people are on the side of Hitler, Stalin, and Peron. The irony is that those same "no" vote supporters accuse me of burning books and being a fanatic, yet they don't want anyone to read, hear, or see anything contrary to their opinion.
This country is on the brink of collapse. We need to act now!
Wednesday, September 17, 2008
Tuesday, September 9, 2008
Dialog with a critic
Statement: You are a hypocrite. How can you be for smaller government and less regulation yet vote for prop. 8 that is forcing your morals down other people's throats?
Answer: The government, through four San Francisco justices on the California Supreme Court, has decided that the practice and legal definition of marriage can not be left to the people to define but must be defined by the government. Proposition 8 limits government from any further meddling in what predates natural law. It is not regulating the people, but blocking the government's interference in people's personal lives. This proposition takes the actual definition of marriage as it has always been known and gives it a legal status just the same as was done eight years ago. This proposition is limiting government power.
Statement: No, you are just trying to force your ancient morals on what we as an advanced society have progressed to become tolerant of.
Answer: Democracy can only exist where the society is moral (look at ancient Rome). There must be established morals commonly held by the people, otherwise laws have no meaning and war ensues. Yes, marriage is ancient, that is the whole point. Its definition has always been the same. To change marriage is to reconstruct familial relationships and deny not only what we see in nature, but some of the basic assumptions of Darwin.
to be continued...
Answer: The government, through four San Francisco justices on the California Supreme Court, has decided that the practice and legal definition of marriage can not be left to the people to define but must be defined by the government. Proposition 8 limits government from any further meddling in what predates natural law. It is not regulating the people, but blocking the government's interference in people's personal lives. This proposition takes the actual definition of marriage as it has always been known and gives it a legal status just the same as was done eight years ago. This proposition is limiting government power.
Statement: No, you are just trying to force your ancient morals on what we as an advanced society have progressed to become tolerant of.
Answer: Democracy can only exist where the society is moral (look at ancient Rome). There must be established morals commonly held by the people, otherwise laws have no meaning and war ensues. Yes, marriage is ancient, that is the whole point. Its definition has always been the same. To change marriage is to reconstruct familial relationships and deny not only what we see in nature, but some of the basic assumptions of Darwin.
to be continued...
Saturday, September 6, 2008
Dear Chino Blanco...
Dear Chino Blanco:
Thank you for posting a comment on this blog. For purposes of clarity, I have quoted your comment here:
First of all, your bias, intended or not, is very clear. Let me 'splain...
1. The in re marriage case recently decided by the CA Supreme Court, The Court based its entire opinion on a legislative bill guaranteeing privacy to Californians and a circular argument that such privacy is being denied when a person asks a homosexual person if they are "married".
The legal problem with this argument is that the four judges who wrote The Court's opinion forgot that legislation in California is superseded by ballot propositions when there is a conflict of laws. The ENTIRE LGBT community is basing a "right" of same-sex marriage on flawed logic and incorrect law.
2. There is always a loser and a winner. People are fighting to get Prop. 8 passed because to change the definition marriage, not only in the way in which it was changed in California less than 4 months ago, is to deny the fundamental tenants of civilization as well as the first amendment of the US Constitution. Marriage has always been a union of man and woman. In diverse cultures and ages, this has and still does exist between a man and multiple women. Never, in the history of man, or nature, has marriage been between two persons of the same sex.
Considering that the Attorney General is a gay-lesbian alliance supporter as well as more than half of the CA supreme court, this isn't a fair fight, and the list of constitutional violations against supporters of prop. 8 are mounting. This isn't something that "religion" is mandating, yes, it affects the free exercise of religion in California, a direct violation of the US Constitution, and yes, this is something religion is heavily involved in. What is wrong with religion being involved? Unions and lobby groups pay for the electricity in Sacramento, why can't a religion try to stand up for its fundamental tenants?
As far as money, people donate KNOWING that they may lose. Every Saturday in fall, a college football team goes to their game for which they have practiced all week, knowing that they may lose. It is part of the fight. To advocate defeat, however, is only preparing for self fulfilling prophecy.
I personally have been walking precincts every week, and have found in my diverse community that it is about 50-50 for Prop 8. Too close to call.
Thanks for commenting, ignorance isn't bliss.
Thank you for posting a comment on this blog. For purposes of clarity, I have quoted your comment here:
"Considering that ProtectMarriage.com has decided NOT to appeal the ballot language, what chance do you really see for Prop 8 to pass? I just don’t see a majority of Californians voting YES on a proposition titled ELIMINATES RIGHT OF SAME-SEX COUPLES TO MARRY.
Once the churches realize that Prop 8 is an almost guaranteed loser, are they going to do the right thing and let their members know?
If not, what happens after Prop 8 loses 40-60 (or worse), and then the members find out that the churches were privy all along to internal polling that predicted a crushing defeat? Do the members get their money back?
Or do they get stuck paying for ads that were run by a campaign that knew it was going to lose but ran them anyway!"
Once the churches realize that Prop 8 is an almost guaranteed loser, are they going to do the right thing and let their members know?
If not, what happens after Prop 8 loses 40-60 (or worse), and then the members find out that the churches were privy all along to internal polling that predicted a crushing defeat? Do the members get their money back?
Or do they get stuck paying for ads that were run by a campaign that knew it was going to lose but ran them anyway!"
First of all, your bias, intended or not, is very clear. Let me 'splain...
1. The in re marriage case recently decided by the CA Supreme Court, The Court based its entire opinion on a legislative bill guaranteeing privacy to Californians and a circular argument that such privacy is being denied when a person asks a homosexual person if they are "married".
The legal problem with this argument is that the four judges who wrote The Court's opinion forgot that legislation in California is superseded by ballot propositions when there is a conflict of laws. The ENTIRE LGBT community is basing a "right" of same-sex marriage on flawed logic and incorrect law.
2. There is always a loser and a winner. People are fighting to get Prop. 8 passed because to change the definition marriage, not only in the way in which it was changed in California less than 4 months ago, is to deny the fundamental tenants of civilization as well as the first amendment of the US Constitution. Marriage has always been a union of man and woman. In diverse cultures and ages, this has and still does exist between a man and multiple women. Never, in the history of man, or nature, has marriage been between two persons of the same sex.
Considering that the Attorney General is a gay-lesbian alliance supporter as well as more than half of the CA supreme court, this isn't a fair fight, and the list of constitutional violations against supporters of prop. 8 are mounting. This isn't something that "religion" is mandating, yes, it affects the free exercise of religion in California, a direct violation of the US Constitution, and yes, this is something religion is heavily involved in. What is wrong with religion being involved? Unions and lobby groups pay for the electricity in Sacramento, why can't a religion try to stand up for its fundamental tenants?
As far as money, people donate KNOWING that they may lose. Every Saturday in fall, a college football team goes to their game for which they have practiced all week, knowing that they may lose. It is part of the fight. To advocate defeat, however, is only preparing for self fulfilling prophecy.
I personally have been walking precincts every week, and have found in my diverse community that it is about 50-50 for Prop 8. Too close to call.
Thanks for commenting, ignorance isn't bliss.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
