As a U.C. Berkeley grad who is not religious and a staunch supporter of Prop. 8, i have been troubled by the defense of prop 8. As a foreign policy analyst, it has always been a tenet that one must tool or tailor their argument to meet the ears of those who will judge, not just espouse the "beliefs" that every attorney "feels" about the matter. From my perspective, counsel has been missing what should be the primary argument to the court:

1. Sexuality is not now and has never been a "condition" of marriage and people of all sexualities have ALWAYS been allowed to marry. (& people of all sexualities who have been interested, for whatever their personal choice, have married throughout history.)
2. Actually introducing sexuality to a law or code where a person's sexuality is not now a criteria would actually create potentially unconstitutional exclusions, not resolve them.
3. Now the court is being asked to do just such a thing, make sexuality relevant where it is not, and biased toward certain, limited sexualities at the exclusion of others. Why create something of questionable constitutionality.
4. Men and women are already free to marry in the United States; the court should not begin to construct a web of shackles where none now exist.
5. Just opening marriage to homosexuals would be unjust. Would we allow blacks to vote then say, sorry hispanics and asians, but we are not fighting for your rights, just what we percieve to be our own.
6. If homosexuals can marry, why should multi-partner bisexuals be denied their rights? Why should polygamists, male and female, be denied? Why should relatives who wish to marry be denied theirs? Remember, so many children need parents and they can adopt, too.
7. Leave marriage as it is, or open it to everyone. That is the only true and just way. Anyone who wants to create rights for themself and then deny others those same rights are hypocrits and pathetic.
Remember, what you may laughingly call a slippery slope are, in reality, the rights of another!

As a U.C. Berkeley grad who is not religious and a staunch supporter of Prop. 8, i have been troubled by the "public" information i have been hearing by counsel defending this case in front of the notoriously liberal 9th circuit. As a foreign policy analyst, it has always been a tenet that one must tool or tailor their argument to meet the ears of those who will judge, not just espouse the "beliefs" that every attorney "feels" about the matter. From my perspective, counsel has been missing what should be the primary argument to the court:

1. Sexuality is not now and has never been a "condition" of marriage and people of all sexualities have ALWAYS been allowed to marry. (& people of all sexualities who have been interested, for whatever their personal choice, have married throughout history.)
2. Actually introducing sexuality to a law or code where a person's sexuality is not now a criteria would actually create potentially unconstitutional exclusions, not resolve them.
3. Now the court is being asked to do just such a thing, make sexuality relevant where it is not, and biased toward certain, limited sexualities at the exclusion of others. Why create something of questionable constitutionality.
4. Men and women are already free to marry in the United States; the court should not begin to construct a web of shackles where none now exist.
5. Just opening marriage to homosexuals would be unjust. Would we allow blacks to vote then say, sorry hispanics and asians, but we are not fighting for your rights, just what we percieve to be our own.
6. If homosexuals can marry, why should multi-partner bisexuals be denied their rights? Why should polygamists, male and female, be denied? Why should relatives who wish to marry be denied theirs? Remember, so many children need parents and they can adopt, too.
7. Leave marriage as it is, or open it to everyone. That is the only true and just way. Anyone who wants to create rights for themself and then deny others those same rights are hypocrits and pathetic.
Remember, what you may laughingly call a slippery slope are, in reality, the rights of another!

Wondering what to expect in 2009? Here are a few of the headlines you are most likely to see...

GOD DECLARED BIGOT- rik jakobs of the scourage campaign declared today that God is actually a bigot. said jakobs, "...the problem is that god has shown he disciminates against gays by keeping their numbers to only about 2% of the population. who else does god do this to? this is unacceptable and shows a real intolerance. also, god has chosen to make the womb the ONLY place (besides a petri dish) for human conception & limited a womb to the female gender. need i say more. something must be done immediately and we will boycott god until he makes the needed changes."

EVOLUTION IS FALSE SCIENCE- richurd jacabs of the coward campaign called on the Supreme Court to ban all schools from teaching creationism or evolution in schools. jacabs stated that "...evolution is as false as creation. darwin was a complete & utter bigot. the entire theory is a bunch of hogwash. if darwinism were true then we would have evolved in a much more just & tolerant way. why is it that after all this time a sphincter is still not a vagina? there can be only one explanation. this man was a true evil charlatan & his theories have no place in the world today, let alone being taught to young and impressionable children."

this should actually be called the scourge campaign. being someone with an "ug" & advanced degree from u.c. berkeley and having a complete ambivalance toward religion of any kind, it would be difficult for anyone to label me a conservative by any stretch. yet i am repulsed by what i see from the no on 8 activists. i want to address those no on 8 citizens who populate disturbing sites such as these. STOP IT! STOP IT NOW!!! it is time to face the facts. the election is over and 8 lost...again. these frightening attacks against the mormon church are disgusting. i heard so much of this racism during the campaign & had hoped that it was just silly mindless fervor from passionate supporters. sadly, this was not the case and the attacks have gotten uglier. signs outside the la mormon temple like "u have 2 wives i want 1 husband," "joseph smith was a pedophile," etc. are fascist, racist, and have no place in our society. those who say they are not attacking the religion are on serious hallucinogens and need to look themselves in the mirror. this is not nazi germany, and what you are doing and saying should disturb every jew, christian, muslim, and secular american. ignorant, under-educated, violent idiots do not help any cause, let alone one whose supporters claim is one of justice and tolerance. STOP IT! STOP IT NOW!!!