Daniel Eran Dilger in San Francisco
Random header image... Refresh for more!

Mormons, Fundamentalists, Islamists Back Prop H(8) with Big Bucks

no on 8

Daniel Eran Dilger

Despite the sagging economy, record numbers of families being evicted from foreclosed homes, and an uptick in unemployment, a coalition of religious extremists has pooled together at least $67 million to push Proposition 8 as a symbolic demonstration of the intolerance and hatred their faith moves them to open their wallets to fund.

Mormons of the LDS church, orthodox Jews, Catholics and the Knights of Columbus, as well as megachurch evangelicals such as Rick Warren of the Saddleback Church have joined radical Islamicists in pouring their resources into funding social ostracism of their fellow citizens under a new Sharia-like fusion of religious discrimination into secular American government.
.
Somewhat ironically, while the Prop 8 campaign is touting the measure as necessary to prevent children from being exposed to the existence of gays and lesbians, their multimillion dollar ad TV and radio campaigns are themselves exposing more children the existence of gay marriage than actual gay marriage in California has in the months since since the courts ruled to uphold them.

Religions are also funding Prop 8 in the hope that a victory in California, along with a similar efforts being waged in Arizona and Florida, will help move them towards a nationwide ban. California courts struck down a similar effort in 2000 to define marriage as unconstitutional, so Prop 8 proponents are now working to alter the state constitution itself.

Big money from churches will not only codify religion into the state constitution, but will also harm the state’s ability to attract employees in competitive industries. That has Republicans against 8, including state governor Arnold Schwarzenegger. Ronald Reagan similar opposed a measure targeting gays in 1978 when he was California’s governor.

Both Apple and Google have also opposed the measure as a civil rights issue on behalf of their employees, and California’s biotech interests have warned of potential damage to the state’s developing $73 billion new industry, citing Massachusetts as a top competitor for employees.

Apple gives $100,000 to fight California gay marriage ban

A series of messages on YouTube compare Prop 8 with home invasion by Mormon missionaries and California’s ugly past involving the internment of Asia Americans, Jim Crow laws, and laws against interracial marriage. Other spots portray the struggle of the mayor of San Diego in coming out against the measure, and attack the campaign of lies being forwarded by the religious groups, including exploitive ads that portray children in their attack ads, when in reality those children’s parents oppose the measure.

Mormons vs lipstick lesbians.

Discrimination was a sorry time in our history.

San Diego Mayor changes perspective.

Shut down the lies.

Proposition 8 would be a terrible mistake for California.

Other articles on current events:

Former FCC Chair Reed Hundt: Issues the next president faces in technology
McCain vs. Obama Presidential Pop Quiz: Socialism
McCain, Palin Push Ashley Todd into Limelight. Oops.
Apple gives $100,000 to fight California gay marriage ban
Terrorist Criminal Links to the Presidential Candidates
Obama-Biden, McCain-Palin: Scandals by the Numbers
Terrorist Criminal Links to the Presidential Candidates
The Big Fannie Mae & Freddie Mac Attack
Osama Bin Laden’s Dream of US Economic Collapse
You Know the Drill?
Ten Striking Parallels Between Microsoft and John McCain
Obama’s Apple, McCain’s Microsoft: the Politics of Tech

Did you like this article? Let me know. Comment here, in the Forum, or email me with your ideas.

Like reading RoughlyDrafted? Share articles with your friends, link from your blog, and subscribe to my podcast (oh wait, I have to fix that first). It’s also cool to submit my articles to Digg, Reddit, or Slashdot where more people will see them. Consider making a small donation supporting this site. Thanks!

58 comments

1 oomu { 11.03.08 at 5:35 am }

but America cannot fail to hate from religious people. no ? Your constitution is strong and mostly all people are decent and in the end, discrimination was abolished.

2 wings { 11.03.08 at 7:49 am }

Dan, I know you have a fairly high level of passion for your political and social views, but as you said in your “About” link, you created this site to write about technology, Apple, motorcycles, and your home town. You’re a smart guy and you should be able to figure out that you’re only going to sway a very small number of people to your point of view, but at the expense of alienating a much larger number of people who come here to read what you have to say about technology.

It’s not that I don’t agree with this article (I haven’t even read it), I don’t agree with any article on a technology website that attempts to forward some political or social agenda.

In my opinion, this ain’t the place for it.

3 marsviolet { 11.03.08 at 8:12 am }

Technology, Apple, motorcycles and home towns are such disparate topics as to imply that Roughly Drafted is about anything and everything Dan wants to write about. If it is predominantly about technology and Apple, that’s fine, but I welcome any tangents he wants to pursue. That’s the great thing about free speech. We can listen or we don’t have to listen, but he point is people are allowed to speak freely.

As for Prop 8, I’m going to help defeat it tomorrow because there should be equal rights for everybody. But if Prop 8 passes, I plan to author a new proposition banning heterosexual marriage.

You know, to keep it fair.

4 gplawhorn { 11.03.08 at 9:43 am }

I love your site, especially how you point out the unreasonable, and unwarranted attacks by PC writers and makers against Macs.

Unfortunately, you’ve done the same here. You’ve made no attempt to understand Rick Warren or others; you’ve simply labeled them and vilified them, a la Steve Ballmer. (It’s a stroke of genius to lump all conservatives in with Islamic Fundamentalists. That’s a move worthy of James Dobson.)

It’s far easier to write when you simply give vent to your emotions. But, sadly, when emotions rule the day, there is no dialog, and no ability to truly hear what either said is saying.

[Sorry, but don't tell me what I don't understand. I understand the position of fundamentalist televangelists like Rick Warren just as I understand Islamicist fundamentalists working to push Sharia Islamic Law. There's not a lot to understand: they want to force their religion on everyone because they think they have a holy mandate from God to do so. But they don't in the US. That's not a emotion I'm venting, it's fact. ]

5 gus2000 { 11.03.08 at 11:03 am }

“Daniel Eran Hussein Dilger”

Does this mean no new articles during Ramadan?

LOL@”ain’t the place for it”. If not here, then where?!?

6 qzg { 11.03.08 at 11:43 am }

This is a perfect example of how America is no longer ruled by or for the Majority. It is also a perfect example of, I feel, the essence of the difference between the philosophy currently held by most Democrats in contrast to Republicans:

(MY OPINIONS/OBSERVATIONS)
Republicans believe that what is good for the country is good for the people.
Democrats believe that what is good for the people is good for the country.

Throughout American history, which party held the “country first” vs. “people first” philosophies has flip-flopped, but right now it is the Republicans.

What is good for the country is rule by and for the majority and tolerance for the minority. What is good for the people is to lift up minorities to effectively give them equal standing with the majority.

The “good for the people” philosophy is the beginning of the end of a successful democracy. I believe that the end of the “good for the people” philosophy is a place where proper democracy cannot exist.

Democracy SHOULD reduce the input of minorities naturally. “Intolerance” as it is currently branded (which really is just saying “you live your way, I’ll live my way but don’t expect me to treat you the same as I treat people whose values and lifestyle I AGREE WITH”) is at the core of Democracy. If the minority is able to force their will, their beliefs and their values on the majority, there is no Democracy.

I am all for ALLOWING people the liberty to live their lives their way so long as the majority doesn’t have to change for the minority. When the minority’s values become those of the majority, THEN and ONLY THEN should things change – that is the Democratic way.

I WANT MY COUNTRY TO BE A CERTAIN WAY AND I AM IN THE MAJORITY SO IT SHOULD BE THAT WAY, REGARDLESS OF WHETHER MY RELIGIOUSLY MOTIVATED BELIEFS ARE RIGHT OR WRONG. THAT IS DEMOCRACY.

7 Orenge { 11.03.08 at 12:09 pm }

Thanks for stepping up on important issues like this, Daniel. This is your site, your creation, your audience, and therefore it’s a tool you can use to do real good if you so choose. It would be easy for you to take the easy way out and stay silent. Thanks for not doing so! America needs more like you.

PS, qzg, Google for the founding father’s views on “tyranny of the majority.” Out constitution is specifically designed to prevent that. You may prefer a different system than the one we have, a system were we can do anything we want to minorities. Many one minority should be forced to do unpaid labor in the fields of the majority? But that’s actually not the system we have. We have a democracy crafted from the beginning on far higher ideals than that. And we’ve seen the result: out society, like any other, can do terrible things to people.–slavery, concentration camps for our own citizens in WWII, and hateful attacks on people based solely on who they fall in love with–and they we can rise above those wrongs and make America better. I’m very proud of that.

8 gus2000 { 11.03.08 at 12:18 pm }

qzg,

When you read your comic books, do you sympathize with the villans? Do you feel that Lex Luthor was just misunderstood?

Your narcissism borders on pathological.

9 Orenge { 11.03.08 at 12:21 pm }

Sorry for the typos. In any case, don’t overlook the obvious: the majority of people do NOT hate gays. You’re a disturbingly large group, but YOU are a minority. Fringe groups and certain churches have spent a lot of money to drum up some extra hate and use it to change government, but the polls on Tuesday will, I predict, demonstrate their failure.

(Probably the best thing about this whole election season: the utter failure of so many lies and negative ads!)

10 marsviolet { 11.03.08 at 12:32 pm }

qzg:.

Democracy is about one thing — giving people a say in their own governing — but the reason we live in a republic which is democratic rather than a true democracy is because rule of law is better than mob rule. This is also the reason we have an electoral system rather than a direct vote. If we had a direct vote, every election would be decided based on population, which means that every election would be decided by California, Texas and New York (or something like that), and none of the other states would have a say, e.g. mob rule. You don’t want that. It’s dangerous.

11 kpslc { 11.03.08 at 12:49 pm }

Ronald Reagan was not Governor in 1978. Jerry Brown was.

[Yes you're right: Reagan left CA office in 1975. And yet he still came out against it.]

12 qzg { 11.03.08 at 1:01 pm }

I never said I hate gays. I do support defending freedom from fear of physical injury – just like I would rather EVERY American be free from fear of physical injury. I do not support allowing special rules which allow them “equal access to opportunity and employment” in our economy. Our economy is flexible enough that they can work around that without it having to be forced on everyone else. Regarding their “right to marry whoever they want” which 8 is all about, it is a sham. It is about MONEY and it is about giving the “religious zealots” the finger and showing that THEIR minority agenda will prevail.

I say, “screw that”. Gays are, stereotypically, doing VERY well in our economy and they are, for the large part, accepted and tolerated. There will always be people who HATE, and I’m not one of them. I AM, however, one of the people who believes that our society has, in the MAJORITY case, grown to tolerate the majority of the minorities in a functional fashion which allows them “Life, Liberty and the pursuit of happiness”.

I do not support laws which give ANY exclusive group (race, religion, gender and, apparently, sexual preference) special recognition of rights. To do so detracts from the rights of the groups not addressed. NO, this doesn’t mean I don’t support women’s right to vote. It should never have been kept from them in the beginning.

@gus2000 I have no idea how what I’m saying is narcissistic. I love my country and I believe it is a privilege to live here; a privilege for which lots of people have died and I want to perpetuate it as long as possible. Too many Americans think that we can keep pushing our nation into being a utopian society on the level of Star Trek. I’d love that but I believe that human nature prevents it. Human nature seeks out struggle and, not finding it, creates it. We have created a balance between government and economy which allows the pursuit of happiness, liberty and great prosperity for those who seek it and work for it. I also believe that balance is far more fragile than many Americans realize; there are limits and we are pushing them.

No I didn’t sympathize with the villans.

@Orenge The advancement of the homosexual agenda is tyranny by the minority. Proposition 8 is not infringing on their “Civil Rights”; it is merely saying “WHOA! You stop here.”

13 Rich { 11.03.08 at 1:12 pm }

“I do not support laws which give ANY exclusive group (race, religion, gender and, apparently, sexual preference) special recognition of rights.”

So you’re in favor of gay marriage then? Since this would only bring them in line with the ‘special recognition of rights’ currently given to heterosexual couples.

14 Joel { 11.03.08 at 1:27 pm }

“I WANT MY COUNTRY TO BE A CERTAIN WAY AND I AM IN THE MAJORITY SO IT SHOULD BE THAT WAY, REGARDLESS OF WHETHER MY RELIGIOUSLY MOTIVATED BELIEFS ARE RIGHT OR WRONG. THAT IS DEMOCRACY.”

So how do we define the “MAJORITY”…? Just white folks…? People with a certain level of income…? Just Christians…?

15 hmciv { 11.03.08 at 1:28 pm }

The problem with the issue of gay “marriage” (independent of Prop 8) is that both sides have a fundamental ethical position upon which they can plant their flag. Unlike interracial marriage the conservative side has the book of Leviticus and the religious origins of the word “marriage” to stand on.

This will never be an easy question.

[Actually it's a very easy question. The book of Leviticus is not the law of the land.

The surrounding scriptures in Leviticus also forbid eating shellfish and pork. And while the Bible clearly is not supportive of homosexuality, it presents it as no better or worse than other "sins," such as in the Apostle Paul's words in 1 Corinthians 6:9-10: "neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God."

This is a religious belief about who will inherit the kingdom of God, not a mandate to persecute others who do not share your beliefs. Additionally, those pushing to stop gays are frequently themselves thieves, greedy (gold gilded televangelists), drunks, revilers, extortioners, fornicators (Palin's family) adulterers (McCain), and so on.

Jesus didn't have anything to say about gays, but he did spent a lot of his words on hypocrisy, particularly among the religious. If you think getting involved in politics will put you in heaven, your own religious book does not support that idea. Instead, Jesus will tell you, as he said at Matthew 7:23: "I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity."]

16 qzg { 11.03.08 at 1:31 pm }

@Rich I figured someone would say something like that. I almost wrote something to address it but didn’t. Really I don’t think that homosexuals are a group worthy of recognizing in any special context. The only reason I’d even say that even *religion* IS a group worthy of recognizing is because our nation was founded for that reason. Well, I guess I’d have to go even further – everything is spiritual – that is a fact; humanity NEEDS protection of our rights to observe that spirituality right along our rights to eat and have shelter.

Homosexuality is just another choice some people make and it is unnatural. “Unnatural” in the context of “if mother nature felt it was natural it would have allowed it to perpetuate itself through natural procreation”. Don’t bother trying to argue the “they are born that way” argument, let’s just agree to disagree on that point.

Bottom line, the “right” to be homosexual should no more be protected than the “right” to support a sports team. We are all free to do both here.

17 qzg { 11.03.08 at 1:32 pm }

@Joel: the majority who exercises their privilege to change their government through casting a vote.

[And yet the courts can still overturn your Jim Crow legislation. Just because religious leaders can whip up a frenzy of hate through a campaign of lies doesn't mean they are participating in some righteous version of religious democracy. ]

18 Joel { 11.03.08 at 1:35 pm }

“The problem with the issue of gay “marriage” (independent of Prop 8) is that both sides have a fundamental ethical position upon which they can plant their flag.”

Which would be…?

And its a very easy question: “Should we treat all people the same and not discriminate…?”

19 Joel { 11.03.08 at 1:36 pm }

“Homosexuality is just another choice some people make and it is unnatural. “Unnatural” in the context of “if mother nature felt it was natural it would have allowed it to perpetuate itself through natural procreation”. Don’t bother trying to argue the “they are born that way” argument, let’s just agree to disagree on that point.”

Good to see the trolls are out. You may want to look into various studies about same-sex relationships and couplings in nature…!

20 qzg { 11.03.08 at 1:47 pm }

@Joel
I’m familiar with these studies. They don’t apply to humans.

21 marsviolet { 11.03.08 at 1:56 pm }

Homosexuality is just another choice some people make and it is unnatural.

You’ve obviously never known any gay people. My girlfriend’s boss had a young daughter. I could tell she was going to turn out gay from about age ten, although she didn’t actually come out until just before she went to college. It’s not a choice to be gay. It’s some sort of genetic difference, like a birthmark or red hair, but it’s not unnatural. It is, in fact, a part of nature. Perhaps you’d like to tell us all that albinism is a choice too?

22 swinn { 11.03.08 at 1:57 pm }

Please people, does it have to be about hate? I realize that is an easy argument to make. Take something you don’t like and label the proponents as extremist, intolerant, hate-filled, radical, discriminating, or even (dare we say) religious. Purposefully mischaracterize the motivation of people who support it. Then refuse point-blank to consider that those same people may be 1) acting according to their consciences on a moral issue that affects all of society, 2) that they have every right to do so, and 3) that they may actually be free-thinking rational people.

There are basic truths that everyone should be able to agree one no matter what side they take on this issue. . .

1) Most law is based on the public perception of what is moral.
2) Homosexuality is a moral issue.
3) Religions teach morality.

Therefore . . .
1) Prop 8 will demonstrate what society considers to be moral.
2) Society can define a public social contract either between parties of opposite gender or between parties of any gender. It should do so to encourage its best ideals of moral and social order.
3) Religious organizations have every right to speak out on public issues they consider to be moral. No one should be surprised, shocked, or appalled if they do whether they agree with the position or not.

Using highly charged emotional language, ridicule, or insinuations of conspiracy to make an argument does not speak well for the rationality of the case you are making.

23 Rich { 11.03.08 at 2:05 pm }

“The only reason I’d even say that even *religion* IS a group worthy of recognizing is because our nation was founded for that reason.”

You do realize that your nation was founded by a bunch of deists?

24 qzg { 11.03.08 at 2:14 pm }

Daniel-
Regarding your comments about religious leaders whipping up hate. “Hate” is essential to proper spiritual existence. Loving the light and hating the dark. Should we hate gays? Absolutely not. Can we tolerate all people and their actions in our own lives? No. Choosing and maintaining boundaries (the right boundaries) is essential to our own spiritual integrity and subsequent growth. Finding “the right boundaries” is the lot of all humans.

As for me and my house, we shall serve the Lord (the one in the Bible). That is, as far as the homosexual issue goes, I see the act (not the people) as an abomination and the people who practice it the same as I’d see any other people bound up in any other sin which is generally permitted by society. I am against laws which protect that which I believe is sin.

You have to find your own boundaries. NOT having boundaries and instead being “open” and “permissive” and “accepting” (in the pop versions of those terms) is to leave your life open to all sorts of poisonous philosophies.

For those of you who believe me (or my beliefs) to be the very poison of which I speak, I say you are mistaken and time will prove us both out. Still, I’m glad we can disagree peacefully.

[It's fine for you to hate what you think is bad in a way that works out however you want to live your life. You can hate the idea of eating pork, you can hate fraud, you can hate working on the sabbath or whatever else you like, but when you stop being motivated to modify your own behavior by your inner hate and start being motivated to stop everyone else from doing things you don't like, you stop becoming some internally hateful person motivated to live a certain way, and start to become just a hateful person seeking to compel everyone else to live by your own hateful ideas. That's not acceptable in a modern, sophisticated society.

The state can't stop you from hating, nor stop you from teaching your children to hate, but it can stop you from rising up to hurt other people just because you are satiated with hate. Also, if you style yourself a Christian, you might spend some time considering that the mark Jesus said would identify true Christians was not hatred for others, but having love amongst themselves. Stirring up political controversy to deprive others of their secular rights is not a Christian ideal and has no support in the teaching of Jesus. It does keep floating to the surface among the egregiously hypocritical churches today that are trying to set up a White Taliban to take over the US and turn it into a repressive "christianist" nation where conduct is outlawed by a military police state rather than being motivated by hate for evil or love for God. If you identify with that, then have no illusion: your God hates you.]

25   { 11.03.08 at 2:17 pm }

LDS Church donates to back Proposition 8
The Associated Press
Article Last Updated: 10/29/2008
(*emphasis* added)

Campaign finance records show the Utah-based LDS Church has made its *first* financial contribution in support of a Nov. 4 ballot proposition that would ban same-sex marriage in California.

The in-kind donation of *$2,078.97* from The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints was made on Oct. 25 to ProtectMarriage.com, a coalition of faith organizations and conservative groups supporting Proposition 8.

* * *

Jeff Flint, a co-manager of the ProtectMarriage campaign, says the LDS Church made the in-kind donation to cover the travel expenses of several Utah-based church leaders who went to California for a meeting last week.

[Are you suggesting that the LDS church hasn't really done much to push Prop 8? If so, consider that it mailed out an insistent plea for members to contribute what they can (this is a church that has a $10 tithe that is collected like a regular income tax). The result is that millions in "small" donations from $1000 to $100,000 have flooded into the state, which only has about 4% Mormon population, contributing 47% of the $30 million raised at the point this was made:

http://spreadsheets.google.com/pub?key=pe2023SzWXxE8wYX5qWeoIw

Bringing it back to tech: WordPerfect founder Alan Ashton, of Lindon, Utah, a Mormon and grandson of David O. McKay, President of the Mormon Church from 1951-1970, donated $1,000,000 himself!

http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=104&STORY=/www/story/10-30-2008/0004915445&EDATE=

So no, Mormons have not just donated a couple thousand. The LDS church has pushed the most cash by far into the Prop 8 campaign. Apparently there are no problems to address in Utah?]

26 marsviolet { 11.03.08 at 3:18 pm }

I think it’s about time that churches lost their tax exempt status. That right there would probably pay for universal healthcare.

27 swinn { 11.03.08 at 3:27 pm }

We could go down the list talking about which organizations and famous individuals are opposing Prop 8 and contributing financially to its defeat, but what would be the point?

People are weighing in on a moral issue and a matter of no small social consequence: Hollywood liberals, tech companies, churches and individuals. They all have a right to do so. And they can all give money to support the cause of their choosing.

The Mormon church has been doing what they can to support Prop 8. Why shouldn’t they? People telling Dan to forget politics and stick to tech news is about the same as Dan suggesting that Mormons should be more concerned about other issues. They are both effectively asking, “Don’t you have something better to do?” But Dan and the Mormons both feel strongly on the issue and will use whatever influence they have to promote their views and they have the right to do so.

28 marsviolet { 11.03.08 at 4:11 pm }

“Hate” is essential to proper spiritual existence.

Typo. I think you meant to type forgiveness instead of hate.

You have an almost magical talent for warping words to support your cause and the values of this “modern, sophisticated society.” Those ways are foolish and prefer to deny God’s existence or His ways. As always, your points are so accurate sounding. They have all the appearances of wisdom but this is the mark of all of the best deception.

Hmm. Apparently Daniel is the Antichrist. Funny, I never pictured the Antichrist riding a motorcycle, but hey.

I would deny homosexuals their “secular right” because they won’t stop at that. They will always want more. Like forcing education of their lifestyle on children who know nothing of their own path in life yet. The homosexual agenda is insatiable.

From a young age children understand what homosexuality is, and quickly learn to use words such as “fag” and “lesbian” as insults directed at other children. This is precisely the reason that they should be educated about homosexuality in school and taught tolerance. Homosexual intolerance is just as bad as racial intolerance.

29 tayls { 11.03.08 at 4:28 pm }

Daniel,

Not trying to be sarcastic here. I’m genuinely curious about your opinion on polygamy, incest, pedophilia, etc. Clearly, social opinion on homosexuality has changed drastically over the years. What once was viewed as taboo and immoral, is now vigorously defended and acceptable. Do you believe that a similar change would/could ever occur with these other currently taboo relationships? Who’s to say that 20 years from now, we won’t have brother-sister parades protesting for the right to marry. If so, will you so staunchly defend their civil rights?

If you would not defend incestuous relationships, polygamy, and/or pedophilia, on what basis would you distinguish between these relationships and homosexuality?

[The classic slippery slope! There are historically legitimate reasons for social taboo, but in a free society, we have to reexamine whether those taboos, once viewed as necessary to prop up a patriarchal society, are actually valid.

Homosexuality is an identity, a lot like race: people clearly don't choose either, although some can effectively hide their identity. The result of hiding one's identity (or being forced to hide) has caused problems far greater than the "cure" to society. The priesthood has long functioned as a way for gays to hide. The result is that these people can't experience a functional normal life and often end up twisted into having their sexuality exposed in extremely dangerous ways, including preying on children who are at a similarly simple stage of sexual maturity.

Or you have gay men like Ken Haggerty, who are forced into marriage with somebody they don't love. They might carry it off well (Haggerty reached the top of the evangelical gay-hating pyramid to become Bush's top "spiritual advisor"), but they risk ending up, like Haggerty, doing meth with their regular gay hooker, because they really are gay and being married to a woman they don't feel anything for doesn't really work. If Haggerty were allowed to be gay and marry somebody he loved, he wouldn't have to cheat on a wife he doesn't love and their illegitimate family of torn children by running off to a hotel with his hooker outlet.

So expecting gays to fake being straight in order to prop up a fake family causes more problems than it solves for the prudes pushing for that.

On the other hand, the other things you reference are not identities. Being a polygamist means being in a lopsided relationship where (almost always) a man takes several wives. This causes lots of complex legal problems, and again, people who practice polygamy do so for religious reasons related to the idea that a man with lots of wealth should take on multiple partners and have lots of children. This causes lots of problems for society without any benefits. In the case of the Mormon splinter groups, it results in lots of young unwanted boys and lots of institutionalized incest and child rape because old men need to harvest lots of girls and get rid of the competition from the boys.

As for incest and child abuse, those are neither identities nor forms of relationships. They are illegal activities because they harm society. There is no civil rights argument for overturning statutory rape based on age or genetic relationships because society recognizes that children should not be exposed to sexuality before they are developed, and that incestuous relationships are corrosive to families.

One might turn the ridiculous slippery slope argument on its head by saying why not overturn marriage itself, which defines the relationships where most child abuse takes place. Most abused children are harmed by their own families, not the stereotypical outsider child molester.

Also, polygamy and incest are very frequently the products of extremist religious groups. Let's abolish religion! Child abuse within the Catholic Church was not just existent, but covered up. Yet that's the same group now trying to legislate religious morality?

Also, while christianists like to associate gays with child predators, the vast majority of abused children are young girls who are preyed upon by "straight" male attackers. Shall we make being a straight male illegal just because of this danger? ]

30 mango { 11.03.08 at 4:28 pm }

Everyone should and does have the right to marry. Gay people also have the right to marry. What they want now is special rights so they can marry outside the definition. Don’t make this issue a civil rights issue. I think its is appalling that slavery and racial discrimination is compared to the right for gays to be included in the definition of marriage. It’s a life’s style choice not a right. Gay’s already have the right. A gay woman or man can marry anybody that is the opposite sex. They have the same right as I do. Now they want special rights. They want to change the definition of marriage.

The issue here is not about giving Gays the right to marry its about making their lifestyle choice acceptable for everyone else. They want it to be called marriage so they don’t feel like they are any different than a traditional family.

Support Propitiation 8. Gay marriage is not marriage. Marriage to anyone I want is not a right (multi-marriage?, animal-marriages?, where does it stop?). We all have the same limitations and the same right, to marry anyone we want that is the correct age and is the opposite sex.

That being said if, if Gay’s want access to medical records and benefits, this should not be based on marriage. What about the unmarried? I’m sure they want other people to access their medical records. I’m sure single people would want to receive the same benefits as married couples. Don’t make this issue a civil rights issue; it is not. Go ahead and get the benefits of married couple, you can argue that point to me; I think everyone should have these benefits married or unmarried. However, don’t call it marriage because it is not.

[The "definition of marriage" is a legal contract between two people who love each other and want to be life long partners. You can redefine it according to your own religious views, but it was never defined as being between a man and a woman in California until 2000, and the proposition that did that was struck down as unconstitutional.

Your suggestion that gays have the "right to marry someone of the opposite sex they do not love and do not want to live with as a life long partner" is completely fucked up. I'm sure religion played a role in scrambling your brain.

Also, is there something interesting about you hiding in the fact that you have a "farmers building supply" email but your chosen nickname is "mango"? Note the we have scientific evidence that proves beyond a doubt that homophobia is closely related to fear and an inner hatred experienced by homosexuals in hiding. See also: Ken Haggarty]

31 mcordova.net » Prop H8 { 11.03.08 at 4:32 pm }

[...] friend from work sent me this article with some amusing, pointed writing and links to a few Prop 8 ads I hadn’t [...]

32 Joe { 11.03.08 at 8:03 pm }

Marriage is religious.

Christian marriage, for example, the NIV Edition of the Bible says “Then the Lord God made a woman from the rib he had taken out of the man, and he brought her to the man. The man said, ‘This is now bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called ‘woman,’ for she was taken out of man.’ For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh”

So surely “Gay marriage” can’t exist as it is in direct contradiction with the Bible. If Gay couples wish to have a ceremony similar to marriage I have nothing against it, why however should it however be called marriage. Calling it something other than marriage and breaking all ties with religion should really settle the matter.

Just my two cents.

[That's fine. The issue here isn't "Gay Christian Marriage as performed in your church." It's whether the state can continue to provide a marriage license to same sex couples so they can have the same ability to live with the same legal privileges and protections of the legal definition of marriage. There is no "marriage with a different name that isn't religious," just marriage, so saying you support the status quo but think gays would be ostracized with a special word for marriage is puzzling. That's also not what will happen if Prop 8 passes.

And to be clear, no church is obligated to marry gay people now or in the future, just as Catholics can refuse to marry the divorced, or other religions can refuse to hold ceremonies that involve members of mixed religions or the excommunicated. It has nothing to do with religion or the Bible's definition of marriage, only the secular state legal definition of marriage. ]

33 tayls { 11.03.08 at 8:13 pm }

“Homosexuality is an identity, a lot like race”

This statement is nowhere near proven and is HIGHLY debatable and subject to change based on prevailing social opinion. It is also flawed logic. The false analogy says that since homosexuality is not a choice (something that many argue) and race is not a choice, homosexuality should receive all the rights, status, etc. of race.

Classic slippery slope.

“As for incest and child abuse, those are neither identities nor forms of relationships. They are illegal activities because they harm society. There is no civil rights argument for overturning statutory rape based on age or genetic relationships because society recognizes that children should not be exposed to sexuality before they are developed, and that incestuous relationships are corrosive to families.”

These are the arguments that opponents of gay marriage have used and are currently using to support their point of view. You could substitute “incest” or “pedophilia” with “homosexuality.” It was not long ago that the majority of people spoke of homosexuality in the same terms. You say that homosexuality should be classified along the same lines as race. 20 years from now, your successors might be arguing the same thing about brother-sister relationships.

And, by the way, incest can surely be a form of relationship. There are most definitely consensual relationships between close relatives. As there are relationships between an adult and a child. They are in the closet for now, though, because it is socially unacceptable. Perhaps one day there will be a scientist who discovers a gene that predisposes an individual to be attracted to close relatives or children. We could then expand the definition of marriage to make their union legal.

Check out this website:
http://www.cousincouples.com

They too have an agenda to educate and drive awareness of their lifestyle.

BTW, you should stop hating on religious folks. Opinion and argument is one thing. Being guilty of the very thing you accuse them of is hypocrisy. Although good for site hits.

34 Maverick18x { 11.03.08 at 10:04 pm }

I read your tech insight and think you’re right on. I read your political ranting and want to projective vomit. This is one reader you’re going to lose by continuing down this path.

35 The Mad Hatter { 11.03.08 at 10:28 pm }

(MY OPINIONS/OBSERVATIONS)
Republicans believe that what is good for the country is good for the people.
Democrats believe that what is good for the people is good for the country.

Really? I thought it was government for the corporation, by the corporation. Still I’m glad to see that some people in the Banana Republic to the south are thinking seriously about politics at last. I’m often amazed at the attitudes of Americans toward their country and government. It often seems that Americans are talking about religion rather than a social construct.

36 gus2000 { 11.04.08 at 12:07 am }

Religious groups have every right to their opinion. They also have the right to lobby legislators and get politically involved. They do NOT, however, have the right to wrestle with pigs and then complain that they’re getting dirty.

I’ve heard many Christians suggest that their religion was under assault, but the truth is that they started the assault by using the law as a weapon against their adversaries and think it’s unfair when their victims have the gall to fight back.

37 honestpuck { 11.04.08 at 1:52 am }

Well, the first interesting thing is that the authors of Leviticus didn’t actually have what we would call “marriage”. The translators in the Elizabethan era are responsible for that word.

England (which was the law in the US until 1770) didn’t have a law governing “marriage” until 1753 – if you and I both consented to be married we were.

For many years in most of Europe marriage was seen as an entirely civil thing and marriages tnded only to be “registered” by the aristocracy so they could formalise the contracts involved – it was a way for families to pass down land and other holdings when women were not allowed to have property.

If places like California were prepared to go through and re-enact every law that mentioned “marriage” so that a defacto relationship would suffice then Prop 8 would have no real effect – unfortunately that would be a huge task and a monumental wast of time. It would also not be recognised outside California so a gay who had the right to (for example) determine the medical care of a serverly injured partner in California would have no right outside the state. If they are “married” then that holds outside the state.

This argument should not really be about “marriage” but about the rights of two people who decide to share their lives. Their gender should matter as little as their race or religion. It is unfortunate that “marriage” and the religious implications get caught up in this – but since it is not truly a secular society this is inevitable.

// Tony

38 Joel { 11.04.08 at 4:40 am }

I see this blog as challenging the received wisdom in technology. So I’m surprised firstly that people would think Dan’s writing on politics would be any different. I’m also (but only slightly) surprised that people stop reading what they disagree with. You never learn anything that way…!

39 Nathan { 11.04.08 at 5:15 am }

If those in the religious sector want to monopolize marriage then let them. But it then must be completely taken out of the public sector. That means no insurance benefits, no tax breaks, no powers of attorneys, and nothing else; only the recognition of whichever deity they seek. Then gay couples that want a spiritual union can form the churches that fit their beliefs. I think this would actually revolutionize the church in a good way, globally.

Secondly, the people that can not accept Dan’s political rhetoric without separating it from his techno savvy are not going to be missed. Who are you kidding? You read his writings because of his insight. You won’t stop reading his tech articles because you craaaavvveee them. You’ll be back.

40 montana { 11.04.08 at 5:52 am }

Gee, Dan-
Here I am an agnostic leftist whose gay best friend just came into town to visit, and I’m damn excited to see him (all true!), and yet your anti-mormon tirade has made me ill enough that I can’t decide whether to vomit or to kick your ass (again, I’m not even Christian, let alone mormon- but I can’t stomach your anal-expulsive rhetoric. Maybe if you came to Montana I could whether to puke or punch . . . hope you do come!). God! (Christians please pardon my expression) Dan you used to be an A+ blog, but this kind of post is as annoying to this leftist agnostic as a KKK blog would be. Embarrassing!

[Riling up the wingnuts is expected, but upsetting the "agnostic leftist in Montana" not only seems improbable but also redundant. The idea of an agnostic leftist ever not being on the verge of throwing up and/or violence is as hard to picture as a militant feminist with a sense of humor. ]

41   { 11.04.08 at 10:50 am }

You’re absolutely right, Dan–*individuals* (read: “citizens”) who are members of the LDS church, of both California and elsewhere, have donated significantly to Prop 8. The LDS Church, as an organization? not so much. A little over $2K.

California is well known as a “bell weather” state. Non-California citizens are also contributing because they are afraid that where California goes, other states will follow. There is nothing, NOTHING going on here that is illegal, immoral, or unethical, neither from the Church nor its members, nor the members of other faiths and organizations. Just citizens exercising their rights. Why the outrage?

Or, do you mean that, because you do not agree/understand/tolerate their position, you would like to see contributions from these particular individuals stiffled and their rights restricted? Do you think the campaign opposing prop 8 has no high-profile or big-money donors? That’s laughable, and you know it. (BTW, wouldn’t it be an interesting study to analyze contributions to see which set of contributions had more in-state vs. out-of-state, and which was more “grass roots” (e.g., lots of small donors vs. very large donors.) Just thinking out loud.)

In response to someone complaining that Dan’s charter doesn’t allow him to do politics: hog wash. This is his blog. He can do and say whatever he pleases, provided he is willing and able to accept responsibility for it. I may not agree with him, but give him credit: he’s open enough to publish even this! (though he often can’t resist making editorial comments–especially on mine lately ;-)

On quitting reading Dan’s blog: Dan writes very intelligently and convincingly about Macintosh and Apple. As an Apple fan, it seems more honest and balanced to me. I like that. When he delves into politics, however, I know, feel, and believe (and think!?) differently. I can handle disagreement, but the tone appears to change: it suddenly becomes hostile and intolerant. It is not our differences, it’s the vitrol and ad hominem attacks that make me now question his judgement–in every sphere. The truth is, this right-wingnut Mormon is sitting pretty close to agnostic-leftist “montana” and his gay friend right now. Thanks, “montana”!

(Sorry to talk about you in third person, Dan. No disrespect intended.)

[On the contrary - I'm simply stating the facts involved. The extremist fringe of right wing-nuts have insisted repeatedly that I not discuss certain subjects, as you are well aware. They have badgered my web host and have on several occasions tried to scare people away from hiring me, simply because they didn't like what I said about a given topic.

On the other hand, my criticism is of religions seeking, not just to express their views, but to write discrimination into the constitution of other states and outlaw other's rights.

The reason Utah exists is because the Mormons fled from the NE to find a place to practice polygamy. For their church to now seek to oppress other people is the height of absurdity. An 'ad hominem' attack is an emotional attack on the surface rather than a rational discussion of the real issues. So I think you have that backward, too.

Whatever happens, I think the 'let us define marriage' LDS, the toe-tapping 'Moral Majority,' and the White Taliban extremist evangelicals will experience a reversal of fortune as people discover what hateful bigotry seethes inside their thin layer of self righteous piety. Recall that Jesus condemned the religion of his day as being "whitewashed graves that look beautiful on the outside but inside are full of dead people's bones and every kind of impurity" (Matthew 23:27) and condemned those who prayed in public for show: "And whenever you pray, don't be like the hypocrites who love to stand in the synagogues and on the street corners so that they will be seen by people." (Matthew 6:5)]

42   { 11.04.08 at 10:52 am }

(BTW, if you want to talk about non-citizens *illegally* contributing to a campaign, have I got story for you…oh wait! ABC, CBS, NBC, NPR, NYT, SFChron, WashPo, et al. don’t want us to hear about that until Wednesday, do they. Sorry! Another time, perhaps.)

[Don't put words in my mouth. LDS isn't doing anything illegal (AFAIK) in telling people they will be excommunicated for not supporting its political aspirations and commanding them to support Prop 8 with their time and resources. The issue is that LDS is being outrageously hypocritical in denying marriage for people who have weak political rights while pretending to be pro-family. If gays can't get married, they will continue to live without family rights related to visitation and insurance and other legal issues. The Mormons are attacking the very thing they want to suggest they are big on, just because they want to discriminate against gays who are not part of their church. A hundred years ago they wanted to marry lots of women. They have discriminated against blacks since. So you're not really in a position to cast the first stone here.

Also, if you're trying to suggest that the fall of fascism is not coming at the hands of individual Americans and instead is being funded primarily by foreigners, well that just gives me another reason to take you less seriously. ]

43 TUJR { 11.04.08 at 5:42 pm }

Daniel… It tickles me pink to see you attacking Prop 8 with one hand while taking money from banner ads at the top of your site with the other.

Keep up the good work!

[Yes, and don't forget to click for maximum ad budget depleting effect.]

44 montana { 11.05.08 at 12:26 am }

Dan-
Your response to my post seemed both humorous and confused- let me thank you for the laugh you gave me, and let me explain my logic (and my subsequent ill-temper).

First, let me defend myself, as well as other left-wing agnostics, wherever they live. Qua political group/class, we are not HABITUALLY both violent and nauseous. Far from- indeed most of us generally eat all-too-well, are seldom queasy, and as a result are too overweight/out of shape to beat many people up. (I need to start going back to the gym and get my Che persona back, but I digress . . . ). Mostly we sit in coffee shops and read our post-Lockean/Enlightenment philosophy, being as annoyed by liberalism per se as by conservatism (both are components of the same ill-shaped, ill-formed, philosophical stick).

What am I saying Dan? Mostly a whole lot of nothing, but I want you to know that I honestly respect you as much as I’ve respected any of the bloggers I’ve had the good fortune to read- but take those with a wholesale-different worldview/religious-vantage seriously and respectfully- not because they aren’t wrong (I THINK THAT THEY ARE), but mostly because someone of your thinking and writing skills is all-too-rare in our society, and a person with those skills can effect/change more in this world by bettering the emotions within his rhetoric.

I’m writing this as I’m viewing the results of an election where our country has chosen a man with these skills to be President. I’ve honestly never been this hopeful (or proud of my nation!).

Write right, and be good. Thank you Daniel (if there is a God, may you be blessed . . . ).

45   { 11.05.08 at 3:05 am }

Wow. Censored.

{BTW, threat of excommunication? You’re kidding right? Where do you get this stuff?}

46 marsviolet { 11.05.08 at 3:22 am }

Now that America’s churches have demonstrated their ability to influence politics by manipulating their congregations into banning equal rights for all people, I think the way forward is clear: Churches need to lose their tax exempt status. We need to make this happen.

47 Joel { 11.05.08 at 4:38 am }

Or laws that don’t allow people and institutions to promote discrimination…? Its good to see the US now doesn’t discriminate on race or gender. How about sexuality for the next election…?

48 hodari { 11.05.08 at 7:31 am }

Congratulations to all those who voted in the first Black President of United States of America!. A Brilliant thinker who can think out of the box. Way to go!

49 hmciv { 11.05.08 at 7:35 am }

Actually the Bible does grade some sins worse than others, depending on which version and which section of the Bible you’re in.

Leviticus 20:13 “If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.” (NIV)

[Leviticus also proscribes death for eating pork, fornication (like Palin's daughter) and mouthing off to your parents and lots of other stuff. If your concept of Christianity seeks to push the world back well past the 13th century BCE rather than the 13th century CE (the goal of MOST radical christianists) well then you're even more specialized in your beliefs than the common wingnut. ]

But the point is not does God hate gays or politicians more. The point is there is a group of people (Including Obama, Palin, McCain and Joe the VP) who do not support gay marriage.

[There is no correlation between "supporting gay marriage" in a political sense and supporting the revocation of civil rights for gays to marry in a state where they have the legal right. This is one point you don't understand. ]

Many of these people will stick to their guns regardless of legislature or court rulings. Also gay marriage is not thrown in Leviticus as an aside. It is part of a long list of rules God supposedly handed down for followers to live by. That particular section includes several other notions which society still generally acceptes as the norm. This includes not marrying your sister, your father or your camel. Why does gay marriage suddenly get a break in the 20th and 21st centuries? Conversely, why don’t sisters and camels get a break? The number of people with Oedipus complex are a minority but don’t they have rights to marry and be happy?

The Jesus argument is specious for exactly the reason you point out. The Council of Nicaea never included any remarks from Jesus on gay marriage. So no one alive today can suppose his stance on the matter.

[Ridiculous. Jesus came out of the Jewish religion where being gay was penalized with death by stoning. Jesus didn't have to say anything against gays because it was not a controversial idea at the time. But the issue you fail to understand is that the US isn't a nation being led by Jesus and the Bible. If it were, there'd be as much blood running from the public squares as there is in Iran. ]

As for your closing remark, I was not aware knowledge of a subject supposed guilt. I didn’t even know I had a religious book or that I was trying to get into heaven until you implicated me just now.

Again, the point is not a plug for or against gay marriage. The point is neither side (as you exhibited in your reaction) will give ground because both claim the moral high ground. Changing one side’s opinion or finding a compromise will be difficult issue with no easy answers for a long time.

[It's not a compromise once you give up your demand to push your religion on others while cowardly saying that you're only 'redefining words' that really don't impact anyone apart from making you feel smug, and that you don't really hate anyone. Covering up bigotry and hatred with a cross and a flag didn't work for the Nazis, and it won't work in the US either. ]

50 thebob { 11.05.08 at 7:53 am }

An excellent article, that covers a subject involving many people in the IT sector in California.

Amazing to read Christian posters attempting to claim the moral high ground, for their bigoted views, and excellent to read Daniel’s replies.

I firmly believe that consenting adults should not be discriminated against because of their choice of partners.

To the church of LDS, I know this is true because I read it in the bottom of my hat!

51 marsviolet { 11.05.08 at 7:58 am }

All forms of intolerance and discrimination are evil.

52 thebob { 11.05.08 at 8:27 am }

@swinn “There are basic truths that everyone should be able to agree one no matter what side they take on this issue. . .

1) Most law is based on the public perception of what is moral.
2) Homosexuality is a moral issue.
3) Religions teach morality.

Morality is not a set of rules in a dusty old book.
Homosexuality should be of no concern to people not engaged in it.
Religions constrain the pursuit of truth by an arbitrary set of rules proposed by a mythical deity.

@swinn”Using highly charged emotional language, ridicule, or insinuations of conspiracy to make an argument does not speak well for the rationality of the case you are making.”

Your circular logic may work on young minds in faith schools, but here your a posteriori assertions are open to the ridicule they deserve.

53 Ephilei { 11.05.08 at 6:10 pm }

@Daniel
Your site. Do what you want. Those who don’t like it can (and may) leave.

Thanks for sticking up for us. If I marry, it will be same-sex. Maybe next time, do it a few days earlier.

54 hmciv { 11.06.08 at 1:26 am }

There is a correlation between supporting gay marriage and civil rights. A state which halts gay marriage is no better for gays than a state which denies gay marriage from the start. In either state, Senators McCain and Hillary are just as likely to NOT back gay marriage. Civll unions with equal treatment, sure, but they don’t like gay marriage. Maybe the politicians are being savvy about their views rather than honest.

Homosexuality was a relevant topic in Jesus’ time. Jesus preached to more people than just straight laced Jews. (Now that I think about it, most of Jesus’ apostles were scum bags.) Some whom Jesus tried to recruit (Greeks/Romans) engaged in homosexual activity. But we do not have any comments from Jesus on the matter so we can only wonder what he thought about the subject or how he likes being used as a crutch in a charged social/political discourse.

[Yeah: Jesus didn't "try to recruit" Greeks and Romans. He exclusively addressed Jews and Samaritans (who were mixed Hebrews). Matt. 10:5 "Go not into the way of the Gentiles" Matt. 15:24 "I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel" John 4:22 "Salvation is of the Jews". This isn't a matter of conjecture or opinion. It's a basic concept of the Bible. Nobody that Jesus addressed tolerated homosexuality. Christians didn't begin evangelizing non-Jews until Paul in Acts, at which time Jesus was dead. Literally, for Christ's sake, don't make shit up to impress us with your capacity for supposition.]

Next, you lost me with “If it were [a nation being led by Jesus], there’d be as much blood running from the public squares as there is in Iran.” Jesus was not a proponent of Mosaic punishment. (“If any one of you is without sin, let him be the first to throw a stone at her.”) And what does the democratic process in a country which separates church and state have to do with Iran’s theocratic republic anyway?

[Proponents of replacing the Constitution with the Bible don't follow Jesus, they prefer a return to the stoning of Leviticus, the place where the Bible advocates throwing rocks at gays until they die. Proponents of what Jesus talked about don't advocate setting up a human-run theocracy in the first place, because Jesus never advocated that.]

Crying Nazi is a neat trick. It implies opponents of gay marriage hope to round up and exterminate people. And I don’t think the Nazi Party was big on Christianity, unless you count Hitler’s “Positives Christentum” which uprooted Jesus’s Jewish origins and minimized a very important part to the story… that He died.

[No it implies you have fascist ideals of pushing your ideology on the populace and scapegoating people you hate. And the Nazi party very effectively used religion, both Protestant churches and in forming a concordat with the Pope.]

So tomato, tomato… potato, potato… gay marriage, civil union. If the poles are right and many of the religious conservatives would be FINE with same sex civil unions, why not call it that for now and let couples unite, get the financial benefits and raise families. THEN start calling it whatever the heck you want to call it. Or is a single word so important, it’s worth disrupting families and preventing adoptions to prove a point?

[Problem is that California doesn't have same sex civil unions. Only VT, CN, NJ, and NH do. Further, a significant difference between marriage and civil unions (or domestic partnerships) is that only marriage offers federal benefits and protections.

According to the federal government's General Accounting Office (GAO), more than 1,100 rights and protections are conferred to U.S. citizens upon marriage. Areas affected include Social Security benefits, veterans' benefits, health insurance, Medicaid, hospital visitation, estate taxes, retirement savings, pensions, family leave, and immigration law.

Because same-sex marriages in Massachusetts and California, civil unions, and domestic partnerships are not federally recognized, any benefits available at the state or local level are subject to federal taxation. For example, a woman whose health insurance covers her female partner must pay federal taxes on the total employer cost for that insurance.

So even the status quo is grossly unfair on legal standing. Your religious ideas would strip gays of further benefits in the name of "protecting" you. That's the issue you don't seem to have the ability to comprehend.]

Please someone pitch an idea polarized Californians can agree on so we can move on to important things like mortgage payments and clean energy.

[How about religious fanatics not bring $70 million in beneficiary-free wars to California to advance their own religious views? I'd much rather have written about Prop 1A, CA High Speed Rail, than why religions are pushing their hate with Prop 8.]

55 hodari { 11.06.08 at 5:12 am }

What is the defintion of Islamicst? I have never heard of this word before. I have heard of Mulsims, Islam etc but not Islamicst.

56 What Prop 8 Means to America — RoughlyDrafted Magazine { 11.06.08 at 2:09 pm }

[...] Mormons, Fundamentalists, Islamists Back Prop H(8) with Big Bucks Former FCC Chair Reed Hundt: Issues the next president faces in technology McCain vs. Obama Presidential Pop Quiz: Socialism McCain, Palin Push Ashley Todd into Limelight. Oops. Apple gives $100,000 to fight California gay marriage ban Terrorist Criminal Links to the Presidential Candidates Obama-Biden, McCain-Palin: Scandals by the Numbers Terrorist Criminal Links to the Presidential Candidates The Big Fannie Mae & Freddie Mac Attack Osama Bin Laden’s Dream of US Economic Collapse You Know the Drill? Ten Striking Parallels Between Microsoft and John McCain Obama’s Apple, McCain’s Microsoft: the Politics of Tech [...]

57 What an Obama Presidency Means for Technology — RoughlyDrafted Magazine { 11.07.08 at 4:27 am }

[...] Prop 8 Means to America Mormons, Fundamentalists, Islamists Back Prop H(8) with Big Bucks Former FCC Chair Reed Hundt: Issues the next president faces in technology McCain vs. Obama [...]

58 StrictNon-Conformist { 11.08.08 at 11:12 pm }

Dan,

Before you even have a chance of being convincing about some topic and being taken seriously, first you need to start with facts, which you have not done a good job in these related postings.

For information I’m using, see here:

http://cbs5.com/local/proposition.8.spending.2.855582.html

The fact of the matter is this: your numbers are close to the total numbers for both sides, and yet, you purposely paint it as being for exactly one side: this is not going to remotely help your case, because this information isn’t a matter of opinion, but of verifiable fact, for those that do just a little effective use of a search engine.

There is so much more you go out of your way and get wrong, but there’s no point in continuing to try to point that out: evidence is that you’ve gone out of your way to censor anything you don’t agree with, regardless of what the reality is, so I would only expect more of the same, logically.

Stick to the technology realm, if you want to have a chance of being taken seriously: going into this realm with all your own bigotry and presumption of facts that just aren’t so, is not going to achieve anything good or valid, and if you truly had no fear of being wrong, you wouldn’t censor those you feel are not right in their replies, as long as they didn’t do something stupid like make death threats against you or some other group (I can’t see that happening, at least not without the inflammatory comments you’ve made about at least one group which has extremists that might do it: I’ll leave that one up to your imagination) because it doesn’t put you in any position that makes you look reasonable.

You must log in to post a comment.