Leave a Comment Sagesse
“We’ve got nuthin”: New video explains entire Prop 8 trial in two minutes
July 17, 2010
By Eden James
As the NOM Tour rolls into Albany, New York, and Providence, Rhode Island, on Saturday and Sunday, we are still waiting for the verdict in the federal Prop 8 trial, which could happen any day (week or month from) now
Fortunately, if there’s anyone who isn’t up to speed on Perry v. Schwarzenegger, Peter Barber Gallagher-Sprigg provides us with an overview of the Prop 8 trial. In two minutes.
Enjoy.
Rob Tisinai just about nailed it, didn’t he?
Keep the comment thread lively over the weekend, as you all usually do, and we’ll keep posting updates as they come in from the road…
Filed under: Trial analysis
25 Comments Leave a Comment
1.
Richard A. Walter (s | July 17, 2010 at 12:25 am
Yes, Rob Tish nailed it right on the head.
2.
eDee | July 17, 2010 at 12:47 am
I have to admit, this is the most honest video I’ve ever watched on supporting the ban of same-sex marriage. lol
3.
Matthew | July 17, 2010 at 12:57 am
He nailed it with this video.
4.
Casey | July 17, 2010 at 1:04 am
I would *love* to see anyone from the other side try to put out a reply video to that. I'm sure they won't…because they can't. Whenever they are proved wrong, they seem to go into "But…but…they're QUEERS!" mode. Because, as it quite rightly says, they got nuthin'.
Posting video to facebook for the education and amusement of others.
5.
PamC | July 17, 2010 at 1:32 am
As I commented somewhere else, my favorite line is "They have no other skills!"
What, make an honest living for a change?
6.
Sagesse | July 17, 2010 at 1:52 am
Love this video. Rob Tisani has a way of making his points succinctly and emphatically. It's a gift.
7.
Sagesse | July 17, 2010 at 1:55 am
This is an addendum to my previous post on the Argentina marriage thread about the impact of a nation's political structure on how it recognizes civil rights, and LGBT rights in particular. Reposting here because I'm not sure how many people here are still watching the older threads.
Canada, and many western countries define marriage nationally… once. Civil unions/DP is a less controversial compromise. Thus, nationwide, the UK has civil unions, Canada has marriage equality. In the US, the option of civil unions/DPs exists in every state.
When measuring public opinion in the US, if you add together the people who think civil unions are ok and the people who think marriage equality is ok, you get a majority who favour legal recognition of same sex partnerships in some form… This compares with the 70% approval in Argentina. It also compares with the 70%, more or less, approval ratings in the US for other LGBT rights (DADT, ENDA) that don't involve marriage. So long as the marriage vote is 'split' between marriage and civil unions, it's harder to get past 50% marriage approval, because DP is a middle of the road alternative.
Don't know where I'm going with this, but perhaps there is a way to shift the national discussion (and Supreme Court arguments) to understanding that the support for legal recognition is broader that five states plus DC, and broader than explicit approval for marriage in polling would suggest?
8.
Ķĭŗîļĺę& | July 17, 2010 at 2:13 am
I liked that video when I watched it several days ago.
Rob has many interesting videos like that one.
Check them out, people!
9.
Dpeck | July 17, 2010 at 2:26 am
The point you make here reminds me of a quote:
" The enemy of the best is not the 'worst'. The enemy of the best is the 'good enough'. "
Meaning if we settle for second best, or if the public feels they have the option of GIVING us second best and that this will be the end of the issue, it's harder for us to get what we are really entitled to, which is true equality.
10.
Kathleen | July 17, 2010 at 2:33 am
Just subscribing
11.
Matt Baume | July 17, 2010 at 3:01 am
A delightful summary. It seems as though the Proponents simply weren't prepared to present evidence, while Olsen and Boies were.
Rob and I are doing similar work — last week I put together a video summarizing the last two years under Prop 8. That video is here: http://Stop8.org/2010/07/everything-you-need-to-k…
12.
Rob Tisinai | July 17, 2010 at 3:08 am
Hey Eden, thanks for linking to the vid. It went to a whole new level when one of NOM's Facebook pages debated whether it's a parody.
And in that same thread, the guy driving the NOM tour bus claimed the video proves we can't have civil equality because — well, you have to read it to believe it. Check it out here:
http://wakingupnow.com/blog/im-so-very-very-sorry
13.
Bob | July 17, 2010 at 3:31 am
great point Dpeck, in Canada, we comopormised, we have civil unions,, which do give us all the benefits, we avoided the whole religious right argument, by doing that. (settling for good enough),
That's why I find the prop 8 case so compelling, you seem to be going all the way, equality, rights=rights, no compromise, and in so doing have the ability to expose the religious right for who lthey are,
maybe there is a benefit to this long drawn out battle, being fought state by state, and engaging our only enemy, (the religious right), In Canada we certainly didn't engage the enemy in the way you are.
You may feel like you're lagging behind, but in essence you are out in front, taking the battle to it's rightfull conclusion, marriage equality, in every sense of the word.
14.
Kevin | July 17, 2010 at 3:33 am
Bob's comment is confusing. Canada has civil marriage, not civil unions; and they have been available to same-sex couples since 2005.
15.
Ronnie | July 17, 2010 at 4:06 am
They were calling this video a satire on that hate filled (supports murder & violence towards LGBT people) "Protect" Marriage: One Man One Woman Facebook page….
They are uneducated fools…<3…Ronnie
16.
Ķĭŗîļĺę& | July 17, 2010 at 4:11 am
@Kevin
Bob probably meant to say civil marriages, not civil unions.
I can't imagine him making that mistake like that.
Civil marriage (as the state sees it) is really nothing but a civil union with the name marriage.
Maybe, that's what he meant?
17.
Michelle Evans | July 17, 2010 at 4:29 am
"In the US, the option of civil unions/DPs exists in every state."
I do not believe that this statement is true. Not by a long shot. There are many American states that do not allow DPs or CUs. Look at the recent decision against CUs in Hawaii. There's only like 11 states that offer DPs and maybe 4 that have CUs.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_union
18.
Sagesse | July 17, 2010 at 4:40 am
Bob, I'm confused by your post that "in Canada, we comopormised, we have civil unions". Canada has full marriage equality.
19.
Sagesse | July 17, 2010 at 4:50 am
The distinction is between civil marriage and religious marriage. All marriages are civil (legal) marriages, recognized by the marriage licence and marriage certificate, both legal documents. Not all marriages are religious marriages.
20.
Sagesse | July 17, 2010 at 4:57 am
Michelle, I agree. What I meant was that any state can permit one or the other (or neither). Public and legislative opinion gets split between (a) approve marriage (b) approve civil unions but not marriage, or (c) a state DOMA (or silence that implies DOMA). (a) and (b) are both levels of approval. If you ask "Do you approve of same sex marriage?" you're only capturing (a).
When you make the decision nationally, like Argentina just did, the option of civil unions is off the table for the entire country. In the US, it's always on the table somewhere.
21.
Bob | July 17, 2010 at 6:17 am
Ohy, bad day, for me for tykpoing, (meds), and confusion, Krill, is closest to what I meant to say, it;s civil marriage,
and Sargesse also in the distinction betwen civil marriage, opposed to religiious marriage,
and really civil marriage is like Krill says just a different word for civil union, the compromise being the trade of union for marriage.
personally, I'm just saying that if we left the word civil out of it, and just called it marriage, that would be more clear.
civil marriage is way more equal than I ever thought of experiencing in my lifetime, and is totally good enough, if I wasn't already influenced by religion and living in a faimily that would be on that NOM bus. Those people still do not recognize my marriage.
so we're equal in the secular world, but I'm pushing for change and acceptance withing the church, and this will happen one day, and is happening to some extent in main line religions,
This happens by a constant dialog, debunking the myths, challenging the bigotry, so that bit by bit we chip away at the false underpinnings of belief that is forged in irrational prejudice.
22.
JonT | July 17, 2010 at 7:21 am
رکنیت
23.
Chris B | July 17, 2010 at 10:08 am
I just saw the Albany NOM counter-protesters and then watched this video. It reminded me of that great quote by Blankenhorn: “We would be more American the day we allow same-sex marriage.” It would be AWESOME to put that quotation on the counter-protest posters, attributing it to the expert witness against gay marriage. (probably the irony would be lost though…)
24.
Tuffwreslr | July 17, 2010 at 11:14 pm
Every paycheck those cretins get is dirty money…they feed their families with money made by targeting, abusing and hurting innocents.
How sad is it that these "people of god" work tireless hours to try to prevent happiness, tear apart families, drive adolescents to suicide, and keep parent-less children in orphanages rather than loving homes. Very Christ-like indeed.
I'm glad this is all documented so well so when their children hold press conferences to apologize in shame in few years, we can cross reference.
25. Treasure Hunters Roadshow&hellip | May 13, 2011 at 12:18 am
this was great…
[..]fantastic.[..]…
Leave a Comment
XHTML: You can use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>
TrackBack URL | RSS feed for comments on this post.