i am so sick of being told what to think and what to believe and being called "intolerant" if i refuse. yet the same people calling me intolerant are the most intolerant people of opposing views than anyone else i've ever seen.
sorry. names and bully tactics don't work on me and you'll never change my mind.
No one is telling you what to think here. We're just expressing what we think. If someone else expressing their opinion makes you feel like you're being "told what to think" you may want to look at why you feel that way when someone expresses an opinion different than yours. I send you light and blessings, even though we disagree.
I believe that the ad this video mimics was bigotry and I think that by replacing the word "gay" with the word "black" the bigotry becomes evident. In my opinion, the original commercial promoted irrational fears that were not based in truth and was an attack on gay people and that is what was bigoted about it.
I send you light & blessing as well, even though we disagree.
He that would make his own liberty secure, must guard even his enemy (or someone he disagrees with) from opposition; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach himself. ~Thomas Paine
If I could change one heart away from discrimination and hate this would be good, so if you are reading this and you have doubt in your heart about prop 8 and you feel inside that it is wrong to discriminate even if you don't personally agree....go to that voting poll, you are all alone, vote NO against discrimination!!!! No on H8 No on Prop 8!!!
If I could change one heart away from discrimination and hate this would be good, so if you are reading this and you have doubt in your heart about prop 8 and you feel inside that it is wrong to discriminate even if you don't personally agree....go to that voting poll, you are all alone, vote NO against discrimination!!!!
It is the proponents of same-sex marriage who express nearly all the hate -- because in fact many of them do hate, loudly and continuously. But hate in the name of love has a long pedigree.
These charges of "hate" against proponents of retaining the man-woman definition of marriage do not speak well for those who make them. I, for one, find it easy to believe that most opponents and most proponents of Proposition 8 are decent people. I think they are wrong, but I do not question their decency.
dear theMediaFork... The "yes on 8" ad that I re-did here was a hateful ad. You don't want to see it. There's nothing I can do about that. You will conivince yourself otherwise no matter what I do or say.
I say to you what I said to 'zebostoneleigh' earlier...
"There are none so blind as those who WILL not see." - John Heywood
Nice work Jen.Bottom line is this,we're all human,bleed red, breathe air,experience love in a 1000 different ways. No one should be so self-righteous/pious as to dictate the rights of another. This country was built on freedom of choice, all created equal,inalienable rights, not subject to change to make it convenient for personal beliefs or opinions. This is the 21st century,though it seems some people would be more comfortable in the 19th.
Ideally, I think marriage (a legal contract written by the state, subject to change without notice to the persons bound by the contract, and subject to every political whim that comes along) should be dumped. It is a civil contract, and thse entering it should write their own, with no particular input from the state, unless force is incurred or one of the parties is underage. That being said, if marriage is a 'right' all citizens should share that right, without regard to their love preferences.
For the logical argument of this add to stand up to scrutiny, the current "Yes on Prop 8" add would have to discuss a straight man marrying a gay woman (or vs versa). Granted, who in the right mind would "want" to do that? But the point still stands. If banning "inter-racial" marriage was wrong (which I agree), then likewise, banning inter sexual preference marriage would be equally "wrong" (and discriminatory).
Huh?... I have a headache trying to understand your logic... it makes no sense at all to me.
Here's what I think... I think the analogy in my video is "spot-on" correct and does point out a bigotry... and I think you don't like to hear what I'm saying, so you are rationalizing and creating your own logic so you don't have to look at the ugly truth... that the 'Yes on 8' ad does promote bigotry against gays.
Sorry about the headache - but I'm serious. Take some time to consider the logic.
The example you posit is one in which the laws no longer restrict marriage across a discriminatory boundary.
Today, the boundary could be defined as "straight/gay". Since a black man can cross that boundary to marry a white woman (thankfully so), then a gay man ought to be able to cross this barrier and marry a straight woman (which he can).
What I'm saying is that the situation in your video posits someone marrying ACROSS a discriminatorily perceived boundary (black/white). Legitimizing gay marriage is not about enabling a gay person to marry across a discriminatory boundary (e.g. to marry a straight person). This is already possible, but unlikely anyone's actual preference.
Either that - or your vid should discuss allowing "blacks to marry blacks."
Dear zebostoneleigh... I'm sorry but your arguement makes no sense, even with your re-explanation. Again I think you're rationalizing and creating your own logic so you don't have to look at the truth that the 'Yes on 8' ad promotes bigotry against gays. If the ad I posted played there would be outrage... and there should be outrage for the real ad against gays... it's bigotry.
The basis of the bigotry in your black/white example is our past experience of dis-allowing blacks and whites to intermarry.
When trying to equate the current situation in CA to that experience in American history... many consider the straight population to be akin to the oppressive white population. If so, then the gay population, by logical necessity, must equate (for the analogy) to the black population.
My point is just that to convince the "Yes on Prop 8" crowd of their errors you have to be strictly accurate in your logic or your efforts will be discounted. Make a video about "blacks not marrying blacks" and you'll be more inline with the current "No on Prop 8" arguments and more accurately portraying the errors of the "Yes on Prop 8" side.
Ok, it took me a second zebostoneeleigh, but I think I get your logic. But I think the video's analogy still holds for exactly what you said: if the video discussed a hypothetical ad in which black/black or white/white marriages were legal, there would be outrage. Yes on prop 8 forces marriage to take place across a boundary. It forces it to be mixed sex. Which is still a discrimination , and fundamentally un-American.
Having read Prop8NO's comments since, I realize s/he is apparently focusing on a different issue... the symbolism of the add (but not the logic).
You (having openly explored my theory) have suggested one I had never considered - the "they force marriage across a boundary" idea. This is one I'll have to mull over.
Funny, I saw that recent "Yes" ad a few days ago and thought someone should totally make a video like the one posted here
When I see people on the streets with their "Yes on 8" posters I feel these are the same people who would have been protesting AGAINST the Civil Rights Movement if these were different times
Thanks! And yes I agree with you. It's hard for me to see how people don't see a parallel to the bigotry against black people & other minorities. The only difference is that one bigotry is about skin color and one is about sexual preference. And folks can wrap it in their religious beliefs all they want, but to me, it's still bigotry.
it speaks volumes that when confronted with an actual example that shows the fallacy in your original argument that you don't argue back or prove anything to be of false reasoning, you simply say "your position is bigoted. i dont agree".
My statement and premise is exactly correct. the state of california recently changed what marriage is defined as for the state of california. that doesnt make either my premise nor the statement drawn from it at all incorrect.
I HAVE argued back. Are you not reading what I wrote? I don't think you want to hear what I have to say. That's what I think the issue is. No your statement & premise are not correct. Please read the comments I wrote where I explain myself on that. And again I urge you to re-study how our system works (as I said in a previous comment).
I reread to see if I missed something and... nope. I was good. you didn't present any new information. again: repeating previous arguments is not "arguing back"
Whatever you need to do to rationalize your beliefs... There's nothing I can do to change you. I think your point of view is wrong, bigoted, fearful, judgemental, discriminatory and not cool. And you think my point of view is wrong. I think I have offered you many good points and you just haven't wanted to hear them.
As I said to zebostoneleigh & VideoLies...
I won't convince you the ad was bigoted for this reason...
"There are none so blind as those who WILL not see." - John Heywood
discrimination would be if a straight man couldn't marry a man but a gay man could, or if a black man couldn't marry a woman but a white man could. that's not the case. the dictums for marriage is that it forms an institution for the union of opposite sexes. so the fact that man A cant marry another man and man B cant marry another man = equality. entering into the fact that man B WANTS to marry another man and man A doesn't and crying bigotry over this is ridiculously dishonest.
I don't agree with your logic & I think you have conveniently created your own logic to justify your bigoted position.
No the "dictums" for marriage are NOT that they "form an institution for the union of opposite sexes". The Supreme Court of CA has ruled that they "form an institution of the union of" EITHER opposite OR same sexes. So your statement and your premise is incorrect.
And yes it is bigotry, in my book, to put an ad on like the "Yes on 8" ad which video ad challenges.
obviously its bigotry "in your book". the challenge is not to repeat the clearly stated position in the video, but rather to explain its flimsy reasoning.
you seek to not only redefine the word "marriage" but also the word "bigot".
Webster definition of bigotry: "One fanatically devoted to one's own group, religion, race or politics and intolerant of those who differ."
I think, based on the definition, it's pretty clear I have not redefined the word "bigotry". And I'm not redefining "marriage" either, just opening it up to include others, as it should. Only decades ago interracial marriage was illegal, but society (against the wishes of some) realized that was wrong. That's what's going on now with gay marriage.
The definition proves you wrong, but you think based on it that its "pretty clear" you havent redefined it? makes no sense. Proponents of marriage, by definition arent fanatically devoted to a group and intolerant of those who differ. it takes a huge degree of blindness to apply those words not to your side, but the side you are so intolerant of that you forcibly seek to change. you could have a point if the issue was raised and fought for by prop8 types, but they are merely REacting
Again, the definition I found in Websters said nothing of man and woman. And again, decades ago interracial marriage was illegal so we "redefined" it then by changing that law... and rightfully so. It was discriminatory. As is Prop 8.
Look these back and forths are getting boring to me. You're not learning anything from me and I'm not from you. I think you should just move on.
Dictionary says the definition is: the social institution under which a man and woman establish their decision to live as husband and wife by legal commitments, religious ceremonies, etc.
so yes, you are not being honest in saying you don't want to redefine it. when you "open up" the Boy Scouts to girls, you havent opened up anything. you've redefined - or rather UNdefined it.
AGAIN you use the phony and despicable smear of comparing sex and race. repeating that lie seems to be all you have...
No my dictionary. Webster's dictionary definition of 'marriage': The state of being maried: wedlock. The act of marrying or the ceremony of being married. Close union.
The Boy Scouts is a private institution. Marriage is a public institution and should be open to all and not discriminatory.
My ad is not phony or despicable. It makes a really good point. If my ad played there would be public outrage (rightfully so) & the real 'Yes on 8' ad is just as bad. It's bigoted and not cool.
i want to wear shorts to my local steak house. am i being discriminated against because there's a dress code? i want the right to eat steak in that institution that pre-existed me and i want to change the rules for everyone who goes there (and who cares, cuz "how will it affect THEIR dinner if i'm allowed to wear shorts? right?).
If the steakhouse refused you service because of the color of your skin, then YES it would be discrimination.
And there was a time in this country when my afforementioned scenario was the case for black people. And yes we "changed the rules for everyone" and gave the right to black people to eat in institutions that "pre-existed" them.
I really think you are trying hard with your twisted logic to justify your opinion but to me, it still is what it is... twisted logic.
obviously if it were the color of my skin it would be discrimination. why did you answer a question i didnt ask? maybe because my example points out the fallacy of you equating skin color with lifestyle choice.
i was born being more comfortable in shorts. you're saying its bigotry to not allow me to change the definition of formal-wear so i and those like me can feel a little better against the will of the majority who have already voted on the definition twice.
Here's why I answered the way I did. Because the right for a private institution to require a dress code has not been deemed unconstitutional or discrimination. But the right to refuse someone for the color of their skin HAS been deemed as discrimination or unconstitutional.
So your premise doesn't fit.
And if you WANT to sue a restaurant for not allowing you to wear shorts it IS your constitutional right to do so. Go for it!
As for your statement about going "against the will of the majority who have already voted on the definition twice", I refer you to my reply to TOPIKTOAD (below)... I urge you to re-study how our government works.
Laws are OFTEN brought before the courts & deemed unconstitutional. If you have a problem with HOW the CA Supreme Court determined the law unconstitutional, then you have a problem with how our government is set up & how it has run since it's formation.
I understand that you don't AGREE with the CA Supreme Court's decision and I respect your right to that opinion. But to imply that what they did by MAKING a decision is wrong, is in my opinion, showing an ignorance as to how our system of government works.
this is a bizarre answer you've given because the challenge is essentially that "your argument that behavior and ethnicity are on equal planes when it comes to discrimination is fallacious" and you answered "ya, but what about race? thats the same as behavior".
you should combat the challenge. instead it appears that you've ignored it just to restate your original case.
Here's the argument I've made (& I disagree it's bizarre). If this ad I made played on TV there would be outrage (& rightfully so). But because it's socially acceptable to put gay people down, the 'Yes on 8' ad still plays. And that's not cool with me, because the ad is bigoted against homosexuals.
Dude, I put my opinion out there and you don't agree. Just state your disagreement & move on. You're entitled to your opinion. But you're not going to change mine and no amount of you telling me my analogy is wrong or "fallacious" etc. is going to change my mind. You have not changed my perspective one bit. And I'm sure I haven't changed yours.
twisted logic? using the fallacy of an incongruous analogy as a red herring to avoid answering the legitimate challenge posed to your original fallacious argument is not exactly shining the spotlight of truth on your ideological opponent.
First of all, this statement comes across as you trying WAY too hard to sound important & scholarly. You don't need to do that. I respect you as a person, regardless of whether I agree with you, so no need to prove yourself or to try to sound "smarter" than me by using flowery words. You can just share your opinion. I'll listen.
Up until now I have never had any problem with Gays, Mormons and Catholics. I DONT HATE ANYBODY, but I feel that back in 2002 It was the will of the people that voted against same sex marriage. Then some Judges say nope your vote did not mean a darn thing. Then why Vote people. Also I dont want my son who is only 6 years old to be exposed to any type of sexaul choice, He is only 6....dont you get it. I feel as though all this is getting shoved down my throat and thats why I'm Voting Yes ON 8
I'm not trying to be disrespectful, but your statement shows your ignorance as to how our system of government works. I urge you to re-study/re-learn how our government is formed & how it works. Laws are OFTEN brought before the courts and deemed unconstitutional. That's nothing new. It just so happens that you don't agree with this decision, but if you say you have a problem with how it occured then you have a problem with how our government is set up & how it has run since it's formation.
Before casting their ballots, those few undecided voters should reflect on their 22,000 fellow Californians who with trembling voices and quaking hearts said, I do.
Vote for them. VOTE NO ON 8! Don't let the Mormon Church rewrite our Constitution! Please VOTE NO ON 8!
The video shows flawed reasoning. It assumes a false analogy between interracial marriage and gay marriage. The argument from Yes on 8 people, like myself, is that marriage, by its very essence is not the sort of thing that's capable of being entered into by members of the same sex. It IS the kind of thing that can be entered into interracially. Hence the disanalogy. Because the very nature of marriage is heterosexual, no one is being denied their basic civil rights if prop 8 passes. Yes on 8.
As for flawed reasoning... You said, "marriage, by its very essence is not the sort of thing that's capable of being entered into by members of the same sex". But it's already PROVEN to be capable. People in MA & CA have done it so your point has already been disproven. Also, only decades ago interracial marriage WAS illegal. And there were people THEN that felt about interracial marriage what you NOW feel about gay marriage. And it all worked out and those folks opposed to it were proven wrong.
Prop8NO, thanks for your reply. When I say it's "not capable," I don't mean that a lawmaker is incapable of putting forth a piece of legislation purporting otherwise, for that certainly happens. What I mean is that marriage, if entered into by homosexuals, ceases to be marriage.
No, rules based on bathrooms for sexual orientation would be unconstitutional. As a matter of fact, the CA Supreme Court did say that "sexual orientation" should be protected along with race and creed. And I agree.
I don't mean to be disrespectful, but I'm really getting bored with our conversations.
As for the analogy being a "false" one... An analogy is "correspondence in some respects between otherwise unlike things", so my analogy isn't false at all... it's actually a very good analogy. You just don't agree with it.
About analogies, for an analogy to hold, I think you'll recognize that the correspondence, as you say in your definition, cannot be between just any respects you please; it needs to be relevantly similar. But that's just the problem: Interracial and gay marriage happen to be fundamentally different in that very aspect for which your analogy would need them them to be the same: interracial marriage is consistent with the essence of marriage whereas gay marriage is not.
No interracial marriage and gay marriage are not fundamentally different. Gay marriage is a marriage. That is the point the Supreme Court of California made when it legalized same sex marriages.
there is no comparison between different races and the different genders. There are no inherent racial differences; there are significant differences between the sexes. To the extent that racial groups are different, they are only because their cultures differ. But a black man's nature is not different from that of a white man, an Asian man, an Hispanic man.
So let me understand your logic. Your arguement is that because the races are similar then marriage is ok (since races are similar & the sexes are not similar)... Ummmm... with your logic then you should think that same sex marriage is BETTER then opposite sex marriage. Because two men are SIMILAR and a man & a woman are NOT similar.
As for saying "there is no comparison"... Websters definition of "analogy": Correspondence in some respects between otherwise unlike things. I made an analogy.
please read what i actually said... races are not "similar" as you falsely paraphrased me as claiming. they are indistinguishable. SAME.
no where in my comment did i claim that sameness should be grouped together by the government as you also falsely paraphrased (im noticing a trend of "smear the opponent" as a tool to rebut their claims). i said quite the opposite. reread what i said and if you still fail to understand its basis then we'll go from there.
The same is not true of sex differences. Males and females are inherently different from one another. We now know that even their brains differ. And those differences are significant. Thus, to oppose interracial marriage is indeed to engage in bigotry, but to oppose same-sex marriage is not. It simply shares the wisdom of every moral system that preceded us -- society is predicated on men and women bonding with one another in a unique way called "marriage."
Webster's definition of predicated: "To find a basis for; establish".
No society is not "predicated on men & women bonding with one another in a unique way called marriage". We can have society without marriage. You may not want a society without marriage but it IS possible to have one.
And if we DO have the institution of marriage (which we currently do), then it should be an institution open to all people... all races, creed AND sexual orientations. Otherwise it is discriminatory.
It's getting confusing here as to which reply you're replying to (because they don't show up underneath the replies) so let me take my best stab at this.
Yes, society can survive without marriage. The only thing we need to "survive" is either sex between a man & woman or, access to sperm & a woman to inseminate who is willing to carry a child to term.
Marriage is a choice to have in our society... and I have no problem with marriage. But it should be open to all & not discriminatory.
Here's my issue with your comments. You call my analogy "false" and my arguement "flawed" as though YOU are the arbiter of analogies and flawed theories. And I don't concede the position of "arbiter" to you. It is a matter of your opinion. And I don't agree with you.
"The video shows flawed reasoning. It assumes a false analogy between interracial marriage and atheist marriage. The argument from people, like myself, is that marriage, by its very essence is not the sort of thing that's capable of being entered into by atheists. It IS the kind of thing that can be entered into interracially. Hence the disanalogy. Because the very nature of marriage is religious, no one is being denied their basic civil rights..."
ALL GAYS ARE BEING DENIED THEIR BASIC CIVIL RIGHTS!
Covering a spouse on a working spouse's insurance, The right to care for a spouse's remains in death.
And not all gay people who want to get married are atheist.
The state and the fed has a constitutional mandate to offer marriage and all the rights that go with it, to every citizen there is a constitutional mandate in the bill of rights that is supposed to guarantee the separation of your church and the people's state.
Who on earth (besides YOU) said anything about atheists? Clearly the State and Federal governments do not agree with your assertion that marriage is fundamentally religious, or there would be no marriages performed as "civil ceremonies". Look at how your own statement shows changed assumptions (and laws) since the civil rights movement of the '60's. Gay marriage will hurt NO ONE, nor deprive ANYONE of their rights. My marriage can in no way be threatened by anyone else being married.
AMEN! I've told my friends that if any of them vote yes on Prop 8 they can go to hell, that I will no longer associate with them and that I won't feel bad about it. Regardless of black/white, gay/straight, whatever/whatever, it is WRONG to vote to eliminate the rights of other Americans. I just won't stand for that kind of bigotry and elitism in my friend circle. Prop 8 is WRONG and it's UN-American. Shame on anyone who votes yes.
That's pretty harsh language. I hope you don't tell your friends those things in the name of wanting to advance an attitude of tolerance, because it seems like the one group of people you're ok not being tolerant of are those who disagree with you.
geibofosser, I don't agree that it shows ActressLuchyGarcia's ignorance. Although I do concede that the African-American, Hispanic, Asian, Muslim communities have a reputation for being anti-gay (I've heard that too) it doesn't mean that the "Yes on 8" ad that this video challenges isn't bigoted.
People who have experienced bigotry against them can still be bigoted themselves. Having been a victim of bigotry doesn't make you immune from it. It's something we ALL must be self-vigilant about.
They forgot to add that a person who thinks like this has a tendency to be racist as well. GREAT JOB JENN!!!! Definition: a bigot is a person who is intolerant of opinions, lifestyles, or identities differing from his or her own, and bigotry is the corresponding state of mind. Bigot is often used as a pejorative term against a person who is obstinately devoted to prejudices even when these views are challenged or proven to be false or not universally applicable or acceptable
Wow, Jenn. This is a very good argument and clearly shows that Prop 8 is one sided and needs to be shown for what it really it is: MEAN SPIRITED, RACIST, UNFAIR. Fantastic Job.
I do find this ad unacceptable. These bigots need to hide behind the veil of decency, morals and family values in support of such a reprehensible assault on civil rights because they are cowards. Most of the money coming in for support of * are out of state, mainly the Mormon Church and the Knights of Columbus, a uber conservative Catholic Church group. VOTE NO ON 8!
Watch the video again and check out the end where it says "Brought to you by..." in small lettering. I think you'll get a kick out of it, given your statement on who is backing the "Yes on 8" campaign. :o)
OMG this is one of the best video I seen on this subject.
bulrydrdan 1 year ago
That's exactly how their ad's sound.
zperra 2 years ago
The start of it was a shocker, but it is a really good vid.
Arbiter987 2 years ago
i am so sick of being told what to think and what to believe and being called "intolerant" if i refuse. yet the same people calling me intolerant are the most intolerant people of opposing views than anyone else i've ever seen.
sorry. names and bully tactics don't work on me and you'll never change my mind.
locksmithite 2 years ago
No one is telling you what to think here. We're just expressing what we think. If someone else expressing their opinion makes you feel like you're being "told what to think" you may want to look at why you feel that way when someone expresses an opinion different than yours. I send you light and blessings, even though we disagree.
Prop8NO 2 years ago
I agree with this so much. People calling others voting YES bigots are bigots themselves for being so intolerant of other people's opinions
kristarbucks 2 years ago
I don't agree with you kristarbucks.
I believe that the ad this video mimics was bigotry and I think that by replacing the word "gay" with the word "black" the bigotry becomes evident. In my opinion, the original commercial promoted irrational fears that were not based in truth and was an attack on gay people and that is what was bigoted about it.
I send you light & blessing as well, even though we disagree.
Prop8NO 2 years ago
bigotry is bigotry
starryeyedbeautypie 2 years ago
CLEVER!!!!
princessbabe1313 2 years ago
This is a great video! And I'm not just being biased because I'm related to the little girl!
vikingcalif 2 years ago
Thanks! She is a very good little actress! :o)
Prop8NO 2 years ago
THIS. IS. SO. TRUE.
oxvalentineox 3 years ago
amen to that
efrisina 3 years ago
this is so true
93bridges 3 years ago
AMEN!
Existantia 3 years ago
Amen to this video!
yo1o2eggs 3 years ago
thats a good point.
SolarSailors 3 years ago
If i wasn't gay I'd be proposing to you for this...
JadenTheCoolGuy 3 years ago
Thank you for showing this the stupidity of the previous add. Some of the Yes on prop 8 ads really just scream Poe's Law in my mind.
bugbearcub 3 years ago
I love you for putting this up here. That ad is so true...
wanderingchild17 3 years ago
He that would make his own liberty secure, must guard even his enemy (or someone he disagrees with) from opposition; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach himself. ~Thomas Paine
onlybliss 3 years ago
So what the original ad like? How bad was it?
dylanD2000 3 years ago
almost exactly like this but replace african princess with another prince, and the girl marrying a princess.
SolarSailors 3 years ago
This is a cool Video
ChicanoLA 3 years ago
NO on 8! GAYS ARE PEOPLE TOO!!!
spasiboalisher 3 years ago
NO on 8! GAYS ARE PEOPLE TOO!!!
spasiboalisher 3 years ago
If I could change one heart away from discrimination and hate this would be good, so if you are reading this and you have doubt in your heart about prop 8 and you feel inside that it is wrong to discriminate even if you don't personally agree....go to that voting poll, you are all alone, vote NO against discrimination!!!! No on H8 No on Prop 8!!!
carobcoolyn 3 years ago
If I could change one heart away from discrimination and hate this would be good, so if you are reading this and you have doubt in your heart about prop 8 and you feel inside that it is wrong to discriminate even if you don't personally agree....go to that voting poll, you are all alone, vote NO against discrimination!!!!
carobcoolyn 3 years ago
It is the proponents of same-sex marriage who express nearly all the hate -- because in fact many of them do hate, loudly and continuously. But hate in the name of love has a long pedigree.
These charges of "hate" against proponents of retaining the man-woman definition of marriage do not speak well for those who make them. I, for one, find it easy to believe that most opponents and most proponents of Proposition 8 are decent people. I think they are wrong, but I do not question their decency.
theMediaFork 3 years ago
dear theMediaFork... The "yes on 8" ad that I re-did here was a hateful ad. You don't want to see it. There's nothing I can do about that. You will conivince yourself otherwise no matter what I do or say.
I say to you what I said to 'zebostoneleigh' earlier...
"There are none so blind as those who WILL not see." - John Heywood
Prop8NO 3 years ago
Great job Jen!!
NO ON 8!!!!!!
gabriellebirchak 3 years ago
Nice work Jen.Bottom line is this,we're all human,bleed red, breathe air,experience love in a 1000 different ways. No one should be so self-righteous/pious as to dictate the rights of another. This country was built on freedom of choice, all created equal,inalienable rights, not subject to change to make it convenient for personal beliefs or opinions. This is the 21st century,though it seems some people would be more comfortable in the 19th.
Ignorance, prejudice and fear walk hand in hand.
stim2112 3 years ago
Ideally, I think marriage (a legal contract written by the state, subject to change without notice to the persons bound by the contract, and subject to every political whim that comes along) should be dumped. It is a civil contract, and thse entering it should write their own, with no particular input from the state, unless force is incurred or one of the parties is underage. That being said, if marriage is a 'right' all citizens should share that right, without regard to their love preferences.
adrienrain 3 years ago
For the logical argument of this add to stand up to scrutiny, the current "Yes on Prop 8" add would have to discuss a straight man marrying a gay woman (or vs versa). Granted, who in the right mind would "want" to do that? But the point still stands. If banning "inter-racial" marriage was wrong (which I agree), then likewise, banning inter sexual preference marriage would be equally "wrong" (and discriminatory).
zebostoneleigh 3 years ago
Huh?... I have a headache trying to understand your logic... it makes no sense at all to me.
Here's what I think... I think the analogy in my video is "spot-on" correct and does point out a bigotry... and I think you don't like to hear what I'm saying, so you are rationalizing and creating your own logic so you don't have to look at the ugly truth... that the 'Yes on 8' ad does promote bigotry against gays.
Respectfully,
Prop8NO
Prop8NO 3 years ago
Sorry about the headache - but I'm serious. Take some time to consider the logic.
The example you posit is one in which the laws no longer restrict marriage across a discriminatory boundary.
Today, the boundary could be defined as "straight/gay". Since a black man can cross that boundary to marry a white woman (thankfully so), then a gay man ought to be able to cross this barrier and marry a straight woman (which he can).
No one is limiting his rights to do so.
zebostoneleigh 3 years ago
Sorry about the headache.
What I'm saying is that the situation in your video posits someone marrying ACROSS a discriminatorily perceived boundary (black/white). Legitimizing gay marriage is not about enabling a gay person to marry across a discriminatory boundary (e.g. to marry a straight person). This is already possible, but unlikely anyone's actual preference.
Either that - or your vid should discuss allowing "blacks to marry blacks."
zebostoneleigh 3 years ago
Dear zebostoneleigh... I'm sorry but your arguement makes no sense, even with your re-explanation. Again I think you're rationalizing and creating your own logic so you don't have to look at the truth that the 'Yes on 8' ad promotes bigotry against gays. If the ad I posted played there would be outrage... and there should be outrage for the real ad against gays... it's bigotry.
Repsectfully
Prop8NO
Prop8NO 3 years ago
The basis of the bigotry in your black/white example is our past experience of dis-allowing blacks and whites to intermarry.
When trying to equate the current situation in CA to that experience in American history... many consider the straight population to be akin to the oppressive white population. If so, then the gay population, by logical necessity, must equate (for the analogy) to the black population.
zebostoneleigh 3 years ago
My point is just that to convince the "Yes on Prop 8" crowd of their errors you have to be strictly accurate in your logic or your efforts will be discounted. Make a video about "blacks not marrying blacks" and you'll be more inline with the current "No on Prop 8" arguments and more accurately portraying the errors of the "Yes on Prop 8" side.
zebostoneleigh 3 years ago
zebostoneleigh, I respectfully think you are reaching and are trying really hard to create a logic for yourself, but I don't buy it.
I won't convince you the ad was bigoted for this reason...
"There are none so blind as those who WILL not see." - John Heywood
Prop8NO 3 years ago
Ok, it took me a second zebostoneeleigh, but I think I get your logic. But I think the video's analogy still holds for exactly what you said: if the video discussed a hypothetical ad in which black/black or white/white marriages were legal, there would be outrage. Yes on prop 8 forces marriage to take place across a boundary. It forces it to be mixed sex. Which is still a discrimination , and fundamentally un-American.
troatie 3 years ago
Having read Prop8NO's comments since, I realize s/he is apparently focusing on a different issue... the symbolism of the add (but not the logic).
You (having openly explored my theory) have suggested one I had never considered - the "they force marriage across a boundary" idea. This is one I'll have to mull over.
Thanks for the meaningful reply/dialog.
Not so blind after all.
zebostoneleigh 3 years ago
Come on dude.
zebostoneleigh 3 years ago
Funny, I saw that recent "Yes" ad a few days ago and thought someone should totally make a video like the one posted here
When I see people on the streets with their "Yes on 8" posters I feel these are the same people who would have been protesting AGAINST the Civil Rights Movement if these were different times
SpectreWraith 3 years ago
Thanks! And yes I agree with you. It's hard for me to see how people don't see a parallel to the bigotry against black people & other minorities. The only difference is that one bigotry is about skin color and one is about sexual preference. And folks can wrap it in their religious beliefs all they want, but to me, it's still bigotry.
Prop8NO 3 years ago
it speaks volumes that when confronted with an actual example that shows the fallacy in your original argument that you don't argue back or prove anything to be of false reasoning, you simply say "your position is bigoted. i dont agree".
My statement and premise is exactly correct. the state of california recently changed what marriage is defined as for the state of california. that doesnt make either my premise nor the statement drawn from it at all incorrect.
videoLies 3 years ago
I HAVE argued back. Are you not reading what I wrote? I don't think you want to hear what I have to say. That's what I think the issue is. No your statement & premise are not correct. Please read the comments I wrote where I explain myself on that. And again I urge you to re-study how our system works (as I said in a previous comment).
Respectfully,
Prop8NO
Prop8NO 3 years ago
I reread to see if I missed something and... nope. I was good. you didn't present any new information. again: repeating previous arguments is not "arguing back"
videoLies 3 years ago
Whatever you need to do to rationalize your beliefs... There's nothing I can do to change you. I think your point of view is wrong, bigoted, fearful, judgemental, discriminatory and not cool. And you think my point of view is wrong. I think I have offered you many good points and you just haven't wanted to hear them.
As I said to zebostoneleigh & VideoLies...
I won't convince you the ad was bigoted for this reason...
"There are none so blind as those who WILL not see." - John Heywood
Prop8NO 3 years ago
Thank you...
whenfoodgoesbad 3 years ago
discrimination would be if a straight man couldn't marry a man but a gay man could, or if a black man couldn't marry a woman but a white man could. that's not the case. the dictums for marriage is that it forms an institution for the union of opposite sexes. so the fact that man A cant marry another man and man B cant marry another man = equality. entering into the fact that man B WANTS to marry another man and man A doesn't and crying bigotry over this is ridiculously dishonest.
videoLies 3 years ago
I don't agree with your logic & I think you have conveniently created your own logic to justify your bigoted position.
No the "dictums" for marriage are NOT that they "form an institution for the union of opposite sexes". The Supreme Court of CA has ruled that they "form an institution of the union of" EITHER opposite OR same sexes. So your statement and your premise is incorrect.
And yes it is bigotry, in my book, to put an ad on like the "Yes on 8" ad which video ad challenges.
Prop8NO 3 years ago
obviously its bigotry "in your book". the challenge is not to repeat the clearly stated position in the video, but rather to explain its flimsy reasoning.
you seek to not only redefine the word "marriage" but also the word "bigot".
videoLies 3 years ago
Webster definition of bigotry: "One fanatically devoted to one's own group, religion, race or politics and intolerant of those who differ."
I think, based on the definition, it's pretty clear I have not redefined the word "bigotry". And I'm not redefining "marriage" either, just opening it up to include others, as it should. Only decades ago interracial marriage was illegal, but society (against the wishes of some) realized that was wrong. That's what's going on now with gay marriage.
Prop8NO 3 years ago
The definition proves you wrong, but you think based on it that its "pretty clear" you havent redefined it? makes no sense. Proponents of marriage, by definition arent fanatically devoted to a group and intolerant of those who differ. it takes a huge degree of blindness to apply those words not to your side, but the side you are so intolerant of that you forcibly seek to change. you could have a point if the issue was raised and fought for by prop8 types, but they are merely REacting
videoLies 3 years ago
Again, the definition I found in Websters said nothing of man and woman. And again, decades ago interracial marriage was illegal so we "redefined" it then by changing that law... and rightfully so. It was discriminatory. As is Prop 8.
Look these back and forths are getting boring to me. You're not learning anything from me and I'm not from you. I think you should just move on.
Peace!
Prop8NO 3 years ago
Dictionary says the definition is: the social institution under which a man and woman establish their decision to live as husband and wife by legal commitments, religious ceremonies, etc.
so yes, you are not being honest in saying you don't want to redefine it. when you "open up" the Boy Scouts to girls, you havent opened up anything. you've redefined - or rather UNdefined it.
AGAIN you use the phony and despicable smear of comparing sex and race. repeating that lie seems to be all you have...
videoLies 3 years ago
No my dictionary. Webster's dictionary definition of 'marriage': The state of being maried: wedlock. The act of marrying or the ceremony of being married. Close union.
The Boy Scouts is a private institution. Marriage is a public institution and should be open to all and not discriminatory.
My ad is not phony or despicable. It makes a really good point. If my ad played there would be public outrage (rightfully so) & the real 'Yes on 8' ad is just as bad. It's bigoted and not cool.
Prop8NO 3 years ago
i want to wear shorts to my local steak house. am i being discriminated against because there's a dress code? i want the right to eat steak in that institution that pre-existed me and i want to change the rules for everyone who goes there (and who cares, cuz "how will it affect THEIR dinner if i'm allowed to wear shorts? right?).
videoLies 3 years ago
If the steakhouse refused you service because of the color of your skin, then YES it would be discrimination.
And there was a time in this country when my afforementioned scenario was the case for black people. And yes we "changed the rules for everyone" and gave the right to black people to eat in institutions that "pre-existed" them.
I really think you are trying hard with your twisted logic to justify your opinion but to me, it still is what it is... twisted logic.
Prop8NO 3 years ago
obviously if it were the color of my skin it would be discrimination. why did you answer a question i didnt ask? maybe because my example points out the fallacy of you equating skin color with lifestyle choice.
i was born being more comfortable in shorts. you're saying its bigotry to not allow me to change the definition of formal-wear so i and those like me can feel a little better against the will of the majority who have already voted on the definition twice.
videoLies 3 years ago
Here's why I answered the way I did. Because the right for a private institution to require a dress code has not been deemed unconstitutional or discrimination. But the right to refuse someone for the color of their skin HAS been deemed as discrimination or unconstitutional.
So your premise doesn't fit.
And if you WANT to sue a restaurant for not allowing you to wear shorts it IS your constitutional right to do so. Go for it!
Prop8NO 3 years ago
As for your statement about going "against the will of the majority who have already voted on the definition twice", I refer you to my reply to TOPIKTOAD (below)... I urge you to re-study how our government works.
Laws are OFTEN brought before the courts & deemed unconstitutional. If you have a problem with HOW the CA Supreme Court determined the law unconstitutional, then you have a problem with how our government is set up & how it has run since it's formation.
Prop8NO 3 years ago
I understand that you don't AGREE with the CA Supreme Court's decision and I respect your right to that opinion. But to imply that what they did by MAKING a decision is wrong, is in my opinion, showing an ignorance as to how our system of government works.
Prop8NO 3 years ago
this is a bizarre answer you've given because the challenge is essentially that "your argument that behavior and ethnicity are on equal planes when it comes to discrimination is fallacious" and you answered "ya, but what about race? thats the same as behavior".
you should combat the challenge. instead it appears that you've ignored it just to restate your original case.
theMediaFork 3 years ago
Here's the argument I've made (& I disagree it's bizarre). If this ad I made played on TV there would be outrage (& rightfully so). But because it's socially acceptable to put gay people down, the 'Yes on 8' ad still plays. And that's not cool with me, because the ad is bigoted against homosexuals.
Prop8NO 3 years ago
Dude, I put my opinion out there and you don't agree. Just state your disagreement & move on. You're entitled to your opinion. But you're not going to change mine and no amount of you telling me my analogy is wrong or "fallacious" etc. is going to change my mind. You have not changed my perspective one bit. And I'm sure I haven't changed yours.
Respectfully
Prop8NO
Prop8NO 3 years ago
twisted logic? using the fallacy of an incongruous analogy as a red herring to avoid answering the legitimate challenge posed to your original fallacious argument is not exactly shining the spotlight of truth on your ideological opponent.
videoLies 3 years ago
First of all, this statement comes across as you trying WAY too hard to sound important & scholarly. You don't need to do that. I respect you as a person, regardless of whether I agree with you, so no need to prove yourself or to try to sound "smarter" than me by using flowery words. You can just share your opinion. I'll listen.
And yes, to me, it is twisted logic.
Prop8NO 3 years ago
Up until now I have never had any problem with Gays, Mormons and Catholics. I DONT HATE ANYBODY, but I feel that back in 2002 It was the will of the people that voted against same sex marriage. Then some Judges say nope your vote did not mean a darn thing. Then why Vote people. Also I dont want my son who is only 6 years old to be exposed to any type of sexaul choice, He is only 6....dont you get it. I feel as though all this is getting shoved down my throat and thats why I'm Voting Yes ON 8
TOPIKTOAD 3 years ago
I'm not trying to be disrespectful, but your statement shows your ignorance as to how our system of government works. I urge you to re-study/re-learn how our government is formed & how it works. Laws are OFTEN brought before the courts and deemed unconstitutional. That's nothing new. It just so happens that you don't agree with this decision, but if you say you have a problem with how it occured then you have a problem with how our government is set up & how it has run since it's formation.
Prop8NO 3 years ago
PERFECT video! It is the same. BIGOTRY!
zwilliamson237 3 years ago
good point, 5 stars!
kz10863 3 years ago
awesome
williamgatesenson 3 years ago
Before casting their ballots, those few undecided voters should reflect on their 22,000 fellow Californians who with trembling voices and quaking hearts said, I do.
Vote for them. VOTE NO ON 8! Don't let the Mormon Church rewrite our Constitution! Please VOTE NO ON 8!
hotblondie111 3 years ago
Great Video! PERFECT Analogy! SPOT ON!
Did you make it?
freedom0f5peech 3 years ago
The video shows flawed reasoning. It assumes a false analogy between interracial marriage and gay marriage. The argument from Yes on 8 people, like myself, is that marriage, by its very essence is not the sort of thing that's capable of being entered into by members of the same sex. It IS the kind of thing that can be entered into interracially. Hence the disanalogy. Because the very nature of marriage is heterosexual, no one is being denied their basic civil rights if prop 8 passes. Yes on 8.
eidos1975 3 years ago
As for flawed reasoning... You said, "marriage, by its very essence is not the sort of thing that's capable of being entered into by members of the same sex". But it's already PROVEN to be capable. People in MA & CA have done it so your point has already been disproven. Also, only decades ago interracial marriage WAS illegal. And there were people THEN that felt about interracial marriage what you NOW feel about gay marriage. And it all worked out and those folks opposed to it were proven wrong.
Prop8NO 3 years ago
Prop8NO, thanks for your reply. When I say it's "not capable," I don't mean that a lawmaker is incapable of putting forth a piece of legislation purporting otherwise, for that certainly happens. What I mean is that marriage, if entered into by homosexuals, ceases to be marriage.
eidos1975 3 years ago
No it doesn't cease to be a marriage.
Prop8NO 3 years ago
yes. by definition. it does...
why do you hate the English language so much?
theMediaFork 3 years ago
I don't know what your repsonding to here. And this is getting boring. I think you should move on. You won't change my mind and I won't change yours.
Peace!
Prop8NO 3 years ago
Sex and race are not the same. It is foolishly ignorant to claim such a parallel.
Rules for institutions based on races are unconstitutional. Not so for rules based on sex or separate bathrooms would be unconstitutional.
theMediaFork 3 years ago
No, rules based on bathrooms for sexual orientation would be unconstitutional. As a matter of fact, the CA Supreme Court did say that "sexual orientation" should be protected along with race and creed. And I agree.
I don't mean to be disrespectful, but I'm really getting bored with our conversations.
Prop8NO 3 years ago
As for the analogy being a "false" one... An analogy is "correspondence in some respects between otherwise unlike things", so my analogy isn't false at all... it's actually a very good analogy. You just don't agree with it.
Prop8NO 3 years ago
About analogies, for an analogy to hold, I think you'll recognize that the correspondence, as you say in your definition, cannot be between just any respects you please; it needs to be relevantly similar. But that's just the problem: Interracial and gay marriage happen to be fundamentally different in that very aspect for which your analogy would need them them to be the same: interracial marriage is consistent with the essence of marriage whereas gay marriage is not.
eidos1975 3 years ago
No interracial marriage and gay marriage are not fundamentally different. Gay marriage is a marriage. That is the point the Supreme Court of California made when it legalized same sex marriages.
Prop8NO 3 years ago
there is no comparison between different races and the different genders. There are no inherent racial differences; there are significant differences between the sexes. To the extent that racial groups are different, they are only because their cultures differ. But a black man's nature is not different from that of a white man, an Asian man, an Hispanic man.
theMediaFork 3 years ago
So let me understand your logic. Your arguement is that because the races are similar then marriage is ok (since races are similar & the sexes are not similar)... Ummmm... with your logic then you should think that same sex marriage is BETTER then opposite sex marriage. Because two men are SIMILAR and a man & a woman are NOT similar.
As for saying "there is no comparison"... Websters definition of "analogy": Correspondence in some respects between otherwise unlike things. I made an analogy.
Prop8NO 3 years ago
please read what i actually said... races are not "similar" as you falsely paraphrased me as claiming. they are indistinguishable. SAME.
no where in my comment did i claim that sameness should be grouped together by the government as you also falsely paraphrased (im noticing a trend of "smear the opponent" as a tool to rebut their claims). i said quite the opposite. reread what i said and if you still fail to understand its basis then we'll go from there.
theMediaFork 3 years ago
The same is not true of sex differences. Males and females are inherently different from one another. We now know that even their brains differ. And those differences are significant. Thus, to oppose interracial marriage is indeed to engage in bigotry, but to oppose same-sex marriage is not. It simply shares the wisdom of every moral system that preceded us -- society is predicated on men and women bonding with one another in a unique way called "marriage."
theMediaFork 3 years ago
Webster's definition of predicated: "To find a basis for; establish".
No society is not "predicated on men & women bonding with one another in a unique way called marriage". We can have society without marriage. You may not want a society without marriage but it IS possible to have one.
And if we DO have the institution of marriage (which we currently do), then it should be an institution open to all people... all races, creed AND sexual orientations. Otherwise it is discriminatory.
Prop8NO 3 years ago
I didn't ask for a definition of a word I correctly used.
We can have a society without people having sex, giving birth and raising that child? test tubes here we come!
Humans can exist without marriage and family is I think what you meant to argue. not so much our society as we know it.
theMediaFork 3 years ago
It's getting confusing here as to which reply you're replying to (because they don't show up underneath the replies) so let me take my best stab at this.
Yes, society can survive without marriage. The only thing we need to "survive" is either sex between a man & woman or, access to sperm & a woman to inseminate who is willing to carry a child to term.
Marriage is a choice to have in our society... and I have no problem with marriage. But it should be open to all & not discriminatory.
Prop8NO 3 years ago
Here's my issue with your comments. You call my analogy "false" and my arguement "flawed" as though YOU are the arbiter of analogies and flawed theories. And I don't concede the position of "arbiter" to you. It is a matter of your opinion. And I don't agree with you.
Respectfully,
Prop8NO
Prop8NO 3 years ago
If 8 passes, you'll say this next election:
"The video shows flawed reasoning. It assumes a false analogy between interracial marriage and atheist marriage. The argument from people, like myself, is that marriage, by its very essence is not the sort of thing that's capable of being entered into by atheists. It IS the kind of thing that can be entered into interracially. Hence the disanalogy. Because the very nature of marriage is religious, no one is being denied their basic civil rights..."
freedom0f5peech 3 years ago
ALL GAYS ARE BEING DENIED THEIR BASIC CIVIL RIGHTS!
Covering a spouse on a working spouse's insurance, The right to care for a spouse's remains in death.
And not all gay people who want to get married are atheist.
The state and the fed has a constitutional mandate to offer marriage and all the rights that go with it, to every citizen there is a constitutional mandate in the bill of rights that is supposed to guarantee the separation of your church and the people's state.
emeryemery 3 years ago
Who on earth (besides YOU) said anything about atheists? Clearly the State and Federal governments do not agree with your assertion that marriage is fundamentally religious, or there would be no marriages performed as "civil ceremonies". Look at how your own statement shows changed assumptions (and laws) since the civil rights movement of the '60's. Gay marriage will hurt NO ONE, nor deprive ANYONE of their rights. My marriage can in no way be threatened by anyone else being married.
Skipperdee 3 years ago
NO ON 8!!!!!!
abercrombietennis 3 years ago
AMEN! I've told my friends that if any of them vote yes on Prop 8 they can go to hell, that I will no longer associate with them and that I won't feel bad about it. Regardless of black/white, gay/straight, whatever/whatever, it is WRONG to vote to eliminate the rights of other Americans. I just won't stand for that kind of bigotry and elitism in my friend circle. Prop 8 is WRONG and it's UN-American. Shame on anyone who votes yes.
LaLaLifer 3 years ago
LaLaLifer,
That's pretty harsh language. I hope you don't tell your friends those things in the name of wanting to advance an attitude of tolerance, because it seems like the one group of people you're ok not being tolerant of are those who disagree with you.
eidos1975 3 years ago
I think you make a good point here eidos1975. I agree with you on this point.
As Ghandi once said, "we must be the change we wish to see in the world".
Prop8NO 3 years ago
geibofosser, I don't agree that it shows ActressLuchyGarcia's ignorance. Although I do concede that the African-American, Hispanic, Asian, Muslim communities have a reputation for being anti-gay (I've heard that too) it doesn't mean that the "Yes on 8" ad that this video challenges isn't bigoted.
People who have experienced bigotry against them can still be bigoted themselves. Having been a victim of bigotry doesn't make you immune from it. It's something we ALL must be self-vigilant about.
Prop8NO 3 years ago
BACK TO THE PILE!
YouEnjoyMyself13 3 years ago
They forgot to add that a person who thinks like this has a tendency to be racist as well. GREAT JOB JENN!!!! Definition: a bigot is a person who is intolerant of opinions, lifestyles, or identities differing from his or her own, and bigotry is the corresponding state of mind. Bigot is often used as a pejorative term against a person who is obstinately devoted to prejudices even when these views are challenged or proven to be false or not universally applicable or acceptable
ActressLuchyGarcia 3 years ago
Wow, Jenn. This is a very good argument and clearly shows that Prop 8 is one sided and needs to be shown for what it really it is: MEAN SPIRITED, RACIST, UNFAIR. Fantastic Job.
ActressLuchyGarcia 3 years ago
Keep fighting the good fight. NO on 8!
acterjoe 3 years ago
I do find this ad unacceptable. These bigots need to hide behind the veil of decency, morals and family values in support of such a reprehensible assault on civil rights because they are cowards. Most of the money coming in for support of * are out of state, mainly the Mormon Church and the Knights of Columbus, a uber conservative Catholic Church group. VOTE NO ON 8!
playgroundschannel 3 years ago
Watch the video again and check out the end where it says "Brought to you by..." in small lettering. I think you'll get a kick out of it, given your statement on who is backing the "Yes on 8" campaign. :o)
VOTE NO on PROP 8!!!
Prop8NO 3 years ago
Great Work! THANK YOU! As Frangela sez: "NO ON HATE...NO ON 8"
ndatmo 3 years ago
Perfect! No on 8!
ylseshow 3 years ago
Great video Jenn - very impressive work!!!
hollyaddy 3 years ago
THANK YOU for pointing this out!! I'd been thinking the same thing but I couldn't express it as clearly as you did!
BrettFromLA 3 years ago
Great video! I totaly agree!
Jamiemiltonjones 3 years ago
GREAT Video!!! I am so tired of Bible thumpers pretending they did not use the Bible to justify racism and sexism as well. Great job!!!!
waketwins 3 years ago
Very good point you make here.
CeltManThom 3 years ago
GREAT video!! Very good example of all the bigotry from the yes on 8 campaign!
Be smart, vote NO on Prop 8!
ch5342 3 years ago
This is FABULOUS! Nicely done and gets the TRUTH across. I will certainly pass it on.
SoCalCJW 3 years ago
LOVE IT!
Oti236 3 years ago
great work jenn!!
teriamorada 3 years ago
Great work Jenn!! Yay!
adrienrain 3 years ago
EXCELLENT :-)
MichaelPatrickBreen 3 years ago
ps- Dick Peters. Brilliant.
jozaphoenix 3 years ago
YES!!! Well done, and great point well made. I'll send this along! Bravo.
jozaphoenix 3 years ago