Monday, October 27, 2008

Ugly Betty Cast Also Opposes Prop 8

With less than a week to go, the battle still continues and is getting uglier. Please Vote No on Prop 8

Spanish version:

English Version:

Monday, October 20, 2008

A Debate With Myself on Proposition 8

I am posting this for those Californian's who stumble across my blog that might be undecided or unsure of how they will vote.

The following is a letter to the editor in the Recorder:

A Debate With Myself on Proposition 8
The Recorder
Commentary By Jim Brosnahan
October 17, 2008

This is a one-sided debate that is addressed to you, Richard Peterson. You have listed yourself as a faculty member of Pepperdine University School of Law and you have, as is your right under the First Amendment, broadcast your views throughout the state in a pro-Proposition 8 advertisement.

I wrote you a polite letter and I asked you to debate the measure but I have heard nothing and I take it you're not going to respond. Therefore, if you don't mind, I would like to express to you and anybody who reads this my thoughts on the points that you make and what's wrong with them. In my view, your points are deeply flawed, misleading and, at times, an attempt to play on the fear of the viewer unfairly.

Here goes:

First, in California, when there are two people who are in love and who are committed to each other and want to spend the rest of their lives together, they should have, as declared under the law, every right to be married like anybody else.

In support of Prop 8, you have falsely suggested that churches would have a tax problem if the initiative were not passed. Prop 8 should be defeated and its defeat will not cause any problem to churches. Churches have the protection of the First Amendment. They are free to marry or not marry anyone they wish and they would not lose their tax-exempt status as you suggest. Your point is unworthy of a law professor.

In a similar vein of attempting to frighten people, you have suggested that somehow, if Prop 8 does not pass, little children will be taught about same-sex marriage in school, and that this will be bad for them. As others have pointed out, there is no requirement that schools have to teach anything about marriage, and furthermore, whatever is taught will be determined by the local school boards.

I would have thought, sir, as I assume you are a religious person, that you understand and have indeed taught that God has made all of us, not just some of us. If we are in God's image, then we must accept all of God's children. This is fundamental and you should accept it.

With regard to your religion, it has no place in the California Constitution, just as I am sure that you would not want me to enshrine my religion in our state's laws. I not only respect your religion, but have, in court, defended people's right to practice their religion. But it still should not be put into the Constitution.

You have presented yourself as a law professor and indeed you are, but the courses you've taught seem to have nothing to do with the Constitution. You are not, as far as I can determine, a person who has studied the constitutional law of this country, taught it, or litigated it in cases involving it. Perhaps I am wrong, but your school Web site's biography does not show it. Therefore, as you present yourself as an expert in the California Constitution, I would seriously question your credentials to do that.

Your commercials attack the judges of California. This is despicable for a number of reasons. One, you are a law professor and you know better. Two, they cannot answer you, they cannot fight back because it's against the rules that govern judges and you know that. More important is the fact that those judges did what they thought was right under the law and they deserve your respect and the respect of the people of California. They are learned, they are studious and they believe that people in California under the Constitution are entitled to equality and equal rights. It is one of the most fundamental constitutional principles that govern and indeed protects all of us.

Equality itself involves the rights of citizens and the rights of minorities. As many Californians are minorities, this is fundamental to any understanding of our Constitution. As a lawyer, I am sure you have been told this many times. So the suggestion that the majority should be allowed to oppress a minority or to deny a minority equal protection is one that you ought to know is not governed by the California Constitution and should not be.

Further, you should know that U.S. Supreme Court authority says that you can not write discrimination into a state constitution. There are cases that have held exactly that, which would mean that Prop 8 would be a dead letter.

The history of marriage includes the history of using it as a weapon against unpopular or despised groups. I could give you many precedents and if we ever do debate, sir, I would be happy to suggest a few to you where certain groups were not allowed to marry as a manifestation of social opprobrium. This history has, for example, included race until it was struck down by the U.S. Supreme Court and the California Supreme Court. Before it was struck down, a white person could not marry a black person. That sad history should not be resurrected in Prop 8 and that is one of the reasons this initiative should be defeated.

The people that you attempt to discriminate against are our friends, our neighbors, our colleagues. They are people who pay taxes, they are people who fight and die in our military, they serve in our police forces and our fire departments. In every way possible they participate in our society and our culture. They do everything that they can as citizens of California, and yet you want to put it in the Constitution that they be denied a fundamental right, the important right of marriage which is so central to one's life.

Sir, there is not enough love in this world and what love there is should be nurtured and not opposed by a state government and certainly by a state constitution.

There are a lot more arguments but these will have to suffice. I am voting no on Prop 8 and I am asking anybody I can find to do the same.

If you ever want to debate this issue before Nov. 4, please let me know.

Very truly yours,
Jim Brosnahan

Jim Brosnahan is a senior partner at Morrison & Foerster in San Francisco.

Wednesday, October 15, 2008

Another New NO on 8 TV Commercial

The commercials are getting better, but they STILL haven't addressed the issue about taking away their church's tax exempt status which is a lie. Why the hell not?

Monday, October 13, 2008

Proponents of Prop 8 continue to lie in their television ads.

I'm really fed up with the No on 8 campaign, which seems to be running the kind of ineffective campaign that was run in Miami in 1978 against Anita Bryant. No grass roots, no leafletting, the TV campaign doesn't answer the Yes fears and lies head on.

Anyway, a co-worker where I work put this together and has contacted the No on 8 campaign about getting this information out there and I wanted to share this with everyone on my blog.

Here’s what’s fiction and what’s fact:

Fiction: Teaching children about same-sex marriage will happen here unless we pass Prop 8.

Fact: Not one word in Prop 8 mentions education, and no child can be forced, against the will of their parents, to be taught anything about health and family issues at school. California law prohibits it, and the Yes on 8 campaign knows they are lying. Sacramento Superior Court Judge Timothy Frawley has already ruled that this claim by Prop 8 proponents is “false and misleading.”

Fiction: Churches could lose their tax-exemption status.

Fact: Nothing in Prop 8 would force churches to do anything. In fact, the court decision regarding marriage specifically says “no religion will be required to change its religious policies or practices with regard to same-sex couples, and no religious officiant will be required to solemnize a marriage in contravention of his or her religious beliefs.”

Fiction: A Massachusetts case about a parent's objection to the school curriculum will happen here.

Fact: Unlike Massachusetts, California gives parents an absolute right to remove their kids and opt-out of teaching on health and family instruction they don't agree with. The opponents know that California law already covers this and Prop 8 won't affect it, so they bring up an irrelevant case in Massachusetts.

Fiction: Four Activist Judges in San Francisco…

Fact: Prop 8 is not about courts and judges, it's about eliminating a fundamental right. Judges didn't grant the right, the constitution guarantees the right. Proponents of Prop 8 use an outdated and stale argument that judges aren't supposed to protect rights and freedoms. This campaign is about whether Californians, right now, in 2008 are willing to amend the constitution for the sole purpose of eliminating a fundamental right for one group of citizens.

Fiction: People can be sued over personal beliefs.

Fact: California’s laws already prohibit discrimination against anyone based on race, religion, gender, or sexual orientation. This has nothing to do with marriage.

Fiction: Pepperdine University supports the Yes on 8 campaign.

Fact: The university has publicly disassociated itself from Professor Richard Peterson of Pepperdine University, who is featured in the ad, and has asked to not be identified in the Yes on 8 advertisements.

Fiction: Unless Prop 8 passes, CA parents won't have the right to object to what their children are taught in school.

Fact: California law clearly gives parents and guardians broad authority to remove their children from any health instruction if it conflicts with their religious beliefs or moral convictions.

Regardless of how you feel about the issue, we should not eliminate fundamental rights for ANY Californians. Please vote NO on Prop 8.

Thursday, October 9, 2008


I hope this doesn't pass, but right now, the yes on 8 "LIES" are working in their favor. Please, PLEASE, P L E A S E VOTE NO on PROP 8 and here's why... Please listen to the video before you cast your vote...

Wednesday, October 8, 2008

Presidential Debate 10/07/2008

I really don't have much to say about the debate last night that you don't already know. However, my friends, here are a few pictures I wanted to share with you about "That One", our next president, and "That Other Older One and his Train Wreck"! Which by the way, could really use some hair plugs (transplants) and more.

That One = Our next President 2008

That Old Maverick = McSame

Finally Obama/Biden thinking about the future and transportation and That Old Arrogant One and his Train Wreck

Sunday, October 5, 2008

With Less Than A Month To Go...

Please get out and vote NO on 8. Obama/Biden 2008

Saturday, October 4, 2008

Well, after a short break from blogging, I'm back and here's my take on the Vice President Debate

It's amazing how party-brainwashed some people are. Any independent/objective thinking individual could observe that Palin did well only in comparison to her horrific previous interviews. And she only sounded strong when she completely avoided questions she was uncomfortable with and instead spewed off some scripts fed to her by her coaches. This was a debate NOT a town hall meeting. In a debate you're supposed to ANSWER THE QUESTIONS! What good is Palin's straight talk if she's only willing to talk about certain things?

Ok, on a less serious note here, its funny, given Palin's lack of experience, I believe Tina Fey would indeed be a better candidate than Sarah. After all, she does a great job at portraying her here in the latest SNL Debate clip w/Queen Latifah (love her). You be the judge.

And, as an added bonus for sticking around, here is the Katie Couric/Tina Fay Interview