First "Yes on 8" Ad Set to Air

Well, I must first point out that the ads started running during Prime Time last night, Sept 29; I saw them at least a half dozen times. That said, I agree that they are not terribly compelling; the nonsense about activist judges overturning the will of 4 million Californians (What is the population of this state again? What majority are we talking about here?), imposing gay marriage (Yeah, dude, if you don't marry another dude, the government is coming after you), the loss of tax-exempt status (isn't that a Federal thing?) and, save us all, teaching gay marriage in public schools (will there be a quiz?)...Am I worried about these ads changing minds? Not really. The No on 8 ads, which are running, at least around this neck of the woods, quite a bit more frequently, no doubt courtesy of people like Brad Pitt et al opening their wallets, are a lot more everything, honest, heartfelt, and to the point.

I watched the ad three times yesterday. It was full of lies and distortions. Fear tactics used by the Republicans as usual. These scare tactics will work unless we all donate some money to get more of our ads out there on the TV screen. The churches are really running with this one and they don't deserve any tax exemptions. They are definitely telling people how to vote and threatening them as well for not being "true" believers. One man sent in a letter to our local newspaper and it was just beautiful. He is straight but took up for us like nobody else has. God bless him.

The ad uses the same lies and scare tactics that the Republicans are known for. It will certainly get worse over the next few weeks.

Since churches are politicizing from the pulpit now anyway, despite their "tax exempt status," this particular argument seems moot in the commercial. ..."33 pastors across the country set out Sunday to break the rules, hoping to generate a legal battle that will prompt federal courts to throw out a 54-year-old ban on political endorsements by tax-exempt houses of worship..."

"The advertisement, while not compelling, will likely speak to the concerns of people already supporting the ballot initiative." That sounds about right, and considering that opponents already outnumber supporters, it would suggest that this ad is another wasted effort from the Yes on 8 side.

Was it 'activist judges' in the Supreme Court who gave us Bush over Gore in 2000?

"Activist judges" appears to be a term coined by Republicans when judges don't vote on social issues the way they want them to. It's most frequently used when judges opinions favor GLBT rites. Judges that support the Republican point of view on GLBT rites don't get a title. The not-so-subtle implication is that they are doing their jobs correctly by deciding against GLBT rites.

According to the yes on 8 advertisement, "... activist judges have imposed gay marriage on 4 million California voters..." I don't quite understand, perhaps because of my limited intellectual ability. Could someone explain that statement? Are "activist" judges actually forcing people to marry someone of the same sex? If so, how will it be enforced? Will people be tortured to force them to consent to marry someone of the same sex? What will the penalty be if someone refuses to marry someone of the same sex? This is all very confusing.