This is Scripps Howard's longtime uber far right opionista. He can always be counted on to provide fodder for conservative thinkers. He doesn't cost the Star a dime because he works for the chain. That's likely why he's getting more ink time there all of a sudden.

Ok...maybe an Op-Ed piece from the respective "leaders" of the main political parties might be interesting, I'm not sure how that would cut down on the "junk" really. I'm not quite sure how you might deal with active factions within parties. Our local VC Repubs seem to have an insurgency problem for one.

I can't say that hearing from either would by virtue of their party affiliation and rank, constitute "true focus on local news". I mean, c'mon Brian..junk is junk and both sides indulge in it.

Maybe if both sides sparred at the same time, that might be interesting.

As for Godwin's Law...well, that is an interesting point, though like typing in all caps IS CONSIDERED SHOUTING AND THEREFORE RUDE..well, this could just be another "net" thing.

References to National Socialism are overdone to be sure, but that regime was a defining moment in recent history and one that encompassed many aspects of (otherwise) civil society.

It may be overdone, but it might not be unfair to use.

Tom,

We could have the elected leaders of the VCDCC and the VCRCC appoint a party member to write them. We could also have it called chairperson's corner or something. But the column I mentioned really did just argue that gay people are free to marry straight people so there is no discrimination.

I think our local party leaders would at least allow a back and forth to hold them to their opinions.

The argument used by Ambrose is no different than then arguments that have been made by the No on H8te crowd for months. Actually he does make a valid point about how those who have contributed to Prop 8 have been targeted. For example, the Director of the Los Angeles Film Festival, a mormon, was pressured into resigning because of his personal $1,500 contribution in favor of the proposition. There are those who believe that Prop 8 is a civil rights issue, but others who see it as a religious issue. People have a right to protest, but should we go as far as terminating people from their jobs because of their personal beliefs? It has already gone that far, and it is a very dangerous thing when you start destroying peoples lives and reputations because they disagree with you. Maybe the correct corollary isn't fascism but McCartyism.

I do agree that likening the other side to fascists is an illogical diversion that is too often used to derail a debate, something that, incidentally, I see on this blog frequently. Ambrose loses the argument automatically by relying on that tactic, but that same tactic has also been employed in about 2/3 of the opinion pieces I have read from the No on H8te crowd. So I guess in that respect it is nothing more than a little tit for tat. I also wouldn't expect local opinion to be any better than using syndicated columnists. Actually we already get plenty of local opinion since anyone can write a letter to the editor, and we have plenty of regular local opinion contriutors.

You just brought the Beatles into this debate when you said " Maybe the correct corollary isn't fascism but McCartyism".

Please leave Paul alone.

Bubba Kidd,

I have never seen No on 8 protesters saying something like this:

"One of the central arguments employed by the advocates is an absurdity -- that to prohibit homosexual marriage is a denial of equal rights under the law. The California court itself made that argument in a ruling in May, as if heterosexuals and homosexuals do not have exactly the same rights -- both groups are barred from marrying someone of the same sex and both are allowed to marry someone of the opposite sex."

Of course the local leaders of the VCRCC and the VCDCC could write letters to the editor but they should be given a better space unless it is filled with something thought provoking, which this column is not.

Brian,

How about your November 8 Confessions of a No on 8 phone banker thread. The opening scene from that video has the mormons proclaiming, "We're here to take away your rights", then flashing an enforcement division badge before forcefully entering their home. Next they sieze their wedding rings, then rifle through their drawers and personal belongings before tearing up the couple's marriage certificate. They leave the house smiling and saying, "That was too easy" and "What should we ban next?"

I fail to see how the message of that video is any different from the argument made by Ambrose. Portraying mormons as goons who gleefully invade homes and take pleasure out of hurting others is not only unfair, but I believe completely inaccurate. You may disagree with their beliefs, but for them it is a religious issue and they are exercising their constitutional right to vote their conscience. While the video does not call them nazis, it certainly implies that their behavior and morals are no different. I don't see how you can be outraged by one and not as equally outraged by the other.

I don't think either group should be compared to Nazis. Since you remember the video you will remember I wrote:

"A liberal activist group put together this ad that singles out the Mormon Church, without mentioning other religious groups, for supporting Proposition 8.

Do you think it goes too far or is it just humor? Either way it doesn't seem like it would be an effective tactic to win over voters. But maybe that is the part of me that grew up in Simi Valley, where there are many Mormons."

I am not outraged at the column, I just think it isn't informative and makes weak arguments. Arguing that gay people are treated equally because they are allowed to get married, just not to people of the same sex is plain dumb.

Would you rather read more columns from that author or from the leaders of the VCDCC and the VCRCC? I would prefer more local opinion columns.

Bubba,

I forgot to ask again. You do agree this is a dumb argument:

"One of the central arguments employed by the advocates is an absurdity -- that to prohibit homosexual marriage is a denial of equal rights under the law. The California court itself made that argument in a ruling in May, as if heterosexuals and homosexuals do not have exactly the same rights -- both groups are barred from marrying someone of the same sex and both are allowed to marry someone of the opposite sex."

Brian,

I agree with you that it is a dumb argument to say that gays have the exact same rights - the right to marry somebody of the opposite sex. It is insulting and condescending to gay rights groups to even say such a thing.

With regard to the No on 8 video, I don't see any humor in it at all. I think that the video is nothing more than a selective, dishonest, hateful attack against mormons. I'm not a mormon, but I'm deeply offended and concerned when I see religious groups targeted in this manner. I have great sympathy for the gay rights movement, but I also equally support the rights of religious groups to have the freedom to express their beliefs and participate in the democratic process. This type of tactic isn't very smart and will almost certainly backfire in the long run.

As far as mormons are concerned, I don't fully share their belief system, but I support their right to have their beliefs. In many ways I admire their close-knit religious system. I've known many mormons over the years and have never known them to be anything like the characters portrayed on that video. In fact, they tend to be quite the opposite. The types of stereotypes being used to attack religious groups are no better than ones used to marginalize minorities and homosexuals. I don't believe that you can effectively fight ignorance and discrimination with more ignorance and discrimination.

I am surprised, but maybe I shouldn't be, that Bubba said those against gay marriage are showing ignorance and discrimination towards others.

You are correct that Mormons wouldn't do what was done in the video. They have the state to try to declare void those that were married before the ban they were a major source of support for.

The thing that's really starting to turn people off the anti-Prop. 8 protests is their unruly and violent behavior. As I've said before, I guess if democracy doesn't work, then let's resort to anarchy. As Jay Ambrose noted so correctly in his article, which I thought was right on point by the way - "Have these crowds ever heard the word "backlash"?

What is your opinion on his argument gay people are treated equally because they are allowed to get married to people already?

You would rather read some bad logic from Ambrose then a biweekly column from VCRCC head Mike Osbourn, a VCDCC leader or other local party leaders? That is odd being that this article is so poorly written.

I'm deeply offended and concerned when I see religious groups manipulate the democratic process to impose their religious beliefs on those outside of their religion, and deny people their civil liberties.

If they don't believe in same sex marriage, fine, don't get one. They also don't have to perform marriage ceremonies.

I'm still appalled that people actually walked into a voting booth and chose to take away civil liberties. Anyone who did it needs to do some serious soul searching. Boy, talk about being un-American.

A line was crossed, and luckily this attempt to legitimize their hatred and fear will go down in flames in court as unconstitutional.

I would rather read a column from LW then some out of state pundit that puts together articles with such weak arguments.

Laura, how exactly do religious groups "manipulate the democratic process"? They have just as much right to participate in the democratic process as any other group. If you are going to argue that it is unfair for religious groups to contribute money and manpower to a political cause then the same should also apply to other groups, such as unions. But you seem to think it is OK for some groups to participate in the democratic process but not others. That type of thinking is truly un-American.

I really don't understand how Bubba said he voted No but spends all of his time almost attacking the No side and giving out free passes to the yes side.

I would say the manipulation included running ads they knew were false with scare tactics.

First of all, it is your opinon that the ads were false and full of scare tactics. But assuming that is true, are you saying that unions or indian gaming casinos don't run ads that contain false claims or use scare tactics? Please. During an election cycle is is practically impossible to find honest election ads from either side. So please spare me your self-serving outrage over dishonest political ads since it doesn't even pass the laugh test.

Right on, Bubba. These hypocrites on the "No on 8" side never cease to amaze me. They're supposedly all about tolerance, acceptance, and treating everyone equally. Except, of course, if you happen to disagree with them. Then, it's all about attacking the other side like a bunch of pit bulls on steroids.

Their true colors have come shining through in this attack mentality that they've been displaying ever since the democratic process didn't come out the way they wanted it to. Move on, you bunch of sore losers and put it on the ballot again if you didn't like the results, instead of crying like a bunch of whining babies!

Flamo,

Do you think the heads of the local parties could write more thought provoking and interesting articles then the column we are discussing?

Do you agree a column with the argument that gays are free to get married already has weak logic?

Brian:

Actually, what would be far more challenging, stimulating and interesting, would be a periodic cyber-debate between Mike Osborn and Joe O'Neil, the respective Chairs of the Ventura County Republican and Democratic Central Committee, on political candidates, causes and challenges facing Ventura County voters.

You know, perhaps something like Prime Minister's Question Time every Sunday night at 9 P.M. on C-SPAN. (See the URL above)

It would certainly elevate the rhetorical dialogue and underscore the dogmatic drama of local politics if Ventura County voters in both parties got a closer look at the debating and organizing skills of their respective party leaders.

Properly choreographed, the cyber-verbal exchange would be worth the price of admission. And, I hazard a guess that Treasurers in both parties might even make a few "quid" from interested cyber-spectators. At least those who have a vested interest in their respective party leaders besting the other guy!

Perhaps, Brian, given the respect you have earned with both of these gentlemen, they would cheerfully agree to your request within a fortnight of your invitation to cyber-debate.

Well Brian are you game? If so, then we shall all see just how good of a Cyber-Mr. Speaker you really are.

Best of Luck Cyber-Chum.

NostraDemus

I have spoken to Mike Osbourn many more times than Joe O'Neill but I am up for it. I will send invitations to both of them. I think it is a great idea.

But I also think both of them would write more important or coherent editorials than the column I posted.

Give me a few weeks to work out the details.

Brian,

Not sure, but I'd sure have an interest in hearing their different perspectives on the issue.

Technically, the premise of Jay Ambrose's article was correct. Gays and straights have exactly the same rights when it comes to marriage.

Flamo,

I agree with what Bubba Kidd wrote:

"...I agree with you that it is a dumb argument to say that gays have the exact same rights - the right to marry somebody of the opposite sex. It is insulting and condescending to gay rights groups to even say such a thing."

It is a weak argument. The debate is not over if gays can get married to people of the opposite gender, but if they can marry the love of their lives, like straight people can.

Bubba,

I'll see you one un-american, and raise you one pinko commie and two fascists.

Here's my fundamental problem with religious groups getting involved in the political process: It blurs the line separating church and state. It also brings to mind the validity of their tax exempt status. It's a slippery slope. Today gay marriage, tomorrow women's rights.

Unions aren't trying to deny anyone their civil liberties or craft legislature to fit any particular religious dogma or belief. They are trying to protect worker's rights. Big difference.

Laura,

I don't see liberals complaining when black churches support democratic causes. They only complain when white churches support conservative causes. And you can whine all you want about churches participating in the political process, but it is a legal right that has been repeatedly upheld by our nation's highest courts. And I'm not persuaded by your complaint about churches getting tax exemptions when public employee unions fund their activities with payroll deductions that come from tax dollars. You are trying to have it both ways. This is the process, and unions and churches are both allowed to participate. We don't get to cherry pick and exclude one or the other because we don't like their politics. Deal with it, because complaining about it accomplishes nothing and just comes off as sour grapes.

Actually Brian, BOTH sides (I should say the extremes of both sides) are guilty of the ludicrous Nazi accusations in this debate.

As for religious interference, I resent both "liberal" and "conservative" churches getting into the political mix. Let them stick to celebrating the mass, rather than agitating the masses.

That having been said - the Mormon Church, Knights of Columbus and Catholic archdioceses throughout the State are guilty of crossing the line here. This was more than simply advocating a moral point of view based on religious belief. It was overt political funding and campaigning for a political cause.

A cause, I might ad, that should never have appeared on a ballot to be ruled upon by popular opinion. This isn't American Idol. This is the American political system and it has been hijacked by special interests o' plenty (liberal, conservative and corporate). This time it was performed by an organized collusive effort on the part of organized religion.

Bubba is right - scare tactics are used by all sides. But outright lies claiming that churches will be forced to recognize the marriages (they would not) or that California schools would be forced to teach homosexuality (there was no such provision) goes beyond "scare tactics." And these lies were funded by religious organizations professing a search for spiritual "truth," and maintaining a tax-deductible status for doing so.

Some of these churches ought to look into their own dirty laundry before attempting to cleanse the sanctity of marriage. Otherwise, "Methinks the lady doth protest too much."

To be honest, I'm not interested in op-eds. THat is why I like the Dennert Blog so much - Brian doesn't usually opine. Give me facts!

I have no clue why the Yes on 8 people are surprised why their supporters are being blackballed or boycotted. What did they think would happen? They shouldn't be complaining.

I agree that churches should stay out of politics - it happens continually - Mormons and Catholics recently out in California and the AME back East. If churches want to play politics, they should revoke their tax-status. Don't be gaming the system.

The Bard,

I agree both sides use Nazi analogies too often. I never said only one said does it.

Many of the best members of churches do much good in our society particularly in such areas as dedicating their lives to help those who are most in need. However, all churches are institutions lead by fallible humans who often are blind to much beyond the continued power, influence and preservation of the institution itself. Aside from constitutional arguments of separation of church and state, the righteousness and privileged status these institutions claim for themselves under the law (and tax codes) looks somewhat different when measured against a full and honest view of the reality of these institutions.

So, politically propagating a religious point of view as civil law by targeting gays (a very easy target) should surprise no one who has been paying attention to both current events and history.

However, I firmly believe that the presentation of varied points of view on this subject (or any other) have a rightful place in our democratic system whether in op-ed articles or blogs. The latter is certainly more democratic and where, I think, more of the future of journalism resides.

Harold:

It is good to see that notwithstanding the deadly precision of the Norman archer's aim, your human rights vision is still crystal clear, and your articulation of same, focused and compelling, as usual.

In my opinion, the false choice advocated by those who seek a "religious free polity," is that the complete absence of religious perspective amongst some humans engaged in politics is somehow an essential and non-negotiable price of the separation of Church and State as articulated in the American Constitution.

Neither the self-evident truths of human nature, nor the history of the evolution of social justice in this country supports such an antiseptically religious-free view of American politics.

Can one imagine the abolitionists’ hard-fought and long struggle against slavery, both in Europe and the United States, without the spiritual advocacy of the Quakers, the Catholics and many other religionists? Most significantly, Sir Cecil Wray, M.P., who presented the Quaker’s first abolitionist petition to the English parliament in 1783.

And, let us not forget Abbe Grégoire, a French Roman Catholic Priest and Constitutional Bishop of Blois, who made the motion in May 1791 that the Constituent Assembly pass its first law admitting some wealthy free men of colour in the French colonies to the same rights as whites. The good Father also expressed an eloquent disdain of Louis XV, and the monarchy in general when he said, “..Kings are in morality what monsters are in the world of nature."

Moving closer to home and American shores, was the American Quaker abolitionist and early feminist, Abby Kelly, who worked closely with Angelina Grimke in the Lynn Female Society, and also recruited Susan B. Anthony to the Women’s rights movement.

In 1838, Ms. Kelly served as the Lynn Female’s Society first delegate to the national convention of the Anti-Slavery Society. She courageously pioneered the causes of abolitionism and equal rights for women, by delivering crowd-stirring speeches to mixed gender and mixed racial crowds at state and national Anti-Slavery society conventions.

Often, Ms. Kelly shared the speaking platform with ex-slaves, despite the extra social scorn such action this entailed at the time. At one such convention, she said, “..I rejoiced to be identified with the despised people of color. If they are despised, so ought their advocates to be.�

In fact, Ms. Kelly was so strong, so passionate, and as a Quaker, so religiously committed in her opposition to slavery, that radical abolitionism became known as “Abby Kellyism.�

Throughout American history, there are countless other examples of people of faith engaging in positive, progressive, political activism on behalf of the common good and equal rights for all, who also joyously live their religious beliefs.

Commensurately, there are also countless examples of many good folk fundamentally committed to the principle of equal rights for all who do not believe, either in God, a particular religious denomination, nor religion in general. So be it.

The brilliance of the Founding Fathers was to conceive, articulate and eventually craft in our Constitution, an extraordinary compromise amongst the political, legal and societal rights of affirmers, agnostics and atheists all as citizens of this great Constitutional republic.

However, I do not think that their intent was to equate freedom of religion with state sanctioned and compelled antiseptic absence of religion from the body politic, as a matter of law, custom, or practice.

After all, as the great Post-WW II Polish poet, aphorist and close friend of Leon Pasternak, Stanislaw Lec was fond of saying, “..Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's; and unto human beings, what?

Ciao Commendatori

NostraDemus

Frater noster,

Perhaps you are a bit confused about my point of view:

My disdain is for the hypocrisy of church leaders who use their churches as political springboards for their careers or personal agendas or to protect abusers of women and children or for the scapegoating of racial, ethnic, religious or other minorities (including gays). That is NOT religion and something very different with the practice by many of diverse faiths committed to a genuine spirituality and true human morality that protects, uplifts and unites humankind in the name and service of the God whose face they see in that of the most humble whom they serve.

The former is betrayal all that is divine; the latter is the only real hope of mankind.

Regarding separation of church and state: the founding fathers were mostly Deists and freethinkers who structured a new order based on reason that provided for tolerance in the practice of diverse religious systems through strength found in a single framework of law as outlined in the constitution. Their fear - borne out of centuries of warfare and persecution designed to stifle minority freedom and viewpoints - was imposition of specific morality and faith onto the few by the many.

"Novus ordo seclorum"

Religion is always involved in politics because some ( or most at some level ) people are religious.

Katie,
If prop 8 had been defeated would you have expected the No on 8 supporters to be blacklisted and boycotted?

JimmyM,

The threats from the Yes on 8 people started BEFORE the election. Both sides have done it.

http://www.cbs8.com/story.php?id=144185

JimmyM - Absolutely!

A couple of posts back Bubba opined a bit on the political activities of churches and Unions.

I'll say up front that I am a Union guy, and not a church guy, but I will say that applying the same rules to both when they get political has, as an idea, some legs.

This won't impact Unions though, they are already under assault for their political dealings. On the other hand churches, the LDS currently being questioned, are not used to this, and maybe that needs to change.

Yah, obviously "liberals" will back certain causes as do "conservatives" but this time the LDS has their feet held to the fire. It's high time in my opinion and just fair play.

Both types of institutions are becoming more blatantly political...both should be subject to the same scrutiny.

Hi Brian,

Great idea Brian, as the chair of the Ventura County Democratic Central Committee Communications Committee we would be happy to participate in a bi-weekly Op-Ed or CyberDebate. Please feel free to contact me to arrange for our participation. I think it would be great to do them live on Video as well. This would be a great service to the community. We would like you to moderate the debates and or provide the subjects for the bi-weekly Op-Eds so we are on subject.