48 thoughts on “prop 8 – the musical”

  1. Hey Will,
    I’m a huge fan of your blog and books! Thanks so much for posting this. I’m an intern at Funny or Die and it means a lot for you to support the cause.
    Keep up the great work and Happy Holidays!
    -dc
    twitter.com/douglaschaplin

  2. That is the greatest cast ever.
    I think I just realized Jack Black should star in every musical. Then I’d go see them. Take that, Mark Evanier!

  3. Hehe nice one. Seems to be a bit inspired by a “The West Wing” episode. Not sure about copyright stuff, so i won’t post a youtube link, but you can check it out if you search for “west wing bible” on youtube. It’s really worth it.

  4. That was excellent. Jack Black really should be in every musical- and always play Jesus.
    but really- shrimp? an abomination? I’d go to hell just for that alone.

  5. Here is what I cannot understand. Why is it that when an election goes the way the left wants (as in the case of the new President elect) then the majority has spoken and the reset of the country should just shut up but in the case of Prop 8 and other bans on gay marriages you want to say screw the democratic process and the votes of the majority simply because you didn’t get your way. The voters have spoken and it there is no reason for this to go any farther much less to a court to decide what the people want when their voice has already been heard in the voting process.

  6. “taltoz, because no one realized that black people could be as bigoted as whites are considered.”
    They may be bigoted in your opinion but their votes should count just as much as yours. That is the way the process works.

  7. @taltoz
    Actually, it works like this:
    Whichever “side” wins any election or other vote-based decision process gets to say “the majority has spoken, now everybody else shut up,” and everybody else gets to say “screw the democratic process, the majority is wrong” and push for further reforms to be settle via democratic processes. So I want to thank both you and Wil Wheaton for successfully furthering our democratic process.

  8. @ taltoz
    Also, this is a problem because it violates human rights. Kinda like we did to black people… and Japanese people… and Native Americans… and interracial couples… the list goes on. We’ve made changes (however slowly) to meet these groups’ needs because it was the right thing to do, despite the fact that it was not the popular thing to do.
    We don’t always get it right, for sure (reservations, separate but “equal”, etc) but there is absolutely NO constitutional reason to deny homosexual couples the right to marry, and it is almost certainly against the constitution to refuse the right. So, really, we’re fixing a problem that should not exist, not changing the way the country works.
    Also, I’ve never agreed with “_____ won the election, now everyone shut up.” That’s not how democracy works. It happens on both sides, by the way.

  9. @Amanda
    The problem with that approach is that you are using examples that were based on race not a moral decision. This is more along the lines of concepts like NAMBLA. It goes against the morals of the majority.

  10. I hereby propose Taltoz’ Law, akin to Godwin’s Law: “As an online discussion of gay rights grows longer, the probability that some mouth-breathing rednecked idiot will make a comparison involving NAMBLA or bestiality approaches one.”
    Hmm. It lacks a certain pithiness. Perhaps another draft is in order.

  11. Being gay is as much or little of a moral choice as being straight.
    We don’t choose our sexual orientation – just our actions.
    Oh, and before anyone says anything about ‘gays should then choose not to act on their sexual impulses’ let’s say the same thing for straights for a moment – hmmmm . . . let’s check with the Catholic Priesthood and see how well that has worked out.

  12. @taltoz – The way it works is, the public gets to vote on something, then the government gets to decide if the thing the public voted for is constitutionally sound.
    In this way, the majority does not get to have a stranglehold on the minority, and cannot destroy their civil rights or cast them into some sort of second class citizenship.
    The system was set up to deny the tyranny of the majority. For instance (and I know this is dangerously close to a Godwin, but I’m not sure how else to put it), if the majority decides to reinstate slavery, the government has to make a decision on whether or not this is an addition to the constitution that does no harm, or a revision to an existing clause that would in effect reverse that amendment or register it moot – in effect causing harm. Harm not being physical pain, you understand, but being a legal term meaning interference in an individual’s right to health, happiness, etc.
    In addition, if a proposed amendment (at least in California) is a revision, it has to be submitted for judicial review to see whether or not it, again, causes harm. But the Prop 8 people did not do so, and that is one of the grounds upon which it is being challenged.
    Also, during the last round of “Deny the Gays”, the court said in their decision that an amendment which interferes with the rights of gays to marry could not be ratified, so it is being challenged on those grounds as well.
    The Prop 8 people knew these things, of course, and went ahead anyway, knowing if it passed and the courts threw it out, they could rally the troops against the court and “activist judges” to make some hay with the religious right and try to get more righties on the bench that would tow the party line. Either way, they feel, they are getting something out of this, and eventually, if they do, everyone loses.

  13. Not touching the politics (aside from the obvious fact that I sent the link), but just wanted to say thanks for the shout out, Wil. I apparently beat the crowds on this one.
    First time for everything.

  14. taltoz said:
    “The problem with that approach is that you are using examples that were based on race not a moral decision.”
    Morals based on religion (and religion only) have no place in our government. That pretty much negates the majority’s moral desires.
    Unless you or anyone else can give valid moral reasons for denying gay marriage that are not solely religious in nature, then they should have no bearing on law in the United States.
    Think about it this way… I’m allowed to marry my fiancee this month because we are heterosexual. There are lots of people who don’t agree with our morals (being atheists and vegetarians and socialists – oh my!), yet we are allowed to marry. We’ll probably raise little vegetable eating, atheistic activists, too. If other people don’t like that, do they have the right to invalidate our marriage?
    Besides, I’m pretty sure the people fighting against equal rights for blacks, women, native americans, and all the other “minority” groups considered their beliefs to be moral. The fact that it boiled down to race or gender is inconsequential. We, as a society, have realized that people’s morals (particularly those borne out of religion) are not as important as human rights. Gender, ethnicity, religion, and age are now considered things that are protected – discrimination based on those things is not allowed. Sexuality, being a natural part of a living thing, should be added to the list.

  15. “Gender, ethnicity, religion, and age are now considered things that are protected – discrimination based on those things is not allowed. Sexuality, being a natural part of a living thing, should be added to the list.”
    So if you’re sexuality happened to include pre-teen kids we should just add that to your protected list as well? Sorry, just because you have a different moral scale than the majority of the country does not mean that the rest of the country adjusts their morality for you.

  16. Man, taltoz has just littered the floor with strawmen here.
    I find it very hard to believe that someone who knows how to bang the rocks together is actually as ignorant and obtuse as taltoz appears to be. I call troll.

  17. Just because I have a different opinion does not make me a troll. I am entitled to my opinion which in this case was shared by the majority of voters.
    For the record I have been following this blog since the first version of wilwheaton.net

  18. Uh, ‘pre-teens’ themselves are a protected class – anyone who sexually assaults them are violating the rights of the pre-teen.
    Nobody here has advocated that.
    People in this comment posting have only advocated the protection of individual and class rights – not pedaphilia.
    That you, taltoz, would bring up such a statement indicates that you have no fundamental understanding of this issue.

  19. Ok, lets try a different approach. Why are you not also fighting to allow polygamy? There are no other “protected classes”. Why should people with multiple partners be denied the same rights as monogamous partners?
    The answer is that polygamous marriage would go against the definition of marriage being a man and a woman just like gay marriage would.

  20. This is one of those issues, like abortion-rights, that is very difficult to find middle ground. You either feel one way or another, and the opinions of taltoz are just as valid as those of Amanda. But they will seldom convince the other that the opposing view is correct.
    I believe that one person should not dictate to another how to live his/her life. As long as no one is being harmed, they never have to answer to me. As a life-long Christian, I am certain that I am not worthy to judge who is “right”, nor who is morally wrong. I’ve actually not met the person who is qualified to do that in this lifetime.

  21. Alice’s point is spot on. I’m not trying to convince anyone that their moral beliefs are wrong – morals kind of fit under the “opinion” category and thus cannot be proven correct or incorrect. What I am saying is that there is no legal basis for denying the right of marriage based on gender/sexuality.
    And, yes, I think polygamy should be legal. I know several polyamorous people who are quite happy being committed to multiple people, why shouldn’t they have the same rights under the law that committed couples have?
    I think, too, the important thing to think about with Proposition 8 is that it should not have been allowed to go to a majority vote. Because it revises the California constitution instead of amending it, it should go through the legislature and be reviewed by the judicial branch (according to California law, unless I’m misunderstanding something). While I am certainly an advocate for social justice, I think we should also pay attention to the legality of the whole issue.
    If a simple majority vote was all that was needed to keep women and blacks from voting and continue the various other discriminatory practices our government used to allow, social change and civil rights would have gone through a much slower evolution. Most people resist change – thus, many who are on the fence about the issue or who really don’t care either way will vote in favor of the status quo just because it keeps things the same. This is why we have a judicial branch – they help us make the tough decisions (among other things).

  22. LOL – example #234 as to why gay marriage “fight” is a fight against religion and the status quo. Because yeah, offending the people you need to win over is the way to go about it. It just cracks me up to no end.
    Gay marriage is 0-30 when left to the vote. Continuing to hate religion and the status quote ain’t working so hot. Now of course the newly ironic issue is that without the 2:1 support for Prop 8 from blacks and Hispanics it wouldn’t have passed.
    I however have zero sympathy to the resistance, as simply a lot of it, like this ridiculous video, is the very cause.
    Most people support civil unions. Most people do not support gay marriage. LOL – even Obamination says he doesn’t support gay marriage (I think he’s a liar as he is smart enough to know that it is political suicide).
    Be happy with civil unions and get on with your lives, or move to the two states that have ram-rodded the issue through the courts.
    (BTW, this is from a TRUE conservative that nominally supports gay marriage)

  23. I think polygamy is a much more serious issue than gay marriage, personally… but in any case, this is why we have separation of church and state; so man-made laws can accomodate people who want to do whatever they want.

  24. @onebadgungan
    “so man-made laws can accomodate people who want to do whatever they want.”
    Actually laws protect society by preventing people from doing whatever they want.

  25. @taltoz
    In cases where one person’s actions harms another and the vocal majority condemns it, yes. When you look at how democracy works, really it is just a system to regulate people’s wants, for better or for worse.

  26. Not only cases of harm to an individual but also to the protect the society itself. That is why there are laws against some activities and owning certain items even though it may not directly harm another person.

  27. “That is why there are laws against some activities and owning certain items even though it may not directly harm another person.”
    Right… like laws against gay marriage (indeed the focus of this post) and laws against possession of marijuana (depends where you live). Laws that change to accomodate the shifting of peoples’ wants.
    The point I’m trying to make is that separation of church and state unchains personal rights in a democratic society. When you consider gay marriage as a rights issue, it is a simple matter. Sure, there’s contention about changing the definition of marriage, but really why should that matter when we’ve already picked-and-choosed the hell out of biblical morality?

  28. That is one of the critical flaws of the pro-gay marriage platform – that the tradition definition emanates from the Abrahamic religions.
    The man/woman marriage definition spans most cultures NOT of the Abrahamic flavor as well – from the depths of tribal Africa, to Hindu India, to Shinto Japan.

  29. Has anyone idetified a Gay Gene, or has anyone ever heard of a FORMER Native-American, African-American,
    Ex-Asian, Once Caucasian. With the exception of Micheal Jackson, all of the above “Classes” are ludicrous. I have an affection for the men in my life, they are like brothers, I would not VIOLATE the natural use of sex to satisfiy a lust of the flesh!

Comments are closed.