Tactics in restricting rights to marriage

Not that they have been pleasant about it, but backers of Proposition 8 (for this November 2008 election) have been staying fairly religious neutral in their promotion of the proposition. So much so, in fact, that in their ballot arguments, they use more fear based approaches instead of moral approaches to why people should vote against gay marriage. The Chronicle says they're taking their argument "to kindergarten":

Backers of a November initiative to ban same-sex marriage in California plan to tell voters in the state ballot pamphlet that the constitutional amendment would protect children as young as kindergarten age from being taught in school about the virtues of gay and lesbian matrimony. "If the gay marriage ruling is not overturned, teachers will be required to teach young children there is no difference between gay marriage and traditional marriage," supporters of Proposition 8 said in ballot arguments that went on public display this week at the secretary of state's office. It's all nonsense and scare tactics, opponents of the measure said Thursday. Steve Smith, strategist for the No on 8 campaign, said opponents of the measure will decide by next week whether to sue, which is the only way a ballot argument can be changed before the election. [SFGate]

Meanwhile, backers of Florida's Amendment 2 are taking us back to the book of Genesis for why voters should support keeping it to a man and a woman:

As we noted earlier in the week, support in CA lingers at 51% in support of keeping marriage open to all committed couples, regardless of orientation. Additionally, a change in wording to the ballot initiative makes note that it would amend the Constitution to take away rights from same-sex couples. When worded that way, even less people would vote for it.

PS - did you notice? Apart from their argument, what caught my eye in their commercial is that the people in the FL video are white and the dude has pretty nice fore-arms. ;)