RECENT  POSTS:  » No, you really don't seem to know what tyranny is, Jerry Cox » Vatican's #Humanum event meant to paint gay families as 'evil' and 'obscene,' admits invited guest » Read: Federal judge calls MS's marriage ban what it is: discriminatory » Yet another federal judge accurately notes crude discrimination within Arkansas' marriage ban » Prominent conservative outlet equates LGBT activists with Nazi paramilitary » New pledge: Conservative pastors choose to separate selves from civil marriage » Read: ADF creates fake 'victim' superbook; misapplies business matters to churches » P&G reaches out to pro-discrimination activist, learns it made right choice » In prep for Pope's 2015 visit, World Meeting of Families readies gay stigma, exclusion » Today in ambition: NOM cofounder vows to fight marriage equality for 100 years  

« Go back a post || Return to G-A-Y homepage || Haul tail to next post »

09/04/2008

AHH!! GAYS EAT CAKE! ON A FORK! WHILE SMILING!!

by Jeremy Hooper

This is a new button ad that the Concerned Women For America are running on their site as part of their attempt to ban marriage equality in California:

Picture 6-150

Because that's apparently all they have to do to rally their troops: Show a perfectly lovely image of two well-dressed guys enjoying wedding cake and accompany it with a fear quote-laden tag line. This, an image that an accepting mother might put in her scrapbook, looks to these Concerned Women like a ticking time bomb waiting to destroy this spinning orb. And these five words, all of which hold a peaceful and positive connotation, reads to them like a torch and pitchfork-grabbing call to action.

Ya know, we'd almost be less offended if they used an over-the-top, unfair portrayal of gay lives. At least in that case we could tell ourselves that if these people only saw our love for what it truly is, they would get behind us. But this ad, which is almost shockingly benign, reminds us that many people in this nation and this world don't even need to think of us as sex-crazed, diseased, perverts to fight against us. It shows us that for some of our fellow citizens, a sweet piece of cake and an ever sweeter piece of love are more than enough to raise their ire. That's sad.

CWA's site [CWA]

**FYI: The image they are using is a Getty Photo. We've checked with the company to ensure that CWA is using it in a proper manner.

space gay-comment gay-G-A-Y-post gay-email gay-writer-jeremy-hooper


Your thoughts

At least the people who would get outraged over something like this are decreasing.

Posted by: RainbowPhoenix | Sep 4, 2008 5:35:27 PM

I don't get it. Why does it have to be one or the other? Why not "Gay Marriage" = Happy Wedding? One groom is taller than the other, so I understand the hatred if that's what they mean.

Posted by: Franc | Sep 4, 2008 6:27:16 PM

oh no! and I've recently given them some ammunition: I put up pics of our own, very happy, very gay wedding. PLUS, while we honeymooned in Ptown, we got married legally. Can I be a poster boy for CWA too?

Posted by: keltic | Sep 4, 2008 7:58:15 PM

I believe the CWFA ladies are more upset because the men are doing it all wrong.

If you've seen any of those women, it's obvious they prefer to skip the fork, and just grab the cake by the handfuls.

Posted by: Scott | Sep 4, 2008 9:04:36 PM

what's really freaky to me is how much that pic looks like my actual wedding. My parents, thank the gods, have me and my new hubby in a big frame on the mantle. Because they're, you know, human. But it's hard not to take this kind of personally. Lord, these people are nuts.

Posted by: Jeffrob | Sep 5, 2008 8:55:09 AM

"Lord, these people are nuts."

I think you're barely scraping the surface on that one! LOL

Posted by: Scott | Sep 5, 2008 1:30:11 PM

You make an excellent point why one shouldn't be upset by this -- it puts these lunatics in the proper light while presenting an image that couldn't be offensive to anyone sane. Aren't images like this EXACTLY what we're always wanting to be in the media? Well, guess what -- we've won.

One correction, though: to be thoroughly accurate, you should be referring to the Men at Concerned Women, since that organization is run from the top down by men, hysterically enough.

Posted by: noproblem | Sep 5, 2008 4:33:42 PM

"Noproblem": Actually, since the departure of Robert Knight and Matt Barber, the male presence has significantly dwindled at CWA. We'll see if it's a new trend or just a temporary patch.

Posted by: G-A-Y | Sep 5, 2008 4:43:43 PM

This actually puts the lie to those tiresome gays who keep saying "If only we acted more discreet and not so flamboyant, they'd accept us!"

Clearly, this picture shows the truth: Our mere existence is what offends these people, not any degree of flamboyance or strangeness.

Posted by: Pope Buck I | Sep 5, 2008 4:54:56 PM

PopeBuck: " ... Our mere existence is what offends these people, not any degree of flamboyance or strangeness."

You hit the nail on the hit sister!

Posted by: Chapeau | Sep 5, 2008 5:49:46 PM

says noproblem: Aren't images like this EXACTLY what we're always wanting to be in the media? Well, guess what -- we've won.

There was a book published back in the 80s, what was it called?, oh yeah -- After the Ball: How America Will Conquer Its Fear and Hatred of Gays in the 90's! (Published in 1990? That counts as 80s!)

One of the main arguments of the authors was that we had to get wholesome looking photos of gays out there, that the haters (or, more realistically, those who get to blithely sweep through their lives not-thinking) when faced with the raw ordinariness of gay lives will become bored. "Hey, these gays aren't the exciting transgressive wild scary freaks I need to live my life in opposition to. They're actually sorta blah. Note to self: Cannibals are still a thrill!" So, if the After the Ball thesis is anywhere near correct the anti-marriage "folks" are doing good gay work by posting ordinary-looking photos of marrying same-sex couples. Sure, the context is bad, but the image is king. There's that old story that 60 Minutes did a story critical of Reagan -- the voiceover harshed on him but the images contradicted that harshness, showing Reagan as patriotic and paternal. Supposedly the Republican strategists crowed in triumph.

Should we?

Posted by: Glenn I | Sep 7, 2008 12:43:43 PM

comments powered by Disqus

G-A-Y Comments Policy


 
Related Posts with Thumbnails