Video: Maine's first anti-equality ad -- it's baaaaaaaaaaaad
(H/t: Chino Blanco)
Where's the teacher?! Where's the "working waitress"? It took them all this time to put together this, a virtual carbon copy of some of Prop 8's worst?
Peggy Olson would not approve. And neither do we: NO ON 1!!!!
**SEE ALSO: Check out Scott Fitzgibbon's considerable campaign contributions to politicians like Marilyn Musgrave and Sam Brownback. They leave no discussion about where he stands.
**MORE: In 2005, Fitzgibbon submitted testimony in favor of the so-called Federal Marriage Amendment. The same federal marriage amendment that has wide, bi-partisan non-support, and that looks even more egregious in hindsight then it did back in the day. We would suggest the same will happen with this current referendum campaign.
**MORE: As for the AP story that they clip? Well for starters, it's a bogus usage, as the clipped story is all about the Roman Catholic Church's role in this very referendum campaign, not marriage itself. So it's not AT ALL an example of what might happen if marriage equality becomes the nation's reality -- it's an example of the scrutiny that any and every church might face if they involve themselves too fully in campaign activities of any sort!
Then beyond that: The headline they use is not a neutral AP one. A neutral AP never uses the term "homosexual advocacy group." This headline comes from CNSNews, a right-wing site that picked up the AP wire story and injected the headline with their own views. Others who picked up the exact same wire story used more more accurate, more neutral headlines.
**MORE: Pretty funny that they are working the "special interests groups got the legislature to approve homosexual marriage" line. They may have forgotten the brazen pushes that their side's special interests were pushing this past winter, but we certainly haven't:
**MORE: We've put together a quick response
The entire premise of this commercial, that same-sex marriage will lead to discrimination lawsuits, is SUCH a red herring! If their issue with same-sex marriage was REALLY the possibility of lawsuits, then their problem is anti-discrimination laws, NOT same-sex marriage! Imagine if Christians released a commercial advocating for the ban of marriage between non-Christians, saying that they should have the right to discriminate against marriages which they view as ungodly.
Of all the ungrounded, anti-reason, and frankly MEAN arguments against my family's legal and financial security, there isn't one to be found which pisses me off more than this. If you hate gays and don't want to see them live happily, come out and fucking SAY IT!
Posted by: sage goes in every field | Sep 15, 2009 8:44:43 AM
"If you hate gays and don't want to see them live happily, come out and fucking SAY IT!"
Oh, but they "lovingly" hate us :)
ps I love sage
Posted by: donna | Sep 15, 2009 10:24:02 AM
I see they are still peddling the David Parker lie. The case of Parker vs. Hurley had NOTHING to do with marriage equality.
Posted by: a. mcewen | Sep 15, 2009 11:58:52 AM
I like the way the narrator's Maine accent is totally absent from the last bit. Think he may not actually be a Mainer?
Posted by: ColdCountry | Sep 15, 2009 12:35:04 PM
I am eagerly awaiting the waitress ad. They obviously have run into difficulty with it, as evidenced by their moving the filming out to CA and the long delay in the roll out of that ad. Indeed, even this ad is a week late, since they were probably shooting for after Labor Day.
Yes on 1 reported spending, via Schubert, $52,000 on a market segmentation study in July. I would bet money that it is the result of that study that made them go for a "working class waitress type". That ad will probably suggest that gays are rich and from away and are gaining something at the expense of working class women in Maine. Promises to be a humdinger of vileness.
Posted by: Steven | Sep 15, 2009 1:23:45 PM
Here are some of the things that have been the subject of school curriculum objections over the past 10 years:
- STD prevention
- Harry Potter
- Pres. Obama's speech
In each of these cases, the solution to the "problem" was to address the curriculum, not to ban the subject matter in the entire world. If you don't wan't Halloween or Harry Potter or Yoga to be discussed in schools, then tweak the curriculum accordingly. But you don't ban Halloween or Harry Potter or Yoga for the whole jurisdiction - for adults - just so you can theoretically impact the school curriculum. The whole argument has never made any sense, and I hope that No on 1 can address it well in a response ad.
Posted by: Steven | Sep 15, 2009 1:29:52 PM
If "No on 1" fails to respond that ad word-for-word and make it widely publicized, we can already count Maine out of the equality states.
Posted by: ---- | Sep 15, 2009 3:12:09 PM
I agree that this ad is just downright bad. It's a virtual carbon copy of a Yes on 8 ad from California. And I have to say that, vile though it was, our ad was better by miles. At least our "title for informational purposes only" law professor was a bombastic yet avuncular Dr Phil type. He had pep. He had zazz. He was like the Billy Mays of discrimination. Okay, I just made all that up. But, you have to agree, this Boston College guy just sticks to the screen like dried gum.
Also, why is it "homosexual" marriage now instead of "gay" marriage. Did the new verbiage test better?
I know most of you have already seen it, but here is a copy of our far superior scary gays ad: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0PgjcgqFYP4
and the delicious parody that followed:
Posted by: WilliamM | Sep 15, 2009 4:59:07 PM
I like the counter-punching ads, yes, but I'd also like to see some positive ads -- possibly featuring straight from Massachusetts who could talk about how gay marriage has not affected their marriage, maybe even showing some positive -- deliberately small -- benefits for it.
I'd like to see -- and yes, star in (were my face and voice 'air-quality' which they aren't -- that goes like this -- all the facts are accurate, btw.
"I'm 63 years old. My 'birth mother' was a lesbian, and I grew up in a lesbian household. I am myself bi-sexual, but predominantly straight, and have been married to a woman for 19 years, so I don't need the 'right to marry.' I have one main reason for supporting marriage equality. Because I know how sad I am that my mothers never had the chance to make a relationship that lasted over thirty years -- until Claire, my mother's 'life partner' died -- 'official' and I want to give others the rights they never had.
"I know that everyone in the suburban NJ town knew 'what they were.' And they never cared enough so that a naive kid who had discovered his own sexuality before he realized theirs would be condemned for their relationship. The neighbors never saw their relationship as a threat to their own.
"When Claire, a life-long Catholic, attended weekly Mass -- as she did as long as her health permitted -- the priest didn't stand at the door to bar her. When either was sick, the doctors and hospitals they went to accepted the other.
"But I was DAMN lucky. I don't want other children in the same situation to need luck -- and more today than then --to be able to celebrate their parents' relationship.
"Please vote No on Proposition 1, for them, and maybe in tribute to two ordinary people, in an extraordinarily loving relationship, who didn't survive long enough even to see Stonewall and march together hand in hand."
Posted by: Prup (aka Jim Benton) | Sep 17, 2009 4:31:19 PM
I just want to add that while I still believe that i would not be a suitable spokesman -- my voice makes Lynn Samuels sound like James Earl Jones, and my appearance is not the best, I'd be glad to make such an ad if wanted. Feel free to pass my info to anyone who would want it.
Posted by: Prup (aka Jim Benton) | Sep 17, 2009 5:20:39 PMcomments powered by Disqus