« Go back a post || Return to G-A-Y homepage || Haul tail to next post »
10/23/2009
NOM takes APP; fitting, as they've been taking ACRAP on our lives for years
A few months back, a group calling itself the American Principles Project crept in to give this nation something that it needs about as much as it needs a Bernie Madoff redux: Another far-right, anti-gay political group. Now, just a few months after coming onto anyone's radar, APP (in the potty) is getting into the game in a major way, with its offshoot group American Principles in Action joining forces with the National Organization For Marriage to sue the state of Maine over its campaign disclosure laws. Although it's not even really accurate to say they are "joining forces with NOM," as the guiding force behind both APP (down your leg) and NOM is Dr. Robert George, the Princeton intellectual who made the unfortunate choice to dedicate his mental capacities towards an obsession with hurting gay people. So for all intents and purposes, NOM is joining forces with itself for the purpose of wiggling out of the upcoming investigation into their possibly unfair campaign practices.
Got all that? No? Well here, the ever-enterprising Mike Tidmus has the full story:
NOM sues Maine over donor reporting [Mike Tidmus]
Perhaps the most egregious of Mike's findings? That according to their filed complaint, this ridiculous APP (and a doodoo) group is planning to create two ridiculous web ads for the Maine fight, both of which could not be much more flawed, misleading, or offensively homo-hostile, even if they literally showed Ellen Degeneres eating a baby for dinner:
#1:
Girl: Mommy, are you a bigot?
Mother: What?
Girl: At school, we learned that people who are against gay marriage are bigots.
Mother: No, dear. I believe that homosexuals should be treated fairly–but I also believe that marriage should be just for one man and one woman. That doesn’t make me a bigot.
Girl: What about Reverend Jones and Father Diego? Are they bigots?
Mother: Did you learn that at school too?
Girl nods
VO: Think that gay marriage won’t affect your family? Think again.
Vote Yes Graphic
#2:
School Administrator (talking to an off-camera mic/reporter–as he talks, we see images of teachers in classrooms reading from blurred-out books, GLSEN-style posters, etc.): No, we’re very proud of the new curriculum. It’s all about teaching kids to embrace different lifestyles and explore their own sexuality.
Switching from images of sex ed classrooms to little boy on a bench in a darkened school hallway. We can see an adult male (not his face, we’re looking from the perspective of the child and the view never includes his head) come out of an office, take the boy’s hand, lead him into the office, and close the door. Freeze on the closed door, which has a sign that says, “Counseling Session: Do Not Disturb”
Reporter (VO) : Yes, but is it appropriate for kindergartners to be receiving counseling about whether they might be gay?
School Admin (VO): Sure, we’ve had a few complaints, but there’s not much parents can do. It’s the law, after all.
VO: Think gay marriage won’t affect your family? Think again.
Vote Yes Graphic
Get your parody brains working, kids. Let's take APP on these fires before they ever get a chance to rage!
Your thoughts
Well the first parody option that comes to mind is of the second add. Keep it exactly the same, only replace the school councilor with a catholic priest
Posted by: dragon8888 | Oct 23, 2009 10:00:34 AM
Ah yes, George is on the NOM board or at least was last time I checked.
Posted by: Tony P | Oct 23, 2009 10:21:53 AM
Tony: On the board? He founded the damn thing!
Posted by: G-A-Y | Oct 23, 2009 10:38:51 AM
If it wouldn't be potentially hurtful for the kids involved, I'd suggest an ad showing a child being bullied on the playground by kids saying that his family is not real, no good, that god hates his family, and that he's going to hell, with VO asking if this is what you want your kids to learn in school.
Posted by: ColdCountry | Oct 23, 2009 11:20:43 AM
Just read Tidmus's article.
"Immediate and irreparable injury, loss, and damage will result to Plaintiffs by reason of the regulation’s chilling effect on Plaintiffs’ free speech and associational rights and by the potential for enforcement of Section 1056-B against NOM and APIA."
They go to another state for the express purpose of repealing the rights of it's citizens, and they might suffer "immediate and irreparable injury, loss, and damage" by following the laws of said state? Well isn't that too f*ing bad!
Posted by: ColdCountry | Oct 23, 2009 11:44:26 AM
Here's the thing, anyone who 'merely believes that marriage should be between a man and a woman' believes that gay couples should be taxed at a higher rate, that gay couples should have to go through legal hoops to have the kind of financial & emotional security opposite-sex couples take for granted. They may not have taken the time to think about what marriage is and what it would be like not to have those rights, but that is what they support.
And that either makes them ignorant or a bigot.
Posted by: Lyle | Oct 23, 2009 1:38:37 PM
Take the first ad and substitute any ethnic minority, and the only answer from the "mother" would have to be, "Well, yes I am, dear. I'm a bigot through and through." The thing about it, though, is that even thought they are bigots... they're allowed! Anyone can be a bigot if they wish... it isn't against the law!
They revel in their hatred (which they are fully free both to revel, and to hate), they just don't like the LABEL!! They want to spray some "pleasant" smelling verbiage, on the rotting, gangrenous hatred-appendage sticking out of their chest, because the word "BIGOT" is just too impolite.
Posted by: Dick Mills | Oct 23, 2009 1:54:29 PM
comments powered by Disqus
