« Kodak effort helps underappreciated moms | Main | This ice-cream ad seems just a tad ungodly »
Miss California anti-gay-marriage ad debuts
Ya know, there was a time when you could depend on religious zealots to deliver hateful, blustery dogmatism. But this new breed just doesn't have the same fire. Case in point: Miss California's new anti-gay-marriage ad for the National Organization for Marriage. The title of the commercial is "No Offense," which begs the question of how NOM thinks that's going to get across the message that gays are immoral and disgusting. At least its earlier "Gathering Storm" spot showed a healthy amount of fear-mongering. That they're strapping a glorified swimsuit model to the front of their movement is apt, because evidently they're as clueless as she is. —Posted by David Kiefaber |
|
May 1, 2009 in Gay rights, Kiefaber, National Organization for Marriage, Politics | Permalink |
Comments
You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.
It always cracks me up that this site, which can't even have an intelligent discussion about ads, thinks it should pontificate about politics.
Stay in the shallow end of the pool, kids. Clearly banner ads are kicking your ass. No need to make things harder on yourselves.
Posted by: me | May 1, 2009 10:30:41 AM
Maybe they're just trying to show that no one has a corner on hateful, blustery dogmatism.
Posted by: G | May 1, 2009 10:33:14 AM
Wongdoody must be the agency of record.
Posted by: Perez | May 1, 2009 11:50:03 AM
So, explain if you will, how these ads and the support of the traditional definition of marriage is so clearly bigotry and hate, but calling a woman-you have most likely never met or talked to-and a large group who share her feelings (52% of CA voters actually) clueless is somehow justified...
Posted by: Jimbo | May 1, 2009 1:52:06 PM
David Quief much?
Posted by: Straight and Proud | May 1, 2009 2:03:23 PM
she's attacking first!
Posted by: soybean | May 1, 2009 2:38:54 PM
What part of her answering a question truthfully and according to her beliefs is attacking?
Posted by: Jimbo | May 1, 2009 2:46:23 PM
Jimbo, she DIDN'T answer the question. She was asked about states' legislation of gay marriage, and she gave us her opinion on gay marriage. That's reason enough to call her clueless.
Posted by: Krista | May 1, 2009 4:06:55 PM
What's the difference Krista? The issue of states' legislation of gay marriage is about whether or not marriage should be only between a man and a woman. She believes it should be...was she suppose to answer as if she were a state? And if so, the state she represents is California. They passed a proposition that she is completely in line with in her answer. It would take a clue to know that.
Posted by: Jimbo | May 1, 2009 4:25:40 PM
She might have been answering truthfully, but her truth sucks.
Posted by: Lee | May 1, 2009 4:45:40 PM
She was supposed to answer as if she understood the question. Here's an example:
Q: Should states have the right to sentence murderers to death?
A: I don't believe people should murder.
That's not answering the question. That's offering your opinion on an aspect of the question.
Posted by: Krista | May 1, 2009 5:06:07 PM
How is it that when you don't agree with someone's beliefs, it's okay to talk trash about them. But if they don't agree with your beliefs they are wrong, "hateful", etc.
Posted by: Kevin | May 1, 2009 5:19:14 PM
Scolars like Douglas Laycock? Am I the only one who finds the guy's name hilarious?
Posted by: Carlos Mal Pacheco | May 1, 2009 5:29:32 PM
Kevin,
I don;t consider someone who has different beliefs than i do hateful. for example, if you believe that Obama is a socialist, you're not hateful. You just have a different opinion than I do.
However, If the core of your belief is to consider a group of perfectly nice people "immoral" and deny them the rights of their equals, I'd call that hateful.
Posted by: oat soda | May 1, 2009 6:50:28 PM
Oat Soda,
Perhaps you could share with us your feelings about polygamy? Do you feel that the relationship between consenting adults are "immoral"? Do you think the state should deny them their rights as equals? Remember the battle cry from same-sex movement is "expressions of love are never wrong" ...
If you don't support it, is it because you hate polygamists?
Posted by: G | May 1, 2009 9:09:08 PM
honestly, if its not hurting anyone, I say let polygamy exist. If a man and 3 women can live together as husband and wives, or a woman and 6 men can live together as wives and husbands... let it be.... or if 9 gay men want to all be married to eachother, I say go for it. What the hell should it matter to anyone else... it doesn't detract from traditional one man one woman marriage
Posted by: jason | May 2, 2009 12:48:13 AM
One issue is does same sex marriage disturb society? As such it does not, though it may disturb certain individuals. Live and let live.
Posted by: atul chatterjee | May 2, 2009 6:22:49 AM
@G
The polygamy argument is a straw man. Polygamy is illegal for EVERYBODY. What we're debating is whether it's proper for one group of citizens to have a right not shared by another group.
Posted by: BH | May 2, 2009 3:39:56 PM
I don't feel like this ad was anything more than garbage. It has the undertone of a political campaign and I personally don't feel like the same-sex marriage issue should be an issue.I happen to support marriage between a man and a woman but same-sex marriage isn't going to effect my life for a second so what's the problem? Again, content and delivery of this ad was very poor.
Posted by: XLoya | May 3, 2009 11:42:29 AM
The homosexual fanatics started this fight! No one was talking about gay rights. The gathering in this auditorium was not for the issue of gay rights. The subject of the program had nothing to do with gay rights. This was a beauty pageant! It was a pageant of wonderful young women who represented the states and capitol city of our country. In the contests of the pageant, it was determined that the representative of California, Miss Carrie Prejean, was the best one.
But then, this wicked fag, Mr. Perez Hilton, has to bring up not just gay rights, but the most extreme gay rights issue and ask Carrie what does she think about two queers "marrying" each other!
So Miss Prejean answers -- what would be the answer of many hundreds of millions of people throughout the world (me included) -- that it is wrong!
So for this "crime" that she dared to do the "forbidden deed" of being loyal to what her parents and her religious instructors taught her, she was rejected from the Miss USA title and subjected to the most demeaning insults!
So it is totally understandable and, yes, commendable, that Miss Carrie Prejean, seeing how she herself was just caught in the line of fire of this fanatic obsession to wreak marriage, undertakes upon herself to assist in the efforts to strengthen true marriage.
Posted by: Yisroel Feldman | May 3, 2009 5:05:26 PM
BH - I don't think it's a different as you think it is.
Isn't same sex marriage is also illegal for everybody (in 45 states at least). In those states, doesn't everyone have an equal right to marry someone of the opposite gender?
How are the rights of a group gays (who wish to change the marriage law so that it is gender-neutral) any different that a hypothetical group of polygamists (who would want to change the law to be number-neutral)?
While the phrase "marriage is civil right" is catchy, the legal reality is that there are several restrictions on any potential marriage in this country:
Marriage is restricted by age (usually over 18, sometimes 16 with parental consent); marriage is restricted by relationship (usually parties must be more distant relations than first cousins); marriage is restricted by number (not more that 2 people in a marriage); and marriage is restricted to opposite gender (in 45 states).
You can call referencing polygamy a straw man if you'd like, but I would like a LOGICAL reason why the marriage restrictions regarding the gender of people wishing to marry are the only ones that are oppressing civil liberties.
My only point (like the point of this poorly made ad) is that the country perhaps should be more cautious about how we are currently rewriting the laws of our country. Because most of the marriage laws are being changed by appealing to the courts for civil protection the reality is that no one knows how the logic and finding contained in those rulings may or may not be applied in the future.
States that using legislation, rather than the courts, to enact same sex marriage are far more protected from these kinds of unintended consequences.
Posted by: G | May 3, 2009 5:25:50 PM
She's hot! ;-)
Posted by: Trubil | May 4, 2009 2:04:55 AM
I totally agree with what G said about people that control marriage restrictions are the only ones oppressing people's civil liberties.I think that the ad was poorly made, although it was giving the prospective about how same sex marriage would have on the legal system I feel like there are plenty of ads and legislation that are passed that are supposed to have an impact on us as citizens yet most don't ever feel a direct effect.
Posted by: XLoya | May 4, 2009 2:19:50 AM
Also to comment on what G said about polygamy. I don't see any ads on T.V. talking about how the rights of those who have six different wives are going to affect our lives. Seriously,just because the image of marriage has been shaped into a man doesn't mean it is right. People believed the earth was flat and low and behold it was a sphere. What I'm saying is that the original idea and definition of something is always subject to change.
Posted by: XLoya | May 4, 2009 2:41:22 AM
If I were Perez Hilton, I’d go back into the closet until I got that nose fixed. He looks like pig-nostril Penelope in that movie, “Penelope.” Okayyyy?
Posted by: Unconcerned Citizen | May 4, 2009 9:16:03 AM
This woman is an embarrassment to my teachings. Man was made in my image, and I am all-knowing, so when she went and got fake breasts, she defied my will.
If people are going to invoke MY name to further their closed-minded bigotry, then I am going to hold them accountable. I love all, even guys that like it in the pooper like Perez.
Posted by: God | May 4, 2009 12:01:29 PM
A lot of people, including Miss California, believe they are serving god's will when they speak out against gay marriage. There is scripture against it for sure. That said, a lot of evil has been done in the name of god's will.
Posted by: thatguy | May 4, 2009 2:19:26 PM
It was best said that marriage is really a religious matter, which it is, and should be left at that.
Posted by: Brian Son | May 4, 2009 3:41:41 PM
