Good First Ad Against Proposition 8
Normally, when I see the stuff from No on 8 campaign, I feel I’m reading material designed to appeal to people in West Hollywood, San Francisco and the Hillcrest neighborhood of San Diego. Â When I learned they were at the helm of effort to defeat Proposition 8, which would ban state recognition of gay marriage in the Golden State, I thought it was certain to pass.
But, now that I’ve seen their first ad, I am becoming a bit more optimistic. Â Interesting they’re using a tack similar to one I described in a past post. Â
While I might have tweaked a word or two in the text of the ad, it’s a solid effort and likely to be quite effective:
24 Comments
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
I also liked the Equality California ads from a month ago that showed a woman running into obstacles on her way to the alter. Very interesting and not a single gay character.
Comment by OutliciousTV — September 22, 2008 @ 7:26 pm - September 22, 2008
So the Log Cabinets will break with their fellow Republicans and vote against Prop 8?
Comment by JT in the Army — September 22, 2008 @ 10:05 pm - September 22, 2008
Even though all the focus seems to be on Claifornia, we all need to remember that California is not the only state that has a anti-gay marriage amendment on the ballot this year. Florida and Arizona also has a amendment on thier ballots this year as well. For more information on Florida’s amendment people can go to http://sayno2.com//index.php
Comment by Nole — September 22, 2008 @ 10:20 pm - September 22, 2008
JT-
Absolutely.
Google “log cabin republicans proposition 8″ — lots of links on LCR’s position.
Also, note that many heterosexual Republicans, like Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, will also be voting against Prop 8.
Comment by Clint — September 22, 2008 @ 11:21 pm - September 22, 2008
My entire office is Republican and they are all voting against Prop 8.
Comment by OutliciousTV — September 22, 2008 @ 11:27 pm - September 22, 2008
Even “Dick” and the delicious “Mickey”?
Comment by ThatGayConservative — September 23, 2008 @ 1:27 am - September 23, 2008
“The law shouldnt treat different behaviors differently either!”
“Dont take away anyones “right” to be treated exactly the same for doing something entirely different”
“Dont take away anyone’s “right” to force others to approve of them and take their money”
There’s liberalism in a nutshell for you. I’m sure it will sell well in vapid California. Meanwhile its all lies, but hey, whats truth got to do with anything anymore.
Comment by American Elephant — September 23, 2008 @ 3:58 am - September 23, 2008
I don’t like the ad either.
People are going to lose a right that they never had until a Court invented it?
Comment by Vince P — September 23, 2008 @ 8:29 am - September 23, 2008
@ OutliciousTV: “Absolutely.
Google “log cabin republicans proposition 8″ — lots of links on LCR’s position.”
The question was about fellow REPUBLICANS, not fellow GAY Republicans.
Nice dodge. But then again, you’ve had plenty of practice.
Comment by God of Biscuits — September 23, 2008 @ 10:40 am - September 23, 2008
No, GoB, it wasn’t.
Maybe you should practice reading?
I’ll admit, Dan, I’m glad I’m not in California because I’m honestly torn on how I feel for Prop 8. I’m a supporter of Civil Unions, but am strongly against the courts making up rights. In a gut check, I’d vote against it based on the point of origin. (The Cali Supremes)
Which is strange, because I’d vote to repeal the Ohio DOMA for the same reason I voted for it; that it keeps the choice out of the courts hands.
Comment by The Livewire — September 23, 2008 @ 11:08 am - September 23, 2008
I’m kind of surprised Log Cabin would break with the Republicans since they kowtowed to them at the RNC last month.
Arnold voting against Prop 8 doesnt surprise me since he’s made statements that civil and equal rights should be voted on by the people. But it’s still a scary ideology. What if instead of Brown v. Board being enforced the leaders of the time instead handed the issue back to the people to vote on?
Comment by JT in the Army — September 23, 2008 @ 1:33 pm - September 23, 2008
“scary ideology”
6,000 years of human relationship tradition is scary.
Um ok.
50 years of birth control and abortion is about to make Europe extinct.. but 6,000 years of marriage is scary.
Comment by Vince P — September 23, 2008 @ 7:55 pm - September 23, 2008
Livewire… California is a bit screwed up in this respect. You may recall a couple years ago this actually went through the legislature. The legislature approved same-sex marriage, and the governor vetoed it, saying the court should decide it. Well, okay, the court decided it, and now folks are saying it’s for the legislature. That’s a pretty vicious Catch 22. Ideally, I’d agree with you — it should come from the people and/or their representatives. In the typical mixed up politics that are California’s, I think this is about as good as it gets, whatever your feelings about “marriage” versus “civil unions”. (My husband — yes, husband, we were married in Massachusetts — would agree with you, actually, as he would prefer a civil union.)
Comment by CR — September 23, 2008 @ 10:20 pm - September 23, 2008
Vince P, because of enablers like you the Defense of Marriage Act is in place, and thus I am unable to sponsor my would-be-wife for immigration to the U.S., even if we were legally married in a state that allowed it. And all because I don’t have balls in the eyes of the fed gov’t (i’m a lesbian), although I’d say I’ve got more “balls” than the average god-fearing pansy who would strip his fellow citizens of not only their rights, but also, in doing so, would force them to choose between the soil they grew up on and the love of their life. And all the while cowering behind the right to not have to do so.
Comment by Independent4Justice — September 23, 2008 @ 11:51 pm - September 23, 2008
>and thus I am unable to sponsor my would-be-wife for immigration to the U.S.,
Awww.
My heart aches that the US Govt didn’t consider your lesbianism when setting it’s immigration policy.
> who would strip his fellow citizens of not only their rights
You’re not being stripped of rights you never had
>in doing so, would force them to choose between the soil they grew up on and the love of their life
You’re the one making that choice. You could go move to her country. Why do you have to uproot whatsherface?
Comment by Vince P — September 24, 2008 @ 2:38 am - September 24, 2008
#15 Maybe because she lives in an enlightened nation that the Democrats support talking unconditionally with? Like Syria (Pelosi & Reid) or Iran (Obama)?
Less snark, more serious, I had a friend emmegrate to England because the US wouldn’t allow her future husband to immigrate, despite his degree in IT, et al. So in the immortal words of the democrat party, ‘waaahhhh’
CR, I didn’t know that about Cali, I don’t normally follow the politics of the PRC. It is a shame that Cali doens’t have an ‘A, B, or C’ on prop 8, since I’ve long been for a ‘seperate but equal’ institution.
I also think a civil union would stop this process of teh courts pulling stuff out of the aether, and set up a process for standing atop history, yelling ‘Stop’
Current Court method “Well if X-case changes things to allows Bill and Ted to marry, why can’t we just change it further to allow Me and Mary and Sue marry?” “Ummmmmm.”
Legislative/Referrendum process: “If Bill and Ted can have a civil union, why can’t Me and Mary and Sue have one?” “Get started writing your congressman. If you can get it through the legislature, more power to you!”
Comment by The Livewire — September 24, 2008 @ 7:29 am - September 24, 2008
The differnce between pigmentations is not comparable to the differences between heterosexuality. The comparison between segregation and gay marriage is both logically and morally offensive.
Comment by American Elephant — September 24, 2008 @ 8:21 pm - September 24, 2008
Marriage is not the issue, gender is. The court says gender must be ignored, but get real. How can we do that? Can we remove a mother from her family and replace her with a man without a loss to her children? (Don’t give me the “wicked mother” exception. You know what I mean.) Maybe I’m just an old feminist, but I think women should not be marginalized so. As far as equal rights, we have civil unions and Family Code 297.5. Sure some people don’t get it yet, but taking women down a notch is not the answer. Let’s just enforce the law. By the way, did someone refer to his husband. Not so fast. They stopped making husbands and wives in CA on June 16, 2008; now its Party A and Party B. Let’s re-think, not re-define.
Comment by Jordan — September 24, 2008 @ 11:56 pm - September 24, 2008
“The differnce between pigmentations is not comparable to the differences between heterosexuality.”
Yes it is. Both groups in the past have suffered discrimination. While one could hide his or her sexual orientation, no one ever got prosecuted for being openly black.
“The comparison between segregation and gay marriage is both logically and morally offensive.”
You haven’t answered the point at all. If you like you can cover your eyes and think that same sex marriage doesn’t exist and everyone has a wonderful perfect heterosexual relationship. Whatever. I don’t care. Just as long as you answer the question. What would have happened had Brown vs. the Board of Education had been voted on by the people, and had the opportunity to enforce “separate but equal” in the federal constitution?
Comment by Xyzzy — October 1, 2008 @ 6:15 pm - October 1, 2008
[...] their first ad shows they have changed their strategy. Instead of attacking their opponents, they chose to [...]
Pingback by GayPatriot » Why Proposition 8 Will Lose — October 2, 2008 @ 4:37 pm - October 2, 2008
[...]  As per ILC’s request in the comments, you can watch the “No” ad, here and the “Yes” [...]
Pingback by GayPatriot » Could Proposition 8 Win? — October 10, 2008 @ 3:57 pm - October 10, 2008
[...] Our readers and yours truly are not the only people unhappy with the direction that “No on 8″ campaign has taken. I had considered giving them money despite their troubling slogan, “Equality for All.” I did want them to have more money to put up more ads like the first one they had produced. [...]
Pingback by GayPatriot » Prop 8 Opponents Need a Better Narrative — October 11, 2008 @ 8:18 pm - October 11, 2008
[...] I saw the first ad against Proposition 8, I had thought the initiative’s opponents had developed a better strategy than had opponents [...]
Pingback by GayPatriot » “Hate” Against Prop 8? — October 13, 2008 @ 8:34 pm - October 13, 2008
[...] been the absence of serious discussion on the merits of gay marriage. The closest we came was the first ad against the initiative and one line in the the third. Basically we’ve just seen each side focusing on winning the [...]
Pingback by GayPatriot » Campaign on 8 Doesn’t Address Merits of Gay Marriage — October 26, 2008 @ 11:08 pm - October 26, 2008