Maine Gay Marriage ad: “Fluffy,” but Step in Right Direction
“EqualityMaine” has released its first ad in the campaign to veto the people’s veto of the bill passed by the elected legislature and signed by the elected Governor to recognize same-sex marriages in the Pine Tree State.
It’s a decent ad which avoids the pitfalls of some of the other so-called “equality” groups in other states; they don’t attack opponents of gay marriage, but then again, they don’t really make the case for gay marriage. The tone is right, but the message is, well, the message is isn’t very clear.
That said, I do like the mix of various couples, gay and straight alike, showing them without describing them.
All that said, this seems a little too, well, fluffy, but then again, this is the first ad, perhaps this is part of a strategy, and, over the course of the campaign, they’ll certainly roll out a few more ads, quite possibly with more specifics, making a stronger case for gay marriage.
Still, given the tone of this ad, it does represent a step in the right direction in the gay marriage debates.
37 Comments
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
i like it.
Comment by bob (aka boob) — August 22, 2009 @ 3:47 pm - August 22, 2009
I saw this ad & was thrilled. It strikes just the right tone for this stage of the campaign. This being a small state where people tend to know each other, I personally know a few people in this ad (like Rita Clifford). Kudos for Equality Maine.
Following the current trend on this blog, I will be using my actual name for comments. I was known as “Jimbo”.
Comment by Jim Michaud — August 22, 2009 @ 3:55 pm - August 22, 2009
The first half sounds like a tourism ad.
Comment by ThatGayConservative — August 22, 2009 @ 4:12 pm - August 22, 2009
Sure it is. “Maine equlaity” and “everyone should be able to marry the person they love”, as they said.
Brother should be able to marry sister, father should be able to marry daughter, people should be able to marry whoever they love! Because the part of marriage that is most important to society, the reason we encourage people to marry is because of love! Its not that marriage accomplishes something vitally important in society, its that we feel warm and fuzzy about love!
And all the problems with the black community — the vastly increased poverty, crime, illiteracy, drug use, violence, etc — aren’t because of the 70% out of wedlock birth rate. They aren’t because black children are growing up without mothers and fathers — its because black people love less than white people!
In other words, the commercial is a perfect recitation of all the best arguments gays have come up with, which happen to also be all the reasons gay marriage should be opposed.
The entire PREMISE of the argument for gay marriage is wrong. It is a misunderstanding of what marriage is to begin with.
But other than that, the commercial is great!
Comment by American Elephant — August 22, 2009 @ 4:43 pm - August 22, 2009
Living in CA where whites are a minority it is very strange for me to see the only non whites in this commercial are a couple of Asian kids.
Otherwise, it’s a start.
I do have a problem with “everyone should be able to marry the person they love. How about persons, I’m already seeing the poly-amorous community, that may only have 10 members saying that they too deserve the same rights.
Comment by Leah — August 22, 2009 @ 5:31 pm - August 22, 2009
I hope people will follow this link to my church, the ELCA, which made some very important decisions this week:
http://www.elca.org/Who-We-Are/Our-Three-Expressions/Churchwide-Organization/Communication-Services/News/Releases.aspx#&&a=4253
We are now fully inclusive of gay people. This will make my Bible study a lot easier now that the whole church backs me up.
I hope one of the mods will start a thread on this important event.
Comment by Ashpenaz — August 22, 2009 @ 5:51 pm - August 22, 2009
like it
Comment by rusty — August 22, 2009 @ 10:39 pm - August 22, 2009
Thumbs up – gently introduces the topic.
Comment by SoCalRobert — August 22, 2009 @ 11:49 pm - August 22, 2009
Same sex couples in Maine had the right to marry before the legislature changed the law, and they will still have the right to marry if the law is overturned by the voters. Oh, sure, if the law is overturned such couples won’t be able to get a marriage license. But honestly, do same sex couples need a piece of paper from the government to validate their love for one another? Of course not! The people of Maine understand this. That’s why this glossy commercial misses the point and will not change any minds.
The reason voters across the country routinely vote against changing the traditional definition of marriage is that they recognize that society’s interest in the institution comes down to one issue: Trying to insure that children have a mother and a father. It’s not about love, it’s not about equality, it’s not about rights, it’s about promoting Mommy and Daddy.
Comment by Elephant in the Room — August 23, 2009 @ 12:48 am - August 23, 2009
Elephants are so smart!
Comment by American Elephant — August 23, 2009 @ 2:20 am - August 23, 2009
everyone should be able to marry the person they love.
PERSON? What a bunch of bigots.
In Maine, no one tells anyone else how to live.
And yet you have a democrat governor and voted for Chairman Obama.
Comment by ThatGayConservative — August 23, 2009 @ 4:38 am - August 23, 2009
Jim (#2):
You’re not related to Mike (“Milk Carton Congressman”) Michaud are you?
If so, could you get him to pick up his phone? His constituents would like a word.
Best wishes,
-MFS
Comment by MFS — August 23, 2009 @ 8:30 am - August 23, 2009
Dan, sorry but the ad does talk about “protecting equality”. Did you miss its punchline?
And let’s face it, it’s lame. True, it avoids the ugliness of attacking gay marriage opponents, a small step forward. But it leaps from how great the water is (making the point visually, while verbally pretending not to), to “Maine Values!”, to “Everyone should be able to marry the person they love”. Really? Even, say, incest couples? What a mess!
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — August 23, 2009 @ 10:25 am - August 23, 2009
ER, gotta disagree with you there. It is certainly one of society’s major interest, true. But society has another major interest: just encouraging people to settle down, to form stable households and not constantly be on the prowl, however you’d want to phrase that. That’s why society also grants marriage licenses to couples who are incapable of having children – often obviously so, like older people. I think it would be wise – not mandatory; not a matter of “rights”, but simply wise – if society were to include gays in that.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — August 23, 2009 @ 10:28 am - August 23, 2009
ILC, your point is well taken. I agree with you that marriage has the added benefit to society of helping men (especially men) grow up. However, I think in the average voter’s mind, the welfare of children will trump the “let’s encourage guys to settle down” argument. In most voter’s minds, they will still want kids to have one mother and one father, not two mothers or two fathers. And until the pro-same sex marriage side can come up with a good argument against that, they will continue to lose elections. And, of course, the only argument against that is to say that there is no difference between men and women (a silly proposition that most liberals actually believe).
Comment by Elephant in the Room — August 23, 2009 @ 11:25 am - August 23, 2009
I see. You’re making an argument about what voters will respond to (it sounds like).
I was thinking about that more myself, in the shower just now. Specifically the “equality” thing, or why “equality” is a non-starter for selling gay marriage.
As I see it, the whole point of a State marriage license is to privilege a certain kind of relationship, that is, to create inequality. The State looks at a certain kind of relationship, and goes, “We need more of that” (or in a democratic republic, the People look and say that). So they encode the relationship in law, define qualifications, make it easy to get (if you meet the qualifications) and give it certain privileges. All for the good of society.
Now, I point out that in actuality, (a) kids are not the sole purpose of privileging stable 2-person relationships; and also (b) thousands of gay couples have kids. On that basis, I think the States who include same-sex couples in their marriage licensing are wise. But I don’t deny the idea that “stable relationships of 2 unrelated adults” should be privileged to the detriment of other possible kinds of relationships – like hookups, incest, pedophilia, polygamy or other polyamory. On the contrary, I affirm the notion of privilege here; I affirm that there should be inequality and certain discriminatory qualifications, when the State is licensing relationships.
“Equality” rightly fails as a selling point for gay marriage because the whole point of State marriage licenses is to create a certain kind of socially-beneficial inequality. Show me a gay marriage advocate who doesn’t understand that, and I’ll show you a gay marriage advocated doomed to lose.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — August 23, 2009 @ 11:35 am - August 23, 2009
As for mother-and-father vs. two mothers or two fathers; what are the real differences between men and women; etc… – All I can say is, the reality is that thousands of gay couples have kids. It’s not easy – it takes the assistance of outsiders and technology – but in that respect, gay couples are reproductively equivalent to infertile straight couples.
I shall reiterate that as follows, because AE may read this and in the past, AE has misunderstood what I’m saying or reacted to it a bit wildly. I am not saying men and women are the same. And I’m not saying gay couples and straight couples are the same, either. I am saying nothing more or less than that gay couples are, when it comes to reproductive capability, basically the same as infertile straight couples (e.g., very old people).
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — August 23, 2009 @ 11:47 am - August 23, 2009
Elephant in the Room:
There isn’t a good argument against wanting kids to have a mother and father. But there are good arguments for wanting kids to have caring support, no matter the make-up of the family.
Also, how many liberals really truly believe there is no difference between men and women?
Comment by DRH — August 23, 2009 @ 12:07 pm - August 23, 2009
I just want to say how exciting and amazing it was to go to church today as a fully accepted member. I could be fully present as a homosexual man without having to cover or hide. I am grateful to the Holy Spirit for leading the ELCA to a new and deeper understanding of Christ’s welcoming love and I pray in gratitude for all homosexuals who felt a new and warm embrace today.
Comment by Ashpenaz — August 23, 2009 @ 1:19 pm - August 23, 2009
But honestly, do same sex couples need a piece of paper from the government to validate their love for one another? Of course not!
ElephantintheRoom, why limit this question to same sex couples then? Do opposite sex couples need a piece of paper from the government to validate their love for one another? Or they do, only if they have kids?
Also, how many liberals really truly believe there is no difference between men and women?
I can’t speak for all liberals, DRH, but my guess is they all do. The important question is, how should these differences matter in terms of the law, freedom, equality, or whatever. That’s what the real debate is about.
While it is silly when a liberal (or whomever) allegedly says there is no difference between men and women, it is equally silly when simply stating there is a difference between men and women as an argument for any policy.
Comment by Pat — August 23, 2009 @ 1:37 pm - August 23, 2009
Oops. Meant to say above that I don’t think any liberal, or anyone else for that matter, really believes there is no difference between men and women.
Patrick J. Sime
Comment by Pat — August 23, 2009 @ 1:39 pm - August 23, 2009
MFS- No, I’m not related to Rep. Mike Michaud. I’m not even a constituent of his. I live in the 1st district (Chellie Pingree is my representative).
Comment by Jim Michaud — August 23, 2009 @ 1:59 pm - August 23, 2009
liberty and justice for all . . .
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tfWZ_bMJ4Os
NO on 1 comapign Maine
Comment by rusty — August 23, 2009 @ 2:17 pm - August 23, 2009
Pat asks: “Do opposite sex couples need a piece of paper from the government to validate their love for one another? Or they do, only if they have kids?”
The answer is No. And I think you may have misunderstood my point. The purpose of the license is not to validate anybody’s love for anyone else. Government has no business doing that. The purpose of the license is to recognize the ideal of the one man, one woman family structure, and to encourage it because it is the best case scenario for raising children. Obviously, same sex couples and single parents can raise children and in many cases raise them very well, but by definition this deprives a child of an ideal family structure with a mother and a father. I know I’m not going to convince anyone who is emotionally invested in the idea of licensing same sex relationships that I’ve got this right, but I am certain that this is the issue for the average voter, and this is why the same sex marriage advocates fail to persuade very many people outside the gay community in favor of their position.
Also, Pat says, “I don’t think any liberal, or anyone else for that matter, really believes there is no difference between men and women.”
Well, let me meet you half way and say that I misspoke when I attributed this silly belief to liberals. You’re right, even most liberals don’t go this far, but many hard core leftists do.
All I’m saying is that I do not believe you can construct a compelling argument that the government has an interest in licensing any relationship for any reason, except in so far as that relationship provides a a constructive environment for nurturing the next generation of citizens. And most voters believe that the “one man one woman” married relationship creates the best environment, and therefore deserves to be promoted and incentivized above all others.
Comment by Elephant in the Room — August 23, 2009 @ 2:18 pm - August 23, 2009
And most voters believe that the “one man one woman” married relationship creates the best environment, and therefore deserves to be promoted and incentivized above all others. AER
But beliefs can shift. . .reshaped and even gain new support.
Comment by rusty — August 23, 2009 @ 2:26 pm - August 23, 2009
… but by definition this deprives a child of an ideal family structure with a mother and a father. I know I’m not going to convince anyone who is emotionally invested in the idea of licensing same sex relationships that I’ve got this right, but I am certain that this is the issue for the average voter,
ElephantintheRoom, I don’t know how much I am emotionally invested on this issue. While I would take advantage of it, if and when it comes to NJ, I’ll be fine either way. Frankly, the issue is not just about me, otherwise I wouldn’t support it.
Anyway, I do disagree what the issue is with the average voter. In some cases it’s the ick factor. In other cases, it’s the “not the way I was brought up” or some similar thing. Because in almost all cases, these average voters not only not want to ban opposite sex couples who cannot or will not procreate from marrying, they encourage it.
Well, let me meet you half way and say that I misspoke when I attributed this silly belief to liberals. You’re right, even most liberals don’t go this far, but many hard core leftists do.
I appreciate that. But even when someone says, “men and women are not different,” who knows what they really mean by that. They could mean that whatever differences there are do not warrant discrimination, or whatever. Or maybe you are talking about people that are really insane.
Comment by Pat — August 23, 2009 @ 5:56 pm - August 23, 2009
[...] GayPatriot » Maine Gay Marriage ad: “Fluffy,” but Step in Right Direction http://www.gaypatriot.net/2009/08/22/maine-gay-marriage-ad-fluffy-but-step-in-right-direction – view page – cached * Maine Gay Marriage ad: “Fluffy,” but Step in Right Direction * Ma’am, You’ve Got Some ‘Splaining to Do * Athena Says Pull the Plug on Obamacare * Wonder How This News Will Impact This Chart? * Small Government Principles Key To Republican Revival * Obamacare: Not the Only Path to Health Care Reform * Is The United States In a “Low Grade” Civil War? * Unhinged Larouche Democrats Not Representative of Obamacare Opponents — From the page [...]
Pingback by Twitter Trackbacks for GayPatriot » Maine Gay Marriage ad: “Fluffy,” but Step in Right Direction [gaypatriot.net] on Topsy.com — August 24, 2009 @ 7:03 am - August 24, 2009
As for the ad, I thought it was pretty good. It focused on their side of the argument as opposed to demonizing the opposition. Dan, perhaps the ad should have made a stronger case for same-sex marriage. Perhaps subsequent ads will.
As for the “everyone should marry…” part, in a small spot like that, you can’t always take the time to explain what is obvious. This is about extending the privilege of marriage to same sex couples, not to close family members. My guess is the opposition sees that as well. On the other hand, if the opposition wants to embarrass themselves by turning this spot into about marriage between brothers and sisters, fathers and daughters, etc., they certainly have that right.
Comment by Pat — August 24, 2009 @ 7:26 am - August 24, 2009
Pat: They said, and as a punchline or major point, “Everyone should be able to marry the person they love”. Which is just silly. Forget about incest couples and polygamists, then – how about stalkers?
It wasn’t a 15-second ad. They took a minute (a long time in the ad world) and they spent the entire first 30 seconds of that on tourist-y fluff.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — August 24, 2009 @ 11:41 am - August 24, 2009
ILC, I am not disagreeing with what you are saying here. It’s just that I think the context is clear. The ad isn’t trying to turn marriage upside down. I don’t believe the person is trying to advocate, for example, that the object of a stalker should be forced to marry the stalker.
In the past, before same sex marriage was ever even debated, when one said to a boy, “you could marry any women you want,” no one had to be told that you shouldn’t marry your close relative, or that you shouldn’t force someone who doesn’t consent. Similarly, telling a child, “you could be president when you grow up,” did not automatically mean that the child, as an adult would automatically be president simply if he wanted to be president.
I just think that sometimes words are taken too literally. However, if there are people who honestly believe that’s what the ad was trying to promote and convey, then the word will get out, and it will be up to Equality Maine to clarify the point. And hopefully, they will be able to do that.
Sure, the first part of the ad was fluff. I’m guessing Equality Maine will be showing more ads. Hopefully, subsequent ads will be better, and promote same sex marriage better than this ad did. Yes, a minute is a long time in the advertising world, but it is still a small amount of time in the real world. Equality Maine apparently wanted, in this spot, to showcase the state as well, and make the point that they didn’t want outsiders influencing the voters of Maine with lots of money.
Patrick J. Sime
Comment by Pat — August 24, 2009 @ 2:18 pm - August 24, 2009
Sorry, man. The line just sounds stupid, to me at least, when the guy delivers it.
But let’s say you’re right. Then the viewer is supposed to *know* they meant gays, wink wink. In other words, it’s another “hide the ghey” campaign – even taking the ad on your terms, I mean. The “gay” or one of its relatives, never appears. Pat, “hide the ghey” wasn’t very effective for us in CA, this last time around.
I was never told that. Maybe that made me queer. (second part, just kidding)
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — August 24, 2009 @ 3:04 pm - August 24, 2009
(and the *word* gay, I meant to type.)
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — August 24, 2009 @ 3:06 pm - August 24, 2009
Ghey–I think that will be my new identifier. Homosexual, old and grey.
Comment by Ashpenaz — August 24, 2009 @ 4:24 pm - August 24, 2009
To sum up – They really meant, GHEYZ who love each other should be able to marry. Why not say it? Why hide behind the silly euphemism, “everyone”?
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — August 24, 2009 @ 7:51 pm - August 24, 2009
Sorry, man. The line just sounds stupid, to me at least, when the guy delivers it.
ILC, I’ll agree the line was stupid, and I hope a much better line is used in their next commercial. My point still remains that he was not trying to convey that marriage should extend to close family members, or force victims of stalkers to marry their stalkers.
But let’s say you’re right. Then the viewer is supposed to *know* they meant gays, wink wink. In other words, it’s another “hide the ghey” campaign – even taking the ad on your terms, I mean. The “gay” or one of its relatives, never appears. Pat, “hide the ghey” wasn’t very effective for us in CA, this last time around.
Good point. Even though the ad showed same-sex couples, it seemed to make a point of not using the word “gay” or “same-sex.” Hopefully, the next ad won’t make the same mistake.
Comment by Pat — August 25, 2009 @ 7:36 am - August 25, 2009
I know what I believe. I will continue to articulate what I believe and what I believe — I believe what I believe is right. GWB in rome 07-22-01
a good friend from New Hampshire moved to the Big Sky Country — Bozeman, Montana about 4 years ago and noted that people are very much the same. SHEEPLE. . .those who just follow. Even Livewire concurred awhile back.
ILC proposes more direct messaging. . .but for some like
Hamilton, M. A. and Strizhakova, Y. , 2004-05-27 “Suggestive Advertising Imagery: The Effect of Prejudice on Advertising Processing” Paper presented at the annual meeting of the International Communication Association, New Orleans Sheraton, New Orleans, LA
their abstract proposes: Belief Systems Theory was used to explain how heterosexual consumers process advertising with homosexual imagery, what demographic and personality variables play a role in processing of such advertising, and what effect the explicitness of the homosexual imagery has on attitudes toward the ad, brand, and purchase intentions. Causal modeling was used to determine the effects of advertising that contains gay male, lesbian, and heterosexual imagery on attitudes toward the ad, brand, and purchase intentions and to test if positive relationships with gay males, lesbians, or bisexuals have a positive effect on advertising processing. Results indicated that female gender impacted homophobia, with homophobia influencing emotional reactions to advertising. Irritation and happiness, aroused by exposure to advertising, had the strongest effects on attitudes toward the ad and the brand. In general, attitudes toward advertising with less explicit homosexual imagery and promoting products that are stereotypically associated with homosexuals were most positive. Lesbian imagery was more accepted than gay imagery but less accepted than heterosexual imagery. Positive contacts with homosexuals decreased homophobia, with homophobia affecting emotional reactions and attitudes toward the ad, brand, and purchase intention.
So with this ad. . .the warm fuzzy beginning helps set the tone to help with the shift of beliefs. Again, it is my thought that the plan is to persuade the fence sitters, the independent-libertarian thinkers of Maine rather than providing a hard slap across the face of those folk with unbending beliefs about homos blessed with the unending ‘ick factor’ centering their world.
Comment by rusty — August 25, 2009 @ 8:57 am - August 25, 2009
I am just starting to go through your website with an open mind and heart. As a Conservative straight person, I kinda liked the video. I have yet voted for someone based on how they feel on gay marriage. Truly, some things are not my fight. I have enough problems staying fresh and open minded on my twenty year marriage. On my daughter starting her college life. Is this fight on gay marriage really about society acknowledging the “right” or about the benefits that goes with the “right” I get so confused. LOL.
So I am off to read more articles! I like the site so far!
Comment by Kimmy — August 29, 2009 @ 8:52 pm - August 29, 2009