'Frightened' Far Right Ad Against Same Sex Marriage - Scaring America All Over Again

[tomm2thumbs]

Run time: 01:10 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VXhLu9QVWvQ   Posted on YouTube: April 08, 2009 By YouTube Member: Views on YouTube: 0   Posted on DU: April 08, 2009 By DU Member: tomm2thumbs Views on DU: 2132

 

Guess they are scared it is 'Gonna Start Rainin' Men' - Excuse the storm pun - they are equally as 'frightened' by women marrying as men.
They are equal opportunity opportunists.

The campaign, whose 60-second television ad is above, seeks to energize the opponents of gay marriage by making the case that it will impinge directly on their own lives. The ads will air in New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, New Hampshire, and Iowa. The campaign against same-sex marriage has focused increasingly on those threatened consequences in part because the mere notion of same-sex marriage -- while still opposed by most Americans -- has lost some of its political bite, while civil unions have gained increasingly broad acceptance.

Politico's Ben Smith link:
http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0409/New_campaign_fights_samesex_marriage.html

[tomm2thumbs]

1. same prominent backer of the successful campaign against same-sex marriage in Califorrnia

Definitely they are going for the jugular

I would note - the ad 'format' they have chosen is EASILY parodied - and I hope that prominent same-sex marriage groups take HEARTY advantage of this in their response ads -

[Democracyinkind]

2. Mellons Millions? Scaife, of course.?

I like the rainbow part though.
you can tell a desperate fascist when he's got to pull the rainbow.

God bless those tokens, I assume they know not what they are doing.
(Certainly not for whom they're working)

[defendandprotect]

17. Scaife . . .

about two years or so ago said he was withdrawing his money ---

who know if that happened, but presumably so much had been invested

in right wing politics that it still accumulates/???

Very few people know that the original start up funds for the Christian

Coalition came from the GOP -- i.e., organized patriarchal religion is

the underpinning for patriarchy.

[Democracyinkind]

28. I think Greg Palast was supposed to be working on a piece about the Scaife millions

..but his book is already gonna be a year late or so I won't get my hopes up.

[Voice for Peace]

3. omigod. that video's a satire, right? it's not?

[Karenina]

13. MARCH OF THE ZOMBIES!!!

That HAS to be a hoax ad! :rofl:

[borelord]

4. Jackassery

File under "Unintentional Comedy"

Throwbacks.

[JJ]

5. The horror...

someone might teach children not to hate others for who they are.

[tomm2thumbs]

6. I first thought it was a reminder of Katrina - but hey, if they wanna remind us of that...

... be my guest

[BR_Parkway]

7. the tags are perfect - traditional right-wing fear-mongering hate lies

[LibertyLover]

8. Once, just once, I would like for these right-wing homophobes

to explain to me why permitting same-sex marriage will have any impact on my own conventional marriage. I want them to articulate, fully and completely, how same-sex marriages will cause my marriage to implode. I'm tired of these useful idiots standing there, like butter wouldn't melt in their mouths, saying that allowing same-sex marriages will cheapen and degrade conventional marriages. That's a conclusion you dolts. I want (forgive the pun) hardcore evidence, you know, with statistics, tables, footnotes, bibliographies of reputable resources and long-term, large, longitudinal studies, that permitting same-sex marriages has a detrimental effect on conventional marriages. Until they can provide me with that, I really wish they would STFU. Frankly, the only way I can see same-sex marriages impacting my marriage is that there would be several more weddings for us to go to in the near future and right now, being in bankruptcy and facing foreclosure, money for travel and gifts is tight.

[Hulk]

9. Run, run, run!! The end is near!! The sky is falling!! We are morons, and WE know!!

Wow...they managed to find at least one person of all those ethnic groups. Fabulous!!

What a bunch of God damned fools!! Lunacy is rampant in the evangelical radical crowd. Be frightened!! Be afraid!! They are going to make our children fornicate with the same sex in the classroom now. I know..be afraid!!

Such ignorant sons-of-bitches!! This is disgraceful, and these hypocrites think they are on the side of "Jesus". Such utter nonsense and hypocrisy!!

[Cash_thatswhatiwant]

10. disgusting, nt

[Hamlette]

11. What do they mean when they say SSM will impinge on THEIR rights?

Rod Dreher (an often sane right wing religious nut) said:

It is increasingly obvious that the US Supreme Court is going to have to rule on this matter soon. It is an untenable situation for a same-sex couple to be married in Vermont and Massachusetts and Iowa, but not in Texas, Nevada and Montana. I believe SCOTUS will constitutionalize gay marriage, and that being the case, it might be better for my side if it gets done sooner rather than later. If done sooner, there might still be enough backlash left in the American people to get a constitutional amendment passed erecting a high barrier or protection around religious institutions. Thoughts?
http://blog.beliefnet.com/crunchycon/2009/04/vermont-gets-gay-marriage-the.html

It seems to go beyond "my chruch will have to perform marriage ceremonies for teh ghey" because they all know Catholic chruches (for instance) are not forced to perform ceremonies for non catholics or even divorced catholics. So is it a broader attack? That legalizing gay marriage will prevent them from trashing gays to their children? In their churches? Is this just a way to raise money? To get the tea baggers riled up over something, anything?

What in the world are they talking about when they say it will impinge on their rights?

[tomm2thumbs]

14. I believe he's playing both hands of cards at his own poker game

He figures - now is the time with the conservative leaning of the court vs. what may occur within the next 4-8 years with Obama's choices in the inevitable future of appointees. If the case goes to the Supreme Court now, the court might actually say 'no same sex marriage' and he wins in theory, barring a revisit of the issue on another technicality in 6-8 years.

If the Supreme Court says 'ok to same sex marriage' then he feels the momentum will be stronger now than in 6-8 years to try to have the states support a Constitutional amendment preventing recognition, and change the Constitution entirely to end it, undoing every state's current same-sex marriages.

If I were Barack Obama (and I'm not :) ) I would ask the Congress if would pass a national domestic partnership law which would grant registered couples the legal tax benefits given anyone who is married. Thus, the Right Wingers will be forced into a more right-wing corner opposing something that most people support currently - domestic partner status. Plus it slowly moves the ball forward on the field. Doing nothing right now is probably not a good idea for the Obama administration as it only lets others get momentum because you are reacting to their actions.

The Right Wing 'impinge' arguments are that they say they have a right to discriminate against people who they feel are not worthy of god's laws of marriage, and shouldn't be told otherwise. For instance, I'm guessing the doctor in the video might offer 'I don't want a Lesbian couple to have a baby, and I should be able to say no to performing medical services that would help them have a baby - basically discriminate based on her religious beliefs in a medical environment. If you carry that forward, a pharmacist with 'religious beliefs' would say 'I don't want to provide birth control to anyone - it is against my religion' or a surgeon says 'I believe people who lie down with the same sex are an abomination, so I shouldn't have to treat ANY of their health issues as I think they are not worthy of living.' It is a horrific point of view for a doctor to take, but falls under that premise.

Of course what is being talked about has nothing to do with any church but the civil rights of marriage. Churches have long been able to not perform ceremonies for even people who are not members of a specific church, or not a part of the denomination, etc. It's a lie, but they are throwing everything at the wall to see what might stick. It worked in California and it is the 'fear factor' they are after - plain and simple.

'Good churchgoing folk' used to do this with divorced women in their churches - they would ostracized them and prevent them from getting involved with 'the rest of church' activities - afterall, divorce is a sin. It is sad, but we've come a long way and the next generation does not even care - so this fellah wants to take action before the influences of the younger generation start to affect laws and rulings.

[Richd506]

12. I hate how these clowns act as if their own rights are being violated

Retards

[defendandprotect]

18. Procreating, nuclear family is their structure . . .

"Go forth and multiply" -- that's really what this is all about --

while at the same time . . . it's anti-sexuality!!!

:evilgrin:

[thereismore]

15. "I will have no choice" but to do what? have gay sex? Can somebody translate what they mean

by "no choice?" More choices, maybe!

[defendandprotect]

16. Clearly, THESE are the people to be feared . . . !!!!

Religious fanatics have been controlling "sex" for thousands of years . . .

this isn't only about marriage for gays, these people have influenced governments

to create sodomy laws and force homosexuals "into the closet" in society --

pressuring many homosexuals into "hetereosexual" marriage!

Keeping homosexual teenagers frightened -- encouraging bullying and violence against

homosexuals.

This "we are threatened" is typical of their campaigns against women, lest they lose

control over the nuclear family -- and against educating youth re normal human sexuality

lest they lose control over their family.

The only CONTROL we ever really have over anything to do with relationships is based on

trust and love -- not dictatorships.

[tomm2thumbs]

19. exactly - and my answer to that is...

If you don't want any more gay people in the world, then stop having so many!! hahahah :D

Where do you think they are coming from.... Swahili?? No, they are coming from THEM!! Irony

[defendandprotect]

20. Evidently, everyone has a 30% chance of having a homosexual child . .. !!!!

[hangman86]

21. What does being a doctor have to do with same-sex marriage?

I thought that whole faith vs. duty argument was for the abortion/birth control debate.

[mr_smith007]

22. hehe lame

I can't believe there are people out there actually taking time and spending money to make ads against gay marriage. How freakin' ignorant do you have to be to think gay marriage has anything to do with the lives other than the two getting married. The divorce rate is already 50% for heterosexual couples, who the hell truly believes marriage is "sacred" and "has to be saved" anymore?

[iandhr]

23. This is a long term not a shot term battle

Unfortunately it is still not politically feasible to support gay marriage in a national race. Also the President supports civil unions not gay marriage, one of the only issues where we disagree. Unfortunately I think that Congress will override the DC city council to take away the GOPs one issue. Remember the fear mongering worked in a progressive state like CA it will certainly work in states like PA, OH, VA, FL states we need to win in 2012. We will eventually win this battle but it won't be by 2012. Remember 18-29 years old voted 60-28 against prop 8. In 20 years or so we will be able to convince people that we are right . Sorry if I seam a little negative. To be clear I am very happy about Vermont and Iowa.

Do not get discouraged if loose some fights before 2010 or 2012. This is a LONG TEARM battle. We will eventually win

[JackBeck]

24. This ad is a fake! The 'concerned citizens' are a bunch of actors.

Here's the audition tape:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lRjVDZxho54

[JackBeck]

25. Audition tape #2:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cwqNFBt33o4

[No More Bushbots]

26. Rainbow Coalition?

Maybe Jesse Jackson should sue them for copyright infringement.

[tomm2thumbs]

27. the trademarks on this are expired, but it was a good thought

They should call it the 'Under the Rainbow Coalition' since they are stooping so low to fake actors speaking as if they are real people. Those video links in #24 and #25 are H-I-L-A-R-I-O-U-S ! ! !