Blogs Nov 5, 2012 at 10:35 am

Which Style of Gay Marriage Ad Is More Effective?

Dominic Holden
Back to article

Comments

1
Unfortunately, studies tell us that fear-mongering works. I've been disappointed that, in these final days, not only have I not seen as many "Approve 74" ads, but the ones they're showing aren't disputing the lies. And I think that hurts the cause.
sam2300 on November 5, 2012 at 10:41 AM Report this
2
Fear-mongering. It's like Ween said "...though love has it's place in the sun / It's only man's fear that carries him on."

dwightmoodyforgetsthings on November 5, 2012 at 10:42 AM Report this
3
Are there literally no Approve R-74 ads with GLBT people speaking?

I'd love an ad that says, "I'm gay. I don't want to take your job away or close your church. All I want is to be able to have and hold my partner, for better or for worse, in sickness and in health, for as long as we both shall live. Here are the ways that civil unions just don't allow for that. Please support R-74."
Canadian Nurse on November 5, 2012 at 10:46 AM Report this
4
I'd prefer fear-mongering ads to approve it. Something like "You don't want people going 'What the fuck is the matter with Washington?' do you?" Or, "You don't want to look like an asshole, do you?"
chimsquared on November 5, 2012 at 10:47 AM Report this
5
@4 somewhat along those lines i had hoped to see ads comparing attitudes against (Ref 74) as being indistinct from those supporting laws against "miscegenation".

also might've been worthy to pound: "keep government from restricting our freedoms" etc.

theophrastus on November 5, 2012 at 10:56 AM Report this
6
The anti-74 ads don't address the point of R-74. They only show people who were called out on their bigotry and got their feelings hurt. They're trying to frame this as a First Amendment issue because they have no reasonable counter-argument to R-74.
Paul Pearson on November 5, 2012 at 11:06 AM Report this
7
What exactly would a fear-mongering Approve R-74 look like?

1. Approve R-74 or God will strike you down?
2. Approve R-74 because our opposition is full of fear-mongering tax cheats who try their best to get around the law?
3. Approve R-74 because Maggie Gallagher is a horrible, horrible person?
4. Approve R-74 because if you don't bad things will happen to gay people?
5. Approve R-74 because if you don't, you're an evil bigot?

I'm all for whatever works, but in an issue like R-74, I am just not sure what kind of negative ad would be effective?
SolM on November 5, 2012 at 11:15 AM Report this
8
The first thing a sexual predator does is to warn the victim not to tell anyone. It took the advances made in gay rights to allow young children who were being sexually abused by Catholic priests to step forward and tell. Back in the day when being thought gay could result in the loss of your job, or being shunned by your family and friends or considered mentally ill no one could risk letting anyone know of their sexual abuse because they would risk being thought to be homosexual. If the Catholic church wants to fight marriage equality by funding NOM then someone should take the fight to them and say that a vote against R-74 is a vote FOR sexual predators. I see a man getting out of bed with a young boy, saying 'Remember, if you tell anyone they will think you are a queer." and then reaching over and putting on a clerical collar.

Of course, not TV station would never accept such and ad but it could be posted on the internet. And the howls of outrage would lead to TV coverage making it widely known. Free publicity.
on November 5, 2012 at 11:41 AM Report this
9
@1: I asked a WUM staffer about airing commercials that refute the opposition's claims, and was told the campaign believes that those ads just don't work. Supposedly that's how they have responded in previous campaigns, and as we all know they lost every time. I'm not familiar enough with prior campaigns' advertising to say whether or not I agree.

@3: The advertisement featuring the lesbian couple who were denied hospital visitation rights springs to mind. I am not sure if there were any others.
digitalwitch on November 5, 2012 at 11:54 AM Report this
11
3

"Here are the ways that civil unions just don't allow for that...."

What exactly are the ways that Washington civil unions "just don't allow for that"?
on November 5, 2012 at 12:12 PM Report this
12
There are 2 or 3 ads that basically point out that newspapers have already dismissed the claims made in PMW's ads. The ones where they list papers calling the campaign out. It's straightforward and fairly adequate in my mind since they give credibility and a basis for research. No need to go point by point by point.

As far as LGBT couples -- okay, excuse me, but why do we go from whining about Pete-e during R-71 and "loveable lesbians" to saying we don't have enough?

This is a very well run campaign and people are making a mistake if they're discounting what they've done so far. If we're at such a disadvantage then they've done well to keep us above water, especially since everyone always says "polls lie" and basically whine ceaslessly about tactics.

I predict that the reaction to a win will be "we would have won by more if we did it my way".
Baconcat on November 5, 2012 at 12:15 PM Report this
13
I'll tell you what doesn't work: NOM robocalling our house. We let 'em talk and talk and talk -- every second we suffer through their crap is a second the machine can't use to call someone else -- but it magically failed to persuade me; failed to persuade me that NOM is made of up desperate, fearful subnormals, in fact.

My pro-74 vote was sent in over a week ago.
Fnarf on November 5, 2012 at 12:25 PM Report this
14
The positive ads are designed to appeal to straight people. Straight people speak in the ads because ads are supposed to be most effective if you can see yourself in the ad. The message of the ads is that straight people can have gay friends and family members without it being threatening. It's designed to appeal to the many people who have a gay coworker or whatever.

Gay people just need to be encouraged to vote. Hopefully reminding them that R-74 is on the ballot is enough for that.
fletc3her on November 5, 2012 at 1:10 PM Report this
15
We got a call from NOM about a week ago - waste of time, guys, we'd already mailed in our ballots by then - and first, the caller didn't seem to understand what an answering machine was (I could hear her talking over the answering machine message - we screen all calls); then after the beep, she paused and then restarted. I waited until she was nearly done to pick up the phone and say, "Boy, do you ever have the wrong house for your message of hate," and hung up.
Geni on November 5, 2012 at 1:13 PM Report this
16
Speaking s a Canadian, I'd like the Canadian sportscaster re-hired so he can be fired again. Opposing marriage equality is bigoted and embarrassing behaviour.
Puty on November 5, 2012 at 2:47 PM Report this
17
Fear Mongering works, and more importantly, fear mongering to applies to the bigots works the best- that's why there really should have been ads running in Eastern Washington featuring Pro-74 Clergy emphasizing how R74 protects churches from having to perform gay marriages if they don't want to. Frame it as protecting Church rights, and suddenly it becomes much more appealing to those people.
UNPAID COMMENTER on November 5, 2012 at 2:52 PM Report this
18
@17: There was an ad that did exactly that.

C'mon, Slog. Watch some network TV. It's mind numbing but you get to see a wealth and variety of ads.
Baconcat on November 5, 2012 at 3:35 PM Report this
19
@18 Really? Oh good!
UNPAID COMMENTER on November 5, 2012 at 3:56 PM Report this
20
Approve R74 because you celebrate free will and liberty.
platypusrex256 on November 6, 2012 at 7:24 AM Report this
21
Maryland's ballot choice neatly sidesteps this and pre-empts the crazy.

Establishes that Maryland’s civil marriage laws allow gay and lesbian couples to obtain a civil marriage license, provided they are not otherwise prohibited from marrying; protects clergy from having to perform any particular marriage ceremony in violation of their religious beliefs; affirms that each religious faith has exclusive control over its own theological doctrine regarding who may marry within that faith; and provides that religious organizations and certain related entities are not required to provide goods, services, or benefits to an individual related to the celebration or promotion of marriage in violation of their religious beliefs.
jindofox on November 6, 2012 at 12:04 PM Report this

Please wait...

Comments are closed.

Commenting on this item is available only to members of the site. You can sign in here or create an account here.


Add a comment
Preview
Posted by (your name here)

By posting this comment, you are agreeing to our Terms of Use.

Editors' Picks

Things Didn't Have to Be This Way
How a West Seattle Meat Emporium Quietly Became One of the Best Bakeries in Seattle
What Happened After My Boyfriend Got Sexually Assaulted in the Military
The More I Learn About Breast Milk, the More Amazed I Am
Bad Apples
Abolitionists and Reformers Agree on Something!
The Stranger
is a proud member of the media network
Masthead Ad Info & Rates Jobs at The Stranger Contact Privacy Policy Terms of Use Takedown Policy Find The Stranger Near You
Support The Stranger
All contents © Index Newspapers LLC
800 Maynard Ave S, Suite 200, Seattle, WA 98134