Slog
News & ArtsThursday, April 30, 2009
Homo NOM's New Ad
Posted by Dan Savage on Thu, Apr 30, 2009 at 8:45 AM
Here she is, Miss California, in NOM's latest ad...
Calling bigots out on their bigotry is bigoted—see how that works? And when NOM attacks gay couples and insists, without providing any evidence, that allowing gay people to marry somehow threatens "opposite marriage" or religious liberty, they're simply "expressing concerns." And NOM insists that gay people "don't want to debate the consequences" of gay marriage, but NOM can't prove that there are or have been any negative consequences. So what does NOM peddling save bigotry? Some blurry images of documents warning of dire consequences... issued by what group? We don't know. We just have take NOM's word for it—there are, out there somewhere, some blurry documents documenting consequential consequences. We just have to take NOM's word for it.
And it was nice of NOM to edit out the first half of Miss California's response to the gay marriage question: "I think it's great that Americans are able to chose one or the other. We live in a land that you can chose same-sex marriage or opposite marriage." Then Miss California went on to say that she believed opposite-sex marriage was wrong—but, hey, we all get to make the choice, as Americans, between opposite marriage and same-sex marriage. So Miss California endorsed marriage equality while at the same time reserving her right to 1. chose opposite marriage and 2. believe in her heart that opposite marriage is superior. So...
Miss California wants the same thing gay activists want: same-sex marriage should be legal, not compulsory, and once same-sex marriage is legal people will be free to disapprove—just as they're free to disapprove of interracial marriage or second marriages or marrying outside their faiths, etc. But the disapproval of some—even a majority—doesn't trump the rights of others.
Some spokeswoman you've got there, NOM.
2
What can you say about that silly fluffball...her titties are fake. Gay marriage is coming soon to NH and ME.
3
The new narrative is that they'll support marriage equality out of the goodness of their christian hearts, but that the lead-up to it was further proof that christians are downtrodden.
5
As usual this add contains lies and misrepresentation. Perez Hilton explicitly said that he was calling Ms. CA a bitch because of her stupid answer, not her point of view. He even provided an example of how she could have answered the question!
Yet another case of "Lying for the Lord."
Yet another case of "Lying for the Lord."
7
"How DARE they call us liars?!!" shouts NOM. And yet they make no attempt to refute any of the truth-checking from their opponents.
And yes, NOM, what *are* the "consequences" of gay marriage? I guess you thought you presented some in your previous ad. But your anecdotes were shown to be both irrelevant and inaccurate. What else ya got?
And yes, NOM, what *are* the "consequences" of gay marriage? I guess you thought you presented some in your previous ad. But your anecdotes were shown to be both irrelevant and inaccurate. What else ya got?
8
"Look at this footage of a bitchy queen picking on a sweet, pretty all-American blonde girl who looks great in a bathing suit! It's tragic! It's a threat to everything we hold dear in this country! Send us money."
9
This is the last gasp of the anti marriage equality movement. As more states move towad equality the reality that there is no threat to "opposite marriage" will set in. My guess is that this will at some point lead to a Supreme Court decision that says one state's legal marriage has legal standing in all states.
IMHO the long term consequences of this will be to undercut homophobia entirely. Of course some churches will still preach bigotry as will some parents, but children growing up in this new world will see the reality that same sex relationships are valid and have legal standing. This will encourage more of them to come out. This is what the anit-marriage equality movement fears the most. It is also what I welcome.
IMHO the long term consequences of this will be to undercut homophobia entirely. Of course some churches will still preach bigotry as will some parents, but children growing up in this new world will see the reality that same sex relationships are valid and have legal standing. This will encourage more of them to come out. This is what the anit-marriage equality movement fears the most. It is also what I welcome.
10
Loveschild, when can we vote on popular ratification of the 13th, 14th, 19th and 24th amendments? Oh, right, we don't have 2/3rds of the nation in support of any of the four. How about the Voting Rights Act? Oh, right, we don't have popular support enough for that. Um, okay, how about the Civil Rights Act of 1968? Oh! No support there, either.
11
The people are voting through their elected representatives. That's why it's called a "representative democracy" you stupid, fucking cunt.
12
Issues of marriage - polygamy, age at which marriage is permissible, age at which parental consent is required, divorce laws etc. have always been determined by the representative democracy in the states, not court cases. When the courts make the call, they essentially have to answer the question, are same-sex unions equivalent to heterosexual unions. If they aren't equivalent, granting marriage rights would be granting something new, not simply transferring the rights of heterosexuals to homosexuals.
There's no obvious answer to that question.
Things are easier when the people or their elected representatives make the call. In that case, there is no need to determine any kind of equivalency, it's just a case of the people doing what they've always done: determine for their state what the bounds of marriage ought to be.
There's no obvious answer to that question.
Things are easier when the people or their elected representatives make the call. In that case, there is no need to determine any kind of equivalency, it's just a case of the people doing what they've always done: determine for their state what the bounds of marriage ought to be.
14
Joshua:
The Declaration of Independence, on which this country was founded, asserts that all men are "endowed by their creator" with "inalienable rights", including the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. I take that to mean that these rights are inherent, not granted by the people, and therefore cannot be voted on.
My right to marry my partner is part of my right to pursue happiness. Preventing me from that particular pursuit of happiness harms me, whereas allowing me to exercise that right fails to harm others. Therefore, the people have NO right to prevent me from marrying. From my perspective, the right of gays to marry is not a NEW right, but a pre-existing right which (up until now) society has failed to enforce because of the fact that gays have traditionally been stigmatized.
The will of the people is utterly irrelevant here. This is why we have a judicial system: to uphold the inalienable rights of those who are too weak or unpopular to have their rights protected by the electorate.
The Declaration of Independence, on which this country was founded, asserts that all men are "endowed by their creator" with "inalienable rights", including the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. I take that to mean that these rights are inherent, not granted by the people, and therefore cannot be voted on.
My right to marry my partner is part of my right to pursue happiness. Preventing me from that particular pursuit of happiness harms me, whereas allowing me to exercise that right fails to harm others. Therefore, the people have NO right to prevent me from marrying. From my perspective, the right of gays to marry is not a NEW right, but a pre-existing right which (up until now) society has failed to enforce because of the fact that gays have traditionally been stigmatized.
The will of the people is utterly irrelevant here. This is why we have a judicial system: to uphold the inalienable rights of those who are too weak or unpopular to have their rights protected by the electorate.
15
12 That's an interesting point since at least two state supreme court cases that I know of (WA, NY) have in fact determined that same sex unions are not equivalent to heterosexual unions due to the formers inability to reproduce by themselves when in union. I know that there has to be more examples but yeah it has been already determined that granting marriage rights to same sex pairings would be a form of invention and not a transferal of rights to homosexuals, hence it has been determined in many states (including Cali) that civil unions are the appropriate form of recognition for gay couples.
16
Don't you hate it when someone says "no offense but....."
I will say it again "since marriage became legal in Canada nothing happened", it is a non issue now, no one talks about it anymore. Everyone just gets on with life. It is just the fear , stupidity and paranoia created by the religious right that is the problem. It is not same sex couples getting married that is the problem in the U.S., the problem is the religious right. They are a major setback to the progression of the U.S. on many issues that slow down or halts progress into the future that the U.S. deserves to have now.
The religious right is like having a dysfunctional abusive family member that constantly short-circuits every positive thing being done, by lying while under the influence of a powerful drug (the drug being religion), while you are trying to make things better.
I will say it again "since marriage became legal in Canada nothing happened", it is a non issue now, no one talks about it anymore. Everyone just gets on with life. It is just the fear , stupidity and paranoia created by the religious right that is the problem. It is not same sex couples getting married that is the problem in the U.S., the problem is the religious right. They are a major setback to the progression of the U.S. on many issues that slow down or halts progress into the future that the U.S. deserves to have now.
The religious right is like having a dysfunctional abusive family member that constantly short-circuits every positive thing being done, by lying while under the influence of a powerful drug (the drug being religion), while you are trying to make things better.
17
If the right to be married is solely predicated on a couples ability to reproduce Loveschild, then there are probably a million heterosexual 'sham' marriages in this country right now, mine included. And unlike mine, some of them are childless BY CHOICE (the horror!)
Whats next, people have to prove they're pregnant before the marriage is actually performed?
Whats next, people have to prove they're pregnant before the marriage is actually performed?
18
@12,
I guess you've never heard of Loving vs Virginia. It's the case in which the Supreme Court struck down laws forbidding interracial marriage, which the majority of voters supported at the time.
I guess you've never heard of Loving vs Virginia. It's the case in which the Supreme Court struck down laws forbidding interracial marriage, which the majority of voters supported at the time.
19
All these analyses of "what she meant" is ridiculous, as are discourses on what my turtle thinks of general relativity.
20
I really hope all these other states passing marriage equality shames the california supreme court into repealing prop 8.
21
@15: The Supreme Court is about to hold (in June) that the protection of minority voters is not a transfer of rights but an invented right and that there is no overwhelming evidence of hostility toward minority voters. It would also be further assumed that they will indicate that nobody is legally withholding their right to vote and it's their own personal failing if they do not exercise their right to do so, thereby stripping "in addition to" type minority voter protection and general rights laws and acts of their power.
The problem arises then that it sets the precedent that people can argue that minority voting rights are being made artificially inequal and would open the doors to further review of various acts and laws instituted in the past 50 years.
Ignoring the obvious parallels ("nobody is legally saying they can't vote" vs. "they can marry! they can marry someone of the opposite sex! nobody is legally saying they can't get married"), how do you feel about this? That soon, you probably won't even notice the marriage equality question when your own right to vote unencumbered by local sentiment (that gosh darned let the people vote on it thing) is in jeopardy throughout the country?
The evil you put forward is returned in greater measure. I hope you see this and disown your hate.
The problem arises then that it sets the precedent that people can argue that minority voting rights are being made artificially inequal and would open the doors to further review of various acts and laws instituted in the past 50 years.
Ignoring the obvious parallels ("nobody is legally saying they can't vote" vs. "they can marry! they can marry someone of the opposite sex! nobody is legally saying they can't get married"), how do you feel about this? That soon, you probably won't even notice the marriage equality question when your own right to vote unencumbered by local sentiment (that gosh darned let the people vote on it thing) is in jeopardy throughout the country?
The evil you put forward is returned in greater measure. I hope you see this and disown your hate.
23
Hey Dan, second paragraph, you say: "Then Miss California went on to say that she believed opposite-sex marriage was wrong" - um, you mean SAME-sex marriage, right..? Hire another editor! ;)
It's a good thing that the folks who oppose marriage equality continue their trend of stupidity & ineloquence. But I don't think Perez Hilton's reaction did the movement any favors, either.
Loveschild: I dunno why you exert so much energy. Your words here clearly fall on deaf ears. You should find someplace where your point of view is not so clearly the majority. Folks who return to forums which oppose them, time after time, are only proving they have too much time on their hands. Also, your handle must be an ironic choice as your words seldom seem loving.
Gay marriage will eventually happen here. In some states it'll happen by voting & in others by legal action, but you can't put the genie back in the bottle. As the Canadian poster above mentions, soon after it happens, it'll be no big deal.
...hooray.
It's a good thing that the folks who oppose marriage equality continue their trend of stupidity & ineloquence. But I don't think Perez Hilton's reaction did the movement any favors, either.
Loveschild: I dunno why you exert so much energy. Your words here clearly fall on deaf ears. You should find someplace where your point of view is not so clearly the majority. Folks who return to forums which oppose them, time after time, are only proving they have too much time on their hands. Also, your handle must be an ironic choice as your words seldom seem loving.
Gay marriage will eventually happen here. In some states it'll happen by voting & in others by legal action, but you can't put the genie back in the bottle. As the Canadian poster above mentions, soon after it happens, it'll be no big deal.
...hooray.
24
(oops = Loveschild's opnion is clearly the minority, not the majority, here. Looks like *I* need an editor too.)
25
You can put lipstick on a bigot, and teach her to defend her right to express her opinions, but she's still a bigot. It's an unfortunate obsticle to, what could have been, smooth sailing into a semi-sucessful, co-anchor position on network quasi-news.
26
I had to look this up to confirm it, but you're using the word "Bigot" incorrectly Dan - specifically when you're referring to someone like Miss California.
Same goes for you number 25.
Same goes for you number 25.
27
When do we get to vote on "Opposite Marriage"?
Those almost always end in divorce so maybe we should ban them altogether.
Those almost always end in divorce so maybe we should ban them altogether.
28
Hey guys, let's hash this out once and for all.
I'm proposing a moderated roundtable discussion to be held in Seattle between the usual suspects: Dan, Kim, Lurleen, Loveschild and Lord Basil and any other regular contributor that's so inclined to participate.
"MARRIAGE EQUALITY RUMBLE 2k9: MAR-RAGE IN THE CAGE"
I'm proposing a moderated roundtable discussion to be held in Seattle between the usual suspects: Dan, Kim, Lurleen, Loveschild and Lord Basil and any other regular contributor that's so inclined to participate.
"MARRIAGE EQUALITY RUMBLE 2k9: MAR-RAGE IN THE CAGE"
29
@18 - In order to strike down Loving v. Virginia, the court simply has to decide that being white is equivalent with being black under the law, that you can't treat the two differently. To strike down anti-gay marriage statues, they would have to make the case that heterosexual marriage and homosexual marriage are equivalent. In other words, the discrimination argument says it ought not be legal to differentiate between heterosexuals and homosexuals, so if heterosexuals can marry according to their orientation, homosexuals ought to be able to do so also. However, within that argument is the assumption that to get married as a homosexual is an equivalent right granted to them as heterosexual marriage is to heterosexuals.
At the core, the question is, do the various anti-discrimination statutes regarding sexual orientation merely protect sexual behavior or do they establish homosexuality as being equivalent to heterosexuality. That was my point.
@14: Bullshit. The "pursuit of happiness" doesn't justify anything because it could justify everything. Try again.
At the core, the question is, do the various anti-discrimination statutes regarding sexual orientation merely protect sexual behavior or do they establish homosexuality as being equivalent to heterosexuality. That was my point.
@14: Bullshit. The "pursuit of happiness" doesn't justify anything because it could justify everything. Try again.
30
Yeah, I love how anyone who speaks up in support of Miss Prejean conveniently leaves out the first half of her response. And, in my opinion, anyone who refers to "traditional" marriage as opposite marriage cannot be taken seriously.
31
NOM is s group of Moron Jerks. What is their average IQ? 60? It's pretty low I'm sure, being Christian & Republican. You might as well live in a zoo, and have your food fed to you in a bowl. What a bunch of idiots.
32
Does the Miss USA board still require the contestants to be virgins? I wonder if Miss California saddlebacks. There is nothing hotter and more in line with the values of America than a saddlebacker with fake tits.
33
Looks like Sarah Palin has found herself the perfect running mate in 2012.
Someone out there needs to make this happen.
The debates alone would be worth it.
Someone out there needs to make this happen.
The debates alone would be worth it.
34
This video is no longer available due to a copyright claim by Mario Lavandeira
well, looks like Perez decided he didn't want to be a part of that ad.
well, looks like Perez decided he didn't want to be a part of that ad.
35
On behalf of the heteros, Dan, thank you for the 24-7 Miss Cali Coverage. Please don't let too much time elapse between boobie updates, however (with pictures).
Advertisement
Most Commented on Slog
-
Hating People Doesn't Make Them Thinner by Jen Graves
-
Los Angeles Gay Bar Bans Bachelorette Parties Until Marriage Equality Is Attained by David Schmader
-
Fill in the Blank by Grant Brissey
-
This Reminds Me of the Great Calculator Scare of the Late '70s/Early '80s by David Schmader
-
Idiot Tries to Defend Bigoted Anti-Gay-Marriage Preacher on Anderson Cooper by Paul Constant
-
SL Letter of the Day: Putting It In by Dan Savage
-
Six Moms with Too Much Time on Their Hands and a Shitty Website Decide to Fight Gay Superheroes by Paul Constant
-
Why Mayor McGinn's Wife Canceled Her Family's Seattle Times Subscription by Eli Sanders
-
What the Hell Is Wrong With Seattle's Pride Parade? by Dominic Holden
-
Meet the UW "Swagga Suit" by David Schmader
RSS
Facebook
Twitter
Comments (35) RSS