Slog: News & Arts

RSS icon Comments on Dueling No On Prop 8 Ads


Um, you realize that you and Rex Wockner aren't the target audience for these ads, right?

Posted by Chris | October 15, 2008 9:21 AM

Speaking as a straight from the burbs, I think the "boring" ads are great. The cool ads are smug and snarky- like a "Precycle" bumper sticker on a Prius.

Posted by Big Sven | October 15, 2008 9:24 AM

Everything is intended for Rex and Savage. And Marky, Ricky, Danny, Terry, Mikey, Davey, Timmy, Tommy, Joey, Robby, Johnny, and Brian.

Posted by Mr. Poe | October 15, 2008 9:24 AM

This ad has gotten quite a bit of air time:

Posted by ROAG | October 15, 2008 9:31 AM

Yeah, people persuaded by "I'm a Mac" ads probably a) have Macs, and b) have no problem with gay marriage.

The "boring" ads work, apparently. And I'm happy to help get them on the air.

I personally like the "stop the lies" ads, because these are the only ones that state that prop 8 increases government regulation of private lives. I would think these ads would appeal to libertarians and conservatives, but I'm not an expert!

Posted by Raphael | October 15, 2008 9:34 AM

I think marriage equality won't come from battles won in fauxgressive California, it'll come from the east coast where all the big advances in gay rights got their start.

It's just that CA seems to talk so loud and obnoxiously that nobody can get a word in edge-wise from the east coast. I think everyone forgot about CT already.

Posted by AJ | October 15, 2008 9:35 AM

@1: Yes, I realize that me and Rex Wockner aren't the target audience for these ads, Chris. That's why I linked to Rex's blog post—a blog post in which Rex says EXACTLY THAT. And it's why I encouraged people to give money to the "No On Prop 8 campaign," which intends to use whatever money they raise between now and November 4 to air the ad that I thought was lame and the No On Prop 8 believes is effective. Because I get it. Obviously.


Posted by Dan Savage | October 15, 2008 9:41 AM

the second ad. because you know theres going to be hardcore clam fighting as the sexual tension drips around the room.

Posted by Bellevue Ave | October 15, 2008 9:43 AM

I like the ad linked in comment 4.

Posted by hmm | October 15, 2008 9:45 AM

But you don't make a note of the importance of the lame and boring. So we'd have to tour Rex's shittastic blog to find out.

Posted by Jonathan Bailo Thomas | October 15, 2008 9:47 AM

@6 CA consistently leads the nation in policy due to its size and population and money. If it becomes a law in CA for cars to meet certain standards, for instance, then auto manufacturers start making cars to meet those standards for everyone so they can keep selling cars in CA. It's going to be the same way with marriage.

If marriage stays equal in CA, that alone will mean that something like 1 in 5 Americans will live in a state with marriage equality. That's a big deal.

Posted by whatevernevermind | October 15, 2008 9:49 AM

@11: In California, popular support for anti-equality measures is there, the money is the issue.

In MA (and CT to a more moderate extent), monetary support for anti-equality measures is there, the popular support is the issue.

Who is doing it right in this case? I don't want equality because someone spent the most money to convince moderates to change their voting habits and not their ways of life.

Do you think this heated back and forth in CA is going to reduce hate crimes?

Posted by AJ | October 15, 2008 10:43 AM

@6 According to Law Review studies, California has the most influential state supreme court in the nation.

(unfortunately Washington's supreme court is the second most cited)

Posted by vooodooo84 | October 15, 2008 10:47 AM

@13: That's the supreme court's decision, which is not at issue here. At issue here is the constant drumming of "if Prop 8 wins, all gays are screwed" for the sake of scrounging up cash to make up for a lack of popular mandate on the topic.

MA has guaranteed marriage until 2012, and even then, the opposition is starting to back away from the topic and will more than likely produce a half-hearted or impotent token measure based on their reactions to the current state of affairs in the state.

If we follow the CA method, I guarantee that any state with a similar population (and similarly lax provisions regarding overturning judicial decisions) will probably see a close or losing race at the polls.

Posted by AJ | October 15, 2008 10:57 AM

I saw that second ad on the air unfortunately. I'm worried it will do more harm than good. On the plus side, I also saw on air an ad featuring parents of gay children who were simply pleading that they want all their children to be treated equally and all of them to have full families, which I thought was a much more effective message.

Posted by Karey | October 15, 2008 11:06 AM

I like the two house wives ad better. It's real, and appeals to those that have divided feelings about equality. The first ad creates too sharp a line between fat, poorly suited, 40something bigot, and hip, jeans wearing, handsome, 30something gay guy (as if all reasonable people are hip Gay men wearing jeans). That's not the real world.

Posted by Sargon Bighorn | October 15, 2008 11:19 AM

@12/14 I think the right path to equality is the one that gets you there.

There were enough people in favor of slavery that it divided the nation, but equality was made official anyway -- even as it was forced down the throats of those who would then raise generations of descendants who would also refuse to like it. And we still aren't there yet on race, but it still wasn't wrong to insist on equality then.

And will marriage equality reduce hate crimes? How should I know? But if you're saying that's a reason to not insist on equality now, I don't agree. Concern over hate crimes didn't stop Abraham Lincoln either, thankfully.

As to your last point in post 14, there is no state similar in population and ballot provisions. None. CA is alone in that. The former is one reason CA is a national leader on issues, the latter is one way CA is screwed up on a state level.

If marriage equality remains the law in CA, that's an even greater exposure of the lies behind the argument against it. When almost everyone in the country either lives in CA or knows someone who does, marriage equality will directly touch the lives of almost every American. Other state's cases for equality will be strengthened by that, not weakened.

Posted by whatevernevermind | October 15, 2008 11:28 AM

@17: As I said before, the supreme court ruling is not at issue here, it's prop 8. Assuming I think that the ruling itself has a bearing on hate crimes is wrong, I mean prop 8 itself.

In terms of population, I did not mean number, I meant political inclination. CA is a very suburban state without a real sizeable urban/small town core population that generally drives social change of this magnitude. Combine this with an ease in overruling the supreme court and you have a problem.

To assume I am against progress in equality is wrong; what I'm against is this assumption that CA should be the model when CA itself should be looking to other states for help. Where is the parade of ads about MA? CT? How about a quote from MA Republican Brian Lees rescinding his view on outlawing gay marriage and replacing it with Civil Unions by stating "[g]ay marriage has begun, and life has not changed for the citizens of the commonwealth, with the exception of those who can now marry"?

Instead, we have impassioned pleas to the GLBT communities of other states predicated on the notion that buying votes with fear and cold hard cash will have a greater net positive than working on figuring out how to change that moderate population to a more tolerant one.

You know what the MA legislature is doing now, btw? They're trying to figure out how they can amend the constitution to prohibit ballot measures that curtail civil rights or inhibit matters of equal protection.

The only reason I'm supporting the "no" side is because it's in the interest of family members and people I know in CA. I, however, could not disagree more with the methods CA is using and this erroneous assumption that they are creating a useable and valid model.

Posted by AJ | October 15, 2008 11:49 AM

Big mea culpa, Dan. I've seen so many blog posts and comments lately in which gay people bitch about the ads and it's been really frustrating, and I should have read your and Rex's posts more closely.

Posted by Chris | October 15, 2008 1:03 PM

@18 Now you lost me. I don't know why you brought up hate crimes in the first place, but I wasn't making any assumptions about why you did, nor did I state any. I don't think hate crimes has a place in the discussion of marriage equality.

I don't understand your point about centers of political inclination, but CA politics aren't suburban-driven, they come out of San Francisco and Los Angeles. It's not CA suburbanites that are fighting for Prop 8, anyway, it's out of state Mormons.

I don't know why you think I assume that you're against progress in equality. As to models, it's not a question of whether CA "should" be the model for anything, it's about the fact that so goes CA, so goes the nation. If quoting MA people helps, then CA should do it. Works for me.

Mormon donations make up approximately 40% of the $22 million that Yes on Prop 8 has collected. It's not about the CA population's stand -- which was majority pro-equality before the Yes side collected more money and bought more airtime promoting lies -- it's about an out of state effort by a religion to change CA law. They should be stopped in any way possible. Let's worry about people's feelings later.

I only care about defeating Prop 8. And, as long as it's legal, I don't care how anybody makes that happen. If something else works for somebody else for their fight, good for them. As long as it works.

Take your reason for supporting No on Prop 8: it would be great if you were supporting it because you think everyone is equal whether you know them or not, but I'll take your support for whatever reason you got. I don't care, as long as it's defeated.

Posted by whatevernevermind | October 15, 2008 2:50 PM

As someone working on the No on 8 campaign, it has to be #2. Because that is what TESTED BETTER. That is what this is all about. Those of us that respond well to the fun ads, the ones that tell it like it is? We are already voting no on 8.

We HAVE to appeal to the people who aren't sure. And it has been determined that these are people that may not agree with "the gays" but that see this as a civil rights issue. And right now the Yes on 8 are winning these people over in droves by scaring them. Because that is what tested well in THEIR studies. And they have the money to back it. Their "main" message is "protect familes" which, quite frankly, makes not a lick of sense to me. But apparently, people are buying it. And because just coming right out and saying "we hate the gays" doesn't work.

I'm just sickened by the whole thing. I'm really really sad and just trying ot get through it and doing as much as I can to help.

Posted by PrezBrown | October 20, 2008 11:44 PM

And thank you, as always to Dan Savage for pointing this out. I did apprecate the link and the fact that you addressed this because as someone close to the action. I get complaints about the ads all the time.

By the way, there are also certain words and a very carefully worded script we must use on phone calls because we simply cannot afford to offend on single undecided voter.

And the ads with the kids of same sex couples? I cried. But it will never be used because, again, any use of children in the ads tested badly and harps back the the "it's all aobut the kids!" bullshit the yes on 8 ad is using.

Again, we are walking on eggshells and it sickens me.

Oh, and to make you all feel just a little worse? Here in San Diego there are a lot of yards with both Obama & Yes on 8 signs, especally in the suburbs. I'm climbing back into a bottle of wine now...

Posted by PrezBrown | October 21, 2008 12:18 AM

Comments Closed

Comments are closed on this post.