National Organization for Marriage (NOM) has released a new video advertisement for television, "Gathering Storm".
Already, Boston Catholic Charities has been denied its adoption agency license because of their religious beliefs concerning marriage and the welfare of children. A New Jersey church group has been denied property tax exemption because they cannot in good conscience permit civil union ceremonies in church facilities. And individual service providers have been forced to choose between their faith and their profession. Religious liberty experts have said that these sorts of conflicts just scratch the surface of what we are likely to see if same-sex marriage becomes widespread.
Human Rights Campaign (HRC) has attacked the ad as "fake".
The HRC is the largest gay lobby group in the USA.
On its website the HRC begins its complaint by emphasizing that it has released audition reels it has obtained which show that the NOM ad used actors. Without being explicit, the HRC strongly suggests that ads that use actors reading scripts are "phony".
They should complain to Samuel L. Jackson, too.
Heh.
I thought that was a very superficial way to begin their complaint.
As I said at a pro-SSM blogiste:
The ad provides a political message. That's fair enough.
Are you complaining that actors cannot appear in such ads or that reading scripts for such ads is somehow dishonest?
Because I am pretty sure that the anti-Mormon ad of the No-on-8 side used actors for all the characters. Right?
See Courage Campain's: "Home Invasion": Vote NO on Prop 8. It is widely lauded as the most effective No-on-8 tv ad. Note that its explicit anti-Mormon depiction serves to illustrate the truthful theme of NOM's "Gathering Storm" ad.
* * *
For a small taste of the positive feedback among SSMers for the "Home Invasion" ad, see the pro-SSM discussion of the ad: Mormon Home Invasion.
Comments from that blog:
"I wish all the No On 8 ads had been this powerful."
"That was by far the most effective ad."
"Excellent! Shine a bright light on the bigots & make them crawl out from under their rocks!"
"The ad got more media coverage here in CA than they ever could afford to buy."
The complaint about the use of actors is a triviality. The substantive issue consists of the profoundly illiberal conflict that arises for religious liberty and freedom of conscience in the midst of the imposition of SSM and of gay identity politics.
* * *
Anyway, the HRC's website says that it is
"calling out those who maliciously use lies and misinformation to interfere with the LGBT community’s path to equality"
such as NOM and
"the American Family Association (AFA), the elders of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, Oklahoma State Representative Sally Kern, and Utah State Senator Chris Buttars, Proposition 8 lawyer Ken Starr, right-wing media personality Rush Limbaugh, and GOP Chairman Michael Steele."
* * *
HRC also published its attempted rebuttal to the ad's political message:
1.
The [California] law does not, and cannot, dictate [a doctor's] faith - it can only insist that she follow her oath as a medical professional.
2.
The [New Jersey] law does not challenge the church organization’s beliefs about homosexuality - it merely requires that [their property which] had been open to all for years comply with laws protecting everyone from discrimination, including gays and lesbians.
3.
The [Massachusetts] law does not stop [a parent] from disagreeing, from teaching [her child] consistently with her differing beliefs at home, or even educating her child in a setting that is more in line with her faith traditions. But it does not allow any one parent to dictate the curriculum for all students based on her family’s religious traditions.
* * *
NOM has responded with a brief statement in response:
HRC's record of truth and honesty about their intentions is not that impressive. They once said marriage amendments weren't necessary because there were no federal court cases. Now there is one.
They called us liars when we said public schools will teach about gay marriage if its the law--but they do in Massachusetts. Serious religious liberty scholars from Eugene Volokh to Doug Laycock to Robin Wilson acknowledge the central driving idea behind gay marriage--there is no difference between same-sex and opposite sex unions and supporters of marriage are engaging in discrimination if they think differently--will have consequences for the freedoms of traditional faith communities. To pretend otherwise is to be profoundly unserious--if not deceptive--about what gay marriage means.
* * *
On its website, NOM provides background facts for "Gathering Storm":
1.
Shortly after the California Supreme Court redefined marriage in California law, a California Court of Appeals heard a case involving a doctor who had referred a woman in a same-sex couple to another doctor for artificial insemination because of his religiously based conscientious objection to participating in the procedure. The court held that the doctor could claim no religious exemption to the civil rights law under which she was sued because of the State’s compelling interest in ending sexual orientation discrimination, a policy one judge identified as emanating from the court’s marriage decision.
2.
A N.J. Methodist Camp Association was denied part of its tax exemption when it declined to allow a portion of its property to be used for a civil union ceremony. The same-sex couples who wanted to use the property are also pursuing a discrimination complaint against the Association, and the Division of Civil Rights in the Attorney General’s Office has found “probable cause” for continuing the action against the Association.
3.
[P]arents of young elementary school students objected to curriculum and class room discussion meant to inculcate in the children the idea that there are no differences between the marriages of men and women and [unions] involving same-sex couples. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit held that public schools “have an interest in promoting tolerance, including for the children (and parents) of gay marriages. [...] Given that Massachusetts has recognized gay marriage under its state constitution, it is entirely rational for its schools to educate their students regarding that recognition.”
4.
[S]everal articles [discuss] religious liberty issues in the same-sex marriage context. See Jonathan Rauch & David Blankenhorn, A Reconciliation on Gay Marriage, NY Times, Feb. 22, 2009, at WK 11 (“Cases of this sort are already arising in the courts, and religious organizations that oppose same-sex marriage are alarmed.”); Barbara Bradley Hagerty, Gay Rights, Religious Liberties: A Three Act Story, supra, (“As states have legalized same-sex partnerships, the rights of gay couples have consistently trumped the rights of religious groups.”); Peter Steinfels, Will Same-Sex Marriage Collide with Religious Liberty? NY Times, June 10, 2006 (“Chai R. Feldblum, a professor at Georgetown University Law Center and a proponent of same-sex marriage agrees that permitting gay couples equal access to civil marriage will inevitably burden the religious liberty of those religiously opposed.”); and Maggie Gallgher, Banned in Boston: The Coming Conflict Between Same-Sex Marriage and Religious Liberty, The Weekly Standard, May 16, 2006 (“‘The coming conflicts over religious liberty stemming from gay marriage [will] affect every aspect of church-state relations.’” (quoting Anthony Picarello, General Counsel for the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops)).
Read the letter sent by NOM to the station managers of the TV networks on which it has launched its ad, Gathering Storm.
This letter provides the basic substantiation for NOM's television advertisements entitled "Gathering Storm," 60-sec and 30-sec ads. Additional information and documentation is available on request. Because everything in the 30-sec ad is in the 60-sec ad, this letter will substantiate each factual statement of the 60-sec ad.
Also see: "HRC challenged by NOM on substance of ad".
That's the best the HRC can do? Claim the NOM ad used actors? That's no basis for substantive claims against what the ad implies - gay activists who push their beliefs into other people's lives and who attack churches and religion on the basis of bigotry. This question over their beliefs about marriage has opened a whole can of worms that will have serious consequences for marriage, families, and religion.
ReplyDeleteAnd now Maggie has launched 2M4M.
ReplyDeleteUnfortunately for her, however, someone forgot to nail down 2m4m.org before they announced it.
Perhaps there is a gay mole in the PR department. M4M has been gay code for a long time. Is it really possible that Maggie didn't know this, or that no one in her organization googled it before launching 2M4M?
I rarely donate to a political cause, but I'm going to pass a few dollars on to NOM. Society is trending downward, and they're one of the few capable organizations resisting the trend.
ReplyDeleteIt's worth it. We directly saw how donating to the Prop 8 coalition helped. Even though we didn't have as much money as the other side, ad campaigns help inform people. It's the informing that counts.
ReplyDeleteGreat write-up. thank you!
The complaint about actors couldn't have been too uneffective. NOM removed the clips from Youtube.
ReplyDeleteTsunami: The complaint about actors couldn't have been too uneffective.[sic] NOM removed the clips from Youtube.
ReplyDeleteCould Tsunami mean this video on YouTube? Looks pretty "removed," alright, that is if the marriage redefinition crowd is also now redefining what "removed" is.
Actually, the comment stream in response to that video proves better than the video itself the anti-religious goals at the heart of neutering marriage. This just confirms what we already know from California where a generous domestic partnership law already granted every state "benefit" of marriage to same-sex couples. Clearly this was never an issue of the "rights" of same-sex couples but rather an attack on the freedom of conscience at the heart of our pluralistic society.
I think that the ratings on YouTube say it all:
ReplyDelete5,500 responses and the rating is "Poor"
People are not willing to be fooled any longer, they see GLBT as individuals deserving of the same rights they enjoy, not the scary "us" v. "them" trying to be portrayed.
I live in Massachusetts and have direct dealings with both Mr. Parker (the man who accuses his son was forced to learn about gay marriage) and the SPLC certified hate group (massresistance.com) he belongs to. Each individual school board chooses its own curriculumn, it is not state mandated that they teach anything about GLBT people.
The bottom line is that David Parker had the opportunity to take his kid to another school if he didn't like what was being taught in the one he was at, but instead he chose to disobey a police officer who instructed him to leave the school. That's why he got arrested.
You'll note that all appeals in his case have been thrown out because he has no case.
op-ed, you have failed to understand tsunami's point. The green-screen audition tapes have been removed from YouTube. The text reads: "This video is no longer available due to a copyright claim by National Organization for Marriage," and the video has been replaced with the official NOM video.
ReplyDeleteJohn, you know better than that as to how the Internet works. You guys (I'm talking about the most fanatical pro-SSM people, though I'd say the same is true about much of the radical left) have us all beat as far as sitting in front of a computer and dissing others is concerned. You cannot determine the public's feeling by counting Internet comments; they are not a representative cross sample. Some people actually have other things to do.
ReplyDeleteThe bottom line is that David Parker had the opportunity to take his kid to another school if he didn't like what was being taught in the one he was at...
I suppose you'd accept that retort if you heard that a parent objected because a school was teaching that marriage was between a man and a woman.
Yes R.K., the gay attack machine is out in full force. Every Marriage group I've joined on facebook is under a constant barrage of pro-gay flames and trolls who are simply trying to shout down their opposition.
ReplyDeleteFor all their shrill cries of hatred and persecution -- you simply don't see this sort of behavior on pro-gay sites.
It's the bane of all good user-moderated communities on the Internet. Those who rate things poorly only because they disagree with them.
ReplyDeleteThat and people with only a little computer programming experience who find ways to put their thumb on the scales by writing programs to vote their prejudice hundreds if not thousands of times :)
Is it perhaps desperation that can illicit some to point to Internet-straw polls as evidence to support their cause? Not that straw polls are always off, but anyone else remember how favorably Ron Paul's presidential campaign looked if you measured only by Internet straw-poll?
That said, there are videos that gained lots of high marks that defend marriage equality (the marriage equality of gender integration that Mr H-G has yet to humanely acknowledge I presume). One likening the outrage at losing Prop 8 (a proposition being more reliable poll, I might add) to a video clip of Hitler finding out he was going to lose Berlin. A series with a baby talking about the strange realities of neutered marriage also received high marks.
No, Mr H-G fully knows that public opinion supports real marriage equality, the one that expects the quality of each gender participation in marriage and their support in raising the children they create in their relationship. Public opinion supports rights for same-sex couples to receive all the relevant benefits they may need also.
Its the fair and equitable compromise in the middle that the fringe like Mr H-G consider unfair. Its the fringe like Mr H-G which throw a tantrum if his concerns are dealt with in a neutral and circumspect consideration. In other words if we consider and try to balance policy based on people's concerns outside the GLBT community as well as the ones they themselves express, then the real tantrum happens.
Hosty-G, Pete Hoh, HRC - notice nobody denies the attack on freedom of conscience that is alleged in the video and demonstrated in the vitriol laden comment stream.
ReplyDeleteEverywhere the people have been given the opportunity to vote on marriage, the people have upheld the definition of marriage as one man and one woman. But Hosty-G thinks a bunch of trolls in a comment stream is more significant than the actual votes of all those people. It just goes to show how completely out of touch Hosty-G is with reality.
Serious religious liberty scholars from Eugene Volokh to Doug Laycock to Robin Wilson acknowledge the central driving idea behind gay marriage--there is no difference between same-sex and opposite sex unions and supporters of marriage are engaging in discrimination if they think differently--will have consequences for the freedoms of traditional faith communities. To pretend otherwise is to be profoundly unserious--if not deceptive--about what gay marriage means.
ReplyDeletePerhaps one of you has the courage to come onto our radio show and debate me live Tuesday at 2:30PM on blogtalkradio.com? The details can be found on knowthyneighbor.org.
ReplyDeleteYou can dismiss the 5,500 votes against the marriage discrimination video on youtube.com, you can dismiss all the individual posts if you want, but how are you going to dismiss the fact that little by little people are starting to stand up for our rights? How can you dismiss that more and more states are moving towards are equality? How do you dismiss that the discrimination of GBLT equality has been found unconsitutional in multiple states now?
Seems to be a rather large leap of denial to think this is all jst going to go away and you will once again live in a country where we have no voice, don't you think? I'd rather discuss by what conditions we can co-habitate in peace, but I can't force that conversation out of you.
Hosty-G: Perhaps one of you has the courage to come onto our radio show...
ReplyDeleteFirst demonstrate you can make a rational argument.
I'd rather discuss by what conditions we can co-habitate in peace...
Don't destroy fundamental social institutions. Don't throw future generations under the bus. Don't keep fighting to silence the vote, the foundation of our democracy. Seems pretty easy to me. We've been over this before despite your dishonest claims to the contrary.
"Don't destroy fundamental social institutions."
ReplyDeleteMy equality does not stand in the way of your bigotry. You are unhindered by my rights.
"Don't throw future generations under the bus."
How about you teach children about different concepts and allow them to decide for themselves who is right. Didn't we have that same freedom?
"Don't keep fighting to silence the vote, the foundation of our democracy."
Oppression of minorities is not democracy, it's tyranny.
Please cite what you claim is dishonesty.
"My equality does not stand in the way of your bigotry. You are unhindered by my rights."
ReplyDeleteNo such right or institution exists under law in Mass, and other such states. Its just genderless marriage, your preferred option...not the one historically defined.
"How about you teach children about different concepts and allow them to decide for themselves who is right. Didn't we have that same freedom?"
Again there is nothing to decide...one genderless "marriage" norm for everyone...nothing left to decide under your approach.
Oppression of minorities is not democracy, it's tyranny.
Don’t be so hyperbolic. No ones oppressing you. No more than we are "oppresing" polyamorists or single people who suffer under the "stigma" of not being married.
> "My equality does not stand in the way of your bigotry."
ReplyDeleteWho's the bigot? The people rooting for expecting equal gender representation, or the people asking the government throw away all natural child-parent concerns for their right to exclude the other gender?
I agree on the fight against bigotry. I believe Walt Kelly's Pogo has the right assessment for your side.
> "You are unhindered by my rights."
Such a philosophy may be easy to shout into the playground. However the reality is much more obvious. We are all hindered by observing other's rights. The popular refrain teaches us that rights are always hindered because our restraint is what is required in observing other's rights. This is exemplified in the refrain, "your rights stop at my nose".
Your right to have a loving committed relationship with full government recognition is not questioned. Assuming the right to take an institution that others believe in and squish your disagreement out of it by government force is simply oppressive on your part.
Do you disagree that is what is happening? Well then, just review the conversation so far. We cite that marriage observes the rights of children in how they are conceived and the relationship that engenders. We cite how gender integration in marriage encourages the mutual support of each gender's ability to fully realize their capacity as that gender.
We cite that the right to marry is the right to fulfill your human capacity to procreate and assume all of the responsibilities to the other parties (the member of the other gender you joined with as well as the children created in the relationship) that requires.
Who wants to go further than just replacing that right, and take it away entirely? Who wants to neuter marriage into a smaller less equitable version than what it is and has been?
Not me.
Hosty-G: My equality does not stand in the way of your bigotry.There's the knee-jerk "You're the bigot because I don't agree." This rhetorical ploy, tantamount to a child screaming names when he doesn't get his way, is more of the damage Hosty-G seeks to inflict on our society. Not just lowering the tone of discourse, but depicting institutions tailored to uniting children with the parents who created them as the equivalent of slave holders and white supremecists. What affect will that notion have on those future children?
ReplyDeleteHow about you teach children about different concepts...Didn't we have that same freedom?How about taking care of our children instead of seeking to indoctrinate them?
What we had were parents who took responsibility for us and for each other through the institution of marriage. Our children deserve the very same. Ours will not be the generation that breaks this chain of caring and responsibility for future generations. Ours will not be the generation future generations look back on and say "They thought more of themselves than they did their own offspring. They turned marriage into a toy for adults instead of an obligation to their children."
Oppression of minorities is not democracy, it's tyranny.No. Tyranny is taking the vote away, period.
This is a great post! I just had to throw that in there. Thanks guys!
ReplyDeleteThanks, Liberty Belle. Stick around and share your comments with us on our blogposts. Cheers.
ReplyDelete