Comments

You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

1. not a huge fan of the new ad. why is the one guy sitting at the table calmly sipping a cup of coffee while one kid is running around and his partner is busy with another? the guy at the table doesn't look busy at all. i think the ad would be more effective if it conveyed the stresses of parenting, thus suggesting that parents need all the help they can get, including enjoying equal rights.

   Posted by: le_sacre | Nov 6, 2007 7:56:01 PM

   
   

2. In my opinion, the "Mike and Jeff" ad is the wrong way to go. It is an emotional appeal and does not, in any way, shape or form, illustrate how current marriage prohibitions discriminate against homosexual couples. I also think it is a mistake to highlight the issue of children of homosexual couples because the wingnuts who oppose marriage equality will start screaming that children need a mother and a father, not two mommies or two daddies. Their argument will have no rational basis, nor will it be founded in any research that shows children in same sex families suffer (because research shows just the opposite). But they will argue it. Loudly. And then people will have kneejerk reactions to children growing up 'without a mommy or a daddy' which will send them to the camp opposing marriage equality. I also think, sadly, that it is probably a bad idea to show the homosexual 'couple'. Let's face it, there is a large group of people who simply don't want to be faced with the presence of two homosexual people in love. Showing the 'couple' right there in living color runs the risk of triggering biases.

   The ads that spoof the Apple ads are the way to go. They explain in concrete terms the ways in which members of homosexual couples suffer because this country denies us the right to marry. And they do it in a way that makes it very difficult to oppose marriage without seeming like an unreasonable bigot.

   Posted by: peterparker | Nov 6, 2007 9:44:12 PM

   
   

3. Gay couple should have equal rights and mortgages like other couples. I have met a gay on FindBilover.com. We share in the housework.

   Posted by: Daniel | Nov 6, 2007 9:51:37 PM

   
   

4. I thought the new ad was brilliant. It wasn't aimed at the wingnuts who believe all gays molest children - they'll never be convinced. Instead, it was aimed at the all the straight people who don't really ever think about gay issues; the people who have never thought of us as having families. These are the people who can be brought to our side when they see us as part of their communities instead of solely as a fringe group that has nothing to do with them. This ad helps demonstrate that gay people have the same sort of everyday concerns that straight people have and that we should have the same rights.

   It educates straight people by showing them that we are just people who lead normal lives and are nothing to be afraid of.

   By the way, I thought the guy at the table was paying bills.

   Posted by: sam | Nov 7, 2007 9:33:44 AM

   
   

5. As a nurse in NJ I think the second ad is total bullshit!!!!!!!!! In NJ we have recognized same-sex relationships for many years before it became the PC (no pun intended) thing to do. Even the most religious , Republican nurse I know would find barring a gay person from seeing their partner repugnant. Even when family members step in to request we keep same-sex partners from visiting, we often arrange alternative visiting hours if necessary. This is an irresponsible ad that damages the reputation of NJ's nurses.

   Posted by: JerzeeMike | Nov 7, 2007 10:18:44 AM

   
   

6. Jerzeemike, you can think it's BS, but such incidents have happened and will keep happening as long as gay people can't marry. Further, your own message shows part of the problem: you say "even when families step in to request we keep same-sex partners from visiting," but... what kind of insane, inhumane system would let someone's biological family step in to keep the person they've devoted their life to from seeing them in a hospital?

   My mother was a nurse in NJ, and rabidly anti-gay. Let me tell you, speaking as a gay man, if I'd ended up in her hospital she would not have let my boyfriend visit me, and the hospital might back her in preventing my "domestic partner" or "civil union contractee" from visiting me, but they'd damned well have to let my "husband" visit me or he'd have the police in there to make them. Personally, I think it's inhumane not to give me the comfort of knowing I have the legal protection any married person can expect.

   Posted by: Tom | Nov 7, 2007 3:01:27 PM

   
   

7. I think Sam's right - these ad's aren't aimed to activate or mobilize the base. Rather, they are targeted to straight people who don't think about the freedom to marry very often and never in personal terms.

   It's a good strategy -- reaching out to a new audience -- and much needed to pass the tipping point, when there is finally enough public support for the freedom to marry.

   A group in California is targeting that same group with a TV commercial this fall. You can see their very different (than these NJ ads) ad here:

   http://www.letcaliforniaring.org/site/apps/nl/content2.asp?c=ltJTJ6MQIuE&b=3554233&ct=4563207

   Looking at all three, bearing in mind the audience, which ad do you all prefer?

   Posted by: Brian | Nov 7, 2007 7:38:52 PM

   
   

8. Sam trips himself up in his own argument. He spells out a bias in his well-intentioned role as mediator: he refers to "family members" and "same-sex partners" as though they were distinctly separate entities. Sam, I consider my same-sex partner my family. Apparently, civil union-ized does not convey this message to you. Perhaps being married would get the message across better, no?

   Posted by: STUART | Nov 7, 2007 11:47:55 PM

   
   

Post a comment

Name:

Email Address:

URL:

Remember personal info?

Comments: