1. TampaZeke says

    This ad is great if its target audience is gay people who already support marriage equality.

    If its target audience is people who might actually believe the NOM ad then its not going to be very effective at all. Those people will see the bobble headed narrator and immediately turn off any consideration of what he says.

    Our side has got to wake up and realize that what looks good to US and sounds good to US if fucking irrelevant in changing the minds of those people whose minds need to be changed. We have to develop ads that appeal to people who are afraid of gay people, who have bought into the lies that NOM has told/sold, who won’t listen to anything that a gay person has to say on the topic. This is why Ted Olson is so effective. HE gets it.

    This EXACT ad needs to be redone with a new narrator. One who doesn’t look like a bobble head; one who doesn’t so obviously read every word of the dialogue and one who wouldn’t be so easily perceived to be gay at first glance; after all NOM targeted their ad to people who would dismiss Walker’s ruling for no other reason than his perceived sexual orientation. How can we then reach those same people by having Miss Thing launch the counter attack.

    This may suck, but it’s reality.

    Please remake the ad with a narrator who’s a little more Steven Segal and a little less Jack McFarland.

  2. Thomas says

    I see your point, but the battle for equality shouldn’t be won by trying to convince straight people that gays are actually just like them. That’s disingenuous and deceptive. Frankly, I don’t want to be accepted as different because the majority is living with the false perception that I’m actually not.

    I think this ad is a great balance. It’s logic, and it’s truth. You’re looking at a very middle-of-the-road gay man laying out an argument in an easy-to-hear, clear, logical way. He may have relied a bit too heavily on the cue cards, but it’s not bad. If you want non-gays to accept gays, the answer isn’t in lying about who we really are. I know there are straighter-acting gay guys out there, but I’d hazard to guess they aren’t the majority. And they certainly aren’t representative of the community at large.

    Chris, statements like the one you just made smack of latent homophobia. Not saying you’re homophobic, just be mindful about what it is you’re suggesting and the place it comes from.

  3. Paul says

    Unfortunately the kind of people who think NOM are right, will argue with every issue until they are blue in the face. They consistently ignore fact, they consistently refuse to accept statistics, evidence and turn away from even the most sane presentation from the other side. They believe it’s wrong because it is in the bible and they see standing their ground as a test of their faith. How on earth do you change these peoples minds? It seems they only change their minds when a relative/sibling/son or daughter of theirs comes out. Look at Dick Cheney.

  4. KGW says

    The NOM add is concise, well written and well produced….the response ad is amateurish. The NOM ad is 1 minute long…response ad is wordy and 4 minutes long….nobody is going to listen to the whole thing and how do you pay for the extra 3 plus minutes of radio air time. The guy in the response ad not only looks like a bobble head geek, he has a lousy speaking voice and he is obviously reading a prompter. The producers of the respose ad might mean well, but good intentions count for nothing in this kind of socio-political warfare. This fight is too important to be left to amateurs….spend some money and hire some pros if you want to win this war.

  5. Steve says

    Wait a minute – did I just see a “Joe Miller” ad on this site, sponsored from Google? That’s the Alaskan Republican that Sarah Palin is supporting!

    MODERATOR – check your ads!

  6. patrick says

    If you think EQCA is going to produce an ad that is 30 seconds long and acts to rebut the lies and distortions NOM promotes, you are delusional.

    This clip is great because it will be shared at blogs and on FB – with gay people and with their families/friends/co-workers that don’t even begin to recognize the number of false claims NOM makes. Matt Baum shows just how much bad info is out there and is not rebutted and he does it well.

    You can be a know it all gay bitch about him (is Matt too gay for you? you should probably go to hell) – but this does more to respond to the lies in the world than any stupid comment at a blog or any so-called advocacy org (EQCA) with a 7 figure bank account would ever do.

  7. Mike says

    This is the same problem we have with FoxNews and the republicans. THEY LIE and THEY LIE WELL. The problem is that it is quick and easy to lie, but to respond you are put on the defensive and to explain and refute typically can’t be condensed into a 30/60 second sound bite. If you call them out, and expose what they are doing, the response will be “you’re attacking religious freedom”. Personally, I think we should go on the attack, and just start producing slick, ads which call them out. A good start would be to parody the “Storm Gathering” ad. There’s a storm gathering, and it’s being fueled by bigotry and hate…and I am afraid… afraid that my children are being taught intolerance… afraid people will be incited to commit hate crimes… afraid my rights will be taken away today, and your rights may be taken away tomorrow…

  8. says

    Though it works well in a debate forum, as far as a radio ad rebuttal, it is lacking.

    Being on the defensive means recapping the offense and giving that side some validity.

    I would just call them out as liars and move on to examples of why SSM is good for the individuals as well as the community.

    Of course, personally, I’d harp on Maggie Gallagher’s history as an unwed mother and go for the personal attack!

  9. booka says

    I concur with JAYCBIRD. Since when did a polite response to vicious slander ever win anything. For as reprehensable as it is; go for the jugular, show the weaknesses in their fetid “perfect” world.All you have to do is create doubt, and their message and justifications fall apart.

  10. Frederick says

    I agree with Tampazeke. Not only does our ad need to have a more dynamic narrator, it also needs visuals (i.e. photos of: same-sex couples with their children, the Fourteenth Amendment, Mormon men with multiple wives, etc;)interspersed in the appropriate spots throughout the ad, as the narrator makes his or her point by point take-down of NOM’s ad. Our ad should almost mirror NOM’s ad, but use the point by point narrative breakdown of its lies.

  11. TampaZeke says

    @THOMAS, way to totally miss my point and make a strawman argument in response to what I said.

    @PATRICK, it isn’t about ME and what I think or about YOU and what YOU think. That’s my whole fucking point. If the ad is meant to tickle MY fancy or YOUR fancy then it was perfect but if it was intended to correct the facts to those people who BELIEVED the NOM ad (and REALLY, who else should it be directed to) it has to be thoughtful in how to present it to them in a way that they will, first, listen to, and then consider.

    I’m no macho man myself. I’m 100% supportive of ALL of the vast manifestations of the gay community. AGAIN, my comment wasn’t about ME or MY preferences and it wasn’t about the preferences of those who already support us. It was about how to best get through to those who might not support us and how to get them to reconsider.

    I see this as the greatest problem with ALL of the gay supportive campaigns. They are ALL, each and every one, designed to target those who already agree with us. They use OUR language, OUR style and stories that make US feel all warm and fuzzy, seemingly completely oblivious to why this isn’t a winning strategy.

    The angry response to my comment and the accusations that I might be homophobic or that I should “go to hell” are evidence of just how too many people just don’t understand who it is we need to direct and fashion our message to.

    AGAIN I say, the ad was great in content but will not be effective in presentation. Ignore that fact at ALL of our peril.

  12. Didgeridont says

    Wow, I’m amazed at the counterfactual thinking and the false dilemmas being posted in the comments here.

    Tampazeke, informational videos don’t necessarily need one target audience. Also, you don’t know how effective or ineffective any act will be. This video may have influences you may not have factored into your calculus when you decided that it was worthless. Maybe this video will give some LGBT people some information power, maybe it will normalize the ‘bobble headed’, “easily perceived as gay” people to some of the opposition in ways you hadn’t imagined. You think ads should be developed to specifically target the anti-gays? – Perfect. But don’t fail to realize that we need everyone’s voices, and one of the LGBT community’s assets is its diversity.

    KGW, and Zephyrsf, it takes longer to deconstruct a false proposition than to make one. You two sound like the character Brad from “I Heart Huckabees” at the Saving Open Spaces meetings. Read Patrick’s and Mike’s post. KGW, good intentions don’t count for nothing; progress is built through accretion. You think money should be spent and pros hired? – Great! Do it, if you can. But don’t shit on people who are helping in the ways they are inclined to do.

    Jaycbird, I listened to the video the first time without watching; it’s fine. Being on the defensive and recapping what the other side has said does NOT give them validity in any way. What ever gave you that idea? You would just call them out as liars. – Fine, do it! Just bear in mind that’s not what this narrator decided to do for his video.

    Booka, when did a polite response to vicious slander ever win anything you ask? Um, is that a question you’re asking from a vacuum?

    Frederick, you think this vid needs a more dynamic narrator and visuals? – Find one and do it! In the meantime, this dude you just criticized actually did something.

    People, we need everyone’s voices. We all have different capacities and can make different contributions, and we ought to be able to. Our diversity is one of our strongest points. Let’s not reject what we do have and complain that all our eggs aren’t in one basket.

  13. Jay says


    Wow, internalized homophobia bringing you down?

    Were black people in the 60s served by trying to be whiter? No. The most powerful civil rights leaders were unapologetic about who they were and what they wanted. Your reservations about masculinity and femininity and assigned gender are as outdated as racism.

    Each person’s power lies in truly being his/her self. Pandering to homophobes is a mistake.

  14. says

    Thanks for the feedback everyone! It’s good to hear your thoughts on my video.

    Just to give you some background, it was produced in just a couple of hours by me with some help from my husband. I wanted to get it up online as fast as possible. I don’t expect that it’ll be seen by very many people whose minds need changing, but I do hope that it’ll help folks like us formulate responses to criticism of Judge Walker’s ruling.

    After all, as we know, the best way to reach out is though one-on-one conversations. You’re all having your conversations with friends and families and canvassing door-to-door, right?

    I expect to make more vids like this, so if you would like to help, please do drop me a line! I’m at

    Analyzing videos after they’re made is helpful, but helping to make them is even better.

  15. CKNJ says

    Thanks for making the video, Matt, I have already listed it on my Facebook page for my friends and family to see (and they tend to repost so hopefully with their help it will go far and wide)…

    I appreciate you actually DOING something as opposed to the armchair naysayers that simply whine about what others do; where is THEIR response to this kind of ad? Hopefully if they have some ideas that are useful they will contact you and let you know.

    In the meantime, thanks again to you and your husband for taking the initiative.

  16. TANK says

    Hmmm, one of the lgbt community’s weaknesses is its diversity. It’s practically destroyed the notion of a “community”: there is none other than in mutual or similar institutional and societal discrimination. The weakness is that a vast diversification of opinions and strategies and an attempt to give them all equal consideration limits a consistent, coherent, effective message…and unified activism, and political initiative. That’s a detriment.

    Advertisers have never gone broke underestimating the intelligence of their target audience, and that’s something that lgbt activists should keep in mind. Fight fear with more fear–make it clear that NOM’s a hate group funded by mormons…which this tried to do…but you see, most americans (christians) are greatly disturbed by mormons…and this a strategic advantage for our annihilation of NOM…can’t be overlooked or downplayed.

Leave A Reply