Thursday, April 9, 2009

UPDATE BELOW!! Have you seen the Anti Gay Marriage Ad they are airing?? It is FAKE!!!

Yes, that's right. They have this ad showing people who say that Gay Marriage will hurt them and you and your marriage. Now I haven't figured out how that is going to happen. But that's what the ad says. If you haven't seen it.. here it is watch it for yourself.



Now, you tell me, what does that say to you... look at this and see how this is going to hurt you and your marriage or your business if Joe and Sam or Sally and Beckie get married.

Human Rights Campaign, the nation’s largest lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender civil rights organization, released a statement and a factual rebuttal today on a television spot produced by the National Organization for Marriage and set to run on CNN, the Fox News Channel, and MSNBC in the coming days. In the ad, actors make disproven claims about marriage for lesbian and gay couples.

Yes, folks that's right. It is a fake, and all the people are actors.. but not one place in that ad does it put a disclaimer nor does it state that. It never gives the impression nor does it ever even hint they are. It states they are real people.

Here are the out takes and show the actors practicing for their roles. Pretty funny if you ask me.



That's Part 1 and like I said just actors rehearsing for their roles. Here is Part 2.



I have stated before and I state again. How can 2 people who are happy and content, no matter if they are Bob and Sam, Jennifer and Sally, or Bob and Sally or Jennifer and Sam, be harmful to anyone else, my children, your children or anyone else's children?

The real danger to marriage is the ready availability of divorce or dissolution of marriage as they call it now. They have No Fault divorce kits available everywhere. You can buy them over the internets... Just use "Teh Google". $199 for a do it yourself fill it out, send it in and git 'er done dee-vorce.

UPDATE MEET SOME OF THE ACTORS IN THE FAKE AD.. GO TO THIS WEB SITE.. Thanks to Kyle at Bob Cesca's awesome blog for pointing this out to me and others... this is where they found some of these people to make this ad. Just to show they really are reaching...

I hope others will pick this up and post on this matter. We have to make sure people know these are lies and will call them what they are. LIARS!!!!

16 comments:

ZenYenta said...

Oh, I can't wait to get home where I can listen to the outtakes. Thanks for posting them. I thought the ad was ridiculous, but I didn't know there were outtakes!

Vast said...

I've been posting comments in the Blog that NOM runs on their site trying to get them to debate facts and they keep deleting my posts. Maybe it's because they don't have any facts. I'd like to call on people to head over to their blog and help me try to get them to debate the issue.

http://nomblog.com/?p=26&cpage=1#comment-412

Annette said...

So far I have posted 3 comments....lol We shall see...

enigma4ever said...

is this a REAL org ??? really ? omg ...so so strange...I dont understand WHAT they are defending...or want...so so strange....

Annette said...

Yep E4E it is for real.. and they were on Hardball last night spreading their lies. So, this is the start of their protest.

Chairm said...

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?

D.K. Raed said...

I've never seen the ad running for real (and you know here in UT it will be quite popular & probably featured on every local show). So far, I've only seen it talked about on MSNBC cable news shows.

I'm surprised at the hokiness of it. Where are the actors standing? On a big fog machine staged heaven? Cuz they are sure brain dead already. My gawd, where are their life support hoses, LOL!?!

Personally I think gay marriage STRENGTHENS my marriage. It means there was TRUE choice, and out of ALL the people in the world, we chose each other!

Now about those divorces, well being a Nevada native (the original divorce capital of the USA), I see the value of people being able to easily sever a bad knot. And if it was up to me, I'd change ALL the marriage laws to require advance legal agreements about terms of eventual divorces. Maybe I'd even have 5-yr, 10-yr, 25-yr, or lifetime marriage "contracts" available. But then I'm bad secular humanist and also a big reader of science fiction ...

D.K. Raed said...

ps Annette, I just tried to watch the Outtakes you posted, but they won't play! YouTube displays this message, "this video is no longer available due to a copyright claim by National Organization for Marriage". How paranoid are these NOM idiots?!

Annette said...

Censureship at it's best D.K... what can I say.. they are just proving the point they are afraid of what everyone is saying about them. It is sad they are that afraid.

D.K. Raed said...

I forgot I had recorded Rachel last night, so I just watched it now and got to see some of the "outtakes". OMG, "a rainbow collision"??? Were they all members of the ronald b-rate reagan bad actors club? Pathetic.

Chairm said...

DK Raed and Annette, acting on a lawful copyright claim is not censureship.

The ad says (in type on the video) that these are actors. There's nothing being hidden or denied on that point. The script is based on real events and real controversies.

Maybe you disagree with the use of actors in ads whatever the political message. If so, that's a legitimate position to stakeout. Did you apply this criticism to all pro-SSM ads as well? No actors? No scripts?

On the substance see the following in the Washington Post:

Jonathan Turley, a law professor at George Washington University who supports same-sex marriage, said the Bob Jones ruling "puts us on a slippery slope that inevitably takes us to the point where we punish religious groups because of their religious views."

Both sides predict more litigation as gay rights bump up against strong religious beliefs.

Marc Stern, general counsel for American Jewish Congress, said: "When you have a change that is as dramatic as has happened in the last 10 to 15 years with regards to attitudes toward homosexuality, it's inevitable it's going to reverberate in dozens of places in the law that you're never going to be able to foresee."


If you disagree with the political message, fair enough, but the ad's content has been substantiated.

However, if you do dispute the facts presented in the ad, then, make your case clearly. That's fair also.

Annette said...

I have disputed the facts in the ad.. I went to your web site or your blog as you call it and commented on your site as I posted above in the other post, you have not seen fit to post my comment last time I checked. You won't answer questions.. maybe not YOU personally, but the people you are trying to represent, so I will ask again.. how does 2 people being happy, whether it is Sally and Sue, Bob and Joe or Joe and Sally or Sue and Bob hurt your marriage or my marriage?? Why does others being happy hurt anyone else?? How can that be harmful to anyone's children?? I asked those questions in my post and you have yet to answer them.

If you want to attack something that is harmful to marriage attack the ease of divorce.. that's a problem.. Like I said.

Yes, the disclaimer is now there.. it wasn't earlier.. Guess NOM decided they had to add it after being shown they were using false material in their ad.

Chairm said...

Annette, we have a group blog. Blog comments are usually automatically posted. We've a very open policy in that regard.

But I'll inquire about your comments. Okay?

The disclaimer has always been in the ad, Annette. But perhaps you missed it in the smaller size of the youtube version you watched.

Regarding your questions about harm, do you understand marriage to be a social institution or a private arrangement?

I ask because you are emphasizing a particular kind of harm that suggests the latter.

But then you brought up divorce which has a different kind of harm that you appear to recognize and to prioritize.

For years I've been involved in the divorce issue. Until the SSM thing came along, our society had reached a pretty strong and widespread consensus about the problems with the rise in divorce and other nonmarital trends.

Now, with SSM at the top of the agenda, it seems that even this consensus on divorce has been attacked as relevant only in terms of disputing the motives of those of us who had been working hard on the divorce issue.

Look, SSM, as a proposed reform, must stand or fall on its merits (and demerits) such as they are.

Likewise divorce.

Agreed?

Chairm said...

Annette, did you leave a comment at Opine? Or did you mean NOM?

I'm not a member of the NOM blog.

Annette said...

I don't know anything about OPINE.. I am talking about NOM.. that's who I have always been talking about.. and NO the disclaimer has not always been there. The first time I saw the ad was on TV.. not online. I am not the only one who says the disclaimer wasn't there.. I am one of many...

I am also one of many who have stated that NOM is not posting our comments on their site. My comments are no longer pending.. they have all been deleted now. So have all my friends who have commented. We were respectful, we were considerate. All we did was challenge the facts. Ask questions, want answers..

Chairm said...

Annette said: "I went to your web site or your blog as you call it".

It looked to me that you were talking about the blog with which I am associated.

It was not clear that you had meant NOM's brand new blog.

It is not unusual for a new blog to go through some adjustments when handling comments. There is no automatic way to screen comments so most small blogs will leve the gates wide open. Like you do here and like we do at Opine. But NOM is a prominent organization with additonal responsiblities that you and I do not have on our blogs.

So instead of jumping to a conspiracy theory, maybe email NOM and inquire about your comments and their approval policy/process.

I've done so in regards to comments I've submitted but which have not apeared yet.

By the way, does the HRC have a blog of its own?