I was watching CBS Sunday Morning and this commercial came on. It is very well produced and has an even better message. They just started running in my home state of Iowa following the recent vote to legalize gay marriage.
Regardless of your stance on the gay marriage issue, you should watch this. It is a much more rational message that the ridiculous “The Storm is Gathering“ fear campaign that NOM has been running.
[reddit]
Tags: Ad, Commercial, Discrimination, Gay, homosexual, Iowa, Marriage, Television, This Place, Tollerance
April 26, 2009 at 1:26 pm |
Great commercial, hopefully things like his will help whittle away at the bigotry.
April 26, 2009 at 6:57 pm |
Because of my religious beliefs, I am opposed to gay marriage in principle. However, I think it would take an amendment to the U.S. constitution or amendments to the 50 state constitutions to ban it. It is unreasonable to interpret any document as prohibiting discrimination on the bases of race and gender yet allowing discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.
April 26, 2009 at 7:37 pm |
As a matter of public policy, I believe gay persons should be allowed to marry members of the same sex, but I don’t believe the right to gay marriage is written into any of our state constitutions or the federal constitution (unless the provision was expressly written to address the specific issue of gay marriage–I haven’t read them all). I think it would be preferable for the people’s elected representatives to pass laws allowing for gay marriage rather than to have the courts magically read rights into constitutions, when the rights in question could never even have been conceived of when the constitutions were originally enacted.
It is not unreasonable to interpret a constitution to prohibit gay marriage. Every person is allowed to marry any person of the opposite sex. Just because that option is not preferred by some, does not mean that laws allowing all to marry the opposite sex and none to marry the same sex are unconstitutional. The meaning of a constitution cannot magically change over time. I am quite certain that nobody who voted for any state constitution in 1895 or 1963 ever entertained the belief that they were enacting a document that would guarantee the right to same sex marriage.
April 26, 2009 at 7:41 pm |
I misspoke in the comment above. I don’t think constitutions prohibit same sex marriage. What I think is that they do not guarantee the right to same sex marriage.
April 27, 2009 at 1:06 am |
Article I. All men are born free and equal, and have certain natural, essential, and unalienable rights; among which may be reckoned the right of enjoying and defending their lives and liberties; that of acquiring, possessing, and protecting property; in fine, that of seeking and obtaining their safety and happiness.
saying that all men are created equally, essentially says that all people of America are allowed the same rights in pursuit of their liberties and happiness.
The Equal Protection Clause, part of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, provides that “no state shall … deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws”
This says that the law shall not keep rights from people while other people enjoy the rights. If marriage is allowed for straight people it is unconstitutional for it to be not allowed for gay people.
Remember that as recently as 1967 it was illegal to marry someone of another race and people made the same “constitutional” argument. now try and say that it is unconstitutional for a white guy to marry a hispanic woman and you would be labeled as a bigot. the constitution is there to protect everyone’s rights.
April 27, 2009 at 2:11 pm
“Marriage,” as it has always been understand and legally defined, IS allowed for gay people. It’s just that gay people don’t want to be stuck with someone of the opposite sex.
What gay people really want is a re-definition of marriage to allow for same-sex unions on equal terms as opposite-sex unions. (I support this, as a matter of public policy). But this goal would be better accomplished, I think, by actually redefining the definition of marriage, instead of by making the appealing (but false) argument that the gay people are denied access to “marriage” as traditionally (and currently) defined by law.
Your constitutional solution would also require the courts to allow three-person unions (religion discrimination?) or unions with minors (age discrimination?). My legislative solution would leave the power to define “marriage” in the hands of the people.
April 27, 2009 at 6:52 am |
Sex is sacred ! well man has the freedom to choose between milk and urine !.
April 27, 2009 at 9:38 am |
gay or homosexual marriage is a Dirty, Nasty,Disgusting .
seems like bacteria & viruses
April 27, 2009 at 9:52 am |
Bacteria and viruses are infectious diseases. Are you afraid of “catching” the gay virus?
Homosexual marriage does not affect you personally in any way whatsoever. It is your free choice to view them as “disgusting”. Most people would use the same word to describe your hate for other people.
Life is too short to spend hating people, live and let live.
April 28, 2009 at 4:47 am |
I do not hate people, or animals
even if I do not like them.
however, Homosexual are neither people nor animals.
just un natural ” bacteria & viruses ” or uni-cell object.
nobody love AIDS, Flu or Cancer, Did you?!!
April 28, 2009 at 4:52 am
You put a smiley face in that paragraph? It’s been a long time since I’ve read something that disgusting. Please seek help before you take this dehumanization to the next level.
April 28, 2009 at 6:24 am
dear Mike
” One of the things I’ve tried to do is not make assumptions about what people believe. The labels we give ourselves and each other are so very inadequate at expressing what we really believe. ”
these are your words within your blog.
I completely respect and believe in.
however, I also believe that
” we must not change the rules and laws that God made for life – or simply “laws of nature , as you do not experience anything in life that you would identify as God”.
“.
We cannot let one kill his own self, even if it will not affect us.
You can find my words “disgusting” , but it still what I’m beleive in.
April 28, 2009 at 7:49 am
“We cannot let one kill his own self, even if it will not affect us.”
Mena–
That statement would be very noble if that is what you were doing. How are you saving anyone’s life with your dehumanizing comments? If a homosexual is lower than an animal in your eyes, why do you care if they “kill his own self”?
Using the Bible to justify a hate campaign doesn’t somehow make you a noble and holy person. It makes you a bigot.
April 28, 2009 at 9:09 am
mena, either homosexuals are lower than animals or you are wanting to protect them, which is it? I made no assumptions about you, I simply responded to your unmistakable statement.
April 28, 2009 at 2:47 pm
[b]I don’t use bible for Crusades and hate.[/b]
I’m not ” a noble and holy person” .
they -Homosexual- choose their life style, it’s their own problem.
but still my believes , not always justified by Bible but justified by nature movement.
Neutrons, Electrons, sun, moon, wind, water, [b]Man & Woman and their children[/b]
April 27, 2009 at 10:45 am |
Hey BEattitude – hope all is well with you. Have you read about this?
Honesty should reign in Perez Hilton’s duel with Miss California
By DEREK WALKER
Last updated on 04/26/2009 at 8:24 p.m.
There’s something amiss about Miss California. Since the April 19 telecast, a storm has been a-brewin’ among the bloggerati over runner-up Carrie Prejean’s answer to a controversial question at the conclusion of the 2009 Miss USA Pageant.
When asked by eccentric celeb-blogger Perez Hilton her thoughts on gay marriage, Prejean gracefully replied, “I think in my country, in my family, I think that I believe that a marriage should be between a man and a woman. No offense to anybody out there, but that’s how I was raised.”
The reaction on Hilton’s face told the story.
And that was that. The second his jaw dropped to the floor beneath him, a Wikipedia entry was made available, several clips of Prejean’s comments were put on YouTube and columnists everywhere took notice.
Hilton, openly gay himself, took immediate objection to the beauty queen’s answer the following day on his blog. “She lost not because she doesn’t believe in gay marriage,” he said, adding, “she lost because she’s a dumb b—-!” Clearly, maturity flows through his veins far quicker than blood, oxygen or any semblance of logic ever could.
In an age where honesty comes at a premium, Prejean should be commended for her openness and bravery in answering the question. Perez, on the other hand, has made a career out of being a phony. Earmarked by his dyed hair and wishy-washy demeanor, the sharp-dressed man makes his name by inciting anger in the world of celebrity and ‘outing’ other gay actors and actresses, all behind the veil of a pseudonym. His real name? Mario Armando Lavandeira, Jr.
Many others don’t agree with Prejean’s comments, but what’s remarkable is how prone to hatred those who do disagree have been. A perusing of several popular message boards offers little in the way of a harmonious outcome: one user called the should-be Miss USA an “intolerant bigot.”
That’s about the only one we’re allowed to print. Yeah, it has gotten pretty ugly.
Americans aren’t always going to agree with each other; with a population of over 300 million, that’s a given. But teaching people to side with the popular viewpoint instead of the honest one will inevitably do more harm than good.
Gay marriage just so happened to be the spark which set off a majority liberal audience. Yet lying to appease that crowd would have set an even worse example to those watching than Prejean’s original comments.
“You can have any color car you want, so long as it’s black,” quipped auto inventor Henry Ford decades ago. Somehow that famous quote is still relevant to today’s world. Just replace “color car” with ‘belief’ and “black” with ‘popular.’
April 27, 2009 at 12:04 pm |
I refused to blog about the Miss America fiasco. It is just too stupid. I can’t understand why it is getting so much news coverage.
Here is the scenario:
A woman parades around a stage in a bikini like a piece of meat and is judged on how pretty and smart she is like a sexual object on display. She then makes a “moral” stand on her view of same sex marriage and the homosexual judge acts like an angry juvenile, causing her to lose the competition.
Now she is being looked at as some sort of Christian role model? Give me a break.
A Miss America pageant is not the place I look for advice on morality. Is Carrie Prejean a person I’m supposed to want my daughter to look up to?
April 27, 2009 at 1:02 pm |
So, because a Miss America contestant spoke her views on a moral issue, her opinion does not hold water? A Christian role model..did this article mention that? I didn’t see it. The article was about someone (a miss america contestant in this case) standing up for what she believes in and then receiving hatred for it – simply because it was not (popular).
Matthew 7:13-14
Enter by the narrow gate. For the gate is wide and the way is easy that leads to destruction, and those that enter by it are many. For the gate is narrow and the way is hard that leads to life, and those who find it are few.
April 27, 2009 at 1:11 pm
Yes, an opinion on morality doesn’t hold water when you’re standing on a stage in a swimsuit being judged on how pretty you are like a piece of meat.
She didn’t receive hatred from me. I couldn’t possibly care less what she believes. The Christian response has been to hold her up like a role model and an example of what it means to be a Christian. People stand up for what they believe all the time and receive hatred for it. She just happened to be in front of a national audience.
Don’t feel too bad for her. She will be greatly rewarded financially in all the speaking engagements she will be asked to do to talk about how super Christian she is.
April 27, 2009 at 12:15 pm |
I think you misrepresent the ad ‘The Storm Is Gathering’. It seems no less rational than the Iowa ad. In point of fact the Iowa ad misrepresents the Homosexual agenda. Just as in so called sex-education the emphasis is placed on extreme promiscuity in any form of sex while any kind of moderation or chastity is condemned while dissenters are held up to ridicule or worse, the direction here is the denial of freedom or choice. As only the hypocritical would deny the next step is NAMBLA. Child sex. Lowering the age of consent to two or so.
Don’t be dishonest. You should be ashamed.
April 27, 2009 at 12:49 pm |
I’m being dishonest because I called “The Storm is Gathering” commercial ridiculous? That’s my opinion, not dishonesty.
You’re claiming:
1. Formalized sex education emphasizes extreme promiscuity and condemns moderation and chastity. Which it does not.
2. A consensual homosexual relationship is somehow the same thing as rape of a child. Which it obviously isn’t.
You can’t call someone dishonest and back it up with an unsubstantiated rant based in paranoid delusions.
April 27, 2009 at 2:46 pm |
Dear religious conservatives, could you please cease your bigotry and demagoguery against gays and lesbians, recognize that homosexuals are human beings deserving of the same legal protections as everyone else, and join us in supporting civil marriage and adoption rights for all adults, regardless of gender.
April 27, 2009 at 3:57 pm |
I do not appreciate being labeled a religious conservative. If we’re going to get into name calling, watch your step.
I don’t know where BEat went to school but where I went to school the emphasis was on not being ‘uptight.’ The homosexuals ruled the classroom and they didn’t want to hear dissent. The emphasis was definitely on the ‘varieties of sexual experience.’
I don’t know why you think nobody else has experience in education or hasn’t dealt with homosexuals and homosexuality before. What? Do you think we’re all naive?
Perhaps you’d better review NAMBLA and its attitude to youthful sex. They call it consensual they don’t call it rape.
Some call that freedom. What I said about the two ads was my opinion too. Let’s make up and be friends.
April 27, 2009 at 4:34 pm |
Reprindle-
Your blog says you were born in 1938. If a homosexual tried to “rule the classroom” in the ’50s or even acted openly gay, they would have burned them at the stake. At age 70 I highly doubt you’re an expert on homosexuality.
You have the freedom to believe whatever you like, but it is completely unnecessary to be so abrasive as you throw around your opinions.
Peace.
April 27, 2009 at 5:59 pm |
Marriage is a sacred union between one man and one woman. Such a union is blessed by God, and anyone who tries to change that is wicked, sinful and vile. So say the Christian fundamentalists, along with many other religious fundamentalists, and the furor over the legalization of same-sex marriage in Massachusetts last month will be a long time simmering down. I know it won’t happen in my lifetime. It’s a good thing the founder of true Protestant marriage, Henry VIII, is not here to see this. He would be shocked to the core to see marriage so fouled. And so would his wives, Catherine of Aragon, Anne Boleyn, Jane Seymour, Anne of Cleves, Catherine Howard and Catherine Parr.
When you hear the news sound bites from people protesting same-sex marriage, the fuzzy thinking leaves you staring into middle space with your mouth slightly ajar, as you try to figure out the reasoning. Referring to gays, irate protesters claim, “It’s not just marriage they are trying to destroy. They are determined to eliminate all family values and all morality in general.” Well, that seems rather ambitious. Could “they” do it even if they tried? Don’t think so. Besides, non-gay Christian Republicans right here in the good ol’ USA, home of Christian Family Values, have done a pretty good job themselves of making marriage less than a “many-splendored” thing. Here is a brief sampling:
Ronald Reagan—divorced. Bob Dole—divorced. Newt Gingrich—divorced (and presented this news to his wife as she lay in a hospital trying to beat back cancer). Dick Armey—divorced. Sen. Phil Gramm of Texas—divorced. Gov. John Engler of Michigan—divorced. Gov. Pete Wilson of California—divorced. Conservative pundit George Will—divorced. Sen. Lauch Faircloth—divorced. Rush Limbaugh—divorced several times. Bob Barr of Georgia—divorced twice, married thrice (so far). Barr had the audacity to author and push the “Defense of Marriage Act” and people want to know which of his marriages he would like to defend. Sen. Alfonse D’Amato of New York—divorced. Sen. John Warner of Virginia—divorced. He was once married to Liz Taylor, who had as many spouses as Henry VIII. Gov. George Allen of Virginia—divorced. Henry Kissinger—divorced. Sen. John McCain of Arizona—divorced. Well, enough. This could go on forever. Point made?
There is a common misperception about the nature of marriage. Almost everyone would say that it is a union between a woman and a man; and many would add that the union is blessed by God. But God or no God, they would be wrong. In this country, marriage is an uneven three-way partnership, and the State has the controlling hand. The State, not the loving couple, dictates who may marry, and when and where. In many states, it requires a blood test beforehand, taking a bit of the romance out of the occasion. You must purchase a license to get married, just as you must to go fishing, or to drive a car. It is a licensed event.
“The State has the sole power to dissolve a marriage, and to distribute the assets tied to that marriage. Child custody and child support payments are determined by the State. Marriage is about inheritance, insurance benefits, powers of attorney and tax exemptions. Somehow the rose-covered cottage gets lost in the paperwork….there is no conservative clamor to remove any of the crass financial aspects from the sacred bond of holy matrimony. Community property laws are alive and well in Christian circles.” Amen to that.
So what exactly is being threatened by same-sex marriage? How are gays going to destroy all morality and values? Gays are no more likely than non-gays to commit any crimes, from littering to murder. Corporate crime, which has left millions of people jobless and savings-less, has been overwhelmingly committed by non-gay white males. Most crimes, heinous or otherwise, have been committed by non-gays for the simple reason that gays are a small minority of any population—anywhere from 10% to 20%, depending on your area—and they therefore have little voice about most societal issues. And in any event, what do legal unions between gay couples have to do with morality? Unless you adhere to the Judeo-Christian Bible, there is no basis for criticism of such unions. So once again, it all boils down to religion. As long as two consenting adults want to be together, what they do together is no one’s business but theirs. As long as they hurt no one else, and especially if they truly love each other (a rare thing anywhere) then more power to them. This is the secular humanist position on gays and marriage and living together. It’s a far cry from demanding deaths and using ugly name-calling, which is the Bible’s way of dealing with almost all things sexual. The desire to make a marriage commitment is admirable in today’s world of swiftly shifting relationships. That so many gays want to make that commitment is something to be celebrated, not ridiculed.
So maybe the amendment should be worded, “Any adult couple who wants to live together and love each other may be joined legally and considered married in the eyes of the law, regardless of gender or sexual orientation.” It would be consistent with the tolerant, secular view that appreciates humanity in all its richly variable forms. And there are no stonings involved!
April 27, 2009 at 5:00 pm |
There have been few times in the last 8 years that I have felt proud to be a US citizen. This is one of the times that I am proud.
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal,..”
It doesn’t say “all heterosexual men” or “all white men” or “all Christian men” or any other stipulation. It just says “all”. I can’t imagine any way to possibly spin the word “all” to eliminate any portion of the population from being able to enjoy the same rights as any other portion.
April 27, 2009 at 6:43 pm |
I warned you about name calling. You’ve been to R.E. Prindle so I presume you may have read something of it. In case you haven’t may I direct you to Disco Donn Does Deep Elum, Disco Donn Demands Deliverance and Our Lady Of The Blues Book V. There you will find just how homosexuals behave. Good stories too. You’ll like them.
The Declaration of Independence does say ‘all men are created equal’. I don’t know what that means to you but if you take it literally you’ll be mistaken. The framers meant that there were no Lords or Commons. That’s in context of the times. The Declaration of Independence doesn’t say some men are born straight and some men are born bent although your ilk may read it that way.
If by rights you mean marriage, it’s not a right, it’s a heterosexual institution. I cannot imagine why a queer would want to be married and tied down. Or at least as tied down as a queer can be. I doubt if any of you have read Proust, it’s not on TV, but he had the right slant on homosexuality. A quick bang among the garbage cans, a contemptuous fuck you as you leave and you’re on your way. No strings attached. Get with it. Who would want you around on a permanent basis? Read Disco Donn Does Deep Elum. Drawn from life.
I notice none of you boys use names and display pictures. I think I know why.
Now, Bea, before you go off half-cocked- I’m sure you’re all premature ejaculators- you should ask a few questions. I’m sure none of you have ever thought of serving the country that gave you the great quote ‘all men are created equal’ but if you had you would have loved the Kearsarge, then known as the Queersarge, but I did serve. Navy. I learned something about gayboys there you can bet.
Then for several years after being discharged I worked and attended night school. I got to a four year college in the late sixties and not the fifties. So zip your lip. Research, research, research before you shoot off, at least try to get it out your pants.
As for acting openly gay in the fifties you don’t know your ass from a hole in the ground. ‘Vass you dere, Sharlie?’ What do you know of San Francisco in the fifties? Nothing. You’re all mouth which is helpful in your situation.
When did you come out Laddybuck? Last year?
Wooee.
Enough of this. Read Disco Donn. Learn something about yourself.
Hang tough, punk.
April 27, 2009 at 7:03 pm |
Ah, I’m in first! I get to call…..POE!!!
April 27, 2009 at 7:17 pm |
????
I wouldn’t know how to respond even if I wanted to.
April 27, 2009 at 6:45 pm |
Correction : I meant Iowa not Massachusetts, you see I am European and sometimes … I hope you do understand !!!
April 28, 2009 at 10:55 am |
The Miss America Org funded $45 million in cash and scholarship assistance last year for young women. So chances are pretty good that your daughter, if she chooses to get a classroom education, will absorb some of that cash in her lifetime.
April 28, 2009 at 11:02 am |
I agree that it is very good that money goes to help young women, but that doesn’t justify what the Miss America organization stands for. They perpetuate an objectified view of women from 75 years ago. It isn’t empowering women.
Casinos also fund many good projects in my state. That doesn’t mean I support what they stand for.
April 28, 2009 at 11:34 am |
According to the facts, the Miss America Org does quite a bit to empower young women. Most of the contestants are college grads and are very active in local and world issues….and the swimsuit competition only counts for 15% of the overall score. Because a woman is beautiful and intelligent, she should have the freedom to express herself in many ways.
May 12, 2009 at 9:59 pm |
This is where atheism loses all its credibility. Why tie your non-belief system up in butt defilement of the same sex? I’ve not yet found one atheist who is against fag marriage online, but I haven’t really been looking all that hard. Is this why you become atheists rather than just Deists when you reject Christianity….because you want to defile another man’s butt or have yours defiled?
May 12, 2009 at 10:39 pm |
I’m married (to a Christian woman) with two young children.
What reason would I have to oppose gay marriage? Who cares? How does it possibly affect my life? Let them live as they choose. The only law they are breaking is the one written in ancient texts by men that burned “witches” at the stake and stoned rape victims to death for not screaming loud enough for help.
No thanks. Your version of morality is nothing more than justified hate.
May 13, 2009 at 5:46 am |
theBEattitude, did your troll repellent run out?
Now have the cowboy butt sex song from Family Guy in my head.
May 13, 2009 at 7:38 am |
I had to run to Walmart and buy more. Rey was busy.
Family Guy rules. Thanks for the laugh to start the day.
December 28, 2009 at 8:01 pm |
Glad I stumbled into this article! Finally, got what I was looking for to put on my school report Thanks for sharing this