A doctor has to choose between faith and work if he or she has a gay patient? What kind of medicine does she practice, exactly? What kind of professional ethics standards would empower a licensed physician to deny treatment to gay people in need of medical care anyway?

Maybe she doesn't want to prescribe birth control to gay married couples....?

Yeah. I got nothin'.

A doctor has to choose between faith and work if he or she has a gay patient? What kind of medicine does she practice, exactly? What kind of professional ethics standards would empower a licensed physician to deny treatment to gay people in need of medical care anyway?

Not just a gay patient, though, a gay married patient. Why should the marital status of the patient come into play at all? Is she fine treating unmarried gay patients but has some objection to treatment when they get married??? And if so, why does she have a license?

As long as Maggie lectures us about marriage, may we lecture her on the dangers of obesity?

Gawker has the leaked audition reels. Good for a laugh at least. I love the Massachusetts one, myself. How dare public schools teach that legal activities inthe state are, well, legal? Inconciecable.

Notice they describe themselves as a 'rainbow coalition'? Wait, what do all those rainbow stickers I see mean, again?

and the main problem these days: all this librul action and breakdown of discrimination sure makes it difficult to be clear, specific, and distinct about who we hate and why... it makes us seem like the bad people...

Not just a "rainbow coalition", but one brought together by love.

Love? Really? Is this opposite day?

That's damn fine discrimination there...

Sure, there are many, many arguments against gay marriage. The problem for conservatives is that every single one of them is 100% pure bullshit.

But they have a tremendous quantity of arguments, just like with the "war on Christmas" or anything else. Quality, on the other hand, has a liberal bias, apparently.

I saw a post last night at http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2009/04/even-stopped-watch quoting Cal Thomas:
"To those on the political and religious right who are intent on continuing the battle to preserve "traditional marriage" in a nation that is rapidly discarding its traditions, I would ask this question: What poses a greater threat to our remaining moral underpinnings? Is it two homosexuals living together, or is it the number of heterosexuals who are divorcing and the increasing number of children born to unmarried women, now at nearly 40 percent, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention?"
"Most of those who are disturbed about same-sex marriage are not as exercised about preserving heterosexual marriage. That's because it doesn't raise money and won't get them on TV. Some preachers would rather demonize gays than oppose heterosexuals who violate their vows by divorcing, often causing harm to their children. That's because so many in their congregations have been divorced and preaching against divorce might cause some to leave and take their contributions with them."

The right should stop wasting its breath fighting gay marriage and put it to work helping families stay families.

I saw this ad on the TV this morning 530am while riding the stationary bike. I was thisclose to getting of the bike and hurling it at the TV. Instead, I just hurled.

Wow..... just, "Wow"....

With the entire world on fire, melting down around us, these folks have time to worry about... loving couples declaring their love.

I got your "Gathering Storm" right here...

The ad didn't include the right's greatest fear: that homosexuality is contagious.

You mock this ad, quite properly pointing out the lack of any real content, but I must tell you it is precisely this kind of ad, this ad in every detail, that caused Prop 8 to pass in California. I can assure you, this ad absolutely will work.

The other thing I think of when seeing this ad is that it reminds me of the latest kfc ad. Wait for it. Ok, so kfc has a young, attractive woman talking about how she knows their food is fresh, because they have chefs in every kitchen, and she's one of them. Of course, along the bottom it says 'actor reenactment' or something. All I can think is 'you have ten thousand locations, each with a chef or two, and you can't find ONE who looks good on tv?' same with this ad. Use real people, people willing to put their real names and professions out there, and I might be more willing to take you seriously. there are 330 million people in the US, and you can't find seven who actually agree with you willing to say so on camera?

It's more of the "Scary Gay People" meme.

My soon-to-be husband (we're planning a trip to Vermont) pointed out that this is a prime example of the wingnuts' need to have the scary, demonic "other" as the boogieperson. They don't have the commies anymore. What's left are gay people, immigrants, and followers of islam. To make this really effective, they need to focus on gay islamic hispanics coming over the border, worhsipping allah, and redecorating your living room.

I've long hoped for a coherent explanation from conservatives....

Well that was your first mistake. ;-)

You mock this ad, quite properly pointing out the lack of any real content, but I must tell you it is precisely this kind of ad, this ad in every detail, that caused Prop 8 to pass in California. I can assure you, this ad absolutely will work.

Unfortunately, I have to agree with you. It was exactly this kind of content-free, fact-free bullshit that helped Prop 8 to pass, because it gives people a few talking points to explain the nebulous dislike they have for gay marriage that they can't otherwise explain.

Hopefully, the national organizations will put out better counter-ads than the No on 8 idiots did here in California. Seriously, the No on 8 people were doing ads that were basically, "It's okay to hate gay people, we understand that. But can we please please pretty please have our civil rights?" That was from the people who were FOR gay marriage!

At the very end they ran a commercial narrated by Samuel L. Jackson that compared other discrimination (the Civil Rights movement, the internment of Japanese Americans) to the opposition to gay marriage, but it was too little, too late.

Bill:

My impression is that Prop 8 passed largely due to the sheer, vast amount of conservative lying about what the bill stated. A lot of people voted "for" prop 8 because they believed they were voting "for" allowing gay marriage.

If the right is limited in their vast, shameless lying to gay marriage itself, people tend to see through that, yes?

The "California doctor forced to choose between my faith and my job" thing might be about this case of a doctor who, for religious reasons, refused to perform artificial insemination on a lesbian patient. But I'm just guessing since they're being deliberately vague. And that woman, a decade ago, wasn't gay-married, obviously.

"I will have no choice."
Well, you can always run around to every gay wedding and speak up when they say "If anyone has any reason why these two people should not be joined in matrimony, speak now or forever hold your peace." I mean it's built right into the ceremony, go for it buddy. Don't expect an invitation to the reception though.

One of the actors featured in the ad says gays intend to bring the issue into his life. How?

Maybe the character portrayed is afraid his wife will leave him to marry her girlfriend.

For me the problem isn't with same-sex marriage. It's that the government has in the passed found it necessary, or wise, to support the RELIGIOUS ritual of marriage.

We allowed ourselves to cross that line of separation of church and state.

Meh. Commercials for Prop 8 are one thing because even given the size of the California media market it's still just one state. But a national teevee advertising campaign in this age of increasing audience fragmentation has to be astronomically expensive if it's going to have significant impact. I mean, let's just say that I doubt I'm going to see this ad while watching the only two shows I catch regularly, The Daily Show and The Colbert Report... ;-)

JWK: What government supports "the RELIGIOUS ritual of marriage"?

I know of no jurisdiction in the US which *requires* a religious ritual in order to effect marital status.

Almost every religion recognizes marriage through their own peculiar ceremonies, but marriage is a contractual relationship that is in no way dependent on religion, and precedes any particular religion, regardless of religious claims about divine sanction for the institution.

@ DH Walker; I am here in Florida , so I never read the ballot language of Prop 8 . It sure does sound familiar in these parts where the Republicans when they want to get things passed word the ballot so that YES means NO or vice versa , whatever will get it passed. The ironic part is that they were so concerned that ballot initiatives they didn't favor were getting passed too easily changed the majority rule from 50% + to 60% , thus ensuring that ballot initiatives will never get passed unless it is a sure thing.
Irony 101 that one passed by 51% so under the new rules it wouldn't have passed.
This is one fucked up state.

A lot of people voted "for" prop 8 because they believed they were voting "for" allowing gay marriage.

I'm not sure where you got that, because here in San Diego at least, I know of not one single instance of that claim ever having been made. There was no confusion before or after the election as to the meaning of the proposition, and the meaning was in no way deceptively stated on the ballot itself. Nor did I see any ads on the media trying to lead people to vote in the manner you suggest. The ads were all very much like the one here, and they all ended "Vote Yes on Prop 8."

Don't sell Maggie Gallegher and Brian Brown short with their non-profit NOM work. Would be interesting to see how quickly they raise more money for their hate. By the way, they have started a blog for their NOM work. Mrs G is an articulate force. Would not surprise me to find some sort of a Princeton tie-in with Fr. C. John McCloskey III, the converter of Krudlow, Novak and others. The enemy never rests.

Hmmmm, me thinks if this was about marriage, they would swarm Vegas and start protesting the top-less, drive through marriages done by Elvis impersonator. But some how that doesn't effect the sanctity of marriage.

When they start harassing divorcees, adulterers, domestic abusers, and absentee parents, people might take them more seriously, the 5% that are left that is.

I think the haters are rapidly galvanizing public opinion . . . in the opposite direction. Hate is looking particularly ugly these days.
Slightly off topic, but is anyone else worried about the fact that, since Obama's election, the gun stores of America have been emptied out. It is the most underplayed story of the year, IMHO.

"We not only don't have Jim Crow anymore, but we teach people that racism is wrong. This is, it's true, a big imposition on racists..."

This really speaks to where we are in the evolving public view of same-sex marriage. Yes, there really was a time when the overturning of Jim Crow was viewed by many as unfairly infringing on their "right" never to associate with black people. (And some of them even offered biblical justification for this -- certainly fewer than are trying it now with their anti-gay crusade, but it was out there.)

Yes, that time is long over and this view is now considered laughable. But this kind of thinking is what's driving a lot of anti-equal marriage people right now at this moment. They don't even see or hear the argument that their right to be bigots just might end where it starts infringing on someone else's right to equal application of the law. They really do see themselves as the persecuted ones whose previously acceptable views are becoming less acceptable and upon whose authority the larger social opinion is resting less and less. It's all about them because they simply can't make the mental and emotional jump into even considering what the civil rights of another person who doesn't share all of their social, cultural and/or religious markers might be.

It's not a pretty worldview. I'm not suggesting we ignore or assign a false benevolence to these views, by the way, just observing that in the larger scheme of social evolution, it's a temporary stage for all but the most incorrigable bigots. In 20 years, the "National Organization for Marriage's" arguments will seem as ludicrous to the vast majority of Americans as white supremacists' views do now.

"My freedom will be taken away."

She's quite right, y'know---her "freedom to ram her xenophobic hatemongery down my children's throats" is effectively being taken away from her.

And it's about time, too....

Another actor insists, "My freedom will be taken away."

The right wing always loves to yell and scream about how everyone is always taking their "freedoms" away; it seems the last administration -- and the faux "president" they presumably voted for -- did a damn good job of that without any help from us gay people.

These people want the right to shield their children from the knowledge that homosexuality even exists.

I know of no jurisdiction in the US which *requires* a religious ritual in order to effect marital status.

Almost every religion recognizes marriage through their own peculiar ceremonies, but marriage is a contractual relationship that is in no way dependent on religion, and precedes any particular religion, regardless of religious claims about divine sanction for the institution.

And yet we allow priests, pastors, rabbis and other religious authorities to perform state-recognized marriages rather than requiring a civil marriage and leaving it to people to do or not do what they wish about the religious recognition aspect.

I'm not suggesting we can turn back time on that strongly established and nearly universal practice, but if I understand JWK correctly, he or she is noting that the lines between religious and civil marriage have been blurred from the beginning in this particular society, and that this wasn't a good idea. I tend to agree with him or her.

Eeyore: No, no, come to Iowa! Remember -- it's not heaven.

Wonder if we can fit that on our license plates?

In California last fall, I chuckled at similar ads put out by the "Yes on 8" campaign. Unfortunately, too many people who live on sound bites swallowed it like candy, and Yes on 8 had the last laugh -- at least for the time being. One thing we don't need to do is underestimate our opponents -- or overestimate the critical-thinking abilities of the general public.
. . . jim strain in san diego.

I think that Prop 8 lost partly because the timidity of the anti-Prop-8 campaign. They decided to hide actual gay people.

Would it really have hurt to have well-liked out lesbians like Ellen DeGeneres or Melissa Etheridge asking the people of California not to end their relationships? Would it have terrified the undecided voters to see pictures of two cute little old ladies, Del Martin and Phyllis Lyon, together for 50 years and finally married?

It's as if the campaign decided that straights find gays repulsive but might be won over by a fairness argument. But that's not how Harvey Milk beat the Briggs Initiative.

I just don't get it. No matter how hard I try, I can't figure how gay marriage is a threat to anybody. Maybe a light will click on and all will be revealed; as it did for the ''homosexuality is a choice'' argument. I remember the moment when I realized that whoever truly believed sexual preference was a matter of choice was, ipso facto, a bisexual—"not that there's anything wrong with that." It's inconceivable to my heterosexual identity that at any time I had a choice in the matter. Homosexual friends have said the same about their proclivities.

But I'm tired of trying to figure out a rational motive for the opponents of gay marriage, nor can I foresee one that doesn't ultimately prove self-revealingly embarrassing.

Were I in the secret-hollowed-out-volcano headquarters of the gay marriage movement my bible would be:
http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/04/will-iowans-uphold-gay-marriage.html

That post is a roadmap for where to push gay marriage in the courts and at the ballot box and where and for how long to bide time.

New York should be top of the list right now followed by other northeastern and the northwestern states. A win in those states is very likely to stick.

The strategy is to get as much of the country to permanently allow gay marriage as possible as quickly as possible because there will come a tipping point where the whole country will go over at the federal level dragging the south with it (again).

My soon-to-be husband (we're planning a trip to Vermont) pointed out that this is a prime example of the wingnuts' need to have the scary, demonic "other" as the boogieperson. They don't have the commies anymore. What's left are gay people, immigrants, and followers of islam.

Awesome point, Eeyore -- and spot on.

The GOP has survived the last 30 years or so by creating mythical adversaries to America: USSR, "welfare queens," gays, Muslims, even us liberals.

And they have to because they have nothing else.

No coherent, long-term economic agenda that benefits anyone other than the rich ... no foreign policy other than "blow 'em up, Billy Joe!" ... no health care policy other than "go to the ER" ... no environmental policy other than "rape it blind" ... and no education policy other than "lets find new ways to transfer taxpayer funds to churches."

What's so sad, however, is how often that crap has worked.

To make this really effective, they need to focus on gay islamic hispanics coming over the border, worhsipping allah, and redecorating your living room.

Coke >>>>> keyboard

On their website, this group has form letter you can personalize and send to the slate of Iowan legislators. Their letter urges the legislators to pass some anti-gay measure, but it's pretty easy to personalize it to ask them *not* to pass it!

If you're in Iowa, drop by the site and change the letter! (Even if you're not...)

Note- by doing this you end up registered as a member of their site, you might want to use your spam email address for it.

ex animo-
Jo

I have only one question: where is the parody? It has been at least 24 hours. This thing is begging to be parodied. BEGGING, I tell you.

I've long hoped for a coherent explanation from liberals about why anyone should care whether three or more consenting adults, who happen to be polygamous or polyandrous, get married.

I've long hoped for a coherent explanation from liberals about why anyone should care whether three or more consenting adults, who happen to be polygamous or polyandrous, get married.

Posted by: DBL

Um ... perhaps you could provide us with a list of all the liberals who are trying to either allow to prevent polygamus marriage at the current time.

Otherwise, you don't have much of a point in relation to this issue.

Of course, you also conveniently left out the fact that polygamy is a primarily religion-based practice that often involves forcing underage girls to marry (and have kids for -- not with, but for) some patriarchal figure. So in many cases that's the main and why it was banned in some places (in others it had to do more with religious persecution and bigotry, but that's perhaps best left for another thread).

IMHO, we'd be better served as a nation if we all spent more time worrying about our own marriages instead of trying to tell everyone else how to run theirs.

The audition tapes are hysterical...and yet one has to wonder how many of these actors are gay/lesbian.

The ad reminds me of a highschool production of "Our Town." The part where Emily is left up on the hill with the other people who have left this world, and they all start telling their stories in that sort of doomed, haunted way.

Creepy.

Buddy66 writes: "I just don't get it. No matter how hard I try, I can't figure how gay marriage is a threat to anybody."

It's a threat to the patriarchy. A "traditional" marriage is a hierarchy: the man/husband is the superior, and the woman/wife is the subordinate. If marriage does not require a specific "husband" and "wife", then it does not--by definition--make the husband the one in charge. That's what's threatened.

I've long hoped for a coherent explanation from liberals about why anyone should care whether three or more consenting adults, who happen to be polygamous or polyandrous, get married.

I've long wondered when you're going to figure out that the word you're looking for in this context is "polygynous," not "polygamous" -- you make this error every time you post this. And every time you post this, your "question" is answered in detail by several people, and every time, you pretend no one answered you.

May I suggest that you avail yourself of a search function before you ask it again?

I’m pasting a comment from exlibra from an earlier thread because it’s so pertinent

* The new ads from the National Organization for Marriage are slick but ridiculous. -- Steve Benen
And, after you've watched that ad (which I thought was smarmy rather than slick), you *have to* watch the auditions for it. Where on earth they found those tapes, I have no clue bu they're priceless.
http://pamshouseblend.com/diary/10320/national-organization-for-marriages-hired-guns-for-hate
Posted by: exlibra on April 8, 2009

"Hopefully, the national organizations will put out better counter-ads than the No on 8 idiots did here in California." Mnemosyne on April 9, 2009 at 11:25

I'll shamelessly borrow my advice from an earlier thread

The best advertisement against NOM would be to run a 30 second 'best of' blooper reel from the auditions tape. At the end, a voice over would say "it's hard work creating sincerity from a pack of lies".

COOKIES! NOM NOM NOM NOM NOM!

I've long hoped for a coherent explanation from liberals about why anyone should care whether three or more consenting adults, who happen to be polygamous or polyandrous, get married.

You should have one of your mothers or fathers explain it to you.

"My freedom will be taken away."

If that's their argument, then let's fight fire with fire.

"You know who else hates gay marriage? Osama bin Laden."

"I'm a California doctor who must choose between my faith and my job."

Does that include having to see adulterers and divorcees?

Does he go into his office's waiting room and exclaim "Let those who are without sin come forward'?

Mark D - If constitutionally protected liberties include the rights of people to decide for themselves what forms of love fulfill them and make them happy, I am at a loss to see why that wouldn't apply to people who believe that group love is what fulfills them and makes them happy. But if you can draw a distinction, then draw away.

Mark D - If constitutionally protected liberties include the rights of people to decide for themselves what forms of love fulfill them and make them happy, I am at a loss to see why that wouldn't apply to people who believe that group love is what fulfills them and makes them happy.

I'm pretty sure that "group love" is perfectly legal so long as they're all consenting adults.

Perhaps you could check in with your local Swinger's Club or something to make sure, though, since I'm not really into that. You apparently are, and that's perfectly okay, so ... you know ... whatever floats your boat, dude.

Does he go into his office's waiting room and exclaim "Let those who are without sin come forward'?

Yes, but it's usually at least 45 minutes after their scheduled appointment time.

DBL, @13:22 & 15:40,

I don't think liberals care, one way or another, about group love; indeed, the "communes" I've seen here in US in the early 70ties (we didn't have them in Poland) were *so* liberal, it took my breath away. My belief is that it's all a wicked IRS plot that keeps group love from being legalised.

Consider: a *couple* -- whether hetero or homo -- fills a single tax return. Nice and easy. Now imagine a group...

Jack is married to Judi and June and Julie. Julie is married to Jack and Jimmy and John. June is married to Jack and Jamie and Janusz. Judi is married to Jack and Johannes and Jamal... But that's not all... Jimmy and John and Jamie and Janusz and Johannes and Jamal all want to have more than one wife also, so there's at least two more than the one who's also married to Jack...

Granted, the number of "marriage penalties" IRS could rake in from such multitude of relationships is staggering (and tempting) but, if you were them, would it be worth the money to try and unscramble who owed what? I don't think so. So, they obstruct and obstruct and won't allow you to multiply in every direction.

It's that simple. Take your complaints to IRS (there are some Tea Parties coming up soon, where you might express your dissatisfaction), not to us, liberals.

Here's a new "remix" of the ad:
http://gotchamedia.blogspot.com/2009/04/gathering-storm-of-men.html

"Mark D - If constitutionally protected liberties include the rights of people to decide for themselves what forms of love fulfill them and make them happy, I am at a loss to see why that wouldn't apply to people who believe that group love is what fulfills them and makes them happy."

Dear heart, not only is this a pathetic attempt to change the subject, since you, of course, have no rational argument to make, your premise is faulty because nobody is stopping people from engaging in "group love."

"But if you can draw a distinction, then draw away."

Why should we? Not only is the answer obvious (and repeatedly given, as you well know), but polygamous relationships will succeed or fail on their own merits, regardless of what happens with same-sex relationships. Do feel free to come back when you have a rational argument to make against same-sex marriage. We won't be holding our breaths, though.

While Conservatives are on the losing side of this debate (at least over time), don't underestimate the effect of ads like this on regular people who may not hate gays and lesbians, but deep down still hold a belief that marriage is meant for a man and a woman. These aren't villagers with torches and pitchforks, they're just people who've grown up a certain way and may never really let go of this prejudice.

One actor goes so far as to say, "I will have no choice," as if gay marriage will be some sort of mandate

Yes, you will have no choice but to be alive on a planet with gay people!! Who are married!!!