IGF CultureWatch

A new marriage ad is making its mark on the web (and, I believe, on MTV). Clever and effective, or patronizing, pleading and overly hip? Click here and scroll down to "Permission" to see for yourself. (Yes, our IGF technology is much inferior to that at AndrewSullivan.com and elsewhere; deal with it.)

More. The link also has additional marriage ads produced by Public Interest. Comments Lebain (and I found this interesting so I'm reposting it all):

I was unfortunate enough to be one of the (small) donors who supported Public Interest productions (www.publicinterest.tv) in the production of these ads. Never again!

First, the ads came out AFTER the important Congressional votes on marriage, and AFTER primaries and the November elections when so many marriage bans were passed (or at least my media kit from the producers arrived after the elections), even though I had donated well in advance of both votes. The producers told me MTV would donate $1M of airtime for the ads, but the ads were delivered so late, most if not all that opportunity was missed.

Second, with the exception of the "Permission" ad, all included the most disgusting imagery possible on such a sensitive subject. Two weiners in a boiling pot? Two donuts? Sex toys and graphic images of piercings? I'm sure the producers had MTV's demographic in mind, but instead of creating spots that respect their young audience, they produced trasparently veiled pornography meant more to shock and disgust their audience.

As a public company with govt. affairs and tax lawyers, MTV also probably didn't want to seem to blatantly endorse one position or the other on marrige. Hence the weak "Think Before You Vote" message rather than a more direct "Vote to Support Marriage Equality."

In response to recent defeats on the marriage equality front, some progressives are returning to a view they unleashed when the marriage debate began but have been soft-pedaling since: that marriage itself should be knocked off its perch as a "privileged" relationship, and government should instead provide support to all manner of cohabitating arrangements. A new "Beyond Marriage" manifesto backing this view was issued last week, signed by some 250 left-liberal LGBT activists.

Washington Blade editor Chris Crain responds in Revenge of the Anti-Conjugalists, writing that "realizing the Right's worst fears" - about gay marriage being the frontline of an attack against marriage itself - "is the last thing our movement needs to do at this critical juncture."

Note: The progressives want various non-conjugal relationships to receive access to "all vital government support programs, including but not limited to: affordable and adequate health care, affordable housing, a secure and enhanced Social Security system, genuine disaster recovery assistance, welfare for the poor" and so on. This makes their argument distinct (if superficially similar) to the view expressed by some libertarians that government should simply get out of the marriage-sanctifying business and leave that to private religious institutions and contracts.

Update. No surprise; social conservatives have picked up on the lesbigay left's new manifesto. Robert P. George writes in First Things:

The choice facing us as a nation is this: Either we retain as legally normative the traditional conjugal understanding of marriage as the exclusive union of one man and one woman, or we give legal standing and public approbation to every form of consensual sexual partnering and child rearing, including polygamy and polyamory. Just ask those notable "lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and allied activists, scholars educators, writers, artists, lawyers, journalists, and community organizers." They'll tell you exactly what lies "beyond gay marriage." They already have.

And the rest of us are the ones who have to deal with the fallout.

Anti-Jews and Anti-Gay, Mel Gibson Go Away.

But seriously, Jew-hatred and gay-bashing typically go together like peas and carrots, don't they.

In the grand scheme of things, which has the greater impact: Another judicial defeat for marriage equality, this time in Washington state, or Lance Bass of N'Sync coming out?

Comment sample.
Big Daddy: Lance Bass. People don't follow political discourse, but everyone seems to read People magazine.

I guess they meant well. But publishing this ad in newspapers, showing that the usual gang of leftwing activists, liberal politicians and big-labor leaders (and some progressive religious folks) support marriage equality made me bristle. In my view, if big labor is for it, then it certainly can't be good. I think many who aren't on the liberal left have the same visceral reaction.

I wonder if any Republican or conservative gay people (Log Cabin? Andrew Sullivan?) were even approached. And what about respected libertarian conservative figures, such as Charles Murray, who favor allowing same-sex marriage (as noted here)? Nope, no reaching out across party lines in this ad.

Maybe the aim was to shore up left-liberal support. But if they alienate independents, libertarians and centrists, what's gained? More likely, there was no strategy behind this ad at all.

Comments sample:
kittynboi: There seems to be little evidence that the right wing will support us if we drop the support of the left wing.

Avee: If we continue to present gay equality as part of a broad-based leftwing agenda (unions!), we will NEVER expand the range of our support out to the center, much less to the libertarian right. We will continue to remain a leftwing niche, preaching to ourselves, running ads for ourselves, focused solely on ourselves.

Ryan Sager finds surprising strength for Rudy G. among GOP activists not otherwise prone to support a pro-gay, pro-choice fiscal conservative.

Why we're losing gay marriage cases. Washington Blade editor Chris Crain writes:

The way most judges see it, though they won't ever say it, there is no point to "doing the right thing" if their decision faces a veto from the people in the form of a constitutional amendment. Not only is it pointless to risk prestige and rule one way, only to see it reversed by amendment, but their authority to rule on countless other issues, including other civil rights cases and even gay rights cases, has been irreversibly undermined.

Will die-hard advocates of the judicial strategy get the message?

Stem cell research is supported by more than 70 percent of Americans, but opposed by evangelicals and conservative Catholics. Particularly in light of Bush's veto of a popular stem cell bill, there is an opportunity to push the majority of Americans who reflexively vote in favor of marriage/civil union bans to view the religious right's agenda with deeper skepticism. But if left-leaning gay activists instead attack the theocrats broadly for opposing all things liberal, as they've done-repeatedly-in the past, this opportunity will, sadly, be lost.

More. Ralph Reed loses (big time) in his effort to become Georgia's lieutenant governor. Hurrah! No doubt more due to his corrupt lobbying with Jack Abramoff than because of his leadership of the Christian right, but still another opportunity to reveal the theocrats as blind guides.

Still more. From a July 21 Wall Street Journal article, Stem-Cell Issue: Republicans' Undoing? (WSJ subscribers only):

As the party has grown more socially conservative over the past quarter-century, the suburbs where many Republicans live have become more diverse and politically independent, marked by a mix of fiscal conservatism and social liberalism that is testing Republicans' dominance there.

The party has to decide if it wants to keep placating hard-line social conservative activists and lose the 'burbs. Moderate Democrats, of course, would have a better chance here if their party wasn't also bending over backwards to placate its own hard-line, Daily Kos-inflamed activist base.

As Israel fights to defend the only liberal democracy in the Mideast, James Kirchick asks, in response to an Advocate interview with lesbian Palestinian activist Rauda Morcos, "Is it racist to say that the Palestinian Authority is light-years behind Israel in terms of LGBT equality?" He also wonders why the highest-profile international gay rights organization is boycotting WorldPride in Jerusalem this August.

With the Mideast in meltdown and the stock market tanking, GOP social conservatives have declared that it's to be "values week" in the House, which will focus on a meaningless vote on the federal anti-gay marriage amendment (going nowhere since it was shot down in the Senate), as well a bill to protect the words "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance from court challenges. They may find that they've gone too far during a time of actual crisis.

On the lighter side, Jeff Gannon hits the mark.

House vote update. The amendment vote in the House failed to get the needed two-thirds majority for passage (which would only have been a symbolic victory). Democrats, to their credit, held firm (although I note that Georgia's leftwing, race-baiting, and frankly crazy Rep. Cynthia McKinney failed to vote, despite her Human Rights Campaign primary endorsement). Meanwhile, 202 Republicans voted for passage while only 27 libertarian, RINO or gay Republicans voted no.