I guess I could spend some time deconstructing the anti-R71 ad above — you know, its Biblical overtones, the odd image of Adam and Eve in hospital gowns, its lie about equating R71 to same-sex marriage — but mostly I’m just struck by what a total waste of money it appears to be.
Maybe I’m totally out of touch with my fellow Washingtonians, but my sense is that the kinda folks who would be motivated to vote based on Biblical scripture are already pretty motivated to vote in any way that would punish those homosexual deviants. But the persuadable undecideds… I’m guessin’, not so much.
All in all, a pretty crappy ad, especially when compared to the effective emotional pitch of the Yes campaign.
UPDATE:
Oops. Looks like the anti-R71 folks must know exactly how crappy their ad is in terms of appealing to anything but a fringe audience, as they don’t even allow it to be freely embedded in others’ websites. But you can view it here.
I’m going to vote for R-71, but I don’t really have strong feelings about it.
No you can’t view it “here” either. They must be pretty ashamed of it.
They made their video private. How half-assed.
Amazing, this is supposed to be an advertisement, but they don’t allow people to see it! Talk about hypocrisy.
Looks like they don’t want strangers watching them jerking each other off — it’s supposed to be a private sex film.
#1 pi
I am voting with great enthusiasm for R71.
I am doing so as someone who believe in both marriage and the freedom of association.
I oppose “gay marriage” because it is newspeak, It diminishes one human institution because the gay community wants to foster other relationships. This stand of the gay activists is (to me) a bigoted point of view, a reaction to the bigotry they face. BUT, that POV should in no way interfere with anyones’s right to define a fmaily as they want.
The state has no business favoring marriage over any other familial relationship people wish to have. I treasure marriage, traditionally defined. But the ancient pattern of male-female pairing is not the state’s business anymore than the state should be licensing people to be nuns and priests.
Keeping in mind, the state never USED TO decide who could get married. Lets stop the bullshit and be real. We only started legally defining marriage to STOP the blacks from marrying our pretty white daughters. That’s the lofty overtones of this great legal control over marriage. Don’t get too high minded or moral about it. And the ‘traditional’ aspect? The most traditional form of marriage is one man and many women, or if one women, she has no choice in the marriage, but is considered ‘property’ to be given away. Sorry about the reality check, but your romantic fantasy of one man and one woman is a modern hippy post romantic movement new invention.
And lets not get TOO excited about the ‘good old moral days’ we want to bring back. 200 year ago, in the “good old gay free days” women couldn’t vote, rarely got to choose their husbands, black people were “things” to own and not real people. The “good old days” and great traditional morals of yesterdays aren’t always magically good. Sometimes they were, well, bad. Ending slavery went against THOUSANDS of years of tradition of almost every culture on earth (see Old Testament). But just because slavery was the tradition and the “way it was” didn’t make it right.
Maybe marriage has been mostly between one man and one woman, but that has NOTHING to do with whether in 2009 we should also let gay people get married. The Republi-tard made up anti-reality idea that it ‘cheapens’ marriage is just fictional. Made up like most of their non-sense. The state with gay marriage the longest has the lowest divorce rate in the nation. Not the highest, not the middle, the LOWEST. Gay marriage does not effect you in ANY ANY ANY ANY way if you’re not gay. You don’t know if the guys two blocks down are “married” or in a “partnership” and it doesn’t effect you and your wife/husband. It’s like Jews saying we can’t let pork be legal because it “cheapens” gods word. Some people don’t belong to the Jewish (or Muslim) faith and like pork, so they have freedom to have it.
If you don’t like pork, electricity, gay marriage, dancing, alcohol, or whatever, then don’t do it. But telling me I can’t have it because YOU don’t like it? I don’t care! I want FREEDOM!! Unless I’m ACTUALLY hurting you (and I don’t mean magically) then freedom should be the default choice.
Funny the folks who “hate big government” and “intrusive” government are HAPPY to control my life just because they don’t like it. Hypocrites.
I’m voting most enthusiastically and emphatically for R71 because I have a sister who’s been in a committed relationship with another woman for nearly thirty years. Although the church I belong to (and quite a few others) doesn’t consider them as married, Canada does, and all of us in our extended family love them dearly and know that we can but hope to maintain the love and commitment that they have over the long haul. I’ve seen them deal first hand with the medical-access issue (one of them had cancer a while back) and we know that our Dad, may he rest in peace, would be voting the same way. Though basically a conservative, he was pretty adamant that religious dogma or political ideology don’t count for a tinker’s damn when someone’s messing with the well-being of your own kin.
My brother’s gay. Don’t fucking tell me he can’t have the same rights the rest of us have.
So’s my daughter…same sentiment as #9.
The state has an interest in making sure that people who are getting married are of age and capable of giving consent, everything beyond that is over reach on the part of the Govnmt.
I found the video free and available here http://protectmarriagewa.com/
I had to clear my web history after visiting the site because it made me feel dirty and ashamed.
@12 Thanks!
Wow, they’re not even trying to hide the fact that they want their religious views to define how our state functions.
Ah, the 10 Commandments, that we all are so beholden to….thou shall not kill, thou shall not steal, though shall not rape…..ahhhh, words of harmony……only that Heterosexuals have no intention of obeying any of this shit.
@14 Republicans would be in real trouble if anyone actually enforced the 10 commandments.
@9 and 10….you have some messed up DNA in that family..please do not breed any more.
Thank you,
Mankind.
@14…you mean like the NAMBLA creeps who go out raping(and sometimes killing) small boys?
@17 Jesus fucking christ, what comic book do you get your talking points out of? Did you even make it through 9th grade?
NAMBLA is an organization that lobbies for legislation. Lots of people do that, and being a pressure group doesn’t make someone a “creep,” or if it does then we have a hell of a lot of creeps in Washington D.C., most of them working for big corporations and industry trade groups.
NAMBLA advocates liberalizing laws against sexual relations between adult and minor males, i.e., allowing boys to enter into consensual sexual relationships with men.
(Note, many Catholic priests didn’t wait around for legislative action; they just went ahead and did it.)
According to Wikipedia, NAMBLA “also calls for ‘the adoption of laws that both protect children from unwanted sexual experiences and at the same time leave them free to determine the content of their own sexual experiences.'”
Now, I happen to disagree with their agenda. I don’t think we should change the laws as they advocate. And, I think probably 99.99% of the people in this country would agree with me on that.
But, I also believe this is a FREE COUNTRY in which anyone can advocate anything they want to. See, this is where you ignorant wingnut stupes who never research anything or get your facts straight before spouting off get thinks fucked up. You think the ACLU was defending NAMBLA’s agenda, when in fact the ACLU was defending NAMBLA’s free speech rights to peddle their agenda, irrespective of what their agenda is. That’s a pretty important distinction, and not at all complicated, but it flies right over the heads of rightwingers like you, who seem to have a collective I.Q. of about 40.
In case you’re a new troll, glort, let me warn you about HorsesAss.org. Most of the liberals who comment here are highly intelligent people with advanced academic degrees, plus one rabbit with a professional degree. When you post this kind of ignorant, sloppy, knee-jerk possum shit on this blog you’re going to find your posts being deconstructed and exposed as the frauds they are, much to your humiliation and embarrassment. Of course, that won’t deter you, because people like you are too stupid to know when you’re being humiliated and too insentient to feel embarrassed, although any normal human being would be more than a little red-faced to get his post shoved back up his ass like I just did with your stupid screed @17.
But, please, don’t get discouraged and leave! And don’t change! Keep posting your stupid ignorant shit on this blog! The intelligent and educated people (and rabbits) on this blog would go stir crazy if we didn’t have some silly wingnuts to kick around. Your dumb ass is crucial to the vitality of this blog — as a target. So, please, keep posting stupid shit and bending over so we can kick you!
@17 yeah, you hear about that everyday. Unlike the frequency of heterosexuals that are breed and born to be murderers, rapists and thieves. Heterosexuals the ill to society, even God new it, but he thought that you would at least listen to him, boy was he an idiot for believing in uneducated Heterosexuals.
@18 “(Note, many Catholic priests didn’t wait around for legislative action; they just went ahead and did it.)”
It ain’t just the Catholics, Roger.
By the way, you forgot to tell “glort” the last part of the “Horsesass.org FAQ”: Klake is a Nazi.
(See…I’m learning.)
Hey Roger Rabbit,
Puddy loves this gay marriage is a “RIGHTS” argument. What “RIGHTS”? Marriage is between a man and a woman. Period. End of story.
Marriage was given to humans for procreation. So as Puddy asked before, how do they procreate? Tell me Gman! How would you procreate in gay marriage? Hence Puddy can’t support any legislation which destroys the sanctity of male/female marriage. Puddy has always said civil unions are fine by him.
We continually use NAMBLA against you Feral Dumb Bunny like ylb arschloch uses Tim McVeigh every chance he gets.
BTW no one on our side ever claimed to be inspired by a pedophile like Kevin Jennings the Safe Schools CZAR was by Harry Hay. And that pedophile Harry Hay was held in high esteem by NAMBLA.
Touching. Really Touching.
Hmmmm. Were these guys inspired by some lefty?
http://www.republicanoffenders.com/Pedophiles.html
How could they be? Didn’t they all say they were for low taxes and family values?
@20 “By the way, you forgot to tell “glort” the last part of the “Horsesass.org FAQ”: Klake is a Nazi.”
No, I didn’t forget, nor have I disregarded my duties as HA ex-officio greeter. I’m still trying to decide whether “glort” is Little Ricky Dumbass or a brand new troll.
@21 Since when does GOVERNMENT have a right to tell people they can’t get married? Since when do YOU have a right to tell anyone they whether they can get married? What are you, a fucking totalitarian? KEEP GOVERNMENT OUT OF MARRIAGE!!!
See? I can do that, too!
If sometimes I sound like a Republican, it’s because I used to be one, and got my propaganda training from them.
Keep government out of marriage? Best comment of the night Roger Rabbit. Yep. Marriage is a religious ceremony. Oh, you can have a civil ceremony too but again it was based on the religious ceremony between a man and a woman. It’s government that decided to get into the act with gay marriage. It’s government that decided to “sanctify” gay marriage. It’s government that is pushing this crap today.
Thanks for making my point Feral Dumb Bunny.
Ahhh yes ylb arschloch,
Pavlov’s Doggie right on cue. You are a dumb arschloch.
Let’s go over Kevin Jennings words again arschloch…
See ya Pavlov’s Doggie. Now watch Pavlov’s Doggie cum back with something from Daily Kooks trying to look erudite!
As Puddy said before there is no Democrat Pedophile site because it’s normal accepted behavior.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
28, 28 – Sorry fool, you failed again. It hasn’t been proved that Jennings broke any law. He’s just been smeared by assholes like you.
Your “family values”, “lower taxes” Republicans that I linked to above are convicted pedophiles.
Just comparing and contrasting lies with truth.
Who said Jennings broke any laws Pavlov’s Doggie ylb arschloch? Where? When?
Oh Happy Day, you are JUST PLAIN STUPID. Just an arschloch spewing worthless matter from the sphincter. Another of your useless deflection canards coming from that femtometer sized mind because you have NO ARGUMENT!
So dumb for so long. Maybe you should be looking at the classifieds as you are a loser here ylb arschloch!!!!!
why is it that the jobless losers always want taxes raised on everyone else who works hard….oh, I know why………
There is a new movie coming in November, “the men who stare at goats”. Looks like it stars the HA Leftist Pinhead goat crew!!!!
Wait for the stupidity to appear from the HA faithful trying to make a pithy comment!
@27 “Oh, you can have a civil ceremony too but again it was based on the religious ceremony between a man and a woman.”
Where do you get this crap from? If this is the premise of your argument, then your argument necessarily falls apart, because this is patently untrue.
If it were true, no marriage performed in a civil ceremony would be valid.
The truth is, a religious ceremony is window dressing. It can be dispensed with, and there will be no legal consequences. The only marriage that counts is the civil union recognized by the state. This is what determines your tax status, your rights to social security benefits, and so on. A religious marriage that doesn’t conform to the requirements of the civil marriage statute is invalid and has no effect, for example, members of a Mormon polygamous sect can marry as many women in their church ceremonies as they want to, but those marriages aren’t valid in the eyes of the law.
If you examine the civil marriage statutes, there’s absolutely nothing there that requires a religious ceremony, imposes any religious requirements, requires you to have a religion, or even refers to religion. A civil marriage between two atheists is, if it otherwise meets the requirements of the law, a valid marriage; a polygamist wedding under religious auspices, as pointed out above, is not.
Once again, you pulled bullshit out of your ass to make a point, and your argument failed because it relied on false premises. This is getting to be a habit with you. If you want to be taken seriously, puddinghead, you’ll need to get basic stuff like this right.
@33 Why bother?
Does everyone notice how puddy wanders off topic when he gets his ass kicked?
@32 “why is it that the jobless losers always want taxes raised on everyone else who works hard….oh, I know why………”
The correct answer to your question is that taxes aren’t being raised and people who say otherwise are liars.
It has already been pointed out in this blog that, here in Washington, state and local taxes have fallen over 14% since 1994.
Since at least World War 2, federal spending as a share of GDP has stayed within a range of about 18% to 22%, and recently has been in the low part of that range at just above 18%.
In other words, taxes as a percentage of GDP and personal income have been fairly constant at the federal level and have steadily shrunk at the state/local level.
So, don’t try to tell anyone that taxes have been raised, because they haven’t.
The truth is, a religious ceremony is window dressing.
Irrelevant. Your argument said keep government out of marriage. Marriage is a religious ceremony Government decided to get involved.
The only marriage that counts is the civil union recognized by the state.
Another irrelevant argument too. Your argument said keep government out of marriage.
If you examine the civil marriage statutes, there’s absolutely nothing there that requires a religious ceremony, imposes any religious requirements, requires you to have a religion, or even refers to religion.
More irrelevance. Your argument said keep government out of marriage.
Everything you argue leads to government being involved in marriage…
Roger Rabbit@36, Who wandered off topic? Irrlevant Dumb Bunny! My argument against your crap was over@27. Puddy stated something new fool!
Glort is just a Cynical sockpuppet.
Puffy ass is off -plain and simple
Only hetero couples can toss fallen leaves into the air.
@21
Seems to me that people are able to procreate just fine without marriage.
Hmm… Thanks to a nifty little surgery my girlfriend and I can’t procreate, would that change if we got married?
There are legal, social and religious aspects to marriage. What we’re saying is that gender shouldn’t be a factor in the legal part- the creation of kinship through a legal process.
#43 Continued…
Of course if you watched the video you can see that there are a few folks that want their religious views to control the laws that the rest of get (or don’t get) married under.