Skip

Take Cover, Gay Marriage Apocalypse A-Brewin
April 8, 2009 12:46 PM   Subscribe

Oh noes, those gay newlyweds are causing Biblical rainstorms!! An ominous new TV ad by the National Organization for Marriage -- who helped pass Prop. 8 in California -- features a "rainbow coalition" of folks to warn America that marriage equality advocates want to "take away" your "freedom" by pushing the issue "far beyond same-sex couples." Unfortunately for NOM, the profound seriousness of this threat has been undermined by a leak of audition reels for the ad.
posted by digaman (204 comments total) 8 users marked this as a favorite

 
NOM nom nom.
posted by box at 12:49 PM on April 8, 2009 [2 favorites]


If that first guy in the audition reel isn't a card-caring member of the "I LIKE GUYS" International Friendship Society I will eat my hat.
posted by The Whelk at 12:50 PM on April 8, 2009 [4 favorites]


Not to go all "and you smell like poo" on these guys, but is it just me or half these people look inbred?
posted by qvantamon at 12:52 PM on April 8, 2009 [1 favorite]


A rainbow coalition ARE coming together? Well thought out.
posted by gorgor_balabala at 12:52 PM on April 8, 2009 [3 favorites]


This (completely retarded, hilarious, and yet still somehow terrifying in the mindset that it represents) ad already showed up as a comment in a gay marriage thread that's still on the front page. Does it really need its own thread?
posted by dersins at 12:54 PM on April 8, 2009


Not to go all "and you smell like poo" on these guys, but is it just me or half these people look inbred?

It's what happens when you don't believe in evolution.
posted by Pope Guilty at 12:54 PM on April 8, 2009 [3 favorites]


NOM plans to spend $1.5 million airing that ad in NY, NJ, Pa., and Conn.
posted by digaman at 12:55 PM on April 8, 2009


I think I see a solution here. You need rain to make a rainbow, right? And the gays are bringing a storm. You see where I'm going with this? There's some real possibilities for synergy if they just work together!
posted by diogenes at 12:56 PM on April 8, 2009 [4 favorites]


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

As it should be, you piece of shit.*

Simply put, religion is a set of beliefs. If your job description does not jive with your beliefs, then you must either change your beliefs, change your job, or simply deal with that certain amount of cognitive dissonance that every Wal-Mart employee has already mastered.

Freedom of speech and freedom of expression of religion is not a guarantee of a job. You may not be discriminated on the basis of your beliefs, but if your beliefs don't allow you to perform your job, then you really ought to look into a new line of work.

*Yes, I know she's not really a doctor
posted by explosion at 12:56 PM on April 8, 2009 [82 favorites]


Yes, because we all know that rainbows are the symbol of anti-gay hatred.
posted by Ironmouth at 12:57 PM on April 8, 2009 [15 favorites]


I kept hoping a knife would come out and start stabbing these inbreds in the face.

fade to black .... EVERYTHING IS TERRIBLE
posted by mannequito at 12:57 PM on April 8, 2009 [7 favorites]


Is the use of phrases like 'National Organization for' and 'rainbow coalition' intentionally misleading?
posted by box at 12:59 PM on April 8, 2009


This rainbow seems to have a pot of crap at its end.
posted by 1adam12 at 12:59 PM on April 8, 2009 [5 favorites]


"Those advocates want to change the way I live." Somehow. In some sort of undefined, but nevertheless threatening fashion.

Ooo, lightning!
posted by Kevin Street at 12:59 PM on April 8, 2009 [3 favorites]


Asked HRC's Brad Luna:
“What’s next for the National Organization for Marriage? Will they hire legendary infomercial pitchman Ron Popeil to hawk their phony agenda? This ad is full of outrageous falsehoods—and they don’t even come out of the mouths of real people.”
posted by ericb at 1:00 PM on April 8, 2009


Not to go all "and you smell like poo" on these guys, but is it just me or half these people look inbred?

They know the target audience.
posted by ryoshu at 1:01 PM on April 8, 2009


God, this is the beginning of the end for them. When they have to come up with all sorts of crazy ideas why it really hurts them that other people can do what they want with one another, they are officially out of ammo, folks.
posted by Ironmouth at 1:01 PM on April 8, 2009


Apparently this NOM also doesn't want America's economy to improve, either.
posted by explosion at 1:02 PM on April 8, 2009


You call that acting? My god, where are Billy Friedkin and his loaded revolver when you need 'em?
posted by FelliniBlank at 1:02 PM on April 8, 2009 [2 favorites]


From the comments at videogum:

"I am so fucking tired of all these Homosexuals taking away MY right to take away their right to get married."
posted by dersins at 1:03 PM on April 8, 2009 [46 favorites]


Wow, um, that was a scary good ad actually. I can see how it could be effective.

Of course, that's not to say is isn't made of lies.
posted by The Devil Tesla at 1:03 PM on April 8, 2009


"I'm afraid."

Says it all, really.
posted by Joe Beese at 1:04 PM on April 8, 2009 [10 favorites]


Barney Frank on "Real Time With Bill Maher" (March 11, 2005):
"I try very hard to be a responsible citizen and as a gay man I try very hard to keep track of the marriages I have destroyed, and there really aren't that many. I may have some secret admirers out there and I may have wreaked more havoc than I realize, but they haven't called."
posted by ericb at 1:04 PM on April 8, 2009 [57 favorites]


You know, Jesus spent his time healing people and flogging money changers out of the temple. What time he had left h spent agreeing with high taxes and forgiving the sexual sins that the organized reigion of his time want to punish with stoning.

But you, you're spending money not on giving loaves and fishes and healing to people, not even on spreading the Gospel to bring people to Jesus and save their souls, no, you're spending money on trying to punish what you perceive to be sexual sins. "Sins" that Jesus spent zero time worrying about in all His ministry.

I mean really, guys, deep in your hearts, do you really expect that when you get to Heaven, Jesus is going to hug you and thank you for this? Is there not even a tinge of doubt in your souls, the slightest worry that, you know, Jesus spent a lot of time on His message to you, and even got killed for it and for your eternal salvation, and buying TV time to castigate gays just wasn't in His plan for you?

Maybe you Christians (and Mormons, as I recall you consider yourselves Christians too) could spend more time aligning your priorities with Jesus's priorities.
posted by orthogonality at 1:05 PM on April 8, 2009 [70 favorites]


Gay Marriage - A Response.
posted by ericb at 1:06 PM on April 8, 2009 [1 favorite]


The internet is weird...the gawker links back to my friend amanda's blog, though all she did was report a report about the auditions.

But anyway--these audition tapes bring up an interesting question, how culpable are these professional actors for their work in this ad? Let's take it as given that it's an embarrassing and evil cause they are shilling for (shouldn't be hard for MeFites to grant that...) but as professionals what level of scrutiny should their acting choices be under. Times are tough, and money is money...but I still have the urge to support a blacklist of motherfuckers who can speak bigotry and hatred into a camera with a straight face.
posted by Potomac Avenue at 1:08 PM on April 8, 2009 [7 favorites]


Will they hire legendary infomercial pitchman Ron Popeil to hawk their phony agenda?


The ShamWow guy needs work these days, since his face-eating encounter with a hooker. (Warning: scary pix)
posted by CunningLinguist at 1:08 PM on April 8, 2009


Wow, um, that was a scary good ad actually. I can see how it could be effective.

Yeah, that kind of mindless bullshit would definitely play very, very well here in central Michigan, world capital of critical thinking, but since we already enshrined gross bigotry in the state constitution, it'd be preaching to the choir.
posted by FelliniBlank at 1:09 PM on April 8, 2009 [1 favorite]


Hey, they reappropriated rainbows!

Does using queer techniques on queer symbols make them metaqueer?
posted by UbuRoivas at 1:09 PM on April 8, 2009 [4 favorites]


"Those advocates want to change the way I live..."
"...And I will have no choice."

Great galloping gods of war, I have no motherfucking idea what they're even talking about! What am I, as an advocate of equal rights for gays, advocating that will change the way they live? It's the one thing that no one in the video ever says -- which is exactly how you know that they're basically depending on blind homophobia as a political rallying tool.
posted by hermitosis at 1:11 PM on April 8, 2009 [14 favorites]


Next up - taking back the lisp!
posted by qvantamon at 1:11 PM on April 8, 2009 [3 favorites]


As I watched the auditions tape, I kept expecting (hoping?) to see one of the actors get partway through and being all, "Seriously you guys? No way." and stomping out.
posted by kingbenny at 1:12 PM on April 8, 2009 [2 favorites]


A Rainbow Coalition? That can't be right.
Dear Dr. Jackson,
This is in regards to an upcoming advertising campaign by the National For Marriage as seen here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wp76ly2_NoI.

Several times during the commercial, I notice that the people portrayed use the phrase "a rainbow coalition"; is this a reference to Dr. Jackson's organization, The National Rainbow Coalition. It seems that supporting the NoM would go against the Rainbow Coalition's progressive mission of social activism. I look forward to your response.

regards,
I'll post back when I get a reply.
posted by boo_radley at 1:15 PM on April 8, 2009 [12 favorites]


but I still have the urge to support a blacklist of motherfuckers who can speak bigotry and hatred into a camera with a straight face.

Damn straight. Having bills and being hungry sucks, but there are limits to what someone should be willing to do, and expect that they can explain it with, "but I needed the work!" It's been established for over 50 years now that "following orders" doesn't absolve one of guilt.

Judging by those audition clips, it doesn't look like any of these folks are going to have a sterling career in acting cut short, in any case.
posted by explosion at 1:15 PM on April 8, 2009 [1 favorite]


NOM plans to spend $1.5 million airing that ad in NY, NJ, Pa., and Conn.

I think this is an opportune time to point out that I don't watch television.
posted by oaf at 1:16 PM on April 8, 2009 [1 favorite]


[singing, swaying] Someday we'll find it, the rainbow connection, the wingnuts, the homophobes, and meeeeeee.
posted by FelliniBlank at 1:16 PM on April 8, 2009 [5 favorites]


Oh, how I hope Jon Stewart gets a hold of this video.

Jon Stewart:
The Gay After (June 17, 2008).

Gary & Gary Unmarried (November 6, 2008).
posted by ericb at 1:17 PM on April 8, 2009


kingbenny: "I kept expecting (hoping?) to see one of the actors get partway through and being all, "Seriously you guys? No way." and stomping out."

I try very hard not to pass judgment on what anyone does to earn their living. And I know that for actors, every year is a bleak recession year. But helping a hate group sell its message is a pretty wretched dollar.
posted by Joe Beese at 1:18 PM on April 8, 2009


Not to go all "and you smell like poo" on these guys, but is it just me or half these people look inbred?

Those rapists in Deliverance weren't gay, and they definitely didn't want to marry each other.

They just liked the occasional taste of forbidden man ass.

Nom, nom, nom.
posted by PeterMcDermott at 1:18 PM on April 8, 2009 [1 favorite]


Here in Canada, my ass is constantly sore from all the gay marriages I am forced into.
posted by WinnipegDragon at 1:18 PM on April 8, 2009 [35 favorites]


Whoops, looks like the info email address bounced, so I forwarded my question to pressdepartment@rainbowpush.org.
posted by boo_radley at 1:20 PM on April 8, 2009


'Far beyond gay marriage'? Proof, assholes. Proof. (And there's nothing wrong with polyamory. I am an ally of the LGBT and an ally of the poly.) I see no bills being introduced, for example, to allow people to marry horses.

I hate conservatards.
posted by kldickson at 1:20 PM on April 8, 2009 [2 favorites]


The depth of pitiful, self-delusional persecution complexes among these folk is breathtaking--it's all about them, and what they are going to lose (the right to discriminate, I guess)--it's like watching a marathon for the Hangnail Sufferers of America."Give today, because, my God, the pain!"
posted by emjaybee at 1:24 PM on April 8, 2009 [2 favorites]


I'm sure these people have long careers ahead of them because of their wonderful line.

Reading skills.
posted by dirigibleman at 1:24 PM on April 8, 2009 [18 favorites]


Not to go all "and you smell like poo" on these guys, but is it just me or half these people look inbred?

Yeah, number four (big ears) especially. I think he may be an actual pinhead. Or one of these guys.

Either way, he's still allowed to marry anyone he wants to, as long as they're female and not consanguineal kin closer than first cousin.
posted by TheWhiteSkull at 1:27 PM on April 8, 2009


Incidentally, on NOM's Facebook page they have embedded a clip from the Dr. Phil Show in which a spokeswoman says -- as if she's surprised no one has asserted this -- that "It's not discrimination to treat different things differently."
posted by hermitosis at 1:28 PM on April 8, 2009 [4 favorites]


Here in Canada, my ass is constantly sore from all the gay marriages I am forced into.

Not only that, but did you hear that 4 out of 5 Canadian doctors have been forced to do stuff, bad stuff, which they refuse to elaborate further upon? Scandalous!
posted by mannequito at 1:32 PM on April 8, 2009 [2 favorites]


I gay married and I feel like I may have been tricked into it.
posted by Astro Zombie at 1:34 PM on April 8, 2009 [3 favorites]


I am waiting for the Iraqi version of this advertisement....Seems it might play well over there. No, wait, could this be the American version of the Iraqi advertisement....
posted by vac2003 at 1:34 PM on April 8, 2009


Not only that, but did you hear that 4 out of 5 Canadian doctors have been forced to do stuff, bad stuff, which they refuse to elaborate further upon? Scandalous!

Oh, I work in healthcare and I know the whole dark story.

Those 4 out of 5? They were forced to prefer the wrong toothpaste.

Fucking animals!
posted by WinnipegDragon at 1:34 PM on April 8, 2009 [3 favorites]


Wow. Orthogonality has it.

When I was working at a Nola Law Clinic this summer, there was this church-affiliated group who came by once a week with a van full of food (sandwich materials, chips, fruit and the like) to give us a free lunch for our volunteer efforts. Apparently they did this with volunteer groups all over town. They never tried to preach to us, just called ahead to make sure nobody wasted money on lunch that day, fed us, joked with us, and cheered us on for our efforts. They didn't have much money, but they did what they could. And they did this all over town, in a town that needed it's old sense of community back more than anything.

Now I'm an athiest, but I'm not going to shit on good people walking the walk of their Christianity. The world is a little bit better for having that group of Christians in it.

NOM, on the other hand, is very well-funded, and uses its considerable endowment to spread fear and hate, and even there they seem to know that there's no true foundation for it. Being intentionally vague about what rights are being taken away is only a tactic you use if you know you don't have real examples. So not only are they bigoted and full of shit - they know they're bigoted and full of shit. These aren't Christians by any definition I'll give credence to, because true Christians help their community instead of trying to divide it.

And the "examples" they do give? What ethical dilemma is the doctor facing? Fucking visitation rights? Kiss my ass. The Church group in New Jersey? I'd like a little more information on your "punishment," please, if said punishment has actually occurred. And the Massachusetts parent - oh, you might be my favorite. Despite the possibilities of homeschooling, parochial schools, and private schools, you're forced to watch the school system just constantly, non-stop telling your children that the gay marriage is okay? And you object to that because... well, we don't have any semi-legitimate reasons for it not to be other than apparently that it forces us to say that it is. OH NOES! Meta-dislogic-outrage-loop! And are you imagining that the children recite a pledge to the rainbow flag every morning? How often does this massive injustice possibly come up?

It's a divisive ad which will do it's job to a degree, and will start a lot of arguments which will break down into yelling right around the question, "wait, what rights are they taking away from you, exactly?" This isn't meant to inform, just to cause rifts. You know, like Jesus did. Oh, wait.
posted by Navelgazer at 1:36 PM on April 8, 2009 [35 favorites]


Yo, that's a green screen back there. Internets, do your thing!

I'm envisioning a madd house beat and a dancing horde of fabulous men in pastel mankinis...
posted by LordSludge at 1:37 PM on April 8, 2009 [28 favorites]


Can I just say that the summer gay marriage was made legal here in Canada, there was hardly a weekend when, walking along the seawall in Vancouver, you would see all kinds of same sex wedding parties posing for photos by the ocean. It got pretty normal pretty fast, the only difference being that it seemed to me that these particular wedding parties embodied so much bubbly joy that you couldn't help smiling and laughing along with whatever was going on. It seemed to me that most of the couples were much older than the typical straight wedding party. Men and women in their 40s, 50s and 60s were finally marrying their long time partners, and celebrating with everything they could muster. This is in stark contrast to most of the straight marriages I see on the beach which are either dour sentimental affairs or high pressure emotional minefields. Not to say that straigh marriage is all that (mine rocks!), but the contrast really said something to me.

The summer gay marriage became legal in Canada, the beaches were bathed in love and happiness. And that is the real, proven effect of legalizing gay marriage.
posted by salishsea at 1:40 PM on April 8, 2009 [59 favorites]


The ShamWow guy needs work these days, since his face-eating encounter with a hooker. (Warning: scary pix)

Well, at least he's got something to clean up with.
posted by Pope Guilty at 1:42 PM on April 8, 2009 [9 favorites]


Sorry, hardly a weekend passed when you WOULDN'T see wedding parties etc. etc.

Straight marriage evidently affects proper sentence construction negatively. Or something.
posted by salishsea at 1:42 PM on April 8, 2009


I wonder if charges of libel or false advertising can be brought against NOM's leaders and financial donors, for writing, approving and paying for libelous content filled with falsehoods.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 1:44 PM on April 8, 2009 [1 favorite]


The summer gay marriage became legal in Canada, the beaches were bathed in love and happiness.

THEY MUST BE STOPPED!!!!!!!!!!one
posted by LordSludge at 1:45 PM on April 8, 2009


> Yo, that's a green screen back there. Internets, do your thing!

oh man I didn't even notice this before. I'm desperately hoping someone will listen to you and take it up.
posted by xbonesgt at 1:46 PM on April 8, 2009 [1 favorite]


Here in Canada, my ass is constantly sore from all the gay marriages I am forced into.

Dress in drag, WinnipegDragon, and you'll learn to love gay marriage.
posted by orange swan at 1:47 PM on April 8, 2009 [1 favorite]


Some fact checking
posted by CunningLinguist at 1:49 PM on April 8, 2009 [2 favorites]


pushing the issue "far beyond same-sex couples.

This is actually what I have been waiting for, a gay marriage is not nearly perverted enough for me, I want to marry a pony and a banana and the Denver Broncos and the concept of schadenfreude and a picture of Dean Martin. Oh Sodom and Gomorrah ain't got nothin' on me!
posted by Divine_Wino at 1:50 PM on April 8, 2009 [35 favorites]


I married a pony and an apple and they had a baby that was a metafilter iphone app, so keep that in mind you fundie bastards!
posted by Potomac Avenue at 1:53 PM on April 8, 2009 [2 favorites]



But you, you're spending money not on giving loaves and fishes and healing to people, not even on spreading the Gospel to bring people to Jesus and save their souls, no, you're spending money on trying to punish what you perceive to be sexual sins. "Sins" that Jesus spent zero time worrying about in all His ministry.


You just don't get it orthogonality.
This has little to do with gods or gospels or whatever. It has all to do with a gaggle of people who are so insecure in their own sexuality that they are willing to jeopardize their religion's promise of immortality to reinforce their belief that they could not possibly have a fem/masculine side to their nature.
posted by notreally at 1:56 PM on April 8, 2009 [6 favorites]


"It's not discrimination to treat different things differently."

That's straight-up Aristotle, right there. That said, who's going to be the one to break it to these folks that Aristotle deliberately affected a lisp and was, uh, Greek? I mean, you know?

I know, I know ... he was Macedonian.
posted by joe lisboa at 1:59 PM on April 8, 2009 [1 favorite]


Is the use of phrases like 'National Organization for' and 'rainbow coalition' intentionally misleading?

I saw a kid at my son's school wearing this 'GOP'/bedazzled rainbow t-shirt last week. I had this sudden impulse to scream in her mother's face 'WHAT THE HELL IS WRONG WITH YOU?', but I held back. Didn't realize it was an actual movement.
posted by maryh at 1:59 PM on April 8, 2009


God, this is the beginning of the end for them. When they have to come up with all sorts of crazy ideas why it really hurts them that other people can do what they want with one another, they are officially out of ammo, folks.

They and their businesses and livelihoods need to be sued and boycotted and reduced to destitution. Living like Jesus once did, they might then let go of their hatred for minorities and learn a little empathy for their fellow human beings.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 2:00 PM on April 8, 2009 [4 favorites]


"...a rainbow coalition of people of every creed..."

Dear NOM,
Kindly fuck off. You know damn well we are not in your rain-faux coalition [PDF].

Best regards,
Unitarian Universalists, Reform Jews, United Church of Christ, Metropolitan Community Church, and the California Council of Churches (among others)

posted by nakedcodemonkey at 2:03 PM on April 8, 2009 [1 favorite]


"Those advocates want to change the way I live."

Just once I'd like to demand that someone who poses this argument be forced to back it up. How? How exactly will gay people being married change the way you live? Are you worried that their fabulous weddings will force you to be late for work because all the streets will be filled with dancing? Is that it?

It's such a bullshit statement and it should be immediately called out whenever it's used. I want to see someone flounder around trying to describe how exactly two strangers getting hitched will affect him in any way.

And I preemptively call bullshit on saying that it will anger God. God works in mysterious ways, right? So you don't get to play that card here. Nor do you get to string some unlikely chain of events together that end in apocalypse. If this is going to change your life, I want a simple answer as to how.

Because as a straight guy, I can't imagine how some gay dude that I don't know getting married is every going to have any impact on my life. Ever.
posted by quin at 2:10 PM on April 8, 2009 [18 favorites]


I was forced into a gay marriage recently when my girlfriend and I took a day trip down to Danburyport, MA.

We had just parked the car, and as soon as I got out this white van came out of nowhere and my girlfriend was shoved into the back of it by two sashaying operatives.

I was temporarily blindfolded and stunned by Armani perfume, then awoke hours (?) later in a bungalow where I could distinctly hear Sade and some house music playing in another room.

A man who I now know as my husband came to me and told me that my girlfriend would be fine as long as I cooperated with his demands and got a manicure, and would a little attention to detail vis a vis my wardrobe be too much to ask?

Later, after a fantastic brunch over mimosas and some flirtation, I was taken (again blindfolded) to a secret location that was kitted out with a fabu bartender and sick sound system, and told that no more cocaine would be forthcoming unless I played along.

It's nearly 3am now, and I'm typing this from a BlackBerry I smuggled off some kid with bleached tips in the bathroom. If anyone sees this, please - please help me.
posted by Lipstick Thespian at 2:11 PM on April 8, 2009 [80 favorites]


Unfortunately for NOM, the profound seriousness of this threat has been undermined by a leak of audition reels for the ad.

Unlike Gawker, I didn't find the audition reels any funnier than the original ad - all of them in both clips are terrible actors, and they are all saying fucking ridiculous things with a look of pained seriousness that is awful and depressing if you think people will fall for it, but can be sort of funny if you are in the right mood and/or are sure that this shit is not gonna fly. But I am not at all sure of that right now, so the stupidity of it was sad and frustrating, instead of just mind-blowing / weird / hilarious. The fact that there were audition reels just reminded me that more people were willing to say these inane lines than were finally chosen and paid to say them.

The only good part was the green screen, and I hope Colbert points it out and gets his minions on it...
posted by mdn at 2:12 PM on April 8, 2009 [4 favorites]


I saw a kid at my son's school wearing this 'GOP'/bedazzled rainbow t-shirt last week
I would have been tempted to say, "Wow, Gays On Parade?! I loved them!" and then walked away, grinning.
posted by pointystick at 2:15 PM on April 8, 2009 [5 favorites]


Lipstick: Okay, that's just fucking classic
posted by gagglezoomer at 2:15 PM on April 8, 2009


And the Massachusetts parent - oh, you might be my favorite. Despite the possibilities of homeschooling, parochial schools, and private schools, you're forced to watch the school system just constantly, non-stop telling your children that the gay marriage is okay?

This isn't really about what these people want children to be taught by the public schools.

It's about what they want other people's children to be taught.
posted by oaf at 2:16 PM on April 8, 2009 [6 favorites]


While I like to imagine that this sort of thing is the result of pure irrational hate, I've also read Zinn's People's History of the United States and can't help but think that there's actually a rational reason that groups like NOM try to incite hated and division. Yes, their low leve supporters might just hate irrationally, but the leaders, in my opinion, are doing this for a reason.

The most obvious reason, in my tin foil hat wearing mind, is so that they can control a riled up mob of voters. Once they have them angrily focused on a social issue that gets them pissed off, its easier to get them to vote irrationally on an economic issue that benefits the leaders of NOM and hurts the very people they've gotten to vote for it.

"Remember that time we worked together to stop gay marriage? Well, not its time to work together to prevent those people who supported gay marriage from taxing the very wealthy!"

... or what have you.

It is in the best interest of certain rich and powerful people to keep the rest of us as divided as humanly possible. Indeed, it is in their best interest for us to hate the people who irrationally hate homosexuals, and vice versa. It keeps our attention on each other and not on them and their hundred daily crimes against humanity.

Ergo, this ad isn't just intended to make the base angry about gay marriage - its intended to make the rest us angry at the "in-bred" folks that are against gay marriage. Which in turn makes them think we're irrational and angry, and so on and so forth.

Division reinforced, mission accomplished.

I daresay that if what happened in Massachusetts (gay marriage approved - sky doesn't fall - public opinion shifts to supporting it) happens everywhere where its approved, these same powers that be will find other people to demonize so that they can keep their tight grip on their money and power.

/chomsky
posted by Joey Michaels at 2:18 PM on April 8, 2009 [13 favorites]


what these people want their children to be taught
posted by oaf at 2:20 PM on April 8, 2009


quin: "How exactly will gay people being married change the way you live?"

At least Southerners had to face new competition for the seats at the front of the bus.
posted by Joe Beese at 2:28 PM on April 8, 2009 [4 favorites]


I got worried about my blood pressure whilst watching that ad but the audition outtakes calmed me down. If #10 doesn't prefer gentlemen then I'm a monkey's uncle.

Last, I noticed to use of Nimrod from Enigma Variations by Elgar at the end of the ad. Whilst I'm not happy at all with bigots using masterpieces to further their agenda of hate, it does seem appropriate that Nimrod is playing when Damon Owens NOM speaks...
posted by ob at 2:28 PM on April 8, 2009 [1 favorite]


Just once I'd like to demand that someone who poses this argument be forced to back it up. How? How exactly will gay people being married change the way you live?

That's the import of this ad: they are finally trying to make that argument. (Doctors told who to treat, churches "punished" for performing civil unions, etc.)

That their complaints fall apart like Kleenex in a hailstorm as soon as you look at them (see that youtube response ericb posted) doesn't matter. Regular god fearing middle Americans have started to realize that gay marriage HASN'T hurt them, polls are showing growing support, and so opponents are changing their tactics, trying to bring back the fear. That's why this is interesting.
posted by CunningLinguist at 2:29 PM on April 8, 2009


...what these people want their children to be taught...

And, of course, this gay man immediately thinks of a song from a Broadway show! How appropriate!
"You've got to be taught to hate and fear
You've got to be taught from year to year
It's got to be drummed in your dear little ear
You've got to be carefully taught..."
posted by ericb at 2:32 PM on April 8, 2009 [1 favorite]


Quite a few of those people would probably be much happier out of the closet. And #11 is weirdly attractive in an "I've been donkeypunched one too many times" kind of way.
posted by Hylas at 2:36 PM on April 8, 2009


I daresay that if what happened in Massachusetts (gay marriage approved - sky doesn't fall - public opinion shifts to supporting it)...

Yep.
"On May 17, 2004, when Massachusetts began marrying its gay couples, that simple declaration — emblazoned on golden stickers shaped like deputy sheriff's badges and proudly worn by ecstatic gay-rights supporters — celebrated a seismic shift. State-approved gay marriage was no longer a theoretical possibility. It was a reality.

Now, a year and more than 6,100 gay weddings later, the reviews are in. Folks in Massachusetts, the first in the nation to experience this expansion of freedom, have swung 180 degrees to favoring it.

Bay State voters now overwhelmingly support gay marriage, 56% to 37%, according to a Boston Globe poll in March. That's a breathtaking turnabout from February 2004. Back then, after the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruled that gays had to be allowed to marry but before the marriages began, voters opposed the change, 53% to 35%.

...While the outside world debates how to treat its gay couples, Massachusetts sees that fire-and-brimstone predictions didn't come true.

Religious institutions haven't been forced to bless the civil marriage of any gay couple, though many have done so voluntarily. Nor did supporting the court's order to extend all the state-conferred rights and responsibilities of marriage trigger a ballot-box backlash against gay-friendly lawmakers.

Having lived with gay marriage, Massachusetts seems a bit smitten with it. By 65% to 34%, voters say it hasn't weakened the institution of marriage. Only 13% say gay marriage has had a negative effect on married heterosexuals. And 71% expect the state to 'become more and more accepting of same-sex marriage,' Decision Research found in surveying 600 registered voters for MassEquality, a pro-gay marriage group."*
posted by ericb at 2:36 PM on April 8, 2009 [6 favorites]




There's something weirdly compelling about #6's struggle with, well, everything that makes acting work. His gaze is locked on a point directly behind the lens somewhere, he's struggling with the cue cards, he's stilted in a way that would make Shatner jealous...

I'd almost feel bad for him, if I didn't completely disagree with every single thing he's OK with letting these guys tell him to say.
posted by fairytale of los angeles at 2:44 PM on April 8, 2009


I'm basically an agnostic heathen, but I was baptized (Congregational) and did get sent to Sunday school for a few years. I haven't been to church regularly for years and years and years, but I have this vague recollection that the Bible has some stuff on how it's bad to tell lies - one of the commandments, isn't it? Something about not bearing false witness?

Yeah.

Also, did it occur to any of these nitwits that their "cool" "hip" text-y campaign shorthand ("2M4M" - 2 million for marriage) reads like something out of a craigslist sex posting?
posted by rtha at 2:49 PM on April 8, 2009 [8 favorites]


Rainbows. M4M. Who do they have as a consultant? Ted Haggard. Next up they'll be referencing PnP, Barebacking, etc.
posted by ericb at 2:55 PM on April 8, 2009 [2 favorites]


You know what? I am really proud of America right now. We're finally realizing, as a country, that ignorance is exactly the opposite of traditional American values, and that all men and women are "created" equal.

I think we are going through another period of wonderful social change in our country.

With wonderful social change comes expected resistance and strife. But as America has shown so many times, we will conquer this resistance and prevail as a people. And one day, the offspring of those who have resisted will accept freedom as their value instead of hate.

In the progressive tradition of America, we are showing that as a people, we accept the fact that love knows no boundaries. And what truly matters is that we take care of each other, regardless of race, sexual orientation, education, hair color, or operating system preference.
posted by autobahn at 2:55 PM on April 8, 2009 [4 favorites]


A big storm coming... a rainbow... can ruby slippers or the Emerald City be far behind?

What are these people thinking???
posted by Heretic at 2:57 PM on April 8, 2009 [1 favorite]


Related: Nate Silver predicts when states will vote against a marriage ban.

Nate is great and all that but he really blew the prediction for the White Sox last year and again has underrated him. I'm President Obama and myself are quite disappointed in the lack of love he shows for the Sox.
posted by Ironmouth at 2:59 PM on April 8, 2009


I'm President Obama

ZOMG METAFILTER'S OWN™ BARACK OBAMA!
posted by dersins at 3:07 PM on April 8, 2009 [11 favorites]


"Those advocates want to change the way I live."

They've got it completely backwards. If the people fighting for marriage discrimination win, the next step will be banning divorce. That will REALLY change the way you live, Mr. and Mrs. Social Conservative. If we can nullify existing same-sex marriages then there's no reason we can't nullify divorces and all subsequent marriages as well. Wouldn't THAT be fun?
posted by LastOfHisKind at 3:17 PM on April 8, 2009 [1 favorite]


For a rainbow coalition, there are sure a lot of pissy looking white folk auditioning for the parts.
posted by thsmchnekllsfascists at 3:17 PM on April 8, 2009 [2 favorites]


Dear x,

In just a few minutes, NOM President Maggie Gallagher and I will hold a press conference in Trenton, NJ, announcing an ambitious new nationwide "2 Million for Marriage" (2M4M) initiative.


There is so much wrong with this email message. 2M4M? Are you suggesting polygamy? Two men for men? Are gay threesomes something you wish to see instead of "standard" Man and Woman marriages? Maybe they hold to the notion that men are just "incomplete women" (Y chromosome is an incomplete X chromosome and all that)?

The centerpiece of the new initiative is a $1.5 million nationwide ad campaign launched today highlighting the threat that same-sex marriage poses to the core civil rights of all Americans who believe in marriage as the union of a husband and wife.

Part of your "core civil rights" are to deny equal rights? Or to decree your chosen religion is to be applied to all people, no matter what their chosen faith might be?
posted by filthy light thief at 3:20 PM on April 8, 2009


In case your blood pressure isn't high enough right now, I'd recommend reading the comments on NOM's facebook wall.*

* yes, you have to be signed in to read them. sorry.
posted by rtha at 3:27 PM on April 8, 2009


2M4M

That's fucking awesome. Apparently they've never read craigslist....
posted by wildcrdj at 3:32 PM on April 8, 2009


If Audition 10 isn't gay then I'll be a monkey's uncle.
posted by jimmythefish at 3:43 PM on April 8, 2009


That's fucking awesome. Apparently they've never read craigslist....

I was going to make a joke about Ted Haggard doing their marketing strategy, but that guy would clearly know what M4M means. amirite?

This is so funny. I really want to sleep with two deeply conflicted and closeted evangelical men now.
posted by the_bone at 3:45 PM on April 8, 2009 [1 favorite]


We've had same sex marriage for nearly SIX YEARS in some provinces in Canada and for the nation as a whole for almost three. My partner and I have been married, legally, since August 8, 2003.

So, NOM, you have a whole country up here to test your claims. Bring it.
posted by ethnomethodologist at 3:56 PM on April 8, 2009 [2 favorites]


I'm President Obama

ZOMG METAFILTER'S OWN™ BARACK OBAMA


sorry I'm not Obama. whoops
posted by Ironmouth at 4:17 PM on April 8, 2009


Using "Rainbow Coalition" is very offensive.

If that first guy in the audition reel isn't a card-caring member of the 'I LIKE GUYS' International Friendship Society I will eat my hat.

Maybe a couple of the guys in the actual ad, too.
posted by kirkaracha at 4:20 PM on April 8, 2009


sorry I'm not Obama. whoops

easy mistake to make
posted by found missing at 4:34 PM on April 8, 2009 [2 favorites]


Am I the only one here who knows that they stole "Rainbow Coalition" from Jesse Jackson?
posted by Pope Guilty at 4:37 PM on April 8, 2009


For those of you not familiar with NOM PresidentMaggie Gallagher, she was one of the columnists paid by the Bush Administration to promote "healthy marriage."
posted by ltracey at 4:42 PM on April 8, 2009 [2 favorites]


Am I the only one here who knows that they stole "Rainbow Coalition" from Jesse Jackson?

Nope.
posted by ericb at 4:42 PM on April 8, 2009


Am I the only one here who knows that they stole "Rainbow Coalition" from Jesse Jackson?

No, but you may be the only one here who just publicly announced "I didn't read the thread." ;)
posted by hippybear at 4:43 PM on April 8, 2009 [2 favorites]


I didn't read the thread, but is there some sort of Jesse Jackson connection here, or Michael Jackson, or Jackson Brown, or Leroy Brown, or Hey, Leroy, Your Mama's Calling You, connection here?

I feel fairly sure there is some Willie Bobo connection to this issue.
posted by Astro Zombie at 4:48 PM on April 8, 2009 [4 favorites]


*THIS* is NOM and I won't have it any other way. This other nonsense is just the last hateful gasp of a dying, irrelevant movement that knows its power is already gone.

"Bless them for their anger" - Yoko Ono
posted by Space Kitty at 5:18 PM on April 8, 2009


If you are on twitter, you can address the NOM twerps directly @Nomtweets.
posted by BettinaTizzy at 5:24 PM on April 8, 2009 [1 favorite]


Jon Cooper, a Suffolk County (NY) legislator announced plans on Facebook last night to marry his partner of 29 years. Here's what he said

Jon Cooper and Rob chose April 30th as the date to get married because that's the 29th anniversary of the day we met. It's going to be a small private ceremony, since we had a big commitment ceremony (with 400 guests and the requisite number of toasters!) back in Sept. of 2000. By the way, we picked up our marriage license today in Greenwich, CT.


This is seriously cool--they have five adopted kids and do all kinds of good works. I second the comment that there's something about same-sex marriages that make me, a cranky, straight old lady, smile away.
posted by etaoin at 5:24 PM on April 8, 2009 [1 favorite]


Next up: Gay Mexicans are coming to abort our brain dead ladies!
posted by Avenger at 7:05 PM on April 8, 2009 [1 favorite]


A storm is coming. It's gonna be raining men. Hallelujah.
posted by ColdChef at 7:07 PM on April 8, 2009 [25 favorites]


Personally, I don't think these ads will work in the long run. I watched it and got really scared, so I ran to the arms of the first well-muscled, leather jacket wearing man I could find. As he held me in those strong arms and I felt the warmth of his body next to mine, I felt safe and happy in way no woman had ever made me. Soon we were passionately kissing, and then later we came together as a rainbow coalition of copulation.
posted by Saxon Kane at 7:11 PM on April 8, 2009 [6 favorites]




Not quite what I had in mind, but it does have a certain zen-like quality: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oRlhmdp2tJM

ColdChef, I trust you approve...
posted by LordSludge at 7:26 PM on April 8, 2009


And I must be pretty dumb, because I just now "got" the symbolism of the raging storm clouds: "God is getting pissed!!"

Ya know, if somebody were putting such hate-filled words in MY mouth, I know who *I'd* be pissed at...
posted by LordSludge at 7:30 PM on April 8, 2009


Have you ever seen God with a woman? I'm just saying.
posted by found missing at 7:34 PM on April 8, 2009


Have you ever seen God with a woman? I'm just saying.

The one time he got that lady pregnant, he didn't even consummate the act, too icky for him maybe?
posted by dibblda at 7:48 PM on April 8, 2009


A NOM that won't fill you with rage and loathing.
posted by you're a kitty! at 8:10 PM on April 8, 2009


I really don't understand the point of using the term "rainbow" in the scripts. I cannot believe anyone in the world doesn't know the connotation of rainbow and gay rights. So, with that being assumed, what possible sense does it make to use that term in the ad?
posted by odinsdream at 8:13 PM on April 8, 2009


But anyway--these audition tapes bring up an interesting question, how culpable are these professional actors for their work in this ad?

You think those are professional actors????? Besides the fact that, well, they're all terrible and pretty clearly amateurs, if they were trying to get work in Hollywood, after appearing in something like this... well the phrase "you'll never work in this town again" springs to mind.
posted by drjimmy11 at 8:29 PM on April 8, 2009


what possible sense does it make to use that term in the ad?

"a rainbow coalition of every creed and color is coming together, in love, to protect marriage," (barf) says the narrator at the end. There's at least two, possibly three, people in the ad whom I expect most viewers would identify as non-white. I think they're trying to appropriate "rainbow" back.
posted by cybercoitus interruptus at 9:18 PM on April 8, 2009


Have you ever seen God with a woman? I'm just saying.

Yes ... she's with her wife!
posted by ericb at 9:28 PM on April 8, 2009 [1 favorite]


The first "question" on NOM's FAQ page is "Are you a bigot?"

I take that to mean that "Are you a bigot?" is the question they are most frequently asked, and that makes me smile a little bit.

In any case, either it's frequently asked or NOM assumes people are thinking it, and either way, that sort of thing is cause for reevaluation of your beliefs. "If three people are telling you you're drunk, lay down," and all that.
posted by Navelgazer at 9:40 PM on April 8, 2009 [1 favorite]


I was listening to the tail end (see what I did there?) of the Diane Rehm show on NPR where one of these asshats was getting his ass handed to him by a gay activist. Every time he was buttonholed, he would either issue a talking point or a deeply skewed statistic. It would have been pretty funny if it wasn't so sickening.

I hate to break it to you gay folks of the coasts, but here in flyover country, this is the new abortion. It's the latest hot button topic designed to mobilize the faithful so that they can put this whole Obama mess behind them and get a new Reagan drones in congress and the white house.
posted by double block and bleed at 9:53 PM on April 8, 2009


I just...I...I mean, what's the POINT? I just see shit like this, and I hear my parents and people I grew up with talk about it and it's like talking to ALIENS. I can't understand why anyone cares. I mean, even if you actively believe that gay people are bad, at this point you are probably going to have to concede that they exist- that there are people who, for whatever reason, have sex with people of their own genders. Even if you're starting from the position that homosexuality is wrong, I don't see how you can construct an argument against gay marriage- because the government allowing people to marry isn't an endorsement of their relationship. The government didn't step in when MY parents got married, and look how THAT turned out. Even if you believe that gays are bad, the most you can logically feel about gay marriage is "meh"- that gay people will marry other gay people, which, like gays having sex, has absolutely no impact on straight people.
Unless, of course, you either believe in a weird "culture of morality" idea that falls apart once you think about state lotteries, or you believe a bunch of lies that are repeated on cable news about how the gays are somehow going to infringe on your "rights". As some who is from the South but is now in New York- how is this playing out in the rest of the country? Do people actually give a shit?
posted by 235w103 at 10:39 PM on April 8, 2009


Faith denies reason, true. But even here in the heartland there's a lot of shifting going on. Students in Christian colleges are acknowleging that it would be in the best interests of the children to be adopted by gay couples, because it would increase the number of families available to children who need it. I know of a half dozen churches in this city who make it a point to welcome GLBT people/couples and make them part of the family. This drives the half dozen rabidly anti-gay churches mad, but the rest of the population really doesn't give a flip. If they do, they confine it to their echo chamber or slowly come to realize it's not that bad.

Which of course is bad news for the power hungry zealots.

But what I really logged in to say, was hey - what if all the actors or all those who auditioned came out (hee!) in favor of gay marriage, and say they just did the NOM for the LULZ? It'd be epic.
posted by lysdexic at 10:47 PM on April 8, 2009


Future anti-gay marriage organizations, from the minds of the people who brought us 2M4M:

Prayer, Not Perversion
Traditional Standards
Democrats and Republicans Against Gays
Remain In Heterosexual Marriage (pronounced "rim" in the commercials)
posted by the_bone at 11:01 PM on April 8, 2009 [4 favorites]


It's funny how bigots like these accuse gay marriage supporters of moral relativism, when in fact we know that we're right and they're wrong.
posted by tepidmonkey at 11:42 PM on April 8, 2009 [1 favorite]


odinsdream, the_bone, etc., my assumption is that they chose those symbols precisely because they already have queer-cultural associations.
posted by hattifattener at 11:48 PM on April 8, 2009


Oh, now I get it. They're reclaiming rainbows for America's Precious Little Girls.
posted by maryh at 12:16 AM on April 9, 2009


Prayer, Not Perversion
Traditional Standards
Democrats and Republicans Against Gays
Remain In Heterosexual Marriage


Fellowship of Evangelical Loving Christian Heterosexuals Eternally Resisting Sin
posted by PeterMcDermott at 12:53 AM on April 9, 2009 [3 favorites]


235w103: "I just...I...I mean, what's the POINT? I just see shit like this, and I hear my parents and people I grew up with talk about it and it's like talking to ALIENS. I can't understand why anyone cares."

Look, it's just this: they're being conservative. I don't mean it as a judgment, or something negative, it's just that conservatism is a pretty common reaction, especially once you're getting on (for instance, opposition to social security privatization is a pretty conservative value). Marriage is a big thing. It's old-- really old. Way older than this country. Anyone with conservative impulses (and that includes a lot of people, even "socialize medicine" me) is going to be skeptical of major changes to long-standing institutions.

This is not to say that marriage hasn't evolved dramatically in the past century or two (for instance, women are no longer chattel) but this is a pretty bright line in the sand, and a lot of people who are uncomfortable with a lot of recent changes can rally around

It's the bigger issue: gay marriage cements the idea that marriage is a partnership of equals and not the traditional male dominant-female submissive dynamic. This has been in the works for decades, but this is a major step in that direction.

Anyway, back to the video: hilariously vague! "I am afraid." "They want to change the way I live." No details, no explanations. Baffling.
posted by alexei at 1:26 AM on April 9, 2009 [1 favorite]


Jon Cooper and Rob chose April 30th as the date to get married because that's the 29th anniversary of the day we met. It's going to be a small private ceremony, since we had a big commitment ceremony (with 400 guests and the requisite number of toasters!) back in Sept. of 2000.

They might take our gay marriage, but they'll never get our toasters!!!!!
posted by mannequito at 1:55 AM on April 9, 2009


hattifattener: as I said, I assume as true that NOM (nom nom) knows the connotation, but why does that mean they'd want to use the term? What do they gain? Obviously they aren't trying to trick other gay people into supporting their position, so what is it? Suggesting to their target audience that "reasonable" gay people are part of their organization? It makes no sense.
posted by odinsdream at 5:14 AM on April 9, 2009


odinsdream: "133hattifattener: as I said, I assume as true that NOM (nom nom) knows the connotation, but why does that mean they'd want to use the term? What do they gain? Obviously they aren't trying to trick other gay people into supporting their position, so what is it? Suggesting to their target audience that "reasonable" gay people are part of their organization? It makes no sense."

I think that they are doing exactly that. They might be even more successful if they trotted out some anti-gay-marriage gays "healed by the power of Jesus".

Also, the "rainbow coalition" traditionally represents the dizzying array of "valid" ethnicities: whites, and non-whites.
posted by double block and bleed at 5:45 AM on April 9, 2009


(sorry, got cut off)

... and "valid" religions: christians and jews
posted by double block and bleed at 5:48 AM on April 9, 2009


A big storm coming...

Pretty soon it'll be raining men ...

(Someone with a better video editor than I have needs to mash-up this ad and that song.)
posted by octobersurprise at 6:13 AM on April 9, 2009 [1 favorite]


Maybe you Christians (and Mormons, as I recall you consider yourselves Christians too) could spend more time aligning your priorities with Jesus's priorities.

I hate to beat this drum again, but can we stop using the word Christian to mean bigot or fundamentalist. Some Christians actually do spend their time trying to alighn their priorities with the teachings of Jesus, just not the ones in this coalition of bigotry.

Around a third of the people on this planet are "Christians", are we going to paint them all with the same brush?
posted by Pollomacho at 6:14 AM on April 9, 2009 [2 favorites]


might as well throw this in: from a non-USian perspective, this ad stinks of the moronic rhetoric of the bush era.

i mean this: there are two forms of talk. and one is in short. and the other is long. and to those who favor the long talk, we say this: you are with us. or you are against us.

and for those who deny what i say, i show you this:

-there's a storm gathering.
-the clouds are dark. and the winds are strong.
-and i am afraid.

now, nobody with even half a brain to spare could fail to notice that this kind of rhetoric is not only infantile, but it actually serves to infantilise the audience, by speaking to it as though it were, well, an infant.

i say this. and you will listen. and my speaking shall prevail. and it shall prevail far and wide. because you are babby. and babby no talk adult talk. and something about smoking guns and mushroom clouds. and gathering storms. and we shall not allow the gathering storm to come in the form of a mushroom cloud. a mushroom cloud of gay. thank you. god bless you. god bless america.
posted by UbuRoivas at 6:20 AM on April 9, 2009 [6 favorites]


Sigh it hurts to see these so called Christians doing this. Ton of reasons why:

a - I'm sure in all religions they teach love your neighbor or treat others as you want them to treat you. They don't teach people to be a bunch of ignorance, hate spreading, jerks. Who are they to say that same sex couples shouldn't have the same rights to marriage?

b - Out of all the things that this country allows to happen.... they pick gay/lesbian marriage? How about the people being held in prison for nothing at all? Our country kidnapped and tortured people without any reason for doing so. I guess in the eyes of NOM torture is a-okay as long as two dudes can't tie the knot!

c - It is not like gays/lesbians want to get married in these peoples' churches. I fail to see how it effects them?

d - I use to side with the religious types because I didn't know. However I learned through social interaction that suppressing someone's basic freedoms when they do not agree with you is wrong. America was founded on the idea that everyone is free and equal. What kind of hypocrite would I be if I went to church every Sunday and listened to how I should love my neighbor and generally be a good person and then turn around and hate someone for being who they are. That is not what Christianity is! It is love and understanding. Earlier in the thread someone hit the nail on the head. Jesus in heaven is not going to look that NOM as some noble stand against sin and evil but as a misinterpretation of his message. JC would attack this issue with a lot more love and a ton less hate. He would probably say, I don't agree with what you are doing but I love and support you anyways.

e - Lastly I think this is just a way for republicans to keep the poorly educated, over fattened, masses in their social control. Everything that is patriotic in this country, be it torture, blowing up innocent people, kidnapping people, invading countries, etc as long as someone says this is what God wants and it's patriotic is it fine. However look at the things stated above... now according to their way of thinking.... gay marriage is evil and un-patriotic therefore it is bad. Sigh no wonder more and more people are starting to lose faith in religion. They don't want to listen to NOM style assholes anymore.

In closing:

Fuck the republicans that control the religious movement for they give religion a bad name.

Fuck the minsters that organize these NOM groups because they are spreading hate.

Pity the stupid masses because they feel they are doing something right.

Don't hate on all religious people because the majority of us don't agree with this crap!
posted by Mastercheddaar at 6:48 AM on April 9, 2009 [1 favorite]


One of my daughters was in the workplace one day, and, in her particular workplace at that moment in time, there were a whole bunch of conservative, older men. And those guys were talking about gay marriage—they were talking about discussions going on across the country—and my daughter Kate, after listening to it for about 20 minutes, said to them: "You guys don't understand. You've already lost. My generation doesn't care."
- Iowa Senate Majority leader Mike Gronstal in a speech on the senate floor.
posted by KirkJobSluder at 6:53 AM on April 9, 2009 [20 favorites]


UbuROivas - love your comment and agree entirely except that I need a pony where one of the flag options is "used the fucking term 'US-ian'"
posted by Navelgazer at 6:53 AM on April 9, 2009 [1 favorite]


(well, it's misleading for people to refer to citizens of the US as "Americans" because, as we all know, that term applies from everybody in every country of both south & north america. plus expats of those countries, and people in the freak states: Hawaii & Alaska)
posted by UbuRoivas at 7:11 AM on April 9, 2009


But what would Judy Garland say?
posted by blucevalo at 7:18 AM on April 9, 2009


"We're not in Kansas any more, Toto"...?
posted by UbuRoivas at 8:08 AM on April 9, 2009


This is hopefully the first of many ill-advised death throes of the anti-gay coalitions.
posted by flippant at 8:11 AM on April 9, 2009


I cannot begin to tell you how strange and bizarre this ad seems to me as a gay married person. Predictable, yes, shameful, yes, risible, yes, and all those other bad adjectives. But at the root: Flat out weird, as if a bunch of wealthy Zoroastrians had suddenly camped outside the house of someone with a young daughter and started praying to Ahura Mazda loudly and en masse for her to stumble in the schoolyard and die. Like, isn't there anything better to root for in this world?
posted by digaman at 8:35 AM on April 9, 2009


Ask and ye shall receive : It's Raining NOM NOM NOM.
posted by minifigs at 8:52 AM on April 9, 2009 [7 favorites]




But what would Judy Garland say?

Shut the fuck up and bring me more pills?
posted by The Whelk at 9:20 AM on April 9, 2009 [3 favorites]


In related news: Newsweek's cover story this week: The Decline and Fall of Christian America by John Meacham.

Relared John Meacham: The difference between Christianity and 'Christian America'.
posted by ericb at 9:22 AM on April 9, 2009


*Related*
posted by ericb at 9:26 AM on April 9, 2009


"You guys don't understand. You've already lost. My generation doesn't care."

Being now an old fogey myself, this made me think what silly equivalent we had back in the day. Oh yeah, the old conservatives then thought guys growing long hair was the end of the world. I mean (they said) how are you gonna tell the difference between boys and girls? (Seriously!)
posted by binturong at 9:29 AM on April 9, 2009


Freedom of speech and freedom of expression of religion is not a guarantee of a job. You may not be discriminated on the basis of your beliefs, but if your beliefs don't allow you to perform your job, then you really ought to look into a new line of work.

That's right. If you don't want the government to force you to artificially inseminate a same-sex married couple because you decided not to go into partnership with another doctor who specializes in the same areas of medicine as you, don't go to medical school. We value freedom in this country, and that means you have the freedom to go into partnership with a specific set of other doctors or choose a new profession.
posted by The World Famous at 10:03 AM on April 9, 2009


I was listening to the tail end (see what I did there?) of the Diane Rehm show on NPR where one of these asshats was getting his ass handed to him by a gay activist.

I heard this segment, and I kept expecting Diane to put everything on hold and say "Dude, are you for real?" Probably because that's what I was thinking every time he opened his mouth.
posted by oaf at 10:57 AM on April 9, 2009


Shouldn't it be "Traditional Standards, Traditional Values"?
posted by Saxon Kane at 11:06 AM on April 9, 2009




If you don't want the government to force you to artificially inseminate a same-sex married couple because you decided not to go into partnership with another doctor who specializes in the same areas of medicine as you, don't go to medical school. We value freedom in this country, and that means you have the freedom to go into partnership with a specific set of other doctors or choose a new profession.

I'm not 100% sure I even know what you're saying here, but I would say the following to any doctor who flips out about having to treat all patients equally: Guess what? You don't get special dispensation to be a total bigot just because you mask your small-minded hatred in a cloak of Untouchable Religion. Do your job. If the unbearable burden of providing equal access to medicine pains you so, you should have thought of that before you took any kind of oath. It's not society's responsibility to pussy-foot around your bigotry and treat it like an unavoidable responsibility.
posted by you're a kitty! at 12:00 PM on April 9, 2009 [3 favorites]


Exploring Hypocrisy: Kirby Dick’s Upcoming Documentary “Outrage” Aims to Expose Closeted U.S. Politicians
"With the culture wars heating up as the debate about gay marriage intensifies in numerous American states, a new documentary is poised to stir widespread discussion later this month when it premieres at the Tribeca Film Festival. Still in the final stages of post-production, Oscar nominated filmmaker Kirby Dick is turning the spotlight on closeted American politicians in his latest documentary, 'Outrage.' It will debut in New York City on April 24th and distributor Magnolia Pictures will quickly open the film shortly thereafter in movie theaters, intending to capitalize on the media attention that the film is sure to draw. In the words of the company, the film 'could be a game changer in the ongoing battle for same sex civil rights in the United States.'"
posted by ericb at 12:01 PM on April 9, 2009


If the unbearable burden of providing equal access to medicine pains you so, you should have thought of that before you took any kind of oath.

I'm not that familiar with the oath. Does it include the promise to artificially inseminate people? I was under the impression that it was about preservation of life. I could be mistaken, though. As I recall, the oath did not play a prominent role in the court's moronic decision.

It's not society's responsibility to pussy-foot around your bigotry and treat it like an unavoidable responsibility.

No matter how many times you call religion bigotry, the First Amendment will still be there.
posted by The World Famous at 12:05 PM on April 9, 2009


No matter how many times you justify bigotry by calling it religion, it will still be ugly ugly bigotry.
posted by found missing at 12:17 PM on April 9, 2009 [4 favorites]


That's right. If you don't want the government to force you to artificially inseminate a same-sex married couple because you decided not to go into partnership with another doctor who specializes in the same areas of medicine as you, don't go to medical school. We value freedom in this country, and that means you have the freedom to go into partnership with a specific set of other doctors or choose a new profession.

This is pretty incoherent, which is frankly what I would expect from that side of the divide. What is your point?
posted by dersins at 12:29 PM on April 9, 2009


If you don't want the government to force you to artificially inseminate a same-sex married couple because you decided not to go into partnership with another doctor who specializes in the same areas of medicine as you, don't go to medical school.

THAT'S COMPLETELY CORRECT, although a less alarmist way to phrase it might be

If you don't want to provide artificial insemination to all your patients for whom it isn't medically contraindicated (and who can pay for it), don't be a fertility specialist.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 12:40 PM on April 9, 2009


Thank goodness there was no ambiguous passage in the original text of the Bible that could be interpreted as declaring that black folks are inferior to whites (as far as I know). There would still be people claiming that lynching is simply the free expression of their religious convictions.
posted by digaman at 12:49 PM on April 9, 2009 [1 favorite]


I'm not that familiar with the oath. Does it include the promise to artificially inseminate people? I was under the impression that it was about preservation of life. I could be mistaken, though. As I recall, the oath did not play a prominent role in the court's moronic decision.

That same doctor would not, presumably, have any trouble with performing artificial insemination on a straight couple, where one or both of the parents is black.

Replace "refuse to treat gays and lesbians" with "refuse to treat black people" and we're really looking at the same ugly bigotry underneath the motivation to refuse treatment.

If a doctor were to refuse to treat a black person today, on the basis of race, he or she would lose their license to practice, and likely be subject to criminal and civil legal actions.

If treatment is refused for reasons unrelated to the medical condition of the patient, as a society we're well within our rights to ask whether that doctor should even be allowed license to practice.

That aside, no one is obligated to become a doctor, and if you can't practice medicine without treating all of your patients with equal respect and dignity, then you're in the wrong line of work.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 12:54 PM on April 9, 2009 [3 favorites]


Iowa Senate Majority leader Mike Gronstal in a speech on the senate floor.

The rest of Grontsal's speech is good, too:
I think I learned something from my daughter that day, when she said that. And I've talked with other people about it and that's what I
see, Senator McKinley. I see a bunch of people that merely want to profess their love for each other, and want state law to recognize that.

Is that so wrong? I don't think that's so wrong. As a matter of fact, last Friday night, I hugged my wife. You know I've been married for 37 years. I hugged my wife. I felt like our love was just a little more meaningful last Friday night because thousands of other Iowa citizens could hug each other and have the state recognize their love for each other.
He was declining to support a proposed amendment banning gay marriage the first day the Iowa Senate met after the Iowa Supreme Court decision. Senator McKinley is the Minority Leader.
posted by kirkaracha at 12:54 PM on April 9, 2009


well, it's misleading for people to refer to citizens of the US as "Americans"

Merriam-Webster disagrees with you. I don't have one handy to check, but I'd bet dollars to donuts the OED does too. But who knows, maybe you have some COAian dictionary that says otherwise.
posted by DevilsAdvocate at 1:02 PM on April 9, 2009


No matter how many times you justify bigotry by calling it religion, it will still be ugly ugly bigotry.

I am not attempting to justify anything.
posted by The World Famous at 1:13 PM on April 9, 2009


Thank goodness there was no ambiguous passage in the original text of the Bible that could be interpreted as declaring that black folks are inferior to whites (as far as I know).

Using the Bible to justify slavery. Slavery in the Bible and early Christianity.

Biblical and Divine Justification for Slavery

Noah's Curse: The Biblical Justification of American Slavery

The Southern Baptist Convention split from the Baptists over slavery (and renounced its racist roots and apologized for its past defense of slavery in 1995, the same year that Mississippi ratified the Thirteenth Amendment). In 1968, only 11% of Southern Baptist churches would admit African-Americans.

well, it's misleading for people to refer to citizens of the US as 'Americans'
This has been discussed many times before. Citizens of the United States prefer to be called "Americans" (at least, US citizens on MetaFilter have) so it's rude to use a made-up term to refer to us.

posted by kirkaracha at 1:15 PM on April 9, 2009


This is pretty incoherent, which is frankly what I would expect from that side of the divide. What is your point?

You are apparently not familiar with the California court case that is apparently being referenced in the ad. I do not side with the ad. But the court's opinon was ridiculous. That you think it is incoherent indicates that you probably would agree.

Replace "refuse to treat gays and lesbians" with "refuse to treat black people" and we're really looking at the same ugly bigotry underneath the motivation to refuse treatment.

Actually, if you replace something, that makes it different bigotry, by definition. And it was not, as I understand it, a refusal to treat someone generally because of their sexual orientation

It has been a while since I read the case. Maybe we should all go read it before we fight over it. What do you think?
posted by The World Famous at 1:20 PM on April 9, 2009


No matter how many times you call religion bigotry, the First Amendment will still be there.

That's cool.

What if I'm a member of a religion which says that I, as a woman, am not allowed to provide medical care to [men]/[unmarried women]/[Catholics]/[high-school dropouts] etc., and you, as a member of one or more of those groups, come to my practice for care? You're okay with being denied treatment because of that?
posted by rtha at 1:20 PM on April 9, 2009 [2 favorites]


In any case, using religious grounds as a basis for deciding who gets which rights, or who gets denied which rights, is absurd. Aside from being absurd on the face of it - whose religion? Which version of it? Etc. Pointing to Biblical tenets as the sole or best way to make public policy is a fool's game, not to mention a double-edged sword.
posted by rtha at 1:33 PM on April 9, 2009 [1 favorite]


Ask and ye shall receive : It's Raining NOM NOM NOM.

SIDEBAR!!!!
posted by PeterMcDermott at 1:36 PM on April 9, 2009


No matter how many times you call religion bigotry, the First Amendment will still be there.

And there are a lot more amendments too, many of which are really only necessary because sometimes - sadly - it takes that much to keep people from denying equal rights to anyone remotely different from them.
posted by you're a kitty! at 1:36 PM on April 9, 2009


The World Famous --

Your first post seemed to most people to imply that you thought that doctors should have the right to refuse artificial insemination procedures to specific patients for nonmedical reasons. Since most people feel that doctors refusing medical treatment for nonmedical reasons (such as race, orientation, etc.) is bigotry, you got called out.

If that wasn't your point, no one has any idea what you are talking about. If you feel your point has been misinterpreted, please explain what you meant. You have not yet done so. And if you had no point at all, your post was ... pointless.
posted by kyrademon at 1:41 PM on April 9, 2009


What if I'm a member of a religion which says that I, as a woman, am not allowed to provide medical care to [men]/[unmarried women]/[Catholics]/[high-school dropouts] etc., and you, as a member of one or more of those groups, come to my practice for care? You're okay with being denied treatment because of that?

It sort of depends on the facts. If you were a single male member of a religion that says that single men should not touch naked single women, I'd be perfectly ok with you, as a doctor, referring single women to another doctor for any care that requires nudity.

If you're a member of a religion that says that you, as a female member of that religion, are not allowed to touch the genitals of a man, I would be perfectly ok with you referring to another doctor any male patient where treatment needs to include genital touching.

And if you're a member of a religion that says that you, as a member of that religion, should not artificially inseminate a woman unless she is married, I would be perfectly ok with you referring artificial insemination of a same-sex married woman to another doctor when the California government changes the legal definition of marriage to include same-sex couples, contrary to both your religious belief and the laws of most of the rest of the country.

If you were a member of a religion which says that you, as a woman, are not allowed to provide medical care to high-school dropouts, I would have no problem with you denying care on that basis.

If you were a member of a religion which says that you, as a woman, are not allowed to provide medical care to men, I would not sue you for referring me to another doctor on that basis. If there were no other doctor available in your partnership or outside of it within a reasonable distance to whom you could refer me, my feelings on the issue might be a little stronger. But I still would not hold you liable for damages unless the treatment in question were necessary to save my life or something close to that.

On the other hand, if you were a member of a religion that says that you should not provide medical care to people who are gay, I would have a problem with you denying medical care on that basis.

We could construct myriad hypothetical situations upon which you could poll me. But I don't see the point in that. The blanket condemnation above by explosion seems to ignore the actual facts of the case that seems to be referred to by the ad linked in the post. But I think it is unreasonable for the law to require that, because the definition of legal marriage in California changed, a doctor can now lawfully be compelled to perform an elective procedure that violates his very mainstream and otherwise-lawful religious beliefs - not because of the sexual orientation of the patient, but because the government suddenly decided to call the patient "married."

And there are a lot more amendments too, many of which are really only necessary because sometimes - sadly - it takes that much to keep people from denying equal rights to anyone remotely different from them.

Yes. This is true.

If that wasn't your point, no one has any idea what you are talking about. If you feel your point has been misinterpreted, please explain what you meant. You have not yet done so. And if you had no point at all, your post was ... pointless.

My point was that explosion's ranting characterization of the case to which the ad apparently is referring was significantly inaccurate. (Notwithstanding that I do not agree with the ad itself or the people who produced it.)
posted by The World Famous at 1:48 PM on April 9, 2009


Or to put a finer point on it. It's (generally) not the job of the doctor to make moral judgments regarding who should receive treatment. Decisions about treatment are complex enough given the ugly mess of diagnostic procedures and health care funding that a doctor must navigate.

Doctors already have the option of opting out of abortion and fertility treatments. But this isn't satisfactory for the conservative right in the United States, so Bush's now defunct conscience clause would have enabled any person employed in the medical sector to opt out for just about any reason, and that's a door open a bit too far.
posted by KirkJobSluder at 1:48 PM on April 9, 2009


Or to put a finer point on it. It's (generally) not the job of the doctor to make moral judgments regarding who should receive treatment.

As I understand it, the doctor in the California case did not make a moral judgment regarding who should receive treatment.
posted by The World Famous at 1:50 PM on April 9, 2009


As I understand it, the doctor in the California case did not make a moral judgment regarding who should receive treatment.

If your willingness to provide that treatment depends on your opinion of the validity of his or her marital status, then yes you are.
posted by KirkJobSluder at 1:59 PM on April 9, 2009


If your willingness to provide that treatment depends on your opinion of the validity of his or her marital status, then yes you are.

So, if the doctor in question said to the patient: "I think you should receive medical treatment. I am, therefore, referring you to Dr. XYZ, who will perform the procedure," you would characterize that as the doctor making a moral judgment as to who should receive treatment?
posted by The World Famous at 2:06 PM on April 9, 2009


The World Famous: So, if the doctor in question said to the patient: "I think you should receive medical treatment. I am, therefore, referring you to Dr. XYZ, who will perform the procedure," you would characterize that as the doctor making a moral judgment as to who should receive treatment?

Well, lets talk about the other side of the story which is that such a referral may entail either geographic limits on treatment in communities where only a handful of practicing specialists may exist, economic limits on treatment as only a handful of specialists may be covered by a patient's insurance network, and in some cases time limits as that specialist may have an excessively long waiting list.

So yes, passing the buck like this often compromises the quality of care that the patient receives.
posted by KirkJobSluder at 2:13 PM on April 9, 2009


So yes, passing the buck like this often compromises the quality of care that the patient receives.

That wasn't the question as I understood it, but I do appreciate that you recognize that there are factual considerations and nuances to be considered on a case-by-case basis.

As I now read the California Supreme Court's opinion (a quick reading, I admit), it appears that the Court did not address the question of marital status discrimination, but only the question of whether the alleged discrimination on the sole basis of sexual orientation were lawful, leaving the question of what type of discrimination actually occured to be determined not on summary judgment but as a question of fact for the jury. (See footnote 1.) To the extent that the holding states only that the doctor could not refuse to perform the procedure based on sexual orientation (status, not conduct), then I agree with the holding. In other words, I do not think that a doctor should be allowed to refuse treatment based on a patient's sexual orientation.
posted by The World Famous at 2:26 PM on April 9, 2009


kirkaracha, thank you!
posted by digaman at 2:55 PM on April 9, 2009


So, if the doctor in question said to the patient: "I think you should receive medical treatment. I am, therefore, referring you to Dr. XYZ, who will perform the procedure," you would you characterize that as the doctor making a moral judgment as to who should receive treatment?

If the doctor in question said, more accurately, "I think you should receive medical treatment, but I am unwilling to treat you because I believe it would be immoral for me to provide you with this care because you are homosexual. I am therefore referring you elsewhere."

Then, yes, the doctor is clearly making a moral judgment about who should receive treatment. Implicit in the doctor's claim is that it would also be immoral for anyone else to provide that treatment to a homosexual patient.

More broadly, it seems reasonable and proper that civil rights legislation including marital status or sexual orientation or any other characteristic implies that any business, including a physician's office, partnership, or clinic, cannot discriminate on those bases when providing its services.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 3:28 PM on April 9, 2009 [2 favorites]


That wasn't the question as I understood it

Actually, that seems to be where the lesbian patient's damages arise. Because the clinic failed to provide the insemination at the appropriate time (due to a combination of refusal to provide medically indicated treatment and simple miscommunication), she had to undergo an additional series of fertility treatments and tests in preparation for the insemination that eventually occurred.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 3:30 PM on April 9, 2009


Actually, that seems to be where the lesbian patient's damages arise.

Or where a jury might eventually conclude they arise. Yes, I get that. But that wasn't the question being discussed in the thread, as I understood it. Thanks.
posted by The World Famous at 3:35 PM on April 9, 2009


Actually, if you replace something, that makes it different bigotry, by definition.

I find it difficult to take seriously the premise that the "variety" of manifestations of bigotry matters more than that bigotry exists, that it is systematic, and that it causes pain, fear, mistrust, financial, political and other long-lasting negative consequences in a country like the United States, which proclaims loudly to value equality under law.

And it was not, as I understand it, a refusal to treat someone generally because of their sexual orientation

In that opposition to same-sex marriage is rooted entirely and ultimately on the basis of furthering discrimination against gays and lesbians, the California incident was indeed a matter of refusal to administer health care on the basis of sexuality. Any other excuse (e.g., 'defending the sanctity of marriage', 'a child should not have two mommies', etc.) is a veiled, coded rationalization for bigotry against minorities.

In any case, such a rationalization would have had nothing to do with the treatment to be administered, to begin with.

Even leaving aside obvious discrimination against gays and lesbians, for what conceivable and rational reason could your choice of partner (and here I'm talking about partners in legally recognized, straight marriages, specifically) have anything to do with the health care your doctor would otherwise administer?

If you were a black male and your female wife needed surgery, there would be no rational reason for a doctor to refuse her the care she needed on the basis of the color of your skin. Would you agree that allowing doctors this degree of independence is problematic? Should this doctor be allowed a license to practice faulty medicine?

These kinds of rationalizations break down when examined in a courtroom, as well they should. Unfortunately, as this post shows, it is easy for religious hate groups to run intellectually and morally dishonest advertising that evades the scrutiny of a busy, fearful public.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 4:56 PM on April 9, 2009


I find it difficult to take seriously the premise that the "variety" of manifestations of bigotry matters more than that bigotry exists, that it is systematic, and that it causes pain, fear, mistrust, financial, political and other long-lasting negative consequences in a country like the United States, which proclaims loudly to value equality under law.

I, too, find it difficult to take seriously that premise. Has someone set forth that premise?

In that opposition to same-sex marriage is rooted entirely and ultimately on the basis of furthering discrimination against gays and lesbians, the California incident was indeed a matter of refusal to administer health care on the basis of sexuality. Any other excuse (e.g., 'defending the sanctity of marriage', 'a child should not have two mommies', etc.) is a veiled, coded rationalization for bigotry against minorities.

Well, I respectfully disagree with that. But I think you and I may have a difference of opinion as to the status v. conduct question, and that may muddy the waters somewhat. I do, however, recognize that for the vast majority of anti-gay folks, status v. conduct is really not considered either. It's the "entirely and ultimately" part of your statement that I have a problem with. I do agree with you, though, that once the emotional "we hate you, you hate us" stuff gets going, it is difficult for either side of the "debate" to act on anything other than negative emotion toward those they perceive as enemies.

Even leaving aside obvious discrimination against gays and lesbians, for what conceivable and rational reason could your choice of partner (and here I'm talking about partners in legally recognized, straight marriages, specifically) have anything to do with the health care your doctor would otherwise administer?

I suppose the answer to that question would depend on the theological framework (or even non-religious beliefs about society) that is in play in a given situation.

If you were a black male and your female wife needed surgery, there would be no rational reason for a doctor to refuse her the care she needed on the basis of the color of your skin.

The First Amendment protects the free exercise of religion, not the free exercise of rationality. Not that I think the free exercise clause would protect a doctor's actions in that particular hypothetical, but you seem to be looking for rational reasons, and not constitutional jurisprudence.

Would you agree that allowing doctors this degree of independence is problematic?

I would agree that such conduct on the part of a doctor would run contrary to the moral code to which I subscribe, and that it would likely run afoul of the Unruh Civil Rights Act.

Should this doctor be allowed a license to practice faulty medicine?

He should probably be allowed a license to practice medicine (I'm not sure why you used the term "faulty" there, but I'll avoid snarking about it). If we denied medical licenses to every doctor who is a jerk, racist, or bigot, there wouldn't be many doctors (not a moral justification for allowing them to practice - just a practical reason). He should also be subject to applicable civil rights laws, which, as far as I know, do not strip him of his license to practice medicine.

it is easy for religious hate groups to run intellectually and morally dishonest advertising that evades the scrutiny of a busy, fearful public.

Yes, it is. Unfortunately, they are not the only ones for whom it is easy.
posted by The World Famous at 5:27 PM on April 9, 2009


I, too, find it difficult to take seriously that premise. Has someone set forth that premise?

You did, in the quote I cited.

The First Amendment protects the free exercise of religion, not the free exercise of rationality.

Medicine is not a religious speech, and you are rendering the First Amendment meaningless to equate the two. I might as well say that punching someone in the face is religious speech and my actions are therefore due Constitutional protection.

He should probably be allowed a license to practice medicine (I'm not sure why you used the term "faulty" there, but I'll avoid snarking about it).

I use the term "faulty" exactly as it means: the doctor who makes health care decisions on the basis of the skin color (or sexuality, or whatever classification of minority) of someone who is not the patient is not practicing good, rational health care. Do you agree with that premise or not?

Would I really need to explain how refusing health care to someone with a differently-skin-colored partner is analogous to refusing care to someone with a same-gendered partner, in that medical reasoning does not enter into the doctor's decision-making process?
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 5:46 PM on April 9, 2009


You did, in the quote I cited.

I did no such thing. I pointed out only that it is not the same bigotry, and then you unfairly attributed to me (twice now) a value judgment that I did not make or state.

Medicine is not a religious speech

Who said anything about speech? There is more to the First Amendment than the freedom of speech. Not engaging in conduct specifically enjoined by religious belief is an exercise of religion. The First Amendment right to free excercise of religion is not absolute, but it is there, separate from the freedom of speech or expression, and there is no requirement in the Constitution that one's religious beliefs be rational in order to be covered under the free exercise clause.

I use the term "faulty" exactly as it means: the doctor who makes health care decisions on the basis of the skin color (or sexuality, or whatever classification of minority) of someone who is not the patient is not practicing good, rational health care. Do you agree with that premise or not?

It was the phrasing of your previous statement that I found odd. I was avoiding snarking about the idea that someone could have a "license to practice faulty medicine." Sorry.

Would I really need to explain how refusing health care to someone with a differently-skin-colored partner is analogous to refusing care to someone with a same-gendered partner, in that medical reasoning does not enter into the doctor's decision-making process?

Aside from the status v. conduct issue that I identified above (and which, again, I think probably would just muddy the waters), I think the only point on which I probably disagree with you, though you have not explicitly stated it, is that you seem to be equating a doctor's personal belief that he or she should not perform a given medical procedure with the medical judgment that the procedure does not need to be performed at all, by anyone. I'm not saying that I agree with that doctor's religious belief. I am saying that I can see that if a doctor recognizes, based on sound medical analysis, that a procedure needs to be performed, and makes that sound recommendation to the patient, but that he, for whatever reason - be it a good one or a bad one, elects not to be the doctor to perform that procedure, it cannot accurately be said that his medical reasoning was flawed. Whether various civil rights laws do or should come into play is a separate inquiry from that of whether the doctor's medical judgment - i.e. his diagnosis and determination of what procedures are necessary - is sound.
posted by The World Famous at 6:02 PM on April 9, 2009


I almost posted something in this thread that I was writing for the Dave Arneson obit thread. That may have been awkward.
posted by the_bone at 10:44 PM on April 9, 2009


(well, it's misleading for people to refer to citizens of the US as "Americans" because, as we all know, that term applies from everybody in every country of both south & north america. plus expats of those countries, and people in the freak states: Hawaii & Alaska)

I'll be sure to let the people in the United States of Mexico that they've lost something else yet again to the gringos.
posted by Pollomacho at 4:20 AM on April 10, 2009


at least get the country name right
posted by found missing at 12:57 PM on April 10, 2009


Just missed the opportunity to post this while the FPP was on the front page, but I already made a YouTube mashup with the audition tapes, using Dio's Rainbow in the Dark. (It was the best fit, what with all the talk about rainbows and storm clouds!) Anyhow, here it is: Rainbow in the Dark: Gay Marriage Is OK.
posted by jonp72 at 10:00 PM on April 10, 2009


nice job!
posted by cybercoitus interruptus at 10:07 PM on April 10, 2009


Don't make that sidebar yet!

This is D.U.N.G.
posted by schyler523 at 11:01 PM on April 10, 2009


I suppose the answer to that question would depend on the theological framework (or even non-religious beliefs about society) that is in play in a given situation.

And here's the elephant in the room. The practice of medicine is not, in any way, shape, or form, theological. No matter how important religion is to you, personally, you absolutely must set it at the door when you plan on practicing medicine. As a species we have come too far to return to shamanism at this point.
posted by odinsdream at 8:11 PM on April 11, 2009


And here's the elephant in the room. The practice of medicine is not, in any way, shape, or form, theological. No matter how important religion is to you, personally, you absolutely must set it at the door when you plan on practicing medicine. As a species we have come too far to return to shamanism at this point.

Right, but my response, which you quoted, was to a question about what rational reason there might be -- not what medical reason there might be or whether some specific rational reason might be appropriate or justified.
posted by The World Famous at 1:03 AM on April 12, 2009


"In this [video] response to their claims, we spent about 150 bucks on a green screen, some lights, a honey baked ham and some beer."
posted by ericb at 1:47 PM on April 13, 2009




Stephen Colbert's take on NOM.
posted by ericb at 7:57 AM on April 17, 2009 [1 favorite]


Top G.O.P. Consultant Endorses Gay Marriage
Mr. Schmidt, who has a sister who is a lesbian, plans to say that there is nothing about gay marriage that is un-American or that threatens the rights of others and that in fact it is in line with conservative principles.
posted by rtha at 10:06 AM on April 17, 2009




Frank Rich On NOM Anti-Gay Marriage Ad: "The Bigots' Last Hurrah."
posted by ericb at 8:53 AM on April 19, 2009 [1 favorite]




« Older "I change the video... I change the music... I can...   |   These Guys Kissed Several Girls Just to Try It Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments



Post