Confusion Alert Ahead

When I was bumming around the No on 8 website looking at their TV ads, I noticed something very strange. Up until recently, the logo for "Vote No on Prop 8" featured a little green check through the o of no. This is the logo that can still be seen on all merchandise sold in the noonprop8store.com (Coincidentally, this is the lawn sign I have on my dorm room door):

http://www.noonprop8store.com/eshop/10Expand.asp?ProductCode=Prop8-186

However, now the logo for the no on 8 website has a red x through the o of no.

http://www.noonprop8.com/

What is the reason for the change? This is all purely speculative, but it seems as if those behind Equality California/No on Prop 8 realised that a green check is a positive thing, and that in their efforts to get people to vote no, this might become confusing to voters, causing them to vote yes by accident. Personally I think it's a tad silly, but it should be noted that the wording of Prop 8 is somewhat confusing - voters are used to being -for- gay marriage, not -against- a ban on gay marriage. Usually when someone talks about being "pro-gay marriage," one doesn't think about voting against anything.

What I am confused about, is why would Equality California/No on Prop 8 change their logo now, less than 3 weeks before the election, whatever the reason? Thousands of lawn signs, poster, stickers, buttons, t-shirts, and other paraphernalia have been distributed with the 1st version of the logo. Why change the logo now? Doesn't this make a tiny detail even more confusing?

Come on Equality California, please pull yourself together and stop acting like an indecisive spastic puppy. Pick a message, and go with it. Don't confuse voters. Air some stronger TV ads, and stop playing defense. A strong campaign is starting to slowly look weaker, which does not bode well for the outcome of November 4Th.

Bring on the Propaganda: Part III

In the last week, the No on Prop 8 campaign has come out with two new commercials. Though I wish I could say otherwise, they are not that effective. Maybe I've simply become extremely critical since I tend to watch a lot of political ads...but aren't all voters becoming ad-fatigued with less than 3 weeks before the election? Surely the ads need to become snappier, and more hard hitting?

The first commercial up for dissection is the "Lies" ad. Of the two ads, this is my least favorite. The commercial starts off with a bunch of TVs playing the protectmarriage.com ads, (including the most recent), while a voice over declares their statements to be false. The problem with this commercial, is that there is too much going on. I was too busy looking at all the different TVs, and was not paying that much attention to the voice over. If the No on Prop 8 campaign felt that their best tactic was to play defense, (I don't think it is), then why couldn't create a more compelling ad? A little blurb after the TVs part tells the viewer to "keep government out of all our lives" and vote no on prop 8. This is clearly an attempt to reach out to more conservative voters...but what does it have to do with refuting the "lies" of the Yes on 8 campaign? The ad wasn't talking about government entanglement up to this point. All in all, I think the commercial is a failure. With little emotional punch or consistent message, it is an ad viewers won't remember.



The second ad is a little better, though still not good enough in my opinion. The "Unfair, unnecessary, and wrong" ad simply displays quotes from various groups speaking out against Prop 8, with NO on 8 prominently displayed in large letters throughout the commercial. It is not so much that it is a -bad- commercial, I just think it is weak. Gay marriage is such an emotionally charged issue...what happened the commercials that tapped this? The earlier ads "Meet the Thorons" and the ad from Let Freedom Ring released over the summer which much more powerful than this ad. As mentioned earlier, considering the political fatigue non-political junkies must be feeling by this point, wouldn't this be the time to use -more- emotionally charged commercials rather than less? This ad looks like just another political ad like the hundreds that a viewer might see as related to this election. Ads can't just be good, they need to be phenomenal at this point in the campaign season. "Unfair" is just simply not good enough.

Anyone Want to Marry a Goat?

Thanks to a few days off from school away from Internet access, I now have a lot of catching up to do in terms of recent Prop 8 news. Bear with me while I get on that.

First up however, is dealing with piece of mail I received today. That's right folks, I received a letter from the No on Prop 8 campaign, soliciting "urgently needed contributions." I've mentioned before that the supporters of Proposition 8 seem to be doing a better job employing fear tactics to sway voters into voting yes, however this letter is a pretty solid use of fear mongering to garner "no" votes.

The underlying purpose of the letter is to highlight the 3-2 fundraising disadvantage that the opponents of Proposition 8 are facing, and underscore their need for donations to continue an effective media campaign. The more interesting part of the letter emphasises the "dehumanising slander" against LGBT peoples said by supporters of Proposition 8, including this statement from The Family Research Council in Rhode Island:

"A same-sex couple's marriage cannot be recognized because: "Following the logic of the appellants and their supporters, man/animal marriage and man/deceased woman marriage must be permitted under Rhode Island law simply because the General Assembly has not expressly prohibited it."

The letter also included this statement from the April 13 broadcast of Westwood One's The Radio Factor with Bill O'Reilly:

"So this is just the beginning, ladies and gentlemen, of this crazy gay marriage insanity - it's gonna lead to all kinds of things like this. Courts are gonna be clogged. Every nut in the world is gonna - somebody's gonna come in and say, 'I wanna marry the goat." You'll see it; I guarantee you'll see it."

After one gets done chuckling at the image of a (wo)man/goat marriage, (would the goat need a stool to kiss the bride/groom? Would it need a proxy to repeat the vows?), one can see the "dehumanizing" comparison presented - LGBT people are no better than animals or corpses. While it's hard to call this propaganda letter fear tactics precisely, it is certainly negative advertising. The letter is targeted towards individuals already targeted as being strong opponents of Proposition, and therefore are either LGBT, or avid gay rights advocates. This letter therefore, would probably incite anger within the targeted population, and therefore motivate people to give money to the campaign. Considering the more positive tenor of the television ads, it's interesting to see how the No on Prop campaign chooses to target its base. While it might more publicly present non-threatening image towards the larger heterosexual community, the No on Prop 8 campaign is just as bitterly passionate and negative as the supporters of Proposition 8. Neither side is sticking to the moral high road in this campaign.

A Wedding on the Enterprise

So I have a secret to admit. When I was younger, I was a trekie. For whatever reason, I migrated from a Star Wars obsession to being a fan of the adventures of Captain Kirk, Spock, Sulu, and the rest of the crew.

This is clip is a few weeks old, but I feel it still worth being posted. It features George Takei, aka Mr. Sulu, speaking about his recent marriage to long time partner Brad Altman. Beyond this being a moment to air my slightly embarrassing geek-ish past, it is a great example of gay celebrities using their fame to campaign in opposition to Proposition 8 (the more obvious example of course being Ellen DeGeneres and Portia de Rossi). Takei and Altman's wedding was a calculated affair, and while I do not doubt the couple's love, their wedding was definitely a political move. Of course, Takei is no stranger to California politics, having run for Los Angeles city council, and been on the board of the Southern California Rapid Transit District,in addition to his work as an LGBT rights activist. Still, I believe he is a classic example of celebrity politics, without which the LGBT rights agenda would most likely still be years away from even the possibility of legalized same-sex marriage.

Newt Weighs In

So when I was pulling the Vote Yes on Prop 8 commercial off youtube yesterday, I stumbled upon an ad in which Newt Gingrich weighs in on the legal angle of the Proposition 8 debate. While I might not support Proposition 8 myself, Gingrich does present an interesting point about the role of judges in legislative matters. Should "appointed lawyers" engage in legal activism? Should judges be legislating from the bench? Should 4 judges be able to overturn the will of the majority?





I would argue that one of the judicial branch's major obligations is to weigh in upon this type of issue. The role of the judicial branch -is- to protect against majority tyranny. If it were not for this major check on majority opinion, how would the rights of -any- minority be protected? The judges interpreted the California Constitution to mean equal rights for all of the state's citizens, not just those who have legislative power/money. In addition, the California Constitution is above any other California law, and laws made in opposition to it -must- be overturned. If we were to state that judges should not review laws, and should not take an activist stance, then what is the purpose of having the California Constitution as the supreme law of the state in the first place? It becomes toothless and devoid of meaning.

In a nutshell, legal activism is necessary to maintain the balance of power between the legislative and judicial branches of government. The California Supreme Court's decision earlier this year is simply an example of the Framer's vision of government at work.

Bring on the Propaganda: Round Two

Last week protectmarriage.com and the Vote Yes on Prop 8 aired their first major tv ad in California. I have to say, I think it is a brilliant ad. The ad starts of with a clip of San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom at a press conference telling the world that "this door is wide open now. It's gonna happen, whether you like it or not." The ad continues into a discussion of the legality of the California Supreme Court's decision to allow gay marriage, even going so far as to pull a Pepperdine Law Professor to talk about the possible/actual fallout of allowing gay marriage - people suing over personal beliefs, churches losing their tax exemption status, and gay marriage being taught in schools. One of the last things a viewer hears is Mayor Newsom's strident statement that gay marriage will happen now "whether you like it or not."



Basically, this ad targets the major possible fears that undecided heterosexual voters might have about allowing gay marriage, preying upon voters' homophobia. (Will the schools be turning my child gay? Will my church be compromised?) Inadvertently, I'd argue that Mayor Newsom did more damage then good with his remarks, as now the supporters of Proposition 8 have a sound byte to heighten "fear of the gay takeover" in voters. Never mind a catchy slogan, "Whether you like it or not" will continue to reverberate in a voter's head long after the ad has ended.

It is more likely that a voter will remember a frightening phrase (and let's face it, even if you like Mayor Newsom, he is a bit abrasive, then a soft spoken appeal to maternal/paternal pride. Scare tactics work better than tugging at heart strings, so at this stage I'd say the score is Vote Yes: 1. Vote No:0.

One month left...