Some Thoughts on the New California TV Gay Marriage Ad
The video link below is from “Garden Wedding,” one of the new California TV gay marriage ads. Mercifully, the ad spares us the anti-male stereotypes sometimes promoted by gay marriage advocates, who are often aligned with the feminist movement.
In the ad, a woman is about to get married and her father is leading her out to the ceremony to walk her down the aisle. Believe it or not, he’s actually a nice guy and his daughter seems proud to be with him. Believe it or not, the person who sticks out a cane and trips the bride and prevents her from getting married is a woman, not a man. Believe it or not, the groom is portrayed as a caring person.
To some degree I can understand the loyalty that gay activists have for the women’s movement and feminists/feminist causes. It is true that the National Organization for Women and other feminist groups have often played a positive role in reducing society’s bigotry towards gays. However, because gays and feminists are often political allies, this sometimes translates into a hostility for men from the LGBT movement. This is unfortunate.
We saw one example of this back in June when OPUS, the nationally syndicated cartoon, had an anti-male/pro-gay marriage cartoon right before Father’s Day. I don’t mind the gay marriage apart, but I opposed the cartoon’s anti-father message, for which I was unjustly pilloried in many gay newspapers and online publications. To learn more about that controversy, click here.
To watch the new gay marriage ad, click here.
|
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
| More from Glenn Sacks
Stumble It!
November 18th, 2007 at 5:30 pm
Again, you missed the whole point of the marriage between feminists and the LBGT movement (which would be nothing if N.O.W. had not created and financed it). N.O.W.’s goal is to make marriage an institution of double-matriarchy.
They don’t give a hoot about gay men any more than they gave a hoot about heterosexual men who supported the feminist movement since the 1960’s. I even have a few gay men who understand this and agree with me on it.
N.O.W. destroyed heterosexual marriage, and now they want to reconstruct it to serve the most reprehensible goal of the feminist movement: to make marriage a radical feminist institution, leaving men with nothing to do but support it as child-support debtors.
Every law necessary to make this happen is already in place in federal and state code — except for “same sex marriage”. How can you support this?
The only point to be made here is that same-sex marriage is the ultimate form of bigotry invented by the National Organization of Women. Anyone who does not frontally oppose same-sex marriage is taking a very bigoted position on marriage.
So, Glenn, when are you going to stop supporting feminist bigotry? I hate to call you out on the carpet in public, but as a leader of this movement, I must call it like it is.
November 19th, 2007 at 10:47 am
The commercial asks, “What if you could not marry the person you loved?”
My question is, “Under the current American legal system, why would any man want to get married?”
November 19th, 2007 at 12:20 pm
The devil is in the details when it comes to same-sex marriage. Here are some issues:
One argument made by proponents is that a parent of each sex is not necessary, only two committed people. But that means fathers are unnecessary or not necessarily beneficial to children–hence, the Opus cartoon that depicted fathers in a negative light. It’s very difficult to be both pro-father and argue that fathers are unnecessary or often abusive.
Another argument is that second-parent adoptions are burdensome. To get around them, proponents hope to use “presumption of paternity” statutes. The result is they want to turn “presumption” into “assertion”–if you’re married to the parent of a child, you’re also the parent of that child. A married man would automatically become the legal father of any child born to his wife without any right to contest paternity. Men would, in effect, forfeit the battle against paternity fraud. And any man who would then marry would be a complete fool.
November 19th, 2007 at 12:44 pm
The point is also missed that NOW was organized and largely promoted by lesbians. The linkage between homosexuals and NOW are well established. Hollywood is the marketer of all manner of deviance and notions meant to undermine the normal. Militant feminism – the bizarre and amply refuted notion that so-called gender-roles are socially imposed and that to believe otherwise is “sexist.” Think of all the films where 110-pound women, who look like anorexic fashion models, pulverize 190-pound men, who look like football players. Hollywood actually believes that 1997’s “GI Jane” reflected reality. That was the movie where Demi Moore (who previously starred in “Striptease”) became a Navy SEAL, the elite of the elite of U.S. Special Forces. But the family is based on gender roles. “Mr. Mom” notwithstanding, a man can’t care for a toddler as well as a woman. Men and women are endowed with physical and psychological attributes which compliment each other. The more we try to obliterate those differences, the harder family life becomes.
The normalization of homosexuality – the dogma that some people are born homosexual and are unable to change, that all voluntary sexual activity is equally good and that homosexual liaisons must be afforded the same recognition and respect as heterosexual marriage. Note all of the movies where homosexual characters are happy, helpful, well-adjusted and generally appealing – so unlike members of the typical Hollywood family. In the 1999 film “American Beauty” (which won no fewer than 5 Oscars), the heterosexuals are all immature, inane or ugly, in a psychic sense. Only the neighborhood gay couple is presented appealingly. Like promiscuity, pre-marital sex and adultery, homosexuality undermines the family. The natural family will not thrive where competing models are affirmed.
November 21st, 2007 at 9:43 pm
A ‘repost’ of why I am opposed to gay marriage …
….
It seems to me that if, for example, two gay people who happen to live together can avail themselves of various legal advantages (e.g. via the tax system etc) then why cannot two friends who are not gay have such advantages? This difference in treatment cannot be right – especially for old people.
Further, it will clearly lead in the future to people pretending to be gay simply in order to recoup the rewards – which will, of course, then lead to government snoopers checking out some very personal details.
And then there is the issue of single people – and people who simply live alone. Surely, life for them is much tougher. For example, it is much more expensive to live alone than to share living expenses with a partner. As such, why should single people not also receive the various privileges that gay couples seek for themselves? Single people are surely more in need of these privileges than are couples?
And, once again, this is especially true for old people.
And I simply cannot believe that the vast majority of people are going to sit back and continue to accept that heterosexuals who ‘live together’ and, thence, those who are single, should be disadvantaged compared to gay couples.
Furthermore, the special status and privileges that were traditionally accorded to heterosexual couples who were married were designed to help them with the maintenance of family bonds (inheritance laws etc) and with the extra financial burdens incurred when bringing up children. And the introduction of ‘marriage’ for gay couples is, clearly, just one more step in the direction of destroying this particularly special situation – i.e. it is part and parcel of the treacherous pathway designed to break down traditional families.
And if, eventually, as a result of political pressure – which I am sure will come – we all end up being entitled to receive various special privileges for our situations vis-a-vis our partners – or lack thereof – then there is no real advantage to be gained for **ANYONE** – except, of course, for the government – which gets to exert even finer control over people’s intimate relationships – e.g. through the tax system.
In summary, it seems fair and reasonable to give people special concessions for doing the best things for their children (e.g. for getting and remaining married) because things that are good for children are good for our society, but it is quite another thing to give people such concessions simply because of their sexual preferences – especially when such concessions are denied to those who do not happen to be gay.
In other words, ‘gay marriage’ is a step in the wrong direction on many fronts. And it can only lead to increasing resentment – much of which will be justified, in my view.
And this is bound to be especially true from the point of view of many men who are MRAs – for obvious reasons; the most important of which, I suppose, is the breaking down of traditional families and, hence, the breaking down of men’s positions and, hence, their security within those families.
And, in the end, this will surely spell trouble for gays.
After all, thus far, gays have been protected by the decades-long weapon of political correctness, which has silenced those who might object to some of their activities; but this weapon is now being rendered more and more ineffective thanks to the internet – and the last thing that gays would want would be to have a growing MM that becomes increasingly antagonistic towards them, not only because of their sexuality – which is an issue for many people – but also because of the extra privileges that might accrue to them via same-sex ‘marriage’.
For example, here in the UK, we recently had two very old ladies – who were sisters and who had lived together for decades – ask the courts to give them the same privileges (for inheritance tax purposes) as are given to gays. They were denied this.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/wiltshire/6174803.stm
How can this be fair?