Box Turtle Bulletin
News and commentary about the anti-gay lobby“Now you must raise your children up in a world where that union of man and box turtle is on the same legal footing as man and wife…”
News and commentary about the anti-gay lobbyOctober 19th, 2008
The video at top is the pro-Amendment 2 ad that has been unveiled for Florida. The video on the bottom is the pro-Prop 102 ad which has been running in Arizona for the past three weeks. Just for grins, click to play both of them at about the same time (as quickly in succession as you can at least) and see if you can spot the differences. There are a few, obviously reflecting the geographical and ethnic differences between the two states, but the similarities are startling.
[Hat tip: Tucson Observer blog]
Latest Posts
Featured Reports
In this original BTB Investigation, we unveil the tragic story of Kirk Murphy, a four-year-old boy who was treated for “cross-gender disturbance” in 1970 by a young grad student by the name of George Rekers. This story is a stark reminder that there are severe and damaging consequences when therapists try to ensure that boys will be boys.
When we first reported on three American anti-gay activists traveling to Kampala for a three-day conference, we had no idea that it would be the first report of a long string of events leading to a proposal to institute the death penalty for LGBT people. But that is exactly what happened. In this report, we review our collection of more than 500 posts to tell the story of one nation’s embrace of hatred toward gay people. This report will be updated continuously as events continue to unfold. Check here for the latest updates.
In 2005, the Southern Poverty Law Center wrote that “[Paul] Cameron’s ‘science’ echoes Nazi Germany.” What the SPLC didn”t know was Cameron doesn’t just “echo” Nazi Germany. He quoted extensively from one of the Final Solution’s architects. This puts his fascination with quarantines, mandatory tattoos, and extermination being a “plausible idea” in a whole new and deeply disturbing light.
On February 10, I attended an all-day “Love Won Out” ex-gay conference in Phoenix, put on by Focus on the Family and Exodus International. In this series of reports, I talk about what I learned there: the people who go to these conferences, the things that they hear, and what this all means for them, their families and for the rest of us.
Prologue: Why I Went To “Love Won Out”
Part 1: What’s Love Got To Do With It?
Part 2: Parents Struggle With “No Exceptions”
Part 3: A Whole New Dialect
Part 4: It Depends On How The Meaning of the Word "Change" Changes
Part 5: A Candid Explanation For "Change"
At last, the truth can now be told.
Using the same research methods employed by most anti-gay political pressure groups, we examine the statistics and the case studies that dispel many of the myths about heterosexuality. Download your copy today!
And don‘t miss our companion report, How To Write An Anti-Gay Tract In Fifteen Easy Steps.
Anti-gay activists often charge that gay men and women pose a threat to children. In this report, we explore the supposed connection between homosexuality and child sexual abuse, the conclusions reached by the most knowledgeable professionals in the field, and how anti-gay activists continue to ignore their findings. This has tremendous consequences, not just for gay men and women, but more importantly for the safety of all our children.
Anti-gay activists often cite the “Dutch Study” to claim that gay unions last only about 1½ years and that the these men have an average of eight additional partners per year outside of their steady relationship. In this report, we will take you step by step into the study to see whether the claims are true.
Tony Perkins’ Family Research Council submitted an Amicus Brief to the Maryland Court of Appeals as that court prepared to consider the issue of gay marriage. We examine just one small section of that brief to reveal the junk science and fraudulent claims of the Family “Research” Council.
The FBI’s annual Hate Crime Statistics aren’t as complete as they ought to be, and their report for 2004 was no exception. In fact, their most recent report has quite a few glaring holes. Holes big enough for Daniel Fetty to fall through.
“Google” is a trademark of Google Inc.
© Box Turtle Bulletin. All Rights Reserved.
Posts 
Posts via daily email:
Bill S
October 19th, 2008
wow. They’re nearly identical.
Timothy Kincaid
October 19th, 2008
I found the difference amusing. And I suspect that if viewers in both locations saw them at once they might find the racial adjustments to be either manipulative or insulting.
cowboy
October 19th, 2008
Would it have been too obvious who made these commercials if they had photographed/filmed the couples at some Mormon Temple?
Naaaaaah. It’s still too obvious. Compare the style and production values with any Mormon PSA-type commercials and you’ll see the similarities…right down to the way they include minorities…token ones. It’s produced by the Mormons.
Then, I was surprised at the mention in the one commercial about: “no one loses benefitsâ€.
Really? REALLY? That’s simply not true. It’s a lie. I’m calling them liars. If they feel good about these commercials I certainly hope they feel good in taking the Sacrament today.
NG
October 19th, 2008
Obviously a campaign illegality.
Hope someone’s doing their homework.
Rick
October 19th, 2008
I was particularly taken with the last scene in both ads, the “families” gather together for the “wedding photograph” and it’s the same actors in the same wardrobe, taking the same poses, except in the Arizona ad they are near the desert and in the Florida ad they are by the ocean with palm trees. Did they really really film that scene on location, or is it like everything else with the pro-amendment crowd, a faked reality?
Jim Burroway
October 19th, 2008
Someone in a private email suggested to me that the last scene under the pavilion may have been shot at Papago Park in Phoenix, with the Florida-like fauna added using digital computer effects. I’m not familiar enough with Papago Park to be able to judge this myself.
Louie
October 19th, 2008
Amazing, but not surprised. Yes, these ads were nearly identical with the exception of changing the minorities in some of the scenes, like the black boy and black man in the kitchen scene is not in the Arizona clip.
Also, the identical piano music opening is identical in BOTH of these ads!
The mother/daughter with female in the mirror reflection are identical!
The young woman kissing the man in the foyer with the door open and a young man in a green blocked shirt waiting for her, then man and woman kiss as young girl and young man leave are identical!
Woman and girl making tortillas is identical in BOTH ads!
The man, woman and children on the beach is only in the Florida ad.
The newlyweds with the groom on the left and the bride on the right are different people and placed at different points in both ads.
And finally the “picnic” scene where the whole family is taking their picture together is the same! Note the clothing on the people is the same, the yellow balloons are the same, the kid holding the football is striking the same pose! Yes, the background looks like it’s been modified to remove those giant boulders as seen at Papago park in Phoenix (or could be South Mountain Park) were replaced with palm trees. And also in the Florida one it seems that it was cropped to remove some of the desert foliage that we see in the Arizona version!
So, yes! These are esentially the SAME ads!
Is this legal?
Anyone shown this to Kyrsten Sinema or any of the other politically knowledgable folks to see about the legality of these shenanigans!?
Outrageous!
Marsha
October 20th, 2008
Why would it be illegal to use an ad in two different states? Is there something un-ethical about sharing an ad? The ads seem insulting to me and clearly lie (no one loses benefits…uh, yah) but illegal?, really?
Mark
October 20th, 2008
It is illegal since at the end of each ad, lists different groups paying for the ads.
It is illegal that people who gave money to the proponents campaigns may have been bilked (billed, etc.) by the use of the same footage.
The expenditure is questionable since it raises the specter of who this ad was intended for, Arizona or Florida?
Here are just three possibilities.
Leave A Comment