Box Turtle Bulletin

Box Turtle BulletinNews, analysis and fact-checking of anti-gay rhetoric
“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…”
This article can be found at:
Latest Posts

Delightfully Crazy Dingbat Insane Ookie Spookie Ad from National Organization for Marriage

Timothy Kincaid

April 8th, 2009

Well, it’s happened. Maggie Gallagher’s head has now exploded. That’s the only thing that could possibly explain the decision by National Organization for Marriage to produce and run their latest ad.

It’s called A Gathering Storm and its purpose is described as:

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.

What it really is, of course, is an over-the-top cheesy horror flick reminiscent of what one might see late at night on the Chiller Network.

YouTube Preview Image

The “threat” is identified by three speakers with three scare “stories”:

  • “I’m a California doctor who must choose between my faith and my job.”
  • “I’m part of a New Jersey church group punished by the government because we can’t support same-sex marriage.”
  • “I am a Massachusetts parent helplessly watching public schools teach my son that gay marriage is OK.”

Ooooooooh. Scary!!!

I so very much wish I had the funds to run an identical ad with only a slight change. After warning about gay marriage coming, I’d have my B-movie horror victims say

  • “I’m a California doctor who has learned how to reanimate dead flesh. Now the zombies are out to get me.”
  • “I’m part of a New Jersey church group punished by the government because we won’t give up the secret to the mummy’s curse.”
  • “I am a Massachusetts parent helplessly watching public schools turn my son into a blood-sucking vampire.”

and end the whole thing with a maniacal laugh, “It’s all because of gay marriage. Mwaaa-haaa-haaaaaaa”

But that may not be necessary. This Halloween night fright is nearly a parody of itself.

And to add even more comedy to the story, Gallahger and her buddies were so careless that they allowed the audition tapes for this nut-job ad to get onto the internet.

Hop on over to Good-As-You and watch one bad wanna-be actor after another blunder their way through this wacky script. But you’ll have to provide your own lightning, screeching doors, howling wolves, and other eerie effects.

Comments

POST COMMENT | COMMENT RSS 2.0 | TRACKBACK URL

Devon
April 8th, 2009 | LINK

I once asked Ms. Gallagher how she would counsel her child with all this marriage business if he or she turned out gay. Gallagher’s response was quite consistent:

“I do not think she would have fewer prvivileges [sic] than [straights or anyone else], because marriage is the union of husband and wife. She could choose either to marry or to do something else (in California that would include civil unions).”

quo III
April 8th, 2009 | LINK

Actually, it is scary to think about public schools indoctrinating children with a particular view of homosexuality against the will of the parents. It is completely inappropriate for schools to tell children anything about the rightness or wrongness of homosexuality.

Maybe it would help you to be more sympathetic to the situation of the parent in that ad if you thought about what it would be like if the tables were turned and public schools were informing children that homosexuality was evil and perverted, and that being gay means you go to Hell for eternity?

quo III
April 8th, 2009 | LINK

What this issue shows is that public schools should be abolished. Education ought to be provided privately, not by the state – which would mean that children wouldn’t be taught anything against their parent’s wishes.

lurker
April 8th, 2009 | LINK

“It is completely inappropriate for schools to tell children anything about the rightness or wrongness of homosexuality.”

agreed. and schools should not advocate heterosexuality, either.

schools that talk about social family structure usually just talk about what IS – lots of family strucutres. and same-sex couples are a part of that. no judgement implied. what people are objecting to is a discussion that same-sex headed families exist at all.

Timothy Kincaid
April 8th, 2009 | LINK

As a regular reader, Quo knows better.

He knows that the “mother” (an actor playing Robyn Wirthlin) didn’t have a child that was taught anything about the morality of homosexuality.

Nothing. Nada. Zilch.

Morality wasn’t brought up. It’s just a lie.

Quo would do better not to pretend to believe that which is proven to be untruthful. It might make his arguments seem more credible.

lurker
April 8th, 2009 | LINK

hmm, I looked up the national organization for marriage website (out of curiosity) and it’s strange . . .

despite their name, if you look at their mission statement they are 100% about opposing legal recognition for same-sex couples. at the same time they say that gay marriage is not marriage at all.

so really the national organization for marriage (by their own definitions) has nothing to do with marriage!

you’d think that the national organization for marriage would concern itself with the social institiution that it actually classifies as marriage – and do things like provide counselling support for struggling married couples or give advice about how to get married or lobby for additional legal/financial benefits for married couples.

you’d also imagine that this group would be both “national” and “organized” :)

Timothy Kincaid
April 8th, 2009 | LINK

lurker,

that’s because the National Organization for Marriage was invented from whole cloth as a means to fund Proposition 8, while seeking to shield donors.

Fred Karger is claiming that they were designed to be a front for the Mormon Church (look, see… no Mormons here!!) in the same way that the Mormons have been documented as doing in Hawaii. I don’t know if he’s correct, but considering that Gallagher secretly received Bush Administration money for her anti-gay marriage columns, I would not be surprised.

Scott P.
April 8th, 2009 | LINK

Timothy,

I found this item to be vary interesting, EXCEPT for the last bit about “actor-wannabes”. I’ve done several national commercials and it’s damned hard to cold read something like this. Do you publish your first drafts? Also, your spelling is atrocious, you really shouldn’t belittle others for trying to make a living. That’s just infantile.

Jason D
April 8th, 2009 | LINK

“Actually, it is scary to think about public schools indoctrinating children with a particular view of homosexuality against the will of the parents.”

It’s also scary to think about my head exploding into a billion pieces unexpectedly.

That’s why it’s important to focus on reality and not imagine scary things.

” It is completely inappropriate for schools to tell children anything about the rightness or wrongness of homosexuality.”

Which school is doing that? Please provide sources.

lurker
April 8th, 2009 | LINK

Timothy –

that seems to answer a question I saw at the Good As You blog . . . someone asked where a small-potatoes-looking organization like NOM gets enough money to do all this expensive “educational” outreach.

thanks for the insight.

Timothy Kincaid
April 8th, 2009 | LINK

Scott P.,

You are right that I’m not always the best at spelling and while I do often copy to a program with spellcheck (as I did for this piece), some go through with mistakes. Perhaps when I win the lottery and no longer have to work for a living, I can devote my full time and attention to avoiding spelling errors.

Speaking of spelling, I suspect that you found the article to be ‘very’ interesting rather than ‘vary’ interesting. And you probably also wanted a semicolon after “atrocious” rather than a comma.

I wish you well in your acting career and hope that you never decide to lend your face or voice to anti-gay advertising. Otherwise, I may call you a wanna-be… or worse.

Kristie
April 8th, 2009 | LINK

Is it just me or does that picture of Maggie at the top of the column remind anyone else of Kathy Bates in “Misery”? It’s a little creepy. All she’s missing is a sledge hammer and James Caan’s feet.

cowboy
April 8th, 2009 | LINK

According to a very prominent Mormon who was once the Attorney General for Utah…all of the individual Mormon donors gave their money to Protectmarriage.com and NOT NOM.

I wish there would be some place or someone who could connect the donations from individual Mormons to NOM. Could Protectmarriage.com possibly be a money-laundering front for NOM?

According to D. Wilkinson, the source of funds for NOM is primarily Catholic.

I get the feeling, the LDS Church wants to keep its distance from NOM and Ms. Gallagher.

Emily K
April 8th, 2009 | LINK

I agree with Quo III, homosexuality should not be taught as being “moral” or “correct.”

Just as single parent house-holds should not be taught as being “moral” or “correct.”

Nor should judgment be passed on divorced-parent families by calling them “broken families,” as was the norm only 2 decades ago.

Rather, the curriculum should only acknowledge the existence of families.

For example, if a teacher should say, “Today we’re talking about different kinds of families. What kinds of families are there?” and a child should raise his hand and say, “My uncle is married to a man and adopted a daughter; they’re a different kind of family,” the teacher should nod and say, “yes, that’s that’s one kind of family. What other kinds of families are there?”

I’m glad we can all agree on something here.

Rob Lll
April 8th, 2009 | LINK

I doubt they’ll get much traction with this spot. It appears to have been done by the same people who did the old Count Chocula and Boo Berry ads, except that those were much, much scarier.

Michael
April 8th, 2009 | LINK

“I agree with Quo III, homosexuality should not be taught as being “moral” or “correct.” ”

Huh. So, then, for the sake of equality, we would have to avoid teaching that the atomic family is “moral” or “correct”. Unless you really want to tell Billy that his family structure just isn’t as good as Bobby’s.

Honestly, the anti-gays have a point on this. If gays can get married and raise families then this fact must be taught in schools. It would wholly unethical to do otherwise. And having gay marriage presented in class as an equivalent, legal alternative will grant it a new level of legitimacy in the minds of students.

So, yeah, legalizing gay marriage will weaken a parent’s capacity to instill bigotry in their kids.

What a shame.

Scott P.
April 8th, 2009 | LINK

Timothy,

You’re correct about my use of “vary” and the semicolon, I, however, do not purport to be a journalist of any kind. Come over to my turf and I’d be more than happy to mock you as you do others for not meeting professional standards.

I didn’t realize the use of spellcheck was so onerous.

When your rent is due or you’re looking at your fifth night of ramen for dinner maybe then you’ll be less willing to mock others.

The commercial itself is so badly done and overblown that anyone not already against marriage equality will find it laughable. They’re doing us a big favor with this tripe.

lurker
April 8th, 2009 | LINK

michael –

reminds me of that song from South Pacific which goes something like:

you have to be taught
before it’s too late
before you are six, or seven, or eight
to hate all the people your relatives hate
you have to be carefully taught

I remember actually asking my parents about that when I was eight, because I thought there was something I hadn’t been taught that was important!

I think proponents of intolerance know that kids are naturally inclined to be inclusive, and they “have to be carefully taught” to be otherwise.

Stefano A
April 8th, 2009 | LINK

Evidently the governor of Rhode Island and his wife are big fans of such grade B flicks. According to the Advocate they’ve announced they’ve signed up with NOM.

Ben in Oakland
April 8th, 2009 | LINK

It seems to me that this commercial is actually a goldmine, should there be someone politically astute and connected enough to see it. (I got the astuteness down, but have no connections). They are actually doing far more than lying about three easily verifiable situations. First and foremost, of course, IS that they are lying, something the guardians of morality really shouldn’t be caught at. They are lying that these things have anything at all to do with civil marriage, and they are lying about the basic circumstances of what they do concern. They must know that they are lying, but are willing to do so anyway. I think a lot of reasonable people would be willing to see that the lies mean this is not just about religious disapproval, but about basic prejudice. It just needs to be pointed out to them.

But the three lies cited also indicate that they not only disapprove of homosexuality, but they have an animus towards gay people, and they want to be able to discriminate against gay people on the basis of religious belief. This is HUGE, because they are admitting it finally. We’ve always known it, but it doesn’t get discussed very much.

I see this as a commercial. NOM says that the people of America need to be protected from same-sex marriage. They cite three examples of their religious beliefs being impinged on my gay marriage. but none of these situations had anything to do with marriage. they lied. none of these things occurred as presented. they lied. It was fear mongering and nothing but. In each of these cases, the one truth that they told was that they want to be able to discriminate on the basis of religious belief, and that our society, which has laws at every level of government forbidding discrimination on the basis of religious belief, should give them a pass because it is about gay people, instead of about Jews, or Blacks, or Mormons. (A subtle dig? A reminder of a history some religionists would like to forget? You be the judge!)

do we really want to go down that road, and if we do, who will be next?

They have given us a goldmine. someone please use it.

Eddie89
April 8th, 2009 | LINK

If I was forced to eat ramen every night because of my profession, I would find a new profession.

Jason D
April 8th, 2009 | LINK

Eddie89, even if this profession was the only one you found appealing, exciting, rewarding, and spiritually fullfilling? Even if you had spent years training for this profession and you felt your work was respected, appreciated, and ultimately helped people out?

Really, you’d give that all up for something as trivial as ramen?

paul j stein
April 8th, 2009 | LINK

Maybe they need to re-learn the lessons of ANITA BRYANT. Hit the CHURCHES in the collection plate. Tax the churches if they get political. She has had a divorce, two bankruptcies and now thinks she has a more live and let live attitude. Wonder if the bankruptcies had anything to do with it? Not to show my age…BUT if the current generation fails to get active in fighting this intolerant attitude they can kiss ANY hope of better access to civil rights goodbye. FOREVER!

cowboy
April 8th, 2009 | LINK

Over at HCR’s website there is a video clip of a debate with Ms. Gallagher. She defiantly claims the New Jersey Methodist church group was forced to give up their tax status because they wouldn’t give equal access to the pavilion the Church operated in a public space.

She can’t see the discrimination. She can’t see the discrimination when the California Doctor refused to treat a lesbian. The censoring of what can be taught in a Massachusetts classroom is abject discrimination against gays and lesbians.

There are laws on the books in each of these States that ban discrimination. Can she not see she is condoning discrimination of gays/lesbians?

I hate to keep going to Bruce Bastian and his millions but he surely could use some of it to produce a video to denounce the topics in NOM’s commercial.

Could we get those same Hollywood actors that made a spoof about the people for Proposition 8…(staring Jack Black as Jesus, if I remember right)…to do another commercial for us?

Timothy (TRiG)
April 9th, 2009 | LINK

Of course schools teach morality. I was taught in school that dropping litter was wrong. I was taught that bullying is wrong. I was taught that racism was wrong.

And I wish I’d been taught that homophobia was wrong.

TRiG.

John
April 9th, 2009 | LINK

Cowboy wrote: “According to a very prominent Mormon who was once the Attorney General for Utah…all of the individual Mormon donors gave their money to Protectmarriage.com and NOT NOM.”

Well, when a prominent Mormon says that the Mormons didn’t have anything to do with funding the National Organization for Marriage (sic), that is good enough for me…to be absolutely convinced that they must have provided at least 90% of the funding.

With a little more experience, I am sure that most Americans will learn how to interpret statements from prominent Mormons and the Mormon Church. Those of us in California have already figured it out.

cowboy
April 9th, 2009 | LINK

John,

I have no way of knowing…and since you live in California…was there a direct connection of Mormons and their Church to the misleading Pro-Proposition 8 ad campaign; particularly the ones with references to the New Jersey Methodist Church and the Doctor who refused to treat a lesbian.

In other words, can the Mormon Church say they had no responsibility for those misleading ads?

Jonathan
April 10th, 2009 | LINK

Thanks for sharing this. I shared it with my pastor at stjamesucc-love.org and he replied:

“Check out John 3:8… think about it… just 8 verses away from John 3:16…”

“The wind blows where it wishes, and you hear the sound of it, but cannot tell where it comes from and where it goes. So is everyone who is born of the Spirit.”
John 3:16 NKJV

Not too sure the makers of the video can call themselves “Bible believing Christians”. Maybe “Bible redacting sissies” would be better.

Maajour
April 16th, 2009 | LINK

I don’t mean to be superficial, but, I notice that she has a wandering right eye. Could this be indicative of a neuron based problem affecting her cognition skills?

Perry v. Schwarzenegger: day eight summary « Queer Hatred
January 22nd, 2010 | LINK

[...] Thompson had brought up after-the-vote events, video, and articles, this opened the door for the ookie-spookie “Gathering Storm” video created by National Organization for Marriage. While it is preposterous and ridiculous, it is a [...]

Leave A Comment

All comments reflect the opinions of commenters only. They are not necessarily those of anyone associated with Box Turtle Bulletin. Comments are subject to our Comments Policy.

(Required)
(Required, never shared)

PLEASE NOTE: All comments are subject to our Comments Policy.