National Organization for Marriage Creates Fake Ad for Fake Problems
April 8, 2009
YES, THEY TRIED IT: HRC today called out the National Organization for Marriage for producing a lying television spot that's set to run on CNN, the Fox News Channel, and MSNBC in the coming days. In the ad, actors make long disproven claims about marriage for lesbian and gay couples. HRC spokesperson Brad Luna lets them have it:
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.
According to sources, the phony ad is set to run eight times per day in New Jersey, New York, Connecticut, Rhode Island and California. Watch their crazy ad below:
The nuttiness of this ad becomes even more apparent when you watch these hilarious actor audition reels. QUICK: Somebody grab my wellies! I can practically feel the storm clouds gathering over my head:
We added the National Organization for Marriage and Maggie Gallagher to the interactive wall at EndtheLies.org after the group created an anti- marriage equality radio ad that played in Vermont, New Hampshire and Maine. Here's Brad again:
Again and again, opponents of equality have claimed one shallow victory after another by telling lies about who we are as individuals, as loving couples and as families. These lies must be called out for what they are every time the right-wing seeks to derail our progress by spreading distortions and inciting fear mongering.
HRC decided to set the record straight on the claims made in this ad:
“The Real Truth Behind the Fake Ad”
The general argument of the ad is that the push for marriage equality isn’t just about rights for same-sex couples, it’s about imposing contrary values on people of faith. The examples they cite in the ad are: (1) A California doctor who must choose between her faith and her job (2) A member of New Jersey church group which is punished by the state because they can’t support same-sex marriage (3) A Massachusetts parent who stands by helpless while the state teaches her son that gay marriage is okay The facts indicate that (1) refers to the Benitez decision in California, determining that a doctor cannot violate California anti-discrimination law by refusing to treat a lesbian based on religious belief, (2) refers to the Ocean Grove, New Jersey Methodist pavilion that was open to the general public for events but refused access for civil union ceremonies (and was fined by the state for doing so) and (3) refers to the Parker decision in Massachusetts, where parents unsuccessfully sought to end public school discussions of family diversity, including of same-sex couples. All three examples involve religious people who enter the public sphere, but don’t want to abide by the general non-discriminatory rules everyone else does. Both (1) and (2) are really about state laws against sexual orientation discrimination, rather than specifically about marriage. And (3) is about two pairs of religious parents trying to impose their beliefs on all children in public schools. The real facts of each case are:
- The California doctor entered a profession that promises to “first, do no harm” and the law requires her to treat a patient in need – gay or straight, Christian or Muslim – regardless of her religious beliefs. The law does not, and cannot, dictate her faith – it can only insist that she follow her oath as a medical professional.
- The New Jersey church group runs, and profits from, a beachside pavilion that it rents out to the general public for all manner of occasions –concerts, debates and even Civil War reenactments— but balks at permitting couples to hold civil union ceremonies there. The law does not challenge the church organization’s beliefs about homosexuality – it merely requires that a pavilion that had been open to all for years comply with laws protecting everyone from discrimination, including gays and lesbians.
- The Massachusetts parent disagrees with an aspect of her son’s public education, a discussion of the many different kinds of families he will likely encounter in life, including gay and lesbian couples. The law does not stop her from disagreeing, from teaching him consistently with her differing beliefs at home, or even educating her child in a setting that is more in line with her faith traditions. But it does not allow any one parent to dictate the curriculum for all students based on her family’s religious traditions.
May 18, 2013