The ad below is from Vote for MarriageNC, the group attempting to pass Amendment One in North Carolina.
Amendment One would place an anti-marriage equality amendment in that state’s constitution, that would limit “marriage between a man and a woman” as the “only domestic legal union that shall be valid or recognized” in North Carolina.
My guess is that by using ordinary people, Vote for MarriageNC is trying to convey a “grassroots” message. However, in many ways, the ad actually makes the case against Amendment One.
Here are a few of my impressions of the ad:
1. It exploits the religious angle because there is nothing in the proposed amendment about religion, Biblical or otherwise.
And it gives the false impression that if Amendment One does not pass, then established heterosexual marriages will be in danger. I mean seriously, the way one of the people in this ad is conveying her thoughts, it’s almost as if there is a fear that if Amendment One does not pass, within 24 hours, gay and lesbians are going to invade homes in attempts to kidnap heterosexually married partners.
2. The ad exploits economic and racial issues. A young man at the beginning of the ad gives the impression that if the referendum does not pass, then it will be difficult to combat poverty. And then he uses the “activist judges” talking points and that really bothers me.
As an African-American man I bristle when I see another African-American using the talking points of “activist judges overturning the will of the people.” And while I am sure the man in question is reading cue cards (rather well I might add), someone should school him that if it weren’t for supposed “activist judges,” we wouldn’t have the decisions of Loving vs. Virginia (which overturned laws against interracial marriage) or Brown vs. the Board of Education (which overturned segregation laws.)
3. Those children at the end? Now that was just tacky. What about the children in same-sex households who will be negatively affected should this bill pass? The irony is that if those voting against Amendment One had used children in their ad in the same manner as these folks had, it would be all over the National Organization for Marriage’s blog about how “radical homosexuals are exploiting the innocence of children.”
And lastly, one woman in the ad drives home the basic dishonesty of Amendment One. It begins at 1:00 when she says she is voting for Amendment One because she is married to one man for 30 years and she loves him dearly.
But she neglects to say how allowing gays and lesbians to receive that same courtesy (being married for 30 years to the person they love) would harm her marriage. And the sad thing is that I doubt that she can.
I can’t help wondering how would she feel if someone told her that her marriage to her husband does not count regardless of how much love she has for him.
And I think whether she realizes it or not, she makes the case against Amendment One.
If you want to fight against Amendment One, go to Protect All Families to learn how.