What's missing from pro-gay marriage TV ads? Gays

MINNEAPOLIS (AP) - In one TV ad, a husband and wife talk fondly of a lesbian couple who moved into their neighborhood. In another, a married couple speaks of wanting fair treatment for their lesbian daughter. A third features a pastor talking supportively about gay unions.
Each of these ads ran recently in states with gay marriage issues on the November ballot. What's missing? Gay people speaking for themselves.
Four states are voting on gay marriage this fall, and gay rights groups are pouring tens of millions of dollars into key TV markets in hopes of breaking a 32-state losing streak on the issue. But even as gay people and same-sex relationships gain acceptance through pop culture staples such as "Modern Family" awith gay marriage issues on the November ballot. What's missing? Gay people speaking for themselves.
Four states are voting on gay marriage this fall, and gay rights groups are pouring tens of millions of dollars into key TV markets in hopes of breaking a 32-state losing streak on the issue. But even as gay people and same-sex relationships gain acceptance through pop culture staples such as "Modern Family" and "Glee," the idea is still seen as dicey by media strategists involved in the ballot campaigns, resulting in ads that usually involve only straight people talking about the issue.
The decision to keep gays in the background has been widely noticed in the gay community and debated on gay-oriented blogs, with some activists complaining that the move contradicts the central message of the gay rights movement for a number of years.
"If we don't show ourselves, people aren't going to get comfortable with who we are," said Wayne Besen, director of Vermont-based gay rights group "Truth Wins Out," one of many that presses gays to live openly with pride in who they are.
But others counsel deference for the complexities of public messaging, pointing out that the ads are designed to speak to the fears and values of the heterosexual majority, whose vote will decide the issue.
"The moderate tough guys we need to flip to win a couple of these races are still the ones who say that gays are gross," said Andy Szekeres, a Denver-based fundraising consultant who has worked on several state campaigns and had access to focus group data. "Pushing people to an uncomfortable place, it's something you can't do in a TV ad," said Szekeres, who is gay.
The definition of marriage is on the ballot this fall in Maine, Maryland, Minnesota and Washington. Beyond those, according to the Human Rights Campaign, 37 states prohibit gay marriage while six and the District of Columbia permit it. Gay activists and their allies are hoping that any wins in November would throw new momentum their way at a time when polls nationwide have shown growing acceptance for gay marriage.
Six of the seven ads broadcast in the contested states this year have featured only straight people talking about the issue. One ad, which played only in Maine, included a firefighter who talked of being accepted by his colleagues. The ads, along with most that ran in the 2008 campaign in California and in other past statewide races, rely on heterosexual family members and friends of gays talking about how the inability to marry has deprived their loved ones of rights and opportunities they should have.
Gay marriage opponents, who also have well-funded campaigns in the four states, plan to begin airing ads soon. In recent interviews, an organizer said the key message is aimed at parents, suggesting legal recognition could result in their kids being told in school and in society that it's OK to be gay.
Gay activists who have worked on the marketing campaigns say that in this battle for public opinion, it's better for gays to stay in the background.
"The simple truth is that we are trying to win over the people that are not yet with us," said Matt McTighe, campaign manager of Mainers United for Marriage, which is pushing the ballot measure to legalize gay marriage in that state. "I'm a gay man, and the general rule of thumb for me is that an ad that meets my emotional needs is not necessarily the thing that's going to change a typical voter's mind about gay or lesbian people."
A May 2011 poll by the Pew Research Center found growing acceptance of gay people on a number of fronts, but still plenty of doubts. Fifty-eight percent of poll respondents said gays should be accepted in society compared to 33 percent who said they shouldn't. More people thought gays raising children was bad for society rather than good, though the largest number of respondents were neutral on the question. The same poll found 45 percent support for gay marriage rights, up from 35 percent just two years earlier.
The first ad broadcast by Minnesotans United for All Families, which is trying to defeat the state's proposed constitutional ban on gay marriage, is aimed at parents. It features Kim and John Canny - two straight Catholics, Republicans and parents of three daughters from a Minneapolis suburb who discuss coming around to support gay marriage after a lesbian couple with an adopted son moved into their neighborhood.
The lesbian couple is briefly glimpsed in the ad, but not heard from.
Alexander Zachary, a gay man from Minneapolis, complained that the ads he's seen reflect an "antiquated mindset."
"This isn't San Francisco in 1973, where all the gay people live in one neighborhood and all the straight people live everywhere else," he said. "We're not this hidden culture anymore, so why act like it?"
Richard Carlbom, manager of the Minnesota campaign, declined to say if future Minnesota United ads would feature gay people. Upcoming ads will "articulate why gay people want to get married," he said.
Many straight people "are on a journey on this issue, and the most effective way to encourage them is to show them other people who have taken the same journey," and come to accept gay marriage, Carlbom said.
Bil Browning, a Washington, D.C., gay activist and writer, recently called a straights-only ad that ran in Washington state "a heterosexual snoozefest" on his blog. He pointed out that gay activists seem to be using the strategy even though they've yet to win a campaign. In the 32 states where the issue has been on a statewide ballot, gay marriage advocates have lost every time.
"Maybe it's time to reevaluate these strategies and include our families, actual LGBT people," Browning said. "We're never going to win if we can't show our faces. It looks like we have something to hide, and we don't."
Each of these ads ran recently in states with gay marriage issues on the November ballot. What's missing? Gay people speaking for themselves.
Four states are voting on gay marriage this fall, and gay rights groups are pouring tens of millions of dollars into key TV markets in hopes of breaking a 32-state losing streak on the issue. But even as gay people and same-sex relationships gain acceptance through pop culture staples such as "Modern Family" awith gay marriage issues on the November ballot. What's missing? Gay people speaking for themselves.
Four states are voting on gay marriage this fall, and gay rights groups are pouring tens of millions of dollars into key TV markets in hopes of breaking a 32-state losing streak on the issue. But even as gay people and same-sex relationships gain acceptance through pop culture staples such as "Modern Family" and "Glee," the idea is still seen as dicey by media strategists involved in the ballot campaigns, resulting in ads that usually involve only straight people talking about the issue.
The decision to keep gays in the background has been widely noticed in the gay community and debated on gay-oriented blogs, with some activists complaining that the move contradicts the central message of the gay rights movement for a number of years.
"If we don't show ourselves, people aren't going to get comfortable with who we are," said Wayne Besen, director of Vermont-based gay rights group "Truth Wins Out," one of many that presses gays to live openly with pride in who they are.
But others counsel deference for the complexities of public messaging, pointing out that the ads are designed to speak to the fears and values of the heterosexual majority, whose vote will decide the issue.
"The moderate tough guys we need to flip to win a couple of these races are still the ones who say that gays are gross," said Andy Szekeres, a Denver-based fundraising consultant who has worked on several state campaigns and had access to focus group data. "Pushing people to an uncomfortable place, it's something you can't do in a TV ad," said Szekeres, who is gay.
The definition of marriage is on the ballot this fall in Maine, Maryland, Minnesota and Washington. Beyond those, according to the Human Rights Campaign, 37 states prohibit gay marriage while six and the District of Columbia permit it. Gay activists and their allies are hoping that any wins in November would throw new momentum their way at a time when polls nationwide have shown growing acceptance for gay marriage.
Six of the seven ads broadcast in the contested states this year have featured only straight people talking about the issue. One ad, which played only in Maine, included a firefighter who talked of being accepted by his colleagues. The ads, along with most that ran in the 2008 campaign in California and in other past statewide races, rely on heterosexual family members and friends of gays talking about how the inability to marry has deprived their loved ones of rights and opportunities they should have.
Gay marriage opponents, who also have well-funded campaigns in the four states, plan to begin airing ads soon. In recent interviews, an organizer said the key message is aimed at parents, suggesting legal recognition could result in their kids being told in school and in society that it's OK to be gay.
Gay activists who have worked on the marketing campaigns say that in this battle for public opinion, it's better for gays to stay in the background.
"The simple truth is that we are trying to win over the people that are not yet with us," said Matt McTighe, campaign manager of Mainers United for Marriage, which is pushing the ballot measure to legalize gay marriage in that state. "I'm a gay man, and the general rule of thumb for me is that an ad that meets my emotional needs is not necessarily the thing that's going to change a typical voter's mind about gay or lesbian people."
A May 2011 poll by the Pew Research Center found growing acceptance of gay people on a number of fronts, but still plenty of doubts. Fifty-eight percent of poll respondents said gays should be accepted in society compared to 33 percent who said they shouldn't. More people thought gays raising children was bad for society rather than good, though the largest number of respondents were neutral on the question. The same poll found 45 percent support for gay marriage rights, up from 35 percent just two years earlier.
The first ad broadcast by Minnesotans United for All Families, which is trying to defeat the state's proposed constitutional ban on gay marriage, is aimed at parents. It features Kim and John Canny - two straight Catholics, Republicans and parents of three daughters from a Minneapolis suburb who discuss coming around to support gay marriage after a lesbian couple with an adopted son moved into their neighborhood.
The lesbian couple is briefly glimpsed in the ad, but not heard from.
Alexander Zachary, a gay man from Minneapolis, complained that the ads he's seen reflect an "antiquated mindset."
"This isn't San Francisco in 1973, where all the gay people live in one neighborhood and all the straight people live everywhere else," he said. "We're not this hidden culture anymore, so why act like it?"
Richard Carlbom, manager of the Minnesota campaign, declined to say if future Minnesota United ads would feature gay people. Upcoming ads will "articulate why gay people want to get married," he said.
Many straight people "are on a journey on this issue, and the most effective way to encourage them is to show them other people who have taken the same journey," and come to accept gay marriage, Carlbom said.
Bil Browning, a Washington, D.C., gay activist and writer, recently called a straights-only ad that ran in Washington state "a heterosexual snoozefest" on his blog. He pointed out that gay activists seem to be using the strategy even though they've yet to win a campaign. In the 32 states where the issue has been on a statewide ballot, gay marriage advocates have lost every time.
"Maybe it's time to reevaluate these strategies and include our families, actual LGBT people," Browning said. "We're never going to win if we can't show our faces. It looks like we have something to hide, and we don't."
Basically the same type of advertising I've been getting in my mail box on almost a daily basis for the last month. Like all the rest of the political mailers I get it goes in the recycle bin on the way back to the house.
Anyone who hasnât decided who and what theyâre going to vote for by now in this election cycle is either stupid or disinterested in the election process. But hey, if they want to waste millions of dollars to salve their conscience, go for it.
".... Â In recent interviews, an organizer said the key message is aimed at parents, suggesting legal recognition could result in their kids being told in school and in society that it's OK to be gay ...."
Â
HEAVEN FORBID! Why is it so hard for those opped to marriage equality that it IS "okay to be gay". Why is it wrong for people to simply be accepted for themselves, who they are - whether it "conforms" to other's believes & perceptions or not> We are ALL people - why is that not enough?
@LocalLady Are you gay?
"gay marriage advocates have lost every time" Â and it should be same result yet again. Â To make a mockery of the vulnerable institution of marriage for the perceived benefit of a small fraction of practicing homosexuals is cultural suicide. Leave the Boy Scouts and Marriage alone!
 @cheekygesturton:Â
Actually, marriage equality has NOT "lost very time". See my post above - nearly 20% of states currently have marriage equality laws, and 2 states (Hawaii & California) have laws that were passed but are currently in the courts. It is likely they will ultimately be allowed to stand because to date opponents have presneted no compelling evidence showing a valid state interest to deny it.
Gays are not in the ads speaking for themselves because...they don't need to! Of course they are going to vote for their own interest, the ads are seeking to convince straight people to vote for these rights even though they won't affect them per se. It is more convincing to have straights advocate for it, which they wouldn't expect, than to have gays advocate for it, which they would expect.
 @ladylib1 Well said.
Judging from all the homophobic and "We're so tired of hearing about this!" comments, the idiots are out en- masse' today.
Â
Â
 @Poisonous Giraffe Yep, anyone who doesn't agree with you on this issue must be an idiot. I bet you are pleasure to discuss controversial issues with!
 @Vertex ...thanks for making my point.
"Everything but marriage gives them the same rights as a married couple" as I understand it so I'm not quite sure what they think the problem is anyway. That appeared to be what they wanted the most and they got that.
A license bought from the state and a wedding isn't anymore binding than the law they passed.  I don't have a problem with gays or their lifestyle (doesn't affect me one way or the other) however I am getting tired of these
constant demands. The voters obviously feel very strongly about this and if they vote "no" then the gays need to respect the majority and get on with their lives. I am inclined to think they are pushing it to a point where even
those who are on their side are saying enough already.Â
 @jatok:Â
".... Everything but marriage gives them the same rights as a married couple" as I understand it so I'm not quite sure what they think the problem is anyway. That appeared to be what they wanted the most and they got that ...."
Â
The problem is that they still do not have equality inder the law.
Â
In Brown v. Board of eeducation, SCOTUS ruled that seperate but equal is NOT equal, and thus was illegal. SCOTUS has ALSO rulled that marriage is a Civil Right in Loving v. Virginia. Under the Constitution we are ALL guaranteed the right to equal rights & equal protection under the law. By allowing one group or class of people one set of rights, but another/different goup or class of people a different set of rights or denying them some of the rights that the other grou.class get is discrimination.
Â
Currently, straight are granted privileges & rights under the law simply by saying "I Do". These are enshrined in laws, specifically worded so that "marriage" grants these rights & priviledges. LGBTQ people, however, are denied these simply because they cannot legally be married. They can get some of them by getting legal documents drafted, but why should they have to take an extra step which involves thousands of dollars, which in some cases will be totally ignored & go against their explictly stated wishes, simply because they cannot legally obtain those rights & priviledges in any other way - like saying "I DO", such as straight couples can do?
I don't have a problem with them getting married but at the same time I'm getting a little bit tired of the constant non stop demands made by some of these groups. Give them what they want and then let them mainstream. We have so many special interests in this country and so many civil rights that there's bound to be something amuk all the time. I say enough is enough!
 @Jatok Yeah.. You're right.. I remember way back when, it was a real pain to listen to the black community whine about sitting in the back of the bus, or women who just wanted to vote. Get over it! We said no and no means no!
Â
 @Poisonous Giraffe Claiming the racial civil rights are the same thing does not make it so.
The issue you are talking about was not on any ballot, it was not put before the voters. I am not telling these people to get over anything, but there reaches a point when it's prudent to understand that without negating the rights of all voters to their opinion you may have to compromise. I really don't see much commonality between the two issues anyway.Â
children copy people around them right or wrong. its when they grow up that comes back as a shock , like watching violent movies. kids don't need any more confusion these days come on! we got enough sex crap on tv and in the movies, music, then wonder why people go mental
 @maggie112:Â
Yes, because SO much damage & metal anguish will come from children seeing two loving people n a committed long-term relationship being able to have that relationship legally recognized.
Â
NOT.
@maggie112 Considering I grew up watching horror movies and didn't become a serial killer pretty much kills your point.
 @Hikingwithdogs Not really because no where was the point made that EVERYONE will go mental.
 @maggie112 What are you even talking about? Don't let children know that gay people exist because it might scar them for life?Â
Should be a very interesting vote come November since not one state has passed it yet...
 @windowseat:Â
Â
You might want to catch up - there are currently 6 statre AND the District of Columbia in which same sex marriage has been passed & is legal:Â Connecticut, Washington DC, Ioaw, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York and Vermont.
Â
Additionally, in Maryland it is "recognized" as being legal (although not yet legally able to be performed in that state).
Â
Lastly, there are states that at this point are performing/recognizing "civil unions" - which means that in the future they very well might pass marriage equlaity laws: Delaware, Hawaii, Maine, New Jersey, Rhode island, and Washington. Of these, Hwaii's law is in the courts, Washington & Maine are on the ballot this November. California's law is also in the courts. IN both hawaii & Claifornia, it is currently "leaning" towards approval since there have been no compelling government insterst in denying marriage equality.
Â
Bit by bit, state by state, this is happening, Welcome to the 21st century.
Yes, ads designed for an audience are supposed to work that way. Â The Prideful don't need the sell.
There's nothing in the constitution that says gays have the right to marry. It's not discrimination if what you are "discriminating"  against is a behavior. I also don't want men marrying multiple wives or brothers marrying sisters. Somehow that's OK that we ban those marriages while at the same time we let the gays make a mockery of traditional marriage.Â
 @fremonttroll:Â
".... Somehow that's OK that we ban those marriages while at the same time we let the gays make a mockery of traditional marriage ...."
Â
Do you REALLY want to go there?
Â
The people who are "making a mockery of marriage" are for the most part straight. Newt Gingrinch having divorce papers served on his wife while she was in the hospital (so much for "in sickness and in health"). Larry Stickney heading "Preserve Marriage Washington" - never mind the fact he was on marriage number THREE at the time (so much for "till death do us part"). A nationsal divorce rate of over 50%.
Â
I know MANY couples, gay & straight. Of the straight couples, ALL have been divorced at least once. Their relationships have been less than 15 years long on average. Of the "gay" vouples, they have been together nearly 50 years, on average. I would say that the "gay" couples have done nothing to "make a mockery" of long-term committed rleatioships - rather, they epitomize it.
@FremontTroll considering that gay marriage has no baring on the quality of my marriage, which is between me and my wife, I don't care and neither should anyone else.
 @Hikingwithdogs Who are you to say what other people should care about?
There's nothing in the Constitution about marriage at all. Doh!
@FremontTroll
Â
"Somehow that's OK that we ban those marriages while at the same time we let the gays make a mockery of traditional marriage."
Â
Bingo! Marriage is a tradition! It is a tradition between a man and a woman that dates back thousands of years. The opposition is not to gay relationships, most people don't care what they do. The opposition is to gays trying to hijack someone else's tradition and claim it as their own. If gays want to start their own tradition then go for it, it will be met with little opposition. But trying to hijack and change other peoples traditions will be opposed every time it is tried and in the end will result in resentment toward those that try.Â
 @byebyebarry:Â
Nobody "owns" marriage - niether the term, nor anything else aboiut it.
Â
And, depsite your paranoia about it, nobody is trying to "change" it either.
Â
Â
 @ByeByeBarry  @FremontTroll Uh.... actually if you really went back thousands of years, your "traditional marriage" would look nothing then like your "traditional marriage" looks today. The vaunted "definition of marriage" has not been the same since the beginning of time, or even since the beginning of Christianity.Â
Â
If your marriage is so weak that having a gay person share the experience ruins it for you, then that is your issue.
 @AesopsTables Who in the world says having gays marriage will ruin their marriage? Â
Open the box.
After a few years of court battles, maybe we can see where true equality realy lies.
Â
Open the box and stand back.
"Gay activists who have worked on the marketing campaigns say that in this battle for public opinion, it's better for gays to stay in the background."
Â
I   wonder     why   ????
Because they will already be voting for their own issue. They need straight people to add to their numbers, and this is more convincing to have straights advocate for gays, which isn't expected, than to have gays advocate for themselves, which IS expected. Of course, the homophobes aren't going to vote for it anyway. But those who are on the fence may understand if the issue is presented in a humanistic, rights-centered fashion. That's why.
@EASTSIDE 1 - Why? because of people who will instantly go 'Ewww - a gay person, I won't vote for them'. that's why.  It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure that out.Â
Â
 The way you ask that question makes me wonder if you're not one of that kind of person yourself.
Ewww-a gay person !!!!!
 @Vertex Hardly - simply responding to the person who gets excited about other people's sex.
 @OrcasThunder  Left side bigotry reprezent!
 @EASTSIDE 1 Yuck - a rat-winger!!!!
The point is to show people that gays have families too. And parents may not like when they find out that their child is gay, but most parents want what is best for their kids.
Â
My sister came out to me and my parents when I was in high school many years ago. It was shocking and hard for my parents, who were raised very blue collar in traditional households. But many years later, my sister is married and happy, and we all just want her to be happy in life.
Â
That people want to prevent others from just simply living their lives happily doesn't shock me, but it's still disgusting and says a lot about how those people feel inside about themselves.Â
Â
Some of the hateful comment below are perfect examples. It's obvious that these people are unhappy with themselves first and foremost.Â
I know I've been known to talk smack in this forum.
Â
My opinion on the whole thing... with all the hate and discontent in the world let people be happy. Or, miserable, whatever is the case.
Â
I think we all need somebody to care for and be cared by.
Â
Too much stress, anger, hatred, in the world.
Â
Just look at how people drive.
Â
Peace!
 @caphillkid I found out my cousin was gay and have spoken to him since. My entire family disowned him and he ended up in a mental institution. It's easy for you to say living on Capital Hill. You don't speak for the majority.Â
 @fremonttroll:Â
So, you & your family quit speaking to your cousoin when he came out to you.
Â
Did how did he "change" to warrant this? What, specifically, about him became so reprehesible, that he deserved your reaction?Â
Â
He was still a member of your family. He was still an active member of this community. He still had a job.
Â
You & your family basically drove him into a mental institution by cutting him off from his family at the time in his life when he most needed it.
Â
Are you proud fo this?
Â
As for "speaking for the majority". You do not.Â
 @FremontTroll  @caphillkid "You don't speak for the majority"
And you speak for the majority of homophobes? That explains a lot...
Â
 @FremontTroll You are a perfect example of the hate. From your comments, it's clear that you are very unhappy inside.Â
 @FremontTroll  @caphillkid That you and your family could do that to a person....my god, you're awful.
@FremontTroll @caphillkid - I support both hetrosexual and gay marriages....Fremont why can't you?
 @caphillkid I'm perfectly happy. At least I can be honest with myself. You are sad in the fact that you think anyone that supports traditional marriage is unhappy. That tells me a lot about you.Â