Blue Mass Group

Reality-based commentary on politics.

MassEquality Launches Media Campaign

By

The “It’s Wrong to Vote on Rights” campaign introduces three Massachusetts families whose lives have been improved by equal marriage and who challenge the assertion that their families’ marriages should face a public vote. The $750,000 ad campaign features a 30-second spot for broadcast stations and cable networks throughout the state as well as online video ads, online banner ads and newspaper ads. Combined with an aggressive statewide grassroots campaign, MassEquality looks to mobilize thousands of voters to contact their legislators.

A description of the featured families and their ads follows:

Peter Hams, 27, a hockey star in high school and college, was raised in Lynn by his mother Marcia and her partner, Susan Shepherd. Hams and Shepherd were the first couple to be married in the city of Cambridge shortly after midnight on May 17, 2004, after 27 years together.

Nigel and Vera Godley raised their five children in Acton. Today, they are the proud grandparents of five, one of whom is three-year-old Leo, the son of their daughter, Sophie Godley and her spouse, Kristen Fehlhaber, of Swampscott. View this ad.

Al and Keith Toney have raised their now 18- year-old daughter, Kayla, in Jefferson. View this ad.

The spots were created by Amy Hunt with MagicBoxFilms director Gregory Roman. They were produced by Mitchell Rosenwald and Liza Near, and edited at Spot Editorial by Mike Reuter. Online and print ads were produced by Hattaway Communications, Inc.

Please share widely!
fb-share-icon
Tweet
0

Comments

  2. I like Peter Ham’s ad because it shows a newspaper headline that says not better, not less just different.

    <

    p>
    I think it is important to recognize that LGBT people ARE different than the majority/dominant culture, and do have unique struggles and even our own culture in some instances.

    <

    p>
    I think the other two ads unfortunately emphasize how the families are exactly the same as everyone else. But that is not true. If they were the same as everyone else their rights wouldnt be in question. And the reality is their child might face teasing or other struggles at school that children of straight parents would not face. Their child’s struggle will be different than the majority of childrens’.

    <

    p>
    I believe that instead of trying to convince everyone we are just like them, it is a better strategy to show them that we are different and that different is okay and beautiful, and everyone is different in some way, and that diversity is beautiful and adds value to society and the workplace, etc.  I also think that a strategy that emphasizes that difference is okay, not threatening, and should be celebrated is more inclusive to people who will never be able to conform entirely such as folks who are genderqueer, trans, etc.

    • what you said here

      different is okay and beautiful, and everyone is different in some way, and that diversity is beautiful and adds value to society and the workplace, etc.

      i couldn’t agree more.  i wonder whether we are intrinsically different, or different as a response to societal marginalization.  that’s one of those interesting thoughts to ponder, but probably impossible to really know the truth of. 

      <

      p>
      anyway, i agree that the 1st ad gently picks up on the “different = ok” theme.  but i think it’s fine that the others don’t necessarily.  this is because one approach will not click with all viewers.  i think it was wise to have subtle differences among the ads, so that they appeal to the broadest range of viewers possible.  what they all have in common, of course, is that they show that every LGBT person is part of a family.  i think that’s perhaps the most important message of all for the purpose at hand.  who isn’t sympathetic to wanting to protect their loved ones to the fullest extent of the law?

      • “different is okay and beautiful, and everyone is different in some way, and that diversity is beautiful and adds value to society and the workplace”

        <

        p>
        Boy we wish that were true

        <

        p>
        True diversity is letting the people – ALL the people – make this decision.

        • …has to perform marriages they don’t want to perform.  Once you take your position out of your church you are no longer operating as a Christian but as a citizen who happens to be a Christian which does add to the diversity of society.  Once, however, you seek to harm others with your point of view the line has been crossed.  Your civil rights end where mine begin.  Respecting those borders is what true, harmonious diversity is all about.  Voting to take away equal marriage harms families.  Allowing equal marriages harms the sensibilities of some.  The law protects people not their feelings.

          • Because most people believe that marriage is between a man and a woman

            <

            p>
            But to answer your question anyway

            <

            p>
            I wouldn’t be against a vote on my marriage, as I am confident that my side would win. I believe we have a better argument for child rearing and continuing the species.

            • ….would have been irrelevant in the fifties and sixties when the civil rights struggle was taking place.  Most people supported bigotry so why nut just vote?  How are you going to feel when most people think churches should start paying taxes and have to minister equally to gay people – you going to be for a vote then?

              <

              p>
              I’ll give you credit for at least being right up front with you prejudice.  Most people don’t have the courage anymore to act like the bigots they are.  Kudos!

              • The majority of the black community just doesn’t agree.

                <

                p>
                And how dare you call me a bigot. I need to learn a little bit more about you before I reply with a proper moniker for you.

                <

                p>
                Tell me about yourself

                • your racial analogy doesn’t work

                  <

                  p>
                  In point of fact, the racial analogy does work.  As illustrated here.  You will have to read to the bottom of the page to understand the point.  I suppose you are capable of doing that.

                  <

                  p>
                  I’ll just chalk up your comments to ignorance, and leave your possible bigotry for a later determination.

            • He’s been posting on KTN for years.  Been making almost exactly the same arguments, too.

              <

              p>
              Check out this discussion from 2005:

              <

              p>
              http://knowthyneighb…

              <

              p>
              He’s heard all the arguments.

                • The highest form of flattery to pro democracy folks is being called a bigot. For it represents the utmost expression of ignorance from people who are intolerant of Christianity, the right to vote and the right to free speech.

                  <

                  p>
                  When you use the word bigot – you condemn yourself.

                  <

                  p>
                  Again – thanks!

                • …Let me understand this.  You are one of the “someone who is intolerant of my bigotry, is him- or her-self a bigot” people.

                  <

                  p>
                  I’m sorry, but it doesn’t quite work like that.  “Tolerance” is an over-used word.

                  <

                  p>
                  I for one am intolerant of a lot of things.  Murder.  Theft.  Fraud.  The list of things that I am intolerant of goes on and on.  Does that mean that I am a bigot against murderers, thieves or those who commit fraud?  I don’t believe so.  Do a little research and find out what “bigot” really means.  The Merriam-Webster dictionary web site might be a good place to start.

                • We have heard it over and over again.

                  <

                  p>
                  Problem is, we are not bigoted towards gay people.

                  <

                  p>
                  We just want the right to vote on an important cultural institution.

                  <

                  p>
                  You can vote too!

                • is a prejudiced person who is intolerant of opinions, lifestyles, or identities differing from his or her own. The only thing gay people protest is their oppression. Fighting oppression does not make you a bigot, it makes you American.

                  <

                  p>
                  If you claim that my marriage constitutes a threat to you in any way, you have a responsibility to prove that complaint before you seek relief from the government via their intervention. Foo-fooing away what the GLBT community has to say is not going to promote common good, or understanding of your needs.

              • Because Ghengis Cohen and Paul Jamieson made mincemeat out KTN that day.

        • …some establishments of religion endorse same-sex marriages.  Such as the Unitarian Universalists and the Metropolitan Community Church.

          <

          p>
          So why should establishments of religion that reject same-sex marriage be permitted to control the issue at the civil law level?

          <

          p>
          I’m intrigued at your notion that civil rights should be put to a popular vote.  Whose civil rights would you want to put to a popular vote next?  Muslims?  Catholics?  Midgets?  Morons?  Recognize that, at one time, not too long ago, retarded people were not permitted to marry.

          • gay marriage is not a civil right

            <

            p>
            Please don’t make me explain it to you

            <

            p>
            I do not have the time.

            <

            p>
            But why should Unitarians be the arbiters of what Christ meant?

            • do you know anything about african American culture?

              <

              p>
              …to the issue under discussion?  I showed you via the link I posted above that there is an analogy between racial discrimination (most particularly state anti-miscegenation laws–interracial marriage–which were struck down by the US Supreme Court in 1967), and discrimination against same-sex couples.  What does this have to do with knowledge of African-American culture?

              <

              p>
              gay marriage is not a civil right

              <

              p>
              There is no such thing as gay marriage–there is marriage.  And the SJC determined that, under the state constitution, same-sex couples (whether or not they are gay) are to be accorded the same marriage rights as opposite sex couples.  When we (a same-sex couple) applied for our marriage licence, the town clerk did not require us to prove that we were gay.  Moreover, there are opposite sex couples in which one or both are homosexual.

              <

              p>
              But why should Unitarians be the arbiters of what Christ meant?

              <

              p>
              Who cares what Christ meant?  The point, which was apparently lost on you, was that some establishments of religion endorse same-sex marriage, and why should other establishments of religion deny them the right to marry same-sex couples, which marriages would be recognized by the state?

                • “Queer” is one of their filtered words.

                  <

                  p>
                  You ought to call them up and protest

                  <

                  p>
                  No better – stage a demonstation

                  <

                  p>
                  even better – sue the bastards!!!!

                • that the coward in question didn’t actually bother to respond at all…  hypocritical bigots rarely do when the holes in their pretzel-“logic” is exposed and eviscerated.

                • is

                  <

                  p>
                  Why would I respond to a gay porno site that uses quotations out of context and tries to fool the reader into thinking these things were said about gay marriage?

                • …I guess that you believe that the Chicago Tribune–where the piece was originally published (see the line near the bottom–“By Eric Zorn. Published May, 1996, The Chicago Tribune. ) is a gay porn site.

                  <

                  p>
                  You’re really funny.

                • I could do a similiar diversion with any number of topics

                  <

                  p>
                  This is like 7th grade

        • And it upholds all people’s rights to live freely by their own beliefs. Those who would challenge the way others live and ask the government to impede their neighbor’s equality are responsible for proving the need for such action. All efforts to prove the need for an end to gay marriage have failed, and if you feel my statement is wrong, correct me with the varifiable facts.

          <

          p>
          We are about to enter a brave new world, where people of differences are embraced, and learned from. Once we understand one another better, there is less reason for fear, and less oportunity for hate to establish itself. Organizations that harbor bigotry will dwindle and die. America is not great in spite ot its diversity, it is great because of it!

          • Oh the pain – Oh the thousands of gays persecuted every day – oh the muder of innocents – oh the bigoted nation – oh oh oh

            <

            p>
            GIVE US A BREAK

            <

            p>
            “All efforts to prove the need for an end to gay marriagehave failed”

            <

            p>
            Oh I beg to differ

            <

            p>
            Where is David with his “undocumented, unsupported” censuring?

            <

            p>
            2 recent major efforts to prove the need for an end to gay marriage were put forth by the New York State court and the Washington State court.

            <

            p>
            Should I read from those decisions as proof?

            <

            p>
            I believe they say something about the traditional family and child rearing.

            <

            p>
            And do we not now have 3/4 of the country with Consitutional ammendments banning gay marriage?

            <

            p>
            I’m not sure I understand which country Hosty is talking about.

            <

            p>
            Maybe he is talking about his Utopia.

  3. It just seems so easy to make good ads for our cause.. just stick a family up there and have them speak the truth. We’re completely normal, no different than anyone else. We’re completely capable of being in loving relationships – and raising children. Those facts are indisputable, as evidenced by the literally million + people in this country who have had a gay parent and the 16,000+ people in the state of Massachusetts who have entered into a same-sex marriage.

  4. Ads 1 and 2 are quite effective, I think.  Like ’em.  There’s only so much you can do with a 30 second spot.  8.5 out of 10. 

    <

    p>
    Ad 3: from the video and audio alone, it’s not clear that Kayla is their daughter.  The text flashes up for a couple seconds, but neither my wife and I somehow registered it, so we were a little confused, had to replay it.  Maybe just us. 

  5. It is good to see that Jarrett Barrios’ family is responsible for the online and print production (Hattaway Communications).  It is important for LGBT to support LGBT businesses.

Archives