Gay Marriage Will Make It Rain!
Tweet
This is not a parody ad.
The ad is from “National Organization For Marriage”, whose president is Maggie Gallagher. If that name sounds familiar, Maggie Gallagher was one of the pundits who were paid off by the Bush administration and didn’t disclose it.
But what she objects to is gay people getting married. IT WILL RAIN.
>> Human Rights Campaign Exposes National Organization for Marriage’s Fake Ad for Fake Problems
52 Responses to “Gay Marriage Will Make It Rain!”
Red Front? “Center For American Freedom” Logo Echoes Communist Style
Romney Calls For Defunding Planned Parenthood, Wife Was A Donor
GOP Fundraising Email Asks Supporters To “Knock Out” Obama
Romney Comes Up Limp In Nevada
Obama Opens Lead On Romney In New Poll
What Time Is Super Bowl 2012 (Super Bowl XLVI)?
Republican Senate Candidate To Run Racist Ad During Super Bowl
Romney Biographer: Candidate Grew Up In A “Series Of Bubbles”
Latest Entries
Weekly Standard Rolls Out The Iraq Argument For Iran
Equal Polarization, My Ass
Some Crazy Stuff That Happened In World War II
Maryland Republican Campaign Funds Used To Defend Voter Suppression
The Obama Jobs Record In One Graph
Martin O’Malley All In For Marriage Equality
Newt Gingrich, Filled With More Excrement Than Your Average Politician
New Year, Powerline Still Stupid
Thanks Again
C.K.: November 22, 1999 – January 7, 2012
Meta
Blogroll
Disclaimer
The views on this site are mine and mine alone, and do not reflect the views of my employer, Media Matters for America
© 2000-2011 Oliver Willis
The gheys nom nom her tears.
1. Those people are fucking Stepford robots
2. they are also peeing-their-pants babies.
3. They are also wrong about pretty much everything they are scared about.
Exatly how the hell does two gay people getting married take away anyone’s freedom? Freedom to do what? Be jagoff to gay people? WTF has them so scared?
Has there ever been an organization with the preposition “for” in its name, that should not actually have the preposition “against”?
I can’t think of any.
Surely this organization must have a rationale for these incredible claims. A church group punished by the government? The government taking away the rights of heterosexuals?
I’m almost afraid to ask how they explain these claims.
Tom: how about the National Organization for Women?
Quaker: the answer to your first question is here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7YGe8DwBs-s. By implication, it answers the second question also; near as I can figure, what’s at risk here is the right of some heterosexuals to maintain the fantasy that teh gay is not already everywhere.
But in the words of the great Glenn Beck: we surround them. “We” being everyone who’s not a fundamentalist with cold, wet pants.
What next?! Heterosexuals only being married for a few months then getting divorced! OMG!–Uhhhmmmm— Oh–wait. . . . .
Republicans.
.
Ah, yeah. NOW. I’ve had the Swift Boaters and others on the brain.
The more publicity this unintentionally funny ad gets, the better it’ll be for Team Reality Based. So mock-ready this ad is. The more this runs, the faster DADT will get overturned, and the more the Reality Based will prosper and the modern Republican party will not. Heh.
Holy crapola. Did they really just say “rainbow coalition?” I’d watch again to check, but I don’t think I could take it.
Ian Aleksander Adams: “Holy crapola. Did they really just say “rainbow coalition?” I’d watch again to check, but I don’t think I could take it.”
Well… many homophobes are just self-hating gays.
“…taking the issue beyond same-sex couples.”
Are they talking about Box Turtles?
godtards suck up to multiple divorcees like Rush but don’t want a gay couple to get married for a first time
“Holy crapola. Did they really just say “rainbow coalition?”
Did anybody else start hearing Kermit the Frog playing banjo and singing just now?
Have to admit, she’s right.
My husband and I have been married since September ’08, and the rain just hasn’t stopped since.
Also, earthquakes, plagues of frog*, and dogs and cats living together.
*But a really BIG frog; it got in the HVAC ducts and kept everyone awake all night. Apologies to Terry Pratchett for stealing this joke.
Basically the definition of ‘Orwellian.’
M. Gall gas YET to provide ANY example of how SSM will hurt anyone. And by “hurt” or “harm,” the LAW is designating the physical and personal realms. Clearly that majorly obiese whoaman is distracted by thoughts of how to increase her cholesterol and triglycerides, harden her whole circulatory system, get diabetes generally sending her life into early termination. GO GIRL!!!!!
Ian Aleksander Adams; No shit. Taking the Rainbow Coalition meme is just the most obviously hypocritical element of this clearly insane attempt to scare the crap out of the same inbred morons who STILL think Obama is a Muslim and his administration is coming to take away their guns and Jesus; as though gun control is somehow a bad thing when you have a spate of shootings in 2 weeks that have left scores of innocent people dead and hundreds in mourning over senseless murders. The far Right will do ANYTHING to convince people that anyone not sharing their increasingly batshit crazy views are Satanists. All this fear mongering should be outlawed. This ad is truly disgusting.
I’m a longtime supporter of same-sex marriage. And I tell you, it feels a tad odd to be considerably further to the left of President Obama, who has repeatedly asserted his support for the Defense of Marriage Act and opposition to gay marriage…
J.
The president supports the repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act, JT.
Obama would do himself a favor and publicly push or overturning DADT and DOMA right now. He may have lost the chance to get ahead of the movement at all, but there are still political gains for whoever champions this cause. Thanks to creepy ads like this one, marriage equality for gay people will happen sooner than later, and damn near overnight. Anyone who loudly supports crap like this stupid ad will go the way of Rush Limbaugh and Dennis–which is a good thing.
SSM
Soaring Spaghetti Monster?
My apologies, Parthenon, you’re quite right. I overstated Obama’s position. A quick Googling confirmed that, but did affirm that he does oppose gay marriage. Thanks for the correction.
Source: lesbianlife.about.com/od/lesbianactivism/p/BarackObama.htm
(As I said, Google helped me. Despite occasional feelings of “being a lesbian trapped in a man’s body,” I don’t routinely check out lesbian activist sites.)
I still remain considerably more progressive and enlightened than he is on this matter, though…
J.
That you do. I imagine this is something on which every liberal on this site disagrees with the prez. As I mentioned before elsewhere, in my opinion it’s a political calculation designed to ward off the forces that destroyed Kerry, and if not for political considerations things would be different. No proof for that, just an unsupported gut feeling.
How come none of O’s wingnut trolls haven’t weighed in on this ad yet?
Dennis, you like this ad, right? Would you be so kind as to tell us how awesome it is? yo mama? DaveinSoCal? SaveFarris? C’mon guys, these are your people representin’, you gotta help ‘em out.
For most of the ad I thought it was a parody because these people sounded like they were going to burst into tears, all because somewhere, somehow, other people were doing things they don’t like. Then the last guy came on and .. yep. I guess it’s a real ad. Lol.
Hey, those are your people, Haplo9. Enjoy sleeping in the bed you made.
ed – I have to ask – how old are you? Serious question. Here, I’ll go first. 33.
ed – I have to ask – how old are you? Serious question. Here, I’ll go first. 33.
Old enough to know that this ad represents the modern Republican party–your people!–since at least 1980, probably earlier.
Yeah I didn’t think you’d answer. My guess is that you are college age – still naive enough to earnestly believe that whatever “side” you choose to be on is the side of righteousness while the other side is evil, and lacking the experience to realize that people generally have to compromise when they vote for a political party, based on what set issues they think are most important.
Or you could just be uncommonly dumb. There is that possibility.
No ed, the Republican party is not “my people” any more than the Democrats were “my people” back when I voted for them around college age, your clownish efforts notwithstanding.
No ed, the Republican party is not “my people” any more than the Democrats were “my people” back when I voted for them around college age, your clownish efforts notwithstanding.
Nice try, Sparky, but this is the party of Dutch Reagan–your party. This is Karl Rove/George Bush, Jr. Classy as ever.
President Obama supports full civil unions that give same-sex couples legal rights and privileges equal to those of married couples.
I’ll say what I always say: get these rights and then call it a marriage all you want, per your rights under the First Amendment. The people who will bother to tell you that you’re not really technically semantically speaking “married” are the sorts of jerks whose opinion shouldn’t matter to you anyway.
On the plus side, ed, if I’m right and you are merely young as opposed to dumb, you still have time to grow up. You seem pretty far gone though, so I wish you luck.
I’m 31. I think that if the GOP isn’t “your people,” Haplo, it’s because you’re not extreme enough for them anyway.
Good luck disowning Rush Limbaugh and Betty Brown and Dennis, Haplo9. You’re stuck with them too. My condolences.
I betcha at least one of those paid actors in the spot is the ghey.
Problem with the headline, OW. If “Gay Marriage Will Make It Rain,” how do you explain the California drought?
For the duration of my political .. awareness? .. the GOP has more often than not been on the wrong side of most social issues, IMO. Gay marriage is a good example – you’d think that a party that talks about less government and leaving people alone would logically extend that to letting people marry if they want. (That said, expecting any party to be consistent with rhetoric and action is probably unrealistic – both parties have too many interest groups whose interests sometimes clash for that to happen.) The usual reason I grudgingly end up voting Republican is simply because I believe that economic issues are more important than social issues. Republicans are slightly better than Democrats here, IMO, or, I should say, they at least talk better. (Yes, I know, noone here is going to agree with that.) After the Bush years though, its pretty clear that the difference between Repubs and Dems on economics is so marginal that it probably makes the most sense to vote for divided government. Of the recent governments we’ve had, Clinton + the R congress seems the most sane to me.
Problem with the headline, OW. If “Gay Marriage Will Make It Rain,” how do you explain the California drought?
Because it’s going to rain…
…men!
The usual reason I grudgingly end up voting Republican is simply because I believe that economic issues are more important than social issues.
Ah, the old they “make the trains run on time” argument.
Hard to argue with that.
After the Bush years though, its pretty clear that the difference between Repubs and Dems on economics is so marginal that it probably makes the most sense to vote for divided government.
Marginal? After the Cheney Administration and “deficits don’t matter”? After the Iraq Invasion (which, it turns out, wasn’t just unbelievably expensive, but horribly bad for other quite predictable reasons)? Military industrial complex? Hello?
Because it’s going to rain…
…men!
What’s that you say?
Hallelujah!
Here’s another influential Republican, Morality in Media President Bob Peters:
That’s pretty horrible. Then again, some people think the very rich pay too much in inheritance taxes. I wonder which is more important. Hmm…
ed, he is correct about the timing of the whole thing. I think he has a problem with the correlation-causation fallacy, and the timing is merely coincidental, but the timeline does match up.
It’s far, far more complicated than Peters portrays.
J.
J.G.Thayer: “ed, he is correct about the timing of the whole thing. I think he has a problem with the correlation-causation fallacy, and the timing is merely coincidental, but the timeline does match up.”
Only if you think sex is immoral but racism is fine.
Remember, the 1960s also brought about the civil rights movement. So unless you are one warped mother fucker, it’s clear the morality of the nation improved during that time.
Also, I would question the jump in mass murders in that time. I’m pretty sure in terms of per capita events, the Wild West had more mass murders than we do today.
Good luck with that.
The good thing is that laws will change faster than the “I believe in ancient magic people” crowd keels over……WE WON’T HAVE TO KILL THEM!!!!!
Strowbridge, I realize you have an incredibly narrow little mind, but a LOT more happened in the 60′s than the Civil Rights Movement. The Viet Nam war, the rise of the counterculture, the baby boomers coming of age, the Kennedy assassinations — only the most obsessive asshole would think that the only significant social phenomenon of that era was civil rights.
Oh, I’m sorry, I forgot who I was talking to.
J.
Oh, gee, what a surprise: Strowbridge is full of shit and talking out of his ass again.
Also, I would question the jump in mass murders in that time. I’m pretty sure in terms of per capita events, the Wild West had more mass murders than we do today.
Actually, the murder rate in the Old West was considerably lower than in today’s inner cities. It seems that Robert Heinlein was right: an armed society is a polite society.
Source: davidgalbraith.org/myth-busting/the-wild-west-was-much-safer-than-new-york-at-its-safest/1722/
Maybe if you didn’t spend all day watching movies, Strowbridge, and occasionally ventured into reality, you’d know something…
J.
J.G.Thayer: “Strowbridge, I realize you have an incredibly narrow little mind, but a LOT more happened in the 60’s than the Civil Rights Movement. The Viet Nam war, the rise of the counterculture, the baby boomers coming of age, the Kennedy assassinations — only the most obsessive asshole would think that the only significant social phenomenon of that era was civil rights.
Oh, I’m sorry, I forgot who I was talking to.”
Wow. That’s fucking pathetic.
Every time you attack me for hating racism, you just prove you are a racist.
J.G.Thayer: “Actually, the murder rate in the Old West was considerably lower than in today’s inner cities. It seems that Robert Heinlein was right: an armed society is a polite society.
Source: davidgalbraith.org/myth-busting/the-wild-west-was-much-safer-than-new-york-at-its-safest/1722/”
AverageJoe beat me to the punch. A simple change in methodology would explain that.
What would be considered murder now would be ‘justice’ back then.
On a side note…
volokh.com/posts/1188076990.shtml
Dueling statistics. The Wild West did have a higher murder rate according to these people. Or in this case, they are measuring ‘violent fatalities’.
And more…
books.google.com/books?id=5oabRaJVmysC&pg=PA57&lpg=PA57&dq=murder+rates+american+west+historical&source=web&ots=RCk64KDPqE&sig=s5qHDDeO-C43YWQ_ZjP19VUVJaI&hl=en&ei=SRSdSbjxD4KOsQO3o8yfAg&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=15&ct=result#PPA58,M1
Strowbridge, pretty much everyone hates racism. I hate it. What I find contemptible about you is that you see it everywhere — and anyone who doesn’t instantly buy wholeheartedly into your obsession is OBVIOUSLY a evil, racist, crypto-Klansman that MUST BE EXPOSED!!!!!
I don’t hate you. I have contempt for you. I take your bullshit charges against me and dismiss them with the greatest of scorn.
And I do that in cheerful ignorance as to your own racial, ethnic, social, or sexual identity — your assholeness transcends such aspects.
J.