From NOM’s infamous “Gathering Storm” ad to the laughable “I’m Confused” spot the group ran in New Hampshire, right-wing, anti-gay organizations have been serving up increasingly hysterical, fear-mongering video messages about marriage equality for years now. But a video released earlier this month by CitizenLink — an affiliate of the notoriously bigoted Focus on the Family — may just take the cake as the most pathetic anti-LGBT video ever produced.
The video, entitled “In the Eyes of the Law,” attempts to strike fear into the hearts of fundies across America by alleging that, because of President Barack Obama’s “evolution” on and endorsement of marriage equality, police will start pulling over unsuspecting drivers and demanding that they produce not their license and registration, but their marriage license and registration. Seriously. The acting school dropout that Focus hired to play the part of the sheriff’s deputy explains that possession of a marriage license is the way police know that people are “sufficiently evolved” (as though the possession of a marriage license is somehow indicative of one’s support for marriage equality?). He even carries a sheet of paper with President Obama’s pro-fairness remarks with him at all times. How convenient! (Scared yet?)
If the quality of the actors (I’m using that term very generously) and the filming (a hand-held microphone is visible in every shot) are any indication, Focus on the Family must be slashing its budgets to the bone. I guess their trademark brand of bald-faced homophobic bigotry must be getting tougher and tougher to sell these days. Either that, or they’ve simply given up. Quelle tragique.
Watch the video below and let us know what you think. Most laughably pathetic gay-hating wingnut video ever?
So when Bush declared 1+1= He was saying slay gays? Candidate talk over issue, oh nonesence!
In this video I didn’t see a cop demanding to see a same sex marriage license. He asked for a marriage license without qualification. Its misleading to claim this video shows a cop asking for a same sex marriage license to prove the driver is sufficiently evolved. That may be the implication you take away from it but its not fair to say that’s what the video shows. Let’s not stoop to the anti-gay practice of distorting what the other side says.
@priya lynn, The context of their ad is anti-SSM behavior and the “threat” we will bring to their lives. They create the implication in the context of the entire spectacle.
You constantly defend the bad behavior of straight people..are you the latest troll to come on to gay sites to stir up problems and create false “gotcha” moments for the biogots?
you certainly seem like it.
Mikenola, I’m aware of the context, if you want to say “same sex” is implied I won’t disagree with you but its simply dishonest to say they said “show me your same sex marriage license” when what they actually said was “Show me your marriage license.”. If you’re waiting for me to approve of that sort of distortion of anyone’s words you’ll be waiting a veeeery long time.
You said “You constantly defend the bad behavior of straight people”.
LOL, You’re always lying about me. Non-stop. That’s all you ever do. You’ve never written anything on any blog anywhere that wasn’t a lie about me. Everything you’ve ever said to anyone in your entire life is a lie about me.
Dumb and Dumber. Can we say Mr. Roger’s neighborhood—Stoplight has their own police officers. Is it just me or does everyone think they can start a business and do not need to follow the state and local laws. If you are going to run a restaurant, you have to wash the dishes in at least a certain temp and cook & keep the food at a certain temperature before being served. Nobody forces them to stay in the business they are in and if they do not like the state and local laws, don’t start the business to begin with—-or advertise on the Web. It’s call the interest of the common good.
I feel dumber having watched that.
Priya Lynn — point taken. While the implication in the video was clear, it was not explicitly stated; the article was amended to reflect that. However, I will not have my integrity called into question for what was not a willful distortion, but rather, a semantic trifle. Feedback and constructive criticism are always welcomed; character assassination is not.
All of us here at TWO put in 9-, 10,- 11,- and even 12-hour days working for equality. Sometimes, because there is so much work to be done, we have very little time left over for ourselves and our families. But you know what? We’re human beings, and therefore fallible. On the rare occasion that I misstate something in my writing, I will (and do!) gladly and promptly correct it. But I will not be dressed down by you, nor allow you to accuse me of dishonesty and distortion. Those accusations are disingenuous and totally baseless.
I’ve seen better acting in a 4th grade Thanksgiving play.
Creepy and weird, yes, but this is way more bizarre:
http://www.mediaite.com/online/terrifyingly-hilarious-nebraska-woman-gives-the-most-amazingly-bonkers-anti-gay-rant-ever
I don’t like tattoos. I think they’re ugly. Therefore, can’t I discriminate against people with tattoos? Come on, it’s my belief! You have to respect my beliefs. If the state says I have to respect people with tattos, then I’m being punished for not thinking tattoos look good. I can’t just ignore them. Their existence is a threat to my un-inked skin. People with tats are redifining beauty for the rest of us. I don’t hate the tattooer, just the tat. The state must cater to my fear of human diversity.
@ Priya Lynn Am I missing something in the article — one thing I noticed when I read the article (I have not watched the video) is that it DIDN’T say the policeman asked for a SSM license, but just a marriage license. The article even went on to say “as though the possession of a marriage license is somehow indicative of one’s support for marriage equality?”
So I’m not sure what you are seeing that I’m not. The article doesn’t seem to make any misleading comment at all. May I suggest rereading it?
Kind thoughts,
Reyn
Reyn the article has been modified it to say “marriage license” rather than “same sex marriage license”. I assure you that it originally said “same sex marriage license.”.
John Becker, if you say you didn’t do it on purpose then I accept that and retract my suggestion that you willfully distorted what was being said.
John, as well while I can appreciate that you didn’t like me assuming you did this intentionally, I don’t appreciate your claim that I was disingenous in suggesting you did. I did genuinely think you did that intentionally so I’d appreciate it if you didn’t claim I knew it was unintentional and then lied saying it was intentional. To claim I was disingenous is to the make the same mistake I made in assuming you did this intentionally.
…I’m confused. Aren’t THEY the ones trying to get less people to have marriage licenses?
Also, the guy in the car, while not a good person, seemed entirely aware of what Obama said and was able to reference it and respond to it when the police officer quoted it. So the guy in the car is the reality, not the police officer.
I can never understand why these people show you the direct quote before lying about it. I understand even less how their minions fall for that. Do they, like, forget the first half of everything by the time they’ve gotten to the end?