Tories prep anti-gay marriage ads

[Black Dog]

Ads target ethnic groups

The Conservative party will launch a national advertising campaign this week, targeting Canadian ethnic groups with the party's stand against gay marriage.

As Sikh and Roman Catholic leaders weighed in against redefining marriage laws to include homosexual relationships, Conservative Leader Stephen Harper said his party needs to send a clear pre-election message against changing the definition of marriage.

“Frankly, we think a clear majority of Canadians support the compromise I put forward, including a lot of people who vote Liberal and traditionally don't vote for this party,” Mr. Harper said after a speech to the Quebec City Chamber of Commerce

Attack ads? I see the Republican operatives Harper hired are earning their paycheques.

The ad.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear Black Dog,

I found the wording of the ad very interesting. 'Martin wants to impose same sex-marriage" This gives the illusion that my heterosexual marriage is somehow going to be attacked or changed somehow. It doesn't say 'Martin wants to include same-sex marriage'. then, it offers you 2 choices, "yes" to Steven Harper, or 'yes' to defeat the liberals.

Dr. Goebbels would be proud.

[I miss Reagan]

Give me a break. Attack ads? And Martin is imposing it on the country by not allowing free votes or a referendum.

[kimmy]

I don't see a problem.

Previous discussions of "attack ads" on this forum have often featured the argument that the Liberals are doing what they need to do, and the Conservatives are simply not using their advertising effectively.

Is this even an "attack ad"? Yes, the phrase "impose gay marriage" is more vague and menacing than one would find in a balanced editorial on the issue... but by the standards of political advertising, it strikes me as being pretty tame, or at worst "about average" compared to the standards of what we accept as normal political campaigning in this country.

The Conservatives have frequently been criticized as being too white and too Christian; one would think "targetting ethnic groups" would be a logical step. They've identified an issue where the Liberals' hold over ethnic votes may be on shaky ground. The Conservatives feel this is an area where they can bridge a gap between themselves and ethnic voters and an issue where the Liberals' strategy of being all things to all people might be a vulnerability. Why wouldn't the Conservatives try to capitalize on it?

And lastly, as the Liberals have always insisted that the Conservatives are too extreme for Canadians, they should be more than happy to go to war on this issue, right? The Liberals have got a great opportunity to show Canadian voters that the Conservatives are "different". What was the Liberal slogan during the election campaign? "Choose the Canada you want", or something like that? Well, here's another opportunity for them to highlight the differences between them and the opposition.

-kimmy

[Black Dog]

Give me a break. Attack ads? And Martin is imposing it on the country by not allowing free votes or a referendum.

No. Martin is not "imposing" anything. Tell me: under the new legislation, will heterosexauls be forced to marry people of the same sex? No? Then Martin is "imposing" nothing.

As for "free votes or referendum": why should there be one? This is an issue that affects only a small percentage of Canadians: those in the gay community who want heir relationships recognized by the state. It doesn't affect the majority in the slightest. So why should they have a say?

One thing that is especially interesting is that the Conservative Party does not have a policy on SSM. So Harper is, in effect, making a unilateral decree as to what the Conservative line is without consulting his own party's membership. Talk about undemocratic.

And lastly, as the Liberals have always insisted that the Conservatives are too extreme for Canadians, they should be more than happy to go to war on this issue, right? The Liberals have got a great opportunity to show Canadian voters that the Conservatives are "different". What was the Liberal slogan during the election campaign? "Choose the Canada you want", or something like that? Well, here's another opportunity for them to highlight the differences between them and the opposition.

Totally. The Conservatives have been stymied by their failure to break through in Quebec. How will this stunt play in the province that has the highest level of support for SSM in the country? It's nice to see that the HarperCons, Like Day's Alliance, isn't missing this opportunity to miss an opportunity.

[August1991]

This is a hot-button issue and it has gotten mixed up with many other, unrelated issues.

For the moment, like it or not, acceptance of gay marriage has become synonym with acceptance of gays.

I think the Tories are appealing to their social conservative, WASP base. The only reason to do that is to raise funds. If they think this will gain them votes in Quebec and among non-Anglo Canadians, I think they're mistaken. This approach will go nowhere with minorities in Canada.

Politicians generally do best when they cross-over.

BTW, I was not impressed with the ad. It's in Black and White - and it makes Harper seem to be that kind of person.

[I miss Reagan]

For the moment, like it or not, acceptance of gay marriage has become synonym with acceptance of gays.

I think you're right, but IMV this is mostly the result of the press and the progressives portraying those opposed as "homophobes" and gay haters. It doesn't help when you get passionate Christians making stupid comments like "Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve" and preaching to people about homosexuality.

[Black Dog]

I think you're right, but IMV this is mostly the result of the press and the progressives portraying those opposed as "homophobes" and gay haters.

Are there arguments against gay marriage that don't hinge on dissapproval of the "gay lifestyle"?

"Since homosexuality, adultery, prostitution and pornography undermine the foundations of the family, the basis of society, then the state must use its coercive power to proscribe or curtail them in the interests of the common good," Bishop Frederick Henry said in a pastoral letter.

Calgary bishop wants government to act against gays

[I miss Reagan]

Are there arguments against gay marriage that don't hinge on dissapproval of the "gay lifestyle"?

Yes there are, but those who are for gay marriage seem to be wilfully ignorant, I think due to their desire shove it in the face of religionists. This is evidenced by their unwillingness to compromise on civil unions, which would give them the same rights without highjacking the definition of marriage. Besides it's pretty unfair of the leftist press to call those who disagree with the gay lifestyle homophobes or gay haters. But I guess it's the same people who call Harper a fascist, Albertans bigots, and Bush a racist. Plays well with the radical Chomsky crowd.

[Black Dog]

Yes there are, but those who are for gay marriage seem to be wilfully ignorant, I think due to their desire shove it in the face of religionists. This is evidenced by their unwillingness to compromise on civil unions, which would give them the same rights without highjacking the definition of marriage.

Civil unions. "Sperate but equal". Hmmm.....

Why should anyone be forced to compromise on equal rights? Again: the only people gay marriage will affect are gay people who wish to be married.

Besides it's pretty unfair of the leftist press to call those who disagree with the gay lifestyle homophobes or gay haters.

Would you also say it's unfair to call a neo-Nazi who disagrees with "the Jewish lifestyle" an anti-semite?

When you reject someone because of who they are, that's bigotry.

[I miss Reagan]

Would you also say it's unfair to call a neo-Nazi who disagrees with "the Jewish lifestyle" an anti-semite?

Don't be ridiculous. Perhaps I should call you an anti-semite, because you don't agree with the Jewish lifestyle. You don't keep the sabbath holy by worshiping on Saturday, you don't believe in God. You believe in absolute separation of church and state. I guess by your criteria you'd be a bigot as well hmm.

So since we're going to be fair to all peoples even though their beliefs are different from ours, tell me on what basis you'll prevent polygamous marriage?

[kimmy]

Give me a break. Attack ads? And Martin is imposing it on the country by not allowing free votes or a referendum.

No. Martin is not "imposing" anything. Tell me: under the new legislation, will heterosexauls be forced to marry people of the same sex? No? Then Martin is "imposing" nothing.

Martin's imposing a revised definition of marriage that some might not agree with.

One thing that is especially interesting is that the Conservative Party does not have a policy on SSM. So Harper is, in effect, making a unilateral decree as to what the Conservative line is without consulting his own party's membership. Talk about undemocratic.

Totally. The Conservatives have been stymied by their failure to break through in Quebec. How will this stunt play in the province that has the highest level of support for SSM in the country?

You know, I think it's a fair bet that among those who are enthusiastic supporters of gay marriage, most probably wouldn't vote Conservative anyway.

It's an oversimplification to say that the move won't play in Quebec because Quebec has a high level of popular support for same sex marriage, or likewise that it won't play well in greater Toronto or BC's lower mainland. On aggregate, those generalizations might be true. However, look a little closer and you get a better idea of what the Conservatives hope this accomplishes. Quebec and southern Ontario and BC's lower mainland have significant religious and ethnic minority communities that (according to the conventional wisdom) the federal Liberals have been able to tap into, and the federal Conservatives haven't.

In the recent US election, exit polls found surprising numbers of black and hispanic voters going Republican, as the gay marriage issue turned Christian blacks and hispanics off of voting for the Democrats in the numbers they traditionally have.

I think the Tories are appealing to their social conservative, WASP base. The only reason to do that is to raise funds. If they think this will gain them votes in Quebec and among non-Anglo Canadians, I think they're mistaken. This approach will go nowhere with minorities in Canada.

Opposition to gay marriage is hardly exclusive to WASPs, as the recent controversy from India showed. We now know that Sikhs are quite opposed, we know how the gays are treated in the Muslim world so I we can guess what the official Islamic line on gay marriage is, and of course devout Catholics of all ethnic backgrounds are also not onside with gay marriage.

I think the Conservatives' intention here is to make groups of people that traditionally vote Liberal by default ask themselves whether they really share the Liberals' values.

-kimmy

[PocketRocket]

I have to agre with KIMMY that as "Attack Ads" go, this is incredibly tame. I was quite disappointed when I saw it. In fact, it's barely an ad at all.

The extent of the attack is using one word, "impose", which has negative connotations.

A word like "sanction" would also have imposed a negative feeling into the ad.

"Recognize" or "legalize" would have been a little more on-base.

But nothing is being imposed on me, as I will not be marrying anyone of the same sex, no matter whether SSM is legalized or not. In fact, it's already recognized and legal in Ontario, where I live, and does not seem to have impacted on my life at all except in a very small way; two gay friends of mine are now happily married.

And a fine marriage it was, the groom dressed in a white suit, the other groom in full Scottish kit.

The only thing missing from a straight marriage was neither groom got to throw out the garter. No bouquet thrown, either.

Really, I can't believe that with all the ills in the world, both within Canada and without, that so many people are still so bloody hung up over something that has no personal impact on their lives, and want to dictate to another segment of society how they will be allowed to live their personal lives.

There are people starving, there are people dying, and we're bickering over two girls/guys having a ceremony to exchange vows, like as though it's gonna bring the world to an end.

To me this is a non-issue and all the debate surrounding it is a waste of time and money.

Fun, though.

[PocketRocket]

Would you also say it's unfair to call a neo-Nazi who disagrees with "the Jewish lifestyle" an anti-semite?

Don't be ridiculous. Perhaps I should call you an anti-semite, because you don't agree with the Jewish lifestyle. You don't keep the sabbath holy by worshiping on Saturday, you don't believe in God. You believe in absolute separation of church and state. I guess by your criteria you'd be a bigot as well hmm.

I don't think so. Quote from Dictionary.com.....

big·ot    n.

One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ.

The key word here is "intolerant". I do not observe the Sabbath on Saturday, but I have no problem with anyone else doing so. They are free to practise their religion as they see fit, as long as it does not have an immediate negative impact on my life, or anyone else's. On the other hand, two gay folks getting married would have no impact on your life, and yet you seeks to prevent them from doing so.

Why is that???

So since we're going to be fair to all peoples even though their beliefs are different from ours, tell me on what basis you'll prevent polygamous marriage? 

Me??? I won't. The more the marrier (pun intended). How you live your personal life is your own business, and unless it has some sort of negative impact on my life, then I should have no say in the matter.

[PocketRocket]

It doesn't help when you get passionate Christians making stupid comments like "Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve" and preaching to people about homosexuality.

You got that right.

Me??? I'd prefer to think "Madam and Eve"

[Black Dog]

Don't be ridiculous. Perhaps I should call you an anti-semite, because you don't agree with the Jewish lifestyle. You don't keep the sabbath holy by worshiping on Saturday, you don't believe in God. You believe in absolute separation of church and state. I guess by your criteria you'd be a bigot as well hmm.

Ah...no. See the difference is that, while I'm not Jewish, I respect the rights of those who are to follow their religious and cultural practices. I would not advocate denying Jews the same rights enjoyed by others simply because I think it's silly to deny oneself the pleasures of bacon.

Similarily, not being gay doesn't make one a homophobe. However "disagreeing with the lifestyle" to the point that one advocates inequality does.

[Shakeyhands]

Hell if it worked for King George then surely it will work for Harper, no?

I think it is shameful that he would stoop to such depths, however I am glad he is because for all the image reshaping he has attempted, this shows him (and the Conservative Party IMO) for what they really are.

[I miss Reagan]

I don't think so. Quote from Dictionary.com.....

QUOTE 

big·ot    n.

One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ.

Ya ya. I was trying to make the point that his analogy was stupid.

Similarily, not being gay doesn't make one a homophobe. However "disagreeing with the lifestyle" to the point that one advocates inequality does.

No. A phobia implies an overwhelming fear of something. The label "homophobe" is incitive, intended as an insult and misrepresents the opinions of those who disagree with gay marriage.

[Black Dog]

The label "homophobe" is incitive, intended as an insult and misrepresents the opinions of those who disagree with gay marriage.

Your point appears to be that some people who oppose gay marriage do not do so because they have anything against homosexuals. Okay: prove it.

Give me a rationale for opposing to gay marriage that is not predicated on opposition to homosexuality.

[The Terrible Sweal]

And Martin is imposing it on the country by not allowing free votes or a referendum.

Crap. He's allowing a free vote.

Anyway, he's not imposing gay marriage, he's allowing gay marriage. The Rightista confusion of these basic concepts explains the persistence of many retrograde social policies.

[Black Dog]

Crap. He's allowing a free vote.

This vote will be free in name only. The Tories party line is abundantly clear and, given the fact that they don't want to hear from anyone from their party who supports SSM, I expect there will be considerable behind-the-scenes pressure to toe the line. Similarily, Martin said today that he'd be willing to fight an election over SSM. Now, he knows no one wants an election right now (nor is SSM a confidence issue), but was sending a message to his caucus that they had best stick together on this issue.

[The Terrible Sweal]

I think you're right, but IMV this is mostly the result of the press and the progressives portraying those opposed as "homophobes" and gay haters.

I disagree.

For many months now, I have wondered at the threadbare incoherence of the opposition to SSM. I've inquired and investigated to determine what the reasoning is, but I could not. I conclude that this is because the objection is not based on reason.

I think opposition to same sex marriage begins and ends with a persistent dislike among a large percentage of the population for homosexuality -- in short, bigotry.

[The Terrible Sweal]

BTW, if this is to be a free vote of MPs, why is the Conservative Party as a whole paying for the ads. Aren't there any tory members who are going to support the legislation?

Whoops, Black Dog just said that, I see.

[I miss Reagan]

For many months now, I have wondered at the threadbare incoherence of the opposition to SSM. I've inquired and investigated to determine what the reasoning is, but I could not. I conclude that this is because the objection is not based on reason.

Where were the progressives then the Charter was drawn up and did not include sexual orientation? Why all of a sudden this change when 5 years ago Chretien and the liberals overwhelmingly supported the definition of marriage as between a man and a woman and claimed it always would be? The problem is this is not an interpretation of the Charter it's manipulation of it to suit political purposes. If the Charter is "a living document" what is the purpose of having it in the first place?

[The Terrible Sweal]

Where were the progressives then the Charter was drawn up and did not include sexual orientation?

They were there crafting the wording which, in well accepted norms of statutory interpretation, made the list of protected grounds inclusive, but not exhaustive of the protection afforded. That is, the listed grounds are examples only, of an indeterminate list.

Why all of a sudden this change when 5 years ago Chretien and the liberals overwhelmingly supported the definition of marriage as between a man and a woman and claimed it always would be? 

I'm not sure what your point is. New parliament, new members, n'est ce pas?

The problem is this is not an interpretation of the Charter it's manipulation of it to suit political purposes.

That's a rather startling conclusion, given the court treatment of this issue so far.

If the Charter is "a living document"  what is the purpose of having it in the first place?

The Charter is the root that grows in the fertile soil of our liberal democratic social contract.