I was never a big proponent of the movement to legalize same sex marriage. In fact, up until the California State Supreme Court made its ruling, I was kind of against it; mostly because of the baggage that the word and the institution carry. However, I recognized the symbolic weight of the issue and soon got caught up in the battle when Proposition 8 made its shameful debut. Long before the first television advertisement had been aired, I had read somewhere that those who decide these things had chosen not to include gays and lesbians in the "No on Prop 8" (NOP) television ads based on the results of focus group research; instead the ads would feature the parents and friends of gay and lesbian couples. I thought at the time that that was a mistake and that the absence of gays and lesbians suggested the gay community had a sort of collective self-hatred , akin to the concept usually applied to psychologically messed up gay men. As the campaign has waged on, I've come to believe that there is at least a grain of truth to that.
The first salvo fired that I witnessed was the now-infamous "Whether you like it or not" TV ad featuring Gavin Newsom. I was resentfully impressed by its clever manipulation and sadly realized that this was going to be a dirty fight with no place for subtleties gleaned from focus groups. These religious nuts weren't fucking around; they were going after the heathens with all the righteousness their tiny souls could muster, whether Jesus liked it or not. The ad was effective because it tweaked the disgruntled public's frustration with politicians and then delivered its toxic package of lies designed to win votes through fear. Clearly, at least to me, an equally heavy-handed response was called for in order to refocus the debate away from the phony phantoms evoked by the "yes on Prop 8" (YOP) people and back to the discrimination that is the proposition's true intent.
Soon after the Newsom Ad debuted, I was tasked with a project in one of my classes that required using online resources to make a video addressing a current political issue. It was a no-brainer; I immediately began constructing a "No on Prop 8" television ad paralleling the struggle to legalize same-sex marriage with the Civil Rights movement using the most provocative images I could find. I spent countless hours finding and them learning how to use software that edited video, mixed audio and converted files in order to workaround technical incompatibilities and limitations in order to achieve my vision, compelled to perfect it in part by the fantasy that the "No on Prop 8" campaign might use it. By the time I finished it, though, the video was no longer as relevant and my critique of the Prop 8 campaign had changed. However, I learned two important things. The first is that in politics, timing is crucial; the window of opportunity to effectively respond to an opponent's allegations is small and getting smaller with new technology. The second is that I need a new computer, one that can handle big media files without freezing up or crashing every 20 minutes.
The focus of my critique of the Prop 8 campaign has now shifted to the YOP's claim that same-sex marriage will be taught in the classroom. Let me apologize beforehand if the following gets academ-icky, but I find it difficult to avoid when writing theoretical analyses (see, it's starting already). I mentioned earlier that the decision to exclude gays and lesbians from television ads might suggest that a form of self-hatred influenced the strategy adopted by the "No on Prop 8" campaign. Perhaps what some interpret as self-hatred is better understood in terms of false consciousness. In our culture, we are all socialized to believe that marriage is the ideal and the ultimate goal for intimate relationships; we are also socialized to believe that heterosexuality is the norm and, thus, good and that homosexuality is deviant and, thus, bad. As products of the dominant culture and subject to its ideology, gays and lesbians must confront an internalized bias against themselves in order to live emotionally healthy lives; but there has been very little discussion within the gay community about whether marriage is the best fit for gay relationships.
Yes, on the surface, Prop 8 is an issue of equal rights, but it is also about the desire for acceptance, and history shows that winning the former does not immediately bring about the latter. The NOP decision makers willingness to sacrifice gay visibility in order to win the election is troubling in that it suggests an failure to recognize that this is more than a legal issue. Far more troubling, though, is the failure of the campaign to challenge the notion that including same-sex marriage in classroom discussions is somehow harmful to children. Worst of all, however, is responding with ads denying that same-sex marriage will be taught in public schools if Prop 8 is defeated, in effect, tacitly affirming the ideologically inferior status of same-sex marriage and the danger it poses to children. While, individually, gays and lesbians may have recognized that they are not immune from being indoctrinated with the ideological bias against homosexuality, false consciousness still compels them to fight for the right to marry and prevents them from questioning why they fight for the right to conform to conventions such as marriage which manifest an ideology that considers them inferior; which is pretty much why I wasn't a big proponent of the effort to legalize same-sex marriage in the first place.
The first salvo fired that I witnessed was the now-infamous "Whether you like it or not" TV ad featuring Gavin Newsom. I was resentfully impressed by its clever manipulation and sadly realized that this was going to be a dirty fight with no place for subtleties gleaned from focus groups. These religious nuts weren't fucking around; they were going after the heathens with all the righteousness their tiny souls could muster, whether Jesus liked it or not. The ad was effective because it tweaked the disgruntled public's frustration with politicians and then delivered its toxic package of lies designed to win votes through fear. Clearly, at least to me, an equally heavy-handed response was called for in order to refocus the debate away from the phony phantoms evoked by the "yes on Prop 8" (YOP) people and back to the discrimination that is the proposition's true intent.
Soon after the Newsom Ad debuted, I was tasked with a project in one of my classes that required using online resources to make a video addressing a current political issue. It was a no-brainer; I immediately began constructing a "No on Prop 8" television ad paralleling the struggle to legalize same-sex marriage with the Civil Rights movement using the most provocative images I could find. I spent countless hours finding and them learning how to use software that edited video, mixed audio and converted files in order to workaround technical incompatibilities and limitations in order to achieve my vision, compelled to perfect it in part by the fantasy that the "No on Prop 8" campaign might use it. By the time I finished it, though, the video was no longer as relevant and my critique of the Prop 8 campaign had changed. However, I learned two important things. The first is that in politics, timing is crucial; the window of opportunity to effectively respond to an opponent's allegations is small and getting smaller with new technology. The second is that I need a new computer, one that can handle big media files without freezing up or crashing every 20 minutes.
The focus of my critique of the Prop 8 campaign has now shifted to the YOP's claim that same-sex marriage will be taught in the classroom. Let me apologize beforehand if the following gets academ-icky, but I find it difficult to avoid when writing theoretical analyses (see, it's starting already). I mentioned earlier that the decision to exclude gays and lesbians from television ads might suggest that a form of self-hatred influenced the strategy adopted by the "No on Prop 8" campaign. Perhaps what some interpret as self-hatred is better understood in terms of false consciousness. In our culture, we are all socialized to believe that marriage is the ideal and the ultimate goal for intimate relationships; we are also socialized to believe that heterosexuality is the norm and, thus, good and that homosexuality is deviant and, thus, bad. As products of the dominant culture and subject to its ideology, gays and lesbians must confront an internalized bias against themselves in order to live emotionally healthy lives; but there has been very little discussion within the gay community about whether marriage is the best fit for gay relationships.
Yes, on the surface, Prop 8 is an issue of equal rights, but it is also about the desire for acceptance, and history shows that winning the former does not immediately bring about the latter. The NOP decision makers willingness to sacrifice gay visibility in order to win the election is troubling in that it suggests an failure to recognize that this is more than a legal issue. Far more troubling, though, is the failure of the campaign to challenge the notion that including same-sex marriage in classroom discussions is somehow harmful to children. Worst of all, however, is responding with ads denying that same-sex marriage will be taught in public schools if Prop 8 is defeated, in effect, tacitly affirming the ideologically inferior status of same-sex marriage and the danger it poses to children. While, individually, gays and lesbians may have recognized that they are not immune from being indoctrinated with the ideological bias against homosexuality, false consciousness still compels them to fight for the right to marry and prevents them from questioning why they fight for the right to conform to conventions such as marriage which manifest an ideology that considers them inferior; which is pretty much why I wasn't a big proponent of the effort to legalize same-sex marriage in the first place.
2 comments:
Prop H8 is quite an interesting and HOT topic. What is most interesting that the subject of marriage-- whether between a man and a woman or within same sex couples-- has been molded into a tool to oppress a certain group. How can the proletariat claim that marriage is a sacred institution, if they're using it to manipulate who they can control/oppress? As you mentioned in your post, it is difficult to see past all the jargon being tossed back and forth by both the NOPs and the YOPs.
What is quite clear is that there is definitely a schism between the two groups that seems unwilling to compromise nor open discussion over the Proposition 8. Clearly, as asserted in your final video, the major issue is how same sex marriage will not only impact progression (or rather regression)in reference to constitutional rights-- but how it will also impact the home and how children will learn about homosexuality. What this has to do with a portion of the population's constitutional rights is beyond my understanding, but either way, it was a big enough reason for voters (YOPs) to vote otherwise.
The juxtaposition in your final video was quite brilliant. The idea of homosexuality and same sex marriage as a scary subject versus a subject that can be openly be discussed is quite alarming. It allows the viewer to grasp the idea that a greater portion of California voters find discussing or accepting homosexuals alarming. Lest we forget that gays and lesbians are human as well.
Your own rendition of what those who oppose PROP 8 should have used as advertisements was quite impacting. The imagery and juxtaposition of negative imagery (the KKK, burning crosses and hangings) and positive imagery (Martin Luther King Jr. and Rosa Parks) were quite brilliant. They thoroughly expressed your ideas and hit the viewer at a personal level.
Hey David--
Great work on your post and video response. I think that you present a very balanced and nuanced, though still passionate, point of view on the highly contentious issue of what is popularly referred to as "gay marriage". (Although I would take issue with that terminology, as you do as well.)
I would also add that what underlies the fear mechanisms perpetrated by the Yes On 8 campaign-spearheaded and funded in large part by the LDS church-is the concept of "religious freedom". Proponents of Prop. 8 argued that equal rights for gay people somehow impedes their freedom to practice religion, which is ridiculous but probably evokes a lot of sympathy even in non-devout circles.
Here's a great interview that Dan Savage and some high-up Mormon dude did with Anderson Cooper: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cTySVskUcrU
I thought that the ad you designed was very effective and visceral. It was unfortunate that, in retrospect, the No On 8 campaign struggled to find a cohesive message and squabbled over, as you pointed out, whether or not including "real life gay people"
in their ads would be somewhow "off-putting" to the voters they were trying to reach.
One thing I would add, though, is to be wary of lumping all civil rights movements together. I very strongly believe that gay rights is the civil rights movement of the present and the future. However, to so strongly rely on imagery from the African-American civil rights movement could potentially have the unintended effect of alienating Africa-American voters who may see their own struggle as unique and, indeed, ongoing. Don't get me wrong ; I found your ad very effective and sensitive but just something to think about in general. With something like this, it's so difficult to find the right tone to strike. How to make people take the promises of the constitution seriously--ALL MEN ARE CREATED EQUAL?
Post a Comment