For Play

Here's a great example of a sophisticated dirty trick.  Check out this website that claims to be for the Marriage Amendment--Proposition 102.  The site is very sophisticated and looks like a legitimate pro 102 site.  However as you get deeper into the site, the arguments "for" Proposition 102 get more outrageous.  Here's an example.

It is estimated that, since 2006, approximately 20,000 heterosexual marriages have failed in Arizona due to inadequate protections from the possibility of activist judges ruling in favor of some future homosexual plaintiffs. State authorities fear that we may be on a slippery slope of failed heterosexual marriages and broken families if we don't take immediate action to pass Prop 102.

Opponents of the prop 102 might declare that the site is some sort of parody, but it doesn't contain any disclosures. The last time that the marriage amendment was on the ballot, opponents put up a similar site and even members of the media were fooled.  Some media coverage included quotes from the mock site.

Not only does the site not ever disclose that it's not really a Pro 102 site, it never discloses who actually paid for it.  So in addition to being deceptive, it's illegal.  I hope this is not a "for-shadowing" (pardon the pun) of things to come.

Comments

[todd]

Its pretty obvious from the get-go . Sponsored the The Westboro Baptist Church ? The opening paragraph - "The opposition would like you to think gay marriage is about love, but we know better. Prop 102 is a constitutional amendment that protects marriage as a heterosexual instituion and, more importantly, protects heterosexuals from gay temptation." This is clearly parody.

Now, what exactly is illegal in this case? Let's say it is an individual, he/she has to disclose who he/she is to express an opinion on a political matter. I don't think so.

[Kim]

This is the group that sends the protestors to funerals of fallen soldiers to hold signs saying, "God Loves Dead Soldiers" and "God Hates the USA". Another favorite for this group is "God Hates Fags".

They are not an Arizona based church, that is why their tag line to vote no says Arizona Prop 102.

Despicable.

[todd]

Kim, you do understand that they are not in fact sponsored by that Church and this is in fact parody.

[Dave Tent]

This is not a "parody" as you call it, it is an identity correction.

[todd]

even better.

[Kim]

Yes, I get it. And it is despicable.

[Joe G.]

Saw my first "No on 102" sign today. Interesting. Said "keep politicians out of marriage." Which, in my opinion, means the following "keep politicians out of marriage (and let unelected judges decide)."

[Patrick]

This is no worse than what the pro-Prop 102 people have been doing all along: saying that gay marriage somehow has anything to do with YOUR marriage. It doesn't. It doesn't diminish it whatsoever. Your sacred promise to your spouse is your promise, just that. Just the two of you. If you are opposed to gay marriage for some other reason, fine. But making it about diminishing the "sanctity" of marriage or heterosexual marriage is really distortion.

[Joe G.]

Patrick,

I don't think I've ever heard an advocate of traditional marriage advocate that. To the contrary, that's the canard that's tossed to get people to zip it.

The better question is, what will changing the definition of marriage do to society?

For instance, this past Fathers' Day, Barack Obama gave a speech about the importance of fathers to the black family. The VERY NEXT DAY, the state of California began to offer marriage licenses to same sex couples, which would submit children to a life without a mother or a father.

So there's a bit more to it than your argument.