New Orleans Saints linebacker Scott Fujita likely has a lot on his mind this week. Namely, a little football game he’s playing in on Sunday, called the Super Bowl. But because CBS has helped make the game as much about gays and abortion as the advertisers trying to market their messages, the pro-gay marriage Fujita finds himself tackling more than the offense.
The married father of twin girls pops up today in both the New York Times and the paper’s Boston sister, the Globe (where the pieces share quotes). Which means the obvious questions are being asked: What do you make of this Tim Tebow/Focus on the Family ad — which, it turns out, CBS helped the organization create?
The Tebow ad suggests that Tebow’s mother was advised about having an abortion when she was pregnant with him, but chose instead to give birth.
The issue resonates with Fujita because he was adopted, and Fujita said he respected Tebow for standing up for what he believed in. “The idea of focusing on the family — who wouldn’t agree with that?” Fujita said. “But the means of doing so, he and I might not see eye to eye all the way.”
When Fujita was born in 1979, his biological mother, he said, was in her teens and she gave him up for adoption because she did not have the means to raise a child. I’m just so thankful she had the courage and the support system to be able to carry out the pregnancy,” Fujita said. “I wouldn’t expect that of everybody.”
And about ManCrunch.com, which CBS refused a spot?
As for the rejected ad about gay dating, Fujita said he had no objection to the topic being aired, but understood why some people might complain.
“The idea of doing it at the Super Bowl is going to raise some eyebrows,” Fujita said. “Do they have the right? Absolutely. Is it going to offend some people? Absolutely.”
A NFLer open to standing up for what he believes in, perhaps ManCrunch should’ve enlisted Fujita — a la FOTF using Tim Tebow — for a better shot at getting an ad on the air.
Or not: ManCrunch says it’s signed up 30,000 new members in the past five days, most, you would imagine, thanks to all the free publicity. Except now they’re out a reported $100,000 (!) for producing the terrible ad.