coming clean

Stand For Marriage Maine Admits: Our Television Ads Are Filled With Lies

Know what the media is good for? Calling bullshit. Far too often — ahem — do newspapers and cable shows present “opposing” sides just to present so-called “balanced journalism,” even though one side is obviously pushing lies and hatred. Enter Maine’s News 8, which goes through the latest television ads from (the anti-marriage) Stand For Marriage Maine and (the pro-marriage) Equality Maine. And, surprise of all surprises, they find some things wrong with S4MM’s claims!

Now, the report doesn’t come and and say S4MM is actually lying (although it shows viewers how, in fact, they are just making stuff up), but it does get S4MM campaign director Marc Mutty say the ads are not meant to be taken … literally.

That is: They’re just drumming up scare tactics.


Get Queerty Daily

Subscribe to Queerty for a daily dose of #equalitymaine #maine #marriage stories and more


  • AlwaysGay

    Lying is the only strategy heterosexual-only marriage supporters have.
    Help NO on 1 –

  • Tina

    That news agency has guts. Way to go and thumbs up for them.

  • MackMichael

    I cannot begin to express just how helpless so many of us were in California during the Prop 8 battle one year ago. The lies pitched in the ads were simply accepted, because it was just so much easier to believe in something that justified that human need to push down a group of people, than to challenge one’s way of thinking. Our ads were weak, none of the news stations challenged what we were all hearing, and we lost. How unadulterated lies can be aired in the media as facts and be legal is really unbelievable to me, but this Californian is all about the other states who are under assault. Our time came and went, and we will have our opportunity in the future, but please do what you can to help those in anyone or all of the other states where marriage and domestic partnership laws are in danger.

  • PopSnap

    Bring back the fairness doctrine!

    Down with fox news and these related liars!

  • Rob Moore

    I did not think the news reporting linked to this article was particularly strong. It left the impression that the two primary points it was addressing were still viable and gave the final response to the bigot team in both cases.

    Regarding lawsuits against those who might face lawsuits despite acting on firmly held religious belief, it left it as an open possibility, which it is. I think the superstitious get too much of a free pass. I would have pointed out that, today, religious employers cannot deny a qualified candidate who has a different viewpoint. I would have pointed out that no church can be required to marry people it does not deem human enough, for instance, the Catholic Church cannot be compelled to marry a divorced person. Instead, it was left as a theoretical threat when it should be defined in terms of what is and is not allowed already.

    Teaching about homosexuality in school is already a fact of life. That is different than teaching about sexual reproduction in the animal kingdom during biology or sex ed. I don’t recall being taught about marriage one way or the other when I was in school. Marriage was just a cultural fact. I don’t recall my children being taught about marriage in school even the one who went to Catholic school. It would have been like teaching that French people live in France. If a person is married, it might be referred to in much the same way one might say the person lives in Maine. It would simply be a biographical fact. I don’t think it would require instruction about what marriage is.

    Why do we always beat around the bush with these morons? We should take them on in a direct fashion without apology for their stupidity.

  • B

    MackMichael wrote, “I cannot begin to express just how helpless so many of us were in California during the Prop 8 battle one year ago.” A bit over a month before the vote, I went to a “No on Eight” fundraiser, and one of the things that was mentioned was that they didn’t have enough funds to counter an aggressive “Yes on Eight” ad campaign. Focus group studies showed that opposition to Proposition Eight was relatively weak and that people could be easily influenced to vote in favor of it if they heard only one side of the story. Without the financial resources to immediately counter the lies the “Yes on Eight” people put out, the “No on Eight” side was at a distinct disadvantage. It was only when the poll numbers shifted that people started to “wake up” and provide more money and at that point it was too late.

    One might expect the homophobes to try the same tactics in Maine, and the only way to stop them is to make sure the opposition has enough financial resources to handle any contingency. The Mormon church in particular seems very adept at putting out a request for donations from its members and getting a very quick response, so one should be wary of one’s ability to estimate how much money the homophobes have available.

  • ericka.valladolid

    It is interesting after proposition 8 passed how the ads that were referred to as “lies” have come to pass. Alameda school district is being sued for its mandatory “gay” curriculum, and other schools are pushing it.

    People who oppose the gay agenda are not haters, homophobes, or bigots. When using the word homophobe to describe someone, that is merely confusing fear with disgust. It is a total inaccuracy. Hate is not a differing view, unless you are an uneducated backwater who has no other arguement except that word. Another cheap shortcut to try and end a debate,

    I believe one of the main reasons proposition 8 was lost was due to these labels being thrown at people. Sadly they are overused and now are mecoming meaningless.Many Maine voters will feel the same way.

  • B

    ericka.valladolid wrote, “It is interesting after proposition 8 passed how the ads that were referred to as ‘lies’ have come to pass. Alameda school district is being sued for its mandatory ‘gay’ curriculum, and other schools are pushing it.” has a more balanced account of what actually happened. It wasn’t a “‘gay’ curriculum” but an “anti-bully curriculum.” You know, get the kids to stop picking on other kids to the point where those other kids’ education is impacted.

Comments are closed.