Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Obama, Cheney, Bush and Powell in New Pro Gay Marriage Ad

page: 1
10
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 21 2013 @ 08:51 AM
link   
Awesome!

Christian Post News


A new advertisement launched by the Respect for Marriage Coalition on Wednesday shows U.S. President Barack Obama, former first lady Laura Bush, former vice president Dick Cheney, and former secretary of state Colin Powell, all speaking out on their support for same-sex marriage in the U.S. The reported purpose of the advertisement, which is a part of a $1 million media campaign by the Respect for Marriage Coalition, is to show politicians from both sides of the aisle uniting over the issue of same-sex marriage


Also being reported by the Seattle Post and New York Daily News

I'm not seeing if these people gave their permission and/or their time .. or if the ad is just being pieced together by the Respect for Marriage Coalition. I imagine that the group must have gotten permission from these folks to be able to run the ad??

Anyways ... If this is on the up and up, I give it a




posted on Feb, 21 2013 @ 08:59 AM
link   
I think it could have been a huge positive step...but now Laura Bush wants her clip in tbe commercial removed.



posted on Feb, 21 2013 @ 09:01 AM
link   
reply to post by FlyersFan
 


Woo-Hoo! Great ad!



Have you seen the one on TV where there's a man and woman who have just met on the beach and he appears to be very friendly to her. To let him down easy, she says, "My husband is bringing me a drink". To which he replies, "Mine is, too".
And they both turn around to see their two men talking at the bar...



posted on Feb, 21 2013 @ 09:02 AM
link   
reply to post by FlyersFan
 


And people called Bush and Cheney conservative!


If anybody had any doubts about the 2-party facade, this should put it to rest.



posted on Feb, 21 2013 @ 09:05 AM
link   
reply to post by kosmicjack
 


Do they have to honor her request, I wonder...

Laura Bush wants Out of Gay Ad



The former first lady denies any association with the group and has asked to be removed from the campaign. Her spokeswoman, Anne McDonald, told the Dallas Morning News that the first lady did not consent to be included in the campaign.

“When she became aware of the advertisement last night, we requested that the group remove her from it,” MacDonald said.



posted on Feb, 21 2013 @ 09:35 AM
link   
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 


I saw a segment on MSNBC yesterday about this ad. They had the creator of the ad on for an interview. The person that created the ad said he did not obtain permission from any of the public figures depicted in the ad and added that the law does not require them to obtain permission because the ad was based upon previous "on the record" support publicly made by those shown in the advertisement.

Below is an interview with the same guy. This is not the same interview I saw yesterday, but his words are much the same.




posted on Feb, 21 2013 @ 09:41 AM
link   
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 


Maybe not, because it was an interview she gave, I would think CNN owns the rights.



posted on Feb, 21 2013 @ 09:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by LeatherNLace
The person that created the ad said he did not obtain permission from any of the public figures depicted in the ad ....

That's disappointing. I had hoped that they all came together and were a part of it and had given permission. Well .. it's still a good ad. It would have been even better if the parties involved had actually agreed to do it.

That being said .. I remember in 2008 that Biden came out against 'gay marriage' but that Cheney had previously come out in favor of it ... so it's kind of funny how these folks don't follow their stereotypical party lines.



posted on Feb, 21 2013 @ 10:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
reply to post by kosmicjack
 

Do they have to honor her request, I wonder...

I would think that they would, otherwise it would undermine the ad and people could say it was disingenuous. To leave her in would be a distraction now and the message would be lost. They can beef up the ad in other ways without her ... IMHO



posted on Feb, 21 2013 @ 10:08 AM
link   


They don't know what they support, it changes like the direction of the wind...

Why do gay couples need to be legally married? Don't they receive the same legal protections through a legal union or partnership?

IS NOTHING SACRED ANYMORE IN THIS COUNTRY ?
edit on 21-2-2013 by Signals because: (no reason given)


+2 more 
posted on Feb, 21 2013 @ 10:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by Signals


Why do gay couples need to be legally married? Don't they receive the same legal protections through a legal union or partnership?


No, they do not.


IS NOTHING SACRED ANYMORE IN THIS COUNTRY ?


I don't know - ask all those heterosexuals getting divorced.



posted on Feb, 21 2013 @ 10:17 AM
link   
It's a tough issue that rips people apart to the core. Personally I don't like it at its core cause I am straight, BUT, and the big BUT- I MUST support people's right to choose for themselves what side of the aisle they're on. It really is none of my business. And it's really none of the government's business either.

Marriage is more of a religious issue to me anyway, and always has been, with its core concepts coming from books like the Bible- and perhaps before that in ancient community.

As to this story, sounds like a pro-gay activist hauled off and put something together involving high profile people without the proper permissions for that specific ad.

All I can say is if the world gets hit with a catastrophic event- let's just hope it's not a gay man and a gay woman left. Cause from I've seen, they'd rather the human species became extinct, than well....you know.



posted on Feb, 21 2013 @ 10:18 AM
link   
reply to post by FlyersFan
 
A question...
I know that there are posters in this thread of the Roman Catholic faith. Obviously, the Church hierarchy does not endorse gay marriage. Is that tough to reconcile? Please note that I am not trolling, nor trying to derail the thread...just observing the changes in societal attitudes and wondering. U2U me if you'd prefer to comment off-thread.



posted on Feb, 21 2013 @ 10:24 AM
link   
reply to post by TrueAmerican
 



Marriage is more of a religious issue to me anyway, and always has been, with its core concepts coming from books like the Bible- and perhaps before that in ancient community.


It absolutely has a religious foundation….as did our country when founded. I don’t understand why we can’t have civil unions with ALL of the so-called “perks” of marriage from a legal standpoint without the title “marriage”? The “marriage” part is what’s dividing everyone and creating the rift IMO.

Why can’t you call it something else? Most conservatives don’t give a crap what you do, what you claim on your taxes, who you add to your insurance as a "spouse", who you sleep with, etc. We care about the sanctity of marriage between one MAN and one WOMAN.

Do what you want but don't call it “marriage.”



posted on Feb, 21 2013 @ 10:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by Signals


They don't know what they support, it changes like the direction of the wind...

Why do gay couples need to be legally married? Don't they receive the same legal protections through a legal union or partnership?

IS NOTHING SACRED ANYMORE IN THIS COUNTRY ?
edit on 21-2-2013 by Signals because: (no reason given)


Marriage is anything but sacred in the grand scheme of things.



posted on Feb, 21 2013 @ 10:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by seabag
reply to post by TrueAmerican
 



Marriage is more of a religious issue to me anyway, and always has been, with its core concepts coming from books like the Bible- and perhaps before that in ancient community.


It absolutely has a religious foundation….as did our country when founded. I don’t understand why we can’t have civil unions with ALL of the so-called “perks” of marriage from a legal standpoint without the title “marriage”? The “marriage” part is what’s dividing everyone and creating the rift IMO.

Why can’t you call it something else? Most conservatives don’t give a crap what you do, what you claim on your taxes, who you add to your insurance as a "spouse", who you sleep with, etc. We care about the sanctity of marriage between one MAN and one WOMAN.

Do what you want but don't call it “marriage.”



What would you do -- follow a gay couple around 24/7 to make sure they don't tell anyone they are "married"? How ridiculous. What do you care what it says on their license? It's not like they are going to pull it out and show everybody.



posted on Feb, 21 2013 @ 10:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by TrueAmerican

All I can say is if the world gets hit with a catastrophic event- let's just hope it's not a gay man and a gay woman left. Cause from I've seen, they'd rather the human species became extinct, than well....you know.


You're applying a doomsday situation to a gay man and lesbian woman and insisting they'd rather see the human race go extinct rather than "choosing" to breed with one another


Okay, i'll take your Doomsday situation and raise you:

A heterosexual man and woman of different races, each holding personal opposing values about life, unable to see eye to eye. Suppose they should just "choose" to breed to save our messed up little earth?



posted on Feb, 21 2013 @ 10:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by seabag
reply to post by TrueAmerican
 



Marriage is more of a religious issue to me anyway, and always has been, with its core concepts coming from books like the Bible- and perhaps before that in ancient community.


It absolutely has a religious foundation….as did our country when founded. I don’t understand why we can’t have civil unions with ALL of the so-called “perks” of marriage from a legal standpoint without the title “marriage”? The “marriage” part is what’s dividing everyone and creating the rift IMO.

Why can’t you call it something else? Most conservatives don’t give a crap what you do, what you claim on your taxes, who you add to your insurance as a "spouse", who you sleep with, etc. We care about the sanctity of marriage between one MAN and one WOMAN.

Do what you want but don't call it “marriage.”



If its just a word, why dont you just give it up?
edit on 21-2-2013 by SearchLightsInc because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 21 2013 @ 10:39 AM
link   
Will they just let them get married already? What a pathetic non issue we have here,they are part of the community now.
I suppose my many heretical views will get me burned with the Christian crowd (which I am a member of) but Jesus spoke of tolerance and we should love the sinner and hate the sin.
Lets just put this baby to bed so we can get on with our lives.



posted on Feb, 21 2013 @ 10:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by Signals
Why do gay couples need to be legally married? Don't they receive the same legal protections through a legal union or partnership?

No. They don't have the same rights as married people. Off the top of my head I'll put forward 'insurance issues' ... but I know there are many more ...


Originally posted by JohnnyCanuck
I know that there are posters in this thread of the Roman Catholic faith. Obviously, the Church hierarchy does not endorse gay marriage. Is that tough to reconcile?

I was raised Catholic and was a Third Order Carmelite for 10 years so I guess I can answer that, even though that's not where I am anymore. The Catholic church is NOT in favor of gay marriage and it won't ever be. There are lots of Catholics out there who aren't 'good catholics' ... those that favor gay marriage, those that favor abortion, those that favor 'test tube babies' .... and they are all going against the church in these matters.

TECHNICALLY .. according to the Catholic faith .. those that publically support abortion and/or 'test tube babies' have excommunicated themselves from the Church and should not be receiving Holy Communion. No 'official' excommunication is supposed to be required. But in reality those people still go to communion.

I don't know of any automatic 'excommunication' for supporting Gay Marriage. But that doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. At this time I'm unaware of an automatic excommunication.

Excommunication means that they can still go to church but just can't go receive communion until they have been to confession and stop what the church considers to be a sin.





new topics

top topics



 
10
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join