Comments on: Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD) Went Too Far http://www.loveisanorientation.com/2010/glaad/ Counterculture. Faith. Love. Sun, 05 Feb 2012 04:46:35 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: JHing http://www.loveisanorientation.com/2010/glaad/comment-page-1/#comment-2547 JHing Mon, 08 Feb 2010 02:14:59 +0000 http://www.loveisanorientation.com/?p=1096#comment-2547 Seems to me that GLAAD's mission is large enough to include issues that directly affect all women in America, lesbians included. So airing an anti-choice commercial definitely falls within this larger political goal of freedom for all. Also, the commercial is of dubious validity, since the issue of birth took place in the Phillipines, where abortion has been completely illegal. The right wing christian agenda has always been anti-lesbian, anti-gay, anti-right of women to choose (including the idea that giving birth should be forced on women even in instances of rape and incest). If advocacy ads were rejected from left wing groups, then they should also be rejected by right wing groups. So GLAAD's mission is not just a single issue one. Seems to me that GLAAD’s mission is large enough to include issues that directly affect all women in America, lesbians included. So airing an anti-choice commercial definitely falls within this larger political goal of freedom for all. Also, the commercial is of dubious validity, since the issue of birth took place in the Phillipines, where abortion has been completely illegal. The right wing christian agenda has always been anti-lesbian, anti-gay, anti-right of women to choose (including the idea that giving birth should be forced on women even in instances of rape and incest). If advocacy ads were rejected from left wing groups, then they should also be rejected by right wing groups. So GLAAD’s mission is not just a single issue one.

]]> By: Andrew Marin http://www.loveisanorientation.com/2010/glaad/comment-page-1/#comment-2517 Andrew Marin Sun, 31 Jan 2010 17:37:13 +0000 http://www.loveisanorientation.com/?p=1096#comment-2517 Oh, 2 other things: Iphimedia - You make a great point! If CBS has a right to air a commercial, so does GLAAD and the UCC have a right to complain. I'm just not a big fan of the "here's the name, address, phone number and email of the people in charge and you should pester them until they break" method. And that goes for Christian organizations who do the same thing. A.Roddy - Tolerance does work both ways! Oh, 2 other things:

Iphimedia – You make a great point! If CBS has a right to air a commercial, so does GLAAD and the UCC have a right to complain. I’m just not a big fan of the “here’s the name, address, phone number and email of the people in charge and you should pester them until they break” method. And that goes for Christian organizations who do the same thing.

A.Roddy – Tolerance does work both ways!

]]> By: Andrew Marin http://www.loveisanorientation.com/2010/glaad/comment-page-1/#comment-2516 Andrew Marin Sun, 31 Jan 2010 17:33:32 +0000 http://www.loveisanorientation.com/?p=1096#comment-2516 Jon - I was talking to a friend the other day about the Mancrunch ad, and they brought up an interesting point I had not thought of.... The Super Bowl's demographics are straight, super alpha-male type guys. Let's say the gay community is 10% of the population, and how much of that 10% do you think cares about, or watches the Super Bowl? Therefore, would such a Mancrunch commerical be wise to accept? Then again (and thanks for the background about Tebow's situation), does that straight alpha-male demographic care about abortion either? I did hear about UCC opting to use that potential money to donate to Haiti. I got a kick out of that...it's their way of sticking it to the man that is Focus on the Family. Ironic, isn't it?! Jon – I was talking to a friend the other day about the Mancrunch ad, and they brought up an interesting point I had not thought of….

The Super Bowl’s demographics are straight, super alpha-male type guys. Let’s say the gay community is 10% of the population, and how much of that 10% do you think cares about, or watches the Super Bowl? Therefore, would such a Mancrunch commerical be wise to accept? Then again (and thanks for the background about Tebow’s situation), does that straight alpha-male demographic care about abortion either?

I did hear about UCC opting to use that potential money to donate to Haiti. I got a kick out of that…it’s their way of sticking it to the man that is Focus on the Family. Ironic, isn’t it?!

]]> By: Jon Trouten http://www.loveisanorientation.com/2010/glaad/comment-page-1/#comment-2513 Jon Trouten Sun, 31 Jan 2010 14:50:24 +0000 http://www.loveisanorientation.com/?p=1096#comment-2513 GLAAD's mission statement doesn't address Christianity. It addresses defamation towards GLBT folks and images in the media. Then again, the UCC is a Christian denomination and GLAAD was working alongside them with the press release referenced in this blog entry. I'm not sure what the UCC ad was trying to sway people towards. It's an invitation to those who've been rejected by Christianity to try out their local UCC church. BTW, CBS did indeed reject the Mancrunch ad. Additionally, it's been revealed by Gloria Allred that Tim Tebow's mother was pregnant with him in the Phillipeans, which has had very strict anti-abortion legislation since 1930. So the idea of her being pressured by doctors to abort him due to medical reasons is somewhat in question. Also, the UCC has wisely opted to not air any of their ads during the Super Bowl, choosing instead of invest money towards earthquake relief efforts in Haiti. GLAAD’s mission statement doesn’t address Christianity. It addresses defamation towards GLBT folks and images in the media. Then again, the UCC is a Christian denomination and GLAAD was working alongside them with the press release referenced in this blog entry.

I’m not sure what the UCC ad was trying to sway people towards. It’s an invitation to those who’ve been rejected by Christianity to try out their local UCC church.

BTW, CBS did indeed reject the Mancrunch ad. Additionally, it’s been revealed by Gloria Allred that Tim Tebow’s mother was pregnant with him in the Phillipeans, which has had very strict anti-abortion legislation since 1930. So the idea of her being pressured by doctors to abort him due to medical reasons is somewhat in question. Also, the UCC has wisely opted to not air any of their ads during the Super Bowl, choosing instead of invest money towards earthquake relief efforts in Haiti.

]]> By: A.Roddy http://www.loveisanorientation.com/2010/glaad/comment-page-1/#comment-2511 A.Roddy Sun, 31 Jan 2010 05:46:23 +0000 http://www.loveisanorientation.com/?p=1096#comment-2511 Wy dont they stop al the ones who speak negative toward Christians and other religious groups? tolerance work both wayas. honestly neither ad should be aired. I dont like anyhting that tries to sway people opinions whether liberal or conservative. The man crunch comercial shouldnt eb aired as well as other racy dating commercials like text flirt. Wy dont they stop al the ones who speak negative toward Christians and other religious groups? tolerance work both wayas. honestly neither ad should be aired. I dont like anyhting that tries to sway people opinions whether liberal or conservative. The man crunch comercial shouldnt eb aired as well as other racy dating commercials like text flirt.

]]> By: Iphimedia http://www.loveisanorientation.com/2010/glaad/comment-page-1/#comment-2482 Iphimedia Fri, 29 Jan 2010 04:33:52 +0000 http://www.loveisanorientation.com/?p=1096#comment-2482 Andrew, I see your point that CBS can air anything it likes as a corporate entity and can change its policies at will, as we live in (in my opinion, woefully) consumerist, materialist, and freemarket-dominated society. Of course the network can do anything it likes with its money, however unfair. Two points however: 1) it seems a little convenient that CBS should have "changed its advocacy policy" when a nicely conservative ad such as Focus on the Family's should be ready to be aired. If the UCC's ad had been offered again, I wonder if CBS would have suddenly announced that it had changed its policy back so that it would not have to air and ad that perhaps its top folks disagree with. There is no way to prove this short of interviewing the heads of CBS; it's simply speculation. 2) I take issue with your accusation that GLAAD and UCC are "infringing upon a freedom of not only the ability to communicate a message....but also infringing upon the right of our consumerist culture to choose for themselves what they want to promote." How is putting out a press release "infringing" anyone's rights--to the contrary, these organizations are exercising their rights to free speech, by placing their arguments out in the free marketplace of ideas and trying to persuade the public to take a certain lawful course of action. You don't like that course of action, and you are on your blog exercising your right to free speech with counterarguments. Where is the infringement? To infringe according to dictionary.com means "to commit a breach or infraction of; violate or transgress.. to encroach or trespass." With this press release, UCC and GLAAD are transgressing against no law and encroaching on no one's rights. No one need take the action being urged; they are only expressing their concerns about the context and timing of the ad, and the nature of the ad's sponsor. We live in a freemarket economy; we also, thank God, live in a freemarket place where people and the press can express any ideas they want and try to convince people to support or oppose a powerful entity like CBS and like Focus on the Family. In fact, free speech is one of the few weapons that smaller, poorer individuals and groups have against huge interest groups and profit-making networks. The nature of the action that GLAAD and UCC are urging is very simple, peaceful, honest and direct: Please contact CBS and express your concerns about the integrity of the network’s decision-making process in allowing the anti-gay Focus on the Family to advertise on the network after having unfairly denied that ability to an LGBT-inclusive church like the United Church of Christ." What is wrong with asking someone to express concerns? 3. As for your solution that UCC should simply take out their own ad rather than expressing their concerns in the press, that is overly simplistic. Why shouldn't they do both? Also, perhaps that denomination, six years later, simply is not positioned financially at this time. I don't see why they shouldn't use the weapons they have to peacefully protest what I see as a legitimate complaint against an unjust policy. Andrew, I see your point that CBS can air anything it likes as a corporate entity and can change its policies at will, as we live in (in my opinion, woefully) consumerist, materialist, and freemarket-dominated society. Of course the network can do anything it likes with its money, however unfair. Two points however: 1) it seems a little convenient that CBS should have “changed its advocacy policy” when a nicely conservative ad such as Focus on the Family’s should be ready to be aired. If the UCC’s ad had been offered again, I wonder if CBS would have suddenly announced that it had changed its policy back so that it would not have to air and ad that perhaps its top folks disagree with. There is no way to prove this short of interviewing the heads of CBS; it’s simply speculation. 2) I take issue with your accusation that GLAAD and UCC are “infringing upon a freedom of not only the ability to communicate a message….but also infringing upon the right of our consumerist culture to choose for themselves what they want to promote.” How is putting out a press release “infringing” anyone’s rights–to the contrary, these organizations are exercising their rights to free speech, by placing their arguments out in the free marketplace of ideas and trying to persuade the public to take a certain lawful course of action. You don’t like that course of action, and you are on your blog exercising your right to free speech with counterarguments. Where is the infringement? To infringe according to dictionary.com means “to commit a breach or infraction of; violate or transgress.. to encroach or trespass.” With this press release, UCC and GLAAD are transgressing against no law and encroaching on no one’s rights. No one need take the action being urged; they are only expressing their concerns about the context and timing of the ad, and the nature of the ad’s sponsor. We live in a freemarket economy; we also, thank God, live in a freemarket place where people and the press can express any ideas they want and try to convince people to support or oppose a powerful entity like CBS and like Focus on the Family. In fact, free speech is one of the few weapons that smaller, poorer individuals and groups have against huge interest groups and profit-making networks. The nature of the action that GLAAD and UCC are urging is very simple, peaceful, honest and direct: Please contact CBS and express your concerns about the integrity of the network’s decision-making process in allowing the anti-gay Focus on the Family to advertise on the network after having unfairly denied that ability to an LGBT-inclusive church like the United Church of Christ.” What is wrong with asking someone to express concerns?
3. As for your solution that UCC should simply take out their own ad rather than expressing their concerns in the press, that is overly simplistic. Why shouldn’t they do both? Also, perhaps that denomination, six years later, simply is not positioned financially at this time. I don’t see why they shouldn’t use the weapons they have to peacefully protest what I see as a legitimate complaint against an unjust policy.

]]> By: Jon Trouten http://www.loveisanorientation.com/2010/glaad/comment-page-1/#comment-2480 Jon Trouten Thu, 28 Jan 2010 22:30:53 +0000 http://www.loveisanorientation.com/?p=1096#comment-2480 Here's a blog-link about the ManCrunch commercial, complete with a clip for the ad. Not really an equivalent to the bounced UCC "Bouncer" commercial or a counter-balance to the FOTF anti-abortion ad. Seems juvenile and somewhat flippant towards the people that it's reaching out to, imho. http://joemygod.blogspot.com/2010/01/cbs-considers-gay-ad-for-super-bowl.html Here’s a blog-link about the ManCrunch commercial, complete with a clip for the ad. Not really an equivalent to the bounced UCC “Bouncer” commercial or a counter-balance to the FOTF anti-abortion ad. Seems juvenile and somewhat flippant towards the people that it’s reaching out to, imho.

http://joemygod.blogspot.com/2010/01/cbs-considers-gay-ad-for-super-bowl.html

]]> By: Phil George http://www.loveisanorientation.com/2010/glaad/comment-page-1/#comment-2479 Phil George Thu, 28 Jan 2010 22:00:34 +0000 http://www.loveisanorientation.com/?p=1096#comment-2479 Andrew, I appreciate you holding both sides accountable. I just saw on the Fox News site, that CBS is considering an ad for a gay dating service called ManCrunch during the Super Bowl. That could make things interesting. Andrew, I appreciate you holding both sides accountable. I just saw on the Fox News site, that CBS is considering an ad for a gay dating service called ManCrunch during the Super Bowl. That could make things interesting.

]]> By: Andrew Marin http://www.loveisanorientation.com/2010/glaad/comment-page-1/#comment-2477 Andrew Marin Thu, 28 Jan 2010 19:59:29 +0000 http://www.loveisanorientation.com/?p=1096#comment-2477 Jon - I read your links, and thank you again for the level, principled way in which you discuss this topic! And I loved watching the commercial in question, as I had never seen it before. For people interested, you can watch it here: http://jontrouten.blogspot.com/2010/01/has-cbs-changed-its-policy-against.html Hihopes - I totally agree with you. I think this things would be sqashed if the UCC petitioned to run the commercial again. However CBS answered, would sure make their intentions definitively more clear. Matthew - Your core principle makes total sense - what is appropriate and legal isn't always what's best or right! I 100% agree. I don't think what CBS did is 'right' but it is legal, and that is their choice. I just don't think, especially on the overly divisive subject matter of faith and homosexuality; GLAAD's medium of engagement might not be the best either. In the email I sent to my leader friend at GLAAD, I offered to help them get in actual public and private discussions with FoF. I think things can be resolved much better at that point. Also, on my Facebook a UCC pastor commented to the situation: "Andrew, as a UCC minister I find this supposed outrage over this matter interesting. In regards to the UCC ad, there have been several other ads that were accepted an eventually ran. I think the UCC used the "rejection" of their ad as a way to rally their supporters. I believe they could have simply modified their controversial commercial a ... See Morelittle bit and would have found the networks open to showing it. Sorry to take your post off topic. I appreciate your approach and hope you are doing well." Jon – I read your links, and thank you again for the level, principled way in which you discuss this topic! And I loved watching the commercial in question, as I had never seen it before. For people interested, you can watch it here:

http://jontrouten.blogspot.com/2010/01/has-cbs-changed-its-policy-against.html

Hihopes – I totally agree with you. I think this things would be sqashed if the UCC petitioned to run the commercial again. However CBS answered, would sure make their intentions definitively more clear.

Matthew – Your core principle makes total sense – what is appropriate and legal isn’t always what’s best or right! I 100% agree. I don’t think what CBS did is ‘right’ but it is legal, and that is their choice. I just don’t think, especially on the overly divisive subject matter of faith and homosexuality; GLAAD’s medium of engagement might not be the best either. In the email I sent to my leader friend at GLAAD, I offered to help them get in actual public and private discussions with FoF. I think things can be resolved much better at that point.

Also, on my Facebook a UCC pastor commented to the situation:

“Andrew, as a UCC minister I find this supposed outrage over this matter interesting. In regards to the UCC ad, there have been several other ads that were accepted an eventually ran. I think the UCC used the “rejection” of their ad as a way to rally their supporters. I believe they could have simply modified their controversial commercial a … See Morelittle bit and would have found the networks open to showing it. Sorry to take your post off topic. I appreciate your approach and hope you are doing well.”

]]> By: Matthew http://www.loveisanorientation.com/2010/glaad/comment-page-1/#comment-2476 Matthew Thu, 28 Jan 2010 19:40:14 +0000 http://www.loveisanorientation.com/?p=1096#comment-2476 I appreciate the work you do IMMENSELY, but I do differ here. We can weigh what's legal & politically appropriate, but doing so truly does sidestep the real issue here: it hurts for CBS to reject an inclusive church ad and then to turn around and allow an ad from an organization that is very exclusive in its approach to LGBT people. Regardless of the subject matter of FotF's. What's politically appropriate & legal isn't always what's best or right. I appreciate the work you do IMMENSELY, but I do differ here. We can weigh what’s legal & politically appropriate, but doing so truly does sidestep the real issue here: it hurts for CBS to reject an inclusive church ad and then to turn around and allow an ad from an organization that is very exclusive in its approach to LGBT people. Regardless of the subject matter of FotF’s.

What’s politically appropriate & legal isn’t always what’s best or right.

]]> By: Hihopes http://www.loveisanorientation.com/2010/glaad/comment-page-1/#comment-2475 Hihopes Thu, 28 Jan 2010 19:24:50 +0000 http://www.loveisanorientation.com/?p=1096#comment-2475 I have to say, the cosmic energies must be swirling in this area. As a board member of a PFLAG chapter I am faced with discriminatory comments and derogatory inferences towards Christians. And while there is a lot of evidence to support their arguments and claims...... There are times I find the comments and declarations as offensive and being nothing more than discrimination. It is ironic to me that it is 'offensiveness' that drew me to joining PFLAG, in defense and support of LGBT people and yet, it is offensiveness that, 'at-times' causes me to question my involvement. And then I remember..... It is by the grace of God that I stand in support of LGBT people (even those I do not agree with) and it is this same grace that makes me stand for Christians (even those I do not agree with)........... You are hitting the nail-on-the-head. No real bridge-building work can come through a 'this-or-that' approach. They should seek to release the previous ad, and if they get denied in 2010........... perhaps then, they have an appeal. If Focus can run an ad on Abortion (I assume, opposing the action), when abortion is a legal right; then GLAAD (& UCC) should be able to run their ad which doesn't run-against any 'rights' but suggests, inclusiveness and unity . ..........Weird to think that if in 2010, they cannot run an ad of 'that' nature than that would suggest we have not grown ???................I would love to see what this would reveal. Now....GLAAD and UCC would have something to truly say. A 'why that' versus 'why not this'? I have to say, the cosmic energies must be swirling in this area.

As a board member of a PFLAG chapter I am faced with discriminatory comments and derogatory inferences towards Christians. And while there is a lot of evidence to support their arguments and claims…… There are times I find the comments and declarations as offensive and being nothing more than discrimination.

It is ironic to me that it is ‘offensiveness’ that drew me to joining PFLAG, in defense and support of LGBT people and yet, it is offensiveness that, ‘at-times’ causes me to question my involvement.

And then I remember…..

It is by the grace of God that I stand in support of LGBT people (even those I do not agree with) and it is this same grace that makes me stand for Christians (even those I do not agree with)………..

You are hitting the nail-on-the-head. No real bridge-building work can come through a ‘this-or-that’ approach. They should seek to release the previous ad, and if they get denied in 2010……….. perhaps then, they have an appeal.

If Focus can run an ad on Abortion (I assume, opposing the action), when abortion is a legal right; then GLAAD (& UCC) should be able to run their ad which doesn’t run-against any ‘rights’ but suggests, inclusiveness and unity .

……….Weird to think that if in 2010, they cannot run an ad of ‘that’ nature than that would suggest we have not grown ???…………….I would love to see what this would reveal. Now….GLAAD and UCC would have something to truly say. A ‘why that’ versus ‘why not this’?

]]> By: Jon Trouten http://www.loveisanorientation.com/2010/glaad/comment-page-1/#comment-2474 Jon Trouten Thu, 28 Jan 2010 19:01:42 +0000 http://www.loveisanorientation.com/?p=1096#comment-2474 I dunno, Andrew. CBS needed to clarify their position on accepting "advocacy advertising", given their previous history of denying the UCC on that basis, as well as their previous assertion that they DO NOT ever accept advocacy advertising. Now someone (besides the UCC who doesn't have the cash for advertising) like HRC or another pro-gay organization needs to submit a pro-gay advocacy commercial to test CBS' commitment to tasteful advocacy acceptance. Incidentally, IIRC LOGO (CBS's gay channel) was forbidden from airing that gay positive UCC commercial. How's that for funny? I have my own questions and opinions on the subject. You can read them here (http://jontrouten.blogspot.com/2010/01/has-cbs-changed-its-policy-against.html) and here (http://jontrouten.blogspot.com/2010/01/cbs-reconsiders-advocacy-advertising.html). One more recent thought I had after reading the above CBS quote questions why the UCC church was viewed as a pro-marriage equality/anti-Bush statement? I dunno, Andrew. CBS needed to clarify their position on accepting “advocacy advertising”, given their previous history of denying the UCC on that basis, as well as their previous assertion that they DO NOT ever accept advocacy advertising. Now someone (besides the UCC who doesn’t have the cash for advertising) like HRC or another pro-gay organization needs to submit a pro-gay advocacy commercial to test CBS’ commitment to tasteful advocacy acceptance.

Incidentally, IIRC LOGO (CBS’s gay channel) was forbidden from airing that gay positive UCC commercial. How’s that for funny?

I have my own questions and opinions on the subject. You can read them here (http://jontrouten.blogspot.com/2010/01/has-cbs-changed-its-policy-against.html) and here (http://jontrouten.blogspot.com/2010/01/cbs-reconsiders-advocacy-advertising.html).

One more recent thought I had after reading the above CBS quote questions why the UCC church was viewed as a pro-marriage equality/anti-Bush statement?

]]>