Weak Arguments made by "Yes on Proposition 8"

Hey Readers!




We would like to extend our blog not only to compile evidence on why we should say No to 8, but also reveal the weak arguments of those who are anti- same sex marriage. I would like to focus specifically on one oppositional blog that is on the social networking site, myspace, and it is called Yes on Proposition 8. This is an interactive blog on a myspace member’s profile that lives in Sacramento, California. Other members of the social network comment on this person’s arguments and add their own opinions. Within the site there are also other blog links listed that are in support of 8. This blog incorporates videos and photos to visually stress their arguments around the idea that marriage is only between a man and a woman. Within this refutation I would like to point out three weak arguments that I have found within this myspace page. The author of this page writes that there are 3 simple things that voting Yes on Proposition 8 does.




The first argument the author makes is that, by voting yes on Prop 8, “It restores the definition of marriage to what the vast majority of California voters already approved and what Californians agree should be supported, not undermined.” First off, what is this vast majority of voters? This argument ignores the fact that there were thousands of people for same-sex marriage and publicly speaking out for their rights. This is a weak statement because where are their facts? According to Ballot Pedia election results of this ballot show that only 52.3 percent of the votes were for prop 8. This is barely over half, would one consider this a vast majority? It seems like a split down the center decision for me, at lease according to these statistics.




Their second argument is as follows, by voting yes to Prop 8, “It overturns the outrageous decision of four activist Supreme Court judges who ignored the will of the people.” When reading this statement, I am infuriated from the statement “ignored the will of the people” because wait a second, doesn’t this Proposition itself ignore the rights of an entire group of people?




The last argument this myspace blog claims is that by voting yes, “It protects our children from being taught in public schools that “same-sex marriage” is the same as traditional marriage, and prevents other consequences to Californians who will be forced to not just be tolerant of gay lifestyles, but face mandatory compliance regardless of their personal beliefs.” This is the weakest argument yet. In public schools, exactly what school subject is marriage actually studied in? Out of all my years in my schooling I never once had a section on the legalizations of marriage. That is within the family and it is up the parents to teach children whatever beliefs they choose. Another reason this argument is weak is that people do not have to tolerate anything; it is just letting everyone have the same rights to everything. It would be just the same to say that Californians have to tolerate that African Americans and woman can vote.




The fact is that people who are in support of these arguments made not only by this myspace page, but also other anti-same sex marriage groups are ignoring the rights of people. They want to deny an entire population the benefits of marriage and what is the point of that? We are all the same no matter whom we choose to love, so why discriminate against homosexuals for wanting to share all aspects of life with their partners.

http://www.myspace.com/yesonprop8
Yes on Proposition 8

Of the People, For the People

The issue of gay rights has been one that has stirred many people’s emotions in the last few years. States across the nation have voted on the issue of gay and lesbian marriage, and while several states have passed legal marriage into law, some have gone against it. For various reasons people believe that same sex couples should not have the right to marry one another. There are also a lot of people that believe all people should be entitled to marry and for that reason same sex marriages should be made legal in every state. Recently, the state of California just passed a proposition in response to a former law making gay marriage legal. Proposition Eight was brought up by those who still disagreed with the decision the state had made and with a state wide vote during the 2008 election the proposition was passed into law, making it illegal for any same sex couple to be wed. Before Proposition Eight was passed many people expressed their opinions through blogs, different articles, protests, and even television commercials. In particular, these television advertisements that were viewed prior to the proposition being passed look to the grassroots of human rights by trying to identify with those who believe in the right of equality for all.

A certain television commercial that was aired shortly before the election took place includes three well know Latin-Americans, America Ferrera, Tony Plana and Ana Ortiz, who in the commercial speak out and encourage their listeners to vote no on Proposition Eight. Through their dialogue the listener is able to get a sense that they are speaking to all ordinary citizens of the United States in a plea for equality. They point the issue out to be more than just about laws and political opinions, but more of an issue on the right to have a family. A quote by Jane Howard sums up the importance of this kind of group. “Call it a clan, call it a network, call it a tribe, call it a family: Whatever you call it, whoever you are, you need one.” This subject will most definitely appeal to anyone who knows what it is like to have a loving family and that is how they make their point on the issue so strong. Tony Plana also seeks to bond with anyone who thinks their marriage is important to them by saying, “Eight discriminates against our families and friends by eliminating their rights to a civil marriage.” By voicing his words like this he is able to a simply connect with a part of everyone’s lives and that is treating our family and friend kindly, equally, and most important how you would want to be treated.

In this group’s message, they especially try to get away from the political sphere and look at what directly affects the people of this country. Ana Ortiz says, “Laws should not be used to discriminate against anyone,” and American Ferrera continues to say, “It’s about eliminating a human right.” They are trying to get to the foundation of this issue and that is human rights. Human rights should not be dependent on the views of political leaders or even activists against gay marriage. By voting yes and passing Proposition Eight, these people are eliminating some people’s right to a civil marriage, and this brings up the question, would you like it if your right to a civil marriage was nonexistent or taken away? They also bring up the other side of the issue and that has to do with the rules of certain religions and schools. But because we know American is a Secular state making religion and government a totally separate entity, it should come from what is fair and what is right. These positions are what help strengthen the bond between the speakers on this commercial and many of its viewers. Many times this issue also becomes a matter of discrimination. While politicians and our nation’s government are the ones to create laws, these laws should not be used to discriminate against anyone and this comes down to equality for all people.

If we begin to look at other issue and debates like this one, many of our views may be changed. As politics continue to have large impacts on the things people do every day and the way people may think about certain issues, it is important to look back on the grassroots of the issues and see from a different perspective what the issue really comes down to. 

Visual Pugilism and Prop 8

If we think back to the days when the debate around Proposition 8 was at its apogee, you might recall a surfeit of ad campaigns telling you which way to vote - many of these commercials even reached audiences who couldn't vote on the issue. An academic analysis of these commercials enables us to better understand the methodology by which these campaigns seek to change your opinion. The following academic review of four Proposition 8 commercials will illustrate how visual argument became a potent political weapon.

A little girl skips towards her mother with some exciting news, “Mom, guess what I learned in class today? I learned a prince can marry a prince and I can marry a princess” (Protectmarriage.com)! The little girl proceeds to show her mom the story she is so excited about entitled “King & King”. As the mother’s eyes protrude with shock, a voice steps in proclaiming, “Do you think it can’t happen?” This advertisement is of course supporting Proposition 8 – a referendum that banned gay marriage in California in 2008. Surrounding the debate was a myriad of visual advertisements that supported the passage of Prop 8 (banning of gay marriage) that militated against a minority of dissenting commercials. This analysis will discuss how visual aspects influenced the narrative portrayed in two affirmative (pro-Prop 8) commercials and two negative (against Prop 8) commercials. Specifically, I will answer the question: How does an understanding of visual argumentation enable the viewer to properly evaluate the arguments being advanced in these commercials?

The first, and most prominent, aspect of visual arguments is their ability to evoke emotion. All four commercials seek to affiliate the scenes with a personal attack of some kind. A combination of the use of expressions on the actors’ faces and ominous sounding music effectively achieves this goal. Affirmative commercial one portrays a little blonde girl whose look is reminiscent of a Brady Bunch daughter. As she plays on the floor, while her presumably two fathers read the paper on the couch, she begins to ask questions about where babies come from. As the fathers fail to answer the questions posed by their daughter in terms she can understand, a voice steps in, “Don’t confuse our children. Vote yes on Proposition 8.”[1] As the little girl looks sad and confused, the natural reaction might be to feel bad for her anomalous situation. Negative commercial one depicts the most dramatic scene. Two actors dressed as Mormons knock on the door of a married female couple[2]. As the traditional-looking women (obvious loaded statement, both were white in their 30’s, one blonde, one brunette) graciously open their door, the two Mormons barge in stating, “We are here to take away your rights.” As they rummage through their house, they finally find the marriage contract and tear it up in the couple’s faces. The blatant disregard for the law illustrated by the Mormons creates the narrative that they do not respect legal rights and therefore are not a credible source on Proposition 8.

The second aspect of visual argument revolves around the presentation of evidence. Three of the four commercials analyzed, set up hypothetical scenarios of what could, or would, happen if Proposition 8 went against their favor. Affirmative commercial two shows a clean-cut teacher walking into his administrator’s office as he frustrating voices, “I can’t teach this[3].” The administrator acts as a tenuous opponent to the seasoned teacher’s seemingly pragmatic questions about what he is being forced to teach his students. By creating this example, it suggests that if Proposition 8 passes teachers will be forced into an unfair position. The commercial ends with the teachers claiming he never had a choice but to take a stand on this issue as it was the moral thing to do. Evidence through visual tools can be a powerful didactic which pushes an agenda into a certain frame. Correspondingly, how that evidence is presented can be equally important.

What key symbols or characteristics are placed in the visual medium to add to its credibility? Perhaps the most widely used method is normalization. All four commercials use “normal-looking” or stereotypical actors and settings to portray their victim. The antagonist, on the other hand, will often be placed in an unusual or pejorative light. To revisit the teacher-administrator example, various symbols are strategically placed to add to the credibility of the scene. On legislative issues, an American flag is nearly always in frame to help attach the wanted view with American values and heritage. In this commercial the flag remains in the background as the two educators battle on Proposition 8. When the teacher (critic of Prop 8) seems to prevail, the flag becomes slightly more visible. A telephone call comes in at the end of the scene creating two rhetorical narratives. First, the phone rings at the end of the session forcing the teacher to take his final stand before the administrator must answer. This establishes a “the time to answer is now” narrative. Second, the notion of a phone call suggests that “the issue is calling” and you must take a stand and answer just as the teacher has. The placements of symbols are nearly always purposeful to strengthen connotations surrounding an argument. Just symbols are chosen for dramatic effect, so is the literal placement of the frame itself.

In film, camera orientation can encourage emotion evocation in enumerable ways. One such popular method in the four commercials was the use of close-ups. As the stories progressed in each scene, the camera would slowly move in on the face of the actors to add to climatic intensity. By humanizing the victims it creates a bond between the viewer and character that aims to be sympathetic. This method is employed with the teacher, the married lesbian couple and the little girl (all three victims of the legislation). The second most used method was the upward-oriented angel to portray dominance. As this legislation was viewed on both sides as an infringement upon the other’s rights, the use of a camera looking-upward was always pointed at the antagonist. This portrays unjust dominance by the other group as illustrated by the Mormons and the gay fathers describing marriage to their daughter.

The final element of visual argument to discuss is referencing. Referencing can have both a powerful effect to those who understand the reference, and a confused effect for those who are unaware. Negative commercial two is the perfect example. This commercial is set-up exactly as the successful Macintosh ad campaign that placed a young and “with-it” actor to personify Macintosh and an older and nerdy-looking actor to personify Windows (PC) all against a plain white backdrop[4]. In our commercial, the actors are correspondingly juxtaposed (advocate of Prop 8 as the nerd). Marrying (pun intended) this successful advertisement with the No Campaign on Prop 8 seeks to draw from that success and translate it into advantageous policy. While the dynamic between the two actors is strikingly similar to that of the Macintosh commercials, this reference would be entirely lost if the viewer does not have some prior minimal knowledge of the Macintosh advertisement.

As illustrated, visual arguments can be powerful tools to help evoke emotion, provide evidence and create symbolic references. The visual advantages over print can be so substantial that it comes as no surprise that millions were spent on commercials for and against Proposition 8. A more comprehensive understanding of visual argument enables the viewer to properly evaluate context, and helps foster an awareness of what methodologies are being employed by the campaign. As Proposition 8 passed, one could argue that the advocates were more adroit in their attempts utilize these techniques.

---

[1] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=75J3TN9Zzck

[2] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q28UwAyzUkE&feature=related

[3] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U8j2y9WtTPw&feature=related

[4] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b9T7ux8M4Go

Freedom to Marry

Prop 8

In November of 2008, the state of California passed the Prop 8 proposed ballot. California now only recognizes marriages that are between a man and a woman. Our group, Homo Sapiens, chose to investigate this topic further because it is an important issue regarding equality among people. I would like to focus on another specific group called, Freedom to Marry. This gay rights group has created a daily blog in which they post events, articles, and also links to other gay rights groups. I want to look at how they frame their arguments against Prop 8 and show how they want their audiences to connect with their message. As we analyze Freedom to Marry, we can look at their overall persona. One will be able to see this through the group’s credibility, their values they want their audience to adopt and also how they refer to oppositional groups to make their point.

Because Freedom to Marry is an already established group they have made great efforts to connect and work with other organizations to end the ruling of Prop 8. Freedom to Marry not only wants to accomplish this goal in the state of California but also nationwide. This group establishes its ethos by referring to their four main principles that they uphold,“We are, Catalyst driving the national debate on the freedom to marry; Grassroots network of activists building support for marriage online and on the ground; Strategy and messaging center providing support to local, state, and national allies; and Funding engine helping to fuel the marriage movement nationwide.” Also when looking at this group’s blog one can tell that they are trying to reach out all over the country. Evidence shows this even within their last ten posts when they post not just about California but also Washington DC, Maryland, and Iowa. One can also see that this is credible group because when looking through other gay rights groups main websites they are referenced as a driving supporter of the movement.

One of the most important parts of this group is how they frame their arguments to the audience. When reading the first page of the blog within almost every post is the word equality, which is stressed time and time again. For example, the value is shown in one post that is a link to an article about Meghan McCain, who is a daughter of presidential republican candidate John McCain. Meghan spoke out as a voice for Freedom to Marry at George Washington University. The article written by Madeleine Morgenstern starts out by saying “Meghan McCain voiced her support for marriage equality in a speech at the Jack Morton Auditorium Thursday night, calling it “this generation’s civil rights movement” and urging like-minded “progressive Republicans” to start speaking out.” By posting this link, Freedom to Marry is showing its readers that this is a humanity issue and no matter what political view one takes he or she can still speak out about it. Meghan McCain is only one of the well-known individuals that have been referenced in their posts.

The last part of the persona that Freedom to Marry acknowledges is not involved with the group themselves or the audiences, but instead the third persona. The third persona is the other individuals or groups that Freedom to Marry posts about that for Prop 8 and who want to exclude same-sex marriages. Most of the third personas Freedom to Marry refer to are either religious leaders or lawmakers. For example there is a post about an article in the Washington Post that talks about Utah senator Bob Bennett and his attempt to block D.C. same-sex marriages. There are more examples if you look on their site, but this evidence shows that Freedom to Marry has a strong stance against the politicians and the churches that have chosen to reject a whole category of people.

Persona is certainly an important theory to understand the mindset of support groups like Freedom to Marry. These groups want to involve their readers and make an impact on them in hopes of encouraging people to reach out on issues such as the Marriage Equality movement. This is important to our group, Homo Sapiens because we want our readers to identify with our groups or blogs with a similar mindset as us.

FREEDOM TO MARRY

http://www.freedomtomarry.org/blog/

Horay for Gay!

I just wanted to start off by welcoming you to our page, and giving you a little insight as to what will be on the agenda if you hadn't already gotten a good idea. This blog is based on modern day civil rights. No, Dr. King hasn't returned from beyond the grave to regail us with another earth shaking speech, but I can imagine he would have a few words to share about today's civil injustices.


Discrimination is pretty much the same no matter how you look at it. If you are willing to exclude one group based on reasons beyond their control... i.e., age, race, gender, religious views, etc. then congratulations you're prejudice! But don't worry we'll value your opinions the same as those that agree with ours, because everyone deserves an equal opportunity to be heard.


Now for the nitty gritty, it's easiest just to lay out our position and you can agree or disagree but this is what we believe. We are pro equality. We believe everyone should be afforded the same rights, given that we are all American citizens- " One Nation Under God" if you will. And finally the issue we've all been waiting to argue! Prop8... We might as well Park Rosa in the back of bus because essentially this proposition erases the civil rights era. Okay good talk, and lots more to come. Ready break.






Patrick, Kristin, Aubrey, Jackie