I have to say I love the Con ad. They both cater to emotion, but the con ad is reasonable. Also, very clever using the elderly couple.

"Acceptance of gay marriage is now mandatory" in the Pro ad is hateful. "Look, they are forcing us to accept it! How dare they?!" As if people couldn't hold their own personal views regardless of legislation.

I really liked the con one, too. It was reasonable and warm.

We had to find a new electrician because the one we had used for years had a "marriage = one man + one woman" bumper sticker. The mister said he couldn't stand to write him a check knowing that any part of that money was going to support that crap.

"Acceptance of gay marriage is now mandatory" in the Pro ad is hateful.

It's a standard (and weird tactic) of people who have some psychological investment in a political issue. Look, I don't like beets, but they're going to keep growing regardless and I'll live.

Well, of course the "Pro" ad sets you up to view the poor anti-gay bigots as the victims in all of this. The "Con" ad is warm and fuzzy and urges you to actually care about someone else.

This really tells you all you need to know.

New McCain campaign is getting me feeling like punching any Republicans I meet in the nose, so they can REALLY know what it's like to be a victim for a change.

Fear is the only argument that the PRO side has. It is also a very successful (and deadly) argument, historically.

The argument against gay marriage does not survive very well, if one sits in a living room and discusses it openly.

Gordon Smith, the repub incumbent senator running for reelection here is putting on Matthew Shephard commercials. . he DID co-sponsor a hate crimes bill with Kennedy, but it is also strange to see a republican senator bragging about that. It's also shrewd to shear off a few votes, because, really, where are the people to the right of him going to go?

I think, though, in the long run, if a repub can go on TV and say that what happened to Shepard was not OK, it's a plus.

As if people couldn't hold their own personal views regardless of legislation.

Right.

And if "tolerance" were doing the trick in the first place, there'd never have been any need for legislation on gay marriage, ever. It would have been a total non-issue if people were, in fact, tolerant. The fact that some are intolerant and feel that their intolerance makes them entitled to dictate who gets rights is the only reason the discussion is taking place at all.

Personally, I'm a big supporter of the idea that the government should get completely out of the marriage business. Civil unions for all, even "tolerant" bigots. Have a marriage ceremony if you like, and no one would be able to tell you not to. But I support gay marriage legislation wherever it exists - it's definitely a step in the right direction.

me too, Miko! This is about legal and financial rights. Never mind "marriage" stuff- leave that to the religions.

I'm in total agreement. Why is the government in the business of making any religious ceremonies legally binding? civil unions for all, if if someone wants the church thing that's their business.

OH NOES!!! "GAY MARRIAGE TAUGHT IN PUBLIC SCHOOLS"

What does that even mean? What part of "marriage," gay or straight, is ever taught in public schools?

Irrational, fear-mongering nitwits. HULK SMASH PROP 8!

The pro ad made me both sad and angry. It's amazing that there are people whose devotion to bigotry is so strong that they will even spend money to trumpet it on TV.

OH NOES!!! "GAY MARRIAGE TAUGHT IN PUBLIC SCHOOLS"

What does that even mean? What part of "marriage," gay or straight, is ever taught in public schools?

That's exactly what I yell every time that commercial comes on tv. The hell? Do the kids get a wedding checklist, a hypothetical budget, and a copy of the Gay Yellow Pages and told to go at it? I don't get it.