This ad is directly targeted at the 8 to 10 percent of undecided california voters. It is not for people who have already decided to vote No on prop 8, who are likely the same people who will question traditional wedding customs and what is a proper marriage. This ad basically makes the marriage proposition one about fairness and equality, which it is, using the most familiar storybook images. That's why I think its great because it will help shift the minds of the undecided.

maybe I'm really that dense, but I don't see how the tag line relates to the clip. I think it would have made more sense if the bride kept stealing glances at somebody in the congregation or really wanted to marry her maid of honor or something.

equality with whom? fairness with what metric?

I think it would be good for society if popular culture de-emphasized the idea of the nuclear family as the ideal way that the government should interact with its citizens or that the market should treat as a basic unit.

The way that marriage is institutionalized and structured in the United States does a lot of violence to a lot of people, and allows our governmental and economic systems to justify further types of violence.

People probably have agency to decide for themselves what they want their lives to be like and if they want to get married, I just take issue with messages that unquestioningly support a certain ideological viewpoint.

I think you're right, Ann, that the authors of this video are attempting to mobilize a "strategic essentialism" in support of their goal.

Maybe it's the radical in me, but I would rather see an ad that queered marriage than one that shows a rich, white couple getting married and suggests that everyone else should "be able to be like them" as if it's the goal that everyone should aspire to.

If the goal of the movement is to "let gay people be more like straight people" then I think they need to change their method.

I also have space as the reader to "read into" it whatever subversive message I want. I'll take advantage of it in this instance and use it as a site of critical dialogue. Thank goodness for feministing.

One last note: I think that when messages are constructed to appeal to certain demographics, that it creates constricting identity categories for the people it purports to target and that in itself, the message is a form of structural violence.

I mean, do the voters in california who are undecided on the issue of gay marriage really all spoken to by this ad?

Cop out! Instead of actually depicting two women getting married they just show one lonely bride. I expected the 'groom' to be another bride and I think this ad avoids the question of how to represent two women getting married. Two brides walking up the aisle? Different suits? I vote butch/femme bride and groom! It tailors to the homophobes by not actually showing a same-sex marriage. Although I understand that its intention is to change hostile opinions.

I thought it was beautiful and did a good job putting the point across. The bride's emotion was tangible and I was almost crying at the end of it. Maybe I'm a weirdo because I kind of like white weddings, even as a feminist lesbian who is terrified of large groups.

I like it. I think it taps into that idea that all people hold about "fairness" and I believe that those straight people who are undecided on gay marriage will see it and think "oh that's so unfair, all she wants to do is get married and external problems keep stopping her" and when the tagline is shown it brings it home that this is exactly how many members of the queer community feels. It utilises a traditional belief about marriage to make a point about what marriage should be - unifying yourself with someone you love. I believe it humanises the GLBT community and makes straight people who may not have any gay friends be able to sympathise. Many straight people have problems seeing two men or two women kiss, and the prejudices they have about women and men wearing "women's and men's clothing" would make them reactive to an ad showing two women or two men getting married. This way they avoid that reactive factor and just make the straight, undecided audience consider one issue: fairness.

I think it's very smart and it shows a good understanding of how to target those people who may not have GLBT friends and therefore don't see the GLBT community as "the same" as them. This way they are forced to see the human side. Bravo.

And don't get me wrong, I think it sucks that they have to show it that way to get the point across - but I think it does a wonderful job. The emotion is tangible and the bond between bride and groom is palpable.

I like the ad. I didn't know what it was for when I first watched it, and was really saddened to see the woman's face and the emotions of being prevented from marrying the man she loved. Then it hit even harder when I found out it was an add about the proposition.

As for the use of a straight couple in the ad, I think the reason behind it is to attract the voters here in CA that haven't made a decision. The ad says, "What if you couldn't marry the person you loved? You'd feel horrible, of course. Now think about those who actually would be prevented to marry the one they loved if this proposition passes. Think about it..."

And yes, the ad is using the traditional ideas of marriage...but I think it's effective in getting the point across.

Extravagant and proper weddings are not contrary to equality between sexual orientations, so long as they are both expected to be equally extravagant and proper. It so happens that in the world we actually live in, a lot of the people with a given position on one issue share opinions on the other, but there is no necessary logical connection between the two. This ad simply takes advantage of that for political purposes vis-a-vis the large percentage of people in the middle.

And it is, first and foremost, a political endeavour. The ultimate measure of success here is whether it helps this proposition get stomped into the ground and set on fire, and the only concession it's making to do so is to not also challenge a very mainstream and ultimately unrelated practice in the process, and that's fine by me.

While I can definitely see the problems with the traditional monogamous heteronormative relationship, I'm not sure it shouldn't be available as an option, whatever the sex identity of the people in question. Isn't part of breaking down institutions opening them up?

It is a very thorny and complex issue though. I'm struggling a lot with it right now in my personal life - me and my life-partner are at a point in our relationship where we both love each other and want to keep together, but where her personal development would be strengthened by our breaking up. She knows this, I know this - she wants, and needs, to stand on her own and stop relying on me, the male, to take responsibility away from her - but it's still a heartbreaking thing to do. We're trying to resolve it (any tips?) but we may end up separating anyway, maybe temporarily, so she can find herself and gain confidence, which has been pressed way down by childhood body-image issues and her dominating father.

So I don't know. Maybe the straightforward marriage is a trap in some ways. But I think the basic desire for twosomeness is there for a lot of people and I'm not sure it's a productive thing to deny.

I really love this ad. I think in terms of gay rights, it is appropriate because it does treat gays like equals (by using the same ideal that most straight couples have anyway).

But while we're on this topic, is it any coincidence that most celebrations of Western culture are beautified by the color white? I grew up in Oakland, California where we never had snow, so I never understood the reference to a "white" Christmas. And of course when I watched TV, it was always white people singing the song. So I literally thought they were referring to their skin color. Who knows? Maybe subversively, they were!

I like the ad. I dont think there is anything wrong with not being subversive...they still got their point across...and in a way that the "white wedding" crowd might actually get!! After all, its not the "subversive" crowd that needs convincing on this issue...

Maybe my straight privilege is showing here, but I don't think it's a completely terrible thing that the people behind this ad are using the trappings of a "white wedding" to make their point. Like it or not, these images are what most of the people who the ad is named at are likely to think of when they think of weddings. And the things that ultimately prevent her from marrying the person she loves are things that should be insignificant, from the door that won't open to the incredibly rude guest who deliberately trips the bride. It's a good way of introducing the position of the people who created this ad in a visual language that its target audience is likely to understand.

Imagery doesn't always have to be subversive to make a statement. I admit that I despise the extravagantly expensive wedding traditions that North American culture crams down our throats practically from day one, but then, even if I did live in California, I still wouldn't be one of the people at whom this ad is aimed. If this is an effective way to reach those people, though—and I do think that it is—then I'm all for it. There are other times and places to object to the kind of wedding that we're all supposed to want like good little consumers.

I think the ad is great, although I'd hoped for a more dramatic barrier at the end.

I had a big wedding, although my dress was pink, not white. I always struggle to understand why beautiful wedding receptions are somehow considered anti-feminist, or why so much condecension is heaped at women who want them. I married a younger man, make more money than he does (partially due to age) kept my name (which a suprising number of my professional, feminist friends did not do); and we have a pretty even distribution of household labor. I don't intend to stop working when we have kids. I think we have one of the most equal marriages of any couple I know. The fact that we had a huge party to celebrate our marriage (which my parents and I paid for) and that I got to wear the most beautiful dress I will ever have the good fortune to wear doesn't change the equality of our relationship. We had a beautiful event that brought together friends and family from all over the country and overseas. We, and our guests, have a lot of beautiful memories from our wedding. Does that get me kicked out of the feminist club?

I liked that ad, seeing as how it's supposed to get the support of the undecided- and those people will more likely identify with a heterosexual couple. If it had a same-sex couple, it would be a less successful ad in terms of reaching the so-called "average" American.

The wedding-industrial complex is a problem, but the lack of marriage equality for same-sex couples is a much, much bigger one. I think conflating the two, especially in an ad designed to sway moderate voters, is problematic. In particular, suggesting in an ad like this that weddings will start to deviate from the cultural norm if a same-sex couple is involved will play directly into the hands of anti-gay groups out trying to convince people that gays getting married will torpedo "traditional marriage." So, I say pick your battles and wait until gay marriage is legal nationwide to try and mesh them.

I spent 10 years working on political campaigns, and let me tell you, if you have a cause you believe in, the most important thing is winning. You do polling to figure out which voters stand between you and victory, and you figure out how to change their minds or neutralize them. Often that means something brutal (think of how McCain was smeared in S. Carolina in 2000).

The significance of this is that the pro campaign believes the voters standing in their way just need a gentle reminder of their own fantasies and their own experiences. This isn't an argument over whether gay and lesbian people are human, it is that they deserve to be happy. This is amazing, to me, that voters (albeit in CA) have come so far.

As for the wedding industry, I think there are plenty of gay and lesbian couples who would love to debate about whether to have a tradional wedding, instead of whether they deserve to have a wedding at all. For now, let's do what it takes to change the discussion.

Liked it! I hope the message influences the target demographic.

I really liked the ad. And I agree it would be way better to have two women up there but the reality is that so many homophobic viewers, the audience the commercial is targeted at, would change the channel. Pathetic, yes, but true. I would also completely agree that this damsel in distress bride needed a much bigger barrier to even hail in comparison to those LGBT people face.

It's tricky. It really plays to the het woman or man who can identify with that big day going wrong. The bride's and groom's feelings are very apparent. I don't think this would have the same impact on hets who don't have homosexuals in their lives if both the bride and "groom" were ladies.

This isn't furthering the white wedding complex, but the commercial uses the industry to make a point. All that money and time and effort to put together that kind of wedding is squandered. I think it parallels well to the money, time and effort non-hets have had to put in to get the same rights for their love.

There's no link for Courtney; it goes to Miriam's article.

I think the ad is really effective. It clearly seems aimed at hetero folks who could take it for granted that a traditional wedding is something they might have. It needs to emotionally bring the viewer to feel how unfair it would be to be denied the right to their own wedding and to feel like so many little things are working against them having the special event that they think they should have a right to. I know many of the readers here are progressive and thoughtful about the whole notion of marriage, but the majority of people out there still desire traditional weddings. This ad is trying to appeal to them by putting them in a similar emotional state as queer folks who are denied that right. Honestly, I think so many (hetero)people do feel like they should be able to have their wedding be exactly how they want it to be - that's why I think this ad is strong.

I want to be able to get married but won't have one of these. If this kind of ad makes it a possibility I don't really think it is that dangerous. Its not like the danger of the "Don't Ask Don't Tell" SoulForce kids trying to enlist and saying the military is all fun and benefits creates.

I want to be able to get married but won't have one of these. If this kind of ad makes it a possibility I don't really think it is that dangerous. Its not like the danger the "Don't Ask Don't Tell" SoulForce kids trying to enlist and saying the military is all fun and benefits creates.

"I think the ad is great, although I'd hoped for a more dramatic barrier at the end."

I thought the end, where the groom tries to rush toward her and is stopped by his entourage, was really powerful. It was a quick shot, and a little more subtle than dramatic, but it really hit home what was being built up by the woman with the cane and the little girl: that aside from just random accidents and bad planning (like the tree getting in the way), it's ultimately people who are stopping these two from being together.

I like it. I can see why people would say it's sort of a cop out, and I of all people would have loved to have seen a big lesbian white wedding, but this is meant to convince people who are not so sure if they like the idea of same sex marriage. This shows that it is about love and fairness and hoping that straight undecided voters connect to the emotion of the straight couple not being able to marry, which is something they may be able to relate to.

Is there anything wrong with a big white wedding? It's not what I want, but it's what some people want. The wedding-industrial complex is a bitch, but this ad doesn't show anything particularly ridiculous.

It's meant to appeal to heterosexual voters, and that's why they use a heterosexual couple. It's easier for the undecideds to relate. It seems like it could be very effective, and I don't have a problem with it.