Chinese Prop. 8 ads insult voters’ intelligence

It’s hard to believe these are even for real. I don’t speak the language, but I think both ads make themselves ludicrously clear… or clearly ludicrous…

For the first, does anyone still believe that tired, ridiculous old meme that recognizing same-sex marriage opens the door to incest, polygamy and child marriage? And for the second… shoes? It’s comparing two people’s committed love for one another to a mismatched pair of shoes? Really?

This is amateur-hour stuff, and I think it creates an impression — an entirely unfounded, and rather offensive impression — that Chinese-American voters operate at this lowest common denominator of political thought.

Both of these were uploaded to YouTube by Familykeepers, which appears to be a City-of-Industry-based conservative Christian organization. According to one of its archived, translated Web pages, Familykeepers’ main goals “are to provide effective and specific expertise services, coorporate [sic] with churches, related organizations and experts in the field, helping Chinese and their descendants to keep the love in their families.”

But not gay and lesbian families, I guess.

Josh Richman

Josh Richman covers state and national politics for the Bay Area News Group. A New York City native, he earned a bachelor’s degree in journalism from the University of Missouri and reported for the Express-Times of Easton, Pa. for five years before coming to the Oakland Tribune and ANG Newspapers in 1997. He is a frequent guest on KQED Channel 9’s “This Week in Northern California;” a proud father; an Eagle Scout; a somewhat skilled player of low-stakes poker; a rather good cook; a firm believer in the use of semicolons; and an unabashed political junkie who will never, EVER seek elected office.

  • notsoandso

    I guess they really don’t mean it when they say “Turn the Other Cheek” …. Giggle

  • Theo

    how long ago was it that interracial marriages were illegal and the Chinese were discriminated against

  • Defining marriage as between one man and one woman is not taking away anyone’s rights. The definition simply distinguishes a union that is biologically capable of producing its own children. Whether a married couple has children or not, I feel like this deserves a separate name–even the potential is kind of a miracle.

    Actually this definition can be seen as the ultimate expression of equality our society has to offer: it takes one man and one woman. One could see a lesbian union as a marginalization of men, or a homosexual union as a marginalization of women.

    Equality is especially important when it comes to raising children. Children deserve/need a father and a mother. Neither parent should be marginalized.

    Yes, many children are already growing up in single-parent homes. Prop 8 should be a reminder to everyone that as a society we need to assist and strengthen families as much as possible. Really, as a society we should be most concerned with the success and health of our families.


    peace out.

  • @Lee Lee: I assume you are opposed to marriage for anybody unable to bear children, right? After all, they cannot produce children, and we should be most concerned with that right?

    I assume you are also prepared to adopt every child currently being raised in a single parent family, and welcoming of a program to place a camera into the bedroom of every unmarried Californian to make sure they aren’t procreating outside the bounds of marriage.

    Let’s get real, and get the government out of our bedrooms. No on 8.

  • Adam G.

    Lee Lee,

    How completely disingenuous. You should be paying attention to the most important thing about this proposition, which is:


    I wonder how you’ll feel when your rights to freedom of religion go up for a popular vote?

  • JasonJack

    The ad may be horrible, but the propostion is not!

    -The country with one of the lowest marriage rates, happens to be a country with Gay Marriage (Finland)
    -And Finland has an average household size of 2.1 people, a rate leading to downward growth.
    -when our children are no longer taught “Grow up and get married and have a family,” we get more and more single-parent households, which hurt children.

    -When you confuse marriage rights with religion rights. You are confusing a foundational right of the USA with a “right” that no one in the first 2 centuries of the USAenjoyed. The right of religion is protected in the bill of rights.

    -There is no way that we can not have Gay marriage without writing it into the constitution.

    if marriage has no value to society (based on the religious covenant value), no one will do it. Religious covenants are based on gender. The foundation for marriage is based on gender.

  • No on 8

    Brian Leubitz –

    I agree with your position of “No on 8.”

    I dont agree with the generalization that “the government needs to get out of the bedroom”.

    This is an old anecdote that has been tossed around and utilized to rationlalize the non-inolvement of government in a variety of social affairs for decades. But the fact is that marriage is a status recognized and reinforced by both the law and the church. So, to suggest that Government “get out of the bedroom” on this matter would be tantamount to relegating marriage to solely a religious status – for all parties (hetero and otherwise) – which I dont think is going to happen. So – like it or not, I think we’ve got a legal AND a religious issue that needs to be addressed.

  • James Shay

    Interesting… the first ad doesn’t mention the example of one husband and several wives. Oh wait! Some of the elderly that this ad is obviously aimed towards will no doubt remember men in their childhood who had several wives.

    I guess the ad is implicitly stating that polygamy is A-OK!

  • James Shay

    Oh, nvm, sorry! Didn’t see the fine print, only saw the dolls, lol! I retract my comment!