What Is Wrong With the Cindy McCain Gay Marriage Ad

I have no problem with Cindy McCain doing this ad. I have a lot of good friends that share her view that Gay marriage should be a right. I disagree. However she really needs to be questioned on the underlying theme here.

As pointed out on the Advocate blog

All of the subjects are photographed with duct tape over their mouths to symbolize that their voices aren’t being heard on the subject of marriage equality.

Pro Gay Marriage supporter and Law Prof Ann Althouse has a view similar to mine. She is not impressed

... well, what is that supposed to symbolize? I get that she supports same-sex marriage, but what does that have to do with anybody forcibly silencing her? If you have something to say, lady, just say it and quit blaming others. Especially if you insist on blaming others in gorgeous photography with fabulous makeup and a gentle wind machine puffing out your silky white-blond hair.

In the comments of her blog we get to the real point of whose speech is being suppressed.

The duct taped mouth symbolizes the ultimate effect of noProp8: forbidding speech against SSM.

In a irony today in the major Campaign Law/ Free Speech case Justice Thomas addresses this in the part of the Opinion where he dissents in part from the majority.. I will add that text in a few minutes once I download it again.

Updated- Here is Thomas's partial dissent fro the majority today. It appears on the day McCain's ad come out Thomas in this important speech case notes the signs of the times as to the above and what really is going on

Congress may not abridge the “right to anonymousspeech” based on the “‘simple interest in providing voters with additional relevant information,’” id., at 276 (quoting McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Comm’n, 514 U. S. 334, 348 (1995)). In continuing to hold otherwise, the Court misapprehends the import of “recent events” that some amici

describe “in which donors to certain causes were blacklisted, threatened, or otherwise targeted for retaliation.” Ante, at 54. The Court properly recognizes these events as “cause for concern,” ibid., but fails to acknowledge their constitutional significance. In my view, amici’s submissions show why the Court’s insistence on upholding §§201and 311 will ultimately prove as misguided (and ill fated) as was its prior approval of §203.

Amici’s examples relate principally to Proposition 8, a state ballot proposition that California voters narrowlypassed in the 2008 general election. Proposition 8amended California’s constitution to provide that “[o]nlymarriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.” Cal. Const., Art. I, §7.5. Any donorwho gave more than $100 to any committee supporting or opposing Proposition 8 was required to disclose his full name, street address, occupation, employer’s name (or business name, if self-employed), and the total amount ofhis contributions.1 See Cal. Govt. Code Ann. §84211(f) (West 2005). The California Secretary of State was thenrequired to post this information on the Internet. See §§84600–84601; §§84602–84602.1 (West Supp. 2010);§§84602.5–84604 (West 2005); §85605 (West Supp. 2010); §§84606–84609 (West 2005).

Some opponents of Proposition 8 compiled this information and created Web sites with maps showing the locations of homes or businesses of Proposition 8 supporters. Many supporters (or their customers) suffered propertydamage,or threats of physical violence or death, as aresult. They cited these incidents in a complaint they filedafter the 2008 election, seeking to invalidate California’smandatory disclosure laws. Supporters recounted being told: “Consider yourself lucky. If I had a gun I would have gunned you down along with each and every other supporter,” or, “we have plans for you and your friends.” Complaint in ProtectMarriage.com—Yes on 8 v. Bowen, Case No. 2:09–cv–00058–MCE–DAD (ED Cal.), ¶31.

Proposition 8 opponents also allegedly harassed the measure’s supporters by defacing or damaging their property. Id., ¶32. Two religious organizations supporting Proposition 8 reportedly received through the mail envelopescontaining a white powdery substance. Id., ¶33.
Those accounts are consistent with media reports describing Proposition 8-related retaliation. The director of the nonprofit California Musical Theater gave $1,000 to support the initiative; he was forced to resign after artists complained to his employer. Lott & Smith, Donor Disclosure Has Its Downsides, Wall Street Journal, Dec. 26, 2008, p. A13. The director of the Los Angeles Film Festival was forced to resign after giving $1,500 because opponents threatened to boycott and picket the next festival. Ibid. And a woman who had managed her popular, family-owned restaurant for 26 years was forced to resignafter she gave $100, because “throngs of [angry] protesters” repeatedly arrived at the restaurant and “shout[ed] ‘shame on you’ at customers.” Lopez, Prop. 8 Stance Upends Her Life, Los Angeles Times, Dec. 14, 2008, p. B1.The police even had to “arriv[e] in riot gear one night toquell the angry mob” at the restaurant. Ibid.

Some supporters of Proposition 8 engaged in similar tactics; one real estate businessman in San Diego who had donated to a group opposing Proposition 8 “received a letter from the Prop. 8 Executive Committee threatening to publish his company’s name if he didn’t also donate to the ‘Yes on 8’ campaign.” Donor Disclosure, supra, at A13.

The success of such intimidation tactics has apparentlyspawned a cottage industry that uses forcibly disclosed donor information to pre-empt citizens’ exercise of their First Amendment rights. Before the 2008 Presidential election, a “newly formed nonprofit group . . . plann[ed] to confront donors to conservative groups, hoping to create achilling effect that will dry up contributions.” Luo, GroupPlans Campaign Against G.O.P. Donors, N. Y. Times, Aug.8, 2008, p. A15. Its leader, “who described his effort as ‘going for the jugular,’” detailed the group’s plan to send a “warning letter . . . alerting donors who might be considering giving to right-wing groups to a variety of potentialdangers, including legal trouble, public exposure and watchdog groups digging through their lives.” Ibid.

These instances of retaliation sufficiently demonstrate why this Court should invalidate mandatory disclosureand reporting requirements. But amici present evidence of yet another reason to do so—the threat of retaliationfrom elected officials. As amici’s submissions make clear...........