I just got the image on the right in my inbox, taken from the Family Research Council's website. Apparently it's the new graphic they'll tack on to their news items from California regarding marriage.
It looked kind of familiar to me, so I hit YouTube and found out that it's pretty much, indeed, Pit-Pat of Mr.Show fame. NSFW video clip is after the jump.
The joke about Pit-Pat was that it was meant to be the most non-threatening advertising ploy ever devised, because it was of no color or gender and round and magical, while the advertisements themselves were meant to be the most shocking things ever said on TV, all in order to re-image a horrible corporation. And considering the text next to FRC's Pit-Pat, I guess they decided that a gray, pansexual, non-threatening spokesthing was the best way to sell their agenda. That's after the jump too.
The text that goes along with it is just precious:
Local business owners-turned family advocates are doing all they can to ensure the honeymoon with counterfeit marriage is short-lived-and homosexual activists are attacking their right to speak out. Doug Manchester, a devout Catholic who donated to the ballot initiative, is the new target of Californians Against Hate. In a fundraising letter, Hate head Fred Karger called for a boycott of Manchester 's Grand Hyatt and Grand Del Mar hotels. Robert Hoehn's gift to preserve marriage not only landed his Carlsbad car dealership on the boycott list but drew protests at his lots. We applaud these men for refusing to be intimidated and encourage Californians not to back down in the face of those who refuse to accept democratic rule.
So donating to a political cause is free speech and participating in the democratic process, but not supporting those businesses isn't? Does that even come close to making sense?
It doesn't, but I think it's a sign of a much larger narrative: they're losing, they know it, and they're getting desperate. Process arguments and appeals to democracy are generally made by people who know they're outside of the center or mainstream on a position. They're asking us not to consider the substance of those donations and just look to the fact that they're participating in the democratic process. The amount of ground conceded in that turn shows that they know exactly where their movement is headed.
Do they want that Gray Gumby to be what people think of when they think of the amendment? They've noticed that cute, friendly, lovable are three things they're not, and it's a desperate attempt to remain relevant from a movement that's out of ideas on how to sell itself.