I can't stand seeing the ads, but I must admit I'd rather have the yes-on-8 brigade wasting their money here — where they'll reach a largely unreceptive audience — than elsewhere.

You know, I have to say that I am not bothered by the advertising but I am impressed with your careful attention to your readers' feelings. I'm impressed with your explanation, which is the standard explanation for all the reasons you state. It cannot be otherwise. But you really took pains to make it clear.

I just think it's thoughtful - which isn't quite the word I'm searching for - considerate - which isn't quite it either - but both will do.

I would suspect that this is a prime piece of inept ad-placement as Bennett says. If I was gay and living in California (or indeed if I was straight and living in California) I wouldn't want to see that ad but I see ads I detest every day. Just hold your nose and ignore them - oh and make sure their Proposition is defeated and dumped into the trash can of history as it so richly deserves to be.

I will accept this 'reason" when TPM accepts ads from the KKK advocating a return to blacks being given 3/5 representation AND miscegenation.......or an ad from a White Supremacist group calling for a return of Jews being interned in camps because they represent a 'threat to national security'......or an ad from some right-wing group advocating torture for any Arab 'suspected of terrorit leanings"

I;m sure you see my point here.

Disenfranchisement is NOT a 'political point' that deserves promulgation on this site.

But then, when it is not YOU being disenfranchised, I guess it's easier to accept the money.

As the mother of a daughter who is lesbian, I have strong negative feelings about Prop 8. However, I agree with Josh's advertising policy and think it supports real democracy where people have a right to express their ideas, even ideas we find distasteful.
And I agree with some of the commenters that it's a pleasant irony to have those ads running on and supporting a site that expresses the exact opposite point of view, and that is read by people who think Prop 8 is garbage.
Let them spend their money supporting our media sites -- it's to our benefit.

I am wrapping up a 17-hour work day running the NO on Prop 8 campaign in my county here in California. When you choose to hide behind a policy established earlier, I have to wonder if you would have reconsidered your policy if the Yes on 8 campaign was attempting to eliminate the right to marry for inter-racial couples rather than same-sex couples.

Do not tell me that there is some truth to another of the Yes on 8 campaign's ads. They have all contained lies.

Please do reconsider and remove the ads. All of them.

Maybe whatever revenue those despicable ads generated could be given to a charity that helps homosexual people who have been the victim of a hate crime.

While I appreciate you taking the time to explain your decision, I emailed TPM weeks ago when Yes on 8 ads were running here on the site and asked then for an explanation as it deeply offended me.
I come to TPM and to DailyKos. Kos would never accept an ad like this. By using "Google" ads, you set yourself up for this. As the reader above states, you would not accept ads from the KKK or some other hate group, which means that you do have the ability to choose which ads you will and won't accept.
As a gay man who has given money and time to the No on 8 campaign and someone who also spends hours at the Obama headquarters calling people in battleground states, it disappoints me greatly that someone who claims to be progressive thinks hatred of one group of people is acceptable. OBama has come out against Proposition 8. It pains me every time I come to TPM and see these hate-filled ads.
To me, you are hiding behind twisted logic because it is lucrative for you.
If you truly cared about progessiveness in rights for all, you would not accept ads that undermine the rights of one group of people. As usual, one thing every other minority can agree on is that it's okay to hate gays, especially when money is involved.
Maybe someday someone will tell you you can't marry the person you love.

I think this is brilliant - yes to keep it running here!

1. As others have said - we're getting their money!

2. They're wasting their money preaching to the unconvertable and staunchly opposed, yeeha!

3. It's right up front on TPM and annoys the liberals and works as a GREAT REMINDER to donate, donate, donate, volunteer, donate to the Prop8 issue.

Usually, stories just spin by at such speed that it's next to impossible to get our exhortation posts to donate and volunteer). This keeps it upfront, at top, in view, and ALL without any effort on our part - ALL paid for by THEM!!!

4. This emphasizes that the editorial content of this site is independent of the advertisement section. This will encourage future advertisers of all stripes of political opinion and causes. We need (ok, TPM needs) to keep the financial future of this site strong.

5. This provides us with the ammunition should we want to advertise on conservative blogs (we = some liberal cause). They can't hold us as an example against this. We set a good example (we = TPM).

HA!

I mean, this is brilliant, in every way.

Josh, TPM, readers, bloggers, activists, this is GOOD!

Thanks for explaining, Josh. I had hoped that was the rationale. Curiously, I saw those ads on your site today as well, though I'm many hundreds of miles from California, hanging out in Boulder, CO. When I saw the ad, I had an initial gut reaction along the lines of a strong interest in why you hadn't taken the ad down. I did, though, come around to the same thought I'd had the last time I saw an ad for a stance with which I disagreed; it does set a terrible precedent to start turning away these ads on basis of content, so long as the content is, in fact, appropriate.

On the other hand, if you all are paid on a pay-per-click basis, it might make business sense for y'all to take it down on that basis instead. :-)

"1. As others have said - we're getting their money!"

So does a whore.

Perhaps someday you should learn the difference between 'earning' money and 'getting' money.

TPM's not a money whore!! See, they show both sides of an issue! They can't help it if both sides are dying to throw money at them! ;-)

Having worked for many newspapers, I know that accepting political ads is part of the business of running a newspaper. And TPM is a newspaper in the best sense of the term. At a newspaper you trust your readers' intelligence. You let them decide. You assume they are intelligent enough to vote. Ads pay for websites and newspapers. Political ads are important revenue sources, especially now. Ads are the fundamental expression of the First Amendment to the Constitution. If a political ad is not misleading or deceptive or otherwise somehow foul or obscene, it must be accepted, imo. Ads are like editorial content. If you don't agree with the message or the way the message is delivered, then don't accept the message. Turn the page. Avert your eyes. Don't click on it.

Without ads, there is no TPM.

Cheers.

To argue that allowing Pro-Prop8 advertisers to "waste their money" here on TPM before a nonreceptive audience is a bit disingenuous, don't you think? It smacks a little of the use of false equivalencies by news organizations -- you know, equating hate speech by one candidate with an attack by the other candidate on the first's policy stances.

As an out lesbian for the past 40 years, I find your explanation of "free speech" thin and pretty meritless. Unless you're ready to take the dollars of terrorist organizations, too.

And by the way -- since you KNOW that Obama is anti-Prop8, you're also propagating lie-based propaganda using his image. Media must be held accountable for activity like this -- are you ready to accept THAT responsibility?

I'm gonna have to agree with the folks that say Proposition 8 is a civil rights issue, and additionally that the "Yes on H8" folks have been guilty of hate speech. (Whether or not that hate speech is contained in the specific ad on your site is irrelevant; their homophobic hate speech - which includes succumbing to Godwin's Law in meatspace - is beyond easy to find, and is also germane to your acceptance of this ad. Check youtube for "Prop 8 spokesman says defeating same-sex marriage is like defeating Hitler." )

If ads were posted here that exhorted viewers to work to rescind laws that protect the rights of African Americans to rent or buy property where they wish, or to gut laws that protect citizens from discrimination for their gender or ethnicity or any other such basis, would you remove or not accept them? If yes, then it is not consistent to allow these "Yes on 8" ads to remain. If no, then I am deeply disappointed in your organization. Again, it is more than "political disagreement" - it is about civil rights & homophobia.

I'm disturbed that you did not ask to have these ads removed, and I don't find the mildly-enjoyable recompense of clicking on the ads & costing them money (though I have, many times) sufficient reason to allow them to remain, and to cause pain to my G&L fellow-beings.

Josh,

When I first read your explanation I thought you had a good point.

But after reading the responses, of posters like Christie Keith and GayIthacan , It is clear that they have better points.

You would not except these ads if they were for banning inter-racial marriage. Can you can explain to me,and yourself, how theses ads are any different...???

One other question.

If TPM had existed in the 1960's, would you have argued that your journalistic integrity obliged you to except ads for banning inter-racial marriage...???

A principle only has meaning if it involves sacrifice, and a person only has integrity if they hold to their principles when it is painful to do so. Great respect to you for this difficult decision.

That being said, I pray that Californians vote no on Prop 8 and that Obama, through the voters example, finds the political courage to support the ideal of equal treatment under the law on this issue and comes out in support of gay marriage during his first term.

I spent a significant amount of my time in high school wondering when the homophobia that I was subjected to would progress from taunts, threats, being pushed and spit on, to violence. This wasn't an abstract issue, another classmate was beaten to the ground and kicked while he lay helpless on the sidewalk because he is gay.

His attacker was suspended for two days. That same year someone was suspended for two weeks, arrested and convicted of a hate crime for drawing a swastika on a wall in pencil. It was painfully clear what kinds of hate was socially acceptable and what was not.

That violence was enabled by the indifference of a school administration that was uncomfortable addressing issues surrounding homophobia. It was enabled by parents that actively organized in opposition to a student anti-racism group sponsoring programs against homophobia. It was enabled by a wider social discourse that establishes homosexuality as pathological.

What is 'political'? The Ku Klux Klan had a respectable political establishment that enabled them too. What are the social processes through which violence and hate are made respectable?

I'm not gay (I was targeted for abuse just for speaking out against homophobia), but my twin sister is. Last year, when she told me that she was engaged I started to cry. Partially it was because when she first came out 10 years or so ago, I never thought that marriage would be a possibility for her. That her love could be validated with social and legal recognition. That a fundamental aspect of her humanity would be recognized by a community wider than that of her friends and family.

I understand your editorial policy in the abstract, and the need that you feel to assert your 'objectivity'. (Although, you don't seem to try too hard to be 'objective' in any other area of your site.) And I take you at your word that this is a good faith effort to approach some editorial ideal.

But I reject the idea that the Proposition 8 ads you have up on your site are just 'politics'. It is trying to legally establish that a significant group of society is somehow less than fully human. The fact that it can establish itself in a socially respectable guise, makes it far more dangerous than any explicit 'hate speech' could be.

I signed up for an account just now after reading your family of sites daily for over 4 years. To tell you how disappointed I am in your interpretation.

Folks here have already put it so well, but since I just went through the sign-up process, I'll add my two cents.

I share the view that if this civil rights issue affected some racial or ethnic group, you would have blocked them. If they were sponsored by a group you already consider a hate group, instead of one cloaked behind organized religions, you would have blocked them.

It is offensive for one's civil rights to be subject to plebiscite. To me, support for that proposition is a direct affront to my human dignity. As well as the human dignity of my husband and many of my friends. Knowing that my right to stay married to my husband is being voted on tomorrow makes me ill.

And I will not subject myself to that affront tomorrow by visiting your site.

The indignity may be forced on me by the voters of California. And I'll work to change their minds, and I have faith that in time we will eliminate this type of discrimination here.

And I may come back to your sites at some point, because I admire the work you do here. But I'll also remember this time when this site could have taken a stand on this issue and failed to see it for what it was. And I think that I will always be pained by that.

Just a thought before I go to bed...

One would not find this level of disagreement, qualitatively or quantitatively, on any blog frequented primarily by conservatives...Pats on the back all around...

Josh,

One of the most frustrating things about establishment"journalist" is their inability to ever admit they are wrong or culpable....

Dude....An apology is owed...

i respectfully disagree, because i don't think this is primarily a free speech issue, but a civil rights one.

if it were an ad for keeping the darkies to the back of the bus, would you make the same arguments? how about putting the japanese in camps? what if an ad proposed death to israel (the state, not the people)?

i don't think you're money grubbers, and while i understand your argument, i think i might even disagree with the idea that running only lefty ads would make it appear that you are endorsing the lot of them -- i visit several sites that do that, and i feel no compunction to assume endorsement; i presume instead that they're buying a more targeted ad service. and you know? i like that. the crap ads are all around me, i don't need them in clearly partisan news sources as well.

if anything, i'd actually click on the ads more often. as it stands, i avoid clicking altogether because i don't always know what slime i'll end up with.

as a total aside -- that ad is stupidly designed: visually we have mccain and obama, and then the large text "marriage is between a woman and a man", casting mccain as the woman and obama as the man. ok, maybe i'm reading too much slash in general (and this particular pairing would gross me out), but that was my first intuitive impression, no kidding. *wry grin*.

I don't know what to say. A big part of the Yes on 8 campaign is that the homos are gonna git your children. This is not political discourse. Sullivan points out that this is the old blood libel against homosexuals, that they will recruit your children. The similarities with libels against Jews is striking.

Your reasoning on political advertising is principled and strong, but is this political advertising? Honestly, I'm not sure.

The libel aspects of the campaign, not these ads, may put this issue into the realm of what we now call hate speech and was part of a routine part of de jure discrimination against blacks and others. And it obscures the very difficult issue of marriage.

By the way, sexual activity was also legislated and still is in some places. Would an ad for a proposition on criminalizing public demonstrations of affection between same sex couples on the basis of danger to children be political?

A distinction can and should be made between "sacred" and civil marriage and I think that it is too soon for a majority of Americans to admit to this distinction. Obama apparently doesn't, though he says he opposes 8 based on opposition to writing discrimination into a state constitution. It's iffy, I admit. And there is the opening for the opponents.

And who are the opponents? They are overwhelmingly religious organizations that want to write religiously based doctrine into law. Are their efforts political? There is religiously based view expressed in law; or is it the confluence between religious doctrine and needs of civil society: Thou Shalt Not Kill.

Now that I've tied myself in knots without strong intellectual argument, I'll end by saying that this whole thing hurts: Prop 8, the ads showing up here, fear-mongering of the campaign.

Putting on my comfortable analytical hat, I'd say that while they may be wasting their money here, the fact that they're advertising here indicates to me that they have a very clever campaign organization and lots and lots of money to spare -- something that No on 8 can't say, and that is why I think that the prop will probably pass tomorrow.

Like I said, it hurts and I feel bad about the whole thing. Thanks for the opportunity to post here.

I support running this ad for the same reason I supported allowing the Nazis to march. There is a pesky thing called the First Amendment.

Come on, fellow liberals, we are not "cut their mike" kind of guys.

P.S. Josh, I'm the guy who wrote you about your post about Jorg Heider's male lover. Respectfully, I don't think you "get" this issue completely. For what it's worth.

I have been a long time reader and I find your explanation for running these ads entirely unconvincing. If Proposition 8 opposed bi-racial marriage at a time when such bans were legal, I seriously doubt you would have run these ads. Why is denying gay men and women the right to marry any different? I am very disappointed because this is not a matter of genuine political controversy, it is about intolerance and homophobia, things that have no place in our society. Shame on you.

Those misleading ads for the Calif. anti-gay Prop. 8 started to dominate my little blog too. I am disgusted. However, I agree with Josh on his policy of keeping content and ads separate. I also wrote a post clearly explaining why the ads were there, I also clearly stated my opposition to them. I highlighted this by a counter-ad so-to-speak: a large reproduction of a "No on Prop. 8" poster, much bigger than the teeny ad just below it. That's the least I could do: not letting them dominate my blog home page visual. I reserve the right to vehemently disagree and crowd out hate ads.

Let me preface this by saying that I am a transwoman, and consider myself to be a gay woman, in a relationship with another gay woman. I discovered TPM a couple years ago when Kerry was running for president and Gay Marraige was suddenly all everyone could talk about.

I come to TPM daily, multiple times every day, and have learned to sort of 'tune out' the advertising, which has long since saturated me with the understanding that the ads that come to this site are non-partisan in nature. I dont like seeing Republican propaganda here, but I agree with the idea that neutral journalistic integrity means allowing ads that come from all sides to be shown here.

When I read Josh's post above, I initially agreed with him. It is important to remain as neutral on political issues as possible in order to keep your credibility as an investigative news outlet and not a front for the Democratic party.

But when I started reading comments, I changed my opinion. As Josh said, TPM reserves the right to remove adds that can be considered 'inappropriate and tasteless', and in not so many words he implied that 'hate-speech' ads would receive the same treatment.

Josh didnt give us any examples, but I think it can be safely assumed that ads from the KKK endorsing laws or amendments that if passed would restrict the rights of African Americans or ads from some Neo-Nazi organization advocating that Americans who identify as Jewish be shipped off to camps or discriminated against on the basis of their heritage or religion would be considered 'inappropriate', 'tasteless', and 'hate-speech.'

But the fact that we consider those kinds of statments to be Inappropriate and Tasteless Hate-speech is a societal given right now. We consider these kinds of beliefs to be about 'Right' and 'Wrong.' Not political disagreements. I dont think the majority of people who are dissenting with the showing of these ads are against the right of people to NOT SUPPORT Gay Marraige. But these ads aren't about political disagreement. These ads are taking a clear position that Gay Marraige is WRONG (morally, culturally, religously, whatever) and that Gay People do not deserve equality with Straight People on this issue. That the rights currently enjoyed by these people should be legally STRIPPED from them.

THAT is hate speech. THAT is discriminating against one group of people by denying them rights. TAKING their rights. That is WRONG. Most of the people here are not saying "TPM should come out advocating a Gay Marraige Allowing Amendment!" They are saying "TPM should not run an ad that tells people that other people do not deserve equality." Gay Marraige isnt the issue. The issue is the Ad's position that a particular group of people are not equal with other people, in direct contravention of what we consider 'RIGHT' in this country.

Now, I am very sleepy, so my logic may be ... not logic. But I asked a friend of mine who is, like me, gay and in a gay relationship, a friend who doesnt regularly read this site, to read this post and give me his opinion. And his response echoed what I was thinking with my muddled brain.

AARON: I can see how Josh's argument would make sense
AARON: if this were really a matter of "disagreement."
AARON: But it's not. It's about right and wrong.
AARON: It's about equality. And simply because the hypocritically Christian majority aren't offended by it doesn't reduce people outraged by it to people who "disagree."

I still appreciate the reporting style of this website and intend to continue my visits here for its reporting. But I have long held TPM up as a very noble-minded enterprise in the often-slimey and hypocritical world of reporting. I'm not saying that this issue, which is, admittedly, somewhat sticky, and their stance on it makes them hypocrits, but it does make them CLEARLY WRONG, and it makes me feel as though the writers behind the site are not as high-minded and impartial on the issues as they claim to be. That they do let their personal bias affect what ads are displayed whether they mean to or not. Now, I'm okay with that. People are human, and make misatkes. But ignoring that mistake when pointed out does not make the stance on principle seem respectable and noble. It seems hypocritical. It seems ... a little dissapointing, because honestly, my opinion of the site and its authors had been high enough before this that I would have expected them to say 'oops, you're right, we goofed,' and ... I guess I was wrong.

A lot of talk here about TPM profiting from those ads, which strikes me as a bit confused. If they'd killed those ads, Google would have just served up different ads. If there was a financial gain for keeping the original ad, it was trivial.

I don't believe accepting the ads is about the money and I don't think TPM has some kind of latent homophobia. I do think that the principles argued in the policy are wrongheaded on the interpretation of what hate speech is.

There's been oodles of time spent here on TPM over "dog whistles" that are race-baiting and anti-semitism. There is largely agreement that such dog whistles are hate speech of one form or another.

The words "Yes on 8" and "traditional marriage" are dog whistles, but maybe you have to be a homophobe (which few are here at TPM) or gay to hear it.

Yes on 8 means protect the children from gays, gays molest children, they are sub-human and deserve to be treated as pariahs. Traditional marriage means holy matrimony, and gays can never, ever be affiliated with anything holy because they are sub-human and deserve to be treated as pariahs. Fifty years ago traditional marriage meant white married to white. It was a dog whistle then, and it's a dog whistle now, just being applied to a different group of "not us."

TPM would not accept an ad to repeal women's right to credit, to repeal the counting of black Americans in the census, to repeal the right of asian to marry caucasian, to repeal the right of Jews to own land. All of these rights had to be fought for, and once gained, were never subjected to a vote as to whether they could be kept. Gay people get that lucky place in history.

Advocating for a law that would dehumanize a specific group of people with pastoral words instead of a George Wallace snarl doesn't change the hateful, denigrating, dehumanizing message. Gay people hear it.

Reconsider your definitions of "taste," "appropriate" and "hate speech." Its cases like these that ought to refine them, not entrench them in outdated thinking.

While it's a tough one to handle, I think you have your wits about you on this issue.

Sorry for the triple post, your server said it failed twice!

Heh, speaking of taking down ads for prop 8, I was just feeling a bit too much late night energy, so I went for a walk to the nearest open gas station to pick up some smokes and a diet coke. On the way, I saw 4 yard signs for "yes on prop 8" along the way, all in abandoned yards or by the highway.

So now there's four less pro-prop-8 ads in my hood :-)

I've been reading TPM and its related sites from the beginning and am one of those gay readers who has repeatedly recommended it to friends. I support your policy regarding advertising as the right way to go. Its the tough choices where character and intelligence most show themselves, as you have here.

I think your policy is both sensible and principled. It is a tough tightrope to walk and I think you've managed it successfully. Keep up the good work.

I don't particularly take exception to Josh's decision to not kill the ads. Business is a spineless, heartless, emotionless worm that seeks self preservation only.

What I do take exception to is the even wormier excuse Josh gives.

Dude, just say it! "I can't afford not to get the revenue."

It's at least honest.

The full page epic rationalization you gave just makes you look disingenuous. My god, man, your readers must have given you a thousand better rationalizations than yours. They now only need to decide whether they can view you in the future with any expectation of honesty and integrity ... or not ... ever.

Me? I still gotta decide. I mean, I finally got around to opening this profile just for the sole purpose of rolling my eyes at someone I've never bothered to speak back at because he's always nailed it dead on.

.

I think Marshall's explanation makes
a lot more sense than the specious
"Josh supposedly gets more income
from a Prop 8 ad than if Google replaced
it with yet one more CNN ad" argument.

I know it's rare these days, folks, but you
should still know integrity when you see it.

Lucky me. I just never see ads. If it isn't content it never registers in my field of view. Like it wasn't even on the page. Frankly, I don't care how advertisers spend their money. I do the same with cold calls. Immediate hang up. There is just too much garbage out there to waste time looking at or listening to any of it.

I agree with what you have to say.

I'm a Gay man and while I don't like the ads, they have a right to express their opinion. We do know that really conservative groups do censor ads that would be similiar in flavor, just advocating a more liberal view. I don't want to be like them!

As someone mentioned, I'm not sure they will get many people that would be swayed by their ad on this site and so would be wasting money.

This is a free country. We don't have to watch the ad, no do we?

Only on a left of center website would this even be an issue. Can you imagine a respected political news and advocacy site on the right - okay, I can't think of one off hand, but theoretically - giving a second thought to banishing speech that they or their readers find objectionable. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think there'd be some righteous smiting going on.

I understand your reasoning Josh but this isn't about positions on issues -- you can't be anti-same sex marriage and not be a bigot. Is racism just a "political position?" Would you run an ad from a group that wants to end inter-racial marriage?

François-Marie Arouet, aka Voltaire, that great champion of civil liberties, once famously said:
I disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.

A great line that should remind us that tolerance of dissent and differing opinions is one of the corner stones of a great democracy and free society. Therefore, I find nothing wrong with TPM's policy so long as they remember to apply it consistently. Let the pro proposition 8 folks speak now, but also remember to let the KKK or the neo-nazis speak next time.

TPM would defend to the last drop of its virtual ink, the right of diverse groups it disagrees with to express themselves on this site...what is not to admire about that?

I'm so disappointed to open this page today and read about your decision to flash Yes on 8 ads at the top of this site. This is a dealbreaker for me. Why is it acceptable to edit a popular political website with a clear bias toward one side of the political spectrum and yet be willing to accept advertisements from anyone, no matter how objectionable the message? This IS about money. Its always about money.

This gay man, just as the rest of you, has many options when looking for interesting, informative and intriguing left leaning political websites. Talking Points Memo just can't be one of them if it is willing to support groups who want to deny civil rights to members of this society just so it can take the advertising money.

Thanks for your explanation Josh. As someone who lives in California, and was able to marry my same-sex partner on June 23 of this year because of the California Supreme Court's decision in May, Proposition 8 will possibly have a real impact on our lives. I knew when I first saw the "Yes on 8" ads that it was only for the exact reasons you outlined. In the long run, trying to suppress the opinions of others, no matter how much we disagree with them, only makes us more like the Right, and we just don't want to go there. In the end, I am confident that Proposition 8 will be defeated because it's wrong and discriminatory, and we just don't believe in that in California. Thanks for all your great work!

Of course there's another "simple line of reasoning" that would lead to the same permissive policy concerning ads: if someone has the $, they can post whatever they want on this site. I can't imagine this would actually lead to serious issues in practice, but its unsatisfactory in theory. Perhaps an easier tack wold be to not accept paid politicals ads, and this particualr case seems to demonstrate that doing so puts the site in a bind.

I almost didn't vote for Obama over his marriage position.

If Senator Obama hadn't made exceptions to who gets equal rights in the first place, the Yes on 8 campaign couldn't misconstrue what he said. He should know separate is not equal.

As for the ads, I've added Google's adsense domains to my hosts files. It will block my computer from ever loading another Google ad, period. You let someone try and take away my rights without due process, as required under the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment, you loose my business.

Just want to add my voice to those who oppose airing that ad here.

I understand the policy in general, but not in this specific case. There should be room for exceptions.

As amply pointed out earlier, there is a likely element of hypocrisy on Josh's part. Would he have allowed an ad that advocated for second-class citizenship for Jews?

If he could honestly answer that with yes, then he'd not be a hypocrite. Personally, I believe that he would have removed the ad.

It also points out his tendency to be like so many other journalists, digging in his heels when he's made a wrong decision or made a mistake. This tendency does not make him a better journalist, and leads to further degradation in time until/unless he learns to do a better job of correcting himself when facts show that he is wrong.

The fact of the matter is that Gays currently have the right (and rights are civil, aren't they?) to marry. Prop 8 seeks to eliminate that right. So, I just don't see how any honest person can say this isn't a civil rights issue.

I'm gay myself, I've contributed to No on 8. If he'd said we'll just take the money, knowing that people at this site are against it, and we like that they're wasting their money on this hateful anti-civil-rights measure, I'd support him. That would be entirely appropriate. The Yes on 8 people do not deserve any consideration except how to make them lose, NOTHING else.

But, to weasel out and call it a political issue? That says more about you, Joshua, and it doesn't say a single thing good until and unless you own up to what this issue really is.

--Ron Robertson

I am surprised by the comments here.

The arguments I have seen are:

1. This law is evil and should not be supported here. But that is exactly what Josh's policy - stated publicly years ago - avoids. His personal judgement on which policies will have good results and which should have bad are not the determinant of which ads show here.

2. These ads support a public policy that many of us find abhorrent. But to oppose it on those grounds would mean that he needs to oppose any ad that does not reflect his liberal progressive viewpoint. Agree or disagree, that is the stated policy of the site. How many republican policies of the last eight years do we not find abhorrent?

3. The ads do not directly say anything anti-gay. The proposition is anti-gay, via our interpretation, but the ad says nothing of the sort. It supports a proposition that almost 50% of people in one of our most liberal states endorse.

4. The suggestion that he is doing this for the money and not principle holds no water, as the principle has been in place for years, before this issue came up. My guess is that he is losing money by holding to this principle, as it is clearly pissing off much of his leadership and not gaining him any friends.

6. It is fine to question Josh's judgement, but I am disturbed by people so quickly questioning his motives. Josh has been a light of reason for me since the earliest days of this site, when our country seemed gripped by irrational fear and a lust for dictatorship. To suggest that because of one awful decision he is now suspect as a human being and a proponent of liberal progressive views disgusts me. That kind of character attack belongs on RedState, not here.

7. There has been a lot of supposition about other scenarios where Josh would have denied an ad, but all of those are just supposition. I would be interested to see the ads that were denied. Without those examples, the supposition is just character attacks, not reality.

8. If the ad has said "Fags are not equal human beings", do you really think he would put it up? Should he accept no ads by any Republican candidate as one of the platforms of the republican party is defining marriage as between one man and one woman? Where does it stop? Whether he is right or wrong in this case, the issue of the slippery slope comes into play - the entire republican party - AND OBAMA HIMSELF - are suspect on this issue.

Obama does not support gay marriage. This is a key fact that lends credence to this ad. He has been tepid and mostly quiet on the issue of prop 8. Using his likeness in support of prop 8, pointing out that he opposes gay marriage, is unfortunately fair.

Excellent clarification. Thank you. Now, LET THE ADS RUN HERE where they will do virtually no good. Take that Mormon blood money so they can't spend it trying to frighten and sway weak-minded undecideds.

If it passes, don't fear. The California Supreme Court will strike it down. You cannot pass laws banning blue-eyed people from marrying brown-eyed people in this day and age. If there is even a slight chance that gay is genetic, as even GW Bush has admitted in his last debate, any law banning any right based on circumstances of birth won't stand, regardless of the tyranny of the masses.

puredesighee, I think you're being disingenuous. This is clearly a CIVIL RIGHTS issue. Do you truly think Joshua would have allowed an ad the took away civil rights for Jews? All the rest of what you say, whether true or not, does not address this fundamental issue.

So defend him all you want, but until you can make a clear case how he would have supported an ad abridging civil rights on a more believable basis, this stands as hypocrisy on the part of TPM.

--Ron

I've been reading TPM since the year of its inception. I understand that there are many people to whom an ad such as this feels like, and is, a very ugly attack. This is probably one of the ugliest ads to slip in under the advertising guidelines but I respect Josh more, not less, for adhering to TPM's stated policy even in the face of some rather ugly and personal criticism.

For those claiming that this is a civil rights issue, not a political issue I would respond that it is both. This is just the latest stage of the ongoing civil rights struggle--a struggle which has always had a very political component.

Excellent clarification. Thank you. Now, LET THE ADS RUN HERE where they will do virtually no good. Take that Mormon blood money so they can't spend it trying to frighten and sway weak-minded undecideds.

If it passes, don't fear. The California Supreme Court will strike it down. You cannot pass laws banning blue-eyed people from marrying brown-eyed people in this day and age. If there is even a slight chance that gay is genetic, as even GW Bush has admitted in his last debate, any law banning any right based on circumstances of birth won't stand, regardless of the tyranny of the masses.

I think some of you still don't get it.

The issue is whether Joshua is being a hypocrite.

If you honestly think he would have accepted an ad abridging the rights of Jews, then you have a case that he's not being a hypocrite here.

Everything else is immaterial.

--Ron

If FOX NEWS rejected a No on 8 add, I would chalk it up to their close minded hatefulness. I'm all for TPM running this add. Let people see what is going on.

My hope is that people will respond and do the right thing. Never forget - Knowledge is power.

To the gay readers on this blog. There are a lot of people here that support your wish to love and marry the one you have chosen. My marriage is integral to my life. It is a large part of what defines me and makes me happy. There is no reason to deny that to gay couples.

I'm glad to be rid of the intolerant folks here who are so offended by political speech, they apparently have nothing to contribute to the dialog. These are the same folks who like to only preach to the choir, or that show up to the anti-war rally and tell us our reasons for rejecting the war shouldn't be heard; that only their perspective matters. I'm curious if GlenSchaller and others who have organized for 'no on 8' who write here call only on their supporters? Do they make any attempt to speak with their adversaries or change anyone's mind? In all his time and rage on this site, did he ever attempt to send someone to a URL or make an argument as to why political speech should be censored other than his personal beliefs? What if the 'no on 8' crowd couldn't run ads in the LA Times or Sacramento Bee..... would Glen endorse his own view being silenced?

I'm voting no on 8, and continuing to log in here, and even read comments; because its the discussion and dialog that's valuable in better understanding and vetting ideas.

If Josh wants to accept ads from segregationists, and we are free to have the discussion, then I'm relishing changing some supporters minds.

You are pretending as though Josh and this site are your buddies, or at least comrades in arms. If the industry receives them and the community this way then this site will simply remain the space for edge lefties. If you want to attract the kind of voters and readers who want to hear well reasoned arguments, and are willing to debate the merits of positions, and it just so happens that progressives have winning arguments then you should reconsider your piousness on this issue.

So begone, and go home. Take your ball, indignation, and your tears elsewhere. I'm sure there is a site dedicated exclusively to your tastes with which you can sit from on high and make judgments.

I find it so ironic, that on the same day where the Civil Rights movement may reach heights where even the father's of the movement may never had dreamed, many states across our country are trying to take a huge step backwards by actaully trying to take away rights from its citizens and legalizing bigotry.

I don't see anyone for banning the ads addressing Marshall's main counterpoint: Since this site is NOT in the business of getting propositions passed or politicians elected, it's business is to report facts and share informed opinion on those facts, it damages the franchise to censor advertising.

Many already do doubt the mission of websites like these. It seems clear that visitors to this site who are rightly outraged by the the ads content are more outraged by TPM's acceptance of the Google ad than Google's acceptance of it. If you had sworn off any and all things Google upon learning that they accept these ads, you pretty much would have sworn off the internet and wouldn't have gotten as far as sharing your opinion with a business that clearly respects your civil rights more than Google does as a company. Why not swear off all sites that provide a revenue stream for Google until they see this as hate speech? See you on the next internet, I guess.

Even though I feel confident TPM is a business model dedicated to clearly communicating the pertinent facts and not trading in mass mind control, any decision to bias the advertising message into alignment with the sites general message (however morally defensible) makes their motivation for accepting ANY advertising suspect.

Respectfully, I do not accept the justification for accepting these ads, but I'm still here, and this union lawyer has remained here even though Josh has accepted ads that are hostile to organized labor. Still, I think that Proposition 8 supports blatant and overt discrimination against our gay brothers and sisters, and I agree with those who posit above that this website would never accept ads from white supremacists or anti-semites. Sorry Josh, I can't accept your rationale, even though I guess I am as guilty as you are because I remain here and, unless invited to do otherwise, I intend to continue to hang around.

Heaven help those who know not what they do, and in this case, lend a hand to those of us who know exactly what we do and do it anyway.

I dunno. As a member of the LGBT community, it sure stings to see those ads, but I understand the point of having an open policy. I think credibility is undermined if one were to limit the types of voices heard or represented in any community. Yes, the proposition itself is inspired by ignorance or hatred or what have you, but it is a ballot initiative and both sides have the right to get their word out.

What would we say if No on Prop 8 bought an ad on FOX News and they decided not to run it because of their political position? I imagine we would be angry, and with good cause. Ill-spent advert dollars aside, it is our choice to advertise where we please, no?

unknowncitizen says:

"Are you stoned? You're here so you can have somebody get paid to tell you whatever it is you want to hear to reinforce your already formed opinions . . ."

No, unknown, I'm not stoned. Can you read? Reread the part where I said I read lots of stuff, from the left and from the right and from the center, so that I can maintain an informed opinion, and play one bias against another in the hopes of coming to the actual truth. You are the one who seems to rely only on what you read here, from someone of like mind, in order to "get your facts" and form your opinions and reach your conclusions. "Opinion tourist," indeed!

It looks like the hateful Proposition 8 is going to pass, Thank you Josh and everyone at TPM for doing what you could to help this measure write discrimination into the constitutional law. Can we vote on your marriages next?

Prop 8 is almost certainly going to pass now. Thanks Josh for helping take away my rights, you can drop dead now you smug piece of s@#t.

Congratulations Josh, I hope you're happy. I'm looking forward to seeing the ads against Jews and blacks on the site now, cause hey, it's all about free speech and ad revenues.

And another thing...this bogus notion that it actually *hurt* the backers of Prop 8 by causing them to waste their money advertising here is complete and utter bullsh*t. It got their message out, and let's face it a *lot* of people who consider themselves "progressive" or "liberal" or "democratic" (i.e. readers of blogs like this) went out yesterday and voted for this piece of filth.

I guess we should now spread the word that, according to readers of Talking Points Memo, advertising - as of this week - no longer works. In fact, it works *against* you to advertise! In other news, "up" will heretofore be referred to as "down".

I'm looking forward to not having to TiVo through any more commercials, or thumb through any more print ads in magazines, or look at any more billboards when I drive down the street, or sit through any more previews before my main feature, or listen to any more radio spots...

...ignore any more banner ads on the Web, receive any more flyers in the mail, look at any more posters on the sides of buses or in train stations...

I guess I'm also a little weirded out that you haven't offered any coverage of Prop 8 (that I can find) except to defend your taking Pro Prop 8 ads.

I care plenty about it still. I am waiting for Josh to respond to all the salient points made against his position.

Bravo futureexpat. Unfortunately editor dearest (Josh Marshall) considered it case closed when he cashed the check. Like many others in this world, evidently, Josh believes that if it isn’t happening to him it isn’t happening. Period case closed.

This informayion is very useful! Thanks!
Best regards, Katya, CEO of hyper v certification, aix iscsi initiator

auto transport, car shipping, car transport, car transportation, vehicle shipping, auto transport.