Matt Daniels

Funny or Die, Great Americans, and the FMA

Submitted by Kyle on January 15, 2009 - 10:03am

A few weeks ago, Funny or Die released its "Prop 8 - The Musical" parody that did not go over well with the Religious Right.

But now its parent company looks to have made a move that just might make it all up to them. Among the various other new media sites it has been rolling out is one called Great Americans, which is "focused on the men and women who serve our nation in uniform" and celebrating "their lives, their service, their sacrifice, and their example to us all."

That, in itself, is not all that interesting. But what is interesting, as uncovered by Andrew Wallenstein of the Hollywood Reporter, is that the site is being run by Matt Daniels, who just so happens to be the former head of the Alliance for Marriage and the man almost single-handedly responsible for the Federal Marriage Amendment:

But if GreatAmericans.com is an unlikely addition to the Or Die family, its charter member might strike an even odder presence. Creator and executive producer Matt Daniels introduces himself on the site's home page in a video in which he descends a subway escalator in a rough section of Harlem, where he grew up poor. He tells us he might never have survived were it not for role models in his life, thus inspiring a Web site that serves as a showcase for other heroes.

But what Daniels doesn't mention, nor does the news release that announced the site's launch, is his claim to fame: Five years ago, Daniels was a leading opponent of legalizing gay marriage and even authored a proposed constitutional amendment banning the practice. As founder of Alliance for Marriage, he emerged as a high-profile figure in the conservative movement one election cycle before the gay-marriage issue exploded in the form of California's Proposition 8.

Of course, both Daniels and Or Die Networks insist that his current venture has nothing to do with his past activities:

In an interview, Daniels indicates that he no longer is with AFM and his new enterprise is unrelated to his previous efforts.

"Anybody looking at the portal and what is actually being promoted, what is actually being celebrated, can make their own judgment on the face of what we represent, and we'll stand by that," he says. "This is an utterly and completely different venture."

...

Or Die Networks CEO Dick Glover does not see Daniels' background, of which he was aware, as relevant.

"One of the very big issues, and it was very extensively discussed, is that this site is not a political site," he says. "Political views don't matter if it's not a business issue."

But as Wallenstein notes, such disclaimers might not cut it with some of its other sites founders, stars, or customers:

As Daniels attests, there is nothing overtly ideological about GreatAmericans.com. Still, having Daniels in the Or Die camp is ironic given his new associates. Not only did Funny Or Die recently stage a star-studded mock musical salute to overturning Prop 8 featuring Jack Black, John C. Reilly and Neil Patrick Harris, but also the company's investors include HBO, long a bastion of gay-friendly programming.

Or Die Networks might not think its a big deal to partner with, and offer a platform to, the man responsible for the Federal Marriage Amendment, but we are guessing that there are a lot of other people out there who might disagree.

Kyle's blog

PFAW

Filed under:

Alliance for Marriage Recruits California Latinos

Submitted by Ezra on June 29, 2007 - 4:19pm

After last year’s mid-term elections dimmed its hopes that a federal constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage would pass the Congress, the D.C.-based Alliance for Marriage announced it was decamping for the field, to drum up anti-gay “caucuses” in the states. On the road to its “50-state strategy,” AFM crowed that a “Marriage Protection Caucus (TM)” was established in each of South Carolina, Maryland, and New Mexico, and its map claims several more, but it’s less clear how many actual legislators signed up in these states.

When AFM announced its “two-year plan” back in November, it also announced that it would be “deploying a diverse group of spokespersons,” claiming that its coalition was “unique and unprecedented in the degree to which it cuts across racial, cultural and religious boundary lines.” Now, AFM has begun to “deploy” Latinos, launching a California Latino Steering Committee to Protect Marriage.

AFM may have an uphill struggle recruit Latino support for an anti-gay amendment to the U.S. Constitution. A 2004 Field poll found that 57 percent of Hispanic voters in California opposed such an amendment. A 2006 poll by the Center for American Values in Public Life showed that Hispanics in the U.S. favor granting committed gay and lesbian couples the same rights as married couples in areas of hospital visitation, health insurance, and pensions by a two-to-one margin – a higher margin of support than non-Hispanics. In addition, a majority of Hispanics favor recognizing same-sex couples in either marriage or civil unions.

Other right-wing groups attacked AFM for supposedly being soft on civil unions and “counterfeit marriage,” but AFM is apparently focusing its efforts in California on a bill that would expand the rights of domestic partnerships – an act that would “erase the legal road map for marriage and the family from state law,” according to a member of AFM’s Latino committee. Nevertheless, the group’s ultimate goal remains to amend the U.S. Constitution. Speaking of efforts in some other states to erode domestic partner benefits, AFM President Matt Daniels said, "When the dust settles, we'll have a national standard for marriage. What is going on in the states is a dress rehearsal.”

PFAW

Filed under:

Anti-Gay Marriage Movement Fractures

Submitted by Ezra on March 8, 2007 - 9:12am

When the Alliance for Marriage, a group behind the proposed federal constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage, announced last week that it was changing its tactics from lobbying Congress to a “50-state strategy,” it appeared that other religious-right groups were pleased that AFM would be pushing for states to amend their own constitutions. Now, it looks like the Alliance is running out of allies.

In an article published by Focus on the Family, Family Research Council’s Tom McClusky initially said, “We’re glad that [AFM President] Matt [Daniel]’s group is joining the fight, and we look forward to working together on the state level, just as we have on the federal level.” Focus’s Carrie Gordon Earll “also welcomed AFM’s efforts,” according to the article.

However, Focus on the Family appears to have removed the article from their Citizenlink website, and a similar article leaves out the positive comments, only keeping the quote from Earll that the “next phase” of their fight against same-sex marriage is to prevent “counterfeit marriage efforts through domestic partnership and civil union legislation.” While this missing article may simply reflect a technical glitch, a clue suggesting otherwise is the harsh reaction from the virulently anti-gay Traditional Values Coalition.

“The Alliance for Marriage should either renounce its past support for civil unions or stay in Washington where its amendment has always been and will continue to be a non-starter,” declared TVC Chairman Lou Sheldon. Citing quotes from AFM’s Daniels that his proposed federal amendment would not bar civil unions, Sheldon said, “Civil unions are synonymous with homosexual marriage and to see them as some sort of compromise is delusional and naive.”

True grassroots religious conservative activists are battle-tested and they know that throwing homosexual marriage extremists a bone like civil unions does not keep them from attacking marriage.

Most reasonable people realize that the battle against homosexual marriage, civil unions, domestic partnerships et al are one and the same fight. A superficial marriage victory which also established a right in the U.S. Constitution to civil unions, as AFM proposes, would, in fact, be a defeat for religious conservatives. …

I am encouraging our allies in the states to be wary of AFM. If there was a ‘truth in labeling’ requirement for political groups, AFM would be forced to change its name to Alliance for Marriage and Civil Unions.

Six years ago, TVC was one of the first major religious-right groups to voice support for AFM’s amendment, but, while most right-wing groups ended up backing the amendment (at least for its political value), TVC changed its mind, citing its concern that some states would still be able to allow gay couples to enter civil unions.

PFAW

Filed under:

Unlucky in November, Anti-Gay Marriage Amendment Group Turns to States

Submitted by Ezra on February 28, 2007 - 4:17pm

The Alliance for Marriage, a group founded to agitate for a federal constitutional ban on same-sex marriage, is starting a “Marriage Protection Caucus” of state legislators as part of a “fifty-state strategy.” Citing November’s “shift in the balance of power in Washington,” AFM President Matt Daniels says he is building support for future ratification of such an amendment in state legislators – but at the same time, the group is pushing for more states to amend their own constitutions to prevent gay marriage.

Other groups fighting against gay unions, such as Family Research Council and Focus on the Family, are welcoming the move, but they are looking beyond marriage to other legal protections they could ban:

"The first phase of the fight has been passing state marriage amendments declaring marriage as one man and one woman," [Focus on the Family Action’s Carrie Gordon] Earll said. "However, the next phase will be fighting against what has been called 'marriage lite' -- passage of counterfeit marriage efforts through domestic partnership and civil union legislation. That's where the battle lies, and we welcome everyone who will help with it."

AFM gave its supporters a preview of their new strategy in an e-mail last November, and in addition to “expanding our massive power base in the states,” apparently manifested in its new “Marriage Protection Caucus,” it plans on “deploying” minorities and making the case that same-sex unions portend “the loss of civil rights for those who believe in the timeless definition of marriage.”