"Home Invasion" advertisement

Please view the ad here:

"Home Invasion" advertisement

The goal of this advertisement is to get California residents to vote “no” on Proposition 8. The argument made in is that the LDS Church is trying to take over California’s government through its members’ support of the proposition. The enthymeme runs something like this: “What are the consequences of the LDS Church’s involvement in Proposition 8 on gay marriage? Because the LDS Church’s involvement will means it wants to take over the government.” The implicit assumption is that the LDS Church wants to take away people’s rights. The ad is targeting California residents, as they were the ones who would ultimately vote on the proposition––specificially, I would venture to guess, those who hadn’t made up their minds about how they were going to vote.

The argument is being made with pathos and logos. The eerie music and quick cuts, the analogy of missionaries unlawfully entering someone’s home, removing the couple’s rings, digging through their personal belongings, and tearing up their marriage certificate all evoke fear. The gay couple depicted in the ad (two aesthetically-pleasing, conservatively dressed women) is far from the stereotypical pair of flamboyant, feminine men. This draws the audience closer to the couple; these could be the people next door who are having their lives destroyed.

As far as logos is concerned, the people who created the ad tried to draw a logical connection between the LDS Church is taking away marriage rights and taking away subsequent rights thereafter. The poor dialogue at the end (“What should we ban next?”) makes this too much of a stretch. Ethos is another area where this advertisement really hurts. The commercial looks like it was filmed on a low budget, the dialogue is poor, and the men playing the missionaries are not even wearing the telltale nametags. It looks like something a Proposition 8 opponent filmed on his handheld camera.

The argument is certainly relevant for California residents, who voted on the issue in November 2008, but is far from accurate. It could be seen as being a typical argument, with the conflicts between church and state coming into the spotlight, and so, at least to some, it could be a sufficient argument (if the church is trying to take away rights and take over the government, what other reason do we need to vote no?)

Ultimately this advertisement is ineffective. Rhetorical arguments are supposed to target the fence-sitters and those in the immediate vicinity of the fence. This ad is far too over-the-top for fence-sitters. People who strongly oppose Proposition 8 and/or Mormons would identify with this ad, but a lack of concessions and an evident attempt to evoke fear and paranoia would probably be a turn off for most people undecided on the issue.