The Equality Campaign calls on politicians to do their job in latest campaign via The Royals
Australian values support a fair go for all, but not when it comes to marriage. A new campaign for The Equality Campaign, created by The Royals, is calling on Australian politicians to do their job and hold a parliamentary vote to make marriage equality legal.
The campaign, titled “It’s Only Fair”, features members of the LGBTI community who selflessly dedicate themselves to aiding and supporting society – a Royal Australian Navy veteran, a nurse, a doctor, a firefighter and a lifesaver – while being denied the right to marry.
It consists of a TVC, out-of-home, social components and a website, with messages including “We can make the ultimate sacrifice but we can’t make the ultimate commitment” and “We can hold a life in our hands but we can’t ask for our partner’s hand”.
With two thirds of Australians believing everyone should be able to marry the person they love, regardless of sexual orientation, The Equality Campaign is aiming to further galvinise public support for the issue to encourage politicians to do their job as they return to Canberra for the first sitting of the new year.
The campaign encourages the public to visit The Equality Campaign website to send a message to their local MP voicing their support on the issue.
Says Nick Cumins, creative partner, The Royals: “We will have marriage equality in Australia, it is just a matter of when. I believe that one of the ways we can achieve this faster is through communication. Communication between Australians and their politicians, communication between friends and family members. So it has been incredibly fulfilling to be able to help the team at The Equality Campaign keep this conversation going. We couldn’t have done this without the amazing team on this job going above and beyond to help. The team at Finch with Marge and Chris leading the charge and Toby Dixon on stills. I encourage you to go to the website and leave your message and we will get it to your politician and get this job done.”
Says Tiernan Brady, executive director, The Equality Campaign: “The majority of Australians and MPs support marriage equality and the time has come for the federal parliament to act and deliver this straightforward reform. With this campaign we call on all MPs to recognise that this is about equality for all Australians, who already make this a better country for us all with their sacrifice and contribution to the community.”
The Equality Campaign is a not-for-profit organisation with no affiliation to any political party.
Client: The Equality Campaign
Executive Director: Tiernan Brady
Media Director: Helen Ross-Browne, Kirk Marcolina
Communications Director: Clint McGilvray
Creative Producer: Leah Newman
Agency: The Royals
Managing Partner: Dan Beaumont
Creative Partner: Nick Cummins
Strategy Director: Clare La Palombara
Senior Creative: Alberto Talegon
Senior Creative: Gareth Sweet
Art Director: Dom Meehan
Integrated Producer: Rene Shalala
Senior Account Manager: Kelso Winnick
Production Company: Finch Company
Director: Chris Nelius
Founder: Robert Galluzzo
Managing Director: Corey Esse
Producer: Marge McInnes
Photographer: Toby Dixon
Sound: Song Zu
Composer: Ramesh Sathiah
Editorial: Simon NJOO – One Egg Is Enough
13 Comments
I’m not sure who the audience is for this.
The large majority of Australians who support equality?
The liberals in the Liberal Party?
The far-right conservatives in the Liberal Party?
The first two groups need no convincing, but the third has a hold over the second. If this campaign was to be successful, it would be aimed at the constituents of those few MPs holding up progress.
The “marriage equality” being pushed by the same sex marriage proponents denies other people the right to marry who “love” their family members, or under age children, or non-human animals/things/robots, or even people who “love” themselves and want to express this by “marrying” themselves – the homosexual lobbyists refuse all these people so-called “marriage equality”. The “marriage equality” they preach is solely an emotive propaganda slogan and nothing more. Even their “love is love” slogan is more accurately “lust is lust”.
In reality, Marriage has always be equally available for everyone to use within it’s legal provisions and restrictions….it’s just that homosexuals don’t like the provisions and restrictions (ie. in particular, they don’t like the restriction that marriage is “solely between a man and a woman”) and so they want to remove this restriction and add the provisions to include “same sex” couples. This is not anything to do with “equality” because the Marriage Laws have always applied equally to everyone. Same sex marriage is rather redefining marriage to include same sex couples. If you look at “marriage equality” in the way that you are saying it, then the word “marriage” should be allowed equally to any person/people who are “in love” with anyone/anything – in other words, your “marriage equality” should remove ALL provisions and ALL restrictions to marriage otherwise you yourself are being unequal in allowing other people to marry their way because they are “in love” (more accurately, “in lust”).. Of course, this is not what marriage means because through-out history, marriage has always been about biological parenthood. The fact that you need to say “same sex marriage” or “marriage equality” to describe homosexuals getting married instead of just using the word “marriage” by itself proves this point – people don’t assume that homosexuals are included in “marriage” and so you have to say “same sex marriage” or “marriage equality” to include homosexuals.. Adding extra words to “marriage” also adds extra implications like children being raised without a father or a mother (ie. another “stolen generation”?), sexualised grooming of our young people and extra costs on society to tackle health issues specifically related to homosexuality. Same sex couples weren’t included in the definition of marriage (applied equally to everyone) because no one (including homosexuals) assumed marriage was meant to be anything other than heterosexual. It wasn’t until very recently with the push to make homosexuality acceptable that suddenly homosexuals wanted to be “married”. There is no “marriage equality” in doing so (because marriage has ALWAYS been applied equally to everyone), nor is it a “basic right” because homosexuals cannot do heterosexual marriage – their biology won’t let them. Hence, allowing homosexuals to “marry” is simply a nice sounding way to make homosexuality look acceptable and the word “marriage” becomes a meaningless word that departs from the millennia-old concept of parenthood into a completely new concept of self-gratifying love/lust/sexual attraction…..never before in the history of mankind has the word “marriage” been used this way.
@George – yep it’s aimed at politicians (and certain local constituents) in both message and media placement.
@Neil – welcome to Campaign Brief. Have a look around. I reckon you’re going to find lots of great stuff to get your teeth into 🙂
Dave
This is awful.
Obvious insight.
Cookie cutter execution that is so typical of gov ads.
How could you be proud of this?
The truth is a plebiscite only appeases the conservatives that want to vote no.
Stop wasting time and money with this shit.
Just allow Gay marriage.
It’s a basic civil right.
You’ve been here before. Why do you only comment on the campaigns that are pro-gay marriage? Or do you only stalk advertisements about gay marriage to try and slander them on comment chains across the internet? This seems like a very sad hobby. Have you tried philately? Or perhaps bird watching? I’m sure you’d find it much more calming.
Resisting the urge to tell you to go fuck yourself with a nine inch rubber rectifier, I instead ask you this.
Do Christians have dominion over what marriage is and what marriage isn’t?
Do Christians not recognise Hindu, Jewish, Islamic, Pagan, Buddhist, Spirtualist or Atheist marriages?
If the answer is ‘Christian’s do not recognise the sanctity of marriage under differing belief systems’ well then I’d like you to closely examine the Catholic Church who through not allowing their priests to marry has resulted in the biggest institutionalised incidence of gay pedophilia known to man.
If the answer is ‘Yes, we do recognise marriage under differing belief systems’ then it would be in your best interests to keep quiet and support gay marriage.
After all, we all have differing beliefs and any man who says he knows God’s mind is a liar and a thief. According to the religion you follow.
“homosexuals cannot do heterosexual marriage – their biology won’t let them.”
You tell em Neil, it’s just not the done thing!
If “we all have differing beliefs”, then you should be content to let me have mine instead of all your hostile, hateful opposition….please make up your mind. In any event, I never mentioned about God or Christianity in my comments above and the points I made are exempt from religion, and so I notice that your hostile, hateful attack on me doesn’t refute any of my points that I made. Do you have any valid refutes to make?
@Neil
Feel free to use me from time to time. More people might take you seriously that way.
Although, I do have my doubts…
@wtf ….how much detail do you expect me to give?….heterosexuals do marriage because they have the body parts to do intercourse and procreate – same sex partners don’t have the body parts to do intercourse or procreate and so it is biology that makes homosexuals unequal with heterosexuals. The new “marriage” definition that homosexuals want departs from millennia-old marriage of biological parent-hood to a concept of self-gratifying sex/lust/feelgood-based marriage that is meaningless and irrelevant. Same sex marriage serves no purpose than to make homosexuality look acceptable. Do you need me to go into more detail to explain it to you or have you got my point?
To answer another series of questions: I am commenting on here in response to an article on the website about Australian politicians voting on SSM, something that I am interested in….nothing else on the website interests me. Plus, if I only talk to like-minded people, then I never learn other people’s points of view and I would think within an artificial “though bubble” living ignorantly of all the other things that is going on in the world. In the case of same sex marriage, I look at what pro-SSM people are saying so I can more accurately refute their points and successfully convince people (especially the young people that have been aggressively targeted by Marxist socialists) that homosexual marriage and all the other homosexual propaganda slogans (like “love is love”, “civil rights”, “marriage equality”) are a farce – they are irrelevant to redefining marriage. Same sex marriage is purely a political stunt to make homosexuality look acceptable, nothing more.
I remember a time in my youth when a Uni would have a federal minister address students on why Australia should be involved in the Vietnam conflict one day and the next day have an anti-Vietnam activist address the students on why not. Nowadays, anyone with an opposing view to the PC brigade doesn’t get to speak at a uni because they’re either banned or their invitation to speak is withdrawn. How ironic that our most revered seats of learning have a burning hatred of free speech. No wonder this country is ‘stuffed’.I don’t agree with you Neil,but keep speaking up and standing up to the PC ‘bullies’.
Hello