The issue of gay marriage is always good for controversy and lots and lots of rancorous lobbying on both sides of the issue. These days, of course, that includes a battle of online videos.

A few weeks ago, a group called the National Organization for Marriage put out a striking video commercial called “A Gathering Storm.”

In it, with a backdrop of menacing clouds, a clutch of people talk about their fears about allowing gay marriage.

It has garnered 576,319 views so far.

Now, a passel of celebrities on the Funny or Die comedy Web site has released a spoof version of the NOM commercial, called “A Gaythering Storm.”

It features a “gay rain army” and a giant gay repellent umbrella. Oh, snap.

It has 440,616 views, although it just went up yesterday.

Here are both of them, so you can vote with your click. But watch both, whatever you think–and that includes you, Miss California!

NOM:

Funny or Die:

Please see this disclosure related to gay marriage and me.

This weekend on Twitter, someone paid BoomTown a compliment of a sort: “I read you because you are a solid fact-based reporter with a Miss Cleo intuition “

Yipes, because of being fact-based, I had to point out that the well-known-via-infomercials Psychic Friends Network shaman turned out to be a bit of a fraud, although she’s always entertaining, with her jaunty Jamaican accent (she was not, of course, from there).

Nonetheless, it got me thinking about how I would predict what would result from all the deal-making that is suddenly in the air, after six months of ennui from the current economic downturn.

While Silicon Valley has been less impacted than, say, New York, things have certainly been tightening up here, with layoffs at big companies and small ones and less frenetic activity than one had come to expect from Web 2.0.

But last week, the pulse seemed to quicken a little with the various rumors that have swirled around Twitter, the variety of controversies around Facebook and the nascent chit-chatting now taking place between Yahoo (YHOO) and Microsoft (MSFT).

Thus, with a third eye to the future, here’s my take on what could happen. Big caveat, though: Much of what follows is all my speculation and analysis and not based on any psychic feelings.

TWITTER TWADDLE

Last week, I did a rather long reported post on what was going on after rumors broke out that Twitter was in “late-stage” acquisition negotiations with Google (GOOG).

While an imminent deal was not pending two weeks ago, I wrote that Twitter was indeed the apple of Google’s eye at the moment–specifically and now more so than ever, many sources tell me, of its Search Product VP Marissa Mayer–for some kind of search deal that could eventually lead to an acquisition.

But I also noted that Microsoft was also in the picture, vying for Twitter’s affections, and I doubted that Microsoft and Google would be the only ones interested in the hot-as-July-in-Alabama microblogging start-up.

Here’s the plus for Twitter: It’s on a hype rocket ship, its growth is also accelerating and it does not need money, since it just got a big slug of venture funding.

And that’s also a minus and why I also predict that there are only two outcomes: a sale very soon or a major investment by one of its suitors.

While I would love for its founders, including Biz Stone and CEO Evan Williams, to stick to their claims of remaining a “strong, profitable, independent company,” a cash offer of over $500 million or a cash-and-stock offer of slightly more will probably be enough to take them off the table, mostly because the getting might never get this good again.

That offer is most likely to come from Google, if I had to make a bet, which is well known for moving quickly when it sees a tasty treat it desires.

That’s a shame, since once the start-up actually does enter these kinds of “late-stage” talks for real, some deserved shine will come right off Twitter’s cute little MINI convertible of a company.

Instead, Twitter might want to take a page from Facebook and let itself grow its own as it explores revenue options, while perhaps taking a large investment and striking a significant commercial deal with a strategic partner like Google or Microsoft.

Then, with a modicum of independence and the possibility of acquisition if it turned out it needed help, Twitter could forge its own destiny.

And wouldn’t that be nice if Google or Microsoft didn’t just gobble up every innovative thing they cannot seem to think of on their own?

FACEBOOK FOLLIES

I will be reporting more very soon on what’s been going on as the powerful social-networking site deals with its fast-growing pains–up to 200 million users now, which is about as impressive at it gets in the Internet space.

Not so impressive is the variety of high-profile management mishaps that have plagued the company of late–from its Terms of Service debacle to its redesign rough road to the way Facebook recently parted with CFO GIdeon Yu.

To say Facebook treated Yu–a well-regarded figure in the tech sector, who had also raised an awful lot of funding for the start-up–with very little of the kind of grace he deserved and that it should have displayed is an understatement.

In the creation of a significant start-up, tensions inevitably flare and there is typically a lot of management turnover, which is natural, for a variety of reasons on all sides.

Why Facebook had to insecurely tout its stable financial state while backhandedly slapping Yu by saying it was in a search for a CFO with “public company experience”–Yu had enough public company experience to make that deeply insulting–was unclear, when it simply could have said he was moving on in the way most such partings are done.

The conflict between its public statement and an internal memo I obtained on Yu’s departure underscored the problem.

Insecure and way too focused on optics is probably an issue Facebook will have to deal with as it moves toward what the company hopes will be in IPO in 2010 or 2011. Rather than all the noise, its only goal should be shaping up its revenue and profit performance and, hopefully, building a cohesive management.

But does that mean current CEO and founder Mark Zuckerberg will have to eventually step aside before a public offering and make way for a more experienced CEO type, as Google co-founders Sergey Brin and Larry Page did for Eric Schmidt, as some have suggested?

I predict not. Because, for all his careening from crisis to crisis of late, I have no question that Zuckerberg–who has fended off big-money acquisition attempts by big players with a cool-cucumberness that Twitter’s execs should study carefully–has every intention of riding Facebook to the very top–or even bottom.

Clearly modeling himself as a modern-day Steve Jobs (who was fired before triumphantly returning) or Bill Gates (a better comparison), Zuckerberg is a visionary techie who wants to style himself as a crack businessman too.

And with a lot of control over the fate of Facebook, he’s going to see his vision of Facebook and himself out.

THE ODD COUPLE

Can two divorced men share an apartment without driving each other crazy?

Oops, I mean can two once-bickering-over-a-hostile-takeover companies start talking without driving each other crazy?

Last week, the news, first reported here Friday, that Yahoo was involved in preliminary talks with Microsoft about an extensive commercial advertising and search partnership–should have come as no surprise.

After all, Yahoo and Microsoft are laggards in the lucrative search space, especially compared to the dominant Google, and they must somehow find a way to get along to get some traction in the marketplace.

But will they or will it be all Felix Unger and Oscar Madison battling until the end of time? While I loved that television show, and movie too, the Yahoo-Microsoft version is not riveting anymore to some.

“I am so bored with their not-coming-to-a-deal,” said one prominent exec, who was involved in the first go-round between the companies. “They need to make a deal, and if they don’t make a deal now, I will be both bored and in shock.”

That made me laugh out loud when I heard it. But it’s not funny, I know, because this is serious stuff!

Okay, then, seriously, this pair needs to come to some sort of partnership agreement like Miss Cleo needs a new reputation.

And, because I am a hopeful psychic, I predict they finally will, dropping all the emotion and history and realizing that they are wasting time and opportunity.

After all, while the future isn’t written, it can–a lot of the time–be both inevitable and utterly obvious.

Speaking of obviously (bogus), here is a video of Miss Cleo’s famous commercial:

Please see this disclosure related to me and Google.

In early discussions that began in the last several weeks that apparently included a face-to-face meeting last week, Yahoo CEO Carol Bartz and Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer are finally talking about search and also advertising partnerships the companies could possibly strike, said several sources with knowledge of the situation.

According to a variety of sources, the talks between the pair (pictured here) and other execs at both companies are preliminary and wide-ranging, focused on what kind of commercial relationship Yahoo and Microsoft could have in the future.

But, cautioned sources close to Yahoo, the discussions are not about a renewed acquisition attempt by Microsoft and also might not result in any deal.

In any case, investors will likely cheer any kind of productive re-engagement between Yahoo (YHOO) and Microsoft (MSFT), which has been lacking since a tense takeover effort by the software giant went south last year after an ugly battle that soured relations between the two companies.

“It’s long past time,” said one outsider who had been told of the discussions. “With Google’s huge market share, these two need to work together and the problems they had should be put in the past.”

Both Yahoo and Microsoft declined to comment about the talks.

The change in leadership at Yahoo has helped, especially since Bartz–a Silicon Valley veteran with much deal experience–has none of the baggage from the takeover battle that previous management was carrying.

Microsoft seems to have also moved on, working on a massive redesign and relaunch of its search brand, under the internal name Kumo, an effort that has included the hiring a whole lot of talent in the arena, mainly from Yahoo, in fact.

That includes Qi Lu, a former Yahoo tech star, who is leading all of Microsoft’s online efforts.

All of this means that a relatively green-field approach is now possible.

Thus, sources said, the talks include many scenarios, such as one in which the companies swap online advertising assets and deliver services to each other.

In that interesting plan, Yahoo might take over all of Microsoft’s display and premium advertising business to sell along with its own, while Microsoft would run the search advertising business for the pair.

Such a deal, which plays to each company’s strengths, would bind the two closely together, even though they still compete on many other fronts in the Internet space.

It also joins their forces, creating a sale that is much more attractive to advertisers and allows for better competition against search powerhouse Google (GOOG).

And while Ballmer has publicly said repeatedly that Microsoft is interested in buying either Yahoo’s search advertising business or search outright, sources close to Yahoo said the company is still determined to maintain control of the important search business and the massive traffic and critical data it provides.

That is especially true, given that Yahoo is the No. 2 player, with a much larger share than third-place Microsoft. According to recent surveys, for example, Google has a 63 percent share, while Yahoo has 20.6 percent and Microsoft eight percent.

But it is also in Yahoo’s interest to move fast, since its search traffic could be declining soon.

According to a story by Dow Jones yesterday, citing a comScore (SCOR) report, recent toolbar distribution deals with computer makers Hewlett-Packard (HPQ) and Acer by Microsoft and Google respectively, will have a negative impact on Yahoo.

The story said that Yahoo “could lose up to 15% of its search traffic over the next 12-to-18 months after failing to renew deals with two computer makers, blows likely to hamper the Internet giant’s efforts to remain a viable competitor in search advertising.”

But even as he directs aggressive moves to put even more competitive pressure on Yahoo, Ballmer has been unusually deferential in giving Bartz a lot of time to come to the table.

Nonetheless, he cannot seem to stop talking about it either.

At a recent conference in mid-March, for example, Ballmer said:

“It’s really about getting the pooled volume, because you actually can improve your product faster if you have more users….If you have more advertisers, you can improve the product as well….There are returns to scale. And putting the scale together is valuable.”

But, in that interview, Ballmer also said that he had only talked to Bartz briefly since she was hired in January–congratulating her on the new job and mentioning that he’d love to talk about a deal.

And, at another meeting with Wall Street analysts earlier, he went even further:

“You all know that I would like to figure out how to pool somehow Microsoft and Yahoo. I’m not talking about doing an acquisition, blah, blah, blah, back to search deals, blah, blah, blah, I don’t know if anything is going to happen. I’ll short-circuit the whole conversation, but the fact of the matter is, these two guys [Microsoft and Yahoo] should somehow figure out how to get together and create more competition for this guy [Google]. And I’m hoping perhaps that that’s a reasonable conversation to have with new management at Yahoo as Carol comes onboard.”

In contrast, Bartz has played her hand very close to the vest so far, at least publicly, often discounting any effort to split up Yahoo.

In fact, at a Morgan Stanley (MS) tech conference in early March, she said:

“I am not going to negotiate with my 55,000 favorite friends….We’re going to negotiate as companies negotiate–and that’s privately. If something happens, you’ll know it then. Until then, there is no comment.”

(By the way, both Ballmer and Bartz have agreed to be interviewed onstage–separately, of course–at the D: All Things Digital conference in late May that Walt Mossberg and I run–so we will be sure to try to get one–not that they would give one!)

OK, the Lauren commercial was a little too cute for its own good, and BoomTown has no interest in Giampaulo’s “really big hands.”

But the latest installment of Microsoft’s real-people advertising Internet and television ad campaign, called “Laptop Hunters”–this time a mother and son named Lisa and Jackson looking to score a computer–is pretty funny and sweet.

Deftly lacing in baseball and playing to cute but tired clichés (did you hear–boys don’t like the color pink!), the main theme of heft value over too-thin hipness is really starting to kick in: That a person can get more computer for the money by buying a PC over a Mac.

Again, this segment slyly insults Apple (AAPL) as overpriced and undersized–”It’s a little too small,” says Jackson, while Lisa calls the Macs “pretty.”

The pair finally walk out of the store with a Sony (SNE) Vaio.

While I cannot blame Microsoft (MSFT) for sticking to the Apple-Is-for-Value-Ignorant-Elites meme, I still wish that the messaging would move on from price to more important things such as how the software and hardware perform together.

Cuz, frankly, I like pretty.

Here are Lisa and Jackson, as well the Lauren and Giampaulo, below: