Leave a Comment Jacob Combs
Opponents of marriage equality in Washington state file signatures required for ballot referendum
June 7, 2012
By Jacob Combs
The Washington state law passed earlier this year to bring marriage equality to the state is officially on hold now that opponents of the measure have submitted a raft of signatures to the Secretary of State seeking to put the issue on the November ballot. The ballot measure, known as Referendum 74, would ask Washington voters to uphold or overturn the legislature’s law allowing same-sex couples to wed in the state while protecting the religious freedoms of places of worship who do not recognize marriage equality. The proponents of Referendum 74 told reporters that they had collected 241,000 signatures, about twice as many as the 120,577 required by law.
Before the ballot initiative becomes official, the Secretary of State will have to verify the accuracy of the signatures, but it is extremely likely the proponents will have required the requisite number even if a chunk of signatures are found to be invalid. According to the Secretary of State’s office, the referendum could be officially certified by the middle of next week.
It goes without saying that marriage equality’s past record at the ballot box looks unpromising–32 out of 32 states have voted against marriage rights in the past. In reliably blue Washington, though, opponents of marriage equality face a tougher road than they have in some other states. Washington is the only state where a popular vote has uphold expanded rights for LGBT citizens: in 2009, voters upheld a law passed by the legislature that extended domestic partnerships to gay and lesbian couples. According to Matt Barreto, a political science professor at the University of Washington who has conducted extensive polling on the issue, support for equal legal rights for same-sex couples has grown since 2009.
That means that marriage opponents must walk a fine line in the state as they try to avoid making it seem like they are against legal equality for gays and lesbians while striving to preserve the definition of marriage as a union of opposite-sex partners. Speaking to the New York Times, Joseph Backholm of the anti-marriage equality group Preserve Marriage Washington said that Washington voters this year will have a chance to make a decision on marriage only, and could repeal the new law without feeling like they’ve taken rights away from gay couples. In a way, the fact that Backholm has to frame the issue this way is in itself a victory for our side, since it shows that the island of exclusion he and his colleagues stand upon is being steadily eroded as public opinion changes. (Of course, this does mean that Backholm’s position is becoming increasingly tenuous and, in a sense, desperate, since it is essentially only a matter of semantics.)
The facts on the ground in Washington look good for our side: a recent independent poll found that 54 percent percent of Washingtonians approve of the legislature’s law, with only 33 percent opposed. Support among independents was also strong, with 52 percent in favor and 36 percent opposed. Obama carried Washington easily in 2008, and he enjoyed a 54 percent approval rating in the state just last week. In addition, marriage equality advocates have a big cash advantage so far: they’ve raised over $700,000, while opponents have so far raised only a little over $110,000.
Finally, another anti-marriage equality group in the state, the awkwardly named Marriage Equals One Man Plus One Woman, is seeking signatures for another ballot amendment that would institute a mini-DOMA in Washington limiting marriage to heterosexual couples only. That group must obtain 242,000 signatures by July 6, and has collected approximately 100,000, according to the Chicago Tribute. If both ballot measures qualify for the November election, it could create a bit of chaos for all sides, the effects of which are unclear, but which could bode well for marriage advocates if opponents are split between two measures.
When it comes to popular votes on marriage equality, it’s always wise to be cautious. We can be sure that our opponents will be out in droves between now and November, and its going to take both manpower and money for us to win. Still, in Washington state, we will be able to conduct perhaps the most aggressive campaign on the most positive ground that we’ve had so far. That in itself is enough of a reason for us to give it everything we’ve got.
Having technical problems? E-mail equalityontrial AT couragecampaign DOT org for assistance!
99 Comments Leave a Comment
1.
Sagesse | June 7, 2012 at 8:17 am
@
2.
JoeRH | June 7, 2012 at 8:21 am
"When it comes to popular votes on marriage equality, it’s always wise to be cautious."
Cautious? How about skeptical? How about being prepared for failure? This vote will go the same way it does in every other state since religious extremists unfortunately breed across the country and not just in select regiions. As long as those psychos exist, kiss the idea of winning a popular vote goodbye. What we can count on is the courts. In the end they will be where we need to turn to. Hasn't that been the same for every other civil rights fight in our history? The average American is just too thoughtless to give a shit about other people's well-being unless it actually affects them. And in the cases of religious extremists, even when it hasn't a damn thing to do with them. Someone please just prove the bible is a book of fables so we don't have to keep bowing to these fanatical ideas about what a "god" really wants us to do (religious freaks are never consistent anyway).
3.
joe | June 7, 2012 at 8:48 am
Agreed. A majority of the US didn't approve of interracial marriage until the 90's.
4.
Steve | June 7, 2012 at 8:50 am
If the pro-equality side keeps putting up namby-pamby, panty-waist ineffective ads like they seem to do *in each and every election*, yep…another loss.
Y'all gonna get in the fight this time, call a lie a lie when they put it out there, get as hard and mean and gutsy the other side?
Or will we just get syrupy music and side issues and such again?
FIGHT!
5.
Greg P | June 7, 2012 at 8:56 am
Well, this was certainly coming, now the pro marriage equality side in Washington state should ramp up the education process with voters.
Anyhow in terms on progress on LGBT rights this week thus far I'm fairly happy: US federal courts are lining up to burn DOMA, Denmark passes a marriage equality law, etc
6.
Don Gaudard | June 7, 2012 at 8:59 am
Both Microsoft and Starbucks have their home offices in Washington and both have come out in support of gay marriage. I'll bet my billionaires can beat your billionaires.
7.
jpmassar | June 7, 2012 at 9:09 am
This vote will go the same way it does in every other state
I'm going to bookmark this and mock you come November 7th.
8.
Ann_S | June 7, 2012 at 9:16 am
It's all good! We are sending our daughter to college in WA and she will vote against it. We got this!
9.
JoeRH | June 7, 2012 at 9:19 am
Should I make my own book mark for a "told ya so" message I can leave for you?
10.
JoeRH | June 7, 2012 at 9:23 am
Steve, I'd love to buy you a drink. I always feel alone when I make these complaints, but how can I not?? We are far too passive or put out these "see how innocent we are" ads. People are driven by anger and fear on the opposition, so we need to counter it and also point out exactly who these people are on the opposition: reveal all their shady business practices (particularly those of groups who allegedly believe in Christian values), point out hypocrisy in their own lifestyles, etc. Make the whole nation an audience to how corrupt and disgusting these groups are and finally put them in their place. At least it would be a step in a better direction even if that fails.
11.
Gregory in SLC | June 7, 2012 at 9:29 am
Washington most definitely different than North Carolina! Pressure on, but looking good!
12.
jpmassar | June 7, 2012 at 9:35 am
Absolutely. Go for it.
13.
MFargo | June 7, 2012 at 9:37 am
I know how you feel too, JoeRH. But so far remaining above the fray seems to be working in our favor. As numbers change in polls (although not dramatically enough as far as I'm concerned), letting the religious right speak in "that way" that they do is almost a better argument than any virulent protest from us would accomplish. While I'm not advocating being "good little LGBT," the argument we have is very persuasive. And I think the trial before Judge Walker is just about the best example of that.
But it's important to meet every distortion, lie, misrepresentation with fact.
14.
Mackenzie | June 7, 2012 at 9:43 am
Wow, the two of you sure know how to be hostile to one another. Joe I would leave you with this. Aside from Maine and CA, most every other state that has seen a const. amendment banning same-sex marriage pass were states that we knew it would fail in anyways. Those states that do not have bans are where most of the pro equal people reside. I understand that in this case we are looking to affirm a bill. But that would require a huge movement of conservative voters to come out in an election just to vote no. In states like WA where conservative voters know their vote for president will like go un-used as electoral college will only benefit Pre Obama, they are far less likely to turn out in large numbers. I don't really think people, when given the option in WA will vote no on this amend, if they don't agree I could see them just not voting at all. I am not trying to say you are wrong but I tend to be an optimist even in situations where I don't see a good outcome. In this case however, I feel the outcome very well could be different.
15.
_BK_ | June 7, 2012 at 9:46 am
Is there any way we can bring in Canadians to help us? I'm sure there are activists in British Columbia who would be willing to offer their assistance. Especially if they were to share their stories as to how nothing horrible has happened in Canada since they enacted marriage equality.
16.
DaveP | June 7, 2012 at 9:50 am
We don't have to be shieking lunatics, but I agree that we need to be blunt and make a damn point. I really like the idea of the pro-active "You are going to be lied to about marriage equality" ads. And point out that NOM, or as we should refer to them, "the people behind the efforts to prevent equality" have recently been found guilty of campaign fraud in earlier campaigns and are in violation of court orders, etc.
17.
Mackenzie | June 7, 2012 at 9:52 am
MN should do the same!
18.
NancyH | June 7, 2012 at 9:56 am
This thing will go down in flames.
19.
Joey | June 7, 2012 at 9:56 am
Denmark has legalized equal marriage! One more country ahead of the United States…..
"Lawmakers voted 85-24 on Thursday to change Denmark's marriage laws."
Goes into effect June 15, and there is NO ballot measures to overturn… how nice a world that would be…
http://www.foxnews.com/world/2012/06/07/denmark-a…
20.
JDinSeattle | June 7, 2012 at 9:58 am
Proud, lifelong Washington resident here…I know this is going to be a battle for the marriage equality side, but part of me is very confident that Washington State is going to be the tipping point for marriage equality at the ballot box. I wonder what the chances are NOM will back off when 'the people have spoken'?
21.
MFargo | June 7, 2012 at 10:01 am
What NOM has suceeded in doing is reinforcing prejudice; otherwise, they really don't have much more to say. That needs to be challenged over and over, and in recent years I've seen that done quite effectively at all manner of poise or indignation. I'll never forget the P8TT's expose of the infamous summer bus tour. But I don't remember any of the P8TT being "shrieking lunatics." (Can't say the same for the NOM folks.)
I think every tactic has an outcome and value. I just don't feel any need to undermine what's happening currently. It's taken a long time to get into the arena. And a wide array of tactics have brought us here. The mother of Matthew Shephard, for instance, quietly and persuasively moved us forward.
(But I did rise a certain finger at the TV screen when I saw the clip of the NC minister deliver his sermon, and probably would have done so had I been in the audience. But the focus would then be drawn away from what the pastor said to my gesture.)
22.
Fred | June 7, 2012 at 10:13 am
No wonder Denmark was rated the country with the happiest citizens in the world!
23.
Kate | June 7, 2012 at 10:30 am
They'll just call "the people" activists then. You know, like their "activist judges" epithet.
24.
Glen | June 7, 2012 at 10:37 am
Let the Mormon and Catholic church financed fear mongering begin!!
9th Commandment Schm9th Commandment.
25.
Gregory in SLC | June 7, 2012 at 10:39 am
: D !
Manu Sareen, the Minister for Equality and Church and Nordic Cooperation in the coalition government of the Social Democrats, Social Liberal Party and Socialist People’s Party said of equal marriage: “It’s liberalism, it’s diversity, it’s equality, it’s tolerance and it’s so beautiful.”
26.
JoeRH | June 7, 2012 at 10:49 am
Oh, it's just a disagreement between an optimist and someone who watches trends…
As long as religious extremists can get their hoards riled up over some non-existent attack on their beliefs, they will always have a massive army that will overpower any of us that are objective or at least live in reality. Those people would sacrifice their own children if that was the solution to stopping a gay family from being so much as respected.
It is true that the states that these things have passed in were unsurprising, but whenever a left-leaning state gives these people an opportunity to reverse a pro-equality measure, they come out in heards like fleas on a dirty dog. It's like lifting up a rock and millions of bugs crawl out of it. Basically, they're vermin. I can't think of any positive term for them. Too bad we didn't have exterminators for those…
Anyway, I guess we'll see, but I'm not going to open my mind, because what I've witnessed so far doesn't inspire much confidence.
27.
Steve | June 7, 2012 at 10:57 am
"But so far remaining above the fray seems to be working in our favor."
Really? How many elections has the pro-equality side come out ahead? What's that? None?
It's because people are inundated with LIES, and there is virtually no response other than "that's not faaaaaiiiir!" I'm just here in CA, where you'd expect Prop 8 should have gotten totally defeated, but we saw lie after lie after lie after lie, on TV, on the radio, on signs, on forums, in the newspapers, etc. They're going to teach your kids to be gay in school! Churches will have to marry queers! Businesses will be shut down by gay lawsuits!
What did we get in return? A sappy commercial showing a straight couple being foiled by mean-looking old white people from getting up the aisle to the altar. Wow.
Look, I want to see this crap end, too…but I feel like the woman who told Obama she was tired of defending his lackluster actions. Either GET IN THE FIGHT, or move on to a different venue (the courts) and marshal your resources there.
You're sure not succeeding at politics.
28.
_BK_ | June 7, 2012 at 11:01 am
And don't forget Maine.
29.
Jacob | June 7, 2012 at 11:12 am
Nothing is more passive than throwing in the towel before the vote has even happened. Whining is a boring waste of time.
30.
Straight Ally #3008 | June 7, 2012 at 11:15 am
I can't see a 4-0 win for our side in November, but I'd have to put Maine and Washington as the two best hopes (although Maryland might be a surprise contender after President Obama broke the ice with his public statement). What troubles me on one hand is the vast sums of money that will be thrown at this, but on the other hand, conversations between LGBT people and straight folks become an imperative for the pro-equaity side, and I think it's fair to say that when people actually meet their LGBT neighbors and see them as fellow human beings and fellow citizens, the arc bends farther toward equality. And some of us already know LGBT people and just needed some time to think about the situation (I was for civil unions at first because I just didn't sit and think things through until I saw what happened with Prop 8). If referendums were taken every year (hypothetically of course), support would grow steadily until the tipping point was reached.
31.
Jacob | June 7, 2012 at 11:18 am
So go home and cry! Everything is awful and we'll never ever win. The world is full of enemies, and there's just no point trying. Great. Thanks for your helpful contribution.
Being a constant cynic is lazy and facile.
32.
MFargo | June 7, 2012 at 11:21 am
One thing in our favor is a better dialogue in the media which has some history now. But there needs to be more. In California we saw how the tobacco industry's money defeated a proposition this week. And the money will be flying as the next election approaches and these cases reach the Supreme Court.
33.
MFargo | June 7, 2012 at 11:23 am
Judge Walker spoke of this during the trial. We're up against a formidible foe who has legions at their dispense and money to burn. (Making the argument too for heightened scrutiny.)
34.
MFargo | June 7, 2012 at 11:31 am
I think we learned a good–albeit hard–lesson from that, but it was four years ago. Organization is tigher, the "message" is more on target, and the media is covering this in a way as never before. I don't dispute the disaster of Prop 8. But we've moved further along and, yes, have further to go. While I personally believe our hope is in the courts (which is what this site is about), that can be a slippery slope, although the legal team at Perry and their arguments was and will be formidible.
35.
JoeRH | June 7, 2012 at 11:33 am
Jacob you have just proven you are far more whiney than I have been lol Pointing out the obvious isn't whining as you claim it to be. It's being realistic. This appears to be outside of the boundaries your brain has. You throwing a tantrum over me being realistic is a much better definition of whiney.
36.
JoeRH | June 7, 2012 at 11:35 am
Who says we're throwing in the towel? Just because we acknowledge you can't trust the public for a fair vote doesn't mean we're giving up. I am saying optimism isn't very valuable in instances like these when all the prior evidence shows us losing.
If you think whining is so boring, why did you come here to do just that?
37.
Leo | June 7, 2012 at 11:55 am
Maybe they'll announce a boycott of Washington state. That'd be fun.
38.
Steve | June 7, 2012 at 12:25 pm
It helps being one of the most secular countries in the world
39.
Steve | June 7, 2012 at 12:31 pm
I disagree. Look at the ads in NC. Completely went down a tangent that was unrelated to the goal. The ad that sticks in my mind is the one with the DA showing barely visible marks on photos…THAT is supposed to fire up people to protect the rights of people who are, by and large, not one of their affinity groups?
Weak, weak, weak.
40.
Stefan | June 7, 2012 at 12:37 pm
Minnesota has a shot too. Remember that in Minnesota a blank ballot counts as a NO vote, which automatically benefits our side by several points.
41.
Matt | June 7, 2012 at 12:49 pm
Not sure about the negativity here. I think of the small margin of loss in California (52.2 to 47.8) and that was 4 years ago. Even if 0.6% have changed their mind each year, we would win in California. That means there is hope for other states too.
Remember that 3 years ago Washington voters approved full domestic partnerships 53.2% – 46.8%. And again, support has surely increased in the past 3 years.
We should still fight hard for marriage equality in Washington state, but I think we have a lot of reasons to be positive and hopeful!
42.
MFargo | June 7, 2012 at 1:03 pm
Steve, I can't speak to the specifics of the NC campaign since I live in California. Checking YouTube, I found this for Washington State
http://www.hrc.org/blog/entry/support-domestic-pa…
which, for me, is on target. Do you have a link to the ad you're talking about.
But the general national media (print as well as television and the blogosphere) has become much more focused. I can't really talk about ads in various State referendums, since I don't search those out.
43.
Sharon | June 7, 2012 at 1:18 pm
There is already people posting here that have it backwards. You don't vote against the referendum… You vote yes to approve of gay marriage. The no was to signing the petitions so you didn't have to vote on it. Now that you will have to vote. Vote YES.
44.
Straight Ally #3008 | June 7, 2012 at 1:22 pm
Damn that activist electorate!
45.
Straight Ally #3008 | June 7, 2012 at 1:23 pm
That's pretty sweet! As it should be when the decision is proactive. I does further illustrate the perils and confusions of state-by-state approval, though.
46.
Tim in Sonoma | June 7, 2012 at 1:28 pm
I couldn't agree with Steve and JoeRH more! Playing Mr. nice gay has NEVER worked before so why do we want go to go down that road AGAIN?
These polls I keep hearing about that always seam to lean in our direction never seem to mean a hill of beans when it comes down to an actual election! Why?
Because our opposition during EVERY SINGLE election puts up television ads that distort the truth, ads that mislead the public to believe that some harm is going to be done! Whether it be children or religious freedom and it works every time! They always seem reinforce prejudice!
47.
Tim in Sonoma | June 7, 2012 at 1:29 pm
When Steve said :
"It's because people are inundated with LIES, and there is virtually no response other than "that's not faaaaaiiiir!" I'm just here in CA, where you'd expect Prop 8 should have gotten totally defeated, but we saw lie after lie after lie after lie, on TV, on the radio, on signs, on forums, in the newspapers, etc. They're going to teach your kids to be gay in school! Churches will have to marry queers! Businesses will be shut down by gay lawsuits!"
HE WAS %100 CORRECT! That's how we lost Prop 8 here in Ca! LIES! And if you think Steve and JoeRH are giving up your wrong, they have just learned from past falures and don't want to make the same mistakes yet AGAIN!
If the Pro equality people in Washington take the "Mr.nice gay" road again and don't call the liar's out on their lies AS THEY HAPPEN, we will face another loss.
It's time we put our big boy pants on and defend ourselves! Much respect intended!
48.
Steve | June 7, 2012 at 2:06 pm
http://youtu.be/ypJsBXd42-I
Gonna have to do a little better than this.
49.
Terri K. | June 7, 2012 at 2:48 pm
Its all about money, JoeRH, the professional gays and the professional bigots are about to make heaps of money.
50.
Terri K. | June 7, 2012 at 2:51 pm
Will you disclose how much money you'll earn from an anti-gay referendum?
51.
JIm | June 7, 2012 at 3:49 pm
It may be good if the NOM group has 2 ballot meaures, at the same time. What it will show independent thinking people, is how bigoted these groups are towards the LGBT community. I think having 2 measures would work in our favor. As for California, I live in California and we are 1 of the 18,000 married gay couples in the state. Most people do not realize how conservative CA really is, outside of SF, LA and SD (where we live). You have the rest of the state, other than some beach areas that are extremely conservative. So the Prop 8 vote should NOT have been a surprise to those in CA.
52.
EricKoszyk | June 7, 2012 at 4:19 pm
When Referendum 71 won back in 2009, the opponents were doing everything they could to make people think that they were voting for or against same sex marriage.
It's almost as if Referendum 74 is just a replay of Referendum 71.
With a lot of hard work, this is very winnable.
53.
MFargo | June 7, 2012 at 4:31 pm
Thanks for posting that, Steve. NC's situation was, oh, different, more severe, greater consequences to all domestic partnerships, etc. "Flumoxed" is probably how I felt about that iniative. I did see some of the ads referencing the loss of protection for medical care, but you're right: The intent was to deny LGBT a specific right, and focusing on the other effects for any domestic partnership was off the mark.
54.
MFargo | June 7, 2012 at 4:35 pm
Ronald Reagan, Pete Wilson are evidence of the schism in California. I'd be interested in know if Eastern Washington is as conservative as, say, California's Central Valley and Eastern Oregon.
55.
Glen | June 7, 2012 at 4:48 pm
Joe's point is that it is always easier to mobilize people around fear and hatred. That's just an historical fact of reality.
The anti-equality side has that going for them, and they use it to their full advantage.
Live-and-let live attitudes don't drive people to the polls. Fairness and equality doesn't either. Nor does love, happiness, or empathy for others. (For the average person that doesn't have other interests for voting).
Anger, hatred, fear, bigotry, prejudice, desire to impose your religion on those who refuse to be in your religion, THOSE things get people to the polls and it gets them to the polls in very large numbers. And historically its also gotten them to throw their lives away on the battle-field while taking other's lives.
We should never underestimate just exactly WHAT it is we are up against.
Yes, ultimately good triumphs over evil, but it takes persistent and never resting effort. Nobody should be comfortable unless polls showed a VERY large advantage for our side (and even then I wouldn't get TOO comfortable).
56.
Glen | June 7, 2012 at 5:11 pm
It would be interesting to know how Prop 8 would have turned out in California had Barack Obama thrown his support behind marriage equality at the time.
That one move seems to have swayed a fair percentage of African Americans, and may change the outcome in Maryland. It might have done the same in California.
Of course, had Obama come out for marriage equality in 2008, we would now be talking about President McCain and how he won't budge on eliminating Don't Ask/ Don't Tell, how he's been wasting the Justice Department's time defending DOMA, and how Vice President Palin continues her futile pursuit of amending the U.S. Constitution to overturn the 6+ States with marriage equality.
57.
PDX_Str8_Supporter | June 7, 2012 at 5:14 pm
Just remember to vote for it…..
Referendum 74 is to affirm the marriage equality bill.
58.
DaveP | June 7, 2012 at 6:26 pm
Can someone help out – I'm seeing some news articles about the new marriage equality law in Denmark with some puzzling statements. It would appear that perhaps the government of Denmark has some degree of control over the church – the articles are saying things about how the law 'allows same sex couples to legally marry in the church'…? They go on to say that individual priests have the option of declining to marry a same sex couple, but the Bishop must find a substitute priest who IS willing…?
It would appear that, perhaps, the Danish government had a law preventing same sex couples from having their civil marriage solemnized in the church, even if the church was willing to do it, and that this has now changed, but it still seems odd to me, here in the states, that there seems to be this direct government involvement in the church, regardless if it is to our benefit or detriment. Anybody have some insight into the Denmark situation?
59.
Media Spend | June 7, 2012 at 6:37 pm
It seems a winning strategy in any political contest is who can out spend and produce the best compelling opposing negative ad…. Que Newt and Ricky.
60.
Bob | June 7, 2012 at 7:34 pm
Canadians,,, standing by watching,,,,, no nothing horrible has happened here,,,, but it might if the republicans gain power in the U.S.
this next election is so huge globally,, as a Canadian I think it's important to have Obama, in the U.S. setting examples for the world,,,, If Romney got together with our Stephen Harper,,, nonononono,,,, very scary proposition,,,,
when the ruling world power has an educated leader who focuses on issues that matter such as human rights,,, we all benefit,,,,,,
It's not nice the way things turned out in Wisconsin,,, the enemy is not only religious right nut jobs,, but money hungry capitalists,,, that's the nature of the beast we're up against…..
61.
_BK_ | June 7, 2012 at 9:06 pm
It's the official church of Denmark. I think it's a part of the government, perhaps. Try the Wikipedia page for the Church of Denmark.
62.
Jacob | June 7, 2012 at 9:25 pm
Different countries have different kinds of government, that's all. Many countries in Europe have an established (ie, state) Church. The Church of England is probably the example most familiar to Americans. The Queen is the Governor of the Church of England, and Parliament may make rules for the Church more or less on her behalf (like approving a national prayerbook). Similar in Denmark. The government sets the rules of the national church.
It doesn't mean there isn't freedom of religion, as in the US–it just means government and religion are formally connected. Which is interesting when you consider that religion and government are less formally connected in the US, but probably closer related in actual practice.
63.
Jacob | June 7, 2012 at 9:26 pm
Also, you're right, before now the Church of Denmark only provided commitment blessings of some kind, and outside of regular services. But same-sex couples can now also get married by a civil servant–doesn't have to be a priest.
64.
DaveP | June 7, 2012 at 9:55 pm
a-ha. That's about what I thought it was. Thanks all for confirming. That makes sense.
65.
SeattleRobin | June 8, 2012 at 12:23 am
Yes, Eastern Washington is very conservative. And not just the eastern part of the state either. It's really only the greater Seattle area that is liberal, with some other pockets here and there. All you have to do is drive a few miles outside of the city into the county and you're in some extremely conservative areas.
I'm a bit nervous about this. While the 2009 "everything but marriage" domestic partnership law was upheld by voters, it wasn't by a very large majority. And note how that law was labeled and sold to voters. The reason it passed was because it offered all the state rights and responsibilities of marriage, but withheld actual marriage. Here we are only three years later trying to convince people to cave in and give us actual marriage.
I think it's possible there may be some backlash from some voters who voted for the DP law under that understanding. And there will be plenty of people who voted against it in 2009 saying "I told you so! I told you that if they got full DP next they'd want marriage!"
This is far from a done deal, but I do have hope. I think the most important thing pro-equality groups can do is be aggressive with getting the message out first. It's important to put the anti-gay groups on the defensive. And I think it's important that the pro-marriage groups learn from North Carolina. While we failed there, some big inroads were made with the ads and messages from high profile people. We need to get out the message how marriage HELPS already existing families and how not having access harms them. We need to come out with "think of the children" first, don't cede that ground to the anti-gay camp.
66.
EricKoszyk | June 8, 2012 at 6:50 am
I'm confused. I take it you mean "take a look at Gingrich and Santorum and see how their campaigns were demolished after Rmoney destroyed them with millions of dollars of negative ads"? If that's what you're saying I would agree with you in part although money isn't everything..
Look at the 2010 CA Governor's race as a prime example of that.
67.
Steve | June 8, 2012 at 7:07 am
Exactly. In practice, religion is far more involved in politics in the US than just about anywhere else in the western world. In Scandinavia, it can be argued that the existence of state churches is a reason why organized religion is so benign there.
68.
MFargo | June 8, 2012 at 7:16 am
I would be interested in hearing what you think a good political ad would be to "children will be taught about same sex marriage in schools."
During the Prop 8 campaignI I watched a woman on a panel squirm to find an answer other than "Well, yes. That would happen." And a "What's wrong with that" really wouldn't calm the fears of people who've been terrorized by their minister/pastor/priest. Our foes are ignorant, fearful and/or like persecuting people.
We've only "fought their lies with the truth." So I'm missing your point. Agreed the NC ads were soft. But in the aftermath of Prop 8, the findings of fact in the Perry trial, the statistics, the slap on the wrist to the Mormon church by the Fair Practices Commission, the court rulings on DADT/DOMA, do you really think our foes have changed their minds?
You're preaching to the wrong crowd about the lies of our opponents. This site began there. I hear you say "think bigger." But what does mean specifically?
69.
whabbear | June 8, 2012 at 7:55 am
Clearly, defeating these initiatives presents a considerable challenge. Despite outspending our opponents in California, and mounting a feverish media campaign in support of a “No” vote, our opponents still carried the day, as they have in all 32 states with similar ballot initiatives. In the case of California, where I live, pundits give much of the credit for the YES win to a superior television ad campaign. Having experienced the media campaigns both for and against Prop 8 in California first hand, a fellow activist, Joe Carlin in San Francisco, California, inspired me to take up a rather interesting challenge: to articulate what I think were the shortcomings of the “No” relative to the “Yes” ads, and suggest a strategy that might turn the tables.
Identifying what was wrong with the California campaign was the easy part. The “No” forces were much too reactive; the Yes’s would come up with a scary ad making (or inferring) a claim about some negative consequences of gay marriage (such as the fact that gay nuptials would be taught to young children in schools), and several days later, a NO ad would appear that basically refuted the charge.
It didn’t matter that the Yes ads were full of falsehoods; fence-sitters were convinced by the messages, and the after-the-fact rebuttals held little sway. The YES strategy kept the “YES” campaign out in front, in control of the message, always stoking the fires with a new ad and a new fear (remember “The Gathering Storm)?
With this regrettable success story in mind, I suggest a binary “stick and carrot” ad campaign to defeat (or ensure victory for, in the case of Maine and Washington) this year’s initiatives. On the positive (carrot) side, voting for marriage equality should appeal directly to people’s better natures, by connecting the voting choice to strong and stirring themes of freedom and American values. Convince voters that their choice represents an opportunity to play a direct, positive role in the long civil rights history of this country, to cast a vote on the side of justice, and truth, and freedom for all people that goes to the heart of what the best of America is.
How many of you saw the youTube video of the World War Two vet in Maine who declared that he fought in the war so that all Americans could be free? A vote for marriage equality should be pitched in terms of the fact that he, and all the people in this country who have fought to preserve and protect freedom, deserve no less. In addition, run personal interviews with civil rights leaders of the past, with women, African Americans, American Indians, Latinos, mixed-race married couples, all of whom support marriage equality because they see it as the modern-day expression of the historical battles that made them free.
This general theme – that a vote for marriage equality is a vote for the core American values of freedom and justice, should also be reinforced and illustrated – the point should be driven home – with ads featuring gay people. Find and air emotional interviews with loving gay couples in states where they can’t marry, and who testify to the real impacts that not being married have had on their lives. Leading the charge should be heart-wrenching stories that follow from the lack of hospital visitation rights. Who could resist an appeal to the essential inhumanity of keeping the primary loved one of another human being from visiting and comforting their partner in their greatest moment of need, when the partner is very sick in the hospital?
Next up: The "Stick".
70.
whabbear | June 8, 2012 at 8:01 am
And now, to what may be a more controversial suggestion: The “stick”. I also suggest being proactive with negative ads. Don’t wait for NOM and the other groups to instill fear and loathing in the populace when it comes to gay marriage: Get out in front by instilling fear and loathing about NOM, Preserve Marriage Washington, the AFA, the FRC, and all the groups that will be campaigning actively against Referendum 74. Many anti-gay marriage groups have already been designated hate groups by the SPLC, and there’s good reason for that: They promulgate lies and falsehoods about gays and lesbians. Many of their followers and supporters hold very extreme views that essentially amount to the fact that we should not be allowed to participate as full citizens in American society (i.e., we should still not be allowed to serve in the military, we should not be able to adopt, homosexual sex should be recriminalized, etc.
My very serious recommendation is that the pro marriage equality groups fund a deliberate and calculated “smear campaign” with respect to these groups, with tactics like ferreting out such claims on their websites (I don’t care if they are current or not; this is war, after all), and publicizing them (for example, running video of the preacher who said in Spanish at Ruben Diaz’s gathering that gays should be murdered). There’s no shortage of extreme and hateful messages in the pantheon of the Christianist fascist movement; our cup runneth over with the radio rants of American Family Association’s Bryan Fischer alone! The basic purpose here would be to expose the hateful elements that lie just beneath the anti-marriage-equality movement’s façade of geniality (think Brian Brown). “Stick” ads should not finish with a message that is narrowly focused on the actual content of Referendum 74, which is just same-sex marriage rights. No. After exposing the hate, the ads should conclude with the message: a vote for marriage equality is YOUR personal chance to fight the forces of fascism and hate that are alive and well in America today.
To summarize: I think to win the hearts and minds of voters in Washington (and in Maryland, Minnesota, and Maine) we should use the media to connect the act of voting to themes and concepts that are more fundamental – and more general – than the issues that surround the narrow question of whether gays should be allowed to marry. Positive (carrot) ads should make people feel good about themselves for voting for marriage equality, because their vote is a noble vote. Negative (stick) ads should germinate the idea that a marriage equality vote is a way to take concrete action against a clear and present evil: NOM and its affiliates.
71.
EricKoszyk | June 8, 2012 at 8:03 am
It's true that Referendum 74 will be different than Referendum 71. But, remember in 2009 the anti-71 forces tried to make the election about same sex marriage. They wanted the electorate to vote on 71 as pro or against gay marriage. A lot of the electorate saw 71 as being about gay marriage. And it still passed.
72.
MFargo | June 8, 2012 at 9:11 am
Very well said, Glen. I think there's a complacency inherent in "liberalism," particularly among youmg voters. I don't know whether that's driven by self-invovlement or blind trust. When I was growing up the Vietnam war was a powerful catalyst. I've not understood why the long Mideast wars haven't done the same. Perhaps the goals were different.
Nevertheless, It's difficult to reach small rural communities which populate the eastern side of West Coast states. But they also are much more reliabe at turning up at the polls. The Internet proved useful for President Obama. And perhaps that might be a way to reach the eastern side. But just about all of those individuals–at least those who vote–also attend various churches. And perhaps approaching the churches themselves would be an opportunity.
Has anyone heard the status of Dan Savage's dinner with Brian Brown?
73.
MFargo | June 8, 2012 at 9:36 am
I don't know that anyone disagrees that lies must be met with truth at every opportunity. But I do disagree that the truth was absent during the campaign for Prop 8. Taking Mr. Tam, for instance, as an example: What statistic, what argument, what "fact" would have moved him from his position? His testimony at the Perry trial was laughable. But do you think he went out and asked himself, " Well, people were laughing at me, let me go enlighten myself as to why." There's much more happening than truth versus lie when prejudice is involved.
But a different example is Louis, the NOM bus driver. Did he change his opinion because of anything we said or was it some realization of what was happening within NOM that moved him forward? I remember him saying it was the earnest sincerity of NOM opponents that caught his attention.
It's my own choice to hold close to the teachings of Martin Luther King, Jr. I saw him change the world. He didn't do it defensively, and I certainly felt he was wearing his "big boy pants."
74.
Glen | June 8, 2012 at 9:58 am
"Do you want to marry a princess honey? Most little girls dream of marrying a princess. Oh you still do? Okay, well we'll see if you still feel that way when you are older."
5 years later…
"So… turns out my little girl is a homo, despite my spending your college fund to help pass Proposition 8. Well… too bad. You are here to validate and please ME, so I am going to do everything I can to make sure my precious little sweetie is treated as a 2nd class citizen. Maybe THAT will convince you to please me and my church. "
75.
Glen | June 8, 2012 at 10:24 am
I think it would be valuable to make people actually THINK about what marriage means to them, and then to think about how that differs from (or rather doesn't differ from) what gay couples seek with marriage.
The anti side wants people to think that marriage is about genitals and god. But that's not what real people understand the reality of marriage to be in their lives. People understand that marriage is about love, commitment, devotion, and protection for themselves and their children (you want to highlight that gay couples do also raise children).
You want to get it in people's heads that denying marriage equality to same-gender couples is basically a denigration of what marriage truly means to people. It is saying that all those things which real people know and understand marriage to be are irrelevant, and all that really matters are what genitals are involved. THAT is an idea that most people would reject.
So… my thoughts for an ad campaign would have mostly straight married couples talking about what marriage means to them, and then including gay couples (some with children) saying what marriage would mean to them.
Then end it by using the oppositions own words. "Respect marriage. Vote YES on Referendum 74". and "Keep the REAL definition of marriage. Vote YES on Referendum 74".
76.
Glen | June 8, 2012 at 10:38 am
Yeah this is an important approach as well.
I think the campaign I outlined above sort of incorporates the carrot and the stick. It basically defines what marriage means to people and touches on how the anti-equality side has a denigrating view of marriage.
You want to get people to reject what the anti side is painting marriage to be, and that essentially boils down to making the genitals (the gender) of prime importance to what marriage is, rather than the relationship, love, devotion, commitment, protection, and family aspects of what marriage is. Impugn the anti-equality side's understanding of family, impugn their understanding of marriage. And convince people to reject that narrow superficial definition of marriage.
Show voters what marriage really means to married people, and how that is independent of a couple's gender, and that making marriage ABOUT gender is a denigration to the true meaning and value of marriage.
Carrot: Here is what marriage is REALLY all about.
Stick: Marriage is NOT what the narrow-minded bigots want to define it as. (And highlighting who some of these hateful bigots are could help here. People will want to reject being on those people's side of this issue.)
77.
DaveP | June 8, 2012 at 11:22 am
Bravo, Whabbear!! BOTH of these approaches, done in the manner you describe, would be extremely effective. I encourage you to contact every one of the groups working on our side in the four states with pending ballot measures and send them your comments. Several times. Ever think of running one of these campaigns? I'm serious. THIS is the stuff we need.
78.
Steve | June 8, 2012 at 11:52 am
EXACTLY! THIS is what I'm trying to tell you…fight their lies and ignorance and fear-baiting with hard-hitting, no-nonsense, all-punches-pulled ads that showcase their bigotry, hatred and religious zealotry. Find internet clips (lots of those), use their own ads against them, use big splashy pics of hate-filled websites, etc.
The soft side is useful, but it's not enough. You have to have a tough aspect, too.
I knew the Prop 8 vote was lost the night a good friend of mine, who should have known better, insisted that gays could force churches to marry them…because that's what she heard on TV.
Find those outright lies, and highlight them. I think, above most everything else, Americans despise liars. They may not agree with someone's position, but if the opponent is an out-and-out lying bastard, they'll side with you.
(BTW, changed my name as I noticed there's another Steve on here…)
79.
_BK_ | June 8, 2012 at 11:53 am
That would cause it to jump up quite a few places on my "must visit" list… no bigots, must see it!
80.
Steve | June 8, 2012 at 12:00 pm
First, see Whabbear's posts below. I think they've pretty well expressed ideas that I would support.
My point here is this…you haven't "fought their lies with the truth" in an effective manner (in elections…your examples are ALL court or administrative rulings, not elections). And I believe it's because there's a fear of negative campaigns by the pro-equality side. You're afraid of being seen as "scary" or "mean" or "forcing your views on everyone else" (a common refrain by the right wing). I get that, I do.
But 32 times now, your approach has failed. Think it's time to try something new?
You think other oppressed groups would have played nice-nice after 32 defeats?
Example…you don't fight a statement like "children will be taught about same-sex marriages in schools" with some verbose, convoluted statement about "children will be taught age-appropriate material in social sciences classes, and same-sex discussions are not likely to be presented until high school". BOOOOORING. And completely ineffective.
81.
Steve | June 8, 2012 at 12:01 pm
(continuing)
You go on the attack. You find an ad or a website or a video clip with some homophobe screaming about how "they're going to teach kindergarteners that it's okay to be queer". Literally find the most vile statements you can…and then RAM A BIG RED "LIE" BANNER right over the top of it. Repeat for every single topic on which they are lying about you.
82.
Steve | June 8, 2012 at 12:03 pm
And lastly…
Look, most people can't think their way out of a paper bag. You practically have to hit them in the fucking head with a hammer to get their attention. The other side gets this, and they know how to get their attention: by scaring them with lies.
Get their attention, with the shortest, simplest, strongest messages you can, including calling your opponents liars. American people HATE liars.
83.
Martin Pal | June 8, 2012 at 12:04 pm
The ad approach has to be simple.
Remember the same year Prop 8 won there was an initiative to treat animals more humanely before they are slaughtered. That passed because people didn't like seeing all those photos of animals in distress.
What seems to be the one thing that the anti equality people hate to be labeled as–BIGOTS. So call them that in the ads and show what being bigoted means for gay people. Show the minister saying we should be penned up. Show the faces of gay people having been attacked and beaten. THIS leads to THIS. The ads should be clear that you ARE a bigot if you vote for people to be treated like that.
Are you for this (photo of happy gay married people) or this (photo or scene of bigots behaving badly). That's a clear choice that makes people think either, yes I am what they say or no I am not.
I can't think of ANY ad like this that has ever been tried. Anyone?
84.
SteveW | June 8, 2012 at 12:10 pm
(Or maybe that name change didn't take effect, I dunno)…
Anyway…one more thing that needs to be pointed out here.
Read my lips: TELEVISION.
Internet videos are great, but I seriously doubt their actual effectiveness is anything close to what people hope for. Who watches them? People who already support the side the video is promoting. How many people in the general population are going to take time out of their day, say to themselves "Hey! I need to go get educated on this gay marriage proposition. I'm going to go check out a bunch of websites and look at their 6-minute videos to help me decide how to vote!"
Zero. Unless they're on one of these forums, which ain't many people. These forums and those videos are just an echo chamber.
People, in the main, will make up their minds based on the 30-second ads they see on TV, and whoever wins that game, wins the election. Period.
85.
SteveW | June 8, 2012 at 12:15 pm
Don't conflate the trial with an election. And forget about Tam…he represents the people who will never change their mind, no matter, so it's pointless to debate them (other than in court, of course
). That's like trying to have an honest debate with a creationist about evolution. Stupid and pointless.
What you are fighting for is the votes of the vast majority of people who are easily swayed by this idiot's rhetoric and lies. And then you have to show them that he's a hateful bigot who lies.
How hard would it be to find, oh, about a thousand lies from these guys? And then just run ad after ad after ad highlighting who said it, what the lie was, and what the truth is?
86.
Bob | June 8, 2012 at 1:59 pm
I really appreciate Whabbear's,,, carrot/stick approach in his above post,,,,,,
paint a clear picture of the extreme's,,, core American values / hate _mongering,money hungry, life destroying, capitalists and the church
go all out on the history of the catholic church and it's crusades / with ties to the mafia buying what they want,,,,
big problem the world is facing,,,, can a gov't be bought,,, we're watching it happen in the U.S.
extremists are infiltrating,, their weapon is money,,, cloaked in the disguise of religious freedom,,,,,,,
the Vatican is in a state of trying to clean house,,, they are having a difficult time to make their wealth and how it's spent transparent,,, this could be a full out exposure of that as a continuation of those crusades which really have nothing to do with being christian,, and everything to do with power and money
87.
Media Spend | June 8, 2012 at 4:54 pm
Yes, my point exactly that. You are correct is that money is not everything, the message also helps. My point was that sometimes TV advertising costs a great deal of the green stuff, depending on the market. So I would argue that money, all though not everything, is better to have enough to counter or obliterate your opponent, rather than being without.
88.
whabbear | June 8, 2012 at 5:01 pm
Bob, Martin, Dave, Steve, and Glen: Thanks! I really appreciate your positive comments and feedback! And Glen, I think your idea about how to package and present marriage would be a great additional carrot/stick theme!
And, well, I sent this to Pam Spaulding and Richard Carlborn, the head of MUFAF (and Lori Wilfahrt forwarded it to MUFAF on my behalf as well), but received no response.
Robert McCann (whabbear in CA on Frank DeCaro Show)
89.
SeattleRobin | June 8, 2012 at 5:58 pm
Some really great ideas being posted here. I hope someone in the campaign groups is paying attention.
Another thing I'd like to see is the pro-equality side using religion to our advantage. That's not done enough. We all know that religion is often used to divide and oppress. But there ARE churches and synagogues that believe in marrying same-sex couples. There are churches that are welcoming and affirming. Their freedom of religion is just as important as those opposed, and the public at large needs to see that many people of faith support marriage equality.
Just like with the "think of the kids" issue, religious grounds should not be ceded to the bigots either.
90.
MFargo | June 8, 2012 at 7:43 pm
I wasn't conflating the trial with an election. I was simply pointing out that fact isn't the antidote to prejudice in most cases. Although Judge Walker's finding of facts could read like a campaign's talking points.
Attack ads have their appeal, but labeling someone a "hateful bigot" or a "liar" in a campaign ad might require the advice of an attorney.
I think my difficulty with the accusations of failure on our part–particularlly that we (or I) am afraid to defend my point of view is…that I'm not. How that may manifest itself in each individual may not be how you or Tim would do it. But consider this (which is a Gallup poll running back over a decade)
[Sorry, it just wouldn't format but here's the link] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_opinion_of_sa…
The gains have been dramatic. Is it enough? No. Should we do better? Yes. Should we work together harder? Definitely. But just who'll you'll attract and who'll you'll lose with attack ads is questionable.
91.
SteveW | June 8, 2012 at 10:43 pm
Look, I'm not bashing anyone here, and I apologize if it came across that way. I'm with you, and do what I can on an individual basis to fight the lies and hatred…one-on-one with friends, family, colleagues, strangers, whomever. But that's just not going to be enough in these elections. I know you're not afraid to defend your position, and I'm sure you do that well to people with whom you interact. But let's face it…on a person-to-person basis, we're not going to interact with enough people to significantly change things in elections. The proof is in the pudding…32 puddings, to be exact.
And the more of those they rack up as wins, the harder it will be…they will use the very fact that 32 times the electorate has voted against you as evidence *in and of itself* that that's the way things should be (because that's the way they've always been).
92.
Steve | June 8, 2012 at 10:43 pm
How about *trying* something different this election? If that fails, too, then we'll at least have some basis for comparison. But like I said before…I'm just a straight ally doing what I can to help, and I'm frankly dismayed by the lackluster campaigns and lily-livered responses to what are out-and-out fabrications.
MOST people don't really think about this much at all…sorry to say this, but it's true. Your most significant issue isn't theirs. So they'll make snap judgements and base their decisions on sound bites and snappy slogans. You won't be able to fight "Churches will have to marry gays!!!!" with sensitive ads and touchy-feely internet videos. You'll have to call them what they are: LIES.
93.
Steve | June 8, 2012 at 10:43 pm
Look, even in California, some dumb shit state rep has gotten a bill approved by the legislature that "guarantees that churches will be free to not marry homosexuals"…as if that were even a question. Mark my words, they'll use THAT as evidence that it COULD happen, and use it against you.
It's disheartening…and at times, I and my SO and friends and family who agree with us feel like there's no fight in you, because from the outside, what we see is a barely visible complaint about fairness.
94.
SteveW | June 8, 2012 at 10:55 pm
Not sure what MUFAF is, but…good
Look, I don't want to step in where I'm not wanted, and I'm only trying to help. If my comments are totally out of line, please tell me and I'll be quiet.
I stayed out of these forums for several years, just watching from the sidelines and helping where I could, and I came here to follow the Prop 8 trials initially. In the courts, you guys are kicking ass…but don't count on the Supreme Court to go your way.
This is a generational fight…and make no mistake, it's a fight. I'm with you, and want to help in any way I can.
95.
SteveW | June 8, 2012 at 11:11 pm
Here's another thing to consider. Now bear in mind that this is just my amateur observations based on Prop 8, so take it for what it's worth.
People, in general, are like herd animals. They want to "fit in", and will go along with what they think their neighbors and friends and their communities believe. There's a reason the Prop 8 folks put up about a billion yard signs and such the day before the election saying "Yes on 8". In my local area, we were inundated with these things. My house was the only one with a No on 8 sign for miles. Either houses had Yes on 8 signs, or nothing at all. So the message to most people was "Look at all your friends and neighbors…they don't want this gay marriage thing". And the effect on people is to trigger that herd mentality, the Argumentem ad Populum fallacy. People want to "go along to get along". And in the 5 seconds that most people spend thinking about this, the Yes on 8 campaign was what stuck in their minds.
?
96.
MFargo | June 9, 2012 at 6:29 am
Absolutely no need to apologize. I'm as impatient as anyone. But I also don't want to walk into a trap. Our side didn't bring these iniatives or referendums. But we're stuck with opposing them (and the opposition knows that). Reading back a few thousand words
we agree that our media needs to be sharper and on point and ahead of the curve. And you can bet just about anything we do, our opponents will twist against us, which is why I think proceding cautiously with rhetoric is wise. Can we win at the ballot box? Welll, we're pretty close (at least in California). NOM is an insigificant entity, but the people funneling money to them aren't. We already see rancor among their flocks. Last week the Vatican had to chastise a nun for touting the health benefits of masturbation (for Pete's sake). There's dissension in the LDS. That needs to be nurtured and full front attack can lose support.
North Carolina's Pastor Worley had a picket in front of his church last month which he deserves. But I ask you which was more effective for our side: His foolish words or our supporters demonstration?
97.
whabbear | June 9, 2012 at 9:08 am
Steve: MUFAF is Minnesota United for All Families, the group fighting the constitutional amendment in MN. And it's interesting you bring up the lawn signs. MUFAF just put up an inspiring story on their FB page about a person who put an anti-amendment bumper sticker on their car. The person in question had never put anything of the sort on the car before, and was questioning the usefulness of it until a young person left a note on her car. The note thanked her and told her that seeing these expressions of support for SSM was an inspiration to the young person, giving him or her hope that they would find someone in the future and be able to make a life with them. So, yeah, public expressions like lawn signs do matter!
98.
whabbear | June 9, 2012 at 9:12 am
SeattleRobin: I totally agree with you! Why should one collection of Christian sects be able to get away with this constant claim that SSM is a blanket threat to freedom of religion, when there are plenty of other sects that embrace SSM and consider it part of their religious tradition? What about THEIR freedom of religion?
99.
Martin Pal | June 9, 2012 at 11:36 am
One thing I was trying to get across in my post is to actually stop fighting with our opponents. Take the initiative. Don’t answer, question. Or just state something provocative like they do. It doesn’t even need to be a lie like they did in many pro Prop 8 ads. We need to be on the offensive in the ads. Let us be bold in our accusations of them and make them answer back. They usually do a poor job of it. If we show that their bigotry leads to gay bashing and they think that is unfair, how do they answer it? You only have thirty seconds to get the point across, so it needs to be concise. To get people to change their mind about a vote you have to push a button they’ll react to. Not appeal to vague notions of fairness or ideals of equality. That’s not for ads.
Leave a Comment
XHTML: You can use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>
TrackBack URL | RSS feed for comments on this post.