Leave a Comment Sagesse
Marylanders for Marriage Equality seizes offensive with pro-equality arguments
September 18, 2012
By Jacob Combs
Last week, Marylanders for Marriage Equality, the group campaigning to pass Question 6 in Maryland this November, released a memo to the media that argues against three of the most common tactics used by anti-marriage equality groups like the National Organization for Marriage. These tactics have been used by NOM and others in states like California to successfully stymie equal marriage rights efforts, but this year, Maryland’s equality advocates are playing offense.
The first argument is a response to NOM’s race-baiting strategy, outlined in a 2009 document that was leaked to the press, which involved efforts to “drive a wedge between gays and blacks.” African-American voters make up about a quarter of Maryland’s electorate, so their support will be crucial to Question 6′s success this fall, and in order to counter this anti-equality tactic, Marylanders for Marriage Equality is highlighting the many high-profile black leaders who have come out in support of the measure: Ravens football player Brendon Ayanbadejo, NAACP chairman emeritus Julian Bond and religious leaders like Rev. Delman Coates.
The second anti-equality strategy, used to such dispiriting success in California, tells voters that a yes vote on marriage equality would mean that schoolchildren would be forced to learn about gay and lesbian couples marrying. Rev. Derek McCoy, president of the Maryland Marriage Alliance, wrote in August that “Maryland parents who send their children to public schools are immediately asking how does this [same-sex marriage] affect what is taught in schools.”
As Marylanders points out, this claim was debunked by Politifact when NOM sent fliers to Rhode Island voters last year bashing marriage equality efforts in the state legislature. Also, in Maryland, as the campaign’s media memo notes, curricula are decided by local school districts. ”Teachers and parents decide what is taught in the classroom,” the memo reads, “and no state law – including the marriage question on the November ballot – changes that.”
Finally, Marylanders for Marriage Equality states that groups like NOM will likely try to persuade voters that the wording of the ballot measure has been created to intentionally confuse voters, and that it doesn’t provide full religious protections. (This is despite the fact that the initiative’s wording clearly states that it “protects clergy from having to perform any particular marriage ceremony in violation of their religious beliefs” and “affirms that each religious faith has exclusive control over its theological doctrine regarding who may marry within that faith.”)
As the marriage equality campaigns in Maryland, Maine, Washington and Minnesota, we’re likely to see anti-marriage equality groups trot out the same debunked, fear-based attacks that they’ve used in the past. Quite frankly, the reason they use them is because they work. It’s good to see an equality group like Marylanders for Marriage Equality pushing back and making the argument for equality before anti-gay activists can start spreading division amongst the electorate.
Having technical problems? E-mail equalityontrial AT couragecampaign DOT org for assistance!
23 Comments Leave a Comment
1.
Gregory in SLC | September 18, 2012 at 9:14 am
Go Maryland!
Head of Pr. George’s NAACP backs same-sex marriage campaign:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/maryland-poli…
2.
Anthony | September 18, 2012 at 9:33 am
Now all we have to do is somehow turn those arguments into a 30 second commercial. THAT would be an effective commercial.
3.
davep | September 18, 2012 at 10:43 am
Yes. A separate short ad for each point. Starting with "You are going to be lied to." Then say "Extremist groups dedicated to denying equal rights will tell you (insert lie here). But the truth is (insert SHORT, CLEAR and BLUNT debunk here). Don't let the lies win this November. Vote for truth. Vote for equal rights for all citizens".
4.
Theo McKinney | September 18, 2012 at 11:08 am
Look for all SORTS of incriminating footage if/when the Scotus denies Flop 8 any further hearings since it's clearly a waste of court time to consider, since the actual question of the "right to equal marriage" exists isn't a factor.
Creating "law" out of thin air just to be mean to lgbt citizens is illegal, and Flop is easily recognized a a 'law' ripe for failure…
Now, paste that newsflash and the antigay bile to come, after Flop 8 doesn't make the docket next Tuesday.
The Antigay red-herrings will have a criminal record for the rest of October…
Then where will those four "constitutional" marriage bans, be…?
haha.
Mysterious ways indeed.
They "prey" to protect marriage…And DO!
5.
AnonyGrl | September 18, 2012 at 11:23 am
Part 1
OK… Here is a script. It is too long (about a minute and a half), but each piece could be done as a separate quick 30 second shot too. Use the first section, one of the following pieces and the last section for short commercials. STRESS the "scare tactics" and "too smart to let hate groups fool them" bits.
TEXT: Question 6: The Civil Marriage Protection Act. Vote YES.
Voiceover: This year, Marylander's vote to extend the protections and priviledges of marriage to all Maryland families.
6.
AnonyGrl | September 18, 2012 at 11:24 am
Part 2
TEXT: A National Organization for Marriage strategy memo stated that the goal 'is to drive a wedge between gays and blacks….Fanning the hostility…"
Voiceover: While the National Organization for Marriage, a group on the Southern Poverty Law Center's hate watch list attempts to push the African American community into being its unpaid attack dogs, leaders such as NAACP chairman emeritus Julian Bond and Rev. Delman Coates have affirmed that civil rights belong to everyone, and we should all join the fight for equality.
7.
AnonyGrl | September 18, 2012 at 11:24 am
Part 3
Shot of a mom and a young son, standing together. Mom looks concerned.
Mom: I've heard this law means my child will learn about homosexual sex in kindergarden. Is that true?
Shot of a kindergarden class fingerpainting.
Voiceover: No, of course not. School curriculum is, and always has been, an entirely separate issue. In fact, when similar scare tactics were used in Rhode Island, Politifact thoroughly debunked them saying, "Teachers and parents decide what is taught in the classroom, and no state law – including the marriage question on the November ballot – changes that."
8.
AnonyGrl | September 18, 2012 at 11:25 am
Part 4
Couple, dressed up, heading into a little white church, stop to speak. She carries a small bible.
Man: OUR church supports marriage equality, as do we.
Woman: But what about churches that don't? Will they be forced to perform marriages they don't believe in?
Cut to shot of inside of church from the back, looking up the aisle to the altar. Minister stands at the front, and the church is full. A groom waits at the head of the aisle. Everyone turns to look down the aisle, as the shot continues to look back at the smiling groom and minister. It does not cut back to show whether a bride or groom is coming up the aisle as the wedding march begins to play.
9.
Anthony | September 18, 2012 at 12:09 pm
AnonyGrl, your ideas would definitely work. I think they would be very effective and would lead people to vote for marriage equality. I have no idea why these kind of commercials haven't been used by our side before.
I'm just worried about the opposing side. You know they will have an enormous last minute flow of money AND a scare tactic or two right before the election.
10.
jason walter | September 18, 2012 at 12:52 pm
<img src="http://storeshopnow.com/mm/imada/otot.jpg"/> Nice going for Maryland, the rest of the states need to catch up!<img src="http://storeshopnow.com/mm/imada/toto2.jpg"/>
11.
Gregory in SLC | September 18, 2012 at 1:18 pm
fyi, from Twitter:
Scottie Thomaston @indiemcemopants
Made it to Washington DC!
Collapse
Reply Retweet Favorite
12:55 PM – 18 Sep 12 from Mercer, VA · Details
12.
Gregory in SLC | September 18, 2012 at 1:25 pm
anyone like to meet Scottie:
Scottie Thomaston @indiemcemopants
Hey, DC people: I'll be there tomorrow through Sunday. Someone hang out with me this week. #LGBT #p2
Expand
Reply Retweet Favorite
13.
Stefan in CA | September 18, 2012 at 2:42 pm
That's very true. Frank Schubert is in Sacramento planning every move. There may be little $ for the WA anti R74 side now, but as it gets closer, there will be a combination of $$$$ and ugliness from the anti marriage equality side, and NOM will be right in the thick of it. The marriage equality side needs to be ready and proactive. Anonygrl has some very good ideas.
14.
Anthony | September 18, 2012 at 4:38 pm
We won the domestic partnership battle in WA with the voters' approval, we can also win this fight too.
15.
Anthony | September 18, 2012 at 8:33 pm
I've got a great idea that somebody can send to all of the campaigns in the 4 states. Tie the anti-equality side to the westboro baptist church or some other kind of hateful rhetoric, and compare that to images of loving attractive young gay people. That might do the trick.
16.
Mark M. (Seattle) | September 18, 2012 at 8:57 pm
We won Ref 71 by making people understand it was everything BUT marriage….that was its unofficial media title. Now we are asking for full marriage equality (as we should), but I fear it will turn some against us.
17.
Mike in Baltimore | September 18, 2012 at 11:56 pm
Maryland State delegate Burns has already done it, with his letter to the NFL Baltimore Ravens owners and management, telling them to tell Brendon Ayanbadejo to 'just shut up'. Then when Chris Klewe wrote the retort to Burns, he got the attention of Minnesota NFL fans also.
(The main problem in Maryland is that most of the voters in Montgomery and PG counties [closing in on 3/4 million in those two counties] are Foreskin fans, and they probably don't care what happens in the Baltimore area.)
Now we just need to get the attention of the fans in Maine (NE Patriots) and Washington state (Seattle). I'm sure someone can talk to Ayanbadejo or Klewe to come up with a letter to defend those players!
Burns is also a Baptist minister. I wonder how hard or easy it would be to tie him to WBC?
18.
Michael | September 19, 2012 at 3:53 am
I hope the people in Maine are listening. They didn't come out first against this last time (even though they saw it coming from the Prop. 8 fight in CA). They need to come out just like this BEFORE the pro-homophobia lobby begins running commercials with this same argument which also defeated Marriage equality in Maine last time.
19.
HG. | September 19, 2012 at 8:04 am
Discrimination is not always illegal and even less often, wrong. We recognize differences and even construct social boundaries which respect these differences. We have male and female restrooms, locker rooms, classrooms, schools, organizations, etc. We also recognize the unique union of heterosexuals and the benefits to family and society many of which same-sex unions could never duplicate. There are differences worth acknowledging and marriage does just that. Marriage doesn't prevent some other union of same-sex couples like domestic partnerships. Marriage is the title of a unique union different in many ways from any other. This form of discrimination is nothing illegal or unconstitutional. It is the same sort of discrimination that serves individuals and society well.
20.
Anthony | September 19, 2012 at 8:18 am
No it doesn't. There is no reason to deny a consenting couple a CIVIL marriage license based solely on factors such as gender or race.
21.
Straight Dave | September 19, 2012 at 9:39 am
@HG
Please list the "benefits to family and society" which "same-sex unions could never duplicate".
Also, please explain why the benefits children derive from the marraige of their parents, and only from a marriage, should not also be available to the children of a same-sex couple. If marriage is such a benefit, which I think everyone agrees on, why should some children be disadvantaged?
22.
Mike in Baltimore | September 19, 2012 at 1:30 pm
"There are differences worth acknowledging and marriage does just that. Marriage doesn't prevent some other union of same-sex couples like domestic partnerships."
In other words, more than 58 years after SCOTUS has ruled that the philosophy of 'separate but equal' means separation and INequality, you are supporting the philosophy of 'separate but equal'?
Make you a deal, HG. You and all others who are advocating a different name for marriage equality, how about YOU taking the other name you are proposing, and those who enter marriages that are not heterosexual marriages can keep the title of marriage for their civil unions. If there's no difference, you shouldn't have any problem with that, correct?
23.
Stefan in CA | September 20, 2012 at 2:47 pm
They better hurry. NOM's Thomas Peters today blogged that "state votes on marriage begin with gay marriage leading in the polls, losing support closer to election day, and finally losing on election day". The barrage of extremely negative and toxic ads is right around the corner. I'm hopeful for all four states (although I doubt it in Minn), but wouldn't even be comfortable with a 20 point lead, based solely on history. What people say, and do in the voting booth can be two different things.
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.