Leave a Comment Gregory in Salt Lake City
Why November 6 was different (updated)
November 20, 2012
By Jacob Combs
Updated at 11:15 am Eastern to include the following: Today is the International Transgender Day of Remembrance. In honor of those who lost their lives to anti-trans hatred, GLAAD has a timeline covering the history of transgender visibility and Think Progress is featuring a great video by the Socially Connected Equality Network that remembers the 265 transgender individuals who we lost in 2012. The T in LGBT is not, and never should be, silent.
Yesterday, BuzzFeed’s Chris Geidner, one of the best journalists covering marriage equality, posted an exhaustive (and exclusive) look at the political and media strategies that equality advocates used to make this election the best one in LGBT history. Geidner’s piece is extraordinarily valuable and worth reading in full to get a sense of just how different the 2012 campaigns were from those in the past, but perhaps the most intriguing part of his reporting has to do with the broad and somewhat synchronized messaging revamp that the various campaigns in Maine, Minnesota, Washington and Maryland undertook to prevail at the ballot box.
Although Geidner points to the importance of the state-based campaigns’ organization, volunteer efforts and unique voter outreach programs, he notes that a major foundation for each campaign’s strategy came from a research report conducted by the center-left think tank Third Way called “The Answer to the Middle’s Questions on Marriage for Gay Couples.” Quoting from the report, Geidner points out six major findings from Third Way’s research:
- Commitment trumps rights, a point made in prior research by Freedom to Marry as well: “Leading with commitment will show the middle that gay people want to join the institution of marriage, not change it.”
- Kids move voters: “In our past qualitative research, we found that underlying these concerns about children are deeply emotional fears about loss of parental control. These fears were also evident in the poll data.”
- The home is our turf; schools are their turf: “When compared directly to other possible responses to attacks around children, parents teaching core values ranks highest in persuasiveness.”
- On kids—turn down the heat: “One effective way to do that is to remind those in the middle of something they already believe to be true—that ‘kids will be kids,’ and in reality, they are much more interested in other things than they are in whether gay couples are allowed to marry.”
- Give people permission to change their minds about why gay couple[s] marry: “Using a messenger who could describe changing his own opinion on why gay couples want to marry modeled this positive evolution on the very issue that is most crucial to gaining support.”
- Religion is a hurdle, not a wall: “[E]ven among those groups in the middle who were more concerned about religion, overwhelming majorities said ‘It is not for me to judge.’ … [I]t is crucial to include reaffirmation of religious liberty protections as a significant part of supporters’ message framework.”
What can we learn from the successes of this year in Maine, Maryland, Washington and Minnesota? First, that reframing our message from one of civil rights to one of personal rights can have a big impact. That doesn’t mean that the legal rights aspect of marriage equality isn’t important–it is, and of course it is one of the issues that feels most personal to the LGBT community. But to a voter who may not have gay or lesbian friends or personally know a same-sex couple, the rights argument could sound overly abstract.
Because of that, focusing on the rights of marriage may not persuade these types of voters as much as a message of commitment would–and, in fact, the rights argument doesn’t even fully represent the reason that LGBT advocates are pushing for marriage equality in the first place. There’s a reason we’re not content with civil unions even though they provide many of the rights married couples enjoy: only marriage carries with it the sense of societal recognition (and responsibility) that any couple’s decision to commit to one another deserves.
The second lesson of the 2012 elections, I think, is that victory at the ballot box takes work–lots and lots of it. The marriage equality campaigns this year didn’t win because they were in the right place at the right time; on the contrary, they won because they met the citizenry of their respective states and persuaded them to vote for equality. Yes, public opinion is changing, but that opinion isn’t something static and abstract–it can (and should) be shaped and molded by those who feel strongly on the issue.
Earlier this year, when I had the opportunity to join the conference call in which Mainers United for Marriage announced they would be seeking to ask Maine’s voters to affirm marriage equality this November, I was struck by the way the campaign emphasized that its decision had come in large part because of the conversations they had had with various residents of the state. According to the New York Times, Mainers United contacted around 250,000 Mainers over the course of the campaign, engaging many of them in 20-minute personal conversations seeking to change their minds.
In the wake of November 6th’s historic victories, many LGBT advocates are pointing to this moment as a sea change, a shift that will allow for more victories in the future. I think they’re on to something, but that shift hasn’t taken place in a vacuum. It’s a product of the research that Third Way and Freedom to Marry did; it’s a direct outcome of the state-by-state personalization that each of the campaign’s endeavored to create. After 2012, we’re not just looking at a new playing field, we’re approaching the game with a new playbook. And that, I believe, will be one of the most important foundations for our future successes.
Having technical problems? E-mail equalityontrial AT couragecampaign DOT org for assistance!
18 Comments Leave a Comment
1.
Gregory in SLC | November 20, 2012 at 8:40 am
thank you for including Transgender Day of Remembrance. Powerful video(that you included) re posting, hope others will take time to watch:
http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2012/11/20/1219701/…
2.
karen in kalifornia | November 20, 2012 at 9:18 am
Re the whole "rights" issue. Most of my straight supportive friends and family don't have a clue how limited my relationship rights are. Yes important to me, but they just make the assumption that because I'm in a long term committed relationship that our legal rights are the same as theirs. So important to me, but the study is right, not so important to straight people.
3.
Eric | November 20, 2012 at 9:25 am
I have to take issue with a statement made in the article, "[t]here’s a reason we’re not content with civil unions even though they provide the rights of marriage…"
That statement is factually incorrect, as numerous courts in a variety of jurisdictions have found. Even in California, the Supreme Court has stated that RDP's do not offer all the rights of marriage.
If they did off all the same rights, heterosexual seniors, wouldn't be using them to double dip on the Social Security benefits paid for by and denied to same-sex couples.
4.
RAJ | November 20, 2012 at 10:06 am
Re: Why November 6 was different . . .
. . . and why November 7th, 8th, 9th, etc., are more different still.
I'm absolutely fascinated by this kind of post-election analysis. Thanks Jacob for high-lighting Geidner's article. It's so gratifying to see a dissection of how we finally cracked the code, instead of consoling ourselves with the reasons "we're just not quite there yet." One thing that stands out to me from the article is the focus and emphasis on persuading the "moveable middle." This approach is so much more sane and productive — why waste any time at all on the religious crazies (except for the purposes of monitoring them.)
There's lots and LOTS of work still to do but it should give us heart to remember, every day, every. single. day. A slew of youngsters turn18 and are thus eligible to register and vote. Conversely, every single day, a number of our cherished older citizens come to the end of their journeys and are laid to rest. Even as we work harder and smarter, the demographics continue to shift in our favor. I know individuals in both of the categories I mentioned above, new voters (who voted with us this election cycle) and dearly departed relatives and neighbors (who voted against us in the past).
You know the old saying, "History moves forward in a hearse."
5.
F Young | November 20, 2012 at 10:12 am
Has anyone compared the North Carolina campaign with the Maine, Maryland, Minesotta and Washington campaigns? Was North Carolina that different? If not, there's still something we don't know and need to find out.
6.
karen in kalifornia | November 20, 2012 at 10:46 am
So right. Also, neither my partner nor I can inherit the other's union pension unless we ARE actually married somewhere where it's legal. CA RDP won't cut it in this case. The devil is in the details.
7.
Stefan | November 20, 2012 at 10:47 am
North Carolina was during the primaries. Turnout was MUCH lower.
8.
Robert | November 20, 2012 at 11:28 am
Yes turnout in that vote was under 35%. That made a huge difference.
9.
Jacob Combs | November 20, 2012 at 12:09 pm
Good point, Eric–I've edited the piece to say that civil unions/domestic partnerships offer 'many' of the rights of marriages. Thanks for the feedback.
10.
W. Kevin Vicklund | November 20, 2012 at 12:43 pm
Not only was voter turnout lower, the Democratic primary was essentially uncontested, whereas the Republican primary was still up for grabs. So there was little incentive for the pro-gay "leaners" to come vote, but lots for the anti-gay "leaners." (statistically speaking, of course). The other major factor is Obama's strategic decision to wait until after the NC primary to announce his support for gay marriage. Suddenly, it was okay to be pro-gay.
11.
Tyler O. | November 20, 2012 at 1:13 pm
Either way I think NC would have been a challenge to win. However, it definitely could have been closer in a high turnout election. Maybe we could have gotten to 44 or 45% or so.
12.
RAJ | November 20, 2012 at 1:19 pm
exx-man,
I wouldn't call what I did "sugar coating", but I did try to soften the characterization about older citizens. Of course the reverse can be true with respect to which age groups voted for or against equality. But the plain, unvarnished, un-sugar coated truth is, older voters –as a group— have tended to vote against marriage equality in greater numbers than any other age group. This is likely to remain the case for some time. We'll take all the support we can get from where ever we can get it, and we'll be delighted to welcome all age groups to our cause.
It was a simple observation about shifting demographic trends and how they're working in our favor.
13.
Steve | November 20, 2012 at 1:43 pm
That whole thing doesn't make any sense whatsoever
Anyone can have commitment without marriage. Just by staying together. The whole reason civil marriage exists is a certain amount of legal rights. People who don't like a focus on rights seem to confuse rights with privileges. And, as you said, most straight people have no clue whatsoever how many rights are attached to being married. They just take it for granted. That's where education needs to set in – not by shifting the focus to something completely unrelated.
14.
Steve | November 20, 2012 at 1:45 pm
If those votes hadn't happened during the presidential election it wouldn't have been a 4-0 win
15.
Sara | November 20, 2012 at 2:47 pm
"The T in LGBT is not, and never should be, silent."
It shouldn't be there at all. Ts and LGBs are discrete groups. We can and should help one another and be good allies. But we are not the same group. It was intellectually dishonest for a handful of "queer" activists to contrive "LGBT" in the 90s and the concept hasn't gained any legitimacy with the passage of time. It is perpetuated largely by unthinking repetition by bloggers like Jacob Combs. LGBT is an insult to the identities of both LGBs and Ts and both groups will be better off when it goes away.
16.
Mike in Baltimore | November 20, 2012 at 4:41 pm
My partner and I had been together for more than 20 years when he died.
My mother and step-father had gradually gone from VERY anti-GLBT to supportive of GLBTs. My mother's eyes were really opened when she saw first-hand that even though I had been with my partner longer than he had been at his mother's home, she was the one who had to sign almost all of the legal documents. My mother signed the documents when my father died (he and my mother had been married less than five years), and she signed the documents when my first step-father died (he and my mother had been married less than five months). When she saw I couldn't sign the documents, but my partner's 80-some year-old had to, the lack of legal rights for the GLBT community started to hit home for her.
My second step-father died a couple years later, and my mother signed all the legal documents again. It really hit home to her the lack of legal rights the GLBT community had, and now she is very much in favor of marriage equality.
17.
Mike in Baltimore | November 20, 2012 at 5:09 pm
Eric,
Selective editing (especially without indicating the editing) can turn a statement upside down. The FULL quotation is:
"There’s a reason we’re not content with civil unions even though they provide many of the rights married couples enjoy:. . . ."
That makes your statement, if not factually incorrect, at least factually inaccurate.
What was stated in the article and what you wrote are miles apart.
18.
Gregory in SLC | November 20, 2012 at 6:05 pm
Sara – your comments caught my attention. Please tell me more about what you are referring to. I attended a Gender Conference Salt Lake City this past week Sponsored by Utah Pride Center and TransAction. LGBTQQI and many versions of "the Alphabet soup" was mentioned, explored and expounded on during the various activities and panels I attended. I also had a lengthy conversation with the keynote speaker, Mara Keisling, Executive Director of NCTE (advocacy group based in Washington D.C. that lobbies strictly for federal advancement of "T" persons. I didn't hear anyone propose the "T" be taken out of the LGBT "soup"
To introduce myself, I identify as Gay male, married to a "gender variant" person who doesn't really fit into any "box" or "letter" as it were. Tell me more please…or share a link to a blog or other information. respecfully, Gregory
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.