Gay Marriage won't win elections without a Face.

To me it seems fairly obvious, the reason Prop 8 won was because the Gay Community is not fighting a PR campaign.

Politics, especially elections are nothing but pr campaigns, everything is a staged event to get the voter to vote for them. This is a blog, so most people here are political junkies, do we deny the average voter is most likely a low information voter? Then why is the gay community still trying to fight this out as a we have rights, legal, equality for all argument?

Prop 8 should have had a face.

When I was learning about the Civil Rights in elementary school. It wasn't taught to me as a legal argument, or some intellectual debate about what rights as a democracy our country owed to certain people. No first it was about an old woman who was tired and refused to go to the back of the bus.

The point is not that the Gay community needs a Rosa Parks, but it does need a face. Gay Marriage is nothing but a PR campaign. For a while there were diaries about how blacks voted against Gay marriage and all that hoopla. I ignored all that, but as a Christian I couldn't help but notice is there was no real attempt to understand the issue from the average Christian's point of view. Rick Warren is not the average Christian, James Dobson and Focus on the Family are not the average christian. And like it or not they still out number gay voters, so simply lashing out at people who voted because of it is not productive. They need to vote for it to, and either someone will go to every voter in the country and educate them on the principals of our country and the ideals of our constitution, or we can use the means of the time and get a face.

The Question should be:

Shouldn't gay Americans like Ann and Beth, at least be given legal rights so that they can situation?

By this I mean, The View should have someone asking Elizabeth Hassleback whether Ann and Beth should at least have the legal rights they need for that situation.

She would have two options either say yes, and the country at least begins to admit that Gay Americans at least deserve full equal civil unions (forcing a repeal of the DOMA) or she and conservatives like her say No.

and then what they are really saying is not that we want to protect Marriage, but that they want to deny gay people civil rights.  

When there is a face, then its not that Mike Huckabee doesn't want to start down a slippery slope, He is against Ann and Beth being able to have the civil legal right for situation, even if it was just called a civil union, instead of marriage. That would put a Gay marriage PR campaign on the upper footing. They aren't fighting for equality of all Americans, its personal now, its about Ann and Beth. Everyone would be able to see them not as a movement but just as human beings as people, yes, gay people are humans too.

When there is a face, the National media wont be able to ignore it. The MSM loves to gossip, and the perfect face would be surrounded by press attention to the face and the national movement that the face was spurring. But there would be more, something no other civil rights movement has had before, the Internet.

In this new Media Age, surely more could be done to really gain attention to this issue. The problem is, it doesn't seem urgent, its abstract. I fully believe we are at a point where the Country's subconscious knows that we will have full equal marriage rights for all Americans. its simply a matter of time. I also think that a lot of people deep down agree with me, especially those against it. They feel like they are fighting against the tide and that's why they fight so hard. While those who I would expect to fight the hardest against them (my gay friends) seem to also just go "eh, it will happen eventually" A face is the rallying cry.

The catch is to find the perfect face. the perfect gay couple that is facing the perfect situation and then create a PR storm around them. It can't be about arguing to the average christian that in a democracy you have a right to be married. It has to be shown, and it has to be shown how damaging it is that it is denied to them.

The day politicians have that face to sell, I believe is when those Democrats who truly believe gay couples deserve equal rights, but know it won't sell, that's the day you see them stand up and say enough.

Tags: Prop 8 (all tags)

Comments

23 Comments

but thats my opinion

others opinions on the topic please. debates on other things are for other diaries.

by TruthMatters 2008-12-22 07:23AM | 0 recs
Re: but thats my opinion

I think the longer we keep holding on to the word "marriage" as the choice for our commited relationships, the longer we are going to have to wait for our equal rights. We have developed our own culture so why do we choose to ape straight cultures terminology for commited relationships. Let the organized religions have their "word" all I want is EQUAL rights in all aspects of my life, not just the ones granted if we are allowed to "marry".

by venician 2008-12-22 08:07AM | 0 recs
Re: but thats my opinion

in a sense I agree, the whole fighting for the use of the word is misguided. I say fight a pr campaign for the legal rights, and let other people call it whatever they want.

by TruthMatters 2008-12-22 10:14AM | 0 recs
Re: but thats my opinion

keep using the word marriage, and fighting to get people to understand facts versus lies. What the prior post does it to reinforce the lie that civil marriages are religious marriages. THe reality is that civil unions are not equally. It's not a symbolic point. It's one of legal effect as to the rights involved. If people were no so busy trying to avoid frank discussion it's pretty easy to google the results coming out at this point about how civil unions are not equal in states like Vermont and NJ. How they still mean gay couplesare not being protected.. How hospitals aer not recognizing vistation rights, how healthcare coverage is not being provided. Why? because no one thinks of civil unions as equal. They don't feel they have to recognize them.

by bruh3 2008-12-22 08:38AM | 0 recs
Re: but thats my opinion

Then that's our battle. Have civil unions include the same rights as "marriages".

by venician 2008-12-22 09:03AM | 0 recs
Re: but thats my opinion

The battle is to get people , including a lot of progressives, to understand what civil marriages are legally and what it means in reality for people's rights. You keep wanting to frame this as word choice. That's the common mistake people make when discussing legal issues. It's not that simple.

The reason why the existing civil marriage system is the right choice is that it avoids the separate but equal impact of a two tier system.

The impact is that calling them civil unions means legally they end up having different effects. Separate but equal not being equal is not an abstraction.

Go to

http://www.civilunionsdontwork.com/

It discusses the impact of civil unions versus marriage in non-legalistic real terms that you can understand rather than spouting talking points.

Also check in the Connecticut S. Ct. decision that specifically addresses civil unions versus marriage, and why civil unions are inheritedly unequal.

It's the effect of separation. It cost gays thousands of dollars more to try to protect their relationships, and even then its inadequate. You should not assume all gays are wealthy. many are not. Many are low income and blue collar. You just don't see them in the national gay press (think of them like the dlc of gay groups). Thus, these people are really impacted by these laws. Many of them are people of color who are gay. Ie, did you know that the largest group of gay families in New York state are actually found in the Bronx, and most are Latino or black couples with kids.  They also impacted by the difference of treatment under the law.

This is not about talking points. There is real information out there about why the differences matter if people search for it.

by bruh3 2008-12-22 10:04AM | 0 recs
Re: but thats my opinion

Look, just because it doesn't work in New Jersey doesn't mean it can't work anywhere. All I'm looking for is MY equal rights in everything and not just the right to "marry". My point is why fight for just one right. Bring back the E.R.A. and we can settle this once and for all. Just like the civil rights movement wasn't just for the right to eat at any lunch counter or sit anywhere on a bus, our fight should not only be about the right to marry.

by venician 2008-12-22 10:55AM | 0 recs
Re: but thats my opinion

I am not interestedin debating you. Read the information. It's clear you did not read it.

It's not just about New Jersey. Civil unions are not working in any states in which it is found toward equality. One fo the primary speakers is, in fact, a lawyer working with couples in Vermont facing these issues of inequality.

I also mention the CT Decision which goes through the evidence that's coming in on the subject.

If you are uninterest in reality, that's up to you. but don't pass your opinons off as anythin gother than you not wanting to deal with reality. You entitled to your own opininons, but not your own facts. You now have access to those. Do with them what you will, but stop thinking you are convincing anyone who knows the subject matter.

by bruh3 2008-12-22 11:46AM | 0 recs
Re: It can only be fixed by courts

I don't disagree with the court argument. I simply have a problem with people thinking that if we pass civil unions this will substantively be equality when in fact the evidence is already coming in that this in not the case. I don't want to replace one bad ideas "marriage is religious" with another "civil unions are equality when the solution is to start to address the political and cultural understanding that we are discussing "civil marriages" not religious nes. I blame the gay movement for htis failure to market the situation properly. But ultimately this will as you say be decided by the courts. I think it should be. The reality is that rights should no be subject to popular will.

by bruh3 2008-12-22 01:03PM | 0 recs
Re: It can only be fixed by courts

I am not disagreeing with you here. Just adding.

by bruh3 2008-12-22 01:52PM | 0 recs
Re: No it doesn't

I wish that were the case. the reality is that it is easier to include gays in the "civil marriage", legally speaking, than to do what you describe which would change the terminology for everyone to "civil union."

In fact, I advocate that people start saying Civil marraige to address the exact issue collequially that you mention. That people confuse the concepts.

I am simply discussing this from the legal end. I am not talking cultural or political arguments. In terms of the culture political aspect I have advocated for a while that we should call it civil marriage rather than gay marriage or just marriage. By calling it civil marriage it's clear what we are referring to.

If we are discussing equality-the simple solution is to include gays in on civil marriage because the law is well settled regarding civil marriage rights.

but i dont have any pull anywhere. And gays are often trying to fight over "acceptance battles" rather than substantive ones. The no on 8 pissed me off becuase of this. They didn't include the very real data and couples impacted by the different treatment under civil unons. Thus, the voters were left to vote over abstract ideas about inequality rather than "hey, he can't visit his partner even under civil partnerships in the hospital.' How much more impact would thave have had? 5 percent 10? Even 5 would have won the day with prop 8. but that was not the frame. That was the No on 8 decision. Ultimately however even we had won it would not have adderssed civil marriage either between states or at the federal or international levels.

Yes, the long term goal will be the S Ct. There is no way around it. Eventually later rather than sooner (got to change the make up of the court) the conflicting public policies between the states will create problems with equal protection and full faith and credit analysis.

by bruh3 2008-12-22 01:01PM | 0 recs
Re: but thats my opinion

If civil unions have the same rights as marriages, there is then no way to justify a distinction between the two constitutionally.  Under this circumstance you truly have a separate but equal problem.  I used to believe that if we gave up the semantic battle we would still win, but have come to agree with the points bruh3 raises.  For example, gays and lesbians are supposed to be able to rely upon police protection like everyone else, but we don't get it.  The same would be true for civil unions.  I don't want to have to go to court to participate in the medical/legal life of my partner every time some schmuck decides to deny me my rights.

by orestes 2008-12-23 11:30AM | 0 recs
Ellen DeGeneres
She should have been the face of the No on 8 campaign.  She is the most recognized LGBT figure
out there.
by esconded 2008-12-22 09:57AM | 0 recs
Re: Ellen DeGeneres

I think her alredy being famous turns it into a hollywood thing.

you want the country to see just 2 plain americans and how in the end its about two people who love each other just wanting their love respected and recognized.

how to get there is one of tactics. and I think the current tactics will work, just it will work eventually, its more of a long game thing.

by TruthMatters 2008-12-22 10:13AM | 0 recs
Re: Ellen doesn't do politics

Nor do I want her to be the leadership. we need people who are grassroots who are not a) anti religious , b) not stuck in the gay ghetto mentality and c) really smart politicians. These three things are missing from the gay movement. One of the reasons why i loved the move milk- although it was fictionalized- is that it points to the way we can win.

by bruh3 2008-12-22 01:05PM | 0 recs
Re: Ellen doesn't do politics

You can scratch Gavin Newsom.  I think he's done more to hurt the marriage equality movement than help it.

by esconded 2008-12-22 05:11PM | 0 recs
Re: Ellen doesn't do politics

he's not relevant regardless. this is one of those conversations where you'll just don't get it. when have no seen good leadership for hte gay community. that person isn't going to be some famous name you know. it's going to come up from the anger growing int eh gay community right now. right now there is anger what that will tranforms into as a movment, and who leads it is anyone's guess. that's the thing that obama does not get. indeed, manypeople do not get. things are changing for us gays . we know longer aw illing wait. it's the same thing that happened to the African american community in the late 50s. I am African American. My teacher used to tell me about it down south. She said- after while it was just this unspoken feeling that we've waited enogh. a lot of gay people feel that way. We are done waiiting. Whoever leads this has a movement on his or her hands

by bruh3 2008-12-22 06:32PM | 0 recs
Re: I always thought

I think, personally, it needs to be a preacher. Many gay people due to their baggage over religion do not want to hear this.

But, I am a big believer in taking a battle directly to the enemy. The enemy is people's believes that say that gay equals immoral. Not going after this central belief is where the gay movement went wrong.

The only thing is that I would have multiple leaders in different ethinic groups who are from the communities. A kind of national council of grassroots leaders with heavy ties to non gay ghetto efforts. I would choose a black preacher for the black community, a Latino Catholic layperson for the Latino community, etc.

I would also change up the ads and approach. I would make gays reflect America. Not just rich white guys. That means low income gays should be put into ads. Blue collar gays. Etc.

I would literally change the face of the moment from people like Dan Savage who appeals to gay ghetto fantasies rather than to the reality of what this movment needs. It needs real world people living int he real world rather than in gay ghettos.

But, that's me. I am no one online.

The same comments I say to you. I wrote early in August over at Towleroad. I tried emailing to people about Prop 8.

That they should be advertising heavily in the red sections of the state, registering new voters, heavy GOTV, heavy use of online data bankr resources, double duty with Obama supporters, etc.

I would literally change the moment from the top down - upper middle class whites only to the reality that I see. That reality is black males, black females, mixed couples, latinos, asians, low income, etc. None of those people are called on to be a part of anything. None of them feel like they are a part of this.

If the gay movement looked like the rest of the diversity of American voices, we would have a better shot. So , yes, a Christian preacher would be the best leader. Someone well versed in the scriptures and in the various evangelical movments, etc. Someone who is naturally charistmatic, but politically smart.

Anyway , that's my wish list. I look at the gay leadership and all i want to do is scream. They just don't get it.

by bruh3 2008-12-22 07:44PM | 0 recs
Re: That was my problem with them

No , it's going to get better. The one thing that Obama got right was hope. It's shame he does not blame in as much as I do. That hope says to me that it will get better. But I am truly African American. We don't get give up. That's something the gay community as a whole needs to learn. Be tough, and don't take shit from anyone.

by bruh3 2008-12-22 08:28PM | 0 recs
Re: I always thought

Re Dan Savage

I like him as a columnist, but he should not have been out there post the passage of 8.

He was just out of depths with the religous leaders. He had no argument that would broaden the appeal beyond rich gay white men. I don't mean to harp on that. But it's just the reality.

I navigate several worlds as a black gay guy who grew up poor, but has moved into the middle class. It gives me perspective on identity.

I saw Savage, for example, on DL Hugley's show discussing marriage. Hugley played the race angle. Savage tried to hold his own.

All I could think was- what the fuck?  A black guy in that role-e specially a preacher would have read him. Someone who actually had suffered anything would have read him. But white guilt of being middle class prevented Savage from having the down in the alley conversation that should have followed: Basically reading Hugley. Saying to him right now today, a gay couple wallking down the run street can get beat up. Right now, today, a gay couple can get murdered.  In Iran, gays are murdered by the state. In America, gays are not just wealthy white men. They are blue collar workers who don's see their healthcare as a luxury becuase if they dont have healthcare, then they get sick. You thnk bout giving to a doctor and not havig the care because your company will not recognize your relationship.

This is what's missing. Credible speakers on the subject of why this matters.

by bruh3 2008-12-22 07:51PM | 0 recs
Re: Ellen doesn't do politics

sorry for all the typos. I hope you can understand the post. if not I will rewrite it.

by bruh3 2008-12-22 06:33PM | 0 recs
Re: Ellen doesn't do politics

When i say a gay movement that's not anti religous- i mean there are religoous groups that re actually our allies. we need to have christians who are favor of gay equality talking to other christians about this. organizations like soulforce which the gay ghetto types ignore would be  a perfect group to push even further into the spotlight. Young gay christians talking to other christians.

by bruh3 2008-12-22 01:07PM | 0 recs
Re: Ellen doesn't do politics

there needs to be an actual gay marriage movement.

who is the leader of the movement?

that is the first problem, how can there be a movement without a leader.

by TruthMatters 2008-12-23 07:14AM | 0 recs

Diaries

Advertise Blogads