Posted on 11/10/2004 12:25:16 PM PST by my_pointy_head_is_sharp
Gay leaders try to reframe struggle for marriage rights/They'll reach out to Middle America
Washington -- From adopting a NASCAR dad to embracing the moral rhetoric of the 1960s civil rights movement, gay and lesbian leaders are rethinking their message and market after last week's sweeping election losses, but they are refusing to retreat on same-sex marriage.
The Nov. 2 election was "a wake-up call for gay and lesbian Americans and organizations," Patrick Guerriero, president of the gay Log Cabin Republicans, declared in a new mission statement.
"We lost," Guerriero said. "If we listen to those attempting to sanitize or sugarcoat the post-election analysis, we are doomed to repeat our mistakes and destined for setbacks ahead."
Jeff Trammel, co-chair of gay and lesbian outreach for Sen. John Kerry, the defeated Democratic nominee, said he finds himself "in the very odd position of actually giving some credibility to something Tony Perkins (head of the Family Research Council) said, that gay marriage was the 'hood ornament on the car of family values.' "
"One inescapable conclusion is that we have not framed the issues right with the American public," Trammel said. The "big lesson" of the election is "figuring out how to talk about issues in a way where you're not for or against gay people ... how the nation addresses our role in society is really the key issue, and we as Democrats have to talk about that in a way that connects with Middle America."
(Excerpt) Read more at sfgate.com ...
Yes, you need to market it differently. That will take care of everything. Please continue to repackage the same old horseshit.
READ: We have not found a way to slip this agenda past America under the guise of something else.
No, they framed it perfectly. That's why they lost.
how about "We're not just a bunch of homos!"
Gees, give up this gay marriage non-sense. What, Gays worried about living in sin?
What else are they?
They feel they were not manipulative enough with how they framed the debate. Get a clue. They lost on the merits of the case even though they were highly manipulative and abusive in the debate. Truth won out. Now back to the courts where they will continue their efforts to overrule the will of the people.
yeah you 're right..i guess that one is a bit too easy shoot down....
how about this one: "We're not just a bunch of sick perverts!"
Boy, they're really getting anal about this whole issue.
translation: Homosexuals are tring to use PR to spin themselves into normalcy.
It also tells me they will abandon their PR efforts in favor of the un-democratic court system.
If they want a more readily acceptable message on gay marriage, how about, "WE WANT CHILDREN". Show a gay couple kissing and groping, as their gaze shifts to an onlooking child. "WE WANT TO ADOPT!"
"Show a gay couple kissing and groping, as their gaze shifts to an onlooking child. "WE WANT TO ADOPT!"
I thought my proposed slogan was about the least effective one available...however, I must admit that the campaign would likely be one of the most off-putting in the history of campaigning. Let's hope they adopt your "advice!"
Bingo! We'll blanket the movies and TV with glorious portayals of our lifestyle. Damn! Didn't work. I know, let's bring it directly to the American people. That should work. Brilliant!
Same question applies.
I've posted on this issue before, and I feel a need to do so again.
I think the "gay marriage" proponents still don't get it.
The issue is not whether "straights and gays are equal" - it's whether a man and a woman are identical. They clearly are not. Two things can be equal, but not identical. They're a matched set! Whether or not homosexuality is "genetic" or a "choice" (or whether gays are people just like you and me) doesn't really seem all that relevant to me. The fact that there IS a demonstrable, undisputed genetic difference between men and women is the essence of marriage. A man and a woman come together to create children and raise a family. The state takes the step of officially sanctioning that relationship to recognize, support and strengthen that family unit. Some will say that the concepts of childbirth and marriage have been disconnected over the last generation or so, with no-fault divorce, unwed motherhood, in-vitro fertilization, etc. Well, to say the least, I don't think it's off the wall to question whether such a "disconnect" is a good thing, or to object to any further government measures that accelerate the demise of the idea that the best people to care for a child, all other things being equal, are that child's biological parents. A man and a woman.
Also, limiting the qualifications for state-sanctioned marriage has never been seen as always the same as, say, racial or gender discrimination in housing or employment. Heck, a single person can't be denied a job or an apartment based on his marital status, yet BY DEFINITION marriage provides benefits to married persons that it does not to single people. I think the comparison of "gay marriage" to the civil rights movement of the 50s and 60s is ridiculous.
If people want to re-examine the rationale for marriage (for the children) and turn it into something else, then there IS no reason to tinker with it "just a little" to include same-sex unions. If the rationale will now be to allow the participants - "spouses" - to get government recognition for unions that satisfy THEM, they why not polygamy, etc. etc. etc.? What's the difference? If "a man and a woman" - the CENTRAL attribute - is not essential, than why is the number two (as in two members) essential?
I think a lot of people do not want to appear "bigoted" or whatever, but somehow can't explain their "extreme discomfort" with this issue. I have tried to explain as coolly and rationally as possible why I feel this whole issue is not even being discussed in the proper terms.
And I know that I haven't mentioned religion, not even once. I have my own beliefs - strong beliefs - but I find that when I argue in those terms the other side just shuts down, and increases the anti-Christian bigotry. I think I can present my case by speaking their language, which is easier. "Gay marriage" would seem to be at odds with the "laws" of Darwin as much as it would be with religious teachings.
I don't know. I say live and let live. I thought that (for better or worse, people will differ) gays have received a much, much greater degree of tolerance and respect. They wanted "government out of their relationships." They largely got it. Now they want the government back in - to take the last step, to give that final seal of governmental approval to demonstrate that gay and straight are exactly equal. Again, I don't think they are or ever can be.
It's possible that in pushing for this final step, "gay marriage" - an inherent contradiction if there ever was one - they've pushed too far and may suffer "losses" for the whole "movement as a result. I think that pushing the issue just underlines in people's minds how gays are INDEED different, out of the norm, or whatever. When a clock strikes the hour thirteen times, it doesn't just cast doubt on the 13th chime, but ALL of them.
Whatever.
"Boy, they're really getting anal about this whole issue."
Best post I've seen today!
How about a cup of shut the....
As one gay guy said to the other. "Gay sex is such a pain in the rear".
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.