Why are so many DUers afraid of changing our marketing strategy?

[unfrigginreal]

There was much discussion on the board yesterday about the impact that the gay marriage issue had on the campaign. I believe it's quite clear based on all of the gay marriage bans(11 states) that were passed on Tuesday that the issue was a significant factor in this election. I mean, if this type of legislation couldn't be defeated in Oregon then where do we expect to win on the issue.

Here's what I don't get, why do so many think that changing our language and approach to the issue would represent selling out? If you know and I know and everyone else knows that Democrats are For equal rights regardless of sexual orientation, then why can't we just promote equal rights for all. Is it really necessary that we get bogged down on the term gay marriage?

I'm firmly in the camp that believes that civil unions would offer the LGBT community a real chance to benefit from the same rights and protections that married heterosexuals receive. It also seems to me that it's a much easier pill to swallow for the general public, so what is wrong with dropping the push for gay marriage?

[ChavezSpeakstheTruth]

1. It is weakness to change a message that is true

[unfrigginreal]

3. It sometimes comes down to this

Do you want to win or do you want to be right? We've been right all along but we're not winning shit.

[H2O Man]

9. That begs the question

are you willing to be wrong, simply to win? It divides the question into two parts: which is more important, winning vs losing, or being right vs being wrong? We can redefine the concept of what it means to win or lose by simply accepting that we are now the opposition party in America. The opposition party has far more power than the "loser." But we run great risks when we are tempted to redefine right and wrong.... we could easily wake up next week and see republicans in the mirrors.

[unfrigginreal]

17. How would it be wrong to accomplish all of the goals that we have

but terming it differently? Sorry, I don't agree with the premise.

[H2O Man]

25. "by terming it differently"

I may not have as clear of an understanding of what you mean as I would like .... by terming it differently, to you mean changing the "name" of our goal, or of reframing the question that we present to the nation?

[unfrigginreal]

28. I'm talking about taking the term 'marriage' out of the equation

that's why I call it a marketing strategy. The fundies will beat us forever with their God says bullshit, unless we accomplish something along the lines of civil unions and people see that there was nothing to be afraid of all along.

[H2O Man]

30. What do we call it when

a man and woman are married by a justice of the peace? That's not a religious rite. What would we call it if a church that recognizes that the Living God does not discriminate marries a gay couple? Or are we okay with the state putting limitations on a church,so long as they choose a different word for it?

I'm not trying to discourage you from bringing this up. We should be able to discuss it in a mature, open manner. But do you think it is possible that we did not do as good a job in framing the question as we should have? Is it perhaps better to concentrate on focus on this, rather than to accept the definitions of the conservatives?

[unfrigginreal]

34. From my perspective you are over intellectualizing the problem

why should we give a damn what heterosexuals call a union legalized by the jstice of the peace? It's meaningless unless that union involves more rights and protections than those afforded to a homosexual union legalized by the justice of the peace. Is there some rule that once legalized, civil unions couldn't be performed by the church? Why wouldn't that be the next logical step to be taken by state houses once civil unions were legalized.

[ChavezSpeakstheTruth]

14. I want to be right - PERIOD!

[Modem Butterfly]

2. Changing our terms, yes. Cutting loose our members? NO.

End of the fucking story. I know you're not explicitly suggesting that, but just in case it comes up, I want someone to say it now.

[unfrigginreal]

4. Um, I'm not tacitly suggesting that either

just in case you didn't know, I wanted to say that now.

[Chovexani]

5. For fuck's sake no one seems to get it do they?

Do you honestly think the Christofascists are willing to settle for civil unions? THEY WANT GLBT PEOPLE TO BE UTTERLY INVISIBLE. Anything that even suggests we are human beings, let alone deserving of acknowledgement of our lives and relationships other than the scourge of civilization, they will fight to the death against. I don't think people honestly understand the depths of these hatemongers' contempt for us. They literally believe that we will be responsible for the fall of Western Civilization. If you don't believe me turn on TBN or any of the dozen or so fundie channels on satellite.

Civil unions? What the fuck ever. Many if not most of the ballot measures that passed had provisions also banning civil unions. We can't even get ENDA passed and you think these bastards will let us have civil unions? There's a reason exactly one state has made it legal.

Why are so many DUers willing to sell some of their strongest supporters down the river for nothing?

[The Traveler]

8. Listen to her, people!

The line was drawn. We got knocked down and given a bloody nose. The answer is not to crawl before our would-be masters, but to rise and stand again.

[Modem Butterfly]

12. And after gay people, who?

They won't stop with gay people.

[TeacherCreature]

15. All of the gay-blaming is bigoted and evil.

What the HELL are these people doing on a Democratic website, other than disrupt, divide, and foster hate and defeatism?

Time for a housecleaning, if you ask me.

[unfrigginreal]

18. I agree with the housecleaning comment and I know right where I'd start.

[freestyle]

27. Thank you. They want us converted or dead.

Working for separate but equal will not appease the sacrilegeous wrong. Also, I am thankful that my ancestors did not say, let's try working on this separate but equal thing a while longer. What this is about is equal protection and equal citizenship. If governments parform civil marriages for some people and civil unions for others, that is not equal. It is second class citizenship.

And gays are just the beginning. Everyone who is not a rich, white, straight, christian man is ultimately under attack.

[The Traveler]

6. There is a freedom of religious expression issue involved

Look, the marriage rite is a sacrament ... a dealing between the couple and the god of their understanding. Suddenly we are amending constitutions to regulate the performance of that sacrament. This is a very dangerous precedent, a direct assault on freedom of religious expression in this country.

That is only one way the religious right threatens liberty. Let me say clearly that if straight people like myself are willing to back down on the matter of gay marriage, then they also acquiesce to the first steps towards the establishment of state controlled religion.

Only a fool thinks one person may be deprived of their civil rights and liberties without their own being imperiled.

[Modem Butterfly]

10. We need to seperate marriage and religion

Let the churches have all the religious ceremonies they want. Let the state recognize civil marriages, and let those civil marriages who wish to solemnized by a relgious instituation sort that out for themselves. The state shouldn't be involved in religious matters and relgion shouldn't be involed in what is essentially a legal contract between consenting adults.

[The Traveler]

19. Precisely ... BUT

Various churches have no issue performing same sex marriages. For the state to acknowledge one church's rite without acknowledging another's is for the state to favor and give advantage to one religion over another. Avoiding that kind of thing was a specific intent of the constitution.

The people pushing a constitutional ban of gay marriage understand that point. It is an objective of the Dominionists to establish a theocracy ... one cannot marry religion and politics without establishing one religion as being preferable to the state.

[Modem Butterfly]

20. The point is, the state would not recognize non-state marriages

In other words, religious people would have to have a civil ceremony in addition to a religous ceremony.

[kitkatrose]

16. Uh, it may be a sacrament for some people,

but to be considered married in the eyes of the state (which is how they get all those lovely rights they want to deny to gays) you need that one piece of paper signed by two witnesses. Nothing else counts. A religious ceremony is not required. If they believe that it's a sacrament, tell them to go get married in a church and forgo that slip of paper. See how 'married' they are then.


THat's way marriage is a government issue. No one is going to force them to marry gay couples--the government or Las Vegas can do that for them. Marriage was a civil matter before it was a religious one, property rights and all that jazz.

That is only one way the religious right threatens liberty. Let me say clearly that if straight people like myself are willing to back down on the matter of gay marriage, then they also acquiesce to the first steps towards the establishment of state controlled religion.

Only a fool thinks one person may be deprived of their civil rights and liberties without their own being imperiled.

I couldn't agree more. :toast:

On Edit: Ms. Toad explained it better in her reply. http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=2602346&mesg_id=2603233

[H2O Man]

22. Good point. Very important.

It also is important that straight people need to say that it is a religious issue. There is no reason to accept the republican position that gay and lesbian people are not as religious/spiritual as straight people.

We must also remember that marriage is not exclusively a religious rite in the United States. Many people are married outside of the churches and temples. There is no controversy over straight people who do not want to get married in a religious ceremony having a civil ceremony. Divorced Catholics, for example, often find it less expensive to remarry in a civil ceremony.

I believe that this question is as clear as the United States Constitution. Matter of fact, so doesn't the president, or he wouldn't be trying to change that document. I believe that all of us straight people must stand firm on this question. In my own particular case, I am certain that the Living God's process demands that we support all of our brothers and sisters against the darkness and hatred and ignorance of the right wing.

[truthpusher]

7. Everybody knows that Democrats have real conviction about...

...Gay Marriage. It would be a lie to say that we don't and people will see through that.

here's some of what I had to say:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=2602346&mesg_id=2602346

[unfrigginreal]

26. How would it be lying to advocate equal rights for all

To be honest, I think there's a much better chance that gay marriage could eventually be accepted and legalized if we could get more states to accept cival unions as a stepping stone.

[Still_Notafraid]

11. we didn't market it.

the Repubs did,all we could do was defend it,but it wasn't our message.
the repubs did what they always do to us with there money advantage they define the issues and they define us.

John Kerry or any of the other Democrats did not run on gay marriage as a issue we were forced to defend our stance on it,we will never stand as a party to make anyone who was born a certain way a second class citizen by our Constitution.its a stain on our sacred documents.

its the same thing with abortion we don't come out and say i am running on pro life,we get defined..no one wants abortion but as Democrats we understand that when a mother has 3 children and her wanted pregnancy might end her life she should have that option,or when a 10 year old child is raped and becomes pregnant the option should be there.

[unfrigginreal]

23. I don't think that I agree with that

No, we didn't specifically advocate for gay marriage but gay groups have been pushing it in state courts across the nation.

[TeacherCreature]

13. Because they believe in justice and oppose bigotry?

Maybe that might be it....

[dirtyduck]

21. The issues can't change, but poster is right to say the "marketing" should

[bullimiami]

24. unfriggin real you are starting with a false premise.

that our values were rejected. they were not. we have it right, we should be more liberal and more assertive about it. the election was a fraud, dont use its result to form your opinion of what to do.

[unfrigginreal]

29. This is not a new opinion for me

I'm a Deaniac and one message that I took from him is that we have to try to reach people that should be voting Democratic but vote against their interests because of GOP language. We've got to take some lessons from the Pukes to use phraseology that affirms to Democrats that we haven't changed our beliefs but also doesn't sound threatening to non-partisans that might agree with us on most things but could be turned off by some wrongly held moral belief.

Edited to correct Democratic before someone has a hissy fit.

[pleiku52cab]

31. Kerrys position seems about right to me

NO constitutional amendment - the right of ALL PEOPLE to civil unions -and don't use the word marriage because it is a red flag to (52%-?) millions of Americans. If you continue to fight for that one word 'marriage' you will go on losing elections. I'm straight(bad word) but my second best friend, who is lesbian, completely agrees with me and Kerrys approach. The civil rights struggle is still going on after many decades and it will probably take the equality (not gay) rights movement many years also. If you continue to push for marriage it will (in todays hyper climate) result in efforts to curb even the civil union movement that has much more of a vast approval among voters nationwide. Note the comment above about the anti marriage movement and their attempts to stop all legalization of any gay progress. I know it is hard to stop eating after a few bites when there is a whole meal sitting before you, but being still hungry is better than to still be starving.

[SeekerofTruth]

32. You are correct, but people will be blinded by their self-righteousness

The repukes will fight gay marriage till death. Moderates don't care about gay civil unions (so they don't fight it), they don't like gay marriage. It's only Moderates we have to change our marketing strategy for.

But I'm from Illinois and have watched this once red state turn bluer and bluer, so what do I know?

[GreenPartyVoter]

33. Start HERE first. Then with all of that in place if you still can't win

elections then reframe the argument.

But for now you are basing your assumption that you need to make drastic changes based on faulty data from a rigged test. And future tests will be rigged as well. So what good will that do you?


-----------------------------------------------------------
FIGHT! Take this country back one town and state at a time!
http://www.geocities.com/greenpartyvoter/electionreform.htm