The bellwether

The St. Louis Post-Dispatch finally calls the election in the nation's first test of an anti-same-sex marriage ballot measure, conducted today in Missouri.

The outcome is perhaps not so surprising [though the greater than 2-to-1 margin in favor of the marriage ban is, especially since it was Democrats who turned out in droves to cast their ballots in a hotly contested gubernatorial primary]. What's more interesting is whether the "don't mess with the constitution message" proffered by the measure's opponents had any effect:

Opponents of the gay marriage ban said they were discouraged by the results but proud of their campaign.

"We stepped up to the challenge and organized ourselves,'' said Doug Gray, who headed an anti-amendment campaign for the Constitution Defense League. "We moved this debate forward.''

Opponents of the amendment had hoped that a blitz of television ads in the days before the primary would change public opinion.

The campaign was fueled by nearly $400,000 in donations, most of it gathered through house parties in St. Louis and Kansas City. Supporters of the gay marriage ban raised little for their cause -- less than $10,000 -- relying instead on dozens of church congregations to carry the message via newsletters and announcements from the pulpit.

Is there anything about this that doesn't sound like the Oregon campaign's bland echoes of the same ideas?

WWP wonders: Does the result in Missouri signal that Oregon should take a different course, perhaps to go for broke, to reach for the proverbial brass ring? That is to say: Should we now ditch the niceties of the "don't put graffiti in the constitution" argument and simply tell the stories of the gays and lesbians who stepped up for marriage, and say plainly what it is we are proposing to remove by the amendment now before Oregon voters?

This is, after all, the story the news media mostly told in March and early April when the marriages were unfolding. Nowadays these stories are nowhere to be found. To be sure, it's a political risk to focus on a population as unpopular as gays and lesbians in an election measure -- any dime-store political science major can tell you that. But we live in unusual times, and unusual measures are now called for. To do anything less -- to ignore the lives of gays and lesbians who marry, to shun their compelling stories -- will one day prove to be a closeting and contemptible measure of dishonesty worthy of history's scorn.

And, WWP suspects, it could also be our political undoing today.

Comments

[raging red]

I think your strategy of focusing on the individuals may be right on target. After all, what drives bigotry? It is fear, fear of the unknown. So we should cure the ignorance by showing people that gay couples are just like straight couples in every way you can think of - except, of course, that they don't have the opportunity to receive all of the rights & privileges of marriage like straight couples do.

[The One True b!X]

The personal stories in fact are on the agenda here. Today's kick-off event included both the "not in the Constitution" argument and the "here are the real people you will hurt" argument.

[Worldwide Pablo]

That's not unlike all the earlier campaigns, 1988 to present. WWP was more active in those earlier days, and believe you me, that's exactly how all of them started out: Happy gays are here again...oops, now the election is here and that means you don't exist. The pattern has never varied.

In the end, not a single one of these elections -- not one -- leaned upon the lives of actual gays and lesbians to sway November voters. Hence, WWP's frustration today.

Color WWP pessimistic, but color him realistic.

If BRO wages a campaign that features real gays and lesbians, WWP will double his contribution. [And by extension, he hopes others will too.]

Call that a double-dare, if you like.

[The One True b!X]

Well, it was no accident that Multnomah County ended up issuing 3000+ marriage licenses to same-sex couples before they were told to stop. The intention here is to frame this as "do you want to take away these peoples rights" -- as evidenced by the presence at the launch event today of Kelly Burke and Delores Doyle, and their story of Burke only receiving health coverage though Doyle's plan because of their marriage certificate -- with the specific warning that said coverage might be revoked is same-sex marriage is declared illegal in Oregon.

[Worldwide Pablo]

No argument there, b!X.

Let's just see if BRO and friends have the guts to say it that way. That's all we're saying. As a matter of record: We doubt BRO will position the debate this way, given its track record. That's why WWP is being so pointed this time around.

Only difference is that this time WWP has a website.

Hehehe.

[The One True b!X]

Well, I'm just pointing out the way they've framed the pitch in their launch event. Given that BRO is part of the coalition behind the No on Constitutional Amendment 36 campaign, they would tend to suggest that's the direction in which they are going.

Granted, it just started, so who knows how the overall strategy will or will not evolve. But that's how it's very specifically starting.

[Worldwide Pablo]

Trust me. They ALL start that way.

Proof's in the putting ... er ... pudding.

[The One True b!X]

Well, not having any previous experience watching these fights, I'm more hopeful than you, I suppose, that the existence of 3000+ same-sex marriage licenses is an inescapable fact. Then again, my definition of cynicism is "frustrated optimism," so perhaps in new situations I tend towards the optimist part until and unless the situation frustrates me.

[Worldwide Pablo]

WWP admires your optimism. [Not kidding on that, not at all.]

Here's a proposal: Let's hold the "powers that be" to the "gay marriage story" campaign idea.

But let's see what happens, and then we can make our accounts from there.

In all honesty, WWP hopes to be disproved on this matter. That would make his day ... or year, for that matter.

[Jim]

I have been actively involved with the quest for equality for gays and lesbians in Oregon for over 30 years. In my recollection it is absolutely true that every campaign (beginning with measure 52 in Eugene in 1974) has begun with putting a human face on the issue; and then, as more money flows, and more professional political consultants begin to shape the campaign, the issue moves away from the people and onto abstract issues that poll well and score points in focus groups.

In the end, this may contribute to the success of the vote that individual election day, but does little to set the stage for a decades long (so far) shift toward personal acceptance of some of our neighbors who are held by many to be inferior.

If we view our goal as simply winning this election, then we have once again, for about the 10th time, taken the short term approach. If instead our goal is to arrive, in the shortest possible time, at a point where gays and lesbians are seen for who they are — our extraordinarily average family members, co-workers and neighbors worthy of our understanding and compassion — then our approach may be different, and putting a human face on it becomes the imperative. If we had taken a longer term view of things in the past, we would be further along today.

I envision a campaign that simply shows a portrait of a different individual every day between now and the election (and maybe after) with the identical message each time: “I am one of your neighbors who is gay or lesbian. Please understand that when you vote on 36 you are voting on me. Thank you.” Then the rotating portraits would show individuals who are students, stock brokers, Baptists, 16 years olds, males, 87 years olds, working class, pierced, Republicans, grand parents, newly weds, famous, females, Chinese, and so on. You get it.

But you probably won't see it. We tend to take short term approaches, especially in political campaigns.