Anti-Same Sex Marriage is just like the Florida Debacle

[yesthattom]

The Florida Debacle: From the start the Republicans realized that this was a PR battle more than a legal battle. They immediately started a PR war and the DNC didn't know what hit them. The DNC didn't realize it was going to be won or lost in the press until it was too late. With the PR cover protecting them, they were able to follow the legal steps required to put their man in the White House.

The Anti-Same Sex Marriage Constitutional Amendment is the same thing. It will be won or lost on the PR side. However, the gay movement thinks we'll win by making t-shirts and buying bumperstickers. I've heard too many people say, "But it could never pass! People would never actually vote for it once it gets to the vote, right?" Well *duh* of course they will if we've lost the PR battle.

Comments

[awfief.livejournal.com]

so, what now?

Re:

[yesthattom.livejournal.com]

Start by hiring a PR agency.

Re:

[yesthattom.livejournal.com]

http://www.tompaine.com/feature2.cfm/ID/9984 has some advice.

[kimuchi.livejournal.com]

I have a hard time believing it would pass just because passing a constitutional amendment is a huge time-consuming effort. The states have to be seriously motivated.

But I agree with you about PR. It particularly worries me that SF, as cool as the situation here is, may be tossing a ton of ammunition to the conservative spin-makers.

Re:

[yesthattom.livejournal.com]

> I have a hard time believing it would pass just because passing a
> constitutional amendment is a huge time-consuming effort. The
> states have to be seriously motivated.

I disagree that the states have to be seriouesly motivated. It's just a matter of having enough cash to make sure there is one pissed off person in each state (and even then, it doesn' t have to be all states) on salary pushing the issue, coordinating it, and getting all the right-wing orgs together to make it happen. You don't even have to do it directly: you just have to convince them that the best way to fight for the amendment is to elect Bush, and now you have a highly motivated work-force ready to re-elect Bush. I've met the guy that's doing it in NJ... he now hosts monthly meetings to coordinate efforts, walk people through the process to grab the "faith-based initiative" grants (and soon the "marriage initiative" grants), and sign up voters.

Remember that CO2 and OR9 were *not* about forbiding anti-gay discrimination. They were about making sure there was a hot-button issue that would get right-leaning people to the polls to give all Republicans an edge.

Good point

[mrfantasy.livejournal.com]

The book Too Close To Call is an excellent assessment of not only the 2000 election, but in many ways the various differences between the Republican Party and the Democratic Party at that time in terms of PR philosophy and attitude.

I was thinking about a consitutional amendment in the context of you only need 13 states to not vote for it. When you get all of New England, New York, New Jersey, the Pacific Coast and Hawaii, you only need one other state.

Re: Good point

[beowabbit]

Um, Hawai'i passed an amendment to their state constitution prohibiting same-sex marriage (after the Hawai'ian supreme court ruled that it violated the state constitution to discriminate against same-sex couples). I don't think most of the New England states would vote for a federal anti-marriage amendment, but I don't think any of the New England states would be a sure thing.

[grendelgongon.livejournal.com]

I couldn't agree with you more. This will be won or (I suspect) lost in the court of public opinion. I very much wonder if, by not focusing on public opinion all during the process that resulted in the win in MA we aren't already in dreadful danger of losing much more than has been gained.