Marriage Study: Equality Message Not Working

  • metta

    Posts: 39127

    Feb 08, 2010 4:13 AM GMT
    Marriage Study: Equality Message Not Working


    [QUOTE]

    Of the “middle” group of voters — defined in the study as those who favored legal protections for gay relationships but opposed marriage rights — the “equality” argument alone fell on deaf ears. In the Maine poll only 22% of voters in the middle agreed that denying gay couples full marriage rights amounted to discrimination.


    [/QUOTE]





    [QUOTE]

    future messaging has to directly address voters’ fears, in part by showing that committed gay couples are sincere in attempting to join, not redefine, the institution of marriage. “The takeaway is that we have to describe marriage in the way voters in the middle see it,” Erickson said. “It’s problematic when you talk solely about legal protections, because many straight people don’t see it that way. They see marriage as an ideal about commitment and responsibility. ... We need to show them that we want to take on the responsibility that marriage entails for the same reasons.”


    [/QUOTE]



    [QUOTE]

    "While it might deal with the literal concern raised by the ad, it does not address the underlying, deeper concern that people have about how their kids will be affected if society holds gay couples up as part of the ideal of marriage.”

    [/QUOTE]


    http://www.advocate.com/News/Daily_News/2010/02/05/Equality_Messaging_in_Marriage_Battles_Insufficient/4



  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 08, 2010 4:21 AM GMT
    I'm not surprised by this at all. It's been clear for several years that the strategy followed by HRC and Freedom to Marry isn't working.
  • metta

    Posts: 39127

    Feb 08, 2010 4:32 AM GMT
    Well, we need to find new solutions.


    - how do we show that we want to join and not redefine. I thought that we were doing that but I guess not.

    - We need to discuss how this will affect children and we need to be able to back it up with independent data.






    http://www.pe.com/localnews/inland/stories/PE_News_Local_W_marriage07.4313018.html

    [quote]
    The Goodriches said they are frustrated that voters may face another ballot measure on same-sex marriage after approving referenda banning gay matrimonies in 2000 and 2008.

    They said they support the state domestic-partnership law, which gives same-sex couples the same hospital-visitation, inheritance and health-insurance rights that heterosexual couples have. But they draw the line at marriage, which they view as a sacred religious institution.

    "To me, marriage is a ceremony sanctified by God," said Janice Goodrich, 45.

    "It kind of demeans what we see marriage as" to allow gay couples to marry, said Don Goodrich, 48. "... Look, you've got all these rights and now you want to intrude on what we have."

    Taylor Wright, 19, said his Christian faith also guides him to oppose same-sex marriage.

    "I'm not going to hate on people if they're same-sex couples," the Riverside man said. "If they want to stay together, stay together. But marriage is really something for religious reasons."


    [/quote]
  • metta

    Posts: 39127

    Feb 08, 2010 4:46 AM GMT
    Do you think that this bill may help?

    Bill Seeks to Further Define Separation of Church & State for California Marriages

    http://laist.com/2010/01/27/bill_seeks_to_define_separation_of.php

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 08, 2010 6:20 AM GMT
    metta8 saidDo you think that this bill may help?

    Bill Seeks to Further Define Separation of Church & State for California Marriages

    http://laist.com/2010/01/27/bill_seeks_to_define_separation_of.php

    NO. This is already defined. It was acknowledged in the recent lawsuit that you posted (the amicus briefs).

    http://www.equalrightsfoundation.org/press-releases/amicus-briefs-filed-in-support-of-olsonboies-prop-8-challenge/“No one can force clergy of any denomination to solemnize any wedding that conflicts with his or her faith tradition, and no church, synagogue or other place of worship loses its tax exempt status for refusing religious rites of marriage to citizens possessing a civil right to marry,” their brief states. “Proponents’ television ads and other materials warned that if same-sex couples may legally marry, ministers who decline to officiate will face legal liability, and their churches will lose their tax-exempt status. None of this was true. … That atheists and agnostics enjoy the same legal right to marry as those who revere marriage as a divine institution poses no threat to anyone’s religious liberty. No atheist or agnostic couple may force any church or synagogue to open its doors to them. … Recognizing same-sex couples’ legal right to marry threatens religious liberty of those who reject such marriages no more than recognizing the legal right of mixed-race couples in Perez v. Sharp and in Loving v. Virginia.”

    “By separating this group, solely on the basis of their minority status, the State has done precisely what the Supreme Court condemned in Brown,” their brief states, in reference to Brown v. Board of Education (1954) which struck down “separate but equal” laws. “Throughout history, state interference with the ability to marry has been a means of oppression and stigmatization of disfavored groups, serving to degrade whole classes of people by depriving them of the full ability to exercise their fundamental right to marry. Just as the anti-miscegenation laws of the past century propounded state-sponsored stigmatization of the basis of race, Proposition 8 does the same on the basis of sexual orientation.

    * “Proposition 8 denies, rather than protects religious liberty.”



    You have to realize that at the heart of this is the notion that the church can dictate secular laws. It doesn't matter what you do as long as people believe their god condemns homosexuality. The issue here is separation of church and state - not whether homosexuals have done enough, or suffered enough, or are deserving. It may take a generation dying out for people to see the truth of the matter.

    By backing laws that states what is already law, it just looks like we are admitting that we were trying to get churches to do what we were not. It makes it look like we are the guilty ones.

    We only can do so much in this matter because the true intent of marriage bans is to let homosexuals know that while they are tolerated, they are still immoral and unholy in god's eyes.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 08, 2010 6:36 AM GMT
    metta8 saidThe Goodriches said they are frustrated that voters may face another ballot measure on same-sex marriage after approving referenda banning gay matrimonies in 2000 and 2008.

    They said they support the state domestic-partnership law, which gives same-sex couples the same hospital-visitation, inheritance and health-insurance rights that heterosexual couples have. But they draw the line at marriage, which they view as a sacred religious institution.

    "To me, marriage is a ceremony sanctified by God," said Janice Goodrich, 45.

    "It kind of demeans what we see marriage as" to allow gay couples to marry, said Don Goodrich, 48. "... Look, you've got all these rights and now you want to intrude on what we have."

    Taylor Wright, 19, said his Christian faith also guides him to oppose same-sex marriage.

    "I'm not going to hate on people if they're same-sex couples," the Riverside man said. "If they want to stay together, stay together. But marriage is really something for religious reasons."
    These people are irrational and make no sense .. the only way they will change their minds is if they become rational.

    Their beliefs are predicated on the notion that homosexuality is immoral therefore god does not approve and our laws should reflect god's will. VIOLATION Of 1st amendment. And despite the fact that they say otherwise, they ARE hating on homosexuals, but they attribute it to doing god's will .. therefore it is justified. God is right, homosexuals are wrong/sinful.

    Again, read the Amicus filed by churches that DO approve same-sex marriage. According to people like the ones above, if marriage belongs to a certain religion, then atheists, witches, and other religious groups should also be denied marriage by the state.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 08, 2010 6:58 AM GMT
    I think what we need is a Harvey Milk, someone who is the face of gay rights and will actually go out there and really fight and confront the religious rights.
  • styrgan

    Posts: 2017

    Feb 08, 2010 7:11 AM GMT
    Christian73 saidI'm not surprised by this at all. It's been clear for several years that the strategy followed by HRC and Freedom to Marry isn't working.


    Maybe cause Joe Solomonese is an idiot...
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 08, 2010 12:51 PM GMT
    metta8 saidWell, we need to find new solutions.

    - how do we show that we want to join and not redefine. I thought that we were doing that but I guess not.

    - We need to discuss how this will affect children and we need to be able to back it up with independent data.


    Well, I'm not sure that we're all in agreement that the goal is to "join rather than redefine." Also, marriage as an institution is being constantly redefined by all kinds of cultural, socio-economic, and religious influences.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 08, 2010 12:52 PM GMT
    styrgan said
    Christian73 saidI'm not surprised by this at all. It's been clear for several years that the strategy followed by HRC and Freedom to Marry isn't working.


    Maybe cause Joe Solomonese is an idiot...


    Well, that's true. I'm just not sure that the others are any better.
  • NickoftheNort...

    Posts: 1416

    Feb 08, 2010 1:53 PM GMT
    This shouldn't be surprising.

    While taking a class on values and social-political change last year, my professor introduced me to a nation-wide values survey for Norway that is fairly reliable (it's been in use for the past twenty-five years and is well-conceived and executed).

    Going off of the values reflected in the answers to the question on same-sex partners in the Norwegian Monitor 2005 survey, it clearly shows that the values invoked by the general argument for equal partnership rights generally do not matter for persons who either do not care about or who dislike same-sex partnerships.

    The values that matter more for persons who don't care about same-sex partnerships:

    • Conformity
    • Authority
    • Reason
    • Patriotism
    • Respect for the law

    In general, this group's values place them as (weak) traditional materialists. Interestingly, its members also scores lower than average on Religion, suggesting that religious arguments do not matter so much to them (though their average / above-average score on Tradition could indicate that arguments on the basis of tradition [this is how it has "always" been done] might be effective, more so than direct religious arguments).

    The values that matter more for persons who dislike same-sex partnerships / believe they are wrong (in a descending order of score numeric values):

    • Intolerance
    • Traditional gender roles
    • Puritanism
    • Religion
    • Conformity (these five score significantly higher than average for this group)

    • Saving
    • Authority
    • Respect for the law
    • Rural
    • Patriotism
    • Reason
    • Tradition
    • Austerity
    • Inequality
    • Safety
    • Rigidity
    • Anti-technology
    • Private (as opposed to public)
    • Industrial growth
    • Egoism
    • Not (mental / emotional) self-realization
    • Materialism
    • Distance
    • Anti-health (as opposed to being particularly concerned about one's health)


    This group's values place them as very traditional and idealist.

    If we use this as a guideline, our persuasive arguments should invoke raw reason, "our" desire to participate in conformist relationships (marriage), specifics from the Constitution and court decisions, and "our" desire to be fully recognized as USAmericans. Appeals to money and economics will also be helpful. Equality, emotions, and tolerance arguments will probably not persuade those who oppose our equal partnership rights.

    Of course, it has to be noted that this is a survey of the Norwegian population and therefore may not be (and to some extent, probably isn't) representative of the US population and its values. However, I suspect that, for non-scientific usage, it can suggest the values that are important to those who either do not care about or who are against our equal partnerships and participation.
  • Menergy_1

    Posts: 737

    Feb 08, 2010 2:01 PM GMT
    Thanks for that reference and its findings. Perhaps that can be helpful in the struggle here in the USA after all....and guide some of the strategy in the future public and court challenges to anti-gay discriminatory laws and initiatives in the States.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 08, 2010 3:35 PM GMT
    Christian73 saidI'm not surprised by this at all. It's been clear for several years that the strategy followed by HRC and Freedom to Marry isn't working.


    Amen. Mr. Solmenese is horrendously out of touch with the gay community. Must be all of the fancy dinner parties he holds with the communities donations.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 08, 2010 4:05 PM GMT
    Wow, and there is only a monumentally large pile of research stating that campaigns like this are ineffective. They are nice ways to throw money at problems without actually solving them. A political strategist who has done something larger than "Cara for Prom Queen" would know this.

    Why do they continue to waste our money rather than actually, you know, doing something marginally effective? It seems like all that cash we fork over to the HRC is to pay for Joe Solmonese's press appearances.
  • DCEric

    Posts: 3713

    Feb 08, 2010 4:13 PM GMT
    In my opinion (and this is just mine), "The government has no right to...." seems like it would be more effective. Hey, it has worked well for the Republicans. I'm serrious. The whole Tea Baggers (I still laugh at that) bit that has gotten so many people out of their chairs, and up in arms, has been based on that very thought.

    "The government has no right." This ad, sort of, works this angle. It also though goes for the whinny "It's not fair" angle that isn't working.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 08, 2010 7:40 PM GMT
    Just proving gays desire to be in committed relationships is whats needed for some folks. I see the gay rights topic brought up in various automotive forums. Most auto enthusiasts are middle ground but fairly socially conservative, even the openly gay ones.

    The opposition can always be counted on to provide evidence than gays are less likely to couple, willingly stay single longer into life, and have more sex partners than heterosexuals.

    While none of that should really be taken as ground for denial of equal rights the social conservatives cannot look past it. All they see is the sex crazed gays. Why give these sex addled fools equal rights when only a fraction of them will use them....
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 08, 2010 7:44 PM GMT
    MunchingZombie saidWow, and there is only a monumentally large pile of research stating that campaigns like this are ineffective. They are nice ways to throw money at problems without actually solving them. A political strategist who has done something larger than "Cara for Prom Queen" would know this.

    Why do they continue to waste our money rather than actually, you know, doing something marginally effective? It seems like all that cash we fork over to the HRC is to pay for Joe Solmonese's press appearances.


    It would seem the real culprits behind wasted money are the donors. HRC is simply the fulfillment of that waste. JS is a prom queen.