Queerty is better as a member

Log in | Register

Masterminds Behind ‘Yes on 8′ Reveal How They Did It

204-bb_prop_8_show_007standaloneprod_affiliate4

Frank Schubert, president of Schubert-Flint Public Affairs, and Jeff Flint, a partner in the firm, reveal just how they won the battle to pass Proposition 8, which outlawed gay marriage in California just months after being ruled a “fundamental right” by the California Supreme Court. If you can stifle your seething rage for just a few moments, there’s quite a few instructive lessons to be learned from their approach.

Schubert (who, incidentally, has a lesbian sister) and Flint portray the campaign as a plucky upstart facing a difficult battle in their article in Politics Magazine:

“A survey released by the Field Institute in mid-September showed that fully 55 percent of likely voters were opposed to Prop 8, with just 38 percent in favor. The political elite all but wrote off Proposition 8 as being dead once the Field Poll was published. To make matters worse for us, less than a week after the Field Poll came out, the No on 8 campaign began its television advertising in the state’s major media markets.”

How did they win?

Rally and engage the base. Schubert-Flint made sure that those who would naturally support a ban on gay marriage were informed and empowered.

“We worked hard during this period to urge our supporters to have faith that Prop 8 could still be enacted despite what they saw on the news. We organized countless meetings and conference calls of pastors and other campaign leaders. And we restructured our online presence and delivered a stream of messages to supporters designed to keep them informed and engaged.”

Raise doubts, broaden the implications. It was important to make gay marriage not just an issue about gays getting married, but about religious freedom, an ‘activist’ Court, and the potential threats to children. The more the water was muddied, the more opportunities voters had to latch onto a rationale for voting for the ban that wasn’t purely homophobic.

“We strongly believed that a campaign in favor of traditional marriage would not be enough to prevail. We needed to convince voters that gay marriage was not simply “live and let live”—that there would be consequences if gay marriage were to be permanently legalized. But how to raise consequences when gay marriage was so recently legalized and not yet taken hold? We made one of the key strategic decisions in the campaign, to apply the principles of running a “No” campaign—raising doubts and pointing to potential problems—in seeking a “Yes” vote. As far as we know, this strategic approach has never before been used by a Yes campaign.”

photo-frprank-schprubert

Engage and use the grassroots. While grassroots volunteers are not trained campaigners, they have heart and personal messages that they can take to individual voters and by using the Internet to coordinate these efforts, activists had maximum impact. For ‘Yes on 8′, this was a big advantage.

“Our ability to organize a massive volunteer effort through religious denominations gave us a huge advantage, and we set ambitious goals: to conduct a statewide Voter ID canvass of every voter; to distribute 1.25 million yard signs and an equal number of bumper strips; to have our volunteers re-contact every undecided, soft yes and soft no voter; and to have 100,000 volunteers, ?ve per voting precinct, working on Election Day to make sure every identi?ed Yes on 8 voter would vote. All of these goals, and more, were achieved.

We built a campaign volunteer structure around both time-honored campaign grassroots tactics of organizing in churches, with a ground-up structure of church captains, precinct captains, zip code supervisors and area directors; and the latest Internet and web-based grassroots tools. Our campaign website was rebuilt to serve as an incredibly effective organizing tool. Online volunteer sign-ups were immediately sent electronically to the appropriate ZIP code supervisor for follow up. We set up a statewide voter ?le with remote access for regional volunteer leaders, which allowed them to input results for canvassing efforts remotely, and then download and print updated voter lists.”

Money, money, Mormon money. Not that there was any doubt, but the Yes on 8 campaign freely admits that an infusion of Mormon cash did a great deal in helping to bolster the campaign.

“By this time, leaders of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints had endorsed Prop 8 and joined the campaign executive committee. Even though the LDS were the last major denomination to join the campaign, their members were immensely helpful in early fundraising, providing much-needed contributions while we were busy organizing Catholic and Evangelical fundraising efforts.

Ultimately, we raised $22 million from July through September with upwards of 40 percent coming from members of the LDS Church. Our fundraising operation also relied heavily on small contributions from some 60,000 individual donors via an extensive direct mail operation, and an extraordinarily effective online fundraising campaign. When we ?led our ?nance report electronically with the secretary of state, it was more than 5,000 pages thick and crashed the ?ling system. We ultimately raised more than $5 million online, and $3 million from direct mail.”

Having an ineffective opponent helps, too. ‘Yes on 8’s’ own internal polling showed that their ability to define the issues gave them an advantage, but that advantage began to evaporate once No on 8 released an ad calling their tactics “shameful.” Up until then, the moral high-ground belonged to Yes on 8, but they had already effectively framed the debate.

“The response to our ads from the No on 8 campaign was slow and ineffectual. They enlisted their allies in the education system to claim that we were lying. They held press conferences with education leaders to dismiss our claims. They got newspaper editorial boards to condemn the ads as false. What they never did do, because they couldn’t do, was contest the accuracy of what had happened in Massachusetts.

Finally, three weeks after the Yes on 8 campaign had introduced education as a message, the No on 8 campaign responded with what would be their best ad of the campaign. It featured State Superintendent of Public Instruction Jack O’Connell claiming that Prop 8 had nothing to do with education and that our use of children in our ads was “shameful.” This in-your-face response, much delayed but very effective, foretold the ?nal period of the campaign—it would be largely about education.”


A Google surge.
You may remember that even gay websites running Google Ads were running ‘Yes on 8′ ads in the final days of the campaign. That’s the power of internet advertising dollars at work.

“As the campaign headed into the final days, we launched a “Google surge.” We spent more than a half-million dollars to place ads on every single website that had advertising controlled by Google. Whenever anyone in California went online, they saw one of our ads in the ?nal two days of the election.”

Schubert-Flint sum up their winning plan like this:

“Prop 8 didn’t win because of the Mormons. It won because we created superior advertising that denied the issues on our terms; because we built a diverse coalition; and, most importantly, because we activated that coalition at the grassroots level in a way that had never before been done.

The Prop 8 victory proves something that readers of Politics magazine know very well: campaigns matter.”

Sounds about right. While some ‘No on 8′ leaders still complain that the only reason they didn’t have enough cash, the fact remains that neither did the ‘Yes on 8′ campaign when it started. Certainly, big donations from churches helped, but by activating and empowering their base, they were able to raise millions of small donations, Obama-style. With that money, they focused on making a reasoned moral argument for banning gay marriage through advertising, one-on-one canvassing across the whole state and employing a massive grassroots get-out-the-vote effort.

We’ve said it once and we’ll say it again: Political campaigns are not about fairness or the inherent righteousness of your cause, they’re about winning. Prop 8.’s fate is now in the hands of the California Supreme Court, but with more than half a dozen gay marriage or civil unions bills making their way through state legislatures everywhere from Hawaii to Maine, the gay community needs to work smarter, not harder to win their equal rights. You can look at the opponent’s playbook and scorn it, or you can take it and make it your own.

By:           Japhy Grant
On:           Feb 24, 2009
Tagged: , , , ,
  • 52 Comments
    • Larry
      Larry

      Depriving an already marginalized minority of a fundamental right. Talk about the banality of evil…

      Feb 24, 2009 at 12:14 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • flightoftheseabird
      flightoftheseabird

      It was like the No on 8 campaign was run by Rahm Emanual and Terry McAuliffe, rather than mimicing the other guy running for president. Which as you know, was very successful for President Hillary Clinton…oh wait

      Feb 24, 2009 at 12:15 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • ask ena
      ask ena

      “seething” being the operative word…

      Feb 24, 2009 at 12:52 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Charles J. Mueller
      Charles J. Mueller

      Why wasn’t HRC out there doing what these people did?

      Oh. Silly me. I forgot. HRC was busy making plans on where to hold the next black tie, fund-raiser dinner?

      And shaking hands with those lowly, grass-rooters, is after all, just a tad Plebian.

      Someone once said “A government bureaucracy, once created, continues to exist for it’s own celebration, long after the need for it has passed. Top-down organizations like HRC are no different.

      Citizen Chris said it best in his editorial “Dancing While Gay America Burns”.

      http://citizenchris.typepad.com/citizenchris/2008/11/dancing-while-g.html

      Feb 24, 2009 at 12:57 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Wolf
      Wolf

      This just shows ho bad the “No on 8″ Commitee actually was and here they are 4 Months later STILL trying to cover their asses instead of admiting that they mishandeled it so badly. Kors, Lori Jean, and the rest own the GLBT a HUGE APOLOGY and they need to take FULL RESONSIBILTY and resign.

      Feb 24, 2009 at 1:03 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Tim in SF
      Tim in SF

      @Charles J. Mueller: Why wasn’t HRC out there doing what these people did?

      HRC is a lobbying organization. They lobby Congress. The only public thing they do that I can tell is to endorse candidates. Like, for example, Joe Lieberman over progressive, pro-gay Ned Lamont in 2006. HRC is, fundamentally, a DC outfit. Prop-8 wasn’t their fight.

      Feb 24, 2009 at 1:14 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Chitown Kev
      Chitown Kev

      “Yes On 8″ had their game on and our side didn’t. It’s that simple.

      “Political campaigns are not about fairness or the inherent righteousness of your cause, they’re about winning.” Yep.

      Feb 24, 2009 at 1:20 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Darth Paul
      Darth Paul

      @Tim in SF: Sounds like a cop-out. All PACs/lobbying groups have unofficial limbs doing their work from micro to macro. Charles J. Mueller is right to deride HRC.

      Feb 24, 2009 at 1:24 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Mike
      Mike

      Coming from someone who worked on behalf of No on 8, stood on street corners with signs, went door to door, spoke about the issue ad naseum to anyone I could captivate for a few minutes, I have to say that there was a great deal of apathy among those in the gay community and those who support them.

      Much of the apathy was replaced by indignation on November 5th, when it became clear that the majority of Californian voters saw us as unworthy of equal rights and sentenced us to a class below all others (yes, even chickens). My great prayer is that the gay community will remain impassioned, though already you can feel a bit of surrender settling back in here in California.

      The “energy” was on the side of hate and bigotry, as it always is. Martina Navratilova has talked in the past about what was necessary for her to beat Chris Evert and ascend to the number 1 ranking in the world of women’s tennis; she needed to learn to hate Evert. It sounds dreadful, but there needs to be something to offset the inertia.

      We need to learn to be just as angry of our oppressors and learn to hate their oppression, just as much as they hate us for who we are. Hate the sin? No; they hate us, and they would do anything that they could to simply eradicate us from society in any way that they can.

      Please, wherever you are in this country, access your anger and get moving. Cleeve Jones, associate of Harvey Milk, said the other evening that we had to take it to the streets and get our voices heard by the government–not the voters. Be heard!

      Feb 24, 2009 at 1:33 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • moya watson
      moya watson

      thanks so much for this, @qrty.

      i worked on the “no” campaign in the closing weeks of the campaign. in the closing days, many wrote with concern about the YES ads being served on their sites.

      i want to make sure everyone knows how to protect themselves against the GOOGLE SURGE:

      In your Google AdSense account, go to AdSense Setup -> Competitive Ad Filter. You can block ads from specific URLs or destinations.

      in the case of the YES ads, the domain to block was (is?) http://protectmarriage.com

      protect yourself against protectmarriage!

      http://moyawatson.com/2009/02/24/how-to-not-advertise-against-yourself/

      Feb 24, 2009 at 1:52 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Wolf
      Wolf

      Mike we also need to stop taking the “High Road” The ones who lead us into apathy are the the Groups who are in charge. they ahve no REAL passion. Its a business to them.

      We need to get of our asses and FIGHT. “Not share our stories” because you know what? The bigots and haters and the religious right doesn’t care about us or our stories.

      We need to STAND UP and look them in the eye and say we aren’t going to take it anymore. We need to STOP taking the moral high road of being nice in our battles and try to publically expose them for the bigots they are. We need to align ourselves with others who they oppress. We need to hit them where it hurts. We DO NEED to BOYCOTT Businesses, and yes even STATES that are so venhimently against us. Watch how quickly Utah and Ohio change when the Gay money disappears.

      We need to be angry.

      We need to fight.

      We don;t need to be nice.

      Feb 24, 2009 at 1:57 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • flightoftheseabird
      flightoftheseabird

      @Charles J. Mueller: This was not HRC’s fight specifically however we were asked to work in the background, EQCA did not want HRC’s name attached to the fight. HRC put four full-time staffers on the ground working with EQCA. Manned phone banks, contributed early money. And it was the HRC folks in OC, LA, and SD that even made a No on 8 presence. EQCA was SF focused and they didn’t even consider working in OC until Oct. HRC members in Laguna Beach worked the Democratic Party of Laguna in opening an office for volunteers for callbanks, literature, etc, without the help of EQCA.

      Let me assure that HRC members and local HRC leaders (including myself) are extremely upset at EQCA in they way they “ran” this campaign. But our hands were tied to some extent.

      But let me assure you that HRC will be leading and organizing the campaign in 2010 working with people who know how to run campaigns and have a track record of winning.

      Feb 24, 2009 at 3:01 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Chitown Kev
      Chitown Kev

      @Wolf:

      I agree with your sentiments, but people latch on and get hooked into a story, period. Once that’s in the heads of the minds that could go one way or another, then we hammer home the message.

      And I mean, tell our story, no one else’s.

      Feb 24, 2009 at 3:10 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • cruiser
      cruiser

      Don’t they mean inflamed & enraged?!

      Feb 24, 2009 at 3:21 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Paul Raposo
      Paul Raposo

      In what may prove to be the most ill-considered publicity stunt ever mounted in an initiative campaign, a public school in San Francisco took a class of first graders to City Hall to witness the wedding of their lesbian teacher. And they brought along the media.

      And there is where we fucked up. Or rather they fucked up. The parents who brought their kids and the teacher who allowed those kids to attend her wedding all need to be slapped. Californians were in their biggest fight yet and they gave ammo to the enemy while looking for a photo-op.

      That said, I have never before read anything so nauseating in it’s joy at destroying equality. Clearly Mr. Scubert is a religious man, who most liekly believes in hell. And there he will rot for having a hand in this discrimination

      Feb 24, 2009 at 4:22 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Andrew W
      Andrew W

      I’m both absolutely furious, and yet also inexplicably craving jelly beans.

      Feb 24, 2009 at 4:47 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Paul Raposo
      Paul Raposo

      Although Mr. Schubert is proud in his win against equality, it may be his last win:

      An additional 1,600 people will be put at risk of harassment or reprisals when the postelection campaign finance reports are released Monday, said Frank Schubert, co-manager of the Yes on 8 campaign.

      Disclosing donors’ names will chill the ability of gay marriage opponents to run any campaigns related to gay marriage in the future, he said.

      “This fight is really about how donors to a future campaign (against gay marriage) will be treated,” Schubert said. “We are committed to ensuring that supporters of traditional marriage can do so without fear of intimidation and harassment.”

      And this:

      Yes on 8 Campaign Manager Frank Schubert said that the injunction was an attempt to prevent the “ongoing systemic harassment of donors,” and that proponents of the initiative were “also concerned about the impact of the harassment on future campaigns.”

      He knows if he can’t get money, he can’t run capaignes. So even though he won–for now–we will win in the end because we have hit him where it hurts; in the wallet

      Feb 24, 2009 at 4:53 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Paul Raposo
      Paul Raposo

      Here he calls those who protested the Mormon Church, terrorists:

      http://hetnorm.com/2008/11/18/frank-schubert/

      Feb 24, 2009 at 4:58 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Dismayed
      Dismayed

      Mr. Raposo: Would you have been so upset if someone back in the 1960s took a class to witness an interracial marriage? This is history in the making and you don’t want children to be aware of it? I’m really sick and tired of the other side claiming the high moral ground when it comes to children. The mistake wasn’t taking those kids to witness history; the mistake was not taking the offensive when the other side pulled the Anita Bryant card. We’ve seen this before. Can’t we learn from our mistakes?

      We have got to learn a more effective way to counter the “homos are after your children” bullshit. I don’t know what that is, but shying away from the claims or just calling them “unfair” or “shameful” won’t cut it.

      Feb 24, 2009 at 4:58 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Chitown Kev
      Chitown Kev

      “the mistake was not taking the offensive…”

      You could have left it there. I don’t know that much of went on the ground in No On 8 (being in Illinois) but it has seemed to me that all we do is react to whatever little crybaby charge these fools throw out there. Our side is always defensive, rarely taking the offensive. From what I have seen and read of the No On 8 campaign, this campaign was no exception

      Feb 24, 2009 at 5:08 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Paul Raposo
      Paul Raposo

      He opposes marriage equality, yet he supports smokers rights as constitutionally protected:

      If there is one thing the Constitution of the United States stands for, it’s the principle of equal protection for all. It’s not just the favored who enjoy constitutional rights. Or the privileged. Or the rich. Or the popular. It’s ALL. Yes, even smokers.

      http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2008/10/30/5596

      What a sack of shit.

      Feb 24, 2009 at 5:16 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Paul Raposo
      Paul Raposo

      Would you have been so upset if someone back in the 1960s took a class to witness an interracial marriage?

      If they had invited the media, then yes. There was no problem in taking those kids to the wedding. The problem was in making it a media event. All along the Yes side had been trying to make it about “protecting” children against gay marriage and those parents and their kid’s teacher gave them ammo to back up their stupid claims. You NEVER give your enemy what they want, especially a photo-op they can use against you

      Feb 24, 2009 at 5:20 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Donsnyc
      Donsnyc

      Please make you voice heard in Hawaii. Today the State Senate is in hearing regarding the bill giving civil rights to gay unions. Please contact their locals officials here:

      http://capitol.hawaii.gov/site1/senate/members/members.asp

      Also, please take the poll/survey here:

      http://www.honoluluadvertiser.com/

      Feb 24, 2009 at 5:53 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • WillK
      WillK

      Mike and Wolf – you are 100% correct. Anger has been the driving force for so many different movements we have seen in our country. Civil rights for African-Americans and Women in our country came about because these groups were furious. They were sick of being treated as second class citizens. It is time for the gay rights movement to channel this same anger and passion. It is not enough to lay back peacefully and argue democratically. I am reminded of my time living in Barcelona, Spain with an Anarchist Family (a very common political ideology in Spain). My “Uncle” said to me that “Americans are too passive and that is why you will never get anything done. Americans need to be more passionate and angry.” This could not be anymore true. We are ineffective at mobilizing the masses to change our society. Granted, it is much more difficult for our side to get people fired up, when the other side can simply turn to the churches.

      I for one am sick of it. I am trying to think of new and creative ways to organize our side. It is time to trump the religious hypocrites. If they want to play dirty, game on. I will be protesting on March 5th, in Orange County as a start. Hoping that their I can meet angry, like-minded individuals with whom I can exchange ideas. If you are in the area, you should get everyone you know to come!!

      Here is the link, if anyone is interested:
      http://blogs.ocweekly.com/navelgazing/a-clockwork-orange/gay-marriage-rally-in-front-of/

      Feb 24, 2009 at 6:00 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • sal
      sal

      wow, they used all this force and money to stop poverty in california???…..oh right,they didnt.thats because gays are more dangerous than a poor person,well now looking at the economy and all the californians who will suffer doesnt it look like a waste of dough???gays getting married aint gonna make the sky fall,naw things falling from the sky only happens in iraq(bombs)lol

      Feb 24, 2009 at 7:26 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • sal
      sal

      ….p.s. i aint laughing at iraq victims,im laughing at the hypocrisy

      Feb 24, 2009 at 7:30 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Tim in SF
      Tim in SF

      @Paul Raposo: And there is where we fucked up. Or rather they fucked up. The parents who brought their kids and the teacher who allowed those kids to attend her wedding all need to be slapped. Californians were in their biggest fight yet and they gave ammo to the enemy while looking for a photo-op.

      I agree that they should be slapped. However, you really can’t have expected those parents to know that their kids would be used by the manner in which they were. Remember, the Pro-8 side LIED six ways till Sunday about the event. A friend at my work heard that the teacher brought the kids to her wedding as a field trip without getting permission from the parents. With that degree of pernicious mendacity flying around, it was bound to stick on somebody. So, I would pull back from slapping them too hard.

      For some reason that story reminds me of the earlier days of our movement in which assimilationist gays tried to get drag queens banned from pride marches – the thinking at the time was that these freaks always were the ones who ended up on the 6:00 news, never the gay accounts or the lesbian nurses. My point is the news will always find something to focus on – no matter what. We shouldn’t be living our lives in fear of what the other side might be able to make out of it. We’d never leave our houses.

      That said, I have never before read anything so nauseating in it’s joy at destroying equality. Clearly Mr. Scubert is a religious man, who most liekly believes in hell. And there he will rot for having a hand in this discrimination

      That’s scant comfort for us atheists. I prefer to make him pay in this life. If I ever run into him, I hope it is while I am driving my car.

      Feb 24, 2009 at 7:35 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Bruno
      Bruno

      At least some here are paying attention to that fucker Schubert and his sidekick Flint (don’t forget Ron Prentice, Sonja Eddings Brown and that Pugno bastard either). We spend all this time being angry at “the Mormons,” “the haters,” “the blacks,” etc., and yet no one hardly talks about Schubert and how he single-handedly turned the tide on our civil rights. Why aren’t we protesting outside this guy’s house?

      Feb 24, 2009 at 7:52 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Tim in SF
      Tim in SF

      @Bruno: Why aren’t we protesting outside this guy’s house?

      Wow, Bruno. I can’t believe I didn’t think of this. What a great idea!

      How does one go about organizing a protest?

      Where do these cunts live?

      Feb 24, 2009 at 8:29 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Charles J. Mueller
      Charles J. Mueller

      @Wolf:

      Hear. Hear.

      Feb 24, 2009 at 9:05 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Bruno
    • alan brickman
      alan brickman

      why does everybody conveniently forget that 50% of gays didn’t go out to vote on this most crucial basic right in this referendum??…..

      Feb 24, 2009 at 11:04 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Mad Professah
      Mad Professah

      Alan Brickman

      Ummm, what’s your source for saying 50% of gays didn’t vote on Prop 8?

      Why should we believe a word Frank Shubert says when he can’t even count??

      YES ON 8: 7million
      NO ON 8: 6.4 million
      MARGIN: 600,000 votes

      If he’s lying (oe mistating) the margin of victory how can we believe his self-reporting of internal financial margins and poll results??

      Feb 25, 2009 at 12:53 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Michael
      Michael

      Yes on protest! Yes on Jelly Belly! also.

      Feb 25, 2009 at 12:55 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Mike
      Mike

      @WillK:

      That is actually the church I attend, Matt. I do believe that we should rally wherever we can do so in the largest mass. I will speak with Kergan tomorrow to see if we are coordinating with or reaching out to any and all other rallies planned for that date. I would like this to be done in conjunction with The Eve of Justice/OC, but Kergan did not mention that point when he wrote earlier. I hope to see you at our event, however.

      As for those speaking about the wedding of the school teacher, we can diffuse that by being far more visible in public, when on dates or with our significant others. In places were we feel safe, hold hands, kiss good-bye at an airport, and put yourselves out there. The more often parents need to explain to their children why “those two men are holding hands,” the less the threat that “it” will be taught in schools will mean.

      If being visible as GLBT individuals was necessary during the Milk era, today it is necessary that our relationships are visible. This is key.

      Feb 25, 2009 at 1:30 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • bobspice
      bobspice

      @Andrew W: Thank you, Andrew. I was beginning to feel truly depressed after reading about Mr Schubert et al. You rescued me from the ‘black dog’ with the first ‘belly’ laugh of the day.

      Feb 25, 2009 at 10:29 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Churchlady
      Churchlady

      NO on 8 had more money overall but the campaign professionals and EQCA leadership totally blew the campaign. They used no gay couples and never developed a message that was anything but pablum. Worst of all – they BANNED the front-and-center role for clergy – especially clergy of color – who support marriage equality and whose voices would easily have countered the religious right. The hostility to the faith community was idiotic. We participated deeply in the No on 4 effort and WON that SAME constituency of those in the shaky middle. We won by exactly the same percentage that No on 8 lost. When you have natural allies who can speak to the center, USE them. The arrogance caused the loss – so look to the LGBTQ leadership in the campaign. The Right did not win. The marriage equality campaign lost – and that was preventable.

      Feb 25, 2009 at 11:42 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Bill Perdue
      Bill Perdue

      Stupidly, No on 8, instead of fighting, asked “Do you really want to hurt me?”

      Obama’s not so strange bedfellow Warren, along with the catholics and the mormons answered “Yes!”

      We’re not going to get anywhere until we leave the Democrats and their hand puppets like the No on 8 misleadership and HRC in the dust and build an independent GLBT left, nationwide and democratically structured, and mount a serious ‘won’t take no for an answer’ campaigns of mass marches, boycotts and etc. Our target has to be churches and politicians who encourage violence against our persons and our rights as citizens.

      Feb 25, 2009 at 4:22 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Tim in SF
      Tim in SF

      @Bill Perdue: We’re not going to get anywhere until we leave the Democrats and their hand puppets like the No on 8 misleadership and HRC in the dust and build an independent GLBT left, nationwide and democratically structured, and mount a serious ‘won’t take no for an answer’ campaigns of mass marches, boycotts and etc. Our target has to be churches and politicians who encourage violence against our persons and our rights as citizens.

      I’m a loyal Democrat and won’t be leaving the party. However, I definitely see the truth in what you are saying. We need to hit back and hit hard where the enemy sleeps, so to speak: picketing their churches and their homes. Publicly shaming them through tech tools like eightmaps.

      Unlike you, though, I think we can grab the Democratic leadership by the hair and drag them along with us. Going third party is a stupid waste of time.

      Feb 25, 2009 at 4:41 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Bill Perdue
      Bill Perdue

      @Tim in SF: The Democratic Party is a political closet. In the absence of economic democracy any hope for political democracy is delusional.

      Going third party is a stupid waste of time.

      Political campaigns and elections are at best a chance for mass education. However, given that this country is dominated by competing right centrist parties, promises for change are just a cover for politics as usual.

      I’m a loyal Democrat… which means you’re loyal to a party that’s murdering civilians from Palestine to Pakistan, that’s passing out trillions to the looter rich and pennies to the millions being fired and losing their homes and cars and loyal to Obama who torpedoed our chances for same sex marriage with “gawd’s in the mix”.

      When I talk about a mass campaign against our enemies I am not advocating a GLBT party, except in very rare local cases. Labor, Blacks and Latinos all have the weight to conduct independent political action and we should support that. What we need is the creation of an independent GLBT left, independent because our enemies control both parties. Being in a party like the Democrat party is being in the same political closet as the LCR types.

      Feb 25, 2009 at 5:31 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Phoenix (Mocks your Extremist Organization)
      Phoenix (Mocks your Extremist Organization)

      Why is anyone pissed off at the teacher? She didn’t bring the kids to her wedding. The parents of the children decided to surprise her by showing up at the courthouse. The idea was supported by their school. The wedding pictures were used without permission of the parents or the teachers or the school…and they are suing these douche-bags. It’s a free fucking country. Lesbians (and the rest of LGBT) should be allowed to have anyone they damn well please at their wedding.

      Why would you get angry at those parents or the school admin? They fully support gay marriage!

      Hey, dumb ass, if you want to get angry at someone and slap some people around, save your anger for those who deserve it: “Yes on (H)8″ and those who voted and funded it. They are the enemy. Not people who are for gay marriage.

      Feb 25, 2009 at 9:50 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • alan brickman
      alan brickman

      why weren’t gays marching for the last eight years?? This didn’t just sneak up on everyone you know….

      Feb 25, 2009 at 11:32 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Glenn I
      Glenn I

      @Mike: Spot on, Mike.

      The Yes on H8ers want to sell themselves as the plucky underdogs who pulled out a win! Just another lie to sell, a lie to go with all the other lies with which they spattered the airwaves during the campaign and barfed over their barf-hungry congregations. See, aren’t they great at selling! Whee!

      “Hate the sin? No; they hate us, and they would do anything that they could to simply eradicate us from society in any way that they can.”

      If there had been no Yes on H8 campaign at all would we have won? Probably. But no sure thing there! One of the Mormon H8ers interviewed by the NYTimes said their biggest obstacle was apathy. When asked, ordinary people would shrug. Who cares? they’d say. The H8ers only had to move people slightly. From Who cares? to Oh Well If There’s Something Bad About It …

      Feb 27, 2009 at 2:31 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Glenn I
      Glenn I

      @Paul Raposo: Paul, stop turning on your allies. The school teacher who got married deserves no slap. She deserves congratulations. The parents who encouraged their children to celebrate their teacher’s love deserve no slap. They deserve kisses.

      If you want to slap people I encourage you to march into a Mormon temple and start slapping. Slap all down the pews, one after another. I’m sure each will turn their cheek so you can neatly redden both. Then take a bus to the Catholic Church.

      Feb 27, 2009 at 2:36 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Brian Miller
      Brian Miller

      One of the questions I’ve asked my federal representatives is why Pennsylvania taxpayers should have to send money to a Hate State like California. If it has the money to drive its gay families and taxpayers out of its state, it has the money to fix its own budget problems without demanding a bailout from the federal government and other states.

      Feb 28, 2009 at 8:02 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • LibertarianMatt
      LibertarianMatt

      @Bill Perdue:

      As a straight ally, may I suggest to you this web site for those who feel betrayed by the Democratic Party and its years of empty promises to your cause of civil rights.

      http://www.outrightusa.org

      Just like Levi’s, individual freedom and liberty never “went out of style.” At least in our party’s case, unlike the other two parties dominated by jackasses and elephants, we were always clear on our position. Unlike that flip flopping band waggoner author of DOMA Bob Barr (I wanted Mike Gravel!)

      Mar 1, 2009 at 11:52 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Bill Perdue
      Bill Perdue

      No thanks. I’m a socialist. We don’t have much in common politically.

      My attitude towards elections is that they’re primarily useful as educational tools. If they acually led to real, fundamental change, to ending government by, for and of the rich they’d be outlawed.

      Mar 1, 2009 at 6:37 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • petted
      petted

      Rhat said this was a good sum up – thanks Japhy. I’m really looking forward to the opening ‘arguments’ on thursday – I know I’m picking up a candle that might be dynamite looking to the courts but I can’t turn my back and ignore them either.

      Mar 2, 2009 at 12:54 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • petted
      petted

      @petted: wow that was some bad editing on my part – shrug

      Mar 2, 2009 at 12:54 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • M Sparks
      M Sparks

      You made some great points in that post.

      Apr 17, 2009 at 3:49 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Rick
      Rick

      You disgusted gay pigs! You’re jealous that we won?

      Remember, always and forever – YES ON 8!

      Jun 4, 2009 at 11:45 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • coh4 key
      coh4 key

      Your web site is definately worthy of a bookmark, thank you!

      May 17, 2011 at 6:24 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·

    Add your Comment

    Please log in to add your comment

    Need an account? Register It's free and easy.



  • QUEERTY DAILY

     




    FROM AROUND THE WEB

    Copyright 2014 Queerty, Inc.
    Follow Queerty at Queerty.com, twitter.com/queerty and facebook.com/queerty.