People need to be educated on how children cannot be taught to be gay, how attempts to suppress gayness in a child only leads to a damaged life (and a damaged family), and how full acceptance and equality greatly reduce the possibility of their own son or daughter being deluded into a marriage destined to be dysfunctional because the spouse has hidden sexuality issues.

And people need to know that being deluded into a marriage with hidden sexuality issues is not just a possibility so remote that it’s not worth worrying about. It has been one of the constant sources of dysfunctional marriages throughout history. My own anecdotal observations of people I know and hear about tell me that these marriages have been far more numerous than I could have ever imagined when I was younger. The people I know and hear about include those who have walked away from their “straight” marriages after many years, and those still married while actively seeking/engaging in homosex on the side.

I would like to ask every parent with children some questions: Would you want your son or daughter to marry someone who is in denial about their homosexuality? Would it not be better for society to encourage marriage between people who are actually suited to each other on such a fundamental issue as sexuality? Or do you believe, as our “pro-family” opposition apparently does, that we should continue to encourage deceptive marriages because they represent a higher level of morality than homosexual relationships? Here is a story about this issue:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/11/06/AR2009110602953.html?hpid=topnews

As the debate over legalizing same-sex marriage in the District [of Columbia] grows louder and more polarized, there are people whose support for the proposal is personal but not often talked about. They are federal workers and professionals, men and women who share little except that their former spouses tried to live as heterosexuals but at some point realized they could not.

Many of these former spouses — from those who still feel raw resentment toward their exes to those who have reached a mutual understanding — see the legalization of same-sex marriage as a step toward protecting not only homosexuals but also heterosexuals. If homosexuality was more accepted, they say, they might have been spared doomed marriages followed by years of self-doubt.

. . . and the story goes on.

You are running a campaign to influence voters. Someone suggests Lady GaGa.

You look at your numbers, indicating what influences which people and in which ways, and you say {...} ?

Of course, this presupposes that a gay "Frank Schubert" exists that could control or run _a_ campaign, so maybe the question is DOA.]

A survey released by the Field Institute in mid-September showed that fully 55 percent of likely [California] 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.

The Schubert-Flint thing (only reference I could find on the web – I thought it was on AFER site, but couldn’t locate it – they split all the filings over several web pages, making it that much harder to find what you are looking for)

http://www.campaignsandelections.com/publications/campaign-election/2009/february-2009/passing-prop-8

I believe that there is a majority swath of Americans who have either positive or non-negative (not strong, one way or the other) experience interacting with gays.

But, when it comes to this question, for some reasons or some passions, their compassion stalls, for lack of a better term.

This is consistent with the Schubert analysis that was done for California.

Shubert’s work found that they had no traction politically for just ‘putting down the gays’. What they came up with, instead, was a way to turn indifference or compassion into fear, which is a powerful emotion.

Accordingly, they made people feel threatened, to “think” they were going to “lose” the public integrity of their own marriage, “lose” their religious freedom, take an unnecessary risk, and lose control the ability to ‘teach kids’ that homosexuality is wrong (the last, a brilliant coup for double-speak, since they are also claiming that God loves gays). They enlisted what are called decision ‘influencers’, primarily religious leaders.

Now consistently to defeat a campaign like that, one has to know which “hooks” are operating, how and on whom, right? One can make general guesses, but there is no substitute for real segmentation.

The other thing that is clear is that you can’t “win” with just a general (ad?) campaign, if it depends on influencing. You can’t just say, “here are our beautiful families, see, vote for us!”. You have to meet objections and raise the bar on the competition, just as they did to you. As Shimon Perez said, “If you just sing for peace, then pretty soon all you are is just a singer.”

He is now back to supporting the bill in committee and on the floor because, get this, he doesn’t support same-sex marriage and if the bill passes then “the people can vote on it”

So perhaps an Arora is a politician that is flashy but lacks principle or substance.

What changes people’s minds on these topics?

Usually someone close telling them just how much they are hurting and discounting them.

Perhaps the best example ever was when San Diego mayor Jerry Sanders threw a press conference to oppose the city’s support of marriage equality, only to come to the mike and tearfully say that he simply couldn’t hurt people he cares about and that he was going to support the cause.

Yes, the House vote will be tight. No one is making any assumptions.

Dan Savage should start another contest to redefine Arora.