Comments on: Minnesota for Marriage: They’re Coming After Our Children

By: ebohlman

ebohlman — Sat, 27 Oct 2012 03:17:55 +0000

The effective response needs to feature parents of gay kids (now grown up) essentially saying “wait a minute. What about our kids? We wanted them to grow up thinking they’d be able to marry someone they loved. Doesn’t everybody want that for their kids?”

By: LostChoi

LostChoi — Fri, 26 Oct 2012 21:59:48 +0000

I don’t blame you Ben. It’s VERY frustrating.

As we’ve all heard the old saying: Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. Our leaders in these states keep proving this saying right. :-(

By: Ben in Oakland

Ben in Oakland — Fri, 26 Oct 2012 15:05:46 +0000

Choi, it’s what I keep saying and saying, to the continuing response of “but our focus groups say…”

I sent materials about this issue to the four states, plus NC. Only Washington even bothered to respond.

As much as I care deeply about this issue, I just decided to sit it out this time. When the various campaigns have contacted me for money, I’ve told them why I’m not bothering to waste either a stamp or my retirement monies.

By: Richard Rush

Richard Rush — Fri, 26 Oct 2012 12:41:24 +0000

The message, “They’re Coming After Our Children,” works because vast numbers of parents don’t want their kids to be gay. A significant percentage of that vast number are ignorant and/or stupid enough to worry that if their kid learns in school about gays in a non-negative context, the kid will decide that being gay is a cool choice, and will come home one day and say, “Hi mom. Hi dad. I’m gay now.” And because our side has not educated those parents on how full equality for gays benefits everyone, and how being gay is not a choice, the fear (even just a glimmer of fear) is enough for those parents to vote against us.

By: Hunter

Hunter — Fri, 26 Oct 2012 12:10:45 +0000

I’m just surprised it took them this long.

By: Eric in Oakland

Eric in Oakland — Fri, 26 Oct 2012 01:35:32 +0000

Wouldn’t the obvious rebuttal be to point out that the proposed amendment has nothing to do with schools or curriculums? And that the people attempting to make that connection are trying to deceive the public because they have no case otherwise?

Also, this type of disgusting message was not even new when Prop 8 was on the CA ballot. Since Anita Bryant the anti-gay crusaders have successfully been deceiving the ignorant with false claims about harm to children. With over 30 years of this tactic, our side should be better prepared.

By: LostChoi

LostChoi — Thu, 25 Oct 2012 23:32:41 +0000

All: just ignore the “John Hughes” troll. It’s not worth it.

By: John Hughes

John Hughes — Thu, 25 Oct 2012 23:23:12 +0000

Gay marriage is archaic and narrow-minded — archaic because it’s based on a 70′s idea that men and women are interchangeable when it comes to child-rearing, ignoring the latest brain science and social psych, and narrow-minded because it doesn’t see the whole social picture in which fatherless kids are filling up the prisons and rehab institutions.

By: Timothy Kincaid

Timothy Kincaid — Thu, 25 Oct 2012 23:12:32 +0000

I LOVE the message of Kluwe’s radio ad:

Kluwe: “this is America, you are entitled to life, liberty AND the pursuit of happiness”

The Government: “we know, that’s why we’re trying to change the constitution”

By: LostChoi

LostChoi — Thu, 25 Oct 2012 23:07:53 +0000

Minnesota is already lost.

At last poll, Amendment 1 was tracking 46% in favor of and 49% against the amendment … but we have to factor in the “political correctness” factor (the gay version of the “Bradley Effect”) where a certain percentage of respondents will tell the pollster what they think is politically correct, not necessarily what they will actually do at the ballot box. Past history indicates about ~5% of respondents will switch at the ballot box.

That means that we’re already behind in Minnesota … and the “Yes On Amendment 1” is just now bringing out their big gun message of “Save the Children!” which is always effective.

And I can already answer your question Jim as to “what marriage equality proponents have come up with to blunt this.” The answer: more of the same. More of the usual “It’s not fair”, “It’s not needed”, and “It’s not nice” messaging. The same failed messaging used in nearly every single lost ballot measure in the last 15 years. Emotions drive elections, and this in particular is an emotional issue. Until our leaders use strong, emotional arguments (e.g. a little girl looking at the camera, pleading “Don’t destroy my mommies’ marriage?!”) we cannot win.

Yes, Minnesota is already lost. But take heart: Maryland is still looking good. (Washington state is close to a toss-up – they need some help.)