MINNEAPOLIS (AP) — In one TV ad, a husband and wife talk fondly of a lesbian couple who moved into their neighborhood. In another, a married couple speaks of wanting fair treatment for their lesbian daughter. A third features a pastor talking supportively about gay unions.
Each of these ads ran recently in states with gay marriage issues on the November ballot. What's missing? Gay people speaking for themselves.
Four states are voting on gay marriage this fall, and gay rights groups are pouring tens of millions of dollars into key TV markets in hopes of breaking a 32-state losing streak on the issue. But even as gay people and same-sex relationships gain acceptance through pop culture staples such as "Modern Family" and "Glee," the idea is still seen as dicey by media strategists involved in the ballot campaigns, resulting in ads that usually involve only straight people talking about the issue.
The decision to keep gays in the background has been widely noticed in the gay community and debated on gay-oriented blogs, with some activists complaining that the move contradicts the central message of the gay rights movement for a number of years.
"If we don't show ourselves, people aren't going to get comfortable with who we are," said Wayne Besen, director of Vermont-based gay rights group "Truth Wins Out," one of many that presses gays to live openly with pride in who they are.
But others counsel deference for the complexities of public messaging, pointing out that the ads are designed to speak to the fears and values of the heterosexual majority, whose vote will decide the issue.
"The moderate tough guys we need to flip to win a couple of these races are still the ones who say that gays are gross," said Andy Szekeres, a Denver-based fundraising consultant who has worked on several state campaigns and had access to focus group data. "Pushing people to an uncomfortable place, it's something you can't do in a TV ad," said Szekeres, who is gay.
The definition of marriage is on the ballot this fall in Maine, Maryland, Minnesota and Washington. Beyond those, according to the Human Rights Campaign, 37 states prohibit gay marriage while six and the District of Columbia permit it. Gay activists and their allies are hoping that any wins in November would throw new momentum their way at a time when polls nationwide have shown growing acceptance for gay marriage.
Six of the seven ads broadcast in the contested states this year have featured only straight people talking about the issue. One ad, which played only in Maine, included a firefighter who talked of being accepted by his colleagues. The ads, along with most that ran in the 2008 campaign in California and in other past statewide races, rely on heterosexual family members and friends of gays talking about how the inability to marry has deprived their loved ones of rights and opportunities they should have.
Gay marriage opponents, who also have well-funded campaigns in the four states, plan to begin airing ads soon. In recent interviews, an organizer said the key message is aimed at parents, suggesting legal recognition could result in their kids being told in school and in society that it's OK to be gay.
Gay activists who have worked on the marketing campaigns say that in this battle for public opinion, it's better for gays to stay in the background.
"The simple truth is that we are trying to win over the people that are not yet with us," said Matt McTighe, campaign manager of Mainers United for Marriage, which is pushing the ballot measure to legalize gay marriage in that state. "I'm a gay man, and the general rule of thumb for me is that an ad that meets my emotional needs is not necessarily the thing that's going to change a typical voter's mind about gay or lesbian people."
A May 2011 poll by the Pew Research Center found growing acceptance of gay people on a number of fronts, but still plenty of doubts. Fifty-eight percent of poll respondents said gays should be accepted in society compared to 33 percent who said they shouldn't. More people thought gays raising children was bad for society rather than good, though the largest number of respondents were neutral on the question. The same poll found 45 percent support for gay marriage rights, up from 35 percent just two years earlier.
The first ad broadcast by Minnesotans United for All Families, which is trying to defeat the state's proposed constitutional ban on gay marriage, is aimed at parents. It features Kim and John Canny — two straight Catholics, Republicans and parents of three daughters from a Minneapolis suburb who discuss coming around to support gay marriage after a lesbian couple with an adopted son moved into their neighborhood.
The lesbian couple is briefly glimpsed in the ad, but not heard from.
Alexander Zachary, a gay man from Minneapolis, complained that the ads he's seen reflect an "antiquated mindset."
"This isn't San Francisco in 1973, where all the gay people live in one neighborhood and all the straight people live everywhere else," he said. "We're not this hidden culture anymore, so why act like it?"
Richard Carlbom, manager of the Minnesota campaign, declined to say if future Minnesota United ads would feature gay people. Upcoming ads will "articulate why gay people want to get married," he said.
Many straight people "are on a journey on this issue, and the most effective way to encourage them is to show them other people who have taken the same journey," and come to accept gay marriage, Carlbom said.
Bil Browning, a Washington, D.C., gay activist and writer, recently called a straights-only ad that ran in Washington state "a heterosexual snoozefest" on his blog. He pointed out that gay activists seem to be using the strategy even though they've yet to win a campaign. In the 32 states where the issue has been on a statewide ballot, gay marriage advocates have lost every time.
"Maybe it's time to reevaluate these strategies and include our families, actual LGBT people," Browning said. "We're never going to win if we can't show our faces. It looks like we have something to hide, and we don't."
___
Associated Press reporter Rachel La Corte in Olympia, Wash., contributed to this report. Follow Patrick Condon on Twitter: http://twitter.com/pcondonap
Copyright 2012 The Associated Press.
Comments (56)
Add commentHmm
Score so far. 32-0 Does that say something lgbt??
Gay Marriage
Not sure what Bible these people are using but my Bible says this is an abomination to the Lord. What do they think happened to Sodom and Gommorrah because of the sin fullness of the men in the town, God sent fire and hailstones down to destroy it. I am afraid if our country keeps forgetting God and allowing all the immorality to continue HE will be forgetting us. I feel sorry for the people who have these feelings but I know several who have been prayed out of this kind of lifestyle. We don't hate the person but hate the sin.
So, God didn't create these
So, God didn't create these "GAYS" ? Well then, where did they come from? Don't try to tell me it was their " choice', unless you can tell me when you made your choice. At what moment in you life did you decide to be straight instead of gay?
Trendy?
This is just my personal observation but I feel like being homosexual has become almost trendy. I agree there are some people born with the wrong kind of feelings or different sexual tendencies, they can't help it, but you can't deny that these days, with acceptabilty on the rise, that it hasn't become hip to be gay. There are people that for whatever reason have to go against the grain. Now, whether they choose to tattoo their necks or stretch out their earlobes or become "buddies" with their buddies, it could just be their way to be different. So when people say gays are born this way and don't have a choice I have to disagree. Not all homosexuals were born that way.
i dont care what the reason is
i dont care what the reason is, it can be a chemical imbalance or gods will or just human nature, i really dont care...
The fact of the matter is, homosexuals are human and if they want to marry, then let them marry.
Do I agree with homosexuality? No, but do I judge them, no. I have my reasons for judging people, but it has zero to do with their sexuality or who they love.
What I want to all you anti-gay marriage people to do for me is please explain how George and Frank in New Hampshire falling in love and getting married affects your life here in Minnesota or how Tina and Brittany falling in love in Winona changes the course of history in Brainerd.
Bible this, bible that. I read the same King James bible and this is what it says about judging:
John 7:24,“Stop judging by mere appearances, and make a right judgment.”
“1Do not judge, or you too will be judged. 2For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you. 3"Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? 4How can you say to your brother, 'Let me take the speck out of your eye,' when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? 5You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye. 6"Do not give dogs what is sacred; do not throw your pearls to pigs. If you do, they may trample them under their feet, and then turn and tear you to pieces.” (Matthew 7:1-6, NIV)
Any church can marry two men or two women if they like...
...the legal status of marriage does NOTHING to change that. I reject anylegal definition other than the definition of marriage of one man and one woman, which has served us well when it is taken seriously for THOUSANDS of years.
Make no mistake, people who oppose homosexual marriage WILL be persecuted if the courts succeed in legislating homosexual marriage from the bench. This is not about letting homosexuals marry according to their religious beliefs, it's about forcing people who do not share those beliefs to bend to their will.
No dog in this fight...
Just a point and a question...
You can't legislate acceptance.
Q: Why hasn't the GLBT community taken polygamists into their fold? It's all about love, isn't it?
Just curious.
I think Wolf was thinking of Obama's pappy and grandpappy...
...it appears Obama would have a couple of horses in that race!
And BTW, it was Mitt's Great Grandfather, not his Grandfather...
...like I said before, no transgression is too remote to damn Romney, am I right, Scary?
Ah, yes...
Scary doesn't answer. Really, I'm curious? What's the difference?
BTW - I have a sister who is a lesbian and we chatted about this the other day. Personally, I don't care who all gets married, as long as we can affort the associated costs for entitlements.
You know what I find interesting, Wolf...
...it used to be that homosexuals positively MOCKED traditional marriage. Then, they realized they could exploit it like a welfare program and suddenly they decided it was a "right".
Rights
Why do all of you take for granted there are "rights" to homosexual marriage simply because liberal judges say there are? Homosexuality diverges from what is normal---that means it is not fundamental. The Bill of Rights upholds only fundamental, individual rights. Fundamental marriage unites a man and a woman---homosexual marriage separates men and women. Where do you find "rights" in the Constitution to divergence, deviancy or behavior that isn't normal?
"Separate but equal"
The homosexual agenda likes to compare it's "fight for equality" to laws many years ago that wouldn't allow interracial marriage. Those "separate but equal" laws banning interracial marriage were discrimination---prejudice.
Homosexual marriage does the same thing with gender. In separating men and women---demanding "separate but equal genders" in marriage---each gender discriminates against the other.
"Equal" rights
In rejecting homosexual marriage, heterosexuals have been accused of treating homosexuals in an unequal manner.
The primary identities, "man" and "woman" belong to every adult human---heterosexual and homosexual. That is our individual, fundamental equality.
In their persistent demand to be called "gay," lesbian," etc., etc., they have made themselves unequal---secondary identities will never be equal to primary identities, In using the secondary identities in law, our lawmakers and judges are perpetuating the secondary status of these citizens.
Perhaps we should be asking why they refuse to wear man and woman identities like all other citizens---and ask our judges why they refuse to designate homosexuals as men and women like all the rest of us. Homosexuals are not a diffferent species.
Wolf
Good to hear from you again. Here's what you missed:
http://nothowardstern.com/2012/09/24/sal-and-richard-expose-ignorant-oba...
Very reasoned arguments, ruthann...
...it is also unjust for people to ask for equal rights when they don't perform the same duties as those who have traditionally gotten those rights. It's also worth noting that people of different races were allowed to be married long before our confused country figured out that race was not the primary issue in whether people should be eligible to be married, it is sex. You will search in vain in history for a place or time when homosexuals ever needed or wanted marriage. That's because, as you noted, ruthann, it is NOT a fundamental right.
It's not about Love...
Or about rights. It's about entitlements.
eye " I submit that that makes it normal"
I say baloney.
"Gays have been part of the human condition since there HAS BEEN a human condition"
More baloney. eyolf, prove to us that Adam. Eve, Cain or Abel were gay. After you do that we can start this discussion again. But wait,,,,,, maybe Satin was gay?
It's clearly not about entitlements for heterosexuals, though...
...Wolf, because natural marriage predates the welfare state. That's because marriage for heterosexuals serves a purpose other than giving them goodies. The stability of society to some degree is dependent on the ideal of a man and a woman bonding exclusively for life. When spouse's cheat it creates all sorts of problems because of the reproductive aspects of heterosexual relationships. "Who's your daddy?" is an important thing to know for a child for all sorts of reasons, including support, inheritance, and medical history.
Oh, and is it any wonder that the left is so confused on this...
As eyolf highlights, he thinks because there are outliers in every generation (i.e., people who engage in non-standard sexual practices) this means they are "normal". By definition these people are outside the norm, IOWs they are abnormal. When the majority of people are born homosexuals, then, and only then will you be able to call them normal. My assertion, BTW, is not based on religious beliefs, but on the meaning of the word "normal".
Governments Job
This is not about determining what is considered normal in a human being. That is not governments job. Liberty is about not being normal if one doesn't wish to be.
Its about the government regulating the relationship between two people. Whether or not they have a right to enter into a legal binding contract, the same as any other two citizens can enter into if they were different genders. If insurance companies and hospitals should recognize that relationship the same as a hetero one.
Its about the relationship and not an individuals preference....
How will gay marriage affect hetero marriage?
Gay marriage is legal in 5 states. I haven't heard of even one instance where a heterosexual marriage was threatened or degraded because of the presence of homosexual marriage. So if someone could enlighten me that would be fantastic.
And there is nothing "trendy" about being gay, especially in the Brainerd Lakes Area. Unless you enjoy being ridiculed and looked down upon by fellow classmates.
I also don't believe for one second that people have "prayed themselves" out of being gay. Middle school, junior high, and high school students want to be as normal and accepted as possible, and trust me being gay doesn't help that perception at all.
As a gay person, this thread is absolutely horrifying to read.
the definition of "normal"
"So, you think the gummint ought to ban left-handed people, cuz they're not "normal"? " This quote reminds me of this fantastic bullying commercial.
http://youtu.be/wc2WFu_95PI
Poor Scary, so confused...
...your argument is based on emotion, not reason. Normal is not a value judgment, it means "typical".
Furthermore, you are drawing the conclusion that I think homosexuals should be treated differently than everyone else. To the contrary, I think homosexuals should be treated the SAME as everyone else. That means they have the right to marry a person of the opposite sex just like everyone else. That's what marriage is, a covenant bond between a man and a woman. I'm not saying they have to do this, but if they want to be married, this should be the only option open to them just as it has been for thousands of years for heterosexuals.
And Solja, as you may have surmised from my discussion of the word "normal", I'm something of a stickler for meaning. It's not homosexuals pretending to be married will harm my marriage or anyone else's, it's that two guys or two gals playing house do not represent a marital unit. They are intrinsically, categorically, sterile. And the categorical ability to reproduce with one's spouse (note, I did not say the "specific" ability) is one-half of what marriage is all about.
My marriage is fine, thank
My marriage is fine, thank you very much, but who said that a hetro marriage is affected by a gay "marriage:?
People may talk about the institution of marriage being between a man and a woman. That is not saying that
anyone else's marriage affects ours.
It's another statement that keeps getting repeated over and over and it goes no where as that is not what people are saying.
If you think this is horrifying to read, be a gay and be against the "gay marriage" and go on the mafia gay sites and then you will see some bullying.
ah, muehls proud 'breeders'
the one with the most kids wins in her world...
so my kids are married and have no children...
is their marriage invalid? they are straight.
Breeding is the goal of a "natural marriage."
And be sure to use that "natural method" to be "naturally correct." Because scientific research shows it is "naturally" 100% effective. Otherwise, you are not "normal".
(Sarc)
Remember that TV show where the two Down Syndrome actors got married and had a child. That was a terrific show and an inspiring story line. It educated their audience and brought compassion and understanding of the mentally challenged to light. We will get there with this issue, too.
"it's about forcing people
"it's about forcing people who do not share those beliefs to bend to their will."
Like forcing gay people to bend to yours because you don't agree with their sexual orientation?
Well, if breeding is the sole
Well, if breeding is the sole goal of marriage, then why do we allow people who are infertile to marry? Do we check everyone at the alter to make sure they have not had surgical sterilization, gone through menopause, have ED or fertility issues? And do we mandate through the state that every married couple must produce at least one offspring so they can legitimize their marriage?
And what of all the babies born to unmarried women? How did they accomplish having a baby without a marriage?
Don't be stupid. There are plenty of people in the world; we don't need to "be prosperous and multiply". Marriage is not the only way to accomplish reproduction, nor is it the goal. If you really believe that's true, then we should never need birth control of any sort, unmarried people should never have sex, and even married couples should stop having sex when they are too old to raise children. If you've ever had sex without the intention of trying to make a baby, you are a hypocrite.
Today is "World Contraception Day"
Celebrate....or protest...it is up to you.
Teen pregnancies highest in Red States...in today's Slate.com
Why is that? Abstinence education not working?