SHOREVIEW, Minn. (AP) — The word "homosexual" was rarely uttered in public when Louise Pardee was growing up, but now the 81-year-old is dialing up fellow Minnesota senior citizens trying to convince them gay relationships are nothing to fear.
"Often I find myself saying, 'I know this isn't an easy thing to talk about,'" Pardee said, between calls at a phone bank in suburban St. Paul set up to fight a proposed constitutional ban on gay marriage.
Minnesota is one of four states with gay marriage on the November ballot, and gay rights supporters hope this is the year they finally get a win after defeats in 32 previous state votes on the definition of marriage. They are encouraged by national polls showing increasing acceptance of same-sex marriage by younger generations.
But the outcome may depend on winning over some senior citizens, who vote in high numbers and have been a key factor in the decisions in the other states, including socially liberal ones like California.
"We've always been able to count on people over 65 voting our way in higher numbers than any other age group," said Frank Schubert, the political strategist leading the campaigns against gay marriage in Minnesota, Maine, Maryland and Washington state. He expects the same this year. Recent polls have showed a tight race on Minnesota's gay marriage question.
Reaching seniors is a priority for campaigns on both sides of the issue, as they employ elaborate voter outreach operations to both motivate their natural supporters and reach demographic groups that might be persuadable. In Minnesota, people older than 65 represent 13 percent of the population, about average compared with other states, and reliably post the best voter turnout percentages of any age group.
Gay rights organizations have recruited dozens of senior volunteers and given them lists of names culled from voter registration lists. The callers are trained, including by going through role-playing exercises to help them talk to older voters about a concept that was largely unthinkable for most of their lives.
The conversations can be awkward, says Pardee, but not impossible.
"People think it sounds hard to convince seniors on this subject, because we grew up with the taboos. But we're a group that's more open to arguments about fairness and justice," said Pardee, a widow and grandmother who once worked in public relations.
Elderly voters cite religious concerns most often. The volunteers' script suggests this response: "I'm a person of faith. One of the values important to me is to treat people the way I would want to be treated. This amendment is hurtful to so many people, which is why I'm voting no. What do you think about that?"
These volunteers are also encouraged to improvise. They bring up their children and grandchildren, gay people they've known, how their own faith informs their support for gay couples.
Minnesotans United for All Families, the lead group fighting the amendment, has also mounted phone banks micro-targeting other demographic slices: blacks calling blacks, Hispanics calling Hispanics and so forth. Campaign spokeswoman Kate Brickman said the group has reached at least 500,000 people through phone banks and other outreach efforts.
Minnesota for Marriage, the chief group seeking to ban gay marriage, is not tailoring its phone bank efforts to deliver a specialized message to specific demographic groups. The state campaign, said Schubert, emphasizes the idea that making gay marriage socially acceptable would make it easier for young people to embrace a gay lifestyle.
The group, which is receiving substantial funding from Catholic organizations, is using alliances with thousands of churches and religious groups to help them reach seniors, in addition to other churchgoers. Seniors attend church in higher numbers than younger age groups.
"The beauty of our campaign is it's a universal message, that children need a mother and a father and that they best thrive in a home where both those parents are there and loving them," said Winnie Okafor, outreach coordinator for Minnesota for Marriage.
Several visitors to a seniors activity center in downtown Minneapolis said they can't reconcile gay marriage with their religious views.
"I believe in one man and one woman," said Art Posingies, 82. "I'm a Christian, I go to church. If it's in the Bible, I believe it and that settles it."
Don Leners, an 80-year-old retired marketing executive, said he's uncomfortable with letting gay couples join the institution of marriage.
"If they took out the word 'marriage,' I'd be fine with it," Leners said. "Call it civil unions, whatever, that's just fine. I have no direct bias against them."
Joe Nyquist, an 83-year-old retired doctor who is making calls for the pro-gay marriage group, said he's encountered many older men who don't want to talk about gay people at all. When he senses high discomfort, Nyquist shifts the conversation to the question of amending the state constitution.
"We already have a law that prevents them from getting married," Nyquist told an older male senior during one call. "I don't like to put something like that in the constitution, which is usually used to protect people."
Nyquist said he was motivated to volunteer by his own gay son, a 58-year-old who's been with his partner for 18 years. He shares that story with seniors he has called.
"'What do they do in bed?' one man asked me," Nyquist recounted. "I said I don't know, I've never been there but I imagine it's not that different than what I do with my wife. I got into a little bit of an argument with him. We're not supposed to do that."
Copyright 2012 The Associated Press.
Comments (15)
Add commentYeah, we're a tough crowd ...
... because we were raised with good values and because we've learned a few things along the way.
What do they do in bed?
Who gives a damn, we don't worry about what the straight people do in bed.
Frank Schubert: Wonder what his sister thinks of him?
Frank Schubert, the political strategist leading the campaigns against gay marriage in Minnesota, Maine, Maryland and Washington state and who has a lesbian sister raising two children in a domestic partnership, says, “It’s hurtful to know that many people think I dislike gays and lesbians and wish them harm.”
Heck, where would they get that idea?
And then I read he was married, had children, got the marriage annulled, divorced and then remarried. Sounds like he is redefining marriage, too.
He has earned millions in Minnesota for working to pass this proposed amendment.
Actually, Southie...
...an annulment means a marriage was defective from a sacramental standpoint in the first place. It's not a divorce, it's a recognition that there was something missing for a valid marriage.
Talk about twisting words.
Defective? Sometimes your rhetoric is beyond the pale. So it wasn't a marriage? I bet their kids feel bad about that. Being conceived and born in a non-marriage? Hmm...sounds familiar...
And Frank is a hypocrite... he says kids must live with their two parents, and not two other adults. But his didnt.
It's all about the money with him. Would he be so devoted to his purpose as a volunteer?
Anybody wondering if the Code pink ladies pressed their suit in court today?
Annulments always recognize the kids as legitimate...
...but not the marriage. A valid sacramental marriage needs three elements:
1) A woman and a man must be free of any impediment that would prevent marriage (for example being currently married, or having a living spouse to whom one of the parties had a valid sacramental marriage).
2) The couple must, by an act of their will, irrevocably choose to give and accept one another in a life long marriage.
3) They must be married according to the laws of the Church so that the Church and the wider community will be certain about the validity of their marriage.
I might add that you are quite judgmental about things of which you have no knowledge or understanding. Did you learn that in "teacher school"?
Owww,
I even felt that. I bet southie didn't even flinch.
Muehl, I picked a phase in your post..Sacramental Marriage...
So, there are degrees...
...
Sacramental Marriage...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_marriage
Snippet:
The early Church recognized matrimony as one of the seven sacraments, but did not consider them equal in importance...
...
Marriage...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage
Snippet:
Marriage (also called matrimony or wedlock) is a social union or legal contract between people called spouses that creates kinship.
...
So, we're back to the beginning...
Sacramental Marriage has it's roots in Church...
Marriage has it's roots in State...
...
Yet again, Separation of Church and State comes around...
...
And Frank Schubert is all about winning...
Unbeaten...
And supports the Sacramental Marriage view...
And this is only MY Opinion...
Wants to keep an Unbeaten Streak of Introduction of Discrimination which denies Civil Rights into Constitutions which applies to All Citizens...
...
Minnesotans are better than that...
Reaffirmation of Separation of Church and State and using Marriage in the State Definition...
Spouse...
Kinship...
And Prevent Introduction of a Denial of Civil Rights into a document that protects and respects the values of ALL Citizens...
Me thinks
You meant that lake south of here right Sir??
What's your point, Scribbles?
We were talking about a Church annulment, not a legal annulment, so obviously I was talking about sacramental marriage. The rules for secular marriage annulments are different, though related.
Maybe this video will explain the public purpose of marriage (unrelated to religious sentiments) in a way you can understand...
http://youtu.be/nPgZ2Mq1Ugw
Muehlbau
You forgot one more thing necessary for an annulment, "money. " I was told I could have one for the proper amount of money, by a priest who was on the deciding council.
Schubert, emphasizes the idea
Schubert, emphasizes the idea that making gay marriage socially acceptable would make it easier for young people to embrace a gay lifestyle.
So...does that mean Schubert is afraid that there will be a gay epidemic because more and more young people will spontaneously turn gay? This is plain stupid, because being homosexual or heterosexual isn't a choice. People are born that way. It shows that his real motivation is fear and intollerance of gay people.
Or....does Schubert mean that teenagers and young adults would be able to come out of the closet without fear of persecution, harassment, being beaten to death, or any of the other things homophobics generally do to them? Perhaps they can not feel so socially awkward, unwanted, confused, or humiliated by who they are. And that might lessen rates of depression and suicide among this demographic. Gosh....I can't imagine why we would want to do anything to help our kids grow up to be happy, well adjusted, productive adults? Whew....better squash that idea. What are we thinking?
Okey, you're mighty sure of yourself for someone who has no
...facts. I've read some studies on homosexual demographics and taken together they seem to indicate that the rate of homosexuality is subject to change. All it takes is a relatively small group of homosexual pedophiles to bump the rate up through the roof over a matter of decades--just look at Boston. Also, we're talking about behavior here, you'd have to be pretty naive to think that promoting a behavior is going to have no effect on its prevalence.
So Muell..... In your
So Muell.....
In your "studies" have they determined that an increase in openly homosexual people is because more of them are BORN that way in areas that "promote" the behavior? Or are they seeing more openly gay people because more of them have publicly come out of the closet?
I believe it is the later. In an environment where people don't have to fear persecution, they are more likely to come out. Hence, you may SEE more gay people than you did before. But the fact is, they were gay before. A welcoming environment doesn't result in more gay people, it results in more gay people able to reveal that they are gay. The number remains constant. It's like the idea that you are never more than 6 feet away from a spider. So really, you are constantly surrounded by spiders. Eeewww, right? But since you don't see them you aren't constantly creeped out. Same thing here. You probably encounter gay people every day. You just don't know they are gay.
And since, according to you, homosexual pedophiles can "bump up" the rate of homosexual people, I'd like to know how they do that. They don't "breed" more homosexuals. So how does that happen? Do people want to imitate pedophiles? And if homosexual pedophiles have that effect on the gay population, then what effect to heterosexual pedophiles have on the heterosexual population? Or are you claiming that all gay people are pedophiles? Do you know what a pedophile is? I know many gay people and none of them are pedophiles.
The research I've done has shown that being gay is coded into DNA. People are born gay or straight, just as they are born male or female. And there is much common sense that supports this. I ask you. When did you decide to be heterosexual? You didn't. You just knew you were heterosexual, right? Me too. I just knew I was heterosexual. When puberty kicked in, members of the opposite sex were interesting in a whole new way. But if I ask my gay friends when they "became" gay, they tell me they just always were. There was no choice in the matter. They admit is was confusing because it was clear they didn't feel like most of their peers, but they always had a very clear understanding that they were attracted to members of the same sex. Making out with a member of the opposite sex was as repulsive to them as making out with a member of the same sex would be to me. They were just born that way. And if it were a choice, then who on Earth would CHOOSE to live a life where they are certain to be harassed, discriminated against, mocked, hated and maybe even killed? Why wouldn't they choose to just be heterosexual? BECAUSE IT'S NOT A CHOICE. It's not a disease. It's not something you "catch". It's not a club you can "join". Gay people are born gay, and you can't change that fact no matter what kind of legislation or amendments you vote for. All you can do is make it harder for them to have a normal life. And since that's obviously your goal, I ask you why? What did a gay person ever do to you to make you believe that gay people don't deserve a normal life with the same rights and privileges as the rest of us?
So, no....recognizing that people are all people no matter if they look like you, act like you, or are different from you isn't "promoting" a homosexual lifestyle, and it will not result in everyone being converted to being gay. What you might find is that some folks you thought were straight will actually feel comfortable revealing to you that they are, in fact, gay. And guess what....you might find that you genuinely like them as a person. And you might find that to deny them basic rights is wrong. Oh my....what a horrible thing that will be.
Don't Get The Argument
I really don't understand what the argument is against gay marriage. So far, all I have heard is that it's against some people's religious views.
If it's a matter of religious views, that doesn't belong in our constitution. Personal values and religious views are just that...personal. My religious views are for me to guide my own life, not to force others to adapt to them.
I am not seeing what harm is caused by allowing gays to marry. I'd be open to hearing a good argument, but so far I haven't heard one.
If it's simply an issue of morality, then it's simple. If you feel that either being homosexual is immoral, then don't practice homosexuality. If you feel that the marriage between homosexuals is immoral, then don't marry someone of your gender. Simple.
But I, for one, do not want to live in a society that forces me to submit to the morals of anyone other than my own moral compass.