Slog Music

Music, Nightlife,
and Drinks

Monday, October 8, 2012

Why the Latest $650,000 for the Anti-Gay Campaign Is Not Something to Be Tossed Lightly Aside

Posted by on Mon, Oct 8, 2012 at 6:45 PM


Preserve Marriage Washington, the campaign attempting to reject Referendum 74 and thereby nix gay marriage, has received more dough, according to the Washington State Public Disclosure Commission. The National Organization for Marriage tossed in another $400,000, bringing its total up to three-quarter million dollars, while the Catholic fraternal group Knights of Columbus gave $250,000.

No, this isn't shocking. And, yes, gay marriage is leading in the polls. And, true, the marriage equality campaign—Washington United for Marriage—is kicking their ass at fundraising. They've hauled nearly $9 million compared to Preserve Marriage Washington's $1.9 million.

But anyone who dismisses NOM, KOC, or money that will surely follow is a fool. The statewide dialogue up to now has been controlled almost entirely by gay-rights advocates. The advantage we have now is one that exists before the anti-gay campaign even opens its mouth. Their ads begin airing on October 15, and they will get more traction with less money. Reserved to the tune of $1.5 million, the ads are being designed by Frank Schubert, whose commercials in Maine depicted girls marrying princesses, a chalkboard with the words "gay sex," teachers discussing penetration, and the looming—dishonest—specter that "homosexual marriage will be taught in schools."

To scare the shit out of Washington, they only need enough money for one statewide blitz. And now they've got it.

PS — I'm not saying that gay marriage will fail. It will be close no matter what. All that stuff about talking to your family in the hinterlands, phone banking, donating, etc—it's just more crucial than ever.


Comments (18) RSS

Oldest First Unregistered On Registered On Add a comment
Baconcat 1
So what should we do that we aren't already doing? Clergy/GOP ads, moms, families, pictures of gay couples in our ads, phone banking, telling our story and an awareness that this would be kinda close -- what unknown are we overlooking? We know about the "I can marry a princess" ad, likely "loss of religious freedom" ad and maybe a "there's already R-71" ad, what's new? We knew about the money even.
Posted by Baconcat on October 8, 2012 at 7:00 PM · Report this
I still don't get what the fuck "TEACHING HOMOSEXUAL MARRIAGE IN SCHOOL" is even supposed to mean. People will acknowledge in passing that us queers can marry each other? Kids will be traumatized and destroyed, I'm sure.
Posted by Meemaw on October 8, 2012 at 7:43 PM · Report this
Frank Schubert creates homophobic commercials? I thought all he did was write piano songs and chamber works.
Posted by floater on October 8, 2012 at 7:50 PM · Report this
brandon 4
I dunno, I was talking with my aunt who lives in Fresno, CA (consider it the clenched asshole of California) and she said that at this same point in the election in 2008 they were already blanketing the airwaves with their "coming storm" ads. What are the No on 74 guys waiting for?

Something just seems different. Still phone bank, donate, and talk to your aunts and uncles, but I'm going to choose to be optimistic.
Posted by brandon on October 8, 2012 at 8:10 PM · Report this
Gus 5
How much would it cost to push poll eastern Washington with "Islamic Sharia Law forbids the voting in favor of Referendum 74. Does this information make you more or less likely to vote for Referendum 74 and against Islamic Sharia Law?"

Confuse the bigots and twist their bigotry against itself.
Posted by Gus on October 8, 2012 at 8:24 PM · Report this
Far be it from me to speak about anything for the Gay Community, however, I will go out on a limb here (yeah, I know which one you're thinking).

To me the whole Gay Marriage thing is the same mistake as Al Gore making environmentalism all based on Global Warming. It is a roll of the dice, a high gamble which may or may not pay off. And it could be tragically wrong and make it worse for all involved.

By observation, it seems to me, something like "gay" is not just "another sexuality". It doesn't have to necessarily fit into the templates of heterosexuality. Yes, there are those who want it to. There are those who think it would be a good thing and what I see is that some outside leaders, who would like to gain the backing of Gay play to that scenario.

However, I wonder if some rapprochement needs to be agreement that is actually more attuned to what is wanted directly by all parties involved.

Ok, load up your straws with spitballs and fire away...
Posted by Supreme Ruler Of The Universe http://_ on October 8, 2012 at 9:21 PM · Report this
So what should we do that we aren't already doing? Clergy/GOP ads, moms, families, pictures of gay couples in our ads, phone banking, telling our story and an awareness that this would be kinda close -- what unknown are we overlooking?

Hmm... clergy, moms, families, pictures of gays... indeed what is missing? I mean who is more directly affected by the legislation than clergy, moms, families, and photos of gay couples?

The mind boggles.
Posted by madcap on October 8, 2012 at 11:11 PM · Report this
@6: the law up for referendum says that same-sex couples can marry; it doesn't say they have to.
Posted by madcap on October 8, 2012 at 11:13 PM · Report this
Mark in Colorado 9
@6 "Far be it from me to speak about anything for the Gay Community"

Your words are meaningless. You speak with the luxury of heterosexual privilege and all the rights (including marriage) afforded to it. And in typical fashion you proceed to lecture on something for which you are clearly intellectually and experientially barren to discuss.
Posted by Mark in Colorado on October 9, 2012 at 3:42 AM · Report this
Posted by Tacoma Traveler on October 9, 2012 at 7:07 AM · Report this
Cato the Younger Younger 11
Give money to get this passed! Give until it hurts. Seriously..
Posted by Cato the Younger Younger on October 9, 2012 at 7:23 AM · Report this
well what could be done is an anti that starts with the footage from a california anti gay ad, then zooms out so you see a person in washington watching it and commenting on it.

"This is all they got? We're going to teach kids that being gay is not monstrous? Time to tell the truth. What's monstrous is lying and manipulating people -- don't let them do it." You address it. You call them out. Until Joe McCarthy is challenged he keeps on bullying.

The current run of ads is great in terms of setting the stage, it's like a bio ad for a candidate -- hi we're gays, this measure does this, see? it doesn't hurt you and it's pro marriage. Then you need a negative response ad when the shit is hurled at you. You do not need to ignore it, which is fatal.

(pls. copy this e mail to Obama too, before his next debate).
Posted by Go "straight" at 'em on October 9, 2012 at 7:33 AM · Report this
The carpetbaggers at NOM and PMW are disgusting. Has anybody noticed that they bought about 9000 "likes" for their Facebook page from Thailand just so it wouldn't look so pathetic?…
Posted by aislander on October 9, 2012 at 8:50 AM · Report this
What else can we do? Focus on rural areas. I was in Maine in 2009, which was a very similar situation- legislature passed, governor signed, people's veto, and Schubert came in and ran the same (effective) campaign.

Gay marriage won big in the cities/big towns, except for heavily Catholic Lewiston-Auburn, and rural areas (especially northern Maine). This time around, they've focused heavily on those areas, starting conversations, and polls are more positive than they have been at any point in Maine's history.

Secondly, we need to go on the offensive about the "taught in schools" crap. Diffuse it before it gets any traction. It's their strongest (and most misleading) argument in terms of voter effectiveness.
Posted by JCoons on October 9, 2012 at 10:12 AM · Report this
Tracy 15
Received a political survey call on my cellphone last week. All about gay marriage. Some of the questions were skewed pretty strongly anti, though. There were a list of statements and I was asked to say how strongly I agreed or disagreed with each. In between statements such as "gay people want to get married for the same reasons straight people do" and "I believe gay marriage is a sin" was this:

"If gay marriage is made legal, it will be taught in our classrooms. And the supreme court has already ruled that parents will not be allowed to opt out of these required lessons." I don't remember all of it, and it was longer than all the other agree/disagree statements, and went on to say how the courts have already ruled to take away all your parental rights blah blah blah. WTF?!? scaremongering much?
Posted by Tracy on October 9, 2012 at 11:33 AM · Report this
Shena Lee 16
@ 10
I hope all the ads look like that, that was awful!
Posted by Shena Lee on October 9, 2012 at 12:48 PM · Report this
Shena Lee 17
does anyone have a link to schubert's princess ad?
Posted by Shena Lee on October 9, 2012 at 12:51 PM · Report this
Here ya go Shena..…
Posted by Bonnie G on October 9, 2012 at 2:56 PM · Report this

Add a comment


All contents © Index Newspapers, LLC
1535 11th Ave (Third Floor), Seattle, WA 98122
Contact | Privacy Policy | Terms of Use | Takedown Policy