A campaign strategy worth replicating

I was a bit surprised to get another issue of The Washington Spectator so soon after the last one. Perhaps one was late and the other early. I am quite a bit surprised and delighted at the major article (3 of 4 pages) -- it is a discussion of what Basic Rights Oregon is doing. Alas, links are under subscription.

Back in 2004, when Michigan was battling a marriage protection amendment, so was Oregon. The one in Michigan was approved by the second-smallest percentage, 60% if I remember right. The one state that did better than Michigan, by passing it with a smaller percentage, was Oregon at 57%.

The biggest problem pro-gay forces hit in 2004 was that the ballot measures were sprung on us and we had only 6 months (if that) to change people's minds about gay marriage. With a well funded opposition preying of fears, of course it didn't work.

BRO responded to their defeat by deciding that they would be in control of the timetable for repeal. It would happen when they felt the state was ready and they would do all they could to make the state ready. They brought in a consulting firm and spent a few years researching what kinds of messages engaged the public, what worked and what didn't. As with any good campaign they are constantly reviewing the effectiveness of their message and adjusting accordingly. Then their team of volunteers knocks on 15,000 doors each summer to have face-to-face discussions. A few TV ads have been thrown into the mix and they are also researched for effectiveness.

Only when their polling shows approval of gay marriage has passed some threshold (which they won't name) will they mount another ballot initiative.

For Lou Dubose of the Washington Spectator to spend so many pages writing about BRO he must approve of their tactics. I hope other states are watching so they can follow BRO's example. I'm pretty sure nothing like this is being attempted in Michigan. As far as I can tell the big gay political organizations are waiting for attitudes to change on their own. Sigh.



A while back (maybe years ago) my friend and debate partner talked to me about the importance of gay rights organizations building coalitions with other progressive groups. I think at the time he used women's rights or their reproductive rights as an example. I thought of that while reading a commentary by Timothy Kincaid of Box Turtle Bulletin about Equality California, one of the groups that was behind the loss of gay marriage in that state in 2008. Now, EQCA has done great things, so I don't want to only mention their one flop.

Kincaid take a step back to Calif. in the mid 1980s when several gay political groups combined to form the Lobby for Individual Freedom and Equality (LIFE). For its time it did good stuff and was soon into coalition building. Kincaid says that soon LIFE strayed from its message and he lists reasons.

* A new member of a coalition must independently earn respect, but if blame is passed around the new member gets its share, no matter how inappropriate.

* A lobbyist is only effective on issues all its members agree. The bigger a coalition gets the less all its members share the same values.

* The gay community is quite diverse and forming a coalition with reproductive rights advocates will annoy conservative gays, fracturing the main message of gay rights.

* Member organizations in a coalition always care about their own cause most. If the help given doesn't match the help received the coalition won't work.

Life eventually gave way to Equality California (EQCA). It appears now, with the hiring of an immigrant person of color as executive director, EQCA will again start the coalition building process. And drift away from gay rights.


Which means EQCA will switch from a gay rights group to a progressive political group. Kincaid says that might be just fine. Calif. has made so many strides in gay rights and recognition and with new ways of organizing political response it may no longer be important for Calif. to have a state-wide political gay rights organization.

I'd be more inclined to agree with that last sentence if Calif. had already restored gay marriage.


Timothy Kincaid offered a second commentary, this one about the role New York will play in gay rights litigation. Already, the state Attorney General has filed a brief in a case challenging the federal Defense of Marriage Act. He has added an argument that only a state can make: The feds are discriminating against New York because they have chosen the definition of marriage in Alabama and applied it to citizens of New York.