Three leading gay rights groups will spend $250,000 on ads promoting gay marriage.
I'm a staunch supporter of gay marriage, but I think that this money could be better spent. As John Aravosis says, "[I]f we've got a quarter of a million dollars to piss away on ads, I'd like to think there are a lot better uses for that money, like, oh, say promoting the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) which would ban anti-gay job discrimination, which polls at around 70% support, and which has relatively strong support in Congress."
[X-posted at Posted by - July 25, 2006, at 02:22PM | in Politics
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Gay Groups To Launch $250,000 campaign for gay marriage.
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.feministing.com/cgi-bin/movabletype/mt-tb.fcgi/3685
Weekly Feministing Newsletter
Feministing RSS Feed
Short-term, you're probably right. I'm not entirely sure about this because I don't know what ENDA's fighting chance is, but if it has a 70% support, then it's probably good to agitate for it right now.
But long-term, it's important to keep shifting the center to the left. It's likely that part of the reason ENDA polls so well now is that moderate Americans view it as the sensible center between gay marriage and legal employment discrimination.
I don't see this as an either/or thing. $250,000 spent on ads promoting gay marriage do not constitute "pissing away" the money, provided that the ads are reasonably good.
Cheers,
TH
"do not" --> "does not." Bother.
Cheers,
TH
I agree, TH.
It's important to understand how to win and what constitutes winning. In sports also, it's easy to focus on the short gains. In football you want to win the game, or you just want to get a touchdown, or sometimes you're just focused on getting a first down. You can conceivably do this for years and never get to the superbowl or past the first round of the playoffs. It's very easy to think you're winning when you're not.
It's important to think about November. But there will always be more elections, and no amount of hiding behind the sofa is going to keep Republican voters at home.
So a more comprehensive, long term commitment is needed, and building up of your base. The media exposure through the ad is part of that. The more legitimate community leaders you have coming out publicly in support, the stronger the base, and the stronger the movement.
I liked some quotes from the original article:
"This is a long-term conversation. Our job is to make sure people hear about gay families and why marriage matters, and not be drowned out by the horse race of the moment."
"GLAAD's executive director said the ad campaign was a milestone because of the strong support from straight political and religious leaders."
None of that can be a bad thing. You don't win by getting weaker, smaller, thinner, or less visible. There are certain things which cause change in the culture and open up the political landscape, for any cause, for example:
1) The "problem" doesn't seem to go away despite a small but vocal opposition. 2) The people who demand rights are pretty much just like me and actually deserve them. 3) My greatest fears have not come true 4) People I respect seem to accept this group, so I might as well too.
So if it's not just first downs you want, then you need a sustained, broad campaign and not just sink all your money into a political party or peripheral issue.