In his post on AG Tom Reilly’s decision to certify the anti-marriage ballot initiative, David mentioned a website, KnowThyNeighbor.org, whose purpose is to "out" those who would sign the ballot petition. David seems pretty sanguine about the legality of such a website.
It may be legal, but it’s an absolutely terrible idea.
The pro-marriage movement needs to understand what stage of the game we’re in. There is a slim majority in favor of retaining same-sex marriage as it currently stands, and we’ve definitely got momentum on our side, but the situation is still very fluid — here and nationally. That means that we absolutely need to treat our opponents with the respect and dignity that we wish to receive.
The most likely result of such a website would be to alienate people from our cause. Look at the image on the index page of the site: A public-domain image of a woman staring with exasperation at her computer, doubtless cursing her neighbors’ ignorance. What the hell would people do with such information? Hold a protest rally at their neighbor’s house? Send a nasty note? What are the odds that someone will do such a thing? Let’s not kid ourselves: 1-1.
Several people have mentioned that MassEquality put out some shrill and misleading advertising on Pat Jehlen’s behalf. That doubtless cost her votes to Joe Mackey, who had identical views on gay marriage but did not have such abrasive stuff associated with him. We don’t have the luxury to drive away voters in this case.
As David implies, the only way to act when meeting the petitioners is to be more patient, more nice, more accepting and more sweet-natured than the other side. In other words, treat everyone like you would treat your grandmother. And never, ever take the bait that they will throw our way. That doesn’t mean compromising our beliefs; if one believes in dignity and respect for everyone, it’s living them.
(BTW, this is funny, since this image — likely public-domain — is used on Know Thy Neighbor and the anti-marriage VoteOnMarriage page, associated with the Massachusetts Family Institute. I guess this nice young couple can’t make up their minds… or else they have evil twins?)
As Lee Corso once said, “Not so fast my friend.”If the petition gets the necessary 66,000 signatures, then it will prove to be a bad strategy for the reasons listed above.However…If the petition fails to get the necessary signatures, it might be because there were thousands of people who would have signed but were embarassed by the prospect of being “outed” and therefore will keep their opinion to themselves.If that is indeed the case, then the strategy will have served effectively in keeping the initiative off the ballot, and thereby guarantee that the legality of gay marriage won’t be overturned due to that ballot.Just food for thought.
Not bloody likely, stomv. The only thing this is going to do is give really bad press to the pro-marriage movement. We need good press, sympathetic coverage — and deserve it.
I do think that there are a number of people in MA who would sign the petition but would also be embarassed if their neighbors/colleagues found out about it. I don’t know just how many people are in that sort of position, but I think it is somewhat significant.Of course, that doesn’t make this good strategy to “win the hearts and minds”, but it might prove effective in the short term. It might also win a battle and help lose the war.
My immediate response was similar to BMG’s. However, before we totally disdain this or related ideas, let’s recall how effective public shaming has been in New England. The days of the dunking stool and stocks may be gone. Yet, there is much truth to the cliché that character is what you are in the dark. Our virtuous inclinations seem to flourish in the light. I know in the South that when plain folk began to ridicule racists neighbors, true integration and acceptance appeared. Sitting on a barstool hearing that your racist words are dumb is effective. That might be a good idea in South Boston, Weston and other bigoted enclaves, eh?KnowThyNeighbor will surely be fodder for the Article 8, Herald columnists and their ilk. They’ll cry “Victim” for sure.I’m also sure these bozos will get the question on the ballot. That’s a small number of sigs for such a populous state and 25% of the legislature is a low bar.As the number of sigs reaches the thousands, KnowTheyNeighbor’s effectiveness, if any, will dwindle to nothing. Meanwhile, if it had any positive effect at all, it might be to make a few dozen or maybe hundred voters feeling peer pressure to be anti-gay/anti-SSM think that it might not be cool.
I’m unsure how I feel about whether the particular website in question – which does, after all, consist of public information – is a good idea or not or will make any difference one way or the other, but I will say two things:1) Spending our time and energy attacking the site, either trying to convince them to shut it down or shouting “oh no no no, they’re not with us” is a pointless, distracting, foolish waste of both.2) Saying that what we really really need to do is to be really really polite and really really friendly and really really sweet is really really why we keep getting our butts kicked.
LarryE, respectfully, I’ll use my time and energy however I please, thanks. If I think someone’s being petulant and counter-productive, I’m going to say so.And you’re wrong about why progressives get our butts kicked: we get beat when we waffle on what we believe, and compromise on principle. That makes things unclear. You can Google our posts on this issue in the past and see if we’ve been clear and consistent or not.The most successful progressive movements of all time have been based on appealing to people’s best instincts. I’m not going to give up on that. “Strength Through Peace”, right?
Just to be clear: It’s A-OK in my book to play hardball with Romney, Kris Mineau and other leaders, and give them hell about this. But voters — we need them. So that means: energize our base, neutralize those who lean against us, and defeat those who are dead-set against us. I do not want to antagonize the leaners — they might be persuadable.
MassEquality apparently agrees with Charley.
There are not as many people who would be shamed as you think.
I agree — so what’s the point of “knowing thy neighbor”?And what’s with the pseudo-biblical name, anyway?
The information is public anyway. How can we argue that public information should be hidden??If people are not ashamed to sign the thing, then they have no right to complain. Why should we let them hide under rocks?I intend to use it to make sure that first off, no one fraudulently signs the name of people that I know. If I see the name of any of my friends, or clients, I will notify them to make sure they know the name is there. Of course I’ll be polite about it.And if it turns out any of these people actually did sign it, well then I’ll be better off for having known where they truly stand.
It’s hard to imagine that the petitioners wont be able to come up with 66K signatures, with or without the site. If were going to win it won’t be by suppressing signatures.
So even if theyb get their signatures,will trav let it come to a vote? If not, are there 101 at the con con. Not this one, the one in may after hey get the sigs. They will need that for the 51 votes.Boy, is this confusing.
“Several people have mentioned that MassEquality put out some shrill and misleading advertising on Pat Jehlen’s behalf. That doubtless cost her votes to Joe Mackey, who had identical views on gay marriage but did not have such abrasive stuff associated with him. We don’t have the luxury to drive away voters in this case.”Charlie, what the hell are you talking about? I live in Medford and got mail from all the candidates and groups (probably about 30-40 pieces of mail total) including the massequality ones. What was shrill, misleading, or abrasive about them?I know this isn’t the main point of this thread, but that really got my attention.Have you seen some mail that I didn’t get? Or do you mean some other kind of “advertising?” What are you talking about?
Hey Charley, you hit a nerve with a real “yahoo”
MedfordDem, this was commented on by MedfordMom and David in the threadshere and here.Briefly, David “calls bullshit” on MassEq’s claim that an anti-marriage candidate would have won if Jehlen didn’t; and Medford Mom says, “we’re getting annoyed with the massequality off-topic pieces (and we are a very pro gay marriage straight couple, btw)”. Just FYI.The point about Jehlen/MassEq was somewhat peripheral; the main point is that pro-marriage forces need to consolidate their victories, and that means making friends rather than enemies. I can see some people signing the petition because someone is trying to shame them out of it: “They can’t tell me what to do!” And indeed we can’t.
Charley, I checked the posts and the mail — really nothing shrill and misleading about them. The best way to ensure that Casey didn’t win was to vote for the front runner. Why take chances if you’re a single issue voter? Also, as people posted here, it sends a good message to reward people that support you on issues.Am I the only progressive Democrat around here who thinks it’s GOOD when candidates campaign hard, to win, and then do? You said these mailings cost Jehlen votes to Mackey, but you guys were saying that Mackey had the momentum in your own posts until Jehlen beat him, by a lot, in every city in the district. What, are we supposed to learn good lessons from the losing candidates and feel icky about the tactics of the winners? Stupid!I’ll leave it here cause I know this is off topic, but you got to get over it. Jehlen ran a great campaign and won big. To equate mailings that got her votes to a website that could be a PR disaster (or more likely, a non-story except on the blogs) really shows a lack of political sophistication.And speaking of THAT, it’s funny how troll is calling me a “yahoo.” I thought he quit posting after he was shown to be dead wrong about the Senate race…in about every one of his posts.
“Lack of political sophistication”… well, I can’t argue with that. :)We agree on knowthyneighbor, and that it’s a bigger mistake than the mailings. As for the mailings, I’m just repeating what other people said. That was a perception among a few folks, and it did reflect badly on Jehlen, fairly or unfairly. Did it make a dent in her victory? Maybe, but not enough of one to matter in the result. I think we would agree that Jehlen is in much gay-friendlier territory than the state at large, and that we don’t have the votes to lose on the state-wide level.And as far as “getting over it”, we endorsed both Mackey and Jehlen! You’re absolutely right that she ran a great, well-organized and committed campaign. Insofar as that’s an indication of what kind of Senator she’d be, it’s a good sign. If she can get ducks in a row with other Senators like she can with the endorsements, she could be effective. (Does she get along with Trav?)”What, are we supposed to learn good lessons from the losing candidates and feel icky about the tactics of the winners? Stupid!”No, we are supposed to learn good lessons from good tactics that gain votes and feel icky about icky tactics that lose votes. That’s all I’m sayin’.
Charley, Medford dem is the type of progressive most people lump all progressives in. Including you. Problem is, you appear reasonable but medforddem types control party. Reasonable progressives have to unite with moderate dems and take back party from the Yahoos.It is pretty bad when yahoos attack you.
Doesn’t medforddem know the election isn’t over yet?