Angie Paccione ran against Republican incumbent [and author of the discriminatory federal marriage amendment] Marilyn Musgrave (CO) in the Nov. 2006 congressional elections. Angie lost by 3 points. Given her very firm pro-equality, pro-Constitution stance, her near-win against a powerful incumbent is a sure sign that a fair and just approach can work. We must not let the homophobes frame this debate. “Leaders” must lead, not follow what they think is public opinion. Real leaders can and do shape public opinion.
In Paccione’s own words
“The Declaration of Independence says that we hold these truths to be self-evident that all are created equal. Equal. I stand for equality of all American citizens. Equality. No asterisks…no parentheses…every American should have equality under the law.
You know what a threat is to marriage? Divorce is a threat to marriage. You know what else is a threat to marriage? Infidelity is a threat to marriage. Domestic violence is a threat to marriage. Losing your job is a threat to marriage. Marriage is not a threat to marriage. I support equality.”
a huge h/t to Pam Spaulding
ed-prisby says
But I said as much to a friend in 2004 after watching Kerry claim he was for civil unions. “Why not just come out and admit you’re for Same Sex Marriage? Won’t most Americans at least respect the honesty?”
<
p>
My friend disagreed. He was living in Florida at the time, and I still remember him saying, “No way, man. You don’t understand how irrational a lot of people are about this.”
<
p>
Maybe he’s right, maybe not. But I do think a serious Presidential contender would not only have to deal with the consequances of the statement’s affect on the middle-of-the-road crowd, he or she would also have to deal with the self-fulfilling label, “Too Liberal To Win,” which, as our Howard Dean fans know, can be a real killer.
<
p>
Someday someone will have the guts to make that statement (and to tie his or her consultant to a chair backstage), but I doubt it will be 2008.
<
p>
PS – Maybe we should be keeping an eye on Angie Paccione?
laurel says
Ed, I agree taht this approach isn;t for everyone. SOme candidates are capable of taking control of the debate (Paccione, Deval), while others (Edwards?) will be ground down underneath someone elses (W and beyond) advances. Yes, Kerry is the prime example of the latter. It comes down to who is a real leader (or at least good talker), and who aint.
ryepower12 says
Is he lost mostly because of insiders, imho. It wasn’t really because of him being too liberal.
<
p>
Besides, we never got a Howard Dean vs. George Bush election. If we did – and this is coming from someone who did not support Dean – I think we would have won.
<
p>
John Kerry convinced me more than ever that obfuscation is a campaign killer. That’s why I shan’t be supporting Hillary, Edwards, Obama and any of that ilk. Candidates are going to have to be unabashadly anti-Iraq war, pro-marriage equality, pro-major changes to combat global warming and have a good fiscal record to gain my vote in the primary. I don’t see any of those 3 names fitting that bill, especially Hillary and Edwards.
<
p>
Hopefully Al Gore will a) decide to run and b) be the person he’s been since he lost the last election, not before it. That’s a recipe for a landslide victory. Heck, I’ve ever liked some of what I’ve seen from John Kerry over the past year. He’s politically inept, but that never stopped our current president…
alexwill says
The thing that most frustrated me about Kerry’s campaign was that he kept trying to have it both ways, and in the process alienating both side (Hillary has made this into a science though). The shining example in my mind was when he came out against the federal amendment to preemptively ban same-sex marriage and at the same time came out in favor of the Massachusetts state amendment to ban same-sex marriage here: taking the “left-wing” position nationally and the “right-wing” position at home was both strategically stupid, and politically and morally confusing.
<
p>
I have to disagree about Edwards and Obama a bit: both have been good on global warming, and while Obama has been much more consistently against Iraq, Edwards has been very explicitly against the war since early 2004 when he first apologized for his vote.
<
p>
I don’t like that both of them are supporting civil unions but opposing equal marriage, especially as Obama was a professor of civil liberties law for a long time and should know much better, but I’m somewhat encouraged by Edwards’ wink-and-nod “I was raised Baptist and can’t go there yet, but my wife and daughter support equal marriage” – it’s annoying but i think it indicates he’ll be ready to act once more of the country moves there. I have no idea what Gore has said on this issue: do you? I know he’s good on the others you said.
tim-little says
Some observations here, fwiw.
ryepower12 says
That was beautiful. I LOVED that quote. Damn, I’m locked on Gore now. Who knew he was eloquent to boot? lol
alexwill says
alice-in-florida says
and at any rate, he’s not running. He’s being coy about it (running for president) so he can keep people’s attention and turn it to his stop-global-warming crusade (which I agree with–sometimes you have to play games to cajole people into doing what’s right).
<
p>
If he were (seriously) running for president, he’d be saying the same sort of thing as Edwards.
stomv says
to stabilize, and then increase gay rights nationwide, I think a presidential candidate has two choices:
<
p>
1) Go all-out in one go, similar to Paccione’s approach. Sure, you’ll get creamed because you’ll lose states like Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Iowa — not to mention states like Florida and Ohio, but you’ll finally say it. If the rest of the Dems have the courage to follow along, maybe it just won’t be as big a deal 2, 4, 6, or 8 years later. You’ll have pushed the issue farther than anyone else in your position (major candidate) would have done.
<
p>
But, you’ll lose, and lose in a landslide in terms of electoral votes.
<
p>
2) Push it a little farther, and a little farther. The middle ground of tolerance right now in many places seems to be civil unions. Make it personal, tell stories about parents who love each other and live in a stable family but couldn’t pick their children up from school, or visit each other in the hospital, or make crucial medical decisions for each other.
<
p>
I think 2 is more nuanced and requires more skill, but ultimately can help expand these rights and give the Democrat a chance at winning in 2008.
<
p>
These are my opinions, based on having lived in Ohio, Virginia, and North Carolina, as well as Connecticut, Massachusetts, and California.
milo200 says
I have always said that when politicians try to stake out a wishy washy center they end up hurting themselves. We win when we are strong passionate leaders who stand up for what is right and for what we believe. Too bad john edwards waffled on the marriage question the other day saying ” I am just not there yet” and blaming his Baptist upbringing. ick.
factcheck says
She never once said the words “gay” or “gay marriage” or “same sex marriage” or anything like it.
<
p>
She talked about equality for all people — hard to be against that.
<
p>
I don’t know if that is bold or not. One might argue she was changing the debate. Of course, we Dems don’t do that nearly enough.
<
p>
It was a well crafted way to talk about being in favor of gay marriage. But clearly she felt she would be hurt by talking about it more directly.
<
p>
Given what the results around the country were, she probably should have said “I support equality for all people, and fairness for all people. I know that my opponent and George Bush have been trying to make this a divisive issue even though I don’t really think there’s a person in this district who wants anything other than equality and fairness. There are issues that really do divide us — like the war in Iraq and George Bush’s failure to have any real strategy or give us any real hope of getting out of this mess that is taking the lives of thousands of American young people. That is what is at stake in this election. But they want to talk about anything else… because they want Americans to forget that they brought us into this war. I don’t think americans are going to forget. I think they know what this election is really about, and no attempt to distract us is going to prevent a necessary change this November.”
<
p>
My point is that it’s not what the answers are, it’s about what the agenda is. Talk about the war, we win. Talk about gay marriage, we lose… no matter how well crafted the answer is!
steverino says
since there is NO SUCH THING. It’s marriage, period. And the issue is called marriage equality.
<
p>
Gay marriage is a right-wing frame. Stop saying it.
factcheck says
the right wing folks who benefit stop saying it!
<
p>
It doesn’t matter if it is technically incorrect. It’s what gives it power and scares people… so they use it. We’re not going win by “re-framing” this. We’re going to win over time on the issue, and we’re going to beat right-wingers in the meantime by better establishing what is at stake.
kbusch says
Moreover, connecting Liberal positions to core, patriotic American values is generally the road to making conservatives the minority they deserve to be. By changing the frame, we change the terms of the argument from “is gayness totally icky” to “is this fair as Americans understand fairness”?
<
p>
It’s surprising how many people think of Liberals as being typified by the liberal excesses of Hollywood personalities. The values-based, reframing approach has a lot to recommend it. The conservatives have controlled the terms of the debate for so long that their frames have disappeared into common sense and ours have to be consciously imposed and carefully re-enforced. When we rout them, it’ll be the reverse.
<
p>
One last reminder: The Congressional repeal of the estate tax worked because they renamed it the “death tax”. The based that argument on total hokum about family farms. They were unable to produce a single farmer (i.e., a fact) that lost the farm due to this tax. Really, they won that on frames alone.
factcheck says
I read that book too.
<
p>
But you missed what I’m saying. The “framing” in what she said is just fine, but it’s A) not bold (the initial point) and B) not the way to win elections.
<
p>
The way to win elections is to talk about the right things. You always want to talk the right way and frame things the right way. But talking about gay marriage is not the way to get people thinking about the right things for us to win. We will not beat them on the issue for many many years. But we can beat them cause they cause bad wars, have corrupt practices, and harm working families.
<
p>
On the “bold” point and the point that was brought up that there’s no such thing as “gay” marriage, I’ll simply point out that she STILL didn’t say “equal rights for gays and lesbians” she just said equal rights for everybody. Call it what you will, but that is NOT bold. We have a long way to go.
laurel says
FactCheck, check the questions that news outlets are reporting that people ask the candidates. Marriage is among them, and will remain among them I’ll wager. So even if you think it should be shushed for the sake of tactics, it just isn’t going to be. Hence – get out there and be strong on the subject, frame it your (our) way, and take control of the debate. That way, a candidate can move the debate quickly on to other things. Deval did this expertly.
<
p>
As for Paccione, I put her up there as an example of how to be bold (whether you agree she is or not) and a good issue framer, not to pick apart her campaign strategy (which obviously neither of us are expert on). But just so that you know, she was publicly on record in support of marriage equality. Did she ever utter the word “gay”? Dunno. It’s not important to my point, but if it important to yours, I’d be happy to learn the answer if you check the facts and report back.
factcheck says
1) I didn’t say HUSH it. I said address it in our frame and then move on.
<
p>
2) All I’m saying is that it is noteworthy that she never, in that debate clip, used the word gay. That is intentional — you try talking for 60 seconds on the subject without doing that.
<
p>
3) Actually, I am an expert on campaign strategy. đŸ™‚
laurel says
1) we agree then. great!
2) she’s gifted, no doubt about that.
3) no comment đŸ˜‰
trickle-up says
I think this one is pretty good (and is not “just about the rights thing”–watch it again). But do you have a better one?
factcheck says
But don’t be so trendy. Someone writes a book and then everyone thinks all of politics is about framing!! I’m just saying that gay marriage is not a winning issue for us in most of the country… regardless HOW we frame it.
laurel says
I’m not joking, what book are you talking about? I’m just seeing the differences in approach by these candidates.
<
p>
By your last sentence can I gather that we agree that:
1. the subject will come up, like it or not
2. we should frame our response smartly and boldly, and
3. then move the conversation along?
If so, then I’m not sure what we’re arguing about actually.
kbusch says
I have a shelves of books on linguistics and a few on decision theory. I don’t have a book on framing. If you mean Don’t Think of an Elephant by Lakoff, let me say that book is lightweight and even a bit silly compared to his other stuff. If there is a “that book” for me, it is Moral Politics, but discussions of linguistic categories, metonymy, and metaphor as well as framing are really worth thinking and reading about.
<
p>
The linguistic stuff is important because Democrats have lost too many times where we win in polls on voters’ top issues but lose in the actual election. There’s obviously something that Republicans are doing right politically that our guys are screwing up. (Sorry, stomv.) If we’re not communicating right, then comments about “just framing” or how trendy it is or “how substance matters more” just fly in the face of all the empirical evidence that we have a lot of catching up to do when it comes to communicating.
ryepower12 says
How you frame issues often decide whether or not they’ll be supported. Heck, just look at poll questions. You can massively change the outcome of a poll question based on how you word it.
<
p>
Framing things is no different. Of course, framing things can backfire – if you’re hypocritical. If you create a bill called “No Child Left Behind,” and leave behind children, it’s a recipe for disaster. But if you create the “Civil Rights Act,” and actually revolutionize Civil Rights… it gives the bill much more power.
<
p>
Calling marriage equality “gay marriage” hurts our cause for several reasons. First of all, it’s about marriage – not gay marriage. It’s about allowing any 2 people who love each other marrying… so really “gay marriage,” if anything – is a frame that Republicans created. Just look at liberal organizations: we have “Marriage Equality” as an organization, not “GayMarriage.”
<
p>
Furthermore, calling it “marriage equality” is a rallying cry for progressives and liberals everywhere: it’s helping people realize that marriage is an issue of equality. It’s helping people realize that banning gay people from marrying is making them 2nd class citizens. It’s helping link the gay rights movement to other equality movements.
<
p>
It’s actually kind of like what Deval Patrick has said a million times. They’re “just words.”
<
p>
Where would Martin Luther King, Jr. be without his powerful words – his framing of the issues? Where would he have been without “I have a dream?” Where would American Democracy be without “We hold these truths self evident,” or “We, the people?” Where would America’s psyche have been after Pearl Harbor, if not for “We have nothing to fear but fear itself?” Words are the most powerful weapons a movement can have. After all, the pen is mightier than the sword.
centralmassdad says
On gay marriage, loosely paraphrased (this was around the time of the beginning of the controversy over the Bishop Robinson in the Episcopal Church):
<
p>
So, let’s see, gays want to: (i) get married, (ii) have kids, and (iii) go to church. They want to act like Republicans! What could be wrong with that?
laurel says
of what steverino is saying comes from Feb’s Vanity Fair.
<
p>
Note how he uses the term “gay marriage”. He is denegrating marriage between same-gender spouses as something akin to a secret handshake done in the treehouse. Not something for noram, real people. He has framed the debate.
laurel says
i hit post early by mistake. oh well, you get my drift, i hope.
kbusch says
I contributed to Paccione too in the last cycle as well as to a number of candidates named Murphy. (It was a Murphy year. 2 won, in PA and CT.) Her loss saddened me.
<
p>
Deval Patrick handles it the same way. It’s a values-leading way to do it. The emphasis is on American values of fairness and the position is shown to be a consequence of those values. That style often sounds inspiring, too, as it does here.
<
p>
Contrast that with the wonkish way of bringing it up that travels by way of child psychology, biological origins, Danish sociology, and historical precedent to arrive at a well-reasoned, but politically less powerful position.
<
p>
That said, the debate about Southern strategy is important here because folks who are trying to win back parts of the South claim that supporting equal marriage (or, to use the right wing frame, “gay marriage”) is toxic. Neither Jim Webb (won) nor Harold Ford (lost) distinguished himself on that issue. This, as I’ve said, is Mudcat Sanders versus Thomas Schaller.
<
p>
Questions for consideration:
<
p>
1. Is this really an issue Democrats must compromise on to make any progress in the South? What’s the evidence either way?
<
p>
2. Can the Paccione/Patrick way of handling this work in the Mountain States?
<
p>
3. The utility of campaigning against the South (Schaller’s suggestion) or trying to win back the South (Mudcat’s) affects what candidates one supports. How does this affect our choices in the upcoming Presidential primaries?
laurel says
Regarding your Q2, I think the obvious answer is ‘yes’. Paccione lost by a hair’s breadth (or is that hare’s breath? check for chlorophyll). Also, AZ won itself the distinction this Nov as the only state to ever reject it’s anti-marriage equality amendment referendum. Not even WI was able to do that (which should make MA shudder).
kbusch says
You probably know this because you probably watch these things more carefully than I do, but the Arizona initiative had a very negative impact on all domestic partnerships — heterosexual as well same sex. I haven’t looked at the results in depth, but its effect on heterosexuals may have been what lost it, rather than some willingness to tolerate rights for gays and lesbians.
<
p>
Newly elected Senator Tester, you may note, hasn’t been great on marriage, but, on stuff like the Patriot Act, he’s been superb.
<
p>
Thank you for looking at my questions!
laurel says
What I heard about AZ was that yes, the pro-equality people did play up the down-side of the amendment regarding heterosexuals. Musn’t infringe on their rights! đŸ˜‰ WHat I don’t know is if any post-election polling has been done to determine why various categories of people voted “no”. Would be interesting.
<
p>
Your questions are interesting. I hope others can weigh in on the ones I couldn’t (or the one I did, for that matter).
factcheck says
But all the pre-election polling showed that they needed to focus on, mostly, the effects of the ban on the elderly — and that’s the approach they took.
<
p>
Exit polling information would be really helpful!
ryepower12 says
At the very least a plurality of people were against the ban – and they won.
<
p>
Furthermore, even in the states where gay marriage was banned, the bans won by much, much smaller margins than just 2 years ago. Most states, if memory serves me correctly, were within a few percentage points – whereas 2 years ago, it was much more like 10+%.
<
p>
So the point that taking a leadership role on marriage equality and not obfuscating on the issue a la John Edwards is more relevant than ever. Politicians can certainly change public opinion on something like that.
<
p>
That said, I don’t advocate pushing this and pushing this. I’m content to stay out of the South and allow Southern Democrats to figure out new ways of winning, supporting them in whatever ways I can when I deem them worth supporting. However, you’ll note, that the people who obfuscated the most (Ford in Tennessee) lost, while people who stayed much more true to their colors won (McCaskill, Webb, Tester, Brown). While not all of those 4 are completely where I’d like them to minimally be (Tester and Webb especially), at the very least all of them are against a constitutional ban against same sex marriage – and the numbers were getting dangerously close before. So even in the South, we can make some progress through fielding good, strong, semi-straight talking candidates.
ryepower12 says
*I don’t advocate pushing this and pushing this in the south
kbusch says
An amazing example of the Democratic leadership problem has been Iraq. As an issue, Iraq tragedy won Democrats a lot of votes.
<
p>
You probably remember Howard Dean saying that capturing Saddam Hussein did not make us safer. He was widely lampooned. Then the intelligence community and no public opinion agree.
<
p>
I’m almost a Certified Liberal. I’d get fundraising letters from promising groups like Progressive Democrats and 21st Century Democrats. In 2005, not even the word “Iraq” appeared in any of them.
<
p>
Our guys have got to learn how to change public opinion not tail after it.
kbusch says
sorry:
<
p>
As an issue, theIraq tragedy won Democrats a lot of votes.
<
p>
Then the intelligence community and now public opinion agree.
kbusch says
I got into a number of debates on Daily Kos about Harold Ford’s unsuccessful attempt. I really don’t know the answer to the question, “Why did Ford lose?” Is Tennessee too hostile to Democrats? Did Ford pander the conservatives too much — on immigration as well as social issues?
<
p>
One would hope that his campaign might have an effect on the political climate there. If he triangulated as much as he seems to have, even that is not going to happen.
<
p>
I wish we had a clearer view of that Ford-Corker because it would tell us a lot about what to do in the South. It might be that the best we can hope for in the next five to ten years is for conservative Christians to move off a focus on social issues and onto a focus on poverty and the least among us. That could eventually lead them to a change of heart on social issues as well. Senator Obama seems to be trying to nudge them that direction.
john-howard says
try an ugly candidate.
ryepower12 says
Paccione totally would have won if she got institutional support. She had one of those seats that the DNC and DCCC never got involved in until it was way, way too late. If another million or two was pumped into her race 3-4 months before the election, who would want to take the bet that she couldn’t have made up that 3%?
anthony says
…that he who frames the argument, wins it. It is not enough in my opinion, however, for politicians who favor equality to simply finally step up and support marriage equality. In order for this debate to be properly framed we need to unequivocally support marriage equality and frame those opposed to it as intolerant bigots, because that is what they are. It is relatively easy to push a straight marriage supporter into revealing their homophobia with a few simple challenges to their logic/rhetoric. I’ve done it myself on several occasions. A valuable lesson was learned by the intolerant among us during the civil rights era – don’t wear your intolerance on your sleeve. This can be undone with effort. I firmly believe that by framing the debate as: marriage equality is in the spirit of our Constitution and predestined by the promise of self evident unalienable rights and that those who oppose it are engaging (either willingly or unwittingly) in bigotry – will reap faster, better results than taking baby steps toward the center and slowly dragging that center to the left thereafter. It will be more contentious and more difficult up front, but well worth the effort in the long run.
john-howard says
it is relatively easy to push a straight marriage supporter into revealing their homophobia with a few simple challenges to their logic/rhetoric. I’ve done it myself on several occasions.
john-howard says
This is the year that people are gong to become aware of the possibility of same-sex conception. So all the candidates should use this new issue to explan their positions.
<
p>
The Dems do get creamed by trying to hold a mushy middle ground of “Civil Unions”, because it is so obviously a calculated lie. When will Edwards be “there”? Right after he wins the election? Or maybe when he’s running for reelection? What will change to put him “there”? Polls? It just seems like a lie.
<
p>
But – he could offer a solid explanation, he could say that he would go “there”, he would support same-sex marriages if and when same-sex conception becomes safe enough and is considered ethical. Right now, he will note, we all agree that it is unsafe and should not be allowed.
<
p>
All the candidates would agree on that point, because 450 tries to get one mouse to survive to adulthood is a cold hard fact that speaks for itself.
<
p>
He would then have to explain that a right to conceive children together is intrinsic to marriage as he understands it, and point out to people like Angie Paccione that equaity means that everyone has a right to marry and conceive, but not with someone of their same sex.
<
p>
So then will come the debate about substantive issues. Some candidates will (hopefully) be opposed in principle to developing same-sex conception and other forms of genetic engineering and “transhumanism” and “postgenderism” in general, while other candidates will insist that research be increased so that same-sex conception is made safe and affordable for gay and lesbians.
<
p>
Also, the candidates will take different posisions on the rights and benefits of marriage for same-sex couples, some will be opposed to granting federal recognition, others will demand federal recognition.
anthony says
…is to recommend you get some psychiactric help everytime you post one of these comments.
john-howard says
and you will have to actually respond to the issue.
<
p>
There is no denying that same-sex conception is being researched, and that people are going to find this issue controversial. They will talk about it eventually. What I am saying is that there is much to be gained by Edwards and other POTUS candidates using this issue as a way to explain their position on same-sex marriage. They could enact the compromise NOW in Congress (half of them are Senators), and same-sex couples could see Federal recognition of their civil unions as marriages NOW. But you don’t want that, you want irrational and unethical and currently unavailable equality on conception rights instead of real benefits and protections for real same-sex couples.
angie-paccione says
I want to thank Laurel for this post and for the kind words…wish I could have had your vote!
<
p>
Fact Check is wrong. “Talk about gay marriage and we lose.” What if our civil rights activists had said such things in the 60s???
<
p>
This morning I received a few e-mails from your readers…including one of your State Representatives! (Glad they read your blog!)
<
p>
At the end of my post is my response to one of those e-mails.
<
p>
My answer at the debate comes from the heart…not some campaign strategy…
<
p>
My opponent is the AUTHOR of the Federal Marriage Amendment!!! This congressional district has only 25% Democrats!!! She won by 2.5% of the vote and only 45.6% of the vote…a 3rd party got 11%.
<
p>
I was very clear for the 18 month campaign that I stood for marriage equality. Let’s have the courage to stand FOR what’s right!!!
<
p>
Here is my e-mail response…your reader asked if I would come speak in Mass at an event…
<
p>
“Thanks for the kind words. I’ve been following the events in Mass…with great disappointment.
<
p>
I am bi-racial…there was a time in our nation’s history when my parents could not get married. There were courageous souls who fought that good fight. It’s on their shoulders that I stand. I am inspired and encouraged by their example.
<
p>
You must not be discouraged. And you must tell your friends to continue to fight! There may be small defeats along the way, but those who fight for civil rights know the road may be long…MLK Jr said the arc of history bends toward justice…we don’t know where we are on that arc, but we know where it bends!!!
<
p>
Stay strong! You have allies everywhere!
<
p>
You might enjoy watching one of my commercials from the campaign…it’s up on YouTube.com. Search for “Paccione” and then check the one called either “Are you kidding me?” Or “positive priorities”
<
p>
As for speaking in Mass…just let me know where to be and I will gladly stand shoulder-to-shoulder with you. Remember, I ran against the AUTHOR of the federal marriage amendment!!!
<
p>
Stay in touch!
<
p>
-Angie”
<
p>
Sorry for the long post!
factcheck says
Very nice of you to weigh in.
<
p>
I want to be as clear as I can. I am not trying to say that we shouldn’t talk about it ever. In some campaigns it is a good issue, in some campaigns it is not a good issue.
<
p>
The civil rights movement worked the same way. It was an important issue always to talk about and push — but sometimes it was a good CAMPAIGN issue and sometimes it was not.
<
p>
We’re making some good progress on the issue overall and, given the huge factor age is in support of marriage equality, time is certainly on our side.
<
p>
And regardless of what I think about whether it helps CERTAIN campaigns win, it certainly does help when candidates stand strong for things. That makes it a tough decision regarding how to play it as we’re going to see with all the Dems running for pres.
<
p>
Whether or not it was strategic, in the clip you didn’t say the word gay. I think that’s fine — I mearly found it an interesting point in terms of how we message the issue, and I do a TON of work on that front.
<
p>
I think your STANCE for marriage equality was/is bold. I think your framing of the issue in the clip was exactly right for that debate and it was smart. You could have said “gay and lesbian couples should have the same rights as straight couples” but you didn’t. Again, I think you said it the right way!
<
p>
Finally, I’m sad that you did not win your race — you going to run again? đŸ™‚ And we do need people like you to help protect equality here — and help spread it to the rest of the country. It will be a devastating loss for same sex couples in MA and across the nation if we lose this. I look forward to your visit!
laurel says
I’m delighted that you stopped by to comment, and am thrilled to hear that you may be coming to MA to speak in support of our efforts. I, for one, hope you will run again in the next election. I can’t imagine a better person to fill the seat now held by the author of the discriminatory federal marriage amendment.