North Carolina & The Gay Establishment

We are all disappointed in last night's outcome in North Carolina. Once again I find myself asking the same questions:

1. Who is formulating strategy?
2. Why do we keep repeating what doesn't work?

There are two reasons that people don't change. Either they are unaware of their problem or they are not sufficiently disturbed to take action to correct it. I would like to "disturb" some folks.
I am approaching this as a seasoned sales trainer     something that I am very good at. My impression of the campaign comes from a distance.  With that caveat, it appeared that we were selling everything but gay rights and marriage equality. Clinton's robo-call was the perfect example. Why are we afraid to sell equality and old fashioned American fairness? Why do we try to distance these endeavors from actual gay people? There is an old axiom:

The attitude of those we are trying to convince reflects the attitude of the person trying to do the convincing.

By not focusing on gay people we are conceding our own inequality. I have the very real impression that our campaign strategists are wed to the notion that they have a monopoly on wisdom.

Once they get us into an argument over whether or not the amendment or initiative affects domestic violence protection or heterosexual couples we have already lost and Schubert knows that.

These things cannot be won on the facts. Schubert knows that too. It is an emotional appeal to fairness and equality that might work. It is estimated that about 40% of Americans have a close gay family member. When we get people to identify with them, we might actually win one of these contests.

In the past, we made the same mistake with whether or not gay marriage would be taught in schools. We made that a credible issues by trying to convince people that it wouldn't be taught in schools. In doing so, we are conceding that gay people are a threat to children. Contrast that with "Yeah. Kids might learn that it is legal for gay people to marry. So what?"

Just once I would like to see us engage in a narrow campaign of truth:

• The effects of "gay marriage" are limited to those thus wed and their children. Those effects are all positive.
• Committed gay couples seek the equality to marry the person that they love. It is only fairness that is sought.
• The other side opposes us because of religious objections.
• Our culture, tradition and legal system     as Americans     prohibits enacting laws for religious purposes.

When they start arguing from scripture, the worst thing that we can do is to get into a religious argument with something like "Jesus never discussed homosexuality." NO! The correct answer is; "Our culture, tradition and legal system      as Americans     prohibits enacting laws for religious purposes." What? You really think that the "Jesus" argument is going to convince anyone? Please.

If anyone wants to learn the quality-management theory and values underlying any of this, just use the contact form. I will respond to all reasonable inquiries.   


Meanwhile (as Pam Spaulding can probably confirm), I wrote the same thing at the beginning of the Maine campaign in 2009 (as I saw it going off the rails). I sent emails and made phone calls. Our campaigners and strategists tend to insulate themselves.