For many conservatives, especially religious ones, the issue has to do with their belief that they have a “right” to not have to tolerate the existence of anyone that does not conform to their beliefs. Indeed, a common complaint is that they don’t want their children “exposed” to homosexuality and all these gay rights make it impossible for them to “protect” their children because they allow the gays to be gay in public as if it were perfectly normal.

That alone offends them, and one unwritten “right” that conservatives believe very strongly in is their “right” to not be offended, or to be exposed to anything that contradicts their beliefs. In other words, they believe that their “freedom of religion” supersedes everyone else’s. Everyone must live in a way that meets with their approval.

This was, for a long time, the basis of anti-Semitism as well as overt hostility towards other faiths that were not in line with the local majority. Indeed, until well into the 19th Century (and the mass immigration of Irish fleeing the Potato Famine) anti-Catholicism was also widespread in the public and governmental sphere in many parts of the country.

However, it is also true that some people have just been maliciously misinformed by anti-gay campaigns. For example, during the Proposition 8 debacle numerous religious leaders, including Rick Warren, outright lied and told their followers that legalization of same-sex marriage would result in churches being closed and pastors being arrested if they refused to perform same-sex wedding ceremonies. This was blatantly untrue but since the story came from trusted religious leaders many people believed it.

We did little to counter these kinds of misconceptions. Instead we focused on how same-sex marriage benefits US, while doing little to allay the fears and discredit the lies that were being told.

Our opponents’ actions are based on bigotry. But they don’t want to advertise it as such because it would look less “holy” to a lot of middle of the road audiences. So they resort to misinformation campaigns because that way they can make it sound like they’re defending the family instead of trying to persecute people they don’t like.

That’s what we need to fight.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/evan-wolfson/marriage-and-gays-what-wo_b_165761.html

Evan

DONE GONE MOOT… We will have 5 YEARS of Proof from Massachusetts that that is not so as of 5/17…
and we will have full equality back in CA by about the same day…is my prayer.
Then I think we need to charter trains and fill them with
engaged couples in New York and have it all set up on the end of the line in Connecticut…or Boston that they are there to marry. I would think you could probably do at least a full train a month… or even a week! at the beginning.

Granted, the idea that marriage is a CIVIL right rankles some of our opponents, who seem to think that civil rights are a matter of race alone. Well then, let’s talk about HUMAN rights. After all, even the most narrow-minded person wouldn’t argue openly that gay people are not human.

“We need to address the true fear people have — the fear is not that same-sex marriage threatens the foundation of American society, but that extending marriage rights to more people, gay people, existing marriages have less value, less meaning.”

Actually, both fears exist. And both are false. Many on the ‘right’ are absolutely convinced that if gays get equal treatment, American society as we know it is doomed. Equally, some (needlessly) think that when gay couples commit to one another in marriage, their ‘traditional’ marriages are not only threatened but devalued.

Of course, you and I know this is utterly false. But how can we convince them? They’re the majority, after all. One suggestion: move the conversation away from “rights”. There is no “right” to marriage in the Constitution. The kicker is that this applies to heterosexuals too. We must begin to reclaim our freedoms. America touts itself as the “land of the free”. It ‘promises’ “LIBERTY and JUSTICE for ALL”. There IS such a right – to “liberty”. There’s also a right to the pursuit of happiness. Why are lawyers not all over this? This, AND the Constitutionn’s promise of equal treatment before the law, the Full Faith and Credit clause AND the Equal Protections clause. These arguments seem entirely missing in action in the courts of the land.

You say, “We need to remind people of the lessons they learned about equality, that we cannot have equality when we legalize exclusion from rights and benefits.” Trouble is, str8 America has NOT “learned” – ANY ‘lessons’ about equality. (At least not if Prop 8 and Florida’s Amendment 2 are any indication.) Str8 America WANTS there still to be a “position of superior and inferior” – so that they can feel superior. (It’s why I often refer to them as ‘betterosexuals.)

“We need to point out that there is not a limited number of a certain right to go around and no one is going to come up short.”

I think continually addressing “rights” is partly to blame. Too much confusioin around “civil rights” (v. civil liberties) and “gay rights”.

“We need to point out to people that a straight person’s marriage is not devalued because a gay person also is married.”

But, once again, THEY feel their marriages ARE devalued. I’m open to suggestiins besides mine about stressing liberties and freedoms in “the land of the free” as to how we go about convincing them. I’ve found that being open, honest and out has gone a long way to disproving their ‘inferior’ theory. Any one got any other ideas?