(Kate Kendall and Geoff Kors.)Campaign Promised, Not Delivered
I've read several comments from leaders of the disastrous No on 8 campaign about the deceit of the Yes on 8 forces, and make no mistake about it, our opponents were misleading, but I won't lose sight of the deceit practiced by our side. Specifically, the way in which we were promised in the early summer that our lives and relationships would be an integral part of the media effort to defeat 8, and then saw ourselves erased from the No on 8 ads.
After seeing thousands of my fabulous brothers and sisters parading on the streets of San Francisco tonight, I wept at how a $40 million campaign in no way, shape or medium utilized our love and family relationships, and I was reminded of a shallow promise from Kate Kendall, uttered while her colleague in nincompoopism, Geoff Kors, sat at her side.
From the BAR of July 10:
Italics mine. Hey Kate, when will you answer this question: Why didn't you and No on 8 deliver on that out-of-the-closet approach?Later on during a question and answer session, Michael Petrelis also brought up the issue of wording, stating that Equality for All, which is the coalition of LGBT and allied organizations against Prop 8, should use the word "gay" in campaign signage. He pointed to one of the signs on the wall that read, "Vow to vote No on the marriage amendment." . . .
"Are we going to take the campaign out of the closet?" Petrelis asked. "I don't like the sign. I'm fighting for 'gay marriage' on the sign." ...
Kendell was blunt in her response to the issue. "There's no doubt that it will be very clear to everybody – it's a big ol' homo thing. You will see yourself reflected in what we're doing."
Kendell also said that the language issue "wasn't intentional or calculated."
"The campaign messaging is one of those things that's a moving target. This is feedback we will certainly feed into that," she said.
We may not the accountability we need from No on 8 leaders, and all the consultants who earned good money from the campaign, today or next week, maybe not even this month, but one day, the people who created such a deceitful and misleading campaign will answer for their mistakes.
Really, if the TV ads were big and homo, then I'm Greta Garbo.
3 comments:
I must say that from a purely "marketing" standpoint, the yes on 8 advertising was much more friendly and uplifting. They had pretty graphics and cool colors.
The no on 8 campaign used blacks and dark blue colors and blocky lettering.
That's not the way to present yourself as "friendly non-threatening equals."
I'm proud to be a homo from Como,
a place where even fruits can have some fun,
We still get some browneye down at the court house,
and suckin' dicks is still our number one!
(Sung to the tune of Okie from Muskogee.)
Be careful what you ask for you may get it. When you turn an institution inside out, you may not be able to stop the change. How would a family law definition from the Sharia suit you? Not possible? There are as many people in America today who want that as there are gays. And they are reproducing. And evangelizing. A few pro-Prop 8 people see the handwriting on the wall. If a Muslim family law situation ever comes about you'll wishing for a furtive encounter in the park.
Post a Comment