Boozhy Headlines: Put Your Money Where Your Mouth Is

A study released today offers up some of the most disturbing figures surrounding the gay marriage debate.  Even more so than the actual numbers for which voters approved state bans (ration of 3-1).  What is more frightening than the 3-1 ratio of people who feel I should not be granted equal rights is the amount spent on the 2004 campaigns dedicated to the constitutional amendments banning gay marriage.  13 states voted on gay marriage in 2004 and only $13 MM total was spent on the political campaigns.  And even more upsetting was the fact that the ban proponents spent more ($6.8 MM) than our (gay) lobbying groups ($6.5 MM). 

I'm shocked.  I thought we were in this war to win it.  I thought that our lobbying groups were fighting the good fight.  And by that, I mean spending our money on campaigns to oppose the gay ban on marriage.  Where was the HRC, National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, Log Cabin Republicans, GLAAD?  All groups which promised me in their literature asking for my time and donation that they were fighting for my right to marry.  What the F*CK did they do with the money I sent to them?  And the money YOU sent to them?

The gay lobby only spent $6.5 MM to fight bans in 13 states?  No WONDER we lost. We live in a society, in which tv, radio and print ads shape voter opinion.  And these cost money.  How do we expect to change voter opinion if our opposition is outspending us?  They at least are putting their money where there mouth is. Shame on the lobbyist groups for failing to dedicate appropriate funds.  The fact that we spent less than $10,000 in states such as Mississippi and North Dakota to fight the largest civil rights injustice existing in our Country is embarrasing.  It's not enough to be right.  We also have to have sell our case.   And we don't sell it by spending less than our opposition.

Comments

[Scott Jones]

In Texas less people voted either way in the election than the total GLBT population of the state. So, if all GLBT people had turned out, the measure would have been soundly defeated. That was the most disturbing thing for me the day after.

[Strathos]

We could have bought our own island for that amount of money and had our own government.

[North Dallas Thirty]

It's hard to spend money on antigay initiatives when HRC and others prefer to spend it on homophobic politicians.

[Aatom]

Given that the funds were pretty evenly matched, isn't it fair to conclude that perhaps our real problem, as Scott points out, is voter apathy? The grassroots 'family' orgs are far more effective at gettingo ut the vote, because they have been beating the "gays are going to destroy your family' drum for years now. our priorities, as usual, are fractured and unfocused as usual, and the money we DID spend was obviously completely wasted if no one bothered to go and vote against these draconian measures.

[Dan]

I think it's silly to think that money is the problem here. Granted, it'd be nice if the HRC and other groups could do a reality check on where they're sending member dues, but I think voter apathy is what we should really be targeting. I think after the halcyon days of the Clinton era, we've become a little too fat and happy. We just assumed everything would keep going in the right direction. And while I still think we've got historical momentum on our side, our apathy combined with the resurgence of the religious right has significantly slowed that momentum.

I'm not saying we've got to dump our political baggage at every last cocktail party we go to, but does anything remotely political have to be verboten in gay society? I have plenty of friends who seem proud of the fact that they've never voted.

[Dan]

And yeah, more money will raise exposure. But do you honestly think putting on a media armageddon is the best approach right now? Do you think a few tasteful 30 second spots would've killed the marriage amendment in Texas? Let's get real, the timing isn't quite right yet. We've just got to stick to our guns and focus on the important issues (instead of trying to figure out which person/party to give the 'gay vote' to).

[sean]

If you think that tv, radio, and print ads would 'shape' the voters' opinions in Mississippi, you should probably stick to your cute dog pageants routine.

Can't wait to hear about your new fundraising job with one of the organizations you are bitching about. When you get the job, and you get more info than an AP story provides, let us know the full story.

[Brian]

Interesting how snippy and defensive people are getting about your valid observation. I know plenty of gay men who bitch constantly about the "injustices" they face, but don't vote.

They spend $50 or more on drinks on a Friday night, but cannot be bothered to contribute a couple of hours of their time per year to related causes. They certainly cannot be bothered to send a bit of cash into organizations that desperately need the money.

All the rhetoric of the moment is focused on "Brokeback Mountain," and it's probably going to get more gay money and gay time than the gay marriage movement. Yes, a movie written by straight people which reinforces stereotypes of gay men as men who cannot commit to each other and "need" to live as married heterosexual men who get on with each other on the side. . . written by heterosexuals, directed by a heterosexual, and starred in by two heterosexual sex kittens whose roles are akin to soft core porn. And it will get more energy and money than gay equality under the law will.

['mo pitkins]

it's not about how much money you spend fighting bigotry. someone who is against homosexuality is not going to have their mind changed by seeing a well-produced commercial on television. political ads like that only work for individual candidates who voters know nothing about or on issues that people know nothing about, like taxes and shit. homophobes know they don't support the gays no matter what. turning around ignorance and homophobia starts in the home, not on the television.

[Foxy]

I'm pretty sure it's more about apathy than money. Bring on the marches and riots, I say.