Both sides of same-sex marriage debate focusing on family
"(Same-sex marriage proponents) are trying to compare the needs of their families with the needs of those headed by a husband and wife," said Sprigg, who testified against the bill. "Some of the legislators who changed their votes from last year cited that type of testimony or constituent visits or calls as being instrumental in changing their minds."
Chandler explained that the same-sex marriage advocates didn't stumble upon this change in messaging and tactics by accident. "This cohesive set of talking points … is created by marketing and consulting firms that find out which message has the most impact. That's true for opposition as well," he said.
Sprigg said same-sex marriage opponents have stuck to a consistent message since winning the Prop 8 battle in California: What is in the best interest of the children?
"Children do best with a mom and dad," Sprigg said. "It's an easy argument to make, and it gets to the core fundamental differences between homosexual and heterosexual relationships. They (a same-sex couple) cannot provide a child with a father and mother. That's one thing they can never do."
The traditional marriage camp has also recently been armed with studies casting doubt on previous claims that children raised by same-sex couples fare the same and sometimes better than those raised by parents of the opposite sex.
But even without the studies, opponents of same sex marriage say that a discussion about the types of homes where children would best thrive has been the most effective way to persuade an undecided voter.
"Most people don't think it would be the same if they had two of their dads or two of their moms raising them," said Brian Brown, president of the National Organization for Marriage. "It goes to the heart of our argument that men and women are different and complementary, and that accepting that difference is not bigotry but truth and biology."
Sprigg explained that getting off that message and delving into the moral merits of a gay or lesbian lifestyle can easily steer the conversation into accusations of stereotyping and personal attacks against gays and lesbians. Those arguments can ignite religious conservatives but usually backfire with more moderate voters.
The NOM website has talking points to guide its followers away from such pitfalls.
Courts will decide
Results from the November election will tell whether the move by same-sex marriage proponents to a more personal, family-oriented approach is able to shift the momentum in their favor.
Cole-Schwartz acknowledges that the movement hasn't succeeded in fending off constitutional amendments banning gay marriage or overturning law passed by state Legislatures. But he believes if the amendment blitz of 2004 were this year, the results wouldn't have been the same. He even considers the recent loss in a southern, religiously conservative state like North Carolina as progress.
"We moved the needle there," he said. "I would wager that in another eight years we would win in North Carolina."
According to Cole-Schwartz, past equal rights battles indicate that time and history are on the side of "marriage equality" and that it is inevitable that same-sex marriage will be legal nationwide.
But organizations like the Family Research Council and the National Organization for Marriage don't seem too concerned about the changing tactics of the pro-same-sex marriage movement or public opinion polls that show growing support for legalizing same-sex marriage, particularly among younger voters.
They say the polls have yet to bear out what has actually happened at the ballot box. And as long as they stay on message and keep the debate out of the state houses and on the general ballot, the union between a man and woman will remain the only legal definition of marriage.
But Chandler said the real victories for either side won't come through the legislative or ballot-initiative battles being waged right now. Instead, it will be the Supreme Court that eventually defines marriage, Chandler predicted, and that won't happen for another five to 10 years.
"(The Supreme Court justices) tend to wait until the national dialogue has settled onto some position," he said. "If they weigh in too soon, it can create too much controversy."
- Virus expert sees 'silver lining' in Ebola...
- Indiana man's confession leads to 7 bodies
- The poorest of the poor in many Third World...
- Wanted: Cities interested in hosting 2024...
- Students clean up after mayhem near pumpkin fest
- This type of high school can increase your...
- Expelled Nazis got millions in Social Security
- 'Deseret News National Edition': Africa and...
- Can public officials refuse to perform... 68
- Official: 2nd worker isolated within 90... 21
- New Ebola 'czar' knows Washington, but... 21
- Why I stand with the Houston Five 19
- Vatican alters draft report translation... 18
- On campaign trail, Obama says GOP is... 15
- Gay marriage becomes legal in Arizona,... 14
- Bishops scrap welcome to gays in sign... 9