So what should we do that we aren't already doing? Clergy/GOP ads, moms, families, pictures of gay couples in our ads, phone banking, telling our story and an awareness that this would be kinda close -- what unknown are we overlooking? We know about the "I can marry a princess" ad, likely "loss of religious freedom" ad and maybe a "there's already R-71" ad, what's new? We knew about the money even.

Frank Schubert creates homophobic commercials? I thought all he did was write piano songs and chamber works.

I dunno, I was talking with my aunt who lives in Fresno, CA (consider it the clenched asshole of California) and she said that at this same point in the election in 2008 they were already blanketing the airwaves with their "coming storm" ads. What are the No on 74 guys waiting for?

Something just seems different. Still phone bank, donate, and talk to your aunts and uncles, but I'm going to choose to be optimistic.

How much would it cost to push poll eastern Washington with "Islamic Sharia Law forbids the voting in favor of Referendum 74. Does this information make you more or less likely to vote for Referendum 74 and against Islamic Sharia Law?"

Confuse the bigots and twist their bigotry against itself.

Far be it from me to speak about anything for the Gay Community, however, I will go out on a limb here (yeah, I know which one you're thinking).

To me the whole Gay Marriage thing is the same mistake as Al Gore making environmentalism all based on Global Warming. It is a roll of the dice, a high gamble which may or may not pay off. And it could be tragically wrong and make it worse for all involved.

By observation, it seems to me, something like "gay" is not just "another sexuality". It doesn't have to necessarily fit into the templates of heterosexuality. Yes, there are those who want it to. There are those who think it would be a good thing and what I see is that some outside leaders, who would like to gain the backing of Gay play to that scenario.

However, I wonder if some rapprochement needs to be made...an agreement that is actually more attuned to what is wanted directly by all parties involved.

Ok, load up your straws with spitballs and fire away...

So what should we do that we aren't already doing? Clergy/GOP ads, moms, families, pictures of gay couples in our ads, phone banking, telling our story and an awareness that this would be kinda close -- what unknown are we overlooking?

Hmm... clergy, moms, families, pictures of gays... indeed what is missing? I mean who is more directly affected by the legislation than clergy, moms, families, and photos of gay couples?

The mind boggles.

@6: the law up for referendum says that same-sex couples can marry; it doesn't say they have to.

@6 "Far be it from me to speak about anything for the Gay Community"

Your words are meaningless. You speak with the luxury of heterosexual privilege and all the rights (including marriage) afforded to it. And in typical fashion you proceed to lecture on something for which you are clearly intellectually and experientially barren to discuss.

http://joemygod.blogspot.com/2012/10/new…

Here it comes.

Give money to get this passed! Give until it hurts. Seriously..

The carpetbaggers at NOM and PMW are disgusting. Has anybody noticed that they bought about 9000 "likes" for their Facebook page from Thailand just so it wouldn't look so pathetic?

http://www.advocate.com/politics/marriag…

What else can we do? Focus on rural areas. I was in Maine in 2009, which was a very similar situation- legislature passed, governor signed, people's veto, and Schubert came in and ran the same (effective) campaign.

Gay marriage won big in the cities/big towns, except for heavily Catholic Lewiston-Auburn, and rural areas (especially northern Maine). This time around, they've focused heavily on those areas, starting conversations, and polls are more positive than they have been at any point in Maine's history.

Secondly, we need to go on the offensive about the "taught in schools" crap. Diffuse it before it gets any traction. It's their strongest (and most misleading) argument in terms of voter effectiveness.

Received a political survey call on my cellphone last week. All about gay marriage. Some of the questions were skewed pretty strongly anti, though. There were a list of statements and I was asked to say how strongly I agreed or disagreed with each. In between statements such as "gay people want to get married for the same reasons straight people do" and "I believe gay marriage is a sin" was this:

"If gay marriage is made legal, it will be taught in our classrooms. And the supreme court has already ruled that parents will not be allowed to opt out of these required lessons." I don't remember all of it, and it was longer than all the other agree/disagree statements, and went on to say how the courts have already ruled to take away all your parental rights blah blah blah. WTF?!? scaremongering much?

@ 10
I hope all the ads look like that, that was awful!

does anyone have a link to schubert's princess ad?