I think it caught on here (and I'm not saying it's universal in MA at all, it may be just in my area) simply because of the way the GLBT community framed the argument.
The framed argument was, "Why are you putting people's civil rights up to a popular vote? What would happen if this was about minorities? Would you think it's okay then?"
So, the argument centered more on "fairness" and "equal protection for all citizens in the eyes of the law" rather than the identities of the people involved. In the case of MA, I think that was precisely the right argument to make, because it convinced quite a few fence-sitters to take a better look at the issue beyond the knee-jerk reaction.
Would it work everywhere? I'm less sure about that. And I can see where you're coming from on the "gay"/"same sex" issue, so consider me schooled on that issue. :-)
no subject
The framed argument was, "Why are you putting people's civil rights up to a popular vote? What would happen if this was about minorities? Would you think it's okay then?"
So, the argument centered more on "fairness" and "equal protection for all citizens in the eyes of the law" rather than the identities of the people involved. In the case of MA, I think that was precisely the right argument to make, because it convinced quite a few fence-sitters to take a better look at the issue beyond the knee-jerk reaction.
Would it work everywhere? I'm less sure about that. And I can see where you're coming from on the "gay"/"same sex" issue, so consider me schooled on that issue. :-)