If the Radical Right can succeed in por­traying us as preying on children, we will lose. Their language— “promoting homo­sexuality” is one example—is laced with subtle and not-so-subtle innuendo that we are “after their kids.” We must learn from the abortion struggle, where the clever claiming of the term “pro-life” al­lowed those who opposed abortion on demand to frame the issue to their advan­tage, to make sure that we do not allow ourselves to be painted into a corner be­fore the debate ever begins.

In Massachusetts the effective refram­ing of this issue was the key to the suc­cess of the Governor’s Commission on Gay and Lesbian Youth. We immediately seized upon the opponent’s calling card—safety—and explained how homo­phobia represents a threat to students’ safety by creating a climate where vio­lence, name-calling, health problems, and suicide are common. Titling our re­port, “Making Schools Safe for Gay and Lesbian Youth,” we automatically threw our opponents onto the defensive and stole their best line of attack. This fram­ing short-circuited their arguments and left them back-pedaling from day one.

Finding the effective frame for your community is the key to victory. It must be linked to universal values that every­one in the community has in common.

In Massachusetts, no one could speak up against our frame and say, “Why, yes, I do think students should kill themselves”; this allowed us to set the terms for the debate.

In Massachusetts, we made creating an environment where youth could speak out our number one priority. We know that, confronted with real-live stories of youth who had suffered from homophobia, our opponents would have to attack people who had been victimized once, which put them in a bully position from which it would be hard to emerge looking good. More im­portantly, we made sure these youth met with elected officials so that, the next time these officials had to vote on something, there would be a specific face and story attached to the issue. We wanted them to have an actual kid in mind when they had to cast their votes. We won the vote in the Senate 33-7 as a result. [These quotes come from an article published in The Massachusetts News.]

Twenty percent of people are hard-core fair-minded [pro-homosexual] people. Twenty percent are hard-core [anti-homosexual] bigots. We need to ignore the hard-core bigots, get more of the hard-core fair-minded people to speak up, and we’ll pull that 60 percent [of people in the middle]   over to our side. That’s really what I think our strategy has to be. We have to quit being afraid of the religious right. We also have to quit — I’m trying to find a way to say this. I’m trying not to say, ‘[F—] ‘em!’ which is what I want to say, because I don’t care what they think! [audience laughter] Drop dead!” — Jennings speech to Marble Collegiate Church, March 20, 2000. (From Americans For Truth)

Toward the end of my first year, during the spring of 1988, Brewster appeared in my office... “Brewster has something he needs to talk with you about,” [a student accompanying the boy] intoned ominously....On a hunch, I suddenly asked, “What's his name?” Brewster's eyes widened briefly, and then out spilled a story about his involvement with an older man he had met in Boston. I listened, sympathized, offered advice. He left my office with a smile on his face....

I can envision a day when straight people say, “So what if you’re promoting homosexuality,” Or straight kids [will] say [to a male homosexual friend], “Hey, why don’t you and your boyfriend come over before you go to prom and try your tuxes on at my house?” [I]f we believe that can happen, we can make it happen.