Why promoting No is a strategic mistake for religious groups
As the same sex marriage debate rages on, freelance strategist Daniel Bluzer-Fry considers if a No vote is a strategically bad mistake for religious groups.
Before I drop the clutch and throw you into a fairly dense read, I want you to participate in a little thought experiment.
Imagine you were working on a brand that happened to have exactly the same name as another brand, and in many ways, this brand was not entirely dissimilar. Imagine your brand’s name had actually emerged from a period in time where you were essentially the same product/service.
Then imagine that both of these brands, had such a serious impact in people’s lives, and they cared so immensely about what the name of the brand represented that they were willing to march in the streets for it.
Of course, in reality, this would never happen because of things like trademark law, but damn, it would make for an excruciatingly difficult situation for say a copywriter or CMO on either side of the fence.
It’s amazing to think that nobody has been bringing these points in the public debate with Churches/Faiths that have been supporting a no.
I also respect the fact that you haven’t just come out kicking and screaming to get me to vote yes, but just delicately show why this is a bad call for the groups promoting the no vote.
Thanks for publishing Mumbrella
I’ve often wondered why we don’t just use 2 separate words. The state can do a ‘hitch’ which is the legal bit, the church can do a ‘marriage’ which is a ceremonial bit, not recognised by the state. After all, we are having 2 distinct debates, with each side having concepts and definitions of marriage which are in many ways non-reconcilable. You do miss one point though, and that is churches shouldn’t consider voting yes or no from a strategic or marketing perspective. They should consider marriage from a solely theological point of view, as that is the reason for their existence.
The point you raise is an interesting one John.
I’m not sure if you read the article as it was originally published (link at bottom of page), which actually examines this topic with a multi-faith / religious pluralist lens (warning – is 1900 words long).
Be curious to hear your thoughts after that – and I’d suspect given what they have at risk if no wins in the long term, if they’re really struggling to sleep at night to let the secular word be redefined, then perhaps they should consider abstaining (another option that often isn’t discussed).
This raises a very good point. People will be turned off religious groups because of this debate. The more they engage in old-fashioned behaviour like this, the less people will join. I would be much more inclined towards faith if they leaned progressively, got with the times and supported YES. They’re shooting themselves in the foot.