Brian Camenker’s group MassResistance is out with its analysis of the Religious Right’s failure in four states to ban same-sex marriage, and has concluded that equality opponents simply weren’t anti-gay enough. They accused the National Organization for Marriage and others of going to “great lengths not to criticize homosexuality” when they should have been working to “persuade the public through advertising that homosexual behavior was perverse, dysfunctional, and unhealthy” and exposing “the destructive nature of homosexual relationships.”

MassResistance explains that such advertisements are necessary because “in America the average person is emotionally and intellectually unequipped to confront the Orwellian and often vicious onslaught of propaganda, disinformation, threats, intimidation [and] confusion” about homosexuality, even comparing the plight of anti-gay activists to those resisting Communism in the Eastern Bloc.

At its root, “gay marriage” is really about the forced acceptance of homosexuality as a normal part of society. But both NOM and the state pro-family groups went to great lengths not to criticize homosexual behavior. They were very fearful of being perceived as “anti-gay” or “homophobic” especially in the liberal press. So they insisted on moderating everyone’s messages. In Minnesota, for instance, activists were specifically told, “Don’t make this a gay issue.” Those who deviated from this and took a more direct approach were shunned and even publicly criticized by the pro-family establishment. This included some of the vocal black churches in Maryland who wanted to quote the Bible, and activists in Maine and Minnesota who felt compelled to discuss the negative aspects homosexual behavior. Except for some material posted on websites of the local pro-family groups, there were no attempts at all that we know of to persuade the public through advertising that homosexual behavior was perverse, dysfunctional, and unhealthy. Our side basically conceded that argument completely, and even went to lengths to state that “we’re not anti-gay.” The homosexual lobby took full advantage of that by aggressively portraying homosexuality as just another facet of normal human behavior. This tactic is not sustainable, as it soon became clear. It certainly does not effectively counter the emotional strategies put forth by the homosexual lobby. At some point you have to engage in the real battle at hand. … Furthermore, the groups running the campaign opposing gay marriage had an arsenal of weapons about homosexuality, homosexual behavior, and the destructive nature of homosexual relationships that they didn’t use because it would not be “politically correct” and would likely anger the liberal media — and because it wouldn’t be seen as “nice.” And when they finally were willing to use the very effective issue of schools forcing homosexuality on kids, it was too late. … One thing is painfully clear: At this point in America the average person is emotionally and intellectually unequipped to confront the Orwellian and often vicious onslaught of propaganda, disinformation, threats, intimidation confusion — and the force of law that often follows — which engulfs us. That is something we must change. Pope John Paul II famously observed that a major force that facilitated the collapse of the Soviet Union was the people who were no longer afraid to tell the truth. That’s a beginning, along with internalizing the fact that we’re in a war and not at a dinner party. And that being reactive instead of being aggressive only slows down our losses. All nonviolent movements understand that.

They also claimed that the push in Maryland to overturn the state’s marriage equality law may have failed due to…you guessed it, voter fraud!