Over 100 activists attended Camp Courage Sacramento. Photo credit: Courage Campaign.
Camp Courage is an intensive two-day training designed to teach the principles and skills of community organizing to activists working to restore marriage equality to California. Inspired by the “Camp Obama” trainings the powered neighbor-to-neighbor organizing across America in 2008, Camp Courage teaches empowerment, team building, leadership development, and grassroots organizing skills.
Camp Courage Co-Creator Lisa Powell teaches Campers to develop their Stories of Self.
This has been a difficult week for us LGBT activists. Many of us have been fighting for equality in Maine, Kalamazoo and Washington State; some on the ground, some via phonebanks. Despite the fact that our record from those battles is 2:1, the loss in Maine was devastating. Sentiments are unilateral that the Maine Campaign was well-run and well-executed; even the other side admitted that our Field Campaign was superior. Yet we lost, by nearly the same margin as in Prop 8.
I was impressed by how many Camp Courage staff and facilitators showed up here in Sacramento mere days after their tour of duty in Maine. What a show of dedication to the cause. I know that, for some, the need to continue the fight, to balance our our loss with acts of empowerment, fueled their travels to our state’s Capitol.
Campers worked in their small groups to improve and practice their Stories of Self
Camp Courage Co-Creators Lisa Powell and Mike Bonin lead our weekend. They’re an amazing team, and yet we all felt the absence of the third co-creator, Torie Osborn, who was in Los Angeles serving at the United Way’s HomeWalk fundraiser for homeless services and housing programs.
Storytelling as leadership has always been a significant part of Camp Courage, but it took a more central place in this Camp. Powell started by leading a major module on writing our “Story of Self.” Each Camper developed her or his own Story of Self, a story about how we faced a challenge. We practiced our stories in dyads and listened to feedback. After more editing, we shared our stories with our 6-8 person groups. I was facilitating Group 10; my Campers’ stories included a story about Prop 8 told from the perspective of a lesbian mom’s daughter; a young Catholic youth group attendee becoming “the man God made him to be,” and a straight ally helping his wife move toward supporting marriage equality through a dinner discussion with lesbian friends.
Lt. Daniel Choi speaks about coming out to his parents. Photo credit: Courage Campaign.
After lunch, Lt. Dan Choi spoke about his experience coming out to himself and to his parents. Every time I see Lt. Choi, he delivers a more rousing and moving speech. I particularly enjoyed his description of his Koren parents’ reactions; at one point, he said, “You know, Margaret Cho’s not the only one who has parents who talk like that!” The crowd was inspired and engaged, giving him a tremendous standing ovation.
Camp Courage Co-Creator Mike Bonin speaks about using our stories of self. Photo credit: Courage Campaign.
Next, Bonin helped Campers think about the different ways they might apply their Stories of Self. We listened to several examples from Campers who’d used their stories in different situations and permutations. Lessons: (1) your story needs to be flexible to fit into a particular situation; (2) try to have a few stories, so you can select the most effective one to move the person with whom you’re speaking.
Syd Peterson, aka the author of this post, trains Campers on having effective conversations with voters about marriage equality. Photo credit: Courage Campaign.
After that, I presented a module on having persuasive conversations about marriage equality to voters. I highlighted the three most important parts of having effective conversations with voters (listening, asking open-ended questions, telling your personal story). I reviewed the various canvassing efforts happening across the state by groups such as Vote for Equality, Equal Roots, Love Honor Cherish, Equality California, Courage Campaign and Marriage Equality USA. My colleague Vincent Jones helped me with role plays; first I canvassed a unsupportive religious voter, then an undecided voter who was concerned about gay marriage being taught in schools. Finally, all the campers practiced the canvassing model, playing both the canvasser and the voter.
Topical breakout sessions were the last piece of Day One. Campers attended presentations on hosting house parties, managing a political campaign, canvassing logistics, using online organizing tools, and building coalitions with people of faith.
It was a great day; just the tonic I/we needed after a tough loss in Maine.
Click here to read my post on Day Two.
Subscribe to RSS
“(1) your story needs to be flexible to fit into a particular situation; (2) try to have a few stories, so you can select the most effective one to move the person with whom you’re speaking.”
Doesn’t this seem somewhat dishonest? How can you make your story retain its validity yet be “flexible”?
Hi Uzayr, thanks for your comment.
When I talk about making one’s story “flexible,” I mean you need to be able to vary the length. So, for example, it’s important to have a one sentence, 20 second, 1 minute, and 5 minute version of your story.
Further, it’s helpful to know which pieces of a personal story are most appropriate for a particular situation. Depending on who I’m talking to, my story of self might include a description about how my mom dealt with having multiple sclerosis, or how my dad took care or her, or both.
I’m not sure how to respond to your question about “dishonesty.” Can you expand on that? Thanks.
Syd, when you talk about ‘empowerment’ and ‘having effective conversations with voters’ it sounds very much like a training class for Christians who want to evangelise the Gospel.
I wonder if you believe in moral imperatives? Or is everything up for debate and everyone open to being persuaded?
I don’t quite get your point, Yeson8Won. Speaking for myself, I certainly believe in moral imperatives and do not believe everything is up for debate. In my view, the evils of genocide, slavery, torture, and rape are not open for debate. I believe that it also should not be open for debate that it is wrong to discriminate against people based on essential components of their identity such as their race, sex, gender identity or sexual orientation and that it is wrong to entitle some people to rights or a privileged status denied to others as a result of such invidious distinctions among members of humanity. That I believe in certain moral imperatives, however, does not mean that other people get to say that what they label as a personal moral imperative is not open to question.
But, regardless, I think you are missing what I understand the point of effective conversations with voters to be. My understanding is that the goal of those conversations is not to convince people that my moral imperatives are right and theirs are wrong, which is what happens in some evangelicalism. The goal in those conversations, as I understand it, instead is to try to help those being engaged with move toward the conclusion that a failure to support marriage equality is inconsistent with their own moral values of empathy, kindness, concern for children, respect for commitment, and belief that others should be treated as they want to be treated and as they want their children and others they love to be treated (as counseled in Matthew 8:12 along with the central texts of many other religions).
Nobody could deny your right to hold that view, but what about the many people who hold a different view, i.e. that homosexuality is a behaviour, that it is sinful and that marriage should not be redefined to accommodate that behaviour?
Should people who hold this view be immediately condemned as ‘homophobes’ who are motivated by ‘hate’?
With respect, you seem to be demanding that other people fall in line with what you consider a moral imperative.
But if you have a right to persuade others to adopt your view, how can you deny them a right to persuade you to adopt their view?
@Yeson8Won: Our model for speaking with voters about marriage doesn’t include condemning them as homophobes, calling them haters, or demanding that they fall in line.
It does include listening to a voter’s view on the issue and engaging them in a real conversation.
That’s good so long as your model respects other people’s right to hold a different view.
Sadly many on your side are not as civil as you and that does not help your case
A key thing that I remember here, when thinking about what it means to go door-to-door and talk to voters, is that it’s not about telling people they’re wrong or bad. It’s really about getting people to see the humanity of others in new ways. It’s about helping people understand how their personal views and their votes affect real people.
Telling our personal stories at the door is how we’re taking control of our own rights. When others vote to take our rights away, we’re not going to sit back and watch it happen without standing up for ourselves. Moral imperatives or not.
I know it’s personally important for me to stand up for my own rights and be honest with voters at the door about how I was affected when Prop 8 past. It really hurt me and many people I know and love. So yes, I’m going to work hard to figure out how to persuade others to think newly about this issue, because I don’t want to keep being hurt like that.
Jackson: With respect there is a contradiction in what you are saying, on the one hand not telling people they are wrong, yet on the other hand ‘taking control of our own rights’.
Clearly the majority of Americans do not see homosexual marriage as a right, and many state Supreme court rulings have supported that view.
Many Americans are equally determined not to sit back and watch traditional marriage be redefined in this way and have their feelings hurt. Presumably you are not very open toward their point of view yet you want them to ‘think newly about the issue’ without wanting to reciprocate?
I’m interested in how you go about ‘building coalitions with people of faith’, how can you do this if their faith sees homosexuality as sinful and homosexual marriage as a violation of Islam, Holy Matrimony and Hindu Dharma?
Marriage equality for gay people is supported by many people of faith and religious institutions. One excellent group already working to form coalitions supportive of marriage equality from a faith perspective is California Faith for Equality (http://www.calfaithforequality.org).
Certainly, some people have religious opposition to equal rights for lesbians and gay men. It is difficult to change some of those people’s views, but other religiously-conservative people have ended up supporting marriage equality after engaging in conversations about how they would feel if a religion other than their own got to dictate what the law should be. Others thought about the issue differently after discussions about other values they hold dear. Others reconsidered when they thought about the impact of exclusion from marriage on people they know. Some came to understand that real people are being harmed in very tangible ways (being denied health insurance, excluded from their partner’s bedside in the hospital or denied social security benefits) by exclusion from marriage and that this is quite different than having your “feelings hurt” because your ideology about sin and scripture is no longer getting to control civil law.
@Yeson8Won: I am having trouble seeing your point by engaging in conversation on this blog. It seems that you would not support any argument in favor of instilling the lgbt community to have liberties that are innate human rights. What are you trying to accomplish? And why are you so concerned with something that seemingly would not affect your life at all, certainly not on a day-to-day basis? I am fairly open-minded and yet I fail to see the other side to this argument. What is the harm in two consensual adults in a loving relationship having the same rights as any one else? And what does their relationship have to do with anyone else? If you wanted me to take the bait, done. And I do wish we could have this conversation face-to-face because I feel that the anonymity of the blog-sphere is unhelpful in conversing about these issues. In the simplest of questions, what is your true fear? I hope that even if you are not able to answer that here, you may find the strength to answer it honestly to yourself.
@Neaker: As this blog is about Camp Courage I would have thought it useful to hear opposing views and discuss ways to approach them instead of hearing only from people who agree and don’t need to be persuaded?
If you hope to convince the majority of Americans I think it’s unwise to talk about ‘marriage equality’ when what you really mean is homosexual marriage. And it’s hugely disingenuous to claim that homosexual marriage is an ‘innate human right’ without at least attempting to justify that assertion. Otherwise you come across as intolerant and confrontational.
Finally, why would you assume that opposition to homosexual marriage is based on fear?