Julian Bond, the chairman of the NAACP, urges viewers to "vote no" on a proposed amendment to Florida's Constitution that would prohibit legal recognition of any coupled relationship other than heterosexual marriage.

Pointing out that he's a Florida property owner and part-time resident, Bond adds that his respected civil-rights organization opposes the ban because: "It's divisive. It's harmful. It does not bring people together."

You won't find Bond's political ad airing in the high-priced Florida TV market. Instead, you can catch it in VoteNoOn2.com's video section — visited nearly 60,0000 times since February — as well as on YouTube and in postings on blogs and at online social networking sites, such Facebook and MySpace.

The Internet — especially its online social networks — is being relied on as never before to reach voters in this year's battles against anti-gay proposals. Activists in Florida in particular are testing its innovative powers.

Activists fighting anti-gay efforts are also tapping the Internet to reach out-of-state people who have ties to their state and who might be willing to donate money, volunteer for phone banks, or use email or social networking sites to urge friends or relatives living in a targeted state to cast gay-friendly ballots.

"Everything that starts a conversation is good," stresses Nadine Smith, executive director of Equality Florida, part of the "Fairness for All Families" coalition.

"People are finding more ways to avoid TV commercials, so friend-to-friend sharing of political information is increasingly powerful. With friends, you trust the source of information," Smith adds.

California is also battling over a proposed constitutional amendment — one that would take away the right to marry that gay couples already enjoy there. And Arizona, where in 2006 voters for the first time defeated a proposal to ban recognition of any unions other than heterosexual marriages, will vote on whether to insert a ban on gay marriage into the state constitution.

While not ignoring the muscle of the Internet, the "No on 8, Equality for All" campaign in California and the "Arizona Together" campaign hope to heavily use TV to get their messages to voters.

After Election Day, these experiments with different campaign outreach strategies in the three states will provide invaluable insights into what tools work best. That information won't just help beat back the next round of anti-gay proposals, it will also help activists in states like Michigan facing the daunting challenge of persuading voters to erase the anti-gay marriage bans already written into state constitutions.

Of particular interest will be gauging the effectiveness of the Internet-based communication tools — such as Facebook, Twitter, texting and YouTube videos — whose users tend to be young.

Two-thirds of 18- to 29-year-olds use social network sites like Facebook, the Pew Research Center reported in January. And 27 percent of that age group said they had gotten information about presidential candidates from such sites.

Meanwhile, 41 percent of the under-30 crowd reported regularly seeing some type of presidential campaign-related web video — a speech, interview, commercial or debate — versus 24 percent of adults overall.

The digital clipboard is a long way from replacing either TV ads or the good-hearted activist holding a wooden clipboard at a voter's front door. But digital tools are boosting the chances of beating back attacks on gay families in Florida, California and Arizona.

Deb Price of The Detroit News writes the first nationally syndicated column on gay issues. To find out more about Deb Price and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate web page at www.creators.com.

COPYRIGHT 2008 CREATORS SYNDICATE INC.