On Election Day, voters in four states — Maine, Minnesota, Maryland, and Washington will go to the polls to vote on marriage equality. There are currently six states (Iowa, Vermont, New Hampshire, M
assachusetts, Connecticut, and New York) and the District of Columbia where same-sex couples are allowed to marry. However, the law was changed through legislatures or court decisions. The LGBT community is 0-30 when the issue has come up for referendum, giving the National Organization for Marriage (NOM) a potent talking point when it claims to represent the will of the people. The importance of winning one of these battles cannot be overstated:
Even a single victory “will be a turning point,” said Chad Griffin, the president of the Human Rights Campaign, a national group promoting gay rights that has directed $5 million to the four marriage battles.
Reporter Erik Eckholm covered the issue for the New York Times today:
Current polls indicate a solid lead for supporters in Maine and a lesser one in Washington State, while the races in Maryland and Minnesota are about even, with the opponents apparently gaining.
Perhaps the most expensive campaign is in Washington State, where supporters of Referendum 74, to endorse same-sex marriage, have raised nearly $11 million, including $2.5 million from Jeff Bezos, the founder of Amazon.com, and his wife, Mackenzie, and $600,000 from Bill and Melinda Gates. The opponents have raised $2.4 million, including $1.1 million provided by the National Organization for Marriage. Matt Barreto, a political scientist and pollster at the University of Washington, said that polls showing a 10-point advantage for the proposal may be misleading, because some voters listed as undecided are embarrassed to voice their opposition. But he said that a steady 53 percent of Washington voters express support, and he expects the measure to be approved.
I want to state for the record how much I despise having our rights voted on by the public. It is outrageous and grotesque that people get to vote on my marriage. My views are in line with an excellent NYT editorial in today’s paper:
The freedom to marry is a fundamental right that should not have to be won or defended at the ballot box. In fact, ballot initiatives are a bad way to write or rewrite laws of any kind. Unfortunately, that is the reality of American politics…
The indignity of letting “the people” decide the rights of minorities was underscored by another NYT article today titled, “Alabama Simmers Before Vote On Its Constitution’s Racist Language.” In 2012, the good folks in this southern state are actually going to vote on issues we thought were resolved decades ago. According to the newspaper:
Amendment 4, which Alabamians will vote on next week, would eliminate obsolete but lingering passages from the State Constitution mandating separate schools “for white and colored children.”
Really, folks? In the 21st Century we are still having this discussion? At this rate, gay marriage will be legal in some states in the year 3000. This is why referendums on the rights of minorities are a disgrace that mocks our nation’s values.
In other related marriage news, actor Brad Pitt gave $100,000 to the Human Rights Campaign for the purpose of winning these marriage ballot measures — which ties Pitt for coolest straight dude along with Minnesota Vikings punter Chris Kluwe and Bezos. (Folks, please feel free to remind us of the many I surely overlooked)
** In the Huffington Post, Scott Wooledge unmasks the phony victim who is appearing in anti-gay marriage ads.
Finally, I’d be curious how our readers think we are going to perform in the states with marriage on the ballot?
Personally, from what I have seen so far, I think it will be surprising if we win even one. Though better than previous campaigns in many ways, we’re still not approaching it from the perspective of out proud people.
I got an email from WA yesterday, asking for money to combat the gays-are-gonna-get-your children fear mongering ads. The tone of the email was that they were shocked–simply shocked– that Frank Schubert thought of this.
As I have been saying for years, if we don’t talk about faith, children, and bigotry, especially religious bigotry, we can continue to expect to lose in the court of public opinion.
That is a good point Ben. The ads we use continue to be controversial for the reasons that you mention.
Wayne, I’d be happy to post my analysis of why we lost prop. 8. It’s quite lengthy, but it lays out the problems in detail. I sent it to each ofthe current campaigns months ago, begging them to stop running these closet based campaigns. Only Washington bothered to answer, and though their ads have improved, they’re still not where they need to be.
I am confident that there will be victory in at least one state. A lot of straight people have lately come to understand bullying non-acceptance of gay people for what it is — bigotry — and are not so easily fooled by the bigots’ hateful campaigns.
Ben, that would be great. Please send to wbesen@truthwinsout.org
Do you think you might want to publish it as a guest opinion? I sent it to you a few hours ago.
Progressives, liberals etc must work to get all variety of referendums and initiatives placed on ballots, so the civil rights of the conservative right-wingers can be put to the vote. Let’s see if we can get refs on laws requiring all voters to prove they have attained a certain level of education…not just…with enough signatures it can get on a ballot and though it would not pass, the church cretins will know how it feels to have their rights put to a vote, and some of them might not like being on the bullying end. How about referendums on whether churches should be taxed? That would make many of them crap their pants.
I would love to be able to vote on taxing churches. That would get an instant yes vote from me, since a good number can’t seem to keep their nose out of politics.
I’d like a “Sanctity of Marriage” amendment to make divorce illegal, except in cases of demonstrable adultery. So many of the most public fundagelicals are tainted in that department that it would be fun to see their reaction to that one!
Your distaste for seeing one’s right to marry being voted upon strikes a nerve for me as well.
My life continues to be a political football in a game strung out by a very well-funded industry focused on curtailing me and mine from getting on with our lives.
Voting on my right to marry may be necessary but is absurd. This is a myopic, indolent democracy that has to be babied and badgered and reassured at every step into acting fairly towards its LGBT citizens.
LGBT rights have been a long struggle for fair play—and fair play isn’t something voted upon, it’s just what decent folk afford one another.
Well said.
I think the Minnesota amendment will fail. Recent polls have consistently shown the anti-gay side at under 50%. Also, according to law, a non-vote is a no vote for amendment ballots. I’m confident that this state will vote the right way.
National referendum to reinstate the Fairness Doctrine.
National referendum to reinstate the Glass–Steagall Act.
National referendum to create a “truth in broadcasting” rule similar to Canada’s.
National referendum for a US Constitutional amendment prohibiting any profits from war. All profits from war go into public funds, not private pockets.
Natinonal referendum for a US Constitutional amendment explicitly guaranteeing separation of church and state…obviously the Bill of Rights is not enough.
National referendums to strenghten transparency of corporations and to undo the ‘corporations are people” mess.
ETC ETC ETC feel free to add others!
None would win, probably, but the rich and their right wing religionista toadies would crap themselves and get a taste of what it is like to be bullied, as they have bullied free thinkers and nonconformists for millennia.