This fall, opponents of marriage equality are going to lose a much-beloved talking point: That in every state where the issue has gone on the ballot, voters have rejected opening marriage to same-sex pairs. (Oh, those sensible voters, with so much more common sense than “unelected judges” – who opened up marriage in California, Connecticut, Iowa, Maine, and Massachusetts – and plum-crazy Democratic state legislators – who passed such laws in California, Maryland, Vermont, New Hampshire, New York!*) [*Note: Voters repealed, or governors vetoed, some of those legislative actions in California.]
But that talking point is about to change. On November 6, the freedom to marry someone of the same sex is up for a vote in four states: Maine, Maryland, Minneosta, and Washington. Each state’s initiative and situation is quite different–but in at least one, and possibly three (although that would be a stretch), voters are going to offer marriage licenses to their lesbian and gay neighbors. Over the years, I’ve watched too many ballot-box defeats on marriage to be anything but jaundiced, at a minimum. But at least two of these are different-and, conceivably if not probably, the outcome could be different in all four.
Let’s start looking at Maryland, where the pro-equality forces most desperately need more funding. (If you’re going to give, try Freedom to Marry’s Win More States fund, where you can designate the donation for Maryland, or Marylanders for Marriage Equality.) The backstory: in February the Maryland legislature passed, and on March 1, Gov. Martin O’Malley enthusiastically signed, a marriage equality law that won’t take effect until January. The law was named in jujitsu fashion “The Religious Freedom and Civil Marriage Protection Act,” since the text explicitly addressed the canard that allow civil same-sex marriage would force churches to perform religious marriages that they oppose theologically. As expected, opponents immediately launched a petition drive to put the measure on the ballot.
The bad news: there hadn’t been statewide prep for this ballot measure-you know, LGBT people and supporters doing a slow, person-by-person education campaign about why we want to marry, talking to neighbors, chambers of commerce, community groups, family members, and so on. And in every state where these things have gone on the ballot in the past, it’s been impossible to truly firm up support in just six months. On the other hand, Maryland marriage equality forces have a couple things going for them that we haven’t had before. First, equal marriage is the yes vote. Past ballot measures have all read some variation of this sentence: “marriage is between one man and one woman.” Unless you’ve thought about it carefully, and talked with folks about why you might not want to exclude your lesbian cousin or gay neighbor, it’s hard to vote against what you’ve been raised to believe is a dictionary definition. This time, in Maryland, the ballot language is on our side, making it clear that if you vote yes, you are voting to let your lesbian and gay neighbors get married, because what the heck, who will it hurt?
Kevin Nix, a spokesperson for the Marylanders for Marriage Equality campaign, told me that the ballot language is extremely “clear, direct, and simple. That’s helpful, and unlike previous ballot language in any other state. It’s an advantage to have very strong language, which is the last thing voters see.” The referendum is titled the “Civil Marriage Protection Act,” followed by this paragraph describing it:
Establishes that Maryland’s civil marriage laws allow gay and lesbian couples to obtain a civil marriage license, provided they are not otherwise prohibited from marrying; protects clergy from having to perform any particular marriage ceremony in violation of their religious beliefs; affirms that each religious faith has exclusive control over its own theological doctrine regarding who may marry within that faith; and provides that religious organizations and certain related entities are not required to provide goods, services, or benefits to an individual related to the celebration or promotion of marriage in violation of their religious beliefs.
Here’s another thing Maryland marriage equality forces have going for them: when President Obama came out in favor of same-sex marriage, he transformed the African American community’s opinions on the issue. A recent Baltimore Sun poll had African Americans 58 percent in favor of the law, which will of course fall at the ballot box-but is much better than anyone imagined even a few years ago. Maryland has an unusually high percentage of African Americans – nearly a quarter of the state — so that opinion makes an enormous difference
Both sides are carefully targeting African American voters. Notoriously, the National Organization for Marriage – which since its founding has been the primary funder of opposition to same-sex marriage nationwide – wrote in a leaked memo that a critical part of its strategy was:
“The strategic goal of this project is to drive a wedge between gays and blacks-two key Democratic constituencies. Find, equip, energize and connect African American spokespeople for marriage, develop a media campaign around their objections to gay marriage as a civil right; provoke the gay marriage base into responding by denouncing these spokesmen and women as bigots…”
Flyers have started showing up in minority neighborhoods, on cars and in doors, purportedly from a group called “Jump the Broom for Marriages.” I assume that the small National Organization for Marriage (NOM), which has funded most anti-marriage-equality efforts for several years now, was behind this. NOM is notorious for hiding their donors and attacking finance disclosure laws all over the country. My question: Didn’t anyone at NOM headquarters think about the irony in the fact that slaves once had to “jump the broom” when their owners didn’t allow them to marry?. MetroWeekly has pictures of the flyers, reporting:
One flier contained a picture of a heterosexual African-American couple getting married, with the words: ”If my mommy is my daddy, and my daddy is my mommy, what does that make my aunt?” followed by a biblical citation reading: ”So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them.”
The Maryland Marriage Alliance’s official television ads, just rolled out last week, are much softer focus, saying that “everyone is entitled to love and respect” but that “children do better with a married mom and dad.” (Maryland Marriage Alliance is heavily NOM-funded.)
On the other hand, Marylanders for Marriage Equality’s organizing has focused on getting African American ministers to speak out on our side. Kevin Nix told me that was why the campaign put such an effort into gathering African American pastors for a press conference-the first such ever-to support the law. Here’s how MetroWeekly reported on that press conference, which had ripples throughout Maryland (emphases are mine):
Led by the Rev. Delman Coates, pastor of the 8,000-member Mt. Ennon Baptist Church in Clinton, Md., 11 ministers expressed their support for civil marriage equality, even if their particular churches oppose same-sex marriage.
”As pastors and clergy leaders, we are here today to declare our unequivocal support for Maryland’s Civil Marriage Protection Act and to dispel the myth that all African-American pastors are fundamentally opposed to the idea of marriage equality,” Coates told the audience at the Press Club…
”Admittedly, many of us find the idea of voting on someone else’s civil rights a bit disconcerting,” Coates continued. ”When the rights of the minority are submitted to a vote, all too often the minority loses.”
Their lead television ad is quite explicit, with African American minister Rev. Donte Hickman of the Southern Baptist Church asking people to vote in favor of question 6, saying he wouldn’t want the government denying his rights because of someone else’s religious beliefs (take that, Southern Baptists!) and that the law protects churches from performing any marriages they oppose. The campaign also rolls out videos of long-married heterosexual couples (like the Nugents, who say they are “cradle Catholics” and deeply involved in their church) who want their gay children to be able to marry just like the rest of their children, and for the same reasons.
Of course, NOM and its local affiliate have been doing their own organizing-and had a rival African-American ministerial press conference the same day over in Virginia.
Roughly 30 percent of Republicans say they support the law, Nix told me, which is slightly higher than the national average (23 percent in a CNN poll last May), but not surprising, once you realize that most of that vehement opposition is among Ssouthern evangelicals.
There’s a third, and very cool, thing that the pro-equality forces have had on their side: football players. Okay, one player. Baltimore Ravens linebacker Brendon Ayanbadejo got into a much-publicized spat when one Maryland state rep wrote to the Ravens and told them to shut their player up. That blew up, and both Ayanbadejo and one of his fellow players, Matt Birk, have been speaking out on opposite sides of the issue. But having a football player speak out against LGBT rights is like having a white guy in the White House: what else would you expect? And so Ayanbadejo’s support is the man-bites-dog story, which stirs up attention. I’ve never before seen a current professional athlete –and a football player, no less, as macho as it gets! – stand up for LGBT rights like that. It’s been jaw-dropping.
Kevin Nix told me that “the opposition doesn’t have a ground game except in the churches, which is potent and important — but they’re not doing what we’re doing, and never have. We have been getting our message out ahead of time about what their arguments are, trying to set the record straight.” (John Riley reported on this approach in depth at MetroWeekly, for those who want more details.) All that is good. Still, inertia is on the side of excluding same-sex couples from marriage; voters who haven’t talked the issue through with someone are relucant to make any changes.
I don’t know if the marriage equality forces can win in Maryland. Various news organizations are noting that there’s a ten-point spread on the equality side, with the latest Baltimore Sun poll showing that 49 percent of likely voters say they’ll vote yes on question 6 and only 39 percent against. (The Marylanders for Marriage Equality campaign has some internal polling that looks slightly better, but not by much.) But I don’t believe the spread. In the past, all those undecideds vote against us, and from two to four points of support drop away. It’s possible that the new factors I mentioned above will make the difference and that, come January, same-sex couples will be getting married in Maryland. But it will be close.
If Maryland’s question 6 doesn’t pass, it’s not the end of the world. Maryland’s same-sex couples can cross the border into D.C. to get married; the state has already made clear that it will officially recognize those marriages. Most important, if 6 is voted down, Marylanders for Marriage Equality need to continue the campaign as if it never stopped-educating one by one, door to door, in community forums, and every other possible way-and then pop the question again in two years, just as they’re doing in Maine… where we’re going to win.
CAN YOU EMBED>? http://www.examiner.com/video/protecting-religious-freedom
Next time: Marry Me in … Maine?
