Seyward Darby has a good analysis of some stupid anti-same-sex-marriage arguments being made in the context of a Maine restore-inequality initiative. Essentially, the situation in Maine is similar to that in California in 2008 -- similar arguments against SSM (in this case, in some cases by the same public relations firm) made by well-funded interests to a closely divided public.
This parity teaches a valuable lesson. We were often informed by pundits that the backlash against SSM in California was a distinctive feature of change created by judicial decisions. But, of course, it wasn't. Just as Anita Bryant's campaign against gay and lesbian rights was instigated by decisions made by elected local governments, not courts, opponents of same-sex marriage in Maine haven't abjured the initiative process or avoided making "divisive" arguments simply because it was a legislature, rather than a court, that announced a change in the status quo. Rhetoric about "judicial activists" can easily be changed to rhetoric about "[a] handful of politicians." And there's no good reason -- theoretical or empirical -- to expect otherwise. Decisions about whether to ligate for equal marriage rights should be driven about its likelihood of success, not on the myth that opposition can somehow be preempted if change is achieved in the "right" way. After all, it never can be according to its opponents anyway.
--Scott Lemieux
