The Marriage Equality Battle of Maine has begun

[Pint0 Xtreme]

NYT

Voters in Maine Will Decide Fate of Same-Sex Marriage Law
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Published: September 2, 2009
PORTLAND, Me. (AP) — Election officials announced Wednesday that opponents of the state’s same-sex marriage law had gathered more than enough voters’ signatures to put the issue to a vote in November, setting the stage for a furious, two-month campaign that will determine whether the number of states allowing the nuptials shrinks to five.

Maine’s law, passed by the Legislature and signed by the governor in May, was supposed to go into effect on Sept. 12. Meanwhile, the secretary of state’s office was verifying the number of signatures. With the signatures validated, Gov. John Baldacci, a Democrat, signed a formal proclamation on Wednesday putting the law to a statewide vote on Nov. 3.

“I fully support this legislation and believe it guarantees that all Maine citizens are treated equally under our state’s civil marriage laws,” Mr. Baldacci said of the same-sex marriage law. “But I also have a constitutional obligation to set the date for the election once the secretary of state has certified that enough signatures have been submitted.”

Maine became the fifth state to allow same-sex marriage when Mr. Baldacci signed the bill on May 6, and New Hampshire became the sixth when Gov. John Lynch, also a Democrat, signed a bill less than a month later. New Hampshire’s law goes into effect on Jan. 1.

Connecticut, Iowa, Massachusetts and Vermont also allow same-sex couples to marry.

Opponents in Maine needed the signatures of at least 55,087 registered voters for the so-called People’s Veto, and they turned in nearly 100,000 signatures. Secretary of State Matthew Dunlap said officials stopped counting once they determined that 60,391 of the submitted signatures were valid.

Election officials were facing a deadline of Friday to certify the signatures.

The official No On 1 campaign has already begun airing ads. Nothing much from the Yes On 1 camp yet. But if you take a look at their website, I think you will find uncanny similarities between this fight and Prop 8.

Namely this...
Prop 8:


And 1 in Maine:


Frank Schubert, the man who successfully ran the Prop 8 campaign, is now running the Yes On 1 campaign in Maine. I honestly didn't think they would be so blatant about it but now it's pretty clear now that either they're trying to brand Prop 8 and promote it around the country or that they think following exactly what they did in California will help them ban same-sex marriage in Maine.

Regardless, the Marriage Equality campaign in Maine are taking lessons learned in California, which ran an incredibly underwhelming campaign. No faces of gay couples were shown in the No On 8 TV ads and the messages were largely ineffective. I can only hope that the lessons No On 8 provided will be sufficient for them to win. Unfortunately, I probably will not be able to travel to Maine to help due to work obligations at least I can phone bank here. Does anyone here live in Maine?

Here is their latest TV ad:

[Darth Wong]

I think they need to make a point of reminding everyone that this is mercenary political lobbying group that they're fighting against, and that they run around the country interfering in the politics of other peoples' states. People don't like mercenaries, nor do they like outsiders running around interfering in local politics.

[Duckie]

Yeah, Wong, that shit won't fly in Maine, and if the campaign succeeds in pointing it out without looking xenophobic they'll get major public sentiment. Bostonians and New Hampshireites are allowed to interfere in Maine politics, but Utahns aren't. Incidentally, both sides are trying it, with NOM/SFM alleging that the defenders are Out of State Homosexual Activists from San Fransisco as one of their opening talking points. That's amusing, given the level of projection involved in that.

Also, Maine hopefully has learned from Prop 8. The opening Maine push seems to be: "Define Gay Marriage As Fairness" and "Show Local People". Maine is a Liberal Rural State (somewhat unfairly to it, but its "Cities" are just small towns and/or distant suburbs of Boston), and showing Gays as part of the In-Group of the state will be of incalculable benefit.

Fun facts on the catholic church and ethics hijinx:

Just this year, the Diocese of Maine has closed 6 churches due to lack of funds.

They also donated hundreds of thousands of dollars officially, up to 2 million by some hearsay, to the campaign. Priority disjunct much?

Also, Stand for Marriage Maine has exactly 7 donors to it, according to its finance reports: NOM, Catholic Church, Mormon Church (IIRC), and 4 Maine residents. Someone has filed suit with the Maine Ethics Board, alleging that NOM and the Catholic Church are encouraging their members to donate to the church or NOM who then donate to the PAC in order to hide their identity since donors of donors aren't required to be revealed, which is illegal under Maine law.

The Ethics Board has sent a stern 65 page letter (61 pages of which are evidence from NOM's own mouth it's using donations to Stand For Marriage Maine to keep donors anonymous from "harassment"), requesting NOM give its version of the events.

I've pretty good hopes for Maine, it's not going to be a downhill campaign but it sure as hell isn't uphill- the bigots will have to work hard to convince people, not just rely on their base (which is tiny in Maine). The only problem is the catholic church, which has been declinine even if it funnels its money to them.

And the Catholics are too greedy to go for broke- their bishop has a 1 million dollar 6 bedroom mansion despite being celibate and single, and they wouldn't sell it to save their churches. If it comes down to 'keep their tithes or give it to a political campaign', they'll keep their graft. Further, the number of religious in Maine is already small, and they can't alienate the liberal catholics. My Grandmother remembers an era where the Diocese would, post-mass, tell the members of the service who to vote for. They don't hold nearly as much power anymore, and can't muster people to vote against an issue that 45% of their members support in the first place.

[Vendetta]

Meanwhile, in Massachusetts, where the heathens allow the gays equal access to marriage divorce rates are lowest in country, lowest since WWII.

[Simplicius]

I think they need to make a point of reminding everyone that this is mercenary political lobbying group that they're fighting against, and that they run around the country interfering in the politics of other peoples' states. People don't like mercenaries, nor do they like outsiders running around interfering in local politics.

I haven't seen much by way of advertising yet, but I caught a bit of a news story on the subject the other day. The interviewee representing some anti-marriage-equality org gave a line about the legislature being out of touch with the people of Maine, blah blah blah - citing the 100,000 or so signatures on the petition as representative of a deeper current or some such. The cut went to an Equality Maine spokeswoman who immediately pointed out that veto supporters paid an out-of-state group to run around collecting signatures for them.

Maine being what it is, there is a pronounced dislike of meddling outsiders. The factual presence of influences From Away pushing for the veto should be a prominent part of Equality Maine's message.

[Pint0 Xtreme]

Apparently, only an extremely minute proportion of the funds in the anti-marriage equality camp came directly from individuals.

NOM under investigation

The National Organization for Marriage, which formed two years ago to take the lead to oppose equal marriage rights for same-sex couples, is coming under increased scrutiny.

Two civil rights groups in Iowa filed a letter with the Iowa Ethics and Campaign Disclosure Board Monday, August 31, requesting an investigation into the National Organization for Marriage (NOM). A pro-gay group in California filed a similar request August 13 with the Maine Commission on Governmental Ethics and Elections Practices.

The Iowa groups -- One Iowa and the Interfaith Alliance of Iowa Action Fund -- allege that NOM is violating state laws that require the public disclosure of contributors to political activities in the state. The law kicks in whenever an organization raises more than $750 for a campaign.

The NOM sought and on August 10 was granted preliminary certification as a "political corporation" in Iowa, enabling it to make independent expenditures for or against state and local candidates. The designation required NOM to disclose who its donors were.

On August 20, NOM filed a report with the Disclosure Board indicating it had spent $86,060 in the campaign to fill a vacant seat in the state House. But the report did not report where the money came from.

In an August 27 letter to Brian Brown, NOM executive director, the Iowa Disclosure Board warned that if the group accepted more than $750 for political activities in Iowa, it has to disclose its contributors. Disclosure Board Director and Legal Counsel Charlie Smithson confirmed that the board "is conducting an investigation."

Brown did not return a reporter’s call this week for comment. But the organization’s attorney told the Iowa Independent newspaper that the funds spent in Iowa came from NOM’s general treasury.

Californians Against Hate raised similar objections against Stand for Marriage Maine, a group trying to repeal the state’s recently passed equal marriage law. According to state campaign finance reports filed thus far, all but $400 of the more than $343,000 raised by Stand for Marriage has come from the National Organization for Marriage and two other groups. The records show that NOM has donated $160,000 to the campaign, the Portland diocese of the Roman Catholic Church has donated $152,000, and the state chapter of Focus on the Family has donated $31,000.

By comparison, the key group working against the referendum, "No on 1: Protect Maine Equality," has raised $143,290 -- all but $35,000 of which came from individuals. ($25,000 came from the Human Rights Campaign and $10,000 from the ACLU.) Equality Maine, another group working to defend the equal marriage law, has raised $63,561 -- all but $20,000 of which came from individuals (the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force contributed $20,000.)

In an August 13 letter to the Maine Commission, Californians Against Hate leader Fred Karger suggested NOM is "trying to hide the true identities of those contributing to the campaign."

Jonathan Wayne, head of the Commission, said Karger’s letter "lacked sufficient specificity" to trigger an investigation, but he asked Karger to "reformulate" his request and provide more specifics. Wayne said the Commission has also asked Stand for Marriage Maine to be prepared to respond to formal allegations.

The disclosure of the identities of contributors has become one of several stark battle lines in the repeated clashes between pro and anti-gay political campaigns. Anti-gay groups in California and Washington State mounted challenges against state financial disclosure requirements, claiming pro-gay activists are using the public information to intimidate donors to anti-gay campaigns. Their request was turned down in California but won at least a temporary stay in Washington.

According to the National Organization for Marriage website, NOM was founded in 2007 to establish "an organized opposition to same-sex marriage in state legislatures," but it acknowledges involvement in "marriage-related initiatives at the state and local level." The group is organized as a 501(c)(4) organization -- the same tax status as the pro-gay Human Rights Campaign. HRC has a separate political action committee (PAC) that it uses to make contributions to various candidate and issue campaigns around the country. NOM’s website indicates it has a NOM Marriage PAC that "will raise funds for direct involvement in targeted races of strategic importance around the country." A Federal Elections Commission spokesperson said the NOM PAC is not registered with the FEC, but does not need to be unless it becomes involved in federal campaigns.

According to the U.S. Internal Revenue Service, 501(c)(4) status means a group must be non-profit and "must be operated exclusively to promote social welfare." The IRS defines promoting social welfare as furthering "the common good and general welfare of the people of the community (such as by bringing about civic betterment and social improvements)." Such groups are permitted to engage in lobbying and "some political activities, so long as that is not its primary activity."

Fred Karger from Californians Against Hate is doing wonderful work for the movement exposing the funding sources of anti-marriage equality movement. It's how all the hoopla about the Mormon church funding blew up big and how boycotts, such as the one involving the San Diego Manchester Hyatt hotel when people found out that their manager donated a huge sum to Yes On 8, started. I suppose one can only hope that the No On 1 campaign can effectively take every single possible advantage. Also, from my understanding, there is a much larger and more involved door-to-door canvass program that's being used. It's a variation of a proven effective canvass program used at the Los Angeles Gay and Lesbian Center, which touts an impressive average move rate of 20% among voters. No On 8, in comparison, either didn't have a major canvass program or it was far too small to have been effective in the campaign.