(Washington, DC)  Civil rights triumphed over another failed attack from advocates of discrimination when today, the D.C. Board of Elections and Ethics rejected a proposed referendum to put the rights of a minority up for a vote.

The proposed effort to limit the rights of District residents was brought by Stand For Marriage and Maryland pastor, Bishop Harry Jackson. The BOEE denied the referendum as a violation of the Human Rights Act of the District of Columbia.

 “Equality should never be up for debate or denied on a ballot,” said D.C. resident Michael Crawford, Co-chair of D.C. for Marriage. “We only want what every other American already has – the right to marry the person we love.”

Rev. Cedric Harmon, a D.C. resident and a representative of D.C. Clergy United for Marriage Equality, a group of nearly 200 Washington, D.C. faith leaders representing all eight wards of the District and a variety of religious faiths added the following statement in support of the BOEE’s decision:

 ”It is shameful when religious leaders fail to uphold the Christian teachings of our faith by trying to institutionalize a second-class citizenship on our neighbors. People of faith have worked for generations to achieve social justice for all people — regardless of race, creed, class, religion, gender, or sexual orientation. We serve our entire flock, and there is no justification under God that we should discriminate against any of God’s children.

“The District of Columbia has not voted on the civil rights of a minority since the Civil War, when a majority prevented freed male slaves from gaining the right to vote. Today, the Board of Elections and Ethics reminded us that human rights should never be put to a vote. As members of the clergy who support equal rights for all citizens, and who struggle to achieve social justice in the District of Columbia, we applaud the BOEE for standing up for human rights in the face of discrimination.”

I react to events that way.

I take them personally, and I react personally.

A celebrity offends LGBTs, I want to stay away from her movies or tune out his music.

A politician votes against LGBTs, I want to vote against him or her.

A church disparages LGBTs, I want to tally up all the injustices, crimes and offenses committed by the church.

The majority of a state votes for institutional discrimination against LGBTs, I want to return the pain.

Maine voters on Nov. 3 cast ballots to repeal a gay-marriage bill signed into law in May by Democratic Gov. John Baldacci.

There was a lot of money from both sides pumped into the election. There were a lot of television ads. There was a lot of knocking on doors and dialing phones. There was a lot of commitment to the campaigns inside and Maine and outside Maine.

And there was a lot at stake.

If voters had upheld the law, it would have been the first time a state’s voters endorsed marriage for same-sex couples.

Instead, voters delivered another first — the first time an electorate overturned a gay-marriage law enacted by state lawmakers.

Now I’m boiling over Maine.

Where to direct the anger?

Not at legislators, who voted for marital rights for same-sex couples.

Not at the governor, who signed the bill for marital rights for same-sex couples.

Not at the coalition of national, state and local LGBT groups that raised money and rallied volunteers.

Not at Maine’s newspapers, which in editorials urged voters to defeat the anti-gay initiative.

The anger is directed at the religious institutions — specifically the Catholic Church — and the right-wing organizations — specifically the National Organization for Marriage — that fueled the anti-gay drive.

And the anger is directed at the voters who gobbled up the lies and hate like candy — or, like dope.

Yes, considering the relationships between NOM and the voter, the church and the voter, I’m reminded of the drug dealer and the user — one pushes dope, one gets doped and we suffer, society suffers.

People cling to lies about LGBT people because they confirm pre-existing beliefs. They seek out information to support their beliefs, and oh, yes, they do feed on the false information when it is pushed on them.

A study by researchers at the University of Buffalo examined why voters clung so to the belief that Saddam Hussein was responsible for the terrorist attacks on the United States in Sept. 11, 2001, even after evidence proved otherwise.

The researchers, in a paper in Sociological Inquiry, argued that people continued to believe in a connection because of their pre-existing beliefs about the Bush administration. Believers in the president and his administration sought justification for the decision to go to war and held to the false belief.

The researchers explained this as “inferred justification,” a phenomenon in which someone has a belief and finds information — regardless of its accuracy — to support the belief.

The researchers also cited the theory of cognitive dissonance, which explains that information that contradicts a pre-existing belief prompts a defense — the information is ignored as if it doesn’t exist or the information motivates a person to discredit the source.

So, remembering Maine, how do we go forward?

We’ve already declared war on the anti-gay pushers and, just like the war on drugs, it’s a costly battle.

What we’ve got to do more effectively is break the cycle of addiction to lies and hate, prejudice and misinformation among those who don’t realize they’ve got a problem, among those who, when their pre-existing belief is challenged, score some more dope.

With about 72 percent of the expected vote counted Thursday in unofficial returns, Referendum 71 was leading 52 percent to 48 percent, with a margin of about 60,000 votes.

Sen. Ed Murray, a Seattle Democrat who spearheaded the law, called it “a great step forward for equality in Washington state.”

“I’m relieved,” he said. “I was very concerned that if the voters had said no, it would have been a major setback for gay and lesbian families in Washington state.”

The measure asked voters to approve or reject the latest expansion of the state’s domestic partnership law, granting registered domestic partners additional state rights previously given only to married couples.

Full-fledged gay marriage is still not allowed under Washington law.

Gary Randall of Protect Marriage Washington, which opposed the law and pushed to get the referendum on the ballot, said they weren’t ready to concede.

“We’re just going to wait and watch it play out,” he said.

Randall said that while they’re waiting until all the votes are counted, “going in, we knew that we had a pretty tough task ahead of us.”

“We knew there was a chance we would not prevail,” he said.

Two national gay rights groups – the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force and the Family Equality Council – say that voter approval of such a measure was a first. Gay equality laws in other states, ranging from civil rights to gay marriage, have either been implemented by the courts or legislative process. Voters have rejected gay marriage 31 states, most recently in Maine, where voters repealed a gay marriage law on Tuesday.

“Our state made history today,” said Anne Levinson, chairwoman of Washington Families Standing Together, which fought to keep the law on the books. “This is a day for which we can all look back with pride.”

The expanded law in Washington state adds benefits, such as the right to use sick leave to care for a domestic partner, and rights related to adoption, child custody and child support.

During the campaign, opponents argued the law is a stepping-stone to gay marriage. Gay rights activists countered that while the marriage debate was for another day, same-sex couples need additional legal protections and rights in the meantime.

The law was to take effect July 26, but was delayed because of the referendum campaign. It will now take effect Dec. 3, according to the secretary of state’s office.

The underlying domestic partnership law, which the Legislature passed in 2007, provided hospital visitation rights, the ability to authorize autopsies and organ donations, and inheritance rights when there is no will.

Last year, lawmakers expanded the law to give domestic partners standing under laws covering probate and trusts, community property and guardianship.

More than 12,000 people in Washington state are registered as domestic partners, and most are gay. Under state law, senior heterosexual couples can register as domestic partners as well, if at least one partner is 62 years old or older. That provision was included by lawmakers to help seniors who don’t remarry out of fear they could lose certain pension or social security benefits.

Washington state, along with California, Oregon, New Jersey, and the District of Columbia, have laws that either recognize civil unions or domestic partnerships that afford same-sex couples similar rights to marriage.

Same-sex marriage is legal in Massachusetts, Connecticut, Iowa and Vermont, and will start in New Hampshire in January. Voters in Maine on Tuesday repealed a gay marriage law that was passed by the Legislature there earlier this year.

Gov. Chris Gregoire said that the vote on R-71 made her “very proud.”

“I think Washington state stood out in this country on Tuesday by saying one of the inherent values in our state is equality,” she said Thursday.

Results weren’t known until Thursday because almost all voters in Washington cast their ballots by mail, and even those ballots postmarked on Election Day are valid. That means close elections often drag on for a few days or longer.

But how do you think yesterday’s election results will influence gay travel patterns? Will queer innkeepers in the very LGBT-friendly and gay-welcoming town of Ogunquit, Maine suffer thanks to the same-sex marriage defeat? Will you change your Ogunquit travel plans and head to Provincetown instead, since Massachusetts has legal gay marriage? Does that even make sense when planning your vacation?

Ben Finzel is senior vice president and head of the public affairs practice at Widmeyer Communications, and has specialized in LGBT communications practice and travel, working with tourism bureaus and following travel trends. “Travel is a personal decision, particularly for our community,” offers Finzel. “Maine is a naturally beautiful state with many wonderful attractions and lots of great people – many of whom are LGBT. I think gay travelers need to make up their own minds to either choose to travel to Maine to demonstrate the positive power of our travel or choose to stay away to demonstrate the negative financial impact we can have on destinations that oppose LGBT equality. You can make a strong case for either position.”

Finzel continues: “Whether or not gay travelers choose to visit Maine in the future, I think we should all make a point of being out, visible and vocal in our travel decisions. Choose service providers that engage with our community and tell them that’s why we chose them. Consider whether or not we feel comfortable visiting specific destinations and engage people in those destinations as we’re considering where to go.”

Need some new possible places to consider as a result of Tuesday’s elections? Quite a few cities saw some gay victories. Chapel Hill, North Carolina will have a gay mayor as the newly elected Mark Kleinschmidt takes office. And Houston, America’s fourth-largest city, could have an openly lesbian mayor; Annise Parker scored the most votes in her race against her opponent; she now faces a heated run-off come December. These are good steps.

Meanwhile, other gays candidates won never-before-held city offices in Detroit, Akron, Ohio and St. Petersburg, Florida. And bless Kalamazoo, Michigan for passing a highly debated ordinance protecting LGBT rights. Now in Kalamazoo it will be illegal to discriminate against gay, lesbian and transgendered individuals in the areas of hiring, housing and public accommodation in the Michigan city. And Washington State saw its domestic partnership laws upheld, too.

But what does this mean for LGBT travel. Do election results influence where you go?

Certainly, the LGBT community always pays attention to how gay-friendly a destination is, legislatively or culturally. And we’ve gotten quite good at picking out which companies we travel with based on their queer-friendly practices. That needn’t change.

“Increasingly, gay travelers are thinking much more strategically about where we spend our travel dollars,” says Finzel. “We look at the level of engagement that airlines and car rental companies have with our community, we consider the role of hoteliers in anti-gay ballot initiatives and we consider how gay-friendly a destination might be based on factors such as safety, role of pro-gay companies in their communities, etc. With so many travel providers and destinations taking an active role in proactively and positively seeking our business, we are realizing we have choices and can choose not to support anti-gay companies or destinations with our travel dollars.”

“I think the next big trend is going to be our community looking for, and demanding, that companies and destinations that want our business earn it with active involvement in opposing anti-gay ballot initiatives and related efforts,” Finzel says. “It won’t be enough for travel industry leaders (or other corporate leaders, for that matter) to say they are gay-friendly: they’ll have to demonstrate they mean it by actively supporting a No On 1 effort (Maine) or a Yes on 71 effort (Washington) and speaking out against attempts to legislate hate.”

Hear that gay-positive travel companies? We commend you on your great LGBT-supportive business practices. But, it’s time to take your gay investment up a notch. It’s getting personal.

So… See you in Maine next summer! Maybe.

Conservatives, in contrast, celebrated Maine voters’ rejection of a law that would have allowed gay couples to wed, depicting it as a warning shot that should deter politicians in other states from pushing for same-sex marriage.

“Every time the citizens have voted on marriage, they have always sided with natural marriage,” said Mathew Staver, founder of Liberty Counsel, a Florida-based Christian legal group. “Maine dramatically illustrates the will of the people, and politicians should wake up and listen.”

Gay activists were frustrated that Obama, who insists he staunchly supports their overall civil rights agenda, didn’t speak out forcefully in defense of Maine’s marriage law before Tuesday’s referendum. The law was repealed in a vote of 53 percent to 47 percent.

“President Obama missed an opportunity to state his position against these discriminatory attacks with the clarity and moral imperative that would have helped in this close fight,” said Evan Wolfson of the national advocacy group Freedom to Marry. “The anti-gay forces are throwing millions of dollars into various unsubtle ads aimed at scaring people, so subtle statements from the White House are not enough.”

The White House, asked about the criticism, had no immediate comment.

The marriage debate is simmering in at least a half-dozen states where a same-sex marriage bill is pending or where a court ruling or existing law is being eyed by conservatives for possible challenge.

Had Maine’s law been upheld by voters, it would have become the sixth state to legalize gay marriage – and the first to affirm it by popular vote. In Massachusetts, Vermont, Connecticut, New Hampshire and Iowa, gay marriage resulted from court decisions or legislation.

California is sure to be a major battleground over the next several years. Last year, conservatives succeeded in winning public approval of Proposition 8, which overturned a state court ruling allowing gay marriage. Gay rights groups want to take the issue back to the voters but are divided on a timetable.

In the aftermath of the Maine vote, some California activists appealed to their supporters for money to help them put a measure on the 2010 ballot. Other activist leaders want to wait until 2012.

“It’s never too early to go back to right a fundamental wrong,” said Chaz Lowe of Yes! on Equality, who favors shooting for 2010. “A lot of people are angry, a lot of people are upset. It at least has the potential to be a mobilization for the grass roots.”

Some California activists said the outcome in Maine strengthened their belief that it will fall to the U.S. Supreme Court – not the voters – to make gay marriage legal. A federal lawsuit challenging Prop. 8 is scheduled to go to trial in January, the first step in a legal journey that is expected to reach the high court in a few years.

“The results in Maine underscore exactly why we are challenging California’s same-sex marriage ban,” said Chad Griffin, president of the American Foundation for Equal Rights, the Los Angeles group spearheading the lawsuit. “The U.S. Constitution guarantees equal rights to every American, and when those rights are violated, it is the role of our courts to protect us, regardless of what the polls say.”

The situation elsewhere:

- In New Jersey, the election Tuesday of Republican Chris Christie as governor puts extra pressure on gay rights supporters to win passage of a pending same-sex marriage bill before the legislative session ends in January. Christie says he would veto such a bill, while lame-duck Gov. Jon Corzine, a Democrat, says he would sign it.

- In Iowa, where the state Supreme Court legalized gay marriage last April, conservatives have no quick way to overturn the ruling. Their only option would be to amend the state constitution through a ballot measure – in 2014 at the earliest – and that effort would need approval from a legislature whose current Democratic leaders don’t even want to debate the issue.

- In New Hampshire, conservatives have filed legislation to repeal the state’s new gay-marriage law and amend the constitution to ban such unions. Kevin Smith, executive director of the conservative Cornerstone Policy Research, said he doubts the measures will pass, but hopes the vote in Maine will give gay-marriage opponents ammunition for the 2010 elections.

“It gives us more fodder to go back to people and say, ‘Look, they aren’t letting you vote on it,’” Smith said.

- In Washington, D.C., conservatives are trying to force a popular vote on a bill headed toward City Council approval that would legalize gay marriage. Michael Crawford, one of the leaders of the local pro-gay marriage campaign, said the result in Maine increased his determination to avoid a ballot measure.

“The same cabal of anti-gay groups who stripped away marriage equality from our families in California and Maine now have their sights on D.C.,” he said.

Crawford was among numerous gay rights leaders complaining about the campaign tactics of the groups that opposed same-sex marriage in Maine and California.

In both states, California-based political strategist Frank Schubert oversaw an advertising campaign warning that “homosexual marriage” would be taught in public schools.

The campaign to defend gay marriage countered that Maine’s state curriculum guidelines contain no reference to marriage, and the state’s Democratic attorney general, Janet Mills, issued an opinion backing that up. But the ads continued.

“It is infuriating to see that the same fear-mongering ads that were used to pass Prop. 8 a year ago have triumphed again at the expense of so many,” said Joe Solmonese of the Human Rights Campaign, the largest national gay rights group.

Tony Perkins, president of the conservative Family Research Council, came away with a different message.

“Over and over again, the American people have affirmed marriage at the ballot box and turned aside the demands of a movement that remains largely driven by Hollywood, some extreme activists and a few activist judges,” he said. “We hope the message sent by Maine’s voters will be heard in Washington and state capitals around the nation.”

City controller Annise Parker and former city attorney Gene Locke are headed to a runoff to become mayor of America’s fourth-biggest city.

Parker, who would be the first openly gay mayor of Houston, collected nearly 31 percent of the vote Tuesday.

Locke, with 25 percent, topped architect and urban planner Peter Brown, who had nearly 23 percent.

A runoff is needed because no one received 50 percent of the vote. A specific date has not yet been set for the election, but it will be in December.

A victory for Parker would make Houston the largest U.S. city with an openly gay mayor.

Instead, they went home at midnight, dejected and near tears after a failed bid to make Maine the first state to approve same-sex marriage at the ballot box.

“I’m ready to start crying,” said Burnett, a 58-year-old massage therapist, walking out of the ballroom with Swanson at her side. “I don’t understand what the fear is, why people are so afraid of this change.

“It hurts. It hurts personally,” she said. “It’s a personal rejection of us and our relationship, and I don’t understand what the fear is.”

With 87 percent of precincts reporting, gay-marriage foes had 53 percent of the vote in a referendum that asked Maine voters whether they wanted to repeal a law allowing same-sex marriage that had passed the Legislature and was signed by Democratic Gov. John Baldacci.

“The institution of marriage has been preserved in Maine and across the nation,” said Frank Schubert, the chief organizer for Stand for Marriage Maine, which lobbied for the repeal.

For the gay rights movement, which has gained a foothold in New England, it was a stinging defeat. Gay marriage has now lost in every state – 31 in all – in which it has been put to a popular vote. Gay-rights activists had hoped to buck that trend in Maine, framing same-sex marriage as a matter of equality for all families in a campaign that used 8,000 volunteers to get out the message.

Five states have legalized gay marriage – Iowa, Massachusetts, Vermont, New Hampshire and Connecticut – but all did so through legislation or court rulings, not by popular vote.

Portland resident Sarah Holman said she was torn, but decided – despite her conservative upbringing – to vote in favor of letting gays marry.

“They love and they have the right to love. And we can’t tell somebody how to love,” said Holman, 26.

While the gay marriage opponents claimed victory, Jesse Connolly, campaign manager for No on 1/Protect Maine Equality, held off conceding until early Wednesday, when he issued a statement vowing to continue to press the issue.

The fight for marriage equality will continue, he told supporters at the Holiday Inn ballroom, where a buffet table included a three-tiered wedding cake – with two grooms standing side by side, two brides standing side by side and the inscription: “We all do!”

“We’re not short-timers. We’re here for the long haul and whether it’s just all night and into the morning, or it’s next week or next month or next year. We will be here. We’ll be here fighting. We’ll be working. We will regroup.”

For Burnett and Swanson, the July 10 wedding date – and a reception cruise on Casco Bay – is off.

The latest numbers are 51.1 percent approve domestic partnerships; 48.9 percent reject them.

Dave Ammons, a spokesperson for the Secretary of State’s office, said the office is posting results at www.vote.wa.gov. But he added that they would have “probably no more than half of the expected total vote counted by the end of the evening.”

© 2009 Keen News Service

In an election that had been billed for weeks as too close to call, Maine’s often unpredictable voters repealed a state law Tuesday that would have allowed same-sex couples to wed. Gay marriage has now lost in all 31 states in which it has been put to a popular vote – a trend that the gay-rights movement had believed it could end in Maine.

“Today’s heartbreaking defeat unfortunately shows that lies and fear can still win at the ballot box,” said Rea Carey, executive director of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force.

With 87 percent of the precincts reporting, gay-marriage foes had 53 percent of the vote. They prevailed in many of Maine’s far-flung small towns and lost by a less-than-expected margin in the state’s biggest city, Portland.

“The institution of marriage has been preserved in Maine and across the nation,” declared Frank Schubert, chief organizer for the winning side.

Attention will now turn to other states, including California – where Schubert was an instrumental strategist a year ago in the successful campaign to overturn cost-ordered same-sex marriage.

Gay-rights activists have been planning to go back to the ballot in California, either in 2010 or 2012, in another attempt to legalize gay marriage. But the Maine result was not the victory they had been hoping for to fire up their troops.

Brian Brown of the National Organization for Marriage, a conservative group that steered substantial funds to fight gay marriage in both California and Maine, was elated by Tuesday’s result, saying it shows that “that even in a New England state, if the voters have a chance to have their say, they’re going to protect and defend the commonsense definition of marriage.”

At issue in the referendum was a law passed by Maine’s Legislature last spring that would have allowed gays to wed. The law was put on hold after conservatives launched a petition drive to repeal it.

Five other states have legalized gay marriage – starting with Massachusetts in 2004, and followed by Vermont, New Hampshire, Connecticut and Iowa – but all did so through legislation or court rulings, not by popular vote. In contrast, constitutional amendments banning gay marriage have been approved in all 30 states where they have been on the ballot.

Brown said “out-of-touch legislators” are a principal reason same-sex marriage has taken hold in New England.

“What we’re saying is give us a chance to take our message to the people and let the people decide,” he said. He also suggested that the outcome in Maine will give pause to lawmakers in New York and New Jersey, where gay-marriage legislation is pending.

Richard Socarides, who was an adviser on gay-rights issues in the Clinton administration, said the loss in Maine should prompt gay-rights leaders to reconsider their state-by-state strategy on marriage and shift instead to lobbying for changes on the federal level that expand recognition of same-sex couples.

In Maine, gay-marriage supporters conceded early Wednesday.

“We’re in this for the long haul,” said Jesse Connolly, manager of the pro-gay marriage campaign. “For next week, and next month, and next year – until all Maine families are treated equally. Because in the end, this has always been about love and family and that will always be something worth fighting for.

A similar note was sounded by Democratic Gov. John Baldacci, who signed the bill into law last May and spoke out in defense of the law.

“If we don’t get to the top of the mountain tonight, we’ve made a significant stride. And we’re going to get there,” he said late Tuesday. “We will get to the top of the mountain.”

Both sides in Maine drew volunteers and contributions from out of state, but the money edge went to the campaign in defense of gay marriage, Protect Maine Equality. It raised $4 million, compared with $2.5 million for Stand for Marriage Maine.

Stand for Marriage based many of its campaign ads on claims – disputed by state officials – that the new law would mean “homosexual marriage” would be taught in public schools. That was the same theme used to persuade Californians to reject gay marriage.

Elsewhere on Tuesday, voters in Washington state voted on whether to uphold or overturn a recently expanded domestic partnership law that entitles same-sex couples to the same state-granted rights as heterosexual married couples. With half the precincts reporting, that race was too close to call.

In Kalamazoo, Mich., voters approved a measure that bars discrimination based on sexual orientation.

With 93 percent of the precincts reporting in as of 9:25 a.m., the “Yes” votes to repeal the law totaled 53 percent of the vote, while the “No” votes against repeal numbered 47 percent. The Bangor Daily News provided the tallies. The state’s Director of Elections, Melissa Packard, said her office would not report results publicly until they are certified –in about 20 days.

The apparent vote marks a significant defeat for marriage equality supporters, who were hoping to regain ground lost last year when voters in California narrowly approved Proposition 8 to amend the state constitution to ban gay marriage and undermine a court ruling that had enabled some 18,000 same-sex couples to marry in 2008. (The vote in that 2008 initiative was 52 percent for, 48 percent against.) It also appears to provide momentum to the anti-gay marriage movement, which is now attempting to stage an initiative against same-sex marriage in Washington, D.C., and which has a bill pending before the New Hampshire legislature to repeal a bill enacted there earlier this year.

In a ballroom at a Holiday Inn in downtown Portland, “No on 1” campaign manager Jesse Connolly announced to a hushed crowd of a few hundred supporters still on hand at 12:30 a.m., that the campaign was not conceding defeat and would wait for all the ballots to be counted.

“This is a razor-thin election,” said Connolly, “…and every vote counts. We will not quit until we know where everyone of these votes lives. We won’t quit. We’ll be counting votes into tomorrow morning.”

But estimates of the number of outstanding ballots to be counted appear to fall far short of the number needed to overtake the “Yes” votes on the measure.

The “Stand for Marriage Maine” group that led the effort to repeal the marriage equality law proclaimed victory.

Dueling campaigns
The campaigns for and against Maine’s equal marriage law had been underway since May when the legislature passed, and the governor signed, the new law enabling same-sex couples to obtain marriage licenses the same as straight couples. Because repeal activists immediately began petitioning for a “Citizens’ Veto” measure, the law was put on hold and ballot Question 1 asked voters if they would like to repeal that law.

Many political observers praised the “No on 1” coalition for running a well-organized campaign, headed by Maine natives with considerable experience in Maine politics. At the top of that campaign was Jesse Connolly, a 31-year-old straight married father, on leave from his job as Chief of Staff for the Maine Speaker of the House. Connolly had also run the successful 2005 campaign to vote “No” on a ballot measure seeking to repeal the state’s recently passed law prohibiting discrimination based on sexual orientation. The “No” vote that year won 55 percent to 45 percent.

The key focus of “No on 1” from the start was identifying voters who would vote “No” and making a concerted effort to get those voters to actually cast their ballots –either by absentee, early voting, or at the voting booth on election day. Activists from as far away as Hawaii came to Maine in the last days of the campaign to help with that basic door-to-door, phone-by-phone effort.

Tambry Young, co-chair of the Family Equality Coalition of Hawaii, said she came to Maine last Wednesday because “at some point, we need to stand up and say, ‘We need to do the right thing.’”

But the Yes on campaign had considerable visibility for their messages throughout the state. First, they launched a heavy barrage of television and radio ads warning that approval of same-sex marriage would lead to children being taught about gay marriage in the schools. Then, they staked out the simple message of “Yes on 1” in a highly visible supply of blue and yellow yard signs posted along many of the state’s busiest roads. In contrast, “No on 1” often had only a lone pale green sign in noticeably smaller numbers.

At one busy intersection in Portland Tuesday, five “Yes on 1” activists stood on a median and hoisted “Yes on 1” placards, yelling “Vote Yes on 1 –No Homosexuals!” to drivers passing by. The lawn surrounding the intersection was bathed in bright blue and yellow “Yes on 1” signs, while the “No on 1” sported only two large hand-painted signs.

On one occasion, a car zipped by and a woman yelled out the window, “I voted no!” But many cars honked and their drivers waved, seeming to signal agreement with the “Yes on 1” position.

Voter turnout was much heavier than expected. The Secretary of State had predicted about 25 to 35 percent of registered voters would turn out, but the Daily News estimates at least 57 percent of registered voters participated.

While spending by both sides appears to have been roughly similar –about $3.5 million each, there was a tremendous push for last-minute funding. The “No on 1” campaign send out an email sent out at 10 o’clock on Monday morning asking for another $25,000 in donations to pay for television ads to counter the “Yes on 1” campaign’s last-minute television buy. Supporters responded with $68,000 before the bank closed that day.
“Never did we think over 1,200 people would give a gift today,” said Connolly, in a youtube message taped Monday evening.

“I have never seen a campaign that has had this many volunteers from so many walks of life,” said Rea Carey, executive director of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force. Carey was in Maine Tuesday helping with the get-out-the-vote effort. She said her door-to-door team included an older straight woman from Portland and a young woman from New Hampshire.

Mary Bonauto, too, thanked straight allies “who made this fight their own.” Bonauto, who lives in Maine, has been a key leader with Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders in winning many legal battles for marriage equality in New England. She also represented the “No on 1” campaign in numerous televised debates during the weeks leading up to the vote.

But the latest ad by the “Yes on 1” group appeared to have hit its mark. The ad showed a rapid-fire sequence of newspaper clippings and official-looking documents while a female voice urgently warned that gay activists “are already pushing their agenda in Maine schools.” A radio ad warned that gay activists and their supporters will “push it on students.” The message was essentially a copycat of a message that had been effective in passing Proposition 8.

Ramifications beyond Maine

Many political observers saw the vote in Maine as a political compass for which way the country’s mood is heading on equal marriage rights for gay couples. The New York Times report Wednesday morning called it a “stinging setback for the national gay-rights movement.” The San Francisco Chronicle predicted “Tuesday’s vote will influence the same-sex marriage issue in California, where voters approved Proposition 8, which struck down legal same-sex marriage last November after the state’s Supreme Court declared it a right.”

There will, no doubt, be much analysis of why voters chose to repeal the law in Maine, but even before the voting booths had opened Tuesday, there were critics of President Obama’s lack of effort around the battle.

Long-time gay Democratic activist David Mixner put it most bluntly on his blog: “President Obama and his team were zero help in this critical battle and in the last week might actually have hurt us.”

In fact, in February 2008, as the Democratic primary battle was in full swing, candidate Obama released an open letter to the LGBT community saying “As your President, I will use the bully pulpit to urge states to treat same-sex couples with full equality in their family and adoption laws. I personally believe that civil unions represent the best
way to secure that equal treatment. But I also believe that the federal government should not
stand in the way of states that want to decide on their own how best to pursue equality for gay and
lesbian couples — whether that means a domestic partnership, a civil union, or a civil marriage.”

But at a national Human Rights Campaign dinner October 10, the president had nothing to say about Maine or Washington State explicitly; instead, he said, “I believe strongly in stopping laws designed to take rights away and passing laws that extend equal rights to gay couples.”

And some days later, at an appearance at the University of Maine on October 23, U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder, when asked by a reporter about Maine’s Question 1 specifically, said that he and President Obama “are of the view it is for states to make these decisions.”
The White House offered no comment in regards to Mixner’s criticism.

Joe Solmonese, president of the Human Rights Campaign, said, “I do think that [President Obama] was wrong– that neither he nor the Democratic Party spoke out” against the Maine ballot measure.

“I’m disappointed in his failure to speak out on this issue,” said Solmonese on Obama. “He did speak out against Proposition 8 and it did influence people. …I think when he talked about using the bully pulpit, that’s what we expected he would do.”
HRC gave about $300,000 to the campaign effort and had “about a dozen” people “on the ground” in Maine to help the “No on 1” campaign.

Waiting in Washington
In Washington State, where voters were asked to decide whether to keep a newly passed domestic partnership law, a very preliminary results indicates voters have likely voted to retain the law. The Secretary of State’s website Wednesday morning showed 51 percent voted “Yes,” and 49 percent voted “No.” But the final result in that contest is not likely to be known for several days. Voting in Washington State is done entirely by mail –though voters can drop off their ballots in person, too—and voters could postmark their ballots as late as anytime Tuesday. The website indicated 3.5 million votes had been counted; an estimated 390,000 were yet to be counted.

But on one clear bright note, 62 percent of voters in Kalamazoo, Michigan voted Tuesday night to retain that city’s recently passed law
prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity.

© 2009 Keen News Service