With the New Jersey State Senate rejecting gay marriage last week, the path to equality is now back in the courts.  Lambda Legal has filed suit in the New Jersey Supreme Court, and the odds of success – based upon that state Court’s ruling in 2006 – appear favorable.  But all eyes this morning are on San Francisco – as District Court Judge Vaughn Walker hears Perry vs. Schwarzenegger, the controversial case to overturn Proposition 8 on federal grounds.  For years, civil rights groups had carefully kept the federal courts out of gay marriage fights – and the prominent lawyers in Perry filed the suit without consulting them.  But with most of marriage’s legal benefits coming under federal law, it was only a matter of time before the federal courts weighed in on this issue.  The trouble is that a wiser battle to start with would challenge the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) – and in fact, there are such efforts in place.  If the federal courts uphold Prop 8, it’s not likely to affect New Jersey – but it could hurt efforts to repeal DOMA.

New Jersey Court Offers Hope for Marriage Equality

It was heartbreaking to see the New Jersey State Senate vote 20-14 on January 7th against legalizing same-sex marriage (with nine Democrats voting “no” or “abstain”), but it was smart to call for a vote anyway.  As any lawyer would advise, plaintiffs should prove they have “exhausted all remedies” before filing a suit – and this defeat now allows the LGBT community to take their case back to the state Supreme Court, where the odds look good.

In October 2006, the New Jersey Supreme Court voted 4-3 that gay marriage was not a “fundamental right” – but the law must treat same-sex couples equally.  The Court said the state legislature could either pass marriage equality, or a “parallel structure” of civil unions that give gay couples all the same rights.  At the time, I explained how the ruling could inevitably lead to gay marriage – because it’s impossible to have civil unions that are “equal.”

Three years later, there is ample evidence that New Jersey’s civil unions law is inadequate.  A state commission studied the issue thoroughly, and legislators on both sides of the marriage debate have admitted on record that it’s not working.  The Court in 2006 was reluctant to call for gay marriage – and instead said the legislature “should be given a chance to address the issue.”  Now, it’s clear the legislature had their chance – and failed.

The make-up of the New Jersey Court hasn’t changed much, and the four judges who signed the majority opinion in 2006 are all still there.  But during this time three other state Supreme Courts – California, Iowa and Connecticut – not only ruled for marriage equality, but also recognized sexual orientation to be a “suspect class.”  That means any law that discriminates against gays and lesbians is presumed unconstitutional, unless the state can prove a compelling interest.  Other state rulings are not binding precedent on the New Jersey Supreme Court, but they are viewed as “persuasive” – and likely influential.

State-By-State Solution Can Still Yield Progress

New Jersey proves that a state-by-state solution can yield progress – as infuriating as the number of setbacks on the way can be.  But the recent defeat in Maine also showed how risky it is to go to the ballot.  The Right loves to take this issue to the voters, because they can use lies and fear to manipulate a slim majority of the electorate.  New York and New Jersey proved that state legislatures are not immune to this either, but it’s preferable than putting the rights of a minority on the ballot.  The courts, of course, are always an option.

Advocates should be unapologetic about focusing on states that lack an initiative process, expanding marriage rights in places where it cannot be taken away.  More states with gay marriage will also help federal courts conclude that marriage equality is a constitutional right.  When reviewing the bans on interracial marriages (1967) and sodomy (2003), the U.S. Supreme Court in both instances noted how many states had already repealed them.

Currently, there are eight states that (a) don’t have marriage equality, (b) did not amend their constitution to ban gay marriage and (c) don’t allow for an initiative process that could repeal efforts to pass it.  The states are Minnesota, Indiana, North Carolina, West Virginia, Pennsylvania, New York, New Jersey and Rhode Island.  Some – like Rhode Island – are liberal enough to pass it at the legislature.  Others will require court action.

But Going to Federal Court is Inevitable …

Every major lawsuit to achieve marriage equality has consciously avoided claims under the federal U.S. Constitution for a reason.  As long as the claims are kept in the confines of a state constitution, that state’s Supreme Court has final say – and the case cannot be removed or appealed to federal court.  The concern is that, while there are legitimate and arguable federal claims, any federal case can be appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court – in front of Justices Clarence Thomas, Antonin Scalia, John Roberts and Samuel Alito.

Which is why the Perry case is so controversial.  A strong legal case can be made that Prop 8 violates the U.S. Constitution, but it’s a myth to think judges won’t take the politics into account.  “It’s very sweet to think that we’re going to win on moral grounds, but it’s naïve,” E.J. Graff of the Brandeis Women’s Studies Research Center told the American Prospect. “[The lawyers] have no real grasp of the bias facing lesbians and gay men, or of how to make lasting social change.”

In fact, the two attorneys – Ted Olson and David Boies – are not part of the civil rights legal community, and filed the suit without consulting those who have litigated marriage equality cases for years.  “There is also the sense,” wrote the American Prospect, “that Boies and Olson stand to lose nothing.  The possible reward, on the other hand, is clear: For two attorneys who have pursued high-profile cases throughout their careers, this could be the defining win that puts them in history books.”

But it was inevitable that federal courts would eventually take up this issue.  First, over 30 states (including California) have changed their constitutions to prohibit gay marriage – which blocks the ability to pursue state court challenges.  After the state Supreme Court upheld Prop 8 last year, it was clear the only available options are: (a) the ballot box, or (b) federal courts.

Second, and more importantly, you can’t have marriage equality without challenging federal law.  Even before California voters passed Prop 8, same-sex couples never had full marriage rights.  The Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) prohibits gay couples from any federal benefits – such as the right to sponsor an immigrant spouse, Social Security or joint federal tax returns – and allows states to not recognize out-of-state gay marriages.

In fact, California’s civil unions law gives all the same (tangible) benefits that state law grants married couples.  While the term “marriage” carries all sorts of intangible legal implications that a civil unions law cannot contemplate, Prop 8 had less of a practical effect than DOMA.  To the extent that going to federal court carries legal and political risks, it makes more sense to challenge the constitutionality of DOMA than Prop 8.

But Perry Case Does Not Address DOMA

The complaint in Perry, however, does not mention DOMA.  Focusing on the precedent of Romer v. Evans (1996), the suit argues that Prop 8 lacked a rational basis to discriminate against homosexuals.  In Romer, the U.S. Supreme Court overturned a Colorado amendment that blocked any non-discrimination laws that include sexual orientation.  The sole motivation to pass the measure was animus, an “irrational basis” that violates equal protection.  The Perry case seeks to prove the same.

Meanwhile, there are cases in federal court that directly challenge DOMA.  The suit that prompted an awful brief by the Obama Administration has since been dismissed because the plaintiffs were found to lack standing.  But in Massachusetts, the civil rights group Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders (GLAD) has filed suit on behalf of gay married couples who are being denied federal benefits.  Interestingly, their legal brief also cites the Romer precedent and appears far more targeted.

What impact would the Perry case have on the DOMA challenge?  In an amicus brief for Perry, Equality California has carefully argued that the federal courts can repeal Prop 8 based on California’s unique situation.  “In no other State,” they wrote, “have voters been led to amend their constitution to strip same-sex couples of a right to marry that the highest court of the State had previously confirmed and carried into effect.”  This could allow a lower court to overrule Prop 8 in a way that only affects California – so the U.S. Supreme Court would leave the case alone, and we don’t risk a bad ruling.

But the bigger concern would be if the Perry plaintiffs lose, and the federal courts uphold Prop 8.  If they reject the notion that – like in Romer – animus was the basis for passing Prop 8, it could jeopardize the carefully crafted DOMA challenge.  Not only would gay married couples in Massachusetts be denied federal benefits, but as the American Prospect predicted, “defeat could legitimize such discrimination against LGBT Americans, making it far more difficult to sue for parental or housing rights. The door to any federal litigation on marriage equality would be shut for decades.”

As for New Jersey, the good news is that a bad outcome in Perry would likely not affect it.  Lambda Legal’s case is based on the New Jersey state constitution, so a federal court ruling on what the U.S. Constitution says is probably not relevant.  The federal court could uphold Prop 8 by deciding there is no federal requirement for states to have gay marriage – but it would probably allow states (like New Jersey) to grant it anyway.

With Judge Vaughn Walker agreeing to televise the Perry case that will expose the other side’s bigotry, opponents of marriage equality are lowering expectations.  “We do not expect to win at the trial level,” said the National Organization for Marriage – which bankrolled over 60% of the Maine campaign to repeal gay marriage but refused to register with the Ethics Commission.  “But with God’s help, at least five members of the current Supreme Court will have the courage to defend our Constitution from this grave attack.”

In other words, the other side isn’t even putting up a fight at the trial level – because they know that the law and facts are not in their favor.  Instead, they are counting on the right-wing activist judges at the U.S. Supreme Court to bail them out – and uphold Prop 8.

Paul Hogarth is the Managing Editor of Beyond Chron, San Francisco’s Alternative Online Daily, where this piece was first published.

“I’m going to have all the [health care] negotiations around a big table.  And it will be televised on C-SPAN, so that people can see who is making arguments on behalf of their constituents and who are making arguments on behalf of the drug companies or the insurance companies.” – Barack Obama, 2008

2008 was the Year of Change – when voters ushered in a new progressive era.  But a year later, health care has been hijacked by extortionists – just so we can “cut a deal” to get 60 U.S. Senators.  In Sacramento, a back-room state budget deal likewise sold progressives down the river.  And in San Francisco, the City and Muni budgets were also made behind closed doors – letting the powerful still call the shots.  We can’t elect candidates who promise “change” – unless it also comes with a public and transparent decision-making process.

What’s Killing Health Care Reform?

Barack Obama always said “change” would only come if we demand it.  His campaign was inspiring because he said it was more than about himself.  Like FDR told activists in 1933 to “make me do it,” Obama would keep his volunteers engaged after the election – and would mobilize the base to help him, and make him pass a successful progressive agenda.

But we never had those health care negotiations on C-SPAN.  If we’d had, the grassroots could have followed what was going on and played a meaningful role.  Instead, Obama ignored the lessons of community organizing by letting the process play itself out the old Washington way – behind closed doors, where private insurance lobbyists have undue influence.

I don’t recall how or when single-payer was taken “off the table” – except that Senator Max Baucus said it was.  Without single payer, progressives focused on the public option – which although a compromise, could have held insurance companies accountable.  Everyone knew it was tough and compromise would happen, but we were supposed to be part of that decision.

And there was no way for the grassroots to remain engaged in an effective way – because none of the details of “compromise” were vetted in a public forum.  We instead had to rely on unsourced rumors in the news and blogs about whether the public option was still alive.  Now that it’s dead, we don’t know who killed it – because it was all done behind closed doors.

Consider what Obama told the San Francisco Chronicle back in January 2008 before the California primary.  After promising to put health care talks on C-SPAN, he explained that it “builds accountability in the system.  Now that Congressman is put on the spot.  I would not underestimate the degree to which shame is a healthy emotion, and that you can shame Congress into doing the right thing if people know what’s going on.”

Instead, Max Baucus wasted everyone’s time by drafting a “bi-partisan compromise” that even the Republican Senators he handpicked opposed.  Then, Harry Reid convened a “Gang of Ten” Democrats (5 progressives and 5 conservatives) to craft something that could get 60 votes.  That’s how we got the Medicare compromise, but Joe Lieberman and Ben Nelson – who were in the Gang of Ten – backstabbed everyone by opposing it.  Incredibly, the White House then pressured Reid to cave into Lieberman’s tantrum.

What should they have done?  Call their bluff.  Over 51 Senate Democrats support the public option, so bring it to the Senate floor – and force Lieberman, Ben Nelson, Mary Landrieu and Blanche Lincoln to filibuster it in broad daylight with Republicans.  Let the public see who’s obstructing change, and who should be blamed for it.  As long as Reid remains obsessed with getting 60 votes, these “Democrats” evade the responsibility of ever having to cast a “no” vote.  And of course, the insurance companies laugh all the way to the bank.

Sacramento: Two-Thirds Rule Leads to Faustian Bargains

We all know the problem in Sacramento.  California is a very blue state – so Democrats have permanent control of the legislature, but not enough to have the two-thirds required to pass a budget.  So the Republicans (who are more right-wing than Republicans in any other state) hold the budget hostage by refusing to vote for a single tax increase, even if the state has to make unconscionable budget cuts.  They have nothing to lose, and don’t get held accountable – because they are “the minority party” so don’t run the legislature.

But Arnold Schwarzenegger doesn’t help things, and inevitably the budget gets crafted by the “Big Five” – an extra-legal group that includes the Governor, Assembly Speaker, State Senate President and Minority Leaders in each house.  Democrats are outnumbered three-to-two, and none of their meetings are public.  Republicans won’t support any taxes at all, and don’t care if the state falls off a cliff.  As a result, we get the kind of budget that gets worse every year – and we don’t know why particular concessions were made.

Even worse, Democrats consistently get the blame – because virtually every legislator feels compelled to vote for the budget.  Meanwhile, most Republicans still vote “no.”

San Francisco: Supes Got Played Behind Closed Doors

I spent a lot of time this year at City Hall on budget matters – and nothing convinced me more about the folly of back-room deals.  Progressives have a majority on the Board of Supervisors, and if they stick together – while building bridges with “swing votes” like Sophie Maxwell and Bevan Dufty – can challenge a Mayor who has been disengaged, unwilling to work with progressives and dead-wrong on the City’s budget priorities.

Board President David Chiu’s performance at the May 6th Budget & Finance Committee was admirable, and showed the value of public meetings.  After grilling MTA Chief Nat Ford about the Muni budget, he made it clear that the Supervisors had seven votes to stop fare hikes and service cuts.  The mistake he made was to think the Mayor would negotiate in good faith.

One week later, the hope and promise that came out of that meeting was gone – with a backroom deal that barely improved the awful MTA budget.  Newsom got Chiu to go along based on a manufactured threat, and it didn’t help that Chiu was the lone progressive negotiating in the room.  John Avalos tried to salvage the situation, but by then it was too late.  An agreement had been reached.

When the Board tackled the City budget in June – combing through Mayor Newsom’s awful proposal – I expected the Supervisors to make substantive changes at the Budget Committee, using the spotlight of a public meeting to amend the budget.  And for a while, they were on the right track by taking the symbolic (but unprecedented) step of tinkering with the Interim Budget.  But with notable exceptions, little was changed in those Committee meetings to the Mayor’s proposal.

On July 1st, John Avalos and David Chiu concluded marathon budget negotiations with the Mayor’s Office – all behind closed doors.  The Budget Committee even started 10½ hours past schedule, because everyone was waiting for the deal.  When we learned all the details, it fell short of where we should have been.  Crucial programs were saved, but the Mayor’s Office still had five press secretaries – although a majority of Supervisors would surely vote to cut them.  But rather than do just that in a public meeting, it died a quiet death in Room 200.

It’s hard being a progressive – at the federal, state or local level – because you’re always fighting.  You were elected to bring social change, but our system of government allows the powerful to maintain a status quo.  That’s why it’s so important to push for an open and transparent process – to maximize public accountability when politicians undercut change.  If these decisions and votes are made out of the open, progressive officials can get more help from the media and grassroots activists to achieve the change that we need.

2008 was the Year of Change, when America elected Barack Obama and expanded the Democratic majorities in Congress.  We did not elect Olympia Snowe, Joe Lieberman and Ben Nelson (none of whom were elected last year) to dictate our health care policy.  

California is a deep blue state, but we allow right-wing politicians who act more like Teabaggers than public servants to decide our budget.  And San Franciscans last year voted to keep a progressive Board of Supervisors, not to let the Mayor undercut them.

But when deals are made behind closed doors, progressives lose the levers of influence.  2009 was the year that backroom deals sank change.  In 2010, it’s time to let the sun shine in.

Paul Hogarth is the Managing Editor of Beyond Chron, San Francisco’s Alternative Online Daily, where this piece was first published.

State Senate President Darrell Steinberg has announced that the Senate Rules Committee will not hold a hearing on CPUC Commissioner Rachelle Chong before the end of the year – effectively killing her confirmation.  For low-income residents and consumers, this is wonderful news.  Chong used her position at the CPUC to sponsor an AT&T-backed proposal to de-regulate the state’s Universal Lifeline program – which would have meant thousands of Californians losing basic telephone service.  The Central City SRO Collaborative spent months turning out tenants against this proposal (with invaluable help from TURN), and Chong paid a heavy price for it by losing her job.  An Astroturf campaign by Verizon and AT&T wasn’t enough to save her, and the message it sends to the CPUC is – “Don’t mess with Lifeline!”

SRO tenants never thought they would venture in the world of CPUC appointments, but the campaign to save Universal Lifeline inevitably took them there.  For a flat monthly rate of $6.11, low-income people can get a basic “no-frills” phone line that helps them keep in touch with doctor’s appointments, job interviews and loved ones – or to handle emergency situations.  The Central City SRO Collaborative has signed up tenants onto Lifeline for years – so when TURN told us it was in jeopardy, we jumped into action.

The California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) is one of the most powerful state agencies, but its Commissioners keep a low profile.  And when there isn’t much public attention, companies that the Commission regulate and stand to gain billions run the show.  Rachelle Chong has functioned as the CPUC’s unofficial telecommunications “expert” – and is close to telecom giants Verizon and AT&T.  When AT&T wanted to de-regulate Lifeline, Chong was the Commissioner they asked to submit their proposal.

For the Central City SRO Collaborative, testifying at the CPUC was a new experience.  We would bring Lifeline customers out to their hearings to speak against the proposal, and at every meeting the Commissioners would postpone the vote.  It began to look like a common delay tactic we see in many corrupt government bodies – keep putting off the decisions until the poor people get tired of always having to come back.  Problem is, we just kept turning out every time.

The CPUC finally realized in July that we weren’t going anywhere – so Chong temporarily “shelved” her proposal to re-write it.  Of course, she was hoping the issue would quiet down until after her confirmation sails through.  After all, most people don’t know who is on the CPUC – so who’s going to stop her from getting re-confirmed in Sacramento?  With AT&T and Verizon lobbying heavily on her behalf, she could take up the proposal later.

The Governor appoints CPUC Commissioners, but the State Senate must confirm them.  Chong had provoked us by attempting to de-regulate Lifeline, and it turns out that she had angered other grassroots organizations as well.  We may have blocked her proposal to de-regulate Lifeline temporarily, but our leverage depended on blocking Chong’s confirmation.

TURN did an excellent job assembling a grassroots coalition to lobby the State Senate Rules Committee.  It was the first time that all three major consumer rights groups in the state (TURN, UCAN and Consumer Federation of California) worked together to oppose a CPUC Commissioner.  Seventeen groups (including our organization) that represent low-income communities and people of color sent letters against Chong’s confirmation.  We were joined by 3 faith-based organizations, 3 environmental justice groups, five small business organizations and three labor unions (including the Communication Workers.)

Chong had her own set of trade associations and non-profits write letters to the Senate Rules Committee on her behalf.  What did virtually all of them have in common?  They took generous donations from AT&T.  When the Los Angeles Times interviewed one of these non-profits, the director admitted he endorsed Chong upon the advice of AT&T executives – who had given the group money.  It was an Astrotruf campaign.

We expected the Rules Committee to hold a hearing this week – and were prepared to bring a busload of Lifeline customers to testify.  Then, we heard the hearing would be postponed until next week. Yesterday, Darrell Steinberg’s office announced there would be no confirmation hearing for Chong. “We felt it was important to have a commissioner with a little more enthusiasm for consumer protection,” said a spokesperson.

“This is exactly the way the confirmation process is supposed to work,” said Sam Kang, managing attorney of the Greenlining Institute, which had been part of  our coalition.  “Rather than rubber stamp the Governor’s choice the Committee investigated and reached its own conclusions.  The evidence was overwhelming that Ms. Chong’s decisions have had a disastrous impact on low-income communities and people of color.”

Without a confirmation hearing, Chong will be off the CPUC by the end of the year.  It’s true – of course – that Governor Schwarzenegger will now get to appoint someone else, and we don’t know who that will be.  But the Senate Rules Committee would have to confirm that person, and we are grateful that Darrell Steinberg stood up for consumers.

Regardless of who replaces Chong, the message for the CPUC is clear.  If you mess with a program that helps thousands of low-income residents have basic phone access that the rest of you take for granted, we will take you out.  Remember that you serve the people!

Gavin Newsom’s Channel 5 interview last week revealed a Mayor defensive about his recent behavior, and it suggested he will lash out against critics by making vindictive budget moves.  It’s only November, but Newsom has already ordered every Department Head to propose 30% in cuts – alarming those who rely on City contracts to provide front-line services to the poor.  At the same time, the Mayor and his spokesman both said they will avoid touching the Police and Fire Departments – neither of whom got cut this year, while Health and Human Services were slashed.  Rather than react to another round of cuts, now is the time for progressives to step up and offer their solutions to a very real budget crisis.  With Newsom not running for Governor, why does he still need five press secretaries – or his “pet projects”?  And if the Mayor is really thinking about quitting politics (as the Wall Street Journal implied), why is he still sucking up to the Police and Firefighters Union – or the real estate lobby by pushing a dangerous proposal that will lead to mass evictions?

We’ve heard a lot in the past week that the City has a “$500 million deficit,” which is both true and misleading.  The Mayor’s Budget Office estimates that we will be $522 million in the red by the end of the next fiscal year (June 30, 2011) – but right now, the Controller says we have an operating deficit of $53 million.  To put things in perspective, the City plugged a $576 million deficit in June – but last December when the Mayor made mid-year cuts, we had an $118 million deficit.  Not to say that the crisis isn’t severe, but it is irresponsible for Newsom to throw this number around and talk about 30% cuts.

Already, the threat is scaring service providers – forcing them to prepare for another round of Beilenson Hearings, when they should be focusing on their jobs.  On Friday, Human Services Director Trent Rhorer sent out a memo to all contractors – implementing a moratorium on all budget modifications due to the Mayor’s request.  Non-profits that serve the poor have already scheduled meetings on how to prepare for the cuts, and it’s fair to say we are past the point of exasperation that the City threatens to cut our budget every year.

But not everyone has to worry about 30% in cuts.  Newsom’s spokesman said we will hold the line on the Police and Fire Departments.  The Mayor was even more explicit, as he told the Examiner: “there are certain things that just won’t be cut.  I don’t want people to think ‘Oh my God, 20 percent of the fire stations are closing or 20 percent of the police officers are going to be laid off.’  Some budgets will actually be bigger next year, not smaller.”

To add insult to injury, Police and Fire got raises this year – when Health and Human Services got slashed.  The Police budget grew by $13 million (the Mayor initially proposed $16 million, but the Board of Supervisors cut it down), and the Fire Department got an extra $2 million (down $6 million from what Newsom wanted.)  Meanwhile, the General Fund cut $20 million out of the Human Services Agency – even after the Board saved 4 million in add-backs.  The Mayor proposed $100 million in Health Department cuts, but only $12.5 million in programs were saved (not counting the Prop J’s that were nixed.)

In fact, this was the first year that anyone can remember the Police Department getting more money from the General Fund than the Health Department.  Moreover, state budget cuts from Arnold Schwarzenegger have almost exclusively hit Health and Human Services at the local level.  With Sacramento facing a $20.7 billion deficit – and Republicans who hold the budget hostage in the state legislature would rather see California fall off a cliff than raise taxes – it will get worse.

Moreover, the Mayor made some budget decisions in the past five years when times were good that allowed the Police and Fire Departments to get bloated.  As I reported on Friday, we had a huge spike in property tax revenue from 2005-2008 – because Downtown commercial buildings changed hands and got re-assessed.  Now with the real estate slump, they are filing appeals under state law to lower their tax bill.  But the City budget mushroomed during those years, and some will argue we were too dependent on this revenue stream.

Where did much of the money coming in from property taxes go?  The Police budget grew by 46% – in part due to big union contracts that Newsom signed to get re-elected, and the Chief not civilianizing positions in the Department – despite a voter mandate.  The Mayor also ignored warnings of a bloated Fire Department; we still have 38 Battalion Chiefs making over $160,000.  The Retirement Package for cops and firefighters are a ticking time bomb that requires attention.

Newsom’s City-funded campaign for Governor?  The Mayor has five press secretaries, and Nathan Ballard’s exit cries out the need to de-fund his position.  Same with Kevin Ryan of the Mayor’s Office of Criminal Justice.  311 and District Supervisors have rendered the Mayor’s Office of Neighborhood Services obsolete, and does the 311 Call Center need to stay open 24 hours a day?

Then, there’s the Community Justice Center.  Good people work there, and Jeff Adachi deserves credit for giving it a try by staffing it himself.  But at times when programs that folks rely on to stay out of trouble are getting cut, it’s hard to justify the Court as is.  And we all know this was a chance for the Mayor to look good while running for Governor.

Gavin Newsom says our deficit is so bad, that “literally everything is on the table.”  But when pressed by the SF Appeal, the Mayor says he doesn’t want tax increases.  The only revenue solution Newsom supports is to speed up condo conversions, which the Supervisors “hate” – and for good reason.

First, from a fiscal perspective it is just a quick (and temporary) fix.  We would get a little revenue now, but we’ll be in the same posiiton next year.  Second, it would decimate our rental housing stock – empowering real estate speculators to go on a rampage of Ellis Act evictions, knowing the City will allow these properties to convert into condominiums.

Mass condo conversions have been kicked around for decades.  Whenever the City is in a fiscal crunch, those who stand to make millions sell it as a revenue option.  It is wholly unacceptable, for it would make it impossible for many San Franciscans to stay here.

Newsom is under pressure to look engaged – now that everyone has criticized his conduct since dropping out of the Governor’s race.  He will use the budget to “prove” that he’s back in the game – telling Willie Brown on Friday he’s “looking forward” to tackling the $522 million deficit.  And that should scare progressives.  Newsom is bitter at his critics, and the power of the Mayor’s Office gives him awesome power to trump the will of the Supervisors (and in a few cases, the voters.)  Rather than react to his cuts, we have to propose our own.

Paul Hogarth is the Managing Editor of Beyond Chron, San Francisco’s Alternative Online Daily, where this piece was first published.

(It stinks, but with every day, we are one step closer to equality. Also, it seems Frank Schubert agrees with Paul, No on 1 did run the better field operation. – promoted by Brian Leubitz)

I hate losing elections, but what I REALLY hate is losing after a high turnout.  Losing because our base didn’t vote is depressing, but at least it tells us what we need to do to win next time – and progressives can take heart in the fact that “the people” are truly on their side, if only they showed up.  Last night, Maine’s Question 1 passed 53-47 – despite a much higher turnout than expected (we matched last year’s Obama level at the University of Maine in Orono, winning the campus 81-19.)  The “No on 1” campaign also had a far greater field presence than the opposition, and superior financial resources.  It reminds me of 2004, when Bush won despite the progressive base voting in record numbers.  When California’s Proposition 8 passed last year, everyone could tell that our side ran an awful campaign.  It was painful, but gave us many lessons to learn – lessons that the “No on 1” campaign in Maine took to heart, and performed beautifully.  That’s why this loss is so much worse than Prop 8.  I don’t know what we could have done differently, and am too sleep-deprived to think it all through.

Paul Hogarth is the Managing Editor of Beyond Chron, San Francisco’s Alternative Online Daily, where this piece was first published.

I’m back home in San Francisco, after spending 10 days on the ground in Maine with the “No on 1” campaign.  After my time there, I truly believe that – with our help – Maine will become the first state in the nation to successfully defend marriage equality at the ballot box, providing a roadmap for California to repeal Proposition 8.  Maine activists have been working hard for five years to pass gay marriage, but events in the last few days now point to what should be an historic victory on November 3rd.  With only 19 days left, what I’m seeing from the “Yes on 1” campaign reminds me of where “No on 8” was at this point last year – outgunned by the opposition, unable to control the message and at a loss about what to do.  If Question 1 passes, it will be our fault for not having done more.  But if Question 1 fails, those of us who get involved will have made history – which is why I hope to go back for the last four days.  Here are the reasons for my optimism …

An Early Fundraising Advantage

One reason why I got involved in this effort was that “No on 1” said they only needed $3 million dollars for the entire campaign – a pittance compared with California efforts.  “We’re a cheap date,” said campaign manager Jesse Connolly at this year’s Netroots Nation Convention.  New fundraising totals that came out this week show that “No on 1” has already raised $2.7 million (with most of the money coming from Maine residents) – and bloggers are planning a big fundraising push for today that should keep them on track with their goal.

The bigger news, however, is that “Yes on 1” reported only raising $1.1 million – with a campaign debt of $400,000 (our side has no debt.)  This provoked their spokesman Marc Mutty (who is on loan from the Portland Archdiocese) to send out an urgent message on October 13th that their cause was under “financial assault.”  In the mass e-mail, which can be reviewed in full here, Mutty says they had known from the opposition’s superior ground game that our side had been raising more money.  But they had “never dreamed the situation was as dire as it is,” and are now urging their supporters to make a “sacrificial contribution” to pass Question 1.

To me, the most revealing part of the e-mail is when Mutty mentioned their Sacramento consultant, Frank Schubert: “Our campaign strategists, who helped pass Proposition 8 in California and who have won dozens of initiative campaigns around the country, tell us that we cannot win if we continue to be outspent as we have to this point.  It is amazing that we are still in a dead heat.  We’ve had to cut our voter contact program dramatically.  Every week, we’ve cut our advertising budget.  We’ve eliminated a statewide bus tour that we had planned for next week.  We’ve had to cut back on staffing.  And collateral materials.  And direct mail.  Our grassroots organizing has suffered.”

Reading this e-mail brought me back memories about the “No on 8” campaign.  At around this time last year, marriage equality advocates in California sent out a red alert to their supporters – when it became clear that a lot more Mormon money was coming into the state than anticipated.  Gays and lesbians were asked to shell out more than they could afford, but we still lost.  I always say that the worst hangover of my life was two weeks after the election, when I opened my credit card bill to get hit with $200 to “No on 8.”

Will Mutty’s plea fuel a huge influx of cash to the “Yes on 1” campaign in Maine?  Of course, but they will only have 19 days to spend it.  Recall that by the time the election was over last year, “No on 8” ended up out-raising the opposition ($43 million to $40 million) – in large part because the October “red alert” galvanized the LGBT community.  But money that comes in during the last month is less effective, and campaigns that are unprepared for a much bigger budget may not know what to do with the money.  “Yes on 1” will use the cash to run even nastier ads, but I don’t see it salvaging their bad situation.

Religion Issue Has Been Deflected

I have been impressed with the “No on 1” campaign’s outreach to communities of faith – which has helped counteract the Portland Catholic Diocese’s aggressive involvement in passing Question 1.  A group called Catholics for Marriage Equality has staged walk-outs on Sunday services when the Church took up second collection plates on behalf of the “Yes on 1” campaign, and “No on 1” has organized several press conferences with religious leaders.  As a result, media coverage in Maine newspapers has talked about how communities of faith are on “both sides” of the issue.

Now, the question has taken center stage.  The “No on 1” campaign’s latest ad features Yolande Dumont, a French Catholic grandmother from Lewiston – a conservative city in Maine – who speaks about her gay son, his partner and their child.  Yolande mentions that she’s a devout Catholic, her faith is important to her, and that she supports marriage equality.  In an election where “No on 1” has had to respond to many of the opposition’s attacks, it is a positive TV ad with a general “feel-good” message about the value of strong families.

But it clearly struck a nerve with opponents of marriage equality.  Catholic Vote Action (a conservative political group) sent out a press release on Tuesday, demanding that the ad be pulled: “For decades gay and lesbian groups have attacked the Catholic Church for refusing to accept their skewed views on human sexuality and marriage …  Everybody knows the Catholic Church is opposed to counterfeit marriages … For homosexual groups to suggest that the Catholic Church believes otherwise is disingenuous, dishonest, and an insult to the intelligence of Catholic voters in Maine.”

Such a response will backfire, because it fails to acknowledge a distinction between rank-and-file Catholic voters (many who, like Dumont, support marriage equality) and the Church hierarchy.  Maine is a very Catholic state, but it also has one of the lowest levels in church attendance – which suggests that many Catholics are already a bit disillusioned with their Church leadership.  The reason they cite for pulling the ad will only infuriate Maine Catholics, because it says they cannot have a different opinion from the hierarchy.

In fact, it reminds me of a famous political gaffe in 1990 that happened in Minnesota.  The late Paul Wellstone was running for the U.S. Senate against incumbent Rudy Boschwitz.  Both men were Jewish, and in the final days of the campaign Boschwitz sent a fundraising letter to conservative Jewish donors, asking for support because he had been a “better Jew.”  Wellstone, he explained, had married a non-Jew – and had not raised his children in the Jewish faith.  The letter infuriated Jews, not to mention the 97% of Minnesotans who are Lutheran.  I’m not suggesting the Catholic attack on the “No on 1” will have the same potency, but it’s never good politics to start questioning a religious person’s convictions.

Taking Ownership of “Protecting the Children”

In every state where marriage equality has been on the ballot, opponents have used “the children” as a means of scaring swing voters – preying on their worst fears about what gays and lesbians will do to kids in the classroom.  From the start, “No on 1” has pre-empted this attack by bringing up the fact that many gay couples raise children.  When opponents brought up the tired line that gay marriage will be “taught” in public schools, our side has countered that what schools teach is that no child should feel ashamed of what kind of family they may come from.

On my last morning in Maine, the Portland Press Herald had a front-page “human interest” profile of two couples on each side of Question 1.  The ones supporting it were a Christian couple concerned about the “sanctity” of marriage.  The opponents were a lesbian couple who are raising two daughters.  For them, said the Press Herald, it was “all about the kids” – i.e., they want a safe and secure future for their children that comes from being raised by a legally married couple.  When I saw the article, I knew that our side’s ownership of “protecting children” has affected mainstream media coverage.

Mobilizing Students Will Be Key

The reason I plan to come back for the final four days of the Election is that Question 1 will be decided by turnout.  With college students strongly supporting marriage equality, having them show up could be the margin of victory.  Maine has same-day voter registration, so having young activists on campuses for the tail end of the campaign will be absolutely critical.  As someone who ran voter registration drives in my college days at UC Berkeley, I’m excited about working in a state with same-day voter registration.

In fact, it’s clear to me that the “Yes on 1” campaign’s strategy for college campuses is to ignore students, and hope they don’t even realize that there’s an Election coming up.  At the University of Maine at Orono last week, the campus was preparing for a Question 1 debate – with representatives from each side.  The event was cancelled, however, when “Yes on 1” pulled out.  As one of their spokespersons later told the school newspaper: “statistically, going in front of college students doesn’t make the most sense.”  In other words, they were afraid that having an open debate would only draw more attention.

Race is Up to Us to Win

But while I remain optimistic about Maine, the “No on 1” campaign will need volunteers for the last 19 days in order to score a victory.  That’s why getting involved for the final push will be so critical.  If we lose, it will be because not enough of us got involved.

Out-of-state volunteers can make phone-calls from home, while there are organized phone-banks going on across the country.  East Coast volunteers can take a day (or weekend trip) to Maine and find a carpool through an online feature that pairs up people in your area.  And you can donate money or airline miles to send volunteers for a week at Travel for Change.  Or you can give to the California Young Democrats, who will be helping the last-minute college campus push by getting plane tickets for volunteers who will be on the ground during the last four days.

With only 19 days to go, it’s all hands on deck to win in Maine.  If we win, it won’t just be good for Maine couples.  It will set a new milestone in the fight for marriage equality.

Paul Hogarth is the Managing Editor of Beyond Chron, San Francisco’s Alternative Online Daily, where this piece was first published.

BANGOR – “Welcome to the real Maine,” said Regional Field Organizer Gabi Bérubé as I arrived yesterday at the “No on 1” office in Brewer, just across the Penobscot River from Bangor.  That’s what Mainers up here call their part of the state, and it’s where I am spending the rest of my time on the campaign.  I asked to go to Bangor because I wanted to help our field effort in more challenging places, after “No on 8” spent too much time last year preaching to the choir.  The Bangor office covers everything north and east of here – in other words, two-thirds of the state’s land mass.  Replicating Howard Dean’s 50 State Strategy, “No on 1” believes we have gay marriage supporters everywhere – and it’s our challenge to organize them.  But we’re also targeting the University of Maine in Orono, whose 11,000 students make it the largest college in the state.  Mobilizing young people on campus – and turning out identified supporters in rural areas – will prevent us from getting creamed in northern Maine, which will help us win statewide.

Last year, “No on 8” had an office in the Castro – which made sense, because they could get a lot of walk-in volunteers.  But the campaign never had them engage voters outside of San Francisco, instead stupidly having them wave signs at street corners.  Meanwhile, LGBT activists in the Central Valley were ignored and under-utilized – prompting a mass rally in Fresno on May 31st to kick off the movement to repeal Prop 8.  If our side simply writes off those who live in conservative areas, how can we deserve to get a single vote there?

I’m not asking to be sent to the outer reaches of Arostook County – but Bangor appealed to me as a marginal area with enough voters to decide this election.  With a population of 30,000, it is the second largest city in Maine (third if you count Lewiston-Auburn as one city.)  It has a “small town” vibe, where many residents don’t lock their doors.  Bangor has a vocal LGBT community, but it currently has no gay bars – and the 1984 murder of Charlie Howard in the Kenduskeag Stream still haunts that community’s consciousness.

I came up from Portland yesterday morning, on a two-hour drive that took me through the most gorgeous fall colors I have ever seen.  I would have taken more time, but Gabi had asked me to arrive in Bangor around 12:00 noon.  She had to leave at 1:00 p.m. sharp for Washington County (also called “Sunrise County,” because it’s the easternmost part of Maine) to run a phone-bank in Machias – and wouldn’t be back until very late that night.  When I heard she was driving 83 miles on a two-lane road to go supervise ten volunteers, I was floored.  But that’s what it takes to do campaign organizing in the “real Maine.”

Just like Howard Dean’s 50 State Strategy showed Democrats they can start winning if they competed everywhere, “No on 1” has identified marriage equality supporters in the most conservative pockets.  Even if we still lose those areas badly, mining enough votes by encouraging supporters to “vote early” can pay dividends on Election Day.  As I wrote yesterday, Maine’s gay community had a 20-year losing streak of statewide ballot measures until 2005.  One of the strategies we changed that year was to start engaging conservative regions.

But working from the Bangor office won’t always be about driving for hours to meet ten volunteers.  The University of Maine is in Orono (about 15 minutes away), and same-day voter registration means we can generate a huge turnout for marriage equality on campus.  I met up with the four campus organizers yesterday afternoon, who had spent the whole morning doing volunteer recruitment.  Before they had to stop because of the rain, they had signed up 84 students to a shift.  They are organizing phone-banks on campus, and we discussed more outreach strategies.  I’ll be spending some of my time there.

It’s important, however, to realize the challenge “No on 1” organizers are facing in this area.  On Sunday night, I was at a phone-bank in Portland – with over 50 volunteers that required an overflow room.  Even if you take out the twenty volunteers who had come “from away”, we had 30 Portland residents making calls.  Last night, I was at a volunteer recruitment phone-bank on the outskirts of Bangor and only four people showed up.  The good news, however, is that pretty much everyone we called and spoke to committed to a volunteer shift later in the week – as we conveyed the urgency of mobilizing early voting.

This is actually the second time I’ve been to Maine.  The first time was in the summer of 2000, when I did a 28-state road trip after college.  I set out to do the entirety of Route 1 on the East Coast – which goes all the way to Key West, Florida.  That meant I would go to Maine, and drive up to Fort Kent in Arostook County – at the very northern tip of the state.  Before going, a lot of Mainers told me I was crazy – telling me that all I would find up there is “moose and woods and French people.”  I doubt that I’ll be going back to Fort Kent this time – but it’s exciting to be working out of the “No on 1” office for this region.

EDITOR’S NOTE: Paul Hogarth is the Managing Editor of Beyond Chron, San Francisco’s Alternative Online Daily, where this piece was first published.  He is helping to run Travel for Change, which helps bring out-of-state volunteers to Maine with money and donated airline miles for the “No on 1” campaign.  Hopefully later today, the site will launch “Drive for Equality” to organize carpools in East Coast states for day and weekend trips to Maine. Stay tuned …

Tonight, I’m taking a red-eye flight to Maine – arriving in Portland tomorrow.   I’ll be there for 10 days, volunteering for the “No on 1” campaign to protect marriage equality.  And I’m taking my laptop with me – so readers will get my daily dispatches.  As a Californian, the fight against Question 1 is personal.  Gays and lesbians last year had their rights snatched away, and it can never happen again.  Proposition 8 was eminently beatable, but our side ran a bad campaign – and I’m determined to take my work and experience to assist the effort in Maine.  The right has long argued that every time “the people” get to vote on same-sex marriage, it loses.  It is time to deliver them – and their consultant, Frank Schubert (who ran “Yes on 8” and is now running “Yes on 1”) a humiliating defeat, one with national implications.  But one person can only walk so many precincts.  That’s why we’ll be working to help send volunteers from across the country over the next 32 days, because everyone needs to chip in for this fight.

Why Does Maine Matter?

Ever since the Republican Party pegged gay marriage as a “wedge issue” in the 1990’s, we have seen it on the ballot in virtually ever state that has an initiative process.  And while public opinion is gradually shifting in favor of marriage equality, no state has affirmed it at the polls.  Arizona defeated an anti-gay marriage amendment in 2006, but the proposed measure also repealed domestic partnerships – which was decisive in the outcome.  Two years later, Arizona passed an amendment that only banned same-sex marriage.

But none of these defeats were more devastating than California – because gay couples never had the right to marry in other states that passed amendments.  Prop 8 was the only time this fundamental right was taken away from us (after having first been recognized.)  Now that Maine has granted marriage equality through its Governor and state legislature, we run the risk of a Prop 8 redux.  In the past year, same-sex couples have won the right in four more states – Iowa, Vermont, New Hampshire and Maine – and now the right is hell-bent on stalling our momentum on the anniversary of Prop 8.

Frank Schubert, a California consultant who ran the “Yes on 8” campaign, has been hired to run the Maine campaign to repeal gay marriage.  Earlier this year, Schubert won an award by the American Association of Political Consultants for running what was (regardless of your political views) a brilliant campaign.  It appears he is cultivating a national reputation in conservative circles as the man to hire to stop marriage equality.  Anyone offended at what happened last year should be determined to make him fail.

What are the Odds of Winning in Maine?

On the surface, outsiders may assume that Maine is “pro-gay” – given the trend of New England states approving marriage equality (only Rhode Island has yet to do so.)  But Maine is more rural and working-class than its neighbors, and northern Maine is often called the “Deep South of the Northeast.”  The state is not liberal or conservative, but relishes its independent “maverick” streak – which makes its politics unpredictable.

Yesterday, Nate Silver (who I trust more than anyone else when it comes to polling data) predicted Question 1 should lose by five points.  He based this on general demographic trends in Maine, national opinion trends on gay marriage – and calculated that in “off-year” elections, young voters are more likely to stay home.  His analysis is good, but he didn’t consider what else is on the ballot to drive turnout.  Besides Question 1, there will be a slew of right-wing tax measures (bad) and medical marijuana (good.)

Polls on Question 1 have been all over the map.  A Daily Kos poll last week had the forces of bigotry winning by two points, but a Democracy Corps poll this week had us ahead by nine points.  The Daily Kos poll queried “likely voters” – whereas Democracy Corps asked registered voters.  In other words, we’re only going to win by nine points if every Mainer votes – an unlikely prospect given that it’s an off-year.  We cannot be complacent (Prop 8 at one point was 17 points down), and the result will hinge on the ground game.

Volunteer Vacation Plans Going Well

The “No on 1” campaign has been pushing supporters – whether they live in Maine, or out-of-state – to take an October “vacation” to help the field team.  A lot of Californians still upset at Prop 8 would gladly go to Maine for at least a week – if only they knew about it, and had the means (or assistance) to go.  By working with experienced pros from the Obama campaign, we have launched “Travel for Change Maine” for this effort.  On our website, you can (a) donate airline miles to get someone a plane ticket, (b) donate money for other expenses or (c) sign up to go.

I’m now convinced that recessions are the best time to get good campaign volunteers.  A lot of our skilled and enthusiastic people coming are unemployed, so have time – but not money.  Donated airline miles have been a great way to get them to Maine.  We’ve also helped volunteers set up their personal online fundraising page – asking their friends and family to pitch in.  One volunteer planned to go to Maine for a week, but raised so much that they’re now coming for two weeks.  You can see the results here, and donate to a volunteer who has yet to meet their goal.

Pretty soon, we will also be setting up a “Drive for Equality” program on our website – where East Coast volunteers taking weekend trips to Maine for the campaign can carpool with other supporters.  Obama campaigners from California used the same software last year to send people to Nevada, and with enough exposure can have a viral effect.  Rather than keep organizers busy arranging hundreds of carpools, volunteers can find themselves on the page – and “pair up” with another person going to Maine that same weekend.

Next week is the first week of “Volunteer Vacation,” and I’m excited to report that two dozen people are coming to Maine from across the country – all who committed to work full-time for at least a week.  These volunteers will be crucial, because Maine has a very liberal “early absentee” voting law.  Early voting has in fact already started – and these volunteers will help the campaign bank as many “No on 1” votes early, making it easier to focus later in the month on those who haven’t voted yet.

Can’t go to Maine?  Help out a satellite phone-bank in your area.  Last year, the Obama campaign made more volunteer phone calls from California to the swing states than any other part of the country.  We hope to help replicate that effort this year, with volunteers ready to get involved.  In San Francisco, the Courage Campaign, Equality California and the local Democratic Party are organizing phone-banks to defeat Question 1.  Join one this weekend.

How are Maine Voters Going to React?

I’ve been asked if bringing out-of-staters to Maine will be counter-productive.  Not if last year’s experience with Obama volunteers is any indication.  The campaign sent over 7,000 Northern Californians to the “swing states” – and only three of them reported any backlash they received from locals.  If anything, said Jay Jonah Cash – who led the effort last year and now directs Travel for Change Maine – voters “really respected others who took time off to fly across the continent because they believe in something.”

One Texas volunteer who’s already out knocking on doors in Bangor has reported a friendly reception from Maine residents – despite having an obvious Southern accent.  “Mainers are what all Americans should be,” she wrote.  As Californians, I believe we can bring an important perspective to Maine voters – because we saw the same scare tactics that are now being used.  We are ashamed of Prop 8, and don’t want Mainers to fall for it too.

And if the opposition wants to call us “outsiders,” they’re opening a can of worms.  Their campaign manager, Frank Schubert, is a Californian who ran the Prop 8 campaign – and their ads are filmed in San Francisco.  More than half ($160,000) of their initial filing reports came from one source – the National Organization for Marriage (NOM), a New Jersey-based group.

Who is NOM?  I had the pleasure of debating their Executive Director on CNN once – which was fun.  But the problem is no one knows who they are, because they are not registered as a PAC with the Maine Ethics Commission – where we could see who their donors are.  Yesterday, the Commission voted to investigate NOM to see if they violated any of Maine’s campaign finance laws.

Some speculate that NOM is a front for the Mormon Church – who donated $20 million last year to the Prop 8 campaign.  In Maine, the Catholic Church is – despite its share of problems – heavily involved in the “Yes on 1” campaign.  But the Mormons have generally stayed out this time, at least not publicly.  After taking a lot of heat for their heavy-handed role in California last year, are the Mormons hiding behind this new group to influence Maine?

While NOM is under investigation, Travel for Change, is a registered PAC with the Maine Ethics Commission.  All of our finances are public record, and will be reported.  We may be helping out-of-state volunteers get to Maine to assist the campaign, but no one can accuse us of trying to hide anything.

Paul Hogarth is the Managing Editor of Beyond Chron, San Francisco’s Alternative Online Daily, where this piece was first published.

“Yes on 1” – the Maine campaign to repeal marriage equality – aired its first San Francisco produced ad this week, which was kind of a dud.  It was like the first “Yes on 8” ad in California – minus the Gavin Newsom footage.  Within 24 hours, the “No on 1” campaign aired a strong rebuttal – in contrast to the 12 days it took “No on 8” to respond.  Rather than simply deny the “gay marriage in public schools” charge, the ad accused outsiders of harming kids – and that schools protect “all Maine families,” allowing our side to stay on the offensive.  With 53 days to go before the election, a new poll today shows Question 1 narrowly ahead by 48-46.  Supporters of marriage equality should realize that every effort will make a difference – and that we now have an opportunity to finally defeat anti-gay bigotry at the ballot box.

Proposition 8 passed last year, because the “No on 8” campaign spent its time reacting to the opposition’s attacks – even though we’ve seen the right make the very same attacks on gay marriage in state after state.  There was no excuse for supporters of marriage equality to not have a pre-emptive strategy before the opponents launched their ads, or to be prepared with a response that kept us on message.  Instead, we saw “No on 8” flailing throughout the campaign – as attacks began to resonate with swing voters.

Probably the most effective attack we heard was that gay marriage would be “taught” in public schools.  But it took “No on 8” twelve days to respond to that charge on the air.  When they did, they had an ad with State Superintendent Jack O’Connell – a politician that most voters are not familiar with – who simply said it wasn’t true.  All it took was for one class of 1st Graders to attend their lesbian teacher’s wedding (which the SF Chronicle shamefully treated as “front-page news”) for swing voters to believe that it was our side that was lying to them.

My sister was a First Grade teacher for many years, and she made a really good point to me after Proposition 8 passed.  Gay marriage may not be “taught” in public schools, but teachers do explain to kids that families are different.  Some kids have a mom and dad, some kids have only a mom, some kids may have two sets of moms and dads because the parents are divorced, some families have foster children, and – yes – some kids have two moms or two dads.  You don’t have to use the word “gay” or go into any more detail, she explained, because it’s not about “gay marriage” – it’s about respecting diverse families.  In other words, by simply denying its existence the “No on 8” campaign fell in a trap.

Now, the “Yes on 1” campaign in Maine has launched the same attack – but we are ready.  Less than 24 hours after the opposition’s San Francisco-produced ad hit the airwaves, “No on 1” had their own rebuttal.  The ad effectively countered the schools attack for two reasons.  First, they had a real teacher (Sherri Gould, who was named Maine’s “Teacher of the Year” in 2005), as opposed to a politician.  Second, it framed the issue around protecting “all families” – and Ms. Gould said that in her classroom, “we teach respect and Maine values.”  This allowed the “No on 1” campaign to stay on message pro-actively – rather than just reacting to lies.

Will that be enough to win?  A new poll that will be released today by Research 2000 (commissioned by Daily Kos) shows Question 1 narrowly ahead by a 2-point margin.  This makes the race a statistical dead heat, so anything can happen over the next 53 days.  Only about 500,000 people are expected to vote in Maine, which makes an intensive field campaign that reaches every voter eminently winnable.  Marriage equality supporters – especially Californians who are determined not to see another Prop 8 happen – must come to Maine, and be part of an historic campaign that protects marriage equality, and stops the right’s momentum.

That’s why the “No on 1” campaign is urging supporters to take a week of vacation time in October (when the Maine fall colors are in their full glory) – and come volunteer.  And because flying from California can be expensive and challenging, local Obama activists who helped send volunteers to the swing states last year have launched “Travel for Change” – where supporters can donate money and/or airline miles to send a volunteer to Maine.  No Californian who wants to go to Maine should feel deterred by the expense of a trip – just plan to go for at least a week.

Last year, many of us did not do enough to defeat Prop 8.  For sure, a lot of people were distracted by the Presidential race.  But the truth is “No on 8” did an awful job giving volunteers useful stuff to do – like standing at a street corner in the Castro.  I tried to help, but ended up working on other campaigns because “No on 8” was making us do inane stuff that someone like myself – who has over a decade of campaign experience – could tell was pointless.  When I volunteered for David Chiu in San Francisco – or went to Wisconsin to help Obama – the campaigns were organized enough to put volunteers to good use.

Having talked with the “No on 1” campaign in Maine, I am confident that out-of-state volunteers will be put to work – placed in local field offices to execute an intelligent strategy.  Now, people in California need to start making their volunteer vacation plans.

EDITOR’S NOTE: Paul Hogarth will be in Maine October 3-13, and will offer daily dispatches for Beyond Chron readers (where this piece was first published.)