It’s tempting to look at the recent gay marriage defeats in Maine and California, and say at least we’re on the “right side of history.”  The opposition is running on borrowed time, as young people increasingly support marriage equality.  But the trend is not moving fast enough, and it’s clear that gay marriage supporters have been losing the “swing vote” in every election.  Same-sex couples have largely won the battle for civil unions, but there’s something about “marriage” that makes moderates uneasy – and it’s time that we speak directly to their concerns.  Third Way, a Washington DC based think tank, conducted a poll of 600 Maine voters right after Question One passed in November – which holds important conclusions we should build upon.  As we look at repealing Prop 8 in California, going straight to those voters so we can win and finally move on to other battles is key.  None of us want to wait until the old generation dies out, and nor should we have to.

As a Californian who traveled to Maine twice to help the “No on 1” effort, the Third Way report should not imply that we ran a bad campaign.  Gay marriage advocates made important strides in Maine – such as not being afraid to talk about same-sex couples – that will move hearts and minds in the future.  “No on 1” also did a great job mobilizing the base in an off-year election.  It’s because we ran a good campaign that made losing so much more painful than California, where we all woke up after Election Day knowing that we could – and should – have done much better.

But what the report clearly shows is how we lost the “middle voters” – people who don’t explicitly support same-sex marriage, but who are persuadable on the issue.  The poll asked voters to pick one of four positions: (a) 39% said gay couples should have full marriage rights, i.e., the base; (b) 22% said they should have the “same legal rights” but not call it marriage; (c) 25% said that marriage is between a man and a woman, but “there should be domestic partnerships or other legal rights” for gays; and (d) only 10% opted for no legal recognition.  The 47% who picked (b) or (c) are the “movable” swing voters.

And we got creamed with those folks.  On Maine’s Question 1, we lost 71% of those who picked (b) and 87% who chose (c).  Third Way did a similar poll in Washington, where on the same day voters upheld a domestic partnership law for gays and lesbians.  In that poll, nearly half of the “middle” voters sided with us.  We can draw two conclusions from this.  Either swing voters are “not ready” for gay marriage and we must settle for civil unions and domestic partnerships, or we can figure out how to get them to vote with us.  Given that at least a portion of these voters are persuadable, there is no reason not to.

“Equality” Argument is Not Adequate

Although gay marriage campaigns focus on “equality” and “discrimination” as central themes, it is far more effective at mobilizing the base – but does not resonate with most swing voters.  Only 22% of “middle” voters in the Maine poll agreed that denying gays and lesbians the right to marry is “discrimination,” and 31% agreed with the “separate but equal” analogy.  The argument that we should not have “one set of rules” for one group of people (including marriage laws) did better (43%), but in general it is not sufficient.

In its report, Third Way had an interesting explanation: “the middle sees marriage as an ideal as opposed to a legal construct, and they have yet to be persuaded that gay couples fit into this ideal …  Using the language of equality and rights to describe marriage feels legalistic to the middle and misses the true spirit of how they envision marriage.”  That’s why “equality” is enough to persuade them to support civil unions, but not gay marriage.

In order to win, we must re-frame the debate about the fundamental values of marriage.

What is Marriage – and What Do Gays Want?

Like all voters across the spectrum, the “middle” is concerned about the state of marriage in this country.  More in the Maine poll said marriage has “major problems” than said it was in “good shape” or has “minor problems.”  So when gay marriage advocates argue that half of all straight marriages end in divorce anyway, that does not really address their concerns.  They already fear that marriage is “threatened,” and don’t want it to get worse.

How respondents describe “marriage” had a major impact as to whether they opposed Question 1.  If they said it was a “lifetime commitment,” they voted with us 62-38 – but calling it a “sacred bond” made them vote three-to-one against us.  A “union between two people” also helped us, but very few swing voters agreed with that description.  In other words, pushing the notion that gays take marriage seriously enough to make a “lifetime commitment” goes a long way in helping these voters understand why it’s so important.

Whether people thought gays want to “change” marriage – as opposed to “join” marriage – also made a huge difference.  Those who said “change” voted “Yes on 1” by a nine-to-one margin, while 74% of respondents who picked “join” went with us.  The problem is, more swing voters believed that gay people are trying to “change” marriage.  Explaining that we just want to be part of an institution that values lifetime commitment will help.

One of the most effective ads that the “No on 1” campaign did was with Yolande Dumont, a French Catholic grandmother – as her gay son, his partner and their ten-year-old son look on.  “I believe marriage is a great institution,” she said.  “It works, and it’s what I want for my children.”

Can Somebody Think of the Children?  Go Talk to Your Kids!

Just like in California, the “Yes on 1” campaign in Maine focused their message almost exclusively on the impact it would have on schools – which had a big impact on swing voters.  74% of Maine voters in the “middle” said they were concerned about schools “teaching homosexuality.” The Third Way report speculated it’s not just about schools, but children in general.  “They are trying to make people feel uncomfortable about the consequences for kids of allowing couples to marry and stoke fears that kids will not value marriage in the same way if gay and lesbian couples are allowed to participate.”

But there are indications the approach we took in Maine had an incremental positive effect.  Rather than respond to the charge that schools will “teach” gay marriage, “No on 1” talked about how the opposition wants to make our families “feel ashamed” for being different.  The Third Way poll used this language with half its respondents, and used the other half as a control group.  It moved nine points in our favor, and eight points among swing voters.

The most fascinating statistic, however, was that those who actually have kids under 18 were more likely to vote our way: by 52-48, when we lost the election 47-53.  This suggests to me the “Yes on 1” ads were more effective on voters who “care” about “the children” – but don’t have kids at home to understand what really goes on at school.

On that note, voters who said they actually talked to their kids about Question 1 were more likely to vote “no” – by a 55-45 margin.  And while half of them believed it was “likely” that schools would teach about homosexuality if gay marriage were legal, only 40% said they were “concerned” about that.  Could it be that when parents talked to their children about gay marriage, they realized they didn’t have much to worry about?

It reminds me of a canvassing experience I had outside of Bangor.  I was talking with a mother who had seen the “Yes on 1” ads about schools, and said she was confused about what it all meant.  I explained that what our opponents fear is schools teaching tolerance, they want our kids to feel ashamed if they don’t come from the traditional family.  There are many kids with gay parents, I said, and they get teased at school for being different.

The mom turned to her daughter and asked, “is that true?”

“Yes,” said the six-year old girl.

Gay marriage activists always talk about the need for LGBT people to “come out” in their communities – that people won’t vote to take our rights away if they can actually put a human face on the issue.  The Third Way poll certainly showed that Mainers were more likely to vote “no” if they knew a gay person (especially if they knew them well), and people who had talked to a gay person about the issue voted two-to-one in our favor.

But in small rural towns in Maine (and other parts of the country), most people don’t know any gays.  While 70% of parents in the poll said they had talked to their kids about the issue, only 46% of all respondents said they talked to a gay person about the election.

Rather than wait for the old generation to die, it makes more sense to start having kids talk to their parents about marriage equality.  And it certainly won’t take that long …

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

(full disclosure: I work for the Courage Campaign and was on loan to No on 1)

A year ago I knew what went wrong and I knew how to fix it.

A year later, I don’t know what went wrong.  I don’t know how to fix it.

We had the money.  We had a stable campaign.  We had the a robust well-oiled field campaign.  We had a strong campaign manager.  We had the turnout we wanted.  We had great coordination between the netroots and the campaign.  We had a not particularly religious state.  We neutralized the church issue.  We had a manageable voter universe.  We had an opposition with an inferior media and field operation.  We had TV ads with gay people in them.  We responded to their attacks swiftly.  

And we still lost.

Our campaign wasn’t perfect.  But it was damn good.

And that’s why this loss is so hard.  The lessons to be learned are not as obvious.  Not knowing how to fix it makes it tempting to throw our hands up in the air and say at 0-31 we just can’t win marriage rights at the ballot box.  Or we have to wait a decade until we can.

But that would be letting them win.  That would be giving up.  That would be accepting inequality.

We can’t.  I won’t.

We need to learn how to neutralize the schools issue better than we did this time.  We must continue telling our stories, one by one, person by person, door by door.

Nate Silver as usual has some smart thoughts:

I certainly don’t think the No on 1 campaign can be blamed; by every indication, they ran a tip-top operation whereas the Yes on 1 folks were amateurish. But this may not be an issue where the campaign itself matters very much; people have pretty strong feelings about the gay marriage issue and are not typically open to persuasion. There’s going to be an effort by many on the left to blame Barack Obama for his lack of leadership on gay rights issues; I think the criticism is correct on its face, but I don’t know how much it has to do with the defeat in Maine. A more popular Democratic governor, for instance, who had been a bit quicker on the trigger in his support of gay marriage, might have helped more.

Persuading voters to change their minds about marriage equality is extremely difficult, but it is possible and it happens every single day.  It just takes a lot of resources and is most effective on a one-to-one level.  

That means we must continue to invest in grassroots organizing, training new leaders to work in their communities and supporting their efforts over time.  We need to continue to build connections and relationships with faith communities.  We can organize in churches.  We can even organize in Mormon Temples and Catholic Churches.  It has happened.  It is happening.

There are lessons to be learned out of Maine.  We know that we can build a massive GOTV operation.  We know how to build a model where a campaign invests in the netroots and reaps the rewards.  The church issue can be neutralized.  It’s possible to set aside differences and focus on a common goal.  We can build a campaign to be proud of as a community.

What we can do now is have experts in Maine politics analyze the results to understand better how we lost.  We need talk to the No on 1 campaign leadership/consultants to get their advice like they did from our Prop 8 loss.

We can win marriage back in California.  We will win marriage back in California.  We can win marriage in Maine.  We will win marriage in Maine.

I am not quitting.  You better not be either.

This weekend I am picking myself back up and getting right back to work, training hundreds of activists in Sacramento how to organize at Camp Courage.  They will and I will come in with heavy hearts, but leave empowered.  

We will leave and fight the next fight together.

We lost Prop 8.  No matter how you want to slice and dice it now, who you blame, or what organizations were at fault, we lost Prop 8.  The fight to repeal Prop 8 will be long and arduous, whether that is next year or in 2012.

But the fight to repeal Prop 8 is always continuing.  Two ballot measures from opposite sides of the country deserve our attention at this very moment. It cannot wait.

Paul Hogarth has done a great job bringing the Maine story back to California (and Calitics) by going there to do canvassing and other campaign work. In Maine, the legislature passed a marriage equality bill, and it was signed into law by the Democratic Governor there, John Baldacci. Unfortunately, the opponents of marriage equality were able to gather enough signatures to put the law up for a vote as “Question 1.”  You might recall many of these same organizations from the Prop 8 fight.  The biggest donor to the anti-equality Yes on 1 Campaign is the “National Organization for Marriage.” NOM, as it is known, was very active in Prop 8 helping to raise money and spread lies and distortion about what exactly marriage equality was all about. And the Yes on 1 Campaign is even using the same consultant as the Prop 8 campaign, Frank Schubert. And yes, even the same ads, just replace the Pepperdine professor with a professor from Boston College.

But the No on 1 Campaign is fighting back.  They’ve launched several ads (also available over the flip) that directly respond to the lies and distortions.   However, while they’ve booked the TV time, they can still use resources to get the message out. Please consider giving to the No on 1 Campaign on our  ActBlue Page:

And in Washington state, some right-wingers are trying to repeal domestic partnership rights.  If Referendum 71 fails, we will be back at square one in our West Coast neighbor. It is imperative that this measure succeed in protecting rights for same-sex couples. Here on Calitics, Laurel has been giving us updates from Washington.

You can give to both campaigns on the Calitics ActBlue page. Alternatively, you can fly up to Seattle for $40 from SFO or $60 from LAX on Virgin America. I imagine it’s similar on other carriers. Seems like a small cost to help protect human rights from the right-wing attacks.

Check the Maine ads over the flip.

“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.)

In just 77 days, Maine voters can set the national agenda for marriage equality.  The state legislature passed same-sex marriage earlier this year, but now the right has collected enough signatures to put a referendum (“Question One”) on the November 2009 ballot – and has hired the same political consultants who successfully passed Proposition 8.  Supporters of marriage equality, however, are determined not to repeat the same mistakes we made in California – and will run an inclusive field campaign with a pro-active and pre-emptive message that (with the right resources) can bring about victory.  It does not cost a lot to win campaigns in Maine (only $3 million), and voter turnout is expected to only be about 500,000 people.  In other words, the campaign is winnable – but has not yet received the national attention it deserves.  While Californians are divided on whether to repeal Prop 8 in 2010 or 2012, they can set aside their differences by helping us win in Maine.  If we prevail on November 3rd, it will be easier to take our rights back in California.

The fight for marriage equality has made crucial progress in the past six months – from a court victory in Iowa to legislative victories in Vermont, New Hampshire and Maine.  The American Taliban is scared of the inevitable trend toward justice, and views the upcoming Maine referendum as “ground zero” in this battle.  Groups like the National Organization for Marriage have already thrown massive resources into Maine, and are taking it seriously.  “The side that cares more will win,” said “No on 1” field director Monique Hoeflinger.

The LGBT community is aware that whenever marriage rights have been on the ballot, bigotry has prevailed.  Arizona rejected an anti-gay marriage amendment in 2006, but it threatened both marriage and domestic partnerships – and the campaign to defeat it focused on the latter.  Two years later, the right put another measure in Arizona that only banned marriage – and it passed by a 13-point margin.  In other words, winning a campaign in Maine at the ballot box will change the conversation – and help us repeal Proposition 8.

Everyone knows that defeating Prop 8 was winnable, but our side ran an awful campaign that – like Michael Dukakis – blew a seventeen-point lead.  It had a reactive message that did not anticipate or preempt attacks from the other side, failed to run an adequate field campaign that included California’s diverse constituencies, and suffered from an early complacency that led to its downfall.  But after meeting some leaders from Maine’s No on One campaign at the Netroots Nation conference in Pittsburgh last week, I am confident they have learned from our mistakes.

A Grassroots Campaign that is Proactive and Preemptive

Unlike in California, where gays and lesbians won marriage rights at the Supreme Court, in Maine the legislature and Governor passed it into law – less than three months ago.  It took an intense grassroots lobbying campaign to make this happen, and now the same Mainers who fought for their marriage rights are ready to defend them at the ballot box.  

On Election Day last November, marriage equality advocates stood outside polling places in Maine with pledge cards for the legislative campaign.  By the time the legislature voted six months later, they had identified 50,000 registered voters who support gay marriage – but what’s interesting is where most of them came from.  Lobbying efforts come down to persuading “swing” legislators, and most of them don’t represent liberal communities.  Most of the 50,000 identified supporters live in “swing” parts of the state, giving the campaign an advantage to make inroads in places that will decide this election.

Compare this with the “No on 8” field campaign in California, which focused almost entirely on gay neighborhoods in San Francisco and Los Angeles – while ceding the rest of the state to opponents.  Mobilizing your base is important (especially in a low-turnout election), but a winning campaign needs to have a visible presence in every part of the state.

“No on 8” also ran a reactive campaign that spent too much time responding to lies that the opposition hurled at us.  It was inexcusable to not anticipate the “gay-marriage-will-be-taught-in-public-schools” line, because it’s only been used as an attack from the right in every state that had a marriage amendment.  The “No on 1” effort has already planned a TV ad when the other side makes this argument.  And unlike in California, where we put a politician on the air (State Superintendent of Public Schools Jack O’Connell) to say it’s not true, the Maine campaign will counter that message with teachers and families.

People of faith have been part of the coalition for years – and are framing support for gay marriage in moral terms.  On the day after the California Supreme Court ruled for marriage equality, they had five press conferences throughout Maine lauding the decision.  This pro-active show of force actually put the religious right on the defensive.  If this is how they plan to run the “No on 1” campaign, it’s an effort worth giving your money to.

Not a Lot of Resources Required

At Netroots Nation, the “No on 1” campaign said they needed about $3 million to win a statewide campaign in Maine (“we’re a cheap date,” they said.)  All of us Californians laughed, because we spent $40 million last year only to have our marriage rights taken away.  But it’s not just how much money a campaign spends, but whether they use their resources wisely – and when the money comes in.  “No on 8” ultimately outspent the opposition, but too much of the funds came in late in the game – when there was a tangible fear of losing.  In Maine, it’s important to send a contribution before Labor Day – so the campaign can hire enough field directors that requires weeks of hard work.

Mainers have a “live-and-let-live” approach, but they don’t like outsiders trying to buy the election process.  Most of the “No on 1” money has come from Maine residents, in small contributions from supporters of the legislative campaign to pass marriage equality.  The opposition has already raised $343,000 – and all but $2,000 from four big donors: $160,000 from the New Jersey-based National Organization for Marriage, $100,000 from the Roman Catholic diocese of Portland, $50,000 from the Knights of Columbus and $31,000 from Focus on the Family Maine.  No sign yet if the Mormons are sending in their millions from Utah, but when they do I hope to see more creative YouTube spots like this one.

Finally, the “No on 1” campaign is inviting volunteers to come “vacation” in Maine – where they will put you up in the homes of supporters.  Help is especially needed during the first week of October, when early absentee ballots get mailed out.  Volunteers should go to the campaign website, and let them know when they plan to visit the state.  This will be a campaign mostly run by Maine residents, but unpaid assistance from those passionate for marriage equality are welcome.

In California, gay marriage supporters who plan to repeal Prop 8 at the ballot box are deeply divided between doing it in 2010 – or in 2012.  Equality California has endorsed 2012, in part because their donors do not feel confident winning in 2010 is possible.  But grass-roots supporters at the Courage Campaign want to try next year.  It’s a stupid internecine fight that threatens to hurt the LGBT community, when we should all be working together.

I’m undecided about 2010 or 2012, and am willing to be persuaded either way.  But there’s one thing I know for sure – defending marriage equality in Maine in 2009 will make it easier to repeal Prop 8, regardless of what year it gets on the ballot.  Californians who believe in marriage equality have a moral responsibility to help out the Maine effort.  Depending on my vacation schedule and budget, I plan to fly out there in a few weeks.

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