Until this year, opponents of same-sex marriage had never lost a statewide referendum. They’d won 32 straight times. Two weeks ago, the tide of public opinion finally overwhelmed them. They lost all four measures on the November ballot — one to ban gay marriage in Minnesota, and three others to permit gay marriage in Maine, Maryland and Washington state.
Are they humbled? Shaken? Worried that the country might be turning against them? Not a bit. The leading conservative lobby on this issue, the National Organization for Marriage, has cooked up a handy set of post-election excuses. Here’s the list.
1. We never really had a shot.
Last year, when Minnesota lawmakers voted to put the issue on the 2012 ballot, NOM predicted victory, noting that “deep blue states” such as California, Maryland, New Jersey, Rhode Island, and Wisconsin had rejected gay marriage. In January of this year, NOM released a survey purporting to show that Washington state voters were “not in favor of redefining marriage.” When same-sex marriage advocates in Maine, stung by a previous defeat, filed signatures for a rematch, NOM President Brian Brown scoffed, “The people of Maine are not in favor of redefining marriage, as we showed in 2009. Gay advocates are fooling themselves when they say things have changed.” On Election Day, the clean sweep went the other way. NOM snapped into action. Overnight, the four easy wins became, in retrospect, impossible uphill struggles.
2. We have the momentum.
All year, NOM said it was gaining ground. In May, Brown asserted:
“Actual vote percentages in favor of traditional marriage are rising. In 2008 in California, the Prop 8 constitutional amendment on traditional marriage passed with 52 percent of the vote. Then in 2009 in Maine, 53 percent of voters stood for traditional marriage and rejected same-sex marriage legislation. In 2010, 56 percent of Iowa voters rejected three Supreme Court judges who had imposed gay marriage in that state. And now more than 60 percent of North Carolina voters have passed a constitutional amendment defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman. There is a clear trend line, and it is moving in our direction.”
In September, NOM touted a poll that suggested only 48 percent of likely Maine voters would support same-sex marriage. NOM’s press release crowed, “New Poll: Gay Marriage Under 50 Percent in Maine!” Citing this and other surveys, NOM argued that support for gay marriage was “falling further behind” in Maine and would fail again. On Oct. 26, Brown told reporters, “The momentum is clearly behind our efforts to protect marriage in the four states voting on Nov. 6. Pro-marriage activists have always won the closing argument and this November will be no different.”
3. It’s Obama’s fault.
In April, NOM endorsed Mitt Romney for president. In May, when President Barack Obama endorsed same-sex marriage, NOM declared war: “NOM Promises Pro-Marriage Americans Will Defeat Obama This November For Abandoning Marriage.” NOM named five “swing states” where marriage would be a “defining issue” against Obama: Ohio, North Carolina, Virginia, Florida, and Nevada. On Nov. 2, NOM added Wisconsin and Pennsylvania to the list of states in which “we are proud to work” against the president’s reelection.
Four days later, NOM came up empty. Obama won six of its seven targeted states, plus the four states with marriage ballot measures. So NOM reversed its spin. Opposition to gay marriage hadn’t failed to defeat Obama. It had miraculously survived him. His reelection was a mysterious force of nature, like Hurricane Sandy. “This was sort of an Obama wave,” Brown told NPR. “A lot of people are looking up and saying, ‘I cannot believe the turnout.’ That turnout did help those that wanted to redefine marriage.”
4. We still have the blacks.
In February, NOM warned Democratic state legislators in Maryland that they’d “have to answer to their constituents, including the upwards of 70 percent of African Americans who oppose redefining marriage.” Later, NOM launched radio ads in North Carolina, promising to use black conservatism on gay marriage as a wedge to turn African-Americans against Obama.
Both threats fizzled. In North Carolina, 96 percent of blacks voted for Obama. In Maryland, the percentage of blacks opposing gay marriage fell to 54 percent — and black women voted narrowly to legalize it — fatally depriving NOM of the margins it had expected.
NOM is far from dead. Its record is 32-4. And when Brown says cultural change isn’t always a one-way street, he’s right. But the excuses he has concocted for this year’s skunking won’t survive further defeats. If same-sex marriage keeps rising in national polls, and blacks keep shifting, and NOM starts to lose in purple states when Obama’s no longer on the ballot, the myth of the fearsome traditional-marriage lobby will unravel. And there won’t be a closet big enough for NOM to hide in.
William Saletan covers science, technology and politics for Slate.
NOM, especially as spinmeister, has about as much credibility as Karl Rove.
NOM will be around just as long as people believe NOM is effective, and continue to contribute, in some cases, illegally anonymously TO NOM campaigns…
Which is to say, NOM’s influence is on the wane, and eventually will be nil.
From a press release put out by the Human Rights Campaign:
“in 2011 NOM raised $6.2 million, compared to the $9.1 million it raised in 2010. Just two donors were responsible for funding 75 percent of the anti-gay group— the organization reported two donations of approximately $2.4 million each.”
So it’s clear that they have already lost the people, and is anything but a grassroots organization… just like the “no on 1” group here in Maine, who got the overwhelming majority of their funds from two sources: NOM and the Knights of Columbus.
NOM has always been nearly exclusively funded by a handful of billionaire heirs. It’s astroturf at its worst.
a lie is a favored child of NOM……
NOM and their ilk are con artists, plain and simple. They know they are on the wrong side of history on this issue, but cynically they know there is lots of money to be made pandering to people who are afraid of change or angry at a world that looks very different from the one they grew up in. They line their coffers waging war against Americans who simply want to be treated equally by our laws.
I fully expect that once civil marriage for same-sex couples is legal nationwide, NOM will simply “re-brand” themselves as “NORM” and continue collecting paychecks, this time to “restore marriage”…
It’ fun when blowhards are knocked down!
Yes, it is….to see the right and decent thing win. It is very gratifying.
By the way….love your photo there. Just love that cat. (cats are fantastic!)
What’s right.
He’s a rescue now 3years old and still the most loving terror of a string of them. I hope he never grows up, just leaves the older one alone! :)
A rescue. That is even better! What a beautiful and cute cat. We have two gray ones now (one is a gray and white tabby) from Bangor Humane Society. Our previous 2, also from there (an all black cat and a tiger) both lived to be 19 yrs old. Still miss them.
I could writ a book on those that adopted us in the country, including a Lab and miniature mutt. We now are on the 11 floor, so we are stuck with a sweetie and a loving horror! Thanks, I could talk all day..
I know what you mean. Animal lovers are usually the best, because animals are the best. I think I read in another of your posts that you now live in Boston (or some city.) I lived in Boston (Back Bay). If you lived in Aroostook county and moved to Boston….a big difference. Have lived both places in the past so know.
Best of luck (and with your lucky animals.) I think that the people that our cats and dogs “own”, though, are the lucky ones. Cats and dogs give so much.
Anyway, this article is about gay rights and marriage (and how great it is that it passed in Maine and a few other states) and did not mean to stray from that. Your cat photo started it!
St Stephen St and Kilmarnock. Still have our house on the South Shore. We now own an empty nest in Brookline. Grew up in the County.
I can’t believe that the other half is hinting at another adoption!! Never cared for a pet before…
Enough biography. :)
Small world. Lived on St Mary’s St in Brookline.
Have a good night.
AHH By Fenway. I can see the Citgo sign up Brooklne Ave from the Brook House
May your cats stay off your chest tonight, :)
Coolidge Corner, etc. (but you won’t have remembered the Pewter Pot Muffin Shops all over including Brookline back then.) Getting very nostalgic.
No, not that, but one of the cats sometimes lets you know if you oversleep. Chow time!
Dang, can’t see that from Hyde Park Ave! LOL
Brian Brown… Maggie Gallagher… enemies of liberty and these United States.
Great article. It seems that NOM was wrong all along , just like the Romney campaign was in their assertions before the election. Denial or something.
This article is incorrect to say ” until this year, opponents of same-sex marriage had never lost a statewide referendum. ” In fact, they lost 2: a referendum in Arizona on same sex marriage and civil unions (they later won a ballot initiative that just covered marriage but not civil unions) and they also lost a civil unions ballot in the State of Washington.
It annoys me to no end that the press has amnesia about that Arizona loss, but I can see the logic in downplaying it. That ballot initiative probably failed because it overreached, trying to ban any form of legal relationship recognition other than marriage. That ended up threatening benefits for elderly couples; and the public (in every state) actually cares about their welfare. These were the first unequivocal wins for same-sex marriage. No civil union or domestic partnership was on the ballot in any of these states, and no other couples’ interests were implicated. These votes were solely about banning same-sex couples from marrying, and the public rejected that option four times.
You know, a sportsman and a gentleman would never blame his opponent for his own loss. It speaks volumes about both Romney and Brian Brown. Spin it all you want, but character, or the lack of it, is all too apparent here.
So very true. I never saw any signs of great character in Romney, that’s for sure.
There are so few gentlemen these days. Manners and etiquette are disappearing. Look at the Senate. At one time there were gentlemen there and they were referred to as such – “the gentleman from Maine,” for example. These days, the blowhards on the Hill wouldn’t be invited to a dog fight.
I’m afraid you are right . I don’t think it matters where one lives either for the most part. It is the culture we live in. I don’t know how much a part the pervasive technology has played a part in this. I know most of us appreciate someone who respects themselves and others enough to be polite and respectful.
I am not sure if it was technology or just what, but manners and respect seem to be out the door. I think reality television promoting crass behavior as acceptable is partly to blame – no class whatsoever. Most of that Survivor TV stuff reminds me of “Lord of the Flies.” The worst of human behavior parked on one island with the goal of defeating others for one’s personal gain.
There was a time when people aspired to dress and speak well of others. These days, I wouldn’t go to a dog fight dressed like the average American – stretched-out sweat pants and a ratty looking T-shirt for the guys and street-corner hooker look for teen girls.
It’s a free country. People can wear and act as they please. Of course, that is their right. But, they also must be willing to accept how people will treat them. If they dress like a hooker and a guy approaches them and asks, “How much for the night?” they shouldn’t be offended. They dressed the part.
If I dressed like a fireman, but am not a fireman, I shouldn’t be too surprised if someone comes up to me and asks me to help put a fire.
I think I recall from some of your former posts that you are in the DC area, unless I am mixing you .I don’t know how people dress and their pride in their appearance there (some professional type dressing?) but here in central eastern Maine you see the kind of dressing that you describe above. Not everyone by any means , but enough.
As for reality TV. I don’t watch it (well, “Dancing with the Stars” sometimes, I admit) but that’s it. I don’t care for the little I have seen of it and previews on stations. (reality TV.) Bored by it actually. Rude, crude, crass….ugh! It seems to bring out the worst in people. I find it offensive , unpleasant and very unappealing to watch. I don’t think it has positively contributed to our civility and manners at all. You are right….”no class.”
Yes, that me. In the DC area. I am from Maine originally and still have the family farm up there.
DC and the area seems to have quite a mix. In the office, we don’t see nearly as many suits as we did but now more “business casual” being Oxford shirt and dress slacks. In the “public” offices, you still see many suits. For those of us in the technical professional world we are business casual except when we go to visit the customer and then it is always a suit.
I cannot really say when this lack of civility started but it certainly is different today than when I was a kid. I held the car door for a female coworker and she was “stunned.” Kind of sad that is the exception and not the rule these days.
Please don’t try and blame technology for it, it goes a lot farther back. In the 60’s the teens and twenty-somethings realized adults lie… a lot. So they began losing respect for them. Which in turn became respect is earned not given. Just because you are my elder does not make you my better kind of thing. When these “hippies” became parents, they passed this philosophy on. As far as dress goes, it harkens back to the hippies as well. with the Civil Rights and Women’s movements. They taught their children that it doesn’t matter what someone looks like, what matters is if they can do a job and do it well. I get that many people think the 50’s were great because men wore suits and women wore dresses, but what that did was make everyone cookie cutter Donna Reeds. In the end, it was all window dressing and had no substance to it. I would much rather deal with a person in sweats because that is who they are rather than a person in a suit because that is what they think you should see them as.
I do not disagree with you. The sixties and all that contributed to the “more relaxed” attire. And, it got people away from the “empty suit” syndrome where people were judged solely on their attire.
That said, showing up at work wearing something you would wear to clean out a septic tank is inappropriate. There is a reasonable line. As I said, you are entitled to wear what you want but you must be willing to accept that your credibility may suffer if you look like an unmade bed. How would you feel if your attorney or doctor dressed like they planned to clean out the gutters? You would think they lost their minds (and, they probably have).
I am all for comfortable casual, but appropriate for the situation.
Lol awww c’mon, no dressing like a stripper at the law office? I see your point, there are certain jobs where to gain the trust of the client/customer you need to have a certain look. I also agree that manners are good too. While I would load the book of etiquette in the skeet shooter, yell “pull” and put the 12 ga. to it, that does not mean civility and common courtesy should go out the window. I often get a chuckle out of people when they have that surprised look on their face when I hold a door open for them, or let them go ahead of me in line because they only have a few items.
I agree with your points about the 50’s (Donna Reed and all that). The substance is what is important more than anything. However, the reality is that,in many situations, people are judged in how they look and dress (job interviews,etc.) so , sure, there is a kind of fine line there.
“Actual vote percentages in favor of traditional marriage are rising. In
2008 in California, the Prop 8 constitutional amendment on traditional
marriage passed with 52 percent of the vote. Then in 2009 in Maine, 53
percent of voters stood for traditional marriage and rejected same-sex
marriage legislation. In 2010, 56 percent of Iowa voters rejected three
Supreme Court judges who had imposed gay marriage in that state. And now
more than 60 percent of North Carolina voters have passed a
constitutional amendment defining marriage as the union of one man and
one woman. There is a clear trend line, and it is moving in our
direction.”
I guess the folks at NOM failed to pay attention in Statistics class.
Inferring a “clear trend line” from polls of four completely different sample groups is, as Click and Clack would say, boOoOoOogus!
Let’s make this simple…your small mindedness lost. Why did you lose? Because you lied, lied, lied and then got found out. Your supporters slipped away when they discovered your lies. So sad. Now drop it!
Old people are dying off…….that’s my take.
Hmmm. At 69 I kinda disagree and there are many others of my age group who voted yes on 1. My take is the number of younger people coming of voting age are much more “hip” on gay issues because they have known gay friends and others who have same sex parents and it didn’t make any difference. The GOP had better take notice of things like this or they may fade into obscurity, and rightly so.