Prop 8 deja vu in Maine/Maine to scrutinize anti-gay groups

Prop 8 deja vu in Maine
by Rex Wockner
Copyright by The Windy City Times and by Rex Wockner
2009-09-30
http://www.windycitymediagroup.com/gay/lesbian/news/ARTICLE.php?AID=23041


Maine voters will decide Nov. 3 whether to veto a law passed by the legislature and signed by the governor that legalized same-sex marriage. The law has not yet taken effect pending the outcome of the election.
The TV ad war got under way Sept. 15, and it looks and smells like the Proposition 8 ad war last year in California. Some analysts believe gays lost marriage in California because the No on 8 campaign lost the TV ad war.

In one Maine ad, the anti-gay side even uses the same video it used in California of a horrified straight couple whose second-grader apparently learned about same-sex marriage at school in Massachusetts.

The anti-gay side's first ad said: "Special-interest groups got the Legislature to approve homosexual marriage and tried to prevent Mainers from voting. But Question 1 gives us our vote. Unless Question 1 passes, there will be real consequences for Mainers. Legal experts predict a flood of lawsuits against individuals, small businesses and religious groups. Church organizations could lose their tax exemption. Homosexual marriage taught in public schools, whether parents like it or not."

The anti-gay side's second ad said: "Opponents of Question 1 say that legalizing homosexual marriage has nothing to do with schools. But it has everything to do with schools. 'After Massachusetts legalized gay marriage, our son came home and told us the school taught him that boys can marry other boys. He's in second grade! We tried to stop public schools from teaching children about gay marriage, but the courts said we had no right to object or pull him out of class.' It's already happened in Massachusetts. Vote yes on Question 1 to prevent homosexual marriage from being taught in Maine schools."

The gay side in Maine—called NO on 1/Protect Maine Equality—has aired two response ads. The first one said: "Schools should be safe havens where children can learn and be accepted. In Maine, we protect all families, and we all want to keep our children safe. That's the Maine way. But outsiders are trying to harm our kids in schools by deceiving families about what's taught in Maine classrooms. It won't work, because in Maine all families put children first. 'I've been teaching in Maine schools since 1983. We teach respect and Maine values. That will never change.' Vote no on 1 to protect Maine equality."

The second response ad, released Sept. 25, says: "In Maine, we're proud of every family and every child, regardless of who their parents are. That's the Maine way. But outsiders are trying to harm our kids and make them feel ashamed by making false claims about what's taught in Maine classrooms. They're baseless, untrue. It won't work. 'Schools should be safe havens for children, places where all children feel welcome, accepted and safe.' Vote no on 1 to protect marriage equality."

If the shocking language of the "yes" side sounds familiar, and the mild language of the "no" side sounds familiar, it should. It happened before. In California.

"The religious right is targeting marriage equality in Maine with big money and false attacks, virtually identical to the fearmongering strategies in 2008's Proposition 8 campaign in California," said People for the American Way.

Said writer Andrew Sullivan: "The anti-gay forces are pounding Maine with exactly the same scare tactics that worked in California. Most of the pro-gay ads are as lame as they were in California as well."

Indeed, some activists are concerned that NO on 1/Protect Maine Equality is on a path to repeat the failed No on 8 campaign in California. Blogger Phillip Minton ( unitethefight.org ) summarized the concern Sept. 17.

"We knew ( from the Prop 8 battle in California ) what the opposition was going to say ( in Maine ) ," Minton wrote. "Shouldn't we have had an ad on the air already addressing these specific concerns before the Yes on 1 opened their lying mouths? ... We need to kill their arguments before they even voice them. We need to tell Mainers: 'You're going to hear that marriage is going to be taught in schools, but you have the power to decide that yourself in your districts. You're going to hear that your church is going to be sued, but you already have protections in place by law. The other side is going to try and confuse this issue, to state things that are not in the law. They want to mislead you. They will lie to you. This is not about curriculum, not about religion. What this is about is civil marriage for all. It's about protecting families. It's about being fair.' But that's just a start. It's got to hit harder. Expose the lies as lies."

NO on 1/Protect Maine Equality Campaign Manager Jesse Connolly doesn't seem worried, however.

Writing at Daily Kos on Sept. 18, he said: "We feel confident that we have the right strategy and we're running a Maine-based campaign. We have organized an unprecedented grassroots effort with organizers on the ground in every county, on every college campus, in towns and cities across Maine and reaching out to Maine people from Kittery to Fort Kent. Our campaign emphasizes Mainers talking to their friends, neighbors, coworkers and families to build the support we need to win on November 3rd."

If that sounds familiar, it should. That's how Harvey Milk and friends beat Proposition 6 in California in 1978. Prop 6 would have banned gays from teaching school.

But in the intervening 30 years, the anti-gay side has honed its rhetoric to near-perfect pitch. GLBT Californians watching the Maine campaign have a distinct feeling of déjà vu—if not one of dread.

Same-sex marriage is legal in Connecticut, Iowa, Massachusetts and Vermont. There also are 18,000 married same-sex couples in California, though voters have banned any more same-sex marriages. Same-sex marriage becomes legal in New Hampshire in January.

—Assistance: Bill Kelley





Maine to scrutinize anti-gay groups
by Lisa Keen
©2009 Keen News Service
Thursday, Oct. 1, 2009
http://www.windycitymediagroup.com/gay/lesbian/news/ARTICLE.php?AID=23075


The Maine campaign ethics committee voted 3-2 Oct. 1 to launch a formal investigation into the funding of an anti-gay ballot initiative in that state this year.
The vote rejected a recommendation, from the staff of the Maine Commission on Governmental Ethics and Election Practices, that it not investigate the campaign funding practices of the anti-gay Stand for Marriage Maine group. Stand for Marriage Maine is spearheading support for a ballot measure in November to overturn a new law to provide same-sex couples with the same rights to marriage licenses and benefits as it does to straight couples. That staff recommendation, issued Sept. 29, said "staff does not recommend an investigation of Stand for Marriage Maine PAC or its contributors." Its largest contributor, thus far, has been the National Organization for Marriage ( NOM ) , a group that was instrumental in funding the anti-gay Proposition 8 initiative in California.

California gay activist Fred Karger, founder of Californians Against Hate, requested the investigation. Karger's group, founded just last year, studied public records to identify businesses and individuals who contributed to the anti-gay campaign in California. While doing similar work from public records in Maine, Karger told the commission he believes NOM and Stand for Marriage Maine are deliberately violating state campaign finance disclosure requirements.

Two Democrats and one Republican on the commission agreed, voting for an investigation. One Republican and one unaffiliated member, Chairman Michael Freidman of Bangor, voted against.

"I'm very pleased," said Karger, in a phone interview following the vote. "The commission showed great courage today in agreeing to going ahead and launching an investigation."

Scott Fish, a spokesperson for Stand for Marriage Maine, declined to answer any specific questions concerning the commission's vote, including whether he thinks it will have any impact on voters Nov. 3. He referred a voter to a statement issued by the organization following the hearing. The statement, attributed to Marc Mutty, chairman of Stand for Marriage Maine, says the group is in compliance with state law and called the investigation an "abuse of power."

"It is yet another example of the harassment that follows supporters of traditional marriage," said Mutty. "…It is an abuse of power for the Commission to have allowed itself to be used as an instrument of politics in this fashion."

The No on 1/Protect Maine Equality had nothing to say about the commission vote. Spokesperson Mark Sullivan repeatedly answered all questions for reaction with statements clearly meant to distance the organization from the allegations against Stand for Marriage Maine and its supporters.

"We are not involved in any way shape or form," said Sullivan. Asked whether the investigation might nevertheless influence voters, he said only, "We have nothing to do with the complaint and don't have any opinion about it one way or the other."

No on 1 and Stand for Marriage both issued statements early in the campaign promising to conduct polite, respectful, and honest campaigns.

Jonathan Wayne, executive director of the commission, said he believes the commission's directive now is to investigate only NOM; however, he said he would be consulting further with commission members in the coming weeks to get a more definitive answer.

Such investigations, said Wayne, typically take several months and, therefore, a report on its findings will likely be issued long after the voting takes place. If the group or groups investigated are found to be in violation of state campaign finance disclosure laws, he said, the commission can either issue a statement announcing the violation or assess civil penalties.

Karger said that, because of the commission's vote, the commission now has subpoena power, if needed, to obtain records from the organizations backing Ballot Measure Number 1.

During the Oct. 1 hearing, Karger told the commission that NOM has sent out at least 16 e-mails that "mention Maine and directly ask for money." He said the group also tells contributors that their identities will be kept private.

"They're definitely trying to go around the Maine election law," said Karger.

But Brian Brown, head of NOM, said his organization knows and follows state law closely. He also rebutted claims that NOM has been delinquent in filing and making public its 990 forms—Internal Revenue Service forms that require the reporting of money raised and spent by tax-exempt organizations. The organization's 990 forms are now available at www.nationformarriage.org .

During the hearing, which was streamed live on the commission's Web site, commission chairman Michael Friedman, who has no political party affiliation, said national political party committees frequently contribute large sums of money to campaigns in Maine without disclosing individual donor names. He said he did not believe Karger presented sufficient evidence to suggest that NOM or Stand for Marriage Maine were doing anything different from that.

But commission member André Duchette, a Democrat, said he was "troubled by the slippery slope where these entities can kind of circumvent the true intent of what our laws seek to uncover."

According to state campaign finance reports filed thus far, Stand for Marriage Maine has raised more than $343,000, only $400 of which came from individuals. The greatest bulk of money—$160,000 ( 47 percent ) —has come from NOM. Another $152,000 ( 44 percent ) has come from the Roman Catholic Church and $31,000 from the state chapter of Focus on the Family.

By comparison, the key group working against the referendum—"No on 1: Protect Maine Equality" has raised $143,290—76 percent of which ( $108,290 ) has come from individuals. ( The amount of $25,000 came from the Human Rights Campaign and $10,000 from the ACLU. )

The next financial disclosure report is due Oct. 13.