Today was the first day same-sex couples could apply for marriage licenses at the Superior Courthouse in the District of Columbia. Couples started lining up in the wee hours of the morning. Below is a picture of Sinjoyla Townsend and Angelisa Young, the first couple to obtain their marriage license:
h/t to Cathy Renna for the photo
By 11:30 AM, over 100 couples had applied for marriage licenses and the clerk said she was processing 20-25 per hour. The language was changed to "I now pronounce you legally married" instead of "I now pronounce you man and wife". Kudos to HRC, GLAAD and Renna Communications for providing media assistance on the ground to spread the word about how the nation's capital is now providing equality to all.
For those counting, this now makes DC the sixth jurisdiction in which same-sex couples currently have the freedom to marry, along with Iowa, Connecticut, New Hampshire, Vermont and Massachusetts. Previous same-sex weddings performed in California between June and November 2008 have also been ruled legally valid, and in states like New York and (moving forward) Maryland, out-of-state weddings are legally valid. More and more states are recognizing marriage is about love, and today's couples show that once again. Congrats to all the couples.
Tomorrow morning, the law legalizing same-sex marriage equality in the District of Columbia will take effect, having completed the Congressional review period without incident. That means at 8:30 AM tomorrow, same-sex couples will begin applying for marriage licenses at the DC Superior Court Marriage Bureau (expect long lines). Tuesday, March 9th will be the first day couples can legally receive their licenses and wed. Opponents have filed a last-ditch stay to the Supreme Court, but after four lower court rejections, legal experts tell me there is a very slim chance the Supreme Court will intervene.
Here in town, I've seen ads all over the place aimed at same-sex couples; wedding planning consultants; restaurants and hotels advertising their banquet spaces; flowers and more. One argument that I think is too-often underused is the economic impact of marriage equality. The marriage industry is a multi-million dollar industry. The Williams Institute at UCLA Law School put out a report last year estimating that DC marriage equality would result in $52.2 million economic spending in spending over three years, creating an estimated 700 jobs. That doesn't include $5.4 million in new revenue from things like sales taxes and license fees. Based on tourism data, the Williams Institute estimates over 10,000 couples will come from all over the country to get married in the nation's capital. Restaurants, hotels, and small businesses like flower shops will all appreciate the new business, especially in a recession. It's like a small stimulus shot in the arm for the area.
This has been a long time coming, and local activist Rick Rosendall has a piece naming a number of key folks who have laid the groundwork, and a bit on the legislative and legal strategy that has been going on for years. A number of them are very close friends and extremely strategic activists, and deserve a big h/t.
If you are a couple involved in politics (Hill staffers, local activists, etc.) and are applying for a license tomorrow, a few reporters have reached out looking to talk to same-sex political couples who planned to be married. Drop me a line at adambink at gmail dot com if you're interested (and congrats!).
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.
Yesterday, the West Virginia House of Delegates voted to kill a effort to put a statewide constitutional amendment on the ballot by a vote of 68-30. The Republicans attempted to discharge the bill from committee, but it was blocked from consideration. The House also blocked the move last year. Folks at Fairness West Virginia say they are confident the Senate will do the same in the coming days, but the right-wingers are planning a rally at the statehouse tomorrow, so everyone's staying alert. This follows the Iowa legislature defeating discharge petitions on the same issue two weeks ago and the New Hampshire House voting down efforts last week to put an amendment on the ballot and to repeal the state's duly-passed law. Sometimes these legislative victories don't get enough attention, but they're important.
This morning in Maryland, the Attorney General, Doug Gansler (D) has posted his long-awaited opinion on whether same-sex marriages performed out of state should be recognized in Maryland. Maryland currently limits marriages performed in the state to opposite-sex couples. The Maryland Court of Appeals is hearing a case on this issue. In it, he said:
...the Court of Appeals, when it ultimately rules on this question in a particular case, will likely apply the principle that a marriage that is valid in the place of celebration is valid in Maryland. The opinion reaches this conclusion in light of the evolving state policy, reflected in anti-discrimination laws, domestic partner laws and other legislation, that respects and supports committed intimate same-sex relationships...
The Court of Appeals would start from the general principle that a marriage that is valid in the place of celebration remains valid in Maryland. There is an exception to that rule if the particular marriage is contrary to a strong State public policy. A statute that limits marriage in Maryland to opposite-sex couples could be said to embody a policy against same-sex marriage. However, there are many restrictions in the State's marriage statutes and and the Court of Appeals has not construed the public policy exception to encompass all those restrictions. For example, it has recognized common law marriages from other states, although there is no common law marriage in Maryland, and has recognized a Rhode Island marriage between an uncle and a niece, although a statute prohibits marriage between an uncle and a niece in Maryland. Indeed, the public policy exception is a very limited one that the Court has seldom invoked.
While the matter is not free from all doubt, in our view, the Court is likely to respect the law of other states and recognize a same-sex marriage contracted validly in another jurisdiction. In light of Maryland's developing public policy concerning intimate same-sex relationships, the Court would not readily invoke the public policy exception to the usual rule of recognition.
He also wrote that the General Assembly, Court of Appeals, or state agencies (when acting within their jurisdiction) could take steps to recognize such marriages. In DC, the City Council and Mayor enacted legislation recognizing same-sex marriages from out-of-state, while in New York, Gov. Paterson instructed state agencies to do the same, although Gansler wrote that that situation is not analogous because Paterson was complying with a state court decision, while there is no such decision in Maryland. We'll have to wait and see what happens in Maryland.
The entire opinion is posted here. The Attorney General's opinion is not legally binding, but advisory. I'll post more legal interpretation if it comes.
Last week, I wrote about two efforts to repeal marriage equality- one in Iowa, one in New Hampshire. Previously, the New Hampshire House Judiciary Committee voted down two efforts to repeal marriage equality.
Lurleen over at Pam's House Blend has the news that today, the full New Hampshire House voted down a move to subject the rights of LGBT people to a ballot vote via a constitutional amendment, 201-135, as well as a bill to repeal the law altogether (a law which the same New Hampshire House passed), by a vote of 210-109.
Great news, and go New Hampshire. I remain interested to see how married same-sex couples will play into the 2010 Republican Presidential primary in that state, particularly given that it's a semi-open primary (undeclared voters can vote in either party's primary).
ActBlue's list of top fundraising committees in 2009 came out earlier this week, and what really caught my eye was that the No On 1/Protect Maine Equality campaign raised the most out of any campaign when ranked by total contributions. That's first among all campaigns, legislative or electoral, candidate or issue-based, with nearly $1.4 million raised from over 17,000 people. That includes over $8,000 here at OpenLeft's Better Democrats 2010 page.
I'll never be able to say it enough, but thanks to all of you who dug deep and chipped in, both to the campaign directly and to send me to Maine to work on the ground. As I've written here repeatedly, we came very close, and lost by what I've called a field goal in what was otherwise a top-notch campaign. Since then, we've had other losses, but we've also successfully fought off attempts this week to repeal marriage equality in New Hampshire and Iowa. At the Creating Change conference in Dallas at which I spoke over the weekend, I had some great conversations about infrastructure-building in the marriage movement (example: Freedom to Marry launched a new website yesterday with some great tools); went to an interesting presentation on the Los Angeles Gay and Lesbian Center's Vote for Equality campaign, which has engaged in door-to-door persuasion and message-testing with Yes on Prop 8 voters over the past year in LA; and had some good meetings with folks around repeal plans in other states with constitutional amendments on the books.
So thanks for all your support for to protect marriage equality in Maine, and we're moving forward across the country with your help.
Some good news from out in the states following the Hawaii House's defeat of a civil unions bill.
In New Hampshire, the House Judiciary committee voted to kill an effort to reverse the state's same-sex marriage law that the legislature passed and Gov. Lynch signed last year. It also voted down a call for a public vote on the issue.
In Iowa, where a constitutional amendment to ban marriage equality would have to be passed in two consecutive legislative sessions before being voted on by the public (several years from now), two "discharge petition"-type efforts failed this morning to pull a constitutional amendment out of committee in both houses of the legislature. The measure, like a discharge petition in the U.S. House of Representatives, would have required a majority number of signatures to pull the bill out of committee. As OpenLefter desmoinesdem reported at Bleeding Heartland yesterday, 62% of Iowans think the legislature should focus on issues other than marriage equality.
The one other thing I do want to note is that in the House, all 44 Republicans voted for the petition but only one Democrat supported it, while in the Senate, all 18 Republicans voted for the petition along with only one Democrat out of 32. Like in New York State, a high percentage of the Democratic caucus voted to support marriage equality, while nearly 100% of the GOP caucus voted against it, so hopefully more of the "this is all the Democrats' fault"-type rhetoric that focuses on parties rather than legislators- which I criticized here- on this issue dies down some more, and folks learn to focus on targeting legislators, not parties. Of course, I don't expect to hear "yay for the Democrats" after these wins, since "the Democrats" kept this from succeeding, but perhaps I should. Sometimes it seems folks are content to blame "the Democrats" after losses but refuse to laud them after wins. Funny thing.
As Joe Mirabella noted last month, it'll be interesting to see how this plays out in the GOP presidential primaries in both early states come 2012.
All in all, good news, and kudos to a number of activists in both states.
There's an interesting approach being taken to further the cause of repealing Prop 8 in California. This week, openly gay State Senator Mark Leno- who previously sponsored the legislation legalizing marriage equality which was twice vetoed by Gov. Schwarzenegger- has introduced legislation to protect the right of religious institutions to refuse to solemnize same-sex weddings.
Leno, who is gay, is introducing legislation that says no religious leader would be forced to perform a marriage that goes against their own beliefs or that of their faith. The bill would also re-emphasize the tax-exempt status of churches, and states that they would not lose this status by refusing to perform same-sex marriages.
Leno, a Democrat, contends the bill would not actually change the law because the First Amendment already offers these protections.
Instead, Leno said, it is a clarification aimed right at the ongoing debate over Proposition 8, the 2008 initiative that ended California's brief experiment with same sex marriage. The measure won by five points after a campaign in which proponents sought to mislead voters, Leno contends.
"If you heard any number of the arguments of the proponents of Prop. 8, you would have thought there were no First Amendment right to freedom of religion," Leno said. He added at the bill would be an attempt "to put to an end some of the nonsensical statements made in support of Prop. 8."
Protecting the rights of religious institutions is one of the leading objections to same-sex marriage, both at the voter level and in terms of opposition from institutions. While you'd normally see this kind of legislation introduced by the religious conservatives of the world- for instance, as an amendment to legislation legalizing same-sex marriage- here you have Leno and Equality California, along with the California Council of Churches, backing it as an element to nullify certain objections. This won't necessarily keep institutions like the Catholic Diocese on the sidelines during a repeal effort if it becomes law, but it will certainly make a positive impact in many respects.
And it certainly would put the religious conservative opponents of marriage equality in an interesting bind. I'll be interested to see if they support it.
Taegan Goddard posits whether Harold Ford, Jr.'s game plan is to run as an independent, like Joe Lieberman. It's an interesting notion. The theory, to me, goes:
Ballot lines. New York State has a "fusion ballot" system where one candidate can run on multiple lines. For example, I can vote for Rep. Slaughter on either the Democratic or Working Families Party line. Some candidates even secure three lines. Ford's gamble would be to secure the Independence Party line and run there in the general election, ideally on a second line, although I don't see him getting the Working Families Party line or the Conservative Party line, either. He would also have to secure some kind of Republican support.
Ford's appeal. Given Ford's past positions and his attempts of late to establish himself as an Liebermanesque "independent Democrat", conventional wisdom would say that he appeals to Republicans and Independents as well as, if not more so than, Democrats. Given his carpetbagger issues, unfamiliarity with the state and lower name ID, it would also be better if the election were in November, not the September Democratic primary.
Republicans have no viable candidate. Republican Bruce Blakeman, the former Presiding Supervisor of the Nassau County Legislature, and not a serious candidate, is set to announce on Sunday that he is running. Given that Giuliani, Peter King, Molinari are all out, and chances are very slim if any that Pataki will run, Blakeman would be the New York State version of Alan Schlesinger, the Connecticut Republican who took 9.6% of the vote in 2006.
In 2006, Lieberman took 54% of the Independent vote and 70% of the Republican vote. While Lieberman had much more of a record of "independence" that was familiar to Connecticut voters, the theory is that Ford could make the same kind of appeal and get the same results if Blakeman is the Republican. I am really, really doubtful of this though, as looking at history, the only example of a major candidate to run statewide on just the Independence line was Tom Golisano, who even in his best showing took just 14% of the vote in the 2002 gubernatorial general election. On the other hand he was running against Pataki, the incumbent governor who was on both the Republican and Conservative lines. There really is no example of the kind of race Ford may be setting up, where Republicans field a weak candidate and two Democrats run at each other on separate ballot lines.
It also depends on how much Republicans actually support their candidate. If it's a virtual alliance between Ford and the Republicans, that could be trouble, but if the Republicans work for Blakeman, or even just sit on their hands, Ford can't win on just the Independence line alone. And it's also hard to see how Ford has a virtual alliance with the Republicans after all the tacking to the left he's done.
Getting on the Independence line. My understanding is that the executive committee of the Independence Party essentially chooses who will and will not be on the ballot under that line. That's why Mike Bloomberg contributed $250,000 to the Party in 2005 and $400,000 last year to get on the line. Goddard points to Bradley Tusk, Bloomberg's campaign manager, currently advising Ford as one indicator that Ford will do this. Allying himself with Bloomberg, who hasn't been a huge fan of Gillibrand, would go a long way. Ford would also have to get what is called a Wilson-Pakula signed by the Independence Party chair, which is where Bloomberg, who is known to be close to Independence Party chair Frank MacKay, would help.
If he succeeds, Gillibrand could collect signatures from Independence Party members to force a September primary, which would be on the same date as the Democratic primary. She must, I believe, also obtain a Wilson-Pakula, as she is not an enrolled Independence Party member. The winner would be on that ballot line in the general.
2010 turnout. As Mike noted last week, when voters are in this foul a mood, anti-incumbent and anti-establishment candidates have advantages (the notion that Ford is anti-establishment is a joke, but he's certainly trying to paint himself as such). This would be targeted at Gillibrand. On top of this, if 2010 is like 2009 in New Jersey, where Democratic base turnout was way down while Republicans were fired up, turnout at the polls could be better for someone like Ford if the Republicans work to back him, or so the theory goes.
Ford pulling a Lieberman. If you are wondering whether Ford could pull a Lieberman and run as the Independence Party nominee if he loses the Democratic party nomination, the answer varies. If he secures the Independence line uncontested, he's on the ballot in November no matter what. If it's contested, then the primary occurs in September on the same date as the Democratic primary, so it would depend on if he wins or loses.
The question for me is that if he is doing this, he would have very little reason to do things like switch positions on marriage equality and try and proclaim his progressive bona fides on issues like choice, immigration and labor. So, it could either be part of a 32-dimensional chess plot, or another part of a bad roll-out. When asked about it on Morning Joe this morning, he said:
Scarborough: We've got to ask this first. I'm sorry to interrupt, but Chuck Todd just said Harold may run as an independent, that there's a rumor out there that you're considering running as an independent. True or False?
Ford: Well, the thinking hasn't progressed that far. But if I run, I'll run as a Democrat. I'm a proud Democrat, been one for 39 or so years, and I think I'm going to remain that.
Scarborough: You know, I switch parties like I switch T-shirts. I've been a Republican for pretty long.
Ford: As we've said throughout this the last 11 or 12 days, I think the Democrats are looking for an independent, standup Democrat to represent the state. So in that sense I would run as an independent.
He didn't exactly slam the door shut, so we'll see.
Some friends have been asking me about what's being done to build on the 24 votes in the New York State Senate for marriage equality (you need 32 for passage). I can say that so far that two, and possibly three, of the no votes will flip.
In Astoria, State Sen. George Onorato (D), who was a no vote, has elected to retire. His replacement will almost assuredly be Assemblyman Mike Gianaris, elected in 2000, who ran for Attorney General in 2006 before getting out of the race. Gianaris voted multiple times for marriage equality when it was up in the Assembly, is also great on energy issues. I'm told by local Queens activists that he also frequently attends local LGBT events and is very strong on LGBT issues. Given all this, he should be a solid pro-marriaeg equality vote, and the seat is all but his.
Also in Queens, State Sen. Monserrate (D), who was convicted and sentenced to 3 years probation for slashing his girlfriend's face, and who flip-flopped on his support for marriage equality going back to 2001 by voting no, was recommended for expulsion this week by a special investigative Senate Committee for lying about his crime. Whether Monserrate can actually be expelled is up for a debate at TAP, but given the precedent set, it seems he can be. Regardless, his opponent, Assemblyman Jose Peralta, who also voted for marriage equality in the Assembly, has raised just under $180,000 and has $154,000 on hand, including contributions from several members of the NY congressional delegation and even Reps. Delahunt and Wexler (how cool is that?!). Monserrate has about $93K on hand and also has to contend with his legal fight. Look for this one to flip, too. And go here to sign the petition to demand the State Senate fire Monserrate.
On the Republican side, former City Councilman Tony Avella (D), who ran in last year's primary for NYC mayor against Thompson, is still exploring getting in the race against State Sen. Frank Padavan (R), who won in 2008 by under 500 votes after a lengthy recount. Avella sponsored marriage equality legislation on the City Council and was also backed by Working Families Party in the last several elections. I'm told he's unlikely to have as clear a field as Gianaris or Peralta, though. We'll see on that one.
The one other thing I do want to mention is that the skepticism on all of these guys is well-warranted. The rallying cry has been "No more Addabbos", referring to Sen. Joe Addabbo (D), who won one of the most heavily targeted races in 2008, pledged to support marriage equality, and even took a combined total of $20,000 from bill sponsor State Sen. Duane, Empire State Pride Agenda, and Gill Action Fund. He still voted no. There really is no magic bullet on how to ensure the people you elect adhere to their promises. Politicians lie. The best thing to do is to find those who do not just make pledges, but like the challengers above, have a long, strong history of activism in favor of marriage equality; scaring the living hell out of them if they even consider going back on their word; pressuring them to go public with their support for the bill when it comes up; and keeping up the grassroots pressure around the vote. Some, but not all of these things were done, particularly around the vote, and that needs to change next time around. But we start by finding and electing folks we can trust.
Buffalo, NY- Today, Adam Bink, a political activist and Buffalo native, announced his position on marriage equality. Bink is not a candidate for any public office, but did so out of concern that he would be seen as a panderer if he were to suddenly change positions upon speculation that he were running for office.
"I learned from the mistakes of former Rep. Harold Ford Jr., who changed positions on marriage equality upon speculation that he may one day become U.S. Senator. If Ford were sincerely in favor of marriage equality, he would have announced his newfound position in 2007, 2008, 2009 or even before the New York Times reported his potential entrance into the race. I have never been a panderer and want to avoid that appearance. And so, even though I am not a candidate for the U.S. Senate today, I would like to take this opportunity to show Mr. Ford what true political guts looks like. Therefore I would like to say that I am in favor of marriage equality."
Bink's uncanny move brought widespread praise from political observers, who noted that voters are often suspicious of candidates who suddenly announce they are changing positions so close to speculation that they may run for office.
"It's a simple thing to do, you have to wonder why Harold Ford didn't do it," said noted blogger and Syracuse native Chris Bowers. "I think Bink will gain an advantage among LGBT voters because he's being straightforward and honest with them."
Former Rep. Harold Ford (D-TN), who is gearing up to challenge appointed Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand in the New York Democratic primary, has announced that he now supports gay marriage.
Appearing on the Today show, Ford pointed out that he'd previously supported civil unions. "My support for fairness and equality existed long before I moved to New York," Ford said.
Hm. Really? Here's an excerpt of a Stonewall Democrats e-mail back on January 25th, 2007:
Washington, DC - Today, the National Stonewall Democrats called on the Democratic Leadership Council (DLC) to affirm its past opposition to discriminatory ballot measures that require states to bar domestic partnership benefits, civil unions and the legal responsibilities of civil marriage to same-sex couples. The organization also called on Congressman Harold Ford, Jr., whom the Democratic Leadership Council officially announced this morning as its new Chair, to affirm such past positions of the organization he will now lead.
"We are asking the Democratic Leadership Council to affirm its opposition to anti-family constitutional amendments that have been championed by Harold Ford," said Jo Wyrick, NSD Executive Director. "Anti-gay populism has failed just about every Democratic candidate who has tried to exploit it, and it has failed Harold Ford. The DLC should not allow such diversions that it has labeled 'cynical and desperate' in the past to corrupt the mission of its organization. The Democratic Leadership Council and Congressman Ford need to strongly affirm the platform of the Democratic Party and the past policy of the DLC in opposing these measures."
In 2004, with his eye on his senate race, Harold Ford reversed his past opposition to an amendment to the United States Constitution that would permanently bar the legal responsibilities of domestic partnerships, civil unions and civil marriage to same-sex couples. In 2006, Ford again joined only a small minority of Democrats who voted for the amendment, which was dramatically defeated by both the U.S. House of Representatives and Senate.
[...]
In his 2006 senate race, Congressman Harold Ford, Jr. swiftly exploited a ruling by the Supreme Court of New Jersey that challenged the state legislature to provide basic legal benefits for same-sex couples. "I do not support the decision today reached by the New Jersey Supreme Court regarding gay marriage. I oppose gay marriage, and have voted twice in Congress to amend the United States Constitution to prohibit same-sex marriage. This November there's a referendum on the Tennessee ballot to ban same-sex marriage - I am voting for it." (National Journal, The Hotline -October 25, 2006)
While it's true Gillibrand has also evolved on this issue, Ford has a history of moving around on marriage equality- from opposition to a Federal Marriage Amendment to support, and now, one would assume, back to opposition- when it's convenient. People will try and equate Gillibrand, who has done significant work to end Don't Ask, Don't Tell, and been fully vocal in support of other LGBT issues since her appointment- with Ford now that they hold the same position on this issue. There is no comparison. I am glad Ford is in favor, but I'm no fool.
A good deal of criticism against generic "Democrats" has begun in the aftermath of the loss over marriage equality in New Jersey. Yesterday, Garden State Equality launched a push poll on its website:
Which Senators who voted "no" or abstained on marriage equality bother you more?
Conservative anti-LGBT Republicans who were never with us to begin with.
OR
Democrats and moderate Republicans who didn't have the guts to stand for equality.
Not surprisingly, as of this post, 98% of the 1,325 votes were for the latter option. The poll follows a trend by the organization to warn Democrats that the LGBT community is not a one-party community, as Steven Goldstein said:
In an effort to stay in front of rising anger in the New Jersey LGBT Community, GSE president Steven Goldstein dropped his long-time dedication to the Democratic Party, threatening that gays would "cross the aisle to support independent candidates" in future elections.
I think making threats like this is generally fine. When the Newsweek piece came out a few weeks ago predicting the Obama Administration wouldn't take action on LGBT issues in 2010 for fear of mobilizing an angry conservative base, I told a lot of LGBT friends that now was the time to push back against that. We had to put the fear of God into Village Democrats that a pissed-off LGBT base would stay home if no activism was taken. That's how the game is played.
But what I find amazing is people who have fallen for promises that simply electing a Democratic majority would bring about LGBT utopia. Quite a few LGBT donors and activist friends have told me personally they were sick and tired of helping committees to elect Democratic majorities in NY and NJ and being told that, in return, Democratic leadership would ensure marriage equality becomes law, when it did not.
If I may chide for a minute, you certainly got played on that one, my friends.
We're talking about LGBT issues here, people. You, know, G-A-Y. Homosexuality. Trannies. I'm mentioning these terms because to many members of legislative bodies, these issues are anathema to them and their constituents, so I would never believe that any Democratic leader is going to go out and actually pressure members on marriage equality or make it a "party loyalty" vote like they would on other bills. Why would you expect that just because potential Senate Majority Leader Malcolm Smith promises you he'll "deliver" marriage equality, it would be so? I laugh at people who tell me marriage equality is a "core plank of the Democratic platform" and so are outraged when things like this happen. No, it's not. In what fantasyland are you living? In an ideal world, sure. And you should keep going after Democrats for "not acting like true Democrats/not having guts" so we can get there. But we're not operating in that ideal world.
So there's a big difference between believing what Democratic leaders promise and having realistic political expectations. Realistic political expectations means that just because a politician says a Democratic majority will deliver marriage equality doesn't mean the votes are actually there or that members are going to be threatened into line. In fact, while Malcolm Smith was making these promises to LGBT activists, he was cutting a side deal with Ruben Diaz to not have a vote. Realistic political expectations means that LGBT victories are coalition-built, not Party-built. You have to go out and find Democrats and Republicans and Independents, one by one, who swear on their mother's life they will vote for marriage equality, and put the fear of God into them if they even consider screwing you.
Instead, what we've done is taken the easy route and elected a Democratic majority and expected all would be well, then became shell-shocked when marriage equality did not pass. Exhibit A is Garden State Equality, which contributed tens of thousands to the Senate Democratic Leadership Fund, the Assembly Leadership Fund, and the New Jersey Democratic State Committee- money that is doled out to Democratic candidates to elect and retain majorities without regard to positions on marriage equality. The day after the vote, Goldstein said "The gay ATM is done." It's the same argument that progressives shouldn't bother contributing to the DSCC. Find progressive candidates, one by one, and help them individually. I myself become incredibly frustrated when people blame "The Democrats" for our woes. Which Democrats, I ask? Specifics matter. Find the ones who screwed you and beat them. A Democratic majority is important, but it only provided the opportunity for a vote. It did not provide the votes. You have to go get those yourself.
Now, will individual politicians lie to you on issues, just as Blanche Lincoln and Mary Landrieu lied over the public option? Absolutely. There are always a few bad apples who operate in bad faith. But I can assure you that building your marriage equality coalition one by one is a hell of a lot smarter than simply electing a Democratic majority and then being all infuriated when "The Democrats" didn't "deliver" marriage equality.
You win by building coalitions, not by building parties.
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.
Just now, the New Jersey Senate defeated marriage equality by a vote of 14-20. The defeat was not a surprise, but it is disappointing.
There are two things I want to get at before they start. The first is the likely chorus of "the Democrats have failed us! Primary them all!" that will come from advocates, since Democrats controlled both houses of the legislature and the governor's mansion. The same thing occurred after the New York State vote in which 75% of the Democratic caucus supported the bill and 0% of the Republican caucus didn't. In truth, we would have never gotten as far as we did in either state without Democratic support. Republicans wouldn't have even brought up the bill. In New York, the Democratic-controlled Assembly passed the bill not once, but twice, by similar margins in terms of caucus support. In NY and NJ, the Democratic-controlled Senate leadership kept their promise for a vote. Saying "The Democrats" failed us is self-defeating for three reasons. First, it causes activists and voters to think there is no difference between the two parties on this issue. That is false and unhelpful. Second, it will help hand over control to the Republicans and destroy chances of another vote for some time. Third, it leads to a misuse of resources in thinking the solution to this problem is just to primary all the Democrats. There is a target-rich environment of Republicans, too.
That's not to say you can't go after Democrats. If you want to assign blame and draw up a list of targets, be specific in naming the people responsible, and then go after them. Legislative wins are coalition-based, not Party-based. Build a coalition.
The second thing is that no doubt, the "time to shift to domestic partnerships!" folks (whose arguments I debunk here and here) will add this to their misleading count of states which have defeated marriage equality in some form, and use it as evidence that marriage equality as a movement has failed. However, I believe it was dealt a significant blow when Corzine, who campaigned heavily on the issue, lost in November. A defeat in New York State (which actually is also part of the media market in New Jersey) also hurt prospects. We also had a pro-equality Governor and very likely had the votes in the Assembly- same as in New York State. Garden State Equality failed to effectively organize, but we were also dealt a bad hand, and came close anyway. As with California, Maine and New York State, this is not some resounding defeat that prompts a major shift. We lost by a field goal, not five touchdowns, and it is a stumble on the road to full equality.
The good news is that I spoke today to Evan Wolfson, executive director of Freedom to Marry, who told me Lambda Legal will announce it is going back to courts in New Jersey. As you may know, the New Jersey Supreme Court ruled in 2006, 7-0, that legislators must either amend marriage laws to give same-sex couples full equality, or create a "parallel structure", which led to the New Jersey legislature legalizing civil unions. As has been demonstrated by the New Jersey Civil Union Review Commission set up to study how the new law was working, civil unions do not work.
Best of luck to Lambda Legal, and let's keep the fight up.
This will probably be my last post until after New Year's, as I'm hitting the road and stepping away from a computer for awhile.
I've been thinking through some of the highlights and disappointments. As I look back, it's a mixed bag. It certainly has been a year of progress on some issues (legislation like stem cell research and Lily Ledbetter, various LGBT fights) and heartbreaking loss on others (public option, Ted Kennedy's death, marriage equality losses in Maine and New York State), and some outcomes that have yet to be seen (climate change legislation, marriage in New Jersey).
But there are three major things that come to my mind when I think of politics in 2009.
One is that Obama, in terms of style, has shaped up to be the kind of President many thought he would be, that being "Red state/blue state/we don't all have to agree on this." He clearly shies away from picking fights. The only two moments I can really think of where I look at him and think "that's the kind of President I want" (stylistically speaking) is when he aggressively took on the insurance companies in an October radio address, and his DNC Convention speech in 2008. Naturally, the answer to this critique from historians and defenders is the FDR "make me do it" quip. For me, I think it's true, but it's getting kind of old, and it reminds me of a comment I did on a 2008 post of Mike's titled "Labeling Obama" (excerpted here):
Why is it entirely the progressive movement's responsibility to bang away at Obama? I'm all for making sure the man gets elected and all the toning-down that comes with it, but for goodness' sake, it's his responsibility to abide by what he said:
"I am someone who is no doubt progressive"
"I believe in a whole lot of things that make me progressive and put me squarely in the Democratic camp,"
If he lies, and has a centrist, muddled presidency, it's somehow all our fault because "we" didn't fulfill "our" responsibility to make sure he acts the way we want him to?
I agree the movement has responsibilities, but I'd like my candidates to be truthful about where they stand and be boldly progressive and not cave in to polls. I'd like them not to cave into, in your words, the culture of caution, which Obama seems to be doing lately. But if he does, well, then, it's just the progressive movement's failure to keep him from doing so?
Candidates, and what you and I would call good Presidents, have an equal responsibility to be progressive in their actions, and I don't think you're asking Obama take on that responsibility.
I don't think Obama has taken that responsibility yet. As Chris wrote the other day, progressives have to give presidents "space" to move to the left by aggressive critique. But progressives should never shy away from demanding that Obama live up to his commitments either.
The second thing is that progressives really have taken a leap forward in terms of organizing progressive muscle in the House. The Congressional Progressive Caucus, thanks in major part to Darcy Burner and Mike, is more organized and action-oriented. Chris' Progressive Block strategy, while as he says there are still problems to overcome, is going a long way towards marshalling the votes we need to counter Obama and the Blue Dogs.
The third is that sometimes I think we out here on the blogs aren't heard as much as the moneyed interests. To some extent, that's true. But on the flip side, we placed advertising in Roll Call, The Hill, and the Washington Post aimed at Capitol Hill- something that only big-moneyed interests had previously done- and helped get Reid to put a public option in the merged bill. PCCC and other organizations have helped move people on the public option through their work. You contributed to send me to Maine, where I did organizing on the ground to help shine a spotlight on the campaign and generate action for them. Chris Matthews types see bloggers and commenters as just people ranting about the state of the world at each other. But we are proving them wrong, and to the next generation of communications directors and media figures, that's important.
On a personal note, although I've been working at OpenLeft since we launched in 2007, this is actually year I first started writing full-time. I wanted to thank all of you who read my stuff, link to it, and I really do enjoy the honest dialogue in the comments. I've only grown to love this site and the work we do more since I've started writing.
I especially wanted to thank you all for contributing to send me to Maine. Whatever the outcome, it did lend a great deal of help in the closing weeks, and as I wrote in the aftermath, we ultimately moved the ball forward. We'll get there.
Photo credit: Bob Summersgill, who helped write the legislation
This morning, Mayor Adrian Fenty signed legislation legalizing marriage equality in DC (pending Congressional approval). His remarks regarding race, to me, were very poignant:
"We knew this day would come," Fenty said. "I say to the world: An era of struggle ends for thousands in Washington, D.C. . . . Our city is taking a leap forward."
Before he signed the bill, Fenty spoke of his interracial upbringing, noting it was illegal for his parents to get married 40 years ago.
"This is one of the churches my parents would have brought me to when I was a boy," he said as his parents sat among advocates in a second pew. "Things have a way of coming full circle. When you're mayor."
Several months prior to today, in my testimony to the DC Council on this bill, I felt the same way:
As the son of a Catholic father and a Jewish mother, I wouldn't be here if marriage was denied to two loving, committed people. Neither would my boyfriend, the son of a Native American father and a Filipina mother. We are only here because those who have come before us have recognized that marriage is about love and commitment.
A good day here in DC.
Update: Andy Towle's got a video if anyone wants to watch.
Back when it was just about telling gays they couldn't get married and publicly humiliating them, Rick Warren never bothered to disavow this news report from the Kampala Monitor:
Dr [Rick] Warren said that homosexuality is not a natural way of life and thus not a human right. "We shall not tolerate this aspect at all," Dr Warren said.
But then, horror, elected officials in Uganda took him a little too seriously about the not tolerating people "at all" and were planning on outright killing them. I don't see where that's out of line with not tolerating them at all, and it didn't seem like Warren did for a while, either. But now, not only has he written a sternly worded letter on the matter, he says this on his homepage:
Did you say that homosexuality is not a human right?
Absolutely not. What I said in an interview in Uganda was that there is no civil right to gay marriage guaranteed by the United States Constitution. All Americans, and I believe all people, are "endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights," as spoken by the United States Declaration of Independence.
Fascinating clarification and long, long after the fact. Also, is there much of a difference between human rights and inalienable rights? I guess that's an exercise for the reader.
I am sure you guys are sick to death of post-mortem pieces on Maine from me, but I promise just this one more, since I think there are some implications for all campaigns re field operations.
Jasmine Beach-Ferrara, who volunteered in Maine for the No On 1 campaign, has a piece in The Democratic Strategist about the field campaign in Maine. You can read the entire thing here, but there are a few nits I want to pick and two interesting ideas in it, particularly if you're a field geek.
In one of the first moves to take down some of the NYS Senators who voted against marriage equality, Assemblyman Peralta, who voted three times in favor of marriage equality in the Assembly and has a solid LGBT record, was today endorsed by Empire State Pride Agenda in his primary race against convicted Sen. Hiram Monserrate.
"Civil rights for all of my constituents and for all New Yorkers has always been a priority for me," said Assemblyman José Peralta. "I have worked towards full equality for LGBT New Yorkers in my seven years as an Assemblymember, and I will be proud to continue this work as a member of the State Senate. I think my record in the Assembly demonstrates that when I take a principled stand on an important human rights issue like marriage equality, I don't suddenly change my mind when the bill comes up for a vote."
Monserrate flip-flopped on years of support for marriage equality (in my view, as a big middle finger to the Senate Dem leadership, which is considering disciplinary action against him, but likely for some electoral reasons). Peralta has also already been endorsed by the Queens County Democratic Party and Rep. Joe Crowley. Monserrate is in deep, deep trouble next year.
