A moving statement from the Campaign Director of "No on 1", who ran a campaign with content that everyone could be proud of. You just have to respect that an enormous amount of energy must go into a campaign, even when the ability to 'change minds' appears to be limited on this topic.
FOR THE SHAME OF MAINE
The campaign produced extraordinarily notable moments, many of which will go into liberation history pages, I imagine. Here is one of the more memorable ones, based on its heartfelt message and the wisdom of the years, wisdom that rivals the book-learning of any scripture toting Pharisee.
"Together, we have four children, including the one gay son. All four of our boys were in the service. ...I was born on a potato farm north of Caribou..."
The hardhearted "Yes on 1" campaign, led by NOM, turned ugly, as it had in California's Prop 8, not only because it was the same folks behind it. Fear ads closed their campaign, especially stoking fear over 'teaching homosexuality'. NOM lost their bid to paper-over their finances, but never had to fully disclose them to the voting public, either. One wonders if that legal slight-of-hand isn't worth a court-action on the final vote. Last, blissfully ignoring the trends, which put U-Maine campuses at 80% in favor of gays, for instance, the Catholic Church weighed in, throwing about the weight of their tax-free status as a "charitable organization".
LESSONS LEARNED
The military and a few other groups are disciplined about doing lessons learned. Here, the people involved are just as insightful, often, as any pundit, so I'll be listening.
Clearly, the lessons of the Prop 8 campaign were taken to heart, at least in a large part. That's a big step forward, right? The case is the case, for good or ill. It cannot be successfully slanted, dressed up or dressed down.
Some lessons are not important. A challenge of this particular kind isn't on the immediate horizon, unless NY moves forward with its marriage bill (NJ won't, under new Gov Christie). Most states already have constitutional amendments, many with super-majorities. That's more likely to shape the next 20 years. Still inequality-for-all groups have targeted NY and NJ, and they've followed through in the past.
Gay groups have seldom shown tremendous organizational prowess. There will always be room to improve. I have no comprehensive or authoritative redux, here. My only question about overall strategy is why gay groups didn't organize to collect signatures for their own ballot initiative, once it was clear that the opposition was doing it. An immediate response to an imminent threat. Most people don't know what the heck they are voting in the booth. If you put two questions before them, you split the vote. It's like having two people with the name "Kennedy" on the ticket. Too much wait-and-see early on (overconfidence?), a bit like California? Qien sabe? Given the tactics of NOM, I don't feel compromised suggesting a sly strategy.
Should groups who are building experience fighting NOM develop ways to 'go negative', to raise fear, doubt, and uncertainty of our own?
There are questions about feedback, that I have. After Canada passed equality, opinion polling for equality jumped 1-2%, as best I recall, from what it was before the polling. Does the outcome of these miserable pollings on basic rights solidify people's view? If so, are there important counter-measures, after-actions? For instance, one might want to run a series of "post election ads" of one sort or another, to prevent a solidification, to clear up lingering mis-information, to let people know that the issue is NOT settled.
