Sign Up to Receive Email Action Alerts From Issa Exposed

Another great marriage equality victory video, this one from Maine

Marriage equality

By Jacob Combs

Here’s a little video to start your weekend out right of the moment when Maine’s marriage equality campaign found out that it had been the first in the nation to succeed at securing equal marriage rights for same-sex couples by a vote of the people.  If you missed it, make sure you check out a similar video from Minnesota, which is equally amazing.)  If anyone has footage from Maryland or Washington, please let me know!

Have a great weekend.


  • 1. Derek Williams  |  November 10, 2012 at 9:12 am

    Even though civil rights should not in principle be subject to Tyranny of the Majority, democratically enacted reforms are far more likely to prevail than decrees forcing change on uninformed people. They can pass all the laws they like, but if the people don't embrace them then they're almost completely unenforceable.

  • 2. Straight Ally #3008  |  November 10, 2012 at 1:52 pm

    I have to say that with same-sex marriage, even establishing it in a state by a court decision eventually leads to the public accepting it (see Massachusetts et al.). Like DADT repeal, it's an issue that raises all sorts of ire…until it goes through and there aren't any negative effects, and the vast majority of the public (read: those who don't oppress people for a living) shrug and move on. It *is* a powerful thing to have something enacted by direct democracy, without a doubt, I just think there's less of a downside to other avenues than one might think.

  • 3. Straight Ally #3008  |  November 10, 2012 at 3:40 pm

    Here's an excellent summary of how the amendment was defeated in Minnesota:

    (audio with a text story:)

  • 4. David S.  |  November 10, 2012 at 6:20 pm

    The Moment of Victory in Minnesota:

    Speech from Matt Tighe, Maine Yes on 1 Campaign Manager:

    Victory in Maryland:

  • 5. Seth from Maryland  |  November 10, 2012 at 7:40 pm

    heres a summary of how maryland campaign started off with a bad start but came together to be a strong campaign:

  • 6. Str8Grandmother  |  November 11, 2012 at 5:50 am

    Seth I enjoyed that article very much, thank you.

  • 7. Sagesse  |  November 11, 2012 at 6:23 am

    The various 'lessons learned' revelations from the state campaigns offer insights into how future marriage equality ballots can be managed.

    The ground game was important advantage for both Obama and the marriage equality campaigns. Frank Schubert and the GOP super PAC's felt the limits of what can be accomplished with ad campaigns… someone called it electoral wallpaper… that everyone was tuning out by the end.

    The telling acknowledgement on the NOM conference call was that they need a grassroots organization, a ground game. NOM, of course, doesn't have a grassroots, and would have to develop one for each state where there is a campaign. The was a ground game in California in 2008, but it belonged to the Mormon Church, which is no longer a player. Hard to imagine how they would do it… think bus tours to empty parking lots.

    The other NOM strategy that… there's no other way to describe it… makes no sense at all… is throwing money at symbolic gestures that have no hope of changing anything. They need to punish the republicans who voted for marriage equality in New York to send a message to anyone else who dares to do the same. New York still has marriage equality. (And in the process they elect democrats?) They fight the retention of Iowa supreme court judges, again to send a message to other judges. Iowa, though, still has marriage equality. And now, they are going after Starbucks' global operations in Qatar… and India(?). To punish them for supporting marriage equality. All while there are legislative and ballot fights where their money could actually affect the outcome. If I were a NOM donor, I'd be inclined to wonder about their judgment.

  • 8. davep  |  November 11, 2012 at 8:14 am

    …..Looks like they're gonna need a bigger bus…

  • 9. John_B_in_DC  |  November 11, 2012 at 8:39 am

    NOM and their allies are in complete denial. They seem to think it's still 2006 but public opinion has changed rapidly and has finally (but only recently) shifted to more than 50% of the public supporting our right to marry. We are past the tipping point, and that has made the biggest difference between 2006 (or even 2009) and now. That doesn't mean it's a slam dunk from here on in, especially in the more conservative states, and the people and groups who fought the battles in these elections deserve a huge amount of credit, but I think it's going to get easier and easier as public opinion continues to shift. It will be interesting to see how (if?) NOM changes their strategy as they realize their "let the people vote" attitude is backfiring on them.

  • 10. grod  |  November 11, 2012 at 9:00 am

    Derek, it must have been hard to encapsulate a view on the dynamics of societal chance in four lines. You raise three points, the tyranny of the majority, democratically enacted reforms are far more likely to prevail than decrees, and laws people dislike are unenforceable. I will address one – decrees. Canadian hold in high regard the Court, particularly in Charter of Rights' disputes. They view politicians who enact ‘reforms’ as partisans, more likely to be sensitive to just their base or to personal motivation. Ballot initiatives are few in this country. In eight of ten provinces and two of three territories, Courts ruled in favour of same sex marriage (ssm). Court action had begun in the remaining jurisdictions when the Feds passed a law redefining marriage nationwide. A year later, ssm was a non-issue everywhere. Was it because the ‘decree’ didn’t really touch our citizens' personal lives? Was it societal attitude were ripe for change, despite mainstream church leaders being opposed?

  • 11. Derek Williams  |  November 11, 2012 at 11:18 am

    Take DADT. As Commander In Chief, the President had the authority to repeal this policy by Executive Order. Instead he chose to let it go to Congress where it passed, reflecting the popular polls at that time, which were averaging 75% in favour of DADT repeal. He also approved a survey from the ranks of those directly affected, the Military themselves, and here too, approximately 75% endorsement for repeal was recorded. Then it went to the Senate, where it was adopted and became the law of the land under the Presidential imprimatur. During this period, sacked LGBT military personnel told us of the devastating consequences that being fired just for being of a certain sexual orientation had had on their personal lives, in terms of career, social standing and relationships. More than a year on, and the military chiefs who were initially opposed to DADT repeal have reported the transition to the new equality of admission policy to be without adverse incident, and a complete success.

    While not disagreeing with you that the Court can fly ahead of the country when the country is already trending, as happened with anti-miscegenation repeal in 1965, speaking in general terms, how would you prefer policy to be adopted: mandated by an irrefragable authority, or adopted by consensus? Did the democratic method of enacting DADT repeal make it easier or harder for an incoming Republican president to reinstate DADT?

  • 12. PDx_Str8_Supporter  |  November 11, 2012 at 1:01 pm

    Oh, I think it makes sense in a myopic view – kinda like being the bully on a playground without any parent supervision to rein in…

    To other state governments: If you vote for marriage equality, you will lose your job.
    To other judicial bodies: If you judge in favor of marriage, we will hand out torches and pitchforks to the mob and they will vote you out.
    To other businesses: If you dare show approval for marriage equality, we will boycott you and ruin you.

    Might have worked in the past – didn't work too well (or at all) in 2012.

    The best way to deal with NOM Is to marginalize them and dry up their funding.
    Oh, and keep winning at the ballot box, the state legislation and in the courts (and support businesses who support us – show love today by bringing your Surface running Windows 8 that you bought on Amazon to your Starbucks (free wi-fi) for a latte' in your Ford Focus wearing your clothes from Nordstroms!)

    Oh, and when the time comes in your home state, join a phone-bank, talk to your friends, family and co-workers and change the hearts and minds of your fellow American citizens.

    I am *so* proud to be an American after this last incredible week.

  • 13. Steve  |  November 11, 2012 at 1:53 pm

    No he didn't have the authority. DADT was a federal law, not just an internal DoD policy (like the pre-DADT ban). You can't override laws with an executive order.

  • 14. Derek Williams  |  November 11, 2012 at 2:08 pm,_don%27t

    "In May 2009, when a committee of military law experts at the Palm Center, an anti-DADT research institute, concluded that the President could issue an Executive Order to suspend homosexual conduct discharges, Obama rejected that option and said he wanted Congress to change the law."

  • 15. grod  |  November 11, 2012 at 7:51 pm

    To 1 million parishioners of Newark’s Archbishop Myers: “Catholics who disagree with the church’s official stand against same-sex civil marriage should not receive Communion"

  • 16. Bob  |  November 11, 2012 at 10:56 pm

    love this prediction about prop8

  • 17. Stefan  |  November 12, 2012 at 7:14 am

    I still highly doubt the Supreme Court will hear Hollingsworth v Perry. As the attorney for the case, Boise is pretty much obligated to say he thinks the Supreme Court will hear it. All evidence points to the contrary.

  • 18. Steve  |  November 12, 2012 at 8:17 am

    Learn to read? Even if he could have suspended the implementation of the law (which would have caused a lot of backlash) that wasn't a real solution. An EO simply can't erase a law from the books. Another administration would have just reversed it.

  • 19. Peter Morak  |  November 12, 2012 at 12:22 pm

    <img src=""/>Very good video, i used my downloader software to download it. <img src=""/&gt;

  • 20. Mike in Maryland  |  November 13, 2012 at 10:07 pm

    To 'suspend' a law is MUCH different than changing or overturning a law.

    One of the criticisms of the actions the President has taken to get around immigration laws for the children of undocumented immigrants is that it is temporary, and any new administration (or even this one) could pull back the suspensions of enforcement.

Having technical problems? Visit our support page to report an issue!