Sign Up to Receive Email Action Alerts From Issa Exposed

Anti-marriage equality forces in Maryland face financial difficulties, Colorado group plans political campaign against civil unions opponents

Marriage equality

By Jacob Combs

While Maryland’s anti-marriage equality activists may have succeeded in filing enough signatures to secure a referendum on the state’s recently passed marriage law, their financial numbers aren’t looking so good.  The Maryland Marriage Alliance raised only $5,000 last month, and the campaign apparently owes $88,000 in debt.  The largest bill, at $74,000, is from, a group that helped marriage equality opponents gather and verify signatures for the referendum effort.

Derek McCoy, executive director of Maryland Marriage Alliance, told the Baltimore Sun that Maryland’s financial disclosure laws permit advocacy organizations to show only a portion of their fundraising specifically slated for signature gathering.  The organization, he said, has received other large donations for their anti-marriage equality efforts.  Still, Marylanders for Marriage Equality posted a cheeky and enthusiastic tweet about the news: “Have you heard?  We raised more today from MD citizens than our opponents have all month!”

In Colorado, the Denver Post reports that a new group called Fight Back Colorado is forming to campaign this November against lawmakers who killed the state’s civil unions bill even though it had majority support and could have passed into law.  The Colorado effort is modeled after a similar campaign in New York that sought to defeat anti-gay lawmakers and contributed to the passage of marriage equality in that state.

Brad Clark, director of the pro-LGBT group One Colorado, said the campaign will not just target the Republican leadership and committee members who voted down civil unions.  “A lot of folks never got to vote on this, but they allowed their leadership to do this so they had a hand in civil unions being killed.”


  • 1. Prop 8 Trial Tracker &raq&hellip  |  June 27, 2012 at 11:01 am

    […] Anti-marriage equality forces in Maryland face financial difficulties, Colorado group plans politica… […]

  • 2. Steven .k  |  June 27, 2012 at 12:00 pm

    <img src=""/>I hate to say this, but i'm so happy they're facing financial difficulties. <img src=""/&gt;

  • 3. bayareajohn  |  June 27, 2012 at 10:16 pm

    I'm continuing to be appalled at the amount of money that is being spent on the topic nationwide. If all the funds and hours of effort that have been spent on both sides were instead devoted to poverty or jobs or health care, the country would be better off. Instead, the media is funded richly while we battle to stalemates and do-overs. It's a shame, but it's not optional either.

  • 4. Sagesse  |  June 28, 2012 at 3:58 am

    As an outside observer (Canadian), I am surprised that no one ever remarks on the mathematical challenge that is a union of 50 states. The Founding Fathers were dealing with 13. 75% of the states are required to ratify an amendment to the US Constitution. Seemed manageable at the time. States rights were important (something to do with the right to own slaves). Fast forward, and minority rights and marriage and family rights have to be fought over and legislated and litigated and ballot initiatived 50 times, under 50 different state constitutions.

    It's unwieldy, unworkable and unfair. Yet nobody seems to remark on it, let alone call for reform. Most of the jurisdictions, including Canada, where there is marriage equality have a federal human rights law and a federal marriage law (I'm oversimplifying). They only have to make the decision once.

  • 5. Steve  |  June 28, 2012 at 4:48 am

    Back then, people also didn't move around that much. They may have made one big move across the country, but eventually they settled in one place. There simply wasn't the extreme mobility people enjoy today. The amount of autonomy states enjoy is really counterproductive. Of course states should be able to decide how they run their economies. Schools are also an area that are subject to local conditions to some degree (though the school board system is ridiculous and unworkable too). But other things like family law should be more universal.

  • 6. Sagesse  |  June 28, 2012 at 5:25 am

    Actually, what you need is a Supreme Court that doesn't need a four part test and umpteen levels of 'scrutiny' to decide who has civil rights. If racial minorities and women and the disabled have civil rights, is it such a leap of faith and logic to conclude that LGBT people and gingers and left-handed people have them too, without rearguing it every time?

  • 7. Mike in Baltimore  |  June 28, 2012 at 2:24 pm

    Many lines of my family tree go back to the mid-1600s. and until just recently, if the family moved from one state to another, it was almost always just once, and even then not vast distances (for example, from Delaware to the Eastern Shore of Maryland; from Maryland's Anne Arundel County to Maryland's Harford County; from Central Pennsylvania to NE Ohio; from Harford County to SW Pennsylvania; from SW Pennsylvania to Eastern Ohio; from Eastern Ohio to Central Ohio; from Central Ohio to SW Ohio; from SW Ohio to NE Indiana; etc.). My mother was raised within a mile of where her great-great-grandfather created a farm in NE Indiana in the early 1800s (after moving from NE Ohio).

    Most of my ancestors, though, didn't move even from one house to another (except when moving out of the parent's house).

    I do disagree with your blanket assertion that "the school board system is ridiculous and unworkable". Which school board system are you thinking of? Elected ones? Appointed ones? Those that have complete autonomy? Those that have a state level school board overseeing them, and controlling what they can and cannot do? School boards that are difficult to change members, or easy? Length of term?

    You have probably lived under a very restrictive school board system, that is totally autonomous, and can rule dictatorially. Not all school boards are like that – in some, citizens can, and do, have input into the decisions (such as being able to vote on proposed changes). In some, there are 'public hearings', but those hearings are nothing but the equivalent of show trials.

  • 8. Michael  |  June 28, 2012 at 12:33 am

    We've seen these same, sad, poverty stories before. You can be sure that large anti-gay pressure groups will bail out their smaller pro-homophobia sisters.

  • 9. Prop 8 Trial Tracker &raq&hellip  |  July 1, 2012 at 9:25 am

    […] I started our coverage off with a post reporting that opponents of marriage equality in Maryland are finding themselves in debt despite their […]

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