Eforts by Equal Marriage Arizona—a coalition of Log Cabin Arizona, local libertarians, and their allies seeking a 2014 referendum to overturn that state’s constitutional prohibition on same-sex marriage—have been scuttled by opposition from LGBT Democratic-party aligned activists. I can’t say for certain that the progressive LGBTers are wrong (they claim it’s not the right time), but I can attest, from personal experience, that they can be rejectionists about efforts that they themselves don’t initiate and control.
More from the co-chair of Equal Marriage Arizona:
We honestly thought that an effort initiated and led by Republicans and libertarians was the right choice for a heavily red state like Arizona, and I am still convinced of that. In fact, I think we knocked some of the Conservative opposition on their heels, and several Conservative commentators publicly stated that ours was a dangerously (for them) effective approach. In addition, a number of prominent Republicans took me aside and thanked me— they felt that getting this passed would help save the party from its worst impulses.
But how would that have served the one, true, Democratic Party?
12 Comments for “In Arizona, Equality Delayed”
posted by Tom Scharbach on
The dispute appears, from yours and other reports, to revolve entirely around timing. Newly-formed Equal Marriage Arizona seems to think that equality would prevail in a 2014 vote; the majority of older LGBT advocacy groups (Equality Arizona for example) seem to think that a 2014 vote would be uncertain at best.
I don’t know who is right and who is wrong in Arizona.
But I’ve been involved in enough campaigns to know that polls are often deceptive. I would not have any confidence at all in a 5% margin in this kind of a vote, for several reasons:
(1) in the 2004-2006 marriage amendment votes, the actual equality vote ran about 6-7% behind the polls in most cases;
(2) the religious right, at least in Wisconsin, is a well-organized, motivated and determined voter bloc that is very effective in voter turnout, which seems to be the primary reason why the equality vote falls behind the polls; and
(3) the power of a determined, organized, motivated minoritybloc is amplified in lower-turnout, off-year elections, which suggests to me that 2016 is more likely to produce a vote closer to the polls than 2014.
I know it is frustrating to hold off, but I know that tactical discussions like this are ongoing in any number of states right now. It is a tough call, but I note that most states seem to be looking to 2016.
If I were making the call, based on my experience from 2006 in Wisconsin, I’d hold off until 2016, which is more likely to be a high-turnout election with a significantly higher proportion of voters in the 18-29 year old range than 2014. We have our strongest support among young voters and I think that common sense suggests that it would be prudent to leverage that demographic advantage rather than throw it away.
As an aside, I think that your “But how would that have served the one, true, Democratic Party?” comment is the usual bitter dreck, with little or no substance. How does delaying a vote from 2014 to 2016 serve the Democratic Party? Unless you have a solid reason for thinking that, I think you are just breaking wind.
posted by Houndentenor on
As for Arizona, I have a few friends there, heterosexual women who are strong gay allies. They campaigned hard against previous anti-gay ballot initiatives. It was hard on them. They were called named, yelled at and ostracized. They watched friends and neighbors proudly proclaim their anti-gay bigotry with yard signs and bumper stickers. The loss was like a slap in the face. I can’t blame people who went through that for not being eager to go in for another round. Not unless it looks like there’s any chance of winning. I think 2016 is probably better than 2014 but before undertaking something that costly (in terms of fundraising and the time of local volunteers) I’d like to see some poll numbers that show some chance of winning. I also don’t want to subject young gay people to another round of anti-gay rhetoric on every tv and radio station and from just about every pulpit in the state unless there’s some hope of victory. The human cost is just too high.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
As background, here’s a summary of current repeal/equality efforts of which I’m aware, state by state. If any of you from other states know about an initiative I don’t mention, I’d like to hear about it.
NO ANTI-MARRIAGE AMENDMENT; LEGISLATIVE ACTION PLANNED/ANNOUNCED; COURT CASE FILED
Hawaii – No anti-marriage amendment. Governor Neil Abercrombie will call the state legislature into special session beginning on October 28 to consider a marriage equality bill. A federal case was filed in 2012 and is currently before the 9th Circuit.
Illinois – No anti-marriage amendment. Marriage equality bill passed the Senate earlier this year, but did not secure enough support in the House. Bill may be considered in November “veto session”. State court case filed in Cook County.
New Jersey – No anti-marriage amendment. Equality bill passed legislature in 2011, vetoed by Governor Chris Christie. Legislature may attempt override later this year. State court case filed.
NO ANTI-MARRIAGE AMENDMENT; COURT CASE FILED
New Mexico – No anti-marriage amendment. Clerks (several under court order) have begun issing marriage liscenses in seven counties. Others have not. New Mexico Supreme Court announced will hold a October 23 hearing to consider a statewide determination.
REPEAL REFERENDUM CURRENTLY PLANNED/ANNOUNCED; COURT CASE FILED/ANNOUNCED
Florida – Existing anti-marriage amendment. A small LGBT group is working to get signatures for a repeal effort, but the other Florida groups are concentrating on building voter support for a future repeal effort at an unspecified date. Equality Florida is recruiting plantiffs for a federal court case.
Nevada – Existing anti-marriage amendment. Repeal referendum planned for 2016. Repeal endorsed earlier this year by the legislature, and must be again endorsed in 2015 to get on the ballot. Federal court case in process.
Ohio – Existing anti-marriage amendment. A small group of LGBT activists are collecting signatures for a 2014 repeal effort, while other groups are advocating a 2016 vote instead. Federal court case filed.
REPEAL REFERENDUM CURRENTLY PLANNED/ANNOUNCED; NO COURT CASE FILED
Oregon – Existing anti-marriage amendment. Repeal effort planned for 2014.
NO REPEAL REFERENDUM CURRENTLY ANNOUNCED; COURT CASE FILED
Arkansas, Colorado, Kentucky, Michigan, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Utah and Virginia – Existing anti-marriage amendment. No repeal effort currently announced. Federal court case filed.
NO REPEAL REFERENDUM CURRENTLY ANNOUNCED; NO COURT CASE FILED
In the balance of the states with existing anti-marriage amendments, I am not aware of either planned repeal efforts or federal court cases filed. I am told that a number of the states have ongoing discussions underway, but nothing has become public.
BACKWARDS AGAIN IN INDIANA
Incidently, Indiana may have the dubious honor of being the last state to vote on an anti-marriage amendment. The Republican legislature endorsed an anti-marriage amendment in the previous session, and is under consideration in this session. If the proposed amendment is again endorsed, which is expected, the question will go to the voters in 2014.
posted by Houndentenor on
I’m sick of hearing how Republicans tell people privately that they support gay rights and hate the party’s official position on ENDA and gay marriage. I call bullshit. Talk is cheap. If they really feel that bad they should do something about their own party and stop playing the victim.
The gay “leadership” (quotes intended as sarcasm) is now, has been and will probably continue to be scared shitless of the fight for marriage equality. They lost so many times and they were expensive losses. The reality though is that no one can stop any group from getting a ballot initiative on the ballot if they want to. The whole gay marriage issue happened over the objections of overly cautious gay leaders who didn’t think the public was ready for the issue. It wasn’t. And then a funny thing happened. Forcing the debate out in the open opened people eyes to just how mean-spirited and bigoted the social conservatives really are and suddenly the poll numbers started swinging our way. I wish I could say it was the brilliant media campaign of gay rights groups but that would be laughable. We did a horrible job. What made a difference was that people heard these horrible things from Maggie Gallagher and Brian Brown and others and they just didn’t jibe with the nice lesbian in their office or their gay cousin or that couple that lives down the street.
In addition, you have a point about the conservative argument for gay marriage. Ted Olson provided the script. We just have to read it. I like that idea. I suspect that even that is an uphill fight in a red-state hell like Arizona but I could be wrong. Personally I think it would be a huge waste of money that could be spent in a more moderate state like New Mexico with better results. But if you can raise the money and get the signatures, have at it. No one is stopping you.
posted by Jorge on
“Timing?”
I don’t like that word. Better to simply cite the rule that things that are unlikely to pass don’t often get introduced or presented. If the current momentum is good, it may be wise to wait. It is dangerous to wait in situations where the momentum can swing against you.
Selective waiting is a dangerous thing for Democrats to do because the Democratic party is strong right now. It is unlikely things will go anywhere but down in the next two years. President Obama’s reputation is faltering on both Obamacare and on Syria.
For Republican pro-gay people, waiting is a good idea because most indications are that the Republican party as a whole is becoming more gay-inclusive. Thus this time can be spent very fruitfully building alliances and support.
Really this whole thing strikes me as both sides taking the opposite of the positions they should be taking. The fog of war is too thick for me to make out.
posted by Doug on
Please site proof that the GOP in general is becoming more gay inclusive. I don’t see much evidence. I’m not talking about a few GOPers with gay or lesbian kids either.
posted by Jorge on
Oh, please. That question is not worth my time.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
Selective waiting is a dangerous thing for Democrats to do because the Democratic party is strong right now.
First, the Democratic Party is not in control of the effort. Despite Stephen’s paranoia about “left/liberal hegemony”, the Democratic Party has little influence on the pro-equality effort except when the effort is legislative, and even in the legislative efforts, the Democratic Party is more typically kicked from behind than found leading the way. That aside, the Democratic Party has no influence at all over the timing of court cases and little over the timing of ballot initiatives.
Second, a lot is currently going on (see the “background” comment above) and more efforts are likely to get underway in coming months. Legislative efforts to secure marriage equality are underway in [] states, ballot initiatives are planned in [] states, and court challenges are underway in [] states. Altogether, serious efforts are underway in 19 states. If we prevail in ten of them during the next five years, we’ll be close to the 25-state tipping point that will make SCOTUS action inevitable, coinciding with my expectations that the fight will be over in the 2020-2025 range.
The question facing us is how to prevail in each state, and each state is different. In what states do we take the battle to the courts (that is influenced by what appellate circuit the state is in), in what states do we fight ballot initiatives (that is influenced by the expected level of pro-equality support over time, which varies), in what states do we work through the legislature (that is influenced by whether or not Republicans hold either house of the legislature, or the governorship, because if the Republicans hold any, legislative efforts are not going to pass or will be vetoed, as witnessed by New Jersey), and in what states do we hold off and wait for SCOTUS.
Ballot initiatives are a subset of the overall effort. When it comes to the ballot initiatives, “selective waiting” — that is, timing ballot initiatives in each state so that we maximize our chances of winning the repeal — is important.
Elections are not won by polls. Elections are won by getting a majority of pro-equality voters to the polls. And that depends on who turns out in each election cycle.
Conservative Christians have a solid record of working underground through the churches to reliably turn out very high percentages of anti-equality voters in an election. Older voters turn out reliably, and outside of the Conservative Christian base, they are our worst demographic. On the other hand, our most favorable demographic (voters 18-29) are notorious for not turning out except in presidential election years.
As a result, if we are smart about it, we will leverage our best demographic by timing ballot initiatives to presidential election years, timing for “off year” elections only when we are dead certain that we have enough votes despite the turnout differences between anti-equality and pro-equality voters.
The two factors (expected level of pro-equality support over time, and turnout disparities among voter blocs) are what the 2014/2016 “timing” discussion is all about in the various states. As Houdentenor points out, we gain nothing by spending millions of dollars and thousands upon thousands of volunteer hours in an election battle we lose.
It doesn’t seem to me that “selective waiting” — timing to win, if you will — is “dangerous”. To me, it is common sense. We have three tools in our box — legislative efforts, court efforts and ballot initiatives — and we should use them intelligently.
For Republican pro-gay people, waiting is a good idea because most indications are that the Republican party as a whole is becoming more gay-inclusive. Thus this time can be spent very fruitfully building alliances and support.
Well, I hope so, on both counts.
But I’ll be frank: I don’t see evidence of any sizeable turnaround among Republican voters in terms of becoming “more gay-inclusive” (Gallup’s trending polls on marriage equality measure support in the 25-30% range, and the Republican demographic has been the slowest to change of all demographics, primarily because the Republican demographic is old), and I don’t see much evidence of serious work being done to “build alliances and support” in the Republican Party. Maybe the efforts are all going on underground, but I don’t see any evidence of a planned, sustained effort by anyone in the Republican Party at this point.
Whatever might be going on within the Republican Party, we still have to deal with reality in terms of legislative efforts. At present, the reality is:
(1) Where Democrats (and/or Democrats joining with a handful of Republicans) have the legislative majority and the governorship (think Delaware, Maryland and Minnesota, and soon Illinois and Hawaii) marriage equality moves forward in the legislature.
(2) Where Republicans are in control of either house of the legislature or the governorship (think New Jersey) marriage equality is, for the time being, blocked. (Arizona, not surprisingly, is an example. Democrats introduced bills to initiate the repeal process legislatively in 2011 and 2012. The bills died on the vine, and that’s why the process has to go forward via citizen initiative.)
Because that reality probably won’t for the next few election cycles (Can you find a single pro-equality serious Republican presidential candidate for 2016?), we are just about as far as we are going to get through legislative efforts at present. That’s why we have to shift our focus to the courts and ballot initiatives for the time being.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
Forgot to go back, count and fill in the numbers before clicking “submit”:
Legislative efforts to secure marriage equality are underway in three states, ballot initiatives are planned in four states, and court challenges are underway in 18 states.
posted by Jorge on
First, the Democratic Party is not in control of the effort. Despite Stephen’s paranoia about “left/liberal hegemony”, the Democratic Party has little influence on the pro-equality effort except when the effort is legislative…
True.
However, all other things being equal, an election year in which there is a pro-Republican swing as opposed to a pro-Democratic momentum is one in which pro same sex marriage voters will be less likely to turn out, and anti same sex marriage voters will be more likely to turn out. That is an unfavorable skew.
In my view that swing is very likely to happen in either 2014 or 2016.
There is merit to changing the electorate itself. That might be fruitful. A strategy that seeks to wait, right now, is ultimately a strategy that places a bigger faith in “the arc of history” than in the partisan pendulum swing.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
A strategy that seeks to wait, right now, is ultimately a strategy that places a bigger faith in “the arc of history” than in the partisan pendulum swing.
True. Our entire struggle for equality has been an act of faith in “the arc of history”.
It hasn’t been a act of faith in partisan politics. Gays and lesbians have won over the American people, little by slowly, despite active opposition from one major party and indifference from the other. In less than two decades, we’ve moved from 27% for marriage equality to 54%, despite the best efforts of the Republican Party to scuttle our movement and without much, if any, help from the Democrats. Our progress hasn’t been dependent on the “partisan pendulum”. We’ve won the argument about fair play and basic justice in the minds of most Americans, and the American people will not turn back.
The question of ballot initiative timing is tactical, not strategic, at this point. Our timing strategy does involve political considerations, and must, but doesn’t, and certainly need not, involve partisan politics.
posted by Tom Jefferson III on
I do not claim to know much about Arizona politics, but I suspect that outside of a few places (i.e. Tucson) it tends to be pretty right-wing on social policy.
I am not saying its a bad idea — to push for a ballot measure now — because I do not know enough about Arizona politics and its electorate, but I am not entirely sure that the ‘libertarians’ and ‘conservatives’ pushing for such a ballot measure know enough either.
In Minnesota, we defeated the anti-gay ballot measure and (after through the legislative process) got gay marriage.