Thursday, November 08, 2012
Law - The inside strategies behind the gay rights victories Tuesday
This short article yesterday by David Weigel in Slate lists the successful gay marriage votes Tuesday.
U. of Minn. Law Prof. Dale Carpenter had this long post yesterday in The Volokh Conspiracy that began:
Most of the post-election attention on the gay-marriage ballot fights has focused on the inspiring wins in Maine, Maryland, and Washington state, where same-sex marriages will now be legal. But equally important in the long-term is what happened in Minnesota on Tuesday. Eighteen months ago, when the state legislature voted to place a ban on same-sex marriages on the ballot, I wrote that “on November 6, 2012, Minnesota will become the first state to reject one of these amendments.”The remainder of the long post explains how opponents of the constitutional amendment:
... built a political movement from the ground up. Under the banner of Minnesotans United For All Families, and led by an incomparable tactician and campaign manager in Richard Carlbom and a ferociously smart board chair in Cristine Almeida, we organized a campaign that was unprecedented in size and scope for a ballot fight in the state. We put together a coalition of more than 700 faith groups and churches, political allies across the spectrum (including prominent conservative and libertarian Republicans), labor groups, people of color, and businesses.In addition, Slate had this article yesterday, by Nathaniel Frank, headed "How Gay Marriage Finally Won at the Polls: The inside strategy behind victory in Maryland and Maine."
I was told we’d never raise a million dollars in Minnesota and that national donors would stay out because of our poor track record around the country and because the Midwest was a lost cause. Some national donors did stay out. But we still raised $12 million. And while hundreds of thousands of dollars were donated by national groups like the Human Rights Campaign and Freedom to Marry, and more by some wealthy individual donors, the vast majority of the money was raised from some 65,000 individual donors in the state.
[More] Adam Liptak of the NY Times speculates today on how Tuesday's votes may impact the SCOTUS in its consideration of "what the Constitution has to say about same-sex marriage." A quote:
But it is not clear which side benefited more from those developments at the Supreme Court.
Supporters of traditional marriage, even as they registered disappointment, said the results showed that the question could be resolved democratically.
“It bolsters our case,” said Brian S. Brown, the president of the National Organization for Marriage. “It’s very difficult to say you need a federal resolution of this question if states are resolving it for themselves.”
Adam Umhoefer, the executive director of the American Foundation for Equal Rights, the group behind a California case seeking to establish a constitutional right to same-sex marriage, expressed mixed feelings about the developments. They were, he said, the right outcomes in the wrong forums.
“Fundamental constitutional rights like marriage,” he said, “should never be subjected to a popular vote.”
Posted by Marcia Oddi on November 8, 2012 09:14 AM
Posted to General Law Related