There's a reason why your money is drying up

Back in September, after the primary, I reported on four GOP state senators in New York who voted for gay marriage. The vote tally for the last one in the general election has only now been resolved, giving us this tally:

* Senator Alisi decided not to run for another term. His seat is now held by a pro-gay Democrat.

* Senator Grisanti was reelected.

* Senator Saland won his primary but lost the general election to a pro-gay Dem. His loss is attributed to his primary opponent who ran in the general as a third-party candidate.

* Senator McDonald lost the primary to an anti-gay opponent. The race was very close with very low turnout. I think the GOP kept the seat.

Only one of four GOP supporters is still in office. Since two of the three were replaced with pro-gay Dems it leads to questions: Were these four senators "punished" for their pro-gay stances? Does the GOP and the National Organization for Marriage prefer ideological purity so much they would rather have a Dem in the seat? Will other GOP lawmakers in other states now support gay marriage? That argument will now rage within the GOP.



After the election I wrote about the change in tactics for gay marriage messaging that brought about the four victories in November. The Atlantic has come out with a long (and I do mean long) article detailing exactly how it happened. The change in message went from a discussion of rights to talk of commitment. Here are a few things that caught my attention:

Hennepen Avenue United Methodist Church on Minneapolis, one that is gay inclusive, invited all kinds of church leaders from across Minnesota to discuss how to defeat the looming gay marriage ban. They hoped 200 people would attend. They were amazed when more than 700 did. The work of all these church people prevented the debate from being gays v. religion.

In Maine, a chunk of the effort was canvassing. This wasn't a case of knocking on doors and spouting talking points. This was about 30 to 60 minute discussions with the intent of actually changing minds. The goal (over a couple years, since marriage equality was defeated in 2009) was to have 180,000 such conversations (in a population of 700,000).

Across the four states our side spent $42 million. Their side spent $11 million. The marriage equality forces could create and air targeted ads (for Republicans, ethnic groups, religious people) that the opponents didn't have money to counter. Alas, the lopsided money allows the anti-gay crowd to claim they lost because of a well financed opponent -- not because the underlying opinion of gay marriage has changed. The pro-equality side responds by saying there's a reason why your money is drying up.

The anti-gay side is waiting to capitalize on the "consequences" of gay marriage. Nope, not end of Western Civilization, but the "conflicts" with the photographers, etc. who decline to work for a gay couple.

We won in four states. But don't get cocky. Don't jump on a ballot campaign without a great deal of preparation. That doesn't guarantee success. Instead, let the Supremes do their work and consider legislative battles (as is happening in Delaware, New Jersey, Illinois, Rhode Island, Hawaii, and -- yes -- Minnesota).