We reported late yesterday that the DNC's Organizing for America (formerly Obama for America) was emailing Mainers a generic "get out the vote" message that said nothing about the various ballot measures at play in the state, including the attempt to repeal the right of gay couples to marry - the biggest issue in the state at the moment, and the biggest gay rights issue in the country being voted on today (not to diminish the very important election in Washington state). We asked at the time why the DNC and OFA weren't telling Mainers what they'd be voting on, and even better, urging them to vote "no" on the anti-gay referendum.

Since that time, another Mainer came forward and said that she was sent an email from OFA asking her to make phone calls to New Jersey voters to support Jon Corzine's re-election bid in that state. Nothing in the email she received asked her to do anything in her own state, such as vote "no" on 1.

In response to our stories, the DNC denied that they were contacting Mainers and asking them to help out in other states.

Well, a second Mainer has now stepped forward and produced evidence that he too was contacted by the DNC's OFA, and that he too was asked to weigh in on the New Jersey race rather than help defeat the anti-gay referendum in his own state.

http://gay.americablog.com/2009/11/2nd-mainer-now-says-dncs-ofa-asked-him.html

The Maine gay-marriage initiative went down to defeat Tuesday. But the real tragedy is that it should never have been put to a vote in the first place.

Isn’t this exactly the kind of thing that James Madison invented the life-tenured federal judiciary to decide?

Recently, a bunch of legal scholars and influential commentators representing themselves as liberals, have suggested that it’s not. The federal courts should just bow out, they say, of deciding things like gay marriage (and abortion rights).(Little-known fact: the Bow Out movement started with a suggestion that the Supreme Court had made a mistake when it integrated the schools. Imagine what the law would look like if the Brown court had waited until a majority of states were ready to pass the Civil Rights Acts.) Painful as it is to them, as sincere supporters of abortion rights/gay marriage/your issue here, these wise ones think the federal courts should follow the election returns. Only when a majority of states have legalized something should the federal courts find that it was a fundamental constitutional right all along.

That gay marriage has to run this gauntlet is not an accident. Before the Bow Out movement, most big social change claims made their way to the federal courts without this huge windup of state-by-state legislative efforts, which then alerted the opposition to the social change that was coming. More importantly, a thoroughly organized, heavily funded conservative movement is now securely ensconced on the political stage and has seen its tyrannical opportunity in the majoritarian vehicle of the referendum. The combination has pulled the American political system in a radical new direction the Founders actively opposed.

The Supreme Court has yet to rule that gay marriage is either a matter of fundamental right or simple equality. They will have a chance to do that, as the various lawsuits generated by this constitutionally repulsive procedure make their way up in the next few years. But one thing the experience with same sex marriage should make clear. Whether we like the outcome or not, the last thing the court should do, in deciding that question, is follow the election returns.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2009-11-04/get-gay-marriage-off-the-ballot-1/?cid=hp:beastoriginalsC1

In an article in The Hill, which explains how some Democrats don't want to take up "controversial issues, we learn that the number two Democrat in the Senate, Dick Durbin (D-IL), is now saying they may not take up the repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell next year.

http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/66219-democratic-angst-over-10

"Paul Hogarth agrees. “In California there was a serious problem with outreach to communities of color. Whatever happens in Maine, we will still have that problem in California. And a lot of liberal, progressive groups are not good at reaching these communities,” he says".

It is not the fault of liberal and progressive groups that 70% of black voters in CA supported Prop. 8.

You don't blame the victim for the crime.

Which is why it is absolutely absurd to wait until 2012 so those same black Obama voters will again vote for discrimination against gays.

This is really about civil rights so then the emphasis should be on CIVIL union rights,not marraiage rights. My advice is take the word 'marriage out of your campaign, and fight to get state laws changed so that the licensing process allow civil unions for any two adults, which gives everyone the same civil legal rights.

Let the religious nuts have their term marriage. Religions still have the right to deny gays the option to marry, but there are many churches who will marry gays, if gays choose that route.

Instead of bashing these crazing right wing churches (ever though they deserve it) take a year or 2 spend some time on education the voters, craft a nation wide strategy, raise more funds and support outside the gay community. Younger voters are coming up so get them interested in supporting your cause and get yhem registered to vote.

Get the ACLU or United for Church and State to fight the anti gay laws.

Gay marriage is just plain bad for America....

With that I have common ground with DerFurher Obama. When will the homosexuals just learn that Obama just considers them useful idiots.

The initiative process allows campaign based on misinformation, and most voters don't understand what they are voting for. The new MEGA churches, full of the under-educated, can be easily misled.

Get ACLU to go after these churches for violating the tax except laws. In the early 90s we got people in our in a coalition to monitor churches by attending their services, and identify churches violaitng election and tax except laws.

Churches violate election laws and tax except status when they advocate or ask their parishioners to vote yes or no on propositions or for a particular candidate, or endorse candidates. They by pass this by putting fliers on car windows in church parking lots to advocate for propositions or candidates. We actually sent people out to watch then take off the fliers off the cars, you could even replace them with your own fliers as the some people would probably not know the difference,as they just do what they are told.