VoteOnMarriage.org spokeswoman says another ballot campaign unlikely

When VoteOnMarriage.org's constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage passed in the state legislature with a comfortable 62 votes back on Jan. 2, then-state Rep. Phil Travis, the amendment's biggest champion in the legislature, triumphantly told reporters that his side had "snatched victory from the jaws of defeat," and indeed they had. Two months before, marriage equality advocates celebrated the amendment's death by a procedural vote, but were soon put back on the defensive in the face of a Supreme Judicial Court ruling that strongly suggested the legislature should take an up or down vote on the amendment. While Travis cried tears of joy, pro-equality lobbyist Arline Isaacson coldly lamented, "Well, this is not the way it was supposed to go today."

But at the June 14 constitutional convention (ConCon) it was the pro-equality side that did the victory snatching, having whittled support for the amendment down to 45 votes, five short of the 50 necessary to put it on the 2008 general election ballot (see "Sealing the Deal"). Heading into the session, VoteOnMarriage.org was already down five votes due to retirements and electoral losses since January. Just minutes before lawmakers took their second - and final - vote on the amendment, VoteOnMarriage.org leader Kris Mineau expressed confidence that he still had a margin of victory. Minutes later, he watched as nine of his votes went into the pro-equality column, and two freshmen lawmakers who campaigned on a pledge to support the amendment followed suit. What went wrong?

VoteOnMarriage.org spokeswoman Lisa Barstow chalked up the reversal of fortune to being outmatched both financially and politically by the pro-equality team. She emphasized the changed political landscape, which saw newly elected leaders Gov. Deval Patrick and Senate President Therese Murray align with House Speaker Sal DiMasi to defeat the amendment. "And I think that frankly, MassEquality did a great job," said Barstow. "I think we did a great job." The difference, she said, is that in addition to having the bully pulpit on three fronts, MassEquality had the financial resources to better organize to defeat the amendment.

"Within the resources we had to work with ... we feel like we did everything we could do," said Barstow, noting that volunteers "poured out their hearts" working long days on the campaign. "It's a campaign so people really take it to heart. So obviously the loss has been crushing." Barstow was quick to note that, "Folks haven't given up overall. But what the next phase will look like is still under consideration."

Barstow did say that going forward, the organization will be examining ethical questions about the impact the political support of the state's three most powerful leaders had on defeating the amendment. Said Barstow, "What swayed those nine [legislators]? ... Was it pure persuasion of the speaker or was it the dangling jobs? Was it facing life in the basement of the State House or a potential chairmanship? The Democrat Party effort poured into this - statewide and national - was just unbelievable," she said.

In the run-up to June 14, national political leaders like U.S. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Democratic Party Chair Howard Dean were reported to have made phone calls urging local pols to defeat the amendment in order to neutralize the issue in the 2008 presidential race. Mineau and Evelyn Reilly of the Massachusetts Family Institute (MFI) a VoteOnMarriage.org ally, also lobbed charges that DiMasi, Murray and Patrick were bribing lawmakers with jobs and other perks, although they never provided evidence to support their claims.

Barstow pointed to Isaacson's statement in a pre-ConCon Boston Globe article that legislators were "upping the ante" on what they wanted in exchange for their votes as evidence of impropriety. "That's a pretty sharp statement to make," said Barstow, noting that Isaacson is an experienced lobbyist.

Asked about the comment during an interview with Bay Windows, Isaacson said that a few legislators did in fact attempt to leverage favors for their vote. "and some of them did in fact up the ante," she said. "Every one of them failed and most of them didn't vote with us." They failed, Isaacson added, "because the governor, the speaker and the senate president were not offering jobs or budget line items in exchange for these votes. What they did offer was persuasion; the power of their office to say, this is important to me and it's important to the commonwealth and the very legitimate power of saying if you make this vote and have a hard time in the elections we'll really be behind you. And that is not only legal, it's appropriate. It's the right thing to say and offer."

Told of Isaacson's response, Barstow replied, "How fascinating, though, isn't it? I think it's a pretty sad commentary on our politicians, just in general." Though it worked for pro-equality forces this time around, "in the Finneran era it might have worked for our side," she added with a laugh, a reference to former House Speaker Tom Finneran, a notoriously autocratic gay-rights foe. "No matter how you look at it I just don't think it's what people want in their democracy."

Barstow dismissed the assertions of legislators, like state Rep. Paul Kujawski, that they were not lobbied as heavily by amendment supporters as they were by marriage equality supporters. She said the lobbying effort "became a balancing act" noting that some legislators just got fed up. "One guy was like, 'Get out of here, I'm not listening to you I'm not listening to them, I'm not listening to anybody anymore. Leave me alone,'" Barstow recalls with a laugh. "At some point how much is enough? Do you have to sit in their office every single day, is every three days enough? Every five days? Do you need five personal visits a day or is seven the magic bullet? That's really what we're talking about. I don't think a day went by when somebody wasn't touched in some form," she said, via phone calls, personal visits or e-mails. Like MassEquality, said Barstow, VoteOnMarriage engaged in grassroots activity like collecting postcards, leafleting, organizing in churches and holding house parties. "We all did all the things you're supposed to do," she said.

One thing VoteOnMarriage.org has no plans to do, said Barstow, is to unseat legislators who changed their votes. Barstow said a recent Globe story stating that the organization would be targeting incumbent lawmakers state Reps. Paul Loscocco and Richard Ross and freshman Democratic state Reps. Geraldo Alicea and Angelo Puppolo in 2008, "couldn't have been more off-base." Mineau, said Barstow, simply told a reporter that legislators who said they would vote yes on the amendment but then voted no were "going to have answer to their constituents." Though he might have mentioned names, Barstow added, it would have been senseless to "give away the store" by going public with such a plan. Additionally, Barstow pointed out, Mineau was speaking on behalf of VoteOnMarriage which, as a ballot question committee is limited in its political activity. Lastly, said Barstow, MFI, of which Mineau is the executive director, would not look to oust legislators over the marriage issue since they need their support on other issues like funding for abstinence education.

Will VoteOnMarriage.org come back with another marriage ban initiative petition? Unlikely, said Barstow. "We could collect the signatures very easily," she observed, noting that they're much more organized now than they were when they started in 2005. "But if you put the matter before the same cast of characters, it's unlikely you would get a different result."