LGBT public backs MassEquality

An online survey of MassEquality members shows that there is strong support for keeping the grassroots organization involved in the marriage battle in other states as well as having MassEquality advocate on non-marriage-related LGBT issues in Massachusetts. Seventy-five percent of respondents said that they agreed that MassEquality should work to "secure marriage in other states" and 67 percent said that they agreed that MassEquality should work on "other issues" in the Bay State. Meanwhile, 84 percent of respondents disagreed with the statement that there was "no need for MassEquality to continue."

MassEquality solicited responses to the survey by sending out emails to the 52,000 members on its email distribution list Oct. 8 and again on Oct. 15, inviting the public to let the organization know what they wanted it to do. (MassEquality includes in its 200,000 members any person who has ever taken action on its behalf. The organization only has email addresses for 52,000 of them, said Board Chair David Wilson.) There were 3092 responses to the survey, which was open on the MassEquality website from Oct. 8-16.

Beyond the first survey question, which asked respondents if they had "supported the coalition organizations that have comprised MassEquality with volunteer time, donations, etc.", there was no identifying data gathered from the survey, said Wilson. There were two indicators used to try and prevent anyone from filling out the survey more than once, said Wilson, though he conceded they were not fool proof: The monitoring of the respondents' computer IP addresses and email addresses.

Sixty percent of survey respondents identified themselves as having supported MassEquality and its coalition partners in the past. Additionally, 45 percent of respondents chose to leave comments about MassEquality and its future.

The 10-question survey was part of the MassEquality Board of Directors's ongoing process to determine the future of the organization. In September, the board hired Jack Regan of Metis Consulting to help the organization solicit feedback from major donors, local and national LGBT leaders and the public about what MassEquality should do next now that marriage equality has been secured in Massachusetts for the foreseeable future. Regan presented the results of the online survey to the board during an Oct. 24 meeting. Board Chair David Wilson released the survey results to Bay Windows.

The most agreement among survey respondents came in response to the statement that there was "no need for MassEquality to continue." Eighty-four percent of the respondents disagreed, while only four percent agreed (10 percent said they "somewhat agreed" and two percent declined to answer the question). "MassEquality has created a very successful model," one survey respondent commented, "and it seems a shame to let that knowledge and that capacity go to waste or dissipate." Said another, "There may in fact be too many GLBT organizations working on similar issues in MA, but that does not mean MassEquality should close its doors since it has outperformed other GLBT political organizations." Yet another said, "I hope that MassEquality stays in existence, because I think just because we won the marriage fight, there is still so much work to be done!"

Among the arguments for disbanding the organization were concerns that MassEquality no longer has anything to do. "Your job is done," commented one survey participant. "If it [sic] needed you can reconstitute, but for once, it would nice [sic] to see an organization declare victory and go away rather than hold on for the sake of their letterhead stationary." Said another: "I believe this was a one issue campaign focused on MA. Now that victory has been won, I think the staff, volunteers and advisory board (s) should declare victory and disperse and encourage supporters & donors to devote their time to other organizations. I do not believe in maintaining an organization after victory ... and have it looking for a purpose."

In a previous report distributed to board members that reflected Regan's interviews with 12 LGBT leaders and major donors to MassEquality, Regan described the prospect of making MassEquality into a multi-issue statewide LGBT political organization as "the most contentious of the options before us." (See "Stakeholders Want To See MassEquality Continue," Oct. 25). The idea didn't seem controversial among survey respondents: In addition to the 67 percent of respondents who liked the idea, an additional 17 percent said that they "somewhat agreed" with it. Thirteen percent said that they disagreed (three percent didn't answer the question).

A majority of respondents - 63 percent -said they believed MassEquality would "enhance work being done" by other LGBT advocacy groups if the organization took on non-marriage-related LGBT issues. An additional 22 percent said they "somewhat agreed" that MassEquality would "enhance" the work already being done by other groups. Only 13 percent of respondents agreed that MassEquality would "unnecessarily duplicate work being done by existing organizations" if it ventured into non-marriage-related LGBT advocacy. An additional 23 percent said they "somewhat agreed" while 61 percent of survey respondents disagreed.

Likewise, a statewide, multi-issue MassEquality may not be the drain on resources for other LGBT organizations that some fear it would be: Only 10 percent of respondents said that they would likely reduce their giving to MassEquality coalition partners if MassEquality broadened its mission. By contrast, 72 percent of respondents said that it would have no impact on their planned donations.

Respondents who supported the idea of MassEquality transitioning to a multi-issue statewide advocacy organization noted the need to update the state's marriage laws in response to Goodridge and the need to work "toward reconciliation with those who are most opposed" to marriage equality. "I think some hard work on shared values, debate, dialogue, listening sessions, ongoing growth on GLBT issues, particularly marriage equality, would improve the progressive society of the Commonwealth," said one respondent. Another survey participant stated that MassEquality should get behind HB 1722, a bill to add gender identity and expression to the classes protected in the state's hate crimes and anti-discrimination statutes.

Among the arguments against a multi-issue focus was a concern that expanding into other issues would weaken MassEquality's power. "It should stay focused on its mission - which is obtaining marriage equality," wrote one survey participant. "There's far too much work yet to be done on a federal level and in other states to start diluting focus and becoming a multi-headed hydra with every head pulling in a different direction." Another respondent observed: "MassEquality has been successful in part due to its unwavering focus on one issue." Said another, "Specialized issues require specialized efforts. Although it's clear that LGBT issues all benefit by any efforts to promote equal treatment under law, it seems clear to me that organizations that advocate specialized issues should avoid diluting their efforts by attempting to incorporate other organizations' purposes into their own."

The mission for MassEquality that received the most support from survey respondents was to back the lawmakers who voted down the proposed constitutional amendment that would have taken away the civil right to marry from same-sex couples: 82 percent said that they agreed that MassEquality needed to "support allied legislators" in the 2008 legislative elections. An additional 13 percent said that they "somewhat agreed" with the statement. "We should not abandon those who supported us," one respondent commented. "[State Rep.] Angelo Puppolo and the rest stood for us. We need to stand with them while they are clearly still vulnerable."

Reflecting a sentiment frequently heard during the Oct. 15 "World Caf?" organized by Regan that saw 100 of the Bay State's leading LGBT activists gather to talk about the future of MassEquality, one respondent urged MassEquality to work to defeat those who voted in favor of the anti-gay constitutional amendment: "You should work on actively defeating and removing from office anti-LGBT politicians, not just supporting pro-LGBT ones."

After supporting pro-equality lawmakers, the option that received the most enthusiastic response from survey participants was for having MassEquality assist other states to secure marriage equality. Seventy-five percent agreed with the idea, while 16 percent said that they "somewhat agreed." Some respondents clearly expressed the desire for MassEquality to confine its efforts to New England. "Massachusetts may have legal gay marriage, but the other New England states do not, and I would like to see that they do someday. We could lead the country in civil rights and gay rights as a region," said one. "I would like to see MassEquality grow in New England, but not beyond that," said another. Another simply requested that Rhode Island become the next marriage equality battleground. Fifty-four percent of respondents said they would give time or money to MassEquality if it worked in other states and an additional 27 percent said they "somewhat agreed" that they would do so.

The 18-member MassEquality board is scheduled to conclude the strategic planning process on Nov. 3 with a vote on a specific proposal for MassEquality's future.