Perhaps the biggest loser in last Tuesday’s historic passage of a gay marriage bill in the Legislature was the National Organization for Marriage.
The group, based in Washington, D.C., has been at the forefront of attempts to stop gay marriage in states throughout the country. A Maine investigation uncovered alleged internal documents about the group’s strategy that included this passage:
“The strategic goal of this project is to drive a wedge between gays and blacks — two key Democratic constituencies. Find, equip, energize and connect African-American spokespeople for marriage, develop a media campaign around their objections to gay marriage as a civil right, provoke the gay marriage base into responding by denouncing these spokesmen and women as bigots. No politician wants to take up and push an issue that splits the base of the party.”
The National Organization for Marriage tried all that in Illinois — spending tens of thousands of dollars on politically connected consultants and robocalls into black legislative districts in the spring, summer and right up until the day of the vote and holding media-friendly events in the black community. The gay marriage bill wasn’t called for a vote last spring mainly because black House members were overwhelmed by fervent local opposition.
In the end, the National Organization for Marriage lost badly. Fourteen of 20 Democratic members of the House Black Caucus voted “yes” on the bill, while just four voted “no” (Monique Davis, Mary Flowers, Eddie Lee Jackson and Chuck Jefferson) and two voted “present” (Rita Mayfield and Derrick Smith).
Ironically enough, other than gay marriage supporters, those who probably cheered the loudest after the bill’s passage may have been the four Republican gubernatorial candidates. They’ve been hoping this controversial issue would be safely put away, allowing them to move on to their agendas.
They may be right. These things do tend to fade away once a bill is passed. The big talk last week in Congress was about a bill to prohibit employment discrimination against gay people. Illinois has had that law on its books for years.
Despite much screaming by opponents that the end of the word was surely near, everybody just accepted that law and moved on without incident.
But people don’t always move on. Social conservatives could try to stir up a backlash by demanding that the Republican candidates pledge to repeal the marriage measure.
Three of the four candidates are on record opposing gay marriage. The fourth, Bruce Rauner, said he would only sign a gay marriage bill into law if the public had first voted to approve it via a non-binding referendum. It obviously wasn’t done that way, so Rauner could be forced to answer some touchy questions.
State Rep. Tom Cross, R-Oswego, a candidate for state treasurer, is undoubtedly hoping that the issue fades quickly, at least in the runup to the March primary election. Cross voted “yes,” even though a spokesman recently told the Chicago Sun-Times that he opposed the gay marriage bill. But it’s been known for weeks that Cross was struggling with the issue, both on philosophical and political levels.
Cross has a Republican primary opponent, the socially conservative DuPage County Auditor Bob Grogan. Grogan hasn’t been much of a campaigner to date, raising little money and garnering few major supporters, and says he’s not interested in Cross’ vote. But some anti-gay marriage forces are, and that could cause Cross problems.
The immediate fear among Cross’ allies is that his gay marriage vote could spark more interest among, and money from, the far right to defeat him. Cross has done a good job so far of rounding up traditional GOP supporters, however, so the calculation was that his favorable vote won’t be fatal in the primary.
His vote last week will, however, take an issue away from Cross’ Democratic rival, state Sen. Michael Frerichs, of Champaign. Cross clearly took the long view, and that could come with significant benefits — including campaign contributions from gay marriage supporters and the ability to paint himself as a moderate and “modern” Republican in the November 2014 election.
And speaking of Republicans, unlike in the Senate, where the lone Republican “yes” vote was more symbolic than essential to the outcome, the three House Republicans who voted for the bill helped provide the margin of victory. Without those votes, the going would’ve been a whole lot tougher.
- Curious - Tuesday, Nov 12, 13 @ 9:36 am:
Is Mr. Miller not required by those who publish his column on this issue to disclose that Marriage Equality supporters advertised on his website?
- train111 - Tuesday, Nov 12, 13 @ 9:40 am:
The National Organization for Marriage funnelled quite a significant chunk of cash into Illinois via the “African American Clergy Coalition”
Classic front group operation with DC money making a foray into Illinois politics.
- Chavez-respecting Obamist - Tuesday, Nov 12, 13 @ 9:43 am:
I think it should be referred to as the National Organization “for” Marriage. It’s not for marriage, it’s for marriage for some people.
- Demoralized - Tuesday, Nov 12, 13 @ 9:48 am:
==Is Mr. Miller not required by those who publish his column on this issue to disclose that Marriage Equality supporters advertised on his website? ==
Why? It’s an advertisement. If the anti-gay marriage folks would have wanted to advertise I’m sure they could have also.
Besides, Rich writes an OPINION column. Perhaps someday people will get the difference between and opinion column and a news column. Sheesh.
- LincolnLounger - Tuesday, Nov 12, 13 @ 9:48 am:
@Curious: I’ve read that column three times now, and I still don’t see Mr. Miller’s personal opinion on the issue of marriage equality. As usual, he provides thoughtful analysis as to the behind the scenes efforts and likely effects resulting from the actions of those involved.
This blog unites a fascinating cross section of individuals and beliefs. The one thing that probably unites nearly everyone, however, is the hilarity of an allegation that Mr. Miller’s opinion could be swayed with a simple ad on his website.
- Oswego Willy - Tuesday, Nov 12, 13 @ 9:55 am:
-Curious -,
As far as a “drive-by” goes, that us not bad…
Do you NOT think the Biggest Loser is the National Organization for Marriage?
Make your case, please.
To the Post,
Great article, breaking it down how the Illinois House’s passage of SB10 broke down for so many.
My focus is the two chambers and the GOP Caucuses;
The intolerant SGOP, making the ONE “Yes” stick out like a sore… “Subject” and with no cover from Commander Galloway and her “gender card playing, but not playing” leadership failure. Jo Galloway could learn a whole lot from newly minted Leader Durkin, and I am willing to bet it won’t be about groceries rotting on a table.
As for Leader Durkin, kudos, especially for the cover, guaranteed, by the HGOP Political arm,and making it quie clear, everyone, especially current HGOP Caucus Members that Primaring Sandack and Sullivan will be met head on, and “Rightly”… so.
Bob Grogan get huge kudos for not taking the bait, but will Grogan condemn those who feel the need to make SB10 an issue? Stay clear of Paul Caprio, Mr. Grogan, just don’t say one thing, and cheer the Dopey *cough* Caprio *cough.
Thanks, Rich, for writing what needs to be said.
- CircularFiringSquad - Tuesday, Nov 12, 13 @ 9:55 am:
The group’s 2011 990 shows they shelled out $230K to an executive director + 23K in fringes. Total budget was over $2.5 million. Looks like they dropped about $10K on WhackJack’s family front group. Cannot wait to see the 2012 filing.
It is really the NOF(S)M.
Fire,Aim,Ready
- walkinfool - Tuesday, Nov 12, 13 @ 9:58 am:
I’m sure Mr. Miller would welcome more ads, from many directions.
- Rich Miller - Tuesday, Nov 12, 13 @ 10:02 am:
Curious, nice try at highjacking the thread.
All the ads on this site are out there for everyone to see. I take no secret $500,000 grants from gubernatorial candidates, for instance, although they are welcomed to advertise if they want.
The ads are indeed available for purchase by anyone who has an issue at the Statehouse. Actually, they’re available to any entity, within certain taste limits (I wouldn’t ever post a porn ad, for instance).
And, as I make clear to all my advertisers, you don’t get me when you buy the space. I also prefer to get the cash up front because I’ve often written things about advertisers that they don’t like, and I don’t provide refunds.
Now, everybody move along.
- shore - Tuesday, Nov 12, 13 @ 10:03 am:
pat brady the ilgop chairman quit to I think work as a lobbyist he said on chicago tonight to help pass this bill.
- wordslinger - Tuesday, Nov 12, 13 @ 10:11 am:
Those who wish to elect a GOP governor would be wise to accept this gift and move on.
A rollback campaign would make as much sense as Pickett’s Charge, with the same long-term consequences for the state GOP.
Pay attention to Republicans who actually do whacky things like get elected statewide. From Sen. Kirk on the WBEZ link:
–However, Kirk gave some advice (to gubernatorial candidates). He contends the only way Republicans will take control of the governor’s mansion is to be moderate on social issues.
Kirk said that includes accepting same-sex marriage is legal in Illinois. Kirk said he backs same-sex marriage and applauds the General Assembly for making it legal last week.–
It’s always been that way. Check the history.
- Ann - Tuesday, Nov 12, 13 @ 10:25 am:
“All the ads on this site are out there for everyone to see. I take no secret $500,000 grants from gubernatorial candidates, for instance, although they are welcomed to advertise if they want.”
Zing!
Lovely column, Rich.
- Toure's Latte - Tuesday, Nov 12, 13 @ 10:27 am:
==I take no secret $500,000 grants from gubernatorial candidates, for instance,==
Slacker. Get to work.
/s
- walkinfool - Tuesday, Nov 12, 13 @ 10:31 am:
Smart, tough, focused political strategy. Try to exploit an emotional issue that can divide key segments of your opposition, and thereby stymie the party leadership concerned with unity.
An analogy might be a dramatic, specific push against big corporate money in politics, which could divide the GOP between pro-big business and Tea Party factions. (That is, if the current Administration were not almost as easy on Wall St. right now.)
This tactic succeeded in delaying the vote for marriage equality for months — but it had to fail in the end.
Our cultural values, and voters’ opinions, are trending strongly toward equal rights.
- Grandson of Man - Tuesday, Nov 12, 13 @ 11:07 am:
Very nice column, Rich. I also believe that it’s better to get the SSM issue off the table ahead of next year’s elections.
I would also like to praise the House Black Caucus for its support of SSM.
For those who use religion to want to deny gay people the right to marry, don’t worry about people and legislative processes. Just wait for God to unleash his wrath. Just wait……and wait…………and wait…………
- dupage dan - Tuesday, Nov 12, 13 @ 11:23 am:
I have no problem with an issue driven group evaluating a potential opponent and determining a strategy based on that. As others have said, it was doomed and, rightfully, failed. The GOP should stake out the important issues of the day that are more likely to secure support from the younger voters. It would also be in line with the general “smaller government” ideals of the GOP. The writing is on the wall. The GOP would do well to accept that and hammer home the fiscal issues that are having such an impact on our lives.
Now, if we could just get young straight folks to see marriage as important as the gay community sees it…..
- bored now - Tuesday, Nov 12, 13 @ 12:19 pm:
republicans just aren’t as good at wedge politics as they used to be. perhaps they succeeded for so long that everybody caught on. perhaps it’s just that wedge politics only worked on an aging population that is becoming a smaller and smaller portion of the electorate…
- Ghost - Tuesday, Nov 12, 13 @ 12:29 pm:
Word there was absolutely nothing wrong with Pickett’s charge…. it was the unlicensed canon owners on the other side of the field that were the problem….
:>
- RMW Stanford - Tuesday, Nov 12, 13 @ 1:10 pm:
I think the biggest loser is the IFI. NOM lost and lost big in Illinois but they still have 30+ states to fight in and might be able to use this to try and raise more funds from their supportors in other states. On the other hand the IFI suffered a just as big of a political lost in Illinois and with gay marriage off the table that could hit into their fundraising over the long run.