FiveThirtyEight's Nate Silver uncovers some statistics in Maine Marriage showdown.

[caseymoz]

In a November 3 Referenda Election, Maine voters decide on Question 1 which, to quote Maine's SoS website: "An Act To End Discrimination in Civil Marriage and Affirm Religious Freedom 'Do you want to reject the new law that lets same-sex couples marry and allows individuals and religious groups to refuse to perform these marriages?'" The Orwellian part of that comes from the Maine's Secretary of State's own website.

End discrimination in civil marriage and affirm religious freedom? That's on the official State Website? It's like calling a lynching "freedom of speech," that only happens to, unfortunately, result in a mostly incidental death which insignificant considering the importance of First Amendment Freedoms.

http://www.maine.gov/sos/cec/elec/upcoming.html

But I digress. Nate Silver at fivethirtyeight.com has uncovered some statistics. To quote:

In a fundraising plea to his mailing list this past week, Marc Multy, the President of the anti-gay marriage Group Stand for Marriage Maine, described his opponents as having "amassed a war chest from the homosexual political elite from nearly every corner of the country to impose their will on Mainers like us."

Indeed, the pro-gay marriage group No on 1 Protect Maine Equality has raised more than $2.30 million in itemized contributions from outside the state of Maine; this is more than the $1.82 million that Stand for Marriage Maine has raised from out-of-state.

However, most of No on 1's advantage is based on its substantial edge in fundraising from within the state of Maine. No on 1 has raised $1.89 million from 3,766 unique contributors within the state, whereas Stand for Marriage Maine has raised just $677,000 from 422 contributors, putting it at nearly a 3:1 disadvantage. All told, No on 1 has raised 43 percent of its funds from within Maine, as compared with 26 percent for the Yes on 1 campaign.

http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/10/despite-claims-anti-gay-group-in-maine.html

(I think he has the labels on the chart reversed, commentators point that out too. What he says only makes sense if you reverse them.) Here are the things I find striking:

-Contributors to the pro-gay marriage No on 1 outnumber the Yes on 1 contributors 15-1.

-No on 1 not only has more contributors, it has much more contributions coming from in or outside the state, even though the average contributions are much smaller.

-This is truly shocking: 83 percent of Yes on 1's contributions come from just two sources: New Jersey-based National Organization for Marriage, which gave Yo1 $1,622,152, and the Roman Catholic Diocese of Portland (ME) which gave $529,666.

I looked at the National Organization of Marriage website and went to its "about" page. The officials on the page all seem to hold three or four jobs besides their busy NOM duties. They also headed this commission, wrote this many books, also headed this organization here are the examples, first Maggie Gallagher, the President:

In addition to serving as President of the National Organization for Marriage, Maggie Gallagher is also president of the Institute for Marriage and Public Policy (www.iMAPP.org), a nonprofit organization whose unique mission is research and public education on ways that law and public policy can strengthen marriage as a social institution.

Maggie is a nationally syndicated columnist, the author of three books on marriage (including most recently with University of Chicago Prof Linda Waite "The Case for Marriage: Why Married People Are Happier, Healthier, and Better-Off Financially"), and a leading voice of the new marriage movement. National Journal named her to the 2004 list of the most influential people in the same-sex marriage debate.

She appears frequently on major TV and radio and is frequently asked to lecture at colleges, universities and law schools. She has testified as an expert witness on marriage before the U.S. Senate and in various state legislatures. Her writings on marriage have appeared in The New York Times, The Weekly Standard, and the Wall Street Journal, as well as scholarly journals such as the Louisiana Law Review, and the Notre Dame Journal of Law, Ethics, and Public Policy.

Where do you get trained to do this? "Maggie is a graduate of Yale (1982) . . . " Where else should the overwhelmingly rich go to learn to impose themselves on every class of society. Whenever RWers use the word "family," I get creeped out now. I think they mean "heirs" and they should use that word.

I feel like telling them to stop the brain-damaging multitasking and get a real job. We need a word in our language these professional fronts for astroturf organizations. I'll call them "turf puppets." Or affectionately, "turfpoos," or "turfpups."

As for the Catholic Church (Specifically the Portland, ME Diocese) giving over a half million dollars to this campaign, that seems that they have lost their already half-gone, homo-hating minds. This country is in a serious recession. How many people might have been helped with a half-million dollars of charity? How many houses could they have prevented from being foreclosed? Five? Ten? I missed that Gospel passage where Jesus said that between helping the poor and sick, and kicking a gay man in the balls, one should always give all ya got to kicking the gay man in the balls.

Of course, knowing my old church from which I recoil, I know it probably solicited funds from parishioners especially for this. Even if there is nothing in the law that says you have to marry a gay. The only thing they are afraid if gays can legally marry is that their moral teachings might be questioned. The problem is, their moral teachings are questionable with or without an environment of gay marriage around it. If they quash gay marriage, their moral reasoning will still be questionable.

Silver gives an optimistic evaluation on what the Maine Marriage fight:

Although it is always risky to generalize from a single example -- particularly given that the Yes on 1 campaign has been fairly inept -- it would seem that the grassroots energy on this issue has reversed, with the pro-gay marriage side feeling more emboldened than the traditional marriage groups. This is true both outside the state of Maine and within it.

I wish I felt this way. I think getting gay marriage in most states is going to be a long fight. I'm expecting a setback in Maine. Even if the anti-gay marriage side has not gathered a lot of money, it means only the economy is bad. People are still listening to Limbaugh, Beck, Hannity, Savage and others for their word on it. I would be surprised and extremely happy if Question 1 is knocked down.

[NMDemDist2]

1. they were reporting on GayUSA that the dioceses sent around the collection plate

a second time for a month telling the folks to dig deep for funds to fight #1

sad.

[caseymoz]

2. And, of course, Catholic parishioners gave to it.

(I rewrote a part of my post.)

Yes, they pass one basket, and that's the nice basket.

They pass it a second time, that's the diabolical basket. That's the one for Satan.

Somebody should call the Better Business Bureau on that, but I doubt if the parishioners are awake enough to notice.

[msongs]

3. gay marriage should always be defended on RELIGIOUS freedom rights grounds as

its always the religious mob that is against it. imposition of religion against the wishes of people is illegal and immoral, and should be automatic grounds for defense. and its all about religion with the opponents.

Msongs