Marylanders for Marriage Equality are highlighting the fact that several anti-LGBT groups often engage in racist and sexist behaviors in order to try and garner more support from minority groups for their causes. MfME sent out a memo to the media advising them of the “misinformation, race baiting and negativity” that characterizes the campaign of groups like the National Organization for Marriage.
The memo is a preemptive strike against NOM and their fellow groups.
According to the Advocate:
“This memo outlines the playbook that marriage equality opponents have used since 2008,” reads the message, which cites Frank Schubert, political director of NOM, who is now “leading the charge” to defeat Question 6. “The misinformation, race baiting and negativity have worked to great effect in states like California and Maine,” continues the memo. “Marylanders should brace themselves for what is about to hit our state.”
The memo goes over the strategies being used by the Maryland Marriage Alliance, a coalition of anti-marriage groups. The MMA’s strategies include the include using racial politics to drive a wedge between Blacks and Gays, using the false claim that same-sex marriage will now be taught in public schools, and claiming that marriage equality advocates are duping them.
NOM is the largest funder in the group, and the memo points out that “The link between the national and statewide group is significant because of NOM’s national strategy – used in a number of states – to defeat marriage for gay and lesbian couples. That strategy as outlined in its 2009 internal memos is to ‘drive a wedge between gays and blacks… fanning the hostility raised in the wake of Prop. 8.’”
Roughly one quarter of the voters in Maryland are Black, and NAACP chairman emeritus Julian Bond has noted that “a victory would deal a serious blow to the National Organization for Marriage.” His implication being that a victory would show that the race baiting tactics no longer worked.
The entire memo reads:
TO: Maryland reporters, editors, anchors, producers
FROM: Marylanders for Marriage Equality
DATE: September 13, 2012
RE: What to watch for
This memo outlines the playbook that marriage equality opponents have used since 2008. Frank Schubert, political director of the National Organization for Marriage, has used these tactics to inundate voters with deceptive ads and sound bytes. The misinformation, race baiting and negativity have worked to great effect in states like California and Maine. Marylanders should brace themselves for what is about to hit our state. The New York Times’ Frank Bruni recently quoted a marriage equality advocate who correctly observed, “‘The other side runs these hard-hitting ads filled with lies about school curriculum changes’ and such, spooking voters who are wavering or undecided.”
Strategy 1: Exploit race
NOM is a national extremist group that funds a significant part of the Maryland Marriage Alliance – this according to MMA’s own web site (before their early September re-design) and based on financial disclosure reports. NOM’s president, Brian Brown, is a founding director of MMA. Schubert is the visible national operative leading the charge to defeat Maryland’s Question 6.
The link between the national and statewide group is significant because of NOM’s national strategy – used in a number of states – to defeat marriage for gay and lesbian couples. That strategy as outlined in its 2009 internal memos is to “drive a wedge between gays and blacks… fanning the hostility raised in the wake of Prop. 8.”
Given Maryland’s racial diversity and the sizeable African-American vote, we should expect to see some of those insidious tactics here by NOM/MMA.
Strategy 2: Convince voters gay marriage will be taught in schools if it’s legal
In TV ads, direct mail, and mainstream media, NOM had pushed this message in other states where marriage has been up for debate, including California, Maine, and New York. And it’s already happening here. Last month, Rev. McCoy issued a statement warning that “Maryland parents who send their children to public schools are immediately asking how does this [same-sex marriage] affect what is taught in schools.”
The answer is it doesn’t. The independent fact checking site, PolitiFact, has deemed the charge “false.” And opponents know it isn’t true. Marc Mutty, who ran the anti-gay 2009 campaign in Maine admitted, “We all use a lot of hyperbole and I think that’s always dangerous. You know, we say things like ‘Teachers will be forced to (teach same-sex marriage in schools)!’ Well, that’s not completely accurate and we all know it, you know?”
In Maryland, a school’s specific curriculum is decided by local school districts. Teachers and parents decide what is taught in the classroom, and no state law – including the marriage question on the November ballot – changes that (see MD Edu. Code Ann. § 4-111).
Strategy 3: Make voters think they’re being duped
Following the release of ballot language that calls for civil marriage licenses for gay and lesbian people and protects religious freedom, the Maryland Marriage Alliance called the language a “ploy” and urged voters to be “inherently suspicious.” The Maryland Catholic Conference reacted similarly.
Explicit in both the law signed by Governor O’Malley in March and in the ballot language are important provisions stating that religious institutions are exempt from having to marry anyone they don’t want to. If the marriage of a gay couple violates a minister’s belief, he does not have to perform one.
This is one of those areas where either religious freedom is protected in the language, or it’s not. There’s no gray area. It’s protected.