Maine Gay Marriage Vote Will Force a Strategy Change – Unless It Won’t

The New York Times and the Washington Post declare opposing assessments of Tuesday’s Maine election, where voters rejected same-sex marriage.

Says the New York Times headline: “Gay Rights Rebuke May Change Approach.” Not so, counters the Post: “Gay Groups Say Loss Won’t Alter Strategy.”

Both papers ultimately agree that supporters of gay marriage are splintered on what the most effective route will be. Typically, a state-by-state approach has been favored – which is why the defeat in Maine is so painful. “I think the reality is that we came very close but didn’t succeed in dispelling the distractions and fears that are keeping a small slice of people from treating others fairly,” Freedom to Marry director Evan Wolfson told the Post.

The New York Times points out that even last month’s gay rights march in Washington, D.C. caused uncertainty among some advocates – it was not attended by some high-profile gay politicians, who apparently questioned the march’s purpose.

California has generated a lot of debate as far as strategy: Supporters there have been divided over how soon to put the issue back on the ballot. Should it be 2010 – the sooner the better – or should it be 2012, when more people are likely to have warmed to the idea and when a presidential election will help lure more people to the voting booth?

A federal suit has been thrown into the mix as well – some say the timing is bad, and the suit would surely lose if taken all the way to the Supreme Court.

One thing seems clear: It’s unfortunate that most of these divisions between gay marriage supporters exist, because the issue should not be up to voters to begin with.

As Linda Hirschman articulated so well in this Daily Beast column, “Unsatisfied with this product of representative government, Maine law then allowed the reconsideration of the legislative decision by plebiscite, where people just go to the polls and vote on the one oppressive opportunity themselves, rather than electing representatives with many interests to balance. Unmodified by the diversity of interests, they got to vote on their litmus test issue alone.”