Marriage won a 31st victory last week with Maine’s Question 1, a referendum to repeal the state’s same-sex-marriage legalization law. Brian S. Brown, executive director of the National Organization for Marriage, talked about the win with National Review Online’s Kathryn Jean Lopez.

KATHRYN JEAN LOPEZ: How did gay marriage get repealed in Maine? BRIAN BROWN: It got repealed because the people of Maine, and the people of the country, for that matter, fundamentally do not support same-sex marriage. We ran a strong campaign in Maine to show voters that redefining marriage has profound consequences for people of faith, families, spouses, and most especially children. Our message resonated with voters, and they had the courage to vote what was in their heart — that marriage is the union between a man and a woman. LOPEZ: Why did voters vote the way they did? Out of conviction? Fear? BROWN: Most people know in their own heart that marriage is between a man and a woman. Marriage has served Maine — and the nation — very well since our founding. In the privacy of the polling place, voters expressed their support for marriage being between a man and a woman. They did this in a state that is recognized as a fairly liberal, blue New England state. Marriage is not simply a “conservative” or “Republican” issue — it is a unifying issue across party, racial, and ideological lines. LOPEZ: Did you expect the victory?

BROWN: We expected the race to be close, but our polling showed us taking a small lead in the days leading up to the election. We went into Election Day being cautiously optimistic. Early returns had us down 48–52. But we were pretty confident already at that point that we had won. Those returns were from precincts that were our least favorable, in the cities. Sure enough, once more favorable districts started reporting, it was clear we had won. We actually called the race before anyone else on our Twitter feed at www.twitter.com/nomtweets. That was a pretty effective way to get the word out. I had people all night calling me from throughout the country, a few of whom seemed to think we had lost. I said, “Watch, we’re going to win this.” LOPEZ: What is the significance of the relative closeness of the results? It wasn’t exactly a landslide. BROWN: It was a very solid win — 53 percent of the vote. This was a bigger margin than in California against a much better funded (given the size of the state) and organized opponent. We ran the type of campaign in Maine that everyone said the “No on Prop 8” movement should have run in California. Our opponents raised vastly more money than we did. They had a far superior ground operation. They responded immediately to all of our ads. I think people may not understand the magnitude of what we were up against. They had four years to build an effective grassroots organization and claimed 8,000 volunteers in a state with a population of only 1.3 million. Still they lost — and by a larger margin than in California. Given this, it is hard to see how they convince their base to fund another campaign. At this point, they are 0 for 31. LOPEZ: What were the demographics of those who won you the victory? BROWN: We won across a range of demographics. There was no exit polling, and it is too soon to have conducted any analysis of the vote. However, our final pre-election polling showed us with strong majorities among Catholics, Evangelicals, and Protestants. Among voters 18–44, we trailed by only two points. We were ahead among those who were 45 or older. Our message moved voters across demographic lines. LOPEZ: What number victory is this for the National Organization for Marriage? BROWN: NOM has been involved in four of these fights and has never lost. We were formed in June of 2007, when I joined NOM as executive director, with Maggie Gallagher as our president and Prof. Robert George as our chairman. We have played roles in the marriage ballot-initiative/referendum battles from that time on: Arizona, Florida, California, and Maine. In Arizona and Florida, we only helped with a relatively minor amount of funding. But we were the single largest donor to both the California effort and the Maine effort: We gave roughly $1.8 million to each state. In Maine we were more directly involved with the creation and direction of the entire campaign. I served as one of three executive-committee members on the Stand for Marriage Maine committee. Maine benefited from the guidance of Schubert Flint Public Affairs (which also serves as NOM’s national campaign manager), as we were able to bring them in to guide the campaign in Maine. Because Schubert Flint had run the campaign in California, they had a great model to work from. I cannot say enough good things about Frank Schubert and Jeff Flint. Sometimes “social conservatives” seem to see losing as par for the course — even when we keep winning on the marriage issue. Some people on our side seem to have drunk deeply of the other side’s rhetoric and internalized it. I mean, 30 of 30 victories and we still had people tell us we were doomed to lose in Maine? Frank and Jeff kept the focus on how effective our message is and didn’t pay attention to the naysayers. LOPEZ: What do you think the significance of that is? BROWN: It shows that when people have the opportunity to vote, they reject same-sex marriage. It shows the absurdity of the other side’s claim that same-sex marriage is “inevitable.” Not only are they not able to capture any ground, but Maine shows that they are vulnerable to losing what they see as their own turf. The 2010 elections will see major efforts in Iowa and New Hampshire, for example, to put in place the tools necessary to undo the same-sex-marriage regimes forced on those states by their courts or legislatures. LOPEZ: Do you worry about court fights and backlash in Maine like we’ve seen in California? BROWN: Yes. We are concerned that some in the pro–gay marriage community will react violently, just as they did in California. This is ironic because they supposedly stand for tolerance; a not-insignificant number of gay-marriage activists have no tolerance for the majority of the country that opposes them. By the tenor of some of the e-mail and phone messages I have received in the wake of our victory in Maine, I fear that the tendency toward threats, intimidation, and violence on the part of gay-marriage advocates is increasing. You can only spew rhetoric equating those of us who support traditional marriage to bigots, racists, and KKK members for so long before some people within your movement begin to take it seriously, and treat us as such — rejecting our right to respect in the public square, with some even believing that they are justified in the use of threats, intimidation, and violence. BROWN: You only need to read the declarations from those harassed after Proposition 8 to realize that this is not an exaggerated fear. The treatment of the LDS church in the wake of Proposition 8 is especially troubling, rooted as it is in anti-religious bigotry. Tom Messner’s recent Heritage Foundation piece “The Price of Proposition 8” highlights the extent of such activity. LOPEZ: Around Election Day, news broke of a high-school counselor who’d appeared in a commercial opposing gay marriage, and as a result became the subject of an ethics complaint before the Maine licensing board. I was struck by the complaint against him, which indicated that he had a “long history of being unsupportive of GLBTQ issues.” That used to be called an exercise of free speech, didn’t it? Is this indicative of the state of the debate on the marriage issue? BROWN: This is a classic example of the consequences that can occur with passage of same-sex marriage. Don Mendell is a public-school counselor who appeared in a “Yes on Question 1” campaign commercial. He is a highly decorated school counselor and was nominated as Maine Teacher of the Year. Because he spoke out in favor of protecting marriage, a complaint was filed seeking to have his license as a counselor revoked. Yet, another teacher, an activist who headed up some gay-advocacy groups in the schools, appeared in a “No on Question 1” commercial. She even got permission of the public school to film that commercial in her school. The message is unmistakable: If you support gay marriage, you will be celebrated, but if you support traditional marriage, you will be punished. LOPEZ: What is the signature controversy in Washington State all about, and what’s happening there? BROWN: The gay-marriage movement has become very adept at intimidating supporters of traditional marriage. This happened in California, where donors were continuously harassed. Their names and addresses were even put on the Internet in a mapping program so gay-marriage supporters could see where they lived or worked. Because of this, there were concerns in Washington State that if the names of petition signers were publicly disclosed they would be harassed. The federal court agreed and has prevented publication of those names. LOPEZ: What is going on in California? BROWN: The gay-marriage community is split on whether to move forward with an initiative in 2010 or in 2012. The passage of Question 1 will likely have a powerful impact on their decision making, but the ball is in their court. The Protect Marriage group is working hard to expand their organization and educate voters. There also are several court cases that are underway, and they are working hard to protect Prop 8 in those cases. LOPEZ: Where’s the next big marriage debate? Where is NOM focusing its resources?

BROWN: New Jersey and New York are top priorities. With the defeat of Governor Corzine in New Jersey, we expect a fierce fight over same-sex marriage in a lame-duck session of the legislature. New York will also be considering this issue soon. The next direct vote will probably be in the District of Columbia, where we are working hard with local coalition partners to put the issue before voters. Predictably, the out-of-touch liberal elites that run the city are doing everything they can to stop a direct vote. The hypocrisy of the City Council’s unanimously supporting D.C. voting rights and then turning around and telling District residents that they are not allowed to vote on marriage is igniting grassroots opposition. Talk about disenfranchising voters. There were about 2,000 residents, overwhelmingly African-American, who had a rally for marriage in D.C. last week. It was great to be linking up arm-in-arm with the Democratic leaders of the District who want to take back their party. Also, last week we heard great testimony before the Board of Elections and City Council from former U.S. congressman Dr. Walter Fauntroy, who organized Martin Luther King Jr.’s March on Washington. Dr. Fauntroy spoke truth to power. He talked about how central voting rights were to the civil-rights movement and to what he and Dr. King were trying to accomplish. And here you have the City Council of our nation’s capital trying to rob the voters of the District of the right to have their say on marriage — and claiming that this is part of the movement for “civil rights.” The fight in Washington, D.C., highlights how the fight to protect marriage is also a fight over civil rights, but not in the way that supporters of same-sex marriage attempt to link the two. The overwhelming majority of African-American voters will not let their history be hijacked by those who would use it to redefine marriage. They understand that the fight over marriage contains within it a fight to protect the civil rights of the individuals and institutions that are willing stand up for the great truth that marriage brings the two halves of humanity together and connects them to the children that may result from that union. They understand it is a fight over what is in the best interest of children and society. They understand it is a fight for the civil right to vote on the issue in places like the District of Columbia. I am proud to be a part of this great movement. – Kathryn Jean Lopez is editor-at-large of National Review Online.