A Winning Proposition: UUs, progressives employ new strategy to defeat discrimination in Arizona

In the two years following the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court's ruling that paved the way for the state's first-in-the-nation recognition of same-sex marriages, marriage equality suffered a string of setbacks. Opponents were successful in rallying their base and passing amendments to dozens of state constitutions around the nation explicitly banning the practice.

But last November, Arizona became the first state to vote down such an amendment, bucking a trend in which residents in twenty-seven states—more than half the country—had voted to amend their constitutions to define marriage as an exclusively heterosexual institution.

The amendment was defeated by a coalition of progressive organizations, gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender (GLBT) activists, and liberal religious groups including Unitarian Universalist congregations, by employing a new electoral strategy that advocates say could be used in future campaigns.

"Progressive politics need faith communities really badly," said Kyrsten Sinema, a state representative from central Phoenix who spearheaded the coalition, known as Arizona Together . "Sometimes it feels like evangelicals have claimed faith values. We need to show that's not true, but we need strong voices to do that. I can't overemphasize the importance of faith involvement in social justice."

Sinema, who said she is not affiliated with any denomination, said working with Unitarian Universalists and other progressive congregations was an integral part of the campaign's success. "I can't think of a single meeting that wasn't held in a church," she said, adding the campaign was started in a UU church in Paradise Valley (the Unitarian Universalist Church of Phoenix ).

Rev. Rod Richards, minister of the UU Church of Southeast Arizona , said regaining the religious ground from Christian conservatives isn't easy, particularly in conservative areas such as Sierra Vista , where his church is based.

"The evangelicals, the religious right, are pretty strong here. There are tons of Christian stations on the radio," Richards said.

So when Richards wrote a letter to the editor  of the local newspaper ridiculing the logic of banning same-sex marriages—and relating his experiences as a minister counseling married couples in difficult times—he was surprised by the positive reception it received.

"Protecting the sanctity of marriage by banning gay marriage? Oh please! That's like supporting a constitutional amendment in 1920 banning women from voting to protect the sanctity of elections," Richards wrote in his letter.

"I got published and I got some very good feedback," Richards said. "I was very surprised. I expected a lot more negative response, actually."

Rev. Diane Dowgiert had hardly settled in to her new calling as minister of the UU Church of Tucson  last August when she received a call from a GLBT group asking for her assistance in helping defeat the measure.

"They were particularly interested in addressing the issue from a faith perspective," Dowgiert said. "The prevailing thought here is that same-gender relationships are prohibited by people of faith. And we wanted to say, 'No, that's not true.'"

The work of Dowgiert and her congregants culminated in a large interfaith service held in their home church just a month before the election. Called "Together for Love," the service drew hundreds of celebrants, including forty religious leaders from dozens of Christian denominations, as well as followers of Judaism, Buddhism, Hinduism, and Sikhism.

Rallying religious and secular progressives and channeling that energy is important, said Sinema. But to be effective, to actually win at the ballot box, activists need to adopt a new way of approaching advocacy work.

"As progressives, we have to be willing to work in ways that are unfamiliar to us. We have to be willing to learn new strategies and tactics to win." Sinema said the strategy the Arizona coalition employed was also used with similar success this past November in overturning an anti-abortion law by a popular vote in one of the reddest states in the country, South Dakota .

The strategy has three components to it, Sinema said. The first calls for extensive demographic research, in order to understand the values and issues most important to the electorate. The second phase is "to tell the truth," to find real-life examples of people who will be harmed by a law passing or not passing.

And the third component, the most challenging, is to remain disciplined, to work within the confines of the electorates' values and gut instincts, and avoid turning the argument into one based on righteousness.

"It's a very simple strategy, but it's very hard to execute," Sinema said. What Arizona Together's research showed was that the amendment proposition could be defeated by connecting the bill to its effects on unmarried, retired couples because the amendment also would have placed a ban on recognizing domestic partnerships. Heterosexual couples, who might choose not to marry because of issues related to their pensions and other retirement benefits, would lose a slew of rights they currently enjoy.

By focusing on this aspect of the story, Arizona Together convinced a majority of voters it wasn't worth depriving seniors of rights just to codify homosexual discrimination into the state constitution.

But many activists were upset and called on Sinema to instead focus on the values of same-sex relationships. "I told them, this is not the time to feel good. You'll feel good on election night. Now is the time to make the voters feel good."

"As progressives, we tend to be high on the horse, to say, 'I'm right and just.' And that's why we lose all the time," Sinema said. "I was one of those people, until I won. And then I realized it's much more fun to win."

Freedom to Marry, for All People

Unitarian Universalist Association
25 Beacon St. | Boston, MA 02108 | 617-742-2100