Did you get robo-called this week?

If not, what’s wrong with you?

It seems that almost everybody who is anybody in Vermont got the calls, by opponents of the gay marriage bill, and some folks were plenty miffed about it. They complained to their local newspaper or the Secretary of State’s office, in some cases suspecting political dirty tricks .

In the blogosphere in and out of Vermont appeared allegations that the National Organization for Marriage, which organized the automated telephone calls, was a “front group” established by the Mormon Church.

But robo-calls, which are used by candidates and causes across the ideological spectrum, are legal, and the NOM seems to have followed the rules by identifying itself at the end of the calls. That’s being transparent, not sneaky.

As to “front groups,” they, too, are legal and used across the political spectrum. Whether this one was started by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints is open to debate. If so, the Church appears to have violated no law.

None of which means that the calls do not portend some difficult days ahead here. Perhaps Vermonters should fasten their seat belts. The state could be in for a politically bumpy 18 months.

Not because there is anything necessarily wrong (though there is certainly something aggravating) with robo-calls. But because they are a sign that political big bucks from outside the state may be coming into it, increasing the likelihood that the discussion over this contentious issue will get more intense, and possibly much more divisive.

The likely impending defeat of the same-sex marriage bill (it passed the House, but with not enough votes to override Gov. Jim Douglas’s promised veto) means that the issue will stay front-and-center until Election Day, 2010. In fact, it might be only a slight exaggeration to suggest that the political campaigns – for governor and for the Legislature – began last night. Considering all the economic and budget battles, it’s too early to say that gay marriage will be the dominant issue. But it will be a big one.

So far this year, outside operatives and outside money have played a relatively minor role in the marriage debate, a smaller role than during the civil unions debate of 2000.

That may not last. Pro gay-marriage forces from California and elsewhere are planning activities throughout the Northeast in coming months

Whether or not the National Organization of Marriage is a creature of the Mormon Church, it is allied with it, and with its prodigious fund-raising powers. The robo-calls of this week were cheap. NOM has the capacity to do much more. In last year’s contentious Proposition 8 campaign in California, which overturned a state Supreme Court decision authorizing gay marriage,  NOM spent more than $1 million.

Whatever the specific impact of this week’s robo-calls, their presence indicates that NOM is likely to continue to be active here. In raw numbers, the dollars spent here will not approach California levels. But they could be more than enough to change the way politics is conducted in Vermont, perhaps just for this election cycle, perhaps for longer.

Nor are the proponents of gay marriage likely to be outspent. This is a battle in which both armies have roughly equal access to money and equal passionate commitment to their cause.

No one expects Beth Robinson and her Vermont Freedom to Marry allies to stop fighting. They got a huge majority in the Senate and a substantial one in the House. Only one office-holder stands between them and victory. They will go after him. So far this year, their side has dominated the debate inside the state’s borders. It’s the opponents who need more outside help. These robo-calls could be the first sign that they are going to get it.

Robo-calls are legal, Constitutionally protected  political activity. They are also probably a waste of time and money.

Yale University Professor Donald Green, the co-author of a book on the subject (Get out the Vote: How To Increase Voter Turnout Brookings Institute, 2008), said studies show that robo-calls do nothing to increase voter turnout, and you “don’t see that much effect on persuasion, either.”

Robo-calls are inexpensive, he said, and politicians who use them are “hoping to get a small effect by paying small amount of money.” But the effect is so small, he said, that even in close races it was not clear that robo-calling was decisive. According to an article in Newsweek last October, half the people who get robo-calls hang up in the first ten seconds.

It’s hard to see how the calls could have been decisive for last night’s vote in the Vermont House of Representatives. The final count was pretty much what had been predicted before the calls began. House members had already been deluged by letters, emails and personal visits from their constituents. It’s hard to believe that any of them didn’t know what the voters wanted.

Robo-calls can be and have been used for political dirty tricks. Often they provide false information about an opposing candidate, or are used as part of a “push poll,” in which respondents are asked questions such as, “would you vote for John Jones if you knew he approved of terrorism.”

But that’s not what the NOM robo-calls did. They urged people who answered the phones to call their legislators (providing the name and phone number of the representative) urging them to “support Governor Jim Douglas” in opposing the same-sex marriage bill.

Then, to comply with federal law, the message identified the calling organization and provided a telephone number, 804-934-1092, in Richmond, Virginia.

NOM does not seem to have violated any Vermont regulation, either. As of yesterday, it had not yet registered as a lobbyist, which it would have to do if it spent more than $500 (not on the calls, but on staff time arranging for the Vermont robo-call operation), according to Kathy DeWolfe, head of the Secretary of State’s Election Division.

As to the NOM-Mormon connection, Maggie Gallagher, NOM’s president, says there is none.

“We’re an inter-faith, secular, organization,” she said. We have Protestants, Mormons, Catholics, Jews, and if you know any atheists who are against same-sex marriage I’d love to talk to them.”

Besides, she said, “there’s no reason why people involved in churches can’t help found secular organizations. There would be nothing underhanded in any church helping to found secular or interfaith organizations.”

The claim that the Mormon Church did start NOM comes from Fred Karger of Californians Against Hate, which opposed the California proposition that outlawed gay marriage. On the organization’s web site, Karger wrote, ” the Mormon church appears to have created the National Organization for Marriage… as a Mormon front group, exactly as they did with a very similar organization called Hawaii’s Future Today (HFT) in that state in 1995.”

Karger has obtained copies of letters from high-ranking Church officials which seem to demonstrate that the Church was instrumental in setting up the Hawaii group. But his most recent letter is from 1998. Gallagher said NOM was founded only two years ago. There are prominent Mormons in its hierarchy, but its chairman of the board is Robert P. George , the McCormick Professor of Jurisprudence at Princeton University, and a well-known conservative Catholic intellectual. NOM is based in Princeton.

But the similarity between the Hawaii outfit and NOM, while not conclusive proof that the Church set up NOM, at least suggests a connection. Top officials of the  LDS Church have been working against gay marriage for more than a decade, and not just as individuals; the Church as an institution has been part of the effort. There seems to be little doubt that the Church and NOM worked together in California, where the Church took a leading role in campaigning for Proposition 8.

Because political robo-calls do not try to sell anything or raise money, they are not subject to the national “Do Not Call” system coordinated by the Federal Communications Commission. But there is a voluntary National Political Do Not Contact Registry with which people can register.

Elsewhere, the Swedish Parliament approved same-sex marriage in that country by a vote of 261 to 22

Here’s a suggestion: how about before proclaiming that Gov. Jim, Douglas came down on the wrong or the right “side of history” this week, everybody pause and await a little…history.

Who tends to make her own decisions at a time of her own choosing.

Not that Douglas’s decision to announce that he would veto the gay marriage bill does not need analysis. But the analysis could use a little humility. How this will all play out in the end will be known in the end, whatever and whenever that is. Not before.

To begin with, there is no reason not  to accept the governor at his word when he says he genuinely opposes the bill. Contrary to what may be public opinion, politicians do have real values, feelings, and predilections. So when Douglas said, “like President Obama and other leaders on both sides of the aisle, I believe that marriage should remain between a man and woman,” he probably meant it.

(As, it seems, does the President. Yes, it’s the safer political opinion, but according to several reports from folks close to the White House, Obama means it).

But sincerity is in no way inconsistent with calculation. To the contrary, it is common for people – and not just politicians – to conclude that what is in their interest also reflects their values.

In this case, it is easy to see why killing the bill – or at least doing his best to kill it – is in Douglas’s political interest.

First of all, most Vermonters who are so pro-gay marriage that they might vote against him on this issue alone are going to vote against him anyway. They tend to be Democrats and liberals, who don’t vote for any Republican, even this one.

Sure, lots of Republicans and conservatives favor gay marriage. For one thing, lots of Republicans and conservatives are gay, and some of them want to get married. No doubt  some of them are plenty miffed at the governor right now. But miffed enough 19 months from now to vote for a Democrat? A few (perhaps the gays who were hoping to get married) but not many.

So in making his announcement Wednesday, Douglas was angering (mostly) his political foes. But he was placating his political base. In Vermont, unlike most of the rest of the country, the anti-gay marriage side is the minority. But it is not a small minority, and it is mostly Republican. Incumbent office-holders do not like to displease their base.

Because doing so threatens to create the one thing incumbent office-holders hate most – a primary.

At first glance, it seems absurd even to consider the possibility that Jim Douglas – who is all that stands between the Vermont Republican Party and annihilation – could lose a primary. But here are two scenarios under which it just might happen:

1-A really competitive Democratic primary leaving only the most conservative voters to choose a Republican ballot next year;

2-A really un-competitive Democratic primary inspiring thousands of Democrats to meddle in the GOP primary to vote for the challenger, who’d presumably be easier to beat in the general election.

Then there’s scenario three: not a primary but an independent challenger from the right in the general election. Sure, this is the state in which the so-called religious right is probably weaker than anywhere. Still, incumbent office-holders dislike third-party challenges almost as much as they abhor primaries.

All this is speculation. If Douglas and his advisors have been talking of such matters, no word of the discussions has leaked out. Nor is there any evidence that the anti-gay marriage faction has transmitted any political threat to the governor.

But perhaps it didn’t have to. Craig Benson, head of the anti-gay marriage organization Take it to the People, said (by e-mail message), that to his knowledge “no one credible was saying that Douglas would be challenged in the Primary.”

But, Benson added, ” every once in a while …a ‘bad’ choice by a top Republican does bring out a strong Primary Candidate or GOP split-off party or coalition. Douglas knows this VT political history. No one should ever make the mistake of assuming that Douglas and his team have not fully (explored) all the possibilities on the table before a choice is made.”

There is another reason to suspect that the governor carefully calculated the potential political benefit of his veto threat. The reason is that he probably understands the personal price he might be paying.

To understand that price, it’s necessary to undertake a quick look at Douglas’s political prospects beyond the governorship, and  a very abbreviated assessment of his six years as governor.

His prospects , though he’ll only be 58 this June, are dim. Absent some unlikely political tsunami, he couldn’t beat either Sen. Patrick Leahy or Sen. Bernie Sanders. Even with this move to the right, he’s still far too moderate (just look at how he’s cozying up to Obama) to get a cabinet seat in a Republican administration, if there is one.

So governor of Vermont is what he’s going to be and how he’s going to be remembered. And at the risk of  inspiring opprobrium from the state’s liberal commentariate, one has to say that it’s hard to avoid judging his governorship a success.  It has been free of scandal (not counting his penchant for putting political operatives on the public payroll; but that’s a common and relatively inexpensive abuse). It has been competent. It has been steady. The state pays its bills and has a high credit rating.

But the Douglas years and the Douglas Administration have been neither inspiring nor innovative nor audacious. They have trod no new paths. Douglas’s de facto campaign motto is “Vote for Me. I Won’t Do Much.”

Not a bad motto. Perhaps a governor who doesn’t do much is better than a governor who tried to do a lot. Especially in a state with a gung-ho Legislature. One need not be a conservative Republican to suspect that this state is better off because some of the proposals of the liberal Democrats who run the Legislature never became law.

The essential fact here is that what Douglas did this week is how he will be remembered. He has no other legacy. Improper though it may be to say out loud (this is something reporters often say in private), in making his announcement Wednesday, Douglas determined what will follow the first comma of his obituary (may it not be printed for years), which will start something like, “Former Vermont Gov. Jim Douglas, who stopped his state from becoming the first to enact same-sex marriage without a court order….”

He must know this, and he must know that it could put him on that “wrong side of history.”

Or maybe not. Right now, a substantial majority of Americans oppose gay marriage. According to one recent poll – by the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life -it’s a 59-to 32 percent majority. But that’s only because the margins of everybody over 35 are so huge – two-to-one for respondents in their 40s and 50s, even higher for older folks.

But it isn’t that younger people are overwhelmingly in favor of same-sex unions. They’re split. The younger they are, the more likely they are to be in favor. Maybe, then, teenagers under 18, who are not polled but who will be of voting age in a few years, are even more pro-gay marriage, so in another 15 or 20 years, the majority will be on that side.  Adding to that suspicion is that another fast-growing segment of the population – the college educated -  are also more evenly split, with younger college graduates most likely to be in favor. There is even some indication that the country is getting less religious, especially in the Northeast and most especially in New England, where about a third of the people report themselves un-churched or religiously indifferent.

But then, some people tend to get more conservative as they get older. Some of them even get more religious.

The right side of history, this being a democracy, will probably end up being the side where most of the people are.  Whether Douglas ends up on that side remains un-knowable. What is indisputable is that he has chosen his side.

Whatever else one may say about the gay marriage issue in Vermont this year, it certainly has not been under-discussed. On the front pages and in the opening minutes of the broadcast news programs, the debate over the love that once could not speak its name has refused to shut up.

So you’d think – and no doubt many would hope – that everything that can be said about the situation has been said.

But maybe not. As the process nears its end, the latest developments have revealed a few interesting tidbits, and not just about the same-sex marriage issue.

The first and most obvious (though rarely remarked upon, which is why it is being remarked upon here) is how thoroughly the “pro” side of this debate has become the position of The Establishment.

Everybody knows what The Establishment is, though officially it does not exist. It’s the folks who really run the joint – the leading businesspeople; the bankers, lawyers, and realtors who serve on the United Way boards and all those other do-good (but make no waves) committees; the president, provost, top deans and senior faculty (not including the ones who make waves) at the nearest college or university; the editor and publisher of the newspaper.

Overwhelmingly, if not quite unanimously, The Establishment’s Vermont chapter now favors gay marriage.

An extraordinary development, when you think about it. Here is a cause that only a decade or so ago was embraced by only a fringe of the fringe. Remember, the Legislature passed civil unions in 2000, probably against the wishes of most Vermonters, only because it was effectively under court order to do so. Back then, even most politicians who supported civil unions were careful to point out that they opposed same-sex marriage.

Now the pro-gay marriage stance seems to be the default position in corporate boardrooms and country club locker rooms.

Otherwise it’s unlikely that Tom Torti , president of the Lake Champlain Regional Chamber of Commerce, would have endorsed the bill so enthusiastically before the Senate Judiciary Committee last week. Chamber presidents tend to talk to their members, who are actually their bosses,  and to be careful not to outrage them

And note how Torti said that by adopting  gay marriage  ”Vermont is poised to reinforce its legacy.” Being in favor of the bill, he was saying, was being a traditional Vermonter, a member of the state’s establishment rather than a rebel.

Clearly, not everyone will agree with that. But it was noteworthy that no business leader challenged Torti. Mike Belya, the legislative director of the Vermont Chamber of Commerce, told the Burlington free Press that his organization would take no position on the gay marriage bill because it wasn’t “a business issue.”

In this case, though, “no position” is the functional equivalent of “it doesn’t bother us.”

At least not enough of “us” to make big deal over it.

Then, of course, there was the Free Press itself, reversing its 1999 position that marriage was not a right and that some discrimination was acceptable. “The years since then have proven our position to be unfounded,” last Wednesday’s editorial said, adding that some of its reasoning was “pure nonsense.”

Rarely do newspapers talk that way about themselves, especially newspapers known for…well, shall we charitably say for not being on the cutting edge. The Free Press’s motto could be “Taking Chances ‘R’ Not Us.” There is reason to presume that the top honchos there knew that what they were doing was good public relations and good business. The Free Press editor and publisher are not fools.

(More debatable is whether they are journalists. By reliable report , both of them attended one of Gov, Jim Douglas’s January speeches to the Legislature, sat in the press section, and…..Arggghhh! applauded. Journalists do not do that. “No Cheering In The Press Box.”  If you want to applaud, go sit with the hacks. They’ll make room for you).

Erasing any doubts that the pro-gay marriage side has become dominant was a thoughtful article explaining the conservative case for gay marriage by Emerson Lynn, the editor and publisher of the St.Albans Messenger, who wrote:

“Marriage connotes commitment. The more couples that seek that commitment, the more stable we are as a society. The greater the barriers to that commitment, the less stable we are. That has been conservative dogma for eons.”

The other interesting new wrinkle has been noticed, but insufficiently documented. This year’s marriage bill seems to be arousing far less passion than did the civil unions legislation in 2000. Perhaps that’s because the actual impact of the civil unions law on the lives of most Vermonters was effectively nil

“On July 1 of that year the sun rose,” Torti noted in his testimony,  ”people went off to work, businesses continued to locate here, tourism continued to flourish and Vermont reinforced its legacy as a state founded on individual rights and tolerance. The doomsday scenarios that were pronounced failed to materialize.”

Those doomsday scenarios mostly had to do with the possible effect of Civil unions on “traditional marriage.” Just what those effects were supposed to be was never spelled out, but we now know what they were: also nil.

Since civil unions became law, Vermont’s divorce rate has gone down, from 4.1 (per thousands of people) in 2000 to 3.6 in 2007.

Because of civil unions? No, of course not. Divorce rates have gone down nationwide, too, but Vermont’s rate of decrease has kept pace, and the state’s divorce rate remains below the national average.

(Though not because of civil unions perhaps because of the state’s disproportionate secularism. This is the state, according to several studies, whose citizens are least likely to be regular religious worshipers. Divorce rates, according to other studies, are highest among Evangelical/Fundamentalist Christians, whose teenage children are also more likely to be sexually active and get pregnant. Perhaps a reason Vermont has a low teen-age pregnancy rate).

What about the marriage rate? That’s gone down, too, from 10.3 in 2000  to 8.6 in 2007. But not because of civil unions. The marriage rate, too, has declined nationwide, and in many states the decline has been greater than in Vermont. In short, civil unions have made no discernible difference to marriage in Vermont, suggesting (though by no means proving) that gay marriage won’t, either.

Of course all this might be wrong. A huge uprising against same-sex marriage might be festering beneath the surface, to emerge after the bill becomes law (if it does) and sweeping supporters out of the Legislature as the “Take Back Vermont” movement did in 2000.

But back then, the bill passed just a few months before the election. This time there would be 19 months after passage before the lawmakers have to face the electorate again. Ample time for other issues to enrage other constituencies.