An internal memorandum from one of the country’s leading organizations against same-sex marriage outlined a plan to help its cause by exploiting unease among blacks over the issue.

The undated memo was one of several documents unsealed by a federal judge on Monday in a case in Maine, where the group, the National Organization for Marriage, helped finance a successful ballot initiative in 2009 overturning the state’s legalization of same-sex marriage.

“The strategic goal of the project is to drive a wedge between gays and blacks — two key Democratic constituencies,” the memo says, describing an initiative called the “Not a Civil Right Project.”

The project’s goal, according to the memo, was to recruit blacks who opposed same-sex marriage to represent the group, and then “provoke the gay marriage base into responding by denouncing these spokesmen and women as bigots.”

The group is battling in court to overturn Maine ethics laws that could require it to reveal some donors. The documents, which also discussed the group’s finances, were obtained and circulated by the Human Rights Campaign. The news Web site BuzzFeed reported on the memos on Monday night.

The memos — providing an unusual inside glimpse of the strategic thinking of the country’s most prominent group opposing same-sex marriage — quickly drew attacks from gay rights and civil rights organizations.



“Nothing beats hearing from the horse’s mouth exactly how callous and extremist this group really is,” Joe Solmonese, president of the Human Rights Campaign, said in a statement.

The group’s strategy, the memo suggested, was inspired by Proposition 8, the successful effort in 2008 to outlaw same-sex marriage in California. The referendum passed with strong support from black voters, who had turned out heavily to vote for Barack Obama for president.





Legislation to legalize same-sex marriage in Maryland failed in 2011, in part because of opposition from some black religious leaders, who objected to advocates’ labeling of same-sex marriage as a civil rights issue and persuaded some Democratic lawmakers to withhold support. But a few months later, in New York, same-sex marriage passed with strong support from black lawmakers, and the Maryland legislature narrowly approved the measure there last month.

In a New York Times/CBS News Poll in February, 29 percent of black respondents said gay couples should be allowed to legally marry, while 23 percent said they should be allowed to form civil unions. But 35 percent said there should be no legal recognition of a gay couple’s relationship, and 12 percent had no opinion. Among all respondents, 40 percent said they should be allowed to legally marry, while just 5 percent had no opinion.

Gay rights groups have recruited black leaders to advocate on behalf of same-sex marriage. The Human Rights Campaign created a series of videos last year including prominent African-Americans, like Julian Bond, the former N.A.A.C.P. chairman.

Brian S. Brown, executive director of the National Organization for Marriage, defended the group’s approach, saying, “African-Americans overwhelmingly oppose same-sex marriage.”

Though the group had fought in court to keep the documents sealed, Mr. Brown said on Tuesday that he was “actually thankful that they gave us a platform to let us make clear that it is the Democratic Party that is creating the division.”

He added that President Obama has not added same-sex marriage to the Democratic platform.

The memo also discussed other groups’ efforts to organize boycotts of businesses that opposed same-sex marriage in California and elsewhere. “One key advantage we now have is the capacity to protect the identity of our donors,” the memo reads.

The National Organization for Marriage is organized as a nonprofit social welfare organization, so unlike purely political groups, it is not required to disclose its donors’ identities. But Maine law requires any individual or group that raises or spends more than $5,000 to influence a ballot question to disclose the names of donors who gave more than $100 for that purpose.

During the 2009 ballot fight, the state’s ethics commission began an investigation into the group for failing to make those disclosures. In response, the group sued, arguing that the state’s law is unconstitutional.