Twitter
StumbleUpon
Facebook
Delicious
Digg
Newsvine
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiGay Marriage Repealed in Maine
Yes on 1 claims victory, repeal opponents 'will regroup'
PORTLAND, Maine - Voters on Tuesday repealed the state's same sex marriage law after an emotionally charged campaign that drew large numbers to the polls and focused national attention on Maine.
![[A lesbian couple attends a rally in defense of same-sex marriage. Maine voters have rejected a law allowing same-sex couples to marry, in a major setback to gay rights advocates hoping the northeastern US state would become the first in the country where voters directly approve gay marriage. (AFP/Getty Images/File/Max Whittaker)]](http://www.commondreams.org/files/article_images/gaymarriage_maine_defeated.jpg "gaymarriage_maine_defeated.jpg")
With 87 percent of precincts reporting, the campaign to overturn
Maine's same-sex marriage law won with 53 percent of the vote vs. 47
percent opposed to Question 1, according to unofficial results compiled
by the Bangor Daily News.
Gay-marriage opponents claimed victory shortly after 12:30 a.m. Wednesday.
"Question 1 has passed," Frank Schubert, campaign manager of Stand for Marriage Maine, announced in Portland. "It has all come together tonight and the institution of marriage has been preserved."
About 40 people who worked on the Yes on 1 campaign cheered as they heard the announcement by computer hookup at Jeff's Catering in Brewer.
"We went up against tremendous odds," Marc Mutty, public affairs director for the Roman Catholic Diocese of Portland who has been on loan to the campaign, said from Portland. "We all know we were the little guy going up against the big guy, but we prevailed. We prevailed because the people of Maine - the silent majority - the folks back home spoke with their votes.
"What they had to say," Mutty continued, "is marriage matters because it's between a man and a woman. [This campaign] has never been about hating gays, but about preserving marriage and only about preserving marriage, and that's what we did tonight."
The defenders of Maine's gay marriage law - which passed the
Legislature in the spring but was never allowed to take effect -
acknowledged being behind, but held out hope for a bump as the final
votes and absentee ballots were counted.
In a defiant speech to several hundred lingering supporters, No on 1
campaign manager Jesse Connolly pledged that his side "will not quit
until we know where every single one of these votes lives."
"We're not short-timers; we are here for the long haul," Connolly told the crowd, some of whom wiped away tears as he spoke. "Whether it's just all night and into the morning, or next week or next month or next year, we will be here. We'll be fighting, we'll be working. We will regroup."
The Yes on 1 campaign, led by the group Stand for Marriage Maine, built its lead by winning votes in rural Maine as well as in some larger towns such as the Roman Catholic and Franco-American stronghold of Lewiston.
In contrast, the effort to defend Maine's gay marriage law won strong support in places such as Portland, where 73 percent voted against Question 1, and majority support in Bangor.
Throughout the campaign leading up to Tuesday's closely watched election, both sides had said that turnout would be key. State election officials estimated earlier Tuesday that turnout likely would top 50 percent.
But while gay marriage supporters hoped the high voter interest would provide a boost, it was not enough to make Maine the first state in the nation where gay marriage won at the polls rather than in the legislature or courts.
Despite the outcome, Mary Bonauto, a No on 1 executive board member and attorney with Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders, said she was never more proud to live in Maine and raise a family with her long-term partner. She was especially proud of the attention the No on 1 campaign brought to the values shared by all families, regardless of sexual orientation.
"I look around at the 8,000 volunteers, and the vast majority are not gay people," Bonauto said. "So that gives me hope that, regardless of the outcome, that this discussion has changed the state."
At the No on 1 election-watch party, what began as an exuberant crowd of more than 1,000 began to steadily dwindle as the Yes campaign's lead held steady. By 12:30 a.m. Wednesday, a few hundred die-hard gay marriage supporters still remained in the ballroom as Connolly spoke, but the disappointment was palpable.
With relatively few high-profile elections around the country, the national media spotlight is on Maine. Had Question 1 been defeated, Maine would have become the first state in the nation where same-sex marriage was legalized at the ballot box.
Secretary of State Matt Dunlap, after witnessing activity at several polling stations and hearing from clerks around the state, said he believed at least 50 percent of voters may have cast ballots in the off-year election dominated by the gay marriage issue.
"What I have seen around the state has been steady to very busy turnout all day," Dunlap said.
The lead-up to Tuesday's historic election began back in April when more than 3,000 people crammed into the Augusta Civic Center for a public hearing on the bill.
Lawmakers sat through more than 10 hours of impassioned, sometimes tearful testimony from longtime gay and lesbian partners as well as children of same-sex couples. The bill's opponents were equally passionate, often citing religious objections to redefining marriage from the traditional one-man, one-woman union.
Several weeks later, both chambers of the Legislature signed off on the bill, LD 1020, and sent it with some trepidation to Gov. John Baldacci, who had been on record previously as favoring civil unions and domestic partnerships over same-sex marriages.
But Baldacci immediately signed the bill, making Maine the fifth state in the nation to grant gay and lesbian couples marriage rights.
"When history shines a spotlight on you, you have an opportunity to advance the cause or to let the cause slip backwards. I chose to move things forward," Baldacci said recently.
Even before Baldacci had put his pen to the bill, however, opponents announced the petition drive to gather enough signatures to trigger a "people's veto" referendum. They easily surpassed the 55,000-plus required signatures.
In the months since, the two campaigns have spent more than $6.5 million on the campaigns, with money flowing into their coffers from organizations and individuals from outside of Maine.
Although the campaign is over, the Rev. Bob Emrich of Palmyra said that the work of traditional marriage supporters was not.
"This doesn't mean it's the end of our work," he said. "We must begin building bridges and we may have to mend fences. People on the other side were doing what they believed in, too.
"God has given us this victory," Emrich continued, "and it is very important for us to recognize that he is the one who put the energy into this campaign. So let's not be so arrogant to forget this. It's very appropriate to pause for a moment of prayer."
74 Comments so far
Show AllThere are several points that I think should be repeated, but seldom are:
1. Gay people are an invaluable resource to any society, and certainly to the U.S. Check out http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_gay,_lesbian_or_bisexual_people for a listing of famous gays without whom our lives would be measurably less worth living. (There are other sites as well.) While I wouldn't encourage gays to be proud of being gay, they have every right to be proud of the tremendous contributions made by gays, and in no way deserve to be punished by limiting their rights.
2. The voters of Maine who voted to limit the right to liberty and the pursuit of happiness of gay people, and the right to children of gay people to family life, constitute quite a bit less than a majority of the citizens of Maine, even if a slight majority of those who voted. The law ought to protect the rights of everyone, gay, straight, young, and old, not just the minority who voted to prevent others from enjoying those rights.
3. Reasons to favor legalized gay marriage are obvious if you think about it. The campaign claims by opponents of legalization are designed to prevent people from thinking about it. These reasons include: that legalization will promote marriage by allowing more marriages; that it will improve marriage by reducing the number of marriages between incompatible partners (gays and straights); that it will increase the number of families available for foster parenting; that it will reduce promiscuity and STDs among gays, and to a lesser extent among straights; that it will provide healthy role models for gay kids; that it will provide equal rights and benefits to straight kids of gay couples; and so on. I'm sure you know all the rational arguments against legalization (sorry, I can't think of any right now).
The worst thing that happened in this referendum is that American citizens voted to limit and destroy the civil rights of a minority group. That in itself is absolutely anti-American. It seems that, historically, some Americans are always ready to put other people in jail or even to death for being different. The results of this vote are so evil that the entire thing is worthy of the Bush years. Oh, wait, I forgot, Maine is buried in the past, years behind the times.
The stupid Catholic priest says it was not about the hatred of gays but about preserving the sanctity of marriage. ROTFLMAO
Hey, priest!
You speak garbage!
You will go to Hell, priest, for lying!
The submissive authoritarians of Maine are eager to kow tow to the demonic Mormon's opinions of their California betters. Californians tell them what to think and they obey, no problem. The easy way to create a conservative is simply to beat your child frequently.
That is why James Dobson insists to his Christian Evangelist flock that they beat their children severely. The younger the better. The child's entire life then becomes dominated by fear. And all his or her perceptions of the world are seen through the filter of fear. That is the definition of a conservative authoritarian submissive.
The only good-will conservatives extend is contingent upon the submission of the recipient to authority. Conservatism abuses tradition in a veiled bid to perpetrate class hierarchy, authoritarianism, and oppression. Most conservatives in the USA are motivated by fear, and mostly fear of the unknown. Conservative leaders are motivated by the domination instinct. The enabling of conservatives by US liberals is motivated by fear of reprisal, and/or by greed.
"God has given us this victory"
The conservative's fear stems from the detachment of his feet from the earth, or more literally, the detachment of his mind and spirit from the source of life, the earth, and the cosmos.
We will keep huffing and puffing until we blow in the door on gay marriage.
However the struggle for gay equality — marital or otherwise — is a minimalist demand, a petition which can be granted or refused, and which, even if granted, can be rescinded when it is expedient to do so (as here in Maine). Equal rights within a flawed, unjust system is a wrongheaded concept, a call for parity on straight terms within a pre-existing framework of institutions and laws devised by and for the heterosexual majority.
What I want is gay liberation — integration based on demolishing existing straight culture and existing LGBTQ culture.
It is obvious that we cannot rely on the State to protect our rights, especially on this matter. Despite what liberal theory teaches, a State is not a neutral arbiter between “interest groups” — it is a weapon which one class uses to impose its will on others. The bourgeois state imposes the bourgeois family — heteronormative, homophobic, aimed at transmitting property in the class that has it and obedience to authority in the class that doesn’t.
I see the best way of achieving liberation as being via a complete social transformation. This will entail the struggle for a socialist society in which all people have the same rights and opportunities, and in which homophobia and its minder, patriarchal religion, has been flushed down the toilet of history
Sally A. Your sentiments were voiced some 200+ years ago by James Madison and I quote:
"In our Government it is, perhaps, less necessary to guard against the abuse in the executive department than any other; because it is not the stronger branch of the system, but the weaker. It therefore must be leveled against the legislative, for it is the most powerful, and most likely to be abused, because it is under the least control. Hence, so far as a declaration of rights can tend to prevent the exercise of undue power, it cannot be doubted but such declaration is proper. But I confess that I do conceive, that in a Government modified like this of the United States, the great danger lies rather in the abuse of the community than in the legislative body. The prescriptions in favor of liberty ought to be leveled against that quarter where the greatest danger lies, namely, that which possesses the highest prerogative of power. But it is not found in either the executive or legislative departments of Government, but in the body of the people, operating by the majority against the minority." Madison's introduction of the Bill of Rights to the Constitutional Convention. The text here presented can be found in The Annals of Congress, House of Representatives, First Congress, 1st Session, pp 448-460
Further, Tomas Jefferson related to the Danbry Baptist Church that it is not for government to overstep its bounds and support one religious group over another.
BOTH of the truisms have been ignored by the Religious Right who choose to impose their dogma, doctrine and beliefs upon the entire citizenry of our states and the nation. These battles are leading to a massive showdown that will make our fight for the inalienable civil right of marriage, as stated by the US Supreme court in Loving v Virgina 1967 "people have the basic right to marry whom so ever they choose to marry", look like a marshmallow roast.
The 1st Amendment of the US Constitution states it very clearly: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;"
These types of enactments of law are in direct violation of the principles of our Constitution, where in Congress (and it follows that states and the government -- the people) cannot enforce upon all citizens the establishment of laws or regulations regarding religion. The citizens of each of the different states which have enacted such laws and based their arguments upon religious dogma doctrine and beliefs have blatantly violate the Constitution.
Frankly if it were me I would appeal this decision as violating the 1st and the 14th Amendments of the US Constitution before a federal court and let the US Supreme Court decide.
KEEP ALL RELIGION OUT OF ALL GOVERNMENT AND GOVERNMENTAL RULE OUT OF ALL RELIGIONS --- PERIOD!!!
IT IS THE RESPONSIBILITY OF ALL CITIZENS TO PROTECT ALL INALIENABLE CIVIL RIGHTS OF ALL CITIZENS.
Hah hah! Brilliant! I was considering writing a long post on the problems with the above statement, but you did most of it in one rhetorical question. Nice!
Hey! Where did the comment I was posting about go?
I have thought all day about the couple in this photo and cannot feel anything but empathy, sadness, and anger at this situation. First of all, when I look at this photo, I don't see a lesbian couple, but rather two women, made in the image of God, who have found happiness in the life that they have with each other. I am genuinely happy for them. By the way, I am a Christian and I do know a lot of Christians who feel the same way that I do. Please don't lump us all together, we are all individuals.
I feel great empathy and sadness for them, because as a heterosexual married man, I cannot imagine how I would feel if the people in this photo were me and my wife. I cannot begin to understand what it would feel like if I had to justify my relationship and love for my wife. I cannot fathom hoping and praying that my neighbors, coworkers, and relatives would cast a vote that would affirm my marriage to my wife.
I feel anger that this decision was even put to a vote, which had the effect of pitting neighbor against neighbor. How would I feel now knowing that the people that I know voted against my marriage?
And once again religious paranoia trumps human rights. How sad that so many people feel they need to interfere in the lives of others. In a Country that prides itself on individual liberty? And you thought Obama was trying to take away your rights.
So one by one our rights will be taken away by religious zealots hoping to bring back the good old days of the Dark Ages.
Congrats Maine, you're one step closer to the very thing we fought to get away from. Religious based persecutions of innocent citizens.
What else are we going to have to ask permission to do?
Should we just toss the Constitution now or are you still need it just in case?
Please, don't take your frustrations out on "Maine".... In case you'd missed it, it was the Maine LEGISLATURE that had originally passed legislation to allow same sex marriage. This was quite a progressive step for a small (population wise) state. Also our governor had come out publically in support of same sex marriages. This was NOT a 'back door' approach through the court system as so many other states have taken.... MAINE per se, is not the real culprit here.
I believe that the 'citizens' referendum that we voted on yesterday was funded and by in large orchestrated by out of state monies. I don't have any proof of that, only a gut feeling. Lots of Maine people, like myself, believe that the equality will come in time.
I agree with your comment about "religious paranoia". I was once told that the difference between a true "religion" and a "cult", is that the cult would preach a message of 'exclusion', to wit, that 'only those who believe as we' are acceptable. Religion on the other had should preach a message of 'inclusion', that ALL people are equal in the eyes of God. Of course, this was just one old man's views at the time (40+ yrs ago), but had the "NO on 1" group set out this message, perhaps some of the 'faithful' would have been more introspective and receptive to an alternative message.
just an opinion.... peace
So, almost half the people of Maine want this to be legal. These people were not voting for a lottery or new turnpike--they were voting for a fundamental right that any minority should have. This is clearly unconstitutional for two reasons: that the majority cannot vote to take away the rights of a minority and that there should be a separation of church and state. Gay marriage will be legal in Maine, as it will be in all the US and the world, eventually... after the backward bigots die. Until then, keep on fighting for justice.
This issue was NOT about sexuality, or sex. IT was about equality under the law. One need not be "homosexual" in order to support equality under the law.
It was not that many years ago when "inter-racial" marriages were ILLEGAL in many states. Many of the same groups that opposed different races coming together are the same ones today flying the banner about keeping "marriage" between a man and woman. "Civil Unions" are NOT the same and DO NOT give the same protections or advantages under the law. It's a re-application of the old "separate but equal" argument used during school intergration movement days.
It is good that we have differences of opinions and that we take our differences to the polls. This does NOT end the war, it is only a lost battle in the civil rights movement.
The real battle is in trying to educate people that having a different opinion does NOT mean that we have the RIGHT to force others to accept our opinion or to live by our opinion. Consentual adult behavior that does NOT endanger others should never be a matter of governmental concern, ergo, "consentual", "adult" homosexuality should NOT be a matter of law. IF one can agree to that, than it should follow that gay marriage should be a argued as a matter of equality, and NOT about life style choices. (just my opinion)
How many child abusers & wife beaters voted to preserve marriage? not to mention divorcées and deeply closeted men & women?
Why anyone would want to get married is beyond me, but I still believe everyone should have the right to make their own choice about it.
This just reaffirms my opinion of what a truly shitty country the USA is.
"The only means of strengthening one's intellect is to make up one's mind about nothing, to let the mind be a thoroughfare for all thoughts." - John Keats
After reading these comments, one wonders____Do you have to be a homosexual to belong to the Progressive community? I thought progressives were a trifle broader than that.
"Do you have to be a homosexual to belong to the Progressive community?"
Yes. Yes you do. Didn't you know that? All progressives are gay. Known fact.
Thanks for contributing. -_-;
No, just to be a GOP Congressman. The "Broad Stance" party
"The only means of strengthening one's intellect is to make up one's mind about nothing, to let the mind be a thoroughfare for all thoughts." - John Keats
Isn't it true that other nations honor civil unions and afford them all the same considerations that traditional married couples receive?
Oh, well. At least the govts. aren't yet trying to legislate love.
There will always be some things that escape the purview of law.
The cruelty continues. Welcome to Earth.
It's unfortunate that we may have to turn to the federal government to remind us about a person's rights in this country. Too bad we have politicians who only think of themselves, or else this issue would have been taken care of long ago.
This state by state thing is clearly a debacle since it allows the rabid holy rollers to interpret bible law into state law.
I would never teach my kids to hate using the bible...
Chomp: I don't really follow your reasoning here. A Supreme Court decision against gay marriage ban would insure a constitutional amendement to ban it? How so? The constitution is not (should not be) easily amended; and did the Brown v. Maryland ruling against school segregation lead to a federal constitutional amendment against integration? You need to cite some logical or historical evidence for this assertion. I'm still "looking to the courts" as I said in my comment above, albeit not looking too hopefully at this point.
Chomp: so in order to avoid the catastrophe of a Republican return to power and a federal constitutional amendment legislating anti-gay marriage nationwide, we need to sit by complacently as legalized gay marriage gets pick up "one state at a time" from California to Maine. Some advanced political thinking, that! (But typical of the Obama era: "if we want to keep the Repubs out of power, we have to act just like them.)
It's all about preserving the tattered remnants of marriage. And why is marriage in such a sad state? Don't ask me, ask those breeders over there who voted yes.
The statement that this and the other many causes for 'equality' in the USA makes is one that most americans seem to over look or simply choose to ignore. The only equality that you can get in America is that which you can 'afford to pay for'......
It is wise however of the Plutocratic Oligarchy to offer to the 'public' these chances to 'express their concerns over the direction the country is going'---so that they can shed innocent blood in three other countries, allow the war criminals who ordered the mass destruction's of one of those countries and the plans for the same for the others and so many many other crimes; to walk freely and give 'motivational speeches' in Texas. The people who are so very concerned whether 'gays and lesbians' should be 'allowed to marry' are the very same poeple who DO NOT care about the matters of true importance. They are easily distracted by the 'appearance of Democracy', while they are made 'slaves' to the Plutocratic Oligarchy that they have allowed to control their lives. This reminds me once of a friend of mine who's small child believed that the Sesame Street Characters were real. When asked why he believed they were 'real', his answer was a beautiful statement of 'faith'.
"My mom and dad would not let me watch stuff that was a lie, they want me to be a good person just like them"----
That is the kind of 'faith' that the Jude an,Christian, Islamic religions want of their followers. To believe that homosexual behavior is 'an abomination', even though it occurs 'naturally*'----is the 'test of faith'---"We are made in God's image"----but does God have 'warts'?
One of my own relatives when I was a child was a homosexual/transvestite. In those days "Pow wows" were still illegal except on private land, and when we had them, everyone would be there dressed in their 'regalia'. He was always dressed in the 'full regalia of a Plains Tribe woman', hand beaded, white buckskin dress with leggings and all.
Everyone accepted him 'as he was' in fact in the days when we were 'free roaming'---homosexuals and lesbians were not only accepted but revered as 'special'. Years later, when the 'reservation was broken up' he migrated to New Orleans where he became very successful and wealthy as a "Female Impersonator' ----and was a beautiful 'woman' when he was 'dressed up for the stage'----I think of him often, and remember him fondly.
The 'Religious people' seem to always find those who are the least able to defend themselves to persecute and revile; while at the same time, they worship a mean vindictive jealous weak image of a 'God'-----their days are numbered, and they are loosing more ground with each day.
Just like mixed racial marriages being illegal in the past only to have them common now; the same will eventually apply to same 'gender marriages'----'persistence' is the only thing that will wear the 'resistance'---- down.
As for 'God' he seems easily distracted anyway---look at all of the real crimes against humanity that are occurring in 'his name'----and all he seems to do is worry about a bunch of homosexuals and lesbians--getting married.
What a moron!
"If the USA were another nation the USA would invade the USA to keep the world safe; and they would be justified."
I am always pleased to find your posts here. You are so right on. When I was a kid in Maine I used to watch the guys with their three walnut shells and a dried pea take money from people. The people thought the game was to watch the pea, but he knew that the game is about distraction. This whole gay marriage thing is a shell game. It serves to distract people from issues they SHOULD be dealing with. It is exactly these kinds of tempests in teapots that make me smug that I have no truck with christinsanity at any level.
I respect the right of people to have same sex marriages but I don't see any reason why there had to be a ballot vote on this. It's also possible that like VA and NJ, people in ME are worried about their basic economic securities more than they are about whom to marry. This entire nation is doing economically worse and the last thing either the right or left needs to be talking about are social issues. Yesterday's major blows to the Democrats confirmed what I had warned all along. Enough of these social issues: abortion, same sex marriages, gun control, race, etc... For Christ's sake, get the hell back to what people are really worried about, J-O-B-S ! Even the Northeast won't stay "blue" if Washington keeps gagging like they did on taxes, jobs, and health care. The PUBLIC LAVA continues to get hotter and redder even after yesterday's election and even the MSM is starting to pay attention to this VERY VERY BAD OMEN yesterday's election results foreshadow from VA all the way up to ME ! The public has said it before to the Republicans and is now saying the same to the Democrats. Put economic populism first or we will revolt at the voting booth.
"The institution of marriage in Maine has been preserved"- Frank Schubert, campaign manager of Stand for Marriage Maine
"According to the Pew Research Center, 15 percent of Maine women are currently divorced, compared to the national average of 12 percent, and 12 percent of Maine men are currently divorced, compared to nine percent nationally...second nationally only to Las vegas Nevada"- Maine Public Broadcasting
Does this mean the Maine Divorcees will be forced to reconcile?
"The only means of strengthening one's intellect is to make up one's mind about nothing, to let the mind be a thoroughfare for all thoughts." - John Keats
It all comes down, doesn't it, to: "do we have a constitution....or don't we?" Referendum votes can overturn the rights of any category of people at any time. During our period of racial segregation, can you imagine what results would be yielded by referendums on racial segregation in and even outside the South? But do we have a constitution? Do we have those much-maligned "activist" Judges who will judge on the side of constitutional Bill of Rights principles and not on the results of the latest opinion poll or voting poll? This question isn't rhetorical; I don't know how our notorious 5 to 4 Supreme Court will vote now that one of the 5 (Souter) is replaced by a "pragmatic" Justice Sotomayor whose civil rights views we don't yet know (because no one, really, bothered to ask her during her confirmation hearings). I'm optimistic but not pie-eyedly so that the new Justice will help hold together the fragile if not moribund will in the Court to protect the civil rights of all our people. We'll know soon enough.
"It's just a god-damned piece of paper." - George W. Bush, referring to the US Constitution.
"It's just a god-damned piece of paper." - George W. Bush
That would explain why he liked to wipe his behind with it every day.
It sucks, people just havnt been able to open their mind up and understand love for what it truly is, and that it has no gender. People use the excuse marriage is for people who can procreate, well elderly people cant have babies but they can marry. They use the excuse marriage is sacred, and between man and women, but yet look at the divorce rates, and the adultry committed everywhere. They are simple excuses, because these people that voted yes, cannot seem to stop and allow themselves to realize love is love, and it is as real for gays, as it is for anyone else. We are people and we should have equal rights. we need to keep fighting for what is right. It makes me ill to my stomach to think about all the discrimination, and judgments still so severe today.
As long as the Buybull remains the bestselling book in the US there will be votes like this.
It's no secret that the social gains in Europe rose as church attendance dropped.
Sad and depressing. 53% dodos.
"The institution of marriage has been preserved." Wow!! How much time, energy and money was spent on this, thanks to narrow-minded god-nuts and homophobes who worry about the end of life as we know it if gays can get married? If this is the biggest problems these morons have, many people would envy them.
When people disagree with you, it doesn't define them as bigot's or hater's or homophobics or any of the other colorful terms used below. There are some of course, among the fundamentalists even more.
What this vote really says is that people are simply not ready to accept this yet. I would point out how close the vote was, how close it was in California. Its just a matter of time and I don't believe that much, before states start voting the other way.
You cannot force people to accept something they are not ready to accept.
Poet states it best...."A population that is "convinced" against its will is a population that remains unconvinced still."
If you look at yesterday's burning results in VA and NJ where the Democrats went down in flames for selling out to big money and look again at ME, it may be possible that voters in ME looked at this vote in a very angry mood. I don't think that the economy in ME is doing well at all and if people are worried about losing their jobs and not getting any basic health care regardless of their employment, they might be looking at this gay marriage vote as a distraction and I don't blame them for being angry about it. I may not like it that they're showing their frustrations on gay marriages while being unemployed or fear of losing their jobs but maybe the ME government can't get their priorities straight just like CA and Washington? I dunno.
That's a ridiculous argument!!
Were people ready to free the slaves??
Were people ready to give women the right to vote?
Were people ready to end segregation?
Were people ready to allow inter-racial marriages?
Civil rights should NEVER be put to a vote, period. That's the real issue here.
This is precisely why a wise Canadian Prime Minister once said the true test of a democracy is how well that democracy looks after the rights of its minorities. The rights of minorities should never be left to a popular "vote", they are not starting on a fair basis. Federal legislation is the only way to permanently enshrine the rights of minorities. History has pointed this out to us many, many times in the past.
It is not a perfect world and the battle for gay marriage rights continues. The fight is not over and, overall, it is encouraging that there is a high percentage of folks willing to vote for and/or support the rights of a minority who make up such a small percentage of the population - about 7% or so?
Minority rights is an illegitimate cause given that 90% of all oppression/plunder is driven by a tiny minority: The Elite. The campaign against gay marriage is driven by the fears of authoritarian followers instilled by authoritarian leaders. We have to frame minority rights as part of a wider cause: universal equity/justice. Gay rights has to be framed as a component of universal rights. Always emphasize an association between one person's rights, or one group's rights, and the rights of all.
musicguy 2723 asks:
Were people ready to free the slaves??
*********
Yep, that's what the Civil War was about.
**************
Were people ready to give women the right to vote?
****************
Yep, that's what the woman's sufferage movement and the constitutional ammendment doing such was about.
****************
Were people ready to end segregation?
****************
Yep, that's what the civil rights protests (going back to the turn of the 20th century I might add) were about.
*********************
Were people ready to allow inter-racial marriages?
****************
Yep, see the same answer above.
So when you are either:
a. ready to start a shooting war or
b. ready to finance and participate in a mass movement that may take several generations of persistent, annoying, and determined advocacy including civil disobediance, death of protesters, and outrage to the point of physical violence, that destroys much property forget about communicating anything to the majority of the electorate in the good ol' USA.
Poet
you missed my point entirely. LGBT folks need to fight much harder, there's no doubt about it. However, each of the afformentioned instances DID NOT ever go to a public vote!!!!!!!!! If they had, each would have lost by a wide margin! Those in power then realized that a PUBLIC VOTE would not have been productive. Civil rights should never be put to a vote.
I get your drift--mine is essentially the same and what I am adding is that if homosexuals want their marriages recognized they will have to do additional and sometimes drastic things if legislative, judicial, or electoral initiatives are to make any impression on the general public.
Poet
Something to think about: A small, vocal, often violent fanatical religious minority is able to out-spend, out-shout and intimidate your political leadership, into adopting laws that limit and erode your rights.
The public supporters of rights always lose to private political contributions.
And just because 52% voted for it, does not mean that 52% of the actual population voted. Voter apathy is counted on to win soul destroying victories like this.
And Chomp, I have always wanted to thank you for the honesty of your handle.
It's not everyone who is so proud to admit they are a shambling, brainless, endlessly hungry and consuming killing machine.
Do *you* ever vote?
Boycott Maine Lobster!
‘These you may eat, whatever is in the water: all that have fins and scales, those in the water, in the seas or in the rivers, you may eat. 10 ‘But whatever is in the seas and in the rivers that does not have fins and scales among all the teeming life of the water, and among all the living creatures that are in the water, they are detestable things to you,
God says so!
"The only means of strengthening one's intellect is to make up one's mind about nothing, to let the mind be a thoroughfare for all thoughts." - John Keats
"It has all come together tonight and the institution of marriage has been preserved."
Whew! Thank god for that!
{sarcasm off}
Bigotry in Maine, November 2009
In a close vote, Maine voters repealed a state law Tuesday that would have allowed same-sex couples to wed.
In my opinion this is a triumph- however brief- for bigotry. Brief, because the demographics of this country are changing and in a couple of decades or less, LGBT citizens shall have the right to marry and/or have nationally recognized domestic partnerships that effectively confer upon them all human, legal and property rights of straight couples.
Never should the majority have the right to revoke a minority's constitutional right for equal protection under the law. For those who have (or have not) read the US Constitution, Amendment 14 says:
"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
What this anti-LGBT victory points to is the failure of our courts to protect LGBT citizens- relegating them to a second class status. It also underscores the weakness of our President, who refused to actively oppose the repeal effort. It further reinforces the need for the LGBT political movement to mobilize and end the illusion that they can obtain equal rights by melding into the "system." The movement needs to fight along side movements that support worker's rights, environmental rights, human rights, racial equality, woman's equality, etc. The denial of rights to one minority group is in fact a denial of rights to all minorities.
"Never should the majority have the right to revoke a minority's constitutional right for equal protection under the law."
This is not an issue of protecting a minority from the "tyranny of the majority". The "tyranny of the majority" is a strawman concocted by the elites to save their own privileged minority butts. In fact the majority is under oppression by the elite minority, manifest in the people's unfounded fear, and the outcome of this vote directly reflects that. The granddaddy of all wars is the class war. Only when you defeat the elites will you have universal equity/justice.
It's true those homos are hiding everywhere just lurking in the shadows, waiting to steal your daughter or your father! God, what a bunch of sniveling backwards folks, all ready to run someone else's life. I'm sorry but y'all have cooties, and please don't get too near, I could get feisty.
That's it: I'm recalling my kid to Canada. The bloody US of bloody A doesn't deserve her.
Irrelevant, these haters are on a collision course with history. Gays will be able to legally marry in the entire continental US eventually, despite the fact that marriage itself is a failed and reactionary institution. 50% of marriages end in divorce, as a gay man I can't understand gays wanting so desperately to be part of a sinking ship. Unless there's some commercial value in entering a legal contract for some people, marriage (like openly serving in the military) is an idiocy.
Christianity and ignorance go hand in hand. In fact the first rule of every religion is to choose ignorance over knowledge clearly presented to us through science. Religion creates ignorance. Ignorance creates idiocy. Idiocy creates violence. Religious people need psychological help.
Christians go all out to show their hatred of people in love. Way to mobilize!
What if Christ were gay? Could he tell his dad?
Jesus WAS gay, he had long hair and wore a long dress, never married, never had sex with a woman as far as we know. He was also a communist Jew. Just put 2 and 2 together for Christ's (sorry) sake. If iPods existed back then, I'm sure he'd be listening to Barbra Streisand and Judy Garland between sermons.
But, but, but, "The Da Vinci Code" had ALL this detail about his progeny and all.
charlie, read the book "Jesus, Son of Man" by kahlil Gibran. Many of the reports mention that Jesus was a known 'womanizer' who frolicked with the young maidens. He may very well have been "BI", but not a 'flamer'.... Oh, and several books have been written which suggests that he may have married.
The gay, long haired, cross-dressing, female-phobic unmarried, Streisand/Garland loving part makes sense,
but . . .
a Commie Jew? . . . EEK!!! Save Us!!!
Neo-Conservative, radical right, neo-christians, I'd like you to meet Jim Jones. Have fun, Kids. Drink up!
Among the lessons reinforced by this outcome is the continued effectiveness of tried-and-true fear tactics to motivate voters potentially on the fence.
Consider this Portland voter, quoted in a Boston Globe story, who said "he wasn’t particularly passionate about the issue until he worried, because of advertisements, that same-sex marriage could be taught in schools."
“It’s not my style,’’ he said. “I just don’t feel it should be taught.’’
The same-sex marriage supporters have to do a more effective job of debunking the lies and false claims that play to unjustified fears like these.
Christians are always looking for demons. In the past it was the Jews and Muslims, and to some extent the still exist as demons to be exorcised, but the gay community has since coming out of the closet been the biggest cash cow Christians could have asked for and they keep on milking it for all its worth. I think same-sex marriage supporters have been playing too nice and that is why we keep losing. The no on 8 campaign feared alienating voters by showing images of gays and lesbians in their ads. The Yes on 1 folks sidestepped the issue of religion to some extent, but we all know that religion was behind this. How about exposing the hypocrisy of religions, especially Christianity in a mass education campaign? They claim the Bible says marriage is between a man and a woman, but what about all of the other things the Bible says - stoning adulterers, not eating shellfish, etc? I am sorry, but I am so tired of living in a theocracy where the majority gets to decide the rights of a minority.
"This doesn't mean it's the end of our work," he said. "We must begin building bridges and we may have to mend fences. People on the other side were doing what they believed in, too."
It's very important to realize that the religionists do not want to mend fences, they want to bring the non-religionists to their side. As long as we don't see things their way, the Right Way, they tolerate us. And that tolerance is on shaky ground. One mis-step, one reason, and we'll see how quickly tolerance changes to violence. For there is nothing more dangerous than a religionist with God on his side.
It's a sad day for those of us on the No on 1 side. It's a sad day for Maine.
I am sorry to hear the way the vote turned out in ME. I don't know ME fully well but don't you think it's possible that growing economic concerns might have caused the public anger to burn down the vote on gay marriage? How can one have a marriage to keep if he or she can't be financially sound?
I think there were many reasons for this vote, economic fear being one of them.
In the end, fear won the day. Fear of the "other". Fear of having our society face the truth about the capacity for love. Fear of losing our jobs. Fear of church leaders. Fear of having to face our own sexuality. Fear.
Isn't that sad. But 47$ to 53% just means we're creeping toward the 'tipping point.' Creeping because we're dragging this incredible burden of hate, rigidity, & bigotry out of the cave of ignorance and superstition.
Fortunately 'the spiritual impulse' within humanity seems to be gaining on the side of humanity, while crushing religious fundamentalist creeds rage and roil against those they cannot dominate.
What's a progressive to do over such a vote? Learn a few lessons one would hope.
1. It is still possible to overturn state laws (Maine) or even court decisions (California) if enough people can mobilize enough other people to take a public stand on an issue.
2. It is positive that both sides on this issue see the election not as a fait accompli but, rather, a clarion call to get to work on educating the electorate at large not only about their particular issue but about their power to change things.
3. This sounds like a democracy-enhancing trend that could have all sorts of implications for such things as environmental degradation, trade agreements, wars of aggression in the mid-east, net neutrality, and many other national and even international issues where the fat and bloated boars of corporate corruption have always been able to buy influence.
I doubt that this focus will happen much. Such focus takes real effort and comittment and the turning away from the distracting influences of "popular culture" which is a fancy-schmantzy name for distracting entertainment. Instead there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth by the supporters of homosexual marriages and conceited condescension by those who oppose such measures.
Poet
"It is still possible to overturn state laws (Maine) or even court decisions (California) if enough people can mobilize enough other people to take a public stand on an issue. "
Next, reinstating slavery!
"The only means of strengthening one's intellect is to make up one's mind about nothing, to let the mind be a thoroughfare for all thoughts." - John Keats
POET: More proof of what you wrote in #1 can be found here:
http://tinyurl.com/yjsh388
I don't see these piddling citizen's referendums as democratic - they work against democracy, over and over again. Majority, mob rule, powered by money and deception. They set up endless back-and-forth fights. If the 1960s South had been allowed to have referendums state-by-state on civil rights for blacks, guess what would have happened?
We need strong, federal authority, in the form of wise judicial and legislative decisions, to set social policies for the country. The rights of gays aren't any different in Oklahoma, Maine, or Massachusetts. The fact that such wise decisions are often hard to get is a call to reform federal government and make it work right, not to keep making these risky, end-run gambles with state sheep lotteries.
God, what a shitty country this is.
We already have what you ask for, and that is why the country is becoming shitty. Mob rule? Absolutely yes. That is the other side of democracy. No democracy can operate in an uneducated populace. Thus, it is education we must rely on. But state run education means state run curriculum and state run administration. Not always a good thing, as a quick look at our schools will show. Most schools do a good job DESPITE the state rules, not because of them. Your idea of federal rules for everything is the quick route to dictatorship.
"God, what a shitty country this is."
When I was a kid in the 1950s these issues weren't even on the mental map of the Universe. We are a country where change goes on behind the media "noise" and its fad controlled content.
"We need strong, federal authority, ... to set social policies for the country."
Think about what this means if the strong authority is on the Other Side. Always count on the powerful authorities to be Unwise and the Judicial to be Political.
The real context for this is the failure of the Equal Rights Amendment which would have set the precedent that rights should always be the norm.
----------------------------------------------------------
Gnosticism becomes despotism when it goes beyond the skin.
Well stated--in the multitude of counsel there is safety and there is no larger counsel than the vote of the participating electorate. Don't think that the masters of the universe are not watching and concerned regardless of how they feel about the specific issue presented.
Tyranny is assisted by the deferral of individual responsibility to star chambers of either "elected" (usually as a result of high-priced carefully obfuscational advertising campaigns) representatives and unelected and unaccountable officials (like judges and taxing authorities).
A population that is "convinced" against its will is a population that remains unconvinced still.
Poet
This had less to do with the people's will and more to do with how fear of the other can be used to steer people in a direction.
Also, religion, most importantly the Catholic diocese in Maine, held sway. I'm certain that had the bishop either stayed neutral or come out against the repeal, NO would have won pretty handily.
The religions that held sway in this case did a lot of politicking from the pulpit. One more reason to revoke all tax-exempt status from religious institutions in the US. If the Catholic churches can pass special collection plates during mass specifically for political purposes (as they did during this campaign), they should be cut off at the knees.
If that's what it were to come down to, then yes, that's what I want.
Look, the Church uses it's status as a cudgeon to beat the rest of the world over the head. The tax exempt status does not keep them from doing that, it just gives them a little more money with which to do it.
If Catholics want to back the current Dark Ages Church, they should come out from the closet and do it in full daylight instead of hiding behind the Pope's robes. If they want to come out and endorse fascism, let them. They will then incur the wrath that will ensue. After all, why should the Jews have all the fun?