Get News & Views Updates
Most Popular This Week
- When You're Cutting Social Security, 'Wealthy' Begins at $25K
- With Little More Than a Note, Obama Deploys US Troops To Niger
- Stripped of 'Country of Origin' Label, US Agrees to Sell Tear Gas to Egypt
- Who Can Own Life? Farmer vs. Monsanto Before US High Court
- 5 Reasons Why the Keystone XL Pipeline is Bad for the Economy
- Who Can Own Life? Farmer vs. Monsanto Before US High Court
- Decolonize the Consumerist Wasteland: Re-imagining a World Beyond Capitalism and Communism
- Scale Implosion: After Ruining America, the Era of Giant Chain Stores Is Over
- 5 Reasons Why the Keystone XL Pipeline is Bad for the Economy
- Lose Your Lawn
Popular content
Today's Top News
Gay Marriage Repealed in Maine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PORTLAND, Maine - Voters on Tuesday repealed the state's same sex marriage law after an emotionally charged campaign that drew large numbers to the polls and focused national attention on Maine.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)
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."
- Posted in
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...


74 Comments so far
Show AllIt'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.)
The cruelty continues. Welcome to Earth.
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.
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.
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
"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. -_-;
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
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.
How many child abusers & wife beaters voted to preserve marriage? not to mention divorcées and deeply closeted men & women?
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)
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.
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
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?
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?
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.
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.
There 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).