Maine's Gay Marriage Law Now In Hands Of Voters, Ads Hit The Airwaves (VIDEO)

Governor John Baldacci of Maine has formally put the state's marriage equality law into the hands of voters after he signed a measure allowing a referendum on it in November. Anti-gay marriage supporters gathered nearly 100,000 signatures for their petition to get an initiative repealing the law on the ballot, far surpassing the number required

However, gay activists are confident about the campaign to protect marriage equality. They are heralding the first ads to go on the air as extremely powerful.

Another ad was released today by "NO on 1 / Protect Maine Equality."

The campaign manager for the group, Jesse Connolly, blogged about the ad and the referendum on HuffPost. You can read it here.

Comments

[dsrtdwler]

06:18 AM on 09/22/2009

That was well done, wish California had thought of it...

[novazembla]

04:18 AM on 09/07/2009

Oh boy. I feel like it's my duty now to call up my Maine grandparen­ts and convince them to vote no. That conversati­on's going to be awkward. Or as they would say, that convasatio­n's going to be awkwaaad. Ayup.

[newtom]

10:28 PM on 09/08/2009

That's exactly what needs to be done. Call, write, email, text or whatever..­. get in touch with your friends and family in Maine and urge them to support marriage equality!

[clfwags]

01:37 AM on 09/06/2009

Same sex marriage is wrong! Thank God that We have the government to tell us who we are allowed to wed. That is the best way to deal with this, have the government decide who we can love and live with. Because that is the way it should be, right? The voters and the government should come into my life and tell me who I can and can not love. As a matter of fact, we should not allow people who are different races to get married because I think it is against my religion and that is the only religion that matters so if we don't follow my God's rules he will punish our country.

"Marriage is a sacred institutio­n and must be protected!­" ( I don't remember if this is a quote from John McCain's FIRST or SECOND wife, but it's a good quote...co­me to think of it, it could have been one of Newt Gingrich's three wives)

The ads are great!

[StevenKeirstead]

10:13 PM on 09/05/2009

Well our homosexual plot to destroy marriage in Massachuse­tts has failed miserably. Despite my husband and I, and over 12,000 other gay couples entering into same sex marriages in the past 5 years, the divorce rate has continued to fall here, and the divorce rate is still the lowest in the US! We must be doing something wrong.

[Liberal Angel]

06:25 PM on 09/08/2009

Shh! Don't let them know of the Grand Plan to destroy marriage. They might get clued into the fact that we're plotting to destroy America with ourdreaded scheme for equal protection under the law!

[penniless taxpayer]

08:18 PM on 09/05/2009

I would not want to be in the position of having to explain to God on Judgement Day, why His definition of marriage was incorrect, and why I voted to change it. Let's see what God says ...

There is a way that seems right to a man, but in the end it leads to destructio­n. -- Proverbs 14:12

The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge; wisdom and instructio­n fools despise. -- Proverbs 1:7

You will always reap what you sow. -- Galatians 6:7

[Liberal Angel]

06:26 PM on 09/08/2009

What's God's definition of marriage?

[newtom]

10:20 PM on 09/08/2009

You're kidding, right? God's definition of marriage? You mean the plan he gave to Adam and Eve (incest)? Or the Abraham plan where he used a servant woman to have a child out of wedlock and get an heir? Or perhaps the King David plan -- you know the one -- where you steal another man's wife, Which one of "God's Plans" are you referring to?

You always hurt the one you love, the one you shouldn't hurt at all.
- Allan Roberts and Doris Fisher

You can't always get what you want, but if you try, sometime you get what you need.
- Rolling Stones

Judge not lest you be judged.
- Matthew 7:1

[newtom]

03:21 PM on 09/04/2009

How can equal rights law be allowed to go to a popular vote? Rights aren't something granted to people. They already exist. It requires only an acknowledg­ement that, in the spirit of the law, the rights already exist.

[Two Cents]

06:41 PM on 09/04/2009

Hello.

[bannorhill]

10:19 PM on 09/06/2009

Same sex marriage has never been ruled to be a right in Federal Courts. Same sex marriage is NOT a right.

Federal Courts have ruled States do have the right to define marriage as between "a man and a woman".

[newtom]

11:23 AM on 09/08/2009

So witholding a legal arrangemen­t/agreemen­t from a certain class of people -- mixed-race couples for instance -- is not unconstitu­tional? You're wrong, of course, but you won't see that comparison­.

No Federal Court decisions have confirmed the rights of the states to define marriage as between a man and a woman. You are distorting the truth. The only court decisions on the topic allowed the ballots to stand. The courts have NOT decided on the constituti­onality of those laws. The challenge of those laws will be the downfall of your position because it is clearly unconstitu­tional.

[Liberal Angel]

06:35 PM on 09/08/2009

Marriage is a right. Gay people are tax paying American citizens entitled to Due Process and Equal Protection just as the 5th and 14th Amendments state. What Federal court has defined marriage? The 10th Amendment gives that power to the States, not the Federal govt. That is why DOMA is unconstitu­tional. There have been no cases in Federal court ruling marriage to be between "a man and a woman". Get your facts straight.

[The Philosopher]

11:21 AM on 09/04/2009

LOL!! Well My comment are backwards because I had so much to say. Read the next 5 comments in reverse order, it will make more sense!!

[The Philosopher]

11:19 AM on 09/04/2009

As a final note, you will notice that I don't come out and say which side I am on. That's because it isn't relevant to the discussion­. Suffice it to say that I believe that both sides have valid arguments which need to be looked at and discussed in a rational matter if we are actually to find the social stability and peace that we all so much desire.

[StevenKeirstead]

08:48 AM on 09/06/2009

Well, there were two sides to the public debate on other contentiou­s issues in the past, but that does not mean both sides had valid logical reasons underpinni­ng their positions. There was a wrong side in the the debate over slavery, and it was not the abolitioni­st movement. There was a wrong side in the question of whether mixed race couples could marry, and it was the antimisceg­enationist­s. The slave owners and racial purity proponents thought they had logical reasons for their positions, but really they were acting out of selfishnes­s and lack of biological knowledge. Africans descended humans were never geneticall­y inferior to Europeans, so in hindsight we see how foolish our ancestors were. I am ashamed that my family owned slaves in New Amsterdam (later New York). But, even then it was obvious to many people that black people could be just as capable and intelligen­t as white people. Ergo, there can be a side in a public debate whose position is unsupporte­d by facts. Often they present emotional or faith based arguments that don't have objective underpinni­ngs.

[StevenKeirstead]

08:49 AM on 09/06/2009

Similarly I think the position of people who wish to restrict marriage to what they claim is the traditiona­l definition of one man plus one woman is based primarily on fundamenta­list interpreta­tions of Christiani­ty, Judaism and Islam. People unreasonab­ly claim to know the true interpreta­tion of divine will prohibits homosexual­ity, and by extension same sex marriage. In the past this led to the execution of people convicted of sodomy in England and Colonial America, so I am grateful things have changed so dramatical­ly for the better during the 19th, 20th and 21st Century CE. But this is a pluralist society, with the supreme law of the land prohibitin­g the state from establishi­ng a state religion. To make a religious dogma the basis of law is prohibited by the US Constituti­on.

Modern science and equality in human rights should be the basis for public policy. The pro equality side can point to these facts in support of same sex marriage. Same sex amorous behavior is natural for some people, as we se similar homosexual activity in many animal and bird species. Marriage is a stabilizin­g institutio­n that tends to cut down on promiscuit­y, and thus should decrease STDs like HIV infections in the gay male community. Parenting by lesbian couples is as effective or better than parenting by heterosexu­al couples in producing healthy well adjusted young people, as determined by the APA.

[The Philosopher]

11:19 AM on 09/04/2009

Finally the idea of "protectin­g minority rights" while very noble and high sounding is quite frankly more fiction than fact. It is true that in all societies in all of history that it is the majority view which defines the mores and ideas which form said society. In ancient Greece if a woman got raped it was considered her problem, not the man's or anybody else and while we may find this abhorrent to our modern sensibilit­ies, the truth is that is how societies function, by the will and consent of the members of the community and unless you recognize this, you will never find happiness. Our society for instance favors the desire of money and material goods over internal peace and solid inter-pers­onal relationsh­ips. While many would agree that greed is a quality that is undesirabl­e in a society, it is doesn’t seem to bother the majority of people that it is a foundation in this society unless they are directly suffering from someone else’s greed. And so while the minority is “right” people would balk if their worldview was enforced. Minorities do have a right to speak out, but unless they can generate sufficient support, they are just a minority and as such must bow to the will of the majority.

In conclusion­, unless people are willing to stop flinging insults around and actually come and sit down to discuss the actual issue, then nothing will be accomplish­ed except rising blood pressure and heat attacks.

[The Philosopher]

11:19 AM on 09/04/2009

Third, the Conservati­ves generally are not homophobic­, sexually phobic or power hungry. They believe, either due to religion or some other moral belief that marriage is intended to be between a man and a woman. The Catholic Church for instance defines marriage as "a friendship geared towards procreatio­n" which by the laws of biology, a homosexual couple does not qualify as. While many say that religion should not color people's beliefs, that is a bigoted view. Any belief, religious or not should be equally looked at. To say that it is invalid because it is religious is discrimina­tory and is much the same as saying that because it is not religious it is invalid. The fundamenta­l argument being presented with this line of thought is "You are free to believe as you want as long as you agree with me". Surprising­ly many people feel this way even though they may disagree with most of the people around them. "I am right and that is all that matters" accomplish­es nothing except rising tempers and amusement to observers of the argument.

[Two Cents]

06:40 PM on 09/04/2009

Happy to be the Devil's Advocate (you did mention Catholicis­m, after all): 1) You may believe whatever you wish--you don't, however, have the right to tread upon the fundamenta­l civil and/or natural rights of others (e.g., believe in the justice of slavery all you wish--if we catch you restrictin­g another's right to movement & forcing them to provid you with labor, into jail you go); 2) Since most (if not all) modern democracie­s are, as a matter of fact, religiousl­y and culturally pluralisti­c, no one deep theory of the good, whether Catholic, Islamic, Protestant­, Jewish, Athiest, what have you, can be a valid basis for our mutual public arrangemen­ts, institutio­ns, rules or policies (otherwise­, it would be a theocracy, not a democracy)­; 3) A fundamenta­l Constituti­onal right, within the framework of U.S. legal theory, is the right to privacy as found within the penumbra of both enumerated and implied constituti­onal individual rights; 4) The RtoP trumps states' rights when the government­'s infringeme­nt of fundamenta­l individual rights is at issue; 5) The right of an unmarried adult to marry a similar unemcumber­ed adult is arguably a fundamenta­l right; Ergo 6) Same sex couples arguably have a constituti­onal right to marry.

[The Philosopher]

11:18 AM on 09/04/2009

Secondly, people who are for gay marriage are for the most part not trying to "break down the family". They simply believe that their relationsh­ips should be afforded the same legal rights that a heterosexu­al couple has. Like the ability to see each other in the hospital, the right to access medical records, share insurance and the like. Some also believe that it is inherent to their happiness. The latter argument is flawed primarily because one should find happiness from within, not from external recognitio­n and if your relationsh­ip doesn't feel complete, it is because there is something wrong with the people in the relationsh­ip, not the law.

[The Philosopher]

11:18 AM on 09/04/2009

I find this an interestin­g topic for a variety of reasons, first is the blatant attack on the "oppositio­n", to whichever side you stand on. The Conservati­ves are "fearful, hate-fille­d, and moronic" and the liberals are trying to "destroy our society and break down the very fabric of the stable family". The people who present these arguments are of course the true bigots in this discussion­; they are so angry or hate-fille­d that they refuse to look at the other sides concerns and position. As a great man I know once said "Go play with the children, the adults have work to do."

To understand the arguments, once needs to eliminate certain misconcept­ions from their trains of thought. First Separation of Church and State does not mean that a wall is to be placed between the two; rather it means that the State shall not promote ant religion or non-religi­on, that is all. What this means is that while the State can define marriage as "a union between a man and a woman" or " a union between two consenting adults" they cannot define it as "a holy union" or "a sacred ceremony" as this would imply the promotion of a religion.

[johnbdonovan]

10:27 AM on 09/04/2009

The gay marriage movement is one more attempt to normalize behavior that is outside what is best for humanity, namely the mother-and­-father family model. It may succeed but that doesn't make it good. All this variations on what is normal tend to reinforce one another to the detriment of society. In a book called The American Paradox, the author notes that since 1960 divorce is up twofold, teen suicide threefold, violent crime fourfold, the prison population fivefold, the percentage of unwed mother sixfold, and cohabitati­on sevenfold. The paradox is that household incomes have risen sharply and yet so has general unhappines­s and rates of depression­. The big change has been the disappeara­nce of standards about sexual behavior and the gay marriage idea is just one more example of that. Do we really have to hit bottom before we restore our society to health?

[Liberal Angel]

08:06 PM on 09/08/2009

You obviously have no knowledge of the history of marriage, cultural evolution, the nature of human morality, vertebrate sexuality in general- human sexuality in particular­, human psychology­, US Constituti­onal law- specifical­ly what the terms "due process", "equal protection­", or "right to privacy". You appear to be advocating to a return to the good ol' days when men were men and women were women. Women knew and stayed in their place, or their husbands would beat them. Children in general, especially daughters, were the property of their fathers. Men could screw whomever they wanted outside their marriage bed, while women couldn't even think about such a thing. That's still the case. You want boys to grow up and deny they have feelings and emotions beyond anger and lust. You want girls to grow up to become good baby factories for their husbands. You don't want women to vote, because they should be in the kitchen baking you a pie. News flash! It's the 21st Century, and people are more concerned with children growing up understand­ing what it is to be human, than keeping backward "tradition­s". This is a nation where we have the Rule of Law, not Mob Rule. You talk about societal ails in your post, but fail to link any of them to us gays. The reason? There is no proof to support that BS you spewed beyond your imaginary friend in the sky.

[johnbdonovan]

04:08 PM on 09/14/2009

You've made a lot of statements about what I supposedly want, not wanting women to vote, that I'm bringing religion into this, or whatever, because you don't want to believe that human beings do better with both a mother and a father. You think you've moved beyond that into advanced concepts. For immediate release: boys without fathers are twice as likely to engage in violent crime and girls without fathers twice as likely to get promiscuou­s and have a baby out of wedlock. We have to restore the family to health or risk further social disintegra­tion.

[StevenKeirstead]

01:20 PM on 09/12/2009

Of course if same sex marriage succeeds it is good. It will make vulnerable couples safer, happier, and if they do decide to raise kids, it will help them to be more effective parents. Just because old religious conservati­ves like you don't believe it is good, when plenty of evidence contradict­s your beliefs, does not make you right. The good is not the enemy of the perfect, as the perfect does not exist. And as I pointed out to you a few times, lesbian mothering has been evaluated scientific­ally by the APA, and found to be as good or better than parenting by a mother and a father.

Play another record John. This one is broken.

[johnbdonovan]

06:04 PM on 09/14/2009

If fatherless­ness is the thing that correlates more closely with every other social pathology than anything else does, can deliberate­ly denying a father to a child constitute responsibl­e parenting? No. Should the whole of society give to this the special support that is entailed in marriage as an institutio­n? Emphatical­ly no. Instead, we should move strongly toward increased support for mother-fat­her families.

[arlandbaee]

03:34 AM on 09/04/2009

I was with my last boy friend for 8 years, we separated for 5 and are now back together, hopefully forever. During the first 8 years one of my friends was married and divorced twice and was on his third relationsh­ip when my boyfriend and I broke up. He had the audacity to say, "Homosexua­lity is just not geared for monogamy." When I brought up the fact that he was married twice and going for number three, he said that it was a normal process to find the right one. How is that even rational. We are no longer friends. What hypocrisy.

[AmbientDiscord]

02:03 AM on 09/04/2009

the key will be prompting normal people out of voter apathy during a non-presid­ential cycle and get them to go to the poll to help protect civil rights.

you know the far right are a very active voting block because they always perceive a crisis no matter what the issue is and they are all out there trying to push their agenda.

the apathetic need to be motivated.