Keeping the Same-Sex Marriage Defeat in Maine in Perspective

Like countless supporters of marriage equality across the country, I am disturbed and saddened by Maine voters' approval of a referendum overturning the state's same-sex marriage law. It is particularly difficult to watch people (like those in the photos below) celebrating the denial of basic civil rights to their fellow citizens.

If the referendum had gone the other way, those who oppose same-sex marriages would have woken up today with all of their rights and benefits intact. Not a single heterosexual marriage would have been negatively impacted if voters had permitted the same-sex marriage law to stand. On the other hand, same-sex couples across Maine woke up today with the cold realization that they remain second-class citizens under the laws of their own state.

As difficult as losses such as the one in Maine is for supporters of the legal recognition of same-sex relationships, it is important to keep in mind just how far we have come on this issue in a very short period of time. As recently as 15 years ago, there was not a single state law that provided any form of recognition or protection to same-sex couples. This meant that as far as the laws of all 50 states were concerned, the relationships of same-sex couples -- no matter how committed or long-lasting -- had no greater legal significance than those of roommates or friends. In stark contrast, there are today five states that recognize same-sex marriages. And an additional half a dozen states provide same-sex couples with all of the rights and benefits afforded to married straight couples through civil unions or domestic partnership laws. (In fact, while Maine voters were repealing their state's same-sex marriage law, Washington state voters were approving a comprehensive domestic partnership statute enacted by the legislature that offers same-sex couples the same rights and benefits under state law provided to married heterosexuals.)

It is also important to keep in mind that opponents of equality prevailed in Maine -- as they did in California a year ago -- by a slim margin. Polls consistently show that there is a growing generational gap on the issue of same-sex marriage, with a significant majority of younger Americans believing that same-sex couples should be permitted to marry. This means that time is on the side of marriage equality. The fact that equality opponents in places like California and Maine have been able to prevail at the ballot box by only a handful of percentage points strongly suggests that they will be unable to maintain their victories as new generations of voters demand to be heard on this issue.

None of this, of course, takes the sting out of painful losses for the marriage equality movement like the one in Maine. But focusing on the long run can help us keep these losses in perspective because it reminds us that they are skirmishes in a long struggle for the hearts and minds of Americans on the political, legal, and moral issues involving same-sex marriage.

Opponents of gay marriage are increasingly having a difficult time articulating why it is, exactly, that the legal recognition of such marriages would harm society. In fact, one of the lawyers defending California's ban on same-sex marriage in a federal lawsuit conceded in court recently that he did not know what the harm would be in allowing same-sex couples to marry. This leaves gay rights opponents relying largely on the argument that the question of which groups should have access to the institution of marriage should be decided by the people and not by judges or even by elected legislators. There will come a day in the not so distant future, however, when voters on this issue will begin to choose equality and fairness over exclusion and discrimination.

 

Comments

[Davided]

I get concerned when asked to rely on the rationality of others... especially when it comes to equality. I suppose it is because people are not rational.

I suspect the best hope for equality via votes is to shame people into doing what is right. I'd generally like to see more of an effort to get the names and companies of those who are responsible for denying rights to their fellow Americans out there so they can reap what they (apparenty from above photos) take so much joy in sowing. Doing this of course will be difficult if that business with referendum 71 in Washington state becomes a trend.

As for generation gaps... well I don't buy it to be honest. Apathy is not acceptance, and it does not translate to voter turnout nearly as well as one might wish.

Nope, I am siding with shame, and a precise application of disdain where appropriate. It struck me while reading about that pastor in the Bronx who helped shoot down equality in NY while saying something akin to "we can still be friends" that no in fact we cannot be friends. If you will not help secure equality fine, but if you work against equality then it's on.

[NWBrunette]

I predict within 10 years it all be over; eventually we will have marriage equality; it will be the law in every State and for the country. Its so sad that it's not happening now; but we'll keep fighting; we'll keep working; every decent citizen knows that "equal rights for all" means equal rights for ALL. This discrimination will not stand.

[JustinST]

People have spoken time and time again. They don't want the word marriage associated with gay unions. if gays get all legal rights of a marriage, which they should, why aren't they okay with calling it a civil union? Why is that a secondary citizen status? And why do they think this 'status' will automatically change if the law does pass against the public will? They are only wearing their supporters out because of this one issue and they vote against the marriage. Like "jade7243" wrote below, find a middle ground. People are coming along in thousands for support.

[Liberal Angel]

Because a civil union is NOT the same as a marriage. If it's good enough for gay people, then it should be good enough for straight people. It doesn't matter if people don't want to accept gay marriage, as marriage. What matters is that out civil rights should be given to us in their entirety right now. Why should we have to wait for homophobic and backward people who will never be ok with us, to become ok with us?

[JustinST]

I totally agree with you.

[JHCowboy]

Jade7243 your comment is absolutely appalling. WE ARE NOT GOING TO GIVE IN TO THE MIDDLE GROUND OF BEING A SECOND CLASS CITIZEN. The day will come (as this article states) when the majority will vote in favor of same sex marriage will be in the majority. Prior to that Maine's legislature can override the people's veto if they get enough votes. Also you will not have heard the end of this in Maine because this is going to the state supreme court in Maine. Also to think that Iowa will change what the courts have already ruled on and change it in 2010 is absolute stupidity and wrong. Iowa is an incredibly progressive state and they were the first to vote overwhelmingly for President Obama. The Maine vote (a thin majority) is the last gasp of the past. The day will come when these old timers will be in their graves or in the nursing home and the younger generations will take their ranks and marriage inequality will be thrown into the dustbin of the past. It is important to note that there were many old timers who also voted progressively in favor of Marriage Equality in Maine. Jade7243 it's obviously your desire that gay people be second class citizens but your view on this issue is dead wrong.

[amdphoto]

You are not a second class citizen. You are a just like the rest of us and have the right to commit a sin whenever you wish. You're just not going to get the response you are so desperately seeking and that's condonation and acceptance that this behavior is COMPARABLE IN ANY WAY to the context of a traditional marriage. That's what this is all about. It's just a comparison and questioning why it can’t be like traditional marriage. It can't because it isn't. There is nothing comparable about it. You have a lot of people confused and asking why it can’t be because they don't understand the whole picture of how sin affects everyone. It doesn't resignate with only the sinners. It has a trickle effect in our human race just as good does. Younger people right now have been sucked into believing the "why can't everyone do what they want as long as it doesn't affect anyone." There are very few behaviors that do not affect anyone. We live as a whole society. If you think at this time in history we need to make a correction to what we know has worked for thousands of years, you are sorely mistaken. The devil is so appealing.

[jade7243]

In the five states where gay marriage has been legalized, it was not done by ballot initiative or referendum. In the 32 states where there has been a ballot initiative, gay marriage has lost every time. In California, where the legislature approved (and the state supreme court upheld) gay marriage, a ballot initiative reversed the legislature. The middle ground seems to be civil union or domestic partnership. Do not be surprised if Iowa reverses course in 2010.

If I were advising gay rights activists, I suggest you pursue the middle ground, which provides you all of the protections (and frankly you could provide even more) of marriage without the incendiary word. I'd suggest you change from making gay opponents feel you are trying to take something away from them (and we know you are not), and instead you pursue something new and different and better. There is no reason why you cannot do what France did: create a civil union that covered both straight and gay couples, providing protections that parallel marriage for domestic partners.

It's time to change tactics, rethink how you will achieve your goals and above all, stop fighting with people who will never agree with you. Ignore them and accomplish something. And as frustrating as it may seem, steady incremental change is how you accomplish what you want.

[mercury613]

No offense, but I think it's terribly naive to think that if we remove the word "marriage" from the debate, the religious right wing will just capitulate, and everything will be hunky dory.

Referendum 71 in Washington, although a victory, clearly demonstrates that homophobes will fight us tooth and nail over this issues, whether or not the word "marriage" is at stake. This is not about a word, or religious freedom, or any of the rhetoric the Christian Taliban has disingenuously put forth. This is about people who don't want us to exist, and who don't want us to be happy in our relationships, and who will stop and *nothing* to dehumanize us.

[StevenKeirstead]

Actually Arizona’s constitutional ban on same sex marriage did not pass in 2006. So the marriage equality side did win there, though it was not a vote to establish same sex marriage.

[NWBrunette]

Trying to find the easy way out is a great American tradition. But to reduce this "debate" to a grammatical problem is a bit over the top. There's not a right-wing bible thumper in the land that will fall for it. Plus, this isn't about "gay" rights. Its about equal rights for all. Pure and simple. Any decent civics class can help you with that.

[Liberal Angel]

No, we shouldn't come to a "middle ground" on our civil rights. We should be FULL and EQUAL citizens in our own damn country.

[RLMcKee]

It is my understanding that the vote in Maine may not be accurate - so a recount may be helpful. A total state recount would cost $2500.

Maine had definite problems in its last elections, with faulty machines (Diebold rears its ugly head once more... and this time, they have ALL the automatic machines!)

Demand a recount. Write or call the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, either in Washington DC or the local chapter in Maine, and demand they request a recount.

The deadline for filing is THIS TUESDAY. ACT NOW.

[FarmerTed71]

Thanks for the pictures. It is nice to see the face of my enemy rejoicing. They may have won the battle but they will loose the war.
:-)

[oafishcad]

I don't understand why the equal protection Clause in the Constitution doesn't apply to gay citizens. There would never even be elections to remove the right of Muslims to marry, or fat people. Why doesn't the Constitution protect gay citizens?

[M1]

Because the Constitution does not really matter anymore. The entire Democratic system has been politicized and now there are those justices sitting on the court who openly say things like....I would have voted against Brown v. Board of Education.

[ez duz it]

The Constitution is nothing but scrawls of ink on parchment unless you and I and the people we know and love bring it to life.

The words in our founding documents are powerful. They WERE powerful enough to bring about the the abolition of slavery, grant African Americans and women the right to vote and thwart institutionalized Jim Crowism. We must believe that they WILL be powerful enough to crush legislation that prevents same-sex couples from marrying the person they love.

Discouragement is understandable. But do not let the "NO" sayers defeat you! This is what they want. Like a gang of children playing a vicious game of "keep away," they may be revelling in a barely-won victory. But we must let them know by our words and actions that we will work until marriage equality is won in America and NOTHING or NO ONE will deter us.

Keep strong. Rise above them. Proudly remember your roots: Plato, Alexander, Leonardo, Michelangelo, Tchaikovsky, Gertrude and Alice, James Baldwin, Bayard Rustin and others in our pantheon.

(Fanned!)

[PhilipB]

Well said.

[Christober]

The Constitution does protect homosexuals. There is no Constitutional right to marry. The first ten amendments are called the Bill of Rights. Show me one of those ten which somehow are not enforced for homosexuals. Just one.

Until then, stop with the whining. A society in Maine made its voice heard on giving homosexuals the legal ability to marry in that state. You need to understand that the historical institution of marriage is a traditional entity. Societies are free to decide whether or not they want such a tradition radically changed. The reality is that you guys want to force your ideology on the majority and for what?

[DMSmith]

For nothing more than the equality you take for granted.

As for the tradition of marriage - you are wrong. There is a long history of marriages of all sorts. For many years the Catholic Church would marry two men in the church, but not a man and a woman, because THAT was a financial arrangement between families and could be performed by a priest, but not in the church.

Ignorance is ultimately ugly.

[medwreck]

That's funny because amendments are now also part of the Bill of Rights. Nice try though. Try Priveleges and Immunities, anyone?

[Craigart14]

Marriage was once primarily a matter for churches to decide, and as far as I'm concerned, churches and ministers should be free to choose whether or not to enact same sex marriage policies within their organizations. However, the government has been in the marriage business for a long time now. As long as people must pay for marriage licenses sold by the government and as long as there is a different tax structure and different employment benefits for married couples than for singles or domestic partners, then all adult citizens should have access to marriage, and tradition be damned. I'm always puzzled by the right wing's love of "freedom" for the rich to exploit the working class and to pollute the environment (actions that harm society), versus their hatred for individual freedoms such as whom to have sex with and what kind of movies you can watch, which affects no one but the individuals involved. Baffling.

Craig

[Liberal Angel]

Marriage is a civil right, not a "privilege". We want our civil rights because they are ours to have. We need no reason other than we're American citizens to demand them.

[TheBlackCat]

Agreed that this is a generational issue. I am in my late twenties. When it comes to my grandparents generation, my grandparents and their friends are almost all against gay marriage even if they are Democrats who supported other civil rights movements. In my parents generation, some of them support it, while some do not.

However, of my generation, almost everyone I know is for gay marraige. Even my more religious conservative friends are simply indifferent to it, as ooposed to being strongly against it the way my liberal, not very religious grandparents are.

[M1]

I love your generation. It was this generation that led the wave of change. Although Maine was lost they did come out and vote. They did not come out and vote in the other states but they came back for us!

[oafishcad]

Your generation, that voted Obama into office, stayed away in droves in Maine guaranteeing the passage of the inequality that now exists. You can get all, we'remore open minded than you, but if you don't vote, keep your superiority complex to yourself.

[gillianb]

I shudder to think what this country would be like if all issues were settled by referenda and initiatives. We were founded as a republic ... not an Athenian-style democracy. The Bill of Rights was attached to the Constitution immediately to protect the rights of minority against the tyranny of the majority.

It is just plain wrong for the underinformed voters to thwart the work of the elected representatives and even the decisions of the courts in order to impose their will on any minority group or individuals in the state. IMO that is not equal protection of the laws as prescribed by the 14th Amendment.