Tomorrow We Can Make History

Tomorrow, Maine voters decide whether to repeal Maine's 4-month-old same-sex marriage law. Don't be mistaken: this is an historic election. Tomorrow Maine can become the first state in the country to support marriage equality in a statewide vote.

Two summers ago I proudly watched as my daughter, Hannah Pingree, was married in a simple ceremony in our community. Good friends of ours -- two men in a long time committed relationship who had known Hannah since she was a small child -- performed the ceremony. I'll never forget what one of them said to Hannah the day before the wedding.

"I'm so proud of you, Hannah," David said. "But I want to remind you that tomorrow you will be doing something we can't do by getting married."

The next year Hannah became Speaker of the Maine House and she, along with other legislative leaders and our governor, made Maine one of the first states in the country to make same-sex marriage legal through the legislative process. I was so proud of my daughter and her colleagues in the state capitol that day.

Maine people have a live-and-let-live philosophy, and tend to be fair and open-minded. Left to themselves, I have no doubt that they would support true marriage equality for all Maine families.

The problem is, they haven't been left to themselves.

The same forces that were behind Prop 8 in California have moved their entire operation to Maine. The anti-marriage equality effort in Maine is a carbon copy of the California effort -- including false and misleading ads intended to frighten parents and distract attention from the real issue of marriage equality. Funded primarily by the right-wing National Organization for Marriage, they have tried to convince parents that legalizing same-sex marriage in Maine will lead to "explicit" discussions of gay sex as part of a "gay friendly curriculum." For kindergartners.

The anti-marriage side has not exactly set the standard for openness and transparency. Last month they went to court to try and avoid state law that requires the names of donors to be reported. And it's been two weeks since the last campaign finance report, so we have no way of knowing how much they've raised in these final days -- but I am told that they have increased their ad buy significantly. A massive infusion from an outside group (think the Mormon Church in California's Prop 8 campaign) at the last minute wouldn't be a surprise.

You can help. Go to Protect Maine Equality to learn more.

The vote in Maine can go one of two ways tomorrow. It can be a victory for those who prefer fear and misinformation over honest discussion. Or it can be a victory for fairness and equality that will resonate across the country and, I guarantee, through the halls of Congress. Please help make the difference for my state by clicking here.

 

 

Follow Chellie Pingree on Twitter: www.twitter.com/chelliepingree

Comments

[DevonTexas]

For what it's worth, I contributed today. I'm sure you'll have some expenses associated with clean up and possibly getting started on the next effort in case this one fails. I hope my little bit helps.
It would be wonderful to hear that Mainers passed the test on the first try!

[Anne Johnson]

So sad that love is a political issue. I do not care what the original purpose of marriage was hundreds of years ago. In this day and age people get married because they fall in love and want to make a lifetime committment to each other. What other people do in the privacy of their own lives is nobody elses' business plain and simple. How would any heterosexual couple feel if there was some law passed that said they could not get married for whatever reason? So completely unfair that religion gets to have a say in lawmaking. Not everyone has the same beliefs so one group of people should not be allowed to have more rights than another group of people just because their religion tells them it's ok.

[All4ME]

Chellie -- I'm your fan (and you were great on Colbert)!! You are doing a fantastic job for the people of this great state. Thank you so much!

You're right, it's about fairness, and the people I've talked to see that. People spreading h8, fear and lies in this state are from away. I'm a straight lady with a family, and I don't know why anyone would have a problem with our gay brethren having the same rights and responsibilities of full membership in the human family.

Gosh -- they're playing The Star-Spangled Banner on NPr, and I am going to jump on my bike and GO VOTE!

[kladinvt]

On Oct 3rd, my long-term partner and I were legally married here in Vermont, before our families, friends and neighbors and I cannot emphasis the life changing effect that event has had on us and on those who attended, and as citizens of this state, to have our government finally treat us as EQUALS is indescribable. I hope that our fellow citizens in Maine can beat back the hatred visited upon them from outsiders and stand up for equality for all Mainers!

[The Professor]

Didn't the voters in VT in 2008 vote to allow gay marriage? Just asking.

[freedom4allau]

what the heck are conception rights? if someone wants to have a baby, no one is stopping them - sheesh

[John Howard]

The state stops people from conceiving babies in unethical ways. For instance it stops siblings from procreating, it stops people from raping other people, it stops people from cloning other people, it stops people from selling their babies or stealing babies. And, it should stop people from trying to conceive with someone of the same sex, or other forms of genetic engineering. Those should be illegal, punished with huge fines and jail, and any children created in such ways should be taken from the people who selfishly created them in such an irresponsible manner, putting them at unnecessary risk.

[EbonBear]

What on earth are you talking about? You've lumped a lot of disparate things together there. Rape, selling or stealing babies are all unethical criminal acts due to their effect on others. Incest is banned because it leads to numerous genetic infirmities. Genetic engineering is not unethical in itself (numerous vacines and medicines come from genetic engineering, as do many crops) and the only reason to think the offspring of two men, for example, would be adversely affected is if one has already decided that being gay is bad. Actual studies (of which, there are loads) say that children raised by same-sex parents are no better or worse than those raised by opposite sex parents.

[ThomH]

A letter to the editor of the Boothbay Register this week invoked The Book of Leviticus in The Old Testament to back up the case for denying gay marriage.

Since the OT also prohibits eating shellfish, too bad the referendum writers didn't take advantage of killing two birds with one stone. Just think of it: Tuesday's vote could let Maine voters at one fell swoop outlaw both gay marriage and lobstering, the better to keep our lives in line with biblical instruction.

[essbird]

... and banning menstruating women from the village ...

[All4ME]

Jon Stewart said that -- you can violate Leviticus twice if you have lobster at your gay wedding.

...lobster at the reception.­..Mmmm, I heart Maine!

[narrowway]

Homosexuality is condemned by God in the New Testament as well. And, God defines marriage as the union of a man and a woman.

[EbonBear]

Until my religious views are enshrined in law (I'm a Satanist), yours don't get to be either.

[ThomH]

The New Teatament prohibits homosexuality and allows slavery. Does that mean our laws should follow suit? It doesn't take much searching of the Bible, Old Testament or New, to find things prohited that are allowed today, and vice versa.

Maybe we should keep religious proscriptions out of our laws, and let people choose for themselves which biblical injunctions they choose to follow. I don't know of anyone who follows them all. For example, who today believes that every 50 years all debts should be forgiven and all land sales reversed? Or does anyone believe we should be allowed to sell our daughters into slavery? Should we have laws covering these practices, just as called for in the OT?

[EdNeedham]

Thanks for the support, Chellie!

Heading up to my home state of Maine tomorrow with a couple of busloads of folks from MA to help the last day GOTV efforts. Hoping that love and equality will trounce fear and discrimination.

Still much work left to do no matter which way things go tomorrow. The Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) is a national disgrace. The fact that it still exists 1 year after the election of our President is salt in the wounds of those who believed him when he said he would end it. The same goes for Don't Ask, Don't Tell (DADT). Leadership means you lead. So far, I haven't seen our President lead anything anywhere.

This is NOT a gay issue! I am a heterosexual man and an activist in this fight because it seeks civil rights equality for a minority. Just as the movements of the 60's for black Americans and the women's suffrage movement before that fought for equality. Equality is American.

Thanks again for your help. Keep speaking out loud and clear. You are on the right side of history.

And don't even get me started on the public option!

[EdNeedham]

Thanks for the support, Chellie!

Heading up to my home state of Maine tomorrow with a couple of busloads of folks from MA to help the last day GOTV efforts. Hoping that love and equality will trounce fear and discrimination.

Still much work left to do no matter which way things go tomorrow. The Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) is a national disgrace. The fact that it still exists 1 year after the election of our President is salt in the wounds of those who believed him when he said he would end it. The same goes for Don't Ask, Don't Tell (DADT). Leadership means you lead. So far, I haven't seen our President lead anything anywhere.

This is NOT a gay issue! I am a heterosexual man and an activist in this fight because it seeks civil rights equality for a minority. Just as the movements of the 60's for black Americans and the women's suffrage movement before that fought for equality. Equality is American.

Thanks again for your help. Keep speaking out loud and clear. You are on the right side of history.

And don't even get me started on the public option!

[TruthJusticeForAll]

Vote YES.

[Pem3]

I may not live there but sure do hope that they keep the law and just let people be happy with their loved ones.

[John Howard]

Marriage would allow them to use genetically modified artificial gametes to procreate together, or, if it wouldn't, it would strip procreation rights from everyone's marriage. Civil Unions defined as "marriage minus conception rights" would allow them to be happy with their loved ones, without equating a married man and woman's procreation rights to a same-sex couple's.

[CJWebber]

Same-sex couples increase the number of adoptions. That's not a bad thing, is it?

[Hajji]

So...if heterosexual couple are either incapable or unwilling to breed, then they shouldn't be allowed to wed?

Ridiculous!

[Hajji]

Why do you assume "procreation rights" are restricted to married people?

Ridiculous!

[freedom4allau]

I really fail to see the logic of how my partner and I getting married strips anyone of their procreation rights. Trust me, I have no intention of barging in to someone's home to stop them in the middle of the act - how disgusting! And since when did one need conception rights to procreate? Ask Sarah Palin about her daughters' procreation - was she married? Think not John. Your argument is so full of wholes, not even scatter shot could put so many holes in an argument. Sheesh....­.

[EbonBear]

You're taking rubbish. First off, married couples do not have an automatic right to artificial reproduction. Secondly, human cloning (and it would be cloning) was already banned back in the Clinton era. Thirdly, "procreation rights" (a category of law you've just invented) have no connection to marriage rights.

In conclusion, if you want to put a ban on the creation of genetically engineered humans, fine but it's entirely superfluous.

[because8we8care]

The word "hate" has been used so inaccurately that it is loosing its meaning. It is like when my friend says the word "cute." It is used in so many settings that the only meaning she could possible assign to it is "it exists." Hate must now mean that someone feels something about something?

[essbird]

In recent times, I have not met a vehement anti-gay marriage/rights person who was not either fundamentalist Christian, Catholic, closet gay, or a victim of childhood homosexual abuse. Read: Emotion. How close it is to hate may vary, but it's certainly somewhere that side of "gays exist."

[Old Norm]

I have questions about same sex marriage issues. I would like some reasonable same sex marriage supporters to reply. I am honestly trying to resolve this issue in my head.

I have heard the comment over and over that two people in love should be able to marry.
Wouldn't that apply to a mother and son if neither could biologically have children?

Supporters say that the government should not decide who we marry.
Do same sex marriage supporters agree with laws against polygamy?

The fight for same sex marriage has been compared to the civil rights struggle by supporters.
If marriage is a civil right shouldn't anyone be able to marry anyone they wish, Including brothers
and sisters, mothers and sons and fathers and daughters?

If you have reasonable comments to these questions please chime in. I am not interested in a flame war.

Thanks

[FarOutFish]

I'll take a shot at your questions. Rather than use the emotionally charged "Marry" I would prefer "Civil Contract" that gives the same rights without the emotion.

" I have heard the comment over and over that two people in love should be able to marry.
Wouldn't that apply to a mother and son if neither could biologically have children?"

I can not see any logical reason they should be denied a contractual relationship. The State would only have an "interest" if they were able to procreate.

"Do same sex marriage supporters agree with laws against polygamy?"

It is none of the States business what kinds of living arrangements are made by consenting adults

"If marriage is a civil right shouldn't anyone be able to marry anyone they wish, Including brothers
and sisters, mothers and sons and fathers and daughters?"

The State has an interest in arrangements that are genetically dangerous. In those cases a Prohibition would be appropriate.

Virtually all restrictions on legal cohabitation are Religiously based. The doctrine of separation of church and state makes these laws unconstitutional. The best way to handle how adults form a "family" is by contract. Marriage is fundamentally a Religious question thus the State should only issue civil contracts. If the people involved wish their union to be blessed by a religious ceremony, the decision to sanctify the relationship through the rite of Marriage should be up to each Religion.

[narrowway]

The definition of marriage cannot be changed from the union of a man and a woman; it can only be perverted by allowing other arrangements. Marriage is, by definition, the union of a man and a woman. If you allow other arrangements, you don't have a marriage, you have something else. Calling it a marriage does not make it one anymore than calling a cow a horse makes it one.

[freedom4allau]

I was going to make a comment but one cannot do anything with ignorance - boy am I sick of the self righteous.

[bccmeteorites]

Marriage is another word for commitment. While you can be committed to your employer, you really cannot be married to a business, although some would argue with that. Irrespective of the person's sex, legalization is only a part of the key to making it a commitment. Definitions and circumstances change with time. It's part of social evolution and we must all adjust. You do believe in evolution don't you?

[narrowway]

People have no right to redefine what God has defined.

[ariveria]

sorry but arizona was the first state to reject gay marriage ban

"a lie repeated often enough becomes the truth"
glenn beck
information czar fox news
the view 5/20/09

[BeltwayInsider]

No.

I believe Arizona rejected a constitutional amendment prohibiting same sex marriage.

The citizens of Arizona never had the right to marry someone of the same sex; the citizens of Main currently have such a right, which was granted to them through legislation.

The difference is that, in Maine, a vote is being taken to remove a right already granted to the people by legislation, whereas in Arizona, the vote was whether or not the people want to block such (future) legislation.

[FarOutFish]

I believe California's Constitutional amendment through proposition 8 was the first time a states voters rejected same sex marriage.

It is true a Lie will travel a thousand miles before the Truth gets out of the starting gate.