The defeat of same-sex marriage in Maine is a real disappointment for those of us who believe that discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation is the most important civil rights issue of our time. We must remember, though, that changing hearts and minds takes time. Only twenty-five years ago, the very idea of same-sex marriage would have seemed preposterous to almost all Americans. Today, it is a serious issue that closely divides us. Those who oppose same-sex marriage are still hanging on by their fingernails, but the writing is on the wall.
Only a decade ago, 27 percent of Americans favored same-sex marriage. Today, 40 percent of Americans hold that position. Fifteen years ago, there was no state in which 40 percent of Americans supported same-sex marriage. Today, 40 percent or more of Americans endorse this view in 24 states. In every state but Utah, support of same-sex marriage has increased substantially over the past fifteen years. Moreover, there is a clear generational divide. Whereas only 32 percent of Americans over 65 favor same-sex marriage, 59% of Americans between 18 and 29 embrace this view.
Much of this progress has come about as gays and lesbians have come out of the closet. For centuries, gays and lesbians had to hide a fundamental part of their selves, both in shame and to avoid persecution. Unlike other oppressed groups, like women and blacks, gays and lesbians could evade discrimination by leading secret lives. But the price of such evasion was truly awful. Not only did they have to deny an essential part of their own identities, but they were unable to play a meaningful role in the political process. Because blacks and women could not evade discrimination by masking their identities, they had no choice but to be public, and this enabled them to work openly for political and legal change. Gays and lesbians, however, were caught in a double-bind. The need and ability to hide who they were made it impossible for them publicly to assert their rights.
It was only when gays and lesbians courageously stepped out of the closet that real change began. That change came about not only because they could become active politically, but also because people came to realize, sometimes to their shock and dismay, that their children, their neighbors, their friends, their co-workers were gays and lesbians. Despite the adage that familiarity breeds contempt, in this instance familiarity has bred sympathy, understanding and respect. And that process of recognizing and then embracing our common humanity will surely continue.
But to say that the future is inevitable is not to say that the future should not be now. Every day, members of the gay and lesbian community are degraded, denied equal rights, and subjected to indignities by what is still, unfortunately, an unthinking and callous majority. Like women and blacks, gays and lesbians shall overcome. But, as with women and blacks, sooner is better than later.
What is most missing now in the movement to achieve equality in America is courage among our political leaders. Even the leading contenders for the 2008 Democratic presidential nomination were unwilling to say that they supported same-sex marriage. This is shameful. And it is especially shameful that our President remains silent. Barack Obama the politician may find it expedient to hedge his position, but Barack Obama the man knows, he must know, that this position is morally wrong. It is time for him to say so, and it is time for him and other political leaders across the nation to step up on this issue and lead. That, after all, is what leaders do.
Bob Cesca: Republican Political Hackery and the Hate Crimes Bill
Why don't you want to protect religious people, Hannity? Why don't you want to protect disabled people, Limbaugh? Why don't you want to protect women, Congresswoman Foxx?
Please, TJFA, in which Supreme Court brief did you find this ruling? I would love to read it, especially since no such ruling was made by the SCOTUS.
TJFA also writes, “The vast majority are not interested in changing the definition of marriage to accomodate the hysterical!”
The political and religious right have enjoyed obvious success in denying same sex-couples the legal right to marry the person they love. Indeed, a number of Democrats have politically benefited from aligning themselves with the right, in this regard. And they have done this precisely by re-defining "marriage."
But, to say that the “vast majority are not interested in changing the definition of marriage,” contradicts the historical record. Prior to 1996 and the enactment of DOMA, marriage at the federal level was between “two persons.” It was only as recently as 1996 that the federal government RE-defined marriage as between “one man and one woman.”
I am glad that despite the propaganda, denial of the truth, misinformation, as well as manipulation of the past advanced by people, such as TJFA, to deny same-sex couples the right to marry the person they love, there will always be people, here, to challenge them.
I have great hope that, soon, all couples in this country will be able to marry the person they love regardless of their gender.
In all, I believe it came down to the same spurious argument that brought down the casino referendum in 2004, people from away using distorted information in a "think of the children" attack. This time it was that kindergarten students would be instructed about gay marriage, which is silly rubbish, we dont have lessons for straight marriage in kindergarten to begin with.
Considering how much headway has been made in the state, its a sign that things have become more tolerant. I'm sorry gays lost the option (no matter what, marriage is still just an option in life) to get married here, but considering the level of tolerance and anti-discrimination laws we have its a sign that real change will come.
People who say we are bigoted, put this to a vote in your state and see if you get a win or even a 3 percent margin.
I wouldn't call Mainers bigoted, it sounds like the vote was pretty close, but I'm from Massachusetts, and I bet we could beat a 3% loss. More importantly, we've never had to.
There might have been a point when unions, as in the U.K., could have flown here (_might_, because we do have an "Equal Protection" clause), but the elderly, the Catholics, and the gay haters in general balked at any protection for gay rights. Anyone remember the '80s?
And in case you hadn't noticed, marriage isn't "coming." It's already here.
Over the past several months, I have seen you working reasonably, kindly and tirelessly to challenge ideas advanced by some to deny same-sex couples the right to marry the person they love.
I just wanted to commend you for your hard work and consistently positive spirit. It means SO much to me and other LGBT people! Thank you...
Your co-worker in the struggle for equality... ex_duz_it
“but Barack Obama the man knows, he must know, that this position is morally wrong.”
For those under 25 years or so, the irony will be missed. You see, the gay rights movement came of age during a period in our history when the notion of anything being morally right or wrong was being called into question. By the 80s (my time in college), many were suggesting that it was impossible to declare something morally wrong or some absolute truth. Therefore, the argument went, those who insist on pushing their values on others by, say, opposing a certain behavior, were living in a faux world. There is no ‘morally wrong’ on some universal scale. Thus, everyone should be able to do as they please; do this, don’t do that, accept this, accept that - live and let live. Watch TV shows from the 80s and early 90s, and you’ll see a lot of ‘live and let live, since no one can say anything is absolutely right or wrong.’
Of course, all the while it wasn’t hard to notice that everyone believed in absolute morals, right and wrong. But that was usually not the case in arguing for things like accepting same sex orientation. So it came as a bit of a surprise to see that, yes Virginia, there are moral absolutes after all. And apparently those absolutes are crystal clear.
But mostly, I am angry.
"Every day, members of the gay and lesbian community are degraded, denied equal rights, and subjected to indignities by what is still, unfortunately, an unthinking and callous majority."
During a gleeful victory speech, our opposition had the nerve to immediately claim that hate was absolutely not a factor in this voting.
I would have respect for the opposition and would practice tolerance towards their "differing view" were the opposition not so shamelessly intellectually dishonest, which is an insufferable further insult to their degradation of us.
As an aside, everyone who voted to ban gay marriage should have to experience the surreal humiliation that comes with having your civil rights stripped from you, all by popular vote.
It is a horrible indignity, and it is a betrayal.
"Liberty and justice for all."
Not so much.
Not for us.
A convicted serial killer doesn't even have his marriage rights stripped. Jesus Christ.
The lesson is still one of hope. That the law got through their state legislature in the first place is still a small but visible sign of progress. It was a close call...and wouldn't have even been that if it weren't for religious forces mired in Dark Ages sentiment. But they'd martialed all their resources for this battle and it still turned out too close to call. It's still a sign that we're progressing and that we can still overcome this. It's still a constitutional question and can be won on constitutional grounds.
We'll get there... we will get there!
WHY were the voters in Maine allowed to over ride a vote by the state legislature and signed by the Governor? And could this be done to ALL unpopular legislation... could we have a popular vote and vote to do away with parking tickets? Or the IRS? Could we have a popular vote and remove rights already won by other groups, like vote to keep women from voting? Or to bring back Jim Crow laws?
Maine tried to circumvent the argument that gay marriage is only handed down from the judiciary branch (which is true everywhere it is legal) by passing it in the legislature. I believe the courts decided that it could be put to a vote (not sure on that part) but like I said, I think this one is going to be ended for the moment in the courts.
The lesson from Maine is that the electorate is not with you yet: they do not see what advantage they gain from changing a long-held custom of the majority to suit a small minority - especially when that minority seems to gain only a semantic benefit.
Maybe we need to have another generation of people die before gay marriage will pass the popular vote in the U.S. To think that only 25% of eligible voters in Maine repealed legislation passed by the Maine legislature. Do we put civil rights on every ballot on election day so that they become the fashion of the electorate, subject to the popularity of the day. Let's put inter-racial marriage on the ballot to see what the outcome would be? I think the results would be disappointing.
4 years of gay marriage in Canada and Spain. The only way that happened was the state told religious groups to get out of the legislature.
It seems to me that calling same-sex unions "marriage" requires a deep change in the institution of marriage... too deep a change for the electorate of Maine to accept.
Had the vote been to ensure that same-sex unions get identical rights, responsibilities and benefits as marriages, I suspect there would have been a landslide in favour.
In many things in this country, it was not necessary to win hearts and minds. Laws from the Legislative Branch and rulings from the Judicial Branch carried the day. Hearts and minds were yanked into submission, or there were penalties. That has been true in ending Jim Crow laws, in bringing the Civil Rights and Voting Rights effects to the country generally, and the old-South specifically. Once law is set, you think what you like, but you comply, or else.
Gays will never get fundamental rights through the Legislative Branch - there's too much religious bigotry eminating from small, rural states who still have two senators each, thereby making legislation very difficult. There are too many religionists for the President to antagonize.
The best hope is this federal civil rights lawsuit brought in San Francisco by the dueling attorneys before the Supreme Court which effectively selected President Bush. The Judicial Branch is the place where the rights of the minorities are to be protected from the tyranny of the majorities. This simple civil rights case will, invariably, go to the Supreme Court.
The Court will likely declare all these 'legal' discriminations unconstitutional, and end this era of religious bigotry against gays.
You are correct in that, but the trouble in Maine that everyone else has is money and misinformation improperly influencing voting. I'm not sure of the final tallies, but last I read, $6 million was spent on this campaign and $1.4 mil of it was spent for gay marriage. A LOT of money came from the same people that influenced the california vote, people not from here.
I think this will end in the judicial branch anyway, Maine was just trying to avoid that by first going to the legislative, and then by referendum to the people.
As it is said, in the below talk, when we are silent on moral issues, the religious right will fill in the gap with nonsense and worse. Since we are in the right, why are we the quite ones? When we stand for civil rights, why should we tread so lightly?
http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/liz_coleman_s_call_to_reinvent_liberal_arts_education.html
They lied to and tricked the California voters and no one is calling them out on it.
http://s810.photobucket.com/albums/zz24/Qbear_01/?action=view¤t=CarrieRage2.jpg
The feminist poet Robin Morgan wrote after her gay husband had been bashed
"I'm pregnant with rage, and my pains are coming closer"
Their fear mongering is a kind of domestic ter.ror.ism.
We could also do a ballot initiative that says:
"Only gays and lesbians can vote on gay and lesbian civil rights."
Can't you remember? Marriage licensing was only invented by the government to keep white folks from marrying blacks! Why continue this ridiculous government involvement in something that is none of their business? Forget the marriage issue, and talk about benefits. Then you will win me over in a heart beat! In the meantime, I will vote against any bill that promotes the idea of same sex marriage.
Marriage is a state contract. The certificate of Marriage is given by the state, and is legally binding.
It has nothing to do whatever with religion.
Gays and lesbians already can have religious weddings, religious marriages and many do. This is not the issue at all.
Government has every right to recognized legal contracts between adults.
US constitution Article 1, Section 10: Limits on the States
Clause 1: Contracts Clause
“ No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law,
or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts,
or grant any Title of Nobility."
So, states must not constitutionally make laws IMPAIRING the obligation of contracts. Civil marriage is a contract. Maine's action is unconstitutional on multiple levels.
Please inform yourself.