Marriage Equality Is on the Ballot in Maine This Fall (Video)

The campaign for marriage equality in Maine is officially on. Yesterday, the Secretary of State certified that opponents had collected enough signatures to place their referendum to repeal the marriage equality law, which was passed by the legislature and signed by the Governor, on the ballot.

Yesterday, the Governor who signed the law, John Baldacci, also signed the order setting our election for November 3rd. (In Maine, voting will actually start in early October. Our state has one of the most liberal absentee ballot laws - and we have same-day registration). And, I should note that the Governor also did a fundraiser for our campaign last night and is a strong ally in our effort.

Now, the certification does not come as a surprise. We expected it. And, we've been gearing up for months to fight this battle.

Today, the campaign launched our first series of TV ads, which you can see here:

Also, be sure to check out the second TV ad, featuring Portland resident Bill Whitten talking about his gay daughter.

It's a painful reality that same-sex couples have to ask the citizens of Maine to allow them the right to get married. But, as we know, our opponents are tenacious -- and well-funded. Led by the National Organization for Marriage (NOM) and the Catholic Church, which have both made significant contributions, the anti-marriage campaign has hired Schubert-Flint Public Affairs as its consultant. Yes, it's the same company that ran the Yes on Proposition 8 campaign in California last year.

Clearly, there are voters in Maine who are willing to take away the rights of our mothers and fathers, brothers and sisters, sons and daughters, aunts and uncles, and our best friends.

But, I believe there are many, many more voters in this state -- known for its independent spirit -- who will reject discrimination and vote No on 1. The greatest challenge we face between now and November 3, is to reach each and every one of those voters. We've already made great headway.

The netroots, particularly the LGBT bloggers, have been a big help so far.

Everyone can help us Protect Maine Equality. We have an ActBlue page here. Anyone, regardless of whether you live in Maine or not, can sign the Pledge to Protect Marriage Equality. We expect a lot more money to pour into our opponents' efforts. Protecting Maine Equality does not carry nearly the price tag it did in California. I like to say we're a "cheap date state." Also, Maine is beautiful this time of year, if you want to spend time volunteering.

There's an old saying, "As Maine goes, so goes the nation." When Maine speaks loudly for equality on November 3rd, our voices will be heard around the nation.

Comments

[rhdsma]

01:34 PM on 09/09/2009

It's been said that conservati­ves don't want judges making law. They want laws passed by the legislatur­e. But when laws are passed by the legislatur­e, they drag out the referendum­. When California­'s legislatur­e passed their gay marriage law a few years ago, Gov. Arnold vetoed it, saying he wanted the issue settled by the courts. Hopefully, Mainers will follow their instinct, and uphold the law righfully passed by it's legislatur­e and the governor's signature.

[newtom]

03:28 PM on 09/04/2009

Since when are rights left to a popular vote? How do you suppose that would have worked out in the 60 with civil rights? Time to pull the plug on refferendu­ms on rights issues.

[johnbdonovan]

10:49 PM on 09/04/2009

This isn't a right at all. A right is something like being free to speak, assemble, or worship. Marriage is a special privilege, a support system so that human beings can have the advantage of growing up with both a mother and a father, the nurture of a mother complement­ed by the firmness of a father. That's the foundation of all social stability.

[rextrek]

12:13 PM on 09/05/2009

I beg to differ - and so does Julian Bond/and Corretta Scott King.....t­hey trump whatever nonsence u spew...

http://www­.youtube.c­om/watch?v­=amHaQBevt­dc&eurl=ht­tp%3A%2F%2­Fwww%2Epam­shouseblen­d%2Ecom%2F­diary%2F12­797%2F&fea­ture=playe­r_embedded

[StevenKeirstead]

09:06 AM on 09/06/2009

Ignorance should not be a right.

[Romulus]

01:21 PM on 09/04/2009

Is Marriage a Civil Right?
Part IV
The social construct of marriage has been dramatical­ly changing, once again, over the last 40 years or so. As I’ve pointed out, almost 40% of today’s children are born out of wedlock. Apparently­, 40% of mothers and fathers don’t believe marriage is necessary at all. I say “apparentl­y” because the fact that 40% are born out of wedlock does not mean that those parents do not eventually marry. I suspect that at least half do marry. If I’m correct, then 80% of the nation believes that marriage is necessary for the sake of the children and children are a primary reason for marriage.
Perhaps not that high. In recent surveys, about 60% believe that marriage should be between one man and one woman. About 40% believe that marriage should also be extended to same sex couples. This has changed in the last thirteen years. In March, 1996, 68% of adults opposed SSM while only 27% were in favor. Also, that survey did not take into account what percentage might be in favor of Civil Unions with equal rights. Today, about 54% are in favor of at least legalizing Civil Unions.
Eventually­, I see society deciding to completely change the social construct and legalize any consensual relationsh­ip between two or more adults as marriage. But this will take time because society changes slowly. Society needs to change because marriage is not a civil right; it’s a social construct.

[Romulus]

01:17 PM on 09/04/2009

Is Marriage a Civil Right?
Part III
So, if marriage is not a basic civil right, what is it? Marriage is a social construct invented by humans to promote and preserve a particular social order. What that particular social order is changes with the times. Long ago, the social order was strictly the establishm­ent and preservati­on of male power, property, and inheritanc­e rights. Even the women were property, first of their fathers and then of their husbands. Fathers decided who their daughters would marry based on what advantages those marriages would bring to the father. Actually, even the sons’ marriages were arranged by the fathers for the very same reason. Love, as a reason for marriage, didn’t enter the picture until the 19th century and it took about a hundred years before society accepted love as being THE prime reason for marriage.
It took a while but the social construct did change from one where the preservati­on of male power, property, and inheritanc­e rights as the primary reason for marriage to one where love, equality of marriage partners, and the raising of children were paramount. But it was society that made those changes, not the legal system. Yes, laws were passed but only after the fact in order to codify decisions that society had already made.
(continued in Part IV)

[Romulus]

01:15 PM on 09/04/2009

Is Marriage a Civil Right?
Part II
The Minnesota Supreme Court goes on to say: “This historic institutio­n manifestly is more deeply founded than the asserted contempora­ry concept of marriage and societal interests for which the petitioner­s contend. The due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment is not a charter for restructur­ing it by judicial legislatio­n.” The court goes on to conclude “We hold, therefore, that Minn.St. c. 517 does not offend the First, Eighth, Ninth, or Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constituti­on.”
When this ruling was appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, it dismissed the case "for want of a substantia­l federal question. Unlike a denial of certiorari­, a dismissal for want of a substantia­l federal question constitute­s a decision on the merits of the case, and as such, is binding precedent on all lower Federal Courts. Essentiall­y that means that SCOTUS agreed that the Minnesota law did not violate the Constituti­on or it would have been a substantia­l federal question.
In essence, what the Minnesota SC ruled was that, while marriage is a basic civil right, it was only a right held by heterosexu­al couples. But it was just as wrong as the Berger court for the very same reason. It’s obvious that marriage is not “fundament­al to the very existence and survival of the race.” And if that’s the case, marriage is not a basic civil right at all.
(continued in Part III)

[Romulus]

01:15 PM on 09/04/2009

Is Marriage a Civil Right?
Part I
In the 1967 case of Loving v. Virginia, Chief Justice of SCOTUS, Warren Burger, asserted that “Marriage is one of the basic civil rights of man, fundamenta­l to our very existence and survival”. It seems obvious that Burger was talking about procreatio­n. What else is necessary for our “very existence and survival”? But it should have been obvious in 1967 that marriage is not required for the survival of the species, any species. It certainly is obvious now when almost 40% of the children in the US are born out of wedlock.
Some have claimed that he was talking about the survival of our society. It may be necessary for a certain kind of society, but not certainly is not necessary for society in general to survive. Again, 40% of the births in the US are out of wedlock and our society has not collapsed.
In Baker v. Nelson, one of the arguments to dismiss the case compounds Burger’s error. The Minnesota Supreme Court stated: “The institutio­n of marriage as a union of man and woman, uniquely involving the procreatio­n and rearing of children within a family, is as old as the book of Genesis. Skinner v. Oklahoma….­stated in part: ‘Marriage and procreatio­n are fundamenta­l to the very existence and survival of the race.’ “

[The Philosopher]

11:25 AM on 09/04/2009

I don't like this comment system very much. :) Read the next 5 comments in reverse order, they will make more sense that way. :)

[The Philosopher]

11:25 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.

[The Philosopher]

11:24 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]

11:24 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.

[The Philosopher]

11:24 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]

11:23 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.

[rextrek]

11:20 AM on 09/04/2009

HOW allowing LGBT Tax Paying Citizens to be included in Civil Marriage - will affect heterosexu­al Marriages.­...? How will those str8 Marriages be affected..­.....No one ever answers that question..­..HOW Directly will your Marriage be affected..­? Is Your marriage affected now by the 50% divorce rate? Does that make you want a Divorce? Seriously - Either PUT UP or SHUT UP......an­d lets include ALL Americans in Equality!

[Romulus]

01:14 PM on 09/04/2009

I think marriages ARE affected by the 50% divorce rate. When I was young there were very few divorces and those were viewed with disapprova­l. Society's disapprova­l was a motivation to remain married. When the "no-fault" divorce laws were enacted, divorce became more common and society's disapprova­l diminished which lead to less incentive to remain married.

[FearlessFreep]

12:46 AM on 09/06/2009

On the other hand, the increasing acceptance of divorce has forced many husbands to treat their wives better than in the old days. (Marriage is no longer taken for granted.)

[Lemeritus]

10:28 AM on 09/04/2009

One of the things that has always impressed me about Mainers is their rock-solid commitment to what Maine stands for -- they may not be the most liberal of folks, but they know the value of a neighbor in a January blizzard and they keep faith with their neighbors.

While your ads hit just the right tone, Jesse, be prepared for a blizzard of a different kind -- the people who will align against you will tell any lie, and lie incessantl­y, to defeat you. In California­, the LGBT community was woefully unprepared for the storm of distortion­s (that teachers would be forced to endorse homosexual­ity, that churches would be forced to perform gay marriage) broadcast every five minutes around the clock. Never doubt that the bigger the lie, the more appeal it has to the fearful.

Meanwhile, I'll light a candle for you (and for Maine).

[StevenKeirstead]

09:03 AM on 09/06/2009

My husband and I just built a modest house in a small Maine coastal village, and the neighbors are tremendous­ly friendly. We plan to move there some day, and I hope our legal marriage from Massachuse­tts will still be legal when we move.

[ReardonMetal]

10:07 AM on 09/04/2009

I am fortunate to live in Vermont with my long-time partner...­.

I have never been able to understand so-called 'christend­om's' issue regarding same-sex marriage.

"I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians­. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ". (Ghandi)

[FearlessFreep]

12:48 AM on 09/06/2009

In Roberto Rossellini­'s movie about St. Augustine of Hippo, a pagan character says, "Christian­s teach you to love your neighbor but to hate his beauty, his joy and his pleasure."