Gay Marriage Loss in Maine Is a Straight Loser

A year ago, it was Prop 8 that sullied my joy at the official end of the Bush era. One year later, this once proud son of the State of Maine is appalled. 52.7% of the voting electorate there voted yes to the question, "Do you want to reject the new law that lets same-sex couples marry and allows individuals and religious groups to refuse to perform these marriages?" In this denial of rights, some will see a brave defense of traditional values. I see the hideous specter of legally sanctioned discrimination.

Being gay is like being black, white or Latino. It's genetic, not a matter of choice; and it's recurrent in the population -- generation after generation, throughout human history. (If you don't believe me, read the Iliad.) There's also pretty good scientific evidence -- empirical, not moral -- to prove that being gay is one of the normal expressions of human sexuality, along with heterosexuality. The latter is more prevalent, but both are normal. To deny normal, law-abiding people their civil rights is no better than racism. It's that simple.

Gay marriage, therefore, is a straight-up civil rights issue; ultimately, it will take a Supreme Court decision or an amendment to the US Constitution to make this right. That's almost inconceivably hard work, but ending slavery -- an institution preserved by our 'founding fathers' in our most treasured document -- was no picnic either.

Apparently, it's also time to disentangle the issue of church and state with respect to this issue. That would mean that only the government would have the exclusive right to marry a couple legally. Let's take all churches, synagogues, mosques, shrines, etc. out of the mix altogether. This won't put the clergy out of work; they can still perform their symbolic ceremonies after the real wedding, marriage itself should be a purely civil affair.

Finally, and on a personal note, I feel real personal sadness here. I have live most of my life out of state, but I have always been proud of Maine's libertarian tradition, which was based less on personal likes and dislikes and more on keeping the government out of the private sphere. Sadly, a majority of Maine voters seem to think that government should have the right to tell people how to live their personal lives. So much for innocence!

 

Follow Michael B. Laskoff on Twitter: www.twitter.com/mlaskoff

Comments

[PhilipB]

I just loved your post, and I was struck by what you said at the end:
Sadly, a majority of Maine voters seem to think that government should have the right to tell people how to live their personal lives."
I think that many Maine and American voters are so used to hating(on a bad day) or dismissing(on a good day)gay people that they really neglected to look at the wider implications of this vote: that rights can be stripped away.
Frankly, I have always been the "good gay" living under the radar, but we did raise a daughter and have two fine grandsons! :)
Well, I see now that only by demanding my rights for my family is the way to go. There is no more patience for me.
I am outraged that my families rights should be stripped based on hate and ignorance. We are good peope, proud Americans, but even here I feel I should not now have to prove that. I have no agenda or cause: I HAVE A FAMILY! I am standing up, right here and now to say that this whole process of rights for gay people is wrong, and I will never stop until we are treated equally!

[johnoconnor]

It's amazing in a noncommunist society how a lie can keep going around about how homosexuality is genetic when there isn't a speck of evidence to support that idea. What difference would that make even if it were true? I have a sister with a genetic abnormality who's been in a hospital kind of situation for all of her 55 years! How would proving that something is genetic prove it's healthy or normal?

[truthandvalues]

The First Amendment reads: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”

The proposed law states, "Do you want to reject the new law that lets same-sex couples marry and allows individuals and religious groups to refuse to perform these marriages?"

The part in question is, "...allows individuals and religious groups to refuse to perform these marriages?" Individuals and religious institutions have the right under the First Amendment to refuse to perform any marriage that goes against their doctrines.

Marriage is not a civil right but freedom of speech and religion are civil rights. The real issue in the same-sex marriage debate is whether the opponents of same-sex marriage should be allowed to change the institution of marriage itself.

Marriage between of a man and a woman has been the teachings of Judeo-Christian scriptures and the core legal definition and practice of marriage in Western culture for thousands of years. Those who seek to change the foundation of marriage should not be allowed to pretend that those who defend the ancient order are trampling on civil rights.

[taddles]

"Marriage between of a man and a woman has been the teachings of Judeo-Christian scriptures and the core legal definition and practice of marriage in Western culture for thousands of years."

Sorry that statement is simply false. "Traditional Marriage" as you would define between one man and one woman is a relatively new phenomena. If you'd bother to do some research rather than just posting your opinion you might understand this.

[nkadzi]

@ taddles; what do you mean traditional marriage is a 'relatively new phenomenon mean?'

if we do historical research on western thought, can we not trace the idea of a traditional marriage between a man and a woman to the work of Aristotle (the Aristotelian household codes that A. thought were fundamental to a democratic society which subsequently become one of the core(s) of western thought).

[JIzin]

I agree separate "civil marriages" that are performed by a judge and confer the legal status of being married with all the rights and benefits and "religious marriages" that have no legal meaning but are up to each couple to perform if they want.
Any two consenting adults should be allowed a civil marriage. If a religious denomination doesn't want to perform gay marriages they don't have to.

[Michael B. Laskoff - Huffpost Blogger]

That would seem to be simple and straightforward. Somehow or other, I'm guessing that there will be opposition to this most sensible idea.

[StevenKeirstead]

You are right Michael, just look at Prop 71 in Washington State, which overturned the same sex civil unions law there. Maine’s same sex marriage law had a provision that explicitly protected churches that did not want to perform same sex marriages, but that didn’t assuage the opponents there either. The opponents of equality for gays and lesbians pretend they would accept compromise when it suits them, but in reality they oppose any small step toward that equality with utter fanaticism.

[tllmae]

I am from Maine. I voted Yes on Question One. So many write about being appalled at how backward, ignorant, uninformed, and uncaring that makes me. I am none of those things. I am a well traveled, college educated individual . I have co-workers, friends, and family members who are vocally and openly gay. I work 40 hours a week as a nurse..last I knew a very caring profession. I care for those in my charge regardless of race, nationality, religion, OR sexual orientation, equally.
We are all entitled to an opinion..and since we are in America we are allowed to debate it. I wish this could be done intellectually without name calling and generalizations.

[BostonBoy2]

With all due respect, the wording of your statement about having co workers that are gay parallels when someone states that they have black friends, but are not racist....even though even though they may have demonstrated that they feel the other group does not deserve to be considered equal to them. Many people --even those that are care about others in many ways--have underlying prejudices that they are not aware, and technically those could be considered opinions as well.

[fixitfakeitcreateit]

Stop using African Americans and their struggle for freedom from oppression in the Americas as fodder for your quest to gain acceptance for way of life. To suggest these issues are connected is either ignorance or contempt.

[Michael B. Laskoff - Huffpost Blogger]

Your half right. We are all entitled to an opinion. In fact, in a boisterous democracy, we should all have the expectation of being offended. It's a natural outcome of free speech.

Where your logic goes terribly wrong is the idea that you did more than express an opinion. You, as part of a majority of voters, chose to take away rights that the Maine legislature had already conferred upon people. That's not theoretical: that's real.

That doesn't make you a bad person, but it does make you a small instrument in a very large and decidedly undemocratic process.

[truthandvalues]

The Main legislature has no power other then the power the people have given it. The people, not the not the government, hold the ultimate power, this is the principle of popular sovgienty that the constitution is based on.

In this case the people, the ultimate source of government power, used its authority to overturn the legislature. It's a clear case of the people correcting the course of government that had over stepped it's bounds.

Marriage is not a civil right, neither is driving a car or carrying a concealed weapon. Although it does make for an emotional debate when you try to feebly claim the basis for same-gender marriage is alleged civil rights. But that argument quickly falls apart under scrutiny.

[fixitfakeitcreateit]

No the Maine Legislator works for the people of that state. The state legislators mis represented the people and the people of Maine through the ballot box veteod their decision. This is representative democracy and for good or bad I love it. fight for it and am willing to die for it.

[ThinkCreeps]

You are certainly entitled to an opinion. But when that opinion runs counter to the constitutional protections of some of your fellow citizens, it needs to be disregarded by laws.

[DonJM]

You didn't just express an opinion--you took away a basic right of another human being--the right to love and be happy. Congratulations.

[DonJM]

Did you proudly tell all of those gay co-workers, family, and friends how you voted?

[LLeGrande]

Mr. Laskoff is exactly correct - this is a civil rights matter best adjudicated within the Judicial Branch. The courts are there to protect the rights of the minorities from the tyranny of the majority.

This federal civil rights case brought in San Francisco by the dueling attorneys in the 2000 Supreme Court election of George W. Bush seems, to me, to be the right way to proceed. It removes all this religious garbage in our supposed 'civil' society from the equation. It is, pure and simple, a civil rights issue. What's good for one is good for all. I believe that the Supreme Court will make this finding, and wipe away an array of discriminations enmeshed in laws at all levels - village, city, county, state, the United States (DOMA) - throughout the entire country.

I keep wondering why the gay organizations are always battling for religious hearts and minds in the hinterlands which have always been conservative, fundamental, religious bigots from centuries ago. Let's not forget that the slave owners were church-going christians. The Jim Crow south were god-fearing christians. Etc, etc.

I'm beginning to believe that some of the gay organizations require these 'never ending wars' to keep donations and funds flowing - and to keep these elite gays in power.

[fixitfakeitcreateit]

You better pray the supreme court stays out of this matter. America's rebellion spirit will not allow it to stand idle when its fabric is being washed and torn away. Lets the states decide is the best strategy and gay leaders know it thats why they started there.U think this white anger at Obama is out there you aint seen nothing if the supreme court rules for gay marriage.

[rextrek]

great video I found u Youtube - A message to Maine

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gWrhm_H1dAw

[gayandmarried]

i am from california, got married in the state when it was legal last year, and STILL married.

In last years prop 8 debacle,, i dressed up as a KKK soldier, and stood outside a black church with a HUGE sign, saying WE ARE WITH YOU ON VOTING YES ON PROP 8,, COME OUT AND MARCH WITH US!

when the blacks came out of their black church, talking about how they wanted prop 8 to pass, and saw me, dressed up in a KLAN outfit, most RAN,, but a few,, just a few, realized that bigotry knows no limits,
and realized what they were doing was wrong,, It didnt change enough minds from the black churches, but it made them think about what side of history they were really rooting for..

maybe next time, ill dress up as a nazi, and stand outside an orthodox jewish synagogue, and do the same thing, as they voted overwhelmingly in favor of prop 8 as well....

[xenas mom]

I like your style! I think we used to call this guerrilla warfare back in the Vietnam protest days. Excellent!

[southernsepia]

Disrespect vs building bridges.

I wonder how many people you permanently turned off.

Good luck with that strategy!

[M1]

Actually, it is a great strategy and should be considered by the Gay leadership.

[nkadzi]

So how many white evangelical churches did you visit? and if you yes, what reaction did you get? and how many other black churches did you visit?

[QuietLightTraveler]

Having a vote is not the right way to do it. People have their prejudices. Lets face it, homosexuals are not in the majority and the majority of the voters will probably vote against it as they did in California and now Maine. I think you are going to have to win it in the courts.

[QuietLightTraveler]

I don't know why you want marriage anyway. Be careful about getting involved with civil law because the courts are notorious for their inequities and ineptitude. After all, the courts are run by judges and judges are lawyers, and lawyers are generally liers, lolol Dam, when I got divorced the court hosed me like you wouldn't believe.

[Michael B. Laskoff - Huffpost Blogger]

I'd worry more about your future ex-wife than the lawyers.

[StevenKeirstead]

But for those of us who do stay together, the status quo costs us lots of money in taxes and other costs compared to the straight married couple in the same tax bracket (tens to hundreds of thousands of dollars over a lifetime). Estate taxes are very unfair to unmarried surviving partners or gay surviving spouses, even for those lucky enough to live in a state theta recognizes same sex marriage.

[QuietLightTraveler]

I would be careful about use of the word "normal". Although homosexuality is biologically determined in most cases that doesn't make it normal. Many diseases are genetically determined, yet they are not "normal" state of the human physiology. Nature evolved sexuality to ensure procreation and such is not consistent with homosexual partners. In this sense it does not seem normal. I don't know if homosexuality provides any benefit to the human species in a sociological or cultural context. However, I think most people's argument against gay marriage is that it would change a long standing cultural value - marriage being a custom reserved for a heteroxexual relationship.
However, I'm not sure that determining whether or not gay marriages should be allowed should be left to voters. If that happened in the south during the mid 1800s I doubt the vote would ever have allowed the slaves to be free. I guess it is something that the higher courts should decide. Then again, I don't hold the courts in very high regard, lol

[llisa]

The second definition of "normal" is "in accordance with scientific laws".

Homosexuality is normal.

[QuietLightTraveler]

I think normal means more than just "in accordance with scientific laws'. Schizophrenia is in accordance with scientific laws but I wouldn't consider the schizophrenic mind "normal"

[Earl Brown]

I think as many do that social issues should not be left up to the voters. The Christians have shown that they have a never-ending army of money and foot-soldiers willing to spread their hate. Humans are violent,ig­norant,and­hateful. If left to the people, slaves would still be black instead of mexican...women wouldn't be voting and it would be illegal to be anything but evangelical by now.

[llisa]

Amen.

But, at this point in history, I don't think it has a chance with the Supreme Court, either.

[Earl Brown]

certainly doesn't, not with scalia and roberts on the court anyways. which brings me to another good point. Abolish life-time appointments and figure out a new supreme court system. how can geriatrics represent interpret the laws of today?

[mainemichael]

It's stupid to blame "christians" - Quakers and many other sects are both progressive and christian. The organized opposition to gay marriage in Maine came specifically from catholics and fundamentalists.

[xenas mom]

And in California it also included the Mormons. I wonder how long a coalition of religions that are substantially theologically different to the point that each is convinced it is the only "true" religion can hold together? The enemy of my enemy is my friend position never holds up in the longterm because the internal differences are so great.

[itmaybetoolate]

I wonder how many of those progressive christians worked on behalf of their gay and lesbian brothers and sisters? Did they use the power of the pulpit on our behalf?

[Earl Brown]

you are obviously blinded to the history of your cult, which is more than normal for a christian to do. It's the only way in good conscience they can continue their deep seeded bigotry.

[M1]

Of course the churches have an endless supply of money. Blackwater and other contractors give them loads of money....so the money they use against us....comes from the peoples treasure and they get a nice tax break too.

[llisa]

This vote just makes me sick.

I do wonder, though, how many people get confused by the wording of these propositions.

I mean, "Vote YES that we don't want gays to marry." Isn't that a bit confusing? We saw how a whole state got confused over the way ballots were made and many voted for people they didn't want to win--by6 accident. And most people don't get into the issues as much as those of us who post on this site.

So, isn't it possible that some people thought this was a YES vote FOR gay marriage?

We need to actually get some propositions like that on the ballots, "Vote YES FOR gay marriage. It is much easier to fight FOR a cause than against one.

And I have been saying for years that religion needs to get out of the marriage business. Marriage is a legal, government contract. Let's keep it that way.

[jan4insight]

Good point about the wording. Of course the anti-gay cabal is going to word it that way. They want voters to be confused!

[mainemichael]

The Maine legislature had already APPROVED gay marriage when conservative petitioners blocked its implementation by petitioning to repeal it. Thus the vote was on the issue of repealing and Yes was to support repeal. It may have seemed confusing to outsiders but the legal process required that wording.

[itmaybetoolate]

And, they had two questions in one. Why weren't these questions separated? I could have said no, I don't want the law allowing folks to marry to be repealed but I do want to make sure no churches or individuals are forced to marry two same-sex people.

[GRobit625]

This will end up in the Supreme Court sooner rather than later. That is where it will end. Use our grief and anger and turn it into fuel to continue to fight.

[M1]

Not likely given the construct of the U.S. Supreme Court. Scalia just said he would have voted Brown v. Board of education down.

[MB141]

I'm really shocked that a state like Maine would vote to uphold discrimination. This post makes a great point, gay marriage is a civil rights issue and it needs to be decided in the courts. Frankly, the majority should not be deciding who receives equal protection and equal rights under the law.

[fixitfakeitcreateit]

What does the majority in a democracy get to decide?

[Breakwind]

BINGO!