Remember the Maine Elections
Waking up Wednesday morning this week I had to face the disappointment and the noise. The disappointment was clear enough. The turnout in Virginia and New Jersey ensured that the progressive wave some of us last year thought might wash across the country had a strong undertow, or at least a rip current. The noise came from the shrill predictions that now there is a fresh conservative tide returning to wash away the hopes for change. If two governor races were all there was to talk about, then they just had to become bellwethers for pundits without a clue.
The morning after Election Day I felt disappointed and puzzled, but then I remembered the Maine elections and called my friend Joan. For Joan Wednesday morning's question was not just about how worried to be about gubernatorial races, or about the full employment program for loud TV journalists. For Joan, Wednesday morning's news was that her wedding in Maine planned for this spring could not take place because voters in that state had decided that people like her were no longer welcome to have their ceremonies and celebrations there. Maine voters, who many had seen as open-minded and fair when it came to social issues, had decided that gay people were not welcome to marry in their fair state.
Some months ago Joan and Mary, after many years together, had decided to publicly affirm their commitment and to celebrate with their friends and large extended families. Long devoted to the natural beauty of the Maine coastline, they had picked out the perfect spot for their ceremony and celebration. We received the "Save-the-Date" card so that we could plan, with siblings, and cousins, uncles, aunts and other friends, to gather together to mark this very happy occasion. My wife and I wondered how to pick out the right wedding present for our friends.
Normal stuff right? When two people in love decide to tie the knot, the community around them is filled with joy and support, right? But then on Election Day the voters of Maine decreed that Joan and Mary shouldn't be able to save the date, plan the meals, send the invitations, hire the band, and join with family and friends in affirming their commitment to one another. On Election Day, under the paranoid banner of defending marriage, the voters of Maine decided that Joan and Mary were not welcome to come with family and friends to the beautiful coastline. Maine voters would protect marriages between men and women in their state by excluding my friends who thought to bless their own union on Maine soil.
When I spoke to Joan on Wednesday morning she was in tears. I realized my own disappointment with the winds of political change was trivial in comparison to how she felt to be told, "You are not welcome here." I realized that my fears about some conservative tide were silly in comparison to my friends' hurt at being publicly told that their family would be excluded from publicly sanctioned marriages.
By Wednesday afternoon the tears had changed to anger. Joan and Mary would find another place for their ceremony and celebration. We all agreed that this was Maine's loss, but we also all knew that this meant that the struggle for basic rights like the right to marry who you want can not be taken for granted. We all remembered what it was like to be told "your kind is not welcome here," and that we must commit ourselves to eradicating this close-minded bigotry in the future.
Joan and Mary will marry, and friends and family will celebrate with them. But we will remember the Maine elections.
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
A breakdown of the Maine vote on gay marriage reveals why minority rights should not be put to a popular vote...
567,057 of 969,912 registered voters turned out to vote (approx 58.5%).
Breakdown:
300,540, or 31%, of Maine residents took action to strip SSM equality rights.
266,517, or 27%, of Maine residents took action to ...sustain SSM equality rights.
402,855, or 42%, of Maine residents took no action to sustain SSM equality rights (READ: neutral/don't care)
So, whereas the opposition to gay marriage in Maine claims victory and professes to speak for the majority of Maine residents, it is clear that a minority (a mere 31% of all Maine registered voters) has usurped these rights from gays and lesbians. 69% of registered Maine voters either support or are indifferent, according to these results.
But still, gays went through yet another degrading and humiliating stripping of civil rights.
Obscene injustice. And precisely why we shouldn't be voting on these rights.
More that I couldnn't post on the last one because of length limits:
As far as marriage having sacred meaning to religious people, there is really no reason they should be allowed to hijack the law to enforce their religion's strictures on other people. I do not know the Catholic Church's current position on the status of marriages performed in other churches or by civil officiants, but I do know that at least within Catholics I am related to, it makes a difference whether or not you are married "in the Church". The relatives who believe that do not attempt to enforce that view on anyone else, or attempt to remove legal rights from those married elsewhere, as far as I can tell, their whole objection is that for church purposes, they view it as different. I personally don't see why any religion should not be free to come up with their own restrictions on which marriages they personally choose to consider acceptable for their own members, but there is no reason at all that these should be in any way binding on people outside of that religion. That thoroughly violates separation of church and state.
As far as I know, there also is or was a restriction on remarriages for some Catholics who wanted their church to recognize 2nd marriages that required getting some form of church approval. Again, only applied to believers within their own church, not to anyone else.
There are just too many items I want to disagree with and I don't want to have to post 10 times, so here goes:
Marriage does not involve "conception rights". There are no laws limiting who can conceive to married couples. Infertility is not a bar to getting married, and permanent sterilization as well as other contraception choices are openly available to married couples as well as single people. It does not imply a willingness to procreate unless the specific religion in which you choose to be married requires that, and you are completely free to choose some other officiant that does not. While it is true that only straight relationships are capable of procreating without outside help, plenty of heterosexual married couples are unable to do so and are free to choose a variety of alternatives, and there is no legal reason I'm aware of that same-sex couples couldn't or shouldn't be allowed to use any of the other available techniques, as are unmarried couples and single people.
What if your friends were brother and sister, should Maine allow them to marry?
They can still have a nice ceremony and commit to each other with a Civil Union, which should be defined in the Maine law as "marriage minus conception rights", that would give them all the security and obligations and benefits of marriage, but would not inadvertently give them equal procreation rights as a married couple.
Are you advocating marriage between a heterosexual brother and a heterosexual sister?
If you are seeking legal justification for their nuptials, you should already know the answer to your own question.
They would necessarily appeal to DOMA as legal justificaiton for recognizing their relationship. After all, prior to 1996 and the enactment of DOMA, marriage at the federal level was between “two persons.” Since 1996, the federal government via the Republican-majority in both chambers of the US Congress RE-defined marriage as between “one man and one woman.”
However, UNLIKE the persons in your scenario, same-sex couples are willing to marry the person they love and comply with residency, age and consanguinity requirements for marriage.
In light of this, what IS your point?
My point is that Maine doesn't have to let all couples marry if it would be bad public policy. As an example, consider if the friends were a brother and sister who wanted to live together and have the security and benefits of marriage (and say they didn't want to have sex together).
A recurring theme on here is that peoples rights are up for a vote and that no other group has ever had their rights up for a vote. Well, besides that simply not being the case, slaver, suffrage, jim crow laws, segregation, and about a million others, the circumstances don't completely align. Mostly because marriage isn't a right. Saying it is a right is an interesting technique but it doesn't actually make it a right. So, basically what I am saying is that the LGBT community is engaged in a political fight that they are arguing is a civil rights matter. The Pres and most dems agree with the civil rights portion of the struggle. But because of some rather unique circumstances some based on bad logic some based on internal problems in your community you don't have the political weight to actually force this issue through. Anywhere. You have to step back and change your strategy. With dispassion and intellect examine why you are losing all of these fights. Do some research into historical civil rights struggles and discover what worked and what didn't. But no matter what you have to muscle up your political arm.
If you want to deny me MY RIGHTS, then shut up and willingly give up YOUR RIGHTS.
Many of the Civil Rights and Women's movement progress were won in COURT CASES not majority votes.
Inter racial marriages I guess aren't a right either, and weren't won in COURT?
OK, I willingly give up my right to attempt to procreate with another man, or attempt to create a person using genetically modified gametes.
To you this is a thought exercise with not a whiff of any outrage.
For us it's repeatedly having our families attacked.
ANY other group would be tearing apart your churches and cities if you did this to them.
and have.
I can't marry my two lady friends, either.
Can I marry them instead?
That's a shame. I'm sure they would be lucky to have you.
you don't have one lady friend, and Mommy doesn't want you sneaking them down in her basement, even if you found one.
The decline in public education and the increasing numbers of children born in poverty because of increasing numbers of un(der)-employed single women having kids they can't raise are a direct result of declining public interest in the circumstances into which children are born and raised. It really is all about me and what I (and my partner(s)) want.
History and current statistics prove that stable marriages are far more likely to provide favorable environments for children. The MSM has expended great effort reducing marriage to little more than the prudishness of Bible thumpers -- ignoring the fact that Asian societies lacking Bibles to thump have strong appreciation for marriage resulting in notable benefit to their children.
So, does the promotion of homosexual unions as "marriage" further weaken the concept of marriage as a social and moral responsibility? My inclination is to say that it does by implying that marriage is nothing more than people getting together for their own cozy self-interest ... until they decide to do something different.
Given that other social and legal provisions have been made to accommodate homosexual unions, insisting on a new definition for the term "marriage" looks like nothing more than a blatant demand that everyone accept homosexual unions as the moral and social equivalent of heterosexual marriage. If children were born and raise in the manner of "Logan's Run", I might be persuaded to accept what I believe is the further trivialization of marriage. But that isn't (yet) how children come to be.
You don't need a civil marriage to have a spiritual one that includes ceremonies and save-the-date cards, j/s.
so outlaw ALL civil marriage......
Civil marriage serves a very important purpose of establishing obligations and protections for couples that consent to conceive together with each other's genes. That doesn't mean we should let people marry their sister, or someone of the same sex.
And, there is also a meaningful significant rite of passage of marrying and becoming a fully human "one-flesh" union according to the traditions and history of all our ancestors. It is a basic human right to be civilly married, and to deny people the right to marry like their parents and their parents before them is inhuman and a violation of basic human rights.
but you do need a civl marriage to have tax benefits, inheritance benefits, immigration rights, etc and so forth.
Civil Unions could be defined as "marriage minus conception rights" so that same-sex couples could have all the rights and benefits of marriage, but not be give the right to attempt to conceive children together from their own genes, so that conception rights could continue to be protected by marriage.
I would like to know if the people in Maine who voted against gay marriage know that the Bible says eating shellfish is an abomination and when they are going to vote to outlaw lobster.
As a resident of Maine, and someone who voted against overturning the gay marriage act, I would like to apologize on behalf of this state.
Maine is in many ways two separate populations: a more prosperous, liberal southern population and then the rest of the state, which is mired in poverty and where many people work two and three jobs just to survive...if they can find those jobs. Where there is scarcity there is often ignorance, and with ignorance comes fear.
What has united the state in the past is a common commitment to fairness. For this election, there was a constant barrage of television ads aimed at these poorer parts of the state that blatantly lied about how "gay marriage" would be "taught" in the schools. These ads showed photos of very young children, and clearly preyed on the ignorance of those who believe the schools would "turn" their kids gay. Add in the influence of the Catholic church...
It's a terrible victory of dishonesty and fear mongering triumphing over better instincts. My only comfort is that even with the lies and hate, 47% of the state refused to buy in.
This is a wake-up call to all of us who believe that fear mongering political tactics won't work because people are smarter than that.
These tactics work, especially in a time when people are already scared out their wits because of the economy.
It's a warning for the next election.
I am a long time liberal and I am opposed to gay marriage, as was Sen. Kerry when he ran for President. I might also remind you that Obama was NOT in favor of it when he ran. It is the extreme libertarians who ARE for such a thing. It is a slander to say that you have to be ignorant and religious based to be against it. I am an atheist too.
Please elaborate. Why are you against it?
yes, why are you against two same sex people getting the same rights, benefits, priveleges and responsibilities that the state -- yes the state -- grants to two opposite sex people?
where is the fairness, you "long time liberal"?
An atheist liberal? You have no excuse then. At least religious homophobes can blame it on God. The liberal view of marriage equality is just that, for marriage equality. There's nothing "extreme" about believing the Constitution applies to all citizens equally.
In an earlier post supporting opposite-sex marriage and objecting to same-sex marriage, you write, "Marriage is a legal contract GRANTED by the state for ITS own interests as well as that of the individuals involved."
I have one questions for you.
What ARE the State's interests in granting opposite-sex marriage?
To the Maine voters who voted against the gay marriage amendment, Maine = Mississippi.
You are more correct than you know. I'm from New England and you see lots of swastika tattoos in Maine.
How dare you insult Mississippi like that?!?
I strongly believe that a true separation of church and state as to marriage should be put into place as to whom can officiate marriage by each state. Some countries, including Belgium, do not recognize any marriage unless it is officiated by statutory designated governmental official - they do not recognize the officiating of marriage by religious ministers. If one want to be married in the eyes in their faith, they have to go to city hall for the civil officiation then to the church for their's.
One alternative could be the states issuing licenses to private individuals, including faith ministers, to allow them to officiate marriages. It would be like being a Notary Public which requires one to be a licensed attorney, pass a test and meet other conditions (no criminal record). Most importantly, the license would require the licensed person to marry same gender couples. Such 'marriage official licenses' are issued in some states, especially Nevada. The couple already has to have a license to marry issued by a governmental agency so other legal conditions are met (age, not already married).
I would also make as law that any public official that the state allows to officiate marriages (judges, mayors, town/county clerks) must be willing to perform same-gender marriage officiating ceremonies or processing officiating paperwork or they cannot do so for any marriages.
What about polygamists then? Their civil rights are being denied as well. If two women love the same guy, or two guys love the same woman, why can't they be married? If there is a right to marry, without any concern for society and ITS rights, then there should be no bar to that either.
As a long time liberal, I take the liberal position that we all have not only rights, but DUTIES to the state and it is a reciprocal relationship. The libertarian position, which is what you are advocating, says that the state has NO business in personal choices and almost everything is permissible.
Marriage is a contract GRANTED by the state for ITS own benefit and the benefit of the people involved. As such it is the states right to decide who it will give a preference to. Just because one business gets a state subsidy, does NOT mean that ALL businesses who do NOT get the subsidy have their rights violated.
businesses don't have a right to get subsidies from the government.
citizens do have a right to equal treatment under the law.
You miss the point. It is true that business do NOT have a "right" to get a subsidy, but it ALSO means that those who do NOT get such a subsidy are being denied THEIR RIGHTS if they don't get one too! Your statement that citizens require equal treatment under the law would seem to indicate that you DO think their "rights" are being denied if they do not.
The FACT is that ALL gays may marry any person of the opposite sex if they wish to. They are NOT denied ANY rights at all. They ARE denied their wish to REDEFINE the legal concept of marriage. You cannot do that legally speaking, unless the legislature approves or the people approve depending on the circumstances. It is most surely NOT subject for courts to decide in any rational reading of law.
If you care about polygamists' rights, then take that cause up with them. Polygamy has NOTHING to do with marriage equality for gay citizens.
What America needs is a National Law which states minority Civil Rights can not be removed by initiatives, referendums, or questions without a SUPER MAJORITY of 67% of the States electorate.
Otherwise we will have these stupid state by state skirmishes which entail raising millions of dollars to ward of repressive hate mongers.
The gay lobby on the left is as crazed politically as the insane bigots on the far right. The gays are, functionally, the Democrats' version of wing nuts. I support their cause BUT if they insist on jamming gay marriage down the throats of an unwilling American public, they will help others in the Democratic party who seem determined to destroy Obama and snatch defeat from the jaws of victory, yet again. Until this current age of the Republican wing nuts, Republicans won all those national elections with political pragmatism and solidarity. They didn't shoot themselves in the foot with "purism." The Democrats have always been just the opposite. Their fragmented constituents would often rather be right than have any power to move America in the direction they claim to want progress in. The gays are no different. It will be political suicide for Obama or any other Democrat to constantly be shadowed by fanatical gays screaming about the bigotry of the Silent Majority. This will only guarantee the complete victory of Limbaugh and Fox. And won't THAT produce a golden age for gay rights! Gays, grow up and get real, or you will sink your cause and the cause of social progress in America generally. Remember the political disaster of Black Power. Trying to intimidate the Silent Majority only led to forty years of conservative rule opposing everything Black Power was trying to promote. Keep using pop culture to change the voters. It's working, but it takes time.
Funny you don't complain when gays and lesbians are working our a$$es off electing YOUR straight candidates who promised to end discrimination against us. You only complain when once again they LIED, and we call them out for it.
When were your Civil Rights put to a G*D DAMN majority vote?
Not in two centuries.
Are you serious? If we acted like those fools, we'd be getting somewhere with the federal government by now. We just want our equal rights and to be treated like people. But people like you don't understand why we want to have the entire Constitution to apply to us. You're hopelessly lost.
Those in Maine who voted to remove same sex marriage, the next generation will look back at you in DISDAIN, and marvel at your IGNORANCE. You will be viewed exactly like the hateful White neighbor ladies screaming racial slurs at children entering integrated schools.
You have earned that disdain.
Those people effected by this bill not passing should just move. Why live in a place, which by the way has no pro sports teams, and basically contributes to the US by catching lobster only, that ignores your basic rights?
Yeah we need to TEAR apart OUR extended families, try and find new homes and new jobs to SATISFY hateful bigots.
just move? how so? give up one's job, property, family etc and "just move"?
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
