Defeat in Maine a harsh blow to gay-marriage drive

The stars seemed aligned for supporters of gay marriage. They had Maine's governor, legislative leaders and major newspapers on their side, plus a huge edge in campaign funding. So losing a landmark referendum was a devastating blow, for activists in Maine and nationwide.

Lisa Brackbill, Lisa Pugh, Darlene Huntress,  Gay Marriage Referendum
Pat Wellenbach

Partners Lisa Brackbill, left, and Lisa Pugh, right, both from Buckfield, Maine console one another along with Darlene Huntress, center, of Portland, after learning about the unofficial defeat on Question 1 at election night headquarters in Portland, Maine, early Wednesday morning, Nov. 4, 2009. Maine voters decided decide to rescind the Legislature's approval of same-sex marriage.(AP Photo/Pat Wellenbach)

Frank Schubert
Robert F. Bukaty

Frank Schubert, campaign director for Stand for Marriage Maine, claims victory for Yes on 1, Tuesday evening, Nov. 3, 2009, in Portland, Maine. (AP Photo/Robert F. Bukaty)

 Joseph Skinner, Suzanne Blackburn, Ann DiMella
Robert F. Bukaty

Joseph Skinner, who declined to say where he is from, holds up a Yes on 1 sign to passing motorists while in the background supporters of same-sex marriage Ann DiMella and Suzanne Blackburn, of Portland, put up a No on 1 sign at Deering Oaks Park, Tuesday, Nov. 3, 2009, in Portland, Maine. Voters will decide Question 1, the proposal to rescind the Legislature's approval of same-sex marriage.(AP Photo/Robert F. Bukaty)

In an election that had been billed for weeks as too close to call, Maine's often unpredictable voters repealed a state law Tuesday that would have allowed same-sex couples to wed. Gay marriage has now lost in all 31 states in which it has been put to a popular vote - a trend that the gay-rights movement had believed it could end in Maine.

"Today's heartbreaking defeat unfortunately shows that lies and fear can still win at the ballot box," said Rea Carey, executive director of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force.

With 87 percent of the precincts reporting, gay-marriage foes had 53 percent of the vote. They prevailed in many of Maine's far-flung small towns and lost by a less-than-expected margin in the state's biggest city, Portland.

"The institution of marriage has been preserved in Maine and across the nation," declared Frank Schubert, chief organizer for the winning side.

Attention will now turn to other states, including California - where Schubert was an instrumental strategist a year ago in the successful campaign to overturn cost-ordered same-sex marriage.

Gay-rights activists have been planning to go back to the ballot in California, either in 2010 or 2012, in another attempt to legalize gay marriage. But the Maine result was not the victory they had been hoping for to fire up their troops.

Brian Brown of the National Organization for Marriage, a conservative group that steered substantial funds to fight gay marriage in both California and Maine, was elated by Tuesday's result, saying it shows that "that even in a New England state, if the voters have a chance to have their say, they're going to protect and defend the commonsense definition of marriage."

At issue in the referendum was a law passed by Maine's Legislature last spring that would have allowed gays to wed. The law was put on hold after conservatives launched a petition drive to repeal it.

Five other states have legalized gay marriage - starting with Massachusetts in 2004, and followed by Vermont, New Hampshire, Connecticut and Iowa - but all did so through legislation or court rulings, not by popular vote. In contrast, constitutional amendments banning gay marriage have been approved in all 30 states where they have been on the ballot.

Brown said "out-of-touch legislators" are a principal reason same-sex marriage has taken hold in New England.

"What we're saying is give us a chance to take our message to the people and let the people decide," he said. He also suggested that the outcome in Maine will give pause to lawmakers in New York and New Jersey, where gay-marriage legislation is pending.

Richard Socarides, who was an adviser on gay-rights issues in the Clinton administration, said the loss in Maine should prompt gay-rights leaders to reconsider their state-by-state strategy on marriage and shift instead to lobbying for changes on the federal level that expand recognition of same-sex couples.

In Maine, gay-marriage supporters conceded early Wednesday.

"We're in this for the long haul," said Jesse Connolly, manager of the pro-gay marriage campaign. "For next week, and next month, and next year - until all Maine families are treated equally. Because in the end, this has always been about love and family and that will always be something worth fighting for.

A similar note was sounded by Democratic Gov. John Baldacci, who signed the bill into law last May and spoke out in defense of the law.

"If we don't get to the top of the mountain tonight, we've made a significant stride. And we're going to get there," he said late Tuesday. "We will get to the top of the mountain."

Both sides in Maine drew volunteers and contributions from out of state, but the money edge went to the campaign in defense of gay marriage, Protect Maine Equality. It raised $4 million, compared with $2.5 million for Stand for Marriage Maine.

Stand for Marriage based many of its campaign ads on claims - disputed by state officials - that the new law would mean "homosexual marriage" would be taught in public schools. That was the same theme used to persuade Californians to reject gay marriage.

Elsewhere on Tuesday, voters in Washington state voted on whether to uphold or overturn a recently expanded domestic partnership law that entitles same-sex couples to the same state-granted rights as heterosexual married couples. With half the precincts reporting, that race was too close to call.

In Kalamazoo, Mich., voters approved a measure that bars discrimination based on sexual orientation.

What do you think of this story?

Login to post comments

In order to make comments, you must create a subscription.

In order to comment on SunJournal.com, you must hold a valid subscription allowing access to this website. You must use your real name and include the town in which you live in your SunJournal.com profile. To subscribe or link your existing subscription click here.

Login or create an account here.

Our policy prohibits comments that are:

  • Defamatory, abusive, obscene, racist, or otherwise hateful
  • Excessively foul and/or vulgar
  • Inappropriately sexual
  • Baseless personal attacks or otherwise threatening
  • Contain illegal material, or material that infringes on the rights of others
  • Commercial postings attempting to sell a product/item
If you violate this policy, your comment will be removed and your account may be banned from posting comments.

Advertisement

Comments

 's picture

Check out this video for

Check out this video for "traditional" marriage: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ntC0PNHFRgU

 's picture

Civil unions do NOT have the

Civil unions do NOT have the same rights...

 's picture

I agree on this statement!

I agree on this statement!

 's picture

EveryONE deserves the right

EveryONE deserves the right to be protected. It does not entitle anyone to harass another human being for them breaking the law.

 's picture

Nor does it entitle one law

Nor does it entitle one law abiding citizen to harass another law abiding citizen because of a difference of opinion.

 's picture

which people seem to be

which people seem to be doing quite a fine job at that...

 's picture

Its not the same. Besides,

Its not the same. Besides, why do g/l/t have to go through several different avenues to get those 'same legal rights'... civil unions do not provide the same legal rights. insurance companies or when a spouse dies-its still not recognized-'not good enough'. Whereas with marriage-they are married and its just that. To call it something else-still shows an indifference, a separation, or not the same.

 's picture

Unfortunately in the states

Unfortunately in the states that approved civil unions-G/L/T reported that they were still 'discriminated' against. Its not the same-no matter what you call it. When I talk about several different avenues I refer to the difference of what a heterosexual couple have to go through to get their piece of paper. With civil unions G/L/T would have to get their piece of paper at city hall, then ride all the way to someone's office to protect their rights/property/children/insurances... (i could go on and on) and that is IF these places want to recognize civil unions. G/L/T want to right to MARRY and that RIGHT they should be able to HAVE.

 's picture

Then it is the fight with

Then it is the fight with the insurance companies you want. Changing a word here may not change the company policy if that company's base is in a state that does not acknowledge homosexual marriage or if the policy does state it. If there is no last will and testament which states where the inheritance goes, it get tied up and used up. The social definition of marriage doesn't change that.

 's picture

Good idea. Compromise in

Good idea. Compromise in defeat is an honorable thing.

 's picture

African Americans wanted a

African Americans wanted a voice and a chance. Homosexuals already have both, including just as much acceptence as anyone else. All "people" are discriminated against, robbed, beaten, insulted, intimidated, and murdered. Ignorance, crime, and disease know no distinctions. Welcome to society.

 's picture

doesn't mean that its

doesn't mean that its welcomed or permitted... it shouldn't be happening period. Inc. not approving/supporting/passing same-sex marriage.

 's picture

No on ever said that

No on ever said that everything that happens is welcome or permitted or fair.

 's picture

I stated that in some

I stated that in some countries (the same ones that kill homosexuals), adults are allowed to merry what we consider to be underaged girls. So, who is it that determines what is acceptable for marriage?

 's picture

EveryONE deserves the same

EveryONE deserves the same rights when it comes to the law, one another, and for simply being a human being. EveryONE has deserves the RIGHT to be protected.

Giving an example of a sex offender compared to Same-Sex marriage is pretty lame.

 's picture

"Everyone" includes every

"Everyone" includes every one, not everyone except.......

If thats what you mean then that is what you should say.

Example: Everyone adult should be allowed a loving, stable relationship EXCEPT for those adults that want it that with an underaged child, the age to be determined by the society one lives in.

 's picture

No-I made myself clear.

No-I made myself clear. EVERYONE INC. PEOPLE WHO BREAK THE lAW... EVERYONE INC. HUMAN BEINGS... NO execptions!!!

 's picture

So, a 40 year old man having

So, a 40 year old man having sex with a 10 year old should have his rights protected. Makes sense.

 's picture

Yes, he should-rightfully

Yes, he should-rightfully so. Just because a sex offender offends-doesn't mean they are entitled to years of harassment or abuse from the public. Laws are already in place to take care of situations like that. Its bad enough people who offend have no protection when it comes to the registry posting where they live or where they work.

Again-G/L/T adn Same-sex marriage can not be compared to sex offenders.

 's picture

Yup-been there done that

Yup-been there done that with the comments that were in response to the homeless man panhandling in aub. Do I have to clarify yet again that I am a SURVIVOR of sexual abuse many times over.

 's picture

Honey-not looking for

Honey-not looking for sympathy... I'm a SURVIVOR and I forgive my offenders. I am merely stating that offenders have the same rights such as you or I and I feel this way even though I have had this done to me-because someONE had an issue with me saying that offenders have rights, lest we forget. Its too bad that people are quick to judge when they've never walked a foot in another's shoes.

 's picture

maybe if the maine state

maybe if the maine state (un)employment laws were stronger for those employed who SHOULD be and NEED to be protected-it would be a different story. like i said-too quick to judge when people haven't walked a foot in another's shoes... and quite frankly its not anyone's business.

 's picture

Yet, there are many cultures

Yet, there are many cultures that send their daughters into marriage at what we consider to be underage. So, once again, what is the line and who can decide what that line is?

 's picture

Name calling and put downs

Name calling and put downs might make good television, but it does little for debate, or discussion threads.

 's picture

I take it you haven't read

I take it you haven't read many posts or spoken to many people in the last month because the Yes on 1 people have been labeled as homophobes. I do agree with you that the No on 1 people should take note. Labeling those opposed to you, name calling, utilizing out of state money and personel, and back room deals don't work with this crowd. Yes, Yes on 1 used most of those those, too, but their not the ones trying to change a social custom.

 's picture

While teachers might not

While teachers might not have time to teach an individual agenda, they can always slip in a comment, roll their eyes, change a voice pitch, or ask a pointed question. You are trained that there are verbal and non-verbal ways to communicate....and intimidate.

 's picture

Teachers convey a number of

Teachers convey a number of things. They are human with an opinion. My niece's teacher worked in a No on 1 lecture during class time for her students to bring home. I have also heard of teachers inappropriate reactions concerning the president and soldiers going to war. I was trying to point out that, while No Child Left Behind "ties teachers down" as was mentioned in the blog I was responding too, there are many ways that teachers can still intentially or unintentially communicate personal political opinions on children who may or may not understand, but are still underprepared for adult debates.

 's picture

I just wanted to remind

I just wanted to remind everyone that while we are divided on this issue, that there are still things that don't acknowledge race, gender, religion, or sexual orientation that we as a people must deal with.

 's picture

So we vote on it again

So we vote on it again today. And again tomorrow. And again. And again. Are you hoping to wear people down? If, after months of tv, radio, mail, door to door visits, home phone calls, and newspaper stories hasn't changed people's minds, would asking people to vote everyday on this until you get what you want really work? Also, just because you change the definition of a word doesn't mean that anyone would accept it. And, in this state, forcing such things have often had the opposite effect.

 's picture

Now back to other

Now back to other issues:

There is still a war going on, which affects gay and straight and black and white and christian and non-christian soldiers and their families.

We are in a recession, and gay and straight and christian and islamic and jews and black and white alike are all losing homes and jobs or are otherwise affected.

There is a pandemic flu going around which also acknowledges no sexual orientation, skin color, or religion.

Lets keep in mind: there are still things that we are still all in together.

 's picture

not legit to preach about

not legit to preach about your god-his wants and needs-what he allows and doesn't...

its important to be educated about the real facts before painting a perception of how ignorant people make themselves out to be.

 's picture

Not surprising, my home town

Not surprising, my home town of Lewiston voted 7 to 5 to discriminate. That's a tradition I had hoped would have vanished by now. Very medieval! Very shameful.

 's picture

Enough with the smearing and

Enough with the smearing and name calling. It is counterproductive in a debate.

 's picture

I meant in general. Anytime

I meant in general. Anytime anyone wants to have a conversation about a topic, the opposing party often times falls back onto name calling and smear tactics. That stuff might make the talking heads on tv more interesting, but it rarely leaves a positive lasting impression and any good points that follow are lost in a personal defensive shouting match. This seems to be the new debating method. One which leads to polarization with limited information or education exchanged, especially for emotionally charged topics which require both.

 's picture

Churches are closing. Church

Churches are closing. Church leaders say that it is because of declining membership. So, how is it that an institution with declining numbers has such a power over people that are not a part of it?

 's picture

wanna-bes

wanna-bes

 's picture

alas! it was a pretty close

alas! it was a pretty close call... i'd think yes on 1 supporters would have more to brag out if it happened to be 90-10% or even 60-30%. this is something that all NO on 1 supporters should be proud about! we can make an impact/difference/change!!! =]

 's picture

1. The special rights are,

1. The special rights are, for example, after you lose your job, claiming you were targeted because of your sexual preference, not because of poor job performance or cut backs, and getting your day in court for it with all the expense, lost business time, negative publicity, and scrutiny for the former employer. Not everyone gets this right.

2. You are correct that many laws are passed without people voting on them, and many have come under scrutiny and recalled after a people's veto because people are tired of elected officials not hearing them.

3. Everyone is a member of an unpopular minority at one time or another, and yes it stinks. That is why we have elections where the majority rules, and yes that can stink, too.

4. Yes, marriage has been redefined many times throughout history, but always with the acknowledgement and acceptance of the people.

 's picture

You know what I think, I

You know what I think, I think everyone that voted yes on 1 is prejudice against gays. I say if they wanna get married that is their business and noone elses. You people don't have any morals or a heart. I am straight and have been with my man for almost 19 yrs and we both think this vote yes on 1 was bs. People should be free to make their own choices and noone else should be able to stop them making the choices they make. To each their own is what I was always told growing up. They are not going to teach stuff like that in school. If people think stuff like this is going to be taught in school you got it all wrong. They don't teach you on relationships or marriage straight or gay for that matter. People are people and everyone makes choices not everyone agrees with. It should be up to them who they marry and if they are 2 guys or 2 girls so be it.

 's picture

No, not Everyone. I voted to

No, not Everyone. I voted to repeal the law because the government doesn't have the authority to redifine marriage. I also think the law was a bad law in that id only would have allowed same sex couples to have the bennefits and priviledges of married couples.

The bill should be re-submitted, re-written, and renamed "The equality for Families" law, and extend the bennefits and privileges afforded to marriage to same sex partners, heterosexual partners who are not married, and single parrent households. That would leave the definition of marriage alone, and I don't think anyone who voted "yes" would be opposed to equal bennefits for all.

John A. Chick

"If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be." -- Thomas Jefferson in a letter to Colonel Charles Yancey (January 6, 1816)

 's picture

You are right in that people

You are right in that people do have a right to choose who they want to be with. We don't kill homosexuals like they do in many countries. The question was not if homosexuals have the right to exist, work, live, be educated, or be in a committed relationship. It was a question put to the public if they wanted to redefine a custom that has its roots in religion. If 2 guys or 2 girls are in a committed relationship, they can legally have a civil union with all the tax benefits that are included in a religious marriage, and most people will acknowledge their husband or wife.

 's picture

I wasn't married in a

I wasn't married in a church, but by a justice of the peace in the living room surrounded by friends and family. According to many christians, we are not married. Yet, most of society acknowledges our union. The only ones who said it didn't matter, besides the church, was the No on 1 people.

As for the "Right" religion, everyone has a right to their own personal religious beliefs. If someone doesn't agree with someone else, that is also their right.

 's picture

that is why is is soooo

that is why is is soooo important (can't emphasize enough) for people to become fully educated about the law. its already stated in the maine state constitution (and the us constitution) that protects churches... it was stated in the law LD1020 AGAIN to clearly state and 'protect' what is already protected. as marc mutty tried to downplay.

 's picture

Queen is right on this one.

Queen is right on this one. The law would have protected those who did not want to marry same sex couples under the "for religious reasons" category.

John A. Chick

"If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be." -- Thomas Jefferson in a letter to Colonel Charles Yancey (January 6, 1816)

 's picture

IF, IF, WOULD... shy of

IF, IF, WOULD... shy of being misunderstanding and having lack of knowledge. i'm sorry but i have to say that this was used as a scare tactic and nothing less. why would g/l/t want to get married at a church where they weren't accepted. why would they want to practice their religion there? i would avoid it at all costs if it was me...

 's picture

I'm pretty sure that the

I'm pretty sure that the "death panel" comment followed one by someone who wrote to the effect that once the greatest generation people die off, that homosexual marriage will be made legal by the following generations.

 's picture

Just out of curiosity, when

Just out of curiosity, when the Federal Government passes a law to make sure everyone has full equality, will that also include pediphiles? They are, unfortunatly, included in "everybody". A 40 year old man concludes that he and his 10 year old concubine have a commited relationship and deserve marriage rights. As does his friends and their child brides. Who are you to say otherwise? Where is the line in "everybody" and who is it that has the right to decide?

 's picture

Let God deal with it? You

Let God deal with it? You mean like he did with Sodom and Gommorah?

John A. Chick

"If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be." -- Thomas Jefferson in a letter to Colonel Charles Yancey (January 6, 1816)

 's picture

no one talks about what goes

no one talks about what goes where. for females they discuss the terms for the ladies thang. for males they talk about their parts too. they touch basis on STD's. sex ed is more like health ed. where a sex ed teacher when we need one???

 's picture

all the more reason why i

all the more reason why i ask for people to educate themselves. there was/is a misunderstanding about LD1020. marriage is not taught in schools. why would any teacher/school want a lawsuit? when i was in sexed all they talked about was parts of the body.

so girls i met up with said it best. why aren't parents more concerned with their kids doing drugs, smoking, or having sex.

 's picture

Vote No ran just as many

Vote No ran just as many ads. My niece told me that her teacher "had a soapbox moment" and lectured the class about why their parents should vote No on 1. Inappropriate use of class time? Yes.

 's picture

Very inappropriate! That

Very inappropriate! That teacher should be repromanded!

JONATHAN ALBRECHT's picture

Now to the Supreme Court

Now to the Supreme Court where queston 1 will be overturned and the Constitution re-affirmed. Each year more bigots die and more supporters of human rights are born so even without the Suprme Court of Maine its only a matter of time.
Jon Albrecht Dixfield

 's picture

It's funny to see some of

It's funny to see some of the things written because each negative word from yes voters shows just how much HATE they have. I don't think I've read one pleasant comment... they STILL want to bash people and direct their comments towards SJ Users.

NO on 1 Supporters-Keep your heads up! This is a trying day in all of our lives, because it effects each and everyone of us. No matter if it is us that are gay or that we are family members of gays or that we are friends of gays or just plain will not tolerate discrimination in our state-we have the choice and the right to prevail.

Its really too bad that Same-Sex marriage has to be up to people's vote. Maine's Constitution and the Constitution of the United States protection wasn't in place for NO on 1 supporters.

I think the end results (%) only show just how important it is to vote to make a difference. No excuses. Registering to vote is so easy-its ridiculous. Get involved. Become educated.

Coalition Partners for NO on 1 from Protect Maine Equality
Americans for Democratic Action
AFL/CIO
American Academy of Pediatrics- Maine Chapter
American Association of University Women (AAUW)
American Civil Liberties Union
Center for the Prevention of Hate Violence
Children of Lesbians and Gays Everywhere
Community Counseling Center
Downeast Pride Alliance
Engage Maine
Equality Federation
Equality Maine
Family Equality Council
Family Planning Assoc of Maine
Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders
Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation
Gay & Lesbian Victory Fund
GLSEN
Holocaust Human Rights Center of Maine
Human Rights Campaign
Kids First Center
Lambda Legal
League of Women Voters of Maine
Log Cabin Republicans
Mabel Wadsworth Health Center
Maine Association of Psychiatric Physicians
Maine Bar Association Elder Law Section
Maine Bar Association Family Law Section
Maine Bar Association Women's Law Section
Maine Children's Alliance
Maine Civil Liberties Union
Maine Coalition to End Domestic Violence
Maine People's Alliance
Maine Psychological Association
Maine Women's Lobby
Marriage Equality U.S.A.
NAACP- Portland Chapter
NAACP-Bangor Chapter
National Assoc Social Workers-Maine
National Association of LGBT Community Centers
National Black Justice Coalition
National Center for Lesbian Rights
National Council of Jewish Women of Southern Maine
National Gay & Lesbian Task Force
National Organization for Women
National Stonewall Democrats
New Hope for Women
Parents, Families & Friends of Lesbians & Gays
Peace Action Maine
Peace Through Interamerican Community Action
People for the American Way
Planned Parenthood of Northern New England
Preble Street
Rainbow Business & Professional Association
Religious Coalition for the Freedom to Marry
Soulforce
The League of Young Voters
Universal Fellowship of Metropolitan Community Chu
Women Work and Community

 's picture

Haven't read very many of

Haven't read very many of the No on 1 comments have you? Or do you just agree with those hateful comments and only take issue with those hateful Yes on 1 comments that you don't agree with?

 's picture

1. People who are

1. People who are complaining about the Catholic Church seem to forget that Islam also forbids homosexuality, and even calls for killing them. Yet, to say that you want to see an Islamic mosques close is considered bigoted.

2. If people wanted others to stay out of their business, then they shouldn't have gotten their friends in Augusta to pass and sign a bill behind the backs of the same people whose beliefs they want to change.

3. Stop the name calling. This is a democracy, the people have spoken. If you're going to put this on the ballot again, name calling and attacking religion is going to alienate more voters.

 's picture

It was a very sad day for

It was a very sad day for Maine. I thought that people were more opened minded and wanted everyone treated equally. Many of the Catholics are hypocrates. They go to church and turn around and start gossiping before they are out the door. Supposedly attending church makes them a better person. Some should take a gool luck in the mirror and judge themselves instead of other people.
Marriage is described as a union between two people who love each other, promise to honor each other in sickness and in health, richer or poorer. This union is sacred, yet how many of these couples are divorced today. Maybe would should outlaw divorce since it is against the vows that were taken by this married couple.
Everyone should be treated equally . I hope that they continue to fight for their rights, and hopefully someday they will be able to marry if they so choose.

 's picture

You're kidding, right? If

You're kidding, right?

If religion is religious why isn't it taken seriously? The moral collapse we are seeing in society is the reason the vote was as close as it was, and why churches are closing their doors. Religion is not taken seriously, never mind marriage. Just keep on teaching the secular humanism religion and evolution as fact and pretty soon you won't have to worry about religion.... at least until Jesus comes back.

John A. Chick

"If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be." -- Thomas Jefferson in a letter to Colonel Charles Yancey (January 6, 1816)

 's picture

Publik, you can call

Publik, you can call yourself a breeder all you want, as for me, I am a mother. Breeder sounds like something out of a science fiction novel. Seriously, if my husband called me a breeder, there would be hell to pay.

 's picture

Well, now it is time to tax

Well, now it is time to tax every bigoted church in Maine, and it is not only the Catholics, it is every church that purports to preach the WORD of JESUS. Lets tax them all into infinity.

 's picture

What I find humorous is what

What I find humorous is what will you do when this is brought to Maine Supreme Court and overturns the "peoples" veto because it's unconstitutional? Fact is much like Mass. and a few other states it WILL go to the courts and WILL be found as unconstitutional, in turn making this whole process null and void.

 's picture

Just a note: Even though I

Just a note: Even though I was pretty firm in the thought I would vote Yes, you know what was the clincher?? A No on 1 activist referred to a heterosexual woman with children as a "Breeder"--how absolutely disgusting--take your signs and money and leave. Lead us to our own lives, morals and "narrow point of view".

ROGER COUTURIER's picture

Now that this issue has been

Now that this issue has been finalized by the voters of Maine it is time to look at another issue that has surfaced as a result. The bishop of Maine's catholic has made it his mission to test the seperation of church and state and has created a new playing surface. Since he does not respect this seperation of church and state, the tax exemption afforded the church should be the next issue addressed by the voters. It is so sad that instead of helping to feed and keep the needy warm this winter, he directed thousand of dollars to a political issue. Shame on you Bishop Malone!

 's picture

The phrase "separation of

The phrase "separation of church and state" appears NOWHERE in our founding documents. It is a phrase used by Thomas Jefferson in a letter to the Danbury Baptist association in Connecticut, and it clearly shows what the 1st Amendment was meant to do. The 1st Amendment begins:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;"

The right protected is an individual right to worship as one sees fit, apart from any interference from the government. Jefferson believed that "...religion is a matter which lies solely between man & his god, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship..." and that "Congress thus inhibited from acts respecting religion, and the Executive authorised only to execute their [Congress] acts..." Thus the government was prohibited from passing laws pertaining to the establishment of any one religion over another, and was prohibited from passing laws that interfered with The People's right to exercise (participate) in the religion of their choice.

At the time our nation was founded, the governments of Europe dictated to the people what religion they were allowed to practice. Those who did not comply were persecuted by both the government and the "Church". Many of the people (if not most) that came to North America did so in an attempt to escape this persecution and worship as they saw fit. This right was preserved in two ways; 1) Nothing in the Constitution gives government the authority to pass laws regarding religion. 2) The right is enumerated in the "Bill of Rights", i.e. the first 10 Amendments to the constitution.

The bottom line: Government is prohibited from creating a "State" religion AND from interfering with the FREE EXERCISE of religion by The People. It does NOT prevent religious people from participating in government, nor does it prevent any particular religious organization form lending support to any particular cause.

John A. Chick

"If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be." -- Thomas Jefferson in a letter to Colonel Charles Yancey (January 6, 1816)

 's picture

Oh please. That whole

Oh please.

That whole "separate but equal" issue is a straw man. The so-called "marriage equality" law would have created a "separate but equal" definition of marriage by distiguishing between "religious" marriage and "civil" marriage.

If this law were really about equality, it would have included extending the bennefits associated with marriage to non-married heterosexual couples and single parrents, NOT JUST GAY COUPLES. Now THAT would have been TRUE equality, and acceptable to all Mainers. But that really isn't what you want, is it? You just want LGBT to bennefit from such a law.

John A. Chick

"If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be." -- Thomas Jefferson in a letter to Colonel Charles Yancey (January 6, 1816)

DANNY FITZSIMMONS's picture

Hip Hip Horray YES YES YES

Hip Hip Horray YES YES YES was there ever any doubt!!! NOW WE MUST SET OUR MINDS ON GETTING RID OF BALDACCI AND ALL THE THE OTHER POLITICIANS WHO LED US HERE IN THE FIRST PLACE!! IT IS TIME THE NEWSPAPER WROTE THE ROLE CALL OF THOSE WHO SUPPORTED THIS RAG OF A BILL!!!! AND WE MUST STOP IT FROM EVER COMMING BACK!!!!

 's picture

Ezekiel 7:10 "The day is

Ezekiel 7:10
"The day is here! It has come! Doom has burst forth, the rod has budded, arrogance has blossomed!"
Please give us the Book, chapter, and verse that you interpret saying marriage is for reproduction. I cannot find it no matter how hard I try and I am in fear for my marriage because I cannot have children. The natural flow of these types of things leads one to believe that the religious sector will gain confidence after numerous wins and will turn their sites on the next batch of non believers and non conformists. History shows it can take as little as 14 years for this to happen (1918 - 1932) and we are several years into that time frame now.

GARY SAVARD's picture

It's over, so the No on #1

It's over, so the No on #1 folks can stop whining and let it go. 30 other states voted with the same outcome, that says something.

 's picture

THE PEOPLE HAVE SPOKEN!!!

THE PEOPLE HAVE SPOKEN!!! 53% to 47% so all you weirdoes that want marry go see Nancy Pelosi in your Capital City San Francisco... oh and remember it was Adam & EVE NOT Adam & STEVE!!!!!

 's picture

go fly a kite you closed

go fly a kite you closed minded idiot!

 's picture

I am ashamed and embarassed

I am ashamed and embarassed to call my self a Mainer. What a disgrace that a state whose people prides itself on fairness, equality, and most of all staying out of other people's business we have just shown that none of that is true that we are really just a bunch of homophobic bigots.

If we could only return to common sense...

 's picture

I so agree!

I so agree!

 's picture

It's a bad day to be a

It's a bad day to be a Mainer. Sad that so many people are bigots in what is otherwise a wonderful state.

Any problem that can't be solved with taxcuts, republicans pretend doesn't exist.

 's picture

If the shoe fits!

If the shoe fits!

 's picture

TAKE THAT TAXPOOR!!!!! YOU

TAKE THAT TAXPOOR!!!!! YOU BIGOT!

 's picture

Sorry to burst bubbles, but

Sorry to burst bubbles, but I'm not a liberal. I'm not crying either. I'm a human being with compassion and understanding-not some political or religious agenda.

I have HOPE and know that one day soon, discrimination will not have any place in out state. Keep your heads up No on 1 supporters!

 's picture

You are wrong for

You are wrong for discriminating against homosexuals in this instance...

 's picture

I think it goes to show just

I think it goes to show just how truly ignorant some people are... discrimination is discrimination. Whats next? If there is a law EVENTUALLY PASSED for disabled people to marry w/out their benefits taken away... are they going to be discriminated against and told no? I think that this only goes to show how important it is to vote and that we have to stand up and prevail... never give up for equality.

Maine will not tolerate discrimination! EQUALITY FOR EVERYONE! =]

 's picture

taxpoor, what a very

taxpoor, what a very childish response...... you know, you have become extremely annoying!

 's picture

:(

:(

Advertisement

Stay informed — Get the news delivered for free in your inbox.

I'm interested in ...