Friday, November 20, 2009 in Lewiston, Maine

Auburn-Lewiston:
Clear sky, 46.4 °F

Pundits break down Question 1 vote

LEWISTON — Despite recent polling that indicated strong support for keeping Maine's law allowing same-sex marriage, voters rejected it by a margin of about 53 percent to 47 percent, according to unofficial tallies. Local political analysts speculated several factors may have played into the discrepancy, including a last-minute shift in support.

"We've certainly seen in the case of past elections in Maine where the pro-gay-rights side has lost steam over time," said Jim Melcher, a political science professor at the University of Maine at Farmington. "My theory about Maine voters and change is that the closer you get to Election Day, whatever proposal's going to call for more change tends to lose steam."

He said some people answering pollsters' questions might not have been honest, for fear of sounding bigoted.

Douglas Hodgkin of Lewiston, a former political science professor at Bates College, said talking to a pollster is a "social situation" and agreed that people feel pressure to answer questions in a way that appears to favor equality, particularly when talking to a stranger.

"I know in terms of polling, on sensitive issues, that you could have people misrepresenting what their intentions are," Hodgkin said.

He said it's important to remember that polls are only snapshots of public opinion, not predictions of results.

The exceptionally high turnout for an "off-year" election, which exceeded 50 percent, helped both sides, Hodgkin said, though conventional wisdom leading up to the election said it would favor those hoping to maintain the law allowing same-sex marriage.

"It cut both sides; it wasn't motivating only one particular segment of the electorate," he said.

Patrick Murphy, president of the Pan Atlantic SMS Group polling firm, which released a poll on Oct. 26 indicating supporters of same-sex marriage had an 11-point lead, said the lying-to-the-pollster theory may account for some of the disparity between the poll numbers and the election result.

"That's one explanation," he said. "I also think the strength of the more conservative or fundamentalist churches and also the Catholic Church might have been underestimated somewhat, in terms of getting their core believers out to vote."

Murphy's poll showed Maine Catholics nearly evenly split on the issue, but he said those who favored rejection of the new law were probably more motivated to get out and vote.

"I gather from people who are practicing Catholics that they put on a tremendous effort at the pulpit and at their churches in the last two weekends and I presume that influenced those that were maybe on the fence to get out and vote for this," he said.

Hodgkin said he'd heard a similar story from a friend who is Catholic: Elderly in-laws were motivated to vote for the first time in 15 years because they felt so strongly about the issue of marriage.

"It was their Catholic faith that triggered the interest in the issue," he said.

Catholic strongholds such as Lewiston, Auburn, Biddeford and Augusta voted to reject the same-sex marriage law, according to unofficial results.

Chris Potholm, a government professor at Bowdoin College, said the explanation for the difference between the polls and the election result was simple.

"I think the 'no' side was ahead and if the election had been held two weeks ago, they would have won," he said, adding that strong advertising by opponents during the past week or so of campaigning probably accounted for the shift.

rmetzler@sunjournal.com


Comments

PropertyPriority says

to bad

Posted 2 weeks ago (permalink)

news4u says

“Stupidity is better kept a secret than displayed"- Heraclitus of Ephesus

Posted 2 weeks ago (permalink)

StoshDosh's picture

StoshDosh says

. .' Maine is a unique purplish state that defies categorization into the tired hues of "red" or "blue." ' The L S J ® is an excellent paper . You are lucky to have it . Sure beats the Twin - City Times® :) http://www.ajr.org

Posted 2 weeks ago (permalink)

casey1 says

It appears the issue is one of morality for those voters who do not want Maine to recognize same gender marriages. Why not look at the various laws pertaining to tax, health insurance etc. that indentify married couples. Maybe our energy could be better spent changing those laws to say "partners".
Homosexuality is immoral - it doesn't mean we have to dislike a person, just their orientation.

Posted 2 weeks ago (permalink)

PropertyPriority says

They LOST now let the true colors shine.They are a very hateful group saying how bad Maine is for voting against them.They are saying that we are bigots for not agreeing with them.If this is how THEY really are I'm glad they lost!

Posted 2 weeks ago (permalink)

StoshDosh's picture

StoshDosh says

" True Colors " -- Cindy Lauper and Phil Collins :)

Posted 2 weeks ago (permalink)

K0NPHL1C7 says

Here we go again, the Sun-Journal making their position on the issue very clear.

How about posting just ONE article highlighting those who are PROUD that Maine chose to STAND UP for TRADITIONAL MARRIAGE!

Posted 2 weeks ago (permalink)

StoshDosh's picture

StoshDosh says

. . . ...Here's like ten , J P . Enjoy ! http://www3.sunjournal.com/section/term/2834

Posted 2 weeks ago (permalink)

Ellie May says

Wow, Auburn Patriot!~ You need to take a chill pill and cool off.

Posted 2 weeks ago (permalink)

gingifer77's picture

gingifer77 says

http://mingomama.blogspot.com/2009/11/breaking-my-own-rules.html

Posted 2 weeks ago (permalink)

Auburn Patriot says

Thank-you Allison Douglass. Very poignant and insightful. These are the personal stories we need to listen and learn from, and remember how we affect one another sometimes despite our base assumptions. This marriage issue wasn't just about changing laws and regulations, it was about how others have the right to live their lives as they see fit without persecution and ridicule.

Posted 2 weeks ago (permalink)

jalbrecht1 says

Vacationland, not anymore. Now its bigotsland.
Jon Albrecht Dixfield

Posted 2 weeks ago (permalink)

Taxpoor says

. Name calling is a sign of unprofessionalism STOP CRYING GET OVER IT

Posted 2 weeks ago (permalink)

Chippy's picture

Chippy says

Well said Taxpoor.

Posted 2 weeks ago (permalink)

School teacher says

It is very sad when so many people are so self righteous and judgmental and they don't even realize it or perhaps they do and they like it just that way.
So much of these comments are filled with hatred toward something/someone different. But how different, really, we are all human beings. How far we have to go!

Posted 2 weeks ago (permalink)

Sirmel says

I ask myself that question, I too ponder why the left always demonize those that don't believe like you do?? but it is brought up from the left how hateful we are. Why do tell me is it so hard to show civility in the debate and respect both sides.

Posted 2 weeks ago (permalink)

TREEHUGGARRR says

Pass the bill, allow them to marry.
Next stop, Nambla members want to marry 14 year olds.
Where do you draw the line?
And dosh, ever hear of the word "faith"?

Posted 2 weeks ago (permalink)

StoshDosh's picture

StoshDosh says

. .Why yes i have ! Ever heard of Saint Damien ? He was the first Parish Priest at my church here in Pahoa HI 96778 u s a . http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_of_the_Sea_Painted_Church He died of Leprosy ( Hansen's disease ) on the island of Mo'lu'kai ( the ' forgotten ' island ) . It is similar to the Ebola virus . Your flesh falls off your skin , slowly . And yes , i worked in Africa for several years . Namibia's quite nice . i recommend the place for safari's . It's a former British colony like US . Alo'ha :)

Posted 2 weeks ago (permalink)

wpartist says

In Maine, it's already okay to marry a person under the age of 16 as long as there is written parental permission.

Posted 2 weeks ago (permalink)

StoshDosh's picture

StoshDosh says

. .Uh , outhouses are still legal, too , in Maine , J B . That doesn't make them good :)

Posted 2 weeks ago (permalink)

wpartist says

Uh huh....But it still means that Maine already allows marriaged between adults and children, but not between two consenting adults if they happen to be of the same sex. So Maine is much closer to being one of those states where a forceful religious figure could convince a sheepish following to allow their young daughters to marry older men, or vice-versa. Since a good 53% of the voting population is willing to follow the suggestions of an outside sect insisting that their interpretation of god's law outweighs the protections of the state, and as Maine becomes more fundamental, I'm just wondering where the next compound is going to be built. Really! You people make me sick!!!

Posted 2 weeks ago (permalink)

Ellie May says

Enough all ready!! Just because the YES side won does not mean that we are haters, ingorant, bigots or any other adjective the NO side can think of.
What we are, are believers that marriage is between one man and one woman, period. The No side should just accept defeat gracefully and forget about it! Period. And this does not mean that they should bring this issue up ever again. The Maine people have spoken, Accept this defeat and move on, right out of this state to NH or MA, if you truly think that Mainers are bigots and haters!

Posted 2 weeks ago (permalink)

StoshDosh's picture

StoshDosh says

Alo'ha from Pahoa HI u s a 9 6 7 7 8 , Ms. Clampett :) http://home.att.net/~stosher/wsb/html/view.cgi-home.html-.html

Posted 2 weeks ago (permalink)

wpartist says

How's mis-guided work for you?

Posted 2 weeks ago (permalink)

Auburn Patriot says

Um, no, Ellie, when someone specifically chooses to discriminate against other people based upon attributes that are beyond the control of the discriminated, that defines bigotry.

For all you "deep-thinkers" out there, I'll give an example. If I just simply felt that blue-eyed people should be given special rights simply because their eye color matches the color of the sky, and thus not the brown-eyed people ('cause who ever heard of a brown sky, right?), and so I publically proclaim that it's fine to discriminate against brown-eyed people based on this simple criteria...........I would be labeled a bigot!

DUH!

Just "because" you feel marriage is between 1 man and 1 woman, this does not give you the moral right to choose for others how they live. A very simple, American philosophy. Unfortunately, for all the bigots out there, this doesn't seem to be very important to many.

And as for moving away, actually I prefer to live here in my homeland, and kick all the bigots out of state! Wouldn't that make for a better society?

Posted 2 weeks ago (permalink)

StoshDosh's picture

StoshDosh says

. .. .A P ? Ellie May Clampett was just being emotional . Next mood swing ? Six minutes . Thanks for voting . Twice as many people in Auburn voted than in Loystone :)

Posted 2 weeks ago (permalink)

School teacher says

I do not understand how someone else can say the gay people and those of us who support them are haters! It appears to me that those who discriminate against others just because they are different are the ones who hate. It is the kind of ignorance demonstrated here that perpetuates this.
I see, too, that some have reduced marriage to some one you love to a matter of economics when it comes to getting insurance coverage. Once again-a way to distance yourselves from those who have every civil right to receive this.
How you can say hatred is expressed by gay people and those who support them? It comes blatantly from the ignorance and prejudice of the other side.

Posted 2 weeks ago (permalink)

StoshDosh's picture

StoshDosh says

. . . .It's incomprehensible , Teach √ These are the same people who ƒear gay guys . Go figger . Teach your children well :)

Posted 2 weeks ago (permalink)

Ron says

Why can't people disagree with one another without being labeled a "bigot" and full of "hate"? Really, that use of words for shock value is losing its steam.

Posted 2 weeks ago (permalink)

Auburn Patriot says

Gee, Ron, maybe that's because the Church has done a great job of utilizing blatant hypocrisy to spread their message of ignorance. Given how many on the YES side have verbalized their opinion with venom and complete disregard for altruism and tolerance, I think the words "bigot" and "hate" carry a justified amount of weight.

Understandably, the No crowd hasn't exactly been nice about it either, but then again, they're the ones who being afflicted, not the other way around.

Now, I know somebody who thinks they're intelligent is going to respond and say, "Ah-ha!! Gotcha!! Two wrongs don't make a right, Patriot!!" And these people would be correct, certainly. But that does not in any way reduce the core issues of intolerance that the YES camp has trumpeted.

If I blatantly, publically lied about you to the media, you might not have very nice words for me in response, but that doesn't then mean that I am thus absolved from the wrongs I've commited. Capiche?

Posted 2 weeks ago (permalink)

Sirmel says

I guess the other side hasn't said anything? and what is the LIE?

Posted 2 weeks ago (permalink)

Ron says

So it's much more effective for both sides of an issue to call each other some sort of name; it makes for a better argument? And of course, each side must hate the other...otherwise they'd agree, right? Sorry, I just don't agree with that....and I don't hate you if you believe that. Adults can disagree with one another without name-calling, and it doesn't necessarily mean that one side hates the other. The point of my post is that using the word "hate", "bigot", and other terms, BY BOTH SIDES of any issue, has lost its shock value to me. They're getting over-used and losing their effectiveness. I'm not interested in listening to another person unless he/she can give me their opinions in a civil, respectful manner.

Posted 2 weeks ago (permalink)

Auburn Patriot says

Hey, whaddayaknow......I actually agree with you on this point!

Unfortunately, the Dogs of War were already unleashed.....I was commenting on the fact that the use of those words actually had some (I said, SOME) justifiable meaning. Of course, those on the opposite side of the ballot will disagree with me........and I'm okay with that.

Posted 2 weeks ago (permalink)

Sammie says

The hatred and bigotry spewed by the so-called tolerant gay-marriage advocates is blatantly hypocritical. We that love the Lord and want His joy and freedom are painted as haters when in fact the real "haters" are those who spew venom from your "anything-goes" philosophy. The gay lifestyle is an aberration and brings early death, increased diseases all the way across the broad spectrum, and increased mental health problems and great confusion among our children.
And, it is in our schools! What a ridiculous claim to state that it isn't taught in our schools. I have personally seen it and heard it from dozens of others yet you continue your mindless, inane argument that it isn't in the schools.

Posted 2 weeks ago (permalink)

Auburn Patriot says

The problem with your post is that you make rather profound claims about the "gay agenda" but you don't show any support for your argument. Now, I'm not one of those who will speak up and demand that you show cited references for each of your statements, I just ask that you offer a rational argument. In other words, EXPLAIN YOURSELF PROFICIENTLY!

As for specifics.........blah, blah, blah, it's not being taught in schools.....blah, blah, blah, the Bible is being taken out of context....blah, blah, blah, read my other posts. I can't keep typing the same thing over again.

As for "The gay lifestyle is an aberration and brings early death, increased diseases all the way across the broad spectrum, and increased mental health problems and great confusion among our children"- Really? How do you figure? Funny, 'cause I always thought that ignorance and bigotry were far more harmful.........but then again, I'm not an ignorant self-proclaimed Speaker-for-God as you seem to have become.....

Posted 2 weeks ago (permalink)

gdls1 says

Sammie, I've held off as long as I could. I want to tell you that every time I read one of your posts, I say "Oh my gaaaawd!"

Posted 2 weeks ago (permalink)

Bilgerat says

"a long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right, and raises at first a formidable outcry in defence of custom. But the tumult soon subsides. Time makes more converts than reason." Thomas Paine

Posted 2 weeks ago (permalink)

Auburn Patriot says

Ahhh...........one of my favorites, Paine.......how come we can't have politicians and pundits more like him anymore?

Posted 2 weeks ago (permalink)

fixit001 says

The cost to the people of maine would have been high if this had passed!!!
1st FACT most city,county,state, and federal empolyees have insurance to thier spouces and it is a low estimate but at 15% of state employees being gay this would be a heck of a pricetag!!!!!
2nd FACT according to ALL MEDICAL SURVEYS (ALL) the greatest risk group for contracting HIV is the GAY Community, and the cost of care per average patient is well over the 100000.00 mark this data would not go overlooked by the insurance companies and would have spiked the insuance rates for individuals PAYING for insurance!
These are facts not political raving for one side or the other FACTS FACTS JUST GIVE THE FACTS and if they had given these facts in the advertisments the vote would have been even more drastic.... I also think that the gay community payed off our elected officials to get this on the books knowing that it would be challenged but was hoping to get an edge by having a flase positive referandum whereas YES MEANS NO to trick some to vote wrong way..Well it did not work!! NOW we should set our sights on those responsible for putting thier coffers above the wishes of the people and vote them out of office and never vote for them in any capacity ever again!!!!!!

Posted 2 weeks ago (permalink)

Auburn Patriot says

Wait!- Hold on! Find me the nearest brick wall so I can bang my head a few times in frustration.......

1st "fact"- So if we replaced all those gay people (and it isn't 15%) with heterosexual people, thus having to include their spouses for insurance purposes, would you still complain?? What a ridiculous argument. I mean, really, WHAT does this have to do with ANYTHING?? We could save a whole lot more money by booting out all the fat, sick people in government, and reduce the insurance liability for all of us.....does that make sense to you???

2nd "fact"- ("according to all medical surveys")- HIV is not a "gay disease".....where have you been for the last 20 years? The communicability of HIV is virtually the same for heterosexual couples as with homosexuals......it just happened to start within the gay community somehow, and unfortunately the less intellectually-gifted portion of our society hasn't bothered to accept that. Plus, not all gays have HIV/AIDS, lots of heteros do too!, and HIV is not a major factor in the increase of insurance costs. That would actually be the rise in administrative costs outright, so blame the insurance companies themselves, not a bunch of gay people.

Furthermore, the gay community did not pay off our officials...if they did they should get their money back! And they weren't trying to trick anybody into mistaking Yes for NO, or vice versa.....

Any more "facts" you'd like to share with us, or have you resorted to hiding your head in your pillow case out of embarrassment?

Posted 2 weeks ago (permalink)

Sirmel says

We could save a whole lot more money by booting out all the fat, sick people in government, and reduce the insurance liability for all of us.....does that make sense to you??

Hmm I do think there is a fat tax in this new health bill??

Posted 2 weeks ago (permalink)

StoshDosh's picture

StoshDosh says

. .uh , we did . Jabba the gut Dick Cheney ? Mr. Walking Heart Attack ?

Posted 2 weeks ago (permalink)

StoshDosh's picture

StoshDosh says

. .uh , we did . Jabba the gut Dick Cheney ? Mr. Walking Heart Attack ?

Posted 2 weeks ago (permalink)

Auburn Patriot says

Wait!- Hold on! Find me the nearest brick wall so I can bang my head a few times in frustration.......

1st "fact"- So if we replaced all those gay people (and it isn't 15%) with heterosexual people, thus having to include their spouses for insurance purposes, would you still complain?? What a ridiculous argument. I mean, really, WHAT does this have to do with ANYTHING?? We could save a whole lot more money by booting out all the fat, sick people in government, and reduce the insurance liability for all of us.....does that make sense to you???

2nd "fact"- ("according to all medical surveys")- HIV is not a "gay disease".....where have you been for the last 20 years? The communicability of HIV is virtually the same for heterosexual couples as with homosexuals......it just happened to start within the gay community somehow, and unfortunately the less intellectually-gifted portion of our society hasn't bothered to accept that. Plus, not all gays have HIV/AIDS, lots of heteros do too!, and HIV is not a major factor in the increase of insurance costs. That would actually be the rise in administrative costs outright, so blame the insurance companies themselves, not a bunch of gay people.

Furthermore, the gay community did not pay off our officials...if they did they should get their money back! And they weren't trying to trick anybody into mistaking Yes for NO, or vice versa.....

Any more "facts" you'd like to share with us, or have you resorted to hiding your head in your pillow case out of embarrassment?

Posted 2 weeks ago (permalink)

Auburn Patriot says

My apologies for the double-post......

Posted 2 weeks ago (permalink)

wpartist says

It's okay....Sometimes you need to say things repeatedly....and slowly.....Use little words.....simple concepts...... ;-)

Posted 2 weeks ago (permalink)

gdls1 says

Worth saying twice! (Sadly, your efforts will not make one bit of difference.)

Posted 2 weeks ago (permalink)

the_poorman's picture

the_poorman says

So sad that so much hatred is aimed at a group of people who pose no threat to anyone, or anyones way of life. Google Phillip Spooner on Youtube for one of the most poignant arguments in favor of gay marriage from a lifelong Republican.

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

Posted 2 weeks ago (permalink)

Ron says

Just goes to show that this is not a partisan issue. Indeed, for the referendum to have passed, many Dems had to have voted for it.

Posted 2 weeks ago (permalink)

Emilees dad says

I am not gay however it is a sad sad day. Why do so many people care so much about such a small population? I have no idea how big the gay community is but I know far more non gay people then I do gay. Those ignorent commercials I have been assulted with over the radio for the last 3 months def. will not be missed. You know the ones, where terrible Fake Maine accented men and woman who make us sound like HICKS and no brainers tell us that gay sex will be taght in our schools if we let this Bill go through. Unreal is all I can say, oh and Keep on fighting, maybe one day you will all get your freedom in these so called free lands.

Posted 2 weeks ago (permalink)

Contests
Radio City Racing
NASCAR fantasy racing at its finest. Weekly prizes. Grand prize is a flat screen TV. Click here to play!
Copyright 2009 Sun Media Group