Here we go again.

After Maine residents twice voted down special rights for homosexuals, the Legislature has passed it again. It will become law on June 29 unless 50,000 Mainers sign a petition for a third referendum in November.

Even though homosexual activists outspent us 10-to-1 with out-of-state money and opinion polls predicted easy victories, they were stunned when ordinary Maine residents rejected it.

Now comes round three.

The third law is even worse. As before, it adds “sexual orientation” to “race, color, sex, physical or mental disability, religion, ancestry or national origin,” but this one goes further to define “sexual orientation” much more broadly. Now, it’s “a person’s actual or perceived heterosexuality, bisexuality, homosexuality or gender identity or expression.”

What could that mean? Since it applies to “public accommodations,” could you be charged with “discrimination” if you objected to a cross-dresser following your daughter into the ladies’ room? Better keep your mouth shut. Under this statute, transvestites have special rights too. Would Maine businesses and public buildings be forced to provide special bathrooms to “transgendered” persons who feel uncomfortable in men’s rooms or ladies’ rooms? Lawsuits just like this have already been filed in other states with similar definitions of “sexual orientation” in their special rights statutes. Get ready.

Though Maine’s homosexual activists and their lackeys say it isn’t so, this law would make gay “marriage” possible. For their agenda to move along in Maine, this is pivotal. They deny there’s any such thing as a homosexual agenda, of course, but denying its existence is itself “item one” on the agenda. You can expect to hear their denials repeated often in the months ahead. Massachusetts residents heard them too, before activists there rammed through gay “marriage.” First, they sued after being denied marriage licenses and they won in the state Supreme Judicial Court. Then the SJC ordered the state legislature to enact a gay “marriage” law. Absent the anti-discrimination law, they could not have done so.

Item two on the supposedly nonexistent homosexual agenda is “tolerance.” Most Americans are fair-minded and they go along, perceiving tolerance to mean what the Oxford American Dictionary says it means: “showing willingness to allow the existence of opinions or behavior that one does not necessarily agree with.”

That kind of tolerance isn’t what activists intend, though. They want everyone to affirm homosexuality as equivalent to heterosexuality in every way, even celebrate it, like it or not.

So, item three on the agenda is: “Start liking it.”

What’s next? Look north. Canada just enacted Bill C-250, adding “sexual orientation” to Canada’s hate propaganda law. Now it’s a criminal offense to publicly express disapproval of homosexuality in the whole country. If this column were published a hundred miles north of here, for example, I could be prosecuted.

Even before C-250, free speech was chilled up there. In Saskatchewan, Hugh Owens placed a newspaper ad quoting biblical passages against homosexuality. For that, he was found guilty of a “human rights offense.” Both he and the newspaper had to pay $1,500 each to three homosexual men who objected to the ad.

Isolated case? Nope. A British Colombia high school teacher named Chris Kempling wrote one column and a few letters to the editor arguing that homosexuality is not genetically or biologically determined, but a treatable disorientation. He’s also a licensed psychologist in private practice. For this, he was suspended without pay and convicted of “conduct unbecoming a member of the British Colombia College of Teachers.” The conviction was upheld by the BC Supreme Court. “I had thought that the editorial page was a place where all Canadians have the right to express their points of view,” said Kempling. “I highly value the freedom of the press, and all points of view should be represented in our newspapers …” He thought wrong. Owens and Kempling would face even worse penalties under the hate propaganda law.

Nothing like that could happen in Maine though, right? Think again. A local homosexual activist twice filed false charges of “harassment” against this writer in Bridgton District Court. The charges were thrown out, but only after columns similar to the one you’re reading were entered into the record as “Exhibit A, Exhibit B,” and so forth – alleged evidence of “homophobia.” The state cop who knocked on my door and delivered the summons said it was reported to Maine’s attorney general as a possible hate crime. Owens, Kempling and I all found out what can happen when you publicly oppose the homosexual agenda.

You don’t support special rights for homosexuals? Sign the petition in your town. Unless we get 50,000 signatures before June 15, we’re all going to have to start liking it.

Tom McLaughlin, a teacher and columnist, lives in Lovell. His e-mail address is [email protected].