For the umpteenth time, it’s not about same-sex marriage. It’s about ending discrimination.

A group of 46 prominent lawyers and legal scholars, including several members of the University of Maine School of Law, released last week their analysis of Maine’s new anti-discrimination law. They found it provides no legal basis for gay marriage, and suggestions that it does are red herrings, meant to draw attention away from the law’s purpose.

Opponents of the law, which bans discrimination in housing, credit, employment and education, maintain that it lays the legal groundwork for same-sex marriages. They point to Massachusetts as an example of what can happen if discrimination is made illegal.

They are wrong.

The decision in Massachusetts to allow the marriages was based on the state’s constitution, the lawyers said, not its human rights laws.

Activists who oppose equal rights were able to garner enough support to place Question 1 on this November’s ballot. The question asks: “Do you want to reject the new law that would protect people from discrimination in employment, housing, education, public accommodations and credit based on their sexual orientation?”

The answer should be no.

Lewiston activist Paul Madore made clear during a protest Sept. 28 in the city what motivates him and many opponents to the new law: Discrimination against homosexuals should not only be legal, it should also be required.

It will be a sad day if the voters of Maine align themselves with such hateful thinking.

When the history of this year’s election is written and future generations look back, they will wonder how good people could stand idly by – could stay neutral – in the face of discrimination.

Maine might one day approve of same-sex marriage. It might not. But either way it won’t happen because voters reject the notion that it’s OK to deny someone a job, an apartment, a loan or a scholarship because they are gay. The two issues shouldn’t be confused.