Sign Up to Receive Email Action Alerts From Issa Exposed
×

Back to the ballot in Maine?

Marriage equality

By Adam Bink

I received this e-mail yesterday from Equality Maine:

Dear Adam,

By now, you’ve heard the inspiring news — our friends in New York have won the freedom to marry!

Congratulations to the coalition in New York that worked to secure this victory.  EqualityMaine was proud to support this effort by mobilizing our volunteers to contact New Yorkers and urge them to call their legislators in support of the marriage bill.

This important victory in New York generates wind in the sails of the national movement to win marriage, and more specifically, of our efforts here in Maine.

Let the celebration of what New York achieved serve as a reminder that our movement is strong — and that state-by-state, we will win the freedom to marry for all Americans.

To that end, stay tuned later this week for an important announcement about winning marriage in Maine.

Word has it that advocates are expected to announce signature-gathering efforts (they need 57,000) to go back to the ballot in Maine to overturn the 2009 decision, which invalidated the law legalizing marriage equality for same-sex couples. The signature-gathering is not likely to be the toughest part, but rather the financial effort and actually winning at the ballot.

76 Comments

  • 1. Ann S.  |  June 28, 2011 at 10:34 am

    Yes! Is it worth considering consolidating the many posts?

  • 2. LCH  |  June 28, 2011 at 10:37 am

    ♀♀=♂♂=♀♂=∑♡

  • 3. Adam Bink  |  June 28, 2011 at 10:38 am

    Yes. Lots of news and churning many things out.

  • 4. Adam Bink  |  June 28, 2011 at 10:39 am

    I sometimes do that when there are many items (the "roundups") but just didn't today.

  • 5. dsc77  |  June 28, 2011 at 10:43 am

    Yes, we have been doing work here in Maine! Do stay tuned for that announcement later this week!

    Dave in Maine

  • 6. seth from maryland  |  June 28, 2011 at 11:14 am

    Yes ,this is great , I know you will bring equality in 2012 to Maine, and i hope my home state of Maryland will be joing you too along with many others

  • 7. Sam_Handwich  |  June 28, 2011 at 11:15 am

    Oh no! I hope this mystery announcement won't force me to consume a celebratory lobster.

  • 8. grod  |  June 28, 2011 at 11:36 am

    @ dsc77 I will follow the announcement with interest. In 2009, Equality lost by 32,000 votes, having 268,000 supporters. No doubt Equality Maine better understands what could been done differently. Perhaps, the Catholic Church and NOM would not be so influential a second time, as was seen in NY. Because of NOM’s refusal to comply with Maine's Commission on Government Ethics and Election Practices guidelines, maybe they will not be permitted to be a player. G

  • 9. dsc77  |  June 28, 2011 at 11:38 am

    Actually, it does involve lobster marriage: http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-v

  • 10. dsc77  |  June 28, 2011 at 11:38 am

    I will say it is very hard to combat the "children will turn gay" fear tactics.

    Dave in Maine

  • 11. Sheryl_Carver  |  June 28, 2011 at 11:43 am

    While I would normally agree, Ann, the fact that ID collapses replies & stops emailing comments after a certain maximum number of comments makes me "vote" on the side of keeping many posts. Also, until the emailed comments again give the context of any replies, with separate posts it's easier to figure out what a given emailed comment refers to.

  • 12. Bill S.  |  June 28, 2011 at 11:43 am

    Hopefully they'll use libertarian language in the ballot measure. Liberals already know why same-sex couples deserve equal protection, so the ballot language should reflect the conservative principals of small government. Something like: "The right to enter into a civil marriage shall not be denied or abridged by the government on account of sex."

    It should also include some sort of a religious exemption clause for good PR.

  • 13. dsc77  |  June 28, 2011 at 11:43 am

    If it were, they would just funnel the money into other organizations, such as ProtectMarriage and Yes on 1, etc. I believe.

    I never really did hear what became of the Maine court's slapdown of NOM's funding and lack of reporting.

  • 14. Nyx  |  June 28, 2011 at 11:44 am

    In other news….

    Tomorrow in Trenton NJ Garden State Equality and Lambda Legal will have a news conference announcing the next major step to win marriage equality in New Jersey.

  • 15. dsc77  |  June 28, 2011 at 11:46 am

    In fact the bill that our former governor (the first in the country to sign such a bill into law!) was titled "An Act To End Discrimination in Civil Marriage and Affirm Religious Freedom." We did provide exemption for churches, as well as there should be, in my opinion.

  • 16. James Sweet  |  June 28, 2011 at 11:46 am

    It's probably a strategic mistake to go back to the ballot box so soon… but who knows, they might have a shot. I'd just worry that they'd get a lot of retaliatory "Not this again!" votes.

  • 17. Sheryl_Carver  |  June 28, 2011 at 11:48 am

    Excellent points, Bill.

    The religious exemptions in the NY law seemed to be the key that allowed enough Republicans to justify voting for it, even though I've read that those exemptions were already covered by existing law. While the purist in me dislikes unnecessary redundancy, if that's what it takes to make people feel safe while ensuring we have equal civil rights, I'm OK with it.

  • 18. Ann S.  |  June 28, 2011 at 11:55 am

    Sheryl, those are good points.

  • 19. dsc77  |  June 28, 2011 at 11:57 am

    Correct-it was in 2009 and it while we had record turnout, we could have done better.

    There is another issue in this mix, now-the Republican led legislature passed a law that was signed by our TEA party backed Governor Paul LePage that will stop same-day voter registration. That affects democrats more than republicans and is now the law. We did push the same-day registration when talking to students and other young people and it worked pretty well. It used to be really easy to vote here and we had one of the highest voter turn-out rates with extremely few reported voter fraud cases. Oh, well, just have to work harder….

    Dave in Maine

  • 20. AnonyGrl  |  June 28, 2011 at 12:05 pm

    *I* ate a celebratory lobster on Sunday, (I was passed OUT on Saturday) after we won in NY!

    But I think a celebratory lobster is ALWAYS appropriate.**

    **Unless, of course, you are celebrating crustacean rights, in which case no. But other than that… :)

  • 21. AnonyGrl  |  June 28, 2011 at 12:07 pm

    We could try "Really?? Gay marriage will turn children gay? Then how is it that thousands of years of straight marriage has not turned all children straight?"

    :)

    (Sorry, I know that is not helpful, but I am still kind of giddy.)

  • 22. seth from maryland  |  June 28, 2011 at 12:09 pm

    most likely this will be a lawsuit filed to the state courts, and it will be perfect because theres lots of evidence showing civil unions are not equal

  • 23. Martin Pal  |  June 28, 2011 at 12:15 pm

    A.) This notion occurred to me last night while watching the news: Yesterday the supreme court ruled that This notion occurred to me last night while watching the news: Yesterday the supreme court ruled that 18 year olds and under had the right to buy video games that feature rape and murder and beheadings and one that portrays urinating on its victims and other heinous and violent things, but if you're 18 years old and over in this country in most places if you are in a committed same sex relationship you cannot marry.

  • 24. Sheryl_Carver  |  June 28, 2011 at 12:15 pm

    Love that line, AnonyGrl! Actually, it makes an excellent rebuttal sound bite. And since NOM et al likes to campaign with sound bites (don't have to come up with rational foundations for their position that way), this is perfect!

  • 25. Martin Pal  |  June 28, 2011 at 12:15 pm

    B.) And convicted murderers are allowed to marry while serving life sentences. Like Richard Ramirez, the Hillside strangler did. Or the Menendez brothers did–they murdered their parents. Committed law abiding gay couples are not. Convicted mass murderers, killers, and rapists have more rights than I do. Are people who vote against marriage equality comfortable with siding with convicted murderers and felons over law-abiding citizens?

  • 26. Ann S.  |  June 28, 2011 at 12:20 pm

    Meanwhile, in NY (h/t to Joe My God):

    Aaaand here come the pious town clerks.

    I like the first comment:

    So she's unable to do her job? Bye, then. Door, butt, not striking of.

    http://joemygod.blogspot.com/2011/06/upstate-ny-t

  • 27. seth from maryland  |  June 28, 2011 at 12:37 pm

    Update, in New Jersey a lawsuit will be announced tommerow, just as i thought there would be

  • 28. David Henderson  |  June 28, 2011 at 12:43 pm

    Would you mind replying to your previous post, instead of starting a separate thread, when posting something in multiple parts? Starting three separate threads means that any replies go in between the parts and make it hard to read all together. And there's a chance that somebody else could start a different thread between your parts. Also, if we get >100 replies on a post, your three comments would collapse to one of you port them as replies.

  • 29. Justinn  |  June 28, 2011 at 12:58 pm

    So, this may be an ignorant question, but…

    Why has no one legally challenged the voter ban of gay marriage in Maine?

  • 30. dsc77  |  June 28, 2011 at 1:25 pm

    Unfortunately this is not an issue. They are still men who want to marry women and that is the main point. Convicted murderers? As long as they're straight. I wonder, though, what they think about abortionists of opposite sexes marrying each other…..

  • 31. dsc77  |  June 28, 2011 at 1:27 pm

    That's a interesting point…. But they said that the games don't cause violence. Watching it is okay. At the same time, there are accounts of violent negative reactions to court proceedings.

  • 32. dsc77  |  June 28, 2011 at 1:29 pm

    The vote didn't ban same-sex marriage; rather it rejected the law that allowed it.

    Dave in Maine

  • 33. PoxyHowzes  |  June 28, 2011 at 1:34 pm

    IANAL, but part of the Olsen/Boies argument was that CA had for a time allowed ssm, then allowed those couples to stay married after the "ban," thus creating multiple classes of citizen for no legally-defendable reason. A right in CA was taken away.

    ME never has had ssm to take away — the voters "simply" second-guessed the legislature and (then) Gov. Technically, they (voters) prevented the "granting" of a right.

    That may be part of the reason.

  • 34. Alan_Eckert  |  June 28, 2011 at 1:43 pm

    Neither can we nor our funds.

  • 35. Alan_Eckert  |  June 28, 2011 at 1:44 pm

    see Dave in Maine's response below, but this process is a normal part of Maine's referendum process.

  • 36. Sheryl_Carver  |  June 28, 2011 at 1:48 pm

    http://usm.maine.edu/smart/mainerti/files/bickfor

    Excerpt from the above:
    A longitudinal study that tracked 430 3rd through 5th grade American children found
    a correlation between violent video game play and aggressive behavior at school (Gen-
    tile, 2005). This study controlled for prior aggression, and used teacher and peer rat-
    ings of aggression as the dependent measure. By measuring the students at the begin-
    ning and end of the school year, they were able to determine that those children who
    played more violent games early in the school year became more aggressive later in
    the school year. In addition to developing more aggressive behavior themselves, chil-
    dren exposed to repeated virtual violence via video games can become desensitized to
    real world violence. In fact, exposure to video game violence, even for just 20 minutes,
    was found to cause children to experience dramatically reduced physiological arousal
    to real violence (Carnagey et al., 2007). In other words, violence began to feel like a
    normal state of affairs and ceased to be upsetting.

  • 37. David Henderson  |  June 28, 2011 at 1:56 pm

    I've always been puzzled by the claim that allowing same-day voter registration benefits Democratic voters more than Republican voters. It seems to me that last-minute registration, or the lack thereof, is something that should affect people across the political spectrum equally.

    Have there been studies to verify that claim? If so, what did those studies find as the reasons for the disparity? Was it that Republican voters tended to plan ahead better than Democratic voters? Were Democratic voters more apathetic than Republicans in the voting process? Did Democratic voters tend to only register because somebody offered drove them to the poll, while Republican voters were more motivated to vote?

  • 38. Bill S.  |  June 28, 2011 at 2:01 pm

    With all due respect, the issue of the government forbidding the sale of "violent" video games to minors (and thus taking this decision-making process out of the hands of privately run stores, and most importantly, parents) is completely irrelevant to the right of same-sex couples to marry.

    It's a false analogy and a red herring argument.

  • 39. Bill S.  |  June 28, 2011 at 2:03 pm

    Just out of curiosity, what does the makeup of Maine's Supreme Court look like? There must be a reason why a state-level lawsuit on equal protection grounds has never been attempted.

  • 40. Phillip R  |  June 28, 2011 at 2:07 pm

    I'll admit that I don't know much of what happened in Maine but I guess my question would be what's changed since then to think that a vote at the ballot would be successful? It wasn't that long ago.

  • 41. nightshayde  |  June 28, 2011 at 2:15 pm

    It's my understanding that there's no voter initiative system in New York — or at least not one like California's.

  • 42. seth from maryland  |  June 28, 2011 at 2:18 pm

    no , New York has no voter referendum

  • 43. Phillip R  |  June 28, 2011 at 2:21 pm

    The problem with the ban is that game stores would just stop carrying them completely and avoid the liability. Also, I think it should be left up to the parents to monitor their children. Much like it already is done with TV programs, movies, etc.

  • 44. Gregory in SLC  |  June 28, 2011 at 2:35 pm

    thx 4 reminder : )

  • 45. MarcosLB  |  June 28, 2011 at 2:40 pm

    Thanks Kathleen. Saw that a couple of months ago. Nice documentary.

  • 46. fiona64  |  June 28, 2011 at 2:44 pm

    There *are* exemptions for churches … it's called the 1st Amendment. I'm not one for redundancy in law, to be honest — but if that's what it takes for the religious zealots to get over themselves, so be it.

  • 47. dsc77  |  June 28, 2011 at 2:49 pm

    I think that it is a perception with maybe some truth. I don't know if any studies were cited during the discussion of this same-day registration bill and the other bill that would require ID to vote, but people do believe that perception. I think that it's generally true that older and more conservative voters are less transient and more likely to prepare ahead of time and register long before election day. Younger people are viewed as more transient (flakey?) and might actually wait until election day to register and vote because they can. I don't think, though, that this would mean that they would wait until the last day to register to actually register.

    The actual reasons for this law that the sponsor cited were voter fraud (not an issue) and that such registration is too much work for the town offices (it's their job).

    But we DO know that almost 70,000 people registered on election day during the last two general elections (http://bangordailynews.com/2011/06/21/politics/same-day-voter-registration-banned-but-critics-vow-to-fight/).

    Dave in Maine

  • 48. dsc77  |  June 28, 2011 at 2:55 pm

    And not just the zealots. I've spoken to many people in my canvassing who are regular church goers (mostly French Catholic) and don't know any gays and only hear what the other church people tell them. I can see how easy it is to believe that the gays will sue the Church if they can't have a wedding there just as they sued the florist and the baker or whatever story we've heard. But some of the people I've spoken to we glad to know that the protections are part of the law. At the same time, since it is clearly spelled out in the law, it's less likely that someone WOULD sue the church for discriminating in a church ceremony (and people need to know that when churches make their facilities available to the public, THEN they are not necessarily covered by these exemptions).

    Dave in Maine

  • 49. dsc77  |  June 28, 2011 at 3:04 pm

    Yeah, I don't know how that got separated! Thanks!

    We will be mounting a people's veto to reject the new law that stops same day registration. We (though not really the same crowd) used the people's veto to stop a new beverage tax in 2008. This veto does come in handy….

    Dave in Maine

  • 50. dsc77  |  June 28, 2011 at 3:05 pm

    I am not sure, but I know that one thing I have heard during the meetings is that using the court would not be a good idea.

    Dave in Maine

  • 51. dsc77  |  June 28, 2011 at 3:06 pm

    Time, education, DOMA, DADT, and now New York. I think it will be clear when the SPECIAL ANNOUNCEMENT is made!!! I can't wait, myself!!!! ;o)

    Dave in Maine

  • 52. Steve  |  June 28, 2011 at 3:25 pm

    Outside of Japan there are no video games that feature rape. Please don't use enemy "arguments"

    There is also curious distinction in America between sex and violence. If this had been about sex in games, the result would have been different. It was about violence, though, and killing people has always been ok in media

  • 53. Steve  |  June 28, 2011 at 3:31 pm

    There is actually one point in the court's opinion that applies to same-sex marriage:
    The "think of the children!" argument.

    "No doubt a State possesses legitimate power to protect children from harm, but that does not include a free-floating power to restrict the ideas to which children may be exposed. “Speech that is neither obscene as to youths nor subject to some other legitimate proscription cannot be suppressed solely to protect the young from ideas or images that a legislative body thinksunsuitable for them."

  • 54. dsc77  |  June 28, 2011 at 4:23 pm

    No, but we are forgetting the NOM 4-Year Plan!!!

    (Interesting that it sounds so easy! As if 1-the people of New York will care in 2012 and 2-the people will care in 2013 and 3- the people will care in 2014 and 4-the people will care in 2015. Also, it's well on its way to reversal in New Hampshire and Iowa? That's news!)

    Dave

    ~~~~~

    This just in from B. S. Brown: …..

    We're putting together a 4-year campaign strategy that will reverse same-sex marriage in New York. We'll have many more details, and ways for you to get involved, in the days ahead but the overall plan will have three phases:

    PHASE 1:
    Elect pro-marriage majorities next November that will approve a marriage amendment in both the Assembly and Senate during the 2013 legislative session.

    PHASE 2:
    Protect pro-marriage candidates in the 2014 elections, so that the amendment can receive final legislative approval in the 2015 legislative session.

    PHASE 3:
    Successfully pass the ballot measure when it goes before voters in November 2015.

    A 4-year process seems like a long time—and it is—but it's achievable. In New Hampshire and Iowa, they've had same-sex marriage for just 2 years, but are already well on the way to reversal. The key to success is electing legislative majorities who will answer to the people of their state, and not to special interests.

  • 55. Ronnie  |  June 28, 2011 at 4:34 pm

    Subscribing &…..

    Good As You points out two more "Moral" um "protect" marriage supporters with an affinity for violence towards LGBT people….but this time the word "extermination" is actually used by one while the other has a pretty thorough plan that includes a meat trailer & the Hudson river. These were comments on the Wall Street Journal's Metropolis blog……

    I think the commentary said it correctly….. "HOLY SH*T SOME PEOPLE HATE US!"

    These sociopaths are enabled by those like Brian Brown, Timothy Dolan, Ruben Diaz, Maggie Gallagher etc. who go on the air & appear in print demonizing/dehumanizing LGBT people….they give the murderers & bashers the ammunition they need to hurt innocent people, it fuels them….. I will say it over & over & over again……THIS is the America NOM et al is creating & perpetuating…. > ( …..Ronnie

  • 56. LCH  |  June 28, 2011 at 4:36 pm

    Riiight…this it sounds like something the Black Adder would come up with. "A plan so cunning it stalks the land like a large cunning thing."

  • 57. Maggie4NoH8  |  June 28, 2011 at 4:51 pm

    That was a delicious tidbit of ironic twisting of words and logic, AG!

    Good show!

    :-)

  • 58. Maggie4NoH8  |  June 28, 2011 at 5:11 pm

    Did you get that via an email blast from Brian Brown himself, or read on their website?

    I am curious b/c I got it as an email… Several times, I have replied back to Brian in a thoughtful manner, but never rec'd acknowledgement from him… Disappointing, I know.

    Has anyone else replied back to BB's email blasts? Gotten a response? Just curious.

  • 59. Waxr  |  June 28, 2011 at 5:16 pm

    What the religious protections in the New York Marriage Equality Act left unclear is cases in which the religious body is receiving state money to perform what would otherwise be a state duty. This arose in Washington D.C. where the Catholic Church was running an adopting agency with taxpayers money. The Catholic Church opted to shut down its adoption agency rather than provide services for same sex married couples. The New York law looks as if the Catholic Church may be able to continue to receive taxpayers money while refusing to provide the service for single sex married couples. How you read it can make a difference.

  • 60. Waxr  |  June 28, 2011 at 5:39 pm

    Many young voters will be voting for the first time and have never registered before, or know where to go to register. A recent Gallop poll indicates that 70 percent of those between 18 and 34 support same sex marriage.

  • 61. grod  |  June 28, 2011 at 5:42 pm

    @dsc77 Dave you may be interested in reading http://www.scribd.com/doc/49172492/NOM-v-McKee-Ma…. I found it a interesting read

  • 62. Rich  |  June 28, 2011 at 6:03 pm

    All right Prop 8 bloggers…here we go! I am from Maine. I, like all of you, experienced the rush of an apparent win for marriage equality in Maine. I, like all of you, came soon to understand that the defeat was due to incredible scare tactics superimposed by NOM and the Catholic Diocese of Maine on the less educated and the elderly. No matter that our very own Sec. of Education and Sec. of State said that there would be no influence on the teaching of gay sex to our kids. And as a veteran teacher of 35 years, I knew that no such teaching ever has taken place. So, here tonight, I pledge $100.00 to Equality Maine. I challenge all of you to join in this campaign. The signs are right, the polls are in our favor; I truly believe Maine citizens now realize that they were blind-sided by lies and innuendo. Let's send the Catholic Diocese of Maine and NOM a resounding message: you can't win with lies! I PLEDGE $100.00 TO EQUALITY MAINE TO DEFEAT NOM, THE CATHOLIC DIOCESE OF MAINE AND ALL WHO ARE HOMOPHOBIC WITH TRUTH, EQUALITY AND THE POWER OF CIVIL RIGHTS.

  • 63. Waxr  |  June 28, 2011 at 6:13 pm

    It's her decision. They can always find somebody else to do the job. A more serious problem is, how would a couple who are already married get her name taken off of their license?

  • 64. Martin Pal  |  June 28, 2011 at 6:20 pm

    Legally, yes, but I've found it to be useful to bring up when discussing this with those who don't think I should get married. I ask them why they feel my relationship isn't as worthy as people like that. It does get to some of them and make them wonder why.

  • 65. Rich  |  June 28, 2011 at 6:22 pm

    In Maine, the citizens are absolutely ready for a retake on Marriage Equality. Will there be blowback? Absolutely. But NOM and the Catholic Diocese of Maine (aka Marc Mutty) are terribly sullied and stuck with the imprimatur of hate, bigotry and lies. In addition to that, we have a tremendously unpopular Governor…you know him: "kiss my butt" ( to the local NAACP ) Paul LePage. The good citizens of Maine now know that, as a state, we sullied ourselves. The blowback will come from fundamentalist christians but they have worn thin their credibility. In just two years there has been a sea-change in attitude about marriage equality. In the State of Maine, a "Sea-Change" means all the difference between bringing in a good catch or coming home empty. As I gaze out upon the ocean, I see plenty of fish a' jumpin'.

  • 66. Bstiles  |  June 28, 2011 at 6:36 pm

    When my wife and I decided to get married (in CA) she was actually worried about our names being public record because of psychos like that. I think there was a 'not so public' version that we could have gone with. But we decided to go "public" with our relationship.

  • 67. seth from maryland  |  June 28, 2011 at 8:13 pm

    Does anybody know how long it will take for this New Jersey lawsuit to get to the state supreme court?

  • 68. Waxr  |  June 28, 2011 at 8:39 pm

    In Everson v. Board of Education, 330 U.S. 1 (1947) the U.S. Supreme Court wrote:

    "The 'establishment of religion' clause of the First Amendment means at least this: Neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another. Neither can force nor influence a person to go to or to remain away from church against his will or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion. No person can be punished for entertain- [330 U.S. 1, 16] ing or professing religious beliefs or disbeliefs, for church attendance or non-attendance. No tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to support any religious activities or institutions, whatever they may be called, or whatever from they may adopt to teach or practice religion. Neither a state nor the Federal Government can, openly or secretly, participate in the affairs of any religious organizations or groups and vice versa."

    And in ENGEL v. VITALE, 370 U.S. 421 (1962), the Court added:

    "There can be no doubt that New York's state prayer program officially establishes the religious beliefs embodied in the Regents' prayer. The respondents' argument to the contrary, which is largely based upon the contention that the Regents' prayer is "non-denominational" and the fact that the program, as modified and approved by state courts, does not require all pupils to recite the prayer but permits those who wish to do so to remain silent or be excused from the room, ignores the essential nature of the program's constitutional defects. Neither the fact that the prayer may be denominationally neutral nor the fact that its observance on the part of the students is voluntary can serve to free it from the limitations of the Establishment Clause, as it might from the Free Exercise Clause, of the First Amendment, both of which are operative against the States by virtue of the Fourteenth Amendment. Although these two clauses may in certain instances overlap, they forbid two quite different kinds of governmental encroachment upon religious freedom. The Establishment Clause, unlike the Free Exercise Clause, does not depend upon any showing of direct governmental compulsion and is violated by the enactment of laws which establish an official religion whether those laws operate directly to coerce nonobserving individuals or not. This is not to say, of course, that laws officially prescribing a particular form of religious worship do not involve coercion of such individuals. When the power, prestige and financial support of government is placed behind a particular religious belief, the indirect coercive pressure upon religious minorities to conform to the prevailing officially approved religion is plain."

  • 69. grod  |  June 29, 2011 at 2:05 am

    @dsc 77 David, although in an earlier comment I provided the link to the US District Court’s February 2011 ruling in NOM vs McKee, here is provided the link to Parson Drum's press release, http://parsondrum.blogspot.com/2011/02/we-have-ri… . Parson Drum represented Maine Citizens for Clean Elections. What the Court said was that Mainers have a right to know who is seeking to influence them – the donors: NOM appealed the decision. G

  • 70. frisky1  |  June 29, 2011 at 5:22 am

    I don't have an answer to that but a follow up point. Chris Christie already fired one Supreme Court justice for voting for SSM when this came up in 2006 and he basically 'threatened' the other three that are up for renomination during his reign. (that is, he never said it publicly but its been implied and inferred by the Newark Star Ledger). One of Christie's nominations (and his neighbor) just got approved to join the court in September so who do you think she's beholden too? She's replacing a Democratically appointed judge. The other judge who was fired, has yet to be replaced, there's a temp justice in the seat.

  • 71. Steve  |  June 29, 2011 at 6:36 am

    It's a BS argument and a typical case of faux moral outrage

    There is no huge market for such games in the West. Period. It's a tiny niche at best. And people who are interested in sex games (which for the most part aren't about rape anyways) usually buy them online or rather pirate them.

  • 72. Steve  |  June 29, 2011 at 6:45 am

    It's really one the greatest flaws in the entire system. The idea of an independent judiciary directly conflicts with having it appointed along party lines. You'd think that this would have been obvious to the writers of the Constitution.

    Judges shouldn't be appointed by the President or Governors, but selected by some kind of independent commission or committee. Then both chambers of the parliament should be involved in their confirmation.

  • 73. Rich  |  June 29, 2011 at 7:11 am

    Phillip, the campaign leading up to the vote was incredibly divisive and full of ugly accusations. While I'm sure that certain individuals (pro-ssm) hurled some ugly stuff in e-mails to the Church, on the surface the Equality Maine campaign stressed fair-play, committed relationships and…Equality through a series of beautiful ads. The opposition (NOM and the Church) spewed scare tactics (gay sex taught in schools was the biggest) to frighten the electorate. The day following the vote, the indications from so many opinion letters (and now seen in recent polls) was that Maine woke up feeling disgusted with itself. NOM and the Church had pitted Mainers against Mainers in ways we had never seen before. The sting is still there which is why I think it's timely to capitalize on this feeling before it gets lost in time. And, as stated previously, the Governor is hugely unpopular, Marc Mutty of the Church admitted the lies they used and already NOM has a black eye with its hiding of donors. Finally, every major newspaper in the state came out in support of Marriage Equality. I'd like to see us bring them on board again as they know how close this vote was, too close and divisive to leave alone. Just some thoughts.

  • 74. James Sweet  |  June 29, 2011 at 7:53 am

    You make some very good points there. I hope it works out.

  • 75. AnonyGrl  |  June 29, 2011 at 8:49 am

    She wants to know what her legal options are…

    1) Do your job.
    2) Quit and get your discriminatory ASS off the NY State payroll.

    Too harsh? Tough. I am channelling Ronnie today. :)

  • 76. PoxyHowzes  |  June 29, 2011 at 6:01 pm

    Sorry, not-that-Dave! And thanks for the reply.

    I think the 2009 mix in ME (as I've read about it) included some quiet French Catholic voters who didn't show up proportionately in the polls, but who pulled the "NO" lever as soon as they got into the voting booth. That doesn't account, to me, for the disappointing numbers in Portland and Orono (as I recall) and such other hotbeds of progressivity as Maine has. (I think we all expected "Mr. Potato Head" to vote against.)

    I think you guys need some good (no, some GREAT!) political analysis before you go back to the ballot. You need to *know* that the NOM-side same-old same-old won't work, because the consequences of losing again, for the second straight time, are much worse (in my humble Marylander opinion) than delaying the vote for another cycle.

Having technical problems? Visit our support page to report an issue!