Gay Marriage loses in the state of Maine: Repealed by voters

by Susan Marie Kovalinsky | November 4, 2009 at 02:52 am

818 views | 63 Recommendations | 10 comments

Yes on One referendum wins , 53%

In nearly identical margins to the Proposition 8 in California win, Yes on Question One, to repeal gay marriage, won in the state of Maine last night.
This is a blow to the gay marriage movement, hoping to make history in the progressive state.

If Maine had voted No on the referendum, they would have been the first state to allow gay marriage by popular vote, not by legislation imposed on the people.

Maine had been called "the bellwether state " regarding this referendum: 'As goes Maine, so will go the nation on gay marriage', both sides had proposed last month. Now, gay advocates are sorry they said this. This will likely give Prop 8 new legs, as will Oregon pro-traditional coalitions new confidence on this issue.

It is staggering to me . . . It's one more sign, I fear, that the Democratic establishment's opposition to marriage equality is real; and the president's peeps are increasingly determined to do what they can keep us from the right to civil marriage. ~Andrew Sullivan, gay marriage advocate

Dejection fills Ballroom as Yes on 1 wins in Maine

Cecelia Burnett and Ann Swanson had already set their wedding date. When they joined about 1,000 other gay marriage supporters for an election night party in a Holiday Inn ballroom, they hoped to celebrate the vote that would make it possible.

Instead, they went home at midnight, dejected and near tears after a failed bid to make Maine the first state to approve same-sex marriage at the ballot box.

"I'm ready to start crying," said Burnett, a 58-year-old massage therapist, walking out of the ballroom with Swanson at her side. "I don't understand what the fear is, why people are so afraid of this change.

"It hurts. It hurts personally," she said. "It's a personal rejection of us and our relationship, and I don't understand what the fear is."

With 87 percent of precincts reporting, gay-marriage foes had 53 percent of the vote in a referendum that asked Maine voters whether they wanted to repeal a law allowing same-sex marriage that had passed the Legislature and was signed by Democratic Gov. John Baldacci.

For the gay rights movement, which has gained a foothold in New England, it was a stinging defeat. Gay marriage has now lost in every state — 31 in all — in which it has been put to a popular vote. Gay-rights activists had hoped to buck that trend in Maine, framing same-sex marriage as a matter of equality for all families in a campaign that used 8,000 volunteers to get out the message.

Five states have legalized gay marriage — Iowa, Massachusetts, Vermont, New Hampshire and Connecticut— but all did so through legislation or court rulings, not by popular vote.

Voters in Maine repealed a state law legalizing same sex marriage, which backers of the measure said shows "voters don't want to change what you call marriage." Advocates of same-sex marriage refused to concede defeat early Wednesday after supporters declared victory.
Nearly 53 percent of voters backed the referendum of a law the state legislature approved in May and the governor signed.

"Voters have a pretty good grasp about what they think marriage should be," said Jeff Flint, the Sacramento strategist for the Yes on 1 campaign. "It's not that they're discriminatory or bigoted. They just draw the line at what they think marriage should be." Mark Sullivan, a spokesman for No on 1/Protect Maine Equality, refused to concede, saying votes needed to be counted in all of Maine's counties. "We're going to continue operations until every vote is counted," Sullivan said. "We'll see what the final count is (later Wednesday) and take it from there."

The vote in Maine comes a year after California voters rejected same-sex marriage by a nearly identical margin. Voters in almost three dozen states have rejected such marriages through constitutional amendments, while same-sex marriages are legal in Massachusetts, Connecticut, Vermont and Iowa.

"For the same-sex marriage movement to move ahead, it has to win a state like Maine," said Corey Cook, a political science professor at the University of San Francisco. "It's not a liberal bastion, but it is fairly progressive - sort of an impartial bellwether."

0 See all footage | View Slideshow

Share: email story | add to any | | facebook | stumbleupon

recommend Sign In or Join to post comments

Karl Gotthardt - albertacowpoke

at 03:43 on November 4th, 2009

I wonder how this will play out in regard to Obama rescinding DADT?

a211423

at 09:14 on November 4th, 2009

In California, the Morman Church supplied most of the financial backing for Prop 8, and in Maine it was The National Organization for Marriage headed by Brian Brown backed by a board of members, one of which is Orson Scott Card who has stated homosexuality is a sin. NOM's support base is mainly religious. Some of their known supporters are as follows:

Along with the National Organization for Marriage, their supporters currently feature the American Family Association (AFA), the elders of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, Oklahoma State Representative Sally Kern, and Utah State Senator Chris Buttars, Proposition 8 lawyer Ken Starr, right-wing media personality Rush Limbaugh, and GOP Chairman Michael Steele.

NOM spent some $110,000 on mailers and calls informing voters of Scozzafava's support for same-sex marriage in her NY run for the 23rd district, and Scozzafava's withdrawl from the election reminds us that this can still be a wedge issue in both political parties. Unless the Democrats decide to make it a platform issue in 2012, and rescinding DADT might be the beginning of a movement in that direction.

Why is NOM so secretive about their donors? Hidden donors? Money from anyone, even outside the country? Please, allow terrorists to donate to our causes? That appears to be the attitude out of the National Organization for Marriage, and they are suing the state of Maine in order to make sure that their donors list is kept secret. Their rationale is fairly simple. Forcing a multi-state group to list their donors is a burden and it is an unconstitutional breach of Freedom of Speech. Never mind that what they are doing violates the civil rights of a minority group and violates the Constitution in several locations. They want the right to make sure that they can continue to launder money from one state to the next. After all, why not get a ton of money from Georgia and apply it to violating people’s rights in Maine?

The following article is from April, but the overview of NOM is pertinent.

http://www.hrc.org/12470.htm

Beware of NOM and its supporters coming to a state near you, but their financial backers remain in the closet.

a211423

at 09:36 on November 4th, 2009

I was speaking of financial support, not number of LDS people in California.

It is estimated that 20 million dollars was donated to the campaign by individual LDS donors, and 180,000 directly from the church and an additional 96,000 to church members in compensation for participation in the campaign for expenses in California.

Accepting civil unions would have been like making a restaurant in the South desegregated, but when you get inside, there are tables marked "black" and "white." I understand why civil unions are unacceptable by gay people. Civil rights should not be afforded with contingencies. Civil Rights are equal rights for all.

Susan Marie Kovalinsky

at 09:48 on November 4th, 2009

A, thanks as always for your very informative and complete posts!!! Much appreciated always! I think these numbers with funding bespeak something serious. However, the opposition accused the gay rights people of bringing out of state funding in from Massachusets.

Roy: I think the gays are afraid that by accepting civil unions, if marriage would become strong again, with lowering of divorce rates, and more and more couples marrying rather than living together, they would be outside of it. That is a serious concern. Civil unions may go out of vogue, Roy, and they know this. For right or wrong, can you see from their perspective, why they are fearful? Ohio made a law in 2004 making domestic partnerships illegal for both straights and gays (ie, not recognized by law).

a211423

at 10:06 on November 4th, 2009

NOM does not reveal their funding sources, so it's almost guaranteed they are using funding from many sources including out of state.

Susan Marie Kovalinsky

at 10:08 on November 4th, 2009

Yes, it would not surprise me at all. Not at all....

caj1

at 11:02 on November 4th, 2009

The rural areas voted for the referendum, whereas Portland, the biggest city voted overwhelmingly "no." It was a close election.

Soyunangel

at 20:35 on November 4th, 2009

I wonder if, put to a vote, the people would reject arranged marriages, too.

aurealeus

at 03:11 on November 26th, 2009

If in the United States... I believe they would.

aurealeus

at 07:53 on November 27th, 2009

"If Maine had voted No on the referendum, they would have been the first state to allow gay marriage by popular vote, not by legislation imposed on the people."

"Five states have legalized gay marriage — Iowa, Massachusetts, Vermont, New Hampshire and Connecticut— but all did so through legislation or court rulings, not by popular vote."

--------------

It is not the duty or right for government to impose "its" beliefs or those of special interest groups upon the general population of the community.

As evident throughout history, the recogniton of "marriage" has always been decided by the community and supported by its religious leaders in consideration of what best substains the family and community as a whole, not just one segment of a community.

"Marriage" is and has always been a "religious" institution established and promulgated to santify the spiritual union of a man and woman in order to insure the future existence of the human race through procreation and government should butt out in my opinion.

Although I believe "civil-unions" are justified where civil rights and government benefits are concerned, propositions to change long-standing traditional laws should be put to a vote for and by the majority of people in the community...or society in general.