Maine: The Way Life Should Be? Boston Rally Protests
Passage of Question 1 in Maine.
Lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) equality activists and supporters are gathering Wednesday, November 4th at 6pm near the Park Street Station on the Boston Common to speak out in support of marriage equality and the broader push for full LGBT equality. The rally will protest the results of the Maine vote on Tuesday and is sponsored by Join the Impact MA.
On November 3rd, Maine came down on the wrong side of history by overturning the new law recognizing marriages between same sex couples. Despite heroic efforts by the No on 1 campaign, the discriminatory ballot initiative passed due to a deceptive media campaign funded by out-of-state organizations-indeed many of the same forces of bigotry and intolerance that eliminated marriage equality in California with Proposition 8 exactly one year ago. Yet the grassroots mobilization inside Maine and from around New England to get out the vote in the final months is a model for the kind of movement necessary to win full equality, beyond the effort to defeat a single discriminatory ballot initiative.
Challenges and obstacles to full equality for all Americans remain. Federal laws like the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) and the Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell (DADT) policy in the military treat LGBT Americans as second-class citizens. Without federal repeal of DOMA and DADT and passage of a gender identity inclusive employment non-discrimination law, too many Americans are left behind.
Six years after the victory of marriage equality in Massachusetts, same-sex married couples still do not have access to the more than 1,049 federal benefits married heterosexuals enjoy. Hard-won victories like marriage equality in Massachusetts, Connecticut, Iowa, Vermont, and New Hampshire leave unrealized the broader vision of full equality in all matters governed by civil law in all 50 states.
As Don Gorton, a board member of Join the Impact MA said, “The results of Question 1 are a temporary setback on the path toward full and equal protection in all matters of civil law. Our struggle continues to end discrimination against LGBT people in Maine, California and the states in between. Simply put, civil rights delayed are civil rights denied.” Gorton urged LGBT people and straight allies to seize the moment to join the grassroots campaign for full equality in all 50 states in all matters governed by civil law.
###
For more information on this event and various opportunities to personally make a difference, please visit http://www.jointheimpactma.com or email info@jointheimpactma.com
Forgive me, I’ve been waiting to say that since the dog racing extension was being discussed.
But speaking realistically, and yes sincerely, the question was worded extremely poorly. I have never been a fan of questions where “no” means “yes”.
I do think there would be wiggle room for the losing group to push for a better worded referendum.
I think WA had a similar situation. (Can Laurel come back and debrief us on that?) As for the people have spoken, that’s hardly justification in this case. I suspect you’d have a fit (and rightfully so) if the people voted to repeal laws protecting handicapped accessibility.
It would probably lose. Able-bodied people are jealous of our parking spaces.
I wouldn’t mind so much if they were used more, but a pet peeve of mine is seeing a bunch of empty handicapped spaces when there is hardly another spot to be found. Don’t worry though; I would never vote to repeal ADA.
Unfortunately, I think that wording was the way it had to be. In my experienc, “Yes” always means “change the status quo” – I suspect there are laws to this effect. Here, the status quo (even though it was on hold pending the outcome of this vote) was that gay marriage was legal. “Yes” had to mean “get rid of it”.
<
p>Unfortunate, I agree. And, between a more straightforward question and the march of time, I’m sure we will win next time. Anybody know when that could possibly be?
…that in MA when a referendum calling for repeal of a law passed by the General Court is placed on the ballot, the wording is “Shall the law providing X be repealed.”
I saw on another message board but cannot personally confirm that OFA (Organizing for America, formerly Obama for America) sent their members in Maine an email reminding them to vote yesterday. Only problem, it was said that the OFA email made no reference as to what would be on the ballot.
<
p>http://journals.democraticunde…
<
p>Does anyone have more information about this assertion about OFA’s messaging?
…since there was plenty of “out-of-state” organizations helping both campaigns. The No on 1 campaign (aka “the good guys”) were receiving donations and grassroots support from plenty of people outside Maine and outside New England (I know personally HRC was organizing phone banks in DC for the cause).
<
p>Sure, it’s nice to portray “us” as being local and grassroots and “them” as being corporate and aloof, but only if its true. There are plenty of valid criticisms to be leveled at the Yes on 1 campaign tactics and sources of support I’m sure, don’t lose credibility by overstating or inventing ones.
<
p>This was the result I was most surprised and upset about yesterday, and I agree the wording was probably confusing to many folks. If we’ve learned anything from polling and other ballot questions, wording is paramount, and changes in wording can bring very different results. Hopefully voters in Maine and elsewhere will legalize gay marriage in the near future.
No on 1 got 43% of their funds from in-state; Yes on 1 only got 26% from in-state. Furthermore, it turns out that the average Yes on 1 donation was $419; for No on 1 it was $3,862. Taken further, the top 10 donors for No on 1 contributed 36% of the funds; the top 10 donors for Yes on 1 gave 91% of the total funds.
<
p>So, shades of gray, sure. The facts are clear though — the Yes on 1 looks very much like leveraging the will of the few, whereas No on 1 does look far more organic and grassroots.
<
p>
<
p>Analysis from Despite Claims, Anti-Gay Group in Maine More Dependent on Out-of-State Funds
I appreciate the specific info, certainly lends more credence to pro-gay marriage argument.