CONTRIBUTORS

Mainers get another chance on marriage equality

Posted June 29, 2011, at 6:23 p.m.
Print this   E-mail this    Facebook this   Tweet this  

With momentum growing from last week’s victory in New York, supporters of marriage equality think that the time has come for another try in Maine.

Today, EqualityMaine will launch a campaign to gather signatures to place marriage equality on the ballot in November 2012.

They will face much work and a long campaign to legalize same-sex marriage here.

As the new effort is launched, I remember clearly May 6, 2009, one of my proudest days in the governor’s office.

Relegated now to a historical footnote based on the outcome of an election later that year, May 6, 2009, was the day that Gov. John Baldacci signed LD 1020, An Act to End Discrimination in Civil Marriage and Affirm Religious Freedom.

Marriage equality, for a moment in time, had come to Maine.

I was among a small group of advisers who was there when the governor signed the legislation, and I was with him for the next seven months as he worked tirelessly to help defend marriage equality against a people’s veto.

Over the weekend, as New York took the incredible step of allowing same-sex marriage and images of Gov. Andrew Cuomo signing the bill were broadcast around the world, I was taken back to 2009.

Marriage equality was one of the most important and controversial issues we faced during my four years in the governor’s office.

It rolled into one issue everything your mother warned you not to talk about during dinner with friends: religion, politics, sex and money.

After careful consideration and after talking to countless people, Gov. Baldacci had changed his mind about marriage equality. The governor had once been a supporter of civil unions, but he could not reconcile that position with his reading of the Maine Constitution.

It boiled down to a question of state-sponsored discrimination and civil rights.

“I have come to believe that this is a question of fairness and of equal protection under the law, and that a civil union is not equal to civil marriage,” Gov. Baldacci said after he signed the legislation.

He was absolutely right, and he acted on his convictions even though it put him at the center of a political firestorm. Throughout the campaign, he remained a staunch, compassionate defender of equal rights.

Despite thousands of dedicated volunteers and a strong organization, the campaign for marriage equality came up a short and same-sex marriage was repealed.

The bill did not force any religion to change its definition of marriage or to recognize the marriage of gays and lesbians. Instead, it addressed the fact that state law treats Maine residents differently based solely on their sexual orientation while also affirming the separation of church and state.

The Constitution is clear.

Article I says that “no person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law, nor be denied the equal protection of the laws, nor be denied the enjoyment of that person’s civil rights or be discriminated against.”

Maine law provides special — and significant — recognition of marriage. But it currently discriminates against gays and lesbians, and that shouldn’t be allowed.

As a new campaign begins, we can expect to see a well-funded and committed opposition, determined to repeat their success of the past.

And we can expect to hear the same sort of lies and distortions about same-sex marriage that were peddled before.

But I am hopeful that this time, Mainers will make a different choice and that they will hear the stories of their neighbors and realize that discrimination is wrong no matter how it is rationalized.

Lead by EqualityMaine, thousands of Mainers have been working since 2009 to talk to their friends and neighbors about marriage equality. The conversations have happened one at a time and in every community in our state.

The goal has been to encourage people to share their personal stories and explain why marriage equality matters and what our current discriminatory practices mean to families.

As the campaign begins, the first step will be signature collection.

Eventually, the question will be on the ballot again — whether as a result of this campaign or some other — and Mainer voters will have a chance to reconsider the decision they made two years ago.

This time, I hope we do the right thing.

David Farmer is a political and media consultant. He was formerly deputy chief of staff and communications director for Gov. John Baldacci and a longtime journalist. He has made financial contributions to EqualityMaine and to the No on 1 campaign. You can reach him at dfarmer14@hotmail.com. Follow him on Twitter @dfarmer14.

Similar articles:

BDN Marketplace News

Marketplace Businesses

Guidelines for posting on bangordailynews.com

The Bangor Daily News encourages comments about stories, but you must follow our terms of service.

In brief:

  1. Keep it civil and stay on topic
  2. No vulgarity, racial slurs, name-calling or personal attacks.
  3. People who harass others or joke about tragedies will be blocked.

The primary rule here is pretty simple: Treat others with the same respect you'd want for yourself. Here are some guidelines (see more):

  • Anonymous

    David Farmer:  I hope the right thing will be done next time too.  It seems that the tide is turning more in that direction. Let’s hope decency and fairness is extended, next time, to these couples and families.

  • Anonymous

    David Farmer:  I hope the right thing will be done next time too.  It seems that the tide is turning more in that direction. Let’s hope decency and fairness is extended, next time, to these couples and families.

  • Anonymous

    US law specifically prohibits discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, so why should marriage be an exception? Though some may prefer to see marriage from a religious perspective, legally it is strictly a matter of state jurisdiction. That is why a church ceremony and blessing are entirely optional and should the only aspect over which any church should have any say.

  • Anonymous

    US law specifically prohibits discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, so why should marriage be an exception? Though some may prefer to see marriage from a religious perspective, legally it is strictly a matter of state jurisdiction. That is why a church ceremony and blessing are entirely optional and should the only aspect over which any church should have any say.

  • Anonymous

    The voters may make a different choice, but Mainers were and will be opposed to any attempts to redefine marriage.

  • Anonymous

    The voters may make a different choice, but Mainers were and will be opposed to any attempts to redefine marriage.

  • Anonymous

    And here we see why the Democrats failed so miserably at managing our state budget and helping our economy grow. Every time this or another prominent progressive social issue comes along, they forget about everything else and circle around it like a pack of raccoons staring at a big shiny object.

    At least with all the progressives worked up over this all summer,  the responsible D’s & R’s can plan more steps to help Maine’s economy and save taxpayer dollars in the next session.

    Now – would someone please tell me why it’s the government’s business to be regulating marriage in the first place?

  • Tedlick Badkey

    What will you do when same sex marriage is legal in all states?

  • Tedlick Badkey

    What will you do when same sex marriage is legal in all states?

  • Tedlick Badkey

    What will you do when same sex marriage is legal in all states?

  • Tedlick Badkey

    What will you do when same sex marriage is legal in all states?

  • Tedlick Badkey

    What will you do when same sex marriage is legal in all states?

  • Tedlick Badkey

    What will you do when same sex marriage is legal in all states?

  • Tedlick Badkey

    What will you do when same sex marriage is legal in all states?

  • Tedlick Badkey

    What will you do when same sex marriage is legal in all states?

  • Tedlick Badkey

    What will you do when same sex marriage is legal in all states?

  • Tedlick Badkey

    What will you do when same sex marriage is legal in all states?

  • Tedlick Badkey

    What will you do when same sex marriage is legal in all states?

  • Tedlick Badkey

    What will you do when same sex marriage is legal in all states?

  • Anonymous

    Maine needs to step into the 21st century. Marraige is very simply a contract, sanctioned and regulated by the state, to deny certain citizens access to that contract is discrimination. Maine is surrounded by states which have seen the light of legality, time for us to join in.

  • Regular Joe

    I recommend that anyone who voted Yes on One see this clip and the movie
    from which it’s taken where Mark Mutty himself discusses their
    strategies: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v… 

    http://www.q1-themovie.com/

  • Regular Joe

    Ooops-the link was shortened.  Try this: http://ow.ly/5tKKI 

  • http://twitter.com/DirigoBlue Gerald Weinand

    And also why divorces occur in a State court, not house of worship.

    Currently, all straight couples enter into a contract of marriage – a civil union – which must be officiated by a person authorized to do so by the State. Most often, straight couples choose a member of the clergy to do so, but there are others that can. (The execption being those that choose to have a Quaker wedding, in which the couple marries themselves.)

    To extend this same legal procedure to same-sex couples will have no impact on the institution of marriage, or the lives of homophobes.

  • http://twitter.com/DirigoBlue Gerald Weinand

    And also why divorces occur in a State court, not house of worship.

    Currently, all straight couples enter into a contract of marriage – a civil union – which must be officiated by a person authorized to do so by the State. Most often, straight couples choose a member of the clergy to do so, but there are others that can. (The execption being those that choose to have a Quaker wedding, in which the couple marries themselves.)

    To extend this same legal procedure to same-sex couples will have no impact on the institution of marriage, or the lives of homophobes.

  • http://twitter.com/DirigoBlue Gerald Weinand

    And also why divorces occur in a State court, not house of worship.

    Currently, all straight couples enter into a contract of marriage – a civil union – which must be officiated by a person authorized to do so by the State. Most often, straight couples choose a member of the clergy to do so, but there are others that can. (The execption being those that choose to have a Quaker wedding, in which the couple marries themselves.)

    To extend this same legal procedure to same-sex couples will have no impact on the institution of marriage, or the lives of homophobes.

  • http://twitter.com/DirigoBlue Gerald Weinand

    And also why divorces occur in a State court, not house of worship.

    Currently, all straight couples enter into a contract of marriage – a civil union – which must be officiated by a person authorized to do so by the State. Most often, straight couples choose a member of the clergy to do so, but there are others that can. (The execption being those that choose to have a Quaker wedding, in which the couple marries themselves.)

    To extend this same legal procedure to same-sex couples will have no impact on the institution of marriage, or the lives of homophobes.

  • http://twitter.com/DirigoBlue Gerald Weinand

    And also why divorces occur in a State court, not house of worship.

    Currently, all straight couples enter into a contract of marriage – a civil union – which must be officiated by a person authorized to do so by the State. Most often, straight couples choose a member of the clergy to do so, but there are others that can. (The execption being those that choose to have a Quaker wedding, in which the couple marries themselves.)

    To extend this same legal procedure to same-sex couples will have no impact on the institution of marriage, or the lives of homophobes.

  • http://twitter.com/DirigoBlue Gerald Weinand

    And also why divorces occur in a State court, not house of worship.

    Currently, all straight couples enter into a contract of marriage – a civil union – which must be officiated by a person authorized to do so by the State. Most often, straight couples choose a member of the clergy to do so, but there are others that can. (The execption being those that choose to have a Quaker wedding, in which the couple marries themselves.)

    To extend this same legal procedure to same-sex couples will have no impact on the institution of marriage, or the lives of homophobes.

  • http://twitter.com/DirigoBlue Gerald Weinand

    And also why divorces occur in a State court, not house of worship.

    Currently, all straight couples enter into a contract of marriage – a civil union – which must be officiated by a person authorized to do so by the State. Most often, straight couples choose a member of the clergy to do so, but there are others that can. (The execption being those that choose to have a Quaker wedding, in which the couple marries themselves.)

    To extend this same legal procedure to same-sex couples will have no impact on the institution of marriage, or the lives of homophobes.

  • http://twitter.com/DirigoBlue Gerald Weinand

    And also why divorces occur in a State court, not house of worship.

    Currently, all straight couples enter into a contract of marriage – a civil union – which must be officiated by a person authorized to do so by the State. Most often, straight couples choose a member of the clergy to do so, but there are others that can. (The execption being those that choose to have a Quaker wedding, in which the couple marries themselves.)

    To extend this same legal procedure to same-sex couples will have no impact on the institution of marriage, or the lives of homophobes.

  • http://twitter.com/DirigoBlue Gerald Weinand

    And also why divorces occur in a State court, not house of worship.

    Currently, all straight couples enter into a contract of marriage – a civil union – which must be officiated by a person authorized to do so by the State. Most often, straight couples choose a member of the clergy to do so, but there are others that can. (The execption being those that choose to have a Quaker wedding, in which the couple marries themselves.)

    To extend this same legal procedure to same-sex couples will have no impact on the institution of marriage, or the lives of homophobes.

  • http://twitter.com/DirigoBlue Gerald Weinand

    And also why divorces occur in a State court, not house of worship.

    Currently, all straight couples enter into a contract of marriage – a civil union – which must be officiated by a person authorized to do so by the State. Most often, straight couples choose a member of the clergy to do so, but there are others that can. (The execption being those that choose to have a Quaker wedding, in which the couple marries themselves.)

    To extend this same legal procedure to same-sex couples will have no impact on the institution of marriage, or the lives of homophobes.

  • http://twitter.com/DirigoBlue Gerald Weinand

    And also why divorces occur in a State court, not house of worship.

    Currently, all straight couples enter into a contract of marriage – a civil union – which must be officiated by a person authorized to do so by the State. Most often, straight couples choose a member of the clergy to do so, but there are others that can. (The execption being those that choose to have a Quaker wedding, in which the couple marries themselves.)

    To extend this same legal procedure to same-sex couples will have no impact on the institution of marriage, or the lives of homophobes.

  • http://twitter.com/DirigoBlue Gerald Weinand

    And also why divorces occur in a State court, not house of worship.

    Currently, all straight couples enter into a contract of marriage – a civil union – which must be officiated by a person authorized to do so by the State. Most often, straight couples choose a member of the clergy to do so, but there are others that can. (The execption being those that choose to have a Quaker wedding, in which the couple marries themselves.)

    To extend this same legal procedure to same-sex couples will have no impact on the institution of marriage, or the lives of homophobes.

  • http://twitter.com/DirigoBlue Gerald Weinand

    And also why divorces occur in a State court, not house of worship.

    Currently, all straight couples enter into a contract of marriage – a civil union – which must be officiated by a person authorized to do so by the State. Most often, straight couples choose a member of the clergy to do so, but there are others that can. (The execption being those that choose to have a Quaker wedding, in which the couple marries themselves.)

    To extend this same legal procedure to same-sex couples will have no impact on the institution of marriage, or the lives of homophobes.

  • Anonymous

    I agree with your last thought, that government shouldn’t be regulating who gets married and who doesn’t.  I think that government gets involved because of the legal benefits of marriage — married couples get tax breaks, get to inherit property from one another if one dies, etc.  There are over one hundred ways in which straight married couples get benefits gay or lesbian couples can’t benefit from because they are not given the freedom to marry.  If we believe in extending the same freedoms to everyone, treating everyone equally under the law, then we support marriage equality — the freedom to marry.
    This isn’t about Republicans or Democrats.  It’s about fairness and freedom.

  • Anonymous

    I agree with your last thought, that government shouldn’t be regulating who gets married and who doesn’t.  I think that government gets involved because of the legal benefits of marriage — married couples get tax breaks, get to inherit property from one another if one dies, etc.  There are over one hundred ways in which straight married couples get benefits gay or lesbian couples can’t benefit from because they are not given the freedom to marry.  If we believe in extending the same freedoms to everyone, treating everyone equally under the law, then we support marriage equality — the freedom to marry.
    This isn’t about Republicans or Democrats.  It’s about fairness and freedom.

  • Anonymous

    I agree with your last thought, that government shouldn’t be regulating who gets married and who doesn’t.  I think that government gets involved because of the legal benefits of marriage — married couples get tax breaks, get to inherit property from one another if one dies, etc.  There are over one hundred ways in which straight married couples get benefits gay or lesbian couples can’t benefit from because they are not given the freedom to marry.  If we believe in extending the same freedoms to everyone, treating everyone equally under the law, then we support marriage equality — the freedom to marry.
    This isn’t about Republicans or Democrats.  It’s about fairness and freedom.

  • Anonymous

    Well, I’m a Mainer who believes in fairness, which includes the freedom to marry.  “Traditional marriage” was one man and as many women as he could afford.  And he could beat them as much and as often as he wished.  But fortunately, we’ve redefined marriage since then.  Time to do it again. 
    It’s time for equal treatment under the law — time for fairness.

  • Anonymous

    Well, I’m a Mainer who believes in fairness, which includes the freedom to marry.  “Traditional marriage” was one man and as many women as he could afford.  And he could beat them as much and as often as he wished.  But fortunately, we’ve redefined marriage since then.  Time to do it again. 
    It’s time for equal treatment under the law — time for fairness.

  • Anonymous

    Well, I’m a Mainer who believes in fairness, which includes the freedom to marry.  “Traditional marriage” was one man and as many women as he could afford.  And he could beat them as much and as often as he wished.  But fortunately, we’ve redefined marriage since then.  Time to do it again. 
    It’s time for equal treatment under the law — time for fairness.

  • Anonymous

    Well, I’m a Mainer who believes in fairness, which includes the freedom to marry.  “Traditional marriage” was one man and as many women as he could afford.  And he could beat them as much and as often as he wished.  But fortunately, we’ve redefined marriage since then.  Time to do it again. 
    It’s time for equal treatment under the law — time for fairness.

  • Anonymous

    Well, I’m a Mainer who believes in fairness, which includes the freedom to marry.  “Traditional marriage” was one man and as many women as he could afford.  And he could beat them as much and as often as he wished.  But fortunately, we’ve redefined marriage since then.  Time to do it again. 
    It’s time for equal treatment under the law — time for fairness.

  • Anonymous

    Well, I’m a Mainer who believes in fairness, which includes the freedom to marry.  “Traditional marriage” was one man and as many women as he could afford.  And he could beat them as much and as often as he wished.  But fortunately, we’ve redefined marriage since then.  Time to do it again. 
    It’s time for equal treatment under the law — time for fairness.

  • Anonymous

    Well, I’m a Mainer who believes in fairness, which includes the freedom to marry.  “Traditional marriage” was one man and as many women as he could afford.  And he could beat them as much and as often as he wished.  But fortunately, we’ve redefined marriage since then.  Time to do it again. 
    It’s time for equal treatment under the law — time for fairness.

  • Anonymous

    Well, I’m a Mainer who believes in fairness, which includes the freedom to marry.  “Traditional marriage” was one man and as many women as he could afford.  And he could beat them as much and as often as he wished.  But fortunately, we’ve redefined marriage since then.  Time to do it again. 
    It’s time for equal treatment under the law — time for fairness.

  • Anonymous

    Well, I’m a Mainer who believes in fairness, which includes the freedom to marry.  “Traditional marriage” was one man and as many women as he could afford.  And he could beat them as much and as often as he wished.  But fortunately, we’ve redefined marriage since then.  Time to do it again. 
    It’s time for equal treatment under the law — time for fairness.

  • Anonymous

    Well, I’m a Mainer who believes in fairness, which includes the freedom to marry.  “Traditional marriage” was one man and as many women as he could afford.  And he could beat them as much and as often as he wished.  But fortunately, we’ve redefined marriage since then.  Time to do it again. 
    It’s time for equal treatment under the law — time for fairness.

  • Anonymous

    Well, I’m a Mainer who believes in fairness, which includes the freedom to marry.  “Traditional marriage” was one man and as many women as he could afford.  And he could beat them as much and as often as he wished.  But fortunately, we’ve redefined marriage since then.  Time to do it again. 
    It’s time for equal treatment under the law — time for fairness.

  • Anonymous

    Well, I’m a Mainer who believes in fairness, which includes the freedom to marry.  “Traditional marriage” was one man and as many women as he could afford.  And he could beat them as much and as often as he wished.  But fortunately, we’ve redefined marriage since then.  Time to do it again. 
    It’s time for equal treatment under the law — time for fairness.

  • Anonymous

    Well, I’m a Mainer who believes in fairness, which includes the freedom to marry.  “Traditional marriage” was one man and as many women as he could afford.  And he could beat them as much and as often as he wished.  But fortunately, we’ve redefined marriage since then.  Time to do it again. 
    It’s time for equal treatment under the law — time for fairness.

  • Anonymous

    Well, I’m a Mainer who believes in fairness, which includes the freedom to marry.  “Traditional marriage” was one man and as many women as he could afford.  And he could beat them as much and as often as he wished.  But fortunately, we’ve redefined marriage since then.  Time to do it again. 
    It’s time for equal treatment under the law — time for fairness.

  • Anonymous

    Well, I’m a Mainer who believes in fairness, which includes the freedom to marry.  “Traditional marriage” was one man and as many women as he could afford.  And he could beat them as much and as often as he wished.  But fortunately, we’ve redefined marriage since then.  Time to do it again. 
    It’s time for equal treatment under the law — time for fairness.

  • Anonymous

    Well, I’m a Mainer who believes in fairness, which includes the freedom to marry.  “Traditional marriage” was one man and as many women as he could afford.  And he could beat them as much and as often as he wished.  But fortunately, we’ve redefined marriage since then.  Time to do it again. 
    It’s time for equal treatment under the law — time for fairness.

  • Anonymous

    Well, I’m a Mainer who believes in fairness, which includes the freedom to marry.  “Traditional marriage” was one man and as many women as he could afford.  And he could beat them as much and as often as he wished.  But fortunately, we’ve redefined marriage since then.  Time to do it again. 
    It’s time for equal treatment under the law — time for fairness.

  • Anonymous

    Well, I’m a Mainer who believes in fairness, which includes the freedom to marry.  “Traditional marriage” was one man and as many women as he could afford.  And he could beat them as much and as often as he wished.  But fortunately, we’ve redefined marriage since then.  Time to do it again. 
    It’s time for equal treatment under the law — time for fairness.

  • Anonymous

    Well, I’m a Mainer who believes in fairness, which includes the freedom to marry.  “Traditional marriage” was one man and as many women as he could afford.  And he could beat them as much and as often as he wished.  But fortunately, we’ve redefined marriage since then.  Time to do it again. 
    It’s time for equal treatment under the law — time for fairness.

  • Anonymous

    Well, I’m a Mainer who believes in fairness, which includes the freedom to marry.  “Traditional marriage” was one man and as many women as he could afford.  And he could beat them as much and as often as he wished.  But fortunately, we’ve redefined marriage since then.  Time to do it again. 
    It’s time for equal treatment under the law — time for fairness.

  • Anonymous

    Well, I’m a Mainer who believes in fairness, which includes the freedom to marry.  “Traditional marriage” was one man and as many women as he could afford.  And he could beat them as much and as often as he wished.  But fortunately, we’ve redefined marriage since then.  Time to do it again. 
    It’s time for equal treatment under the law — time for fairness.

  • Anonymous

    Well, I’m a Mainer who believes in fairness, which includes the freedom to marry.  “Traditional marriage” was one man and as many women as he could afford.  And he could beat them as much and as often as he wished.  But fortunately, we’ve redefined marriage since then.  Time to do it again. 
    It’s time for equal treatment under the law — time for fairness.

  • Anonymous

    Well, I’m a Mainer who believes in fairness, which includes the freedom to marry.  “Traditional marriage” was one man and as many women as he could afford.  And he could beat them as much and as often as he wished.  But fortunately, we’ve redefined marriage since then.  Time to do it again. 
    It’s time for equal treatment under the law — time for fairness.

  • Anonymous

    Well, I’m a Mainer who believes in fairness, which includes the freedom to marry.  “Traditional marriage” was one man and as many women as he could afford.  And he could beat them as much and as often as he wished.  But fortunately, we’ve redefined marriage since then.  Time to do it again. 
    It’s time for equal treatment under the law — time for fairness.

  • Anonymous

    Well, I’m a Mainer who believes in fairness, which includes the freedom to marry.  “Traditional marriage” was one man and as many women as he could afford.  And he could beat them as much and as often as he wished.  But fortunately, we’ve redefined marriage since then.  Time to do it again. 
    It’s time for equal treatment under the law — time for fairness.

  • Anonymous

    Well, I’m a Mainer who believes in fairness, which includes the freedom to marry.  “Traditional marriage” was one man and as many women as he could afford.  And he could beat them as much and as often as he wished.  But fortunately, we’ve redefined marriage since then.  Time to do it again. 
    It’s time for equal treatment under the law — time for fairness.

  • Anonymous

    Well, I’m a Mainer who believes in fairness, which includes the freedom to marry.  “Traditional marriage” was one man and as many women as he could afford.  And he could beat them as much and as often as he wished.  But fortunately, we’ve redefined marriage since then.  Time to do it again. 
    It’s time for equal treatment under the law — time for fairness.

  • Anonymous

    Well, I’m a Mainer who believes in fairness, which includes the freedom to marry.  “Traditional marriage” was one man and as many women as he could afford.  And he could beat them as much and as often as he wished.  But fortunately, we’ve redefined marriage since then.  Time to do it again. 
    It’s time for equal treatment under the law — time for fairness.

  • Anonymous

    well last yr took a tour of the far Northeast states…and avoided Maine….spent our $2500 Vakay budget  in MA, CT., and Vermont…and that was On purpose.

  • Anonymous

    well last yr took a tour of the far Northeast states…and avoided Maine….spent our $2500 Vakay budget  in MA, CT., and Vermont…and that was On purpose.

  • Anonymous

    well last yr took a tour of the far Northeast states…and avoided Maine….spent our $2500 Vakay budget  in MA, CT., and Vermont…and that was On purpose.

  • Anonymous

    well last yr took a tour of the far Northeast states…and avoided Maine….spent our $2500 Vakay budget  in MA, CT., and Vermont…and that was On purpose.

  • Anonymous

    well last yr took a tour of the far Northeast states…and avoided Maine….spent our $2500 Vakay budget  in MA, CT., and Vermont…and that was On purpose.

  • Anonymous

    well last yr took a tour of the far Northeast states…and avoided Maine….spent our $2500 Vakay budget  in MA, CT., and Vermont…and that was On purpose.

  • Anonymous

    well last yr took a tour of the far Northeast states…and avoided Maine….spent our $2500 Vakay budget  in MA, CT., and Vermont…and that was On purpose.

  • Anonymous

    well last yr took a tour of the far Northeast states…and avoided Maine….spent our $2500 Vakay budget  in MA, CT., and Vermont…and that was On purpose.

  • Anonymous

    well last yr took a tour of the far Northeast states…and avoided Maine….spent our $2500 Vakay budget  in MA, CT., and Vermont…and that was On purpose.

  • Anonymous

    well last yr took a tour of the far Northeast states…and avoided Maine….spent our $2500 Vakay budget  in MA, CT., and Vermont…and that was On purpose.

  • Anonymous

    well last yr took a tour of the far Northeast states…and avoided Maine….spent our $2500 Vakay budget  in MA, CT., and Vermont…and that was On purpose.

  • Anonymous

    well last yr took a tour of the far Northeast states…and avoided Maine….spent our $2500 Vakay budget  in MA, CT., and Vermont…and that was On purpose.

  • Anonymous

    well last yr took a tour of the far Northeast states…and avoided Maine….spent our $2500 Vakay budget  in MA, CT., and Vermont…and that was On purpose.

  • Anonymous

    well last yr took a tour of the far Northeast states…and avoided Maine….spent our $2500 Vakay budget  in MA, CT., and Vermont…and that was On purpose.

  • Anonymous

    well last yr took a tour of the far Northeast states…and avoided Maine….spent our $2500 Vakay budget  in MA, CT., and Vermont…and that was On purpose.

  • Anonymous

    well last yr took a tour of the far Northeast states…and avoided Maine….spent our $2500 Vakay budget  in MA, CT., and Vermont…and that was On purpose.

  • Anonymous

    well last yr took a tour of the far Northeast states…and avoided Maine….spent our $2500 Vakay budget  in MA, CT., and Vermont…and that was On purpose.

  • Anonymous

    well last yr took a tour of the far Northeast states…and avoided Maine….spent our $2500 Vakay budget  in MA, CT., and Vermont…and that was On purpose.

  • Anonymous

    well last yr took a tour of the far Northeast states…and avoided Maine….spent our $2500 Vakay budget  in MA, CT., and Vermont…and that was On purpose.

  • Anonymous

    well last yr took a tour of the far Northeast states…and avoided Maine….spent our $2500 Vakay budget  in MA, CT., and Vermont…and that was On purpose.

  • Anonymous

    well last yr took a tour of the far Northeast states…and avoided Maine….spent our $2500 Vakay budget  in MA, CT., and Vermont…and that was On purpose.

  • Anonymous

    well last yr took a tour of the far Northeast states…and avoided Maine….spent our $2500 Vakay budget  in MA, CT., and Vermont…and that was On purpose.

  • Anonymous

    well last yr took a tour of the far Northeast states…and avoided Maine….spent our $2500 Vakay budget  in MA, CT., and Vermont…and that was On purpose.

  • Anonymous

    well last yr took a tour of the far Northeast states…and avoided Maine….spent our $2500 Vakay budget  in MA, CT., and Vermont…and that was On purpose.

  • Anonymous

    well last yr took a tour of the far Northeast states…and avoided Maine….spent our $2500 Vakay budget  in MA, CT., and Vermont…and that was On purpose.

  • Anonymous

    well last yr took a tour of the far Northeast states…and avoided Maine….spent our $2500 Vakay budget  in MA, CT., and Vermont…and that was On purpose.

  • Anonymous

    well last yr took a tour of the far Northeast states…and avoided Maine….spent our $2500 Vakay budget  in MA, CT., and Vermont…and that was On purpose.

  • Anonymous

    well last yr took a tour of the far Northeast states…and avoided Maine….spent our $2500 Vakay budget  in MA, CT., and Vermont…and that was On purpose.

  • Anonymous

    well last yr took a tour of the far Northeast states…and avoided Maine….spent our $2500 Vakay budget  in MA, CT., and Vermont…and that was On purpose.

  • Anonymous

    oops. DIdn’t mean to reply to you.

  • Anonymous

    “Marriage equality, for a moment in time, had come to Maine.”

    I seem to recall that. The Penobscot river turned into blood, we had armored blackflies  the size of tennis balls, stars went out, bees disappeared and bread was $10/loaf.

    Wait….

  • Regular Joe

    That’s unfortunate.  If 100% of the vote was against marriage equality, that’s one thing.  But barely a majority were against it and boycotting Maine hurts those who support equality.

  • Regular Joe

    That’s unfortunate.  If 100% of the vote was against marriage equality, that’s one thing.  But barely a majority were against it and boycotting Maine hurts those who support equality.

  • Regular Joe

    That’s unfortunate.  If 100% of the vote was against marriage equality, that’s one thing.  But barely a majority were against it and boycotting Maine hurts those who support equality.

  • Regular Joe

    That’s unfortunate.  If 100% of the vote was against marriage equality, that’s one thing.  But barely a majority were against it and boycotting Maine hurts those who support equality.

  • Regular Joe

    That’s unfortunate.  If 100% of the vote was against marriage equality, that’s one thing.  But barely a majority were against it and boycotting Maine hurts those who support equality.

  • Anonymous

    Yes, why is it the government’s business to restrict marriage from same-sex couples?

    Answer: it’s not, that’s why marriage equality wins consistently when put before legislators and judges.

    The people against same-sex marriage tout the popular votes in their favor, but that is all they have. And the trend is inarguably moving toward public agreement that gays & lesbians deserve civil marriage rights nationwide.

  • Anonymous

    So you have no problem with out-of-state people lying and deceiving Mainers to get their way and end marriage equality, but once Maine voters come out to support this you will draw a distinction between “Mainers” and “voters” in this state.

    I have some news for you: the majority of gays and lesbians I know here were born here.

    Supporters of same-sex marriage are Mainers too

  • Anonymous

    Out-of-state organizations came to Maine and lied to the public to scare them. The Yes on 1 campaign director has admitted this.

    You have gay family members, neighbors, co-workers. You may not identify them so readily, but they’re there. They’re part of this state. They need the same rights and protections that civil marriage provides just as much as you or I do.  Marriage equality is really the right thing to do.

  • Anonymous

    You can bet your bippy my choice will be the same. Marriage already has a definition that most Mainer’s understand and prefer. I wish people would stop pushing this crap onto everyone else. 

  • Tedlick Badkey

    Merriam-Webster:

    a (1) :
    the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or
    wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law (2) : the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage [same-sex marriage]

    You mean that definition?

    Nobody’s pushing anything on you… if you don’t want to be affected by the coming change, you won’t be. 

  • Anonymous

    In many countries, and seven states in our own nation, marriage has a definition that fits what we are striving for.

    I wish people would stop pushing their discriminatory view of civil marriage onto everyone else.

  • Anonymous

    In many countries, and seven states in our own nation, marriage has a definition that fits what we are striving for.

    I wish people would stop pushing their discriminatory view of civil marriage onto everyone else.

  • Anonymous

    In many countries, and seven states in our own nation, marriage has a definition that fits what we are striving for.

    I wish people would stop pushing their discriminatory view of civil marriage onto everyone else.

  • Anonymous

    In many countries, and seven states in our own nation, marriage has a definition that fits what we are striving for.

    I wish people would stop pushing their discriminatory view of civil marriage onto everyone else.

  • Anonymous

    Pushing this crap? How does someone else getting married (people you will likely never meet) impact you exactly? Also, you’re wrong about things staying the same. They’re not. Check all the major opinion polls. People are waking up and favoring equality.

  • Anonymous

    Pushing this crap? How does someone else getting married (people you will likely never meet) impact you exactly? Also, you’re wrong about things staying the same. They’re not. Check all the major opinion polls. People are waking up and favoring equality.

  • Anonymous

    Pushing this crap? How does someone else getting married (people you will likely never meet) impact you exactly? Also, you’re wrong about things staying the same. They’re not. Check all the major opinion polls. People are waking up and favoring equality.

  • Anonymous

    Pushing this crap? How does someone else getting married (people you will likely never meet) impact you exactly? Also, you’re wrong about things staying the same. They’re not. Check all the major opinion polls. People are waking up and favoring equality.

  • Anonymous

    Looks like I need to dust off my old “no on 1″ writings and update them for 2012. I look forward to some lively debate here over the next 18 months.

  • Anonymous

    Looks like I need to dust off my old “no on 1″ writings and update them for 2012. I look forward to some lively debate here over the next 18 months.

  • Anonymous

    Looks like I need to dust off my old “no on 1″ writings and update them for 2012. I look forward to some lively debate here over the next 18 months.

  • Anonymous

    Looks like I need to dust off my old “no on 1″ writings and update them for 2012. I look forward to some lively debate here over the next 18 months.

  • Anonymous

    Looks like I need to dust off my old “no on 1″ writings and update them for 2012. I look forward to some lively debate here over the next 18 months.

  • http://twitter.com/DirigoBlue Gerald Weinand

    I recommend everyone watch it, no matter how you voted (or if) in 2009.

  • http://twitter.com/DirigoBlue Gerald Weinand

    I recommend everyone watch it, no matter how you voted (or if) in 2009.

  • http://twitter.com/DirigoBlue Gerald Weinand

    I recommend everyone watch it, no matter how you voted (or if) in 2009.

  • http://twitter.com/DirigoBlue Gerald Weinand

    I recommend everyone watch it, no matter how you voted (or if) in 2009.

  • http://twitter.com/DirigoBlue Gerald Weinand

    I recommend everyone watch it, no matter how you voted (or if) in 2009.

  • http://twitter.com/DirigoBlue Gerald Weinand

    I recommend everyone watch it, no matter how you voted (or if) in 2009.

  • Anonymous

    You think it is “crap”?  Says a lot about you.

  • Anonymous

    You missed a wonderful state….and for such a sad and irrational  reason. I feel kind of sorry for people like you.

  • Anonymous

    Well stated.

    Let the homophobes stay in their caves. It must be so dark and bleak.

  • Anonymous

    One of the homophobes said one time that he did not want to know if any of his neighbors are gay.  Says it all……..perhaps he does not see them as human beings and individuals who go about their daily lives just as everyone else.
    Sad people……(homophobes.)

  • Anonymous

    One of the homophobes said one time that he did not want to know if any of his neighbors are gay.  Says it all……..perhaps he does not see them as human beings and individuals who go about their daily lives just as everyone else.
    Sad people……(homophobes.)

  • Anonymous

    One of the homophobes said one time that he did not want to know if any of his neighbors are gay.  Says it all……..perhaps he does not see them as human beings and individuals who go about their daily lives just as everyone else.
    Sad people……(homophobes.)

  • Anonymous

    One of the homophobes said one time that he did not want to know if any of his neighbors are gay.  Says it all……..perhaps he does not see them as human beings and individuals who go about their daily lives just as everyone else.
    Sad people……(homophobes.)

  • Anonymous

    Gay men are pushing your crap? You need to be clearer that you aren’t interested, or that’s rape.

  • Anonymous

    If you’d have spent the money in Southern Maine, you wouldn’t be hurting the cause. ;-)

  • Anonymous

    Define ‘mainers’ in this context, independently of longitude plz. thx.

  • http://teachingthomas.net Thomas Palmer

    BRILLIANT. 

  • Anonymous

     I’m pro- gay rights but the idea that you would do that is foolish. Did you inquire as to the position of every person you purchased anything from?  Chances are you bought a bottle of wine from someone that you wouldn’t care for. Did you consider going to Ogunquit, Maine’s equivelent of  P-town?  What state do you live in? If not one of those states then how is it you can go to your local grocery store?

  • Anonymous

     Agreed, WHY ARE THEY REGULATING IT?

  • Anonymous

     Agreed, WHY ARE THEY REGULATING IT?

  • Anonymous

     Agreed, WHY ARE THEY REGULATING IT?

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Bruce-Stores/1060579884 Bruce Stores

    Your comments are thoughtful and I agree with your conclusions.  However, the statement, “US law specifically prohibits discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation” is not yet the reality.  At present 21 of our 50 states and DC prohibit at least employment discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation (SO).  There is a bill in Congress, the “Employment Non-Discrimination Act” (ENDA)  which would eliminate job discrimination based on SO throughout the USA.  This bill might be voted on prior to the 2012 elections. 

    Hope this helps to clarify your comments.    

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Bruce-Stores/1060579884 Bruce Stores

    Your comments are thoughtful and I agree with your conclusions.  However, the statement, “US law specifically prohibits discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation” is not yet the reality.  At present 21 of our 50 states and DC prohibit at least employment discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation (SO).  There is a bill in Congress, the “Employment Non-Discrimination Act” (ENDA)  which would eliminate job discrimination based on SO throughout the USA.  This bill might be voted on prior to the 2012 elections. 

    Hope this helps to clarify your comments.    

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Bruce-Stores/1060579884 Bruce Stores

    Your comments are thoughtful and I agree with your conclusions.  However, the statement, “US law specifically prohibits discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation” is not yet the reality.  At present 21 of our 50 states and DC prohibit at least employment discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation (SO).  There is a bill in Congress, the “Employment Non-Discrimination Act” (ENDA)  which would eliminate job discrimination based on SO throughout the USA.  This bill might be voted on prior to the 2012 elections. 

    Hope this helps to clarify your comments.    

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Bruce-Stores/1060579884 Bruce Stores

    Your comments are thoughtful and I agree with your conclusions.  However, the statement, “US law specifically prohibits discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation” is not yet the reality.  At present 21 of our 50 states and DC prohibit at least employment discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation (SO).  There is a bill in Congress, the “Employment Non-Discrimination Act” (ENDA)  which would eliminate job discrimination based on SO throughout the USA.  This bill might be voted on prior to the 2012 elections. 

    Hope this helps to clarify your comments.    

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Bruce-Stores/1060579884 Bruce Stores

    Your comments are thoughtful and I agree with your conclusions.  However, the statement, “US law specifically prohibits discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation” is not yet the reality.  At present 21 of our 50 states and DC prohibit at least employment discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation (SO).  There is a bill in Congress, the “Employment Non-Discrimination Act” (ENDA)  which would eliminate job discrimination based on SO throughout the USA.  This bill might be voted on prior to the 2012 elections. 

    Hope this helps to clarify your comments.    

  • Anonymous

     Why do you care? Honest men and women regardless of sexual orientation are productive, TAXPAYING MEMBERS OF SOCIETY.` Grow up, trust me, no one’s trying to grab your butt. Do you grab every women’s tail that you find attractive?? No, because it’s innapropriate.  Why are so many people stuck in junior high mentality when it comes to this issue??  This is one issue that I definately equate to lack of intellect.

  • Anonymous

    As far as I’m concerned, if your family wasn’t here before the turn of the century, you aren’t a Mainer.  Notice that nobody has challenged my point that Mainers are opposed to same-sex marriage.

  • Anonymous

    I stand corrected, thank you. At least Maine is ahead when it comes to empoyment law. All the more reason to end discrimination in marriage as well.

  • Anonymous

    I stand corrected, thank you. At least Maine is ahead when it comes to empoyment law. All the more reason to end discrimination in marriage as well.

  • Anonymous

    I stand corrected, thank you. At least Maine is ahead when it comes to empoyment law. All the more reason to end discrimination in marriage as well.

  • Anonymous

    I stand corrected, thank you. At least Maine is ahead when it comes to empoyment law. All the more reason to end discrimination in marriage as well.

  • Anonymous

    Your comment that this was one of your proudest days working for the past administration only reinforces what a dismal failure that administion was

  • Anonymous

    Ummm …  perhaps because the Puritans believed marriage was a civil issue and performed not by clergy but by a judge or civil official. They did not believe marriage was a church issue.

  • Anonymous

    Thanks for the clarification. 

  • Anonymous

    So those who ancestors were here prior to the turn of the century and do support same sex marriage still qualify as “real” Mainers?

  • Anonymous

    So if I my neighbor comes by and tells me he’s marrying a woman I and others don’t approve of do we get to vote on it? 

  • Anonymous

    “US law specifically prohibits discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation…”: you’re kidding, right?  It most certainly does not!  There is absolutely no Federal antidiscrimination law that includes sexual orientation as a protected class.There are, of course, a number of states (including Maine) that include sexual orientation in laws forbidding discrimination in matters of housing and employment.

ADVERTISEMENT | Grow your business

BDN Marketplace Coupons

ADVERTISEMENT | Grow your business
ADVERTISEMENT | Grow your business