MINNEAPOLIS — Four years ago, Frank Schubert was a well-paid political consultant for what he jokingly calls “the forces of evil” — tobacco, timber and pharmaceutical companies — when he agreed to lead the 2008 campaign to repeal gay marriage in California.
What started as a professional challenge has now become a personal crusade. And Schubert, a specialist in political messaging, has become the central figure in a major effort to stop gay marriage from becoming legal across the country.
Part Karl Rove and part Pat Robertson, Schubert is managing four statewide campaigns where the issue is on the ballot in the fall — in Maine, Maryland, Minnesota and Washington. He’s trying to preserve a winning streak in which conservatives have put anti-gay marriage laws on the books in 31 states since 1998.
But that achievement could be in danger as some national polls show public opinion gradually shifting toward accepting gay marriage. Six states plus the District of Columbia allow it. In Maryland and Washington, governors have signed laws to permit same-sex marriage, but those laws are on hold until the November referendums.
Schubert said his mission to make voters understand what’s at stake.
“Five thousand years have shown that marriage between a man and a woman serves us well,” he said, adding that it is “fundamental to our nature as people.” The alternative, he said, is a culture based on personal desires.
The initiatives this year will feature a collision of well-funded organizations and media efforts as sophisticated as any national political campaign. The National Organization for Marriage, a Washington-based nonprofit supported by conservative donors, is funding Schubert’s effort. Gay rights groups and backers are heavily invested on the other side. The opposing forces are expected to spend up to $20 million in Minnesota alone.
The campaigns will provide a new test of the competing messages about the contentious issue: Do gays deserve the same right to marry as heterosexuals? Or should society allow children to grow up in an environment in which same-sex marriage is a viable life choice?
Schubert deftly targets the latter message at parents.
“That’s a major argument for us, that whenever people have gone to the polls, they’ve voted our way,” Schubert said last week during a two-day visit to Minnesota to check in on the campaign there.
In addition to the 31 states that forbid same-sex marriage, voters in a 32nd state, Maine, overturned a gay marriage law that had been approved by the Legislature.
Gay rights organizers begrudgingly admire Schubert’s ability as much as they detest what he’s doing.
“Whether we like it or not, he’s done a very good job of tapping into fears people have about homosexuality that are still very real,” said Julie Davis, a San Francisco-based GLBT activist.
For Schubert, a stocky, white-bearded 56-year-old, the cause has been a perfect union of his professional background and personal values.
Earlier this year, Schubert gave up the 15-member consulting firm he co-founded in California, which he said billed $2.5 million in a slow year, to become a one-man shop in a field that is “far less lucrative.” But he said his work “has deepened my own faith, deepened my own marriage.”
He said not everyone understands his choice, even in his own family. Schubert has a younger sister raising children with her lesbian partner.
“I love my sister very much, and I wanted her to know that my working on this issue was not a reflection of me seeing her as a less valuable person,” he said.
Anne Marie Schubert, a Sacramento County prosecutor, declined to be interviewed for this story.
Always a Republican, Schubert worked in the California state assembly and for Republican candidates before managing public initiative campaigns in Western states. In California and Oregon, he led campaigns to strike down tobacco tax increases by sowing public doubts about how the money would be spent.
Schubert has twice won a yearly MVP award bestowed by the bipartisan American Association of Political Consultants.
“Rove only won one!” he said, bantering with Minnesota campaign staff before a strategy session during his visit.
Schubert’s campaigns use TV ads to drive home a message about gay marriage’s “consequences.” A typical ad in California showed a young girl running up to her mother: “Mom, guess what I learned in school today? I learned how a prince can marry a prince, and I can marry a princess!” Then, cut to a conservative law professor: “Think it can’t happen? It already has.”
In 2009, Schubert led the campaign that overturned Maine’s gay marriage law and unseated three Iowa Supreme Court justices who ruled gay marriage legal in that state. Earlier this year, he engineered passage of North Carolina’s gay marriage ban.
The oldest of eight children, Schubert grew up in Sacramento and attended an all-male Jesuit high school. His first marriage ended after nine years and two children; he had it annulled. His deepening Roman Catholic convictions, he said, helped him make a better second marriage and support one of his daughters in overcoming addiction problems.
In addition to his work on gay marriage, Schubert says he also hopes to pursue state laws to make divorce more difficult.
Schubert spends his time leading staff strategy meetings and stopping at Christian radio stations, always leaving time to pray a daily rosary.
He says he’s confident about winning in all four campaigns this year but admits to not knowing where public attitudes on gay marriage will be in a decade or two.
“I think it’s very much an open question,” he said.



…
…..
No he is not a fool, he is truly doing what is best for society. We must never let this rest, homosexual marriage is a bad idea and it must be stopped.
It harms certain people. It helps none.
It is quite literally opposed to what is best for society.
And you know he knows it, since he never gives a good reason otherwise and tells lies–if he actually believed what he was saying, couldn’t he explain the same reasoning that led him to that conclusion himself?
Mind your own business. Tend to your own marriage. Leave others to theirs.
He doesn’t give 3 poptarts what is best for sociiety.
He sells himself to the highest bidder.
“Schubert says he also hopes to pursue state laws to make divorce more difficult.”
Yet he gets is marriage of nine years that produced two children “annulled” – sorry pal after nine years and two kids it is called a divorce.
I’ve always thought that an annulment was a cowardly way of trying to erase the past. Why not learn from our mistakes and move on? (I was raised R Catholic, by the way.) Schubert strikes me as a man in denial for his own responsibility in the dissolution of his marriage… As for his trying to defeat marriage equality– he’s a paid proselytizer. He should mind his own business…..
Yes, he is willing to “annul” his own marriage — to claim (falsely) that it never happened, and that his own children are “illegitimate” (not to mention another word that can’t be printed here).
But he’s not willing to let other people be treated fairly and equally under the law. He thinks that marriage is threatened by people who want to get married. What a strange concept!
I agree! Anyone who doesn’t want a same-sex marriage probably shouldn’t get one. I’m all for love……
What is right for society is for people to mind their own business, live their own lives and stop trying to force others to live by your belief system. If you are against homosexuality then don’t be gay. If you oppose same-sex marriage then don’t get one.
and if you believe that the law of the land is that SSm is illegal, leave it that way.
That’s not how this country works. Our constitution is framed in such a way that we can change laws or make new laws. In a communist country we would not have that opportunity but in America, land of the free, we have every right to change laws when they are outdated or when they exclude some within our society.
And when the SCOTUS allows SSM what are you going to do then? The day is coming when the SCOTUS will rule on SSM and trust me, your side is not going to come out on top. Pun intended.
Dude, you come across exactly the same as those racist southerners when interracial marriage was legal only in some US states.
Since our country’s inception there have been groups that have seen the promise of our Constitution, and petitioned our society for equal rights, access to government, and legal protections. And all along the way there have been people predicting doom and gloom and national destruction if we extend these things to one more group, race, sex, or other minority.
And every time they have failed, and every time our nation has failed to self-destruct. This is just the next way in which our constitution is fulfilling its promise to ALL Americans.
Sweden should have self imploded many years ago but yet it is one of the best places in the world to live. Most are not religious and gay marriage is allowed.
The sky has not fallen in Massachusetts, either.
In fact, they have the lowest divorce rate in the United States.
Don’t forget the enire country to the north of us. Canada legalized SSM many years ago..
Is being gay the same as being African American?
In the sense of not getting to choose, yes.
Well, someone can choose to be African-American, unless you’re the child of immigrants and had no say in the matter. But, yeah, no one choose to be black or gay.
Was being African American the same as being female, when women had gained the right to vote yet African Americans did not have the right to marry outside their race?
Seems to me that it could be based on Elizabeth Warren’s choice of be a “Native American” based on what she was told and her “high cheek bones”. So if she can choose her “heritage” you can too and if you wish to check of the African American or Black box the next time you fill out a job application or apply for a loan or whatever, feel free.
Still no non-religious reasons to oppose SSM.
Perhaps it’s bad for you, dear, but not for society as a whole. Unless you’re thinking of the American society that was middle class white people of the Donna Reed show, then yeah, maybe allowing others to benefit is bad. But in this America of 2012, people realize that there are other Americans out there who aren’t exactly like them and we’ll all in this together, luv.
Can someone tell us how bad it’s been for Massachusetts, Iowa, and Quebec, by the way?
Oh my Joe is trolling again for anyone who disagrees with homosexual marriage.
Hugs!
Prejudice is a bad idea and it must be stopped.
He is still working for the forces of evil.
Equal rights!!!! Let people who love each other get married if they want to!! It doesn’t involve anyone but the 2 getting married!!!!
As Church-lady might have said: “Isn’t that picture of Frank Schubert just special?”
Could it be SATAN?
Again another article regarding homosexual marriage.
Your free to skip over them.
I do as most people do. Ever notice how pro homosexual marriage articles aren’t listed as popularly read articles?
Yet your here running off at the bubble gum chewers …..
Are you afraid you are going to catch the gay?
Your point?
I know a good way to make it stop being news.
It’s real easy–AND required by the US Constitution. Two birds, one stone!
And another one he’s reading and commenting on…
It involves other people when you force them to accept it, and teach their children to accept it.
Your free to teach your children to hate whoever you feel like.
Thanks for proving my point. If I don’t agree then I’m a hater. There are actually two gay men in my family whom I LOVE dearly.
If you loved them so dearly, you would want them to be your equal, not second class citizens. I am so sick of people hiding behind “I have gay friends”, or “I have a gay person in my family”. Your personal beliefs are what they are, but do not claim to love and support people that you are treating as a lower class with your actions and words.
Have you raised children?
Completely irrelevant. I have not yet, but certainly intend to. If you are voting “No” based on the idea that marriage is intended to raise children in the “traditional” way, then please explain to me how “traditional” a 50+ percent divorce rate is? What about the hundreds of thousands of orphans who were given up? How about the struggling single parents? You hold no ground if you dare to say that a child is better off growing up as an orphan than with two supportive and loving parents, regardless of their sexual orientation. This vote is not about raising children, it is about offering the same opportunities to homosexuals as are given to heterosexual couples. I am in love, and want to marry and raise a family, and fully intend on doing it in Maine. November will tell me whether or not I can someday practice medicine in my home state as a happily married man, raising a family with the same hardworking, compassionate, and loving values that my parents instilled in me.
You need to raise children. Trust me, you will change your mind.
I don’t understand your point. If we raised children, we’ll not want marriage equality? If we raised children we won’t want them to know about gays?
What about the gay people raising children now? Or the straight people raising gay kids (like mine did)?
Can you explain your point?
I have been married 26 years and my spouse and I have 3 children Not that it should matter or be any of your business.- All 3 of our children are “straight” despite the fact that I raised them to be loving and kind to all human beings.Ya even the narrow minded bigoted ones…..
I want my daughter to not be prejudiced. So yes, in that sense, it does make a difference.
I want a world without unfair discrimination — a better world than what has been.
—-
^^^^
Yes.
Mr. Schubert raised children too, and he had his marriage annulled by the Roman Catholic Church (meaning the marriage never happened), thus claiming that his children are “illegitimate” (and another word that can’t be printed here). That’s his version of “family values.”
So you teach your children it is ok to discriminate against these people you “love dearly”?
Or do you teach them to accept it?
If you loved them dearly then you would want the best for them and you would be fighting for their rights. That’s what people do when they love someone dearly. When one tries to take another’s freedom or tries to control how another lives their lives then it feels more like an act of hate rather than one of love.
When we love we help, encourage, support and fight for people. When we don’t love we say horrid, untruthful things about others, try to discredit them and try to push them to the fringes of society.
So are you fighting for marriage equality for your beloved friends?
Have you shared your feelings about SSM and homosexuality with your two gay family members?
You don’t love them enough to believe they deserve to be treated equally though.
I do want to make the point that if one is against SSM that doesn’t mean that automatically he or she is a “hater.”
I have met many people who seem very nice and concerned about us but have a hang-up with the word. They don’t hate, they just need to understand that there is discrimination. However, there are, indeed, people I’ve encountered that don’t support SSM that said that they want gays to burn in hell, die off, go back to New York, etc. I think the safest thing is to only call those who demonstrate hate “haters.”
Sigh….I wonder if anyone who opposes SSM will acknowledge this or will the hold on to the false idea that all gays people thing the opposers are all haters….
Are you saying then, like Schubert, you are a hypocrite? He says that his desire to keep gays and lesbians second-class citizens is nothing personal — that he loves his sister, even though he thinks she is unworthy of marriage. What a fool he is!
You “love” gay people, as long as they don’t have the same rights you have — you just think they are inferior to you. How sad for you.
But you don’t think they should legally count as people.
You’re lying about “shallnotinfringe”, you’re lying about “hate”, is it really a surprise you’re lying about “LOVE”?
Teaching your own values, is not teaching hate. Confusing your children does not seem very loving.
Confusing them in what way?
As for the first sentence, isn’t it possible that the values themselves are hateful? Maybe not in your case, but we’ve all seen that clip of the little boy singing in church that “Ain’t No Homos Gonna Make It to heaven.” He was taught that and his song was well received.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RrDM7B5J7QU
So a couple that teaches their children that whites are superior to blacks is not teaching hate, just their own values?
What if they teach them the above and also take them to the Church of Jesus Christ Christian or the Tabernacle of Phineas Priesthood or the Church of the Sons of Yahweh which are all based in Aryan Nation beliefs. Is that teaching a child hate because you are teaching them your beliefs?
If the value is hatred, then, uh, yeah.
This is not complicated. Stop LYING to children and they’ll be less confused.
And definitely stop telling certain children that they’re worth less than others. Please, think of the children.
You do not have the right to interfere with other folks’ family life simply because it makes you personally uncomfortable.
Have you raised children?
My partner has. He’s raised two wonderful kids who now have kids of their own and everyone knows and everyone’s groovy.
Everything in Joe’s life is sunshine, lollipops and rainbows.
And everything is wonderful when we’re together! (Well, my boyfriend and I, anyway!) I just LOVE that Leslie Gore!!
Yes. I raised my daughter to not be prejudiced. How about you?
Did you raise children?
Did you teach them to be intolerant of african americans, asians, pink people, purple people because you and your spouse were not pink or purple?
Your argument is lame at best.
And the point of your question would be???????????
No one is forcing you or your children to become homosexual. No one is forcing you and your children to live a homosexual lifestyle or even be friends with one. You, on the other hand are trying to force yourself and your belief system into the lives of others by trying to take away their freedom. You can teach your children to not accept homosexuality. That’s your business. If you want to teach them to be dislike other human beings that’s your business.But it’s not your business to deprive others of their god given right for equality in this country.
Careful with your last sentence. They will tell you that it is god who says gay marriage is wrong.
Very convenient that they use God’s name to limit the lives of others, all the while arguing that God is being taken out of our country; yet, they ignore the preamble of the Declaration of Independence that says:
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed, by their Creator, with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.”
That to me says that citizens have a God-given right to be treated equal and have the right to pursue life, liberty and happiness. They are trying to take away the God-given right to be treated equal.
School curriculum is set at the local level and is not forced down by any state agency or group.
Really? Obviously you are not aware of state funding, federal funding, and have never taught in a public school.
Oh I see, so in 2009 when the opponents to SSM admitted (after the vote I might add) that they were wrong (lied) about SSM being taught in the schools there were wrong not? Either they lied in 2009 about SSM being taught in the public schools or you are now. Which is it?
What, exactly, are you afraid that will be taught in school? I hear “IT WILL BE TAUGHT IN SCHOOL” a lot, but I’ve never really heard much more than that so I can’t address the concern.
I know that children already know about gays and homosexuality. I know for a fact that there are little boys and girls out there right now who are different and wonder why they aren’t doing the same things, like chasing girls or boys, as their friends (unless I was the very last boy who felt like that in grade school). Gay people are here and will always be here. I don’t understand the concern about schools.
Yes, some people are afraid that kids will find out that gay people exist.
Several decades ago, in the 1960s, a math teacher in Florida was fired for the crime of being gay. He hadn’t done anything at all inappropriate, it was merely that he was gay.
Comedian Lenny Bruce did a very funny (and unprintable) bit about the teacher, saying something like, “What did they think he was teaching in a MATH class? When the kids came home from school, did their father ask if they were taught math and c*********g that day?”
The truth is that kids today already know that gays exist. Whether of not we treat gays fairly and equally under the law, gays will always exist, just as they always have. Our kids today are pretty smart, and are generally not as prejudiced as their parents are.
No one is forcing you to let go of your disdain or anger. But using that attitude to take away the rights of others is immoral.
Some families are different than yours and there is nothing wrong with that. You’re going to shelter your child from knowing that some of his/her classmates have gay parents?
Personally, I don’t care if you accept it, tolerate it, or even embrace it. I DO care if your choice from that list leads to ME not being able to live my life as fully as you live yours.
Children know about gays. As long as there’s a playground, a computer, or a tv, they’ll know about gays and, thankfully now, they will see us as regular people like them who just like people of the same gender and not as depraved and evil Communist sex-maniacs bent (get it?) on destroying America.
If the nay sayers are so positive that Maine voters don’t want SSM then why pay the hypocrite to spread fear among the mass’s?
The same reason it went to ballot again. Trying to change peoples minds or keeping their nay opinions the same and not have them be influenced to change their minds.
Nice to have this guy on board, but it’s not really needed. This will not pass for the 4th time. Don’t walk away mad, just walk away!
4th time? This is only the 2nd time it is going to public vote and even if it doesn’t pass. The SCOTUS will rule on it within the next couple of years. Then again, it might pass this second time around.
You are correct. I won’t pass. It will further divide the country in the future though. There is a lot more at stake than marriage for these people and they know it. So they will continue to fight until they get what they want, and a whole lot more when the dust settles. It’s only a matter of time.
So tell me, what else is at stake and how will it divide the country?
Once we resolve same sex marriage then we can move on to what, people who want to adopt dogs and get married to them because after all they are like people too? Then we got to put vote to medical crack coaine, etc.
The country won’t devide over a simple question that will not pass at the polls again in this state.
You do understand that to enter a contract one has to have two parties that are capable of reading (and spelling I might add), have conscious thought, be able to give informed consent AND be able to sign the contract.
Inanimate objects and animals do not have any of the above mentioned abilities.
I am sure with all the bored lawmakers out there these days that they can find away around that.
Well since you brought it up, you must have an idea how it could be done. Please share your insight. Or are you just trying for smoke, mirrors and distraction from the real question.
I don’t get paid to share my ideas with your tax dollars, assuming you pay them in but for the sake of arguments we will say you do. I am not distracting from the real question, just keeping focus on the real answer.
Oh trust me I pay my fair share in taxes and then some. But thanks for making assumptions about people you don’t know.
And you are using a debate technique to shift the focus off of SSM and onto the “slippery slope” argument. By the way, in no state or country where SSm has been legalized has a movement been started to allow an adult human to marry an animal or an inanimate object.
So your argument fails and the reason you don’t want to share your ideas is because you don’t have any. But please keep posting ridiculous arguments so we can show them as the red herring they truly are.
Of course the argument about imatimate objects may seem like a slipery slope argument, it is like arguing Health Care reform is a tax, but there is a law on what is a tax and people got to wai, same thing here, it needs to be a bit more common in other states, then pretty soon it will become an excuse because the bible doesn’t say it is not OK for someone to marry in inademate object, or why can’t we have medical crack cocaine clinics because we have Pot or medical pot anyways and meth labs, etc.
Wait and see if this passes, if it does and more states do, great, it will be used as leverage for the next movement.
Taxes already exist. Marriages to people already exist. Marriages to animals or chairs does not exist for anyone (but marriages BETWEEN animals and chairs do-at least for my cat).
“Of course the argument about imatimate objects may seem like a slipery slope argument, it is like arguing Health Care reform is a tax, but there is a law on what is a tax and people got to wai, same thing here, it needs to be a bit more common in other states, then pretty soon it will become an excuse because the bible doesn’t say it is not OK for
someone to marry in inademate object, or why can’t we have medical crack cocaine clinics because we have Pot or medical pot anyways and meth labs, etc.”
Well you sure said a lot in this paragraph.
a) Health Care reform has nothing to do with SSM. Try to stay on topic as it makes it easier to have a logical conversation.
b) Crack cocaine has no medicinal properties so I don’t think we will be seeing “crack cocaine clinics” popping up. Marijuana does have documented medicinal properties in the care of various medical conditions including but not limited to: glaucoma, MS, cancer, etc…
c) There is also no medicinal properties to meth either. In fact, the chemicals used to manufacture meth are so toxic that meth labs are treated as a HazMat site. Many of the chemicals used are also known carcinogens to humans.
d) There is not one state or country, NOT ONE where SSM is currently legal where any move has been made to allow a person to marry a “inanimate” object.
~~~~~
“Wait and see if this passes, if it does and more states do, great, it will be used as leverage for the next movement.”
And when all else fails, play to the base “fear factor”.
“The only thing we have to fear, is fear itself!” ~ Franklin D Roosevelt at his first inaugural speech.
Spelling! That might actually be a good requirement.
Yawn.
“these people” is a phrase often used by bigots.
“these people” was used to identify with a group of people. If you want to refer to me as a bigot, I will not loose one iota of sleep tonight.
Of course you won’t but then again I don’t lose one iota of sleep when I’m told I’m going to burn in hell and I worship the devil.
You are still a bigot though when you wake up in the morning.
Your words might carry more weight if you didn’t cotnstantly revert to name calling. The fact that people disagree with your views does not automatically make them a bigot. Constantly branding someone who disagrees with you as such does seem to make you one though.
No, but working against equal rights for their fellow Americans does make them a bigot.
“There is a lot more at stake than marriage for these people and they know it. So they will continue to fight until they get what they want, and a whole lot more when the dust settles. It’s only a matter of time.”
When you accuse others of something that they have not done and will not done, and you label them “these people” when making accusations with no merit, it leads one to believe your vision is crowded with bigotry.
It would carry more weight if the opposition would stop spreading lies, distorting the truth, and trying to create fear among people with misinformation.
When the view is that all people are equal, yes, disagreeing with that view DOES make people a bigot.
Look. It. Up.
It’s the words connected to “these people” that confirms my assumption.
“There is a lot more at stake than marriage for these people and they know it. So they will continue to fight until they get what they want, and a whole lot more when the dust settles. It’s only a matter of time. “
We are your neighbors, your coworkers, your friends and your family. We simply seek to be able to live our lives with the same opportunity to share our life with a soul mate, with the same access to protections, benefits and commitments our government grants most Americans.
Please do share though— what is this “whole lot more when the dust settles” that you think I want? Equal treatment under the law has always been the extent of my request.
You currently have all the rights and benefits of any other American born citizen, and no one is standing in your way as to who you spend your life with. Simple legal documentation would ensure most if not all legal protection married people have. What are the so called “1100 rights ” you seek with SSM that others speak of? I can’t fathom having 1100 rights as a married person that my single friends don’t have. You make it sound like if and when this passes, everyone will go about there lives like nothing happened and new happy couples will go on in life just being happy, and the political arm of the gay lobby will just dry up and never have much else to rally on. SSM will be “end game”. I highly doubt it.
Here are 12 CATEGORIES of rights, from a US Government document…
Category 1: social security and related programs
This category includes the major federal health and welfare programs, particularly those considered entitlements, such as Social Security retirement and disability benefits, food stamps, welfare, and Medicare and Medicaid. Most of these laws are found in Title 42 of the United States Code, The Public Health and Welfare; food stamp legislation is in Title 7, Agriculture.
Category 2: veterans’ benefits
Veteran’s benefits, which are codified in Title 38 of the United States Code, including pensions, indemnity compensation for service-connected deaths, medical care, nursing home care, right to burial in veterans’ cemeteries, educational assistance, and housing. Husbands or wives of veterans have many rights and privileges by virtue of the marital relationship.
Category 3: taxation
The distinction between married and unmarried status is pervasive in federal tax law; this is one of the largest categories, with 179 provisions.
Category 4: federal civilian and military service benefits
This category includes laws dealing with current and retired federal officers and employees, members of the Armed Forces, elected officials, and judges, in which marital status is a factor. Typically these laws address the various health, leave, retirement, survivor, and insurance benefits provided by the United States to those in federal service and their families.
Category 5: employment benefits and related laws
Marital status comes into play in many different ways in federal laws relating to employment in the private sector. Most such laws appear in Title 29 of the United States Code, Labor. However, others are in Title 30, Mineral Lands and Mining; Title 33, Navigation and Navigable Waters; and Title 45, Railroads.
Category 6: immigration, naturalization, and aliens
This category includes laws governing the conditions under which noncitizens may enter and remain in the United States, be deported, or become citizens. Most are found in Title 8, Aliens and Nationality.
Category 7: Indians
The indigenous peoples of the United States have long had a special legal relationship with the federal government through treaties and laws that are classified to Title 25, Indians. Various laws set out the rights to tribal property of white men marrying Indian women, or of Indian women marrying white men, the evidence that is required, and the rights of children born of marriages between white men and Indian women.
Category 8: trade, commerce, and intellectual property
This category includes provisions concerning foreign or domestic business and commerce, from the following titles of the United States Code: Bankruptcy, Title 11; Banks and Banking, Title 12; Commerce and Trade, Title 15; Copyrights, Title 17; and Customs Duties, Title 19.
Category 9: financial disclosure and conflict of interest
Federal law imposes obligations on Members of Congress, employees or officers of the federal government, and members of the boards of directors of some government-related or government-chartered entities, to prevent actual or apparent conflicts of interest. These individuals are required to disclose publicly certain gifts, interests, and transactions. Many of these requirements, which are found in 16 different titles of the United States Code, apply also to the individual’s spouse.
Category 10: crimes and family violence
This category includes laws that implicate marriage in connection with criminal justice or family violence. The nature of these provisions varies greatly. Some deal with spouses as victims of crimes, others with spouses as perpetrators. These laws are found primarily in Title 18, Crimes and Criminal Procedure, but some, dealing with crime prevention and family violence, are in Title 42, The Public Health and Welfare.
Category 11: loans, guarantees, and payments in agriculture
Under many federal loan programs, a spouse’s income, business interests, or assets are taken into account for purposes of determining a person’s eligibility to participate in the program. In other instances, marital status is a factor in determining the amount of federal assistance to which a person is entitled, or the repayment schedule.
Category 12: federal natural resources and related laws
Federal law gives special rights to spouses in connection with a variety of transactions involving federal lands and other federal property. These transactions include purchase and sale of land by the federal government and lease by the government of water and mineral rights.
Category 13: miscellaneous
This category comprises laws that do not fit readily in any of the other categories and that did not warrant a separate category. It is a heterogeneous mix of provisions from 14 titles of the United States Code.
Simple legal documentation doesn’t carry the same weight as being married does.
Here are two rights that a married couple have that unmarried heterosexual or homosexual couples do not:
1) End of life decisions when the hospitalized/nursing home bound patient cannot make them for themselves.
2) Hospital/nursing home visitation rights of a sick/injured spouse.
Both of these are guaranteed to a married couple but are not in he case of a unmarried hetersexual/homosexual couple. And Power of Attorney/Medical Durable Power of Attorney/Healthcare Proxy can and are often ignored by the medical community or the “legal” next of kin, i.e. parent/sibling/child.
We all have the same rights and benefits, you say, before pointing out rights and benefits that certain people don’t have.
At least you put a period between the two. I’ve seen some do it in the same sentence.
Yeah, how dare they divide us by asking for equal rights. It’s like, who do those people think they are?
I’m not sure, but I think the answer IS people.
“The reason the future is so hard to predict is because it hasn’t happened yet.” — Yogi Berra.
We don’t yet know the outcome of the fall elections. Stay tuned.
Please enlighten us. What is more at stake than marriage here? If we pass same-sex marriage it will lead to us all eventually being gay?
This would be the second time.
Randy would you be so kind as to list the months and years SSM has been voted on in Maine and lost 4 times?
I agree that this carpetbagger should not be involved in Maine politics.
How does redefining marriage benefit society ?
The same way that it has all of the times that it has previously been redefined.
Society benefits when it encourages more couples to settle into stable, supportive relationships. In states which offer same-sex marriage, it has been seen that the same benefits are experienced by same-sex couples as traditional heterosexual couples who wed.
There really is no justifiable reason to restrict civil marriage from same-sex couples. There are couples who have been in lifelong, monogamous relationships who are same-sex, just as there are shallow, unfaithful heterosexual couples who treat marriage as a temporary social event.
You are assuming (wrongly) that we are redefining marriage. We are not. We have changed marriage so thoroughly throughout the centuries that marriage looks nothing like it did in 1712. Or 812. Or pre-Christ times. Just because right-wing pundits throw that word around doesn’t make it true.
Biblical marriage = one man and as many women as he could afford.
How does gay marriage change your day to day life? Do you think gay people are going to knock on your door, hand you a pamphlet and ask you to convert to homosexuality?
It helps people. Those people are part of society. Thus, it helps society.
Of course, that’s a *general* answer. The answer to your specific question is “What on Earth are you talking about?” …but I’ve heard that particular lie before, and I know what you mean.
But things are not defined by who is not allowed to touch them, they are defined by what they ARE (that is the definition of “definition”).
Considering how unwilling conservatives seem to be to use words to mean their meaning (the National Organization FOR Marriage works to limit marriages, “love”, “bigotry”, “pro-“, “defend”, “traditional”, “supporter”… need I continue?) it’s pretty rich of you to talk about US redefining something… but we aren’t. We just want that same definition that already exists to apply to everybody equally.
Y’know, like the Constitution of the United States of America requires?
For 4900 of the 5000 years of ‘traditional marriage’, a man could marry and keep many wives at once.
Carpetbagger.
So much for family stability. Takes the sneaky Catholic way of annulment to teminate a marriage (with two kids!) and has the gall to try to make divorce more difficult.
Has a gay sibling but assures her that his actions are nothing personal.
Has no valid non-religious (conservative that is) arguments against SSM.
Not only three strikes, but more like four. Yer out!
The more I learn about the organized opposition to gay marriage, the more apparent it becomes that these people are charlatans and con artists, cynically exploiting an emotional issue for their own profit. To them, “the ends justify the means” and base hypocrisy are acceptable tactics.
Here we have an amoral lobbyist who had no problem lending his skills to help the tobacco industry sell its addictive poison. Now he works to keep the important protections of civil marriage from as many same-sex couples as possible.
He joins this rogues gallery alongside the National Organization for Marriage, who blatantly violate Maine election laws, keeping their donor lists private while the other side abides by this law.
That organization is run in part by Maggie Gallagher— who helped found NOM because she felt so strongly that children should have a mother and a father… just not her own child, whom she raised while single.
Even in Maine we have Mark Mutty, who knowingly mislead Mainers in his political ads against gay marriage. He knew he was wrong to do this, but to these people the ends justify the means.
If you have to act so unethically to get your way, sharing company with mercenary consultants and hypocrites, perhaps your side shouldn’t prevail.
“I love my sister very much, and I wanted her to know that my working on this issue was not a reflection of me seeing her as a less valuable person,” he said.
He’s a snake who speaks out of both sides of his mouth and makes a living doing it! Yuck.
Homosexuals once again are amassing to defy the will of the people and natural law by forcing Mainers to recognize a chosen lifestyle that is contrary to every fiber of human dignity that courses the human spirit. They will employ every scurrilous ruse and mask their insidious intentions to exact public acceptance and coerce Mainers into submission by assaulting the institution of marriage as a diversion. While they are to be pitied and treated with love, Mainers should never forget that the gauntlet has been thrown down, and a battle rages for the hearts and minds of our children and families. This autumn, the truth will again prevail. Many of these activists will return to their unnatural sexual obsessions while bemoaning their loss with maudlin outpourings of oppression and discrimination. Yet, hopefully, a few will see that their way was wrong and that more relevant and important issues attend their scrutiny.
That’s your opinion and your free to feel the way you want, your even free to teach your family it is ok to be intolerant.
Other then that – ask yourself one thing – why do you care so much about someone else’s relationship?
Really – I want to know how this affects your life.
Oh and I don’t want to hear about your religion – be thankful you live in the USA and have the right to have that religion.
I also have the same rights – what makes your beliefs supersede my beliefs? What makes you a special snowflake?
They never answer these questions.
Thank you for your support! I too hope that truth will prevail this November. Because the truth of the matter is that we should allow ALL Maine families the opportunity to protect the lives they build together with civil marriage.
As for “the gauntlet has been thrown down”– that happened in 2009, when out of state organizations like NOM paid signature gatherers to get a veto on the ballot, and then aired misleading, unethical ads to take away the civil marriage rights our legislature had rightly granted same sex couples in Maine.
I think people who are determined to control as aspect of another person’s life are deeply disturbed. We should be working to make ourselves happy, not in undermining someone else’s happiness.
I know that this article just appeared on here last night and was in this morning’s paper, but there are already more than 80 comments and not one of those against SSM are complaining about this guy who comes in from out of state to mess with Maine politics.
Why do I see such comments in the article about the Facebook founder’s pledge to match contributions made to the marriage equality campaign, but NOTHING about this guy “from away” who goes from state to state to state and is now in ours AND THREE OTHERS (and has already done his business in ours once before).
What gives?
And before I’m called a hypocrite, *I* don’t care if someone is from another state and comes here to help us or them. This is a national issue, not just something of import here in Maine. When we win here in Maine, that will help everyone else in the other states where gay people can’t marry the person they love.
So, then, I guess it IS okay for out of state influences to come into Maine as long as it’s to defeat the gays….
“He said not everyone understands his choice, even in his own family.
Schubert has a younger sister raising children with her lesbian partner.
“I love my sister very much, and I wanted her to know that my working
on this issue was not a reflection of me seeing her as a less valuable
person,” he said.”
~~~~~~~~~~
I can’t help but think that yes, in fact, his working on that issue IS a reflection of him seeing her, and every other gay person in the world, as a less valuable person.
With articles like this we see the true side of the homosexual marriage folks. They really dislike anyone who doesn’t agree with them and are as nasty as can be. My mailbox has been full of “love” from the “We only want to be loved crowd”. Wow I love seeing their true side rear its ugly head.
As opposed to the anti-SSM side that compares homosexuality to pedophiles or SSM to bestiality or suggests (wrongly) that “it” (what is “it” by the way) will be taught in schools or that married to trees will follow if SSM is approved in November.
So Q….what horrible names have you been called today?