Web Search powered by YAHOO! SEARCH
share
email
font size
options
 
Tuesday, November 3, 2009

As we prepare for tonight's voting results in the '09 trifecta - the New Jersey and Virginia gubernatorial races (where Democrats are hoping to hang onto the Garden State), plus the special House election in upstate New York (which has

rightfully

become a conservative

cause celebre

) - let us not overlook the gay marriage referendum in Maine, where the movement for equality can ill afford a defeat.

Earlier this year, the Maine legislature passed - and the Democratic governor subsequently signed - a bill legalizing such bonds, thus making Maine the fifth state in New England to extend marriage equality to all. That signing should have been settled the matter, but no. Gay marriage foes quickly amassed enough petition signatures to put the law on a state referendum ballot. So here we are today, and all available polling evidence suggests that the vote will be close.

In the past, when courts have ruled in favor of gay marriage, cultural conservatives have generally insisted that such momentous decisions should be made not by judges, but by legislators representing the people. But now that Maine's legislators have done that very thing, the gay marriage foes naturally won't accept that either. Hey, that's politics; you fight by employing all available means. And since Maine does allow its people to nix a state law via referendum, it's natural that the New Jersey-based National Organization for Marriage, and an advertising team from California, would hook up with Maine's Roman Catholic Diocese to go that route.

Which means that Maine's gay marriage camp - which includes a lot of characteristically flinty and iconoclastic Mainers - has been presented with an historic opportunity. If the voters tonight decide to uphold the new state equality law, it will be the first time that any state has supported gay marriage at the ballot box.

Gay marriage supporters badly need this kind of political breakthrough - especially in the wake of the 52-48 percent loss last November in California (with pro-Obama African-Americans voting heavily to overturn the court ruling that had legalized gay marriage statewide); and especially in light of the fact that voters in roughly 30 states have banned gay marriage in past ballot tests.

With future fights looming in states such as New York and New Jersey, the equality forces need actual concrete evidence that "the people" are on their side. Given the fact that New England is their strongest territory, a thumbs-down verdict tonight would truly be damaging, at least in the short run. Cultural conservatives would be able to spin the results this way: If the "homosexual agenda" can't win via popular vote even in New England, where can it win?

Fortunately for the gay marriage camp, however, Maine is promising turf for a breakthrough win.

There's a strong live-and-let-live libertarian strain in the local thinking, the notion that people should simply be left alone - and the gay marriage camp is playing to these traditional "Maine ways" in TV ads (lots and lots of TV ads, since air time in Maine is relatively cheap). The ad narratives say things like, "Whether you're born here, or move here, it gets into your blood. It's how you're brought up. You know, in Maine, we don't tell anyone how to live." The talking heads are firemen ("It's not anybody's business to interfere with personal decisions") and tractor guys ("What's wrong with making marriage equal between all Maine people?").

And one noteworthy gay marriage endorsee is Phil Spooner, an 86-year-old World War II vet, whose recent Maine testimony has drawn more than 610,000 views on YouTube. (Referring to the Nazi death camps: "I've seen with my own eyes the consequences of a caste system that makes some people less than others, or second class. Never again...This is what we fought for in World War II - the idea that we can be different and still be equal...What do you think I voted for at Obama Beach?")

But the outcome of this referendum, like the gubernatorial races and the House race in New York, will hinge on turnout - always the biggest factor in non-presidential years. Will libertarian Mainers be motivated to show up and team up with a sufficient number of youthful and college-age voters? Or is the straight-marriage electorate more strongly motivated to show up - spurred, perhaps, by the conservative TV ads which warn that gay marriage inevitably will be taught in the Maine schools.

This is the homosexuals-are-coming-for-your-kids message, which Maine's attorney general has already dismissed as ridiculous, and which I admittedly find to be a tad puzzling. When I was growing up, during an era when everybody appeared to be straight, I don't recall ever being taught anything at school about straight marriage. And even though there were lots of divorces and breakups in my town, I don't recall ever being taught anything about straight divorces. But I digress.

Regardless of who wins or loses in Maine, of course, this particular culture war will continue to be waged in other venues - until at some future point the demographics will inevitably shift and gay marriage will become settled law. As Daniel Foley, a gay rights attorney, remarked, "I think it's no longer a question of if, but how and when."

The thing is, I just stumbled across Foley's quote, which appeared in the newspapers on August 30...1994.

Fifteen years later, there is still no clarity on the question of when. Maine can help determine that.

-------

Message: Ya Think 9/11 Wuz Bad? You Ain't Seen Nuthin' Yet! The latest prize for right-wing demagoguery of health care reform is hereby bestowed upon Republican congresswoman Virginia Foxx of North Carolina, who declared yesterday on the House floor: "I believe we have more to fear from the potential of that bill passing than we do from any terrorist right now in any country."
 

 

Posted by Dick Polman @ 11:17 AM  Permalink | 125 comments
Comments   
Posted 11:42 AM, 11/03/2009
the stupid does burn
"While the two health care reform plans that are serving as the main building blocks for the merged bill have been publicly available for quite some time, I would note that the Republican leadership’s health care plan remains a secret, unless perhaps it does not exist. Needless to say, I fully understand if your plan is still under development, and would not presume to suggest that you publicly share draft legislative text for even an individual element of your plan, let alone an entire bill, before it is finalized. However, as soon as a comprehensive Republican alternative is complete, I hope you will be willing to immediately make it public. I am sure you agree that the American people deserve the opportunity to fully review both parties’ health careform plans before we begin this important debate." - Harry Reid........... we're waiting Republicans! tick, tock, tick, tock.............
Posted 11:54 AM, 11/03/2009
the stupid does burn
THE GAYS ARE CONVISCATING MARRIAGE AND SCEWING THE VIEWS OF THE CHILDREN! ACORN!!!
Posted 11:59 AM, 11/03/2009
jmc
Did't the left see George Bush as more dangerous than Bin Laden? I think they did.
Posted 12:00 PM, 11/03/2009
NEPhilly
***“Our substitute aims at driving down costs,” House Minority Leader John Boehner told reporters Monday. “If you drive down costs, you can expand access.” Boehner hasn’t released the full details of the bill but has said that it would make it easier to buy insurance across state lines, impose strict limits on medical malpractice lawsuits and allow individuals and small businesses to pool their resources to buy insurance as a group. That is designed to boost their purchasing power to help lower individual premiums. The legislation would also direct federal funds to states that establish pools to defray the costs of covering the most high-risk individuals, encouraging the 16 states that don’t to establish them. Republicans think lowering the costs to insure these high-risk individuals is the key to reducing premiums across the entire health care system.... Boehner is pushing House Speaker Nancy Pelosi to give the Republicans some floor time to debate their bill and hold a vote before the Democrats bring their own legislation up for consideration. “Our plan is over at [the Congressional Budget Office],” Boehner said. “We expect to be ready here in the next several days. I want a real debate on our proposal, a real debate and a vote.”*** http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1109/29053_Page2.html
Posted 12:07 PM, 11/03/2009
kelprod1
Let gay folks be gay and leave them alone. If they want to marry, let them marry. If they wish to volunteer in our military, let them do so. It is a great thing, if gay folks find happiness in life- even if from someone of the same sex. Get the government out of the mandating, regulating and interjecting business.
Posted 12:09 PM, 11/03/2009
egmetzjr
Why do people claim that gay marriage will destroy the sanctity of marriage but a divorce rate of over 50% does no harm?
Posted 12:20 PM, 11/03/2009
yoda
jmc, Bush was responsible for the deaths of far more innocent people than bin Laden was or ever will be...so there might be some reasonable basis for regarding him as more dangerous, because he was so much more powerful, and equally deluded.
Posted 12:28 PM, 11/03/2009
GetEmGood
jmc - it wasn't just "the left" that saw GW Bush as more dangerous than bin Laden, it was mosst of the world.
Posted 12:44 PM, 11/03/2009
tom - wilmington, de
Why do some people claim that gay marriage will destroy the sanctity of marriage..? The definition of sanctity is, put simply, something considered sacred. Why is it considered sacred? From Catholic.com.."The Catholic Church takes a very high view of marriage and human sexuality. As the account of Genesis shows, marriage and sexuality were created by God and given to mankind as gifts for our benefit... Scripture records God's statement that "it is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a helper fit for him" (Gen. 2:18). As a result, "a man leaves his father and his mother and cleaves to his wife, and they become one flesh" (Gen. 2:24)..Marriage is a conduit through which God's grace flows to the couple and their children. The Catholic Church understands marriage between a baptized man and woman to be a sacrament, a visible sign of the grace that God gives them to help them live their lives here and now so as to be able to join him in eternity..The Bible repeatedly compares the relationship between man and wife to that between God and Israel (cf. Hos. 9:1) or between Christ and his Church (cf. Eph. 5:21-32). For Catholics, marriage is a holy vocation. Since the Church sees marriage as holy, it believes it must be treated with reverence. It also recognizes that marriage is basic to the health of society and therefore a public institution that must be defended against harm..." Just sayin..
Posted 12:46 PM, 11/03/2009
NigeltheMastiff
NEPhilly, I think the Republican bill should be debated. Let all the ideas out there. The one thing that continues to stick in my craw is insurance companies themselves and the very ugly fact that they make money from people's tragedies, pain and suffering. I believe that if we are to have insurance companies, they should be non-profit only. As for the other proposals you mentioned, they are certainly worth discussing. I do worry about someone who has lost his job and thus his insurance, however. What to do about those, especially in this kind of economic climate?
Posted 12:47 PM, 11/03/2009
tom - wilmington, de
Latest CNN Poll on Obamacare...42% For; 57% Against. But of course liberals know what is best for the citizens, right?
Posted 12:53 PM, 11/03/2009
jimy_max
kelprod1: on equality, that is the smartest thing I've read from you in these here parts. as for the "get gov't out of here" sentiment ... i'd be more convinced if you had voiced some of that Big Gov't is Bad malarkey during 2000-08. the recently retired POTUS raised the Budget sixfold from Clinton's $281 Billion surplus to a $1.2 Trillion deficit and doubled the Debt from $5 Trillion to $10 Trillion. and there was nary a peep out of all you Obama haters. why? well Bush was playing for your team so you all goosed-step in lockstep like blind lemmings nearing a cliff. just more of the Insincere and Dishonest Echo Chamber chitter-chatter.
Posted 12:53 PM, 11/03/2009
NigeltheMastiff
Tom, the problem with the Catholic Church's point of view is that not everyone in the U.S. is a Catholic -- or even a Christian. So it's pretty unfair to impose that point of view on everyone. Aren't we a nation based on the concept of a melting pot? On the basis of freedom of thought and religion? And on the idea generally of living and let living? If you're a Catholic and you believe the dogma of the church, that's fine. Live your life adhering to your beliefs. Just don't make everyone else embrace them, too. How would all you non-Quakers like being forced to accept pacifism? Exactly. So you see what I mean.
Posted 01:03 PM, 11/03/2009
NEPhilly
nigel, in truth I think that we should take 'workplace insurance' out of the arena altogether. People should buy insurance directly from insurance companies just as you do for car, life, mortgage, home & flood insurance. I'm sure companies would go for it and if they promised to raise employees pay the same they are paying for insurance people would go for it too. Buy across state lines, have choices on deductibles, choose services that fit your own preferences just like car insurance or the others. NJ proved that if you mandate a 'minimum coverage' that is above the 'minimum chosen', rates will most certainly go up. You can now buy health insurance in PA for 1/4 to 1/2 of what it costs in NJ. Why? Govt. mandate of a minimum coverage drove insurers & competition out of the state. Now congress proposes to do the same thing for the whole country. It is just silly to think the govt. and this congress can actually write a bill that will do all they say and stay on budget. What do you think?
Posted 01:09 PM, 11/03/2009
Talvenada
TOM: Yes, I have seen conservatives, conservative points of view on all 3 shows. Why didn't you mention Hardball? Maddow has invited them to come on, but THEY turn her down. I guess you'll say that proves you right. Maddow had that tea party organizer on just 2-3 weeks ago. The difference is that don't do a talkover like Hannity and O'Reilly do. BTW, when is Beck going to offer another point of view?
About Dick Polman

Cited by the Columbia Journalism Review as one of the nation's top political reporters, and lauded by the ABC News political website as "one of the finest political journalists of his generation," Dick Polman is a national political columnist at the Philadelphia Inquirer. He is on the full-time faculty at the University of Pennsylvania, as "writer in residence." Dick has been a frequent guest on C-Span, MSNBC, CNN, NPR and the BBC. He covered the 1992, 1996, 2000, and 2004 presidential campaigns.

ARCHIVES

All commentaries posted before April 18, 2008, can be accessed at www.dickpolman.blogspot.com.