In a lengthy editorial this morning, the Maine Sunday Telegram/Portland Press Herald urges its readers to Support Maine families and vote 'no' on Question 1:
Leaders of the people's veto campaign argue that extending the rights and responsibilities of civil marriage to families headed by same-sex couples would have broad effects throughout society. We have listened to their arguments, but we just don't buy them.
While it's technically true that the law would change the wording of the definition of marriage in state statute, it would not change the institution as it exists in Maine for thousands of traditional couples. Those vows would not be any weaker if same-sex couples were allowed to take them. Marriage would remain the key foundation for creating families, with the rights and responsibilities that come with it spelled out in the law, whether those families are headed by same- or opposite-sex couples.
It is unfortunate that, as we've noted in these pages, that the proponents of the people's veto, Stand for Marriage Maine (S4MM), have used omission and deception as part of their argument (here, here, and here).
That said, the editors of Maine's largest Sunday newspaper have not been duped.
The "Stand for Marriage: Yes on 1" campaign has struggled to come up with ways in which allowing this law to take effect would hurt traditional families. To often they have resorted to inventing scenarios to scare voters.
The most prominent has been the charge that children would be forced to learn about same-sex marriage in school. All it takes is a quick reading of the law to see, however, that there is no mention of education in it. Curriculum in Maine is approved by local school boards, and those elected officials would be under no obligation to add lessons on marriage law to their areas of study.
...
Arguments that same-sex marriage would inhibit religious freedom or cause a flood of lawsuits also fall flat. The same claims were made in campaigns against Maine's anti-discrimination laws and neither of them came true. Maine has strong exemptions for religious organizations in its employment and housing laws, and the marriage law would not require anyone to preside over a ceremony in violation of his or her religious beliefs.
Last year, only 32 out of 1,394 civil rights complaints to the Maine Human Rights commission were based on sexual orientation, and few, if any of them, are ever likely to end up in court. The marriage statute would not provide any new grounds for lawsuits.
How the people of California fell for the same tenuous line of reasoning is a mystery, but because they did, the main force behind Yes on 1, the National Organization for Marriage (NOM), hired the same PR firm to run the campaign here. What they haven't realized is that Mainers are not like people in California, and also that defender of equal marriage are ready this time.
Maine voters should recognize that even if their personal beliefs about marriage haven't changed, reality has. They should accept reality and vote "no" on Question 1.
There is still more than two weeks before Election Day, an eternity in politics. While this endorsement of same-sex mariage, like the one from the Bangor Daily News, are great, there is still much work to be done. |
DIRIGO BLUE is available as an