Yesterday voters in Maine repealed the state's law allowing same sex couples to get married, making it the 31st state to block same-sex marriage through a public referendum. Unbelievable.
Evan Wolfson, executive director of the national gay-rights group Freedom to Marry, said the loss in Maine underscores "the fact that we need to continue those conversations and make ourselves visible as families in communities."He added, "It shows we have just not done it long enough and deep enough, even in a place like Maine."
But Maggie Gallagher, president of the National Organization for Marriage, the conservative Christian group that is leading the charge against same-sex marriage around the country, read the outcome differently.
"It interrupts the story line that is being manufactured, that suggests the culture has shifted on gay marriage and the fight is over," she said. "Maine is one of the most secular states in the nation, it's socially liberal, they had a three-year head start to build their organization and they outspent us two to one. If they can't win there, it really does tell you the majority of Americans are not on board with this gay marriage thing."
I think Gallagher's quote - "this gay marriage thing" - really says it all. The contempt practically drips from the words.
Bloggers at Pam's House Blend have several posts up about the decision, and Adam at Tapped says there's a silver lining in all of this. What do you think?
UPDATE: AndyLC on the Community blog has more.
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Maine repeals same sex marriage.
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.feministing.com/cgi-bin/movabletype/mt-tb.fcgi/16970
I live in Maine.
Yesterday I was at a bar in Bangor with organizers from all over "northern" Maine as we debriefed and then watched the results come in. First we were optimistic - the numbers were in our favor. We watched as our lead shrunk, and then we fell behind.
I don't think I will ever understand how this can happen, much less how this could have happened 34 times at this point. I'm 22 and I have been fighting for equality since I was 12. Obviously I'm not going to stop fighting, but I just don't understand.
I cried long and hard last night as we drove back from Bangor to Ellsworth, and then as I drove myself back to Bar Harbor. And I know that, had we won, there wouldn't have been heartbroken people on our opposition's side crying. Their campaign was about fear and homophobia and lies. Ours was about love. I just don't understand, and I don't know I ever will.
I am so grateful for the amazing people I met during this campaign. Beth, Fran, Mkayla, Vince and Jeana are all amazing people and I feel so lucky to have them on my side. And I know we will win this. But, again, it hurts.
Even if you don't believe in marriage because it's a patriarchal institution, or it's not something you want for yourself or you don't believe that people should have to be coupled to get tax breaks or whatever you reasons - please be kind to your LGBT friends who do believe that marriage equality is important. I walked into the cafeteria today and a friend of mine took one look at me and just gave me a hug, and then her boyfriend did the same. It means so much to have supportive friends - let's all be kind for awhile here, and not play the blame game, yes?
"I cried long and hard last night ... And I know that, had we won, there wouldn't have been heartbroken people on our opposition's side crying. Their campaign was about fear and homophobia and lies. Ours was about love."
THIS. This is so telling. One side of this argument seeks to be free from oppression, while the other side seeks to be free to oppress; what a terrible oxymoron it is to have the freedom to oppress.
"Even if you don't believe in marriage because it's a patriarchal institution ... please be kind to your LGBT friends who do believe that marriage equality is important."
This particularly points to the power that same-sex marriage has to further disillusion the picket-fence image of what marriage should be. When it comes to the main reason antis speak out against SSM, "sanctity of marriage" is often invoked. Quite frankly, if that's what SSM affects, bring it on. The sanctity of marriage is rooted in patriarchy and sexism. (I'm not against marriage - would like to do it myself someday - but let's be realistic about the history of it as an institution if we're talking about its "sanctity.") By legalizing it between same-sex couples, governments will be spitting in the face of presumed gender roles.
Ugh, your story is heartbreaking. :[ As an avid gay rights-supporting straight Christian girl myself, I've seen many of my gay friends that have been hurt by proposition 8. I never understood how anyone could be against gay marriage! It's not harmful to anyone and everyone should have the right to love whomever they want to.
I was there too. It was so painful to see everybody's reactions to the updates. After spending the last several months campaigning, I was optimistic. I really expected more from Mainers.
Is this not what always happens (no seriously-if it's not, some one let me know because I'm clearly ignorant to the fact)? Majority voters never want to give up their power; it seems like the courts have decided everything from desegregation and to many civil rights for women and other marginalized groups. Constitutionality is not a voter decision, but a legal decision.
Of course, we all know how deciding issues ruled upon by the courts always leaves a bad taste in voters' mouths and they never seem to get over it...Roe v. Wade anyone?
I know we all sit around in disbelief, but someone tell me Michel Foucault isn't the only one saying, "Well, DUH!" It's all about power and not wanting to give yours up and let other people take a set up onto the next rung in the hierarchy ladder. That doesn't mean I didn't actually cry when I heard this news.
That's the weird thing, though. People aren't giving up any power if they give the right to marry to gay people. Heterosexual people will still have the majority and have the same exact rights they do today. It would be different if the law was "For every gay couple that marries, a heterosexual couple can't." THAT would be giving up power. But that's no where near the way the law was supposed to work.
If you're so inclined, you DO give up rights as a straight person, if you vote for marriage equality. You go from being on the top of the heap so to speak, the only group with a legally recognized marriage, and all the social status that monopoly entails, to being EQUAL with the group you dominated before. Clearly some people perceive a loss of power in that exchange.
I'm assuming that we here think that a more equal world is best for everyone, gay and straights and everybody in between, between men and women, industrialized countries and non-industrialized countries, immigrant and citizens and every other constellation we can think of.
But, it's very hard to ignore that some people really won't see that an equal world is better, because they'll feel like they're vacating a position of power and of dominance (and thus security). And since they don't believe in equality for others, they can't conceive that equality can also serve THEM.
Imagine, if you've spent your life thinking that it's your right to be on top, you're not going to vacate that position and basically TRUST that the very people and groups you've dominated won't dominate you in turn. Because that's what you'd do! It IS in fact what you're doing right now!
And there is the lingering paranoia that maybe they'll resent you, a distrusts that runs incredibly deep, through generations.
It's very hard for a lot of people to imagine and trust and bank on that the groups they've been taught to view as inferior and "Other" actually will be more fair and noble than themselves. Imagine the leap of imagination that requires.
I don't know what the best way of helping them think outside the box is, I guess that's what we're all trying to figure out these days. Perhaps there are lessons from SA to look into?
We must keep the conversation going and at least not reward/patronize in any way institutions that are donating and supporting this culture of hate and zero-sum approach to social change (I'm looking squarely at the Catholic Church here among others)
They're giving up the privilege of being seen as the norm and the power to control the definitions of things like marriage, love, and family. For some reason these things are perceived as an equal threat to losing some kind of actual legal power.
I'm so sick over this latest blow...
Yup - voters should not vote on matters of human rights. Human rights are human rights. They are matters for court decisions. By putting it to a vote, politicians are suggesting that they are a) unwilling to take a personal stand for one side or another, b) deciding that the voices of oppressors should be given as much credibility as the voices of the oppressed, and c) the voices of oppressors have the legal right to collectively remove the rights of others. (Yes, I understand that the vote also gives the oppressed and their allies a voice, but human rights issues are not matters where oppressors and the people they oppress should be given equal footing.)
Up here in Canada, it was never a vote, it was an act. It was introduced and passed by the government. Took two years from the first province to do it (Ontario, and very quickly followed by BC) to the federal ruling. I may be wrong about some provinces, someone correct me if I am, but as far as I know this act has never been handed to the public for a chance to repeal - it was simply introduced, passed, and implemented.
I am very saddened by this news in Maine, but I hope that the progressives of this state (and all other states) will keep at it.
This argument is weak in a democracy. Ultimately all constitutional rights originate with the majority. Slavery was overturned by the majority. In fact, in this case, it was a legislature that granted same sex marriage to begin with. And its not as if the Courts are a bastion of civil liberties. Before Brown vs BOE, the Courts voted to uphold Jim Crow any number of times, and before that slavery. Sodomy laws were upheld by the Supreme Court just 10 years before they were overturned by the Supreme Court. In a democracy all rights rest with the majority, one way or another.
So, my opinion, the way to win this battle is to borrow a page from the Civil Rights movement & protest, protest, protest. As I told my friends in Cali before the same sex marriage ban passed, they were sitting on their hands for too long. The only way to win this fight is to get in people's face & make them realize everyone--their daughter, brother, cousin, and neighbor--all deserve human rights. This will be a long struggle, and we need to get on with it.
"This argument is weak in a democracy. Ultimately all constitutional rights originate with the majority."
You're right that in a democracy people should get to vote, but the United States is not a pure democracy by far (and shouldn't aim to be). Pure democracy (where every issue is voted on) leads to tyranny of the majority and that's what's happening here. Over at feministe, they paint a great picture of why this kind of thing is not a matter for votes and referendums: http://feministeminor.wordpress.com/2009/11/04/why-have-referendums-on-basic-rights/
Considering this is a law that really only directly affects a minority of the population (gay people, since certainly no argument can be made that gay marriage directly affects straight people), then it shouldn't be up to the majority to decide what's right for the minority. It doesn't make sense to ask an entire population to decide on an issue that will only affect a minority of its people. If we take the statistic that suggests 10% of people are gay (not that I'm saying that stat is true, because there are tons of opposing stats from different studies, but I've heard this one most often so I'll use it for argument's sake) then why on earth would we hand their fate over to a vote where 90% of the electorate won't ever have to face the consequences of the result? We should allow legislative bodies to discuss it meaningfully and make the decision there. They already made it and decided to grant SSM legal status, and then they decided they aren't fit to make that decision and handed it back to the people who elected them?
"And its not as if the Courts are a bastion of civil liberties."
True enough - I can't argue with that. However, human rights issues often do fare better in a court setting than they do at the polls.
I never said the US was a Direct Democracy, its obviously not. But even in a Republic, rights are ultimately conferred by the majority because what legislatures grant, succeeding legislatures can take away. Do you know how much real reform in civil rights we had after the Civil War? It was astounding. We had a black governor. And a black senator...And then the racists got pissed...and then we had Jim Crow (legislature), and Separate but Equal (courts).
Moreover even in the Civil Rights movement the Courts were simply the mechanism for applying Civil Rights. Except for Brown vs BOE most other subsequent Court decisions actually applied new Civil Rights laws eg, the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Title IX, etc. The Courts were the mechanism, but the Congress was the catalyst. Had the Courts been the answer, Thurgood Marshall would've received the Nobel Peace Price, not MLK. Hell, it was the Court that set back Affirmative Action in Bakke vs University of California. I understand the sentiment, but the reality is that the road to full gay rights runs through an educated & enlightend electorate. It has been this way for every minority and it will always be so (despite pop culture conceptions otherwise)...(Barney Frank has had a lot to say on this subject, you might check him out).
It doesn't always necessarily end poorly when people vote on rights. Granted, the majority never should have the option of voting on rights, but unfortunately that isn't the situation we currently live in. I've been working and campaigning very hard in Eastern Washington for the last few months, and it was such a great feeling last night to see the numbers showing Referendum 71 should pass, giving domestic partnerships all of the same state rights as marriage. Yes, there are hateful people out there who want to see us beaten down, broken, and unable to love, but as long as we keep fighting back, keep reaching out to allies and friends, and keep forcing our voices to be heard, slowly people will come to realize just how much our Queer brothers and sisters have to offer to this country as full, rights-holding citizens.
Such a bummer. Why can't people vote for equality? I'm so upset right now cause of the first 3 posts on here today.
I don't get what they think will happen to opposite-sex marriage if same-sex marriage is legalized. I know I certainly don't plan on divorcing my husband if two men or two women had the right to marry. I think the best way to get to the bottom of this is not to deal with those conservatives but with the liberals and moderates who still vote against same sex marriage legislation.
Sufficiently astounded. What makes it worse is that many people are going to think like Gallagher now, that the "no gay marriage" voters are "winning" or gaining more stride. As though that means we've somehow backed down. That's a scary message, and entirely not true.
Good. Let them think that we aren't going to find a way around their fucked up referendums and propositions.
Feh. So disappointing.
This is depressing. I thought that the government was supposed to be protecting the rights of the minority. I don't see how it is in any way just to have people that are in no way affected by gay marriage decide what rights the LGBT group has. I, also, am not understanding how a law can be passed to allow gay marriage and then immediately be repealed. How does this happen? Why can't it just be passed and that be the end of it? Why go back and undo progress?
But I know homosexual people who are against marriage for ANYONE and plan to vote against gay marriage if comes on the ballot in DC. These aren't just cis heterosexual people who vote against same-sex marriage.
Are you referring to people who are against marriage but in favor of civil unions? I used to be one of those people, but I changed my mind because I realized that it didn't matter what the legislation called it, conservatives would vote against it either way. I'm referring to what's happening in Wisconsin, where both civil unions and marriages seem to be equally "offensive" to the opposition.
There's so much about this issue that I don't understand. I don't understand why heterosexual couples think it would affect them if homosexual couples could be married/civilly unified/have the same rights. I don't understand why it matters whether a homosexual partnership is called a civil union or a marriage, since the word marriage has had so many meanings that no one can claim it "belongs" to anyone (http://atheism.about.com/od/gaymarriage/a/MarriageCivil.htm).
I would have to ask specifically about civil unions. I know a woman we'll call Suzy who is against marriage because of the "misogynistic history of the institution" and counts her vote against same sex marriage as a "vote against the patriarchy."
I know a gay man who is against same-sex marriage legislation because he thinks marriage "is government's way of showing favoritism to monogamous couples."
I tell them all, you know, you DONT have to get married, but why make the decision for other people? I really don't think they know how patronizing the whole "we know what's best for you and you don't" type of attitude really is.
It's always been discussed on marriage, never civil unions but because civil unions and domestic partnerships come with legal recognition and SOME rights and perks they could be against those too.
You make a good point. I don't tend to take into consideration the fact that some people are against marriage for a variety of reasons. I'm typically looking at the viewpoints of heterosexuals who believe that homosexuality is a "sin." This may be because I live in the bible belt and that has been the only argument that I've had to fight against personally. Thank you for bringing that to my attention.
Hey Phenicks, I'm a journalist in D.C. and I just came across your comment. I'm interested in reporting on that position on marriage, if you'd be willing to discuss it a bit with me: ahess@washingtoncitypaper.com. Thanks, -Amanda
"The institution of marriage has been preserved in Maine and across the nation," declared Frank Schubert, chief organizer for the winning side.
That is a lie. Hate has been preserved in Maine (and 30 other states). They don't think anything will happen to opposite-sex marriage if same-sex marriage is legalized, Phenicks. They just hate gay people and won't admit it.
"The institution of marriage has been preserved in Maine and across the nation," declared Frank Schubert, chief organizer for the winning side.
That is a lie. Hate has been preserved in Maine (and 30 other states). They don't think anything will happen to opposite-sex marriage if same-sex marriage is legalized, Phenicks. They just hate gay people and won't admit it.
What hurts me more than this loss (I am struck right now by the use of that word- the same one we use when someone dies...I have a similar feeling right now, actually) is the fact that the majority gets to VOTE on the minority's LIFE. I am saddened and heavy hearted.
I also live in Maine, and and am so frustrated that civil rights legislation was subject to our people's veto process. This is just wrong. I don't actually think the majority should be able to decide whether or not people should have their civil rights. Our legislature and governor took a stand and exercised leadership to move public policy forward. If civil rights legislation is contingent on majority support, how long are we supposed to wait for equality? What if citizens could have collected signatures to put the civil rights act of 1964 on the ballot to overturn it back then? Were the majority of citizens ready for racial equality in the 60's? Did that mean the civil rights act shouldn't have passed? So frustrating...
I feel the same. It seems like people have to be dragged, kicking and screaming into change, then, then years later they look back and think, "I can't believe I was so afraid of this." How ashamed are our children going to be of us once we finally get this passed?
I don't think that it's hate. I think that it's fear, fear and insecurity. The conservative side no doubt includes countless closeted gay and bisexuals who fear their own sexuality. What totally straight people would ever think that homosexuality is a choice? They're just very afraid people.
This has been truly disappointing.
Irrational fear that arises from discrimination is hate. Ie, thinking theres something 'wrong' with 'those' people.
I'd disagree on that one. Fear has been known to lead to anger which can lead to hate and ultimately to the dark side, but I wouldn't write them all off as being full of hate yet.
Dehumanizing one's opponents isn't a level that I want to sink to. There are a lot of people who have a lot of programming and social pressure to overcome. Christian conservative forces have a lot of control in a lot of people's lives and I don't imagine that that's easy to break out of. Opening your mind in those kinds of communities probably comes at great cost. People don't like to rethink their beliefs, or admit that they might have been wrong. I wouldn't dismiss this as just hatred.
I don't think anyone ever seriously said the culture has shifted, much less that the fight is over. What Gallagher doesn't acknowledge is that the younger the demographic, the less they care about denying marriage equality. That means the culture is shifting.
This setback is disappointing, but time is not on the NOMnuts' side. Don't let their crowing get you down.
First it was California, now Maine? What next, do we have to get Icelandic passports?
No need to go to Iceland, come to New Hampshire. Marriage equality becomes law here less than two months from now. No ballot process to repeal it, either.
Two big reasons I'm glad I'm not on their side: 1) as I already said, time is not in their favor; 2) they're the ones who're afraid the sky will fall if they lose.
This morning I woke up very hopeful. I woke up thinking, "today will be a day where I'm proud to be American". Much like how I felt the day after the election last year when Obama became president. On my walk to work, I passed someone with the local newspaper and tried to strain my head to make out the front page. The little bit I saw resembled the colors of the "Yes on 1" campaign. I cringed, but felt that maybe my eyes had deceived me. As I came to pass the newspaper stand, I stopped and read the cover.
Exactly what I had feared. Instead of feeling proud, I felt ashamed...on so many levels. I feel ashamed to be American, to be a part of a society that is so hypocritical and built on so many "literal" concepts. I felt ashamed to be a part of a society where we refer to ourselves as the land of the free, yet we refuse our peers basic human rights.
Am I wrong to feel that way? Am I wrong in thinking that we would start taking responsibility for our history and refuse to make the same mistakes as we've done in the past?
Like the civil rights movement and the disibilities rights, I know that this "gay marriage thing" will overcome. Obviously I feel it should be sooner rather than later, but if our history is any indication, it will happen.
What I do know for sure though, is I refuse be a part of the institution of marriage until everyone has their basic human rights and can be married. I can't bare the thought of being a part of something that is so bigoted and so...I'd like to use the term 'Un-American' but thats sadly not true.
So, so pissed :(.
I heard about this on a tv news program and the woman was interviewing a priest. Apparently the Catholic church donated 1.5 million to fight same sex marriage.
This is why I'm an atheist.
I always wonder why the Church spends so much time, money, and effort working against what it deems to be an "immoral lifestyle" when it should be working on eradicating an actual lifestyle: poverty.
FUCK YOU MAINE!
How/why did we ever come to believe as a society that the rights of other people should be put to the populace to be voted on? The fact that over 50% of Maine residents have voted against same sex marriage and nearly 50% of Washington residents have done the same has sent a clear message to me (indeed probably many of us) how much work is needed with regards to promoting awareness about how bigoted are nation truly is.
I agree with your statement that we shouldn't be voting on people's civil rights, though to be fair I don't think it's over half of maine residents- really only just over a quarter of registered voters voted to repeal the same sex marriage legislation- considering voter turnout was about half of all registered voters, and the votes were split pretty evenly. Yes, more work needs to be done to decrease bigotry, but more work also needs to be done to enable people to get to the polls- providing free child care, transportation etc.
today is a disheartening, but also maddening day.
Wait! I have...A PLAN!!
I'll go back to MA, where the ol' ball and chain (or is that chain and chain? Is it different for us?!) and I will be wed; then, we'll drive straight up to ME and stop at the first house we see. We'll knock on the door; if a child answers we will ask if an adult is home (if there is not one home, we'll move on). When an adult comes to the door, I will ask him or her if he or she is married to a her or him, respectively. If he or she answers in the affirmative, I will ask him or her what their position is on letting people of the same sex marry each other (if the answerer is not married, we'll move on. If the answerer had a child answer the door and is not married, we will inquire as to the parentage of the child. If the person answering the door is a parent of that child and is not married to the other parent of the child and the other parent is living, we will immediately insist upon a marriage of the parent couple, because children have to be protected by the sanctity of man-woman marriage. If the parents are apart due to an abuse situation, we will have to find a judge to weigh the damage done by abuse against the damage done by not having mommy and daddy married. If the unmarried parents are of two different races, we'll call that one jagoff judge, obviously). If he or she responds that marriage is for a man and woman only, I will tell him or her that I've just been gay married and as a consequence, his or her marriage to his wife or her husband has been randomly selected, sadly, to be a casualty of the "clear" and popularly-judged "fact" that gay marriage has a negative impact on straight marriage. I will then ruin his or her marriage in that inimitable queer way: simply by existing.
ARRRRGH! This is so maddening! I...I just...I don't feel at all eloquent! Just...AAAAUGH!
To say I'm upset with my state is an understatement. I am Mainer, I've never lived out state. Maine people are my people.
I guess none of that matters, because I happen to like girls and boys and everyone else.
I am Mainer. I pay taxes in this state. I go to college here. I am one of you. The fact that people want to deny me civil rights is infuriating.
This was most perplexing to me as I knocked on doors in Sanford and Berwick, Saco and Portland this week-- in Calfornia, there was genuine hate. In Maine, when we found a Yes on 1 voter, they were polite, near-apologetic, friendly, and generous with their time. That made it more of a slap in the face that our defeat was so much greater than California's.