Conservatives Can Help Veto People’s Veto of Maine Gay Marriage
When I read that citizens in Maine were seeking to gather signatures to overturn the legislation passed by the elected representatives of the people of the Pine Tree State to recognize same-sex marriage, I hoped they would not gather the 55,087 signatures needed to place a “people’s veto” on the state ballot. It did seem a large amount of signatures to gather in a state so small. But, last month, leaders of the Stand for Marriage, a “coalition of Mainers who support the traditional definition of marriage” “delivered a stack of cartons holding petitions with more than 100,000 signatures to the Secretary of State’s office.”
While I believe the appropriate means for opponents would be the traditional republican method, working to defeat those representatives who voted for the legislation at the ballot box, these opponents have acted within the framework established by the state’s constitution. That said, these folks have less to grouse about than did supporters of California’s Proposition 8. The law recognizing gay marriage was passed by an elected legislature, signed by an elected governor, in a state which had never previously voted on the issue.
it was not as if courts had overturned the popular will.
All that said, 100,000 is a lot of signatures to gather in three months. It shows that the Stand for Marriage folks have a good grassroots effort which will help them significantly this fall. Without a marquee race (like President or Governor) on the state ballot, this referendum will hinge on turnout.
That is why it is imperative that those spearheading the movement to veto the people’s veto not repeat the mistakes made by the folks behind the “No on 8″ effort last fall in the Golden State. Given the mood of the times, I suggest they recruit a libertarian conservative to lead the effort, focusing not on the left-wing mantra of equality, but instead of the American ideal of freedom.
If they make this a left v. right issue, they will lose and lose badly. If they attack opponents of gay marriage as bigots or haters or whatnot, they will lose. Remember that New Hampshire Governor John Lynch, who signed his state’s bill recognizing gay marriage, opposes gay marriage himself. That is, it is possible to get opponents of gay marriage to vote against the veto, provided supporters of the law can show how it respects religious freedom.
From what little I know about the campaign against the veto, I am not optimistic; I have heard it is being spearheaded by left-wingers. Still, they have time to bring in conserative leadership — or at the very least (unlike their California counterparts) to include friendly conservatives in their strategy sessions.
14 Comments
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
In Washington, a petition to overturn the domestic partnership registry is looking more and more likely to pass. How depressing.
Comment by DRH — August 12, 2009 @ 6:49 pm - August 12, 2009
it was not as if courts had overturned the popular will.
Sounds like the legislature did.
Comment by ThatGayConservative — August 12, 2009 @ 7:20 pm - August 12, 2009
Dan,
I think it best to let the referendum go through. As we discussed before, I feel it’s part of the democratic process to let it play out.
Though I also agree that building momentum to repeal prop 8 in CA is the best option, so I guess I go one for two with you.
Comment by The_Livewire — August 12, 2009 @ 8:38 pm - August 12, 2009
We have a different political culture here in Maine. Out of staters telling us how to vote doesn’t sit well. We will hear from Maine couples & the vast bulk of our money is being raised right here.
TGC, how can the legislature be accused of going against the popular will when we never had a referendum on SSM before (as Dan said). All of those previous votes were on civil rights, not SSM. You have a computer; look up the wording of the questions before parroting the talking points of Stand For Marriage.
Comment by Jimbo — August 12, 2009 @ 11:32 pm - August 12, 2009
Jimbo, I think it would be great if the campaign focused on Maine couples–seems a sound strategy.
Comment by GayPatriotWest — August 13, 2009 @ 1:53 am - August 13, 2009
Jimbo,
I’ll defer to you on Maine-line issues then
Do you think the referendum should be put on the ballot then? I’m looking at it as giving Mainers the ability to either ‘correct’ their legislature or kill the repeal process once and for all. Am I mistaken that if the referrendum fails it won’t pop up every year?
Comment by The Livewire — August 13, 2009 @ 6:45 am - August 13, 2009
Livewire, the issue has to be put on the ballot. The secretary of state has until September 4 to weed out any non-valid signatures. And yes, if any referendum fails, the loser can just circulate petitions again. The SOS is a booster of the referendum process & feels it’s up to the voter to read the question before signing.
Comment by Jimbo — August 13, 2009 @ 9:26 am - August 13, 2009
interesting. I know in Ohio you can keep slamming against the consitution forever (see our Gambling Lobby). That looks to be a univesal trait. I wonder when fatigue will sit in.
(Disclaimer: I think the legislature of Maine went the right route. I also think the referrendum process is important)
Comment by The Livewire — August 13, 2009 @ 10:22 am - August 13, 2009
#8, when you no-longer can get enough valid signatures, the issue has died.
Comment by Steven E. Kalbach — August 13, 2009 @ 7:46 pm - August 13, 2009
A law legalizing gay marriage will respect religious freedom? Don’t make me laugh! The campaign for gay marriage is fundamentally anti-religious, specifically anti-Christian. It is all about destroying the Judeo-Christian sexual and social ethic that has governed American society for over 200 years and Western civilization in general for over 2000 years.
Do you really think that gay marriage proponents will tolerate Christian churches being free NOT to marry same-sex couples, or Christian businesses being free NOT to give marital benefits to same-sex couples? Of coures supporters of gay marriage would never tolerate that! Yet, that’s the essence of respecting religious freedom, i.e. respecting the right of religions and religious organizations NOT to approve of homosexuality. But that will never happen. The Left, gay and straight, HATES Christianity and supporting gay marriage is an expression of that hatred. Period.
Comment by Seane-Anna — August 14, 2009 @ 12:23 am - August 14, 2009
Do you really think that gay marriage proponents will tolerate Christian churches being free NOT to marry same-sex couples,
YES, AS A MATTER OF FACT; I DO.
or Christian businesses being free NOT to give marital benefits to same-sex couples?
WHAT SORT OF “MARITAL BENEFITS” ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT?
Of coures supporters of gay marriage would never tolerate that!
WRONG.
The Left, gay and straight, HATES Christianity
AND WITH VERY GOOD REASON – CHRISTIANITY’S HISTORIC ATTITUDE TO HOMOSEXUALITY HAS BEEN PERSECUTORY AT BEST AND QUITE LITERALLY MURDEROUS AT WORST. GET THE LOG OUT OF YOUR EYE BEFORE YOU ATTEND TO THE SPLINTER IN SOMEONE ELSE’S.
supporting gay marriage is an expression of that hatred
WRONG.
Comment by perturbed — August 14, 2009 @ 6:44 am - August 14, 2009
Seane-Anna, I don’t speak for all same sex marriage proponents, but like you, I don’t believe any church should be forced to marry persons that they don’t believe should marry. Dan, and other proponents on this site have also stated that. I don’t see the danger that you do. For example, despite divorce being legal, the Catholic Church, as far as I know, has never been forced to marry a couple in which one or both have been previously married (with marriage not annulled).
You may have a point regarding employment. Depending on the state, businesses may not be able to discriminate against certain married couples. This includes Catholic businesses not being able to prohibit an employee on his second marriage from having benefits for his spouse, while offering such benefits to employees on their first marriage. Businesses do have to follow the law.
The Left, gay and straight, HATES Christianity and supporting gay marriage is an expression of that hatred. Period.
This statement seems unfair on many levels. First, you’ve stated your belief that it’s okay for religions or religious organizations to disapprove of homosexuality, and made a point of not calling it hate. That’s fine by me. But then you say that supporting same sex marriage is an expression of hatred against Christianity. Why not state that these persons simply do not approve of a religion’s policy of prohibiting marriage of same sex couples in line with your own rhetoric? In fact, as I stated above, many of us have no problem with each religion deciding who they want to marry. Further, you take a smear against lefties here as well. Most of the people on the left that I know, gay or straight, that I know ARE Christians. And there are many on the right and/or Christians that support same sex marriage.
Comment by Pat — August 14, 2009 @ 8:21 am - August 14, 2009
My what a childish outburst. You obviously have a very low threshold for “persecution”, which does great disservice to those who actually have been persecuted.
My Christian friends and neighbors love me and want nothing but the best for me. They have always been kind and neighborly. One couple and their son helped me get my car out from being stuck in the snow.
Yet you think they persecute you, why? Because they dont think your buttsex is equivalent to the sex that produced their children? Thats not persecution. Thats being right.
Comment by American Elephant — August 14, 2009 @ 6:34 pm - August 14, 2009
American Elephant,
You are one disgusting human being. Do you honestly believe that Christianity, as a whole, has not persecuted gays? Are you even gay? You’re foul mouth comparison of sex that leads to procreation vs. “butt sex” leads me to believe that you are either of self-hating gay, or a gay-hating, straight.
I have come from a born-again Christian home. And so has my partner of 17 years. I was beaten by my parents, and my boyfriend was beaten up by members of his church when they were trying to exorcise “the demon of homosexuality” from him.
You mention that perturbed’s outburst was childish in saying that gays are persecuted by Christianity’s past. Why don’t you show me your “proof” that Christianity has not spread hatred towards gays? I’m not saying that it’s only Christians who have persecuted gays, but don’t try to make them out to be totally innocent, either.
And, you say that butt sex and sex that produces children is not equivalent. I would agree with you if the ONLY purpose of sexual union was procreation. If, however, there are other reasons for sexual union, than it’s not an issue of one being equivalent to the other.
And, if you try to use the Bible as a code of sexual ethics, then you must also agree in the following, since they are MORAL laws and not Ritual laws:
1) it is forbidden for a couple to have sex while the wife is having her period.
2) it is forbidden for a man to withdraw and spill his seed during intercourse.
3) According to Jesus, it is against God’s law for people to divorce UNLESS the other has committed adultery. And it is never okay to remarry, unless the person involved is widowed. Those who remarry in cases where adultery was not involved will go to hell because they commit adultery every time they have sex.
And as far as “liberal gays” having a low threshold for pain, the fanatical right is the first to cry foul when people don’t agree with them. Boo hoo…our right to religious freedom is being trampled on. That’s bull!! They’ll be the first ones to cry censorship if a school refuses to carry a book that is deemed very controversial, yet they have no problem trying to ban books that are even the slightest bit pro-gay.
Comment by Vinney — September 15, 2009 @ 12:01 am - September 15, 2009