As goes Maine. . .
Maine is no longer the bellwether she once was in the Nineteenth Century, but should voters in the Pine Tree State vote down a “citizens’ veto” of legislation recognizing gay marriage (that the elected legislature passed and the elected Governor signed), it could signal a shift in popular attitudes toward gay marriage. To be sure, few polls have shown any significant trends in favor of gay marriage in the past three or four years.
However, the recent Gallup poll showing that Americans are becoming increasingly conservative also found that attitudes toward gay marriage “have stayed about the same since 2008.” There may not be a movement toward state-recognized same-sex marriage, but there certainly isn’t a return to the overwhelming opposition we saw in the 1990s.
I had assumed that, without a state Supreme Court decision for gay marriage opponents to rail against, citizens of Maine would not feel disenfranchised by their state’s manner of recognizing same-sex marriages and they would veto the veto. The polls though show a very tight race, with the latest indicating a narrow victory for Question 1, “which would reverse the state’s law legalizing same sex marriage“
At 51-47 it’s within the margin of error but there has been slight movement in support of the question since a PPP poll two weeks ago showed it knotted up at 48.
As Tom Jensen of Public Policy Polling wrote, “It’s just going to come down to which side does the better job of getting its people out.” I don’t know what kind of ground game those opposing the initiative have put together. If it’s anything like their efforts last fall in the Golden State, things don’t look good for those who seeking to uphold the legislature’s action.
Given the number of signatures gathered by opponents of the legislation (they gathered twice as many as needed), those favoring Question 1 clearly are fired up and are certain to vote.
All that said, I don’t have much information on the ground game of those opposing the initiative. If they’ve learned from the mistakes made last fall in the Prop 8 battle in California, then we’re in for a long night in the Pine Tree State. We could see the first defeat of a measure seeking to limit marriage (for state purposes) to its traditional meaning.
But, I wouldn’t bet on it.
18 Comments »
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI
Nate Silver at
http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/11/2009-elections-preview-maine-question-1.html
The Odds: A statistical analysis I conducted last month, which was based on the results from previous gay marriage referenda in other states, gave the Yes on 1 side just an 11 percent chance of prevailing, although the fraction rises to 32 percent after an ad-hoc adjustment for the fact that this is an off-year election. In spite of the PPP poll, I’m not especially persuaded to deviate substantially from those numbers: the polling average still favors the ‘No’ side, albeit narrowly; the ‘No’ side seems to have run the superior campaign, and the cellphone issue may be worth a point or two. The tight polling, certainly, should keep everybody on their toes, and gay marriage could quite easily be overturned. But I’d still put the Yes on 1 side as about a 5-to-2 underdog.
Comment by rusty — November 2, 2009 @ 12:41 pm - November 2, 2009
Personally, I think that asking for marriage is too much for most people. I’m homosexual and I think marriage is between men and women. Civil unions, albeit a mere change in terminology, is probably more palatable for most folks. The reality is, homosexual relationships ARE different from heterosexual if for no other reason than they are homosexual.
I would also suspect that there may be a slightly higher degree of animosity towards gays as a group because of the deplorable behavior after Prop 8 was passed (white powder being sent to churches, “kiss-ins” on Mormon private property, etc.) and the recent hate crimes legislation elevating homosexuals to a special level where it is worse to kill one of us than someone who isn’t gay or part of some other protected minority.
Comment by AZ Mo — November 2, 2009 @ 12:42 pm - November 2, 2009
Daniel writes:
…and thereby revert to a limited and narrow form of domestic-partnership (DP) law.
This is in distinct contrast to the situation with Prop 8 last year in CA, where the overturn of the state’s SSM law meant a reversion to the previous status quo, which in California was a comprehensive, “everything but the word marriage” form of DP (generally described as being legally identical to “civil union” law, but simply using a different name). However, reverting to “everything but marriage DP” isn’t an option currently before Maine’s voters, because the state never had such a law — they skipped directly from “limited DP” to Same-Sex Marriage.
But if SSM goes down in flames on Tuesday, the logical direction forward would be to push for the option that hasn’t been tried yet in Maine — namely “everything but marriage DP.” Of course, anti-gay forces in Maine could respond by attempting to put such a “Strong DP” measure to voter referendum, but the merits of “Strong DP” are not up for debate in tomorrow’s Question 1, which is only about Same-Sex Marriage.
The situation in Washington state is different from either California or Maine, since WA right now has “everything but marriage DP,” but after Tuesday this could revert to “limited DP.” In my view, a loss for same-sex couples in WA would be a much worse symbolic defeat than what happened in Cal. or what might happen in Maine, since it would mean a popular rejection of the “strong DP” option — not in favor of SSM, but in favor of weak DP.
Comment by Throbert McGee — November 2, 2009 @ 1:46 pm - November 2, 2009
I wrote:
“Limited and narrow,” but not merely a feel-good token — if SSM in Maine is defeated tomorrow, the state’s domestic partnership law will still cover the following:
Note that the above list of protections says nothing about insurance or widow(er)’s pensions, nor about adoption and child custody — those points are covered by Maine’s SSM law, and also by the “everything but marriage” domestic partnership law in Washington state. (WA’s “limited” DP law is similar to Maine’s, above, and covers such essential points as inheritance in the absence of a will, and the power/right to make health-care decisions for an incapacitated partner.)
Anyway, from what I can see, gay activists in both Maine and Washington (as well as nationwide) have done a COMPLETELY TERRIBLE JOB of making voters understand the practical shortcomings of “limited” domestic-partnership coverage, and instead have tried to prevail by squawking the “Polly wants Equality!” buzzphrase over and over and over, and also with scary-sounding bullshit about LGBT families being torn apart*.
*By packs of rabid dogs chasing them across ice floes!
Comment by Throbert McGee — November 2, 2009 @ 2:11 pm - November 2, 2009
I am still inspired by Philip
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GrEbJBFWIPk
Comment by rusty — November 2, 2009 @ 3:17 pm - November 2, 2009
In Maine, same gendered couples can jointly adopt now. Also, DP can carry insurance together.
In reality, the only real “functional” difference will be the ability to file joint state returns.
As most pension plans are covered under federal rules, being married at the state level will not have any effect in this area.
As a native Mainah, I see the “yes” winning by the smallest of margins. The “yes” crowd has almost been exclusively playing up the “schools will be forced to educate your children in the homosexual lifestyle” fear tactic.
Comment by TnnsNE1 — November 2, 2009 @ 3:44 pm - November 2, 2009
I don’t want gay marriage to win if it means a win for the left-wing sexual liberationists. “Gay marriage” for many gays means “the overthrowing of patriarchal, oppressive traditions in favor of a new, anything goes sexuality which includes legal benefits for those open relationships which want to sign a contract.”
For me, gay marriage means a desire to include gay partnerships in the traditional model of legal rights for lifelong, sexually exclusive, publicly accountable relationships.
I’m not going to vote for simply anything that calls itself “gay marriage.” I’m glad the people in Main are giving this a second look. If they see more of the Pride/Stonewall/sexual freedom gays in protests and parades than gays who build their relationships on traditional values, then I hope they vote to overthrow the fake gay marriage.
Comment by Ashpenaz — November 2, 2009 @ 5:48 pm - November 2, 2009
That’s Maine. Boy, I wish there was an edit button.
Comment by Ashpenaz — November 2, 2009 @ 5:49 pm - November 2, 2009
Throbert, if they’ve been squawking Polly wants equality, Polly wants equality, they’re doomed. That notion just doesn’t resonate outside left-wing circles.
Comment by B. Daniel Blatt — November 2, 2009 @ 6:01 pm - November 2, 2009
Heh. (BDB, great line.)
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — November 2, 2009 @ 6:27 pm - November 2, 2009
I havent a clue which way both referendums will go. Having said that, even if the worst happens and they both go down in defeat I must say that I’m surprised by how close the results may be. By that I mean even if we cannot get this through now the very fact that it’s close is promising for the future. 20 years ago SSM would have gone down in defeat even in the bluest of states with numbers as high as the reddest of states today. Heck, in the reddest of states today the high numbers would have been in the 90s. Progress on this may proceed much slower than anyone hope for (or feared from the other side), but it is being made. Encouraging. Of course I’ll still be disappointed if both fail.
Comment by John — November 2, 2009 @ 6:31 pm - November 2, 2009
I am really beginning to be astounded by the amount of national animosity, tension, whatever you want to call it, being created so that a tiny minority withing a tiny minority (gays who actually get and stay married) can be told they are the same as something they are not the same as.
…which in and of itself redefines the marriage institution from one that exists for the benefit of children to one that exists as an entitlement to validate adults feelings.
And yet no one on the left can see how that redefinition is deeply damaging to the institution, and thus the country.
I guess they are too busy asking what marriage can do for them, rather than asking what marriage does for the country.
Comment by American Elephant — November 2, 2009 @ 6:46 pm - November 2, 2009
Again, what do you mean by progress? Gay people don’t have to line up every time a marriage bill is proposed. I don’t want left-wing gays to win any victories. A win for “marriage” is not a win for all gays. It is not progress if the sexual liberation movement started at Stonewall continues to gather steam–that would be complete defeat for my values and my understanding of homosexuality. I want Stonewall and Pride to be defeated and disappear as political movements. I want a new paradigm of homosexuality to emerge from the rubble of the Advocate and Mr. International Muscle–a paradigm which celebrates lifelong, monogamous, publically accountable relationships.
Comment by Ashpenaz — November 2, 2009 @ 6:51 pm - November 2, 2009
Daniel — have you seen the ”It’s Possible” TV ad by the opponents of Same-Sex Marriage in Maine? In a nutshell, it does make a few scare-language references about “teaching homosexual marriage to second graders,” BUT it also reminds viewers about Maine’s existing domestic-partnership law, implying that DP is a satisfactory compromise that provides basic protections for same-sex couples while preserving traditional marriage.
What’s notable is that the endorsement of domestic partnership law didn’t appear in any of the previous ads from the “save traditional marriage” crowd in Maine — as of just a couple weeks ago, they were still relying on the scare tactics about primary-school curricula being rewritten to teach The Joy of Gay Sex, or whatever. But apparently, as things were getting close to the wire, they decided that they couldn’t defeat Same-Sex Marriage without giving some lip service to Domestic Partnership laws (even though some ultra-conservatives may be just as hostile to DP as to SSM).
Comment by Throbert McGee — November 2, 2009 @ 6:51 pm - November 2, 2009
Got called away from the ‘puter, but to continue the point I was making, here’s the website for Maine Marriage Equality — i.e., the primary organization encouraging Mainers to vote “No” on Question 1, and thus maintain the recently passed Same-Sex Marriage law. If you watch their TV spots, you’ll hear “equality, equality, equality, pretty bird, equality!” over and over — but you won’t hear a word of explanation about why a reversion to domestic-partnership law would cause hardships for same-sex couples. (Possibly because there actually wouldn’t be any hardships.)
Comment by Throbert McGee — November 2, 2009 @ 10:20 pm - November 2, 2009
Why do a couple of the commenters here refer to the teaching of homosexuality in public schools as a “scare tactic”? Are you implying that that wouldn’t happen in the wake of the legalization of gay marriage in Maine or anywhere else? Well, it’s ALREADY happening! It was happening in Massachusetts BEFORE that state had gay marriage shoved down its throat by an activist judiciary. Remember the infamous “fisting education” scandal back in 2000, when Massachusetts school kids were taught the mechanics of a certain gay sex practice? Warning parents that, if gay marriage is upheld, gay “sexual liberationists”, to borrow Ashpenaz’s term, will feel emboldened to indoctrinate children to applaud their behavior isn’t a scare tactic. Sadly, it’s the awful truth.
Comment by Seane-Anna — November 2, 2009 @ 10:54 pm - November 2, 2009
I still think, no matter what happens in Maine or in CA, ultimately, gay marriage will become reality when a case reaches the Supreme Court on the grounds of a “Separate But Equal” argument.
Comment by Sonicfrog — November 2, 2009 @ 11:48 pm - November 2, 2009
I’m definitely an incrementalist when it comes to gay marriage. I am happy to accept civil unions, particularly ones indistinguishable from marriage apart from nomenclature, as intermediate steps. The Washington state referendum, which is precisely that, is fine with me. Indeed, I think that’s the way to go in a lot of places–and probably the next step for gay marriage in Maine.
Nonetheless, I just want to smack the smug smile off Maggie Gallagher’s fat foul face.
I’m going to calm myself down with Virginia and New Jersey. And scotch.
Comment by Alex in Denver — November 4, 2009 @ 1:35 am - November 4, 2009