Gay Rights Groups Regroup After Maine Loss

Washington Post: Despite Setback, Gay Marriage Supporters Pledge to Continue State-by-State Efforts

(Washington Post)  This story was written by Ashley Surdin.

---

Gay rights advocates across the country are regrouping after a crushing defeat at the ballot box in Maine, pledging to continue their state-by-state effort to promote marriage equality and to turn their attention to a federal court case in California.

On Tuesday, Maine became the 31st state to block same-sex marriage through a public referendum. Just over half the voters there repealed a state law that would have allowed same-sex couples to wed, a statute passed by the legislature in May and signed by Gov. John E. Baldacci (D). The law had been on hold, pending the vote.

Gay rights advocates had been optimistic about the Maine referendum, having collected more money, political support and volunteers than in other campaigns nationwide. Polls leading up to the vote indicated a dead heat on Question 1, as the measure was known.

Courts and legislatures have made it possible for gay men and lesbians to marry in five states, but Tuesday's results mirror what has happened in every state where the question of same-sex marriage has gone before voters.

More 2009 Election Results
Should Signers of Anti-Gay Rights Petition Be Exposed?


"I think the reality is that we came very close but didn't succeed in dispelling the distractions and fears that are keeping a small slice of people from treating others fairly," said Evan Wolfson, executive director of Freedom to Marry, a national gay rights group. Wolfson, as well as spokespeople for other gay rights organizations, blamed an opposition ad campaign for stoking voters' fears.

The campaign against same-sex marriage in Maine drew heavily from a similar effort in California last year; there, a ballot measure known as Proposition 8 overturned the state Supreme Court ruling allowing such unions. Maine voters were exposed to TV commercials, such as one featuring parents lamenting that their children were being taught about same-sex marriage in school, that were nearly identical to ads used in California.

For the gay rights movement, the defeat is another setback to its long-held strategy of building the case for marriage equality state by state. Historically, the tactics have been to target places where conditions seem favorable, and Maine, characterized by its governor as a libertarian state, seemed to fit that criterion.

Still, advocates say the strategy remains effective. They point to Tuesday's balloting in Kalamazoo, Mich., where voters approved an anti-discrimination ordinance that provides gays protections in employment, housing and public accommodations. Another victory appeared to be likely in Washington state, where incomplete returns indicate that a majority of voters have approved the legislature's expansion of domestic partnership rights.

Advocates say there was a partial victory even in Maine, where the vote was closer than it had been in previous campaigns.

"We're hopeful that it's a signal that there is increasing support for gay couples to marry," said Dan Hawes, field director for the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force. "Nationally, we're going to continue education efforts to move the needle of public opinion, especially in California."

California remains a key battleground. Some gay rights organizations are considering putting the same-sex marriage issue before voters there again as early as next year.

But most of the focus on the state stems from a federal lawsuit challenging Proposition 8 that is expected to go to trial in January. Lawyers David Boies and Theodore B. Olson, onetime opponents in the legal battle over the 2000 presidential election, are representing same-sex couples in the case, arguing, among other things, that Proposition 8 violates gays' right to due process and equal protection under the Constitution.

The federal case marks a shift in direction for the gay rights movement. Activists and legal strategists historically have avoided taking the issue to a narrowly divided Supreme Court, fearing a major setback. And though not all gay rights advocates agree on the timing, there is a growing consensus that there may never be a perfect time for a federal challenge.

"The whole idea that somehow you have to choose between federal and state work is a false 'either or.' The reality is, every movement needs to do both," Wolfson said. "You don't win on the federal level without engaging in those conversations and legal victories in states and communities. At the same time, you want to be part of a national conversation that helps create a climate for more states to move in the right direction."

The increasing push for change on the federal level has been heightened by arguments that President Obama has not adequately addressed gay rights. One group, Equality California, has urged him to file a brief in federal court challenging Proposition 8.

[justdatrooth]

It sounds as though these folks don't really care what the voters think. They just want it their way. As for the legislators who ignored the will of the people, vote them out.

[hakori]

justdatrooth, are you really so off the mark that this is how you see it? You're right; they don't care what the voters think. They want the same rights you and every other heterosexual American takes for granted! So, yes they want it their way. If the gains by black Americans during the civil rights movement had been voted on by the majority, they'd still be second class citizens! You or no other American should have the "right" to vote on wether those of a minority group should be equal to you!!! You are clueless about the nature of the question here, but you certainlty seem proud to spout off you ignorant opinion!

[armyoftwelve]

TO: cidaia

When the time comes to vote down same-sex "marriage" in your state, let me know what state it is so I can donate some $$$ to the cause.

Keep the people of Maine in your prayers...they need it!

[cidaia]

When the civil rights movement expands to include children,

Every child will have the right to what right now only "wanted" children have: the presumption that he is entitled to have a relationship with both his father and his mother. And that the only time this may be severed, is when doing so is in the CHILD'S best interest.

When the civil rights movement expands to include those without a voice, we will no longer practice the evil habit of deliberately creating babies who will be rejected by one or both parents. Children rejected by their parents will be rare and ACCIDENTAL, NOT DELIBERATE. No person will be viewed as having a "right" to deliberately create a child with a partner they know to not want a child. No person will be viewed as having the "right" to exclude the child's other parent from the family tree.

Gays are claiming rights that aren't theirs. They are claiming the right to make up for what biology will not let them do (sexual reproduction) by demanding the right to an "equality" that is based on child abuse.

When a child loses a parent through some accident, even a dumb mistake, that's tragedy. When a child loses a parent because the other parent is selfish, that's criminal.

[armyoftwelve]

A marriage is between ONE man and ONE woman. Maine voters just said so; California voters said so a year ago. In fact, voters in 31 out of 50 states have said so.

[slownewsday-05]

"by cidaia
A marriage is between a couple capable of reproducing sexually.

Couples that do not qualify as procreative couples (for example siblings) do not have the right to marry."



Wow - so infertile couples and the elderly don't have the right to marry?

Sorry, go fish.

[cidaia]

Sure infertile and the elderly can marry.

You are reading into what I said, something that wasn't there.

Anyone who is "eligible" to procreate, may do so.

And if the elderly miraculously have a baby, we aren't going to stop them.

And if the infertile manage to overcome their infertility, good for them.

The ones who are barred from marriage are the ones who are not ELIGIBLE for human sexuality.

We know that brothers and sisters will have inbred children, so we don't have to grant them a marriage license.

And we know that gays will be trying to pass off their baby's parentage in a manner that is obviously fraudulent, so we don't need to grant them a marriage license either.

You're welcome to think that marriage is about nothing but "being with the one I love", but it's not. It's tied to procreative functions, and it serves real pragmatic purposes that you just don't have any right to make illegal.

[hungry1968-17]

by cidaia November 6, 2009 8:33 AM EST

Likewise, marriage is for a specific purpose - and for the past 3000 years, it ain't been "love". Or "sexual fulfillment". Or "happiness". It has been about providing for the kids. The woman needs taking care of. The man needs the contract to define what he is entitled to in return for providing for the woman. Babies are protected from abandonment and poverty.

Of course, not all people qualify for marriage, which is why we came up with the idea of civil union. It's just not right that a lesbian gets pregnant & her girlfriend gets to be legally presumed the "father". It's not fair to the real father, not fair to the child.







Where do you get this nonsense from?!?!?

[hungry1968-17]

by cidaia November 6, 2009 8:33 AM EST
You can own a car or not, as you see fit, but if you want the driver's license, you have to prove you're eligible for what the license grants.

Driver's licenses have come up with secondary purposes - identification - and to prevent discrimination, those who do not qualify for the driving can get an ID.







Using THIS analogy, you should also say that gay people SHOULD NOT be allowed to drive a car.

The logic that YOU ARE proposing is that YOU ALONE can determine who can get married to who, so you might as well tell them that they can't get driver's licenses too.

What's the difference between DISCRIMINATING against them for a marriage license, a driver's license, a fishing license, or anything else?

ANSWER: there IS NO REASON, or legal justification, for you to discriminate against them under ANY CIRCUMSTANCE.

[hungry1968-17]

by cidaia November 6, 2009 8:23 AM EST

For instance: children born to heteros are entitled to the right to a relationship with both parents. Children are protected against parents who wish to exclude the other parent from the family tree, and set up a stepparent as the "real" parent. There are explicit legal requirements governing when and how ties can be severed, and what constitutes abandonment.

Gays, of course, are entitled to skip by all that, because everyone should be happy and proud to sacrifice anything called for, if it is necessary in the fight to keep gays feeling equal, even when it is biology and not mankind that is the true cause of the inequality.

Or here's another: in hetero families - including adoptive families - all reproductive decisions are supposed to be guided by what is best for the CHILD. Boy, aren't gays just so lucky that gay trumps all? Their kids are required to do what's best for the GAY!

Equal protection under the law cuts both ways.






What a coincidence!!

Children born to gay couples, are entitled to a relationship with both of their parents too!! One child that plays hockey with a friend's child, has "two mommies", and she loves them both dearly.




AGAIN - how are children "required to do what's best for the GAY"?!?! Which LAW or constitutional requirement is that from? Please post the link.

And in the case of adoptive families, are you seriously saying that children would be better off bouncing from foster home to foster home feeling neglected and unwanted, than they would be if a loving and caring gay couple adopted them, and provided them with a beautiful home and a successful and prosperous life?

[cidaia]

Children born to gay couples, are required to pretend that their stepparent is their "real" mom or dad.

This is child abuse when heteros do it.

And they are expected to be happy about this, they are expected to support the gay parent's needs and not discuss any feelings they might have, that would interfere with the gay's neediness. If the child refused to play along, they are shamed and silenced just as badly as anything a religious parent did to any gay "in the closet" child.

And, no, I didn't say anything at all critical of adoption. Adoption and what you want to do, are two very different things. The gay rights movement tries to confuse their child abuse with normal adoption practices for the same reason they keep trying to insist the reason they are entitled to various rights is because they're "just like blacks" when they're not: gays rely on false analogies because they can't argue their own case, which is weak and based on guilt trips instead of sound logic.

[hakori]

cidaia, so we fall back to the tried and true method of demonizing those you don't like. I guess you could ask the question about the child "playing" along with a hetersexual parent's new spouse as well, but then again that's ok becuase they're "normal", right? You sound as if you're saying gays aren't even full people, much less tax paying Americans entitled to the same rights you wake up to every day. Gays who adopt children are child abusers? You actually help gays rigths more than you know. Please keep up the hate speech, and that is EXACTLY what it is. You wouldn't know sound logic if Mr Spock mind melded with you!

[hungry1968-17]

by cidaia November 6, 2009 8:23 AM EST
Children have the right to equal protection under the law.

Children of gays are treated like second-class citizens, compared to what the children of heteros get, in terms of rights.






If children of gays are treated like second hand citizens, it's only because of YOUR bigotry and intolerance.

I'm sure that your "Jesus" is happy with your discrimination, but it doesn't fly in America. We cherish our freedom and liberty too much.

Perhaps you should move some place where they share your values - like Pakistan's Swat Valley or Iran?

[hungry1968-17]

by cidaia November 6, 2009 6:53 AM EST
Here's equal protections. Children born to a hetero couple have the right to relationships with both their father and their mother, unless a court of law severs that relationship.






Can you post the section of the constitution that specifically gives children "the right to relationships with both their father and their mother".

That's a new claim, and I'd like to see the legal version.

[cidaia]

Children have the right to equal protection under the law.

Children of gays are treated like second-class citizens, compared to what the children of heteros get, in terms of rights.

For instance: children born to heteros are entitled to the right to a relationship with both parents. Children are protected against parents who wish to exclude the other parent from the family tree, and set up a stepparent as the "real" parent. There are explicit legal requirements governing when and how ties can be severed, and what constitutes abandonment.

Gays, of course, are entitled to skip by all that, because everyone should be happy and proud to sacrifice anything called for, if it is necessary in the fight to keep gays feeling equal, even when it is biology and not mankind that is the true cause of the inequality.

Or here's another: in hetero families - including adoptive families - all reproductive decisions are supposed to be guided by what is best for the CHILD. Boy, aren't gays just so lucky that gay trumps all? Their kids are required to do what's best for the GAY!

Equal protection under the law cuts both ways.