Tag same-sex marriage

The Way Life “Should” Be

I’m disappointed but not really surprised that the voters in Maine rejected the same-sex marriage legislation that squeaked through their legislature earlier this year.

The political divide in Maine generally boils down to Portland vs. The Rest Of The State. The population of the Portland metropolitan area is 230,000, which is more than 20% of the population of the entire state. With a large contingent of “Getaways” from other Northeastern cities, college-age young adults, and people with higher levels of education, Portland is like a border outpost for Boston, while the rest of the state makes the cast of Hee Haw look like Oxford-educated gentlemen and ladies. The ME-1 Congressional district almost always has a True Blue Democrat in the seat, and Obama handily won the state last year. Portland et environs is also the locus of the gay community (as it is for every other minority community that exists in Maine).

A lot of outside national political groups were involved in this referendum; I got a lot of e-mail from the assorted liberal groups about it. I donated some money to the effort, but I drew the line at the request to actually GO to Maine to pump up headcount at rallies — helping to keep the campaign afloat is one thing, but I don’t think it’s Kosher to pretend to be a local for the sake of any political campaign. At the end of the day, though, I think what pushwd the final number was the effort from the Catholic Church, which holds a lot of political sway in Maine. Without the Catholics, the “Yes” group would have just been the usual collection of hate-mongers and fundie freaks, but the church lent legitimacy as well as tangible support.

Once again, for my money, that really underscores the bigger idea that there ought to be a much clearer division between church and state when it comes to marriage. If the Catholics (or any other religious group) don’t approve of same-sex marriage, then let them keep it out of their own church and stop interfering with the rights of people who don’t belong to their church. Marriage as a religious rite can indeed be restricted to whatever prescriptions any particular religious organization wished to impose on its membership. Marriage as a civil institution should be equally available to all without discrimination.

At this point in time, after four and a half years of legal same-sex marriage here in Massachusetts, it’s pretty clear that every single argument against same-sex marriage is bullshit used to cover up basic bigotry and homophobia — the “foundation of society” hasn’t been harmed in any way, people aren’t marrying dogs, and so on. It’s also clear that general public opinion continues to move away from moralistic bigotry but that opposition from the Catholic Church, or, as was the case with Prop 8 in California last year, the Mormon Church, still carries enough weight to work against this basic issue of equal rights for all. It’s a shame that groups which lay claim to “compassion” and “tolerance” still champion the very opposite.

EmailStumbleUponRedditFacebookTwitterGoogle+Share

Related Posts:

Three Down, Three To Go

The breaking news of the afternoon is that Governor John Baldacci of Maine signed the bill legalizing same-sex marriages in that state only one hour after the bill came to his desk today. Yesterday, the Maine House of Representatives passed the bill by a vote of 89-57, but it was unclear if Baldacci would sign it, since he has expressed opposition to similar legislation in the past. The expectation was that he would leave the bill unsigned and let it take force of law on its own, rather than indicate his personal support.

His comments at the signing acknowledge the strong likelihood that opponents of the measure, which include the Roman Catholic Church (as usual) and a group called the Maine Family Policy Council (you typical fundie freakshow fascist crowd), would be able to generate enough signatures to send the law to referendum in November. Maine laws allows any legislation to be overturned by a simple majority of voters in a statewide election. In the past, Mainers have used this “people’s veto” to overturn other legislation.

Popular opinion in Maine is pretty equally divided about gay marriage — 50% against, 47% for, 3% undecided — so there’s no guarantee that sending the law to referendum will overturn it, but Maine is the third New England state to legalize gay marriage and the fourth in the United States. Vermont will legalize same-sex marriage when a state supreme court decision goes into effect in September, and New Hampshire is very close to passing a bill as well, so it is possible that by November, five of the six New England states will have legal same-sex marriages (Rhode Island will likely not pass any bill until after the 2010 election). That could have a lot of impact on the outcome of a “people’s veto” in a state that has been on a liberal trend for the last few years.

It’s worth noting that here in Massachusetts we are coming up on the fifth anniversary of legalizing same-sex marriages, and so far there have been no reported meltdowns of anyone’s heterosexual marriage as a result, no people trying to marry monkeys, dogs, or turtles, and no widespread round-up of small children to be taken to gay re-education camps. If the Christians don’t want to allow same-sex couples to marry within their churches, that’s their business, but their bigotry and inhumanity does not belong in public law.

EmailStumbleUponRedditFacebookTwitterGoogle+Share

Related Posts:

Sometimes The Good Guys Win

Not one, but TWO wins yesterday:

1. You almost certainly heard or read that California overturned its ban on same-sex marriage yesterday, becoming the second state in the country to permit legal marriage for gay couples (along with Massachusetts, of course). The decision is somewhat notable because the state’s Supreme Court is predominantly Republican, and you know how those Republicans hate The Gay.

It almost goes without saying that this breathes new life into the anti-gay activist crowd, but the L.A. Times said it anyway, and you can bet your bippy that Karl Rove is sitting in his underworld lair somewhere getting it all down on paper to use as a wedge issue for the fall campaign.

Meanwhile, I though Louis Bayard’s piece at Salon this morning was a nice bit from the point of view of a gay man who has always known what the Supreme Court of California apparently just discovered: that gay people live normal lives, raise normal families, and that most of them aren’t any different from most of us. It’s good that the law is on their side now, but it’s time to stop making such a big deal out of it.

I also liked this post at Beacon Broadside by author Patricia Gozember, which points out that same-sex marriage has been legal here in Massachusetts for more than four years now (wow!) and, contrary to the wild ravings of the right-wing fundie freakshow crowd, absolutely nothing bad has happened to any heterosexual marriage as a result, nor have people been marrying dogs or sheep or any of the other ridiculous claims made by those awful people.

I genuinely believe that eventually same-sex marriage will be legal in most states, even though it may take a long time to achieve.

2. You probably did NOT hear or read that the United States Senate voted yesterday to overturn the FCC’s ruling that would have allowed greater concentration of media ownership in individual markets.

Late last year, the FCC made a ruling that allowed for cross-ownership of newspapers and broadcast outlets in the same media market. This situation, traditionally known as “duopoly” in broadcast regulation lingo, was a strict no-no for decades. Despite the fact that 99% of the public response received by the FCC during their open comment period was opposed to rescinding duopoly, and despite a stern admonishment from Congress not to do it, the FCC did it anyway. After all, why listen to Congress when the media industry is paying you off on a regular basis, right? John Kerry (remember him, the guy who was too dull to be President…) marshalled the bill through the Senate, where it was passed by voice vote. The bill must still make it through the House, which shouldn’t be too much of a challenge, but will almost certainly be vetoed by George Bush. So it’s not a clean win, but it’s a very good start and shows that occasionally Washington listens to its constituents.

EmailStumbleUponRedditFacebookTwitterGoogle+Share

Related Posts:

All Original Content Copyright © BrianKaneOnline
All Other Content Copyright © Its Original Authors

Built on Notes Blog Core
Powered by WordPress

Switch to our mobile site