Mainers came out in droves for fairness; volunteers from around the country flocked to the state to educate, inform and appeal for equality. There were long dedicated hours spent to preserve the civil right of gay and lesbian couples to marry.
But even in the great state of Maine, there are far too many people who cannot move past the word "marriage" because of its ties to religion and cultural norms. The result is that the filthy hog of homophobia continues to be fed with lies and deception. Witness the reaction of Matt "Bam Bam" Barber. Read it; I know you don't want to, but you need to see the level of hate that propelled discrimination to a victory - historians will pore over this filth decades from now, and wonder how could anyone find satiety in this level of bigotry:
Matt Barber, Director of Cultural Affairs with both Liberty Counsel and Liberty Alliance Action, issued the following statement on news that the voters of Maine have rejected counterfeit "same-sex marriage" by 53% - 47%:
"There's good news and bad news here," said Barber. "The good news is that even in one of the most liberal States in the Union, Maine, the people have once again rejected the ridiculous and oxymoronic notion of 'same sex marriage.' The momentum has again shifted - hopefully for good this time - in favor of protecting legitimate marriage. A counterfeit is a counterfeit. An orange is an orange no matter how much you want it to be a turnip. This isn't about 'marriage.' It's about hurting and broken people desperately seeking affirmation of an objectively deviant lifestyle. One that, even in their heart of hearts, they know to be a dead end. As for the militant 'No on 1' homosexual activists? I'm reminded of spoiled children dressing up and playing house, refusing to come in when mom calls for dinner.
"Here's the bad news. The margin of victory could have been greater. Many behind the 'Yes on 1' campaign, rather than simply telling the truth, chose the Neville Chamberlain approach. They merely circled the wagons around the word 'marriage,' even suggesting that 'domestic partnerships' ('gay marriages' by another name) are acceptable. This makes no sense. If that's a viable compromis e, then why not simply allow 'gay' duos the word 'marriage'? It's an incongruity that demands an explanation. This is an historic battle for the minds and souls of our children - for our very culture. The mealy-mouthed approach must end. This is not just about 'marriage.' It has everything to do with forced affirmation of homosexuality - under penalty of law. Indeed everyone who fought hard to defend marriage in Maine is to be congratulated, but if it weren't for a brave group of truth tellers - Paul Madore, Peter LaBarbera and Brian Camenker - who came to Maine in the final hour to hold a press conference and address the pink elephant in the room - homosexual deviancy and the radical 'gay' agenda - counterfeit marriage might have prevailed."
The fact is that it was, yet again, ain, not yet time to test equality when put to a popular vote. It is proof, yet again, that civil rights should never be decided by mob rule -- but the hateful people behind Yes on 1 capitalize on spreading fear -- suckling pigs at the teat of dying, mud-covered sow of homophobia.
The hog is going to die. Hate alone cannot sustain that beast.
We should find solace in the fact that the children and grandchildren of those who voted to rollback the rights of fellow Mainers will be embarrassed that their relatives were so short-sighted, duped by entities that exist solely to discriminate using the ballot box as a weapon -- and making money off of the hate with great gusto.
I want to thank barista Louise for her tireless citizen journalism during this journey; her reporting and enthusiasm exposed us to the wonderful teamwork of all of the No on 1 efforts, she captured the local faces and voices. She opened our eyes to the work that it takes to educate, motivate and GOTV. And a hat tip to barista Lurleen as well there's much to celebrate in Washington state (still so close!), she illuminated the hard work it took to battle the right-wing haters on the ground there on Referendum 71 in her reporting. It's a coup that the Blend had the perspective of local contributors to show readers the inner workings of activism.
All of those people fighting to kill Yes on 1 are to be heralded for making us see what outreach and organization can do to pull voters to our side -- and the limits of effecting change in firmly held beliefs despite using every tool in the tool box.
It's simply not time, not in this place. What this loss in Maine (and the victory in Washington State) says to me is that I am so grateful that my civil rights, as a person of color, were not put up to a popular vote. As we've seen over and over in the last year, the emergence of naked racism lives despite laws on the books banning discrimination based on race. Reality-based arguments to people who are raised with bias have little motivation to change their thinking outside of keeping their bigotry out of the realm of law-breaking (and even then -- it still occurs!). The feelings simply go underground.
That public expressions of racism have re-emerged and been cultivated by a major political party shows the work the LGBT community has to do as it waits for equality at the federal level. Changing hearts and minds every day is necessary -- not just when there's a pending bigoted mob rule ballot measure.
LGBTs -- and more importantly, allies -- need to come out of the closet advocating for equality in ways large and small. It's the 's the only way to move many voters, particularly the ones who think they don't know someone who is gay. Too many politicians who support us privately still don't have the spine to step up their game when our rights are under attack. That has to change.
I'm sure I'll have more to say later, but I just wanted to thank everyone for putting so much energy into fighting what is an unfair, unconstitutional battle.
Kerry Eleveld @ The Advocate has a great summary of last night's highs and lows. .
Hopeful note: of the estimated number of ballots on hand left to be counted, by far the most are from King County. This is encouraging, since King County is home to a large concentration of our base.
Fun fact: so far we're winning in Snohomish County. That would be Larry Stickney's county. ;)
Here's the official campaign press release
Voters affirming domestic partnerships for gay and lesbian familiesFor Immediate Release - Nov. 3, 2009
Washington may be first state in nation to support domestic partnership by popular vote
SEATTLE - Washington voters today appear to be approving Referendum 71, upholding a state law that provides important legal protections for gays and lesbians and seniors in registered domestic partnerships.
Nearly all of the state's voters now vote by mail and ballots only need to be postmarked by Election Day, not counted by Election Day, so many ballots won't actually be counted until Wednesday or Thursday. In King County, where 'Approve' is winning by a two-to-one margin, fewer than half the ballots have been counted, and the campaign estimates that the ballots that remain to be counted in King County will account for over 30 percent of the votes remaining to be counted statewide.
"Based on the results we saw tonight, we will be making history in moving forward toward full equality for gay and lesbian Washingtonians and their families," said Anne Levinson, Chair of the Approve 71 campaign. "Voters across the state listened to the personal stories of gay and lesbian families, and the challenges they face, and, based on the returns so far, they are sending a resounding message - we want to see all fam fefilies treated equally under the law."
"We believe the end result of this election will be a win not just for the couples and families, but for all Washingtonians who believe in values of fairness and equality," Levinson continued. "It was profoundly wrong for some to try to eliminate the rights of others."
"We are all harmed when any of us is treated differently under the lalaw. We hope this puts an end to the divisive and mean spirited attacks by extremist groups against gay and lesbian Washingtonians and that we can all work together on the real problems confronting all families - gay and non-gay alike."
The Approve 71 campaign was supported by a broad statewide coalition and received more than 500 endorsements, including faith-based groups and organizations representing communities of color, seniors, education, health care and public safety; clergy of many denominations; labor; large employers such as Microsoft, Google, Starbucks, Boeing; small businesses; civic groups, organizations that care for families, immigrant populations and children, who all took a stand in support of their friends, neighbors and co-workers.
"This was one of the shortest statewide ballot campaigns in Washington. We had only weeks between certification and the first ballots going out. If these trends continue, this will be only the sixth referendum approved in the history of our state," said Josh Friedes, Approve 71 Campaign Manager. "To have these kinds of numbers in an off-year election where those who vote tend to be older and more conservative is a real testament to the broad support for Washington's gay and lesbian families."
Friedes and Levinson both noted that because of Referendum 71 - which Protect Marriage Washington, the Family Policy Institute, the National Organization for Marriage and others fought to force on the ballot -Washingtonians now have a greater understanding of the challenges faced by gay and lesbian families and the legal protections they lacked.
"Were it not for the referendum, the law would have just quietly gone into effect in July. By forcing the referendum, those groups have likely done quite a lot to advance the cause of full equality for lesbian and gay families in Washington state," Levinson said.
# # #
Contact:
Sue Evans
media@approve71.orgJosh Friedes
media@approve71.org
Tonight it's happened again, as I am elated to see Maine's Question 5 win, establishing a state registry card system for medical marijuana patients (like Oregon) that will protect them from arrest, expanding the list of conditions for which Mainers may qualify for medical marijuana, and providing a system of dispensaries for patients, as only four of the twelve other states do. But I am also once again crushed to see Maine's Question 1 win. Once again, my people have voted to discriminate against my gay friends and family.
Why does medical marijuana win and gay equality lose on the same ballot? How can Perhaps one lesson can be learned from the marketing of medical marijuana. Advocates have had to fight hard against the iconic Cheech & Chong stigma of marijuana. What they didn't do is appeal to the higher reasoning that shows cannabis to be a superior therapy with less side effects and yada yada yada. What they did do is tell personal stories of extremely sympathetic sick and dying people whose lives were visibly improved through use of medical marijuana.
In other words, medical marijuana was never about nebulous analytical concepts, it was about a real live fragile person who was going to be busted any minute by cops and thrown into a cell for smoking a joint to stop puking from chemotherapy, and your vote mattered; you were the person who could end this cruelty! Marriage equality, as a campaign, needs what my talk radio producer cynically called the "Why Do I Give a Shit" angle. Why does the average married religious conservative het voter need to vote for marriage equality? Because it's fair? Life ain't fair. Because it's a right? Never has been before. What's in it for them? Or, what bad thing is in it for them if they don't support it?
I don't have the answers, but I love asking the questions.
Still, I can't get my mind around the notion of more than half of the people buying the "one man one woman" line and consciously deciding that one certain group of people should be discriminated against. I believe in the 25% Rule (I think it was a Trey Parker notion) that 1/4th of the people are complete idiots (as evidenced by W. Bush's final approval ratings). So at least half the people voting for Q1 really do hate teh gay, but I figure the other half, if asked, probably like gay people just fine and if asked to support a law that gave gay people every single federal and state right of marriage so long as it were called "blumpkins", they'd do it.
I really do think the hang up for many het people is just that frickin' word, "marriage". You and I know gay marriage doesn't hurt het marriage in any way, shape, or form. But what it does do is change a married het couple's perception of their relationship to that word, "marriage". There is a "Why Do I Give a Shit" angle here. Currently, as a married het man, being married means I am like other married het men. We share sterotypical stories of wives who nag, mother-in-law jokes, and hidden stashes of porn.
But if gay marriage comes to pass, who I am as a married man is now like the old familiar straight married guys I identify with plus a new set of gay married guys whose roles and identities are different than mine. Absent any compelling need to change, I'm going to vote to keep things familiar.
(Now you and I know that there is far more in common than not, and we both know the old married gay couples who are as stereotypical as old married straight couples. And my gay friend's tales of a husband who nags, his mother-in-law, and hidden stashes of porn sound just like mine save for gender pronouns. I'm just trying to think like a Yes on Q1 voter for devil's advocacy socacy sake.)
Again, I don't have the answers, and I've written before how I dislike the "civil unions" false compromise that declares gay love "separate but equal". But maybe that is the only logical possible democratic progression toward full marriage equality. After all, I fully believe all adults should be free to use cannabis, and that medical marijuana, while a godsend to the sick and disabled, is a compromise that declares me a criminal for being too healthy. However, after thirteen years and thirteen states of compromise success, we're openly talking now about full legalization in two states. After a generation has grown up in California with some people getting partial access to cannabis, 56% of them are now in support of all people getting full access. After thirteen years of dispensaries in California and the sky not falling, a majority now favors taxing and regulating it commercially. Maybe with thirteen states over thirteen years passing civil unions, and the sky not falling, support would build to replace them with full marriage equality.
Eh, just thinking out loud here. I just can't figure out how 12% of the voters would be compassionate enough to help a granny with glaucoma get some OG Kush, but also think gay people shouldn't be married.
I haven't followed all the ad campaigns, so maybe this was done, but have these No on 1 / No on 8 campaigns been floating around in the mental framework of fairness and equality and rights over these past couple of years? Or have they gone the medical marijuana route with emotional gut punches of a real live person about to suffer a horrible consequence from which only you, the voter, can rescue them?
No comments:
Post a Comment