You would think the results would have been less close by looking at the map. It definitely highlights No on 1's downfall, which was outreach in central Maine. Had they focused on Lewiston and Augusta as much as Portland and the York region, it would have been different.
Not to mention, if Maine gets a sh**t Republican governor this year, there won't be another shot at it for a while.
My impression of the campaign defending gay marriage in Maine that it was much tighter and better organized than the Prop 8 folks in CA -.
I wasn't aware of the ins and outs, but the TV ads produced in Maine were among some of the tightest and well targeted I've ever seen regarding the issue, for example. From what I read, their organization seemed very spot on too. Right until the end I sincerely believed that their organizational strength was going to pull them across the finish line
It's just a hard issue to win on referendum -- for now, will be different by 2012 & beyond
They lost it all in the last week. They stupidly filed a complaint against a guidance counselor for appearing in a Yes ad, and not advocating for the ban, but saying that it would be taught in schools. He was suspended from his job, and the newspapers for the last week were dominated by stories about the No side wanting to fire everyone who disagrees with them as well as the conversation being about homosexuality in the schools.
The Gay rights groups have to get it that the demographics are destiny arguments, as much as they make them feel better, are offensive to a large number of people, including those who as a policy matter want equality. By fighting it as a moral issue, but treating dissent as evil, they are worrying a large number of voters that their agenda is not legal but cultural. And the problem is it is. I get tired of people complaining about the Prop 8 ads lying. The ads for the gay marriage bans in Michigan lied about the impact on potential domestic partnerships. The problem with the California ads about kids being taught about gay marriage is that they were true, and the No campaign had no response when that became apparent.
The reason I think Marriage is necessary is that 70% of the law is presumption IE. if someone is married they are presumed to be next of kin, presumed to have power of attorney. That resumption comes not from the law but fromthe same 6000 years of history anti-gay marriage advocates want to protect. You may nominally have all the same rights with civil unions, but but if you have to go to court to 50% of the time to have them recognized then equality is nominal.\|
Its why I hate the moral argument. By making it about morals, you seed the high ground. The problem with separate but equal is not that separate is inherently wrong, but that separate cannot be equal until we have reached a point of acceptance at which the issue is moot anyway.
