Maine's Question 1

[Holmes]

They've surely demonstrated that they can hire a signature gathering firm from Michigan and a campaign director from California, based in DC, who pay signature gatherers $2 for every signature they get. Not every signature is a committed voter.

Look at the public hearing back in April. The no side was able to get about 3000 supporters to dress in red and attend, and the yes wasn't able to get 1000. The no side was able to send tens of thousands of letters to governor Baldacci to help him sign it, the yes side, not so much.

lol ok so everyone who opposes gay "marriage" is obviously just a hired stooge. Yeah, you fit in well with Nancy Pelosi, just dismiss the people, it can't be true, they're just "astroturf."

http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2009/06/18-7

Look up "National Petition Management Inc". I don't make sh**t up.

http://www.aboutnpm.com/

5281 River Ridge Dr
Brighton, MI 48116-4791, United States

[SenatorShadowLands]

And of course, interracial marriage (still between a man and a woman, no relevance to gay marriage), women's suffrage, and segregation are all of course on the same level of fundamental importance as satisfying the indulgences of a minority.

I didn't realize love was an indulgence in your twisted, bigoted world.

I don't think I could have said anything so nonsenical as whatever I placed in bold that you just posted. My original argument, was that higher GOP turnout would benefit Propsition One (that's a given fact, GOP voters support marriage.) and then you tried to say that higher GOP turnout wouldn't help One, at which point I said support for marrige is often even higher than GOP support. Now you're trying to tell me I was right the first time, not the second. Which is it?

You clearly have no idea what you said. You stated that as GOP support increased support for marriage inequality would increase. Such a notion is ridiculous.

How do you figure? GOP voters oppose gay "marriage" so if more people believe in the philosophy of the GOP then more people are going to vote in favor of marriage. GIVEN NOT ALL people who support the GOP are going to vote for marriage as well, but the fact that so many people who normally don't vote for the GOP will vote for marriage makes this fact irrelevant.

[Meeker]

And of course, interracial marriage (still between a man and a woman, no relevance to gay marriage), women's suffrage, and segregation are all of course on the same level of fundamental importance as satisfying the indulgences of a minority.

I didn't realize love was an indulgence in your twisted, bigoted world.

I don't think I could have said anything so nonsenical as whatever I placed in bold that you just posted. My original argument, was that higher GOP turnout would benefit Propsition One (that's a given fact, GOP voters support marriage.) and then you tried to say that higher GOP turnout wouldn't help One, at which point I said support for marrige is often even higher than GOP support. Now you're trying to tell me I was right the first time, not the second. Which is it?

You clearly have no idea what you said. You stated that as GOP support increased support for marriage inequality would increase. Such a notion is ridiculous.

How do you figure? GOP voters oppose gay "marriage" so if more people believe in the philosophy of the GOP then more people are going to vote in favor of marriage. GIVEN NOT ALL people who support the GOP are going to vote for marriage as well, but the fact that so many people who normally don't vote for the GOP will vote for marriage makes this fact irrelevant.

The reason people switch between parties is not because of a change in social values year to year. They switch because of either economic reasons, corruption issues, personal flavor, resentment at a President, etc. People don't go "Obama isn't doing so well... oh and now I don't favor gay marriage". Again, you appear to lack a basic understanding of many of these issues. You appear to be quite young from your writing style so I hope you change some as you mature.

[Small Business Owner of Any Repute]

ME-2 is largely rural, friendlier to Conservatives and is more like upstate New York rather than the coastal ME-1. If The ME-2 middle Americans come out in force and the big city people in ME-1 either don't care or vote in favor of marriage, then its sunk.

No, the big city people in ME-1 will be voting for marriage in its current form. It's the conservatives who will be voting to redefine marriage, choosing to roll it back, presumably, to some manner of olde tyme state where blacks can't marry whites because they're worried that someday dogs will be marrying people.



First they marry each other, next they'll be marrying people.  It's a slippery slope.

[Lunar]

whatevsky

you thought I wouldn't notice you using my word??

[Meeker]

whatevsky

you thought I wouldn't notice you using my word??

Whatevia.

[SenatorShadowLands]

And of course, interracial marriage (still between a man and a woman, no relevance to gay marriage), women's suffrage, and segregation are all of course on the same level of fundamental importance as satisfying the indulgences of a minority.

I didn't realize love was an indulgence in your twisted, bigoted world.

I don't think I could have said anything so nonsenical as whatever I placed in bold that you just posted. My original argument, was that higher GOP turnout would benefit Propsition One (that's a given fact, GOP voters support marriage.) and then you tried to say that higher GOP turnout wouldn't help One, at which point I said support for marrige is often even higher than GOP support. Now you're trying to tell me I was right the first time, not the second. Which is it?

You clearly have no idea what you said. You stated that as GOP support increased support for marriage inequality would increase. Such a notion is ridiculous.

How do you figure? GOP voters oppose gay "marriage" so if more people believe in the philosophy of the GOP then more people are going to vote in favor of marriage. GIVEN NOT ALL people who support the GOP are going to vote for marriage as well, but the fact that so many people who normally don't vote for the GOP will vote for marriage makes this fact irrelevant.

The reason people switch between parties is not because of a change in social values year to year. They switch because of either economic reasons, corruption issues, personal flavor, resentment at a President, etc. People don't go "Obama isn't doing so well... oh and now I don't favor gay marriage". Again, you appear to lack a basic understanding of many of these issues. You appear to be quite young from your writing style so I hope you change some as you mature.

And being open to the values of the other party doesn't mean you can form a new opinion or a first opinion altogether? That's quite an assumption to make. Like I said, so many people who don't vote GOP will vote for marriage which makes the people who will vote for the GOP but not marriage a moot point.

[SenatorShadowLands]

ME-2 is largely rural, friendlier to Conservatives and is more like upstate New York rather than the coastal ME-1. If The ME-2 middle Americans come out in force and the big city people in ME-1 either don't care or vote in favor of marriage, then its sunk.

No, the big city people in ME-1 will be voting for marriage in its current form. It's the conservatives who will be voting to redefine marriage, choosing to roll it back, presumably, to some manner of olde tyme state where blacks can't marry whites because they're worried that someday dogs will be marrying people.



First they marry each other, next they'll be marrying people.  It's a slippery slope.

Redefining the new definition. WOW that is QUITE a spin.

See my earlier post on interracial marriage. Black/White Man + Black/White Woman= STILL ONE MAN AND ONE WOMAN. GAY (for those of us who don't seem to know the difference between race and gender) means TWO men or TWO women and therefore doesn't have Jack to do with interracial marriage. Get it?

[Dan the Roman]

And of course, interracial marriage (still between a man and a woman, no relevance to gay marriage), women's suffrage, and segregation are all of course on the same level of fundamental importance as satisfying the indulgences of a minority.

I didn't realize love was an indulgence in your twisted, bigoted world.

I don't think I could have said anything so nonsenical as whatever I placed in bold that you just posted. My original argument, was that higher GOP turnout would benefit Propsition One (that's a given fact, GOP voters support marriage.) and then you tried to say that higher GOP turnout wouldn't help One, at which point I said support for marrige is often even higher than GOP support. Now you're trying to tell me I was right the first time, not the second. Which is it?

You clearly have no idea what you said. You stated that as GOP support increased support for marriage inequality would increase. Such a notion is ridiculous.

How do you figure? GOP voters oppose gay "marriage" so if more people believe in the philosophy of the GOP then more people are going to vote in favor of marriage. GIVEN NOT ALL people who support the GOP are going to vote for marriage as well, but the fact that so many people who normally don't vote for the GOP will vote for marriage makes this fact irrelevant.

The reason people switch between parties is not because of a change in social values year to year. They switch because of either economic reasons, corruption issues, personal flavor, resentment at a President, etc. People don't go "Obama isn't doing so well... oh and now I don't favor gay marriage". Again, you appear to lack a basic understanding of many of these issues. You appear to be quite young from your writing style so I hope you change some as you mature.

And being open to the values of the other party doesn't mean you can form a new opinion or a first opinion altogether? That's quite an assumption to make. Like I said, so many people who don't vote GOP will vote for marriage which makes the people who will vote for the GOP but not marriage a moot point.

There might be truth to that if the Maine GOP opposed Gay Marriage. Both Senators are against the repeal, and the likely GOP candidate for Governor voted for the Gay Marriage Bill.

This is par for course in large parts of the country. In New Hampshire, 11 Republicans voted for the Gay Marriage bill in the legislature and in Massachusetts a majority of the GOP senate caucus voted against putting the amendment on the ballot. In Conneticut the Republican Governor signed the bill, while in California the Republican Governor urged the legislature to overturn Prop 8.

What is happening is not voters moving to accommodate a party. Voters are too self-centered for that. If Republicans are doing better in the NE than a few years ago its because they have accommodated their voters and have dropped opposition to Gay Rights even if they don't openly support marriage.

[Smash255]

And of course, interracial marriage (still between a man and a woman, no relevance to gay marriage), women's suffrage, and segregation are all of course on the same level of fundamental importance as satisfying the indulgences of a minority.

I didn't realize love was an indulgence in your twisted, bigoted world.

I don't think I could have said anything so nonsenical as whatever I placed in bold that you just posted. My original argument, was that higher GOP turnout would benefit Propsition One (that's a given fact, GOP voters support marriage.) and then you tried to say that higher GOP turnout wouldn't help One, at which point I said support for marrige is often even higher than GOP support. Now you're trying to tell me I was right the first time, not the second. Which is it?

You clearly have no idea what you said. You stated that as GOP support increased support for marriage inequality would increase. Such a notion is ridiculous.

How do you figure? GOP voters oppose gay "marriage" so if more people believe in the philosophy of the GOP then more people are going to vote in favor of marriage. GIVEN NOT ALL people who support the GOP are going to vote for marriage as well, but the fact that so many people who normally don't vote for the GOP will vote for marriage makes this fact irrelevant.

The reason people switch between parties is not because of a change in social values year to year. They switch because of either economic reasons, corruption issues, personal flavor, resentment at a President, etc. People don't go "Obama isn't doing so well... oh and now I don't favor gay marriage". Again, you appear to lack a basic understanding of many of these issues. You appear to be quite young from your writing style so I hope you change some as you mature.

And being open to the values of the other party doesn't mean you can form a new opinion or a first opinion altogether? That's quite an assumption to make. Like I said, so many people who don't vote GOP will vote for marriage which makes the people who will vote for the GOP but not marriage a moot point.

What are you basing that on?  This is MAINE we are talking about here.   The state very likely has more Republicans who support gay marriage than Democrats who are against Gay Marriage, and Independents in Maine aren't exactly socially conservative.

[Holmes]

Both Senators are against the repeal.

Source? All I can find is Collins saying she'll stay neutral like she always does for statewide issues.

Speaking of Peter Mills - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K60a6kjzpfI

[Dan the Roman]

Both Senators are against the repeal.

Source? All I can find is Collins saying she'll stay neutral like she always does for statewide issues.

Speaking of Peter Mills - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K60a6kjzpfI

Collins may be presumptive, but she did eventually come out and record an ad against Question 1 back in 2005, so I assumed that she probably would here. I guess she sees no reason to act yet. But she definitely doubt she would support it, she has like an 86 from HCR, and I thought she said something positive about the law when it was passed. Oh well.

Peter Mills is awesome. If he wins the nomination he is Maine's next Governor. Granted that was true in 2006 as well.

[Holmes]

http://www.wgme.com/template/inews_wire/wires.regional.me/21c0eee8-www.wgme.com.shtml

Mmm, church influence.

[Verily]

I find it amusing that it's gotten to the point where you can't tell the difference between a pro-gay marriage and an anti-gay marriage group by the name. "Stand for Marriage Maine"? That could be either (though obviously by context is an anti-gay group).

[Meeker]

I find it amusing that it's gotten to the point where you can't tell the difference between a pro-gay marriage and an anti-gay marriage group by the name. "Stand for Marriage Maine"? That could be either (though obviously by context is an anti-gay group).

I was just thinking about that the other day. Here in Washington the pro-domestic partnerships ballot measure group is called Washington Families Standing Together, a name which could be used by the anti-folks as well (their name is Protect Marriage Washington which I suppose could be used by gay rights groups in a Maine situation).

Personally I think it's a rather ingenious move on gay rights groups to neutralize any sort of naming advantage the anti-gay rights movement might have. Clearly the people running these campaigns read the chapter on framing the debate in their political science textbooks.

[Lunar]

Also, people don't normally like to fight as much for "equal rights" if they already enjoy those rights.  And, of course, a gay man in California can marry and of the same women I can haha

Although I think a more firebrand name for an organization than "Families Standing Together" could generate more volunteers and funds.

[Holmes]

Yes on 1 = . Holding a rally tomorrow night at the Augusta Civic Center... but not letting anyone go, banning media coverage and having mostly all out-of-state speakers.

No on 1 wins again.

The NO on 1/Protect Maine Equality campaign today challenged its opponents to allow the media into their Augusta rally tomorrow featuring several out-of-state, headline speakers opposed to marriage equality.  At the same time, NO on 1 announced that it will hold a series of "community conversations" around the state to engage Mainers on this important question of fairness and equality.

    "The contrast could not be clearer," said NO on 1 campaign manager Jesse Connolly.  "While our opponents have speakers flown in from San Diego and Washington, DC to speak out against loving Maine couples and families, we're having real conversations, Mainer to Mainer, about the importance of marriage equality."

The opposition rally at the Augusta Civic Center features Tony Perkins, the president of the Family Research Council, Harry Jackson, Jr., of Hope Christian Church in Washington, D.C., Chris Clark from East Clairemont Baptist Church in San Diego, and a special message from James Dobson of Focus on the Family, based in Colorado Springs.  The ticketed event is closed to the press.

While the opponents' rally at the Augusta Civic Center will be closed to the media and people without tickets, NO on 1's Augusta "community conversation," the first in a statewide series, will be open to the general public and the media.  That conversation is happening tomorrow, Sunday, September 13th from 6:30 p.m. to 8:00 p.m. at South Parish Congregational Church, 9 Church Street, Augusta.

    "It makes no sense to hold a big rally and then deny access to the general public and ban coverage of the event by the Maine media," said Connolly.  "If the organizers really want to show people that they are not alone, why would they close the doors to the general public, to television news viewers and to Maine newspaper readers?"

[Holmes]

Ad - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZaRNzlwc7Sk

Focus on The Family, the Christian Civic League, NOM, or the Portland Diocese are definitely not special interest groups. At least our special interest groups were from Maine, and even had the word "Maine" in their names.

Also their logo looks a lot like prop 8's. Hamasecsuel marige will be teached in schools. Consequences consequences. There will be lawsuits everywhere. Mmhmm.

And I see no real Maine waitresses and teachers.

[Holmes]

That AP story that the ad showed? It wasn't even a story headline that AP wrote... I hope they get bitchy about it and sue for misrepresentation.

Radio ad - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_fJRFXjjQH0

Sounds like Microsoft Sam, and they made the legislators look evil(liberal). It's funny.

[Holmes]

No on 1's counter-ad, going on air tonight.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Gm7HvaCW2k

Ah, ad war begins...

[Markos is polling Maine right now btw... aside from this I don't know what he can really be polling, but ok]

[Nhoj]

No on 1's counter-ad, going on air tonight.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Gm7HvaCW2k

Ah, ad war begins...

[Markos is polling Maine right now btw... aside from this I don't know what he can really be polling, but ok]

2010 g0verners race i suppose? more likely obama and health care approval.

[Holmes]

Yeah, I suppose so. Speaking of governor's race, in case anyone(Dan the Roman) cares, some Democratic candidates made their stance on Question 1 public recently(via Dirigo Blue). We know Mills is voting no, and so is Rowe.

Elizabeth Libby Mitchell:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Rosa Scarcelli:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Steve Rowe from his site:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Holmes]

This definitely looks winnable. I know cross tabs have high MoE, but what's sad is the low support among Democrats. But it's good to see no is apparently winning independents.

Landline-only, if anyone cares... no cellphone-only residents interviewed.

[Small Business Owner of Any Repute]

Frankly, it's disappointing that marriage is proving to be such an uphill climb in Maine.

[Holmes]

It's ok. Last year, Palin was the most popular politician in the country last week. There are over 50 days until election day, the peak of the campaign hasn't even begun yet. But yes on 1 is doing a crappy job, in my opinion... compared to yes on 8. And no on 1 is doing waaay better compared to no on 8. This is a fun campaign to follow.

That rally that the media wasn't invited to the other week, WGME got in and brought a camera.
 
http://www.wgme.com/newsroom/top_stories/videos/wgme_vid_632.shtml

Eh... "history is on our side", "we're prosecuted for our beliefs", blah blah. Crowd looked unenthusiastic in the clips they showed. And of course, the Bishop has to make a speech.