Every Gay Should Know #1: Maine's Question 1 Ad Campaign

[Ed. Note: Every Tuesday, we highlight an event, figure or tidbit of gay culture. Topics will range from the Stonewall Riots to Bea Arthur. Harvey Milk to the etymology of “fag.” Personally, just about all of these fall under “Everybody Should Know” for us. Bea included.]

On May 5, 2009, the Maine House of Representatives passed “An Act To End Discrimination in Civil Marriage and Affirm Religious Freedom” – a bill that would allow same-sex marriage in the state. The proposal had already been approved by the state Senate, and needed only to be signed by Governor John Baldacci in order to become law.

Baldacci signed the bill the next day, and the law was set to go into effect September 14, 2009.

Barring some sort of crazy intervention, of course.

Paperwork to launch a people's veto campaign was put in by Reverend Bob Emrich on May 7. Leading the opposition to gay rights would be the comically ironic "Stand For Marriage Maine," a Catholic Church-sponsored organization. The group hired the same public relations company that was successful in overturning gay-rights with Proposition 8 in California last November. With over the 55,087 signatures needed (almost double that, actually), Stand For Marriage succeeded in putting the issue to ballot on November 3, 2009 (the original Sept. 14 date was subsequently pushed back).

Ultimately, same-sex marriage was narrowly repealed in the state with a 52.8/47.2% split.

* * * * * * * * * *
No doubt the most angering facet of the Maine debate and subsequent election was the outcome. Proponents of gay rights were left overwhelmingly disappointed and surprised (figure 1) at the results.

figure 1: wtf?

However, perhaps just as mind-blowing were the tactics being used by Stand For Marriage Maine. Their ads would have been embarrassingly inaccurate and misleading if they weren't somehow effective. Most of their campaign revolved around the perception that somehow gay marriage (and voting "No" to Question 1: "Do you want to reject the new law that lets same-sex couples marry and allows individuals and religious groups to refuse to perform these marriages?") would lead to "homosexual marriage being pushed on Maine students." Because that is how sequitur arguments work.

Haha. I'd like to point out that the scare tactics being used here involve the words "Kissing and Hugging" next to "Gay Sex." It turns out that I've been having gay sex with several family members for years.

I would also like to invite everyone to post in the comments section what they think the scripted stage direction to Jen was at (0:22) in the second video.

But eek! That's what what was happening in Massachusetts after gay marriage was allowed four years ago? That sounds scary. I just hope that that NPR soundbite wasn't taken out of context.

(1:58) Tovia Smith: But many teachers say they're less afraid now since the high court decision legalizing gay marriage. Deb Allen teaches eighth-grade sex ed. in Brookline. She keeps a picture of her lesbian partner and their kids on her desk and gay equality signs wall. Allen says she's already been teaching a gay-friendly curriculum for nearly a decade, but she says she does begin this year feeling a bit more emboldened.

Deb Alen: In my mind, I know that, 'OK, this is legal now.' If somebody wants to challenge me, I'll say, 'Give me a break. It's legal now.'

Whoops, she was a sex education teacher. Right, forgot to mention that. We would not want to risk the passage of a gay-rights bill emboldening our sex education teachers to teach about sex. Or answer questions about sex. Guhroossssss!!!11 Asked by the state's Education Commissioner to evaluate the legitimacy of this fear, Maine Attorney General Janet Mills had this to say:

"I have scoured Maine laws relating to the education of its children for any references to marriage in the public school curricula," Mills wrote in her opinion. "I have found none."

This should end things, right? That sounds pretty definitive and convincing from an Attorney General. Obviously, the logical thing for Stand For Marriage to do is to apologize for the confusion when they completely made something up. As full-grown mature adults in positions of power, and not a group of petulant fourth graders, they believe in respectable discourse on the issues at hand.

Just kidding:

Ugh. This couple. The Worthlins? More like the Worstlins, am I right? It turns out that they conveniently moved into this Lexington district, fully knowing that there was already a pending lawsuit against the school for their anti-bias curriculum. They filed papers to join this suit a week after moving there.

Paul Ash, Lexington School District superintendent, told the [Bay Area Reporter] that the district had made several attempts to appease the Wirthlins and accommodate their religious convictions, but that he "came to the conclusion that they had no intent on settling. At the attempt to mediate prior to the case it was abundantly clear that the Wirthlins and Parkers had no intention of coming to a compromise, that they wanted a public fight. I only saw political campaigns and religious vigils. I never saw any evidence, not even a hint, that there was any intention on the part of these families to work out an agreement."

Holes in their facade of "unwitting victims" did not take long to appear. They were already members of MassResistance, which has been called an "anti-gay hate group" by the Southern Poverty Law Center. They're also related to the key political strategist for the Mormon Church in their efforts to destroy gay marriage, Dick (so perfect) Wirthlin. So yeah, I guess it is so weird that they would find themselves in this progressive school district (I do not guess it is so weird that they would find themselves in this progressive school district). The Wirthlins should team up with Richard and Mayumi Heene and go to Hoax School together.

To reiterate what I said before, though: as laughable and misleading as these ads are, they were ultimately successful. I hope that if you didn't before, you know now the sort of arguments and people that pro-rights activists are dealing with. Perhaps we should stoop to their level of outrageous, barely tangential statements: our angle will be that gay marriage can save the economy. Oh wait.

Election Round-ups: What We've Lost and What We've Gained

As most of you are aware, last week many states across the U.S. held elections to vote on various propositions and mayoral positions. Included in this election cycle were a few pieces of legislation that have specific impact on LGBT Americans and their families, such as Referendum 71, making domestic partnerships completely equivalent to civil marriages in the state of Washington, the election of openly gay canditate Mark Kleinschmidt as mayor of Chapel Hill, NC, and the passage of Ordinacne 1856 in Kalamazoo, MI (where I grew up!), adding gay and transgender people to the city's pre-existing nondiscrimination ordinance.

But the most widely publicized and watched election last Tuesday was the Proposition 1 vote in Maine. With the opportunity to become the first state to legalize same-sex marriage through legislation as opposed to through the courts, Maine voters approved Prop 1 by a margin of 6%, striking down the law legalizing same-sex marriage in their state. Like California this time last year, Maine fell prey to the twisted lies and pandering of the opponents of marriage equality.

However, despite its similarities to Proposition 8, this loss did not feel the same as the one in California. On election night last year, I remember the feeling of elation as I stood and watched Obama's acceptance speech with a full heart and a heady spirit. And then I remember getting back to my room, receiving a phone call from my friend back home in San Diego letting me know that it was starting to look bad for marriage equality in California, telling me that H8 was pulling ahead. I stayed up that entire evening, obsessively refreshing the poll results. I went to class the next day, drained, burnt out, exhausted, all dregs of my euphoria and excitement from the night before long since crushed by the emotional rollercoaster of election night. Before I could even get angry I felt deflated, betrayed, and incredulous.

This time was different. Proposition 8 taught us to be cautious, to not assume that people will do the right thing if prompted by their leaders (in the courts or otherwise) to do so. Gone is the beguiling concept of a "new era" that clouded our perceptions of the race last year, allowed our loss to blindside us.

Our experience in California taught us that we could lose in Maine; it instructed us in how that loss might feel. More than that though, the passage of Proposition 8 demonstrated that these losses, these set backs, they will not define the success of this movement. They will not choke it, or bury it, or deal the final blow. These losses of equality ultimately will serve only to add fuel to our fire. They remind us that while progress can be won, it will not be handed to us. It must be fought for, and it must be taken. "Human progress is neither automatic nor inevitable... Every step toward the goal of justice requires sacrifice, suffering, and struggle; the tireless exertions and passionate concern of dedicated individuals," (Martin Luther King, Jr). Such was the case in California, and once again in Maine. Far from being reasons to lose hope in our government, in our neighbors, or in ourselves, they should become our motivation, armed with the knowledge that through continued education of our peers and an openness about our lives and our humanity, we will be able repeal these hateful measures. And soon.