The Maine Reason

Last week, Maine became the 31st state to reject a referendum that would have legalized gay marriage.

With 87 percent of precincts reporting, gay-marriage foes had 53 percent of the vote in a referendum that asked Maine voters whether they wanted to repeal a law allowing same-sex marriage that had passed the Legislature and was signed by Democratic Gov. John Baldacci.

“The institution of marriage has been preserved in Maine and across the nation,” said Frank Schubert, the chief organizer for Stand for Marriage Maine, which lobbied for the repeal.

For the gay rights movement, which has gained a foothold in New England, it was a stinging defeat. Gay marriage has now lost in every state — 31 in all — in which it has been put to a popular vote. Gay-rights activists had hoped to buck that trend in Maine, framing same-sex marriage as a matter of equality for all families in a campaign that used 8,000 volunteers to get out the message.

Five states have legalized gay marriage — Iowa, Massachusetts, Vermont, New Hampshire and Connecticut — but all did so through legislation or court rulings, not by popular vote.

Portland resident Sarah Holman said she was torn, but decided — despite her conservative upbringing — to vote in favor of letting gays marry.

“They love and they have the right to love. And we can’t tell somebody how to love,” said Holman, 26.

Hold on a minute here…let’s get the record straight. This vote did not outlaw homosexuality, it only outlawed gay marriage. They are still free to love to each other.

While the gay marriage opponents claimed victory, Jesse Connolly, campaign manager for No on 1/Protect Maine Equality, held off conceding until early Wednesday, when he issued a statement vowing to continue to press the issue.

The fight for marriage equality will continue, he told supporters at the Holiday Inn ballroom, where a buffet table included a three-tiered wedding cake — with two grooms standing side by side, two brides standing side by side and the inscription: “We all do!”

And this is why you will never, ever, ever see gay marriage be voted on by the people, and not ushered in by a small handful of judges. The pro-gay marriage movement knows that gay marriage will not survive a vote by the people…and they will stop at nothing to keep you from voting on it.

But hey, if you want to keep electing people that choose to effectively put duct tape over your mouths, by all means…

Mass Gays Want Federal Benefits

Married gay couples in Massachusetts are seeking the federal benefits that regular married couples enjoy.

Mary Ritchie, a Massachusetts State Police trooper, has been married for almost five years and has two children. But when she files her federal income tax return, she’s not allowed to check the “married filing jointly” box.

That’s because Ritchie and her spouse, Kathleen Bush, are a gay couple, and the federal Defense of Marriage Act makes them ineligible to file joint tax returns.

Now Ritchie, Bush and more than a dozen others are suing the federal government, claiming the act discriminates against gay couples and is unconstitutional because it denies them access to federal benefits that other married couples receive, such as pensions and health insurance. Plaintiffs also include Dean Hara, the widower of former U.S. Rep. Gerry Studds, the first openly gay member of the House of Representatives.

In Ritchie’s case, she and her spouse say they have paid nearly $15,000 more in taxes than they would have if they had been able to file joint returns.

“It saddens us because we love our country,” Ritchie said. “We are taxpayers. We live just like anyone else in our community. We do everything just like every other family, like every other married couple, and we are treated like less than that.”

Well, to be fair, you don’t do everything just like every other family, or every other married couple.

The lawsuit was being filed Tuesday in federal court in Boston by Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders, the anti-discrimination group that brought a successful legal challenge leading to Massachusetts becoming the first state in the nation to legalize gay marriage in 2004.
[...]
The Defense of Marriage Act, or DOMA, was enacted by Congress in 1996 when it appeared Hawaii would soon legalize same-sex marriage and opponents worried that other states would be forced to recognize such marriages. The new lawsuit challenges only the portion of the law that prevents the federal government from affording Social Security and other benefits to same-sex couples.
[...]
All the plaintiffs are from Massachusetts and have marriages that are recognized by the state. They include a U.S. Postal Service employee who wasn’t allowed to add her spouse to her health insurance plan; a Social Security Administration retiree who was denied health insurance for his spouse; three widowers who were denied death benefits for funeral expenses; and a man who has been denied a passport bearing his married name.

In response to the lawsuit, Kris Mineau, President of the Massachusetts Family Institute released the following statement:

DOMA passed the Congress by overwhelming, bi-partisan majorities—342-67 in the House and 85-14 in the Senate—and was signed into law by President Bill Clinton.

DOMA is not a conservative or liberal law, it is an American law signed to protect children and families that has been upheld by previous federal court rulings.

Americans overwhelmingly believe marriage to be the union of one man and one woman. Forty-five states have laws supporting traditional marriage and thirty out of thirty states have affirmed marriage as one man and one woman in their state constitutions.

Same-sex marriage activists simply cannot win a public vote so they force their will upon the citizenry through select, activist judges.

The court should reject this thinly-veiled attempt to impose same-sex marriage on American citizens who have overwhelmingly voted otherwise.

Gay Marriage; Gay Divorce

Gay couples in Massachusetts can get married in part thanks to the efforts of Julie and Hillary Goodridge, a lesbian couple who fought for gay marriage in the Commonwealth. Now, years after they announced they were separating, the poster-couple for gay marriage in Massachusetts has filed for divorce.

A lesbian couple who led the fight for gay marriage in Massachusetts has filed for divorce. Julie and Hillary Goodridge were among seven gay couples who filed a lawsuit that led to a court ruling making Massachusetts the first state to legalize same-sex marriages in 2004. The couple became the public face of the debate in the state and married the first day same-sex marriages became legal.

Coakley OKs Ballot Question To Reinstate 1913 Marriage Law

While the news shouldn’t be shocking, it still is. Attorney General Martha Coakley has approved a ballot question to reinstant the 1913 Marriage Law that was recently repealed by the Legislature.

In her ruling, Coakley said the question’s supporters, MassResistance, had met the necessary technical requirement for filing a ballot question. The group must now gather 33,000 signatures by the end of October to appear on the November 2010 ballot.

Coakley differentiated between her official duties and any personal feeling she may have on the issue.

“Our decision that this referendum meets the constitutional requirements as to subject matter does not mean that it has our support, but simply that the constitutional requirements are met for the proponents of the referendum to obtain further signatures,” Coakley said in a statement.

In Massachusetts, differentiating between official duties and personal feelings is a rarity. The will of the people has been brushed aside by the Legislature time and time again, and yet, somehow, these buffoons on Beacon Hill keep getting reelected.

When this question comes to a vote, and the 1913 Marriage Law is reinstated, how long do you think it will be before the legislature ignores the will of the people?

Gay Marriage Vote To Backfire On Democrats?

House Speaker Salvatore DiMasi is trying to force a vote on the out-of-state gay marriage bill, which is leaving some democrats feeling a bit shafted.

“He has no concern for the members,” said one legislator, who requested anonymity. “This is stuff we should be dealing with in the first year (of the session). It’s a lose-lose for anyone facing a challenger.”

Another irate Democrat compared DiMasi unfavorably to his predecessor, former House Speaker Thomas Finneran, saying the controversial vote could alienate support for the embattled North End Democrat.

“Finneran always did things to protect the membership,” the lawmaker said, “and he (DiMasi) has only worked to protect himself.”

Even pols who support the repeal of the 1913 ban on out-of-state residents from marrying here are concerned about the political timing, which renews the roiling gay marriage debate and provides opponents with fresh fodder only months before voters decide who to send to Beacon Hill.

How bizarre. It’s bad timing only because it brings back the gay marriage debate? While this certainly isn’t great timing for gay marriage supporters and supporters of the repeal, I would suggest that it’s bad timing because it takes time from the legislature to worry about problems within the borders of the Commonwealth rather than trying to advance the gay marriage lobby. We have the rising costs of health care and energy and the Legislature is going to take time to worry about whether or not out-of-state gay couples can get married in Massachusetts? Please… this is a complete waste of their time.

Meanwhile, the state Senate has voted in favor of raising taxes on all cell phones, and voted against requiring convicted child rapists to register with the Sex Offender Registry Board for life, against 10-year mandatory minimum sentences for the first offense of rape of a child by force, and against prohibiting convicted sex offenders from operating ice cream trucks. Is our biggest problem right now whether or not out-of-state gay couples can get married here? I don’t think so.

Let’s worry about our own problems first before worrying about the problems of people that don’t live in the Commonwealth.

Bad political timing? It’s only bad political timing if you believe supporting the repeal could have adverse effects on your re-election.