Print
E-mail
Tell us what you think!Send a letter to the editor about this or any other article in The Maine Campus.
Organizations on both sides of the same-sex marriage debate are ramping up their advertising campaigns on television and radio.
Both sides have accused the other of skirting the issue, and Stand for Marriage Maine — a group advocating for elimination of Maine’s same-sex marriage law — has come under heavy fire for its advertisements.
Mark Sullivan, spokesperson for Protect Maine Equality, said his organization wants to ensure same-sex couples are not discriminated against, and that allowing all couples to marry is the only way to prevent such discrimination.
Stand for Marriage Maine has released two radio advertisements and two television advertisements. One advertisement features a Boston College law professor who says “legal experts predict a flood of lawsuits against individuals, small businesses and religious groups” if the bill passes and that “homosexual marriage [will be] taught in public schools, whether parents like it or not.”
Its second advertisement features Charla Bansley, a teacher at Calvary Chapel Christian School in Orrington and Maine director of Concerned Women for America, an organization dedicated to bringing biblical principles to all levels of public policy, according to its Web site. In the advertisement, Bansley says the new law would result in “homosexual marriage being taught in Maine schools,” and a Massachusetts couple talks about their 7-year-old boy reading “King & King” — a book about a prince who marries another man — in school.
David Connerty-Marin, a spokesperson for the Maine Department of Education, said L.D. 1020 would not affect Maine’s education system. Connerty-Marin said the state does not require ‘family life’ classes, and such classes generally do not include discussion about marriage. Schools that do discuss marriage do so on a school-by-school basis, so the decision whether or not to discuss same-sex marriage would be the school’s.
“The fact of the matter is that Maine law makes no reference whatsoever to the teaching of marriage in schools. And so, any changes to the marriage laws would have no effect whatsoever on if or how it’s taught in Maine schools,” Connerty-Marin said.
The No on 1 campaign, run by Protect Maine Equality, has released four advertisements thus far — two standalone advertisements and two responding to those made by Stand for Marriage Maine. Its first advertisements feature a young man with two mothers who says he wants his parents to be seen the same as a heterosexual couple, and Bill Whitten, a Yarmouth resident and UMaine alum who has two daughters, one straight and one gay. Whitten, who played football in college and later joined the Marine Corps, said he’s “been through a transition” and is “much more accepting of everybody. Everyone should be allowed to live the way they live.”
Scott Fish, communications director for Stand for Marriage Maine, said, “The issue isn’t whether someone is talking about gay marriage in the classroom,” but defended the advertisement.
“For now, for example, when marriage comes up, it’s generally taught in what they call family life classes,” Fish said. “[Right now] they talk about the legal definition of marriage, between one man and one woman. If the new law says, ‘No, that’s no longer the definition of marriage in Maine,’ then marriage becomes almost ‘any two will do.’ And that’s what will be taught in classrooms. And I think — our side thinks — that that’s a big change, and will have a big impact.”
Fish said the No on 1’s advertisements don’t talk about why marriage should be redefined in Maine. “At issue, what the vote is about, is the redefining of marriage in Maine, and I don’t see that any of those TV ads talk about that,” Fish said. “They talk about all different kinds of things, but they don’t tell redefining marriage and law is a good thing. They don’t tell Mainers why it’s in Maine’s best interest to have a legal redefining of marriage, and yet that’s what the vote is about on Nov. 3.”
Sullivan said Yes on 1’s advertisements miss the bill’s point.
“If any ads are skirting the issues, it’s the ads that are coming from our opponents, because our ads deal directly with the issues that are at stake in Question 1, which is fairness and equality for all Maine people,” Sullivan said. “Marriage equality means that all Mainers will be recognized to have the same rights under the law. That’s what’s at stake on Nov. 3. The issues that Scott [Fish] raises and have been raised in their ads have nothing to do with what’s on the ballot on Nov. 3.”
“The marriage law does not reference education in any way, shape or form, so to raise this as an issue is strictly to distract away from the real issues of the campaign and to try and evoke negative passions which are not in the best interest of making good public policy,” Sullivan said.
Related Posts:- Voters veto gay marriage (November 4, 2009)
- Editorial: Opponents of same-sex marriage don’t have a leg to stand on (October 8, 2009)
- Maine to vote on gay marriage in Nov. (September 10, 2009)
- Wilde Stein remains vigilant in the face of gay marriage setback (November 5, 2009)
- Question 1 seeks to reject L.D. 1020 (October 19, 2009)
That Gay couples seek to marry is not an attack on marriage. If anything it is an ENDORSEMENT of marriage, an acknowledgment that it far better to encourage couples toward monogamy and commitment, rather than relegating them to lives of loneliness and promiscuity.
Ask any Straight couple why they choose to marry. Their answer will not be, “We want to get married so that we can have sex and make babies!” That would be absurd, since couples do not need to marry to make babies, nor is the desire to make babies a prerequisite for obtaining a marriage license.
No, the reason couples choose to marry is to make a solemn declaration before friends and family members that they wish to make a commitment to one another’s happiness, health, and well-being, to the exclusion of all others. Those friends and family members will subsequently act as a force of encouragement for that couple to hold fast to their vows.
THAT’S what makes marriage a good thing. Gay couples recognize that and support that. And I suspect that those who want to prohibit Gay couples from marrying do so only because they don’t want to allow Gay couples the opportunity to PROVE that they are up to the task.
For those who suggest that the issue of marriage is best left up to the states, it’s important to remember that the federal government has a vested interest in married couples for the purposes of income taxes and Social Security benefits. From the fed’s point of view, it wouldn’t do for a couple to be considered married in one state, then magically “UN-married” once they decide to move somewhere else.
[Reply]
This sounds a lot like California and their Prop 8 woes. As it turned out, the anti-gay-marriage crowd has little to support their hostile position beyond exaggeration, shameless scare tactics, and outright lies.
The shocking insensitivity of their coldhearted unwillingness to support the children and families of gay couples is surpassed only by their brazen hypocrisy at basing such positions on religion.
How does any religion lead one to actively fight against happy, committed, monogamous couples who want to build a life of nurturing and love together?
Some day we will look back in wonder and shame that in the 21st century we still need to debate in America whether or not all people should be treated the same by the law.
[Reply]
The people who collected signatures in Maine to stop marriage equality did so by misleading people, lying, and using deception. These people who claim to be “right” or “moral” but then use evil, sinful, lying ways. Here’s what one of my friends from Maine told me.
Sadly “Stand for Marriage Maine” collected many signatures by misleading people to believe they would not be able to vote unless they “registered” with those who were collecting signatures. At the Old Port Festival a woman at the top of Exchange Street was collecting signatures for the vote to ban gay marriage, but she was promoting it as if you were registering to vote. She said “Are you registered votes in Maine would you like to register here?” It was one sentence, she didn’t pause. I asked what we were registering for and she said “To determine if marriage is between a man and a woman or a man and a man or whatever.” Then came the best part, she said “Would you like to sign so you can vote?” As if I couldn’t vote if I didn’t sign. She wasn’t telling people that it was a petition to stop gay marriage by putting it to a vote, she was convincing people to sign thinking that they had to or they wouldn’t be allowed to vote. There was nothing that even indicated what or why people where to sign. It’s not about Gay Marriage, it’s about Hate and Control. The fact they collected signatures so quickly only proves they preyed on the elderly and ignorant. This only provides evidence that many Mainers still have much growing up to do.
Do you really want to support people who lied to you, deceived you, who are trying to force you to spread discrimination and bigotry? Don’t let these anti-gay people control your lives and choices. Support marriage equality in Maine and vote NO on 1.
[Reply]
“People pay for what they do, and further still, for what they have allowed themselves to become. And they pay simply; by the lives they lead.” James Baldwin
These Anti-Equality Heterosexuals will surely reap what they have sown.
God is watching them. And he is watching them mistreat human beings in HIS name, no less.
I am certain God will take the Heterosexual sins of abuse, dehumanization, murder, rape and torture of HIS Gay & Lesbian creations FAR more seriously than he will take the genitalia of another’s beloved.
[Reply]
I may only be 13, but I find this to be a terrible and, frankly annoying thing that people can be so closed minded of this.
I mean, I let people be who they are, it’s not my decision to tell them who they are at all. But my being bisexual, I’m actually a little scared that this law may be vetoed by the public.
Another thing, what’s up with the vote yes commercial saying that “gay marriage will be pushed on our children through public schools”? One, marriage has never been taught in Maine schools in the first place, and two, we need a paper signed for sex ed, it would be just as easy to do it for the gay marriage lessons too, correct?
[Reply]
(Sorry for double post, the comment box had a max, apparently)
Everyone should have a choice of who they marry, and if it is someone of the same sex, well, why the hell not? If I wanna marry a chick, why can’t it be here? I feel very strongly of this matter, and I am currently writing a paper on this matter and how I feel about this, and the opinion of some others is taking this.
I really want to raise awareness of what is going on right now, before it could just possibly be too late.
[Reply]