Print
E-mail
Tell us what you think!Send a letter to the editor about this or any other article in The Maine Campus.
A poll released Monday showed a large drop in support for Questions 2, 3 and 4 on Maine’s Nov. 3 ballot. Opponents of Question 1 also showed small gains.
The poll, conducted by the Portland-based Pan Atlantic SMS Group, found 48.8 percent of registered voters were likely to vote against Question 4 — the Taxpayer Bill of Rights also known as TABOR II. According to the poll, 42.1 percent are likely to vote for the proposal, and 9.3 percent are undecided.
The findings are a dramatic reversal from a poll released Oct. 14 by the same group that found supporters of TABOR II to have a 14 point lead. The earlier poll said 52.8 percent of respondents said they would vote or were likely to vote for the proposal, with 38.7 percent saying they would vote or were likely to vote against it. The poll found 8.5 percent to be undecided.
Mark Brewer, associate professor of political science, said he did not know much about the polling company, so he could not gauge its accuracy. Pan Atlantic sometimes provides polling services for businesses.
“I’ve been looking at those numbers with a pretty skeptical eye,” Brewer said. “It’s not to say that they’re not accurate; it’s just based on the little I know about this outfit.”
Brewer said the wide swing on TABOR was large, but not implausible. While many people are very passionate about same-sex marriage, TABOR is a more complicated and nuanced issue, Brewer said.
“As people learn more about it, as they are lobbied, indirectly at least, one way or another, I don’t think it’s that unusual for a swing like that to happen on an issue like TABOR,” Brewer said. “I’d be stunned, on the other hand, if you saw that kind of a move on an issue like same-sex marriage. Most people have made up their mind.”
Opponents of Question 1, which would repeal Maine’s law allowing same-sex marriage, showed small gains. The new poll found 52.6 percent of those polled were likely to vote against Question 1 — in favor of keeping the law — and 41.5 percent said they were likely to vote for Question 1 and the repeal. Six percent said they were undecided.
“I doubt that the final outcome’s going to be anything near that big, and if it is, I’m going to be surprised,” Brewer said. “I think if there’s a difference of anything more than five points, I’m going to be really surprised.”
Campaign finance reports released Oct. 23 showed No on 1 continued its fundraising streak, raising $1.36 million in the period for a total of more than $4 million this year compared to Yes on 1’s $1.41 million in the period for a total of $2.55 million.
On Question 2, which would lower Maine’s excise tax on vehicles, 60.8 percent of respondents said they were likely to vote against the measure, with 28.5 percent saying they were likely to vote for the reduction and 10.8 percent undecided.
Question 3, which would repeal Maine’s school consolidation law, dropped slightly as well, with 44.5 percent responding they were likely to vote against the repeal and 39.1 percent saying they were likely to vote for it.
Question 5, which would create a distribution system for medical marijuana, was not polled earlier in the month. Monday’s poll found 59 percent of respondents said they were likely to vote for the proposal, with 32 percent likely to vote against it and 9 percent undecided.
Related Posts:- Letters: Tabor and same-sex marriage (September 24, 2009)
- Question 1 seeks to reject L.D. 1020 (October 19, 2009)
- On Question 1, students could be key (October 9, 2009)
- University community debates implications, merits of Question 1 (October 29, 2009)
- No on 1 ahead in fundraising, finance reports show (October 18, 2009)
The polls mean nothing. You’re forgetting one thing – we have NEVER lost a battle against the homosexual agenda at the ballot. Maine will be no different. In California, proposition 8 was losing at the polls until it WON by an overwhelming majority. The armies of G-d will triumph again Tuesday.
[Reply]
Bill Reply:
November 2nd, 2009 at 1:21 pm
Indeed, you bigots WILL win tomorrow. And what have you won, James?
The bright shining star of bigotry to be worn proudly upon your lapel.
How proud you must be. And how embarrassed you children, if you have any, will be of YOU.
God would NEVER advocate this. It is IMMORAL to be voting another human being’s rights away. It is the OPPOSITE of God, you fool.
Fortunately, when you bigots win tomorrow, this will advance the ‘gay agenda’ even further. Your willingness to carve your gay children out of the Constitution is exactly what will secure our equality via court order. You see, you bigots have outed yourselves and your ‘arguments’ are thinner than paper.
Feel free to hide in the closet that your gay children used to.
We don’t need it any more.
[Reply]
It IS time that we show the homosexuals that their kind is not welcome here. If they want “equality” they can move to Mass.
[Reply]
Bill Reply:
November 2nd, 2009 at 1:14 pm
Dear Jack,
The World has passed you by, idiot.
Perhaps you haven’t noticed, but YOUR kind is no longer welcome ANYWHERE except your small, ugly bigot circle-jerks.
You sad, sad, ignorant, sorry excuse for a human being.
[Reply]
JackSaysYesOn1 Reply:
November 2nd, 2009 at 8:59 pm
“Dear” Bill,
Tomorrow we’ll see who the world passes by. Question 1 will win. It WILL say once again that in Maine, like EVERYWHERE ELSE that ever voted on it, homosexuals are NOT welcome. James made a good point. We’ve never lost.
[Reply]
Bowen Reply:
November 11th, 2009 at 12:48 am
You lost in Washington state. Chew on that for awhile.
Hannah Reply:
November 12th, 2009 at 3:04 pm
Jack, what exactly is your problem with homosexuals, and why do you seem to be so eager to exclude them?
Regardless of your view on who people love and spend their life with, you should not speak the hate that you are spewing on this website. These people have families and loved ones, they pay their taxes, they don’t harm anyone any more than straight people, and they should have equal rights under the Consitution. If you are a religious person, even the Bible, Koran, and many other religions say hate the behavior/sin and NOT the person…God dislike people who throw stones in a glass house.
[Reply]
Jack:
I have to laugh that you put “equality” in quotes, as if some people deserved to be more equal that others.
You’re a bigot, plain and simple. You and people like James (with his “armies of G-d”) are just too stupid to realize that blurring the line between church and state like you wish to do could have catastrophic consequenses for all of us. Outside of the Vatican City (all 110 acres and 880 people of it), the only country on the planet ruled by a religious party rather than a political one is IRAN. Is that the kind of country you truly want to live in?
[Reply]
Come on, now, just because our view is supported by a religion doesn’t make it wrong.
We each have the right to chose how we vote on Question 1. I believe it is important to society that children are raised in an enviornment that puts a man-and-woman marriage at the forefront. Those who get married tend to have better family stability. equating a gay couple with a husband and wife will be seen, in the long term, as a mistake that weakened family structure.
Marriage is gradually being devalued. This will lower the value by equating it with something that is simply not the same.
Yes on 1 for stable families!
[Reply]
Hannah Reply:
November 12th, 2009 at 3:05 pm
Where exactly is your proof that homosexual families are unstable? And how exactly is gay marriage not the same as straight marriage?
[Reply]
Jason Jackson Reply:
November 12th, 2009 at 7:08 pm
I define a family to have a father and mother and children. I believe this is an important definition, because the best place for rearing children is with two individuals, both inherently part of creation, whose gender differences help each child learn different, important concepts. You’ll not I do not comment on stability of gay relationships, though I could have.
The differences of the gender is whet makes this important.
[Reply]
Hannah Reply:
November 12th, 2009 at 7:23 pm
Your say-so is not proof. I’ll ask you again: where exactly is your proof that homosexual families are unstable?
Jason Jackson Reply:
November 12th, 2009 at 8:05 pm
If you want proof, here you go:
http://www.massnews.com/2003_Editions/5_May/053003_mn_gay_definition_of_marriage_is_not_the_equal_of_heterosexual_marriage.shtml
Jason Jackson Reply:
November 12th, 2009 at 8:14 pm
and I normally prefer logical thinking rather than statistics, rather graphic ones at that, so I gave you one example of proofs.
I’m not trying to put down people who are gay, you just asked me for statistics and I found some.
Hannah Reply:
November 12th, 2009 at 8:30 pm
I glanced at the “About Us” section of MassNews.com, and I found this:
“The Original Massachusetts news was founded as a hard copy newspaper by Attorney J. Edward Pawlick in 1998 as a conservative alternative to the Boston Globe, after he had retired from a distinguished career as the founder and CEO for twenty-five years of Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly.”
Tell me, why should I trust a news source which outright admits that it has a conservative bias? Not to mention there are spelling and grammar errors galore on that website (it spells Massachusetts as “Massachusett’s” in a few places, for goodness sakes!), and those errors further detract from its overall credibility. You’ll have to provide me with a more trustworthy source than that if you want me to take you seriously.
Jason:
No, you come on now… your view is that people should be treated with inequality because your religious views say so. This isn’t “support”; this is attempting to take a religious tenet and make it law. This is hiding behind a religous tome (in this case the Bible) to promote intolerance and hatred.
Just because a family is based on straight marriage certainly doesn’t make it stable. (Hello, those lovely Gosselins, just for an example… That’s “stable”???) In fact, divorce rates are far higher among straight marriages than gay ones. What does this say about “stability”? What it says is that you can’t possibly be anti-gay marriage and pro-divorce… yet we hear none of your kind petitioning to strike down divorce laws, do we?
Oh, by the way: all the statistics show that divorce rates have dropped substantially in all the states that have legalized same-sex marriage. So much for us de-stabilizing the whole thing.
My gay marriage does nothing – NOTHING – to devalue the institution of marriage. In fact, we only wish to uphold and honor it. Where is the devaluation in that?
[Reply]
Marriage rates are lower in countries that have had Gay Marriage longer then those states. I didn’t say divorce rates will rise. I think that marriage is losing its predominance in society, which is bad. I happen to believe cohabitation is wrong. It is important for men to get married to women. If this is devalued, there will be more cheating, which leads to worse relationships.
By the way, laws against stealing, murder, and others are all based on being “wrong”.
I wish to end no-fault divorce as well, let me agree with you on that.
My viewpoint is no less valid because of my (admittedly strong) faith.
[Reply]
Jason
Cohabitation is a dead issue. As a married heterosexual agnostic I would no more cheat on my partner than my wife. My morals are reason based not religious based. The vast majority of my morals agree with Christian morals. It is unfortunate that a handful of issues separate us. Laws that deal with murder and stealing etc. predated the Bible. I will agree that there are many passages in the Bible that are perfectly relevant to our times but also many that aren’t. One must always read the Bible and cherry pick what it reasonable for our times. After all we have thrown out many teachings from the Bible as wrong or immoral since it was written. The Bible is a living document and very much open to interpretation after all it was written by man.
In peace
Null
[Reply]
This is off topic, but I don’t believe in cherry picking the word of God.
On topic, Though you and I wouldn’t cheat on people we weren’t married to, but some people would, hence the decline of morals,
[Reply]
Jason says: “This is off topic, but I don’t believe in cherry picking the word of God.”
Really? Ok, then…
Expect to burn in hell for those shrimp you ate (Lev 11:10). And thanks for ok-ing me to kill my neighbor because he worked on the sabbath (Exodus 35:2). Oh, and have fun selling your daughter into slavery (Exodus 21:7). Lastly, that haircut of yours will sure make you burn burn burn (unless, of course, you’ve never allowed the hair around your temples to grow since you were born; Lev 19:27).
All in the Bible… all being active ignored by the so-called religious right, including you. I’d call that cherry-picking.
[Reply]
Christ’s coming did away with the Law of Moses, as Paul teaches.
God did speak those words. But they are not for our time.
I believe in what God speaks. Some of what he speaks is for a short time but principles–charity, love, families, marriage is eternal.
Yes on 1!
[Reply]
Oh, I see. So, some words of God are acceptable while others aren’t. I’d call that cherry-picking.
If Christ’s coming did away with the Law of Moses then why is it still in the Bible?
[Reply]
Oh, and PS – Please feel free to quote the passage in the Bible that talks about same sex marriage. Not homosexuality, but same sex marriage.
Go ahead.
Any time now.
[Reply]
LOUD,
This is a topic where there are answers to your questions, but the arguments you are interested in are religious, and not precisely related to the issue at hand.
I believe in prophets today who speak just as Moses or Abraham. God calls prophets this day just as in days of old, to address problems of our day. He knew these prophets would come, hence why homosexuality but not same gender marriage is mentioned in the bible. The biblical prophets was inspired for their age, just as prophets today are.
So this is where my religous feelings come from. I know most people don’t agree, but this is where I am.
[Reply]
Okay, here’s where I am…
I don’t mean to put down your faith and beliefs. I know they mean a lot to you, and that’s a wonderful thing.
However, you have made it clear that you feel that aspects of that faith need to become law. Your faith isn’t mine, and the thought of your beliefs being forced upon me – or anyone for that matter – strikes me as wrong.
I don’t want to take away anything from you. Just the opposite: I only wish to uphold marriage as a joyous union. Trust me when I say that my partner and I are no threat to your livelihood or anyone else’s. We just want to live, love and be happy. If that sickens you, it’s your problem, not mine. Don’t tell me I must live a second class life because your religion dictates otherwise.
You talk of prophets that are inspired for their age. I ask who you are to think that you can decide who is a prophet and who isn’t. To me, Tony Kushner (a gay man), who wrote about prophets and the transcendence of knowledge in “Angels in America” was prophetic. But that’s just my opinion… doesn’t mean his writings should be law.
[Reply]
And so we come back to the root of it all…
While I am sure that one gay couple will not impact others in a substantially compelling way, a culture of people who accept gay relationships as equal, and all that comes with that culture, will make promiscuity more acceptable, and cohabitation fine in our culture. I mean, let’s face it, if society says Gays having sex is normal, then there will be no cultural argument left be for chastity before marriage and fidelity in marriage.
That is my basis for opposing your viewpoint, since a culture without chastity and fidelity leads to a culture without families, which is something never tried for in America.
You know, we teach in my church that people are judged according to what they know. But we don’t say that there are no consequences if people don’t believe. The reason why I tell people this stuff on forums like this is so they know the consequences as they make the choice of who to vote for. This isn’t an issue of force, it is an issue of a clear choice.
As for who is a prophet, I simple quote the bible “by their works ye shall know them.” I only note that those I call prophets teach the words of Christ.
[Reply]
All logical and well said.
I do have one rebuttal, however. This is a fact: it isn’t illegal to be gay, or to engage in gay sex. To that end, what people do in their bedroom and what is “normal” is a huge discussion, whether it’s gay or straight sex we’re talking about.
Here’s the rub: we aren’t talking about gay sex per se… we’re talking about legal rights and acceptance of MONOGOMOUS relationships. It strikes me as a little funny that you feel that accepting gay marriage will encourage promiscuity… would it do just the opposite? Wouldn’t it encourage people to enter into loving, grounded and exclusive partnerships? I say it would and does.
Don’t fall over, but I’m going to sort of agree with you on the subjects of chastity before and fidelity during marriage. I’d love to see young gay kids saving themselves for the right partner, and think the whole point of marriage – gay or straight – is to pledge one’s fidelity. I, personally, don’t encourage promiscuity or reckless behavior, regardless of one’s sexual orientation.
[Reply]
Well, from my point of view, the church is what supports marriage in the way it should be, “til death do you part”
When we’re dealing with something as powerful as sex, while condoms and such things are available, saving yourself until marriage is only seen as good through faith. Society already encourages cheating. If it sends a message that says “gay sex is ok” and “Gay marriage is ok”. that contradicts the church, the youth end up confused on the importance of marriage.
[Reply]
YES ON 1 WINS!!! No surprise to us. That makes 30 out of 30 that REJECTED the homosexuals. You homosexuals and homosexual-lovers should be VERY aware by now that no one wants you around. There’s always Canada for you all!
[Reply]
Hannah Reply:
November 12th, 2009 at 3:07 pm
Why are you so hateful towards homosexuals? What did they ever do to you to deserve such hatred from you?
[Reply]
Jesus was an apocalyptic Jew and as such taught that the way to be saved was by following the Jewish laws set out in the Old Testament. That is what he taught. Are you Christians following those teachings? The best we can tell, Jesus never meant to start a religion. That was created by man and did not follow all his teachings. Jesus also said that God would come back to earth within the generation of the people he was preaching to. Later Christian writers realized this wasn’t going to happen and created heaven and hell. Please don’t make the unsubstantiated claim that a generation is different for God. Jesus was speaking in the language of his listeners not in riddles because what would be the point of telling them something they couldn’t understand? God did not come back and make earth a paradise as Jesus said he would. This is a typical claim made by prophets. So obviously either that statement was not made by Jesus and/or Jesus was only a prophet which is my bet.
Was the passage in the Old Testament regarding homosexuality a statement from God or a cultural one. We don’t have the original writings nor can you even prove your God exists. None of us know! Question 1 came out as I predicted but was a bit closer than I thought. To everyone celebrating keep this in mind. The trend in the Northeast is towards being less religious. As the older people die off and the young people gain the vote this will change. Ten years ago this vote would never be close. You are fighting a losing battle.
In peace
Null
[Reply]
Maine-ly a hateful state (52.8%). Canceling my vacation there; you guys don’t deserve my money.
Oh, and Jack? Domestic partnerships passed in Washington last night. Didn’t realize they were a province of Canada.
Have fun with your Bible and your hatred.
[Reply]
Actually… a only little more than half of us are bigots. Don’t be down on the state.
[Reply]