Election Day ended with the majority of voters approving Question 1 on Maine’s ballot Tuesday Nov. 3 with 52.81 percent of Mainers choosing “yes.”

“We won’t quit because we had an army of volunteers and families,” said Jesse Connolly, campaign manager of Protect Maine Equality. “We won’t quit because of the thousands of Mainers who gave us a volunteer shift or talked to their neighbor or told their brother to get off the couch and go pull the lever for No on 1.”

A few couples cried and comforted each other as the event ended.

Tuesday ended with the Yes on 1 campaign in the lead with more votes than their opponents. Stand for Marriage Maine declared victory around 12:30 a.m. Wednesday. The No on 1 campaign held its Election Day party at the Holiday Inn in Portland, where hundreds of people crowded a room to watch live updates of the election results.

Libby Mitchell, president of the state Senate, said early during the party, “We will win today, and even if we don’t, we will win tomorrow.”

Connolly said the Election Day results are not the end for the Equality Maine campaign.

“We have something to say to our opponents who would demean and attack our schools or our families: It must stop. It has to stop,” Connolly said. “We will be here. We will be fighting. We will be working. We will regroup.”

Most of the day, the crowd in Portland was upbeat and cheered whenever live updates containing more “no” votes for Question 1 appeared on the two projection screens in the room. The results from Brewer, which voted “yes” on Question 1, received a collective sigh from the crowd.

Mary Bonauto, from the Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders, said early in the event: “When so many can put themselves into the shoes of their gay and lesbian neighbors, as is happening here in Maine, then the future is bright.”

The No on 1 campaign event was broadcast live with national coverage, including the Rachel Maddow show.

Shenna Bellows, executive director of the Maine Civil Liberties Union, said early in the event, “We have made a difference for Maine.”

U.S. Rep. Chellie Pingree said, “The state of Maine is going to do the right thing.”

Legislative Rep. Hannah Pingree, D-North Haven, said the debate concerning same-sex marriage in the Legislature during the spring was one of the most important and serious debates she has attended in the state Legislature.

“This is about Maine values. This is the most extraordinary campaign I’ve ever been a part of,” Mitchell said. “It’s right to respect your neighbors and treat them with dignity.”

“What happened in this campaign shows what committed people can do,” Mitchell said early in the event.

Mayor of Portland Jill Duson spoke to the crowd and asked Portland voters to raise their hands — and most of the hands in the room shot into the air. Then she asked everyone to turn to the person next to them and give them a hug.

“We love those public displays of affection,” Duson said.

Duson announced Portland’s voting numbers: 7,248 for yes, and 19,975 for no. The no number was greeted with a thunderous round of applause.

Darlene Huntress from Protect Maine Equality said, “I know that over the last seven years … the people got that absolutely nothing, nothing takes the place of full equality. Nothing.”

Terry Guerette and Tamiko Davies, from Portland, who became partners 10 years ago, said they were uncertain their families would accept their relationship, but they held a ceremony anyway. Davies said Guerette’s mother, though initially disapproving, eventually wrote a letter to the Lewiston Sun Journal endorsing same-sex marriage. Davies said their son asked them what would happen to their family if Question 1 passed.

“We assured him, no matter what, they can’t take away the love of our family,” Davies said.

Jim Bishop and Stephen Ryan, from Bar Mills, said they have been life partners for 34 years. Ryan said marriage was as fundamental to him as breathing or eating.

“We’ve got each other, we’ve got love and we will prevail,” Ryan said.

Mark Sullivan, spokesman for Protect Maine Equality, said the No on 1 campaign “will not stop until they have achieved their goal.”

Vice President of Wilde Stein Charles Chapin opened the ceremony to let the supporters know while the election outcome was not what the No on 1 campaign hoped for, the university community voted for same-sex marriage by more than 800 votes on Election Day.

“Not only did we take this campus, but we took it by over 800 votes. That’s because of people like you, everybody that helped the No on 1 campaign, everybody that voted got a friend to go out and vote,” Chapin said. “It’s because of people like you why, in the end, equal rights will win, and that this fight is far from over.”

President of Wilde Stein Zachary Knox said he wants supporters who are gay or straight to know that despite their own beliefs, they are not “second-class citizens.”

“Never have I felt such contempt for people who disagreed with me. Never have I felt more like a second-class citizen, because yesterday 291,000 people in the state of Maine said I wasn’t worthy of the institute of commitment for love, because I might love a man and not a woman,” Knox said. “I can’t tell you how many times I heard people say, ‘I don’t hate gay people, dude, but I don’t agree with gay marriage.’ But the people who voted against us yesterday have just put on the biggest show of bigotry and hate since Proposition 8 in California.”

Vice President of Student Affairs Robert Dana stood to tell supporters the university does not support the election outcome and that UMaine is a place for students to feel accepted.

“It’s never the right time to do wrong, and wrong has been done,” Dana said. “Every one of us, the people who think about fairness and kindness and compassion and justice, every one of those people thought, ‘Yes, that this was going to happen,’ and we believed it. You have expressed yourselves so publicly and personally. You expressed yourself so eloquently, and you have been slapped in the face. You have been done [wrong] to in a very public way, a very personal wrong, and here at the University of Maine, you are loved. You are cared for, and you are part of this community. I support you, and the University of Maine will support you. There is no room here for hate. There is no room here for intolerance, and there is no room here for injustice. I am furious about this and I know that the pain you are feeling is pain that I share and people across the university share.”

Dana said the university plans to do everything to celebrate equality and push for equal rights.

“We will go forward with this because we will not tolerate it. I am committed to that, and I can assure you that the university is committed,” Dana said.

Coordinator of Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual and Transgender services on campus Danielle Steele said the election results have inspired Wilde Stein to persevere.

“I’m inspired, for one, by my students. This morning, the first thing I see on my phone is, ‘We’re having a meeting. We’re going to find out what we’re going to do now.’ Because our president of Wilde Stein said, ‘Where do we go, what do we do? What can we do now?’” Steele said.

Chapin said Wilde Stein plans to continue working closely with deans and within their group to push on for equality.

“We’re going to keep working closely with the organizers with the No on 1 campaign to see what we can do next, what our options are, what exactly we can do to get the University of Maine to help. We work closely with Dean Dana and Dean Loredo. We have a good group here that’s pretty much willing to do whatever we can to get civil rights,” Chapin said.

No matter the outcome, Dana announced the pride flag is not coming down anytime soon.

“We will fly it high until it’s shredded,” Dana said.

General student reaction made it clear Question 1 was a key factor in bringing voters to the polls.

“I voted because I think people should have equal rights and I know someone who is a lesbian,” said Brian Cogley, a first-year student. “I would feel bad if she wanted to get married here and couldn’t.”

Cody Beckett, a first-year journalism student, was drawn to the polls for this reason as well.

“Question 1 was pretty big, and I’m disappointed [with its passage.] … I’m from Massachusetts and we have gay marriage,” Beckett said.

“I’m very disappointed — extremely. Specifically with Question 1,” said Kasey Spear, a fourth-year English student. “I was mostly voting for Question 1.”

Spear hopes the fight for marriage equality is not over. She hopes for an “intelligent dialogue” in the future.

Dyana-Marie Dyke, a third-year psychology student, has the same hope.

“So long as there are people out there, the fight’s not over,” she said.

Dyke attended the raising of the pride flag Wednesday afternoon as well. It was an emotional event for her. She explained she was moved by the event because the gay community was still standing strong in the wake of the defeat of gay marriage.

Renee Shina, a third-year studio art student, was disappointed with the result of the voting as well, but as a Catholic she had some empathy for the Yes on 1 supporters.

“I’m rather disappointed. At the same time, I understand why it went,” Shina said. “It scares people.”

She said gay marriage can bring up hard questions within people’s religions.

“‘Do I go with my morals, or do I go with my religion?’ In the end you go with your morals. Everyone’s morals are different,” Shina said.

“What I don’t understand is how it was pushed that marriage would be taught in schools,” said Nicholas Murphy, a third-year English student.

He said he had never been taught about marriage in school and that it was never a part of any curriculum he had been in.

Although most students were concerned with Question 1, other ballot questions drew them to the polls as well.

Question 5, to pass the legalization of medical marijuana dispensaries, was another hot topic for students on campus.

“I’m disappointed about one, but happy about five,” said Danny White, a third-year economics student.

“One was disappointing. … 5, I was satisfied,” added Andrew Doak, a third-year secondary-education student.

Both White and Doak were drawn to the polls to decide on Question 4 — TABOR. Both were relieved it did not pass.

A few students voted on the principle of voting alone.

“Basically, it’s my civic duty,” Beckett said.

“It’s my civic duty, as well as it’s what I’m going to be teaching,” Doak said of his future career as a high school American government teacher.

Secretary of State Matthew Dunlap said he originally estimated turnout would be around 35 percent, but said Tuesday his initial estimates were probably too low. He said turnout would likely be as high as 50 percent. That could mean as many as 480,000 people.

Dunlap said past referendum elections 15 to 25 percent turnout, and that last year’s presidential election saw about 70 percent turnout.

Dunlap traveled the state Tuesday, visiting polling locations. He said the sites he visited reported “very steady to quite strong turnout,” and that problems at the polls had so far been minimal.

Question 1 would overturn a state law allowing same-sex couples to be wed. If it fails, it will be the first time a U.S. state has approved same-sex marriage by popular vote. Last year, Californians added an amendment to its constitution defining marriage as between a man and a woman. Twenty-five other states have done so as well.

If passed, TABOR would limit state and local spending to a formula based on the growth rate of population and inflation. Any spending over the limit would require citizen’s approval at the polls.

“On September 14, the board voted to formally express its serious concerns about the negative effects TABOR’s passage would have on public higher education in Maine. The board took its position after seeking input from both TABOR proponents and opponents, and after looking at TABOR’s impact on public universities in Colorado, the only state in the nation to adopt TABOR,” the e-mail stated.

“The Board believes that passage of TABOR would only compound the budget problems that university leaders are working to resolve,” the e-mail stated.

Bruce Poliquin, a Republican candidate for governor in 2010, visited four Maine cities Monday urging people to vote yes on Question 4. He called state spending “out of control” and said Maine “must get a handle on spending.”

The Margaret Chase Smith Policy Center invited Mills to UMaine to receive the Distinguished Maine Policy Fellows Award and to talk to students and faculty about Maine politics.

“I think it [TABOR II] is burdensome and unnecessary,” said Mills, who added she was speaking as a former legislator, not as the attorney general.

“I just don’t think we need a state-wide campaign every time there needs to be a tax expenditure,” Mills said.

Cailin Higgins, a third-year education student, asked Mills what her thoughts were on Question 1 — the people’s veto concerning Maine’s same-sex marriage law.

“We don’t teach divorce. We don’t teach foster parenting. We don’t teach adoption. We don’t teach marriage in schools, period. It’s not part of the learning results,” Mills said.

Susan Gendron, Maine’s commissioner of education, asked Mills on Oct. 7 to look into concerns some voters had about a court of appeals decision concerning same-sex marriage, and whether that decision or Maine statutes would require gay marriage be taught in schools if Question 1 fails to pass. Mills said last Thursday she was unable to find any basis for those concerns.

“So I read the First Circuit decision. I talked with the attorney that represents the Department of Education; I talked with the deputy attorney general. We looked at the decision, we looked at the Maine law curriculum. I scoured Title 19(A), Title 22, 21 for references to marriage in educational sections of the statutes — couldn’t find any,” Mills said.

Mills went on to talk about her own opinion of same-sex marriage and Question 1.

“I felt that marriage equality was an extension of Maine’s constitutional right to a population that deserved equal treatment,” Mills said.

Mills said people have a right to object to issues in government and public services, but said the right is not constitutionally protected.

Kenneth Nichols, professor of public administration at UMaine, asked Mills what she thought of Maine’s ballot and people’s referendums.

Mills said money interests are dominating political campaigns in Maine, and that the legislature has questioned the constitutionality of paying signature gatherers for campaign petitions. She said the legislature has talked about increasing the number of signatures a petition requires to become a question on the Election Day ballot.

Amy Fried, associate dean of research in the College of Liberal Arts and Sciences, agreed with Mills. She said California has a lot of paid signature gatherers and Maine is beginning to see them as well.

“It really is contrary to the spirit of Maine,” Fried said.

Mills defended Maine’s laws requiring the dissemination of campaign finance sources, which have come under criticism recently. The National Organization for Marriage sued the Maine state government two weeks ago claiming Maine’s financial reporting requirements violate the First Amendment and are unconstitutional.

“[Those laws] are critical to the functioning of a democracy,” said Mills, who added the laws “help the people of Maine to know where that money is coming from. … People voting on something have a right to know that.”

Jonathon Nason, a former UMaine art student, asked Mills about her thoughts on the Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell policy.

“That’s nothing I have any say on,” said Mills, who added President Barack Obama “knows what he’s doing.”

Nichols asked Mills what the student population at UMaine and other college campuses can do to help promote and advance today’s public issues.

Mills said there has to be a cultural change — a shift — in the thinking of young Mainers. She said Maine children — mainly young boys — are too heavily exposed to domestic violence and the idea that hitting other people is acceptable.

“What they grow up observing and understanding is different from what they should be observing and understanding,” Mills said.

Mills recalled a case she worked with involving one young boy whose father killed his wife and then himself. She said she asked the Maine Department of Health and Human Services to help the child adjust after the loss of his parents, but said the department told her that since the parents were dead, there was no need to help the boy. Mills said Maine children need good role models.

Speaking to reporters after her discussion with students, Mills said prescription drug abuse is one of Maine’s biggest problems.

“Prescription drug abuse is responsible for more deaths than cocaine, more deaths than heroine, more deaths than amphetamines, more deaths than traffic crashes. In this state, and many other states across the country, prescription drugs affected 464 drug-affected babies born in Maine last year alone. Prescription drug diversion and abuse is the No. 1 cause of crime in our state,” Mills said. “We had six homicides in the last 18 months or so over prescription drugs. People are killing each other over prescription drugs.”

Mills met with students in courses and across campus throughout the day.

Question 1: People’s Veto

An Act to End Discrimination in Civil Marriage and Affirm Religious Freedom

“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?”

Proponents argue same-sex marriage will become a part of public school curricula if Question 1 passes.

Opponents argue repealing Maine’s same-sex marriage law will deny marriage rights to a portion of the population.

Question 2: Citizen Initiative

An Act to Decrease the Automobile Excise Tax and Promote Energy

“Do you want to cut the rate of the municipal excise tax by an average of 55 percent on motor vehicles less than six years old and exempt hybrid and other alternative-energy and highly fuel-efficient motor vehicles from sales tax and three years of excise tax?”

Proponents argue reducing Maine’s excise tax will cut taxes for cash-strapped drivers and encourage purchasing of more fuel-efficient vehicles.

Opponents argue the reduction targets only a small portion of the population and that those who can afford fuel-efficient vehicles aren’t in desperate need of a tax break. They also contend reducing the excise tax will hurt Maine’s municipal budgets and towns’ and cities’ ability to maintain roads.

Question 3: Citizen Initiative

An Act to Repeal the School District Consolidation Laws

“Do you want to repeal the 2007 law on school district consolidation and restore the laws previously in effect?”

Proponents argue not all schools should be required to consolidate and that savings from the consolidation will remain.

Opponents argue it’s too early to know if a repeal of the law will mean consolidation’s savings will be kept.

Question 4: Citizen Initiative

An Act to Provide Tax Relief

“Do you want to change the existing formulas that limit state and local government spending and require voter approval by referendum for spending over those limits and for increases in state taxes?”

Proponents argue Question 4 — the Taxpayer Bill of Rights, also known as TABOR II — will put extra decision power into the hands of voters concerning taxes.

Opponents argue TABOR II makes unrealistic assumptions about what governments spend and will constrict tax revenue to such an extent that public services will be severely hurt.

Question 5: Citizen Initiative

An Act to Establish the Maine Medical Marijuana Act

“Do you want to change the medical marijuana laws to allow treatment of more medical conditions and to create a regulated system of distribution?”

Proponents argue Question 5 will increase patients’ access to marijuana medication while creating a system for oversight of distribution.

The secretary of state’s office is unaware of any organized opposition to Question 5.

Question 6: Bond Issue

“Do you favor a $71,250,000 bond issue for improvements to highways and bridges, airports, public transit facilities, ferry and port facilities, including port and harbor structures, as well as funds for the LifeFlight Foundation that will make the State eligible for over $148,000,000 in federal and other matching funds?”

Question 7: Constitutional Amendment

“Do you favor amending the Constitution of Maine to increase the amount of time that local officials have to certify the signatures on direct initiative petitions?”

Maine Attorney General Janet Mills rejected a request Monday from the TABOR Now campaign to investigate legislative staffers for illegally helping anti-TABOR campaigns, citing a lack of criminal wrong-doing. TABOR Now recently filed a complaint against the city of South Portland, which also concerned TABOR II.

TABOR Now asked Mills to investigate legislative staffers in the offices of House Speaker Hannah Pingree, D-North Haven, and Senate President Elizabeth Mitchell, D-Vassalboro. David Crocker, chairman of TABOR Now, accused staffers of illegally helping to organize anti-TABOR fundraising.

The accusations stem from an Aug. 12 meeting in Pingree’s office where several businesses were invited by Rick McCarthy of Maine Tomorrow, a for-profit consulting firm specializing in public policy research, governmental affairs, community development and association management. McCarthy contacted Pingree’s and Mitchell’s offices to request they host the meeting and attend to offer insight into the TABOR and excise tax legislation present on the ballot. Approximately 16 members of the construction, engineering and transportation community were invited to the meeting, as well as the state Transportation Committee. In an e-mail sent to William Brown, a staff worker in Pingree’s office, McCarthy said his ultimate goal was to raise funds from the businesses invited. In the invitation to the businesses, McCarthy wrote asking them to “join us to learn more and discuss how you can help defeat these short-sighted measures.”

“We had reason, it seemed, to indicate that there was illegal activity taking place in direct opposition to the citizens’ initiative [TABOR II],” Crocker said.

Days earlier, TABOR Now had filed an ethics complaint against South Portland because of a packet the city mailed to its voters. TABOR Now may seek a similar complaint as a follow-up to the accusation of Pingree and Mitchell’s office staff workers.

TABOR Now obtained information about the meeting through a Freedom Of Access Act request, which Crocker said proved staffers working in Pingree’s and Mitchell’s offices used legislative computers to “solicit reportable contributions” from businesses for anti-TABOR efforts.

“It’s their [Pingree’s and Mitchell’s] staff, and the meeting set up with the Transportation Committee was hosted by the two of them,” Crocker said, who said the meeting’s purpose was “ultimately to raise money.”

Kate Simmons, assistant to the attorney general, said there was “no criminal wrongdoing whatsoever.”

“Some of those business interests did contribute to that campaign,” Simmons said, “but not because they were asked to by legislative leadership.”

Simmons said it is important to note that staffers are not responsible for the e-mails they receive.

Tim Feeley, communications director for Pingree, said the meeting was a discussion of public policy, not an event for raising funds to be used against TABOR.

“They [Maine Tomorrow] were asking the speaker and the president to give their characterization of the TABOR legislation and how it would impact the legislative process,” Feeley said.

Feeley said staffers in both offices did not use legislative computers to solicit contributions to an anti-TABOR campaign.

“This was a request to attend a meeting. This is basically in the job description for legislators. This is what they do; and to allege that it’s criminal activity is just desperation,” Feeley said. “They’re alleging the kind of conspiracy that’s reserved for Bigfoot and alien sightings.”

Feeley acknowledged McCarthy is a lobbyist.

David Loughran, communications director for Mitchell, said the president was not asked to help solicit funding from business leaders for an anti-TABOR campaign and called the allegations “frivolous.”

“The TABOR campaign is down into the polls the eve of the Election Day, and they’re trying to throw a Hail Mary pass,” Loughran said.

Loughran said the event was a meeting between legislative leaders and Maine business leaders “to talk about economic policies affecting the state of Maine.”

Crocker said the meeting was closed to members of the press, but Feeley disagreed. He said the meeting was in a small, enclosed room, but reporters were not barred from it. He said a suggestion to move the meeting to a more spacious room was never acted upon.

Crocker said TABOR Now isn’t done pursuing the matter.

“I think we’re considering an ethics complaint at this point,” Crocker said.

Phone calls to McCarthy were not returned by press time.

In a similar move, TABOR Now recently filed a complaint with the state Ethics Commission against the city of South Portland, claiming it needs to register as a ballot question committee.

South Portland recently sent its taxpayers a packet announcing the city council’s recent decision to oppose both Question 4 and Question 2 — concerning the automobile excise tax — and asking voters to learn more at the city’s Web site. TABOR Now, in its e-mailed complaint from Chairman David Crocker to commission Executive Director Jonathan Wayne, said it is unlikely South Portland’s mailing cost less than $5,000. After exceeding $5,000 in election spending, any group in Maine must register as a ballot question committee and report to the Ethics Commission.

“The question that David Crocker [sent] is whether the city of South Portland should’ve registered with us as a ballot question committee and reported that expenditure,” said Paul Lavin, assistant director of the commission.

James Gailey, city manager of South Portland, said the mailing cost $564. He said Crocker’s complaint is unfounded.

“It didn’t seem like a whole lot was going on. … There was a lot of disconnect. There was a lot of belief by residents that the way the questions were worded were very attractive to the voter. As a response to all that we included into the tax bill mailing. … Quite simply just a one-page sheet that announced both the questions,” Gailey said. “We added two bullets under each which were completely straight up facts, and then on the bottom we said please learn more about these initiatives, and then we gave the city’s Web page.”

Gailey said the cost was six cents per sheet. He said the city will respond to the complaint this week and that state attorneys are drafting a response. He said he has not seen the response and does not know the exact day the city will release it.

“Is it appropriate for a municipality to send that type of advisory out with property tax bills?” Crocker asked, who called the move “not very subtle.”

Crocker questioned Gailey’s cost estimate of the mailing and whether it includes staff time to draft the advisory.

“[The packet] makes a little statement there about what the city thinks will be lost if the excise tax referendum will be passed … and then it sort of says, ‘Oh, by the way, here’s your property tax bill.’ Again, not very subtle,” Crocker said.

Gailey said the city’s Web site indicated the mailed packet includes the two ballot questions and both the proponent and opponent messages.

Five of the seven questions on this year’s ballot are people’s vetoes or citizen initiatives, which each require at least 55,087 signatures to be approved as a ballot question. Municipal offices throughout the state employee staff to verify each signature on petitions is from a registered voter. Because petitions are often submitted shortly before they are due, clerical staffers at municipal offices often don’t get much time to count signatures before they are required to return them to the circulators. Question 7 would increase that time to 10 days. Municipal office staffers currently get five days.

“We’ve got so many citizen initiatives [and] petitions circling right now with very close deadlines, that when they turn all the signatures in … we get swamped,” said Linda C. Cohen, the municipal clerk of Portland.

Question 7 is Cohen’s brainchild. She thought up the idea of increasing the time for verifying petition signatures and spoke to Rep. Meredith Burgess about drafting legislation to fit the idea. The bill itself, sponsored by Burgess, was referred to the State and Local Government Committee March 25.

The official question on the ballot reads: “Do you favor amending the Constitution of Maine to increase the amount of time that local officials have to certify the signatures on direct initiative petitions?”

The question, if approved, would also give legislators 10 extra days after legislative sessions begin to submit legislation crafted from people’s vetoes and citizen initiatives given to them by political campaigns or voters.

“It’s the citizen initiatives and people’s vetoes. Usually those are on such a shorter time frame, you’ve got about a three-month period for people to gather signatures. … It deals directly with that,” said Diane Johanson, a legislative aide for the house republican office.

Cohen said municipal office staffers often have to work overtime to verify signatures and meet the deadline. She said her office used to have 11 people on staff, but now has nine.

“Eight of those positions are part-time,” Cohen said.

Petition signatures are sometimes hard to read, Cohen said. Municipal office staffers often have to compare the address given with the name with ones on registration cards to make sure it’s from a registered voter.

“So it’s a lot of work,” Cohen said.

Municipal offices are required to check every signature or at least make an attempt, Cohen said.

“Sometimes petitioners will drop them off on the absolute last day that they have to turn them in, and we have five days,” Cohen said.

Cohen said staffers have to verify signatures in addition to their other duties, including filing birth and death certificates and marriage licenses.

“If a funeral director comes in and has to bury a body, we can’t just say, ‘No, we have to do petitions,’” Cohen said.

Dan Shagouri, a legislative aide for Sen. Deborah L. Simpson, D-Androscoggin, said saving money is one of the reasons for the legislation, because the bill will likely cut down on the overtime municipal office staffers have to work to verify signatures. Simpson is chairperson of the State and Local Government Committee and approved the bill before it went to the legislature.

The discussion on Tuesday consisted of commercials from both campaigns, followed by discussion. Wednesday, gay faculty members from UMaine presented different situations and information in favor of same-sex marriage, while a few members of the luncheon offered their perspectives against same-sex marriage. Both discussions touched on each side of the campaign, with reasoning coming from sexual, religious, moral and economical standings.

To kick off the discussion on Tuesday, both “Yes on 1” and “No on 1” advertisements were presented. Three out of four of the advertisements shown were about young children wanting to learn about homosexuality. One of the advertisements included a child who approached his teacher to ask about gay sex. Many of the teachers in the advertisements became frightened by the question.

Matthew Newman, software engineer for the UMaine Biology New Media Lab, offered a perspective on the cause of anti-gay fear.

“This is a puritanically derived American society. We have issues with sex in general. Most of the people here probably would have issues with seeing someone make out publicly. It’s almost comical because you can’t even teach a biology course without seeing some animal sexually with some sort of other animal, but the idea simply is that we, as a culture, have an issue with sex. Not with homosexual sex — the culture has an issue with sexuality in general, and they don’t want to see it. It’s been an issue with the FCC [Federal Communications Commission] and it’s been an issue with every conceivable aspect of the culture,” Newman said.

At Wednesday’s event, UMaine student Emily Albee offered her personal experience from working with seventh graders. She said school and marriage do not mix.

“Marriage is not talked about in classrooms,” Albee said. “We have students coming from many different types of families, and that’s just not something we focus on. We focus on loving and respecting each other and it [gay marriage] is not an issue.”

No on 1 brought up education and the economical benefits voting No on 1 may possibly have for Maine.

“The creative economy is part of Maine, and if we welcome the people from the creative economy, all the industries will see Maine is a progressive state,” said Vicky Blanchette, a member of the UMaine engineering department. “So to talk about the economy, it is going to help tremendously because businesses will want to come here and talk to young, educated people about jobs and industry, and I definitely think the economy will be affected by that.”

Both discussions carried on into the topic of religion, where some Yes on 1 supporters said various religions define marriage as a man and a woman, and the dictionary definition is the same.

Tuesday, political science student Samantha Hansen said the religious argument does not make sense to her.

In response to either argument, facts brought up on Tuesday stated Christianity and Islam are among the most prominent religions in the United States, and they define marriage as between a man and a woman. The group concluded it is hard to wage an argument against God and religious beliefs.

Newman disagreed.

“For one, people may say, ‘God made this and this, and it was good.’ But that doesn’t mean that something else was not good. It’s taking the idea that Adam and Eve as a heterosexual couple was something natural and good, then someone else taking it out of contexts and saying, ‘Well, something that is not that, is not good,’ which is simply flawed logic. Two, they’re historically documented same-sex literalizes in the earliest forms of the Christian church. So to say that you’re defending marriage that isn’t inclusive of same-sex marriage is simply historically false,” Newman said.

Amy Fried, a political science professor at UMaine, said despite the arguments offered, Yes on 1’s biggest argument is that allowing same-sex marriage destroys traditional marriage. This brought up the topic that Yes on 1 believes giving homosexuals equality infringes on the rights of heterosexuals’ marriage.

Fifth-year women’s studies student Melanie Rockefeller said this concept did not click for her.

“I really don’t understand,” Rockefeller said, “especially since it says right there in the law that churches don’t have to perform marriages to people that they don’t want to. I really just don’t understand how allowing gays and lesbians to get married would infringe on anybody’s religious beliefs.”

Fried went on to bring the topic back to the definition of marriage.

“The argument is that marriage exists to have children, [and] to raise children. … The children need a mother and a father,” Fried said.

Fourth-year sociology student Alyssa Radmore wonders if she did not want to have kids, where does that leave her right to marry?

“It’s a very strong possibility in my life that I won’t want to have kids. I don’t feel maternal, though I know that I would have good children because I was raised with good morals and values. I could do that for a child, but I don’t know if that’s what I want. So why am I allowed to get married when I might not be fulfilling the purpose of marriage?” Radmore said.

“What are they to tell the children in which their families are denied?” Blanchette asked.