Gay marriage is a difficult issue. It is one that has constitutional, legal, moral and spiritual implications. Making it even more difficult is the fact that many on both sides view the issue as black and white — and understandably so. Supporters of same-sex marriage view it as a civil rights issue and one that raises equal protection concerns — to oppose gay marriage is to oppose equality and support discrimination. To opponents of same-sex marriage, the right stance is equally clear. To them it is a matter of morality, not hatred, discrimination or civil rights. A civilized society must be careful not to endorse something that is morally wrong.

The fact that both sides see the issue so clearly makes the issue more difficult and nuanced, and makes the need for an open and honest dialogue on the issue more necessary — not less. However, the clear implication of Dana’s speech is that those who disagree with his viewpoint on this political issue are haters and intolerant — something the university will not tolerate.

It is ironic Dana condemns hatred and intolerance as he commits the university to suppressing the viewpoint of the 18.8 percent of the campus with whom he disagrees. It is distressing he does not even seem to notice the blatant hypocrisy of this view. As an alumnus of the University of Maine, I am saddened to see a member of the administration use his role in such an inappropriate manner.

Our universities should be places where free speech is celebrated and all ideas, no matter how unpopular, are allowed to be expressed and argued — so that they can survive or die in the marketplace of ideas, not at the whim of anyone’s political or social agenda.

Supreme Court Justice John Harlan articulated this point beautifully when writing the majority opinion in Cohen v. California in 1971: “The constitutional right of free expression is powerful medicine in a society as diverse and populous as ours. … To many, the immediate consequence of this freedom may often appear to be only verbal tumult, discord and even offensive utterance. These are, however, within established limits, in truth necessary side effects of the broader enduring values which the process of open debate permits us to achieve.”

The principle is no less true today than in 1971. Regardless of your opinion on the question of same-sex marriage, the solution is not to suppress discussion, but to promote it. Public universities should be bastions of free speech, regardless of how offensive those ideas may be to some. I understand how Dana feels. It is only logical to feel angry and hurt — and those ideas and feelings should be expressed. Dana has a right to express his opinion. What is inappropriate is him using his position as a member of the administration to make his personal views on a difficult and nuanced issue a matter of university policy. The result is to make it official university policy to marginalize a minority of UMaine students simply because they have a different view than the majority.

Matthew Hunter graduated from the University of Maine in 2006 and is currently studying law at Boston University.

But when thinking of the threats religion may pose to society, it’s important to remember to hate the game, not the player. Billions have been born into the faith — they had no choice. It takes great effort to drag them into the light of reason. Our republic was founded on such rational principles, yet most of its population learns biblical laws before those of their nation. I find this paradox at the root of every issue, from abortion to evolution.

Many of the Founding Fathers and the Enlightenment philosophers who inspired them were Deists. They viewed God as the creator but of no further influence. For the most part, these men held a purely scientific view of the universe. They forbade the establishment of a state religion, assuring that no religious law would corrupt the principles of the Constitution. But they didn’t foresee the wave of zealotry that would wash over the country: first with the Evangelical movement and later with the influx of Catholic immigrants in the 19th century.

Demographically speaking, this is a Christian nation. Religion influences people’s moral judgment, which in turn influences their political thought. Believers won’t simply disregard their beliefs because they’re voting on a legal issue. Asking religious people to ignore their faith at the ballot box is to make them hypocrites, living in two different worlds. In the same way non-religious people do, believers shape policy according to their will.

The effect of referenda is the majority opinion ruling as a state religion, like letting the pope enact a secular law. This works when a monarch is head of both church and state, like Xerxes or Henry VIII. But when the two institutions are separate, you don’t want a tyrannical mob voting to join them back together. The main reason people didn’t vote for Obama was his alleged atheism. Never mind his stance on issues having nothing to do with God, like health care and the economy. Religion has no business with government, yet everything to do with most of the governed.

This paradox has two solutions, both of which are extremely offensive to either side. We could stop kidding ourselves and adopt a state religion so that legislation and the beliefs of the people are consistent. History has proven this method to be successful, if you don’t mind burning a few million heretics. Or we could eradicate religion entirely. But this parasite cannot be destroyed without losing the host — another cure worse than the symptom. All we can do is cope with the sacred-secular divide that tears apart the psychological and social fabric of Americans who hesitate to choose between God and their fellow human beings.

Plenty of God-fearing Christians voted no on Question 1 but they consciously chose to contradict their own holy text and step into an objective realm where one can more clearly see justice unviolated by medieval bigotry. They distanced themselves from extremists and I applaud them. Their concessions and compromises are loosening the grip of religion on our lives in favor of a clear conscience.

Perhaps religion will one day evolve into a benign appendage of the body politic. Belief may continue, but the doctrines of archaic institutions would crumble into dust.

The gay marriage controversy is merely a skirmish in Christianity’s losing battle against a secularizing society — a war that began when popes and emperors fought for control of Europe in the Middle Ages. Then came the Renaissance — the rebirth of the pre-Christian world. In its wake, the Scientific Revolution and Enlightenment dethroned the divine and founded a new Roman Republic across the Atlantic. Once again a mighty empire, overwhelmed by Christianity, is showing signs of decline.

Jeremy Swist is a junior history and Latin student.

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.

With 99 percent of precincts reporting, Yes on 1 had 52.81 percent of the vote and No on 1 had 47.19 percent.

Yes on 1 declared victory shortly after midnight, when it became apparent No on 1 could not overtake its lead.

“What the people of Maine had to say is that marriage matters and that it’s between a man and a woman,” said Marc Mutty, chairman of Stand for Marriage Maine, in a speech.

“It has been the little guy against the big guy in terms of resources — human resources, financial resources — and we prevailed because the people of Maine, the silent majority, the folks back home, spoke with their vote tonight,” Mutty said.

Yes on 1 gathered at the Eastland Park Hotel in Portland and at Jeff’s Catering in Brewer; supporters of No on 1 gathered at the Holiday Inn in Portland. While a few dozen supporters attended the Yes on 1 party in Portland, several hundred attended the No on 1 party, which featured a live band and a disc jockey later in the night. Some supporters danced and drank, while others watched a live feed of the results in front of two large screens.

The Yes on 1 parties were linked by live video feeds, and the two locations competed several times to see who could chant “Yes on 1” the loudest.

Early results showed No on 1 in the lead by a wide margin, but as the night wore on and rural precincts started to report results, No on 1’s lead shrank steadily. Shortly before 10:30 p.m., Yes on 1 took the lead for the first time, to cheers from its supporters.

The No on 1 campaign did not concede immediately. Mark Sullivan, spokesperson for Protect Maine Equality, said shortly after midnight the campaign intended to continue to count the vote well into the day.

But around 2 a.m., No on 1 seemed to concede. In a statement on No on 1’s Web site, Jesse Connolly, campaign manager for Protect Maine Equality, thanked supporters and vowed to continue the fight for same-sex marriage.

“We’re in this for the long haul,” the statement said. “For next week, and next month, and next year — until all Maine families are treated equally. Because in the end, this has always been about love and family and that will always be something worth fighting for.”

Reverend Bob Emrich said in Yes on 1’s victory speech that the campaign was never about hating gay couples.

“There are some bridges that need to be built, some fences that need to be mended. We need to reach out to some people who may very well have been doing what they believed in. We disagreed with them very strongly, obviously, but we need to reach out to them,” Emrich said.

“The institution of marriage has been preserved in Maine and across this nation,” said Frank Shubert, Yes on 1’s campaign manager.

Schubert said polls had Yes on 1 up by about 6 percent going into Election Day, so he was confident throughout the day, even as early returns had No on 1 up.

Scott Fish, communications director for Stand for Marriage Maine, said Question 1 passed because voters got away from the spin and realized what was in the bill.

“I think they saw that whatever inequities there are in domestic partnerships — gay or straight — that they realized that these can be dealt with through lawmaking, that we don’t have to redefine marriage to do that, and when they realized that the pending bill would have redefined marriage they didn’t like it,” Fish said.

Supporters of Question 1 said they had no immediate plans for the future. Schubert said he did not think same-sex marriage was likely to come up again in the future.

“I think the other side will try and push it, but I don’t think the legislature or the governor is going to turn their back on what the people have decided,” Schubert said.

Maine was the 31st state to vote down same-sex marriage at polls; no states have approved gay marriage by popular vote.

Maine and Rhode Island are now the only states in New England where same-sex marriage is not legal. New Hampshire is set to start marrying same-sex couples in January.

—

Dylan Riley contributed to this report.

I’m not going to pretend to be well versed in the legal jargon of L.D. 1020 or the scientific nomenclature of perceived physical incompatibilities between same-sex couples. I’ll even admit, my general strategy for crossing the mall lately has been to latch onto innocent passers-by, use them as a shield against the aggressive No on 1 campaigners and let them take the fall as I saunter off to class while they are embroiled in political discussion.

Yes, I’m a procrastinator and only requested an absentee ballot by mail last week — no early campus voting for me. Let’s hope it gets here in time. I keep checking my mailbox, but no dice.

The author of the letter explains how marriage “is meant to build and strengthen society by creating healthy, happy families.” I struggle to understand how this lovely and hopeful definition of marriage is incompatible with a same-sex couple’s marriage.

Repealing the legality of same-sex marriage is an act of bigotry that cannot be tolerated anywhere, especially in Maine, where all ways of life are tolerated. Our state slogan, “The way life should be,” implies a unique culture where all are accepted and welcomed. That Question 1 is even on the ballot is ludicrous. This is not what Mainers should be concentrating their efforts, time and money on. Same-sex marriage was already established as “legal” and socially acceptable, and by implication of that legality, same sex couples are “compatible” at the very least, in a strictly legal definition. The proposed repeal defies the tolerance this state and country stand for.

This letter seemed to appeal to the reader to vote yes on Question 1 on behalf of children. The author draws upon gender-neutral legal language and potential adoptive relationships between same-sex couples and their children to bolster the argument.

The author writes, “Your mother will no longer by law be your ‘mother.’”

I’ll put it this way: If same-sex parents adopt you, obviously neither of them is your biological mother. How would this change if your adoptive parents were “different-sex?”

Neither of them would be your biological mother either. Why not merely change the gender restrictive language in our legal documents to that which is gender-inclusive? Isn’t that why our legal documents can be amended and altered in the first place?

The author writes that the bill contains language that “must be construed to be gender-neutral for all purposes throughout the law.” If the author is only concerned with legal verbiage, well, that is a fairly easy problem to solve — through alternative means other than ostensible home wrecking.

On several occasions, I have agreed to volunteer for the campus No on 1 campaign. I just can never seem to find the time to actually go. Then I see the strange incoming call on my cell phone screen. That’s when I usually guiltily press “ignore” so as to avoid being reprimanded for my inability to keep my word. Despite my civic transgressions and political half-heartedness, I do not see the validity of an argument that relies on homophobic views of compatibility. I’m voting no on Question 1.

Maddy Glover is a senior childhood development student.

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.

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.

For The Maine Campus

On Nov. 3, Maine voters will decide whether to keep or repeal L.D. 1020, the state’s same-sex marriage law.

Last May, Maine’s legislature passed the law legalizing same-sex marriage, but before the bill was put into effect, a campaign to overturn the law collected more than 100,000 signatures for a people’s veto to revisit L.D. 1020.

The law would have taken effect Sept. 12. Because of the provision in Maine’s Constitution that allows for a people’s veto, Question 1 will appear on November’s ballot.

Question 1 reads: “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?”

Scott Fish, communications director for the Stand for Marriage campaign, believes upholding L.D. 1020 would “radically redefine traditional marriage as ‘any two will do.’” The Yes on 1 campaign considers this bill important because they feel it affects all Mainers. Fish said many people worry homosexual marriage will be taught in Maine schools.

The office of Maine’s Attorney General said Oct. 15 that the law, if it is kept on the books, would have no impact on educational curricula in the state’s public schools.

Mark Sullivan, communications director for the Equality Maine campaign, said the bill is “all about Maine values, [and] whether or not we will show equality and justice to all Maine people [and permit] them to marry the people that they love.”

Fish said this bill would do away with “thousands of years of tradition, one man and one woman — something that has proven itself to be a benefit to society for many years.”

Sullivan said voting yes would “deny fairness and equal protection under law for thousands of Maine families.”

“We all have our rights in jeopardy,” Sullivan said. “There is no such thing as separate but equal.”

Representatives for both sides stressed the importance of student votes. Fish encouraged college students to vote and read the bill prior to voting.