Why the Maine people's veto attempt on gay marriage will fail

[scream4ever]

Many of you probably remember Nate Silver's calculations as to when states would vote down a gay marriage ban. Well, his method predicted that Prop 8 would pass with 52.1%, when it actually passed with 52.24%. In other words, it's VERY accurate.

Maine is listed as state #4 to beat out such legislation, while California is #12. Compare these results to the Gallup survey of religiosity done in 2008 (which Silver uses heavily in calculating his data). The survey asked people if religion was important to their daily lives. 65% of Americans said yes, while 35% said no. In California, 57% of respondents said yes. Prop 8 passed by 52%. In Arizona, 61% of respondents said yes. Their ban passed by 56%. In Florida, 65% of respondents said yes. Their ban passed by 61%. See a pattern? The amount of people who vote for such a ban is actually 4/5% less then those who say religion is an important part of their daily lives (this gap has been widening for the most part too if you compare how much gay marriage bans have passed over the hears and the results of the survey).

In Maine, only 48% of respondents said that religion was an important part of their daily lives (they are the 3rd least religious state, while California is the 12th). Um, okay. So not even the majority consider themselves religious. Add to this the bandwagon mentality that has begun to develop in the past month (the same poll showing that national support for gay marriage increased 9% in the past month, which is WAY too high for plain margin of error) and I will be a month of my salary that if such a veto even manages to get 55,000 signatures (remember that Maine doesn't really have mega-churches either), that it will fail at the ballot box, probably by 55 to 45 or so.

 

[hotatlboi]

There's absolutely no way it will fail to get the signatures, but I think you could be right about it failing to pass, especially with so much additional time for people to think about it before the next election (which many obviously have done in just the last month).

I like your correlation of those results and it makes sense to me. Among religious people there are always a few intelligent freethinkers, lol.

 

[Glafna]

Sounds good, but don't be naive, there is always a chance of this kind of shit happening. It all depends on who has the balls to vote how they feel.

 

[josher]

People who oppose something are always more likely to vote than those who are neutral.

There are many people who have no strong opposition to same sex marriage, but who wouldn't be particularly motivated to vote for it, particularly if it's an election without any state-wide offices being at stake.

 

[hotatlboi]

People who oppose something are always more likely to vote than those who are neutral.

There are many people who have no strong opposition to same sex marriage, but who wouldn't be particularly motivated to vote for it, particularly if it's an election without any state-wide offices being at stake.

While probably true, that doesn't necessarily mean it will be overturned.

In 2005 (also an "off" year) Maine voted on a referendum to overturn a law protecting gays from discrimination, and it was upheld.

http://www.uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/state.php?fips=23&year=2005&f=0&off=50&elect=0

 

[NickCole]

New England is very different from California.

If pro same sex marriage advocates play this right, voters will side with us.

We did it in Connecticut.

 

[NickCole]

Republican Senators Collins and Snowe, of Maine, appear supportive of the gay marriage decision, while RNC chairman Michael Steele condemns it.

Just for reference for those who say it's "old fucks" keeping us from equality, I'll point out that Michael Steele is 50, while Collins and Snowe are older at 56 and 59 respectively. And Democrat Obama, who's younger than all of them, and a self-described "fierce advocate of equality for gay and lesbian Americans" hasn't said a word in support of it. Just the facts, ma'am.

Maine Sen. Susan Collins, a Republican, said she’s cool with the state’s move. “I’ve always said I think the states are best able to determine this issue. The governor has changed his position and is signing the bill into law,” she said in an interview on MSNBC. She said she expects “a referendum to try to repeal that decision. But this is an example — family law’s always been decided at the state level, and that’s what I support.”

Similarly, Sen. Olympia Snowe, also a Republican, said in a statement that she had voted for the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act defining marriage as between one man and one woman. The law, she said, leaves it “to individual states through the legislature or referenda to make their own determinations on this very personal issue – a step Maine’s legislature and governor have now taken consistent with that law.”

http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2009/05/06/10093/

“Our party platform articulates our opposition to gay marriage and civil unions, positions shared by many Americans. I believe that marriage should be between one man and one woman and strongly disagree with Maine’s decision to legalize gay marriage.” --Republican National Committee chairman Michael Steele

http://theplumline.whorunsgov.com/r...g-mum-for-now-on-maine-gay-marriage-decision/

 

[hermanding]

don't expect obama to take any meaningful stands for our rights. candidates do not need to do that to be elected in national elections in this country
ding

 

[Lostlover]

Insisting on spilling this fight over every thread are you? Just couldn't resist to gnaw on that bone? Could you? Typical troll.


...all three are not even 60 yet either.

Then turning all misogynistic by referring to you as ma'am. The same people supporting Hillary because she's a woman. That's reverse gender discrimination.

 

[Kulindahr]

Then turning all misogynistic by referring to you as ma'am.

You really ought to do something about your reading comprehension -- or maybe get an education. I mean, you really ought to recognize the phrase "Just the facts, ma'am", as common coin in the language. Using it doesn't mean any reference to a person's gender.

A good comment on the substance would have been nice, instead of jumping in with the same sort of thing Nick was doing -- making snide remarks.


Oh -- BTW, Nick, I agree with JockBoy87; that theme has spread through enough threads... and I think he gave a fair enough explanation for where he's coming from.

 

[White Eagle]

The start of this post is part of an article I found on a Facebook acct of Calif against Hate. The website of National Organ for Marriage is this:

http://www.nationformarriage.org/site/c.omL2KeN0LzH/b.3836955/k.BEC6/Home.htm

Facebook:
Soon after Californians Against Hate charged the Mormon Church with creating National Organization for Marriage, founding NOM Board Member, Matthew R. Holland, son of Mormon Apostle Jeffrey S. Holland suddenly resigned from the Board of Directors Then soon after that, NOM Chairman, Robby George announced that, “the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints would be ‘represented’ on the NOM board by Orson Scott Card, a columnist for the Mormon Times.” Note to NOM: if Matt Holland is really gone, you might want to remove his name from your NOM California web site…..

Take a look at what People for the American Way came up with on the new Mormon on the NOM Board, Orson Scott Card:
“The NOM has argued that it is not a homophobic organization, but Card’s remarks suggest otherwise. Card, who represents the Church Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints on the board and received an effusive welcome last week from NOM president Maggie Gallagher, supports criminalizing sex between same-sex adults:
Laws against homosexual behavior should remain on the books…to be used when necessary to send a clear message that those who flagrantly violate society's regulation of sexual behavior cannot be permitted to remain as acceptable, equal citizens.

“Card has also advocated overthrowing the government if same-sex marriage is permitted:

I couldn't find a website other than Facebook but I found this.

http://www.americablog.com/2009/04/mormon-leader-of-nom-seemed-to-advocate.html

Thursday, April 30, 2009
Mormon leader of NOM appears to advocate overthrow of US government "by whatever means necessary," and criminalization of homosexuality
by John Aravosis (DC)

People for the American Way has discovered that in a long rambling article about the ills of gay marriage, reeking of conspiracy theories, Orson Scott Card, a Mormon leader of the religious right's top anti-gay marriage organization, National Organization for Marriage, advocated the criminalization of homosexuality, labeled the US government "our mortal enemy," talked about the "insane Constitution" dying, and then appeared to advocate the overthrow of the US government "by whatever means is made possible or necessary." The article was published in the influential Mormon Times, a publication owned by the Mormon church. (And in all fairness, JoeMyGod spotted this connection a week ago.)

Here is Wiki on Orson Scott Card:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orson_Scott_Card#Homosexuality

Orson Scott Card (born August 24, 1951) is an American author, critic and public speaker. He writes in several genres, but is primarily known for his science fiction. His novel Ender's Game (1985) and its sequel Speaker for the Dead (1986) both won Hugoand Nebula Awards, making Card the only author to win both of American science fiction's top prizes in consecutive years.

Homosexuality

Card has called same-sex marriage a "potentially devastating social experiment" and argued that same-sex marriage is not necessary to ensure equal rights, since "Any homosexual man who can persuade a woman to take him as her husband can avail himself of all the rights of husbandhood under the law."He claims that "gay activism as a movement is no longer looking for civil rights, which by and large homosexuals already have." He also says he is against "changing the word 'marriage' to apply to something it's never applied to."

With regard to the acceptance of legal same-sex marriage in Massachusetts and California, Card writes that "The first and greatest threat from court decisions in California and Massachusetts, giving legal recognition to "gay marriage," is that it marks the end of democracy in America. These judges are making new law without any democratic process; in fact, their decisions are striking down laws enacted by majority vote." and asserts "How long before married people answer the dictators thus: Regardless of law, marriage has only one definition, and any government that attempts to change it is my mortal enemy. I will act to destroy that government and bring it down, so it can be replaced with a government that will respect and support marriage, and help me raise my children in a society where they will expect to marry in their turn."
Elsewhere he writes:

“This applies also to the polity, the citizens at large. Laws against homosexual behavior should remain on the books, not to be indiscriminately enforced against anyone who happens to be caught violating them, but to be used when necessary to send a clear message that those who flagrantly violate society's regulation of sexual behavior cannot be permitted to remain as acceptable, equal citizens within that society. The goal of the polity is not to put homosexuals in jail. The goal is to discourage people from engaging in homosexual practices in the first place, and, when they nevertheless proceed in their homosexual behavior, to encourage them to do so discreetly, so as not to shake the confidence of the community in the polity's ability to provide rules for safe, stable, dependable marriage and family relationships.”

Writing of the LDS Church's attitude towards homosexuals, he argues that because the Church leaders and prophets teach against homosexual behavior, it is hypocritical for a practicing homosexual to claim to be a Church member but still deny that their behavior is sinful.

Card's views on homosexuality and on civil rights for American homosexuals have led some to describe him as homophobic. Card disputes those who call these views homophobic, stating he does not advocate "harsh personal treatment of individuals who are unable to resist the temptation to have sexual relations with persons of the same sex", and that he views homosexuals as "human beings with as complex a combination of good and evil in them as I find within myself." Speaking of tolerance, he says "That we must treat sinners kindly is true; that we must courageously and firmly reject sin is also true." Speaking of homophobic violence: "I think there is no room in America for violence directed against any group (or any individual) for any reason short of immediate defense against physical attack - which doesn't often come up with homosexuals." Card also says his attacked for being too tolerant of homosexuals.

Card characterizes his position as "walking a middle way, which condemns the sin but loves the sinner". Card says that when homosexuality appears in his fiction (as in Songmaster and The Ships of Earth) it is not to argue for or against homosexuality, but rather "to create real and living characters". He asserts in essays such as "Homosexual 'Marriage' and Civilization" and "The Hypocrites of Homosexuality" are "the mildest of comments critical of the political agenda of homosexual activists".

Card has criticized author J.K. Rowling and Hollywood films for portraying homosexuals in a shallow manner, saying he was "appalled" by the way the film Mamma Mia! "trivialized and ridiculed" homosexuals.In April 2009, Card became a member of the board of directors of the National Organization for Marriage, a group which seeks to prevent the legalization of same-sex marriage. He replaced Matt Holland, one of the founding board members and also a LDS member.

It is hard to understand the hatred the Mormons have for gays. When I saw they would overthrow the government if gay marriage is approved was unbelievable, but then believable. They are just that unhinged.

At the link to NOM are some articles about Miss C.

 

[scream4ever]

Um, is there ever really an "off" year? Many cities/communities elect mayors during those years, and possibly state representatives/senators. If they were having a "special" election then I'd be concerned. The only "off" year where a gay marriage ban was passed was in Texas in 2005. It passed by 76%. The religion survey showed Texas scoring a 74%, however back in 2005 it probably would've been 75-76% or so (our country is becoming less religious all the time). In other words, it still wasn't that far off even in an off year. I'm not saying that the gay population of Maine shouldn't campaign their asses off, but statistically speaking it won't pass.

So they are now talking about overthrowing the American government if gay marriage passes? I thought that type of metality was reserved for the liberal anarchists.

 

[scream4ever]

What exactly did the voters side with in Connecticut and by how much?

 

[White Eagle]

Sorry I wasn't paying attention to Connecticut when I posted the above. But I found this at HRC:

http://www.hrc.org/issues/12594.htm

It looks to me that the gay marriage bill passed in Conn.
I didn't see anything at all about it being vetoed or undone.

 

[Kulindahr]

Here is Wiki on Orson Scott Card....

It is hard to understand the hatred the Mormons have for gays. When I saw they would overthrow the government if gay marriage is approved was unbelievable, but then believable. They are just that unhinged.

At the link to NOM are some articles about Miss C.

Card is a very complex individual, who, I suspect strongly, suffers from dissociative personality disorder (a sort of halfway house to multiple personality disorder; halfway because the different personalities see themselves as one, and are aware of each other's actions, but to observers appear as entirely different people). He can be very cosmopolitan and tolerant, even inclusive, yet call for making examples of people and overthrowing the government on religious grounds. On the one hand he favors a planet united where all can be free, where all religions and philosophies get along peacefully with mutual respect, yet in his own neck of the woods he plainly dreams for the days of Brigham Young, when theocracy reigned supreme.

Um, is there ever really an "off" year? Many cities/communities elect mayors during those years, and possibly state representatives/senators. If they were having a "special" election then I'd be concerned. The only "off" year where a gay marriage ban was passed was in Texas in 2005. It passed by 76%. The religion survey showed Texas scoring a 74%, however back in 2005 it probably would've been 75-76% or so (our country is becoming less religious all the time). In other words, it still wasn't that far off even in an off year. I'm not saying that the gay population of Maine shouldn't campaign their asses off, but statistically speaking it won't pass.

So they are now talking about overthrowing the American government if gay marriage passes? I thought that type of metality was reserved for the liberal anarchists.

Mormons, despite their claims, have never really forgiven the U.S. Cavalry for shattering their hopes of an empire called Deseret, which would have covered not just Utah, but large portions of Idaho and Nevada, plus parts of Colorado, New Mexico, and Arizona. There were incidents in which Mormons actually raided and destroyed supply (wagon) trains for the U.S. Cavalry. Then came the laws forbidding polygamy in the U.S., a really stupid SCOTUS decision (which said that Congress can't regulate beliefs, but can regulate any practices of religions), and (after a period of resistance) the Cavalry again came into the picture, with a major force ordered out by the President (Buchanan?) to enforce dissolution of polygamy.

How many would actually act on it is another story, but there's a large number of Mormons who love the talk of making Deseret real -- which means, obviously, kicking out the U.S.

 

[White Eagle]

Where in the hell have I been? I've never heard of Deseret. You've gotta quit giving me all this history homework. I don't have a dog to eat it and the cats will just pee on it.

 

[Kulindahr]

Where in the hell have I been? I've never heard of Deseret. You've gotta quit giving me all this history homework. I don't have a dog to eat it and the cats will just pee on it.

LOL

That's why God gave us google.
And Wiki.

 

[scream4ever]

http://www.boston.com/news/local/ma...ntity_bolsters_gay_marriage_tolerance/?page=1

This article really adds to what I've been saying. Even 43% of Catholics in New England are okay with gay marriage! In California only 36% of them voted in opposition of Prop 8.

I also want to say that I made a mistake in my original message. California was actually ranked #13 instead of #12.

Also, I found another interesting statistic. While religion tends to be the #2 reason why people oppose gay marriage, the #1 factor was not knowing a gay person. Maine and California have the exact same proportion of homosexuals (5.5%), so realistically the residents should have the same opportunities of knowing gay people personally.

 

[Kulindahr]

http://www.boston.com/news/local/ma...ntity_bolsters_gay_marriage_tolerance/?page=1

This article really adds to what I've been saying. Even 43% of Catholics in New England are okay with gay marriage! In California only 36% of them voted in opposition of Prop 8.

I also want to say that I made a mistake in my original message. California was actually ranked #13 instead of #12.

Also, I found another interesting statistic. While religion tends to be the #2 reason why people oppose gay marriage, the #1 factor was not knowing a gay person. Maine and California have the exact same proportion of homosexuals (5.5%), so realistically the residents should have the same opportunities of knowing gay people personally.

Now that is interesting!

Realistically, though....

California's population is about 93% urban; Maine's is about 45%. As someone living in a rural area, I can tell you that gays in rural areas tend to hide... until they can move to an urban area.

By that measure, most people in California are more than twice as likely to know they know a gay person personally than someone in Maine.

 

[scream4ever]

"California's population is about 93% urban; Maine's is about 45%. As someone living in a rural area, I can tell you that gays in rural areas tend to hide... until they can move to an urban area.

By that measure, most people in California are more than twice as likely to know they know a gay person personally than someone in Maine."

Possibly true, but how urban a state is may not be a totally accurate indicator of how gay friendly they are. California has a high number of inner city residents and while they tend to vote Democrat they also tend to be very socially conservative. Upper New England doesn't really have an inner city population. Vermont has an urban population of only 33% and it's likely the most liberal state in the country.

Also, in Maine only 1 county voted for Mccain, and it was by only 50.7%. All the other rural counties voted for Obama. In Oregon on the other hand, many of the rural counties voted 60%+ for Mccain (it was the same in California too), so the rural demographics are likely very different in Maine then in Oregon (Oregon was not even in the top 10 for % of population being homosexual).

Also, I don't mean to bring up race, but Maine is like 98% white. Statistics show that whites and Asians are the races that tend to support gay rights the most (51% of whites and 51% of asians voted no to Prop. 8). This is mainly due to religious denomination, how often one attends church, and education however. Race is mearly a correlating factor.