They hate us, they really, really hate us (with apologies to Sally Field)

We ran the best campaign ever in Maine. We ran great ads, we weren't outspent. The electorate was about as secular as could be found. And we, apparently, lost just like we did in California. It is hard not to be disgusted. Honestly, the state by state strategy is doomed. If we can't win this referendum, we can't win any, not now, not two years from now, likely not before they are growing tomatoes on Mars. I really thought we won this time.

our side is framing the loss atm.

latest 77% reporting, with a 52/48 split.

Last year it was Prop H8. Then it was the realization that we didn't really have a "fierce advocate."

I'm losing hope in the human race.

Or maybe they were stoned and thought that "yes" meant they were for gay rights.

At least, much more so than opposition to LGBT rights. For example, Oregon legalized medical marijuana 54.6% in 1998, and banned same-sex marriage 56.6% in 2004. And besides, the numbers for both issues may be notably even more favorable in, say, Vermont. So if your point is that Maine isn't one of the more conservative New England states, I'm not convinced. But I don't know New England.

And I must nitpick: My understanding is it's a measure to legalize medical marijuana. Not a wholesale legalization, like the phrase "legal pot" would imply to some people. Some people try to create misunderstandings like that to get people to oppose such measures, is all.

Most people are stupid sacks of shit. You can't rationalize with them because they do not think.
They don't care about you, it's that simple. Your well-being and your happiness does not matter to them.
They have the power to subjugate you so they do it, simply because they can.

I get a lot of flak sometimes for being a misanthrope and an elitist but at moments like these I feel justified.

Anyway, sympathies from Vancouver from this Cuban-born, American expatriate.

This makes me sick to my stomach.

Medical marijuana passes overwhelmingly in Maine - but screw the homos!

A little tidbit - I won't post it amongst the general population, because the pom-pom brigade will tut-tut at the source:

http://gay.americablog.com/2009/11/mixner-already-ticked-at-white-house.html

... that advocating for equal rights is political poison.

This is all so discouraging. :-( I won't even pretend to know what the strategy should be from here forward.

I recommend it to every gay American that's willing to consider it.

i didn't pass the test. :-(

http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/immigrate/index.asp

scroll down..it's sort of like a checklist.

I despise cold and snow (former New Englander here) but I could learn to love it if it meant getting away from the Christofascist assholes.

It rarely snows here, though it does rain a bit. But seriously, there's nowhere in the world I would rather be. I fell in love with this city the first time I visited, so much so that I decided to apply to university here and the rest is history.

Total yearly inches don't look like much, but most of it is delived as drizzle from clouds that don't often go away for 9 months, even when it isn't raining.

But when we factored in how much it would cost to move, plus find employment, we became discouraged. We were interested in moving to NS but the employment situation in the Maritimes doesn't look too good. Plus, we're now at the point where our age becomes a factor. Too bad we can't apply for political asylum!

It will always be about the ground game that convinces people to vote for us. Going door to door talking to the movable middle is how our side wins.

Y'all can go ahead and mock me and others about what we share here until you are blue in the face. What wins referendums and elections isn't the wasted energy put into websites trashing those of us fighting for our equality. All of that energy would be better served actually calling your legislators. What's holding you back from contacting your legislators and sharing the results here in the LGBT forum?

The fault lies squarely on the shoulders of those that voted in favor of it. Not that they actually feel bad about it.
Nor do we have the power to punish them for it.

What Prop 8 and No on 1 have taught me is that the internet isn't where we win, it's all about the ground game.

Threads about grassroots organizing for volunteer vacations to Maine, full-paid scholarships for those in financial need, and mobilization for phone banking from home sunk in this forum. Why is that?

Whining about meta DU things that a few have said about LGBT rights is a waste of time. Let go of 'ponies' and 'chess' and focus on the real enemy.

It is NOT our fault that there are people who hate us. I will certainly take NO responsibility for their hate, and their complete disregard for our lives and rights.

I am not interested in hearing about what WE did wrong in Maine. If we had done NOTHING to fight this battle, if we had not spent one cent, or run one ad, if we had not knocked on a single door, it would still not be OUR fault that people hate us enough to marginalize us.

Talk about tactics all you want; we still have to fight, even if we didn't start the war. But please don't insist we take responsibility any losses. We should not have to be fighting this fucked up war.

You're right about one thing, though. We need to go after the real enemy. And that means doing everything we can to break the stranglehold that religious superstition and ignorance have on the stupid, gullible, straight sheep of this country.

The people who hate are 100% responsible for their constant campaign of hate.

But at the same time, we know damned well they will never stop unless we stand up and fight, and keep fighting every time we see their hate. So we have to be motivated to fight, and keep fighting with everything we have. Being mad at the haters isn't enough. Blaming the haters isn't enough. We have to be out there organizing, on the streets, on the phones, writing letters, fighting to influence candidates in primaries, and fighting to influence agendas and platforms.

Don't attack the people who say that we have to stand up and fight. He's one of the people standing up and fighting. Where would we be without him and people like him? We need him, and we need thousands more of the people in our community to join him. We need to encourage them, nurture them, support them, and stand up for them while they fight. And as much as we can, we need to fight with them.

Attacking the people who fight for us is counter-productive. It only helps the people who are attacking us.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

people that make these decisions are experienced activists. I am of the belief that maybe sometimes you just aren't going to win no matter what.

I guess i am just not in the mood for this "blame the victim" CRAP tonight.

Like I've said, it's all about the ground game.

No one would ever dispute that.

Who the fuck is 'blaming the victim'?

Granted, if all you did over the past year is create a website to trash DUers, while doing nothing for marriage equality, than you got everything your lazy ass deserves.

I haven't been this sick about politics since 2004 when they screwed Dean. I phone banked for "No on 1". I donated money. I voted. I honestly thought we would pull this off in a tight race. I really just don't have words to express my disgust at the bigots up here. I need to go to bed.

that we will not be able to do anything unless it is through the courts. The fucking Christian Wrong thinks it should have the power to be able to fuck with GLBTQ lives. This is sickening. And you know what? If they really,really hate us I hate them doubly. I am tired of being expected to ask straights nicely. Marriage equality was won fairly and squarely via the Legislature and yet these assholes weren't content with that. Their heterosexist agenda has to be triumphant at all costs. They will never accept this and I say it is time we went after them tooth, nail, and claw--through the courts and working on getting their precious tax exempt status revoked. I don't want my tax dollars going to support their hateful bigotry.

Fuck religion, and fuck religious people. I'm so sick of hearing about how "real" christians and catholics don't hate gay people. I don't give a shit what you believe personally. If you donate money to a christian or catholic church, YOU ARE FINANCING HATE. If you call yourself a christian or a catholic, YOU ARE PROMOTING HATE.

You can delude yourself all you want. But while you're sitting there patting yourself on the back for your "real" christian values, people are being fucking oppressed. And YOU ARE MAKING IT HAPPEN. All because you can't face up to the fact that you're going to die some day. All because you can't get through life taking responsibility for yourself.

Fuck religion.

i loathe these bigoted bible thumping fuckers ...
:grr:

Fucking brilliant, thank you.

It's self-defeating.

Our rights are already in the Constitution in the 14th Admendment.

The lawsuit by Ted Olsen and gang is the proper way to deal with this. Through the courts.

That said, I imagine that this voting on gay issues will continue and that there will be those in our community who buy into to this shit.

Our rights are not to be voted on. Period.

We should not participate in these ballot measures.

Why do we even bother?

I don't have the words to describe how sick, angry and disgusted I am right now.

Soon all the "Uncle Roys" will start coming out blaming US for the loss; that's right, it's not the fucked up way we vote on civil rights; it's not the bigots who voted, no, no, no, it's the GLBT community that is at fault! Then, we will have the ones saying we are still asking for "ponies" or some such shit.

Just wait! It's coming.

Just drop the word "marriage", y'all. That's why you never win is because you won't accept those Civil Union thingies that give you all the same rights but without the word. Stop being such whiny brats insisting on a word!

I could just scream. :banghead:

Can you imagine the outrage were someone to write: "Why are you bitching so much? Your getting water aren't you?"

Separate, but equal is NEVER equal!

Just a guess.

In this thread , and, working to get other GLBT threads locked by obedient mods

Check out Jack Beck's post above.

to protect gay rights and Mainers have consistently voted to not enshrine direct discrimination in law. What Mainers have not done is voted to equate homosexuality with heterosexuality. The state isn't bigoted, the approach was wrong for this state.

Back in January the Republicans introduced a measure to make Maine's domestic partnership registry equal to marriage in every way that Maine had to offer. We turned them down flat on the offer and instead insisted on getting equality by gaining access to marriage. Mainer's, I believe, would have gone in for equality through the domestic partnership registry. I think it was put best to me this way:

Through history new traditions have risen up along side the old traditions. That the old tradition where allowed to continue on as they were while the new tradition rose to prominence. Kinda like the Amish way of life.

We could have had it, it just wouldn't have been called marriage. I'm ok with that because it respects those that sincerely disagree with us while ensuring that we aren't discriminated against. Isn't that a win for everyone but the bigots?

And some quasi-marriage isn't marriage. Many employers and insurers won't recognize it, most other states won't, and the feds won't.

Marriage already has a legal and societal framework. There's no sense trying to reinvent the wheel just to coddle some ignorant fucksticks who don't want gay people getting cooties on the m word.

THAT'S FUCKING BIGOTRY.

Separate isn't equal. Spare me your Uncle Tom bullshit.

Well, in a wholly platonic, lesbian kind of way. }(

Back at ya! :hug:

See how dumb that argument is? So why is it acceptable to use the same logic for gay marriage?

When gay people are told to accept Civil Unions/Domestic Partnerships as a substitute for Marriage that is direct discrimination.

Any time voters deny same-sex couples the rights they take for granted that is direct discrimination.

Telling same-sex couples to be happy with Gays-Only anything so the bigots don't get their panties in a wad is direct discrimination.


People can "sincerely disagree" with anything they want. They have the option to abstain from anything they "sincerely disagree" with. They don't have the right to shove their personal, fucked up, bullshit bigotries on the population at large and call it a "compromise" or some other such BS. Compromise means both parties give up something, not one party gives up everything and the other gets everything.

The approached worked very well in the Netherlands. Marriage, as an institution, is in rapid decline in the Netherlands as Civil Unions, which are equal in everything but name only just as was proposed for Maine, raise as the socially prominent method of structuring a family. It's an approach that works. A new institution, open to everyone, that respects that not everyone is going to agree. Tolerance isn't about making everyone accept the same way of looking at things. Tolerance is about making sure everyone's way of looking at things is respected.

If the Republican proposal for Maine had gone through the only thing we'd have given up is the word "marriage". The proposal was pretty simple. Wherever any legal benefit of marriage was derived, whether it be in law, rule or any other way then it meant marriage and domestic partnerships rather than just marriage.

With over 20% of the people already in Maine's domestic partnerships being heterosexuals I'm not sure anyone could defend the assertion that it's some kind of "Gays-only" or separate but equal situation. It is what it is, a new tradition that will, if the Netherlands are any kind of guide, usurp and replace the old one.

Did we change the word when blacks married whites? When Jews married gentiles?

How come it is suddenly so necessary to reach a compromise, instead of telling the bigots that "No. You may NOT have it your way, because your way is bigoted and ignorant."?

Why must anyone's status be changed because there are bigots in the world?

Or is it a contest between gut feelings versus reality? I can't condemn anyone who disagrees based on an honest dispute about the facts or an opinion arising out of known facts. This OTOH is just puritanical horseshit. There was no reason to oppose gay marriage in ME. It is a religious prejudice that has been accepted as a cultural norm.

orientation is a religious prejudice that has been accepted as a cultural norm. They gay marriage supporters raised the argument that limited marriage to a man and a woman was religious prejudice. It is. But so is limiting marriage to just 2 people. You can't say you're fighting for marriage equality using the religious prejudice argument when it is blatantly obvious that the result isn't marriage equality for all religious traditions including no religious tradition at all. Mainer's aren't stupid.

The argument was always raised that marriage is just a civil contract and the state has no business saying who can or cannot enter into a civil contract other than all parties to the contract being of the age of majority. Again, there are no other contracts limited to just 2 people so again, you can't say your fighting for marriage equality when it is blatantly obvious that some get left out.

You can't win by some groups get the benefit while others do not. You win by getting the benefit for all groups. That how we, as a country, dealt with racial discrimination and it's how we should deal with marriage discrimination.

The offer was put on the table back in January to make Maine's domestic partnership equal to marriage in every way the state ahd to power to make it. The GLBT folks here turned the offer down flat and the fight was on. Sometimes you don't change things by changing what is. You change things by offering a competing alternative that takes over. That's how things worked out in the Netherlands.

Maine voters aren't hard to read. They voted down prohibitions on cities and towns setting up domestic partner registries, they voted for a state wide domestic partnership and they voted for equal protection laws for everyone in the GLBT community. These weren't close votes. If it is so great that VT set up civil unions and so great that WA voters approved domestic partnerships why was that opportunity turned down flat in Maine? That was the offer on the table in January - everything that marriage gets for any two people who want it except the name.

Is the name really that important? If it's about rights and protections then what does it matter about the name if everything else is equal and open to everyone? The example someone posted of "interracial unions" doesn't work because domestic partnerships aren't limited to just those in some subgroup. It's not separate but equal because everyone can join in the fun on the new way of doing things and the old bigoted fuddy duddies or religious believers are left with the old way as a living relic of the past. I'm not asking you to take my word for it. Just look at how things are working out in the Netherlands after nearly 20 years of the same thing I'm talking about and the same thing that was offered back in January. It works. It's respectful of those who disagree with us while holding us harmless. It's tolerant of people who simple hold different beliefs then us while holding us harmless.

Seriously, is having it called marriage that important? Or is having all the rights and benefits of marriage what is important? I don't care what it's called so long as it is equal. You're mileage may vary and we can just agree to disagree on that.

Assuming for a moment that you're right and marriage limited to two is a religious prejudice, how is that a justification for discrimination against gays? And you're wrong. Abrahamic religion specifically allows polygamy. It was the western civilizations of Greece and Rome that held that marriage was for pairs only. Christianity had to accept that if it wanted to be accepted by the Roman mainstream.

What's more, the Middle-Eastern cultures that accepted polygamy only allowed multiple wives. So prohibiting discrimination against women is another reason to prohibit polygamy. It also controls population if a husband is sexually faithful since his wife can only be pregnant once at a time. Multiple wives would allow him to have several children on the way at once. Societies that accept polyandry tend to be overpopulated. So while marriage of pairs is literally discriminatory, it is not the same kind of irrational discrimination that Maine now has.

I have never argued that marriage is a contract. It is a marriage--it's own thing--and not merely a business arrangement under contract law.

I'm not opposed to civil unions as an interim step. That's not what this issue was about. Maine is not gaining civil unions at the expense of gay marriage. They are getting nothing. I am opposed to civil union as an alternative to allowing gay marriage because it is dishonest and panders to irrationality. If civil unions do everything marriage does, then it IS marriage and it is disingenuous to call it something else. It also writes into law the implicitly inferior status of same-sex marriages.

that it writes into law something implicitly inferior. That is not what was being offered back in January. 20% of couples on Maine's Domestic Partnership registry are heterosexuals. If there was no distinction between the two that number would rise dramatically - just as it did in the Netherlands. We have recent historical and currently present example that it works.

Not all Christians sects accepted limiting marriage to 2. There are cultures that accept polygamy headed by women. Do you really consider it likely that if polygamy had been acceptable that women wouldn't have made gains there just as they have in every other segment of society? Just because those approaches are not the norm is no reason to continue discrimination, nor is there any reason to say that expanding a right to one mroe group is equality for all groups.

Whether a society is over populated or not has more to do with wealth than with social customs around marriage. Raise the wealth you reduce the population. Works in all cases.

Maine could have had civil unions, whether as an interim step to gay marriage or an interim step towards replacing marriage as it is thought of today isn't the point. The point is the offer was on the table, we could have taken it, Maine voters wouldn't have objected to it by a majority and we'd be better off today then we are. We gambled on all or nothing and we got nothing when the alternative was a sure thing.

Allowing whites to drink from the "colored" fountain does not make it any less discriminatory.

No, some Christian sects do allow polygamy, and they all allow poligamy and not polyandry. Again, they accept the Middle-Eastern religious norm and not the Western Greco-Roman norm. That bolsters the religious prejudice argument. I have no idea what would have happened if polygamy had been acceptable in the West.

Social customs are driven in part by economic considerations. I'm not saying that plural marriage ought not be allowed. I'm just saying that there are reasons against it that are not merely religious.

How do you know Maine could have had civil unions? How do you know the ecclesiastical opponents would not have convinced voters to reject that too. And if one is acceptable, but not the other, can't the state still allow civil unions?

Les Fossel, Republican out of Alna I believe, say the gay marriage bill go into the legislative hopper and immediately knew there would be a divisive fight over it both in the capital and in the streets when the gay marriage billed passed and the opponents mounted a repeal effort. It was clear to everyone at the time that the gay marriage bill would pass and that there would be a repeal effort. So Fossel put in a bill that, in essence, said that no matter where a legal right of marriage originated from, whether it be by law, rule making, ruling or any other method, that right or benefit was to be extended to Maine's Domestic Partnership registry. Pretty simple way to deal with it - extend the rights that currently exist, automatically extend any rights that may come about in the future and take enough wind out of the sails of those opposed so as to ensure a repeal effort would fail by simply calling it something else.

Which leads to the question how can I be sure that a repeal effort in that situation would fail? I actually talk to Bob Emrich via email on a off and on basis. Emrich was one of the driving forces behind getting the repeal on the ballot. Bob is open to this approach and tacitly supported Fossel's effort until it was clear that no one wanted to even consider it as an alternative to gay marriage. I think at the hearing on Fossel's bill only 2 representatives on the committee hearing the bill bothered to even show up.

Without Bob Emrich the repeal effort would have been much weaker.

Then we come to the Catholic Bishop of Maine. He too was open to this as a compromise but he correctly predicted that the current make up of the legislature in Maine would have no part in any sort of compromise. Without the Bishop on board no repeal effort that did make the ballot would have succeeded. More likely case is that the Bishop would have come out in favor of the Domestic Partnership expansion as he did when the Domestic Partnership was first voted on.

Simply put, the main players behind the repeal effort were more concerned with protecting the "traditional" religious definition of marriage then denying their neighbors rights.

It would have left only the true haters and bigots to voted against it and there just aren't enough of those for us to lose.

time and again - it's a matter of education.

I know many a straight Christian who is for EQUAL rights for GLBT. Yes, there are a majority against it, but there's still tens of millions of Christian/Jews who are for GLBT rights.

Everyone knows gay people, the haters just don't want to admit it, or they want to believe they're somehow more righteous because they're not. Whatever their reason (even if they aren't educated about the bible really talking about male & female concubine church prostitution, and like to take the words totally literally without thinking about what they mean), they are only a slight majority - and over time, we will win.


Do you think this vote would have been this close in 1979 as opposed to now? I could see the vote being 75-25 back then.

That's how it was in Ohio in '04. And gay marriage wasn't even legal here. It was a "just making sure" amendment.

I live in Florida, and the superanti-marriage amendment passed here in 2008 in a vote that required a 60 percent majority (the haters got 62%). The real problem is that to get it overturned also requires 60%. There's no way in my lifetime that is going to happen.
The only remedy is DOMA overturn and/or a Supreme Court ruling declaring state's amendments unconstitutional.

That's all we have.

Mr. Obama, some leadership would be nice.

:hug:

I don't know what else to say...

As a straight female, I feel so angry at the people who voted this down. And it doesn't help when commentators make the point that attitudes will change as the oldsters die off - why should you have to wait for these rights that everybody else has.
It really sucks and I'm hurt and angry on your behalf.

But we as a community (GLBTQ's) can rest assured that someday treatment of this kind will stop.....


... and I for one feel better knowing that the DNC, and the HRC is in our corner.... and will come out swinging when we need them...... as even the HRC, & Joe Solmonese have set a time line of 2017 for our rights.... so a bit of "tough love" here folks... the community needs to settle down, as it's not our turn right now, "K".

http://www.towleroad.com/2009/11/dnc-emails-maine-voters-about-nj-election-ignores-question-1.html

http://www.lizmair.com/blog.php?Index=518

http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2009/10/10/15377


If we as a community could just band together long enough to give the aforementioned organizations more personal time... and I'll be the first one to say it... more money! The GLBTQ community expects miracles out of these people whom tenaciously protect our interests.... and they simply need to be paid better, cut and dry!

If we want the best talent, we need to be ready and willing to really pay for it!

Joe Solmonese only makes $338,000.00... and I don't know about everyone else.... But I am here to tell you that $338,000.00 goes no where in this economy. Gezzzz, even a box of wine for a fierce weekend soiree is hovering at almost 10 bucks, so lets get real folks!

http://www.washblade.com/thelatest/thelatest.cfm?blog_id=24698

http://www.queerty.com/joe-solmonese-hrc-represents-the-lgbt-community-yes-he-said-that-20091012


I think the Queers that whine about..... "Oh Where's Our Pony" need to shut the fuck up.... and instead of asking for "special rights"... they need to demand instead.....


"Hit Me Again Daddy, But Make It Really Hurt This Time".....

It's the only way to win this one.

We need to be vicious, constant, unending law suits vs. their churches whom participate in political activism.

Protest on Sundays blocking church entrances.

they need to be visited on Sundays