Maine's Question 1

[Lunar]

this is going to be closer than I expected, but it's hardly over folks

[Lunar]

Oh wow.

Gays will be PISSED.

they should be depressed, as this was a vote on their dignity as human beings

[Lunar]

Oh wow.

Gays will be PISSED.

And rightfully so, as we've just democratized the right of personal freedom in this nation. And if you were remotely committed to the concept of small government as you pretend to be, you would be, too.

It is one issue in which I really don't care about.  If it was legalized across the country, I wouldn't care one bit.

What if I said they could ban slavery and I wouldn't care one bit  [huge extrapolation]

it means a lot to those involved

[Lunar]

btw I fully expect to be ragged for my optimistic prediction of a large No win.  I think the Yes campaign was better run than I saw on the surface and really got the Catholic and rural voters to turn out better than the No's thought they were doing with younger voters.

At least Washington barely didn't take away more rights from the gays.

[Lunar]

And the moral of this story is:

Civil Unions with full benefits = Win!

That wasn't what the Yes campaign was based on, it was based on incoherent fear tactics arguing that gay marriage is somehow going to be a class taught in school or that parents are going to have to explain to their kids the details of anal sex.

The No campaign seemed to do everything right from what I saw on the surface, I wonder where things broke down.  It could just be that despite not being that religious, Maine is still rural and Catholic and it was a special election and all that jazz was just literally impossible to overcome.

[Lunar]

And the moral of this story is:

Civil Unions with full benefits = Win!

That wasn't what the Yes campaign was based on, it was based on incoherent fear tactics arguing that gay marriage is somehow going to be a class taught in school or that parents are going to have to explain to their kids the details of anal sex.

The No campaign seemed to do everything right from what I saw on the surface, I wonder where things broke down.  It could just be that despite not being that religious, Maine is still rural and Catholic and it was a special election and all that jazz was just literally impossible to overcome.

Liberals need to be less timid about calling the Right "liars" when they are.  Not Joe Wilson style.  But calmly and methodically point out reality:  the Right's real case is too weak so they lie.

I do not believe that's the right strategy.  That was part of the No On 8 campaign's mistake.

Remember, only some of the electorate was "persuaded" by the campaign messaging, No On 8 clearly had better ads that were unafraid to aggressively tackle the Yes side's strengths head-on.  Mostly it was about getting your saints to turn out better than the other side's saints.

[Lunar]

And the moral of this story is:

Civil Unions with full benefits = Win!

That wasn't what the Yes campaign was based on, it was based on incoherent fear tactics arguing that gay marriage is somehow going to be a class taught in school or that parents are going to have to explain to their kids the details of anal sex.

The No campaign seemed to do everything right from what I saw on the surface, I wonder where things broke down.  It could just be that despite not being that religious, Maine is still rural and Catholic and it was a special election and all that jazz was just literally impossible to overcome.

Liberals need to be less timid about calling the Right "liars" when they are.  Not Joe Wilson style.  But calmly and methodically point out reality:  the Right's real case is too weak so they lie.

I do not believe that's the right strategy.  That was part of the No On 8 campaign's mistake.

Remember, only some of the electorate was "persuaded" by the campaign messaging, No On 8 clearly had better ads that were unafraid to aggressively tackle the Yes side's strengths head-on.  Mostly it was about getting your saints to turn out better than the other side's saints.

Although i personally liked it, it was the Mormon ad that probably lost "No on 8" the election.

lol, no way if we're thinking about the one where the mormons steal those lesbian wedding rings.  It barely made a news buzz, wasn't run by the No On 8 campaign, and probably had something like less than $100k behind it, even if it was $1 million that still means no voters saw the ad.

[Lunar]

btw it's not always horrible to delete old quotations out of the code

[Lunar]

Alright, I have to admit jmfcst, that was pretty damn darn convincing.  I think I'm gonna have to try this Christianity thing I keep hearing so much about, give it the 'ole whirl. 

[Lunar]

53-47 is good and close.

Not sludging through this whole thread - someone care to repost a link to results?

I don't know where it be either. But someone posted a map:

Here is the county map:

http://www.bangordailynews.com/electionresults.html

[Lunar]

then maybe this thread should stop attempting to crucify those that oppose gay marriage and it wouldn't turn into such

where do you find the courage?

[Lunar]

I am one of the most vocal supporters of gay rights on the forum, and that's certainly not how I view opponents of gay marriage whatsoever.  

Naso is actually right though Xahar,even if it's  just a coincidence.   That is part of our problem....it was not a problem in Maine as far as I am aware, which ran a very sympathetic, logical, and straight-forward campaign messaging-wise, but the white [and you're not white, I know] liberal activists in CA especially hurt the campaign by focusing too much on themselves instead of reaching out to people who have doubts....  and the "white" part is very important to note since the entire campaign  in 2008 was focused on themselves when there really wasn't much of a danger of poor turnout among the No On Prop 8 faithful due to the presidential election

If Maine has proven anything to me, it's proven that the campaigns have to acknowledge the legitimacy of doubts over institutional homosexuality touching children, but shift the burden of proof of the negative.  I mean, how can gay marriage BANS argue that the existing law is going to do something which isn't already happening under the existing law time after time?

Far too many gay rights activists don't understand the viewpoints of people who disagree, and thus are unable to persuade.  Step one would be not calling it gay marriage or calling themselves gay activists, but whatchagonnado?  As Nate Silver has  pointed out, activists should be addressing everything in terms of "same-sex marriage ban" in cases where the populace is potentially rejecting an existing law, in order to frame the rights perspective properly




if any of that makes sense

[Lunar]

no one said that.

Arguing on the Internet that something is too unimportant to fight for seems a mite hypocritical

Deeds was an awful candidate. Look no further than his most passionate supporters to see jsut how much he sucks.

Is that a shot at me?  And to answer the question, no.

If you have to ask, then probably.

Don't you have better things to do than waste your time attacking people on an internet forum?

At 4:52 on a Wednesday? Sadly, no.

[Lunar]

no one said that.

People at my high school did last year when the Prop 8 battle was going on. From then on, I refused to group with such people.

What does that even mean, logically?

[Lunar]

no one said that.

People at my high school did last year when the Prop 8 battle was going on. From then on, I refused to group with such people.

What does that even mean, logically?

It means that I do not go to their rallies or attend their meetings in favor or in opposition to gay marriage.

because you, at one point, met someone that said something stupid?  Under that logic I should not post on this forum because you just posted that.

[Lunar]

I oppose ending slavery because seriously I heard some of that side's supporters and they compared it to the Holocaust, I don't want to be associated with that.

[Lunar]

Once upon a time I did.  I don't claim to be anything anymore.

[Lunar]

I don't claim to be anything anymore.

Then why do you have a red avatar?

I intern at a Democratic consulting company and as thus, am forced to be biased in favor of the candidates whose facebook pages and email accounts and webpages I work with.  I can't root for Dick Durbin to lose if I'm investing some hours helping his online campaign.  I'm secretly still a registered Libertarian but don't consider myself a liberal/moderate/libertarian/anything.

[Lunar]

not only is the actual referendum an injustice, but this whole loss is a political injustice as the No team ran a pitch-perfect campaign, well financed, organized, good understanding of the area, great message targeting, etc. against an awkward, clumsy, poorly financed campaign by the Yes folks...all in one of the more favorable electorates possible for gay rights demographically and against a bill that was legislatively passed