Maine's Question 1
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
May 21, 2024, 08:02:42 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Other Elections - Analysis and Discussion
  Gubernatorial/State Elections (Moderators: Brittain33, GeorgiaModerate, Gass3268, Virginiá, Gracile)
  Maine's Question 1
« previous next »
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... 28
Author Topic: Maine's Question 1  (Read 159448 times)
Holmes
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,766
Canada


Political Matrix
E: -6.45, S: -5.74

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: August 12, 2009, 08:29:33 PM »
« edited: October 25, 2009, 05:39:00 PM by Holmes »

"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?"

The group opposed to this referendum is No on 1/Protect Maine Equality. Their campaign manager is Maine's own Jesse Connolly.

The group fighting to pass this referendum is Stand for Marriage Maine. Their campaign manager is California's Schubert Flint.

No on 1/Protect Maine Equality Website

Yes on 1/Stand For Marriage Maine Website

No on 1 ads:
Together
Sam Putnam
Bill Whitten
Clearing Up Distortions
(Radio Ad) Haven
Proud
All Families
Book
Mom

Yes on 1 ads:
Consequences
(Radio Ad) Consequences
Everything To Do With Schools
Safe Schools
Give Me A Break

Polling

Sept. 14-16    
Research 2000/Daily Kos (LV)    
Yes: 48%     No: 46%     Undecided: 6%

Sept. 23-27    
Greenberg Quinlan Rosner (GQR) (RV)   
Yes: 41%     No: 50%     Undecided: 9%

Sept. 30 - Oct. 7
Pan Atlantic SMS Group (LV)
Yes: 42.9%     No: 51.8%     Undecided: 5.2%

Endorsements:

No on 1:
Bangor Daily News
Portland Press Herald/Maine Sunday Telegram

Yes on 1:

Campaign finance reports

No on 1 - $2.7million raised, $400k CoH

Yes on 1 - $1.1million raised, $400k in debt, $66k CoH


 
Logged
Bandit3 the Worker
Populist3
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 7,960


Political Matrix
E: -10.00, S: -9.92

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: August 12, 2009, 10:02:03 PM »

Well, this isn't technically 2010, and it isn't a congressional or gubernatorial race, but I think this is the most appropriate board to post it? I'll use this thread to dump all the news stories I find on this Question. Smiley

The question before the voters is "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?"

Why didn't the legislature veto this referendumb from appearing on the ballot?

Once a law expands the public's rights, there is no "people's veto."

That's why this is a republic - not a pure democracy.
Logged
Dan the Roman
liberalrepublican
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,602
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: August 12, 2009, 11:55:28 PM »

Well, this isn't technically 2010, and it isn't a congressional or gubernatorial race, but I think this is the most appropriate board to post it? I'll use this thread to dump all the news stories I find on this Question. Smiley

The question before the voters is "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?"

Why didn't the legislature veto this referendumb from appearing on the ballot?

Once a law expands the public's rights, there is no "people's veto."

That's why this is a republic - not a pure democracy.

That is not the Maine Constitution, or the US one for that matter. There is no "expanding rights" clause that makes certain things irreversible. People are free to do stupid things, like ban alcohol if they feel like it.
Logged
Holmes
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,766
Canada


Political Matrix
E: -6.45, S: -5.74

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: August 13, 2009, 08:51:06 AM »

Yeah. They're free to challenge any law passed by the legislature if they can gather enough signatures. There were two last year, and it seems like there's gonna be five, I think, this November. Washington and Maryland have the same deal going on.

Here's a story I like

Couples criticize church role in gay unions

Two lifelong Catholic couples who are parishioners at St. Raphael's Church in Kittery, Maine, are saying they find legal, moral and ethical problems with efforts of the Portland diocese to repeal the state's same-sex marriage law. Yet they say when they have brought their concerns to the church's hierarchy, they have been ignored.

Jack and Rose Dougherty and Armand and Ann LaSelva, all of Eliot, say they are not involved in the efforts of gay marriage proponents such as Equality Maine, but are merely Catholics who are deeply concerned about the overt political tone taken by their church in recent months.

Their issues range from what they say are essentially dictates from the pulpit, to the fact that diocesan staff are on loan to pro-repeal organization Stand for Marriage of Maine, to legally questionable contributions to Stand for Marriage by the diocese.

And, they say, these efforts are testing their resolve to remain church-going Catholics.


:o
Logged
Хahar 🤔
Xahar
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 41,708
Bangladesh


Political Matrix
E: -6.77, S: 0.61

WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: August 13, 2009, 08:30:35 PM »

Move to Gubernatorial/Statewide Elections. Smiley
Logged
Holmes
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,766
Canada


Political Matrix
E: -6.45, S: -5.74

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: August 20, 2009, 12:07:05 PM »

If Soulty wants to move this there, I wouldn't mind.

First ad begins airing today: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OjXRy9PiOAQ

I would've liked it if it says to vote no on 1, but it wasn't done by the campaign, so what can you do?
Logged
Holmes
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,766
Canada


Political Matrix
E: -6.45, S: -5.74

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: August 28, 2009, 05:14:39 PM »

Heh, I really love this post:

http://www.dirigoblue.com/diary/220/so-traditional-it-wasnt-added-to-maine-law-until-1997

Dur...
Logged
Free Palestine
FallenMorgan
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,022
United States
Political Matrix
E: -10.00, S: -10.00

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: September 02, 2009, 11:57:04 PM »

Because everybody knows that the democratically elected legislature doesn't represent the "will of the people."
Logged
SenatorShadowLands
Rookie
**
Posts: 43
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8 on: September 03, 2009, 07:53:55 AM »

If history holds true, which is likely considering 2009 is shaping up to be a good GOP year and this will fire up conservatives in Maine, then this ends gay "marriage" in Maine. Vote yes on 1.
Logged
Filuwaúrdjan
Realpolitik
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 67,814
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9 on: September 03, 2009, 08:41:29 AM »

Somebody obviously doesn't understand what history is!
Logged
Meeker
meekermariner
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 14,164


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #10 on: September 03, 2009, 09:22:14 AM »

If history holds true, which is likely considering 2009 is shaping up to be a good GOP year and this will fire up conservatives in Maine, then this ends gay "marriage" in Maine. Vote yes on 1.

Level of GOP support ≠ Level of support for marriage inequality. Repeat that as many times as necessary until you understand it.

And, as Al said, you obviously don't understand what history is.
Logged
Holmes
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,766
Canada


Political Matrix
E: -6.45, S: -5.74

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #11 on: September 03, 2009, 09:45:15 AM »

Lots of things happening recently. It's officially on the ballot now.

No on 1 press release:

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.


Maine Ethics Comission's Letter to NOM

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.
These four organizations = 99.999% of their first quarter donations.

Speaking of donations, I couldn't find a yes on 1 donation page, but this is no on 1's ActBlue page: http://www.actblue.com/entity/fundraisers/22505

Volunteer Vacation in Maine

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

First No on 1 ad. Looks like they're getting people who spoke at the public hearing. I hope they also get that 90 year old war vet and the head of Maine's NAACP. The ad I linked previously was not made by No on 1 but it's still on the air.

I think that's it. I don't think 2009 will be a GOP and Democratic year, no candidate is on the ballot. It'll all come down to GOTV and who gets more people to the polls. The No on 1 campaign has identified 80,000 supporters that they can get to the polls, and they're focusing hard on getting early votes in during October. I give them the edge.
Logged
SenatorShadowLands
Rookie
**
Posts: 43
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #12 on: September 03, 2009, 10:12:38 AM »

If history holds true, which is likely considering 2009 is shaping up to be a good GOP year and this will fire up conservatives in Maine, then this ends gay "marriage" in Maine. Vote yes on 1.

Level of GOP support ≠ Level of support for marriage inequality. Repeat that as many times as necessary until you understand it.

And, as Al said, you obviously don't understand what history is.


You're absolutely right, GOP support and support FOR marriage are inequal, support FOR marriage is almost always greater than GOP support because minority voters vote how they feel on the issue rather than falling for left wing race baiting. McCain lost in Florida and California but marriage won and marriage won BIGGER than McCain did in Arizona.

I don't understand history? When the PEOPLE get a say in marriage they have ALWAYS supported marriage, that's history and its on marriage's side. The one exception being the poorrly worded Arizona Amendment from 2006 which only failed by 4 points even with the poor wording and passed in 2008 re-worded. But hey, you keep holding out hope that middle America will one day embrace your leftist agenda.
Logged
Holmes
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,766
Canada


Political Matrix
E: -6.45, S: -5.74

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #13 on: September 03, 2009, 10:33:51 AM »

We're not talking about a middle America state like Iowa or Kansas, we're talking about Maine in an election that'll be all about identifying supporters and GOTV.
Logged
SenatorShadowLands
Rookie
**
Posts: 43
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #14 on: September 03, 2009, 10:38:21 AM »

We're not talking about a middle America state like Iowa or Kansas, we're talking about Maine in an election that'll be all about identifying supporters and GOTV.

ME-2 is largely rural, friendlier to Conservatives and is more like upstate New York rather than the coastal ME-1. If The ME-2 middle Americans come out in force and the big city people in ME-1 either don't care or vote in favor of marriage, then its sunk.
Logged
Holmes
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,766
Canada


Political Matrix
E: -6.45, S: -5.74

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #15 on: September 03, 2009, 10:53:51 AM »

The only big city in the state has a huge gay population, and they're really friendly, so they won't stay home. No on 1 won't let them. And Maine's second biggest metro is in ME-02. In 2007, they cast about 240,000 votes, so there'll probably be more this year. No on 1 has identified 80k voters with 2 months to to, and one month before canvassing for early votes.

I really can't comment on yes on 1's campaign, to be honest. They're not sharing anything. All I know is they're casting an ad on Craigslist, looking for two "real Maine women" but not saying what the ad is about, and blaming Maine's bad weather on the gays. That's all I know about them. They're not even publicly saying where their main office is, but the No on 1 campaign has opened public offices all over the state in the past month.
Logged
SenatorShadowLands
Rookie
**
Posts: 43
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #16 on: September 03, 2009, 11:05:02 AM »

The only big city in the state has a huge gay population, and they're really friendly, so they won't stay home. No on 1 won't let them. And Maine's second biggest metro is in ME-02. In 2007, they cast about 240,000 votes, so there'll probably be more this year. No on 1 has identified 80k voters with 2 months to to, and one month before canvassing for early votes.

I really can't comment on yes on 1's campaign, to be honest. They're not sharing anything. All I know is they're casting an ad on Craigslist, looking for two "real Maine women" but not saying what the ad is about, and blaming Maine's bad weather on the gays. That's all I know about them. They're not even publicly saying where their main office is, but the No on 1 campaign has opened public offices all over the state in the past month.


And Yes on 1 hasn't demonstrated the fact it can rally support by getting tens of thousands of people to sign a petition to get a vote?
Logged
Holmes
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,766
Canada


Political Matrix
E: -6.45, S: -5.74

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #17 on: September 03, 2009, 11:18:59 AM »

They've surely demonstrated that they can hire a signature gathering firm from Michigan and a campaign director from California, based in DC, who pay signature gatherers $2 for every signature they get. Not every signature is a committed voter.

Look at the public hearing back in April. The no side was able to get about 3000 supporters to dress in red and attend, and the yes wasn't able to get 1000. The no side was able to send tens of thousands of letters to governor Baldacci to help him sign it, the yes side, not so much.
Logged
Meeker
meekermariner
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 14,164


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #18 on: September 03, 2009, 11:43:04 AM »

You're absolutely right, GOP support and support FOR marriage are inequal, support FOR marriage is almost always greater than GOP support because minority voters vote how they feel on the issue rather than falling for left wing race baiting. McCain lost in Florida and California but marriage won and marriage won BIGGER than McCain did in Arizona.

No you dolt, your argument was that as GOP support increases support for marriage inequality increases as well. That's completely ridiculous and shows you have an incredibly limited understanding of the issue (not that that wasn't apparent anyways, but whatevsky).

I don't understand history? When the PEOPLE get a say in marriage they have ALWAYS supported marriage, that's history and its on marriage's side. The one exception being the poorrly worded Arizona Amendment from 2006 which only failed by 4 points even with the poor wording and passed in 2008 re-worded. But hey, you keep holding out hope that middle America will one day embrace your leftist agenda.

And, as we all know, cultural values and opinions never change. Which is why interracial marriage and school segregation are still legal and why women aren't allowed to vote.
Logged
danny
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,768
Israel


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #19 on: September 03, 2009, 12:32:06 PM »

If history holds true, which is likely considering 2009 is shaping up to be a good GOP year and this will fire up conservatives in Maine, then this ends gay "marriage" in Maine. Vote yes on 1.

Level of GOP support ≠ Level of support for marriage inequality. Repeat that as many times as necessary until you understand it.

And, as Al said, you obviously don't understand what history is.


You're absolutely right, GOP support and support FOR marriage are inequal, support FOR marriage is almost always greater than GOP support because minority voters vote how they feel on the issue rather than falling for left wing race baiting. McCain lost in Florida and California but marriage won and marriage won BIGGER than McCain did in Arizona.

If your counting on minorities in Maine to pass this, you will be disappointed.
Logged
Holmes
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,766
Canada


Political Matrix
E: -6.45, S: -5.74

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #20 on: September 03, 2009, 12:39:48 PM »
« Edited: September 03, 2009, 12:41:33 PM by Holmes »

Apparently I missed this, No on 1 released two TV ads today, not just one. Here is the second one:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rZfEfN1ifdA

It's good ad, but I prefer the first. He doesn't say to vote no, you just see the logo. Sad And when no means yes, it's important.
Logged
Badger
badger
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 40,404
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #21 on: September 03, 2009, 06:01:20 PM »

If history holds true, which is likely considering 2009 is shaping up to be a good GOP year and this will fire up conservatives in Maine, then this ends gay "marriage" in Maine. Vote yes on 1.

Level of GOP support ≠ Level of support for marriage inequality. Repeat that as many times as necessary until you understand it.

And, as Al said, you obviously don't understand what history is.


You're absolutely right, GOP support and support FOR marriage are inequal, support FOR marriage is almost always greater than GOP support because minority voters vote how they feel on the issue rather than falling for left wing race baiting. McCain lost in Florida and California but marriage won and marriage won BIGGER than McCain did in Arizona.

I don't understand history? When the PEOPLE get a say in marriage they have ALWAYS supported marriage, that's history and its on marriage's side. The one exception being the poorrly worded Arizona Amendment from 2006 which only failed by 4 points even with the poor wording and passed in 2008 re-worded. But hey, you keep holding out hope that middle America will one day embrace your leftist agenda.
Why do conservatives talk about denying the ability of more people getting marriage as being a a vote "for marriage"? Even an extremem right winger like you must realize that gays are not going to give up their long term committed relationships, they'll just be living outside the bounds a nd stability of marriage that conservatives like you supposedly are trying to protect---by allowing fewer people to marry.

Are you married? If so, how iis your marriage damaged or lessened in any way by gay marriage?
Logged
SenatorShadowLands
Rookie
**
Posts: 43
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #22 on: September 03, 2009, 07:14:40 PM »

They've surely demonstrated that they can hire a signature gathering firm from Michigan and a campaign director from California, based in DC, who pay signature gatherers $2 for every signature they get. Not every signature is a committed voter.

Look at the public hearing back in April. The no side was able to get about 3000 supporters to dress in red and attend, and the yes wasn't able to get 1000. The no side was able to send tens of thousands of letters to governor Baldacci to help him sign it, the yes side, not so much.

lol ok so everyone who opposes gay "marriage" is obviously just a hired stooge. Yeah, you fit in well with Nancy Pelosi, just dismiss the people, it can't be true, they're just "astroturf."
Logged
SenatorShadowLands
Rookie
**
Posts: 43
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #23 on: September 03, 2009, 07:23:32 PM »

You're absolutely right, GOP support and support FOR marriage are inequal, support FOR marriage is almost always greater than GOP support because minority voters vote how they feel on the issue rather than falling for left wing race baiting. McCain lost in Florida and California but marriage won and marriage won BIGGER than McCain did in Arizona.

No you dolt, your argument was that as GOP support increases support for marriage inequality increases as well. That's completely ridiculous and shows you have an incredibly limited understanding of the issue (not that that wasn't apparent anyways, but whatevsky).

I don't understand history? When the PEOPLE get a say in marriage they have ALWAYS supported marriage, that's history and its on marriage's side. The one exception being the poorrly worded Arizona Amendment from 2006 which only failed by 4 points even with the poor wording and passed in 2008 re-worded. But hey, you keep holding out hope that middle America will one day embrace your leftist agenda.

And, as we all know, cultural values and opinions never change. Which is why interracial marriage and school segregation are still legal and why women aren't allowed to vote.

Yeah and there's absolutely no chance that tradition can hold fast either which is why 90% of the people on the planet are still getting married, believe in a God, etc after 6000 years of civilization.

And of course, interracial marriage (still between a man and a woman, no relevance to gay marriage), women's suffrage, and segregation are all of course on the same level of fundamental importance as satisfying the indulgences of a minority.

I don't think I could have said anything so nonsenical as whatever I placed in bold that you just posted. My original argument, was that higher GOP turnout would benefit Propsition One (that's a given fact, GOP voters support marriage.) and then you tried to say that higher GOP turnout wouldn't help One, at which point I said support for marrige is often even higher than GOP support. Now you're trying to tell me I was right the first time, not the second. Which is it?
Logged
Meeker
meekermariner
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 14,164


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #24 on: September 03, 2009, 07:34:50 PM »

And of course, interracial marriage (still between a man and a woman, no relevance to gay marriage), women's suffrage, and segregation are all of course on the same level of fundamental importance as satisfying the indulgences of a minority.

I didn't realize love was an indulgence in your twisted, bigoted world.

I don't think I could have said anything so nonsenical as whatever I placed in bold that you just posted. My original argument, was that higher GOP turnout would benefit Propsition One (that's a given fact, GOP voters support marriage.) and then you tried to say that higher GOP turnout wouldn't help One, at which point I said support for marrige is often even higher than GOP support. Now you're trying to tell me I was right the first time, not the second. Which is it?

You clearly have no idea what you said. You stated that as GOP support increased support for marriage inequality would increase. Such a notion is ridiculous.
Logged
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... 28  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.061 seconds with 11 queries.