Posted on 10/25/2009 11:43:33 AM PDT by Baladas
(CNN) -- Voters in Maine will decide next week whether to overturn the legislation signed by Gov. John Baldacci nearly six months ago that allows same-sex couples to wed.
Baldacci, who originally opposed the legislation, said upholding the bill comes down to a fundamental understanding of equal protection and constitutional responsibility.
"Initially, I had the opinion for several years that civil unions were the limitations of what I was willing to support," Baldacci said. "But, the research that I did uncovered that a civil union didn't equal a civil marriage."
On May 6 when Baldacci signed the legislation, he did so knowing there was a possibility that voters could overturn it.
"Just as the Maine Constitution demands that all people are treated equally under the law, it also guarantees that the ultimate political power in the state belongs to the people," Baldacci said in a statement released as he signed the bill.
On September 2, opposition groups delivered the 55,087 signatures necessary to put the legislation to a vote on the November 3 ballot.
California's state Supreme Court issued a similar ruling in May 2008 after which some 18,000 gay and lesbian couples got married there. But in November 2008, California voters approved Proposition 8, which amended the state constitution to ban gay marriage
(Excerpt) Read more at cnn.com ...
I’m actually worried this time around. Some polls are showing an overturn behind. I’ve also noticed an increase in the number of gay couples shopping, almost as if gays have moved here just in the last few months.
I think it may pass. There are so many bigger problems that people are worried about that these social issues are being trumped by other more important issues. I feel all of them are important but we are much more in tune with everything going on than the average American.
The question of gay marriage will not be decided in the voting both, but rather at the SCOTUS, where a gay marriage ban will be stuck down by a Court that loves the Equal Protection Clause.
Their theory is that what's happening is the 'tipping point' phenomenon because one of their models showed that support for same-sex marriage goes up in states where has already been legalized, which doesn't make sense (you would think it would be easiest to score percentage gains in more conservative states because you're working from such a small base) until you put it into a tipping-point framework. They think the numbers show (and your anecdotal evidence would support it) that there are so many people living "in the closet" that legalization and societal acceptance make them come out, making people realize how many gays or lesbians they know in their own life. This causes them to be more supportive, or at least less hostile, to targeted legislation so you get this counter intuitive effect where suddenly no one seems to care and gays are everywhere from the grocery store to the post office.
I never would have guessed that to be the case. If anything, I would have thought there would be a backlash from conservative voters.
If it's a big political story, the site (fivethirtyeight.com) tend to run numbers on it so it's definitely worth checking out if you have the time. They even cover the current data on Congressional and local race, gun rights, Palin, insurance, and a lot more.
It isn;t a valid equal protection issue. GLBTs are free to marry someone of the opposite sex just as us 'breeders' are.
It does if a state gets a reputation for being 'gay friendly' and people move there who want that. The local demographic changes as GLBTs move in and others move out.
Another anecdote that would support your theory: I saw on the news a few days ago some huge university down in Alabama had to offer full benefits for same sex couples because they were losing so many high quality staff to states where gay marriage was legal that they figured it was costing them more in terms of opportunity cost. The tipping point was some research guy or professor or something that left with a $2 million or $4 million grant, taking the whole research budget with him.
My guess is that the SCOTUS will reject that argument, just as the Court rejected that argument in Loving v. Virginia which struck down interracial marriage bans.
And in today's Court environment, Stevens, Bryer, Ginsburg, Sotomayor and Kennedy would vote to overturn a gay marriage ban.
Yes, there are a lot of well educated homosexuals who prefer jobs that offer domestic partner benefits. Companies that offer such benefits will retain and attract these highly skilled workers while companies that deny domestic partner benefits will lose such workers.
And in a capitalist business environment, those companies with the most educated and creative employees are most likely to survive.
I've gotten flack for saying it on here about a week ago, but even when I disagree with the man, he has a genius way of framing arguments. It's not hard to see why he's won more Supreme Court cases than just about anyone else.
I still don't know if the Supreme Court would go for gay marriage. I said earlier that if I had to bet money, I typically would put it on the side of Ted Olson because he's that good, not necessarily his case. But I just don't know if I can see the United States Supreme Court supporting a full ruling allowing gay marriage across the country. Then again, I'm too young to have seen Roe v. Wade so I guess something that controversial it could happen.
Olson will win before the SCOTUS not necessarily based on his great legal skills, but because of the current composition of the Court.
Against Gay Marriage:
Roberts
Scalia
Thomas
Alito
For Gay Marriage:
Stevens
Bryer
Ginsburg
Sotomayor
Deciding Vote:
Kennedy, who wrote the majority opinion in Lawrence v. Texas
The salient difference being that one is demonstrably born with racial characteristics, (...all men are created equal) and thus deserving of equal protection regardless of race.
It is difficult to make a case for genetic ties to a behaviour which does not result in progeny, thus the matter is solely one of choice, not genetics.
Marriage is an institution with its roots in religious tradition (Christian tradition) as practiced in this country, and has been socially useful for the purposes of providing a stable environment in which to rear progeny and to secure wealth (however little or much) from generation to generation.
Other means exist to secure wealth regardless of genetic relationships. Homosexual unions have no opportunity for progeny without utilizing extraordinary means.
While that choice to be homosexual may be presumed to be a 'right', that does not mean that that choice should enjoy homosexual "marriage" under equal protection any more than human sacrifice should be included as a protected religious practice.
I am not in favor of gay marriage.
However, when the question goes to the SCOTUS, I believe that the gay marriage ban will be struck down.
The deciding vote will be Kennedy who wrote the majority opinion in Lawrence v. Texas.
Just as it was in the days of Noah will it be when the Son of Man returns.
Stuff like this just hastens that day.
What city are you in? There are concentrations in homosexual centers in every state that skew the entire political region. Be assured that vast regions of Maine are firmly on the side of real marriage.
I believe the majority opinion in Lawrence specifically disclaimed that the opinion would in any way compel recognition of same-sex marriage by any government. I'll have to look it up, but I remember this distinctly.
Of course, when you have activist, "living constitution" minds on the court, they can make up the rules as they go along.
The present case ... does not involve whether the government must give formal recognition to any relationship that homosexual persons seek to enter.
Whether the justice were being disingenuous is another issue.
Everyone needs to donate to Stand for Marriage Maine as much and as soon as possible. I’ve donated more to them than I did to Prop 8, and Prop 8 hurt my pocketbook badly.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.