PORTLAND, Maine — An appeals court on Tuesday upheld the state’s campaign disclosure law that requires a national anti-gay marriage group to release its donor list, but the group plans to take the fight to shield the list to the U.S. Supreme Court.

The decision pertains to ballot question committees in Maine and represents a second defeat for the National Organization for Marriage, which previously lost a challenge to the state’s political action committee laws and laws governing independent expenditures and advertising attribution and disclaimers.

The latest appeal focused on part of the law that says groups that raise or spend more than $5,000 to influence elections must register and disclose their donors.

The NOM, which says it was founded in 2007 in response to the “growing need for an organized opposition to same-sex marriage in state legislatures,” donated $1.9 million to a political action committee that helped repeal Maine’s same-sex marriage law. It said it believes that releasing the donor list would stymie free speech.

“We already know that the homosexual lobby has launched a national campaign of harassment and intimidation against supporters of traditional marriage, so there’s a good reason to keep these names confidential,” said Indiana lawyer James Bopp Jr., who’s representing the NOM.

Mary Bonauto, an attorney with Boston-based Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders, said Bopp’s claims are an attempt to divert attention from NOM’s failure to follow Maine disclosure rules.

“Courts have said it’s important for voters to know who the donors are for each side since that information may help them decide how to vote.
Everyone else abides by the disclosure rules and so can NOM,” she said Tuesday in an email statement.

The ruling by the 1st Circuit Court of Appeals in Boston, like its earlier decision, will be appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, Bopp said.

Even if the Supreme Court rejects the appeal, additional action would be required before the donor list could be released. The Maine Commission on Governmental Ethics and Election Practices must conduct an investigation to determine whether the list must be made public.

The NOM has been involved in campaigns against same-sex marriage in Maine and other states. Maine voters repealed the state’s gay marriage law in 2009.

In neighboring New Hampshire, Republicans who control the legislature are mulling whether to repeal a 2009 law legalizing same-sex marriage. Their state is one of six with such laws, along with Connecticut, Iowa, Massachusetts, New York and Vermont, as well as the capital district of Washington.

Gay-marriage advocates announced this week that they’re seeking another referendum in Maine. On Monday, they turned over dozens of cartons of petitions signed by 105,000 voters, far more than the 57,277 needed to force a referendum. If the petitions are certified by election officials, as expected, then the gay-marriage proposal would go to the Legislature for an up or down vote.

If the Legislature approves the proposal and Republican Gov. Paul LePage signs it, then gay marriage will be legalized. If the Legislature doesn’t approve it or the governor doesn’t sign a bill, as expected, then the question goes to voters and would be placed on the November ballot.

Join the Conversation

169 Comments

    1. NOM are the hypocrites who stand against fair and equal treatment under the law for same sex couples. In 2009 they funneled money to the ‘yes’ side to fight gay marriage using lies and deceit.

      1. Ok i know now, sorry i was lost.  But i was told the people campaigning for same sex that they withheld names too.  Not sure, and im not saying it true, but its possible both sides are lying

    2. I got the feeling that we are going to need a score card to figure which acronym represents which side on this issue.
      For starters I believe this one National Organization for Marriage is against same sex marriage.

      It would be helpful if the BDN would keep scores and stats on who’s on which team and exactly who the teams are. I think if they utilized their sports reporters they could help them set up an easy to read chart that could be posted daily in the editorial section. Items like money spent broken into 3 catagories TV, Radio & Print. If the info becomes available source of funds by state, religious affiliation, etc. It would bring a whole new meaning to the game of who is trying to influence Maines laws.

      1. I know you’re kidding here, but I have to say— obtaining civil marriage rights here in my home state of Maine is anything but a game to me.

        1. I started out kidding but as I typed my random thoughts (I have lots of them), I started thinking this would be a good tool for voters to try and sort out the who’s and what’s involved in these various issue oriented votes. It might help people understand where the money for ads comes from and who these money people are.

    3. NOM was in support of the “Yes” crowd, as in “Yes, I would like to rescind gay marriage and harm my fellow citizens”.

      1. I don’t think it’s ‘who’, more than likely it’s ‘what’.

        That ‘what’ is the embarrassment of being outed as a bigot and/or just how much out of state money is trying to influence a a decision that belongs to Mainers alone.

          1. If embarrassment is all of a threat that there is than so be it,but folks shouldn’t bully others into thinking like them thats just thuggery .Thats whether you agree with my opine or not.

          2. Couldn’t be much worse than the Reverend Phelp’s follower’s antics, could it?

            Don’t forget: You can only embarrass yourself by doing something other people denigrate  (like the gays have gone through for 2 millennia).

  1. I would like to appeal to the supreme wisdom of Maine voters.  When we get closer to election time and our airwaves are saturated with hate fueled misinformation about same sex couples, remember that it is being perpetrated by someone who is so ashamed and fearful that they don’t even want you to know who they are.  They are so stubborn in their pursuit of inequality in the name of their misguided moralistic superiority that rather than obey our laws, they are willing to spend countless millions of dollars to fight them.  Just say NO to NOM!  
       

    1. Mom can I have a cookie? No.  Mom can I have a cookie? No.  Mom can I have a cookie? No.  Mom can I have a cookie? No. Mom can I have a cookie? No. Mom can I have a cookie? Oh well alright.  If you keep pestering enough apparently you think you will get your way.  I think there should be a petition circulated to gather signatures to have a question on the ballot this fall that will make it illegal to ever have to vote on same sex marriage again!

      1. You’re right we shouldn’t be voting on same sex marriage.  Why should a majority vote decide whether someone should have civil rights?  Do you think that if in 1920 all the men were asked to vote on whether women should have the right to vote that it would have been fair?  If you don’t want gay marriage don’t have one.  Otherwise mind your business.  The reason this is going back to the ballot is that out of state interest groups (which you conservatives claim to hate) unfairly portrayed allowing gay marriage as some threat to children.

        1. Blaming out of state-interest-groups for the outcome of a vote is nonsense when proponents on both sides of the issue benefited from out-of-state support. Mainers repealed the SSM law approved by the legislature because they felt is was a bad law that didn’t benefit Mainers in general.

          1. NOM provided funds to Maine Yes on 1 that paid for ads that were based on lies. That is the only word that one can use….LIES. Even Yes on 1 has come out and has admitted that much of what they said in the ads was “inaccurate”….LIES in any other language.

          2. Were the arguments used in the 2009 repeal opposing civil marriage inclusion concrete facts, misrepresentations or supposition?   Did Mr. McNutty say on video that the statements regarding education issues were absolute, verifiable fact or that they went too far and  he knew they were not completely truthful???

          3. Maine voters were given this in an election that mattered more to the anti-ssmariage group. It was an off election other than that. Those who passionately hate the thought of SS marriage came out and voted. Those who may have been in favor or didn’t feel threatened by the thought of SS marriage just didn’t bother to vote. This time around I believe that the voters will approve SS marriage.

        2. “If you don’t want gay marriage don’t have one.” Or…if you want to get married….go ahead, to the opposite sex, since that is what marriage means.
          Or…make up your own brand of union, other than marriage. Don’t worry, you would be able to get your tax deduction and whatever else you want to write into it.

          1. I married my husband in a “civil union” (no priest/no church) and we get to call it a “marriage” It’s all words and unless you are gay you should really have no say as to whether or no to people of the same sex get….”married”

          2. Because it’s disgusting and perverted behavior, and unlike the liberals, I won’t pretend it’s normal to appease anyone. Because I don’t want the institution of marriage polluted. Because there was already an attempt to force this on the people of Maine by a handful of representatives who obviously didn’t represent the people that they are paid to.
            Anything else would get deleted.

          3. There are plenty of behaviors that some will find to be “disgusting & perverted” that are legal in the good ‘ol USofA, just as the founders intended.

            Some consider eating meat to be disgusing and perverted, but I for one am glad that they aren’t deciding on my civil rights!

      2. Sorry honey, ain’t gonna happen.

        And with each time this loses, a Maine citizens are continued to be harmed under government, the better chance we’ll all have of ending this at the federal level.

        That is, of course, unless you have a rational, legal argument against gay marriage.

        We’d all love to see that.

        1. No… actually the beauty of a democratic system is that you can express your ideas under the provisions of free speech. No matter whether those ideas are in oppossion with the majority opinion and even if it seems totally outrageous. Maybe wileyes comments are out of line, but so are yours.   

          1. Maybe we can vote to take away free speech so haters like you cant speek. Thats how I feel not being able to legally marry the woman I love in the wonderful state of Maine. How does that fit into your perspectives? 

          2.  I guess your way of discussing a topic comes from the book titled, “When you have nothing useful to say, call people names, and make threats.” So yes, let’s take the freedom of speech away from everyone that disagrees with you.  Well, that’s called a dictatorship, not a democracy. You may not like the position that the homosexual community is living in today, but it is a far cry from other countries were you could be killed as soon as you are exposed. This great country that everyone is so quick to trash, and I do my fair share, has come a long way in it’s short history. And, at least this topic is openly being discussed. Try talking openly about homosexuality with the governments of China, or Russia, or North Korea, or Iraq, or Iran, or Syria. I’ve worn the uniform of this country, and been in other countries. You can knock this land all you want, but as bad as things are, we’ve still got it better than most of the people on this planet. Why? Because at least we can talk about things openly whether we agree or not. Millions of people on this planet do not have that luxury. So, I would say that my perspectives on my comment to Bangorian are just fine, and yours are the ones that need closer inspection. Unlike you, I have made no threats towards anyone here just because they disagree with me. I have made comments, asked questions, and made an attempt to understand a lifestyle that I know little about, and understand less. Thank you for helping to educate me with name calling and threats. Way to help your cause. I would say that you, not I, appear to be the hater.

      3. Maine voters have NEVER voted to allow same sex marriage. They voted ONCE to repeal a law passed by the legislature and signed by the Governor to allow two consenting adults of the same sex to marry.

        As a married heterosexual male I would like to ask you two questions:

        1. How does allowing two consenting adults of the same sex to wed impact your marriage (assuming that you are married) or way of life?, and

        2. Which one of your civil rights would you want everyone to vote on to see if you get to keep that right?

        1. Maine voters have never voted to allow SS marriage because they voted against it. Either way, voting for or against it, it’s still a vote on SS marriage!

          To answer your questions:

          Allowing SSM will impact everyone who pays taxes, among other things. It will also impact what is taught our youngsters in the school system. On the other hand OSM ultimately benefits everyone, particular future generations of children.

          Select ANY of my civil rights to vote on to see if I get to keep it. I trust the people of Maine will vote to retain all of them.

          1. You’re lying here— Maine state law has no directives on what is taught in our schools, that is up to individual communities.

            Marriage benefits everyone, particularly future generations of children. The gender of the parents may not be your preference, but I think children are thankful to have caring, loving parents— and they deserve the protections of civil marriage.

            Your offer to have citizens vote on your civil rights is humorous, since you being in the majority have never had to fear the tyranny of the majority.

          2. To answer your questions:Allowing SSM will impact everyone who pays taxes, among other things.
            *********************************************************
            I am sorry I do not understand what you are saying here….please elaborate.

          3. Exactly ….. if same-sex couples are allowed to file joint tax returns in the state of Maine,  they state may lose tax money – individual vs. married and inheritance tax  exemptions will apply etc.   Of course when opposite-sex couples marry the same happens.

          4. It will impact it! If we legalize same sex marriage we will attract more couples to this state who will get married…buy homes….AND pay taxes 8)

          5. “To answer your questions:

            Allowing SSM will impact everyone who
            pays taxes, among other things.”

            How?
            ~~~~~
            “It will also impact what is taught our
            youngsters in the school system.”

            How? Yes on 1 admitted after the election that the claim that “it” would be taught in school was FALSE. So Yes on 1 LIED to the Maine voters about what would be required to be taught in the classroom and they knew that it was a LIE when they put it out there.
            ~~~~~
            “On the other hand OSM ultimately
            benefits everyone, particular future generations of children.”

            How?

      4. I appreciate your false equivalency of our fight for equal treatment under the law with a childish demand for a cookie.

        There are well over 1,300 benefits and privileges extended to citizens, contingent on their marital status, at the federal level alone.

        This is not a childish request. This is Maine families voicing their need to have the benefits only civil marriage can provide. This is Maine families seeking to protect their children with the benefits only civil marriage can provide.

        We will continue to explain our valid, rational reasons why civil marriage is needed for all Maine families. Even when people demean and ridicule our request.

        1. I raised three children, none of whom were treated equally. They were treated fairly but not equally on account of their individual differences. SS and OS relationships are different too. Both are alike in that both are human relationships. But the similarities end there. OS relationships are complementary and natural, unlike SS relationships. They also have the potential to procreate and raise offspring, something lacking in SS relationships. OS marriage benefits everyone including future generations of children. SS marriage would only benefit SS couples and would be an additional tax burden on everyone else. If SSM is permitted, then there is no longer any rationale for not allowing polygamous “marriage”.

          1. You may have treated your children unequally, but I think you would take issue if your government treated them unequally. And that is what we are seeking to change— the fact that our government treats same sex couples unequally to heterosexual couples in regards to civil marriage rights.

            I do not care if you yourself treat me unequally, you are not my government to whom I pay tax dollars. I do not support hate crime legislation, but I wholeheartedly support civil marriage equality.

          2. Paraplegics get treatment by our government most other people don’t qualify for. If that fair? Of course it is. Is it equal treatment? Of course it’s not.

          3. And around and around we go with you; splitting hairs on irrelevant minutia, ignoring the obvious, clear case that has been made legally, ethically and morally that civil marriage benefits should be available to same sex couples.

          4. You call my argument hair splitting. I call yours dismissive. If a real case for SSM had been made I’d be the first one to support it. So far all I’ve heard are attacks and deliberate misrepresentations of my argument.

          5. Again, read the Iowa Supreme Court ruling, or the California Supreme Court rulings on same sex marriage. They outline very clearly the case for same sex marriage.

            Here, I’ll even give you a link to the Iowa one: http://www.iowacourts.gov/wfData/files/Varnum/07-1499(1).pdf

            AND the California one:
            https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/cand/09cv2292/files/09cv2292-ORDER.pdf

            And what exactly am I being dismissive about in regards to your argument? Don’t say I am dismissive of your procreation argument, because I have thoroughly outlined why that argument hasn’t held up in courts when it has been entered into these arguments (see Iowa and California rulings, again.) 

          6. SS marriage would only benefit SS couples and would be an additional tax burden on everyone else.
            ********************************************************
            again, I am sorry I do not understand your statement…please explain how same-sex couples are an additional tax burden on everyone else. Would they not be an “additional tax burden on everyone else” if they just live together as a family unit as they do now? If not, how would entering into a formal contract automatically make them a “additional tax burden on everyone else?”

          7. I didn’t say SS couple are an additional tax burden. What I stated is that SSM would create an additional tax burden.

          8. Yes, you have said that. But you have not explained in any way how this would be so.

            Your goal is not to inform anyone here, it is to spread FUD (fear, uncertainty and doubt) in the minds of others considering our rational, clear reasons for needing civil marriage.

          9. I didn’t bother to give you an explanation because you distorted my prior remark. But I’ll give you an obvious explanation most people are aware of: Marriage confers spousal benefits to a surviving spouse. These benefits are not without costs.

          10. It’s discriminatory and wrong to deny those benefits to the surviving partner of a same-sex relationship, that is one of our arguments.

            And it’s unconstitutional to boot, but we have to wait for the US Supreme Court to take a case on this to get that ruling.

          11. I didn’t say SS couple are an additional tax burden. What I stated is that SSM would create an additional tax burden.
            **************************************************
            ….so…HOW would it create an additional tax burden?

          12. Yes, you are correct and I apologize. In answer to your question, for one, marriage confers spousal benefits that are not without cost.

          13. Yes, you are correct and I apologize. In answer to your question, for one, marriage confers spousal benefits that are not without cost.
            *************************************************
            …and yet if the same people who comprise a “same-sex couple” were to marry members of the opposite sex, wouldn’t those spousal benefits cost the taxpayer the same amount of money?

          14. Spousal benefits do impose a cost. But society has decided the cost of these benefits was worthy if only to encourage parents to stay home to take care of their children while the other one is working. 

          15. Spousal benefits do impose a cost. But society has decided the cost of these benefits was worthy if only to encourage parents to stay home to take care of their children while the other one is working.
            ********************************************
            huh? I’m sorry, this is not Europe…the govt. does not pay parents to stay home with their children. You just said above that Social Security Death Benefits confer to the surviving spouse….that’s not given to a parent in order for “one of them to stay home with the children.”

          16. I said, “the cost of these benefits was (deemed) worthy if only to ENCOURAGE …”
            ************************************************
            ….so? You still haven’t shown that same-sex marriage would create an additional tax burden upon taxpayers that wouldn’t already be realized if the persons married members of the opposite sex.

          17. Why do you people insist on suggesting that allowing SSM marriage will open the door to polygamous marriage?  You shoot yourself in the foot with that statement because all we have to do is look at other states/countries that have made SSM legal.  Have polygamous groups succeeded as well?  These are two different issues that will pass or fail on their own merits.

          18. Huh?  Methinks you misread my post.  I was making the point that SSM does not open the door to polygamy, in response to whawell who implied that it would.

          19. Yes, some polygamous families do succeed, just like gay couples do. This doesn’t mean that children in general are not best served by their own parents.

          20. “OS relationships are complementary and natural, unlike SS relationships”

            If it walks like a bigot and talks like a bigot…..

          21. Really?  That’s the best argument you have?  So, if an opposite sex couple has children they can’t afford, that’s less of a tax burden than a same sex couple that doesn’t have children?  Same sex couples can adopt children that were unwanted by mother who were forced to have the baby because people like you are anti abortion.  Seems like you care about the sanctity of life as long as it’s convenient to you, or doesn’t turn out to be something you don’t like.  There is only one reason to oppose same sex marriage.  Bigotry.

      5. Mainers have voted on the gay marriage issue EXACTLY ONCE.

        But don’t let the facts get in the way of your rant.

      6. Very poor comparison.  Hearts and minds change through understanding.  Not that you’re there yet, but we can hope…

        Now, go have a cookie.

      7. You mean like NOM suing the state of Maine because they don`t want to follow the law and being told they must but they don`t like the answer so they take to appeal and are again told that they must but they still don`t like the answer so they take it to the Supreme Court where they will be told they must follow the law and then they will say they are victims of discrimination?

    2. I say this with total respect to this issue, you, and everyone involved. If there is a law that says that something is supposed to be disclosed, then it should be. Once we start picking and choosing we end up with the same kind of mess and non transparency that we all complain about with politics in general. With over 105,000 signatures on petitions to get this brought back before the legislature, I would dare say that there are a lot of people who are not scared and afraid, because their names are on those petitions. Are the names on those petitions accessible? If so, then why not the people who are this funding as well?

      1. I can give you one very good reason why donors don’t want their names mentioned. They don’t want to be attacked and embarrassed wherever they go. Judging from what I hear in this forum that is exactly what is going on. When a message doesn’t suit them, posters have a tendency to attack the messenger.

        1. What you are saying does have logic and merit of course. However, again with total respect, somebody should have checked the laws governing this a little closer if this was going to be a concern. Time for these folks to hire a new lawyer that’s a little more on the ball.  

        2. Not a good reason at all. My name was published as a financial donor to Protect Maine Equality, the other side should abide by the same laws.

          If you are trying to draw comparison between our disagreements with you and violent stalking, well that’s preposterous.

        3. Yes, that’s a good reason, no one wants to be attacked and embarrassed, or made to feel like they are being judged.  That would be like… Oh I dunno, standing outside a planned parenthood clinic with a giant picture of an aborted fetus.

    3. I don’t think so-called hate messages you allude to makes any difference one way or the other. Although most people don’t completely understand the real purpose of marriage, they have an inner  sense that state endorsement of SS unions is not appropriate, to say the least. I’ve spoken with many people and that seems to be the case. I’d also would like to point out that misinformation is being perpetrated from both sides, not just one side as you suggested. For instance, the assertion that SSA is who people are isn’t valid anymore than a taste for wine and cheese is who people are. In both cases the preferences appear to be learned behaviors not rooted in genetic make-up.

      1. For instance, the assertion that SSA is who people are isn’t valid anymore than a taste for wine and cheese is who people are. In both cases the preferences appear to be learned behaviors not rooted in genetic make-up.

        That’s not misinformation, that’s accepted fact in professional circles. The APA and AMA both have stated clearly that sexual orientation is not a choice.

        I am not stating there is a “gay gene” anymore than I am stating there isn’t— we really don’t know. But we do know that for whatever reason, some people have a sexual orientation to the same sex, and it is not a choice they make.

        1. Decades of research after million of dollars spent in search of a gay gene has caused proponents to all but abandon the effort in light of the fact case study after case study increasingly shows SSA is environmental in origin.

  2. This is the same NOM that has endorsed Newt Gingrich in the republican primary race.

    Seriously, Newt Gingrich is the National Organization for Marriage’s idea of a candidate who embodies respect for the sanctity of marriage. This is the candidate who is on his third marriage, after each previous marriage ending in affairs and divorce.

    In other words, this so-called “National Organization for Marriage” is morally bankrupt in addition to flaunting Maine law and opposing equality for Maine families who need civil marriage rights.

  3. This crowd is worse than that guy in Orono who killed the girl driving drunk…You lost…now pony up!!!

  4. I would think all the divorce lawyers would be in total support of gay marriage.  Just think, a new source of revenue. As far as disclosure of funds, I feel all donors of any campaign should be made public.

    1. If we’re speaking of revenue…if Maine is really “open for business”, as our Governor proclaims this could bring in much needed money. As anyone who’s planned any kind of marriage or committal ceremony knows, they cost a lot; and that is just for the event its self,  not counting what guests spend once they arrive for said event. Maine is already a top wedding destination for opposite sex couples, I’m sure the same would go for same sex couples.
       
      If people want to use the tax revenue arguement I’m not buying it.  Offering Maine as a same sex wedding destination is an untapped market, potentially bring lots of money to the state. This would not only be a boom to local business (more income generated, more taxes paid) but also to local and state government in the form of marriage, and varying entertainment licenses vendors must cary to provide service to guests. 
       
      I see the opportunity to celebrate love and commitment in our beautiful state and giving local businesses and artisans a chance to showcase thier talents as a win, win for all.

      1. …if Maine is really “open for business”,…   It really should read “Only Open to Business.”

  5. Knowing who supports which side may help them decide how to vote? What a way to call everyone mindless sheep! wait nevermind

    1. Or… or… now just hear me out, cause this is a really crazy notion. Perhaps, just perhaps, people would like to know what groups, organizations, companies, etc that donated to NOM so they can decide, for themselves (crazy i know) if that is a company they would like to continue doing business with. For example, should the list be released and say a company that runs a huge amount of department stores or grocery stores, or pharmacies or whatever, has donated to NOM, people who are for gay marriage may not want to frequent these stores anymore.

      1.  I agree with that.And yet although i’m pro-gay marriage, if some jerks decided to harass my family I might not take it well.  Long as people picket and protest in reasonable manner. Start calling names and throwing rocks and looking for PHYSICAL  CONFRONTATION. YOU GO TO JAIL immediately.

          Wish people would look at more then the headlines once in awhile. WE DO NOT LIVE IN SYRIA.  And yet some who don’t know any better have this bizarre notion that they are somehow as OPPRESSED as a Syrian. And think destroying the property of those  they profess to speak for somehow makes sense.

        1. ” if some jerks decided to harass my family ” 

          Shouldn’t you have the right to find out who they are ? 
          You would support this ruling if common sense were more common in your world.

          1.  I DO SUPPORT IT !..
             That’s not what i’m saying. along with everything else I don’t believe in God My point is that I want ALL TREATED THE SAME. I do not like exclusions, or exceptions or special board this or that.  no EXTRA INCENTIVES FOR SOMEONE BEING GAY OR NOT GAY OR  ATTRACTIVE OR UGLY…  Or affirmative action or anything else that DIVIDES US.  I was speaking to a young lady who told me she had met some African American Girls at a seminar in Washington and they were OFFENDED by Affirmative action. They felt it was condescending. I want what you say you want but can’t even grasp.

              Completely equality with no special treatment for anyone. Those in need of additional care and/or attention should be given that and NEVER be looked down on.

             Ya know what? You sure as heck ain’t my conscience.

             I’ve worked with the addicted, the mentally ill, and the homeless most of my adult life.

             I happen to now be disabled. I suffer from mental illness and I have been clean for 4 years.

             I have been homeless several times in my life ranging from a couple of days to a few months.

             YOU do not preach anything to me. 

             Please don’t respond. Your offensive, condescending comments are kind of pointless.

             I know who I am and I don’t really care who YOU think I am.

             I am one of the fairest, most open minded people you will ever meet.  I don’t really respect people that can be so easily manipulated by either party. Goes back to whom is impacted by all of those negative ads. It’s not just Republicans that run them, Everybody does. And for some reason the common sense button seems to get stuck.

          2. I think I was agreeing with you, too. 
            Try reading it again, that way. 
             See ?

            Don’t take things so personally on the internet. 
            Don’t tell others what to do *… they never will do what you tell them just because you do.
            Don’t give out too much personal information.
            Steer your own boat, do what you are you goals and objectives. Stick to them.  

            Now, I understand where you are coming from. ( one of my objectives) 
            Sadly, you having given out that much personal information, so does everyone else. 
            That is not my fault. It is you who choose to do so. 
            But you might consider changing your account, now that you have done so. 
            A fresh start is possible, here.  
              
            Good luck in your recovery. 
             
            * I know…. call it irony. 

            Note to self; special treatment required… (? ? possible object of her OBD ??)  

          3.  I have no need to hide who I am. Ask around I’ve made no secret of my past. Your saying I should Start over is absurd.  Perhaps you feel the need to toil in anonymity but I don’t.; The fact is my incredibly screwed up, amazingly diverse life has given me  a great deal of  experience. I’ve lived in half a dozen states. From one of the cradles of liberal thought in our country MADISON WI. To my Birthplace, Caribou.  

             As far as I can tell the only thing I’m TELLING people is to look both ways. neither party is that great in my opinion,and allowing the MEDIA to actually dictate who they vote  for scares and saddens me,.

             I do not have ANY partisan objective. It appears I am most certainly in the minority but doing nothing more constructive then pointing the finger at the other guy  isn’t getting us anywhere. You people are smart enough to use a   computer and yet I see most to lazy to figure it out for themselves.

          4. I was speaking of ones personal objectives not partisan ones… realizing they will always will be called partisan by someone, though.  

  6. Awwwwwww what’s the matter??  Proud to hold a certain opinion so long as you can hide behind anonymity……put your money where your mouth is……pathetic. 

    1. SCOTUS has seen this type of thing… even Scalia insists that while your vote is private, who funds you is NOT.

      Brian Brown will eat crow over this.

      1. I agree. If they want to fight this to the US Supreme Court because of the recent Citizens United decision, I think they will be surprised.

        Unlimited power to fund elections? Sure. Anonymously? Not so much.

        1.  I agree. To this point only ONE party has been in the cross hairs over PAC money because it’s the RNC that has been in the running for office. Let’s see what happens when BOTH  party’s have something to hide.

    2. Ehh, I’m not so sure that’s all there is to it. My best friend is gay but let’s be honest, there are some off the rail types out there.that would certainly harass them.  

       I suppose I think they should release them but agree or disagree they deserve protection from anyone that would do anything stupider to them then they would do to others.

      1. …and the same could be said for the off the rail types out there who would harass gays & lesbians who supported same sex marriage.

        That was a real risk I knew I was taking when I donated to Protect Maine Equality in 2009. My name was out there for the public to see as a supporter. 

        It’s absolutely unethical for the other side to play by different rules.

        That said, of course I don’t support harassing anyone who donated money to “Stand for Marriage Maine”.

      2. When that argument was used in CA, the courts asked for ANY and ALL incidents of donors being singled out.

        NOM and their lawyers could find zero.

        It’s a cop-out… You’re man enough to fund monsters, you’re man enough to admit to funding monsters.

        1. Okay that’s good. As I said, They should be released but we have got to learn to be civil.  Tolerances is a two way street.

           By the way, the whole, “Tolerance” thing. I really don’t see how that’s any better. Tolerate means you PUT UP WITH although you disagree. The resentment builds and   the ignorance remains.

           The only word that should be in any of these conversations should be ACCEPTANCE

           Sometimes you just have to acknowledge everyone doesn’t agree on anything and let it go.  No matter how ignorant you may consider them.. They have the same right you and I do to express opinions. As long as BOTH sides are CIVIL,  great. That is AMERICA, RIGHT?

          I just read this. I have got to learn to take my own advice more often. Sigh…

          1. It’s true, a perfect example of a list of names coming out that had nothing to do with a topic nearly as controversial as this, was when the wolf hunt in 2009 started in Idaho.  They didn’t want to release the list of names of  the successful hunters, but the law said they had to when the information was requested.  The first guy to shoot a wolf that season was harassed for a very long time as well as many threats made to him.  They not only harassed him but his phone number, e-mail and address were made public.  

            If people are willing to treat each other that way over an animal, of which the act was legal, than imagine how people will treat each other.  We have a long way to go as people.

      3. When was the last time three gay males threw a heterosexual in the Kenduskeag Stream and let him drown?

        When was the last time two gay males robbed, pistol-whipped and tortured a heterosexual male and then tied him to a fence and left him to die?

        1. I’m not defending them!!!v Sheesh, act as though I were.
           Point is…. THEY CANT DO THAT
           NEITHER CAN YOU
           PERIOD

          1. I am definitely not saying that you were defending them.

            My point was this, for NOM (or any organization, group or person) to claim they need to keep the list of donors private for fear of violence is really silly. I cannot remember the last time a homosexual committed an act of violence against someone opposed to same sex marriage.

          2. True! If big business/corporations are on that list we have the right to boycot them…..That’s what they are afraid of!

          3.  Which Corporations are these your speaking of?? Can you name a single one with absolute certainty? If so,  Please do. I’ll shut up and acknowledge your right. If you can’t name a business then  why put it out there?

          4.  Oh no, I agree they should be forced to release the names.

             Once again, I have no doubt what you have described HAS happened. We have hundreds of millions of people we know nothing about. I am positive a gay man has attacked someone over this issue. I would suggest that in the millions, there is at least one gay man that for whatever reasons has anger problems. Just like anybody else.  Why would we hear about a gay man beating up a straight man.  It doesn’t have the same appeal to the media as a straight man beating up a gay man. Am I wrong?

             I’m not even comparing the two. My point is there is NO black and white.

          5. So are you taking back what you implied by saying : 

            “My best friend is gay but let’s be honest, there are some off the rail types out there.that would certainly harass them. ” ?

            If so, do so plainly, be direct about it, or accept that people are going to see whatever else you say in the light of you already having said that … (above).   

            If you think “they, (anti-gay rights activists), deserve protection from
            anyone that would do anything stupider to them then they would do to others.” … asking you to qualify what that might be : 

            “When was the last time three gay males threw a heterosexual in the Kenduskeag Stream and let him drown?” 

            … is perfectly fair and logical, it being one of the stupid things that
            SOME anti-gay people do actually do, after all . 

            I wonder why you think, or would want give the impression that you think that the  anti-gay rights activists need or deserve more protection than gay citizens actually get ? 

            It goes to heart of the fundamental issue; how and why gay people do not have the same rights as others in our society. 

            Given some of the things that you have said, others are not wrong to be confused about what you really feel, because we only have what you have actually written here to go upon.

            So remember: if you are you taking back what you implied before,
            be direct about it. If that is your intention, do it so it you can point
            to exactly where you did that.

            It is only fair to everyone.

          6.  You’ve become boring and you’ve lost your entertainment value. Have a nice day.  THIS back and forth is a waste of time.

             YOU do NOT KNOW what is in ANYONE”S MIND besides your own. And yet you seem to know it all.

          1. I do believe that he had issues dating back to his youth with the mutilation of animals, had isues with alcohol and was a convicted pedophile.

        2. Ya know what?? somewhere in our country at some point I wouldn’t be surprised if that happened. Let’s be real people GAY doesn’t mean, “good person” all it means is that one is gay and yes I’ve seen bashing but for someone from a rural state assuming two gay men have never assaulted a straight person is a little naive. WE are all human beings with strengths, weakness’s and shortcomings.

           I happen to know a gay couple that I wouldn’t leave alone in my house or leave my wallet exposed I can tell you that. And the fact that I don’t trust them certainly has nothing to do with them being gay. It’s because THEY”RE human.

        1.  In my opinion, just my opinion, that’s why there shouldn’t be any special groups. A crime is a crime and when we start telling ourselves we know what’s in EVERYONE”S heart I think we run into trouble. Calling something a HATE crime isn’t always, but certainly can be VERY subjective.  Just as we have found with the death penalty, adding more time or more sever punishment doesn’t really deter someone from committing a crime.

           As I stated before we put a lot of stock in the word, “Tolerance” Which is a mistake. We need to look towards acceptance of different beliefs and ideas Tolerance doesn’t really change what’s in people’s hearts. Just what they say in public. And that runs BOTH ways, not just one party or one group of people IT”S BOTH PARTIES.

    3. I don’t have a dog in this fight,what other people do is their biz not mine.My only thought on your post goes along the same lines what I do is my biz not yours or any body else’s.

      1. And that “my biz not yours” includes out of state organizations who break the laws in the state of Maine? ‘cept it is costing Maine taxpayers $$$$?

        1. stay outa my biz and I’ll do the same for u get in my biz I’ll get in yours it’s really a pretty simple way of life and it works for me

  7. What sleezes, obey the law that was in place before you came here. Obviously they do not want to reveal it is funded completely with out of state money. I wonder what naves are on there that they know will make Mainers very angry, sho are thy trying to protect? Come clean, quit cheating.

  8. Mainers have voted on the gay marriage issue EXACTLY ONCE.

    But don’t let the facts get in the way of your rant.

    1.  As I keep saying, acceptance isn’t going to happen with the current climate so all we can do is wait a generation or two for the ignorance to die off. I don’t hate anyone for the ignorance, it just doesn’t serve any purpose.  We have an old, poorly educated population. THAT is why the vote didn’t pass. Let’s see what happens 20 years from now. I have no doubt that things will be different.

       Black men and women are just that, MEN AND WOMEN..
       Gay men and women are the same. just MEN AND WOMEN.

       That’s all anyone should see. PERIOD. 

  9. I am a Conservative and I’ll vote for Same Marraige,  here is the deal, you guys claim it’s all about civil rights. If you are such belivers in the constitution and civil rights, then I want you to vote for the person who will represent the constitution the most next governor’s election, which is Governor Paul Lepage..  What do you think??? You cry about civil rights and you support the liberals who have taken away the right to free speech along with other rights.

  10. There should be a 10 year moratorium on placing the same issues on the ballot year after year when they have been decisively approved or defeated in recent elections. It’s a waste of tax payer money and time as well as an insult to their intelligence.

    1. The 2009 vote was to repeal the Law that extended civil marriage to same-sex couples.  It was put on the ballot by groups opposed to the Law … those opposed to extending civil marriage who happened to be some clergy and groups with religious affiliations, even though religious exemptions were in place.
      NOM refuses to comply with Maine law (as well as disclosure laws in many other states) ….. costing tax payers money with the original suit and the appeal and now they intend to take it to a higher court. Seems like they are unable to abide by decisively defeated claims.

        1. Oh so simple majority then…not “decisively approved or defeated”,

          See I thought you would have to backtrack some as the vote in 2009 was far from a “decisive” rejection of same sex marriage. In fact it was far closer than Yes on 1 was predicting.

          But it really doesn’t matter as the Maine Constitution does not have a “10 year moratorium on placing the same issues on the ballot”. And even if there was a prohibition, it would not prevent this question from moving forward as the 2009 vote was a “People’s Veto” and NOT a “People’s Initiative”. One repealed an existing law and one seeks to create a new law.

    2. There should be a prohibition on placing issues on the ballot that are related to the civil rights of a minority. The 2009 vote, while legal by Maine law, was an affront to liberty and our Constitution.

  11. More baloney on the “homosexual lobby” and “intimidation” (and my label is being kind and within the guidelines) from the spin masters spinning out of control.  NOM’s nom is mud.

  12. Two lawyers in CA. were in court over the gay issue one was for gay marriage an one was agense gay marriage an they started talking . What not have civil unions an the same rights an  married people do an IF they want that paper that say they are  married than they can go ahead an do it an no one will be forced to marry people . Yes this is what the two lawyers came up with. Now whats wrong with that  ?

    1. I have said many times that I would support civil unions instead of civil marriage, if everyone’s civil marriage license is replaced with a civil union license.

      If you are proposing a new, separate system of civil unions to go alongside civil marriage, then that will not pass constitutional scrutiny— “separate but equal” is inherently unequal.

        1. Again— I am fine with this if civil marriage is replaced with civil unions at the government level.

          If you are proposing a separate system of civil unions for same sex couples, this would require the modification of thousands of laws at the federal level alone, along with every state in the union. And even then it would likely be overturned by the US Supreme Court, who has ruled that separate systems are inherently unequal.

  13. It’s called transparency! I am especially against groups from out of state trying to tell Maine what to do…..Here’s a thought! Don’t want people to know that you are a biggot? Don’t be one!

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *