Understanding why same-sex couples hope to one day be able to marry in Maine is pretty straightforward. It doesn’t require strange metaphors, odd similes or attacks.
Same-sex couples want to get married for the same reasons that other loving, committed couples do. They want to stand in front of their friends, family and community, take their vows and join a stabilizing institution that is at the heart of society.
They want to say “I do” when asked whether they will love, honor and respect their partner. And they want to say “I will” when asked about standing together in sickness and in health.
Most of all, they want to be married so they can tell the world that they are ready to accept the responsibility and commitment that goes along with marriage.
Beginning last summer, thousands of volunteers collected more than 105,000 signatures in more than 450 Maine towns to put a citizens’ initiative on November’s ballot to allow same-sex couples to receive a marriage license.
The initiative also includes important protections for religious liberty. It guarantees that no church and no member of the clergy ever has to perform or recognize a marriage that falls outside of the religious teachings of their faith.
While opponents of same-sex marriage will likely try to confound the debate with side issues meant to raise fear and uncertainty, supporters will stick with a simple message: Two people in a loving, committed relationship deserve the dignity, support and recognition that only marriage can provide.
And our campaign, Mainers United for Marriage, will continue to deliver that message, one person at time, from now until November.
Since 2009, when voters narrowly repealed a law that allowed same-sex couples to marry, a coalition of dedicated organizations and volunteers has been working tirelessly to connect with Maine voters. So far, they have knocked on more than 110,000 doors, made more than 90,000 telephone calls and had more than 50,000 conversations.
I say “conversations” because that’s really what they are. We recognize that Mainers are still getting used to the idea of marriage for same-sex couples, and many of them have questions and concerns that are rooted in their tradition and, in some cases, their faith. By sharing our stories one-on-one, we’ve been able to listen as well as talk, and what we’re hearing is encouraging.
In every conversation, we ask Mainers what marriage means to them and why, if they are married or think they might be married someday, they would want to marry the person they love. Almost every person we ask that question talks about standing in front of their friends and family or making a commitment to spend the rest of their lives with one person.
When asked why same-sex couples might want to join in marriage, they almost always recognize that those reasons are no different from their own. Now, thanks in large part to those thousands of conversations, support for same-sex marriage has never been higher.
In the two most recent surveys, 54 percent of likely Maine voters say they support the freedom to marry. That growing majority of support is in line with the rise in momentum we’ve seen throughout New England and across the country over the last few years.
In March, Republican and Democratic lawmakers — in a sign of bipartisanship — worked together to stop an attempt to repeal same-sex marriage in New Hampshire. More than 100 Republicans in the New Hampshire House of Representatives joined with Democrats to block the repeal.
New Hampshire, Connecticut, Iowa, Massachusetts, New York, Vermont and the District of Columbia allow same-sex couples to get married. And Washington state and Maryland have approved marriage, though challenges are pending.
It is our hope that Maine will join those ranks this fall.
Allowing marriage licenses for the thousands of loving, committed couples living in Maine does not change the meaning of marriage. It simply allows same-sex couples to marry the person they love, to establish and protect a family and to make a lifetime commitment to one another.
While support for allowing same-sex couples to obtain a marriage license is growing both nationally and here in Maine, we also understand that the campaign this fall will be difficult and we are taking nothing for granted.
Our volunteers are enthusiastic, our supporters are tireless, and we feel confident that if we continue to share our personal stories with Mainers whose positions are still evolving on this issue, they will vote yes to affirm marriage this November.
Matt McTighe is the campaign manager for Mainers United for Marriage, the organization leading the campaign to allow marriage licenses for same-sex couples. To learn more, visit www.MainersUnited.org.
Well said Matt. Thank you for taking the time to reach out to others and Love will always prevail.
Marriage is about two people committing to live together, being recognized as a couple by society and receiving any government sanctioned social benefits that come with marriage. Everything else, is between the two partners and of no one elses’s business. It’s ironic that so many people who oppose government interference in their own lives would want government to impose their personal views about marriage upon so many others.
Not me. I don’t believe the government should interfere with marriage AT ALL! I think we should return the job of marriage to the church, and treat married couples (for tax purposes) the same way we treat singles.
The Church is merely an agent for the state when it comes to the legal aspects of the marriage ceremony. Unlike the State, the Church can refuse to marry any two people for any reason, which is but one reason why marriage is a civil and not a Church matter in the first place.
I agree.
So stop letting churches claim dominion over the churches that want to wed SS couples.
I agree…. I have NOTHING against same sex marriage save the fact that I do not believe the State has any place in this contract. AS A MATTER OF FACT I know a religious organization right down on the end of my property which will be DELIGHTED to preform SSM when that becomes possible.
Step up to the moral and ethical civil rights “plate,” folks!
http://www.mainersunited.org/
Just because you think some one’s values is wrong does not make them wrong.
I think that it’s not good to generalize, true, but is that what she’s saying?
And yet Mainers United isn’t the group trying use the law against their neighbors.
Right back at ya’, Jed.
Mainers United for Marriage is a catchy title, and it will be misleading to many who receive the robo calls.
I think that Michael Heath’s “no special rights” pac is the misleading one, since this isn’t about special rights at all– this is about giving same sex couples the same rights to civil marriage that heterosexual couples enjoy.
I like the name because it will speak only to those who are dead set against us. I think that the majority of people who want us to have the same rights as they will see the name as more nonsense from far right reactionaries.
It’s great that the main group against us is so hardcore hateful. Those two men with their vile and obvious anger toward us will show our hesitant supporters that they are a group they won’t want to be associated with. I mean, really, is this really about sodomy? Bringing that up in their press conference?
It won’t mislead people who read and think.
That will garner four votes from this crew.
I’m for the freedom to marry because I’m for marriage — marriage promotes family stability, commitment, and fidelity. If these things are good for straight couples, they are good for gay couples as well. So those of us who support the freedom to marry are the ones who are for marriage (by the way, I’ve been married to the same woman for 33 years).
The people who are against letting people get married really must not trust marriage.
So, “Mainers United For Marriage” is exactly the right name. We’re the ones who are for marriage.
Thank you, Matt, for this great piece. I look forward to working with you and EQME in Bangor this summer and fall to finally bring this equality to all Mainers.
I’ve had many of these conversations in the Bangor area and I am glad to have had them. I value the opportunity to be able to combat the misleading messages out there and to help voters understand what this law really does and what it does not do.
We’ll see the lies and the half-truths again this summer and fall, but my hope is that there will be more Mainers who see through them and will vote to allow us to marry the one person we love.
I don’t agree with gay marriage, but I guess that if it makes a bunch of people happy and doesn’t change my life one bit, I really have no strong reason to oppose it. This time around I will very likely vote in favor of it, which I have never done in the past. I don’t like to have other peoples’ morals imposed upon me, so I shouldn’t impose mine on others.
Thank you Gary. When we marry, we’ll have another great party and maybe it’ll be a little too loud, but that would be the most it’ll impact anyone who doesn’t already know us.
Thank you for your support!
It’s great to see a thoughtful, rational response to gay marriage for a change. Thanks Gary52.
Gary, thank you. You don’t know how much this, your post, means to someone like me. After 13 years together with the one person who knows me best in the world, who gets me and accepts me completely, I really want to be able to officially ask him to marry me. With enough support from Mainers like you, I will get to do that.
Thank you from the bottom of my heart. I so appreciate the support of your message.
Best,
Seth
Thanks, Gary. I, too, don’t see how my marriage of 33 years is in any way threatened by other people getting married. If oher people get the same freedoms I already have, how does that hurt me?
Good editorial, Matt. I think it is imporant we keep up these conversations throughout this year.
It is through engagement with our neighbors, friends, coworkers and communities that we break down the faulty, divisive stereotypes some have about gays and lesbians. This is true regardless of elections and referrendums, honestly– our communities become better places as long as we all keep talking to each other.
I can’t wait to see this pass. I’ll be even more proud to be a Mainer when it does.
Matt: Thank you again for your cordial message about the love that two people can share with each other. After 13 years together, I think my husband and I have proved that same sex couples do want commitment and do have loving relationships that center around shared lives. We are normal, everyday human beings who live down the street and run small businesses in the state. We are artists, and inn keepers, doctors and lawyers, mechanics, lobster men and women, we are simply people who want to share a life together and have that life recognized by family, friends, and the state. We would like the same protections afforded to married couples through state-sanctioned civil marriages.
You are off to a great start Matt. Thanks for your leadership!
Saying that “any two people who love each other” should be allowed to marry is oversimplifying things. I, as a male, cannot now marry another male. But even if gay marriage is passed in Maine, I still will not be alowed to marry my biological brother. The prohibition against incest will remain nthe books. But this prohibition is based principly on procreation, but obviously my brother and I will not be procreating. And we love each other. Don’t tell me “that just isn’t done”, because that is the argument that pro-gay marriage supporters are attempting to quash. Don’t say that I am changing the subject, because I am only talking about two men who love each other who want to get married (so this is not a tangent, like polygamy, or an absurdity, like bestiality). I can justify marrying my brother simply by reciting, verbatim, the argument of gay marriage supporters. So to for me to be denied, then the gay marriage supporters have to say, “well, these rights are for me but not for you”, or “well, that is an exception, because you are brothers”. But once you say, “yes, but”, you are conceding the argument. I can just as easily say “yes, but, though you love each other, you are both men”. So in the end the gay marriage initiative MUST be seen, not as marriage equality (because my brother and I will not enjoy that “equal right”), but the granting of special privileges to a vocal group. Maybe that’s okay. But it is still “special rights”. (Incidentally, gays are not currently denied the right to marry, just to marry others of the same sex. Heterosexuals are also denied the ability to marry those of the same sex, so the right to marry is equally accessable. And if one says “gays are denied the right to mattry the ones they love”, well, heterosexuals also are denied the right to marry “the ones they love” in many cases — theyare already married, the one they love is already married, they are close relatives, etc. Sure, these are not compelling arguments, and actually somewhat silly examples, but it does point out that this isn’t really about “equality” but about privleges. Maybe we want/should extend those privileges, but call it by what it is: not equality but special rights. Okay, now that I’ve angered all of you, start your invective!
BUT there is NO legitimate reason why (if gay marriage is accepted) that you are restricted in this way. The law against sibling marriages would be “discriminatory” if gays are allowed to marry. The reason siblings are prohibited from marrying is due to the biological fact that interbreeding weakens the herd. So if sister wishes to marry sister, or brother wishes to marry brother why not? There will be no offspring from these unions so the restriction becomes invalid.
And the issue should be addressed at that point. But using other issues as a way to deny ME my marriage to my partner is unfair.
Just stating that, whatever the merits, it is still a special rights and not an equality argument, if you’re being honest.
Not really. Is voting a special right? Not everyone can do it, so according to your logic, it must be. If allowing gays to marry would be a special right, then currently, straight people have special rights, according to your logic.
No, because straight people have the same rights as gays to marry: they must marry one of the opposite sex. Gays have always been allowed to marry, and many gays have in fact married (persons of the opposite sex). That they may prefer to marry one of the same sex does not mean that they do not have the same right to marry as heterosexuals, who also do not have the right to marry one of the same sex.
That argument fails, sorry. They tried it in attempting to uphold interracial marriage bans. Whites have the same rights as blacks, they all can marry, just inside their race. That’s the same argument you’re making.
Why not let them now?
As a straight guy, I have the right to marry the adult (non-relative) that I love (and I’ve been married to her for nearly 33 years).
My gay neighbor does not have the right to marry the adult (non-relative) person he loves.
You say he has the freedom to marry someone he does NOT love, and is not attracted to. What kind of freedom is that?
Then you seem to be accusing me of being dishonest because I do not see it as special rights at all, no matter what Heath and Madore say.
You want to marry your brother, then that’s the issue you discuss when that’s the issue at hand. Bringing up these red herrings is just a scare tactic, if you’re being honest.
Actually “marriage” same sex and opposite gender is a “special right. Single people pay more and get less from this society. You married folks don’t have to pay to educate my children (I don’t have any) You don’t have to pay the police to come to my house to break up partner fights. You don’t have to pay welfare for my family, or support my ex-wife until she gets a job (none of these either.)
Yeah, you married taxables get a pretty good deal. How about giving me a “married” tax rate while letting me remain single? Sounds fair to me!
OMG, seriously, you are going to argue that married people don’t pay taxes ?
HAHAHAHAHA !
Married people get a break…. Those that do pay taxes. Couples filing jointly generally pay lower rates than do folks who are not married.
That sounds like a childless issue rather than a marriage issue.
In any case, this is NOT the issue.
No, it’s not special rights.
Your argument is ridiculous— we aren’t having these debates with heterosexual marriages, are we? What about a brother and sister who are infertile? Has that been a big issue?
Nope. You are against treating same sex Maine families equally, and trying to paint it as some special rights for us, when we are simply asking to be given the same protections under our laws.
Same sex civil marriage is the right thing to do, I hope most Mainers agree this November.
I have no dog in this hunt. I think any adult who wishes should be able to marry any other adult who accepts. I do not believe in ANY civil marriages.
You say you have no dog in this hunt — yet you are deliberately confusing the issue by throwing in an unrealted red herring. If you are not interested in the topic of the letter, it might make better sense to remain silent.
I did not say I was not interested. I said I have no dog in this hunt. In case you have never hunted with dogs, spectators can have opinions, and always do. I don’t understand why liberals seem to have lost the ability to understand and parse the English language.
I did not bring up the issue of sibling marriage. I responded to another poster who brought up this issue.
I NEVER remain silent!
Here’s what might make better sense; When you are trying to get an issue past the public’s review, you might want to try a bit of honey instead of all that lemon. Saying I have no dog to root for does not mean I plan to sit home on election day.
And letting women vote led to children voting too.
You are so quick to fight. I didn’t say ANYTHING about one thing leading to another. I said there is no legitimate reason to stop same sex siblings from marrying. If you see one, I would appreciate you educating me.
The law would just make marriage gender neutral, so laws regarding incest would remain until challenged. I don’t know about you, but I don’t see droves of people fighting for those rights. I’m not saying they don’t exist, but let that issue be challenged when it arises.
I just don’t see the benefit of changing the subject in this discussion. Gay people want to get married and many courts have determined that they have the right to. That’s the issue at hand. If you want to say that government should be out of the marriage business, fine, but at least be consistent in that mindset. Don’t half-heartedly pursue that belief to the detriment of a historically and presently discriminated against group of people. Unless you’re pushing to end civil marriage rights for all, it’s not exactly fair to only make that push for some.
I am not “changing the subject” just looking at it from the perspective of a non married non gay taxpayer who is getting screwed by a system which favors marriage, and childbearing couples. Is that the same point the gay marriage advocates are making?
But there is legitimate government interest in promoting marriage as it leads to stability. I’m not here to argue the merits of that, but courts have determined that to be true.
And you are changing the subject though. You’re jumping from incest, to non-married individuals, etc. The question for November isn’t so broad. It’s whether gays should have the right to civil marriage. Like I said early, I personally find it unfair to only activily pursue the dismantling of marriage in this one way and not the other, to the detriment of an already targeted group of people.
Marriage leads to stability? Sorry, but I’ve had too many foster children, and seen too many divorces to believe that.
My suggestion is that you do what is right for you and I’ll do what is right for me, and we’ll see how it plays out.
So you admit you are raising an unrelated issue.
I admit no such thing. The poster to which I responded brought up the fact that even if gay folks were free to marry he could still not marry his brother. My question is if we are fighting discrimination here, why not? There is no logical reason for prohibiting such a union.
That’s a red herring. Gays/lesbians are only asking for what I already have — the freedom to marry the (non-relative) adult person I love. My wife and I have been married nearly 33 years, by the way. And gays/lesbians are only asking for what I already take for granted.
I can’t marry my dog, daughter, sister, or mother, and don’t want that. Same for gays — they don’t want that either. They just want the same freedom that I already have. And it doesn’t hurt me if they get treated the same way under the law that I am treated.
Oh, and there is no offspring from the 33 year marriage of my wife and I, and she is now way past menopause. You have insulted me, and hundreds of other childless couples in Maine, by saying that our marriages are invalid.
You spend a lot of time here arguing with yourself, which is funny because you’re being so disingenuous with your points.
You are opposing civil marriage for same sex couples, and bringing up this theoretical case to prove your point— but you don’t actually want to marry your brother, so it’s a moot point.
And to state that gays are allowed to marry the opposite sex is equally disingenuous, because that goes against the reasons gay people would want to enter into such a relationship. Or are you adhering to the traditional marriage of earlier centuries, where it was about property and dynasty and not love and companionship?
You haven’t angered me at all, you have amused me. I can just see you standing before the courts with these arguments— would you use two different voices to portray the straw men you are attacking here?
Dear Something_different: I believe that incest between siblings or between children and their parents is illegal in Maine. It is not, however, illegal in Maine for same sex couples who are not related to have relationships, so there is your answer.
If you would like to have your incestuous relationship legalized, you have every right to try to do that in the state…this is America after all where, with enough support, you can change the laws.
Rignt now, as a straight guy, I have “special rights,” the right to marry the adult, non-relative, person I love. And I’ve been married to her for almost 33 years. So, because we are straight, we have special rights that gays/lesbians are denied.
All gays & lesbians are asking for is the same freedom to marry that my wife and I already have, and have long taken for granted. They aren’t asking to marry their sister, daughter or mother. They just want the same treatment under the law that my wife and I already have.
They want to be treated equally under the law. Equal treatment is not a special right. Even Michael Heath, when he was asked to define what he meant by “special” rights, when all gays were asking for was the same rights, not better or different rights, said that he meant that such rights would be “helpful.” And, he said, such rights can be called “special” because they are helpful! So if you mean “helpful rights,” then I agree that it is helpful for adults to be allowed to marry the adult non-relative that they love.
Your argument about not being able to marry your sibling is moot. A sibling already has “next of kin” status. A sibling is already covered under the tax codes. A sibling may visit a relative in the hospital without having to jump through legal hoops. This is an issue regarding a civil contract between two consenting adults not related by blood.
If you wish to marry someone and are being stopped due to consanguinity reasons, that’s a whole other argument. One YOU may wish to persue in the future. However, at this time, we are dealing with the civil marriage rights between two non-related, consenting, adults.
The State should get out of the marriage equation. It is an obsolete idea that the State needs to be involved in this religious rite.
I personally am opposed to all “civil” marriages, and will oppose any attempt to keep or broaden them.
Well, I appreciate your point of view, and that would also achieve equality…
I’ll be voting to extend civil marriage to same sex couples in Maine this November, because it’s wrong to exclude those families from the protections civil marriage offers.
Harry, are you married?
$$$
..and you need to get into my personal life…why?
because I want to know if you are willing to give up over 1000 rights and benefits given to civilly married couples.
My point exactly…. No I am NOT married never have been, BUT I’m still getting screwed!
Here we go again…
All you folks adamantly opposed to allowing gays to marry, please tell us what your rational legal argument is to defend your views?
With all the vitriol spewed against the idea, surely there’s more to it than emotion and religion.