Team 'Yes on1': Slowly morphing into 'On Second Thought Maybe Not on 1'?
We're absolutely loving the Stand For Marriage Maine Facebook page. Because even though they keep deleting everything that they don't want their supporters to see, we've managed to glean some great nuggets before their moderator's extremely itchy finger (he should really see someone about that) hits the yank button.
Yesterday, it was an on-the-fence Mainer who, primarily because of the hostile "yes on 1" campaign, has come around to the side of "no." Today it's someone who still seems like she's going to vote against us, but who still helps to belie our opposition's misdirected campaign:
Stand For Marriage Maine [Facebook]
Exactly, Verna! As those of us on the "No" side have stated until we're blue in the face: The idea that same-sex marriage teaching is dependent on LD 1020 is a particularly red strain of herring. Obviously, marriage is not the most common of topics in any sort of school. But if marriage were to come up as a topic, same-sex marriage very well might be addressed in some fashion. because gay people are marrying all across this nation and world! There may be some who do not like the fact that a handful of U.S. states have legalized same-sex unions, or that gay people exists as couples at all. But when it comes to ensuring that these sorts of relationships will never be addressed in schools, their fight is not with LD 1020. Their fight is with the march of time, which has already taken us past a day where its acceptable to wholly ignore the large swath of the population happens to be LGBT.
And Verna's also right about the misdirected campaign. Even if we didn't have a queer dog in this fight, we would still recognize the fact that the "yes on 1" campaign has done its own team a huge disservice by ignoring the merits (or lack thereof) of their fight and instead only dealing with schools. Honestly, if we were someone who was anti-marriage equality on the basis of our convictions, we would be pretty pissed at the way this campaign has wasted our donations on a completely unrelated, repeatedly disproven matter. But hey, as rabidly pro-equality folks, we're all kinds of like, "$PEND BABY $PEND!"
So yea -- To us, Verna is yet another encouraging sign that we can actually win this thing in Maine. Hopefully she will use the discouraging signs that she is seeing from her own side and consider if maybe, just maybe, the "Yes on 1" fallacy and misdirection runs much deeper. Like, say -- to their very interpretation of constitutional fairness?!
*ALSO: Don't forget that SFMM"s own Marc Mutty is now trying to favorably spin his own team's misrepresentations
Like you, I am addicted to their Facebook page, because it is so supremely entertaining. It amazes me the lies they post and believe. "Most of No on 1's funding comes from out of state." Uh no. "They have 13,000 Facebook fans. Should we be worried?" The answer...no, because all their FB fans are younger (implying we won't vote). Uh, sorry, wrong on that count, too.
But my favorite of all is Rich (who I believe is in California) who made a WHOPPING 20 phone calls the other day for S4MM. WAY TO GO RICH! Let's see, I've been working No on 1 phonebanks for several consecutive evenings this week. Each evening we're averaging 5500 dials, 1200 conversations, identifying hundreds of folks who plan to vote no or who have already done so. Makes Rich's 20 phone calls looks sort of...pathetic...in comparison.
Posted by: Leslie | Oct 20, 2009 11:05:09 AM
"we are talking about not wanting to subsidize relationships that do not inherently contribute to the birth of more citizens"
Well, see, now. That's a totally different thing. Basically they don't want you to get married if you're a woman beyond child-bearing years or someone not planning on having children, or someone who can't have children or if you're gay or lesbian.
Despite the fact that many, many gay and lesbian couples have children (just look at almost every famous couple out there), it seems like a terrible pre-requisite for the right to get married. If you don't have children do you have to divorce after a certain number of years?
Posted by: Em | Oct 20, 2009 11:36:09 AM
I am still trying to figure out when and how my marriage has been subsidized? What does that even mean?
And as I said on FB, I don't remember checking a box saying that I would promise to have children when I applied for my marriage license.
Posted by: Leslie | Oct 20, 2009 1:25:35 PM
While this woman does strike me as reasonable, childbearing is not a prerequisite for marriage -- nor should it be. My aunt does not have any children, but she is quite happy with her husband of twenty years. Is this woman implying that infertile couples shouldn't marry? Is love really just about having intercourse?
Listen: a lot of people marry. I disagree with many of them, from sports to politics, etc. However, I don't say, "I disagree with you. Therefore, I must vote against your marriage rights."
Posted by: Matthew | Oct 20, 2009 1:50:08 PM
I've had this argument with someone before: It doesn't really go anywhere. When you point this out to them they reply "well if this infertile couple somehow found a way to be fertile then they COULD concieve but you gay couples never could" They just keep replying to the tune of "Oh it doesn't matter that they're infertile because if they weren't they could blah blah blah" y'know?
Posted by: Jake | Oct 20, 2009 7:26:11 PMcomments powered by Disqus