RECENT  POSTS:  » That discriminatory OR baker is really overthinking reason why she's national news » Robert Oscar Lopez confirms belief that gay parents are like slave owners » Video: Values Voter Summit marriage panel was particularly boring, bad, ineffective this year » Conservative Catholic professor: Gay activists like segregationists in 'single-minded heedlessness' » Stop claiming Biden, Obama, Clinton, et al. supported marriage amendments—they did not. » Audio: Peter LaBarbera attempts to deny 'hate' by repeating his extremely hateful quote » Duggars promote discriminatory bakers, improper pluralization » AFA's Fischer links 'raping puppy' headline to sexual orientation, 'born this way' arguments » Photos: Scientifically-discredited, deeply offensive junk science presented as truth as #VVS14 » E.W. Jackson will never accept truth of marriage equality; reality remains blissfully independent of his blessing  

« Go back a post || Return to G-A-Y homepage || Haul tail to next post »

10/30/2009

Video: DPs: They were against them before they were [secretly still against] them

by Jeremy Hooper

Having followed national LGBT goings-on for the past several years, we were beyond shocked when we heard Stand For Marriage Maine acting as if they are totally cool with domestic partnerships, just as long as the word "marriage" is not invoked. Because that is not at all the conversation we remember coming from our Pine Tree State opposition during the Bush years. In fact, we have vivid memories of the Heath/Emrich/Madore/Mutty/Bansley set causing major stinks about not only DPs, but also non-discrimination bills, civil unions, and anyone within the Maine state lines who so much farted in a pro-gay manner!

Fortunately, the awesome NO ON 1 team has also been paying attention:


(video captured by AmericaBlog's Joe Sudbay)


*Related press release:

For Immediate Release:

Yes Campaign Ad Promoting Domestic Partnerships a Sham
Biggest Funders, Managers Opposed DP


Portland, Maine (October 30, 2009)---The NO on 1 campaign charged that the biggest backers and manager of the Yes campaign have opposed domestic partnerships for same-sex couples for years, even though their latest political ad promotes Maine's domestic partner registry.

After weeks of a paid advertising campaign that attacked Maine schools --attacks that were rejected by Maine newspapers, the Commissioner of Education, the Attorney General and others -- the Yes campaign released a new ad this week applauding the state's DP registry as sufficient to protect same-sex couples and their families.

But in fact, campaign manager Mark Mutty, as director of public affairs for the Roman Catholic Diocese of Portland, opposed the DP registry bill both in 2003 and again in 2004 when it passed in the Maine Legislature. In addition, Mutty and others associated with the Yes campaign were silent on the alternative bill to the marriage equality legislation this spring which would have expanded the DP registry.

"This is the height of hypocrisy and double-talk," said Jesse Connolly, NO on 1 campaign manager. "Their new ad actually invokes domestic partnership as a solution, yet they're on record either directly or by their silence as opposing even this measure of protection."

In testimony submitted for the 2003 DP bill entitled "An Act to Promote the Financial Security of Maine's Families and Children," Mutty wrote and signed on behalf of the Roman Catholic Diocese of Portland:

"Our opposition to LD 1579 is foremost rooted in moral and ethical principles that are not only applicable to Catholics, but serve society well as a whole. However there are more practical considerations…Several attorneys who have reviewed this bill have indicated their strong conviction that such a drastic change in the code would lead to mass confusion in the courts and tie up probate claims for months without clear resolution. These are but a few of the perhaps unintended consequences that such a measure would bring to Maine."

"When I wrote Maine's domestic partner registry law, no group fought against it harder than the Roman Catholic Diocese," said former State Representative Benjamin Dudley, sponsor of the bill creating Maine's domestic partner registry. "Now the Diocese, through its campaign against marriage equality, says they 'want to be tolerant of gays' and stands behind the registry law they fought so hard to defeat. I'd call that the height of irony."

In addition, Maggie Gallagher, the president of the National Organization for Marriage, which has contributed at least $1.6 million to the Yes campaign, has long opposed both domestic partnerships and civil unions. In fact, Gallagher, in 2002 argued against DP benefits because they "erode the status" of marriage.

Finally, the principals of the Yes campaign were notably silent on a 2009 bill entitled, "An Act to Expand Rights for Maine Families," which would have expanded Maine's DP registry, and was proposed as an alternative to the marriage equality law.

"The Yes campaign in the final hours of this election can't simply reinvent itself and try to claim some sort of new platform," added Connelly. "The record shows that time and time again, they either opposed domestic partnerships or were silent on them, even when they were offered as an alternative to full marriage equality. This is nothing more than a Trojan horse and voters should not be fooled."

"The DP registry, in fact, has a few but not the hundreds of protections spouses receive under marriage," added Mary Bonauto, the civil rights director at GLAD and a member of NO on 1's executive committee. "Separate systems are not equal and never have been. Domestic partner laws simply don't apply to the things that allow you to take care of your partner or your children, and it is still impossible for many people to get a family policy of health insurance without getting married.

"Marriage offers protection in times of greatest need and crisis," added Bonauto. "Equality, family, protection and respect only come in one package, and that's marriage."

space gay-comment gay-G-A-Y-post gay-email gay-writer-jeremy-hooper


Your thoughts

We're playing a new game here in Maine..."Where's Marc?" He has been MIA since Tuesday and people are beginning to wonder where he is. Sick? Ah, yes, another Yes on 1 lie.

L

Posted by: Leslie | Oct 30, 2009 4:57:03 PM

I like this guy! While I am no big proponent of the "sound-bite", I have to say that I like the "campaign that attacked Maine schools"! Maybe using their own code-word and sound-bite laden tactic against them is the way to go??

"campaign that attacked Maine schools" does have a ring to it.

And they are quick to point out the hypocrisy of the Cathaholics! The lying liars think that they operate in a vacuum, and that none of their past deeds will be used against them. Or perhaps in their dimwitted (drunken??) stupor, they simply can't remember being against something before they were for it. Kind of hard to unring that bell though.

Posted by: Dick Mills | Oct 30, 2009 4:58:46 PM

I hope this video goes viral in Maine and the country! They need to be seen for what they are: bigots.

Posted by: John in MN | Oct 30, 2009 5:25:12 PM

Do these people really thing we do not pay attention?

Here in California it was the same song and dance..."we dont mind domestic partnerships. just dont call it marriage." ...that was the tune they sang all election and it was totall B.S.! Now in Washington state the same groups are backing the repeal of domestic partnership laws....do they think we don't notice? Do these groups not realize what intense scrutiny they are under now?

Posted by: gayfamilyvalues | Oct 30, 2009 7:48:51 PM

This is a little trivial, I know.
But Jesse is gorgeous

Posted by: Really/ | Oct 30, 2009 8:33:15 PM

THIS IS SOOOOO SICK!!! I seriously hope that the NO ON 1 campaign FLOODS the airwaves between now and then combating this lie by S4MM! I found it absolutely disgusting how folks such as Maggie Gallagher (that hag!) would declare that she is fine with us having back-of-the-bus treatment (and she's not a "bigot"?) by way of "Civil unions" or "Domestic partnerships", because she doesn't want us to have the word "marriage" as it's apparently "special" to heteros! Well, perhaps religiously; but not according to CIVIL LAW! With out a purchased license from the state, mags can get as many religious marriages as she wants, but they would ALL be MEANINGLESS in the eyes of the state with out that CIVIL LICENSE! But, I digress...

I find it loathesome that Mags is enacting in this double-speak, because her group (NOM) is attempting to get Washington state's "Domestic partnership" benefits revoked. I can bet you that when she's through with us, she won';t stop there until she's in EVERYONE's bedrooms! This woman doesn't want us to have civil protections or rights, especially if they confer even *somewhat* similar "marriage"-like benefits! And, the sad thing is: She's convincing an awful lot of people about this, because they are not aware of what her group is doing from state-to-state. I just hope and pray to my gods that she stays the hell away from my beloved home-state, Iowa!

Posted by: Wade MacMorrighan | Oct 31, 2009 1:21:21 PM

comments powered by Disqus

G-A-Y Comments Policy


 
Related Posts with Thumbnails