Live from the Portland Holiday Inn, it's Maine's night to make history grave historical error
7:21PM: Cautious optimism in the Maine party room. Bloggers a'bloggin'. Staffers a nail-bitin'. Jeremy on first glass of Merlot.
7:36PM: Rex Wockner has a shot of the bloggers table, as well as his own live coverage.
7:44PM: Bangor Daily News has us up. Oh, but only after 51 votes have been counted:
8:04PM: Allow me to say that Jenna Lowenstein from National Stonewall Democrats rocks my socks. One to watch, folks.
8:14PM: Bob McDonnell wins in Virginia. New Jersey limited to Corzine/Christie, but too close to call. Nothing here in Maine except nerves.
8:23PM: The band's certainly festive:
8:32PM: Live stream: http://www.ustream.tv/channel/no-on-1-protect-maine-equality:
9:02PM: Kalamazoo, MI, an apparent win! And by a huge 65%-35% number!!!
9:05PM: Cute photo ops at the Maine party:
Still waiting to hear about the real thing. Signs looking promising!!!
9:10PM: BDN has 54%-45% breakdown, our favor. 5% reporting.
9:15PM: I can honestly say that I have never been in a more excited room of pro-equality people in my life. Nobody is here to pose. Nobody is here to drink. Every last person is here to win!
9:21PM: Oy. 52%-47%, still our favor. 14% in. We hear Lewiston went against us hard (60-40)
9:27PM: According to the campaign, we lost Lisbon, 34% no to 66% yes. That's Maine, not Portugal, for those who are keeping up ;-)
9:29PM: We've apparently won Bangor, in the 54%-46% ballpark. BangHim still unreported.
9:57PM: Per the campaign: Scarborough goes our way, 54%-46%. That's the city, not Joe, for those of you keeping up ;-)
10:02PM: Waterville votes NO on 1 54 % to 46%; NO on 1 takes the town of York 63% to 37%! Both courtesy of @noon1maine.
10:09PM: Chris Christie wins New Jersy. Yes, the same Chris Christie who wants marriage to remain Chris/Christie.
10:10PM: Kennebunkport: 61%-39%, us.
10:16PM: One of my neighbors here is Dana from The Advocate. She's super sweet, and her live feed is here.
10:20PM: Rex Wockner drinks Argentine Malbec. For those wishing to send him a holiday gift.
10:21PM: From @adamjbink: We won Auburn 51.5-48.5%! That's part of the Lewiston-Auburn metro area, heavily Catholic. Vastly different than Lewiston which we lost 60-40%.
10:28PM: And for the first time tonight, we're down:
That's not great, for those keeping up.
10:33PM: Solmonese (HRC) and Carey (NGLTF) speaking now. Not gonna lie, both leaders made considerable strides to have human-to-human conversations with anyone in sight.
10:39PM: Portland came in for us in a HUGE way. 7240 yes, 19,975 NO!!!!!!! Proud to be right here, contributing to this fair-minded economy.
10:51PM: While at the bar with John Aravosis, met the biggest fan of Good As You ever. Sweet, genuine energy in this room.
10:52PM: From my bloggy neighbor Rex Wockner: Gays: 50.1%. Anti-gays: 49.9%. 44% of precincts reporting. We are battling a crashy election-results Web site combined with a maxed out Internet pipeline to the Holiday Inn.
11:19PM: In other news: Out lesbian Annise Parker up in Houston mayoral race, 30.5%-25.9. Runoff seems likely
11:20PM: North Haven votes NO! 69% to 31%
11:25PM: Westbrook numbers are in: 55% NO, 45% yes
11:42PM: Not gonna lie, the tone of this room has changed a bit. It's close, but we're down. I've seen tears.
12:09AM: I'm looking at the happy, dancing couples here downstairs. I'm worried for the news that I fear is coming their way.
12:22AM: Jesse Connolly about to speak. I have nothing happy to report. Sorry.
12:37AM: Connolly non-concedes. But, uhm. Yea. Video forthcoming.
1:24AM: We likely won't know Washington state's R-71 fight for a few days. But it's promising.
Faggot means a bundle of sticks. If you don't like being called a hater or a bigot, then the thing to do is to change yourself so you don't fit the descriptions. As opposed to whining about people pointing out the truth.
Posted by: RainbowPhoenix | Nov 4, 2009 2:21:35 AM
David to David:
You assert-You and the Wirthlins willingly allow yourselves and your families to be exploited to promote a lie in order to hurt adults who want to marry. I really don't understand how you are OK with that."
The truth is that "tolerance" was the initial motivation of promoting "gay-friendly" materials/programs in public schools. Imposing "gay marriage" is forced affirmation -- the two concepts are very different.
Gay marriage was being affirmed to elementary school children. A line was being crossed that I'm not sure you understand --- and when they refused to even give me information (parental notification) and allow opt out (forced participation in the affirmation process)-- the fight was on-- my parental protection instincts were activated---It was NOT an assertion of my religious views.
As for being "exploited"-- YES - My situation was used. I have no infinite loyalty to those organizations who used my situation and exploit my families' suffering. The truth is that many have even profited on my situation--- and even will claim credit for victories that are inevitably to follow from using me. Did they offer to pay for my legal expenses ($230,000)---NO---they didn't --- but they freely claim "their" victories and make money from my situation. I only accept this because I believe in the fight (In our position)-- the truth is they would not have won without my sacrifice --and they remain blind to this fact and offer nothing substantial in renumberation. I rise above this-- for the cause.
Posted by: David Parker | Nov 4, 2009 2:34:58 AM
To david- you write-"Just out of curiosity: Is there some reason that the Wirthlins starred in the Yes on 1 ads and not you? Did Schubert not ask you to appear, since it is your family name on the lawsuit?"
Interesting observation you made. The Wirthlins child (2nd grade) was the one whom went through the gay marriage lesson by a teacher reading the book, "king and King" - as an affirmation of gay marriage. My child told us that the teacher also read him the book in 1st grade on Valentines day --- but I could not absolutely substaniate that claim. Therefore- the Wirthlins were more appropriate to use in the prop 8 adds (which were actually filmed in my home)
Posted by: David Parker | Nov 4, 2009 2:47:17 AM
A bigot is a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices..
The correct use of the term requires the elements of obstinacy, irrationality, and animosity toward those of differing devotion.
According to - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bigotry
The truth is if you assert "bigotry", you have judged yourself.
Posted by: David Parker | Nov 4, 2009 3:00:37 AM
David to David P.:
I do get the difference b/t tolerance and forced affirmation and I do get the basis of your objection. My point is about causality. Your kid's school could have forced affirmation of gay marriage regardless of whether it was legal in MA. They could have taught the same King and King lesson on an aspirational basis, or simply by telling the kids that King and King can happen in Canada or Spain and should happen here. It all depends on what the school or individual teacher wants to teach and what the educational laws and regs let them get away with. It does not depend either way on what the marriage law says.
So it is deceiving conservative parents to tell them that they can protect their kids from a pro-gay curriculum by banning gay marriage. It just isn't so. Tomorrow, if a school in Maine were so inclined, they could teach the most pro-gay marriage course imaginable, even though Q1 passed. Marc Mutty and his crew will be long gone.
If you want to solve a curriculum dispute, the way to do it is to deal with the curriculum. As with any other dispute of this type, the solution is either to reign in the school if it is really outside the community's standards, or to provide an opt-out if it is really just a minority of parents who are complaining. I know that you couldn't work out a solution in Lexington, but the issue remains one of education laws and regs and the non-responsiveness of the education bureaucracy, not marriage.
You really personally ate $230K on that litigation?
Posted by: David | Nov 4, 2009 3:02:58 AM
To "Mr. Parker" can I ask why you feel that some of the children who come from same sex headed households need to hide their families from your child? That their reality is not as valid as your reality?
Posted by: Daimeon | Nov 4, 2009 6:34:00 AM
David Parker: "We both have to admit -- that ALL these terms are meant to degrade and marginalize and stigmatize. 'Hate' is asserted to these same ends-- It is not a path to empathy and understanding."
I have a question for Mr. Parker: As a Christian, would you not agree that Jesus (as God in human form) had every right to call out the Pharisees for what they were? I'm certain that the Pharisees must have considered it incredibly "degrading, marginalizing, and stigmatizing" to be called "offspring of vipers" -- and yet Jesus had no problem calling them that as a way of showing to the people of Israel just how depraved and removed from God's ways they were with their actions.
To be sure, it hurts to be called a "hater" and a "bigot," but the answer is not to ignore the charge and equate it with another term (i.e. "faggot") that has all but lost its literal meaning. You must be able to assess the situation and determine: 1) Why would someone call me a hater and a bigot for my views, and 2) Are these charges against me an accurate assessment of my life situation?
If you have not already done so, seek the Lord's guidance in this matter and He will help you to answer these two questions. If you can honestly discern in your heart of hearts that you have been maligned without cause -- based on a sincere assessment of the situation from all points of view, NOT just your own understanding (remember Proverbs 3:5) -- then so be it. All I ask is that you open your heart enough to understand.
I'll be praying for your well-being -- as I hope you will do for all of us here.
Posted by: Chris Cool | Nov 4, 2009 7:05:35 AM
If you cared you would have voted to grant us the equality that is granted to every American in the constitution.
Posted by: Vast Variety, Iowa | Nov 4, 2009 7:14:40 AM
I implore you to think about this from the side of a child of a same-sex household. Please, at your next Parent-Teacher conference, seek out a child from a same-sex household, and tell that child that either:
a) he doesn't deserve to exist because he was conceived of a same-sex parent,
b) he deserves to be in an orphanage, because having no parents is better than having same-sex parents,
c) he deserves to be bounced around from foster home to foster home,
d) his parents do not deserve to be parents because they're not enough like you.
Please have someone record this video as well as the child's reactions, and please do not edit the conversation. Then, assuming Jeremy doesn't mind, please send a copy of the video to this website. Send one to Mass Resistance, too, of course. Please, show us that you're willing to take the issue to the people affected by this: the children.
Posted by: DN | Nov 4, 2009 12:15:15 PMcomments powered by Disqus