Leave a Comment Sagesse
Maine marriage equality ballot language released, questioned by both sides
June 18, 2012
By Jacob Combs
Marriage equality referenda often come down to a battle of words, since the precise language that appears on the ballot can often have significant psychological effects with votes and contribute to the measures’ success or defeat. Late last week, the Maine Secretary of State released the proposed language for Maine’s November marriage equality ballot, and neither proponents nor opponents of the measure are pleased with its simple, 10-word phrasing: “Do you want to allow same-sex couples to marry?”
Supporters of marriage equality proposed a much longer ballot question, which read: “Do you favor a law allowing marriage licenses for same-sex couples that protects religious freedom by ensuring no religion or clergy be required to perform such a marriage in violation of their religious beliefs?” Matt McTighe, campaign manager for the pro-marriage equality group Mainers United for Marriage, said that the proposed ballot language only addresses one of the law’s two important elements, and leaves out its provisions for religious protections, which could be important to swing voters who are on the fence about the law.
On the other hand, Bob Emrich, campaign manger for Protect Marriage Maine, who opposes the initiative, expressed his disappointment that the language did not include a statement about “redefining” marriage. He also said that it was unncessary to include the religious exemptions provision, saying, “I will do everything I can to voice an objection to putting that back into it.” He and other opponents are mobilizing their supporters to express their support for the current language.
Supporters and opponents of the initiave, as well as the public, have 30 days to respond to the proposed wording. After that comment period closes on the July 16, the Secretary of State will release the measure’s final wording, which will be followed by a 10-day appeal period.
Having technical problems? E-mail equalityontrial AT couragecampaign DOT org for assistance!
40 Comments Leave a Comment
1.
Sagesse | June 18, 2012 at 8:01 am
@
2.
JoeRH | June 18, 2012 at 8:17 am
I will never understand just how sick and twisted religious extremists are. They claim to be just the typical Christian, but just listen to the reasoning of this Emrich fucktard. Just wants to be as shady and dishonest as legally possible just to win their twisted battle against the innocent. Since when is LYING a value? DISHONESTY? Why can't they just gather together, lock themselves in a barn and then start it on fire. Don't worry, God will save you…
3.
Stefan | June 18, 2012 at 8:29 am
The same thing happened in Washington and it got overturned in court. I have no doubt the same will happen here.
4.
fiona64 | June 18, 2012 at 9:06 am
The US Constitution already guarantees churches the right to refuse to perform any liturgical service to anyone, gay or straight, that they so desire. I am really sick and tired of seeing people expect to have religious exemptions spelled out every damn where. It really is completely unnecessary because of the Establishment Clause. A stopped clock is right twice a day; in this case, so is the "Protect Marriage" dude. I don't agree with his overall position, and Heaven knows that marriage has been "redefined" many times (including during my own lifetime w/Loving v. Virginia) … but I'm tired of catering to the religious whackjobs.
5.
EricKoszyk | June 18, 2012 at 9:09 am
It doesn't sound like the proponents can challenge this in court. Does anyone know?
By the way, Maine's Secretary of State is a conservative Republican who is running for US Senate this year. I'm sure that that played a role in this matter.
6.
Jamie | June 18, 2012 at 9:18 am
Nakedly political move by the State's REpublican Attorney General. Likely to have been done at the request of his donors, and likely to be overturned by the Courts.
7.
Gregory in SLC | June 18, 2012 at 9:45 am
Meanwhile in Australia…..
Marriage Vote Heads for Defeat
http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/political-news/same…
8.
Bob | June 18, 2012 at 9:45 am
sign the petition asking president Obama to sign the executive order for ENDA
http://org2.democracyinaction.org/o/6535/p/dia/ac…
9.
Thom Watson | June 18, 2012 at 9:54 am
I'm uncomfortable with the suggested language because of the word "want". "Want" shouldn't have anything to do with the law. And I can imagine people who might say no, they don't "want" to allow same-sex couples to marry, but they don't think the law should prohibit equality. If the question asks only "do you want to allow," they might say no. But if the question says "do you support a law that allows" they might say yes.
10.
Michelle Evans | June 18, 2012 at 9:56 am
That's why I wish we had the same basic laws regarding free speech as those in Canada. You are free to say anything you want to say, with the caveat that it must actually be factual!!
11.
Michelle Evans | June 18, 2012 at 10:00 am
The biggest problem with the wording is that everyone keeps using the term "same-sex." Instead the term should always be "same gender." The jerks who are against marriage equality always drag sex into it, so taking away at least this one word from the basic description would help defuse that situation. Of course, the best course of action would be to actually include the words that truly describe the amendment: "Marriage Equality." Because that's what this is truly all about.
12.
Scott Wooledge | June 18, 2012 at 10:04 am
Considering how very far off from the original question the final result is, it seems like a naked attempt by the Secretary of State to hijack the ballot initiative into a totally different conversation than the one the petitioners were trying to have.
I'm not sure it's a terrible result though. I just don't know.
13.
W. Kevin Vicklund | June 18, 2012 at 10:21 am
Yep, don't like the "want" and feel that although the religious protection language OUGHT to be unnecessary, the reality is that it IS necessary. And there is at least a germ of reason for it being necessary, since the courts have on occasion ruled that certain protections were incorrectly applied. So here is my suggested wording, which highlights that the law will incorporate the existing federal protections at the state level.
“Do you favor a law allowing marriage licenses for same-sex couples? This law would also incorporate existing federal constitutional religious freedom protections that ensure no religion or clergy be required to perform such a marriage in violation of their religious beliefs.”
14.
Michelle Evans | June 18, 2012 at 10:30 am
Good wording, except that I would change the first line to: "Do you favor a law insuring marriage equality to same-gender couples…"
15.
W. Kevin Vicklund | June 18, 2012 at 10:37 am
Yes, I would have made that change too if I had seen your comment before I submitted.
16.
Scott Wooledge | June 18, 2012 at 10:40 am
I agree. "Want" really personalizes the question in an ackward way that gets away from issues of equal protection and civil rights.
17.
Bill S. | June 18, 2012 at 10:43 am
This gets rid of the terminology "same-sex marriage" which insinuates that same-sex couples want a "different kind" of marriage.
18.
DaveP | June 18, 2012 at 10:57 am
Exactly. It would be better if it started with "Should the law allow…" or "Should the law deny…"
19.
Rich | June 18, 2012 at 10:58 am
What everyone can do is send a letter like the following to encourage SoS Charlie Summers to honor the integrity of the petition gathering language that we consistently used as we canvassed the state.
"Dear Secretary of State Summers,
I and hundreds of other petition signature gatherers spend countless hours speaking to the good citizens of Maine. When we asked them to support the proposed referendum, we were consistently clear in stating that this law would in no way infringe on the 1st Amendment rights of religious institutions and clergy who choose not to bless same sex marriages. It is important that the citizens of Maine understand that this law addresses a civil right only and has nothing to do with religious marriage. Many of the signers agreed that, as a civil matter, they could support marriage equality and looked for assurance that their faith could continue to offer marriage only to those who followed that faith.
This would appear, on the surface, to be a simple matter but, as the Portland Press Herald stated in its op ed piece today, you have a duty to make very clear that all the citizens of Maine understand completely and fully the ramifications of marriage equality in Maine when they enter the booth to vote. I suspect you will hear from many that this should be done for the very reasons listed above. You will most assuredly hear from others that the wording is fine as is and you know as well as I do that, without the additional wording, some will think that religious freedom is at stake when it is not.
In short: we collected signatures and offered the assurance that religious freedom will not be affected. We were honest with everyone then, now you need to be honest with everyone and put back that assurance into the wording of the referendum."
His address: sosoffice@maine.gov
I doubt out of state e-mails will have any impact but I'm pretty sure NOM will be attempting this.
20.
Michelle Evans | June 18, 2012 at 12:00 pm
But you are still use "same-sex" and associate that with marriage. The word "sex" must be removed from anything to do with marriage equality for the reasons I stated above.
21.
Reformed | June 18, 2012 at 12:23 pm
Bob Emrich,
So Bob Emrich is against a religious exemption. That is of course because he is against anything that would help it to pass. Its only necessary if you have to dig way down deep in the bucket to find something, anything, to delay (propose it as a last minute ammendment), or to divide(the "no religious exemption" pro folks from the "only with a religious exemption" pro folks).
I wouldn't believe you if you had your toungue notorized, Bob.
22.
Scott Wooledge | June 18, 2012 at 2:28 pm
Good point. In stripping the religious protection language, Emrich has enabled the right to run with the favorite talking point: "The gays will sue good Christian churches into the poor house!"
Obviously that won't happen either way, as the law can't repeal the First Amendment. But if the exemption language appears directly on the ballot, that talking point becomes pretty moot to most SANE people.
"Oh look, it says it right there on the ballot, no churches will be forced. OK." This is kind of half-time win for Emrich.
23.
Stefan | June 18, 2012 at 3:52 pm
"After that comment period closes on the July 16, the Secretary of State will release the measure’s final wording, which will be followed by a 10-day appeal period."
24.
Mike | June 18, 2012 at 4:21 pm
“Do you favor a law allowing marriage licenses for same-sex couples 'WHICH ALSO' protects religious freedom by ensuring no religion or clergy be required to perform such a marriage in violation of their religious beliefs?”
25.
Mike in Baltimore | June 18, 2012 at 5:56 pm
Even the term 'same gender' implies sex.
'Marriage equality' takes ALL reference, direct or implied, out of it.
26.
Mike in Baltimore | June 18, 2012 at 6:21 pm
Rules for the wording of ballot initiatives should include that there is a limit of X number of words, and that the promoter of the initiative is the one who comes up with the wording of what the ballot initiative is. The chief election officer can review, courts can review, whoever can review, but unless it violates some law (or exceeds the word limit, etc.), the wording cannot be changed. Nothing should prohibit suggestions for changes, but changes in wording cannot be made unless and until agreed to by the people who back the initiative.
And in some cases, if the initiative fits in the wording limitations, it might be best to include only the wording of the initiative. This would encourage shorter initiative language, without all the carving out of exceptions not noticed until after the fact.
Others can work out the details, but that's my suggestion for a starting point.
27.
Eric | June 18, 2012 at 7:22 pm
Because their bible says any sin is ok as long as it is anti-gay.
28.
Eric | June 18, 2012 at 7:26 pm
Most people can't even understand the bible, nor bother to try, they had to get dumbed down English versions and they don't even bother to read those, so why expect them to read and understand the Constitution?
29.
Eric | June 18, 2012 at 7:30 pm
You must have not read the original title submitted with Prop 8.
30.
Mike in Baltimore | June 18, 2012 at 7:59 pm
Probably not, since I live in Maryland, and have for almost 30 years now.
Could you fill us (those not 'privileged' to live in California) in on the details?
I COULD look it up, but you didn't think it worthwhile to type (or copy/paste) or otherwise expend effort, so why should I or anyone else expend any effort?
Ever wonder why most people look down on most attorneys? Maybe it's because most attorneys have an attitude that just exudes "I'm superior to you, because I'm an attorney."
Oh, and does California law allow ballot referenda and/or initiative summaries to be written by the promoter of the referenda/initiative? Apparently not, as it would appear that it was changed, based on what you wrote.
31.
Eric | June 18, 2012 at 9:19 pm
I apologize for assuming someone posting on the Prop8trialtracker website would be familiar with Prop 8.
32.
Glen | June 18, 2012 at 11:26 pm
I lived in California and spent countless hours fighting Prop 8 and have no idea what you are referring to.
I agree with Mike, it can't be all that interesting if you chose not to post it, and I couldn't care less about digging around the internet to find out what it was or even if you're just talking out your ass.
33.
Lymis | June 19, 2012 at 6:30 am
Ask most people, and you will find that they really do believe that the priest, minister, or rabbi is the one with the civil authority to create the marriage. Most Americans don't make a distinction between religious or civil marriage, so they assume that if you allow people to marry, you force their church to perform it.
This is particularly inexcusable coming from Catholics, who should be very aware that their church has the right to refuse to perform marriages for divorced people or religiously mixed marriages that don't meet their standards (usually, that kids will be raised Catholic), but ask any of these people if they think their Baptist minister can be forced to marry a Jewish couple in their church, and they'll just stare blankly.
Personally, I think that this extremely neutral language is great – as long as the voters get that message. But since it will be the tactic of the anti-gay marriage forces to blur that line, some extra clarity would be important.
34.
jon | June 19, 2012 at 6:57 am
The actual e-mail address is: sos.office@maine.gov
35.
Ann_S | June 19, 2012 at 7:39 am
The original wording said the measure would amend the state Constitution "to provide that only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California."
The attorney general's office changed the language to say that Proposition 8 seeks to "eliminate the right of same-sex couples to marry."
link to LA Times story from 2008
36.
fiona64 | June 19, 2012 at 12:58 pm
Because they should have learned this stuff in fucking elementary school, that's why.
37.
Mike in Baltimore | June 19, 2012 at 2:59 pm
Eric,
You didn't assume anything.
You ASSumed.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tKlWGZHEO7Q
38.
Deeelaaach | June 20, 2012 at 12:58 am
It implies that only for those who don't understand the difference between gender and sex. Which as you rightly say is most people.
39.
Deeelaaach | June 20, 2012 at 1:03 am
The reason that Prop 8 proponents objected to the attorney general's description was that it was factually correct.
40.
grod | June 20, 2012 at 10:04 am
Thanks Rich, Dave, Jon and Stefan G
Leave a Comment
XHTML: You can use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>
TrackBack URL | RSS feed for comments on this post.