Maine Question 1 Trends "Yes": Did Fitz Ad Swing Balance?
Ryan Wednesday, November 4, 2009 at 12:38AM 
With 76% of precincts reporting, “Yes” was leading in Maine Question 1 ballot results, 228,329 to 209,870. The “Yes” and “No” campaigns, which together have spent more than $6.5 million – much of which came from out of Maine – approached early polling today cautiously.
As reported by the Bangor Daily News, when 22 percent of precincts had reported, “No” was leading “Yes” by a 50.6% to 49.4% margin. Although early returns favored “No” the results have been trending “Yes”; this could potentially be explained by Portland, as its results were in quickly but favored “No” by approximately 70%. The Daily News story also attributes to Maine Secretary of State Matt Dunlop the belief that over 50% of registered voters had cast votes – despite it being an off-year election. It is likely that by morning, the race will either be called for “Yes” or will remain too close to call, with many absentee ballots perhaps yet to be counted.
With the likelihood of slim victory by “Yes,” the spotlight perhaps returns to the advertisement in which Professor Fitzgibbon appeared. As reported on this site, the AP headline in that advertisement was changed. As one of the scholars brought in by the Dean explained (now quoting from the Eaglei liveblog of the event):
—He just pointed out the facts of Parker v. Hurley, cited by the Fitz ad, and what “teaching homosexual marriage” (as stated by the ad) is supposed to mean, according to the ad. The reference to gay marriage wasn’t even head on, was in a book, and could at most be construed as being 2 sentences long.
—When the Fitz ad says “special interest groups” it flashes the logo of a lesbian organization. This organization was never involved in the Maine legislation. He is also discussing the incident cited by the “church organizations could lose their tax-exempt status” and the miniscule chances of this actually happening.
For the readers: did the advertisement in which Prof. Fitzgibbon appeared (speaking lines written by this company, echoing those from this ad) swing the balance in Maine?
Reader Comments (13)
I didn't pay much attention to the outcry surrounding Fitzgibbon's ad when it originally aired. I thought most Mainers would see through the flimsy arguments of the Yes on 1 group and chose to uphold the statute. Today, having seen the close outcome of the election, I feel a new wave of disgust that an agent of hate and intolerance roams the halls here at BCLS.
So Professor Fitzgibbon, I ask you this: has society in Maine's neighbors who have legalized gay marriage crumbled into a moral cesspool? Are children now coming home from schools with (gasp) same-sex significant others because the schools said it's okay? Has the divorce rate skyrocketed?
Mostly I want to know what is it that compels a person to go out of his way to attempt to deny equality to some individuals in an entirely different state. Was it money for the commercial? Or are you actually as bigoted as the ad makes you appear?
Fitzgibbon wins. Whiny BC Law students lose.
Conroy said most of the Stand for Marriage supporters are ordinary families who are worried that children will read stories about same-sex couples in schools, that teenagers will be encouraged to experiment with their sexuality, and that same-sex marriage will become widespread. She said that gays and lesbians have won antidiscrimination protections and should “leave marriage alone.’’
“No one’s antigay,’’ she said. “It’s just whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa. . . . Not so fast.’’
Among the Stand for Marriage supporters were Scott York, 31, a carpenter who voted at the Portland Exposition Building. He said he wasn’t particularly passionate about the issue until he worried, because of advertisements, that same-sex marriage could be taught in schools.
“It’s not my style,’’ said York, who voted to overturn the law. “I just don’t feel it should be taught.’’
While the above is really just anecdotal, I guess, it leads me to believe that Fitzy's ad certainly couldn't have hurt.
A link: http://www.boston.com/news/local/maine/articles/2009/11/04/maine_voters_overturn_states_new_same_sex_marriage_law/
No 2L. The people who lost are the gays and lesbians who are in committed and lasting and loving relationships who apparently are so deviant and immoral that their commitment and love for one another threatens others. Who also lost are the children growing up in families with same sex parents who now believe that their neighbors, their teachers, their friends at school think their families are inferior and aren't legitimate, even though they know that they are growing up in a loving home and a healthy environment. Who lost are the kids growing up in Maine who are, by no fault or choice of their own, gay or lesbian and who will no feel that they have no one to talk to about it in their schools or at home because they saw their teachers and parents vote to say that gay people can't have the same relationships as straight people.
And that is shameful. The fact is where same sex couples can marry legally, the world has gone on...heterosexual marriages are just as sacred and sanctified as they ever were and no one is teaching kids anything in school but that people are gay and that is part of life. Refusing to teach that or acknowledge the existence of gay people doesn't change that they exist. It's so ironic that people who claim the existence of God and expect legal protections because of their belief in the existence of God are so quick to do everything they can to keep the law from recognizing the existence of tangible human beings who live next door to them, go to the same schools as their kids, pray in the same churches and pay the same taxes.
Fitzgibbon's ad, regardless of whether it worked or not, is just another reflection of the shameful behavior of some people who think their lives and relationships are better than others.
People who voted Yes on 1 aren't shameful or bigoted. Neither are the voters in the other 30 states across the country that rejected gay marriage. Americans don't like things shoved down their throats, plain and simple. Re-group, alter your message, actually convince your neighbors that its a good idea, and try again next time. Eventually you'll find a message that is more convincing than the other side. That's called democracy.
Yes, 2L. I suppose that public schools should have remained segregated until the whites were okay with their children going to school with black children. Restaurants, transportation, water fountains should all have remained segregated until people came around. Those poor, poor white people had intergration shoved down their throats.
I guess Richard and Mildred Loving should have waited until Virginia was ready for interracial marriage before they could commit to one another and raise their children. How silly of the Supreme Court to think they should impose interracial marriage on people who clearly weren't ready for it because they passed laws outlawing it.
Get a life. No gay couple should have to wait around for Mainers or anyone to decide they are worthy of civil recognition of their relationship.
2L,
So residents of Alabama or Mississippi in the 1960's who didn't like desegregation and civil rights for African Americans "shoved down their throats" weren't bigots either?
History will eventually show the behavior and excuses of those standing in the way of equality for homosexuals to be every bit as shameful as the behavior of those who tried to stand in the way of steps towards racial equality.
I thought eaglei didnt allow anonymous comments anymore...this is great!
This vote went against gay marriage for the same reason the CA vote went against it. Its not b/c 50%+1 in ME + CA are haters/bigoted or anything along those lines, its b/c they dont want the gay agenda shoved down their throats. There's a difference there.
Two El, I was offering a piece of practical advice. Gay marriage proponents in Maine did not lose by very much yesterday. There are a lot of people willing to be convinced one way or the other, but some gay marriage folks are so stubborn and extreme that they make winning impossible for themselves. If gay marriage advocates had done a little better job coming up with a message that everyone can live with, they wouldn't be "waiting around" for "anyone to decide they are worthy of civil recognition of their relationship". They would have had it! Instead they insist that gay marriage is identical to traditional marriage and equate their movement with the ending of racial segregation, start talking about fundamental constitutional right to gay marriage, etc., and it scares just enough people away that gay marriage proponents lose over and over and over again. From a practical standpoint it doesn't remotely resemble Brown or Loving where the courts were clearly the only option to get things done. I think everyone can agree that getting democratic support for a movement is better than having a judge or governor force it on people. -- p.s. you get a life.
It's not like Loving in that the courts were the only way to get that done? I'm sorry, but Virginia was one of the few remaining states to have miscegenation laws when the Supreme Court required it to remove that law. Other states had done what you suggest - voted. The Supreme Court also has, time and again, said that the right to marry who you choose is a constitutional right. If it is a constitutional issue, then it is perfectly acceptable and reasonable for the courts to enforce the constitution, whether the majority of voters in any particular state feel that way or not. The same goes for Brown. Plenty of states had, through democratic process, forced integration...but that certainly does not mean that because more whites in Mississippi didn't feel that way, blacks in Mississippi should have to play nice to get whites to allow them to go to the same schools? Give me a break. Seriously.
Advocates for gay marriage have done what they should have. Their ads did not demonize the other side or lie like Professor Fitzgibbon. I am not sure what tactics you would suggest to the gays...maybe they should ask heterosexuals, simply because they are the majority of the population to be so kind as to give them the right to commit legally to who we love? Invite them for tea?
You haven't offered any practical advice. Your advice is that gay people are whining for wanting what you are entitled to simply because you were born straight. That somehow they don't deserve to have their relationships recognized for what they are - marriages just like a straight marriage - simply because they aren't saying pretty please?
anonymous, please tell us where you got the extraordinary power to not only read people's minds to determine that they are bigots based solely on how they vote, but also travel into the future to discover what posterity thinks of us.
The people of Maine voted to reject marriage equality for same sex couples. I'm not exactly sure how much of a jump in logic one has to make to gather why Mainers voted that way. They think gay couples should not be able to get married. Because they are gay. I'm not getting why it's an illogical jump to think that is a bigoted view of people and their relationships based solely on their sexual orientation. If someone voted for miscegenation laws I'm fairly certain anyone could make a conclusion as to why they voted that way.
As for a gay agenda...the only agenda gays have is to receive the same benefits provided by the government as anyone else does. "Gay agenda" is one of those catch phrases bigots like to use to make gays seem scary. I'm sorry anon alum, but those scare tactics are better left for low budget ads starring incompetent law professors.