National
Maine marriage campaign optimistic going into referendum
Polls indicate majority of voters would support ballot measure to allow same-sex marriage.
SCARBOROUGH, Maine ā Portland resident Ellen Ward never thought she would find herself speaking with fellow voters in support of marriage rights for same-sex couples.
The self-described introvert changed her mind, however, in 2009 when she listened to gays and lesbians and others testify in support of a same-sex marriage bill during a legislative hearing in Augusta, the state capital.
āThey were leading very what most people call normal lives and just wanted to be able to affirm their love and commitment in the same way that other people got too,ā Ward told the Washington Blade as she canvassed a suburban Portland neighborhood in the rain on Thursday afternoon. āAnd I was just really impressed with people standing up and testifying about that and churches testifying about that.ā
Nearly three years after Maine voters repealed the stateās same-sex marriage law that then-Gov. John Baldacci signed, supporters of nuptials for gays and lesbians remain confident that a ballot question that would allow them to tie the knot will pass.
āWhatās so unique about Maine is because weāre the first state to ever go on the offensive and bring the issue directly to the voters; weāve been able to dictate our own timeline,ā Matt McTighe, campaign manager of Mainers United for Marriage, the group supporting Question 1, told the Blade during an interview at his Portland office on Friday. āThere was never a ticking clock. Every time this has come up before when itās defensive itās always in the current ā something happens, a precipitating action, a court case, a legislative victory whatever. Our opponents then do something to undermine that or write something into the constitution or whatever. And now weāre on their turf. Now weāre playing defense on their side of the field.ā
Voters in 2009 repealed the same-sex marriage law by a 53-47 percent margin. McTighe, a former Human Rights Campaign staffer who has worked on marriage efforts in Massachusetts and in other New England states for MassEquality and the Boston-based Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders, described the 2012 campaign in Maine as a ānight and day kind of differenceā from that run ahead of the 2009 referendum.
āItās always been designed from the ground up as a campaign for voters,ā he said. āWe didnāt have to worry about the legislature. We werenāt thinking about a court case or anything like that. Right from the beginning weāve tried to figure out who are the voters we need to be talking to, letās employ some of the most sophisticated modeling and tactics that have ever been applied to the marriage movement, letās bring in the best people, the best consultants, the best field organizers, the best team and put together a plan and a model to figure out who we need to talk to.ā
Voter: Same-sex marriage ādoesnāt really affect meā
Maine is one of four states with either a same-sex marriage referendum or a constitutional amendment that would define marriage as between a man and a woman on the ballot next month. The Maine Freedom to Marry Coalition in January submitted more than 105,000 signatures to the Secretary of State in order to bring the issue before voters.
A Portland Press Herald poll conducted between Sept. 12-16 shows Question 1 leads by a 57-36 percent margin. A Public Policy Polling survey late last month indicates 52 percent of likely voters support the ballot measure, compared to 44 percent who oppose it and four percent who remain undecided.
Several Scarborough residents with whom Ward spoke said they would support Question 1.
āIāll probably vote for it,ā said one teenager who turns 18 on Nov. 1. He told Ward that he also works with a lesbian. āIt doesnāt really affect me. Iām not really 100 percent for it, but I have nothing against it. Not to put it the wrong way but I really donāt care. Do whatever you want. If anything itāll be better for the economy.ā
A woman who lives on a nearby cul-de-sac told Ward that she plans to vote against the ballot question.
āI personally donāt have a problem with you getting together, but Iām not in favor of calling it marriage,ā she said. āItās a sacrament. To redefine marriage, I would vote no.ā
Ward conceded the womanās position against marriage rights for same-sex couples was ādiscouraging.ā She did acknowledge, however, that she feels that her support of basic rights for gays and lesbians was encouraging.
āPeople have come a long way on that issue, certainly than even 20 years ago,ā said Ward, who recalled a telephone conversation she had a couple of months ago with a 90-year-old woman who marched against racial segregation in the 1960s. She initially said she opposed nuptials for gays and lesbians, but Ward said she suddenly changed her mind when she realized the parallels between the civil rights and same-sex marriage movements. āI just feel there are so many people that we talk to these days who are completely supportive.ā
Marriage remains āpersonalā for voters
Six Mainers United for Marriage ads continue to air on local television stations. These include one that features four generations of a family from the Downeast town of Machias and another that spotlights firefighters who support nuptials for gays and lesbians. Protect Marriage Maine, the group opposing Question 1, debuted their first two television ads on Monday.
āYou have to make this about the voter themselves. You need to give them a personal reason to connect with the gay people that they know in their lives, to think about this issue in a way that they havenāt thought of before,ā said McTighe, who is also a firefighter in the southern coastal Maine town of York. He applauded President Obama for supporting marriage rights for same-sex couples, but stressed the issue remains what he described as a deeply personal one for each potential voter. āYou donāt just change your mind because somebody else did. You have to change your mind because somebody made it personal to you. Somebody showed you what is at stake. And also gave you an opportunity to have your questions and concerns addressed. Thatās why the grassroots approach has been so unique, to be able to go out and have door-to-door with everyone in our persuadable universe, those people we identified early on.ā
Mainers United for Marriage reported to the state Commission on Ethics and Election Practices late on Friday that it has raised slightly more than $3.35 million so far this year, compared with the $429,794.32 that Protect Marriage Maine has pulled in. McTighe told the Blade that he would like to raise another $750,000 to $1 million āto keep pace withā the amount of airtime that the National Organization for Marriage has reserved on the stateās television stations in the weeks leading up to Election Day.
āNow is sort of the crunch time,ā he said. āWeāve been prepping for his. Weāve been planning for this so now we feel like weāre prepared for everything. When they come out with one attack, weāve got plan A. When they come out with a different attack, weāve got plan B. We can pull it as needed. We can execute as we need to, as long as we have the resources.ā
McTighe said another challenge that the campaign faces of potential complacency.
āBecause we are doing really well in the polls and because people are seeing all this great stuff and people love our TV ads and all this other stuff and weāre getting all this great earned media, itās almost too easy for people to say, well they donāt need my help. They donāt me to volunteer. They donāt need me to donate. They donāt need me to write a check. Theyāve got 57 percent in the polls. Well I donāt care as much now,” he said. “But the fact is weāve never won before. Whether that 57 percent is solid or soft or who knows, weāll see, but weāve never won. Until we win, we should just assume that our opponents will dump whatever resources they need. We should just assume that they will stop at nothing. And we should assume that no lead is safe until we can actually win and hold one for just once, at least once. Then we can start saying okay well is a point where youāre safe. Weāre just not there yet. Weāre not there in any of the states.ā
In spite of these potential hurdles, McTighe remains optimistic that Mainers United for Marriage will be able to successfully respond to Question 1 opponents’ ads and statements against nuptials for gays and lesbians during the final weeks of the campaign.
āWe feel extremely well positioned to deal with anything they throw our way because weāve had two and a half years to prepare for everything,ā he said. āThat is whatās so unique about Maine.ā
Ward agreed.
āPeople have had a lot more chance to think about this,ā she said, noting the passage of same-sex marriage laws in New York and other states since the 2009 vote. āItās very much on peopleās minds and people are talking about it now. Itās not so unheard of. I think people are just kind of more getting used to the idea and saying, oh, I have people in my family that this [impacts] or I have neighbors and I think theyāre very nice people and wow, you know they want to get married. A lot of people had never thought of that before. I think part of it is people are getting used to the idea. And people who are already on board are saying of course, of course this matters. And more and more they want to see this happen. It just seems a no brainer to them.ā
Federal Government
Lambda Legal praises Biden-Harris administration’s finalized Title IX regulations
New rules to take effect Aug. 1
The Biden-Harris administration’s revised Title IX policy “protects LGBTQ+ students from discrimination and other abuse,” Lambda Legal said in a statement praising the U.S. Department of Education’s issuance of the final rule on Friday.
Slated to take effect on Aug. 1, the new regulations constitute an expansion of the 1972 Title IX civil rights law, which prohibits sex-based discrimination in education programs that receive federal funding.
Pursuant to the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in the landmark 2020 Bostock v. Clayton County case, the department’s revised policy clarifies that discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity constitutes sex-based discrimination as defined under the law.
āThese regulations make it crystal clear that everyone can access schools that are safe, welcoming and that respect their rights,ā Education Secretary Miguel Cardona said during a call with reporters on Thursday.
While the new rule does not provide guidance on whether schools must allow transgender students to play on sports teams corresponding with their gender identity to comply with Title IX, the question is addressed in a separate rule proposed by the agency in April.
The administration’s new policy also reverses some Trump-era Title IX rules governing how schools must respond to reports of sexual harassment and sexual assault, which were widely seen as imbalanced in favor of the accused.
Jennifer Klein, the director of the White House Gender Policy Council, said during Thursday’s call that the department sought to strike a balance with respect to these issues, “reaffirming our longstanding commitment to fundamental fairness.”
āWe applaud the Biden administration’s action to rescind the legally unsound, cruel, and dangerous sexual harassment and assault rule of the previous administration,” Lambda Legal Nonbinary and Transgender Rights Project Director Sasha Buchert said in the group’s statement on Friday.
“Todayās rule instead appropriately underscores that Title IX’s civil rights protections clearly cover LGBTQ+ students, as well as survivors and pregnant and parenting students across race and gender identity,” she said. “Schools must be places where students can learn and thrive free of harassment, discrimination, and other abuse.”
Michigan
Mich. Democrats spar over LGBTQ-inclusive hate crimes law
Lawmakers disagree on just what kind of statute to pass
Michigan could soon become the latest state to pass an LGBTQ-inclusive hate crime law, but the stateās Democratic lawmakers disagree on just what kind of law they should pass.
Currently, Michiganās Ethnic Intimidation Act only offers limited protections to victims of crime motivated by their ārace, color, religion, gender, or national origin.ā Bills proposed by Democratic lawmakers expand the list to include āactual or perceived race, color, religion, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, ethnicity, physical or mental disability, age, national origin, or association or affiliation with any such individuals.ā
Democratic Gov. Gretchen Whitmer and Attorney General Dana Nessel have both advocated for a hate crime law, but house and senate Democrats have each passed different hate crimes packages, and Nessel has blasted both as being too weak.
Under the house proposal that passed last year (House Bill 4474), a first offense would be punishable with a $2,000 fine, up to two years in prison, or both. Penalties double for a second offense, and if a gun or other dangerous weapons is involved, the maximum penalty is six years in prison and a fine of $7,500.
But that proposal stalled when it reached the senate, after far-right news outlets and Fox News reported misinformation that the bill only protected LGBTQ people and would make misgendering a trans person a crime. State Rep. Noah Arbit, the bill’s sponsor, was also made the subject of a recall effort, which ultimately failed.
Arbit submitted a new version of the bill (House Bill 5288) that added sections clarifying that misgendering a person, āintentionally or unintentionallyā is not a hate crime, although the latest version (House Bill 5400) of the bill omits this language.
That bill has since stalled in a house committee, in part because the Democrats lost their house majority last November, when two Democratic representatives resigned after being elected mayors. The Democrats regained their house majority last night by winning two special elections.
Meanwhile, the senate passed a different package of hate crime bills sponsored by state Sen. Sylvia Santana (Senate Bill 600) in March that includes much lighter sentences, as well as a clause ensuring that misgendering a person is not a hate crime.
Under the senate bill, if the first offense is only a threat, it would be a misdemeanor punishable by one year in prison and up to $1,000 fine. A subsequent offense or first violent hate crime, including stalking, would be a felony that attracts double the punishment.
Multiple calls and emails from the Washington Blade to both Arbit and Santana requesting comment on the bills for this story went unanswered.
The attorney generalās office sent a statement to the Blade supporting stronger hate crime legislation.
āAs a career prosecutor, [Nessel] has seen firsthand how the stateās weak Ethnic Intimidation Act (not updated since the late 1980ās) does not allow for meaningful law enforcement and court intervention before threats become violent and deadly, nor does it consider significant bases for bias. It is our hope that the legislature will pass robust, much-needed updates to this statute,ā the statement says.
But Nessel, who has herself been the victim of racially motivated threats, has also blasted all of the bills presented by Democrats as not going far enough.
āTwo years is nothing ā¦ Why not just give them a parking ticket?ā Nessel told Bridge Michigan.
Nessel blames a bizarre alliance far-right and far-left forces that have doomed tougher laws.
āYou have this confluence of forces on the far right ā¦ this insistence that the First Amendment protects this language, or that the Second Amendment protects the ability to possess firearms under almost any and all circumstances,ā Nessel said. āBut then you also have the far left that argues basically no one should go to jail or prison for any offense ever.ā
The legislature did manage to pass an āinstitutional desecrationā law last year that penalizes hate-motivated vandalism to churches, schools, museums, and community centers, and is LGBTQ-inclusive.
According to data from the U.S. Department of Justice, reported hate crime incidents have been skyrocketing, with attacks motivated by sexual orientation surging by 70 percent from 2020 to 2022, the last year for which data is available.
Twenty-two states, D.C., Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands have passed LGBTQ-inclusive hate crime laws. Another 11 states have hate crime laws that include protections for āsexual orientationā but not āgender identity.ā
Michigan Democrats have advanced several key LGBTQ rights priorities since they took unified control of the legislature in 2023. A long-stalled comprehensive anti-discrimination law was passed last year, as did a conversion therapy ban. Last month the legislature updated family law to make surrogacy easier for all couples, including same-sex couples.
A bill to ban the āgay panicā defense has passed the state house and was due for a Senate committee hearing on Wednesday.
Indiana
Drag queen announces run for mayor of Ind. city
Branden Blaettne seeking Fort Wayne’s top office
In a Facebook post Tuesday, a local drag personality announced he was running for the office of mayor once held by the lateĀ Fort Wayne Mayor Tom Henry, whoĀ died last monthĀ just a few months into his fifth term.
Henry was recently diagnosed with late-stage stomach cancer and experienced an emergency that landed him in hospice care. He died shortly after.
WPTA, a local television station, reported that Fort WayneĀ resident Branden Blaettne, whose drag name is Della Licious, confirmed he filed paperwork to beĀ one of the candidatesĀ seeking to finish out the fifth term of the late mayor.
Blaettner, who is a community organizer, told WPTA he doesnāt want to āget Fort Wayne back on track,ā but ratherĀ keep the momentum started by HenryĀ going while giving a platform to the disenfranchised groups in the community. Blaettner said he doesnāt think his local fame as a drag queen will hold him back.
āItās easy to have a platform when you wear platform heels,ā Blaettner told WPTA. āThe status quo has left a lot of people out in the cold ā both figuratively and literally,ā Blaettner added.
The Indiana Capital Chronicle reported that state Rep. Phil GiaQuinta, who has led the Indiana House Democratic caucus since 2018, has added his name to a growing list of Fort Wayne politicos who want to be the cityās next mayor. A caucus of precinct committee persons will choose the new mayor.
According to theĀ Fort Wayne Journal Gazette, the deadline for residents to file candidacy was 10:30 a.m. on Wednesday. A town hall with the candidates is scheduled for 6 p.m. on Thursday at Franklin School Park. The caucus is set for 10:30 a.m. on April 20 at the Lincoln Financial Event Center at Parkview Field.
At least six candidates so far have announced they will run in the caucus. They include Branden Blaettne, GiaQuinta, City Councilwoman Michelle Chambers, City Councilwoman Sharon Tucker, former city- and county-council candidate Palermo Galindo, and 2023 Democratic primary mayoral candidate Jorge Fernandez.
-
District of Columbia2 days ago
Reenactment of first gay rights picket at White House draws interest of tourists
-
District of Columbia2 days ago
New D.C. LGBTQ+ bar Crush set to open April 19
-
Arizona2 days ago
Ariz. governor vetoes anti-transgender, Ten Commandments bill
-
Africa4 days ago
Ugandan activists appeal ruling that upheld Anti-Homosexuality Act