Politics in Action: Maine Marriage Equality
This is long - and long overdue - but I'm still going to post it.
Last week - OK, ten days ago now - I had the privilege of being part of something amazing. The public hearing to speak for, or against, LD 1020, An Act To End Discrimination in Civil Marriage and Affirm Religious Freedom.
It was amazing on several counts.
IMO, it was the workings of our government at its finest. Everybody gets to speak their opinion on proposed legislation. So many people had expressed the intention of attending that the venue was moved from a high school auditorium to the Civic Center. The Center, seating over 4000, was filled for the start of the hearing at 9am on a weekday. By the end of the hearing, roughly 12 hours later, "only" a few hundred people were left, but the incredible energy remained. The judiciary committee took one 45 minute dinner break, but only took quick breaks for lunch, two at a time, while testimony continued. They deserve an endurance award, for certain, as they heard everyone who wanted to speak.
I had to leave about an hour before they finished, and in all that time, I was never bored, or had difficulty focusing. Everyone who spoke, whether they spoke from personal experience, ideology, fear, or ignorance, whether they spoke of civil rights, religious tradition, or from a different agenda altogether, they all spoke with passion, from their hearts. It was very moving.
The ground rules were simple. The two side lined up. Speakers had three minutes. Any applause cut into that time. One side would testify for 30 minutes, the number of participants determined by how much the applause shortened that time. Applause was allowed; booing and laughing was not. Likewise no shouting out, throwing things or otherwise being disrespectful. No rebuttal. Go outside if you want to chat. In short: behave. Only once, near the beginning, did they have to stop the proceedings with a reminder. People behaved remarkably well considering some of the rhetoric.
Those who spoke in opposition of the bill, spoke mostly of the tradition of marriage, and the fact that children did better in a stable home with their biological parents. They seemed unaware that such a situation, while ideal, is hardly the norm these days, nor that preventing same-sex couples from marrying would make families parented by same-sex couples disappear. Ah, well.
Few used the inflammatory rhetoric and lies that have so unfortunately become associated with the religious right, though many seemed to think that society would unravel if the children of same-sex couples were granted the same protections as their own children. Not that they put it that way.
One pastor was on the scare tactic theme. He STARTED IN CAPSLOCK, AND GOT LOUDER, AND HIGHER, AND MORE STRIDENT until over half the audience had their fingers stuck in their ears in an attempt to save their hearing. There was a sigh of relief when he finished.
There was one man, a shouter, who was stunningly offensive with his opening (and every other) remark - "This bill, if enacted, will allow homosexuals free reign to prey on our children." Or something like that. It was received with a collective gasp and growl, and within seconds, almost the entire room, including many other opponents of the bill and most of those waiting in line behind him to speak, had turned their backs on him in protest. I was proud that even those Mainers opposing the bill were not, by and large, falling for such hateful lies.
A very few others spoke the tired, disproven lies: shortened life-spans, high rates of disease.
One man spoke of the "scientifically proven fact" that children did better when the parents were of opposite sex. Now, here is one of the places where the organization of Equality Maine really shown. There was no rebuttal allowed, but by chance(?) the second speaker of the next round for support was a pediatrician, speaking on behalf of the American Pediatric Association, to say that their findings showed that it was the quality of the family life, not the gender of the parents, that made for well adjusted, happy, healthy children, nor did gay parents "cause" gay children. Two or three speakers later was a spokesman for the American Psychological Association to say, "ditto."
Then there was David Parker of the hate group, MassResistance with his traveling roadshow of lies, going on about how schools will teach homosexuality to children in the first grade, and how he was arrested for objecting. The first speaker for support following Parker gave about one minute of his time to the truth of the matter. He also had a copy of the book Parker was objecting to, a book about families. It pictured families: families of different nationalities, families of different religions, immigrant families, families of mixed race, and on facing pages, one family with two mommies, and one family with two daddies. He read us the text on those pages. The entire text. I went something like this: "Teddy and Suzie live with their two mommies and their dog. It takes all four of them to give the dog a bath."
Next!
At one point, a tiny elderly woman caught my eye. She was smartly dressed in a striped pantsuit. Not the pastel polyester kind you might be thinking of, but something you might see on a lawyer. She also wore a baseball-type cap. That I noticed, but what pricked my interest was the frenetic way she applauded some of the more radical of the opposition speakers as she waited in line for her turn. When it came, late in the evening when the crowd was greatly reduced, she spoke with such fear - near panic - that the room became completely still, and even though she was spouting the same tired lies, no one turned their back. You almost wanted to reassure her, rather than argue with her. But. During the dinner break, I had found myself close enough to read the back of her cap. Minutemen United, an aggressive, homophobic, Dominionist group. So much for being a harmless granny.
It was another elderly woman who brought one of the two spots of humor during the day. She read the poem, Manly Man. She concluded with something like, "That's what we need, more Manly Men." To which a group of men behind me responded (quietly), "I'll agree with that!"
Another bit of (unintentional) humor was provided about mid-day when the committee asked if there was anyone who wished to speak who was neither for, nor against, the bill. There were two. One I don't remember, but the other was an aggressive man in a tidy suit who presented a win/win solution of polyigomy. He was well spoken, but spoke faster and faster, and louder - though not nearly as ear-shatteringly awful as the above-mentioned pastor - as he went.
Moving right along.
Those who spoke in favor of the bill were awesome in the courage it took to bare their souls in front of such a large, and not entirely friendly group. There was the heart-wrenching story of a man who lost his beloved life partner to cancer, and when the authorities come to the home to remove the body, they would not allow the grieving man to sign for the body. He has found a new partner now, and after being together for six years, this partner has been diagnosed with cancer. The idea that history would repeat itself, was crushing to him. There were stories of not being able to carry out your life partner's wishes for burial because you are a legal non-entity. Fears of finances for elderly couples because one is not entitled to the other's benefits, should they die. Concerns for protection of children. Family concerns.
Many who spoke in favor of the bill were not gay, but they were no less passionate. I was pleased to see a number of intelligent, well-spoken teenagers present testimony. There were the Catholics who adamantly stated that the Bishop (who spoke for the opposition) did not speak for all Catholics. There was the group from the Religious Coalition for the Freedom to Marry in Maine representing some 160 religious leaders from some 14 different faith traditions. (While the opponents spoke of marriage as defined by all religions, only the Christians were speaking against same sex marriage.) A Rabbi cautioned that those present who claimed to be speaking for God were treading a dangerously thin line. The Maine State Attorney General spoke in support, as did a Senator from Massachusetts. There was a large group of students from University of Maine in their orange Pride Week 2009 t-shirts.
Oh, speaking of colorful. Again, Equality Maine showed their superb skills by asking all supporters of the bill to wear red. Some didn't, of course, or had just a red tie, or handkerchief in their pocket, and of course some opponents happened to wear red, but all in all, the audience was a sea of red, and supporters visibly outnumbered opposition some 4 or 5 to 1. EQME has asked that supporters come really early as well, and the result was that the three quarters of the audience closest to the judiciary committee was wearing red. Most of the opponents ended up at the far end, where they were not very visible.
It was an amazing event, and the energy was remarkable. It was a privilege to take part.
Updates: Since the hearing, the judiciary committee passed the bill to the Senate floor with a recommendation to pass. Which it did, 21-14. The House will vote next week.
Governor Baldacci has, in the past, said he was not in favor of same-sex marriage, but he said in a phone conversation with a constituent, that he was very impressed by the testimony (and behavior) of the proponents of the bill, and that times change. Can this be an indication that he will sign the bill if it comes to his desk?
Already, Michael Heath of the Maine Family Policy Counsel is planning his People's Veto Campaign to Overturn Gay Marriage in Maine. Is he conceding defeat on passage of the bill?
Cross your fingers, folks.
Last week - OK, ten days ago now - I had the privilege of being part of something amazing. The public hearing to speak for, or against, LD 1020, An Act To End Discrimination in Civil Marriage and Affirm Religious Freedom.
It was amazing on several counts.
IMO, it was the workings of our government at its finest. Everybody gets to speak their opinion on proposed legislation. So many people had expressed the intention of attending that the venue was moved from a high school auditorium to the Civic Center. The Center, seating over 4000, was filled for the start of the hearing at 9am on a weekday. By the end of the hearing, roughly 12 hours later, "only" a few hundred people were left, but the incredible energy remained. The judiciary committee took one 45 minute dinner break, but only took quick breaks for lunch, two at a time, while testimony continued. They deserve an endurance award, for certain, as they heard everyone who wanted to speak.
I had to leave about an hour before they finished, and in all that time, I was never bored, or had difficulty focusing. Everyone who spoke, whether they spoke from personal experience, ideology, fear, or ignorance, whether they spoke of civil rights, religious tradition, or from a different agenda altogether, they all spoke with passion, from their hearts. It was very moving.
The ground rules were simple. The two side lined up. Speakers had three minutes. Any applause cut into that time. One side would testify for 30 minutes, the number of participants determined by how much the applause shortened that time. Applause was allowed; booing and laughing was not. Likewise no shouting out, throwing things or otherwise being disrespectful. No rebuttal. Go outside if you want to chat. In short: behave. Only once, near the beginning, did they have to stop the proceedings with a reminder. People behaved remarkably well considering some of the rhetoric.
Those who spoke in opposition of the bill, spoke mostly of the tradition of marriage, and the fact that children did better in a stable home with their biological parents. They seemed unaware that such a situation, while ideal, is hardly the norm these days, nor that preventing same-sex couples from marrying would make families parented by same-sex couples disappear. Ah, well.
Few used the inflammatory rhetoric and lies that have so unfortunately become associated with the religious right, though many seemed to think that society would unravel if the children of same-sex couples were granted the same protections as their own children. Not that they put it that way.
One pastor was on the scare tactic theme. He STARTED IN CAPSLOCK, AND GOT LOUDER, AND HIGHER, AND MORE STRIDENT until over half the audience had their fingers stuck in their ears in an attempt to save their hearing. There was a sigh of relief when he finished.
There was one man, a shouter, who was stunningly offensive with his opening (and every other) remark - "This bill, if enacted, will allow homosexuals free reign to prey on our children." Or something like that. It was received with a collective gasp and growl, and within seconds, almost the entire room, including many other opponents of the bill and most of those waiting in line behind him to speak, had turned their backs on him in protest. I was proud that even those Mainers opposing the bill were not, by and large, falling for such hateful lies.
A very few others spoke the tired, disproven lies: shortened life-spans, high rates of disease.
One man spoke of the "scientifically proven fact" that children did better when the parents were of opposite sex. Now, here is one of the places where the organization of Equality Maine really shown. There was no rebuttal allowed, but by chance(?) the second speaker of the next round for support was a pediatrician, speaking on behalf of the American Pediatric Association, to say that their findings showed that it was the quality of the family life, not the gender of the parents, that made for well adjusted, happy, healthy children, nor did gay parents "cause" gay children. Two or three speakers later was a spokesman for the American Psychological Association to say, "ditto."
Then there was David Parker of the hate group, MassResistance with his traveling roadshow of lies, going on about how schools will teach homosexuality to children in the first grade, and how he was arrested for objecting. The first speaker for support following Parker gave about one minute of his time to the truth of the matter. He also had a copy of the book Parker was objecting to, a book about families. It pictured families: families of different nationalities, families of different religions, immigrant families, families of mixed race, and on facing pages, one family with two mommies, and one family with two daddies. He read us the text on those pages. The entire text. I went something like this: "Teddy and Suzie live with their two mommies and their dog. It takes all four of them to give the dog a bath."
Next!
At one point, a tiny elderly woman caught my eye. She was smartly dressed in a striped pantsuit. Not the pastel polyester kind you might be thinking of, but something you might see on a lawyer. She also wore a baseball-type cap. That I noticed, but what pricked my interest was the frenetic way she applauded some of the more radical of the opposition speakers as she waited in line for her turn. When it came, late in the evening when the crowd was greatly reduced, she spoke with such fear - near panic - that the room became completely still, and even though she was spouting the same tired lies, no one turned their back. You almost wanted to reassure her, rather than argue with her. But. During the dinner break, I had found myself close enough to read the back of her cap. Minutemen United, an aggressive, homophobic, Dominionist group. So much for being a harmless granny.
It was another elderly woman who brought one of the two spots of humor during the day. She read the poem, Manly Man. She concluded with something like, "That's what we need, more Manly Men." To which a group of men behind me responded (quietly), "I'll agree with that!"
Another bit of (unintentional) humor was provided about mid-day when the committee asked if there was anyone who wished to speak who was neither for, nor against, the bill. There were two. One I don't remember, but the other was an aggressive man in a tidy suit who presented a win/win solution of polyigomy. He was well spoken, but spoke faster and faster, and louder - though not nearly as ear-shatteringly awful as the above-mentioned pastor - as he went.
Moving right along.
Those who spoke in favor of the bill were awesome in the courage it took to bare their souls in front of such a large, and not entirely friendly group. There was the heart-wrenching story of a man who lost his beloved life partner to cancer, and when the authorities come to the home to remove the body, they would not allow the grieving man to sign for the body. He has found a new partner now, and after being together for six years, this partner has been diagnosed with cancer. The idea that history would repeat itself, was crushing to him. There were stories of not being able to carry out your life partner's wishes for burial because you are a legal non-entity. Fears of finances for elderly couples because one is not entitled to the other's benefits, should they die. Concerns for protection of children. Family concerns.
Many who spoke in favor of the bill were not gay, but they were no less passionate. I was pleased to see a number of intelligent, well-spoken teenagers present testimony. There were the Catholics who adamantly stated that the Bishop (who spoke for the opposition) did not speak for all Catholics. There was the group from the Religious Coalition for the Freedom to Marry in Maine representing some 160 religious leaders from some 14 different faith traditions. (While the opponents spoke of marriage as defined by all religions, only the Christians were speaking against same sex marriage.) A Rabbi cautioned that those present who claimed to be speaking for God were treading a dangerously thin line. The Maine State Attorney General spoke in support, as did a Senator from Massachusetts. There was a large group of students from University of Maine in their orange Pride Week 2009 t-shirts.
Oh, speaking of colorful. Again, Equality Maine showed their superb skills by asking all supporters of the bill to wear red. Some didn't, of course, or had just a red tie, or handkerchief in their pocket, and of course some opponents happened to wear red, but all in all, the audience was a sea of red, and supporters visibly outnumbered opposition some 4 or 5 to 1. EQME has asked that supporters come really early as well, and the result was that the three quarters of the audience closest to the judiciary committee was wearing red. Most of the opponents ended up at the far end, where they were not very visible.
It was an amazing event, and the energy was remarkable. It was a privilege to take part.
Updates: Since the hearing, the judiciary committee passed the bill to the Senate floor with a recommendation to pass. Which it did, 21-14. The House will vote next week.
Governor Baldacci has, in the past, said he was not in favor of same-sex marriage, but he said in a phone conversation with a constituent, that he was very impressed by the testimony (and behavior) of the proponents of the bill, and that times change. Can this be an indication that he will sign the bill if it comes to his desk?
Already, Michael Heath of the Maine Family Policy Counsel is planning his People's Veto Campaign to Overturn Gay Marriage in Maine. Is he conceding defeat on passage of the bill?
Cross your fingers, folks.