Connect with us

“As Maine Goes, So Goes The Nation?” Bull. Part One.

Published

on

This is Part I. You can read Part II here.

There’s much to be said about the stunning – and it was stunning – defeat of Maine’s gay marriage law. There’s more to be said about its implications on the bigger picture of marriage equality and the overall picture of gay civil rights. And I’m going to say it all. It will take two parts. Come back for part two!

First and foremost, unlike California, Protect Maine Equality did an outstanding job. Regardless of the results, since 2005 these folks have been working towards equality the right way, by going door to door, sharing personal stories, forming coalitions, and even working with religious groups. They should hold their heads up high.

So, we lost marriage in Maine by a five point spread. Many of us had expected to win by just as much. The problem is, what do we do now?

The folks over at The Washington Blade’s offices asked out loud, “Is it time to set aside marriage and make the more pragmatic push for civil unions?” (More on this in Part II.)

In “You want pity because of Maine? You won’t be getting it from me,” Alvin McEwen writes today,

“There will be no deux ex machina descending from the sky making everything right. There will be no addendums or loopholes. It’s a job that will have to accomplished the hard way because there is no other way.”

Cody Daigle, in “The Lesson in Losing,” writes,

“[W]e need to start thinking and acting like a real community. This morning, I saw angry missives and comments online from friends of mine over the results of Maine. But those same people, in the weeks leading up to the vote, weren’t talking about it or thinking about it or caring about it. What happens to gay couples in Maine affects gay couples in Idaho affects single gay men in Mississippi affects gay people, coupled or not, everywhere. We’re a community, and until we really start caring about what happens to each and every one of us, nothing will change for any of us. It doesn’t matter if you don’t believe in marriage or don’t want to be married — act for those in your community who do. Because we’ll stand up for your freedoms when the time comes.”

As usual, I agree with Daigle (full disclosure, Cody is a good friend.) And personally, I am sick to death, as I wrote in “Start Acting Like It,” of our anger when things like losing marriage happen, yet we’re indifferent every other day of the year?

“[D]oes the majority of the gay community really want marriage equality? And if we do, are we going to start acting like it?”

So, one year after Prop 8, my question is this: Were you mad last year after election day? Are you mad today? 365 days in between, what did you do to support the gay marriage cause? Did you donate your time? Money? Did you email your state and federal representatives? Did you write your president? Did you talk to others about the importance of marriage?

What did you do?

Because here’s the deal.

We lost. And this one hurts a lot, because Maine had a gay marriage law that yesterday got repealed. It’s not like there was a bill and it got voted down in the state legislature. It got passed. And a governor who was against it, signed it. So, we lost big.

And we know who to blame. And who not to blame. Do not, do not blame the people of Maine. They were subject to outside forces beyond their control. And, listening to the debate in their Legislature on gay marriage, I think they are a good people who deserve better treatment than they got from the Church and from NOM.

So, blame Maggie Gallagher’s National Organization for Marriage, for starters. She, along with her Executive Director, Brian Brown, poured cash, and hate, and fear, and lies into Maine. As Brian wrote today,

“We are the single largest donor to Stand for Marriage Maine. We gave nearly $1.8 million, emptying our bank account because of the serious needs in Maine… Bishop Richard Malone of the Diocese of Portland provided invaluable leadership…”

Which brings me to my next point.

Blame the Roman Catholic Church. Separation of church and state, while the law in this country, is not enforced. The tax-free status religious organizations get is a trade-off, that requires them to not get involved in politics. Yet, time and again we see them thumb their noses at the U.S. government, and throw their cash at anti-gay measures around the country. It’s illegal, and it’s time something was done about it. America needs to revoke the tax-free status of any religious organization that gets involved in politics beyond the limits of the law.

The Roman Catholic Church’s Portland diocese sunk over $550,000 into this battle, yet is closing its own churches for lack of money. Go figure.

The Human Rights Campaign (HRC) supported the Maine effort with between $49,000 (reported here) and $200,000 (reported here.) HRC claims to have “made more than $280,000 in monetary and in-kind contributions.” All told, while the $200,000 figure is more likely the effective number, one has to ask, if THE leading LGBT organization spent only $200,000 in Maine, what did they think they were going to get? Maine, like California one year ago, should have been all-or-nothing. This Rumsfeldian battle-on-the-cheap didn’t work in Iraq, it didn’t work in California, and it didn’t work in Maine. When are we going to put everything we have into one issue and make damned sure we win?

Then there’s the DNC – the Democratic National Committee, who sent a blast email campaign to voters in Maine yesterday, asking them to come vote, but conveniently left off asking them to vote “No” on repealing gay marriage. Yes, that’s right. THE Democratic organization, in a Democratic state, with a Democratic Governor, and a Democratic Legislature which voted for and passed and signed an historic gay marriage bill didn’t ask its own members to support it.

Aside from the fact that tactically it’s just stupid – have your elected representatives stick their necks out for gay marriage, which they did – then don’t ask voters to support their decision, leaving them vulnerable? Yes, the DNC is stupid, arrogant, and hypocritical. Same sex marriage opponent, and DNC chairman Tim Kaine, I’m talking to you.

Which is why we need to stop blindly giving the DNC cash.

Now. President Obama. What to say about our “fierce advocate in chief?” (By the way, last night David Gergen said gays have a right to be upset with Obama. That was nice to hear, coming from him.) Well, while Obama is against gay marriage, he supports states rights on the subject. (More on that in Part II, too.) This was a state initiative. This was a Democratic initiative. Obama could have lent his support to this, but he chose not to. (I don’t know how much I can blame him. He’s taken a beating on healthcare, and I do want his attention there.)

But Obama could have mentioned Maine (and Washington) at the HRC dinner he graciously attended (no, that was not sarcastic) the night before the National Equality March. He didn’t. He also didn’t actively oppose Prop 8, so while no one’s surprised, he definitely loses the title of “fierce advocate.” I still support him overall, because he’s doing a better job than anyone else could have in these tough times, but he’s not in our corner. Not now, not then, not ever.

So, as I tweeted last night, “If we lose Maine tonight, what are you going to do about it tomorrow?”

What are YOU going to do about it?

More in Part II.

Editorial note: Originally, this piece included the paragraph below, which I still stand by, based on information reportedly given to the Commission on Governmental Ethics and Election Practices.

Along with the Human Rights Campaign, who swooped in to support the No On 1 campaign with a whopping – ready for this? $49,000. Holy Cow! How’d they scrounge up that much dough? Why, that’s just 14% of Joe Solmonese’s $338,400 salary. Yet, the emails I get from them make it sound like they really supported the effort there. Not with your donations, they didn’t.

Related Topics:
Continue Reading
Click to comment
 
 

Enjoy this piece?

… then let us make a small request. The New Civil Rights Movement depends on readers like you to meet our ongoing expenses and continue producing quality progressive journalism. Three Silicon Valley giants consume 70 percent of all online advertising dollars, so we need your help to continue doing what we do.

NCRM is independent. You won’t find mainstream media bias here. From unflinching coverage of religious extremism, to spotlighting efforts to roll back our rights, NCRM continues to speak truth to power. America needs independent voices like NCRM to be sure no one is forgotten.

Every reader contribution, whatever the amount, makes a tremendous difference. Help ensure NCRM remains independent long into the future. Support progressive journalism with a one-time contribution to NCRM, or click here to become a subscriber. Thank you. Click here to donate by check.

News

Trump Claims ‘Tremendous Power’ to Run ‘Places’ Like DC and NYC

Published

16 hours ago

on

July 8, 2025

By

President Donald Trump claimed the White House has legal authority to run parts of the country including Washington, D.C. and New York City, especially should he oppose its elected leaders. His remarks were another attack on the nation’s largest city, which his Transportation Secretary also targeted earlier on Tuesday.

Trump told reporters, “we have tremendous power at the White House to run places where we have to.”

“We could run D.C.” he alleged. “I mean, we’re looking at D.C. We don’t want crime in D.C. We want the city to run well.” Hey also claimed that the White House is currently “testing” running D.C.

Washington, D.C. and its 700,000 residents have an elected city council and mayor. While Congress maintains some control over the nation’s capital, a complete federal government takeover of a city would be unprecedented. Presidents have, at times, had to send in the National Guard, but never to permanently occupy and run a local government.

READ MORE: ‘Stupid Liberals With Stupid Policies’: Trump Transportation Secretary Slams NYC

Trump added that his chief of staff, Susie Wiles, “is working very closely with the mayor and they’re doing alright. I mean, in the sense that we would run it so good, it would be run so proper, we’d get the best person to run it.”

“The crime would be down to a minimal, would be much less, you know, we’re thinking about doing it, to be honest with you. We want we want a capital that’s run flawlessly and it wouldn’t be hard for us to do it.”

If attempted, a federal takeover could raise serious concerns about voter disenfranchisement and further inflame opposition from advocates of D.C. statehood.

Trump also attacked Zohran Mamdani, New York City’s Democratic nominee for mayor, as “a man who’s not very capable, in my opinion, other than he’s got a good line of b—s—.”

READ MORE: ‘Absolutely Mind Blowing’: Trump’s Ukraine Weapons Remark Draws Concern, Backlash

“I can tell you this,” Trump continued, I used to say, ‘We will not ever be a socialist country,’ right? Well, I’ll say it again. We’re not gonna have if a communist get elected to run New York, it can never be the same, but we have tremendous power at the White House to run places where we have to.”

Trump has previously threatened Mamdani “with arrest, denaturalization and removal from the country while repeatedly branding him a communist,” according to The Independent.

Watch the video below or at this link.


RELATED: ‘Cartoon Villains’: Ag Secretary Under Fire for Medicaid-to-Farm-Work Plan

 

Image via Reuters

Continue Reading

News

‘Absolutely Mind Blowing’: Trump’s Ukraine Weapons Remark Draws Concern, Backlash

Published

18 hours ago

on

July 8, 2025

By

President Donald Trump is claiming he does not know who ordered last week’s halt in critical U.S. weapons shipments to Ukraine—a statement that immediately sparked backlash and renewed questions by critics over whether the Commander in Chief is in control of the U.S. military.

“Last week, the Pentagon paused some shipments of weapons to Ukraine,” CNN’s Kaitlan Collins told President Trump (video below) after Tuesday’s White House Cabinet meeting. “Did you approve of that pause?”

The President, appearing to deflect or misunderstand the question, replied, “We wanted to put defensive weapons,” in Ukraine, “because Putin is not treating human beings right. He’s killing too many people. So we’re sending some defensive weapons to Ukraine and I’ve approved that.”

“So who ordered the pause last week?” Collins pressed.

“I don’t know,” Trump replied. “Why don’t you tell me?”

READ MORE: ‘Stupid Liberals With Stupid Policies’: Trump Transportation Secretary Slams NYC

After Trump delivered that remark, The Washington Post reported: “President Donald Trump’s decision to send more defensive weapons to Ukraine came after he privately expressed frustration with Pentagon officials for announcing a pause last week in the delivery of some critical weapons to Ukraine.”

The Post called it “a move that he felt wasn’t properly coordinated with the White House.”

Trump’s “I don’t know” remark comes amid a separate controversy in which he has repeatedly insisted that farmers need reliable workers and that ICE would not raid agricultural sites. He suggested the administration was developing a program allowing farmers to effectively sponsor undocumented laborers—only to have multiple senior officials publicly contradict or appear to override his plan, as recently as just hours ago.

Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins, also on Tuesday, told reporters there will be “no amnesty” for undocumented immigrants working on farms, and, “mass deportations continue.”

RELATED: ‘Cartoon Villains’: Ag Secretary Under Fire for Medicaid-to-Farm-Work Plan

Critics are blasting the President for not knowing who paused the critical weapons shipment to Ukraine.

“When in charge, be in charge,” remarked veteran and veterans activist Paul Rieckhoff.

“This is absolutely mind blowing,” commented Jeanne Ava Plaumann, a journalist at the German newspaper Bild.

“I don’t know is always an alarming response when asked for accountability on major national security decisions,” noted Brett Bruen, president of a global public affairs agency.

Former U.S. Rep. Carol Shea-Porter, a Democrat, wrote: “Proving every day that he is mentally failing.”

Trump’s “I don’t know” remark also follows numerous instances of similar claims, which have led critics to question if—or declare that—the President is not in charge.

In May, during an Oval Office executive order signing ceremony, Trump posed multiple questions to attendees about what was in at least one of the orders.

“Are we doing something about the regulatory in here?” was one question Trump asked.

Interior Secretary Doug Burgum responded, “You are, sir.”

Earlier in May, the 79-year old president was asked if he is obligated to “uphold the Constitution.” He infamously told NBC News’ Kristen Welker, “I don’t know.”

Also in May, in an Oval Office press gaggle, reporters asked, “Mr. President, is your administration sending migrants to Libya?”

“I don’t know,” Trump replied. “You’ll have to ask Homeland Security.”

That same day, a reporter told Trump, “Your Treasury Secretary just told lawmakers that a tariff exemption for certain baby items like car seats is under consideration. Will you exempt some products that families rely on?”

“I don’t know,” was the President’s response.

Back in April, Trump told reporters, “Many, many people come from the Congo. I don’t know what that is, but they came from the Congo.”

The Atlantic’s James Surowiecki, back in March noted: “Trump also didn’t know that his administration had invoked the Alien Enemies Act to deport Tren de Aragua members, even though he had supposedly signed the executive order invoking it. ‘I don’t know when it was signed, because I didn’t sign it,’ he said.”

Watch the video below or at this link.

READ MORE: ‘Authoritarian’: Trump Treasury Chief Ripped for Call to Punish Private Citizen’s Speech

 

Image via Reuters

Continue Reading

News

‘Cartoon Villains’: Ag Secretary Under Fire for Medicaid-to-Farm-Work Plan

Published

21 hours ago

on

July 8, 2025

By

U.S. Secretary of Agriculture Brooke Rollins has declared that the Trump administration’s massive deportation plans will continue without any amnesty for migrant farm workers, and insisted that “able-bodied” American adults who access Medicaid for health care insurance should be the ones to replace deported migrant farm workers. Critics have pushed back.

“I can’t underscore enough,” Secretary Rollins said at a press conference at the USDA on Tuesday, ahead of a White House Cabinet meeting. “There will be no amnesty, the mass deportations continue, but in a strategic way, and we move the workforce towards automation and 100% American participation.

She added that, “with 34 million people, able-bodied adults on Medicaid, we should be able to do that fairly quickly.”

READ MORE: ‘Stupid Liberals With Stupid Policies’: Trump Transportation Secretary Slams NYC

Secretary Rollins’ remarks do not take into account that nearly two-thirds (64%) of adults under 65 accessing Medicaid are already working, according to KFF. Another 28% are exempt due to illness, school, or care-giving responsibilities.

Her statistic of 34 million able-bodied adults on Medicaid is promoted by a right-wing think tank, the Foundation for Government Accountability, which advocates for reducing work restrictions on teenagers, and opposes expanding Medicaid.

Also, there is not large-scale farm work available in every state, nor, does it appear, that would many Americans want to perform that work, especially for low wages. Farm work rarely offers employer-paid health care. And farm work is often seasonal.

Critics blasted Secretary Rollins.

READ MORE: ‘Authoritarian’: Trump Treasury Chief Ripped for Call to Punish Private Citizen’s Speech

“They’re like cartoon villains,” wrote Bloomberg Opinion columnist Patricia Lopez. “So send Medicaid recipients in as field hands? Also, what is meant by strategic mass deportations? Just Blue states?”

“Lol,” exclaimed Yahoo News reporter Jordan Werissmann, “we’ve gone from ‘the USAID program analysts will make shoes’ to ‘people will pick strawberries to keep their health care’.”

“I have talked to literally thousands of MAGAs and have not found a single one who will work on a farm. Not one,” wrote New York Times bestselling author Ramit Sethi. “This is simply anti-immigrant bigotry from Republicans.”

“Ah, yes,” remarked journalist Lydia Polgreen, “those high paying farm labor jobs that include health insurance!”

“Did not think the script for 2025 would feature villains co-written by Charles Dickens and Pol Pot,” added historian Mike Cosgrave.

Watch the video below or at this link.

READ MORE: Democratic Strategist Warns Trump Could Try to Impose Martial Law Before 2026 Midterms

 

Image via Reuters

Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © 2020 AlterNet Media.