Vote No on 1

Tuesday, Mainers will have the opportunity to reject hatred and uphold the law banning discrimination based on sexual orientation. The law states that no Mainer can be denied employment, housing or public accomodation based upon their sexual orientation. While proponents of the "people's veto" play on fear, ignorance and hatred, reasonable Mainers will see that homosexuals do face oppression in this state and vote to do the right thing. Please Vote No on question 1.

The vote will likely be very close, so I encourage all Mainers to head to the polls on Tuesday and reject hatred. Most of the arguments by Christian Civic League and others supporting the referendum fall short on fact, leaving bigotry as the only rational motivation for their actions.

"Preserve Marriage": This is the biggy. For some reason, Christians are real threatened by the thought of gays getting married. I don't understand why "the sanctity of marriage" is damaged by homosexuals getting married, but many people believe it so. I even read a letter to the editor that suggested that the "next step" will be "three people getting married". This incredible leap of logic is symbolic of the fear-mongering preferred by the "Yes on 1" camp. No matter, however, as the law on the books specifically states that it is not to be interpreted as to permit gay marriage.

"Protect Maine": This is the other part of the slogan on the signs. I have no idea how Maine is threatened by gays. I did read an ad in the paper that said that, if allowed to stand, this law (which is supported by the Maine Education Association) will lead to gay-friendly curriculums and the celebration of gay pride week. I thought that the curriculum was set by the school boards and administration. Another leap of logic, I guess.

"Mainers have already rejected protection of gays twice before." So what? Mainers are wrong to promote hatred, and it is an embarrassment to the state that we have done so. I believe that there is greater understanding of the hardships that gays face in their daily lives, and that it is more and more apparent that protection is needed. And if the law is rejected a third time, I hope that the legislature brings it back a fourth time, simply because it's the right thing to do.

"Why protect a choice?" While I know a lot of gay people and have no doubt that homosexuality is not a choice, this line of argument also holds no water. Is religion not a choice? Is it illegal to discriminate based on religious affiliation? Why not take religious protection off the books, just to be equitable.

(Actually, scratch that. Too many Christians in this country would likely take advantage of the ability to discriminate against people of other faiths.)

"Isn't discrimination illegal anyway? Why do we need another law?" That's right, folks. Freedom from discrimination is protected in the constitution. So, in addition to religion, let's drop protection based on gender, race and nationality off the books, too.

No, we won't do that, because we know that, despite the redundancy, these laws provide an avenue to prosecute those who would discriminate agains their fellow people. As does the new law in Maine protecting those of all sexual orientations (please note that heterosexuals are also protected under this law).

If you believe that it's wrong to discriminate against other humans, you should not vote to approve this referundum. If you don't think that it's OK to discriminate, but you oppose the law presently on the books, then it's obvious that you have a problem with homosexuality and don't want to treat gays as equal human beings. Everybody is entitled to their feelings on the issue.

Just don't pretend that a Yes vote is based on anything other than hatred.