Gary Randall's New Marriage Poll Puts a Stake Through his Referendum Heart

The national landscape has indeed drastically changed

and they all know it. No wonder Randall looks so damned sour.

Take this from Mike Heath last week, who has passed the baton (source: Portland Press Herald):

It's too soon to tell what lies ahead for the bill. The Legislature could vote it down (which appears unlikely at this point); pass it on the condition that it be put to a citizen referendum in November; or pass it with no strings attached and all but guarantee a people's veto campaign aimed at overturning it.

But this much is already clear: Michael Heath, executive director of the Maine Family Policy Council and Maine's longtime opponent of all things homosexual, won't be leading the charge against equal rights for gays this time.

Bishop Richard Malone of the Diocese of Portland will.

"No," Heath replied when asked whether his organization, formerly the Christian Civic League of Maine, is gearing up for an all-but-certain fall campaign. Flashing a sardonic smile, he said, "The bishop is the guiding force here on this one."

Meaning this fight - whichever route it takes - is going to be different. Much different.

Where once we had Heath and his statewide network of evangelicals railing against gays as hapless sinners in need of salvation, we now have Malone delivering his three-minute testimony to lawmakers without once mentioning the word "sin."

"Let me be clear. Our objection to same-sex marriage is not based on a belief that gay and lesbian Mainers are somehow undeserving of civil rights because of their sexual orientation," Malone said.

Rather, he added, the diocese opposes same-sex marriage "because we are deeply concerned about the institution of marriage itself in this state and in this nation."

Goodbye, fire, brimstone and Bible quotations.

Hello, Maine's Roman Catholic leader turned sociologist.

"In cases like this for me, the argument comes not more from theology but from the effect on society," Malone said after his testimony. "It's more of an anthropological, philosophical thing than anything else."

Hence Malone, in his remarks to the committee, cited same-sex marriage as but one of many "challenges" facing traditional marriage and, by extension, society itself.

"We are equally concerned about the high rate of divorce among heterosexual couples, the cheapening of sexual relationships portrayed by the media and the growing occurrence of single parenthood and the challenges faced by single parents," Malone told the lawmakers.

It's a nice diversionary tactic: List all the social ills that affect marriage as an institution, throw in same-sex marriage, stir the pot a little, and voila! Same-sex marriage is suddenly indistinguishable from divorce and the hyper-sexed media as a threat to modern civilization.

But is it true?

Not if you listened to Wednesday's testimony by proponents of same-sex marriage.

One after another, families headed by gay couples spoke eloquently about their love for each other and their children, their anything-but-abnormal lives, and their simple desire to be treated like everyone else.

Heath and his ilk have seen that their hate-filled rants are losing them supporters- so instead of changing their tune, Christian Civic League relabelled themselves (per the other half of "Mike and Mike"/ Mike Hein last week: "Our label had worn out!") and then sat back to let others do their work.

They called in Tony Perkins, MAggie Gallagher- hell, even MassResistant's David Parker- but when it came down to the public hearing, they all hid behind Bishop Malone.

And one by one, let the opposistion's stance be one of Bible-thumping, over and over.

BTW, Mark Mutty of the Diocese tried last week in an interview with WCSH (Shenna Bellows of MCLU was there as well) to use the same "age card" that Randall tried- but anyone who was there, saw the news or read the papers knows it was a desperate and obvious lie.

 

Click HERE and sign up: Campaign For Military Partners

Click here for DADT photobook

---

by: Louise @ Mon Apr 27, 2009 at 14:56:32 PM CDT

this quote makes no sense

"Let me be clear. Our objection to same-sex marriage is not based on a belief that gay and lesbian Mainers are somehow undeserving of civil rights because of their sexual orientation," Malone said.

I must have tried reading it like ten times before realizing that it makes no sense.

---

by: reptile @ Mon Apr 27, 2009 at 15:24:42 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Uhhhhh...

A majority said no.

The actual result was
43% = YES
50% = NO
07% = DK/NA

Well, if it really was literally 50% (not 50.1 or so), then this is NOT a majority saying no.  

It is HALF saying no, with the other half divided, with a large portion of that half in favor.

If the presidential electoral vote was 269 for candidate A, 250 for candidate B and 19 for candidate C, then there would be no majority and the presidency would be decided by the House of Representatives.

Are christianists even capable of telling the truth about anything?

>^..^<

---

by: KatRose @ Mon Apr 27, 2009 at 15:50:15 PM CDT

Biased Polling Question

Never mind that the question itself was biased.

I'm willing to bet if "homosexuals" was replaced with "same-sex couples" or "gay and lesbian couples" the YES votes would be statistically higher.

IMHO the term "homosexual" always seems clinical and/or dehumanizing.

---

by: GTJeff76 @ Mon Apr 27, 2009 at 16:10:38 PM CDT

I agree.

I think it is noteworthy that in their 2006 poll they used the term "gay and lesbian".  So the 'yes' response increased even though they used a yuckier term this time.

Click HERE and sign up: Campaign For Military Partners.

Lurleen on Twitter.

---

by: Lurleen @ Mon Apr 27, 2009 at 23:31:31 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

They're freaking out

because they know that a few years from now their window of opportunity will have been lost.  They're trying as hard as they can to insist that today's vote is perpetually binding -- because they know that otherwise, five or ten years from now anything they manage to pass will be reversed.

---

by: M @ Mon Apr 27, 2009 at 22:48:49 PM CDT

Could have posted some more stats....

BY AGE:

18-35 59% Yes,   39% No
35-54 47% Yes, 47% No
55-64 40% Yes 47% no.

65+  30% yes, 62% no.

ONLY in the 65 above class were the majority against Marriage Equality.

Wonderful numbers

also interesting.

DEM 66% yes  29% No
REP 11% yes, 80% No
IND 41% yes, 50% No.

It's the Hammer of JUSTICE,
It's the Bell of FREEDOM,
It's the Song about LOVE between,
my Brothers and my Sisters
...All over this Land.

---

by: Orion45 @ Mon Apr 27, 2009 at 23:42:12 PM CDT

Demographic shift by the numbers

It's an interesting although short report, with only one page discussing sampling methods and a page of data. The most interesting data was the difference across age groups:

Age
18-35  59% for, 39% against, 2% n/a
35-54  47% for, 47% against, 6% n/a
55-64  43% for, 47% against, 10% n/a
65+    30% for, 62% against, 8% n/a

These data show that their "majority" consists primarily of people older than 55. The youngest group of 18-35 year olds is a solid majority.

Now lets compare the 2009 data to the data they generously provided from 2006, shall we?

Age
18-35  51% for, 39% against, 10% n/a
35-54  44% for, 48% against, 9% n/a
55-64  30% for, 58% against, 12% n/a
65+    27% for, 59% against, 13% n/a

So, in the span of three years, we've picked up 8% more 18-35's, 3% more 35-54's, and a whopping 13% of those aged 55-64. The eldest group is interesting, because they were the only group to increase on both sides of the question. It looks like they can be educated to accept it or oppose it. These trends do not bode well for their cause.

---

by: Christine Johnson @ Mon Apr 27, 2009 at 23:48:41 PM CDT

Hahaha

you beat me to the stats... :)

And yea, look at that 80% republicans opposed. ouch.  

---

by: Christine Johnson @ Mon Apr 27, 2009 at 23:51:40 PM CDT