According to initial ethics filings in Maine Stand for Marriage–the opponents of marriage equality–have raised $343,000 and Maine Freedom to Marry has raised $138,640 for the November referendum. But it’s not that simple (if you don’t want to read on, skip to the bottom–anti-equality forces have raised 3% of what equality advocates have raised from small donors).
The Portland Press Herald has the large-donor breakdown in an article today, which is pretty revealing.
Maine Stand for Marriage
- National Organization for Marriage–$160,000 (NJ)
- Roman Catholic Diocese of Portland–$100,000
- Knights of Columbus–$50,000
- Maine Focus on the Family (formed in Colorado)–$31,000
Maine Freedom to Marry
- Diane Sammer, Harpsville, ME–$50,000*
- Human Rights Campaign (DC)–$25,000
- ACLU (DC?)–$10,000
So, without the large donors, the total funds raised are:
- Maine Freedom to Marry–$53,640
- Maine Stand for Marriage–$2,000
Pretty revealing.
Also interesting to note, is the fact that Maine Stand for Marriage has spent $245,629 on professional signature gatherers ALONE.
*Ms. Sammer spoke at the Maine hearings on LD 1020 in April about her partner’s death after 28 years.
h/t Debbie.
Here’s a claim, and think carefully before you guess who is making it.
I am being denied my rights. A group of people are saying the way I live my life is unacceptable, and consequently I’m being harassed, called names and I live in fear of physical harm. I even hide where I live and work.
Probably most of the people reading this blog would assume this is the claim of a gay person describing the religious rights’ objection to their “lifestyle.” In fact, it’s the complaint that is becoming more common from the far right. This is the phenomenon that Bill Nemitz writes about in his fantastic column in today’s Portland Press Herald. He gets at the bizarre and more commonly claimed position that those who want to deny others the right to marry are having their rights limited. I think they’re talking about the denial of the right to deny others their rights. Interesting.
Here are a few key quotes, but I really recommend you read the whole piece.
Twenty-five years ago last week, a trio of young thugs beat up Charles Howard and tossed him off a bridge to his death in the Kenduskeag Stream in Bangor – all because he was homosexual. If you were gay or lesbian in Maine back in those days, you had good reason to be afraid.
Now, as the campaign to repeal Maine’s same-sex marriage law shifts into high gear, fear is once again in the air. Only this time it’s not the homosexual community that’s quaking.
It’s their opponents.
“I know what you’re saying – there is some irony there,” agreed Marc Mutty, now on leave from his job as public affairs director for the Roman Catholic Diocese of Portland to run Stand for Marriage Maine.
Still, Mutty said, “We feel like the minority that’s being discriminated against. We are being treated like pariahs everywhere we go.”
…
But by complaining loudly and often that they’ve been called names and heard things go bump in the night since they launched their campaign, might Stand for Marriage Maine’s organizers also be portraying themselves as an oppressed “minority” (Mutty’s word, not mine) in the hope that they will be perceived as the victims this time around?
…
Those who are trying to overturn Maine’s same-sex marriage law are learning – many for the first time – how frightening it can be when someone gets in your face or dials your home phone out of the blue and calls you a nasty name.
At the same time, those who are defending the law are learning – many for the first time – that the more the social pendulum swings their way here in Maine and beyond, the less they need to live in fear.
What a difference a quarter-century makes.
Read the full piece here.
h/t Debbie
WCSH 6–the NBC affiliate in Portland, Maine–has a poll question up to see if Maine should overturn marriage equality. Go and vote no! It’s on the lower right side. Even unscientific polls matter, so let’s send a message. Vote here.
h/t to Equality Maine on Twitter @EqualityMaine
The Daily Beast is reporting that Sen. Gillibrand may push for an 18 month suspension of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell by putting an amendment on the defense reauthorization bill. I think she’s doing Hillary Clinton’s seat proud…
As Massachusetts files a challenge to the Defense of Marriage Act, (and John Kerry comes out supporting the challenge) we’re lucky to have a two part series on current law as it relates to the issue of sexual orientation. Joining us for this two post special is Mike, a second-year law student. The first part (below) is background on the case law and precedent that would be most relevant to a challenge to DOMA. The second post will be specifically on DOMA and how it is likely to be argued. Enjoy!
Two weeks ago (June 26th) marked the six-year anniversary of the Lawrence v. Texas (539 U.S. 558) decision, a landmark case for gay rights in the United States. As a reminder of that decision, and to really understand the law behind and surrounding DOMA a here is a quick Constitutional Law primer.
The Supreme Court has created constitutionality tests for laws that govern specific groups of people (or “classes”), and specific rights (or “fundamental liberty interests”). Often these classes are defined by characteristics, which delineate groups such as race, gender, or sexual orientation. The tests typically fall into two categories, strict scrutiny and rational basis. Strict scrutiny requires a higher level of justification to rule that a law discriminates against one class of people, and cases that call for a strict scrutiny review are often deemed unconstitutional. Rational basis grants extensive leeway to lawmakers as long as the law serves a “legitimate state interest;” therefore, these laws are often considered constitutional. Typically which standard of review the court decides to use determines the outcome of the case. Although the court has sometimes employed an intermediate scrutiny that falls between rational basis and strict scrutiny, the Court has been reluctant and vague in defining it.
If the court determines a specific right (i.e. the right to privacy) as a “fundamental liberty interest” the court applies strict scrutiny, and if not, rational basis review. When dealing with a “class” of people, the court has sifted out different groups for different tests. Laws involving race, religion, or national origin receive strict scrutiny while laws dealing with gender receive intermediate scrutiny. To determine whether a group should receive strict scrutiny the court looks to if the group is 1) “discrete” or “insular” minority with 2) an immutable trait and has a 3) shared history or discrimination and 4) lack the political power to protect themselves.
When it comes to sexual orientation, the Court has been all over the map. In 1986, in Bowers v. Hardwick (478 U.S. 186), the court defined the right to homosexual sodomy. The court said this was not a “fundamental liberty interest” and upheld the law banning it because the state’s regulation of morality was a rational basis for the law. Ten years later in Romer v. Evans (517 U.S. 620) the court struck down a Colorado law, which made it illegal for municipalities to offer special protections to sexual orientation. In his opinion, Justice Kennedy signaled a change in the courts attitude towards homosexuals and seemed almost appalled by the law. Romer though, left the question of sexual orientation as a class up in the air. It appeared that Kennedy had used a heightened and tougher rational basis review to strike down the law without overturning Bowers. This approach was unorthodox and left the issue of sexual orientation as vague and ambiguous.
Finally in 2003, Kennedy, again writing for majority, overturned the Bowers ruling in the Lawrence decision. The Court said that adult, consensual, intimate conduct was protected and hinted that morality was no longer a legitimate state interest. Again a heightened rational basis review was used but at the same time conspicuously avoiding the language of a “class” or of a “fundamental liberty interest”. This approach prompted Justice Scalia in dissent to note, this was “an unheard-of form of rational-basis review that will have far-reaching implications.” Regardless, it signaled an increase in protection for sexual orientation under the Constitution. Kennedy was cautious though, and backed away from legitimizing gay marriage specifically.
Perhaps more curious was Justice O’Connor’s concurrence (essentially a second opinion which doesn’t carry the legal weight of the decision of the majority), which looked at sexual orientation as a class and cast some doubt on laws that differentiate between heterosexuals and homosexuals. Despite this, O’Conner too stated that if the protecting traditional marriage would pass a rational basis review. Still, it was this argument made by O’Conner that was expanded in the recent Iowa decision to legalize same-sex marriage.
A special thank you shout-out to Steve, second year law student #2.
John Kerry has released a statement supporting Massachusett’s challenge to the Defense of Marriage Act.
Senator John Kerry threw his support behind the lawsuit filed earlier today by Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley which challenges the constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act. Senator Kerry also supported the lawsuit filed in March by 15 Massachusetts residents in coordination with GLAD. In 1996, Senator Kerry was the only Senator running for reelection who voted against DOMA, and he has continued to speak out against DOMA and its harmful effects ever since.
The full release is below the jump. You can view the entire Massachusetts complaint here. (h/t Nick)

