Question 1 still 50/50.

Remarkably, ME voted to keep an excise tax. (As I understand it, that money went to localities, so voters knew they’d be destroying their own towns. If it had been to the state, things might have been different.)

On question 1, where no (do not repeal the law on gay marriage) is the right answer, it’s tightened, 53/47. TABOR, which would turn ME into CA, but sliding into the Atlantic, not the Pacific, is holding steady 60/40 No.

Ironically, Governor Baldacci has been a horrible governor in almost every respect save the gay marriage law.

http://www.wmtw.com/politics/feature.html

My fear is that votes are coming in from the more liberal ME-01 district first, and then from rural ME-02. Not to say that ME-02 rural will vote wrong, but it might be close.

Maybe it’s the opt out language that’s the problem.”

Not being in Maine, I’m not sure what the language applies to. But in every state where I have lived, there are two kinds of marriages: religious/moral and civil/legal. They often take place together, with a religious figure serving as a civil magistrate for the witnessing and signing of the license. But they remain distinct, and a judge or sea captain can preside at the civil version.

No clergyman should be obliged to perform religious marriages that run counter to his or her doctrine. This would be an outrageous intrusion of the state into the church.

But one has to ask whether a clergyman should be a magistrate for the same reason, even in this limited case.

“Defense of marriage” amendments are largely the result of confusion over where church ends and state begins. Having clergy officiate over civil marriage is a relic of the established churches of pre-revolutionary Europe. The confusion shows that the time has come to get rid of the relic and mark a clear line.

I think that we need to stop deputizing clergymen and allowing them to serve as magistrates for the purposes of marrying people. Church and state need to be kept separate for the protection of both. So lets require a civil marriage before a county clerk and leave religious marriage to the clergy. Let civil marriage protect the property and family rights of the parties and their children. Let religious marriage protect the morality of the parties.

If memory serves, they do this this way in France and probably in other civilized places as well.

Did OFA ever go out to their list on DOMA and DADT? Maybe I missed it.

It’s beyond frustrating at this point. If we get 8 years of Obama, it will be 8 years of being told “This isn’t the right time for it.” One suspect that even if positive bills are passed and/or court decisions come down in states representing 55% of the population of the country, Rahm and Obama would be worried about some poor ConservaDem who might have to run with DADT as a campaign issue.

One really needs to be point blank with Obama and ask him at what point did “This isn’t the right time for it” cease being an acceptable answer for the Civil Rights Movement in the 50s and 60s? When did “separate but equal” laws, and failure to address them in Washington, stop being acceptable to blacks?

One would have hoped for the best. But I think most of us knew it would be the worst. :/

John