Remember, when the gay marriage legislation in Maine was being drafted, Governor Baldacci was against gay marriage. He was convinced to change his views during the debate that took place during the time the legislation was drafted. The very civil debate that took place. And that’s how we’ll win the hearts and minds of the people as well, though it’s obviously going to take longer than we originally hoped. While that really sucks, that’s the reality we have to deal with.

Right now, the campaign to move gay rights forward has two options. One is to try again in 2011, which is when we can pass a new law granting same-sex couples the right to marry and attempt to vote down a people’s veto. The other option is to challenge the people’s veto in state court on the grounds that it violates protected minority rights. In California, that court challenge failed after proposition 8, which sets a bad precedent for us, but precedents don’t always carry over between states either. Waiting until 2011 has the problem of waiting another two years, but really, we do have to be in this fight for the long haul if we’re going to gain equal rights for everyone.

There’s also talk about challenging the constitutionality of prop 8 in federal court, which would be good on a national level if it succeeded. However, with such an even split of justices, that’s a very high risk, high reward strategy. If the supreme court rules in favor of the gay community, then we basically win in the eyes of the law. Otherwise, we don’t get to challenge in federal court again, and have to keep campaigning state to state. It really depends on if we think we can win in court now, and if we think we’ll have a better chance at a reasonable point in the future.

In any case, there are lots of paths to be taken to continue the fight for equal rights. So, we should be focusing on that, rather than the name-calling that has recently sprung up. I know that there’s a lot to be unhappy about after the vote, but we need to focus on the solution to the problem. So, let’s be civil, let’s talk to people about equal rights, and let’s think about our next move to get equal rights for everyone.

Most opponents of gay marriage laws present their case as protecting their religious freedom and religious institution of marriage. I have some bad news for these people. The government can not and does not regulate the religious institution of marriage, only the secular contract. Gays and lesbians already get married religiously, and there are plenty of religions perfectly happy to perform the ceremony for them. Besides which, while you have the freedom to practice your religion as you see fit (so long as you bring no harm to another), other people have this same religious freedom, including the freedom to allow gays to marry in their services. Furthermore, Maine’s gay marriage law doesn’t force churches to perform marriage ceremonies that go against their religious beliefs. A gay couple will instead simply find a church who supports their marriage, or they’ll be married by a justice of the peace.  No infringement of religious freedom is required to provide equal rights to gay couples.

So, to those who would deny the right to marry to gay couples, stop pretending you’re protecting marriage. You aren’t, you’re simply trying to enforce your view of religion on everyone else and deny a group their civil rights. Frankly, I’m tired of hearing this argument that the religious institution of marriage will fail if gays are allowed to marry, and I’m tired of hearing you treat religious marriage and secular marriage as the same thing, because they aren’t. They’re just currently tied a little too closely together in the law.

Stop trying to deny gay and lesbian couples their civil rights. Don’t force your religious beliefs onto others. Instead, learn to live peacefully with your neighbors, and accept them for who they are. We’ll all be better off if we can manage this. So vote no on question 1, and show the state of Maine and the United States that we support marriage, equality, and civil rights by allowing gays to marry.

Note: For reference, this is question 1 in Maine on November 3rd: “Do you want to reject the new law that lets same-sex couples marry and allows individuals and religious groups to refuse to perform these marriages?”

Check out some videos on gay marriage in Maine:

Rachel Maddow
A cool WoW machinima piece on gay marriage in Maine
People’s reactions to letting gays and lesbians marry

While in his seat or waiting in line for his diploma, Justin Denney never touched a beach ball. After his name was called, he took a bow, blew a kiss to his family and pointed to friends, but he didn’t get his diploma, leaving a whole family in disbelief.

“I said, ‘What did she ask you?’ And, he goes, ‘She said, ‘There’s no fooling around up here,” and he just kind of looked at her because he wasn’t fooling around. He didn’t consider that fooling around or misbehaving in any sense of the word, and she goes, ‘Why do you feel you deserve your diploma?’ He goes, ‘Because I worked hard and I earned it,’ and she goes, ‘No go take your seat,’” Mary Denney said.

The school system, naturally, hadn’t returned comment by the time the piece was written.

So, we have a case where a superintendent has created a bogus reason to not give a student his diploma because she was in a bad mood. Moreover, she was in a bad mood over something that happens at every graduation I’ve ever been to, and no one ever complains about it. She needs to take the stick out of her rear end, and let people celebrate their accomplishments. At my university graduation, they threw the beach balls back to us. Because they wanted us to celebrate, instead of trying to enforce some kind of dire solemnity on the event that isn’t needed. You’d think if anyone were going to try to make it formal, it would be a university, but they seem to be way more relaxed.

The school board will be discussing graduation ceremonies next Wednesday. I have a suggestion for them: keep it simple. Get rid of the code of conduct, because obviously, their superintendent can’t interpret it in a rational manner. Just tell students that they will be ejected if they’re disruptive, and be clear on what disruptive is. Celebration is not disruptive. Disruptive is when the ceremony can’t proceed due to the behavior of a student or group of students. And even then, mildly disruptive behavior that serves a purpose shouldn’t be punished either.

For instance, at my graduation, I had a friend who organized a performance of a song he wrote (of the screaming variety) with the class officers who would be speaking. While our principal did try to convince him not to do it, in the end she just told him not to do anything he’d regret and let him go on. Sure, it was a little disruptive, but you know what? It added a little pizzazz to the ceremony and gave it a little something original and unplanned, and we’ll all remember that.

You know why this worked out? Our principal had some common sense and didn’t feel a need to abuse her authority. Meanwhile, the superintendent of Bonny Eagle’s system seems to lack this ability to use reason and use her authority wisely when things don’t go exactly as she wants them to. She needs some training in how to deal with students, and when to let things go.

Justin will receive his diploma. He’d better receive a public apology from the superintendent as well. I’d also like to see her explain how she will deal with this in the future so other students don’t have deal with what Justin had to.

Finally, I want this to serve as an example to all schools of how not to deal with graduations. Being an overbearing powermonger isn’t the way to do it. Graduation is a celebration for the graduating students. So let them enjoy themselves, and stop trying to assert yourself as the controlling power.

First, regarding civil unions and marriage, this whole deal with using separate terminology isn’t going to work. Separate terms lead to separate classes of citizenry. Certainly, having civil unions could be called progress, but it also sets a double standard. None of this is anything new to the movement. I saw an idea on a piece on the Huffington Post that I really liked though: for all couples, heterosexual, homosexual, or any other lifestyle, make civil unions the legal form of marriage, the contract that two people enter into, and have it accessible to any two people. The term marriage will then be reserved purely for religious and spiritual purposes, and will be unregulated by the state. There are plenty of churches and religious groups who would perform a marriage ceremony for homosexual couples. And the marriage would be all about spiritual laws, while the civil union would be what is used to insure all legal rights that are currently reserved for marriage.

Of course, this won’t happen overnight, though I hope to see it happen someday. In the meantime, I have a suggestion for homosexual couples who are up for it. Get married anyway. Then, whenever it’s not a legal issue (for instance, don’t claim you’re married on your taxes, it won’t go well), tell everyone that you’re married to your partner. If they talk about the legality of it, simply explain that while it’s not a legal marriage, you are spiritually married and that marriage is recognized by your religious group, even if not by the state. Make it a point to use the term marriage, because as more people do so, it will undermine groups who want to define marriage as between a man and a woman. If everyone else uses the term marriage for all couples, it will come to be seen that way. Then, it will be easier to claim your right to marry legally as well as spiritually. If this were successful enough, it might not even be necessary to separate marriage and civil unions the way I described above, though I still think it would be a good idea, simply to have the secular issues dealt with secularly and the religious issues dealt with religiously.

I’m certainly aware that some couples wouldn’t want to do this. For some, they don’t like their relationship being in the open due to societal pressure. For others, they want to enjoy their relationship instead of spending their life pushing and pushing for equal rights. And there are certainly other valid reasons people might have for not doing this. The point is, for those who are in the right kind of committed relationship, and don’t have issues about being vocal about it, proclaiming their spiritual marriage will hopefully help make people see marriage as valid for all couples as time goes on.