Vote no on Question 1

At the heart of the issue of same-sex marriage, past all the very public rhetoric of faith, morality and tradition, is the very private love and commitment between two adults, and society’s duty to recognize that.

Same-sex couples feel the same love, the same connection to another person, that defines so-called traditional marriages, and they deserve to have the same rights and protections afforded to them.

Same-sex marriage would not, as the question’s proponents say, weaken the family structure. In fact, it strengthens it by finally bestowing upon homosexual couples the ability to stand before their fellow citizens together, proud and equal before the eyes of the state.

And, no, domestic partnerships will not do. To many gay couples, they are an embarrassment, an indication that the love they feel so clearly is simply not up to par with that between a man and a woman. It implies a lower status, a lesser commitment. Separate but equal can never really be equal.

Same-sex marriage gives gay couples the rights they deserve. People in a same-sex marriage would not need to worry about hospital visitation rights, access to family health insurance, and myriad other legal issues.

Proponents of Question 1 have argued that altering society’s definition of marriage would somehow degrade marriage itself, and lead to the breakdown of society’s basic institutions and structures. They have said that it will change the way relationships and sex are taught in schools, and promote what they see as an unhealthy or immoral lifestyle.

But if Question 1 fails on Nov. 3 – meaning same-sex marriage remains the law – little will change in the broad scope of things. Parents would still raise their children as they see fit, local school boards would still decide on local curriculum, and marriages already in place would still either thrive or survive on their own merits.

Nothing would change, except throughout Maine, in gatherings large and small, all people who love each other enough to commit to a life together, with all its ups and downs, could do just that.

Vote no on Questions 2 and 4

Question 2, which asks voters to cut the excise tax, and Question 4, which asks voters place stricter limits on state and local government spending, are not directly related, but both would a detriment to the way our state and local governments do business, and neither would give Mainers the tax break that proponents promise.

Backers of Question 2 say the excise tax is unfair, and that the money collected through the tax is easily diverted to other items besides the road repair it is meant for.

Nobody enjoys paying the excise tax. But it is an integral funding source for municipalities, and the tax helps pay for maintenance on Maine’s roads, which are already in poor shape. If Question 2 passes, cities and towns throughout the state stand to lose a lot of money, according to the Maine Municipal Association. Based on 2008 figures, Scarborough would stand to lose $1.7 million in revenue, South Portland $1.9 million, and Cape Elizabeth $707,000. And that is out of budgets already trimmed due to the economic climate.

Road projects and other services would either have to be put off – and completed at a greater cost in the future – or taxes would have to be raised. Neither scenario is beneficial to the people of Maine.

The Taxpayer Bill of Rights, the subject of Question 4, is also worrisome. While TABOR II intends to keep government spending in check, by mandating referendums or additional town meetings in order to exceed spending limits, it really inhibits government’s ability to do what it needs to do.

For all the talk of running government like a business, it is simply not possible. There are some things a government simply has to do, such as maintain roads, provide education and manage social services. Sometimes, the cost of completing these items rises faster than inflation. That is the reality. Adding other, burdensome steps to the budget approval process is not going to change that; it will only make it more difficult for officials to do the job we elected them for.

Vote no on Question 3

Unlike the excise tax repeal and the TABOR II efforts, which are fatally flawed, the school consolidation law is flawed but fixable.

The aim of the law was to reduce the number of school districts and cut administrative spending so that more of our education dollars were spent in the classroom. Those savings have not been immediately apparent, mostly because of leftover contracts that have to be honored. But over time, the consolidation law will mean that more money earmarked for education is spent on students.

Also, the school districts that have consolidated as a result of the measure are largely happy with the outcome, or at least ambivalent toward it. It makes little sense to cast off all the hard work done to this point by repealing the measure.

What does make sense is for the law to be upheld, then handed back to the Legislature, which can then tweak it so that it better fits the realities of Maine’s geography and demographics.

While it makes sense for Windham and Raymond, neighboring towns that, for all intents and purposes, already shared a high school, to become one school district, it isn’t right to penalize a town like Acton for rejecting consolidation plans that would have cost more money while taking away much of its control over education.

Vote yes on Question 5

Medical marijuana was made legal in Maine 10 years ago, a recognition that the drug has palliative properties for people suffering from debilitating illness. But no mechanism was put in place for those people to obtain the drug legally and safely.

Approval of Question 5 would set up a dispensary system similar to California’s that would provide medical marijuana to patients with a state identification card. This is a humane and logical solution to the problem.

Ben Bragdon

Managing editor

Copy the Story Link