I’ve been a Democrat since about the time I learned the difference between Democrat and Republican.  You don’t spend your formative years in a family on the union side of one of the most notorious labor strikes in Maine’s history and come out of it a Republican.

I think I’ve voted for a Republican exactly three times, and each time was for a state office.  I’ve been “lured to the dark side” on occasion because of my frustration with Augusta’s inability to make drastic changes to fix Maine’s consistently anemic economy.  The Maine Democrats seem satisfied to make small changes here and there, but are unable to make bold spending cuts or changes to tax structure when we desperately need them.

All of this is to say that I pay close attention what candidates in both parties have to say in a gubernatorial election.  My favorite Republican candidate thus far has been Matt Jacobson.  I think he knows something about job creation in Maine because, as CEO of Maine & Company, he has actually done it. In addition to that, he has taken a decidedly active role in Social Media, and even participates in Twitter.  I’m a sucker for politicians who are courageous enough to engage with people using social media.

Yesterday, on Twitter, Jacobson was asked by several users to state his opinion on Question 1.  His initial response and subsequent explanation was as follows:

“@alexsteed @kastc – I will vote Yes on 1. The current law does not adequately protect the rights of everyone.”

“@kastc way too complex for 140 characters. I am happy to meet to discuss.”

As someone who believes that marriage is a right that ought to be available to everyone, regardless of sexual orientation, I was disappointed with this response.  And, indeed, fitting all of your opinion into a tweet can be rather difficult.  Fortunately, Jacobson did what anyone with a decent grasp of social media would do (kudos to you, sir!), and followed up a while later with a link to a more nuanced explanation of his thoughts:

“@kastc From and interview 8/4/9, lots of detail on my position: http://bit.ly/ULPKu”

So I went to the interview, and scanned down for the part where Jacobson addressed gay marriage.  Here’s what I found:

“I would have vetoed the bill, and here’s why.  It has nothing to do with civil rights – I think that the overwhelming majority – I think in the 90% range – believe that all folks should be treated equally, and I am clearly in that camp.  I would not have signed this bill, but not from the civil rights perspective, I think that we have to find a way to treat everybody equally and it is not acceptable that we don’t.”

“But this bill I think opens up those folks that have a reasonable religious objection to some real problems.  In other states where they have passed bills with similar language – there was a church I believe in Iowa who had convictions against same-sex marriages, and wouldn’t rent their hall as they do to other people in the public for a celebration to a same-sex couple, and they lost their tax exempt status.  There was another instance in another state where a photographer did not want to film the same-sex marriage ceremony from a religious conviction point of view, and was sued in civil court and fined tens of thousands of dollars. I don’t have any problem extending rights to everybody, but we ought not do that at the expense of someone else – especially someone with a reasonable religious conviction against it.”

(emphasis mine)

Jacobson’s concerns seemed quite sincere, and he piqued my curiosity about the two cases, so I decided to do a little research.

The Church in Iowa

The first case was about a church in Iowa, so I jumped into Google to learn more about it.  Unfortunately, I was unable to find any news stories church in Iowa that lost its tax exemption.  I did find a story that seemed similar, but it was in New Jersey, reported in the New York times in September 2007.  As is often the case, the story is a lot more complicated than the headline.

Hearing that a church lost is tax exempt status because it would not perform same-sex marriage is shocking and worrisome, but in this particular case, 1.) the group that lost its status was not actually a church, and 2.) it had nothing to do with legalized gay marriage.  A boardwalk pavilion in Ocean Park, NJ lost its tax exemption because, after refusing to permit non-binding gay marriage ceremonies on the premises, it was no longer deemed a public space.  It’s exempt status was solely on the basis that it was a “public space” under the state’s “Green Acres” program, and had nothing to do with religious affiliation – to be deemed a public space, an area needs to conform to a minimum set of anti-discrimination criteria.

The pavilion property was owned and maintained by a non-profit Methodist-affiliated organization, who objected to equal marriage.  That organization decided that it would no longer apply to the Green Acres program for its tax exemption rather than comply with the non-discrimination requirements for a public space.  Be assured, the Methodist church is still a tax-exempt religious organization in New Jersey.

The Photographer

A little more searching dug up the case of the photographer in New Mexico who was fined $6000 for refusing to photograph the wedding of a lesbian couple.  You can read the actual court finding if you’d like.  It’s very hard to find information on this case online that isn’t blatantly biased.  Like the previous case, this case actually has nothing to do with marriage equality.  New Mexico does not permit gay marriage or civil unions, but it does have a very broad anti-discrimination law.  The photographer in this case was found in violation of that law.

Here’s the thing: we already have a sexual orientation anti-discrimination law on the books in Maine.  It was passed it in 2005 and went into effect after a failed citizen’s veto attempt by the Christian Civic League (sound familiar?).

I’m no lawyer, but based on the explanation on the Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders (GLAD) web site, it sounds to me like the photographer would have indeed been in trouble with respect to Maine’s anti-discrimination law.  The pertinent part of Maine’s anti-discrimination law prevents discrimination based on sexual orientation with respect to public accommodation (from the linked site, “Generally, any establishment that caters to, or offers its goods, facilities or services to, or solicits or accepts patronage from the general public is a place of public accommodation.” [emphasis mine]).

The case is still under appeal.

Now, you can argue whether or not this is a good thing (if a photographer refused to photograph an interracial wedding, would that be OK?  Some people might say that’s his or her prerogative), but the fact is that it is not relevant.  None of this has anything to do with Question 1.

You can read the text of Maine’s same-sex marriage law for yourself.  There is nothing in it to confer additional rights to anyone, other than the right to be married.  In fact, Sec. 5., 19-A MRSA Sec.655 specifically grants protective rights to people who do not want to authorize a same-sex marriage for religious reasons.

Conclusion

In short, I think Jacobson’s concerns about Question 1 are unfounded, particularly if they are based primarily on these two cases.

I do salute his bravery for participating in such a public forum, and I sincerely hope the recent brouhaha over Question 1 in his twitter stream doesn’t discourage him from continuing to participate.  We need more politicians to share their thoughts and opinions as openly as he has, and I hope the other Maine candidates for governor follow his lead; there are other members of the Maine gubernatorial race with twitter accounts, but his stands out for its level of interaction with his followers, and more interaction is a good thing.

This entry was posted on Wednesday, October 21st, 2009 at 10:16 am and is filed under Uncategorized. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.