Question 1 arguments

The list of those opposed to Referendum Question 1 is quite impressive: Sens. William Cohen and Olympia Snowe; Reps. John Baldacci and James Longley; Gov. Angus King, the Maine Council of Churches, the Maine Chamber of Commerce and Industry, the Catholic Diocese of Maine, the Maine AFL-CIO, and hundreds of other political leaders, business, religious, labor and community groups across the state.

There are many reasons to vote “no” on Question 1. A “no” vote will keep Maine’s human rights law and protected classes as they currently exist. A “no” vote will preserve our political process. A “no” vote will preserve local control.

Because Maine’s attorney general has stated that this referendum is legally flawed, a “no” vote will save the state from needing to engage in potentially lengthy and expensive lawsuits. A “no” vote does not extend protected class status to lesbian and gay people in Maine. A “no” vote will keep the door open for future debate on inclusion of any group which may need protected class status against discrimination. A “no” vote will send a positive message nationally that Maine is a state that does not support racism, bigotry and intolerence. Linda Tisdale Dexter

Proponents of Question 1 continue to harp on the supposed “special rights” that will be afforded to homosexuals if the referendum is defeated. This is simply untrue. If the public wanted to grant any “special rights” to homosexuals, they would have to vote them into law.

What Question 1 will do, however, is repeal what few legal protections homosexuals currently hold in Maine. Protection from discrimination is not a “special right.” Jews are protected from discrimination under the Maine Human Rights Act. The last I heard, Jews do not enjoy any “special rights” in Maine.

In most parts of Maine, it is legal to discriminate against homosexuals. They may be denied employment, housing or even service at a restaurant. In Portland, at least, the voters decided that the same decency that applies to people on the basis of race, religion and a host of other factors, ought to be extended to homosexuals. What Question 1 will do is deny the citizens of Portland, and the rest of us, the rights to pass local ordinances to protect homosexuals from discrimination.

Moreover, anywhere in Maine, crimes against people or property that are motivated by bigotry against race, religion or sexual preference are violations of the Maine Hate Crimes Act. But if Question 1 passes, criminal acts targeted against homosexuals will not be considered “hate crimes” under the law.

As a Jew, I am deeply offended by the suggestion that protection against hate crimes, or protection against discrimination in housing, employment or public accomodations, is somehow a “special right.” Were it not for the Maine Human Rights Act and the Maine Hate Crimes Act, these protections would not be afforded to jews. The laws that protect Jews from discrimination do not grant us any “special preferences” in hiring, do not qualify Jews for “affirmative action,” and do not grant Jews minority “set-asides.”

When proponents of the referendum suggest that homosexuals do not deserve protection against discrimination because they are not a distinguished minority, Jews see the warning signs of a scapegoating mentality. Most people do not consider Jews a disadvantaged minority. Does that mean that anti-Semitic acts of vandalism and violence do not deserve to be prosecuted as hate crimes? Bigotry knows no boundaries of socio-economic status.

Question 1 will prevent both the state Legislature and local communities from extending to homosexuals the same human rights laws enjoyed by Jews. I think that exceeds the bounds of common decency. Rabbi Dr. Laurence Elis Milder Bangor

Don’t be confused by the wording of Referendum Question 1.

A “no” vote means, “No, I don’t favor discrimination.”

A “yes” vote means, “Yes, I think it’s OK to discriminate against people whose lifestyle I dislike.” Julian H. Orr Bangor

Question 1 is a complicated, confusing issue with strong emotions, many misconceptions, misleading information, and half-truths. I am against discrimination but I am also against another law when current laws, which already allow equal protection and rights for everyone, can not or are not being enforced.

All people deserve equal rights and protection as currently provided by the Bill of Rights, U.S. Constitution and state and federal laws. The U.S. Supreme Court established guidelines for determining when groups need protected status — they must prove they are truly disadvantaged with regards to their access to economic, political, cultural, and educational opportunities.

We must ask ourselves whether homosexuals are discriminated against under this criteria and if defeat of this bill would mean any special interest group would gain inappropriate legal and economic advantages such as affirmative action, quotas, etc. Are homosexuals discriminated against in employment or housing opportunities more than people with pets or children or who smoke? Will parents, pet owners, and smokers be the next ones to ask for protected status? Are homosexuals disadvantaged educationally or economically? Statistics show they are not — homosexuals are as well educated and earn as much or more than the general population. Will Maine, as a state, lose economically as our governor proclaims? It did not hurt Colorado as we are lead to believe.

We each choose our own lifestyle and everyone already has equal protection under the current laws. This issue should not be about hate and hemophobia but about making sure no special interest group is granted special civil rights not already available to all under the protected status criteria. Let’s enforce the current laws if there is discrimination and not add another one. I encourage you to vote “yes” on Question 1. Linda McFarland Bar Harbor