I have voted NO on Question 1

I have voted NO on One. Here's why:

• This question is fundamentally about equality;
  
• All tax paying, law abiding citizens should have the full, unadulterated benefits of citizenship;
  
• All citizens should be able to direct and receive inheritance, decide who visits in the hospital, and how their end of life transacts;
• No citizen should be forced to take on considerable financial expense to obtain legal contracts that, essentially, finesse the benefits and assurances granted to same-gender commitments;
  
• In the history of our state and our nation "Separate But Equal" has consistently failed to fulfill its original intentions. Consider: School segregation, the Tuskegee Airmen, and women in the military. Better yet, consider Washington County's status in relation to the rest of the State of Maine.

My faith (Religious Society of Friends - Quakers) has been uniting same-sex couples for years. This is because the Jesus we know has taught us by his deeds that all people have their measure of Light and are equal under God.

This I know and this I believe.

I encourage all who have not yet voted to take these considerations into your hearts.

Then join me in voting NO on One.

A Statement in Absence about Maine Marriage Equality

I'll be absent from the hearings in Augusta next week when many friends will testify about marriage equality in Maine. Work demands I stay seated and at the keyboard up here in Washington County.

But perhaps you will suffer a few random thoughts, based on experience.

For me, the cogent issue before us is citizenship. Other components of marriage equality stream from that such as equality and responsibility. But the real issue - and, I think, the most effective context for speaking about this issue - is citizenship. The benefits that flow from the way marriage is set up serve to protect and strengthen the smallest unit in our society. If we function as equal contributors in society and are willing to take on equal responsibility we should enjoy equal citizenship. That's it.

I learned a long time ago that appealing to a pol's sense of humanity, appealing to their hearts by showing that their friends suffer for lack of laws they refuse to enact, appealing to their own history, quoting doctors / psychiatrists / lawyers, and showing that societies in which enfranchisement has been established have not crumbled basically does not work. But speaking to their Puritan guts is effective.

That's why, if I was there next week, I'd say that I work 60 hours a week to improve the economic conditions in the poorest county in Maine. I volunteer with community and civic organizations. I attend my town meeting and vote every chance I get. I have a religious practice and participate a religious community. I have a creative life. Like everyone else I know I don't enjoy paying my share of taxes but I do it.

In short, I'm exactly the sort of person you want in your community: the effective, responsible, committed partner in society.

What I don't have is enfranchisement.

I pay more in taxes because my relationship is not recognized by the state and federal government. If I have a health crisis, my parents, with whom I have not lived in nearly 40 years and who are over 80 years old, could claim the right to make critical decisions about my care if they chose to challenge the decisions of my parter. If I were to die, my partner could legally be granted less time to grieve. I have no rights to disperse my property nor can my partner receive survivorship benefits. These and many other conditions flow from civil recognition of my committed relationship.

I'd tell them that I realize they'll make their decision to either change this condition or somehow find it within themselves to continue to apply the status quo. I'd encourage them to do the right thing.