Scott K Fish: Why I'm Voting YES on Question 1

30 posts / 0 new
Last post
Editor
Offline
Joined: 04/18/2009 - 3:43pm
Scott K Fish: Why I'm Voting YES on Question 1

[i]This column was written for the Sept. 2005 [url=http://www.bangormetro.com]Bangor METRO[/url] magazine[/i]

Why I'm Voting YES on Question 1
by Scott K Fish

Maine needs civil rights for "sexual orientation" like I need the barking dog outside my window.

Adding "sexual orientation" to Maine's civil rights law is liberal politicians forcing on all of us unecessary, poorly written law to placate well-heeled extreme gay special interests.

Maine civil rights law protects everyone from discrimination based on sex, race, color, physical/mental disability, religion, ancestry/national origin, age, familial status, marital status. In March 2005 the Legislature and Governor added "sexual orientation," meaning "a person's actual or perceived heterosexuality, bisexuality, homosexuality or gender identity or expression."

How do we defend ourselves in a law court, for instance, against someone's charge that our perception of them has violated their gender expression?

Twice in statewide votes (1998, 2000) Mainers said our civil rights law is fine wihtout "sexual orientation." Maine's representatives in the Legislature said no a few times to the "sexual orientation" change too.

I worked ten years for the Maine Legislature, listening year after year to all sides of this issue. Life in Maine for homosexuals, they said, was on par with life for Jews in Nazi Germany, with blacks in the pre-civil rights U.S. south. Homosexuals are routinely denied credit by Maine bankers, they said, and employers won't hire them. If homosexuals have a job, they'll be fired. Finding a house/apartment is, for them, an arduous task. Why, Maine is a wasteland of broke, homeless gay people in fear for their lives.

This ugly portrait of Maine painted by "special rights" advocates has no basis in fact and I resent it.

When Maine voters rejected "sexual orientation" in 2000, I read an e-mail in which urban gay activists said we needed gay outreach programs in rural Maine.

In the Maine I know "outreach" has been ongoing for generations. It's called daily life. Gay Mainers in the rural Maine I know are known by their first names, as neighbors. Sexual orientation? No one cares. It's a boring non-issue most people are sick of having thrown back at them. Urban political activists who think Gay Hunters' Breakfasts or Lesbian Tractor Pulls are key to picking up rural support at the ballot box for "sexual orientation" don't understand rural Maine.

Most evidence I've seen of alleged sexual orientation discrimination can as easily be the ups-and-downs of living. Who hasn't lost a job? Been denied credit? Been misunderstood, disliked and even reviled? Are we to amend Maine's civil rights law to soothe every sub-group's pet peeves? Maine bikers have already been to the Legislature to try to get their sub-group included in the law, saying they're discriminated against because of peoples' bias toward motorcyclists.

Maine will vote on "sexual orientation," yet again, in November 2006. Let's put back our civil rights law to the way it was: comprehensive. Forcing "sexual orientation" on Maine may be perceived as serving a political purpose, But it wastes the time, energy, and good will of Maine majority who have said already, "No, thank you."

####

Gerald E. Thibodeau
Offline
Joined: 07/14/2001 - 12:01am
Scott K Fish: Why I'm Voting YES on Question 1

Well said.

Maine First
Offline
Joined: 12/11/2002 - 1:01am
Scott K Fish: Why I'm Voting YES on Question 1

Very good argument, SKF.

And the fact that it is printed adds to its importance.

Maine will win once again. And you had a part in that. Nice job.

Calvin
Offline
Joined: 05/15/2001 - 12:01am
Scott K Fish: Why I'm Voting YES on Question 1

" "

UncleJaque
Offline
Joined: 09/14/2004 - 12:01am
Comartmentalization

(Pardon my crude keystoking tonite asz i smashed a finger in the sliding door of my van today didnt that make me feel intelligent!!??)

Kevin and i civered this issue i= on talkin maine sat, in case u tuned in. Pretty interesting show with a variety of perspectives called in.

A couple of issues we mentioned - the "copartmentalizatiom" of society, breaking us down into groups and subgroups copeting for "rights" and resources; fractionalizing our society by various ckass distinctives, potentially weakening our community - and nation by our diviciveness.

Whatever happened to "E Pluribus Unum"?

There seems to be, IMHO, an ominous social agenda hidden in this whole "gay rights' movement,

What Mane and the US needs is not more diviciveness, but more UNITY - which i think, if we really try, we can enjoy ti sime extent while at the same time "cekebrating diversity".

Am i crazy? (Wait!; don't answer that! {;^)~ )

Could be - but i'm willing ti give it a try.

We also postulated that "gr" might actually turn out to be more of a "Lawyer enrichment" statute.

Isn't Pedophelia a form of "sexual oriemtation?" Soi we cant "discriminate" against some animal who wants to rape our kids? Oh really?!!

I'm sensing a cross between Pandora's box and a can of worms here - and King baldi and friends want ti oopen it up and shake it hard all over this state,

And there's something else in there thats gonna hit the fan when they do.

*ouch* (finger hurtz) - wont be pickin my nose with that one 4 a while!

attic owl
Offline
Joined: 04/12/2000 - 12:01am
Scott K Fish: Why I'm Voting YES on Question 1

SKF Well said----very well said!

John Frary also took a similar line in the MS and KJ.

The real legal land mines are the vague words "perception" and "expression." It is a verbal Houston Astrodome for lawyers to play in.

Country
Offline
Joined: 05/31/2005 - 12:01am
Scott K Fish: Why I'm Voting YES on Question 1

Good piece, Scott. It ought to be in the mainstream press.

smokey876
Offline
Joined: 06/21/2005 - 12:01am
Scott K Fish: Why I'm Voting YES on Question 1

The really disgusting part of "sexual orientation" is that it can cover pedophiles and beastiality. :x Where does this crap end?

cover_maine
Offline
Joined: 06/12/2005 - 12:01am
Scott K Fish: Why I'm Voting YES on Question 1

To me, this is an attempt to put transgendered folks in the same category of the formal, institutionalize racism that plagued this country....

The racism was written into state and local laws. It was written into by-laws of many public clubs, colleges and institutions -- deeds for houses -- agreements for homeowners associations.

Denied entrace to higher education. Unable to purchase a home in a neighborhood or even an entire town. Denied access to certain buildings, bathrooms or rail cars.

"Colored, Jew, Catholic, Irish...etc....need not apply"

While the holocaust was just getting going in the 1930's, ugly racism was alive and well here in the USofA. My Mom's family had to change their surname so they could buy a home in the New Jersey town where they wanted to live, for the first college-age kid to have a chance to attend the school of her choice.

Yes, many of these attitudes still prevail, but the legitimized denial rights that many stood up for (and Rosa Parks stood down for!) has gone away. We have changed the way people think, however, there is no controlling what they think today. Those who suffer racism on others are just plain idiots -- including someone who would suffer racism on gays.

However, why anyone would think that the special rights law would do anything more is beyond me. It isn't going to change what people think and it isn't on the same footing with the previously-legal racism described above.

Otherwise, I find the discussion an incredible bore.

David Hughes
Offline
Joined: 11/27/2001 - 1:01am
Re: Scott K Fish: Why I'm Voting YES on Question 1

[quote="Editor"][i]
In the Maine I know “outreach” has been ongoing for generations. It's called daily life. Gay Mainers in the rural Maine I know are known by their first names, as neighbors. Sexual orientation? No one cares. It's a boring non-issue most people are sick of having thrown back at them. Urban political activists who think Gay Hunters' Breakfasts or Lesbian Tractor Pulls are key to picking up rural support at the ballot box for “sexual orientation” don't understand rural Maine.
[/quote]

According to one web site, Maine has the highest percentage of elderly ( 55 and over ) GL couples of any state in the union. I believe that supports your view of things Scott.

attic owl
Offline
Joined: 04/12/2000 - 12:01am
Scott K Fish: Why I'm Voting YES on Question 1

I've read Cover-Maine's contribution over and over and I am having a little trouble understanding what C-M means. For example: [b]this is an attempt to put transgendered folks in the same category of the formal, institutionalize racism that plagued this country[/b].... What does the "this" refer to, the attempt to confirm or repeal the law? No one is proposing to pass a "Jim Crow" law that mandates discrimination against the transgendered. What has transgender to do with racism? What possible connection is there between the transgendered category and the category of racism?

When C-M writes [b]Jew, Catholic, Irish...etc....need not apply"[/b] what does this have to do with racism? There are caucasion Irish, Catholics, and Jews, as well as many Catholics Irish and Jews are of other races. Aren't these examples of religious and ethnic restrictions?

Is C-M a bit confused about what racism is? [b] Those who suffer racism on others are just plain idiots -- including someone who would suffer racism on gays[/b]. How could any person "suffer racism on" gays, who number people from all "races." I don't get it.

What does this mean? [b]However, why anyone would think that the special rights law would do anything more is beyond me[/b]. Anything "more" than WHAT? It is not clear to me how C-M is going to vote. I do think that a trip to the dictionary is in order here to examine the entry for "racism." Perhaps C-M means "discrimination" that amazingly fuzzy, sloppy, vague all purpose political word.

ItchyBeaver
Offline
Joined: 07/25/2005 - 12:01am
Scott K Fish: Why I'm Voting YES on Question 1

[quote]Editor - How do we defend ourselves in a law court, for instance, against someone's charge that our perception of them has violated their gender expression?
[/quote]

Are you kidding ?

MarkSeger
Offline
Joined: 09/30/2005 - 12:01am
Scott K Fish: Why I'm Voting YES on Question 1

The number one reason I voted Yes is, I don't want to be sitting in church and have the police walking into the church and arreseting my pastor. What about yours or the priests for teaching out of the Bible that it is wrong and a sin. Who will this law affect, everyone. Some say that the law doesn't stretch to the church. Where does it say that we can teach it as a sin and don't be arrested if someone claims that they are discriminated againt in the church.
MM

Bobby Reynolds
Offline
Joined: 09/02/2005 - 12:01am
Undecided

As a political conservative, my intent was to vote yes on 1. Much along the lines of Scott's piece, I believe that we should not establish laws without substantive fact to back up the need. Are there roving bands of homeless gay people? There is still no real proof of that. Are gay people, or those who are perceived to be gay, denied loans or employment? The most recent stories not withstanding, it seems there is not widespread discrimination occurring in these arenas either. Scott is saying, if I understand correctly, that Maine people are understanding and fair therefore rendering the need for this law moot. Maybe. But I am not so sure. Of course, some have argued that it is their right to chose who resides in their rental property or who they loan to, ect. that oppose sexual orientation from being included in the civil rights language. Not my issue here. Perhaps I have become more attentive due to Question 1 and my decision on how to vote, but not a day goes by where I don't hear nasty, vile things said about gay people. Whether it is just name calling or the typical snide comment, I am not convinced that there is the tolerance out there that I had once believed. I am even more suspect of the inherent goodness of people after what happened to my 16-year old last night. After a fun evening of handing out candy to trick-or-treaters, he was walking home from his buddy's house when he was confronted by a group of local "thugs' who threatened him and finished it off by calling him a "kike". So, my intent is to listen to the debate, form an opinion about how to cast my ballot on the 8th, and go from there. And as I listen I am heading in the "no" direction.

FLAMMENWERFER
Offline
Joined: 03/27/2005 - 1:01am
Scott K Fish: Why I'm Voting YES on Question 1

No discrimination based "on sex, race, color, physical/mental disability, religion, ancestry/national origin, age, familial status, marital status." And now sexual orientation. Our monitors' enthusiasm for correcting and uplifting the ignorant and bigoted masses under their care is boundless. Does anyone think that the latest will be the last?

Editor
Offline
Joined: 04/18/2009 - 3:43pm
Scott K Fish: Why I'm Voting YES on Question 1

Itchy:

re: Are you kidding? No.

skf

phoenix
Offline
Joined: 04/17/2004 - 12:01am
Re: Undecided

[quote="Bobby Reynolds"]...he was walking home from his buddy's house when he was confronted by a group of local "thugs' who threatened him and finished it off by calling him a "kike". So, my intent is to listen to the debate, form an opinion about how to cast my ballot on the 8th, and go from there. And as I listen I am heading in the "no" direction.[/quote]

You're being emotional because it's your own kid...Can't blame you. Just keep in mind that boys have always put each other down by casting aspersions on their growing sexuality. It's part of life. I bet you called someone a "sissy," at one time or another. IMO the example you give bears no relevance to Question 1.

FXSTC
Offline
Joined: 11/13/2003 - 1:01am
Scott K Fish: Why I'm Voting YES on Question 1

Excellent post SKF!

YES ON 1!

The Distributist
Offline
Joined: 05/15/2005 - 12:01am
Scott K Fish: Why I'm Voting YES on Question 1

Article 1, Chapter 6-A of the Maine Constitution, weakens the argument that this law will not lead to a push for homosexual’s seeking state-sanctioned marriage:

"Section 6-A. Discrimination against persons prohibited. No person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law, nor be denied the equal protection of the laws, nor be denied the enjoyment of that person's civil rights or be discriminated against in the exercise thereof."

If Q1 is turned down and this law is allowed to stand, I predict it will be less than 6 months before we see the first test case come forward. Anyone care to start a pool?

Larry
Offline
Joined: 10/31/1999 - 1:01am
Scott K Fish: Why I'm Voting YES on Question 1
Editor
Offline
Joined: 04/18/2009 - 3:43pm
Scott K Fish: Why I'm Voting YES on Question 1

Lockman, as always, makes excellent points in his BDN piece. However, for the life of me I can't figure out why he always insist on also trashing the Religious Right. I'm not sure how that bolsters Larry's arguments.

skf

Anonymous
A lawyer's perspective on Question One.

I already voted YES on One. I recently moved to Maine from Los Angeles, California, where I practice family law (divorce, custody, etc.). I voted YES on One so that this state does not go down the road of states like California. I have personally witnessed and experienced the reverse discrimination that should be expected if this flawed law is allowed to stand and the gay lobby is strengthened. I personally, for having a Christian sticker on my car, was told by one of my gay neighbors (he left a note on my car) to move back to whatever God forsaken state I came from (I am from Eastern Europe), told me I was ignorant (I have more education that he could even dream of) and told me that people like me are NOT WELCOME in the building. Talk about discrimination. I saw and experienced that constantly.

Wait until a cross dresser starts teaching your kids at school, or until three coupled bi-sexuals (of whatever mix you want it) want to rent your one-bedroom guesthouse in your back yard where your kids play. Do you think you can say no, under the new law you WILL BE SUED if you do. So, if you do not have the money to send you kids to private school, your kids will be the guinea pigs for this new social experiment the governor is pushing down people's throats, now for the third time. Ultimately, this is more than just about marriage, it is about a group that is one of the most affluent of people, homosexuals, who will stop at nothing to impose their morality on you. This is about normalizing a behavior that is not normal or healthy, as has been shown scientifically (homosexuals, etc, are rarely mentally healthy and happy people). AS a lawyer, I read this law and it is over-broad and vague. It covers a number of sexual behaviors that are not just actual, but perceived. This is not about discrimination towards gays, this is about future discrimination and criminalization of morality. So, on Tuesday or before, I pray that the people of Maine wake up ad take a stand for this beautiful state. I pray it does not go down the road of California and Massachusetts and Vermont. Good luck Maine.

Editor
Offline
Joined: 04/18/2009 - 3:43pm
Scott K Fish: Why I'm Voting YES on Question 1

Jordana -

[i]Third[/i] time if you don't count the many times the people's elected legislators in Augusta have said "no" to this mess. I started working in Augusta in 1989. Every two years this issue was back and voted down. And I know the issue was before the Legislature at least once prior to 1989.

skf

Calvin
Offline
Joined: 05/15/2001 - 12:01am
Scott K Fish: Why I'm Voting YES on Question 1

The gay tide is rising,
the levee may not be high enough,
but, it is time to close the gate. = VOTE YES.

When the enemy wins a battle, that doesn't stop the advance.
( gays will keep on pressing for more ) = VOTE YES.

It will not be enough that the gays win what they want.
The day will come when you will not be allowed to voice that hmosexuality is wrong.
( it will be illegal for a pastor to preach DIRECTLY from the Bible.) = VOYE YES

The gays not only want you to hear their voice,
they want to silence yours Mr. Fish. = VOTE YES.

charlotte
Offline
Joined: 04/09/2005 - 12:01am
Scott K Fish: Why I'm Voting YES on Question 1

It is about discrimination...in housing, credit, employment, education and accomodations....

FXSTC
Offline
Joined: 11/13/2003 - 1:01am
Scott K Fish: Why I'm Voting YES on Question 1

charlotte's correct, heterosexuals need not apply.

charlotte
Offline
Joined: 04/09/2005 - 12:01am
Scott K Fish: Why I'm Voting YES on Question 1

Sexual orientation includes heterosexuals....thanks.

LMD
Offline
Joined: 02/24/2003 - 1:01am
Re: A lawyer's perspective on Question One.

[quote="Jordana"]
AS a lawyer, I read this law and it is over-broad and vague. It covers a number of sexual behaviors that are not just actual, but perceived. This is not about discrimination towards gays, this is about future discrimination and criminalization of morality. So, on Tuesday or before, I pray that the people of Maine wake up ad take a stand for this beautiful state. I pray it does not go down the road of California and Massachusetts and Vermont. Good luck Maine.[/quote]

Thank you, Jordana - well said.

Vote Yes on 1.

Mark T. Cenci
Offline
Joined: 03/13/2000 - 1:01am
Scott K Fish: Why I'm Voting YES on Question 1

The Libertarian Party of Maine is buying a quarter page ad in Monday's PPH:

You don’t have to support the Christian Civic League or be worried about gay marriage to

VOTE YES on 1

It’s about tolerance... we respect the rights of people we don’t always agree with, whether they’re conservative Christians or gay rights activists.

It’s about trust... we trust the people of Maine to make good decisions based on their individual values and circumstances. We don’t need politicians, activist lawyers and unelected judges to dictate a “politically correct,” one-size-fits-all solution to the myriad ways in which private views about sexuality affect the personal decisions of every Mainer.

It’s about privacy... most Mainers are not really interested in the sexuality of the people they deal with. People who want to express their sexual identity should be free to do so, and people who might find such expressions offensive should be equally free to avoid them without fear of lawsuits.

It’s about respect... the people of Maine have twice rejected gay rights laws that did not go as far as this one does, but the politicians haven’t listened.

It’s really all about the individual rights of every Mainer. Protect your rights by voting Yes on 1.

The Libertarian Party of Maine

Larry
Offline
Joined: 10/31/1999 - 1:01am
Scott K Fish: Why I'm Voting YES on Question 1

[quote="Editor"]Lockman, as always, makes excellent points in his BDN piece. However, for the life of me I can't figure out why he always insist on also trashing the Religious Right. I'm not sure how that bolsters Larry's arguments.

skf[/quote]

The Religious Right is the perfect enemy the Gay Left wants. The RR opposes "gay rights" for all the reasons gay activists want to turn to advantage -- and the RR does nothing to advance the only kind of opposition that can defeat gay activism: a critique that points out that rich, powerful special interests shouldn't be allowed to hijack minority civil rights law protections that should be reserved for the truly poor and powerless.

I attended the UMaine Machias speech by Heath, and found his remarks interesting. The "speech" is posted on the League's website, so I won't try to summarize it here, other than to say he didn't even talk about the proposed amendment to the Maine Human Rights Act until the very end, and then only in general terms, in the context of a discussion about Marx, Freud, and Darwin, and the decline of Judeo-Christian civilization.

The Q & A that followed at times turned into dueling Bible verses between Heath and several audience members. I tried to steer the discussion toward gay activists' bogus claims of victimhood by asking Heath about Stephen Wessler's recently-released "study" of anti-gay bigotry in Maine. I stated that the report has been roundly criticized for its own bias and flawed methodology, and asked Heath if he had reviewed the report...I was actually lobbing Mike a slow soft ball right across the plate, and he did a respectable job of nailing it, pointing out that the incidents alleged in the report are unverified, and that the timing of its release was clearly motivated by politics, not social science. But then the discussion turned back to argumentation about theology.

This isn't the way to defeat the Gay Left.

Log in to post comments