By Jacqueline Klingebiel

Oct 28, 2009 12:12pm

Maine’s Governor Downplays National Angle Ahead of Tuesday’s Gay Marriage Vote

The state of Maine could make national headlines if gay marriage is upheld on Tuesday. But don’t look for Gov. John Baldacci (D) on a “pedestal” anytime soon. My colleague, ABC News’ Teddy Davis has more: If voters in the state of Maine reject Question 1 in Tuesday’s election, it would be the first time that same-sex marriage was upheld by citizens casting ballots as opposed to by a court order or a vote of the state’s legislature. That’s not, however, the way that Maine Gov. John Baldacci (D), a gay marriage supporter, likes to frame the issue. He prefers a more low-key approach. In an interview with Deborah Solomon’s weekly “Questions For . . . ” column in Sunday’s New York Times Magazine, Baldacci downplays the potential national significance of the vote and instead talks about it as a way to help families in Maine. “We’re not focused on it that way; we’re focused on it Maine-specific, why we’re going to be helpful to families in Maine who need to make sure that they have equal protection under the Constitution,” said Baldacci.  Baldacci used to prefer civil unions to same-sex marriage. But he came to believe a civil union is not equal to civil marriage. He signed the gay marriage bill into law in May. Under a “people’s veto” provision in the state constitution, Maine voters will cast ballots on Tuesday on whether to repeal the gay marriage law which was passed by the legislature and signed by Baldacci. Asked if he is thinking about Tuesday’s vote in the context of the national debate over gay rights, Baldacci says: “No. Just thinking about Maine.” Pressed on whether that’s a “small way” to look at it, Baldacci says: “We’re not getting on a pedestal and preaching to others.” When told by Solomon that Maine could become the first state to approve gay marriage by a vote of the people, Baldacci says: “Right. While that may in fact happen, it isn’t because it was designed to happen that way.” The full Q&A, which includes a discussion of his Catholicism as well as his relationship with second cousin David Baldacci, the novelist, will be published Sunday in The New York Times Magazine.

User Comments

The people of Maine are a little different. They follow the concept “think locally, act globally”. Somewhat low-key people…just a few loud-mouth radacals here and there, but not enough to really change things. I expect very little local fanfare when prop 1 is voted down. Oh, sure, out-of-staters will have a hooplah, but that’s to be expected.

Posted by: Wayne | October 28, 2009, 1:04 pm 1:04 pm

What Wayne said! Maine is peculiar. Voting Prop 1 down is not a model for Gay Marriage promotion unless another state is as parochial and community-oriented as Maine is. All the PR for No On 1 is about “support Maine families, ALL Maine families” and appeals to the consciousness of Maine residents. We are 89% forested, only have 3 major cities, all of which are smaller than Boston, are mostly small town and rural and families are important to every community. It would be wrongheaded for gay activists to use Maine as a driving argument for marriage equality nationally; as wrongheaded as it would be for anti gay marriage activists to use California as an argument for their position.

Posted by: Ellen Sander | October 28, 2009, 1:47 pm 1:47 pm

This whole issue is so stupid. We’re talking about a small percentage of people who engage in homosexual preferences. Scientifically, this would be a deviation from the norm. Why then, is it so important to treat a deviate behavior as a normal one? Sex preferences should stay in the bedroom where they belong. Why we feel the need to change our entire system for a very few is ridiculous. Civil unions was enough already.

Posted by: M. Sheldon | October 28, 2009, 4:01 pm 4:01 pm

Apparently M. Sheldon has never heard of the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution.
If a law applies to YOU, M. Sheldon, it must apply to EVERYONE.
It is REALLY very simple. Very, very simple.
And when you can tell me a little bit about the moment that you pondered the male and the female and decided which one you were attracted to is the moment you will either: (a) realize that your sexuality has nothing to do with ‘preference,’ or ‘choice’ or (b) come out as the bi-sexual that you MUST be if your sexuality is a ‘choice’ or a ‘preference.’
Stupid comment, M. Sheldon. And that stupid comment has been used against your gay fellow human beings in order to continue abuse against them for FAR too long.
Besides, it is absolutely none of your business to begin with.

Posted by: Bill | October 28, 2009, 4:51 pm 4:51 pm

Well said Bill, well said.

Posted by: Derek, GA | October 28, 2009, 7:40 pm 7:40 pm

Gay’s have the right to life,liberty and the pursuit of happyness just the same as you and I do. BUT! they don’t have a right to claim their life style entitles them the right to change the marraige law between a man and a women. I can reconize their right to a civil union, but not the right to change the definition of marriage. Their life style is not equal to their mother and father who gave birth to them united in marraige. The fact that gay’s do not reconize that human life is procreated by the sexual act between a man and a women shows they have no idea what the term marraige means.

Posted by: John Demeter | October 30, 2009, 10:16 pm 10:16 pm

Leave a Reply

Do you have more information about this topic? If so, please click here to contact the editors of ABC News.