Promises and Lies

David Lind

Bar Harbor

On November 3, the people of Maine will go to the polls to vote on some important referenda. There is a great deal of misinformation about these issues and a great deal of money, much of it from out-of-state,  is being spent to convince the people of Maine to vote a particular way. Not surprisingly, politicians make promises, break promises and thrive on misinformation, another word or euphenism for lies. The official wordings of the questions are in bold italics.

Consider question one, a People's Veto, on November's ballot. Do you want to reject the new law that lets same-sex couples marry and allows individuals and religious groups to refuse to perform these marriages? This question, if passed, would repeal the "Equality in Marriage Act" as some people call it. Technically the law is An Act to End Discrimination in Civil Marriage and Protect Religious Freedom. As we shall see, the official name of the law is a lie. The name, "Equality in Marriage Act" and similar alternative names for this law are a masterful pieces of misdirection. The people of Maine have been inundated by expensive television commercials showing loving, unconventional families and claiming that the passage of question one is an attempt to "shame" these ideal families. Other ads claim that if the law is retained, children would be taught to accept lifestyles abhorrent to their parents. These ads are misleading.

No ideal family will be made to feel ashamed if the law is repealed. There is never any shame in loving (in an agape, philia or storge sense, that is, sacrificial love, friendship or affection) and devoted relationships. I refer the reader to The Four Loves by C. S. Lewis or Love and Will by Rollo May for a thorough discussion of love. Homosexual relationships have existed and thrived for thousands of years with or without legal sanction. The retention of this law would not require that children be taught the equality of marriage in public schools. However, I would expect some church-related private schools may emphasize that marriage is a contract between a man and a woman. I have no doubt, having taught in public schools myself, that some public school teachers may use a retention of the law to introduce the acceptance of unconventional marriage . But the important issues with respect to this question, in my opinion, are not a matter of shame, acceptance or education. The issues are matters of law and nature.

Several years ago when the Maine "gay rights" law was debated, I publically criticized that law at a Republican meeting because it could be applied too broadly. That law was passed with the provisions I criticized. It has been used in an attempt to force religious institutions into providing spousal benefits to homosexual couples in Maine. Does any one remember that politicians insisted this law could not be used in this manner and it certainly would not result in gay marriages? An Act to End Discrimination in Civil Marriage and Protect Religious Freedom has similar provisions that would affect the functions of numerous institutions. Clergy may refuse to marry homosexual couples without fear but the institutions they represent and other organizations can be held liable under this act under certain conditions. I refer the reader to an article in the Bangor Daily News, October 17, 2009, titled: Same-sex marriage law lacks religious protection, by Robin Fretwell Wilson for a much better explanation of this matter than I can make. I am convinced that the legislature wrote the gay rights law and An Act to End Discrimination in Civil Marriage and Protect Religious Freedom as tools to restrict religious liberty in Maine, already one of the most under-churched states in the Union. Both laws need to be rewritten to ensure that all religions and other moral institutions, like private schools, can operate unimpeded by political influence. The argument is made that the courts will protect these institutions on a constitutional basis. The courts have not done so under the gay rights law. I have followed the rulings of Maine courts on this and other issues and have concluded that jurists in Maine are more influenced by political concerns than their responsibility to uphold constitutional principles. In short, political correctness is running amok in Maine inviting corruption in all branches of government.

One might assume that I am against gay rights but I am not. I fully support the current efforts in the United States Congress to extend hate legislative protection to the homosexual community and any other community that is victimized based upon hate. However, such legislation must be crafted in a manner that prevents activists from using the legislation as a weapon against people or institutions they hate. We also must ensure that jurists are not provided tools that they can use to advance their careers at the expense of justice.

I have fully supported the concept that homosexual members of the armed services should serve openly. When President Clinton first suggested this change in policy, I chaired a board of deacons in the United Church of Christ. At the time, I wrote a position paper for the board supporting President Clinton's idea. It was not well-received.

As president of the Board of Directors of Hancock County Habitat for Humanity, I proposed a resolution that the affiliate would not discriminate based on sexual preference. The resolution was passed even though it was contrary to Habitat for Humanity, International policy at that time. I had discussed the resolution with the chief counsel for Habitat for Humanity, International and we agreed to disagree on this issue. Local affiliates could develop their own policies as long as they were not more restrictive than the policies of Habitat for Humanity, International. It is curious that so many local institutions that will support legislation to correct wrongs will not correct them within their own ranks.

The reader might assume from what I have written so far that I would support some form of same-sex marriage law but I would not. In my opinion, marriage is about procreation. It is all very well to romanticize marriage or treat it as a holy sacrament. But, given the fact that about half of all marriages end in divorce, I must conclude that at least half of married people don't take marriage seriously as a lasting passion or sacrament. Once the erotic aspect of marriage wanes, too many people will not make the effort to rekindle the passion or establish lasting affection much less higher forms of love (agape or friendship). If people in homosexual relationships develop high forms of a love, I hold them in high esteem and wish them well. But, marriage is about the survival of the species. If society encourages same-sex marriage and similar counter-procreative, sexual relationships; we risk taking a path to extinction. There is historical precedence for this position exemplified by ancient societies that became extinct in part because they adopted and promoted perverse sexual practices. Perverse practices of all kinds will always be with us but government should not promote them. I will vote YES on question one.

Question two, a Citizen Initiative, concerns excise tax exemptions. Do you want to cut the rate of the municipal excise tax by an average of 55% on motor vehicles less than six years old and exempt hybrid and other alternative-energy and highly-efficient motor vehicles from sales tax and three years of excise tax? I own a hybrid automobile that is three years old. The passage of this initiative would have little impact on me except to reduce the excise tax I pay. However, this reduction in tax would apply to all vehicles less than six years old not just hybrids. The initiative may encourage more people to purchase highly-efficient vehicles, which I favor, and the smaller excise tax may encourage some people to purchase a new car. Therefore, this initiative seems to have some merit.

The opposition to this question argues that roads will fall into disrepair if the question is passed and those of us buying inexpensive automobiles will pay for the excesses of those that can afford expensive vehicles. I served on the Bar Harbor Warrant Committee for eight years. The extent to which the roads in Bar Harbor were maintained was never driven by the amount of excise tax collected. The excise tax revenue impacts a town budget but not in a catastrophic manner. As a mathematician, I find the argument that we will be paying for other people's expensive tastes to be specious. Everyone who owns a vehicle will have a reduction in their excise tax and the impact on property taxes would likely be negligible.

Question three is a Citizen Initiative on School Consolidation. Do you want to repeal the 2007 law on school district consolidation and restore the laws previously in effect?  This initiative is one on which I shall probably vote no. I taught in a large school district in Massachusetts. The economies of scale offered by such a district were impressive. Of course, there is a downside to large districts because policies of large districts may not reflect the sensitivities of local neighborhoods. The geography of Maine may also be an impediment to reducing cost where schools are widely separated. However, a balance considering these factors and others can and should be achieved. I feel that there should be more consolidation in Maine. However, I am not confident that politicians in Maine, particularly at the state level, can do it right.

Question four is the Tax Payer's Bill Of Rights (TABOR) initiative once more. Do you want to change the existing formulas that limit state and local government spending and require voter approval by referendum for spending over those limits and for increases in state taxes? The passage of this initiative is long overdue. Politicians, particularly in Augusta, tend to be rabid about this initiative because it would force them to be responsible financial planners. We were promised the last time TABOR was close to passage that the state government in particular would be more responsible if only the public would reject TABOR. What we got for rejecting TABOR were more empty promises and lies.

It is claimed that the experience Colorado has with a TABOR-like act is very negative. I wish that Maine had grown as much as Colorado during the period that this concept was in effect in Colorado. There will always be horror stories associated with radical departures from business as usual. The devil is always in the details. But, TABOR-like laws in Colorado have benefited the state as well. It is time to exorcise our demons in Augusta. TABOR can go a long way towards this exorcism.

Question five is a Citizen Initiative to expand medical marijuana availability. Do you want to change the medical marijuana laws to allow treatment of more medical conditions and to create a regulated system of distribution? I confess that I am a child of the sixties. I remember Woodstock (both the event and comic strip character). However, I confess that I never smoked pot. I am a certified crisis counselor and have counseled drug abusers. The attraction of marijuana is a mystery to me. But, its proponents argue that it has great medial benefits. If so, why haven't the drug companies isolated the effective ingredients of marijuana and produced a saleable drug? The fact is that there are better and more effective prescription drugs for the purposes proposed by the advocates of pot smoking. I have not seen credible evidence that marijuana has anything more than a placebo effect. If a physician in Maine finds that a patient will benefit from marijuana, he/she can prescribe it or an equivalent drug. This initiative is another example of political nonsense overriding logic and science. I shall vote NO on this initiative.

Question six is another Bond Issue. Do you favor a $71,250,000 bond issue for improvements to highways and bridges, airports, public transit facilities, ferry and port facilities, including port and harbor structures, as well as funds for the LifeFlight Foundation that will make the State eligible for over $148,000,000 in federal and other matching funds? Once again, we are being asked to mortgage our future. If the State would show some restraint in spending funds allegedly reserved for the uses described in this question for unnecessary projects, this mortgaging would be less painful. I guess we need to grin and bear the pain if our roads are to remain passable.

Question seven is a Constitutional Amendment. Do you favor amending the Constitution of Maine to increase the amount of time that local officials have to certify the signatures on direct initiative petitions? Certifying petitions has apparently become such a burden that a constitutional amendment is required. My experience in this matter does not support the need for this amendment. But, Bar Harbor has fewer than 4,000 voters. Perhaps other communities are burdened by citizen initiatives. However, I suspect that politicians and special interest groups feel that their promises and lies may be obviated by such initiatives and wish to discourage them.

These are the questions that will appear on the November ballot. Republicans and other voters must decide how they will answer each of these questions. I've indicated the directions in which I lean and given reasons for my perspective. Regardless of how you feel, please vote. Let us all hold politicians responsible for their promises and lies.

You may express your point of view by sending your comments to davidwlind@myfairpoint.net. Any comments will be edited for length and to remove inappropriate language as necessry and posted on this website if the sender gives explicit permission to do so.