The debate over sexual orientation goes to the polls Tuesday, Nov. 8 in the form of referendum Question 1.

Simply put, Question 1 asks Mainers if they want to reject new legislation that would add “sexual orientation” to the Maine Human Rights Act, an act that currently protects people based on such things as ethnicity, religion, age and marital status. Voting yes means the law will be repealed. Voting no assures the law remains intact.

Advocates for the “No on 1” campaign say the law is supported by evident discrimination against homosexuals, bisexuals and transgender individuals – people who identify with the opposite sex and/or change their sex – in Maine. Without it, these people have no recourse for being fired from a job, denied housing, a room in a hotel or seat in a restaurant because of their sexual orientation, they say.

But advocates for the ‘YES on 1’ campaign say there is a deeper agenda, an agenda to pave the way for same-sex marriages in Maine and fear the wording of the law will “open the door” to many legal battles to come.

History of a law

For more than 25 years, the Maine State Legislature has debated adding sexual orientation as a right protected under the Maine Human Rights Act passed in 1971.

While Maine is the only New England state without a law protecting people from discrimination based on sexual orientation. It is one of 35 states in the nation without such a law.

In 1997, then-Governor Angus King signed a bill to include the rights of people with differing sexual orientations in the act.

But opponents of this new law gathered 58,000 signatures in opposition, enough to put the gay rights law on hold a mere day before it was to go into effect and enough to put the question on the ballot for a special mid-February, 1998 election.

And through this People’s Veto, with just 15 percent of the total number of registered voters participating, Maine became the first state in the nation to overturn a sexual orientation rights law after it was passed by the state legislature.

Critics of the People’s Veto, which passed 51 to 49 percent, blamed the defeat on poor voter turnout.

Two years later, when Sen. Joel Abromson, R-Portland, drafted a new gay rights bill requiring another statewide referendum, voting took place in November along with the presidential election, in order to garner a higher percentage of voters.

And again, the decision to add sexual orientation to Maine’s Human Rights Act was defeated; this time by an even smaller margin, 50.5 to 49.5 percent.

Now, history is repeating itself yet again. Although earlier this year Gov. John Baldacci signed a bill into law that would protect those with various sexual orientations from discrimination, it is once more being challenged by a People’s Veto.

Study of discrimination

Supporters of the new law cite a recent study done by the Center for Prevention of Hate Violence, an organization that has done similar studies for ethnic and religious discrimination in Maine.

That study documented 93 cases of alleged discrimination, 63 of which would be formally illegal if sexual orientation were added to the anti-discrimination law.

Those cases include discrimination in the workplace, housing, and public accommodations; cases where homosexuals have been fired after they were seen kissing their partner in the work parking lot, denied seats in restaurants, kicked out of inns, and in the most extreme, received death threats or were harassed out of jobs or schools.

According to Steve Wessler, executive director of the Center, discrimination against people of sexual orientation make up about three percent of all civil rights complaints received in the state. Age and gender make up the bulk of the complaints, and religion makes up 2 percent.

“We don’t protect people because we like them,” Wessler said. “We protect people because discrimination is wrong.”

Local voices

On Sunday at 10 a.m., Matthew Small of Windham will talk about his personal experience growing up gay in Maine at the North Windham Church. Small is openly gay and a self-professed Christian. He hopes to bring a local face to the debate over homosexual rights so the issue doesn’t seem so distant.

“Growing up in Maine, gay can be tough without the support of family,” Small said. “I feel very blessed. My family and church have been very supportive. However, I know many people are treated as less than equal and that’s where the heartbreak really occurs.”

Though he has never faced discrimination himself, he knows many who have, like a friend of his who was recently kicked out of his apartment because of his sexual orientation. Another friend had been harassed by classmates to the point that he had to drop out of school.

“I’ve seen discrimination happen in Maine and unfortunately when it happens the victims are not able to come forward because we don’t have a law that protects them,” Small said.

Another local activist, Dorothy Samuelson of Windham, doesn’t believe discrimination in Maine is a “big problem,” at least not as big as proponents of the law claim. She sees the law as giving homosexuals, bisexuals, and transgendered individuals “special rights” and believes they are already protected under the same laws that protect all Mainers.

“There will be reverse discrimination,” Samuelson said. “The pressure will be to give homosexuals the best chance because they are protected by law as a special class.”

Samuelson also has concerns about the law’s definition of sexual orientation, especially the wording “gender identity or expression” which she believes will open the law up to various interpretations.

Samuelson said that of the 15 states that currently have the sexual orientation amendment, only four states have the wording “gender identity or expression.” And this has led to problems in other states, she said.

“I have compassion for those that have made the choice of (alternative) lifestyles, but it is my belief that this law is the most radical law facing the nation today,” Samuelson said. “It’s my concern that this law will change the entire face of the state of Maine.”

Rosemary Ray of Naples agrees with Samuelson that the law’s wording is “too loose.”

“It’s very poorly worded,” Ray said. “The aspect real and perceived opens our society to too many problems.”

She points to a list of recognized “sexual orientations” as defined by the American Psychiatric Association. That list ranges from heterosexuality, homosexuality and bisexuality to voyeurism, fetishism, and pedophilia. These latter three worry her and she believes the wording will “open the door” to a number legal problems.

“It’s too loose,” Ray said. “And whether we like it or not, we need boundaries in life.”

She and Samuelson both worry that the law will also infringe upon people’s right to speak out against or disagree with the homosexual lifestyle and that the new law will lead to same-sex marriages and teaching of homosexuality in schools, which some say is already happening.

They point to the case of David Parker, a Boston-parent who objected to his son learning about “homosexual themes” in school and was jailed after he refuse to leave school grounds.

Tim Russell, legislative liaison for Coalition for Marriage – a “Yes on 1” advocacy and political action group organized by the Christian Civic League – also takes issue with the wording “gender identity or expression.”

“Based on the definition of sexual orientation, part of which is ‘perceived,’ this would permit a man to show up at work or school in a dress,” Russell said. “How do you tell someone’s gender identity or perceived sexual expression? That means any man can claim that he can walk into any women’s facility?”

Assistant Attorney General Chuck Dow said that it would be “up to the courts to decide where the line is on gender identity and expression.”

Nicole Clegg, spokesperson for Maine Won’t Discriminate says that the wording of the law is “nothing new” and has been the standard wording for similar laws adopted after 2001.

The language “gender identity or expression” addresses transgendered individuals, she says, a medical condition where an individual identifies with and desires to be a member of the opposite sex.

Marriage in the mixer

While Maine Won’t Discriminate says the debate is over “nothing more” than discrimination, the issue of same-sex marriage has been a major contention of the Coalition for Marriage.

“Clearly the governor and his supporters and homosexual activist are ignoring the will of the people and they passed,” Tim Russell said. “This will be the third time that Maine has voted on this issue.”

He believes the discrimination law is an assault on the constitution and “stepping stone” toward homosexual marriage and that the law will jeopardize the Defense of Marriage Act which states that marriage is between a man and a woman in the state of Maine.

“Marriage predates any law,” Russell said. “Marriage was not instituted by man, marriage is an ideal, an ideal that man and woman complemented each other. Society has an vested interested in marriage.”

Russell argues that same-sex marriages are not good for children and that “a loving and compassionate family would never allow a motherless or fatherless family”

He asserts that the new discrimination law would force the state to adopt same-sex marriage because no law can hold up against Maine’s Constitution, of which the Maine Human Rights Act is a part.

But Assistant Attorney General Dow says since the discrimination law is a statute, it has no leverage over the Defense of Marriage Act, he said.

“As a legal matter, it would be on equal level with the (Defense of Marriage Act),” Dow said.

Furthermore, there is language in Section 23 of the law that states that the discrimination law cannot act against any other law.

Maine Won’t Discriminate calls the whole discussion of same-sex marriage “irrelevant” in the referendum. The real issue and reason for the law is discrimination, he said.

“For us, we’re trying to make the people realize that discrimination is real and this law will give all citizens the legal protection that all citizens are entitled to,” said spokesperson Jesse Connolly.

Connolly’s group believes the bipartisan support shown by the Maine Legislature gives it clout.

Choice

The question of whether homosexuality is a “choice” has been a sticking point for the Coalition for Marriage who has distributed material saying, “Homosexuals are not born gay” and that a “NO” vote on Question 1 is a formal approval of what they perceive as a “wrong choice.”

“There is no scientific evidence that homosexuals are born this way,” Russell said. “I see it as a lifestyle that God never designed.”

Delene Perley of Windham, who has been married for 45 years, believes homosexuality is not a choice and thinks there is a need to protect against discrimination toward people of differing sexual orientations.

“Why would anyone choose to be gay and incur this kind of wrath,” Perley said. “I think this is something that comes from within.”

Perley said she has close friends who have been discriminated against, one of whom had been refused medical attention because they were homosexual.

“I have a number of friends who are gay and they tell me about times that they have been badly treated,” Perley said.

She knows no law will change people’s minds about homosexuality, but hopes it will change the actions of some people who have discriminated against homosexuals in the past.

She believes the opposition is using “the scare tactics” by bringing the issue of choice and same-sex marriage into the debate. She says religion is a choice too, but it is nevertheless defended under the Human Rights Act.

“We are not going to change any people’s minds, but we can change their actions,” she said.