Could Philip Spooner be the key in Maine's same-sex marriage vote?
An unlikely folk hero has emerged from the debate over same-sex marriage in Maine. On Tuesday, voters will decide whether to go along with the Legislature's legalization of same-sex marriage in the state or whether to kill it via a "people's veto."
If voters defeat Question 1 -- meaning if they affirm the right of gay and lesbian couples to marry -- Maine will become the first state to support same-sex marriage at the ballot box. So far, such marriages have been legalized only through court rulings or legislative action.
Polls have shown an extremely tight race, and supporters of same-sex marriage have been hoping to get a boost from an 87-year-old World War II veteran who has become the Internet face of opposition to Question 1. Close to 600,000 people have watched Philip Spooner on YouTube, recounting in a public hearing earlier this year the wrenching sights of blood and death he saw in action and his belief that the sacrifice was in support of a nation that extends equal rights to all.
Spooner, a lifelong Republican, and his late wife raised four sons, one of whom is gay. It's unthinkable to him, he said in the tremulous voice of old age, that three of his sons will enjoy rights denied to the fourth.
"This is what we fought for in World War II," he said, "that idea that we can be different and still be equal."
Maine residents might be traditionalists by nature, but they also have a reputation as independent sorts who take a live-and-let-live attitude toward life. Spooner is, as gay-marriage supporters see him, the epitome of that fierce independence.
Let's hope Maine voters have been a big part of Spooner's Internet audience.
-- Karin Klein
Photo credit: Damian Dovarganes / Associated Press
I hope for all the good people in Maine that NO on 1 side prevails- marriage equality is essential.My stomach is in knots just like it was last year with Prop 8 ;this practice of putting civil rights up for a vote is barbaric.My own neighborhood is still divided and it was all so unnecessary.Prop 8 only delayed marriage equality in CA,it will be the law once again.Unfortunately the bad feelings will take much longer to go away.
Posted by: Mike | November 02, 2009 at 11:12 AM
Poor guy, he doesn't know the real issue here is genetic engineering, separating procreatiob rights from marriage so that couples can be forced to use modified or donated sperm and their right to use their own genes is eliminated. His son can get all the protections he needs with Civil Unions defined as "marriage minus conception rights" so that marriage can continue to protect the right of the couple to procreate together using their own genes.
SAme-sex procreation would be unethical and unwise, and should be prohibited along with other forms of genetic engineering of children.
Posted by: John Howard | November 02, 2009 at 11:18 AM
John Howard you are a moron.
Posted by: John | November 02, 2009 at 11:34 AM
I hope Maine, like the rest of America, finally does the right thing...I recently saw an Anglican priest on the Stephen Colbert show. He said 60 years ago he would have hoped he would have had the courage not to defend segregation and 160 years ago he hoped he would have had the fortitude not to defend slavery. He went on to say the Bible has been used on both occasions to uphold an institution that was unjust. And today he stands for equal rights for gay and lesbians. I am from Canada (where equal rights for gays and lesbians is enshrined in the constitution) now living in the Middle East. One of my students recently came to me in tears wanting to kill himself because his family rejected him because he was gay...I offered comfort and support to a student who despite this, like many others here, is openly gay...Openly gay in a society where one could be drowned by their family members in the pool for being gay, and society would turn a blind eye, calling this act an honor killing. How can so many young people in the Middle East (and I mean many), far more than any university population I've seen in the U.S. or Canada, come out as being gay despite this stigma...This definitely speaks to a larger issue: that the United States needs to start taking a leadership role on real human rights issues in the world today, including the push for marriage for gay and lesbians...Do the words never again –spoken after a war Phillip Spooner fought in – mean nothing? When will everyone finally realize that religion or personal beliefs or those arcane beliefs of their family or friends should not be the barometer for social issues of our day...until we are free none of us.
Posted by: ivyleaguer | November 02, 2009 at 11:49 AM
Re John Howard - shouldn't there be some intelligence test before posting on these forums?
Posted by: Pat Wright | November 02, 2009 at 11:50 AM
"Genetic engineering of children!?" I'll be polite and just say you're stretching things beyond reason.
I want a husband, not a frankenkiddie.
Posted by: hyhybt | November 02, 2009 at 12:39 PM
Hmm, people seem to not believe me. Here, read this article about Stanford researchers creating stem-cell derived gametes that would enable lesbian and gay couples to have biological children together:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1223617/No-men-OR-women-needed-artificial-sperm-eggs-created-time.html
Same-sex couples should not have equal rights as a married man and a woman, they should not be allowed to conceive children with each other. All marriages should be allowed to procreate together, with the couple's own genes. Same-sex marriage either allows procreation, or it strips procreation rights from everyone's marriage.
Posted by: John Howard | November 02, 2009 at 12:53 PM
Re John Howard - shouldn't there be some intelligence test before posting on these forums?
Posted by: Pat Wright | November 02, 2009 at 11:50 AM
-----------------------------------------------------------
This was the test... and he failed miserably.
Posted by: John | November 02, 2009 at 01:01 PM
I am always flabbergasted at people who somehow think that The Bible supports homosexual behavior of any kind. It's as though we are reading a different Bible. Their arguments are inevitably (1) incorrect translation, or (2) some contextual mistake. Folks, get a grip. The Bible condemns homosexuality in the strongest of terms, and for a priest of any stripe, whether Anglican or otherwise, to support homosexuality is utterly illogical to me. Now, I'm not saying they can't make an argument. All I'm saying is don't use the Bible.
Posted by: SJA | November 02, 2009 at 01:16 PM
Why does it have to be gay "marriage"? Why do we have do redefine marriage? Marriage between a single man an woman is part of our cultural bedrock - for the purpose of conceiving and rearing children. Why destroy a formula that has worked so well for thousands of years, just because a few want to redefine it? Society has a very real and vested interest in encouraging those kinds of marriages that produce children who will contribute productively when they grow up. As for adults who love each other and live together - that's fine but kids need both a mom and a dad, who both contribute in different and important ways. I know it's harsh, but gay "marriage" is a societal dead-end.
Posted by: lightdee | November 02, 2009 at 02:53 PM
"...recounting in a public hearing earlier this year the wrenching sights of blood and death he saw in action and his belief that the sacrifice was in support of a nation that extends equal rights to all."
Equal rights to all in marriage, right, regardless of the combination? That's what he's saying?
But no, that's not what he's saying, unless he means also the equal right for any person to marry any other person who they wish to, and as long as it's consensual to all parties in the marriage.
And, if he really means what he says, this would include brothers and sisters, or brothers and brothers, or sisters and sisters who wanted to marry each other, or more than two people who wanted to marry, or persons under the legal age who wanted to marry and had the intelligence to give consent.
If marriage was just a "fundamental right", this is what it would mean.
But, you are all screaming, "How DARE you? OF COURSE it doesn't mean that! That's an INSULT!"
Which is just how many people, myself included, felt at the time of Loving v. Virginia. That, though the right to marry regardless of race or religion was fundamental, OF COURSE the right to marry didn't mean two of the same gender.
Let's be honest. The debate is NOT about a "fundamental right to marriage". It's about extending marriage to same-sex couples, and ONLY about extending it to same-sex couples.
That is the specific debate, not a "fundamental right to marriage". If it were about the latter, it would be about ANY person marrying ANY other person, regardless of race, gender, genetic relationship, age, or number of persons in the marriage, as long as all consented.
But I understand why it is necessary to play smoke and mirrors here.
Posted by: R.K. | November 02, 2009 at 04:46 PM
lightdee: That's true, single parents and gay couples are entirely unable to raise kind, productive, contributing future adults. Next thing you knw we'll have a president who was raised by a single mom or something!! Oh.... wait....
As a Mainer I hope and pray that we collectively do the right thing tomorrow and Vote No on One!!! And as a single mother I hope and pray that I raise my children to be kind, accepting, productive adults despite thier tragic "dead-end" of not having a father in thier life.
Posted by: Kate | November 02, 2009 at 06:44 PM
I'm hoping for No on 1, just like how I voted for No on 8. I'm scared the ignorant people, like John Howard, will win.
My aunt and uncle cannot have children, unfortunately. My aunt had problems that prevent her from getting pregnant. Thery're both still married. I support that marriage even though they can't have kids. Marriage isn't always about kids.
"Why destroy a formula that has worked so well for thousands of years, just because a few want to redefine it?"
I'm pretty sure the divorce rate refutes the statement you just said. And the funny thing is that this "societal dead end" proves to be the best thing for Mass, which has the lowest divorce rate of all 50 states. Marriage is about genuine love. Just because it happens to be two men or two women doesn't change that aspect of genuine love.
Posted by: Michael | November 02, 2009 at 07:21 PM
So lightdee, according to your logic, a man and a woman-- one of whom is sterile-- shouldn't be permitted to marry, right? isn't that exactly what you're sayng: that marriage is for procreation, and that's pretty much it? Fine-- nullify all of the opposite-sex marriages all across the USA in which no children have been, or will be, produced!
Posted by: steve04074 | November 02, 2009 at 07:30 PM
Gays....puhlease just get a lawyer and get off the
marriage train!!! You people are so damn selfish trying to make all of us "accept" you re lifestyle!! Personally I am looking forward to defending Christians and voting down "special rghts"!!!
Posted by: Cheryl | November 02, 2009 at 07:37 PM
John Howard, why don't you have a look at this if you are convinced gays do not procreate or sustain stable married relationships for child rearing:
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gCdZqWgPVPTXeB1bQGw_j7YOIvHAD9BNP59G0
Also, SJA, if you were referring to my post and the Bible, I never said the pastor used the Bible to defend marriage for gays and lesbians...he said he didn't use the Bible as a reason NOT to encourage marriage for gays and lesbians...And lightdee we experimented with separate but equal...that ultimately led to the holocaust at one extreme and segregation and apartheid at another...same sex marriages do not hinder nor affect in any negative way children, nor straight couples who are married. All this negative rhetoric is just an excuse because many of you simply do not like gay people, which is not a valid argument for suppressing a rights to group.
Posted by: ivyleaguer | November 03, 2009 at 12:14 AM
@lightdee
Because time and time again America has done the right thing and affirmed that separate but equal is NOT equal. It wasn't equal when Blacks were segregated and it isn't equal now when gays and lesbians are kept out of marriage. This is why it has to be gay "marriage" and not domestic partnership, not civil union, not registered cohabitation but 100% marriage.
Well gay "civil" marriage. I would love to walk down the aisle one day like my sister did at our church with the man I love just like she did when she married my brother in law but I respect the decision of the Church to make its own rules. Supporters of same sex marriage do not want to impose same sex marriage on any church or religious institution. All we want is civil marriage recognized by our secular government.
Marriage has not always meant the same thing. Different societies, eras and cultures have constantly changed what a marriage looks like.
I would probably assume you would be hard-pressed to withhold marriage from heterosexual sterile couples or heterosexual couples who do not wish to have children. Even though your argument that marriage is reserved for "conceiving or rearing children" would eliminate this right to these couples as well.
Its not "just a few" who wish marriage equality for gay and lesbian Americans. There are millions of supporters, gays and lesbians and their relatives, friends, neighbors and co-workers who are growing more and more convinced that refusing gay and lesbian full access to civil marriage is wrong, mean-spirited and has no rational basis.
I strongly agree with you that society does have a real vested interested in promoting families. Which is why adopted children who are raised by same sex couples deserve to have their parents treated equally and their families respected. Study after study say that children raised by same sex couples do just as well as those in a heterosexual couple. Society as whole is even better off when children can be raised in loving homes with parents in a committed, respected and honored relationship regardless of their sexual orientation.
Children need love, support, mentor ship, and guidance. This can come from same sex couples as well.
What better way to strengthen marriage, reinforce marriage, celebrate marriage, protect marriage than to welcome in a group so eager to show their willingness to take on this responsibility?
Posted by: Heber | November 03, 2009 at 12:22 AM
@SJA - The previous posts are not saying that the Bible supports homosexuality, rather that the Bible has been used in the past as it is today, to support a practice that has later been overturned (slavery, then segregation.) The Bible also states, however, that the eating of shellfish and pork is an abomination and those who do it should be put to death. So when's the protest set for outside Red Lobster and Sizzler?
@lightdee - If marriage has been the same for thousands of years, why do husbands no longer own their wives? Why can husbands no longer legally rape their wives? Why can married couples get a "no-fault" divorce? Why can straight people marry as many times as they want (marry, divorce, marry someone else, divorce, etc.) If marriage is just about producing children, then why is it not a law to force married people to have children? Why are older couples who cannot conceive allowed to marry? You are defining marriage in the narrow view of "produce children." What about love?
Posted by: Brian | November 03, 2009 at 06:04 AM
there has never been a necessity for procreation to be legally wed, what are you people blabbering on about? So many children are born outside of marriage, and plenty of people marry and chose not to have children, or are infertile. Perhaps you should actually realize that you're arguing an irrelevant argument.
Posted by: adam | November 03, 2009 at 06:42 AM
Good point John Howard
Posted by: Matthew | November 03, 2009 at 11:17 AM
Umm, for any believer in the Bible to think it OK's gay marriage is reading what he wants to read rather than what it says. This priest is nuts. Gays already have rights.
Posted by: Brick | November 03, 2009 at 11:19 AM
All his sons have the same rights: to marry women or stay single
Posted by: Linda | November 03, 2009 at 01:27 PM
"All his sons have the same rights: to marry women or stay single"
++++I wish I could remember the name of the principle, but that doesn't wash. It's like passing a law against churches, then saying that "Everyone has the same rights: to worship in the mosque, or to stay home."
Far from exactly the same, but the principle carries over.
Posted by: hyhybt | November 04, 2009 at 09:44 AM