Last Tuesday, Stand for Marriage Maine released this ad. I wrote about it last Wednesday in a post called “New ‘Yes’ Ad Wants You to Vote for ‘Separate but Equal’

It’s always been clear that the ‘Yes on 1’ campaign has been deeply based in homophobia, and this ad is no different.

 

It’s ironic, then, that they would even try to claim that they would accept domestic partnerships. The ‘No on 1’ campaign thought so too. So they totally called them out on it.

This is from a press release they sent out on Friday:

 “Yes Campaign Ad Promoting Domestic Partnerships a Sham: Biggest  Funders, Managers Opposed DP”

 Portland, Maine (October 30, 2009)---The NO on 1 campaign charged that the  biggest backers and manager of the Yes campaign have opposed domestic  partnerships for same-sex couples for years, even though their latest political ad  promotes Maine's domestic partner registry.

 After weeks of a paid advertising campaign that attacked Maine schools --attacks  that were rejected by Maine newspapers, the Commissioner of Education, the  Attorney General and others -- the Yes campaign released a new ad this week  applauding the state's DP registry as sufficient to protect same-sex couples and  their families.

 But in fact, campaign manager Mark Mutty, as director of public affairs for the  Roman Catholic Diocese of Portland, opposed the DP registry bill both in 2003  and again in 2004 when it passed in the Maine Legislature. In addition, Mutty and  others associated with the Yes campaign were silent on the alternative bill to the  marriage equality legislation this spring which would have expanded the DP  registry.

 "This is the height of hypocrisy and double-talk," said Jesse Connolly, NO on 1  campaign manager. "Their new ad actually invokes domestic partnership as a  solution, yet they're on record either directly or by their silence as opposing even  this measure of protection."

 In testimony submitted for the 2003 DP bill entitled "An Act to Promote the  Financial Security of Maine's Families and Children," Mutty wrote and signed on  behalf of the Roman Catholic Diocese of Portland:

 "Our opposition to LD 1579 is foremost rooted in moral and ethical principles that  are not only applicable to Catholics, but serve society well as a whole. However  there are more practical considerations…Several attorneys who have reviewed  this bill have indicated their strong conviction that such a drastic change in the  code would lead to mass confusion in the courts and tie up probate claims for  months without clear resolution. These are but a few of the perhaps unintended  consequences that such a measure would bring to Maine."

 "When I wrote Maine's domestic partner registry law, no group fought against it  harder than the Roman Catholic Diocese," said former State Representative  Benjamin Dudley, sponsor of the bill creating Maine's domestic partner registry.  "Now the Diocese, through its campaign against marriage equality, says they 'want  to be tolerant of gays' and stands behind the registry law they fought so hard to  defeat. I'd call that the height of irony."

 […]

They also held a press conference featuring Campaign Manager Jesse Connolly and former State Rep. Ben Dudley.

 

Every same-sex couple in Maine wants to be honest about who they are and what their relationship means. Many of them, in their hearts, already consider themselves married to their partner. And why shouldn’t they? Maybe of them would be legally married today if they could. These couples are hurting because they are second-class citizens. The way they live their lives day to day shows just how normal they are. Right now, inequality is their reality. Tomorrow, the people of Maine have the chance to change that.

 

With this ad, though, Stand for Marriage Maine lies through their teeth about the lives of these every-day people. They say that the benefits of domestic partnerships are adequate for same-sex couples. Ask any same-sex couple if this is true, and you’ll get the honest answer.

Tomorrow, Maine can show the nation that lying about their loved ones is not acceptable by voting NO on 1.

~ Samantha