At a separate ceremony late today President Obama gave additional remarks about the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crime Prevention Act which he signed into law earlier today as a part of the 2010 Defense Authorization bill.

With November 4 rapidly approaching and a narrow lead in the polls, the Bangor Daily News and the Portland Press Herald have come out against Question 1 by supporting marriage equality in Maine.

From the Bangor Daily News…

Everyone must be treated equally under the state and U.S. Constitution. Denying civil marriage rights to same-sex couples violates that tenet.

Further, extending the right of marriage to a small segment of the population that has been excluded furthers the state’s interest in promoting stable families and communities. The Maine legislation also took important steps, mirroring the state’s Human Rights Law, to respect religious freedom and traditions. No church will be compelled to perform or recognize marriages that run counter to its faith. This strikes the difficult balance of respecting religious freedom while ensuring equality.

From the Portland Press Herald…

While this change in the law could seem abrupt to some Maine voters, it reflects the way people are really living now in cities and towns all over our state. That’s why we urge people to vote “no,” to allow this reasonable law to go into effect.

Leaders of the people’s veto campaign argue that extending the rights and responsibilities of civil marriage to families headed by same-sex couples would have broad effects throughout society. We have listened to their arguments, but we just don’t buy them.

While it’s technically true that the law would change the wording of the definition of marriage in state statute, it would not change the institution as it exists in Maine for thousands of traditional couples. Those vows would not be any weaker if same-sex couples were allowed to take them. Marriage would remain the key foundation for creating families, with the rights and responsibilities that come with it spelled out in the law, whether those families are headed by same- or opposite-sex couples.

Limiting marriage to a man and a woman would not make families led by same-sex couples go away. It would just keep them in a legally inferior position that is inconsistent with Maine’s tradition of equal protection under the law.

Gay men and women already live together, own property and have children, both biological and adopted. They hold responsible jobs, they volunteer in churches and schools – they are full members of our communities. The only thing they cannot do is form the legal partnership that gives them the advantages and duties that other couples have when they start families. The same-sex couples are not the only losers. This also puts their children at a disadvantage.

Sound, sensible arguments to be sure, but since when has logic gotten in the way of those who use their faith as a means to justify their hate?

Update: YouTube has yanked this ad as it appears SMM violated National Public Radio’s copyright. Woohoo!

Stand For Marriage Maine has started running this ad.

This despite the fact that Maine’s own Attorney General published a Legal Opinion stating:

“Whatever the benefits and burdens of the civil institution of marriage, the state’s definition of marriage has no bearing on the curricula in our public schools, either under current law or under LD 1020. Neither the Parker decision nor passage of LD 1020 “requires” or “allows” the teaching of any particular subject in our schools, in answer to the citizen question attached to your letter.”

I suppose when you can’t make logical arguments to support your case, you have to resort to FUD (Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt). I just hope the independent minded citizen of Maine take the time to read the Maine AG’s legal opinion and see this ad for the FUD that it is.

Update: The White House disavows the statement. From the Plum Line:

“That sentiment does not reflect White House thinking at all, we’ve held easily a dozen calls with the progressive online community because we believe the online communities can often keep the focus on how policy will affect the American people rather than just the political back-and-forth.”

Oh. No. They. Didn’t.

Nice try invalidating our march. Sure, we’re just like the fringe that believed women should have the right to vote. And the fringe that demanded civil rights for blacks.

From John Avarosis @ Americablog:

So the gay community, and its concerns about President Obama’s inaction, and backtracking, on DADT and DOMA, are now, according to President Obama’s White House, part of a larger “fringe” that acts like small children who play in their pajamas and need to grow up. (And a note to our readers: The White House just included all of you in that loony “left fringe.”)

I wonder how the Human Rights Campaign is going to explain how the White House just knifed our community less than 24 hours after he went to their dinner and claimed he was our friend.

Ditto.

If standing up for equality means I’m part of the Internet Left Fringe, then I wear the badge proudly, & so should everyone else. Badge below.