Though the National Organization for Marriage is desperately highlighting letters to the editor from Maine residents opposing equality, one prominent newspaper has taken a stand for equality. Today, the Bangor Daily News endorsed Question 1 for marriage equality, calling it “a matter of fairness” and “a matter of equality.” The editorial explains why the freedom to marry will not impinge on anybody’s religious beliefs:

Some people may understandably oppose gay marriage for religious reasons, but — while the church has played a long and important role in marriage — they should remember that marriage licenses are issued by the state.

They should also remember that no one is trying to change their beliefs. Clergy will not be forced to perform marriage ceremonies or bless gay couples. The legal freedom that protects clergy, allowing them the ability to choose whom to join in marriage, is the same legal freedom gay couples are seeking to be able to marry. Extending legal protections to the few does not hurt the majority.

The endorsement also notes that civil unions are insufficient recognition for same-sex couples, because marriage is the “most accurate representation” of “public recognition of the private love.” If equality passes in Maine next week, it will be the first time a state recognizes same-sex marriage thanks to a grassroots ballot initiative effort. The Bangor Daily News hopes that “voters affirm Maine as a place where people value the rights of all their neighbors equally.”

A poll last month showed that 56.6 percent of Maine voters will do just that.

Maine state Rep. Stacey Fitts (R) voted against the bill to advance marriage equality in 2009 and avoided participating in the referendum to veto that bill, decisions he now looks back upon as “chicken thing[s] to do.” This year, Allen is openly supporting the ballot initiative to pass marriage equality in hopes of undoing previous mistakes. Fitts spoke with MPBN about how he caved to pressure from fellow Republicans even though his mind was already changing on the issue:

FITTS: As a Republican, I think any time you take a position that get outside the boundaries of your caucus, you can become alienated and less effective. And my role in serving my constituents is to remain as effective as I can. Now, looking back, was that my personal position? Ehh, probably not. I probably, inside, would have loved to have been able to vote for it. In that game of survivor that is the Legislature, you don’t want to be outside the group – that the group means something, and has value.

Now, the Republican lawmaker is proudly standing up for the values he hid from three years ago:

FITTS: I’ve just seen, for me, how important this is to the families that exist today that would love the opportunity to be families like everybody else and be married.

Watch Fitts’ ad for Mainers United for Marriage:

The National Organization for Marriage (NOM) has been the main funder of Maine’s anti-marriage equality ballot efforts. And while it has yet to disclose its donors, NOM is proudly promoting the large sums of money flowing to Protect Marriage Maine — from NOM.

In a post titled “Maine Opponents of Question 1 (Gay Marriage) Raise Almost $1M in Final Weeks,” on NOM Blog Tuesday, NOM highlighted a Morning Sentinel story about amount Protect Marriage Maine, the main group opposing Question 1:

We’re closing the gap in Maine!

The Morning Sentinel:

Opponents of same-sex marriage raised nearly $950,000 in October, a major push toward the end of the campaign as voters get ready to head to the polls Nov. 6.

But, the article continues to note, “The bulk of the money came from the National Organization for Marriage, which donated $800,000, and the Knights of Columbus, which chipped in $100,000, according to a campaign finance report filed with the state just before midnight Friday.”

NOM claims momentum based solely on its own contribution accounting for more than 84 percent of the October fundraising. Polls continue to show marriage equality likely to win next Tuesday.

A series of new ads running against marriage equality in Maine are relying on the National Organization for Marriage’s self-victimization tactics, and they are misleading as ever.

In the first spot, Jim and Mary O’Reilly of the Wildflower Inn in Vermont claim, “A lesbian couple sued us for not supporting their gay wedding because of our Christian beliefs. We had to pay $30,000 and can no longer host any weddings at our inn.” Of course, this claim has nothing to do with the existence of marriage equality in Vermont, but with the state’s nondiscrimination laws. Vermont prohibits discrimination based on sexual orientation, and when the O’Reilly’s settled their suit with the lesbian couple, they admitted that they had broken the law. They very well could have paid more than $30,000 if they had gone to court instead of settling. The only reason they are no longer hosting any weddings at their inn is because they were so insistent on discriminating against same-sex couples that they voluntarily agreed that not offering weddings to anyone was the only way they could comply with the law. Here’s the new 30-second version of the ad:

In the second ad, Damian Goddard claims that he was fired as a Canadian sportscaster — yes, Canada — after he tweeted support for a sports agent who opposed marriage equality. Of course, Goddard leaves out a few important details. First of all, he had a whole spate of anti-gay tweets, not just one of agreement. Secondly, his employer, Sportsnet, made it clear that his tweets were only the final straw in a series of problems that led the network to conclude “he is not the right fit for our organization.” Lastly, Goddard was a freelance contractor, so he had no long-term contract to guarantee his continued employment in the first place. Since leaving Sportsnet, Goddard has become spokesman for NOM’s “Marriage Anti-Defamation Alliance,” which exists solely to manufacture victim stories like his and the O’Reilly’s. Watch it:

The Anti-Defamation Alliance has a new story of its own, and it seems like its subject might get his own Maine ad as well. Don Mendell is a high school counselor and notorious anti-gay activist who in 2009 appeared in an ad against marriage equality falsely claiming that school students would be forced to learn about same-sex marriage. Because this presented a concern for his ability to counsel gay students, he was investigated by the state’s licensing board, but the complaint was ultimately dismissed and no lawsuit was filed. He was never actually subjected to “defamation,” merely held accountable for his exclusive beliefs. The NOM video, unsurprisingly, paints a different picture. Watch it:

Frank Schubert

Frank Schubert is the media guru behind all four anti-marriage equality campaigns currently underway, and despite the myths his ads regularly reinforce, he doesn’t believe he’s causing that much harm. In an interview with Michelangelo Signorile, he proved that he can’t even justify that arguments that he makes in his ads, demonstrating that he is motivated more by anti-gay animus and heterosexual supremacy than any real concern for “marriage.”

Toward the end of the segment, Signorile cornered Schubert about why he isn’t campaigning against same-sex adoption instead of marriage. Since the most prominent theme of his efforts are the supposed threat posed to children by same-sex marriage (like in the infamous Proposition 8 “Princess” ad), it doesn’t make sense that he would be opposing marriage in Maine, for example, instead of Maine’s two-parent adoption laws. The exchange (abridged below) shows how little substance anti-equality arguments actually have:

SCHUBERT: I will say that the issue here is not about adoption or whether gay couples love their children or should be able to have children. They have that right. I’m not objecting to it. What I’m objecting to is redefining marriage to accommodate that desire. [...]

SIGNORILE: You keep arguing that children do best in a heterosexual marriage…

SCHUBERT: This is not a controversial statement… I’m saying children do better with a mother and a father…

SIGNORILE: But you have a sister with children — who is a lesbian — and you should be trying to stop her from having children then.

SCHUBERT: I’m not! That’s ridiculous. You’re making a silly argument. Having children, by itself, is not a reason to redefine marriage. It’s just that simple.

Listen to Signorile’s full interview with Schubert:

Reflecting on the interview, Signorile observes that Schubert’s motivation doesn’t seem to be the issue of marriage itself:

But why isn’t he on that crusade if he truly believes that children do better in heterosexual households, as his campaign rhetoric claims? The only answer is that his money is coming from the folks trying to ban gay marriage, not from those trying to ban gay adoption. And that’s what it seems to be all about for Schubert: money.

In fact, a report released today from the Human Rights Campaign shows that Schubert has netted nearly $3 million for his work with the National Organization for Marriage on the campaigns in Maine, Maryland, Minnesota, and Washington, plus almost another $1 million for his work in North Carolina earlier this year. He seems prepared to polish whatever message will keep the money flowing, but it’s clear from this interview that there’s no weight to the foreboding threats made in the ads he produces.