A proposed poster citing God as a reason to vote against marriage equality in Maine.

Jeremy Hooper discovered Protect Marriage Maine’s “Church Kit,” a guide to help churches engage in political advocacy against the marriage equality referendum. In it, campaign chairman Bob Emrich, who also admitted this week that he believes “homosexual behavior” is “unnatural and wrong,” claims that “God is the author of marriage” and that “God intended children to be raised” only by opposite-sex parents. He then attempts to scare congregants with the false claim that their religious freedom is in danger:

Many people mistakenly believe that allowing “same-sex” marriage would not threaten their own traditional marriages. They mistakenly presume that all marriages can simply coexist, including those of the “same-sex”variety. However, the reality is a new, redefined (genderless) version of marriage would be the only legally recognized definition of marriage for anyone in Maine. And experience elsewhere establishes those who do not agree with this redefinition of marriage – whether for moral, religious, personal or any other reason – will soon find themselves facing consequences.

He goes on to cite incongruous examples about pastors preaching against homosexuality in other countries, suggesting that “the word of God will be considered outright bigotry.” Emrich also threatens that churches could lose their tax-exempt status, using the example of the New Jersey Methodist pavilion, a case that had nothing to do with religious tax exemptions.

As was seen in the Chick-fil-A debacle this summer, Emrich is clearly attempting to drive a wedge between Christianity and the LGBT community, erasing all LGBT Christians and their allies in the process. The kit also makes it blatantly clear that opposition to marriage equality is driven by an effort to impose one set of religious beliefs on an entire state. What Protect Marriage Maine is really doing is using Christianity as a crux for reinforcing hetero-supremacy in society; a “genderless version of marriage” is bad because it means straight people don’t get to be more special than gay people. It’s not difficult to see how opposing a “redefinition” is just code for defending inequality.

Mike Heath

Mike Heath is leading one of the efforts to oppose marriage equality — what he calls “sodomy based marriage“ — in Maine this year through his “No Special Rights PAC.” Having worked hand in hand with the Family Research Council’s Tony Perkins in the past, Heath felt the need to join the exploitation campaign of this week’s tragic shooting at the FRC headquarters. Rather than just attack the Southern Poverty Law Center’s “hate group” label, Heath simply draws a direct connection between homosexuality and violence:

HEATH: If Maine doesn’t end this decades long conflict over the evil of sodomy with an overwhelming NO vote in November we can expect to see this sort of violence in Maine in the near future. Homosexuality can lead to the most horrific and violent consequences in individuals and society. The twin cities of Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed because of it.

Heath has also applied for a concealed weapons permit, claiming it is the responsibility of all good men to be prepared to protect innocence from evil.

One movement is advocating for equality in the form of economic security and personal safety. The other is trying to erase a group of people from society through societal stigma, harmful identity-erasing therapy, criminal sanctions, and deportation. It’s not that difficult to make sense of which side of the culture war is “incendiary.”

Maine Secretary of State Charlie Summers has finalized the wording for the ballot question inviting voters to vote yes for marriage equality. There was great debate over the initially proposed language, with advocates on both sides concerned the language did not fairly represent the question. Now, it seems both sides approve of the wording. Here’s how it progressed:

ORIGINAL MAINERS UNITED PROPOSAL: Do you favor a law allowing marriage licenses for same-sex couples that protects religious freedom by ensuring no religion or clergy be required to perform such a marriage in violation of their religious beliefs?

SUMMERS’ FIRST PROPOSAL: Do you want to allow same-sex couples to marry?

SUMMERS’ FINAL LANGUAGE: Do you want to allow the State of Maine to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples?

Mainers United for Marriage supports the language because it clarifies that the law only pertains to civil, not religious, marriage. Unsurprisingly, Protect Marriage Maine would have preferred it ask about “redefining marriage,” but chairman Bob Emrich said he’s glad it doesn’t include “misleading” language about religious liberty protections. The anti-gay coalition, affiliated with the National Organization for Marriage, would likely not settle for any “religious liberty” that isn’t an across-the-board option to discrimination.

Meet four generations of Harlan Gardner’s family to understand why marriage matters in Maine:

Charles Summers.

Since 2005, the Maine Human Rights Act has legally protected LGBT Mainers from workplace discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender expression. This law is so popular in the state that a ballot initiative to repeal them in 2010 failed to receive enough signatures to even merit a vote. But Maine Secretary of State Charlie Summers, the Republican candidate for Senate, appeared to oppose the Maine Human Rights Act in remarks cited by local columnist Chris Busby:

Maria Holt, a former state legislator from Bath who served with Summers in Augusta when the anti-discrimination measure was being debated, was on the phone. “But, my dear old friend, if your private life keeps you from getting a rental …”

Summers cut her off. “Well, I certainly know what you’re talking about,” he said. (He does?) He then listed several business groups — including the Maine Chamber of Commerce, the Maine Innkeepers Association and the Maine Restaurant Association — that “do not support that type of discrimination.”

“I think that that is their choice and they’re doing it on their own volition,” Summers told Holt. “That is really the difference in the approach between you and I.”

Summers’ campaign failed to respond to repeated requests for clarification from ThinkProgress. This may be because Summers’ position is not only unpopular even among Republicans, but also indefensible: discrimination against LGBT workers is widespread, devastating for its victims, and bad for business. Summers’ position – that employers should simply choose not to discriminate – flies in the face of the fact that they, quite simply, do. “Voluntary” non-discrimination is really no protection against discrimination at all, a fact that Mainers have recognized for quite some time.

The extreme position embraced by the Summers campaign may be a Hail Mary pass for outside support. Summers trails independent Angus King by about 28 points, but has declared his intention to narrow the gap through a punishingly negative campaign. The only outside PAC support Summers has received so far has been from Senator John Cornyn’s leadership PAC, who has a track record of playing politics with LGBT rights.

Maine will also be holding the first-ever referendum to legalize marriage equality in the fall, which has solid support from the state’s voters. Summers, however, has used his role of Secretary of State to confuse the ballot initiative. Summers’ position is consistent with the extreme views of the governor, Governor Paul LePage, who wants to “reform” the Maine Human Rights Act and once said “there is no place for transgendered students in the state’s primary schools.”

Back in March, Bishop Richard Malone of the Maine Catholic diocese claimed that the Church would not actively campaign against the state’s marriage equality initiative, despite leading the charge against the state’s same-sex marriage law through Question One in 2009. At the time, he released a pastoral letter introducing a new marriage “education” campaign that would allegedly focus only on church attendees. In a letter to the New York Times, Malone has now reasserted that the Church will be involved in this year’s ballot campaign:

I have not backed down in the church’s defense of marriage. Although not a member of the current political action committee, the Roman Catholic Diocese of Portland is playing a crucial role in November’s vote, launching a communication and educational effort based on my pastoral letter.

This document is intended to educate all people of good will about the truth and beauty of marriage as it has been preserved for millenniums by society and various religions.

Objectively, the essence of marriage can only be the union of one man and one woman open to the new life of children, whom they nurture in their irreplaceable roles as father and mother. Faithful Catholics will continue to defend God’s plan for marriage through its preaching and teaching and in the public square.

The Church seems to be playing some kind of PR game with this ballot measure that is very easy to see through. The documentary Question One portrays the malicious tactics the Church-run campaign utilized to turn people against marriage equality, and the activists leading the current anti-equality effort are using even more flagrantly demonizing tactics. Clearly Malone is trying to distance the Church from such language and responsibility in the fight, yet at the same time maintain its anti-gay principles. With a majority already supporting the measure and most lay Catholics disagreeing with Church leadership on LGBT issues, his wishy-washy efforts may ultimately fall on deaf ears.

Maine is the first state that is inviting its residents to vote affirmatively for marriage equality — as opposed to defending against a negative measure. At stake currently is how exactly that question will be asked. Last week, Maine Secretary of State Charlie Summers proposed the following language:

“Do you want to allow same-sex couples to marry?”

Neither side is satisfied with this wording. Opponents of marriage equality unsurprisingly want to spin the language as “redefining marriage,” implying that same-sex marriage will somehow impact everyone else’s marriage. But those who put forth the measure feel the question is not descriptive enough, because it does not include any context about the protections for church and clergy that are included in the law. Matt McTighe of Mainers United for Marriage explains:

MCTIGHE: Opponents of marriage are already trying to scare voters into thinking their church could be forced to perform or recognize same-sex marriages or that their tax exempt status would somehow be put at risk. Nothing could be further from the truth.

At a press conference, Methodist Pastor Michael Gray further clarified the religious freedoms guaranteed by the marriage bill: