New2Maine.com

With the stroke of Gov. Baldacci’s pen today, Maine joined the rising tide of states legalizing marriage for any two adults, regardless of the sex of each. According to a statement released by the Governor,

“In the past, I opposed gay marriage while supporting the idea of civil unions,” Governor Baldacci said. “I have come to believe that this is a question of fairness and of equal protection under the law, and that a civil union is not equal to civil marriage.”

“Article I in the Maine Constitution states that ‘no person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law, nor be denied the equal protection of the laws, nor be denied the enjoyment of that person’s civil rights or be discriminated against.’”

“This new law does not force any religion to recognize a marriage that falls outside of its beliefs. It does not require the church to perform any ceremony with which it disagrees. Instead, it reaffirms the separation of Church and State,” Governor Baldacci said.

“It guarantees that Maine citizens will be treated equally under Maine’s civil marriage laws, and that is the responsibility of government.”

It will be interesting to watch the reaction to this decision. Maine joins Massachusetts, Connecticut and Iowa as the only states that currently allow same-sex marriages (though Vermont recently passed a law that will allow them as of September), but I’m fairly sure this is not the end of this debate. While I agree with Baldacci’s interpretation of Article I of the state Constitution, I am personally undecided on the issue; I have no doubt that there will be a call for a Constitutional amendment or referendum to ban same-sex marriages. I wonder if it will actually make it to a popular vote…

Update: some poor fact checking on my part lead me to misstate that Maine currently allows same-sex marriage as a result of this legislation. That is not quite correct. Like Vermont, this new law does not take effect until September, 90 days after the adjournment of this legistlative session.

According to a CNN Wire story, President Bush is up here in Maine for a long weekend. No public appearances were planned, as Bush has a family wedding to attend. Anti-war protestors are expected to stage a rally outside the Kennebunkport compound tomorrow. Let’s hope nothing gets out of hand. Regardless of your feelings on the war, no one should be ruining a couple’s wedding.

The Food and Drug Administration released an advisory this week warning about eating that most noted Maine food, the lobster. “FDA Advises Against Consumption of American Lobster (Maine Lobster) Tomalley” details the risk of Paralytic Shellfish Poisoning from eating the tomalley of Maine lobster. Personally, I think the tomalley is best left in the shell anyway, so this is no big loss, but I know many people who consider it a delicacy. Apparently cooking doesn’t help, either, so for now, just stick to the succulent bits of real meat in the tail and claws.

As reported on several online news outlets today, those plucky UMaine Law students have decided to take action on Magistrate Judge Kravchuk’s suggestion that the RIAA lawyers face Rule 11 sanctions. In an article entitled Maine law students try to derail RIAA lawsuit express, Ars Technica reports that the same students at UMaine Law who argued to have the RIAA’s John Doe lawsuits thrown out are now filing suit demanding the exact sanctions Kravchuk suggested. My best wishes go out to them in their efforts.

Suing your customers is not a way to sustain a business model. When will the RIAA learn?

In follow-up news to my previous post about students at UMaine Law assisting their fellow UMaine students in their fight against the RIAA, a Maine Judge Magistrate accuses RIAA of ‘gamesmanship’:

These plaintiffs have devised a clever scheme to obtain court-authorized discovery prior to the service of complaints, but it troubles me that they do so with impunity and at the expense of the requirements of Rule 11(b)(3) because they have no good faith evidentiary basis to believe the cases should be joined.’ She noted that once the RIAA dismisses its ‘John Doe’ case it does not thereafter join the defendants when it sues them in their real names.

While magistrate judge Margaret Kravchuk did not go so far as to recommend dismissing the lawsuit, she did suggest to the presiding judge in the case that the RIAA attorneys be sanctioned under Rule 11 for their gamesmanship. “Suppose,” she writes, “instead of university students, the record companies chose to target all individuals within the District of Maine who had used these P2P services and had TimeWarner Cable for their ISP.”

Would all those individuals be properly joined in a single complaint? I think the Plaintiffs know the answer to that question because on May 5, 2007, many of these same plaintiffs filed a very similar lawsuit, Atlantic Recording Corp., et al. v. Does 1-22, 1:07-cv-057-JAW. A procedure similar to the one used in this case was adopted in that case, but no motions to dismiss or motions to quash were filed and presumably the plaintiffs obtained the discovery they sought.”

According to Ray Beckerman at Recording Industry vs. The People, “It’s highly unusual for a judge to suggest Rule 11 sanctions. It shows that this judge really understood the pernicious and dishonest game the RIAA lawyers are playing…[i]f Rule 11 sanctions do wind up being imposed against the RIAA lawyers, I don’t think you’ll see any more mass John Doe cases.”

I’m glad to see that people are finally standing up to these legal bullies in a meaningful way, and I’m glad that some of the impetus to fight back is coming from Maine.