Yet, in a town with a year-round population of about 1,000 where everyone knows everybody, an eight-year dispute between an Irish-Catholic teacher who’s also a conservative newspaper columnist and a gay interior decorator and antiques dealer is a microcosm of the wider debate that will heat up as Maine voters prepare to go to the polls in November to decide whether to restore the state’s gay-rights law, repealed in 1998.

Richard LaVigne and Stephen Concannon, business and life partners of 20 years, moved from Boston to Lovell in the early 1990s, purchasing a home in a private, secluded area on Kezar Lake, the antithesis of the urban neighborhood of Jamaica Plain they left behind. For many years they had owned an antique shop in the South End.

By then, LaVigne, now 48, and Concannon, 52, had expanded their businesses to include shops in Stamford, Conn., and Cornish, Me., and maintain an apartment in New York City where they also have a store.

Tom McLaughlin, 49, is another Boston transplant — Mainers call such people "from away" to distinguish them from natives — who’s married with four children and one grandchild. He’s an eighth-grade teacher in nearby Fryeburg, another rural village, and writes a conservative column for The Conway (N.H.) Daily Sun and The Bridgton News, a weekly in another nearby village.

Their lives collided one day in 1992, when McLaughlin’s wife Roseanne took her regular walk on Mountain View Road near the gay couple’s home. LaVigne confronted the woman, telling her that the road was private and that she was trespassing. Typical of rural Maine, an association of homeowners has the responsibility for maintaining the road.

In separate interviews with Bay Windows, LaVigne and McLaughlin gave their versions of subsequent events, which escalated to charges of harassment in court battles that a judge resolved, at least temporarily, with a decision handed down June 15.

In court testimony June 9, Lavigne said the conversation with Roseanne McLaughlin became heated and that if she didn’t get off the road, he would have the sheriff physically remove her. "I was very rude, and I am admitting it," LaVigne stated.

According to LaVigne, McLaughlin phoned him later that day, demanding to know why he had "physically threatened" his wife. LaVigne also said McLaughlin told him he is a town official — McLaughlin told Bay Windows he was a town selectman — and would not forget the matter. LaVigne took the remark as a threat and called the sheriff’s department. A deputy phoned McLaughlin about the matter. The incident sparked a longtime feud.

"I was angry because he had physically threatened her," McLaughlin recalled during the interview. "I just had a bypass surgery and came home the day before. I couldn’t walk and it was probably best that I couldn’t. I acknowledged that it was a private road, but told him, ’That’s not the way we act around here and you don’t threaten my wife.’"

The incident, LaVigne alleges, led to three confrontations he termed as harassment by McLaughlin because he felt threatened by the columnist’s words and demeanor. The first occurred in October 1997 at a Lovell gas station, the second in May 1998 at the town’s public library, and the third in May of this year at a Fryeburg drug store.

McLaughlin testified that LaVigne had made obscene gestures to his wife when he spotted her several times after the incident and when he saw LaVigne at the gas station, he approached him and asked why he had done that. McLaughlin said LaVigne and Concannon launched into a verbal tirade before driving off. The two had a confrontation when McLaughlin was leaving and LaVigne was entering the library. McLaughlin has accused LaVigne of giving him the finger and saying "This one’s for you." LaVigne denied he did so. McLaughlin testified that he followed LaVigne to the library’s checkout desk and, in a controlled voice, asked him why he was making obscene gestures at him and his wife. LaVigne said he ignored McLaughlin, who then followed him out. When he got to his vehicle, LaVigne said he asked McLaughlin to leave him alone. McLaughlin said Concannon yelled and swore at him as the couple drove off.

LaVigne took McLaughlin to court in 1998 seeking a temporary protection order. District Court Judge John Sheldon dismissed the case, stating there was not enough evidence of harassment. McLaughlin contends LaVigne presented a false account of the incidents during his testimony.

The two men did not see each other again until this May, when, according to LaVigne, McLaughlin approached him in his car while LaVigne was walking into a drugstore in Fryeburg. Lavigne said the teacher, referring to the 1998 court case, yelled, "Perjury comes easy to you, doesn’t it?" Believing the harassment was resuming, LaVigne filed a police complaint and was granted a temporary protection order, which he sought to make permanent in the June 9 court hearing.

LaVigne contends McLaughlin harassed him because he’s gay. McLaughlin says that’s untrue, even though he acknowledges he has written columns critical of what he calls "special rights" for homosexuals and knows about LaVigne’s sexuality. "He’s using the law to harass me, that’s what he’s doing," McLaughlin contends. "He’s hiding behind his sexual preference [sic] and trying to make that into an issue. I never made any antigay remarks. It has become a gay-rights issue because he’s targeting me and I have a different view. He said I’m known to not like gay people. I don’t target gay people. I write about the issue."

LaVigne said his objective in going to court was simply to get McLaughlin to leave Concannon and him alone. Acknowledging during the interview that he did use obscene language in his confrontations with McLaughlin, he said, "I became so frustrated that I would start just swearing at the guy. I’m not a violent person and it was just a gut reaction."

He said that the couple decided to go forward with the court actions because of the upsetting nature of the confrontations. "When you have this situation arise, and you have to wear your homosexuality on your sleeve... we didn’t feel we had a choice. My partner and I discussed it and decided that if we didn’t take the action we never would have forgiven ourselves." They were concerned that the matter might escalate to physical violence, although Lavigne acknowledged that McLaughlin never used homophobic language. "We were simply asking the court to be completely aware of what the man was capable of and because of the outright terrorism in his verbal threats. We hoped the court would see that it needed to protect us from this man forever."

LaVigne says he was particularly concerned about the gas station incident: "I had a friend visiting from New York City. We were both terrified. It was very upsetting."

Judge Sheldon, LaVigne reports, told him to stay as far away from McLaughlin as he could, which isn’t easy in a small town. "If I saw his car or him at the grocery store, I’d go off and sit in my vehicle until the man was gone. I was willing to do that because I love it here. The people are so warm and welcoming. He’s just an aberration."

McLaughlin says it is LaVigne who is the harasser. After Lavigne told his wife to leave the private road in 1992, he says she never walked there again, but that LaVigne made an obscene gesture at her when he spotted her walking on a public road. McLaughlin says LaVigne came "perilously close to her." That, he says, is what sparked the confrontation at the gas station. "I asked him why he had given my wife the finger. He pretended not to know who I was. He denied it and became abusive. He started to give me the finger and said he would bust me in the mouth. His friend also said, ’Go fuck yourself. You’re an asshole. You’re a bigot.’" McLaughlin says the gas station owner witnessed the altercation and testified in court. "He was hesitant to testify because he didn’t want to leave the business so the bailiff had to threaten him."

Ann Hastings, LaVigne’s attorney, explained that a protection order is a civil action, but once put in place, it becomes a criminal misdemeanor if violated. "Under this statute you have to prove both that Tom intended to harass Richard and that Richard’s actual experience was that he felt harassed," she explained.

District Court Judge Keith Powers ruled that McLaughlin didn’t intend to harass LaVigne, "even though we felt that he intended to harass." Powers wrote: "While the defendant’s recent statement directed at the plaintiff in the [drugstore] parking lot was rightfully ill advised, it was not statutory harassment. The plaintiff has failed to prove it likely that the defendant intended to cause fear and intimidation or damage to property. … This is so even though the plaintiff was clearly upset by recent comments. In addition, the comment is not a Civil Rights Act violation … because it was not an intentional interference by physical force or violence or threat of such force or violence against a person. It is unfortunate that these two intelligent parties are still not able to get along after several incidents dating back to 1992. The court suggests, but does not order, that the parties consider mediating their differences should each agree. The request for relief is denied."

Where will the parties go from here? "We basically would just like to be the good citizens that we have been," LaVigne says. "We did the right thing and went through the system. I think we would just like to continue living here with our friends and neighbors, [but] it is extremely frightening to know that this man is here on the loose."

McLaughlin says that "after being dragged into court on false charges twice, I haven’t decided whether I’ll follow up [with my own action]." He says he could pursue an action under the 1983 federal civil-rights law because "my First Amendment rights are being threatened."

Would he consider burying the hatchet? Only if Lavigne apologizes, he replied. "Mr. Lavigne has lied on the stand; he and I are the only witnesses to certain events. I know what happened. He represents it otherwise. I don’t see [his apology as] a possibility because he would have to acknowledge perjury. But if he asked to start fresh from here, I would probably be willing. I just prefer to ignore him at this point." McLaughlin emphasized that "this did not start off as an issue of anti-homosexual activism. It started as an incident of harassing my wife."

LaVigne doesn’t see it that way. He believes there’s a larger issue at stake: "There’s no civil-rights protection in Maine. We can afford to go forward with [the case] because we are not employed by anyone. Who knows how many people like us in Maine won’t come forward [in similar incidents] because they are afraid of losing their jobs or homes? We wanted to let people know that these things happen."

He added that support has grown in the community because of the publicity surrounding the court hearing. "The phone rang for three days. People came up to us and offered their support. This is something that the gay community is very pleased about."

He reported that there’s a large gay community in western Maine. "There are lots of wonderful outdoor activities. Lots of women and men groups. We just met with a great youth group at a neighbor’s home at the lake. They were 20 young people from the Oxford Hills Comprehensive High School in South Paris, where they just voted to approve a gay/straight alliance.

"I was labeled a gay activist at the hearing and I’m embarrassed that the only things I’ve done are write some checks and put a bumper sticker on my car." He and Concannon marched in their first Pride parade in Portland June 17.

"I don’t know that I’ll become an activist," he added. "I don’t have time to staff telephones and drive people back and forth to polls but we are going to do everything we can the see that the November referendum is passed. This case is an example of why there must be equal rights. Hopefully participating in this hearing will set the stage for things to be a bit easier for basic rights for every single person."

McLaughlin said he was active in the campaign against the gay rights law that was repealed by voters in 1998, but isn’t sure what his position will be this year. He says he was troubled, along with the Catholic Church, by the bill’s sponsor refusing to add amendments that would have exempted religious and youth organizations, including the Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts; protected people who expressed critical opinions on homosexuality, and prevented the state from condoning homosexuality in schools. "Now that the church is in favor, I’ll have to look at it and decide whether I would oppose it. I don’t know."

(The Maine Coalition for Equal Rights, which is spearheading the drive to pass the gay rights referendum, is soliciting funds. To contribute, mail checks to MCER, P.O. Box 8799, Portland, ME 04104-8799. For more information, phone 207-925-1034.)