Gay marriage opponents raise large sums

This should have been put to vote, plain and simple. The Governor should have let the people decide, not decide for them. Maybe the outcome would have been the same, but Baldy has no right to force his opinions on us.

You are correct e, butt this will never end.

I'm gonna make some popcorn.

I think if the Catholic Church is going to act as a political organization they should pay taxes on that money. People are giving to a tax exempt church and it's turned into political activist funds.

mmacpuguy: I think you are right.

The only reason baldacci signed that law is because he wanted to make a big bang for his last time in office. Im running for Governor lol

Are charitable donations to Greenpeace tax deductible?

?Greenpeace isn't a religious organization.

Good news for the flamboyant whales!

mouthfull wasn't it..

The Catholic Church and the other political activist churches need to have their tax exempt status revoked. Who are going to be the brave politicians to take the Catholic Church on??

I find it ridiculous to waste money on this when it has much better uses in these times.

What a waste of money that really could be put to good use. Keep crying about job layoffs. All this money that the churches are putting towards

fighting gay marriage and it could be going to hundreds of other uses that actually help people.

Good money after bad!

Wow a $100,000 donation from the Catholic Church! Is that the same church that has been hiding their property and funds in Vermont and other states so their pedophile priests will not have to pay for their crimes? This while decent and honest Gay persons are trying to have a decent life? Yea if it's hypocritical it must be them.

The govenor forced nothing upon us. The bill was passed/approved by a majority of the people's duly elected representives. Baldacci only signed the bill and if a Catholic like him can see the light then maybe the rest of you anti-gay bigots will someday see the light as well because in the future your side of this issue will be one and the same with those that would now be pro-slavery, pro-segreagtion, pro-anti-semitism and pro-genocide. Then again, some of you may still be pro-slavery, pro-segregation, pro-anti-semitism and pro-genocide. And if any group of people should be denied marriage and child-rearing, it is Bigots!

Why is it, when one disagrees with an issue that person has to be a bigot? Does that mean if one doesn't think Obama is a good president one is a racist? If one doesn't like hunting, that person hates hunters? If someone doesn't think beheadings are right, they hate Muslims? I am beginning to see the true bigots are the ones who call others a bigot because they are on the other side of an issue.

Tell me where to send the check! I enjoy donating to a worthy cause.

You hit it right on the head LilMikey! Great post.

"Although not even certified as a ballot question, the issue is already garnering attention from national groups on both sides because a gay marriage law has never survived a statewide vote in the U.S.' Now is this representation? You see the Legislature aren't listening! Vote them all out!

I wonder how many people in the church have lost a job and a home after faithfully giving every week into an offering plate? I bet the church wasn't showing up with a check to help, probably a prayer or two though. Of course I am refering to perfect male/female couples with a white pickett fence. What a load of crap, if any church doesn't like the idea of same sex marriages then here's an idea-don't perform the ceremony, other then that it is none of their business. It drives me crazy, on one hand they are almighty telling everyone what is right and wrong, and then just ask for forgiveness or confess and it is all better if you do "sin". If two men or two women want to get married and have the same rights as a marriage between a man and women then let them. I know plenty of men and women that shouldn't have been "allowed" to marry. If two people are in love and want to share a life together leave them to do that. Why does everyone have to be all up in peoples business, it is none of ours. It isn't hurting anyone. For the churches to be all in the middle using their non-profit funds, no matter what account it if from, is wrong.

$193,0000 spent so far to collect the signatures for the petition. I thought that this was going to be a grassroots campaign where people that genuinely believed in their cause would be volunteering their time to collect signatures. Maine Freedom to Marry could use your help Maine.

LilMikey agreed your 5:19 comments speak volumes.....

This state should not have referendums. It's flat out not fair. Look at the population base. Whatever the people in Augusta and South want, that is what they will get. The people north of Augusta have no say in anything because nobody lives up here. So just take a poll in Southern Maine and see what they want and that is what will happen.

e2346437 & Kevin_of_Bangor, if this law was put out to the people for a vote, what other laws should be put out to the people for a vote? Is it just laws that provide equal protection? Should it be laws that protect a certain class of people? Should it be laws which change a "right: (i.e. seat belts, helmet laws, smoking laws, etc...)? Should it be all laws?

If "the people" want to vote on laws, then why do we elect representatives to perform this function for us?

"The Roman Catholic Diocese of Portland contributed $100,000."

I am so glad I rejected the Catholic Church decades ago. What a waste of time and money.

If gay marriage is allowed, it will definitely wreck my marriage as it won't have "sanctity". I am Catholic, well, sorta, and not at all surprised and happy with the donation of 100K

Groups are probably still debating if the sun revolves around the earth or vice versa, if the earth is flat , whether witches and demons are out there prowling around.....I expect this to get squashed, big time.

LilMikey a person can disagree with an issue without being a bigot. They can disagree without being a hate monger too. They become a bigot because they choose to use certain language which they know is inappropriate or is designed to inflame.

Incidentially, when blacks were granted civil rights in the 1960's racism and racists comments did not stop. They still exist, remember Rodney King? Racism, bigotry, hate, etc...exists because we fear the object, person, subject, etc....of the racism, bigotry, hate, etc.

AMEN LilMikey. Every time I read a negative hate filled post it comes from one of the pro gay and lesbians telling us we shouldn't

disagree with their way of life...well I don't agree...but I'm not calling them names or preaching to them. Just voicing my opinion.

To LilMikey and all those who agree with him, it's pretty simple: you are a bigot if you believe one class of people should not have the same rights you have, and you are a bigot if you think you are superior to another class of people.

big·ot (b?g'?t)

n. One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ.

Anne_of_mdi, while I'm not sure if I agree with the word 'bigot', you are right, it is definitely about people trying to feel superior over others! With a divorce rate of 50% and messages of heterosexual promiscuity all over our popular culture, I can see why many churches are feeling powerless these days. But dealing with the real issues would risk alienating 95% of the population and require making real change, it is much easier to go after gay people and discourage their monogamy, after all they are a small minority so not much is at risk in terms of losing Sunday morning offerings and no real change is needed on their part assuming they're straight.

So while I might not agree with 'bigot', I think 'bully' is definitely appropriate!

Shannon9A, So i suppose that the negative,hate filled, name calling posts from the pro gay group is ok, because their

being picked on by those of us voicing an opinion in opposition to their view? It works both ways.

It is manifestly unfair that the church should be allowed to raise money and collect signatures without paying taxes.Look at all the wealth in the Vatican and the corrupt priests,bishops and higher ups.Meanwhile real Mainers who want fairness have to pay taxes and struggle,.

LilMikey, re your examples: It isn't racist to think Obama isn't a good president. It is racist to think Obama isn't a good president because he is black.

It isn't bigoted to dislike hunters because you dislike hunting. It is bigoted to think that all people who hunt are rednecks.

It isn't bigoted to not like beheadings. It is bigoted to dislike Muslims because you think all Muslims engage in beheadings, or that only Muslims engage in beheadings.

It is not bigoted to think gay sex is "gross," because everyone has a right to their thoughts.

But it is bigoted to try to force legislation against gay marriage, because what two consenting adults do behind closed doors causing no harm to anyone is no one else's business.

anne of MDI, I bet the catholic church was glad to see you leave.

Baldacci, and he sure is no Catholic, he is a jerk

anne, isn't it hilarios how you call others who don't see things your way as bigots or this and that. just keep walking with your eyes closed and only hearing or saying things that benifit you and your party. you are acting in desperation and that will end up making you look bigots YOU ARE.

anne, give it up, your only making yourself look bad.

mtaylor: perfect

Evidently because we want the right to voice an opposing view

we are "forcing" legislation UPON them. I don't think so...

and yes anne. i do agree with everything lilmikey said.

"Why is it, when one disagrees with an issue that person has to be a bigot?"

It is the only method they have to fight back with and much like the terrorist we fight on other fronts they say that since it is their only weapon you can not question the legitimacy of their tactics.

"They become a bigot because they choose to use certain language which they know is inappropriate or is designed to inflame."

Sounds like the same bigots lilmikey was talking about JD.

"Incidentially, when blacks were granted civil rights in the 1960's racism and racists comments did not stop. They still exist, remember Rodney King? Racism, bigotry, hate, etc...exists because we fear the object, person, subject, etc....of the racism, bigotry, hate, etc."

Gay people are no black. Black people do not have choice about their skin color and they take offense to your use of the analogy. Gay people much like pedophiles have a choice in the actions they take and they should not be granted special protections for their public perversions. I am all for leaving their bedroom out of this if they stay in their bedroom.

anne posted this drivel:

To LilMikey and all those who agree with him, it's pretty simple: you are a bigot if you believe one class of people should not have the same rights you have, and you are a bigot if you think you are superior to another class of people.

big·ot (b?g'?t)

n. One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ.

A persons actions do not make them a "class of people". If they did then those who practie other sexual perversions would be a class of people and you would have to grant them rights as well.Do you think you are superior to the woman who has sex with her dog Ann?

You Bigot you.

tigger, they already are able to opt out of performing the ceremonies, something lost in the hate here.

Newportres, you wrote, "Gay people much like pedophiles have a choice in the actions they take and they should not be granted special protections for their public perversions."

This is a very ignorant statement that keeps being repeated on these comment boards. One really has to wonder why.

Everyone knows that pedophiles are overwhelmingly heterosexual. If you don't know that then you've got your head in the sand. Everyone also knows that pedophilia if acted upon is a crime because it harms innocent children. If you don't know that then you've got your head in the sand.

ANNE, I THINK IT IS THE COMMENT ABOUT HAVING THE CHOICE OF

WHAT YOU DO...HERE YOU GO AGAIN...

You're right, newportres. A person's actions don't make him a class of people. Try to wrap your mind around this:

I think there should be a law preventing heterosexuals from being teachers because most pedophiles are heterosexual.

Also, I think there should be a law preventing heterosexuals from being veterinarians and from owning pets because the people who practice bestiality (if any) are overwhelmingly heterosexual.

Anne is out to save all the disadvantaged people in the US.

Someone has to do it I guess LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!

Lil'mikey had it just right. As anne was quick to come in and demonstrate for everyone. Both of her posts make it clear that she doesn't think that you can oppose changing marriage laws to include homosexuals without it being bigoted. JD yes to a point you are correct, but you missed the point of mikey regarding the way it is used, as was aptly shown in anne's posts. Good to have you back anne.

"Everyone knows that pedophiles are overwhelmingly heterosexual. If you don't know that then you've got your head in the sand. Everyone also knows that pedophilia if acted upon is a crime because it harms innocent children. If you don't know that then you've got your head in the sand."

You have your head in the sand Ann.

Pedophiles in most cases don't really care about sex. They are attracted to children. They would argue that it is not their choice and god made them that way just like the gays do if you open the door for them as you wish.

As for the crime issue that only changes with the law and the law is based on our own moral codes. Who are you to force your morals on someone else by the way you bigot.

Where is the petition to sign ????????????????????????

"I think there should be a law preventing heterosexuals from being teachers because most pedophiles are heterosexual.

Also, I think there should be a law preventing heterosexuals from being veterinarians and from owning pets because the people who practice bestiality (if any) are overwhelmingly heterosexual."

Again Ann try wrapping your head around this.

They are neither hetero nor homo.

One is into animals and one is into children.

Both are prevented from loving those they wish due to your bigotry.

Oh snap newportres! You just wrote that it doesn't matter that pedophiles are heterosexuals! That's progress I think. ;-)

8:54 am, yep, you got it. Snapperiffic!

"anne, give it up, your only making yourself look bad."

Never stopped you.

The church should have no involvement in this unless they start paying taxes on the land and building that they have there services at,also the services that they utilize,like police departments,fire departments and so on. The money that they collect during services also. If they want to be that involved with the voteing process then they should also have to do like the rest of us and pay taxes on the churches ,land and money collected. Plain and simple

anne, hang in there, you are one of the few on here making sense this morning. Have a nice day. http://americancommonsense.typepad.com

Same sex couples have been together and raising children for ages, they deserve and are asking for equal rights in marriage, it is time for this evolution as humankind progresses. Affording them less is sexual discrimination.

Karen -1/2 of Advocate Hetero Couple for Same sex Marriage

Yes, I gave half my paycheck every week for three months to get Frank Sargent re-elected Governor in 1974 Massachusetts. He lost.

Thanks MaineEx! Oh I'll hang in there, don't you worry.

Bigots don't realize they're bigots. They're like crazy people: they don't know they're crazy either.

How about this one? I think heterosexuals should be banned from marrying because they are over-populating the planet and the state, and the last thing this state needs is more mouths to feed!

--Anne_of_MDI, also 1/2 of Hetero Couple for Same-Sex Marriage

Tax the Catholic Church!! It's outrageous that the church is getting involved by contributing $100,000 of money that they get tax free for being a religious institution. If they want to be a PAC, MAKE THEM PAY THE PRICE!

THE BDN SHOULD BE INVESTIGATING THIS

Same sex couples have been together and raising children for ages, they are asking for equal rights in marriage. They deserve the same rights and privileges as hetero-sexual couples have. Giving them any less would be sexual discrimination.

Karen -1/2 of Hetero-Sexual Couple for Same Sex Marriage

I think a petition should be started to take away the "tax-exempt" status of this, no longer religious, political organization. Anyone with me?

Where do I sign?

Do people in Maine have nothing better to do then worry about who people they don't know marry? Who with any intelligence at all would waste time or even want to vote on people's personal lives? Are we going to start voting on everyone's marriage next? If the people up there have nothing better to do with their money, please send some to me, I can actually put it to good use!

GregDavid, no where in my post do I side one way or the other. However, I am suggesting that the duly-elected representatives of "The People" are out of touch with the will of their constituents. Something this important requires a vote by the people, and there was none that I know of.

The gay marriage bill never should have even been brought up... its just WRONG!!! Marriage is and should be... between a MAN & WOMAN only!!

HRH419, re your 7:35 am post. How nice of you to put words in my mouth. Fact is, I never said anything endorsing hate filled messages on here (in fact I was disagreeing with Anne's use of the word bigot). They come from both sides and I don't agree with them whichever side they come from. But at the end of the day we are all practicing our right to free speech and no one's rights are impacted by what is said here on an anomonyous posting board. But gay people's rights are truly being impacted but the very real attempt of some Christians in this state trying to take away equal marriage rights. And no offense to anyone, but I do believe this is classic bullying. The real threat to family and marriage is promiscuity (both homosexual and heterosexual), and all this law is about is homosexual monomagy. But gay people are much easier to pick on than society at large and I feel that's why many Christians decide to target them.

e2346437 the vote of the people occurs every couple of years in November. If they do not represent the "majority" of the people, how do they keep being reelected year after year after year? If the majority of the people elect these representatives, how do they not represent the majority of their constitutents? Or, does the "silent majority" which people keep talking about fail to vote every year? If you did not vote in the past election, you have no one to blame but yourself.

anne of mdi re: "The Roman Catholic Diocese of Portland contributed $100,000, although a campaign spokesman pointed out that the money was from a special fund for that purpose, not church collections." Just didn't want you to forget the last part of the statement. Thanks.

That doesn't make any difference realist38. The "special fund" was probably private donations from church members in which they received a tax-break for contributing to a non-profit and which the church paid no taxes because of their status as a religious institution. It still violates the law that a church can only be tax exempt if it does not use its money to affect political events. The church is in violation.

Doesn't matter MaineExpatriat does it? Gay couples already have civil rights, marriage is not a civil right. Leave marriage alone. Don't you think there's a reason so few states allow it? You don't believe enough people in the Catholic church could donate that much money? I certainly do. Oh well, it really doesn't matter now does it?

MaineExpatriat:

I'm with ya

Shannon9A: There was a quetion mark there that you obviously missed. I certainly

wasn't putting words in your mouth. Your quite capable. And SOME christians have

the right to stand up for what they believe is moral and right. Its called a democracy.

You can't put an opinion out there and expect to not have any opposition. So long

story short don't put it out there if you don't want someone to disagree.

The peoles veto will prevail , by a LARGE margin despite the moaning and knashing of teeth by the perversion crowd....They have collected over 75,000 signatures in a VERY short period of time...When put to a vote gay marriage has lost every single time including in Cal.

Gay couples do not have Civil Unions/Marriage therefore they do not have civil "rights". And in 5 years the number has gone from 0 to 6. 6 nations allow it today. There's a reason for that too don't you think? We're slowly crawling out of the dark ages.

And it's relevant because this Catholic Church has violated the 501c rules that govern tax-exempt status for organizations. If the Maine legislature or judiciary branch chooses to pursue this (or in Maine's citizens mobilize) the church would probably lose its tax-exempt status.

HRH419, you said "And SOME christians have the right to stand up for what they believe is moral and right. Its called a democracy. " Of course all Americans have the right, religion being irrelevant, HOWEVER (and it's a biggie) while citizens have the right to TRY and enforce their beliefs in the political arena, religious organizations do not. It's really that simple.

Tigger: Great comments at 6:19 AM Exactly. Their priorities seem mixed up (the Roman Catholic Church,etc) And I think it is horrible that all that money is going to deny a committed couple the right to certain protections and dignities.....that money could go to help so many in need, whether the hungry, the homeless, folks really struggling but maybe just need a little help to get through. This is disillusioning.

midcoastconservative: "The perversive crowd"??? Maybe to many, it seems perverse to deny human beings certain rights and protections.

MaineExpatriat: I was referring to the wording in shannons

post to me. Of course ALL americans, chrisitian or otherwise

have the right to put their view point out there.

Anne..I somehow don't think you quite get it. But I will not call you a bigot because you don't agree with me. I will not call you a bigot because you don't want legislation forced, which in turn is exactly what was done by passing a law that the legsislators knew would be controversial and not the will of possibly the majority of people. So aren't you being a little bigoted in your stance by not letting your fellow Mainers decide the issue? That isn't politicians forcing legislation, that is THE PEOPLE voting up or down on the issue. If the pols had voted it down and a referendum was put on the ballot by the gay community, would you be so quick to scream "forcing legislation"? Somehow I don't think so!

midcoastconservative :

How many of those sinitures are legal?

How many are registered voters? How many of them even exsist? there is alot to take into account here so don't count your chickens before they hatch.

I don't know where you people get your facts about 501(c)3 organizations, but you might want to read the IRS rulings again.

There is no gag rule on churches - they are not allowed to endorse a candidate from the pulpit, but they are allowed an opinion and spending in political issues. They are allowed to disseminate their opinions on issues, and that includes radio and TV advertising. That is part of the basis for the separation doctrine. The government cannot regulate what churches do, say, think, etc. And churches cannot govern, as often happened in Europe. There is no freedom FROM religion - only a freedom OF religion. It is a fine line - nonetheless, it is appropriate. People are allowed to spend their money on political activism - people make up churches. It's tax free one way or another. To disallow churches the same benefits as given to other non-profits would simply violate the same equal protection clause that is so often quoted in relation to the issue of gay marriage.

By the way, by Anne's definition, she is certainly a bigot. (Not that I agree with her definition in every case).

Homosexuality, whether a behavior or a choice, does not create a special class requiring protection and civil rights. Folks who choose to be transgender deserve no more special rights, either. What they are looking for, in both instances, is attention and endorsement of their lifestyle and choices - nothing more. It would be the same as someone who gets a tattoo - and then claim that they can't get a job or an apartment because people don't like people with tattoos. If that's the case - don't get one. If you know that people aren't going to like a choice you make - whether its peer pressure, or societal taboos, or whatever, and you still go out and do it - that's your risk!! It's called consequences, boys and girls. We learned that somewhere before the age of 2 in most cases. Some poeple just have to buck the system.

Shannon9A: Thanks for pointing that out. "Bullying" does sound like a good way to describe much of what goes on in the way of denying someone certain rights and protections. I too see the issue of promiscuity to be something that is troublesome and do not understand why some of those that are most vocal against same sex marriage, are so silent, it sure seems, about the breakdown of many marriages and relationships......and do not seem very distressed about the true promiscuity that goes on in this world (and has been for a long time;this is not a recent phenomenom!) Too bad people only choose to focus on one or two "issues" and remain so silent on what is really problematic.

It still violates the law that a church can only be tax exempt if it does not use its money to affect political events.

I hope that they take this into consideration, It has been reported and it will be investigated so I hope that all their paperwork is legit.

Not that the Catholic Church needs defending on this issue, because it is not just one church, but many believers in many faiths who have a problem with this - but you really don't need to lament the amount of money ($100,000) being spent on this issue. Compared to the amount of money and food provided by catholic Charities of Maine over the many years it has been in place in this State, this is a drop in the bucket. They, like all of us, must spend on ALL of their needs - not just some. And this issue is most definitely worth spending the money on.

I do think that the people will veto the bill but I don't think it will be even close to a landslide, probably 45 for, 55 against. And I'd be willing to wager that in 5 years another vote might sway in favor of gay marriage. I do hope if gay marriage is turned down the legislature has the wherewithall to then push forward "Civil Unions" with all of the rights of marriage. Yes, it isn't everything but sometimes you need to crawl before you can run. This is the way Switzerland did it. For many years the Swiss recognized gay "civil unions" but not marriage. Finally in 2007 they legalized gay marriage to very little fanfare. I think it would be a great compromise.

"Oh snap newportres! You just wrote that it doesn't matter that pedophiles are heterosexuals! That's progress I think. ;-) "

I said they are neither Anne but no sense addressing your bigotry.

Same -sex couples are not looking for "attention and endorsement of their lifestyle". How myopic. They are looking to be treated like other human beings in the sense that they would like to be afforded the right to the dignities, responsibilities and protections accorded to other couples (the right to marry being the subject at hand.)

windfuture:

If you get right down to it heterosexuality is a choice,anything is a choice,you yourself decide how to live your life.

windfuture but it violates the 501c rules established by the IRS to be able to maintain their tax-exempt status. That's it.

HRH419, did you even read my post, LOL! Where did I say anything about not expecting people to disagree?? I highly doubt the people out there trying to repeal this law view themselves as bullies, so of course they're going to disagree with me! But that is my opinion, they can try to justify their actions, but I still believe it really boils down to bullying an easy target in the end.

MaineExpatriat: Re: 10:52 AM I have been thinking about the same.....very close......but maybe not enough to keep it from being vetoed. No landslide, though......nope.

MaineExpatriat, the churches moral position on homosexuality far pre-dates its recent emergence as a political issue. That point has precedent in the courts in regards to the death penalty. It is also the same reason that while a pastor can't say in a sermon "don't vote for Obama", but can say abortion is wrong and Obama supports abortion.

Just a point to ponder, rather than a question to be answered-

.

What do you call a group that suffered through generations of intolerance, but now having gained legislated recognition has itself become intolerant of others?

.

Regardless of which side of the issue one may be on, Marriage has throughout time has been defined as a union between a man and a woman, but if we as a society are to change that definition then both sides mush recognize Bigamy!

.

It’s strange, but it’s not the conservatives that are objecting the most to Bigamy.

.

My vote is no; I can not support any effort that slams Christianity….

It has been made clear that most that support this effort do not believe in God, and therefore I will only vote to support their right to a civil union.

.

Life is filled with compromise, and this is as far as I am willing to compromise my religious beliefs. I would also support their rights under civil unions to have the same rights as married people, with all the same benefits. The reality is that from all of the comments I have read, it seems that they have an all or nothing attitude.

.

What drives my decision past the historical definition of marriage is that with so much hate towards the church, these groups will force the church to conduct gay marriages or be in violation of discrimination laws, and that will just usher in a whole new level of division!

.

.

SHANNON: HELLO...My point is that just because someone views

things differently than you, they are NOT bullying you. And if you feel

bullied because someone disagrees, don't put yourself in the position.

duckwa et al, you're looking for excuses but the facts are facts, the church is actively seeking political change. Violation of 501c, they should no longer be exempt. And Duckwa... the scenario you painted is actually skirting the edge and is probably also a violation. Because they've done it before isn't much of a legal defense.

MaineEX - it does not violate the 501c3 rules -that is all I was trying to say. There is significant precedent for it in IRS rulings. As I said, a pastor can't say whom to vote for, but he can speak out against issues, especially those issues he and his congregation, based on their mutual understanding of Scripture, consider sin. Abortion is a very good example - it has been determined to be legal in this country, but it is still considered a sin, and can still be openly campaigned against by churches, who can spend their money trying to fight against it.

If everyone really felt that abortion was wrong, there would be none. i happen to know several people who use it as a form of birth control (multiple abortions), and the statistics bear that out - most people who get abortions get more than one. If they would close their legs a little more often, or try to prevent the unwanted preganancy in the first place, we wouldn't have quite the industry capable of killing 40+ MILLION "unwanteds."

Hey, did anyone happen torealize that we are more concerned that 45 million people don't have health insurance - and it's a NATIONAL CRISIS. But the 40+ million children our country has allowed to be butchered over the last several decades don't seem to matter much! Just saying . . .

Where is CM113?????? Time for a BORING.. I'll do it for him.

MaineExpatriat, I also agree that civil unions would be a great compromise. Also just to play devils advocate with your 10:52 post---"I don't think it will be even close to a landslide, probably 45 for, 55 against"-- I have seen many arguements on here about a smaller margin being a landslide in Obama's election. ;-)

7/16/09 at 10:52 AM, MaineExpatriat,

Very well said, and I for one would be perfectly fine with civil unions. So long as the protections and guarantees offered are equal, they can call it "BOLOGNA" for all I care, and I've stated that many times.

What is most interesting to me is that folks seem to have lost sight of what's happening on the federal stage. There are currently 5 lawsuits against DOMA, two of which attack various portions of the act as opposed to the entire act: both of which are very strong cases against DOMA... and I've no doubt that many, many more will come.

Then there is a move afoot in DC by many members of congress pushing forward a bill to repeal the military's "don't ask don't tell" policy, and there are new lawsuits attacking the antiquated and harmful practice as well.

In the end it's not going to matter what happens here in Maine. We're looking at another "Loving v. Virginia" with this whole affair, and as the federal government did the right thing then, they'll do the right thing with same sex marriage: it's just going to take a little time. Though Loving is considered to be a different animal than what we're facing now from a legal stance, the paths are strikingly similar.

I still keep my optimism and confidence at the federal level. And to quote a really bad song from the 80's: "The future's so bright, I've gotta wear shades".

Anne: By the way......you are not "making yourself look bad" just because certain people here do not agree with you. You were really missed by one in particular, though, I could tell. Anyway, it was likely boring for some without you!

Shannon: I have also detected that "air of superiority". I am not saying that is all of it, but with some it appears to be. I think you hit it right on the head at 7:27 AM about skewered priorities. It is disillusioning. The veto will likely "win out" by a rather small margin but that will not be the end of it. Goodness towards others will win out in the end. It may just take longer. But , maybe it will not be overturned (same-sex marriage in Maine). Still some time.....We know bigotry is based on fear.

HRH419: Strange how people see and read things differently. There are many "negative, and hate-filled" and prejudiced remarks from those you claim do not make any. "One side" does not have any monopoly on that.

It does violate windfuture that is all I'm trying to say. Read the laws governing 501c's they're very strict. Yes you can say "abortion is wrong", you can say "gay marriage is wrong" but you can not use the pulpit to raise money to gather signatures to overturn a law and that is precisely what they have done. It's not even a gray area. Had the pastor stopped with "gay marriage is wrong", no problem. Had members of the church (on their own) decided to start the petition (with no church money) no problem but that isn't what happened. Instead the drive was conducted by church members with church money, BIG PROBLEM. and as I said, yes it's been done before but that doesn't make it right or legal. It's only going to take one state to persecute and then the entire house of cards will come tumbling down. That day may be fast approaching.

yes duckwa and Bush said a 2% victory gave him tons of "political capital"... it's all about how high the boots are as to how much of "it" you'll spread around, I tend to wear sandals, so I keep it real.

Mr. Millers writing has again hit rock bottom....and now he's starting to dig....

Why is his slant always from "trying to deny gays something'...it would more appropriate (and honest) to come from the point where for 1000's of years, society and laws of nature have always believed that marriage is how societies thrive, families become a healthy part of society.......and Gay activist are the ones trying to deny those who believe laws of nature and society rules should not be changed.

Gay activists are in the miniscule minority of this country...they only register in number because they beat society upside the head demanding society recognize thier promiscuous, dangerous, sexual lifestyle. Do heterosexuals have these same traits?...absolutely....do they create a movement to force society, by some civic blunt force trauma, to accept and recognize this behavior?...they could certainly try...but I think there is a reason they haven't

Im afraid if Mr. Miller's wring gets any dumber, we're going to have to water it twice a week

The true measure of support for any cause will only come about when the State of Maine re-writes the 501c3 rules so that 'donors' are not hiding behind the curtain.

In other words, when we can 'see' who is actually giving the cash, most special interests groups would be defunct because when you take the hoods off, the money dries up for most causes.

The current law is only to shield someones' true colors.

duckwa: You sure beat that over and over.....about Obama's "landslide". It seems like something about the whole thing still bothers you!! He did well.....in states where that was not expected, etc. Time to get over that, I think! We who supported him were very satisfied with the results (and the way many states went for him, even in ones not expected to. Even Missouri was very close; usually a very red state. Nuff said.) Anyway, the whole 'voting' thing is sure different. We are talking about the people of one state voting for or against same sex marriage. With the Presidential elections, you are talking electoral college, etc etc. Kind of a stretch and usually you would be picking apart something like that. Guess it is all from where you sit...

I, at this point, would guess that it will be defeated here in Maine, but not by a whole lot. My guess...

I agree , though...as tedlick says, who cares what it is called , if in the end, the result is that same-sex couples can get all the rights and protections that other committed couples enjoy. That is the essence of it.

cher, I took duckwa's comment to be in reference to the popular vote, which wasn't a landslide, however the electoral vote certainly was.

Speaking of Obama, have you guys seen the Chia Obama that they are selling?

Looks pretty nice...

MaineExpatriat, I'm not skirting any thing but was just trying to point out to you positions held in legal precident. Take the legalize pot movement, as with gay marriage it is growing in acceptance. As with gay marriage it has been accepted in other countries. Before long there will be a strong effort to call of the "war on drugs" and move toward legalization. The fact that it becomes a contested political issue doesn't mean that churches will have to change or slience their positions on drug use to match the debate.

chersully2000; I made know such claim. I said of the posts

I had read the name calling, hate filled and negative ones

were from pro gays

HRH419: And I am saying, and guess you can't read or something....that there is plenty of nastiness and name calling from the anti- gay crowd. Got it??

11:14 AM, MaineExpatriat ----------very true,...and smart. Have a good afternoon. I have to get started on a 2 hour ride for a kids baseball game. Good times!!

MaineExpatriat: Got it!

Telefunkinu47: No, and have no interest. But it will likely make your day!!!

chersully: Thank you for helping me make my point.

lilmikey, in order to take a position against gay marriage you have to be AGAINST it, that is your stand. To be against gay marriage you have to believe that it is wrong or that it will undercut the fabric of society or that it is against the teachings of the church or that it is immoral or unnatural. to take the stand opposing gay marriage you have to have a reason. That is what makes some opposing this law bigots, they are against even the existance of homosexuality, against the people who are gay sharing the rights of those that are not. That is the essence of bigotry, a stance against a group or a race or a sex or an institution. Any person in this great country can have a stand on a topic, when it interfers with the rights of life, liberty and the persuit of happiness of a whole group of people just because of who they are or what they look like or who they love, that is bigotry.

headed south, I beleive that the people you elected voted their conscious and represented the people that elected them.

tigger, great way to look at the world.

jspear, were you against hitler?

Cher, lighten up! You will be hard pressed to find any where I have ever said anything to take away from President Obama's victory. I was joking with mainex and it seem like he/she realized it. I don't remember word for word and don't have time to find it, but when this was being discussed (which it isn't now) I said something about I never thought he stood a chance against Hillary and was impressed with how he beat her. And I said that I expected either person from the Dem's that ran would win because of Bush and Iraq, and Mccain. And I gave him credit for a solid electorial victory, not landslide or historic, but a very solid thumping. Just because somebody mentions the O word doesn't mean you need to get in such a twist. We all know you love , worked for, and voted for Obama. Good job .... Gold star!!

If supporters of same sex marriage have not done this please do... http://mainefreedomtomarry.com/take-the-pledge-support-marriage-equality-maine.

duckwa: That wasn't necessary. Have a good day. And btw.....MaineExpatriat is a woman. I got that wrong once too.

HHR419: You made no point . I repeat.....there are "bigoted" remarks from people, regardless of their political,etc. affiliation.

Wanted to share this article I found, very well versed. Be sure to thumb it down, as it makes the most sense of anything I've read on here (mostly)

A common argument is that gay marriage is a civil rights issue. But is it? As Americans, both heterosexuals and homosexuals have the same rights — the right to get an education, own a home, pursue a career, live where they want, worship as they choose and vote their convictions. As Americans, this is the way it should be.

But, gay activists say their civil rights are violated because homosexuals can't marry whom they want. This argument is flawed because heterosexuals can't marry whomever they want, either. If a man fell in love with his sister, his daughter or his female first cousin, society would prohibit him from marrying her. And, society would also prohibit a woman from marrying her brother, son or male first cousin even if she fell in love with him. There are moral laws in our society against this.

In our society, marriage is defined as the union of one man and one woman. A man can marry a woman of his choice and a woman can marry a man of her choice as long as that person is not already married and is distant in terms of blood relationship. This is held as morally acceptable by the majority of Americans and should not be changed. As proof, over 25 states have already passed marriage amendments defining valid marriage as the legal union of one man and one woman by an overall margin of 2 to 1.

The argument against gay marriage is not based on prejudice, hate or shoving one's morals down another's throat. It is based on societal moral convictions on what is natural and normal. And these moral convictions have been held for centuries. No, gay marriage is not about civil rights, it is about approval. It is about a small percentage of the population working to have their behavior, which the majority of Americans find morally wrong, accepted as normal by society.

Btw, HH419: You have a right to your opinion, of course. Just saying the comments here are not one-sided. It is pretty evident.

Good day.

realist38: Makes perfect sense

duckwa I didn't mean you were "skirting" the law I meant your scenario was, sorry I should have been clearer... I type faster than I think sometimes. Enjoy the game.

HRH, I'm trying but I still don't understand what you're so upset with Cher about.

Cher: thank you for helping me with the gender issue. Do I type like a man? hehe

http://americancommonsense.typepad.com

realist38: What else do you consider "normal" in society? All the children in homes where they are neglected ; where there is extreme dysfunction and harm? All the divorces in this society.....is that considered "normal". Those are just 2 examples. Your idea or definition of "normal" might seem quite narrow . Just saying.... Maybe we should work on correcting the things in this society that are really hurting people.

HRH419, I think you need to read a bit more attentively, you're still making up things up that I am not saying. NOBODY is bullying me! I have the full right to marry the person I love. I don't care if people agree with me or not, and they are certainly free to express that, that is not what I am talking about. The bullying in my eyes is NOT what is said on here, but what is being DONE by certain Christian groups out there actively working to take well deserved rights away from monomogous gay couples. I realize you disagree, you're free to express that, and I couldn't care less! Have a great day!

It amazes me that this group will raise several hundred thousand dollars for this cause of theirs.

Worthy Christians would have done as Jesus commanded. "Sell all that you have, and give it to the poor."

"Behold this poor widow. She gives but a pence, but it is all she has. Truly, her gift is the most worthy."

A rich man gives easily of his riches, that he may be seen by others and exalted by men.

A poor man gives humbly, and in secret. God sees his gift, and rewards him.

The anti gay marriage movement is not a just cause. It is baseless in that it seeks judgment, by men, against brethren.

Jesus alone is judge of sin. Only he knows the heart of each individual.

A true born again sinner acknowledges his own sin first. Then he tries to help his brother seek salvation for his sin.

It is not proper that any of us judge.

realist38...the "article" you found is not an article at all. It is a letter the the editor from the "Lodi News" in Lodi, California from October of last year. It was written by Frank Nolton of Woodbridge, California. It is the opinion of Mr. Nolton and Mr. Nolton alone.

Here is the link for any one interested.

http://www.lodinews.com/articles/2008/10/17/opinion/letters/ltr_nolton_081016.txt

jspear, the only point I am making is....why is it that if someone opposes something they are all of a sudden bigots? I don't disagree with some of what you said, but because a person does not agree with an issue...for reasons you stated..it doesn't mean they are a bigot.Some are quick to throw that word at ANYONE who don't agree with them. I am not saying i don't think bigots exist or are out there...my ONLY point is..people are not necessarily bigots cause they don't agree with something..no matter what it is. I don't consider myself a bigot because I don't believe in having 5 wives or because I disagree with some political ideology. Yes, I am sure people are out there who are predjudiced and bigotry exists and it influneces how people feel on the issue, only a complete fool would think otherwise.

My only point is, once again, those who feel the need to call someone a bigot for being against what THEY want or believe...are the real bigots.

MaineExpatriat: It is curious. You and I think similarly about many issues......duckwa did not like it when I said I thought it seemed like he was still in a titter about Obama winning,etc. Then he came back at the end with his little "dig" about my volunteering for Obama,etc. Kind of humorous. He had no problem with you basically saying the same thing. Oh well.....let him have the last word about that (he has made a point about my Obama volunteering quite a bit. He likes to think I am bragging probably. He is off on that one too. I just believe , if possible, one should work for their candidate of choice; if not, what can one complain about? If I had worked for Palin, the response might have been different. ) Sometimes I just do not get into it with a few here, as it seems too much like one-up-manship, and I try to avoid that. Sometimes we just try to express our point of view and it comes out differently to the one reading it, as we put our own biases,etc. onto things.

It does not matter about HRH. Let him/her have their opinion, just like anyone else here. I have nothing further to add to his comments.

Sometimes others make their views known very strongly, but when someone else does the same thing back, they are accused of something. Strange....

No, you do not type like a man!! (ha ha) There was/is another poster, fausto (very smart, like you) and I made the mistake of thinking she was a male when I read her first few posts. Not sure how that happens.

Shannon9A: Point blank...I am sick of gay people whining

that they are bullied or picked on because I have my own

view point. Know one is putting words in your mouth..

Obviously we disagree, deal with it and move on...

LilMikey is isn't that someone "opposes" but what they oppose. If you oppose blue dresses that's not bigotry, if you oppose black women being allowed to wear blue dresses that is bigotry (well worse actually). Opposing the civil right of a minority is also bigotry.

Cher.. I hear ya (on everything).

JD2008: Thank you for sharing that information.

JeffEmler: You hit it right on the head. My Christian faith (since a child) taught, or modeled, that one does not have "shout from the rooftops" their faith. It is too be practiced humbly and "quietly" .There is no need to make a big show of it, as God knows what we do and think. That is what counts; not proving something to someone else. And it is the people who quietly help others that I believe really live their faith. It is not about putting others down, or scoring points,etc. It is kind of like a person who donates to some cause or person anonymously. They are doing it out of the goodness of their heart,not to score points, or for some praise. They know, quietly, that God knows what they do. That is all that is necessary.

Thank you for your comments.

7/16/09 at 11:53 AM, realist38,

"If a man fell in love with his sister, his daughter or his female first cousin, society would prohibit him from marrying her."

Um... in Maine one can indeed marry their cousin provided they present the municipal clerk with a certificate of genetic counseling from a physician.

"It is based on societal moral convictions"

Hmmm... what about marrying cousins? Abortion? Lying? Adultery? All based on "societal moral conventions" yet none are against the law.

Seems there's a heck of a lot of speculation and opinion in that piece, not to mention outright falsehoods. Not a lot of facts.

tedlick: So true re 12:25 PM. Yes, in Maine (I did not grow up here but have lived here a long time) I have been surprised by what you write about concerning marrying cousins,etc. Yikes. I do not know a heck of a lot about that, but from some reading, I believe that practice can lead to more health problems etc ("inbreeding",etc.) Oh yeah....that sounds real "normal" and good!

The comment was made, "The Governor should have let the people decide, not decide for them." Perhaps since you are on-line you should look and see that we are what is called a Republic. As such people do not decide he laws nor does the Governor. The Legislature passes the laws and the Governor merely signs them into law if he agrees. If he does not then there is an override provision. If we were in a Democracy then we voters decide. This is not the case. If given the choice to vote, then slavery would not have been stopped when it was, nor the civil rights legislation would not have been passed.

Jazz11 and JD2008: Re 12:40 PM. Thanks for continuing to clarify that essential point.....but it seems, some people just do not get it nor are they willing to accept that fact.

Wrong again tedlick, abortion, lying, adultery, homosexual behavior.... all are against God's laws.... no Christian would support any of it. It will be voted on as it should and will be overturned.... Thank God!

e2346437, yes, if you think a referendum should be run against 2% of the population. There is no doubt the act will be repealed in November if 98% of the population are not gay. What a shame. And nobody is forcing anything on YOU. If you don't want to marry someone of your gender, you really shouldn't. Also....the elected legislators are very in touch with their constituents, that's why they passed the gay marriage act. They knew it would be opposed by the majority, underscoring the need for legislative intervention.

LilMikey, people who disagree that gay people should be allowed to marry are bigots because they seek to deny some people something they themselves have. Their opposition is based on either religious dogma, or their personal comfort level.

monroe, I assume that was sarcasm. You don't really believe your marriage will be wreck by the state allowing gay people to have the civil contract of marriage. I you believe your marriage was sanctified in the church then is still is. Churches are not being forced to marry gay people in this law.

HRH419, you don't have to agree with anyone's "way of life," but seeking to deny those people a civil privilege that you have based on that disagreement is the foundation of bigotry. If you have a valid reason for wanting the gay marriage act repealed, you should state it, but "it's against nature," and "against GOD's Laws," or "I'm not comfortable with it" are not valid reasons to deny anyone civil rights. Marriage is a civil contract in the eyes of the government. It's a religious state only if the couple choose it to be and have a relationship with an organization such as a church that sanctifies that.

newportres, what special protections? Seems like heterosexuals have the special protections. Also, you are defining a group of people by what you think their sexual activity is. This underscores the need for laws to protect gay people.

ilovedave, and your narrow view is the reason it was brought up.

realist38, not a civil right? Why do you get your marriage license at city hall? Why is it that you can make you marriage partner you next of kin for the price of this marriage license? Allowing gay couples to be legally married would improve their lives. It's just that simple, and it IS a civil right. There are only about 22,750 gay people in Maine, of course a referendum run against them will prevail. What a shame.

And finally, churches can teach and preach what ever their doctrine dictates. What they should not be allowed to do is have great influence over legislation that would have a negative impact on a group of people they do not represent.

Welcome 4Him...

Again I'd like to point out: our civil law is not based on any given religious doctrine: Thank God!

And I find it funny that, considering the risk of mutant offspring, that you seem to think it's OK to marry first cousins... very funny indeed.

As for the veto... in the end, it won't matter anyway as I've said for quite some time now.

Cher, once again you go slam someone when you know there gone. Isn't you that is in fact insisting on having the last word? Isn't you that had to let everybody know how you volunteered for obama and volunteer for the animl shelter. We have heard it over and over. Now you claim it shold be done quietly so no one knows. Maybe it's time you look in the mirror.

where did I say I was for first cousin marriage? As far as the veto... it does indeed matter.

4Him2day,

Did you see this article: “Fetuses Found to Have Memories, Say Researchers”? If not, you can find it at the following link:

http://www.newsmax.com/newsfront/fetuses_have_memories/2009/07/16/236295.html

Love in Christ

Sharon Faith

You didn't, but that was part of what I pointed out: you conveniently left it out.

When it all comes out in the wash at the federal level, all states must abide.

And it will... and they will.

JeffEmler...I agree with you......

but the word judgement you use has been used improperly by the gay movement

The word judgement in the greek term, means discernement....Christ tells us to have judgement...to discern right from wrong....we are using judgement when we speak out against the gay movement.....

The judgement, as in "Do not judge, lest you be judged yourself" means don't condemn,as in tell someone they are forever lost or condemn them to hell...that would not be good.

Either way, the gay movement has tunnelvision, and society, as it exists today, is thier speed bump, unless good common sense folk step up and say not during this generation...

Well... Here's a double header - RACE and SEX !!

http://www.onenewsnow.com/Perspectives/Default.aspx?id=599544

Frank Lombard -- a white, homosexual Duke University employee -- was being arrested on the East Coast for allegedly molesting his five-year-old black adopted son.

Mainstream media will not even report that the man is a homosexual or, in some instances, even that the children are black. They won't report that Frank Lombard had a live-in partner in a community that includes other homosexual couples with black adopted children.

And this one has RELIGION and SEX!!

http://www.khon2.com/news/local/story/Minister-Put-Behind-Bars-For-Sexually-Assaulting/u6e2TqVnQE2ESIAV3W5dCA.cspx

"A Kaneohe minister is sentenced to a decade in prison for sexually assaulting a young girl. Manuel Taboada molested a girl who was part of his congregation. She was just twelve when the assaults began. The sexual assaults lasted for years.

"The defendant is a very smooth operator,a scam artist, and a sexual predator", said Deputy Prosecutorm Thalia Murphy."

What the hell is your point?

I just wish this poor excuse of a summer will get over so November will come and then we can discuss something worthy!!!

Hey, remember the Bottle Bill. Large ad campaigns funded by People From Away don't always have the desired effect. Otherwise known as the FOAD effect.

And finally.....all of you who want the gay marriage act to go to the voters want that so you can vote against it. Is that not true? That in a nutshell defines oppression of a minority. I'm willing to bet none of you want to vote in favor of gay marriage.

WilliamDS, I certainly have a right to state my

belief that it is contrary to GODs word. No matter

if you like it or not..

And thanks 4HIM, but I'm not gone just choose not

to participate in confrontation. just voicing my opinion

not looking for a fight.

realist38 I'm with you, we need some sunshine

It's amazing how much people will spend to deny their neighbors basic rights. In case of the Catholic Church, the amazing thing is they would violate Christs statement that "Eunuchs from the womb" (homosexuals) have an absolute right to marriage which they share with those who are "Eunuchs by action of men" (the castrated, women whose ovaries or uterus had to be removed, and any others who -- as a result of human actions -- have been rendered unable to reproduce). Even those who gave up sex for religion ("Eunuchs for religion") had the right to marry -- hence nuns are symbolically married to Christ. But it would be too much to expect that those who wave the bible about would actually pay attention to what it commands.

anne, r u alright. you seem to have a bad case of tunnelvision. you see things the way u wanna. look around you and you see men and woman with kids enjoying the true meaning of family. are you saying even your own parents r bigots since they r not gay i take it. you would not even be here. hell, you have all the same rights others have, just learn to deal with it.

HRH, nobody said you didn't have the right to state what you believe, but you cannot expect the government to create laws based on your religious beliefs, or your personal comfort level, especially laws that include or exclude a group of people from a government recognized status.

anthoine,

1. Anne is not gay.

2. Gays do NOT have all of the same rights as other citizens. To believe so is an indication of ignorance. The protections and guarantees extended to married couples are NOT extended to gay couples. Therefore, we do NOT have the same rights.

So, instead of deal with it, we do what others have done with civil rights in this nation's history: we fight for our rights.

shreknangst, "eunuchs?" Please.....thanks... but no thanks. We don't care what the bible says. It was written a very long time ago and was translated by an English King to support his patriarchal and aristocratic rule of people. It has no relevance in the realm of politics or civil rights.

WilliaamDS, we are glad you have your arguments down pact. But you can't trump laws of nature because you want to.

gay sex is classified as risky behavior in the medical profession

gay relationships are unnatural

Aids would not exist today in its CURRENT NUMBERS if homosexuals did not exist today in thier current numbers.

now we all know that heterosexuals pass on Aids too....but at a miniscule rate compared to Aids and the gay community

As a society founded on christian principles, we as a country should continue to strive to stay on that course. Not promote any religion, but to be guded by christian principles. Keep it down the center of societal norms....

you shouldn't feel too bad. homosexuality is not the only portion of our society that is part of a deteriorating society that needs help.....

Murder, inner cities where african americans make up the majority of populations and are embroiled in hopelessness and make up a unnacceptable % of the prison population, our education system where 12 years is not enough to get someone ready for college or even the work force....These are issues Americans should fight to correct and should be ashamed that they have gone on this long...But because they are not corrected or found a good answer yet dosen't mean eventually we say, "OK, lets just let that issue go"

So don't feel bad, the 98% of society who are not gay or support the homosexual anomaly do have other issues that are just as important to the survival of American society as we know it and will continue to champion for a result that will strengthen society...not weaken it.....

Damn mrwaldo . Standby for the wrath...LOL!!!!

mrwaldo, so...a law that fosters monogamy in the gay community is not desirable because of "laws of nature." Laws of nature are what we make them. Gay people are the products of heterosexual sex. They aren't going away.

gay sex is classified as risky behavior in the medical profession

>> so is promiscuous heterosexual sex...

gay relationships are unnatural

>> BS... it occurs in many animal species around the world

Aids would not exist today in its CURRENT NUMBERS if homosexuals did not exist today in thier current numbers.

>> AIDS is growing fastest in Asia and Africa where it is spreading fastest among heterosexuals.

now we all know that heterosexuals pass on Aids too....but at a miniscule rate compared to Aids and the gay community

>> Not in Asia or Africa (where there are a lot more people than in the good old US of A)

As a society founded on christian principles, we as a country should continue to strive to stay on that course. Not promote any religion, but to be guded by christian principles. Keep it down the center of societal norms....

>> I'm sure our athiest, Jewish, Hindu, Muslim, and other faithful countrymen would feel differently

you shouldn't feel too bad. homosexuality is not the only portion of our society that is part of a deteriorating society that needs help.....

>> whether or not society needs help is a matter of opinion only.

Murder, inner cities where african americans make up the majority of populations and are embroiled in hopelessness and make up a unnacceptable % of the prison population, our education system where 12 years is not enough to get someone ready for college or even the work force....These are issues Americans should fight to correct and should be ashamed that they have gone on this long...But because they are not corrected or found a good answer yet dosen't mean eventually we say, "OK, lets just let that issue go"

>> In the examples you cite, there are victims... direct, harmed victims. My partner and I have never harmed anyone. there is a difference.

So don't feel bad, the 98% of society who are not gay or support the homosexual anomaly do have other issues that are just as important to the survival of American society as we know it and will continue to champion for a result that will strengthen society...not weaken it.....

>> Watch the news, dude... DOMA is dying... "Don't ask don't tell" is also dying. Look around the world: Russia ended laws against homosexuality: India has done the same: nations and states allow same sex marriage, and nothing has fallen out of the sky and squashed them.

Old arguments are old...

sharon read the post you shared, great story. Hard to believe that an unborn baby is ... human after all. The paragraph that really caught my attention "It seems like every day we find out marvelous new things about the development of unborn children. We hope that this latest information helps people realize more clearly that the unborn are members of the human family with amazing capabilities and capacities like these built in from the moment of conception," said Randall K. O'Bannon, director of education and research for the National Right to Life Educational Trust Fund.

Imagine that, the unborn are members of the human family....wonder how much schooling that took?

William, shreknangst post was in favor of gay rights and well-written. Don't jump to conclusions, it doesn't help your side.

Williamds, laws of nature are what we make them? Let me quess, Al Gore invented gravity.

The whole of Canada permits gay marriage. Can anyone give examples of how that has harmed their society? Their policy of inclusiveness is admirable, and as I've said often, an inclusive society makes a strong nation.

MaineExpatriat, I did understand that but I don't believe the Bible needs to enter the argument. It's not relevant for either side in my opinion.

ted, "whether or not society needs help is a matter of opinion only." Well of course its a matter of opinion, and one's opinion is shaped by one's world view. Your world view is shaped by your beliefs. If you don't think society in general is headed towards moral decay, you are clearly living in a dark place.

"you are clearly living in a dark place"

That, too, is opinion.

Holy cow, forHIM, you live in the darkest place imaginable! Let's hear about all the moral decay you think is destroying our society. (let the record show that his answer will be testimony that there is a need for legal separation of religious teaching and civil law)

You people complaining about the Catholic Church providing money to fight this gay & lesbian marriage issue have alot to do. You should be happy the Catholic Church is providing this money to fight gay marriage.You don't hear of other religions giving this amount of money to fight issues like this. Maby the Catholic's should keep this money and let the gay's win. Would you be happy then ?

WilliamDS - Can anyone give an example of how underage marriage harms society? Or polygamy? How about adultery? How about bestiality?

If that is the standard by which all laws are judged - that society will not be harmed - then I'm looking for a new island home somewhere very far away. That's a fairly pedantic way to go about legislation and government.

There is no "right to marriage", thus no discrimination in disallowing marriage. Besides, any homosexual can choose to get married today in every state of the union, assuming they have a license to do so. Just marry someone of the opposite sex. If you really want to make a mockery of marriage, just form groups of gay men and gay women who trade off "marriages" for the RIGHTS. And no one could stop you. But that is not what this is about - and we all know it and are sick of hearing about it. Prove me wrong.

Maybe a better argument is the one I haven't seen posted before - are we all ready for something new, or am I gonna get a "yawn . . . gay marr . . .boring" on this one too? Are you ready for it????? Here it is:

What about committed bisexuals??? Will you also argue that they have a RIGHT TO MARRY ONE PERSON OF EACH SEX????? The overwhelming answer should be - NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!

That oughta settle the whole question.

FrankC Child molestation is not about sexual orientation, it is all about control and access.

JMTnovember17: YES.

windfuture: Seriously?

windfuture....bon voyage..! Did anyone say the current gay marriage act allows any of what you are suggesting? Marriage is a civil contract between 2 people with implied behaviors such as monogamy, love, caring, and sharing. We aren't talking about marrying the family cow. Telling a gay person to marry someone of the opposite sex is like telling you to marry someone of your gender. Have a nice trip...

windfuture,

But that's how it works... There must be demonstrable harm to society and it's people before a law is put on the books. When a law is found to be baseless in it's harm on society, it is revoked. Thus is the case with abortion, alcohol, sodomy laws, and others.

Marriage is a civil ceremony that homosexuals are excluded from: the right to civil marriage is barred to them: it is indeed an issue of civil rights. That's like saying there is no "right to use the same bathroom as white people"... preposterous. And I have known men and women who trade off marriages for the tax breaks and other benefits: but it's sad that they must do that. Folks were sick of hearing about civil rights in the 60's too, but the government still did the right thing AGAINST PUBLIC OPINION.

Bisexuals could marry one of each sex IF polygamy weren't against the law (which it is).

So, nothing is settled. It will continue on after the elections in November, because the same people will be back trying to prevent homosexuals from having civil unions. It's not about marriage: it's about something that some people find "icky", but that in reality does no harm.

berquis: seriously - for argument's sake!!

But really, think through the whole idea. Marriage was originally a social and religious ceremony, performed in almost every civilization and religion, since the dawn of man. I don't look at my marriage to my spouse as a civil right - the fact that I was fortumate enough to find someone I loved, and who loved me back enough to marry me, was wonderful - but I never viewed marriage as my RIGHT. If it is, then there are a lot of folks who don't find love who are being discriminated against by members of the opposite sex. If Billy is a complete nerd or freak and repulses everyone he ever meets, are his rights being violated because no one will say yes??? I don't think so. Therefore, marriage is not a right of everyone. No one can be compelled to marry someone else - so some people will simply die without being allowed to exercise their rights. Next thing you know, we'll have to compensate them for "society" not providing a marital partner. That is what this debate has devolved marriage into - something other than what is intended.

And if the other side can do it, so can I.

So, for argument's sake, I repeat: Are we violating a BISEXUAL's rights by not allowing him or her to marry one person of each sex. After all - that should be their choice - and who would really be hurt????

JMTnovember17 ... what they did violates the IRS guidelines for 501c's and their tax-exempt status should be revoked, or did you not pick up on the 150 threads discussing that?

Windfuture, WOW!! I'm not going to even ask if you're kidding. I just don't want to know.

Windfuture, you'd think it was a civil right if you didn't have it!

WilliamDS: who said marriage is a civil contract with "implied behaviors" such as monogamy, love, caring, and sharing? I know many many people who enter into marriage knowing full well they can't possibly stay monogamous, or that they will share their possessions - or that they will forever care for their spouse. How many couples have separate checkbooks??? That is exactly why so many marriages fail today - because people are so selfish.

While we're at it - why would you add such moral standards (based on Christianity in part) on your own definition of marriage? Love, monogamy - hmmm... where do you think that idea came from?? Read the Bible lately?? Who are you to say that you must love someone to have a simple civil contract (i.e. marriage).

No, William, I'm simply responding to the BS argument being forced on us by the pro-gay marriage community at this time - that marriage is simply a civil matter - nothing more, and nothing less. And gays and anyone else who want to should have marriage as their RIGHT, to get the "benefits" of marriage enjoyed by heterosexuals. That is the argument I was highlighting - and the response is exactly what I expected.

If polygamy doesn't hurt society, as many argue, why should it be illegal? That is the same level of argument being made by homosexuals today - and it will simply be a matter of time before bisexuals and polygamists DEMAND their RIGHT to exercise their choice, based on gay marriage, if upheld this year. A union of anyone other than a man and woman is, by definition, NOT a marriage.

windfuture, great point that never dawned on me... what about bi-sexuals. Are we going to deny them their "just due" in life by limiting them to just one person?

windfuture,

Emotions like love were around long before your holy book.

The concept of monogamy was around long before your holy book.

It's pretty damned arrogant to think that Christians invented such conditions.

If marriage weren't a civil matter, it wouldn't require a CIVIL LICENSE and wouldn't be recognized by our local, state, or federal governments. Which it does and which it is.

Marriage used to be DEFINED AS POLYGAMOUS! In YOUR HOLY BOOK long before this "one man one woman" idea. Besides, something tells me you'd be against civil unions as much as you're against marriage.

marriage was never, ever endorsed in the biible, another lie from the homosexuals. Marriage was God ordained from the very first marriage between one man and one woman.

Wndfuture, I didn't apply them, they are society's expectations. We all know marriages fail and couples are often not monogamous but it's the "implied behaviors" that cause people to seek marriage as a rule. The bottom line is that you are planning to vote to take the right of civil marriage away from gay couples. A right that would improve their lives. It's just that simple.

MaineExpatriat, you must be for gay marriage or you wouldn't be complaining about the Catholic Church providing this much money !!

tedlick, I coudn't dissagree with you more!

MaineEX - because you have no answer - nor does anyone else on any of several boards I've asked. It's the trump card that sheds light on the farce that is the gay marriage debate.

Tedlick - As for the "right" to use a bathroom, as in "No Coloreds Allowed" during the 50s, 60s etc. - that exists today. It's simply changed shape to include "We have the Right to Refuse Service to Anyone We Choose" and "No Public Restrooms Available." Been south lately? See for yourself. While we're at it, why do we have Mens and Ladies - why don't we just get over ourselves in America already and have one bathroom for all? The whole idea of separate but equal settled that, didn't it??? No, I suspect some of my moral and Christian principles would argue for not seeing someone of the opposite sex relieving themselves. But that's really the only reason, isn't it??? If you take away the morality of the situation, anything goes . . . .

And to use William's argument again, what harm is done to society by polygamy? In his world, we would have polygamy, so that loving, caring, sharing, "monogamous" (at least at a time) bisexual "triples" could CHOOSE to exercise their CIVIL RIGHTS and get married. That is the same argument being used for gay marriage today. Bob and Ted want to have sex and be a loving couple. It won't hurt anyone in society. We promise!! So, let us get married. That is the standard that is suggested. And, if you follow through with that logic, you reach the same argument I make for bisexuals. No difference, other than changing the polygamy statute especially for them!!

See you all in November! Personally, I can't wait.

Ok... and that story about the first couple is part of your holy book... then came all the polygamy, right? Oh wait... isn't that old testament? The one you tell people doesn't matter, or that we have new law, or some other BS until it works in your favor? Yes, I do believe it is. Using the bible alone in these arguments demonstrates a true lack of grounding in reality, 4Him...

Your holy book is NOT THE BASIS FOR LAW IN AMERICA. Quit acting like it's the source of all legal arguments... it offends everyone that doesn't follow your religion.

And something tells me that you too, 4Him, would be screaming your God's vengeance against civil unions as well. It really has nothing to do with marriage to you.

MaineSurvivor2,

How so?

windfuture,

Um... I was born and raised in GA... and I've seen what happens to people convicted of that "no coloreds allowed" concept. They get prosecuted in a court of law.

And for the record... I really have no argument against polygamy... I see not one shred of harm in it.

Bob and Ted can already have sex and be a loving couple. They just miss out on the protections and guarantees granted by the state and federal government in their relationship. That's the inequality.

And yes, November... See you when DOMA dies! Personally, I can't wait!

tedlick - Love began with God, and my Holy Book (Bible) as you call it records it. What you belive or I believe doesn't change facts. I never said "Christians" invented anything, so I'm not arrogant. And polygamous marriage wasn't "defined" in Scripture - it was recorded to show people the error of their ways, and their selfishness. Just because God doesn't always obliterate everyone who sins, it is not an endorsement of their behavior. We've had the Leviticus argument - many people misinterpret the intent of the Law, and thus Christ's reason for being. If we could live by the Law (which God foreknew we couldn't) we wouldn't need a savior in the first place.

As I've said before, the "civil" side of marriage was stolen from the churches and religious groups - people didn't need licenses, yet somehow they were married.

windfuture,

Not everyone follows your religion. Therefore, it holds no power. That's fact. Some are Hindu. Some are Muslim. Some are athiests. Some are agnostic.

The laws of the Christian faith only apply to those that follow the faith. To others it is mythology at best, blasphemy at worst.

As for the "civil" side of marriage being stolen, well good... we are, after all, a secular society and live under secular civil law.

forHIM, you should be banned from misquoting others on this list. Nowhere and at no time did I say polygamy should be civilly recognized. Gay marriage is NOT polygamy. Bisexuals now marry one gender. Marriage is between 2 people. I can't believe I let myself respond to your paranoid rantings. It won't happen again...

FrankC: What to do you....go around trying to dig up some rare incident? Did you find it terribly troubling what those homosexual men did to the couple in Fla last week? Do those incidents bother you as well? Oh that's right.....that incident did not have anything to do with a "sexual nature" as far as has been determined. Maybe if some of you focused less on the "sexual" part (some have used the word "repulsive" here), you could see that this is an issue that is not about sex, but about 2 people who are in a committed relationship wanting to be accorded certain protections (visiting spouse in hospital, etc etc.)

mrwaldo: Yes, but there is an older gentleman who posts who does speak about gay people going to hell and also that that will happen to the ministers that support these same -sex couples. He talks about "how hot it will be." He has so stated it . Perhaps that is not what you are talking about then at 1:27 PM I hope you really meant what you said in the 2nd to last paragraph there. Just sayin.....and I am only directing this comment to you in direct response to what you wrote.

Yes I am JMTnovember17. I am a heterosexual woman and very proud to support the civil rights of all Americans. However, you are wrong about the Catholic church and my issue with it. I have been railing at the wind over the abuses from churches for years now. It's only going to take one legislature to prosecute and then the entire charade will change for the better. BTW... JMT, you'd be amazed how many here do support gay marriage and probably horrified to discover how many of them are heterosexual.

Tedlick - so as I said, they can get 99% of the "benefits" of marriage by simply choosing to marry someone under the law in place today. But that's not what they want - they want what heterosexual married couples have. And the fact is, they can never have it. Because they choose not to be heterosexual.

The other protected classes under the civil rights act, by and large, have no choice in what they do - they have no remedy at law. A Black person can't choose to be White. A Man can't choose to be a Woman - not chromosomally anyway. A disabled person can't choose to remove their disability.

But a homosexual can choose to be straight - at least long enough to get a marriage license and enjoy the same rights as everyone else.

Otherwise, you need to stand up and support your (few) Mormon friends who believe in plural marriage, and those bisexuals who may feel the full enjoyment of their rights is being curtailed.

windfuture, I only read the first line of the one post that asked about a problem with underage people marrying, I stopped reading after that - I figured there was no point so I have no idea what you're talking about.... But I can guarantee you I'd completely disagree. I figured that out from one line. BTW.. I'm not a Christian and if was Biblical "stuff" I wouldn't pay any attention to it anyway.

MaineSurvivor, the gay marriage law will be defeated in November. Guaranteed, however that will only be the beginning of the battle. It's never going to go away.

Never will governments be able to legislate religious beleifs. It didn't work in England and it won't work here.The settlers came here to have freedom of religion and to persue a better way of life.I beleive that most religions beleive that marriage is between a man and a women and it has been a moral standard for centuries.The government can make provisions for what ever purpose that gays want to be considered as a union but marriage isn't going to be the title for it. Heaven help us!

WilliamDS: yeah, but you will....respond.(to some.) Others have said the same thing and still respond. And we know why.....it is definitely not because you are conflicted, as a couple here would like to think.....no, you just feel the need to respond to what you read , as you cannot stand to have it go undisputed,etc. Very understandable.

tedlick: Would you clarify what you wrote at 3:58 PM at the end...DOMA,etc.?

Bathrooms that still say "We have the right to refuse service to anyone we choose." Not very nice.....not very Christian, is it?! To use a bathroom??? I can see a place saying "We have no restrooms" as many convenience stores,etc., do not today (they just cannot maintain them,etc.) Two entirely different things!

There's no reason for dialogue. This will be taken care of in November and gay marriage will be defeated. End of story! C'ya! This chat room will have NO influence on the outcome.

"And the fact is, they can never have it."

Only due to closed-minded people like yourself... those EXACT ARGUMENTS WERE USED AGAINST INTERRACIAL MARRIAGE. They are so preposterous, that today we can't even fathom people thinking that way, but they did: and behind closed doors, many still don

I never chose not be heterosexual... When did you decide that you WERE going to be heterosexual?

The choice argument has plenty of support on the side of science, but religious types tend to ignore science as it gets int he way. No there isn't definitive proof yet, but by the same token, you have no proof that it IS merely a choice... I do not believe for one minute that truly homosexual people can choose not to be. I do believe that you can decide NOT to be superstitious, or to change religions from one to another: but not sexual orientation. Oh, and just look at Whacko Jacko... Michael Jackson proved that black folks can indeed turn white... further trashing this comical argument.

The protections to a woman I could marry would not extend to my partner: that concept is patently ludicrous.

We're not talking polygamy here... we'll take up that battle when they have the numbers and finances to take it to court. For now, let's stick to marriage equality for heteros and homos, shall we?

7/16/09 at 4:14 PM, MaineExpatriat,

Well said, and very true.

Let's talk about fishing....

quoting WilliamDS - "forHIM, you should be banned from misquoting others on this list. Nowhere and at no time did I say polygamy should be civilly recognized. Gay marriage is NOT polygamy. Bisexuals now marry one gender. Marriage is between 2 people. I can't believe I let myself respond to your paranoid rantings. It won't happen again... "

But others who are pro-gay marriage do support polygamy - see Tedlick's comment: "And for the record... I really have no argument against polygamy... I see not one shred of harm in it."

William - how sad that our "morally-oppressive, Christian" bigots in society wouldn't let bisexuals have one partner of each sex. After all, what's the harm to society, or why is it anyone's business what consenting people do behind closed doors?

The way many of those who are against gay marriage see it - there is no difference between the argument for gay marriage, and the arguments I just presented here. That is the fundamental basis for this discussion - not bigotry, or hate, or anything like it. We don't think gay marriage should be legal because it just isn't right. I have Biblical reasons and natural reasons, primarily; I also don't believe society should reward the choice - we should be supporting gays in trying to overcome their misplaced sexual feelings. Others have other reasons.

And I would have the same reason against polygamy, or allowing a man to "marry" a chair, for that matter. Remember, it's the gay community who wants to change the status quo - not Christians, not marriage traditionalists, etc.. I personally think you just want to have your cake and eat it too.

Drinky: Yes, I agree......and that statement from Mutty, "It's a long haul but we've got a good start."....could almost hear him saying, with glee, "We aren't at the finish line yet, but we are almost there." This must be giving him such a lift, don't you think? Life must be looking better to him all the time now that same-sex couples may be denied certain protections and dignities. Unreal.

I would make some snide comment about the futility of arguing with strangers on the internet, if only I wasn't more of a loser for enjoying reading it so much....

But in all seriousness, is this an effective method of sharing ideas regarding this? "Moonbats" and "Fundies" are equally set in their views, aren't they?

cher,

Just that DOMA (the awful Defense Of Marriage Act) will die... in court... in the not too distant future. That, along with the end of "Don't Ask/Don't Tell" will open the door to federal legislation granting marriage equality. As the "cons" look forward to the November vote, I look forward to the death of DOMA.

Ok....windfuture, let's turn the tables theoretically.... Let's say YOU have to marry someone of YOUR gender in order to have the rights others have... Would that be acceptable for you or any other heterosexual? And what about the person of the opposite sex that the gay person would marry? Are you advocating lying to that person or deception? Sometimes I think you are posting just for the sake of argument and if so you should say that. You can't really believe the proponents of gay marriage also believe in polygamy. And your argument about choice of sexual orientation has been proven wrong, but of course as a heterosexual, you are an expert on homosexuality.... (tongue firmly in cheek) I don't know a gay person who chose it.

It's not a choice. No one would choose an orientation that would bring such rejection, dismissal, insults,etc.

Maineexpatriat, I was right about you being for Gay rights. Apparently you don't have any use for religion. If man were to be wed with man & women to be wedwith women, God would have made Adam a husband and Eve a wife. If your kind want to corrupt this world you should all move to an island where your kind wouldn't corrupt this world and stay to yourselves.

MaineSurvivor2,

And you and your type will have no influence on the death of DOMA, the death of "Don't ask don't tell" and the eventual realization of marriage equality.

You'll scream, gnash your teeth, and pull hair just as folks did in the South in the 60's (you too may even riot in the streets) but it will make no difference whatsoever.

LethbridgeStewart,

Yes, very set in our views... I just get tickled poking people who consider their opinions to be fact. 1 + 1 = 2 is a fact. Red is a pretty color is an opinion.

Some in here cannot make that distinction, and I think it's hilarious!

tedlick - Michael Jackson did not choose to be white - he had a debilitating disease that caused his melanin to drop.

MaineEx - thus, you fall into the trap of having a closed mind, as you accuse others of the same. It was actually quite a good argument I presented - not based on Christianity, as it does little good to speak of morality and Christianity to those who reject it.

tedlick - I'm simply pointing out that no one who is gay and "married"- whether gay marriage is voted in or not - can have what a heterosexual married couple has. They are not the same - and it's not a matter of societal acceptance, or love, or tolerance, or any of the above. If you want a heterosexual marriage - go get one. If you want a gay marriage - go to the few places you can get one. But they are not the SAME. Black people and White people are not the SAME. It's a fact of life, and no amount of voting or stomping your feet will change it.

JMT.. Did you read anything beyond Yes, in my post? I'm straight. It's sad that so many on your side are like you but I think that says a lot about your "side".

OH and JMT I'm proud to support gay rights (civil rights) for all my fellow Americans. The only thing about this country I'm ashamed is are those that can't understand the separation of church and state and use the constitution for toilet paper (righties). Have a nice weekend all rolled up with your hatred JMTnovember17.

No Windfuture it's pretty obvious who has the closed mind. Don't you think it's a little prideful to think that you and you alone have made the defining post that would change everything? Please don't refer to me again, I don't read your posts and I hate seeing my name as I scroll past them, then I have to stop and actually read those few lines. Such a waste of my precious time.

Well the discussion was pretty civil until the righties had to turn it ugly about an hour ago. What a shame.

windfuture,

Aside from procreation (which can be accomplished in other ways) the relationships are the same. I know you don't like that idea, but they really are.

Did you just say "Black people and White people are not the SAME."? Using your logic, shouldn't we keep them from marrying?

Man, that's dangerous, dangerous talk right there. Antiquated and an affront to an integrated society.

And I didn't ask for the vote... I'm the guy saying that in the end, the vote and all the money spent leading up to it are a complete waste of resources.

JMTnovember17, your post underscores the need for protection from discrimination for gay people. Gay people are everywhere and your hatred comes through quite clearly. There is no doubt that your mentality is widespread and the gay marriage act will be repealed and that hatred will win against such a minority. It will be a reason for shame but unfortunately you will all rejoice that you have won something in the name of religious delusion. YOU move to an island.

chersully - you are absolutely wrong about "No one would choose an orientation that would bring such rejection, dismissal, insults,etc." Many, many people choose to do things that are harmful - and psychiatrists have spent millions of hours studying why.

The answers are interesting:

1. Attention

2. Feelings of self-loathe

3. Mental defect

4. etc. etc.

To agree with your statement, you would also have to say that a pedophile doesn't "choose" to be a pedophile. Ok - I'll go along with it. It is a compulsion for them. It is not something they can choose, any more than an alcoholic can choose not to drink when compelled, or a chocoholic can choose to not eat chocolate. Or any addict . . . but, we all recognize the faulty behavior of the few, and we seek to treat them. Why so in the case of homosexuals. They are obviously attracted and feel compelled to go against the grain, and be with the wrong sex. So, give them treatment, but don't endorse the choice!

windfuture, a pedophile is a person who commits a crime against a child, a person who is not a consenting adult. You need to refrain from applying that term to gay people. That is defamation. Gay people are requesting the right to make their domestic partner their next of kin, and the extreme opposition to that is irrational.

Tedlick - I'll let you go with this one:

"The protections to a woman I could marry would not extend to my partner: that concept is patently ludicrous."

***But your partner is free to get married to any woman he would like - thus, he and I have marriage equality already.

"We're not talking polygamy here... we'll take up that battle when they have the numbers and finances to take it to court. For now, let's stick to marriage equality for heteros and homos, shall we?"

***Ah, so it is a march to impose your views on everyone else and change everything in the world, given enough time and money. Isn't that your "religious" view?

Re 1:10 PM You are indeed a very dark and not good person. I knew duckwa would read it......I even saw that he posted after he said he was going so thought he was still around. Stop analyzing my "motives" as you are way off. The time you take to analyze me is darnright creepy. Creepy.....

You attribute negative things to people because you are not a good person yourself. I have never in my life had anyone say things about me as you do. I have lived a lot of yrs and known loads of people of all backgrounds. You of course are right (who do not even know me) and all the rest are wrong. Ha ha,,,,,You are so off 4Himtoday, it is pathetic. You are one person I do not take seriously as you are not a good person. You are one of the most trouble making people I have even had occasion to read. You are not a credible individual as far as I and some others are concerned. For being such a Christian, you should certainly come across differently than you do. You have been trying for a long time to try and get people to turn against me or whatever you do (JD,etc.) ...and not paranoia.....you have done it over and over. Take some responsibility. I have no use for you ,as I have stated. You are one sad person and a lot see it here. You are the control freak.....look in the mirror .....you are so off on just about everything, it is pathetic. "Slam people"...many here would say, you should look in the mirror.

windfuture: Interesting commentary. Thanks for responding. I may not agree, but you present your points in a reasonable way.

William - I was not applying the term pedophile to gay people. They are very different situations. Thanks for the reminder.

I disagree with you on your last point, however: Gay people are not requesting to make their domestic partner their next of kin - they are requesting a redefinition of the term marriage as it applies to you and ME. And that is how it AFFECTS everyone . . . the FEW are trying to redefine marriage for ALL.

Thanks Cher. I do try to make it less about me and more of a neutral discussion of the facts and issues, from all angles. My personal belief is my own, and I don't think I will convince anyone of anything - and that's ok. But that doesn't mean I can't have an opinion, and keep an open mind. Have a great day.

tedlick - Black poeple and White people ae not the same, any more than Short people and Tall people are the same. Everyone is different is my point.

You must think I advocate for general discimination against blacks. I don't. But I would discriminate against some blacks - if they gave me reason to. And I would discriminate against some whites too. And I bet you have someone to whom you would do the same. Like, Christians maybe???

LilMikey, 10:45 am: I'm not screaming, but all the capital letters and exclamation points in your post make it seem like you are.

And no, I am not being a bigot by not letting my fellow Mainers decide the issue because I believe this is a civil rights issue and an equal rights issue, which should not be decided by the majority. Our founders created the USA as a Democratic Republic specifically for that reason.

MaineExpatriat, speaking of mentality, your kind are not mentally right. Why should the young children allover this world have to grow up seeing your kind and your mentally ill ways. What is this world coming too. And about discrimination and hate, I don't hate any of your kind. God didn't create a man for a man and a woman for a woman. How can you say being gay & lesbian are right with God ? You all need some kind of mental help thinking you are ok with your gay & lesbian ways. And for gays & lesbians being able to abdopt young children. What will these children ever grow up to be ? Corrupted!!!

wind... the current gay marriage law is not polygamy. To suggest it ushers in a law that would recognize polygamy is ridiculous. The promoters of polygamy can fight their own battle as I believe they have been unsuccessfully for years. Gay people want the right that assure their partner is their next of kin just as a husband and wife are assured of that. It's that simple. Try to muddy it anyway you like but it's just that simple. Gay marriage would improve the lives of gay people and you hate them so you do not want that to happen. The gay marriage law will be repealed by a vote but it will happen federally at some point just as it did in Canada and other nations that choose to treat their citizens with dignity and respect.

Collecting funds to lobby against gay marriage legislation is political lobbying. According to IRS regulations a church is not allowed to engage in political lobbying as a "primary" activity. According to this definition, the Catholic Church could be in trouble if this $100,000 grant can be shown to be their biggest, or one of their biggest, grants of the fiscal year.

windfuture: I admire your approach. Keep it going. I may not see eye to eye with you on this issue, but always appreciate a fair-minded person who sticks to the facts and does not get into the personal stuff. Some do that here....(I was derided for some political work I did ....the person said, kind of derisively,I"You get a "Gold Star" etc. so I responded. Hard not to sometimes. The best thing would be if we did not "go there" in the first place. I know I am not interested in it so usually do not engage with a few who seem to do that...if you give them an inch, etc.

Thanks again for the way you approach things here.

No wind... they are asking to be included in the civil definition of marriage. Not redefine it. They are not asking churches to recognize or perform gay marriages. They are asking for inheritance rights, and surviver rights for example, that are guaranteed to married people. You have your definition of marriage and I"m sure it differs from many of the definitions others who are married have. Tired and embattled, the gay community may not be able to prevail against the vote against them in November but nothing says I can't make a stand right here, right now. I'm standing my ground. So...let me reflect what I read you saying... "If gay people are allowed to marry, your marriage would somehow be affected." Explain that please and without all the religious stuff if you would. Your religious beliefs are yours and should have no influence on your relationship with the government and what civil privileges you enjoy.

To those who advocate for gay people to exercise their current rights and marry people of the opposite sex. . . . . ARE YOU SERIOUS? This would be making a true mockery of marriage. To marry someone you don't love and are not attracted? And this is the right you would like us to exercise? Should a young gay man decide to marry your daughter because he want to get married, what kind of life do you think your daughter would have in such a marriage, what type of life do you think the young man would have? What a disaster for everybody. Ask any one who has ever been married to a gay or lesbian what they think of your great idea, and this wonderful right that you hold out to the gay and lesbian population. To those who advocate for this, may your children be the blessed with such a holy union.

robin56: Good thinking. It sure appears that there are too many marriages already that lack true respect, commitment and the love you speak of. Why would anyone advocate for more of that? Not a solution, that is for sure.

windfurture,

Then I'll happily take civil unions and you can keep the word "marriage"... I seriously doubt that would change the outcry from the religious folks, however. For them it's acknowledgment of gays as equal citizens, not the protection of a word's definition. WilliamDS is, however, correct that we don't care if churches perform the ceremony or if it's a judge in a courthouse. Just extend the same protections and guarantees.

And yes, we are physically different, but we are equal under the law: that's what this is about, equal treatment under the law.

Nothing in your example of my partner and I marrying people we don't love extends the protections and guarantees we're after.

As for Christians, those who do not try use dogma as the basis for civil law get no beef from me. The ones that do are attempting to discriminate against anyone not of their faith, and that is millions upon millions of people.

Kudos to you though... you do hold an even head in these discussions, something many are incapable of. That's mightily respectful.

JMTnovember17,

The medical community no longer considers homosexuality to be a mental illness. You're welcome to that opinion, but nothing backs it up. As for the children exposed to same sex couples, they'll grow up to be tolerant, understanding citizens one can hope. I guess that depends on how their parents react and teach them accordingly.

Ok robin and cher, you're saying gay people shouldn't marry someone of the opposite sex just to be able to say they are married, right? Yes, that would be ridiculous and deception and nobody would be happy. I don't think wind was serious about that. But for the life of me I can not understand why people don't understand that recognizing gay marriage is an improvement in our society. It fosters monogamy, makes the relationship stronger by decreasing hardships, supports financial security for the couple, and generally improves their lives. Also it allows them access to legal divorce should that need arise. Today, if a gay couple separates, it's a free-for-all.

Wind may not have been serious about it but I have heard that same argument from many many people over the last several weeks. I wanted to make a point regarding the fallacy of such reasoning. Marriage Eq

i think that the churchs and oganizations outside the state should let the people of the state of maine make the desision on gay marriage.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lavender_marriage

Shame and social ugliness once lead to gays marrying members of the opposite sex. It's not something anyone should be proud of, nor that we should attempt to re-live.

WilliamDS: I really think you misread what robin and I were saying. I did not say I do not think gay people should not marry! I am a supporter. robin certainly is. What are you saying at 6:12 PM? Robin was disputing what someone else was suggesting......that person thinks gay people should marry people of the opposite sex instead. We were both saying "no" to that.

For the millionth time, Civil Rights is not a democratic issue. That is why we have a constitution. It surely isn't to allow tyranny of the majority.

WilliamDS: robin was saying at 5:53 PM that suggesting a gay person try and "reorient" and marry someone of the opposite sex was kind of like asking someone to marry someone even though there was no love there, etc. In other words, going against their true feelings. I think it was pretty clear.

JMTnovember17, I'm not GAY! Please read the posts you respond to, you're making yourself look like a complete fool.

the people need to vote on gay marriage & it would be soundly defeated just like it has every other state that had a vote.

joe, it will be voted on. It will be defeated but it will not go away and in the future it will be voted in. Young people, overwhelmingly, support gay marriage. It's just a matter of time but it wouldn't surprise me in the least if America was one of the last non-theocratic countries in the world to legalize it.. we've fallen behind.

I know, Cher. lol

gay people are mentally sick people, and we need to get this gay marriage thing behind us so we can get the homosexuals the mental health help that they need because this can be cured i know of several homosexuals that i have met that were cured and know they are living a better life.i know i asked them

icuucme Truth Wins Out is a great website that explores this very topic. Have a look and see what you think.

WilliamDS: In other words, robin and I think like you on the subject, or very close anyway.

MaineExpatriat: You are so right about the young people.......overwhelmingly......many more for it than against it.

Here's an even better website for anyone that wants to be free from homosexuality. It is difficult but entirely possible. Read the actual stories of people that have. http://www.exodus-international.org/

"from cnn.com:

But among those 18 to 34 years old, 58 percent said same-sex marriages should be legal. That number drops to 42 percent among respondents aged 35 to 49, and to 41 percent for those aged 50 to 64. Only 24 percent of Americans 65 and older support recognizing same-sex marriages, according to the poll." Overall 54 percent said no, while 44 percent said yes.

Comment #256: there are a lot of comments here.

anne of MDI - kudos to your comments. It is refreshing to hear intelligent arguments. As a gay man myself, I know being gay is NOT a choice. All of the arguments against equality are based on selectively quoted scripture. Fanatics suddenly become quiet if you bring up Leviticus 11:10 or 20:9, the same chapter that they use to condemn homosexuality. If you condemn homosexuality for Biblical reasons, you must also condemn eating shellfish as even more sinful and support murdering children who talk back to their parents. These religious fanatics are the American Al Qaeda. They don't understand the separation of church and state - they want a theocracy because it would put them in the highest position of power.

Things are slowly changing. As MaineExpatriat pointed out immediately above my comment, 58% of Americans 18 to 34 said same-sex marriage will be legal. Bigotry will die off as older generations die off. It happened the same way with all forms of prejudice like racism and anti-semitism. Similarly, the ultimate decision on same-sex marriage will most likely follow the same path as the Loving v. Virginia case in 1967 in which the Supreme Court stated that it was unconstitutional to outlaw interracial marriage, even though the majority of Americans were opposed to interracial marriage. In Maine in 2005, 55% of Mainers voted NO to question 1, they voted NO to discrimination. The exact same people are on each side, we've had 4 more years to become more liberal with a democratic majority and the first black president. I don't see any reason why Mainers won't vote NO again this November. The tactics of the opposition is already destroying the faith of many Christians and Catholics. I knew of several Catholics who left Mass when they were asked to sign petitions or found prejudiced pamphlets in their Bibles, of all places!

Please visit my site, http://www.MEmarriage.com or http://www.MaineMarriageEquality.com for more information about how you can help ensure that all Mainers are treated equally and help affirm religious freedom!

SunnyF, great post and best of luck to you.

SunnyF: Bravo! Even if it is overturned here in Maine (which would be unfortunate), it will finally happen one day. No doubt. There does seem to be a lot of people here in Maine working against same-sex marriage, but there are so many who support it. Many of us on these posts (and many of us heterosexual) want others to have the protections and rights that other committed couples do. Fairness and decency will win out in the end. Of course most of us do not think it is a choice. Someone is going to choose to go through all this?!....all the disapproval and worse?? Hardly!

http://www.field.com/fieldpollonline/subscribers/Rls2292.pdf

Education and Gay Marriage: It's adobe so I can't cut and paste.

On Prop. 8 (the ruling that overturned gay marriage in CA)

Voters with no more than a high school education were in favor: 62% to 27% (ban gay marriage)

Voters with a post graduate education were opposed to Prop 8 by: 61% to 33% (favor gay marriage)

I couldn't find the nationwide polls. There are dozens of more state polls, MA, NY, AZ and many more on CA etc. and they all say relatively the same thing regarding the correlation between gay marriage and higher education.

SunnyF, I hope you are right. Thank you for your optimism. Doctor icuucme has diagnosed us as "mentally sick" and seems to have a cure for us. Reminds me of the Anita Bryant wars of 35 years ago. Their arguments and rhetoric doesn't evolve and are just as irrational as they were back then.

MaineExpatriat: Although there are always exceptions, it has been pretty well recognized for a long time, that the more education one has (higher or self-education,etc.) is conducive to a broader outlook; an interest in, and acceptance of , diversity. Much of prejudice and bigotry originates from fear and ignorance (in the sense of a lack of familiarity or understanding)' fear of the "unknown"; fear of change. I know many here would deny it, but the dislike and opposition originates from a revulsion in some peoples' minds. That is a large part of it anyway. And I agree with tedlick; I do not think those people will change their thinking , so c'est la vie!

4him said "...abortion is against GOD'S laws..."

________________________________________

Nope, not in there. Try again...or, perhaps you should just stop altogether before you really make yourself look foolish.

Thanks SunnyF! I had fun 2Day. Sometimes it's just like Dick Cheney's favorite sport: shootin' fish in a barrel.

I have already visited MaineMarriageEquality.com but will also check out MEmarriage.com as you suggested.

Let's all keep fighting the good fight and, if there's anybody still on the fence, by Golly we'll bring 'em over to our side!

God put a limit on human intelligence but not on stupidity....

Heard this not too long ago. I really like that one.

http://www.field.com/fieldpollonline/subscribers/Rls2292.pdf

Education and Gay Marriage: It's adobe so I can't cut and paste.

On Prop. 8 (the ruling that overturned gay marriage in CA)

Voters with no more than a high school education were in favor: 62% to 27% (ban gay marriage)

Voters with a post graduate education were opposed to Prop 8 by: 61% to 33% (favor gay marriage)

I couldn't find the nationwide polls. There are dozens of more state polls, MA, NY, AZ and many more on CA etc. and they all say relatively the same thing regarding the correlation between gay marriage and higher education.

I did not do that. I'm sorry I have no idea why they posted again and TWICE?

The United States is supposed to be a democracy. If the people cannot decide on this issue,as well as other issues,then our democracy is truly dead.

It's not a Democracy it is a Democratic Republic. Big Difference. We vote on the representatives to make the decision. Look it up.

Are you afraid of democracy?

MaineSurvivor2, that slur was really intelligent now wasn't it? To whom did you address that, and what exactly are you trying to say?

alces247, I'm sorry you didn't understand my post. We are a Democratic Republic, we vote on the Representatives and they vote on the laws. It's the Constitution. Are you afraid of the Constitution?

William, don't feed the animals.

I've read the Constitution more times than the average person. Congress may vote on the laws,but the Supreme Court decides whether those laws are "constitutional" or valid according to the constitution. Simply put,you just took what I stated too literally.

icuucme - I think this quote sums up the response I was about to write: "I am not speaking facetiously, but I think it would be best to say that all homosexuals are sick, that all heterosexuals are sick, that the population is sick. Let us get rid of this term and look at people as people." - W. Pomeroy

no alces, I think the problem is you didn't understand my answer. No problem.

Re 10:18 PM Wow....really good representative for "your cause". Not.

Cher but they do keep proving the polls I posted are spot on. See there's always a silver lining.

Okay all your purists that are against gay marriage, I have to say a few things. All this attention and money wasted on this issue is nuts!! I stand in line at the grocery store after a 12 hour shift and am behind someone paying for their custom cut meat with a "state" credit card. I work at a hospital and while screening a 40 yo who walked in and flopped in a chair complaining about a 5 minute wait, I ask what caused them to be disabled and they have to stop and think about it!!! We got a lot of bigger problems out there than arguing about whether gay people should have the same rights as others. Oops...gotta go get ready to go to work with all those gay people I work with that pay their taxes like the rest of us and are brighter than alot of us!

The most important thing to note, is that the Maine marriage equality law says that THE CHURCH DOES NOT HAVE TO PERFORM GAY MARRIAGE. So why is the church still contributing so much money to end gay marriage if it doesn't affect them? That only leads to one possible reason, bigotry and hate.

The people who collected signatures in Maine to stop marriage equality did so by misleading people, lying, and using deception. These people who claim to be "right" or "moral" but then use evil, sinful, lying ways. Here's what one of my friends from Maine told me.

Sadly "Stand for Marriage Maine" collected many signatures by misleading people to believe they would not be able to vote unless they "registered" with those who were collecting signatures. At the Old Port Festival a woman at the top of Exchange Street was collecting signatures for the vote to ban gay marriage, but she was promoting it as if you were registering to vote. She said "Are you registered votes in Maine would you like to register here?" It was one sentence, she didn’t pause. I asked what we were registering for and she said "To determine if marriage is between a man and a woman or a man and a man or whatever." Then came the best part, she said "Would you like to sign so you can vote?" As if I couldn’t vote if I didn’t sign. She wasn’t telling people that it was a petition to stop gay marriage by putting it to a vote, she was convincing people to sign thinking that they had to or they wouldn’t be allowed to vote. There was nothing that even indicated what or why people where to sign. It’s not about Gay Marriage, it’s about Hate and Control. The fact they collected signatures so quickly only proves they preyed on the elderly and ignorant. This only provides evidence that many Mainers still have much growing up to do.

Do you really want to support people who lied to you, deceived you, who are trying to force you to spread discrimination and bigotry? Don't let these anti-gay people control your lives and choices. Support marriage equality in Maine.

Homosexuality is NOT a sin.

The main problem is the Bible is being grossly misinterpreted and taken out of context to support bigotry. The same was done many centuries ago to condone slavery and keep blacks as 2nd class citizens.

Basically what is happening can be seen in the following example. You read this in a book:

"That black guy is wrong"

Then you ignore the rest of the book. So by looking at this line, you think the person is wrong for being black. However, if you read the rest of the book, you find what is very clear:

"He commited murder"

Now you realize he was wrong not because he was black, but because he was a murderer.

The same reasoning and out of context is happening with homosexuality and the Bible. God never said homosexuality is a sin. People quote "man shall not lieth with man" You get the impression that it's talking about homosexuality. It's not. If you read the rest of Leviticus, you will see that idolatrous practices were the sin, not homosexuality. That's why female/female sexual relationships were never mentioned in Leviticus. They were not talking about homosexuality or sexual orientation, they were talking about the sin of idolatry, which was widespread during that time period.

Any educated Christian would know that. Scholars who have studied the Bible in context of the times and in relation to other passages have shown those passages (Leviticus, Corinthians, Romans, etc) have nothing to do with homosexuality. These passages often cherry-picked while ignoring the rest of the Bible. The sins theses passages are referring to are idolatry, prostitution, and rape, not homosexuality.

I suggest you read the following links to see what God really says about homosexuality. Don't trust the people telling you homosexuality is a sin. They are either lying to you, or blatantly twisting God's words to condone their hate.

http://www.soulfoodministry.org/docs/English/NotASin.htm

http://www.jesus21.com/content/sex/bible_homosexuality_print.html

http://www.christchapel.com/romans_inter.html

http://www.stjohnsmcc.org/new/BibleAbuse/BiblicalReferences.php

http://www.gaychristian101.com/

Thats why Jesus never mentions it as well. There is nothing immoral, wrong, or sinful about being gay. Jesus, however, clearly states he HATES hypocrites. If you preach goodness, then promote hate and twist the words of the Bible, you are a hypocrite, and will be judged and sent to hell. Homosexuals will not go to hell, hypocrites will.

Here is why the slippery slope argument fails.

Let us take the 4 common arguments: beastiality, pedophilia, incest, and polygamy. First off, all 4 of these are fetishes, and irrelevant to homosexuality, which is a sexual orientation. Let me distinguish this for you using incest as an example. If a guy into incest is straight, he'll choose his sister, and if he's gay, he'll choose his brother. See the distinguishment? Now pedophilia and beastiality will never be legal, because both are non-consenting and harmful, whereas homosexuality is 2 loving consenting adults that is not wrong or harmful. Incest, also has been shown to lead to genetic defects, so that is also out of the question. Incest also is a fetish, not a sexual orientation. I have never seen a person exclusively attracted to their brothers/sisters etc. Which leaves polygamy. Now i'll prove why homosexuality also won't lead to polygamy.

Who the two people getting married are, is a completely different question in law than how many people can marry. The states have all agreed to prohibit polygamous marriage. They have given numerous public policy reasons and the prohibition stands.

Equal protect applies so long as a rational public policy reason exists to prohibit certain marriages.What is the rational public policy reason for prohibiting a gay couple from marrying? Six states and seven jurisdictions have said there isn't one.

No court or legislature has made a finding that letting two people of the same-sex marry will somehow permit more than two people of any gender to marry. Allowing prisoners to marry and allowing inter-racial couples to marry didn't make polygamy acceptable and it didn't make all married couples criminals or bi-racial. You have no point, you are relying on assumptions and "what ifs" that have been proven to be myths and false. There is no evidence showing gay marriage having a higher chance of leading to polygamy than heterosexual marriage.

All 50 states and the federal government have said there is a public policy reason to prohibit polygamous marriages. With 5 years of gay marriage in Massachusetts, no one has asked to marry more than one other person in Massachusetts, let alone say the 14th amendment of the US Constitution gives them that right.

The slippery slope is a myth meant as a scare tactic that's quickly becoming obsolete.

For those of you claiming homosexuality is a "lifestyle", that is a false and ignorant statement. Homosexuality is not a choice. Just like you don't choose the color of your skin, you cannot choose whom you are sexually attracted to. If you can, sorry, but you are not heterosexual, you are bi-sexual. Virtually all major psychological and medical experts agree that sexual orientation is NOT a choice. Most gay people will tell you its not a choice. Common sense will tell you its not a choice. While science is relatively new to studying homosexuality, studies tend to indicate that its biological.

http://www-news.uchicago.edu/releases/03/differential-brain-activation.pdf

http://www.newscientist.com/channel/sex/dn14146-gay-brains-structured-like-those-of-the-opposite-sex.html

Gay, Straight Men's Brain Responses Differ

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,155990,00.html

http://www.livescience.com/health/060224_gay_genes.html

http://www.springerlink.com/content/w27453600k586276/

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/80beats/2008/06/16/172/

There is overwhelming scientific evidence that homosexuality is not a choice. Sexual orientation is generally a biological trait that is determined pre-natally, although there is no one certain thing that explains all of the cases. "Nurture" may have some effect, but for the most part it is biological.

Why is this significant? Because this proves that homophobia and discrimination against homosexuals is exactly the same as racism. You are discriminating against a group based on something they can't change. If you are against gay marriage, and preach homophobia, bigotry, and discrimination, you are equivalent to the racists of the 1960's. That's the truth.

Violence against a minority group

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Violence_against_LGBT_people

Gays are being beaten, shot at, sent to the hospital, killed. In the Middle East, they are killing gays among other groups out of hatred. Is this what we want America to become? Do we want America to revert back to the 1960's when groups were killed and segregated against for simply no good reason? Do we want to follow the ways of the Middle East and Al Queda? Let's push forward, it's time to end bigotry, discrimination, hate, and ignorance. This is modern America, not the Dark Ages.

Thank you, ShadowMan. All good stuff.

It occurs to me that if the petitioners were being less than honest in getting people to sign -- "sign here so you can vote" -- all the Secretary of State has to do in validating the signatures is to call some of the signers and ask them if they knew what they were signing. If enough people say they were duped, then the signatures will be thrown out.

One is a Bigot if one is Pro-Discrimination. Treating Gays as second class citizen's with less than equal rights is discrimination. Ergo anyone against equal rights for gays is a bigot.

And nothing is a sin. That is something we monkeys made up when we evolved. Any human rule can be changed, all it takes is the will and courage to do it. Rules that treat one human as less than another simply for being different and not harming anyone need to be changed. And the bible is little more than a work of histoprical fiction written (and mostly invented) by human beings so it cannot be relied upon and if it could be then we'd be stoning peole and publically exectuing theives in the public square like the Arabs do. But maybe thst ois what some want to do to gays here (unlike in Iran where there seemingly are no gays ---HMMMM).

There are no laws preventing pedophiles and zoophiles from getting married in church, provided they marry a consenting adult of the opposite sex. Thus, church rules aren't based on the person's "kink" as newportres would say, only whether the two people marrying are consenting adults of the opposite sex.

Keep in mind that both pedophilia and zoophilia if acted upon are illegal. Yet gay sex is legal. So if a pedophile gets married to a consenting adult of the opposite sex in the church and then goes on to commit pedophilia, has the church condoned pedophilia by condoning that person's marriage?

Convicted murderers, wife beaters, and homicidal maniacs are all allowed to marry in the church, provided they marry a consenting adult of the opposite sex. If you are to follow the Christian Fundamentalist logic which postulates that allowing gays to marry in the church would be condoning gay sex, then it follows that allowing all of these unsavory heterosexual types to marry is condoning murder, bestiality, etc.

The gay marriage ban isn't about pious Christians adhering to Biblical law forbidding gay sex as an "abomination," because many other "sins" considered abominations in the Bible have no bearing on whether or not consenting heterosexual adults can marry.

tedlick, you people are real good, i will give you that. ann calls us bigots, you call us ignorant. not a good way to convince opposition to vote for your cause. yes, you do have the same rights as hetros, you can vote, which we will do and win. you are free to do many things we all can. but calling people bigots and ignorant will not win you any votes. you can live together and get all that hetros can. you deal with that.

anthoine, falsifying signatures on a petition won't win your side any votes either. I predict most of the signatures will be thrown out. I'm sure your side is proud that most of the money you've raised is from out of state.

Anne...6:37 post. If that were true then, most elected officials could be thrown out of office. Many of us could say we were duped in this election and say "you lied on who you said you are and what you stood for". Many of us were duped in this election.

I find it interesting that in these posts those who are against homosexual marriages were labeled bigots...now we are labeled stupid or not as intelligent.

According to Merriam-Webster:

Ignorance - the state or fact of being ignorant : lack of knowledge, education, or awareness.

If you are not aware that homosexuals do not have the same rights as you, then that is an example of being uneducated, lacking knowledge of the situation, and awareness of it's reality. Thus, ignorant. The word is not an insult, just an observation.

We do not receive the same guarantees and protections from the state and federal government, therefore, it is impossible for us to have the same rights. Married couples have a right to those guarantees and protections, and by not allowing us to wed (or file for a civil union recognized in the same way) we do not have the same rights. To say otherwise is to lack knowledge of what rights marriage bestows: i.e., ignorance.

"you can live together and get all that hetros can." is an untrue statement.

Elizabethann, I was talking about the people who signed the petition. The rules for circulating petitions are very strict and the signers must know what they are signing before they sign. They also must be registered voters, so this business about the petitioners duping people into signing by saying "sign here so you can vote" is very odd.

On 7/17/09 at 8:18 AM, anne_of_mdi----- Thats classic stuff anne. I can honestly say its good to have you back, it was boring while you were gone.

Elizabethann,

By simply looking to the definitions of the word "bigot" and "ignorant" (which, by the way, is not the same thing as stupid), you'll find that in many cases, folks are bigots (One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ) towards homosexuals in general, or ignorant (Lacking education or knowledge: Showing or arising from a lack of education or knowledge: an ignorant mistake: Unaware or uninformed) with regards to what rights and privileges are bestowed by marriage, and how forbidding a group from those rights creates a situation where, no matter how it's sliced, civil rights are being violated.

These words have real, tangible meaning, and if the actions/thoughts/expressions/words of others fit those two words, it is perfectly logical to use them.

That's how language works. No insult is intended in the use of these words when people demonstrate either trait, though I'm sure no one wants to be considered a bigot or ignorant.

ShadowMan: Very sad to hear of your experience.

I on the other hand was approached by a young,

christian woman who explained the petition quite

clearly, which I signed promptly. So obviously not

all had your experience.

MaineExpatriat: I hear you at 11:45 PM

Anne: I don't see how many rational people could disagree with what you said at 8:18 AM especially the last 2 paragraphs. Maybe it depends on what "sin"??

Shadowman: If that is true what you wrote about that happened near Exchange St. , that is horrible. Do they think the only way they can get additional signatures is to dupe people? Wow, they insult people then, and think they are not very intelligent!

Elizabethann, good points in your 9:04 post. The whole business about people being lied to is just a reaction to the obvious, the signatures were collected and collected quickly and apparently very abundently. Last count I heard there were almost 25,000 more than needed. Probable defeat is hard to accept. As far as feeling labeled stupid or ignoratnt, just take it from where it comes. I at least know that the petition collectors couldn't have fooled me into believing I couldn't vote if I didn't sign it, give me a break.

They are really making a big deal out of this..

Only problem if It gets voted down we will be going through this again and again and again.

I think people are getting tired of it.

When is this law in effect??

Can they marry right now?????

Telefunkinu47, no...the courts stopped in because of the referendum challenge.

Tele...this will end some day...when you know where freezes over!!!!

AS I have stated before The church groups that are petitioning and getting signitures need to be made to pay taxes on the churches and the land,and the services that they utilize from the towns they are in.If they want to be that involved,and have a voice they need to be paying the taxes like the rest of us.

I bet they wouldn't feel this way if the churches were raising money for them. And a quote from a post yesterday, "people make up churches. It's tax free one way or another. To disallow churches the same benefits as given to other non-profits would simply violate the same equal protection clause that is so often quoted in relation to the issue of gay marriage. " And that would be discrimination right?

realist, nope, that doesn't and shouldn't apply.

Churches are not-taxable because of the separation of church and state PERIOD! Unlike other non-profits, they CAN have a profit and do not have to show that they did good deeds with their non-taxed income. The only rule is that the church can not use their money to influence politics. That's it. They have and continue to break the one cardinal rule (law). They have forfeited their tax free status by becoming political tools. All that needs to happen is one state having the guts to go after one church and dozens, perhaps hundreds, of churches will be labeled what they are, profit making businesses.