Gay marriage repeal on ballot

Should have been a vote from the beginning...

Too bad. The one good thing this administrtion has done. With all of the really important issues that will be on the November ballot maybe there will be enough reasonable voters to vote No on this one.

While I could care less who marries whom, I agree with LethbridgeStewart...

A lot of undecided voters will vote yes just because of the way it was handled in the first place.

I smell a California Prop 8 situation.

I would be curious to find out how many of the 100,000 signitures that they collected,are actually legal.

I want to know the actual legal # after they have been checked out the signitures

unfortunately , in Maine, what Southern Maine wants, that is what will rule the day. Referendums in this state are a joke. there is no population north of augusta so anyting southern maien wants.. they will get. putting this on the ballot is a waste of time.

Voters shouldn't get to vote on anyone's civil rights. Polls show that if they did the Bill of Rights would be defeated.

I want to know the number that were signed because the opponents of freedom mislead the signer. I want

to know how much fraud was involved.

So now the Secretary of State's office is against gay marriage too? Is that what is being implied? Oh, I know what you mean, all those poor, uneducated folks that were tricked into signing it. What's going to be the issue after the majority votes yes? Who will be crooked then?

Although I support same sex marriage, I am not sure how Governor Baldacci can "feel so confident" about the results of the polling in November. With the great amount of effort the Catholic Church and fundamentalist churches have put into having this repealed, it could go either way. It will probably be close either way though.

I hope that same sex couples gain the right to have the digniity and protections other commited couples do. I agree with the poster begformercy in that " I could care less who marries whom" but I do not want to strip these couples of their ability to have certain protections in their relationships; as pertains to hospital visitation and all the other areas where they miss out now. No church will be forced to marry a same sex couple anyway!

When did we ever get to vote on people's civil rights? What is wrong with the people of Maine? This is the United States and ALL men are created equal supposedly. We we can vote on this type of marriage then we should be allowed to vote on everyone's marriage.

I am confident with Southern Maine carrying the state this will NOT be overturned. Nice try though.

I can't wait to cast my VOTE!!!!!

MikeNYC, Diana22,JonAlbrecht: Good comments! Let's hope.......

Bottom line is that, no matter what the result of the vote, this will eventually be decided in the courts -- and will be a right accorded to all persons. Look at all the money the opponents of equality are spending which could be much better spent elsewhere.

Massachusetts, Connecticut, Iowa, New Hampshire, Vermont, and Maine.

Vote No on One. It's the right thing to do.

That the Catholic Church is weighing in so heavily is a JOKE! For years the Catholic Church did nothing about the abuse of children by Catholic priests - covering it up, denying it, etc. And that same instiution is sitting in judgment of consenting adults who want to marry each other....a travesty indeed. The Catholic Church needs to take a step back from this.

A day of shame to be a Mainer.

anonon they wouodnt have count if there not legal how dumb do you think the state is.

You know, it's really too bad that something that is NO ONE ELSE'S BUSINESS is being dragged through the mud like this.

Equality and bigotry and discrimination people. All dirty words and gays and lesbians not being able to marry? PRIME EXAMPLE.

I couldn't agree more. Live and let live!

--------

MikeNYC: When did we ever get to vote on people's civil rights? What is wrong with the people of Maine? This is the United States and ALL men are created equal supposedly. We we can vote on this type of marriage then we should be allowed to vote on everyone's marriage.

Just make sure you read the question first. It is to turn it down. So if you want same sex marriage to be legal, you have to vote no. If you don't you have to vote yes. As some one from northwestern maine, I cannot wait to vote no. Why shouldn't gay's have the same rights as anyone else. I didn't know there was an "except" in the bill of rights!

Perhaps the $100,000 the Catholic Church dumped into this effort would have been better spent keeping their churches open...

http://www.fenceviewer.com/site/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=16929:Portland%20Diocese%20Announces%20Church%20Closings&catid=1:latest-news&Itemid=166

Personally I hope this gets repealed.

Yes, same sex couples should have their unions legalized with all of the same rights and responsibilities as a heterosexual marriage. Unfortunately they want to achieve this by taking the legal and linguistic "short cut" of redefining what a marriage is. In general it's the union of one or more men with one or more women. In our country it's the union of one man and one woman of legal age who are not close relatives. This leads to other definitions in common use, such as wife - the female member of a married couple and husband - the male member of a married couple. It's not a "civil rights" issue no matter how badly the supporters wish it were.

If same sex couples want to push for their own version of a marriage, call it a civil union, call it something else, I personally don't care. I say more power to them, where do I sign up. They can decide what they want to call it, what to call the people in it, etc.

To claim that the unions of same sex couples is less deserving of legal recognition than the existing heterosexual unions (marriages), or to go so far as to claim that they shouldn't be recognized at all, THAT would be a "civil rights" issue.

Women achieved the right to vote and other rights enjoyed by men, they did it though hard work. What they didn't do was try to change the definition of what a 'man' is.

Non-whites achieved the right to vote and other rights enjoyed by their white countrymen, they did it though hard work. What they didn't do was try to change the definition of what a 'white person' is.

Same sex couples should work to get their unions recognized by society and the law. They shouldn't be allowed to simply alter the definition of what a marriage is.

How do people have the time to go door to door to make sure people don't have the same rights as others? GET A HOBBY.

Thank you for your support of marriage equality in Maine, rickysgirl. Talk your friends into it too!

whoichris,..RIGHT ON!

Surprised --and pleased-- to see so many well-articulated views and supporters of a resounding NO vote. Me too.

VOTE NO ON 1.

No jilocasin, just asking to be included in the present definition of marriage. You casually oppose something that apparently has no impact on you. Marriage is the governments recognition of civil union. The religious aspect is just a choice heterosexual couples have. All marriages, wether they are civil or religious, are viewed the same by the government.

How sad that there are so many ignorant, judgemental, intolerants in Maine.

Seaglass: Good point about, if we can vote on the marriages of same-sex couples, then voting on everyone's marriage might be in order. Wow....talk about the accountability there!!!

Sunnyside: Yes, it is incomprehensible how the Catholic Church has poured so much time, money and energy into trying to defeat this; time and resources that would have been better spent in cleaning out their own house.

Thank goodness the vote will be made and Gay Marriage will be gone where it should be & normal life can go on .

Or cher, helping disaster victims, feeding the hungry, medical care for the needy, literacy.....anything positive.

It's not going away, joesalters. Never. The opponents my win the battle but will lose the war in the long run.

I'm with WilliamDS on this one... For Maine the battle will continue for civil unions next.

At the federal level, the lawsuits will continue, both against DADT (which will go first) and then DOMA (which won't be far behind). With that out of the way, federal recognition of same sex guarantees will come, and THEN it will be over.

Bigots didn't want interracial marriage in 1965... said it would never happen... they were wrong.

This will not go away until equality is reached. And that will happen.

This will come.

I'm sick of organized religion trying to take over our State and Federal governments. The intolerance and hypocrisy displayed by organized religion throughout the course of human history is well documented. It's time for the TRUE Christians to put their money where their intolerant mouths are and start making Jesus proud instead of putting a smile on Satan's face.

The fact that the majority of the comments on this issue posted here are intelligent and well thought-out makes me *very* proud to be from Maine.

Thank you.

Be sure you are registered, and get out this November and vote "No".

WilliamDS:

You seem to be in the lets redefine words instead of fighting for equal rights camp. You wrote;

"Marriage is the governments recognition of civil union."

Starting from your flawed premise it's easy to see how you end up with your flawed conclusion.

Marriage is the governments recognition of the common law (as in before there were governments per say) union of men and women.

What same sex couples want, and I'm all for giving it to them, don't get me wrong, is government recognition of their unions.

The confusion stems from the fact that same sex couples aren't content, or don't want to go through the long and painful process, of getting their unions legally recognized. What you are talking about isn't a marriage. The supporters of this linguistic jujitsu have managed to frame the issue as a "civil rights" issue, it isn't. They want people to think that if you don't agree with their attempt at radically redefining what a marriage is, your being a bigot, or discriminating. Who wants to be thought of as discriminating, sexist, a bigot, or a religious nut case. Why so many crash remarks against the Catholic church? They don't agree with your position, they are devoting their energies into the process to change it. That's their right. You have the right to try and radically redefine a common word, "marriage" and render other words (husband, wife) nonsensical. I don't see too many people questioning your motives, why don't you help disaster victims, or feed the hungry, or do something positive. I know, how about working to achieve legal recognition of same sex unions? It seems to be cause you could get behind.

If you truly want same sex couples to have the same rights and responsibilities as married couples, that is what you should be working towards. You would be walking in the foot steps of such notables as Susan B. Anthony and Martin Luther King Jr. There are plenty of people, myself included who would support you.

If instead you want to "take the easy way out" and try to achieve your goals by radically redefining marriage, then you may be surprised at the collection of strange bed fellows that line up against you.

jilocasin-- your analogy about voting rights is severely flawed. You are saying that women and minorities won the right to vote by working hard, not changing the definition of "men." You are right but the point is that they didn't need to change THAT definition. They needed to make "voting" more inclusive, which is what they did. For your comparison to make sense, people would have to change the definition of "relationship" when what's actually happening is that we are trying to make "marriage more inclusive."

And as far as "call is something else"-- Separate but equal didn't turn out so well last time.

jilocasin, no...gay couples are asking to be legally married. That is s civil law issue. It isn't anymore complicated than that. Separate but equal is not equal. Gay couples should not need to jump through hoops to have their unions protected under law.

AionCA @3:59 PM, Are you in California?, saw the CA and I'm sure that people from that state are watching how things are progressing here in Maine.

jilocason, "all MEN are created equal" - you are correct women didn't try to change the definition of "men". What about black males or Native American males - why weren't they equal - it doesn't state that all white men are created equal. Do you believe that today we should hold to the wording - that only men are created equal. Using the word 'marriage' is a 'short-cut' - you don't care what it is called as long as the word marriage is not used? Is there a 'trademark' on the word marriage - I thought it could be used in other ways: any close or intimate association or union - as in the marriage of words and music; a formal agreement between two companies or enterprises to combine operations, resources, etc., for mutual benefit; merger. I don't refer to my partner as my 'wife' but I do refer to her as my 'spouse' - hope I'm not 'stealing' that word. If I'm not mistaken ceremonies used to say I now pronounce you MAN and wife. What you are saying is that we cannot specific words that are 'owned' by heterosexuals?

Would like to thank you though for supporting same-sex couples recognition by society and the law.

Lyn

How many days to November?

Can't you count?

This is great news. Not surprised at all though even though the gay community accused us of lying and tricking people into this. This has been voted down in every state its had the chance to be voted on. Thirty so far I believe. We will soon be the 31st to vote down this nonsense.

VOTE YES ON ONE... MARRIAGE IS ONE MAN ONE WOMAN!

I am glad this is gong to a vote - it should have from the beginning. Listen, I really don't care if gay couples have the same legal rights as straights but don't tell me is is the same thing as a hetero marrage - its not. Just like men and women are different - gay and straight are different. Call it something else and stop claiming its a civil rights issue. It really is an insult to tose who sotod for real civil rights (like for Blacks back in the 60's.)

Marriage as an institution has been around for several thousand years. I don't want to see the traditional definition changed just to make a few people feel good. That is bascially what this is all about - being politiclly correct and making some (not all) gays and lesbians feel good about their lives.

Well maybe I'm a knuckle dragging misanthrope but I HATE POLITICAL CORRECTNESS!

I can't imagine anyone with the slightest intelligence will vote to deny couples the right to marry. Prejudice against same sex marriage is based on ignorance and lack of education. It was the same kind of people who wanted to keep anti-miscegenation laws on the books. Fortunately, intelligent people prevailed as I hope they do now.

I am glad this is gong to a vote - it should have from the beginning. Listen, I really don't care if gay couples have the same legal rights as straights but don't tell me is is the same thing as a hetero marrage - its not. Just like men and women are different - gay and straight are different. Call it something else and stop claiming its a civil rights issue. It really is an insult to those who stood for real civil rights (like for Blacks back in the 60's.)

Marriage as an institution has been around for several thousand years. I don't want to see the traditional definition changed just to make a few people feel good. That is basically what this is all about - being politically correct and making some (not all) gays and lesbians feel good about their lives.

Well maybe I'm a knuckle dragging misanthrope but I HATE POLITICAL CORRECTNESS!

VOTE YES ON QUESTION ONE!

"Conventional people are roused to fury by departure from convention, largely because they regard such departure as a criticism of themselves."

— Bertrand Russell

The reason there wasn't a vote to start with is because the gov. has at least one gay sib.

Voting on Civil rights h-m-m I don't want to pay taxes anymore, I don't want to support wars, politicans, welfare, schools or the government finanically. I want to keep my money for me. Save the road care line I have to pay for all repairs and plowing on my road.

I don't really care so much if gays want to get married but I don't think there should be special treatment. When my very long time opposite sex mate and I can get all the tax cuts and benefits married and gays do I'll vote yes when I have equal rights. I don't believe in marriage, I think it's about politics because if I want fair treatment for taxes or anythng else the Government says I have to get married...otherwise I'm being punished financially.

"Separate is not equal" I was waiting for when that would start to be bantered around.

So I guess if the people shouting "separate is not equal" will be going after restrooms and dressing rooms next? I mean practically every restaurant, school, gymnasium of any appreciable size has separate facilities for going to the bathroom, separate facilities for taking a shower, and separate facilities for changing your cloths. There's one set of rooms labeled "Women" and another labeled "Men". How dare they...... (mock outrage).

What are people ACTUALLY fighting for? Equal civil unions, or to coopt traditional marriage? If unions are recognized as be equal in the eyes of the law, be they same sex 'civil unions' or heterosexual marriages, what's not equal? If women have the same rights as men, how can we legally and morally refer to them as women? By your argument, "separate is not equal" therefore even if women have all the same rights and privileges as men, they can never be 'truly equal" until we start calling them men. Yep that makes sense, not. I hear it's all about having their unions 'legally recognized', but if you suggest that they have a truly legally equivalent union, that is called ANYTHING except marriage, it isn't good enough.

WilliamDS:

A same sex couple can no more be legally "married" than a man could run for the Miss America pageant.

free2bee:

Can you answer this, seriously;

In a civil union between two women, which one is the husband?

In a civil union between two men, which one is the wife?

In a marriage, it's easy. The man is the husband, and the woman is the wife.

I don't get it... Mainer's saying that gay taxpayers do not have the same rights as heterosexual's. So called christians acting in the most unchristian like manner. Conservatives who claim that their rights are being taken away from don't want gays to have the same rights as they have. Need I go on.

It hasn't been voted down in Massachusetts, Connecticut, Iowa, New Hampshire, and Vermont, forHIM and Maine has the opportunity to make itself as proud as those states.

Oh please, jilocasin, use common sense instead of a kneejerk reaction. What the devil have restrooms got to do with marriage equality?

Married people are called "spouses." Look at the forms you sign that ask you "name of spouse."

william did it get voted on in Massachusetts, Connecticut, Iowa, New Hampshire, and Vermont?

Mainejeff at 3:58 Well put Brother. Well Put.

i wonder how long before comments will be DISABLED GIVE IT A FEW

"It hasn't been voted down in Massachusetts, Connecticut, Iowa, New Hampshire, and Vermont, forHIM and Maine has the opportunity to make itself as proud as those states."

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Actually,

Those states do not have a "Peoples' Veto" or otherwise easy refrendum provisions. A few years ago Mitt Romney tried to bring forth a Constitional Amendment to the voters in MA concerning Same Sex Marriage but the Democratic Legislature tabled and then killed it. Thus, it never made it to the voters.

I owa just had it legalized by its Supreme Court and doesn't have an easy Admendment provision - although it can be done - it might take a couple of years. Does anyone really doubt that voters in a conservative Mid-West state wouldn't overturn their Supreme Court?

Hell, Prop 8 passed in California, without a doubt a very liberal "Blue" state and hardly "Bible Belt."

MikeNYC: When did we ever get to vote on people's civil rights? What is wrong with the people of Maine? This is the United States and ALL men are created equal supposedly. We we can vote on this type of marriage then we should be allowed to vote on everyone's marriage.

Can't wait to vote NO!

No, nor should it have been voted on. That's my point. The majority will get to repeal a law that was intended to improve the lives of a minority, a law which has no civil impact on the majority, a law that includes gay couples in the civil recognition of marriage. Pure and simple.

I don't get it... Mainer's saying that gay taxpayers do not have the same rights as heterosexual's. So called christians acting in the most unchristian like manner. Conservatives who claim that their rights are being taken away from don't want gays to have the same rights as they have. Need I go on.

robin, this has absolutely nothing to do with civil rights. This about morality and letting a tiny minority redefine marriage. See you in Nov.

VOTE YES ON ONE

There he goes again with "see you in Nov." Which = "we're in the majority and we get to tell you what you can and can't do" Bullying.....not debating.

I can not wait to see this repeal effort fail and all that money wasted when it could have been put to good use.

Jilocasin said "Women achieved the right to vote and other rights enjoyed by men, they did it though hard work. What they didn't do was try to change the definition of what a 'man' is."

What they didn't change is what a vote is called. We don't have one name for a female vote and another name for a male vote. A vote is a vote is a vote.

Gay and lesbian individuals have been working to get equal rights for 40 years. IT's taken a lot of hard work and effort. A marrige is a marriage is a marriage.

Forhim, are you serious that you would like to see me in November. I would gladly invite you to my home so we could sit down face to face and talk about this.

I wonder why the rest of the world is not on board with gay marriage?? Only 2 countries in the world support this and who cares what they think. That would be Belguim and the Netherlands.

I'm not commenting one way or the other on this issue per say, but it is so disturbing to see the Catholic Church dragged through the mud, over and over. Not all priests abuse children, in fact, it is a very small number comparitively. The ratio of priests who molest is no higher than the rest of the population. So sad to see a centuries old religion degraded this way, it has become the "cool" thing to do. I highly suspect the Church has done more good during it's existence than anyone commenting against it. The fact is, this issue is against the Church's doctrine and a very important issue to it's followers, the same as it is very important to the homosexual community. Let's stick to the issues and remember the Catholics are not the only ones against this, just as the homosexuals are not the only ones for it.

robin, A marriage is a marriage and between one man and one woman.

william, the bulling is clearly in your court. The moral majority says no. America does not want this. You don't want a debate, you want to fight. See you in Nov.

Where do you get your information ElectraGlide?

Following are the nations allowing gay marriage:

Canada

Sweden

Norway

Netherlands (Holland)

Belgium

Spain

South Africa

Countries who have a civil unions provide most of the rights and responsibilities of marriage:

Finland

France

Iceland

Norway

Portugal

Denmark

In Sweden

Germany.

United Kingdom

Switzerland

Elsewhere

Israel.

New Zealand

Like I basically stated above: I HATE POLITICAL CORRECTNESS! Liberals are saying we must be PC and make some gays feel good about their lives and the choices they have made (yes, choice to a degree at least.) Well, I don't need a bunch of liberal wussbags to try and intimidate me into their supposed conventional wisdom.

I was raised in a small working class town that was (and still is) traditional. I don't care what people do in their priivate lives as long as it doens't hurt anyone else and I don't care if they receive the same benefits under the law as taxpayers for the same work, etc. However, gay couples and straight couples are different and not interchangable. If you want to have a civil union type of law that applies to gays fine, I can live with it. However, it is not the same as hetero marriage which has been defined for many many years.

I don't want to change tradition in order to make a few people feel good.

It's about time someone stood up and fought against Baldy. He only wants gay marriage because he has family members who are gay!! That's it!! If he was a true catholic he would stand up against it. But he's not. Laviticus 18:22

This is excellent news. The people will not stand for tyranical self serving politicians who abuse the constitution's intent and/or the political process. Stand for Marriage Maine is to be commended for an excellent job well done.

THIS WILL BE VOTED DOWN AND MAINE WONT BE ABLE TO MARRY SAME SEX GUARANTEE UNLESS ITS RIGGED IT WILL BE TURNED DOWN.

WHATS NEXT A TRANSEXUAL MARRYING A TRANSEXUAL I MEAN COME ON MAINE MAINE

Nobody is trying to redefine marriage but to be included in the civil recognition of it. You can call that redefining if you like but it's provocative and your side uses that term to incite people. Gay marriage is the marriage of 2 consenting adults who are not related with the same privileges and responsibilities of heterosexual marriage. It's inclusive, not redefining, and not requiring anything of anyone who doesn't want to do it.

AVani112, almost every family has at least one gay family member. Does Insulting the governor make you feel better? Who cares about Leviticus?

Mainer72, your postings will surely help your side! NOT

Vote No on One

Baldacci is a coward. He knew before hand that this very thing would happen. Typical politician with a leg on each side of the fence.

"start making Jesus proud instead of putting a smile on Satan's face" This is the funniest thing ive read all day...

William theres absolutely nothing outrageous about Mainer72's post. Why not? Of course it will come about. The possibilities are numerous.

He's not my favorite governor but he was the least of the 2 evils at the time. Being a yellow dog Democrat, I'd rather stick needles in my eyes than vote Republican. You're right, he knows Maine's laws well and he knew this would happen and of the legislators knew it would happen. He did speak out in favor of gay marriage as being the right and fair thing to do today. I wouldn't call that "cowardice."

ok sure...... 2 consenting adult transexuals marring. What's wrong with that? Just explain what is wrong with that? Wrong because they are not like YOU?

william are you really saying you would vote to deny transsexuals the right to marry each other?

I find it interesting that because it was signatures to have the law repealed that people are screaming that they must not be legal signatures. Also, that the people that went door to door asking for signatures, are ridiculed and told to get a life. However, if the tables were turned and it was people who supported homosexuality going door to door to get signatures, that they would not be ridiculed, and the signatures would not be questioned at all. It certainly would not be tolerated from the Christian community, if we had questioned those things..! The fact is, this should have been a state vote from the beginning, and I believe that this is something that has been voted on in the past and was voted down. The one sidedness of most of the comments on here are just wrong....maybe you are the ones that need to get a life....but hey...would be wrong for me to say that.....

No....where did you get that idea? read my last post again.

On 9/2/09 at 5:50 PM, Mainer72 wrote: Repeated separate thumbs down will cause comment to be hidden

WHATS NEXT A TRANSEXUAL MARRYING A TRANSEXUAL I MEAN COME ON MAINE MAINE

Report abuse

and then you said

On 9/2/09 at 5:54 PM, WilliamDS wrote: Repeated separate thumbs down will cause comment to be hidden

Mainer72, your postings will surely help your side! NOT

Who questioned the signatures, momto? Maybe some have but it's easy to get signatures when you're sighing against a minority. This minority was added to the list of those needing protection under the Maine Human Rights act because they are as risk for being victims of hate crimes, at risk for losing jobs, and housing.....etc because of their sexual orientation. Getting signatures to deny extending marriage rights to them was a piece of cake. Not a thing to be proud of. The courts will rule in favor of marriage equality for gay people and they are the final word. It's not going away.

I think, that since we have nothing better to do we should have a people's referendum on whether to require people getting married to do so while standing on one foot, holding three books above their head, and singing the Star Spangled Banner. It would make us the first State to do so, and would probably get us money from all the tourists who would come here to observe Unique Maine weddings.

Yes, forHIM, he is on your side. I was just noting that that kind of posting will do your side no favors.

I think Maine should be very proud right now. I know I'm proud that they didn't let the homosexuals bully them into this. With all the hatred the homosexual crowd has spewed out here, are you really surprised. Good job to all those that worked to get the signatures.

I vote that men (males) cannot marry because they cannot bear children.

I thought it was a valid point.

Anna there's a new church just waiting for you to start up somewhere. "Church of the empty womb"

William, if you thought his point was doing "our side" no favors, wouldn't it be in your best interest to say nothing?

5:56 PM, don't call someone a coward when you're posting anonymously. Quoting scripture to advance a political agenda is blasphemy. And lying is a sin.

Transsexuals marrying is not a gay issue. Apples and oranges. Transexuals marrying would be heterosexual marriage if they were both post-op gender assigned to the opposite genders. If they are assigned the same gender, then it would be gay marriage. I don't care if their gender is in the middle, if they want to get married for reasons people usually want to marry they should get married.

6:30 pm, presumptuous aren't we? You're the one with the empty womb, jack. How about "no womb"? Womb-less? Your church is the church of the Womb-less. You know there's a cure for that.

There's your first sermon anne, good luck!

Watch out! 4Himself is about to get this thread shut down. 3-2-1...

forHIM, that was the most sexist thing I have seen you say to anne here. I take back the compliment I accidently gave you earlier. You obvious lack the intellect that either of those men have.

AionCA and MikeNYC: I can't imagine it either, MikeNYC.... and , AionCA.....yes, it is apparent here that the supporters of this (the ones who will vote NO) are not the ones making the more "hate-filled" remarks.

Jenna_T: Great quote and really suitable here. If one is secure within themselves and their lives and beliefs, they are not at all threatened by some commited couple having the protections of marriage. It just does not shake their world. They want others to be happy and have peaceful, contented lives. They have no stake in denying that to someone who just wants to have the right to marry.

Quoting scripture to advance a political agenda is blasphemy.

Thanks William! I thought you would be the one to answer my question about procreation vs. celibacy?

sermon #2

Hey, guess what? Blasphemy, the "highest and most unforgivable sin," is legal! Whaddayaknow.

OMG.....she called you Jack!! Now I know who you are and I should have known when you said you met with the leaders of the Metropolitan Church!

I don't like that you all know each other off this blog.

Keep trying william, your getting colder:)

William, wha-a-ah? I don't know him. It was just 'jack' as in 'he don't know jack.'

Counting down to November 3..

Blasphemy is the highest and most unforgivable sin. Yet blasphemers can marry. Imagine that.

Anna hope you aren't expecting a large congregation at your new church. Then again, nowadays you'll probably do quite well. Just about anything goes.

LOLOLOL...... You mean he's NOT Jack? Darn.... then he's Buddy. That's worse.

Hate to burst your bubble you being a new pastor and all, but the one unpardonable sin is the rejection of the Holy Spirit.

Funny how the BDN doesn't report the actual number of approved signatures obtained........the PPH reported the number: 60,391 of 70,000+.....and definitely way below the 100,000 reported by the anti-gay marriage forces.

? "In olden days a glimpse of stocking was looked on as something shocking now……heaven knows……anything goes…."?

Which is worse: blasphemy or homosexuality? Discuss.

mainejeff, knowing how the bdn is in favor of gay marriage, what would be your guess as to why they left out that detail?

anna your taking your role as new pastor quite serious... good for you!

Blasphemy is the highest and most unforgivable sin, a worse sin than homosexuality. Yet blasphemy is legal throughout the U.S., but in many U.S. states gay marriage is not. Discuss.

see you all later.

(Oh wow, I just got a pat on the back from 4Blasphemy2Day! I'm tingling all over!)

Veni, vidi, vici!

I'm confused now. Can I marry my dog or not? I want some equality too.

8 minutes to change log-ins. Kinda slow.

I like the Mike Myers effect, anne. He didn't deny being Buddy so that's who he is, I'm sure of it. Discuss....

OMG, Buddy who? Metropolitan Church? I'm googling...

freedomfighter........Is your dog a consenting adult human? If not then the answer is no.......same with other non-humans and inanimate objects. Sorry!

No freedom fighter, no marrying anyone for you, those genes should be culled.

Rev. Herman C. “Buddy" Frankland

Rev.? YGTBK!

I believe Frankland met with the leaders of the Metropolitan Community Church in NYC back in the late 70's, but I could be wrong. I know at least one Maine fundamentalist clergyman did. Much of what forHIM has said in these forums has been said by Frankland and Wyman in the past. The same old arguments of course.

http://www.nytimes.com/1987/03/29/us/bangor-church-regains-hope-it-lost-in-scandal.html

????

That was an interesting read. Show me "morally superior" person railing against another group and I'll show you a hypocrite!

Awesome if you're right.

Hey sailor! Is that a comment in your pocket or are just rushing to get it in before you see

"Comments are disabled on this item. "

Arhhh, your in.

The people have voted this down twice. Listen to the people.

Looks like the closeted homosexuals are out in full force. Who else would have such a problem with same sex marriage?

No viper, the people voted down gay rights once, but were not able to defeat it the second time. Gay marriage has not been voted on nor should it be but it will be.

Since when is it a "civil" right for a minority group that is based not on their race but on their personal sexual preferences? I might feel like I should be the Governor, does that automatically make it my right to be the Governor? I might feel like I am any number of things. How can we begin to establish "civil" rights for feelings which the vast majority of the population doesn't share? That religious pedophile nut who kidnapped and raped the young girl over the last decade or more had some feelings. Are we supposed to grant him "civil" rights as well?

TurkeyTalker: What the heck does that religious fanatic have to do with anything....the man who held that young girl all those yrs out in Calif....raping her repeatedly,etc. He acknowledges being a "religious fanatic." Anyway, what the heck does he have to do with someone in a commited, loving relationshop looking for certain protections and dignities have to do with that evil individual who held that young girl all those years?!

Yes, anne, I remember that scandal well. I would not bring that up. Being human is equality. I don't know if he's the one who said he met with the leaders of the Metropolitan Church but one of the fundamentalist guys did.

mainejeff: Re 7:33 PM Good one!

Anne: Buddy Frankland....my goodness, didn't you know about him???!

Legal votes??? I don't think ACORN was involved in this one so they should all be legal.

Anne: Re 7:10 PM You are too funny......

wow william, just read through your little exchange with anne and trying to make me out to be someone I'm not. I understand you've been hit with a setback today, but this exchange takes away your credibility. Could this be why so few believe you when you make your case for same sex marriage? This is typical liberal behavior when they know they're defeated. Childish at best. I'll give you a clue, I've never held a position of leadership in church. I work in a secular job, always have. I'm just a Christian who finally got fed up with seeing the bible misquoted and Christians being bashed. You should be able to relate.

No, I never heard of him until now!

Look at all these comments! This issue sure does generate a lot of interest on both sides. Remember though, this law is not about equality, this is about changing the very definition of the word "marriage". If this is NOT overturned, are they going to mail out little correction stickers to everyone so that we can put them in our dictionaries? Do we change the way we teach our children about life, love, the birds-n-bees? Don't get me wrong, I acknowledge and even accept "alternative lifestyles", but I think that the tiny percentage of the population who are gay/lesbian (and the even smaller percentage of them who are in a committed monogamous relationship) should stick with "civil unions". Those of you who compare this with racial equality should be ashamed of yourselves.

8:12 pm, so just tell us who you are. you have nothing to hide, right?

HampdenMom, is is not that a few priests are bad seeds. It is the fact that the Catholic church hid the fact and actually promoted known offenders.

cher.......shhhhh

TurkeyTalker, you are deeply disturbed.

Anne...if someone has reverence for God they will not choose to offend him. Blasphemy is offensive to God. So is homosexuality. Marriage in the eyes of God is sacred. If we are irreverent toward marriage, we are irreverent toward God. If we do not hold marriage as a "sacred "or "inviolabl" then we are offending God. Some things are thought of as sacred in the eyes of God. Marriage is one of them. Homosexual relationships are not "sacred" in the eyes of God.

I love the old dictionaries....

Quoting scripture to advance a political agenda is blasphemy.

Blasphemy is offensive to God.

5 minutes to change log-ins. A little better. Must be those arthritic hands.

Oh darn, forHIM, I need to start saving these forums before they get disabled. It wasn't you who said you met with the Metropolitan Community Church pastor and brought a football player with you for protection? Must have been HRH or EJ then. Does anyone remember that beside me?

here she goes again with the multiple user name thing, you've been kicked off for months for that, you just never learn do you

Put a period on it!

Quoting scripture to advance a political agenda is blasphemy. Blasphemy is offensive to God.

Ahhhhh Jezzzzzzz Edith will you look at this!!!!!!!

If it had gone to a vote in the first place we once again could have saved tax money paid to even count the 60,000 names that that they did. Though I personally do oppose anything but marriage as being between a man and a woman, I have to say I also wondered how many of the 100,000 signatures were proven credible. Any how it's going as it should.....to a vote.

Updated criteria for a thumbs down vote:

1. Your screen name is 4Him2Day (or any variation thereof), and/or

2. You quote scripture in your posting and/or

3. You cannot make your point in a few sentences.

Who is in with me?

Anyway......the poster claimed he/she went to NYC and attended a meeting where the pastor of the Metropolitan Community Church was present, confronted this person about his personal sexual activity, information that was obtained from the man’s assistant. (hearsay) The pastor became angry “and came at me across the table” and the football player (he named him) stood up “(laughter)” and the pastor left the meeting. This is what the man posted on one of the disabled forums. I thought it was forHIM because he’s always posting Biblical script.

Hey 4Him - -at least anne_of_mdi has managed to keep her original screen name (a feat you couldn't manage to accomplish). Your should keep your narrow mind in your bible, the rest of us aren't interested.

8:34 pm, I'm in!

good now let the people decide..it was ramed down our throats ..no pun intended..my 2 cents..god is our only judge i have no right to judge ..but the people should decide ..not the gov...peace

William, for him, I clearly remember forhim posting about meeting with Troy Perry of the Metropolitan Community Church and that entire dialogue. IHe wrote it. I do not lie. I read it and was amazed. As amazed as I am by the power that God has given him to hold out the golden sceptar of acceptance to those he accepts and rejection to those he rejects. But go figure, he has an in with god that the rest of us just don't get.

8:37 pm, plus they still won't tell me why I was banned! (uh oh, if I'm gone for a while, you saw it first!)

Now how do you guys know he changes his log in name? I don't think he does.

Does that mean I can't pontificate? Define a "few," Bangorian.

Hey Berettastorm - its the conservatives who are pullng the PC card.

Wow anne, as bad as I can be, I haven't been banned. You rebel you! I would not like being banned, particularly without explanation. How did you know when the ban is over?

what ever happened to that colorful character on here anyway? Can't remember his name.....He lliked shopping in Macy's

No robin you are referring to the story I posted from Pastor John MacArthur, and I clearly stated it was from him, nice try though. Am kind of surprised you would try that, I gave you more credit.

for him I did not see the john mcarthur reference in that post.

TheTruth: You've got it right.

SoFedUP: Think maybe he (Mainelyme) got fed up with some of it. Yes, very colorful character, and a good heart.....and very intelligent. Lives in NYC. We hope he is doing very well, and many miss him.

*Sigh*

Sad to see, so few people are bothering to actually argue the merits of their position, ad hominem attacks galore.

The question, as I see it is a minority of people want to radically redefine what 'marriage' means. It has historically meant the union between members of the opposite sex for the purposes of mutual support and to raise a family. In this country it refers to the monogamous lifetime union of one man and one woman of legal age who are not closely related. While in practice not all marriages live up to that ideal, that's what it means. Contrary to popular belief, it predates religion and there are still some states that recognize "common law marriages". If you live with a member of the opposite sex for at least seven years with the intention of being husband and wife, you are considered married in the eyes of the law (Massachusetts and Pennsylvania I believe are a couple of examples). Marriage predates this country and its laws. Marriage predates Christianity. In ancient societies, where only land holding men had any rights whatsoever. Women were considered property and it was O.K. to own slaves, but marriage was still exclusively between men and women.

If, as some people claim, it's all about legal recognition of same sex unions, about achieving the same privileges and responsibilities as married heterosexual couples, then why is the only way to achieve that the radical redefinition of marriage? Why not have a same sex union be given the same legal status as a heterosexual marriage?

I read lots of people attacking other posters. Not their arguments, but the individuals. An ad hominem attack usually signifies that the poster is unable to defend their position and so resort to attacking the credentials of their opponent.

We have the popular "legal recognition == marriage" therefore we must redefine marriage to get legal recognition. What if we pass a law that says a "'Civil Union' between two same sex persons of legal age who are not close relatives will be conferred all the right, privileges and responsibilities granted heterosexual married couples"? That would make a same sex union equal in the eyes of the law to a traditional marriage. Hence the "legal recognition == marriage" argument doesn't pass muster.

Other than the various posters claiming that anyone arguing against them must be bigoted, or otherwise out to deprive them of their civil rights, we had the "separate is not equal" argument in favor of redefining marriage. If we don't technically have to redefine marriage to get equal legal treatment, we have to redefine marriage because being called something different means that it can't possibly be equal. Well, it isn't. One man plus One man does not equal one man plus one woman. Women are different than men. They have different body parts, they give birth to live young and have the ability to provide sustenance for their newborns. Men have man parts, they, working in concert with women help create life. They nurture and protect their offspring and the mother of their offspring. We call men men and women women. We have separate restrooms but no one is claiming their civil rights are being violated by not being able to go into the opposite genders restroom (well there's the whole transgender issue, but I'll leave that for another discussion). Someone claims that we are talking about marriage, not bathrooms but when you run around spouting "separate is not equal" then yes we are talking bathrooms. If separate can not possibly be equal and therefore is a violation of someones civil rights, then bathrooms are very appropriate. They aren't equal, but no one for a moment thinks that keeping girls out of the boys bathroom infringes on their civil rights. The fact that we still call women women and not men would mean that their civil rights are being violated. Since it's a civil rights violation not to call a same sex union a marriage, even if they have all of the same rights, obligations and privileges as a married couple they just don't get to call it a marriage, then even if women have all the same rights, obligations and privileges as men, their civil rights must be being violated so long as we insist on calling them women instead of men.

The only thing I am left with is that it is either; the minority hate traditional marriages and will do whatever they can to disrupt or do away with them, or it isn't legal recognition that they crave. Until same sex unions have been recognized for quite some time, they will not acquire the same societal approval as marriage. When someone says they are married, everyone instantly knows what they are talking about. It's a time honored institution, favored by churches, synagogues and mosques. If your partner is injured and you walk into the hospital all you have to say is that that is your (husband/wife) and you're afforded a special place by their side. We have traditionally based our society on the concept of the nuclear family, father, mother, children. So much so that when a woman marries a man she leaves her fathers house and joins her husbands. Her parents become his. His siblings become hers. We use the same terms with the suffix -in-law. Mother-in-law, father-in-law, sister-in-law, etc. Marriage is the tip of the proverbial iceberg. If you redefine marriage, then the 'what' of my sister is my 'what'? It's not just marriage that gets redefined, but everything else that's build on the supposition that a marriage consists of a husband and a wife. All of our gender based terms for family members are called into question. If my mom "marries" another woman is her partner my step-mother or my step-father or something else entirely? It's all prefaced on one man plus one woman who join to start a family. Sure some couples are childless either by choice or circumstance, but the institution is the foundation for family. It will take time and hard work for a same sex union to acquire such a rich linguistic and cultural heritage, if it's even possible. I think some same sex couples crave the trappings of marriage as much, if not more than the legal status recognizing their unions would grant them. That is why I think they are fighting so hard to redefine the very meaning of marriage. If it's only a word, then pick another one.

I notice free2bee, nor anyone else has bothered to answer my last simple question;

In a civil union between two women, which one is the husband?

In a civil union between two men, which one is the wife?

In a marriage, it's easy. The man is the husband, and the woman is the wife.

Saying I call my partner a spouse is just avoiding the question. The reason forms ask for your spouse's name is that the writer didn't know when she made up the form if the husband or the wife would be filling it out. If the wife is filling it out then asking for your wife's name wouldn't make much sense, just as if it's the husband filling out the form it would be silly for him to be presented with a prompt asking for his husband's name. Spouse is used to signify, the fact that we know a marriage consists of one husband and one wife, but we don't know which the person filling in the form will be, so please fill in the name of the opposite gendered member of your marriage. Rest assured that both the person who wrote that form and the people who will use it are expecting to see a man if the person filling out he form is a woman and a woman if the form filler is a man.

Apparently wiliam that was before your time here. Anne had this whole list and accused everyone on a daily basis of using multiple screen names. She finally got the boot for months and apparently is going down that same path once again. Her only defense is to try and discredit those that disagree with her, and that would be just about everyone. She does have one little pet follower though, its easy to figure out.

8:46 pm, they told me the date I could log back in.

It was for one month.

Quoting scripture to advance a political agenda is blasphemy. Blasphemy is offensive to God.

it was much longer than a month, and thoroughly enjoyable I might add.

Jilocasin... after your long-winded spiel, I just have two words for you... Traditions change.

Move with the times. Vote NO

Yeah, that was him, Mainelyme. Always wondered if he actually did what he said about going in Macy's. Didn't agree with his views, but regardless, wish him well also. Don't know why people feel they have to write books on here.....waste of space

As I said to you earlier jilocasin, married people are called "spouses." Look at the forms you sign that asks "name of spouse." Of course a man is not a wife or woman is not a husband. I'm not sure what your point really is. Those terms certainly would not apply to gay couples although I've heard gay men refer to each other as husbands, both of them.

So if you need those terms to recognize other couples marriages, call them both the same thing! "Wives or Husbands." "I pronounce you husbands" sounds perfectly fine to me.

Maine most certainly is the neanderthal-dwelling cave of the US...... Why is it a problem for two people who want to commit to one another in a relationship is beyond me. Then again, I don't listen to the magic man in the sky, either, so it must be above my pay-grade.

What I really love about these arguments is how those who proudly proclaim themselves as "Christian" always seem to apply the parts of Christianity that they like, while seeming to ignore the parts that they don't wish to follow. Like "judge not lest ye be judged". That one is my personal favorite. When someone can't apply that one Christian credo, then all the other arguments by that person are moot. It's not religion a la carte. You either follow ALL the teachings of the Bible, or you are a hypocrite. Because if you can pick and choose, who gets to decide which of those teachings are really important, and which ones aren't?

8:57 am: A man is judged by his deeds. By posting scripture to advance your political ends, you are deemed a blasphemer.

forHIM will answer that shortly, ricts1, I assure you. I couldn't agree with you more. Selective Christianity is rampant.

That was real adult of you capehartmainer and it underscores the need for gay people to be protected from that kind of hate. The BDN will remover that for reasons of taste and you will say it's because they are for gay marriage. I rest my case...

ricts1: You express it well. Some "Christians" do not seem like people one would want to know. Some also (along the lines of pick and choose that you mention) do not like the part about what we do to the lowest amongst us, reflects on us.........it allows some to dismiss the concept of helping the poor and disadvantaged, etc. No, of course they would not want to acknowledge that part of the Bible or tenet. It would not fit in with their world view or however you want to put it. And the "judge not lest ye be judged".......yes, talk about hypocrisy. Some of them on the BDN posts anyway sound judgmental all the time....whether it is about gay marriage or whatever. I don't care if they want to be against gay marriage.....I am not going to change their minds or thinking,anymore than they will change mine. Let them think the way they want. At the same time, I do not wish to impose my choice of lifestyle or orientation on a same sex couple. I do not wish to deny them their protections (by being legally married) and dignity in their lives. That is not my business or preogative.

To DantheMan and mainejeff:

Read the article...while the BDN does not say an exact number(thank you mainejeff for the number), it says that the SOS office stopped counting signatures at "around 60,000" because of time constraints. I think it's safe to say that this means around 60,000 valid signatures, when state law only requires a little over 55,000 for the issue to be on the ballot. Also, from what I've heard in the past, it is quite easly to invalidate a signature - illegible, does not live in county the petition they signed was for, etc,etc...

In any case, the article also says there were over 100,000 signatures filed. Which means, if I'm reading it correctly, that enough petition pages were turned in to equal 100,000 signatures. Whether or not all of them were legit at this point is irrevelant, they met the state requirement.

Also, I don't see anyone here questioning the validity of any of the 80,000 signatures the "other side" seems to have.

Re 9:16 PM Such class!!! Not.....

Vote NO

I'm Catholic and I really don't care who marries who but I agree that the Church ahs spent so much money on this issue and churches are closing, suppose they ever wonder why the attendance is low and the offering is down?? We all need to be open minded , just no PDA from the couples!!

The other side did not need to gather signatures. Validating them would be a waste of time. The opponents needed 55,000 signatures to force a referendum. The proponents gathered signatures just to show that there are Mainers who are in favor of marriage equality there was no legal requirement to do that. Signing that one was a gesture demonstrating that you would vote No on One.

Anne ...8:18 that's a good one. Seriously...where do you get your definition of "blasphemy"? That's like saying God is offensive to God. That doesn' t make any sense.

Elizabethann, I've read your posts here and in the past. You bite off more than you can chew to take on the mighty anne.

9:37 pm: :-D !

9:33 pm: Worshiping false idols is also offensive to God.

Actually, williamds, the good citizens of the Bay State collected enough signatures to put the gay "marriage" question on the ballot but the cowards in the legislature and the pathetic excuse for a governor prevented the exercise of legitimate democratic expression. Imagine that! In Massachusetts, no less...

I'm curious - are those who say that civil rights shouldn't be decided by a vote going to sit this one out? Wouldn't voting violate their "principled" stand?

William...it's hard to make sense out of a comment that doesn't make sense.

She said it's blasphemy to use GOD's words to advance a political agenda, I believe. At least that's what I understood.

Why is this a civil rights issue? We discriminate against individuals for their socially unacceptable behaviour all the time. When it is acceptable to act out on whatever you feel and the rest of society cannot rebuke, with out violating civil rights, then society as a whole will crumble. Leave religion out of this, that just fuels the fire of the undisciplined left lemmings. We have been forced to become so politically correct that we no longer can speak for common sence and common good. Now the only acceptable speech is the left leaning religion of the acceptance of all behaviour, except for those who disagree. Change the definition of the word "marriage" today and it will lose all meaning all together. Some day the word will include a behaviour that even the lemmings will find detestable.

William...okay..then I'll use sign language.....

I'm so glad I don't have to be in the majority of BDN posters to have common sense. lol

William DS - a few means more than three (as most of us learned in 4th grade)

Anne of MDI - hang in there. 4Him2Day can't even save his/her screen name, let alone his/her soul.

For the rest of you....I'm growing tired of redneck haters. I have to believe that there are more college educated people out there who are capable of independent thought. It's time to take a stand against ignorance and beat these rednecks back into their caves.

Socially unacceptable behaviors are illegal, like murder, stealing, fraud, assault, and abuse. Homosexuality is not illegal although there are people who would like it to be. We recommend monogamous relationships for heterosexuals and we do to some extent for homosexuals but we offer nothing in our social structure to support that concept with gay couples. Gay couples live together without legal recognition. This strains those relationships, personal security is the first thing that comes to mind. When a married couple gets divorced, a spouse is entitled to half of all joint property and half of the spouse’s retirement in most cases. We use the term civil rights because there are laws governing heterosexual marriage that gay couples should have access too.

Laws are civil rules. It’s your opinion that homosexual behavior is socially unacceptable, and that doesn’t make it so. Behavioral experts will tell you differently.

Bangorian: Have no fear......there are a lot of independent thinkers out there, and remember....Maine is known for having independent thinking people. It is hard to see that on here sometimes, but this is not necessarily a cross-section,etc.

Independant thought...I've seen alot of democratic placards at the tea parties. The republicans seem to have the most original...the most independant thought.

Bangorian, I can't say anything in 3 sentences as you must have noticed. Glad we're on the same side.

dirigodad, do you just post here to bully people who disagree with you? Putting this issue to a vote is bullying actually. I just hope there are enough reasonable voters who know gay people and will vote no on one.

WilliamDS: Gay people are striving for their monogamous relationships to be recognized as that....monogamous relationships .....and they are being criticized and denied that recognition and protection. It's like, you can't win for losing!! Unreal.

bangorian: If you do not mind my asking, what were you referring to in your remark to WilliamDS re "a few is more than..." etc.??

I asked him to define "a few" when he said people should make their points in a few sentences.

And another thing, dirigodad, the MA legislature demonstrated real bravery by not letting the majority remove a law that was intended to improve the lives of a minority. True cowardice would to have been let it happen!

Oh my!!!

WilliamDS - Don't cloud the issue with the facts. This issue is a clear cut example of bigotry, ignorance and religious intolerance versus elightenment, intellect, knowledge, wisdom, sanity, empathy, altruism, kindness, understanding, fairness and inclusiveness. And you just cannot fight bigotry, ignorance and/or religious intolerance with something as simple as the actual facts, as facts are exactly what they don't ever, and never ecer will care squat for, hence, The Very Nature of Faith-Based Moral Standards and Codes, Their Underlying Thought Processes and Their Resultant Initiatives!

Awful lot of people whining on this thread. It's democracy in action, and the libs hate it. How ironic. By the way, if I still lived in Maine and could vote......well, y'all know where I stand.

YES ON 1!

Let the gay folks marry, who cares! Let them pay the same marriage penalty the straight folks pay when tax time rolls around :)

They should go back and revamp it to read whites marry whites, blacks marry blacks,spanish marry spanish, baptist marry baptist. You are all

so self rightous bible carrying freeks.

mainejeff read and acquire the gift of wisdom: lean not on thine OWN understanding....

From the BIBLE , GOD's WRITTEN WORD

Whoso findeth a wife findeth a good thing and obtaineth favour of the Lord. Proverbs 18:22

A virtuos woman is a crown to her husbnad. Proverbs 12:4

Definition of wife from the World Book Dictionary : a woman who has a husband; a married woman.

Instruction to Married Believers from GOD's WORD , the HOLY BIBLE :

Nevertheless because of sexual morality, Let each man have his own wife and let each woman have her own husbnad... 1 Corinthians 7:2

Woman is created and marriage is established : In the BEGINNING , according to GOD's WORD...THE HOLY BIBLE:

And the rib, which the Lord God had taken from man, made a woman, and brought her unto man. And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called woman, because she was taken from man. Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife; and they shall be one fleah. Genesis 3:22-24

Unto the woman He said_ thy desire shall be to thy husband and he shall rule over thee. Genesis 3:16 ( Wioman clearly stated)

I am a true Christian, I do not practice " religion" I practice the WORD of GOD. I do make JESUS proud as I hold up the WORD of the FATHER , as He did even in his death on the cross. I do not lean unto my own understanding and I do not add nor take from the WORD of GOD to suit my own situations or lifestyles.

I circulated a petition to bring this matter where it belongs with the people it will affect, all people not a chosen few. I did so as this law as it is written does not protect individuals from civil law suits nor from being forced to accept situations trom being forced upon them. It is not God's will that we change HIS WORD.

The DEVIL SMILES ON THOSE WHO TRY TO ADD TO< TAKE FROM OR CHANGE GOD's WORD TO SUIT HIS PLAN , the destruction of HOLY MARRIAGE, as defined in the BIBLE by GOD....a man and a woman.

All signatures were the authentic signatures of the individuals and there was no hook, line nor sinker in getting them to sign, I did not express my personal opinion on any one of them. As God clearly defines " accountability" and each of us will answer for our thoughts, acts and deeds while on this Earth, alone on the day of judgement, it is written.

Society may try and bend and conform God's word to fit their personal choices but in the end the WORD of GOD will be, as He is the great " I AM" regardless of what anyone wishes to convince others to believe.

Don't be fools people, read the only truth, GOD"S WORD , not yours, not Catholic, not Penecostal , not Baptist, Not Morman, Not Jehovah Witness , not anyone's that is of man but GODS.

You and only you will be accountable for what you do and what you do not do____your choice. No fear being offered just simply truth.

Voting Yes on Question 1 will allow Maine to stand on the WORD OF GOD... a man and a woman; a husbnad and a wife ... that does not translate to same sex marriages.

WORLD BOOK DICTIONARY : Marriage : the act or fact of living together as husband and wife ; relation between husband and wife, a married life.

WORLD BOOK DICTIONARY : Wife : a woman who has a husband, a married woman.

In reference to the Holy Bible and God's WORD :

Every WORD OF GOD is pure. Proverbs 30:5

These words are written that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believeing ye might have life through His name. John 20:31

So I tell you Jesus is smiling as I am publically quoting the words that were written for those to believe in HIm and the WORD of His Father, the HOLY BIBLE, whatever version you pick up.

Voting Yes on 1 and proud to do so on behalf of the Trinity; the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. Sorry to all others who feel differently but show me your proof that GOD agrees with your beliefs and choices...I'll gladly listen to anything that is HIS WORD.

:

Judgement___ It is not ours to judge that is why we must not lean unto our OWN understanding. God is the only judge. His WORD is HIS JUDGEMENT.

True Christians know that defending the WORD OF GOD as written is not judging, it is called the " gift of wisdom" being able to give guidance that is according to the WORD of GOD , to HIS EXPRESSED WILL.

Don't be fooled people...Voting YES on 1 .

1) Jesus said not a word about gays, gay marriage, or using the state to deny the same rights to committed gay couples that heterosexual couples have granted themselves at everyone else's expense.

2) Jesus said : "A new commandment I give to you" - obviously none you self-righteous and outraged self-proclaimed "Christians" here have read THAT part of the New Testament.

3) Really, who gives a rats butt what Jesus OR the Christian Bible, or ANY Bible has to say on the subject ? This is not about forcing YOUR churches to marry gay people. It enver has been and never was and never will be.

It's about YOU telling OTHER churches, and the state of Maine, that THEY can't marry gay couples who are in relationships that are just as committed and serious as yours. Which makes you all a real bunch of oppressors and @*&#^!s. I means, seriously, what gives you the right ? It's unconstitutional and bigoted, and you can try to support your non-arguments all you want with biblical BS and your bigoted diatribes. In the end you are all just a bunch of bullies and hypocrites.

4) To the moron that keeps asking "who's the man and who's the woman" - you freaking idiot, the state of Maine does not legally CARE who is who, it's 2009, men and women are EQUAL in the eyes of the law in this country, welcome to this century you knuckle-dragging, inbreed hillbilly (my apologies to hillbillies).

5) And finally, to the drooling retards making threats of JUDGEMENT... Kiss my butt. No, really, kiss it. Kiss my butt. Bend-over, and kiss it. no, seriously, kiss it. It's as close as YOU are EVER going to get to God.

Why don't we just legalize sodomy. Leave the married people out of it.

For some reason The Gay Community just doesn't get it - This isn't an issue about equality - equal rights for all - This is an issue of tradition that has been in place for thousands of years - it's about a ceremony designed to unite a man & a woman - If the gay community wants a union - make your own tradition - The church doesn't recognize your behavior - the majority of American citizens don't recognize your behavior - It still amazes that when straight people call a gay a gay - they us bigots - It's obvious the gay's are still confused and resent being called what they are - I am pleased to see that my signature was counted and now in November my vote will count - Remember when it's time to vote make yours count and DO NOT RE ELECT JOE PERRY !!!!!!

great!! let the people decide not the dopes in augusta who cannot manage their own lives let alone ours

AionCA , Thank you very much for showing the world your intelliegence level and your lack for God's Word.

I am sure you have caused great concern amongst those who would have voted No. Like I said give me proof of your

position and I'll listen but what you gave us all was disgraceful.

"On 9/2/09 at 10:03 PM, Bangorian, For the rest of you....I'm growing tired of redneck haters."

I agree, they shouldn't pick on the rednecks......

Quoting scripture to advance a political agenda is blasphemy. Blasphemy is offensive to God.

4:58 AM, AionCA, great post! And you're right, we all know where the blasphemers are going ...

viper13 - could you site your information that this has been voted down twice? Same-sex marriage? Are you sure you don't mean anti-discrimination? Like the Maine Human Rights Act? There is no mention of marriage in the Maine Human Rights Act - which finally passed in 2005.

Lyn

This was a poorly written law to begin with , it opened the door for too many " other issues". It does not protect those who do not want to

participate in uniting these individuals from civil lawsuits either. I believe that should this ever come to pass that the legislators need to do

some real concentration on what exactly they are asking for on behalf of all Maine people. I am not a gay basher , I have gay people in my extended family tree and as chosen lifelong friends. I do not force them into anything and neither do they me. We love and respect each other. Maybe just maybe there is something better for us all .... as far as proposed law .....anyone ever think of that ...the Governor knew this would happen...Fool me once shame on you , fool me twice shame on me... Still voting YEs on#1.

WilliamDS (sorry if I get to long) a few weeks ago I was commenting to someone and do not remember the thread but stated that I take very few people’s comments seriously and do not put much credence in many of the opinions posted here, but did say that I appreciated reading your comments on gay issues and have even posted a couple of “thank-you” comments to you personally for the way you shared your beliefs….that was a few weeks ago and now over the last couple of weeks I wonder what happened to the William of then? Your respectful, meaningful, heartfelt comments have been replaced with somewhat angry, bitter condescension and rantings reflective of the commenters on here that share your side of a particular issue….I realize that the gay marriage proposal is a very emotional subject for you but replacing sincere and clear thinking with emotion is the first step in a slippery slope that leads to the type of back and forth nonsense and babble that has always occurred on here with certain posters….I have seen the new TV adds re: “equality” and “together” in Maine with apparent heterosexual people, couples and families along with apparent gay people, couples and families speaking about the gay marriage issue thru a message of “equality and together” and I appreciate the pleasant and positive theme of that message, but do not hold out to much hope that the nasty and attacking adds from both sides will not soon rear their ugly heads and start appearing, sort of like the change in the theme and words in your comments….I start to read a comment posted by you now and after a couple of lines find that it is another rant that I just am not interested in reading and move on…yesterday you fell into the trap of lies and accusations that were here a few months ago that resulted in people getting suspended from the BDN blogs for a period of time….you mentioned a name (of someone I have heard of but do not know) of a Reverend and your apparent belief that he is a poster on here….shameful slanderous thing to do to someone even if true but a terrible slap in the face of the individual if not true….I guess I should just end now but wanting to let you know from my heart that to me you do not represent your cause with the same respect and attitude I first saw in you which now makes your comments and representation of that cause much less credible….:(

jilocasin - plese don't say I didn't bother answering your questions - makes it sound like I was ignoring them - wasn't online for the majority of yesterday.

William pointed out that the word "spouse" is on official forms - as in "name of spouse" - as in filing taxes. I'm sure there are some married folks who refer to their partners as "spouse" and many that refer to their husband or wife. As I said, not that long ago it was "I now pronounce you man and wife" - don't know whrn or why it got changed.

Using the word "spouse" is not avoiding the issue for me at least. That is what my partner is - my spouse. See now that we are living in Canada that is what we are. Immigration allows for spouse or domestic partner - there is no gender qualifier.

Lyn

I agree with you Pab and have also made that point to

William as late as yesterday. Not to be hurtful or nasty

but just as an observation of the change in attitude.

I am confident that Maine voters will make the right decision on this important issue when they cast their ballots in the fall.”

subliminal

I believe that ballot measures to ensure we don't stray from the word of God are a good idea.

We should also have a ballot measure to ban fat people from the state. Gluttony is sinful, and this behavior displeases God.

8:05 am, "commie czar" is an oxymoron. Clever post!

in the end times all these things will take place,homosexuality will abound,wars and rumors of wars violence pestolence ,you name it we got it ..peace

"8:05 am, "commie czar" is an oxymoron. Clever post! "

Given the level of intellect, I assume this post was earnest, and not ironic. Sad that these people get to vote.

Intellect and honesty are not requirements for voting in the U.S., but at the very least you should be able to spell the word "communist."

VOTE NO ON 1..... VOTE NO ON 1.....

The BDN censors must be off the clock. Some of the comments here are rude and extremely ignorant.....from both sides.

I agree J, the censors must be sleepy from a long night on the job...Censoring is a hard job...

"Intellect and honesty are not requirements for voting in the U.S., "

And this is what the GOP counts on. Seems to work for them.

Fire the professional politians and let's vote on everything

I know many people in my community that will vote no on this. And unfortunatly many who will vote yes. Get out there and show support for the no vote!

" And unfortunatly many who will vote yes. Get out there and show support for the no vote! "

EXACTLY!!!!

if civil rights legislation had been put to a vote by the people, we wouldn't have all these prpbelms with the negroes having "rights" Let's not make that mistake again!

hmmm, interesting wording in this question. The change of a single letter would change the entire point of the question, which will probably confuse some people, which was probably the point or wording it this way to begin with. Conservative groups in Maine just keep getting sneakier with these citizens initiative/veto items.

Joshua agree that these questions are always worded to be confusing but the blame lies equally with state election officials, and in this case not primarly with the opposition....I do not know fully the steps involved but as with other ballot questions I have seen press releases that usually state " election officials have approved wording of .........." and then the Sec. of State gives a time period (usually 30 days) for the public to comment on the questions/wording.....if you have ever taken a state or national exam for licensure then you would see that this formatting of questions is not limited to election time agenda items.......

They have to use the same language that was on the petition.

I didn't know the Dorothea Dix Psychiatric Hospital has been moed to Capehart....

Done Deal ! Maine voters will reject this "gay thing" by great numbers and put this to it's final resting place. Straight folks are in great majority in Maine and that is just how it's going to be. End of Story...

Joshua just found on the Maine gov't site that the Sec. Of State's office is responsible for the writing of the questions then produces them for public view and commenting....

I would say people better read the question and know there answer before they vote.

Have to make sure Grandmother has a ride to the polling place..

Can someone explain to me why all the thumbs down for YES voters? Does it make you feel like you've accomplished something, do you think it's going to change the outcome in November? Ah, if it were only that simple. I have scrolled back through since this post came out and many of them were not offensive, just anti gay marriage. Is that all it takes? These are always the first I read. I can't wait until BDN shuts this one down.

The thumbs down police are LW.

its times like this, I miss DRC480. :'( But some of these comments are just as good :-) I'm predicting over 9000 posts.

But seriously, this is a polarizing issue, with strong opinions on both sides -- nobodys mind is going to be changed on a small city newspaper website.

raynedanseas if it's no one else's business, why are we being forced to recognize what homosexuals and lesbians do in privacy as being a basis for civil rights?

chemaine - who exactly do you think should have "rights"? White Straight Men? This isn't nazi europe! This is America. And no where does it say in the Bill of Rights that everyone has rights, EXCEPT....

Chemaine, separation of church and state. Learn it.

jilocasin - well stated!

I intend to vote yes because the bill was railroaded through. People should vote on this and (thank god) they will. Let the results speak for themselves! Those who said there is no one above Augusta... attendance at polls in November will prove otherwise.

This is not the "civil rights" issue it has been made out to be for media attention. Change the rules of a civil union in order to give same sex partners the right to execute a will or make important health decisions... things like that. Marraige has one meaning and changing it is not going to benefit anyone in the long run, it would only appear that way in the short run. Taking the short route by bullying a weak governor obviously won't be tolerated.

If this vote was to take place in December instead of the first week in November the law might still stand. All the old timers wont be down in Florida for the winter. They must be placing bets in Las Vegas to see what happens..

Great post Shalise40, I expect it to be thumbed down, makes sense and isn't vulgar, religeon based, etc.

You all should be so proud - these anit-gay marriage folks. Like anyone's heterosexual marriage is influenced if their gay neighbor can marry or not. If the general public is ignorant enough to let this pass, hopefully Maine's Law Court can deicpher the Constiution to interpret that the fundamental right on marriage applies to all. There should be NO people's veto when it comes to civil rights. Could you imagine if we had left it to a popular vote in the 1920's on whether women could vote. Or in the 60's in South Carolina if african americans could vote? Completely ridiculous.

9/2/09 at 2:19 PM, thebam,

If you take some time to look at the comments sections of southern Maine papers, you might be on to something.

There are far more posts in support and far fewer people spouting about God.

Personally, I find this refreshing.

evasmith: Great post at 11:08 AM But make no doubt about it......they are really proud, and IF it does get repealed, they will be full of glee and rejoicing. But only for a certain length of time.....as it will finally be made law that same sex couples may marry and have the protections and benefits of marriage.

Telefunkinu47: That was funny, but pretty true....re 11:07 AM Think you hit it on the head . You are right, many will not have left for Fla yet. Till you mentioned that point, I never thought of it, but think it will factor in quite a bit. Time will tell...

rickysgirl and coexist: If you read the posts here often (on BDN comment pages), you will pick up on the fact that the poster chemaine is being sarcastic in many of the remarks he posts......so read into it just the opposite of what he writes!!

Except at 8:51 AM He is not being sarcastic in that one.

ok...what happend to the BIBLE!!!!! being Gay is not only WRONG by itself...but to get married?!?!?!?! this is outrageous. I cant believe this BS country was founded apon God and we're trying to erase his name from everything...bottom line nothing or no one should over rule the power of HIM, and i will pray you there souls. I vote 110% NO SAME SEX MARRAGE......completely assenine. if you dont like it...tough truth hurts and read the Bible once in a while

If anyone has a valid concrete reason why gay couples should not be legally married, I'd be willing to listen. So far we have only heard religious dogma, people’s personal comfort level, and inaccurate psychological assessments by people who are barely literate. It’s a shame the gay marriage act will be repealed by these people. There should be no mechanism for the majority to remove a law that was intended to improve the lives of a recognized minority. That’s the flaw in Maine’s legislative process and a true embarrassment.

leave it to chersully to know that

William, three is no valid, rational, reasoned answer without involving discomfort levels, ignorance (this'd be the "why can't I marry my dog" crowd), or religion (or a combination thereof).

I've tried a multitude of internet forums and have yet to have one cited. Folks are entitled to their opinions, however faulty the groundwork... but opinion does not justify reason.

As for the voting issue...

"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote." -- Benjamin Franklin

I think our Founding Fathers knew that and that's why we were built as a representative republic rather than a democracy. It's worked pretty well in my time in Maine... we'll see if that continues.

WilliamDS: Re 11:51 AM Excellently stated.

Cher, Tele, they have absentee ballots.

truth be told if our founding fathers knew the homosexuals were trying to marry each other here in America you wouldn't be faring so well, trust me!

Tedlick.. I love the Ben Frankin quote!!! Thanks for sharing!

" if our founding fathers knew the homosexuals were trying to marry each other here in America you wouldn't be faring so well, trust me! "

hey, that's a great point, as the founders defniitely had it right!

We should also go back to counting Blacks as three fifths of a man, just like the founders wanted!

WilliamDS: That's right.......forgot that.

Nor would most other minorities forHIM, trust ME.

And the last time I checked being black was never a perversion.

i THINK THE "RELIGIOUS DOGMA" IS VALID CONCRETE REASON AS TO WHY GAYS SHOULDNT MARRY. MEN ARE MENT TO BE WITH WOMEN, AND WOMEN ARE MENT TO BE WITH MEN...PERIOD

I rest my case, gtowngirl1, you exemplify all 3 of the categories I mentioned earlier, and your ideas underscore the need for gay people to be protected under the Maine Human Rights Act.

forHIMtoday,

If the founding fathers had evolved along with the rest of the country, I'm sure their attitudes would have as well.

A snapshot in time (especially one over 200 years old) is a bad hunk of evidence for something in an ever-evolving society.

Oh, and can I be assured my assumptions I posed to you the other day are true? You never did answer me.

Only religious fundamentalists and the uneducated think it's a perversion, forHIM.

well william that would be the overwhelming majority of the country. So not only are you in the minority as a homosexual, but also in intellect. You get a gold star.

WilliamDS / tedlick:

I have yet to hear a valid argument why a legal union of same sex couples should be called a marriage. The only thing the state should concern itself with is the legal rights of its citizens. Granting a same sex civil union with all the legal rights and privileges of heterosexual marriage is all that needs to happen. Should that happen, there would be no legal basis for redefining traditional marriage.

Given the above what is the argument in support of radically redefining the meaning of traditional marriage?

You dismiss reasoned arguments from those that don't agree with you as; discomfort levels, ignorance or religion. I have provided several rational arguments in support of not redefining the definition of marriage that would address the civil rights issue. I've provided logical reasons why I feel the common arguments calling for redefining marriage are flawed or based on erroneous assumptions. Neither of you have provided a reasoned response. WilliamDS clings to the mistaken belief that the only way to achieve the legal benefits of traditional marriage for same sex couples is to redefine marriage. Apparently he's made up his mind and doesn't want to be confused by the facts. While tedlick claims that anyone who doesn't agree with his position must be simply uncomfortable, quoting scripture, and those that don't fall in one of those two categories, well they are obviously ignorant.

Where are the arguments from those who don't think this law should be repealed? Stop with the ad hominem attacks already. I've stated my case, and refuted yours, based on nothing more than logic. No references to religion, no anti-same sex epitaphs, no ad hominem attacks, just plain old fashioned logic. Can you do the same?

Merriam-Webster

perversion -

1 : the action of perverting : the condition of being perverted

2 : a perverted form; especially : an aberrant sexual practice or interest especially when habitual

As homosexuality is both natural (i.e. found in the natural world) and legal, I'm not sure that aberrant applies, I can get that definition for you too if you need.

aberrant -

1 : straying from the right or normal way

2 : deviating from the usual or natural type

So, it really doesn't apply... Homosexuality is neither aberrant by this definition, and therefore isn't a "perversion"

it fits the description like a glove, thanks for sharing that

I think that 4him looks back in favor of the good old days... where the woman was home barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen, the blacks helped out in the fields, there were no muslims or other beliefs to look down upon except maybe for the the native americans who could be killed or converted.

Nobody is redefining anything, jilocasin, but being included in the status of legal marriage. That's not redefining it. Separate but equal is not equal. I never use the word ignorant as it's inflammatory and provocative.

So....ok...call it "redefining marriage" if including gay couples does that. So what?

jilocasin... all your arguments are based on assumptions that traditions never change. Do you feel comfortable with interracial marriage? If so, go back 50 years and tell me if your feelings and the tradition then was the same as it is now???

gtowngirl1,

That doesn't pan out in the rest of the natural world. Only in dogma.

4Him,

"well william that would be the overwhelming majority of the country. So not only are you in the minority as a homosexual, but also in intellect. You get a gold star."

This from the guy who stated yesterday that most of the "Bible Belt" was black? Wow,dude... that's hypocrisy to a whole new level.

jilocasin,

I'm one of the few that would be content with civil unions... but that's not in the offering. I see no reasoned, rational explanation in what you typed btw... just opinion, which as I said, you are welcome to. I will gladly take you on an argument by argument basis to fill one of the three categories.

As for my reasoned argument:

1. The Constitution guarantees equal protections and rights to all citizens

2. There is no rational, reasoned argument against it.

That's really all I need.

forHIMtoday,

No... it is neither unnatural... no straying from what is normal (it's normal for homosexuals to be homosexual). And homosexuality in nature represents the "natural type". Good grief.

You really are shallow minded aren't ya?

Ready to accept my assumptions yet?

forHIM, you really shouldn't assume anything about the sexuality of anyone who posts here. Their personal sexual behaviors are not up for debate, just as yours are not.

You can't insult my intellect, as we have all seen, it's far superior to yours. You're a better typist though!

Godless people have always tried to redefine morality. Nothing new under the sun. People want to legitimize putting their body parts where God does not desire them to be. The misguided and evil people have already labeled it a civil right to commit what God has clearly called an abomination. So off you go... Keep seeking to make what God hates sound respectable to as many people as you can. Some day you may even believe it yourself. You tell Christians they are not loving when they oppose your efforts. You have no idea what real love is. Real love is not defined by people, God is Love, the One you circumvent, the One who you wish would just go away or bless you as you do what feels good. Did you feel unloved when your mom and dad told you not to take candy from strangers or walk the streets at night? Perhaps they knew something you didn't? Perhaps if they let you do what you wanted to, you would have wished for real love, not irresponsibility and neglect.

People ether try to conform God to what we want Him to be or be conformed by Him to what He wants them to be. Many of these post have nothing to do with Real love. Many of you are nothing more than proponents of human lusts and godless passivity. You think Christians should just leave you alone or redefine their God. It ain't happening!

We real Christians don't hate anyone, we are just standing firm on God's Word. You don't like to be loved. Its not what you want. You want what you want and we are just so terrible because we refuse to cave in and give it to you.

What you are doing is wrong. We all know you want it to be right, but no matter how hard you try or how many people you get to agree with you, evil is still evil, on the left or on the right.

"What you are doing is wrong."

Thanks for your opinion.

I frankly could care less if you consider homosexuality right or wrong... it's not illegal. It will continue, both here and abroad.

As for God and his view... I still haven't seen rocks or fire from the sky destroy the countries that have legalized unions between homosexuals. I'm betting we wouldn't see it here either.

G'day all. I'm outta here.

OHHHHH now I see......homosexuals don't want real love and are evil. Thanks for clearing that up for me pastorsteve *eyeroll*

I wish it was clear for you, but that's clearly not what you want.

so do not get confused when time to VOTE.... to say NO to GAY marriage, VOTE YES ON ONE !!!!

tedlick, I wonder if child porn is legal somewhere?

I don't believe that wrong becomes right just because a minority wants it that way. I don't believe that in God's eyes sin becomes non-sin just because some of His creations want it that way. And I don't believe our founding fathers would have changed their beliefs just because a made-up minority screamed about intolerance.

As for God reigning down fire and brimstone on us, He's out of that business. His decision to step back and let us destroy ourselves from within is working quite well.

Amen EJ

Seconded pastorsteve

WilliamDS:

Of course they are. Whatever else marriage entails it's between one man and one woman. This law redefines that to mean one person and another person irrespective of gender. That is a radical redefinition. That redefinition is not required to achieve the goal of legal recognition of similarly situated same sex unions. When I and other point that out you fall back to "separate but equal is not equal". There are two different things with the same legal rights.

Try to follow this logic; there are two groups of people. We'll call one 'men' and the other 'women'. They have the same legal rights. No is claiming that since we don't call all men women, or all women men that someone's rights are being infringed. Apply that same logic to this situation. If we have two types of unions, one between couples of opposite gender (marriage) and one between couples of the same gender (civil union). As long as they are afforded the same legal status you can't logically claim that "separate but equal is not equal".

downeastdave:

I feel perfectly comfortable with any marriage that involves at least two people of opposite gender. I can go back 2,000 years Egypt, Babylon, pretty much anywhere on the planet. Marriage is between one or more man and one or more women. One man plus one woman is more common, but there are places, if you can support them where one man plus multiple women is the norm. The whole interracial thing was an American hangup that reflects our particular issues with slaves of African decent. For example, male traders commonly married female native American women. I am also comfortable with committed unions between people of the same sex. They just aren't marriages.

No one, including yourself, has posted an argument why marriage needs to be redefined. My arguments aren't based on tradition but common sense. Marriage is the tip of a very big iceberg. If we redefine marriage, then we need to redefine husband and wife, and it cascades down from there. Everyone knows what a marriage is, there's no pressing need to redefine it. Non-whites achieved equal legal standing with whites without changing the definition of race. Women achieved equal legal standing with men without changing the definition of man. Same sex unions can achieve equal legal standing with opposite sex unions without changing the definition of marriage.

If the goal is to allow same sex unions the same legal right, privileges and responsibilities as traditional opposite sex marriages, I've already shown how that can be achieved. Of course if that isn't the true goal.....

Wow pastorsteve, you just used the most judgmental language I’ve seen here so far and it barely lucid. It really does all boil down to what you think gay people do sexually. Your imagery must be vivid. One could only wish to have such an exotic sex life.

Child porn? Where is that in the gay marriage act? Evil? That all sounds pretty hateful to me.

Nobody really cares what you think is right. Religion is not rational. Behavioral professionals have stated that homosexuality is a normal deviation from the majority at somewhere between 2.5% and 5% of the population. They are not going away. They are born to heterosexual parents.

Denying a people dignity and respect based on what you think is evil is actually the evil thing.

Pastor Steve, I'm very secure in my faith. I was married in the same church as my parents, and my children, like myself, have attended this same church since birth. You do NOT speak for all christians. Allowing two consenting adults to form a civil union will not affect my marriage, my children, my morals, or my faith. However, the words you spew as a pastor do.

You are so focused on the "sex" aspect that you've overlooked the most important thing...Civil Rights. This isnt about God or what you deem morally correct.

Do NOT use God as your platform to sprew your own skewed veiw on sexuality. Sadly, you're are just like every other homophobe out there.

"Godless people have always tried to redefine morality."

EXACTLY!!!

Gluttony is sunful, yet we are surrounded by fat people! We need to also ban fat people!

1:24 PM, jilocasin, I would agree with that if the legal unions would in fact remain equal to marriage. The fact is from the first day that happens, there will be people looking for loopholes in order to sidestep the law. The major issue is survivor benefits. Your legal spouse is entitled to part of your retirement income should you die. That’s because your spouse made sacrifices to stay in that union. We all do that. Gay couples are treated as “single” by the laws and their hard earned money goes either back to the government when they die or to a blood relative in some cases. Your spouse becomes your next of kin for the price of a marriage license. That’s the issue. So ok…..sure lets make is civil union because that is actually what gay couples are tying to get but those unions must be viewed the same as legal marriage by all parties that have power over the financial and social wellbeing of those couples.

It is funny, in a very sad way, how religious zealots like to use the Bible selectively (i.e. both homoseualtiy and gluttony are sinful, pass me another burrito) is so similar to originalists who like to use the constitution slectively (I guess donovan McNabb is only 3/5 of a QB).

I would be all for supporting "civil unions". I believe a lot of people, heterosexual and homosexual would accept that term. However, to make the "playing field" level, we should call all legal unions between two people, regardless of genders, a "civil union". Drop the word marriage all together from the laws, rights, addendums, statutes, tax codes etc, and replace it with "civil union". Let the relegious groups/people keep the word for their own. Then we can also pay to have a staff of government employees search through all the documents to make sure this situation is accurately encacted. Yep, I'm all for giving more of what little money I have to the government to do that rather than ADD to the definition of one word.

But then again, since that would take the "redefinition" argument away from those who wish to deny a same sex couple of having the same (yet seperate, yeah that's worked in th past) type of union I'm sure it would just add to the fuel of the "my god/morals" arguments. Morals are a personal choice, much like religion. If you wish to base your morals on an approximately 2000 year old game of telephone, go for it, more power to you. However, don't try to make your morals mine. Though I may agree with you on many ideas of what morality is, there are still going to be differences that neither side will cede.

Reading these boards has reinforced the thought that people are going to disagree. Sadly, it has also reinforced the understanding that no matter how well one attempts to keep a cool head and keep this a civil debate it denegrates to a name calling fest. Often I see people sliding into the "I have trouble attacking your argument so I'm going to attack your person". May I suggest when you reach that point you step back, take a deep breath, count to ten, play a game of solitary then come back when you can respond with a reasonabe argument?

"Foe" here! (Don't you just love the weasel words?? I'm not an "opponent" or "activist", or even a "supporter of traditional marriage". I'm a "FOE". Let the media bias and propoganda begin!)

Bangorian 10:03 Such hate and intolerance from you! I'm guessing you are college educated. Liberal college campuses, the place where ignorance is actually taught.

jilocasin You are right on. One of the few who can state the case honestly. Nothing wrong with giving gays equal rights, but stop trying to redefine marriage and society. A man married to a man does not become a "wife". A woman married to a woman does not become a "husband".

PaleShadows: It is very hard to understand, isn't it, why they focus on the sex part so much. Why are they so interested in that ? Many are not. A lot of folks are more focused on the humanity of a person......their ability to live in a monogamous commited relationship with their partner. Why would anyone want to know, or even think about, what others do in privacy? Most just are not interested.

Once again....no church will be forced to marry a same sex couple.

jilocasin: Very "interesting".....you have a problem with a commited , monogamous same- sex couple having the benefits of marriage.....and yet you state to downeastdave that you are "perfectly comfortable with any marriage that involves at least 2 people of opposite gender." How weird. And perhaps you are not aware.....but people who have been involved in those kinds of "arrangements" (1 man , 3 women, for example, etc.) seem to have experienced and witnessed that the women got the bad end of that stick....little respect.....subjegated,etc.....but perhaps that would not concern someone who thinks as you seem to. Odd.....

WilliamDS you said "So ok…..sure lets make is civil union because that is actually what gay couples are tying to get but those unions must be viewed the same as legal marriage by all parties that have power over the financial and social wellbeing of those couples."

Exactly! I will support any law that does exactly that. But I will vote yes on 1 in Nov and will vote against any redefinition of marriage.

oldgrump: Good comments from you......for an "old grump", you sure make sense quite often!

So Seeker, you are in favor of keeping marriage an exclusive privilege? That’s the real issue. If that’s the case, civil unions will be excluded from most of the benefits of marriage.

I count 7 nations that extend full marriage to gay couples, and 12 nations recognizing civil unions with marital benefits and responsibilities.

Strange that it hasn’t happened in the greatest nation in the world.

Actually… no, it’s not surprising. What is surprising is that the remnants of the Puritans who had to leave Europe because their religious doctrines were so extreme are still around 300 years later. They didn’t work or play well with others, and they still don’t. I hope they find a continent they can dominate and make people live the behaviors to which they themselves aspire.

Ready to take this to the streets, Ted?

On 9/3/09 at 1:43 PM, seeker wrote:

jilocasin You are right on. One of the few who can state the case honestly. Nothing wrong with giving gays equal rights, but stop trying to redefine marriage and society. A man married to a man does not become a "wife". A woman married to a woman does not become a "husband".

**************

Yes, seeker, you are correct. A man does not become a "wife" and a woman does not become a "husband". Most same sex couples I know refer to their partners by the title infered by the sex. "Hi, I'm Susan, this is my wife Jane" or "Hi, I'm Hank, this is my husband Tom". I was under the impression that the term husband and wife refered to the gender of the person in the relationship, not the role bestowed on them by a title. And I have often heard heterosexual couples refer to their spouse as exactly that, "Hi, I'm John and this is my spouse, Julia."

On 9/3/09 at 1:51 PM, chersully2000 wrote:

oldgrump: Good comments from you......for an "old grump", you sure make sense quite often!

***********

If you were to have the misfortune of spending much time around me, you would soon learn the reason why I'm called an old grump often.

oldgrump, it’s hard to believe you could be as grumpy as I am. You are right.

“By the power vested in me, I pronounce you husbands” or “By the power vested in me I pronounce you wives”…if someone needs a script.

That 'pastorsteve' guy is a disgrace to people named Steve everywhere.

If Maine legislatures had approved of civil unions first, instead of marriage equality for gays, we'd still be having this argument. You can claim that looking back you'd be fine with civil unions and support them yada yada. But many people who are against marriage equality would be the first to make arguments against civil unions (domestic partnerships, sodomy laws, etc).

The arguments would sound like: "civil unions will lead to *insert crazy slippery slope prediction* " or "gay people have domestic partnerships and that should be enough". Blah blah blah. So no matter what, the argument, or fight, or whatever you call it isn't for or against what society will calls a gay union, it's about how much respect should be given to the gay community. Some believe none and some believe just as much as any other American. So for the "yes" voters, when all is said and done, it really just looks like you're unable to share a word and the rights that come with the word because you have no respect for the gay community or their rights. Playground bully anyone?

Marriage is one woman and one man. Gays can go invent or create their own thing. It took us thousands of years to create, form and shape marriage (also known as the union of a man and a woman).................. and gays will just have to go do the same. That's just the way it is. Good luck.

On 9/3/09 at 2:03 PM, WilliamDS wrote:

By the power vested in me, I pronounce you husbands” or “By the power vested in me I pronounce you wives”…if someone needs a script.

**********

Interesting that you brought up that part of the ceremony, however, I believe you made a slight error in your "script". "By the power vested in me by the State of --------". I fail to see any religious empowerment included in there. Kind of makes me think that "marriage" is more of a legal issue than moral/religious.

2:08 PM, ms_sherlock, hear hear. "I am the majority, I have the power, I can force my demands on you, give me your lunch money now."

Old grump, in the eyes of the government, marriage is a civil and legal status. No religion involved.

What a sad world we live in. Make it legal and you believe you make it right.

pastorsteve, It really doesn't matter if child porn is legal outside of the USA. It's illegal here. It has all the hallmarks of doing harm to another.

But homosexual relationships aren't. And have none of the hallmarks of doing harm to another.

In fact, you show your ignorance by even comparing the two.

I shall pray for you to be enlightened and educated in a fair and humane way.

oldgrump 1:58 And I have heard gay women refer to their "wife" and gay men refer to their "husband". Which is absurd on the face of it. At least when a gay man refers to his husband you have an accurate idea of his family and can avoid making embarrassing remarks referring to his wife...

pastersteve, sad for you because you're on the way out. I hope you have a second career.

WellNow, I concur!

pastorsteve is right on the money. God has given you over to a depraved mind just like He said He would in the book of Romans. Your minds are so darkened to the truth that people need to spend countless hours trying to convince you how its wrong for two men to marry each other. You refuse to see it. You don't want to see it. Not only are homosexuals blind to the truth of Gods word, but also those who support this sinful life.

Rom 1:24 Therefore God gave them over in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, so that their bodies would be dishonored among them.

Rom 1:25 For they exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.

Rom 1:26 For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural,

Rom 1:27 and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error.

Rom 1:28 And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper,

I bet all this will be the busiest more then presidents election. Guarantee even all the gays and lesbians that dont vote will be there. And of course those who want this overtunred will be there. I sure will because maine dont need this

Seeker, there’s no need to be embarrassed. Gay people know that they are a small minority and that there is a “heterosexual assumption” out there. They are not offended by that assumption as a rule unless it infringes on their social status. They do reserve the right use their own terminology to define them and usually it is not emulating heterosexual marriage. I’m glad you are sensitive to the issue.