Baldacci calls for equality at No on Question 1 event

I think Uhlenhake sums it up best "This vote is about children"

I realize people have religious issues with homosexuality, but I think in the best interest of children being raised in same sex families, people need to put those issues behind them to do what is best for these children, which is to allow their parents to legally wed and provide their families with the same protections all families deserve.

Vote No on One!

* * * * * PLEASE vote NO on ONE * * * * *

Life Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness... All men are created equal.... These are REAL American values.

* * * * * PLEASE vote NO on ONE * * * * *

yes on one

From Fort Kent to Kittery. . Vote No on One. For family, for equality for the justice, fairness and religious liberty.

Hard to believe Ole' Baldy and I found common ground on anything.

Vote No! on Question #1.

Vote "YES" on one ...preserve the dignity of the human person and family...

Vote "NO" on one...for the reasons stated by firefly. Granting legal marriage rights to same-sex couples is very much about the dignity of individuals and families.

I also say preserve the dignity of the human person and family...by voting NO on Question #1.

Please vote NO on 1 so that all Mainers can have a family recognized by the state. And so those of us who are not currently considering marriage will be more accepted in a society where there is so much intolerance and hate against gay people, especially amongst youth like myself.

Hang in there, Adam...

You cannot legislate acceptance.

YES on One, for the children.

I believe the majority of the children old enough to understand this discussion would tell you have don't understand the lack of acceptance of same-sex couples, or the debate over same-sex marriage equality.

COUNTDOWN TO DECISION 2009: 6 DAYS, 8 HOURS

VOTE!!!

NO ON ONE!!!

---> VOTE!!!

Turkey, you're wrong. With laws that protect gays from discrimination, it will prevent the hate and violence against us by creating a safer environment where we can be open in our community. Only about 50 years ago, when the Supreme Court made its ruling in the Loving v. Virginia case, a large majority of Americans were opposed to interracial marriage.

NO on 1, for the children - because a yes vote means children who will be teased and harassed for having same-sex parents, it means shaming those children and telling those children that their family is somehow lesser or invalid. I'm 22 years old now and I came out when I was 14 and went through terrible harassment in high school. By legalizing same-sex marriage, the state recognizes the validity of the romantic relationships between gay and lesbian couples (even the gay and lesbian relationships of 14-year-olds, like myself back then), and that has a trickle-down effect of telling everyone that our relationships are equal.

There is NOTHING in the law that will affects schools. AG Janet Mills has made that clear, but you can read the law yourself - I dare you to find ANYTHING that mentions school curriculum: http://www.mainelegislature.org/legis/bills/bills_124th/billtexts/SP038401.asp

ANY teacher can read books like "King & King" or "Who's in a Family" RIGHT NOW and Maine teachers have been reading those books for years prior to Question 1 and will continue to do so regardless of the outcome of the vote. There is nothing in the law that either supports or negates such books or the teaching of diversity. Same-sex romantic couples and parents are a reality as old as time and will continue to be, whether or not the state recognizes it.

Please vote NO on 1 <3

You cannot legislate morality.

NO on One, for ALL the children, for Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness !

And thusly I retire to my cave of slumber where my opposite-gender wife awaits my presence...Have a good evening!!!

COUNTDOWN TO DECISION 2009: 6 DAYS, 7 HOURS, "-ISH" MINUTES...

VOTE!!!

NO ON ONE!!!

---> VOTE!!!

...And tomorrow will be an example of legislating acceptance. Obama will be signing into law the Matthew Shepard Act, which will make it a federal hate crime to target an individual on the basis of their sexual orientation, gender identity, actual or perceived gender, or disability.

In 2005 Mainers overwhelmingly voted NO on Question 1 and thereby outlawed discrimination against other Mainers on the basis of their sexual orientation, in housing, public accommodation, education, credit, and employment. Over the Summer Obama proclaimed the month of June National GLBT Pride Month. We are currently working to overturn the "Defense of Marriage Act" (DOMA), which is a huge step forward in nationally & federally recognized same-sex marriage, which will overrule any outcome of Question 1. Prop.8 is also in the US Superior Court and could result in a Supreme Court ruling much like the 1967 Loving v. Virginia case. There are several legal cases pending on the federal level in addition to these, such as the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (making it illegal on the federal/national level to discriminate against people based on sexual orientation in employment) and of course we're about to finally get rid of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" once and for all!

Not a reason for proponents of equality to become complacent (we've already seen what happened in California, though looks like Prop.8 is going to be overruled and Schwarzenegger just recently passed two gay rights laws, one recognizing same-sex marriages performed in other states). But definitely a cause for HOPE! And many examples of the fact that our laws reflect acceptance, or at least demand tolerance by outlawing acts of bigotry and hate.

Marriage between a man and woman is a unique environment where two people because of their spiritual, emotional and physical make up can teach a child to mature into a healthy adult. A woman thinks differently than a man. A woman is also spiritualy different. Physical is obvious. Same sex marriages cannot do that. That is why I say "preserve the dignity of the human person and marriage by voting yes on one".

You just keep telling yourself that.

Vote NO on ONE ~ Because it's not YOUR right to dictate who falls in love.

I understand deferring to God on life issues is not popular anymore. I understand that we think we are more moral, compassionate, understanding and loving than God. I understand the days in which we live. I understand that if you dissent from "progressive" ways you are a hater or homophobe or intolerant or a Bible thumping gun toting redneck. However, I DO defer to God and His Word, whether I like it or not. I will not call wrong, right, or evil, good. And I will trust God's definition of right and good, not societies. Marriage was God's idea and He set the standards. I certainly don't see homosexuality any better or worse than adultery as a sin. However, I can not raise adultery to acceptable legal status, nor can I raise marriage between same sex people to acceptable legal status.

I DO pray for a nation that promotes immorality and depravity. Let God be true and every man a liar.(Rom. 3:4) A nation that forsakes God and His laws is a nation to be pittied. Proponents say legalize same sex marriage "for the children". May God have mercy for our ignorance and rebellion against His holiness.

firefly...as a single mother I have to say that I taught my children to mature into healthy adults without the presence of their father. More important than having both a mother and a father is being loved and valued by their family. You are wrong that men and women always think differently. There are heterosexual women who are more masculine than some men and there are heterosexual men who are more feminine than some women. The same applies to homosexual people. Some gay men are very masculine and some are more feminine. Some lesbians are very feminine and some are masculine. As long as they love and value their kids it doesn't make a bit of difference how feminine or masculine either parent is. You must not know many single mothers firefly...we're often both feminine AND masculine depending on the situation. You usually have to be. I honestly wish the Yes on 1 crowd could come up with even just one LOGICAL argument for why they are voting Yes. I have yet to hear a single one.

Vote NO on 1...show the innocent children of same sex couples that they matter and Maine citizens won't deny them legal protection!

jenkinsl...God demands that we all love ALL of His children as we love Him. The worst sin a person can commit is trying to act as if they are God. It is NOT our job or place to judge God's children. That is His job. How can we honestly say we love ALL of God's children if we vote in a way that is harmful to the innocent children being raised by same sex couples? If I were going to try to vote according to the Bible I actually would not vote at all because either vote would go against His word. For me it comes down to protecting the rights and welfare of the children of same sex couples. Doing that, to me, comes ahead of everything. These children can't vote themselves and they need Maine voters to act on their behalf.

Vote No on 1 to protect ALL of Maine's children.

If you don't feel comfortable voting No on 1 due to religious beliefs you CAN choose NOT to vote at all. Please...Don't vote AGAINST innocent children. Vote No on Question 1 or do not vote at all.

Centarumyst: I totally agree that being loved and valued by your parents or parent is the critical component; not the specific makeup of the of the parents (male-female, male-male,etc.) This is evident if people really open their eyes and hearts. Many familes with children will benefit from same sex marriage being made legal. Others will not be affected by this law; their family lives will go on just as before.

Let's hope these families will be able to get these protections and benefits of married life very soon.

Voted NO on 1.

On 10/27/09 at 11:38 PM, jenkinsl wrote: "I understand that if you dissent from "progressive" ways you are a hater or homophobe or intolerant or a Bible thumping gun toting redneck. However, I DO defer to God and His Word, whether I like it or not. I will not call wrong, right, or evil, good. And I will trust God's definition of right and good, not societies. Marriage was God's idea and He set the standards. I certainly don't see homosexuality any better or worse than adultery as a sin. However, I can not raise adultery to acceptable legal status, nor can I raise marriage between same sex people to acceptable legal status."

This is America. We don't make laws based on the Bible here. For that, you need to move somewhere more appropriate, like Iraq.

Look, you and people like you used The Bible to condone and perpetuate slavery, you sued it to prevent people in love who happened to be of different races from marrying. You used it to justify burning witches. You used it to keep women from voting. You use it now to denigrate people whoa re in love and have not committed adultery as being no better than adulterers. It's you that needs forgiveness - and I hope you find it. Int eh meantime we'll vote NO on ONE, and clean-up the horrible mess you've made, the horrible injustices you've condones, and stop you from ruining any more lives.

Centarumyst: you make the common agument that God calls us to love everyone. On this, we agree. I said nothing of homosexual people as being unloved. I am NOT judging them, you are right, it is not my job. But, condoning that which God calls an abomination IS NOT GODLY OR BIBLICAL LOVE. Your problem is not with me, it is with God and His Word

AionCA: If our laws are not based on a moral code such as the Bible, then you shouldn't be promoting marriage at all, hererosexual or homosexual. See you in Iraq

I feel so bad for Gov Baldachi today. I have not agreed with him very much over time

Like the gambling thang

But what the Gov and others did on the Gay Marriage issue cannot be looked at any other way. When you look at the bottom line. The Gov stood up for whatever reasons he has. And the Gov did the right thing for the Equalty of ALL People of Maine.

BTW~~~~My wife meet the Gov on one rainy Sat. at The Toy Run at the booth where u drop off all the thousands of Christman Gifts (am I allowed to say Merry Christmas here). The Gov had just got there soaking wet, looking Cold, but smiling and talking to people. Well (get ready for this) my lovely wife was as excited as one get, because guess what. My wife eats, drinks and dreams of Christmas every single day (ya know sometimes I have to put on the ole ball and Chain). Well are you ready, well ole Gov was standing behind my overly excited wife and again didn`t know the Gov was right behind her. Well anyone that knows my wife, knows when she is excited, is jumping up and down alot. Well in one of her jumps while going backwards, she came back down and stepped hard on the ole Gov`s Toes (now how many of u out there would like to do that). My wife and I are independant Republicans. Ya know we talk about that somedays. Ya just know it, don`t cha. I have many many witnesses to this historic event in just one of many my wife and I have had and will have.

I have always respected the Gov for doing the Toy Run and especially on a cold rainy day. For the Gov no matter what the ole Gov is a Harley Bro and I am sure he has no bigotry about all the other different motorcycles out there just like me and my friends, for we are ALL Bro`s.

NOW Gov Bro, do you think u could get it right this time and let us ALL have another Casino in Southern Maine.

Now Bro remember, we ALL like to Live Free and enjoy anything WE want that is legal under our LAWS.

.

Salute to You Gov (:~)

jenkinsl wrote: " AionCA: If our laws are not based on a moral code such as the Bible, then you shouldn't be promoting marriage at all, hererosexual or homosexual. See you in Iraq"

Last time I checked, you could get marred at City Hall - so, again, your argument is based on what ?

The state is not your church - get used to it.

It's called "America".

(And you spelled 'heterosexual' incorrectly.)

Have a nice time in Iran or Iraq, wherever it is you plan to live under your little religious oligarchy.

Wonder when baldacci is coming out of the closet. Everyone knows he has to be gay to sign this law. Its ok Baldacci to come out Now

When are you ? It's just SO obvious . . .

Please VOTE NO ON 1

When you really get down to it, it's all really about their perverted sex. Baldacci signed this bill months ago in knowing this will become law. He was not well informed then and I think he's clueless still. He and his band of 100 merry-men in Augusta think their opinion is valued more that the one and a quarter million citizen's opinions in this state? But then, Baldacci can't run again for governor, (term limits), so what does he really care anyway? (Probably got paid off?)

It ain't "right" and this ain't the way Maine's supposed to be.

It will be a close vote, that's for sure. But to the gays, they should know this; That all those of us who vote "YES" on Question One to repeal this law, a large portion of us will STILL dislike their kind, and that's not likely to be easily changed. So the next time you wimpy "NO" voters are waiting in your grocery store checkout line and you see two guys holding hands and smooching, (and your kids see that), I hope you'll enjoy the show because you'll get what you voted for!

Vote "YES" to preserve normal, traditional, families and marriage in Maine.

VOTE YES! preserve dignity! As it was in the days of Noah, so shall it be in the coming of the Lord. He will come with a fury you've not seen. Because of disbelief, He turned them over to a perverted mind. Sorry to say but that is what has happened. If it wasn't for man and woman, there would be no children for these same sex people to raise! Can't have children with same sex the way nature intended children to be created.

Good to see so many "Vote No" supporters here. I already voted a "NO" Vote in support of my fellow brother, sister, neighbor,mother, father, librarian, Doctor, lawyer, teacher, firemen, congressman, policeman, plumbers, electrician . You get the point. Who am I to tell someone who they can love and marry. Vote your heart, not your anger or fears. Every one has a right to live in peace. Everyone says it's about the children. As true as it is. What would you do if your son or daughter came to you with love and emotions for someone of the same sex. Do you good parent with love and support or do you throw stones at your child? It's about love. Walk in someone elses shoes for 5 minutes instead of judging. If we all loved alittle bit more, the world would be a better place. Who craes. who marries who?? Really now? Don't quote the bible, that's not for you, that's for the big guy....

Go to your town hall right now, this morning, fill out the adsentee ballot and VOTE NO. That way we can give rides to people who need them on Tuesday November 3rd. Be kind to eachother. It will be a close vote, but lets make this right once and for all. Set the pace for the Nation to follow. It's going to happen, the question is when? Let's do it next Tuesday.... Feel free to contact me. Be respectful!!!!!!

Politicians hide behind three things the flag education and the children. So here there using the children.

Think about it.

why am i not surprised that our liberal state leader, whose of the 'hope & change' - 'tax & spend' party is voting no. all the more reason to vote YES.

Shannon9a: So, how do you explain the "birds and the bees" to the child with two mothers or two fathers? It's a civil issue that should be worked out but marriage just like between a man and a women................no way.

Yes on one!!!

Just goes to show the bald one in Augusta doesn't have the spine to do what's right. Too much pressure from one side or the other and he folds.

YES! This whole thing of trying to make it about the children is beyond absurd. In VERY isolated instances, gays occasionally do raise kids but it's not common at all, and kids don't need dad and a dad or a mom and a mom. Heterosexual couples believe that a male father and female mother both have unique contributions to make in raising their children and that is why it's important for both of them to be equally recognized as parents. Gays have turned their back on the importance to children of the influence of both a female mom and a male dad, but now they would have us believe it's critically important that kids have 2 legal moms or 2 legal dads. I don't think so. We have already outlawed discrimination against gays and that's great. But this whole marriage thing is taking it just too far. Vote YES on ONE!

It's all about the money isn't it Gov. John ??? Never thought that you being a Mainer all you ife , and a fine church man and all you would have better reasons for making the right choice . Unreal to think that you feel that same sex is an alright thing . Let the gays have thier so called rights , but leave the Marraige thing out of it !! You think this state of Maine has issues now ? Wait and see what happens if this bill gets passed . Whats next ? Because you love your Dog ,and it dies , you can collect bennifits from it ? Shame on you Gov. John ! Shame on you !!...............VOTE YES ON 1 !!!!

he should mind his business and stay out of this debate.. the state has more pressing issues than this.. whatever the vote , let the chips fall where they may...it is to late for this gov but hopefully the next one will set some priories, stick to them , and avoid running around the state for photo opps..

sorry but while I was growing up..and when I raised my kids...If you didn't do as you were told to do..you were not treated equal. what happened to this world? You do wrong and think that you should be treated the same. Now they are claiming it is discrimination? WHAT? When you do wrong, you should not be treated the same end of story.

Two men or two women is WRONG, always has been, always will be!

Voting YES on #1

We will get vote Baldacci out soon as we get a chance & he can move to Mass. also.

VOTE NO on 1: 1 Corinthians 13:4-7

Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy,

it does not boast, it is not proud.

... Read More

It is not rude, it is not self-seeking,

it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs.

Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth.

It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.

This isn't a question of who you can love, it's about who you can legally marry. There's a big difference.

Shame Shame Shame on all of the Mainer that will vote for same sex marriage,,,,,,,,,,the State of Maine must be full of gays

Your false god has deceived you.

The Invisible Sky People have ordained in their sacred secret invisible churchy texts that they will will bring PLAGUES upon the state of Maine if Gay Marriage is banned.

The first will be the Plague of Ice - the Invisible Sky People (who are more invisible than your false god BTW) will transform rain into ICE crystals for the NEXT 5 MONTHS!!!!

The Plague of Ice will be followed by the Plague of Mud and Potholes. Roads will liquefy and open to swallow cars whole!

Verily, the Plague of Mud will be followed by the Plague of Biting Flies. They will darken the sky and make life outdoors an unholy misery!

...and Lo, the Plague of Biting Flies will be followed by the Plague of Flatlanders. They will clog Route 1 and drive badly all summer long!

Do not invoke the wrath of the Invisible Sky People!

For it is written in the Invisible Holy Text that those that seek to ban Gay Marriage in Maine will be cast for all eternity into the Flaming Lake of Allen's!!!!

Save yourself brother!

Vote No on 1!

Children just want to be loved by their parents. If they have married parents of the same sex they will also be safe when it comes to legal issues.Tthere are so many children living in poverty because they have only one parent. Usually the mother (who is underpaid in most jobs) is struggling to provide for them and still find the spare minutes to give them love and quality time. The 'yes' people don't even address the issues of single parenting which is all around us.

Half or more marriages end in divorce. How can same sex marriage threaten traditional marriage? Is their marriage that shaky? The most common threats to marriage are drug abuse, alcoholism, death of a child, domestic violence, poverty, mental illness, lack of health care and unfortunately the list goes on. There are so many things around us that need our attention. I don't think gay marriage is worth getting all bent out of shape. If the 'yes' people are against gay marriage then DON'T MARRY ANYONE OF THE SAME SEX!

Like most real Mainers, I'm pretty comfortable with those things you mention, in fact I've grown to appreciate that their perception as plagues by some tends to weed out many of the people who are better suited to the lifestyle of southern California, South Beach, or even Massachussets. Bring on the "plagues!" But if possible, I'd prefer to be cast into a lake of single malt Scotch.

Just saw the ad on TV where the announcer says something like "Maine schools would NEVER allow something inappropriate to be taught." I know these people in the ads are paid professional actors, but they are obviously VERY GOOD actors to say that without laughing out loud!

YES on ONE!

PROTECT THE CHILDREN OF MAINE...........VOTE YES.......ON QUESTION ONE

It has never been wrong to extend equality to deserving citizens.

Vote NO on 1, and make future generations of Mainers proud.

>SHIPBUILDER "so the next time you wimpy "NO" voters are waiting in your grocery store checkout line and you see two guys holding hands and smooching, (and your kids see that), I hope you'll enjoy the show because you'll get what you voted for! "

As far as I know two men can hold holds and kiss now and its not against the law. So how is letting them get married gonna change that?

Vote No on 1!!

Tedlick...do not mock God.

Men and women are different ..... physically, emotionally, and spiritually. A marriage between a man and woman provides a healthy environment where the differences of the man and woman are celebrated and developed in the child. A gay marriage cannot provied that. I have wise friends who lost husbands and one of the first things they did was seek out strong men in their families and community to mentor their kids.

I for one do NOT care what Baldacci opinion is, haven't since he was elected. He hasn't done much for us as a state except get us further in the red and I for one will be happy to see him replaced, I only wish their terms were shorter. I'm sure the voters in this state are not deciding their vote on a governor that has done for us what he has.

VOTE YES ONE keep Maine marriage as it should be, between one man and one woman.

mgayle...the biggest threat to marriage is a society that does not support marriage and family.

Lay OFF the comparisons to the civil rights movement or you're going to lose votes. How DARE you??

"Tedlick...do not mock God."

I'm sure he has a sense of humor, firefly...

Get over yourself.

i know what i will vote, yes, yes, yes. there is no way that people can believe this is a lifestyle that is right, and pushing kids in the picture. both sides can say what they want but they have involved kids into this debate. baldy is for it, the bdnews is for it. the gays are going all around trying to again push there ways on us. live in your closets like you have been or at least keep to yourselfs. i can count on two hands at least the times they tried to approach me, make remarks to me, you call that alright. vote yes on 1 please and shut them up till we vote again and again.

Regardless of our opinions of Baldacci, his growing understanding of the importance of civil marriage is a good lesson for all of us. He came to understand that civil unions and civil marriage are not the same in the eyes of the law, and that this is a constitutional issue. Marriage is a civil institution recognized by the state, and it is improper for the state to have systemic discrimination against same-sex couples.

Vote NO on 1, and protect ALL Maine families and their children.

firefly, you are exactly right when you say the biggest threat to marriage is a lack of support for it. This is why we must come together as a people next week and affirm that we support marriage and family for ALL Mainers.

Vote NO on 1, it's the right thing to do.

You are mocking His "Word" you are mocking Him. He wants to bless your life.

A woman is also spiritualy different. Did you ladies out there know this. What does this mean. Women are not only second class citizens and they are also inferior in God's eyes. I think you can see where this is going for the Yes on 1 folks.

This issue is really the culmination of a 200 year struggle to recognize that male supremacy is as wrong as white supremacy. All people have to have the same legal rights and priveleges.

firefly,

You're barking up a coonless tree my friend. I've played that game... won't do so anymore.

It's yours: keep it.

But it has nothing to do with the issue at hand or with civil law.

vote yes on no. 1 the gov. its a turn coat he shouldn t be on any side i lived it and screw up my son for his own life let see maybe the gov. have his kids marry same sex and can t get not grand child see rosie o donnly wife left her took her own kid let rosie with the other 3 she adopted don ttell me not going to screw them kids up gov. ever runs for anythng not my vote be human vote YES NO. 1

Jon...not true. Women are not inferior in the eyes of God. God created them differently both physically, spiritually, and emotionally. God chose women to procreate with Him. Only women can do that. It's some men who see women as second class citizens. The church with it's educational systems, health systems, in the sciences and political arena was the first organization in society to encourage and celebrate women.

harley07...the government didn't initially bring the children in to this campaign, the vote Yes people did. Think about it.

Bangorean wrote: "Lay OFF the comparisons to the civil rights movement or you're going to lose votes. How DARE you??"

We dare because it is EXACTLY the same issue. Because of the bias of the majority the rights of a minority, rights that are assured by the US Constitution, are being suppressed.

Tedlick....it has everything to do with this issue. Traditional families make for strong healthy, prosperous societies. They are the foundation of all socities. Families determine whether societies fail or succeed. And this one, this country is failing...same sex marriage will add another hole in this sinking ship.

"Families determine whether societies fail or succeed"

This is absolutely why we should uphold marriage equality, so more families have the important protections of civil marriage.

Vote NO on 1.

Traditional families aren't going anywhere... if you're afraid that allowing same-sex marriage will somehow lessen the number of "traditional" families, you're waiting for the sky to fall for sure...

But my point is that the fact that you have faith has nothing to do with this matter of civil law.

Countless "traditional" families over the years and today don't concern themselves with your religion.

That is my point.

There is no evidence of any "sinking ships" among the states and nations who have granted same-sex marriage.

If it's a right that's in the Constitution, show it to me, or better yet, show it to the Supreme Court. But of course we all know that there is NO right for men to marry men or women to marry women mentioned in the Constitution, and this is just more empty rhetoric to help gays get something they want.

Gays already had equal rights, then we passed a (redundant) law that specifically spelled out that gays couldn't be discriminated against. Be happy with that and just blend in with the rest of society like everyone else does and nobody will care what you do behind closed doors.

YES on ONE!

same sex marriage does not reflect what a healthy marriage should be. That of an enviroment of a man and woman in which the characteristics of the spiritual, emotional, and physical aspects of the these two people compliment each other in raising children who are sound in mind and spirit.

ouch ! my butt hurts. yes on one, please! By the way Gov, we know you're gay.

"If it's a right that's in the Constitution"

Marriage is not mentioned in the Constitution at all Jeffrey: even your heterosexual kind. But equal treatment for all citizens, not just some, is:

"Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

Jeffery also states: "Gays already had equal rights, then we passed a (redundant) law that specifically spelled out that gays couldn't be discriminated against."

That's not true and you know it. There is nothing, neither human rights clauses nor domestic partnership, that grants all of the protections and guarantees of marriage. The Yes on 1 side keeps pushing this idea even though it is totally false.

Try again.

Here you go, Jeffrey:

Fourteenth Amendment to the US Constitution, Section 1:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

In other words, rights and benefits cannot be denied to any US citizen without due process. Same sex couples are being denied civil marriage without due process.

US Supreme Court, Loving v Virginia, 1968:

Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival....

In June 2007, Mildred Loving, the plaintiff in the supreme court case, commented specifically on same-sex marriage:

I am still not a political person, but I am proud that Richard's and my name is on a court case that can help reinforce the love, the commitment, the fairness, and the family that so many people, black or white, young or old, gay or straight seek in life. I support the freedom to marry for all. That's what Loving, and loving, are all about.

It is absolutely an issue of equal rights for us that we should be allowed the same legal protections of civil marriage for our families.

Vote NO on 1.

firefly, there are healthy same-sex families all around you in Maine. I see no petitions to analyze how healthy or unhealthy current married families are, and I think it's safe to say that 100% of the unhealthy married families in Maine today are all made up of mixed-sex headed households.

Vote NO on 1, and protect all Maine families and their children.

We do need to think about our children. We need to pray each and every day for our children. We also need to pray that they understand Gods plan

about the institute of marriage between a man and a woman. We need to pray for those who have never read Romans in the Bible. We need to ask our

creator for his tender mercy every day and for his direction. For Christians , we have an obligation to vote yes on #1.

con..we don't need petitions to analyze the success or failures of families...in both same sex and man woman marriages. Both have failed in one way or another. We've lost the sense of the dignity of the human person and it has filtered in every aspect of our lives. In government, educating our children, health...legalizing same sex marriage is not one of the solutions to the flaws in our socities. It will only weaken societies and create more problems.

you're right Canon

mr. baldacci once again has no concept to the human condition, what so ever!!!! his head is so puffed and maybe the ill air quality has gotten to his brain?????

a legislator that promotes porn for any reason, is sick himself!!!!! we need Politicians with some back bone to stand up and say 'this is preposterous bogus deceit' for health insurance contracts and has nothing to do with same sex marriage........ DECEIT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

firefly, extending equality to others has NEVER served to weaken our society.

Our society is stronger for it. Please consider voting NO on 1, becuase civil marriage is an important, good legal institution that we should extend to all families in Maine.

It was Tolbig80 at 9:54AM who said that gays not being able to marry meant that rights guaranteed in the US Constitution were being suppressed, so I just want you to show me where that right to marry that this poster was referring to was located. You're right that it's not there. Instead of just admitting that and leaving it there, you BOTH posted the excerpts that says right in the Constitution that says EVERYONE already has equal rights, but then you deny that you have equal rights. The equal rights mentioned in the US Constitution doesn't mean anyone can do any silly thing they want to or up is down or left is right, just that we all have equal rights. Just like everyone else, you're free to marry someone of the opposite sex and avail yourself of all the legal protections you seem so concerned about. As a single person, the same applies to me. If you or I, for our own personal reasons choose to not take this step, then it's our own choice and we'll both live with the consequences, but it's certainly no reason to pretend that two men or two women living together is the same as a real marriage.

"a legislator that promotes porn for any reason, is sick himself"

What?

Jeffery...it's a counterfeit marriage. When someone makes counterfeit money it lessons the value of real money. Same sex marriage would do the same.

Con...I would not extend equality to those who pursue the destruction of human life. Not all those who say they want equality deserve it or should be recognized and given legal footing to promote their cause.

Well said canon1 @ 10:32

Jeffrey, we shared that the constitution REQUIRES us to be extended equal rights.

That amendment was passed in the 1800's, yet it took legislation in the 1960's to fulfill its mandate to our black american citizens.

The legislation that was passed this year by our state also recognizes our responsibility to uphold the constitution, and that is why this is a good law which will survive this referendum attempt. If not in a popularity contest next week, it will be upheld by our judicial branch, because it is in line with our constitutional responsibilities.

Your argument is still "we shouldn't extend marriage rights to same sex couples because same sex couples don't have marriage rights", and that's a circular argument, and actually incorrect-- the legislature extended us marriage equality this year, and this referendum wrongly seeks to repeal that.

Vote NO on 1, and don't vote to take rights away from Mainers.

jenkinsl...I respect your feelings on the issue. I'm just curious how you are able to resolve the issue of your vote having a negative and harmful impact on the children of same sex couples. If you are a parent you must realize that if Maine votes Yes on question 1 all of the children being raised by same sex couples will be sent the message that they are in some way less than other children. Growing up is hard enough in this world without being made to feel shame, guilt and hurt for something that is totally outside of their control. It sincerely pains me to think about that as a mother. Either way this vote will not impact me directly, but my children have some friends who are being raised by same sex couples. They are wonderful kids and the idea of them being hurt just breaks my heart. I don't think God would EVER condone anything that would harm innocent children. I'm surprised more God fearing people who intend to vote Yes on 1 aren't having a spiritual dilemma over that fact. Voting Yes on 1 won't stop people from being homosexual and it won't stop society, in general, from accepting it. There will be no positive impact if the Yes vote wins...but it WILL hurt innocent kids and that's just not okay. If I were torn I would most likely choose not to vote because there is no way I could ever vote for something that I know for certain would harm any child. I firmly believe God would want me to vote No on 1.

your all sick ...God help us all

“On 10/28/09 at 10:53 AM, firefly wrote: ...it's a counterfeit marriage. When someone makes counterfeit money it lessons the value of real money. Same sex marriage would do the same.”

Really? How exactly would state recognition of same-sex marriage lesson the vows taken by a straight couple? That’s a pretty thin argument you’re presenting.

“On 10/28/09 at 10:53 AM, firefly wrote “...I would not extend equality to those who pursue the destruction of human life. Not all those who say they want equality deserve it or should be recognized and given legal footing to promote their cause. “

Destruction of human life? Are you now saying that we’re killing people? Or is this referring to your misconception about gay couples having kids?

Please vote “NO” on 1.

Nope, Convivial, you just lost me. The 14th Amendment has due process requirements. Those apply equally to ALL Americans. You are now asking for "special" constitutional protections for gay people. You're screwing with the WRONG Supreme Court. And you WILL lose on that one. I'm not ready to support YES on 1 yet, but your demanding this Constitutional recognition is pushing me a little too far.

Even if the no vote passes, you people still lose. You dont seem to understand that. You may be accepted in places like Portland, but Maine is a big state.

I am so sick of being called names by you all. I dont even toss religion into it. I just dont agree its right, and you cant understand that. And you abuse , and you are now using children as your fight. Whatever!

"Even if the no vote passes, you people still lose"

How so?

"but your demanding this Constitutional recognition is pushing me a little too far"

That's not what they told the Lovings.

I fail to see how this is any different. It was precisely the 14th that won the day against that inequality.

Why is this any different, Bangorean?

at 9:22 AM, firefly wrote: "mgayle...the biggest threat to marriage is a society that does not support marriage and family."

Maybe you can connect the dots for me, firefly. How does a group of people fervently seeking the legal right to marry equate to a society that does not support marriage and family? Marriage is a good thing. And we want the same for our relationships. We're not against you in this.

Once again, the majority of the "Yes" folks use being against "God's Word" (or some other version) as the reason to vote Yes. Once again, I would like to point out, this referendum has become a referendum on whether or not our State is run by Christian beliefs, or not. That is precisely what this has become, a referendum on the state Religion.

Because if we can only pass laws based on whether or not it agrees with the Bible, then we have become a Church-state. Whether or not the Constitution of this country specifically seperates church and state. Whether or not Christianity is practiced by everyone in this state, or if there are people who live in this state who practice their own religion, or none at all.

The Bible has been used for countless generations to manipulate entire populations of people. Here we go again.

Vote No on 1. Everyone needs to be treated equally, and fairly.

seacoast...destruction or dignity of human life....and destroying the dignity of human life is what same sex marriage would do.

What I meant by "destruction" is that if a group in their beliefs wanted to build a community in which discipline or law was to cut off the hands and heads of those who broke the law than I would oppose that group and not give them legal footing or support to their cause.

.... anyway..I have lots to do and some of us are so completely on different pages, you cannot comprehend what I am saying. Emotionally or spiritually.

I suggest you read G.K. Chesterton...says it alot better than I do. I would not assume that I have the insight into the mind and spirit of people as he does. Though many today seem to think that the great thinkers who have gone before us should be thrown out as should the traditional definition of marriage and the dignity and respect that institution deserves. We do know, to some extent, what has happened in societies where marriage, moms and dads, male and females, are not honored and respected. We see the break down of those societies. And same sex unions would add to that break down...

On 10/28/09 at 12:17 PM, firefly wrote: "We do know, to some extent, what has happened in societies where marriage, moms and dads, male and females, are not honored and respected. We see the break down of those societies. And same sex unions would add to that break down... "

Feel free to post some FACTS backing up your assertion.

Bangorean, I'm sorry if I lost you on this important, constitutional issue of equality.

I'm unclear on your focus on "due process"— our legislature clarified this due process by extending civil marriage for same-sex couples. Without this, there is no due process available for same sex couples desiring marriage.

There are clear rights and responsibilities that exist for families nowhere else in our laws except civil marriage. There is no reason for these rights to be denied these loving committed couples, and that is what our legislature determined after hearing from a great number of Mainers on this issue (both those for and against marriage equality).

Our nation has a very long tradition going for it, one of systematically extending rights and equal protection to minority after minority, group after group. This has been going on since our founding fathers drafted our bill of rights in our nation's infancy, and has been only going in the direction of equal protection under the law.

Vote NO on 1, and uphold our nation's tradition of inclusiveness, equality, and understanding.

wish baldy could change his mind on a downeast casino. no political gain for him to do so so i won't hold my breath

wish baldy could change his mind on a downeast casino. no political gain for him to do so so i won't hold my breath

Advocates for same-sex marriage claim they only want to be left alone to live the way they want to live. They never mention it, but they also want the right to create children together using genetically modified "female sperm" and "male eggs" derived from their stem cells, so they can have biologically-related children together. They don't bring up this demand because they don't have to, it is currently legal. Labs could attempt it today, in spite of the enormous risk to the baby, and the disastrous effects that genetic engineering of human beings would have on society.

Society needs to consider the full ramifications before we declare that same-sex couples have the same rights as a married man and woman do. Of course, merely stopping gay marriage is not enough to stop genetic engineering of children, we need a law like was recommended by the President's Council on Bioethics in 2004 (the same year that Japanese scientists created the fatherless mouse Kaguya) which would prohibit conceiving children that are not the union of a man's sperm and a woman's egg. But same-sex marriages would be incompatible with such a law, stripping from marriage the right to conceive children together that has always been the core meaning of marriage, and making all marriages vulnerable to genetic risk assessment and eugenic pressures. Same-sex marriage could also make such a law impossible to enact, forcing Maine to allow genetic engineering and same-sex conception, and requiring us to fund the research and the stem cell and IVF services that same-sex couples would require in order to procreate together.

Vote YES to reject the new law and the premature idea that same-sex couples should have equal rights to procreate together that a married man and a woman have. There are better ways to give same-sex couples the protections they are asking for without inadvertently deciding the issue of same-sex procreation and genetic engineering of babies before we have had a chance to consider the issue.

Centaurmyst: I respect your feelings as well. You stated,"I don't think God would EVER condone anything that would harm innocent children." I request you read 1 Samuel 15:2,3. in God's Word. I don't claim to like this, but there it is. God's ways are more important than even children. Deuteronomy 21:18-21 is also interesting. It's really not about the children, it's about God.

seems like when the yes people write something the no's don't like, they give you the thumbs down. i hope and pray they have the thumbs down at the polls. they say they r not using children. funny how we see the ads on tv bout same sex parents. you have all the same rights we do already. you can express yourselves at the polls, leave us alone with your ways, trying to force your lifestyle on us and the kids. like i said before, i've been hit on by them countless times, is that there normal ways. vote yes again till the next vote.

donnelly there are same-sex couples living in rural areas of the state..... small towns in all counties .... Aroostook, Washington, Hancock ..... all counties. You assert that same-sex couples have brought children into it..... yes those couples that are raising children have because it indeed has a direct impact on them..... and from the beginning of filing this referendum the Yes side focused on children in order to spur on support for repealing it..... they don't think about the children who right here and now are being raised in same-sex households .... they haven't even mentioned them in their ads .... it is quite obvious that they are not a part of the children they talk about....

Lyn

at 12:31 PM, anthoine wrote: "funny how we see the ads on tv bout same sex parents. you have all the same rights we do already. "

And which rights would those be, anthoine?

donnelly your right and more, that will be the end of gays saying their being discriminated again, no more lawsuits and employers can now fire them without that threat or and landlords not rent to them or hire them or rent , cause they will be "equal". End of special treatments. And now straight people have the power to claim mistreatment by gays. Should have given it a rest after the special treatment laws. I'm voting a firm YES.

Jeffrey - valid argument that always seems to be missed. We already have equal rights, so this is once again NOT about equal rights.

As to the arguments that "children of same sex couples are harmed by their parents not being allowed to be married" is a bit of a stretch. That assumes that every child of a single parent or widow is harmed because there aren't two parents at home. Care to make that argument, anyone?

So, why not address the primary contradiction in nature being put forward?: why should same sex couples even have children? They have a preference for same sex relationships, which cannot produce children. Why should they have children if they prefer or have an attraction that cannot produce them. And further, why should same sex couples be allowed to adopt, when there are plenty of heterosexual couples who wait years to adopt children? There just seems to be such a premium placed on same-sex couples showing off their adoptive babies, like they went out and bought a new puppy, or something. Social experimentation that has serious consequences. Had same-sex couples not been allowed to adopt, the argument wouldn't exist. So, we now have to debate whether children in same-sex couples are harmed by their parents NOT being allowed legal marriage. That "issue" could have been solved if same-sex couples simply did what they best - have sex with a same-sex partner. If you want to be a parent, then you must have some underlying, maternal or paternal instinct that also relates to a heterosexual tendency. Said another way, if you want kids, maybe you're not actually gay!

windfuture, I have explained several times, to you, how we do not have equal rights in regards to civil marriage, you simply insist on ignoring the facts on this.

Vote NO on 1, don't vote away the rights of fellow Mainers.

Bangorean: The bottom line is they will twist and

use whatever they can to get what they want.

How many different senarios have there been...

It's about love...It's about rights...It's about children...

It's about blah, blah,blah...It's the easy way with no

extra time an money on their part to get what they

want. They have every right that we do now and

don't deserve anything extra because their gay.

"like i said before, i've been hit on by them countless times"

And I'm hit on by straight gals from time to time... that has nothing to do with any of this discussion.

We are already here: trying to force nothing on anyone. Same-sex marriage doesn't force anything on you if you don't choose to be a part of same-sex marriages.

Vote YES on 1: promote bigotry and intolerance by stripping rights of your fellow citizens.

Vote YES on 1: ignore the fact that the definition of "marriage" has already changed.

Vote YES on 1: insure children in Maine have inadequate support and care.

Vote YES on 1: continue the spread of lies and misinformation.

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

Vote NO on 1: to insure equality and inclusiveness for ALL Maine children.

Vote NO on 1: to promote the security and integrity of ALL Maine families.

Vote NO on 1: because the term “marriage” already includes married same-sex couples.

Vote NO on 1: prove once again that the old adage “As goes Maine, so goes the nation” is true for all the right reasons.

at 12:34 PM, Scintillate wrote: "And now straight people have the power to claim mistreatment by gays. Should have given it a rest after the special treatment laws."

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

The difference between you and us is that we WANT you to be able to claim discrimination based on your [heterosexual] orientation if you are indeed the victim of such. We believe in equal treatment under the law. With the act in 2005, you couldn't terminate us for being gay and we can't terminate you for being straight. It's a good thing -- both ways.

HRH419, you are correct. It's about love! It's about rights! It's about children!

You may not care about our love, you may not care about our rights, and you may not care about our children.

But that doesn't take away the real issue that ALL families in Maine deserve civil marriage.

Vote NO on 1.

"They have every right that we do now and don't deserve anything extra because their gay"

And there is that favored of all Yes Klan lies.

It simply is not true. I'm astounded every day at the folks with God on their side continually upholding and spreading this lie.

What right do you, as an american, not have that I do?

As an american...not a homosexual.

On 10/28/09 at 12:47 PM, HRH419 wrote: "As an american...not a homosexual."

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

The right to join with my same-sex partner in a civil marriage. Of course you don't have that right either, but of course you don't want it, do you?

Be honest with yourself and the rest of us for just this once (if you can): If the situation were reversed (odd as the hypothetical might be) and you were legally barred from marrying your opposite-sex partner, what would you do.

Be honest.

If your spouse dies, there is no legal argument against inheritance, child protection etc...

If my partner dies, power of attorney dies with him and any will can be contested by his family.

The domestic partnership laws of Maine confer most of the protections and guarantees of marriage but not all.

You have rights granted under marriage that I do not have.

As an American, you have the right to marry: I do not.

Pretty simple actually.

I know, I know... you're coming back with "as an American, NOT as a homosexual".

Facts are what they are. I do not have every right that y'all (since you made it a mater of groups) have now. We're not asking for anything extra: we only ask for our equal protections and guarantees under the government.

And it bugs the crap outta you.

HRH...really? "They have every right that we do now and

don't deserve anything extra because their gay."... so what you are saying is to Vote NO on 1 so that 'they' really do have all the rights that 'we' have??? Nice! Thank you!

What people seem to forget is that the Bible is a man-made document, thus open for interpretation. God did NOT write the Bible! God gave us 10 rules and only 10 rules. They are called the 10 Commandments. Please read them again ...read them slowly if you have to. VOTING NO ON 1!!! Amen!

Re: 12:47 HRH... The RIGHT to choose to be homosexual and not to be treated as less of a person for it. You and I aren't treated as less because we love someone with different parts.

Thank you for your support, oilgirl! Just one small point of correction... we don't choose to be homosexual, it's something we are or aren't, but I understand what you're saying. And again, thank you.

Don't twisi it. There is nothing hypothetical about it.

The fact is you want a "special" right. Period.

haakon, no one said they were the point is, this is just going to bring on more hate then peace.

Getting married is not a right, cause lots of people shouldn't.This is not about "your" children because two men and two woman can't combine DNA and make a child. I cannot stomach people who use children for selfish agendas, to use children as an excuse for welfare, tax shelter.I'm against anyone who uses kids for selfish self centered reasons.

Unmarried hetros do not have equal rights, women do not have equal rights but were smart enough to give it a rest while they were ahead. This whole thing has just caused more hate, disrespect, made people who were not against gays, against them now.

It's just what this state needed to make things worse.

Thanks for spreading hate Baldacci just for your gay sibs.

Can't stand the truth...thumbs down. Pathetic.

oilgirl: Don't put words in my mouth. Post your own

thoughts.

"Getting married is not a right"

Wrong. According to SCOTUS it most certainly is.

On a more fundamentally simple level: marriage is a civil contract granted by the state to citizens. It is indeed a civil right.

"This is not about "your" children because two men and two woman can't combine DNA and make a child"

But we can adopt, use surrogates, or artificial insemination... the idea that homosexuals can't have a family is patently wrong.

"I'm against anyone who uses kids for selfish self centered reasons"

Like the Yes Klan?

Vote NO on 1 folks... there is absolutely no rational reason to vote otherwise.

Scintillate: once again, I have to call BS on you.

You said: "And now straight people have the power to claim mistreatment by gays. Should have given it a rest after the special treatment laws."

I replied: "The difference between you and us is that we WANT you to be able to claim discrimination based on your [heterosexual] orientation if you are indeed the victim of such."

Then you said: "no one said they were the point is, this is just going to bring on more hate then peace. "

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

You went on to say: "Getting married is not a right, cause lots of people shouldn't."

And yet they do all the time, don't they? So it sounds like they have the right, doesn't it? The only couples who apparently can't are the same-sex couples.

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

You said: "I cannot stomach people who use children for selfish agendas, to use children as an excuse for welfare, tax shelter.I'm against anyone who uses kids for selfish self centered reasons. "

Then you should chastise the Yes on One folks, because they've been using children as a bludgeon against gays all throughout this repeal campaign.

You said: "Unmarried hetros do not have equal rights"

Actually do. They have the right to marry the opposite-sex partner of their choice.

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

Then you said: "women do not have equal rights but were smart enough to give it a rest while they were ahead."

To which, I can only reply: This tells me ALL I need to know about you. You really should have quit when you were behind.

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

The people spreading hate are those who wish to prevent same-sex couples from being able to legally protect their relationships and their families. I believe that would be YOUR side.

"The fact is you want a "special" right"

A special right that only heterosexuals have. We just want to be a part of the "special" right you already have.

Saying this is a "special" right is like saying the right to vote is a "special" right for women, because men can't become women.

Good grief...

at 1:00 PM, HRH419 wrote: "Don't twisi it. There is nothing hypothetical about it. The fact is you want a "special" right. Period."

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

I didn't think you had the courage to entertain the hypothetical and provide an honest answer. You don't fail to disappoint, I'll grant you that.

I didn't put anything in your mouth, dear HRH, I copied and pasted. And I did post most my own thoughts, lucky for you I didn't post ALL of my thoughts on what you wrote. :)

I haven't been on here for a long time... sorry to see the hate is still going strong.

Dealing with you takes NO courage haakon. I prefer to

talk about reality. I am nothing , if not honest. Not that you

would recognize that quality, I'm sure.

so what you are saying is to Vote NO on 1 so that 'they' really do have all the rights that 'we' have??? Nice! Thank you!

////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

Those are not my words, dear oilgirl, V O T E Y E S O N O N E ! ! ! ! !

On 10/28/09 at 12:31 PM, JohnHoward007 wrote:

Advocates for same-sex marriage claim they only want to be left alone to live the way they want to live. They never mention it, but they also want the right to create children together using genetically modified "female sperm" and "male eggs" derived from their stem cells, so they can have biologically-related children together. They don't bring up this demand because they don't have to, it is currently legal. Labs could attempt it today, in spite of the enormous risk to the baby, and the disastrous effects that genetic engineering of human beings would have on society.

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

What? Oh so you think it's a conspiracy theory? Paranoid much? VOTE NO ON 1 - that was the just the best one I've seen in weeks :)

YES ON 1

at 1:18 PM, HRH419 wrote: "Dealing with you takes NO courage haakon. I prefer to talk about reality. I am nothing , if not honest. "

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

Then let's deal with reality. The reality is that you lack the courage to answer a simple, hypothetical, yet relevant question.

But here's another chance: If the situation were reversed (odd as the hypothetical might be) and you were legally barred from marrying your opposite-sex partner, what would you do.

Can you *honestly* answer this, or will you deflect yet again out of fear that your position -- if you _did_ answer honestly -- would be undermined?

I know where I'd place my bet if I was one to gamble.

a_realrain_willcome: We've always been there, we're there now, and we're not going away.

Be afraid.

JohnHoward007, gay aliens might be invading us some time in the future, too, but we shouldn't vote away the rights of others based on science fiction fantasies.

People shouldn't have equal rights with someone of either sex. We should only be allowed to reproduce with someone of the other sex. All marriages should protect the right to reproduce, we shouldn't change marriage by letting people marry who are prohibited (or who might be prohibited) from reproducing with their own genes.

"All marriages should protect the right to reproduce, we shouldn't change marriage by letting people marry who are prohibited (or who might be prohibited) from reproducing with their own genes."

So, you're willing to nullify the marriages of all childless couples, whether due to being barren or choosing to have no children?

"As an American, you have the right to marry:I do not"

Yes you do...

"And it bugs the crap outta you."

Far from it.

JohnHoward007: At what point did you slide cloning into this argument? And why?

tedlick, same-sex reproduction is a real possibility that researchers are working on, and could be tried today. It needs to be prohibited. It is ridiculous to be demanding the equal right to have children together when it is so unsafe and might never be possible.

WOW.... I'm sorry HRH, guess I misunderstood what you wrote about us all having the same rights. I guess we can thank GOD that we all live in America where we are free to be as nasty, biggoted, and mean to each other as we wish just as long as two men cannot marry each other. Keep the hate and disrespect going! *Insert BIG FAT HAIRY EYEROLL here*

On 10/28/09 at 1:30 PM, HRH419 wrote:"As an American, you have the right to marry:I do not"

Yes you do...

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

Are you a heterosexual? Do you have the right to marry the consenting, non-related adult, opposite-sex person of your choice or not?

Try the hypothetical, HRH. I dare you.

"And it bugs the crap outta you."

Far from it.

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

If it didn't bug you, you wouldn't be here.

by the way...if you have family in nursing homes go in for a visit and explain to them the issues. It seems some are not understanding the issues and are voting for something they did not intend on voting for.

1:31 PM, JohnHoward007,

If you honestly believe that, fight it on it's own terms... it has nothing to do with same-sex marriage.

Procreation has no bearing on whether or not someone can marry in Maine. Not one eensy-weensy bit.

at 1:33 PM, firefly wrote: "It seems some are not understanding the issues and are voting for something they did not intend on voting for. "

Or maybe they just disagree with you.

Oh, is that why YOUR here?

tedlick, having the right to reproduce doesn't require it. Same-sex couples shouldn't have the right to try to reproduce. Marriages should have the right to reproduce. Only couples that would ethically procreate together should be allowed to marry.

1:35 PM, HRH419,

Nope. I'm here in the name of facts: there are no facts that same sex marriage is in any way harmful to any state or nation that has extended it.

That's why I'm here. Looking for someone to discredit that statement with fact (not opinion).

"Only couples that would ethically procreate together should be allowed to marry. "

Then what you are saying is that we should ban barren heterosexual adults or fertile heterosexual adults who do not want children from marrying.

Is that what you're saying?

JohnHoward007: The referendum before Maine voters attempts to repeal the right of same-sex couples to MARRY. The law being questioned does not speak to reproductive rights. You're creating straw men.

Tedwick, would you accept not having the right to attempt to procreate with someone of the same sex? In other words, would you support or oppose a law limiting conception to joining unmodified egg and sperm from a man and a woman?

And all marriages should continue to protect the couple's right to procreate with their own genes. We should not, for the first time in history, allow marriages that are prohibited from procreating with their own genes, it would mean everyone lost the right to procreate with their own genes. We simply shouldn't equate the right to procreate with someone of the other sex to the right to procreate with someone of the same sex. That demeans and disrespects everyone's right to procreate.

Haakon... or maybe they are being misled...

Try the hypothetical, HRH. I dare you

Dare away, that's not what were talking

about here, sorry.

1:41 PM, JohnHoward007,

Completely irrelevant to the matter at hand. Take up a referendum on that issue. I agree with haakon: you're creating straw-man arguments (and did not answer my question either).

haakon, yes, but same-sex marriage implies either that same-sex procreation is allowed and cannot be prohibited, or that marriages don't protect the couple's right to procreate with their own genes. The fact is, there should be a difference in rights. you are correct that we also need a law to stop same-sex conception, merely stopping marriage won't stop it. But that law would be incompatible with marriage and would change marriage or everyone.

On 10/28/09 at 1:31 PM, JohnHoward007 wrote: "tedlick, same-sex reproduction is a real possibility that researchers are working on, and could be tried today. It needs to be prohibited. It is ridiculous to be demanding the equal right to have children together when it is so unsafe and might never be possible."

What does this have to do with same-sex marriage? Anser, absolutely nothing, it is merely another scare tactic trying to divert attention from the point of the matter, that same-sex couples do not have equal protection under the law that married couples do, in regards to health insurance, taxes, and all the other related issues.

I, too, am against cloning, and gene-splicing, and all the rest of the hocus-pocus you're ranting about. If same-sex couples are allowed to marry, that will in no way legitimize the practice of cloning. IF cloning were to become an actual real-world issue, let's vote on that, at that time. Stop deflecting the argument away from the true facts at hand.

Vote No on 1.

JohnHoward007. 1:41, what???? you make NO sense.

Seriously I have no idea what you are trying to drive at. Are you against artificial insemination? Is that what you are trying to say? Do you somehow think gay marriage will FORCE people to only use AI to get pregnant??

On 10/28/09 at 1:41 PM, a_realrain_willcome wrote: "This is god's country. Why set it on fire and make it gay?"

Guess what, dude? We're American too. You are no more entitled to "God's country" than we are.

My husband and I were shopping one time in Ellsworth at Hannafords and Shaws. We got lots of looks, some curious, some kinda hateful. But you know what? We kept right on doing our grocery shopping. And we're going to continue to do that. We're driving on the same roads, living in the same neighborhoods, owning property, paying taxes, arguing with the legislators -- all same as you.

God's country is ALREADY gay. And it ain't gonna change. Not for you. Not for any of the haters.

tedwisk, no, infertile people have a right to attempt to marry and attempt to procreate. Their infertility is private, first of all, and it doesn't make their reproduction unethical.

TolBig80: JohnHoward007 is trying to erect a straw man about gays reproducing by having themselves cloned.

I think he needs to check his meds. He may be late for a dose (or three.)

In my opinion, humble, marriage is between a man and a woman, period. I am not making it a religious issue, as much as it is a societal, and historial issue. I think any couple should enjoy the same rights. Right now, federal laws discriminate against domestic, civil and whatever you may want to call the partnerships that exist. I say fix the discrimination, not the definition. I don't care about procreation rights, or any of that stuff. I do want equality, but in my mind Marriage = one mand and one woman.

No matter what the law says, no matter how the people vote, a marriage will never exist between two men or two women. I think even the people who will vote no on #1, if asked about what a marriage is, would most likely say, it's between a man and a woman. Everyone seems to be hung up on equality. For me it is impossible to say that marriage occurs in a same sex relationship. Can it be a relationship, you bet, but a marriage, not.

"Nope. I'm here in the name of facts"

Funny, me too : ) And fact is, homosexuality

is wrong !!

On 10/28/09 at 1:44 PM, JohnHoward007 wrote: "haakon, yes, but same-sex marriage implies either that same-sex procreation is allowed and cannot be prohibited,"

No, it doesn't. Cloning (which is what you're talking about) is another matter entirely. Reproduction using donated eggs, or donated sperm, or surrogates, or in-vitro fertilization, or natural male-female conception (in the case of adopted children) are the options available today -- to both heterosexuals and homosexuals. Cloning is not open to either, and the availability of same-sex marriage (or lack thereof) has no bearing on this.

"marriages don't protect the couple's right to procreate with their own genes"

You don't need marriage to do that.

Your issue has nothing to do with the matter of same-sex marriage.

Procreate all you want to... it is neither a requirement for marriage, nor is marriage a requirement for procreation.

"But that law would be incompatible with marriage and would change marriage or everyone. "

That is utter crap. People that either can't or don't want to have children get married all the time. Procreation is NOT a requirement for marriage.

Please quit running around my question if you don't mind: should barren couples or couples who don't want children be barred from marriage?

>a_realrain_willcome

How about listing all the hetero perverts? Oh wait this list is probablty way to long.

Vote NO on 1

will laugh when the gay agenda loses this fight

"And fact is, homosexuality is wrong !! "

Nope: that's opinion. Fact is, in 2003 the federal courts stripped this nation of all laws against same-sex relations.

If it were truly wrong (had victims and negative consequences to society) then I'm thinking it would not have been decriminalized.

Your statement is your opinion, nothing more.

There has never been demonstrable harm to any state or nation that has granted same-sex marriages.

That is fact.

Remember when the Gov was "contemplating" and hadn't made up his mind on whether or not he would sign homosexual marriage into law?

Did anyone believe that? He's such a spineless wimp.

1:46 PM, JohnHoward007,

OK... do they have a right to marry if the KNOW they are infertile and so don't try? Do they have a right to marry if they just decide to never have children?

1:47 PM, fromaweigh

"For me it is impossible to say that marriage occurs in a same sex relationship."

Happens every day. Just not in Maine yet.

On 10/28/09 at 1:51 PM, a_realrain_willcome wrote: "will laugh when the gay agenda loses this fight"

Should that be the case, the next round will begin on November 4th. Get some rest. You'll need it.

In natural law, sex is between male and female...let us not confuse that with lust. Big difference. Love satisfies and grows, is charitable and hopeful.... ...lust fades away, destroys self and others. It manipulates and is never satisfied.

haakon, it wouldn't be cloning, it would be using stem cell-derived modified gametes, where the epigenetic sexual imprinting has been reversed, so that a woman can have sperm or a man can have eggs.

Everyone that says all gays want is to be left alone to live as they wish is lying, the fact is, they want the right to attempt same-sex procreation, and they don't think that a married man and woman should have any greater right to attempt to procreate than a same-sex couple does. It is ridiculous. And of course it is precisely the legal institution of marriage that has historically and universally been used to express societal approval of the couple reproducing together, and it has been by denying marriage that society has forbidden couples from reproducing (siblings, children, and whites and blacks, back in the 60's). Marriage laws are exactly the right institution to make the determiniation of whether same-sex couples should be allowed to procreate or not. whether

tedlick, even if a couple knows they will not have kids, the issue remains whether it would be ethical if they did have kids. All the public knows is their relatedness, their age, their marital status, and their sex. We don't invade their privacy with fertility tests or genetic fitness tests, that would be a terrible result of same-sex marriage, marriage would lose the protections and procreation would become subject to risk and fitness assessments. It should remain a right of all married couples.

2:08 PM, firefly,

"In natural law, sex is between male and female"

Untrue. Many animal species have sex between members of the same sex.

Try again.

Glad my partner and I are actually in love (have been for 18+ years... you didn't have the cojones to tell me how long you'd been in a relationship before). I don't know what I'd do if we weren't.

No, procreation has nothing to do with marriage JohnHoward... if it did, it'd be a requirement by the state.

And the legal right for same-sex married couples should be to adopt, use artificial insemination (with or without surrogacy) or surrogacy to have a child.

Simple enough.

What about the right to attempt same-sex procreation? And marriage should continue to protect the right of the couple to procreate with their own genes. It's not a requirement, it is a right, and it should be preserved.

On 10/28/09 at 2:08 PM, firefly wrote:

In natural law, sex is between male and female...let us not confuse that with lust. Big difference. Love satisfies and grows, is charitable and hopeful.... ...lust fades away, destroys self and others. It manipulates and is never satisfied.

*********

And since we are talking about marriage and not sex - thanks for making that wonderful point about love! VOTE NO ON 1

What right of same sex procreation?? There is no right to procreation, other than that the government can't mandate or prevent anyone's pregnancy. You seem to be arguing against some from of partial cloning - TOTALLY different arguement, though one that, when it is brought before courts, if it is, should be applied to gay and straight alike.

FireFly: You Said: "Tedlick...do not mock God."

If Tedlick doesn't do it, I will. Just let me know if it's needed.

Now, back to our regularly-scheduled debate...

Vote No! on Question #1!

"What about the right to attempt same-sex procreation?"

I've never heard of such for one thing, and procreation has nothing to do with marriage for another.

Sounds like something worthy of it's own referendum to me.

BTW it IS preserved. Nobody's telling heterosexual couples that their marriages have to change. In fact, keeping this good law in place changes NOTHING for heterosexuals that are married. Not one thing. They still keep the right to procreate if they so choose.

The logic on these comments often escapes me. Matthew Shepard's killers were found guilty of a capital crime and sentenced to die. What would your hate crime legislation have dome more severly than that? In Maine, killing 20 Matthew Shepards would not lead to such a serious punishment because Maine does not have capital punishment.

What do you think Maine will do with a hate crime law; put the criminal in prison for two lifetimes instead of one? When your next liberal governor puts the another "Rose Byrd" on the Maine Supreme Court, her court will free all the killers and we can start all over again. If a homosexual kills a child, will that be a hate crime?

Sumner

"What would your hate crime legislation have dome more severly than that"

Hate crimes legislation, something I'm patently against, has nothing to do with the matter of civil marriage for same-sex couples.

Wow! So heterosexual marriage is all about procreation! Since my mother is 88 years old, she can't marry some nice older gentleman? And since we women go through menopause at a certain age and men don't, doesn't that cut off about half of the population from marriage? Maybe even more since women live longer than men.

The procreation arguments are just as ridiculous as the religious arguments. I resent the fact that some religious people think they can push their beliefs on us and are trying to circumvent what was already signed into law by our Governor. I have a number of Protestant and Catholic friends who are voting NO on this one. The yes people are shoving their beliefs onto these Christians right along with we agnostics and athiests. This is a CIVIL Rights matter not a religious one!

I want to sincerely thank all of the new voices I have heard over the last few days, people who have come to stand beside us and affirm that marriage equality is absolutely the way life should be.

Standing for fairness and equality under our laws is what good people across America have done for hundreds of years. And throughout our history, naysayers and pessimists have been with us, every step of the way, predicting doom and destruction for whatever expansion of rights, inclusion of groups, or extension of protections has been debated.

They have consistently failed in their efforts to exclude citizens from the table of rights and responsibilities mature adults enjoy. And we have consistently failed to disintegrate as a country. It failed to happen in 1865, it failed to happen in 1920, it failed to happen in 1967, it failed to happen in 1968, it failed to happen in 1973, it failed to happen in 2003, and it will fail to happen when same sex marriage is legal in all 50 states.

As history has shown, we are right in our struggle, and we will be victorious. I make no predictions regarding the November vote; it is my sincere hope that love and understanding will overcome hostility and fear. But the outcome of this vote in no way changes the outcome of this struggle. Marriage WILL be legal for all consenting adult couples, and our country WILL be better for it.

Vote NO on 1, and uphold our nation's tradition of inclusiveness, equality, and understanding.

Vote NO on 1, knowing the religious are protected by this good law, and all Maine families deserve the ability to marry.

Vote NO on 1, because the referendum doesn't even address the concerns of its supporters.

Vote NO on 1, in the hopes that we can move past these unnecessary barriers and confront the real problems of the world together.

Vote NO on 1, knowing that future generations of Mainers will take pride in how we again led the way to equality for all citizens.

My point, tedlisk, is that the ads are wrong when they imply that all gays want is to live their lives. The fact is they also demand the equal right to procreate together. You may not have heard of it, but do some googling and you will learn that Postgenderism and same-sex procreation are real things, and gays demand the right to try. That would change society and waste our resources. If you want to decide it later, why are demanding equal rights today? That implies that a married man and woman can also be prohibted from procreating.

Even 88 year olds have the right to marry and attempt to procreate, but only with someone of the other sex. They probably won't, but they should not be prohibited from even trying to conceive or conceiving.

I am having a rare day working from a desk. I seem to notice that some of you people may be doing the same---day after day after day--- or dont seem to have jobs at all...go get some fresh air already.

JohnHoward007, you should still vote NO on 1 for the simple fact that your concerns are unrelated to gay marriage.

People are not prohibited from reproducing out of wedlock, I don't see how marriage equality has anything at all to do with your currently implausible concerns.

Vote NO on 1, don't vote away the rights of others.

"My point, tedlisk, is that the ads are wrong when they imply that all gays want is to live their lives"

That, my friend, is supposition and nothing else. I have no desire for anything but, thanks much.

"gays demand the right to try"

Then take it up for what it is, man... it has nothing to do with same-sex marriage. You should stop it for what it is, not strip rights granted by the state from law-abiding citizens due to fear of some future unknown.

"If you want to decide it later, why are demanding equal rights today"

To protect our our lives together with the same protections and guarantees other citizens enjoy. Why is that so hard for you to understand? Marriage is NOT just about procreation, and I for one have NO desire to procreate, thanks much again.

"That implies that a married man and woman can also be prohibted from procreating."

I see no such implication: I see paranoia. You're running one hell of a straw-man argument here, JohnHoward.

Fight it for what it is: quit trying to cloud the issue of same-sex marriage with it.

Sheesh...

TolBig80, yes, a ban on creating children by any means other than joining the gametes of a man and woman would apply to everyone, but it would only prohibit people from procreating with someone of the same sex. It's a result of epigenetic imprinting, same-sex conception requires genetic modification.

This article just came out in England (American media do not report on any of this research):

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1223617/No-men-OR-women-needed-artificial-sperm-eggs-created-time.html

People should be prohibited from reproducing with someone of the same sex. If they are married, then that strips procreation rights from everyone's marriage, exposing everyone to risk-based fitness assessments of their genes. All marriages should continue to be allowed to procreate with their own genes.

tedlick, quit trying to strip procreation rights from marriage by claiming an equal right to procreate with someone of the same sex.

Civil Unions can give all the other rights of marriage without also giving procreation rights, that way we can prohibit same-sex conception without lowering married couples down to the same level, where their procreation can be prohibited also. There is a fundamental right to procreate with someone of the other sex, there is absolutely no right to procreate with someone of the other sex. We have to respect that there should be different rights for same-sex couples.

Google "Egg and Sperm Civil Union Compromise" - it is the best way to get equal protections to same sex couples in all 50 states that would settle the marriage debate and allow gays to live as they wish, and preserve equality and equal conception rights for everyone.

"then that strips procreation rights from everyone's marriage"

That is a blatant lie: people can still procreate at will.

You're mixing oil and water. They don't mix too well.

"All marriages should continue to be allowed to procreate with their own genes"

And they WILL be allowed to do just that.

Today it might be true, but if we equate the right to use our own genes with the right to use modified genes or substitute genes, then it will become not only possible but probable that couples will find themselves forced or pressured into not using their own genes.

Do you support or oppose a law banning same-sex procreation? Avoiding answering is the same thing as saying that you oppose the law, and you demand to be allowed to attempt to procreate with modified gametes.

Mainers should know about these radical secret demands. Stop Postgenderism and Transhumanism, support the Egg and Sperm Civil Union Compromise.

3:31 PM, JohnHoward007,

It has no bearing on this situation. I will let you sit in fear of the future.

I don't care. I have no desire to procreate, but feel that anyone should have the right to do so with anyone they so choose.

When it becomes possible to have a child with someone of the same sex, call me. We'll discuss it then.

John... I know that you are on to something. Is that what this Obama care is all about? Is that what that health bill is trying to achieve...Gathering all the DNA of all people and looking for pre-existing conditions and deciding who can procreate and who can't according to intelligence. Years ago people laughed at what has become actuality and called it paranoia. Look where we are today...

We will have an answer in about 8,962 minutes!!!

Vote No! on Question #1!

JohnHoward you are arguing reproductive rights. They are ENTIRELY seperate from marriage rights. They are completely exclusive of each other. This fear you seem to have of same sex people demaning the right to procreate because they are legally married is a mirage. If they are going to argue that they can do it without a legal marriage. You do not NEED to be married to procreate.

Thanks firefly. Yes, I think Obamacare is about eugenics and artificial reproductive research. Massachusetts mandates that all residents pay for IVF and reproductive services, even for unmarried and gay and lesbian couples. They want to expand that mandate nationally. They keep increasing the budgets for genetic research, even in these tough times.

tedlick demands same-sex procreation rights. Don't let him get away with pretending he only wants to live and love as he chooses, he wants to change how people are created. He is not alone, Transhumanists and Eugenicists and radical feminists are sitting in all sorts of positions like judges and AG's and legislators, especially academia and biotech research, like sleeper cells, never admitting their ultimate goal of replacing natural reproduction with their controlled eugenics.

Reproductive rights should not be separated from marriage rights, all marriages should be allowed to procreate, not just some. Yes, we also need a law to stop creating people from modified gametes, but that law would only prohibit same-sex couples, not male-female couples. That difference in rights should be the difference between marriages and civil unions.

"On 10/28/09 at 3:07 PM, JohnHoward007 wrote: People should be prohibited from reproducing with someone of the same sex. "

LOL...ummm....I think nature pretty much chimed in on that one. But seriously, thanks for the laugh.

Please vote "NO" on 1.

JohnHoward007: You Said: "I think Obamacare is about eugenics and artificial reproductive research."

Wow, dude. Just, you know. Wow.

This is why the referendum won't pass. So many supporters just look like paranoid jack-booted thugs. All for freedom, free market, and keeping government out of people's private life...unless it's something THEY don't like. Then, you know, that's different. Well, you know, 'cause it's them...

Vote No! on Question #1.

"Reproductive rights should not be separated from marriage rights, all marriages should be allowed to procreate, not just some. "

Again - one can reproduce without a marriage license. You are confusing two non-related issues. How can you link marriage rights to reproductive rights when you don't need to be married to reproduce?

Nor are you required to reproduce if you are married.

JohnHoward007 is tossing a red herring into an argument as a way of diverting the topic toward cloning. The question before voters is regarding preserving the legal right of same-sex couples to marry. The question has nothing to do with reproduction, whether natural or artificial, and especially nothing to do with human cloning.

On 10/28/09 at 2:35 PM, sumner42 wrote: "The logic on these comments often escapes me. Matthew Shepard's killers were found guilty of a capital crime and sentenced to die. What would your hate crime legislation have dome more severly than that? In Maine, killing 20 Matthew Shepards would not lead to such a serious punishment because Maine does not have capital punishment."

The hate crimes act was named for Matthew Shepard, but it wasn't written to address Mr. Shepard's murder. The Act was designed to make Federal resources available to assist local law enforcement agencies prosecute hate crimes, and to allow Federal authorities to step in when local law enforcement is unable or unwilling to prosecute the perpetrator of these sorts of crimes. Since crimes against gays and lesbians have historically been under prosecuted, there is a demonstrable need for legislation of this sort until crimes against LGBT people are prosecuted equally.

The simple and correct answer to the problem is equal enforcement of the law. Until that day comes, we have hate crime legislation.

Regarding JohnHoward007, does anyone else get the sneaking suspicion that he's TurkeyTalker in a new guise with a new red herring to toss?

I just think he's crazy.

Tin foil hat squeezing just a bit too tight...

“This vote is about children. This vote is about my child,” Uhlenhake said while standing next to her partner, Sue, and the couple’s 1-year-old son, Ben. “He deserves the right to have parents who are not legal strangers.”

It is called Legal Gaurdian, adoption, etc, having a piece of paper to say you are married does not define if you are a stranger to a child or not.

Tobig...how can same sex couples reproduce without the parts?

Can you imagine if the gay marriage bill goes thru, men kissing men and women kissing women in public, just the thought of it makes me sick. What will our children think seeing this crap. We don't need this filth in our state corrupting our childrens minds. Come on people of Maine. Do we really want this ?

at 5:09 PM, JMTnovember17 wrote: "Can you imagine if the gay marriage bill goes thru, men kissing men and women kissing women in public, just the thought of it makes me sick."

Why would the availability of same-sex marriage or the lack thereof make any difference whatsoever in this regard? The issue before voters isn't about public displays of affection, it is about the preservation of marriage equality. As for what your children will think, I'd venture that they'll think what you've told them to think. Absent that, they'll probably not pay it a lot of attention.

Are you really using your distaste for hypothetical public displays of affection as justification for revoking someone's civil rights? Really?

I'm sorry; it is just wrong.

If you want to smoke a

You No voters are all sick in the head and really need help, mentally!!!

Did the Guv accept a $5,175.60 'consulting fee' for his appearance? Seems to be the trend........

Politics as normal...Read the WORD OF GOD IN THE BIBLE then with clear mindsets cast your Vote : Yes on 1. To all others voting no, Father, please forgive your children for they know not what they do

Vote YES on 1. Marrage is between and man and a woman.

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

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

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

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

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

http://www.gaychristian101.com/

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

This is very similar to the religious bigots of the past, where they took Bible passages to condone slavery, keep women down, and used Bible passages to claim blacks as curses who should be enslaved by the white man. People used God to claim that blacks marrying whites was unnatural, and not of God's will.

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

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

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

Gay, Straight Men's Brain Responses Differ

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

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

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

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

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

And it should also be noted that:

"It is worth noting that many medical and scientific organisations do believe it is impossible to change a person's sexual orientation and this is displayed in a statement by American Academy of Pediatrics, American Counseling Association, American Association of School Administrators, American Federation of Teachers, American Psychiatric Association, American Psychological Association, American School Health Association, Interfaith Alliance Foundation, National Association of School Psychologists, National Association of Social Workers, and National Education Association."

Here is why the slippery slope argument fails.

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

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

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

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

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

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

This was taken from another poster that shows why we need to legalize gay marriage. If you don't feel for this person after reading it, you simply aren't human.

"I am not sure what our President thinks of this dicission but coming from a poor family and knowing what discrimination is all about I would assume he would not care if "Gays" have equal rights. The whole reason why they are asking for rights to be considered married is from the same reason why I would be for it. My own life partner commited suicide in our home with a gun to his heart. After a 28 year union I was deprived to even go his funeral. We had two plots next to each other. But because we did not have a marriage cirtificate "(Legal Document)" of our union his mother had him cremated and his ashes taken back to Missouri where we came from. That is only one example how painful it is. His suicide tramatized me so much and her disregard for my feelings only added to my heartach. That happened on March 21 of 2007 and I still cannot type this without crying for the trauma I have to endure each day. Oh did I mention I am in an electric wheelchair for life? Yes I am and it is very diffacult to find another mate when you are 58 and in a wheelchair. "

Why voting NO on 1 doesn't affect children.

http://www.mpbn.net/News/MaineNews/tabid/181/ctl/ViewItem/mid/3475/ItemId/9391/Default.aspx

http://www.bangordailynews.com/detail/125324.html

Voting No on 1 also doesnt affect religious organizations, since they are NOT REQUIRED to perform the marriages.

Vote Yes on 1 , Adam and Eve, man and woman, husband and wife! POINT MADE!

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

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

Do you really want to support people who lied to you, deceived you, who are trying to force you to spread discrimination and bigotry? Don't let these anti-gay people control your lives and choices. Support marriage equality in Maine and vote NO on 1.

Firefly, you asked "Tobig...how can same sex couples reproduce without the parts?" With lab-created genetically modified gametes, that's how.

This article on artificial sperm and eggs just came out today:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1223617/No-men-OR-women-needed-artificial-sperm-eggs-created-time.html

They really do demand the right to do this. Gay Marriage means allowing genetic engineering of people and losing individual reproductive rights to use your own unmodified genes. Only preserving marriage as a man and woman will stop genetic engineering and preserve equality and equal conception rights for all people.

JohnHoward007: LMAO, the lengths some of you will go to condone your bigotry. Sorry, but that has nothing to do with gay marriage. Try again.

TolBig, obviously I know that one can reproduce without a marriage license. My point is that, if a couple has a marriage license, they should have and feel the official approval of the state to attempt to reproduce using their own genes. Same-sex couples should not have or feel the official approval of the state to attempt to reproduce using their own genes, in fact, attempting that should be a crime, just as sibling incest should be a crime. Couples that are not allowed to procreate should not be allowed to marry, because that would strip marriage of procreation rights and make it possible down the road to prohibit any or all marriages from using their own genes and force them to use substituted or modified genes.

ShadowMan, it is not anti-gay to be anti-genetic engineering. I think it's more anti-gay to push same-sex procreation technology on gay people. I'm not bigoted against gays or gay couples that just want to live as they want, with equal benefits and security. I just oppose giving them equal procreation rights as a married man and woman. I have a plan to achieve equal protections for same-sex couples much faster and with much more acceptance and less turbulence that would benefit far more people than any other plan.

JohnHoward007: You Said: "My point is that, if a couple has a marriage license, they should have and feel the official approval of the state to attempt to reproduce"

Really? You think that a marriage license is a license to reproduce?

Wow.

186 Hours to Go!!!

Straight, married, unafraid, and Voting No on Question #1!

JohnHoward007: The only problem is anti-genetic engineering has nothing to do with gay marriage. Scientists who do genetic studies will continue to do so whether or not gay marriage is legalized. What you are using is a laughable scare-tactic, which has nothing to do with gay marriage. That's like saying gay marriage leads to stem-cell research.

JohnHoward007: You Said: "My point is that, if a couple has a marriage license, they should have and feel the official approval of the state to attempt to reproduce"

There's only one country in the world that I know of that puts guidelines on the numbers of children a couple can have. China. Because there is a country that the Christians want to emulate, right?

Wow.

186 Hours to Go!!!

Straight, married, unafraid, and Voting No on Question #1!

JohnHoward007: You Said: "My point is that, if a couple has a marriage license, they should have and feel the official approval of the state to attempt to reproduce"

There's only one country in the world that I know of that puts guidelines on the numbers of children a couple can have. China. Because there is a country that the Christians want to emulate, right?

Wow.

186 Hours to Go!!!

Straight, married, unafraid, and Voting No on Question #1!

DavidReed, you prove my point that it is possible for a government to strip procreation rights from marriage. When people here make the claim that procreation rights are separate from marriage, they are saying we can do what China does. We certainly could strip procreation rights from marriage, but we certainly shouldn't!! All marriages should protect the right of the couple to procreate with their own genes, we shouldn't do what China does.

jenkinsl...there are many things in the bible that society shuns...and for most people I would guess that is one of them. If anyone stones a person to death they are viewed as evil and prosecuted, potentially being put to death. If any parent were to sacrifice their own child they would face the same fate. That is why we have laws and why those laws need to remain separate from religion and scripture. The bible is a book that individuals should use as a guide to live THEIR life. It is NOT a weapon to be used to beat other people down. Sadly, too many people use the bible as if it were a weapon. That is why so many people are leaving churches. Other people's relationship with God, or lack thereof, is entirely up to them and cannot be dictated by anyone else. That is what this country was founded upon and that is why so many people of so many different religions are able to live in relative peace with each other. There are religions that DO recognize same sex couples and wish to marry them. The followers of those religions have the same freedom of religious practice as every other religion. I have honestly tried to find rational arguments to support Yes on 1 but I am unable to find any. It always comes back to the fact that I put children first and I respect the principles by which this great country was founded...religious freedom for ALL people, freedom from persecution, discrimination and the freedom for pursuit of happiness....and lastly, a separation of church and state. This time around the right thing is to protect same sex couples and their families. In the past it has been black people, women and the disabled. How do you know the next time it might be the Catholic church or whichever church you belong to? In light of the child abuse by priests who is to say a group of people won't organize and try to have Catholicism banned in this country. That separation of church and state is there to protect ALL of us and we need to apply that universally to ALL Americans, even the ones we might not agree with, condone or like much. Why? Because that is at the very core of what is so great about this country.

Vote NO on 1! If you can't vote No in good conscience due to religious beliefs you do DO have the option of not voting on that question at all.

JohnHoward007: Procreation rights have nothing to do with gay marriage. That's like saying the government will strip scientists the rights to research because of gay marriage. Lol, you expect us to take you seriously after that comparison?

ShadowMan, it does have something to do with it, because same-sex procreation requires genetic engineering, so allowing same-sex procreation requires allowing genetic engineering, and same-sex marriage either allows same-sex procreation, and/or strips procreation rights from marriage and makes it possible to prohibit a married couple from using their own genes to procreate. (It ought to be just "or", but by keeping the debate murky and drawing it out over a few years, the result will be the desired "and").

Yes, gay marriage leads to stem cell research, and creation of people from stem-cell derived gametes. The work in that article above was sponsored by the US government.

Matthew 6:7 ""When you pray, don't babble on and on as people of other religions do. They think their prayers are answered only by repeating their words again and again."

Straight, married, unafraid, and Voting No! on Question #1!

JohnHoward007: Lol, same-sex procreation doesn't require genetic engineering. There's many other viable ways for them to have a kid, including artificial insemination, surrogency, etc., and there is no requirement for them to procreate. Last time i checked, the Maine gay marriage law says nothing about procreation. You are making a laughable assumption.

Also btw, i'm aware that you're trolling, and let me show you why that doesn't work. To be a successful troll, you have to incite anger. However, since i know you're trolling, you will never be able to rile me up :) At the same time, i use your trolls to spread facts and eliminate ignorance about homosexuality and gay marriage. It is a win/win situation for me =)

I see you just move from one article to the next, you can't run away, You want to hear something stupid!!!!!!!!!

I think Maine people have recognized … that we are all unique people, we are all different,” Baldacci said. “But we are all under the same Constitution and we all want to make sure there is equal protection for all citizens.”

Can you imagin the reasoning that he comes up with, like a guy disparate to keep his job, not next time, we know what he is made off!!

VOTE YES, PLEASE YES ON 1!!!

JohnHoward007: You Said: "you prove my point that it is possible for a government to strip procreation rights from marriage. When people here make the claim that procreation rights are separate from marriage, they are saying we can do what China does. We certainly could strip procreation rights from marriage, but we certainly shouldn't!! All marriages should protect the right of the couple to procreate with their own genes, we shouldn't do what China does."

We certainly should not, I agree. People should be allowed to procreate with their own genes, or those of anyone willing to procreate with them, whether it's through sex, or other means. The opposite of restriction (like in China) is freedom. Freedom to do as they chose, do as they please, and to live their lives as THEY see fit. So, JohnHoward007, who is doing the restricting, and who is allowing the freedoms to live their lives as they see fit?

Straight, Married, Unafraid, and Voting No! on Question #1.

"Scientists who do genetic studies will continue to do so whether or not gay marriage is legalized. "

Right. There needs to be a federal law to stop someone from attempting to create people by means other than unmodified gametes of a man and a woman. That's the first part of the Egg and Sperm Civil Union Compromise.

Straight, married, unafraid, and Voting Yes, definably YES ON ONE!!!!

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

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

Do you really want to support people who lied to you, deceived you, who are trying to force you to spread discrimination and bigotry? Don't let these anti-gay people control your lives and choices. Support marriage equality in Maine and vote NO on 1.

Keep religion and America apart from one another. Vote No on !. and protect equality

There is a lot that needs to be done. The referendum election is next Tuesday,” Baldacci said. “We should be leaning forward and making sure, right up until 8 o’clock on Tuesday, that we have done everything possible, because we know a lot rides on this.”

HIS JOB

Vote Yes On !

Same garbage,different day : 6:54

Keep religion and America apart from one another

AND THIS COUNTRY FALLS APART AND REAL FAST MARK MY WORDS!!

Reposts:

Why voting NO on 1 doesn't affect children.

http://www.mpbn.net/News/MaineNews/tabid/181/ctl/ViewItem/mid/3475/ItemId/9391/Default.aspx

http://www.bangordailynews.com/detail/125324.html

Voting No on 1 also doesnt affect religious organizations, since they are NOT REQUIRED to perform the marriages.

Do you want a boost in Maine's economy and the creation of more jobs?

Do you think all children deserve to have BOTH parents provide financial support and medical insurance?

Do you think all people in Maine should be legally protected from violence and abuse by their significant other?

Do you think it is better to be in a monogamous committed relationship instead of being promiscuous?

Do you want to reduce the spread of HIV/AIDS?

Do you think that every child should be eligible to receive survivor benefits if one of their parents dies?

Do you want to protect your children from political issue ads that force you to have to explain things you feel they are too young to understand?

Do you want to protect public policy from being dictated by churches and religious organizations?

Do you think EVERY person in Maine should have equal RESPONSIBILITIES and legal culpability?

Is it fair that homosexual people should be free to leave a long term relationship without having to deal with the same divorce process heterosexuals do?

Aside from posting interpretation of biblical passages and trying to scare people by implying that the schools will start teaching same sex marriage in school, the people who oppose same sex marriage never give any rational, logical or factual reason to vote Yes on 1. They only attempt to manipulate parental fear to their advantage. It can be easy to give in to that fear but it is WRONG to give in to fear, especially when by doing so you are impacting other human beings in a negative way.

If you have done your job as a parent and talked to your children openly and honestly in an age-appropriate manner then you should have no fear of what they hear or see from others. If you are a good parent then your child will come to YOU with their questions and thoughts. Kids learn about far worse things at an early age. Homosexuality and same sex marriage isn't something kids are going to think or care about UNLESS their parents make a big fuss over it. The longer the battle goes on, the more kids will think about it. Just give same sex couples the right to marry and have the rights AND RESPONSIBILITIES that go along with it and then no one's kids will be exposed to all the media blitz on the subject anymore. If the Yes vote wins this isn't going to stop. It will only cause a much larger fight, more ads and more activism.

Do the right thing for Maine...vote NO on 1!

DavidReed, there should be some restricting, where there is a supportable basis to prohibit relationship types (not individuals or individual couples, but generic types of relationships like brother and sister, mother and son, adult and a minor child, etc). Where it would be bad public policy to allow certain relationship types to procreate, we can prohibit it with both laws against such couples having sex or attempting to procreate and also laws against them marrying.

I'm glad you admit that you don't think there should be any restricting, we should allow not only same-sex procreation but also incest, adultery, etc.

Where did they go, following you, you can't get away!!

Vote Yes on 1

JohnHoward007 - Incest can lead to genetic defects, whereas there's nothing wrong with homosexuality. Incest is a fetish, whereas homosexuality is not a fetish. Let me distinguish this. For those into incest, a guy would like his brother or father if he is gay, or his sister or mother if he is straight, depending on his orientation. Those two things are completely different.

NOT REQUIRED to perform the marriages.

See how confusing you make it to the common voter, I had to think twice before I voted yes on One, Mind games, that is all it is but it will not work, people know better!

Vote Yes On1

Do you want a boost in Maine's economy and the creation of more jobs?

Do you think all children deserve to have BOTH parents provide financial support and medical insurance?

Do you think all people in Maine should be legally protected from violence and abuse by their significant other?

Do you think it is better to be in a monogamous committed relationship instead of being promiscuous?

Do you want to reduce the spread of HIV/AIDS?

Do you think that every child should be eligible to receive survivor benefits if one of their parents dies?

Do you want to protect your children from political issue ads that force you to have to explain things you feel they are too young to understand?

Do you want to protect public policy from being dictated by churches and religious organizations?

Do you think EVERY person in Maine should have equal RESPONSIBILITIES and legal culpability?

Do yourself a favor VOTE YES ON 1

Violence against a minority group

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

http://www.gaychristian101.com/

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

This is very similar to the religious bigots of the past, where they took Bible passages to condone slavery, keep women down, and used Bible passages to claim blacks as curses who should be enslaved by the white man. People used God to claim that blacks marrying whites was unnatural, and not of God's will.

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

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

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

Gay, Straight Men's Brain Responses Differ

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

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

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

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

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

And it should also be noted that:

"It is worth noting that many medical and scientific organisations do believe it is impossible to change a person's sexual orientation and this is displayed in a statement by American Academy of Pediatrics, American Counseling Association, American Association of School Administrators, American Federation of Teachers, American Psychiatric Association, American Psychological Association, American School Health Association, Interfaith Alliance Foundation, National Association of School Psychologists, National Association of Social Workers, and National Education Association."

ShadowMan, I'm only saying we should bad genetic engineering to make kids. Same-sex couples would still be able to do any other method they can now to have kids, they just shouldn't be allowed to try to join their own genes. And all marriages should be allowed to try to join their own genes. When I say "same-sex procreation" I mean it literally, using genetically modified gametes to procreate together, creating biologically related children, the way a man and a woman do when they procreate. Don't equate their right to procreate with a right to use donor gametes or adopt, those aren't equivalent, and they also are not rights of marriage. Only conceiving kids by combining the marriages own genes is a right of marriage.

Here is why the slippery slope argument fails.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Vote no on 1

Shadowman, I'm not trying to stop homosexuality, I'm trying to stop same-sex procreation and other forms of genetic engineering of people. Same-sex conception is probably much more likely to lead to birth defects than incest.

JohnHoward007 : Genetic engineering, a separate issue by itself, whether it is bad or good is merely your opinion backed by no scientific evidence. Lol, the gay marriage law will not make gay couples want to join their own genes. That is an entirely different subject, irrelevant to gay marriage. You try so hard to rile up anger. Troll-busting is one of the funnest things, especially against a persistent one. They squirm, trying anything to get a rise or incite anger. You know how i can tell you're terrible at trolling? A good troll knows it only works when the other person is unaware. Merely getting responses doesn't define a troll, what defines a troll is one who can incite anger. ^^

JohnHoward007: Lol, if you're trying to stop genetic engineering, then you are in the wrong thread. This is about gay marriage, not genetic engineering. And same-sex conception where a male donates his sperm to another female is not more likely to lead to birth defects.

If it joins a man's egg and a woman's sperm, it is NOT same-sex conception, ShadowMan. Same-sex conception means joining the genes of two people of the same sex. People should not have a right to attempt that, we should only have a right to procreate with someone of the other sex. All marriages should be allowed to procreate with their own genes.

JohnHoward007: Yes it is, it's coming from a homosexual. And who is to say that a homosexual man cannot donate his sperm to a homosexual woman? Same-sex conception as i already proven is irrelevant to gay marriage, and not even needed for the procreation of homosexuals, since artificial insemination/surrogency, ivf can do that already. There are no procreation rules for any marriage, heterosexual or homosexual.

JohnHoward007: You Said: "DavidReed, there should be some restricting, where there is a supportable basis to prohibit relationship types (not individuals or individual couples, but generic types of relationships like brother and sister, mother and son, adult and a minor child, etc). Where it would be bad public policy to allow certain relationship types to procreate, we can prohibit it with both laws against such couples having sex or attempting to procreate and also laws against them marrying. I'm glad you admit that you don't think there should be any restricting, we should allow not only same-sex procreation but also incest, adultery, etc."

JohnHoward007: Now you're starting to see things my way! About time. When two adults of the age of consent decide to get together, they should be allowed to do so. Let's not forget polygamy. If all involved are of the legal age and ability to consent, I'd agree.

Glad to see you are seeing the light.

Straight, married, unafraid and Voting No! on Question #1!

Man you guys move a lot, think you can get away, the sleeping giant is waiting!!

vote Yes on 1

beastiality, pedophilia, incest, and polygamy. First off, all 4 of these are fetishes, and irrelevant to homosexuality, which is a sexual orientation

Now can you see why the ignorant are not involved, just used, talk the lingo everybody understand and you will get somewhere, Think you're smart?

Vote Yes on 1

When two adults of the age of consent decide to get together, they should be allowed to do so. Let's not forget polygamy

You think that is good for the country and our community, where do you get this from any way!

Vote Yes on1

nd same-sex conception where a male donates his sperm to another female is not more likely to lead to birth defects.

And we are asking why the country is in the trouble it is in, Man you guys are blind for sure!

Vote Yes on 1

equate their right to procreate with a right to use donor gametes or adopt, those aren't equivalent, and they also are not rights of marriage. Only conceiving kids by combining the marriages own genes is a right of marriage.

I have seen enough now I am on the war path, come giant we have a lot of work to do, good luck brothers, may the team win, don't be so sure of yourselves no 1 keep it low and decent and maybe you will stand a chance!!

Vote Yes on 1

ShadowMan, I'm not trying to stop homosexuals from reproducing, as long as they do it by combining their genes with someone's of the other sex. A homosexual man can impregnate a homosexual woman, the laws about that, or sperm donation etc, wouldn't change when we prohibit same-sex conception and genetic engineering with an Egg and Sperm law.

No married couples should be prohibited from conceiving their own biological children. Civil Unions can give all the rights of marriage except the right to procreate, so that all marriages can retain the right to procreate. The difference in rights between same-sex and both-sex couples would be the same as the difference in rights between civil unions and marriages.

JohnHoard007: Lol, u think waiting it out and coming back means i'm gone? I'm debating on several other forums right now (not bangor news :) ).

I've already proven that genetic engineering is irrelevant to gay marriage above. Civil unions are unacceptable because separate is not equal. Married couples will not be prohibited from conceiving their own children either. Civil unions do not provide all of the same benefits as marriage, such as hospital visitation rights, etc.

It is time to get Baldacci out of office with all the other liberal democrats.

God created everyone to be equal, but He also established union between one man and one woman, not man and man, woman and woman. Homosexuality is a sin against God, pervesion in the purest sense.

Marriage is about families. One man and one woman who have children. Same sex couples should not be raising children, encouraging them in the same evil, sinful lives they are living. Making children believe what they are doing is okay, when it is totally against the will of God, our Creator.

God destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah because of their homosexuality. Let's not bring the wrath of God down upon the state of Maine and this country which was founded on Godly principles.

It is time for our nation to repent and turn back to our God who loved us enough to send His only begotten Son into the world to die for our sins, to forgive us, and to show us the way out of this pervesion.

mapletonboy: God never said anything against homosexual marriage or homosexuals. Show me a verse where it's a sin, and i'll gladly prove you wrong. Stop twisting God's words to condone your bigotry.

Marriage has changed many times over the past for the greater good. Women are no longer property of their husbands. Interracial couples can marry now. I wouldn't even call gay marriage a real change, since it doesn't affect heterosexual marriages in any way.

LOL, and you might want to re-examine the Sodom story.

The Sodom Story - Genesis 19:1-29

Homophobic Viewpoint: "Sodom was destroyed because of homosexuality."

Scriptural Viewpoint: Sodom was a lush beautiful region of land whose inhabitants had known the goodness of God. Despite their exposure to, experience with, and witness of the one true loving Creator, the people of Sodom had rejected a relationship with God, and turned to numerous types of idolatry. When God's messengers were sent to the city, the men of Sodom responded by threatening the ultimate act of violent abuse, murder, disrespect and humiliation. They were going to RAPE God's representatives.

All other Old and New Testament references to Sodom involved the sins of idolatry, inhospitality, indifference toward the poor and the rejection of God's messengers. There are NO REFERENCES to same sex acts or HOMOSEXUALITY.

How you get homosexuality out of all that is laughable. It's time for our religious people to open their eyes. Blacks were oppressed and enslaved for hundreds of years because misinterpretations of the Bible. The same thing is happening to gays right now.

How you get homosexuality out of all that is laughable. It's time for our religious people to open their eyes. Blacks were oppressed and enslaved for hundreds of years because misinterpretations of the Bible. The same thing is happening to gays right now.

That is how much you know about history, you only use half truths to push you cause, stop picking on religious people, the one who do nothing but take it all in all the time!! I don't know how they can just sit by being hit by you people all the time, they have got something we don't!!

Vote Yes on 1

It is time to get Baldacci out of office with all the other liberal democrats.

You think just because you are a Republican you are in favor of the religious group, don't kid yourself. I am a democrat and proud of it, Do you think I am proud of Baldacci, He is a deserter and fail us and I am sorry for that. Does not make what he says just, he just became stupid and it will lose his job, guarantee, I will vote with you to take him out. I am on the yes side and always will be, just think before you write and commit yourself.

Vote Yes on 1

Papere: =) You really expect anyone to take you seriously when all you did for the last 2 hours is copy and paste my posts and add "vote yes on 1" at the end. Lol, this news article died a long time ago. The only posters left here are you, me, and the other guy i've been debating. People already read my posts from earlier, so i've pretty much got what i wanted. How does it feel that you wasted the last 2 hours trying to convince a dead audience that's no longer there :) I already knew you were trolling, which is some of the most obvious i seen, the usual "copy and paste" troll, which is why i didn't bother responding, all while having fun debating the other guy. I knew this thread was already dead, but it was funny seeing you keep trying to get my attention ^^ You basically ate out of my hand. One fun thing about troll-busting, is reversing it on them. How does it feel mr. troll :D

papere. Your right on, I'm with you 100%.

One fun thing about troll-busting, is reversing it on them. How does it feel mr. troll :

The only hard thing about all this is that you guys try to get away from me, but will not quit until it is all done! Don't flatter yourself, I had just as much fun as everybody else, Don't think yourself to smart, you now what happens to the humble, they go up your kind will be brought down, for sure!

I have got to go, sad isn't it, all good things must come to an end, we need to do what we have to do until it is all over hopefully will end up the way God wants it, got to go to vote to make it count!

Vote Yes ON 1

VOTE YES 1, ON GODS WORD NOT MAN"S INTERPETATION TO SUIT HIS/HERS LIFESTYLE! Just because they say it is does not make it so GOD has the FINAL WORD and the ONLY WORD THAT COUNTS>. VOTE YES ON ONE AND STAND UP AS A CHRISTIAN WHO CAN TAKE ALL THE NAME CALLING AND BAD BEHAVIOR that the vote no on 1 people are SPEWING on this and other commentaries .... VOTE YES ON 1 and YOU CAN BE PROUD AS GOD WILL BE OF YOU! THEN we can all have a PRIDE PARADE for holding the line on marriage for society's best interests for generations to come , if we do not agree with one we become discriminating of all those we have embraced gay or not, that's a laugh. VOTE YES ON 1!

Audio: 'I'm sorry this debate is happening at all'

"I once read a tell-all book about "Saturday Night Live," in which Anne Beatts, one of the female writers from the early days of the show, described the gender disparity in comedy writing rooms by saying that "[the men] had to spell 'cat,' and [the women] had to say when the Edict of Nantes was revoked." Well, that's kind of how I feel about the gay vs. anti-gay debate. Our side rails off reasoned, principled point after reasoned, principled point, and our opposition (and far too much of the public) feels like it's perfectly suitable to counter those carefully studied, thoroughly lawful, intensely measured points by using nothing more than their own personal faith views about what is and is not a suitable family."

Audio at link:

http://www.goodasyou.org/good_as_you/2009/10/audio-im-sorry-this-debate-is-happening-at-all.html

MainMaiden: Please show me where in Maine's Constitution it requires that God's law is the law of the land for the state. And once you've found that, please direct me to the portion that spells out whose interpretation of God's law is supposed to be used.

Vote YES on #1. This isn't about equality at all. All good, moral people respect others, they just don't have to agree with every action people take (meaning homosexual behaviors).

This is about basic human nature and about traditional marriage which is the foundation for a society. Gay marriage is about selfish desires, placing children in unnatural and immoral settings and disrespecting humanity and God at the same time. Good people, vote YES on #1.

Thank you firefly for sticking up for traditional marriage. Sadly, too many have been mislead by the homosexual movement. They have lost touch with God and the basics of humanity. Even Darwin would be against it.

IT is true shipbuilder regarding officials around the country getting paid by gay groups to do their bidding. Just do a google search and there are a lot of articles on that issue. I don't know if that is the case with Baldacci but the average voter doesn't realize that gay groups work behind the scenes, using money to get what they want. That is how the corrupt world works and homosexual acts are corrupt by nature.

Melora: Please show me where in Maine's Constitution it requires that God's law is the law of the land for the state. And once you've found that, please direct me to the portion that spells out whose interpretation of God's law is supposed to be used.

at 1:18 PM, Melora wrote: "I don't know if that is the case with Baldacci but the average voter doesn't realize that gay groups work behind the scenes, using money to get what they want."

It's called "lobbying" and "supporting the candidate of your choice," Melora. It is an activity that is not limited to any one interest, or any one candidate, or any one party. Do you honestly believe that the candidates and causes you support don't have behind the scenes support and receive money from supportive voters?

Answer honestly.

I cannot wait for Baldacci to be out of Dodge. He has done more to screw up this state, spending us into debt and now being a bad Catholic and going for gay marriage. Wonder if he will gry and get any more foreign travel trips squeezed in before he leaves office...nothing like sightseeing on the taxpayers dimes!

Sorry, but how is it that 2 people, both being either 2 women or 2 men are husband and wife? How do you distinguish between them? Stop using your children as a catapult to your sounding board to the public and your private dilemma to justify the lifestyle you chose for yourself. How is it that you will allow them a chose when they are older? When they live by your "example?"

I have nothing against gays and lesbians, but what I do disagree with 100%, without a 2nd thought, is that your 'lifestyle' is of your choosing, but making it public is a desecration to the values and principles we cherish as valuable & precious in our lives. What you do in your home is your business, influencing the general public to embrace or honor that is un-American and outrageous!! Then again, nothing is being upheld as private and cherished anymore & that angers me to my core!!

It's good that parents want to teach their children to love and respect people, I won't disagree with that. What I will disagree with is, how these groups are almost force feeding these ideas and generalities among our youth, that its okay to have "two moms or two dads" What is so traditional about that? It was quoted in the article, "We want him to learn, by example." That statement says a lot!! It says, it's okay to have "two moms or two dads." It also says a lot about the parents, that is exactly what they want to teach them, that it's okay. I have to wonder what percentage of Americans know that their children are reading books in school, stories about 2 moms and 2 dads?

I can't seriously believe someone is born gay? lol That's insane!! Oh and by the way in case you have forgotten or didn't read your history book, this freedom loving country was founded on Christianity and the church. The church or gov't has nothing to do with the American people opposed to these equal human rights laws.

Yes a relationship is more than just sex, but then marriage is still between a man and a woman. It's only a man and a woman who can makes babies.

Yes ‘they’ are people, but have you done your homework on how these laws will affect Everyone? How they will affect you too?

TO ALL MAINE SENATORS AND GOVERNMENT: Please do not allow the "LD 1020" to pass. I oppose equal human rights for same sex unions.

I'm sorry, but this LIFESTYLE IS 'NOT' OKAY. It's wrong not only in the eyes of God, but it's wrong for our youth, it's wrong to embrace it - that it's okay, when it's NOT!!

FOR YOUR INFORMATION:

This is my ultimate problem with allowing gays to have any equal rights. You want some hard core facts. Check out these sites.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_&_King

Read the heading under “Lawsuits.” Do you know what your children are being taught in school?

This one will cause you to think.

http://www.straitstimes.com/ST%2BForum/Online%2BStory/STIStory_370364.html or better yet, DO YOUR OWN RESEARCH!!

Upon doing further research and bringing it closer to Maine, I found the following website:

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=62820

we can only hope that now, maybe People Will Pay Attention!! When they ask, how will this affect my life? If they ask!!!!

I don’t know about you but, I don’t want to be labeled, as DISCRIMINATORY. I don’t want to have to tip toe around discrimination issues when it comes to my co-worker or my neighbor, do you?

VOTE "YES!!!" ON QUESTION 1 ..... VOTE "YES!!!" ON QUESTION 1 ..... VOTE "YES!!!" ON QUESTION 1 ..... VOTE "YES!!!" ON QUESTION 1