Maine marriage law has nation engaged

Glad somebody wants Baldacci...

I'm voting NO on 1 (YES on 2,3,4,5,7) and a big fat NO on 6.

Proudly voted NO on 1.... and hope that people all over the country watching this historic vote in Maine will see that, in Maine, people voted to extend the rights, benefits and protections of marriage to other Maine couples , many with children, and not that we voted to deny our neighbors and fellow citizens these rights. I think many people in many other states will say "Bravo" to the people of Maine if NO on 1 prevails on Tuesday.

chersully, why is it that about 30 states have already voted this down? are mainers that far advanced....or is it outside influences coming in, along with maine residents from out of state....that bring their lifestyle to maine.... I think people in many other states will be saying"Stupido" to the people of maine if No on one prevails....

This will not pass.

Make no mistake about it.

Mainers don't want gay marriage any more than they want a National Park.

Gay marriage is not the answer in Maine.

Let's give our children a fighting chance to grow and prosper without the immoral influences of a few radical progressives.

Let's show the nation that we value good morals and decent families.

Vote YES on 1

pwherman: You have a right to your opinion and views; I have a right to mine. I have no idea what the result will be on Tuesday night or Wed. morning.

No, outside influences have little to do with this. That will not be the reason for how this vote goes either way. You do Maine people a disservice in indicating otherwise. Most Maine people are known to be very independent-minded. They can think for themselves. That means they do not all think the same; they do not all see things the same way. Of course not. People in Maine usually present a "live and let live" attitude. They do not need to have others tell them how to think; they think for themselves. The phrase "As Maine goes, so goes the nation" was always said for a reason.

Glad I voted NO on 1.

I vote NO on 1....Who cares if 2 guys or 2 women get married......Its really nobodys business.......BUT people are making it there business.As long as their happytogether..........SUCK IT UP........Men and women get divorced all the time

pwherman: Actually, I would like to think Mainers are that advanced. If you have not traveled in the deep South and seen first hand the bias and prejudice still existing there, you really ought to. It will humble you to think that people have sunk that low. As a friend told me, gays are the "Negroes" of the 1950's. And, to hear the comments from some people over an issue that will have zero impact on them, is just beyond me. I hear these comments and I think that Maine has reverted to Selma, Alabama in 1950. It is just beyond comprehension.

Yes_on_1: "Let's give our children a fighting chance to grow and prosper without the immoral influences of a few radical progressives." Well, at least you labeled us as progressive rather than regressive. Has it occurred to you that keeping children in the dark about world events is detrimental? In Maine, in the 1970's, we studied everything in the news - absolutely everything - the Vietnam war, the Pill, the sexual revolution, abortion, and even the impact of religion on society. No straight kid is going to "turn gay" any more than you'll turn into a street hooker just because you saw one on the corner. If you had your way, I'll wager you'd home school your children so they would not be corrupted by the influence of the world. Newsflash: You are setting them up for failure. Knowledge is power. Give kids power and not ancient dogma that will confine them to a world of ignorance.

I am optimistic there are enough true Mainers out there who did not buy into that southern baptist ultra-conservative brain-washing and who are the original free-thinkers that created Maine in the first place. Do recall Maine was created as a result of the Missouri Compromise - Missouri became a slave state and Maine a free state. We need to listen to OUR forefathers and not the ravings of the Southern Christian Baptist League who seem to be the most dour old sourpusses I ever have met.

Question - how does anyone have an intelligent debate with someone like onemanarmy who just discovered cut-and-paste controls on his keyboard?

Why even bother?

Vote NO on 1. Maybe the intolerant will move out of State. Plenty of low cost homes in the South. Lots of like-minded company, too.

This is the E-Mail that I have sent to ALL my Family and Friends.

We also asked them to follow on the BDN comment section to learn more if they had ? about this or just ask us.

My Wife and I believe in the Spirit of God.

Not sure what Kitty believes in other then her food dish.

Oh, Thats right she said feed me I will believe in what you tell me too do.

e-mail

Well just so ya know, Electra (((male)))) and Wife (((female))) and Maine Coon Cat (((kitty)))

are planning on ((( Voting NO on #1 ))) Why, because we

do not feel that we can wear the Red White and Blue Harley patch,

that says that we are # 1 in the Good ole USA. (not proudly anyway)

(((If we don`t Vote NO on # 1 )))

We are sure we do not want to be (( Bigots ))

It is not an issue for us of (((Religion Rights)))

It is an issue for us of Seperation of ((Church and State ))

It is an issue for us about ((( The Right to Life Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness)))

It is an issue for us of what is ((( Equality for All ))) and what is (( Not ))

And how the (( US Constitution )) fits into (( ALL )) this.

We do not want someone, somewhere, or someday to take our right to (( Ride Free and

Let Live )) !!

Taking our (( Rights away by a minority Church is not Right for us ))

((((((Electral and Wife and Kitty are Proudly Voting NO on # 1)))))) ((( (:~) )))

YES_ON_1 wrote:

" This will not pass. Make no mistake about it. Mainers don't want gay marriage any more than they want a National Park.

Gay marriage is not the answer in Maine. Let's give our children a fighting chance to grow and prosper without the immoral influences of a few radical progressives.

Let's show the nation that we value good morals and decent families. "

Maine doesn't NEED a National Park because it has Baxter State Park - because Percival bought-up the land through the course of his life, on his own, because the legislature refused to do it. It took him decades.

You are not even a real person "YES_ON_1:" - you are just a slogan. A lie. Not even a living entity, much less a person or a personality.

Look, People of Maine, don't let a group of religious zealots take away the rights of a minority just because you can.

Maine did the right thing int he late 1800's when it abolished restrictions on different races of people marrying. It took the rest of the country until the late 50's, and a Supreme Court ruling to catch-up.

Maine is not like the other 30 states that failed to live up to the ideals of Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.

Maine is not like anywhere else in the US; it's different, it's special.

People in Maine are GOOD people, they are NICE people. They CARE about people.

Or at least, they used to.

Think about what Maine will be losing by voting to take away the rights of churches to wed loving couples dedicated to one another, their families, and their children.

Think about the nasty and false things the YES on ONE supporters have been saying about same-sex couples, the lies they've been telling, the fear they are trying to instill, and the religious dogma they are trying to impose upon the state.

In the end, you Maine, have to decide what is right, what is fair. If you really think your marriages are going to somehow be diminished by recognizing the right of churches that want to marry same-sex couples who are here now raising families and living their lives peaceably, then go ahead and vote to keep them from being equals, go ahead and throw them and their families, and their children, to the wolves.

I don't think Maine will do this, because the Maine I know and love is better than that.

Please vote NO on ONE.

AIONCA

Heart wrenching comments.

Coming from a morally corrupt individual like yourself, they are meaningless.

The good and moral people of Maine will vote this nonsense law down next week.

We will see just how the nation responds.

The lack of coverage in the national media is just an indication that Maine will go with the status quo and repeal this heinous law.

Please join me in voting YES ON 1, we can maintain a high level of moral standards in Maine.

As Maine goes, so goes the nation.

I just pinched myself and it hurt.

I guess I am a real person after all.

That's right, that's how God made me, a real person who knows the difference between right and wrong.

VOTE YES!!

Yes_ON_1 Said :

"Heart wrenching comments. Coming from a morally corrupt individual like yourself, they are meaningless."

This is what it's all about - people judging YOUR morality, and using it against you to take away people's rights, to dictate to your churches, to force their will on people who have done no harm.

Where is the real moral corruption here ?

Vote NO on Question 1 ~ Because it's the right thing to do, in Maine we don't force our morality on people, and we don't let people bully minorities.

I like how the "NO" campaign uses the slogan:

"Equality for Maine families depends on YOU"

I wonder why they don't mention anything about homosexuals in that little slogan?? You know something like, "Equality for Maine homosexual families depends on YOU"

Hmmph, I wonder if it's a bit of trickery they are counting on?

Sure looks that way to me!

Could they stoop any lower?

Why can't they be honest?

AIONCA

You have no right to morally corrupt my children.

Yes, I (we) am (are) going to take away your rights to do so.

Thank you for understanding.

AIONCA

Why can't they be honest?

Are they scared?

What moral standards are you talking about ?

Like lying about people you don't even know ?

Like lying about your children being morally corrupted by me ?

Like taking away the right of churches to marry their own parishioners ?

Like calling anyone who disagrees with you immoral and corrupt ?

No, Maine, send a message to those who will not stop at this "victory", they seek to dictate morality TO you.

They seek to impose their will ON you.

Please Vote NO on Question 1

Who are you kidding, you don't even HAVE children !

Why can't YOU be honest ?

Why are you illegally hiding the names of your contributers to your campaign ?

Why do you come here and lie constantly, call people immoral, and lie even more ?

I'm not hiding, YOU are hiding.

Please Vote NO on Question 1 and protect ALL Maine children.

We will impose our constitutionally secured will on a group of people that are promoting open sin and moral corruption.

You will understand next week what I am talking about.

You have no right to corrupt my children or redefine traditional marriage.

We will make that blatantly obvious next week. Are you such a fool to believe something as intrinsically evil will ever make it's way into mainstream society?

This has far more to do with morals than rights, we are voting on morals. And the majority will rule.

Why should it matter who contributes?

What difference will that make?

Stop trying to deflect.

Stay on subject.

I have no reason to hide. I have God on my side.

You have emptiness and self loathing.

I am not lying when I call you immoral.

You are immoral, if you promote homosexuality and it's destructive lifestyle, by definition, you are immoral.

It's very simple.

homosexual activities are immoral.

Even the homosexuals will admit that. What they won't admit is that they can actually control their actions.

This is the sin.

Ahhh, I get it, I know who you are now...

Nice try, but you don't fool me.

I trust the people of Maine can see your posts for what they are, and your stand for what it is.

Thank you, everybody, for Voting NO on Question 1 !

I'm not trying to fool anybody.

Why are you trying to deflect from the topic?

Are you afraid?

Your position is not easily defended.

You are not on solid ground, hence the effort to try and change the focus of the conversation.

For if you had solid ground to stand on, you would not be worried and would stand and fight.

When your empty promises are finally realized, you will be seen for what you are.

A fraud, devoid of all spirituality, devoid of love.

A sin is a sin and you can't redefine that!!

AIONCA

Why can't they be honest and straightforward with their campaign slogan?

Can you at least get up the gumption to answer that question honestly?

Why are the "no" campaigners giving out free vacations to out of staters to come here and help with the "no" cause?

"Donated frequent flier miles????????????????"

The hypocrisy is rampant.

AIONCA

If homosexuals are allowed to marry, what next?

Will we be able to challenge father/daughter marriages?

Will we be forced to perform marriage of a man and his dog?

Where will it end. Why would it end? There is no reason, according to you and yours, that anyone should be able to tell anybody who or what they can marry.

I consider this to be backward logic. And so does the rest of Maine.

I'm just thankful we have the chance to speak out with our vote. It will be loud and clear.

well I see you have failed to respond to any of my valid questions.

instead you just point and shout.

i have a strange feeling that will not work this time.

let's see what happens come Nov. 4th.

I am old enough to remember being very afraid to go to a bar that served gay persons. Not because of who we were but because just our presence was enough to have us arrested. Then came the Stonewall wherein gays said no to the beatings, shakedowns and arrests we were enduring. So here I am, an elderly man, retired now and proudly gay. For those of you who have voted NO and those about to vote NO, you have my profound thanks. I am hoping that I will finally have lived long enough to realize the true meaning of freedom of choice for myself an my partner of 40 years. Make no mistake, we are far from receiving full recognition but this is another step in that direction. For those of you voting yes, I want you to be very aware that Gay persons do not want sex education in the schools without parents permission and marriage should never be a priority in our educational system; never! Voting NO ON 1 will not mean the end of life as we know it but another step in freedom for this wonderful country of ours. I am a very proud veteran who served our country with distinction for four years and I am as proud of that as I am for voting NO ON 1.

Jazz11 ~

Thank you for sharing your experiences, your service to our country, and for voting No on One.

we need to get rid of baldacci. VOTE YES ON 1.

Already voted no on 1. Voted to protect all maine families and children.

Many gay and lesbian families have adopted children that have been abused, neglected or rejected by their mothers and fathers. Why should these children, who already have experienced such a difficult beginning, be denied the right to have married parents. These children and their gay or lesbian parents are a family and should have the right to become a legal family in all areas. Vote no on 1, support the rights of children to have married parents, and all the safeguards and protections that go along with marriage.

NO ON ON!

NO ON ONE!

Who cares what these RWN out-of-staters think. As long as they stay away from Maine, we're better off for it.

After reading these comments, I am saddened by what I hear as being very regressive positions. I take a step back and remember the difference between down south when I was a kid (we wintered in FL) and I, as a white male, was not allowed to ride in the back of the bus (where the BIG window was!), and later years in the 1970's when many civil rights began to flourish. I was told that I did not belong in the back of the bus. My parents said nothing and were embarrassed, but I was told by a passenger that is where the "n****" sit. I was stunned. I was 5 years old.

Now, my home state of Maine, always a place to subscribe to "live and let live" has a new challenge that to me ought to be an 80/20 vote for NO on 1. Instead, it is split. The YES people comment on morality, offenses to religion, children being taught in schools, and the general downfall of the all of humankind. I am so disappointed by these self-serving, sanctimonious, reactionary, out-of-touch comments. I wonder how many of the same arguments were directed at blacks in 1960 in Miami?

It seems as if we have regressed as a country. Instead of progressing forward to benefit all of mankind, many of our citizens instead have wrapped themselves in a cocoon of old testament values. It is almost like talking with those rattlesnake charmers and KKK people. It is so far out of touch with reality, you would think they were a member of the original Crusades. If you really want to see how far back to the Stone Ages we have fallen, just go to the message boards (as I did) on Fox News. While their articles are within reasonable ranges, their viewship is bizarre at best. Every gay epithet possible is used. Obama fairs no better and is just short of the "N-word." It is almost freakish. You would not believe these attitudes were possible in the United States of America in 2009.

I ask myself why? What happened that pulled the bus into the ditch? Was it Falwell and that group? Is the bad economy driving people to circle the wagons, hate everyone, and "protect" their own? What possible effect will the lifting of the marriage gender restriction be on them? None, but yet they feel somehow threatened by this. I am astounded this even came to a vote. Why wouldn't it just be assumed to be okay, like equal pay for men and women?

The rest of the modern world long ago resolved this same-sex marriage rights. We, instead, are in the Dark Ages, and for some reason many of our citizens cling to these archaic ideas. It makes no sense. It is not even logical, yet it is happening.

When I retire to my farm in Maine in a few years, I guess I will need to build a high wall and install that sprinkler system. No doubt there will be a cross-burning on my front lawn.

I must point out that when Maine passed legislation allowing citizens to marry outside of their race, there were a majority of other states that had restrictions on it.

The point to me is that sometimes the right, just, and compassionate thing to do for an unpopular minority won't be supported by the majority vote. But it's always, always been the right thing to do to extend equality to groups.

Can you name one other group in our nations' history where we have extended them rights, and it has turned out a bad idea?

Maine has an honest, amazing opportunity to again show how much we truly feel life is live and let live, extending rights to a group that they shouldn't be withheld from.

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

ConvivialVisits wrote "Can you name one other group in our nations' history where we have extended them rights, and it has turned out a bad idea?"

Yes, that would be liberals.

The news article began "Terry Lawrence first read about Maine’s ballot box showdown over gay marriage from online news sites catering to conservative Christians." Doesn't his TV get Fox News?

Good thing Question 1 doesn't have anything to do with Indians, it would fail for sure! Yah suppose Baldacci will reverse his course on Indian casnos? After all that is about fairness. All other federally recognized tribes in the country can have them but not in Maine. So Baldacci thinks the gay folks should have the same marraige rights as traditional marraige because it is unfair, right? Lot's of folks think it's immoral. Given the governor's sister is gay, it's no surprise, of course that's to make it FAIR! Thanks Governor from this Indian. Just making a point, I'm voting NO on one.

NO on 1!

CGGage-excellent post!!

I will be voting NO on 1, why? Because I don't believe I have the right to tell ANYONE that they can or can not get married. Some of the arguments by supporters of Yes on 1 are just out there. Teaching our kids about gay marriage in school? Really now, where does such far fetched out of nowhere accusations like that come from....They are just grasping for anything. I do hope someday kids learn how Maine wasn't afraid to allow religious pushers to decide what was right for the people of this state. I would rather they learn about love, kingness and being allowed to get married whether you are two men or two women or a man and a women then about oh let's say Hitler who was a morally corrupt sinner who ordered the death of millions of Jewish people just because they were Jewish and any of the other wackos throughout history.

These people who say they chose to be gay or a lesbian are as ignorant as they come. I have a friend who is gay, I knew he was years ago, but he didn't. He tried to "not be", it almost destroyed him emotionally and physically. Do you think if "they" had a choice they would purposely chose this way in which they have to deal with all the ignorant, prejudice people out there? They are who they were born to be......

YES_ON_1 wrote: I am not lying when I call you immoral.

You are immoral, if you promote homosexuality and it's destructive

lifestyle, by definition, you are immoral.

It's very simple."

What is simple to me is that you really do not understand morallity. For a

moral person would NEVER judge the actions of another, because the basis of

American Morality emmits from the Holy Bible. That book says "Judge not, lest ye

be judged." What you are doing is judging others. It is up to each individual

to interrpret the Word of God for themselves. Those words are there because

God is the only Judge allowed by the sacred text. Your actions will also be judged,

not by me, or by other Mainers, but by God.

We came to this country from an oppressive England (and other European countries)

because we wanted to practice religion freely (among other reasons). You have that right.

We all do.

However, this issue is not one of regligion, but one of Civil rights. We, as Americans,

choose to live here because we have power to choose what we feel is best for us, as Americans.

One person, or one group will never take that right away. That is a tenet of Civil Societies.

As Americans, we are believe in certain inalienable rights. One of those is

the "Right to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness." Those words are so important

to us as Americans that they were included in the Declaration of Independence, and are among

the most famous words in American history.

Voting Yes on 1 is a vote to take away the rights, already granted by our legislature, signed

into law by the Governor (like him or not, he was elected twice by a majority of Mainers). Yes,

we have the "peoples veto" to overturn things the people feel are the actions of a run-away

legislature. However, this measure had broad support in both chambers. Those people who made

this decision, did so with the blessing of the voters. This law is all about the extension of

freedoms to other Mainers. We love granting rights in Mainers. This law does that.

It is time we truely seperate our religious beliefs from the political ones on which this country

was founded. Voting NO on 1 IS a vote FOR Equality, and the extension of civil rights to a

minority group. Minorities have always received the greatest protection from the power of

an oppressive majority. In Maine, we have always felt that it was imperitive to freedom, in order

to extend equal rights under the constitution, that we must protect the rights of the minority

first. This law does that. It extends something that most of us have taken for granted, to

a minority class of Mainers. It is not going to change the marriage that most of us already

enjoy. It is going to give others this happiness and security that ONLY a marriage can provide.

The reason it must be a marriage is because so many of our laws include the word "Marriage" in

their language. The right to be there, beside your loved one as they are dieing in the hospital.

The right to decide what happens to your joint property after this person does die.

The right to claim certain benefits from the government, that are only extended to married couples.

If two people of the same sex love each other, and respect their relationship enough to agree

to stand by each other "through sickness and in health, for richer or poorer" and all the other

things we agree to do when we get married, then I believe they should have the right to do so too.

Is it our right, as a majority, to oppress the minority, and to deny them the same rights and benefits

we take for granted? No. That is why the right vote on Tuesday is NO.

Thank you Tigger & CGGage for articulate posts.

Vote No on 1!

Just a few things to think about. I find it offensive to think that "gay sex" will be taught in schools just as much as it offensive to teach "straight sex" in schools. Has either happened? Not to my knowledge. Those who say that "gay sex" will be taught in schools have not called their district school office to find out. They are repeating what they have been told to say. When you cant win a debate, you bring in something that is not connected to the topic. That's called a LIE. Maybe I am missing something but I find the ads/commercials from the YES ON 1 sound angry and full of panic, while the NO ON 1 sound calm, logical, and heartfelt.

It's shameful what people will say they fear is the factor. There should not be any fear on this topic whatsoever. When you face your fears, you learn that you had nothing to fear in the first place. That's call GROWTH. I had a person tell me that he was going to vote YES because his minister told he had too! When I told this person that I had no right to tell a person who they can marry and his minister had to right to tell him how to vote. When I say the person's eye give me a questionable look, I knew this person was begging to panic. I smile and wished him a pleasnt day and walked away. By the way, his wife gave me a smile as I was leaving because she was voting NO on 1.

It's shameful to see how most Christians are usinig their bible as a hateful weapon instead of a loving tool. There are wrongs being done on both side while it's anger and hurt this driving it. It's time to be respectful to each other and listen to, process, then speak respectfully. The legislatures got it right and so did the governor. Let them do their job. You elected them now let them make the decessions that we will not take the time to do.

Voted No already.

YES_ON_1 please do us all a favor and come out of the closet already. I am not gay but I am smart enough to know the reasons behind your extreme homophobia. How many skeletons are in there with you, hypocrite??

QUOTE: Kevin Miller BDN Staff wrote "If Question 1 succeeds, the track record for gay marriage supporters in statewide ballots will fall to 0-31."

Kevin, this is not correct. In 2006 Arizona voters rejected a ballot initiative to ban same sex marriage by constitutional amendment. The electoral record would be 2 victories for same sex marriage in the US if Question 1 fails November 3.

the two of us straight folks in this household are voting NO on 1. Live and let live.

Nice fresh shower I needed Dat !!

I would like to try to corralate something for those interested;

My Wife works at both EMMC and St Joes and she loves both.

As I`m sure they both love her.

I have worked as A Security Guard at EMMC just before retiring. (loved the attitude of care)

I would like to corralate what I feel is the Spirit of God at whatever church.

With what I feel is The Spirit of EMMC and how they take care of us all.

Lets just say there are 2 Pearly gates

1. The Pearly entrance gates of a ceremony of Marriage of two Bigots.

2. The Pearly entrance gates of EMMC for Bigots.

1. What if the Pearly Gates of Marriage said to you, we are just not taken Bigots here today.

2. What if the Pearly Gates of EMMC said to you, we are just not taken Bigots here today.

What would you expect the Citizens of Maine to Vote.

Equality or No Equality for Bigots.

What if the Vote was Sorry Just not on this Nov 3rd oh my oh my.

I would say that there would be Bigots that felt they were not being treated.

(((( Just like the Rest of Americans should BE,)))) (((( Equal to ALL ))))

((((( Electra / Wife / Kitty will be Voting for the misinformed Bigots on Nov 3rd)))))

(((( And Again So Proudly Voting No on # 1 Again on Nov 3rd))))

QUOTE YES_ON_1 wrote: "Mainers don't want gay marriage any more than they want a National Park."

Really? Mainers want to get rid of Acadia National Park? It's probably the main reason Ellsworth is a thriving city, catering to tourists. Plus, lots of Mainers go hiking in Acadia or swim at Sand Beach.

Seems like you must have a small circle of acquaintance.

cggage, yeah, wouldn't you like that, if all us yes people would move south. now tell me who is a bigot here. the no's constantly give you the thumbs down, call us uneducated. you no people seem to think that is all good and wise what you r doing. you are making a mockery out of this beautiful state, and now you have the balls, or whatever to tell us that homes down south r cheap, well, move there then and take all your sick people with you. i've asked before and never heard back, isn't sodomy illegal in most states. vote yes on this till they throw it in our faces again.

@YES_ON_1: Legalizing same sex marriage has not led to legalizing incestuous marriage, bestiality marriage or polygamy in any state or country in the world. Some of these jurisdictions have had same sex marriage for many years now and none of these things you are afraid of has happened!

Conversely many Islamic nations allow polygamy but ban same sex marriage. Most of these criminalize homosexuality with jail time and even the death penalty.

But really, who put your God in charge of US or Maine laws? No one! It's forbidden by the 1st Amendment. The US has separation of church and state, as founders like Jefferson and Madison thought it was very important not to have a state religion. They thought the state could corrupt religion and religion could corrupt government. They knew the violent history of religious warfare in Europe during the Reformation and Cromwell's English Civil War, and they wanted to prevent that happening here. The founders debated dedicating the US Constitution to Jesus Christ and decided not to do so democratically. That is why it begins "We The People of the United States of America..."

Keep your hands off my marriage please. Vote No on 1.

I wonder what will happen, how much outrage there will be at the first homosexual school play!

Will you people speak up then when your kid is forced to participate in that homosexual play?

VOTE YES ON 1!

Frosteev, if you're going to troll the boards at least do it with a bit more creativity than that. Your gay and lesbian bashings are getting boring...which is probably your brain's final warning before shutting down completely. Be careful, or better yet, just step away from the comp before you hurt yourself.

Vote NO on 1

no sodomy is not illegal.....and hetero couples do it all the time. oral sex as well as anal is considered sodomy Rose R. 1/2 a hetero couple voting NO on1

Funny, when I first read the title of this article, I thought it said " Maine Marriage Law Has Nation ENRAGED." Wishful thinking I suppose!

knead24u...Let me be the first to tell you that straight sex is taught in school. It's called Sex Ed.

Lets get all the gays out of Maine by voting Yes on #1. No it wont get rid of most of them, but guarantee if they want equal rights like tedlick and most of these people then they will move

coronadrinker- I think tedlick is to old to move but we might get lucky. VOTE YES ON 1.

I voted absentee ballot and I voted NO on 1!!!!

The Gays could move to Key West Florida, which is running over with Gays & they might be happy there.

Hey, Just got back from the store it is obvious that it is deer hunting season in ole Maine

Before I moved to the Greater Bangor Area I used to be an avid hunter of Deer, Ducks, Grouse and Rabbits.

Had dogs for all dat at one time or the other.

But moving and not wanting to learn new areas to hunt I gave it up.

After a few years I did not get that wishing I was doing that feelin today.

So you better know I can relate to hunting in ole Maine.

To bad though that a small % of hunters do not seem to understand that a Bigotry toward hunting has been building in Maine since back in the day.

For these lets call 1%`ers have no idea of how being seen at groceries still all dressed up in Orange. Looks when the act like the are stoned on something all the buying a 12 pak, throw it in the back of the PU and you can feel them saying to themselves. There now we can go back into the woods and look for that Trophy Buck. o my What Poster Hunters they are for the Bigotry of the Anti-hunters. And these 1% do not seem to have a freakin clue, now do YOU!!!!!

Guess ((WHO)) will (BE)swearing and ((ALL)) upset that they ((LOST)) there Right to

(((Hunt that Trophy Buck))).

The possible taken away of the ((Right to Hunt)) by ONE special interest GROUP !!!

Come On((hunters)) and others ((Wake Up!!!))

Hey you 1% of uninformed Deer Hunters, oh wait that was 1% way back in the Day.

It seems more like oh lets just say 25% are Poster Child hunters for what is not right today. Hummmmm !!!

((( Hey Serpants )))~~~~((( You beautiful Poster Child for No on # 1 thanks!! )))

((((Dang, Ya Serpants)))) are so easy to spot, ya know

Just the way the Tall Grass moves gives you away.

But I quess we need ((ALL)) kinds to just make it (((FAIR for ALL))).

Dang, gotta Vote for Snakes Rights Now

(((( The true Spirit of God ))))

Um,frostheev, whats a homosexual play? must have missed that one when I was studying theater at Roger Williams University. Would not a Homosexual play have both men and woman in it or boys and girls as homosexuality by definition is neither inherently male or female? Or are you just afraid of plays being preformed by all male students and therefore (gay) in your mind? Which by the funniest of coincidences was already done by the Christian Church to show their intolerance to woman on stage. Face it you are just anti-gay and can't really put your finger on why. Oh here is research for you so you don't need to really strain to educate yourself. From The Harvard Journal :

The ban against women on stage, initiated by the Greeks and bolstered by the Christian insistence on female chastity, remained in force until the 17th century when female singers began to appear in a new form of musical theater called opera.

Christian authorities were not happy with the new development. Pope Clement XI said, "A beautiful woman who sings on stage and keeps her chastity is like a man who leaps into the Tiber and keeps his feet dry

Rather than condone the outrage of female performers, the Church employed male castrati to sing soprano parts. Although ostensibly prohibited since 1587, castrati continued to perform in the papal choir until the late 19th century.

Two heterosexual, married people in my household voting No on 1.

Two children in our household, asking if we were going to be voting No on 1, because that's what they would do.

No on 1.

No, joesalters, we won't leave. You just don't have that kind of power. And you know what? You straight folks will just keep making more of us anyway.

frostheev: Too late. It's already in the schools. It's called gay kids. And no matter what you do, you won't be able to change that.

As far as the first "homosexual play" goes, "The Laramie Project," the story of what happened after Matthew Shepard was murdered, was performed at Blue Valley North High and Calais high schools just last month.

I don't recall hearing much outcry, do you?

Not much outcry, indeed!

Waaaay Downeast, too. Not "lefty" southern Maine.

No on 1.

On 10/30/09 at 11:31 PM, YES_ON_1 wrote: Repeated separate thumbs down will cause comment to be hidden

This will not pass.

Make no mistake about it.

Mainers don't want gay marriage any more than they want a National Park.

Gay marriage is not the answer in Maine.

Let's give our children a fighting chance to grow and prosper without the immoral influences of a few radical progressives.

Let's show the nation that we value good morals and decent families.

Vote YES on 1

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

Since someone saw fit to thumb this down...I'm sure

YES-on -1 won't mind if I re-post it. I couldn't have said it

better myself. PLEASE VOTE YES ON ONE!!!!!!!

This will pass.

Make no mistake about it. Either now or through the supreme court.

Mainer's already have a National Park.

Equality for all is the answer in Maine.

Let's give our children a fighting chance to grow up and prosper without the immoral influences of a few fanatical regressive zealots

Let's show the nation that we value diversity and all families.

Vote NO on 1

Next step by fellows in YES: Repeal Divorce.

VOTE NO, please. Let fredom win.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YDCzguG4tPU&feature=related

((((Dang Serpants )))) I was in such a great mood going to a ((((( Holloween Party.)))))

Trying to get ready for that, don`t cha know.

So for ALL you (((( Multiheader Serpants.))))

((((( I just do not have time for your bigoted chit.)))))

Here is a ((((( Christmas Nut for You )))))

Now do not (( eat )) that now that would be ((( Sinfull, ))) don`t cha know it.

(((((( For it is a gift for Christmas.)))))(((((( :~O ))))))))))))

(((((Wonder if he Serpants puts up a Christmas Trees)))))

((((((Now you try to be good little Poster Children for No)))))

(((((Will be back shortly though for unlike u I don` get Trashed))))))

Gathering more (((( NO Voters tonite and that be NO Chit ))))))) ( :~o ) )))))))) Oh Yeah Candy

Food for thought : this law was passed to redefine the term "marriage" to be inclusive to same-sex partners thus providing equal rights to a group of Americans. "Marriage" is a union recognized by the state and the federal government - in and of itself "Marriage" has NO bearing on religion - A church "Wedding" is the religious ceremony preformed by Priest, Minister etc. to sanctify the marriage in the eyes of the church. A marriage license is granted by the state and the wedding can preformed by the church. All of you out there that keep saying "god commands that a Marriage is between a man and a woman" keep leaving out the best part he/she also stated "who believe in me". My marriage is not recognized by the church as are tens of thousands of other marriages in this state, due to the fact that one or both of the partners is of another faith or no faith at all. So, The church already discriminates against weddings that are "impure" in their eyes. This law specifically takes that fact into account and allows the church to keep it's unyielding rigidity to outdated ideals. So, the state wants to not redefine the law but open it up to be more yielding to a broader range of American Citizens. The Church can still discriminate in the same way it always has on it's weddings not recognizing a marriage for just one more reason. Nothing Really Changes. Or should my marriage right be taken away too - till I convert?

WASHINGTON, D.C., OCT. 30, 2009 The U.S. bishops have sent out bulletin inserts to almost 19,000 parishes this week in a move to fight against the inclusion of abortion funding in health care reform.

"Tell Congress: Remove Abortion Funding and Mandates From Needed Health Care Reform," the headline reads. The strongly worded flyer not only encourages Catholics to contact their representatives, but warns that the bishops will oppose health care reform if their concerns are not addressed.

The bulletin explains that U.S. legislation has for years prevented federal funding of elective abortions, but that the health care reform bills currently being debated in Congress violate these policies.

"Genuine health care reform should protect the life and dignity of all people from the moment of conception until natural death," the bishops note, adding that the conference finds "that all committee-approved bills are seriously deficient on the issues of abortion and conscience, and do not provide adequate access to health care for immigrants and the poor."

"The bills will have to change or the bishops have pledged to oppose them," the flyer adds.

It also urges the faithful to contact Senate leaders to voice support of efforts to "incorporate longstanding policies against abortion funding and in favor of conscience rights" in health reform legislation.

The bishops express support for the Stupak Amendment from Democrat Representative Bart Stupak of Michigan that "addresses essential pro-life concerns on abortion funding and conscience rights."

Cardinal Francis George of Chicago, president of the bishops' conference; Cardinal Justin Rigali of Philadelphia, chair of the bishops’ Committee on Pro-life Activities; Bishop John Wester of Salt Lake City, chair of the Committee on Migration; and Bishop William Murphy of Rockville Centre, New York, chair of the Committee on Domestic Justice and Human Development, are encouraging fellow bishops to promote this campaign in their dioceses.

"The bishops want health care reform, but they recoil at any expansion of abortion," said Helen Osman, secretary for Communications of the bishops' conference. "Most Americans don't want to pay for other people's abortions via health care either.

These are the issues my good friend, why do you makes sense no on 1. Why are you getting people mad and thinking this is all a game, and calling people names and avoiding the real issue. Talk about this same sex issue and it makes the people forget what the real need is up there!

They are just trying to get attention so that they will say we have made our mark. All these posting of the no on 1 are gross , not respectful, and it grosses me right out, you people are incredible really hard to take seriously, thinking it is all a game.

Vote Yes on 1 and make all Mainers very Happy!!

"This impasse on the road to reform of health care can be broken if Congress writes in language that assures that the Hyde Amendment law continues to guide U.S. federal spending policy."

The bishops have expressed their support for health care reform that is universal, respects of human life and dignity, accessible for all -- especially for the poor and immigrants -- and that protects the freedom of conscience.

Just vote yes on 1 and make all Mainers very Happy!

In a few days, the people of Maine will go to the polls, where they'll have the opportunity to either uphold the decision to impose same-sex marriage on the public or to nullify the decision. I've written on this issue in an earlier comment, where I've included the scientific references, and posted it at the Bangor Daily News (A). Here I've summarized this earlier blog to emphasize the salient reasons why Iowans should to take the latter course and vote to keep marriage as it should be: between one man and one woman (traditional marriage).

As I've stated before, voting to keep traditional marriage makes good sense, since it has to do with the basis for law, which is to govern human behavior for the benefit of the individual and society. Achieving this objective, in turn, must involve objective fact - not feeling - because the latter will usually result in bad law that causes more harmful behavior than good. Consequently, in accordance with fact - not feeling - the people or their representatives pass laws to encourage behaviors, (1) producing more positive benefits than negative; limit those (2) producing more negative than positive; and banning those that are (3) entirely negative. Examples in category 1 include beneficial behaviors, such as starting a business, going to college, or getting married. Category 2 involves behaviors with the potential to cause harm, such as smoking, drinking, gambling, or relations outside marriage. Finally category 3 involves taking of life or property.

Marriage between people of differing genders is most definitely a Category 1 behavior. It is so because it offers psychological and health benefits to both partners and to offspring. Among these are reduced stress, increased lifespan, and the best environment for raising children. Heterosexual marriage also greatly reduces (if not eliminates) promiscuity and the potential for STDs, AIDS, and AIDS-related diseases. Consequently it makes sense for the government to encourage this behavior through official recognition and incentives.

But homosexual unions are definitely not a Category 1 behavior. Rather they're a Category 2 behavior, which (like other Category 2 behaviors) should not be encouraged with government benefits and incentives like those given to Category 1 behaviors. Rather homosexual behavior, whether in self-proclaimed committed relationships or not, should be limited to consenting adults without these benefits or incentives for the following reasons:

Promiscuity among homosexual men is by far the norm, not the exception. Based on one study, 71% of the participants had over 500 partners in their lifetime. Other studies noted a similar number of lifetime partners with few of them occurring in "committed" relationships.,, An additional investigation, the Amsterdam Cohort Study (ACS), reported numerous casual partnerships, averaging about 22/year, according to the ACS.

So-called gay marriage would not eliminate promiscuity. Among males, the average relationship lasts about 1-½ years, yet still includes up to 8 casual partners per year in addition to the "committed" partner. Indeed, according to one study, only seven couples out of 156 had no outside encounters, while being committed for less than 5 years. Among females, the potential for divorce exceeds that of heterosexual women.

Gay marriage would be far more likely to end in divorce than heterosexual marriages, diminishing the institution below its already weakened state. According to a study on divorce among Scandinavian same-sex couples, the likelihood for gay men to divorce was 1.35 to 1.5 times that of heterosexuals. For lesbians, the likelihood was even higher, being 2 to 2.67 times that of married heterosexual women.

In comparison to heterosexuals, homosexuals are at far greater risk for serious disease. For males, these diseases are HIV/AIDS (to which they’re nine times more susceptible than straight males), Kaposi’s Sarcoma, human papilloma virus, hepatitis A and B, anal cancer, non-hodgkins lymphoma, hodgkins disease, gonorrhea, syphilis, proctitis, proctocolitis, and enteritis. Prophylactics offer males mitigation of, but not complete protection from, these diseases.,,,, In comparison, lesbians are generally at lesser risk for disease but are still more prone than heterosexual women to some health concerns. Examples include breast cancer, ovarian cancer, HPV, BV, chlamydia, syphillis, trichomoniasis, and even AIDS/HIV. Of these diseases, HPV is at least as common in lesbians as in single heterosexual women, while BV is more so.

Homosexuals, primarily males, are at great risk for physical damage. Among males, approximately 93% of homosexual activity involves anal receptive intercourse, which has a tendency to damage the voluntary and involuntary muscles surrounding the rectal area, including the lining of this area., Further, male homosexuals have a greater tendency to experience bowel control issues later in life.

Mental and emotional disorders are more prevalent among homosexuals. These are major depression, generalized anxiety disorder, and substance abuse/ dependence.

Homosexual behavior has the potential to be learned, and, thus, habitualized like smoking, drinking, or gambling. According to the American Psychological organization, homosexual behavior originates from biological, cognitive, and cultural factors, which vary in significance among individuals. Biological indicates a heightened potential for, but not a guarantee of, homosexual orientation. The other two factors are external in nature, with cognitive indicating what a person learns and cultural indicating what he or she absorbs from society. For adults, we’ve seen how the sexual revolution undid cultural and cognitive factors that controlled our biological predisposition for heterosexual outside marriage. Consequently, it follows that a society, which approves or encourages homosexuality, would trigger the biological proclivity for homosexuality, making those with this tendency more likely to act upon it. Doing so, these people would be at risk for the serious diseases to which homosexuals are susceptible.

Homosexual households are less than optimum environment for raising children. There are several reasons for this condition, as follows. Homosexual parents of children are more likely to abuse or assault one another or to divorce.

Children living with homosexual parents are more likely to adopt the lifestyle themselves. According to a study conducted by two researchers at USC, 25% of the adults raised by lesbian parents had a homosexual relationship. In comparison, none of the children raised by heterosexual parents had such a relationship. Based on another statistic, 64% of young adults raised in lesbian households report having considered same-sex relationships (in the past, now, or in the future), compared with only 17% raised in heterosexual families.

Unlike race or gender, homosexuality is not due solely to biological factors, nor is it a natural and fixed condition, over which individuals have no control. Instead, unlike these characteristics, homosexuality is a behavioral urge that is acted upon by choice, making it no different than any other human behavior. Further, like all other behaviors, the likelihood for it to occur is heightened through parental and societal influences - the cognitive and cultural factors I spoke of earlier.

The ill effects of embracing homosexual parenting, marriage, or behavior will not be seen for several years. The skyrocketing divorce, numbers of children out of wedlock, and STDs took several years to occur after the concept of "free love" was introduced in the late 1960’s. Thus, the ill effects of homosexual behavior, described above, may take a similar amount of time to appear, which is why it’s so idiotic for Canderas to say that she’s seen no ill effects of gay marriage, especially since I doubt that any reputable studies on the subject have been done.

The above are called facts. The founding fathers set up an adversarial government (like ours), emphasizing free speech so that fact would arise out of the clash of conflicting opinions. In other words, feeling would be eliminated in favor of fact, upon which all law should be based. As these facts prove, the people of Maine need to keep marriage as it should be: between one and woman. Doing otherwise would be to capitulate to feeling - not fact - which history consistently shows causes far more harm than good.

(A) - On 9/5/09 at 1:37 AM on this comment string: http://www.bangordailynews.com/detail/118638.html

Religious liberty and freedom of conscience are fundamental human rights as they are the source of all other liberties, says Benedict XVI.

The Pope said this today upon recieving in audience Ali Akbar Naseri, the new ambassador from Iran to the Holy See.

The Holy Father began by extending his good wishes for the president of Iran, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, and for the entire nation.

"Iran is a great nation that has eminent spiritual traditions and its people have a profound religious sensibility," the Pontiff said, noting that this is a "reason for hope for a growing openness and confident collaboration with the international community."

Benedict XVI affirmed that the Holy See will work with those "who serve the cause of peace and promote the dignity with which the Creator has endowed all human beings."

"Today we must all expect and support a new phase of international cooperation," he added, "more solidly based on humanitarian principles and on effective aid to those who suffer, than on cold calculations of exchanges and technical and economic benefits."

"Faith in the one God must bring all believers closer and encourage them to work together for the defense and promotion of fundamental human values," the Pope continued. "Among the universal rights, religious liberty and freedom of conscience occupy an essential place, because they are the source of the other liberties.

"The defense of other rights that stem from the dignity of persons and populations, in particular the promotion of the protection of life, justice and solidarity, must also be the object of a true collaboration."

The Holy Father underlined the "urgent need" to establish harmonious relations between believers of different religions. This, he said, will serve to "build a more human world, more conformed to the plan of God on creation."

To this end, the Pontiff praised the meetings held jointed by the Pontifical Council for Interreligious Dialogue and the Organization for Islamic Culture and Relations: "Contributing to seeking together what is just and correct, those meetings allow all to progress in reciprocal knowledge and to cooperate in the reflection of great questions that affect the life of humanity."

Benedict XVI also made mention of the community of Catholics in Iran: "Catholics have been present in Iran since the first centuries of Christianity and have always been an integral part of the life and culture of the nation.

"This community is truly Iranian and its age-old experience of coexistence with Muslim believers is of great usefulness to promote greater understanding and cooperation."

The Pope expressed hope that Iran will "reinforce and guarantee to Christians the liberty to profess their faith and to ensure for the Catholic community the essential conditions for its existence, especially the possibility of having sufficient religious personnel and the facilities of movement in the country to ensure the religious service of the faithful."

Vote Yes on one and it will be okay, really!

(((( Hey Pereree Snake ))))~~~~~Them (( States ))will be looking at (( Maine )) and sayin

(((( Wish We Had done the Right Thing ))))

And the rest of the (( Country )) will follow Maine as They usually do it

(((( First and Right.))))

((( Electra Standing Tall and Wife And Kitty. Voting NO )))

((( Didn`t think I would go ((( W / O ))) No on One in Your Face Again )))

(((((((((((( ( :~ o ) )))))))))))))

Oh No !!!! Fire and brimstone !! The Lord will launch pestilence upon society !! Straight couples will divorce !! Straight school children will become gay !! Congress will balance the budget !!

Please, "YES" people, get over the browbeating ! It is so desperate and pathetic. Do you remember the first argument? That gay marriage will "weaken" straight marraige? What happened to that? It has been debunked and now changed to a new "Chicken Little" message of [oh, the horror] they will "teach" gay marriage in the schools [yes, the heterosexual teachers are all over that]. Guess what?? Today's youth does need to be "taught" about gay people! They see us (and are taught by us and are employed by us) everyday.

Your hysteria is immensely insecure and, well, embarrassing. Take a look at your own TV ads if you need to confirm...

We do this to give people a level of comfort so they know we're keeping tabs on them," said Rose, a former sex crimes detective with 34 years of police experience.

Sandy Springs is one of many local law enforcement agencies across the country taking extra steps this Halloween to assure the community that the agencies are keeping track of the sex offenders living among them.

There are 686,515 registered sex offenders in the United States, according to the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children.

The Houston, Texas, Police Department says members of its Juvenile Sex Offender Registration Unit performed checks on the residences of registered sex offenders to ensure they are in compliance with the provisions of their parole or probation. They were also told not to decorate their homes, distribute candy, turn on their porch lights or answer the door.

Watch your kids good today and this evening, you never who out there will try to do you in!!

Vote Yes on 1

there you go papere, you got itright there. a plain old yes on 1 is all we need to shut up these nasty bigots. just wondering how they like the namecalling they have done all along. i'm with you papere, yes on 1.

CGGage: Really good commentary at 8:02 AM Much of the attitudes you write of do seem so regressive. Maybe Maine will take another step away from that on Tuesday.

Jazz11: I already voted NO on 1 for people such as yourself and your longtime partner. Also, thanks for your service.

Vote NO on 1.

An argument in favor of homosexual marriage that you are likely to hear again and again on radio talk shows, on national television, and on the Internet, reflects a line of reasoning that you must be prepared to counter. It is embodied in these kinds of questions: Why all the fuss about gay marriage anyway? And why should it matter to you if a gay couple marries and moves into your neighborhood? Why shouldn’t our definition of family be broadened and modernized? After all, what harm could possibly be done by yielding to the demands of those who say traditional notions of family are outmoded and irrelevant?

Columnist Steve Blow, in a recent edition of The Dallas Morning News, echoed some of these questions. His op-ed piece was titled “Gay Marriage: Why Would It Affect Me?” and was apparently written after he had read one of my recent newsletters on the subject. Blow wrote:

When opponents talk about the “defense of marriage,” they lose me. James Dobson’s Focus on the Family just sent out a mailer to 2.5 million homes saying: “The homosexual activists’ movement is poised to administer a devastating and potentially fatal blow to the traditional family.” And I say, “Huh?” How does anyone’s pledge of love and commitment turn into a fatal blow to families?

Mr. Blow clearly believes that the only reason for not legalizing homosexual marriage is sheer bigotry. Nothing could be further from the truth. There are very compelling arguments against marriage between homosexuals that should be considered by anyone who has not yet become familiar with the issues. Unfortunately, the American people, as a whole, have not yet thought through the consequences and measured the impact of this revolutionary concept. I could list fifty or more legitimate concerns. Let me focus on only eleven:

1. The legalization of homosexual marriage will quickly destroy the traditional family.

We’ve already seen evidence from the Scandinavian countries that de-facto homosexual marriage destroys the real Mc Coy. These two entities cannot coexist because they represent opposite ends of the universe. A book could be written on the reasons for this collision between matter and antimatter, but I will cite three of them.

First, when the State sanctions homosexual relationships and gives them its blessing, the younger generation becomes confused about sexual identity and quickly loses its understanding of lifelong commitments, emotional bonding, sexual purity, the role of children in a family, and from a spiritual perspective, the “sanctity” of marriage. Marriage is reduced to something of a partnership that provides attractive benefits and sexual convenience, but cannot offer the intimacy described in Genesis. Cohabitation and short-term relationships are the inevitable result. Ask the Norwegians, the Swedes, and the people from the Netherlands. That is exactly what is happening there.

Second, the introduction of legalized gay marriages will lead inexorably to polygamy and other alternatives to one man/one woman unions. In Utah polygamist Tom Green, who claims five wives, is citing Lawrence v. Texas as the legal authority for his appeal. In January 2004, a Salt Lake City civil rights attorney filed a federal lawsuit on behalf of another couple wanting to engage in legal polygamy. Their justification? Lawrence v. Texas. The ACLU of Utah has actually suggested that the state will “have to step up to prove that a polygamous relationship is detrimental to society” — as opposed to the polygamists having to prove that plural marriage is not harmful to the culture. Do you see how the game is played? The responsibility to defend the family now rests on you and me to prove that polygamy is unhealthy. The ACLU went on to say that the nuclear family “may not be necessarily the best model.” Indeed, Justice Antonin Scalia warned of this likelihood in his statement for the minority in the Lawrence case. It took less than six months for His prediction to become a reality.

Why will gay marriage set the table for polygamy? Because there is no place to stop once that Rubicon has been crossed. Historically, the definition of marriage has rested on a foundation of tradition, legal precedent, theology and the overwhelming support of the people. After the introduction of marriage between homosexuals, however, it will be supported by nothing more substantial than the opinion of a single judge or by a black-robed panel of justices. After they have reached their dubious decisions, the family will consist of little more than someone’s interpretation of “rights.” Given that unstable legal climate, it is certain that some self-possessed judge, somewhere, will soon rule that three men or three women can marry. Or five men and two women. Or four and four. Who will be able to deny them that right? The guarantee is implied, we will be told, by the Constitution. Those who disagree will continue to be seen as hate-mongers and bigots. (Indeed, those charges are already being leveled against Christians who espouse biblical values!) How about group marriage, or marriage between cousins, or marriage between daddies and little girls? How about marriage between a man and his donkey? Anything allegedly linked to “civil rights” will be doable. The legal underpinnings for marriage will have been destroyed.

The third reason marriage between homosexuals will destroy traditional marriage is that this is the ultimate goal of activists, and they will not stop until they achieve it. The history of the gay and lesbian movement has been that its adherents quickly move the goal line as soon as the previous one has been breached, revealing even more shocking and outrageous objectives. In the present instance, homosexual activists, heady with power and exhilaration, feel the political climate is right to tell us what they have wanted all along. This is the real deal: Most gays and lesbians do not want to marry each other. That would entangle them in all sorts of legal constraints. Who needs a lifetime commitment to one person? The intention here is to create an entirely different legal structure.

With marriage as we know it gone, everyone would enjoy all the legal benefits of marriage (custody rights, tax-free inheritance, joint ownership of property, health care and spousal citizenship, and much more) without limiting the number of partners or their gender. Nor would “couples” be bound to each other in the eyes of the law. This is clearly where the movement is headed. If you doubt that this is the motive, read what is in the literature today. Activists have created a new word to replace the outmoded terms infidelity, adultery, cheating and promiscuity. The new concept is polyamorous. It means the same thing (literally “many loves”) but with the agreement of the primary sexual partner. Why not? He or she is probably polyamorous, too.

Liberal columnist Michael Kinsley wrote a July 2003 op-ed piece in The Washington Post titled, “Abolish Marriage: Let’s Really Get the Government Out Of Our Bedrooms.” In this revealing editorial, Kinsley writes, “[The] solution is to end the institution of marriage, or rather, the solution is to end the institution of government monopoly on marriage. And yes, if three people want to get married, or one person wants to marry herself and someone else wants to conduct a ceremony and declare them married, let ’em. If you and your government aren’t implicated, what do you care? If marriage were an entirely private affair, all the disputes over gay marriages would become irrelevant.” Otherwise, the author warns, “it’s going to get ugly.”

Judith Levine, writing in The Village Voice, offered support for these ideas in an article titled “Stop the Wedding: Why Gay Marriage Isn’t Radical Enough.” She wrote, “Because American marriage is inextricable from Christianity, it admits participants as Noah let animals on the ark. But it doesn’t have to be that way. In 1972 the National Coalition of Gay Organizations demanded the ‘repeal of all legislative provisions that restrict the sex or number of persons entering into a marriage unit; and the extension of legal benefits to all persons who cohabit regardless of sex or numbers.’ Group marriage could comprise any combination of genders.”

Stanley Kurtz, a research fellow at the Hoover Institution, summed up the situation in a recent Weekly Standard article. He noted that if gay marriage is legalized, “marriage will be transformed into a variety of relationship contracts, linking two, three or more individuals (however weakly or temporarily) in every conceivable combination of male and female … the bottom of this slope is visible from where we now stand.”

We must all become soberly aware of a deeply disturbing reality: The homosexual agenda is not marriage for gays. It is marriage for no one. And despite what you read or see in the media, it is definitely not monogamous.

What will happen sociologically if marriage becomes anything or everything or nothing? The short answer is that the State will lose its compelling interest in marital relationships altogether. After marriage has been redefined, divorces will be obtained instantly, will not involve a court, and will take on the status of a driver’s license or a hunting permit. With the family out of the way, all rights and privileges of marriage will accrue to gay and lesbian partners without the legal entanglements and commitments heretofore associated with it.

These are just a few reasons why homosexual marriage is truly revolutionary. Legalizing it will change everything, especially for the institution of the family.

Vote Yes on 1

v_4_victory : Would plagiarism be considered a type 2 behavior? You forgot to change the reference to Iowans "Here I've summarized this earlier blog to emphasize the salient reasons why Iowans should to take the latter course"

Also you quote facts and figures with no reference to an old ACS study and a couple of guys at USC The reference you use to the "American Psychological organization" is interesting as no such place exists, or were you talking about the APA American Psychological Association that has no record of the study you are presenting (i checked, as you should have)

And furthermore you forgot to cut out the the reference to Senator Candaras and her arguments when you cut and pasted that portion of this garbage that you are claiming as you own.

Desperate times call for desperate measures HUH!

See how low you can sink to try to "prove" your point.

On 10/31/09 at 4:09 PM, HRH419 wrote: Repeated separate thumbs down will cause comment to be hidden

On 10/30/09 at 11:31 PM, YES_ON_1 wrote: Repeated separate thumbs down will cause comment to be hidden

This will not pass.

Make no mistake about it.

Mainers don't want gay marriage any more than they want a National Park.

Gay marriage is not the answer in Maine.

Let's give our children a fighting chance to grow and prosper without the immoral influences of a few radical progressives.

Let's show the nation that we value good morals and decent families.

Vote YES on 1

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

Since someone saw fit to thumb this down...I'm sure

YES-on -1 won't mind if I re-post it. I couldn't have said it

better myself. PLEASE VOTE YES ON ONE!!!!!!!

(((( Hey all ya Snake Heads ))))~only come out from that rock when you think we gone.

(((We are never ot be gone ))) (((when you goin to get that thru that Puss Head))).

(((( Wish We Had done the Right Thing ))))

And the rest of the (( Country )) will follow Maine as They usually do it

(((( First and Right.))))

((( Electra Standing Tall and Wife And Kitty. Voting NO )))

((( Didn`t think I would go ((( W / O ))) No on One in Your Face Again )))

(((((God Bless You All (( AND )) Happy Trails to You ALL ))))))))))

(((((((((((((((((((((((((( BOO )))))))))))))))))))))))))

(((((((((((( ( :~ o ) )))))))))))))

DISCRIMINATION

Homosexuals are not excluded from marriage, but their intimate pair-bonding relationships

are. It is argued that is discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. If that is correct, we

must consider whether the discrimination is justified. I believe it is.

One way the justification can be articulated, is in terms of the doctrine of “double effect”: The

primary intent in restricting marriage to opposite sex couples is to maintain marriage as the

institution that fulfils society’s need to protect the inherently procreative relationship and its

functions for society, and is not to exclude homosexual relationships because they are homosexual.

The discrimination involved in the exclusion is a secondary effect which is not desired

but unavoidable, and it is justified or excused by the primary purpose which otherwise

cannot be realized.

A useful comparison can be made with the discrimination involved in affirmative action. That

shows that sometimes discrimination and the harm it involves, can be justified when it is to

achieve a greater good that cannot otherwise be achieved.

It is also argued by those advocating same-sex marriage, that excluding same-sex couples

from marriage is the same act of discrimination as prohibiting interracial marriage, which

has rightly been recognized as a serious breach of human rights. That argument is not

correct. Because an interracial marriage between a man and a woman does symbolize the

procreative relationship, its prohibition is based on racial discrimination which is wrong. In

contrast, not extending the definition of marriage to include same-sex couples, is not based

on the sexual orientation of the partners, but the absence of a feature of their relationship

which is an essential feature of marriage.

CONCLUSION

In conclusion, society needs marriage to establish cultural meaning, symbolism and moral

values around the inherently procreative relationship between a man and a woman, and

thereby protect that relationship and the children who result from it. That is more necessary

than in the past, when alternatives to sexual reproduction were not available. Redefining

marriage to include same-sex couples would affect its cultural meaning and function and, in

doing so, damage its ability and, thereby, society’s capacity, to protect the inherently procreative

relationship and the children who result from it, whether those children’s’ future sexual

orientation proves to be homosexual or heterosexual.

Vote Yes on 1

A social science literature is now emerging that reveals the relative weakness and instability of heterosexual blended and step-parent families, compared to married couple families with shared biological children. The children in mixed families do no better than those in single parent families! Will homosexual blended families be equally unstable? Living with a biological father seems especially important, and children living with unrelated males do especially badly. Will that pattern extend to gay families? We don't know. It's a big social experiment.

Finally (and this is in some ways the most important concern for me, as a parent), legalizing homosexual marriage will of course create pressure to "normalize" those relationships in all contexts. This will extend to teaching in public schools (and private schools for that matter).

The absolute equivalence of hetero and homosexual relationships will become public orthodoxy. The result will be that parents will be effectively disabled from expressing any preference whatsoever for heterosexuality, heterosexual families, or traditional heterosexual marriage, and any disapproval or lesser preference for homosexuality, even for their own children. The parity of homosexual and heterosexual relationships and life styles will be aggressively pursued, and anyone who dares to question this will be defined as a bigot. Do I look forward to this breathtaking expansion of the empire of political correctness? Certainly not! The implications of such a state of affairs for religious practice and expression are staggering -- this is a whole different subject unto itself.

Vote Yes on 1

dena202: In the past on the BDN comment pages, that poster (5:22) attributed comments to a certain doctor , Throckmorton, who is not against gay marriage as that poster said he was. He has posted things in the past that were not correctly documented. I sure would not take seriously what that poster posts, or at least do research to see if what he posted was actually valid or not!

Voted NO on 1.

As the Netherlands’ experiment in legalizing same-sex unions has illustrated, same-sex marriage in that country constituted one more step in a steady legal and social breakdown of the family. This is not to say that the data imply a causal relationship between the initiation of same-sex marriage and the breakdown of the family in the Netherlands. Rather, the redefinition of marriage furthered a general pattern of cultural and legal erosion of the institution. According to several Dutch social scientists, their fellow citizens “increasingly regard marriage as no longer relevant” because they have been persuaded that “marriage is not connected to parenthood and that marriage and cohabitation are equally valid ‘lifestyle choices…’”[2] Marriage may be losing its place as the fundamental building block of social infrastructure in the Netherlands. As the United States considers how to respond to the judicial dictates redefining marriage,[3] policymakers should be aware of data emerging from the European precedent, and they should choose the most beneficial course for the family in America by preserving the institution of marriage.

Vote Yes on 1

This simply is wrong:

http://www.cnbc.com/id/33539344/

Prevent exploitation of children, preserve marriage.

VOTE YES ON 1

In conclusion, society needs marriage to establish cultural meaning, symbolism and moral

values around the inherently procreative relationship between a man and a woman, and

thereby protect that relationship and the children who result from it. That is more necessary

than in the past, when alternatives to sexual reproduction were not available. Redefining

marriage to include same-sex couples would affect its cultural meaning and function and, in

doing so, damage its ability and, thereby, society’s capacity, to protect the inherently procreative

relationship and the children who result from it, whether those children’s’ future sexual

orientation proves to be homosexual or heterosexual.

All you people out there that can't have kids your marriage is no longer meaningful - anyone past the childbearing age you can't get married as it's not in societies best interest to let you do so. Infertile woman, your husband or future husband needs to leave you for the betterment of society. Infertile men - go ahead and commit hari kari your usefulness to our society is gone. Are you Kidding me !!! Junk like this and quotes from the pope to prove you twisted ways of looking at civil rights - bone of contention = Shall we all accept the Vatican as the source for all our laws? NOT ALL MAINERS ARE CATHOLIC - we really could not care less what your pope said - News from the same Vatican that went out of it's way to hide pedophile priests has lost it's luster .

NO on one - it's all about equality

Among those testifying was Roman Catholic Bishop Richard Malone, who said the church has long supported domestic partner laws. But he said the church opposes same-sex marriage.

"We speak in opposition to same-sex marriage because we are deeply concerned about the institution of marriage itself in this state, and in this nation," he said.

Malone was followed by pastors who called the bill a threat to families and contrary to traditional religious teachings.

Vote Yes on 1

ConvivialVisits wrote "Can you name one other group in our nations' history where we have extended them rights, and it has turned out a bad idea?"

Yes, that would be liberals.

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

So, Up the WASP!

# Most religions consider homosexuality a sin. Virtually every religion in the world, including the major ones in this country, consider homosexuality unacceptable. It is offensive and a swipe to the religious freedom of the majority to have to recognize a relationship they consider sinful. The legal system in the United States evolved out of the laws contained in the Bible. We shouldn't go even farther to tear down those laws.

# It would weaken the definition and respect for the institution of marriage. The 50 percent divorce rate has already weakened the definition of marriage. We shouldn't be taking further steps to define what marriage is. A law allowing gay marriage would increase the number of joke or non-serious marriages, such as a couple of friends who want to save on taxes. Marriage is the most sacred institution in this country, and every society considers it the joining of a man and a woman. It makes biological sense since only a man and woman can pro-create.

# It would further weaken the traditional family values essential to our society. The building blocks of our society and the thing that makes it strong is the traditional family of man, woman, and children. It is what has sustained us through two world wars, a great depression, and numerous other challenges over the centuries. While friends & lovers come and go, your family is always there. The main reason our culture and values have started to crumble is the weakening of families. Introducing another form of "family" would only make the situation worse.

# It could provide a slippery slope in the legality of marriage (e.g. having multiple wives or marrying an object could be next). Gay rights activists claim that these marriages should be allowed because it doesn't hurt anyone, but it could start a chain reaction that destroys the whole idea of marriage. If someone wants to marry his dog, why shouldn't he be able to? What if someone wants to marry their brother or parent? What if someone wants to marry their blow-up doll or have 10 wives? Unless we develop some firm definition of what a marriage is, the options are endless. If these options sound absurd, remember that all it takes is a few activist judges to use the statute to open the door. It doesn't matter if 95 percent of the population disagrees with the policy, one judge can interpret the case the way he or she wants and use the doctrine of stare decisis to impose a law on everyone. Do you remember how two judges in California recently declared the Pledge of Allegiance unconstitutional? If the decision hadn't been overturned, it would have prevented millions of children from being able to say the pledge every morning, despite the fact that 95+ percent of Americans disagreed with the decision.

# The gay lifestyle is not something to be encouraged, as a lot of research shows it leads to a much lower life expectancy, psychological disorders, and other problems. Studies show that homosexuals, for a variety of reasons, have life expectancies of approximately 20 years less than the general population. Just like a lifestyle of smoking, drinking, etc., unhealthy lifestyles should be discouraged.

Vote yes on 1

California Marriage Amendment

On a 4-3 vote, the California Supreme Court has destroyed the civil institution of marriage between a man and a woman, and law-abiding Americans must condemn it in the strongest terms. This arrogant judicial activism took 121 pages of contorted logic to explain and is no surprise coming from this San Francisco-based court. By bowing down to homosexual activists and the rebel city of San Francisco, the California Supreme Court has exchanged the rule of law for the rule of unbridled power to destroy all that is good and sacred. However, the terrible example of homosexual weddings should be short-lived. This extremely bad ruling will certainly spur Californians to vote in November to overrule the judges and protect marriage licenses for a man and a woman in the California Constitution.

Information about Marriage Amendments

Churches may directly support marriage amendments or other similar legislation or initiatives, such as the abortion initiative in South Dakota. Since 1934, when the Internal Revenue Code was amended to include a limitation on lobbying activities of 501(c)(3) organizations, not one church has ever lost its tax-exempt status for engaging in too much lobbying. Contacting legislators to support the passage of a constitutional marriage amendment is considered lobbying, and such activity is clearly a permissible activity of churches. Churches should be active against gay marriage.

No Same Sex Marriage!

Vote yes on 1

California Federal Court Rejects Challenge to Federal Defense of Marriage Act

www.LC.org

During a court hearing yesterday, an Orange County, California federal district court judge indicated that he is dismissing a last-ditch effort by "same-sex marriage" proponents to overturn the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). In 2004, Liberty Counsel intervened in this case (Smelt v. Orange County) on behalf of Campaign for California Families, in order to protect marriage as the union of one man and one woman and to defend DOMA.

Although this is an important victory, the work to protect marriage is not over. The federal Defense of Marriage Act has survived another attack, but the only permanent solution is to protect marriage in a constitutional amendment. We cannot continue to hold our breath each time a judge considers the federal law.

Sign the Petition for a Federal Marriage Amendment. We need to join together and let Congress know that marriage, the foundation of society, must be preserved!

Vote yes on 1

CALIFORNIA MARRIAGE AMENDMENT QUALIFIES FOR NOVEMBER BALLOT – THE PEOPLE WILL DECIDE

(6/2/08) Secretary of State Debra Bowen today certified the eighth initiative for the November 4, 2008, General Election ballot. The measure would amend California’s Constitution to define marriage as a union “between a man and a woman.”

“The response from the people of this state has been unprecedented in support of marriage’s legacy, by responding with an all-out volunteer signature campaign,” said Ron Prentice, CEO of the California Family Council and Chairman of the ProtectMarriage.com coalition sponsoring the amendment. “We’re so grateful to the over 1.1 million voters who signed the marriage petition in time for the November election. Passing this amendment is the only way for the people to override the four supreme court judges who want to re-define marriage for our entire society.”

In order to qualify for the ballot, the marriage definition measure needed 694,354 valid petition signatures, which is equal to 8% of the total votes cast for governor in the November 2006 General Election. The initiative proponents submitted 1,120,801 signatures in an attempt to qualify the measure, and it qualified through the random sample signature check.

“The vast majority of research continues to state that California’s voters favor keeping marriage as it is, protecting its historic definition between only a man and a woman. The November ballot will give opportunity for citizens to respond to the State Supreme Court’s decision, by solidifying traditional marriage in the California Constitution. Californians are a tolerant people. But we also know that marriage is between a man and a woman, as the voters reaffirmed just a few years ago.” stated Prentice.

Vote Yes on 1

Real Marriage is...

...an institution for a man and a woman. Marriage is not genderless. It is a union of two different sexes, not just a union of two different people. Real marriage (a man & a woman) is not rooted in discrimination. It is rooted in common sense, for the common good. For marriage to flourish in our culture, it must be protected from redefinition; for if marriage can mean anything, it will mean nothing. [Note: If you disagree with this bedrock principle, please read no further. No marriage that violates the man-woman standard can be real.]

...best for children. While thousands of Massachusetts single moms and dads earn their “SuperParent” wings every day, to raise healthy children who become productive citizens, there is but one gold standard for which we should strive as a society... that every child be reared by a loving mother and father.

…the ultimate solution for Massachusetts’s problems. Prisons fill, schools fail, and welfare rolls grow because of the breakdown of marriage & the home. Governments and charities have spent millions of dollars for decades treating symptoms. It is time for governments, churches, communities and businesses to come together to treat the cause.

...an intimate, healthy relationship. Real Marriage means communication, commitment, respect and selfless love. These are the keys to a healthy, happy, affair-proof life ’til death do us part. Successful parenting and warm, enduring bonds with children comes from true intimacy in marriage.

...worth working at. Divorce and dissatisfaction can be avoided. A good marriage is worth the effort it requires, and organizations across Massachusetts stand ready to help with proven programs and timeless wisdom.

...built on faith. Marriage is a God-designed institution predating constitutions, governments, and laws. Marriage works best when God is the foundation and central unifying presence.

The right vote on the Marriage Amendment is YES. The right vote for Marriage is YES. Keep it real in law on election day and make it real at home every day.

I commit to the principles of Real Marriage.

Vote Yes on 1

OK, THEN WHO'S READY FOR LEGALIZED POLYGAMY IN MAINE??? As many of those who argue FOR same-sex marriage have said..."it's all about equal right's", "being FAIR to ALL Mainer's", and "it's what makes "them" happy". Come on, it's not ridiculous! Be careful how you vote Mainer's...you just might open up a WHOLE CAN OF WORMS!!

Pull the tax exempt status of the Catholic Church!

Religion has no place in politics. The Catholic Church has been overstepping its bounds. All concerned Mainers should file a complaint with the IRS

http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/f13909.pdf

Check boxes

Organization is involved in a political campaign

Organization is engaged in excessive lobbying activities

And copy your folks in congress.

Read more at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/paul-hogarth/why-im-optimistic-about-m_b_322320.html

chk this out on youtube..its what the YES on 1 side doesn't want you to see:

VOTE NO on #1

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KvXuwZ0pY90

The implications for children in a world of decaying families are profound. A recent article in the Weekly Standard described how the advent of legally sanctioned gay unions in Scandinavian countries has already destroyed the institution of marriage, where half of today's children are born out of wedlock.

It is predicted now, based on demographic trends in this country, that more than half of the babies born in the 1990s will spend at least part of their childhood in single-parent homes.

Social scientists have been surprisingly consistent in warning against this fractured family. If it continues, almost every child will have several "moms" and "dads," perhaps six or eight "grandparents," and dozens of half-siblings. It will be a world where little boys and girls are shuffled from pillar to post in an ever-changing pattern of living arrangements-where huge numbers of them will be raised in foster-care homes or living on the street (as millions do in other countries all over the world today). Imagine an environment where nothing is stable and where people think primarily about themselves and their own self-preservation.

The apostle Paul described a similar society in Romans 1, which addressed the epidemic of homosexuality that was rampant in the ancient world and especially in Rome at that time. He wrote, "They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; they are senseless, faithless, heartless, ruthless" (v. 29-31, NIV).

It appears likely now that the demise of families will accelerate this type of decline dramatically, resulting in a chaotic culture that will be devastating to children.

Vote Yes on 1

The introduction of legalized gay marriages will lead inexorably to polygamy and other alternatives to one-man, one-woman unions.

In Utah, polygamist Tom Green, who claims five wives, is citing Lawrence v. Texas as the legal authority for his appeal. This past January, a Salt Lake City civil rights attorney filed a federal lawsuit on behalf of another couple wanting to engage in legal polygamy. Their justification? Lawrence v. Texas.

The ACLU of Utah has actually suggested that the state will "have to step up to prove that a polygamous relationship is detrimental to society"-as opposed to the polygamists having to prove that plural marriage is not harmful to the culture. Do you see how the game is played? Despite 5,000 years of history, the burden now rests on you and me to prove that polygamy is unhealthy. The ACLU went on to say that the nuclear family "may not be necessarily the best model." Indeed, Justice Antonin Scalia warned of this likelihood in his statement for the minority in the Lawrence case.10 It took less than six months for his prediction to become reality.

Why will gay marriage set the table for polygamy? Because there is no place to stop once that Rubicon has been crossed. Historically, the definition of marriage has rested on a bedrock of tradition, legal precedent, theology and the overwhelming support of the people.

After the introduction of marriage between homosexuals, however, it will be supported by nothing more substantial than the opinion of a single judge or by a black-robed panel of justices. After they have done their wretched work, the family will consist of little more than someone's interpretation of "rights."

Given that unstable legal climate, it is certain that some self-possessed judge, somewhere, will soon rule that three men and one woman can marry. Or five and two, or four and four. Who will be able to deny them that right? The guarantee is implied, we will be told, by the Constitution. Those who disagree will continue to be seen as hate-mongers and bigots. (Indeed, those charges are already being leveled against those of us who espouse biblical values!) How about group marriage, or marriage between relatives, or marriage between adults and children? How about marriage between a man and his donkey? Anything allegedly linked to "civil rights" will be doable. The legal underpinnings for marriage will have been destroyed.

Vote Yes on 1

pwherman - Seriously? How come it's the heterosexual Ultra religious types always accusing others of RAMMING stuff down throats?? Sounds like certain people have persoanl issues to wrk on. How Exactly is Mariage equality a "curse"?? How's does it Affect you personally or finanacially? Please do tell...Im all ears....Go on....this auta'be rich....

An even greater objective of the homosexual movement is to end the state's compelling interest in marital relationships altogether. After marriages have been redefined, divorces will be obtained instantly, will not involve a court, and will take on the status of a driver's license or a hunting permit. With the family out of the way, all rights and privileges of marriage will accrue to gay and lesbian partners without the legal entanglements and commitments heretofore associated with it.

Vote Yes on 1

With the legalization of homosexual marriage, every public school in the nation will be required to teach that this perversion is the moral equivalent of traditional marriage between a man and a woman. Textbooks, even in conservative states, will have to depict man/man and woman/woman relationships, and stories written for children as young as elementary school, or even kindergarten, will have to give equal space to homosexuals.

Vote Yes on 1

Foster-care parents will be required to undergo "sensitivity training" to rid themselves of bias in favor of traditional marriage, and will have to affirm homosexuality in children and teens.

Vote Yes on 1

How about the impact on Social Security if there are millions of new dependents that will be entitled to survivor benefits? It will amount to billions of dollars on an already overburdened system. And how about the cost to American businesses? Unproductive costs mean fewer jobs for those who need them. Are state and municipal governments to be required to raise taxes substantially to provide health insurance and other benefits to millions of new "spouses and other dependents!!

Vote Yes on 1

Marriage among homosexuals will spread throughout the world, just as pornography did after the Nixon Commission declared obscene material "beneficial" to mankind.11 Almost instantly, the English-speaking countries liberalized their laws against smut. America continues to be the fountainhead of filth and immorality, and its influence is global.

The point is that numerous leaders in other nations are watching to see how we will handle the issue of homosexuality and marriage. Only two countries in the world have authorized gay marriage to date-the Netherlands and Belgium. Canada is leaning in that direction, as are numerous European countries. Dr. Darrell Reid, president of Focus on the Family Canada, told me two weeks ago that his country is carefully monitoring the United States to see where it is going. If we take this step off a cliff, the family on every continent will splinter at an accelerated rate. Conversely, our U.S. Supreme Court has made it clear that it looks to European and Canadian law in the interpretation of our Constitution.13 What an outrage! That should have been grounds for impeachment, but the Congress, as usual, remained passive and silent.

Vote Yes on 1

Re 6:37 PM What a confusing post!

DisgustedAmerican: re 7:07 PM Disgusting!

Proudly Voted NO on 1.

Perhaps most important, the spread of the Gospel of Jesus Christ will be severely curtailed. The family has been God's primary vehicle for evangelism since the beginning.

Its most important assignment has been the propagation of the human race and the handing down of the faith to our children. Malachi 2:15 reads, referring to husbands and wives, "Has not the Lord made them one? In flesh and spirit they are His. And why one? Because He was seeking godly offspring. So guard yourself in your spirit, and do not break faith with the wife of your youth" (NIV).

That responsibility to teach the next generation will never recover from the loss of committed, God-fearing families. The younger generation and those yet to come will be deprived of the Good News, as has already occurred in France, Germany and other European countries. Instead of providing for a father and mother, the advent of homosexual marriage will create millions of motherless children and fatherless kids. This is morally wrong, and is condemned in Scripture. Are we now going to join the Netherlands and Belgium to become the third country in the history of the world to "normalize" and legalize behavior that has been prohibited by God himself? Heaven help us if we do!

Vote Yes on 1

The culture war will be over, and I fear, the world may soon become "as it was in the days of Noah" (Matthew 24:37, NIV). This is the climactic moment in the battle to preserve the family, and future generations hang in the balance.

This apocalyptic and pessimistic view of the institution of the family and its future will sound alarmist to many, but I think it will prove accurate unless-unless-God's people awaken and begin an even greater vigil of prayer for our nation. That's why Shirley and I are urgently seeking the Lord's favor and asking Him to hear the petitions of His people and heal our land.

As of this time, however, large segments of the church appear to be unaware of the danger; its leaders are surprisingly silent about our peril (although we are tremendously thankful for the efforts of those who have spoken out on this issue). The lawless abandon occurring recently in California, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Washington and elsewhere should have shocked us out of our lethargy. So far, I'm alarmed to say, the concern and outrage of the American people have not translated into action.

This reticence on behalf of Christians is deeply troubling. Marriage is a sacrament designed by God that serves as a metaphor for the relationship between Christ and His Church. Tampering with His plan for the family is immoral and wrong. To violate the Lord's expressed will for humankind, especially in regard to behavior that He has prohibited, is to court disaster.

Vote Yes on 1

Marriage Duty of the Surviving Brother

5 “If brothers dwell together, and one of them dies and has no son, the widow of the dead man shall not be married to a stranger outside the family; her husband’s brother shall go in to her, take her as his wife, and perform the duty of a husband’s brother to her.

6 And it shall be that the firstborn son which she bears will succeed to the name of his dead brother, that his name may not be blotted out of Israel.

7 But if the man does not want to take his brother’s wife, then let his brother’s wife go up to the gate to the elders, and say, ‘My husband’s brother refuses to raise up a name to his brother in Israel; he will not perform the duty of my husband’s brother.’

8 Then the elders of his city shall call him and speak to him. But if he stands firm and says, ‘I do not want to take her,’

Amen and I am done for the night COUPLE MORE DAYS AND THIS WILL ALL OVER!!

GOOD MY FRIEND, AND MAY GOD BLESS YOU HE LOVE EVERYONE WITHOUT EXCEPTION, Only us Humans Do. We are a broken people and we are need of FIXING!

Vote Yes on 1

Papere

I read all of your posts.

Good and relevant posts I might add.

Thank you for putting them up.

Already voted "YES" along with half my congregation.

Iseenow.....interestng how you cut & paste a pornographic website....Im not sure your reasoning.....but to me - you are from the YES side trying to scare people.......anyone - whether gay pr straight could find porn sites......and paste them.....IF this discussion were on Taling Away straight peoples Right to Marriage - and I wanted to post something to scare people.....the are MANY Heterosexual Porn sites to choose from to make Heterosexuals LOOK like sexual Perverts! So not sure of your purpose of doing this - but the moderator should remove it for all involved.

Yes on 1---- PROVES beyond a shadow of a Doubt - that BRAINWASHING via Religion works, and people like them have NO mind of thier own..they are Drones/Lemmings!

There is one right of marriage that should not be given to same-sex couples, and which every marriage should retain: the right to conceive offspring together, from the couple's own genes.

It is far too premature to say that there is an equal right to procreate with someone of either sex, which is what we are saying when we pronounce a couple to be married. Doing so requires using artificial gametes, first of all, and genetically modified gametes that do not actually represent any living person, creating people that are no longer the children of to people, opening the door to genetic engineering of all forms and wasting tons of money and energy.

Procreation is not a requirement, but procreating together, using the couple's own genes, is a right of marriage, and it should not be given to same-sex couples or stripped from marriage.

it does not matter if you vote no or you vote yes.every time this comes to vote it loses but if it wins then the next election it will be vise verse to try and get it thrown out.I'm half tempted to not vote I'm sick of hearing about it and if it passes then that's all we will hear until the next vote.

and another thing i dont think this F!@#$% news paper should be choosing sides what happened to jurnalism in this country what happened to being neutral.

what happened to Americans who use to keep their nose out of other peoples buisness.this country is turning in to a buncha candy a@# wine babies if they dont get their own way or cant stand on their owe two feet they wine bigot or racist and a million other things.show some dam pride for pete sakes.how about yes and no getting together and submitting a real bill .like bring ore boys and girls home or bring jobs back to America.i dont care if your gay if you pull your weight just like every other American go ahead and get married.we have far more important things to worry about then yes or no.

JohnHoward007 wrote:

"There is one right of marriage that should not be given to same-sex couples, and which every marriage should retain: the right to conceive offspring together, from the couple's own genes."

I don't see anybody making an issue about this other than you, and I don't see what this issue has to do with anything.

Most of what you post here is inane, idiotic, and irrelevant.

AionCA: I agree...re 8:26 Marriage is about a lot more than just sex and procreation, but some minds can't seem to get that concept. Plus, there are many children who need homes who could benefit greatly being raised in a nurturing and loving same sex parent family.

DisgustedAmerican: What ignorance that poster displays. It is a well known fact that the vast majority of pornographic sites and acts derive from heterosexuals.

Voted NO on 1.

cher - Pornography has not sexual orientation. It's all from Satan.

I meant 'no sexual orientation'.

From dna202 On 10/31/09 at 5:47 PM:

v_4_victory : Would plagiarism be considered a type 2 behavior? You forgot to change the reference to Iowans "Here I've summarized this earlier blog to emphasize the salient reasons why Iowans should to take the latter course"

Also you quote facts and figures with no reference to an old ACS study and a couple of guys at USC The reference you use to the "American Psychological organization" is interesting as no such place exists, or were you talking about the APA American Psychological Association that has no record of the study you are presenting (i checked, as you should have)

And furthermore you forgot to cut out the the reference to Senator Candaras and her arguments when you cut and pasted that portion of this garbage that you are claiming as you own.

Desperate times call for desperate measures HUH!

See how low you can sink to try to "prove" your point.

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

Response:

Actually, my post is a Category 1 behavior, because it will help produce a positive benefit by persuading those with an open mind to vote down same-sex "marriage." Also, no plagiarism -wrote it myself but forgot to take out a former reference to Senator Candaras. APA info is stated on their webpage.

cher: These self-proclaimed "moral" people are SO obsessed with people who only represent around 3% of the population, and what kind of sex THEY have - makes you wonder why it is they don't do a thing about the horrible things THEY are up to. Oh, that's right, so long as they can focus on persecuting gay people they don't have to look at themselves, and can go about their lives in the happy little delusion that they are so much better than everyone else.

Amazing how some people have so much free time on their hands to create multiple handles and over-post the same dogma across comments sections, isn't it ?

This is America, and America doesn't prefer one religion over another. If my church wants to wed same-sex couples, who are these people to dictate to it who it can marry ?

This IS about religious freedom.

The YES on 1 people seek to play the role of dictators over churches.

This is not acceptable in America.

Please Vote NO on Question 1, because churches that wish to marry people who are devoted and in love with one-another should not be prevented from doing so.

Marriage is about more than just reproduction, but it should continue to protect the couple's right to procreate, no married couples should ever be prohibited from procreating together using their own genes. All same-sex couples should be prohibited from procreating together using their own genes.

The majority of the USA (30 states including the very liberal california) has voted against gay marriage. Shouldn't that tell you something . Vote yes on 1.

Did anyone see the headline on DrudgeReport yesterday "BABIES WITHOUT MEN OR WOMEN"? It linked to this article:

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

"The science also raises the possibility of 'male eggs' made from men's skin and 'female sperm' from women's skin. This would allow gay couples to have children genetically their own..."

So it isn't just me, people are starting to talk about this.

"Response:

Actually, my post is a Category 1 behavior, because it will help produce a positive benefit by persuading those with an open mind to vote down same-sex "marriage." Also, no plagiarism -wrote it myself but forgot to take out a former reference to Senator Candaras. APA info is stated on their webpage."

Oh, spoken like a true fascist; the ends justifies the means.

Please Vote NO on Question 1 ~ Because Maine is not the Soviet Union, is not Iran, is not Communist China.

maineboy wrote:

"The majority of the USA (30 states including the very liberal california) has voted against gay marriage. Shouldn't that tell you something . Vote yes on 1."

It tells me that there are a lot of bigots in America, and that this is nothing for Maine to strive for.

Please Vote No on Question 1

AionCA: There have been some posters kicked off and then they come back later with another username. There are other posters who have used more than one username at a time to, apparently, increase their nastiness,etc. One username at a time should be more than sufficient!

"....., and can go about their lives in the happy little delusion that they are so much better than everyone else." Yes.....( and built on very flimsy, shaky ground.)

As for the poster right above your comment at 8:48 PM......He, in the past, posted things that were not valid ; attributed thoughts and words incorrectly to certain sources; but some of us picked up on the discrepancies . One in particular was glaring, and seems to be up to it again.

Mainetoy~~~~~~you be in Maine now toy~~~Can you say were u from

((((((((((((((((or get out of town )))))))))))))))))))))))

0 - 31 On Tuesday !!!

I can't wait!!

VOTE YES ON 1

((((((((((dang I wish I had known days ago that all it took was boo to get riid or snake. Dang))))))))))))))))

(((((ATTN~~~Pharmacy Alert~~Standby for major message~~Pharmacy Alert)))))

((((((((( ORDER EXTRA PAXEL & SEROQUEL FOR BIGOTS FOR NOV 4TH )))))))

(((((((((((( HAVE AMBULANCES STANDY BY ALL PHARMACY OUTLETS))))))))

((((((((((((( GOD SPEED Electra and Wife and Kitty NO on # 1 )))))))))))))))

As we get down to the wire, I see a great many emotional postings.

I do not believe there is any way to otherwise convince the people providing religious arguments against SS marriage that they should reconsider. That boat probably has sailed.

The Vote NO on 1 folks are equally convinced of their standing.

But, I would like to suggest that we put emotions aside for a moment and just look at the facts. "Just the facts, ma'am, just the facts." Now, "facts" should be obtained from reliable, authenticated sources. I contend that many of the "facts" presented by the YES people are, well, less than authenticated. I would ask them that when they hear of something they consider offensive, and justification for a YES vote, that they take the time to get on the internet, find a few reliable sources, and corroborate the issue. Obviously, going to the Baptist website will provide you with their opinions but not necessarily the facts. Check the American Medical Association, the major news outlets, and the like. Furthermore, pick up the phone and call your school board. Get the word from them if SS-marriage will be taught in schools. Try to avoid being sheep being led blindly. Research and discover the FACTS for yourself.

I have viewed some of the YES ads on TV and I can say strongly that some are just plain out-and-out fabrications. This is why I would like you to do the research yourself. Use multiple sources. Do it the scientific way (assuming "science" is not an evil word) and arrive at a legitimate answer. Taking the word of some preacher or some internet pundit I would hardly call scientific. You also must be prepared to accept that you might be wrong. After I have done research on various topics, I have changed my position, once I had the facts. You would proclaim yourself that God gave you a brain, presumably to use it to think. As my mother would say, "use your head for something other than a hatrack." Sound advice from an old-time Mainer.

Here are some facts I think you need to confirm:

1. Definition of marriage: Has been modified throughout history to fit the times. Recently modified to all different faiths, different races, free and slave, couples to marry. The trend is to make it more liberal and inclusive. Probably, because people would live together and we need the tax revenues.

2. A "legal in the eyes of the law" marriage consists of two parts: A required State-issued license and at least a JP/NP ceremony, or an optional religious ceremony. A religious ceremony might mean a lot to you but it means zero to the IRS. You need that State license. That is all the SS-marriage folks want - that legal piece of paper.

3. No one is going to force a church to perform a SS marriage, just as they are not now forced to perform inter-faith, inter-racial, divorced people, marriages. They can perform or not any marriages they choose. The State does not give a hoot. If you don't have the license, it won't matter to the State, anyway.

4. Legalizing SS marriage will not cause your church to lose its tax exempt status. How these two concepts ever got linked together is beyond me.

5. SS marriage, just as is the case with straight marriage, will not be taught in school or be a part of the curriculum. That said, I presume studying Current Events is not banned by the self-made prophets of the Almighty. I cannot think of an instance where there'd be "Marriage 101" on the course selection list. However, just as we have Black History month, and Native American cultural recognition, and all that, I cannot see any problem with acknowledging the fact that there are many kinds of families, SS partners being one of the many types of non-traditional families already out there.

6. Straight kids learning about gay kids and/or gay parents will not turn your kids gay. It might teach them tolerance for others. It would teach gay kids they are not alone in the world, a lesson many of us "of a certain age" would have appreciated some 40+ years ago.

7. Rome did not collapse due to homosexuality. Since Rome still exists, I wonder if it ever really collapsed. And, while I think the general population of gays is around 10%, I have been "corrected" by the YES people that the numbers are actually 2.5%. That said, you are tellWe ing me that 2.5% of the population was able to bring down the largest city-state in the ancient world? Very impressive. I did not realize we wielded so much power. Really, you need to study history from an impartial source that is not involved in organized religion.

8. There is no "radical homosexual agenda." There is no "homosexual agenda." We are lucky if we can get 20 guys to agree on a restaurant to throw a birthday party. There is no centralized and planned conspiracy to invade the straight world. Heck, we don't have the numbers. We are, after all, only 2.5% of the population, according to your own calculations. Hardly a threat.

9. We are everywhere and always have been. We have been around since time immemorial. We are in the military, we have died in wars. We have been there forever, serving in silence lest someone throw us out. We are your teachers, and yes, Sunday school teachers. We are your cops, fireman, mailmen, and gas station attendants. We are your commercial airline pilots (huge group). I, too, am a pilot with a twin Piper. No jokes about, "Well, fairies DO fly!" We have been in your neighborhoods and will be on Wednesday. Your kids go or went to a school with a fellow student that had SS parents. Check out this as a fact.

10. Regardless of Tuesday's outcome, we still will be here. If YES prevails, I will feel the worst for the families and their kids who now have been confirmed by their own neighbors that they are second-class citzens. A NO vote will have no effect (confirm this fact with other countries and states - again, use real facts) on straight families, children, the economy or the continuation of the world.

There are 10 items that I would ask the YES people to review with reliable, authenticated sources.

And, I might add, I think the YES people really ought to take a "chill pill" and just relax. On the whole, I have never seen a group of people so uptight, unhappy, sour, dour, and negative, as I find with in the YES crowd. I do not think I have seen a one of them smile on an TV ad. It is all hand-wringing and "save our poor children from the clutches of the evil homosexuals who will bring their deviant, filtly sex lives into the classroom in front of my children and God Almighty Himself, Amen."

Really, time to switch to decafe already.

Please Vote NO on Tuesday.

Thank you.

CGGage: re 11:39 PM Excellent, and very fair, detailing of this very important vote and matter of such importance to so many.

I hope we will be even more proud of Maine and Mainers come Tuesday night, don't you?

Voted NO on 1.

CGGage, you didn't mention the demand for access to whatever procreation technology might allow same-sex couples to have biologically related children together. That's the radical thing that will change the world for everyone and threaten everyone's marriage rights.

chersully: Thank you. I consider it high praise coming from you. Alas, I doubt it will do any good. I have found that once the religious types have their minds made up (usually by someone else) there is darn little you can do to change their minds. Facts just do not matter. If the high and mighty Lord God Himself said it, then that is it. Don't bother me with anything else. Of course, which one of these gods and which religion is anyone's guess.

I do not really get it. We worked so hard in the '60's to get people to question authority. Now, it seems we have regressed to the Dark Ages. Sheep, and sheep led by southern baptist types. I see enough of that from the local KKK chapter. It is particularly sad, too, for me as a gay Republican. We used to have a great party under Ike, Nixon, Ford, Reagan, and Bush-41. Pro-busines, very libertarian. I never like the DNC and their handling of business. The concept of "government can handle it all" just does not work. Having 30+ years as a consultant to various agencies down here, I shake my head and wonder how anything gets done. But, I digress. I think after Carter, the Dixie Democrats (always religious southern democrats) switched parties and teamed up with Reagan who was one of our boys. We were all sitting around the club on the Cape, mixing up Manhattans and talking Star Wars, contracts, and the end of the USSR. Somehow, Jerry Falwell waddled in with a bible in one hand and millions of votes in the other. The RNC got greedy and now we have all the bible thumpers who hitched their wagons to the RNC. It is obvious that they have driven the party into the ground and i really wonder if we will ever get back to the Goldwater and Rockefeller days.

The moderate and sensible Republicans like Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins are few and far between. You never hear any of that religious dogma from them, do you? I think Snowe and Collins speak volumes for Maine. Two Senators, both women, both Republican, and both surviving well in what has become a national backlash against the RNC by the people. Our senators exemplify the ORIGINAL and TRADITIONAL Republican concept of "live and let live." The new RNC is in shambles. Palin? You cannot be serious.

I am way off track. But, my point is that Maine has long held tolerance for others. I recall my mother telling me of "two women who have lived together for years" down the road. "They are nice. They don't bother anyone." THAT is the traditional Maine that I remember and I want to get back to.

I am hoping the cancer of the intolerant neo-Christians is not as bad as some say. We will learn on Tuesday.

Thanks for voting NO on 1!!!

JohnHoward007: Actually, there were a ton more of the misconceptions (no pun intended) that I could have mentioned but for sake of space, I limited it to 10 items.

I had not thought about this technology. Never really crossed my mind. Interesting idea. I am not so sure this would be hugely widespread practice. I am not even sure it is yet possible - sort of like human cloning - not quite there, or maybe should even be there (I will leave that the the medical ethicists).

Okay, so there are 2.5% of us out there, according to the Religious Right. Let's say that 50% might get married. We're down to 1.25%. Now, of that, we have those that would choose this new method over surrogates, adoption, or even those that already had kids. Lesbians, of course, can be artificially inseminated, for example.

So now were are really down in the numbers. I am not sure how this would exactly "change the world" nor how it might "threaten everyone's marriage rights." Maybe I am missing something but I am not seeing how the method in which a pregnancy is created for one couple will have any effect on the "marriage rights" of others. I just do not see that connection. Could you explain with an example?

JohnHoward007 wrote:

"CGGage, you didn't mention the demand for access to whatever procreation technology might allow same-sex couples to have biologically related children together. That's the radical thing that will change the world for everyone and threaten everyone's marriage rights."

I still don't see how my wife and I are threatened in ANY way by allowing our church, which wants to marry same-sex couples, to wed them.

You still have not shown me how, in ANY way, these couples are a threat to our marriage.

My wife and I have to agree, and conclude, that your motivation is not one of of any real concern for "marriage" or "traditional marriage".

I think you are more interested in harming same-sex couples and their families.

My wife is less generous, and says that you and people like you are malicious and evil people who need to be aggressively combated and rendered "inert" socially, because you represent the kind of poorly reasoned and justified oppression that is the hallmark of tyranny and fascism.

Save Maine, Vote yes on one.

4 straight people here already cast absentee ballots. Yes, it's that important to all of us...making sure our wishes are known. And nothing...NOTHING will stop us from putting our support behind equality for ALL. We voted NO on 1 because it's the right thing to do, for Maine.

gotta love the drop down banner. see what lots of out of state money will buy. still voting yes.

Trail of Tears was the Cherokee name for what the Americans called Indian Removal. During the 1800's, the US government created an "Indian Territory" in Oklahoma and sent all the eastern Native American tribes to live there. Some tribes willingly agreed to this plan. Other tribes didn't want to go, and the American army forced them. The Cherokee tribe was one of the largest eastern tribes, and they didn't want to leave their homeland. The Cherokees were peaceful allies of the Americans, so they asked the Supreme Court for help. The judges decided the Cherokee Indians could stay in their homes. But the President, Andrew Jackson, sent the army to march the Cherokees to Oklahoma anyway. They weren't prepared for the journey, and it was winter time. Thousands of Cherokee Indians died on the Trail of Tears. Many Native Americans from other tribes died too. It was a terrible time in history

Just another part of our Shamefull History. Led by none other then Religious People of the times. Whenever our Christain Peoples have wanted something or hated something or some peoples. The Christians have not acted Christianly for along long time. We have been in Wars where we thought someone was taking our freedoms.

But examples of what we did to Indians and Blacks had nothing to do with protecting our freedoms. To me it was ALL about Bigotry and what Christians were going to do about using any Peoples however they wanted to.

The Germans did the samething with the Jews that they were bigoted about.

Just Shamefull nothing but Shamefull.

Sunday might just be a good day to talk about that shame that is all of our past History.

And How we can take a different direction by STANDING TALL and saying on NOV 3rd. We HAD ENOUGH of listening to BIGOTS.

If just one person on here today can show me how this was right and how the same process is not going on today. Well you my person have one heck of a difference in what I think is the Spirit of God and whatever the Christ you think.

((( ElectraGlide and Hetro Family Voting NO on #1)))

(((And will be danggg ashamed of Maine)))

((( If Maine doesn`t Vote NO on # 1 by a Landslide )))

Sorry I Just Cannot Believe any other way is RIGHT !!!!!!!

Report abuse

On 11/1/09 at 6:44 AM, ElectraGlide wrote: Repeated separate thumbs down will cause comment to be hidden

Go Ahead Christian Bigots Just show me how this is not Evil.

Just tells US ALL how oh Gays are alright but we just do not want them to use the word Marriage.

Oh we care about Gays but WHAT!!!!!!!!

Gays are OK but WHAT.

I have to believe as HISTORY has shown us ALL you are LYING BIGOTS!!!

That in the Darkness of your Bigoted Minds you would just as soon have the Gays Trail of Tears and sit back and say.

I guess we showed them What God is All About.

((((( Just TRY and SHOW US ALL today of ALL days )))))

Voting NO on # 1 and it Should of NOT have needed to be DONE.

You Christians have Tried to Take A Human Right Law away from a People.

And You Are Going To Have To Live With That For The Rest Of Your Lives With It.

God Bless Us One and All

"Gov. John Baldacci, who reversed course and signed the gay marriage bill last May after hearing the impassioned public debate,..."

"Reversed course"???

He stayed on the fence as loooooooooooong as possible then did exactly what every person in this state expected he would do!

I don't have any problem with the Governor taking the position that he did.

The LIE being perpetuated, that he came to a difficult decision only after "hearing impassioned debate", is disgusting but typical biased "journalism".

The governor is far left LIBERAL. It comes as no suprise that he ALWAYS comes to left positions when he signs laws.

Stop pretending that's not the case.

Hey Cap~~~How would you have handled it.

Now remember don`t cha he has a gay in the immediate family

WHAT would you have DONE

Glass half empty is all we hear from you.

Go ahead we are waiting for your Spirit of God Answer.

Hey Cap~~~what do you do for a rec. do you hunt, fish, golf, snowmobile, r-wheeler, mortorcycling etc

Which one of the things you enjoy are you willing to give up???

Honestly, I've gotten sick and tired of the negativity and fighting on BOTH sides of the issue, and will be glad when the vote is over.

59 Hours to Go

Vote No! on Question #1.

Yep David , It will be over pretty soon.

I`m getting kind of addicted to this computer keyboard.

What am I going to do after this

Besides taking care of the yard and a ton of other stuff I have put off

This Equality thing is just to much fun even though it is not.

maineboy: It is interesting to see the banner ads here from a newspaper accused of being one-sided by their endorsement of "Vote NO on 1." The ads I see are by "Stand On Marriage", er, ah, "Stand FOR Marriage." You are correct, it is amazing to see the bucks coming in, mostly from one group (NOM). I have not seen any in BDN from the Maine Equality. I do not know where the idea came from that newspapers are neutral. In the News, yes, mostly, but the Editorial section is just that - opinion from the paper. If you want just News, then read Associated Press or BBC (both great sources). The classic example is the cartoon showing 3 newspapers and their headlines. In the "middle" is the headline, "Dog Bites Man." On the Left, is "Dog Defends Self from Evil Owner." On the Right, the headline reads, "Mangy, Godless Cur Attacks Born-Again Christian during Evening Prayers." All newspapers have an opinion. Perhaps, if people would read more than one (or one at all), they'd realize this.

It will be interesting to hear on Tuesday night whether the old saying, "Maine leads the Nation" will prevail or we will need to revise it to something like "Maine Reverts to the Dark Ages." Our motto, Dirigo, means "I Direct" or "I Guide" from the Latin. I wonder if this will remain accurate or we might consider some legislative action to modify it.

I see great potential for the State. New businesses are opening. International trade potential is increasing. Maine offers such attractive surroundings along with broadband infrastructure in even very rural areas. This bring in cash from out-of-state. In 2007, I did an entire year's worth of work for an out-of-state client from my farm in Maine, all because I had broadband and the local infrastructure to support it. This brought cash into the State (me spending my earned dollars there). It was a win-win for all. Multiply this many times over and all that support needed will need to come from someone local. Geography is becoming no longer a negative for business (except in hard goods, shipping, etc.) Those of us in the IT and Consulting fields will be able to do our work from anywhere. There are many examples of this already in Maine.

Granted, I do not believe there is much we can do to mass-employ the former mill workers. Those jobs are gone and not going to return (as far as I can see). So, adapt already. Our forefathers did. We can, too.

If Vote NO on 1 succeeds, the rest of the world (who is overwhelmingly pro-human rights) will look at Maine as an attractive place to setup shop. If the YES vote wins, then people will look at Maine not as young and professional but as old, stodgy, and out-of-touch with the real world.

No one has said this yet, as far as I have seen, but everyone knows that eventually SS marriage will prevail on a nationwide basis. All the naysayers from the 1950's predicted the end of humankind when "the races started to inter-marry." (Dear Lord God Almighty - think of how the poor children from such unholy unions [much flailing, hand-wringing, throwing oneself on altars, etc.]) will be treated. Yes, one became President of the United States of America. Eventually, this will happen. And, American will go on and even more people will want to come here. I had lunch with a friend last week who came to the USA many years ago from Algeria. He now is a US Citizen. He told me if there was one aspect of the USA that he liked the most, it was the freedom that we enjoy here, and that he felt many Americans take this for granted, and should not. Another friend of many years, escaped from Czechoslovakia, slept in ditches, got to Europe and made his way to the USA. He became a hugely productive and successful individual, liberal but a strong Catholic, and he never forgets what his life might have been. His two daughters graduated from college and another American story is made.

I mention all this as this is the America and Maine that I know. I did not grow up with the idea that a bunch of southern baptist, born-again, religious right nutbars would have the audacity to tell me how I should not live because it somehow offends their particular flavor of religion (as if their version is the only true religion, thank you, Jesus). Believe it or not, I have every respect for your religion and your right to practice it. The limitation is that I expect the same courtesy in return.

Why we are seeing this much controversy over something as benign as this just boggles the imagination.

I have not seen this much hoopla and drama at an Atlantic City Annual Drag Contest Cotillion.

8:56~~CGGage~~~How refreshing to read your stuff. The personel touch is just so much easier to feel what you were talking about.

Right w / ya the glass half full is so much more fun. Thank Ya

ElectraGlide: Thanks for the kind words. I am thinking about what to do when I retire to my family farm in Maine. Writing comes to mind. At least, I have the "volume" part down pat. (Just kidding.)

You have boots on the ground there. Any feeling how the vote really will go? The national news is talking "very tight." What concerns me is that the YES people will be on a Crusade to get to the polls because they are on a mission from God Almighty Himself, Amen. The NO people and those who are "ho hum" might languish. Weather is another factor. The YES people will view traveling through a hurricane to cast that vote as a test of their willingness to suffer for their faith in the eyes of their Lord, Amen. Can I get a Baaaa! from the choir?

Please, I have to stop now or get an insulin shot.

Anyway, you get the idea. I'm hopeful, optimistic, but also a bit cautious. I still may extend that offer of free one-way bus tickets to Lynchburg, VA, the home of Jerry Falwell, et. al. Must board the bus by Monday evening, though.

Hey, if the YES people win, where will the cross burning be held?

CGGage~~~As I have said in the past the timing is perfect for a demonstrated landslide.

What ever that is in anyones mind.

Other like a 60 /40 or something like that is my guess

The People of this Great are Feed Up with how things have been going.

They are tired of being lied to by those we are suppose to trust.

The tax issues are a big draw.

The Marajuana issue is a very positive ?

I think all the issue all 7 are going to cause all septrums of Maine to come out to vote.

I just got this REally Big Party Feelin Building Up IN Me

I for some reason as this State went with Obama the Will Vote for Change

Overwhelmingly

This State is Proud and Stands Tall

When they are Fighting for There Rights

Just Go To Gettysburg and See Our History

(((( Electra hetro male and wifey and kitty No on One for Everyone ))))

(((( The Spirit of Maine and the USA will never GO AWAY. NEVER NEVER EVER )))

Just Like the Perfect Storm

It is ALL over NOW

(((( Party ON for Equality is just around the Bend )))

CGGage: Thank you for all your posts, so refreshing to read. In this spirited debate it has become so easy to become angry and lash out at the lack of reason and, let's face it, abject bigotry and intolerance being presented under the vale of religion. There is no point in debating with these people anymore, they will just refuse to see the fact that this is an equality vote. On Tuesday yes voters are actually voting to strip a group of people of their rights. It's ok though eventually reason and civil rights always win, and these people will have to face their judgment and explain why they used the words of their gods to deny civil liberties to some of his/her people. Just look back at all the other disgusting things done in his/her name.The vote is razor thin and we feel that reason and tolerance will win the day. CGGage know there are people out there that feel the glass is always half full. Thanks for everything.

My wife and I proudly voted NO on one.

proudly voting yes to stop this immorality.

Matthew 7:1 “Judge not, that you be not judged. 2 For with the judgment you pronounce you will be judged, and with the measure you use it will be measured to you. 3 Why do you see the speck that is in your brother's eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye? 4 Or how can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when there is the log in your own eye? 5 You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother's eye.

(((Ya forbigshameforhim on Sunday Big Shame )))

((( Do appriciate the little comment though )))

((((( Kinda goes with yur Little Brian ))))

AH, using a bible quote and at the same time denying its authority. You should have no trouble understanding verse 5 which you posted ....hypocrite.

Ah yes BUT I am not judging a group of people to be "immoral" as you are - I am just pointing out the fact that you and others like you are doing just that - By denying people civil rights based on religious dogma that they are "immoral" you are judging them - I Don't believe that god gave you that right. isn't that his/her job? Denying it's authority? your right I too am Judging you, and, if, I do have to face my own judgment I will face that day with pride knowing I stood for the rights of my fellow man/woman and those who would deny them those rights.

Proudly Voted NO on ONE - not my place to enforce gods will on others.

ElectraGlide: Been to Gettysburg - just up the road from me. Very moving. Was there one time quite by accident when a reenactment was underway. Even at that limited size and knowing it was staged, the noise and the smell of the cordite, and the pressure waves from the concussions, were humbling. I cannot imagine what it was like in reality.

dna202: Thanks for the kinds words. True enough. That pig won't dance. I am envious of your ability to quote scripture in response to comments made by others. I was not raised in a heavily religious family. We were Universalists. So, my parents told me to search out what was right for me. I did and it did not include organized religion, dogma, ritual, and rites. I can respond only with logic but that is not something the neo-Christians seem to understand. I might as well be yapping to them in Mandarin. Conversely, when they quote scripture to me, it might as well be in Hindi. There is not a lot of common ground. But, the big difference, as I have said many times, I will not impede or interfere in their lives and beliefs. I only expect the same courtesy extended to me. Not a lot to ask, I think.

forHIMtoday: Please see my response to dna202, just above. One key aspect of "morality" is how arbitrary it is. Morality, above all, is in the eye of the beholder. You might consider SS marriage as immoral. I consider the deprivation of human rights to others as immoral. We will not agree on this, clearly. Just rest assured, and relax, that SS marriage will have no effect on you, your children, or the Fate of the Free World, It just won't. You are a person of Faith? Have some faith in me when I tell you this - nothing adverse is going to happen.

FORHIMTODAY... CLOSET COMFY?

FUNDIE FREAK!

Proudly Voted Yes on Question 1

From the American Psychiatric Association:

Link to supporting material on this statement

http://www.psych.org/Departments/EDU/Library/APAOfficialDocumentsandRelated/PositionStatements/200502a.aspx

Support of Legal Recognition of Same-Sex Civil Marriage

POSITION STATEMENT

Approved by the Board of Trustees, July 2005

Approved by the Assembly, May 2005

"Policy documents are approved by the APA Assembly and Board of Trustees… These are …position statements that define APA official policy on specific subjects…" -- APA Operations Manual.

As physicians who frequently evaluate the impact of social and family relationships on child development, and the ability of adults and children to cope with stress and mental illness, psychiatrists note the invariably positive influence of a stable, adult partnership on the health of all family members. Sustained and committed marital and family relationships are cornerstones of our social support network as we face life’s challenges, including illness and loss. There is ample evidence that long-term spousal and family support enhances physical and mental health at all stages of development.

This position statement is about the legal recognition of same-sex civil marriage, not religious marriage, and it does not pertain to any organized religion’s view of same-sex marriage.

Heterosexual relationships have a legal framework for their existence through civil marriage, which provides a stabilizing force. In the United States, with the exception of Massachusetts, same-sex couples are currently denied the important legal benefits, rights and responsibilities of civil marriage. Same-sex couples therefore experience several kinds of state-sanctioned discrimination that can adversely affect the stability of their relationships and their mental health.

The children of unmarried gay and lesbian parents do not have the same protection that civil marriage affords the children of heterosexual couples. Adoptive and divorced lesbian and gay parents face additional obstacles. An adoptive parent who is lesbian or gay is often prejudicially presumed as unfit in many U.S. jurisdictions. Furthermore, when unmarried couples do adopt, usually one parent is granted legal rights, while the other parent may have no legal standing. These obstacles occur even though no research has shown that the children raised by lesbians and gay men are less well adjusted than those reared within heterosexual relationships.

As the population ages, the denial of legal recognition of civil marriage has consequences for increasing numbers of older adults in same-sex relationships who face age-related health and financial concerns. Excluding these adults from civil marriage protections of survivorship and inheritance rights, financial benefits, and legal recognition as a couple in health care settings increases the psychological burden associated with aging.

The American Psychiatric Association has historically supported equity, parity, and non-discrimination in matters that have an impact on mental health. APA has also supported same-sex civil unions and the right of same-sex couples to adopt and co-parent children. This is because APA has a longstanding interest in civil rights and legal issues that affect mental health as well as a code of ethics that supports and respects human dignity. Educating the public about lesbian and gay relationships and supporting efforts to establish legal recognition of same-sex civil marriage is consistent with the Association’s advocacy for minority groups.

Civil marriage is associated with a unique set of benefits that provide legal and economic protections to adults in committed relationships and to their children. Equal access to the institution of civil marriage is consistent with the APA’s opposition to discrimination based on sexual orientation.

Therefore be it resolved that:

"In the interest of maintaining and promoting mental health, the American Psychiatric Association supports the legal recognition of same-sex civil marriage with all rights, benefits, and responsibilities conferred by civil marriage, and opposes restrictions to those same rights, benefits, and responsibilities.”

Proudly voted NO against bigotry and superstition.

dna, you have it so wrong, so backwards. You will not stand before Jesus (a Him by the way) with pride, your knees will bow in shame and it will be too late. You have a liberal juvenile view that were not suppose to stand up and say anything in regards judging sin or anything immoral, you obviously have no idea what the bible really says do you.

It will pass the law will be shot down, but THEN a recount will take place so we will never know for sure wed morning anyways regardless of what is counted or said, it will go to recount if the votes are accurate, another chance to drag this issue out more. Can't wait for the NO on one questions are off my TV

unashamedly voting yes to put a stop to this immorality.

According to YES Campaign, Law cannot permit adoption, foster parents or divorce and second or third marriages (Tell that to Elizabeth Taylor, please). On the other hand, as biological families can´t be set apart, so smuglers, trafickers, addicts, mobsters and that stuff can retain their biological and nuclear family, no matter what.

Unashamedly voted NO against intolerance, bigotry, and superstitious zealots.

What you call "immorality" isn't going away 4him.

You will have to endure us for your entire remaining life. Your vote of malevolence will not get rid of us.

It only strengthens our reserve against the likes of you.

WilliamDS: It does not get any plainer or more logical than that. Thanks for the posting.

forHIMtoday: I cannot come up with anything to tell you. We just are not going to agree on this.

unashamedly voting yes to stop this perversion.

Unashamedly voted NO against intolerance, bigotry, and superstitious zealots.

The most telling thing I have seen here in the last few days was the statement "morailty is in the eye of the beholder."

That is the single biggest truth that has been posted in any of these forums over the last few weeks. Sadly, it will be missed by those who should recognize it the most.

Vote No on 1.

unashamedly voted yes in the interest of protecting our children, isn't this fun little teddy?

Anything concerning you is fun 4him... fun like being dragged down a dirt road by a chain.

Already voted NO against the malevolence of superstitious, bigoted, zealots.

ForHimToday: I do know what it says the question here is did you just read it or did you comprehend what you were reading?

Romans 2 : 2:1 Therefore you have no excuse, O man, every one of you who judges. For in passing judgment on another you condemn yourself, because you, the judge, practice the very same things. 2 We know that the judgment of God rightly falls on those who practice such things. 3 Do you suppose, O man—you who judge those who practice such things and yet do them yourself—that you will escape the judgment of God? 4 Or do you presume on the riches of his kindness and forbearance and patience, not knowing that God's kindness is meant to lead you to repentance? 5 But because of your hard and impenitent heart you are storing up wrath for yourself on the day of wrath when God's righteous judgment will be revealed.

Tolerance and Patience and kindness are on the side of those who stand in the face of oppression and draw attention to his/her word being used to oppress (this is standing up and saying something) - But because of your hard and impenitent heart you are storing up wrath for yourself. Jesus said the same thing in a little less wordy way "let thee without sin cast the first stone"

The lust of this world will fade away, unashamedly for Jesus.

Rom 1:19 because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them.

Rom 1:20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse.

Rom 1:21 For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened.

Rom 1:22 Professing to be wise, they became fools,

Rom 1:23 and exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible man and of birds and four-footed animals and crawling creatures.

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

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

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

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

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

Rom 1:29 being filled with all unrighteousness, wickedness, greed, evil; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, malice; {they are} gossips,

Rom 1:30 slanderers, haters of God, insolent, arrogant, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents,

Rom 1:31 without understanding, untrustworthy, unloving, unmerciful;

Rom 1:32 and although they know the ordinance of God, that those who practice such things are worthy of death, they not only do the same, but also give hearty approval to those who practice them.

I Corinthians 6:9 (NIV) - Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.

I Timothy 1:8-11 (NASB) - "But we know that the Law is good, if one uses it lawfully, realizing the fact that law is not made for a righteous person, but for those who are lawless and rebellious, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers and immoral men and homosexuals and kidnappers and liars and perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound teaching, according to the glorious gospel of the blessed God, with which I have been entrusted."

2Cr 5:20 Therefore, we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God were making an appeal through us; we beg you on behalf of Christ, be reconciled to God.

Papere :

Nice try but 95 % of the sexual preditors are heterosexual.. Try again....

"The lust of this world will fade away, unashamedly for Jesus."

BWA HA HA HA HA HAAAAAA! oh... man...

BWA HA HA HA HA HA HA HAAAAAAAA!!!

You should go into stand-up comedy, 4him.

Nice dogmarrhea you got going there...

Interesting that forHIMtoday has never, not once come to the defense of his gay brother in law when someone brings up the (false) pedophile and gay "fact". Wonder how forHIMtoday's brother in law feels about that?

Trail of Tears article google

I want to ask those that say to you vote yes on 1 People to reread it.

The article says the Cherrokee lived in peace with ole (( whitey )) ((Blue Eyes)) and had houses and were trying to fit in. And the Supreme court said let the Cherokee live in Peace. A President said frig it and did what he wanted to. Don`t know what the Pres ajenda was. But anyway them dang Indians got moved the heck out of the way of something. Of Course there was just a little room left at the time for ole Whitey. You know lke everything west of the Smokey Mountains to California.

The Same Bigotry was displayed againts our American Women and ALL the Blacks

Then we have been told that the great plain tribes started problems. Well do you suppose the Cherrokee said anything to the Great Tribes of the Plains. Sioux, Appache are just a couple. I wonder what the Cherokee said to the plains tribes.

((( I don`t think it was don`t worry be happy ))). (((For ole Whitey will take care of You))).

((( Yep that was sure the case.)))

At least after WW 2 we helped Japan and Germany rebuild. Look at our American Indians. Bigotry for a couple of hundred years mite do that to you.

Sure because of the War with the Indians there is some hate. But for the American Indians it is much more than some hate.

You people that vote Yes go ahead.

The least you could do is say it was a shame what we did it.. You know really say it. The freakin shame in this country.

And some of these same people will say.

Why don`t we pull our troops home and just and wait for someone to attack us.

Well folks the hatefull bigotry in this ole USA will destroy us before the Muslims ever get here.

My God , Wake Up, We are Destroying ourselves

Look at the hate gangs. Crime and destruction all around us.

Yes I still think we are the best.

Much how much better could we get.

We haven`t even begun to start on that.

Going for a ride and enjoy the day.

I think the Spirit of the God made this Day for the Believers

((((Life Liberty and the Freedoms that only Equality can bring ALL)))).

(((Hetro Electric and Electro (wife) and Kitty Voting NO on # 1)))

(((((((((Because Thank God I still Can))))))))))

((( The American Womens Vote wil be the Wild Card )))

(((( What a Shocker this is going to Be ))))

(((Member ALL Maine Women)))

(( these Men did the same to you))

ForHimToday :So now we are to switch to the New American Standards" version of the Bible - the is the one that was rewritten to include condemnation of homosexuality to justify the bigotry and intolerance of the church.

Here is one you posted :

I Timothy 1:8-11 (NASB) - "But we know that the Law is good, if one uses it lawfully, realizing the fact that law is not made for a righteous person, but for those who are lawless and rebellious, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers and immoral men and homosexuals and kidnappers and liars and perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound teaching, according to the glorious gospel of the blessed God, with which I have been entrusted."

Here is the actual verse:

1Ti 1:9 Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers,

For wh___mongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine;

See a bit of a difference here? And you still worry about changing the definition of marriage when your own church changes the wording in the bible to support it's own needs. Who is the Hypocrite here - If you are going to be a fundamentalist you really need to stick to the fundamentals.

dna202, that was the undoubtably the best Biblical response I've seen hereover the last several weeks. I am for too much the heathen to be able to find all of those Biblical references, though I understood they existed.

All of you folks who keep quoting The Bible, and maintaining that Maines same-sex amrriage law should be shot down because "it's against Gods Word", and that everyone should heed the writings of said "Word"... how come it is that you have no response to Romans 2 : 2:1? How were you EVER given permission yo "judge"? It is right there, in "God's Word".

forHIMToday, you never directly answer that. You simply run out another 20 Bible verses as additional arguments, yet you never justify your position of using the Bible to say what you want it to, without ever answering to the parts of the Bible that you tend to ignore.

"Judge not, lest ye be judged." Well, here comes the judge, here come the judge...

Vote No on 1.

Oh You don't want to go there with me, wikipedia is far from inspired. Lets go to Leviticus and see if we can't grasp the full text.

Leviticus 18:22 - You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination.

Leviticus 20:13 - If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death. Their blood guiltiness is upon them.

((( I don`t know about anyone else )))

((( But forHIMtoday just took on )))

((((A New Understanding for ME))))

((( A Man that will not Stand Up for Family )))

((((( Is No Man to Me )))))

((( The Shame keeps Piling up Today )))

((((((((((( SUNDAY )))))))))))))))

((( Metro Electra and Electro Voting No on # 1 ))) (((Just membered Kitty Can`t Vote)))

((( Going to Fight for Her Rights Next Dang Straight on Tat

Keep going back to Leviticus, forHIM, keep going back.... Remember the laundry list of offenses punishable by death written in Leviticus? Oh yeah, those are out of context, but the gay stuff, nah, that's the truth.

Too bad Billy Mays isn't around, we could use him to announce the new Christianity... "Pick and choose your Bible concepts, folks, it's the Bible, your way! Don't like certain groups of people, pick a verse and shout it to the world. Someone uses one of those verses against you? Simple... just igore them! You don't need to believe all that written in the Bible, only the stuff you NEED!"

forHIMtoday if Wikipedia is "far from inspired" than what is Conservapedia then? It seems to be one of your sources of choice.

GCGage, we should not give same-sex couples equal procreation rights as a married man and a woman. It doesn't matter that there aren't very many same-sex couples who will want to try same-sex procreation, in fact, that just makes it all the more bizarre that you would put equal procreation rights at the top of your list of demands. It is far too premature to give equal procreation rights to same-sex couples.

All of the other rights and protections of marriage can be given with Civil Unions that are defined as "marriage minus conception rights".

Do not strip conception rights from everyone's marriage: all marriages should protect the couple's right to use their own genes to conceive children together.

"Procreation rights"?

"Rights"?

What?

"Doctor, my head hurts." "Stop banging it on the wall, that'll help."

Where do you people come from? Have you stepped out into the world in the last 50 years? Do you know that the world isn't like The Cleavers? come out into the light of day every once in a while, and get out from beneath that rock you live under. Sheesh

"Procreation rights"? My word, that is the funniest thing I have seen in ages.... And it is indicitive of why we are having these battles as a society.

and lets go to King James and see if we can't get a picture of whats going on.

Rom 1:26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:

Rom 1:27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.

Rom 1:28 And even as they did not like to retain God in [their] knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;

Rom 1:29 Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers,

Clearly the perversion of homosexuality is taking place. Don't fall for the liberal theology that tries to distort the word of God. NASB is only using a word that applys to our english language, don't be confused. Its one of the immorality's God even explains in detail!!!

((( I don`t know about anyone else )))

((( But forHIMtoday just took on )))

((((A New Understanding for ME))))

((( A Man that will not Stand Up for Family )))

((((( Is No Man to Me )))))

((( The Shame keeps Piling up Today )))

((((((((((( SUNDAY )))))))))))))))

((( Metro Electra and Electro Voting No on # 1 ))) (((Just membered Kitty Can`t Vote)))

((( Going to Fight for Her Rights Next Dang Straight on Tat

C'mon, JD tells us how Lot should have baked a pan of brownies and all would be well. Preach the word to us Judas. Take your thirty pieces of silver and your perversion and go..

Mar 8:38 "For whoever is ashamed of Me and My words in this adulterous and sinful generation, the Son of Man will also be ashamed of him when He comes in the glory of His Father with the holy angels.".....

I still can't stop laughing about "procreation rights...."

There's a whole lot of procreatin' goin on... Anyone can procreate as they so choose, there is no regulatory body that decrees "rights" to anyone. Yes, they have to be of legal consent-age, but that's it.

Marriage long ago stopped being only about having kids.

"Procreation rights"! Ha!

2Ti 2:12 If we endure, we will also reign with Him; If we deny Him, He also will deny us;

Jud 1:4 For certain persons have crept in unnoticed, those who were long beforehand marked out for this condemnation, ungodly persons who turn the grace of our God into licentiousness and deny our only Master and Lord, Jesus Christ.

Jer 14:14 Then the LORD said to me, "The prophets are prophesying falsehood in My name. I have neither sent them nor commanded them nor spoken to them; they are prophesying to you a false vision, divination, futility and the deception of their own minds.

Here comes the Judge, here comes the Judge...

Oh yeah, stone-throwers, too. "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone."

All rise, Judge forHIMToday Stone Thrower presiding, court is in session.

Mat 24:11 "Many false prophets will arise and will mislead many.

Mat 24:24 "For false Christs and false prophets will arise and will show great signs and wonders, so as to mislead, if possible, even the elect.

forHIMtoday I think you need to add this book to your reading list. Dale Carnegie wrote it and it is called "How to Win Friends and Influence People". It's a very good read and you would learn a lot from it.

Mar 14:56 For many were giving false testimony against Him, but their testimony was not consistent.

Knowing God Personally

What does it take to begin a relationship with God? Wait for lightning to strike? Devote yourself to unselfish religious deeds? Become a better person so that God will accept you? NONE of these. God has made it very clear in the Bible how we can know Him. This will explain how you can personally begin a relationship with God, right now...

Principle One: God loves you and offers a wonderful plan for your life.

God created you. Not only that, he loves you so much that he wants you to know him now and spend eternity with him. Jesus said, "For God so loved the world that he gave his only Son so that everyone who believes in him will not perish but have eternal life."1

Jesus came so that each of us could know and understand God in a personal way. Jesus alone can bring meaning and purpose to life.

What keeps us from knowing God? ...

Quoth forHIMtoday,

BLAH BLAH BLAH ALLAHU AKBAR BLAH BLAH BLAH!

BLAH BLAH BLAH ALLAHU AKBAR BLAH BLAH BLAH!

BLAH BLAH BLAH ALLAHU AKBAR BLAH BLAH BLAH!

BLAH BLAH BLAH ALLAHU AKBAR BLAH BLAH BLAH!

BLAH BLAH BLAH ALLAHU AKBAR BLAH BLAH BLAH!

A man totally incapable of independent thought...

"Why is it wrong, 4him" we ask.

"Because someone I never met said so" he responds.

Allahu akbar indeed.

What keeps us from knowing God? ...

Those who use "his Word" to suit their own purposes. That's what.

oh yeah Dale Carnegie of "Think and Grow rich", real Godly inspirational book. Now if you would only turn your darkened mind and use those same principles Carnegie used of burning your bridges towards God rather than wealth......you might find yourself on the right road.

Principle Two: All of us sin and our sin has separated us from God.

We sense that separation, that distance from God because of our sin. The Bible tells us that "All of us like sheep have gone astray; each of us has turned to his own way."2

Deep down, our attitude may be one of active rebellion or passive indifference toward God and his ways, but it's all evidence of what the Bible calls sin.

The result of sin in our lives is death -- spiritual separation from God.3 Although we may try to get close to God through our own effort, we inevitably fail.

This diagram shows the great gap that exists between us and God. The arrows illustrate how we might try to reach God through our own efforts. We may try to do good things in life, or earn God's acceptance through a good life or a moral philosophy. But our good efforts are insufficient to cover up our sin.

How can we bridge this gulf?...

forHIMtoday do you ever have an original thought? Can you fight for your position without taking information from other sources? Do you really oppose same sex marriage or is it just fashionable for you to oppose it? It seems that you cannot fight the battle without cutting and pasting from other peoples works. Why, aren't your convictions strong enough to use your own words? Is that why you need to have others fight the fight for you?

inciple Three: Jesus Christ is God's only provision for our sin. Through him we can know and experience God's love and plan for our life.

We deserve to pay for our own sin. The problem is, the payment is death. So that we would not have to die separated from God, out of his love for us, Jesus Christ died in our place. On the cross, Jesus took all of our sin on himself and completely, fully paid for it. "For Christ also died for sins...the just for the unjust, so that he might bring us to God."4 "...he saved us, not because of righteous things we had done, but because of his mercy."5 Because of Jesus' death on the cross, our sin doesn't have to separate us from God any longer.

"For God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, so that everyone who believes in him will not perish but have eternal life."6

Jesus not only died for our sin, he rose from the dead.7 When he did, he proved beyond doubt that he can rightfully promise eternal life -- that he is the Son of God and the only means by which we can know God. That is why Jesus said, "I am the way, the truth and the life; no one can come to the Father except through me."8

Instead of trying harder to reach God, he tells us how we can begin a relationship with him right now. Jesus says, "Come to me." "If anyone thirsts, let him come to me and drink. Whoever believes in me... out of his heart will flow rivers of living water."9 It was Jesus' love for us that caused him to endure the cross. And he now invites us to come to him, that we might begin a personal relationship with God.

forHIMtoday you should expand your reading list to include other books.

forHIMtoday....you need to be more careful....your copy and paste missed the "Pr" in the beginning of you 1:41 PM post. LOL

Principle Four: We must individually accept Jesus Christ as Savior and Lord.

The Bible says, "Yet to all who received him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God."10

We accept Jesus by faith. The Bible says, "God saved you by his special favour when you believed. And you can't take credit for this; it is a gift from God. Salvation is not a reward for the good things we have done, so none of us can boast about it."11

Accepting Jesus means believing that Jesus is the Son of God, who he claimed to be, then inviting him to guide and direct our lives.12 Jesus said, "I came that you might have life, and have it more abundantly."13

And here is Jesus' invitation. He said, "I'm standing at the door and I'm knocking. If anyone hears my voice and opens the door, I will come in."14

How will you respond to God's invitation?

Good afternnon, and welcme, ladies and gentlemen, saved and sinners alike, to "The Gospel According to forHIMToday, self-appointed Judge, and resident Stone-Thrower of the Yes on one Tribe. In todays episode, forHIMToday will continue his ongoing use of Biblical verses to answer his many critics, while never bothering to address the questions directly asked of him. Watch as he deftly uses biblical quote after biblical quote to slam gays in todays society, without ever acknowledging the parts of the Bible that is guilyy of disobeying. PLUS he will continue to illustrate how folks used to think 50 years ago without ever allowing for anyone to have a difference of opinion. All that and more, on this episode of "The Gospel According to forHIMToday.

You can receive Christ right now. Remember that Jesus says, "I'm standing at the door and I'm knocking. If anyone hears my voice and opens the door, I will come in."15 Would you like to respond to his invitation? Here's how.

The precise words you use to commit yourself to God are not important. He knows the intentions of your heart. If you are unsure of what to pray, this might help you put it into words:

"Jesus, I want to know you. I want you to come into my life. Thank you for dying on the cross for my sin so that I could be fully accepted by you. Only you can give me the power to change and become the person you created me to be. Thank you for forgiving me and giving me eternal life with God. I give my life to you. Please do with it as you wish. Amen."

If you sincerely asked Jesus into your life just now, then he has come into your life as he promised. You have begun a personal relationship with God.

Darn it, I thought I did all that without any typos. :)

references to read and study

(1) John 3:16

(2) Isaiah 53:6

(3) Romans 6:23

(4) 1Peter 3:18

(5) Titus 3:5

(6) John 3:16

(7) 1 Corinthians 15:3-6

(8) John 14:6

(9) John 7:37,38

(10) John 1:12

(11) Ephesians 2:8,9

(12) John 3:1-8

(13) John 10:10

(14) Revelation 3:20

(15) Revelation 3:20

And the editors ask....are we done cutting and posting other peoples works today forHIMtoday?

ricts1, don't laugh, people are demanding that same-sex procreation be a legal right. Same-sex procreation requires genetic engineering and should be prohibited, in order to preserve natural conception rights. It would be incredibly unethical and unwise for us to allow genetic engineering, and we certainly shouldn't do it inadvertently, fooled by people claiming that it was only about hospital visitation and such.

Marriage should not be changed - it should continue to protect the right of the couple to use their own genes to procreate together. And we should not give that right to same-sex couples.

The time is over for opinions and arguments, the time has come for all to decide what gate they will chose to go through.

Mat 7:13 "Enter through the narrow gate; for the gate is wide and the way is broad that leads to destruction, and there are many who enter through it.

Mat 7:14 "For the gate is small and the way is narrow that leads to life, and there are few who find it.

On 11/1/09 at 12:29 PM, anonon wrote: "Nice try but 95 % of the sexual preditors are heterosexual.. Try again.... "

The 5% who are Homosexual will cease being predators once they are able to marry.

Another reason to vote "No" on 1 (that's as good as any that have been put forth so far).

forHIMtoday - please help me spread awareness of the real demand for same-sex procreation technology. It would be unethical and should not be allowed.

take your thirty pieces of silver JD, you have chosen your gate.

And which gate has your gay brother in law chosen?

forHIMtoday...no one has paid me for my vote.

forshametoday~~~how about dem Indians do you think that was right

Those were God Thumping Believing Soldiers that did That Shame

"And for the rest of you, those who do not believe in The Bible, or who may very well participate in any of the other religions in the world, you are lesser beings, you are not enlightened, and thus you do not have the right to choose how you wish to live. Only we, true Christians, have the right to do that, for we are the chosed ones, and those who know the way. The rest of you can simply wait for us to determine how you are allowed to live and persue happiness, you with your lesser religions, or worse, none at all. You simply aren't worthy of independent thought and action."

Typical thought process of the Yes on 1 crowd. this is how you approach "the rest of us" when you quote the Bible to us, over and over and over again, as the reason for deciding anything. Folks you are welcome to your beliefs. Allow the rest of us the freedom to believe as we wish, and not to legislate based on your particular belief-set. Remember, "belief" ins't "fact", it is a "belief that something has happened or will happen." "Faith" is much the same. It is powerful, and I'm glad it works for you. You must realize that your "beleifs" do not necessarily have agree with mine, so long as we all behave according to civil law.

Vote No on 1.

I don`t know why I bother he never has answered me on anything.

Just dumb ole me

not worth the time of day to talk to

And I ain`t even gay

I just be an all ex-chistian alter

how about givin it a shot saving me

You told a tale ones of doing just dat

You know, it might be easier to follow this Christ fellow if it weren't for his cheer leaders.

I can't help but wonder... can God actually be happy with 4him considering all the people he's driven away?

I just can't see it...

forHIMtoday has driven more people away then you will ever know tedlick.

ricts1~~~100;58////////////~~~Is that an Ismanic religion you are taliking about

so much to try to read you know of 4him

JohnHoward007 wrote:

"forHIMtoday - please help me spread awareness of the real demand for same-sex procreation technology. It would be unethical and should not be allowed."

You two freaks should just get a room and work-out your latent homosexuality on one-another and leave the rest of us in peace.

Vote NO on ONE ~ because it's NONE OF forHIM's damn business what you and Jesus say to one-another.

On 11/1/09 at 1:50 PM, JohnHoward007 wrote: "ricts1, don't laugh, people are demanding that same-sex procreation be a legal right. Same-sex procreation requires genetic engineering and should be prohibited, in order to preserve natural conception rights. It would be incredibly unethical and unwise for us to allow genetic engineering, and we certainly shouldn't do it inadvertently, fooled by people claiming that it was only about hospital visitation and such."

OK, I'm going to try and do this calmly, and rationally, and to not patronize too much.

(Looking for my tin-foil hat, beacuse I know "they" are after me.)

What kind of propoganda are you reading or listening to, My Howard? Please, please, please cite to us all where it can be proven that someone is demanding "genetic engineering" rights? And exactly how that relates to the issue at hand? The issue at hand is whether or not all people are allowed to marry or not. That is all. There is no provision in this ballot question about "genetic engineering." If there were, I would be strongly against it, as well. This has NOTHING to do with "genetic engineering".

Are you really serious with this? Really? Have you been watching The X-Files or Fringe too much?

You must come to the understanding that one does not need to be married to procreate. There is no law against "procreating without a license." People do it every day, married or not. This ballot question has absolutley nothing to do with procreation, just as traditional marriage has no requirements regarding procreation.

{shaking head}

Now where'd i put my tinfoil hat again?

forHIM, it is a glaring fact that you are advocating removing the civil rights of a minority based on your religious beliefs. I suspect you would also target Muslims, Catholics, Jews and Buddhists if they were as easy a target as gay people. Your argument is always about your perception of morality and Biblical text, but I believe the real foundation of your support for repeal is hatred which you attempt to disguise somewhat. Hatred causes people to refer to others as “immoral” or “depraved, perverted,” and many of the names I’ve seen posted here. Dehumanizing people makes it easier to mistreat them.

I also believe you support Heath’s goal of removing sexual orientation from the Maine Human Rights act, and removing human rights teams from schools because you want to discriminate against gay children and gay adults in our communities. You would sacrifice the other protected classes just to be able to legally treat gay people badly.

It’s not going to happen and Mainers see your transparency.

Vote NO on ONE

member for him there has been extra medications for you

for Oct 4th with ambulance waiting

do you have medic alert

still time to get it.

like monday

onjustforyou

Don`t worry thought, I`m sure therer are plenty of gay men and women

to serve your Lord Ship

At EMMC/

Don`t worry now they have to take care of you

they wouldn`t hurt a fly not even a snake

bet the old cap has a cane with multible snack heads on it

Boy oh Boy - I take a little break from this, and come back to find ForHimToday quoting the bible from Matthew 7 yet again - Did you forget to read the whole thing again - how quickly we forget -

Matthew 7

1Judge not, that ye be not judged.

5Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye.

13Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat:

14Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.

15Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.

More doom and gloom from a false prophet

Don't confuse him with facts, dna202.

YOu know I only use those nasty handle names for out of state trolls

Why you being so nasty is it because you just home from

Bigot Class and your frustrated with the fact that

you can tell your losing

frustration always shows

just like evil does

One Way Ticket to Afganistan seems in Order.

Forshametoday

When people demand equal rights for same-sex couples, they demand equal procreation rights. That either means saying that a married man and woman do not have a right to procreate together using their own genes, or it means that a same-sex couple does have a right to procreate with their own genes.

They shouldn't have equal rights, only male-female couples should be allowed to procreate with their own genes. Same-sex couples should be prohibited from attempting to procreate together. All marriages should be allowed to procreate together.

Do some googling.

Ya dna202~~I was out on a ride but a cold wind came

just had to get back before wanna be

Charles Manson struck again

JohnHoward007 I am not going to waste my time Googling some "conspiracy" theory. You should post your "evidence" and/or source.

forHIM's strategy is to get people to hate Christianity, to try to get people to say bad things, so that he can feel a smug sense of self-righteousness and delusional self-worth.

But Christians I know are not frauds like forHIM.

It's funny how forHIM NEVER quotes ANYTHING Jesus said about love or judgment.

Or any of the parables. Or really anything truly Christian.

You worship in your sick and twisted church, forHIM, and I'll go to mine, but don't you think for a moment we are going to let you dictate to us who we minister to.

You failed and drove people away from your churches, you mistreated them and harmed them and their families and their children. I see new people coming to my church all the time, your cast-offs. We accept them and treat them with the respect they deserve. So keep up your work, you and Satan.

Vote NO on ONE ~ Love is not evil, love is not something to fear, love is not something to denigrate, love is not something to forbid.

Dang another armchair God~~JonhHoward007

the name does not fit the personality

Just more wanna be stuff 007 right (cough cough)

how about slap slap over Gods Knees

OMG they all got out of Bigot Class together

thats where the wind comes from

All huffing and puffing to save ALL mankind

What do the women do to Serve ya Master Race