Get-out-the-vote effort in high gear

Yes on 4!

Vote NO on everything!!!

The reality is many gay couples have children and are helping society to raise the next generation of children, in many of those cases, raising children whose biological parents didn't or couldn't raise them themselves.

Right there, these couples qualify under the Yes' definition for the purpose for marriage and the state of Maine therefore does have a vested interest in equally protecting these relationships.

Vote No on One and extend the protections of marriage to ALL COMMITTED COUPLES RAISING CHILDREN!

Shannon, those gay couples should have all the rights of marriage in the form of Civil Unions that do not grant equal conception rights. People should only have the right to reproduce with someone of the other sex, and all marriages should protect the couple's right to attempt to procreate together, with the couple's own genes. No marriage should ever be prohibited from procreating together with their own genes, but all same-sex couples should be.

Marriage gives a couple the right to make more children, it is not really about existing children anymore, since divorce is now possible.

Vote Yes on One to preserve marriage's procreation rights and everyone's equal procreation rights. (Of course, we will also have to prohibit genetic engineering and same-sex conception, but that will be incompatible with marriage, so we might as well not delay, so as not to confuse children by telling them that men can marry men any longer.

I really do not know why they WASTE SO MUCH MONEY on these "so called" subliminal trashy signs. I would NEVER be swayed by a useless sign on the side of the road. I look at them as litter, and especialy at the ones that cannot withstand the weather that are blown down or 1/2 off the stake. They annoy me...and I feel other people too...therefore possibly making people not want to vote for their efforts. People are smart we can READ and make our OWN decisions. Use the money to get information out there...not just a blast of garbage in our face.

On 11/1/09 at 11:16 PM, JohnHoward007 wrote:

"Marriage gives a couple the right to make more children, it is not really about existing children anymore, since divorce is now possible."

Hmm, I point out that many gay and lesbian couples fit the purpose for marriage, so you change the purpose for marriage. Are we five in a school yard playground?

Marriage is much more about raising the children then creating children, we all know one night of passion is all that is needed for that. The raising of children is what requires the commitment.

So sorry JH007, we are going to have let gay Johny and lesbian Susie play with us on the playground.

Let's see......the Religious Right

1. Don't want gays to marry or raise children.

2. Want to ban all abortions.

3. Want to define marriage between a man and a woman for the sole purpose of procreation according to THEIR Bible.

Notice they don't say anything about:

1. Adultery

2. Divorce

3. Domestic Abuse

4. Child abuse

It's a one way street for these people.........and that street is littered with hypocrisy and personal agendas.

Therefore shall a man leave his mother and father ( woman & Man) and shall cleave unto his wife( woman); and they shall be one flesh> Gen. 2:23

A virtuos woamn is a crown to her husband ( man). Proverbs 12:4

From the begining of time God made one male and one femal. For this cause shall a man leave his father ( male) and mother( female; and cleave to his wife( woman) Mark 10:6,7

The woman which has a husband( male) is bound to her husband(male) so long as he liveth. Romans 7:2

Let every man have his own wife ( female), and every wife have her own husband. 1 Cor. 7:2

Wives (women) submit yourself unto your husbands, as unto the Lord. Eph. 5:22

Husbands love your wives( women) even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it. Eph. 5:28

Ye husbands, dwell with them according to knowledge, giving honour unto the wife( woman) as unto the weaker vessel. 1 Peter 3:7

As the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives( women) be to their husbands( men) in every thing. EPph. 5:24

The woman is the glory of the man. 1 Cor. 11:17 The haed of the woman is the man. 1 Cor. 11:5

Now that you know what GOD'S WORD SAYS her is WORLD BOOK DICTIONARY's definition of MARRIAGE:

The act of living together as husband and wife, relation between husband and wife, married life, wedlock. " We wished the bride and groom a happy marriage . " The condition of being husband and wife. arriage emphasizes the union of a man and a woman.

HUsband : a man who has a wife, a married man.

Wife: A woman who has a husband, a married woman.

MARRIED : living together as HUSBAND and WIFE.

It is clear as the light of a bright day what marriage is to God and society since the beginning of time. Those seeking to change it to suit MAN'S VERSION should seek something other then CHANGING THE WRITTEN WORD OF GOD to suit themselves. Marriage is a sacred unity blessed by God as defined by GOD, any other is subject to man's interpetation of personal feelings and in the end is still that way no matter what it is called. Voting no on 1 is creating a fantasy which can never be what God intended nor what is written in HIS WORD no matter how hard man trys.

The fear of the Lord is the begining of knowledg; but fools despise wisdom and instruction. Proverbs 1:7

The wisdom of the world is foolishness to God. Cor. 3:19

VOTE YES ON 1 as anything other is demeaning to GOD'S WILL AND HIS WRITTEN WORD and is soully of MAN; who can do nothing to save your soul.

VOTE YES ON 1 as MARRIAGE is a MAN AND A WOMAN and no other combination and that is the WORD of GOD, .

Man can believe or say anything but IT DOES NOT MAKE IT SO....in the end GOD has spoken and man has chosen.

VOTE YES ON 1 as it is the right thing to do. Legislators write a better law to assist these other unions, do not expect the world to accept the decision to change ideals as voted by the chosen few on something so vital in the eyes of God and society since the begining of time. YES< YES< YES ON 1!

There is no THEIR BIBLE ... the BIBLE IS GOD'S WORD and NO ONE ELSES. And there are many married couples who do not chose to have children or can not have children. WILL ALL OF YOU STOP USING THE CHILDREN in attempts to gain position on this vote. Father, please forgive your children for they know not what they do. VOTE YES ON !.

Good try sebec39, voting no on everything sounds good and gives marriage as a sacrifice by default. VOTE YES on 1.

California previously issued marriage licenses to same-sex couples but stopped last year after voters, with 52 percent of the vote, amended the state constitution to limit marriage to a man and a woman.

In the five other states where gay men and lesbians are allowed to marry their partners, permission was granted by courts or legislatures. That permission was reversed by referendum in each case ( Washington Post)

Vote NO on Question One

Because people like MaineMaiden are fanatics that have zero respect for anyones religion, but their own; and therefore, must be stopped from setting public policy, because they don't CARE about anybody else.

Dear MaineMaiden,

The Declaration of Independance says all people "are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights,

that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness"

Please don't forget that. Especially the "pursuit of happiness" part.

Vote No on 1.

Thanks.

The following is taken from " The Trashing of America":

Teaching Homosexuality in Public Schools

By Vic Bilson

Jeremiah Project

Another part of the political agenda of the homosexual movement is the ability to teach homosexuality in public schools, the ability to get a license from the state to marry, to adopt children, and to be counselors of youth groups.

Among the demands put forth by organizers of the "March on Washington for Lesbian, Gay, and Bi[sexual] Rights and Liberation" was a homosexual "civil rights" law that includes provisons for transvestite and gay curricula in schools.

The Gay, Lesbian and Straight Teachers Network (GLSTN), headquartered in New York City, is working - quite successfully - to influence policy in public and private educational circles. Boasting over 40 chapters nationwide and a membership of 4,000, GLSTN is comprised of teachers, students and parents.

GLSTN sponsors several programs aimed at reaching youth with a pro-gay message. GLSTN's in-school programming includes "curriculum development such as a Lesbian, Gay, and Bisexual History Project and support programs such as Gay-Straight Student Alliances."

At the beginning of each school year, GLSTN sponsors its "Back-to-School Campaign," which encourages "lesbian/gay/bisexual adults and their allies [to] mount a major education campaign through letters back to their former schools... to change the 'hearts and minds' of [the] leaders who control our schools."

Additionally, GLSTN uses videos to reach teachers and school administrators with its message. It has been responsible for the wide circulation of two videos, "Teaching Respect For All" and "It's Elementary: Talking About Gay Issues in School". "It's Elementary", a feature-length documentary, attempts to make a compelling case for including gay issues as part of "multicultural" education. This video serves as "a window into how teachers can find ways to teach children about gay issues," particularly in elementary - and middle-school classrooms.

In Provincetown, Mass., the school board has voted to begin teaching preschoolers about homosexual lifestyles and to back hiring preferences for "sexual minorities." Susan Fleming, superintendent of Provincetown schools, said "The whole question is making gays and lesbians, whether through visuals or examples or acknowledging different family structures, ... visible."

Do you or do you not believe that this type of agenda will or will not be brought to MAINE SCHOOL CHILDREN ???????? VOTE YES ON 1!

AionCA

YOU do NOT know me at all. Thanks for labeling me, shows your intelliegence. I am a very caring person who does not discriminate. I am stating fact not fiction and I believe there are ways to write a better law that can help gays and lesbians and their families ( of which I have many friends). Keep your labels for your canning jars not for people.

MaineMaiden: If the label fits, wear it, sweetie.

Do you follow all the laws laid out in the old testament sections you constantly quote from ?

You quote and misquote The Bible frequently, yet you never quote anything that it says about Love.

Why is that ?

Is it because to do so would it contradict EVERY assertion you make here against people who are devoted and in love with one-another ?

And that it would prove you to be a big hypocrite, fraud, and liar ?

Vote No on Question 1 ~ Because people have used scripture in the past to justify the burning of "witches", enslaving other people, preventing women from voting, and preventing people of different races from marrying.

They were so wrong then for ignoring what The Bible has to say about Love, and they are so wrong now.

MaineMaiden wrote:

"AionCA YOU do NOT know me at all. Thanks for labeling me, shows your intelliegence."

You are welcome. By the way, it's spelled "intelligence"

"I am a very caring person who does not discriminate. I am stating fact not fiction and I believe there are ways to write a better law that can help gays and lesbians and their families ( of which I have many friends). Keep your labels for your canning jars not for people."

You are a transparent liar, it is OBVIOUS that you do not HAVE any friends who are gay, so save it, sister, for someone who believes your overt lies and fraud.

Anyone can love anyone but that does not mean their love is condoned by God as marriage.

I am NOT misquoting , have you read a BIBLE lately? Look whose trying to use fear tatcics now.....

Why is it if anyone believes in the written WORD of GOD they are liars and misquoting and hypocrites???? Cause it fits your cause????

Keep hiding quotes with the thumbs down because you are afraid to have anyone read GODS WORD not MAN's OPINION. VOTE YES ON !

MaineMaiden wote : "AionCA YOU do NOT know me at all. Thanks for labeling me, shows your intelliegence."

The way YOU label gay people ?

You are such a hypocrite !

I've seen the crap you've written in these comments sections about how sick and perverse you think gay people are.

Well, I'm calling you out for it, you freakin' fraud, you liar.

You have some nerve pretending to be a victim here.

Why should anyone believe ANYTHING you have to say ?

You are a bald-faced liar. And you are no Bible scholar.

Shannon, marriage used to be about committing couples to each other before they were allowed to have sex and create children together, but now we don't care about the commitment, we let couples divorce and we don't even require them to marry at all, because we accomplish the commitment with child support laws and paternity tests. But marriage still grants approval of the couple conceiving together, and we still don't let couples that are prohibited from procreating together from marrying, like siblings, for example.

You didn't address my main point, which is that we shouldn't let same-sex couples procreate with each other. We could, but doing so would open the door to genetic engineering and cost tons of money and threaten everyone's natural procreation rights. Do you agree that we shouldn't let labs try to make biologically-related babies for same-sex couples?

MaineMaiden,

You never answered my question about the Old Testament quotes you hurl around with impunity, do you follow the things lain out in the same places you are quoting from, or do you, hypocrite and liar and fraud that you are, choose to ignore them, because they don't apply to YOU ?

Go ahead, back peddle some more, you fraud.

AcionCA

As a matter of fact I have a very dear gay friend whom taught in our elementary school for years and moved away and has disclose his sexual preference and is still teaching today. He comes to see our family whenever he returns to Maine and owns a huge piece of our hearts. We also have numerous Bi-sexual friends. I have gay people in my family, cousins. YOU are so wrong about me but that only proves you are in this to ctreate drama, I am in it to see a better law written and marriage to stay as GOD intended. As far as the teaching in schools that is fact taken from whince it came and I do not belive that anyone should force their lifestyle choices on anyone in schools.

JohnHoward007:

Existing laws in Maine already protect gay people from people like you with your agenda.

So stop lying, No on 1 is about MARRAIGE, it has NOTHING TO DO with procreation, you liar.

Admit it, you seek to overturn other laws that are already voter approved that protect gay people in Maine.

Laws that already permit them to use whatever future technologies that may come about, if they are married or not.

Your real agenda is transparent. Who the hell made you the procreation police ?

I have never written any posts about gay people being sick or pererse, so who is trying to discredit whom here????

You I am seeing though are a blad face liar and are labeling people. I am well known where I live for being one of the most fairest people around.

Bible scholar ? I never said I was but you obviously read things that aren't there in my posts better get your eyes checked.

Really AcionCA you hurt the No Movement. People like you are going to set this country back decades. People like me are trying to find a better way for us all. I do not need to defend my self to a drama train personality like you. VOTE YES ON 1 !

MaineMaiden wrote:

"...As far as the teaching in schools that is fact taken from whince it came and I do not belive that anyone should force their lifestyle choices on anyone in schools."

Marriage isn't "taught" in Maine schools. You are a liar. Your agenda is to prevent MY church from marrying gay people, period. At least admit what your real intentions are, to stop other churches from ministering to the people YOUR church has rejected and has failed to care for.

I maintain that you are a fraud and a liar. And your spelling is simply atrocious.

Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul and with all thy might. Duet. 6:5

We know that all things work together for good to them that love God. Roamans 8:28

By this we know that we love the children of God, when we love God, and keep his commandments. 1 John 5:2

GOD is LOVE. 1 John 4:16

Now let's keep the term love as God intended it not as a sexual preference but as a state of brotherhood , friendship and kindness.

I never said marriage was taught in Maine schools. I asked do you or do you not believe that this type of agenda will or will not be brought to Maine school children???? Now the last I knew that was a question. Keep twisting AcionCA as that seems to be your style. I am not dictating what any church can or can not do and I believe that the doors to a church are open to all people always....marriage though as defined by GOD is not. VOTE YES ON 1! I am not the best typist and therefore when hurrying hit keys out of sequence or some not at all but you just keep on attacking me with no prrof, no basis for your drama and show everyone your true colors. Like I say, you hurt the No vote. YES ON ! and back to the table to come up with a better public law that works for all people without destroying GODS DEFINTION OF MARRIAGE! YES ON 1 !

The Lord perserveth all them that love Him; but all the wicked He will destroy. Psalm 145:20

Grace be with all them that love Jesus Christ. Amen. Ephesians 6:24

Know therefore that the Lord thy God, He is God, the faithful God, which keepth covenant and mercy with them that love him and keep his commandments to a thousand gererations; .... Dueteronomy 7:9

Thu shalt love thy neighbor as thyself. Lev. 19:18

Like iI said AionCA let's keep the meaning of the word love as God intended it and not try and twist and present it to be sexual in meaning.

You can always love someone and not love everything they choose do, I am sure you know that.

By love serve one another. Gal. 5:13

The Lord make you to increase and abound in love one toward another, and toward all men. 1 Thes. 3:12 Clearly ; BROTHERHOOD.

Something that does not include attacking others verbally without proof AionCA! OR TWISTING their words...read more carefully and maintain what you read.

Loving my gay, lesbian or bi-sexual friends does not mean going against the word of God , it is inclusive. The word of God also clearly defines marraige as between a man and a woman. So again , I say MAINE CAN DO BETTER ...WRITE A BETTER LAW..... VOTE YES ON 1 !

FOOD FOR THOUGHT :

Gay and lesbian issues cross social, legal, moral, and religious boundaries and mores. Should issues regarding gays and lesbians be discussed in the elementary school?

Many teachers and parents have legitimate concerns about whether it is appropriate or necessary to teach young children about gay and lesbian issues. Furthermore, parents' beliefs on these topics may conflict with the teacher's, and teachers may feel torn between their personal beliefs and their responsibilities as educators.

Gay Curriculum Proposal Riles Elementary School Parents Friday, May 22, 2009 ?By Katie Landan FOX NEWS

”And Tango Makes Three," about two gay penguins who raise a baby peguin, is the basis for grade school teachings on gay and lesbian lifestyles.

A group of parents in a California school district say they are being bullied by school administrators into accepting a new curriculum that addresses bullying, respect and acceptance -- and that includes compulsory lessons about the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender community that will be taught to children as young as 5 years old.

The parents from the Unified School District in Alameda, a suburb of San Francisco and Oakland, say these issues are best learned at home and most definitely are not age-appropriate for elementary school children.

The parents are also angry that they will not be allowed to keep their children out of the classes.

VOTE YES ON 1!

We have one more day until Maine tells the world we do not discriminate! VOTE NO ON 1.

VOTING YES ON 1 does not mean that all people are discriminating...stop the fantasy.... some people simply see that there is going to be a lot of after math to wade through if the current law is upheld due to what it seeks to destroy, MARRIAGE AS DEFINED BY GOD. So by voting YES ON 1 they are saying, I love my gay, lesbian and bi-sexual friends and family enough to want a better written piece f legislature to seek the inclussion into many matters they are seeking. The vote no on 1 group seems to want this at all costs, even the school circirculum possibilities....and parents rights to say no to those possibilities. Is this fair and right for all people?? VOTE YES ON 1 and protect even your gay, lesbian and bi-sexual friends and families children from having to wade through parents angry over teaching to their children that are not of God. Maine does not have this YET and let's NOT vote it in as the cart may be hooked to the horse. VOTE YES ON 1 !

Mainemaiden

Don't worry, AIONCA has used the same accusations on every poster here at least once or twice.

He calls everyone a liar, at least a hundred times.

Can you believe he doesn't even live in Maine? He doesn't even have a dog in this fight.

Unless of course, he is gay and just hasn't come out to his wife yet.

AIONCA, your pumped up derogatory accusations are for not, have a looksie at the paper on Wed. and see just how wrong you are.

We're gonna vote this down, in fine fashion. Send you morally corrupt progressives packing down the river.

And after it's over and done with, I don't want to hear another word out of your vile little pie hole.

Whatcha gonna do when YES_ON_1 mania comes down on YOU??

I REALLY LIKED THIS ONE, IT'S CRYSTAL CLEAR.

HOW CAN YOU POSSIBLE THINK ANYTHING DIFFERENT.

IT'S BEYOND THE REALM OF SANE THINKING.

On 11/2/09 at 1:15 AM, MaineMaiden wrote: Repeated separate thumbs down will cause comment to be hidden

Therefore shall a man leave his mother and father ( woman & Man) and shall cleave unto his wife( woman); and they shall be one flesh> Gen. 2:23

A virtuos woamn is a crown to her husband ( man). Proverbs 12:4

From the begining of time God made one male and one femal. For this cause shall a man leave his father ( male) and mother( female; and cleave to his wife( woman) Mark 10:6,7

The woman which has a husband( male) is bound to her husband(male) so long as he liveth. Romans 7:2

Let every man have his own wife ( female), and every wife have her own husband. 1 Cor. 7:2

Wives (women) submit yourself unto your husbands, as unto the Lord. Eph. 5:22

Husbands love your wives( women) even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it. Eph. 5:28

Ye husbands, dwell with them according to knowledge, giving honour unto the wife( woman) as unto the weaker vessel. 1 Peter 3:7

As the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives( women) be to their husbands( men) in every thing. EPph. 5:24

The woman is the glory of the man. 1 Cor. 11:17 The haed of the woman is the man. 1 Cor. 11:5

Now that you know what GOD'S WORD SAYS her is WORLD BOOK DICTIONARY's definition of MARRIAGE:

The act of living together as husband and wife, relation between husband and wife, married life, wedlock. " We wished the bride and groom a happy marriage . " The condition of being husband and wife. arriage emphasizes the union of a man and a woman.

HUsband : a man who has a wife, a married man.

Wife: A woman who has a husband, a married woman.

MARRIED : living together as HUSBAND and WIFE.

It is clear as the light of a bright day what marriage is to God and society since the beginning of time. Those seeking to change it to suit MAN'S VERSION should seek something other then CHANGING THE WRITTEN WORD OF GOD to suit themselves. Marriage is a sacred unity blessed by God as defined by GOD, any other is subject to man's interpetation of personal feelings and in the end is still that way no matter what it is called. Voting no on 1 is creating a fantasy which can never be what God intended nor what is written in HIS WORD no matter how hard man trys.

The fear of the Lord is the begining of knowledg; but fools despise wisdom and instruction. Proverbs 1:7

The wisdom of the world is foolishness to God. Cor. 3:19

VOTE YES ON 1 as anything other is demeaning to GOD'S WILL AND HIS WRITTEN WORD and is soully of MAN; who can do nothing to save your soul.

VOTE YES ON 1 as MARRIAGE is a MAN AND A WOMAN and no other combination and that is the WORD of GOD, .

Man can believe or say anything but IT DOES NOT MAKE IT SO....in the end GOD has spoken and man has chosen.

VOTE YES ON 1 as it is the right thing to do. Legislators write a better law to assist these other unions, do not expect the world to accept the decision to change ideals as voted by the chosen few on something so vital in the eyes of God and society since the begining of time. YES< YES< YES ON 1!

Report abuse

On 11/2/09 at 1:19 AM, MaineMaiden wrote: Repeated separate thumbs down will cause comment to be hidden

There is no THEIR BIBLE ... the BIBLE IS GOD'S WORD and NO ONE ELSES. And there are many married couples who do not chose to have children or can not have children. WILL ALL OF YOU STOP USING THE CHILDREN in attempts to gain position on this vote. Father, please forgive your children for they know not what they do. VOTE YES ON !.

Vote Yes On 1. Protect Human Values!

Vote NO on 1

Because in Ameirca we do not let one religion subvert another, or one group of people to oppress another.

It really IS that simple.

Thank you for Voting NO on ~ Keep your dogma in YOUR OWN churches - do NOT force it on the rest of us !

I Dont go to Church! But im still Voting Yes on Question 1.Because Homosexuality is Morally wrong.It is a sick learned practice

cannot wait till all this stuff is over with i really hate this time of year.

Aionca

Is that all you can come up with?

No wonder you guys are going down.

VOT YES ON 1......Stop the radical left wingers and their gay agenda !!! You gays are so dense that you do not see that you are being used as pawns to further a Socialist (or worse) agenda for America.......And STOP hiding behind children and using them as human shields, that's what terrorists do.

"If you are for marriage the way God intended it, vote YES on 1. If you are not for God's way, vote NO on 1."

Vote YES on #1

The lies you people tell, that you live by, that you choose to believe.

You are liars when you say that gay people chose to be gay.

You are liars when you attribute people supporting their right to marry to a "socialist" agenda.

You are lairs when you use mistranslations and selective and out of context quotes from The Bible to prop-up your hate, ignorance and bigotry.

You are lairs of the greatest magnitude when you claim that you are following God when you disrespect the love people have for one another.

You will take your proper places in history with the other liars and haters who used The bible to support slavery, prevent women from voting, and prevent people of different races who are in love from marrying.

I hope you enjoy your well deserved, and righteous, company with them.

.

.

Get out and Vote NO on Question 1 ~ Because it's about letting people who are in love marry.

AionCA , You Lie! Vote Yes On 1

VOTING YES ON ONE!!

Maine Maiden, you should hook up with 4Him2day, who quite curiously is not here today... maybe you already have hooked up?

There are Pharisees everywhere telling you their rules and edicts because of their religious "laws." Honestly, Jesus would have no business with those folk -- he would already have voted a resounding NO on 1. In reality, your religion can and shall not determine the laws of this country. Your mixed-metaphorical approach to "wrong and right" are not biblical, not true, but a patchwork quilt of prejudice, ignorance, and hate. You Pharisees - ask your lord to save you from your own disease.

Karruka, actually I believe Jesus would forgive gays and tell them to go and sin no more.......VOTE YES on 1

KARRUKA, you have it oh so backwards. You "no voters" are the pharisee's Jesus condemned so strongly, you are the ones he called hypocrites. Jesus would clearly, without reservation VOTE YES ON ONE!

Wow - talk about using what works... I just noticed that the Yes On 1 signs are almost identical to the "Yes on 8" ones from California. Same colors, same designs. Only the "1" and "Stand for Marriage Maine" are different.

I have seen that they've basically just recycled the same ads from California - the one with the couple talking about their children seeing the King and King book in Massachusattes (?sp) is all the same footage but with different logos.

I'm not from Maine, so I can't vote against 1, but I hope most people do. I'd hate to think all it takes is a xerox machine to attack non-traditional families in every state.

I realize that this question is about gay families... But has it occurred to everyone who is NOT in a heterosexual marriage with children how worthless YOU are to the people promoting Question 1, or Proposition 8 (California last year) or ANY of these similar groups? If you're single, forget it - your "family" doesnt' count. Grandparents raising a grandkid? No dice. Single parent? Yeah, right. Like anyone cares about you and your "family". Just plain single? No kids? TOTALLY worthless. Unless you're planning on getting into a heterosexual marriage and having kids.

The traditional family is wonderful. I even had one for part of my childhood. Two opposite-sex parents, 2 siblings. But there ARE more kinds of families. I lived with my grandparents after I was 12. That was a wonderful home. I just don't see any reason to shame someone else's family because it doesn't look like "what a family is SUPPOSED to be."

Just something to think about.

Ladyslipper - Dear Lady, a gay person is not sinning by existing or loving. No forgiving is necessary. That belief may be acceptable in your church but the constitutional right of citizens to freely pursue happiness (including the commitment of legal marriage) should not be based upon your or anyone else's religious beliefs.

Undecided until last Friday on #1.

Now voting Yes on #1 after what some NO people tried to do to that school social worker.

Voting Yes on everything else.

Glad it will be over on Wednesday

Karruka

A gay person is sinning when they have sexual relations with their partner.

Please tell me you're not trying to deny that.

That's the basis of the whole argument.

Sin, and morals.

DUH!!

, redstatepubliu GOOD FOR YOU!

ALSO VOTING YES ON ONE

yeah... red state keep pushing that hypocritical BS. We also know that the catholic church not just investigated... ALREADY FIRED at least one person for going public with her no one one views.

Keep America and Maine... the land of the free; the home of the brave. Demonstrate equal justice for all with live, liberty and the pursuit of happiness... Show those values by VOTING NO ONE ONE.

Lets stop the Talibanization of the USA.

Sorry I don't support the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Marriage Thing. Buck stops here. Just way over the top and it will not stop unless the line is drawn for the future no matter what sympathy strings they try to pull. I'm not good with that. Vote Yes on 1

http://www.exodusinternational.org/content/view/570/149/ Hear hundreds of testimonies from both former gays and lesbians who are now free from this immorality. These are the stories they don't want you to know about

VOTE YES ON ONE

YES signs are disappearing and being dismantled for a reason. The opposition. Same sex relationships are wrong and abnormal. Two same sex "couples" cannot procreate. Shame on the Bangor Daily News for supporting No publicly. Do you speak for ALL your staff or are you speaking for them?

@JohnHoward007: You need to seek help. Really. "Procreation rights"?

@MaineMaiden: Thanks for all the bible and GOD references. BTW, there's this thing called separation of church and state... and the christian bible doesn't apply to everyone.

@Iseenow: "Protect human values"? Voting No on 1 will do just that. Homosexuality is not a learned practice.

@Ladyslipper: Hiding behind children? That's been the Yes on 1 campaign tactics since the get-go. Typical fear and bullying tactics.

@greyhound: "marriage the way god intended"? You realize marriage was taking place long before there was a christian god, right? You realize that there is this thing called "separation of church and state", right? Your god does not dictate me or my life... and there are plenty of others out there as well.

@Yes_on_1: "Sin, and morals". Sin, according to you. Immoral, according to you. And exactly who are you to cram your religious beliefs down everyone else's throat? Who are you to judge others? According to your own doctrine, only your god may judge. So if there is sin going on here, your god will deal with it. It's neither your job or place to speak for your god.

@ MaineMalden

We can quote the Bible too. We can come up with just as many quotes that pertain to your lives as you can for gay couples...

It's amazing that only CERTAIN excerpts get quoted. Anything that pertains to your lives gets brushed aside or explained away as outdated.

"You shall not give false testimony against your neighbor. (Deuteronomy 5:20)

...something the mormon and Catholic churches decide does not pertain to same sex relationships and marriage equality

If a man be found lying with a woman married to an husband, then they shall both of them die, both the man that lay with the woman, and the woman: so shalt thou put away evil from Israel.Deuteronomy (22:22)

... there goes half the Christian and Republican leadership

finally...

So when they continued asking Him, He raised Himself up and said to them, “He who is without sin among you, let him throw a stone at her first.” (John 8:7)

I am burning a bible tomorrow.

It is nice that the BDN printed a photo of the Yes on 1 signs the day before the vote.........What do you want to bet tomorrow (voting day) the front page of the BDN will have a HUGE photo of NO ON 1 signs?

It's amazing how much hate people have that is deep rooted in religion. It's like 1950 again and the blacks and whites are marrying. Society is going to unravel. Kids aren't safe...

Freedom of religion is fine.

Freedom FROM religion should dictate NO ON 1

I hope that No on 1 wins.

I expect the Yes will probably win, because of the high number of narrow-minded, Bible-first folks lurking about.

Perhaps reason and rationality will prevail. I know I will be voting that way.

Vote No on 1.

I am a straight male, married to a wonderful women and step daddy to a Maine Coon Cat.

A while back on one these comment sections on what id Equality for All. Someone said for them it ALL boils down to what is a Good versus Evil. I would really like to meet that person someday. He helped ME so very Much. As have a lot of other poster on both sides of the issue of Gay Marriage.

It took me a little over a week to figure out what was the right thing to. In that process I found out that I was labeled as a bigot. What me a bigot I could not be one of those. Well again in the process I did find out I indeed was a bigot. So I immediately went on a quest to find out how not to be a bigot. For as a person that has always tried to learn from history, I knew bigotry has caused more destruction than maybe anything else in history has.

That quest told me the only way not to be a Bigot was to believe in the US Constitution and to reaffirm what are my believes in what is Live Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness and Equality for All.

In that quest I also needed to reaffirm what God meant to me.

I have been baptized in the Catholic Church in Maine as a boy. I have been baptized at a Protestant Church in LA California after getting out of the Army.

So in away you could say I have been searching for what the Spirit of God really means for me for awhile

I have heard a lot of people on this site say they do not believe in a God, which is just fine with me.

For me; I finally realized that the Word and Spirit of God has and will always be looked at in many different ways by many different people since the beginning of God until the end of time.

For me; My God is the Spirit that is inside us ALL.

For me; My Spirit helps me everyday of my life in trying to figure out what is the Right Thing or the Wrong thing to do that enables me to make a Good decision.

For me; My Spirit teaches me no matter what Religion or Church or having no Religion or Church the right decisions to make so I will be self assured that I am a Good Person.

For me; That Good Spirit lives in ALL of US if you want to learn and change your opinions to be able to maintain a Spirit that can help you make good decisions.

I thank all people and events in my live that have helped me learn how to use my Spirit to get me involved in this thought process of making the Good and Right decision on the Gay Marriage issue for me.

ElectraGlide is Voting No on # 1 and very Proud of my decision to Not be a Bigot.

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

((( BTW )))~~~~~Through this process of learning I have discovered that I am a much happier person in my life and also how I am impacting others. In other words my postive behaviors seem to be making me and others around me much happier.

I know that sounds self center. But to me that is what keeps people better balanced in everything we do in trying to Life Free and Let Life.

The other postive I learned from others was how to make a smilely face on the computer,

((((((( : ~ o ) )))))))))) Never saw one before trying to figure out what was good and what was evil on this issue.

Can not have to many smilely faces now can you ???? Huuummm !!!!!!

VOTE ---- YES ---- Questions --1 THRU 7 ---- VOTE NO ON THE BOND ISSUE -

VOTE ---- NO ---- GRATWICK ---- VOTE NO ---- BLANCHETT ----- VOTE NO---- D'IRRCO ---- Bangor City Council

Yes on 1 !

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Vote goat for El-presidente.....

HERE'S A GREAT TESTIMONY!

On 11/2/09 at 6:30 AM, redstatepublius wrote: Repeated separate thumbs down will cause comment to be hidden

All I can say is that this undecided voter on #1 has decided to vote Yes as of the day this story broke on Friday. Intimidation of someones free speech and right to conscience have no place in our society. He took no oath to support same sex marriage when he became a social worker. What next, teachers threatened with their livelihood for speaking out on other issues?

Report abuse

massm2 - by your 7:25 quote re: "a man lying with a woman married to an husband" - so, you SUPPORT adultery then, do you? Figures, as homosexuals have been shown to enjoy adultery in countries where they are currently allowed to marry (Scandanavia). In fact, an earlier poster asked why there was no mention of:

1. adultery

2. divorce

3. domestic abuse

4. child abuse

OK, I'll answer it: the latest studies in Scandanavia show an increased propensity among same-sex marriages for all of the above as compared to traditional families. 'nuff said.

And massm2, if you'd like to quote Christian Scripture, finish the quote. “He who is without sin among you, let him throw a stone at her first.” (John 8:7) The verses following set up the finale: (John 8:11) "She said, No man, Lord. And Jesus said unto her, Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more." That is the part that most folks seem to forget. That is why we are asked to judge not, lest ye be judged. We are not to judge one another, but we are clearly to discern right from wrong.

The Yes on 1 side is not passing judgement, but merely upholding a long-standing belief in the virtues of traditional marriage. The No side are the attackers here.

DO THE RIGHT THING, VOTE YES ON 1.

so sad this man would allow him to be photographed not simply being a bigot but spreading bigotry and pleading for people to vote the bigoted block.

I just can't imagine casting a vote against my neighbors basic civil rights, a vote I know would be unconstitutional.

It is the height of selfishness and mean-spiritedness to vote agains my equality...how do these hate and fear filled people sleep at night.

Too bad civics is not better understood...forget about a people's veto, the people of Maine should be revolting against this incredible overeaching of individuals' power to curtail rights. If i harbored prejudice, I would at least rely on my education to come to the conclusion that this vote is morally wrong in the first place, and would vote no out of protest regardless of the issue.

Just look at the infantile things the yes people say on here.....it is clear they are not voting their civic duty, they are acting like little children given a little bit of power they should not have and expressing it as "I have this and can take it away from you".

childish, sad, selfish and bigoted.

And what is John Howard talking about? Procreation rights? ....nothing to do with marriage. Last i checked, no forced abortions for unwed mothers!

Maine Maiden, how many times do you have to be told this before it sinks in? You are posting biblical definitions and opining about your biblical view of marriage.

Marriage in Maine is wholly unrelated to your religion. It is a contract overseen by the state. Therefore, your posts are irrlevant and frankly come off as a bit looney as it seems you do not even get what is being debated.

I have no issue with your definition of marriage as long as you keep it for you, and if they agree, your family. This vote has zero impact on your definition and beliefs.

Why is that so difficult? I am sad to say I know the answer. Weak minds are pulled in by religion as yours has been and it is quite obvious that correlated with weak relgion accepting minds is poor logic and understanding of issues, inability to determine fact from fiction and a huge amount of wishful thinking.

It is not too late to save this, the only life you have. Even though I want bigots to burn in hell, not going to happen. Get over it, stop the hand wringing, and start living life for today, as Lennon suggested.

JBlake, yes, the core of marriage is procreation rights, all marriages throughout history have always been allowed to conceive offspring together, from the couple's own genes. And being allowed to try to procreate with someone of the same sex is the most essential demand of the NO side, tedlick and AionCA are liars when they continue to pretend that they just want to love one another. I can prove it by asking them: would you accept a ban on same-sex procreation? They'll say that it is years away, or that only a few people would want to try it, but they won't accept a ban, because it is the most essential demand.

Read about the latest advance in creating stem-cell derived gametes which same-sex couples could use to procreate with here:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/health/article6894636.ece

Same-sex couples should not have equal procreation rights to a married man and a woman. All marriages should always protect the couple's right to conceive offspring together using the couple's own genes. No marriage should ever be allowed where the couple is publicly prohibited from procreating together, no marriages should ever publicly be forced to use substitute genes or modified genes. (Infertility is private and infertile couples are still allowed to try to procreate, same-sex couples are publicly same-sex and should not be allowed to try to procreate.)

For me it is who gets to call marriage marriage

For sure you have to admit 4him~~that marriage hasn`t always been called marriage in past history.

the marriage issure for me today is like the Hatfields and McCoys on and on and on and on!!

What I want to call beer someone else says you can`t call it that.

What someone things how I dress someone else says that not dressing right.

What I buy for a car someone else says it is not a real car

on and on and on and on and on and on it goes.

((( Does the Term Mind YOur own Freakin Business Mean to YOU.))) Not u 4him just anyone

The is just flat out bottom line Bogot Hate of a Behavior

A behavior unless you have the behavior how can you relate to

This behavior has been going on all thru recorded time.

This is God desicion to make if there is a God

It is my Right to make that Decision for myself

This is America People / Not old England

We left England back in the Day not to have to have Religan Rule the Day for ALL mankind.

If we continue down this path we will be just like the Pide Piper behavior that Charles Mansons and his flock of sheep wanted for ALL of US

Don`t you REMEMBER our Past History.

There are examples after examples after examples after example for us to look at.

Bottom Line~~~4 thugs tell one person on the street to give up his money or else.

Person gives up his money / Person goes to the Law for Protection

The Law shows the 4 thugs that stealing is not right.

And there are rules to live by. Break Rule go to Jail.

Not follow the Constitution / the Rules of the Constitution

And the Laws keep us ALL Free and Safe

So yes it is about the name of Marriage for the most part it seems

But mostly it is about hateful Bigotry

Demonstrated results are the Hatfields and McCoys.

Ruining the Neighborhood for US ALL.

The Hatfields and McCoys were isolated from society and / away from the Law.

The Gay Marriage issue is a long way from being Isolated from society / and the Law and US ALL

Make the Right Decision on Nov 3rd or the Law is Going to make it for US ALL

It is just that Simple

For Me I like the Law and All it Stands / I Will Help the Law.

Voting NO on # 1 very proudly helping Walker Texas Ranger and the Surpreme Court of Our Land

Vote "YES" on one. It has been taught in schools and it will be taught in schools to a much larger degree if this passes. Two same sex penguins that are attracted to each other and a bull moose jumping a car during rutting season don't justify gay marriage.

Vote "YES" on one.

Addison - gay marriage does not have the stated effect of promoting families, or helping keep children in "stable homes." The facts from countries where gay marriage has been in place do not support such statements. In fact, in those countries, as in many others around the world, marriage has been on the decline for at least 3 decades. Children born out of wedlock are a growing issue, with real costs to society. The current generation of 20 somthings are half as likely to take a negative view of pre-marital sex as their parents. One generation! This trend does not lead toward better marriages, and stronger societies. It leads to complete breakdown, and socialization of familes' needs. Not only will we ask for public healthcare, but next we'll be asking for public daycare, free meals, etc. Villages aren't the best way to raise children. Familes are.

VOTE YES ON # 1

you should all be very careful when reading the junk FofHimToday posts the letter at 8:07 writtenby Charles W. Socarides, M.D a member of NARTH (The National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality)

psychiatrist Joseph Berger, MD, a member of their "Scientific Advisory Committee," wrote a paper encouraging students to "ridicule" gender variant children. "I suggest, indeed, letting children who wish go to school in clothes of the opposite sex--but not counseling other children to not tease them or hurt their feelings," Dr. Berger wrote on NARTH's website. "On the contrary, don't interfere, and let the other children ridicule the child who has lost that clear boundary between play-acting at home and the reality needs of the outside world. Maybe, in this way, the child will re-establish that necessary boundary."

and

Gerald Schoenwolf, PhD, also a member of NARTH's "Scientific Advisory Committee," wrote a polemic on the group's website that seemed to justify slavery: "With all due respect, there is another way, or other ways, to look at the race issue in America," wrote Schoenwolf. "It could be pointed out, for example, that Africa at the time of slavery was still primarily a jungle, as yet uncivilized or industrialized. Life there was savage, as savage as the jungle for most people, and that it was the Africans themselves who first enslaved their own people. They sold their own people to other countries, and those brought to Europe, South America, America, and other countries, were in many ways better off than they had been in Africa. But if one even begins to say these things one is quickly shouted down as though one were a complete madman."

Allow ridicule -- Justify slavery - The true colors are showing through - This sub-human really endorsing concentration camps for children (kids as young as 3 years old are welcomed,to be retrained, by these morons)

supporting the "NEW ORDER" now huh ForHim all the little kids behind you right arms raised to the sky yelling "HEIL forHim , Heil forHim" I think reny's has a sale on jack boots.

Voted NO on ONE -

psychiatrists....some of these people I wouldn't send my cat to. Years ago many psychiatrists and psychologists were telling teachers and parents not to say "no" to the children. They said it would destroy their self esteem. Give everybody a trophy if they compete....it's ridiculous. Look where it has gotten us. It gives people a sense of entitlement.

Marriage is between a man and a woman. You are not entitled to a marriage certificate if you are not. That should be the first criteria. Say no to same sex marriage.

Vote Yes on one.

Extending equality to a minority has never been a bad idea in our nation's history.

Fears about what is taught in Maine schools doesn't change one way or the other if this legislation is upheld or overturned. Not one bit. Besides, our communities set our curriculum, so you should get more involved in your community if you disagree with what's being taught.

You are free to define marriage however you want. Your church is free to define marriage however it wants. But our shared government, under our shared Constitution, has a responsibility to ensure all people have equal opportunity to the pursuit of happiness.

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

The Mormon church and the Catholic church is driving this anti-gay thing.

Do you guys really want to cow-tow to the church?

What will be next?

Voting YES on 1 is not discriminating.

jblake, the Bible does include everyone rather you believe in it or not, it doesn't matter if your a believer, every Bible in every religon says the same thing that I've seen. If gays want to leave that out of their Bible and think otherwise, thats fine, but it doesn't change the fact that being gay has been a sin since before the Bible was first written right up until today, but to claim it says something else or not at all, is not true and the arguement is moot. I disagree with the way many churches think but I'm not telling them they are wrong or lying, I just don't follow their beliefs.

You are wrong about the YES voters, the gays brought up the "kids and family" thing first and people suck using kids as a guilt trip.

Lets say for the sake of debate, we leave out children, church and sex. Whats left? Love and money. I have guy friends I love, but I wouldn't marry them, don't need to. I have women friends that I love but I wouldn't marry them don't need to, I can love them but I don't need them under my roof or be legally bound to them so the state can make money off me, I can still love them without it. So whats left now? Money. Bigger tax break, can't add a straight person to your medical insurance if your not married . Try getting life insurance on a partner your not married and be straight, ha they think your going to murder that person in a month or two, even if you buy a house together and have kids together and split up you might get the house, you might get the kids, you might get child support, so whats left. Alimony, which you won't get unless your married and then thats not likely in this state. Whats left now? Oh taking half the other persons, reitement. The way I see it is after you remove all the sex and kids and religon you have money left and I think this is the bottom line in gay marriage and I think this is the bottom line in all this "equality and family rights". Now for the love, I love my dogs but I'm not going to marry them, I love my parents but I'm not going to marry them, Love my kids I'm responsible for their well being but I'm not going to marry them, it will not make a family, a piece of paper does not promise love and commitment and everlasting relationship. Marriage will promise if your spouce gets in an accident you too will pay for the loss, the IRS will take your house and your income should your partner not pay taxes or get sued. Divorce however might mean alimony and half of someones retirement.

electraglide, being a bigot is only a label given to someone who isn't agreeing with the person saying it. Why not call yourself an individual? or a person strong in their feelings and beliefs. Why apologise for your thoughts and feelings? Why are you talking in 3rd person about how your going to vote?

Its discrimination friend these people never did a damn thing to you.

Are you a socialist?

The Mormon church and the Catholic church is driving this anti-gay thing.

Do you guys really want to cow-tow to the church?

What will be next?

LQQKatme :

You lie so much it's pitifull.

Gay pride parades are family orriented and they do not have displays of sex acts and gropeing,,there are police at the parades just like any others,,, just another statement thrown out by the yes people to get people to vote the way they want,,, and what are you doing taking your kids to a gay pride parade if you are so against it Hummmm

Scintillate, voting to uphold this referendum will remove essential civil rights that were correctly and constitutionally granted to members of your community.

Both our state and national constitutions require we extend equal protections to citizens under our law, and civil marriage has been identified as a fundamental civil right. It may take time to recognize, but our constitutional responsibility is to uphold marriage equality.

Our sense of fairness tells us that we should live and let live, and allow our community churches to support the marriages that align with their congregation's ideals.

And absolutely, Maine seeks to support its families of all types, throughout its towns and cities. Same sex couples have lived amongst us for decades, and our communities have valued their contributions.

Vote no on 1, and affirm that Maine can once again lead the nation on an important issue of equality. Extending equality to more citizens has never been a bad thing.

You KNow what is sad for Nov 3rd

Alot of people are going to be Voting on something ((Equality))

They do not have a clue about (human rights)

Other then with there own Personal (feelings)

(( Hateful Bigotry )) (( when will it End )) ( in our hateful shamefull HIstory )

(( Right here Maine Right / Equality for All of Maine / Equality for All of US of A ))

((( Electra Voting With his Wife NO on # 1 )))

(( The US Constitution NO on #1 there is no compromise for the Constitution Thank God))

(( Ever Hear of Someone Shooting Themself in the Foot ))

(( Will Trying to Get a Deer for Supper ))

(( Same thang You Yes`ers are Doing to Yourself ))

Never Mind Electa We gotta Go and NO One wil answer that anyway

As nuub as I am I know What the US Constutution Stands For !!!!!!!!!!!

How Can Any NOT ???????????

Convivial (9:10am); Will future generations also be proud of us for scrapping democracy for socialism? Or burdening them with a national debt that can’t ever be paid off? Or be proud of cap & trade? Or be proud of energy costs that are unaffordable? Or leaving them a country that can’t keep its people employed? Will they be proud of a socialist healthcare system akin to that in a 3rd world country?

Leftists ideals are contrary to personal freedoms & justices & that's not what this country was founded to be.

Vote yes on 1.

and yes gay pride parades do have inappropriate activities...it does not take much seardhing on line to find that. If you think that behavior is not appropiate, all the more reason to vote "YES" on one.

Personally I am an atheist, BUT I don't try to push anyone into believing as I do. It's a personal decision, and I don't have to publicly wipe my butt with bible pages to get my point across to people who ask, and wish to know why I am me.

It burns me when folks quote their (No, it's not mine) bible, and act all righteous saying that "The bible says thus and so, so it is therefore true." In my world the bible is just another docudrama, part truth and part fiction, Jesus was a smart interesting man, persecuted for his teachings, Heaven is here in this life, (so make the most of it) and a marriage is the link between engine and transmission in a modified car.

I'm voting NO, not because I care one way or the other, but because the xtian right must be told that their "rules" do not always apply!

Sledman, I don't see what ANY of that has to do with marriage equality, which is what I am talking about.

I am absolutely certain that future generations would take pride in our stand for equality, should this referendum be voted down.

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

Are you a socialist?

The Mormon church and the Catholic church is driving this anti-gay thing.

Do you guys really want to cow-tow to the church?

What will be next?

"Leftists ideals are contrary to personal freedoms & justices & that's not what this country was founded to be."

Pardon me for talking out of turn, but I haven't seen ConvivalVisits remark on any of those issues.

I fail to see how one's support for same-sex marriage makes you leftist. I support it and I wrote in Ron Paul last presidential election. I have never voted for a Democrat (or Green or anything else) in my life.

Seems a bit of a broad assumption to me.

Support for marriage equality is absolutely in line with my belief that our nation should be governed by our US Constitution. Our constitutional responsibility is to ensure that everyone has equal protection under our laws. Our constitutional responsibility is that everyone have freedom to practice their religion. Our constitutional responsibility is that everyone be able to freely express their viewpoints.

A NO on 1 vote supports our constitution, because this good law protects religious freedom while ensuring everyone has the equal protections and responsibilities of civil marriage available to them.

The damned socialists want to control everything.

Are you a socialist?

The Mormon church and the Catholic church is driving this anti-gay thing.

Do you guys really want to cow-tow to the church?

What will be next?

9:33 AM, firefly,

If you find the behavior at gay pride parades to be inappropriate, don't go to them.

I don't.

On 11/2/09 at 9:40 AM, stevereal wrote: Repeated separate thumbs down will cause comment to be hidden

The damned socialists want to control everything.

Are you a socialist?

The Mormon church and the Catholic church is driving this anti-gay thing.

Do you guys really want to cow-tow to the church?

What will be next?

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

Do you really want SS mariage? What will be next??

Are you a socialsts?

That's all I want to know?

You certainly act like one.

Just tell me the truth.

I will not let socialists especially the Moromon kind rule my world

on any issue.

"Do you really want SS mariage? What will be next?"

Yes and nothing...

Next question, please.

March to the Mormon drum beat.

and wave the red flag over the Kremlim friend

because you are falling into a politikal simpletons trap.

Now march in lock step for me.

It's not a question of marriage or being a damned dog catcher.

It's the question of being pushed around by the Pope in Rome

and the Mormons in Utah.

Where do you think all this out of state money is coming from?

HRH419, if we get to keep same-sex marriage in Maine, what will come next are same-sex spouses.

That's about it-- happy, stable families that are now able to fully protect their status under our laws.

Vote NO on 1, for fairness, equality, and personal freedom.

firefly:

You guys will use anything to sway votes and A True Mainer will vote for equality.. The gay pride parades are men and woman dressed up ,Men in womans outfits and woman in mens and men in leather outfits. I have been to a gay rodeo,,but never seen anything that influence people to turn gay they are there for the entertainment,,, no public sex acts no gropeing so stop spreading lies and stop trying to decieve people to vote the way you want them to. As I said Mainers are more to vote No because of the live and let live ,and wanting all to be treated equally... ALREADY VOTED NO ON QUESTION # 1

vote yes no 1 until you live it the pain and hurt that my son had to go though because his mother was that way and hurt me because he had to go though it hurts me not right put our kids though this i know if it was me i don t want no part of it mess my son up they got a cure for aids that what one person i know die he married another man up in canada years ago bangor daily new has no right picking sides hope they stop buying their paper years ago go to dance girls stand in a cyrcle boy go ask her to dance noe they going to teach the boys to stand in a circle and another boy can ask him to dance give me a break sick i would take my kids out of school vote yes yes yes to protect our kids

protect the kids from the socialists and the Mormons man.

anonon...all one has to do is type in a search on lewd behavior in gay pride parades...there are many sites. Maybe to some ithe groping, the sexual activity going on in the parade, the body almost completely exposed is okay and normal to you...to many it is offensive and disgusting. Not appropriate for the general public. You want to behave that way in private go ahead. Your attitude of denial that this IS what happens is all the more reason for the people of Maine to vote "YES" on one.

but do it in private...and don't use this state, the institution of marriage or our kids to push your lifestlye on us.

firefly, have you ever seen a gay pride parade in MAINE though?

They are quite sedate, and there is no comparison to the antics in california and elsewhere.

Mainers all around you would very much like to receive the equal protections and benefits of marriage. These mainers are in stable, loving households and absolutely do not run around "acting up" like your worst-case-scenario photos and stories about festivals in parts of our nation lead you to believe.

I welcome you to drive down to Portland during the next gay pride event, and you'll see for yourself that these are Mainers Just Like You for all outward appearances, except they don't have any ill will toward people they've never met.

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

but do it in private...and don't use this state, the institution of marriage or our kids to push your socialist lifestlye on us.

whomever this MaineMaiden is....she does NOT have Gay friends...SHE LIES!!!! IF she has Gay friends (they do NOT know here REAL intent) and they would NOT be her friend IF they knew the Trash she spews in the name of her God and FALSE assumptions/Lies that gay Marriage will be taught in schools.....MM obviously does NOT have a mind of her own, and listens to propaganda.....and falsehoods......most likely a FOX NEWS watcher too. Vote NO on #1

firefly,

If you don't like what happens at gay pride parades, then don't go. That has nothing to do with same-sex marriage.

Don't use this state, the institution of marriage or our kids to push YOUR lifestyle on us.

That works both ways.

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

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

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

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

firefly:

Give it a rest ,,what is being pushed on us is religeon, I have my own and my own beliefs,vote how you want and ream mainers will vote for equality.

tedlick...parades are put on in public. You want to parade your naked behinds do it behind closed doors in the privacy of your own homes.

We're all Mormons and Catholics now in Maine.

Thank God! I see the light!

Oh yes, gay pride parades are the epitome of social polity and an example for children! Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha! That's too funny!

I also find it quite interesting that the Yes side is accused of being jackbooted thugs and compared to such regimes as Hitler, Stalin, Taliban, Iran - all places where religious liberty has been completely removed in favor of a state religion. Christianity has no footing in such areas that currently exist, yet we are accused of being in favor of their societal viewpoints. Nice how the No side has focused on that strategy from day 1.

Now for some real facts:

in Scandanavian countries (Norway and Denmark, in particular), marriage has continued to decline after the introduction of same-sex marriage or its equivalent. Out of wedlock births have skyrocketed. Divorce rates are higher than ever. Personal attitudes about children and marriage show a near complete separation of the two - meaning, marriage isn't necessary to have and support kids. All of this followed the sexual revolution of the 1960s in these countries, as well as liberalization of views against drug use, marijuana, young age drinking, etc. Has the world come to an end because of same sex marriage in these countries? No - but measurable results have occurred showing a relationship between further lack of respect for traditional marriage and monogamy as a life goal for youth, and that is the important factor. In one to two more generations, there could be a complete separation of marriage from child-bearing and procreation - meaning, no families needed. Question 1 has EVERYTHING to do with families - it will further degrade societal views on the traditional familial relationship, leading to higher rates of out-of-wedlock births in our own country. Question 1 does not support strong families - it actually undermines them.

Redefining the marriage relationship under the guise of "extending basic civil rights" is a farce. It does not in any way equate to interracial marriage equality, as interracial marriage did not redefine the basic precepts of marriage between a man and a woman. And the slippery slope argument is a valid one - what will be next? Who's to say that once we have redefined marriage and expanded its role to same sex couples that someone won't come along and try to extend it further to include polygamists, children, or whatever else they can come up with.

Make no mistake - this landmark change in the definition of marriage sets a precedent we do not need to set. Every homosexual has the same rights i have today. And the benefits of marriage are available to them, if they choose them.

firefly:

All anybody has to do is type in anything pornagraphic on the internet includeing heterosexual sex acts and it will show many things like sodomy and other perverted acts between heterosexual couples so you can't use the internet for your case, and as far as sex acts during parades ,it doesn't happen,,, so try another tactic to sway Maine voters .

Go Ahead Maine - Vote away EQUALITY, and SEE your TOURISM DROP by LEAPS and BOUNDS ...yes maybe the Nation is watching,and WITH ALL this attention....many potential visitors & tourists......Hope you enjoy your taxes going up......and Your Open Minded Population / especially the young College Grads Leave your state in Droves to more progressive states / same goes with businesses......I have every intention of spending my next summer vacation in Maine (average vacation 2000$ - but NOT if they Vote away Equality.....I'll spend my money in a BETTER,NON bigoted state.

Voting YES on ONE.

ALL Maine citicens can leagally marry in the State of Maine. This has to do with Gender Devaluation.

There has never been a same sex marriage legally conducted in the State of Maine, so no rights are being removed.

This particular law isn't written well, since it allows governmental officials to discriminate based on sexual orientation.

Why should the religious views of the Church of NO trump the religious views of any other group?

NO has already confessed that this is the beginning: State first then Federal through the courts.

It is already being endorsed in our schools (UM), and will only be enboldened through a NO victory.

People are already looking at losing their jobs over having the courage to voice their opposition, this will only get worse.

YES on ONE, the only vote for equallity for ALL of Maine's Citizens.

it has nothing to do with religion....has to do with common sense which I see some people lack. Your theory is to expose this to our kids so that we then have to expalin it to them thereby trying to justify this behavior to them. This behavior cannot be justfied. Especially to our children. Their minds and spirits cannot comprehend this. But.... some of you don't care. It's all about your agenda. We, those who oppose same sex marriages and homosexual behavior will be left to pick up the pieces. A society that once again, tries another social experiment that has failed. Leaving broken school systems, more mental illness and physical illness and confused children in it's wake.

Massachuset has the lowest divorce rate out of any state in the Union

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0923080.html

We don't live in Guatemala and we don't live in Sweden or Norway.

We live in Maine.

Firefly wants to be a socialist

so he can try and control peoples behaviors.

Seig heil!

10:36 AM, firefly,

But I'm thinking you find it OK for straight folks to do those very same things at Mardis Gras, no? You are honestly telling me that Daytona during bike week is any different?

Methinks those will not bother you which is one hell of a double standard.

BTW: I have never been to a gay pride parade, but I have been to Mardis Gras celebrations and bike week, so I can only speak for what goes on at those celebrations.

Are you a socialist TurkeyTalker?

And do you follow the Mormon Church?

10:38 AM, windfuture,

Sources for your comments on Denmark and Norway? I need to see the link to same-sex marriage you speak of and insure myself it hadn't started before they granted marriage equality. I have found nothing similar in my investigations.

Rwolf01 writes: "The Declaration of Independance says all people "are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights,

that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness"

Note that it states "The Pursuit Of Happiness" which does not guarantee the right to happiness, but only the pursuit of it. God does not guarantee that we will have happiness in life nor receive everything we desire as "God is not a respector of men." The only guarantee God gives is everlasting life in heaven if we admit we are sinners and accept His Son, Jesus Christ as our Lord and Savior. The people of Sodom and Gomorrah went against God's word, men lying with men and women lying with women, pursuing their own happiness, yet God said this was an abomination to Him and destroyed both cities and their inhabitants. God also let the Roman empire fall because of it's debauchery. The way America is slowly heading, we will be afallen nation before long.

Remember the saying: "Those who fail to learn from history will make the same mistakes." Therefore, I intend to vote Yes on querstion 1

tedlick - Voting Yes on 1 does not :

1. affect the equality and inclusiveness of Maine children. It has no effect and cause no such harm. They will be in the same situation they are in today - likely loved by their parents and treated with respect at school. If not, there are laws on the books that provide for punishment of those who would violate their rights.

2. promote the security and integrity of Maine families. Actually, if history is any guide, based on experiences in other countries where same sex marriage has been allowed, families have continued to decline. Divorce rates continue to increase, higher in same sex couples than in traditional marriages. Same sex families stand to lose nothing on Tuesday - they will the same tomorrow as they are today.

3. Marriage in this state and in this country (federal law) does not already include same-sex couples. Marriage, on the federal level, is defined as being between man and woman. Webster's is not the only dictionary, by the way.

4. Maine is hardly a leader in US policy - it actually follows about 2-3 year in fashion and politics. Nice to feel important, but let's keep it in perspective.

Vote Yes on 1 to support traditional marriage in Maine, and in the country. 30 other states' voters have voted against this nonsensical idea. Let's toe the line and do our part against marriage corruption. We should be promoting strong marriages and strong families, and spending time and money trying to reduce adultery and divorce, not promoting an alternate form of marriage that typically brings higher levels of divorce, spousal abuse, child abuse, abandonment, adultery, etc. Yes, same sex marriage does all of the above.

Oh please windfuture,

Do you really want to be pushed around by the Catholic Church and the Mormons in Utah?

It's as simple as that.

Where do you think all this out of state money is coming from?

vote no on 1 as! the bible is a story. adam and eve is a story. surely, this is not how human life formed. evolution is fact. if we as humans are drawn to the same sex then this is our nature, and who are all of you passage reciting fools to tell me who to love?! you are no different than me because of something you believe, clearly it isn't equality and peace. enjoy living your life by commandments.

MaineMaiden: Yes On 1 brought in the CHILDREN asspect.

JH007: Civil Unions are not recognized in Maine, only in the states that do have them. Civil Unions do not have: joint rights of children, joint adoption, "next-of-kin" for hospital visits and medical decisions, doesn not have theright to make disposal decision of loved ones remains, does not have automatic inheritance in the absence of a will, does not have spouces death benefits, does not have child support, does not have Tax credits including: Child tax credit, Hope and lifetime learning credits, does not have wrongful death beneftits for surviving partner and children,does not have bereavenment or sick leave to care for partner or children, I could go on to includ another 380 items. So Civil Unions does not work!

I wish the people would stop using Civil Unions, protect the children, morals, etc in this campaign. These are not the issue here. Equality in marriage is the issue!

After this is over, perhaps there should be a ban on dicorces, second marriages, infidelity, spocal abuse, child abandonment just for starters.

stevereal....lower divorce rates because few people are getting married. Single parent families and alot of people supported by government.

Tedlick...Daytona...mardis Gras....don't believe that type of behavior is acceptable there also...no double standard for me...

Amsterdam...now that is a great social experiment...

tomorrow, tomorrow, tomorrow is only a day away.....

vote "YES" on one.....

thank goodness tomorrow is tomorrow....

"Tedlick...Daytona...mardis Gras....don't believe that type of behavior is acceptable there also...no double standard for me... "

Then there should be no issue with same-sex marriage based on what happens at gay pride parades.

The scream of "they're icky in their parades" is not something only given to homosexuals.

There's gotta be a better reason than that before we vote rights away from our fellow citizens.

No one has yet provided sources on all this spouting of Norway, Amsterdam, etc... without sources it's no more than hollow rhetoric.

stevereal has entered into the fracus and he's feelin' frisky! So we have moved from disparaging the opposition with terms like bigot, hatemonger, homophobe, closet homosexual, narrow minded, nazi, religious fundamentalist, terrorist, and stupid to... Socialist and Mormon. Did you check with the Church of NO for approval to pull a Sarah Palin and go off script?

Let's see, it's a YES advocate that may be losing his job for having a different opinion.

It's the NO side that is actively campaigning on the university campus because they are a "captive audience".

It's the NO side that has an adgenda of mandated cultural acceptance at the threat of claims of intolerance and with the stick of political correctness.

NO sounds far more likely to enpower a Government Nanny State then the YES.

Some of us aren't willing to relinquish our freedom of speech and vote of conscience simply because bullys call us names.

VOTING YES TOMORROW, for equallity for ALL Mainers.

, firefly :

Wake up to the real world,,, children are more acceptable and understand homosexual behavior better than most adults.

Heterosexuals do jaust as much sex acts as homosexuals and as a matter of fact there are more fetishes out there than you will ever imagine.

Most parents don't even explaine to their daughters about the start of puberty, and about sex to either boys or girls, what makes you think they are going to explaine to them about homosexuality, also by the time they are in high school they will know more about it than you or me.

Iseenow wrote: ...because homosexuality is morally wrong. It is a sick learned practice. ...

Ignorance is a sick learned practice. Hate is a sick learned practice. Education is the best way to learn things because it brakes down "FEAR" when you learn about myths.

As I have stated,, Mainers want to protect equality for their future children and generations to come, and will not let any church or religeous organization tell them how to vote,, Real Mainers whant their children and future generations to come to be able to Live & Let Live and All EQUALITY.

VOTED NO ON QUESTION # 1 for my children and future generations to come.

Essential rights convivialvisits? Doesn't essential mean necessary? It's not necsaaary to be married to be happy or a family be.

If churches are against gay marriage forcing them to accept gay marriage would be going against their rights, beliefs and whats fair about that?

Maine does not support all families of all types, I'm proof of that and no one is going to tell me otherwise. I know better.

So I ask again exactly what is it thats un fair, un equal (since gays already have special rights), damaging the family unit, un constitutional or hurting kids by not voting for gay marriage? So far everyone dances around the question, with childrens and equality it has nothing to do with either.

Try again.

whitneyk, I just couldn't resist you post at 11am. Evolution is as much a theory as creationism is, infact it probably takes more faith to believe in evolution and random chance then it does to believe in intelligent design. If we really were just a cosmic accident, and survival of the fittest was the rule of law, how would that work out for the homosexual community? It is precisely because of humanity's empathy and love that we are even having this discussion.

YES on ONE

HarrySnyder: Good for you. Most people in Maine do not get in another's face about their personal lifes and decisions. They do not interfere anymore than they would like someone interfering in their lives.

The U.S. Constitution and the 14th Amendment to it stand for something in this country!

Voted NO on 1 to give more Maine families, many with children, certain protections and benefits that other Maine families currently have.

ElectraGlide: No, it is not self-centered at all (in fact quite the opposite) to want to see others happy and at peace when you yourself are already in that place. Not selfish at all.

anonon...kids are accepting and understanding....yup that's the excuse adults use who want to do something when they know it will effect the children and they want to turn a blind eye to it...I've heard it all before...kids are resiliant....that's a bunch of bull. Those are adults who do not want accept responsibility for their actions.

I have to put in my two cents in because most of you don't make sense from either side.

The Left continually says how Church and State need to be seperate yet they are holding vigils in Churchs for this. That's hypocritical. If we must have seperation of Church and State, get out of the Churches with your politics.

The Left continually says how we should allow gay marriage because it says so in our constitution under the "right to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness". If you go with that modern assumtion then we should allow anything - poligimy, relations involving adults and children, relations involvoing adults and animals, etc... yet the wording as written by the founding fathers was written as a "right to property" which is the "happiness" part. Learn your history.

The Right wants you to go by the Bible and while the Bible does say a man should not lay with another man, it also says to love and except everyone. So which is it?

The Right wants you to believe it shouldn't happen because marriage is all about procreation, which is not true. It's about two people committing to each other.

The bottom line is really at what point does society draw the line at establishing what is acceptable and not acceptable morally. It comes down to a simple moral belief of each person and what they believe. It doesn't make either side right or wrong, it just makes them having opposite opinions and that right is given to us in our constitution. I see hate on both sides, I see neither side as being correct in their arguments and I for one am tired of it.

Turkeytalker, itr may have been unwise for Whitneyk to bring up the evolution/creationism controversy in this context, but then again maybe not. Evolution is a theory becasue it does explain a myriad of observations. It is not a faith issue. Creationism is not a theory. It's a dogmatic interpretation (and rejection of those myriad observations) and is a faith issue.

Interesting about the origin of those Yes signs. CA, eh? Easy to copy with slight editing I guess. I wondered about the blue and gold color scheme. Now we know where a lot of the Yes money and effort is coming from.

cher...don't put it in our face and the faces of our children and many of us would not have a problem. That is the problem this marriage agenda is trying to push it in our face and those of our children...that's the problem.

Gopher, there is no way you can convince me that Creationism and evolution aren't on even footing when it comes to the scientific scrutiny of theory. Evolution is as much a dogma, is as much a faith, has as many believers as Intelligent Design.

As for CA (eh? are you a Canadian?), how much of the funding and FREE support for NO has come from there? There are lots of Californians that post every day here! If it can be passed here, then they can force legal presidence there, and pull an end about on the will of the people.

YES on ONE, for the children, rainbows, puppies, and Californians!

Hooray hooray it's only one more day! People get out the vote and get all your friends and enemies alike to the polls. Let's show them what Democracy in Action is all about: Equality for All. Vote NO on 1!

anonon wrote:

"firefly : Wake up to the real world,,, children are more acceptable and understand homosexual behavior better than most adults. "

And that is exactly why they are targeted in this social experiment, and by a number of gay organizations, for "proper" education at an early age. Let's make sure the children are accepting of our homosexual behavior, because they like to rebel and are the easiest to convince! Nice strategy. Which is exactly why concerned parents want this idea NOT taught - because we don't believe it is acceptable behavior. It is biologically tilted, perhaps. It is definitely environmental and sociological. "Try it, you'll like it." In the last decade or so, it was all about experimenting with drugs. Now, it's all about experimenting with sex. Another grand social experiment.

As for pointing to studies conducted in countries with same sex marriage, or its equiavalent, here's some interesting info:

"In his study of the Norwegian family in the nineties, for example, Christer Hyggen shows that a small increase in Norway's marriage rate over the past decade has more to do with the institution's decline than with any renaissance." You can look us the study if you like. It actually debunks a study conducted by Darren Spedale that promoted the benefits of same sex marriage in Norway, and discusss the flaws in such thinking.

Mainemaiden, you need to realize that your god is not everyone else's god. The sooner you realize that the better you will understand different points of view.

10 reasons why Gay Marriage is "wrong"

1) Being gay is not natural. Real people always reject unnatural things like eyeglasses, polyester, and air conditioning.

2) Gay marriage will encourage people to be gay, in the same way that hanging around tall people will make you tall.

3) Legalizing gay marriage will open the door to all kinds of crazy behavior. People may even wish to marry their pets because a dog has legal standing and can sign a marriage contract.

4) Straight marriage has been around a long time and hasn't changed at all; women are still property, blacks still can't marry whites, and divorce is still illegal.

5) Straight marriage will be less meaningful if gay marriage were allowed; the sanctity of Brittany Spears' 55-hour just-for-fun marriage would be destroyed.

6) Straight marriages are valid because they produce children. Gay couples, infertile couples, and old people shouldn't be allowed to marry because our orphanages aren't full yet, and the world needs more children.

7) Obviously gay parents will raise gay children, since straight parents only raise straight children.

8) Gay marriage is not supported by religion. In a theocracy like ours, the values of one religion are imposed on the entire country. That's why we have only one religion in the world.

9) Children can never succeed without a male and a female role model at home. That's why we as a society expressly forbid single parents to raise children.

10) Gay marriage will change the foundation of society; we could never adapt to new social norms. Just like we haven't adapted to cars, the service-sector economy, or longer life spans

windfire...so we should bring our kids to prostituion houses, bars, and drug houses to teach them to be more tolerant....yup that works...

windfuture...so we should bring our kids to prostituion houses, bars, and drug houses to teach them to be more tolerant....yup that works...

anne_of_mdi: Yes, the day is almost here.

I proudly voted NO on 1 to extend protections to many Maine families and their children.

Children, teenagers, and young adults often see what is important; children see what is authentic; they are not unaware of some of the real problems this country faces. They go to schools with children of many different family backgrounds. These people are simply their classmates, many their friends. They are accepting unless they have been taught otherwise, inclduing at home. It is some adults who are fixated on the particular make-up of particular famiiles. Just because these adults have lived more years, does not in itself translate to more wisdom. In fact, what it can indicate is a lack of fresh thinking; being stagnated with a lot of outmoded ideas and prejudices; a rigidity that is not conducive to understanding or any good will.

Vote NO on 1 for fairness and dignity for our fellow citizens.

I'm glad the "Yes" on 1 people have at least laid off the "Traditional Maine Family" crap; if I heard it one more time I was going to BARF. At the very least I thought it was hypocritical considering the HIGH rates of families ravaged by alcohol/drug abuse, unwed couples having children, and the women who have several children by different fathers. None of the before mentioned would I consider "traditional" and I don't want to hear that term until the new social norm goes back to the true sense of TRADITIONAL!

Proudly voting "NO" on 1 - to promote tolerance and equality for all!

I'm glad the "Yes" on 1 people have at least laid off the "Traditional Maine Family" crap; if I heard it one more time I was going to BARF. At the very least I thought it was hypocritical considering the HIGH rates of families ravaged by alcohol/drug abuse, unwed couples having children, and the women who have several children by different fathers. None of the before mentioned would I consider "traditional" and I don't want to hear that term until the new social norm goes back to the true sense of TRADITIONAL!

Proudly voting "NO" on 1 - to promote tolerance and equality for all!

On 11/2/09 at 12:11 PM, firefly wrote: "windfuture...so we should bring our kids to prostituion houses, bars, and drug houses to teach them to be more tolerant....yup that works... "

No, what we as parents should do is to teach our children to be tolerant of those who find that they have to patronize and/or work in such places, as something terrible must be bothering them to do so. We should also be teaching them why such places aren't good places to visit. But to be tolerant of those who do, and to not condemn them simply for that reason. Doing so would be completely unfair.

As a boy, my family visited Old Orchard Beach occasionally. One time, as we were walking down to the center of town from the parking area, we passed a topless bar. I made some inquisitive mention of it to my father, and we had a brief discussion about it. No big deal, not the end of the world, I wasn't scarred for life by seeing a sign that simply said "Topless" and wasn't lewd and lascivious (sp?). It was part of our world, I learned a bit, my father and I had an honest exchange, and life went on. It was, as you have described in other posts, "in my face" but it didn't alter one little bit of my life as a result. Rather, I came to have a greater understanding of the world around me, and a better level of communication with my father.

Stop being so afraid. Life happens. As long as we are civil and fair with one another, we should be all right.

Sorry for the multiple post - damn puter!

On 11/2/09 at 12:10 PM, firefly wrote:

windfire...so we should bring our kids to prostituion houses, bars, and drug houses to teach them to be more tolerant....yup that works...

firefly try something new....please....it is getting to easy debunking the Yes on 1 crowd....

"so we should bring our kids to prostituion houses, bars, and drug houses to teach them to be more tolerant"

hmmm...prostitution houses = illegal = child endangerment

hmmm...bars/pubs/resturants with liquor license = legal

hmmm...drug houses = illegal = child endangerment

see you at the polls....

vote "YES" on one...

Voting "NO" on 1

There is freedom of Religon but more importantly, there is Freedom FROM religion. I don't want to live by Taliban law, Do not make America a Theocracy!

Our family is made up of four heterosexual adults and we are all voting NO on 1. Even though both of my children are far away they have already voted NO by absentee ballot!

I am proud to say that as of noon today I have voted NO on 1!

Welcome back Anna.

We missed you.

This place hasn't been the same sense you have been gone.

For anyone still waffling over a YES or NO vote on Question 4, please consider this:

During 2008, more than 4,900 state employees from the Executive Branch alone earned more than $70,000 (source: http://www.maineopengov.org)

while the overall state average was how low?

YES on 4 is the best option to help get Maine back-on-track.

VOTE NO ON QUES. TWO 2 ! WE ALL GET EXCISE TAXES REDUCED OR NO ONE DOES!!!!!!!! NO ON 2 !!!!!

Tel: Is your nose brown? : )

I'm just a nice guy that's all.

I even put a grammar error in there for old times sake......

windfuture:

They are not targeted and it isn't a social experiment. This has been going on for years as have drugs. The organizations you speak of have been around for several years. I have been out of college and high school for over 30 years and the organizations you speak of are GLBT who are there for support of (Gays)(Lesbians)(Bisexual) Transgendered Children and young adults. They need support because of the type of people that are throwing out hatefull remarks about sombody differant then them,by being treated that way they need these organizations for support instead of going out and ending their life.Some of you don't know the torture some of these children endure just for being differant. It is not being taught,will never be taught and you yes people are just grasping at straws and repeat your past issues because you have run out of options to use to sway votes.

You have used imoral sexual act as I said before I know of many sex acts that heterosexuals do and no matter how you look at it they are just as imoral as homosexual sex acts.

You have used being taught in schools,, well I haven't seen any proof of that either,because as a matter of fact some people on this comment section have gone to schools in bangor and verified that was a lie by the yes side.

Then you have what the Bible says ,well if that is the case we will all be metting in hell,because not one person is any better than the other .

It will ruin the world,well woman weren't allowed to vote at one time and people said that it was going to change in a bad way and it didn't

African ameicans wer'ent able to go tot he same schools or drink from the same fountain,well guess what the world wasn't affected then either.

No matter how you look at it it all boils down to EQUALITY Everybody being treated as EQUALS.

For the future of our children and generations to come Mainers Don't let the Church organizations tell you how to vote and treat others,,,WE true mianers know what is best for our families and childrens future to be treated EQUALLY as all other Mainers,,,,, SO get out there and VOTE A BIG NO ON QUESTION # 1 To Show Them WE Want EQUALITY 4 All Maine Families. ALREADY VOTED NO ON QUESTION # 1 4 my children and future generations to come.

(( chersully2000 ))~~~)) Yep, I remember of telling over a week ago that ((

(((( Tues Nov 3rd was going to be a SUNNY DAY ))))

))) GOING TO BE Sunny and over 50 degrees for SURE (((

))) Days of SUN are for the NO on ONES (((

))) ALLWAYS has been a type of DAY (((

))) FOR ONE and ALL (((

((( Electra Voting NO on #1 for the Sun People ))).

(((( Electro Wifey Voting NO on # ` for the Sun People ))))

((((( Electric Kitty Voting with US ALL for her FOOD ))))

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

Last month my partner of ten years and I were married in Massachusetts. After staying there for a few days, we headed up to Maine to spend some time with my folks.

My parents are "old school Catholics." They both attended Catholic school from kindergarten through 12th grade, have always been active in their local parish, give substantially to charities, and have taken positions of leadership in church-related organizations.

And yet they welcome us into their home and treat us no differently than they would my siblings and their spouses. They are very good people, and I honor and treasure them. We are not always of a mind on some things, but our love for each other makes it easy to treat one another with dignity and respect.

As they get on in years, my partner (now husband) and I are concerned about them eventually needing additional care. We have taken steps in our professional certification paths that would allow us to move from our current home in the Midwest to New England so we could be close to them when necessary. Ideally, we'd relocate to Maine, but it would be a hard sell if our marriage wasn't recognized by the State. (It should be stated that the only real reason we're still in the Midwest is because our son is attending college here. Once he graduates, we'll likely look eastward for a place to settle and eventually retire.)

Another matter that we need to consider when we relocate is how the government views our relationship, specifically regarding property/inheritance rights, powers of attorney, matters of next of kin, and the sharing of retirement benefits. Of great concern is how we would be treated (in an administrative, if not personal sense) if one of us was in hospital.

Recently my husband had to be transported via ambulance to the emergency room, and was back in the emergency room of another hospital within a matter of days. He faced a life-threatening medication interaction, and part of the symptoms included mental confusion.

I knew his medical history better than anyone there, I was in a more lucid (if anxious) state, and was better able to articulate the medications he'd taken, and in what dose. I had been up with him the entire night before our second visit to the emergency room, drove him to the hospital, and was able to provide important information that helped the doctors in diagnosing the problem quickly and correctly.

What would have happened if the staffs of the hospitals decided that I was not related to him and barred me from being in the ER room with him? What if his confusion had progressed to the point that he was unable to give important information to the doctors? It is no overstatement when I say that without this information, he could easily have died.

We were blessed to be in an area with hospitals that welcomed me into the emergency room and allowed me to be with him the entire time, but others are not so fortunate.

I often hear that all we need do is to have powers of attorney, and related legal documents drawn up, and the problem will be solved, but such is not the case. A couple of years ago, a woman suffered a brain aneurysm and was hospitalized. Her partner of 17 years was barred from being with her as she lay dying. Despite the couple having the necessary legal forms, the hospital prevented the two from being together. As the patient was in a coma, she was not able to advocate for herself, and she died alone. Her partner was not able to be with her "wife" as she lay dying. The reason for this was provided by a hospital staff member: "this is not a gay friendly hospital." The surviving partner took the case to court, and just this week it was dismissed. There is no legal recourse available.

In 2004, the Virginia Legislature passed a law that states "A civil union, partnership contract or other arrangement between persons of the same sex purporting to bestow the privileges or obligations of marriage is prohibited. Any such civil union, partnership contract or other arrangement entered into by persons of the same sex in another state or jurisdiction shall be void in all respects in Virginia and any contractual rights created thereby shall be void and unenforceable."

There is a the distinct possibility that legal documents such as wills, medical directives, powers of attorney and the like are meaningless if the contract is between two same-sex persons.

Additionally, Virginia prohibits companies -- even private companies, unless self-insured -- from extending health insurance benefits to unmarried couples.

In the United States, marriage (from a secular, civil perspective) is a legal and binding contract between two persons that automatically conveys numerous rights, privileges and protections to the couple entering into the contract (the marriage.) There is no other legal route that does this. Where civil unions or domestic partnerships have been enacted in this country, they fell far short of conveying the same rights, protections, etc. to the civilly united couple.

The only real way to achieve parity and enable all couples to protect their relationships and their families is to extend the definition of marriage to include same-sex couples. We are not seeking to attack marriage. Quite the contrary, we see marriage as a worthy institution, and wish to strengthen it by joining the ranks of married persons ourselves. We treasure the thought of being able to be legally joined with the person we love.

Please do what you can to help strengthen marriage by including loving, committed couples who only wish the best for our relationships and for our families.

@@@@ Where Is The Dang a Lange Party Going To Be @@@@

**** Dingle a Ling~~~Dingla Ling~~~ding a Ling ****

~~~>>>~~~~

((((( Voting No on # 1 For Da Parta )))))

))) ParTi On ParTy / For Maine is # 1 in The US of A What A Thang (((

( ( ( ( WelCome To the Future Just Plain Welcome ) ) ) )

haakon, that is easily the best and most concise explanation of why all of this is necessary. I wish you and your husband luck with finding an appropriate place, and I hope that will be here in Maine. For your sakes, and for the sakes of many, many others.

Vote No on 1.

Voting Yes on 1. The Legislature should never have passed this the way that they did. The Governor should have thought more about this before he signed it. With the State and National Economy and Budget in shambles - there were so many issues of more improtance to deal with - instead of facing a matter this emotional and divisive.

Also, I hate the way that the "NO" people are inferring or outright stating that anyone who supports a "Yes" vote is a hater. Also, look what they are doing to that Guidance Councelor that dared to appear in a Yes on 1 ad. Does anyone really believe that there are not activists ready to start experimenting with a little social engineering in our schools?

“On 11/2/09 at 12:31 PM, Adelaide wrote : I'm glad the "Yes" on 1 people have at least laid off the "Traditional Maine Family" crap; if I heard it one more time I was going to BARF.”

A new acronym is born! Bigoted Arrogant Religious Fundamentalists. BARF

Get the bumper stickers made! :)

Please vote “NO" on 1.

Just Saw 2 American Eagles Flying High and PRoud ((( :~ 0 ))))))

They Stopped By to Say Hi and Yes we Are Voting NO on # 1

>>>

)))))) NO for ONE and ALL in this Great STate of Maine ((((((

((((((((((( And the Greatest Country In the World the ole US of A ))))))))))))))

@@@ ding a ling ding a ling 2 more Votes for the good Ole Vote on NO Oh YEAH @@@

berettastorm,

An entire class of Maine citizens, made up of members of our communities of all walks of life, strongly and clearly made their case to our legislature that civil marriage has unique rights and responsibilities, and that civil right was being withheld from them for no legitimate reason. The legislature heard from all Mainers who came to be heard, both those for and those against marriage equality.

After hearing their views, our legislature agreed that it has a vested interest in promoting stability in Maine families, for social and economically sound reasons; and they agreed that there was no legitimate reason to deny this civil institution to same sex couples. A lot of Maine citizens agree with this decision.

This legislation was not passed in some back room with little debate. The process at which we arrived at this legislation was thorough and highlighted the lengths we go to in ensuring that all citizen voices are heard. The legislation was debated for two days in our capital. The legislation was legitimately passed.

Everyone will have their opportunity to vote this Tuesday. The vote will be valuable insight into how the majority of Mainers feel on this issue, but it does not change this issue— marriage equality is still absolutely a requirement to us, and it is absolutely a civil right that was denied us unconstitutionally.

If it is denied us again because we don't win a popularity contest next week, we still have just as legitimate a right to it; the elected injustice will be addressed. Our equality will come. And our nation will be better for it.

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

I like what this person posted a few days ago... YES on 1

On 10/21/09 at 1:14 PM, jilocasin wrote: Repeated separate thumbs down will cause comment to be hidden

A vote of YES on 1 is a vote for common sense.

I'm glad to read a reasonable article in favor of voting Yes on 1, thank you Ms Popper for that.

Marriage is between men (male) and woman (female). The exact number has been subject to change over the years and locations. Currently it's 1 man and 1 woman. Current law DOES NOT discriminate against homosexuals contrary to what many of the posters here would have you believe. There is no reference to sexual orientation on a marriage certificate. Any suitably eligible man can marry any suitably eligible woman (or vis versa). Now I'm not saying that it would a particularly good idea for a gay man to marry a lesbian woman, but there isn't any restriction in the law that prevents that. Keep that in mind when you hear or read people spouting off about how marriage, before this ill-conceived law was passed, is a civil rights violation or otherwise unlawfully discriminatory.

What the 'Vote No on 1' crowd has done is to hijack the debate by reframing the question. Clever but intellectually dishonest. The problem is that same sex couples want their unions, unions between people of the same gender, to be equated to marriage legally, socially, and for some religiously. They can achieve the first with a properly worded Civil-Union law. Unfortunately that won't help them gain social or religious acceptance and approval. Therefore they are framing the argument such that marriage is actually between two consenting adults, so preventing two people of the same gender from getting married is unlawful discrimination. Did you notice the subtle shift there? Start by redefining marriage from union between a man and a woman, to union between two consenting adults. Next, using your redefined version of marriage complain that since it's a union between two consenting adults it's unlawfully discriminatory to restrict that union to heterosexual couples. I've just managed to transform a question of recognizing a new type of union to a civil rights issue. As an added bonus, I've injected sexual orientation into the mix (it wasn't there before, as I started out illustrating marriage is sexual orientation agnostic). In our politically correct society, who's going to come out in favor of discrimination or depriving people of their civil rights? Like I said, clever but intellectually dishonest.

If same sex couples want their unions recognized by the state, I say go for it. If they want to receive the many legal benefits of married couples by emulating the best parts of traditional marriage, I'm all for it. Great Idea, where do I sign up? But to go about it by redefining what a marriage is, is wrong. People who will vote Yes on 1 aren't necessarily bigots, homophobes, or any of the other derogatory terms that will be hurled their way by supporters of this misguided attempt to hijack our culture. Supporters of this redefinition can't come up with honest, logical reasons for what they are proposing so they resort to name calling and intimidation.

Same sex couples CAN have their unions recognized by the state and CAN have all the same legal benefits enjoyed by married couples. What they CAN NOT do is to achieve societal acceptance through legislation.

I would urge people, not to be intimidated by the "Vote No on 1" crowd. You can be an intellectual, compassionate person without supporting the political idiocy of legislatively redefining what marriage is. It's not a civil rights issue, it's a vocal minority using hate, and intimidation to try and achieve acceptance for their idea of how things should be.

The only sensible, honest vote is a vote to repeal this atrocity. Vote Yes on 1.

JaneN123, current law ABSOLUTELY discriminates against homosexuals.

It is absolutely an attempt to normalize a situation that is unconstitutional by our US Constitution's 14th amendment. The civil rights movement of the 20th century also had to point out the systemic unfairness of Jim Crow laws that violated the constitution. Laws such as "everyone can vote, but you have to pass a literacy test" were every bit as unfair to the sharecropper blacks then as "everyone can marry, but you have to pick someone of the opposite sex" is to homosexual couples today.

I'm seeking equal treatment under the law because I'm every bit a citizen of this country as you are, and I show every bit of commitment to my soul mate as you might yours.

Here's a quick PARTIAL list of rights that are easily obtained by a single civil marriage license that are not easy, and in many cases impossible, to set up outside of civil marriage:

joint parenting;

joint adoption;

joint foster care, custody, and visitation (including non-biological parents);

status as next-of-kin for hospital visits and medical decisions where one partner is too ill to be competent;

joint insurance policies for home, auto and health;

dissolution and divorce protections such as community property and child support;

immigration and residency for partners from other countries;

inheritance automatically in the absence of a will;

joint leases with automatic renewal rights in the event one partner dies or leaves the house or apartment;

inheritance of jointly-owned real and personal property through the right of survivorship (which avoids the time and expense and taxes in probate);

benefits such as annuities, pension plans, Social Security, and Medicare;

spousal exemptions to property tax increases upon the death of one partner who is a co-owner of the home;

veterans' discounts on medical care, education, and home loans; joint filing of tax returns;

joint filing of customs claims when traveling;

wrongful death benefits for a surviving partner and children;

bereavement or sick leave to care for a partner or child;

decision-making power with respect to whether a deceased partner will be cremated or not and where to bury him or her;

crime victims' recovery benefits;

loss of consortium tort benefits;

domestic violence protection orders;

judicial protections and evidentiary immunity;

I can go on, but why should I do all the work on this? You're the one wanting to restrict me rights, YOU prove what harm my marriage would do.

Vote NO on 1, don't take rights away from others.

marriage is not a religious right, its a civil right! and if your church wants to discrimate against gays and lesbians then refuse to marry them! there is no sanctity in marriage anymore...look at the divorce rate and the fact that you can get married in Vegas at a drive thru! Vote No On 1!

Folks, while I empathize somewhat with the guidance Councilor from Nokomis, he really should have known this could be a possibility. This happens not only regarding religion, or politics, but in the private sector as well. For instance, I am not allowed to make any sort of representation of my company on local TV or on the internet. Meaning I am not allowed to say I work for ****** company on TV. Or radio. Or in any sort of internet post. Or I can and will be terminated.

I am certain that many companies have these clauses. I am also quite certain that it applies to governement positions as well. The gentleman from Nokomis has done something similar, and it's coming back to bite him. Not just because of his viewpoint. Though I am sure that contributed, as well.

On a personal note, I would be disappointed if any of the Guidance Councilors my children have were to publically state an opinion similar to what he has stated. I want my children to have "guidance" from someone who doesn't make judgements like that, and is tolerant of all people. Bullying is one of the bigger challenges we face in our public schools today, and no one is more likely to be bullied than a child who is gay, who is percieved to be gay, or has gay parents or relatives. How is that child going to be helped by a Guidance Councilor who openly disapproves of gay people? He is welcome to his beliefs, like all of us. But when you are in such a position, you need to be careful how you express those beliefs. It is a shame, all around, as I understand he has done many wonderful things for that school system and community. It's just another example of how this issue tears us apart, instead of uniting us as one people.

Voting No on 1 tomorrow!

Quote of the day:

"Why put off today, what your children will decide tomorrow. Vote NO on 1."

as noted above. get your rights without redefining marriage. Marriage equals one man and one woman. Yes on 1, no question.

TurkeyTalker: Evolution vs. creationism discussion is for another time in a relevant context. Then again, through poor definitions, misinformation, and a closed mind, you're apparently not going to be convinced of the non-validity of your opinions anyway so maybe we'd better leave it at that: unfortunately versus (even though it need not be).

JaneN123, we got our rights fairly this year, please don't vote them away tomorrow.

Vote NO on 1, live and let live.

haakon - insert "polygamist groups" where you use the term "same sex couples" and you'll understand one reason why I could never vote for this or any other redefinition of marriage. You seem to make a strong argument, but fall short in your medical/hospital discussion. The fact is, no state has to accept Maine's redefinition if it chooses not to. Therefore, no hospital in such a state would be required to allow same sex partners visitation, simply because another state allowed the couple to be "married."

I would support a very clear law on a nationwide basis that would allow designation of medical visitation and medical POA status, and that is completely SEPARATE from marital status. Put a sticker on your driver's license if necessary, or carry another medical card which provides for something similar to the current "next of kin." Our current law fails to recognize that unmarried people may want someone to be their advocate - and they are no less citizens than a married couple. But that does not mean that we need to redefine marriage in order for this to happen. It is a misplaced way of solving the problem. Not just for homosexual partners, but for unmarried people everywhere. Even if gay marriage passes, the problem will still exist for other unmarried people.

Your justification is less about gay marriage rights than it is for medical decision reform. That's something that many people could support without a lot of controversy.

PLEASE Vote NO on Question 1

Because the YES on Question 1 crowd IS FUNDED BY THE SAME PEOPLE WHO AT THIS VERY MOMENT ARE REPEALING CIVIL UNIONS IN WASHINGTON STATE.

They are liars when they say that civil unions are good enough for same sex couples, they are liars when they say that they aren't going after gay people and that their agenda is not one to hard gay people, their families, and their kids.

Send a message loud an clear to the bigots and liars on this one. Tell them that in Maine, we do NOT discriminate, that we don't let the Mormon Church dictate public policy, and that we do not let one church prevent another from marrying people who are in love.

Thank you for voting NO on Question 1.

windfuture, denying marriage equality to deserving same-sex couples in a vote TOMORROW over what might (but probably won't) happen in the future is ridiculous.

NOT ONE nation where same-sex marriage is legal has polygamy been legalized. NOT ONE state where same-sex marriage is legal has polygamy been legalized.

Build more strawmen if you want, but I'd rather focus on the issue we are actually voting on tomorrow.

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

THE NO SIDE IS GOOD AT TAKING DOWN YES SIGNS, AREN'T THEY? IT SHOWS THEIR INTEGRITY AND RESPECT. VOTE YES on 1

.

berettastorm:

The whole reason behind this guidence councelor is that yes he has a right to his opinion and can do whatever he wants to do out of school and not involveing the school,,,,,, but when you are a guidence councelor you have to be neutral to the situations that you are guideing. You cannot be against same sex marriage in an ad stateing that you are a guidence councelor at a certain high school.

JaneN123 :

THE YES SIDE IS GOOD AT TAKING DOWN NO SIGNS, AREN'T THEY? IT SHOWS THEIR INTEGRITY AND RESPECT. VOTE NO on 1

2:18 PM, JaneN123,

"Beware of false moralists, which post here in self-righteous clothing, but inwardly they are ravening bigots. Ye shall know them by their CAPS LOCK."

Tedlick 7:15

JaneN123 - I debunked the vast majority of the list conviv continues to provide, and showed several times how those rights either are, or could be given, without redefining traditional marriage to fit their desires.

It's amazing how the No side continues to view marriage for what you get out of it, as opposed to what you have to put in.

Also, I'm curious what benefits to society gay marriage will provide in exchange for the granting of new rights - most of which are rather costly to society in general. At least with traditional marriage, we can say without any required supporting documentation that we generally bring forth children, which provides future taxpayers and creates a stable society. That is the historical and traditional view of the societal benefit of traditional marriage, and all of our marriage laws, child support, inheritance, etc. stem from that reasoning. If truly anyone can be married to one another, then the benefits provided may soon go away.

ONE incident of taking signs down weeks ago doesn't make a trend.

If the YES on ONE people were honest, they'd admit what the police have been saying.

That THIS election cycled has significantly LESS incidents of taking signs down than in the past.

Vote NO on ONE ~ Because lies don't fly in Maine, and one church shouldn't be able to manipulate you to prevent churches that want to marry same-sex couples whoa re in dedicated and in love.

People from the “yes” side, who warn of dire consequences should marriage get redefined, need to remember that it already has been redefined in a number of other states and countries. Last time I checked, they were doing fine. Society did not crumble when same-sex couples were allowed to be legally married.

Society won’t crumble here, either. The lives of straight people won’t change, except maybe seeing the occasional gay or lesbian wedding announcement in the paper.

Let’s do the fair thing and vote “NO” on 1.

windfuture,

You haven't shown a single example of how same-sex couples being married in the states it HAS happened in has caused the huge social disaster you claim it will cause in Maine.

At least you are a consistent liar.

"Also, I'm curious what benefits to society gay marriage will provide in exchange for the granting of new rights - most of which are rather costly to society in general. At least with traditional marriage, we can say without any required supporting documentation that we generally bring forth children, which provides future taxpayers and creates a stable society. That is the historical and traditional view of the societal benefit of traditional marriage, and all of our marriage laws, child support, inheritance, etc. stem from that reasoning. If truly anyone can be married to one another, then the benefits provided may soon go away."

So you see straight marriage as a benefit since it produces future tax payers, how lovely. Also there are plenty "futrure taxpayers" brought forth without the benefit of marriage. Since roughly half end in divorce, I'm not sure how sound that stability argument goes.

**oh Yeah Tomorrow the Sun will Win the Vote NO on ONE oh Yeah **

dingle a ling ## Nov 4 th Will Be Celaebration Day dingle ling ##

))))Nov 5 OH Yeah Welcome to the Future our Mity Fine Days of the Future((((

>>

@@ Ding a Lang You Just Know IT@ Ding a Ling. Com @@

2:21 PM, windfuture ,

What you actually did in your "debunking" was explain how your opinion leads you to find homosexuals unworthy of the right to marry.

Nothing more.

Opinion doesn't debunk anything, it just explains why you choose to be a bigot.

"we can say without any required supporting documentation that we generally bring forth children"

Bunk. Procreation has no bearing on state-sanctioned marriage. You really like spreading misinformation don't you?

windfuture :

You ignore that this is all about your side taking money from the Mormons, who right now are trying to defeat civil unions in Washington State.

Why don't you admit that your agenda is to take away as many rights from gay people as possible ?

It's obvious what your side is all about, and it ain't love.

Please Vote NO on Question 1 ~ Let people who are in love marry ! Don't let one church dictate to another that they can't marry same sex couples !

“On 11/2/09 at 2:18 PM, JaneN123 wrote: THE NO SIDE IS GOOD AT TAKING DOWN YES SIGNS, AREN'T THEY? IT SHOWS THEIR INTEGRITY AND RESPECT. “

While out for a ride on Sunday, I saw quite a number of Vote No signs that had been smashed or knocked down. So Jane, don’t try to take the high road with that argument. There have been jerks on both sides of this issue ripping down the opposition’s signs. It happens.

Please vote “NO” on 1.

that's all folks. Let's not change our culture and redefine marriage. homosexuals can get their rights without doing that. Yes on 1

windfuture Wrote:

I'm curious what benefits to society gay marriage will provide in exchange for the granting of new rights - most of which are rather costly to society in general. At least with traditional marriage, we can say without any required supporting documentation that we generally bring forth children, which provides future taxpayers and creates a stable society.

Give us a break,,,, anybody can bring fourth children. There are single mothers out ther bringing fourth childre on after another by differant men and what is it benefiting society when we are all paying for rthe children when the mother is on the state,and the homosexuals are also paying taxes that send peoples children to schools ,,the ones that don't have children. If they contribute to taxes and everyother state tax like everybody else,then they should have the same rights ad be treated as EQUALS and be able to be married.

They pay taxes like everybody else VOTE NO ON QUESTION #1 for the children and future generations to come...

ALREADY VOTED NO ON QUESTION #1 for my children and future generations

>>>Just Saw My Two Eagle Friends They Each Had A Bigot in there Beaks<<<

>>

@@@@ Serpants@Bigots. Com Called It Bigot Bashing@@@@

(((( :~o ) ))))))))) oh Yeah (((( :~o ) )))))))) Oh Yeah Oh Yeah

>>> The Party is ON oh Yeah Party ON <<<

JaneN123 wrote:

"that's all folks. Let's not change our culture and redefine marriage. homosexuals can get their rights without doing that. Yes on 1"

Yeah, that's what they said about slavery, women's right to vote, and "mixed-race marriage"

Let the churches that want to marry same-sex couples exercise their constitutional right to do so !

This isn;t the 1800's in Maine

one has nothing to do with the other. sorry.

JaneN123 wrote:

"one has nothing to do with the other. sorry."

Liar !

every single state (30 in all) has voted down homosexual marriage and for good reasons.

windfuture, you debunked nothing of what I posted, you simply stated your own opinion that we did not deserve such protections and rights.

That's not "debunking" that is "disagreeing".

But here, I will re-post what I responded to with each of the points at which you disagreed with our civil marriage rights:

You feel that gays shouldn't be parents to the children of their partners; you would rather children have no protections in families.

You feel that gays should not be able to adopt: so you would rather have children get shuffled from one foster home to another, with no love or stability?

You feel that gays should be forced to carry power-of-attorney documents with them EVERYWHERE in case of emergency, while married couples enjoy hospital visitation rights by virtue of their civil marriage. Yeah, that's real equality there.

You feel that children in a same-sex household deserve no protections for support or housing should that couple split up.

You feel that gay couples should pay penalties to keep property when one of the couple eventually dies.

You feel that gay couples don't deserve the same pension benefits that straight married couples receive.

You feel that gay couples don't deserve married couple discounts on medical care, education, etc because there aren't as many of us-- i.e. because we're a minority of people we shouldn't count at all.

You feel that gay couples don't deserve the same consideration as married couples when wrongful death benefits are determined for surviving partners and children.

And finally, you believe that we should be setting up a parallel system of rights and responsibilities for domestic partnerships, when simply allowing marriage equality accomplishes the same thing. And yet you say you're concerned about out of control costs that would come from the marriage equality solution??

Most reasonable heterosexual people DO take advantage of the very real and tangible benefits of civil marriage. That's why they get married in the first place. We are asking for the same rights and responsibilities from our government.

So thank you for your response. You have not refuted the real benefits of marriage, you have simply indicated what I suspected-- that you do not consider us worthy citizens of such benefits.

I really, truly don't think it's your place to decide how worthy an individual I am. We should be equal in the eyes of the law, expressly because people like you would treat us unequally otherwise.

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

Aion - I didn't realize I bore the full responsibility to prove you wrong - rather, I was participating in the lively discussion on my local newspaper's comment board. Nor did I ever say the sky would fall. But I do predict there will be lasting effects on marriage and views thereof. As has been demonstrated on this very board, there are numerous folks who have a very different view of marriage than say, their parents' generation would have had. Could this be caused by a liberalization of views regarding child rearing, divorce, promiscuity, etc. that has occurred over the past 25-30 years? Wouldn't that also include more tolerant views about gay marriage? So, societal views and trends away from traditional marriage have a negative impact on traditional marriage, as folks either decide they don't want to get married, or they see no need to get married in order to have children. For a specific example, look to Norway, where traditional man/woman marriage has been declining consistently over the past 30-40 years. in one county in northern Norway, 87 percent of first cihldren are born outside of marriage!!!! That number is factual, and is up from 67% just 10 years earlier. What occurred during that 10 year period? The equivalent to gay marriage was passed. I don't say they are directly related, but it's only 1 factor in a continuing saga against traditional marriage and family values. If it keeps up - no one in that area will get married, because they have completely separated the idea of traditional family culture from the current practice of marriage and child rearing, which no longer go hand in hand.

I see a similar decline in societal views of traditional marriage. I look at my two nieces. Both were raised in non-traditional, step-parent families. Both are in their early 20s. Both now have children outside of marriage. It is a national trend, because that is what society is teaching them is OK. Sure, it happened before, but not to the degree we are seeing today. And gay marriage will be one more nail in the coffin to traditional, family-based marriage and child raising. You can point to a lot of successfully-reared children from broken homes, or raised by gay parents. That's true - but is that what we really PREFER????

I don't think so.

JaneN123, 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.

Your 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.

windfuture wrote:

"Aion - I didn't realize I bore the full responsibility to prove you wrong"

Yeah, liars are generally great at repeating lies, but not backing them up.

The rest of your inane post - blaming all the social ills on gay people - typical of someone with an agenda of bigotry and hate.

I think you are disgusting. I guess my wife is correct - people like you MUST be stopped, you have no integrity, you are amateur fascists.

conviv - you gave me your opinion of my specific answers - hardly a way to disprove the technical, legal responses I gave in each case. For example, I believe everyone should have to provide "next of kin" documents - not just gay partners. My medical card should provide my designated "next of kin," as should yours. How is a hospital to know who's married and thus, who's allowed in my room if I'm not conscious. My worst enemy could be there to poison me!!

If a gay couple splits up, and they really care about those children, don't you think they'll do the right thing?? Why do you need a court to do that for you? Otherwise, you're simply forcing a partner to take financial responsibility for your kids.

You failed to point out any penalties paid by non-married partners for property. If you're talking about income taxes on the value, that could easily be addressed through tax reform, should the public decide it's important.

I am unaware of a "married couple discount" on medical care - DO TELL, perhaps I'm missing out on something I deserve. Married couple discounts on education? Another myth.

Courts and juries decide who gets wrongful death benefits - you're free to sue for lack of consortium, etc. and take your chances. As I believe I said, another good reason for tort reform

And to quote one of my favorites from you: "Most reasonable heterosexual people DO take advantage of the very real and tangible benefits of civil marriage. That's why they get married in the first place."

I, for one, di NOT get married in the first place to gain the benefits you list. I got married because I had the innate human desire to find a wife, make a family, and live happily ever after. And that is why society historically supported traditional marriage and all of its related "benefits" - to support that decision and the benefits (children) such a decision provides to society.

When gay marriage can provide an equivalent benefit to this world, perhaps society as a whole will be more willing to discuss your costly benefits. Since, by defintion, that's not possible - don't hold your breath.

again, no comparison. sexual relations with the opposite sex is natural, where same sex is not natural by design by your creator. Therefore, you cannot compare race with the actions by same sex couples. Don't worry, I'm not trying to convert you, but yes you can change your behavior. I may want to fly like a bird, but if I don't have the wings to do so it should not be considered unfair. It's simply the natural law.

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?

ANS: liberals

JaneN123

And you know as little about nature as you do your neighbors.

Vote NO on Question 1 ~ because ignorance is no excuse for bigotry.

“On 11/2/09 at 2:41 PM, windfuture wrote: You can point to a lot of successfully-reared children from broken homes, or raised by gay parents. That's true - but is that what we really PREFER????”

What many of us prefer is the option to choose our own paths. What YOU prefer is to deny us that choice.

What seems fair?

Please vote for fairness and equality. Please vote “NO” on 1.

forHIMtoday wrote:

"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?

ANS: liberals"

Spoken like a true bigot and fraud.

"ANS: liberals"

Can't find a real example, 4him? As expected...

Liberals were never extended rights... they're always been a part of the process, much like conservatives.

Now, it's a good question. Can you answer it seriously?

AionCA - I didn't blame all of society's ills on gay marriage. I simply stated that society has obvious issues that have been brought on by a number of societal changes over the past several decades. Gay marriage and the idea of it is but one small cause for a decline in traditional marriage and family values. It provides an alternative in the minds of some (few), and that in and of itself makes my case. Don't fight the idea - it's what you've been supporting and promoting. "Traditional marriage is of no more value than gay marriage, or no marriage at all. Children are no worse off in a single family home, than a traditional home, than a gay home. They are all equal, and children will be the same no matter what."

Isn't that what the No side has convinced us of? If you don't agree, then I've certainly made my point. I'll even tell you how you can find out. There are a number of studies available that provide statistics - just check the internet. Look up something like - children of gay parents - father mother nurturing issues. Happy reading.

tedlick wrote:

"ANS: liberals"

Can't find a real example, 4him? As expected...

Liberals were never extended rights... they're always been a part of the process, much like conservatives.

Now, it's a good question. Can you answer it seriously?"

Of course he can't, now watch his usual script cut and paste drivel.

Windfuture, you did not give technical legal responses. You gave assertions that you didn't feel gays should be allowed to adopt, etc etc. I'm tired of you repeating your same lies, and when they are accorately refuted, you just ignore that and try your same exact lies again.

You have failed to point out any ills to our society that will happen should loving same-sex couples be extended civil marriage rights. In fact, you have argued the opposite-- that you feel those families and their children are undeserving of the legal benefits and responsibilities.

You are free to not get married. I am free to not get married. I am NOT free to marry like you are, though-- not marry my life partner whom I love.

Gay marriage CAN provide an equivalent benefit to this world, and society IS willing to discuss its benefits. That's what we did in Augusta this year, dear.

Vote NO on 1.

Lighten up there teddy boy, your 250 posts deep here, do you really think anyone waaay down here is undecided or cares about your agenda?

you really haven't caught on have you?

seacoast - you're not simply choosing your own path - you're choosing a path for children who have no choice who their parents are.

And windfuture, you are choosing to deny those children protections that their parents would LOVE to extend them, and our legislature chose was right to do.

Vote NO on 1.

3:01 PM, forHIMtoday,

Apparently not.

I'm guessing it has something to do with your agenda?

oh yeah.

windfuture wrote:

"AionCA - I didn't blame all of society's ills on gay marriage...Gay marriage and the idea of it is but one small cause for a decline in traditional marriage and family values."

Oh sure, "traditional family values" like preventing interracial marriage and preventing women from voting. Yeah, way to go.

" It provides an alternative in the minds of some (few), and that in and of itself makes my case. Don't fight the idea - it's what you've been supporting and promoting. "Traditional marriage is of no more value than gay marriage, or no marriage at all. Children are no worse off in a single family home, than a traditional home, than a gay home. They are all equal, and children will be the same no matter what."

You can't point to any proof that kids aren't better off in a same-sex couple's home than with a single parent because they ARE better off.

You'd rather have kids all be put up for adoption than being cared for by a single parent ? How very practical and generous of you.

"Isn't that what the No side has convinced us of? If you don't agree, then I've certainly made my point."

Your "point" is based on your own bigotry and lies.

"I'll even tell you how you can find out. There are a number of studies available that provide statistics - just check the internet. Look up something like - children of gay parents - father mother nurturing issues. Happy reading." "

Take your own advise, I am apparently far more familiar with the studies in question, and I'm not getting them from extremist web sites with an agenda to force their extremist religious views on everybody.

Please Vote NO on Question 1 ~ People in love raising their kids shouldn't be punished for being good parents, and should not be treated as second class citizens for cleaning up the mess us heterosexuals have made of things !

HRH 1:04 pm, what a disgusting remark! You're not fooling anyone.

forHIMtoday wrote:

"oh yeah."

The most intelligent and honest thing forHIM has ever posted in these comments sections !

Enjoy it, it won't last for long !

conviv - you stomp your foot online pretty well. I can just about picture a 5-year-old stomping her foot and screaming "it's not fair!!!!!". Calling me a liar and reiterating that I didn't provide alternate solutions doesn't change the responses I gave. I have neither the time nor the desire to repeat the entire discourse. But i did show you how POAs, wills, insurance, and other legal methodologies could be used in place of calling a sham a marriage, and opening the door for polygamy, brother-sister marriage, team marriages, etc. There are rightfully limits on who can and who cannot get married.

The primary, initial negative impact I see on traditional married, after I finish puking, is a continued decline in the view of traditional marriage itself. I see more and more poeple choosing to delay marriage, as marriage and child rearing become further separated and out-of-wedlock births become more and more common. If sex is not, at least in part, based on procreation, then why have it all???

Oh get over yourself...

3:04 PM, forHIMtoday,

That's good 4him... I'm happy for whatever agenda you're pushing. I'm sure it's wonderful in it's monstrosity.

windfuture, you admitted yourself that all of the power-of-attorney documents, wills, insurance, and other legal methodologies would STILL not equal a $30 marriage certificate.

Thank you so much for sharing so much of your soul to us online, so we can see you for who you are.

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

Boy, look @ all the YES folks that are thumbed

down. Must be doing it to themselves huh JD?

That was such a S T R E T C H !! : )

aionCA - traditional family values have nothing to do with interracial marriage or women's suffrage. They are conmpletely unrelated, as those were civil rights issues based on race and gender, and this issue is based on a person's choices or preferences. Remember, we have the same legal rights to marriage today. Just because you desire to marry someone of the same sex, thus completely redefining the very essence of historical marriage, doesn't rise to the same level. If a group of people want to get married under the same premise, I doubt the courts would allow it. And if I wanted to marry my dog, i don't think I should have that right either. No matter how committed we are or how much she loves me. But, if we're all for redefining what is required for a marriage, then . . . ?

you've been so clouded by your own hate that you and your pack of hyena's have followed me anywhere I've taken you for months. Remember the verse in Genesis where Joseph said to his brothers " you meant it for evil, but God meant it for good". Well, I'm sure you don't...but think about it.

VOTE YES ON ONE ! ! ! 0 - 31 on tuesday ! !

"On 11/2/09 at 3:01 PM, windfuture wrote: seacoast - you're not simply choosing your own path - you're choosing a path for children who have no choice who their parents are."

And you think you know what's best for the children of gay parents? Have you met any kids who were raised by same-sex parents? Actually talked to them to see how well-adjusted they are? I have and my experience is that they were very happy in their family environment.

What is discomforting for them is the type of vitriol that people with prejudiced thinking spread around. Sorry to keep using these words, but they're the only ones that fit. Bigotry is the enemy of children raised by gay parents. Being made to feel isolated by closed-minded segments of society is the real problem.

I think this whole Question 1 campaign has been good on one level; it’s probably made kids ask questions that they did not dare ask before.

I just hope they got the right answers.

Please vote “NO” on 1.

Windfuture: Are you KIDDING? "If sex is not, at least in part, based on procreation, then why have it all???" Ever since the adnvent of birth control people have been having sex BECAUSE they could control and prevent procreation. Hopefully a child has not resulted from every sexual encounter you have had... for the sake of the world.

So.....right NOW in Maine.....a Convicted Heterosexual Murderer in Jail for Life.....HAS THE RIGHT to Marry..Before a Law abiding,tax paying gay person who has been with thier committed other half for years / decades? Ahh I see how that Helps Traditional Marriage...........NOT! VOTE NO on #1

oh conviv - glad to share with you and the rest. We certainly see you for who you are. Is that supposed to make me feel bad?

As for the $30 marriage certificate, that really does seem to be what it boils down to for you folks. "I can pay my $30 and get my bene's. Woohooo!" Not much mention of traditional marriage values there, is there?

As for children's protection - that is exactly what I advocate for. Protection from the idea that marriage is something new and different from what it was intended to be. Protection from a redefinition of marriage to include something more than a man and a woman.

And I will gladly go on record and state that I support any legal changes that extend medical visitation, decisions, inheritance, child support (which, by the way, is NOT based on marriage, but on being a parent/creating a child), etc. that would satisfy the wants and needs of gay families everywhere. Just don't call it marriage. If you're gonna call it "marriage", you might as well call it "juggling" or "riding a bike".

After tomorrow all of us heterosexuals can go back to fornicating in peace. If God didn't want us to fornicate, then how come we don't get pregnant every time we have sexual intercourse?

Nope. Tis fact.

&&&&& >>>((( Tedlick Hope You don`t MInd )))<<<&&&&&

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

Main Entry: big·ot

Pronunciation: \?bi-g?t\

Function: noun

Etymology: French, hypocrite, bigot

Date: 1660

: a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance

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

Don't like that definition, here's another:

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

bigot [?b?g?t]

n

a person who is intolerant of any ideas other than his or her own, esp on religion, politics, or race

[from Old French: name applied contemptuously to the Normans by the French, of obscure origin]

bigoted adj

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

russell - I never said that procreation is the only reason to have sex. I pointed out that, historically, marriage was considered by society to be an institution through which children would be brought forth. Thus, all of the laws that provide the "rights" that are so heavily discussed at the moment were put into place to support that very institution and the benefits (children) that society would receive therefrom. That is what i said - prove that i am wrong.

most people screaming the loudest for no on 1 are from out-of-state and trying to push their agenda here the the state of Maine. Don't be fooled, you can easily find out where people are from on the internet. I haven't even found one person from this state. My homework has shown NY, MA, CA, etc.

Vote Yes on 1 and protect Maine values. Don't support the homosexual national agenda.

windfuture - very good point - children don't have a choice on who their parents are - and the many, many come from dysfunctional straight married folks. Children born into marriages of physical and sexual abusers don't have a choice, children born into marriages where adultery occurs don't have a choice, children born into marriages that end in divorce don't have a choice, children born into marriages where violence is an everyday occurrence don't have a choice, children born into marriages where they are neglected don't have a choice.

And even more come from straight folks. Children born of rapists and their victims don't have a choice, children born of one-night stands don't have a choice, children born to teenage mothers and father don't have a choice, children born of incestuous family members and their victims don't have a choice.

Actually no child has a choice on who their parents are. The truth is there are many many children raised in loving homes headed by single parents, straight married couples, divorced parents, same-sex parents, widows and widowers, grandparents, other family members - they are raised as part of a family. All love their children equally. Your opinion is that all kids want to be raised by their Mom and Dad - ask a kid who was born into physical/sexual abuse, violent homes, homes where they were neglected etc - would they want to raised by those that brought them into the world or by people that love them.

Jack (1/2 Straight Couple for Equal Marriage Rights and who Voted NO on 1)

No Yes Yes Yes Yes NO Whatever

seacoast - I think you and I will disagree on what is best for children of gay parents - we should probably leave it at that. Other than to say, a loving mother and father are key components in every child's life. And in cases where kids are raised in single parent homes, or foster care, or with gay parents, I think they miss out on something. And I think almost EVERY child you ask honestly who did not have a mother or father (or either) around when they were growing up would tell you that. Don't get me wrong - I think kids can be successfully raised by gay parents. There are many obvious examples of bright children to prove that point. But, as a person of ideals, I cannot deny my belief, backed up by some statistical research, that indicates a traditional, nurturing mother/father family is the best for kids. If you believe otherwise, then argue with nature - not me.

3:22 PM, JaneN123,

Sorry sugar... ain't originally from Maine, but I've lived here since 2000.

The claim that there are no others is a lie. I know for a fact there are other posters from Maine.

Nice try though...

Proud NO on 1 supporter from Maine, right here.

JameN123

!!!!!!!! Well You Haven`t Talked To this Hetro Male MotorCYcle Ridin Freak have YOU !!!!!!!

(((( :~o ) )))) A True Red White and Blue Maine Coon Cat have You (((( :~o ) ))))

???@@Where do You Wanna Meet@@???

>>@@How About in Bangor, Maine<<@@

>>>On Stillwater Ave<<<

>>>@@At The China Way just for the Buffet@@<<<

OK@+++ You Will Be Lunch@+++ OK

DisgustedAmerican wrote:

Go Ahead Maine - Vote away EQUALITY, and SEE your TOURISM DROP by LEAPS and BOUNDS ...yes maybe the Nation is watching,and WITH ALL this attention....many potential visitors & tourists......Hope you enjoy your taxes going up......and Your Open Minded Population / especially the young College Grads Leave your state in Droves to more progressive states / same goes with businesses......I have every intention of spending my next summer vacation in Maine (average vacation 2000$ - but NOT if they Vote away Equality.....I'll spend my money in a BETTER,NON bigoted state.

CANADA MIGHT BE A GOOD OPTION FOR YOU (he he) Yes on 1

teddy she didn't say all, she said most...sugar

free2bee - ask any child in a straightforward manner what their desire would be - they would likely come around to the following: that my parents didn't fight; that my father didn't cheat on my mother; that I wasn't abused at home; that I wasn't beaten at home; that I had enough food to eat; that Mom and Dad loved each other better and loved me too and showed it more often. That I could go home and live a happy life with my family.

They likely would not say - "that my parents would divorce, my mother would turn gay and find a new partner, and I could be loved by two people of the same sex who are committed to each other until I turn 18 and leave home, with a wonderful outlook on life and equality, and be more well-adjusted than my peers and more "tolerant" of others." I doubt that would enter their minds unless put there by someone else.

So what's your point? That gay parents raise the best kids? I didn't think so. Nor do I think you want to have the discussion that to solve the list of known problems that you provided, we need to institute gay marriage as a solution, or that gay marriage will somehow solve these issues. Or do you?

((( Hey HRH419))) is that your ( IQ ) just kidding in a real good mood just so u know ))))

I for ONE that Maine has never given a Chit

What the Other States Do Wrong

Especilly That Mixed Up State Of California

Nope Maine just does not give a CHIT

@@@Maine Voting to NOT do What California DID WRONG@@@

Sorry For Dat u very Big Bigot (? is there any other kind ?)

Ask any child in a straightforward manner what their desire would be - they would likely come around to the following: that my parents didn't fight; that my parents didn't cheat on each other; that I wasn't abused at home; that I wasn't beaten at home; that I had enough food to eat; that my parents loved each other better and loved me too and showed it more often. That I could go home and live a happy life with my family.

What on earth IS anyone's problem with that?

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

winfuture, free2bee's sister divorced her husband and is now living in a lesbian relationship with kids....you won't go far down that road.

I live in Bangor, Jane. Been here all my life. I'm not "form away."

Happily heterosexualy married, father of two.

Happily Voting No on 1 tomorrow.

er, "from away".

sheesh

JaneN123 - Please ohh Please do NOT have children....what a LOUSY mother you would make.....Imagine a woman like JaneN123 having a Gay Child....she'd probably Disown them, or throw them out into the street for NOT turning out the way she wanted them too, or she'd forever damage thier mental stablility by trying to get them so-called "reparative therapy".....my guess is - she toss them out like old garbage. Imagine being a Gay child knowing that your parent(s) don't feel you deserve Equal treatment under the law.....ahh how that child would feel loved ..NOT! Guess ol' Jane NEVER had her RIGHTS Voted on....she's NOT familiar with REAL Women of Courage Like Alice Paul 1912/1920 (who Fought for,and was imprisoned trying to OBTAIN YOUR RIGHT to Vote Jane) yep..your RIGHT to VOTE other people's RIGHTS away....ahh how nice. What a pathetic woman.

forHim - thanks for the tip.

Jane...you'll have to grow a thick skin. Supporters of family are not welcome on this site.

Vote "Yes" on one....celebrate the dignity of the human person and family....

JaneN123: I don't know if you are living in the dark ages or what. Just read in "Downeast Magazine" ( a well respected magazine that is devoted to Maine and Maine issues) that there are many myths re Maine still going around....one was about the percentage of so-called "natives" in Maine. They do not comprise the same high percentage in years long gone. In this day and age, many people move for various reasons to other states than where they were born or grew up......marriages, jobs, college, etc etc. We are all neighbors; we live in an interdependent age. It is not all about us versus them, or it should not be! And more and more of the younger generation just do not view the world that way anymore. They know that is is essential that more and more people try and get along and emphasis where we can agree, or at least work together, rather than be against others all the time.

Proudly Voted NO on 1.

Disgusted - imagine having a child who wants to run wild at age 14 and have sex with every boy on the football team. Then, she decides to go out and try every drug going to enjoy life a little more. And, let's not forget, the drinking, smoking, disrespect of parents and authorities, school skipping, bad grades, etc. etc. etc. Now what would you think if I as a parent didn't support her behavior, and let her know that I felt she was just expressing her own inner feelings and need for self-fulfillment? Why, what would you think of me as a parent if I said 1 thing that made her feel less equal, or if I suggested counseling for some of her bad behavior and habits? What kind of parent would I be indeed?????

I'll tell you - I'd show my child how much i loved her by being there for her and by suggesting that such behaviors are dangerous and inappropriate for her. The same as I would if she came to me and told me she was gay. We'd talk about it, but I guarantee she would know my view and the reason for it.

Sheeze, irrelevant much ?

Blame the gays, we get it, you hate qweers and can't stick to any other subject.

Get a life, you freak.

chersully the only reason the "kids" of today are more tolerant of immmorality is because they are the direct descendants of parents such as yourself that espouse to a humanistic form of morals. You reap what you sow.

Disgusted - in case you missed it, the point was that parents have a responsibility to teach their children, with love and respect, the difference between right and wrong. And that includes, for many parents, why being gay is simply not an acceptable lifestyle choice to make. And, if counseling is needed in such a situation, then that is up to the parents, the child, and the counselor.

Just as it would be for a child who is bulemic, prone to "cutting", or who has feelings of attraction to the same sex.