Mainers head to polls to decide same-sex marriage, tax changes

The reality is many gay couples have children and are helping society to raise the next generation. In many cases, they're raising children whose biological parents didn't want to or for whatever reason could not raise them themselves.

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

VOTE NO ON ONE and extend the protections of marriage to ALL COMMITTED COUPLES RAISING CHILDREN!

Shannon

Gay couples are not helping society. They are hurting it.

Children that are orphans or foster children, should never be placed in a home with two gay parents, ever.

You will see that we will succeed in voting this nonsense law down.

That will close the door to any "gay" family adoptions.

Thank the good Lord above.

Shannon - you exactly describe the situation of a family friend: child unwanted by biological mom, dad unknown, mother addicted to drugs and on welfare. She and her partner went through innumerable hoops to be allowed to adopt this unwanted child. That some would stand in the way of a stable, responsible, committed couple from adopting astounds me.

It strikes me that if gay couples want to form committed relationships, want to form families, want to enjoy the benefits (and challenges) of marriage, we should let them. More stable families in this state is a good thing. I understand the religious side to this question, but it strikes me that marriage has always meant different things in government and religion. This is why a justice of the peace (or even a lowly notary in many states) can marry a couple. This is why divorce is legal, though shunned or disallowed in some religions. This is why premarital sex is legal.

Bob Jones University can ban interracial dating, as they are a private college. The Boy Scouts can ban gays from their ranks (a friend of mine and his mother were asked to leave a Portland cub scout troop after it was learned she was gay; he was 11 at the time). However, a governmental agency, state government, or public university would be in violation of the constitution if they chose to do so. The point being, we have different, more inclusive standards for the law and government than we hold for private organizations, especially religious ones. What a church defines as appropriate for marriage is as irrelevant to the law as what dietary restrictions they recommend. While I understand that many people in this state and country see the Bible as the final word, I don't think that it provides a satisfactory basis for law and government. In fact, it strikes me that our country has a strong tradition of actively resisting and protecting against religious values informing our governmental decisions. It wasn't long ago that the same arguments that are being made now against gay marriage were being made against interracial marriage. We now realize how wrong these arguments were and are. I see opening marriage to same-sex couples as the next step in the logical progression of slave emancipation, 14th & 15th amendments, women's suffrage, civil rights movement, ADA, and all the other work we have done to protect the minority over the past 200 years.

A dead heat in the polls means that Yes on 1 is ahead by 5-7 points. (See "Bradley effect" where persons polled don't want to be perceived as bigots when being interviewed, but vote their conscience behind the polling booth curtain.) As California went so goes Maine. Maine may not have the African-American votes (70% for traditional marriage) who were offended by the gay advocates' revisionist history -- analogizing the struggle up from slavery to that of the gay community. Not to mention that the civil rights movement was backed by churches, a group that the gay community attacks it (see vitriol spewed at Catholics, Mormons, Focus on the Family, and many, many others).

But Maine does have a solid demographic. And one that votes. Mr. Spooner may be a youtube sensation. But his values are out touch with his generation -- the greatest generation.

Yes on 1. Marriage is between one man and one woman. Centuries of an institution need not be rewritten to accomodate a minority group's desire to feel accepted. There are other ways to validate homosexuals, lesbians, transgendereds that do not require changing the bedrock definition/relationship of marriage to society.

Get out the vote, seniors. We need help from the greatest generation one more time. Don't count on someone else's vote. We need yours. Your vote counts.

Yes on 1. Everyone's vote counts.

YES_ON_1 wrote:

"Shannon

Gay couples are not helping society. They are hurting it.

Children that are orphans or foster children, should never be placed in a home with two gay parents, ever.

You will see that we will succeed in voting this nonsense law down.

That will close the door to any "gay" family adoptions.

Thank the good Lord above."

This is exactly why people need to Vote NO on Question 1

The above poster's arguments against same-sex couples marrying always change, and are contradictory - because the REAL agenda of the organizations supporting YES on 1 is to TAKE AWAY EXISTING RIGHTS that same-sex couples have in Maine.

Please Vote NO on Question 1 and send a message to the people who seek to harm same-sex couples, their families, and their children, but also to the people who do profound harm to gay teens, who represent a profoundly greater suicide risk because of the vocal oppression masquerading as religious tolerance. Vote NO on 1 because religious extremists in Maine seek not only to do harm to same-sex couples - they seek to impose their will ont eh churches that have a Constitutional right to wed these couples.

Vote NO on Question 1 for religious freedom. Live and Let Live in Maine. Maine is better than hate.

Please vote YES on Question 1 and send a message to the people who seek to harm traditional couples and their families, and their children, but also to the people who do profound harm to heterosexual teens, who represent a profoundly greater risk of being corrupted because of the vocal oppression masquerading as "homosexual marriage"

Vote YES on 1 because homosexual extremists in Maine seek not only to do harm to heterosexual couples, they seed to impose their will on the churches that have a Constitutional right to defend traditional marriage.

Vote YES on Question 1 for the freedom to walk down the street in a morally acceptable society without the influences of homosexuals and their clearly abhorrent sexual activites.

Maine is better than a morally corrupt state. Mainers are good, hardworking, religious, family people that only want the best for their children.

Homosexual marriage is not acceptable in Maine.

yes on 1 couldnt of said it better, GET OUT THERE TODAY AND VOTE YES ON 1. SAVE MAINES WAY OF LIFE!!!!!

The above paid advocacy brought to you by Bigots For Dead Qweers.

Vote Yes On 1!!!!!!!

this article isnt just about Question 1. Does anyone even care about the other bonds?

YES_ON_1: It is because of people like you that I am voting NO!! You are filled with so much hate and prejudice toward people that you do not even know. You people that call yourselves christians need to do some soul searching once this if over no matter which way the vote goes. There is nothing to celebrate here.

My husband, my 20 year old daughter, and I voted NO on one and submitted our absentee ballots two weeks ago. We voted yes on the bond measure, yes for extending time to certify signatures and NO on everything else. We analyzed the facts as a family, discussed the pros and cons and made informed decisions by looking up both sides of the issues.

vote yes on question1 to keep marriage traditional a man and a woman husband and wife lets keep maine the way life should be if it were any other way it seems it would be very difficult to determine whos the husband or whos the wife or whats what and whos who

Yes_on_1 spouts hate then thanks the lord? give me a break.. what kind of hypocrisy is that? What makes you think the lord wants thanks like that?

What makes you think the Lord want's us to allow open sin in society for all to see?

Get a clue.

You're from Millinocket, you should be smarter than that.

YES on 1 will preserve the true definition of marriage as between one woman and one man, and it will also try to keep the Far Left's gay agenda from being forced on our kids... please vote YES on 1 today.

Can someone explain how a Yes on 1 "Protects Children in the Classroom"?

My family will cast 11 yes on 1 votes today. People who make comments here that say yes voters are bigots are clearly desperate and missing out on the real reason this is coming to a vote. It is about keeping marriage between a man and a woman in Maine, not about being racial in an ignorant way.

Funny you should mention Bob Jones University beatdown, since it's a Chrisitan College. Tossed out of Cub Scouts? The boy who would have to be under 9 years old to be in Cub Scouts and he is gay?!, how would a child know that, I don't know any children under 9 who think about sex. I think maybe there's more to that story and not about a child being gay unless this child was acting in a perverse manner to other boys and where would a child learn that from? I think that statement brings a much clearer idea about the real issue and why people are against gay marriage.

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/PPP_Release_ME_1102.pdf

Looks like the PPP poll over the weekend shows a shift in favor of Yes on #1. Could be the Mendel case?

Going after this guidance counselor for his position on gay marriage made this undecided voter think and decide to vote Yes.

Should be an interesting night.

VOTE YES ON #1!!!!

Outdoorman -- YOU GO!

YES -ON-1 -- love your ID. Whenever any anti's try to slam you, they have to address you first in their comments, so of course YES_on_1 appears many times in the comments. Clever!

outdoorman

I like it, I like it a lot.

GREAT COMMENTS!

Thanks for supporting YES ON 1!

No on 1

Does anyone want to talk about the women who LOST HER JOB for speaking out for No on 1. Seems the Roman Catholic Church felt that she did not represent them to well so they fired her. Funny how no one wants to talk about her lose of employment over this Question. So viper, Ourdoorman, forHIMtoday, etc...should she have lost her job? Why not run to her defense?

No matter what happens tonight for either group, it will not end tonight.

Viper13

THanks hunny!

I thought it was pure genius myself!!

Happy voting!

Marriage is a human right, not a heterosexual privilege.

Vote no on 1. End discrimination and support equality for all Maine families.

JD

Of course she should have lost her job.

It goes against everything the church teaches.

Are you really that dense?

You can't be a true Catholic and be for gay marriage.

Not possible.

It's all or nothing buddy.....................

We got the votes, you don't. Bye, Bye!!

YES ON ONE !!!! ) 0 - 31!!! Way to go Maine!!!

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

On 11/3/09 at 6:45 AM, redstatepublius wrote:

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/PPP_Release_ME_1102.pdf

Looks like the PPP poll over the weekend shows a shift in favor of Yes on #1. Could be the Mendel case?

Going after this guidance counselor for his position on gay marriage made this undecided voter think and decide to vote Yes

Should be an interesting night.

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

Indeed, this opened many eyes...

YES ON 1!

YAAAAAY!

Can I get a WOOP WOOP!

Happy voting all!!

Gimme a

Y

E

S

O

N

1

!!!!!!!!

GOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO YESSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS!!

On 11/3/09 at 6:59 AM, YES_ON_1 wrote:

JD

Of course she should have lost her job.

It goes against everything the church teaches.

Are you really that dense?

You can't be a true Catholic and be for gay marriage.

Not possible.

It's all or nothing buddy.....................

We got the votes, you don't. Bye, Bye!!

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

Agreed YES_ON_1

How did this woman expect to be able to minister to the

people of this church and go against it's teachings? She

knew what she was doing when she wrote her opinion.

Even she was not surprised by the response...Get Real.

No on 1. Period. Why should heterosexuals be the only ones to suffer marriage? And just think, a gay couple will have to get divorced when they break up, thereby keeping lawyers in business. Good old capitalism at work. Keep this in mind you Yes Voters.

I hope everyone realizes this above is tongue in cheek. There is no arguing intelligently with the yes-ers. Everyone, please get out and Vote No on 1. We can show the world that Maine is not as backwards as it seems from some of the comments on here by the yes voters. :-)

YUP!

You got it!

Llike I said it's all or nothing.

Michigal

WRONG!

What about a hell yeah?????

Sorta like SCSH would do..

How can you possibly say Maine is backwards

when 30 other states have banned gay marriage?

And it will be 0 - 31 today!!! VOTE YES ON ONE !!!

SD

HELLs YEAH!!

Please VOte yes #1. If the gays want equal rights they can go live somewhere else. I still think it should be illegal to be gay lol

To all who voted yes on 1..should yes on one prevail, and ld1020 be voted down, the only thing you have won is to remove the rights to Marry which same sex couples never really had anyways. Same sex Couples will still live, laugh,love, have children and be families, they will continue to hold their heads high proud of who they are and how nature made them. But Most Import they will NEVER GIVE UP THE FIGHT, THIS ISSUE SHELL BE REVISTED AGAIN,AND AGAIN AND AGAIN !!! until they have the same EXCATE SAME RIGHTS AFFORDED TO OPERSET SEX

drdoolitel

WRONG!!!

To all who voted yes on 1..should yes on one prevail, and ld1020 be voted down, the only thing you have won is to remove the rights to Marry which same sex couples never really had anyways. Same sex Couples will still live, laugh,love, have children and be families, they will continue to hold their heads high proud of who they are and how nature made them. But Most Import they will NEVER GIVE UP THE FIGHT, THIS ISSUE SHELL BE REVISTED AGAIN,AND AGAIN AND AGAIN !!! until they have the same EXCATE SAME RIGHTS AFFORDED TO OPERSET SEX COUPLES. AND ACHEIVE THE SAME STATUES OF EQUALITY AND LEGGALITY AS OPERSET SEX COUPLES WITH FAMILIES.

to THOSE WHO VOYED NO.. GOD BLESS AND THANKS FOR YOUR SUPPORT. BE PROUD OF HOW YOU VOYED AND .DO NOT GIVE UP THE FAITH...

The only good thing about this is that it is almost over, for now. At least we won't be subject to the barrage all day, and all night. If the Yes folks win, then it will go to court. If the No folks win, then it will also go to court.

Then we'll have a decision. And one that won't allow for any more peoples referendums, if I understand it correctly.

that comercial says it best

EVEN NATURE KNOWS THE DIFFERENCE

VOTE YES ON 1

BettyB you are a fool. There are animals in nature that have homosexual behaviors. Look it up.

No on 1

They say its natural to try it once or twice to see if you like it :)

this article isnt just about Question 1. Does anyone even care about the other bonds?

Seriously - okay. I'm 17 and I go to a public high school. Not once has anyone told me explicitly how couples have intercourse. Actually THEY DON"T TELL STUDENTS ANYTHING AT ALL. Everything can get schools yelled at now I suppose. Schools don't talk about gay stuff in schools. If they were, they'd get in trouble. It's not "Happening Already" It hasn't and it won't happen. Schools are supposed to reinforce what students hear at home and since Maine's virtually split on this issue, schools don't bother talking about it. In Massachusetts, polls show that over 80% of Bay Staters agree that same-sex couples should get married, so out of state opponents are more likely to get riled up.

Same-sex marriage is inevitable whether, same as civil rights, rights to minorities, black vote, women's vote etc. They're classified in the same area, and it's simply history repeating itself. LETTING WOMEN VOTE WILL TAKE DOWN THIS COUNTRYS MORAL STANDARDS... ALLOWING SAME-SEX COUPLES TO MARRY IS TAKING DOWN THIS COUNTRYS MORAL STANDARDS... is it not? It doesn't infect children, it doesn't do anything to anyone other than making two committed individuals happy. That's really all I have to say. No on 1.

Dear yes-on-1 from the way your writing it sounds like your winning the lottery and there will be no more homosexuals left in Maine..Could not be farther from the truth my friend. they arn't going an where, they will stay right here and continue to fight the oppresion you seek to extend on to them, as will their straight allies. the "gay aganda" will continue...you may win this battle but the war has just begun... with such discontent as you show towards homosexuals ,one has to wonder if your just trying to stur things up or perhaps your dening your true self and homosexual nature, forceing your anger and repression on to our gay brothers and sisters, except they self and they will be a happier person. God bless

Years ago, I felt sorry for the way gays were treated , and basically had an attitude that they should be left alone. I would never advocate harm on anyone but the truth needs to be said. The loud "in your face" types are the most dishonest vicious people I have ever encountered. For that reason alone, I have turned my back on equal rights, or should I state ,PREFERENTIAL RIGHTS for that alternative lifestyle. VOTE YES on 1 !!!!!!!!!!!!!

Coexist, No on 1.

Glory, glory hallelujah, HIS truth is marching on!

No on 1

On 11/3/09 at 7:32 AM, donnelly wrote: Repeated separate thumbs down will cause comment to be hidden

this article isnt just about Question 1. Does anyone even care about the other bonds?

Donnelly, I do not think the other issues are as important to voters as is issue 1, sad fact most people would not even bother to vote today if not for issue 1, most people prob will not even decide until they get to the polls on how they will vote on these issues. I am still stuck on 4 as it seems to me to be a double edge knife with a no win either way, spending needs to be contoled for sure but at what cost...

Brendan, You better do a little research. Even the No Side

can't say that it hasn't been brought up in schools in MA

and other states, without lying that is...

Brendan, why tell us you're a 17 year old public high school student when you're clearly an adult, pro gay political operative, and probably not even from Maine? I'm glad all this silliness, spin, and outright lying will soon be over. This has nothing to do with women voting or blacks voting and your attempt to align yourselves with these groups is insulting to those who genuinely suffered without equal rights for many years. Just like whites and blacks and women, you DO have the right to vote just like everyone else. Neither of those minority groups asked us to redefine marriage to "make them happy," they simply demanded EQUAL rights, such as the right to vote, and got it. You've already got equal rights, now be happy about that and just live your life, or move on to some other state to spin your web of half lies and outright lies.

Brendan, HRH is correct. The Yes'ers aren't complaining that gay sex is being taught in the schools. They are complaining that the schools acknowledge that gays exist. They are frustrated because they can't force their fundamentalist views into the public school curricula, even though no one is forcing them to send their children to public schools, and they can choose to have their children indoctrinated to their liking in religious schools instead. It's called "intolerance." I call it intolerable, and thankfully so does the Constitution of the United States.

On 11/3/09 at 7:44 AM, HRH419 wrote: Repeated separate thumbs down will cause comment to be hidden

Brendan, You better do a little research. Even the No Side

can't say that it hasn't been brought up in schools in MA

and other states, without lying that is...

Logic and reasoning tell me that if the subjuct of gay marriage was going to be brought up in schools in Maine, then it would already be happening face the facts there is no law to state that it can't not be tought now. It is also logic that it can not be avoided with the changing society, as more and more states and more and more nations legalize same sex marriage it is a part of social history and there for will have to be tought as one can not touch on the subjuct of marriage with out laying out all the options especially when looking at world history, and societies where same sex "marriage" has been condoned for centeries.. However I do have my doughts that the acts of intercourse will be or can be tought in schools, I do beleive that there are federial laws in place to insure that aspect.

Now that I have had my blogs for the day.. I am off to get ready to Bus NO ON 1! Voters to the Polls. You all have a great day!!!

That's discrimination...what if a YES voter wants ride? : )

I have no issue with people marrying whomever they want but the ads I see that are focusing on kids having proper healthcare because their "parents" are now married is over the top.

Brendan - thanks buddy for letting us know that public schools ARE NOT teaching what the yes side continuously says that they are and will be (CONJECTURE = GUESSING). There is no reference to public education and what they will or will not teach in the current law. It is something that has been brought into this issue to bring about fear and panic. Thanks also Brendan for letting people who should know but continue to assert - "It doesn't infect children". Reps from the yes side already stated that the schools teaching it was NOT meant to be taken LITERALLY - guess many missed that admission of misrepresenting there ads.

If the Yes side is sooo worried about kids getting infected perhaps they should start pressuring the government for a vaccine -- inoculate your kids, your grandkids, your neighbor's kids -- there will most likely be a pandemic - everyone will want to be gay/lesbian so they can get preferential treatment - we all know they are being treated better than we straight folks - just google all the 'special' rights they have that we don't - BTW a straight individual can't be fired, refused housing, denied credit, etc based solely on heterosexual orientation either - if they could don't you think it would be all over the news?

Jack

Wow. Such nastiness on the part of people blogging in to support yes on 1. There is no "sin" in being born gay. It simply is. All the nonsense spouted by the religions right stems back to ignorance, prejudice, and superstition. Marriage is not sacred in the heterosexual community. BE REAL. How many of you were virgins when you got married? How many of you have not "lusted" in your heart even after marriage? How many of you have been divorced? I don't even want to think about adultery. How many of you have abused your spouse or children? What about substance abuse? Do you think "God" loves you for that? Cursing, littering, cheating the government.... If you are condemning a whole group of people as all sinners, get the log out of your own eyes. In fact, get your SUPERSTITIONS away from the Constitution of the United States. (The writers, by the way, were mostly free-thinkers and Unitarians -- not prejudiced bigots). And NO -- the bigots don't necessarily have the votes... remember Southern Maine with its more educated citizens is also more tolerant and has a larger population than the area centered around Bangor and north.

Yes on 1. God intended marriage for a man and a woman. This country and this state was founded on principles taken from the bible. And in just a few hunderd years, things have turned around so far that now blacks, gays, hispanics, native americans, etc.... all have more rights than the descendants of the founding fathers, who lived their lives by the word of God. Something is going terribly wrong, and just keeps getting worse. If gay marriage is allowed, Maine will no longer be "The way life should be". Life was not meant to be like that.

((( Good Morning 4himtoday )))~~~~ (( Could ya do me a favor??))

(Could ya bring the Sun out today, Pretty Please !!! / You do Believe in Sun ?)

@ That sure would be nice for ALL of US / You know like in ALL @

>> Pretty Please / You self declared GOD <<

>> Did you hear 4himtoday / You Bigot / Thats supports Riligious Bigotry <<

&& My God for ALL Humans told me last night / Vote NO on #1 &&

>> That on election it was going to be a Nice and Sunny / a day for Freedom <<

## Heat Wave Day / a Vote No on # 1 Day / Independance Day ##

& God Bless ua All / On the Wings of A Snow White Dove he Brought his True Love &

>> That would include 4himtoday / On the Only JudgeMent Day <<

++ My God doesn`t exclude any Human / Not Today or Any other Day ++

Hey Karruka - please don't bash those of us that were born and raised north and/or east of Bangor - there are many gay/lesbian people who live in these areas and they have straight friends that support equal marriage.

Jack (Voted NO on 1)

look at all the yes on 1 documents and substitute gay for black or woman

cmon people stop hating for the sake of fear

and for those who truly want to protect marriage... abolish divorce and truly live by gods word.

VOTE YES ON 1.

Jezebel - your user name says it all - maybe you should read her story in Kings - it's, you know - in the Bible.

Thank you to all of the inbred hicks in maine after reading all of the hate filled remarks I think that I am going to start a satanic group because if this is your gods love then I think we would all be better of with the dark prince

YES_ON_1 I thank you for makeing it all clear that god = hate

Heathens......:)

On 11/3/09 at 7:44 AM, HRH419 wrote: "Brendan, You better do a little research. Even the No Side can't say that it hasn't been brought up in schools in MA

and other states, without lying that is..."

I can tell you that is hasn't been brought up in the Bangor School systems. At least if it has been, it was successfully hidden from both of my children. One in High School, and one in Junior High. Neither one has ever heard anything resembling this being brought up.

Of course it is being talked about, in the hallways, as the kids have had to watch the poor examples of we adults these last few weeks.

Both of my children wanted to know how me and my wife were voting, because they would have voted No if they were allowed to vote. They brought this up, not us. (We don't involve our kids in how we vote, no matter what the issue. Unless they ask. No "indoctrination" here.)

Voting No on 1. Soon.

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO on 1..People scared of kids learning of GAY things in school..I would rather my kid learn it from school than the little brats on the bus, that learn it from their ignorant parents. We have had to explain this issue to our special needs child ,because of other peoples ignorant kids.

well IF the Yes on #1 wins...I am canceling my Vacation in Maine next summer.....I will take my Tourism dollars to a Non-Bigoted state....Probably Mass. and GIVE them OUR $2000 vacation budget.........What a sad day for Maine, it won't end...if No on #1 fails...it will just Divide you all.........sad/pathetic. No on #1 ..and IF no on #1 fails......How about we start a referendum for next election - NO Divorces allowed.....PROTECT MARRIAGE! yea, we'll see who'd support that....the supposed religious folks will be running in the other direction..the Hypocrit s they are with thier Mulitpul Divorces & 2,3 and 4 marriages.. (they just hate gays and won't admit it) America democracy is a disgrace. How any Minority Rights ar eput up to public vote is disgusting!

brendan, assuming it's true you are a teen, I graduated in 1973 and they taught us about sex and marriage and other things.

There is no equal treatment for non married people non gay who buys homes and raise their children together, not tax breaks no insurance breaks.

I think we should take care of that first.

I for one resent the fact that "Karruka " can come on here complaining about the nastiness on the " yes side", and then turn arund and say ... " remember Southern Maine with its more educated citizens is also more tolerant and has a larger population than the area centered around Bangor and north. "

I for one- live in Bangor, but grew up more North. The people here are real! And not uneducated by any means. The majority of people living in Southern Maine are " transplants". Yes, you may have the Southern Maine vote, which surprises none of us, but this is a big State. Wait and see how the real Mainers vote today- you might be disappointed in the end.

Now I am off to deliver people to the polls. Yes on 1!

@8:34 am, Chin up people. If NO on 1 does fail it will be by the closest margin ever in a people's referendum. That is something to be proud of.

Who would be forcing their views into the public school curricula if the NO voters win? They claim that if gay marriage passes, that it will not have any effect on school children. HOW CAN IT NOT? Kids will talk about what is happening in the world, especially inescapable issues such as this. As a teacher I know that teachers cannot stop students from talking about things, and it WILL come up in schools. So, the pro-gay marriage side WILL be forcing their views on the children of people with whom they disagree. It's unavoidable, so please don't accuse fundamentalists of "forcing their vews" into schools. (It's not only "fundamentalists" who oppose gay marriage.) It's an issue that will be in schools, no matter what happens. Tolerance vs. intolerance? I've seen more intolerance from people towards others with whom they disagree, than I have from anyone who may not support gay marriage. Staunch NO on 1 supporters have shown very little tolerance to those who truly, sincerely do not support gay marriage. Please vote YES on 1, let's continue with Civil Unions for now, let the dust settle. I'm sure it won't be too long before this issue comes up again.

You guys can't give up this early in the day... Still a lot of daylight left......Get them chin's up.....

ricts: I clearly posted MA. And if you think it won't

follow here, you're decieved.

On 11/3/09 at 8:34 AM, DisgustedAmerican wrote:

well IF the Yes on #1 wins...I am canceling my Vacation in Maine next summer

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

Good riddance...What an attitude.

8:43 AM, HRH419,

If you think the things you fear being taught in school will not be taught in schools if Yes on 1 wins, you are deceived.

I want to see more chin's than a Chinese phone book......Get them up......

The homosexuals are not going away if this is voted down. They will still be walking down the streets. They will still have children in your schools. Not everyone is a drunk or child molester er ah I mean Catholic. Not everyone goes to the catholic church and it is not up to secular law to enforce the catholic churches homophobic agenda.

NO ON 1

They said it wouldn't happen in MA also ted...

Hello, all,

Well, today is the big day. I will make one last appeal to Vote No on 1. I will try to personalize it a bit.

I realize the Yes people have their viewpoints but I have not seen one with which I agree. I see some of the Yes people with comments that are so utterly bizarre and off-the-wall that it makes you wonder sometimes. All of the Yes arguments seem to revolve around religion or some perception that children will be taught that same-sex marriage is evil, sinful, caused the fall of Rome, and will destroy all of mankind. The religious people are all worried that SS marriages will be forced upon them and that if they fail to comply, their church's tax-exempt status will be lost. There was even someone rambling on about gene splicing and reproductive rights that had nothing to do with gay marriage and could well have applied to all in the 22nd century, perhaps. As I said, some comments were bizarre. All seemed to have a tinge of fear of change. And, that fear is understandable, but made no more sense than the fear that black man could drink from a white water fountain and ride in the front of the bus.

All of these arguments are just inaccurate; most of them just emotional reactions.

What I would like to do if "NO on 1" prevails and the recently changed law remains "as is" is to finally wed my partner of 12 years. He and I have a daughter (he's the biological dad) and we would like to make sure we can protect her (and each other) in the event something should happen to either or both of us. I would like to pass on the family farm through inheritance. I'd like to add them to my health insurance. But, above all, I'd like to be "a family." This concept must be similar to how an adopted child must feel. That is, they need (and rightly so) this permanency that one gets from recognition. Once the gavel comes down and they officially are part of the family, they are treated in the eyes of the law identically to a biologically produced offspring. Call it a small gesture and probably not significant to anyone else, but it is significant to us. Why is that so much to ask?

Yes, we can see an attorney (as we have done) and attempted to do all the tons of paperwork that equal a marriage in the eyes of the law, hoping we have missed nothing. It just is not the same. If we could marry, that would be that. Plain and simple.

So, if you YES people really feel that somehow my family is going to destroy your life and all of humankind as we know it, then vote your conscience and learn to live with it. On the other hand, if you feel that I should be allowed to have my family recognized, too, and to be left alone (as most of us old-school Mainers tend to believe), then please Vote NO on Question 1.

Thank you.

8:50 AM, HRH419,

I'm just saying that thins you don't want to be taught in schools are ALREADY being taught in schools here and in other states that have no same-sex marriage.

The idea that it will only be taught in schools if No on 1 wins is patently wrong.

Vote no on 1. please save those children that need to be saved. Get educated

coastalone...I agree completely with your post. Thank you for posting. Most teachers are avoiding talking about this issue and I don't blame them. This gay marriage issue is bringing the issue of sex to children at a very young age. They are too young to deal with this emotionally and spiritually. I would dread as a teacher having to deal with some of these issues in the classroom. I wish you the best in your career. Good, caring teachers can make such an impact on the lives of our children. Thank you for your common sense and thank you for letting the yes voters know what goes on in the classroom. I myself knew that these issues do effect our children though some brush their reactions off as nothing important or worthy of worry.

Let's get out and vote...YES on one..

Those who deny freedom to others deserve it not for themselves. ~Abraham Lincoln

I'M STRAIGHT= VOTING YES

LET'S SEE IF THEY, MOSTLY GAYS, COME OUT OF THE CLOSET.

GAY/STRAIGHT = YOUR VOTE

HRH419...excuse me? I've never been to Maine,and would love to visit, I hear its beautiful..BUT, would you spend your hard earned money in a state where you are wanted,or thought as less then Equal? I doubt it! If you say yes, you are a LIAR! ALL LGBT people and thier supporters need to start putting thier money where they know support exists.....in America, Money Talks, and ......walks.

On 11/3/09 at 9:01 AM, AVani112 wrote:" I'M STRAIGHT= VOTING YES

LET'S SEE IF THEY, MOSTLY GAYS, COME OUT OF THE CLOSET.

GAY/STRAIGHT = YOUR VOTE"

Again, greater illustration of the general mentality of the "Yes" side.

I am a heterosexual male, happily married to a wonderful woman, with two kids. There is nothing "gay" about me. That doesn't preclude me from realizing that treating gays/lesbians as lesser citizens is wrong. It is clearly wrong. I don't have to be "gay" to realize that.

Go and crawl back under your rock, where you have been living all this time. It must be comfortable under there.

Voting No on 1.

listenup said it well.

If Abraham Lincoln would have lived in these times he would have probably added...but freedom does not allow us to corrupt the minds and spirits of our children. Exposing our children to these issues is enslaving the minds and spirits of our children. Though I have already figured out many don't understand that or refuse to because sin likes company.

Personally, I wouldn't cut off my nose to spite my face.

I'd go where I wanted...and stop acting like a victim.

disgustedAmerican.... I would always treat you the same as anyone else. I deal with the public and every one is dealt with respect.

Is there anyone besides me who are tired of people that say there are animals in nature who have homosexual tendencies ? We are humans and have a brain and knowledge of right and wrong. The morality of the entire World has gradually been whittled away by sexual perversion on TV and other media. If you are attending a Church that doesn't teach the commandments from God you should change churches.The majority of people who are against gay marriage don't hate homosexuals, they hate the sin that God finds as an abomination. And for those of you that don't believe in God, the rest of us will pray for you.

Vote YES on 1

On 11/3/09 at 9:20 AM, eastmainer wrote:"...The majority of people who are against gay marriage don't hate homosexuals, they hate the sin that God finds as an abomination."

Somehow I think you're gonna have a difficult time convincing those who have been beaten, abused, verbally abused and accosted, and made fun of on a regular basis of your "hating the sin, not the sinner".

Saying that probably makes you feel better as you read and hear people being referred to, in typical sneering fashion, as "queers", "fags" "fairies" and all that goes along with it. Hope you feel real good about "hating the sin".

Vote No on 1.

Question 1 is about families -SUPPORT FAMILIES & VOTE NO ON #1

People who want to be married are talking about stable relationships. I'm quite sure that divorce among straight couples will still be higher than for GLBT couples once this law is ratified in this referendum.

What I don't understand is why this law didn't go into effect on 9/12/09 and a bunch of sour grapes was allowed to hold it up?

On 11/3/09 at 9:10 AM, HRH419 wrote: Personally, I wouldn't cut off my nose to spite my face.

I'd go where I wanted...and stop acting like a victim.

REALLY..? When can WE Vote on YOUR RIGHTS? Id Love the opportunity to SLAP you Down! Then we'd see how fast you spend that money where you aren't wanted/or treated Equally!

On 11/3/09 at 9:20 AM, eastmainer wrote: Repeated separate thumbs down will cause comment to be hidden

Is there anyone besides me who are tired of people that say there are animals in nature who have homosexual tendencies ? We are humans and have a brain and knowledge of right and wrong. The morality of the entire World has gradually been whittled away by sexual perversion on TV and other media. If you are attending a Church that doesn't teach the commandments from God you should change churches.The majority of people who are against gay marriage don't hate homosexuals, they hate the sin that God finds as an abomination. And for those of you that don't believe in God, the rest of us will pray for you.

Vote YES on 1

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

AMEN

Is allowing gay marriage going to cost me money? If not, then who cares. Voting them down (no pun intended) is not going to make any of them stop being gay. I believe that every homosexual has the right to get married and be every bit as miserable as every married heterosexual (just kidding if the wife is reading this).

I am a teacher in MA and gay and married. The stuff posted in fear does not exist in my school. We have state standards and children are not taught to be gay which i thought was funny to hear. Do straight people teach children to be straight. Well i grew up in Maine with straight parents and was raised Catholic so see that does not work either. Ha anyway Vote NO on 1. oh, and i am on break now.

Vote Yes_on_1 - Preserve spousal abuse between a man and his wife the way God intended it to be. rotflmao!

DisgustedAmerican: You have the exact rights that I do...

Like I said, what an attitude. "SLAP" me down...yeah,

that will win you votes...

B_Godot, that's sick-funny! :)

I also like "let the gays get married so they can be miserable like the rest of us."

Voting No on 1, very soon!

You religious Freaks Crack me up.......Pick & Choosing what you want from a 2000yr old book, written BY MEN (Not women and NOT by a God) to keep the Sheeple in Line,and the Coffers Filled $$$$ (you are living proof of that) -- see the Vatican and the BILLIONS it has - SELL THE VATICAN,FEED THE WORLD!!!! I say a referendum should be put on the Ballot next Election - BAN DIVORCE....Let's see how many "supposed" religious people VOTE in favor of that!! (doubt it would pass) IF this so-called Jesus came back now.....the LIBERAL that he was..would want these MEGA churches,and the VATICAN to give up thier Worldly Riches and HELP the POOR/SICK/WEAK.....ahhh, and You know the vatican and Mega Churches would NEVER go for that - that Jesus Character would be condemmed ALL over again - and Rushed off to GITMO, or Re-crucified as a Imposter.......its so obvious, its laughable!

If over $4 per gallon for gasoline didn't really strap the tourist industry, Not being able to marry someone of the same sex really won't either, feeble attempt at trying to find something wrong about keeping Maine the way it should be.

P.S. You cannot get married in Maine anyway if you're not a citizen of the state of Maine, so enjoy MA.

Voted YES this a.m.

Just my own little complaint, but why insist on framing this as your right to marry being taken away? I understand why those on the "no" side WANT the right to marry, but make such a point of saying "TAKING AWAY EXISTING RIGHTS" is not factually correct. For it or against it .... I really don't care, but to be factual as of right now no gay couple has ever had a legal right to marry in Maine. The legal right has never been there yet. just seems odd to keep posting something that isn't correct in BOLD type.

9:42 AM, realist38

"You cannot get married in Maine anyway if you're not a citizen of the state of Maine"

Wrong...

"If neither of you is a resident of Maine, then you may apply in any Maine town office. It need not be the same town where you plan to be married."

http://www.maine.gov/portal/family/marriage.html

My wife and I just voted "YES" on Question 1. We both believe that marriage is between a MAN and a WOMAN. We would encourage all Mainers to vote YES on 1.

CGGage I too hope people will see that this will not affect the "straight" peoples personal lives. It is not putting an end to being gay! I am a mother, heterosexual and am not scared that if this passes it will affect me in anyway, except being happy for everyone that has waited so long to be able to marry the person they love. It sickens me that the country is looking at Maine and so much of the comments on here are not what alot of us Mainers stand for. The fears that are out there are real for some ,but some of the comments are downright cruel. I am voting NO and if it does not turn out the way We would like I will continue to support this until marriage passes for all. I hope some people really think about this and how they would feel if it was their brother, sister, aunt, uncle, father, mother....that this issue could be standing for. Best of luck...I am NO for 1!

eastmainer, I for one am tired of having to listen to their sexual appetites being defended by that of a wild animal. They do tend to go to great links to cover their "normalcy". I am happy for one that I never had to defend my sexual preference with that of an animal.

Get out and vote everyone!

Watch out folks, tedlick is gonna get vicious if this dont pass lol

Also maybe its beed done before and I just missed it, but I have never noticed BDN putting an ad banner across the width of the page right under the links on the front page like that. At least not in the same color green that the BDN uses for the web sites content. Point to the "no" side ... smart ad.

9:49 AM, Coronadrinker,

Pay attention little man. I've always stated my opinion that the referendum would indeed succeed and that the battle would go to court.

I see no reason to change that opinion: it'll be an easy court battle.

Run along little man... play with your imaginary friends and the No campaign lies that you never had.

Liar liar pants on fire!

Disgusted American: Jesus was not a liberal as some would label a liberal today. He loves everyone equal but does not love their sin. The sexual act is between man and woman not two of same sex. Can't get a baby that way so how do you reproduce that this Jesus character so explicitly says? Some day, if you do not call upon the name of Jesus, this Jesus character will, because He said He will, doom all those who do not believe into everlasting fire. Yes, that imay be religion to you, but to Jesus, is it His Word and His Word will stand forever and forever!

Was putting up signs until 3:00 am.

Yeeehaw!

aww poor little ted wont be able to marry his little gay friend if it dont pass, can you see the anger on his gay face.

Yes_on-1 Needs to take a good look in the mirror... I cannot believe that you use "christian values" to hide your hatred behind... "Love thy Neighbor" is easy when they are just like you, alittle harder when they are different,huh? Who do you you think you are comparing gay marriage to'father-daughter or man -dog marriages? Your so-called moral high ground is nothing but bigoty and hatred... Maine will accept gay marriage, and when it does I hope you will move to a different state..... We don't need or want you here.

No one 1 by a landslide

I should also state that I am a middle-aged, Catholic,straight, mother of two

Keep it clean guys....

It's too early to fired up.

Coronadrinker: Those comments are uncalled for.

bassetthound: Yes_on-1...We don't need or want you here...

Is that what they teach in the Catholic church?

Voltaire wrote:

"All my life I have but one prayer: "Oh Lord, make my enemies look ridiculous. And God granted it."

Folks,you are not helping your cause one iota and revealing to an extent that many of the posters are not Maine voters. Unbelievable!

We know for sure that fornication is a sin according to the Bible. That is, "consensual sex between an unmarried man and woman." Oddly, I don't see fornicators being banned from marriage, or for that matter people who use birth control or who have been divorced, or adulterers. I don't even see these types being berated or ridiculed by society. That's because this isn't about sin, it's about fear.

People don't give up on this because we can still win. get a friend and go to the polls.

Save the Sanctity & Tradition of Marriage - BAN DIVORCE!!! Lets put this on the NEXT Election's Ballot........

Vote Yes - to Ban Marriage

Vote No - to allow for Divorce

Hmmmmm, lets see the religious Hypocracy come fourth....... what side would win? Where's all the Holly Rollers stance on this....??

Anne, your analogy of an unmarried man and an unmarried woman as compared to an unmarried male and an unmarried male / unmarried female and an unmarried female is unsustainable in argument. I believe most religions( although I am not an expert) believe in forgiveness. Your so called fornicators are in a sense rejecting what you call sin by marrying. This is not about fear at all.

Hrh you dont realize what ted has put me through with some our Yes side comments. He has totally been rude with them, thumbing down. I mean come on i just left the auditorium and alot of those voters are voting Yes. They are walking out happy as if this is gonna be overturned. One gay guy even voted Yes. Sad but true

I heard Vito and Johnnycakes are already on their way.....Maybe they know something that we dont????????

"Oddly, I don't see fornicators being banned from marriage" ... thats because you have probably never been around that many Christian churches. Most pastors that I know would not marry anybody with an open, unrepentant sin issue in their life. They do their best to insure that by spending months counciling people before they marry them. Of coarse not all pastors do that, there is always different people doing things a different way. But wait thats why your over reaching sterotype of a point doesn't make sense.

Theodore is harmless, he means well.

Coronadrinker: And you didn't like being treated that way...

don't turn around and perpetuate it. : )

duckwa - to enter into a Civil Marriage - you don't have to have a pastor - don't think City Hall is turning them down - remember not ALL couples get married at a church.

Jack

Sure is a lot of hatred on here and all in the name of Jesus! Huh ....

Voted NO on One!

my apologies hrh, i just think the No side needs to grow up and understand if they lose they lose. Its over with and nothing can be done after that

On 11/3/09 at 9:57 AM, FunnyValentine wrote that 'Jesus was not a liberal.'

Well, we know for sure He was a socialist as He shared His last fish & bread with others He only barely knew. And I'm pretty sure He railed against the 'Status Quo,' so that makes Him a Liberal Socialist -- ooooooo, almost too scary.

VOTE NO ON #1 and rest assured, Jesus will still love you don't, just not as much as if you do!

Off to vote NO.

Vote NO on 1,2,3,4

Vote YES on 5,6 & 7

The thing I hate most about small-town "everyone knows everyone" living is that the people are so nosey and can't mind their own business. Mind your own Ps and Qs for once, live your own life and don't worry about what other people are doing because it doesn't concern you...NO ON ONE!

"Its over with and nothing can be done after that"

Wrong. We still have the courts, both state and US. You know that Coronadrinker...

Plenty can be done... and will be done, should the referendum succeed.

And I don't think I need to tell the Yes folks that either: they know it.

Brendan: re 7:34 AM You may be only 17 but your sure show a lot more sense , intelligence and understanding than many who post here. Boy, a lot of the YES side sure seems to have a lot of disrespect for young people, even one here disputing you are even a 17 yr old student. And they are always hypocritically saying they are "worried" about the children and all this will affect them....yeah right....

Already Voted NO on 1 to extend the protections and benefits to other Maine families , many with children, that other married couples in Maine already enjoy.

Glad there are many people in Maine who respect others, and also respect the Constitution of the United States.

listenup:

"Those who deny freedom to others deserve it not for themselves." - Abraham Lincoln

Deserved repeating.....

DisgustedAmerican: Hope you will want to move here to Maine.

"Its over with and nothing can be done after that"

Yes something can, and most likely will be done after that; it will go to the courts - just like in California. So all of you Yes'ers that want gays to fade into the wood work will still see us, and our straight allies, all over the daily news as we continue to struggle for full equality.

and see what i mean hrh, ted is a soreloser. Take it the courts Lol. They wont do anything ted. But hey Teddy I LOVE YOU

at 10:37 AM, Coronadrinker wrote: "my apologies hrh, i just think the No side needs to grow up and understand if they lose they lose. Its over with and nothing can be done after that"

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

You're wrong, Coronadrinker. If the referendum succeeds today, it will be a win for the Yes side, but it's only a single battle. The fight for equality will continue -- in Maine and throughout the country. The simple fact that the polling has been so close on this issue shows that support for same-sex marriage continues to gain ground.

Rest assured that the struggle for equality will continue. If we win in Maine, we can turn more of our attention to other states. Like Oregon, for instance, where we learned today that an effort has begun to repeal a Constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage.

No, today is only one day in a struggle that has been going on for a very long time and will continue until equality is achieved.

Let's try to remember that freedom of religion EQUALS freedom FROM religion. Your church should not be allowed to tell me (through you) who I can marry.

I have no problem with gay/lesbian couples raising children or having a civil union or being covered by medical insurance or any other rights a hetrosexual couple have, but I do draw the line in redifining marrage. Where does it stop? A few years back "they" wanted to be treated fairly when they bought homes and rented apartments, so we passed the law to make it illegal to discriminate against "them". Then and there "They" said we only want to be treated fairly, the opposition challanged that "they" wouldn't stop there, that next they would want marraige....and here we are...So I say, stop it now and send a message that it is what it is.... and it isn't marrage....VOTE YES ON 1.....

It may well go to the courts, but not without the voices

of all citizens being heard and considered. But that's a

fight for another day...

Oh, by the way, 0 - 31 will speak volumns to the courts.

Who is "they" valgal? Gay and lesbian people aren't some single entity with a single voice. We are millions of people, each with our own opinions and goals.

Corona - tedlick has been telling you and others that for months - this issue will wind up in the courts - by whichever side loses this referendum - do you really think that plans by both sides have not been drafted? Do you not realize that the Christian Coalition of Maine (under Heath) has put forth a call for a referendum to strip orientation from the Maine Human Rights Act, prohibit Civil Unions, etc? Do you really think that if this law stands that the yes side will be silent?

Jack (Straight Married Father of 5 who voted NO on 1)

valgal10, what's the problem? Why stop before marriage? What is the damage to you? Do you understand the benefits/protections to me?

You know they, like in the Chevy commercial....They......

10:33 AM, free2bee..... never said everybody gets married in a church or that they should. I was responding to the tired point employed by a poster that if a pastor marries a couple that have had a sin issue then he is being a hypocrite to oppose gay marriage.

10:51 AM, HRH419,

Actually, I fully expect your little ratio to mean nothing, much as it did in Iowa:

"The Iowa Supreme Court has the responsibility to determine if a law enacted by the legislative branch and enforced by the executive branch violates the Iowa Constitution. The court reaffirmed that a statute inconsistent with the Iowa Constitution must be declared void, even though it may be supported by strong and deep-seated traditional beliefs and popular opinion."

See, popular opinion has no bearing on civil rights issues. Maine's constitution is very much like Iowas with regards to equality statutes.

I've full confidence in this issue being taken to the Maine Supreme Court.

TolBig80 said

"Its over with and nothing can be done after that"

"Yes something can, and most likely will be done after that; it will go to the courts - just like in California. So all of you Yes'ers that want gays to fade into the wood work will still see us, and our straight allies, all over the daily news as we continue to struggle for full equality."

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

Insert the following and you'll understand why redefining marriage doesn't stop here if the No's succeed today.

Yes something can, and most likely will be done after that; it will go to the courts - just like in California. So all of you Yes'ers that want "NAMBLA believers" to fade into the wood work will still see us, and our traditional allies, all over the daily news as we continue to struggle for full equality. Full equality for Man-Boy lovers!!

Or, how about . . .

Yes something can, and most likely will be done after that; it will go to the courts - just like in California. So all of you Yes'ers that want "polygamists" to fade into the wood work will still see us, and our traditional allies, all over the daily news as we continue to struggle for full equality. Full equality for plural marriage supporters!!!

And the beat goes on. Stop the nonsense. Find another way to get your "rights" and "bene's". Vote Yes on 1.

10:28 AM, Telefunkinu47......were they able to get that pool stick removed?

valgal10: Did you know that the National Organization for Marriage (NOM) is actively seeking a repeal of domestic partnerships in Washington State this election season? "They" said that "they" were comfortable with us having civil unions (domestic partnerships), but not marriage. Now "they" are actively seeking to repeal the domestic partnerships that have been granted to us. Next "they" will be seeking to revoke any protections we might have in housing, public accommodations, employment, and so on. Why should "we" settle for civil unions when "they" will only try to strip them away once we've achieved them.

We'll see ted, I'm not up for arguing.

And the beat goes on. Stop the nonsense. Find another way to get your "rights" and "bene's". Vote Yes on 1.

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

I couldn't agree more...well said.

10:28 am, you wrote "Most pastors that I know would not marry anybody with an open, unrepentant sin issue in their life." This isn't about pastors and churches. Pastors and churches are not bound by anti-discrimination laws.

Thats not your nature HRH... Go take a nap and come back later.....

I'm just a good girl Tel... :)

As a lesbian with three children I can say that:

Gay people are not discriminated against. This is a political machine to appeal to your heart strings that gays are downtrodden. We are not. I am tired of the machine speaking for me. I am well educated, financially secure, and independent. That is why I have three children. I wanted them. I figured out how to have them. It was purely a selfish act and a social experiment. Do I think my children are better off? No. Because my ex partner had the gall to plan for the demise of our relationship (with a gay lawyers advice and help) and make sure her legal rights were intact and then she fought the two biological parents (both gay) for custody. As the only Mainer in this scenario I can tell you the intent of the law was abused and now three children are being raised by a bully who is less educated but more stubborn and unethical than anyone wants to deal with.

I know what is right but when dealing with someone that will not take no for an answer to the point of harming children that is where I draw the line of supporting gay marriage. I know now she wanted nothing more than that her rights were protected. How do children get any benefit from these laws when you are dealing with someone that will lie and cheat to feed their pathological need for social status over the best interests of children that are not theirs? This wasn't adopted children; they were not hers, but she felt entitled to them. My children do not have any life experience so they are shuffled around being told they this is how it is going to be because she thinks she knows better what they need just like Hitler did. It is criminal. And their gay Jewish father (you'd think he would recognize Hitler here but he keeps pushing his partner they hate on them too at the risk of losing them forever once they are old enough to have the courage to speak up about it) also puts politics before the needs of his children because that is his number one agenda.

It goes beyond what the schools might teach. It is happening next door to you because this is a very selfish group even as they tell you they have the best intentions. That is a naive outlook and if my children ever sort out what happened to them it will be a miracle. On the other hand if they all have nervous breakdowns or unsuccessful relationships and the pain that causes it will have been my fault for performing the social experiment in the first place and and trusting that everything was going to be OK because love would be enough. Vote YES! YES YES YES YES. One for each of them, and me. Don't be fooled with the vague talk that leaves out the real details. Just vote Yes.

@Brendan - Bravo for your 7:34am post. It gives me hope to see the future of our community has more brains than the so-called adults.

10:26 am, you miss the point. This is not about religion at all. This is about state law.

On 11/3/09 at 11:00 AM, duckwa wrote: Repeated separate thumbs down will cause comment to be hidden

10:28 AM, Telefunkinu47......were they able to get that pool stick removed?

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

You know what I'm talking about dont you Duckwa.

I saw it again the other day.

I was thinking about joining the fire department.

Apologies duckwa - missed the Bible reference in that post.

My wife's niece wanted to be married in her conservative community church where she had been baptized - she and her future husband had been living together sometimes at her place and sometimes at his - the pastor and congregation knew of their living arrangements as they lived in a small rural community, but a few days before they got married she decided they should spend nights in their own homes so it wouldn't "look" bad, you know, what if someone saw the others car at the 'wrong' house in the morning, guess she cared more about how it "looked" more than her conservative pastor did.

B_Godot - the statistics from countries where gay marriage or its equivalent have been voted in, in some cases for 10 years now, do not support your view that divorce rates are lower in GLBT couples. Quite the opposite. The first couple to wed in Mass. is now divorced. Rosie is leaving her "lifelong" partner. Comparing divorce statistics is not really the consideration. Traditional marriage will be viewed as less important, since other alternatives become available. The very important statistics about separation of marriage from traditional child rearing is a proven fact in those same countries. Couples having first children prior to marriage is an increasing phenomenon, and track closely with approval of gay marriage and its alternatives. The trend does not reverse, it only worsens after gay marriage is passed. Don't believe me - just watch over the next 10 years as our young people begin to make decisions about children and marriage. The two are becoming separate issues, unrelated as they have been in the past.

Why is this important? The cost to society is enormous, as we collectively pick up the tab for a lot more abandoned or unsupported kids. As families fragment, so does our society.

On 11/3/09 at 10:49 AM, valgal10 wrote: (you are another woman who obvioulsy has ZERO clue as to whom ALICE PAUL was, another pathetic woman who take her RIGHTS for granted,and enjoys stomping on others rights..now that YOU have yours) - lets see - just change a few words in your post/comment...and remind people of years past/ say 1919 AS A MAN....I have no problem with Women raising OUR children or having Women's Meetings / Auxillaries or even having limited access to MY Funds I accumulate from my hard earned salary..... but I do draw the line in redifining our Government - and allowing Women to Vote ..NO WAY, NO HOW......It's Tradtion that MEN Make ALL Important Family decisions..its even in the Bible. Where does it stop? American Society will Faulter IF women folk are allowed to participate in Governmental affairs...it's a Man's Tradition to MAKE the Laws of the Land. A few years back "they" the women wanted to be treated fairly ....so we allowed them to have thier women meetings, so we passed the law to make it illegal to Stop them from meeting publically. Then and there "They" said we only want to be treated fairly, Now they won't Stop ...they want to VOTE...are we as Men going to allow these women to Ruin OUR Nations Long Tradition of Men making the Laws? NO I say - Women should NOT be able to VOTE!

windfutre - it you seriously can't differentiate between consenting adults wanting to form a legal union and sharing their lives together, and NAMBLA I pity you, and any children you may have. I think you can tell the difference and you are simply using those as an excuse to justify your disgust with gays in general.

Gays are not child predators.

chikadee - a very heartfelt plea. I will pray for you and your children, for peace and protection for them and for you. No one deserves to have to go through such an ordeal, especially not the children, who seem to be treated as pawns in a game. I agree with you - this is not about equal rights - it never has been. As far as I'm concerned, you should have the right to visit your partner in the hospital, and should have legal protection to make medical decisions, which can be given in other ways besides marriage. Marriage doesn't provide "protection" - it enables the very animosity and legal footing that is so prevalent in heterosexual divorces. Thank you for your post!

free2bee - sounds like "something" told her she was doing the wrong thing by cohabitating before marriage. It didn't take the pastor to say it, either. Many people call it conscience. It is unfortunate, however, that the pastor didn't fulfill his obligation to point out his concerns about the living arrangements. Mine would have. Or he wouldn't have married them.

11:11 am, Apologies Jack, but though I mentioned the Bible my point wasn't about whether pastors or churches had the right to reject gay marriage. The citizens of this state are voting on whether to repeal a state law which, by the way, as it stands already ensures the religious freedom of pastors and churches to accept OR reject gay marriage as they see fit.

TolBig80 - I never said I couldn't differentiate. What I pointed out is that by redefining marriage, you open the door and remove any legal argument against it. What would be the legal argument against polygamy? What would be the legal argument against an emancipated minor deciding to act on his marriage intentions with an older partner? Just go before the judge and get his "rights."

Chickadee, were you with your partner when you had the children? Did she adopt them? If she did she has just as much right to them as you do. The fact that you chose poorly when selecting a partner should not be a factor when it comes to the rights of gays in Maine and America.

TolBig80 - nice reply to chikadee. And for the same reason, the poor choices of many, many heterosexual couples who end up divorced shouldn't be used by the gay marriage proponents as an example of why marriage is already broken, and gay marriage can't hurt. Glad you came around to that understanding!

TolBig80 - it is a tactic the yes(ers) use over and over - comparing/equating gays/lesbians to child rapists and abusers. Then they get pissy and indignant when they are called on it - and start back-pedaling. Of course they get pissy and indignant when civil rights for gays/lesbians are compared to inter-racial marriage saying it is wrong use that comparison.

Jack

10:28 AM, Telefunkinu47......were they able to get that pool stick removed?

I don't want to be in your religion or part of your traditions. Don't vote me into them! Gay marriage is for gay people. Take your responsibility as free citizens seriously and allow others to live freely.

windfuture, the Yes side seems obsessed with this argument that to allow gay marriage is to open the door to all sorts of OTHER types or marriages and quite frankly its BS. All you are changing is the distinction of GENDER, that’s it. It does not necessitate that you ignore age restrictions, familial restrictions, number restrictions.

You like to tout it like the sky is falling but its so much smoke. For the most part people that want to block gay marriage want to block it because they don't agree with homosexuality for whatever reason and see it as their chance to publicly voice these displeasure, it has nothing to do with protecting marriage.

11:07 AM, chikadee, you are well educated and financially secure. Most gay people work for an hourly wage. They are not as fortunate as you.

Vote NO on ONE

"gay marriage proponents as an example of why marriage is already broken, and gay marriage can't hurt."

Must have missed where the campaigns for marriage equality were using this logic.

11:32 AM, TolBig80, don't you know that in Canada where gay marriage has been legal for nearly 5 years, the "Mounties" are marriage their horses?! LOL

Vote NO on ONE to support constitutional law.

Duh windfuture - read that post again - she's pissed off at that partner - I doubt she wants to visit her in the hospital unless it is to stick a little something in her IV. And I disagree - if they had been legally married, they would not have had to draw up the legal paperwork that favored her partner. I feel bad for her kids - imagine when they realize that she considers them a "social experiment".

ANNE wrote:

We know for sure that fornication is a sin according to the Bible. That is, "consensual sex between an unmarried man and woman." Oddly, I don't see fornicators being banned from marriage, or for that matter people who use birth control or who have been divorced, or adulterers. I don't even see these types being berated or ridiculed by society. That's because this isn't about sin, it's about fear.

10:26 wrote in RESPONSE:Anne, your analogy of an unmarried man and an unmarried woman as compared to an unmarried male and an unmarried male / unmarried female and an unmarried female is unsustainable in argument. I believe most religions( although I am not an expert) believe in forgiveness. Your so called fornicators are in a sense rejecting what you call sin by marrying. This is not about fear at all.

On 11/3/09 at 11:10 AM, ANNE_of_mdi WROTE: Repeated separate thumbs down will cause comment to be hidden

10:26 am, you miss the point. This is not about religion at all. This is about state law

,

10;26 RESPONDED- Please note Anne_of_midi prefaced her first argument with SIN and the BIBLE. Her second with STATE LAW.

.

State law does not use the terms sin and the Bible but rather statutes and the United States Constitution/State Constitution.

SOMETHING RIGHTLY CALLED SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE

TolBig - all this vote would be changing is the distinction of gender - and for the first time in hiistory I might add. The first redefinition of what marriage actually is. That is how the door becomes opened. If you can redefine it based on gender, what's to stop the next group getting their own redefinition? It's called legal precedent.

I don;t personally care why anyone votes YES. I'm personally voting YES because the No side mocks the traditional expression of marriage and seems to reduce it to a collection rights that are being denied. Without an understanding of why those rights were provided and traditional marriage has been encouraged for so many years. Traditional marriage has been favored through tax policy, medical policy, etc. - for a reason. Traditional marriage provides a service to society. Gay marriage provides nothing.

Tol - you missed it for sure. I saw numerous attack statements in support of gay marriage that pointed out that divorce is an issue - though not growing as of late. Unfortunately, those same attacks fail to quote the statistics showing that gay marriages suffer more adultery, divorce, domestic abuse, etc. in countries where it is currently allowed than the traditional marriages do. Look it up - you might be surprised.

free2bee - love how you turn on your own. Now that's tolerance, love, respect, and compassion at its best. She pointed out why the situation failed in her case - and you throw her to the wolves. And you really think she would have been better off with a divorce?? Perhaps a child support arrangement managed by the good ole' state DHS? You're smoking crack!

Going to lunch - see you kids later! Vote YES on ! - I did, and it felt like the right thing to do!!

11:36 am, well charlotte if you understand why we have a separation of church and state then you must understand that the terms "sin" and "law" don't even belong in the same sentence together, which is why in the U.S. it is a false argument that it should be against the "law" for gays to marry because homosexuality is a "sin." Do you get it now?

And for those of you who say this has nothing to do with equality, well then all things being equal, if a man can marry a woman, then a woman should be able to marry a woman. It is just that simple.

Yes they got the stick remove.....

11:06 AM, anne_of_mdi ..... correct me if I'm wrong but your 10:17 post implied some sort of hypocracy on the part of yes supporters on the basis that you don't feel they oppose people who commit other sins getting married. Its the same point you have tried to make many times over the last many months (at least the ones you were allowed to post during) with as many different sins as you could come up with. I simple gave you examples of people supporting yes that do not at all fit the mold you tried to create. Your point was based on assumptions that you can't support and an over reaching sterotype. I thought you libs didn't like sterotypes. Its not really about being open to other peoples views is it?

"and for the first time in hiistory I might add. The first redefinition of what marriage actually is."

Um, no, gay marriage is already legal in several states and countries.

Regarding attack statements, I am not talking about individual posters - I saw those as well. I am talking about broad based support from the campaigns behind the initiatives.

". Traditional marriage has been favored through tax policy, medical policy, etc. - for a reason. Traditional marriage provides a service to society. Gay marriage provides nothing."

You must of course be talking about children and child tax credits and the like. As chickadee showed gay relationships can and do provide children. Maybe not through "traditional" means but children are present none the less. I think that "service" is debatable. And quite frankly we can get children without the services of traditional marriage.

Marriage is defined as between a Man and Woman (DOMA).

There is NO science proving homosexuality is genetic.

I hesitate to carry your "equality"(all things being equal) argument further for I refuse to get into the physiology/anatomy issue.

People who cite "tradition" as a reason to prevent gay marriage are conveniently remembering some traditions and ignoring MANY other heinous ones. Not to mention: YOUR TRADITION IS YOUR RELIGION AND MY RIGHTS SHOULD NOT BE DETERMINED BY YOUR RELIGION!

at 11:07 AM, chikadee, You are a lesbian? Gays are not discriminated against? Your story makes no sense at all unless of course, you're a wolf in sheep's clothing. If you have children, I'm very sorry for them.

"Marriage is defined as between a Man and Woman (DOMA)." Currently at the federal level yes, but states may define it as they wish.

"There is NO science proving homosexuality is genetic." And this is relevant how??

"I hesitate to carry your "equality"(all things being equal) argument further for I refuse to get into the physiology/anatomy issue." Um, ok?? So in order to be treated equally you need to talk anatomy? Color me confused.

windfuture - many posters who identify as gay or lesbian have told their individual reasons for wanting to enter into Civil Marriage, 'love' shot down as their love isn't love but lust, 'rights' shot down because it is only for what the government will give them - they've been offered selected scripture, reparative therapy, anti-gay slurs, ways to 'off' themselves, told to leave the state and/or country, "separate but equal" unions or partnerships, told they have the "same" rights to marriage - as long as they marry someone of the opposite sex (wonder how many have done already this and later divorced -sure makes "traditional" marriage seem like the right thing), compared to and maligned as pedophiles, told that they "infect" children, told they shouldn't be raising children etc and THEN told to quite whining, "playing" the victim and acting like children having temper tantrums. This law is about CIVIL Marriage and affirms the Freedom of Religion for anyone who is licensed by the state to conduct marriages - leaving churches and clergy, Justice's of Peace and Notary Public's the right to refuse - the fact that in the USA approx. 50% of "traditional" marriages end in divorce flies in the face of "traditional" marriage providing a service to society - exactly what service does it provide?

Jack (1/2 Straight Couple For Equal Marriage who voted NO on 1)

charlotte - if there were science proving that orientation is genetic/biological - would that change your mind - there are biological studies happening now.

Gay marriage spreads love. Vote NO on 1! Vote for love!

Support ALL Maine families.

VOTE NO ON 1

Let's show the nation how progressive we are.

Cher...don't say that yes voters do not respect our young people. That is a lie.

11:53 am, I'm sorry, what does physiology/anatomy have to do with equal rights of men and women? Equal means equal under the law. There are no circumstances that allow for one to be more equal than the other, at least not where genitalia is concerned, which I believe is where you were heading.

e·qual (?'kw?l)

adj.

1. Having the same quantity, measure, or value as another.

2. Mathematics Being the same or identical to in value.

3. 1. Having the same privileges, status, or rights: equal before the law.

2. Being the same for all members of a group: gave every player an equal chance to win.

3. Having the requisite qualities, such as strength or ability, for a task or situation: "Elizabeth found herself quite equal to the scene" (Jane Austen).

4. Adequate in extent, amount, or degree.

5. Impartial; just; equitable.

6. Tranquil; equable.

7. Showing or having no variance in proportion, structure, or appearance.

n. One that is equal to another: These two models are equals in computing power.

tr.v. e·qualed or e·qualled, e·qual·ing or e·qual·ling, e·quals

1. To be equal to, especially in value.

2. To do, make, or produce something equal to: equaled the world record in the mile run.

Oh, there goes the YES side...thumbing down

their own posts again. hahahaha 0 - 31 YES ON 1

This is such a silly topic on which to waste time and money. Can't we all see that the world is going in the direction of recognizing equality for gay and lesbian people? Corporate America has signed on, MANY other countries have signed on...let's live and let live and move on to feeding the hungry and living in peace.

The idea of a person deciding how to vote on a issue and basing some of their decision on their religious views has NOTHING to do with the separation of church and state. A person may decide to vote for TABOR because the Bible talks about being a good steward with money... still nothing to do with separation of church and state. A person may have voted for Obama because they thought he would care for the poor like Jesus instructed... still nothing to do with church and state. No more then if an atheist votes a certain way based on his belief that there is no God. A person has a right to vote how they chose for any reason they chose. None of you that have said or implied differently can support that position with ANY legal precedent over the last 230 years.

12:04 PM, firefly....... she has her finger on the pulse of the young people. Thats what we heard all last November.

11:53 AM, charlotte09, and there is no science from peer reviewed research that say it isn't genetic. The American Psychological Association, the American Psychiatric Association, and the American Sociological Association all support gay marriage and have published research that explains why.

The organizations set the standards for behavioral sciences. forHIM posts research from religious organizations.

Vote NO on ONE

12:26 pm, all that is true. But just because you can, doesn't mean you should. The Constitution of the United States grants us all a right to private religious expression, the operative word being "private." That doesn't mean you use your right to private religious expression to deny the rights of others. It is contrary to the interests of all of us who believe in religious freedom.

((( All you people voting Yes on #1 )))

@ If you can not vote the right way in what our Very own Constiution shows Us how to Vote@

?? Why Pray tell should I Trust You on Anything on What to Do in these Days of Change ??

>>> You Yes Voters have just Voted to Support Bogotry in Maine and the USA <<<

>>> You Yes Voters have just Dishonered this State and Country <<<

&& You yes Voters have just Dishonered What God Truly Stands for &&

@@@ So why should I support the Dishonerable People of Maine @@@

&&& Because Electra will Stand Up for Equality and Justice For ALL &&&

@@@@@ &&& Even if Someday that would be about You All &&&@@@@@

(((( All Ready Voted for Equality for All~~~No on # 1 the ole fashion Way )))) ((( :~o ) )))

NO on 4!!!! Keep Local govt LOCAL!!

"A marriage shall be considered valid only if the wife is a virgin. If the wife is not a virgin, she shall be executed" (Deut 22:13-21). The end. VOTE NO ON #1

All gays have had a chance to get married this summer why is it still being debated?

Anne of MDI us fornicators are punished everyday by paying higher taxes, no tax breaks on anything including charity donations (which shouldn't be tax deductable anyway), which I don't do anymore because of discrimination.

We have been asked to leave an apartment because the owners didn't like fornicators. The reason you don't hear so much of it anymore is because the gays drew attention to themselves and people said geez fornicaters weren't so bad after all.

By the way thanks for the name calling, I haven't called you any bad names, but this is one of the reason I voted yes, are gays going to be poor winners or poor losers?

((( Hey 4himtoday ))) ((( I see my God made the Sun come out.)))

&&& Ya know for people that Love the Sun &&&

###Not you that just like the Dark Side of your b---.()<<<< here is a NUT<<<<<

>>>>I also see the Yes`er phone banks are burning us in desperation<<< (( oh yeah ))

???? ALL I want to Know Where the Biggest Party for No on # 1 ????

!!!!! Just went to get my Rainbow bathing Suit just so ya know !!!!!

%%%~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~? WILL BE ?~~~~~~~~~~~~~~???

@@@ voted NO on # 1 the rest you can just guess on @@@

Chickadee is a DESPERATE Yes voter who created an alternate account and pretends to be a Lesbian who believes in the YES side.

You people on the YES side need to get a life. Faking, pretending, and acting like you are a gay or lesbian is absurd.

VOTE NO on 1 to protect Equality because Chickadee's rant was so obviously orchestrated and fake.

12:37 PM, anne_of_mdi.... Sorry but I missed the word "private" in the Constitution with reguards to religious expression. Where would I find that? I know were it refers to "free exercise thereof" but I missed the part about keeping it private.

@BlueAmbience - Agreed with you. Just vote NO #1 and call it a day because it's no one's business on how other people should live their live. I don't think what John and Ted do next door would really affect your life. S

People who claim we should vote to let gays get married don't seem to realize that it won't stop people that hate gays from continuing to hate gays. Pity the children who have to be ridiculed because of their parents . Not many years ago the State would have removed these kids from a home if the parents were living this way or even if they were living with someone of the opposite sex out of wedlock. Times sure are a changin' .

Vote YES on 1

Great Video you should watch:

Wanda Sykes on Gay Marriage:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1IHdaJOZe7E&feature=player_embedded

And

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-pgBc_-adK4&feature=related

11:37 AM, windfuture, easy for you when all of society supports your marriage staying together. It's a matter of assuring personal security that married people take for granted. You wouldn't notice it until you had to go without it.

Vote NO on ONE

ElectraGlide:

Portland Holiday Inn By The Bay,,, Thay have a band and everything planned for Wed nights victory party.

@eastmainer that was then.... This is now... Have you seen the poll lately? or have you been living in side a box? According to CNN poll, "Among those 18 to 34 years old, 58 percent said same-sex marriages should be legal." (http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/05/04/samesex.marriage.poll/index.html)

"If you don't believe in same sex marriage then don't marry some body of the same sex" Wanda Sykes

VOTE NO #1

Posting here last November? I don't recall that. I was not posting around the time of the election. Gee, can't some even get their facts straight......unreal....

@12:52 pm, keep looking.

anonon~~~The Bangor Area would be easier for my ole B___ (((:~o ) ))))

"People who claim we should vote to let gays get married don't seem to realize that it won't stop people that hate gays from continuing to hate gays."

No we get that very well, but thats not what is at issue. What is at issue is how the state treats us.

"Pity the children who have to be ridiculed because of their parents ."

Pity that so many parents think its okay to teach their children to ridicule others.

"ot many years ago the State would have removed these kids from a home if the parents were living this way or even if they were living with someone of the opposite sex out of wedlock. Times sure are a changin' ."

Yes they are, for the better.

How telling that when you share a real story of how gay rights have gone wrong you get voted too many thumbs down and the truth is hidden. Seems as though the no on 1 people don't want the truth to be told. How convenient and how telling. That certainly tells me something and the rest of Maine should take note as well. It seems this horrific story of gay rights backfiring because this Maine girl trusted at face value what was being told to her about love and commitment was different once those rights to protect self interest were in place. Sad truth is she said it was all in case I died. Well I didn't die and neither did their dad, but the brutal reality of that case can't be tolerated by the gay rights side. They don't want you to know. I don't even want to know that there are people that sick out there let alone that I trusted one and that she continues to interfere and grab for what is not theirs. It has ripped apart my family and my friends and we are all afraid of what can happen now that we have seen this.

Yes my children are being used as pawns. Yes the only way this will end is if the unnatural parent dies because a tyrant is a tyrant. Which is worse trying to resolve something with someone unethical or knowing they are stupid enough not to get that what they are doing is unethical? She feels empowered by her gay rights at the expense of three little children and likes to keep some level of chaos in her life to feed her psychosis and feel it rushing through her veins because she is important now that she has three children to take care of.

There isn't a person reading this that doesn't know that is wrong and that she is sick. Yes my children are confused and without their parents daily guidance. No we are not criminals or drug addicts and we didn't kill anyone. We do know the character though and she will at all cost keep fighting. I wouldn't put it past her to kill them if she thought she couldn't have them in her life everyday. That is what she told me: She Needed Them in Her Life Every Day. They don't get the benefit of knowing why they are the way they are because they are being raised by someone other than who they come from that tries at every turn to keep her domain from being invaded. Make no mistake – this is not about them. It is about getting what you want.

People that thumbs down this post would rather live in a utopia, but utopias don't exist. I worked my butt off to pay for my education so whoever wrote that they work for an hourly wage that is your own goal setting not mine. I wouldn't presume to speak for you. You have your own thoughts. I look inside myself because that is how I was raised (with the benefit of knowing my parents and their values) and because I don't want others speaking for me. VOTE YES!

duckwa: You are, of course, correct. No mention of "private religion"

in the constitution. Funny how they miss the "free exercise" part huh?

windfutrue - re 11:43 - turn on my own? She states that she is a lesbian - I am heterosexual married male - she supports the repeal - I voted NO - What the heck are you smoking?

Jack

What's the word?

How's the voting going PAB and Duckwa????

Theyre not telling us anything down here in SMIB land...

Keeping it all hush hush for some reason.

1:02 PM, djtunit, thank you, I had not seen the Keith Olbermann video.

Vote NO on ONE

Keith Olbermann on Gay Marriage. Forgot to put caption earlier.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-pgBc_-adK4&feature=related

ElectraGlide,

7:00 PM onwards at The Whig & Courier. This will be Bangor's 'No on #1' Campaign's election night headquarters. Sponsored by the Whig & The Bridge Alliance at the request of 'No on #1' & in the hope of equal civil rights for all Mainers.

Date: Tuesday, November 3, 2009

Time: 7:00pm - 11:00pm

Location: The Whig and Courier

Street: 18 Broad Street, West Market Square

City/Town: Bangor, ME

"All gays have had a chance to get married this summer why is it still being debated?"

Um, no we didn't. When the referendum was put on the ballot the law was suspended pending the vote.

Scintillate, I don't know why you expect to get sympathy for your decision not to marry your partner. You have the right to do so, GAYS do not. It's not a comparable situation. If tomorrow you chose to marry the person you loved you could, such is not the case with gay and lesbian couples. So excuse me if I have no sympathy for your "plight".

On 11/3/09 at 1:09 PM, anne_of_mdi wrote: Repeated separate thumbs down will cause comment to be hidden

@12:52 pm, keep looking.

DOESN'T EXIST!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

game... set... match

1:12 PM, chikadee, you miss the point. Straight couples work for an hourly wage also but marriage benefits help them to stay together and make that work. Your classist attitude shows your selfishness. I'm sorry you are bitter over a failed relationship, but you need some professional help.

Vote NO on ONE

Chickadee, you have issues, work on those. Don't punsih the rest of gay america because you made mistakes in YOUR personal life.

Seriously, if you are looking for sympathy you are barking up the wrong tree. You chose to get involved with someone who later s*****d you over so gay marriage and gay rights should be blocked??

This isn't a case of gay rights gone wrong, it's a case of somene (i.e. YOU) trying to place the blame for their poor choices on others. If all that you say is true about your ex-partner go back to court and get her visitation revoked.

Hey tedlick~~~have eaten there several X`s

Great Place~~had 2 Bangor Hog Chapter Meetings There

Always have a hard time waling up and down the stairs just so ya know.

Now ya know I was just making happy with the Rainbow bathing suit thang.

((((:~O )))) Have to go collect my bets at the Hollywood Slots.

duckwa, HRH, so what are you advocating, the "public" exercise of religion? Please describe how one would practice that without infringing on the religious freedom of others.

"The right to swing my fist ends where the other man's nose begins." -- Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., Supreme Court Justice of the United States, 1902-1932.

Scintillate - You have the same rights I have - all you have to do to get them is get married to the opposites sex partner you are living with - you choose not to but as a heterosexual those rights exist. Quit whining - you can also register as domestic partners if marriage doesn't suit - but you won't get the rights you're looking for with that either.

Jack

http://www.apa.org/topics/sorientation.html

The American Psychological Association says:

"Both heterosexual behavior and homosexual behavior are normal aspects of human sexuality. Both have been documented in many different cultures and historical eras. Despite the persistence of stereotypes that portray lesbian, gay, and bisexual people as disturbed, several decades of research and clinical experience have led all mainstream medical and mental health organizations in this country to conclude that these orientations represent normal forms of human experience. Lesbian, gay, and bisexual relationships are normal forms of human bonding."

Copyright © 2008 American Psychological Association

Tele too close to even make an assumption at this point....can't raise the yellow or the rainbow status yet......the girls are anxiously waiting though.....

http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/

For those stating that marriage is a Basic Human Right, please look at the UN's website on what is a Basic Human Right. It expressly deals with marriage (Article 16), stating: (1) Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family.

Regardless of Race, Nationality or Religion... NOT sexual orientation.

I voted Yes on 1

When the Catholic Church turns over it's pedophile priest to the judicial system to face the laws they broke against society, I'll be happy to listen to any religious persons reason for changing an existing law to protect their religious beliefs. If you want to start affecting civil law maybe it's time to start paying your fair share of taxes. Sell the Vatican Feed the World.

Last time I checked the UN charter wasn't the guiding force of law in this country.

1:26 PM, free2bee, actually Maine's domestic partner registry offers little to living couples. It does benefit one partner in the event of the other's death but does not exclude the surviver from paying inheritance tax on property as marriage does. It was a waste of administrative time.

Vote NO on ONE

Don`t forget you yes`ers, we planned for you sorryfull Vote.

Extra Paxil and Seroquil ALL over the State for YOU

And Ambulances standing By for you ALL

If you need extra tissue, I heard someone on hear has a truck

To blow that slippery slope on your face

now bloww nice and hard

and that s*** well come right out and maybe help you Bigot Attitude in the Future.

And they said Us All don`t Care for ALL O<<

1:29 PM, GoinPostal, right you are! It's the richest organization in the world and one of the most oppressive. Thank you for your support of marriage equality.

Vote NO on ONE

Roger Pab, I was thinking about flying in some extra man power, we have a lot of time and money invested here, I see Duckwa is up to his usual tactics, picking on the elders.

i'm from out of state and thought I'd log on here to see what people were saying about this issue...it absolutely amazes/frightens me that all of these "yes on 1" people are taking such pleasure in the thought that same-sex marriage could be banned. how very christian of them to write GOOOO YESSSS in all caps with exclamation points and smiley faces. no matter what your opinions on this issue are, i would imagine that people who are voting yes on 1 because of their religious or moral convictions would also be the same crowd who say they are god-fearing and who are taught to love their neighbors. to think that they would be rejoicing in something that they know will cause heartbreak to those who are on the opposite side of this matter just smacks of hypocrisy to me. sure, supporters of yes on 1 will be praising their lord for saving future generations from the dastardly effects of allowing two people who love each other to share their financial stability, but how valid are those religious convictions when their unbridled enthusiasm demonstrates a complete lack of respect for the pain this would cause same-sex couples and their families? rejoice all you want in denying other people rights, but is this really the way your god would want you to treat others?

I know William, it means absolutely nothing for anyone who registers. Scintillate like to whine and complain about not getting the government benefits that he and his opposite sex partner can get through marriage - but he's against marriage period. He want the rights but not the responsibility or commitment or the legal piece of paper. He has made a choice not to enter into the rights of marriage that he has as a straight guy.

Jack (1/2 Straight Married Couple For Equal Marriage/Voted No on 1)

Hey Klavoie~~~Sex is Sex what do you pratice oh Yeah

10 up 10 down

Now hon get me a beer and somethang to eat

and remember to be just as quick

as I was for you O<<<<

Take it up or down we don`t care

Electraglide you seen a doctor lately , i think you and ted and williamds have some major mental issues

TolBig80-- Actually, this proves otherwise

http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/hrrpt/

We, as the US, report to the UN in a Country Report of Human Rights Practices. We also follow the Universal Declaration of Human Rights:

http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/irf/2009/127409.htm

Here is a video that may help explain what is going on.

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x2b1hf_village-people-in-the-navy-version_music

@ Maine always has wide open arms for Blondees749 @

Where are you from ???

1:26 PM, anne_of_mdi...... you can change your word from "private" over to a negative of "public" but that concept still doesn't exist in the constitution. In fact the polar opposite was used... "free exercise there of". And again we have 230 years of legal precedents in this country, none of which support your assertion that somebody voting based on their religious views conflicts with separation of church, state or another persons religious views. NONE!!!!

1:34 PM, Telefunkinu47..... I know I should be good. I just can't help it. When I see somebody rush so far out on a breaking limb , I can't help but pull on the branches just a little bit.

Where does it stop, what next lawsuits against religious groups that refuse to marry gays or lesbians. Lawsuits if schools refuse to instruct children that gay and lesbian relationships are"normal"....two cake toppers instead of a bride and groom, childrens books all re-written to include pictures of gay and lesbian relationships.....omg.....VOTE YES ON 2

Just left the Brewer Auditorium where the exit poll shows "YES" on Question 1 is winning by a landslide.

VOTE YES ON #1...SORRY, GOT SO IN TO IT.....

HIP HIP HURRAY MAINE SURVIVOR..THANKS FOR THE UPDATE.....

Nothing wrong with being happy and getting into your beliefs, both sides.

Just keep it clean and on topic.

Yes mr. moderator sir : )

MaineSurvivor2~~~~you got Brewer Auditorium

Mixed up with the Acadia Hospital oh my you are so simple to see !!!!

Hey Coronna~~~love you to man~~wanna come to the party w / me ???

We should all understand that there are arguments on both sides of the issue and reasonable minds can differ. It doesn't require this abject lack of civility. Keep in mind that gay marriage is not a right of constitutional dimension. Marriage is and always has been subject to intense regulation and it is not standard across the nation. For example, 28 states allow cousins to marry and the remaining do not. If the disaffected cousins in the remaining states want to marry, they have to move or change the law. The Constitution does not require society to allow them to marry. In order for something to be a "Constitutional right" it must be enumerated in the Constitution or deeply rooted in the nation's history and traditions. Gay marriage has never been a tradition of this country.

However, societies evolve. We are not at the place we were just a few years ago and we all recognize that these relationships exist and that the parties and their children should have legal protections and the legal obligaitons that come with committed relationships. So, while it might not be a "right" it might be the right thing to do. That is up to each person's individual conscious.

Please tone down the name calling and respect differences of opinion. A person that is against gay marriage is not necessarily a bigot. There are a lot of states that do not allow gay marriage or cousin marriage or step-parent marriage and a lot of other things. People are allowed to use their own moral compass in exercising the franchise. And yes, that might include allowing or disallowing rights, liberties and benefits. That is our Consitutional scheme.

Personally, I don't know and might not until I'm standing there. I do recognize that these are families that are raising children, taking care of each other and trying to get through the day-to-day struggles of married life. I also recognize that some of these relationships fail and we need the mechanisms that divorce courts offer to care for split families, divide property, provide for the former couple and ensure the efficient and effective protections of the law.

Keep working on convincing arguments, use civility and reason and lets see where this goes.

Is this clean

Saw my 2 Eagle friends fly by with each having a burlap bag full of Bigots

Heading towards the Altantic Ocean.

The ((( Scrrreeeecchh ))) said going to the Taliban Land see ya Soon

Gotta take another load next week

((( :~o ) )))) I thought it was Clean

Also who ever wins needs to be congratulated.

That means both sides.

Good sportsmanship is a must.

I will have to call my contacts at the auditorium to verify this latest info.

I think this will bring everyone closer in the end.

Your doing pretty good Mr. Glide, better than a few that's for sure..

Just left Bangor Auditorium. Yes side is winning by a landslide. Telefunkie what is taking you so long lol. Hurry get us those numbers and electra i luv you too

Remember that "Pain Is Only Temporary, Pride Is Forever"

Telefunkie willl you marry me if this passes lol

As a Christen and a firm believer in God, I will be voting NO on one! Who am I to tell someone what is and isn't their right? It is not up to me. Everyone get out and vote NO on one. For the sake of Maine and ALL its residents!

On 11/3/09 at 2:15 PM, Telefunkinu47 wrote:

Your doing pretty good Mr. Glide......

Thats not the first time you have found yourself saying that is it Tele?

no..Hell no.....

Will anybody else be glad when this election is over?

Maybe if you drank miller lite and crown and margaritas. Then only maybe.

Corona tastes like skunk pee.

What time do the polls close?????

For anyone who might still be sitting on the proverbial fence regarding this issue...

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.

:) Duckwa...:) Funny.

Yes David re: 2:30 pm, I think we'll all be glad when it's over. :-)

YEAP, LETS PUT THIS BABY TO BED ONCE AND FOR ALL, IF YES ON #1 PASSES, MAYBE THE LEGISLATURE WILL THINK TWICE B4 THEY TRY TO SLIDE LEGISLATION PAST US......VOTE YES ON 1....

David889327.......dave is here. Now its a party!!

Also, laughing and snickering over defeating a 2.5 % minority of the population in a referendum is shameful. Real manly.

Vote NO one ONE because an inclusive society makes a strong nation.

Dave is the man... Anna will be so happy.

auhhh, sure feels good. you know that BM thang

bye bye duckwa / whatta way to go. 0<<<<<

WilliamDS re 2:38pm. I like the word "inclusive". Very original. Even though we are from different sides of the coin, I respect originality.

WilliamDS they have no shame. They are very like playground bullies, taking pleasure in causing pain. They are damaged individuals, only someone that is pretty much without empathy could take such GLEE in denying rights to others; rights that do not impact their lives in any substantial way.

I would like to say I am suprised by all of this, but sadly, the minute the bill was signed I knew this would be coming, and more than likely the small minded bigots of Maine would overturn it.

Wonder what all the 1st shift healthcare workers are doing when they get out of work.

valgal10 - you give the Legislature too much credit. They were told (by referendum) to fund 55% of education several years back - they still haven't met that legal requirement yet either. And yet we sheep continue to elect the same morons year after year.

I want to thank the Bangor Daily for continuing to be my voting litmus test. Whatever the BDN endorses, it's safe to vote the opposite EVERY time!

William 2.5% is a little stretch don't you think!?!

Voting YES on ONE in 1/2 hour, and can't wait!

wonder what the healthcare workers that just drove to work are doing

All you no voters keep them chins up. It's not over yet.

2:12 PM, CivilDiscourse, cousins are not allowed to marry in some states because that is consanguinity. It can be genetically dangerous for children born to first cousins. It's not legislation for someone's religious ideas.

Vote NO on ONE

Ya know bigots up early and all

they usually pass out early too

Hey guys - have you all been "keeping the toilet seat warm" while i've been away?

TolBig80 re 2:42pm. You should be ashamed of yourself for such a reverse bigoted statement. I'm 57 years old and in no way, shape, form or manner is anyone going to tell me that my parent's and church's upbringing was wrong. I am happily married to the same woman for 28 years and believe, and always will believe that a marriage is between a MAN and a WOMAN. Hundreds of thousands of Mainers feel that way and we are not bigots simply because you say so. You must realize that we feel your lifestyle is unacceptable to us.....and rightly so. The final vote will give you a clue as to how Maine feels. Have an enjoyable life.

2:46 PM, TurkeyTalker, a stretch in what? Sociologists estimate that 2.5% of the population is identify as homosexual in orientation. That's 5 people in every 200.

haakon - nice try on the hospital visit/medical information front. But it doesn't fly. When anyone is in an emergency situation, witnesses to the event are always interviewed and asked for information that would be helpful in determining the cause of the situation. In a motor vehicle accident, police routinely ask for information that is helpful in determining cause, and that can be used for treating victims. If you had information about medications, I highly doubt that any hospital is going to turn a deaf ear to the information you provide. They may ask you to wait outside the emergency room, but they may ask me the same thing if my wife were in there. Relatives usually are not allowed into an emergency room while trauma is underway, but a nurse or other healthcare worker will likely not turn down helpful info.

Besides, all you need is a medical POA, and I fully support your ability to get one. There are a lot of unmarried folks with little or no family around in a crisis, and who get's to provide such info on their behalf?? As for barring a non-relative from someone's death bed, that has NOTHING to do with marriage, gay or otherwise. That is a matter of policy that could be easily overcome without redefining marriage. This story is a strawman that seems compelling, but fails to meet the need for redefining marriage. Sorry.

William, they are jokes - not worth the time of day - trying to get a rise out of people.

valgal - sorry to disappoint this "baby" isn't going to bed without the courts stepping in --- gonna cost the taxpayers some more money that could have been used for something else because the 'religious right' decided that even though they had the right to refuse based on their beliefs, it wasn't good enough - they want gay and lesbian people and their families further marginalized in American society - they want them stripped from the Maine Human Rights Act and from some that have posted here - many would like to see them banished of society completely. Religion does not make the laws of this country but they sure do get a pass on a lot of the laws.

Jack (Straight married male who Voted NO on 1 - for my family members and friends and their kids)

On 11/3/09 at 2:48 PM, ElectraGlide wrote: Repeated separate thumbs down will cause comment to be hidden

Ya know bigots up early and all

they usually pass out early too

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

I hear ya, they might be popping some OXY to keep them going through the night.

Speaking of OXY wheres the party Dave.

WilliamDS wrote - 2:12 PM, "CivilDiscourse, cousins are not allowed to marry in some states because that is consanguinity. It can be genetically dangerous for children born to first cousins. It's not legislation for someone's religious ideas."

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

And all this time we've been hearing that marriage and procreation aren't related. Who says the cousins have to have sex, or produce children? Ever hear of birth control??? I mean, as long as they promise not to "Oooops", that should be good enough for us, now shouldn't it? It's really none of your business, now is it? NOT!!!

MaineSurvivor2 - what I said wasn't bigoted. I simply said that the people that take some kind of vindictive pleasure in this are damaged.

Support Yes on 1 all you want, believe what you want. What I take issue with is the childish taunting that has been all over this board today by SOME of the Yes on 1 folks. If you chose to align yourself with them, that's your choice.

2:42 PM, MaineSurvivor2, if you don't think an inclusive society makes a strong nation, look at the nations that are not inclusive, like the theocracies we are fighting against.

And......for the guy who said we report to the UN....do you think the following nations don't report to them?

Following are the nations allowing gay marriage:

Canada (2005)

Sweden (2009)

Norway (2008)

Netherlands

Belgium (2003)

Spain (2004)

South Africa (2006)

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

Finland

France

Iceland

Norway

Portugal

Denmark

Sweden

Germany

United Kingdom

Switzerland

Elsewhere

Israel

New Zealand

windfuture: Nice assertions, but they're not backed up with facts. Your doubts are just that -- yours.