give it up its over with, you lost

Antonia Carroll was shown on TV coverage for this event. She is a real attractive and articulate young woman. Bravo to you ,Antonia for doing this for those who have been denied (for now.) You speak for the generations coming up.....caring and intelligent peope who, whether heterosexual or homosexual, are just, like this woman, concerned about certain citizens not having the same protections and fairness as others.

....caring and intelligent young "people", rather....

Somebody please tell this young lady that a law is in effect that has the same results and force of the law as "marriage" -- Title 22 MRSA Section 2710 -- the domestic partnership law. "Marriage " is reserved for a religious ceremony between a male and female. You don't need any other laws.

...thats right Yes on 1 folks! It ain't over, it will never be over until there are equal rights. And I hope that when that time comes... you will be FORCED to marry gays and lesbians in your church!!!

That is quite correct - time will remedy this situation. As the younger generations take over and the older ones pass on, equality for all will be the law of the land. In this Sunday's "Parade" section of the newspaper, there was a story, "Fighting Terrorism With Schools." In the article, there was a quote, "Literacy helps curb religious extremism."

The first thought that came to my mind was, "I hope that works in the USA, too!"

To a person, the only objections I ever heard to same-sex marriage came from people quoting some aspect of religion and how their religious marriage would be somehow compromised. When pushed for specifics, out came the arcane quotes from the scripture tailor made to justify their position. Of course, none of any of this had anything to do with religion and had everything to do with secular, state-issued marriage licenses. No one was going to insist that their particular church would be forced to perform SS marriages any more than churches today are forced to perform interfaith, interracial, and divorced partners marriages. All levels of prejudice are protected by Article 1 of the Constitution. If your church does not want to perform SS marriages, well, surprise, they don't have to and never would have had to.

In time, and sooner than we think, same-sex marriage will be the law of the land.

Thank you for your strong and good voice Antonia.

get a clue Joe... domestic partnerships do NOT have the same results and force of the law. You are sadly misinformed

On 11/22/09 at 7:54 PM, downeastdave wrote: Repeated separate thumbs down will cause comment to be hidden

...thats right Yes on 1 folks! It ain't over, it will never be over until there are equal rights. And I hope that when that time comes... you will be FORCED to marry gays and lesbians in your church!!!

The State cannot FORCE the Church. That is what Separation of Church and State means.

joes3656: "Somebody please tell this young lady that a law is in effect that has the same results and force of the law as "marriage" -- Title 22 MRSA Section 2710 -- the domestic partnership law. "Marriage " is reserved for a religious ceremony between a male and female. You don't need any other laws."

Well, no, not quite. The term "marriage" unfortunately has been used for both the religious ceremony and for the secular state-issued marriage license. This has been discussed repeatedly so I will belabor the point, but marriages in the state sense, are recognized across state lines and by the Federal government. Unions and Domestic Partnerships and all those other definitions are not. Therein, lies the problem. Had the term "marriage" been reserved for religious ceremonies while some other term such as "legal union" (or whatever) had been adopted by the States and the Feds, we'd be way ahead of the game and I doubt there'd be as much contention.

One solution would be to change the state term, nation-wide, for marriage to something else and reserve "marriage" for religious ceremonies. Good luck with that. The easier solution is to just know the difference between the two and live it.

The "Church" didn't show any separation with the state on this matter. The Catholic Church ponied up big bucks to repeal this law. Praying now they pony up some TAXES since they are getting involved in politics.

Jennifer: Exactly. Well, at least we know they are not hurting for money! (unless they spent much of it on the repeal!!)

Betting that the thumb down folks will arrive in 3......2.......1.......

The "Church" is not just Catholics. It seems many think they can pass a law and FORCE the Church(es). This unions which gays and lesbians are asking are Civil unions/marriages which will grant them more legal rights. (Or they hope)

fishinwidow35 - Agreed. But, I do not know what more can be done to drive home this very basic concept. I must written about it 100 times by now.

For the record: No church, of any faith, can be compelled by the State to perform same-sex marriages. A "marriage" performed in a church is a ceremony and only that. If the couple happens to have a state-issued marriage license, it also becomes, additionally, a "marriage" recognized by the State. If a church does not wish to perform SS, interfaith, interracial, or previously divorced partners marriages, they do not have to, nor would any law, present or future, require them to do so. Churches have an escape clause called Article 1 of the US Constitution.

Why is the concept so difficult for people to grasp?

I voted YES on 1 and I always will vote to preserve marriage. However, given what I know about what the world will look like in the end times, I'm sure someday gay "marriage" will be the law of the land. "Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion. Furthermore, since they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, He gave them over to a depraved mind, to do what ought not to be done." Romans ch 1 verses 26 to 28

Why can't a ;aw be passed that states that a civil union has the same meaning in law anywhere the word marriage is used. Seems a simpe law could keep everyone happy, give same sex unions the rights they want and keep marriage a religious term. State can still charge for the license, as long as they are making money..... Gotta fill the 400 million from soem place. If there is separatoin of church and state why do you have to have a state issued license in order ot get married in the state?

LawDisOrder: A couple of points - the way I have been told is that if we come up with a separate term equivalent to "marriage" but call it something else, then we bump up against the 1954 Supreme Court ruling in Brown v. Board of Education that outlawed the concept of "separate but equal." And, historically, this makes sense. "Separate but equal" certainly was separate but rarely was equal. If something is equal then it is the same so just call it the same. This is true with about anything, not just same-sex marriage. It is a great idea, but it won't stand in Court. Unfortunately, the term "marriage" is used for both the religious and the legal concept, even though the two concepts are distinctly different. As a matter of convenience for the State, a JP, NP, and clergy can "sign off" on a state marriage license. This is not the case in some countries where two ceremonies typically occur - one in a church and the other at city hall.

As far as separation of church and state, many will tell you there is nothing in the Constitution about this and that is true. But, there are countless court cases establishing precedence of this separation. There also is the mention of God all over our currency and Federal buildings and such. That is fine but we must walk a fine line here. The intention is that there is a concept of God without it being denominational. That is, there is "one Nation, under God..." and so forth but that is not necessarily and Christian, Jewish, or Islamic God. We cannot allow a specific religious concept to creep into our laws. Take the Masons, for example. They have the concept of a supreme being of some type but is not specifically of one faith - that is up to the individual Mason.

Now, with regard to the license. You and your partner (straight or same-sex) can be married in any church that will perform the ceremony. It is, after all, a religious ceremony of your choosing and has nothing to do with the State. This is fine, and in your eyes and the eyes of your church, you are married. That said, if you don't have a State-issued marriage license, you are not married as far as the STATE is concerned. State-issued marriage licenses have been deemed by the courts to be essentially contracts between two people and must stand up in court as such. There also is the interests of the State to record this marriage data so that when you file jointly on your taxes, claim on your insurances, and deal with inheritances, and all that legal stuff, that there is a record of an actual legal marriage having occurred. This is why there is a state-issued license. Another point is that people who are not religious but would like to be married can do so by being married by a JP or NP, as long as they have a state-issued license.

What is most annoying to me is that people of a particular faith seem to believe that their marriage, by their faith, is the only true marriage going. Their world seems to be focused solely in the Judeo-Christian world to the exclusion of other faiths (and no faiths). No doubt, I will get a ration of quotes from some scripture which is from one of many versions of a bible, all telling me that my attitude is that of a "secular humanist" which apparently is a direct line to the Fires Of Hell, Amen. As long as these people have tied the word "marriage" exclusively to the religious aspect of being legally married, this will be a tough sell.

The most annoying part is the whining. Can't get your way blame it on the older folks. Unbelievable. Is it the rights or just the wanting to be "normal" by the word marriage.

1. the social institution under which a man and woman establish their decision to live as husband and wife by legal commitments, religious ceremonies, etc.

2. the state, condition, or relationship of being married; wedlock: a happy marriage.

3. the legal or religious ceremony that formalizes the decision of a man and woman to live as husband and wife, including the accompanying social festivities: to officiate at a marriage.

4. a relationship in which two people have pledged themselves to each other in the manner of a husband and wife.

5. any close or intimate association or union: the marriage of words and music in a hit song.

6. a formal agreement between two companies or enterprises to combine operations, resources, etc., for mutual benefit; merger.

7. a blending or matching of different elements or components: The new lipstick is a beautiful marriage of fragrance and texture.

8. Cards. a meld of the king and queen of a suit, as in pinochle. Compare royal marriage.

9. a piece of antique furniture assembled from components of two or more authentic pieces.

10. Obsolete. the formal declaration or contract by which act a man and a woman join in wedlock.

Almost all the major companies in Maine have life partners able to get the same benefits of a married couple. Many of the union partners in Maine wear a wedding ring and have gotten "married" in another state. So you couldn't get it passed in the state of Maine. Sorry but just get over it and move on.

Ms Pelletier was told by her priest to "do what feels right in my heart." Terrible advice. "Feelings" have no place in decision making, only FACTS. Feelings change by the moment from one to another. Our young people are still being fed a barrel of Krap by authority figures like a priest. But it's what we should expect from them I guess. What ever happened to a little biblical counseling? Feelings!! Hogwash!!

Stop giving money to the catholic churchs

queerbians should have equal rights. Just call it "dittoed" rather than "married". Spell check says "queerbians" ain't a word....silly spellcheck.

RIGHT IS RIGHT, AND WRONG IS WRONG, AND PEOPLE WONDER WHAT IS HAPPENING TO OUR COUNTRY. OUR MORALS HAVE GONE DOWN THE CRAPPER. GOD MADE ADAM AND EVE, NOT ADAM AND STEVE.

All the money you wasted on defeating the gay marriage, look at the good it would have done if that money had been donated to

schools. To the needy and the seniors.....tst tst tst what must god think of that.....shame shame shame.

Ah, the NO's alway love to throw that youth coin around. The end is near for the bigots, right? Well, ever stop to think there's a second side to that coin? Yes, people 18-30 do support gay marriage and 30+ seem to be against it, but what happens when those still wet behind the ear turn 30+? I'm sure that everyone on here's perspectives have changed from 20s to there 30s. I know my views have changed on many topics. Not to mention the population is getting older. So, I my eyes the glass is half full. Come to think of it you could even be moving backwards. BTW, nobody has ever explained what the legal difference between a Union and a Marriage is. Please, for the Love of God give examples I'm tired of the old, "It just is argument!" A contract between two consenting adults is a contract regardless of what you call it!

15 yr olds who aren''t of voting age......thank god for small miracles, maybe they will have time to wise up before they can visit the ballot booth.

There were no bigots involved in this vote. If that is the best excuse as to why the "NO" side lost this vote, it's no wonder they lost.

Poll Numbers on Face Book>(( ? )) Is America a Christian Nation

56% NO

41%YES

Does that Tell You Anything<<

~~~~~~~~~~~~

Well lets count 1 2 3

1. How long before we freed the slaves

2. How long before women could vote

3. How long before Gays are treated like Humans

Yep We sure are a Christian Nation

The USA the comedy of the World Today Because of Bigoted Human Thinking

Because of just 1 2 3

What about 4 ya say

Oh the American Indians

oh my oh my

Let`s just keep them on the reservations and we will not see dem Indians

US Constitution

That is what the World Loves about America

We just are a little slow in getting to use IT<<

On any givin Day you are going to meet one frigged up Christian or Mormon in your day.

Christian Nation> more like Bigot Nation<<

How is That for Short and Sweet and TO the Point<<

Civil Unions differ state by state. Currently, Maine does not recognize same sex marriages or Civil Unions from other states. The Federal Government does not recognize any form of Civil Union, they only recognize marriage for SSI survivor benefits, filing joint tax returns, prohibition against testifing against a spouse in federal court proceedings.

A contract only extends benefits if it is legally recognized as valid. At the state level, only certain benefits are available to a married couple. Some examples -

- Making end of life decisions. Couples in a committed, non-married civil union status can and are overruled by blood relatives.

- Visitation rights. Couples in a committed, non-married civil union status can and are refused access for hospital visitations .

- Taxes. Couples in a committed, non-married civil union status do not benefit from the tax code.

- Health Insurance. Couples in a committed, non-married civil union status only benefit from their partners employer provided health benefits if the employer recognizes "domestic partners" in their health plan. Employers do not have a "choice" with a married couple.

There are four examples of how a Civil Union differs from Marriage. It is all dependent on how the law is written as to what "rights" are extended in a Civil Union. This is not the case with marriage.

Here is what is sad....we are extending Constitutional Rights to people that attacked our nation on September 11th, 2001 because we want the world to see that we are a nation of laws. But when it comes to our own gay citizens enjoying the same Constitutional Rights as every other citizen.......sad, truly sad.

MARRIAGE IS BETWEEN ONE MAN AND ONE WOMAN.

On 11/22/09 at 9:48 PM, captainandy wrote: "Sane people recognize her as a shallow, foolish twit and the posterchild of a failed government school system"

Once again, you show your ignorance. You have never met this young woman, yet you consider her a twit. I have met her, and have watched as she and her brother have grown up. (My son goes to school with them.) She is indeed an articulate and intelligent young lady, and I was thrilled to see that it was she who had organized this rally.

Keep on keeping on, captainandy. You and the other haters continue to show your true colors every time that you post here, further proving how narrow-minded the "Yes" crowd really are.

Congratulations, Antonia. Well done.

Freaks and Geeks.

These people are to young and ignorant to even know what they are saying or stand for...Grow up...

when are you going to get over it you lost the vote it just shows what is being taught in schools today and how they are corrupting the minds of the young people

Ya know on Face Book there was a Great Comment

By A true Christian

She Said at First I was Mad as Hell

That the Gays and there Supporters

Continued to Call Me a Bigot

But After ALL was said and Done

She said the Word being Called A Bigot

Was the One Thing That Made her Continue

To Think about the Subject

It was What Changed her Mind<

And it Also was What Changed Mine<

So Sorry if being Called a Bigot Hurts ya LiTTLE Feelings

But That is Way Better Then Being

Considered Less Than A Human Being<<

Dang Electra you and the Maine Coon Cat

Make One Mean Team / Along w / the 3 Musketeers<<

No PRisoners Gen Patton Unless they Give Up<>Yes Sir<<

I applaud these young people for their actions. It is wonderful to see them stand up for what they believe to be right. I agree that marriage between same sex couples WILL eventually be legal, more than likely after a huge supreme court trial, where Justices will decide that not allowing same sex couples to marry is against the constitution. I also believe that the term "Marriage" could be changed. Unfortunately, If it is changed for one group of people, it should be changed for EVERY group of people. We are, after all, ONE NATION UNDER GOD WITH LIBERTY AND JUSTICE FOR ALL.......

Maybe the Catholic Church would reverse its position on gay marriage if gay couples would promise to give the children a Catholic upbringing. It's all just lip-service after all.

There will never be a time, its over with

The 'no on one' folks should get the hell out of our face. If you really want the right to marry, then please just live together for twenty years or so and accept equal treatment under the law without defacing marriage. Demonstrate through quiet fortitude that your lifestyle does not represent a threat to us traditional folks. Less effort than that is not acceptable and will change no minds. We will not be bullied by name calling into capitulation. You want a certain lifestyle recognized as normal, and we want traditional marriage to stand as it is. So get the hell out of our collective face and demonstrate through your benefits to society that your lifestyle is worthy of future consideration.

The plus side to younger people leaving the state after high school & college.

get a life downeastdave

workingpoor: The difference between Union and Marriage? It has been discussed many times. See my contribution in the column at 11:46 p.m.

And, true enough, my views have changed in the 24 years since I turned 30. But, my basic values of rights for all has not. I believe in Maine we have the old saying of, "Live and Let Live." I recall my mother, now 83, telling me as a child of the two ladies who lived down the road and who had lived together for some 50 years. Everyone in town knew these two but they were well respected. They kept their yard up, attended church, and participated in local Grange suppers. One was a school teacher. The other a nurse. They had the respect of the town. To the uninitiated they were two "old maids" but to everyone else, they were a couple. My mother said they were good people who did not bother anyone and what they did was their business. To me, this is the essence of "Live and Let Live."

However, I wonder today with the Religious Right's bedroom police and the Catholic's attempt to hold onto 12 Century doctrine while their flocks are leaving (combined with the huge cash drain of $2.6 BILLION dollars since 1950 for paying off sexual abuse victims), whether these two ladies would be able to live in our small town. Or, more likely, the transplanted bible thumpers with their intolerance, would be burning a cross on their front lawn.

I had hoped the Maine I knew would have left alone the new law on the books rather than have it forced upon them by the Supreme Court. But, that was not the case. My attitudes on some subjects have changed since I was younger, but rights for all is not one of them.

I am starting to wonder how much this girl got paid for doing this by the No on 1 side. I hear that they are starting to pay people to hold rallys. One is coming up soon at Hammdon st congretational church too

Just another statement from the Young on FB<

~~~~~~~~

Exactly I have no problem with gay people we all may not agree with each other but nothing to try to kill each other over. So no problem there....but i do have a problem with people that use religion as a tool for hate. ....wont mention any names .... And I have to go to my "rock" called home and get ready for my chem exam lol. I actually somewhat enjoyed this ...chat good to get other prespectives. God bless

I saw an advertisement on TV for Viagra - How come they don't promote errections showing two men or two women - Would it be that this corner of the population is perverted - These activist should be demanding a cure for homosexuals - The number is 1 in 150 for autism - what would it be for being born a female stuck in man's body or a man stuck in a female body - I pray they find a cure for this anomaly -

These young people don't know better, they are not old or obviously intelligent enough to make lifes decisions, here is proof of the deviants warping these young minds !! the voting age should be increased to 25 and you should need to pass a test to vote ! if the voting age was 25 the yes vote would have been 80% or higher.

8:44 AM, Coronadrinker,

Liar, liar pants on fire...

More lies.

We've come to expect it.

jimbeale: See my posting at 8:42 a.m. - I believe that had the upsurge of the Religious Right and their intolerance not occurred, we likely would have had the marriage law stand and not have it revoked. It will be interesting on December 1st when the DC Council votes on same-sex marriage. DC has a law that states that no law that would rescind the rights of a minority can be voted on my the majority. Makes sense to me and is something that Maine should have had. Because, fear and ignorance usually over-rules logic every time. I do not believe the couple I mentioned at 8:42 and their positive reactions would have amounted to a hill of beans in the example you suggested.

There is much protest going on and a blackmail threat by Catholic Charities. CC's explanation is that they do not want to pay benefits to the spouse of a same-sex couple. How bizarre is that? First off, that has to be the lamest excuse ever heard. How many gay employees would they have? Of that, how many would be legally married? The actual dollars involved here are peanuts and as CC is run as a business, any good cost analyst would have factored in the cost of employee and spousal benefits before bidding the contract. It is all just a smoke screen. CC is a business and is paid by DC. As such, they must follow DC's laws. So, rather than "pay same-sex spousal benefits" they plan to pull out of DC? Well, bravo to the DC Council -- they said, "Go ahead. We'll find another company." It will be interesting to see.

MurphyL wrote: "All the money you wasted on defeating the gay marriage" no waste there, seems it "WON" get over it jump back into your closet. WE DO NOT WANT YOU PERVERTS IN OUR LIFE

Just another perspective on FB

`````

The Bible is not evidence of its own validity, using the Gospels to prove the Gospels just shows you to have a complete and total lack of understanding of argument, logic, evidence, and reason. It's not an argument and its not evidence, and when you are shown this and you continue to claim that the Gospels prove the Gospels, you are just being obtuse, and dare I say, you are quite possibly a moron.

As far as evidence goes, there are a few things to keep in mind. Your source is not proof of your source, and your source has no bearing on the validity of your source. This mean, as I've said many times, the bible is not proof of the bibles validity, nor is any other thing proof of its own validity

~~~~~

The only thing they left out I will ADD

You are also A Bigot<<

And come to Think of It

I have already marked Dec 10th on the ole Calendar

See ya are good For Something bigots of Shame<<

chersully2000 what have they been denied? Nothing they just want special right. Guess what they already have them. They don't need the name married to be diffrent. They are already diffrent. Oh and again they lost. Time to drop it. Move on with life. And there wasn't even that many people there.

9:01 AM, Coronadrinker,

If they are paying people, cite your sources.

Otherwise, you're lying out your a$$ as you're so prone to do.

The No campaign paid a guy to run the campaign: big freaking deal. That doesn't mean they're throwing money at 15 year-olds... you're a sick puppy, man, a sick puppy indeed.

You have no source for your comment about paying for rallies because it is a lie. You know it is a lie. Thus, you get defensive when asked to prove it.

oh yeah almost forgot

I`m sure your escort to jail

will be rite there to assist

you corona ya bigot<<

This just in....Coronadrinker comes out of the closet, admitting he is both gay and terribly misguided for falling in love with Downeastdave. Please pray for him!!!

Wow a Conversion

Knew it was just a matter

of Time

Gay Coronadrinker oh YEAH

On 11/23/09 at 7:03 AM, Ladyslipper wrote: "15 yr olds who aren''t of voting age......thank god for small miracles, maybe they will have time to wise up before they can visit the ballot booth."

Ha!

Three years or less before they're voting age. The only thing that is "small" around here is YES" people's compassion.

Think you guys can scare those 60 kids with verses from the Bible in three years!!??

Hurry up before they think on their own!!! Hurrryy!! They're *thinking*!!! (in Homer J. Simpson voice)

No tedlick your one sick puppy for being gay. You say it wasnt your choice several times. You were born that way. No one is born gay. Been sourced out as it cant be true. You grow up to be gay, so go play with your boyfreind and ill get those sources up later when i can get them from who told me who is was on the no campaign. Hmmm quite curious are we. Well no names will be mentioned but he didnt care if you won or lost.

fishinwindow - if the state can't force the church, then why the hell did the church force their opinions on the state?

9:31 AM, Coronadrinker,

Still no sources... you're lying again.

Liar liar pants on fire...

Ted can you come up with a better pickup line to get me. Im not gay. And liar liar pants on fire is getting old gay dude. Get a new line or just drop your pants to your guy

Electra & Blueox, isn't that one of the problems... what is the determining factor of someone's sexual orientation. Here is the bigotry patrol using sexual orientation and words that got Larry Johnson canned from the Chiefs a few weeks ago. Earlier some intellectuals stated theat you cannot cite a source to validate itself, yet the only determining factor of a homosexual is the individual's claim. The Y cromosome doesn't matter?!? Gender doesn't matter? Some people still believe gender does still matter, and have the legal opportunities to state their case as well.

Just like they marched in Selma in the faces of bigotry and hatred, so too will the minorities in this state, keep up the fight. Perhaps the Yes folks need to re-read the 14th Amendment, while they wait for the law to pass.

Well I do not know about the Blueox

But I am not Gay

So I`ll leave 9:42 to someone

In the Know<<

9:36 AM, shipbuilder,

There are just as many posts for opposite sex partners on Craig's list that are just as obscene.

Why aren't you raising hell about that?

9:41 AM, Coronadrinker,

Old or not it's very accurate: you're a liar. One of the biggest public liars I've ever seen.

Liar liar pants on fire.

9:31 AM, Coronadrinker,

I don't think it matters if it's a choice or not. The fact that religion, unarguably a choice, is protected means that's a dead point.

Now, do you admit to your lies or can you cite a source?

it says in the bible,in the end times homosexuality will abound.enjoy the ride folks its comming .peace

I just have to believe who would want to be treated

Like A piece of Dirt

Unless they were born that way

Straight and Proud

To Support that Gay People are NOT DIRT<<

A 15-18 year old's view is frequently rebellion. If you don't think so then tell my teen to wash the dishes. Odds are when they become adults they will see things differently. They are correct to express their views but I will not do as my child tells me. I make up my own mind after much consideration of the facts not what a hormonal teen tries to force on me. The only fight I ever won against my parents was the right to wear pants to school after I got to high school. (It was the 70's) I suggest everyone should read the Bill of Rights again before they vote on anything

If marriage is reserved for a religious ceremony, then why does the State use it to define the civil union between a man and a woman? Perhaps we should remove the word "marriage" from the laws altogether. You know, that whole separation of church and state thing...unless of course it serves your purposed.

If you read Title 22 MRSA Section 2710, it does not provide the SAME rights to domestic partners (heterosexual or homosexual) as it does to married persons. Heterosexual couples have the choice of whether to marry, homosexual couples do not and therefore are not afforded the SAME protections or choices under the law. Those of you who think that "similar" rights are "same" rights, then you need to revisit your dictionary.

But electra you said you wanted to learn how to be gay and tedlick was gonna charge you too much. Darn it make up your mind pal.

ricts1 wrote: "She is indeed an articulate and intelligent young lady,"

"Who cares about Y chromosomes?” is "articulate"?

On what planet? You should get those thrills running down your leg under control.

On 11/23/09 at 9:32 AM, evasmith wrote: Repeated separate thumbs down will cause comment to be hidden

fishinwindow - if the state can't force the church, then why the hell did the church force their opinions on the state?

The Church did not. The Church has always held this view and the majority of voters agreed. If gays and lesbians want the right to have a legal union (which they already do) but have the full benefits of a traditional married couple (which is what they are after) then they will need to stop trying to govern the Churches. Note I say Churches since this involves more than Catholics although many believe only Catholics are against same-sex marriage. Traditional marriage is not so much to exclude homosexuality but to promote procreation and to have couples be responsible for raising their offspring together and teach the same values with which they were raised.

Good job young people. No matter what side of an issue you stand on, definately stand up and be heard. It is important for our future that you educate yourselves and then make a stand based upoon what you believe in. Have respect for the other side, perhaps agree to disagree, and then give it all you've got to make certain your voice is heard loud and clear. Never listen to any fool who tells you to just shut up and go away because you have lost. Because if you do, then you truly have lost.

Now, for the "gentleman" who posted here about one of these young people the following: " Sane people recognize her as a shallow, foolish twit and the posterchild of a failed government school system" you sir ought to be taken out behind the woodshed and switched but good. But unfortunately that is no longer allowed in our failed school system. I don't know what school system you are talking about, but the one I came up through you would have known better.

while it will definitely BE the LAW of the Land within 20yrs.....screw Maine for now...letm ROT in thier DEFICIT....they would have had 1000

s of people going to Maine in the upcoming year..for Vacations and weddings..spending Millions $$$...but too bad, letm deal with thier Cutbacks.....thier Emptying Food banks, and Soup Kitchens...and thier FROZEN poor this winter who can't pay thier HEAT bills......at least "Them thar gays can't git' married"......thats all that matters,right? RIGHT!!!! Also, thier churches,and parishes close....lol But they had lots of money to FIGHT equality......ahh, I'll just sit back and laugh...meanwhile NOM has moved on after USING YOU ALL, how's it feel? .....You're all yesterdays news ........enjoy your cutbacks, and taxes going up....$$$

On 11/23/09 at 9:53 AM, outlaw wrote: Repeated separate thumbs down will cause comment to be hidden

it says in the bible,in the end times homosexuality will abound.enjoy the ride folks its comming .peace

CAN you say THOROUGHLY BRAINWASHED.....ahh they did a GREAT Job on YOU..the perfect example of someone who can't think for themselves.....there they are OUTLAW is their name......so sad, well IF you feel the end is close..do yourself in and LEAVE ALL your money to that Pedophile Catholic church Im sure they won't mind. LOL

“What is the difference between a man and a woman getting married and two men or two women getting married?” Antonia Carroll, a 16-year-old junior, asked. That quote brings back memories for me.

In 1979, when I was a 15-year-old freshman in high school, a 16-year-old junior said to me: "What is the difference between pot and cigarettes?”

I thought about the question. Of course, I knew that cigarettes were not good for you, but at that time, there was still mainstream tolerance of them, as they had not yet been completely outed as the health destroyers they truly are. He soon answered his own question, though, and assured my young mind that marijuana was in fact, much more benign than tobacco. I thus came to accept one of the biggest lies amongst teens of that era. That marijuana is safe. As a result, I made one of the biggest mistakes of my life, and became a user of marijuana.

So while it may be true, as Rebecca Pelletier, 15, of Bangor, said “Soon this will come up again and we will win.”; just remember how strong peer pressure can be for young people, and that their decisions are often based upon that pressure, as well as a lack of knowledge, experience, and an incomplete understanding of the ramifications of their actions.

tomthompson_1: Excellent. One of the best posts I have read in a long time. Yes, that "gentleman".....hmmm.....yes, you said it perfectly!

there is a reason teenagers aren't eligible to vote.

Ahhh, but the WILL be.

Coronadrinker wrote<"But electra you said you wanted to learn how to be gay and tedlick was gonna charge you too much. Darn it make up your mind pal."

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Gee that is sweet that we be still Pals

But NO tedlck has to much respect for me to try and change my natural ways

For he completely understands that yes some is nurture

But the very high Majority would be Nature

How do I know that

Well he told me SO and I trust Him

Sorry about this

But a Hell of a lot more then I trust YOU<<

The difference between marijuana and cigarettes is that cigarettes kill you and marijuana gets you high.

Hey Coronadrinker....I just heard that the Yes on 1 side paid people to make phone calls to leave threatening messages on Yes on 1 supporters answering machines....sound plausible???? About as much as your 8:44 AM post!

The difference in going for an auto ride and coming back alive

Just chit luck most of the Time<<

Let us do the Visa Versa

What would the Yes`ers be saying IF

The Kids at the Rally had Said

We do NOT support Gay Marriage

Ya Right>Damn ALL of a Sudden them Would be

Damn Smart Kids

SSDD Bigots are ALL over The Place<<

Bigots Trying to Still justify There Shame<>SSDD

“It’s that Y chromosome or lack thereof in one of the partners. Who cares about Y chromosomes?”

Did this girl ever take a biology course?

"It is more complicated than that. Sexual orientation is neither entirely inborn nor in any way voluntary. Placing it as an either/or question, as our public discourse on sexuality does, has creates a false dichotomy".

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Like most people

What do we Know

Or do not know

I`ll go with the Professionals

That have Studied and Tested for REsults<<

Um...............you need to have the right chromosomes to create a familly. If this were four people in their living room the BDN would be there and they would call it a "rally".

Electraglide, I hate to break the bad news to you but the No side including tedick the most has no respect for anyone. Just like Rodney dangerfiled said I get no respect and defineately ted lick has no respect.

Kudos to Antonia. And kudos to CT on the one year anniversary of its marriage equality law on 11/12/09.

Onward towards equality, Joe Mustich, Justice of the Peace, Washington, Connecticut, USA.

And lets not forget that marriage is firstly a civil matter in America, as marriage licenses are issued by and recorded in town halls not church halls, or mosques or temples. And to the marriage police, please find another issue, because life's just to short. Find love.

On 11/23/09 at 7:47 AM, jmathe wrote: Repeated separate thumbs down will cause comment to be hidden

"when are you going to get over it you lost the vote it just shows what is being taught in schools today and how they are corrupting the minds of the young people"

Self-contradictory. If "IT" was going to be taught in the schools only if the NO vote passed, how were these kids "taught" what you are comdemning them for? Gues "IT" wasn't taught so they must be able to think for themselves. Of course, "IT" wasn;t going to be taught even if NO won, despite the falsehoods spread by the CA hired gun which actually won the election for YES.

Catpainandy: from this and other posts, you're really down on public schools. So, where were you educated? You must have learned your consistent negativism somewhere.

this girl should certainly be disciplined for her actions.

Bangor High School should be ashamed.

Another morally devoid student allowed to promote sick and twisted behaviour.

I would like to give her a piece of my mind.

If you can marry one person, what's wrong with two? Or is this where same sex marriage proponents draw their line? Hippocrites!

Thanks to Rebecca, Antonia, and others. You should be proud of yourselves! I know I am. Liberty is a great thing, though not perfect, and so will and is always work in progress, shaped by Americans like yourselves.

It is ironic that the first immigrants to the US were escaping religious persecution.

Today’s Gay soldiers, who have died in supreme and ultimate sacrifice in service to this Country, while fighting for this Country’s mission to protect civil rights for all, still could never tell a soul that they were gay but fought just the same.

Even after this heroic sacrifice, their families still, "do not tell" afraid that their son or daughters military careers will be tarnished, so they keep quiet. Gay soldiers lead by the example of the black slaves who fought in the Civil War, WW I, and WWII, while waiting to have the same Civil rights afforded their white bothers and sisters that they fought shoulder to shoulder with. It took too long but the battle was won.

And too, as more Rebeccas, and Antonias, stand up and exercise their Civil rights to protest injustices in this Country, maybe, just maybe, sooner than later, we will afford Gay citizens the Civil Rights, they die for on the Battle fields that others have but they do not , so that when we speak, “……..and Justice for All…..” and Pledge Allegiance, as “…..one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all…..” we will be closer to perfecting Liberty.

YES_ON_1 wrote: ... I would like to give her a piece of my mind.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Sorry, but according to the rest of your post, which I won't dignify by reposting, you don't have one. You'd be best to take that finger your pointing and turn it right around...

This yes on 1 joker has been preaching all day about freedom of speech at another newspapers' site. I guess that freedom only applies to what yes on 1 thinks. Talk about being a shame. He/she goads and goads with nonsense and then when someone with half a brain tries to engage him in logical debate he/she spews and rants nonsense and out right lies in most cases to try and justify his postings. I know this sounds hypocritical, and in fact in some ways it is, but please ignore him/her. He/she slinks away if you do. It only gets worse if you try to answer.

You say it is natural...then explain to me why you need us hetros to have children for you? If your way of life was all there is the human race would never have been.

Sorry for the tort response but I am plain sick and tired of hearing you run your mouthes.. Go to Californistan

Its only natural to try it once or twice maybe 3 times....You have to see if you like it :)

Right? Or was I lied too????

Coronadrinker@12:59pm<>Electra hates to break the news to ya

But you have to earn respect Corona

And you haven`t earned anything but Contempt

For being one the most Shameful Bigots

That refuses to stop trying to justify

Your shameful Bigoted Vote<<

My My I sure hope I can see your face

When the Courts Decide to tell

You that you were ONE of the Biggest Bigots of the Times<<

~~~

Yes on 1@2:53<> why don`t you come to the next rally

I know I will be there

You can take me out for a drink

Like you promised along time ago<<

~~~

safedman@4:58<>what you been saved from man/women

The garbage can

or the KKK<

Wow, these children seem to think they know more than older people. To no surprise, this is typically brazen of them. Their depth of ‘knowledge’ however isn’t enough for them to know that everything they’ve been taught in schools, everything they see on TV & everything they read (assuming they have the initiative &/or ability to read) is liberally biased & is not the whole truth. They don't have enough to knowledge to know they are simply being used as tools to perpetuate liberalism.

To give credit where it’s due however, they do know how to collect what’s handed to them & they do know how to collect the benefits of what’s been built by older people.

Wake up kids, open your eyes, concentrate on job loss & the ill effects of socialism. Nice thought but really, it's too late.

On 11/23/09 at 5:33 PM, Telefunkinu47 wrote:

Its only natural to try it once or twice maybe 3 times....You have to see if you like it :)

Right? Or was I lied too????

Well Stevie, I think this line of thinking is the ultimate goal;)

Hello all.

Becca Pelletier here. I have several responses to make concerning the comments on this article.

Many of you ought to be ashamed of yourselves. Firstly, understand that while I disagree with the "yes on 1" view on the matter, I respect the informed voter's decision. I do not believe a single one of you who so strongly attacked Antonia (or myself) in your posts knew her. Antonia is an extremely intelligent, very articulate young woman, and honestly, she knows her facts better than your average voter. She is no where near being a "twit". At all. Shame on you.

As for the snide comments and arguments against the young status of many of the participants of the rally and campaign, SHAME ON YOU, TOO!

You who discourage the politically active young mind should be deeply, deeply ashamed. In a time when most young people cannot even bother to look at what is on the ballot, you should be glad to have such a bright mind as Antonia who cares deeply for what she stands for and knows what she is talking about.

Every single teen who was there yesterday came with a different story, and maybe to some, those stories might not make sense, or may seem all together insignificant. But one thing remains true- that these teens are thinking. If you asked any one of them, they would be able to give you a specific reason why they wholeheartedly believe what they do. We are not old enough to vote (yet!), but we ARE old enough to have an opinion. And insofar as that opinion is researched, backed up, and formulated over a good period of time, it is indeed valid, regardless of age. I am appalled at how many of you are discouraging young political activism.

Now, I believe someone mentioned the bit reported about "following my heart". I could have phrased that better.

One night (pre-election), I had a lengthy discussion with my priest concerning the issue. Obviously, he was yes on 1, I was leaning towards no. We talked it over, and in the end, I told him quite honestly that I didn't think my mind would change. He encouraged me to pray with an open mind for a long period of time, and listen. Listen to what God was calling me to do. And so I did. I prayed, and after all of my praying and quiet contemplation, the idea of refusing two people with a wholly altruistic, loving relationship marriage still seemed morally wrong in my mind and heart. And so I chose. After talking for awhile with my Youth Minister, she gave me similar advice. She advised me to think on my own feet (I've never had a problem with that), and to not let any being, whether it be the institution of my faith or my friends tell me what to believe. And that is what I did.

All in all, reading many of these comments is upsetting to me, mostly because Antonia Carroll is being attacked for something that she truly believes in.

I truly hope for all of you that you never have to experience the feeling of being attacked for what you believe.

Respect is key. You must respect the decision of another person, so long as it does not harm another person (John Stuart Mill's harm principle. You should look into it).

I have hope, and I know many others do, as exemplified by the group of supporters at the rally yesterday. Thank you all for taking the time to read my lengthy post through to the end.

electra

i'd surely by you a drink.

but I've got a little something against buying a grown man a shirley temple.

i'll take a johnnie walker black though, straight up, no rocks.

Looks like the rally attendees feel they got bent over by the recent vote and didn't like it

Yes on 1

I prefer Cap Morgans on the Rocks

With a Big Fattie

But alas the Fattie is not legal

Unless

Nay

Maybe

Nay I will have to drive that nite

And of course ya know how I feel

About being a danger to Society

That would be Visa Versa of YOU<<

For SURE<<

Time to stop wasting time and resources on this non issue. Lets deal with some REAL issues like healthcare,the war in the middle east,the economy.

BeccaPelletier: Your comments are very appreciated. Some just complain and criticize no matter what. It is admirable when young people get involved and care about issues. That is something very praiseworthy.

As for respect... (which you speak of.) If you were to read many of the comments, over time, on the BDN comment pages, you would see a real lack of respect a good deal of the time. Guess that tells you something.

A lot of people see someone like Antonia and see a future of responsible, intelligent, tolerant people, and they are glad.

(P.S. Many of these disrespectful people vote down other posters' comments......that also tells you something. I am not talking about vile comments, but when someone writes something that they don't like or hits too close to home. So, just click the comments back on to read them. Many of the comments that are voted down, are voted down for baseless reasons. Posts that should be voted down due to nastiness and personal inappropriate comments, do not get voted down often. It is so easy to figure out who does the voting down.....so easy....) The BDN guidelines are clear and there to read. (Inappropriate personal and perverted comments are not allowed on this site.....there are other sites for that kind of thing.)

BeccaPelletier@610>Real Nice

Just remember Becca

If the shoe was on the other foot

They would be praising these kids

So just do not even bother

For the Thick Skulls of the Nazi Wanna bee

Well all you can really DO is Hand them a NUT

and tell them were to Stick IT<<

They not even smart enough to deny

They are Nazi Wanna Bees<<

Not all "older" people voted "yes". I for one voted "no". It's not a matter of the younger generation not knowing what is right, as many have said. We often don't give our younger generation credit enough. If this girl feels this way, who are we to tell her she can't voice her feelings, cause people think she is to young to know better. Just because we have "age" doesn't always mean we absolutely know every "right" thing. A lot of "older" people have been brought up to believe one way, and any change, right or wrong, is just not acceptable, for any reason. Change isn't always easy to accept. :)

And by the way, I am definately a "straight" senior.

Good for you, sandih.

I understand that it must be frustrating for you to be clumped in with a group that is often presumed to be "yes on one". (It sort of sucks.)

Thank you for standing up for what you believe is right in your old age also! When I was phone banking, I heard too many people say "Oh, I have too many things going on to vote." People have simply become too busy in their adult lives to care! Thank you for being an example not only for the younger generations, but also for the older generations!

BeccaPelletier: There are plenty of straight adults (senior and otherwise) who voted NO on 1. I am a heterosexual woman with children who supported same sex couples and their families.

Wonder where the poster oldgrump went.....he has not posted lately. He always had good interesting comments. Hope all is well with him.

Oh, I'm not at all denying that there are plenty. I know several.

But it's a stereotype, and you need forthright people to come out and break that stereotype. Thank you also, chersully. :]

asleep at the switch I see.

now where did Yes on 1 Go

we never finished

Are you going to buy

this ole straight Male Coon Cat

A drink or what

On Dec 10th

I am not afraid to be seen with a Bigot

Are you afraid to drink with a Straight Guy

Or do you think you will be assumed to be Gay

Or are you just plain afraid<<

BeccaPelletier: Very well written posting I might add. I am from Maine and still own a farm and plan to retire there with my partner of many years and our daughter, now nine. I appreciate your article and your strong stance. It is great to see. I wish some of these people on this board who no doubt lived through the protests of the 1960's and the Vietnam war would wake up and respect the views of the youth of America. You are our future. And, in my estimation, we are in good hands.

Respect is the key word. Over the years, I have watched in dismay as the concept of public debate has sunk to the lowest common denominator. I do not know whether to blame the bible thumpers from the south (Jerry Falwell types), or Fox News, or the media in general, for this lack of civility and manners. I never watch those reality shows as they come across to me as the lowest form of human behavior. No class, no style, no civlity, no manners. Every comment is laced with emotion and arsenic. Rather than have a logical, insightful debate, we have people who repeat the lies fed to them by the extremist churches. No amount of explaining logic and reality to them seems to sink in.

The good news is they are on the back side of the hill, sliding toward the grave. You will be the next generation in charge and I think you will do a great job. You are thinking for yourself unlike many on this board. Even your priest told you that YOU need to think for yourself and make your own decisions. What a concept!

Actually, I had a good interaction with a priest myself. Years ago, when I met my partner, he introduced me to his priest. I never was raised in any kind of religious background other than being a Universalist for the first 4 years of my life. I am thankful for this. The priest and I hit it off just great. Of course, I was not in the least intimidated by the guy as I put no "power" in the collar or anything. My partner, on the other hand, fretted about this meeting. But, in the end, the priest thought the two of us were made for each other and he said as much to my partner. That was 13 years ago. So, don't discount the Catholic priests. The Catholic Church, on the other hand, well, I won't go there.

Good luck! I think you are a fine example of today's youth.

Nite ALL<<

On 11/23/09 at 10:21 AM, fishinwidow35 wrote: Repeated separate thumbs down will cause comment to be hidden

On 11/23/09 at 9:32 AM, evasmith wrote: Repeated separate thumbs down will cause comment to be hidden

fishinwindow - if the state can't force the church, then why the hell did the church force their opinions on the state?

The Church did not. The Church has always held this view and the majority of voters agreed. If gays and lesbians want the right to have a legal union (which they already do) but have the full benefits of a traditional married couple (which is what they are after) then they will need to stop trying to govern the Churches. Note I say Churches since this involves more than Catholics although many believe only Catholics are against same-sex marriage. Traditional marriage is not so much to exclude homosexuality but to promote procreation and to have couples be responsible for raising their offspring together and teach the same values with which they were raised.

===============

fishinwidow: When in God's green earth have gays tried to "govern the church?"

If the churches, Catholic and otherwise, would simply GO AWAY, leave us alone, and allow the state to issue marriage licenses that have NOTHING to do with the churches, then I would be a happy camper. Why does this concept of "state-issued marriage licenses" and "church marriages" seem to be so difficult to grasp? The two have almost nothing to do with each other.

I have explained this so many times that my fingers are starting to cramp up. The deal is this. It is no more than this.

1. To be legally married in the eyes of the State, you need a state-issued marriage license.

2. To be married in the eyes of a church (straight, gay, or otherwise), you need to get the church to agree to perform a marriage ceremony that will be recognized by that church (and probably by nobody else).

3. Without a state-issued marriage license, no marriage will be recognized by the State (straight, gay, or otherwise).

4. All that same-sex couples want is that state-issued marriage license. They then can become legally married by a church willing to perform the ceremony or by a Justice of the Peace or Notary Public. Period. Case closed.

5. No churches will be forced to perform same-sex marriages if they do not wish to. It just does not work that way.

That is it. It could not be any simpler.

Now, if you and your church feel that SS couples will burn in the Fires of Hell for All Eternity, then let us take that risk. We will worry about that. It will have no effect on you except to increase your grading curve. Besides, according to many of you, the "end times are near." Okay, then I think you should not be wasting your time with us but should be better spent preparing for the Rapture.

CGGage: Re 8:55 PM. Great comments as usual. Glad your's (including remarks about respect) were not thumbed down. JD sure knew what he was talking about !

chersully2000: Thanks. I appreciate your comments. As I said, I cannot fathom why people cannot figure this out. They are convinced that somehow churches are in the middle of state-sanctioned marriages. I wish I could come up with a clearer example. Perhaps, that a marriage in a synagogue has no effect on one in a cathedral? Or, perhaps that a same-sex marriage in Canada has nothing to do with a Baptist wedding in Houston? Or, perhaps that a same-sex marriage performed by a Justice of the Peace in Bangor will have no effect on a straight marriage performed by a priest in Lewiston? I just do not know. Maybe I am making it too difficult.

Be still and know that I AM GOD! On Marriage : What GOD hath joined together let no man put assunder. Notice it says GOD JOINED NOT MAN JOINED???? Get a clue yet people? We all know that certain individuals will do all that they can to smear the Lord's name as they are that small minded that man has won over their intellect. One man, one woman...Adam and Eve as from the beginning of time. Don't be a hater because your opinion is not sanctioned by the Lord.

Lord please forgive these ( your) children as they know not what they do...

MaineMaiden:

They know what they're doing, and it is us that need to forgive you.

And I do, I forgive your ignorance and your bigotry.

Now please butt out of our lives and our churches; we don't agree with you and find you ridiculous and pathetic.

On 11/23/09 at 9:22 PM, CGGage wrote: When in God's green earth have gays tried to "govern the church?"

Please read back at the beginning comments.

>>On 11/22/09 at 7:54 PM, downeastdave wrote: Repeated separate thumbs down will cause comment to be hidden

...thats right Yes on 1 folks! It ain't over, it will never be over until there are equal rights. And I hope that when that time comes... you will be FORCED to marry gays and lesbians in your church!!! <<

I had been responding to comments like this. Downeast Dave seems to think the State can force the Churches to perform ceremonies which they oppose. My point is this is what Separation of Church and State is, the State cannot FORCE the Church.

Your opinion is like everyone's " yours". Ignorant and pathetic is trying to sway teenagers against the teachings of God's WORD. Notice I said GOD's WORD not mine like you use yours? I am not a bigot nor am I ignorant. If man chooses to accept something, it does not mean God does... think about it PIchris. I do not believe for one minute that any church that teaches GODS WORD accepts your opinion. I do believe that they accept you as we are to love everyone ( even when they try to FORCE their opinion on us). Have a spirit enlightened day.

Here is a partial list of religious denominations which either perform same sex marriages or civil union MaineMaiden.

United Church of Christ

Episcopal Church

Evangelical Lutheran Church

Unitarian Universalist Association of Congregations

Reform Judaism

Oh, and the law which was repealed on November 3rd actually protected those churches and church affiliated organizations from civil penalties if they refused to perform same sex marriages.

fishinwidow: My apologies. I thought that quote was from you. Clearly, the State cannot force churches to do anything - yet. However, it they keep meddling in politics, one might wonder about the validity of their tax-exempt status. However, even that is small potatoes. The State never wil touch that sacred cow.

MaineMaiden: It probably is pointless to ask or comment. You are convinced of your view. But, I will try.

Can you concede that a straight couple (one male, on female, of legal age) can be married by a Justice of the Peace (after having obtained a state-issued marriage license) and that they then are "married?" Remember, state-issued marriage license and a JP performing a ceremony? Are they "married" in your mind, of would they also need to have a separate/additional ceremony in a church in order for you to consider them married? As I was a Notary Public in Maine and performed one wedding during my tenure, I can tell you the State ceremony has no mention whatsoever of God. So, do you still consider them "married?"

In my mind, and in the eyes of the State, they are legally married and can file jointly on their taxes and do all the legal stuff.

If you cannot agree on this, then we will remain forever miles apart on this issue.

Cgage

I can concede that a pig farmer can marry his favorite pig in a private ceremony on the farm. .

but does that make it right??

your missing the point.

gay marriage is morally wrong. that's why we oppose it.

anybody can do anything they want. that doesn't make it right, and it doesn't mean we hae to accept it.

dig???

rally for what??

the vote has already been decided.

On 11/24/09 at 1:01 AM, MaineMaiden wrote: Repeated separate thumbs down will cause comment to be hidden

Be still and know that I AM GOD! On Marriage : What GOD hath joined together let no man put assunder. Notice it says GOD JOINED NOT MAN JOINED???? Get a clue yet people? We all know that certain individuals will do all that they can to smear the Lord's name as they are that small minded that man has won over their intellect. One man, one woman...Adam and Eve as from the beginning of time. Don't be a hater because your opinion is not sanctioned by the Lord.

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

My husband and I (and yes I am a woman) were not joined by GOD, however, we are legally married. We actually were joined by MAN (a male Notary). I do not need my opinions sanctioned by anyone and I'm not a hater :)

The women's right to vote has nothing to do with morals.

Two people of the same sex carrying on a immoral physical and emotional relationship has everything to do with morals.

That's why we voted not to pass same sex marriage in maine.

Don't like it??? Then move.

disgusting

you only call it a straw man because you know it's a reasonable comparison.

a man and his pig is as ludacris as two people of the same sex marrying.

the differentiation between right from wrong was lost along the way for you.

it's a good thing there are still some morally sound people around here to keep you all in line.

God knows you need it.

joes3656,

You know you lie. The domestic partnership law does not make gay couple eligilble for the more than 1300 rights, privileges, and benefits that a marriage license qualifies heterosexuals to. If marriage is only a religious ceremony, then the state of maine should stop issuing marriage licenses.

Gay marriage is morally right. Those who believe otherwise are sick, deviants.

So John,

What do you think of your President Obama?

john albrecht

you're joking right?

joes3656,

Gay marriage is morally right. Those who believe otherwise are sick, deviants.

Joe....as long as you and other homosexuals have such a crude and offensive opinion of those of us who helped defeat No on 1...you and "yours" will always be defeated. Calling us course and repugnant names will only set back your cause. Those of us who might have been teetering on the fence as to which way to vote will not be ambivalent anymore.....after seeing the vitriolic and nasty backlash directed toward those of us who voted "Yes."

WE WON'T FORGET EITHER. Continue calling us names.......and see how that works for you.

kikiem

well put.

WE WON"T SOON FORGET!!

For Becca......a quote from you " I truly hope for all of you that you never have to experience the feeling of being attacked for what you believe. "

Have you really noticed how nasty and malicious the backlash has been since the election.....from homosexuals and the supporters of gay marriage?

We supporters of marriage being defined as a union between a male and female have been called every repugnant and despicable name in the book ! Perhaps you haven't noticed because you think that behavior is OK. So to respond to your quote......Yes Becca..We (Yes on 1 voters) have experienced and continue to experience the feeling of being attacked for what "WE" believe. The attack we are under will actually contribute to impeding and hindering what progress the gays had already accomplished in the State of Maine. SO RAGE ON...IF YOU MUST.

10:45 AM, KikiEm wrote: Good job. I thought this very thing

when I read the story when it was posted and didn't respond.

I'm glad you did. They see only one side and nothing else.

The gay activists ( on this site we don't know where they live,who they are, how many times they post under different names or if they are merely just enjoying creative writing exercises) have the right to their opinion. It IS amusing that one can debate/support himself. Would make a great cartoon don't you think?

I believe that these activists aren't so concerned about their "rights" as a word and that word is "marriage."

Nice to read that Ms.Pelletier was not given the advice by her religious leader to listen to her "heart" when she formed her opinion. That is most scary advice!

An interesting thing...You don't hear anything of

this subject but here on BDN. In everyday life,

at work, at community functions, meetings ect..

People have moved on to more pressing matters.

The word "Marriage" is an act ordained by the church. It's my belief that the people stood up and repealed what the government had no right too put into play. I, for one, would gladly donate my last penny to any church, of any denomination, who is in support of preserving the dignity and respect of marriage between one man and one woman. Even Islam!!!

We, the heterosexuals, created the word marriage to represent our actions. Why don't "you people" create your own word to describe your actions?

BeccaPelletier wrote:

"Shame on you."

"SHAME ON YOU, TOO!"

You've learned well from the "No" crowd. Unnatural promoters of perversion telling the rest of us that we have be ashamed.

That's rich!

It is worth noting that the article states 20 high school students in attendance. Lots of adult input and to think gay marriage will not be mentioned in our schools...20 kids /40 adults....

I'll be one happy mofo if the rapture turns out to be real...

We'll finally be rid of all these sickening fundies.

That'll be so cool!

FUNDIES ARE SCARED LITTLE MONSTERS UNABLE AND AFRAID TO THINK FOR THEMSELVES!!!!

NO MO FUNDIES!

hmmm, yeah, maybe not so cooool. : )

kikiem - You know what you can do.....involves taking something and sticking it where the sun don't shine - that goes with all your co-horts....talking nice to the likes of you low-lives...isn't gonna do anything.....EVENTUALLY -> ALL WILL BE SETTLED IN COURT..And there is NOTHING you or the other Holes can do about it.

On 11/24/09 at 7:57 AM, YES_ON_1 wrote: Repeated separate thumbs down will cause comment to be hidden

Cgage

I can concede that a pig farmer can marry his favorite pig in a private ceremony on the farm. .

but does that make it right??

your missing the point.

gay marriage is morally wrong. that's why we oppose it.

anybody can do anything they want. that doesn't make it right, and it doesn't mean we hae to accept it.

dig???

======================

Actually, no I don't. Yes, a pig farmer might marry a pig but as a pig is not "competent" in the eyes of the law, the marriage would not be considered legal. You are focused on the religious/moral side of this and I am trying to drive home the legal aspects.

Morality is in the eye of the beholder. Suppose you are against interfaith and interracial marriages? Are these immoral? To you, apparently. Is a woman not covered from head-to-toe considered a harlot? Yes, to an Islamic cleric. Not to us in the USA.

Are same sex marriages considered immoral? Not to dozens of countries.

Okay, that said, I need you to put the moral aspects aside as your feelings are that SS marriage is immoral. Nothing I can do about that. But, is it illegal? Not in many other countries and not in some states.

Focus on the legal side and explain to me why SS marriage should be outlawed. And, "because it is immoral and against God" is not a sufficient answer as that is your God and your morality, not mine.

I need some other solid reason.

OMG DisgustedAmerican............ Here is your quote ! You know what you can do.....involves taking something and sticking it where the sun don't shine - that goes with all your co-horts....talking nice to the likes of you low-lives...isn't gonna do anything.....EVENTUALLY -> ALL WILL BE SETTLED IN COURT..And there is NOTHING you or the other Holes can do about it.

Does DisgustedAmerican prove the point of my previous posts? There it is folks. I'm going to assume DisgustedAmerican read my posts because he/she became so unglued. Go back and read my 2 posts....Did I ask for anybody to stick something where the sun doesn't shine? Did I call anyone a low-life? Did I refer to anybody else as a Hole? Or any other derogatory name? So, DisgustedAmerican...you just added another notch to the setback of tolerance of the Gay Community.

I'm adding just a few of my previous remarks: "Calling us course and repugnant names will only set back your cause."

"Yes Becca..We (Yes on 1 voters) have experienced and continue to experience the feeling of being attacked for what "WE" believe. The attack we are under will actually contribute to impeding and hindering what progress the gays had already accomplished in the State of Maine. SO RAGE ON...IF YOU MUST. "

A friend of mine told me something that is sooo funny....so in Leviticus 18:22 it clearly states abomination to anyone whom loves after the same sex...well, should we also go by what it says in Exodus 21:7 that you can sell your daughter into slavery...or what it says in Lev. 21:20 that you may not approach the altar of God if you have a defect in your sight. OR..most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even thought this is expressly forbidden by Lev. 19:27, how should they die? COME ON! I've got plenty more things from the bible that say not to do...yet is ridiculous now adays...I would assume keeping someone thats in love away from marriage would be one of those silly bible beliefs!

As I mentioned before, Civility is the victim here. I really am looking forward to the Rapture and a time when SS marriage is legal. That is about the only way we will keep these two camps apart.

To CGGage ????????? I think I saw your prior post where you mentioned the Rapture and a time when SS mariage is legal ? I will assume you are referring to the Rapture as that time when Jesus returns to earth (the 2nd coming) SS Marriage is legal in a few States right now but after the 2nd coming there will be no unions between people that we refer to as marriage. That is, if you want to believe what Jesus had to say about it. Here is the passage.

"For when they shall rise from the dead, they neither marry, nor are given in marriage; but are as the angels which are in heaven." Mark 12:25

ccgage

Morality is not given up to the eye of the beholder.

You open yourself up for much ridicule when you post off the wall comments like that.

To Amanda1982 on "silly bible beliefs" Christians appreciate many of the books and scripture passages from the Old Testament. Leviticus isn't one of them. Christians don't live by the laws of Leviticus. Christians now live in accordance with the "New Testament"

But however...even in the New Testament, the subject of sex between 2 men or 2 women is addressed by St. Paul. Romans 1 26--27 "God therefore delivered them up to disgraceful passions. Their women exchanged natural intercourse for unnatural, and the men gave up natural intercourse with women and burned with lust for one another. Men did shameful things with men, and thus received in their own persons the penalty for their perversity"

And a passage from Jesus....: "Have you not read that he who made them from the beginning made them male and female ... and the two shall become one?" (Mt 19:4-5; Mk 10:6-7). Now perhaps Jesus and St. Paul were just being Old Fogeys and Sticks-in-the-Mud.....but I don't think so ?

KikiEm..a perfect example of the Success of Brainwashing.....sorry Kiki dear...your God is a Man-made concept...Made UP to keep the SHEEPLE in line, and the Church Coffers full $$$$ cha-ching!!!!! In our Galaxy with BILLIONS of stars/suns/planets, 100,000 light yrs across.... in a Universe with BILLIONS of Galaxies....we Humans aren't that important in the scheme of things......we are in a average solar system, with an average star/sun..on a tiny planet.........NO Sky God gives a ratz behind what humans do with thier hoo-hoos or pee-pees. You are a Lemming........Open your mind dear.....chk this out IF you DARE!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oAVjF_7ensg

KikiEm -- I don't care what you think....again - stick it where the star don't shine hun.....don't you have dishes to do or a house to clean,or babies to make? Boohoo - he hurt my feelings - I'll never ever agree with him now....I could care less about a low life scum like u.....the only sad thing is..people like you breed.

A few general responses:

I would like to say that I never intended to imply that the "yes on 1-ers" didn't get attacked. My brother is very religious and is openly against gay marriage. He had to deal with a lot of mpeople who attacked him verbally for what he believes. I think on any side that that is wrong, no matter what you "stand" for.

In response to the Mr. Matt Carbone...

If you had actually read the entirety of my post and internalized it, (meaning you didn't just pick and choose what you wanted to use to attack what I am saying) you would know that I said "shame on you" firstly to those who were attacking Antonia Carroll as a person, rather than arguing against her beliefs (that's all fine and good. Go ahead and argue away. But it is entirely out of line to attack a PERSON and their character for what they believe personally.)

I said "shame on you" a second time directed to those who were discouraging young political activism. That is truly something that appalls me in the deepest sense.

That is all. My friends think I should stop responding and encouraging the negative people on here, but whatever I can do to maybe clarify your image of this situation, I'll do it.

Not worth the headache KikiEm...waste of time.

DisgustedAmerican......Well, you're really wound up ? I'm not sure where you get the idea my feelings were hurt. My posts are only communicating facts...and "facts" have no opinions or feelings. Portions of my posts are opinions and beliefs......1st Amendment rights...remember? I'm not going to defend or debate the gift of the Paraclete...you either believe or you don't. I don't condemn you for not believing. However, you and I have a totally different take on the YouTube Video.....yes, I watched it. It is awesome and amazing. For me, it reinforces my belief in God the Father and God the Son. For you, it convinces you that there is NO God. I disagree with your idea that we humans aren't important in this Galaxy or any of the others. When we peer into a babbling brook, I think the brook admires us and finds us astounding and awe-inspiring. It was the mind/s of mere mortals that built the Hubble Telescope that gave you and I a view of the breathtaking galaxies. So...DisgustedAmerican...we're good for something after all. I have no intentions of winding you up anymore...but I do have a question....rhetorical at this point. Do you think you might have tried to have a dialogue with me without resorting to name calling?

To Becca Here is your quote: "I would like to say that I never intended to imply that the "yes on 1-ers" didn't get attacked. My brother is very religious and is openly against gay marriage. He had to deal with a lot of people who attacked him verbally for what he believes. I think on any side that that is wrong, no matter what you "stand" for. "

" But it is entirely out of line to attack a PERSON and their character for what they believe personally. "

Thank you Becca…for being civilized and respectful towards those who don’t share your beliefs and opinions. Thanks especially…for avoiding any reference to name calling.

Bangor Daily is squeezing this homosexual marriage fervor for all it's worth!

Wow, I had two of my very benign comments thumbed-down. That's a first.

A quote: On 11/24/09 at 2:30 PM, YES_ON_1 wrote: Repeated separate thumbs down will cause comment to be hidden

ccgage

Morality is not given up to the eye of the beholder.

You open yourself up for much ridicule when you post off the wall comments like that.

===========

Well, then, riddle me this, Batman - If an American woman is not covered from head to toe in a Sears Porta-tent, is she an immoral harlot? I think some Islamic clerics would think so. Is a married couple having sex with a condom immoral? Or, is that a sin? I forget. Some people might say so. Morality seems to vary based upon the person perceiving the potentially immoral act.

So how is morality not in the eyes of the beholder?

Don't know who the priest was who told Ms. Pelletier to go with her "feelings" on sexual attraction. But if that priest is saying homosexuality is okay then he is wrong and he is speaking against the teachings of the church and of God. By the way, who is the priest?

Our priests are supposed to be a reflection of Jesus and so is anyone who calls himself christian. We are not supposed to be a reflection of the world.

firefly: By the way, who is the priest?

I am afraid to ask why you want to know. Should he be warned?

I spoke with a friend who was taught in school by the Jesuits. They had exactly the same idea -- ponder on it, examine the facts, and make your own decision. Or, I guess you can go with blind faith. Up to you.

CGGage wrote:

"If an American woman is not covered from head to toe in a Sears Porta-tent, is she an immoral harlot? I think some Islamic clerics would think so. Is a married couple having sex with a condom immoral? Or, is that a sin? I forget. Some people might say so. Morality seems to vary based upon the person perceiving the potentially immoral act.

So how is morality not in the eyes of the beholder?"

Careful, CG; People might actually become aware that in adhering to what they think is the letter of biblical teachings, they somehow managed to completely and irrecoverably abrogate the spirit of them !

KikiEm:

If you are going to quote scripture to support an argument, you should at least make an effort to find scripture that also disproves your argument.

You've never attempted this, clearly, so your opinion regarding what the KJV version of The Christian Bible isn't really compelling evidence of anything.

That is, other than your own need to condemn gay people. In your own pleasant and special way.

PIchris: Yes, well, true enough. I have come to the conclusion after weeks of discussion that it is impossible to employ logic with people who are of the school of blind faith. Whenever I pose a question for which only a logical answer can be provided, the answer I should get is superseded by a quote of scripture from some version of a bible, or the question is thumbs-downed and hidden. "Don't confuse me with facts!" The concepts of "critical thinking" must be heresy.

In a few years, I will retire to my farm in Maine. Hopefully, the cold weather will scare off the influx of the southern born-again's who refuse to leave the rest of us alone.

It used to be in Maine, "Live and Let Live." When did that go away?

KikiEm wrote:

"To Amanda1982 on "silly bible beliefs" Christians appreciate many of the books and scripture passages from the Old Testament. Leviticus isn't one of them. Christians don't live by the laws of Leviticus. Christians now live in accordance with the "New Testament"

No, MANY "Christians" do; to pretend that Christians do not cite Leviticus as ground to hate homos is simply and easily demonstrably not true.

YOU don't get to pick and choose what "Christians" to pay attention to, and which to completely ignore, just for the sake of your own arguments against gay people. Nice to know, though, that you recognize Leviticus isn't relevant in the context they like to assert it to. Sad, though, that you turn right around, and do the same thing they do, below :

"But however...even in the New Testament, the subject of sex between 2 men or 2 women is addressed by St. Paul. Romans 1 26--27 "God therefore delivered them up to disgraceful passions. Their women exchanged natural intercourse for unnatural, and the men gave up natural intercourse with women and burned with lust for one another. Men did shameful things with men, and thus received in their own persons the penalty for their perversity"

Funny, where's the rest of it ? I mean, you seem to have left out what comes before that verse ! Ooops !

Could this be because you simply do not understand the prior verse ?

Could it be that you lack the comprehension that, taken in context, it means something entirely different, and addresses not homosexuals, but heterosexuals who have abandoned the Christian church, converted to Paganism, and partaken of Pagan rituals contrary to their own nature ?

Noooooo, that would be too complex and contextual an intrepretation, and it couldn't serve your own illicit purpose - to condemn the gays.

As if this weren't enough of an absurdity, you completely ignore what Paul says right after it - which was :

Romans 2:1: "Therefore thou art inexcusable, O man, whosoever thou art that judgest: for wherein thou judgest another, thou condemnest thyself; for thou that judgest doest the same things."

"And a passage from Jesus....: "Have you not read that he who made them from the beginning made them male and female ... and the two shall become one?" (Mt 19:4-5; Mk 10:6-7). Now perhaps Jesus and St. Paul were just being Old Fogeys and Sticks-in-the-Mud.....but I don't think so ?"

And this proves what ? That, again, you are being selective and not looking for any real answers, any real guidance from scripture. Forgone conclusions only here ! Pathetic.

So, no, sorry - you, and others here, that frequently use scripture for precisely what you've been warned to NOT do, do not impress anybody who is honest, and doesn't have hate and arrogance in their heart.

You call yourselves "Christians" - to me, you are just a bunch of arrogant, ignorant bigots that don't even know the scripture you quote out of context.

CGGage wrote:

"PIchris: It used to be in Maine, "Live and Let Live." When did that go away?"

It hasn't gone away, the people of Maine very much still feel that way. 47% of them last election cycle. More the next, and even more the one after that.

You can fool some of the Mainer's some of the time, but eventually they'll see the interference from the Catholic Church and the Mormons for what it is.

Ironic, though, the Mormon money that their campaign managed to conceal this cycle. They really learned from California - there they are 2% of the population, yet contributed 50% of the funds to repeal marriage there. They got away with it in Maine this last time, next time they won't be so fortunate.

I also firmly believe that their misuse and abuse of scripture will come back and bite them all in the butt.

CGGage / justmyopinion625

I did not mean to infer that a JP was not a proper authority to marry individuals, as I know that they legally are. A JP can however write or choose a marriage ceremony that includes God if the individuals being married so wish. My point was that in the eyes of God , marriage is between a man and a woman, husband and wife. I did not intend to offend anyone married by a JP or not in a church. A building does not a Christian make nor a marriage, both are within an individuals heart and minset.

JD2008

Again my point was that God's word is a man and a .woman. Just because some states voted to say different and some churches and individuals choose to follow suit ...does not change God's written word. Hard for those who want it changed to accept but it is what it is and man can not change it with a vote or a ceremony...in the end God is the Great I Am and only He can forgive your sins and provide you with salvation through His son, Jesus Christ. The rest is just what man chooses to accept or look the other way about, that's man's choice not God's word.

CCGage...the priest should be corrected. Not only is his soul in danger but he also put this young womans soul in danger.

firefly your soul is in more danger then either of them...

i just can't believe we r still going through this. these no on 1 people are as stuborn as a mule. we already voted, you lost, now except it and move on or find another state to target. we have a great state to live in so please don't keep bringing such negativety. miss pelletier, you may have an opion but you don't yet have a vote. who is to say that a year from now, you r in a bf, gfrelationship, things can change fast at your age or has antonia already swept you off your feet, if she did, that is statutary rape, but that probably doesn't matter for the no people, it is one more on your side.electra, leave corona a break will you, i think you r showing your true colors the more you post.and for all you no's who kinda wish the older voters pass on so you younger no's will get more votes, that is an awful way of thinking but i have come to expect the unexpected from the no people. if you think people are not treating you fairly or giving you more rights than straight people, just wait if it passes all the b.s. that will follow.you can only whine and cry so long but please don't try forcing this issue more than you r now.becca, don't close your mind to the opposite sex, you may find it is more normal than you think.

MaineMaiden: No, I was not referring to any possible slight against straight couples that happened to be married by a JP rather than by the clergy. What I was trying to point out is that the JP marriage is to fulfill the requirements of the State for a legal marriage. And, yes, a JP can add-in items related to God and so forth. As an NP, I performed one marriage back in 1980. The suggested ceremony (which one could embellish) had no mention of God and as the couple was not religious they wanted only the plain vanilla ceremony.

But, the bigger question I had was whether in the eyes of the church is a JP-married couple "married." From your answer, I gather it does not matter but just must be a man and a woman(?). The point I was trying to make is that in the eyes of the State (which is all I care about) the couple is married.

Every objection to SS marriage I have heard seems to revolve around objections by religious types as it is some violation of scripture or whatever. I have not heard any other objections from any other sources except for the occasional homophobe who would object to his air being breathed.

The big hangup seems to be on just the word, "Marriage." A solution might be to come up with another word for the state-issued "marriage" license but for a lot of practical reasons this just won't work. People cannot seem to grasp the idea that the word "marriage" means one thing in a church and another as far as the State goes. The word is a polyseme - somewhat related and sound and are spelled alike (I had to look that up!)

If the religious types can accept that a SS couple could be in a legal union recognized by the state (and, optionally by some churches, but not required to be so), and thus obtain the legal benefits the same as those who are "married," then that is a huge step forward. If they can accept that, then the only problem remaining is to resolve the semantical problem with the word "marriage."

I can hear the screaming now - "He wants to redefine marriage!" Well, no. The word "marriage" will remain the same in the church just as it always has. The State might want to add into the law a clarification of "marriage" - an expanded and clearer definition. This would be for the State law only. I could see something that says SS couples have "legal unions" but also that a "legal union" is the same as "marriage" in the eyes of the law.

I also see if this were attempted it would be challenged in Court for so many reasons. This equivalence concept works in math; not so much in law.

Until people see that the word "marriage" has two meanings - a secular meaning and a spiritual meaning, I expect this discussion to continue ad nauseum.

On 11/25/09 at 10:05 AM, anthoine wrote: i just can't believe we r still going through this. these no on 1 people are as stuborn as a mule. we already voted, you lost, now except it and move on or find another state to target. we have a great state to live in so please don't keep bringing such negativety.

Anthoine: Well, I would like to remind you that in the 1960's African-Americans fought long and hard to overturn whites-only water fountains, segregated busses, and bans on inter-racial marriages. You may recall (or not - I am old enough to recall) the wailings of the 12th century churches yabbering on endlessly about "contamination of the races" that would result from inter-racial marriages. From the 2009 perspective we look at that time and just shake our heads. It is so utterly ludicrous in this day and age. So, yes, we are stubborn. It is the American way. Until we achieve equality for all, we will be here nagging the majority.

And, I might like to ask, "Negativity???" Who are you kidding? I have never seen a bigger bunch of uptight, tight-a**ed old, stick-in-the-mud prudes, as I have with the Yes on 1 crowd. After all, who started this idiotic referendum, anyway? We had a nice, plain-Jane, innocuous law that remove the restrictions of one-man, one-woman from the law. The law was passed by the Legislature and signed into law by the Governor and that was that. The law had absolutely NOTHING to do with the religious crowd nor would it have affected them in the slightest. It would have shown Maine to be a progressive State. It would have brought money and jobs to Maine as companies would have perceived Maine as progressive and advanced rather than ancient and parochial.

But, no, a federation of churches fearing more losses of the flocks (read: cash cows) went around the State, spewing fear and lies, and collected 55,085 signatures to put the question, "Shall we revoke the legislatively-granted rights of a minority to placate our fears and ignorance?" to referendum. Of course, the federation was able to find 55,085 signatures - coincidentally, the same as the number of people who still believe the world to be flat.

So, when it comes to negativity, millions of dollars wasted on both sides, and the train wreck created, I really doubt "negativity" is the exclusive purview of the NO on 1 side.

Has anyone noticied that not one person on the Yes on 1 side has ever denounced the Roman Catholic Church for firing the female employee that wrote a letter to the editor in support of No on 1? She wrote the letter as a PRIVATE CITIZEN and was fired for exercising her Constitutional Right of Freedom of Speech. But they rally around the High School Guidance Councilor that appeared in the Yes on 1 ad who hasn't even been disciplined let alone fired!

JD,

Do you have a link to this that you mention. I would not want to comment unless I had the whole story. Even the article may not be the whole story, but the link will get me started.

Have you also noticed how many of the No on 1 side are calling the Yes on 1 side bigots, but when you mention that Pres. Obama does not believe in gay marriage, they go silent?

CGGage,

You are entitled to you opinion and that is fine, I don't think most of us have a problem with that.

Could you please do me a favor though and list your sources proving that Maine would have attracted more companies to the State. Please show where Maine would have more jobs, and lastly where Maine would have gotten more money from this.

Don't forget, 30 other States have voted the same way, so I do have information that will refute your findings, if you come up with any.

JD2008: re 12:11 PM Yes, very interesting, isn't it. But that's the way it goes..... it is so very obvious. Anyway, it will take more time and work , but it will eventually turn around......and any distortions and unfairness will have only been part of the struggle of these people attaining the protections they strive for.

I am sure Antonia is most likely heterosexual but just concerned about other fellow and women human beings. She is very intelligent , caring and can think for herself. However, I would think reading a post (if she even does) such as that of 10:05 AM, that she might not be too impressed!!

Re 3:56 PM I am not sure where you got the idea that anyone was saying human beings are not important in this universe! In fact, quite the opposite. You mentioned the Hubble Telescope. Yes, just one of many examples of science advances.....how human beings use their God given brains to create and invent in many endeavors, including science. Many also, with their thinking, complex brains, do not come to the conclusion, or feel right about, treating some of their fellow citizens differently or in any kind of a second-class manner. No one was saying humans aren't important....really, much the opposite. All human beings should be considered important, regardless of what "group", ethnic background, family composition,etc. they are part of.

You need to read the other posts and look at the video that is referenced. The video (by one poster) is supposedly his proof god does not exist. 3:56 post is saying to them this proves the opposite. You have to see the video to understand.

So, is the President a bigot? If so, can he perform his duties without any prejudices? I am very curious to the answer of this.

movethenisback: Winston Churchill is quoted, "the first job of any politician is to get elected." I have no proof of this but I suspect that if Obama had answered that question the way he likely feels back during the election, he would have lost a lot of votes. When it is between fear and ignorance vs. logic, fear and ignorance usually wins. Politicans hate this question as much as the abortion question. His second term, if there is one, might see some change here.

On the point of money to the State, I had read a number of articles in the local papers regarding increased business for Maine. This is not a new theme. It is called by real estate developers as "gentrification" and the examples are nearly countless. Chelsea, MA, as a very downtrodden neighborhood and the gays came in, rebuilt the area, pumped up the values, and now the place is quite the neighborhood for restaurants and shops appealing to all people. Something a little closer to home would be Ogunquit, ME. The place is as gay as Christmas and a tour of the area would show the large numbers of gay-owned B&B's, restaurants, and shops. Dupont Circle in DC. Provincetown on the Cape. It is a long list. The tourism increase for "gay friendly" areas is well-known and is coveted by businesses. Why? The demographics are positive: No destructive behavior (peaceful group), high-income, usually not many kids meaning more disposible income, and a demand for high-quality. These are commonly known factors when dealing with any business.

As far as major corporations go, the IT fields such as Apple, Xerox, Microsoft, and banking institutions, seek out the best talent, of course. They already have benefits to same-sex couples (as corporate policy) as a draw to get them to sign-on for employment. If the local government (let's say State-wide) supports same-sex marriage, a couple is more likely to come aboard a company located in such an area. Companies know this and will come to areas and setup shop. This is not the exclusive reason as there are other factors, of course, but when creating a score-card for an area, having a gay-friendly area certainly is a plus.

In most places, same-sex marriage is a neutral factor for straight couples (they don't care either way) while for the gay couples, it is a big plus. But,as is evidenced from the recent vote in Maine, obviously a huge number of straight people took their time to come out to the polls and vote NO on 1 when, for the most part, this would have no direct effect on them. To those folks, I extend my thanks. So, I believe that in an area, same-sex marriage is a positive asset to business and to the economy in general. There certainly are no negative aspects to business.

To JD2008.....This Catholic woman made a point of stating she was a Catholic in her letter to the editor. She got a great deal of attention from the media leading up to the election. She made the point that she was not accepting of the definition of marriage only being between a male and a female..nevermind the Sacramental status it holds in the Roman Catholic Church. She wasn't FIRED. No one gets FIRED in the Catholic church. She was "removed" from one of the ministries in the church. She was a Lector (standing up on the alter reading the scripture of the day) and Eucharistic minister (distributing Communion..again ....setting yourself apart from the assembly and positioning yourself at the base of alter. Our Priest made a request for any of us who hold those important positions in the church to refrain from wearing political buttons or badges (whether they be “Yes” or “No”) while serving in those capacities at Mass (We're talking for 1 hour here) She may have been asked to do the same and probably refused to comply. There was no request made of that nature if you were a pew sitter only. What is unusual about rallying around a supporter of the Yes on 1 TV ads. Supporters of No on 1 rally around their TV spokespeople ? One of them being a teacher. I predict.....The rancorous person who has brought a "lawsuit" against the guidance councilor will drop that endeavor real soon.

Let me ask this question KikiEm.

What is the difference between being "removed" and being "fired"? Both result in the same end result. You are not doing that which you were trained and/or hired to do,.

And one more,

The Guidance Councilor in Newport appeared in a Yes on 1 TV ad. He was identified as a school teacher. He spoke fpr the repeal of the same sex marriage law. Now when it came out that he was a Guidance Councilor, I have to say that I was concerned about his objectivity in dealing with gay students. Now someone has filed a complaint with the state. He hasn't even been disciplined and the Yes on 1 group is calling for the case to be dismissed based on his 1st Amendment Rights. Why the double standard? On the one hand a supporter of the repeal movement is exercising his 1st Amendment Right and is supported by Yes on 1 and on the other a Eucharistic Minister expresses her personal opinion and is removed for writting a letter to the editor. How do one justify the double standard?

YES_ON_1 wrote:

"PIchris

CCgage

It's obvious that niether of you have any morals at all.

A couple of halfbreeds trying to ruin the state of maine.

We won't let it happen, ever.

bye now."

We get it, you're a racist and a bigot. And a troll.

JD This woman said she knew what she was doing...and she said

she wasn't surprised by the decision to remove her. She's at least

taking responsibility for her actions...What are YOU whining about?

Well....when one is removed from a ministry in the Catholic church....there is every possibility that you will be re-instated to that ministry after the furor dies down and you won't be wearing a big badge (NO ON 1) while distributing communion or reading the scriptures on the alter at a lecturn in a RCC. It would be like joining the Masons and then disputing some of their laws and by-laws and wearing a sign to that effect while attending Masonic meetings. When you're FIRED...you don't get to be re-instated later after you're done partolling with protest signs.

I suppose all you could do is inquire of any gay students the guidance councilor has interacted with and find out if he was objective with them. I suspect they would have stated as such..if that were'nt the case. He works in a school district..under the supervision of school boards and or trustees or both. I assume they scrutinized his involvment in the campaign and have reached their conclusions as concerns disciplinary measures. Because I and YOU don't know the details of the Catholic woman.....it may not have been the letter...it may have been an internal situation within the church itself. We don't know what the communication was between her and her Priest. She was so vocal and entrenched in her NO on 1 position....I see no reason why she wouldn't have expressed any private conversations she had with her Priest.

So now one is "whining" if one stands up for inequity in how people are being treated HRH419.

"Although Barack Obama has said that he supports civil unions, he is against gay marriage. In an interview with the Chicago Daily Tribune, Obama said, "I'm a Christian. And so, although I try not to have my religious beliefs dominate or determine my political views on this issue, I do believe that tradition, and my religious beliefs say that marriage is something sanctified between a man and a woman." "

News from New Jersey Wed Nov 25, 2009 12:39pm EST

NEW YORK (Reuters) - New Jersey voters are split on whether to legalize gay marriage, but more people now oppose it than support it, a poll found on Wednesday.

The Quinnipiac University survey found 49 percent of voters oppose a law allowing same-sex couples to marry, while 46 percent support such legislation, reversing an April poll that found 49 percent supported it and 43 percent opposed it

CGGage: re 1:34 PM Interesting and good comments concerning all the benefits that accrue (business -wise and others) when there is inclusion. So many of these YES on 1 folks patronize stores that gay people own or work in, as just one example. These people live their lives, earning a living, just as any other. But , as we know, that is not of importance to those opposing same sex couples having certain protections for themselves and their families. They will allow gay people to "wait on them" , utilize their services,etc. , at the same time feeling perfectly comfortable voting to deny them certain protections. To those who wanted to support their fellow citizens, that feels quite selfish and unkind.

movethenisback: Thanks for the quote, but you should have read the article a bit more.

Another poll, quoted in the same Reuters story, "A Rutgers-Eagleton poll released last week found narrow support for the bill, with 46 percent of residents supporting marriage equality and 42 percent against it."

Polls that are this close, are subject to which way the wind is blowing that day.

chersully2000: Thanks. Yes, the business benefits are significant. You should check out the room rates at the B&B's in Provincetown. Once a year, my gay pilot's group flies in from all over the country and we get together for a long weekend in P-Town (Provincetown, MA on the Cape). We are all private pilots but we also try to coordinate with the national group which has about 500 members who are gay and lesbian commercial pilots. We all have a great time and swap war stories and flying experiences. We bring a big chunk of cash to P-Town that weekend. Out on the ramp that weekend are easily millions of dollars worth of aircraft, all requiring lots of fuel. The FBO loves us.

Oh, and before the YES on 1 people roll-over from shock, yes, there are a large number of private pilots who are gay. No real surprise. We usually do not have kids and thus have a higher disposible income, so flying, skiing, travel, boating, and all that are usually within reach. Plus, for socializing, having those hobbies is a great way to meet people and for couples to socialize, as well. There are a large number of commercial pilots who are gay. One, with whom I was briefly acquainted was one of the pilots who was hijacked and killed in the plane that struck the Pentagon on 9/11/01.

And, also, we don't worry about crashing either -- remember, fairies can fly!

No not really. If you do your research, these polls are usually wrong by up to 14 points in favor of those against gay marriage. There are many reasons for these numbers, I have already given them all and will not go into it again. This was from more than one study on these types of polls on gay marriage or gay rights (not the same). Why do you think the polls in Maine showed one thing, the vote proved another.

3:29 PM, JD2008 My point JD, she has excepted her fate.

For goodness sake, let it go. She has, you can too.

movethenisback: Living in DC, but owning our family farm in Maine, I can tell you that I am bombarded by polls on a daily basis. These usually are worded to support the view of the poll taking organization. There are a few well-respected polls but it is tough to get a true cross-section of the electorate. Certainly, there was no 14 point spread in Maine. And, very likely the majority of the poll taking occurred in the higher populated areas which usually means a more liberal viewpoint. I think the demographics of the vote say it all for Maine, and bode well for the future. It was clear the better educated, younger, college towns, and more prosperous areas vote NO on 1. The poorer areas of the State (and there are many, sadly) voted YES on 1. Compare Portland and Bangor to Lewiston and Auburn. Night and day. As I have said many times before, the handwriting is on the wall. In another generation, people will think no more of same-sex marriage then they think today of inter-racial, inter-faith, and divorced people remarrying. Time is on our side. Maybe, not on mine, but for the next generation of gay kids coming along.

CGGage I apprecaite your conversation as it is not cluttered with insults and hatred. Yes, the couple joined by a JP are married in the eyes of the state.

having several JP's in my family , I know what ceremonies have been used over the years and I know that many couples add in what they feel and want applies to them and their lives. I actually think that JP's are sort after more now then ever before. s well as weddings are taking place at sites across the globe not just in churches. To me this big hangup is not the word marriage but the word of God concerning marriage. The world we live in is getting less trusting every day as so many have their " hidden agendas" , so people goggle and read what they can that is factual across the nation. As I said , just because man accepts something or says it's fine does not make it accepted not fine with God. We have hundreds of churches as man could not live under the simple instruction of Jesus Christ to the church, they had to modify it, add their own impute and color up their version. God says you will not take from nor add to His word. My Mother always said, " Be careful what you accept because it is what you will live with." She is right. I have friends of many, many years who are gay and they are loved by myself and my family. I however can not change, take from or add to God's written word to assist them in this endeavor. As this evolves in the next year or so I hope that both sides step back and see that name calling, labeling and hateful comments will lead us all exactly where we do not want to go.... It does nothing for either side of the issue to be an example of exactly what others will not welcome.

MaineMaiden: Thanks for your comments. I agree and believe we can have civilized debate on this issue. I read your comments and I would like to believe I understand your position. And, I would also say that what you have said is what you believe. I am fine with that. And, I respect your position.

But, I believe you must concede that many of us are not believers of the doctrine to which you subscribe. As odd as this may sound to you, I really have never had any connection with spirituality that has come from organized religion. While I will concede there may be some type of controlling power, some supreme being (as the Masons call it), it is a huge leap for me to buy into the whole flowing robe, Christian-based story that is so common here in the USA. I have been fortunate to have traveled the world and I have seen many, many religious practices, some with common themes to Christianity. To me, the whole Christianity concept is but one of many spiritual concepts existing in the world. And, I have the highest respect for those people who truly believe in all this and gain comfort and security in their faith.

But, that is not me, and it is not the State which is supposed to be secular. I hear so many people talk about how we were founded on a Christian nation and so on. All true, but in careful reading of the Constitution, there is no mention of Christianity per se. Lots of mention of God, but nothing specifically Christian.

Furthermore, Amendment 1 of the Constitution (The Bill of Rights) reads: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

Please note the first section. To me, this is razor sharp – the government will not establish a religion. Do recall, we severed our connection to England as England’s government is intertwined with a state-sponsored religion (Church of England). This is why it is absolutely critical that we keep religion in the churches and out of government and the secular state out of the churches. The fact that churches are tax-exempt, much like Native American Indian tribes, indicates to me that churches are distinctly separate from the state, as they should be, and as is stated in our Constitution.

With all that in mind, having a religion telling the state what can and cannot be done, and then justifying it with references to the doctrine of a specific religion, really goes against my grain. You are entitled to have in your mind what the definition of a religious marriage is. I am entitled to have in my mind what the definition of a secular state-approved marriage is. These are two areas that should not cross. In your posting, you clearly stated what you believe is God’s word is on marriage. But, that is your interpretation and belief and it is a religious one. And, this is fine. But, I do not see how your view must be accepted by those of us who believe differently, nor should they be the basis for restricting the rights of individuals (also, a Constitutional issue). You believe you have the absolute word, final statement, cast in concrete, word. I do not believe that you do.

In a secular marriage, the goal of the state is to establish a legal agreement between two competent people. Competency is that the couple has reached the age of reasoning/majority, is sane, and is capable of entering into a contract and understanding the consequences. This is not very romantic, admittedly, but it nearly duplicates the rules set forth by the definition of a contract.

I doubt we ever will agree on this. I suspect you put your God’s word over that of the state. I tend to stick to the legal definitions as these have served me well. We may well be at an impasse. But, at least you have my side of the view and I have yours.

Teens should not be concerned with politics. I heard audio clips of elementary school students singing songs supporting Obama before the election. I was outraged. Do I even need to try and explain this? I am nineteen and still don't know anything about politics. Voting age should be at least 21. There is so much information that is obtained between the ages of 18 and 21 that in my opinion entire books of thought can easily be swayed in completely different directions. Most 18 year olds voted for Obama. Why? Because he is black and because of the word 'change'.