With a flurry of coast-to-coast developments this week, same-sex marriage is back in the political spotlight and likely to remain there through Election Day as a half-dozen states face potentially wrenching votes on the issue.
In Maryland, New Jersey and Washington, bills to legalize same-sex marriage have high-powered support and good chances of passage in the legislature. Gay-marriage opponents in Maryland and Washington would likely react by seeking referendums in November to overturn those laws, while New Jersey’s Republican governor, Chris Christie, says he’ll veto the bill if it reaches him and prefers t hat lawmakers OK a referendum so voters can decide.
In all three states, polls suggest voters are closely divided on whether gays should have the right to marry, so there’s a chance one could emerge as the first state to support same-sex marriage in a statewide vote.
Maine voters also may have an opportunity to vote for same-sex marriage in November; an announcement by gay-rights activists about a ballot-measure campaign is set for Thursday. Proposed amendments for constitutional bans on gay marriage will be on the ballots in North Carolina on May 8 and in Minnesota on Nov. 6.
In New Hampshire, Republicans who now control the legislature are mulling whether to repeal the 2009 law legalizing same-sex marriage. Their state is one of six with such laws, along with Connecticut, Iowa, Massachusetts, New York and Vermont, as well as the District of Columbia.
Added together, the state-level showdowns will likely raise the prominence of the marriage issue in the presidential campaign, even though it’s not a topic that the leading candidates tend to broach proactively.
“There’s a lot going on,” said gay-marriage advocate Evan Wolfson, president of Freedom to Marry. “It means that candidates — whether Romney or Obama — who hope to avoid the discussion will not be able to.”
Three of the remaining Republican presidential contenders, Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum, have signed a National Organization for Marriage pledge opposing same-sex marriage and endorsing a federal constitutional amendment to ban it. But it’s not among the topics prominent in the stump speeches of Romney or Newt Gingrich, the two front-runners.
On the Democratic side, President Barack Obama has taken several steps during his first term that have pleased gay-rights advocates, but says he is still “evolving” in regard to same-sex marriage and isn’t ready to endorse it. Some activists hope he will do so before the election, though there’s been no strong hint of that from the White House.
“Obama will get asked about it, and you can’t straddle both sides of this forever,” said Richard Socarides, a former Clinton White House adviser on gay rights. “Clearly he’s not going to retreat, so he only has one place to go, and I think he will do it before the election.”
Another potential factor: Judgments could be issued during the campaign in one or more of several pending federal court cases about same-sex marriage. Appeals could result in the issue heading toward the Supreme Court, and the presidential candidates would be expected to comment on any major development.
A summary of the latest state-by-state events:
NEW JERSEY: Thanks to a change of heart by Senate President Stephen Sweeney, a gay marriage bill is now seen as having a strong chance of passage in the Democratic-controlled legislature. Christie, a Roman Catholic who has long opposed gay marriage, says he’d veto the bill if it reaches him, but on Tuesday he urged lawmakers to put the issue before voters in a statewide ballot measure.
“Let us have a discussion about this in halls of schools and homes and synagogues and churches and ball fields across New Jersey, and let people decide,” Christie said.
Sweeney rejected the suggestion, saying, “Civil rights is not to be placed on the ballot.”
MARYLAND: In contrast to Christie, Maryland’s Catholic governor — Democrat Martin O’Malley — supports gay marriage. Unlike last year, when a marriage bill stalled in the House of Delegates, O’Malley is now making the issue one of his top legislative priorities. He and his allies hope to broaden support among lawmakers and the public by making clear in the new bill that religious freedom will be protected. Public opinion could be crucial, because opponents of gay marriage are expected to seek a referendum in November to overturn a marriage bill if one passes in the legislature.
WASHINGTON: Like O’Malley, Democratic Gov. Chris Gregoire has strongly endorsed a pending gay-marriage bill, which received its first legislative hearing this week. Based on public commitments from lawmakers, the bill has enough votes to win passage. However, as in Maryland, opponents are poised to petition for a referendum challenging the law.
NEW HAMPSHIRE: A bill pending in a House committee would repeal the state’s same-sex marriage law and replace it with civil unions for any unmarried adults. It would not invalidate the same-sex marriages already legalized since 2009. The fate of the bill is uncertain, facing possible revisions before a vote and a promised veto by Democratic Gov. John Lynch if it does pass. If it gets tha t far, and lawmakers override a veto, the New Hampshire Civil Liberties Union has indicated it would challenge the new law in court.
MAINE: Gay marriage supporters in Maine have spent several months assessing whether they would seek a referendum in November to legalize same-sex marriage. Their decision will be announced Thursday, and national gay-rights leaders believe the campaign will be launched. Maine is the only state in New England that doesn’t allow either gay marriage or civil unions. Its lawmakers approved a gay marriage law in 2009, but it was overturned months later by a statewide referendum.
NORTH CAROLINA and MINNESOTA:
Voters in 30 states have approved constitutional amendments aimed at solidifying bans on gay marriage; Minnesota and North Carolina could join those ranks if measures placed on the ballot by Republican-controlled legislatures win approval later this year. Neither Minnesota nor North Carolina allow gay marriage now, but supporters say the amendments are needed to prevent judges or lawmake rs from changing that policy in the future. The North Carolina amendment also would prevent the state from recognizing civil unions or domestic partnerships.
In all the showdown states, national advocacy groups are expected to be active on both sides. The Human Rights Campaign, for example, has promised to provide funding, strategic advice and field staff for the various campaigns supporting same-sex marriage.
On the other side, the National Organization for Marriage is vowing a multistate effort, including promises of financial support in the primaries to defeat any Republican lawmakers who support gay marriage in Washington.
Though several major national polls now show that a slight majority of Americans support same-sex marriage, National Organization for Marriage president Brian Brown predicts his side will continue its winning streak and prevail in any state referendums that are held this fall.
“There’s a myth that history is on a trajectory moving toward same-sex marriage,” Brown said. “There is no such momentum.”
Online:
Human Rights Campaign: http://www.hrc.org/
National Organization for Marriage: http://bit.ly/14OBri
Look folks, the BDN has ANOTHER gay marriage story up in order to generate comments and hits on its site.
How obvious.
And you fell into their trap!
Note that this one is reprinted from the AP. It’s a national story reporting from around the country.
Comical (and pathetic) that you think that the BDN gains revenue from hits on this site. They aren’t Google.
the BDN certainly gets revenue from advertisements displayed on their site, otherwise they wouldn’t have advertisements. They use a targeted advertising service and get a cut.
I didn”t see much on Obama’s state of the union though !
So? News sells. It always has and it always will.
Publishing storied about a nice old lady in Dixmont or a kitty cat stuck in a tree in Veazie won’t sell papers. Hot topics like the presidential election, abortion, and marriage equality will, and that’s because that’s what people want to read about.
It’s an election year, of course it’s back on the political agenda. Time for the Republicans/Tea Party to stir up every fearful group of people they can find. Abortion, gays, and guns. I suppose you can’t blame them, who else could they find to support the goals of corporations as well as your boss and mine? They’re all such nice people. They’d never try to take advantage of you. No, of course not. It isn’t easy to get folks to vote against themselves but conservatives really know how to play the public.
I feel kinda bad though, whipping up the abortion, gays, and guns fear mongering just means those poor people that work in the abortion clinics are going to have to start wearing their flak jackets to work again.
I usually pay attention to the daily news…..however; I have totally missed where there is an epidemic of what you describe as people who work in our most active death chambers as being in grave danger, to the point of wearing flak jackets. (no Geraldo Rivera, the most active death chambers is not death row in Texas Penitentiaries.)
The most active death chambers in America are women’s uteruses. There are approximately 3000 abortions performed daily in the U.S. You raised my curiosity as to what your factual basis is for these workers in the “killing of the unborn” clinics to “start” wearing flak jackets again? I now have the figures.
Since 1973, (Roe v Wade) there have been 6 doctors murdered for performing abortions. 6 attempted murders and 14 acts of violence targeting abortion mills. I don’t support or condone killing of anyone, with the exception of self-defense. But let us compare these interesting figures. 6 murders, 6 attempts, 14 acts of violence (abortion related) adds up to 26 since Roe v Wade (1973) Evidently, 26 anti-abortion events in 39 years is what you deem supportive of your drastic claim that abortion clinic workers must now drag out flak jackets.
50 million plus abortions since 1973…..3000 abortions a day….20 acts of violence and 6 murders of abortionists…50 million plus and adding up daily…..hmmmmm…just who is it that is in the gravest danger? Sadly, there are no tiny flak jackets for the innocent human fetus. Over 50 million Americans who never had the chance to breathe the air or see the light of day. Ah, America…..and it’s even called progress.
The day of reckoning will surely be on our heads one of these days. Millions of innocents killed in the land of the free and home of the spineless. This mass slaughter will not go unheeded.
1. A flak jacket isn’t a bullet proof vest. Violence against clinic personnel and property is waning thus the whole “again” part. Your stats are off though, 26 anti-abortion events in 39 years… try 40 violent events between 1997 and 1999 alone and these are limited to the more major acts like throwing acid, arson, bombings, and shootings. I won’t bore you with the less violent like graffiti and harassment. Not to mention abortion is a legal activity unlike acid throwing, arson, bombing, and shooting.
2. Please don’t be coming from any kind of Christian standpoint in your views about abortion, cause when it comes to killing, Christians have the high score.
3. The “Day of Reckoning” you refer to is more likely to be a natural event having nothing to do with abortion. I’m giving even money between a planet killing asteroid and the next Ice Age. The Invisible Sky Wizard being angry about abortion is an infinity to 1 long shot, but you are welcome to place your bet any way you wish.
I once was blind but now I see…….!
You wrote: 1. A flak jacket isn’t a bullet proof vest.
***************************
Flack jackets are effective against specific threats of bodily injury and death. (.38 special and .22 long rifle bullets, in particular, and also bullets from 9 mm, .45, and .32 caliber firearm.
*********************************
In the U.S., violence directed towards abortion providers has killed at least eight people, including four doctors, two clinic employees, and a security guard.
According to statistics gathered by the National Abortion Federation (NAF), an organization of abortion providers, since 1977 in the United States “and Canada“, there have been 17 attempted murders, 383 death threats, 153 incidents of assault or battery, and 3 kidnappings against abortion providers.
As far as Christian based comments, (unless freedom of speech and expression has changed overnight) Christians can submit their viewpoints and opinions to the comment sections of BDN articles. (BTW….I might not be a Christian.) If comments based on Christian beliefs are problematic for you, you should take it up with the BDN. I’m quite certain that you don’t have the authority to tell other commenters what they can and can’t offer in the way of comments.
So I revise my 26 figure to 564 anti-abortion incidents since 1977. (35 year period) But then, I refer back to 3000 + in utero killings each day in the U.S. On any given day in the U.S. 564+ unborn humans are killed within a 5 hour period. So we match the 35 year period of 564 anti-abortion occurrences, 8 of whom were killed, in a 5 hour period on any 24 hour day.
Every two years more US citizens are killed by gunshot wounds than were lost in the entire Vietnam war. Every two years, 2.6 million US unborn innocents are killed by abortion.
Last and not least, it’s none of your business where I place my bets.
I did not mean to imply that if you had Christian views you didn’t have the right to post, I just meant that if your standpoint was Christian, it invalidates your argument against violence, as Christians are one of histories most violent groups. And yes, flack jackets can stop a bullet, as well as shrapnel from an explosion, like that would come from say a bomb being thrown at an abortion clinic.
People are violent animals, and for good reason. It helps maintain a balance. Darwin has a good point, the strongest survive. Strong has no relation to good or bad. If we lived in you’re perfect non-violent world, I hope you are willing to take credit for it because the billions of people that would suffer and die due to plague, starvation, and a million other things would be looking for someone to blame.
You’re being a drama queen with your references to plagues, starvation and mankind’s natural tendency to shift the blame. I only refer to “thou shalt not kill.” Even if you are an atheist, you would agree with me that our Invisible Sky Wizard got that one right?
I avoid using terms of murder in the womb or slaughter in the womb. I describe abortion of unborn humans as a killing. IT IS. Killing eliminates a living thing.
We kill infections and bacteria with modern-day medicines. Medical procedures that result in the elimination of the living human fetus is a killing. Jesus, who claimed he was the incarnate of God never encouraged or sanctioned the killing of human beings. (Although that didn’t work out so well for Him) Jesus was a believer in the sixth commandment…Thou shalt not kill. Jesus and the Invisible Sky Wizard are dead serious (no pun intended) about that commandment.
Unlike the 7 black robes of 1973….God and the living risen Christ take the mass destruction of the unborn very seriously.
No I am not being a drama queen. This world can support 500 million people with its finite natural resources, we have many more than that, which is why we have to do things like cut down rainforest for farm land, over fish the seas, and have starving people all over the world. Humanity does what it can having a war, random violence, car accidents, etc. but sometimes mother nature has to act in order to clean things up a bit in an attempt to restore balance, like Haiti and Japan, both over populated. Look at Africa, decades of starvation because there are too many people in a desert that cannot support them. Wasn’t working fast enough so Mother Nature got a little nasty and sent them AIDS. Do these people deserve these fates? No, of course not, but Nature wins every time.
Your code book even tells you these things will happen. By adhering to your dogmatic practices you make the end time prophesy self fulfilling.
“God and the living risen Christ?” – Please do not confuse your faith with with words like truth and real. Just because you believe in something does not make it real.
“Kid, I’ve flown from one side of this galaxy to the other, and I’ve seen
a lot of strange stuff, but I’ve never seen *anything* to make me
believe that there’s one all-powerful Force controlling everything.
‘Cause no mystical energy field controls *my* destiny. It’s all a lot of
simple tricks and nonsense. ” – Han Solo
You’ve flown off the reservation entirely. Whatever this rambling post is all about, it is seriously off topic. I’m somewhat taken aback with your galaxy romps, but I assume you had an ethereal trip of the finest kind.
Oh BTW…..just because “you” don’t believe in something doesn’t make it nonexistent.
You quoted the Bible, I quoted Han Solo, see i can quote fiction too.
It is easy to understand why people on both sides of this issue get so passionate. One side believes completely in their religious doctrine and find it difficult to accept a life and action they believe is wrong. The other side asks for acceptance or tolerance to have their relationships and their families recognized in the same way as other adult chosen relationship. When it comes to marriage we all know that it is steeped in tradition and religion and just like many other institutions it has evolved over the years. It is a fact that many faiths used to cling to traditional roles for men and women and this included marriage as procreation, women being the keeper of the house and family while men were the provider and protector. Those ideas started to fade in the 50’s and now we have many couples choosing not to have children, women having careers and men looking at their spouse as an equal partner not “the little woman”. I remember as a child having a cousin who was not allowed to be married in the church as she had been divorced. If we did that today then half of all marriages could not be performed by the clergy. On the other side, many gay people were not interested in long term commitments or having families, in fact they wanted to nothing to do with such institutions. Just like others evolved, so did the desire to settle down with the one you love, have a home and maybe even a family. Times changed as well and same sex couples were not hidden away but were seen in daily lives living just like everyone else, in fact most young people do not understand the fuss! We all need to understand that things change and life goes on. Those on one side need to admit that marriage has become a civil union in actuality as you only need the blessing of the government not a church to be married and receive all that comes with it. The other side needs to remember that religion is still a priority in many lives and should be respected and not forced to perform ceremonies they do not believe in. I do hope that rational heads can prevail and people can respect the beliefs, lives and loves of everyone not just those who agree with them.
You forgot to mention traditional marriage is steeped in nature. Homosexuality is an unnatural act.
No, no it isn’t. Humans are not the only animals on this Earth that engage in homosexual activity. That argument is almost as tired as the “it’ll cause the rapture” or “whats next, marrying my sheep?” arguments.
You mean men and women don’t complement each other for some good reason. Mother nature must have made a mistake! Yes, humans are animals, but even more so. Unlike animals they are capable of acting outside their instincts.
Yea considering your views on the whole parenting thing, you might want to leave mother nature out of your argument. There are more species of animals that have been known to engage in homosexual activities than are known to mate for life. Most males of the majority of species mate with as many females as possible so their line will be the dominant one. Plus you have bears that kill any cub they come across that isn’t theirs. So mother nature has a lot of different ideas about coupling and child rearing. So I hate to break it to you, but Mother Nature is a liberal. Um… and you can’t act outside your extinct, cause when you are extinct there are none left, you’re… well… extinct.
You seem to forget, like humans cats too have disorders that can lead to symptoms like SSA. I’ve adopted stray cats that remained ever fearful of humans. Most likely their disorders were brought about by abusive humans, other abused cats, circumstances like wild fires, or a combination of these. Besides, humans are not mere animals who react mostly, if not all, on instincts.
whawell, I’m not sure how to say this, but people of the same sex are able to… complement each other just as well as heterosexual couples. Mother nature probably could have arranged to have it not be so if that were at all important.
If your argument is that gay couples can’t reproduce, so they shouldn’t be able to marry, I should just refer you to the past dozen or so articles on BDN about this issue where many people have already responded to that inadequate argument quite sufficiently.
As Dane and about a hundred other people on this forum have said, there are plenty of other animals whose sexual behavior includes homosexual activity. If that type of point is all you have, I don’t think you’ve made much of an argument.
Okay, let’s take this as truth for a second….
If I am defective and a mistake, as you like to call it, so what? I’m still gay. And if it IS defect, then it’s not my choice. So, why can’t I marry by boyfriend? Other Americans with defects can marry the person he or she loves, so, with my defect, why cant I?
Look, I don’t mean to put you down because I don’t know the exact circumstances that caused you to have SSA. Not really knowing who you are, I would guess your SSA is not your fault, at least not entirely. Please know, we all have some disorders (mental, physical, psychological, social) to some degree that cannot always be easily rectified, if at all. I have two physical disabilities, one which would certainly severely limit my ability to raise a child. The reality is that I will never be able to adopt a child if I want to. The reality too is that I have talents that some people without my disabilities will never have. :) The reality too is that some people will never marry for some reason or another, like not being able to find the suitable mate. The reality too is that we cannot always control everything outside of us. The good news is that we can take charge of our personal lives. And from my perspective, the best news is that we are all children of God.
But you are saying that if I’m defective, it’s not my choice. Then why should I experience discrimination based on a birth defect?
I don’t, of course, believe I am defective. I am a child of God and I am exactly how He made me. Why would anyone disagree with that?
I am sorry that you won’t be able to adopt a child. I don’t want to have a child, either through adoption or other means. It’s too bad that things work out the way they do.
Some things can be changed and that change will occur this Fall. At that point, my boyfriend and I will have more control over our lives and our future.
Myself and my same sex partner compliment ourselves quite nicely. Our personalities are a good fit for one another, and together we make a great, productive family in our community.
The only way that I might see the argument that men and women naturally complement each other solely based on their gender would be sexually. Any other reasons are not gender specific and can be found in same-sex households as well.
As for the sexual complementation, we do know that the purpose of every sexual act is not necessarily to procreate.
Procreation is an instinct, too, and as a gay man who does NOT want children, I am acting outside of that instinct.
Right, all animals engage in traditional marriage, inasmuch that all animals, in nature, sanctify property relations.
Harking back to my DOS days, *.* sexuality could be considered an unnatural act.
Or natural.
According to one’s set.
Capiche?
Homosexuality is very much part of nature. It’s sexual attraction, which is part of what makes up a person. What the anti-gay crowd can’t seem to come to terms with is the fact that some people are different. It’s as if it scares them somehow.
“Fear is the path to the Dark Side. Fear leads to anger. Anger leads to hate. Hate leads to suffering” – Master Yoda
Nature? Seriously?
In nature defective DNA is not tolerated. That’s what keeps the species strong. In nature, there is a good chance that your mother would have abandon you, not fed you, or possibly eaten you. Is that the nature that you’re referring to? The real nature? Or is it the Walt Disney nature, where the elephant with the defective big ears can fly?
Actually, there are several examples of ‘gay’ behavior in the animal kingdom. There is a story of two gay penguins that is currently circulating, that you could research now. As for your comment on DNA, try again. There is plenty of medical evidence to indicate our DNA is no more flawed than your own.
Gays have been raised and nurtured by their mothers for eternity. Gays don’t beget gays, straight people are usually the ones who do that. My mom didn’t abandon me, not feed me, and I’m pretty sure she didn’t even try to fry me up and eat me.
What is this point you are making?
Flawed behavior is not tolerated in nature. is the point.
Okay. I see that point. I see, also, that babies are born every day that would never last in nature. Yet, as a society, do everything we can to give that baby a fighting chance. Our species is still strong with these babies surviving. 7,000,000,000 on this planet-I don’t think a few flawed babies, whether gay or with a real birth defect, will make homo sapiens weak and unable to survive.
So, again, what’s your point?
The human animal is the only species that actively promotes defective flawed behavior in it’s species. Other species will not tolerate it. Is that so difficult to understand?
Flawed behavior in animals can cause the entire den, nest, or whatever, to be discovered by predators, putting the entire group in danger. It will not be tolerated to protect the rest of the species. Humans are a strange animal. The only one that deliberately weakens it’s own species.
Watching you lose is SO much fun.
Celebrating a bit prematurely aren’t you? It seems that you were pretty cocky last time too. Confidence is a good thing.
Apparently the people of New Hampshire are having second thoughts.
No, the PEOPLE of New Hampshire support leaving the current law alone. It’s the Republican legislature that is trying to overturn it. This article is from 2/2011 http://news.bostonherald.com/news/national/northeast/view/20110209poll_shows_support_for_nh_gay_marriage_law/srvc=home&position=recent . And they have twice delayed the vote.
However, “Yesterday, the House Judiciary Committee considered a new bill, HB 1264, that has become known as the “license to discriminate bill.” From the Eagle-Tribune:The bill would put an exemption in state marriage law. The proposed text says no person, including a business owner or employee, should be required to provide services, accommodations, advantages, facilities, goods or privileges for wedding services in “violation of the person’s conscience or religious faith.”http://www.prop8trialtracker.com/2012/01/25/nh-house-panel-considers-license-to-discriminate-bill/
In 2009, the Maine legislature was accused of not listening to the people when they voted to accept the same-sex marriage law-why doesn’t that “listen to the people” argument work here now?
SSA is not something someone inherits at conception or even at birth. Advocates for “SS marriage” have tried to make this link for decades after spending millions and millions to no avail. The causes of SSA are much more likely attributable to environment, that is, what happens to a child after birth. No, I am not anti-gay as you might supposed. I am not in favor of creating legal families units artificial in nature, like two moms and two dads. Once one accepts the rational for doing that, then by logical extension families with one dad and two moms, four dads and two moms, etc. must be accepted. The welfare of children should not be placed behind the relationships adults wish to create for their own desires. The creation of “SS marriage” is a grandiose social experiment that will unboubtedly put future generations of children at greater risks.
Dude, families across are nation are already raising children with two moms or two dads.
They are doing so with or without civil marriage rights. Extending those families the same protections is the right thing to do.
It could NOT be any worse than the traditional marriages that end in divorce. I was adopted by two people that went through a bitter divorce. It was devastating and took me many years to recover from. I would have given anything to be raised by two loving and committed parents even if they were from the same sex. The damage done to me at the hands of a straight couple has been a lifelong challenge to overcome.
Look up ‘homosexuality in nature’ and you will find there are over 1500 species which exhibit homosexual behavior.
Please show me a single documentary of a species which offers civil marriage licenses to couples.
Because that’s what we’re fighting for– removing discrimination on the part of our government toward same sex couples in offering civil marriage benefits.
We can already have same sex marriage ceremonies in churches, no law can stop that.
Wrong… marriage has no place in nature, though monogamy does.
If this is your argument, you realize you’re setting yourself up for failure.
If traditional marriage is steeped in nature then why do more than 1/2 of traditional marriages end in divorce?
I’m not sure how marriage is steeped in nature.
Thanks for the respectful, neutral comment. No religious institution will be forced to marry a gay couple. I respect the beliefs of those who’s religious convictions prevent them from supporting my lifestyle. It is their right to believe what they want. It would be nice if gay people were afforded that same form of respect from our opponents, but most often you only see nasty insults, like those from ‘whawell’. I wish everyone held the same view on marriage as yourself. It would then be a lot harder for them to support intolerance and discrimination. I have to believe that eventually they will be able to see we are just other people, human beings that want the same things for our lives and our children as any other family. Maybe, in time, their hateful opinions will evolve as well.
Great.
Anybody know the actual percentage of homosexuals in Maine that want to get married…………let me guess it’s a minority
I’m at the point of have at it……….I’d rather have them trying to reproduce than some of the morons on welfare who apparently can’t stop reproducing
The majority of homosexuals I know want to marry, they have all been with their partners for many years, and the civil marriage certificate is simply the last barrier left for equal treatment under our laws.
Procreation is not a requirement for marriage.
Reproduction is a personal decision each couple (hell, each individual) makes. It is not tied to marriage by law in any way.
It doesn’t matter if a majority wants it or not.
Can you imagine growing up and knowing that no matter how strongly you loved someone you could never EVER marry that person? You could live with that person for 50 years and still be a legal stranger. You could have a “commitment ceremony” before God, your friends, and your family, but it would not have the same impact as “Going to the Chapel” to get married.
This concept that it’s possible to have the state grant you the full rights of any other married person is something that is still new to many gay people.
I would suspect, too, that a large number of openly gay people are young who probably, like most young people, are not inclined toward marriage anyway.
I’ll vote yes but I have a price too, married couples and all people with kids lose all their tax deductions and single childless people get all the tax breaks. Include that the ballot and you have a definate yes vote from me.
I don’t think it’s fair to put a rider on this question.
Everything in life has a price. This way everything
will be fair and everyone gets what they want.
To support their children, singles and childless
get to keep their money and gays get to marry.
It’s perfect, a big happy Maine all around
Then you aren’t really voting to allow me to marry. You’re simply voting on that tax break.
You won’t help me but you want me to help you?Because the way I see it we need each others help.
If what you want was up to vote, then this would be a valid discussion. But it’s not, so I really can’t say.
I can tell you that I WOULD vote to support your view, but you don’t know me and can’t be sure that I would. And I know that what I say in regard to that issue wouldn’t be the deciding factor in your vote on SSM this November.
So……
See now, you don’t know me either, you get it on there, oh and don’t forget to add, politicans get minimium wage, offer them a 401k and my insurance that only pays for things you don’t need and we’ll be helping each other out a lot.
If all those other states are soooo frigen great, why don’t youjust move to california, and stop trying to shove something we the people don’t want and have said said so many thimes before, the hell with P.C. leave us alone!
Nope… we’re staying n Maine.
And we’re fighting for this positive change, as there is no rational argument against it.
There are just as many Mainers who want you to leave us alone!
We wouldn’t be going through this if people opposed to treating gays equally under the law hadn’t repealed the 2009 legislation that would have given us civil marriage rights.
I can never quite understand the other side’s argument.
ExMainer thinks that because John and Don down the road want to get married that John and Don are forcing (shoving) something on them. It’s not like John and Don are trying to force ExMainer to enter into a same-sex marriage (he is trying to force them into hetereosexual unions) or forcing ExMainer to be in their home or bedroom or to be their friend.
If ExMainer would leave same-sex couples alone and allow them the freedom to live their lives everything would be fine but he and so many others want to force their ideas about love and marriage on everyone.
Agreed. And once this passes, I’ll continue to leave ExMaine alone by not inviting him to the wedding!!!
How many times did those wanting civil rights have to try before they found equality? This isn’t going away and you do realize that the margin is getting smaller and smaller and that it is just a matter of time before this passes. You are actually the one trying to shove your ideas about marriage on same-sex couples. Why don’t you leave them alone!!!
Gay marriage will come to all states.
The fact that opponents have no rational argument against it show where this is going and what’s coming in the future.
And all citizens will remain unharmed through this process.
Life just keeps getting better and better!
Your Quote: “Life just keeps getting better and better!”
******************************
All in the eye of the beholder. Life just keeps devolving into a state of decline.
A state of uninhibited immoral self-indulgence
What is immoral is in the eye of the beholder toots.
As for “uninhibited” and “self-indulgence” this too is your opinion only. Gay citizens being treated the same as other citizens in this land is a wonderful thing.
Nothing “uninhibited” or “self-indulgent” about it… well, no more than love, commitment, and teamwork in any heterosexual relationship.
It’s not immoral self-indulgence to want the protections my mom had when something happened to my father. He was the breadwinner and when he passed away, my mom was able to collect on his SSN, which was far more than the pittance she would have received, having been a stay at home mom.
As most of you know, when you share a life with someone, there are sacrifices. Most married people are able to minimize the impact of such sacrifices by utilizing benefits or planning for the worst with the knowledge that the laws of the state and the country will help them. It’s unfair that my boyfriend and I, who have a life together like many married couples we know, are not able to have that security.
Yeah, I’m talking about financial issues right now, but that is a major component to many marriages-why should it not be for ours? We have the love, the fun, the rows, the drudgery and the adventures of a marriage, so who has the right to pass judgement on us because we want that last step-that legal document?
Man, I WISH that the Prop 8 trial had been televised! The blatant lies, the discrimination, and the citing of old and outdated research that their experts gave in support of taking away the legal right to marry would be an eye-opener to many people.
It’s funny-
We were scorned for our promiscuity 20+ years ago and now that the we want to settle down into a life of commitment, we are still scorned!
There’s just no pleasing the haters!!!