AUGUSTA, Maine — Gay marriage supporters have more than enough signatures to force another statewide referendum. The only question is whether they’re going to do it.
On Thursday, EqualityMaine, the Maine Civil Liberties Union and the Maine Women’s Lobby will announce the decision during a press conference at the State House. National gay rights leaders believe a gay marriage campaign will be launched.
Maine is the only state in New England that doesn’t allow either gay marriage or civil unions. The Maine Legislature previously approved gay marriage but it was rejected by a statewide referendum in 2009 by a vote of 53 percent to 47 percent.
The Christian Civic League of Maine, which opposes gay marriage, already issued a statement saying gay marriage would “curtail religious freedom.”
Equal rights for all Maine families should not have to wait if the signatures are there.
There is nothing wrong with making the “family values” conservative, strict-Constitutionalist hypocrites reconfirm their bigotry at the ballot box regularly and often.
Equal rights for all people should NOT require state wide referenda … ever!
So you must support letting all people marry who they love then.
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again. The federal government should take a stand on this and guarantee civil rights for ALL Americans. Unfortunately the American Congress lives in fear of the radical religious right. They lack the ba, nope, can’t say that or my comment will be deleted. They lack the testic–ar fortitude, nope, can’t say that either I suppose. Congress lacks the moral fiber, the backbone, to do what is right for all American citizens. Yup, I can say that.
Democracy is a process. It is the Supreme Court that is the arbiter of equal rights. Marriage laws are set by the States; law suits trigger the judicial process. Marriage equality advocates aren’t that patient (nor should they be) and therefore are using referendums to change existing state laws.
The president has influence, but no power in this case.
(imho)
The President’s views on “gay marriage” are evolving just like the former Maine governor’s were before his legislature approved it. “evolving” is just another code word for “support”. Liberals like to talk in poetic language.
Whawell. My comment was about the mechanics of our government, not about politics. Your response is partisan and derogatory to Americans who don’t agree with you.
fail.
Progressives or liberals are found in most political parties, including the Democrat and Republican parties. Therefore my response, which made no mention of party affiliation, is not partisan. Besides, there is undeniable evidence the former governor had already long made up his mind about “gay marriage” before he signed the law passed by the legislature approving it.
Yes, my criticism concerning the former governor and the President is derogatory, but not without merit. Undoubtedly anytime there is criticism of some form there will be some who feel offended. My intent was more to inform than to offend.
right…all those liberal GOPers. what???
Following his logic is like trying to catch smoke isn’t it.
The way you use it, ” evolving ” seems like a code for “must be infidels” .
My point exactly, although I am happy to support the effort in the meantime.
I’m also a big proponent of equal rights and the rights of children to have a loving mother and a loving dad. Changing the definition of marriage to accommodate the unreasonable demands of a small group is not about equal rights.
There is nothing to back up your assertion that same sex families do not have two loving parents taking care of children.
We all know plenty of children raised in traditional families that have neither a loving mother or father.
You mean changing YOUR definition of marriage is not about equal rights. That is kind of unAmerican isn’t it? By the way, if you are worried about children without a mother or without a father then you should also be anti-divorce. Is that the case? Should divorce be illegal?
Preventing gay people from marrying will not prevent gay people from parenting. Adoption by gay couples is legal. Bearing children by lesbians, single or coupled, is legal.
Two separate issues.
Besides that-I have no desire to have children, so why can’t I marry?
Opposing gay marriage does not make one a bigot.
Please explain.
To me, using your power at the ballot box to deny Maine citizens civil marriage rights is bigotry against those you are opposing.
State endorsement of human relationships is not a civil right. The state endorses a contract of mutual love between a man and a woman to foster a proper environment for procreating and raising children. Since offspring can only come about from the relationship between a man and a women, the state cannot endorse any other type of contract.
Our Supreme Court has indeed ruled that marriage is a basic civil right for Americans.
There are no requirements for procreation tied to marriage; we do not prohibit those with children from divorcing, nor do we forbid the infertile to wed.
Iowa and California both have found no legitimate state interest in restricting marriage from same sex couples. Their reasoning is sound, and based on our Constitutional obligations.
I’ve read this decision. If you read it you will see that the basic right alluded to in it applies to all Americans regardless of race, color, ethnicity, or creed to marriage between a man and a women, not just any combination of gender.
And your right, there is no requirement for procreation, just the possibility of procreation since some couples who marry without the intent to procreate end up procreating.
The decisions you say you read plainly spell out that there is no ‘possibility of procreation’ that means marriage should or shouldn’t be granted to a class of people. And since the decisions I’m referring to resulted in same sex marriage being legalized in Iowa (and the ban on them being overturned in California, currently going through appeal) it obviously did state that the basic right applies to all Americans in any combination of gender.
Stating your opinion over and over again doesn’t make you right, especially when you’re wrong.
“Iowa and California both have found no legitimate state interest in restricting marriage from same sex couples. Their reasoning is sound, and based on our Constitutional obligations.”
The logic extension to your fine Constitutional point is to ask why churches are involved in what is a civil function of the State, at all.
…Even as they demand the right to refuse their services to people who are perfectly within their rights, legally, to marry.
Think like legally divorced Catholics, who have not gone though the Sharia …
er, sorry, the Dioceses calls their extra legal religious courts something else,
what is it ? … oh yeah, “Cannon Law” ! … process of annulment, too.
divorces, domestic violence, child abuse….
yeah, we straight people really are special.
/not.
I say…let gays marry. They will do for marriage what they did for Miami Beach. They’ll clean it up and watch its value escalate.
“Proper environment for procreating and raising children.” People have marriages that last 16 minutes. Charlie Sheen has whores in his closet. Tiger Woods can cheat on his wife. But that’s all okay, because they’re straight – gods forbid that a gay couple that’s been together for 20 years gets married!
“Proper environment for procreating and raising children.”
Can a barren woman legally marry, then, whawell, ?
The hypocrisy of it all leads to good people leading secret double lives, and so perversity as they try to subjugate their true nature but it expresses itself, anyway, outside of the norms of responsible adult , and then jumping off bridges and shaming their Church, when those secret lives are exposed.
Some people even enter false marriages as a cover… so much for sanctity of marriage , huh ?
It is all so sad and tragic, but unnecessary, too.
Sure it does. It means you are actively trying to harm US citizens. What else does it take for you to carry the tag you deserve?
Using a ballot to exercise personal convictions about the legal definition of marriage is not bigotry. Now, I fully recognize that there ARE bigots who DO vote against gay marriage. However, the simple fact is that not everyone who opposes gay marriage is a bigot.
Why DO you oppose gay marriage, then?
I believe firmly that marriage is the only legal definition and protection of gender. By legalizing same-sex marriage, the government is acknowledging that there is no legal, nor societal difference between a man and woman. Therefore, men = women, and women = men. Furthermore, fathers = mothers, and mothers = fathers. In my rightful opinion, this is not beneficial to society in any way, shape or form.
I am not a homophobe. I have no hate in my heart for gay people. I am not on a life mission to rid the world of homosexuality. I believe in the free-will of adults to determine their private sexual preference. However, I will never support changing the legal definition of marriage. That’s entirely my opinion; my choice to express as a United State citizen.
Legally speaking, why should men and women not be recognized equally? What instance could occur, in your opinion, that would require men and women be treated differently under the eyes of the law?
I thought about this and I came up with one… maybe. Mothers rights vs fathers rights. Woman gets pregnant, she says she doesn’t want it, he says he does. As the fetus is both of theirs but the woman is carrying it, in that instance, I think the woman has more say, thus her opinion carries more weight. Same way if she wanted it and he didn’t, but that carries even more inequality because she can sue, and win financial support.
thanks for the effort but i could poke holes in that but i don’t want to come off as an amazon.
but for the guy who didn’t want the baby…three words…condom. abstain. responsibility.
are you Danish? my mom’s from Copenhagen.
Lol i didn’t say it was a good one, and i would prob agree with the holes you ripped in it, it was just the best one i could think of. And no in not Danish… at least i don’t know that I am anyway, its actually my name
;)
Seriously?? Women and men ARE EQUAL and fathers and mothers ARE EQUAL. Please explain further as to what you exactly find not beneficial ? Thanks
Maybe I over-analyzed something in biology class– but I am under the impression that men and women are two biologically different genders. I honestly don’t believe it is beneficial at all to consider the two genders interchangeable. I also don’t believe it is beneficial to consider mothers and fathers interchangeable. Both parents serve a purpose in society. Granted not every child grows up with both, I realize that– but it’s detrimental to society to suggest that children don’t benefit from having a mother or a father. Agree to disagree.
There are same sex couples raising families all over our nation, and all over Maine. They are not going away despite your convictions as to what constitutes a proper family.
It is wrong to deny these families civil marriage protections because they dare to have a family despite your disapproval. It’s also unconstitutional, but we’ve got to wait for the Supreme Court to take a case on it to say so.
Or under-analyzed, more likely.
Have you misconstrued chromosomes with gender?
Have you conflated chromosomes with marriage?
Apparently.
Apparently. ?
He has surely eliminated individuality.
Wow. You really think that civil marriage rights are the last stand for gender roles in our society?
Got a DNA test for “gender?”
Didn’t think so.
Very nice of you to acknowledge the free will of adults, until it runs into your own personal “definition” of marriage.
Myself?
I don’t mind straight people, as long as they don’t act all straight in public.
And that should be the “natural law.”
Please note, I am so relieved that you are not on a “life mission to rid the world of homosexuality.”
I was so frightened there for a sec…
Soooooo if those who are not bigots but vote against equality for all US Citizens are not bigots what exactly are they? Uneducated, fearful and narrow minded? Translation = bigoted.
This has never been about equal rights. It’s about special rights. We fundamentally disagree about that- which is absolutely fine. I’m not here to change your views, nor insult you. You’d be wise to take the same approach.
Ummm special rights? Ok we will go with that for just a sec. There are two types of people, heterosexual and homosexual. Heterosexual people have the right to get married in Maine, homosexual people do not. Who has the special rights again? By allowing homosexuals to marry we thus take away a special right and create equality. We could just take away heterosexuals right to marry, that would be fair and equal too i suppose.
THANK YOU DANE!!!!!!
Your special right to marry the person of your choice?
Oh, I get it.
Special rights ?
So rights that no one… if not everyone … should have at all, then .
You can’t have it two ways at once, anymore.
I am all in favor of getting religion out of the civil marriage business, because church and State are supposed to be separate.
Churches have no more business in establishing marriages before the law than they do in dissolving them.
Couples getting married again and again to each other just proves that church part without the State registering your marriage is just promises, at best, and just so much mumbo-jumbo in point of fact, before the law.
It is signing on the line of the State’s form that REALLY makes you married no matter what the Holy Joe of your choice pronounces you.
It is not about special rights. It IS about civil rights and equality for all Americans.
Why do you think that marriage equality is a special right? honest question.
SingleTrackGirl, I always enjoy seeing your comments because you are always respectful and open-minded! Thank you for that! To answer your question: I believe gay people in American have equal rights at this very moment. They can live openly, choose their partners, work, vote, learn, etc. Right now, heterosexuals and homosexuals have the same marriage opportunities. Proponents of same-sex marriage always make the argument that gay Americans are denied the “right” to marry who they love. But what about men who love multiple women? Or women who love multiple men? As proven by our current laws, marriage has never been based upon love alone. It is based on gender, age, number, blood-relation, etc. There have always been multiple limitations for EVERYONE, not just gay people. If we begin stripping those limitations away to specific groups, will we have any left? (Again, my personal opinions. I’m not attempting to change yours or anyone’s)
Thank you mainestudent. I can only hope that I come off as you describe.
and thank you for taking the time to answer.
I’m not here to change your mind, (respectfully, of course). But the plural marriage issue is easily addressed:
Marriage is between two persons…blah blah….
PS. i’m a divorced straight person. i don’t have a horse in this race. I am a fervent Constitutionalist. I see marriage equality as a civil liberties issue, no more, no less.
take care.
And I most certainly respect that! Take care also.
PS. my new favorite quote:
To change people’s minds, they first have to listen to you.
– Damien Hirst
For some, far too many very different sorts, in fact,
to listen to liberals, infidels, queens …those other people, ( you just know who I mean, DON”T YOU ???? ) in general… would be compromising their values and a sacred trust
that they have been given by their various, very different faiths,
to the exclusive knowledge of God’s will.
Who does know that only the really committed to their one true faith are really the special
ones ?
Only the true believers in the one true faith nd being the entitled of the superior race, class and
adherents to the right dogma, too, ( take you pick of which the many that might be)
are the only truly special ones.
They all know they are special enough to know their gods’ will, in fact.
So they all think. STG . You can lead a horse to water, but a zebra can’t change its stripes.They are special in that way. ; )
i don’t know what to say. i’ve lived a pretty sheltered life in some respects. about 8 years ago, for the first time in my life, i met someone who does not ‘believe’ in evolution.
???
i was flabbergasted. and still don’t understand the science vs. god argument. evolution seems to ‘godly’ to me. a beautiful progression of all things coming from common DNA. just knowing i have 35,000 chromosomes in common with a frog makes me feel very connected to my maker. (poetic license)
anyway….sometimes i respond to these comments *knowing* i have ZERO chance of changing their minds. i just try to keep moderate so that maybe somebody else who is reading the conversation will make the following connection:
Christian/Conservative – angry, hostile, bitter, nonsensical.
Liberal/nonChristian – sensible, open, listens
(and by Christian, I mean those who interpret the bible literally) we all know the book was written by people, (men) not by God.
It guess it’s in a different place … about the State of the State speech,where Mainestudent starts trying to keep it moderate but before a hundred posts he is saying he can smell someone’s elitist stench over the internet…
STG, while I do I respect your point:
” that maybe somebody else who is reading the conversation will make the following connection:
Christian/Conservative – angry, hostile, bitter, nonsensical.
Liberal/nonChristian – sensible, open, listens”
I actively encourage the zebras to show their true colors.
It is complimentary effort sometimes. : )
Not that I see it this way at all personally, but considering the audience and speaking practically, you’re right to be a good girl and so nice to all the authoritarian paternalists ,
but would it work for me ?
It think it’s important to counter the conservatives delusions about how all liberals are wimps.
Especially in this thread.
Here it doubles up, too, because I’m so saddened for them, when the partisan
“christian” conservatives s they decide you/we/everyone must be infidels, Sodomites and Philistines , all at once,
if you are too tolerant.
You see, I know what awaits the authoritarian false disciples according to own final authority.
It is not pretty, and just about as harsh as he ever gets towards anyone.
See, Vs. 15 though 23 here;
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+7&version=NIV
i hear you, friend.
“Proponents of same-sex marriage always make the argument that gay Americans are denied the “right” to marry who they love.”
They should make the point that gay couples sharing a household AND RISING CHILDREN as many do, are denied many rights, not the most important of which is not having legal access to the same tax deductions as others in exactly the same situation, in every way, except for being legally married.
You clearly support withholding tax deductions intended to add in maintaining the welfare of children, from SOME children, and in SOME households.
Name some other reasons for supporting such inequity in the taxes codes , like you clearly do, wittingly or not, besides your doing so because of the legal “head of the household”‘s sexual preference ?
You know you are being disingenuous when you say gays and lesbians should marry someone of the opposite sex to enjoy civil marriage rights. That’s cold hearted and dismissive of the reasons couples want to share their lives with each other.
I don’t think gay marriage is a ‘special right’ I think getting married should be an equal opportunity for any 2 consenting adults in this country. Why do straight people seem to think marriage is special and applies only for them?
“Why do straight people seem to think marriage is special and applies only for them?”
*****
I don’t think that’s the case. 49% of voters came out in support of marriage equality, that’s a lot of straight people standing up for marriage equality.
Well then who were the other 51% voting against gay marriage?? ( I can guarantee it’s not the gay people voting against the opportunity to get married)- it’s straight people. Please help me understand why for some reason straight people are soooooo afraid of 2 gay consenting adults- who they don’t know, whose life together will not affect the straight people….are so threatened by people (who happen to be gay) who want to get married?
Gay marriage is absolutely NO DIFFERENT than the anti miscegenation laws that were repealed in 1967 (Loving V. Virginia-SCOTUS) anti-miscegenation laws (also known as miscegenation laws) were state laws passed by individual states to prohibit miscegenation, nowadays more commonly referred to as interracial marriage and interracial sex. Typically defining miscegenation as a felony, these laws prohibited the solemnization of weddings between persons of different races and prohibited the officiating of such ceremonies. Sometimes, the individuals attempting to marry would not be held guilty of miscegenation itself, but felony charges of adultery or fornication would be brought against them instead. All anti-miscegenation laws banned the marriage of whites and non-white groups, primarily blacks, but often also Native Americans and Asians.
This ridiculous idea was actually accepted at one point in our history because the ‘majority’ of people believed that interracial marriage would somehow ruin and destroy the sanctity of marriage….gee sound familiar?
i understand your question, but i can not speak for the 51%. it makes no sense to me. 51% of voters are stupid? i could live with that answer.
i may be waaaay off base here, but i’m gonna say it anyway:
the most strident anti gay rights people usually turn out to be closeted gay people, self loathers.
PLEASE, please don’t be anti-straight, when so many straight people support you. and love you.
How is gay marriage a ‘special right?’ It says ALL US Citizens are afforded equal rights under the US Constitution (i.e. all men are created equal)….what makes straight marriage so special that straight people are they only ones who get to participate in marriage?? With the abysmal divorce rate straight people really don’t have a leg to stand on. Perhaps we should all be voting on not allowing straight people to get divorced or remarried 2 or 3 or 4 times. I think it’s fairly clear who wants to be treated as ‘special’ and it isn’t the gay people….gay people simply want to be treated equally and have the same opportunities as anyone else ALREADY HAS.
There is no way that equal rights being pursued by a minority can be considered special rights. Gay people (myself included) are simply looking to see the walls of discrimination against us come down.
There’s nothing special about that. It’s just the right thing to do.
I can’t help but wonder if you think it was a “special right” years ago when a black person wanted to marry a white person … after all each had the right to marry the person of their choice … of their own color………
Right, the special rights of Christians and homophobic people who think that they are special and that everyone should live by their special understanding of how things should be.
They want special treatment to enforce their special religious beliefs on all people. Because they think they are special (or God’s chosen), they want everyone else to follow their special belief system and their special lifestyle.
When we stop letting Christians and homophobic people have these special rights, this matter will be resolved.
“with special rights” … is that Neo Know Nothing code for “THEM PEOPLE , you know who I mean”, but not bigotry because, just like Lester Maddox, they say so ?
So you are saying the rights, privileges, benefits and responsibilities you and your chosen spouse enjoy which were given to you by the government upon entering into a civil marriage contract are not “special” rights for you but would be “special” rights for me?
N0, I’m not saying that at all .
How could you think that I were ?
BUT, you can stand under a canopy and stomp on a glass wrapped up in a napkin,
jump over a broom, indulge in symbolic acts of cannibalism, slaughter a chicken, invoke your ancestors blessings, and before all the the gods and all men declare your eternal love, but you are not legally married until you sign on the line of the form you got from the State, are you ?
You can also go to a government office, affirm, formally,
that you are legally entitled and acting of your own free will, sign on the line, and ARE just as married, without all the trappings, as even Prince William now is.
So how can you think that marriage is not a governmental function, first and foremost ?
All the rest is just frosting on the cake …. which is even REALLY required anymore than a Church or love, isn’t it ?
And stop projecting your warped thinking, like ;
” entering into a civil marriage contract are not “special” rights for you but would be “special” rights for me?”
… upon others, then expecting us to respect, encourage and/or defend YOUR warped, erroneous thinking, by acting as if has any validity at all, please.
Asking “So you are saying ..” means YOU don’t understand, what was actually said, ( what marriage is, in this case),
or that you must ignore it for cynical political reasons,
really, doesn’t it ?
Which that should be respected, in your opinion ?
Jacknlyn, you are no worse than many others on this count.
I’m just finally so fed up with people putting their words in other people’s mouths, like that, and then thinking, … or is it cynically pretending … that it is acceptable political discussion worthy of any respect.
You just happened to be at the the head of the line when I had a human moment, and I just had to say something about this rude tactic.
Take it like a grown up, please.
“However, the simple fact is that not everyone who opposes gay marriage is a bigot.”
Those that are not are bigots are , at very least , supporting bigotry as they let the bigoted speak for them,
and let the bigoted arguments stand, (for political reasons) without taking any personal moral responsibility by posting comments that might begin something like ;
“While as a less big government conservative I support the continued hypocritical approach on the State level, and the State’s intrusion into the bedrooms of consenting adults , but I do not support your bigoted reasoning, so must distance myself from it, while still standing by your bigoted position politically.
Prohibiting some Maine citizens from marrying, as they can in the rest of New England,
is just, and is not bigoted because … _______________________________”
Has anyone ever seen the oh so very righteous, sometimes, Maine student ever post anything like that ?
So how can anyone think that you do not, at the very lest support the bigotry
if you do not stand up and distance yourself from it, sir ?
Have a nice day.
The greatest harm is mainly in your mind. Inaction to accept “gay marriage” does not do any objective harm to anyone.
Wrong. It strips families and citizens basic protections and guarantees under government, putting family members, investments, and stability in life at risk, often with tragic results.
There is identifiable harm to US citizens.
State endorsement of contracts between a man and a woman are intended to assist the union of the parties for the sake of children. How can this harm anyone else? No one is being stripped of anything. It is intended to ensure as much as possible that children are raised by both their natural parents in a loving relationship, or by parents representing loving natural parents to the maximum extent possible when the former relationship does not exist.
As far as the state is concerned with the marriage “contract” it has nothing to do with children being raised by their natural parents. That argument is quickly debunked by the fact the state sanctions adoptions. The only “for the sake of the children” part of the contract as far the state is concerned is with tax code and inheritance in lieu of a will. A lesbian couple gets married, spouse “A” goes to the sperm bank, she has the child, spouse “B” goes to the state and they sanction an adoption of that child by spouse “B”, just the same as they would for a single mom who marries and the stepfather adopts the child.
Allowing adoption by gays was imposed on the state by our misguided courts. Now using this as their premise, gays want to change the definition of marriage. All of this is not in the best interests of future generations of children who deserve a loving mom and a loving dad, preferably their natural ones. Now, you want to bring child procreation to an new unnatural level, where the child is separated from one of its natural parents. You’re fooling around with mother nature at the expense of children for the sake of adults.
Um new unnatural level, remind me to give the governor a nickle cause I’m going to borrow one of his lines… What planet are you from? Test tube babies are not “new.” Sperm Banks are not “new.” Once religion got out of the way and we got down to some science, we learned loooong ago that an invisible sky wizards didn’t make babies, sperm and an egg made a baby. I don’t want to shock you or anything, but we make babies in labs everyday. Also everyday single, and even lesbian women go to sperm banks and get a sperm-cicle to get themselves pregnant without anyone else in their lives at all. Also everyday all across this great nation, people ask a woman, who aren’t their wife or lover, to carry a baby for them. Say it with me now: surrogate. Children need love, attention, and guidance. It doesn’t matter if it comes from a woman alone, a man alone, a man and a woman, man and man, or woman and woman. So don’t worry about the kids, as long as there is love, attention, and guidance they will be just fine.
Unfortunately there is nothing shocking any more about test tube babies. We can create 10 and discard 9. We can even select the sex we want. If we don’t like a Downs Syndrome child, we simply discard it. In your world view humans are meant for your own pleasure so do as you will with them. It’s a utilitarian view where love is all about “me”. It’s a view where a Down Syndrome child cannot possible bring real meaning and joy in ones life. Sorry, but I don’t share those views.
Not true, Downs babies can bring meaning and joy, which is why many people choose to have them, Others know their limitations, and understand they can not devote the incredible amounts of time and effort it takes to raise a Downs child.
9 our of 10 mothers who find out they are carrying a baby with Downs Syndrome abort them. Those are indeed frightful numbers. It sounds like you agree with me that Downs Syndrome children can bring meaning and joy. Like all of us they deserve to be born. I was brought up in a family of 7 children who felt secure knowing none of us would be cast away for any reason.
” Allowing adoption by gays was imposed on the state by our misguided courts.” Now, using this as the premise … … justifies reading no more of what you have to say based on that premise. lol
There are over 1,300 benefits and privileges contingent on marital status at the federal level alone.
There are many same-sex households with children who need the protections of civil marriage Maine provides; as it stands now, if parents split up, the child in the relationship has no legal right to child support from the departing partner. Just one example of how lack of civil marriage for same sex couples harms Maine families.
Your are talking about unnatural relationships, which are not in the best interests of children within the same household.
That’s a matter of your opinion right there, and not one shared by the majority of Americans any longer.
Actually whawell many studies (including peer reviewed and published in the Journal of the AAP) have shown that children in same sex households are well adjusted, healthy and do not suffer sexual or physical abuse as their counterparts do in “traditional” households.
I know children who have been raised in a traditional marriage and they are a mess and I know children raised in a same sex relationship and they are wonderful people.
Not every child in a traditinal relationship is wanted but a child brought into a same sex relationship is. That is what makes a good situation for a child: being wanted by the parent(s) not being an “accident”.
As of june 2010 29 States prohibit same sex marriage via state constitution. As of june 2010 12 States prohibit same sex marriage via statue. Same sex couples who are parents in Maine, remember one thing there is a third party involved with the child being in this household.
Inasmuch as inaction to accept Facism harmed no one.
Will the citizens of Maine be voting their approval or disapproval of your future spouse?
Huh? I’m married, so I’m afraid your question is both confusing and non-applicable.
I would love to marry the love of my life here in Maine without having to get signatures on a ballot.
Glad you enjoy your special rights!
So I guess I, as a voting citizen, didn’t get a say in whether or not I approved of your chosen spouse or the privileges, rights and responsibilities granted to you as a couple …. but you to get to vote on mine?
Then give us one good reason to not treat all people and their lovers equally under the law that is not superstitious bigotry then, please.
> give us one good reason to not treat all people and their lovers equally under the law that is not superstitious bigotry then, please.
No takers, today ?
No, it doesn’t necessarily make one a bigot, but it does make one unintelligent and against job creation and increases in state revenue. It also opposes small businesses, entrepreneurship and the protection of children.
You see, when a state passes same sex marriage or civil unions it leads to a lot of people getting married, which generates revenue. Being a tourist state also puts a state on the map for destination weddings. It increases sales for small businesses and generates the opportunity for new businesses to be opened that cater to and specialize in same sex weddings. Same sex couples DO have children via surrogacy, adoption or from previous relationships. Without same sex marriage, those children don’t have proper protection to ensure they end up with the best parent and get child support if the parents split up.
There is no genuinely good, valid or rational reason NOT to pass same sex marriage in Maine. Even NH, a far more conservative state than Maine, supports same sex marriage and passed it there.
I used to oppose Civil Unions when it first passed in Vermont and I lived there with my then young kids. I was concerned about what kind of influence it would have on them. Well…it didn’t cause any negative impact on them at all. Those children are adults now and all of them are good, responsible young adults who support themselves and are happy, healthy and well-adjusted. No churches are forced to embrace relationships they don’t approve of or marry couples they don’t want to marry.
This battle will keep having to be fought over and over again until same sex couples have truly equal rights, so if people are tired of having it come up then they may as well vote for it and get it over with, because when civil rights are the issue it doesn’t just go away.
Perhaps not, but referring to it as “special rights”…which you did in another post…does make you a bigot.
big·ot [big-uht] Show IPA
nouna person who is utterly intolerant of any differing creed, belief, opinion.
bigot (ˈbɪɡət)
— n
a person who is intolerant of any ideas other than his or her own, esp on religion, politics, or race
yes, it does. A bigot usually doesn’t realize they are one.
“thats” gay! as in happy i mean.
Oh, ps and btw. There are an awful lot of Liberal Liars out there. When this was voted down every other issue on the ballot went to the left.
I smell a skunk.
I’d say that makes the voters consistent, not liars. I’m not sure I understand your comment. Can you explain, in context of the 2009 vote, how liberals are liars?
Interesting.
Yes, I’m sure you can’t wait to cast aspersions on the Catholic church. That too is bigotry.
I can’t even imagine how long it would have taken to free the slaves if Lincoln has left it to the popular vote…
Comparing today’s gay Americans to Black slaves is not only inaccurate- but shameful and offensive.
Wrong. Both are evidence of differences that the mob (WASP Americans) don’t like.
They’re very comparable.
Considering White, Anglo-Saxon, Protestants ultimately freed the slaves, and most gay people I know personally are of White, Anglo-Saxon, Protestant background– your argument just doesn’t make much sense.
LOL, don’t ask these people for historical accuracy. They are radicals out to promote their agenda.
So, “mithradities” the historical accuracy critic…if you took your user name from one of the historical figures of the same name, you may want to check your spelling of it. Because it’s wrong.
You live in Maine. Of course the most people you know in any category are WASPs.
Because obviously I’ve never lived anywhere else, nor traveled. You know what they say about assumptions.
Ahh..Tedlick is back..where do you post from again? Out of state right?
No sweetie. I live in Maine.
hi Ted
Sorry, wrong Disqus account.
I do indeed live in Maine. Though not born here, this is where home is, and will remain.
Ted. My favorite Mainism, you might enjoy:
“Just cuz a cat had kittens in the oven, don’t make ’em biscuits”
You live here. You’re a Mainer. ayuh.
” Sorry, wrong Disqus account.”
Oh, is THAT how the most bigoted posts get so many “likes” and so stay at the top of the page ?
: )
MSG certainly doesn’t need me to speak for him/her, but the comparison made relates to leaving civil rights issues to popular vote, and is not a direct comparison of slavery to gay rights. The comment is neither shameful nor offensive.
Inaccurate and shameful how exactly? Please do enlighten us with your sociological insights which I’m sure will be narrow in scope…..come on we’re all waiting…….
Slaves in America: bought and sold, legally beaten, legally used for sex, denied education, denied political participation, denied economic liberty, denied personal liberty, deemed 3/5th of a person, “deemed” property by the Supreme Court.
There is simply no comparison.
Again, you’re missing the point. Deliberately I suspect, but missing it nonetheless. Why?
The point being that some people have the legal right to marry.
And some do not.
Why do I suspect that you enjoy the legal right to marry?
For clarification, I am a married heterosexual who supports the right of all citizens to marry. I have voted, and will continue to vote, in favor of what we call “gay marriage.”
I made the above comment because I believe that mainestudent was deliberately misunderstanding a point that MSG made, not because I oppose gay marriage.
I apologize, my intention was to reply to mainestudent directly, not to you.
There is a comparison. With the possible exception of being bought and sold (and when you consider the bigotry involved with the employment of openly gay people maybe they are being bought and sold too) they have been subject to pretty much all of the same abuse as the slaves of days past. Even if they were not being beaten, raped, murdered, forced to move, denied employment, etc.(which they are!), this is still a matter of civil rights. Plain and simple. It is no less a denial of those rights than America’s past denial of equality for people of color, women, and those of different religious beliefs. There will not be total equality in America until ALL people are granted full civil rights as American citizens.
No, I am not trying to minimize the horror of what happened in the past. Nor am I trying to overstate the horror of what is going on today. Rather, I am trying to point out the fundamental basics of what is going on here. People, American citizens, are not allowed to enjoy the rights and privileges of full citizenship. They are being denied the opportunity to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. Nuff said.
I can’t even imagine how long it would have taken to find the Anti-Miscegenation laws unconstitutional in 1967 by the SCOTUS in Loving v. Virginia if it had been left to the popular vote…
miscegenation. a new word for me. learning everyday…..
Let’s compare a different group of US Citizens who had to also fight for equality in this country…….. who were NOT slaves or gay (necessarily.) A brief historical timeline.
1769-Women in this country were deemed property (denied personal liberty)
1826 – The first public high schools for girls open in New York and Boston (previously denied formal education)
1838 -Mount Holyoke College is established in Massachusetts as first college for women
1868 -The 14th Amendment denying women the right to vote is ratified (denied political participation.)
1900-A wife may own property.
1920- Women are allowed to vote (previously denied political participation)
1923 – Alice Paul and the National Women’s Party first proposes the Equal Rights Amendment to eliminate discrimination on the basis of sex. It has never been ratified.
1963- Equal Pay Act passed so women would be payed the same as males.
1964-Title VII of the Civil Rights Act bars discrimination in employment on the basis of race and sex. At the same time it establishes the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) to investigate complaints and impose penalties.
1965- Contraception finally legalized
1970 Women’s wages fall to 59 cents for every dollar earned by men. Although nonwhite women earn even less, the gap is closing between white women and women of color.
1975-The first women’s bank opens, in New York City.
1975- Women can now have credit in her own name not only under the husband’s name.
1976- marital rape was legal in every state in the United States.
1986- Meritor Savings Bank v. Vinson, the Supreme Court finds that sexual harassment is a form of illegal job discrimination.
1992- Women are now paid 71 cents for every dollar paid to men. The range is from 64 cents for working-class women to 77 cents for professional women with doctorates. Black women earned 65 cents, Latinas 54 cents.
1994-The Violence Against Women Act tightens federal penalties for sex offenders, funds services for victims of rape and domestic violence, and provides for special training of police officers.
1996-In United States v. Virginia, the Supreme Court rules that the all-male Virginia Military School has to admit women in order to continue to receive public funding. It holds that creating a separate, all-female school will not suffice.(i.e. separate but equal)
Any of this sound familiar when compared to slavery?????And the list goes on and on for women in this country…. so let’s see… ‘legally beaten, legally used for sex, denied education, denied political participation, denied economic liberty, denied personal liberty, “deemed” property…..seems as though there is a simple comparison. So women, under your premise, should not have had any of these rights established either…..let’s be frank- the US Constitution was written by white males for white males HENCE we have had to AMEND the Constitution from time to time to represent ALL Americans DUE to their diversities. Gay people are NOT afforded all the equal rights that straight people already have and take for granted. And here’s the really cool thing…. they’re called RIGHTS because they AREN’T supposed to be VOTED ON.
See my answer above, and understand that I did not compare the two discriminated classes, only the process. Read more carefully and make fewer assumptions.
Gay people are not beaten? I’ll let Matthew Shepherd’s mother know that son was not beaten to death….
I never suggested that gay people don’t get beat up. Of course they are! So are Christians, Jews, mathletes and *gasp* heterosexuals. Under slavery, however, it was LEGAL. That was my point.
When was the last time a Christian, a Jew, a “mathlete” or a heterosexual chased down, tossed into a stream and allowed to drown for being “flamboyant” in the U.S.?
Until 2005, there were states where it was illegal to live openly as a gay or lesbian.
States have tried to pass laws making employment of gays illegal.
States have passed laws making adoption by gay couples illegal.
I think there are indeed comparisons in civil marriage between the fight for interracial marriage rights and the fight for same-sex marriage rights.
Gays in America: beaten, blooded, murdered, maimed, dragged behind trucks, tied to fence posts, thrown off bridges, forced to live in secrecy for centuries, driven to a high suicide rate because of societies treatment of them, condemned and harassed by the religious populous.
They have been discriminated against and harassed in schools, churches and in the workplace, denied housing, denied the ability to adopt, be joined legal parents of their children, to share health insurance, social security benefits of their life partner, and denied the right to marry the one that they love. Should I go on?
Thank you ‘True Native,” I could not have explained this better!
mainestudent, you have misunderstood. I did not compare gay Americans to Black slaves. I compared the process by which we are attempting to right a terrible injustice through the popular vote, when bigotry and ignorance is still far too prevalent on the subject. If need be, it should be imposed by the federal government, as all other anti-discrimination acts have been. Just as I wait for the Equal Rights Amendment to be ratified, I wait for this law to be made real.
The Federal Gov has already said it is up to the States. Maine voters have spoke.
Until it makes it to the SCOTUS and then they will have the final say just like they did in the Loving v. Virginia case.
The point is not about “Black slaves” rather it is about bigots who claim to know God’s will, and FREE black American people, but not free enough in some States to marry who they love,
… can you see the similarity, now ?
As someone who has been discriminated against and harassed because of my skin color, I find nothing shameful or offensive.
I’m curious as to just how gay marriage in Maine will “curtail religious freedom,” as the CCL comments. Religious groups, churches, or cults will not be forced to marry those they do not wish to marry. This is strictly a civil and legal matter, not a religious one.
They will be unable to harm gay citizens… which they view as “religious freedom”.
Go ahead…get it on the ballot for November, but it won’t fare any better than it did last time around.
Trying to twist, turn, and shape public opinion on this issue is a lot easier than getting the public to accept gay marriage. Nothing has taken place that has changed peoples minds since the overturning of Baldacci’s gay marriage law.
“Everything has its limit – iron ore cannot be educated into gold.” Mark Twain
EDIT —THURDAY MORNING
OK, according to the above poll results…YOU WIN, but only in this FORUM.
The PRIZE is a free “Intention of Marriage” Application. Cross out the words “Bride and Groom” and replace with “Bah-Ride” and “Gah-Room.” This is necessary because by DEFINITION a bride is female, and a groom is male. Your now-modified same-sex application must reflect that traditional bride and groom roles are uncertain…therefore these roles must be called something else.
Good luck to ya and see you at the REAL voting booth.
Yet the public has been shown the way, the way to accept “Newt Marriage.”
Yuh, really the same ones yacking about gay marriage for being against the Bible will all cozy up to Newt who has beyond a shadow of a doubt gone against the Bible and Christ’s words about adultery. Pick and choose, pick and choose is what they do best.
Newt is a scumbag, cheater and has no moral compass….talk about the many who have been married for years and years, not some loser like Newt or those Hollywood types!
Mentioning The Newts views on open marriage in the press is wrong and unfairly prejudiced against him.
STOP BEING SO BIGOTED.
He left two sick wives due to extra marital affairs. I have a problem with a president who cheats on an ill spouse not once, but twice. I stuck by my husband for ten and a half years and I cannot even comprehend having an affair on my spouse who was fighting cancer and then leave him. Disgusting!
“Disgusting!” – probably the most efficient way to describe the current GOP front-runners.
Mark Twain being an atheist and a fair person would have no problem with a gay persons right..in my opinion anyway.
bradridge…you have absolutely no idea how Mark Twain would feel about this…why drag his name into this?
Why bring anything into it..and as I said..it is my opinion.Gay rights seem to get alot of negative feedback from religious groups..MARK TWAIN being an ATHEIST just makes me think that he would see it in a different way..a fair way…just my opinion.
your opinion should be your own, not your idea of what a noted deceased person might believe…..I think Mickey Mouse would be against gay marriage….does that make a point?
“Goofy, you are talking through the wrong end of the phone again”
M. Mouse
;)
Didn’t Disney World used to have “Gay Day?” As that’s Mickey’s house I’m pretty sure he would be ok with it. Better go with Scrooge McDuck. If you ever need a nudists rights spokesman, after his fight with France, I’m sure Donald Duck is your guy!
lol
if there was a Disney “gay” day, it was probably in the day when gay meant to be happy, not a homosexual.
Yes, Disney still has gay day. Everyone participating shows up in red t-shirts.
http://www.gaydays.com/Orlando/Featured/
Gay Day is not sponsored by Disney – it’s organized by a third party, but Disney has never attempted to stop it or anything like that. I believe among non-political/social organizations and companies, Disney has the highest percentage of GLBT employees in the nation.
Actually, yes, Disney does have a ‘Gay day’, which is often considered a gay pride event. Other notable theme parks like Kings Dominion, Paramount Carrowinds, Six Flags, and Busch Gardens have all had gay days, so that gay people, their partners, and families can attend without fear of hate and discrimination.
What a great response!
Thanx!
(See, i’m not a cat-o-lick after all) :)
Yes it does..u have stated your opinion :>) And Mark Twain..though deceasted was a noted atheist.
but now I am stating a fact..not my opinion.And I deeply respect the guy.If u think I a trying to degrade him well that is not where I am going.
Well since Mickey Mouse is the creation of someones mind I don’t know how Walt Disney where he would come down on the issue.
Bradridge didn’t, ptkitty did.
I’m not confident it will turn out any different, though I’d love to be wrong.
However, it keeps the issue alive. This will eventually be settled at the federal level where it should be.
I agree I think it will do worse this time around. Most people would rather see us worry about getting our economy going instead of divisive social issues. The fact the Liberals are bringing this back shows how clueless and out of touch they are. They want to change the subject get away from economic and budget issues and divert our attention with another divisive campaign.
The key word in this story is “force”.
Force a referendum, force a change in the definition of marriage, force people to accept defective behavior.
Force does not work well on people who have any character at all. The people in New Hampshire are now fighting back. It may be possible to force rule changes, but it is impossible to force people to accept this behavior.
You also can not force a landlord to be a nanny to the people in his apartment complex. I suppose he could have evicted all the normal people in his complex, and left only the homosexual apartment, but that wouldn’t really pay the bills would it? The sad part is that this landlord did not discriminate, he rented to the homosexuals, and now he is getting screwed for it. I wonder how that will work out in the future?
no one is forcing anyone to marry a gay person. only making marriage available to all citizens.
I wish being gay was a behavior and not something i was born with. I am so tired of being called names. I was called a dyke in elementary school and I didnt even know what a dyke was. I was beaten up, teased, and drank so I could be ‘normal’. I am happy now, except when people like you say such horrible things about me.
Forced democracy sticks in my craw too.
It’s little more than a talking point. The battle to protect freedom of conscience was lost in 2005 when the Democrats made discrimination based on sexual orientation illegal. At this point, my opposition to same sex marriage is primarily payback for that. When they restore my rights, I’ll consider theirs.
So let me see if I understand you correctly.
You wish to discriminate against your fellow citizen based on who they sleep with. Am I correct with that interpretation of your post?
Among many other things.
Okay, and YOUR discrimination is not bigotry, because you say so, right ?
It doesn’t matter, it’s my God given right where my property is concerned. If I don’t want to employ, rent to, or pay equally, that’s nobody’s business but mine. Live and let live, that’s the liberal motto, right?
live and let live? Then you are FOR gay people getting married, unless you live and let live except for people I don’t want to live and let live? Which is it?
When they repeal all the human rights legislation at the state and federal level, I’ll be more than happy to allow them to marry. What I’m not willing to do is allow them to take my rights away, which they did in 2005.
So you will do what you can to discriminate against gays because laws were passed that made it harder to discriminate against gays.
Totally understand how you don’t see that as bigotry, because you can’t even see how flawed this reasoning is.
Did you support taking my rights away? Why wouldn’t I be justified in doing the same to you?
I did not get to vote on whether we could have that law or not.
I did get to vote on whether sexual orientation should be on the same playing field as race, religion, and gender.
Had the vote been to eliminate that law altogether, I would have.
You will happily allow them to marry when legislation is passed on the state and federal level but you don’t think that you should follow the laws that have been already passed about discrimination on the state and federal level?
Human rights legislation did not take your right to discriminate away from you. It just made exercise of your right to discriminate potentially very expensive financially. If you choose to avoid the financial risk by giving up what you believe in, that’s your choice. Rights are not given to you or taken away from you. Rights are claimed or given up by the holder. Gay marriage advocates are claiming the right to marry and are willing to pay the price in their time, money, and even their lives. What are you willing to pay to exercise your right to refuse to provide a service or a product to a gay person?
Who is your property ?
Nobody is my property; people are telling me what I can and can’t do with my property, i.e. no (pick a minority) need apply signs are illegal. Those of us who believe in liberty find that very troubling.
Just out of curiosity what is your “heritage”? Did your ancestors come here from another country and if so, which one? Or are you a “native” to this country?
But you don’t issue civil marriage licenses, our government does. It is that discrimination that is unconstitutional.
Do you only believe our constitution is worth enforcing when it suits you? How ethical.
If your trying to make an equal protection argument it doesn’t apply. Homosexuals have the same marriage rights as heterosexuals. If you want to expand marriage to include same-sex relationships, then to be consistent, you would also have to recognize polyamorous and incestuous relationships as well. The law is equally oppressive to those minorities, wouldn’t you agree?
It is disingenuous to argue gays and lesbians should marry someone they have no attraction to in order to achieve equality. Plus “jim crow law” logic was deemend unconstitutional by our Supreme Court some time ago.
Incest and pologamy are against state and federal law. Homosexuality is not against the law.
Polygamy, incest, bestiality, etc. have all been shown to cause actual harm and it in the public interest to ensure such relationships remain illegal. Polygamy encourages suppression of women and child abuse. Incest results in childbirth problems and defects that are dangerous to child and mother (it is notable that under Maine law, incest only applies to heterosexual couples, and this speaks to the intent of avoiding birth defects). Obviously bestiality constitutes animal abuse since animals cannot consent to sexual activity.
Same-sex couples, on the other hand, represent two adults. All recognized studies of same-sex relationships indicate there is nothing more or less healthy about them when compared to heterosexual couples. In that same line, the APA continues to point out that same-sex parents are just as fit as heterosexual parents and that children of same-sex parents are at no disadvantage when compared to their peers with heterosexual parents.
The facts are they, that ONLY conservatives, are advocating expanding the definition of marriage beyond two persons.
Right Newt ?
Well, the truth is the truth.
Really? That’s all you can come up with? Bigamy and Incest? Admit it, you just don’t like gay people because you’re filled with bigotry and hate, you’re already mad because you can’t discriminate against other minorities, and own slaves, so you cling to the last minority group you can cling to that you can still discriminate against. You’ve shown time and time again in here that you hate minorities and you don’t want them on your property. But what makes you think anyone wants to go near your property to begin with? Rent it to one of your fellow klansmen.
” If you want to expand marriage to include same-sex relationships, then to be consistent, you would also have to recognize polyamorous and incestuous relationships as well.”
Let the “polyamorous (sic)and incestuous ” get it on the ballot … repeatedly … which the bigots now claim is a bad thing instead of the will of the people, just like they did with the Civil Rights Movement.
Isn’t the bigots best point, their most common one here; “Why don’t you uppity little people stop exercising your rights as citizens of America, just shut up and stay in what WE, your self-appointed moral superiors,have decided is your place in OUR society.” ?
Conservatives think America is too free.
Clearly they do, but why do they get way with not being asked; then what are the conservative’s solution to Americans being too free ?
Oh yeah, that is just one of their many secret agendas, so only talked in GOP undisclosed locations, not ever in their
“designated free speech zones” .
I think I actually get what he is trying to say. Not that I agree with it, but I think I see where he is coming from. He feels he has lost a right in so much as he no longer has the right to be a bigot. His idea of liberty, is “it’s my business and I will hire/fire anyone I want for whatever reason I want.” I think he is saying (I could be wrong) that anti-discrimination laws infringe on his right to discriminate.
So if you want to, say, not employ, rent to, or pay someone equally because they’re african american, or female, or missing a limb, etc it should be okay?
Sad….truly sad.
You mean the same law that protects people from discrimination based on their choice of religion? That one?
That’s the one.
Key word for that law is sexual orientation. The law doesn’t say it’s illegal to discriminate against gays and lesbians. Everyone has a sexual orientation, including you, RealMainer. The law protects all of us equally. Because of LD 1196, you don’t have to worry about being kicked out of your apartment for being straight (assuming you are straight), or being denied credit or an education or removed from a hotel or restaurant or losing a job.
We are all part of every protected class – every single one of us has a nationality, a race, a religion (or lack thereof, which is likewise protected), a gender, a sexual orientation, an age, etc. The laws protect all of us.
Ha, ha…the sin of sodomy is not a religous matter. Good one!
What you fail to understand is the fact that a marriage license is issued by the State, not a church. Once the State issues a marriage license the parties to whom it is issued may choose between a civil ceremony or a religious ceremony.
“What you fail to understand is the fact that a marriage license is issued by the State, not a church. Once the State issues a marriage license the parties to whom it is issued may choose between a civil ceremony or a religious ceremony.
There is the ( well stated) proof that the religious aspect of marriage is legally meaningless.
Why are the Churches involve in a State function at all ?
please provide the scripture that says sodomy is a sin. i’ve read the bible, and i haven’t found that to be true.
ps. do you think heterosexual couples don’t engage in (well, you know…)
It has always been the RIGHT of religious groups and churches to REFUSE to perform marriages. This religious argument is a false argument. I agree with David. Furthermore, I think the word marriage should be removed from Civil Law and replaced with Civil Unions that apply to ALL couples. MARRIAGE is a religious sacrament; there are no sacraments in civil law.
“It has always been the RIGHT of religious groups and churches to REFUSE to perform marriages. This religious argument “…
( that they are loosing their rights, that the State is not being separate enough,
or somehow interfering with their religous right to be bigots)
“is a false argument…. Furthermore, I think the word marriage should be removed from Civil Law and replaced with Civil Unions that apply to ALL couples. MARRIAGE is a religious sacrament; there are no sacraments in civil law.”
100% correct.
Given that it is the Church’s right to refuse to preform perfectly legal marriages WHY ARE CHURCHES ALLOWED TO PREFORM A STATE FUNCTION AT ALL ?
The lying clerics claim that they “pronounce” you married, but that is just not true.
You are not legally married until you sign the Certificate, are you ?
Legally marriage is a civil contract, period.
The fact that Churches meaninglessly “re-marries” married couples
is proof that their role in, and how they define marriage
is superfluousness. Worse it’s disrespectful of marriage, itself,
and the law.
SO THIS TIME ROUND: when the bigots hide behind their religious rights to be ignorant bigots,
… which BTW is a right I not only support,
but often even encourage them to really express.
… Shouldn’t we progressive strict Constitutionalists be asking them why are Churches involved in a State function, in the first place ?
Excellent point….we’d STILL have ‘slave states’ in this country if Lincoln didn’t do what he did- don’t anybody kid yourself….and just think Lincoln’s January 1st 1863 Emancipation Proclamation speech only took until 1964 before the voting rights act of ’64 was actually passed and until 1967 for the anti-miscegenation laws to be repealed- 100+YEARS LATER……Pfffffffft
Whoever is deleting my posts, has as much respect for the truth as Bob Carlson did. What a sick, sick society….
Did you ever think that there’s a /reason/ your posts are being deleted?
have you read the terms of service listed above? do you comply with them?
Really did you not go to school Lincon did not free any slaves. If you had a clue about American history you would know better then to propagate the myth.
That said THE PEOPLE of Maine have already spoke to this matter. Marriage is the union of one man and one woman. The glbt folks do not want marraige because of what it is they want to use the word because of the LEGAL issues it solves for them. Otherwise they would have there own name for the union of a man and a man, woman and woman and so on. In short they would rather steal what others have and twist it to what they desire.
I have no objection to civil unions or whatever they wish to call it but I do object to the hijacking of the word marriage.
Roger I am not sure what school YOU went to but rather let’s look at what Booker T. Washington, a man born into slavery in 1856 in a rural area of the southwestern Virginia Piedmont.
Booker T. Washington, as a boy of 9 in Virginia, remembered the day in early 1865:
“As the great day drew nearer, there was more singing in the slave
quarters than usual. It was bolder, had more ring, and lasted later into
the night. Most of the verses of the plantation songs had some
reference to freedom…. Some man who seemed to be a stranger (a United
States officer, I presume) made a little speech and then read a rather
long paper—the Emancipation Proclamation, I think. After the reading we
were told that we were all free, and could go when and where we pleased.
My mother, who was standing by my side, leaned over and kissed her
children, while tears of joy ran down her cheeks. She explained to us
what it all meant, that this was the day for which she had been so long
praying, but fearing that she would never live to see.”
So, if Lincoln did not “free the slaves” through the Emancipation Proclamation what did the Emancipation Proclamation do? Or do you subscribe to the myth that Lincoln was a white supremacist?
The Emancipation Proclamation was a war tactic, through and through. Riddle me this: If Lincoln was on a mission to free the slaves, wouldn’t the Emancipation Proclamation have freed ALL slaves? It didn’t. It only freed CONFEDERATE slaves. That’s right, slavery within the Union remained as is- including the ones owned by Lincoln’s in-laws. Only Confederate slaves were freed, with the sole purpose of destroying the Confederate infrastructure. And it worked.
I don’t believe that I said that it freed ALL the slaves. I also don’t believe I said that it wasn’t a “war tactic”.
In fact, Lincoln had to wait to issue the Proclamation until the Union won a significant military victory.
Nor did I say Lincoln was on a “mission to free the slaves”. Lincoln’s sole mission was to preserve the Union.
And if you think or believe that freeing the slaves destroyed the “Confederate infrasturcture” you need to go back to school because it didn’t. Grant’s and Sherman’s war policy destroyed the “Confederate infrastructure”. Remember, U.S. Grant’s nickname was “Unconditional Surrender” Grant.
Ah but he refused to make Indians American citizens because his grandfather and father built their house knowingly on Indian land, were asked repeatedly to leave and refused and got killed in a fight over land that wasn’t theirs. I don’t think the slaves would have been freed if Lincoln didn’t hate the Indians so bad and was looking for revenge.
Oh the suspense! You don’t just launch a petition drive and then say, “never mind.” Whatever would we do without the media keeping this issue alive?
We keep voting this down!
You’ve only voted once on same sex marriage, in 2009, if you voted on it at all in Maine.
I am looking forward to voting in favor of it again!
No sweetie, you’ve never voted it down.
Not very bright are you?
Wow man I never put anyone down, only said we voted this down and more than once
In Maine, the marriage issue has only been on the ballot once, and that was in 2009. And that was different-it was a vote to reject the law that was already passed by our elected representatives and signed by the governor. This is a different situation.
But still, only once before has anyone in Maine ever voted on a marriage-equality issue.
No ….. the one and only vote was to repeal the law giving the right to civil marriage ….. and I believe in order to do that you voted yes. You are mistaken.
no, there has only been one previous vote concerning same sex civil marriage.
What part of no don’t you/they get????
What part of we deserve equal protection under the law as guaranteed by our Constitution do you not get?
Evidently some states can…because it is yet to pass in Maine….just saying
majority rule is a fallacy. did you know that?
the Supreme Court ultimately will decide the issue regardless of what the voters of Maine say.
“just saying”… meaning what? That our US Supreme Court has yet to rule on this?
That is correct, but it doesn’t make you right.
You’ve never voted “no” on it genius.
And what part of “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws” do you not get?
Easy there Ted, I mean there are a lot of words, not to mention comma’s and semi-colon’s in what you wrote, it will take a small mind time to read let alone understand.
does it make you feel more important to put people down? You are making your own case against gay marriage by your ignorant statements.
I don’t know you tell me, you are the one telling gay people they deserve less then equality simply because they are gay. At best that is putting someone down, at worst it is downright bigotry.
What part of “All men are created equal’ don’t you/they get? Pfffffft.
what part of marriage is between a man and a women don’t you get, why should we redefine marriage for a special interest group?
In 1967 the SCOTUS “redefined marriage” with their ruling in Loving v. Virginia
The special interest groups in question being human beings.
Marriage is between two consenting adults in many states of our nation, and many countries in our world. This includes same sex marriage. Gays are not a “special interest group”, we are a minority class of citizens. Sexual orientation is not a choice, but finding someone special enough to share your life with certainly is.
And churches have always had the freedom to conduct marriage ceremonies for same-sex couples, and this has been happening in Maine for decades in churches who accept and welcome gay citizens.
This is about civil marriage, which is a legal contract issued by the state. And our Constitution sets clear rules that Americans must have equal protections under our laws, laws which include civil marriage.
The arguments for same sex marriage are very well documented, it is only a matter of time before our US Supreme Court rules in favor of it.
being a minority group does not equate to being a special interest. please don’t take this as offensive, it’s not meant to be, but i fear you have a scant understanding of how the US government works, particularly as it relates to constitutional issues.
Actually, the Christians redefined it in the first place. Ancient civilizations held SSM in high regard.
read the Constitution, and you might find out
Where in the Constitution does it state that heterosexuals are allowed to vote on the rights of all of the gay children they alone created?
Please know this heterosexual (and many more) support marriage equality.
Our right to civil marriage, being a civil right, should not have been subject to the referendum process in 2009. I think that went against Maine’s constitution, and I cannot understand why we aren’t fighting against that vote rather than attempting another vote.
If this passes, I guarantee there will be another ballot initiative to eliminate marriage equality in our state in 2013.
The US Supreme Court needs to rule in favor of marriage equality nationwide. Too many states are going back and forth on this issue, a sure sign that SCOTUS needs to rule.
All that said, I look forward to voting in favor of same sex marriage in November!
But it’s OK for fundies to stomp all the frack over the freedoms of others to save their mythology?
How utterly sad and selfish fundies seem to be.
Well Said…Ted.
Dupe post thanks to Disqus hiccups.
Dupe post thanks to Disqus hiccups.
I have a suggestion. All of you who claim that marriage is “between one man and one woman” (which means you OBVIOUSLY didn’t read the Torah or the Old Testament closely, if you are Judeo-Christian) and that marriage is a religious act– not one which the government has a Constitutional obligation to permit to all willing-and-able-to-consent adults–I will agree with your point of view WHEN YOU agree to be bound by the rules of your religious organization when it comes to marriage, divorce, remarriage, etc. NO CLAIMING marriage is a religious function and then getting (only) a civil divorce. In other words, got married Catholic? Get a Catholic divorce. Got married Orthodox Jewish? Get an orthodox Jewish divorce. THEN we’ll talk…
Another option— replace all civil marriage licenses with civil union licenses, and open that up to same sex couples. That meets our US Constitution’s requirements as well.
I actually think that’s a great idea. Takes religion out of the mix entirely.
Won’t ever happen, though.
a catholic “divorce” costs more than the original wedding, and that’s WITH an open bar, alive band and a sit down dinner!
Has there ever been a Catholic wedding without an open bar?
slanderous……what kind of a remark is that?
I believe it was just one persons observation.
Well said xxskier…well said.
OK, folks, let’s play my favorite game again!
If you have a rational argument that will stand in court in defense of your view that gay marriage should not be legal in the US of A, please post it.
After sifting these forums for over 4 years, I have yet to see anybody post a rational defense of their fear and loathing of gays nor a legal defense against gay marriage.
So, here we go again. Please, if you think you have one, post it.
Oooh I love this part, this is where the Invisible Sky Wizard’s minions make me laugh with their “Holier than thou” dogma quoting reasons why equality is bad. My favorite is the “gays are pedophile” line… makes me laugh every time.
Oooh I love this part, this is where the “TOLERANT ” Invisible Sky Wizard’s minions make me laugh with their “Holier than thou” LOVING AND FORGIVING dogma quoting reasons why equality is bad.
Brilliant
I support same sex marriage. I also find the way you approach the issue on here to be, well, sort of offensive. Many people are genuinely afraid that same sex marriage could have a negative impact on their children and way of life. They don’t realize that those fears won’t be realized, and they don’t hear how same sex marriage can improve things for them and the state. Focus on the positive…MOST of the people on here are open to respectful dialogue and THAT is how you win people over. You DON’T win people over by making them feel guilty or implying they are bad people or bigots.
Personally, I always try to avoid suggesting that bigots are bad people.
Capiche?
People who oppose same sex marriage ARE all wrong. They are NOT all opposed due to bigotry. Many are opposed out of fear of the unknown and how it could change their way of life. Those fears are unfounded…but they don’t know that and most likely won’t know it until same sex marriage passes. A lot of parents are just not comfortable talking to their kids about sexual issues at all…even between the opposite sex. Those people are often the ones who are the most fearful of same sex marriage and not due to any bigotry towards same sex couples. Those kinds of people aren’t won over by arguing with them. They are won over by showing them there isn’t anything to be afraid of and being understanding of the fact that some people just have those fears without implying or assuming that they are bigots.
It’s not a civil right.
US Supreme Court has ruled explicitly that civil marriage is a basic civil right.
Marriage is a civil contract in every state …. a civil license is issued and recognized in civil law. Marriages without a civil license issued are not recognized by any state or by the federal government.
Let me just say I realize that not everyone opposing gay marriage is a Christian, but most “Christians” do oppose it and I’m not sure why they seem to think they have such a say over what constitutes a marriage. What ever happened to separation of church and state? Don’t want gays married in your church? Don’t offer your services to them, it’s as simple as that.
I did a research paper in college on how white “Christians” fought against inter-racial marriages at one point in time as well. They picketed with signs that pretty much said that God did not approve. They eventually got over that and they will get over this, too.
“I don’t dislike God, it’s his fan club I can’t stand.”
I don’t believe a majority of Christians oppose gay marriage, actually.
I think it’s much more a case of what the status quo was when you were growing up. In the 50’s and 60’s you never, ever saw anyone openly admitting they were gay.
Voters who grew up in the 70’s, 80’s, and 90’s have a much different view, because they have grown to see that gay Americans are just like anyone else. It’s hard to stand against the rights of a group you have actually met in life.
You could have a point, same way that the “Reefer Madness” generation is still so fearful of marijuana
If you are a true Christian yes you do oppose gay marriage . If you read your Bible you would see That marriage was for 1man and 1women to be joined together. God sees homosexuality as a sin.
I see no requirement in Christianity to oppose gays and lesbians from finding happiness together.
There is nothing sinful about finding someone to share your life with in love.
to hate the sin not the sinner that is whats required
Our Government does not legislate on concepts of sin, nor does it look to any specific religion’s viewpoint.
“sin” is not a concept found in civil law.
You’re welcome to your religion, but it’s not enforced as civil law.
It’s a dead and meaningless argument.
“to hate the sin not the sinner” is not in the Bible or the U.S. Constitution.
You will also see there that it was intended to be for a lifetime …… adultery was the only specifically stated grounds for a divorce decree. If those that believe in the “sanctity” of marriage and are truly serious in “saving marriage” then they would be working to make divorce illegal in all cases other than adultery.
To quote Judge Leon M. Bazile
“Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix.”
@tedlick:disqus – not sure who this judge leon m. bazile was, but i’m assuming he was born in another century.
Try the judge that convicted the Lovings of being guilty of interracial marriage.
The quote is less than 50 years old.
“I did a research paper in college on how white “Christians” fought against inter-racial marriages at one point in time as well. They picketed with signs that pretty much said that God did not approve. They eventually got over that and they will get over this, too. “I don’t dislike God, it’s his fan club I can’t stand.”
It is exactly the same, with the same arguments.
Maine is only New England State still not living up to 0ur heritage of equality for all.
Has the world ended in most of New England, yet ?
I have yet to see 1 informative post in the defense of “Marriage Sanctity”.
According to NOM, Newt Gingrich should be able to tell you.
and you won’t, because they don’t have one…
How many times to these people have to be told NO before they get the point? This will be the fourth time this question will be defeated and I hope there will not be a fifth. What a waste of time.
No, only once ….. you are mistaken.
Four times you voted to be a loser.
just wait, @idiotliberals:disqus – you dinosaurs will all die out and common sense will reign!
I am nowhere near a dinosaur yet, and I will continue voting against this
And what will you say when the SCOTUS decides it once and for all?
you are going extinct. look at a chart of same-sex marriage support by age. This is data from 94-08, with the estimates weighted for 2008. You will see that Maine is fairly close to the top, and that support decreases significantly for older age groups. 18-29 year olds support same sex marriage at a rate of around 70% as of 2008 (would be higher now). Old people, the most likely to oppose same sex marriage, die and young people reach voting age. In another 10 years the likelihood of a new voter supporting same sex marriage will probably be 90%.
http://tinyurl.com/6g7brbh
Ah you might want to check your memory or at the very least change the last part of your screen name to something other than “liberal”.
Nope, not fourth. Only voted on once, in 2009, and only because the Catholic Church and the deceitful “National Organization for Marriage” conspired to lie to Mainers about what the issue was about.
umm, gay marriage has only been votes on once before this IDIOTliberals..
OK, fourth time eh? The “third” was in 2009 (according to you). What years were the other 2 times? I want exact numbers on which years those other two times we “voted on gay marriage”. This is so I can check the wording of the ballot questions for those years to see if indeed you are right. Ballot question wording is available on the State of Maine website going back to at least the early ’90s.
no, this will be the second time we have voted on same sex marriage. If you are too stupid to understand what you are voting on (anti-discrimination laws vs same sex marriage) then maybe you shouldn’t be voting.
We’ll get it done this time.
More people are aware of the lies (“it’ll end society!” and “my church will be sued!!!”) now than in 2009.
bull
How many times do I have to vote NO to gay marrage!
If you voted “NO” the one and only time this has gone to the voting booth you voted to uphold the law as passed by the legislature and signed by Governor Baldacci. In other words you voted to support gay marriage and I as a heterosexual married male thank you for supporting “Marriage Equality”.
Marriage equality? So, you gay marriage advocates will vote for me being able to marry my first cousin and her friend, right? If not, you’re #$%^ hypocrites.
We don’t have to. You can marry your first cousin in Maine already.
Will you vote for marriage equality for all or not? And as far as cousins go, it’s legal in Maine- if couple obtains a physician’s certificate of genetic counseling. How would the gay community feel if that was part of the deal? Counseling on the dangers of gay sex, stigma the kids will have to face if they adopt? If it’s equality you’re after, I want 2 wives, one being my 1st cousin and I don’t think mandatory counseling is fair.
Fight against polygamy, or fight for it.
The argument here is for marriage equality for gay and lesbian couples. You are trying to distract the issue by bringing up incest and polygamy.
Nowhere has polygamy come to be legal in states or nations where same sex marriage is allowed.
Check out your history. The European CHRISTIAN kings, queens, and other god anointed rulers married their first cousins while blessed in religious ceremonies all of the time.
In the State of Maine first cousins can marry. People marry friends all the time. People marry to avoid prosecution and having to speak in court.
How many times do I have to vote NO!
‘Til you are out numbered… right is right, under the US Constitution.Don’t you support it anymore ?
Thank you for voting NO in 2009, I wish more people had opposed the veto.
This year you can vote YES to extend marriage equality to ALL Maine families!
It is changed this time. It protects churches. you can vote against it as many times as you would like. By your choice of punctuation and capitalization you look very angry. It’s too bad really. There is so much anger and hate in this country. The only countries that seem to get along are the ones who do not discriminate. I am sure, if this passes, you will be angry about something else. I was like that once. Then I came out.
It’s sad that this is even an issue. I’m not gay, nor do I even know anyone who is gay, but I don’t see why two people loving each other should affect me in anyway. It comes down to the Golden Rule.
i think there all voting for obama same principles cant take no for an answer and keeps pushing until they get the wrong can of worms.should havethere own country.why should we change for them . this is whats wrong with society idealist just like hitler
“i think there all voting for obama same principles cant take no for an
answer and keeps pushing until they get the wrong can of worms.”
What?????
~~~~~
“should
havethere own country.”
We do, it’s called the United States of America where the Founding documents mentions something about “all men are created equal”~~~~~”why should we change for them .”
What pray tell do you have to change?
~~~~~
“this is whats
wrong with society idealist just like hitler”
What ARE you talking about.
created equal right boy girl right to marry the opposite sex and others shoulnt have any kids nither .there already screwed enough
. , . , . ,
Here’s some punctuation, please use appropriately when you rearrange your text into something we can understand.
The Declaration of Independence makes no mention of marriage, makes no mention of “right boy right girl”, makes no mention of procreation either.
Maybe you would do well to pick up a copy and READ it.
that’s a lost cause jd, but i applaud your effort.
Please lay off the narcotics before you post, it makes you incoherent.
And how many taxpayer dollars is it gonna take to put it on the ballot, this time, again, after all the other times?????????? Why don’t these people have to pay for their special needs , special votes , with their own special dollars????
How many times has Maine voted on this topic hoss?
TOOOOOOO DAM MANY
I agree, the 2009 vote (the only vote on this) should never have happened.
We should already have civil marriage for same sex couples in Maine.
You refer to christian heterosexuals, right?
It’s not a special need, it’s a constitutional requirement that civil marriage rights be extended equally.
Perhaps you should have let the good law passed in 2009 stand if you care so much about how much money is spent extending equality to a deserving minority?
What Constitution you been reading??
The US Constitution, specifically the 14th Amendment’s equal protection clause.
You might want to do some reading yourself. The Iowa Supreme Court ruling, as well as the California Supreme Court rulings, clearly lay out the case that same sex couples are entitled to civil marriage rights.
then Calif. must have some room for you?
typical fail argument.
i don’t agree with you so you have to move.
you sound like the Taliban. seriously. what’s up that?
Just as Iran is making room for you. You’ll be right at home.
And the Massachusetts Supreme Court that started us down this road.
special needs alright
you must think its some special!!! youve about wore yourself out with it
Allow gay marriage to pass and the money being spent will stop, unless you choose to spend it trying to harm citizens by removing it.
How about the hundreds of thousands the Catholic church paid to get out of state people to stop us last time. Then they went to the governor and complained he wasnt helping the poor enough.
no is nooooooooooooooo im tired of having to vote on this matter .taxpayers dollars miss spent to put it back on the bill . I think we have better thing to do with the money like homelessness and the hungry than having to worry about gay marrage. next it will be in our schools .they took morning prayers out of school just to thak your maker what ever religion so i think it should not be in our schools . my kids are in school and i dont want them to read it thats my right as a parent .stay in the closit .ike the don’t tell rule .
Then perhaps you shouldnt have vetoed our civil rights in 2009?
There are many benefits of civil marriage which I wish to have with my partner whom I have build a life and family with. It’s not only wrong to deny us civil marriage, it’s unconstitutional.
Can’t you see how telling me to “stay in the closet” is forcing your views on me?
PS– the “it will be in our schools” argument has been thoroughly debunked, even Mark Mutty knew his group was lying about that in commercials and said as much on camera.
and how did you “build” a family it takes a man and a women for that to happen. That is Gods plan thats why its this way.one man one woman
Seriously, this again?
Couples can adopt. Couples can conceive with a surrogate mother or a sperm donor.
And most of the time, couples bring children into the relationship from previous marriages.
Don’t pretend gays don’t raise families, it happens all the time, This is a major reason why civil marriage rights are needed in Maine and nationwide.
I would love to see an original argument against gay marriage. It wouldn’t even have to make sense, just be original. These old arguments are getting boring. I’ll even help them out with one… how about… for every gay couple that gets married… um… it causes… um… a bunny to become a vampire.
Surrogacy is common today. As is adoption.
However, it’s a moot point. Procreation is not a requirement for marriage.
And your god is not our civil law.
Then don’t vote.
And there is one way you can stop having money spent on this. Quit fighting it.
Not staying in the closet either. No need.
As for schools, though I’m not a big fan, homosexuality is mentioned in courses in many states without gay marriage. Saying that gay marriage will bring that is a straw-man argument, as it is curriculum in states without gay marriage.
“no is nooooooooooooooo im tired of having to vote on this matter .”
My one vote and you are tired.
~~~~~
“taxpayers dollars miss spent to put it back on the bill .”
In a way I have to agree. Civil rights should NEVER be voted on by the populace.
~~~~~
“I think we have better thing to do with the money like homelessness and the hungry than having to worry about gay marrage.
How does “gay marrage” affect how you spend your money?
~~~~~
“next it will be in our schools .”
Maybe you should attend your local school board where THEY determine what is taught in YOUR school.
~~~~~
“they took morning prayers out of school just to thak your maker what ever religion so i think it should not be in our schools .”
Who is “they”?
~~~~~
“my kids are in school and i dont want them to read it thats my right as a parent .”
Again, if you are so concerned about what is taught in your local school may I suggest attending your local school board where they make the decision of what is taught and not taught in school.
~~~~~
“stay in the closit .ike the don’t tell rule .”
Might I also suggest that you either learn basic grammar or use spell check before you post.
….
unisex next with kids being all f up
…more like “the incoherent one” amirite?
I vote for lower taxes and no bond issues every single time and I always lose, but yet these losers keep trying, reminds me of a dog humping my leg, kick it off it keeps coming back.
Not going away til the battle is one.
Not a loser here, just a Maine citizen standing up for what’s right.
So if this passes will you change your name to “congenialvisits”? or will you just get sent to jail?
If this passes, nothing changes with how I live my life— except of course that I will be getting married to the man I have shared my life with for decades.
You have been with one person for decades? You could prob teach 50% of us straight folks a thing or two about relationships then.
I have! Sure we argue from time to time, but the absolute trust in each other is there, as is the honesty that you need to fully share a life with another.
I read the results of a poll back in the 90’s that has really stuck with me (apologies I don’t have a link)– most people who get divorced admit later that they wish they had worked out whatever ‘irreconcilable differences’ that had caused the break-up. Keeping that in mind helped me weather a rough patch we had about 13 years ago, and I’m so thankful we stuck it out.
lol righton like a dog with a bone
I’m not a die hard either way on this subject. I’m not sure why homosexuals are so worried about a piece of paper because, to be quite honest, I have been happily married in a straight relationship now for almost 22 years and the piece of paper means nothing. On the other hand, I do understand that they just want to be treated as everyone else is treated and take advantage of the other benefits that come with marriage (tax breaks, social security benefits, etc.) And perhaps they should be granted those benefits. Who am I to say? Would it affect me negatively if homosexuals married? No.
The much bigger thing that I’m seeing are the people who are opposed to it claiming that it will “ruin the marriage institution” if we allow homosexuals to marry. All I can say is: Give me a break!!! Us straights are doing a very good job of ruining that ourselves considering that the divorce rate is soaring at over 60%, so many of the younger generation are choosing not to marry at all so they can spit out babies and collect their welfare checks, and almost every politician has a skeletal closet containing extramarital affairs the size of New York City.
Something to think about if you ask me.
Thanks for your support, and I totally understand why many like you aren’t die hard either way.
Just so you know, the reason why we are so worried about a ‘piece of paper’ are the 1,300+ benefits and privileges contingent on marital status at the federal level alone.
Congrats on your relationship of 22 years, I have been with my partner almost as long, and I’m thankful every day I have had someone to share this life with, regardless of marriage benefits available.
Congratulations on your relationship as well! It’s a long time and it’s so special when there’s someone in your life that you can always count on to be there through good times and bad.
I can understand the point you make about the benefits and privileges. I suppose that is the only advantage that I see to the piece of paper called my marriage license.
Again, my sincere congrats on your long relationship. There’s so much hate and discontent in the world these days and it’s so awesome to see 2 people (no matter what their gender may be) who find peace and harmony :)
Regards.
Go ahead…we’ll just shoot it down again!
And we’ll put it back on the ballot.
And we’ll shoot it down again!
I think you overestimate the lifespans of the voters you are relying on here.
Not at all! You assume that the gay population will grow?….it is falling apart as we speak!
So, only gays vote in favor of gay marriage?
Really?
So, almost half of Mainers of voting age are gay?
BWA HA HA HA HA HAAAAAAAAA!
Do you seriously think that you have to be gay to support our equality? There are many here who will tell you they are straight and support civil marriage rights for gays and lesbians.
As for the vote trend over time, I’m not assuming anything. Opinion polls clearly show it is our aging population that is most opposed to gay marriage. The younger you go demographically, the more support for this issue there is.
Thats because they have been brainwashed by the poison public schools choose to use to manipulate the childrens minds with.Homeschooling is on the rise
No, it is because there is no rational reason to stand against gay people seeking to live their lives as fully as any American.
Do you have a rational argument against gay marriage?
One that will stand in defense of your argument in court?
Marriage …noun…the formal union between a man and a woman, typically recognized by law, by which they become husband and wife!
That’s it! Nothing more, nothing less! No more voting and wasting my tax dollars on this crap…no pun intended!
Wrong sweetie.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/marriage
MARRIAGE
1a (1) : the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law (2) : the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage [same-sex marriage] b : the mutual relation of married persons : wedlock c : the institution whereby individuals are joined in a marriage
2: an act of marrying or the rite by which the married status is effected; especially : the wedding ceremony and attendant festivities or formalities
3: an intimate or close union [the marriage of painting and poetry — J. T. Shawcross]
You need a new dictionary. The definition has already changed.
And this is affecting citizens, where our state leaders wasting time (time we pay them for) on a prayer caucus is not, does not, and will not. I’d much rather my tax dollars go towards treatment of tax paying citizens than delving into mythology on my dime.
How long can we play this “word game”?
Matrimony : the union of man and woman as husband and wife : marriage
http://www.merriam-webster.com/
Cool… keep Matrimony then. It is, after all, a religious word. You’re welcome to it.
civil marriage is what we are after, I don’t care if you consider us married or not.
Do you also take issue that the “marriage wall” in a modular home doesn’t involve a man and a woman?
LOL that is not the definition of marriage. What dictionary are you using anyway. It is like the combination of 2 metals.
I read many people here asking
I think that if we are to vote on matters of freedom, family and civil rights we should vote at least more than once, especially when that vote was so close.
special needs lol.
Gay marriage in Maine? No! Civil unions in Maine? Yes! As we enter a new age of permissiveness, we must keep close guard on our long standing rules, rights and privileges, to make sure that hordes of alternative thinking people do not have a chance to alter the very foundation of human success. Grant them civil unions, but we must make sure we keep their hands off the marriage button. They have a right to live in this world, but not to change it.
LOL! This world changes all the time.
And will continue to do so.
Well said!
But it was the Christians who changed it in the first place. In history marriage was open to SS.
I am amazed at how much time and effort are spent on this issue. I see both sides buying lots of ads, trying to buy lots of votes with community events all over the state. At least these things help put money into the local economies. Regardless of how I vote, I support the right to lie to (mislead) pollsters, sign as many petitions as I can (legally, of course), and partake of any freebies either side offers at their “events”. I can’t say bringing it back to voters now is a way to get it changed. But, it helps spread money – mostly from out of state interest groups- all over the state.
Live and let live.
Marriage is, and has been for millennia, the institution that forms and upholds for society, the cultural and social values and symbols related to procreation. That is, it establishes the values that govern the transmission of human life to the next generation and the nurturing of that life in the basic societal unit, the family. Through marriage our society marks out the relationship of two people who will together transmit human life to the next generation and nurture and protect that life. By institutionalizing the relationship that has the inherent capacity to transmit life — that between a man and a woman — marriage symbolizes and engenders respect for the transmission of human life.
To change the definition of marriage to include same-sex couples would destroy its capacity to function in the ways outlined above, because it could no longer represent the inherently procreative relationship of opposite-sex pair-bonding. It would be to change the essence and nature of marriage as the principal societal institution establishing the norms that govern procreation. Marriage involves public recognition of the spouses’ relationship and commitment to each other. But that recognition is for the purpose of institutionalizing the procreative relationship in order to govern the transmission of human life and to protect and promote the well-being of the family that results. It is not a recognition of the relationship just for its own sake or for the sake of the partners to the marriage, as it would necessarily become were marriage to be extended to include same-sex couples.
Reproduction is the fundamental occurrence on which, ultimately, the future of human life depends. That is the primary reason why marriage is important to society. In our highly individualistic societies, we tend to look only at its importance to individuals.
Hogwash. Civil marriage equality is the right thing to do.
You come across exactly the same as those racist southerners when interracial marriage was legal only in some US states.
Since our country’s inception there have been groups that have seen the promise of our Constitution, and petitioned our society for equal rights, access to government, and legal protections. And all along the way there have been people predicting doom and gloom and national destruction if we extend these things to one more group, race, sex, or other minority.
And every time they have failed, and every time our nation has failed to self-destruct. This is just the next way in which our constitution is fulfilling its promise to ALL Americans.
Actually it changed. It used to be an honor to marry the same sex. It was the onset of Christianity and Catholicism that made it bad to marry the same sex. In history marriage was open to same sex. So what happened, well divorce, domestic violence, and a general fall of the United States is occurring while other country that have SSM are doing fine. Massachusettes divorce rate dropped to the lowest in the country when SSM was legalized.
Three men + four drugs + a shotgun = gay marriage. Don’t forget that Bruce LaValle-Davidson testified at the hearing for gay marriage four days after he shot and killed Fred Homer Wilson during a night of extreme debauchery. So don’t try to sanitize “gay” marriage…the idea that any creature should mate with a member of the same sex is about as cracked as the little party LaValle Davidson and the two other men had before the hearing. If you have trouble understanding this, try learning from the cockroaches at least. No gay marriage for them!
Wow, I must say this is a new low.
By your logic, no one should be allowed to marry because some humans commit crimes?
It seems I have been blocked for stating a simple truth of nature. But that is the fate of anyone who speaks the truth in this wicked society. Bob Charlatan, on the other hand, went straight to the top. You are rotten to the core America!
no you were probably blocked for being a super bigot and stating opinions as fact.
you don’t like gay marriage? don’t have one– it’s that simple- even a bigot should understand
Your “truth” here is rhetorical garbage.
Wait a minute!
The Christian Civic League is actually on YOUR side. Bob Carlson advised Bangor Baptist Church, and the current Executive Director supported the 2005 Gay Rights Law. He also said that he tended to support civil unions in the past. You really out to send them a thank-you note. I am sure they would appreciate it.
Again, Incorrect. The CCL does not condone gay marriage. Bob Carlson is not ok. But we shouldnt judge many from one.
The Executive Director stated in an interview that “he and the Board of Directors tended to support civil unions in the past.”
He supported the 2005 Gay Rights Law. You ought to send him to a thank-you note.
Again, the CCL does not support gay marriage. Also, you cannot refer to Bob Carlson and try to make us look bad because you think he supports us. Civil Union is not marriage and bob Carlson supported a lot of heterosexual relationships also. God Bless you.
“But we shouldnt judge many from one.”
Boy ain’t that the truth… but most people standing against gay marriage or other gay rights cannot get that through their heads.
Yup. They know promiscuous gays from other cities or from anecdotes told to them by others and suddenly we are ALL that way.
No homosexual can be allowed to marry, since it is wrong for any animal, including humans to attempt to mate with their own sex. Please tell the audience the meaning of the word “couple-ism.”
“No homosexual can be allowed to marry”, well Son that horse has already left the barn.
If your justification for denying Maine couples the right to marry is an irrational stereotype based on one cherry-picked incident, you really have no valid argument.
OMG are you serious. I will never read your stuff again. You are uneducated and ignorant. Homosexual and Bi sexuality is huge in the animal kingdom. HUGE
“since it is wrong for any animal, including humans to attempt to mate with their own sex.”
… then my dog, Duke, is not going to go to heaven ?
Hey…. what about my legs, then ?
Son, ALL people engage in sex play in the bedroom (or a basement dungeon) regardless of sexual orientation. Holding out LaValle-Davidson as an example of “gay” marriage is similar to holding out Newt Gingrich as the poster child for a monogamous, heterosexual, non-plural marriage.
You really are one ignorant and very very sheltered human being… get out a little, see the world.
You’re doing yourself no favors by remaining so fearful and ignorant of the real world, sugar.
He was a sick person and he was supposedly straight. Do you want us to talk about the Lake shootings to go against straight marriage. Of course not.
LOL, you don’t know much about nature and biology, do you? Plenty of gay sex in the animal kingdom.
Just to show how timid the Bunger Daily Snooze can sometimes be; why wasn’t the poll question worded “Would you vote yes for gay marriage?
Some say it lost last time because of outside (money) influence like in Utah’s (Mormons) huge money influx did in California.Will the independent spirit of Mainers be influenced by ‘them’? Vote with your own independent feelings and not with anyone elses.
This will be buried in the many comments here, but I, as a thinker of both sides, ask you to vote for yourself this time. Whatever you decide will be yours, and hopefully you’re smarter than to believe that a civil contract will “curtail your religious freedom”
This old pulp cutter/mechanic father of 2 won’t be taken in with that obviously lame argument… You might not either.
OK, please explain to the public what “couple-ism” means. They don’t know yet, and this is your chance to prove that “gay” marriage isn’t a form of complete insanity.
Are you always prone to making up your own words when reality escapes you?
OK. I will have to explain it. The word “couple-ism” means that when homosexuals and lesbians are married, one plays the role of wife, and the other plays the role of husband.
Your made up word is for a made up concept, then.
I know of no gay couples who fit this stereotype where one plays the role of the opposite sex.
Gay marriage = tax breaks do you really think thats going to happen?
Gay marriage = new legislation on the definition of marriage, do you think thats going to happen in this lifetime?
Gay marriage means more the 50% of maine will vote for it= yea right
Gay marriage as a civil liberty=so is medical care for all
Why do you actually oppose gay marriage?
From my point of view:
gay marriage = giving all Maine families the same opportunities
gay marriage = protecting more Maine children under child support/divorce laws
gay marriage = honoring our Constitution’s requirement that all Mainers be treated equally under the law.
And yes, this is absolutely going to happen, sooner than you believe, regardless of this vote.
Im not feeding the fire here, just stating the obvious outcome.
With 54% of Mainers now supporting same sex marriage, I don’t think your predictions are the obvious outcome at all.
Do you actually have a rational argument against gay marriage?
Anything at all?
does it matter what i think or what my argument is? I am not feeding the fire here, just stating the obvious.
Lot of hate in this world and in this state. Can’t wait to see this pass so we can move on. The same people made a huge fuss about Don’t Ask Don’t Tell. Guess what? It was repealed and nothing happened, the sky didn’t fall. Same will be so for this.
Right you are! Those afraid of the repeal stated that we’d lose hundreds of chaplains as a result of the repeal. Know how many we lost?
One.
Yup, just one. The paranoia and fear of these folks is amazing.
” we’d lose hundreds of chaplains as a result of the repeal. Know how many we lost?
One.”
Splash one sheriff’s chaplain Maine, too.
So what did that bugger say about the sanctity of marriage, his excluded ?
Forgive me, but I don’t understand your comment or question.
Google jumped off the Penobscot Narrows Bridge, then.
If you don’t like “gay marriage” then you don’t have to come to my wedding. That’s as far as your opinions on this issue should affect me and my boyfriend.
Once again, those against gay marriage demonstrate that they have no rational argument for their views… they have nothing but fear, vitriol, and animosity.
You are destined to lose because you have nothing rational in your favor.
You guys prove this over and over and over…
It’s official, we are bringing this to the ballot!
Over 105,000 signatures gathered, 40% more than necessary
The time is right for ALL Maine families to have access to civil marriage protections!
I wonder how many the “Yes on 1” people brought to August in the summer of ’09…
I once saw Lester Maddox and Mohammed Ali on the Johnny Carson show. I must have been twelve at the time.
Unforgettable.
How about sinking your concerns into something like this 2007, 500-plus page research paper from the California Breast Cancer Research program. (I’m fond of the pages dealing with ionizing radiation exposure concerns, myself). http://www.cbcrp.org/sri/reports/identifyinggaps/gaps_full.pdf