AUGUSTA, Maine — The Maine Secretary of State’s Office on Thursday confirmed that enough signatures have been verified to allow voters in November to decide whether same-sex couples should be allowed to marry in Maine.
“After a thorough review, we have determined that 85,216 signatures on the petition are valid,” Secretary of State Charlies Summers said in a press release. “I commend the organizers of this effort for their success in meeting the required threshold. I also want to thank my staff in the Bureau of Corporations, Elections and Commissions for their hard work in ensuring that the integrity of the process was preserved and the statutory deadline for the determination was met.”
Election officials notified referendum proponents of Summer’s finding on Thursday afternoon, according to the press release. Proponents were required to gather at least 57,277 valid signatures, or 10 percent of the total number of people who cast ballots for governor in the last gubernatorial election.
Advocates turned in petitions from 453 towns and cities on Jan. 26. Of the 96,137 signatures submitted, 10,921 were determined to be invalid, Summers said in the press release. Petitioners had until Jan. 30 to submit the signatures, according to provisions of the Maine Constitution. The Secretary of State’s Office had 30 days from Jan. 26 to validate the signatures and certify the petitions.
“Same-sex couples want to marry for the same reasons other couples want to marry: because they love each other and want to spend their lives together,” Betsy Smith, executive director of EqualityMaine, which led to effort to gather the signatures, said Thursday. “During the last two years, our coalition has had thousands of face-to-face conversations about marriage with Mainers who have changed their minds about this issue. There’s no question that momentum is growing for same-sex marriage in Maine.”
Carroll Conley, executive director of the Christian Civic League of Maine, disagreed that Mainers are ready to redefine marriage.
“I believe society should be protecting and strengthening marriage, not undermining it; however, we stand ready to defend marriage as that unique relationship between one man and one woman,” he said in an email response for comment. “I believe Maine voters will not be intimidated to change their minds and this November’s vote will reaffirm the previous 31 elections around our country that have insisted that marriage not be redefined.”
The Legislature previously approved same-sex marriage, but it was rejected by a 2009 statewide vote, 53 percent to 47 percent. If Mainers approve same-sex marriage later this year, they would be the first in the United States to do so by popular vote.
At a Jan. 26 press conference announcing that the campaign to legalize same-sex marriage would go forward, Smith said polling indicates 54 percent of Maine residents now support allowing same-sex couples to marry.
Bishop Richard Malone, head of the Roman Catholic Diocese of Portland, expressed disappointment that the matter will be on the ballot.
“It is unfortunate that citizens will be subjected to this divisive issue again, especially considering other challenges before us such as homelessness, hunger and societal care for all vulnerable people,” Malone said in a statement. “The Church will remain firm in her constant teaching that marriage is exclusively the union of one woman and one man — a nearly universally accepted truth until very recently. Truth not based first on religious principles, but on natural law knowable by human reason alone.”
Brian Souchet, director of the diocese’s Office for the Promotion and Defense of Marriage, said he was not surprised same-sex marriage supporters were able to gather enough signatures to put the question on the ballot.
“The Catholic Church for its part will continue to promote marriage as an institution that unites men and women with each other and any children born of their union, a vision of marriage that this referendum seeks to eliminate,” Souchet said Thursday in an email. “We would advise people to read the proposed legislation very closely before they vote on it.”
Before voters weigh in, the proposal first goes to the Republican-controlled Legislature for an up-or-down vote. If the Legislature approves the proposal and the governor signs it, then same-sex marriage would be legalized. If the Legislature doesn’t approve it or the governor doesn’t sign a bill, as expected, the question goes to voters.
In New England, gay marriage is allowed in Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Connecticut and Vermont, and civil unions for same-sex couples are allowed in Rhode Island. Other states that permit same-sex marriage are New York, Washington and Iowa, along with Washington, D.C. The Maryland legislature voted Thursday to allow same-sex marriage.
Earlier this month, New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie vetoed a bill to allow same-sex marriage in that state.
In the states where same-sex marriage is allowed, the laws all came through either court orders or legislative votes, not through a statewide popular vote.
Proposed amendments for constitutional bans on gay marriage will be on the ballots in North Carolina on May 8 and in Minnesota on Nov. 6.
The Associated Press contributed to this report.
Hopefully this time it passes. It is time we ended blatant bigotry and prejudice.
How about we ask how many times do we have to say NO for you people to get that Mainers want to keep Marriage between a man and a woman. I believe the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results….. It will fail again, remember that Maine is not just Lewiston South.
It should be done as many times as it takes until it gets passed because civil rights should never be put up to popular vote.
nothing to do with civil rights .
I would love to hear your explanation as to why it isn’t about civil rights. I am sure we will be able to replace a few words around and it will be the same excuses from the 50’s as to why black people didn’t deserve rights too.
The reason for marriage is to create a family and a family can only be created by a man and a women. yes I know that technology has allowed a women to become pregnant with out sex but it still requires male sperm to create a baby. Yes Same sex couples could adopt but the idea of marriage for thousands of years and it has been around that long has always been between a man and a women. We already have laws on the books that prevent certain groups from marrying each other, an adult can not marry a child, 1st cousins can not marry each other, under your logic anyone who loves another person should be able to get “married”. Wrong…
There is no requirement to procreate, so your argument fails. There is no harm in a consensual gay relationship, so your argument fails.
Did I say there was a problem with a consensual gay relationship??? NO… I said that they should not be married. They have the right to be married as long as it is to someone from the opposite sex.
That argument fails though. The entire nature of a marriage is to marry the one you love. You’re asking them to marry someone they don’t love.
The argument also fails because it could be used to make interracial marriages illegal. You can marry someone as long as it is someone of the same race. See? Everyone has the same rights! It doesn’t work.
Do you believe that love should not be the primary reason for marriage?
Good thing Mr. Sinatra isn’t around to hear this nonsense!!!!
I’d be in big trouble if there was! LOL
“The reason for marriage is to create a family and a family can only be
created by a man and a women.”
Really? Can you show us where in the marriage license it says that? What my fiance and I want to get married but do not want to have children? Should we be prevented since we don’t wish to “create a family”? How about the post-menopausal population that decide they wish to get married, should they be allowed since they cannot have children? Or how about the infertile couple, should they be allowed to get married?
~~~~
“yes I know that technology has allowed a
women to become pregnant with out sex but it still requires male sperm
to create a baby.”
Well it seems you passed the elementary school sex education class,
~~~~~
“Yes Same sex couples could adopt but the idea of
marriage for thousands of years and it has been around that long has
always been between a man and a women.”
Yes it has but the definition has already changed in several states and countries. But maybe you don’t keep up on current events.
~~~~
“We already have laws on the
books that prevent certain groups from marrying each other, an adult can
not marry a child, 1st cousins can not marry each other, under your
logic anyone who loves another person should be able to get “married”.
Wrong…”
Maybe you need to review Maine marriage laws. 1st Cousins in Maine can and do marry as long as they have had “genetic counseling”.
so, did you pick your wife because she was good breeding stock? Did you love her, or did you think to yourself…”look at them child bearing hips, Let’s get hitched!”
Dude, just so you know…I can procreate just fine thank you, but I choose not to do so…..Kinda what it means to be an American…you supposedly have freedom to choose.
First cousins CAN marry each other. I’ve seen it happen! My friend’s first cousin is also his sister-in-law.
In any case, it all seems rather judgmental. You acknowledge that families can be made in different ways, but dismiss them because they aren’t the current notion of what a family is. How is that right?
Do you think that people won’t want to follow your idea of what the ideal family should be because gay people are free to marry the person they love?
Sorry-lame talking point. I am a single female and I can promise you that when I marry again it will have nothing to do with procreation.
The definition of marriage as being one man one woman changed in 2004 when Massachusetts became the first state to allow SSM. So the definition has changed.
Now, 1st cousins in Maine can marry with genetic counseling. So please, stop posting inaccurate information as it really makes you look very uninformed.
Silly me, I thought the reason for marriage was because you had found that special someone who you wanted to spend the rest of your life with. Thank you for straightening me out.
Oh, BTW, in Maine first cousins CAN marry.
Oh yuk!!!
Your logic is rediculous. If marriage was only about making a family, what is your excuse for all of the BROKEN families acrossed the world. What went wrong there? You are saying that love should not be the reason? Well maybe if there was MORE love, there wouldnt be so many broken marriages. My wife and I have been married for 23 years in July and we are the only ones of our friends that are even close to 10 years let alone 20 and very few are on their first marriage…Wake up dad, do you want your children getting married to make more unhappy children? or do you want them to get married because they love the person they are with, want to share that with children possibly, and stay together forever? Because honestly, it does not matter if you are heterosexual or homosexual. A long lasting relationship is built on LOVE and Friendship.
i understand the basis of your discussion, but how do we, as Americans, reconcile that with our Constitution which bans discrimination?
So “conservativedad”, according to you and your line of thinking that “the reason for marriage is to create a family and a family can only be created by a man and a woman”, you are saying making babies is a requirement.
So, for example, are you going to protest Sen. Susan Collins upcoming wedding since presumably she is past child-bearing age?
Marriage is based on love and on commitment, not child bearing.
I know of several long term, committed relationships by gay and lesbian couples (we’re talking living & being together for decades here in Maine) that, though childless, make them look more like the biblical ideal of a couple than many of the straight people I know who have had babies out of wedlock, abused or neglected their children, abandonded their children, and/or are deadbeat dads.
Everyone has the right to love, so everyone should have a right to marry!
Get your facts correct before you post, please.
Cousin marriage legal:
Alabama
Alaska
California
Colorado
Connecticut
District of Columbia
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Maryland
Massachusetts
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina*
Rhode Island
South Carolina
Tennessee
Vermont
Virginia
First cousin marriage PROHIBITED:
Arkansas
Delaware
Idaho
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
South Dakota
Texas
Washington
West Virginia
Wyoming
First cousin Marriage allowed under certain circumstances:
Arizona
Illinois
Indiana
**** Maine ****
Utah
Wisconsin
First cousin marriage is allowed in these states under the following circumstances:
Arizona- if both are 65 or older, or one is unable to reproduce.
Illinois- if both are 50 or older, or one is unable to reproduce.
Indiana- if both are at least 65.
Maine- if couple obtains a physician’s certificate of genetic counseling.
Utah- if both are 65 or older, or if both are 55 or older and one is unable to reproduce.
Wisconsin- if the woman is 55 or older, or one is unable to reproduce.
Posted from:
http://www.ncsl.org/issues-research/human-services/state-laws-regarding-marriages-between-first-cousi.aspx
It IS legal in MAINE!!!!!!!!!
“Civil and political rights are a class of rights that protect individuals’ freedom from unwarranted infringement by governments and private organizations, and ensure one’s ability to participate in the civil and political life of the state without discrimination or repression.
Civil rights include the ensuring of peoples’ physical integrity and safety; protection from discrimination on grounds such as physical or mental disability, gender, religion, race, national origin, age, sexual orientation, or gender identity;and individual rights such as privacy, the freedoms of thought and conscience, speech and expression, religion, the press, and movement.
Political rights include natural justice (procedural fairness) in law, such as the rights of the accused, including the right to a fair trial; due process; the right to seek redress or a legal remedy; and rights of participation in civil society and politics such as freedom of association, the right to assemble, the right to petition, the right of self-defense, and the right to vote.”
We ended discrimination against gays years ago….please explain how your “civil rights” are being violated again?
Do you have a hard time looking up words and definitions?
Is this refuting me because it quite obviously states that protection from discrimination based on sexual orientation is a civil right…
There is still plenty of discrimination against gays in this country.
For those that are curious Willy here found the above information at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_and_political_rights
Have you been drinking?
The answer you’re looking for is within the post you just copied and pasted….
Not a civil right…
Does one need a marriage license issued by the state in order to get married?
explain that to me please. Since one needs a marriage license issued by the state to get married, it would be a matter of civil marriage. Civil rights are government rights. The Supreme Court ruled that marriage is a fundamental right, a civil right. I pay taxes in this country and do not have the same right to marry the consenting adult of my choosing. Therefore this is a problem of my civil rights are being violated.
thanks for reading
Unfortuatetly it’s a birth defect that would probably be covered under the Americans with disabilities act.
Lovely little bit of bigotry right there.
Then discriminating against us is a violation of that Act!!!
Did ‘The Jesus’ tell you that?
Very classy……
But many do not think its a civil right.
Statistically 50% of people are dumber than average so I am not surprised.
Disqus generic email templatePerifuni: An just what 50% do you put yourself in.? mPeace —– Original Message —–
From: Disqus
To: hobo1a@myfairpoint.net
Sent: Friday, February 24, 2012 4:15 AM
Subject: [bdn] Re: Secretary of state says same-sex marriage will be on the ballot
perifunl wrote, in response to hobo1a:
Statistically 50% of people are dumber than average so I am not surprised.
Link to comment
I don’t much care about same sex marriage.
At least it’s good to know that Mr. Summers supports it.
Didn’t realize until now that he’s gay.
Sort of like that Republican Sherriff out in Arizona I guess.
You just never know, do you?
So, because someone supports gay marriage they must be gay? You sir are the worst kind of bigot.
Pot meet kettle, hypocrisy at its finest…
big·ot [ bíggət ]
intolerant person: somebody with strong opinions, especially on politics, religion, or ethnicity, who refuses to accept different views!
So, calling someone a bigot is, itself, an act of bigotry? Huh.
Not so much.
I know it must be hard for you to understand that Secretary of State Summers is actually doing his constitutional duty by certifying the signatures and placing the question on the ballot.
Yawn. “Guilt by association” is the LAMEST thing I’ve heard.
But yeah, that Sheriff is pretty hot, eh?? It’s nice to see an attractive conservative republican in a gay scandal for once!
I hope that Mr. Summers does support same sex marriage, but that would certainly not indicate that he is gay.
Only said No once so far…. guess it will take a few more times, won’t it?
I hate when women say this to me.
conservativedad based on your “you people” comment I was going to use I word I reserve for those that truly are but I decided that it would not help the dialog.
See, the “you people” you refer to are your fellow citizens. They pay income, property, sales, etc…taxes just like you do. They serve in the military, they deliver your mail, they protect you at night, they might be your doctor, they might have sold you your car or home. They live and die just like you do. But they don’t enjoy the same rights that you or I do and that is just plain wrong.
But let me ask you this. When a black person marries a white person does that impact your marriage one iota? Because interracial marriage wasn’t legal in all 50 states until 1967 and the “you people” argument was heard then too.
Now you know the word I was thinking of…bigot and truthfully, your position is the text book definition of one.
please do not justify a sickness with the plight african americans endured.It is not the same and a terrible comparison.
Perhaps you should inform yourself but homosexuality isn’t a sickness. It is a sexual orientation. Something inbedded in DNA, the same as skin color, the same as eye color
Really?, But guess you believe that, Peace
Some people are still stuck in an unaware, hate filled, other world that wasn’t right in the cro-magnom times and certainly won’t hurt YOU in the modern times!
HOW’S YOUR ‘STILL’ DOING?? Your preacher still telling you that the way to salvation is to hold a snake?I can’t believe your attitude still exists in any semblance of a thinking persons world.
It WILL die out with you, your ilk, and your attitude….
snake?
You have never heard of the Snake handling or serpent handling as a religious ritual in a small number of Pentecostal churches in the rural U.S.?
Yes, one of yours, viper! :)
Disqus generic email templateBuzino: How is space travel anyway? Thanks for the comment. Peace —– Original Message —–
From: Disqus
To: hobo1a@myfairpoint.net
Sent: Thursday, February 23, 2012 9:58 PM
Subject: [bdn] Re: Secretary of state says same-sex marriage will be on the ballot
Buzlno wrote, in response to hobo1a:
Some people are still stuck in an unaware, hate filled, other world that wasn’t right in the cro-magnom times and certainly won’t hurt YOU in the modern times! HOW’S YOUR STILL DOING?? Your preacher still telling you that the way to salvation os to hold a snake?I can’t believe your attitude still exists in any semblance of a thinking persons world. It will die out with you and your attitude….
Link to comment
You should delete everything in your reply that is not your actual reply.
What a stupid response. Get back on track, huh?
“Something inbedded in DNA”
So where’s the “Gay” gene?
Perhaps its a mutation that occurs due to environmental contaminants…ever hear of an endocrine disruptor?
there certainly is a lot of environmental pollution in the world…
Thank you Willy and here I thought that homosexuality has been around since the dawn of time and you just cleared it all up with two words….”environmental pollution”.
Maybe your next post you will provide us with the cure for cancer.
Yeah, I was thinking the same thing. It’s probably caused by the lead in the water, eh?
But that’s all a big fat red herring.
The point is that gay people are here. We have always been here. We will always be here. That’s a fact. Whether you believe that gay people are born that way (either it’s genetic or a “disability”) or people choose out of the blue to be that way, we ARE that way. So what? You don’t like it? Then don’t do it, but don’t go saying that we are mutations caused by environmental pollution. That’s rude, disrespectful, and dismissive.
you are definately not regular joe ! you are dismissed
Are all characteristics of an organism encoded in set and differentiated genes?
Also, are ALL the characteristics of humans decoded? Is it entirely understood? No, it is not.
Can anyone explain what people don’t mention, ie, Julias Ceaser was “Every woman’s husband and every man’s wife”? The ‘gene’ has always been there and still is. Just one of SO many in history.
I hope you and yours can get the legal and social respect before yours are in a wheelchair. :)
proof please! sorry replying to jmg
Nothing personal, but if people don’t endorse this kind of lifestyle, no amt of proof will change their minds. The fact remains that they are people just like you and I and should have the freedom to “Be” with any one they choose in the legal sence of the word as it really does not affect/effect you and I in any way.
a DNA link has never been proven, despite the fervor by the gay community and its advocates to prove one
Nor has it been disproved. There are many parts of the DNA chain that we either do not understand or do not have current technology that can see it.
No it’s a sickness; The people have said No and we will say NO again… It is a sexual deviation.
People have said YES! It was on the books….AND WE WILL SAY YES AGAIN! your argument is mute…
It becomes a Civil rights issue when the Government denies a minority group equal protection under the law.
So everyone with a veneral disease would be considered a minority group.
VD is an “equal opportunity” illness. It doesn’t care what sexual orientation you are.
That is a truly pathetic comparison. Methinks thou dost protests too much. Why?
not nearly as pathetic as comparing homosexuality to the plight of african americans now thats pathetic.
The comparison between interracial marriage and SSM is very valid.
Prior to 1967 not all states allowed a “colored” person to marry a “white” person.
Hmmm sounds like the same situation we have today. Some states allow SSM and others do not.
How are these two situations different?
I’m not aware that I made that comparison…….sheese
You still haven’t address the question of ‘why?’.
define minority group
OK
A subordinate group whose members have significantly less control or power over their lives than members of a dominant or majority group
Not limited to mathematical minority: example women, Blacks in South Africa, Blacks in Mississippi and South Carolina in the 1920’s
Interchangeable with subordinate group
A group that experiences a narrowing of opportunities (success, education, wealth, etc) that is disproportionately low compared to their numbers in the society
Nice reply. Too bad that the obvious is so hard for some to see.
Ah, ONE of them would be narrow minded thinkers.
get over it you are not a race; you are entitled to nothing! you have no rights; you are sick nothing more.
I am sick after reading this statement….and I’m straight
You say you are straight…… but, how do we know for sure? Perhaps a closer look at your internet browsing habits…?
In the closet are we?
How Timmy?…prior to 1967’s Loving v. Virginia in many states a person of “color” was prohibited from marrying a person that was “white”. Those same states (and many Northern states) prevented people of “color” from riding in the front of a bus (and they were subject to arrest if they did not give up a seat for a “white” person) or eating at the same lunch counter or using the same public toilet because they were a person of “color” and for no other reason. They were treated as second class citizens, beaten, hung, etc…because they were “different” and sub-human and “not white”.
And the arguments against interracial marriage are almost identical to the arguments made today against same sex marriage…..If interracial marriage hasn’t lead to he marriage for animals…or inanimate objects…then neither will same sex marriage!
Exactly, Shannonanigans. You’re 100% right.
A comparison isn’t saying the two things are identical, obviously. But both gays and african Americans have seen bigotry and discrimination codified into law. That is fact.
What sickness are you referring to?
this is one of the things that seperates us from our pets.Call it society, evolution civilization.
Strange, it seems that opponents of SSM have an odd affinity for pedophilia, bestiality, multiple partners, etc…and you even said that you agreed with the “slippery slope” theory.
Pssst…Timmy it’s OK. There is treatment available for people with attraction to children and animals. It’s called incarceration.
All names for the same thing.So instead of locking them up lets let em get married.
Timmy so you support pedophilia, bestiality, multiple partners, etc… Why?
Your remark is ignorance truly personified along with your and other’s
unaware, unknowing, no understanding of people, history, or the world and its history ‘thinking’ (or obvious lack of!).
Live in your protective cocoon; I’m sure they won’t hurt you.
But I do feel bad that you live with such a cro magnan attitude.
Live happy, and look out for those that Really Mean You Harm……Let others do the same. huh?
It won’t cost YOU a dime!
A sickness? Could you be more ignorant?
try reading the history of what you are defending.
Could you provide us with the medical diagnosis (CPT or ICD9 codes) Timmy that providers use for billing purposes that specifically list homosexuality as an “illness”?
In the early 70’s APA under extreme political pressure (things haven’t changed much still everything happening through politicians) declassified homosexuality
Who were the politicians that applied the pressure Timmy? And why was the pressure applied?
So, if I read up on the ‘history’ of homosexuality that will clear things up for me? Yeah, that makes sense.
try it might help.
Timmy one cannot just read “any” history. Many groups like to bend, twist, distort, etc…facts to meet a certain agenda.
Sort of what NOM did leading up to the “people’s veto” of the law that allowed SSM several years ago. And before you say they “didn’t”, their spokesperson came out after the vote and said they did.
having an opinion that differs from your’s does not make a person ignorant. you disallowing that opinion is not only ignorant, but rude
No one is “disallowing” anything, snake boy. Just calling out sociopathic bigotry.
It’s doubtful, but timmy is no doubt going to try.
a deep mental, moral and spiritual sickness. To “equate” deviant perverse behavior opens the box for all the other ” equal” needs- pedophilia, beastility, mulriple partners. In essence it continues the downfall of society rather than Build it up .
Dont tell me about consenting and legality. In prison the queers force themselves on others – which is control and power not consent
You can look to the mosquito fish for endocrine disruption
Skull……
pedophilia is a crime of power and control. A child cannot grant consent and it is illegal in all 50 states. In 2004 SSM was legalized in Massachusetts and there has been no movement to make pedophilia legal.
“beastility” (sic) is a crime. An animal does not have the ability for conscious thought and cannot grant informed consent. In 2004 SSM was legalized in Massachusetts and there has been no movement to make bestiality legal.
“mulriple (sic) partners” is a crime in all 50 states. In 2004 SSM was legalized in Massachusetts (while a Mormon held the office of Governor I might add) and there has been no movement to make multiple partners legal.
“Dont tell me about consenting and legality. In prison the queers force
themselves on others – which is control and power not consent”
When force is used, the resulting sexual act is called rape and is illegal in all 50 states including prison.
So in closing your slippery slope argument just doesn’t hold water. No where in the U.S. where SSM has been deemed either through court action or by a vote of the legislature to be legal and a civil right has a move been made to make any of your examples (pedophilia, bestiality, multiple partners) legal.
People understand you are sick and trying to defend yourself. I will pray for you and your healing.
I am trying to “defend” myself? How so skull?
Because all of us that support equal rights are Gay….Obviously…..
Ha! Good one!!
Did ‘The Jesus’ tell you to say that?
What is there to heal? Emotional wounds from years of oppression?
Will that be a Catholic church you’ll be praying in? I’m sure there are no homosexuals there.
I am Muslim
Welp, the Catholics do have better hats…..
Bill Maher said that the Catholic church wouldn’t be against contraception if alter boys could get pregnant.
I definitely agree with the slippery slope theory.
Timmy can you show us in which states that allow SSM skull’s “slippery slope” theory of legalizing pedophilia, bestiality and multiple partners is occurring. And when I mean show us I mean with links to the legislation, people’s initiative, etc…not “I heard, I was told, etc…”
I think i am going to print up a bumper sticker(Good by Maine hello Pennsylvania)
Timmy can you prove the “slippery slope” theory or not?
Please, if you decide to follow through with your idea, allow someone to proof-read what you’ve come up with……
Match Point!
I see the spellcheck cops are out again.
Please do. But don’t just talk the talk, walk the walk all the way to PA.
You would timmy, you would. Small, frightened minds agree, eh?
And one last point on your post skull…when one states “Dont tell me about consenting and legality” they already know their points are an epic failure in the debate.
You bring up the same old talking points that have been proven false time after time.
Homosexual relationships do nothing to serve the state interest of
propagating society, so there is no reason to grant them the costly
benefits of marriage.
You compared the prohibition of homosexual marriage to the
prohibition of interracial marriage. This analogy fails because
fertility does not depend on race, making race irrelevant to the state’s
interest in marriage. By contrast, homosexuality is highly relevant
because it precludes procreation.
The biggest danger homosexual civil marriage presents is the enshrining
into law the notion that sexual love, regardless of its fecundity, is
the sole criterion for marriage. If the state must recognize a marriage
of two men simply because they love one another, upon what basis cant it
deny marital recognition to a group of two men and three women, for
example, or a sterile brother and sister who claim to love each other?
I “bring up the same old talking points that have been proven false time after time”? Where did you copy the above talking points from?
“Homosexual relationships do nothing to serve the state interest of propagating society, so there is no reason to grant them the costly benefits of marriage.”
If the state has an interest in “propagating society” why does the state allow sterile, post-menopausal, etc…couples to marry?
~~~~
“You compared the prohibition of homosexual marriage to the prohibition of interracial marriage. This analogy fails because fertility does not depend on race, making race irrelevant to the state’sinterest in marriage. By contrast, homosexuality is highly relevant because it precludes procreation.”
The prohibition of interracial marriage was not based on the inability or ability to procreate. The prohibition was based on the color of one skin being different from the other person color. That prohibition (color of ones skin) is just as arbitrary as who ones choices to sleep with.
~~~~~
“The biggest danger homosexual civil marriage presents is the enshrining into law the notion that sexual love, regardless of its fecundity, is the sole criterion for marriage. If the state must recognize a marriage of two men simply because they love one another, upon what basis can it deny marital recognition to a group of two men and three women, for example, or a sterile brother and sister who claim to love each other?”
Gee I am surprised that the author Adam Kolasinski of the column “The Secular Case Against Gay Marriage” (February 17, 2004) that you plagiarized your post from doesn’t include animals and children in his case. But then again, I am sure that MIT (http://tech.mit.edu/V124/N5/kolasinski.5c.html) would have said something about it.
Does not matter who said it, you are still wrong…
So
a. You admit you plagiarized the “talking points”,
b. You have nothing to refute my post with, so
c. You revert to elementary school debating tactics with “Does not matter who said it, you are still wrong…and
d. You have no original thoughts on the topic at hand.
Just how is he wrong?
no you are
Classless response……
Sounds like you’re giving up the fight…. Did ‘The Jesus’ tell you these things?
Wow, maineak99, you are one wicked deep thinker.
Sooo…..infurtile women should not be allowed to get married?
So what you are asking is if a brother and sister are medically sterilized and in love they should be able to marry?
That is just a stupid argument
How so?
Just calling it “stupid” basically admits that you have no response, therefore your argument is broken, and you are wrong
how do you address incestual marriage from a position of equal rights?
Should not those committing incest be treated the same as everyone else? The same as the gays? Shouldn’t they be able to marry also? If you say no, are you not just as much a bigot as those who currently stand against gay marriage?
Not the issue, brah. The issue is same-sex marriage, not marriage between brothers and sisters.
Distraction, deflection, etc.
Name one state that allows incestuous marriage between Father-Daugher, Mother- Son or Brother-Sister.
I can name several states that allow SSM.
whats the difference?
So the answer is you cannot name one state that allows incestuous marriage between Father-Daugher, Mother- Son or Brother-Sister.
It has been scientifically proven that incestuous relationships often produce diseased offspring. Since two people of the same sex cannot procreate, than the comparison is actually a moot point. One wonders if maybe you are upset that incestuous relationships are not allowed to be married since you have brought it up several times. If you religion is what tells you that gay people should not be allowed to be married, then fine, maybe you should educate yourself to the fact that many churches are coming around to the TRUTH. Being gay is not a disease, and you cannot PRAY it away. All people deserve to share the same rights so long as they are not breaking the law. As i recall, incest is illegal in most states. Being gay is not, should not, and will not, so climb back into your cave and keep your opinion to your religious cronies that will always be bitter and bigots.
Your point about incestuous relationships and diseased offspring is a good one. There is a strong basis for laws prohibiting incest and forbidding certain marriages based on consanguinity. However, if one of the partners to the relationship is sterile, it can be argued that such relationships – when children cannot be conceived – should be permitted as a matter of civil rights. Remember, it wasn’t long ago that laws in this country prohibited homosexual acts, and same sex marriage was illegal in every state.
And those very same arguments were tried before multicultural marriages were allowed and none of the scare tactics worked or proved to be true
Since you seem to like to answer a question with a question I will repeat bradygirl2’s
“Sooo…..infurtile women should not be allowed to get married?”
No, the original post is arguing that fertility is the main justification for marriage. So a good, god fearing woman who is infertile should not be able to marry a good, god fearing man because they cannot produce offspring, just like two men or two women. This is the argument made above. It’s awful.
Average adults have sex thousands of times and only have one or two babies.
And I think a good number of them are Catholic, too.
The only people who have sex all the time are liars.
Second marriages of people who are too old to ” serve the state interest of propagating society” so they should not be allowed ot marry and receive “the costly benefits of marriage.”
As far as a marriage only being based on love and not procreation, why should someone who is sterile be allowed to marry? That marriage would be based only on love.
As for marriages between more than two people, they have already been declared illegal for many different reasons.
Edited to make better sense, hopefully.
And your argument fails because there is no procreation requisite in marriage.
Yawn. “Simply because they love one another.” Why do MOST people marry? Every single person I know who has gotten married never listed the state’s interest in propagating society. But now that you mention it, is that why you got married?
In any case, aren’t there enough children in this state, country, and world??
If you want to marry more than one person, then just get some signatures. Until then, the issue is allowing
the biggest danger….is a living in a country that does not grant equal protection to all its people.
You didn’t mention two of the most frequent talking points for same sex marriage: (1) My same sex marriage doesn’t affect your opposite sex marriage one bit (therefore, you shouldn’t oppose it); (2) Same sex marriage strengthens families.
I’m sure there’s a lot of disagreement on 2, but I’ve never understood the argument for 1. Whenever I see it, I always think “so what?”
If you’re talking about civil rights and marriage, your examples of group marriage and marriage between sterile siblings make sense and could even include marriage between parents and of age children as long as they could not conceive.
After my second kid, I underwent the procedure that turned my woofer into a tweeter.
Does that nullify my marriage?
Thats rich right there! Love it!!
Nice argument.
Likely wasted in these pages, but not on me.
interacial marriage is not the same issue
People with the same attitude as you challenged every advance of equality: the emancipation proclamation, women getting to vote, civil rights …
Minds are changing as more people hear our rational, legitimate reasons for needing civil marriage, plain and simple.
Over a quarter million Mainers voted to keep same sex marriage in 2009, and judging from the number of signatures gathered more people will be voting with us this november.
Why stand against the sincere, real need Maine families have for civil marriage protections? What are not harming marriage, we are honoring it with our commitment.
If you don’t like the process that allows the people to bring forth a question to the people in a democratic fashion, then have the law changed.
Until then, we’ll vote on it again this November.
By the way, this is only the second time it’s been on the ballot. And only the first time that people are being asked to let same-sex couples marry.
You do realize that this was put to a vote only one time so far, right?
You should have not vote in this at all. The voice of a majority should never determine the way a minority lives their life. What do you think the vote would have been if the “people” were allowed to vote on whether slavery were abolished or not?
How about we just have the same set of rules for everybody?
It will eventually pass because more and more people are coming to the realization that it really doesn’t matter. There are many negative reasons behind the “no” vote, but the main reason is fear. The fear is there due to a shallow mind. Dig deep inside your mind if you can, and uncover the real reason why “you” (in general) care so much? I would love to read some solid reasons why it matters besides “God made man and woman”….usually coming from those who don’t incorporate “God” into their own daily lives.
Old white men in funny hats imposing their will,when will it ever end.
If marriage is truly an issue of religion as many who push your view admit. Why not push for a measure to get the state out of the business of issuing marriage licenses? If this is truly a religious issue, then maybe only churches/religious groups should be allowed to issue them.
Oh, wait, that wouldn’t be good enough for you ’cause some of those religious groups might happy to let a gay couple marry.
It fianlly will be on a ballot when it is a Presidential year, and not just right wing zealots will be driven to the booths. Expect it to pass, and watch the CCL go nuts.
I’m glad to see this will be on the ballot. We will just vote it down again and Equality Maine will spend a whole bunch of out of state money on ads. It’s gotta be good for the economy.
If it makes you sleep better at night knowing you are oppressing someone’s civil rights then do what you have to do, but know that one day this will pass and good will prevail over your evil.
No. But you can fly it in celebration of equality in our great state.
“I personally believe that marriage is between a man and a woman.” ~ Pres. Barack Obama
Guess he’s a homophobe?
Taken from the same Q&A session.
Q: Would you support a constitutional amendment with that definition?
A: No I would not. Because historically we have not defined marriage in our constitution, it’s been a matter of state law.”
“Guess he’s a homophobe? ”
… or straight.
I agree with him in that my marriage was between a man and a woman, too.
So what do you care about other people’s marriages for ?
What is your stake in any marriage other than your own, April ?
Like President Lincoln and emancipation, it is only a matter of time before President Obama openly supports marriage equality. He pushed through repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” and has instructed the Justice Department to cease defending the Bush Era Defense of Marriage Act in federal court.
If you are looking for homophobes, look no further than the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse who are vying for the Republican Party’s presidential nomination. Romney (Pestilence), Santorum (War), Gingrich (Famine), and Paul (Death) are proud of their homophobia. Any of them would boldly lead us backwards to the 15th Century.
Why do you care? How will gay marriage affect you?
You do not get to paste your perversity onto the religious institution of marriage. You hate God remember….
Could you explain how allowing same-sex-marriage is going to impact a religious institution that does not recognize it or allow a same-sex-marriage to take place?
And further, could you explain why you think a same-sex-couple would want to get married in a religious institution that does not recognize or allow same-sex-couples to wed?
1) My church will marry us any time should we want to do that.
2) We are asking for the state to allow us to get a license, not for religious institutions to marry us.
Well, I think he’s becoming educated. He DID overturn “Don’t ask Don’t tell… Seems he may be conflicted ..or just pressured to say that “marriage is between..”
I say by election time he may also “get it” !
Love is Love… Who will be hurt if gays marry?? I think if we follow the reasoning of “do no harm” and support as much love in this world, then it is a good thing! Don’t worry… be happy! (or gay!) lol
As evidenced by the fact that he married a woman.
I personally believe that marriage is between two people.
How am I wrong?
In so many ways…
About the only bright thing he’s said !
Or, supporting gay marriage did not meet his political needs at the time…
his views are “evolving”, which is a code word for a politician that supports same sex marriage but won’t say so publicly because they are afraid of political repercussions.
Our previous governor once thought that way but signed the bill in 2009.
The governor of Washington does not necessarily agree with it, but she believes that the people of her state deserve equality.
Cheney didn’t agree with it either.
It would be nice to know who put up millions of dollars to fill the airwaves with lies the last time we discussed this issue. Still they refuse to comply with state law by revealing themselves. Hopefully justice will prevail this time.
I agree, that list needs to be published, or made public ASAP.
Well, the gays may have done as much as LePage
to get out of State investment into the economy, now, too.
It is odd that the same political party that wants to keep government out of our pockets is the same one that’s so sternly fixated on what goes on within our pants AND our bedrooms.
Don’t forget the “War on Contraception” that will have a prophylactic affect on women’s rights.
would not call it fixated when the bedroom is out in the street.
I bet when you watch porn you LOVE watching the girl-on-girl stuff….. but wouldn’t want them getting married, would you?
Are you saying all gays are porn stars. or are all gays actors?
Public sex is against the law, brah. So, it shouldn’t be out in the street.
totally agree.
I am sure there are quite a few good Catholic Democrats that would argue this point with you!
And, this is where S. Donald Sussman and Chellie Pingree Sussman placed $100,000. + last year to help get this on the ballot once again. Now they have much to say about three papers in Maine, with him being on the board after giving over 3 million to them to stay afloat; so guess what will be uppermost in their headlines! He is Maine’s billionaire George Soros.
They want to get a big conservative turn out , and beat it.
Sure gonna try.
“And, this is where S. Donald Susskind and Chellie Pingree Susskind placed $100,000. + to help get this on the ballot once again.”
Would you be so kind as to list the dates when “S. Donald Susskind and Chellie Pingree Susskind placed $100,000. + to help get this on the ballot” the first time.
Boy, there must be nothing worse than free enterprise in your world view. Or do you think that only Rupert Murdoch should own papers and TV stations? If so, welcome to the world of Pravda: “Back in the USSR” as the Beatles would say.
Look around you. Your family, your children, your co-workers, your friends. Do you know ONE queer person? If so, walk up to them the next time you see them and tell them, “I don’t think you deserve the same rights as me.” Then explain why. Tell them that they are 2nd class citizens. Then, tell them to get over it.
I have
I HIGHLY doubt that.
What were your words to them?
I don’t mind straight people.
At all.
As long as they don’t act all straight in public.
:)
If those darn straight ppl would stop having gay babies……..
Do they have a pill for that?
No more so than a pill for idiocy…
Things are equal. If you’re a man you can marry a woman no matter who you are. And vice versa. If any of us want to marry the same sex, an animal, or an inanimate object we are all equally unable. We’re all also equally free to seek psychiatric or medical assistance if people want to get help with their condition instead of making the rest of the state conform to their disorder.
Yet, its not equal. Women cannot marry women (in Maine). How does that = equality to you? And inanimate objects? Also, homosexuality is NOT a psychiatric problem. Neither is idiocy, if it either were, you’d be sitting in the same waiting as me waiting to see a shrink. I don’t have a disorder, did I ever say I was gay, Jaime? You make assumptions.
I wasn’t referring to you specifically. I was only replying to your inequality comment. No woman can marry any other women. Therefore all women are equal. Makes perfect sense to me. Also, homosexuality among humans is unnatural whether biologically or religiously. What people do in the privacy of their own homes is their business, but again, don’t expect the state to conform to absurdities.
I think if everyone were equal, they could marry who they want. 1st cousins can marry but to men who love one another cannot? How is it biologically unnatural? And as for religion, the Bible is the best selling book of fiction ever, its been translated so many times that it no longer comes close to what it might well have been meant to say. I pray that you never have a child, or a friend, or a brother or sister who is gay and you tell them that they are 2nd class citizens because they are biologically unnatural.
When a heterosexual couple practices sodomy (male female or female male) in the privacy of their home it also serves no “biological” purpose and some people consider it “unnatural”. It was also illegal in many states until the “state” was forced out of the bedroom by the SCOTUS.
You are free to flag your flag any way you want.
So what have you against others being just as free ?
timjy: The state, I love is full of people who mind their business, and are tolerant of people, who are different then themselves.
Everyone is a bit queer except for thee and me…….and I’ve my doubts about thee.
I’ll vote no to gay marriage again. I don’t know anyone who’s mind has changed since the last time.
Because true love may come and go (can you say divorce?), but hatred and prejudice are forever.
No…No…No…if you voted No the last time you need to vote Yes this time. See a No vote last time was a vote against the repeal of the law so to be consistent you need to vote Yes this time!
Ha! Yes! That’s correct!
You probably don’t know many enlightened people.
If by enlightened you mean people who keep stating the same disingenuous
arguments over and over again, then yep you are right!!
“people who keep stating the same disingenuous arguments over and over again”
Like this person who keeps saying civil marriage is not a civil right, even though the US Supreme Court has stated it is?
Changed minds can be so horrifying.
A lot of dead people will be voting this time.
I know a few.
Perhaps it would be easier to abolish ALL marriages. This way everyone would be equal. Most marriages end in divorce (which is also something the bible says should never happen!). This way no one would have a problem. No more preference for insurances, taxes, etc.
Nope, we should just abolish all the tired out, used up, bogus arguments.
Do you mean like “marriage is to create a family” and other such “tired out, used up, bogus arguments”?
The states like Massachusetts that recognize marriage equality have a much lower divorce rate among their heterosexual populations than the states like Oklahoma that outlaw marriage equality in their constitutions. If the right believes in preserving marriage, shouldn’t they focus their energies on saving Red State Republicans from repeated divorces rather than fighting marriage equality in Maine.
Same sex marriage is not a right.
Well in Massachusetts it is a right…and Vermont and Connecticut and New Hampshire and Washington and the list keeps growing
Why not?
Read Loving v. Virginia, which outlawed laws against interracial marriage, and consider that the two lawyers who will argue the California ban before the Supreme Court are well-respected by all nine members of the Supreme Court. They argued opposite sides in Bush v. Gore. A conservative Supreme Court is likely to strike down the California initiative and move the nation closer to universally recognizing marriage to an adult of one’s choosing as a fundamental right.
Focus on your own bedroom, not that of others. That is what freedom is about.
It’s ironic that a good number of these judges who have ruled in favor of marriage equality and against DADT and DOMA have been conservative appointees of Republican presidents.
Fundamental human rights are validated by the common humanity of people, not political or religious doctrine. Although their denial to people seems without fail to be advocated and justified by political or religious dogma.
Awesome — can’t wait to see it pass this time.
Maine has an initiative process, you get over it.
It might be too much to ask, but hopefully the side that lied and refuses to adhere to our court rulings can be dignified in their campaign this time around.
This is, plain and simple, a human right. Why should anyone have to VOTE on rights?
The same as w/slavery, and women not being able to vote – no one wants anyone to be equal….
Again you comparing struggles that are wholly unrelated – gay marriage is not a right
And neither was interracial marriage until Loving v. Virginia in 1967.
No it is a lifestyle choice, pure and simple.
When voted on in all state by the populous(not the arrogant liberal legislatures), it is 0-33, defeated 33 times ! It is 0-3 when voted on in various forms in Maine.
Why do we keep wasting tax payer money voting on this?
“No it is a lifestyle choice, pure and simple.”
Well, if homosexuality is a “lifestyle choice, pure and simple” wouldn’t that mean heterosexuality is also a “lifestyle choice, pure and simple”? And if heterosexuality isn’t why?
~~~~~
“When voted on in all state by the populous(not the arrogant liberal legislatures), it is
0-33, defeated 33 times ! It is 0-3 when voted on in various forms in Maine.”
Please provide the month and years Maine has voted of same-sex-marriage 3 times and lost 3 time.
~~~~~
“Why do we keep wasting tax payer money voting on this?”
I couldn’t agree with you more. It is a waste of tax payer money to vote on civil rights.
The rights of the few shouldn’t ever be voted on by the many – it was passed via a law and should never have been put to a vote, wasting tax payer money.
As I posted above…It is a waste of tax payer money to vote of civil rights.
It is not a right, get a new argument.
Do you have a right to get married? Was your license to marry issued by a civil authority like a town or city clerk? Once you you took your vows did the religious or civil authority presiding over your religious or civil ceremony say words similar to “by the power vested in me by the State of Maine”?
So if the state issues the license and the state is included in the marriage ceremony how is it not a civil right?
Get a new right.
Try it.
Really.
Actually it is. Do you not know the history of marriage in the courts during these past 50 years?
The US Supreme Court has affirmed that marriage is a right.
Even murderers in jail can get married. It’s their right.
JD?
Never try to teach a pig to sing.
It wastes your time…
…and annoys the pig.
It is not a civil right and please do not project your perverted view of marriage on mine.
Do you have a right to get married? Was your license to marry issued by a
civil authority like a town or city clerk? Once you you took your vows did the religious or civil authority presiding over your religious or civil ceremony say words similar to “by the power vested in me by the State of Maine”?
So if the state issues the license and the state is included in the marriage ceremony how is it not a civil right?
And how does a same sex marriage impact your marriage anymore or less than an interracial marriage? The only one that can allow an impact to your marriage is you and only if you let it.
Our US Supreme court has indeed ruled that Civil marriage is a fundamental civil right.
And there is nothing perverted about the positive, uplifting life I have shared with my partner for decades. We would like the same protections others can get for their relationships, and there is no legitimate reason for our government to discriminate against us.
Hope you will realize our life together isn’t harming yours.
Yes
Hahaha…that’s rich! I gotta say, wow.
Homosexuality is a behavioral issue.
Really? Would you care to provide your documentation for that?
Bigotry and ignorance is a behavioral issue, good luck w/that.
Heterosexuality is a behavioural issue.
As is spellcheckin’
sic
Speaking of spellchecking, you should use it (although, your spelling would be correct if you were British)
Definition of BEHAVIOR
1: the manner of conducting oneself
2 a: anything that an organism does involving action and response to stimulation
b: the response of an individual, group, or species to its environment
—be·hav·ior·al or chiefly British be·hav·iour·al adjective
—be·hav·ior·al·ly or chiefly British be·hav·iour·al·ly adverb
Well, sometimes it can be. Gays and straights, throughout history, have had behavioral issues. Not all, of course, but some had. But I don’t think I get your point….
And heterosexuals don’t have behavioral issues?
You do know that THIS issue has been on the ballot only once.
This is the democratic process going on here, you know. You don’t like it? Are you a Communist?
Never heard of the Tyranny of the Majority before have you? Check it out, might learn a thing or two about why you are so prejudiced.
Weak argument, gay marriage is not a universal right. Such a statement is flawed because state recognition of marriage is not a universal right. States regulate marriage in many ways other than denying men the right to marry men, and women the right to marry women.
Take the GAY out of your statement. Is marriage a right? If so, then its a right for ALL, not for some. It’s not about gay marriage its about marriage. If it cannot be afforded to all, then it shouldn’t be afforded to any.
Is driving a car a right. Is having a dog or cat a right. Is owning a day care center a right. No, but the state issue’s licensees for all of these.
Huh. You’re right. I don’t have the right to own a dog or drive a car, I guess. But the fact that the state issues a license for those as well as for marriage doesn’t mean that they are all the same thing.
But you know, there is no “cat license.”
I have two unlicensed cats.
You misunderstand. We are not asking for “gay marriage.” We are not asking for something special and separate.
We are asking for the right to enter into a civl marriage with the person we love.
States regulate it, yes, and we are asking that they include us in their regulation of this legal contract.
The votes will be slightly closer this time, but same result. Mainers don’t like issues shoved down our throats.
Who’s shoving anything down your throat, If this passes your life shouldn’t be changed in any way.
You are wrong, its being pushed way too much. I will vote to get it, but its gonna be close
Exactly how does it effect you in any way ?
“Exactly how does it effect you in any way ?”
It has zero impact on my life but it impacts people that I know.
How does it effect them in any way ?
“How does it effect them in any way?” By “them” I am assuming that you are asking how does the inability to marry effect my gay friends?
Here is a partial list of some of the 1,300+ federal benefits that are only available to married heterosexual couples.
employment assistance and transitional services for spouses of members being separated from military service; continued commissary privileges
sponsor husband/wife for immigration benefits
wages of an employee working for one’s spouse are exempt from federal unemployment tax
joint filing of bankruptcy permitted
family visitation rights for the spouse and non-biological children, such as to visit a spouse in a hospital or prison
next-of-kin status for emergency medical decisions or filing wrongful death claims
domestic violence intervention
Preferential hiring for spouses of veterans in government jobs
Threats against spouses of various federal employees is a federal crime
Making spousal medical decisions
Right of survivorship of custodial
Right to inheritance of property
Spousal privilege in court cases (the marital confidences privilege and the spousal testimonial privilege)
I could go on and I hope this helps you.
Mainers also don’t like be lied to or groups that violate campaign laws.
I think it’s gays that some Mainers don’t like.
erm….
Oh, nevermind…
Maine is a blue state and the Democrats will vote against same sex marriage. It will fail 56% t0 44%.
We do have a Republican Governor…. not sure where you see all that blue
I have said before, gays and lesbians deserve rights, yes we have a republican governor. I will vote for it, but i have this gut feeling that mwb is right its gonna be a closecall
As many point out, on their bumper with their stupid 61% stickers. I stand by my statement Maine is a blue state and the Democrats will not allow same sex marriage.
Lol, we shall see, won’t we?
So how does this work again? It gets voted down 30 times and then the one time it gets approved it is approved forever.
Maine has only voted once on the issue of same sex marriage, and only 30,000 votes out of half a million cast separated the winners and losers.
Minds are changing, because we are making our case that civil marriage for same sex couples honors and affirms marriage, it doesn’t destroy it.
How many time must we vote this down?
Great . . .
Every state around us except Rhode Island has accepted gay marriage. Tourism is our number one business in Maine. How smart is it to offend a pretty significant percentage of the adult population regardless of how many of us might feel personally on the issue? We could put up another sign in Kittery. “Welcome to Maine if you are gay and don’t wish to marry here.”
You must be misinformed, MA collected 170000 votes to put in a ballot in 2006 to over turn it, which would have easily won to over turn but some appointed liberal DukaKis judge ruled that they couldnt have the vote.
So no it would have been 0-34 if voted on in MA.
http://voteonmarriage.org/editorials.shtml#bh111006
Maine isn’t Mass but you folk keep coming north bringing your MassHole ways with you.
EgggManagementFee you might want to do some research before you post inaccurate information and end up with your eggs all over your face.The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts in 2004 found that the Massachusetts State Constitution could not limit marriage to one man, one woman.That same court ruled in 2006 “that Massachusetts legislators have a constitutional obligation to vote on all voter initiatives before them before the end of any joint session.”
In 2007 the proposed amendment (banning same-sex-marriage) to the Massachusetts Constitution was defeated when it failed to receive 25% of the members’ votes as required.
By the way, I am shocked, SHOCKED that you do not support a state Supreme Courts decision in cases like this. If the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts had struck down the tough gun laws as being unconstitutional I am sure you would be praising that same court.
“Significant percentage” Little bit of a stretch don’t we think?
I did a little fact checking before making the comment. I struggled with that as I didn’t want to say 2% or 20%, – there are alot of conflicting studies. Whatver the number, if there is one, I don’t think this continuing battle does anything positive for Maine’s image.
LePage only had just under 40%.
So did Clinton.
The FIRST time.
What business is it to anyone, what someone else wants to do? As long as it doesn’t have ANYTHING to do with ANYONE else?
Even if the law says you can get married, you still have to find someone willing to marry you.
If this passes, I plan to become a notary, and I’ll be more than willing to marry gay couples!
Boring!
The state has no business interfering with who people choose to marry.
The state should regulate civil unions only and leave marriage for churches, cultures and couples to define.
And if same sex marriage can weaken your marriage, then your marriage is already weak.
“The state has no business interfering with who people choose to marry”
Yes they do I bet you cannot marry your mom or your dad or any of your siblings…
“And if same sex marriage can weaken your marriage, then your marriage is already weak”
The point you miss is same sex marriage weakens the institution of marriage, please stop projecting…
Did they say the same about colord people if they had rights it would weaken the united states ?? Was the same about interachal marriage ?
Well thats to bad. I wonder…………how many times does it have to fail before its accepted that Maine people do not approve of same sex MARRIAGE. Equal rights for same sex unions…yes! Marriage….NO!!
It takes time to change generations, this has been going on in school for years to change the minds of kids, so they do have 3 years of new brain washed minds. This is only one thing being done in today’s schools, the liberals/unions have control of the education, and only time will tell how screwed up this country is.
Care to provide an example of this in Maine? Remember, classroom curriculum is discussed and approved at the local school board level in Maine.
Seems to me that the anti side doesn’t seem to understand that there is no way they are going to stop it from becoming legal eventually.
Seems kind of dense to me.
If you weren’t allowed to marry the person you love more than your own life, at what point do you think that YOU would give-up ?
After a year ? After five ?
Would you give up after ten years?
SSM WILL be legal in Maine.
It will be because gay people who love one another and are devoted to one another are just as in love and as devoted as you.
Maybe even more so, since they’re faced with paying higher taxes and a steady stream of condemnation and lies hurled at them.
This is BS know they should have to wait 5yrs. before it goes back on the ballot. Tell them to move somewhere else. Adam and Eve not Adam and Gev. Mainers have said no no 2or3 times enough is enough. Let it go we do not want same sex marriages here in Maine.
Yes, we do want same sex marriage in Maine!
While I do not want my childern to see this kind of BS going on.
So you let your children watch heterosexual couples engaging in intercourse?
What a pig you are to say that.
Well you responded to a question with “While I do not want my childern to see this kind of BS going on.”What “BS” are you referring to then? A couple (or couples) can walk down the street today and kiss and grope all the want and there is nothing you or I can do to stop it. Do you keep your children in a room and not allow them out? If you found my comment offensive I will apologize for it but seriously what “BS” are you referring to?
do you let your kids play video games? I hear the most popular ones with kids these days involve war games, and speeding cars that crash into flames, and kickboxing one’s opponent til blood spurts out of his head….kids these days….amazing that people don’t want to let their kids see images of committed loving couples getting married, but they let them play violent video games and watch news of wars going on all over the world.
Then quit spewing BS?
Your children probably don’t understand why same sex marriage is something you oppose, anyway.
And, more than likely, if you have 3 or more children, one of them will be gay. Or commit suicide in their early teens if you force them to be someone they aren’t. Just saying….
I have to giggle about the Adam and Eve thing……you know the story right? God told them not to eat the forbidden fruit (have sex) and they did anyway and were kicked out of the garden of Eden for disobeying god by having sex…..and as the first man and woman on earth, their children had to have sex with each other to further the race. So, according to you, mankind was born from the incest of a family of brothers and sisters.
Must have hit a nerve.
No, I think you hit Seth’s “funny bone”.
“This is BS know they should have to wait 5yrs. before it goes back on the ballot.”
Fine then change the Maine Constitution. But Maine voters have NEVER voted to allow SSM.
~~~~~
“Tell them to move somewhere else. Adam and Eve not Adam and Gev. Mainers have said no no 2or3 times enough is enough.”
Can you list the 2 or 3 times Mainers have voted to allow SSM and Maine has said No?
Must have hit a nerve
No nerves hit for me there Eastie.
You simple made two statement that are not supported by facts.
#1 – “This is BS know they should have to wait 5yrs. before it goes back on the ballot.”
There is no “timeout” requirement in the Maine Constitution. And since this is the first time this question has gone before the Maine voters and “timeout” requirement would not come into play.
#2 – “Tell them to move somewhere else. Adam and Eve not Adam and Gev. Mainers have said no no 2or3 times enough is enough.”
Maine voters have never voted to specifically allow SSM (in fact, this could be the first time in teh U.S. the citizens have voted on a question to allow SSM but I am not sure). They did vote to repeal (veto) a law that allowed SSM but have never to allow it. So, I asked you to “list the 2 or 3 times Mainers have voted to allow SSM and Maine has said No?” So can you list those 2 or 3 times or not?
You must be for the gay marriages. Well I am not and I wish they would stop pushing it on to the Maine voters. Eastie
Yes, and scaring the horses.
OK, perhaps it just me scaring the ponies…
guess it is time to get a constitutional ban going in maine.Maybe then they will harrass some other state.
We are your neighbors, your coworkers, your friends and family. We are Mainers too. Why oppose our legitimate need to be treated equally by our government?
getting help instead of enabling would be equal treatment.
I would like some help gaining civil marriage equality in this state, hopefully enough Mainers will vote with me this fall!
Guess which voting blocks come out in droves during President election years? Young people and liberals! Maine will join the rest of New England this November.
You mean all the disenfranchised OBAMA supporters who have scene hopey changey no worky?
Got news for you but every person with no job who just love $5 a gallon gas will be coming out in droves to boot him, his liberal friends and defeat this for the 4th time!
Based on what? Even the Rasmussen polls (they lean far right) have each Republican candidate polling at 10 points bellow Obama.
Sorry pumpkin, the veto last time was close. Not only have minds changed, but there is 3 years worth of new voters that’ll be casting ballots as well. Plus, several states have since legalized gay marriage as well and the sky hasn’t fallen in those places!
Things look great for equality :-)
Either you have a memory problem, a knowledge problem or a reading comprehension problem?
When has Maine voted on SSM 3 times and defeated it? When?
Hummmmmm, obama says marriage should be between a man and a woman??
Irrelevant. Obama is a moderate on the issue. Most liberals are not.
And he also said he would not support a Constitutional Amendment defining marriage as one man one woman. Your point?
Extreme Republicans should prepare to get their keister’s kicked, Charlie.
According to the 9th circus court what we vote is irrelevant as it is unconstitutional? When THE PEOPLE vote that is the law not to be undone by a few judges. Marriage by definition is the joining of a man and a women. The only reason they want to bastardize the word marriage is the word has LEGAL meaning far beyond the definition. If two men or two women or a man a rock want to become legally joined then so be it but give it a name instead of trying to change a word that already has meaning.
Well the way the US works is we have a Constitution and it guarantees certain things. It is the highest order in terms of law. You can’t make laws that violate the Constitution because the Constitution trumps.
So that I understand your argument let me ask you this.
If the people of the state of Maine voted to ban all handguns, semi-automatic rifles with detachable magazines, semi-automatic shotguns, etc…and the First Circuit Court declared the law as unconstitutional you wouldn’t be OK with that because “THE PEOPLE vote that is the law not to be undone by a few judges”?
You need to take a civics class, and learn how our government works.
Our US Constitution is the basis for our laws. If the people enact a law that runs counter to our US Constitution, it must be struck down.
300,848 voted against it last time, All this says is 85,000 want to see
it on the ballot again. Thats only about 30,000 more than they got last
time and just because someone agrees it should be on the ballot doesnt
mean they’re going to vote to approve it.
No, less than 300,000 voted against it. Less than 30,000 votes separated the winners and losers, hardly a decisive victory.
We are changing minds by calmly talking about this issue and making our case.
I know I changed at least one person’s mind. He voted against SSM last time, but immediately felt he had made the wrong decision. Believe me, I will remind him of this before he votes next time. This time Maine will lead by having the people enact marriage equality.
Samuel 18:3 Then Jonathan and David made a
covenant, because he loved him as his own soul.
just sayin’
all your saying is that two men in the bible had a freindship based on a promise. read a little more and you’ll find that at least one of them had a hetero-sexual partner. your reference neither states that either was gay, nor does it indicate that gayness was promoted by the bible. it really doesnt matter anyway because wether the bible is for or against gay marraige isnt the issue.
Ah, they could very well have been Bi, like most Romans were….
perhaps but it still only indicates that homo-sexuals existed in that day. it hardly advocates for or against homosexuality or gay marraige. Prostitution existed back then as well and is documented in the same book. Does that mean the bible is advocating for it?
Kind of irrelevant. The debate is about civil law. But if we are going to talk about religion, I find it funny that some religious people seem to gays need to be singled out and have the punishments for their “sins” codified in law. What about adulterers? What about those who have had divorces? Why aren’t they being denied rights?
what?….you must be mis posted, this wasnt about religion, it was actually about not making it about religion, especially with irrelevant refrences that say nothing.
Some states only allow you to be married so many times, and then you can not get married in that state, so would that not classify as punishment? or singling out someone, if you want to get married under “Equality” then you can get married as many times as you want. It is not a birth right to get married, it’s a state law and the state has the right to grant you that right or not. its just like your drivers license it can be denied, or does not have to be issued in the 1st place.
Fine, claim that all you want. But if you want to single out a group of people and give them special privileges, you have to have to have a legitimate purpose in barring others from those same rights. What is that legitimate purpose? A gay couple lives together, has a family, a home, etc. — what benefit arrises from barring them from the rights/responsibilities associated with marriage? What good comes from that?
“Some states only allow you to be married so many times, and then you can
not get married in that state, so would that not classify as
punishment?”
Name them with the supporting laws.
85K signatures! YESSSSSSS!
I guess Equality Maine didn’t get the memo that we’re not supposed to put civil rights to a vote of the people…….
if that where the case, the people’s veto should not have been allowed, and we would have legal same sex marriage in this state.
There would have to be a court case for that.
Don’t get me wrong; I’m all in favor of the vote. In fact, until and unless the Supreme Court rules that there is a constitutional right to marriage equality (hopefully that’ll happen sooner than later), it’s going to have to be fought in the states by whatever means–lawsuits, legislative lobbying, or referendums. I was actually being facetious in my previous comment; I’ve read posts by some supporters of equality who are so inflexible about not letting the people vote on marrige that they’ve criticized the Maine effort as “putting civil rights up for a vote.” I think this is short-sighted; before women’s suffrage was established by constitutional amendment, several states legalized it by referendum, which gave great momentum to the amendment effort. Until same-sex marriage is a national right, I say get it done in the states by any means necessary.
You mean like getting it on the ballot ?
The banner for same sex marriage is “Equality for All” so under that banner, can two sister or brothers, lets say in their 50’s one works at EMMC and one works at Burger King, they are not gay, can they get married for the benefits, IE: medical, they bought a house together, life ins ect…..
Now if these people can not get married why? Where is their “Equality”, the problem with having kids with birth defects are out the window. So if you say they can not get married you just drew your line in the sand, right not the line is drawn between a man and a woman, where will the line be drawn it has to be some where, how about more then one wife or one husband, where is their “Equality”
I want ot marry my dog, cat or horse ect… Where is their “Equality”
Just where will the line be.
Zzzzzzz, the dog argument, is that all you have?
Perhaps you need to learn how to read, that was just something I threw in at the end.
I find it hilarious that the same people who hate being labeled as a bigot are the same ones who see no issue with comparing a consensual gay relationship to that of bestiality. Funny or hypocritical.
Answer the question, is it sisters or brothers, maybe cousins, is the main point of the comment, has nothing to do with comparing anything, my point is “Equality” or are you just to dumb to understand that, when the line is moved, all the crazies will start yelling where is my “Equality”
which includes having two or more wives, and that has already came out, on the news the other week.
My comment is about where the line is now, and where will it end up.
When these laws pass, there are literally thousands of couples who immediately seek marriage licenses. That isn’t true for all the examples you’re citing. Further, it’s not even the same issue. When someone wants to raise the speed limit on the highway, you don’t make them also talk about speed limits for boats and airplanes. All you’re doing is trying to change the subject and divert attention from the fact that you don’t have an argument to deny gays marriage rights beyond pure disdain.
“Answer the question, is it sisters or brothers,”
Scientific reason and basis for not allowing a sisters and brothers to marry.
~~~~~
“maybe cousins,”
In Maine first cousins can marry with genetic counseling.
~~~~~
“is the main point of the comment, has nothing to do with comparing anything, my point is “Equality” or are you just to dumb to understand that,”
No fwteagle is not to “dumb” to answer your insulting question.
~~~~~
“when the line is moved, all the crazies will start yelling where is my
“Equality””
Funny thing about a Free Country. People will say and do just about anything. Westbough Baptist Church comes to mind.
~~~~~
“which includes having two or more wives, and that has already came out, on the news the other week. ”
Care to provide the source?
~~~~
“My comment is about where the line is now, and where will it end up.”
So, if everything you say is true then the Commonwealth of Massachusetts where SSM has been legal since 2004 should by now have legalized incestuous marriage, bestiality marriage, etc…right? Or they should have bills in the hopper to legalize all the “slippery slope” arguments that are trotted out every time SSM comes up.
Well where is your line, sisters, brothers, multi wives or husbands?
“The banner for same sex marriage is “Equality for All” so under that banner, can two sister or brothers, lets say in their 50’s one works at EMMC and one works at Burger King, they are not gay, can they get married for the benefits, IE: medical, they bought a house together,
life ins ect…..”
Simple answer…No
~~~~
“Now if these people can not get married why? Where is their “Equality”, the problem with having kids with birth defects are out the window. So if you say they can not get married you
just drew your line in the sand, right not the line is drawn between a man and a woman, where will the line be drawn it has to be some where, how about more then one wife or one husband, where is their “Equality”
It is is prohibited by law in all 50 states. Same-sex-marraige is no longer prohibited in all 50 states and the 14th Amendment prohibits state and local governments from depriving persons of life, liberty, or property without certain steps being taken to ensure fairness. When a SSM couple move from one state like Massachusetts to say Virginia where SSM is not recognized the Commonwealth of Virginia deprive the married couple of the rights and privileges (Liberty) they enjoyed in Massachusetts. That is a constitutional violation.
~~~~~
“I want ot marry my dog, cat or horse ect… Where is their “Equality” ”
Jed if you want to have sex with Duke well I don’t think Duke can provide consent nor do I think that he would find it enjoyable.
~~~~~
Care to try again?
Concern trolling.
We are fighting for marriage equality for same sex couples. If you want to start a drive for legalizing polygamy or anything else, please take that on for yourself.
Why did so much probably out of state money come in last time? Is it possible that maybe non Mainer’s worked to defeat the bill passed by the legislature? Can we not respect the rights of all Mainers?
dunno….is it possible that maybe non Mainers are pushing for it to succeed as well?
Trace the line of money on the other side bet george soros, or one of his connections has money in there some where
LOL! It’s always George Soros. Let me guess, ACORN was in on it too? Anchor babies?
Actually, you don’t need to “trace the line of money.” They No on 1 side actually followed the law and disclosed their donors.
Jed the only group that refused to not release a list of donors was NOM. They have fought the law and lost at every turn and still are in violation of state law.
Sure, but don’t forget us Mainers working as hard as we can. I went door to door in my neighborhood to get signatures for the petition drive and I also gave as much as I could afford to help the cause…there are a lot of us here in Maine doing the same thing.
That’s exactly what happened. The National Organization for Marriage spent a ton of money here and refused to adhere to our campaign laws — they wouldn’t disclose who donated the money. Our courts here ruled against them and they still have disclosed. Top that all off with the fact that Mark Mutty the leader of that campaign to repeal admitted to lying and using scare tactics to win. Not exactly noble.
Its about “Equality” as soon as you change it for one you will have to change it for all, there will be no end to who will want it to fit their life style.
Yeah, because when women got the right to vote it led to children and animals voting? Your argument is weak.
Why is it you only focus on one thing, you have something for animals.
Quit being a WHIMP, and answer the question: Where is your line in the sand?
Ironic you can’t answer the same exact question. If gay marriage will lead to children/animal marriage, why didn’t women voting lead to children/animal voting?
Pssst…you were the one that brought animals into the discussion.
You always only point to one thing I posted, My point is for you cause your so dam simple, is
can anyone get married, or is this change only for same sex marriage.
You say anyONE can get married. A dog is an anyTHING, as he cannot voice is opinion nor give his consent. If you really want to get hitched to Fido, you go for it, Jed. Erase the gay/same sex from your marriage equation and its marriage for EVERYONE. How’s them clam, Jed?
Hey again Jed: I just wanted to chime in here to say that 1. Choosing to be religious or choosing one’s religion is a life-style choice. Moving to Boca…a lifestyle choice. Deciding to be a vegan….a lifestyle choice. Being gay…not so much. It’s a part of who I am, but there was no choice involved, and since I have a firsthand knowledge, my research into the matter is pretty concrete.
thanks for reading. Always a pleasure.
They way you choose to have sex is your choice period.
So if two gay guys choose to not have sex, and want to get married, that would be OK with you ?
Why do you even care what consenting adults do in private ?
I have yet to see you explain how two guys or gals getting married impacts you IN ANY WAY.
Please, feel free to explain that.
Jed: Sorry, but I just have a question for you: Is there a reason you think about sex and seemingly, only sex, when you think about two men in a relationship. After 13 years together, my husband and I don’t think about it 1/4 as much as you seem to think about it.
If you are married, then you know that a strong relationship and bond between married couples rarely, if ever, revolves around sex.
Personally, my relationship revolves around companionship and how many times I can put a smile on my husband’s face during the day, because I do love seeing his eyes twinkle and his goofy grin spread across his face.
thanks for reading.
Thanks for giving me permission to make love to my wife any way I want….oye!
Really? Please point to any nation, or any US state, where legalizing same sex marriage has led to this.
The only thing that happens when same sex marriage is legalized is that same sex couples get married.
Marriage should be about love and adding loving couples to the institution of marriage will only strengthen it, not devalue it in any way. I have been in a loving and committed relationship for 13 years…I am sure that marrying my husband is the right thing to do. with 50% of new births happening to unwed couples and a 40% divorce rate, Federal marriage as it stands now is hardly the perfect institution that people purport it to be. Allowing for marriage equality only strengthens marriage.
Did anyone read that the New York State Marriage Bureau had revenues up 10% since marriage equality passed, and that is just the the government making money. How many florists and chefs and inn keepers and bridal shops and department stores have seen their wedding revenues rise with the legalization of marriage equality? This will be a law that will create jobs and help small businesspeople across our great state of Maine.
Thanks for reading everyone, have a great weekend.
Where is the “Equality”, can you have more then one wife or husband, where is their “Equality”
Based on what your are saying, then one husband and 4 wives, would cost more, more flowers, more dressers, ect… It is not true “Equality” when it is only based on one life style.
Hey Jed: Thanks for getting back to me. The great thing about our country is that groups can get together and fight for a common good. The Lesbian and Gay communities have been fighting for marriage equality for a long time. If the polygamists want to try making their unions legal, then they have the right to try. They will probably have an easier time refuting the religious folk because there is more polygamy going on in the bible that you can imagine. Abraham had those two wives, remember? Anyway, I digress. When polygamists stand up to have their voices heard, I will listen, but for now….I am just here to try and get married to the one person who lights up my world when he walks in the door.
thanks and have a great evening!
The bible says you can but law says you can , Bible says you can stone your wife but law says you can’t
It is not “Equality” if it is only changed for same sex marriage, it has to be changed for anyone that wants to get married to fit the “Equality for All” banner. I do not really care who is in your bed, but change it for all or none.
Who do you want it changed for?
I think Jed got into Granny’s “white lightning”.
Sorry I do not drink, as I have said and you simple minds can not understand, there is always a line in the sane on every decision and someone will not be happy, right now the line is a man and a woman, then it will be drawn at either a man and woman or same sex, well why not multi wives or husbands, this law does not give them equality, this not about what God said, evolution this or that, its about where does it stop and start? Which group or so called minority yells the most next time.
I have had this discussion with my daughter and step daughter both in same sex relationships, both understood my point, I got (Hum I never thought of it that way) but no on two brothers and no on two sisters getting married, so they drew their line in the sand. Plain and simple it is where is your line???? Nobody has had the balls to stand up say except for a man and woman, all you do is bash someone or bring up something else that is no to the point. Answer the question “Where Is Your Line in the Sand”
Maybe the swinger community would like to be able to marry two men and two women to share all those 1300+ benefits.
What is wrong with leaving marriage as is and doing civil unions?? as long as it covers all those benefits you want.
In fact both my step daughter and daughter disagree with male and male marriage???? now that surprised the hell out of me.
“Well doggies”!
“Nobody has had the balls to stand up say except for a man and woman, all
you do is bash someone or bring up something else that is no to the
point. Answer the question “Where Is Your Line in the Sand””
I have already stated what “my line in the sand” is. But you keep bringing up animals. It isn’t legal. We are not talking about an animal that clearly cannot give consent for a sexual act. You also brought up pedophilia which is also illegal. A child cannot give informed consent and pedophilia is a crime of power and control.
And when I ask for examples of the “slippery slope” theory in practice from states that permit SSM no one every provides any. Why? Because it isn’t happening anywhere!
What we are talking about are two consenting adults (same or opposite gender) that have entered into a committed relationship with full knowledge and consent. No coercion, no threat, no power or control and if there was any coercion, threat, power or control it would be classified as rape.
~~~~~
“Maybe the swinger community would like to be able to marry two men and two women to share all those 1300+ benefits.”
Interesting point. But I suspect that the swinger community do what they do because they believe in an “open relationship” without needing, wanting or desiring a long term commitment aside from the one they are married to (for those that are married).
~~~~~
“What is wrong with leaving marriage as is and doing civil unions?? as long as it covers all those benefits you want. ”
Because those that oppose SSM (NOM, Catholic Church, etc…) have said they will oppose Civil Unions just as they oppose SSM. See that “line in the sand” means different things to different people and groups. You are OK with Civil Unions (I would be interested to learn if you would support brother-brother or sister-sister Civil Unions since you keep going back to that as one of your examples) but others are not.
So why shouldn’t the Gay and Lesbian community go for broke and demand marriage. It is a Civil License issued by all 50 states after all.
Unless you see logic in banning heterosexual marriage until man-goat marriage is allowed, this ‘for all or none’ approach just ain’t gonna cut it.
Equality
noun, plural -ties.1.the state or quality of being equal; correspondence inquantity, degree, value, rank, or ability.
Stop hiding the behind the “Equality” banner, when all you want is to pass a law for one group, lifestyle, or special interest group.
YAY! Let’s make history by becoming the first state to legalize marriage equality by popular vote! We’ll set a model for the rest of the nation while we wait for nationwide and federal recognition as DOMA and Prop 8 are worked out in the courts. ENDA and SNDA will likely see passage soon. Already 6 states and DC have legalized same-sex marriage and Maryland’s governor is about to sign it into law following the Senate’s passage today. 12 other states are considering marriage equality this year. We’re nearly there – we’re so close to a country that fully recognizes its gay and lesbian citizens equally. The ignorant have lost ground and they’re panicking. Hold strong and we’ll get there together!
Somebody please tell me why anybody cares why a man and man or women and women get married? A real reason why two people of the same sex getting married somehow effects your life?
It’s a slippery slope issue. During the Clinton Administration, the push was to add sexual orientation as a civil right, similar to race, gender, religion, etc. At the time, most supporters said they had no intention of pursuing gay marriage, as they were happy with having civil unions. Today, they say gay marriage is now a “civil rights” issue, but they have no intention of forcing churches to perform gay marriage ceremonies. If gay marriage becomes accepted nation-wide, gay activists will then turn their attention to their “real” concern–which is to end any religious “bias” and force any form of non-compliance to the gay agenda into the court system, which will end up with prosecutions of Christians who don’t comply. Furthermore, this will likely open the door to other “alternative” sexual practices being recognized, because once you move off of what was always the “norm”, you have no reason to not allow other people their “rights” as well. That is why we care about preserving marriage as between one man and one woman.
Spurious reasoning. Nowhere have these things come to pass where gay marriage is legal. No nation where gays can marry have gone on to ‘open the door to other alternative sexual practices being recognized’ whatever that means.
If you can’t argue against the merits of civil marriage for gays and lesbians without warning of vague “what comes next” arguments, you have no argument against gay marriage.
Both sides have used “what comes next” arguments. As I recall, it wasn’t too long ago that the proponents of civil unions were saying not to worry about gay marriage, because it’s not coming next, and that they were only asking for civil unions. Now, I could be wrong about that – I’ll admit that this homosexual union/marriage thing isn’t the top thing on my mind – but that’s my impression.
A few years ago there was a referendum to repeal changes in Maine’s anti-discrimination laws, because sexual orientation was added alongside religious view, race, and gender.
At that time proponents of keeping the law were rightly arguing that the referendum was not about gay marriage— because it wasn’t.
Nothing that came before in Maine law has led to a call for gay marriage. Our need for civil marriage rights has not changed or become more urgent with the passage of any other legislation. We are fighting for civil marriage based on the merits of civil marriage alone.
Thanks for your viewpoint on this, and I understand this issue isn’t at the top of most Mainers minds. I have a clear interest, because I want to enter into civil marriage with the man I have shared my life with for decades.
My point is – and I’m not arguing for or against same sex marriage here – that the arguments have progressed gradually over a long time and that neither side is pure when it comes to their arguments and strategies. Call it what you want, “what comes [does not come] next”, the “thin edge of the wedge”, etc. both sides do it.
I don’t believe my arguments are “vague.” Marriage is and always has been a union between a man and a woman. There’s nothing any clearer than that. The gay lobby is the one muddling the waters.
Go Gays. Maybe this time around you will be allowed to be married and face the same misrable existance as the rest of us. :)
let’s hope so Jazz. Sorry your marriage is miserable. I think it’s that way for a lot of folks. Marriage Equality will bring a whole group of committed loving adults into the institution of marriage and breathe new life into the old girl.
This is complete nonsense! Homosexuality runs counter to both evolution and Christianity, in that, it neither perpetuates the human species or follows the plain teaching of the Bible. Why we would want to recognize something that is so unnatural is beyond me! If people want to have this lifestyle, they are free to do so already. But why change the traditional meaning of marriage just to give an implied government recognition of this lifestyle choice?
but yet you recognize polyester, air conditioning, plastic, computers, and a whole host of other things that are “unnatural.” as you put it.
And just so you know….loving my husband of 13 years is the most natural thing I have ever done. thank you.
I don’t think that polyester, air conditioning, plastic,and computers, or even ski lifts for that matter, are unnatural.
I agree that those things are unnatural, but I don’t try to take the names of cotton, wood, or any other natural products and redefine the unnatural with them. Let’s keep recognizing that which is natural as natural, and that which is unnatural as unnatural. And congratulations on your 13 year relationship with your significant other! :-)
Denying equal access to civil benefits and privileges without rational reason runs counter to our US Constitution.
We are fighting for civil marriage— we already can (and do) have religious marriage ceremonies in churches, and have for decades.
We are not free to protect our families in the same way heterosexual couples can. There are 1,300+ privileges and benefits contingent on marital status at the federal level alone, and these are what we are petitioning our government for.
We are your neighbors, your friends, your coworkers, your family members. And we wish to have the same opportunity to honor and uphold marriage as you have. We aren’t seeking to change the meaning of marriage, we are seeking to join it.
Are you also open to legal polygamy? How about laws that prevent children from getting married? The historic meaning behind the concept of marriage has always been to have God bless the union between a man and a woman in order to produce children. Civil benefits and privileges that have emerged for married people are centered around promoting an environment for healthy procreation. The compromise that society has provided for gay couples is the civil union. If we need to bolster the benefits for those in civil unions to provide similar treatment for gays couples that heterosexual couples enjoy, then let’s address those areas. But “marriage” is and always will be meant to describe the relationship between one man and one woman, regardless of what certain governments choose to declare.
If “the historic meaning behind the concept of marriage has always been to
have God bless the union between a man and a woman in order to produce
children” then why does a Civil institution (the state) issue “Marriage License” through another Civil institution (city and town clerks)?
The State issues marriage licenses in order to regulate couples who will be procreating and raising children. This way they can best regulate who the legal guardians of the children are.
OK PureLogic101 let’s assume for the moment that your statement is correct.
Why then is a marriage license necessary for a post menopausal woman to marry?
Or, why is a marriage license necessary for a male that has had a vasectomy?
Or, why is a marriage license necessary for a woman that has had a tubal ligation, hysterectomy, etc…?
Or, why is a marriage license necessary for a couple with know fertility problems?
And where on the marriage license application does it ask or state anything about “procreation”?
And how does the state “regulate who the legal guardians” or parents are of children born to single woman?
You obviously can’t change or adjust the marriage license process to handle everyone’s specific medical situation, given that all of the medical cases you listed combined would represent a small minority of people seeking marriage. The application does not mention procreation because it has always been known that children are the natural product of a heterosexual marriage union, in nearly all instances throughout history. Children born to single women would obviously belong legally to the woman who gave birth, unless she offers the child up for adoption. I don’t believe that listing all of the exceptions to the historical norm changes what the intent of marriage is, and always has been. This ultimately comes down to gays wanting full acceptance by all of society of their sexual preferences. More specifically, it comes down to gays wanting to challenge and punish Christians for following their consciences and their God.
PureLogic101 I read your entire post and came down to the last sentence, “More specifically, it comes down to gays wanting to challenge and punish
Christians for following their consciences and their God.”
If that were the case wouldn’t “gays” demand to get married in ALL religious institutions? Wouldn’t that be the ultimate “punishment’ towards a Christian?
But will all your fluff, smoke and mirrors your objection to SSM has nothing to do with “the state” regulating “couples who will be procreating and raising children” or the state regulating “who the legal guardians of the children are” but with denying your fellow citizens their constitution rights.
And in a Secular Society it is a document like the Constitution that is the supreme law of the land.
The Bible has been used by those in power to keep the without power in check for years.
The Bible has been used to justify genocide of nonbeliever for thousands of years.
The Bible has been used by Kings, Politicians and Potentates alike to justify their rule over their people.
The Bible has been used by “Christian” denominations like the Westboro Baptist Church (and before you scream that they are not “Christian”, that is what they call themselves and until and unless the other “Christian” denomination start counter protesting what they believe and say the ARE a “Christian” Church)
Your true colors have been shown TrueLogic101, the United States of American is a secular country. Ruled by the Rule of Law grounded in the U.S. Constitution. I have seen what a Theocracy looks like and it is not pretty. If it is a Theocracy you wish, I would suggest you look to the east for examples of what they are and how they can destroy a Free Country.
Your true colors as an anti-Christian bigot are now clear based upon this post. Trying to lump true Christians in with the Westboro cult and genocidal movements would be like me saying that adult gays and child molesters are all one in the same. I am by no means calling for a theocracy as you indicated. The issue remains the same–if we redefine marriage to include groupings other than one man and one woman, where will it end? Are you ok with polygamy? Why shouldn’t an adult man be allowed to marry a 13-year-old? What if your neighbor wants to marry his dog, so that he can get medical coverage through his health care plan? Once you start redefining marriage from what it has always meant, you’ve set a precedent that can lead anywhere.
PureLogic101 I read your entire post and the came to the last sentence, “it comes down to gays wanting to challenge and punish Christians for following their consciences and their God.”
Well at least have shown your true colors with post like this one and another where you state, “”the gay rights agenda is more about destroying Christianity than it is about securing legal rights for gays.”
If either of these two statements were true wouldn’t “gays” be demanding that ALL religious institutions perform SSM? Wouldn’t that be the best way to “punish” Christianity?
But here is the “saving grace” of the United States of America. It is called the U.S. Constitution and it is the foundation of our society, our laws and our institutions.
See, the Bible has been used by different religious groups to commit genocide on people of differing faiths and beliefs.
The Bible has been used by Kings, Politicians and Potentates to keep themselves in power and their people in check.
The Bible has been used by “Christian” churches to protest at military funerals. And before you scream that the Westboro Baptist Church is not a “Christian” church it is because they call themselves a Christian Church.
The United States of America is a secular society and the Bible is not the law of the land. It cannot be used by the government to keep any one religion, denomination, group, church or
person in power or to give any one religion, denomination, group, church or person power. The document this country derives it power from is the Constitution.
I have looked to the east and I have seen what a Theocracy looks like and what it can do to a society and its people. I don’t wish, desire or want to see that happen in this country and by
allowing “Christianity” to hold more sway or power than any other religion it could very well happen in deed.
The short answer to your question, PureLogic101, is simply to annoy bigots like you.
Supporting what has been normal and practical for the entire span of human history can hardly be characterized as bigotry, in any rational sense. Your obvious anger against those who support traditional marriage will work against you in this campaign, just so you know.
PureLogic101 slavery was considered “normal” and “practical” for centuries in various cultures including this one. If you ran across someone that still believe slavery was “normal” and “practical” would you not use the word “bigot” to describe them?
That’s quite a leap, to put the gay rights movement on the same level as the racist slave culture? Do you feel that the lack of universal recognition of gay marriage is as significant an injustice as forcing someone into slavery? I don’t see it. Our society has established civil unions to provide gay couples with the legal rights that married couples have. Pushing for gay marriage is an overreach.
For someone with the word “Logic” in their screen name you have issues with answering simple questions.
I asked you if you would use the word “Bigot” to describe someone that supported slavery as “normal” and “practical”. That is a simple Yes or No answer. So what is your answer? Yes or No?
And your statement “Our society has established civil unions to provide gay couples with the legal rights that married couples have” is completely and utterly false.
There is no universal or country wide “Civil Union” law that extend the same legal rights to a gay couple as a married couple. That is just not the case.
There are over 1,300+ legal rights and benefits just on the federal level that a married couple enjoy that a “civil union” couple do not.
There is also no “Civil Union” law in the state of Maine. And if the legislature tried to create one NOM and the Catholic Church have both stated they would fight the law AND petition for a “People’s Veto” if such a law passed.
So care to answer the “bigot” question now?
Yes, yes, yes, of course I would call a slave supporter a bigot. I thought that was obvious from my response? You should be careful assuming that people who do not support gay marriage are the same people who are racists. These beliefs are in no way related or even close to being comparable.
Civil unions in Maine would be an easy issue to get passed through the referendum process, if that is what you focused upon. But, unfortunately, the gay rights agenda is more about destroying Christianity than it is about securing legal rights for gays. They are just so blinded by this ambition that they would never be able to admit it.
PureLogic101 I haven’t assumed anything about you. I asked a very straight forward question and you ducked the question so I asked a more direct question.
But by asking that direct question you have finally revealed your true colors, “the gay rights agenda is more about destroying Christianity than it is about securing legal rights for gays.”
In one of your other post you claim “it comes down to gays wanting to challenge and punish Christians for following their consciences and their God.”
If either of these two statements were true wouldn’t “gays” be demanding that ALL religious institutions perform SSM? Wouldn’t that be the best way to “punish” Christianity?
But here is the “saving grace” of the United States of America. It is called the U.S. Constitution and it is the foundation of our society, our laws and our institutions.
See, the Bible has been used by different religious groups to commit genocide on people of differing faiths and beliefs.
The Bible has been used by Kings, Politicians and Potentates to keep themselves in power and their people in check.
The Bible has been used by “Christian” churches to protest at military funerals. And before you scream that the Westboro Baptist Church is not a “Christian” church it is because they call themselves a Christian Church.
The United States of America is a secular society and the Bible is not the law of the land. It cannot be used by the government to keep any one religion, denomination, group, church or person in power or to give any one religion, denomination, group, church or person power. The document this country derives it power from is the Constitution.
I have looked to the east and I have seen what a Theocracy looks like and what it can do to a society and its people. I don’t wish, desire or want to see that happen in this country and by allowing “Christianity” to hold more sway or power than any other religion it could very well happen in deed.
Bigot: Someone who refuses to be persuaded to change their mind for someone elses cause.
Someone who sticks to what they believe in, solidly.
Not a bad word, actually it’s a compliment.
If hatred and intolerance are qualities you admire, I don’t see where you leave any room in your heart for love.
So in order for me to have love in my heart
I have to side with someone?
Fair enough you’ll see to it that people
with kids no longer get to tax deduct them
with this vote so I can have my money
stay in my pay check for my family?
Oh yeah, I remember now— you’re the one who argues that civil marriage rights shouldn’t be given to anyone, for any reason.
Have a good day, I don’t think we’ll change each others minds when we can’t even agree that partnering with a soul mate for your life is something society should encourage.
Wrong I’m the one who thinks why should
anyone have to pay the government to get
permission to bind themselves to
another person and again pay to get permission
to unbind themselves if it turns bad.
So your giving up already? Ok bye.0
None of this made any sense to me. What were you trying to say?
That according to some people if you don’t
agree with them, you hate them. Which is
rarely true.
Everyone wants to have their own way
about something but no one wants to
give up anything to get their own way.
Everything in life has a price that I can
see. I want to keep more of my income
for my family. So if gays want to get married
then if they will agree the married couples
and people with kids can’t get special tax
breaks anymore I will vote yes and let them
but I want something too for the favor,
I want less money taken so I can support my family
better.
So you want married couples and people with kids to NOT get special tax breaks so that you will have more money to raise your family? Still having a hard time following your thoughts.
Sorry was on my bosses ipod trying to hurry.
With marriage is more tax breaks, cheaper auto insurance etc., which the government isn’t saying we’re being nice. What they are saying is we’re being nice to you but the single person next door is paying for your tax breaks and they aren’t getting any.
I want to keep more of my money, as much if not more than gays want to get married.
So if they’ll help end all these tax breaks or get even better ones for single people I’ll vote yes. They get what they want, I get whats mine and everyone is happy. It’s called team work.
Actually…
Bigot: “One who is strongly partial to one’s own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ.” — The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language Fourth Edition
No, it’s not a compliment.
Only a bigot would think being called a bigot is a compliment.
Good one, only a bigot would identify
that
Sorry but being called a bigot is never a compliment.
It doesn’t take a bigot to see that calling someone a bigot is not a compliment but I guess a bigot who knows he is a bigot would try to make it seem like a compliment.
By the way, someone who refuses to change their mind for someone else’s cause could either be right or closed-minded but not necessarily a bigot.
It’s just a word used as a hateful term. to anger people. I see it as maybe a “pay back” for those people who used the “Q” word in a hateful manner?
I’m making a joke (more like being scarastic). It looks to me that everyone is a bigot, the gay side and the non gay side, so we’re even and the word has little meaning.
How many times do we have to say NO. We need to and will say no one more time
How many time have the public voted on it ? How many time time do were half to vote on a new police an fire dept when we vote it down mmmm
can you explain why you will vote no?
And, to answer your question….you have never voted no on this issue before. You may have voted “Yes on 1” the last time, but that would’ve been the only time you voted on the issue. How many times did you vote on Casinos or TABOR?
Well, I am hoping you will open your heart to hear our valid reasons why civil marriage is needed for same sex couples.
I will continue to fight for what is right and just, regardless of how many times people who don’t know me and my life say “no”.
Other people have special rights
Can you tell me what you mean here?
http://townhall.com/columnists/johnhawkins/2012/02/17/five_reasons_to_oppose_gay_marriage
And now we get another round of hatred and bigotry claiming that it is not hatred and bigotry.
Whichever way you run the metaphysics, either God or Evolution created homosexuals. Just like either God or Evolution created all those other “different” people you can’t stand. Get over it!
Here we go again…..Now all we will hear and be subjected to for the next year and a half is nasty, vitriolic gay bashing and hetero bashing. I am so sick to death of it all. Regardless of who won the last “popular vote”, a vote is a vote and we should be done with it. Even if it was the gay side that won. How many times do we have to vote on somethin? It’s like neither side will take no for an answer. I strongly believe that we should only have to vote once for an issue to be resolved, otherwise, what’s the purpose of voting at all? If one side doesn’t like the results or can’t live with them — leave and find a place that accommodates your preference — and that goes for both sides!
so you would have been fine with a singular popular vote to keep slavery, deny a woman’s right to vote, and keep different races from marrying? Cause that’s what happened.
I think the matters of slavery, woman’s right to vote, and interracial marriage were decided by the courts and/or constitutional amendment, not by popular vote. If the proponents of same sex marriage are so sure of their position as a matter of constitutional right, they should bring the matter to court in a civil rights action for a final decision.
Or they can try to get it amended
I agree that the US Supreme Court needs to hurry up and rule civil marriage equality for everyone nationwide, because this is playing out in many states across our nation.
However, I am fine with having this referendum on the issue. We have only had one vote on this issue in Maine. Out of half a million votes cast, less than 30,000 separated the yes and no sides.
Before exclusing civil rights from Mainers for all time, I think we should have at least more than one vote when the outcome was so close.
Not special rights, and not perverts.
Marriage is between a Man and a Woman. You can put a cat in the oven but that don’t make it a biscuit.
No, marriage is between two consenting adults in many nations, as well as many states here in our country.
You can ignore our clear case for why civil marriage is needed by same sex couples to protect their families, but that doesnt’t make us go away.
But you can take a random woman and a random man who don’t even know each other and wed them and that’s called a marriage. Crazy.
The “*a* man and *a* woman” thing is recent. How many wives did Solomon have?
For that matter, how many wives does Newt have?
I am a conservative guy–I hate entitlement programs, I carry a handgun, I believe in heavy punishment for crime and I want a small government with lower taxes. Maybe I’m a little bit of an enigma for not giving a care if gay people want to marry.
Let Maine become the same-sex marriage destination for all I care. When we’re looking at a summer with high gas prices and a poor economy, every little bit counts.
If same-sex couples want to marry, let them marry. If you have true separation of church and state, then this shouldn’t even be a question. Gay people getting married doesn’t affect a single thing in my life. My job, my hobbies and my family won’t change in the least. If someone else gets to be happy as a result, what’s the big deal?
As long as you make the changes to fit everyone’s life style, or leave it as is.
Its not a lifestyle!
daved931: What most conservatives don’t get is exactly what you seem to know by instinct. Those who champion small government, federalism and personal liberty should support marriage equality for those same reasons.
I expect it will pass this time since tea party fav and right wing conservatives like Paul Lepage are on record as supporting civil unions for anyone who wants one.
Lets just do it this way, there are no rules on marriage, anyone can marry anyone or anything they want to, that is true “Equality”
It is amusing how you are so concerned about ‘true equality’ as if that means we must allow people to marry inanimate objects, pets, siblings, etc.
We are clearly and rationally making our case that civil marriage should be extended to same sex couples. We are not arguing for all these things you say.
The difference is we are clearly showing how civil marriage rights are discriminatory by excluding an entire class of citizens, and there is no good reason for that.
This is not about mindless “harrison bergeron” style equality at all costs, this is about upholding the equal protection clause of our US Constitution, and it is about letting more existing Maine families protect the lives they are building together.
So then why are we excluding any class of citizens, No where in the US Constitution gives you the rite to marry, that is a state law.
my wife works at night, so I want a night wife and a day wife, so where is my equal rights. so let those people have civil unions, that would also include a civil union between a man and a woman, who do not want to be married but want to build a life together, civil unions only allow same sex people enjoy the benefits, that in it self is “harrison bergeron”
My sister could not add her live in boyfriend to her insurance, but if it were a woman she could have, and she works for the State of Maine, so case in point again it is not “Equal” PERIOD.
We’re not asking for special rights like you seem to be implying. We’re asking for the option to marry. Your sister has that option, so I am not sure what your point is.
Polygamy is not the issue, once again.
Your desire for a day wife and a night wife is unrelated to your sexual orientation, polygamy is illegal nationwide while homosexuality is not illegal anywhere in our nation.
If your sister wants to add her live in boyfriend to her insurance policy, she can already, as can I. Get a domestic partnership and you can do so, but it is a higher rate than spouses have to pay. This is another argument in favor of civil marriage equality, because I would like to add my partner to my insurance as a spouse, not a domestic partner, and save the money.
Sorry bro, she was told she could only add him if he was a woman, Period. She was pissed.
You’re not telling the truth then, because I have researched this issue and Maine’s domestic partner registry is open to couples both heterosexual and homosexual.
Edited to add— if we have same sex marriage in Maine, they could stop offering health insurance to same sex partners unless they are married. I think that would be a good thing.
My employer allows me to list a “domestic” partner for health insurance purposes. Maybe your sister should look for a more “liberal” employer.
And even then they have to pay more in income tax. An unfair burden that straight married couples don’t have to pay.
If same sex was legal, there would be no post here, so I guess we should just keep it that way, why is polygamy illegal?? Is that not a consenting agreement between adults like arguements before, what happens between consenting adults is their business, My point is still on Equality, folks that want more then one wife can unite now a yell where are my rights, then it will be another group and another. It is just who is going to be next.
Would you vote to let people have more then one wife or husband, if no y not?
If you want to fight for polygamy, go for it.
I am fighting for civil marriage for same sex couples.
Tell you what Jed…if you want a “day wife” and a “night wife” go gather the 56,554 signatures necessary to put it out to referendum. Personally, I have enough trouble dealing with the one wife I have.
No you are not arguing for those things, which makes your “Equality for All” wrong, its only equality for same sex people.
The difference is we are clearly showing how civil marriage rights are discriminatory by excluding an entire class of citizens, and there is no good reason for that.
This will not change, there will always be some class of people that want it to fit their life styles. there for it will never be “Equal” so quit saying it an equal thing.
Where have I claimed to fight for anything but extending civil marriage to same sex couples?
For my benefit, could you tell us where you really fall on this issue?
Do you support civil marriage for same sex couples?
If you do not, what is the reason you do not think we should be given the same protections as heterosexual couples who form families?
Some people, who cares if it passes, if your not gay does it affect you in any way? No, it doesn’t. Love, in my opinion, should not be defined by the sex of the person. And it annoys me when people say, “keep the sanity of marriage”, really? That was ruined a looong time ago, and last time i checked, this was the 2012 not 1912, times have changed, gays are open about their sexuality not hiding in a corner. I just do not see it as fair that heterosexuals can get married and then get divorced because they”picked the wrong person” or people can have a drunken night and get married in vegas but people who have been together for over 15 or more years and love each other more than most marriages today cannot get married? Just doesn’t make sense and sounds like discrimination to me, which i thought was illegal. /Rant Over/
Comment Removed
Dude-we don’t even have civil unions for straight OR gay people in Maine, so what are you talking about?
Straight couples ARE allowed to enter into a marriage, so again, what are you talking about?
What is this “more” you’re talking about?
Well, now you’ve heard (because I’m telling you) that gay people would gladly give up civil unions which was always a half-measure that gays never wanted but was all they could get.
How do you prove Love, do they have to be in love to get married, either way same sex or not?
Huh?
Comment Removed
Done. LGBT Americans will give up civil unions in a heart beat. Done. Thank you for voting for marriage equality now.
I am curious, for those of you who object to gay marriage, what harm does it do to you? I can’t think what might possibly happen to harm me and I can’t really come up with anything. Please help me identify the harm that is comming.
What harm does it do to leave it alone, and pass a civil union law(s), why does it have to be marriage.
Civil union laws, such as that in Connecticut and Vermont, simply did not work out as well as those had wished.
http://civilunionsdontwork.com/
I’m fine with changing civil marriage to civil unions for everyone, if that is what it takes to extend these benefits to same sex couples.
But if you want separate systems, civil marriage for some and civil unions for others… that won’t pass Constitutional scrutiny, as the Supreme Court has clearly ruled that separate systems are inherently unequal, violating the 14th Amendment equal protection clause.
Civil Unions are not recognized outside of the state in which they occur. If the couple moves tehy would either have to redo the civil union if the new state allows it. Civil Union are not recognized by the Federal Government either.
All of the laws that contain marriage would have to be rewritten to include Civil Union if those couples were to get all the same rights a a married couple, ie. Shared property, inheritence, medical rights and so on.
Then take it up with the D.C. congress and pass it nation wide. There sure is a president that woul sign that into law.
It will eventually get to Washington and be made teh law of the land, until then it will have to be fought state by state.
Harm not in a direct overt way, but rather a degrading of our Christian traditions and beliefs. A belief and faith in nothing, apathy, and ultimately chaos. The arrogance of man and our superior intellect now questions every tradition, belief and societal standard. I’ll save you the time on playing the race card and how that was accepted years ago. Seriously though, take a look back at Maine in 1950 and look at it now! Men wanting to marry men? Citizen dependency on the State? Drug use that is out of control… how has our Society gained by liberalization of our Christian Heritage?
And no one is being asked to change their Christian beliefs. If you do not want to marry a person of the same sex you are not going to be forced to and your church would not have to marry anyone they do not want to.
Why should your churches religious beliefs of not wanting to marry same sex couples take president over a church that is willing to marry same sex couples?
I agree with you, no one is asking me to change my beliefs. My point is the impact that this type of change will have on our Society. If “things” are allowed to be re-defined, what will the new boundaries be? Who decides? What will be the “cause” be fifty years from now?
How about we let the people in fifty years decide what is important to them and not worry about it now.
A bit selfish wouldn’t you agree??? I for one am sure glad that those who came before me thought of future generations.
No, I consider not doing something because we don’t know what the future will bring is selfish.
As for the generations that came before us having the foresight to look ahead,they were giving people more rights and privileges not stopping or restricting those rights. The one time they did try to restrict something it failed miserably, I am thinking of Prohibition.
Yes our Founding Fathers were very forward thinking.
“We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”
Things are always re-defined. That is the nature of human society. Societies change and are always in flux-what was life like 50 years ago? Do we want life to be frozen and not change?
I agree… as a society we become more “enlightened” we evolve and change, however that change should take place within a framework. The type of change we are discussing here begins to dimantle that framework and that is my concern.
That change HAS taken place through a “framework”. In the very first case (2004) that framework was the Massachusetts Constitution.
Our Heritage is not Christian….. The Country was built on the promise of freedom from the Church of England.
Freedom to believe whatever you want is our Heritage.
It was argued that eliminating slavery would degrade Christian traditions and beliefs, just look at newspapers from the 1800’s to see for yourself.
And the bible says far more in support of slavery than it says against homosexuality.
Canada has had SSM for over 10 years, they aren’t falling away to chaos. And YOU are Christian, what of other religions who want to allow SSM in their church? Is YOUR religion the only RIGHT religion? Separation of State and Church. This ballot vote does just that. If your Christian church doesn’t wish to allow SSM, it does not have too.
I wonder how many churches don’t allow those not of their faith to marry within their church.
What about single people? Some people are happy to never be married, why are we discriminating against them?!?! Why shouldn’t single people be able to enjoy the same rights and personal gratification that marriage brings?!?! Vote single marriage in 2012!!
I know you’re kidding, but to be clear— there aren’t any rights and benefits in civil marriage that would be required for a single person.
A single person does not need to inherit social security benefits upon their own death. A single person does not need access to military housing while they are on active duty. A single person already files a joint income tax return with themselves. You do not need protection against testifying against yourself, that’s already in the 5th Amendment.
The 1,300+ benefits and privileges extended by our federal government contingent on marital status are there to give benefits to a spouse— in most of these cases the benefit is either already in place for the individual, or not applicable to a single person.
But do consider the validity of all of these things for same sex couples in Maine who seek to protect the families they build together. And vote to extend civil marriage to us in 2012!
right where is your 1300 benefits that married couples enjoy
A single person does not need to inherit social security benefits upon their own death. A single person does not need access to military housing while they are on active duty. A single person already files a joint income tax return with themselves. You do not need protection against testifying against yourself, that’s already in the 5th Amendment.
The 1,300+ benefits and privileges extended by our federal government contingent on marital status are there to give benefits to a spouse— in most of these cases the benefit is either already in place for the individual, or not applicable to a single person.
You’re talking money. Who is going to pay for these benefits except for the tax payer. What Jaime is saying is that single people will be paying and not getting any return. Of course, I don’t entirely agree with this assessment. I believe that traditional marriage makes for a more orderly society where everyone benefits.
This is an argument against any civil marriage for anyone.
Yes, it’s an argument against civil marriage for anyone except for couples THAT CAN PRODUCE CHILDREN. The state and society have no interest in promoting relationships for their own sakes. People are free to form and break relationships as they will, but the state wants to ensure as much as possible that children arising from these relationships are nurtured and feel secure and protected.
whawell could you show me where on the Marriage License Application it asks about intent to procreate?
There are no questions on the application concerning intent to procreate because that intention is not necessary.
Thank you for clarifying that you opinion, that you are against anyone who dares marry their love without the intention or ability to biologically create offspring.
I never once mentioned INTENTION to procreate was a criteria for marriage. So I don’t know why you brought this point up in the first place.
…
Right to benefits while married:
1. employment assistance and transitional services for spouses of members being separated from military service;
2. continued commissary privileges
3. per diem payment to spouse for federal civil service employees when relocating
4. Indian Health Service care for spouses of Native Americans (in some circumstances) sponsor husband/wife for immigration benefits
Joint and family-related rights:
1.joint filing of bankruptcy permitted
2. joint parenting rights, such as access to children’s school records
3. family visitation rights for the spouse and non-biological children, such as to visit a spouse in a hospital or prison
4. next-of-kin status for emergency medical decisions or filing wrongful death claims
5. custodial rights to children, shared property, child support, and alimony after divorce
6. domestic violence intervention
7. access to “family only” services, such as reduced rate memberships to clubs & organizations or residency in certain neighborhoods
Tax-free transfer of property between spouses (including on death) and exemption from “due-on-sale” clauses.
Right to continue living on land purchased from spouse by National Park Service when easement granted to spouse
Funeral and bereavement leave
Making spousal medical decisions
Right to inheritance of property
I could go on and on and these are just SOME of the federal rights extended to a married couple that a SSM couple do not have.
So is this the next class of citizens we are going to let get married next?
http://www.nambla.org/
The age of getting married has changed over the years, this class wants it lowered again, each state also has a different age requirement for getting married, where is their “equality”, in the 1800s girls were getting married at a very young age why did it change?? Check out some of the ages that allow marriage to kids under 18 with consent, MA “12” really 12 http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/table_marriage
So under the “Equal Banner” why do they need consent at all????
It all boils down to one thing? Where is the law going to be. it has to have a start and end point, and some class of citizens are not going to have their views allowed.
Ahh, yes….NAMBLA is finally brought into the discussion.
When that happens, there’s just no point in continuing the discussion with that person.
Just take individual responsibility for yourself and leave others to live Their lives.
When others are always driving their life style in my face, on the news, in the papers, in the Voting booth, it makes it my responsibility.
I agree with your assessment: “leave others to Their lives”. So now, why should people sanction SSM through the vehicle of the state when they are morally and ethically opposed to it? Look, there no is valid interest for the state to get involved in sanctioning SS unions. What proponents of “equality” want to accomplish is widespread public acceptance of SS relationships. They want to see these relationships normalized. They know once the state puts an authoritative stamp of approval on these relationships, these relationships will garner more public support. They also know the court system will then be impelled to mandate schools to teach the new definition of marriage in defiance of parents’ wishes.
If you cannot argue against gay marriage without bringing in pedophilia, you have no argument against gay marriage.
If a pedophilia act is committed with the same sex is that not also a gay act?
Children cannot give informed consent.
Your concern trolling is amusing, but you sound like a broken record when we have clearly explained to you why your concerns are baseless.
At what age does does informed consent start? 12, 14, 16, because they all can be married at those ages in this country, they may get a parents consent to get married, but do they have to get parents consent after the marriage??
And what was that explanation? You do not know the def: of Equal or “Equality for All”
Again, you are attacking a straw man here, not the issue we are putting before Maine voters.
I am not arguing for “equality for all” I am arguing for civil marriage equality for same sex couples.
Are you for or against same sex marriage?
Really you need to ask, guess you are slower then I thought, read this real slow AGAINST
If you are against gay marriage… why are you trying to convince me that we should expand marriage even further to include children and polygamy?
“At what age does does informed consent start?”
Maine
The age of consent in Maine is 16.
Teenagers aged 14 and 15 may engage in sexual intercourse with partners who are less than 5 years older.
§254. Sexual abuse of minors 1. A person is guilty of sexual abuse of a minor if:
A. The person engages in a sexual act with another person, not the actor’s spouse, who is either 14 or 15 years of age and the actor is at least 5 years older than the other person.
What I believe JedClampet is talking about are unequal relationships where one partner on account of age difference can readily manipulate the younger one on account of immaturity. That, in the true sense, is what pedophilia is all about that puts children at risk. My grandmother married at 14. Her husband was 17, yet they lived out their lives happily and managed to raise several well-adjusted children. Pedophilia was not involved in this relationship that proved to be mutually advantageous to each.
Hey Jed. Clamp it.
No Jed it isn’t a “gay act”. The primary attraction for a pedophile is the age of the victim, not the sex. But why would any of us expect you to know that.
pedophilia was not the point, get a clue, its about what is Equal and what is not equal, you will never have “Equality” in any law, there will always be a class of citizens that can cry it not “Equal to us”
Well does not Equality include everyone or not, if you are arguing for one class of citizen, then your argument is not of equal stature, it for a cert agenda, the point again is where are the laws going to end, which group is going to yell next, ” I want my Equal Rights” So there ya go you drew you line in the sand. Its about age.
I can see that people did not go to the web site you posted an read it those are the uninform people
Your “Equal Banner” claims are a straw man argument. No one here but you has been spouting that. And most assuredly no one but you has come out advocating marriage to children.
We are arguing the very valid and justifiable reasons why same sex civil marriage should be extended to Maine citizens, meaning couples who fit the requirements of marriage save for their sexual orientation.
Count me in as one who thinks there needs to be limits on who can get married. JedClampet is right, we can’t satisfy everyone. A line has to be drawn. If we allow SSM simply because of relationships, and not on account of potential offspring, then by extension we will have to allow polygamy. At least some relationships among three or more people have the potential of producing offspring.
“Well doggies” whawell, Jed could not provide one example of a state that allows SSM also allowing or considering polygamy. Can you?
“fit the requirements of marriage” that statement alone does not support Equality. I did not advocate marriage to kids, I did point out what the state laws are, and that some other group will scream where are my right to Marry younger, just like the rights to get abortions under 18, My whole point is and has been who is next to change the
“fit the requirements of marriage”
I loved the part were the experts said that kids raised by LOVING parent no mater who they were did not effect the kids an that included gays an libisions
yawn. like i care if the religious freaks don’t like my marriage. if it doesn’t work, move to someplace that respects you…i give my tax money to a state that recognizes me and gives me what i deserve as a citizen. good riddance to the backwoods idiots. i wonder how many households would be affected if we had a popular vote on first-cousin-marriage.
Hey you forgot to use “ignorant” in your diatribe. I thought the canned response when discussing this issue was to describe those who disagreed with you as: Ignorant, misinformed, uneducated, backwoods idiots? C’mon stick to the script Farnz
didnt mean to make you feel left out, pal.
” These people who are making a big deal out of gay marriage? I don’t give
a f*ck about who wants to get married to anybody else! Why not?! We’re
making a big deal out of things we shouldn’t be making a deal out of.
They go on and on with all this bullshit about “sanctity” — don’t give
me that sanctity crap! Just give everybody the chance to have the life
they want.”
– Clint Eastwood
If anyone wants to know all the reasons why people might be opposed to marriage equality, all you have to do is read the District Court Decision in the Prop 8 case in California. In that case, those opposed to marriage equality spent millions and millions of dollars on lawyers and experts to put forward the best evidence possible against marriage equality.
Every single argument against marriage equality was proven in the full light of blind justice to be baseless as far as the law is concerned. There may be religious objections, but we do not pass laws in the United States based on one religion over another.
The entire case against marriage equality falls apart when you read how flimsy their arguments are. Read the full case here: https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/cand/09cv2292/files/09cv2292-ORDER.pdf
The relationship between a man and a woman is fundamentally different than the relationship between partners in a SS relationship. The former has the potential to produce offspring while the latter does not. Marriage benefits are granted to opposite sex partners mainly on account of potential offspring. Giving SS couples who can’t produce offspring these benefits doesn’t make any sense. But this is what proponents of “equality” want.
We’ve become a very permissive society in the past four or more decades. Our society has never been any more narcissistic as a result. Now gay couples are permitted to live their lives unmolested. People too treat them very well out of respect for them as human beings. The state court system has imposed gay adoption against our wishes. And they have been granted legal protections that are arguably biased in their favor. They are even allowed to put down religious institutions on a regular basis, even churches who are opening their doors to help them. And they seem to want to do this at every opportunity. But apparently that is not sufficient. They now want us to sanction their relationships through the state in spite of our ethical and moral objections to these relationships. Think about.
Imposed against your wishes? Since when is it your decision?
The difference here is that YOU aren’t being forced to do anything.
However, WE are being forced to not be married. In fact, some people would LOVE for us to be forced back into hiding, in the closet, and away from everyone else so that they don’t have to acknowledge that we exist.
Your tone makes it sound as if it’s a bad thing that we can live our lives relatively unmolested.
Marriage is gift of recognition from the state akin to a gift freely given. No one is “forced” not to marry anymore than one is “forced” not to recieve a gift freely given.
Marriage is not a gift but a right.
And yes, we are forced into this relationship that does not allow marriage. We cannot get married. That is forced upon us.
However, if we were able to get married, you would not be forced to recognize our marriage. Nor would you be forced INTO such a marriage. There would not be any forcing upon you by us.
First cousins in Maine were allowed to marry long before 2004.
Things have changed over the years an this is one of them so get used to it after a while people will wounder what the big deal was about . Why my daughter was at UMaine kids from other countries was woundring what the big deal was about them getting married. Where they come from it a every day thing
Ok I think the Gay lobby is going to win this one! There will be the initial euphoria, the long lines to get a marriage license etc. Then what? After the buzz wears off, the newly married same sex couples will still not feel accepted… that empty feeling inside will still be there, so then it is on to a new “cause”! More than likely, a disgruntled Gay Catholic who would like to be married by the Church. The Church will not allow the marriage to take place, and a lawsuit will quickly follow. The goal of the suit being to bully the Church into accepting and performing homosexual marriages or face the prospect of the Church losing its’ tax free status. That… and a push to ban those passages in the Bible condemning homosexuality as Hate Speech.
Sigh….
The churches have their freedom and I will support that freedom. *I* do not want to get married in any church that doesn’t want me.
Your prediction will not happen because right now churches CAN decide to not marry someone and have had that right forever. There has been no case to make it any different.
But I appreciate your concern that should we win this battle, I’ll still feel empty with no cause. However, I think I might take up another cause, such as Peace in the Middle East, poverty in Maine, or any one of a number of other issues that I currently follow.
Let’s just get this issued resolved, my man and I will marry, then we’ll deal with causeless emptiness should that be a real concern. Thanks!!!
Please be sure to leave time for long walks along the beach… All joking aside, I DO wish you the best… and God willing, a long, prosperous and happy life – no matter what it is you choose to do with it.
mmmm..beaches…..sun…..waves…..palm trees…..mmmmmmm
and the Dish ran away with the Spoon…
Thanks for the Fairy Tale.
At least you didn’t cite Leviticus!
yessah
This is not about acceptance by my community, I already have that.
This is about the very real and tangible benefits of civil marriage extended by our shared government. And that will be a lasting benefit that I hope to gain this November!
Not to pop your bubble but that “acceptance” by the community probably doesn’t run that deep… and is most likely offered up out of politeness or not wanting to offend you. At any rate best of luck to you.
Thanks. I take people at face value in life, it’s too short to worry what they really think about me.
All I know is we’re there for our neighbors when they need us, and vice-versa.
The same happen to colored people too !!
OOPS! You went off-message on that one (“benefits” instead of “rights”).
“Ask not what you can do for your country – ask what your country can do for you”.
You got kids with your partner? I have no problem with you getting the benefits. The society has a stake in the success of your partnership. Otherwise, you don’t “need” the benefits.
There are many same sex couples in Maine raising children, and yes they deserve the benefits of civil marriage.
You are right about them . What do kids want the most even with the same sex couples ? They want love an to be treated right . How many kids get treated real badly by stright couples every year an are in broken homes . I saw in tv about 5 years a go a 14 year old girl was interview an she was being raised by a same sex couple which were women an she loved it an she loved having two moms
One group that participated in the funding of lies in ads and the campaign was The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. (One of the LARGEST contributors) The Church required members to donate to anti gay marriage funding whether they could afford it nor not. In fact, they had members giving every last cent they owned to help fund the anti gay marriage ads and campaign. MOST of the people who gave were NOT from Maine. They were from Utah! How do I know? Family members told me what the Bishop told them that came from the Prophet! Orders were given and expected to be obeyed…
Btw, I am female, queer and a self excommunicated recovered Mormon. My family supports gay marriage and they took a hit from the Church because they refused to fund the ads and campaign!!!!! Oh and for the record, plural marriage was the norm, read your bible, for a very long time! I do not for one second believe a consensual plural marriage is wrong! As long as there are NO child brides, forced or coerced brides and all parties are of legal age(18 and above) what’s the big damn deal!
I had and have friends who had babies because their FATHER, STEPFATHER, MOM’S BOYFRIEND, FAMILY FRIEND, BROTHER, UNCLE or GRANDFATHER forced sex on them and would not allow them to abort because The Bible said so. The Bible also said protect family not **** family!
For the record, generally, it is heterosexual, white men having sex with animals, children and young teens….
Whether or not this passes this time is not what I care about. What is troublesome is that something that is voted down time and time again regardless of what it is, is constantly brought back the next election cycle and is costing every Maine citizen just to have this on the ballot. There needs to be a time limit on reruns.
You claim this has been voted down “time and time again”, yet Mainers have only had one vote ever on gay marriage.
I would prefer we ask the question more than once when it comes to limiting the civil rights of a minority, especially when the vote was so close last time.
Of all the complaints to make about wasted tax dollars… you chose including civil rights issues on a ballot that will be made regardless of what’s on it. Really?
A time limit on change? On rights? On the ability to participate in what little is left of our democracy?
Really? Like, really really?
How many time have WE voted on it ??? once !!!
Unfortunately, in this instance, I need to be against the question as written. No clergy, of whatever religion should need to be “protected” by any law which goes against it’s established teachings. Any law which does force any religion to perform acts contrary to it’s core beliefs is an infringement on the first amendment of the Constitution and is therefore unlawful. Any law which exempts any religion from the same, presupposes that it is lawful to infringe upon religion and is also a a violation of the first amendment. The 2 issues do not belong in the same question. The simple answer is: if you do not like what your church teaches, join another church.
I think the second point is to help make it clear to some that their church will be safe. It isn’t necessary because the church cannot be forced to perform these marriages.
But how would you write it?
So you are opposing marriage equality because there is an unnecessary clause in the referendum question?
Aren’t you the same person who was voicing opposition to marriage equality in previous conversations?
I don’t think you’re opposing this because of the wording, I think you’re opposing it because you are against it.
It’s just a taste of how the anti-SSM crowd plan to handle this.
Like the last time they plan to lie, lie, lie, lie, lie.
Let me see if I’ve got this right…
You wont vote in favor of SSM because the clause protecting churches is in there now, because last time you claimed that IF SSM passed in Maine, churches that didn’t want to might be forced to marry them.
Really ?
This is a win-win situation for the state of Maine. This is our new “industry”: Controversial ballot measures. Both sides will spend lots of cash pushing for their side of the measure. Regardless of which side wins, in a few years we’ll see it on the ballot again…and again…and again, each time bringing more and more advertising dollars into the state, just like the casino issue.
At least in this case, it moves things in the right direction.
Every time the rights and treatment under law of gays & lesbians is in the spotlight here in Maine, opinions shift toward agreement that we deserve equal treatment.
This time will be no different— even if we lose, we have succeeded in changing more minds on this topic.
Why is that? Because those who oppose civil marriage for same sex couples typically don’t know us, don’t understand our need for these protections, and are unaware of the gays and lesbians living in their communities. The conversations that we have help show our communities that we are Mainers just like they are, and it’s harder to stand against people than it is to stand against a vague issue.
No its because people are just to tired of hearing about it, so why bother to vote. I have better things to do then waste my time voting again, you wear the voters down until you get your way.
Well, to be fair, at what point would you give up if you were being told you can’t marry ?
I’m assuming that you’re married, maybe not ?
You’ve yet to explain how this issue even impacts you. If you’re married, how does it change your marriage ? If you aren’t married, how does it impact your future marriage ?
ya i hope this is the last time the childs get there answer NOand drop the subject tired of hereing it.like beeting a dead horrse like obama.no means no
huh.
Oh, it won’t be the last time no matter who wins.
The US Supreme Court needs to go ahead and rule on this so civil marriage is offered to same sex couples nationwide.
Get rid of all marriage-related laws. Then people can get “married” as a declaration of commitment whenever and wherever they want. (much as they now can do in any case).
The commitment that our society, though, has a real stake in, is parents raising children. Provide incentives for those people who are raising children, period, in ways that encourage that our children are well cared for and grow into citizens that will provide for the future of this country.
Oh, for those gays that think they are missing out on income tax breaks for married people – you aren’t – ever hear the phrase “marriage penalty”? For those of you trying to get on the “gravy train” of benefits, you may find that there’s not really that much there.
I will not encourage my children to think of homosexuality as the “equal” of heterosexuality because the two simply are not the same.
Will legalizing homosexual marriage “impair” heterosexual marriage? Only if homosexuality is taught throughout our society to be the “equal” of heterosexuality. Stranger things have happened.
You realize that many people who want to get married to their same sex partner have already been married and know what it means and still want to enter into a new one, right?
You also realize that many people don’t want children and their reasons for marriage have nothing to do with children, right?
Reg, it should be clear from my post that I realize that the reason for marriage for many people has nothing to do with children. My post states that the stake of the society, and the basis for the laws related to marriage, are primarily child-based, right?
And same sex couples in Maine are raising children, and deserve the protections and benefits of civil marriage.
There are same-sex couples in Maine who are parents, raising children. You agree then that they deserve civil marriage rights?
We aren’t asking for civil marriage solely for tax reasons. There are 1,300+ benefits and privileges contingent on marital status at the federal level alone. Everything from social security death benefits to military housing benefits for spouses are at stake here.
So you will brain wash you kids like the KKK dose
no means no .if it passes ther must be dead people voted lol
I will continue to fight for my equal treatment under our government, and that includes civil marriage. LOL.
This will be on every ballot until it passes and then they will lobby against it being put on a ballot again.
This is the first time we have gotten this on the ballot!
The last time Mainers voted on the issue of gay marriage was 2009, 3 years ago. And that was because the Catholic Church got signatures to repeal the law that was passed.
No other time have Mainers ever voted on this issue. So I don’t understand where this “it will be on every ballot” idea comes from.
which makes this the 2nd time at least, this has been on a ballot I voted no last time and will vote no again.
If you voted no last time, you should vote yes this time, due to the wording on the ballot.
Oh do not worry I know how to read, and comprehend what I read, unlike so many folks on here.
My daughter and step daughter, and their friends, partners ect.. know where I stand on this issue and why, funny thing is they also understand why I am not supporting to change the def. of marriage, no one on this page matters what they think, write or say.
Exactly, nothing anybody says on the subject that does not impact YOU in ANY way, shape or form, matters to you !
Why are you even here, then ?