PORTLAND, Maine — Gay marriage advocates say much has changed since 2009 when Mainers overturned a law legalizing same-sex marriage. Opponents agree.
But the two sides disagree on what those changes are and what they mean for this year’s gay marriage initiative, which is expected to be a statewide referendum in November’s election.
Gay marriage activists say many people who opposed gay marriage in 2009 have shifted their stance. They base that view on poll numbers, one-on-one discussions with 40,000 residents and the strong response they had in collecting more than 100,000 signatures to get the matter on the ballot.
“Mainers have changed their minds on this issue,” said Betsy Smith, executive director of EqualityMaine, which is spearheading the campaign. “They want the chance to right a wrong.”
Opponents agree things have changed — but not in the way gay marriage supporters are suggesting.
Maine’s population appears to be more conservative than three years ago, as evidenced by the Republican-controlled Legislature and the Republican governor elected in 2010, said Bob Emrich, a pastor and an outspoken opponent of gay marriage. He said gay marriage opponents also feel more comfortable voicing their opposition after rejecting same-sex marriage in 2009.
Some legislators were voted out of office in 2010 because they supported gay marriage when the Legislature legalized it in 2009, said Emrich, pastor of Emmanuel Bible Baptist Church in Plymouth.
“That tells you not only has the Legislature changed, but the people who sent them there said we don’t want any more of this, we don’t want this to be voted on any more, this is settled,” Emrich said. “I think there’s been a change, but by any indicator it’s that Maine is becoming more conservative, not the other way around.”
After the Legislature legalized gay marriage three years ago, critics forced the question before voters, who overturned the law 53 percent to 47 percent.
Gay rights activists last month delivered petitions signed by more than 105,000 voters to the secretary of state’s office to get the issue on the November ballot. State officials last week said they had verified more than 85,000 of the signatures, far more than the 57,277 that were required.
The question now goes to the Legislature and will be placed on the ballot if lawmakers, as expected, don’t approve the proposal themselves. The governor has not taken a public stand on the initiative, but has previously said he supports the “traditional definition” of marriage being between a man and a woman.
Same-sex marriage is legal in New York, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Connecticut, Iowa, Vermont and the District of Columbia, but those laws came about through legislative action or court orders, not by popular vote.
Gay marriage activists think Maine could become the first state to legalize gay marriage in a statewide vote.
Supporters say 54 percent of respondents in a December survey of 800 likely voters favored legalizing gay marriage. They say they’ve also gotten a positive response from the more than 40,000 people they’ve talked to in person and by phone on the issue, many of them in places that opposed same-sex marriage in the 2009 election. They plan to talk to another 100,000 Mainers one-on-one before Election Day to convince them that gay marriage should be legalized.
The one-on-one conversations are having the desired effect, said Matt McTighe, who’s working on the issue for the Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders.
“We’re seeing this work. People really are thinking about this differently,” he said.
McTighe and Smith shrug off the argument that Maine people are more conservative — and therefore less likely to vote in favor of legalizing gay marriage — than three years ago. Back then, Democrats controlled the Legislature and Democratic Gov. John Baldacci supported gay marriage.
Sixty-one percent of voters in the 2010 governor’s election supported candidates who support gay marriage, Smith said. Gov. Paul LePage won the election with 39 percent of the vote, with other candidates combining for 61 percent.
“This is a nonpartisan issue. This issue crosses the aisle,” said Smith. “There’s no way to make a prediction about who’s going to turn out to vote for marriage based on whether you think more Democrats or Republicans are going to turn out to vote in 2012.”
Opponents aren’t so sure Mainers have had a change of heart since the last time around.
Polling data are often wrong because people don’t feel comfortable answering questions about personal issues such as gay marriage, said Carroll Conley, executive director of the Christian Civic League of Maine.
The same can be said for how people respond to informal discussions with gay marriage advocates in their homes or on the phone.
Conley also thinks more young people are opposed to gay marriage than in the past.
“It’s surprised me how many people are involved in this process,” he said. “We always have this picture that it’s a bunch of old white guys telling everybody what to do. But there seems to be, especially in the faith community, an energized, well-informed part of the younger population that is with us on this.”
Brian Souchet, of the Roman Catholic Diocese of Portland, doesn’t expect any change from 2009 in the election outcome. Souchet, director of the diocese’s office for the promotion and defense of marriage, thinks gay marriage backers are trying to convince themselves that things are different than the last election.
“I get the sense that they think if they say it enough, people will start to believe it,” Souchet said. “But what people say to your face and what they do in the polling booth are two very different things.”
It is quite Awesome to believe that Maine could be the first state to grant civil marriage rights to same sex couples through a vote of the people! One thing I can say about Mainers is that people come first. They stand behind their families, friends and neighbors and with this vote will show that Maine IS The Way Life should Be!!!
I hope this is the case, I really do.
Don’t hold your breath! They voted no…and they will vote no again. It is what it is.
Mags did you really vote “no” the last time? Because if you did I would like to thank you for voting not to repeal the law that allowed same sex couples to marry. That was a very courageous vote.
I really like your posts and I usually agree..but not on this. I am not for gay marriage. I do not see the point. I have heard and read it all and still do not agree. I am all for gay rights in every other way….but marriage? NO…sorry…
Thank you and I respect your position. Let me put it this way. I am for it because it has absolutely no impact on my marriage. I cannot come up with one logical reason to deny two consenting adults to wed if they so desire.
An honest answer for you:
The point for civil marriage for gays and lesbians is that there are 1,300+ benefits and privileges extended based on marital status at the federal level alone.
We need civil marriage rights to help better protect the families we build together. This includes everything from social security inheritance to military base housing & commissary privileges for spouses of active soldiers.
Thank you for being for gay rights in every other way, I hope you can find that civil marriage is just another area where we should treat all committed couples equally.
you dont build families together you may adopt but you dont build that is only possible through a man and a woman and that is only possible by Gods design. Same sex partners are seen as a sin . Why do ask us as Godly people to compromise our beliefs when it is clearly stated in the bible that same sex partnerships is wrong? these compromises are whats wrong with our country now !! We turn our backs on a loving God and say no thanks i will do it my way. God does not compromise , Hes the same yesterday ,today and forever. The Bible says in2nd. chronicles 2:14 And My people who are called by My name humble themselves and pray and seek My face and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven , will forgive their sin and will heal their land…. So We as beleivers in Gods word will not compromise We need Gods blessings not His wrath . No the Bible is not outdated ,Its words are alive God will heal our land We need to seek Him and turn to His ways
We adopt, we bring children from previous relationships, we have children with sperm donors or surrogate mothers.
How is this any less God’s design than the use of fertility drugs by religious families with dozens of children?
The bible does not say that gay marriage is wrong, please point out where it does.
The bible says far, far more in support of slavery than it says against homosexuality, in fact.
I think it’s clear that God has changed his mind on homosexuality, just as he changed his mind about salvation, offering it to more people.
But regardless, we are not talking about any need for you to change your religious views on this. We are asking that our shared government, which serves people of many faiths, not discriminate against same sex couples in regards to civil marriage. You will still be free to stop me from coming to your church, for there are many others that welcome me and my partner.
Know the difference between “know” and “no”.
I don’t trust biblical interpretation from zealots, much less from illiterates.
These benefits you speak of, you know single persons will find their income taxes going up and you don’t have a problem with taking food and medicine out of the mouth of a working single persons children?
This is an argument against civil marriage benefits for anyone.
Ok, I’m all for taking away martial benefits and giving them to single persons who have been discriminated against by the tax system.
Will you vote yes for that?
Probably, but you would have to outline more specifically what you are being denied. Single people by definition don’t have a partner to protect.
In 2009, it was 300,848 to 267,828, a difference of over 33k votes. Don’t see that changing much…
Really, it’s not a huge difference. I also would point out that in 2009, the ballot was just Referendum questions and an off-year ballot. In divisive issues such as these the zealots on both sides come out. In 2009, I am sure the gay population turned out in force but also did the ultra-conservatives. The main balance of people voted and clearly a large number of straight voters voted FOR gay marriage. If gay people alone had to vote on our civil rights, it never would be passed, just based upon the numbers. This is just an example of why the rights of a minority should not be subject to the whims of the majority.
2012 is a Presidential election year. At this point, the GOP is in “wandering aimlessly” mode and the economy is picking up. Presidential elections bring out young people who are overwhelmingly for same-sex marriage. The 2012 vote likely will be a “positive” vote on various subjects rather than the constant doom-and-gloom, naysayer, Tea Party yammering that couldn’t find a good thing to say about a sunny day. Truly, have you ever seen a group so negative and angry all the time? What a bunch of stick-in-the-muds! Not on my Christmas party invitation list for sure. Going through life as a grumpy old cuss is no way to live.
A lot has happened since 2009 with DADT being shot down (and the results being a resounding success, even admitted to by the general who was against the idea). Other states such as NY (big game changer), WA and MD have legalized SSM, as well. Times are changing.
There also is backlash in Maine about the LePage and Tea Party crowd. The Tea is getting cold a was not quite what was expected.
The 2009 NOM-led effort was over-the-top and NOM to this day has refused to comply with the Maine Campaign Financing disclosure laws despite losing two appeals in court. Mainers are of that school of thought, “Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.” People can see through their lies.
The blather from the anti-SSM people in the article about young people being more conservative is ludicrous. If they are, then something has happened to set Maine apart from the legitimate polls and surveys taken across the country. Young people simply do not see what the hoopla is about gay marriage. The only arguments against SSM have their basis in religion and little else. The threat to children, society, and all that, has been hashed, and rehashed and is no longer worthy of discussion.
I am optimistic Marriage Equality will be passed into law by popular vote and Maine will be the first State to do so. I wonder then what the naysayers will have to say about that.
Lots of luck to you. The enthusiasm for Mr. Obama has waned considerably, to put it mildly, putting a damper on his re-election prospects and voter turnout. Mr. Obama opposes same sex marriage (wasn’t he oddly quiet when we voted on it last time?), and the majority of Mainers (regardless of party) feel the same way.
I personally detest marriage in all forms. It’s a form of slavery meant to enrich lawyers, courts, and the clergy.
I would beg to differ on Mr. Obama’s polling numbers, now at 50% and rising. I think his reelection chances are pretty good assuming the economy continues to improve and gas prices do not strangle the growth. The GOP field is abysmal and the GOP knows it.
Mr. Obama’s view on same-sex marriage is “evolving” according to the official word. I personally think he knows he has to deal with an ultra-conservative segment of society and remaining somewhat neutral on the subject probably is a wise political move. Do recall his statement from years ago that people in the country “cling to their guns and religion.” And, this is true, albeit not something a candidate should say to endear himself to the masses. Know your audience.
Sidebar: The gaffs occur on both sides of the political stream. Mitt said his wife drove “a couple of Cadillacs.” Perfectly fine with me. I have one myself, but if you are in a financial pinch as many Americans are, having one car means you’re lucky. Having “a couple of Cadillacs” sends the message that he is not one of them.
Obama’s insistence on the removal of DADT (a resounding success) and the non-enforcement of DOMA (parts of DOMA shot down as unconstitutional just this week) speaks volumes “between the lines.” I suspect that if/when he is reelected, we will see more push from him on same-sex marriage. That said, as the President, he has limited ability to do anything about it. Marriage is governed at the State level. Retraction of DOMA is possible either by legislation (probably unlikely) or by SCOTUS, assuming they have a test case. What exactly Obama, or any President, can do remains a question.
And, if you check the respected polls (not Fox News) in Maine and nationwide, you will find the majority of Americans are in favor of same-sex marriage. The trend is always going up and not down. The older cotton-heads are dying off. Young people find same-sex marriage a non-issue just as we find inter-racial marriage kind of ho-hum. But, in 1967, inter-racial marriage was a hot-button issue. The same stupid religious arguments were hauled out for that, as well.
Now, as far as marriage goes, I have to agree with you. Not being at all religious, I could not care less about all the hoo-ha surrounding a church wedding. Yes, it is nice to have a ceremony and all that stuff and celebrate the idea that two people are together. All the hocus-pocus part of it has me rolling my eyes, but that is me.
However, the State does have this vehicle called “marriage” that grants certain legal rights to people on a wide variety of issues. While a Libertarian would say that the State should not be involved in marriages it, in fact, is involved. That ship sailed and I doubt there is any reasonable way to un-bake that cake. So, we are stuck with what we have. That said, denying the rights of a minority to participate in this secular, contractual, state-issued and state-sponsored facility, is not justifiable.
Ah but they don’t need to change the minds of all 33,020 voters. They just need to change the minds of 51% of those voters to change the outcome.
33K was the difference, they need 33K +1 to win
Removed
Numbers are a funny thing lot2say.
Some would say, as you do that you have to increase the vote by 30,021 to win.
I say you have to change the minds 51% of the 33,020 (which is the difference between the two votes. 300,848 (Yes) – 267,828 (No) = 33,020 difference. 51% of 33,020 = 16,840.
300,848 (Yes) – 16,840 (Change Minds) = 284,008 (Yes Votes)
267,828 (No) + 16840 (Changed Minds) = 294,668 (No Votes) and the People’s Veto would have failed.
Judging by the overwhelming % of positive comments here whenever this topic comes up, It does appear that passage is a real possibility.
Sorry but you cannot wish it into reality, not everyone opposed to the issue comments on the BDN web site.
RIGHT~
I wasn’t wishing one way or the other! Just an observation.
Of course not all the naysayers are commenting here. They’ll save that for the privacy of the voting booth.
And not all the supporters are commenting here either.
It’s the same people that keep posting the positive comments, it will not pass.
I wouldn’t count on that. BDN commenters aren’t exactly representative of average Mainers.
Comments in the BDN are monitored and any that don’t reflect the views of the BDN are removed. Censorship at it’s worst. Censorship by an organization that is suppose to be against it.
Voted in by the people or not . . . it will never be right.
it wont pass
And if it fails this time the SCOTUS will ultimately decide it and then what will you do?
they will…?
Yes they will. The California case is headed there after the recent 9th Circuit ruling. There is also a case from Massachusetts that is making its way through the courts.
One of three things could happen and only one Justice needs to say I want the case heard.
1. The SCOTUS could refuse the case which means the lower court ruling would stand. At this point in time the lower court ruling is Prop 8 is unconstitutional under the California Constitution and SSM would again be the law of California.
2. The SCOTUS could accept the case and uphold the lower court ruling which would have the same result as #1 above.
3. And this is the most likely scenario, the SCOTUS could accept the case, uphold the lower court ruling and apply the ruling to the entire country as they did in Loving v. Virginia.
IMHO this case is ready made for the SCOTUS. We have different laws in various states that impact one class of class of people in the U.S., gay citizens. At the federal level we have 1,300+ laws that extend rights and privileges to heterosexual couples but not married gay couples. Couple these two items with a marriage that is recognized in one state but not another and you have a “classic” case for the SCOTUS and it will be fought and decided on the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment.
I agree with you. Those are the scenarios. The Prop-8 case was crafted to hit SCOTUS. I also heard the pro Prop-8 crowd have just requested an “en banc” or full-panel review which I recall is 11 judges to re-review the 3-judge findings of earlier this week. I am unsure why they wish to do this delay as time is not on their side.
It is interesting to see the comments from Brian Brown of NOM of late. I subscribe to NOM’s newsletter (know thy enemy) and his spin on the Prop-8 decision. We are supposed to be breathing a sigh of relief that this is not going to SCOTUS(!). It actually is interesting as there are two schools of thought in the gay community. One is to go for broke at the SCOTUS level (usually the younger crowd) and the other is the more painstaking state-by-state process that will take years. The former is the throw of the dice but a good throw, I suspect. The latter is the idea of building up critical mass to the point where the 14th Amendment gets hauled in and SCOTUS does a Loving v. Virginia ruling covering all States.
I would not dismiss the impact of the repeal of DADT and DOMA. Now that it is legal to be gay and in the military, the question of spousal benefits come into play. With straight couples, spousal benefits are not permitted unless the couple is legally married. Since a gay couple cannot be legally married, they cannot abide by the rules necessary to obtain spousal benefits. That’s a problem. The recent DOMA case found the denial of spousal benefits to the spouse of a legally married gay couple from CA where one spouse works for the Federal Government, to be unconstitutional. With that established, it is not much of a stretch to see that this will need to be applied to all Federal employees. And, now you are venturing into the 14th Amendment’s “full faith and credit clause.” It might be the domino that starts the chain-reaction.
From a legal standpoint, this is a fascinating issue to study.
As a straight WM,I am proud to be in support of all my sisters and brothers who suffer discrimination.I wish you and your family well and will definitely support SSM now and always!
Thank you for the kind words. It still hurts when people equate us with sinners, murderers, thieves, pedophiles, and beastiality-ists (?).
I get wrapped around the axle about SSM as in 2009 when the repeal occurred, I simply could not believe the vitriol I heard. The lies, fabrications, and hyperbole, just took the cake. And, frankly, as a male WASP, I was not accustomed to being anything but the alpha male in the crowd. And, to be usurped by groups of people that justified their hatred based upon, of all things, religion, just blew me away.
I cannot come up with a good analogy except to say I think I understand how women must feel when they hear someone like Santorum speak about “the evils of contraception” and with Congress appointing an all-male panel to discuss women’s health! It is just insulting and belittling to listen to such malarkey. You want to react with a, “What is it to them? They don’t have a dog in this fight. Why are they here and continuing to yammer on about something that does not in the slightest affect them?”
No one can change them, I am sure. They believe what they believe just as the devout Muslims believe what they believe. No amount of facts or logic will make any difference. I appreciate your support! Thanks for your comments!
there was also vitriol from the SSM side…remember the quote “we will find out where all the Yes voters live” by whats his name…Jesse, head of the NO mob? What about that counselor who was threatened with his license removal for speaking out for the yes on one gang? what about the hateful things said, mailed to Pastor Bob Emrich as one of the leaders of the yes group….the SSM side is not innocent!!!!
That counselor in Newport should have been fired. What kid is every going to seek his counsel? He was in violation of the counseling standards of his profession.
As far as notes to Emrich? I suppose Hitler received a few nasty letters in his day, too.
calling names, are we? how childish. Emrich is a man of God and does more good for people than you will ever know about. Please see my post to jd2008jd above about the counselor from Newport. I think that social workers have the highest percentage of gay employees behind hairdressers and interior designers.
I read jd2008jd’s comments and your reply.
The basic issue is this: You think being gay is either a crime, a sin, or both. Most people do not.
The counselor at a public school should not have made any ad to begin with. His personal views about being gay should be personal. He represents the government in his position and he should have remained neutral. The fact that he announced his position as a school counselor tipped the scales against him. He violated his professional standards.
A gay child should be able to feel comfortable approaching any counselor. This guy’s statement certainly shot down any chances of that. Counselors should remain neutral and plastering his car with bumper stickers is hardly neutral.
Your other fear is the idea “that this will be taught in schools.” Yes, well, sure. Why not? Gay kids will realize they are not alone in the world. Straight kids might learn tolerance instead of hatred. Teaching the history of the gay community is no different than teaching the history of Lithuanians. Probably not something that is going to turn someone into a Lithuanian, but is a point of historical significance, much like teaching the history of the struggle of immigrants to the USA. In fact, that’s a pretty good example. What is so offensive about teaching the history of the French coming to Maine? Are you afraid an Anglo is going to turn French?
“Social workers have some of the highest numbers of gay employees, behind hair dressers and interior designers?” Yes, and I hear darkies are real good tap dancers, too! Really, could you possibly be any more prejudiced about a group of people? Let’s roll the clock back 100 years and start dissing those Irish and Italian invaders. Goodness, no, those A-rabs are coming in, too!
It is time to join the 21st century and adopt at least one good point from Maine history – that is our long-held belief of “Live and Let Live.”
What was the full quote from Jesse regarding “we will find out where all the Yes voters live”? Was it in reference to out of state money that the Yes side had pouring into Maine? Remember, NOM is still the only organization from that vote that is still fighting the releasing of names as required by Maine law.
The counselor should never have made the commercial in the first place. How does a child struggling with attraction to the same gender go to a counselor that has said it’s wrong. (I don’t remember exactly if he brought religion into the discussion but if he had, how does a child respond to that?)
And how about the church secretary that was fired for expressing her personal views about SSM? Was that right?
How about the “teacher” that said “it” would be forced to be taught in schools? Turns out she was a “teacher” in a private religious school and it would not be “taught” in her school or any school for that matter let alone being forced by the state. What is taught in the local school is made at the local level by school boards. But that never made it into the No commercials.
And let’s not forget Emrich’s statement AFTER the election that much of the Yes on 1 rhetoric was based on lies.
So before you start pointing fingers, remember you always have three pointing back at you.
I do not think Jesse’s quote was directed at any out of state money…it was a threat against voters who voted “yes”. I distinctly remember the two ads that the educators from the same school made, and the counselor was saying, I believe, that it (homosexual acts, etc) would be taught in schools, not saying “it’s wrong..to quote jd2008jd). Also, I bet any counselor doesnt like child abuse, drug use, unprotected premarital sex among teenagers, underage drinkers, abortion, etc) but they still counsel the kids on those things. That said, any professional should be able to, or must, put their personal feelings aside when counseling. Students often see their teachers in their cars, esp in small towns, that have either pro or con bumper stickers on them that show their feelings on certain issues. And that counselor was brought before the state by gay counselor in his own school district in a complaint to take his license…remember that? That happened right before the vote in 2009 and that may have angered alot of people. Naturally, he retained his license and the complaint was thrown out. I believe there was more to the story about the church secretary than what you are posting, but I can’t recall the details. That teacher who said it would be taught in schools may have been spot on, even if she teaches in a private school. There was an article not too long ago, within the past two months, in this very paper, stating how homosexuality would be taught in schools, changing words around..homosexuality will be the “romantic attraction of an individual to someone of the same gender”…here is the article
http://bangor-launch.newspackstaging.com/2012/01/09/news/nation/new-sex-education-standards-released/
ROMANTIC ATTRACTION?????????????????
Please show me where Pastor Bob said what you wrote! Don’t forget about the No campaign bringing in students from out of state to vote….
I stand and applaud you, GPBand! Thank you!
I guess we will see-
Ultimately, this issue will never be settled and this argument will never go away
Ultimately when the SCOTUS rules one way or the other the argument becomes “settled law”.
Why am I not surprised that you choose to exclude the fourth option which is that the SCOTUS could decide that definition of marriage is in fact the union between a man and a woman and make that the law of the land.
Why would you expect the SCOTUS to do that?
We as a nation have a situation where marriages recognized in some states are not recognized in other states. When a SSM couple moves from say Massachusetts to Alabama due to a job promotion the rights and privileges enjoyed by the couple disappear when they cross the state line.
That is the classic definition of Unequal Protection found in the 14th Amendment. And before you say this court is to conservative did anyone see the 1967 Loving v. Virginia decision coming or Roe v. Wade in 1973? Both decision were very controversial for there day.
Because they may very well find that the three Judge panel, especially Reinhardt, erred in their decision and over stepped their authority. History has shown that the 9th Circuit does not have a very good track record. Also, and this is just an observasion on my part, but in the future if you are going to use another court case to bolster your position, I would not choose one that was based on a lie.
Mountain two things…one the 9th Circuit is the largest Circuit Court in the U.S. so they see the largest number of cases. Therefore they will also have the largest number of cases remanded and/or overturned.
Second, which case is “based on a lie” Mountain and why? See if someone makes a statement like you just did be prepared to prove the statement because you will get called out on it.
“Second, which case is “based on a lie” Mountain and why? See if someone makes a statement like you just did be prepared to prove the statement because you will get called out on it.”
You previously sited the Roe v. Wade case. In 1973, Norma McCorvey, aka: Jane Roe, became pregnant out of wedlock. With the help of two shaddy lawyers, she later claimed that she had been the victim of a rape and filed suit against the State of Texas challenging their abortion laws. McCorvey has since come clean and admitted that not only did she lie but that she was used by her lawyers.
But the point of posting the Roe v. Wade case was an example of a decision the court made that was unexpected and controversial then as it is today. Wouldn’t you agree that the decision was unexpected and decidedly out of character for the time.
Just from a legal standpoint, I don’t see where they could introduce that aspect. They are weighing the points of the case at hand, Prop-8, and that is the decision to determine if discrimination based upon gender is justified as SSM in some way harms the participants or society in general. So far, the statement that SSM does no harm has stood the tests in the lower courts. It is a reasonable question, but I am not seeing how they can make that leap. SCOTUS in more of the strict constructionist makeup and I don’t see them making that reach. Just my opinion.
Your screen name says it all…
Really, do tell…
I doubt they would do the right thing.This may be the worst SCOTUS in history.
I am not so sure! The opposition rails about “these activist judges,” but I would say SCOTUS is pretty conservative. And, being conservative they tend to be “strict constructionists.”
The naysayers to SSM should be careful what they wish for. The Prop-8 case was carefully crafted to go to the SCOTUS. If the judges rule using the strict constructionist approach, I do not see how they can conclude that Prop-8 is anything but unconstitutional. The basic argument against Prop-8 is that Prop-8 claims harm and damage but this has been proven time and again to not be the case. Discrimination in certain areas is permitted providing the parties affected could be harmed and/or society could be harmed. There is no valid evidence showing this to be the case. The only arguments for Prop-8 seem to be religious-based and these hold no water in the SCOTUS.
Now, the attorney on both side of the Prop-8 case up through the 9th Circuit are no dummies. These are high-powered, professional, experienced attorney. If you read a transcript of the case, you can see the pro-Prop-8 people struggling to come up with a valid argument against SSM. The test to retain this discrimination, as I mentioned, is to show some harm would occur if the discrimination were to be lifted.
As we know this to be non-existent, Prop-8 should be defeated. I can’t see a logical reason otherwise.
Ask the best looking member to come to my party.
I admit my ignorance here, maybe there is a chain of command, but why not go directly to the Supreme court, and make this the law of the land?
So, you are conceding that Marriage Equality might be voted in?
Right or wrong, in your opinion, it won’t affect you at all. However, to people like me in a 15 year relationship with an 11 year old daughter, it does very much affect us. We would appreciate your support. All we want to do is protect our daughter and our family. You need not worry that we will be heading to any church soon (well, maybe a UU church) but as neither of us are Catholic (or Mormon, or Fundamentalist, or Evangelical) we really could not care less what they think of us. I suppose you, too, do not pay any attention to the rantings of an Islamic cleric that believes your wife is a brazen harlot because she drives a car and refuses to wear a head-to-toe burka.
I find it difficult to accept as credible the rhetoric of a man in a dress with a funny hat who has a huge staff beneath him, some of whom (41,000+ individuals, by their own reports) have either abused children in their charge, or facilitated the coverup of these crimes.
I believe the subject matter is opinions on gay marriage, not Islam and/or abusive priests.
It goes to the credibility and justification of a religious organization telling the secular society and its government what it may or may not do. The con side of same-sex marriage often cherry-picks religious points to justify their arguments. My point is to show these religious arguments lack credibility or even application.
Had the discussion focused strictly on the legal pros and cons of same-sex marriage, I would not be mentioning the religious aspects. However, they opened that door, not I.
iF IT FAILS THIS TIME, PLEASE DO CONSIDER SPENDING TAX PAYER MONEY AGAIN ON THIS SUBJECT.
There should be a 3 strikes rule on all legislation that special interest groups attemp to force feed.
Of course, we would not have to if the religious extremists would mind their own business and stay out of secular state matters. We will continue this as all fights for civil rights do. You might tell that “special interest group,” the Catholic church, to stick to fixing their own problems and leave those who are not members of their flock well enough alone.
Let me know when the hate group, NOM, decides to comply with Maine law and disclose their donors. They have lost two appeals in court on this issue.
Why is Equality Maine using the clergy? Because homosexuality is about using people .
What? I do not even understand what you mean. “Maine Equality using the clergy?” Huh?
Look at the picture, Betsy decides to embrace the clergy for her own selfish reasons.
Actually, sorry, I did not notice the people in the background. I pay so little attention to anything related to religion as this is not a religious issue.
“…for her own selfish reasons?” — Whatever reason she has pales in comparison to the millions of dollars dumped into NOM and the opposition group by the Mormon and Catholic organizations. My guess is that those in the background are from the more liberal and less bigoted churches that support same-sex marriage. But, as I said, this is a civil rights issue related solely to the issues of secular, state-issued marriage licenses. What the churches do or don’t do is entirely up to them.
That said, having the church leaders in the background shows the public many churches do support same-sex marriage in contrast to others. I hardly see this as being any more “selfish” than the opposition which is doing exactly the same thing. The difference, of course, is one set of churches is modern, progressive, and open to all. The other pair are old, stodgy, out-of-touch with the times, dogmatic, and vindictive, with their only concern being to rile up their flock, increase revenues, and create a common enemy. This, in their minds, will get more meat in the seats and perhaps stem the ever increasing departure of their flock. It also is a diversionary tactic to get people’s minds off their other transgressions. Ultimately, this will fail as the better educated young people become and the more exposure they have to the real world, the more tolerant of others and the more questioning they become.
The recent surveys showing the levels of religious knowledge among various groups show just this trend. While this shows the obvious that atheist often know more about religion than others, my point is to read down through the numbers and you see the more liberal religions on the top of the list. Now, one would not consider, on the surface, Judaism and Mormonism as exactly liberal, but they are more into becoming aware of the world outside their own walls and perhaps being less dogmatic than other faiths. Plus, both faiths have been persecuted by people of other faiths and as such likely are more aware of the religion of others. This is in contrast to very dogmatic religions where learning anything about another religion will send you to Hell.
Here is a reference from the Christian Science Monitor, just so you do not think I picked a “liberal” newspapers:
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/2011/0105/Are-you-smarter-than-an-atheist-A-religious-quiz/When-does-the-Jewish-Sabbath-begin
In a nutshell, I am not seeing why Betsy is being selfish. I suspect those churches volunteered their support. The other side paid for a seat and expects to be seen on their podium.
So when the Catholic Church “loans” out a spokesperson and commits money to opposite cause you would call that what?
And the clergy being used by NOM would be?
“Because homosexuality is about using people.”
No, homosexuality is about being attracted to others of the same sex.
Marriage is about wanting to spend your lifetime with someone so special that you feel a deep, heartfelt connection.
Civil marriage is about protecting that lifetime and the family you build together.
Add them together and you have same sex marriage: people who have found each other, are spending their lives together, and want to protect this.
I am not a “religious extremist” and resent being called a hater simply because I believe homosexuality is immoral. If you choose to live that lifestyle that’s your business but don’t call me names because I believe what the Bible teaches about the sanctity of marriage. How you can equate sexual predators in the ranks of Catholic priests with an indictment of all religion is beyond the scope of my understanding. I find it interesting that you would cite the example of Islamic beliefs, given the fact that under Islamic law you would be stoned to death for your lifestyle.
I have reread my two postings to which you refer. I stand by the those statements. I do believe you have misinterpreted them.
I know many individuals of various faiths, including Islam, who cover the range from pro, neutral, and anti SSM. The extremism comes in when those religious beliefs are forced upon others who are not part of that religious group, through the use of changing secular laws that apply to all citizens. Religion is something that is personal to each individual and should not be forced upon others.
You may believe I am “forcing” my views on you, but that is incorrect. On my side, the legalization of SSM affects no one but the persons involved in the SSM. On the flip side, your influence, or that of your religious organization, in fact, does affect me, even though SSM has no effect on you, one way or the other, and even though I am not part of your religion group. This behavior is immoral and presumptuous.
If you believe being gay is a choice and that it is immoral, then that is your cross to bear, not mine. The sanctity of marriage to which you refer relates to a religious ceremony or rite. The marriage to which I refer is completely different and is the marriage license issued by the State. These are two different concepts sharing the same name.
Certainly, I cite Islamic beliefs as they can be quite radical and clearly the point was to show how offended you, as a Christian and a citizen, would be if an Islamic cleric, following the example of some of the Christian churches, attempted to change civil law to incorporate Sharia law. I do not see the slightest difference between the attempt by the Christian churches to impose their morality on our secular laws than I do seeing Islam attempting to change our secular laws by inserting their Sharia law morals. How is this any different? Two religions, both trying to change secular law.
As far as the priest sexual abuse issue goes, that ship has sailed. The number of actual priests named in the abuse cases over the years pales in comparison to those who knew of, and tacitly ignored, the cover-up. I am not seeing where I indicted all religions in the same bucket as the priest sexual abuse issue.
Homosexuals have already “stolen” the word “GAY” from us…it is now known as a more friendly form of the word “homo” or “Homosexual”….now that they want marriage, it will change that meaning as well. I believe a “civil union” granting all the rights they want regarding benefits, commitment, etc…will well serve the homosexual community.
The word marriage has change many times throughout history. Most recently in 1967 and 2004.
This is not a civil rights issue…you can marry….just someone of the opposite sex.
Suggesting gays and lesbians should seek these legal benefits by marrying someone they aren’t attracted to is a pretty twisted definition of equality.
Be serious.
I am serious
“The hate group NOM”?? How about the group that hates the Catholic Church?? Is hatred directed at one group OKAY while hatred directed at another NOT OKAY? I see only one group here that is doing the hate; and it is not the Church that is trying to be faithful to the gospel, nor NOM.
The Southern Poverty Law Center, a well-known and respected organization has NOM on their hate group list.
If the Catholic church would mind its own business and stay out of secular law, it would be far more respected than it is now. Faithful to the gospel is their gospel, not that of everyone else. Contrary to popular belief, the world does not revolve around the Catholic church, nor does the sun rise and set upon what it says.
When they learn to stay out of other people’s business and out of secular law, then they might earn my respect, as if they ever would care about that.
Under the 1st Amendment, people have the right to assemble. That’s what parties – secular and religious – do when asking the government for redress. So if I said, “if only ‘Equality’ would mind its own business and stay out of secular law, it would be far more respected then it is now”, what would you say? Of course your fist respond would be, “‘Equality’ is minding its own business”. Likewise my response to you is this: The Catholic Church is indeed minding its own business! What do you expect? Not to be opposed and get your way all the time? The political process is just not that easy because people do indeed differ in opinion. So don’t blame the Church for standing up to what it believes. It doesn’t do so because it enjoys all the public demonization it gets from folks like you.
No, I believe you are missing the point. Under the First Amendment there is a separation of church and state, as well. This is not referring to the right to assemble. Churches are afforded a special status in that they are not part of the government nor are they under the control of the government. They are an autonomous group. The simple fact that they do not pay taxes, any more than does an American Indian tribe, for example, shows this separate status. Churches are not part of our government nor under its control.
A good example of this occurred just this past week or so with regard to the government requirement of religious organizations to provide contraception services. A solution was found but the only reason one was is because of the separation of church and state.
My point here is to try to define and explain this concept of two separate institutions and in particular in the First Amendment the requirements of both institutions. Please note:
First Amendment:
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of
speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to
assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
The very first phrase of the First clearly states, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion…”
Inserting the views and doctrine, the “morality,” if you will, of any church, Catholic or Islamic, into our laws would be in violation of the first phrase. It would be, in effect, an “establishment of religion.”
A recent SCOTUS case dismissed a new Kentucky (?) amendment to that State’s constitution stating that Sharia law could not be included in any Kentucky law. SCOTUS commented the amendment “was unnecessary based upon the U. S. Constitution and was an embarrassment to the people of Kentucky.” And, really, it was. There is no way Sharia law could be considered in Kentucky legal cases as it would be a violation of the First Amendment.
But, again, my point here is to show the fact that our secular government cannot embrace religious doctrine in its laws unless it coincidentally reaches the same conclusion, but on its own (“thou shall not kill,” e.g.). And, clearly, the opinion about same-sex marriage, held by the Catholic church, is not universal and is not the doctrine held by other citizens and is an opinion of one church. If we changed-out SSM and the Catholic church with the wearing of burkas and the Islamic religion, the comparison is exactly the same. The view of burka wearing is an opinion and doctrine of the Islamic faith and is not universally held by the citizenry and is an opinion based upon religious doctrine.
Neither view, Catholic or Islamic, can be implemented into our laws. I do not see how this could any clearer.
Now, if the Catholic church, or for that matter, Islam, wishes to assemble and state their views, that is fine. Any idiot on the street with a soap box may talk all day on any subject.
Where the church is crossing the boundary is when they start taking an active role in changing secular laws. Dumping millions of dollars into NOM and other PAC-like and lobbyist organizations for the sole purpose of changing our laws to suit their doctrine is a clear violation of our laws and of the Constitution. If the church wishes to give up its protected status and start paying taxes and become part of the secular world, they certainly are entitled to do so. Until then, they can state their opinions from the tallest mountain. Lining the pockets of Congress is over the line.
Well there isn’t and in the case at hand, no prior vote to allow SSM has ever taken place. And before you say but wait, what about last time it was not a vote to allow SSM but a vote to over turn (a “people’s veto”) an existing piece of legislation.
But if you are bound and determined to change the Maine Constitution, here is the process.
Section 4. Amendments to Constitution.
The Legislature, whenever 2/3 of both Houses shall deem it necessary, may propose amendments to this Constitution; and when any amendments shall be so agreed upon, a resolution shall be passed and sent to the selectmen of the several towns, and the assessors of the several plantations, empowering and directing them to notify the inhabitants of their respective towns and plantations, in the manner prescribed by law, at the next biennial meetings in the month of November, or to meet in the manner prescribed by law for calling and holding biennial meetings of said inhabitants fort he election of Senators and Representatives, on the Tuesday following the first Monday of November following the passage of said resolve, to give in their votes on the question, whether such amendment shall be made; and if it shall appear that a majority of the inhabitants voting on the question are in favor of such amendment, it shall become a part of this Constitution.
This will continue until the discrimination ends.
And that end will not harm you.
Well even if there were a 3 strike rule we would still have another go at this, since we’ve only had one vote in Maine on same sex marriage.
Or we could look at it more granularly, and say that the opposition has two strikes left, and the supporters have two strikes left— because this is the first time that Mainers are asked to vote FOR same sex marriage, not veto it.
But most importantly, there is no three strikes rule. I’m fine with adding that, if we also restrict the referendum process so we aren’t voting to take away civil rights of minorities as we did in 2009.
your point is a non-issue. The legislature rammed SSM down the throats of the people of this state, and they spoke up to reverse this decision. The majority were against SSM, and it does not matter if the ballot says are you for SSM or want to repeal/are against SSM.
I know you meant “PLEASE DO NOT consider spending taxpayer money”. If the people have spoken on this issue already, why must we re-visit it again in such a short time. It only brings up negative feelings, on both sides, and brings out the worst in people.
And you think waiting 1 or 2 more years would change the “negative feelings, on both sides”?
no, I don’t, people are just sick of having this front and center again….
Well having grown up in the 1960s I remember my parents being “sick of having this front and center”. Of course they weren’t talking about SSM, they were talking about Civil Rights for Blacks.
sorry your parents were racist..this subject is a horse of a different color
It might be “a horse of a different color” but it is a horse. Civil rights are civil rights.
this is about changing the meaning of the word marriage. end of.
Your true self has surfaced. This is your forum to rant on how much you hate religion. You really don’t care about marriage, you have your own self interest. You want people to accept your aberrant lifestyle. I don’t care you are in a 15 year relationship with your homosexual partner, you are living a sinful, selfish life. And your lifestyle does affect us all, just like other sins against nature; murder, stealing, divorce …
I will try to be nice, but please understand this in plain English. I could not care less about what you or others think about my family and me. We very likely travel in different circles. Unlike us, who are willing to live and let live, your side is bent on denying us common secular, civil rights that have nothing to do with churches or religion. The only objections to same-sex marriage have come squarely from religious groups who wish to impose their morality on people who are not even members of their church. Isn’t this just a tad presumptuous on their part?
Much like boom-boxes at traffic lights, I have had to endure the endless ranting of the ultra-religious all my life. I mean them no harm and really do not care what the do in the privacy of their own churches. However, I expect the same courtesy from them and I am not getting it. I find their intrusion into our secular government by the ultra-religious to be offensive, rude, ill-mannered, uncouth, and uncalled for. Maine has a long, long history of live and let live. Of late, that concept has fallen on deaf ears solely justified by the vitriol put forth by ultra-religious organizations who have setup camp in Maine.
If anyone should move out of the State, it is them.
The fact that you use the word “sinful” speaks volumes about your character. And, the idea that you compare my family and me to murderers and thieves is beyond the pale. Apparently, manners were not taught in your household.
I am a very nice person, I’m most likely the person who would actually let you cross the street or bring you a meal if you were sick. But, I’m not going to pander to your aberrant lifestyle
So, this means you will adopt the traditional Maine, “Live and Let Live” attitude, and will at the very least, abstain from voting against my family on the November ballot?
And homosexuals are nice people too. They really are no different from you or I. The only difference is who they are attracted to.
and that is what disturbs alot of people
If people cannot look beyond who a person is attracted to, well then they are just very shallow to begin with.
They may or may not be nice people,, that’s not the point, their behavior is forbidden by God.
Just like heterosexual people may or may not be nice people. As to your second point, God does not decide this question. The people of Maine will in November and ultimately the SCOTUS will decide it.
How does his lifestyle affect YOU?
Who do you think you are, judging someone else like that! You have absolutely no basis to say that this law abiding citizen, raising a child, is sinful and selfish?? Why? Because their family looks different from yours? You should be ashamed of yourself!
Everyone “judges” people, including you.
No, Mograd called my207input on bad behavior. HUGE world of difference.
Only someone who will not own their “stuff” pulls out the deflection action of ” Everyone “judges” people, including you.”
So much for your claim to love gay people more than they love themselves.
Do opponents of gay marriage have anything but malice in their hearts ?
I care about the salvation of their soul.
You ought to start worrying about the salvation of your OWN soul, cause its in big trouble in my opinion.
Maybe it is for other reasons.
I truly believe that opponents of homosexual marriage do NOT have malice in their hearts. I bet most are probably church-going folks, raising their families to do the right things in life. They also believe in the traditional marriage between a man and a woman, the relationship God intended. There have been many malicious things said and done to supporters of traditional marriage.
I think the derogatory things you say about gay people here speak for themselves, so far as malice goes.
such as?
Such as referring to gay people as “homo”, and calling THAT “friendly”.
That’s just being a bigoted breeder.
You better retract your statement, I did not call anyone a “homo”….I was using it as my explanation of the word “gay”….”bigoted breeder” what the heck is that?
OK, I’ll apologize for mistakenly attributing you saying that the word “homo” was friendly.
Your “explanation of the word ‘gay'”, however, in relation to the word “homo”, shows your bigotry pretty clearly to me.
“gay” is hardly a replacement for just the word “homo”; that you sincerely believe that just shows to what extent you’ll go to make your own bigoted views OK. I somehow doubt that you are oblivious to all the names upstanding fine people used (and still use) to describe gay people, which the “stolen” word “gay” now replaces.
You don’t like the term “bigoted breeder” ? Feels pretty crappy, doesn’t it ? That’s nothing compared to what you condone.
you are wrong, Rostookguy. When I was a student in school, in the 50s and 60s, “homo” was a common word used for homosexuals…same meaning and my saying so as part of the “gay” definition does not make me a bigot. And having worked in public schools, “homo” is still used by kids, by the way…as is “queer” and “gay”. I doubt it will ever go away. I have many gay acquaintances and love them dearly, they have been to my home, dinner, my children’s weddings and other celebrations. They have been there for us when death has visited our doorway in the most meaningful way. They know how I feel and still love me. We can disagree on lots of things.
Your name calling only show what you are…a bully. It doesnt bother me one bit..I was just wondering where that came from and what it means.
How in the world do you come up with someone ELSE living a sinful life affecting YOU??? Can you control someone who drinks, smokes, or watches pornography? Those are all considered sins, but you cannot control it. So what in the world makes you so high and mighty to think you should be allowed to control whether or not two people regardless of sexual orientation live their lives? The reason religion keeps being brought into this is because it is the religious faction that constantly tries to tell others how to live thier lives. We dont throw stones your way when many churchgoers are the same people living sinful lives behind closed doors..mind your own business. If you dont agree with something, done have anything to do with it…nobody is forcing you, but please, stop trying to push your bigotted ideas onto us. Most of us in this country have actually learned from our mistakes of treating each other unfairly.
Wow you certainly have unresolved anger issues.
How does allowing same sex marriage impact you? In your answer to this question, please provide specific examples how two men or two women being married impacts you marriage.
That seems to be the standard talking point, “How’s does this impact you”, well it does , first off it’s forbidden by God and if you don’t believe in God it has no place in nature. An it’s one of the four sins that cries out to heaven for vengeance. Gee thanks for asking for God’s vengeance. Your selfishness for we then impact us all.
And that seems to be the standard answer. Neither of your answers has a direct impact on YOU. The fact of the matter is, it doesn’t impact how YOU live your life.
Now, please remember this is a secular nation and is guaranteed to be that way by the U.S. Constitution.
Did you misunderstand what we are voting for? You will not be forced to be gay married, so your religious beliefs aren’t threatened here.
If you think that what other people do in life affects how your god feels about you, then where is your outrage over the Maine lobster industry, polyester clothing, and those of other faiths who violate your first commandment?
It seems that you are exploiting your faith to justify your dislike of gays.
good one my207input. Why ChuckGG brings religion into it is beyond me…he is deflecting his hatred of religion onto those of us who believe. It doesnt bother us, nor does it bother me that he/she is homosexual…as long as you kept it behind your own doors.
That’s the problem, people that it does NOT affect just seem to feel they are the only ones who are right. It should not matter WHO you live your life with, but rather HOW you live your life. I am all in favor of anyone spending the rest of their life with someone they love and respect adn who loves and respects them. It’s a piece of paper. Let’s be honest, the heterosexuals have destroyed the sanctity of marriage all on their own, they really should not stand in judgement of anyone else. I hope the law passes so that people who love each other can share that committment in any manner they choose. AND then leave it ALONE. Churches don’t pay any taxes so they shouldn’t have ANY say or power to defend this beyond speaking to their church members within the confines of the church.
Ah, but you are speaking in logical terms! What did that ever get you when it came to discussing issues with people who cannot grasp logic and critical thinking?
Seriously, thanks for your support. Just looking at the marriage numbers in the USA (legal same-sex marriage being statistically insignificant) we see a definite downward trend and when marriages occur, they are later in life. Here’s the study published in The Atlantic:
http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2012/02/the-death-and-life-of-marriage-in-america/252640/
I am not even sure what the “sanctity of marriage” really is and how SSM, with regard to the State, has anything to do with it. There’s that pesky logic creeping in again.
The bottom line is that there are gay families out there in the public. They always have been there. They always will be. Legalizing or not same-sex marriage will not change the number of same-sex couples. The only difference is whether or not these couples will be able to have access to the same legal rights as their straight-couple neighbors. To me, this is an obvious open and shut case.
The churches are getting rather brazen. It is one thing to preach your viewpoints to your flock from the pulpit, but to start anonymously donating millions of dollars to an independent group (like a PAC) to promote the imposition of your religious views on the secular society is crossing the line. The same people who defend this type of behavior for themselves would be the very first (and justifiably so) to complain about a Muslim group attempting to impose Sharia law into our legal system.
But, as I have said many times before, “they don’t get it, and they are not going to get it.”
I’m curious Chuck. You say you have an 11 yr. old daughter. When her peers ask her about mom and dad, you know family life, how is the topic defined for the child ?
It’s really pretty simple. Her father, John, is her biological father, and I am “Chucky” who has been with her since she was 2 weeks old. I am just part of the family. She gets to see her mother whenever she wishes but her Mom has had a number of issues in her life resulting in John having 100% custody.
Kids are very resilient and given how many mixed families exist today, her peers think nothing of the arrangement. She has classmates that have two mommies, for example, and a number with step-parents and single parents. She usually explains that she lives with her dad and Chucky and that her mother lives in another part of town. She slips and calls me “dad” on occasion, at which time I, of course, melt. She’s a great kid and very loving. With two guys around I doubt she’ll have an easy time dating! We have already told her – “no guys named Jimmy with a customized van!” She giggled at that.
But, as far as her peers go, they do not usually ask all the questions all at once. It just doesn’t seem to hit the radar screen with kids. I suppose that is because that Hollywood version of a 1950’s family, in reality, is a rarity these days. And, by that I also include the idea of a stay-at-home Mom in high-heels dusting the house with dad coming home in a suit and smoking a pipe. That really wasn’t reality in the 1950’s either but more of something right out of central casting.
Ultimately, she is a happy kid with two guys doting over her. She’s active in sports (basketball and ringettes [a hockey-like game on ice]) and does well in school. She is popular with the teachers and her peers. She has a big heart and is a very loving kid. I am very proud of her.
Kids are very resilient, that seems to be also one of the talking points of the homosexual community. Most people I know who have come from families where one of the parents is homosexual are pretty screwed up.
Excuse me? What a load of B.S. I know plenty of gay families and their kids are just fine. I cannot imagine what your kids must be like with your prep-course for membership to the KKK. You are simply rude.
Yeah…OK…Right…and heterosexual kids are never “pretty screwed up” from or by the families they live with.
By the way little, every single study conducted, peer reviewed and published in reputable medical journals has shown that the children being raised by adults in same sex homes are well adjusted, have fewer disciplinary issues, do better in school, etc…
Sad how you had to make a dig at the Catholic church while trying to prove your point. If you read the paper, there are child abusers in many professions. Yes, the Church made a huge mistake with how this was handled, but they have taken numerous steps to correct it. That is NOT part of the SSM issue at hand….low swipe on your “point”.
How much they have done remains to be seen.
However, the hypocrisy of this group stuns me. I was not raised Catholic but I can tell you that I have a number of gay friends who are ex-Catholic and they paid, to this day, a steep price for the mental abuse they suffered at the hands of that institution. The idea that they continue to dump money into efforts to impede our civil rights after what they have done is just unbelievable.
The report they commissioned lowered the age of pedophilia to something below 10 years of age when the medical and legal community state it is 16 to 18 years of age, depending upon the State. So, now the “actual” pedophilia numbers are much lower. Yeah, right. It is very clear the victims were overwhelmingly teen-aged males.
Their own report blames the whole affair on the “permissiveness of the times” implying the sexual revolution of the 1960’s. The media called this the Woodstock Defense. However, this addresses not the slew of victims from the 1950’s and before. I am sure there are many more but back past the 1950’s and many priests and victims are dead.
The church has done a poor job at resolving this issue. It’s apologies are half-hearted and I have yet to hear them accept blame. Where is all this famous contrition? And, little actual help for its victims. Most want a real apology and the arrest of the offending priests.
All of that, wrapped in a package, I find very offensive. And, despite this, they have the nerve to call us sinners and want to force their morality upon our secular laws? I call that plain, unmitigated gall. So, yes, I believe it is part of the SSM issue at hand.
You are pinning the errors of, based on membership, a very small minority upon the whole Catholic Church….very unfair and not related to this issue at hand.
And you are attempting to minimize what the leaders of the local parishes did and what the hierarchy of the churct did by covering it up.
no, I am not…but why bring these things up as some sort of counter-attack for SSM?
It is not a “counter-attack”. It is simply used as an example of an organization that is fighting against SSM when they should be more focused on their own internal demons. The Mother Church “recalled” Cardinal Law to the Vatican from Boston to protect him (and the Church) from having to testify about the cover-up in the Boston archdiocese.
So the Church fights against SSM and ignores their responsibility to the children victimized by the pedophile Priests.
I disagree with you, you are bringing this up to deflect attention away from the true argument here. Shall we demonize the homosexuals that spread AIDS through out the world? Organizations can fight more than one battle at a time. I am not justifying the priest sexual scandal in any way, those people need to be punished and the victims taken care of as much as possible. And many, many victims have been cared for. You don’t want to see that part, you just want to see what you can use in your argument. It doesnt fly.
If you wish to bring HIV/AIDS in to the discussion go ahead. Homosexuals, bisexuals, heterosexuals all spread HIV/AIDS throughout the world. The disease is not confined to one sexual orientation.
As I recall many males infected with HIV/AIDS have been charged with attempted murder for intentionally spreading the infection….to woman.
you miss my point…I brought up the Aids like you bring up the priest abuse of children. It is a deflection from the real issue here. And, by the way, Aids affected many more males than females
why is it SSM supporters are obsessed with this problem in the Catholic Church? The Church still speaks the word of God…if we only knew the lies being told to us by our government, you would be out crucifying them as well….no one is without sin; however the gay community loves to deflect to this problem to take the focus off what it truly important.
Keep swilling that Kool-Aid.
your comment is childish.
Lot of that going around.
YOU’VE JUST LOST ALL CREDIBILITY WITH ME. I can’t believe anything you say.
You ridicule the Pope and the Church and insult many people with your bait and switch argument, baiting with religious bigotry and switching the argument about SSM to one concerning the character of the Catholic Church and its leader that oppose SSM on moral grounds.
I can give you several reasons why the state of Maine should not sanction SS unions:
It is not in the state or society’s interest to support relationships simply for the sake of relationships themselves. If it starts to do that then it will have to support relationships of every sort, including those involving more than two people.
It will encourage the formation of families through artificial means thus separating more children from their natural parents. Many more children will likely end up being separated from either one parent or both parents through artificial insemination or through in vitro fertilization, a procedure that almost always ends up taking the life of several nascent human beings, not to mention the health danger it poses for the egg donor (the real mother to-be).
It will also encourage more adoptions by gays thus denying children without natural parents the opportunity to be adopted by a mom and a dad. This point is important not just for social reasons but also because opposite-sex couples provide a natural environment for nurturing that SS couples can’t provide.
Benefits derived from marriage are an added cost to taxpayers.
The state judicial system will no doubt impose educational standards in the public school system to normalize or make more acceptable homosexual behaviors and a new definition of the family unit to include some having two dads, and some having two moms.
More children no doubt will end up having gender identity disorders such as we’ve heard in the news media last Fall where a lesbian couple planned to allow their pubescent son to make the decision whether he wants to identify himself as a male or a female and act accordingly.
I disagree and so would most credible professionals. I suggest you take your points to the American Psychiatric Association, American Pediatrics Association, and the AMA. Let me know what the professionals have to say.
15 year relationship with an 11 year old daughter? YECH! (just kidding, of coarse;-)
Good catch! Of course, the math doesn’t even work out! I usually reread my comments before I hit send. I missed that one. Ha!
Let’s try that again, “… a 15 year relationship with my partner and we have an 11 year old daughter…”
I misspelled, Or at least used in the wrong context, “coarse”. Man, thats rough!
Haha! Another good example of the importance of punctuation. Here’s my favorite;
“Let’s eat, Grandma!”
or
“Let’s eat Grandma.”
Punctuation saves lives.
Amen to that.
And neither will you.
I agree, here we go again.
“Gay marriage advocates say much has changed since 2009”
Just because they keep saying it doesn’t make it so. Just a campaign ploy.
I think if you take away the tax breaks for being married and the discount for things like auto insurance & etc you’ll find the interest in marriage will go away too.
No, it will not. Are those YOUR primary reasons for a legal wedding/ marriage?
When or if your husband/wife (if you are married) dies, you will not be run out of your home by his/her family legally. You will be covered by, and legally are automatically, his/her insurance, retirement, etc withOUT a court battle. Inheriting savings, checking, house, car, insurances, retirement plans, etc as it stands right this instant, for me, have required that we place everything in writing, notarized and signed. Will it make a difference if my partner’s parents or siblings decide THEY want what have you? Not so much. It will take years in court and in that time I could be homeless. I am blessed, however, even without the bonds of a legal marriage to have in laws who would NEVER do this. There is something to be said for having an open minded Jewish father- in- law married to a recovered Catholic woman who converted! ( We are quite the mish mash, me a self excommunicated MORMON, my partner a recovered Catholic, them Jewish. Ya gotta love it!)
If my children were younger, I’d draw up papers for my partner to be their legal parent…. you do not have to do that! I did designate who my youngest child’s guardian is. My partner, and should something happen to both of us, my in-laws. My child’s father is my best gay male friend, he donated so we could have a child via artificial means. Thank goodness, he accepts my partner. Thank goodness he would not fight it. NOT ALL OF US ARE SO LUCKY!
Many gay parents lose their partner’s child/ children upon death. Even if the child/ children have known NO OTHER parents in their entire lives. Even when the partner is listed on the birth certificate!
Do any of you realize what your lives would be like if you did not have the basic rights inherent to EVERY single human on the planet? I do not give a fig about the moral judgements that will come up from this post and will not respond to such. I do care about being equal!
How many fifth grade responses must sane humans endure? Many I’d guess…
I’m not married, been with the same person for over 2 decades, they are the other parent to my kids. We bought our house together so we both own it, we have our life insurance policy’s so the other recieves it if one of us die. Our checking is individual, but we keep only enough money to cover monthly bills. We co-own the cars, the furniture. In the event one of us dies we have it in our will that any family heirlooms, like bibles or antiques, original photos goes to our sibs or parents. The children are my bio kids and their other parent is the bio parent. The only thing we won’t get is to drain each other S.S.I. benefits as we both work and have our own.
I have heard of some of the problems you have mentioned and I get it that it’s hurtful. I’m not everyone else but if one or both of the kids were not my bio children then I really have no right to keep them no matter how much I care about them no matter if I were gay or not. I also gert that blood is thicker than water. I also hear often that even a bio parent loses their kids for no real or apparent reason to the parents or sibs of their deceased legal spouse.
Is my biggest concern about losing more of the money I earn and have even less to take care of my family so other people can have the martial tax break. Yes why should I as a single person have to cover your action or anyone elses?
Tax breaks were not my point. You paying more as a single individual was your choice to remain single.
All those items you mentionned can be amended with the proper legal documentation.
Yeah, the same people that have opposed ANY anti-discrimination measures in the past are suddenly going to make an effort to be fair ?
I’m sorry, but I know a patent falsehood when I hear one.
Try it, I have and the results in many cases were unenforceable. Don’t believe me, try it yourself.
don’t need to, I am married. To a person of the opposite sex. Please advise of the unenforceable instances.
Ah but the possibility exists that you will experience it. If you have an elderly relative (as I did in my case, one should never make assumptions about orientation) that had completed written (by an attorney), notarized Power of Attorney, Durable Medical Power of Attorney and Healthcare Proxy I have first hand knowledge of what the elderly person thinks they are and what the healthcare institution thinks they are. And guess who wins?
ROFL…. you are truly living the life of the ostrich….head in sand….
Oh really?
Just because a bunch of homosexuals pay for a study, doesn’t mean the outcome is close to accurate. It’s no different than the questionnaires presented to military personnel. The ones that helped their cause were used, many were thrown away.
No worries though, it will be easier when you get a little to sure of yourself like last time.
Your opinion on the issue, while always welcome, will change nothing.
Neither will that view towards your fellow man or woman.
Be less of a NAZI.
doesnt majority rule?
Where there is love there is hope, kindness, a better way, a caring way. I don’t understand why everyone doesn’t get this.
Why is it that pro-gay activists say its ok to be gay, but then say its immoral to be a polygamist….?
Why not marry your dog, or your truck….?
Why is it that so many people are against equality? Against civil rights? How does gay marriage REALLY affect the lives of the straight population?
No beggin for votes……
Why is it that pro-gay activists say its ok to be gay, but then say its immoral to be a polygamist….?
Personally, I don’t care what anyone does romantically. It’s none of my concern if you wanna marry 5 different people. It’s none of my concern if gay marriage is legal and common place. It’s none of YOUR concern if I want to marry my girlfriend of 3 years. It’s none of YOUR concern if gay folks want to marry, either…unless your gay and want to get married; of course.
Actually it “is” my concern as an American if someone wants to redefine US law for marriage
MeForest you might as well close the gate as the horse is already out of the coral.
Marriage was redefined when one man stopped marrying multiple women.
Marriage was redefined in 1967 when the SCOTUS ruled in Loving v. Virginia that interracial marriage was the rule of the land.
Marriage was redefined in 2004 when the Supreme Judicial Court of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts ruled that the Massachusetts Constitution could not be used to define marriage as one man one woman.
So as you can see, the horse you are trying to keep in your coral escaped a very long time ago.
you can look at it any way you want, but this issue “does” redefine marriage,,, including polygamy
And as I said MeForest…the word “marriage” has been redefined before.
I guess we will just have to wait and see
I can understand that it is difficult for you to comprehend that the word “marriage” has been redefined twice since 1967 but it has. It is not my “opinion” or “interpretation” that matters. It is the rulings, one from the highest court in the land that matters.
In 1967 the SCOTUS redefined marriage to include people of “color” marrying “white” people. Prior to their Loving v. Virginia decision it was illegal for “colored” people to marry “white” people in 17 states. The Loving v. Virginia ruling was unanimous and struck down all anti-miscegenation laws in the country.
In 2004 the Supreme Judicial Court of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts redefined married when they found in Goodrich v. Department of Public Health that it was unconstitutional under the Massachusetts constitution to allow only heterosexual couples to marry.
Those seem to be rather significant redefinitions of the word “marriage”.
Proof please?
Name ONE state or nation where polygamy has become legal after they allowed gay marriage.
You can’t, because there’s no link there.
Then work to change the law and quit changing the subject oh “Ye with No Rational Argument”.
Oh I do have an argument I will not compromise Gods word !! We need Gods blessings not his wrath.
God did not kill thousands and thousands of Jews and Christians for polygamous marriages. They were ordained and blessed!!!! READ your damn Bible.
knowitall618 no one is asking you to “compromise” anything. Belief in God is fine. But, in our state and country no one God is any more or less important then another god and that is not my opinion, it is the law.
Where is polygamy written or listed in the GAY marriage campaign? NO WHERE.
Polygamy is an issue within your own mind…
It changed in 1967 too. And many times before that. You need a new dictionary.
I don’t hear them saying that. I hear you demonstrating an inability to talk about the issue at hand, so you change the subject.
First of all, it is NOT IMMORAL to be a polygamist. READ your Bible. Second, WHY do you insist on not answering the questions presented but insist on deflecting and countering them? Could it be you have no basis in truth upon which to draw?
Because they are living in the past
And why do the ignorant always go to the extreme and bring into the discussion animals, inanimate objects, children, etc…Did Bubba tell you to type that?
Ok, lets not go so extreme, lets just say that by redefining “marriage” polygamy needs to be addressed, and why the pro-gay activists find it soo immoral…
First off polygamy is not on the ballot, same sex marriage is. Secondly, where are you hearing or reading that “pro-gay activists find it soo immoral”?
Every time I bring it up….
OK MeForest.
You try to hijack the discussion from SSM to polygamy (or sex with animals or sex with your truck as you tried to earlier) and when people point out that the discussion is about SSM and not polygamy (or sex with animals or sex with your truck) you interpret that as “pro-gay activists find it soo immoral”
That is a very large leap in opinion you are making.
I don’t hear them saying that. I hear you demonstrating an inability to
talk about the issue at hand, so you change the subject.
If polygamy needs to be addressed when we offer gay marriage, why has polygamy not come to any state or nation that has allowed gay marriage?
I think you’re obviously wrong here— extending civil marriage to gays results in gays getting married, nothing more.
I, for one, DO NOT find polygamy immoral. READ your Bible! READ about marriage history. Yes, I am an ex-Mormon, I am not from a polygamous family. I do have friends who are. I have stated and will state again, as long as there are NO child brides, no coerced/forced brides and all parties are at least 18 years of age and give CONSENT, what is the big damn deal????? WHOSE self righteous, holier than thou business is it anyway????? NO ONE’S!
And here goes the bestiality bit, again, gonna cover pedophilia, too…96% of men who have sex with animals, children and young teens are white, heterosexual and Christian claiming people. Give me a break.
Because that’s how they were raised
You must be pulling my leg. I cannot believe people are still dragging out this old horse in an attempt to beat it even deader.
Who said it is immoral to be a polygamist? Marriage Equality states nothing about the number of participants in the marriage contract. It will remain at two. If you are into polygamy, that is another discussion but it has nothing to do with same-sex marriage.
As far as dogs and trucks go (you forgot children), understand this basic legal concept that anyone who took Business Law 101 would know: The State considers marriage to be a contract. A contract can exist only between/among participants who are competent. Competency is defined as being of legal age and being able to understand and comprehend the consequences of entering into a legal contract. Children, dogs, and trucks are not considered “competent.”
However, it your church wishes to burn some incense, dance around the fire, bang on a drum, and marry you to your car, go ahead. No one is going to stop you. You won’t be able to get a state-issued marriage license ahead of time nor will you be able to file jointly on your taxes. You see, your church has zero legal standing unless a state-issued marriage license is issued. But, go ahead. I hope your truck and your dog don’t get jealous.
So, please, bury this old dead horse as he is starting to stink up the place.
this issue “does” redefine marriage
So, I would say, “Who cares?” What is this big deal about “redefining marriage?” When divorced couples were allowed to re-marry, you redefined marriage. When inter-racial couples were allowed to marry, you redefined marriage. When black slaves in the USA finally were permitted to marry, you redefined marriage.
When marriage became related to romantic love instead of the financial and power control of merging two families, you redefined marriage.
Marriage has been redefined over the centuries.
If your church (which is the only arguments I EVER hear) does not wish to recognize same-sex marriage, that is perfectly fine with me. Churches carry no legal weight and a church wedding without a marriage license issued by the State, is meaningless in the eyes of the State. Go get a church-only marriage and then try to file your taxes as a married couple. Try getting a divorce. What divorce, the court will ask? There never was a marriage – case dismissed.
Why do you people have your knickers in such a twist about this? There are bigger fish to fry in the world. This is a legal, contractual matter, having -zero- to do with your church.
Actually this has a lot to do with the church. Most in the church view the gay movement extremely willing to force the gay agenda into the church and force the church to perform gay marriages.
Ultimately, this issue will never be settled and this argument will never go away
Believe it or not, I agree with you!
But, anyone with a year’s worth of legal education would know full-well that there is no way anyone is going to “force a church to perform a gay marriage.” It just is not going to happen.
You know there still exists churches out there who refuse to marry couples of different faiths, different races, or where one or both parties were previously divorced. In all those years, has anyone ever heard of any case where the state has charged a church for not performing a wedding ceremony? It just does not happen nor can it happen as it would be in violation of the First Amendment.
And, trust me, no gay person could give a rat’s behind about being married in a church in which they are unwelcome. If they did, then that is between them and their church but it will never bring in the State or the Courts.
The problem I run into is that this is so utterly logical and religion is the complete antithesis of logic.
There are some issues that are somewhat up in the air. If a church decides to open its basement hall for commercial use and charge a fee for it, you now run into a problem if the church denies access based upon their beliefs. Because they are engaged in a commercial venture, this is straying somewhat outside of the religious protection arena. If the church denied access to the couple because they were black and that goes against their Aryan ethics, I think we’d all be appalled by that and wonder if the church is in violation of some legal statute. Would this same denial be permitted if the church owned a lunch-counter or a laundry? Is it not okay to discriminate against race but okay to discriminate based upon sexual orientation?
This recently cropped up with the whole contraception issue with Obamacare. Personally, I think the compromise is more than acceptable. But, I will leave this to the attorneys and courts to muddle through.
By the way, what is this “gay agenda?” I missed that memo. Seriously, I wish someone would tell me exactly what the gay agenda is.
*Coughbscough*
MeForest are you still trying to keep that horse in the coral? It ran away a very long time ago.
If you say so
It’s not what I say MeForest, I am only stating facts. You say the word “marriage” cannot be “redefined”. I am saying is the work “marriage” has been “redefined” twice in my lifetime. The first time in 1967 and the second time in 2004. Those are facts and they are not in dispute.
and interpreted by you…
LOL…
In 1967 the SCOTUS redefined marriage to include people of “color” marrying “white” people. Prior to their Loving v. Virginia decision it was illegal for “colored” people to marry “white” people in 17 states. The Loving v. Virginia ruling was unanimous and struck down all anti-miscegenation laws in the country.
In 2004 the Supreme Judicial Court of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts redefined married when they found in Goodrich v. Department of Public Health that it was unconstitutional under the Massachusetts constitution to allow only heterosexual couples to marry.
Those seem to be rather significant redefinitions of the word “marriage”.
self edit
Polyandry. Thats whats next. Anything goes right? Whatever feels good just do it! Marry your dog or your truck or that dead horse you talk about? Thats just silly. Or is it? And who are YOU to tell me its wrong?
Harry, Harry, Harry…
“Polyandry. Thats whats next. Anything goes right? Whatever feels good just do it!”
At least you are original and bring up something new.
And this is another typical ploy used by many on the anti-SSM side. When you have no logical argument against SSM bring up other “things” to distract from the question at hand. In case you missed it Harry, the article and question in November is about SSM not polygamy/polyandry. Personally, I could care less how many wives or husbands a person wants, but that isn’t the question is it? On the other hand, I cannot understand why one wife or husband would not be enough. Lord know I have all I can handle with one.
~~~~~
“Marry your dog or your truck or that dead horse you talk about?”
And now we move onto dogs, trucks and “dead” horses. Well let’s handle these one at a time shall we:
Dogs – Not only can dogs not grant informed consent but they do not have conscious thought which is required to grant informed consent. Harry if for some reason you know someone that wants to copulate with their dog please call the police, Sheriff or ACO because I am willing to bet the dog doesn’t want to copulate with them.
Trucks – well they have no “brain” so they have no conscious thought and I am willing to bet that anyone attempting to mate with their Ford would end up with some pretty nasty burns.
“Dead” horses – well if they are dead they have no brain activity which means they have no conscious thought which means they cannot….oh Harry please if you see someone attempting to mate with anything that is dead please do not approach and call 911.
In fact I would suggest you have 911 in your speed dial because it sounds like you live in a very weird place or alternative universe.
~~~~~
Marriage has already been redefined twice since 1967 Harry. In 1967 the SCOTUS redefined marriage to include people of “color” marrying “white” people. Prior to their Loving v. Virginia decision it was illegal for “colored” people to marry “white” people in 17 states. The Loving v. Virginia ruling was unanimous and struck down all anti-miscegenation laws in the country and in 2004 the Supreme Judicial Court of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts redefined married
when they found in Goodrich v. Department of Public Health that it was unconstitutional under the Massachusetts constitution to allow only heterosexual couples to marry.
~~~~~
” Thats just silly. Or is it? And who are YOU to tell me its wrong?”
And we always close with the “slippery slope” argument to which I always ask, Please show me just one state which has allowed same sex couples to marry that has moved legislation forward which allows a person to either marry a) multiple partners, b) minor children, c) animals (living or dead), d)
trucks, e) trees, f) or any other think, object or property they think they are in love with?
I do like points for originality. Thanks!
Polyandry by definition means a woman has two or more husbands. No thanks. Not for me.
No, that’s not what’s next… that hasn’t been what’s next in any of the nations or states that have offered same sex marriage.
I think if only gays were allowed to be married and being single has the perks, it would be a much different debate going on….
And if rat poop were gold, we wouldn’t be hiring exterminators… what’s the point here?
Every other reason for getting married seems more about money then family and love.
Please read ‘WeAreOneinSpirit” often it seems to boil down to life insurance, savings, home ownership and least we forget the S.S.I. benefits. Despite the fact I’ve been with the same person for over 20 years, got in debt with , had kidswith I won’t be able to claim my partners S.S.I. benefits either in the event of their death. So what, it seems to me changing the laws for single unmarried couples would certainly be more widely accepted, cause less hate, then to ask people to give up their beliefs, be they by religon or just personal feelings.
If it had been presented as benefits for single couples from the beginning, don’t you think maybe it would have been “golden rat poop” ( a money thing again) for singles by now?
Scintillate, you seem to be stuck on ONE single point out of 1300.
I am MUCH more concerned with my family than money. ALWAYS! I make an income equal if not higher than my partner who works a white collar, corporate job! We have 6, count em, 6 children. We have 8 grandchildren. WE want them to have the rights to inheritance, yes. I want my partner covered in the event of my death just as you would be if married. I want the same things every person who can legally marry wants…..Safety, security, love, family, etc. I do not want or need my partner’s Social Security in the event of HER death, thank you very much, nor does she need or want mine. ( let’s see that leaves 1299 other reasons). We are not poor nor even middle class, by any stretch of the imagination. Why? Because we work long and hard and earned our incomes. We are not double income no children and free from debt or worries. We pay our bills on time and live within OUR means. We have 3 children headed to college, soon. Talk about scary…one wishes to be a veterinarian, one wishes to pursue law, and the other wishes to pursue a marine biology Ph.D. * see the stars swirling around my head? * lol.
If you can move past the tax breaks issues for the single community maybe you could be open to hearing there is more involved. Personally, I think if you live with any partner straight or gay for an extended period of time you SHOULD be able to file jointly. JUST my opinion.
Namaste!
I sound like a skipping record don’t I? You know what that is right, I’m assuming here because of you said you have g-kids. Playing the same spot in a scratched record over and over and OVER until it drives people insane.
Don’t you think it would have been far more accepted to maybe make taxation and benefits for single couples equal with marrieds? Because honestly without being scarastic or mean do you really think marriage for gays would be that big of an issue if all relationships were viewed equal?
The only thing we won’t get is the others S.S.I. benefits but they’d be the same, and we don’t use our kids as a tax write off so we wouldn’t ask for S.S.I. benefits if one of us died. All other issues in life are no problem, life insurance, home ownership, auto ownership. All you have to do is add your loved ones name to these material things or buy them together.
You are also subject to a great many taxes and inheritance taxes that married couples are simply not subject to.
Thanks alot, now you’ve done it……… the words that give me heartburn.
Single but coupled was a choice you and your partner made. Marriage would lower your taxes, correct?
Right a choice, I didn’t need to partner up. I don’t see marriage as an option, because the government is too involved.
I could lower my taxes claiming my kids too, but that means I have to take money out of someone elses pocket.
Claiming your children does not take money out of the pocket of another.
I have too often seen people get back more in taxes then they paid in because they claim a child or few and baby sitting fees. You can’t possibly believe your paying taxes if you get it all back and you can’t possibly believe the government isn’t getting it from some place. Lets say you and I both paid in 7k last year but you get it all back + and I get back four hundred, whose paying your share? Not you, you just got it all back.
Ever notice on your taxes you can donate to the presidents fund, BUT IT DOESN’T CHANGE YOUR RETURN AMOUNT? Where do you think the money is coming from?
Sorry…just stating fact :)
We seek equality. If it were equal none of us would need to speak about it.
I wish it were as easy as you say. Tax write off is NOT my main concern. We did buy together but unless rights to inheritance is added at the time of sale or another mortgage is negotiated it is a no go. If one partner owns the property/ properties ahead of the relationship beginning it can be contested.
However, you still miss the point. Funny, how you gloss over the pertinent points.
Then you should change that or refinance or sell, whatever will work.
One can contest anything, thats not new or saved for certain groups.
I get the point but I think people are more in love with the idea of marriage and not what marriage really means.
But you might agree if single couples had all the rights as married people, do you think marriage would be such an issue?
As I pointed out in an earlier post to you, I think single people who are “coupled” should have the right to file joint taxes.
I do not need to change anything except my marital status. Contesting the will of a gay couple is much more prevalent than that of straight couples. In answer to your last question, I do believe it is still a necessity.
Maybe you could lobby for that taxation change.
Scintillate if you have been with one person for many years what happens when the time comes to make medical decisions for each other? And if you are relying on Durable Medical Power of Attorney not every institution will honor them and I speak from first hand knowledge.
Making medical decision and/or end of life decisions is NOT about money. And unmarried couples do not have the legal right to make decisions for their unmarried partner.
Amen! Been there, done that burned the t-shirt!
We can be kept out of hospital rooms, er’s, mortuaries/ funerals, etc…
Even if I were married I wouldn’t give that option to a spouse. If the law said I had to thats part of the marriage rules, I wouldn’t get married.
If someone doesn’t want to pull the plug on me, they can pay for it. I hope my loved one would post it here, so everyone can complain about wasting tax payers money:)
If you were/are married your spouse automatically HAS that option. I wonder if you may be a tad bit confused as to the scope of Durable Medical Power of Attorney.
Could be one of the reasons I’m not.
Gotcha!
Namaste!
Well the state and federal government gives a spouse that right under the law. They also give the spouse the right to visitations. Both are not available to unmarried couples.
Not so, my partner and I have each others name on each others medical, all you have to do when the doctor or hospital asks is name your partner and anyone else you want as the person of contact. When my partner got in a car accident, their mother and I were at the hospital, she works for the same hospital, she wasn’t on the list and they wouldn’t tell her anything.
Scintillate I speak from personal experience when I say the following and I hope you never go through it but unmarried couples or people caring for elderly relatives go through it everyday of the week.
If you and your partner were traveling and something were to happen one of you and they could not speak for themselves legally you cannot speak for them. Advanced Directives, Medical Health Care Proxies and Durable Medical Power of Attorneys vary from state to state and how much power they give the partner also varies.If you had a following out with your partners mother. She can demand to take control of your partners health care decisions and guess what, most hospitals, etc…will allow it. Your partners mother is after all a blood relative. She could prevent you from seeing your partner. She could bar you from learning about the care, etc… of your partner and she would be within her legal rights.
My elderly aunt had very specific Advanced Directives, Medical Health Care Proxies and Durable Medical Power of Attorneys and I was listed as the decision maker. The facility she was in honored her wishes (and my choices) until she was given a terminal diagnosis. Then THEY stated saying what could and couldn’t be done, when I pointed out what the documents said they said, “doesn’t matter. Our attorneys said to ignore them.” Now keep in mind they had honored them up to the terminal diagnosis and she was a “cash pay patient”. Hmmm did that have anything to do with it? $8,500.00 per month was her “cost of care” and when she died so did the money.
This facility is one of the largest long term care facilities in the country with multiple locations in Maine. So, what did I do? I contacted the state and they told me (and the facility) they should honor the wishes and directives on file. Did they? Nope, they decided to continue down the path “they” felt the patient would want. I was even threatened by the Nursing Director and Medical Director for doing what I legally agreed to do! I said I would remove her from the facility. They said “we will have you arrested for elder abuse”. While fighting this battle I didn’t sleep for 5 days and the facility won. I didn’t have the resources to fight them.
So please be careful with the decision you and your life mate make. You might think you have all the bases covered but you will likely discover that even when you do, you haven’t “crossed this T or dotted that I” and that is all it takes for a health care organization to ignore your wishes.
Tax breaks are NOT the sole point!
MeForest, do you always hold a conversation this way? If so, I feel sorry for your husband/ wife or partner. Conversation stoppers, deflecting, countering, discounting, etc…
No, you’re just behind reality.
Your wish for same sex marriage is what really has stunk up the place.Because its full of sin and sin stinks
The only appropriate and analogous response I can think of:
Liar, liar, pants on fire.
This is meant in humor, gays have as much right to be married and miserable as straight people.
I am not gay but I’m all for live and let live.
Really? You make a great ally.
If you can’t argue against gay marriage without bringing up polygamy or bestiality, you don’t have an argument against gay marriage.
It’s true, when opponents are asked about how gay marriage will negatively affect society, I find the argument always switches to polygamy, bestality, and pedophilia, none of which have anything to do with gay marriage.
the slippery slope argument is a function of their fear and frustration.
And that is your only argument you put on ever article. Stop using the word equal when its not equal. If polygamy is against the law, and same sex is against the law, then the Equality Banner should cover both.
Then stop using that straw man argument, no one is arguing for polygamy but you.
And you are arguing the “slippery slope” argument but from a different perspective.
Polygamy is widely practiced by many cultures and among different Religious sects.
BUT the fundamentalists believe ONLY they are right, true and correct and must go convert those heathens who have 7 wives and believe differently.
I don’t hear them saying that. I hear you demonstrating an inability to
talk about the issue at hand, so you change the subject. My other post covers your stupidity.
your stupidity lies in the fact that you wont lok at what the Bible says about same sex partners . its wrong !! you can choose what you like but if its not lining up with Gods word you wont have Gods blessing. Sure God will let you have your own free will but if you choose to live life without his direction then there is a price to pay.Repent for the day of the Lord is near!!
The bible is not civil law.
KING JAMES changed the verses about homosexuality because HE was gay! It was not in the original texts! His own children were fathered by his BROTHER because he could not be with his wife! RESEARCH.
The bible says far more in support of slavery than it says against homosexuality. Are you fighting our government for your religious right to have slaves?
There’s something distinctly ridiculous about one sinner telling another sinner to repent, and then referencing a corrupted bible to support their passive-aggressiveness.
I’ve never in my life heard a gay rights activist say that it’s immoral to practice consensual polygamy, but I do know that comparing a gay couple to a relationship between a human and an animal or a human and an inanimate object is about as mature as throwing a temper tantrum because Mommy didn’t buy you the cereal with marshmallows in it. Animals and inanimate objects cannot consent to marriage. A human being can. Are you suggesting that homosexuals are less than human?
Also I’m pretty sure that there’s a number of straight males that would love to take you up on your offer of making it legal for them to marry their truck.
Then why is the other side can use, well animals commit gay acts all the time, heard this more then one time in my life. Oh I know the shoe is on the other foot now.
What are you blathering on about?
Drinking early is never pretty.
Then why not? Sick animals not committed act well some of the time, never heard in my life that a snowshoe on the other foot wasn’t lucky.
They arn’t saying that, YOU are.
I do love my Jeep.
Right brother, first they allow women to voice their opinion which is clearly a sin stated in Timothy 2:12. Then it was the BLACKS and now the GAYS too. Why I am voting for Santorum, because he will slosh forth and make the blacks and gays flow away and down America’s rectum where they belong!
You know what, if you want to marry your truck, or your dog Fido for that matter, i have no problem with that either…love is love regardless..and i am pretty sure that any gay couple would agree with that as well….See the problem here is that while you folks keep bashing the Gay Community’s rights, they never bash YOURS….maybe ya could learn a thing or two from them.
””
some of us do
“some of us do” what?
I dont know why that got there
It will not pass you don’t have to like it, it’s the will of the Maine voters. No then and no now.
And what happens when the SCOTUS makes their ruling Randy?
as if we don’t have enough divorces and children caught in the middle
So outlaw divorce.
I for one an sick of voting on issues every couple years that we turn down whether it it this or casinos. Lets make them wait at least 5 years before bringing it back before the public, maybe ten years.
OK dose that go for any issues that were vote weather it be state,city, or town?
Amen to that. 10 year moratorium.
OK, here is the process.
Section 4. Amendments to Constitution. The Legislature, whenever 2/3 of both Houses shall deem it necessary, may propose amendments to this Constitution; and when any amendments shall be so agreed upon, a resolution shall be passed and sent to the selectmen of the several towns, and the assessors of the several plantations, empowering and directing them to notify the inhabitants of their respective towns and plantations, in the manner prescribed by law, at the next biennial meetings in the month of November, or to meet in the manner prescribed by law for calling and holding biennial meetings of said inhabitants fort he election of Senators and Representatives, on the Tuesday following the first Monday of November following the passage of said resolve, to give in their votes on the question, whether such amendment shall be made; and if it shall appear that a majority of the inhabitants voting on the question are in favor of such amendment, it shall become a part of this Constitution.
Psst…they ok’d the casinos, and we are going to allow this TOO!!!!
Here’s hoping this time Maine can stop using God as their defense for bigotry, and use common sense to cast their vote.
Because we wont compromise Godsword
It is not God’s word. They are man’s words. Besides, the way you wrote that implies multiple gods.
I’m there are multi gods, not everyone worships the same god. I do not use your god’s words for any thing I decide to do. My vote has nothing to do with any church or god.
I will vote to support same sex marriage when the vote makes it Equal for all, not just one more group that yells louder then another group.
Change it for all or leave it alone.
I think we have a communication misunderstanding. I was correcting knowitall618.
Namaste!
They are the same person.
They can’t just move to California ?
And that is why the SCOTUS will decide SSM once and for all Unemployed.
That’s pretty ridiculous. Why don’t we ask you to move to Alabama if you disagree with us?
But we don’t. We live together in Maine, and always have. How does our civil marriage affect you our yours?
CA did not pass it either, it an activist judge that over turned the peoples right to vote.
No, a conservative judge affirmed that our US Constitution trumps California state law. As did the the court of appeals that recently heard the appeal.
You just can’t move to Afghanistan ?
I have yet to see a cogent argument, legal, moral or otherwise, why people of the same gender should not be able to enjoy the same rights and privileges afforded to people of opposite gender in forming and celebrating a union. Maine is finally moving forward on fiscal issues–time for it to also move forward on basic human rights issues.
You ca’t help who you fall in love with
Wheather the bill passes or not a couple wether mm ff or mf will be together if they so choose to do so
In English, please!
I think she is saying that you can’t stop gay people from falling in love and living together, raising their families, and continuing to prove that everything the extremists say about them is false.
All people, regardless of marital status, must be entitled to the same rights and privileges that are afforded those who can be married legally. To do otherwise is to discriminate. There are many types of households, and many single people. All should have the same civil rights.
Church sanction, or not, should be the decision of the church. There must be separation of church and state.
What are the current figures on the financial outlay of Equality Maine, incidentally?
Live and let live. Keep the government out of people’s private lives.
So you think we should vote to allow same sex marriage, then?
I have no problem with it. Live and let live. I don’t want people,or other people”s religion, telling me what I can and can’t do, and I have no desire to tell others how to live or love.
I am fiscally conservative and socially liberal.
It’s not the government that concerns me. Left to the legal scholars, same-sex marriage is an open-and-shut case. It is the religious crowd who fails to abide by the First Amendment.
Anybody watched the new episodes of Servivor every time I think I’m ok with this, I see some1 like that guy on that show and say nope I don’t want some1 like that anywere near me or my kids.It’s got nothing to do with religion to me either.
http://www.cbs.com/shows/survivor/video/
You are judging us by the behavior of a reality TV contestant?
We are your neighbors, your coworkers, your family members.
I act nothing like this person you point to on TV. No one who knows me has a problem with my being gay.
Perhaps you should take the time to get to know us, just a little bit. You’d be surprised that we have more in common than not, I think.
I wouldn’t want most of the contestants on ANY reality show to be my neighbor or influence my children.
For instance, I wouldn’t want Jake Zweig as a role model for anything I was associated with. A “college” football coach and former U.S. Navy Seal he walked away, quit when the going got tough on Top Shot.On the other hand, Rupert from Survivor would be a fine role model.
If you base your decisions on an encounter with one person and decide based on that encounter that “they are all like that” well, I really don’t know what to say to you.
OK, here we go again.
What is the rational argument against gay marriage that will stand in court?
Freedom loving people have no problem with same-sex marriage.
I thought it was called Unnatural Marriage
No, it’s called civil marriage.
Same sex couples can already get married in churches in religious ceremonies, our freedom of religion guarantees that. What is at issue here are the benefits and privileges extended by our government based on civil marriage.
Actually, according to the laws of nature, all marriage is unnatural.
Since our country’s inception there have been groups that have seen the promise of our Constitution, and petitioned our society for equal rights, access to government, and legal protections. And all along the way there have been people predicting doom and gloom and national destruction if we extend these things to one more group, race, sex, or other minority.
And every time they have failed, and every time our nation has failed to self-destruct. This is just the next way in which our constitution is fulfilling its promise to ALL Americans.
Don’t be so sure that opinion has changed….. many of us just don’t want to hear it or argue it- but we will be at the polls….
I’ve said it once, I’ll say it a million more. If you don’t like gay marriage, don’t get one. It’s really that simple.
No, it’s not. By granting “equal” status under the law, government is saying it is equal and that has implications for society. That’s how simple it is – in other words, not simple at all.
That said, many people are like you (not thinking about the implications) and, therefore, this law will pass.
I think many opponents aren’t really thinking about the implications either: supporting family values for all families strengthens families, legally recognizing all marriages strengthens marriage, supporting loving couples in raising children can help provide loving stable homes to children that are given up for adoption and bounced from foster home to foster home.
If someone truly believes in “family values” and puts any real thought into the issue, they will see that supporting same sex marriage is supporting family values.
BULLCRAP!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Why?
Looking for you suit?
He’s calling his cat.
The sodomites are going to keep pushing the issue untill everyone gets tired and votes their way. they keep pushing for liberals in the courts as do the democrats.shame on the clergy that support this as it goes against what they say they stand for.god will not be mocked.
We will keep pushing this issue because the 14th Amendment of our Constitution guarantees equal treatment under the law, and civil marriage is a government issue, not a religious issue.
We are not mocking god, nor are we seeking to tear down marriage. We are seeking to affirm our committment and love for one another and join in this wonderful institution of marriage.
Well then Equal Treatment under the law means that People can have more then one wife., this group of folks are not getting equal treatment, why? and don’t come back with its against the law, well apparently so is same sex marriage at the moment, if same sex marriage was not against the law there would be no article or reason to vote on it.
There’s that straw man argument again.
If you are against same sex marriage, why are you trying to convince us to legalize polygamy, bestiality and pedophilia?
Equal means equal does it not,
bestiality and pedophilia? no where in my post did I use anything about either you brought up those two in this article. Why don’t you stick to what I just wrote.
Two types or marriage is against the law, and we are only voting on one under your so called def: of Equality. Because the gay community has been yelling the most.
Sticking to what you have written in BDN forums: we are not fighting to legalize illegal behaviors. We are fighting for equality in civil marriage for same sex couples. This does not alter the nature of civil marriage in any radical way.
Your arguments would alter marriage in a radical way, changing it from a two person arrangement, altering the nature of consent laws, and even going as far as granting benefits and privileges to inanimate objects and pets.
This is why it is a straw man argument— you are pretending that our fight is for something it is not, and then you oppose that instead of what we are really after.
So I ask you— can you come up with valid, legally defendable reasons why same sex marriage should not be offered to Maine couples who want it?
Straw man arguments repeated 30 times are still straw man fallacies.
This is just a plain example of a vote because the squeaky wheel get the grease, so who is going to be the next squeaky wheel????
Then how come it hasnt happened in any of the other 26 countries and states where it has been legal for up to 11 years?
The “slippery slope” argument has failed every time it is brought up. Why? Because no state or country that has allowed SSM has moved on any additional laws that allow anyone to marry a child, animal, truck, two women, two men, etc…
So the argument is nothing more then an attempt to distract from the question at hand.
Psst….the republicans keep pushing for conservative judges too.
When you follow the bIble word for word, so will I.
The only reason this is on the ballot now is that the homosexuality community thinks they can ride the coattails of the presidential campaign reelection of President Obama. So gasoline prices maybe the deciding factor in all of this. Wow didn’t see that coming.
Deep thinking there jimbo
It’s all about voter turnout.
So all I got to do is buy a couple of those 10K barrel oil futures on Monday and hold ’em for a few weeks while the price goes up to defeat Obama and stop gay marriage ?
If voters turn out to throw Obama out then that could be a problem.
Why? I don’t vote for Obama, but I support same sex marriage.
No, the only reason is that we want to be married, and we want malignant influence out of our religions, and our lives.
The price of gas has nothing to do with gay marriage.
But keep talking, we really appreciate the crazy arguments; they’re funny, and they just prove our points.
You missed the whole point I was making, but that’s OK. We’ll see what happens if gas is five bucks a gallon around election time.
Your point appears to be that only Obama voters support same sex marriage, and that’s incorrect.
Upholding our Constitution is a conservative value. I know several Republican voters who support same sex marriage.
All the cheating and lying by the ‘righteous’ gay marriage opponents that was document during the last referendum is coming back to bite them. I hope Maine Catholics have had enough of Bishop Malone’s special collections directed at disenfranchising the Maine gay community. Better they spend their money correcting all the evil they have been trying to sweep under the rug.
Not to mention all that ‘secret’ money that was funneled into Maine by the Mormon church. After two court losses they are still not disclosing their donors.
And I see a lot more voters going to the polls this November to oust these so called, very mean, conservatives out of office. These voters will emaciate the LePage administration and return some sanity to state government.
Bishop Malone has a gay nephew who, Malone has made so guilt ridden, is dyeing from addiction and pain. I dont see Malone spending time cleaning his own back yard.
Typical liberal propaganda piece by the Associated Press. I am sure they have a real pulse on what’s going on in Maine. They probably couldn’t even find it on a map if you spotted them New England.
the ole addage perfume on a pig sound familiar?
How about we replace marriage with civil unions? All couples and their families would then have legal rights, and would also have the option of whatever type ceremony they desired. This way folks could get married if they wanted to, churches could refuse to marry couples if they wanted to, and perhaps we all could live our own lives and not worry quite so much about what our neighbors might be doing. We might even have a little energy left over to address some other matters such as unemployment, education, budget shortfalls, healthcare needs, and so on.
Sounds good to me, civil unions for everyone!
I also have an idea thom…vote yes in November and people can get married and churches will be protected if they refuse to perform a ceremony based on their religious doctrine. People could choose a religious or civil ceremony and the state wouldn’t need to adjust laws to reflect the “new” civil unions for all. And I would also be willing to bet a weeks pay (no make that two weeks) that NOM, the Catholic Church, etc…would fight the change just as hard and with just as many lies as they did a few years ago.
I agree. Civil Unions for all. Marriage for religious institutions. If the Universalists or Methodists wish to perform gay weddings then go ahead. Get government out of our religion.
I believe that you are profiling with the insinuation that I belong to some so called “Hate Group”, well I do not. However, marirage is meant to be between a man and a woman.
This will be duly noted by another defeat in November. And yes, I mean another defeat. It seams that this subject has been in the forefront for a decade or more.
During these extraordinary times in this country there are much more important matters to be considered than to kick this can down the road many more times.
Well there are no more important things then insuring equality for your fellow citizens. Without equality, we have nothing.
There will never be Equality, every law starts and ens somewhere, and some group is not gonna be happy, when it does not fit their life style choice.
So Jed we have come full circle and I am going to challenge you to state specifically how allowing a same sex couple to marry impacts your “lifestyle” or marriage. No generalities like “my marriage will never be the same”, etc…but “I will not be able to ______”.
It is legal and accepted in 26 countries and states and they have the lowest divorce rates in the world. The Bible and the church was used to speak against the abolition of slavery, women’s right to vote, and of course there was Hitler. Hitler killed thousands of homosexuals. He made them wear a pink triangle to single them out. Do you really think they chose that?
This is the first referendum being organized by proponents of same-sex marriage. If you feel that there are more important issues to deal with, maybe you should express that to the opponents of same-sex marriage who have spent a lot more time and energy organizing referendums on this issue.
Well since Affirmative Action became a part of our vocab there has been no equality, so join the club.
I love how liberal use religion when it serves their purpose.
I know, it would make more sense if they used it on a daily basis the way conservatives do.
I love how conservatives use religion for their purposes, then pretend the liberals aren’t just responding to their false claims.
yup, remove anything about religion until it works for them, but that starts at the top as well obama is all of a sudden quoting from the bible REALLY., like ‘im suppose to fall for that crap.
Dude, you’re sick. You don’t have a monopoly on religion.
they need all the help they can get cuase they are sick and want to drag the rest of society down with them,i think all pot smokers should get out the vote,if fags can get married why cant we smoke a joint?
There is no excuse for using language like that. What you are expressing here by using derogatory language like that, is HATE, and there is no place for that in our society.
theres no place for hate,i hate seeing two fags makeing out now thats HATE you people just want to shove your way of life down everyones throat the people of maine dont want this and have said it in the voteing booth several times now,so pack it up and go to vermont all of you’s who think its ok to be gay,round peg in a round hole one of the first things you learn as a child because thats the way it is wont fit otherwise
That’s pretty harsh, I don’t think that poorly of the Catholic Church. I think they are simply misguided, latching on to this social issue because they have become so irrelevant to society in recent decades.
What “religious” leaders are standing with Betsey Smith in the photo? They are certainly not in tune with the Word of God, if they are supporting the homosexual/lesbian marriages, since such relationships are “an abomination” to God. Sodom and Gomorrah is not simply a “story,” but too many would like us to believe as such.
Really, you sound pretty presumptuous to say you know the word of god more than any other.
We do have a 1st Amendment to protect religious freedom, and this includes the freedom other religions have from those who think they are “false”.
Personally, I think you are dead wrong when you say God has a problem with me being gay. God made me how I am, and I am finding happiness in this life in truth and spreading joy.
Jesus spoke more about slavery than he ever did of homosexuality. If you follow the BIble word for word than I will listen. It also says , in Matthew, that a man can only divorce for sexual immorality and if that woman marries again the next man is committing adultery. Please stop choosing your hate. I am a gay woman and my children are beautiful people. I work with kids from some heterosexual homes who are a mess. It doesnt matter, healthy is healthy and the only place you can find that my relationship is unhealthy is in a book that you dont really follow. Oh and statistics that are misinterpreted and written 30 years ago then repeated through the FRC.
I get it, you have contempt for any religious leader that you disagree with, and will go so far as to dismiss their dedication and their positions in their respective churches.
This is your religious view. Fine. But YOUR religious views do not trump anybody else’s, this is America, no religion gets to dictate to any other belief.
As for the story of Sodom and Gomorrah, you might want to actually do some bible study on THAT one, clearly you have very little knowledge of biblical interpretation. Implying that that has ANYTHING to do with gay people is pretty questionable at best. It’s pretty sad that all you took away from it was “grr, hate the gays”.
Stevie Wonder sings “I like to see people fall in love”. Psychologists call it “sympathetic joy”; it is when we take delight in the happiness of another instead of begrudging it. I do not believe that happiness is a limited resource, that the more someone else has, the less there is for me. I do not believe that heterosexuals have a monopoly on love and commitment. If Ellen Degeneres is happy in her marriage then I am happy for her too. We are blessed when our minds remain unshaken by all the changes in the world, this is the greatest happiness, to know peace unchanged in a changing world.
However people do not get married for just love.
If not for Love then why do people marry?
You might not, but most of us aren’t interested in multiple child brides, most of us just want to marry the one person we love.
Still not one rational argument that will stand in court.
I find this very very funny. Almost as funny that my original post calling on those against gay marriage to provide one. It got axed by people who can’t answer the question.
This is good… very very good.
Gay marriage may legalize it, however, it will not change the view by many that homosexuals are living a deviant lifestyle. It will take more than a referendum to do that.
This fight is for civil marriage, which has benefits and privileges extended by our government to whom we all pay taxes.
I already have the acceptance of my community, my family, and my friends. I don’t need your approval for my life, I just need the government to do the right thing and offer us the same rights.
did you just cut and past this from the other article you posted on.
If their marriage doesn’t affect you why would that matter?
This time, I hope people are able to see past the lies and underhanded tactics of groups like NOM, MHC, and the CCL.
This is about equality, and the 1100+ benefits and rights that married couples receive, that gay couples cannot access. The rights of any religious
institution will be respected, and none will be forced to wed a gay couple. In fact, the proposed wording on the ballot will be: “Do you favor a law allowing marriage licenses for same-sex couples, and that protects religious freedom by ensuring that no religion or clergy be required to perform such a marriage in violation of their religious beliefs?”. I believe older minds are changing and a new generation is
taking a stand against the oppression and outright discrimination against gay people. This November will be our turn, as Maine citizens, to step forward and lead the nation in civil rights.
Hummm it was 1300+ rights now its 1100+ which is, I sure would like to know which right im missing, so I can start claiming them.
I use the more current 1,300+ number. It was 1,049 in 1996, and updated to 1,138 in 2004.
Since you have asked that you would like to know, here you go:
http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d04353r.pdf
lol..I have actually read articles that have quoted various numbers, all of which were over 1100. “1300+” rights has never appeared in any statement of my own, so you may have mine confused with another person’s statement. Nonetheless, my point still stands, whether you agree or not.
This unchecked Liberalism WILL BE our undoing as a Nation. Pure and simple. Next there will be GAY party and the world will change as we know it. Should have stayed in the closet!
There it is, that claim that if we extend liberty and equality to one more group, this nation will disintegrate.
This claim has proven wrong every time it’s been brought up in our nation’s history. Our nation strengthens as we better fulfill the promise of our Constitution.
Constitution does not give you the right to get married, please post what amendment says you have the right to marry?
Civil marriage is a government function of benefits and privileges. That falls under the purview of the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment, as our US Supreme Court has found repeatedly.
And civil marriage has been defined as a civil right by our US Supreme Court.
Please take a moment to read through some of the court findings of Iowa, California, and Massachusetts (and their respective Federal Circuit courts) to see the clear, well documented case that civil marriage for same sex couples is in line with the ideals of our Constitution.
Oh ya some activist judge wrote something that changes my mind.
I know you aren’t going to let facts get in the way of your opinion, but hopefully others reading this will form their own opinions.
He’s just another troll with multiple handles, I count at least 3 here, it’s obvious.
When a judge rules in favor of a person right to carry a firearm are they an “activist judge” or “legislating from the bench”?
So who is the Dad and who is the Mom? What do you tell the 11 year old when he sees a man and a woman kissing? There is no way that a product of a gay marriage will have a chance of living a normal life without an inordinate amount of emotional baggage.
And changing the subject to Priests has nothing to do with the subject. Gays with kids are abusers of a different kind. At least the church pays damages! The country and the taxpayers will pay for Liberal programs to help screwed up kids brought up in UNNATURAL circumstances (gay homes).
Okay, so you’re going to deny people legal rights because you’re too lazy to talk to your kids? You tell them that all families are different. Some have a mom and a dad, some just have one parent, some have grandparents raising the children, etc.
If this is an honest question, here is an honest answer— we do not “role play” in same sex relationships. We are people bringing our own personalities, loves and flaws into the relationship. So far studies have shown that children in same sex families fare no worse than other children— and they fare better than children of single parent households.
In my committed relationship, neither of us “plays the wife” nor does either of us “play the husband”. We are honest with each other, we support each other, and we care deeply for each other.
As for what you tell your kid when they see a man and a woman kissing… what does that have to do with any of this?
“Gays with kids are abusers of a different kind.”
This is bigotry, and proves that the anti-SSM crowd lie every time when they say they wish no harm, or that they would ever compromise in any way.”There is no way that a product of a gay marriage will have a chance of living a normal life without an inordinate amount of emotional baggage.”
This is also demonstrably false, and the product of bigoted views.
“The country and the taxpayers will pay for Liberal programs to help screwed up kids brought up in UNNATURAL circumstances (gay homes)”
This is an outright lie.
Thanks for making our points for us.
They got the veto by lying to people and using scare tactics. Gay marriage is legal throughout New England and several other states — none of this happens, the sky hasn’t fallen. It’s time to join the right side of history on this.
They can say what they will but I will never vote for it. It goes against my believes, if it offends anyone I could careless because it offended me to see them swapping spit on the streets.
Does it go against your beliefs to allow other religions to practice here in the US, too?
Having freedoms in America does sometimes mean that people you disagree with have freedom to do things you don’t agree with, because that protects your freedom from their desire to see your liberties limited.
Our Constitution protects us all, and I hope one day you see that my marriage doesn’t harm your life in any way.
“They base that view on poll numbers, one-on-one discussions with 40,000 residents and the strong response they had in collecting more than 100,000 signatures to get the matter on the ballot.”
What they don’t tell you is how they did that. Well, one night while shopping the Maine Mall area with my wife, we met a pollster outside Macy’s while exiting the mall, and outside of Bed, Bath and Beyond. Then I saw one outside of my local Post Office a week or so later, which is right next to a Goodwill. I wonder which gender is seen most at these locals? Could it be the gender which may either, be more open to SSM or more willing to sign because they don’t want to appear mean? As Mr Souchet suggests with his comment of “what people do in person is far different from what they do at the polls.” I would be very curious to see how many of those signatures were from females. I don’t mean anything negative towards females. It is just a statement about female/male personalities in general.
What’s your point though? Votes from women don’t count as much as those from men?
Over 200,000 voters supported same sex marriage in 2009, we lost the referendum by less than 30,000 votes.
I think minds have been changed, there are a large number of Mainers who have been disgusted by the behavior of NOM (violating Maine law in regards to campaign funding disclosure) and Mark Mutty (admitting on camera that he knew they were lying in their deceitful ads in 2009).
But we shall see in November, won’t we?
So how do you feel about this issue? Are you steadfast against the idea that more Maine families might gain the protections and benefits of civil marriage, or do you understand that our ability to protect our lives better doesn’t affect you?
No a woman’s vote carries as much as a man. My point is that these signatures were gathered in areas populated by women. Let’s be honest, women are more open to SSM and if they are not, many women would sign it just so they don’t appear “mean.” I never saw any of these pollsters outside of Dick’s Sporting Goods, or Cabella’s or other places that would be dominated by male shoppers. Which, let’s be honest, are more against SSM and even if they did support it, would not show that support in public by signing a petition. And yes I am deadfast against SSM. Civil unions are fine with me, but I cut it off at marriage. It’s a religious belief of mine that I will not change.
I never saw these signature gatherers anywhere; I didn’t even get to sign this petition.
Again, there were well over 200,000 Mainers who voted for same sex marriage in 2009. I think it’s clear that we have support of over 100,000 Mainers based on that alone.
So you are for civil unions but against civil marriage for us— would you be happy if we eliminated civil marriages for all, and everyone would get civil unions from the state, and religious marriage from their church? I’ve stated many times I am fine with that solution.
Well, I’m not sure where you live, but I would be curious to know if you live north of say Lewiston/Auburn. If you do, it would just add to my point of where, and how, these signatures where obtained. It is quite obvious to me, as I read comments to articles from the PPH vs. BDN, that the heaviest support for SSM is in southern Maine where liberals from out of state have flocked to Maine. On top of that, the city life brings diversity.
And my marriage belief has more to do with man/woman in terms of unions. A union of a man and a woman is the way it has been since we were put on this earth. Even if that union is not held in a religious venue, it is still held in the eyes of the Lord.
My other beef is this; almost all of the people who I have had “battles” with over SSM, do not support Christianity or religion in general. Maybe if more gays and lesbians, and liberals who support them, didn’t deny a God of some form, you might get more support from us.
Actually Wayno it was one man and a wife and another wife and oh there’s another wife and how about another one too.
Try reading Genesis 2:24. It will explain your lack of information.
Ah Wayno the Bible is not the only history reference book available.
The Native Americans (Sioux in particular) typically had two wives.
Even if they do lose i bet the vote will be even closer
I just don’t understand the folks who are so dead set against marriage between two men or two women because it’s a sin. If you don’t agree with it, don’t do it. Your morals aren’t shared by everyone else in the world. If you’re against polygamy, don’t do it. If you’re against pork, don’t eat it. My marriage is between me (a female), my husband and the government (for tax purposes). If two (or more) consenting adults want to get married because they are in love and want to be together then they should be able to.
Oh but that would make it a real Equality argument, we can have none of that
Please explain your reasons for wanting to legalize polygamy, when you stand against legalizing civil marriage for same sex couples.
I did not say I wanted to make it legal, I said they are not getting their Equal rights just like the same sex community, after all it is their argument that they are not getting equal rights, I’m pointing of a fact, that the word Equality is not the right argument.
The US Supreme Court has already ruled polygamy is not protected by our Constitution.
They have also ruled that homosexuality is.
You are ignoring the equal rights argument. Don’t blame you really. I would too if I were wrong.
LOL, that’s why you & Jed are stubbornly focused on the straw man argument, because you’re wrong in opposing civil marriage for same sex couples.
So now I am wrong simply because I OPPOSE marriage for same sex couples? Good one. You are a champion debater.
If the SCOTUS has ruled that polygamy is not protected by our Constitution that is the end of the argument. If you want to keep bringing it up feel free but that will not change what the SCOTUS has rules.
You have nailed the argument Jed and yet they want you to keep explaining yourself. There is no argument for what you have presented. Cold hard truth.
Cold hard truth:
The US Supreme Court has already ruled polygamy is not protected by our Constitution.
They have also ruled that homosexuality is.
The day to celebrate gay marriage is coming right up. April Fools Day.
Well, you’re part right… the day to celebrate gay marriage in Maine is indeed coming!
Polling data are often wrong because people don’t feel comfortable answering questions about personal issues such as gay marriage, said Carroll Conley, executive director of the Christian Civic League of Maine. Yeah…because those right wing loons have such a hard time being comfortable answering questions and expressing opinions about personal issues such as…say…abortion.
Go away “Christian” Klan League…
They poll the people that they know who is going to answer what they want to hear, I do not care what issue it it.
Please see a doctor, judging from what you typed I think you are having a stroke.
Paranoid.
Jed your been dipping into Granny’s medicine again.
Pray tell, how does a polling company know who to contact so they get the answer they are looking for? Is it encoded into the phone number or is it encoded in the ring tone?
Its encoded in the registered voters, IE: what party you are.
“Well doggie!” Jed while you may think that to be the case it doesn’t work. I am a registered Republican and have voted “R” for President since 1980. And I also don’t tell the polling company what they “want” to hear.
Which proves my point, polls are all just BS
Your argument is Equal Protection under the law under the 14th Amendment:
So does that not make it an argument for any group that wants to change the marriage law, that they are not receiving equal protection, this does not mean I condone any type of marriage, it means that not everyone has equal rights under the 14th Amendment, someone is going to say that is just not right, and the counter argument is where are my rights.
Today it is the same sex community yelling where are my rights, who is going to be next, just because no one has started yelling yet, does not mean it will not happen, it just means when this group wins it sets the ball rolling for someone else to try. It has taken how many years to get same sex passed, so just because it has been passed in a few states does not mean it will not affect future things, there has not been enough time for or against this yet.
Now do you agree with these types of marriage: This is not a compassion to same sex marriage, nor do I condone it, it is a reality and proof that Equality has its limits.
Two sisters
Two Brothers
Sister and Brother
at what age can they marry
two wives
two husbands
Community(Group) marriage
cousins
this list could go on and on, but my point is simple, someone can not marry if they want to.
Everyone has their limits on how they see things, I do not agree with same sex marriage, I’m sure there are plenty of folks out there that disagree with sister and brother marriage as well, as do I.
The honest answer to this is that our courts have found no rational or defendable justification for discrimination against same sex couples for civil marriage. This has been the finding in courts across our nation whenever it has come up.
Our courts have already tackled polygamy (Reynolds v United States) and said it is not protected by our Constitution.
In regards to incest, Maine already allows civil marriage between first cousins, and there is no authoritative court ruling in regards to civil marriage rights between siblings or close relatives. Incest is deemed taboo and illegal in many states, but no one has issued a court challenge which has risen to Supreme Court level (I could be wrong on this).
But tens of thousands, if not millions of gays and lesbians have voiced their question to our government in regards to civil marriage for their relationships. And the question at hand is about this— extending civil marriage benefits and privileges to couples who are of the same sex who want to enter into a civil marriage agreement.
So essentially you are setting up a straw man argument for us here. We are arguing for the civil rights of an identified group of American citizens. You are focusing on a different argument, one dealing with the semantics of equality, and attacking it instead.
I suspect this is because you realize there is no justifiable, defendable argument against civil marriage equality for same sex couples. You realize this is coming because the courts have clearly indicated our arguments are valid. I look forward to having a civil marriage with my soul mate here in Maine. I hope you can look forward to realizing my happiness and rights do not affect your life at all.
I could care less about ur happiness, and your straw man comment every time I post something, other will try their will at changing the law sooner or later. See you prove you are not for equality.
Taboo illegal ect… just means no equality for all. it never works. You can not make everyone happy
I’m not trying to make everyone happy, I am trying to explain to you that civil marriage for same sex couples is absolutely coming, and will be eventually decided by our Supreme Court based on the same reasons interracial marriage was legalized nationwide in the late 60’s— the equal protection clause of our 14th Amendment.
I will keep calling your argument a straw man argument, because it absolutely is a straw man argument. Here is the definition of that if you weren’t familiar with the concept: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man
Oh please wikipedia, is only for idiots, anyone can put a definition on this site.
LOL! You criticizing something else for a straw man argument? Hilarious!
Please list the states that allow SSM and have moved forward with legislation allowing any of the groups you mention to marry.
So people decide to wear the same style red hat. They’re an identifiable group. Should they be given the same privileges enjoyed by a group that identifies itself by race or religion? Now we have a group of people with SSA disorder. They claim their unions should be state sanctioned like the unions of opposite sex couples as if only the relationship aspect of the union should matter, not the potential for producing and raising offspring. They want us to forget the real reason for civil marriage, which is the state and society’s interest in the well-being of future generations of children. Of course this all comes with an monetary additional cost to society without any benefit to society. They know too, once their unions are sancti0oned it will be just a matter of time when the state court imposes gay history month, compulsory gay sensitivity education in the public school room, and a host of other mandates to normalize or make more acceptable homosexuality.
As a society we have become very tolerant of homosexuality. At one time this practice was even illegal. These laws were taken down so that homosexuals would not be harassed. Later, we passed a law giving them special protection along the same lines as the protections afforded to other groups on the basis of their race, ethnicity, religion, and gender. We even went so far as legally redefining gender to further appease homosexuals. Gender now is no longer based on what sex nature gives a person. Rather, it is based on what a person wants to be considered. Still not satisfied they now demand the state sanction their relationships. And if they are given this benefit, what else will they want? Certainly, their demands will not stop there. I think it’s time to draw a line and say, “no more concessions”. We are not willing to embark on a social experiment that promises no benefit to society and the real possibility of lots of problems ahead.
Hey, it’s the “marriage is only for people who make babies” argument! It’s been brought up in court challenges, and defeated every time. Why?
– We don’t prohibit divorce for married parents
– We don’t restrict marriage from infertile couples
– We don’t require a marriage result in childbirth at any point
There are clear benefits for children when their parents are married, and this is one reason why civil marriage for same sex couples is important— it protects the children in those families the same as children from heterosexual married families.
The upcoming referendum on SSM is not for the court to decide. It is up to the people of Maine. The intent of marriage is to ensure as much as possible that children will be raised and nurtured by their natural parents or, whenever not possible, by adoptive opposite-sex parents who complement each other by nature. Although the state judicial branch has unwisely imposed gay adoption, gay adoption is not in children’s best interest as a matter of public policy.
The demand for SSM all boils down to one thing: a group of people wanting a concession for themselves only. It’s all about themselves, really. It won’t benefit society as a whole, and I doubt they themselves will be satisfied.
Why is it up to the people ?? Did we vote in any time that only a man an women can get married
Fact: Opposite sex marriage can live without the help of gays, same sex marriage can not live without the Help opposite sex.
I support same sex marriage, and the argument that we are born this way, when two men and two women can make a baby without the help of the other sex.
My daughter only dated women for I can not remember when, now she wants to date men, so that tells me its your choice, as well as some of her friends that only dated women, and now are dating men.
You can’t seriously think that allowing same sex marriage will cause the human race to stop having children, can you?
Not what I said, I said its a one way street, on having kids, gays can not simply exist on their own, we can exist without gays.
That is the dumbest thing I’ve ever heard. Are gays sterile now?
You can not have kids if you are the same sex, nothing to do with sterile, I was waiting for that one, you guys use that argument all the time. if someone is sterile they need help also, but it is not even in the same ball park, being sterile is a a medical problem, birth defect, are you saying being gay is a medical problem or a birth defect?
You brought up some weird point about gays needing straight people. How exactly? Is there a shortage of children to adopt and foster that I was unaware of? More down the line, if the race’s numbers were dwindling, are gays now sterile that they can’t procreate themselves? Why are you even asking this ridiculous question? It has nothing to do with reality. There is no shortage of people on this earth. There is no requisite to reproduce in marriage. It’s not even the issue. Enough with the strawmans already.
Your daughter is bisexual, not homosexual.
That’s easy…
Oh right she is the only gay person, that changed her/his mind been happening all over the country, in face it goes both way as well, married folks divorcing and now in same sex relationships so I guess it your choice how you want to live your life style.
Several courts across the country have determined that being gay is immutable. While there are examples of some “curing” their homosexuality (it’s actually just suppression of desires) and there are bisexuals — the overwhelming majority of gay people will tell you that they have not chosen this.
And their proof of this is what?
Oh its suppression of desire, when someone becomes gay, and when they turn and go the other way its Bi. Give me a break
Those pray the gay away camps don’t work. They’re just suppressing desires. Some people are in fact bisexual.
Dude, what is your issue with this anyway? People have found someone that they want to spend the rest of their life with and you’re making them justify all these weird and random things to you. It’s none of your business, just butt out.
Someone says they’re gay, they’re gay. They say they didn’t choose to be that way, they didn’t choose it. Why do you care? Why are you so weirdly obsessed with this and trying to tell other people what their experiences?
No, she’s bisexual. What’s so hard to understand about that?
You’re a rampant liar. You seem to have a child with a story for every situation.
I have not called anyone any names or called them a liar, you do not know a thing about my life, my daughter. Glad to see your true colors, can not dispute, so name calling is all you have.
Well excuse me, I just find it incredibly suspect that whenever you need to punctuate a comment, you trot out a story about a child, whether he be a protestor or she be a bisexual. Just seems a little convenient.
Well no excuse for you. I have two daughters, both have been in same sex relationships back in grade school, a son in D.C. and and a daughter married. so until now she has not been bi, as you out it, she now wants to date men, surprised the hell out of me. I do not call that bi, I call that choice. Its your choice to have sex with whom ever you choose to do it with.
Status and actions are different things. There are straight people who have had sex with the same sex, but still identify as straight, and vice versa — that’s status. Having sex with someone of the same sex is a homosexual act — that’s action. Of course you have a choice to have sex, but who you’re attracted to is not a choice. But I’m glad you want to get in everyone’s heads and tell them exactly how they think and feel. You’re a true conservative — all that personal responsibility and stuff, right?
Oh, give women the right to vote? Yeah, but then what’s next? Children voting? Non-citizens voting? ANIMALS?! Umbrellas?!
non-citizens have been voting for years, that is y you libs do not want to show ID’s but that a whole other story.
We’re talking about legal rights here. Non-citizens don’t have the right to vote in federal elections. Enough with your weird tangents already.
But they do any way,
Oh look according to get married you need to show ID:
Right from the Married laws of Maine, but not to vote
ID Requirement: Picture ID such as a driver’s license along with a certified copy of your birth certificates. You should know your Social Security numbers. You should both also know your parent’s full name, mother’s maiden name, and the states in which you were born.
Don’t read them, and don’t comment about them then.
Two sisters
Two Brothers
Sister and Brother
Considered incest and is illegal in all 50 states
~~~~
at what age can they marry
Varies by state. In Maine the age of consent for a sexual relationship is 16 with no upper age limit. The caveat is the person having the sexual relationship with the 16 year old cannot be a person that holds a position of power or influence. i.e. school teacher, police officer, etc…
~~~~~
two wives
two husbands
That would be SSM and it is legal in some states.
~~~~~
Community(Group) marriage
Don’t know of many communes that have survived the ’60’s
~~~~~
cousins
This has been addressed multiple times. In Maine even 1st cousins (with genetic counseling) can marry
Two sisters
Two Brothers
Sister and Brother
Considered incest and is illegal in all 50 states
Well same sex marriage was considered illegal not that long ago, hence this article.
Incest is sexual intercourse between close relatives Who says that a sister and sister or brother and brother are having sex, maybe they want to get married for the benefits. Under this law will that be allowed to get married. Not condoning, just asking? Do you have to have sex to make it a marriage?
Many other reasons to get married besides sex, and love, there are also marriages based on finance, safety, companionship, seen a few marriages between friends just to get out of single military barracks.
“Well same sex marriage was considered illegal not that long ago, hence this article.”
And I have asked, repeatedly for anyone to show that a movement has begun to extend “marriage” to Two sisters, Two Brothers, Sister and Brother, etc…in any state that has extended “marriage” to same sex couples. Guess what? No one has taken me up on that, will you?
“Under this law will that be allowed to get married.”
Short answer – No
~~~~~
“Not condoning, just asking?”
No your not. Your attempting to distract and says “it’s not about equal rights”.
~~~~~
“Do you have to have sex to make it a marriage?”
Legal I have no idea if one has to “consummate” the marriage for it to be binding. But the Catholic Church will “annul” a non-consummated marriage. They will “annul” any marriage if you pay them enough money too (and yes, that is a fact. I know someone that had to “pay” to “annul” their marriage after being divorced for many years).
Same sex marriage is not considered illegal, no one is getting arrested or put in prison for being married to their same sex partner.
For someone so pedantic over the use of the term ‘equality’ you don’t have a good grasp of the real issue. This is about offering civil marriage to same sex couples, not decriminalizing their relationships— that was done years ago.
Thanks for the correction. You said it better than I.
The primary rule here is pretty simple: Treat others with the same respect you’d want for you and your significant other.
Obviously, there is a divide among the cleric, but God is the same today, as yesterday, and as He will be tomorrow. His Word is Truth and will prevail. The “religious” leaders of Jesus’ day were against Him and wanted Him handed over to Pilate, but His death, burial and resurrection are important to everyone, whether a believer or not.
The pigs in the Catholic cult
really need to learn their place in society. They need to run their cult and
stay out of politics and people’s lives. They need to be brought up on criminal
charges for spreading hate, intolerance, and bigotry. The Catholic Church is
one of the most immoral, greedy, hate-mongering institutions in recorded
history. From its persecution of Jews and homosexuals, to the Inquisition, to
its complicity in the Holocaust (including the fact that the present Pope is a
former Nazi), to its complicity in pedophilia and denying the victims
appropriate compensation, the Church has shown utter disregard for humanity,
decency, morality, and the rule of law. I hope the sex abuse victims sue the
Church into bankruptcy. And the Church attacks gays for being immoral? lol.
Meanwhile, most of the pedophiles are heterosexual. Well if anyone would know anything
about immorality, it’s the Catholic Church. The farther away other Churches get
from the fanatical Catholic Church, the better off they’ll be. And why has
Interpol not issued a warrant for the Pope’s arrest yet? And if the Church can
spend hundreds of millions of dollars on hate campaigns and lawyers to fight
victims, they can certainly start paying taxes. Why are the taxpayers
underwriting government services for the Church? All countries around the world
need to prosecute these degenerate priests and the Church hierarchy that
covered the crimes up, expropriate all Church property, and tax the Church.
name calling really gets your point across, and shows your true colors as well.
Hope you feel the saw way about the muslim religion, where gay’s are also not welcome.
At least we are not telling gays they should be killed, like this guy.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ibmaiIGr56w
If your gonna bash one religion, at least bash all the ones that say you can not be gay.
“Honestly, I do feel that it’s wrong,” said Sheikh Mustafa during a web chat. Mustafa is a gay Muslim living in Singapore. “Islamic teaching prohibits gay activities. I’m trying to be straight to be close to Allah. I’m praying very hard.”Iftekhar Hai, Director of Interfaith Relations for the United Muslims of America, says that homosexuality is unnatural. He points to a verse in the Quoran where the prophet Lut says “For ye practice your lusts on men in preference to women: ye are indeed a people transgressing.”
Have you noticed that the “Likes” on this article’s comments section are heavily voted “like” by those that would appear to be against same sex marriage? Take a long look. Maybe some people are afraid to speak out for fear of being harangued by the homosexual side.
Cowards seldom win.
my previous comment seems to have disappeared! what I said was that there are more “likes” to comments made here for statements against same sex marriage than any of the comments for SSM.
And what I said is that cowards seldom win.
it is not being cowardly to not post a remark with phony names like we do here!
When will everybody realize that
what makes all people the same is so much more important than what makes us
different. I just don’t understand the bigots who discriminate against gays. As
if homosexuals aren’t human beings too. As if they’re not someone’s son, or
daughter, or sister, or brother, or father, or mother, or friend. All people
want to live in peace, we all feel love, we all want the best for our loved
ones, we all have hopes and dreams, we can all feel pain, we all want to follow
our bliss, we all struggle, we’re all just trying to get through life the best
way we know how. How does any of that change with the color of someone’s skin,
or their physical abilities, or what God they pray to, or what language they
speak, or what their sexual orientation is? If a man loves and wants to marry
another man, or a woman loves and wants to marry another woman, what is that to
anyone else? They’re not hurting anyone. Only a truly vicious, hateful,
spiteful, selfish, vile misanthrope would begrudge someone their love of
someone else. People who hate homosexuals should be ashamed of themselves.
Those bigots deserve to live in the shadows. They’re not fit to show their
faces in decent society. And it is patently unfair that gays and their loved
ones should suffer the devastating effects of discrimination, while bigots and
their loved ones go along untouched. It’s past time that the bigots are made to
pay for their discrimination BY ANY MEANS NECESSARY. Let the bigots and their
loved ones start suffering and maybe they’ll learn their lesson. Anyone coming
into contact with Brian Brown, other members of NOM, Carroll Conley, members of the Roman Catholic Diocese or its property, the members of the Maine House or
Senate that oppose equality, or their loved ones, should take any action
possible to make them pay a price.
When someone tries to defend the homosexual
lifestyle, for example, I simply remind them that Leviticus 18:22 clearly
states it to be an abomination. End of debate. I do need some advice from you,
however, regarding some of the laws and how to follow them.
a) When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing
odor for the Lord (Lev. 1:9). The problem is my neighbors. They claim the odor
is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?
b) I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7.
In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?
c) Lev. 25:44 states that I may indeed possess slaves, both male and female,
provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims
that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can’t I
own Canadians?
d) I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly
states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself?
e) A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination
(Lev. 11:10), it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don’t agree. Can
you settle this?
f) Lev. 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a
defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision
have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle room here?
g) Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around
their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev.19:27. How should
they die?
h) I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me
unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?
i) My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev. 19:19 by planting two different crops
in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different
kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme
a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the
whole town together to stone them? (Lev.24:10-16). Couldn’t we just burn them
to death at a private family affair like we do with people who sleep with their
in-laws? (Lev. 20:14)
10
Reasons Why Gay Marriage is Wrong
01) Being
gay is not natural. Real Americans always reject unnatural things like
eyeglasses, polyester, and air conditioning.
02) Gay
marriage will encourage people to be gay, in the same way that hanging around
tall people will make you tall.
03)
Legalizing gay marriage will open the door to all kinds of crazy behavior.
People may even wish to marry their pets because a dog has legal standing and
can sign a marriage contract.
04) Straight
marriage has been around a long time and hasn’t changed at all; women are still
property, blacks still can’t marry whites, and divorce is still illegal.
05)
Straight marriage will be less meaningful if gay marriage were allowed; the
sanctity of Britany Spears’ 55-hour just-for-fun marriage would be
destroyed.
06)
Straight marriages are valid because they produce children. Gay couples,
infertile couples, and old people shouldn’t be allowed to marry because our
orphanages aren’t full yet, and the world needs more children.
07)
Obviously gay parents will raise gay children, since straight parents only
raise straight children.
08) Gay
marriage is not supported by religion. In a theocracy like ours, the values of
one religion are imposed on the entire country. That’s why we have only one
religion in America.
09)
Children can never succeed without a male and a female role model at home.
That’s why we as a society expressly forbid single parents to raise
children.
10) Gay
marriage will change the foundation of society; we could never adapt to new
social norms. Just like we haven’t adapted to cars, the service-sector economy,
or longer life spans.
Homophobics fear their repressed
homosexuality. A study appearing in the
August 1996 issue of the Journal of Abnormal Psychology, published by the
American Psychological Association (APA), provides new empirical evidence that
is consistent with that theory.
Researchers at the University of Georgia
conducted an experiment involving 35 homophobic men and 29 nonhomophobic men as
measured by the Index of Homophobia scale. All the participants selected for
the study described themselves as exclusively heterosexual both in terms of
sexual arousal and experience.
Each participant was exposed to sexually
explicit erotic stimuli consisting of heterosexual, male homosexual and lesbian
videotapes (but not necessarily in that order). Their degree of sexual arousal
was measured by penile plethysmography, which precisely measures and records
male tumescence.
Men in both groups were aroused by about the same
degree by the video depicting heterosexual sexual behavior and by the video showing
two women engaged in sexual behavior. The only significant difference in degree
of arousal between the two groups occurred when they viewed the video depicting
male homosexual sex: ‘The homophobic men showed a significant increase in
penile circumference to the male homosexual video, but the control
[nonhomophobic] men did not.’
Broken down further, the measurements showed that
while 66% of the nonhomophobic group showed no significant tumescence while
watching the male homosexual video, only 20% of the homophobic men showed
little or no evidence of arousal. Similarly, while 24% of the nonhomophobic men
showed definite tumescence while watching the homosexual video, 54% of the
homophobic men did.
When asked to give their own subjective
assessment of the degree to which they were aroused by watching each of the
three videos, men in both groups gave answers that tracked fairly closely with
the results of the objective physiological measurement, with one exception: the
homophobic men significantly underestimated their degree of arousal by the male
homosexual video.
If it passes it passes, but I will not be voting on it again if this subject is brought up by either side.
I do not believe the statement that young people are becoming anti-gay.
I say we all should pay attention to the Catholic Church. And let a priest take your little boy for an overnight prayer session too.
what about the diseases from ingesting fecal matter?
The BS that gets spewed by folks like you here is not a health threat, it’s just an annoyance.
brush your teeth
Irrelevent, because among other things, heterosexuals engage in anal sex to the same degree or more than homosexuals. Check the infection rates among heterosexuals for sexually transmitted diseases. Huge. There is not health issue except in the weak minds of homophobes.
How splendid that in America, we care about each other so lovingly that we vote on their rights! Excuse me, Rosa Parks, please resume your seat in the rear of the bus while we vote on whether you’re as good as we are….
Didn’t we already weigh in on the issue… twice?
Nope.
Same sex marriage has only ever been a ballot item once. And then it was to repeal the law that was passed.