My partner Sandi and I have been casually discussing potential wedding plans — a dangerous thing to do when your right to hold such an event (one with actual legal weight) depends on a popular vote in a few weeks.
A line has been drawn in the sand, and you’re either on our side, or you’re against us.
I know I shouldn’t be so black-and-white, but I can’t help it. If you live in Maine and are 18 or over, you are either going to support or castigate us at the polls Nov. 6 when you vote on Question 1. For me, it is as simple as that.
Yes on 1 means you think our family deserves the same rights as yours. No on 1 means you don’t. No matter what untruths the Protect Marriage organization publishes on its website, we do not currently have the same legal rights as married couples.
Our daughter told me she likes to drive on one of the roads near our house because of all the orange yes signs. She is 7, and she knows what it means to have people support our family or dismiss it.
Here’s what I can’t wrap my head around: It seems a majority of people against gay marriage are opposed because it conflicts with the teachings of their church. They say it is “against their religion.”
Am I just stating the obvious when I say that if gay marriage is against your religion, then you aren’t obligated to get one?
Someone once told me she just had a “difference of opinion” on the topic of gay marriage. To me, a difference of opinion is that I like heath bar ice cream, and you like mint chip. If it is your opinion that gay marriage is wrong, feel free to think such things, but think what you are taking away from us if you cast a no vote.
If passed, this law specifically exempts religious institutions from being required to perform gay weddings. Your church and your religious beliefs remain unharmed by us having rights. Sandi and I getting married shouldn’t affect you at all, and we promise not to invite you to our wedding.
I see no on 1 signs, and I am overcome with anguish that the people inside those houses or driving those cars think they have more of a place in society than I do. And, truthfully, a little outrage seems well placed when my rights are on the line. Have you ever had a statewide vote on some deeply personal aspect of your life? If you haven’t, let me tell you how utterly painful it is.
I realize that it is not feasible to ask people to go vote yes if they staunchly disagree with gay marriage. But would you consider abstaining? If it doesn’t affect you — if your church won’t be required to participate – why even participate in the vote? Can you honestly feel good about casting a vote to withhold rights from a marginalized section of society? Does voting no to my marriage rights make your marriage, your life, more secure? I can assure you, my love is no threat to you.
There is a family we have known for a long time. They love us, and we love them, but gay rights is not an issue on which we always see eye to eye. Over the years we have had many heartfelt, and painful, discussions about the intersection of religious doctrine and their love and understanding of our family. When same-sex marriage was on the ballot for repeal in 2009, the best truce we could find was a stalemate. Our friends were conflicted — they couldn’t vote for something that went against the teachings of their church, yet they couldn’t vote against us. Instead, they abstained from voting on the referendum.
Yet time, encouragement within their church for individual soul-searching on this issue, along with more heartbreaking conversation with us about what is at stake for our family and for our daughters has led to one of the most wonderful phone calls I’ve received: “We have changed our minds. We are voting yes on Question 1.”
I know that I’m not going to convince everyone that we should have the right to get married. But if you are going to vote no, can you please do me a favor? Can you not put a sign in your yard? I know I’m being hypocritical here because I have a yes on Question 1 sign in my yard. But, honestly, I would rather not know who is voting against us. I don’t want to feel negatively about you for evermore when I drive by your house and remember that you think my family is less than yours.
I don’t want my children to remember your house — your face in their community as someone who voted against them and their family. If you must vote against us, can you please do it quietly? Can you please take a shift in the closet where gay individuals have lived for eons and hide your intolerance from me? Can you hide it from my kids?
If you are wavering at all on the issue, please search your soul. Ponder the fact that your marriage was never put to a vote. It is a right you were born with simply because you are straight. A yes vote on Question 1 will affirm what we already know to be true: that we have an equal place in this state, in this world. It means you see us as the contributing, tax-paying members of society that we are. You, because you have the power, extend the rights that are meant for all. These rights, this equality, is immeasurable to us.
If you are straight, a no or yes vote does not change anything in your life. But it has huge ramifications for us and for our children’s understanding of our place in society. Can you vote yes for these children? They will grow up and may someday make the laws that will govern you.
Suzanne Carver lives in Hampden with Sandi, her partner of 12 years, and their two daughters.
It’s very generous of you, Suzanne, to not want to know who’s voting against your family, your civil rights, and who support organizations like NOM, who have contempt for the disclosure laws of the State of Maine, and the basic right of the public to know who is funding what ballot initiatives. Particularly when you and those of us who have supported your right to marry have had our names out there for everybody to see for years now.
Myself, I’m not feeling so generous. I want to know exactly who supports this kind of corruption and disregard for transparency. I want to know what business and organizations are hiding, while the rest of us are not, while we’re playing by the rules they disregard. I want to know who’s businesses I and my family should avoid.
That’s how important the issues of disclosure and transparency are to democracy, and to me.
I can’t pretend to understand what it must be like to be you, to have people voting on your civil rights, to have to try to appeal to people’s humanity and reason constantly, to struggle with how that must feel, the judgment from people who, to me, have a definite air of scapegoatism in their facile arguments.
I think it’s very big of you to choose to just not want to know, and by proxy in a way, to forgive those who clearly lack that ability, and to try to appeal to their conscious and to Reason.
But I have to tell you, your editorial has only convinced me more so that it is crucial that you have marriage equality in Maine.
Charming letter, man. Judgement is bad, real bad. So let’s not judge urges, behaviors, laws, definitions of our institutions. Oh wait, let’s have MY definition of marriage as the law, so I can judge,… no.. assess ( I wouldn’t dream of judging), anyone opposed to my new definition as lacking in ability and Reason.
Parse that anyway you like, a No vote is a judgment; period.
Exactly.
Thank you to Suzanne and Sandi for baring your innermost thoughts. When I read your blog I have to hold back tears–how anyone could be vote to treat you as second-class citizens and your family as not worthy of protection is just beyond my comprehension.
The bible says women who commit adultery should be stoned to death. Do you believe that as well?
Suszanne
Yes, you are being a hypocrite. You should take the yes sign out of your yard. I don’t want to have to put a face to those who are voting to continue the downward slide of morality and society in general.
I think you mean you don’t want to see the negative consequences of your actions when you take away the rights of certain American citizens. If you are going to take away this couple’s rights, at least have the courage to look them in the eye when you do it, but it seems like “courage” and “decency” are asking too much…
Suzanne,
What do you say to your neighbor who doesn’t want to see a yes sign on your lawn. Should he or she hold bad feeling against you because you have a different sign on your lawn? How should the Vietnam Vets feel about all the people who burned American flag who opposed their service to their country in the 60’s. Should I dislike their rights to protest their first amendment rights because I disagree with them. Asking someone not to vote because they are offending your rights is wrong. I not going to vote for gay marriage, but I won’t dislike you if you should prevail.
They aren’t “offending” her rights, they are taking her rights away. How would you feel if someone voted to take away your right to marry?
My point was their first amendment rights
And she is not using the force of the government to take away anything. So, until she tries to sue to silence them, no one’s rights are being violated, except the original author’s right to marriage.
She doesn’t want people to vote who has a different view than her. She doesn’t want people to put signs on their lawn against SSM. Please tell me who ‘s first amendment rights are effected????
No one’s. She’s not forcing anyone to do anything. She is just exercising her right to free speech and asking people not to. When she sue’s someone over their sign, maybe you would have an arugment, but she’s not. Stop working your martyr complex into overdrive. As much as you may not like it, you are not a victim in this situation. The only victim is the woman who’s rights are being put to a vote.
That’s foolishness. No one is working the martyr Complex. Asking people not to vote against SSM because they differ is wrong…She asking people not to vote, or skip question one if they are against SSM. SSM is not the law, but voting rights is the LAW.
Well, you definitely are working your martyr complex into overdrive trying to make yourself the victim.
“Asking people not to vote against SSM because they differ is wrong” – No, that’s her first Amendment right to free speech. If you can show me where she is trying to use the force of law to prevent people from voting, do it. Otherwise, you are trying to make yourself into a victim when you are clearly not one.
So you see nothing wrong with her stating please don’t vote against SSM if your against it. please don’t put a sign in your lawn because I may resent you after the vote. You really see nothing wrong with these statements?
No, because that is her right to free speech to say those things. Do you want to deny her right to free speech? Unless you can point out in the article where she say she will legally prevent them from voting, you have no argument.
Why are you whining about it? You get upset over a sign on a lawn, but she has no right to be upset that she doesn’t have equal rights? Get some perspective.
I could care less about a sign on anyones lawn. The problem is saying I will hold hard feelings to anyone who puts a sign different from hers
I’d have hard feelings towards someone if they told me it was just their opinion but that they don’t think I deserve equal rights. That’s a pretty disgusting thing actually.
why would anyone even care what she thinks or if she likes you or not. Why should anyone listen to her anyway? Her boo-hoo demeanor is a bit much
She is asking people to consider how they vote. That is her right under the First Amendment. Why do you want to take away her First Amendment free speech right to try to persuade her neighbor to vote differently?
She asked people not to vote against SSM. That’s a persons right. She asking her neighbors not to put a NO on one sign in their yards, so she won’t harbor ill feeling against them. Her feeling are important, but so is others rights.
How many times do I need to say it? Unless she is trying to legally prevent them from voting, she is not violating their rights. End of story. It really isn’t that hard to understand.
She has a right to try to persuade people how to vote. That’s her right under the First Amendment.
I don’t know what you’re on about.
She’s not forcing anyone to do anything.
It’s funny that you think anybody’s rights have been trampled on by this article.
Just goes to show how reasonable the no on one mob is.
as are other people’s feelings.
You’re screaming about the first amendment, while trying to deny her her first amendment rights. Your logic is inconsistent.
No one screaming
Wow, what a substantive response from you. You really addressed my point about your blatant hypocrisy.
Hypocrisy is doing what the lady wrote. Hypocrisy is asking someone to do the opposite from what she doing.
She is asking people to not vote…..I don’t care whether she likes me or not, I will never endorse the redefinition of marriage. Pick another word.
So it’s good to know that you do not support her freedom of speech, why do you hate freedom?
“Pick another word.” – How about no? You pick another word. You don’t own the term marriage, deal with it.
This campaign of yours is to redefine marriage. What if we redefined your lifestyle with a new word?
Right, just like we redefined marriage in the 60’s to include interracial couples.
“What if we redefined your lifestyle with a new word? ” – Like what? You mean my “lifestyle” of getting up, going to work, and then coming home to a quiet evening with my boyfriend? I know, the HORROR.
When same sex marriage is legal, you are still free to have your bigoted, backwards views. You’re just upset that people don’t listen to what you say so you pout and whine “what about MY rights to be an ignorant bigot!!!” Get over it. Your generation is dying out. Same sex marriage will happen, and there is nothing you can do to stop it.
your tolerance is truly transparent. Seems all the hateful words and name calling come from the homosexual side……no one is pouting and whining as far as I can see…except you and the author of this ridiculous editorial….have you noticed that the BDN’s bigoted emphasis on SSM fills the pages of the paper……what happened to equal coverage of dissenting views….you may not agree with me, but I have every right to my opinion.
There you go, working your victim complex into overdrive. “your tolerance is truly transparent” – No, I don’t tolerate your stupidity, ignorance, and bigotry. I tolerate your right to have those views, but I do not tolerate, let alone respect your views.
“you may not agree with me, but I have every right to my opinion.” – And I have every right to call you out on your bigotry. Free speech goes both ways.
” Seems all the hateful words and name calling come from the homosexual side” – Sure, if you ignore all the prominent “Christian” leaders calling gays pedophiles and spread all other kinds of terrible lies…
me the victim? haha, I am soooooooo grateful you tolerate my views…my day is now made. I could care less about you or your name calling, hatred sprewing posts. Your ilk are so full of hatred to those that disagree with you and your lifestyle that you cannot even contain yourself from resorting to childish name calling and bullying tactics. quite a piece of work. I sleep well at night.
Yes, you are pretending to be a victim, pretending to be persecuted because of your prejudice. Poor, poor, prejudiced you, being victimized by those people who want equal treatment!
Well, you have acted like a child this entire time I have been talking to you, what with your imaginary threats to your rights, as opposed to the real threats to my rights, so I’ve just treated you like a child. So, it seems that the lesson is not sinking in, so I need to go simpler.
Bad schmidlap, bad. No take away rights. That bad. You’ve been a very bad schmidlap. BAD.
(Maybe this will be simple enough for you to understand)
I hope you did not injure yourself falling from your high horse. What is “supposedly” great about this country is that everyone can speak their mind and have their beliefs…unless, of course, they disagree with you. have a good day.
Well, you got your one vote and it’s not going to be enough this time around. Tough luck — pick another thing to whine about.
You cannot take away something “they ” have never had….
Except everyone, including same sex couples, have the right to marry. If you don’t like it, then start working on overturning Loving v. Virginia. Until then, deal with it. Marriage is a right and you don’t get to decide who does or does not get rights in this country. As I said in another comment, if you want laws based on religious beliefs, then move to Iran or Saudi Arabia.
I have no problem looking them in the eye and telling them to live a long and happy life together. I also have no trouble telling them to their face that I do not support creating a new “right” for them so they can feel better about themselves and pretend they are “normal”.
Except you said ” I don’t want to have to put a face to those who are voting to continue the downward slide of morality and society in general.” I’m telling you that’s cowardly. Put a face to those people you are taking rights from. But, I’m guessing that you wouldn’t actually be able to tell someone in real life that you don’t think they should have equal rights.
“I do not support creating a new “right” for them so they can feel better about themselves and pretend they are “normal”.” – You can say that all you want, but the Supreme Court ruled that marriage is a right. So, until you overturn Loving v. Virginia, you are factually incorrerct. Deal with it. Marriage is a right and you don’t get to pick and choose who gets rights in this country.
Why should I expect you to understand the sarcasm involved in using Suzanne’s own logic and argument?
By the way, using your own definition, gays already have the same right to marriage that everyone else has.
Marriage, religious or simply that two people commit to each other, is a right in that no one can stop any one from doing so.
And despite foolish and inaccurate working by the supreme Court in Loving v. Virginia, government sanctioned marriage and all the benefits attached to it are privileges granted by government and can be rescinded by that same government.
They have the right, but they are being denied that right, and don’t give me the crap argument that a gay man can marry a woman and a lesbian can marry a man. That same argument was used against interracial couples. It didn’t work then, it won’t work now.
“And despite foolish and inaccurate working by the supreme Court in Loving v. Virginia, government sanctioned marriage and all the benefits attached to it are privileges granted by government and can be rescinded by that same government.” – That’s lovely. When you get the ruling overturn, come and talk. Until then, marriage is a right, a right that same sex couples are denied. Deal with it.
P.S. Even if it was just a privilege, it would still be protected by the 14th Amendment.
Every single “benefit” presently attached to marriage can be taken away with a simple vote of a legislature. That makes every one of these a privilege granted by government. The same think can be said of marriage itself. By a simple vote of the legislature the government could end the issuance of marriage licenses and end recognizing marriage period.
Did you ever think that maybe YOU should be the one to just “Deal with it”?
What does that have to do with anything? That does nothing to overturn Loving v. Virginia. Like I said, until you overturn that, marriage is a right.
I hope that soon no one will treat the kind of prejudice you promote as being “normal.”
Vs the prejudice expressed by those who wish to force people to accept a new definition of marriage?
Or forcing people to accept same sex couples as “normal”?
Except you don’t. The government does, but you can go on thinking that same sex couples are dirt like you do now. Your church can go on only performing marriages between opposite sex couples.
A new definition of marriage? Not like biblical marriage: one man and as many women as he could afford. Not like medieval marriage, arranged marriages to gain financial advantage. Not like marriage before 1500 or so, when the first church marriages were sanctioned. Not like marriage for slaves: it was forbidden. Not like laws against interracial marriage — when I was younger, my brother’s marriage was illegal in many states because his wife was black. Not like the laws that, not long ago, said it was okay to beat and rape your wife.
We’ve been re-defining marriage over and over throughout the centuries. It’s time to do it again.
And yes, it’s true that we shouldn’t tolerate intolerance. Your prejudice is immoral.
You don’t even have your history right. For example marriage was not forbidden among slaves in America. It was encouraged.
It was encouraged because a married slave was less likely to run away. It was encouraged because married slaves were more likely to have children, giving the owner more slaves. It wasn’t even a fully recognized marriage. They could be separated at any time. It wasn’t “till death do us part” is was “till death or separation do us part”. So, actually, slaves were not permitted to have a “real” marriage because the marriage was only as valid as the slave master allowed it to be valid.
You have your history wrong. Legal marriage was prohibited among slaves. Acting as though you were legally married was encouraged, but a fully recognized marriage under the law was not permitted for slave couples. It was “necessary” for slave-owhers to sometimes sell the “wife” to one person and the “husband” to another, and the children to yet others. And so the Southern states didn’t recognize the validity of slave weddings.
You nit-pick, and your understanding of history is wrong — and still you ignore the main point, which is that we have re-defined marriage over and over.
However, it is otherwise perfectly exemplary of how marriage has changed over and over.
Those who say it hasn’t are liars.
You don’t have to accept it.
No one is asking you to.
You can be just like the KKK if you wish… they do share much of your mentality.
How would you like it if you partner either sex was in the hospital an you were told you can not see them . How would you like it if you were bared from the funeral ? How would you like it if the partners family came can took every thing that you to had an nothing you can do about it ?? You say that can’t happen you better think agan because its all ready happen .
You are so kind to do so to their face.
I doubt they actually would. What they say they would do on the internet and what they would do in real life are two very different things. After all, there could actually be consequences to their hate in real life.
and what is “normal” to you. there was a day that only male whites were normal and if you were black or female you weren’t normal. Read the declaration of independence. All men created equal.
So you do not want to put a face either on people that live in sin every day ? The United States has been on a downward slide of morality for years and years even before this came up .
You are right that the downward slide has been going on for years. 50 years? 100? Maybe it is time some of us say it is time to stop and reverse the process.
A downward slide? At one time in this country we thought women didn’t have the ability or the right to be educated or to vote. It was an upward movement, not a downward slide, when we allowed women to go to college, and allowed women to vote and hold office.
At one time we had slavery. It was an upward movement when we eliminated it.
Slaves weren’t allowed to legally marry. If slaves could marry under the law, then maybe you wouldn’t be allowed to sell the husband to one person, the wife to another, and their children to still others. It was an upward movement, not downward, when we changed the law.
At one time black people weren’t allowed to vote or sit on juries. It was an upward movement when we changed the laws to allow for greater equality.
When I was a child, girls were taught that they could be home-makers, secretaries, airline stewardesses, nurses, or teachers. All other professions were for men only. It is an upward, not downward, movement that says that women can do anything they qualify to do.
When I was a child, interracial marriage was against the law in many states. It was an upward, not downward, movement when we eliminated laws prohibiting interracial marriage. My brother’s wife is black, by the way, and they have two wonderful daughters.
When I was in high school we still had the “separate but equal” institution of racial segregation for “coloreds,” who were treated as second-class citizens — seats on the back of the bus, separate schools, separate public rest rooms, etc. Getting rid of “separate but equal” was an upward movement, not downward.
When I was in college, gay men could be arrested for simply going to a bar, if that bar catered to gay customers. We don’t arrest people for simply going to a bar anymore. That’s an upward, not downward, movement.
A few years ago, Mainers could be fired from their job, denied a loan, or denied housing, simply because of their sexual orientation. You should keep or lose your job based on whether or not you do a good job — not on whether you are black or white, or gay or straight, or Baptist or Catholic or Jewish or atheist. When we moved toward grater fairness, that was an upward, not downward, movment.
As we move toward greater equality and fairness, that is not a downward slide. We are improving our democratic-republican system when we treat people more fairly.
True, not everything is better than in the past, but in general, we have been making improvements in terms of greater equality under the law. We are moving upwards.
Treating gay couples and lesbian couples the same way we treat straight couples will be another upward movement.
Let’s move up out of prejudice. I’m voting “Yes on 1” because it is the morally right thing to do — to treat people fairly and equally under the law.
Examples abound on both sides. Examples of moral decay. “Free sex’. Gay bath houses. collapse of the family and single parenthood. Wide acceptance of recreational drug use.
Just because a family doesn’t meet your narrow definition, doesn’t mean the “collapse of the family”. As for the rest of it, why is any of that your business?
You are being inconsistent when you oppose promiscuitity on the one hand, and oppose the freedom to marry on the other hand. You want to have it both ways — deny gays and lesbians the right to form committed relationships under the law, and then decry the promiscuity that you imagine.
Marriage prmotes fidelity, loyalty, and family stability. If these conservative social values are good for straight couples like my wife and I, they are also good for lesbian and gay couples. Yes on 1.
There is a difference between promiscuity and fidelity. and neither necessarily has anything to do with marriage.
This is the problem with trying to debate with progressives. They like to introduce extraneous subjects and draw irrelevant comparisons, etc that confuse the issue.
Of course there is a difference between promiscuity and fidelity.
That was my point! Did you fail to comprehend? Please pay attention.
You complain about – to quote you – “free sex”, that is promiscuity.
Yet you oppose expansion of the institution that promotes the opposite (the right to marry).
I support gays and lesbians getting the freedom to marry because I support marriage. Marriage is a good thing. It promotes fidelity, family stability, commitment. If these conservative family values are good for my wife and I, they are also good for same sex couples.
Marriage is good for society. Yet you oppose letting people get married. You oppose encouraging them to establish loving committed relationships.
And then you attack them for the “free sex” and moral decay you imagine they are engaged in.
You want it both ways.
How do we change the downward slide? Legit question
Going back to the “good old days” where gays weren’t allowed in public and were put into mental hospitals, I’d guess.
I’d expect “tickleup” to say something like:
Once we started all this talk about “equality” and “fairness,” things started sliding downhill.
So: Arrest people who go to gay bars, like the good old days.
Keep women barefoot, pregnant, and in the kitchen, like the good old days.
Give blacks separate public rest rooms and drinking fountains, and seat them in the back of the bus, like the good old days.
Keep Jews out of country clubs and fancy restaurants, like the good old days.
Keep interracial couples from marrying, like the good old days.
Keep the “Indians” on the reservation, like the good old days.
And while we’re at it, bring back slavery, just like the good old days.
(My apology — you said “legit question” and I gave a snide answer.)
What era would you like the US to return to?
Great idea.
Now evolve along with everyone else.
The downward slide of mortality started when the land was stolen from those who inhabited, then nearly wiped off the continent and when slaves were bought from Africa. Morality couldn’t be more downward than that. It has been an upward swing ever since.
Whose morality is sliding with SSM?
Really, like when we freed the slaves? Or allowed whites and black to marry? You realize there were once over 100 things in the bible that came with the death penalty right?
Including, but not limited to:
Getting raped while you were married/engaged
Disobeying your parents
Working on Sunday
Being a non-believer
Do you really have that much trouble distinguishing between right and wrong?
It seems you do.
It would appear that way to someone who lacks that ability for themselves.
I’m not the one freaking out about my fellow Americans being treated equally under the law.
Well, you want to talk about morality, but what was right and wrong has change a lot. Do we still keep slaves? No, but it was consider right and moral to the bible.
Why do you insist on bringing the Bible into this?
By the way, slavery is still considered acceptable and exists in certain societies and parts of the world.
Because that is the primary force behind banning same sex marriage.
as it was in our society, but why is it not now? Because our morals have changed.
And I’m sure you’d love it yourself…
You’re a very sick person.
Hate to point this out to you but SSM is accepted and legally recognized in several US states and in many countries around the world.
There is a lawmaker who has put out a book that states that disobedient children should be put to death per the Bible. The thing is, when you start making this country a theocracy you open a can of worms that will not end well. The BIble is not a good judge of morals by any means and if you read it you would know this.
You obviously do.
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.
I am voting YES on question 1 in November, because offering civil marriage rights to ALL Maine families is the right thing to do.
actually, no, she isn’t because its not everyday that people vote on your rights, your right to feel equal. as many have said, lets strip away your right to marry and see how YOU feel about it. Lets give YOU the scarlet letter for your feelings. I’m sure you would be feeling much the same way, and by the way, learn to spell her name if you are going to address her.
It is long past time when America should enforce equal rights, civil rights, for ALL her citizens. I wish the US Congress and the Supreme Court had the guts to deal with this face on. This issue is not a states rights issue, it is an American issue. The Right to marry whomever you want is fundamental to living a life of freedom in America and should be denied to no citizen. Enough already. Let every American enjoy all that America has to offer, the full and complete promise of being an American citizen.
I am put off that because you want your “right” to marry approved by Maine voters you would request I give up my “right” to vote and display campaign signs. Because of that ignorant reguest I am placing my NO on 1 sign on my lawn today. Talk about special rights…if you cannot win the vote you loose….plain and simple.
Really? So, when do people get to vote on YOUR rights? I think we should vote to see if valgal10 should have the right to marry. After all, “if you cannot win the vote you “loose”…plain and simple” So I’m sure you would gladly give up your right to marry if everyone voted to take it away…
The issue is not about me, it is about my right to vote and display signs. Very ignorant to suggest people should not vote so they can win….not very democratic. If they want to marry move where it has been voted in.
And, unless the author is legally preventing you from voting or displaying signs, then none of your rights are being violated.
“If they want to marry move where it has been voted in.” – Or maybe you should move to some country where religion dictates the law. I hear Iran is quite nice this time of year.
She’s not asking anyone to give away the right to display campaign signs. She’s not asking for a law. She’s asking that her friends and neighbors show restraint so that her family doesn’t have to know who believes that her family is something less deserving than most other families in the state.
They can still display their sign if they want – just as religious institutions don’t have to recognize same-sex marriage regardless of whether the vote passes or not.
Is she really that weak in character that she cannot deal with knowing how her friends and neighbors really think? In that case she deserves our pity.
This is HER group’s campaign. It’s their initiative. So how do you ask people not to show visible opposition to something others may also hold dear. Talk about insensitive and self-absorbed.
So straight couples can only marry so that special right ? Handycap people have there place were they came only park so that’s a special right. Only a certian people can get free fishhng lic that’s a special right.
What a mature attitude you have toward how your fellow Mainers should be treated by our government.
The vote of the people has never settled issues of how citizens are treated under government…
The vote is meaningless… just a political stall tactic.
You will lose. You have no rational basis argument for wanting the government to hold back benefits and protections to gay families… as has been shown repeatedly.
Great !! Then everyone can see just what kind of person you are…..scared, bigoted and small minded…..clearly THAT is something one want’s to announce proudly by placing that idiotic sign on your front lawn. Maybe you could wear one around your neck while you’re at it.
Thr kind of person I am….scared, bigot, small minded….sounds like you are describing yourself….these hateful words are yours not mine…..I have the freedom to display whatever political sign I want…and so do you…God Bless America
OMG It’s William Shatner. All those…pauses…in your…sentence. Tell me Mr. Shatner, what was it like working on Star Trek and how did your life change after the show? Also, I never knew that you were against marriage equality, so my next question is why do you hate freedom?
I do not hate freedom…..sorry my little dots are so upsetting to you…Star Trek was awesome……much nicer and far less sarcastic than dealing with you…let freedom ring….
Well, if you are against same sex marriage, you do hate freedom, Mr. Shatner. If you don’t want freedom for ALL people, then you don’t believe in freedom. If you want a country where laws are based on religious beliefs, I hear Iran is lovely this time of year, especially since winter is coming. I hear the Iranian government hates freedom and gay people almost as much as you! It would be a perfect fit.
I hear California is great all year long and San Francisco would welcome you with open arms. How about Virginia? I know a good real estate agent or is that sign offensive also? Wouldn’t want your friends to think you had thrown in the towel……..
Sweetie, I have no intention of letting bigots like you trample all over the Constitution. As much as you hate gay people, we are here to stay, and there is nothing you can do about it. Absolutely nothing. What you are experiencing right now are your last futile grasps at relevance in society. It is actually quite funny seeing you go through all sorts of mental gymnastics to justify your bigotry and hatred of the LGBT community, all while having that little voice in the back of your head telling you that you are losing. And when your grandchildren, or great grandchildren, are embarassed of you for opposing marriage equality and freedom for ALL Americans, then maybe you will finally see just how wrong you are.
Not hateful words- just an accurate description of the small minded and fearful people you represent. Sometimes the truth hurts. That being said I’m really not sure how same sex couples want ‘special rights’……what’s so ‘special’ about getting to do what any other American can already do- like getting married? Oh right, gay Americans aren’t real Americans like straight Americans are right ? The institution of marriage has been defiled by all the halfwits who get married and then divorced and then remarried and then divorced. You must mean ‘One man and one woman AT A TIME.’ Yes, God bless all the hypocrites.
I represent only myself and speak for only myself. I am not small minded or fearful. You are the one spewing forth hate and discontent. Hard to make your point and win votes for your cause when you keep straying from your message by belittling your opponent. Almost as bad as suggesting people not vote so you can win.
Gays and Lesbians could have had all the rights privileges
and responsibilities as heterosexual couples through civil unions. They wanted
more and so do the national groups who are funding this campaign. They want the
word marriage and they will probably get it this time. Just like casinos that were shoved down
Mainers throats through repeated referendums, Mainers will acquiesce on this
one, too, just to get rid of it. It has nothing to do with “civil rights.”
No they don’t. DOMA prevents that. Get your facts straight. Besides, give me one good reason as to why same sex couples should settle for civil unions when they are legally entitled to marriage.
You are right. They are legally entitled to marriage. Just not to each other.
Just like interracial couples were legally entitiled to marriage, just not to each other. You argument didn’t work in the 60’s, it won’t work now.
Race is not the same as the unique, complementary relationship differences. But, the ‘equality” people want their counterfeit definition movement to fit the racial equality mold. It’s specious, as is the whole slogan of ‘marriage equality’.
What “relationship differences” and why do they matter? Also, why is someone else’s relationship any of your business?
Uh, Gee, maybe the physical, emotional and psychological differences in genders that underlie the uniqueness of “real” marriage. You can wail and whine all you want, but you can’t redefine truth.
Well thank you for ignoring most of my question.
A. The physical differences are obvious, but do you have any evidence of emotional and psychologicla differences? I doubt it.
B. You avoided the rest of my question, why does that matter and why is that any of your business? I guess those were too hard for you. It would require you to actually “think”.
You can wail and whine all you want but you can’t stop progress.
It is my business as much as yours. And, who is to say that homosexuals and their apologists are the experts and designers of social progress?
The emotional and psychological differences between men and women are well documented–countless books and periodicals can be found. But, since you believe that men and women differ only in genitalia, you will discount and/or discredit most of what has been generally accepted in the history of mankind in order to suit your most temporal of world views.
Well, I’m gay so it kinda is my business. But I fail to see how it is your business at all. Just because you have a problem with minding your own business, doesn’t mean you get to controll other people’s lives.
I wasn’t asking about the psychological and emotional differences between men and women. I was asking about the psychological and emotional differences between same sex couples and opposite sex couples. Hence the “relationship differences” in my eariler post. If I wanted to hear about the differences between genders, I would have asked about that.
I like you… you’re another one who makes me happy every time gay rights advance, even if it’s just a little bit.
Your angst at the coming expansion of marriage to include same-sex couples pleases me.
I like to think to myself, “is this the best they have?” And then I remember the Prop 8 case and realize that yes, this is the best they have.
And people said the same thing about the differences between the races. We were put on different continents after all! That was the argument you know…
That’s only your opinion of “truth”…
It is, in fact, very shallow minded and sad.
My children are happy, healthy people. If you would look at the facts, not the ones from FRC which have been proven as lies, you would see that children in SS homes are just as happy and functional as those in OS homes and more so than those in one parent homes.
Religion is not the same as race… yet it gets all kinds of “special rights”.
The hypocrisy in your side unbelievable.
Yeah, defending a child’s right to have a shot at being raised by his mom and dad is way out there in hypoctritville.
*Defending a child’s right to not be raised by a loving family
FTFY
Oh come on… with so many divorces and so many single parents, you want me to take that seriously?
End divorce and single parents… then call me back.
Hypocrite. I don’t see you arguing either of those, and they lead to more children losing that “right” than anything else.
Civil marriage is not about procreation or children… that’s optional.
Just think, how many children could have been helped if groups like NOM actually tried to help people with their money instead of promoting their ignorance?
Do you honestly think someone as hypocritical as Maggie Gallagher honestly cares what is best for children?
If that were the case she wouldn’t have raised hers on her own, without a second parent in their lives.
Of course not. Their bigoty is far more important.
You think that the vast majority of kids are raised by their mom AND fathers? REALLY? Have you checked the divorce rate in this country? If you were really worried about ‘defending a child’s right’ you would be voting to ban divorce. You’re inanely hilarious.
Equality is to be treated the same under the law.
You say that a gay man or lesbian woman has the freedom to marry someone they don’t love and aren’t attracted to.
How is that equal to my freedom to marry the adult person (my wife) who I am in love with and am attracted to?
Your argument is nonsense. My lesbian and gay friends should be treated under the law equally to the way my wife and I are treated.
“Marriage equality” and “the freedom to marry” are the correct terms. My gay and lesbian friends should have the same freedom to marry that my wife and I have, expect and enjoy.
What if your parents said to you, “You can get married, but we will pick the person you are allowed to marry”? Would that feel like freedom to you? Your argument is specious.
You really don’t care who is harmed by your views, do you?
Harmed by his views. Oh please.
Sure, ignore all the same sex couples denied their rights because of people like you and TrickleUp. But then again, you only seem to care about your rights, screw the rest of the country…
Well said.
He doesn’t consider it harm because he likes knowing gay citizens aren’t treated equitably under government.
I’m a straight guy. The law allows me to love the marry the adult person I love.
You say that gays and lesbians are free to marry someone they don’t love and aren’t attracted to.
How is that equal to my freedom to marry the person I do love and am attracted to (and am married to)?
Maine doesn’t have civil unions; it has domestic partnerships. Here’s what DHHS says on its instructions for domestic partnership registration:
“It is important to remember that a registered domestic partnership is NOT the same as a marriage and does not entitle partners to rights other than those for which the registry was intended. This registry is intended to allow individuals to have rights of inheritance, as well as the right to make decisions regarding disposal of their deceased partner’s remains.”
Not the same as marriage – in name OR in rights.
(Civil unions, too, aren’t the same.)
Each right can be addressed without redefining marriage, but the ‘point” of this IS to redefine marriage.
Separate but equal was ruled unconstitutional a long time ago.
Yeah, what’s Title IX?
“No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving federal financial assistance” – What’s your point?
It’s not a redefinition… it’s simply expanding it to rightfully include more citizens.
It harms you not… but you wish to harm others.
How sad.
No, it’s redefining marriage to a definition that does not even contain a reference to one man and one woman.
How sad, indeed.
You know that even if same sex marriage is legal, heterosexual couples will be able to get married right? Because reading your post, I’m not sure you understand that. How sad.
No, it is the same civil contract, it is simply being offered to more citizens.
Nothing more.
Besides, you’re out of date. No modern dictionary holds your definition… no need for mention of man or woman. It’s a civil contract.
No, good news. Correct redefinition.
Gee, does it mention one man and one women in all the divorce decrees heterosexuals get? You need to change that mantra to ‘One man and one women… AT A TIME’ If you are truly worried about redefining ‘marriage’ perhaps you hypocrites should be working on banning divorce and remarriage…..THAT is what has made marriage a pathetic joke- not same sex marriage.
So your definition of marriage is more important than same sex couples’ lives and legal rights? Words should never be given more power than people.
Then what would civil marriage become ….. straight couples would have the same option of just getting the rights would they not … or would this only be available to same-sex couples?
Seems there would be no difference between what you suggest and civil marriage …. only the time and the cost to taxpayers to address all those rights. Would marriage then become a term for only heterosexual people of faith ….. and what about those faiths and denominations that will include same-sex couples in their marriage ceremonies? Or will those faiths and denominations not be allowed to to use the term marriage in that case? So much for the 1st Amendment.
There is no redefinition of marriage when it is simply the legal joining of two people in love. The only redefining going on is in your mind.
Civil unions WERE offered in the 124th legislature.
Maine doesn’t have civil unions; it has a (third-class) institution called domestic partnership.
However, even a separate second-class institution (civil unions) for second-class citizens is not the same as equality and fairness. We had separate institutions for “coloreds” under the South’s segregation laws — separate schools, separate passenger train cars, separate seating on busses (in the back), separate bathrooms, separate drinking fountains, etc. “Separate but equal” laws were declared by the Supreme Court to be “inherently unequal.”
When you set up a separate institution from marriage, a second-class institution called civil unions, you are saying that some families aren’t good enough to be treated as full citizens, with full access to the same institutions that first-class citizens have.
Let’s treat all adult couples fairly and equally — let Ms. Carver marry the adult person she loves.
There are over 1,100 benefits and privileges extended by our government, contingent on marital status. It is far more straightforward and less onerous to extend civil marriage equally than to rewrite thousands upon thousands of laws nationwide.
You clam “they wanted more”— here is what we want:
http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution.html
Specifically, the 14th Amendment and its demands that we treat Americans equally under our laws.
Civil unions were never offered here. That is a lie. Next I guess you’re going to tell us that current domestic partnerships carry all benefits and protections that marriage does (a lie that many bigots seem to have fun spreading). With all of the animosity from “religious” folks (look to IL to see it most recently) regarding even civil unions, there really is no reason to compromise. The idea that it’s the use of the word “marriage” that gets people upset is another popular lie among those who wish to harm gay citizens.
No casino was “shoved down Mainers’ throats”… don’t like it, don’t go. Easy solution to a very prudish problem.
And lastly, it has everything to do with civil rights… just like the civil rights guaranteed to religious persons in the Civil Rights Acts of ’64 and ’68. There is no difference.
Yes they were in the 124th – http://www.mainelegislature.org/LawMakerWeb/summary.asp?ID=280032044
No, they weren’t offered. That bill died in commitee. From your own source:
Pursuant to Joint Rule 310.3 Placed in Legislative Files (DEAD)
I’m anxious to see this pass so we can put this all behind us. If you don’t want a gay marriage, then don’t get one. It’s that simple, it’s not of your business otherwise. Just like if I want to be Jewish, I can be Jewish without trying to force everyone else to do the same, I can be Jewish without trying to ban Christianity. Mind your own business and let people make their own choices as how they’re going to live their lives.
It’s funny, the Republican party is all about “smaller government”, except when it comes to people’s personal lives. Even then, they only seem to care about a smaller government financially when they are not in power.
The republican’s are indeed all about small government…
Small enough to fit into your bedroom.
I think the Republican party believes that a business is more of a person, and more deserving of rights, than a “gay”.
Hate and discrimination are quite ugly. No matter where I have lived I have always been proud of being from Maine and Maine people. I hope hatred will not win on election day.
Thank you Suzanne for this very personal plea to our fellow Mainers as we seek to be treated equally under our laws!
I do hope you can schedule your wedding soon and have a civil marriage license attached to it!
I am voting YES on question 1 in November, because ALL Maine families deserve the important protections of civil marriage.
My family and I are with you and your family, Suzanne!
Our “Yes on 1” sign is on our lawn!
Thanks Suzanne!
Suzanne and her family are one of the most beautiful families I have had the opportunity to know. It breaks my heart to think that the people in this state might vote no in numbers enough to keep Suzanne and Sandi, along with so many other same-sex couples in this state, from marrying.
This weekend, I asked my father if he would post a ‘Yes on One” sign on his lawn. He agreed, as he believes all Americans deserve equal rights. Within 24 hours, a neighbor of his came into his yard and harassed about the sign. How sad and how petty. The neighbor said, and I’m paraphrasing here, that if we give gays this right, they will want other rights. Crazy idea isn’t it, that all Americans should be given equal rights! It’s not like this country was founded on this fundamental principle or anything…
Please, if you support Yes on One, if you support the right of Suzanne and Sandi to have the wedding they have been dreaming of for years, please consider placing a Yes on One sign in your yard. Please tell people if you support this cause; let’s make sure our neighbors, our families, our co-workers know just how many Mainers out there support Yes on One.
My “son” was 12 years old when he told me he was transgender. He’s now 24 and it’s been a wild ride!! When he was in the 8th grade, he was Captain of Soccer, Basketball, and the the Softball teams. When be became a Freshmen, nobody wanted anything to do with him. He lost his friends, and almost lost his family. His Father couldn’t understand… or accept…Being a Christian family, it was hard to accept. He did football.. and his high school won state champs that year!! Tell me that’s not meant to be?? HE was meant to be! His father and I have been married for 26 years…he knows what relationships consist of… but him and his girlfriend fight all the time. Don’t tell me that he loves her less than I love his Dad. Please don’t deny him that. Please don’t deny him LOVE! Simply, said…. don’t deny him what we all take for granted.. Love…. Please give people like him a chance… don’t shove them in the closet… it’s only a matter of time before they shove their way through and say it’s enough!!
Love is love is love. And a loving, supportive commitment between two individuals should be supported and legalized equally by their communities, regardless of their sex or gender.
Vote yes on 1! Because marriage does matter to all families.
What a powerful and heartfelt essay! Thank you, Suzanne! I know several same sex couples who are deeply committed to each other, and just want the same right to marriage that my husband and I have. Many of these couples are raising children together, and these kids deserve to know that their families are treated like their friends’ families.
I actually think I hurt my back stooping down to your level. Also everyone has a right to marriage, even if they are gay. Toodles!
Mark my words. There will come a day many years from now that people will think that it was absurd that we even had to vote on this topic. But for some reason, liberty and justice for all comes with the fine print (unless you are black, a woman, or gay). Today we can’t even imagine a time when women or African Americans could not vote. I guess we were never promised we would not have to fight for what is right and just.
You go Suzanne!
The only thing I see in the posts against SSM is hatred, pure and simple. No matter how you try to hide it, if you don’t support another human being having the same rights in this country as yourself, then you’re only holding out because you have something against that part of the population, which, in today’s environment is a very sad thing. I know Maine is a bit sheltered since I was born and raised there, but come on people….get with the times. It’s called progress.
I fail to see how same sex couples wanting to get married is a ‘special right.’ Seriously- someone help me understand what is so ‘special’ about getting to do something that the rest of the American population has always taken for granted and been able to do? What are people are so afraid of? Help me understand why two consenting adults; who love and care for one another, who work, who pay taxes, who vote, who follow the laws of this country, who may attend church or synagogue or mosque (or not), who may have children, who may serve and may die in combat for this country, like ANY other American citizen… still can not get married in most of the states in this country. Why? Oh right, I forgot gay people are the same sex….this apparently disqualifies them from being considered full fledged ‘real’ American citizens like their straight counterparts. REALLY?
Some say marriage is a ‘privilege.’ Let’s look at the definition of privilege shall we? Privilege, by definition, is defined as a ‘special right’ or ‘benefit’ which is enjoyed by an ‘individual or class’ and is ‘exercised to the exclusion or detriment of others.’ Ahhhhh…. this must be those ‘special rights’ the vote NO on 1 people say the gay people want. Those evil, insidious gay people… next they’ll want the ‘special right’ to vote or to have a driver’s license or pay taxes. When will it end?
Super, ok so let’s define ‘special rights’ shall we? Special rights, are defined as: ‘…A term…referring to laws granting rights to one or more groups which are not extended to other groups.’ Oh I get it…so Gay people want the ‘privilege’ aka ‘special rights’ of being able to marry; a privilege that clearly is not extended to any other group in this country, thus gay people getting married will undoubtedly be detrimental and exclude any and all other groups from the exact same ‘special rights’ and/or privilege of marriage. Wait what?
So I’m back to help me understand. Help me understand how gay marriage is considered to be a ‘special right’ (a right defined as to not extending to other groups) when gay Americans have never been allowed (until recently in several states) to have the same ‘privilege’ of getting married as straight people historically have? How is it considered ‘special rights’ when gay Americans are simply demanding (and yes they are demanding as asking nicely has not worked out so well) the same and equal ‘privileges’ that any other American is automatically afforded as a U.S. citizen? How is it ‘special’ when gay Americans are requiring to be treated exactly the same as any other American citizen is treated under the law? Somebody please tell what’s so ‘special’ about any of that when gay Americans are the only Americans NOT allowed to marry in their own ridiculous country? And who exactly has the ‘special rights’ here which exclude others? Hint- it’s not same sex couples.
Actually, special rights are extended to the choice to follow a religion via the Civil Rights Acts of ’64 and ’68…
Funny they never bring that up, ain’t it?