Marriage Equality in Maine

AP Photo/Mark Lennihan

Carmela Kenney arranges a bridal veil for a same-sex pair of mannequins in the window of Sposabella Couture, Monday, June 27, 2011 in Brooklyn, N.Y. New York businesses that cater to the wedding and honeymoon trade are hoping for an economic jolt from the passage of the same-sex marriage law.

Posted June 29, 2011, at 6:33 p.m.

The unexpected victory in New York last week revives prospects for same-sex marriage in other states, including Maine. Some will say voters less than two years ago rejected same-sex marriage so it is too soon to reconsider the contentious issue. When it comes to constitutionally mandated equality, there is no reason for delay.

In New York — and in Maine, if a campaign to legalize same-sex marriages takes off as planned — Republican leaders will play leading roles. The Republicans in New York were a key to victory. They will also be crucial in Maine now that Republicans control both houses of the Legislature and the governor’s office.

A big difference is that New York had strong help from a Democratic governor, while Maine’s Gov. Paul LePage is adamantly opposed to marriage equality.

The New York vote by a Republican-controlled Senate was 33 to 29 with only four members of the Republican majority joining the Democrats in supporting the measure. A reorganized advocacy coalition rallied wealthy Republican donors and flooded Republicans with postcards from voters. Even so, a New York senator visiting in Maine says the outcome was in doubt right up until the vote.

In Maine, the Legislature’s 2009 vote favoring the “Act to End Discrimination in Civil Marriage and Affirm Religious Freedom” was opposed by most Republicans. Only two of them in the Senate and five in the House voted “aye” with the Democrats.

In New York and now in Maine, the task was and is to reassure Republican legislators that their donors and constituents support the change to marriage for everyone.

But the issue will ultimately be decided by Maine voters, who overturned the 2009 law by 53-47 percent in November of that year.

A leading advocate of universal marriage, Betsy Smith, executive director of EqualityMaine, says the decision in Maine must come from the voters. She says that “hearts and minds are changing.” But the question is whether they have changed enough to assure that marriage equality will win on the ballot.

EqualityMaine has 100 to 150 paid people and volunteers conducting one-on-one conversations throughout the state, with a goal of 40,000 interviews this summer. When the Maine coalition decides that a majority agrees that equality matters, they will press for a new vote.

Ms. Smith says that many of the objections are on religious grounds, especially among Roman Catholics. But, as in New York, the objective is to persuade the many Catholics who lead their lives as they think is right despite the dictates of the hierarchy. Language protecting the rights of religious institutions to follow their beliefs are also critical.

Asked about the New York vote during a Wednesday news conference, President Barack Obama listed his administration’s gay rights credentials before saying that each community and each state is different. This may be true, but allowing discrimination to persist while each state and community discusses the matter is simply wrong.

Marketplace News

Marketplace

Guidelines for posting on bangordailynews.com

The Bangor Daily News encourages comments about stories, but you must follow our terms of service.

In brief:

Keep it civil and stay on topic
No vulgarity, racial slurs, name-calling or personal attacks.
People who harass others or joke about tragedies will be blocked.

The primary rule here is pretty simple: Treat others with the same respect you'd want for yourself. Here are some guidelines (see more):

Anonymous

Thank God for a Republican Govenor and a Republican majority in the Maine Senate …..
Anonymous

The key would be to get the issue on the Nov. 2012 ballot with a higher turnout. If it is put forth for a referendum in a separate vote the passionate anti’s will outnumber the pro equality voters.
Anonymous

I agree. I would add, that the pro-equality proponents are just as passionate about this. The difference being they are passionate because it so directly affects their lives. The anti people are “passionate” even though it does not!
Anonymous

I agree. I would add, that the pro-equality proponents are just as passionate about this. The difference being they are passionate because it so directly affects their lives. The anti people are “passionate” even though it does not!
Anonymous

I agree. I would add, that the pro-equality proponents are just as passionate about this. The difference being they are passionate because it so directly affects their lives. The anti people are “passionate” even though it does not!
Anonymous

I agree. I would add, that the pro-equality proponents are just as passionate about this. The difference being they are passionate because it so directly affects their lives. The anti people are “passionate” even though it does not!
Anonymous

I agree. I would add, that the pro-equality proponents are just as passionate about this. The difference being they are passionate because it so directly affects their lives. The anti people are “passionate” even though it does not!
Anonymous

Marriage Equality? Oh yeah…you mean gay marriage. I had to put that through the newspeak filter. You understand that “marriage equality” is simply a slogan that was designed because who can argue with equality, right?
Anonymous

“Unexpected victory in New York”? Are you kidding? One of the most liberal states in the country and this is unexpected. Get real.

NY is just bowing to perversion for the sake of political correctness. The squeaky wheel certainly does get the grease.
Anonymous

“Unexpected victory in New York”? Are you kidding? One of the most liberal states in the country and this is unexpected. Get real.

NY is just bowing to perversion for the sake of political correctness. The squeaky wheel certainly does get the grease.
Anonymous

“Unexpected victory in New York”? Are you kidding? One of the most liberal states in the country and this is unexpected. Get real.

NY is just bowing to perversion for the sake of political correctness. The squeaky wheel certainly does get the grease.
Anonymous

“Unexpected victory in New York”? Are you kidding? One of the most liberal states in the country and this is unexpected. Get real.

NY is just bowing to perversion for the sake of political correctness. The squeaky wheel certainly does get the grease.
Anonymous

“Unexpected victory in New York”? Are you kidding? One of the most liberal states in the country and this is unexpected. Get real.

NY is just bowing to perversion for the sake of political correctness. The squeaky wheel certainly does get the grease.
Wolf Gray

When it can be conclusive proven that same-sex marriage damages the institution of marriage as a whole, then people might have a workable argument.

With language to protect the rights of churches (to not have to perform marriages that are against their beliefs), most of the opponents of same-sex marriage run out of wild ideas to prop their arguments on.
Anonymous

This is an initiative to put the matter back before the voters. Many anti groups argue that it should be up to the voters not legistatures and governors. Seems like you would be okay with the governor and legislature overturning the “will” of the people if in fact the voters pass it this time.

Jack
Regular Joe

Yes. The governor and republican majority in the state senate would have nothing to do with this.

“Let the people decide” is the rallying cry we hear all the time. Well, the people voted on the issue in 2009 whether to let the marriage equality law stand that those who wanted to reject it won by a small margin.

In 2012, the people will vote again. No anti-gay person should have an issue with that. And this time, a majority of Mainers will see that this law hurts no one and only benefits those who are affected by it.
Regular Joe

Yes. The governor and republican majority in the state senate would have nothing to do with this.

“Let the people decide” is the rallying cry we hear all the time. Well, the people voted on the issue in 2009 whether to let the marriage equality law stand that those who wanted to reject it won by a small margin.

In 2012, the people will vote again. No anti-gay person should have an issue with that. And this time, a majority of Mainers will see that this law hurts no one and only benefits those who are affected by it.
Regular Joe

Yes. The governor and republican majority in the state senate would have nothing to do with this.

“Let the people decide” is the rallying cry we hear all the time. Well, the people voted on the issue in 2009 whether to let the marriage equality law stand that those who wanted to reject it won by a small margin.

In 2012, the people will vote again. No anti-gay person should have an issue with that. And this time, a majority of Mainers will see that this law hurts no one and only benefits those who are affected by it.
Regular Joe

It seems that you don’t understand the issue. The point is that any adult can marry the one he or she loves. It removes restrictions, it doesn’t make a special marriage only for teh gays.
Regular Joe

It seems that you don’t understand the issue. The point is that any adult can marry the one he or she loves. It removes restrictions, it doesn’t make a special marriage only for teh gays.
Regular Joe

It seems that you don’t understand the issue. The point is that any adult can marry the one he or she loves. It removes restrictions, it doesn’t make a special marriage only for teh gays.
Regular Joe

It seems that you don’t understand the issue. The point is that any adult can marry the one he or she loves. It removes restrictions, it doesn’t make a special marriage only for teh gays.
Anonymous

New York has a Republican controlled Senate and they passed it 33-29.

But I do agree with you, the “squeaky wheel” does get the “grease” and in 2009 that “squeaky wheel” were NOM and the various lies they told.
Anonymous

New York has a Republican controlled Senate and they passed it 33-29.

But I do agree with you, the “squeaky wheel” does get the “grease” and in 2009 that “squeaky wheel” were NOM and the various lies they told.
Anonymous

New York has a Republican controlled Senate and they passed it 33-29.

But I do agree with you, the “squeaky wheel” does get the “grease” and in 2009 that “squeaky wheel” were NOM and the various lies they told.
Anonymous

New York has a Republican controlled Senate and they passed it 33-29.

But I do agree with you, the “squeaky wheel” does get the “grease” and in 2009 that “squeaky wheel” were NOM and the various lies they told.
Anonymous

New York has a Republican controlled Senate and they passed it 33-29.

But I do agree with you, the “squeaky wheel” does get the “grease” and in 2009 that “squeaky wheel” were NOM and the various lies they told.
Anonymous

New York has a Republican controlled Senate and they passed it 33-29.

But I do agree with you, the “squeaky wheel” does get the “grease” and in 2009 that “squeaky wheel” were NOM and the various lies they told.
Regular Joe

You must be forgetting that it didn’t pass in that liberal state of New York in 2009 and that some who voted against it then realized that their vote was wrong and changed their vote to be on the side of the constitution.
Regular Joe

You’d think that, but in the canvassing I’ve been doing this summer, I’ve spoken to a few people who were against this law who did NOT know that their church did not have to perform same-sex marriages. (Isn’t that guaranteed by the First Amendment, anyway?)

One might say that they could still use the “children will be taught teh gay!!!” argument, but hopefully most Mainers will have seen the movie that exposes the lies from the Yes on One campaign, where Mr. Mark Mutty himself admits his exaggerations and lies. Here’s a clip of him: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ADqimp6QU2o .

I recommend that anyone who voted Yes on One see this and the movie so that they can see how they were duped and manipulated by them.
Anonymous

Sure glad that New York had a Republican controlled Senate so they could stop this law from going forward….oh wait….the Republican Senate voted 33-29 to approve SSM in New York….that can’t be….Republicans are against SSM!!!!….this has got to be a misprint….I hope….

No it isn’t a misprint but an example of putting PEOPLE FIRST AND PARTY SECOND.
Regular Joe

I recommend that anyone who voted Yes on One see this clip and the movie from which it’s taken where Mark Mutty himself discusses their strategies: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ADqimp6QU2o.

http://www.q1-themovie.com/
Regular Joe

Clearly the militant gays paid off, or worse!, those turncoat republicans. Thank God that democrat from Soundview in the Bronx, Ruben Diaz, didn’t buy it! Anita Bryant was right!
Regular Joe

Clearly the militant gays paid off, or worse!, those turncoat republicans. Thank God that democrat from Soundview in the Bronx, Ruben Diaz, didn’t buy it! Anita Bryant was right!
Regular Joe

That’s funny that you would credit God for that. I didn’t know that God was a Republican-I must tell my minister forthwith!
Regular Joe

That’s funny that you would credit God for that. I didn’t know that God was a Republican-I must tell my minister forthwith!
Regular Joe

That’s funny that you would credit God for that. I didn’t know that God was a Republican-I must tell my minister forthwith!
Anonymous

And thank god that a lot of the resistance is generational and will go silently into that good night.
Anonymous

Thank our Founding Fathers we live in a Constitutional Republic, not a Theocracy.
Anonymous

“ I didn’t know that God was a Republican”

That’s how I know a lot of people overlook the actions in the Old Testament ;-)
Anonymous

“ I didn’t know that God was a Republican”

That’s how I know a lot of people overlook the actions in the Old Testament ;-)
Anonymous

“ I didn’t know that God was a Republican”

That’s how I know a lot of people overlook the actions in the Old Testament ;-)
Anonymous

Marriage equality is the right thing to do, and republicans who understand our constitution see that.

Our government has no valid reason to restrict civil marriage benefits from same-sex couples, so there should not be marriage discrimination. How hard is that to understand?
Anonymous

Marriage equality is the right thing to do, and republicans who understand our constitution see that.

Our government has no valid reason to restrict civil marriage benefits from same-sex couples, so there should not be marriage discrimination. How hard is that to understand?
Anonymous

Marriage equality is the right thing to do, and republicans who understand our constitution see that.

Our government has no valid reason to restrict civil marriage benefits from same-sex couples, so there should not be marriage discrimination. How hard is that to understand?
Anonymous

Marriage equality is the right thing to do, and republicans who understand our constitution see that.

Our government has no valid reason to restrict civil marriage benefits from same-sex couples, so there should not be marriage discrimination. How hard is that to understand?
Anonymous

Marriage equality is the right thing to do, and republicans who understand our constitution see that.

Our government has no valid reason to restrict civil marriage benefits from same-sex couples, so there should not be marriage discrimination. How hard is that to understand?
Anonymous

Marriage equality is the right thing to do, and republicans who understand our constitution see that.

Our government has no valid reason to restrict civil marriage benefits from same-sex couples, so there should not be marriage discrimination. How hard is that to understand?
Anonymous

Marriage equality is the right thing to do, and republicans who understand our constitution see that.

Our government has no valid reason to restrict civil marriage benefits from same-sex couples, so there should not be marriage discrimination. How hard is that to understand?
Anonymous

Marriage equality is the right thing to do, and republicans who understand our constitution see that.

Our government has no valid reason to restrict civil marriage benefits from same-sex couples, so there should not be marriage discrimination. How hard is that to understand?
Anonymous

Marriage equality is the right thing to do, and republicans who understand our constitution see that.

Our government has no valid reason to restrict civil marriage benefits from same-sex couples, so there should not be marriage discrimination. How hard is that to understand?
Anonymous

Historically civil rights aren’t left up to votes of popular opinion. No state should not allow the majority to vote away the rights of a minority.
Anonymous

Historically civil rights aren’t left up to votes of popular opinion. No state should not allow the majority to vote away the rights of a minority.
Anonymous

Historically civil rights aren’t left up to votes of popular opinion. No state should not allow the majority to vote away the rights of a minority.
Anonymous

Historically civil rights aren’t left up to votes of popular opinion. No state should not allow the majority to vote away the rights of a minority.
Anonymous

Historically civil rights aren’t left up to votes of popular opinion. No state should not allow the majority to vote away the rights of a minority.
Anonymous

Not surprising that people didn’t know that their churches were exempt …. or that any “person authorized to officiate” was exempt if it was against their religious beliefs. The misinformation and misrepresentation was overwhelming.
Anonymous

Not surprising that people didn’t know that their churches were exempt …. or that any “person authorized to officiate” was exempt if it was against their religious beliefs. The misinformation and misrepresentation was overwhelming.
Anonymous

Not surprising that people didn’t know that their churches were exempt …. or that any “person authorized to officiate” was exempt if it was against their religious beliefs. The misinformation and misrepresentation was overwhelming.
Anonymous

Not surprising that people didn’t know that their churches were exempt …. or that any “person authorized to officiate” was exempt if it was against their religious beliefs. The misinformation and misrepresentation was overwhelming.
Anonymous

Not surprising that people didn’t know that their churches were exempt …. or that any “person authorized to officiate” was exempt if it was against their religious beliefs. The misinformation and misrepresentation was overwhelming.
Anonymous

Not surprising that people didn’t know that their churches were exempt …. or that any “person authorized to officiate” was exempt if it was against their religious beliefs. The misinformation and misrepresentation was overwhelming.
Anonymous

Not surprising that people didn’t know that their churches were exempt …. or that any “person authorized to officiate” was exempt if it was against their religious beliefs. The misinformation and misrepresentation was overwhelming.
Anonymous

Not surprising that people didn’t know that their churches were exempt …. or that any “person authorized to officiate” was exempt if it was against their religious beliefs. The misinformation and misrepresentation was overwhelming.
Anonymous

Not surprising that people didn’t know that their churches were exempt …. or that any “person authorized to officiate” was exempt if it was against their religious beliefs. The misinformation and misrepresentation was overwhelming.
Anonymous

Not surprising that people didn’t know that their churches were exempt …. or that any “person authorized to officiate” was exempt if it was against their religious beliefs. The misinformation and misrepresentation was overwhelming.
Anonymous

Not surprising that people didn’t know that their churches were exempt …. or that any “person authorized to officiate” was exempt if it was against their religious beliefs. The misinformation and misrepresentation was overwhelming.
Anonymous

I look forward to that clip of Mutty being aired next year as this comes up for a vote in 2012.

If you have to lie and deceive to win the vote, perhaps you should not have won.
Anonymous

Mark Grisanti ( (R-Erie and Niagara Co) on why he
supported that state’s marriage quality law even though he campaigned
against it in 2010:
“But for me, the issue boils down to this: I’ve done the research, and I
believe that a person can be wiser today than yesterday. I apologize to
those who feel offended, to those I have hurt with the votes that I had
six months ago. But I believe you can be wiser today than yesterday when
you do the work. I cannot deny a person, a human being, a taxpayer, a
worker, of people of my district and across this state, the state of New
York and those people who make this the great state that it is, the
same rights that I have with my wife…”
David Frum, former Bush adviser on why he as a conservative is not upset over the passage:
“The short answer is that the case against same-sex marriage has been tested against reality. The case has not passed its test.”
Lyn
Anonymous

The only change is that it would allow gay people to marry each other while they could not before. I think I understood it fine, but thanks for talking down to me.
Tedlick Badkey

What about Rhode Island civil unions?
Tedlick Badkey

What about Rhode Island civil unions?
Tedlick Badkey

What about Rhode Island civil unions?
Tedlick Badkey

What about Rhode Island civil unions?
Tedlick Badkey

What about Rhode Island civil unions?
Tedlick Badkey

What about Rhode Island civil unions?
Tedlick Badkey

What about Rhode Island civil unions?
Tedlick Badkey

What about Rhode Island civil unions?
Anonymous

Sometimes it’s hard to tell that we don’t live in a theocracy.The gigantic funding of the CC and the fact they pay no taxes yet tamper in politics tells you all you need to know.Join the Freedom From Religion Foundation.
Anonymous

Sometimes it’s hard to tell that we don’t live in a theocracy.The gigantic funding of the CC and the fact they pay no taxes yet tamper in politics tells you all you need to know.Join the Freedom From Religion Foundation.
Anonymous

Let’s look at numbers.I haven’t paid for a wedding in a while so my per wedding dollar figures might be off.But here goes.
10,000 additional weddings in a tourism/destination state during peak wedding season.
$20,000 per wedding average.
$200M in an economy that could use it.That will go a long way toward helping the budget.
Anonymous

And you were so genuinely supportive of same-sex marriage in your comment, not talking down to those of us who support it at all.
Anonymous

I don’t think he was talking down to anyone. He was just stating that the term “marriage equality” was contrived as a slick marketing term. Not that there is necessarily anything wrong with that, it is just part of the political maneuvering.
Anonymous

I don’t think he was talking down to anyone. He was just stating that the term “marriage equality” was contrived as a slick marketing term. Not that there is necessarily anything wrong with that, it is just part of the political maneuvering.
Anonymous

I don’t think he was talking down to anyone. He was just stating that the term “marriage equality” was contrived as a slick marketing term. Not that there is necessarily anything wrong with that, it is just part of the political maneuvering.
Anonymous

I don’t think he was talking down to anyone. He was just stating that the term “marriage equality” was contrived as a slick marketing term. Not that there is necessarily anything wrong with that, it is just part of the political maneuvering.
Anonymous

I’m sure who could find quite a few couples and families who believe this is more than just politics, who feel that they are being treated unequally.
Anonymous

I’m sure who could find quite a few couples and families who believe this is more than just politics, who feel that they are being treated unequally.
Anonymous

I’m sure who could find quite a few couples and families who believe this is more than just politics, who feel that they are being treated unequally.
Anonymous

I’m sure who could find quite a few couples and families who believe this is more than just politics, who feel that they are being treated unequally.
Anonymous

I’m sure who could find quite a few couples and families who believe this is more than just politics, who feel that they are being treated unequally.
Anonymous

I’m sure who could find quite a few couples and families who believe this is more than just politics, who feel that they are being treated unequally.
Anonymous

I’m sure who could find quite a few couples and families who believe this is more than just politics, who feel that they are being treated unequally.
Anonymous

I agree it will be a financial benefit, but we should do this because it is the moral and right thing to do, not just because it will make Maine money.
Anonymous

Since it looks like we’re going back for a Marriage Equality vote, perhaps we could also introduce legislation that eliminates the tax-exempt status of politically active religious groups and put that up for popular vote at the same time.

Sure would help the Maine economy to get additional tax revenues from churches that deviate from the activity that qualifies them for those exemptions in the first place, wouldn’t it? Let the people vote, indeed.
Anonymous

Since it looks like we’re going back for a Marriage Equality vote, perhaps we could also introduce legislation that eliminates the tax-exempt status of politically active religious groups and put that up for popular vote at the same time.

Sure would help the Maine economy to get additional tax revenues from churches that deviate from the activity that qualifies them for those exemptions in the first place, wouldn’t it? Let the people vote, indeed.
Anonymous

Since it looks like we’re going back for a Marriage Equality vote, perhaps we could also introduce legislation that eliminates the tax-exempt status of politically active religious groups and put that up for popular vote at the same time.

Sure would help the Maine economy to get additional tax revenues from churches that deviate from the activity that qualifies them for those exemptions in the first place, wouldn’t it? Let the people vote, indeed.
Anonymous

Since it looks like we’re going back for a Marriage Equality vote, perhaps we could also introduce legislation that eliminates the tax-exempt status of politically active religious groups and put that up for popular vote at the same time.

Sure would help the Maine economy to get additional tax revenues from churches that deviate from the activity that qualifies them for those exemptions in the first place, wouldn’t it? Let the people vote, indeed.
Anonymous

Since it looks like we’re going back for a Marriage Equality vote, perhaps we could also introduce legislation that eliminates the tax-exempt status of politically active religious groups and put that up for popular vote at the same time.

Sure would help the Maine economy to get additional tax revenues from churches that deviate from the activity that qualifies them for those exemptions in the first place, wouldn’t it? Let the people vote, indeed.
Anonymous

Since it looks like we’re going back for a Marriage Equality vote, perhaps we could also introduce legislation that eliminates the tax-exempt status of politically active religious groups and put that up for popular vote at the same time.

Sure would help the Maine economy to get additional tax revenues from churches that deviate from the activity that qualifies them for those exemptions in the first place, wouldn’t it? Let the people vote, indeed.
Anonymous

Since it looks like we’re going back for a Marriage Equality vote, perhaps we could also introduce legislation that eliminates the tax-exempt status of politically active religious groups and put that up for popular vote at the same time.

Sure would help the Maine economy to get additional tax revenues from churches that deviate from the activity that qualifies them for those exemptions in the first place, wouldn’t it? Let the people vote, indeed.
Anonymous

Since it looks like we’re going back for a Marriage Equality vote, perhaps we could also introduce legislation that eliminates the tax-exempt status of politically active religious groups and put that up for popular vote at the same time.

Sure would help the Maine economy to get additional tax revenues from churches that deviate from the activity that qualifies them for those exemptions in the first place, wouldn’t it? Let the people vote, indeed.
Anonymous

Since it looks like we’re going back for a Marriage Equality vote, perhaps we could also introduce legislation that eliminates the tax-exempt status of politically active religious groups and put that up for popular vote at the same time.

Sure would help the Maine economy to get additional tax revenues from churches that deviate from the activity that qualifies them for those exemptions in the first place, wouldn’t it? Let the people vote, indeed.
Anonymous

Since it looks like we’re going back for a Marriage Equality vote, perhaps we could also introduce legislation that eliminates the tax-exempt status of politically active religious groups and put that up for popular vote at the same time.

Sure would help the Maine economy to get additional tax revenues from churches that deviate from the activity that qualifies them for those exemptions in the first place, wouldn’t it? Let the people vote, indeed.
Anonymous

Absolutely true,but R’s don’t care about morals unless it means they can shove their morals down everyone else’s throat.They do care about money though.
Anonymous

Absolutely true,but R’s don’t care about morals unless it means they can shove their morals down everyone else’s throat.They do care about money though.
Anonymous

Absolutely true,but R’s don’t care about morals unless it means they can shove their morals down everyone else’s throat.They do care about money though.
Anonymous

Absolutely true,but R’s don’t care about morals unless it means they can shove their morals down everyone else’s throat.They do care about money though.
Anonymous

Like the R’s and Fox aren’t expert at twisting words/polls etc. for their agenda.Look at Frank Luntz and the lies he’s told for decades.
Anonymous

Thanks for canvassing and helping out those of us who care about all,not a select wealthy few.Your work is appreciated.
Anonymous

Thanks for canvassing and helping out those of us who care about all,not a select wealthy few.Your work is appreciated.
Anonymous

Thanks for canvassing and helping out those of us who care about all,not a select wealthy few.Your work is appreciated.
Anonymous

Thanks for canvassing and helping out those of us who care about all,not a select wealthy few.Your work is appreciated.
Anonymous

Thanks for canvassing and helping out those of us who care about all,not a select wealthy few.Your work is appreciated.
Anonymous

Thanks for canvassing and helping out those of us who care about all,not a select wealthy few.Your work is appreciated.
Harry H Snyder III

Nice thought but WHEN has that ever happened. Slavery was overturned because the economics of a slave south were detrimental to a non-slave north… and at that time the north had more people.
Harry H Snyder III

Nice thought but WHEN has that ever happened. Slavery was overturned because the economics of a slave south were detrimental to a non-slave north… and at that time the north had more people.
Harry H Snyder III

Land of the free? Oh yeah…that means freedom to all those who conform to majority customs. I had to put that through a “reality filter”
You understand that the concept of freedom is simply a advertising slogan to make the world think we have liberty here.

If a person does not have the right to marry the person they are comfortable with, and/or if this person is taxed at a higher rate because he can not so conform, than he is not “free.”
Harry H Snyder III

New York State still has the remains of the old Republican Party with the views of Javitz Rockefeller, and Reed.
Harry H Snyder III

6 points in today’s political climate is NOT a small margin.
Harry H Snyder III

Why not? The “democracy” that people here are always touting is based on majority rule?

Get your argument together

I have no dog in this hunt, but my reading of poster’s comments leads me to believe that either side of this argument will say and do ANYTHING to make their point.
http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=541124823 Andreas Chamuris

Harry, Harry, Harry. Look up the word “inalienable.” You can’t take away the inalienable rights of an entire “suspect class” of individuals–that’s what makes them inalienable! It is a perversion (pun intended) of our system of government (Democracy) to allow the majority to vote on whether the minority is to be treated equally. That is why Africans were kept as slaves for so long, why women were denied the right to own property, to vote, to be equal partners in marriage. IMAGINE if the majority (right-handers) were to vote on whether southpaws are allowed to use their left hand in public. Ludicrous? So are Marriage Equality bans.
http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=541124823 Andreas Chamuris

Harry, Harry, Harry. Look up the word “inalienable.” You can’t take away the inalienable rights of an entire “suspect class” of individuals–that’s what makes them inalienable! It is a perversion (pun intended) of our system of government (Democracy) to allow the majority to vote on whether the minority is to be treated equally. That is why Africans were kept as slaves for so long, why women were denied the right to own property, to vote, to be equal partners in marriage. IMAGINE if the majority (right-handers) were to vote on whether southpaws are allowed to use their left hand in public. Ludicrous? So are Marriage Equality bans.
Anonymous

Well, slavery was overturned because the civil war was dragging on and northerners were starting to call for a ceasefire, letting the Confederacy be. Lincoln saw that was a very bad outcome and issued the Emancipation Proclamation in order to rally support for the war (and it worked).

I get your point, but honestly I think that those who are still opposed to civil marriage for same sex couples are not going to change their mind based on the financial benefits of extending marriage rights. If anything, the tactic could backfire on supporters, painting us as people who don’t understand that marriage is about more than how much money weddings cost.
Anonymous

Well, slavery was overturned because the civil war was dragging on and northerners were starting to call for a ceasefire, letting the Confederacy be. Lincoln saw that was a very bad outcome and issued the Emancipation Proclamation in order to rally support for the war (and it worked).

I get your point, but honestly I think that those who are still opposed to civil marriage for same sex couples are not going to change their mind based on the financial benefits of extending marriage rights. If anything, the tactic could backfire on supporters, painting us as people who don’t understand that marriage is about more than how much money weddings cost.
Anonymous

Well, slavery was overturned because the civil war was dragging on and northerners were starting to call for a ceasefire, letting the Confederacy be. Lincoln saw that was a very bad outcome and issued the Emancipation Proclamation in order to rally support for the war (and it worked).

I get your point, but honestly I think that those who are still opposed to civil marriage for same sex couples are not going to change their mind based on the financial benefits of extending marriage rights. If anything, the tactic could backfire on supporters, painting us as people who don’t understand that marriage is about more than how much money weddings cost.
Anonymous

Well, slavery was overturned because the civil war was dragging on and northerners were starting to call for a ceasefire, letting the Confederacy be. Lincoln saw that was a very bad outcome and issued the Emancipation Proclamation in order to rally support for the war (and it worked).

I get your point, but honestly I think that those who are still opposed to civil marriage for same sex couples are not going to change their mind based on the financial benefits of extending marriage rights. If anything, the tactic could backfire on supporters, painting us as people who don’t understand that marriage is about more than how much money weddings cost.
http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=541124823 Andreas Chamuris

Lesbians can marry, and they don’t consider themselves “gay.” Some homosexual men abhor the G-word because of the connotations of effeminacy and public displays of affection. Those guys call themselves “Androphiles.” Some prefer “Queer,” although most find that offensive. Transfolk have all sorts of terminology to describe themselves and their partners.

Semantics is everything. “Marriage Equality” is not just politically correct, it is semantically correct and all-inclusive. And yes, who can argue with Equality?
http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=541124823 Andreas Chamuris

Lesbians can marry, and they don’t consider themselves “gay.” Some homosexual men abhor the G-word because of the connotations of effeminacy and public displays of affection. Those guys call themselves “Androphiles.” Some prefer “Queer,” although most find that offensive. Transfolk have all sorts of terminology to describe themselves and their partners.

Semantics is everything. “Marriage Equality” is not just politically correct, it is semantically correct and all-inclusive. And yes, who can argue with Equality?
http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=541124823 Andreas Chamuris

Lesbians can marry, and they don’t consider themselves “gay.” Some homosexual men abhor the G-word because of the connotations of effeminacy and public displays of affection. Those guys call themselves “Androphiles.” Some prefer “Queer,” although most find that offensive. Transfolk have all sorts of terminology to describe themselves and their partners.

Semantics is everything. “Marriage Equality” is not just politically correct, it is semantically correct and all-inclusive. And yes, who can argue with Equality?
http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=541124823 Andreas Chamuris

Lesbians can marry, and they don’t consider themselves “gay.” Some homosexual men abhor the G-word because of the connotations of effeminacy and public displays of affection. Those guys call themselves “Androphiles.” Some prefer “Queer,” although most find that offensive. Transfolk have all sorts of terminology to describe themselves and their partners.

Semantics is everything. “Marriage Equality” is not just politically correct, it is semantically correct and all-inclusive. And yes, who can argue with Equality?
http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=541124823 Andreas Chamuris

Lesbians can marry, and they don’t consider themselves “gay.” Some homosexual men abhor the G-word because of the connotations of effeminacy and public displays of affection. Those guys call themselves “Androphiles.” Some prefer “Queer,” although most find that offensive. Transfolk have all sorts of terminology to describe themselves and their partners.

Semantics is everything. “Marriage Equality” is not just politically correct, it is semantically correct and all-inclusive. And yes, who can argue with Equality?
http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=541124823 Andreas Chamuris

Lesbians can marry, and they don’t consider themselves “gay.” Some homosexual men abhor the G-word because of the connotations of effeminacy and public displays of affection. Those guys call themselves “Androphiles.” Some prefer “Queer,” although most find that offensive. Transfolk have all sorts of terminology to describe themselves and their partners.

Semantics is everything. “Marriage Equality” is not just politically correct, it is semantically correct and all-inclusive. And yes, who can argue with Equality?
http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=541124823 Andreas Chamuris

Lesbians can marry, and they don’t consider themselves “gay.” Some homosexual men abhor the G-word because of the connotations of effeminacy and public displays of affection. Those guys call themselves “Androphiles.” Some prefer “Queer,” although most find that offensive. Transfolk have all sorts of terminology to describe themselves and their partners.

Semantics is everything. “Marriage Equality” is not just politically correct, it is semantically correct and all-inclusive. And yes, who can argue with Equality?
Anonymous

Just another bunch of Sickos trying to get government to legitimize their Perversion.
http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=541124823 Andreas Chamuris

A math test for you: What’s the difference between = and ≠? Not equal means not equal. EVEN IF all laws are changed to accommodate civil unions (unlikely) the one remaining right that separates them from civil marriage is the right to say you’re married. SO, the result is that straight couples (presuming they’re straight) can still say their relationship is “better than” those of same-sex couples. “I’m better than you because the law says so.”
http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=541124823 Andreas Chamuris

And while you’re at it, how about a referendum that disallows the majority to vote on the rights of any future minority?
http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=541124823 Andreas Chamuris

And while you’re at it, how about a referendum that disallows the majority to vote on the rights of any future minority?
http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=541124823 Andreas Chamuris

And while you’re at it, how about a referendum that disallows the majority to vote on the rights of any future minority?
http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=541124823 Andreas Chamuris

And while you’re at it, how about a referendum that disallows the majority to vote on the rights of any future minority?
http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=541124823 Andreas Chamuris

And while you’re at it, how about a referendum that disallows the majority to vote on the rights of any future minority?
http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=541124823 Andreas Chamuris

And while you’re at it, how about a referendum that disallows the majority to vote on the rights of any future minority?
Anonymous

I have lived my life for 20 years with my soul mate, we wish to enjoy the same benefits of marriage as heterosexuals. What is perverted about love and the desire to find happiness with another?
Anonymous

I have lived my life for 20 years with my soul mate, we wish to enjoy the same benefits of marriage as heterosexuals. What is perverted about love and the desire to find happiness with another?
Anonymous

I have lived my life for 20 years with my soul mate, we wish to enjoy the same benefits of marriage as heterosexuals. What is perverted about love and the desire to find happiness with another?
Anonymous

I have lived my life for 20 years with my soul mate, we wish to enjoy the same benefits of marriage as heterosexuals. What is perverted about love and the desire to find happiness with another?
Anonymous

I have lived my life for 20 years with my soul mate, we wish to enjoy the same benefits of marriage as heterosexuals. What is perverted about love and the desire to find happiness with another?
Anonymous

I have lived my life for 20 years with my soul mate, we wish to enjoy the same benefits of marriage as heterosexuals. What is perverted about love and the desire to find happiness with another?
http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=541124823 Andreas Chamuris

Recent studies show homosexuals suffer from higher rates of suicide, depression, bulimia, antisocial personality disorder, and substance abuse. This, I believe, is the direct result of being treated poorly by society and people like you. But Sicko just for being gay? The American Psychiatric Association (APA) removed homosexuality from its official Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) in 1973.

People raised in loving homes and communities suffer less damage than those raised in bigoted homes and communities.

Perversion? God created homosexuality as part of humanity’s true bisexual nature. Over 450 species engage in bisexual and/or homosexual behavior and relationships, including–most especially–our closest biological relatives, Pan paniscus.

It seems to me a perversion of God’s “vast, eternal plan” to try and put asunder what He has created. Maybe that’s why we’re overpopulating the planet?
Anonymous

Between the ‘big two’ political parties perhaps, because they are identical except for the wedge issues they use to distract us from how multinational corporations have bought them all.

But in regards to social issues it’s amazingly close, and when you see how the vote breaks down demographically, this is a case where it really is only a matter of time.

Have enough Mainers reached voting age to make a difference? I hope so.
Anonymous

Yes, THIS.

Why do we allow citizen referendums that can curtail the rights of SOME Maine citizens? Sounds like two wolves and a sheep voting on what’s for dinner.
Anonymous

You do not hear me speak of the virtues of a democracy. We are a representative republic bound by a constitution, specifically to help mitigate against the mob-rule mentality that comes from a basic democracy.
Anonymous

Lol!
Anonymous

Lol!
Anonymous

Lol!
Anonymous

Lol!
Anonymous

Lol!
Anonymous

Lol!
Anonymous

Lol!
Anonymous

Lol!
Anonymous

Lol!
Anonymous

Yes, and that is a relevant distinction. (not so extremist right wing.)
Anonymous

Yes, and that is a relevant distinction. (not so extremist right wing.)
Anonymous

HSHIII both parties are going to be going through some very tough times if they do not start responding to the will of the PEOPLE and putting the PARTY SECOND.
Anonymous

Oh, no doubt that poster would be fine with that!
Anonymous

Oh, no doubt that poster would be fine with that!
Anonymous

Semantics can be “tricky” and can sometimes elucidate and sometimes just the opposite.

I don’t think many can mistake what the words freedom , decency, dignity and fairness mean though. Those concepts and realities should not be confined to some majority. It is not about exclusion. It is not a smooth and easy road getting there, but we are going in the right direction.
Anonymous

Semantics can be “tricky” and can sometimes elucidate and sometimes just the opposite.

I don’t think many can mistake what the words freedom , decency, dignity and fairness mean though. Those concepts and realities should not be confined to some majority. It is not about exclusion. It is not a smooth and easy road getting there, but we are going in the right direction.
Anonymous

Semantics can be “tricky” and can sometimes elucidate and sometimes just the opposite.

I don’t think many can mistake what the words freedom , decency, dignity and fairness mean though. Those concepts and realities should not be confined to some majority. It is not about exclusion. It is not a smooth and easy road getting there, but we are going in the right direction.
Anonymous

Semantics can be “tricky” and can sometimes elucidate and sometimes just the opposite.

I don’t think many can mistake what the words freedom , decency, dignity and fairness mean though. Those concepts and realities should not be confined to some majority. It is not about exclusion. It is not a smooth and easy road getting there, but we are going in the right direction.
Anonymous

Semantics can be “tricky” and can sometimes elucidate and sometimes just the opposite.

I don’t think many can mistake what the words freedom , decency, dignity and fairness mean though. Those concepts and realities should not be confined to some majority. It is not about exclusion. It is not a smooth and easy road getting there, but we are going in the right direction.
Anonymous

Semantics can be “tricky” and can sometimes elucidate and sometimes just the opposite.

I don’t think many can mistake what the words freedom , decency, dignity and fairness mean though. Those concepts and realities should not be confined to some majority. It is not about exclusion. It is not a smooth and easy road getting there, but we are going in the right direction.
http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=541124823 Andreas Chamuris

Swear to God?Maine Oath of OfficeThe Maine Oath of Office is defined by Article IX, Section 1 of the Constitution of the State of Maine. It requires ”Every person elected or appointed to either of the places or offices provided in this Constitution, and every person elected, appointed, or commissioned to any judicial, executive, military or other office under this State” to take the oath of office. The oath is actually two oaths:I, (name) do swear (or affirm), that I will support the Constitution of the United States and of this State, so long as I shall continue a citizen thereof. So help me God.I (name) do swear (or affirm), that I will faithfully discharge, to the best of my abilities, the duties incumbent on me as (office) according to the Constitution and laws of the State. So help me God.THIS IS WHY MARRIAGE EQUALITY WAS PASSED IN MAINE!!! Unfortunately, Maine allows referenda to strip rights away from minorities, and does not require its citizens to swear an oath to uphold and defend the law. Pledged allegiance, yes, but not an oath to uphold and defend.
http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=541124823 Andreas Chamuris

Lynne14, after looking up “elucidate,” I laughed, and now feel totally comfortable in agreeing with you! Cheers!
http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=541124823 Andreas Chamuris

Note to moderator: Although the language in samadams_knows’s original comment was crude and showed a lack of tact, I did not find it inappropriate in a public forum such as this. I’ve heard much worse over the years.
http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=541124823 Andreas Chamuris

Note to moderator: Although the language in samadams_knows’s original comment was crude and showed a lack of tact, I did not find it inappropriate in a public forum such as this. I’ve heard much worse over the years.
http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=541124823 Andreas Chamuris

Note to moderator: Although the language in samadams_knows’s original comment was crude and showed a lack of tact, I did not find it inappropriate in a public forum such as this. I’ve heard much worse over the years.
http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=541124823 Andreas Chamuris

Note to moderator: Although the language in samadams_knows’s original comment was crude and showed a lack of tact, I did not find it inappropriate in a public forum such as this. I’ve heard much worse over the years.
http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=541124823 Andreas Chamuris

Note to moderator: Although the language in samadams_knows’s original comment was crude and showed a lack of tact, I did not find it inappropriate in a public forum such as this. I’ve heard much worse over the years.
http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=541124823 Andreas Chamuris

Note to moderator: Although the language in samadams_knows’s original comment was crude and showed a lack of tact, I did not find it inappropriate in a public forum such as this. I’ve heard much worse over the years.
http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=541124823 Andreas Chamuris

Note to moderator: Although the language in samadams_knows’s original comment was crude and showed a lack of tact, I did not find it inappropriate in a public forum such as this. I’ve heard much worse over the years.
http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=541124823 Andreas Chamuris

Note to moderator: Although the language in samadams_knows’s original comment was crude and showed a lack of tact, I did not find it inappropriate in a public forum such as this. I’ve heard much worse over the years.
http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=541124823 Andreas Chamuris

Note to moderator: Although the language in samadams_knows’s original comment was crude and showed a lack of tact, I did not find it inappropriate in a public forum such as this. I’ve heard much worse over the years.
http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=541124823 Andreas Chamuris

Note to moderator: Although the language in samadams_knows’s original comment was crude and showed a lack of tact, I did not find it inappropriate in a public forum such as this. I’ve heard much worse over the years.
http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=541124823 Andreas Chamuris

Note to moderator: Although the language in samadams_knows’s original comment was crude and showed a lack of tact, I did not find it inappropriate in a public forum such as this. I’ve heard much worse over the years.
http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=541124823 Andreas Chamuris

Note to moderator: Although the language in samadams_knows’s original comment was crude and showed a lack of tact, I did not find it inappropriate in a public forum such as this. I’ve heard much worse over the years.
http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=541124823 Andreas Chamuris

Note to moderator: Although the language in samadams_knows’s original comment was crude and showed a lack of tact, I did not find it inappropriate in a public forum such as this. I’ve heard much worse over the years.
Tedlick Badkey

Mmmmm… lamb chops!
Anonymous

Yeah, cause that’s been working so well for everyone.
http://pulse.yahoo.com/_ZSBAAXFEXTIBDSRA5X3FA6TSG4 jersey

Research countries that are peaceful and have gay marriage please. Research countries who hate gays who also hate everyone else. Marriage is legal is so many countries including Canada, Sweden, Belgium, Norway, Spain….look it up see the facts for yourself. Maybe it isnt the homosexuals who are destroying the country. Maybe its the hatred and intolerance of others. Lets pass this and move on. The Bible has so many irrelevant messages. So many. In the same line that it damns homosexuality it also damns drunkards, fornicators, and adulterers. They can get married. They also make up most of our society. People act with dignity when they are treated with dignity. Not my words but proven fact. Dont follow Bob Emrich again but, perhaps look into the skeletons in his closet. He is damned to Hell if he goes by his own teachings.
Harry H Snyder III

last time I checked woman’s suffrage and the end of slavery came about as result of constitutional amendment which requires not just a majority, but a super majority.

Your theory on the meaning of “unalienable rights” has been under discussion since the beginning of our republic. These United States regularly remove “constitutional protections” from whole classes of individuals. School children, prisoners, mentally disabled people under guardianship, folks who are here without “papers,” Muslims and every single person who signed up for social Security when the contract read “This card will never be used for identification.”

Every society in history has noted the “difference” between homosexuals and heterosexuals. Until this century they have never been treated as equals….anywhere. It would surprise me (and please me) if the USA were different on this matter…. At this time, I strongly doubt it.
Harry H Snyder III

I disagree.. I choose not to argue the point.
Harry H Snyder III

I hope you are wrong, for if the right 47% of the current population) can’t see the financial value, there will be no same sex marriage in Maine….EVER.

The folks who say the young folks are more liberal and will bring change did not see what I saw with my own generation who were liberal Even left of liberal UNTIL they saw the financial value of being conservative.

Winston Churchill said: “He who is not a Liberal at 16 has no heart. He who has not become conservative by age 60 has no head.”
Stan Davis

“who can argue with equality, right? ” That is what Erastus McGillicuddy wrote below- I agree with that statement. Who CAN argue with equality? When the writers of the Declaration of Independence wrote that ALL were endowed with rights that couldn’t be taken away, they included life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. That sounds like a good definition of love and marriage to me- and they didn’t say only some had those rights. The US Supreme Court said something similar in their unanimous opinion striking down state laws against inter-racial marriage. They wrote: “The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.”
The time has come to stand on the side of love and commitment- and to have marriage equality in Maine.
Stan Davis
Wayne, Maine
Stan Davis

“who can argue with equality, right? ” That is what Erastus McGillicuddy wrote below- I agree with that statement. Who CAN argue with equality? When the writers of the Declaration of Independence wrote that ALL were endowed with rights that couldn’t be taken away, they included life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. That sounds like a good definition of love and marriage to me- and they didn’t say only some had those rights. The US Supreme Court said something similar in their unanimous opinion striking down state laws against inter-racial marriage. They wrote: “The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.”
The time has come to stand on the side of love and commitment- and to have marriage equality in Maine.
Stan Davis
Wayne, Maine
clalande

A minority’s rights should not be subjected to a majority vote. This is why we have representative democracy, so that legislation and constitutional amendments be decided with the proper legal scrutiny, and not in the heat of a campaign where there is much disinformation and emotion flying about. This is why there are 3 branches of government, the legislative, the executive and the judicial, exercising informed checks and balances.

If the fate of African Americans had been left to a majority vote in southern states, there would still be institutionalized racial discimination, if not slavery, in the US.

This being said, since such ballots initiatives exist, my best wishes to the marriage equality movement in 2012. As a Canadian man in a committed same-sex relationship with my American husband since 1987, and legally married since 2005 in Canada, I am in a position to say that it can get better.
http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=541124823 Andreas Chamuris

While we agree in sentiment, please note the will of the people should not (but, sadly does) have any bearing on unalienable rights, including the right to pursue happiness. True Democracy would allow the majority to kill the minority if it were their will. Our system is designed to protect the minority from the majority. (Or it’s supposed to–read: modify referendum parameters to exclude unalienable rights as a target issue.)
http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=541124823 Andreas Chamuris

Thank God! The right to pursue happiness is unalienable and not open for discussion. Arguments are about the meaning of the pursuit of happiness, and how far that right reaches. Having sex in a public park is the pursuit of happiness, but thankfully the bedroom is protected (2003, Lawrence v Texas.) You can’t yell fire in a crowded theater, but you have free speech. So yes, marriage equality is not guaranteed (yet) by the U.S. Constitution, but it is clearly an unenumerated right, likely soon to be enumerated, your doubts notwithstanding. Good day.
Anonymous

I agree with you 100%, our system was designed to protect the rights of minorities rather than the majority.
Anonymous

HSHIII you and I both know that the United States of America is not a “Democracy” but a “Representative Republic”.
Anonymous

HSHIII you and I both know that the United States of America is not a “Democracy” but a “Representative Republic”.
Anonymous

HSHIII you and I both know that the United States of America is not a “Democracy” but a “Representative Republic”.
Anonymous

HSHIII you and I both know that the United States of America is not a “Democracy” but a “Representative Republic”.
Anonymous

HSHIII you and I both know that the United States of America is not a “Democracy” but a “Representative Republic”.
Anonymous

HSHIII you and I both know that the United States of America is not a “Democracy” but a “Representative Republic”.
Anonymous

HSHIII you and I both know that the United States of America is not a “Democracy” but a “Representative Republic”.
Anonymous

HSHIII you and I both know that the United States of America is not a “Democracy” but a “Representative Republic”.
Anonymous

HSHIII you and I both know that the United States of America is not a “Democracy” but a “Representative Republic”.
Anonymous

HSHIII you and I both know that the United States of America is not a “Democracy” but a “Representative Republic”.
Anonymous

HSHIII you and I both know that the United States of America is not a “Democracy” but a “Representative Republic”.
Harry H Snyder III

You need to read Jefferson’s letters to Adams on the possibility of “tyranny by the minority” to disabuse yourself of that notion.
Harry H Snyder III

You need to read Jefferson’s letters to Adams on the possibility of “tyranny by the minority” to disabuse yourself of that notion.
Harry H Snyder III

You need to read Jefferson’s letters to Adams on the possibility of “tyranny by the minority” to disabuse yourself of that notion.
Harry H Snyder III

You are playing a fools game if you attempt to view the constitution through only one pair of spectacles. I would guess that an opponent of your theory that “marriage is an enumerated right” would challenge that supposition on the grounds that marriage is a religious exercise and therefore protected in its current custom under the first amendment’s provision of religious freedom.

Should homosexuals have the right to marry whomever they please? sure. Shoiuld school children be subject to warrant-less searches of their person ? No. should drivers have to beg the States for the “privilege” of using co0mmunity roadways? No. Should holders of Social Security cards be forced to relinquish their rights under the provisions of the fourth and fifth amendments? NO.

Guess what the U.S.A. isn’t a fair place. Every right wee have comes soaked in the blood of people who died for them.
Harry H Snyder III

Of course you are correct, the word “democracy” is used only to confuse and confound. Unfortunately if you ask 10 people what form of Government the USA uses, 8 of them would say we are a “democracy” (with a small “d” by the way.
Harry H Snyder III

I need to ask, are you trying to present as a stereotypical gay? Or is that really the way you talk?
Harry H Snyder III

I need to ask, are you trying to present as a stereotypical gay? Or is that really the way you talk?
Harry H Snyder III

I need to ask, are you trying to present as a stereotypical gay? Or is that really the way you talk?
Harry H Snyder III

I need to ask, are you trying to present as a stereotypical gay? Or is that really the way you talk?
Harry H Snyder III

I need to ask, are you trying to present as a stereotypical gay? Or is that really the way you talk?
Harry H Snyder III

I need to ask, are you trying to present as a stereotypical gay? Or is that really the way you talk?
Harry H Snyder III

I need to ask, are you trying to present as a stereotypical gay? Or is that really the way you talk?
Harry H Snyder III

I need to ask, are you trying to present as a stereotypical gay? Or is that really the way you talk?
Harry H Snyder III

I need to ask, are you trying to present as a stereotypical gay? Or is that really the way you talk?
Harry H Snyder III

I need to ask, are you trying to present as a stereotypical gay? Or is that really the way you talk?
Harry H Snyder III

I need to ask, are you trying to present as a stereotypical gay? Or is that really the way you talk?
Harry H Snyder III

I need to ask, are you trying to present as a stereotypical gay? Or is that really the way you talk?
Harry H Snyder III

I need to ask, are you trying to present as a stereotypical gay? Or is that really the way you talk?
Harry H Snyder III

I need to ask, are you trying to present as a stereotypical gay? Or is that really the way you talk?
Harry H Snyder III

I need to ask, are you trying to present as a stereotypical gay? Or is that really the way you talk?
Anonymous

Here is another (full) quote by Thomas Jefferson –

“All, too, will bear in mind this sacred principle, that though the will of the majority is in all cases to prevail, that will to be rightful must be reasonable; that the minority possess their equal rights, which equal law must protect, and to violate would be oppression.”
Anonymous

There are many older liberals.
Anonymous

There are many older liberals.
http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=541124823 Andreas Chamuris

If you can’t win the argument, attack your opponent. I am authentic, and proud of it. And gay is an adjective, not a noun, thank you very much.
Anonymous

This isn’t a liberal vs. conservative issue though! This is about our right to equal protection under our laws, which is a Constitutional value.
Anonymous

This isn’t a liberal vs. conservative issue though! This is about our right to equal protection under our laws, which is a Constitutional value.
Anonymous

This isn’t a liberal vs. conservative issue though! This is about our right to equal protection under our laws, which is a Constitutional value.
Anonymous

This isn’t a liberal vs. conservative issue though! This is about our right to equal protection under our laws, which is a Constitutional value.
Regular Joe

Forgive me. When you relabeled it as “gay marriage” it appeared that you didn’t understand the actual issue.
Regular Joe

I love canvassing! It’s great fun and a great opportunity to speak with people who may not really understand the issue. In some cases I’ll bet I’m the only one they can talk to about marriage equality.
http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=541124823 Andreas Chamuris

Clearly remembering–and having survived–the rampant gay-male promiscuity of the post-Stonewall Uprising era, I can honestly say the notion of male couples wanting to settle down in stable relationships that are recognized by the State (and possibly raise children–their own or otherwise) is extremely conservative by comparison to the Free Love from the good ole days. If you got to choose, which would you prefer? (No, “none of the above” is not an option; we will not go away or go back into the closet.)

The public good is served on many levels by settled, same-sex relationships–and not just increased wedding industry and tax revenue.

Living up to the ideals of equality and fairness is priceless.

Pubic health is clearly a potential benefactor to Marriage Equality. Incidentally, Reagan and the Repubs committed genocide by ignoring AIDS for so many years, causing the pandemic and not preventing it. Why? That’s right: heterosexism, racism and homophobia. Hemophiliacs and transplant/transfusion patients were considered collateral damage in the “War on the Gays.” [sic]

BTW, Mary and Abraham Lincoln are said to have been morally opposed to slavery and were driven by conscience to overturn it.
Anonymous

I contribute all I can to your causes and other causes of fairness and equality.
Anonymous

I contribute all I can to your causes and other causes of fairness and equality.
Anonymous

I contribute all I can to your causes and other causes of fairness and equality.
Anonymous

Perversion equals child rapists protected by the Vatican.
Anonymous

Perversion equals child rapists protected by the Vatican.
Anonymous

Perversion equals child rapists protected by the Vatican.
Anonymous

Perversion equals child rapists protected by the Vatican.
Anonymous

Perversion equals child rapists protected by the Vatican.
Anonymous

Perversion equals child rapists protected by the Vatican.
Anonymous

Perversion equals child rapists protected by the Vatican.
Anonymous

Perversion equals child rapists protected by the Vatican.
Anonymous

Perversion equals child rapists protected by the Vatican.
Anonymous

Perversion equals child rapists protected by the Vatican.
Anonymous

Perversion equals child rapists protected by the Vatican.
Anonymous

Perversion equals child rapists protected by the Vatican.
Anonymous

Perversion equals child rapists protected by the Vatican.
Anonymous

Perversion equals child rapists protected by the Vatican.
Harry H Snyder III

Actually Abe Lincoln was a white supremacist who felt the southern plantation owners were mistreating their farm animals.

He was also in the pocket of New England’s textile mill owners who did not want the South sending their cotton to Great Britain.
Harry H Snyder III

If you are “authentic,” then it wasn’t an attack. It was a question. I used “gay” as a noun which can be modified by the adjective “stereotypical”.

What argument am I losing to you. Did you miss where I SUPPORT same sex marriage? Even voted “no” one one and had a bumper sticker on my car that said so.
Harry H Snyder III

If you are “authentic,” then it wasn’t an attack. It was a question. I used “gay” as a noun which can be modified by the adjective “stereotypical”.

What argument am I losing to you. Did you miss where I SUPPORT same sex marriage? Even voted “no” one one and had a bumper sticker on my car that said so.
Anonymous

I had no idea that one of my duties as a Republican was to stone my neighbor for growing wheat with his corn. Whew knew?
Anonymous

The current Rs would probably call them RINOs. Pretty sad.
Harry H Snyder III

Read my quote from Churchill above.
Harry H Snyder III

Read my quote from Churchill above.
Harry H Snyder III

Read my quote from Churchill above.
Anonymous

The sodomy.
Anonymous

“God created homosexuality…”

Just like God created murder, mayhem, pedophilia, and bestiality ?????
Harry H Snyder III

What about the minorities who favor limiting a woman’s right to choose? that think blacks should sit at the back of the bus, or those who think the USA should be a white xtian country?

Is a parent who believes his son should attend an all black school oppressed by the fact that such schools would be illegal under our law?
Harry H Snyder III

You seem to know an awful lot for a disinterested third party. Hiding something there Sam?
Anonymous

Sorry HHSIII but you will have to come up with better examples than those cited above.

”What about the minorities who favor limiting a woman’s right to choose?”

Settled law – Roe v. Wade 1973
~~~~~
“that think blacks should sit at the back of the bus,”

Jim Crow laws are a distant memory. Even South Africa has moved beyond apartheid
~~~~~
“or those who think the USA should be a white xtian country? ”

First Amendment
~~~~~
“Is a parent who believes his son should attend an all black school oppressed by the fact that such schools would be illegal under our law?”

Settled law – Brown v. Board of Education, Alexander v. Holmes County Board of Education to name two.
~~~~~
Well I hope you have a Happy 4th of July and take some time to reflect on the many freedoms we enjoy in the great country and those freedoms which are about to come.

Happy 4th everybody…..I am out of here and off the grid for a few day.
http://www.infowars.com Pat Riote

A lot of good comments and debate is just gone. Did the system break down from all the comments, or were they just removed? Why?
http://www.infowars.com Pat Riote

A lot of good comments and debate is just gone. Did the system break down from all the comments, or were they just removed? Why?
http://www.infowars.com Pat Riote

A lot of good comments and debate is just gone. Did the system break down from all the comments, or were they just removed? Why?
Anonymous

Really? So it’s “wrong” between consenting male/female couples?
Harry H Snyder III

Actually I wasn’t speaking of “the law3″ I was discussing minorities and their feelings of dis-entitlement.

This “bait and switch” debating is reminiscent of Junior High. Also the posting of garbage and splitting.
Harry H Snyder III

It’s called “freedom of expression” one of those unalienable rights you cherish.
Harry H Snyder III

That would require a constitutional amendment which would requite 3/4 majority in the Maine House and Senate and a majority vote by citizens.

Good luck