AUGUSTA, Maine — Lucie Bauer has changed quite a few minds about same-sex marriage over the more than 20 years she and her partner have lived in midcoast Maine, the 71-year-old said Thursday at a press conference to announce that petitions to put a referendum on the ballot in November would be submitted to the secretary of state.
But one friend she identified only as Bob just couldn’t support gay marriage.
“When my partner and I had a commitment ceremony, it was in the Quaker tradition and everyone in attendance was asked to sign a document expressing their support of our commitment to each other,” Bauer said at a press conference at the State House packed with same-sex marriage supporters and the news media. “Bob did not sign it.”
On Election Day in 2011, however, Bob quietly walked up to a table Bauer and Bob’s wife were staffing and signed a petition to ask Maine voters to allow marriage licenses to be issued to same-sex couples.
“That his signature is on one of these petitions means more to me than I can put into words,” she said, gesturing to the boxes stacked behind her containing the petitions.
Bauer was one of eight individuals who spoke at the press conference to announce that EqualityMaine, the Maine Civil Liberties Union and the Maine Women’s Lobby had collected nearly twice the number of signatures needed to put the question on the ballot.
Bauer’s story about Bob illustrated that voters have changed their minds about same-sex marriage, organizers of Thursday’s event said.
Another reason the coalition decided to go for forward, Betsy Smith of EqualityMaine said, is that polling by gay marriage supporters indicates 54 percent of state residents now support allowing same-sex couples to marry.
“The number of signatures we gathered and the thoughtful conversations we’ve been having with voters tell us that Mainers are eager to speak on this question again,” she said.
The Roman Catholic Diocese of Portland, which opposes same-sex marriage and contributed $500,000 to the last campaign, expressed disappointment that same-sex marriage supporters chose to seek another vote so soon.
“After the bitterly divisive campaign of 2009, in which Maine people clearly and decisively voted against changing the meaning of marriage, we’re dismayed that they would bring this issue back for yet another vote,” Brian Souchet, a spokesman for the diocese, said in a statement.
Carroll Conley, executive director of the Christian Civic League of Maine, said in a telephone interview after the press conference that the supporters of same-sex marriage were seeking “to redefine marriage as something other than the special union between one man and one woman.”
“Natural marriage is the fundamental building block for all human civilization, including Maine,” he said Thursday. “Protecting marriage is the time-tested way for society to make sure as many children as possible are raised by their mom and dad. Moms and dads are both necessary; they are not replaceable by generic adults.”
The proposed law would not force clergy to perform same-sex marriages, Smith said at the press conference.
Souchet and Conley said they expected to form a coalition soon to campaign against the expected referendum question.
Smith said she expected the campaign in favor of same-sex marriage would need to raise between $4 million and $5 million to be effective.
“I have no doubt that we’ll be significantly outspent,” Conley said when asked about campaign funding. “While we may not have those outside sources, we can still be very effective with our message.”
Conley pointed to the defeat in November of expanding the number of gambling sites in Maine as an example of how effective the Christian Civic League can be in influencing issues on the ballot.
“We were outspent on gambling 5- or 6-to-1,” he said.
The new petition drive kicked off in August and by November gay marriage supporters had collected more than 100,000 signatures, but supporters wanted to wait to make sure the timing was right before deciding whether to deliver those petitions to the secretary of state.
The National Organization for Marriage promised “an all out battle in Maine” against the referendum.
“NOM intends to vigorously fight this attempt by same-sex marriage advocates to impose gay marriage in Maine,” said Brian Brown, NOM’s president, in a press release Thursday. “Maine voters rejected gay marriage barely more than two years ago. What part of ‘no’ don’t gay marriage advocates understand?”
The Legislature previously approved gay marriage, but it was rejected by a 2009 statewide vote, 53 percent to 47 percent. If Mainers approve gay marriage, the state would be the first to do so by a popular vote.
To get the question on the 2012 ballot, organizers needed to collect at least 57,277 signatures by Jan. 30. If the signatures are certified, the proposal first goes to the Republican-controlled Legislature for an up-or-down vote. If the Legislature approves the proposal and the governor signs it, then gay marriage will be legalized. If the Legislature doesn’t approve it or the governor doesn’t sign a bill, as expected, the question goes to voters.
In New England, gay marriage is allowed in Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Connecticut and Vermont, and civil unions for same-sex couples are allowed in Rhode Island. Other states that allow gay marriage are New York and Iowa, along with Washington, D.C.
In the six states where gay marriage is allowed, the laws all came through either court orders or legislative votes, not through a statewide popular vote.
Elsewhere, bills to legalize same-sex marriage have good chances of passage this year in legislatures in Maryland, New Jersey and Washington. Proposed amendments for constitutional bans on gay marriage will be on the ballots in North Carolina on May 8 and in Minnesota on Nov. 6.
The Associated Press contributed to this report.
The citizens’ initiative
The title of the proposed citizens’ initiative is: An Act to Allow Marriage Licenses for Same-Sex Couple and Protect Religious Freedom.
The proposed ballot wording submitted Thursday is: “Do you favor a law allowing marriage licenses for same-sex couples, and that protects religious freedom by ensuring that no religion or clergy be required to perform such a marriage in violation of their religious beliefs?”
I’m voting for it – why should heterosexuals be the only ones to suffer marriage?
Me too. It’s about time for Maine to move out of the stone age and join the rest of the world on this issue.
If you don’t like gay marriage blame the straight people. They’re the ones who keep having gay babies.
The above is not mine but I had to post it :-)
Edit: Keey is now fixed.
Yours or not, it’s worth repeating :)
Like this outcome was up for any real debate. The homosexual lobby was always going to come back and bother us all with this issue again.
Are you afraid you might catch the gay?
I’m not a homosexual but I support them 100%.
Edit: This is to tell a true story. I know a young man, he is in his mid 20’s now and he was raised by two women. His biological mother and her partner and this was done right here in Maine. His father died when he was very young and if you are wondering his parents had been married for many years but after his death his mom chose to be with a woman.
Why? I have no clue but these two women raised a very healthy and happy heterosexual male that went off to college and is now a very successful young man that is 100% straight and is involved with a young lady.
So I have seen first hand two gay women raise a normal child in the state of Maine but yet these two women still cannot get married which I find kind of sad. They love each other dearly and both of them hold PhD’s but yet they cannot legally get married.
So please don’t tell me homosexual adults cannot raise healthy, happy, heterosexual and well educated children. I’ve seen it happen with my own eyes.
well said..F&F
I don’t really have a dog in this fight, but Mainer’s spoke on this issue just two years ago. Come back in five years otherwise your apt to just be crying your eyes out once again.
I don’t know about you but I enjoyed seeing the smug and sanctimonious gay marriage supporters around here cry their eyes out when they lost last time. Bring on Lucy and the football for another go. It should be funny watching an even bigger vote spread this time.
And we shall see how they feel this time around. One has to remember it was not a landslide win for the anti side.
Well, with 7-9 million on the pro homosexual side they just might be able to buy the election. Thank God I don’t have a TV so I won’t have to watch their propaganda ads showing happy, loving homosexual couples holding hands .
THANK YOU!
and I have seen kids who parents left their heterosexual marriages for a homosexual relationship and have been pretty messed up with the choice of the parent. very angry kids.
And what does that have to do with allowing gays to marry?
Nothing
Gays do not want to get married. They are only pretending they do.
Sigh……
Again, do you even know any gay people who want to marry?
If people were more accepting of homosexual relationships their parent would never have lived a lie in the first place.
Perhaps if all parents were more accepting of every deviant behavior of their children we would all live in a world of sunshine, lollipops and rainbows.
The question that remains unanswered by your post is this:
Were the children upset over the breakup of their parents marriage, that one of their parents was gay or both?
And, what counseling if any did the children receive over the brake up of the marriage?
Having been involved in hundreds of divorces I can tell you that the kids will be angry unless the parents deal with them appropriately. Most divorcing couples are so emotionally frazzled that it is almost impossible for them to handle it well – so the kids suffer. Maybe a half dozen of the divorces involved someone who came to understand that they were homosexual and had been living a lie to that point in their life. In only one of those divorces did the straight spouse deal well with the emotional issues. But that emotional stability was very rare.
Peace.
What does this prove? Any parent leaving the family to be with someone else can cause problems in the family-the fact that sometimes it’s a same-sex person who is the “other” is incidental.
Would you rather the gay person continue to be trapped in what is probably a miserable marriage for both parties? You have to ask if that is really a good marriage? I just don’t get the mindset that says that MAN MUST MARRY WOMAN-even if there is no happiness or love. Why?
My partner left his wife after a long period of marriage and now they are both happier.
If he had been free to be who he really is, he wouldn’t have had the pressure to marry and they both would have been a lot happier these past years. They do have wonderful children, though.
And maybe someday your “partner” might be happier without you and you with them?
By saying such an insensitive and ridiculous statement, I see that you have no idea at all what I’m talking about. But of course you dont, and you never will, so I guess I’m still carrying on with this for my own amusement.
What ridiculousness do you have next for me?
Joe whether you like it or not I love you more than you love yourself . You are only thinking of the here now, I’m thinking of the forever.
Your attitude bothers ME (and I believe most people) and belongs to only non thinking bigots stuck in the dark ages. Wow! Sad.
Actually, the reason they lost the last voter referendum is because it was in a low voter turnout election. This time I believe that there will be a lot more people voting and that those who aren’t passionately against gay marriage will vote it in.
Well, yes, that was part of it. I knocked on doors that day and spoke to voters who support us but were going to try to go vote at some point that day. No real draw for them to go vote because it didn’t directly affect them.
A presidential election-that’s different. Turnout will be high on both sides, but more people have changed their minds these past three years AND there are more people who have always supported us who can now vote.
I will say, too, that the lying ads (such as those that equated the woefully inadequate domestic partnership law here in Maine with marriage) convinced some fence-sitters to vote yes to reject the law.
When did the “homosexual lobby” last “bother us all with this issue” pray tell?
It wouldn’t be back again if the law had been left alone in 2009 ….. certain pastors, religious denominations and organizations heavily associated with religious denominations brought the repeal to you ….. thank them for making it an issue.
The word “lobby” is being used with disdain, yet I can say the same thing about the NOM and Mormon lobby bringing us Prop 8. So, is “lobby” supposed to be a bad word?
What IS a lobby, anyway? I worked hard this summer and fall to bring it back and bother you with this issue. I am a volunteer who wants to marry his boyfriend. Am I a part of that lobby, too? And so what, really?
Yes, you’ll be “bothered” with this issue again and hopefully for the last time. But it sounds as if you’re fine with us being bothered every single day by not being able to be equal citizens.
Bring it on Joe. I’m so not bothered by it nor is anyone I’ve talked to about it. I’m looking forward to voting in support of marriage equality for ALL Maine residents.
FYI I’m a heterosexual woman married to a man for close to 30 years and the quality of my marriage is not in the least bit threatened by who my neighbor is married to. In fact strong happy marriages make this a better community, regardless of the sexuality of the members.
Thanks, MEPac. I think things will be different this time, especially since people have realized that they were manipulated by the “Yes” campaign in 2009.
Yes we were, and this time let’s just point out how man was made for a woman and woman for a man. You can pretend you are having sex, but you are not.
Holy cow! I can ‘pretend’ I am having sex? Oh, man, I don’t pretend, baby! It’s the real thing with us!
Or are you saying that having sex is ONLY for making babies. If so, then, well, that’s an issue you have to work out with your therapist.
And the NOM and the Catholic Church don’t have a lobby? And they’re going to spend a lot of money spreading misinformation? Again? Bear in mind that many heterosexuals are in favor of theis referendum.
Kind of like the pro-fetus lobby keeps wanting to revisit Roe v. Wade
I suspect you probably have the answer to the following:
My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev.19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? Lev.24:10-16. Couldn’t we just burn them to death at a private family affair, like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14). I know you have studied these things extensively and thus enjoy considerabel expertise in such matters, so I’m confident you can help. Thank you again for remidning us that God’s word is eternal and unchanging. (credit for this goes to James M. Kauffman, Ed.D. Professor Emeritus, University of Virginia)
What do you care? Will it affect your marriage or prospect of getting married? Why would oppose the happiness of people? Gay marriage won’t affect you any more than straight people getting married so I can only assume you oppose it because you are un comfortable with homosexuality. Why is that? Got some unresolved feelings for high school buddy? Those Axe Body Spray commercials give a tingle you don’t want to think about? Maybe you should read this article and think really hard about why you oppose gay marriage.
http://www.philosophy-religion.org/handouts/homophobia.htm
Dumb comment
Dumb reply.
haha that was funny.
Vote to pass!
Homosexuals will take marriage as seriously as heterosexuals. This upcoming referendum has nothing to do with marriage, what homosexuals want is for everyone to accept and embrace people who practice this immoral sexual act.
The homosexuals will continue to badger, harass and try to intimidate people who say that acting out homosexual feelings is sinful.
What they want is to be able to get married. You can wallow in paranoia about “agendas” if you want to. I don’t think many care whether you accept them or not.
Exactly. I couldn’t care any less than I already do if input here accepts me. And I CERTAINLY don’t want this person to embrace me!
I wonder, though, how sin-free this person’s life is? It’s so easy to cast the stones at us, but is input so pure?
Do I badger? Do I harass? Do I try to intimidate people? No-a thousand times no!
Do I worry about being harassed? Do I worry about being maimed or killed? Do I worry, when walking alone in a dark parking lot, that night might be the night I become the next Charlie Howard? Yes.
You should do even just a little bit of research and you’ll find that this reverse-victimhood is a big steamin’ crock.
get real they could careless about marriage
What makes you say this?
Do you actually know any gay person who wants to marry? Do you even care to know?
If you have no interest in getting to know us, then this conversation is over.
Joe most homosexual people I know enjoy their singleness. I know plenty of homosexual people most are very dysfunctional.
And it seems like I’m discussing this issue with a straight person who’s dysfunctional.
Really, would you even ever think that any gay person would be normal? It would seem that you wouldn’t.
Again, do you know any gay people who want to marry?
Wow-this is fun!
What’s next???
they won’t give up until its law. enough already. why don’t they just leave it in portland.
Gays in portland cannot get civil marriage licenses either.
But why would you care? No one is going to force you to get gay married.
No sweetie… gay marriage only affects you if you want it to.
And soon, it will be a reality. Whether or not that changes your life is up to you.
You Will Be Assimilated!” LOL
Really, the unrational fear some of these posters have is comical. I don’t really think they believe some of the things they post. I think they just have no way to logically argue this.
How many people are negatively affected in New Hampshire, Quebec, or Sweden? I’m sure none are.
“Resistance is useless” — the Borg Collective.
Who here is more like the Borg, and which of all the true one christian churches is the most like them ?
made me laugh out loud
“It is pointless to resist, my son.” – Darth Vader
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.
Vote YES for same sex marriage in November!
“This is just the next way in which our constitution is fulfilling its promise to ALL Americans.”
Indeed. 30 states (a majority) now have a constituitional amendment banning same sex marriage and 12 others have laws on the books restricting marriage to between one man and one woman. North Carolina and Minnesota will be voting on a constitutional amendment this spring.
So yes the constitution is working to fulfill its promise to Americans by prerserving states rights and a republican form of government that protects individual liberty from the tyranny of a minority faction.
How are you being “protected”?
What harm will befall you if gay marriage becomes a reality?
the harm is, most of the anti gay marriage people have so little control over their own lives, they feel compelled to try and control someone elses
Proving once again that it is they who wish to harm us, not the other way around.
Right. They want to get married. That’s so so scary. Who would want to live next door to a married couple?
what is amazing to me, is that people who claim to have faith, actually have so little of it.
sad.
Seems odd doesn’t it? They have Faith of convenience. Faith to justify hate, Faith to justify bigotry and intolerance. They rarely care about the other parts. Like give unto Caesar what is Caesar’s… John Lennon was right, we should imagine no religion.
My religious faith teaches me to have family values that value all families. As a Christian, I believe marriage is a good thing, and if it is good for straight couples it must be good for gay couples, too. Let’s treat everyone equally under the law, and give gay or lesbian couples the same rights my wife and I already have.
thank you for speaking up. the love and acceptance in your heart is consistent with the love and acceptance in Jesus’s heart. :))
peace be with you.
super duper like
Read the rest of the Bible. Scripture does not condone homosexuality.
It also does not condone eating shellfish, wearing of mixed threads (polyester etc..)
Ever read Deuteronomy? A woman better be a virgin when she gets married, otherwise she’s looking at a good old fashioned public stoning. There are many things in the bible that most Christians do not heed.
The things you refer to were cultural laws set up more to protect the citizenry than to honor God .I believe they are called the laws of Moses .Eating shell fish ,pork products in earlier times was hit or miss health wise . However that doesn’t mean I have anything to say on homosexuality what others do is there biz and not mine.
God was speaking through Moses. Christians can’t pick and choose which part of the bible to follow, either it’s true, or it’s not.
thank you for letting me know what people can and cannot do I’ve been wondering who was in charge of those decision
Check this out for a good Christian’s explanation of Bible-based marriage: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OFkeKKszXTw
“why should heterosexuals be the only ones to suffer marriage?”
What harm has befallen the rest of New England, already ?
Name it, please.
It is another rung in the lack of morality ladder.
And as disqusbites asked, ” What harm has befallen the rest of New England, already ?”
What does that hyperbole mean, really?
Something about building her stairway to heaven, I think.
“…….tyranny of a minority faction.”
You must mean how the 1% own pretty much everything, right? Because referring to gays as tyrannical is ludicrous.
so your bright idea is we should vote on rights of citizens? be careful what you wish for, you just might get it
and the constitution and bill of rights is to prevent the tyranny of the MAJORITY
try reading it sometime
LOL…it swings both ways rube, its intent is to prevent tyranny, which can easily come at the hand of a majority or a minority, depending upon the geography and distribution across voting districts. Case in point, Cumberland county has a majority of people who support gay marriage, while Aroostook county has a majority of people who do not. Why should the majority view in Cumberland county overrule the majority view in Aroostook county…or any of the other county that does not agree for that matter? Just because Cumberland county has the most poeople does not give it the right to coerce the other counties to follow their policies.
And the constitution prescribes a republican form of government specifically designed to prevent tyranny in general, whether it be from a large national majority, or a small minority that merely has the majority in their discrete regional area…you should also try and read it sometime…pay attention to how the Senate was set up and the rationale behind it… try reading the convention dabates as well
i have read it, tell, tell me where it states that marriage is only between a man and a woman
”
to prevent tyranny” separate the Church from State functions.
It is what the Founding Fathers intended.
And all of those state constitutional amendments are in violation of the US Constitution’s 14th Amendment.
Guess which one trumps the other when this eventually makes it to the Supreme Court?
Well one could very easily argue that the 14th emendment itself is unconstitutional, especially the folks who can’t stand the notion that the 14th amendment is what allows corporations to be considered people. There can also be an argument mad to the effect that the 14th was not ratified correctly as it was compnent of reconstruction and the southern states were coerced into ratifying as a condition of acceptance back into the union…how can a state that is not part of the union, ratify an amendment on a constitution for a union which it is not part of?
And your comment on trumping the states via the supreme court is nice, in theory. The problem you will have is that 30 states now have constitutional amendments outlawing gay marriage. This number will likely go to 32 this spring. If that number ever reaches 38, you have no chance in utilizing the supreme court, as the 38 states (3/4 of the total) could simply call for a constitutional convention and amend the constitution directly with a ban on same sex marriage. Even if the number stays at 30, using the federal courts to force these states into laws they do not want will become very problematic for the union and could lead to a situation many would care to avoid.
Ah but the problem with a Constitutional Convention is it opens up changing ANY part of the Constitution and I don’t think the states would want that.
Exactly why his jump on bandwagon propaganda is just vile misinformation…
“could simply call for a constitutional convention ”
Right.
When pig fly.
an amendment to the constitution CAN’T be considered unconstitutional, because by definition the amendment becomes part of the constitution.
Your notion that the Constitution is unconstitutional is just about the wierdest thing I’ve ever read. Did you flunk Civics?
You really don’t know what you are talking about, do you?
Don’t squeeze the Chramin, Mr. Whipple.
“30 states now have constitutional amendments ( TO THEIR STATE CONSTITUTIONS ) outlawing gay marriage. If that number ever reaches 38, you have no chance in utilizing the supreme court,”
Your misinformation is wrong and shameful, but I encourage it, politically .
I like how that approach worked locally relative to the vote on same day voter registration, last year.
So where are posting your misinformation from, anyway ?
Did they you make take a Civic Class in your home State ?
“could simply call for a constitutional convention and amend the constitution ”
Dream on.
ROTFLOL
And the SCOTUS, using the U.S. Constitution has been the great equalized. And likely will be again in this case.
How far from the morality of the issue of unequal treatment before the law, and on your tax form does the reactionary’s spin take us ? Wow !
LOL
So what is one good reason that is not based on lies or some people superior knowledge of God’s will, as if that is just not a lie, or superstition, at the very best, is there for denying the right to be married before the law to some couples who are rising children, together ? Why don’t some people “family values” apply to all families ?
I’m for ending the tyranny of the majority; the majority has long denied the minority the freedom to marry.
But you are wrong; there will not be a “tyranny of the minority” if the freedom to marry becomes law. You will not be required to marry someone of the same-sex, nor will you be forbidden to marry someone of the opposite sex.
Nor will any churches or synagogues be required to perform any ceremonies they do not approve of.
Right now my church is denied freedom of religion. That is, both the congregation I am a member of, and the denomination it belongs to, support the freedom to marry. Our pastor also supports the freedom to marry, but is forbidden by the state of Maine to offficiate at marriage ceremonies for adult same-sex couples. Therefore, our religious freedom to perform such marriage ceremonies is being denied.
Let’s end the tyranny of the majority, and let’s stop denying freedom to this minority group. Let’s put this prejudice behind us.
I’m not so sure it is true that your pastor can not marry anyone he or she chooses to marry. The “marriage under God,” can occur, and the couple can draw up legal civil contracts that will entitle them to the rights and privileges that State-sanctioned married couples possess.
Supporters of same-sex marriage continue to give conflicting messages by wanting both religious sanction, and State sanction.
Single people are not given the rights and privileges of State-sanctioned married couples either. Blended, non-State-sanctioned families are most definitely not given any State or Federal privileges.
The whole kit and kaboodle must change, and to only sanction gay marriage, is to continue to condone the hypocrisy that all rights and privileges can only go to State-sanctioned, heterosexual, (appearing), couples.
Apart from that – the amount of money spent to further this one issue is beyond belief, and I wonder how anyone can justify the enormous expense to change what is, in the final analysis, a dedicated marraige of Church and State, outmoded, and based on trading camels for wives.
And, it pisses me off to no end that so many people find the issue so appealing when they cower over most other local and state issues. Law of God – however that is perceived, does not require the sanction of the State. Civil contracts cover all else. There are plenty of people who would like to be accepted in this society who will never be accepted – it can’t be legislated. Live and let live, and provide legal access to all to all rights and privileges of citizenship.
The law says my pastor can legally marry a straight couple, but cannot legally marry a gay couple. He can bless the relationship of a gay couple (and has done so) but the State of Maine does not allow him to officiate at a legal wedding for a lesbian couple or a gay couple in the same way he can for a straight couple. That violates our freedom of religion.
You complain that single people — who don’t want to get married — can’t have weddings, either. You wrote, “Single people are not given the rights and privileges of State-sanctioned married couples either.” Huh? The reason they can’t get married when they don’t want to is because they don’t want to. That’s self-evident.
You write, “Law of God – however that is perceived, does not require the sanction of the State. Civil contracts cover all else.” If your argument is that we should treat everyone equally under the law, regardless of their sexual orientation, I would agree with that.
Finally, you say, “Supporters of same-sex marriage continue to give conflicting messages by wanting both religious sanction, and State sanction.” No, there’s no conflict. Supporters of the freedom to marry have simple requests: 1) Treat everyone equally under the law. 2) Let the churches handle this their own way without government interference. Those churches that disapprove of marriage equality can continue to do so; those who support the freedom to marry can also continue to do so.
It is absurd to say that single people are unmarried because they do not want to be married. But that kind of illogical thinking is what allows you to utterly blur church and state, God and civil law.
My oldest son (32) is single and unmarried. He says he does not want to be married at this point in his life. Maybe he’ll choose to in a few years and the government affords him that choice.
Give me one example of a heterosexual male or female who cannot marry his or her opposite sex lover, other than closely related family members, if they both want to get married.
Please explain why you think it’s absurd to say single people are unmarried because they don’t want to be married. Are you implying that they secretly all want to be married but are prevented from doing so?
That would come as a surprise to my two daughters of marriageable age who currently have NO desire to get married. Some day? Yes for one, maybe for the other.
Yes, what he said!
My church would do it-why are my religious practices being curtailed?
Great point.
It is worth repeating, because it stands well on it own:
“Right now my church is denied freedom of religion. That is, both the congregation and the denomination it belongs to, support the freedom to marry.
Our pastor also supports the freedom to marry, but is forbidden by the state of Maine to officiate at marriage ceremonies for adult same-sex couples.
Therefore, our religious freedom to perform such marriage ceremonies is being denied.”
States rights are not above civil rights. the SCOTUS is the law of the land; they are the arbiters of what is constitutional.
PS. your last sentence made me laugh out loud. the tyranny of a minority??? ridiculous comment.
Just as ridiculous as the earlier statement regarding “the tyranny of the majority”. an equally nonsensical statement, right? After all, if the majority of people support something, that doesn’t actually mean that it should actually ahve any meaning, right?
do you understand the Constitution? your comment tells me that you don’t…
many high schools offer adult ed classes in American Civics. I suggest you enroll in one. Or, just read the Constitution.
Oh yes, I understand the Constitution. What I don’t understand is people who feel that the Constitution only applies when they want it to and who don’t understand that, in this country, the majority of a vote rules. This was voted on, a majority voted against it, but here we are getting ready to vote on it again. Now what happens if it losses again? Do we just keep voting on it again and again?
Dan I hope that you understand that this will likely end up in the hands of the SCOTUS and will in all likelihood be decided based on the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment.
The Constitution doesn’t say that once the majority has voted on something it can never be decided at the ballot box again, or even that there should be a waiting period before it comes up again.
As long as the law in Maine allows people to bring forth a petition for a new law and enough people sign it, then yes, I guess it will keep coming back if it doesn’t succeed this time.
“understand that, in this country, the majority of a vote rules.”
******
that’s just not correct, sir. we are a constitutional democracy, not a pure democracy.
yes, the majority can pass a particular law.
the founding fathers, in their infinite wisdom, created the Supreme Court, to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority.
I learned that in 8th grade American History class. It’s pretty fundamental to our government.
currently there are several cases involving gay marriage that are working their way up the system to the SCOTUS. Majority rule is a fallacy.
take care.
hasnt every state that let the people vote on this endorsed marriage as one man and one woman, not two of the same sex? To say all these other states have passed gay marriage is not stating the peoples’ choice in this subject, but a bunch of legislators cowtowing to public pressure by a minority group.
“Cowtowing?”
Is that like cow tipping?
LOL!!!!
It is about as useful as cow tipping.
The first state to legalize same-sex-marriage was Massachusetts and had nothing to do with the legislature “kowtowing” to anyone but the court deciding that to exclude same-sex-marriage was unconstitutional.
but the people of Massachusetts didn’t vote for it, some legislatures did it
As my post indicated, on May 17, 2004, as a result of the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts ruling in Goodridge v. Department of Public Health found that it was unconstitutional under the Massachusetts Constitution to allow only heterosexual couples to marry.
thanks go to Barney Frankenstine for that….ha
How does Representative Barney Frank getting married impact your marriage? Are you any less married because he gets married? Do you lose any of the privileges that your marriage enjoys because Representative Frank’s get married?
“30 states (a majority) now have a constituitional amendment banning same sex marriage ”
It was lot like that when, AND WHY Maine became a State, too, wasn’t it ?
but wrong was wrong then, too.
Dirigo ?
My hope is that science can find a cure. If the “gay gene” significantly spreads throughout the gene pool population, at what point will there be a risk to the human race’s ability to reproduce and maintain its own population and not start to die off?
Given the world’s booming population we should wish that many more people would be born gay.
Stop rewarding people for having kids.
Give all the tax breaks to those who don’t have
kids.
Also I never saw an abortion the left didn’t love and applaud.
Yet another example that there is no known limit to human ignorance and depravity.
Or of ones inability to stay on the topic of the story.
Why are you changing the subject?
How far from the morality of the issue of unequal treatment before the law, and on your tax form does the reactionary’s spin take us ?
Wow !
LOL
Holy cow, that’s inaccurate!
You mean how the world has been overrun by red headed and green eyed people?
Mmmm……..cute!
Oh come on. No one can seriously believe that gay people will come to outnumber heterosexuals to the point of the extinction of our species, can they?
The only reason you see gay issues brought up so often is we are no longer living in fear of being found out— there have always been gays among our communities, going back as far as recorded history allows.
You certainly do not have to come near outnumbering. Birthrates in a number of western countries are now already flat, a minor increase in the proliferation of the “gay gene” could easily tilt the birthrate to a negative.
So, you are afraid that the wold’s population might drop from 8 billion to 7.9 billion if gay people are allowed to be who they already are?
You cannot seriously believe there is a “gay gene.”
And I thought I was a nutbag.
The people involved directly blame it on the international corporate economy.
Maybe you don’t know this, but not only CAN gay people procreate, but many DO! In fact, my boyfriend has had TWO children!!!!
^this. I know a few very proud gay mothers and fathers.
Were did they exit?
Har har!
Is this the new line of attack for the anti-same sex people that the proliferation of gay people will cause the population to eventually decrease enough that humanity will cease to exist.
It is laughable.
that would be a good thing
LOL…. seriously???????????
No
OK, I bit, I admit it.
So to speak :)
A cure for what?????????????Being gay is not a disease. Ignorance reigns. I don’t know what people are so scared of. How would YOU like to be told that you had no right to marry the person you love? As long as this stays as is, there is not rights and freedom for all.
Left-handed people shouldn’t be allowed to marry, either. Will your scientists look for a cure for left-handedness? I hear it comes from Satan. Will your scientists find a cure for Satan, too?
They should only be allowed to marry right-handed people
And what will that do? Ex-wife is left handed, I’m right handed but our child is left handed.
See it is so the Devil’s work.
Did it lead to the divorce, too ?
; )
Damn that devil to hell….
Divorce led to divorce. Not some man made creation.
THAT’S TYRANNICAL!!! Next you’ll be asking for a majority of states to pass laws to enforce that which will make it automatically the law of the land!!!
This is outrageous!!!
I happen to be left handed…
1. Why didn’t someone tell me I wasn’t allowed to marry? I would have saved a ton in the divorce…
2. It doesn’t come from Satan, I know cause I am also a ginger, thus soulless and all Satan and god care about are their soul counts. So it is not the devils work, alltho I had a teacher that told me it was. Kept slapping me every time i had the crayon in my left hand.
3. does being a left handed ginger make me like some kind of super-minority. I mean there can only be like what… 300, 400 of us world wide?
“2. It doesn’t come from Satan, I know cause I am also a ginger, thus soulless and all Satan and god care about are their soul counts. ”
Dam you, you soulless left handed freak, you and Satan made me blow coffee out my nose and all over my computer screen.
lol.
SUPER minority!!!!
Ginger = cute!
ack…what about those of us who are ambidextrous?
You can’t serve two masters.
The “gay” gene?
The entire human genome has been sequenced.
There is no gene that codes for gender.
Nor a gene that codes for ignorant bigotry.
So does that mean it is a choice?
No, not at all.
Variation in prenatal development does not require the existence of a separable, causitive gene.
Bigotry, on the other hand, is clearly a learned behavior.
I’m no bigot, I don’t care what you do. I’ll more than likely vote for this, because it doesn’t effect me. Just vote to legalize Cannabis when that comes to vote. If you don’t smoke, it won’t effect you.
( You sound like you have a severe hatred of bigots. )
Like the anti-tobacco rules in some places that ban tobacco, including chewing tobacco, and smoking in one’s car. It’s not affecting anyone else. Live and let live (or die)!
It, too, should be enjoyed in the privacy of those privy.
LOL! Surely you jest. How the H*** can they spread the gene if they don’t reproduce (at least the ones not hiding behind a straight marriage, of which there are many) ? Hmmmm?
Shhh, this is exactly how they become anti-science.
i think the priority would be finding a cure for bigotry.
why would anyone want to be cured of being gay? that’s absurd.
Is there bigotry gene ?
It runs in some families more than homosexuality does in any.
Whether or not bigotry is genetic has not yet been researched. There is research on attitudes but not their source.
Ignorance is bliss.
According to an article appearing in ‘Science Daily’, that phrase is true. The article is entitled ‘Ignorance Is Bliss When It Comes To Challenging Social Issues’ and goes on to explain that researchers found the less people knew about a subject the less they were willing to learn about it. Instead they depend on an authority figure to tell them what to believe. It explains why people who rely on false information (for example from Fox News) are less willing to look for other sources of information. Essentially they do not want to know they could be wrong.
The way we are headed now, it would probably be best if we DID start to die off . . .
Gay Scientists Isolate Christian Gene
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qCzbNkyXO50
I hope science can find the cure for the ‘bigot gene’ first.
Not allowing same sex marrige will not lessen the ‘gay gene’ as you put it. Homosexual males and females who practice same sex sex cannot add to the gene pool. The ‘gay gene’ could only be spread thru gay individuals having to conform to a heterosexual reproductive life style and having offspring.
I agree to a point. The issue for many is not the union of pair not male and female but the use of the word marriage that already has meaning to so many. Marriage has been around for a long time long before this country was in fact. It has always been a way to join a man and a woman. They put unions or what ever they wanna call it on the ballot and I will vote yes. They want to bastardize yet another word in our language then I say no.
considering the amount of divorces in this country, I’d say the word “marriage” doesn’t really mean all that much. Meh, ask Mr. Gingrich about it, he’s quite the expert.
Heterosexuals have bastardized not only the word but the institution all on their own. Maybe homosexuals can give it back a little bit of credibility.
You have got to be kidding, just wait for the onslaught of homosexual couples getting divorced. Once and of all we’ll find out how dysfunctional many of them are. Many of us already know how lesbian couples are abusive to each other (that’s a dirty little secret that straight people aren’t suppose to know).
Probably equally as dysfunctional as straight people-what is their divorce rate? About 50%?
How very spiteful of you. What glee you must feel when you hear about gay marriages breaking up.
That’s not very Christian.
As for domestic abuse-again, happens a LOT in straight relationships. Are you saying the rate is higher among lesbian couples?
Do you have any references in that input of yours?
In 2000, the New York Times in an article entitled Silence Ending About Abuse in Gay Relationships http://www.nytimes.com/2000/11/06/us/silence-ending-about-abuse-in-gay-relationships.html?pagewanted=all
And so we shouldn’t allowed to marry because of a 12 year old article in the New York Times that has information that you’ve extrapolated to mean that we beat each other more often then straight people do?
Are you really for reals?
Yes I’m for “reals”. And you Regular Joe like to pretend there are no negative issues among homosexuals.
I never said that.
Spin, baby, spin!
I apologize, you are correct,you have mentioned in your posts about homosexuals being flawed (my word ). Sorry about that.
Got to go busy, busy day ahead of me.
Out of context.
I was quoting someone else. *I* never said that.
I just read that article and it was interesting. You are implying that we are hiding our incredibly and abnormally high rate of domestic abuse from straight people-our dirty little secret-when the article is saying nothing of the kind. There IS a quote from a man who says ” ”People feel, ‘Why should we air our dirty laundry? People feel so negatively about us already, the last thing we should do is contribute to negative stereotypes of us.’ ” And that is a valid concern based on the horribly untrue things that people say about us. But this what you are implying is absolutely false.
Here’s the link so that you can refresh your memory. http://www.nytimes.com/2000/11/06/us/silence-ending-about-abuse-in-gay-relationships.html?scp=2&sq=gay%20couples%20abuse&st=nyt&pagewanted=1
It’s this sort of nonsense we can expect to see this fall from those who oppose equality. “Gay abuse each other-they don’t care about marriage!!!”
Be honest with me, why do homosexual couples want to get married while heterosexual couple don’t? I honestly do not think homosexual couples want all the legal protection heterosexual, married couple have. The issue is more insidious.
I will tell you that, yes, this gay couple really wants to get married. I want to get married, not just for legal and financial protections, but to make the statement that my love for my partner is real and forever. Why does anyone want to get married”
I don’t understand you saying: “why do homosexual couple want to get married while heterosexual couple don’t?” What couples are you talking about? Not all gay couples want to marry and not all straight couples want to remain unmarried. Whatever are you talking about?
If there is an insidious reason for my desire for marriage, then I guess I didn’t get the memo. Unless you’re referring to my ultimate goal of marrying my cat-but that’s supposed to be a secret!
http://www.nytimes.com/2000/11/06/us/silence-ending-about-abuse-in-gay-relationships.html?pagewanted=all
Some websites for gays and lesbians claim it’s actually 30-40%
Okay. Thank you for posting this. I found the article before I saw this message.
Can you tell us how that compares to straight unmarried couples? And where are these stats from?
Yeah-my goal is to continue the bastardization of the English language.
I wonder if straight people in Mass or NH or Conn really think that marriage means LESS because just any qu**r can up and marry now, too. It used to be reserved for only the straights, but now a few hundred of THOSE people are moving in on that!
Just WHAT is this neighborhood coming to!!??!?!?
There’s not much wrong with this idea on the surface. Of course you would also obligatorily have to change all references to marriage in the legal system to “Union” or whatever term you like the most. This seems as much a problem for your idea about the bastardization of English though, since ‘marriage’ will now only refer to the religious ceremony, and will only be appropriate in religious institutions. Those kinds of changes in meaning usually don’t get adopted, so I expect it would be a pretty confused situation.
“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.”
So has the rest of the Cradle of American Liberty, sweet New England, been destroyed by leading the fight for individual equally, for equality for all, … as it has done since Colonial times, yet ?
What has happened to Maine and Dirigo ?
How embarrassing is that ?
Let’s fix it this time.
Folks know I’m no optimist on this (I don’t trust all the knuckle-dragging mouth breathers who took marriage away from us in 2009), but I hope for the best!
On our side? The fact that no gay marriage opponent has any reasonable, rational views for their condemnation… and that will, in the end, insure our win.
I just don’t think that leaving this to the mob will ever work.
You’ve already LOST in 42 other states…30 of which have constitutional amendments that will take an unbeleivable effort to overturn. Reagardless of your views, you are overwhelmingly losing in the public arena .
The US constitution trumps any state constitution. Once marriage equality is deemed a constitutional right by the SCOTUS, those 30 state constitution protections will be invalid.
Every place the people have voted on it, it has lost, 0 for 33, hopefully 0-34.
How many times have we shot this down? Like 3 times. I guess they figure since they continue to attempt to indoctrinate the kids in the public schools, they will win at some point. Too bad parents have to inform their kids to ignore the rubbish and listen to their church.
Let them have their civil Unions and stop ramming their life style down everyone else’s throats.
Eggg would you be so kind as to list the months and years we voted on this “like 3 times”?
I will help you with one of them, November 2009. Now it is your turn to list the other two dates.
And 53% is not “shot down.”
Just so you know, we don’t have civil unions here in Maine. All we have is a DP law that mostly just deals with matters pertaining to illness and death. My relationship to my boyfriend is much much much more than that.
Sure, there have been loses in other states, but some go as far back as the 1990’s when it was a VERY different world and the majority of Americans didn’t want those gays marrying each other.
But with each passing year, more and more people see that it’s not hurting them. More and more people like Bob in this article are supportive when they hadn’t been before. And more and more younger people who support us are now able to vote.
I think you should check out this Gallup poll from May 2011 that shows that the majority of Americans do support the right to marry. http://www.gallup.com/poll/147662/First-Time-Majority-Americans-Favor-Legal-Gay-Marriage.aspx
Before you comment make sure your facts are right. In the animal kingdom homosexual and bi sexual sex is common. Pedophilia is not homosexuality and occurs mostly by heterosexual males. The Pope has stated that 10% of the population is born gay. The divorce rate in Massachusetts became the lowest in the country when SSM passed. Homosexual marriage was prevalent and honored in history. The Bible calls lobster and shrimp eating an abomination also so maybe we need to understand it more and take it literally less. If you read the paper today the main problem in our state is drugs, alcohol, and welfare dependance and fraud. It isnt homosexuals. The netherlands and other countries have SSM and they havent had any issues. As ar as people who sue for discrimination well, some old lady sued McD for hot coffee and got 80 mill. it happens, It isnt our fault. It is a personal thing dont blame us all. That being said continue with your opinions.
You have some very good points…. except that the person who suffered 3rd degree burns by a negligent McDonalds did not get much, The huge payout is an urban legend.
he settlement. The jury awarded $200,000 in compensatory damages to Mrs. Liebeck, which was reduced to $160,000 because the jury felt that only 80% of the fault lay with McDonald’s, and 20% with her. They also awarded $2.7 million in punitive damages, essentially as punishment of McDonald’s for its callous treatment of Mrs. Liebeck, and its years of ignoring hundreds of similar injuries. This amount was held to be reasonable given that it represented only two days’ worth of McDonalds’ revenue from coffee sales alone. The trial judge reduced the punitive damages, however, to $480,000.� After further negotiation, Mrs. Liebeck ultimately received $640,000.
I stand corrected. my point is the same though. People sue for stupid stuff. If someone doesnt like my relationship and doesnt want me then I really dont want to be there.
off topic, but McDonalds did not tell her to hold that coffee between her legs, hot or not. She was at fault, but because of the severity of her injuries a jury was convinced that ‘someone had to pay’ for her unfortunate decision, and McDonalds had deep pockets.
That woman received third degree burns on the inside of her legs, bum and her crotch. She had to go through skin grafts, lost 20% of her body weight, she was 80-some-odd pounds by the end of it. Two years of surgery and medical treatments. The coffee was obviously dangerously hot. They settled out of court for less than $600k
That said…I agree with your other points. :)
I understand. She shouldnt open a coffee cup between her knees but it was too hot. But you get my point.
What animals?
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/07/0722_040722_gayanimal.html
its easier for you to read it than for me to explain it. It is quite extensive.
Just google ‘homosexuality in animals’ and you will find over 1500 species have been verified to display homosexual behavior.
All mammals.
This will simply lead to a higher turnout of conservative voters who will also vote for local representatives while they are there, helping the republicans in the house and senate retain their majorities in the state legislature.
Yes like the Bush era when the country fell apart.
Actually like the LePage era, where we are actually trying to get our fiscal house in order and pay for all the blank check the moronic democrats wrote for the past 40 years.
And I agree, Bush destroyed the country with his progressive policies. That destructioin continues to this day with the expansion of those very same policies under Obama.
Here is my prediction. The Republicans will lose one of if not both Maine Chambers based on spending to much time debating “whoopie pies”, etc…
This referrundum will be even closer this time around. NOM is still in violation of Maine law, the “Yes” vote last time got caught in to many lies and distortions to count, etc…etc…etc…
And don’t forget the voter suppression law they passed.
NOM-remember their Summer of Marriage tour? LOL indeed!
so the conservatives will try to keep denying citizens their rights over something that will impact their marriage, or lack of it, not a bit.
and they are prepared to vote for either a serial adulterer or the member of a cult ( your terms , the religious reich )calling mormans a cult, not mine
And the young people who will NOT want another Republican running the country (especially the ones up for the nomination this year) will be voting to keep Obama in.
No again for me ! Do you suppose if you bang your spoon on the high chair long enough and cry loud enough you will eventually get your way ?
You’re not paying attention to your life.
If you voted “no” last time, you voted to NOT strip gay citizens of marriage.
You have never voted whether or not to grant it.
We will eventually get our way because people like you ahve no rational backing for your wish to harm citizens. This will make it to court, and when it does, you will lose.
Do you suppose if you bang your spoon on the high chair long enough and cry loud enough
you will eventually get your way
… and stop others from getting their legal rights, Baby Hughy ?
I’m not very sure that the Catholic Church has any high ground to stand on when offering relationship advice. This is a legal and fairness issue-not a religous one.
It becomes a religious issue when a church is sued for refusing to marry a homosexual couple.
And it would be thrown out. The churches are protected. They can always choose who to marry and not marry.
A church that offers its clubhouse for general use to the public-that’s different. But a church that won’t marry Chet and Brock? That’s protected. You should know that by now.
Who didn’t see this coming…..
I don’t think the radical right is going to be sitting down for Thanksgiving dinner this year with much to be thankful for. Today it was announced that voter ID one of the favorite pieces of legislation of the far right has been put on the shelf , killing it for this session of the legislature. Ouch!! Now we are finding out that “gay marriage” could be on the ballot and supposedly is favored by 54% of the electorate. Double Ouch! Couple those with the high possibility that come Thanksgiving that finding a republican in Augusta will be harder then finding an ice cream stand in hell and it doesn’t seem like happiness will be abounding for our right wing friends. Well at least Barney Frank is going to marry his long time partner from Maine in Mass.
Democracy does not have ‘time limits’. If enough citizens petition their government, they get on the ballot…. every time.
Civil rights should not be put to popular vote, period. The 2009 veto was immoral and wrong.
Hopefully we can undo that damage at the polls this year, but the best solution is for the US Supreme Court to rule same sex marriage legal nationwide.
Will this referendum legalize or ultimately result in legalization of other/ all forms of perversion? like molestation, pedophilia and beastiality?
Will this result in forced teaching that homo sexuality and other perversions are normal to children, if not by school boards or state mandate by a single person suing and forcing the issue?
If kindergarten kids are read a book with mom and dad in it will someone complain or sue that that is insensitive and the words partner or significant other should be supplanted?
Unless the referendum and enacting law clearly states that these types of things will not ever result and no judge or person shall interpret the allowance of gays to marry to be an entitlement for these interpretations and migrations I will not vote for this.
Nope.
First of all, restoring same sex civil marriage isn’t legalizing any perversion whatsoever.
Secondly, school curriculum does not discuss marriage whatsoever. That scare tactic from 2009 was thoroughly debunked, and the opposition led by Mark Mutty knew their ads were deceptive and untrue.
And finally, if you cannot argue against gay marriage without bringing up pedophilia, bestiality and molestation, you haven’t made any argument against gay marriage at all.
sorry gay marriage being gay is by defintion a perversion
Sorry – you are using trick wording – sure they may not have a specific discussion at grade levels but there will be fall out and impacts .
Sorry – There are , have been and will be people who seek to use this as a platform to leaglize change opinion on other perversions.
#1 No other country or state that has legalized has had an issue with this.
#2 No definition for homosexuality defines it as a perversion.
#3 It is defined as a natural form of human bonding.
Why do you want to look ignorant in public?
Seriously, get a grip.
Even if your opinion is that homosexuality is a perversion, the existence of homosexuals does not change a bit– we are simply being granted the same rights under the law that heterosexuals have enjoyed.
We are in your community living our lives, whether we can marry or not. Why stand in the way of our need to protect our families and the lives we build together?
Hmmm…Massachusetts legalized same sex marriage in 2004 and has the longest track record. Surely you can show all of us where “people who seek to use this as a platform to leaglize change opinion on other perversions” has occurred in Massachusetts.
I do know that alot of medical emt types and customs border people have had serious infection exposure concerns and increased risks as from the homsexual plague . Many have formed opposition groups and have called out thier own on this
Your barking up the wrong tree with that fallacy skull. I have been in Public Safety since the beginning of the “homsexual plague”. Back when ambulace companies would ask for “volunteers” to transport someone with AIDS. Back before gloves, masks and goggles were carried on ambulances. Long before anyone knew that HIV is an extremly fragile virus and is easily killed.
I have NEVER heard of any “opposition groups” in EMS. NEVER. Do we worry about it? No not really because if you use proper PPE and BSI techniques and hand washing after every call the risk is very small.
Have there been exposures? Sure. But any time I have transported someone with HIV/AIDS, HepB, HepC, etc…they normally tell us because they DON’T want us to become infected. Imagine that.
What is a “homsexual”, Skull? You should spend your time on learning to spell before you try to appear educated. LOL
plague?
You realize that the overwhelming majority (like 95%) of homosexuals carry no disease, right?
Holy fololy cow!!!
The gay plague!
What year are you typing from? It’s not 1982 anymore.
Your prejudice and bigotry are immoral.
“sorry gay marriage being gay is by defintion a perversion”
Really? By who’s definition? Not the American Psychological Association or the American Psychiatric Association.
Do you want a discussion of all forms of perversion like molestation, pedophilia and beastiality (sic), Skullfire ?
If not why did you bring it up ?
If so, given you did bring it up, how dare y0u claim that your goal is to protect innocent children from being exposed to a public discussion of all forms of perversion like molestation, pedophilia and beastiality (sic) when it is you that brought it up HERE where kids can read it ?
Who said you can know them, know what they are, by the fruits that their efforts actually bear, right here, right now, in our secular world, Skullfire ?
( The con posers … the out of State shills, already ?… the conservative opinion makers, whoever they are, have got nothing new, and do not remember the last round, CV. Time to rope a dope ? lol )
“Will this referendum legalize or ultimately result in legalization of other/ all forms of perversion? like molestation, pedophilia and beastiality?”
Homosexuality is legal in all 50 states. Molestation, pedophilia and beastiality are illegal in all 50 states. Why do you believe that extending marriage to two consenting adults would impact anything else?
~~~~~
“Will this result in forced teaching that homo sexuality and other perversions are normal to children, if not by school boards or state mandate by a single person suing and forcing the issue?”
If you are concerned, I would suggest that you attend a local school board meeting where curriculum decisions are made on the local level not at the state level.
~~~~~
“If kindergarten kids are read a book with mom and dad in it will someone complain or sue that that is insensitive and the words partner or significant other should be supplanted?”
Read answer to your second question above.
~~~~~
“Unless the referendum and enacting law clearly states that these types of things will not ever result and no judge or person shall interpret the allowance of gays to marry to be an entitlement for these interpretations and migrations I will not vote for this.”
I doubt you would vote for it anyway. No matter what guarantees were made.
me and the majority wont be voting for it
skull, I do believe that you can only speak for yourself. That is unless you are channeling every single voter in the state of Maine.
Skullfire, might be channeling something, but whatever it is, it is obvious not on the side of the angels.
It is “The majority and I…” Bad grammar….
ok he who has have no point demean – homosexuals are deviant perverts. I agree they should be free from persecution and harrassment but they are not equal in the context of being queer you see as humans But humanity does not include equality for deviant behavior.
And calling me a deviant pervert isn’t demeaning?!?!
Well!!!!
Really ?
So do you think all “deviant perverts ” “should be free from persecution and harrassment” ?
I really think you need to rethink that you being able to speak for the American majority thingy.
Well, we are going to find out in November!
the school system has already begun indoctrinating the children with pro-homosexual publications and teachings.
yes and holly wood started it years ago with its pro gay programming , and now we see programming about multiple wifes and prostitution framed as normal, and these people tell me its about equality. So wont the next group and the next
It is Hollywood, not “holly wood”. It is not a person’s name, dude…
The horror, that media might portray gays and lesbians as —GASP— human beings?!
Next thing you know, they might actually be treated like real Americans!
I suppose life was better when TV just showed us only one kind of family-the white family where Dad worked, Mom stayed at home, and the kids were lovably adorable.
That fantasy family didn’t represent all Americans then and it doesn’t now.
Black families, single women, divorced women, latino families, gay people, etc. This is a big country filled with many many different people. It’s unreasonable to say that Hollywood should only show what you think it should.
In any case, Hollywood is a PERFECT example of letting the majority have it’s say. If the people didn’t want it, then it wouldn’t be on the air or do well at the box office, would it? It’s the WILL OF THE PEOPLE!
Learn grammar and spelling before you post. Otherwise, you appear ignorant.
I suppose I missed the incorrect spelling in my post? Please point it out.
As far as bad grammar, the only errors that I see is my lack of capitalization.
In other words, that has nothing to do with the issue of legalizing gay marriage.
Thanks! Now do you see how senseless your opposition to our civil rights really is?
Yes…. CLEARLY marriage between two consenting gay adults is the exact same thing as pedophilia, molestation and bestiality (try spelling it correctly) and of course let us not omit child pornography…. OMFG SERIOUSLY??
Pedophilia is a psychiatric disorder that is diagnosed- being gay IS NOT. You do know that there is an 11:1 ratio regarding pedophilia? Translation: for every 1 gay person who is a pedophile there are 11 HETEROSEXUAL PEDOPHILES running around or 96% of pedophiles are HETEROSEXUAL (research it genius.) So who is the greater predator here??? Not the gay people.
So let’s be frank shall we? Research CLEARLY indicates that heterosexuals vastly out number homosexuals regard pedophilia and yet….heterosexuals are ‘ALLOWED’ to get married. Hmmmmmm. That would only seem to support that the greater population of pedophiles should not be allowed to get married under your brilliant pseudo concerns….
Divorce rates are ridiculously high for heterosexuals….and for all you bible thumpers out there…..as I recall the Bible frowns on divorce so says Malachi 2:16 and remarriage is considered adultery so says Matthew 19:9 and 5:32 ( AND it’s one of those pesky 10 commandments) AND what happens if you commit adultery….ummmmm DEATH. I know plenty of people who have been married more than 1 or 2 or 3 times and so do all of you….apparently they should all be dead.
Oh and let us not forget that your wife needs to be a VIRGIN when getting married Deuteronomy 22:13-21 if not she is STONED TO DEATH….I can’t fathom how many dead females there would be upon their marriage night in this country Pfffffffffft. And don’t forget it’s A-ok to own slaves Leviticus 25:44 and it’s fabulous for you to sell your daughter into slavery Exodus 21:7 ….. and the list goes on and on….so before one of you picks and chooses what bible verse ‘fits’ into your pathetic anti-gay agenda….you might want to consider all the sins you have committed and yet are still allowed all the civil freedoms that this country has to offer regardless of how many biblical sins you have/are committing in your life every day.
Gay marriage is about civil rights and SHOULD HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH RELIGION – however religion gets thrown into this debate all too often- you DO NOT need to have any religious affiliation in order to get married what you do HAVE to have is a marriage license form the state. Educate yourself people. How would you like it if your neighbors got to decide if you could marry the person you loved with all your heart and soul? and what if the neighbors told you no you couldn’t marry that person…would that work well for any of you? I don’t think so.
Too much Fox News there, dude.
He is deeper into evil than just FNN, Guy.
No, no, no, and no. All of the scare tactics you state (which were used last time) were proven to be untrue. I continue to be baffled about why people feel so threatened about the extension of basic civil rights to a minority group. What a sad sad way to go through life.
Weren’t similar arguments raised in the 1960s about interracial marriage?
Weren’t similar arguments raised in the 1960s about interracial marriage and in Germany in the ’30’s ?
There’s nothing new under the sun, except more people demanding their freedom, all the time.
Have those things be legalized because heterosexual marriage is legal??? Seems like straight people have been engaging in those things for a long, long time.
Oy vey. That’s all I can say to this.
I know that some people have valid questions and concerns that I discuss with them when I canvass, but really! The “perversion” question is just ridiculous.
We have a hell of a lot more important things to worry about than gay marriage! Get over it!
Then worry about those other things, and let us vote this into law this November.
For me, the most important issue I am fighting for is my right to civil marriage with my partner.
Spoken like a white male who has NEVER had to fight for a right in his life because they have all been handed to you since the inception of this country!! Pfffffffffft.
excuse me but in order for you to make that comment i protected your freedom of speech for 13 years and have a full time good paying job, so get bent!
And this comment has WHAT exactly to do with other people getting married in this state? Oh right….NOTHING. News flash not everything is all about you….you are not the center of the universe (well clearly you are the center of your own universe) ‘Get bent’ great comeback !! Your intellect and wit are beyond measure (for someone with an IQ that rivals their shoe size) Pffffffffft. LOL.
I have never been handed anything and have worked my @ss off my whole life!
Really white guy??? Ummmmm women were afforded the ‘right’ to vote in 1920, Native Americans were afforded civil rights in 1968 Indian Civil Rights Act (ICRA.), African American were afforded their civil rights in 1964 and the anti miscegenation laws were repealed in 1967……so do remind us all Bob….when it was you white guys were afforded the right to vote? Oh you’ve always had that right. Ummmm when was it you white guys were afforded the right to own property? Oh you’ve always been afforded that right. And when was it that you white guys were afforded the right to marry? Oh you’ve always been afforded that right…..and my how easy it is for you to take those rights for granted. Perhaps attempting to read a history book about the various minorities that have existed in this country (you know women, Asians, African Americans, Native Americans, etc, etc, etc- pretty much anyone who isn’t a white guy)….you are aware that this country has a prior history longer than your ‘whole life’……and I’m hopeful you can read. :)
so I suggest you pick up a rifle, if your not to weak to hold one and shut the hell up!
Brilliantly gifted white male response Bob. The hilarity ensues……LMAO.
you get over it. If people weren’t so intent on legislating their morality on others then we wouldn’t have to waste time and money putting CIVIL RIGHTS up to vote.
keep telling yourself that!
And since when is it a Civil right for gays to get married?
they have just as much a right to CIVIL marriage as anyone else. No one is forcing any religion to perform or recognize same sex marriage.
The supreme court decided marriage was a civil right when it overturned laws that banned interracial marriage in the south. The writing is on the wall for prohibitions on same sex civil marriage.
From the unanimous decision of the US Supreme Court case Loving vs. Virginia, 12 June 1967.
“Marriage is one of the “basic civil rights of man,” fundamental to our very existence and survival.”
Who should get over what?
Are you saying that those against it should just get over it, vote for it, let us have it, and move on to more important things?
Honestly, I’m exhausted and tired of fighting this. But that is what they are counting on. We will NOT give in to this constant barage by the a-moral minority. We will defend the nuclear family as the ideal standard and will NOT give in to these pressures.
I’m not amoral at all.
Amoral people don’t typically want to be tied down with marriage, either.
I am seeking to protect the life I have built with my partner over the decades, with civil marriage benefits. Why stand against love?
53.7% of marriad couples no longer live in a loving, committed relationship. Newt Gingrich is the perfect example of someone running on “family values” but walks a different walk in his personal life.
In 1962, he married Jackie Battley, his former high school geometry teacher, when he was 19 years old and she was 26.
In the spring of 1980, Gingrich left his wife after beginning an affair with Marianne Ginther, who was nine years his junior. They wed in 1981 and divorced in 2000.
In 1993, while still married to Marianne, Gingrich began an affair with House of Representatives staffer Callista Bisek, who was 23 years his junior. They wed in 2000
Two wrongs do not make a right. I don’t condone the behavior of Newt Gingrich any more than that of the homosexual.
Not asking you to condone anything, just asking that you understand we should have a right to civil marriage under our government.
you don’t condone his behavior, but his behavior is legal. He can marry and divorce as much as he’d like to. To you his behavior is amoral, why do you not fight to change the laws on divorce? Why only gay marriage?
As your last sentence has expanded from the previous posting to include: “as the ideal standard and will NOT give in to these pressures., please remember that many children in the US and across the world are being raised by non-biological parents due to illness, death, adoption, abuse, divorce, remarriage, incarceration etc. In essence you are telling all families that do not fit into the “nuclear” family model that they are less than …. and as a result the children of those families are also less than.
Prejudice is immoral. Fairness and equal treatment are moral.
Honestly, I’m exhausted and tired of fighting this. But that is what they are counting on. We will NOT give in to this constant barage by the a-moral minority. We will defend the nuclear family
If you are truly a pastor you are not following the preachings of your own. it says to welcome and be kind to homosexuals. Calling us names is not Christian. Therefore your credibility is not valid. God Bless.
I do welcome and am kind to everyone, regardless of sexual sin. For homosexuality is no better or worse than adultery, or sex outside of marriage. All these things are a perversion of God-given sexual design. I will not any more condone homosexuality as I will condone adultery. I have never called you a name, unless you consider the descriptor homosexual a “name.”
Hmmm, I never heard that homosexuality was one of the ten commandments. Please enlighten me as to where homosexuality is listed as a perversion in the Bible.
I appreciate your question. As stated by Paul in 1 Corinthians 6:9-11(NASB) “Or do you not know that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, shall inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you; but you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, and in the Spirit of our God.” This is but one instance. A thesis on this subject would take a VERY long time.
And yet most of those things aren’t illegal… only thieves clearly run afoul of our laws.
There’s no valid argument why we should not extend civil marriage rights to same sex couples.
Might I suggest the word’s of Luke?
SW EP6 ROTJ says ” Search your feelings, Father, you can’t do this. I feel the conflict within you. Let go of your hate.”
Such simple words, yet such deep meaning… Oh sorry did you think I meant like Luke from the Bible? No, this is a quotation from Luke Skywalker, but I figure if the Christians get to quote fiction, why can’t I?
Paul never used the word “homosexuals,” as there was no equivalent word in koine Greek. He used a word, arsenokoitai, that literally means “male-bed” and was probably either referring to male prostitution or the sexual exploitation of male children. No properly translated Bible contains the word “homosexual” or “homosexuals,” as koine Greek did not have such a word.
But try this passage: “Judge not, so that you will not be judged” (Matthew 7:1).
You are completely correct about the inaccuracy of the translation of this specific word. Without using this word, Paul in his letter to the Romans effectively reiterated the same statement. Romans
1:26-27 – “For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for
their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural,
and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the
woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men
committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due
penalty of their error” How else can you interpret this verse other than a condemnation of that which is “Unnatural”?
I respect you for your well balanced answers to questions and your defense of your beliefs.
But, marriage is a civil function in the United States. The states issue a license which allows the couple to do one of two things. They can go to a Judge or a Justice of the Peace and have a civil marriage ceremony. Or, they can go to a religious group and have a religious marriage ceremony instead. Both are legal and binding and in the eyes of the state, they both enjoy the same rights and privileges.
So, if the state is the issuing authority for marriage licenses, why are we allowing a religious institution to dictate to whom those license may or may not be issued to?
So here’s the deal. Cards on the table. This is why. http://www.christianpost.com/news/law-forcing-ny-clerk-to-sign-gay-marriage-licenses-against-her-faith-52021/ I see this going further. Even though it may be said that it’s not going to happen, I see a time in the future when I may be legally liable for holding religious conviction against gay marriage and refusing to perform a ceremony.
Have you read the ballot question as proposed (keeping in mind that the Secretary of State sets the final wording)?
The example you provide is a “Civil Servant”, a town clerk refusing to sign a marriage license for a gay couple because of her religious views. What if the town clerk refused to sign a marriage license for an inter-racial couple because she didn’t believe in the mixing of the races?
The Town Clerk may not agree with many thing but it is NOT there job to allow personal feelings or beliefs to enter into their job. Same for a Justice of the Peace or a Judge.
And guess what, it is the same for a non-religious function hall. They cannot refuse there services based on religious views. They provide a public service and are not allowed to discriminate.
Now the article you reference also mentions “A number of provisions to protect religious communities from acting against their conscience have been addressed in the gay marriage bill in New York.”
and
“Churches and religious organizations are exempt from having their properties used for purposes that conflict with their religious beliefs with regards to marriage. They have the right to refuse to marry same-sex couples, according to statements from the New York Alliance Defense Fund.”
Those protections were the same protections that were overturned back in 2009 when Maine overturned the SSM bill as passed.
And here is what the proposed law says:
The citizens’ initiative
The title of the proposed citizens’ initiative is: An Act to Allow Marriage Licenses for Same-Sex Couple and Protect Religious Freedom.
The proposed ballot wording submitted Thursday is: “Do you favor a law allowing marriage licenses for same-sex couples, and that protects religious freedom by ensuring that no religion or clergy be required to perform such a marriage in violation of their religious beliefs?”
Seems pretty clear to me…religion and clergy are protected.
I appreciate you and your willingness to discourse. Unfortunately, I can’t be convinced that this is the final pushing point and so here I make my stand. Yesterday it was “civil unions”, today it is “marriage”, tomorrow’s fight will be, “Why should churches get tax exemptions if they refuse to perform gay marriages?” I just can’t get behind this.
Matt 7:1 “Judge not, that ye be not judged.
2 For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what
measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.
3 And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother’s eye, but
considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?
4 Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of
thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye?
5 Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then
shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother’s eye”
The above verses are addressed to a hypocrite who went around judging
people of doing evil when he was doing the same things. Just look at
verse 3 and 4. Do not judge another person before judging yourself. A
good example would be a bank robber. A person who robs banks for a
living should not go around judging other people who robs banks. How
about this real-time example. Remember the TV evangelist who judged
another TV evangelist for sleeping with another women then paying her
hush money. The first evangelist was seeing prostitutes while he was
judging the other TV evangelist! Only a hypocrite would judge another
person while he is guilty of doing the same thing! This is why the above
verses first tell a person to judge themselves. Once that is done, one
can judge and help others. In its proper context Matt 7:1 does not say
it is wrong to judge. Instead it is saying to first judge yourself. This I do. I am as much a sinner and in need of a Savior as the homosexual.
Oh.
Thank you for telling us how you think God’s Words SHOULD speak to us all.
Yours humbly.
Back to mythology…
It simply is not civil law. Nobody’s asking you to condone homosexuality, but it’s not a crime… sorry.
That’s all you need to see that your religion is not civil law, and has no bearing on anything but your personal views.
Such views are demonstrative of exactly why you will lose.
This shouldn’t even be an issue…we shouldn’t have the authority to vote on this.
Do not ask what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country.
John F. Kennedy
Would God “create” these individuals if he didn’t want them to be on
this earth and given the same rights of all this other “creations”?
Please, just take a minute and think about the things you do on a daily
basis and the things that are of extreme importance to you…would you
go down without a fight to not be able to do those things? Who are we
to tell people they can not marry the person they love when there are
many individuals in this country…not to mention this state, that get
married for benefits or on the other hand, get married and are then
divorced days, weeks, months later. People make their own decisions and
we should allow them to make the decision to marry the person they love
if they choose to do so, whether they are heterosexual or homosexual.
People choose to be adulterers. People choose to have sex outside of marriage. When did you choose to be heterosexual?
The Bible does not say to welcome homosexuals. It does say to be kind to them. It also says to be kind to everyone, including our enemies: “But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you” (Mat. 5:44). Christ was kind to people without condoning their sin. The Bible is clear about homosexuality, and it’s also very clear about other sin as well. As ChildrensPastor has stated, homosexuality is one of many sexual sins that the Bible condemns.
Not really, unless you want to also admit that eating lobster, wearing polyester, and talking back to your parents are equal sins.
Wearing polyester probably tops them all.
OMG, do I have to marry my brother’s widow ?
Would you make Federal Case of it if I don’t ?
LOL, I forgot about that one in Leviticus.
So Christ was a single, vibrant guy, around 30 years old.
Not married, right?
Perhaps the Romans outlawed gay marriage.
Unless you have some other explanation.
And was know to associate with the “unclean”, prostitutes, etc….
‘ The Bible is clear about homosexuality’
Oh, so please quote specifically exactly what Jesus Christ said about it,
by Chapter and verse, if you can, please.
Can anyone do so ?
But hey, he was a liberal and may well have been wise, truly inspired, to avoid the topic.
What would the Pharisees have said about his running around with 12 other unwed thirty something guys if he talked about gay right, specifically, too ?
It’s not enough to be without sin, you have to think about other peoples perception of you, too,
or they will crucify you.
Somethings never change, huh ?
The Bible is very clear about homosexuality. There are actually a number of verses that deal with it, but the verses in Romans 1: 18-32 say it as well as any. The actual verses that deal with homosexuality are verses 26-28.
Christ wasn’t a liberal, Christ is God. He claims that title throughout the gospels, but John 1 is the best. The Old Testament makes that claim about Him, the apostles all claimed that of Him. I choose to believe it.
Who said the disciples were unwed? They were married. The Pharisees hated Christ because He called them out. Get a Bible and read it. Start in John.
I asked for what Jesus said, not what Paul said in a letter to people he had met while traveling.
Aren’t conservative lucky on those counts, then ?
Typically, people who are fighting FOR something have more energy than people fighting AGAINST something.
Because at the end of the day, your life doesn’t change if gay marriage becomes legal. But mine sure does— I get to enjoy the same civil marriage rights that my heterosexual friends have!
My life doesn’t change personally, that’s correct. But I vote every day for things that don’t effect my life personally. Whether it’s at a vote with a ballot, a dollar, or my time. Children who are starving in Uganda don’t affect me personally, however I have a vested interest in their wellbeing. Just as I have in the wellbeing of this country.
I do too, which is why I am voting to uphold the promise of our Constitution to more Americans, specifically those of us who are discriminated against for civil marriage rights.
Be well, and I hope you come to see that my happiness with my partner is not the downfall of anything.
OK, so tell us all… how is gay marriage harmful to America?
How will it harm anyone?
“OK, so tell us all… how is gay marriage harmful to America?”
I’m betting that will remain the unanswered question in this debate.
How does gay marriage harm traditional marriage? One might as well
ask, “How does printing counterfeit $20 bills hurt your wallet?” Or to
use another example, can you imagine a building where every carpenter
defined his own standard of measurement? A man and a woman joined
together in holy matrimony is the time-tested “yardstick” for marriage.
One cannot alter the definition of marriage without throwing society
into confusion any more than one can change the definition of a
yardstick. Homosexual marriage is an empty pretense that lacks the
fundamental sexual complementariness of male and female. And like all
counterfeits, it cheapens and degrades the real thing. The destructive
effects may not be immediately apparent, but the cumulative damage is
inescapable. The eminent Harvard sociologist, Pitirim Sorkin, analyzed
cultures spanning several thousand years on several continents, and
found that virtually no society has ceased to regulate sexuality within
marriage as defined as the union of a man and a woman, and survived.
History fail.
And you can keep holy matrimony. That's religious and not civil.
Tell me… If that argument carries so much weight, how come it's not been used in court anywhere, even in Prop 8?
It’s nice to see people trying to support their position with arguments.
Your counterfeiting examples assumes that gay relationships have no value. Whatever way you assign value to relationships, if you were familiar with any gay couples you’d have lost this point of view already. If you’d like to explain what gay relationships all lack and straight relationships all have, it might clarify this point.
The ‘yardstick’ comment is too vague for me to evaluate. Gay couples and straight couples can both lead highly successful lives and raise wonderful children. You’d know this if you took any time to look.
I can’t see what would be confusing about granting gay couples the right to marry. Denying the right when nothing in the constitution precludes it is unconstitutional and highly confusing.
‘Sexual complemantariness’ isn’t a reasonable argument. Gay people can have sex with each other, and maimed, impotent, or sterile heterosexuals are allowed to marry.
You copied and pasted that bit about Sorokin from one of several sites on the internet that opposes gay marriage. I’m not a sociologist, but as far as I can tell, Sorokin looked at historic records of civilizations that were already dead, and found that as the civilizations became moribund, there was more evidence of single parent households, more ‘sexual exploration’ or something, more adultery, and more rape. The closer I get to the actual documents he wrote, the less I see about homosexuality, but presumably he also noticed something about that. It looks like he was indeed claiming that these changes in sexual behavior were responsible for the collapse of societies, but I can’t see that he had any principled way of distinguishing that from a scenario where it’s the other way around, or the two things are totally unrelated, or that he could show that legal gay marriage was specifically implicated in societal problems at all. If you actually know something you can tell me about his research I’d love to hear it.
None of the points you made have merit as far as I can see. If you want gay marriage to be illegal because of something you learned in church and you’re not interested in changing your mind based on rational arguments, then just say that. Otherwise, meet some gay couples and realize that they are wonderful people who deserve the same rights as you.
I know several homosexual couples and they are wonderful people.Unfortunately, while a high percentage of married couples remain married for up to 20 years or longer, with many remaining wedded for life, the vast majority of homosexual relationships are short-lived and transitory. This has nothing to do with alleged “societal oppression.” A study in the Netherlands, a gay-tolerant nation that has legalized homosexual marriage, found the average duration of a homosexual relationship to be one and a half years.
Studies indicate that while three-quarters or more of married couples remain faithful to each other, homosexual couples typically engage in a shocking degree of promiscuity. The same Dutch study found that “committed” homosexual couples have an average of eight sexual partners (outside of the relationship) per year.
Intimate partner violence: homosexual and lesbian couples experience by far the highest levels of intimate partner violence compared with married couples as well as cohabiting heterosexual couples.Lesbians, for example, suffer a much higher level of violence than do married women.
First I would ask for the sources of your statements.
The average length of first time heterosexual marraige in the United States in 2001 was 8 years. Source: http://www.census.gov/prod/2005pubs/p70-97.pdf
“DOMESTIC VIOLENCE IN SAME-GENDER RELATIONSHIPS”
“Physical violence occurs in 11–12% of same-gender couples, which suggests that domestic violence is an abuse of power that can happen in any type of intimate relationship, regardless of gender or sexual orientation. Although incidents of violence occur at the same rate in same-gender couples and cross-gender couples, the violence appears to be milder in same-gender couples and it is unclear what percentage of same-gender violence should be characterized as abuse or intimate terrorism. Same-gender victims also suffer from the additional stress of severe isolation and the abuser’s threats to expose the victim’s sexual orientation in a hostile manner.”
http://rohrbaughassociates.net/pdfs/same_sex.pdf
“A study in the Netherlands, a gay-tolerant nation that has legalized homosexual marriage, found the average duration of a homosexual relationship to be one and a half years.”
Comparing all homosexual relations to marriage ?
Please, that is not honest, now is it ?
The Family Research Council has done exhaustive research on homosexual marriage and most of the information they compiled can be found here. http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=IS04C02
It is about families, love and the children now,
not just the narrow minded’s fixation on relationships
between a man and a woman, Rev.
The sound track for this comment ,
and for how marriage gets redefined is :
OPEN IN ANOTHER TAB
http://youtu.be/hurEFgoeKHE
or just click on it and just enjoy it, as you skip my answers
to the Right Rev.
The Right Rev: Re : ” How does gay marriage harm traditional marriage?”
One might as well ask, “How does printing counterfeit $20 bills hurt your wallet?”How does gay marriage harm love and family values ?
> Me : Or one could also ask he Right Rev.; How can one size fit all ?
… the Rev : Or to use another example, can you imagine a building where every carpenter defined his own standard of measurement?
Me > Or to use another example, can you imagine a home where every member was defined by only one standard of measurement?
How can any home function without accepting and tolerating
the unique character of all those in it and measuring their growth
as human beings, only against itself and as part of who they are
right now ?
… A man and a woman joined together…
> There is that darned obsession with sex and wondering
who sticks what where, again, grow up !
… in holy matrimony is the time-tested “yardstick”…
> Is that your obsessive nature showing, again too, just may-be, too, Rev ?
; )
…for marriage.
One cannot alter the definition of marriage without throwing society into confusion …
> Souls, one at a time, are your job, not the politics of society.
But then, if you are speaking just as another opinionated
imperfect man like me, just say so, Rev …
AND THEN tell us HOW have the other New England States have suffered ?
There is a record, NOW, ignoring it is bordering on false testimony.
… any more than one can change the definition of a yardstick.
> Canada went metric, did the world end ?
…. Homosexual marriage is an empty pretense that lacks the
fundamental sexual complementariness of male and female.
> Just how single ( dirty ???) minded and obsessive
yet still charmingly naive, hopeful and telling about
the children’s pastor, is that ? It is almost sweet.
But young man, is sexuality and the rare and elusive sexual completeness, really your only unchangeable yardstick for measuring all marriages ?
The flaw in that is so self- evident, I’ll just leave that alone,
so I don’t make you don’t cry, son.
… And like all counterfeits, it cheapens and degrades the real thing.
> Only on a market that values prestige and greed over functionality.
The value to Louie Vetton vs, the value to me of the knock off bag
that holds a big flash light, a survival blanket and a pair of work gloves,
and which lives under the passenger seat of my car, are very different
things.
If you and your spouse are more like beat up old bags,
that you value and which are still valued, more for what they hold,
then what they look like, which is certainly not like you did
when you were brand new, and still on shelf ,
then say “Amen ” !
Expecting shiny and new, using only one commercial,
one size fits all yardstick of values, is what cheapens
real time tested love.
…. The destructive effects may not be immediately apparent,
> Building on your premise that only applies to the commercial value
of things when they are all that shiny and new ?
Rev. please, you are talking to adult people who know marriage,
not just honeymoons.
We are a society of people who can view the marriage of
ANY TWO PEOPLE and the various aspects of
“complementariness”, without obsessing on sex,
like you have.
In fact we can envision, ( at the very least) a new definition of marriage
that is not just about the sexual relationship between a manly potent man, like yourself,
no doubt, and a pretty submission partner who exists to enhanse your place in the society
that you worry so about,
AND THEN then to produce children you can be reasonably sure are really yours.
We know that the definition of marriage can be changed,
it must, and it just does so on its own, because over time,
over joy, and over sorrow WE HAVE HAD TO GO WITH THE CHANGES,
REDEFINING WHAT MARRIAGE MEANS TO US and to our lives.
Why not redefine marriage as that which give you lasting love
and bit of security relative to all that changes
as you and your life partner’s lives change .
… but the cumulative damage is inescapable.
The eminent Harvard sociologist, Pitirim Sorkin, analyzed
cultures spanning several thousand years on several continents, and found that virtually no society has ceased to regulate sexuality within marriage as defined as the union of a man and a woman, and survived.
> Name all those “cultures …. (that ) ceased to regulate sexuality within marriage as defined as the union of a man and a woman”,
or at least one, example, of that pig in poke, reference to some higher
authority, (like Haarvaard, don’t you know), please, sir.
I don’t know where you found the time to write this… Lol! I sure don’t have the time to reply. Blessings. :)
…. I don’t know where you found the time to write this…
> I was inspired. Lol !
… I sure don’t have the time to reply.
> That is okay, just pray on it.
It would be nice to know what you think, eventually, but the time and effort
is not about my ego, rather for the good of your spiritual life, sir.
Who are His hands, here ?
Have a nice day.
See, that’s what’s beautiful about this issue. The Word of God has already spoken about this. So the only think I need to pray for regarding this is patience, understanding, and that those in support of homosexuaity would see that it is so obviously a sexual sin. As far as my spiritual life, I thank God every day that his grace is all sufficent.
The Word of God has already spoken about this.
So what did Jesus say about homosexuality ?
When He walked the earth, Jesus said nothing specifically about homosexuality.
This does not suggest that sexual issues were not addressed; we know
that Jesus spoke about several issues, including marriage, divorce,
adultery, lust, and fornication.
A lot of people take this position: that an moral issue left
specifically unaddressed by Jesus Christ automatically gained His
approval, ie, became “not sin”. This position is completely false, and
does not take into account Jesus’ person, culture, religious training,
and spoken opinions on the documents we now know as the “Old Testament”.
To wit: Jesus never said one word against rape, but we do not, from
that silence, argue that Jesus thought it was not a sin. Such a
position would be ludicris, since we know that in all things Jesus
upheld the Mosaic law, which condemned that act as evil.
When challenged with any moral questions by His opponents (“What do you
say about _______?”) Jesus almost always started with the following
sentence:
“What does it say in the Law? How do you read it?”
” A lot of people take this position: that an moral issue left
specifically unaddressed by Jesus Christ automatically gained His
approval, ie, became “not sin”. This position is completely false..”
How very definitive of you.
The Bible is a very definitive book.
So said the Pharisees, too.
But of course those of you that don’t know that the Pentecost was the second coming are lost.
:)
Which version?
It is insulting to my and my partner of decades that you think our getting equal access to civil marriage rights cheapens or degrades anyone else’s relationship.
We have a healthier marriage than most people I know, we simply aren’t receiving equal protection under our laws, and that’s just wrong.
“fighting for” and “fighting against” are interchangeable.
Well, in this case the people fighting against gay marriage really aren’t affected if gay marriage becomes a reality, whereas those of us fighting for gay marriage stand to gain all of the myriad benefits of civil marriage conveyed by the state.
So I think my analysis is accurate. It’s hard to be against something for so long when it really, truly doesn’t affect your life.
It is like investing the tax saving you will get, just to get them, isn’t it ?
Actually we would suffer the “marriage tax penalty” because we have no dependents and have similar incomes. But the extra cost will be worth it!
Just out of curoristy do you support Newt Gingrich for President? He is after all the “family value” candidate.
No, I don’t.
anyone with a lick of common sense knows that Newt is not the “family value” candidate! He is a creepy scumbag cheating money grubbing pig. Next I will tell you how I really feel!)…..If all you are looking at is family values for a candidate, guess you are for Obama or Mitt
Actually I am repeating what he is calling himself. He has and is holding himself out as the “family value candidate”.
I just said last weekend that if Newt does become the nominee of the Republican Party I will not support him and will look for another candidate to support.
I, for one, wholeheartedly support and defend the “nuclear” family but I also support and defend those that do not fit that description ….. foster families, families that raise children of relatives, families headed by one adult, extended families, adoptive families…… extending civil marriage to same-sex couples and families will not cause opposite-sex couples to stop marrying and raising families nor will it deny them the right to continue to do so.
civil union YES same sex marriage? NO NO NO
Then the legislature will need to get busy rewriting all laws that include married, marriage, spouse, husband, wife to add civil union and whatever you allow us to use when we refer to each other …….. all that time and all that money to do so….. but hey if you’d prefer the legislature to work on that instead of the economy so be it.
The Church opposed Civil Union, first.
See what being intolerant, like that gets you ?
Then ban divorce.
why don’t you go try to make divorce and out of wedlock sex illegal
I’m a Christian who believes that marriage is a good thing — it promotes loyalty, fidelity, family stability — and if it is good for straight couples it is good for gay or lesbian couples as well. My wife and I have been married almost 33 years now, and perhaps we take the freedom to marry a bit for granted, because the government never told us we were unworthy of marriage. But I have a cousin, and I have neighbors, and friends at church, who are not allowed to marry. I believe the law should treat us all equally, and grant them the same freedom to marry that my wife and I already have.
My family values teach me that all families should be valued. “Why do you see the speck in your neighbor’s eye, but do not see the log in your own eye?” (Luke 6:41).
The moral thing is to treat all families equally and fairly. The immoral thing is to be prejudiced against people who God created gay.
I’m not prejudiced against homosexuals any more than I am prejudiced toward an adulterer. They are both sinners, the same as I. I, however, will not condone their sin and legitimize it as normality. Perhaps it will pass, but it won’t be because of my vote.
Homosexuality is a sin even if you are married… ?
Oh, man !
Geezes, why can you at least give them the same break you give adulterers ?
Hey, and you put down that stone, right now !
lol
” Honestly, I’m exhausted and tired of fighting this. But that is what they are counting on. We will NOT give in to this constant barage by the a-moral minority. We will defend the nuclear family”
You should be tired and exhausted from fighting on the side of bigotry.
It is tiring to throw stones, Rev.
Repent your evil ways, come to the light,
the the love and the way of freedom and personal responsibility
guided directly by the Holy Spirit,
who can dwell in your heart and guide you, too, you poor tired man.
You need to find the love of the Holy Spirit and the love of God
that invigorates you when you are doing the right things.
Just change your mind, and experience the joy and peace
that being on the side of the angels, on side of what is right,
brings to your tired, exhausted, and still … always, may-be ??? …
FIGHTING, this or that, so never at peace, soul.
Open your heart to joy of the Spirit.
You need not follow on the path of the organized churches,
all fixated on the horror of the body, of the blood and on the crusafiction
( misspelling inspired ????) … and death, of the last messenger of God, before
he came himself directly to all who can accept him ?
Don’t just be fixated on the suffering of he who prepared the way
for the coming of the Holy Spirit, just as the Baptist
( who you don’t always think of as being a head on plate, do you ? )
prepared the way for his coming.
Accept the Spirit, change your mind and your hearth, end your exhaustion and fear .
And if can’t do that, if you can’t do the right things , ChildrensPastor04401,
when you are weak, exhausted , because you will not answer the call of the Holy Spirit,
just because it does not come to you like you expect you deserve,
so when you find yourself exhusted and tempted
just as so many of those in your line of work have been before you,
remember, for goodness sake, just LEAVE THEM KIDS ALONE !
Say amen to that much, at the very least, Children’s Pastor.
Find peace, there you’ll find answers.
Thanks. You leave the kids alone too, won’t you? Anonymous people online are responsible for far more predatory behavior toward children than any member of the clergy.
“Anonymous people online are responsible for far more predatory behavior toward children than any member of the clergy.”
Than any single member of the clergy ?
Sure, you gotta be right about that.
But so what does that have to do the topic,
and why do you… why MUST you , pretend NONE of what I
posted does ?
Not just God is watching what you guys do, and how you do it, I hope you realize. .
True. It has nothing to do with the topic, but you brought it up. It’s a sore spot for me as I fight unwarranted stigma every day of my life. That’s all. And I don’t worry about the “you guys” you referance. I am a singular person and my standing and reputation are beyond reproach. I don’t need the validation of any anonymous online person who has the time in their day to type lenghy discourse. Have an influence in life. Be relevant in person.
“It’s a sore spot for me as I fight unwarranted stigma every day of my life. ”
Well, sorry Rev. but given your savior’s most important commandant,
and how I know that you you know it, how could I think you wanted anything other to be treated as coldly, as harshly, as impersonally,
and with the same level of trite bias as you are treating the topic, here ?
It is about nothing more than fighting another set of ” unwarranted stigma “, isn’t it, really ?
Try making it about people, ones as real as you are.
Try being as understanding as you would demand that others
should be of your problems.
The sore spot for you, the unwarranted stigma
is different for everyone, but they all are ultimately still the same ones that everyone fights everyday of their own lives.
Would you be more comfortable if put it in the more common Christian context for you, sir ?
Yes, may-be ?
Your cross to bare is only heavy to you.
Pick up another’s and you will not only be shocked to find how light
it is to you, but it also surprised by how it makes you forget about
how heavy you thought your own, that one that you indulge
yourself in, by struggle with it everyday of your life, now,
instead of just letting it go.
Why let go of the stigma and focus on fixing … or fighting,
if you must put it that way… someone else’s unwarranted stigma
every day of your life ?
Then I’d bet that your Church’s official position on gay marriage
might grow into the sort of personal conflict of spirituality that can be life changing.
Today’s reading is from Matt. Ch. 7 Vs. 21 – 23.
Homosexuality is sin. Plain and simple. This is about justifying sin and trying to make it acceptable when it’s not. I’m not cold, harsh or impersonal. I promise you that this is extremely personal to me. My Uncle struggles with same gender attraction every day. But he realizes that it’s a sin and so puts the urge to death daily. As does the teen who recognizes that sex outside of marriage is a sin, or the married man who finds himself attracted to another women. I can promise you that for those of us who believe the Bible is the inerrant Word of God, there is NO conflict. The conflict is with ourselves. With our anti-Christ nature which we are all born with.
Very well.
I don’t remember what Christ said about homosexuality, but okay.
Distasteful.
Y0u should not have put it your mouth.
You should just reply to what it says without judging me .
Are only you permitted to preach here, Right Rev. ?
Why not??? Who cares??? Really!! It’s all kind of silly. I voted ‘yes” the last time. Third time never fails.
Willard when did you vote two times before?
Willard wouldn’t know because he is most likely not from Maine but is a paid poster of the RW think tanks
Not going to happen, mark my words, voters have spoken time, and time, and time again. You don’t have to like it, but it’s the will of the voters!
Oh, it’s going to happen, and civil marriage will be legal for same sex couples nationwide, within the next decade.
And nope, you don’t have to like it, anymore than racists liked it when interracial couples could get married nationwide.
oh, get off the interracial couples and women’s right to vote…it is not the same. Come up with something new, will ya?
No need. It is the sme, as we’re all tax paying citizens. You just want it to be different.
…come up with something new? I could ask the same of those who oppose gay marriage who keep spouting the same debunked rhetoric.
answer the question…not with a question
I don’t need to come up with something new. Our arguments for civil marriage win in the courts every time.
Your arguments fail in court every time, so I think you may need to rethink the validity of your position.
if it wins in courts, it doesnt win in the minds of voters who have been able to vote on SSM, 31 times, I believe, and counting…
The SCOTUS trumps all.
…and only 20% of Americans agreed with interraicial marriage when it was made legal by the Supreme Court, yet their decision tumped all state constitutions. What is your point, except that you are on the wrong side of history here?
interracial marriage was between a man and a woman….your point?
OK Loving v. Virginia redefined marriage in 1967
I realize that treating everyone fairly and equally is a new idea for many people.
I realize that treating everyone fairly and equally is a new idea for many people.
Sadly opposing it is not.
‘Round these parts we used to call people like that Tories.
It IS the SAME…civil rights are civil rights…..regardless of color, gender, or orientation (to name a few) there is NO difference.
It is the same in regards to the hysteria coming out of the anti-same sex marraige people. If SSM passes it will be the end of the world which is the same tired argument they used for interracial marriage and women’s voting rights.
How many times have you voted on Same-Sex-Marriage anyway?
once, if you are counting.
I like that you keep on message …. even though you continue to be mistaken.
Maine citizens voted ONCE repealing a law passed by the legislature and signed by the former governor, extending civil marriage to same-sex couples.
The will of the voters would never have allowed women to own property or vote. Never have allowed black folks to drink out of the same water fountain as white folks.
See, civil rights are not voted on. This will be no different.
And I have to wonder what people like you will do when it’s over and gays can wed in all 50 states.
see reply to convivialvisits
Well it is true. It doesn’t matter how the vote turns out. The supreme court is going to make it law.
The anti-casino crowd said the same thing less than 2 years ago. It’s just like that issue. It’ll come back again and again until the pro-crowd wins. If it wins, great, they get their way and we’ll see an increase in business as gays flock here to tie the knot. If it loses, great. You’ll see it on the ballot again in a few years. Every time a controversial issue like this hits the ballot, several million $$$ get pumped into our economy by both sides through ads pushing for their side to win.
And Segregation was the will of the voters in the South when I was young. Didn’t make it right.
Time to dip a toe into the twenty first century and finally realize equal protection under law for citizens of every persuasion. The key word here being, citizens, i.e. Americans.
Hoo Boy – here comes 9 months of bible thumping lies, lowbrow bigotry and tail chasing by the religious right.
yessah
and here comes 9 months of gay marriage supporters whining and harrassing us with phone calls and ignorantly citing those who believe in marriage as a man and a woman being called names, having their faith insulted and othe smarmy attacks. Why don’t you settle for civil unions instead of trying to take over the word “marriage” like you did “gay”….gay used to mean a feeling of happiness, etc…..not homosexuality
Gay marriage opponents insult the intelligence of all Maine citizens with their smarmy bigoted attacks on gays.
The religious right can have their marriages annulled and settle for civil unions.
What’s good for the goose…etc.
yessah
The definition has not change.
From the Merriam-Webster Dictionary
Definition of GAY
1
a : happily excited : merry
b : keenly alive and exuberant : having or inducing high spirits
2
a : bright, lively
b : brilliant in color
3
: given to social pleasures; also : licentious
4
a : homosexual
b : of, relating to, or used by homosexuals —
gay adverb —
gay·ness noun
We have to ‘settle’ for dealing with bigots like you everyday…….and trust me it doesn’t make us feel so gay. pffffffft.
Tail chasing?
erm…
Such goodly fun .
I’m pretty sure that the people have already weighed in on this issue.
at least wait a while before pestering us with this shenanigans again.
We did— 2009 was the last vote, this will be 3 years later.
When it comes to fundamental civil rights and freedoms, I would prefer we vote at least more than once, especially when the first vote was so close.
Technically all they did was strip citizens of privileges granted under the government… they didn’t vote whether or not to extend it.
The only other time in history that privileges were stripped from citizens was prohibition…. there was an exemption for churches that held communion though, if I’m not mistaken.
Once again deciding civil rights by popular vote . . .
Going state by state, we’d still have slavery in Mississippi.
If gays can’t marry than straights shouldn’t be able to get a divorce. Alls fair in love and war. I will keep voting for it till it passes.
We need to pass a law that requires a minimum 5 year waiting period before the same referendum issues can be placed back on the ballot. Why do we have to keep voting on the same stuff year, after year, after year?
I would prefer we eliminate the referendum process when it comes to matters of civil rights. The 2009 veto vote was immoral and wrong to have occurred in the first place.
Never mind unConstitutional.
Same stuff year after year? Gay marriage was passed by the legislature and signed by the governor in 2009. This issue was decided then as far as I am concerned.
I think more Mainers are aware of the lies spewed by the religious right in the last referendum election on this issue. I find it interesting that more people still voted in favor of gay marriage in 2009 than voted for our current governor in 2010.
And then the people rose up against the ingnorant Baldacci, Cain, Pingree, Mitchell and did the peoples veto and reversed it.
It is 0-33 every time it has been voted on, you guys/gals should repackage your bills, just dont call it marriage, and I will support it.
Solution? Simply stay home and do not vote!
And a 5 year “waiting period” would not apply in this case. The last referendum was a People’s Veto to overturn an existing law.
This referendum is the exact opposite and will all same sex coules to marry.
This needs to be defeated once again. Don’t be intimidated. Don’t let them shout you down. Marriage is between a man and a woman only. Always will be in the eyes of God. Stand firm. Don’t feel alone in this. The entire country is behind defeating this.
Why does this need to be defeated?
Why do you want many Maine families to be unable to enjoy the protections of civil marriage?
What harm do we do to you by living our lives in love and peace?
Sorry cp444, God doesn’t extend the rights, privileges or benefits you enjoy from the state or the US government …… those come with the filing of a civil marriage license.
ep44 didn’t say God extends those right, only about marriage between a man and a woman…see you have already started the twisting of words.
OK how about this….Religious orders do not extend the rights, privileges or benefits you enjoy from the state or the U.S. government….those come with the filing of a civil marriage license.
You are correct, cp444 said nothing about the rights, privileges or benefits afforded by virtue of the civil marriage license as they have nothing to do with his/her belief in God and marriage. I don’t know why anyone who truly believes that marriage is a religious issue bothers getting a civil marriage license or why they make use of the benefits, etc that the license provides. If God recognizes that they are married, why do they need the government to recognize it?
This is the real position of the homophobic opposition to Marriage Equality. God’s Law, Sharia for example, is not American Law. It has not place in American law. The entire country is not opposed to Marriage Equality.
Marriage Equality allows loving couples the same protections of the laws that we give to heterosexual couple. Not one reason this should not be so.
If the Catholic Church Priesthood opposes this referendum again lay Catholic should boycott the Church.
I will stand firm. Your god is not our civil law.
If Maine does not do this on their own, they will eventually be forced to by federal mandate.
How do I know? Because you have no rational legal argument in your defense.
53% of “the country” can’t stay married to their straight partners. Before the heterosexual “country” tells the gay community how to live, perhaps they should get their own lives in order.
there are many people who live their lives in order and have been married to the same person for many years, please don’t bring up those fruitloop celebrities as an example of marriage longevity…they are freaks and not based in the real world.
Read it again, I was speaking of straight couples that don’t do marriage perfectly. Ive been married to my wife for 30 years, however, I’m not going to suggest to anyone esle staright or gay how conduct their lives or marriage. We have much larger problems to worry about in Maine.
if 53% of the country’s marriages are ending in divorce, I have to doubt that it is only “fruitloop celebrities” that are responsible. Even the Catholic church will “annul” your marriage, wipe the slate clean, like it never happened. That’s what they did with my sister’s marriage after 20 years and two kids.
I don’t believe in your god. And if you think gay marriage is a sin, DON’T marry someone of the same sex. It isn’t the government’s job to make sure everyone subscribes to the same religious beliefs that you do.
Well I’m an atheist so your point is moot in my world and it is laughable that you think the entire country is behind you in defeating this. That is far from the truth.
/RAmen
//Slashies
Slave chasers needed to be followed around town in New England by people ringing bells to warn others not to talk them, because the State gave them extra Constitutional rights in the name of God, too.
Sodom and Gomorrah.
Ah fairy tales and mythology.
Meaningless in a discussion on civil law.
If that story is even about homosexuality (biblical scholars maintain that it is more about treatment of strangers), I think it’s obvious that God has changed his mind on homosexuality.
Or are there stories of pillars of salt in USA Today that I’ve missed?
No pillars of salt that I’ve heard of, but there are false prophets, false discipleship and New Age Pharisees in every age.
In Matt 7: how to identify them, and what the believers should know about what will become
of them is spelled out by the Man, himself, or at least so it is written.
Regardless of anyone’s beliefs, tactically this single page of reading from the organized opposition to equal rights for all Americans, own game book, so to speak, is as insight and more directly related to the up coming campaign then anything you might find in The Art of War.
In fact, it is what the Rabbi Jesus suggested should be done about those who would
pervert and twist message, his words to their own power hungry ends.
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+7&version=NIV
The thing of is that none of the anti homosexual points that the authoritarian Biblicists …
the Bible Thumpers … , site are actually what Jesus ever said.
He said nothing on the subject, in point of fact.
So are they, really, purely …. or even … “Christian” at all, then ?
Using logic against blind faith has never worked, before, so why not respect the wisdom
in what the opposition says they believe, to confront them, personally, with the right
and wrong of it in our secular nation’s political terms.
In fact I find that most conservative “christian values voters”say they are followers of Christ, but really are following what their political leaders tell them.
Looking there for some of the 5+ % of the vote needed is as good a place as any,
and any new votes found there count double… one more for… plus one less against,
in this round.
You have probably not been to church or even opened a Bible in 30 years, bud. Did you get that off Fox News? LOL
Civil Marriage does not require the use of a clergy member or religious setting ….. it is a function of the government which extends the option to have the civil marriage license by a member of the clergy.
I always wonder why the Bible-Thumpers comments are filled with numerous typos, bad grammar, and “out of context” arguments. I think that it might be tied to low educational attainment, sub-standard IQs, and anger at the general failure in their personal lives.
We’ve been beating this Gay marriage issue to death now for many years now. I’m puzzled by who this hurts if we vote to allow it. The Roman Catholic Church always seems to be leading the charge, seems odd that clergy who are not allowed to be married to either sex are the ones who instruct and bless those (or not) who are looking for happiness? I also think it’s bizarre that we are voting on Gay marriage. Whether you agree or not with these values issues, right or wrong, they are matters of the heart and are not in the purview of government. It’s that pesky separation of Church and State again and the reason issues like this are so hypercharge.
Can someone explain why we need this? How will a law that allows two males or two females get married change anything? I honestly thought that there was already laws protecting people rights. Please (seriously) explain how legalizing same sex marriage will make it better (different?)
Honest question and hoping for an honest answer.
I know others can answer this better than I can, but I know gay couples can not file a joint income tax, even while sharing joint ownership in property. I know gay couples can not assume that the significant other can get health insurance that is offered to married couples working in the same place. I know gay couples need to seek legal counsel and have legal papers on them at all times to insure that one partner is allowed visit another partner in the hospital if only “family members” are allowed. Gay couples need to have a will that explains everything out – while a married couple is treated very differently if one of them dies. The list goes on.
But Votein here is that better more direct answer to your question, that someone who might be personally effected posted elsewhere, here:
“The point of marriage is that you are automatically afforded certain rights pertaining you and your spouse and any family. This is what legalizing gay marriage is about. Marriage has some benefits. Individuals who marry are automatically afforded some 1138 plus legal benefits. These marital benefits are recognized by all 50 states (and territories) as well as by the U.S. federal government – they are not recognized under “civil union” status. Some examples of these marital benefits include, but are not limited to: bereavement leave, probate proceedings, medical decisions, the right to inherit property, pension benefits, spousal health benefits, joint parenting rights, survivor benefits, access to “family only” services, income tax deductions, property tax exemptions, the ability to make funeral arrangements, social security benefits, veterans benefits, family visitation of a non biological loved one in the hospital are but to name a few. Individuals who marry take these benefits for granted – gay and lesbian individuals in committed relationships can not. Currently the Federal Government does not recognize ANY individuals who have been married in states that has passed ‘gay marriage’ and other states who have not passed gay marriage do not recognize individuals who have been married in another state that does have gay marriage. If a straight person gets married you are considered married in any other state in this country and are recognized as married by the Federal Government.I highly doubt that a married individual, who had something unfortunate happen to their spouse, would deal very well with being told that “you have no legal ability to make medical decisions” or “you have no right to make funeral arrangements” or “you have no right to any death benefits” or “ you are not a blood relative and therefore the hospital declines to give you any information regarding your spouse as well as declines your request to see your spouse.” Think that would fly well with married people? Not so much, but this is what gay people deal with everyday. ”
I hope I have been helpful.
Expecting that my efforts have been of some help to you,
you are, naturally, very welcome.
“Please (seriously) explain how legalizing same sex marriage will make it better (different?)”
I will respectfully leave that to people it does effect directly.
They can tell you how, but, how will it make anything worse ?
Will it effect you at all, never mind how it could it effect you negatively ?
So seriously, why should anyone oppose it ?
No one has been able to answer those question without invoking mysticism, yet.
So it it an outstanding unanswered question, much like yours,
that was never answered in the entire election process, last time.
Rather it was just ignored, or worse, belittled.
Don’t be surprise if may-be your questions rubs someone the wrong way
because they are a twist on the real point of contention here;
need it be that doing the right thing makes anything better, for you ?
Voting NO……again.
Great …… thanks for supporting same-sex couples the first time around!
the state would be the first to do so by a popular vote.
all the other states that allow gay marriages were by court order or legislative vote.
anyone see a problem here?
The unholy election of Paul LePage in 2010 is proof positive that God is angry with Maine for voting down Gay Marriage in 2009.
Yessah
And more people voted for Gay marriage in 2009 than voted for Paul LePage in 2010.
And it was shot down by the people.
Too bad they dont have 10 yr moratorium on bringing this back up, time after time wasting tax payer money. It has been shot 3 times in maine and 0 for 33 elsewhere whenever the people vote on it.
I am all for your Civil Unions, but marriage is one man one women, period!
Then we need to ban ALL DIVORCES…..once you’re married…you’re married….PERIOD.
Then we need to ban ALL DIVORCES…..once you’re married…you’re married….PERIOD.
If it is really all that scared, for all church weddings, sure.
What church could oppose the State respecting the vows people made in it ?
rotflol
You are mistaken ….. there has only been one vote regarding same-sex marriage in the state and it repealed a law passed in the legislature and signed by the former governor that extended civil marriage to same-sex couples. It was put on the ballot due to opposition by religious entities and associates…… but guess you were fine with wasting taxpayer money then.
EgggManagementFee
First – in 2009 the people repealed an existing law.
Second – a 5 year, 10 year or 50 year moratorium would not prevent this question from moving forward. The question has never been voted on before.
Third – I asked this question of you already and for some reason you haven’t answered it yet. So, I will ask it again. Please provide the months and years where we voted on this three times. I will help you with one date, November 2009. No you need to provide the other two.
Fourth – I have no idea if you are being truthful or not on your claim you would support “Civil Unions” but here is a “litmus test” for you. Would you support the State of Maine changing the current law on Marriage Licenses to Civil Union Licenses and leave the word(s) “Marriage, Married, etc…” to the province of a religious institution if the couple so desires to have a religious ceremony?
Question 6 in 2000, question 1 in 1998. Peoples veto to defeat your agenda both times.
Of course 2009 we repealed homosexual marriage. It is too bad our Governors and arrogant legislature does not listen to the people!
Well let’s see how well you did in answering the question, “Please provide the months and years where we voted on this three times.”
Your Answers
Question 1 1998 (February) – “Do voters want to reject the new law that bans discrimination based on sexual orientation?” Well it does mention “sexual orientation” but I don’t see anything that says “same-sex-marriage” or “gay marriage” do you?
Question 6 2000 (November) – “Unlawful to discriminate against individuals based on their sexual orientation.” Well it does mention “sexual orientation” but I don’t see anything that says “same-sex-marriage” or “gay marriage” do you?
Question 1 2009 (November) – “Attempt to repeal new same-sex law.” Well, finally a ballot example that actually includes the words “same-sex-marriage”
So we have voted on “same-sex-marriage” once and it wasn’t really on supporting “same-sex-marriage” but to repeal it. So we have voted 1 on “same-sex-marriage” and not 3 times as you claim. That would be an accuracy of 33.33%
Bookmark this, it is a great point.
– I have no idea if you are being truthful or not on your claim you would support “Civil Unions” but here is a “litmus test” for you. Would you support the State of Maine changing the current law on Marriage Licenses to Civil Union Licenses and leave the word(s) “Marriage, Married, etc…” to the province of a religious institution if the couple so desires to have a religious ceremony?
I ‘d go a step further.
Separate Church and State entirely, stomp on a glass, jump a broom, whatever your Church does, fine, you are married, in the church,
but not in eyes of the State unless you file your Civil marriage/ Union Contract … no matter what it called, as long it says “civil” on it.
Some churches don’t recognize civil marriages so just separate the State from all of their sacraments, too.
You are a man in the eyes of your religious community at 13 when you have your Bar Mitzvah but that does not make you an adult in eyes of the law, does it ?
And you libs are all just counting down the days until Gov. Lepage is out of office. This vote passes and we are stuck with this mistake forever. Just sayin’. Yessah. Nosah. Pssst. and all that hogwash.
And I am sure you are regretting that slavery has been abolished, that women have the right to vote, that the military is racially integrated, that blacks have equal rights, etc…too
No I am not. But thanks for asking.
So you selectively discriminate then?
Marriage is one man married to one woman. Don’t try and twist it into discrimination to fit your agenda.
I am not twisting anything. Your words are doing it for you.
When you deny a minority class a civil right that others enjoy simply based on who they share their bedroom with, that is discrimination.
You should be trying to push for civil unions and leave marriage where it belongs….between one man and one woman.
Homosexuals are now a minority class? What? I don’t think so. Trying to compare this issue to the treatment of blacks and ending slavery is an insult. And please leave the bedroom comments out of this too.
Based on comments surrounding the 2009 campaign and NOM stance on Civil Unions (they don’t support them) marriage is the only logical solution.
Homosexuals ARE a minority are they not? If they ARE a minority, that means they are a minority class.
The opposition to SSM (or “gay” marriage) is because of what “they” do in the bedroom.
Marriage is one man married to one woman.
Tell THE Newt of the Moral Majority, that.
havent they found a cure for this mental condition yet??
Being gay is not a ‘mental condition’ it is NOT recognized as a psychiatric illness by the American Psychiatric or Psychological Associations and thus one cannot be diagnosed as ‘being gay’…however… that being said… having a low IQ is recognized by both those associations and can be psychiatrically diagnosed……so good luck with your IQ ‘condition’…..as it tends to be a terminal condition.
as I type this there are 173 comments. I don’t have time or energy to read them all, but I would bet that the majority of them are from the liberal religion haters. Just an observation.
And how does one make an informed/intelligent comment or observation regarding previous comments without reading any of the previous comments? Typical- I have done no research, I have read none of the comments, I have no idea what I am talking about, but here’s my opinion ……Pfffffffft.
It’s called psychic ignorance.
PERFECT!!
Just an other proudly blatantly bigoted and and admittedly ignorant observation.
There is the opposition.
But hey, MM4Life you would just looove Skullfire.
”
In the six states where gay-marriage is allowed, the laws all came through either court orders or legislative votes, not through a statewide popular vote.”
That’s because the states didn’t dare bring the issue to the people, because the people would have voted it down.
How do you think the vote would have gone in ending miscegenation back in ’67? Should those laws have gone to the people to vote on or do you think the federal government didn’t dare because they would have be upheld?
government should always let the people vote
There are 105,000 people who shouldn’t. Their names are in boxes in Disgusta.
So what civil right of yours are you willing to put up for a vote of the people?
So what civil right of yours are you willing to put up for a vote of the people?
Is it a civil right to treat my body as I see fit? If so, I would put the legalization of Cannabis up for a peoples vote. I’m tired of writing to our elected officials. Maybe the gays and the hippies can work together.
Well go gather the necessary signatures and put it out there for a vote then. It is your right, guaranteed by the Maine Constitution to put that question out for a vote.
You should do that. I bet you would find a lot of support. Our laws allow you to do just that.
And we ALL KNOW that people always do the RIGHT and JUST thing in cases like this. That people base their decisions on facts and justice and are not based on fear, bigotry, discrimination, or being uneducated…..sure they do….hence we have the 13th Amendment, the 15th Amendment, the 19th Amendment, the voting rights act of 1965, the civil right act of 1964, the Equal Pay Act of 1963, the anti-miscegenation laws of 1967….NONE by popular vote….. get the point??
Well I guess that means we need to abolish courts and legislatures and everything will be cool.
Should it be legal for a mother to marry her son? Should it be legal for a brother to marry a sister? A brother marry a brother? These are relationships that are also not covered under the definition of marriage…
Actually they are covered ….. they are prohibited, so are grandparent/grandchild, aunts and uncles/nephews and nieces, however first cousins may marry with a certificate of genetic counseling from a physician.
These examples though are not relevant to the issue of extending marriage to same-sex couples ….. you will have to petition for a change in the laws if that is what you would like to see changed.
MadeinMaine you do understand that there are serious genetic reason why those relationships are prohibited by law I hope.
Can you give one genetic reason why homosexuals should be likewise prohibited?
And before you go down the road of “they cannot reproduce” please remember that procreation is not a requirement for marriage.
Plain and simple -want a fried egg you need a rooster and a hen. Want 2 roosters – no eggs for you! Just alot of ugly pecking!
Procreation is not a requirement for marriage.
Well under that brilliant rendition of logic there are MANY people (i.e. hens and roosters) who should have never had eggs…..as they have raised disasters and have been horrible parents…..and news flash- not everyone in life wants to have ‘fried eggs’ if that were the case people (i.e. hens and roosters) who opt NOT to have ‘fried eggs’ should not be allowed to marry……and another news flash there are plenty of roosters and roosters and hens and hens who have eggs…..and let’s face it…. they sell frozen sperm….rooster NOT included or needed (except for 5 minutes, a magazine and a small cup….) and then POOF…..FRIED EGG 9 months later!!! Science is just grand !!! No rooster for you!!
And as a side bar- Hen’s lay eggs daily. You don’t need a rooster to have a hen lay an egg….hence you can have ‘fried eggs’ minus a rooster… if by chance you want to have baby chicks….then you need a rooster. Animal Biology 101. :)
Hens don’t need roosters to lay eggs – but gay marriage opponents “lay eggs” when the they post nonsense like that.
Biology and logic fail
yessah
I wanna marry my dog………
I’m betting your dog would decline…..
LOL!
And I bet you think “pigs fly too”.
Never saw a pig fly, but I have seen a house fly! nyuk nyuk.
Voting….NO
I copied this off of the Facebook page for WABI-TV re: gay marriage news today….is this person representative of the signatures submitted?
Claudia Pagano Eekels I’m not allowed to vote here but i did sign the petition! No one should tell you who you can or can’t marry. America, land of the free? All you NO voters, next time when you sing that line, think about how free your country really is!
If that is really the case — hopefully the signature “checkers” are up for their job to make sure there are really enough signatures there that meet the qualifications to count. We’ll have to wait and see…
So you oppose her right to express her opinion and support for the effort , for some reason, then ?
If not, that what is your point, then ?
I am voting for it! Yay for Equality Maine and other volunteers for all the work they do!
We gathered 105,000 signatures. I think it will be no problem to have the number needed to get on the ballot even after signatures like hers are discounted. You do realize they check that right?
But to answer your concern-trolling, no she is not representative of the Mainers who signed.
What does it matter if they want to get married???? Just thank God your biological parents were not gay. Marriage is and always should be one man one woman.
Ummmmm gay people can and do have children….it’s called sperm (which you can get frozen), adoption or surrogacy ….perhaps you should ask why this country has 450,000+ children in foster care? It’s definitely not because of gay people……that’s the difference between heterosexual people who have children by ‘accident’ ….if two gay people decide to have a child……it’s not an ACCIDENT and the child is wanted.
Marriage between one man and one women….put your money where your mouth is …then let’s outlaw divorce while we’re at it.
And I quote “Thank God your BIOLOGICAL PARENTS were not gay” or maybe yours were, no wait thats not physicaly possible is it. Yes you can adopt and yes you can use a sperm doner and play God but no you can not concive a child with two same sex people. Thank goodness some of have the sense to procreate or you would not be here to put up this self serving argument, RIGHT!!!!
Ummmm Your Point?? I have many friends who are gay and lesbian who have children with their same sex partner(oh no the gays CAN procreate!!) …..not sure how adopting some heterosexuals unwanted child is playing ‘god’ but if that’s the case- I’m all for it…..play ‘god’ give some child (whose scum ball biological parents were too Dim, irresponsible and numb to use birth control or take care of a child) a good home with parents who love them and will provide for them—yeah THAT’s just horrible. Hence we have 450,000 children in foster care…yes thank goodness some of you have the sense to procreate…..clearly all those children, who have been removed by child services, and whom are in foster care are abundantly thankful for that….WRONG!!!!!!!!!
Yes you are right i bet those kids would love to have loving parents no matter what sex they are .
Marriage is and always should be one man one woman.
Did any tell the Newt that ?
This discussion is about civil marriage for same sex couples, not bestiality.
I want civil marriage rights, which is what I am voting for in November!
Our love is not false, is your hate?
I suppose we will see if this is still true in 2012, won’t we?
Yes, civil rights should not be put to popular vote. The 2009 veto was wrong to have been allowed.
Honest answer– there are over 1,300 benefits and privileges contingent on marital status at the federal level alone. Maine children of same sex couples are not protected if those parents split up– civil marriage would ensure child support from the departing parent, and makes it easier for a parent to raise that child if the other partner is incapacitated or deceased.
There are lots of examples, but those are a start for you. I recommend looking into the information available at Lambda Legal for good legit info.
Wow you need to work on that irrational hatred, I think.
If a number of my comments are really all out of context, I apologize– this mobile device must not play well with Disqus.
Take away one like – my finger slipped. These are not volunteers. They are very well paid. The lobby is well paid for too.
If you are attempting to inspire, it would be best if you used the correct word: it is “their” not “there.” I’ll take intelligent associations and rational laws any time over the grammatically incorrect. (PS “you’re” means “you are,” “your” is possessive, as in ‘your car.”
Really? You wan’t to give pointers on someone and their grammar usage. When you can’t follow simple directions of the forum. Here it is for you.The Bangor Daily News encourages comments about stories, but you must follow our terms of service.In brief:
Keep it civil and stay on topicNo 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):
Having been the target of more than one or two personal attacks, etc…I really don’t see how Pointaway has violated any of them. He is simply saying that when people use improper grammar, spelling, etc…that it weakens their argument.
: )
Why wait for a vote go to Massachusetts, New Hampshire,Connecticut or Vermont get married
Some do. But the problem is when the couple married in a state that recognized SSM comes back to a state (like Maine) that does not recognizes it they have none of the rights, like hospital visitations, end of life decisions, inheritance rights, etc… that you or I enjoy because our marriages are recognized in any where in the U.S.
If Maine does not recognize MA gay marriage need MA recognize any ME ones ?
Usually states that allow it also recognize it from other states.
California no longer allows it, but the previous governor was able to get a law that would recognize other marriages that were done in the same short time period as the California ones.
it won’t be recognized by the State of Maine and thus …..legally pointless…..
Why doesnt the BDN call it Homosexual Marriage, not Same Sex Marriage.
Why don’t we call it marriage? If a gay person has lunch is it ‘gay lunch?’ or if a gay person parks their car is it ‘gay parking?’……it’s marriage…..Oy.
Maybe because”the title of the proposed citizens’ initiative is: An Act to Allow
Marriage Licenses for Same-Sex Couple and Protect Religious Freedom.”
or because the “proposed ballot wording submitted Thursday is: “Do you favor a law
allowing marriage licenses for same-sex couples, and that protects
religious freedom by ensuring that no religion or clergy be required to
perform such a marriage in violation of their religious beliefs?””
It can be found at the end of the article under “The citizens’ initiative”
“Why doesnt the BDN call it Homosexual Marriage, not Same Sex Marriage.”
Freedom.
Why don’t you stop being coy and state your rational, legally applicable reason to oppose same sex marriage?
No wonder gay teens are being bullied to suicide across the country. Look at these comments. These are supposed to be the adults! Kids hear you talk like this you know. Cut it out.
Yes. Gay teen suicides due to bullying despite these decades of sanctioning being “out.” The real perversity here is the degree to which Americans are repulsed by sensuality, let alone sexuality.
And, thanks to the “outblitz,” it is impossible to walk down the street, arm in arm, with someone of your own gender, without passersby thinking, “gay,” when this used to be a common, natural, and wonderful behavior. That is sickness. How rare it is even when it is a man and a woman together, to see them holding hands in public.
In my small neighborhood, there were two men who lived together in one house. The neighborhood parents, who were about as conservative as you could get, did not give a damn about it, but only cared that the lawn was mowed, and that it was a great house to take a kid for Halloween. (Just as the parents didn’t go around professing their sexual preferences either — and some really were smart to keep that quiet).
The “movement” has made everyone paranoic about affection, and I resent that more than I can express, because Americans cannot conceive of being with someone and not having sexual intercourse – or some such belief. People are terrified that they are going to be targeted as gay, whether they are or not. That terror is not without reason. As the teens are bullied, I’ve heterosexual witnessed adults being threatened, because they had their arms linked.
I believe there should be formal, weekly, monthly, Clasp Arms days.
If it passes LePage will veto It
Site the statute where the Governor of Maine has the ability to unilaterally over turn a people’s vote…….he doesn’t. This isn’t a line-item veto or a law by the legislature… this is a vote by the citizens of Maine.
Here is a link to the Maine Constitution http://www.maine.gov/legis/const/ could you please point to the Article and Section that gives the Governor the power to veto a People’s Initiative.
Then how does it become law,some one must have to sign it
No Signature Required
Article IV. — Part Third Legislative Power.
Section 19. Effective date of measures approved by people; veto power limited.
Any measure referred to the people and approved by a majority of the votes given thereon shall, unless a later date is specified in said measure, take effect and become a law in 30 days after the Governor has made public proclamation of the result of the vote on said measure, which the Governor shall do within 10 days after the vote thereon has been canvassed and determined; provided, however, that any such measure which entails expenditure in an amount in excess of available and unappropriated state funds shall remain inoperative until 45 days after the next convening of the Legislature in regular session, unless the measure provides for raising new revenues adequate for its operation. The veto power of the Governor shall not extend to any measure approved by vote of the people, and any measure initiated by the people and passed by the Legislature without change, if vetoed by the Governor and if the veto is sustained by the Legislature shall be referred to the people to be voted on at the next general election. The Legislature may enact measures expressly conditioned upon the people’s ratification by a referendum vote.
http://www.maine.gov/legis/const/
Then it stands a chance to be law
If it passes smity, it WILL be law.
You have alot of trust in politicians
No, I have a lot of trust in the Constitution of Maine and the United States.
I’d still love to see him try, anyway.
A citizen’s initiative can’t be vetoed by the governor.
I’d love to see that.
I support same sex marriage, but I do not agree that we should hold never ending referenda until we get what we want. The voters spoke last time and I think we should respect that vote and wait at least 5 years before another one is held. Holding referenda on the same issue that was just voted on renders each persons vote as meaningless and is a true assault on democracy. I know many will disagree with me on this point, but if you support this referendum then you must accept another one on same day voter registration. We had our vote now let it go for a few years at least.
The last referendum was pushed by the repeal side though.
Would that go for towns too if the people vote something down ?
Well, it has been three years, and I don’t think it was right for a citizens veto to repeal my civil rights in the first place.
But I agree that this needs to be decided by the US Supreme Court so we aren’t visiting this issue yet again in 2013 when outraged bigots want to take our marriage rights away again.
I think the Government should get its nose out of the whole marriage business. Instead of fighting to allow same-sex marriages, the Government should not recognize or reward/punish any kind of relationship between consenting adults.
I also think that the word “marriage” has always referred to the union of one man with one woman. It has been defined and understood as that for millenia. It is arrogant and inappropriate for us to redefine it to satisfy a minority of the people. The only reason I can see for same-sex couples wanting the term ‘marriage’ to be redefined is to force people who don’t believe in homosexuality to ratify it as acceptable and legitimate.
If you are accepting of a homosexual relationship and believe it is a legitimate union of two people, then you should be satisfied with calling it anything other than “marriage”. Try “civil partnership”, “civil union”, or any other term the identifies you as a couple. By forcing people to call it “marriage” you are attacking the religious and fundamental beliefs of the majority and attempting to force your beliefs on them. This violates the entire premise of the freedoms we fight so hard to maintain.
Bottom line – if you are okay with same-sex unions call it anything you want other than “marriage” and move on. Otherwise you are using this issue as a front to attack the established beliefs of millions of people and are looking to get the Government to force acceptance on everyone who disagrees with it. If you need the acceptance of others concerning your relationship, you need to deal with your psychological needs for this acceptance and not use the Government as your balm to sooth your lack of self conviction.
I support same-sex unions as long as you don’t call it “marriage” – I won’t be party to an arrogant generation of people who feel it is their right to redefine a fundamental understanding of that word.
Here’s where the confusion apparently begins…..Religion HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH MARRIAGE…….you are NOT required to have ANY type of religious affiliation in order to get married period. What you do HAVE to have is a marriage license issued from the state….without that….you can stand around in church, synagogue or mosque all day with all the ceremony and pomp and circumstance you want- but without a marriage license issued from the state YOU AREN’T MARRIED. Hence when you seek a divorce you have to have a divorce decree issued by the State not from the church, synagogue, or mosque but from the state.
You state that ‘the word “marriage” has always referred to the union of one man with one woman.’ That statement is inaccurate at best as these days marriage is not just between one man and one woman……what’s the divorce rate in this country? It’s abysmal. People get remarried 2 or 3 or 4 or more times…..still think marriage is between one man and one woman? Perhaps a disclaimer is needed to more accurately define what marriage REALLY is ‘AT A TIME’ would be appropriate….thus marriage is defined as ‘between one man and one woman… at a time.’ Perfect.
The point of marriage is that you are automatically afforded certain rights pertaining you and your spouse and any family. This is what legalizing gay marriage is about. Marriage has some benefits. Individuals who marry are automatically afforded some 1138 plus legal benefits. These marital benefits are recognized by all 50 states (and territories) as well as by the U.S. federal government – they are not recognized under “civil union” status. Some examples of these marital benefits include, but are not limited to: bereavement leave, probate proceedings, medical decisions, the right to inherit property, pension benefits, spousal health benefits, joint parenting rights, survivor benefits, access to “family only” services, income tax deductions, property tax exemptions, the ability to make funeral arrangements, social security benefits, veterans benefits, family visitation of a non biological loved one in the hospital are but to name a few. Individuals who marry take these benefits for granted – gay and lesbian individuals in committed relationships can not. Currently the Federal Government does not recognize ANY individuals who have been married in states that has passed ‘gay marriage’ and other states who have not passed gay marriage do not recognize individuals who have been married in another state that does have gay marriage. If a straight person gets married you are considered married in any other state in this country and are recognized as married by the Federal Government.
I highly doubt that a married individual, who had something unfortunate happen to their spouse, would deal very well with being told that “you have no legal ability to make medical decisions” or “you have no right to make funeral arrangements” or “you have no right to any death benefits” or “ you are not a blood relative and therefore the hospital declines to give you any information regarding your spouse as well as declines your request to see your spouse.” Think that would fly well with married people? Not so much, but this is what gay people deal with everyday.
Marriage is about the legal aspects…not religious. Would you like it if you found the love of your life and wanted to get married just to have your neighbors get to decide if they will allow you to get married or not? And they tell you no you can’t get married to that person you love…..would that be ok? because really how does your marriage affect anyone else? Let alone your neighbors? It doesn’t nor should it anymore than a straight marriage affects anyone else.
“I also think that the word “marriage” has always referred to the union of one man with one woman. It has been defined and understood as that for millenia. It is arrogant and inappropriate for us to redefine it to satisfy a minority of the people. … Try “civil partnership”, “civil union”, or any other term the identifies you as a couple. … I support same-sex unions as long as you don’t call it “marriage” – I won’t be party to an arrogant generation of people who feel it is their right to redefine a fundamental understanding of that word.”
Do you realize it was the religious right that fought and defeated the Civil Union proposals in the name of defending the sanctity of marriage ?
They are the minority that was satisfied to see every point of your proposals nixed,
you need to know. Many others in Maine already do.
The only avenue they could not block with faith based initiatives was in the courts and the civil right, equal treatment under the law, with no special considerations … like new Civil Union or whatever besides marriage… legal arguments.
This is why a popular vote in Maine is important and will attract all kinds of out of State manipulations, like your circular logic might well be.
I would vote no. I have no desire to have to explain to children why two men are married.
Lazy.
Ahh “Well Jimmy just like your mom and I wanted to spend the rest of our lives together as a family those two men (or women) want to spend the rest of their lives together as a family”
Wow, that was hard.
Yes because you children will apparently live in a vacuum and NEVER encounter any people who are different than they are in their life time- good luck with that. I unfortunately do have to explain to my children why some people’s parents are mean and fearful of other peoples differences……Pffffffffft.
That’s a sad reason to deny Maine families rhe protections of civil marriage.
You’ll leave that to their classmates, because it happens now that lots of kids have two Daddies and/or two Mommiess… divorce causes it more than homosexuality does, already.
If that is what your big concern is, are you saying divorce should be illegal ?
How can the human race go on if Man and Man are together and woman and woman are together? I am proud to be in the minority in this forum. I can reproduce. My Gene’s will go on not producing a freak of nature since 1982.
Your post while offensive does deserve an answer.
The human race will go on because not 100% of the population are homosexual.
I am homesexual because I masterbate! But you can not argue you need a male and female to reproduce.
Reproduction isn’t a requisite for marriage, so your points are irrelevant to the discussion.
The point is it is totally against nature! Not bringing “God” into it. Separation of state and all. Why marry if you know you can not reproduce NATURALLY? By the way there was this one time in college I kissed a girl I thought I liked it. Then I met my husband who well it’s too X rated for this forum.
Plastic is against nature.
Do you own anything containing it?
Of course I also own fingers.
You are attempting to make the ability to procreate (reproduce) an necessary part of getting married.
If you or your husband were infertile, would that have changed your desire to marry him?
So then we should require proof that each person entering into a marriage is fertile? We should require them to demonstrate their intent to reproduce?
Many many citizens marry after childbearing years ……. they can not reproduce naturally. Will you vote to strip them of their right to enter into civil marriage? How about couples with fertility problems who can not procreate naturally ….. will you vote to strip them of their right to enter into civil marriage?
If you are going to use the ability to “procreate naturally” as an argument to deny civil marriage then you need to include opposite-sex couples in your argument.
Would you care to read my post again euro?
I said “The human race will go on because not 100% of the population are homosexual.”
By the way, what is “masterbate”? Are you a “Master of bait”?
hahahaha of course. I have nothing better to do than read the postings of fellow americans. I don’t get this dialogue very often.
What ……..???? are you talking about?
Gay people reproduce ……all you need is a little frozen sperm (if your a female) or to adopt a child or have a surrogate (if your a male or female) either way the earth’s population is far from ending and if it were to end…. I can assure you it won’t be due to the gay people in the world. Oy.
You really need to look up the definition of reproducing!
If you are going to use “reproduction” as a benchmark for marriage, you will lose that argument even before you get out of the gate.
Yeah I’ll get right on that because reproduction is the issue we’re all discussing ….not marriage equality for everyone. Duh.
If you use “Duh” can you really have a debate?
If you aren’t even talking about the subject at hand, can you really have a debate? We’re not discussing your imagined notion of dwindling human population. We’re talking about equal rights for gay people.
You need to look at legal requirements of marriage.
Give me a man and man “reproducing” by nature! You cant so you loose this argument before it even started. “OY”
We have 450,000 children in foster care in this country…removed by child services due to the fact that their HETEROSEXUAL parents were UNFIT to take care of them…..just because two heterosexual simpletons can have sex and have a child does NOT make them qualified to be someone’s parents…….hence the 450,000 children in foster care…..Hence there are gay and lesbians who adopt such unwanted children reproduced by heterosexuals so that those children may have a life with people who actually want them, will love them and will provide for them…….OY!
Guess what I was in foster care! So that does make me a victim? I have gay friends! I have Gay family members. The point was that I stated you can not reproduce naturally! You can not argue with that.
OY OY OY lets go!
You still need male and female to reproduce. By the way isn’t gay so go on lets hear what you have to say before I spank you even more by science.
look up SPERM BANK….I don’t need a male to reproduce anything……I can buy sperm and reproduce all by myself. Do let me know when a male can reproduce anything with sperm all by himself…..good luck with that. Pffffffft.
“look up SPERM BANK….I don’t need a male to reproduce anything” Really? how do you think you get sperm sweety? Oh let me answer myself from the sperm bank. Please produce a female that can produce sperm. If you can you win! Oh than give me a female with an egg and egg and produce a baby, you can’t do it.
I think Jesus might have something to say about that.
Reproduction is not a requirement for marriage.
You are using a dead argument.
Gay people can and do reproduce.
However, procreation is not a requirement for marriage.
Your point is pointless.
Not naturally. It takes a male and female as ONE
Wrong.
However, procreation is not a requirement for marriage.
Oh please, gay people are not going to cause mankind to go extinct. That is absurd rubbish.
Figure this one out, too:
why hasn’t homosexuality just died out, yet ?
Who do think gay and lesbian individuals are born to? Since same-sex couples cannot procreate together, we must be a product of heterosexuals or at least heterosexual contact.
Love doesn’t depend on what body parts you have…why should marriage? Putting a legal term on who can love each other is ridiculous. It’s time for the state, the country, and the whole world to put an end to discrimination. Love is love, no matter who the people are.
Smith said she expected the campaign in favor of same-sex marriage would need to raise between $4 million and $5 million to be effective. Instead of focusing on pretending that a man and a man or woman and a woman can actually have intercourse with each other, why isn’t this money being spent on heating homes.
Homosexuals just like heterosexuals could careless about marriage, homosexuals just want people to accept their perverted lifestyle.
Then why are they fighting for it across the country? You really think they’re just pretending to want to get married? Get real.
And President Obama recently stated he intended to raise $1,000,000,000.00 for his re-election campaign. How many homes would that heat?
Stop voting to harm citizens. The money will no longer be needed.
It’s your fault this money isn’t going to heating assistance.
That’s pretty ironic. The Catholic Church spent hundreds of thousands of dollars to overturn civil marriage for same sex couples in 2009, the same year they closed churches and denied funds to homeless shelters. Were you as outraged at that waste of money on this issue?
How much money from the MSHA has Dale McCormick contributed to Equality Maine? How much Money has Billionaire hedge fund manager Donald Sussman (husband to Chellie Pingreee), who received $200 million in stimulus money (which Chellie voted for), has he contributed to the Gay Marriage cause. Mr. Sussman was also a huge contributor to the petitions for keeping same day voter registration, paying hundreds of people to be petitioners.
I don’t think Mr. McCormick and Mr. Sussman have an obligation to spend their personal money in any particular way-this is OFF TOPIC.
The Catholic Church, some think, should have keeping its churches open and helping the poor and downtrodden as its primary responsibilities. Apparently the Church itself thinks otherwise.
None would be necessary if Out of state groups hadn’t fought the good law passed in 2009, and all that money could have been used –by both sides– for helping the needy.
a perverted lifestyle is one that is too concerned about something that will impact them not at all, who are you voting for this november, the serial adulterer or the member of the cult?
I’ll go with the member of a cult, by the way homosexuals are a cult too.
No, we are your neighbors, your shopkeepers, your office workers, your cousins, brothers, sisters and children.
We are simply seeking to live our lives in a fulfilling way, finding happiness with partners just as any other normal person. And civil marriage is a big step in our ability to have the same treatment by our government as you do.
Nope, not a cult at all, unless mankind is considered a cult.
If marriage to you is only about intercourse it is no wonder so many are failing ….. that is not what holds couples together in the long run.
Holy Scripture affirms that man and woman were created for one another: “It is not good that the man should be alone.”92 The woman, “flesh of his flesh,” his equal, his nearest in all things, is given to him by God as a “helpmate”; she thus represents God from whom comes our help.93 “Therefore a man leaves his father and his mother and cleaves to his wife, and they become one flesh.”94 The Lord himself shows that this signifies an unbreakable union of their two lives by recalling what the plan of the Creator had been “in the beginning”: “So they are no longer two, but one flesh.”
That’s fine if we were basing our laws on a religious document but we don’t in this country.
Reminds me of how Shariah law is feared by some in this country, some of whom wouldn’t mind at all if similar extreme laws based on Christianity were the norm here.
My mind has “NOT” changed…Marriage is still between a man and a
woman…Sheesh!
And there are still some who believe marriage is between a man and a woman of the same race.
But our government has no justification for this discrimination against Maine families who want and need civil marriage.
I hope you have a chance to meet some of us this year, and hear our stories for yourself. It might open your heart to the possibility we are embracing marriage, not destroying it.
“There’s no gentle way to put it: People who give in to racism and prejudice may simply be dumb, according to a new study that is bound to stir public controversy.
The research finds that children with low intelligence are more likely to hold prejudiced attitudes as adults. These findings point to a vicious cycle, according to lead researcher Gordon Hodson, a psychologist at Brock University in Ontario. Low-intelligence adults tend to gravitate toward socially conservative ideologies, the study found. Those ideologies, in turn, stress hierarchy and resistance to change, attitudes that can contribute to prejudice, Hodson wrote in an email to LiveScience.
“Prejudice is extremely complex and multifaceted, making it critical that any factors contributing to bias are uncovered and understood,” he said.”
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA
http://news.yahoo.com/low-iq-conservative-beliefs-linked-prejudice-180403506.html
I’d like to ask those who oppose gay marriage a few questions and ask that they give honest answers. We’re all anonymous here, so please give your honest answers.
1. If two men get married, or two women get married, how does this affect your marriage (if you have one) to your spouse?
2. If you object to two men getting married and two women getting married on the basis that the purpose of marriage is to procreate, what do you have to say about people who get married late in life without any ability to have children?
3. Is it possible that you object to gay marriage because the thought of two men having sex is disturbing to you?
I have more questions, but I want to see your answers and begin an honest dialogue. Thanks for the honest answers.
…crickets…
no surprise …..
If you are an EMT , medical serviceds or emergnecy security personnel in eastern or northern maine considering joining GPEON – Gay Plague emergency service personnel opposition network. This is a fast growing organization dedicated to protect the community and its members for disease and societal corruption
hahahaha- love the joke, its in poor taste but certainly shows a lot about you
skull there is no such organization. It only exists in your mind.
maybe we/they know not to ask you to join
I see now, it’s a “secret” organization and open by invitation only. How do you recognize each other? Do you have a “secret” handshake? Or maybe you wear your gloves inside out as a “secret” sign of membership?
The pink boa always gives them away.
LOL…I remember watching a newly minted EMT arrive at the ER one day with a trauma patient. The patient had a down jacket on which the newly minted EMT had cut open to provide care. All was well and good in the ER until the patient hit the down blowing “air shield” at the door and then down feathers everywhere, sticking to every wet surface in the immediate area.
Or the Klan, you could just join that and meet the same people.
The KKK would be easier to find btw, since this GPEON is a made up insult that doesn’t actually exist.
I would not vote for such a measure in any form. This would not be a marriage. There are ways to afford the same personal security under the law without proceeding down this path.
And those “ways” are?
There are not, actually. While some benefits can be reproduced after thousands in legal fees for proper contracts and documentation, other benefits are exclusive to civil marriage.
Besides, it is a false equivalence to say one couple should go through all that while other couples get far more comprehensive rights and protections for a $30 civil marriage license.
I would love to have a rational exchange, but I just don’t have the time. I can’t be convinced that homosexual marriage is a positive thing any more than the opposition can be convinced of the opposite. So we exchange banter and facts and figures supporting our viewpoints, etc. I’ve done all my research and could effectively argue for either side. At this point I have come to my own, unswayable, conculusion. Mostly based on religious reasons, honestly. But my time is better spent effectively leading, teaching and motivating the younger generation. Perhaps as the weeks go by, I can influence those around me by honest personal discussion rather than under the anonymity of an online forum.
Good luck. Fox News reported this morning that 71% of college freshmen support same-sex-marriage.
Thanks, JD. I assure you that the figure was the same during the last vote.
I have no idea if the figure was the same in 2009 or not. My point is very simple, over time peoples opinions change.
In 1947 the U.S. military was desegregated. But blacks did not enjoy even close to full civil rights until 1964.
Inter-racial marriage was not legal in all 50 states until 1967 (Loving v. Virginia).
The Boston School system was not intergrated until 1975.
It wasn’t until 2003 that the sodomy laws were struck down by the SCOTUS (Lawrence v. Texas).
I suspect regardless of the outcome of the vote in November in Maine that the SCOTUS will end up hearing the case and deciding it on the same legal principle as Lawrence v. Texas was, due process.
This year more of them will be out there voting.
Outline demonstrable harm from gay marriage. If you can’t, you will lose.
Like I said, I just don’t have the time. But I appreciate you. Unfortunately this logic just isn’t applicable as there are many things that aren’t moral which don’t “demonstrate harm.” I.e. illegal copyright infringement, etc.
I certainly hope the catholic church, my church, opts to stay completely out of this fight. they were part of the reason for ”
the bitterly divisive campaign of 2009″. That campaign was full of lies, like the TV ads that claimed homosexuality would have to be taught in schools, and the other ads that said the law would require churches to perform ceremonies. This fight has nothing to do with the catholic or any other church. It’s all about a simple contract, one that is sanctioned by the government, and is issued by the state. To deny access to that contract to any group of citizens is discriminatory. There is no state in the US that requires a stamp of approval on their marriage licenses, the church needs to keep out of this battle.
I invite the people here who are against marriage-equality to check out Mr. Matt Gagnon’s opinion piece in today’s paper: http://bangor-launch.newspackstaging.com/2012/01/26/opinion/contributors/the-conservative-case-for-same-sex-marriage/
Anyone notice how “traditional” marriage has been replaced with “natural” marriage and in many cases “one man and one woman” has been replaced with “a man and a woman”?
Is that because past use of these phrases has been shown to be not completely accurate?
I suspect that the word “traditional” carries the connotation that it can be (and has been) changed over time. “Natural” on the other hand carried carries with it no such association.
The “one man and one woman” change to “a man and a woman” change is being done I believe to focus on long term committed couples as opposed to the Newt Gingrich’s of the world.
I may be wrong but just my two cents worth.
The other interesting thing about “natural” marriage vs “traditional” marriage is that it originated with and has historically been used by the Catholic Church.
Like those guys know what is the natural way to live.